The Brady Bunch is already celebrating

imported post

The Obama press conference where he gave a "shout out' to a "Medal of Honor" recipient (who was actually a Medal of Freedom recipient who got the award from Obama himself) was IMO nothing like the "My Pet Goat" business.

When Dubya, after learning of the first attack, continued reading the story to the kiddies, it was because he did not want to alarm them or anyone else; and you can bet he was formulating a response even as he continued reading.

Obama's remarks on the other hand were approximately: HI everyone, It's ME myself in person. Boy it is great to be here. By the way, we had some soldiers killed or something, I have people working on it. Is the food ready?"

"Pet goat"?? Obama is the goat. Big time.

imported post

I watched that televised speech and that isn't what he said. He actually said "medal of honor 'winner'". Someone needs to tell that gonad that the medal recipients don't win anything, it is awarded.

imported post

buzzsaw wrote:

I watched that televised speech and that isn't what he said. He actually said "medal of honor 'winner'". Someone needs to tell that gonad that the medal recipients don't win anything, it is awarded.

Click to expand...

10-4. And any award for valor, especially the MOH, is worn not in honor of the recipient but also for the many who were equally valorous but unseen and unsung. My dad never spoke of his Bronze Star and we kids did not even know he had one until we were planning his funeral and inventorying the estate. To Dad's mind, he just saw his duty and did it. I asked him once to come to DC to talk about his war experiences and he told me that if anyone wanted to know what he thought about war, they need only visit Arlington Cemetery.

I was of course grief-stricken at my father's passing. But I am SO GLAD he did not live to see what we are going through today. It would have killed him, and no joke.

imported post

TFred,

These issues, and the people who support them, are not always completely cut-and-dried.

Although I applaud Sen. Burr (NC) for his outspoken stand against the Brady Bunch's appalling exploitation of the Ft. Hood incident, I also know that a few months ago, he voted AGAINST the Franken Amendment. Apparently, Mr. Burr believes in the 2A, but if you get raped, tortured, kidnapped and imprisoned by the employees of a DOD contractor while working abroad, Mr. Burr doesn't think that you should be allowed to sue them...

For the 2A, but against legal rights for rape victims...

As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Burr might be 100% on the 2A, but he's only scoring 50% when it comes to basic human rights, and in my book, that is a FAILING grade.

As a NC resident, I am proud that Mr. Burr spoke out against the Brady people.

But as a NC resident, I am embarrassed, disgusted, and outraged that Mr. Burr thinks that American citizens who rape, torture, and kidnapp other American citizens while working abroad should not be held liable under the law.

I will be calling his office Monday, and voicing my gratitude for supporting the 2A, and speaking out against Brady's propaganda.

But I will also let him know that I think his stand on the Franken Amendment is an embarrassment to North Carolinians, offensive to all women in this state, and disgusting to all men who have wives and daughters in the workplace.

Mr. Burr would DEFINITELY have my vote next election, if he wasn't such a woman-hating misogynist, and such a corporate whore for the likes of KB&R and Halliburton. He needs to remember who he's REALLY working for...

imported post

At least he gets some of it right, part of the time. If you really want to experience nausea contact our other senators office

imported post

I think an excellent retort against helmke from a prominant politician would be: "What in hell is wrong with you"? :banghead:

IF....I say IF...he can be embarrassed....that should suffice. Say nothing else.

imported post

"FRANKEN AMENDMENT??!!!?? Does this have anything to do with idiot joker Sen, Al Franken (D-Minn)?? He who railed against such things duroing his election campaign??? WTF??? WT EFFING EFFF????

imported post

CrossFire wrote:

Does the moron not realize that all of his examples of the locations of increased violence are gun free zones?:cuss::bangheadr does he just not care.

Click to expand...

those morons at Brady simply don't give a _______ about anything except massaging their own egos. They are very similar to a bunch of vultures circling and waiting on the next animal to die off so they can swoop down and feed on it.

imported post

Alexcabbie:

The Franken Amendment was added to the most recent appropriations bill so that it “would restrict funding to defense contractors who commit employees to mandatory binding arbitration in the case of sexual assault."

If you have a problem with that, then the LEAST of your problems are overzealous cops and 2A infringing politicians. You apparently don't have any daughters or have any sort of female family members in the workforce.

Folks on this forum are always talking about how they carry to protect themselves and their loved ones against predators, BGs, and rapists. How you could justify the "no-sue" clauses in the contracts that companies like Halliburton and KBR make their employees sign to work abroad is simply beyond rational thought.

If a woman gets raped in her office here in the US by a fellow employee, the offender AND the company will be prosecuted in a court of law.

If the same thing happens to a defense contractor working abroad, they can't sue the company, there is NO legal remedy against the offender because NOBODY will claim jurisdiction, and most likely, the event will be covered up, denied, and the victim will be further abused, mistreated, and punished by being fired if they dare to speak out...

I have a few names for you. Research these women, and THEN you can tell us that you think the Franken Amendment was a bad idea...

Dawn Leamon (raped by KBR employee in Iraq)

Jamie Leigh Jones (drugged and gang raped by 5 KBR employees in Iraq)

PFC Lavena Johnson (Raped, burned, mutilated and shot in the head)


And you might want to check out these websites while you're at it...

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9342

http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=9224&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

http://www.republicansforrape.org/


Al Franken is a bit of a left-wing nut. But he ALSO has no problem pointing out that the majority of his colleagues in Washington are corporate whores, corrupt weasels, and hypocritical slimeballs. I TOTALLT disagree with Franken's position on 2A, but when it comes to this particular issue, he's spot-on.

It seems that NOBODY in Washington gets it right more than half the time. They are either pro-2A but anti-women, anti-individual liberty, and sexual deviants, or else they are pro civil rights, pro privacy and anti 2A.

Are there NO representatives left in our government who treasure the Constitution, individual rights, and personal liberty?

I'm starting to thing that the sad, sad answer is a big, fat, resounding NO...

imported post

Huh. I guess I misread the post, as I thought the Franke Amendment did just the opposite.

Still there might be good reason to oppose it. The way these folks roll is to put out something that sounds good but has poison in it. Or haven't you seen the poppyfield scene in the Wizard of Oz.??

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

The Obama press conference where he gave a "shout out' to a "Medal of Honor" recipient (who was actually a Medal of Freedom recipient who got the award from Obama himself) was IMO nothing like the "My Pet Goat" business.

When Dubya, after learning of the first attack, continued reading the story to the kiddies, it was because he did not want to alarm them or anyone else; and you can bet he was formulating a response even as he continued reading.

Obama's remarks on the other hand were approximately: HI everyone, It's ME myself in person. Boy it is great to be here. By the way, we had some soldiers killed or something, I have people working on it. Is the food ready?"

"Pet goat"?? Obama is the goat. Big time.

Click to expand...

No, no! Bush should have shrieked in terror and run around in circles screaming, "It's a cook book, it's a cook book!!!" a la "Naked Gun".

Obama's not a goat. A goat might steal something, but it doesn't KNOW it's stealing. Obama's a Chicago politician. ALL he knows is stealing.

imported post

Burr opposed this amendment because he is bought and paid for by Big Corporations. According to "OpenSecrets.com", a website that tracks campaign contributions:
Burr also sits on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. It is his JOB (as he sees it) to do everything in his power to protect the Military Industrial Complex, and big business, even if that means denying American citizens due process when they are brutally assaulted, kidnapped, and have multiple civil rights violated under the guise of "national security".

No, Burr may be pro-2A, but he is NOT a "public servant" by any stretch of the imagination. He is, like nearly all his comrades on the Hill, utterly beholden to his corporate contributors, and has turned his back on his constituents.

There is a name for a government that is run by coprporate cartels, established official monopolies, and promotes blind nationalism, and it is NOT a Democracy, or a Representative Republic...

http://tinyurl.com/4dav38

Wake up, North Carolinians. There is no "Right" or "Left". Our "elected representatives" are all working for the same people, and it is NOT you and I. They work for the people who bribe them through large campaign contributions. They have become the very thing that President Dwight D. Eisenhower tried to warn us about in 1961...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Are there ANY honest, honorable elected representatives left in Washington that actually believe in the oaths they take to defend the Constitution? I have yet to meet one. If you know of any, please let us know...

imported post

Dreamer, please do not take this the wrong way. I am a staunch defender of a woman's right to say no. And N0- Means NO. And I agree that it is terribly wrong that they are allowed to put those clauses in their contracts. But aren't these same contracts read before they are signed. And no I am not in any way saying that they asked for what they got, I am just asking a question. I believe that these sick individuals who did these crimes should be hung. And it really shows a lack of judgement and caring by the companies that put those clauses in place.

imported post

Buford,

I agree--most of these people probably didn't read their contracts with the assistance of legal councel. I know that I NEVER sign a contact or employment agreement without reading it front to back, and making any appropriate edits as I deem necessary. I've even attached copies of state and federal statutes illustrating where company policies were in violation of the law to support my edits on such contracts. Needless to say, I was usually on the sh!t-list of the HR department at companies where I did this, but HR people are for the most part, IMO, a few rungs down the evolutionary ladder from Mall Security Officers...

HOWEVER, I would imagine that if any rational, reasonable person were going to be taking a civilian job abroad, in a war zone, and there was a section in their contract that said they couldn't bring civil or criminal suits against their employer for any personal injury, assault, or damage that occurred while deployed, MOST reasonable people would assume it was referring to things done by the "enemy".

Most reasonable people, I believe, would probably not 1) expect that their co-workers would be the ones attacking them, or 2) that if they WERE attacked by their co-workers, that the VICTIM would be locked up in a shipping container for days, refused medical treatment or access to legal councel, and threatened with being fired and "blackballed" if they went to the authorities...

I mean, really, if you read such a clause in such a contract, what would YOU think they were referring to?

I think it is a reasonable expectation that an employer provides a workplace where their employees don't have to worry about whether or not their co-workers are going to rape, sodomize, assault, mutilate, shoot, and burn them while on company time and on company property, isn't it?