|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
Wait, WHO abused their power? | from Samuel - Wednesday, October 29, 2008
accessed 926 times Wait, WHO abused their power?
Please imagine this story for a moment.
A soccer Mom in suburban Georgia was bringing her kids back home from soccer practice, thinking of the options for dinner as she hadn’t fixed anything yet. There was a frozen chicken in the freezer, but that might take too long to defrost. Then there was left over spaghetti from two nights before that she could bake in the oven with some sausage or ground beef. That got her to thinking, maybe she should stop at the produce stand and pick up some broccoli. But before she had time to entertain that thought, she had to slam on her brakes to avoid hitting the stalled car in front of her. Up front she could see a patrol car swerving into traffic as it sped down the road. “That car could have caused a horrible accident!”, she thought to herself, but reasoned that the officer would not have made such a risky maneuver without a reason.
But as she drove by the patrol car, she noticed something very odd. Sitting in the car was an officer in civilian attire with silver can in his hand. She could see clearly through her rear view mirror that the officer was holding a Budweiser brand beer. She quickly read the number on the car to her daughter, asking her to write it down. She then asked her daughter to call the police, and let them know about the patrol car. At the produce stand, she noticed a rack of greeting cards next to the juice cooler, which reminded her that her husband’s birthday was only a week away.
Now, this soccer Mom didn’t have a lot of money, and didn’t like the thought of spending it all at a fancy restaurant, especially with the economy in the situation that it is today. But there was always this nice cozy bar in the next town that her husband liked. And they did serve great chicken wings. So on his Birthday, she decided to surprise her husband with a trip to the bar. It was as warm as she had always remembered it with blue neon lights, a clean floor that was difficult to find at a bar in these parts, jello shots, frozen beer mugs, and live music. The bar was small, with a pool table in the corner and a dance floor right next to the bar stools, but the two didn’t care.
“The dance floor is kind of small. Maybe once the bar clears a little we could dance?”, she asked
“Oh I’d love that.”
Suddenly she saw a familiar looking man get up from his bar stool and strike one of the dancers. A fight ensued, the bar tender not far behind trying to break up the fight.
Finally, once the two were separated, the man shouted to the bartender “Bartender! I want that man kicked out of this bar!”
“I can’t do that.”, the bartender replied.
The man opened his wallet to reveal a silver badge. “I’m a Police Officer, and I’m ordering you to kick him out of this bar!”
“You’re not on duty!”, the bartender calmly replied, placing his hand on the man’s shoulder. “You’ve had too much to drink. I’m going to have to ask you to leave the bar.”
The woman sighed. But now that the officer was being kicked out of the bar, at least she could enjoy the rest of the evening with her husband in peace.
But in such a small town where everyone seems to know each other, it is very easy to run into neighbors when out doing ordinary things such as buying gas, running errands, or just getting groceries. So it was no surprise to her when she saw the officer again at the grocery store talking on his cell phone. She could clearly hear the conversation going on.
“Yeah? Well he started that fight! And you can tell your Uncle that if he helps that prick get a lawyer, I’ll put a (expletive) bullet in his head!”
So while it wasn’t something she would ordinarily do, the soccer Mom dropped by the police department that afternoon to discuss everything she had heard and seen, and make sure the police knew about the fight.
Now, the Mom enjoyed hunting, but found herself quite busy with the affairs of the home and raising four children while holding down a job. But that didn’t keep her from being in contact with some of her friends, who had considerably more time on their hands. She would talk about the kids, how the community was growing, PTA meetings, and among other things, hunting. That was how she found out that the same officer she had been in contact with the police about was also an avid hunter. In fact, one time he shot a moose from a boat. That was nothing out of the ordinary, as he was in charge of enforcing Wildlife laws at the time. But they later found out that he didn’t have a permit to shoot the moose, though he claimed he had used his wife’s permit instead.
It was becoming clear to the Mom that this was not the kind of person she wanted enforcing the law. From what she knew, the officer was unstable and a loose cannon who abused his power and thought he was above the law. Was this the kind of man she wanted carrying a gun to defend the public safety? She comforted herself with the thought that the officer would never do anything to put the public at risk, but this was about to change.
One cool Friday afternoon, the soccer Mom was watching a practice at school. Her youngest daughter had just been pulled from the bench, and she just realized that she had left her camera in the car. She quickly ran off to her car to get it. But as she approached the car, she saw something very disturbing. It was the same officer again, talking to a young boy, and she could hear the conversation from across the street.
“My brother thinks I’m a wuss.”, the boy said.
“Well what will they think when you grow up and become a Police officer, and they give you one of these?”, the officer asked, pointing to his taser gun.
“Is that a real gun?”, the boy asked
“Kinda. It’s called a taser gun.”, the officer responded.
“Does it hurt?”, the boy asked.
“Yeah, but you can make it safe. You see, you start by taking all the charges out.”, the officer explained as he put his taser gun down on his patrol car. Once he had taken the charges out, he held two in his hand and showed them to the boy. “They look like this, see?”
The boy stepped back “Cool!”, he exclaimed.
“So that’s how they work. And once you get one of these puppies, no one can call you a wuss.”
The boy turned around “Hey, Chris! Carla! Come over here, there’s something really cool!”
The two started running toward the patrol car. The boy whispered to the officer, “Do you think if you shoot me with it, they’ll see that I’m not a wuss?”
“Well, if the charges are out, it’s perfectly safe.”, the officer responded.
“I want to impress Carla. Will you shoot me with it?”
“You know what? Why not? Of course I’ll shoot you with it!”
The two arrived. The soccer Mom could not believe her eyes as she watched the officer shoot the boy with his State issued taser gun.
The soccer Mom quickly called her oldest daughter to let her know that she’d be back later, she had important business to attend to. She quickly drove to the police station to discuss what she had just seen. But when she came back a month later, the response she got was not good.
“The Police union says we can’t fire him, ma’am.”
“What do you mean? He’s clearly irrational, a danger to public safety. He tasered a boy! What more evidence do you need?”
“We investigated and we found that he had abused his authority. We gave him ten days suspension.”
“Ten days suspension?!”, the woman echoed.
“Yes, but the union got involved, got it reduced to five days.”
“Five days?! Isn’t there any justice in the world? Why should the people of this town have someone like him defending the public safety? Why should he have a state issued gun?”
“Taser gun, ma’am.”
“I really don’t care. He is a menace to society. How can you keep him on the force?”
“The union won’t let us reopen the investigation, ma’am. If we do, they’ll file a complaint.”
Now, put yourself in that situation. You are not the soccer Mom, but a hockey Mom. The renegade officer does not work for the Police Department, but is an Alaska State Trooper instead. Your job is Governor of the State of Alaska. According to the Alaska Constitution, you are “responsible for the faithful execution of the laws. (You) may, by appropriate court action or proceeding brought in the name of the State, enforce compliance with any constitutional or legislative mandate, or restrain violation of any constitutional or legislative power, duty, or right by any officer, department, or agency of the State or any of its political subdivisions.”
The death threat was made to you against your own Father. Yes, I know it’s complicated, but somehow your sister was unfortunate enough to marry this State Trooper, and he is upset because he believes your Father will help your sister find a lawyer in her divorce case against him. But that’s beside the point. The law is supposed to be applied impartially, whether or not relations exist between the two parties. In a perfect world, you would never be faced with such a difficult decision, but you as the Governor of the State are the highest authority. The Alaska Constitution is very clear: “Each principal department shall be under the supervision of the governor.”
And the boy he tasered? That was his stepson and your nephew. He was 11 years old. Yes, he asked to be tased to prove to his older cousin that he was not a wimp, but the trooper was the adult in this case, and should have taken adult action rather than misusing State property in a way that could make the State liable if any damage was done. Especially in this sue happy culture that we live in. And while Husband and Wife can share many things together as a family, a hunting license is not one of them. As the man charged with enforcing Wildlife laws at the time, he should have known this.
This is a man who flaunts the law, risking the public safety and the good name of the Alaska State Troopers, and by doing so, distorts the good name of all law enforcement. There is really not much choice in this matter- If justice were fair; this trooper would be off the streets. And as the Executive in charge of enforcing compliance with the laws of the State of Alaska, that puts you in a very tight position. You could ignore the travesty of justice, but how would you answer to the voters if the trooper abuses his power again? As the sister in law of the trooper, you may even be held accountable for not doing anything. This is the position that Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska and Vice Presidential Candidate for the Republican ticket found herself in.
Palin had chosen Walt Monegan as her Public Safety Commissioner. One would think that someone charged with the public safety would not want a trooper of this sort on the streets, but it appears Monegan was rather satisfied with the way things had turned out. No unethical behavior on the part of the trooper, or on the part of the Troopers Union. The troopers operate under a union contract that restricts the terms under which they can be fired. Apparently you have to do more than make death threats, drink while driving in your State vehicle, start fights at a bar, taser your stepson, and illegally shoot animals to get fired under this union contract. CEO’s don’t even have that kind of job security! What’s more, now the same union that overlooked Wooten’s irresponsible behavior, criminal offenses, and abuse of power, files an ethics complaint against Governor Palin? What gives?
So why is it that the only person having charges leveled against them for “abuse of power” is Governor Palin? Was Palin supposed to stop looking out for her family’s interests and the State’s interests when she became Governor? I think not. Mike Wooten and the Troopers Union both abused their power. And here is where the problem lies.
Those who like to abuse their power will always be at odds with the reformers in this country. That’s just how it is. Though Walt Monegan may not have abused his power, he condoned the abuse of power by failing to take appropriate action. That alone is grounds to fire a Public Safety Commissioner.
But there is plenty to the story that Monegan is not telling us. For starters, if we go by a traditional interpretation of the word “fired” as a complete termination of employment with an organization, in which the person fired no longer works for the organization and must find a new job on their own, this is not what happened to Monegan. Monegan was offered a different job as Executive Director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. Rather than accept the new job, Monegan quit. He is also not telling us about the charges of insubordination brought against him by the Governor, like “unilaterally orchestrating a press conference” on his budget with State Senator Hollis French, the same Hollis French that is now leading the supposedly impartial investigation.
At this point, I’ve got to ask “What in the world was the Alaska Legislature thinking when they picked this guy?” Certainly they must have known about his press conference with Monegan to go against Governor Palin’s budget, so how can he possibly be expected to run an impartial investigation into charges that Monegan himself has brought forth against none other than Governor Palin? Is this what they consider a fair and impartial investigation in Alaska?
Now, if all we knew about French was that he was apparently on good terms with Walt Monegan, that would be one thing. But the links go deeper than that. Democratic candidate Barack Obama has a campaign headquarters in Alaska. And guess who decided to show up there and pose for a picture? None other than Hollis French himself! This is the point where one has to wonder what made French think he could make an impartial judgment on the Palin controversy. Surely he knew that Sarah Palin was running for Vice President on his opponent’s ticket. Why didn’t he just tell the Legislature “Look guys, I’m really flattered that you picked me, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to recuse myself from this investigation. You see, I have done political favors for Walt Monegan before in helping him go against Governor Palin’s budget. And a little while back, I drove out to the Obama campaign headquarters as a show of support for Palin’s opponent. So I hope that my colleagues will understand and choose someone else to run this investigation.” That would have been the honorable thing to do.
The picture can also be seen here, on Barack Obama’s own site. Fancy that! http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/emilybokar/gGxsmH
But apparently the honorable thing isn’t always done out in Alaska. And in doing the dishonorable thing, Hollis French also abused his power.
http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/09/13/obama_partisan_tampers_with_palin_subpoena_list
Sarah Palin acted honorably, and did exactly what a good public servant is supposed to do to protect the community, the State of Alaska, and most importantly her family.
For an analysis of the Branchflower report, you can read this:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/134db782-50f0-42e5-8171-791804d9fbc1
Mike Wooten, the trooper’s union, and Hollis French all acted irresponsibly and with little regard for the public trust bestowed upon them. So if you’re ever driving down the road in Alaska and you get pulled over by a patrol car, and Mike Wooten, Hollis French, and a lawyer for the trooper's union step out of the car, you might as well turn your car off, put your hands up, and lie flat on the ground. These three like to abuse their power, and they don’t give a caribou’s behind about the public safety. And this time, I’m afraid Sarah Palin is no longer around to protect you. She’s a bit busy right now appearing on Saturday Night Live, traveling the country, and talking to the American people to get them ready for real change.
Let us hope for less Mike Wooten’s in our public servants, and more Sarah Palin’s.
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from ruling elites
Monday, November 10, 2008 - 10:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
Fighting Mind Control By: Peter Chamberlin
David Rockefeller writes on page 405 of his memoirs:
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it,”
“The supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
Rockefeller and his elite partners in genocidal plans to commit crimes against humanity laugh it off whenever these charges surface – that he is one of the masters of an elite intellectual planning group that is carrying-out an elaborate plot to eliminate nations and subjugate the world with a new world order. The American and Western media dutifully parrots Rockefeller’s sarcastic denials to every available consciousness that is feeding on the IV drip of the addictive TV brainwashing unit. He is a principle financier for most of the research being done into forced behavioral modification techniques in the United States and Europe. The corporately owned media are an indispensable component of this plot against all nations.
The power elite plan for world dictatorship rests on the ability of psycho/social scientists to brainwash the human race into submission. It is believed that a “scientific dictatorship” can be constructed using these techniques on a global scale. The main key to their plans is our ignorance as a people. By their secret estimates, whenever the dumbing-down of America reaches a determined saturation point, resistance to their plans will crumble and Americans will voluntarily lie-down under the marching boots.
It is either purposeful misleading or simple foolishness on the part of those who suggest that there is no elite plan for world domination, based on total human subjugation, because there is a very real paper trail of evidence that documents its creation. A small portion consists of leaked documents, but the bulk of it is found in quotations from the elite themselves and in the documents that they have released into the world (persuaded by their own egos that it was safe to do so.) They are available to anyone who cares to look for them, or knows the keywords to finding them. I intend to present some of them for you here.
The spokesmen for the international elitists (who call themselves “futurists”) boldly proclaim the controllers’ goals to the world. They have boasted of their plans for destroying the free will of humankind, in order to domesticate us into suitable beasts for the new world order. Skeptics seek to discredit those who try to warn about the impending plans for a new world order, calling us “conspiracy theorists” (as if that was a bad thing). Here are some select quotes by a few of those spokesmen that highlight exactly what these futurists had in mind for us all; skeptics should check-out the research being offered for themselves:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”- Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud) in his 1928 book Propaganda.
“The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”
- Bertrand Russell, “The Impact of Science on Society”, 1953
“Education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished.”
“Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.”
“Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.”
- Bertrand Russell, “The Impact of Science on Society”, 1953, pg 49-50
[Russell’s observation echoes that of another futurist predecessor, international socialist-transformed into popular icon, H. G. Wells, as expressed in his SciFi classic, Time Machine. His “Eloi” and “Morlocks” represent the anticipated end result of mankind’s tampering with nature through abominations like “eugenics” and psychological/pharmacological manipulation.]
“In like manner, the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play…. All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called ‘co-operative,’ i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them.”
“On those rare occasions, when a boy or girl who has passed the age at which it is usual to determine social status shows such marked ability as to seem the intellectual equal of the rulers, a difficult situation will arise, requiring serious consideration. If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him…before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it.”
- Bertrand Russell, “The Scientific Outlook”, 1931
Aldous Huxley announced: “There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak. Producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”
(reply to this comment)
| from scorpion
Thursday, November 06, 2008 - 15:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
nigger presidents now?!?!.... WTF has the world come to...
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | from murasaki
Thursday, November 06, 2008 - 15:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
All I can say is thank goodness they lost! I have my reservations about Obama, mainly that he seems too good to be true. But you just have to turn on the TV and see the practically world-wide celebrations of his election win to see just how badly the current administration has damaged the US International standing.
(reply to this comment)
| from Samuel
Tuesday, November 04, 2008 - 06:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27524238/
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Gov. Sarah Palin violated no ethics laws when she fired her public safety commissioner, the state personnel board concluded in a report released Monday. "There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters," the report says.
"Gov. Palin is pleased that the independent investigator for the Personnel Board has concluded that she acted properly in the reassignment of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan," her attorney, Thomas Van Flein, said in a statement.
An earlier, separate investigation by the Legislature found that Palin had abused her office.
Monegan said he felt pressure from Palin, her husband and her staff to fire a state trooper who had gone through a nasty divorce from Palin's sister. Palin denied the claim, and said Monegan was fired last July because she wanted the department to head in a new direction.
'Perplexed and disappointed'
Monegan told The Associated Press on Monday that he was "perplexed and disappointed" by the report. It was prepared by Timothy Petumenos, an independent investigator for the Alaska Personnel Board.
"It conflicts with the first investigation and then casts doubts on both of them. So, it doesn't really resolve anything," he said. "If it did, then I could walk away. It does seem to fly in the face if circumstantial evidence."
A separate legislative investigation recently concluded that Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, abused her office by allowing her husband and staffers to pressure Monegan to fire the trooper. However, it upheld the firing because Monegan was an at-will employee.
Alaska Personnel Board investigations are normally secret, but the three-member board decided to release this report, citing public interest in the matter given Palin's status as a candidate for national office. Election Day is Tuesday.
Palin had earlier waived her privacy rights, but others in her administration did not and Petumenos sought to keep the matter from playing out in the media.
(reply to this comment)
| from voting fraud alert
Tuesday, November 04, 2008 - 05:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JSe24deOpUY
no matter who you vote for the government (the corporation) always gets in!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from cheeks
Friday, October 31, 2008 - 20:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Imagine if she became president what a damn disaster that would be. I cannot think of anything that would be worse for this country. It would be worse than having Bush in there for another four years. Can you envision her speaking to foreign dignitaries, the thought boggles my mind.
We would have no wildlife left for one thing. Children would have hunting field-trips where they would learn how to shoot and gut our remaining endangered species. We would go to war with Canada and Mexico because someone could see those countries from their back yard.
There would be a oil pump in every back yard. Every plummer would be named Joe. They would all get free six-packs for endorsing her.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  From cheeks
Sunday, November 02, 2008, 20:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Obama is a Harvard graduate and far, far too intelligent to fall for such an obvious prank. Joe Biden probably would have known Sarkozy didn't speak English that well. It took Palin seven minutes, and it may have taken her longer had they not just come out and told her they were pranking her.
See this is where intelligence comes in. Palin doesn't have any. She sorta reminds me of Kendra, the playboy bunny, pretty on the outside and dumb as hell on the inside. But she can shoot a gun. Everybody run.(reply to this comment) |
| | From scarface
Sunday, November 02, 2008, 07:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Take two deep breaths, one to fill your lungs with fresh air and another from your inhaler. Can you please try to recover some semblance of self-control? No one cares to heed your (scarcely) conservative and exasperating opinion. No one hates governor Palin. It’s not your fault that you cannot comprehend this. I think you should put yourself on “silence restriction” for a while. At least until Obama gets elected. It happens to the best of us, it’s not the end of the world.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from placebo
Friday, October 31, 2008 - 19:35
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Sammy's in America
Sammy wants a brain
Sammy wants to suck on a Coke
Sammy wants a woman
Sammy wants to think of a joke
Sammy's in America
I'm afraid of Americans
I'm afraid of the world
I'm afraid I can't help it
I'm afraid I can't.....
(reply to this comment)
| from rainy
Friday, October 31, 2008 - 18:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't care who she fired years ago. I care that she's a brainless Barbie puppet pretending to be a feminist while fighting to take women's rights away, spending $150,000 of McCain's campaign budget on her own wardrobe, (showing us that her looks are a major part of her appeal) she's pro religion, pro guns, pro war, and there's a very real possibility she could become America's president by default, were the aging McCain to shuffle off his mortal coil. All the winking, smiling, Doggonits, great pins and flirting in the world aren't going to be enough to run a nation.
(reply to this comment)
| From Samuel
Saturday, November 01, 2008, 20:41
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Rainy, all politicians spend lots of money on their clothes. They like to buy nice clothes so they can wear them once and then give them away or auction them off for charity. It makes them look really good! You see an article in the paper that a celebrity or politician has auctioned off their wardrobe and you think "Wow! That's nice that she cares about other people!", you don't think "Gee, she sure spent a lot of money to get those clothes!" And I don't know about you, but when most guys see a woman dressed nicely (and we do know) we do appreciate it and it does improve our opinion of that woman. Guys can be vain too, you know?
How would you feel about an anti-religion candidate, Rainy? Would it cause you to like them? Because if so, that is a bit hypocritical considering what you just wrote about candidates that are pro-religion. And brainless Barbies don't usually earn Bachelorettes from the University of Idaho.
Just so you know, this is not an attack against you. I admit that I can be hypocritical at time as well. We all like to see ourselves as fair and just in all matters, despite the fact that we all have our different blind spots. And if I am wrong on this assumption, I do apologise.
She does not have to pretend to be a feminist, there are many feminists who are pro-life. Have you ever heard of Susan B Anthony? She was one of them. Patricia Keaton of "Everybody Loves Raymond" fame is also one, and is a spokesperson for "Feminists for Life". You know, abortion is a controversial topic I don't really want to discuss on here, but I would suggest you Google "pro-life feminists" and see what you come up with. You might be surprised, there is even an "Atheist-Agnostic Pro Life League" You can find them at http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
As far as being pro guns is concerned, I do not beleive in taking guns away from law abiding citizens, as that would leave them defenseless against non law abiding citizens. Gang members don't care if guns are legal or not, they'll find a way to get them no matter what,
I admit that I am worried about the possiblities of her becoming President too soon, but I think the chances of that are very slim. She'll have plenty of experience in her Vice Presidential position to take the reigns when and if McCain should pass on. She already has plenty of governing experience and business experience (Finally! A candidate with business experience. No more $800 toilet seats for the military for a while, huh? That is one problem with politics- too many lawyers, not nearly enough businessmen. When I see a candidate for anything with business experience, that is the person I vote for! We need to do something to change things in this country.).
What does a Vice President really do? They vote in the Senate in the event of a tie, they travel a bit, they make a few speeches, and they do a lot of media interviews. And in that capacity, it will be very refreshing to have someone who actually speaks a language that the American people can understand, rather than just legalese and rhetoric that the media has to than dissect and explain to the American public what's going on. She would make an excellent Vice president, and with a little more experience on the international level (this is expected for any Vice Presidential Candidate. Do you really think Cheney, Gore, Quayle, Bush Sr., or Mondale knew everything about international affairs when they started as Vice Presidents?) she will do great. They learned, so will she. She's not a Washington insider, and she definitely knows how to shake things up.
I really don't understand what people are so scared of about her. The way I see it, the only people who should be scared of her are the special interest groups, because the gravy train could soon be coming to a screeching halt. Other than her using the word "nuk u lar" during her debate and mispronouncing the name of the Iranian President, she did very well.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Tuesday, November 04, 2008, 05:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh sweet Jesus.
We all like to buy clothes, Sammy. But if I had $150K US dollars, I think I'd rather spend it on, oh, I don't know, a house?
I'm not saying Sarah shouldn't dress well, but come on! That's the best they can do? Dress up their candidate for vice president? Talk about style over substance.
Yes, I know Princess Diana often wore British designers and later her dresses were auctioned, but she wasn't using her wardrobe as part of an election campaign. Sarah's not even running for president. McCain is.
And...did you say "Bachelorettes" as in a degree? Do they honestly call a BA a bachelorette when a woman earns it? The States is even more backward than I thought! Perhaps you do deserve McCain.
I've heard it said there is no "Left" party in America, only the Right and the Extreme Right. I think that's pretty much spot on.
Cannot believe you are bringing Susan B Anthony into this! One of the earliest feminists (1800's!) yet so ahead of her time. I believe if she were alive today she would still be at the forefront of women's rights. If you look at any of the founders of science or change, any of the thinkers throughout history, they are still to some extent bound within the knowledge and zeitgeist of their era. Susan B Anthony brought us all forward leaps and bounds. She wanted women's safety, and in her day there was no safe abortion. She imagined if women achieved true equality there would be no need for abortion, and perhaps she was right. That remains to be seen. I don't think anyone can say what her stance would be were she alive today.
Your whole "gun" thing is just stupid. We got rid of guns in Australia, and hearing of criminals with guns is actually quite rare now. Just get them out of circulation. Besides there are plenty of horror stories where legitimate gun owners accidentally shoot their own family or themselves.
http://www.momlogic.com/2008/08/protect_your_kids_from_guns.php
Oh, why do I bother?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From scarface
Wednesday, November 05, 2008, 16:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sammy has learned to respect. That’s enormous progress, I think. Why don’t you take your respect to the next stage by discontinuing the spewing your misidentified, psychopathically eccentric views on religion and politics. Even someone of your intellectual capacity can tell that no one wants to be exposed repeatedly to your loony extremist views. I for one have heard enough religious/political extremism for several lifetimes. Why the community on this forum continues to react to your foolishness boggles my mind.
You have no right to post here, recognize that and stop being such a confrontational little shit(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From rainy
Thursday, November 06, 2008, 03:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Respect? But utterly no understanding there. The ending "ette" is a diminutive. You are diminishing what this person has accomplished and trying to make it all cutesy and feminine. Try calling a woman doctor a "doctorette" and see how far you get. Oh, let's think of some cutesy term for a female president so we'll be all ready for her when she shatters the final glass ceiling...(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Thursday, November 06, 2008, 15:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
A woman can call her degree a Bachelor's if she wants. In fact, I do believe that is what most women do. They use both terms in an effort to include those who would rather not be referred to as "Bachelor". But if you referred to a female graduate's degree as a Bachelor, I doubt many of them would stop you regardless of their preference.
When a woman who is about to get married has a party, gets drunk with all her girlfriends, and hires male strippers, do they call that a bachelor party or a bachelorette party?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Wednesday, November 05, 2008, 17:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Might I add you are the one who has been acting like a confrontationla little shit lately. I have respect for the majority of people on here, except people like you that just act like a jackass and enjoy agitating people. At least people know where I stand, there are people that probably read your comments and think you're a socialist (Oh, but you were just saying that because you don't like parts of Capitalism), a believer in conspiracy theories (You range from "Powell is going to work with Obama to destroy America!" to "chemtrails", to "People don't want to vote for Obama because they're racists!"), and an all out moron. I know better than that. You're not a moron, just an inconsiderate prick who enjoys making waves on this site just to draw as many people as possible away so you can monopolize it for yourself and post more drug induced comments and articles.
Maybe you don't like to hear about religion and politics, but I find that kind of awkward because that's all you seem to ever talk about. Quit the whining, get off of your high horse, grow up, and be a man!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Wednesday, November 05, 2008, 18:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
By the way, you are incorrect in your assumption that my parents being TRF supporters for a while means I that I have no right to post here. Please see the FAQ's, number 1 specifically.
1. Who is this Web site for?
MovingOn.org was created for people born and/or raised in the religious group known as The Children of God or The Family. While the majority of participants are people who have left (hence the name Moving On,) second or third generation young people who still live in Family communes are welcome to participate on here as well. (reply to this comment) |
| | From DeeJay
Wednesday, November 05, 2008, 23:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Judging from the comments here, I'm sure you've been asked this before Samuel, but I have to ask. What is/was your relationship to the cult?
I for one, don't mind you posting here. Despite the fact that I disagree with most of your viewpoints, you are generally respectful, though a bit corny sometimes. But I would like to hear what commonalities actually exist between us. Up till now I'd always assumed you were like me, an ex-second generation member born and raised.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Thursday, November 06, 2008, 15:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was born into the cult in Spain in 1980.
I came to the States in 1984.
My Mother wanted to educate me herself. Since she spoke little English at the time, she tried to use The Family's materials. They didn't work as well as enrolling me in public school.
In 1987, we moved to Bogota, Colombia. We soon found out that the "schooling" I was expected to recieve there was only from The Family's materials, and all the materials they has were written in Spanish. So they found some of the picture memory cards for me to copy and at least I got to work on my handwriting. When we returned three months later, my teachers were impressed by my handwriting. We had to leave because the thin air in the mountains was not good for my asthma, and I was sick most of the time. The "shepherds" at the home in Bogota didn't seem to care, they were pretty much angry at me because I wasn't learning Spanish fast enough. What do you know, I still don't speak much Spanish :-) I was quickly re-enrolled in public school.
Some time around 1988 or '89, The family began to "crack down" on members that weren't witnessing, doing get out, refraining from eating white sugar, and abiding by Berg's every whim. But not wanting to lose all that precious tithe money, The Family established the TRF system. That was cool, my Dad had always hated communal living.
Over the next decade, many families visited our home, sometimes more than one at a time. I can remember a three month period when there were four families in our apartment. That was hectic. One would think that with 20 kids (4 of which were teens, and we all know how teens were treated) and 10 adults, the child/adult ratio would be enough to keep some semblence of order, but that didn't happen as most of the adults were total slackers. My Father almost lost his job at the complex for that stunt, actually.
Anything MO-ron Letter you may have read as a teen as a requirement from the Basic Training Handbook, I probably read. I did the Foolishness "Word Project", and I know I did a "Worldliness" one too, can't remember if it came from the puke green BTH or not. About that, did anyone ever wonder what "The Hamburger Boat" and "The Christmas Eve Massacre" were doing in the Foolishness Word Project? I never understood that. If you read MO Letters about homosexuality, I read every one of those I could find. Let me just say it should be a crime to subject impressionate young people to that, but I have to admit I read those secretly and of my own free will. I never did get why Berg seems to have a double standard toward lesbians but not toward gay men.
If you were in Western or central Florida (say Ocala, Tampa) then you may remember me as the guy who played the violin at the fellowships during the late '90s. If you were at the big Fellowship in Laurel, Maryland in 1996, I was there too! And scarface, if you think my views are radical now, you should have seen me back when I was in middle school. I thought I was doing the poor kids and teachers a favor spouting all the self righteous "America Must Repent" and socialist "Blame America first" propaganda bullshit I was exposing myself to in the Letters.
We finally left in 2003. In the light of September 11th and the breaking up of the Columbia shuttle (as well as TF's answer for why it happened), we realized that we were being had. My Dad was the first one to catch on, and he was also the first one to finally do a google search on The Family out of curiosity and he found James Penn's material. I didn't want to believe what I was reading. My Dad had also taken the liberty to download The Family's response ("None of these things move me"). I opened it, and skipped right to the part where they said they were going to talk about the abuse of Mene. Mene was the most important issue for me because she was Berg's own Granddaughter. Whatever position you have in an organization that your child is involved in, whether it be a sports team or a school, you make sure that your children are given the best treatment and opportunities. Well, they answered some of the allegations. Most of their answers were weak, but they were workable if you still believed in the cult. But they didn't answer the most important one, the allegation that Berg had sexually abused her, kicked her out of his house, and quickly found himself another little girl. And though Berg may be able in The Family's eyes to defend himself from the grave, prophecies from the grave are not considered to have any legal binding in the real world. Berg is dead, unable to defend himself. Certainly his wife would understand this, and if they allegations were untrue, she would not rest until she had properly defended her dead husband against such harsh accusations. With the kind of money she has on her hands, she could file a lawsuit for defamation of character! If she were truly crazy and making these allegations up, there would be a line a block long of psychiatrists and psychologists hoping to make a name for themselves by being a part of this case.
If you want to know more, I'll tell you later. Right now, I have a chior rehearsal to get ready for.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From scarface
Thursday, November 06, 2008, 17:44
 (Agree/Disagree?)
It takes you a thousand words to say you were born in the family and left at 8 years old? You truly are an eccentric person. Being anti-american is not a cult invented doctrine, rather they use it as part of their deception. You are mistaken if you think that going to the complete polar opposite is any better then what you believed when you were a “TRF supporter”. Do you realize that the label TRF supporter went obsolete years before 2003? Obviously (mercifully) you know nothing about what cult life was like.
Your stupidity doesn’t inconvenience or annoy me, usually I ignore your idiocy. But you needlessly annoy many others on this site and that bothers me and it ought to bother you. Recognize that you had a much different and easier experience then we did growing up and you have nothing in common with us. We have (repetitively) heard your views on religion and politics and they don’t make any sense, in any way. Find something else to talk about or please go to the hundreds of other sites where you can spew out your loony, extremist, right-wing American, demented, bigoted views and not annoy cult survivors. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Thursday, November 06, 2008, 04:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
As much as I liked her, I'm afraid she was a bad choice for the campaign. The Obama campaign did a very good job, I must say, of making her look inexperienced. Actually, she was mayor of a small town for a large number of years, worked for the State government, and became Governor. She was Governor for about two years (that's where this article comes in. Her sister married an Alaska State Trooper who turned out to be a control freak who abused his power on numerous occasions. Her sister was trying to get a divorce, when he calls Sarah Palin and tells her that if her Father helps her find a lawyer, he'll "put a fucking bullet in his head". When that was investigated, it was decided that he could not be charged with making a death threat because he did not threaten her Father directly. And yes, he tasered his stepson, but in his defense he did take the charges out and put the gun in "safe" mode.)
Voters were afraid that she was not experienced enough, (Obama's Vice presidential Candidate is a seasoned Senator who has been there for decades), and I do think she may have annoyed some people with her accent and the way she talked, a bit like Paula Dean if you know who she is. McCain was hoping she would take away some of Hillary Clinton's voters, but polls report that 82% of them went with Obama. I think McCain also failed on some points, such as the economy. He should have slammed Obama for his economic policies, while announcing his from the rooftop. I read up, he had an excellent economic plan, endorsed by 30 economists from top universities such as Harvard Business School, Princeton, University of Chicago. The list of economists that actually signed on afterwards in support of his plan was actually seven pages long! And yet he barely mentioned it! And he tried way too hard to sway independents! That is where he lost his Conservative base. Another problem was that in my opinion, people saw McCain's pick of Sarah Palin as an opportunist stunt meant to make a political statement that he was pro-women. People don't like politicians that pull stunts like that. People that voted for McCain said that Palin didn't make much difference in their decision. Independents that voted for Obama said that Palin made a big difference in their decision.
Maybe McCain could have tried all these things, but still would have lost. Obama had a very good plan for getting out the vote. Everything was so organized, just about everyone who came to his rallies were hit up for phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc. so they could get information to them about how to help out. I actually went to the local Republican headquarters to volunteer to make phone calls and I could tell from looking at this small place, 30 phones at most, and most of the people we called were either not home (at work) or were voting for Obama, I knew we were in for a big fight. Obama was the ruler when it came to registering new voters and getting them to the polls, he got a large percentage of the Youth Vote! This election will be studied for years to come. I don't know what more to say, except that Obama has never tried to hide his radical views. I don't think he knows how to. And in a way, that could be the one thing the Republican party needs to make a comeback in 2010. And that is a good thing. Parties get complacent and start forgetting about their voters when they get too much power.(reply to this comment) |
| | From cheeks
Thursday, November 06, 2008, 09:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think the investigation into her brother in-law was the least of her problems, besides her wardrobe. I don't like her for a host of reasons and that is not among them. I have heard over and over again about her experience as a Governor. That does not cut it for me. I mean the CEO of Wal-mart has more people working for him and controls a bigger budget. Maybe he should run for president.
I don't see why Obama should hide his radical views. Fundamental Christians, who were the base of McCains support group sure didn't. I believe that gay people should be allowed to marry. To adopt children. That sex can and should be taught in school. Abortion when needed, should be allowed and should be legal. And women should not feel less about themselves because they choose that option. Fundamental Christians oppose everything that points us towards equality. Until White people can understand what black people went through for over a hundred years in this country we don't have the right to stand on our soap box and say they are wrong.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Saturday, November 08, 2008, 20:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm afraid Christian fundamentalists cannot be blamed for the passage of gay marriage bans this year, cheeks.
http://www.slate.com/id/2203912/
According to exit polls, African American in California favored Proposition 8 (banning gay marriage in California) by a 70-30 margin. These are the people that Obama mobilized to go to polls and vote for him.
The same thing was predicted here in Florida that the new Obama voters were likely to strongly favor the gay marriage ban (but the California article was easier to find :) ) and sure enough, the gay marriage amendment passed here too. I don't even understand why they put it on the ballot, it is redundant as Florida has had a law on the books since 1972 banning gay marriage. I voted against the amendment.
By the way, if any of you live in California, you may want do what we did here in Florida. When we saw so many amendments getting passed (because most people don't even pay attention and just vote 'yes" and are unlikely to vote "no"), we put an amendment on the ballot to require a 3/5 vote instead of just a majority. If you had done that, Proposition 8 would have lost.
I don't know what backwards area of the country you are talking about, cheeks, but here in Florida sex ed ("Health") is part of the State curriculum for sixth grade, eigth grade, and high school. And rarely does anyone make a peep about it.(reply to this comment) |
| | From cheeks
Sunday, November 09, 2008, 18:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
That is not what I read and saw. It is my understanding that they had a larger than normal Oriental and Hispanic vote. And it was those voters that helped sway the votes. Most of them go to fairly conservative churches. Many black people go to pentecostal or Baptist churches which would discourage the vote as well. I am also relatively certain that gay marriage, and or gay sex is not taught in your school. It certainly is not taught in our schools.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Sunday, November 09, 2008, 19:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Okay, now I understand what you meant about sex being taught in schools. I'm assuming you are just talking about going through the basics of gay sex, the same way heterosexual sex is taught. That should not be a problem, I don't think, but school boards may have to be convinced to alter their curriculum and buy the appropriate textbooks. It's not something I would want the State dealing with, as different areas will have different ways of handling the State's instructions.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vix
Thursday, November 06, 2008, 10:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nah, it doesn't hurt. It might have done so had I cared much, or if I didn't know and accept that outward appearance counts for so very much in all walks of life and even more so when one wants to be seen as capable and trustworthy. Nothing succeeds like success, and all that.
But also, I think her sex was Palin's most vital asset, and that's actually what really offends me about this whole thing. There's almost nothing more demeaning to truly capable women, as far as I'm concerned, than having to see a woman picked for a job or position purely on the basis of being female.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Surely those two issues are inseperable
Thursday, November 06, 2008, 11:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
If Palin was indeed picked on the basis of her sex, then all the money that was spent on her appearance was spent with the intention of drawing attention to her femininity and the publicity she received was designed to portray her as both a career woman and, more importantly, a mother. Should we be asking whether she is simply a woman trying to be successful in a predominantly male world on male terms? Or do we, as many papers have done, ask the other offensive questions that go: 'successful woman: what did she do to demean herself to get there?' (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From vix
Friday, November 07, 2008, 06:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Quite.
But there are many sides to come from on this argument. I could just as well say that it is not a triumph for feminism to imply that there is some shame in being a wife, mother and non-threatening woman but a politician too.
In any case, feminism bores me these days. I take offense only in the most shallow of terms, as I've got to the stage where I'm past caring about lofty ideals. Realism is far less exhausting.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vix
Friday, November 07, 2008, 10:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't disagree with you at all, I'm only choosing to look at it from a slightly different perspective at this moment. I have to pick and choose because it's the only way I can ever have an opinion.
And don't be too sorry, I'm not entirely exchausted. I just find that the feminist perspective, being such a subjective exercise, is a bit like arguing for the sake of argument and I just can't be bothered making the effort anymore. Perhaps I've more to fill my time with these days.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vix couldn't sign in
Friday, November 07, 2008, 14:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh I didn't mean to dismiss the feminist perspective outright, was speaking in personal terms only! I just find that at the end of the day very little of what I might argue on the subject is actually relevant to my daily life, so it's very much theoritical for me and I really only engage in it for the sake of discourse. I find I don't much care about issues that don't affect me personally and while that might be selfish or shortsighted of me, it's a stance that suits me just fine for now.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Above Poster
Saturday, November 08, 2008, 00:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Vix is not 'following her heart', she just isn't interested in things that don't affect her. If it's not relevent to her life, then that's a good thing. She shouldn't have to be put in a position where it matters.
It sounds like you are implying that 'hardcore liberal feminists' are lesbians. Some are and some aren't. Does it matter? Feminists are women who have become interested in improving the lives of women (the vote, better working conditions, etc.). They have been interested in supporting other groups who have been subjected to similar discriminations such as the Afro-Americans. The agenda is injustice and the focus is on women.
I once was given a job based on my gender and personal appearance. I realised this a few days after I began work and my boss asked me to sleep with him. He treated me like 'a lady', if that's what smooth talk and offering to open his wallet means. I wasn't offended and I didn't report him (and, no, I definately did not sleep with him), but should I have had the job? Should he have had his job? (reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Friday, November 07, 2008, 23:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hidden agenda? One would think the agenda is pretty damn obvious. Feminism calls for an individual's sex to cease to be a factor in the level of respect, responsibility, money, or power a person is able to earn. Playing up your femininity in order to achieve your goals is still making your sex a factor, and it's still playing into the expected stereotypes that feminism seeks to dissolve.
Having said that, I do admire Sarah Palin for coming as far as she did in a man's domain. I did not agree with her political stance and I was saddened to see that she had to use her personal life and looks and charm to an extent we would not expect from a man, but I still see that it took strength to get there and she is one person who is managing to do it all: Family, politics, the whole thing, while being in intense public spotlight. Gotta admire that.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Saturday, November 08, 2008, 04:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, but until then, voters are still going to look for someone who they can relate to, even if they are only doing it subconciously. I'm not saying that's right, but I am saying that's what happens even if we only do it subconsciously. But to by honest, how can someone be so sure that they are there? If there were two candidates, Rainy, both of whose policies you agreed with, but one was male and had three kids and a wife, while the other was a single mother of one, which would you be most likely to vote for?(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Saturday, November 08, 2008, 05:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
You must have forgotten then: there were originally two democrat choices, one of whom was a single mother. My preference was based on the finer points of policy. I didn't actually register to vote, but my choice would have been Obama, as proud as I was of Hilary and as happy as I would have been to have seen a woman take the top job. I felt that Obama was the better candidate of the two, and I didn't feel it was in the true spirit of equality to choose Hilary just because she was a woman. A woman must make it to the top on her own merit entirely, or what's the point? Having said that, I'm thrilled she was in the running and I do wish that Obama had made her the VP.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]