Latest Threads
Greatest Threads
Home » Discuss » Journals » boloboffin » Archives Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Bolo Boffin's journal - Archives
Posted by boloboffin in General Discussion: Presidency
Wed Dec 07th 2011, 01:35 PM
The best source for this oft-repeating propaganda line by Mitt Romney and others is from the Heritage Foundation. Here's the link:

This one was compiled on June 2, 2009, so there are likely other examples that conservatives like to brandish as evidence. For now, however, we can look through these ten and probably find common themes for any further "apologies."

Number one: Obama is correct about the things he states.

For example, in his speech to the Turkish Parliament, President Obama says this:

Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.

Well? Aren't we?

Do conservatives believe that we haven't had darker periods in our history? Perhaps they are unaware of the details of the massacre at Wounded Knee. And the disenfranchising of minority voters seems to have caught its second wind in this upcoming election season. Pretending these things did not happen is foolish of Mitt Romney.

Number two: the context of the president's remarks are important to consider.

Take the Turkish Parliament speech again. Barack Obama brought up the darker periods of our history to preface his remarks about the 1915 Armenian genocide by Turkey. It's an incredibly sensitive topic for the Turkish people, so much so that they fight off any actual mention of the event, especially as a genocide.

But in the middle of their Parliament, President Obama went on to say this, the very next two paragraphs:

Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there's strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. And while there's been a good deal of commentary about my views, it's really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive.

We've already seen historic and courageous steps taken by Turkish and Armenian leaders. These contacts hold out the promise of a new day. An open border would return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve both of your nations. So I want you to know that the United States strongly supports the full normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. It is a cause worth working towards.

Definitely on this issue, Candidate and Senator Obama wrote a check that President Obama has found difficult and thus far impossible to honor. Though he earlier stated he would call the Armenian genocide that in so many words, he has not done so yet and did not do so here.

But in his call for an "honest, open and constructive" approach to working through the past of the two countries, his meaning is clear. And he knew it would be, speaking as he does of the "commentary about my views." Diplomacy trumped candor here, but President Obama did his level best to make the Turkish government aware of a better way forward. And his own candor in acknowledging the "darker periods" of America's past could only be seen as encouragement for Turkey to be just as candid about what they had done in 1915.

Another place where context is important is the President's "apology" to France and Europe:

In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

Again, there's the plain truth of what Obama is saying. He wasn't a decade separated from the idiocy of "freedom fries."

But the context here is also key. The very next paragraphs? /

But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad.

On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America.

So I've come to Europe this week to renew our partnership, one in which America listens and learns from our friends and allies, but where our friends and allies bear their share of the burden. Together, we must forge common solutions to our common problems.

Some apology. Yes, President Obama says, we've got some medicine to take here in America. Europe, don't be thinking you don't have a turn at the spoon as well.

Number three: it's interesting what they leave behind in their litany of "apologies".

A great example is in the France and Europe speech. Look what President Obama flat out said before the "arrogance and dismissive" line:

... the United States certainly shares its -- shares blame for what has happened.

The United States can be blamed for something, even the least little bit? Horrors! American exceptionalism! How dare he?

Well, this is how he dares: he's talking about the global economic collapse of 2007-2008. It seems that even in June 2009, it was hard for the Heritage Foundation to be able to grab this clear example of the President accepting blame for something America had done. It's kind of hard to deny that America had a key role in that collapse. Or at least it was then. Who knows what stupid Citizens United group will grab that part of the sound clip and run with it? He even stammers in it! Weak! Weak!

The truth is that President Obama's "apology tour" was a powerful demonstration of American exceptionalism. One, he's the poster child for American exceptionalism -- the first African-American leader of the free world, a man who lived in a Muslim-majority nation in his childhood. And two, being able to openly acknowledge American mistakes in the past is a sign of national strength, dignity, and courage. Do we have things to be ashamed of in the past? Very well, we are ashamed of them. But that shame will not cripple us from doing good and right. The mistakes of the past are best remembered to guide us into the accomplishments of the future.

After all, any old country can try to sweep their sins under the rug, and plenty do -- even this country does. It's when we acknowledge our faults and seek to rectify them that we build strength and moral power, and that is something America could always use plenty more of.

Feel free to place the other quotes back into their context and show how true they are in the thread.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by boloboffin in September 11
Wed Apr 07th 2010, 06:36 PM

This is the document routinely dismissed and trashed by 9/11 Truth advocates here. This proposed index shows just how damning the 9/11 Commission Report really is for the Bush Administration. An excerpt:

Rumsfeld, Donald
before 9/11
— chairs 1999 panel to discuss limited ability to assess ballistic missile threat to US, 91
— selected to be secretary of defense for the second time, 198
— chats with Rice daily over the phone, 200
— agrees that "tit-for-tat" responses are counterproductive, 202
— thinks too much time had passed to respond to USS Cole bombing, 202
— focuses on creating a 21st century military, 208
— notes his own interest in terrorism, 208
— receives order to "develop contingency plans" for attacking al Qaeda and Taliban targets, 208
— doesn't "particularly want this mission," 208
— stalls al Qaeda and Taliban attack plans, waiting for Bush's signature to give order, 208
— gives principal attention to other challenges, 352

after 9/11
— goes to parking lot to assist with rescue after Pentagon is struck, 37
— unreachable by NORAD, Bush, 38, 40
— speaks to Bush but does not discuss shootdown, 43
— talks to Cheney about shootdown, 43
— gains situational awareness, 44
— joins "war council," 330
— urges Bush to "think broadly" about attacking Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, and Iran, 330
— tapped to develop military plan against Taliban, 331
— attends disappointing briefings about attacking Afghanistan, 332
— told by Bush to ensure that robust counterterrorism measures be taken by US troops worldwide, 333
— has instinct to hit Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein at the same time, 335
— pushed by Wolfowitz to attack Iraq, 336
— exclaims, "The cost-benefit ratio is against us!" 374
— calls executive branch "stove-piped" and requests "wide joint effort," 403

Much, much more at the link.
Read entry | Discuss (39 comments)
Posted by boloboffin in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sun Mar 21st 2010, 05:07 PM
...that will begin the process of fixing the even MORE flawed health care system, and I look forward to more solutions to providing even better health care for all Americans that this bill does not.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by boloboffin in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sun Mar 14th 2010, 04:19 AM
I know, big surprise. Sun comes up in the east and the Pope covers up child abuse, right?

But a big op/ed in the Washington Post today just flat out lies about the health care reform bill. Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that promote pro-life women in politics, writes:

President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress promised to keep abortion funding out of their health-care proposals. In a speech to a joint session of Congress last September, the president pledged that "under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."

If that were true, the health-care overhaul would most likely be law today. But it isn't, and it has led to massive opposition from the grass-roots antiabortion movement and self-labeled pro-life members in Congress.

Well, actually, Marjorie, it is true. Both the House and the Senate versions of health care explicitly maintain the barrier to federal funds being used to pay for abortion. In fact, it does so in a way that has a lot of pro-choice people hopping mad.

The House version (Stupak's ticket to fame) has only exemptions for rape, incest, and physical endangerment to the mother in an almost word-for-word enshrinement of the Hyde Amendment into permanent law. The Senate version is more referential, saying that abortions not exempted from funding by Federal money cannot be covered in a policy purchased with federal subsidies. Both allow a later law to change the definition, but the Senate's wording would never have to be altered, making for cleaner legislation. However, they both go out of their way to forbid Federal funds purchasing an insurance policy that covers the full range of a woman's choice under law. Both will have the direct effect of forbidding full reproductive coverage to millions of women below or just above poverty.

But a pound of flesh is not enough for Marjorie. No, she has to scaremonger and lie about this legislation in a last minute attempt to stop it (and to continue the fund-raising activities, naturally). Personally, I think the abortion language in both bills puts an undue burden on a woman's right to choose and expect it to be overturned by a Supreme Court that respects this right. (Yes, I know, it's not this Court. But we'll see.) But until then, the moat dug between Federal funds and the merest possibility of an abortion for a poor woman is plainly evident, and I cannot believe Dannenfelser isn't aware of this.
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by boloboffin in September 11
Thu Apr 16th 2009, 04:26 PM
This is a debunking of a video by David Chandler, 9/11 Truth scientist.
OK, this is what Chandler says.

I'm accepting all of his estimations for the sake of the argument. So --

This piece started at the 82nd floor, granted. (To be conservative, we'll only measure from the top of the 82nd floor.)
It's traveling horizontally at 32 m/s, granted.
The leading edge of the descending section is the bottom of the 96th floor, granted.

So the descending section has to fall 13 stories. The stories in the towers were 13 feet, 4 inches tall (NIST NCSTAR1, p. 10 (pdf 60)). In meters, that's 4.06 m tall. 13 stories is 52.78 m that the section descends before reaching the top of the 82nd floor.

So this is what we know: The descending section started at 0 m/s, it fell 52.78 m at 9.81 m/s2, and David Chandler says that when it got there, it was traveling at 16 m/s.

But David Chandler is wrong.

Solving for time, you plug in initial velocity (0), final velocity (16), and acceleration (9.81). You get 1.63 seconds.

Solving for average velocity, you plug in initial velocity (0) and final velocity (16). You get 8 m/s.

Solving for distance, you plug in time (1.63) and average velocity (8 m/s). You get 13.04 m.

So in freefall conditions, as specified by Chandler, if the final velocity is 16 m/s, the descending section has only fallen 13.04 m, not 52.78 m.

Chandler fucked up big time. As a matter of fact, after falling 52.78 m at 9.81 m/s2, you get a final velocity of 32 m/s, exactly the velocity of the horizontal component as measured by Chandler.

Does he ever get tired of confirming the official story?

ETA: Let me show my work. Assuming a final velocity of 32 m/s --

Solving for time, you plug in initial velocity (0), final velocity (32), and acceleration (9.81). You get 3.2 seconds.

Average velocity is 16 m/s.

Solving for distance, you plug in time (3.2) and average velocity (16 m/s). You get 51.02 m. Much closer to the actual distance than Chandler. Using the assumption that the upper section is descending with no resistance, it CANNOT physically have fallen 52 m faster than 3.2 seconds, and by that time it will be traveling around 32 m/s.

Oh, my, how Chandler did fuck up. Is it just a coincidence that the actual average velocity is what he claims the final velocity to be? Did Chandler grab the average velocity and use it as final velocity and post a big fuck up on the intertubes?

Somehow, this must be NIST's fault, right?

Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by boloboffin in Economy
Sat Mar 07th 2009, 04:18 AM
I just finished a big long diary at Kos, cross-posted it at the Chimp, and thought I'd put it here, too. Here's the obligatory sample.

To help explain what's happened, I've prepared a PDF presentation of this, relying mostly on Kohn's testimony. You can access it at Google Documents here.

Let's go back a bit to when Bear Stearns went under. The Federal Reserve worked together with JPMorgan Chase to get JPMorgan a great deal. The Fed created a limited liability company in Delaware, named after the street the New York Fed bank is on, Maiden Lane. Maiden Lane, LLC, received $29 billion in loans from the Fed, and $1 billion in loans from JPMorgan. Maiden Lane used that money to buy up the toxic assets at the heart of Bear Stearns' woes. JPMorgan Chase then purchased Bear Stearns, free of the toxic assets with $30 billion sitting there all nice and tidy. And then JPMorgan bought Bear Stearns at $10 a share (although, remember, Hank Paulson wanted them to sell at $2.

Now this whole deal stunk mightily in the nostrils of Congress, and they saddled the Federal Reserve with some more strigent restrictions on how they deal out the money. And Maiden Lane, LLC, has actually lost $5 billion in value since that time. But that didn't stop them from pulling out the old playbook when AIG came staggering in through the door.

Well, what else was the Fed going to do?

I hope it makes sense, because I just finished it 30 minutes ago and my brain is a little fuzzy now.
Read entry | Discuss (12 comments)
Posted by boloboffin in September 11
Tue Mar 03rd 2009, 07:13 PM
Autorank, you show the ability to understand what shoddy reporting is when it suits you. You've pointed out that most of the media is reporting this as a spy case when a charge of "unregistered foreign agent" is not necessarily one of espionage -- although spies are by definition unregistered foreign agents and several actual spies have been convicted of this charge. But as the Seattle Weekly points out, it is unconventional spycraft for the spy to write to her second cousin, Bush's chief of staff, and announce her ties to the Iraqi government and offer her help as a go-between.

Therefore you'll understand why I ask these questions of you after my reading of your Lindauer opus.

1. Why did you suppress vital information about Lindauer's January 2003 letter to Andy Card? You quote from the letter extensively in "American Cassandra" and even give a link to it. But you somehow avoid the thrust of the letter, which is why it was used in the case against her. Nowhere in any of your stories can I find mention of paragraphs from the letter like these:

Andy, I can still influence this situation.

Therefore, I need to ask you, one last time, what specific actions can be taken by Baghdad, so that President Bush can declare victory without going to War. What do you need? Cooperation on terrorism, including interviewing authority for the FBI? Does the U.S. want the Lukoil Contract? What else? I can get it. Just tell me.

If you call me at (number redacted by bolo), or send the Secret Service, I will come to you at any hour of the day or night. I will fly to Baghdad with 24 hours notice to deliver any message directly to that leadership, regarding any of the above suggestions or anything else you seek.

Do you deny the contacts she'd made with the Iraqi Intelligence Service? Do you deny that she operated as the FBI said she did with one of their agents posing as a Libyan intelligence agent? All of this was the basis for the charges, and the letter she wrote to Card certainly seems as if she is presenting herself as a agent of Baghdad.

2. Although only one source I can find mentioned Lindauer sticking out her tongue during her most recent hearing on mental fitness, both the "New York Times" and the "New York Sun" mention a grandiose gesture where she turned to the audience and gave an enthusiastic thumbs down when the prosecutor mentioned her receiving money from the Iraqis. You did not report this, however, though you claim to have been in the room and berate the "Times" for mentioning the tongue gesture, one you admit not being a position to have seen. Can you confirm or deny that Lindauer made this hugely inappropriate gesture at her hearing? If you can confirm this, then why did you leave it completely out of your reporting when the "Times" reported it in the same sentence as the tongue being stuck out?

3. What was the reason that both prosecution and defense waived the testimony of Kleinman at the second fitness hearing? Was it not because Kleinman had already submitted a full and complete report of his findings, one that Preska could use in her deliberations? You make a lot out of Preska giving her verdict immediately after the testimony -- from a TelePrompter, you even tell us. Yet if she'd already read Kleinman's report and heard nothing in cross-examine to change her mind, why shouldn't she proceed to the end of the case? Isn't that what they were all there for, to hear her finding?

4. What is your opinion of the story she now has about Fuisz telling her before the WTC buildings collapsed concerning the Israeli couple with the camera? I'll share mine -- I think it's ludicrous. As I explained on the other thread, the story matches no video taken of the event whatsoever, certainly none that was available to be seen before the WTC towers collapsed. What reason is there to think that this is anything but the fabrication of a delusional mind?

And isn't it similar in character to another story Lindauer has repeated concerning Fuisz, one she put into a deposition, one that lays open the Lockerbie story? Fuisz certainly does seem to be a chatty fellow, doesn't he?

5. What do you make of the other stories of her strange behavior? Her stuffing toilet paper in her mouth, her displays of agitation (scribbling "furiously on a pad, shaking her head when she disagreed with a witness and passing notes to" Shaughnessy who would walk off that day when she spoke to the press against his advice, her ideation of Mukasey as a hero -- it was these kinds of incidents that led Preska (along with other expert testimony) to conclude that Lindauer was unable to even comprehend the process by which she would be tried. Lindauer even interrupted Preska during the reading of the finding, trying to offer evidence when it was not the appropriate time. This was another display of her inability to grasp the seriousness and the very process in which she was engaged.

(Sidenote: after reading that "Motion to Reconsider", I'm surprised Shannessy wasn't disbarred. Maybe I need to read more motions, but that one stunk to high heaven. Another post.)

6. In your 19 June 2008 story, "911 Prediction Revealed at Lindauer Hearing in NYC," you talk about Kelly O'Meara, a witness called by Lindauer. As you inform us, Kelly is the author of the book Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills That Kill, a quack book attacking the psychiatry profession and one that O'Meara has no qualification for writing. Indeed, when asked for her qualifications to declare that Lindauer had no mental disorder, she said that "she could read the official diagnostic manual for mental disorders like anybody else." Do you understand that this means O'Meara is grossly unqualified to speak authoritatively on the subject of mental disorders?

7. Concerning the testimony of Parke Godfrey, do you understand that the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was not "very similar" to the attack that occurred in 2001? Perhaps you can produce specifics of his testimony here. I don't have the trial transcripts in front of me.

8. Why is her 2003 letter's assertions of Iraqi resistance and an Al-Qaeda resurgence a "prediction" and a "prophetic plea" when you also acknowledge that "other knowledgeable observers believed" this very thing? What element of her letter makes you elevate it to this level? Do you think that it was so difficult in 2003 to make those kinds of claims?

9. In "American Cassandra," (Part 1 of a two-part series that I cannot find the second part of, even in your bibliography -- perhaps you mean it to be the next piece you wrote about a year later) you make this caveat about a third of the way through the piece:

...In this article, I present her story as she told it to me. In part two of the series, I cover her confinement at FMC Carswell, examine how the initial round of her case was handled, including Judge Mukasey's dismissive remarks about the merits of the case against her. I will also present information from individuals who support her character and knowledge of Lockerbie and Iraq and offer some speculation on motives and handling of her arrest.

What follows is neither a brief in favor of her case, nor is it a fishing expedition to generate cheap shots regarding her claims. It's simply her story.

Therefore, it could be that "American Cassandra" should simply be understood as her side of it, presented uncritically (although you reserve the right to offer speculations on motives of her antagonists), something for which Lindauer could have hired a stenographer.

However the rest of your stories on this subject don't give this same caveat and appear to treat every statement of Lindauer referred to thereafter as gospel. Will you submit a summation of what you feel are the strong points and weak points of Lindauer's side of the story, and support your arguments with your evidence and reasoning for so thinking?

10. You report several times on Judge Mukasey's denial of forced medication of Lindauer. Yet you rarely, if ever, present Mukasey's reasons for doing so.

In his 35-page order, Judge Mukasey said Ms. Lindauer suffered from "hallucinations, grandiose and persecutory delusions" and was not competent to stand trial.

He doubted the government could prove the charges against Ms. Lindauer and criticized the prosecution as excessive.

"There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone or could have," he said, adding that several mental health professionals, including a psychiatrist retained by the government, had found Ms. Lindauer incompetent to stand trial.

In other words, Mukasey thought the case was as weak as Lindauer's mind. Forcing Lindauer to go through this ordeal so that the prosecution could screw up a trial on weak evidence was not in the interest of justice or humanity.

Yet you have consistently described Mukasey's ruling as you did in "Bush Political Prisoner Gets Her Day in Court":

Judge Mukasey presided over the hearing. After evaluating the evidence, he refused to order the forced administration of medication. He ordered that Lindauer be set free. The case was continued.

From your reporting, one would be hard pressed to learn that Mukasey did indeed find Lindauer unfit to stand trial to her mental disorders. Why have you consistently downplayed this aspect of Mukasey's ruling while playing up the denial of forced medication?

11. If the subject of Mukasey's ruling of Lindauer's unfitness does come up, you emphasize that evidence was withheld from Mukasey (in some cases by her own attorney!) that would have changed his verdict. You did so in the OP.

One assumes that the evidence of the Maryland psychiatrist and two Maryland PHD-level (?) therapists was presented to the court. On what basis was this evidence denied to be admitted? Whoever didn't let it in, be it Mukasey or the prosecutor or even her own attorney, what was the specific reasons given to Lindauer for not allowing that into evidence?

Did it have anything to do with the fact that Mukasey sent her to doctors that he himself had appointed to rule on Lindauer's mental condition? Wasn't it Mukasey who sent her to Carswell?


Personally I think this case is indeed a shameful one, a blot on the Justice Department. But that is because I've seen enough evidence to agree with two federal judges that Lindauer is mentally unfit to stand trial and that she never could have obtained the results she claimed to be able to achieve (like "full democratic reforms - free elections w/ intl. monitors, free opposition parties, free opposition newspapers, and free student organizations at Universities" -- her handwritten addition to her last letter to Andy Card).

No, the Iraqis first went fishing with her delusions to see what they could get from her connections, and then the Justice Department blew her case out of proportion to get some nice headlines, and then the quack O'Meara grabs her to push her book. Susan Lindauer's story is again and again one of exploitation of her mental illness.

Please give me some evidence and assurances that in an effort to maintain access and push this story with your byline that you are not doing the same.
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by boloboffin in GLBT
Tue Dec 23rd 2008, 06:18 PM
Rosa Parks was not sitting in the Whites Only section of the bus when she was arrested. Many people don't know that. She was sitting one row behind the Whites Only section. Montgomery law was that if the Whites Only section filled and another white person got on the bus, any colored people sitting in the first row back had to relinquish their seats and move further back.

Supporting civil unions but not marriage for LGBT citizens is like agreeing that Rosa shouldn't have been forced to stand up from her seat, but then affirming that she shouldn't have expected to get into the Whites Only section of the bus.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by boloboffin in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Thu Oct 02nd 2008, 12:45 PM
A new radio ad is being released today by the National Right To Life Committee. It repeats the baseless and shocking smear that Obama is in favor of allowing infants to die from neglect if the abortion procedure leaves them alive and viable outside the mother's womb.

The facts are these: Obama did indeed vote against a bill that contained language protecting these infants. But Illinois law had protected these infants since 1975.

The sponsor of the bill himself wrote a letter to the editor stating that those who opposed the bill did not support infanticide.

Even the law did contain the federal language protecting Roe v. Wade, the bill was opposed by many who thought the bill would have an adverse affect on Illinois law and precedent.

...the Illinois proposal always had a companion bill. The accompanying legislation, called the Induced Infant Liability Act, would have allowed legal action “on the child’s behalf for damages, including costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and attorney’s fees, against a hospital, health care facility or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after the child’s birth.”

Groups that favor abortion rights say that bill would have introduced the possibility that doctors could be sued for failing to take extraordinary measures to save the lives of pre-viable infants, those born so prematurely that they could not possibly survive. As a result, they argue, it is disingenuous of anti-abortion organizations to claim that Mr. Obama was moving to quash only a narrow and innocuous definitional bill identical to federal law.

“I can tell you the sponsors always wanted the entire package of bills, which were introduced together and analyzed together,” said Pam Sutherland, who was president of the Illinois branch of Planned Parenthood at the time and is now the group’s lobbyist. “They never wanted them separated, because they wanted to make sure that physicians would be chilled into not performing abortions for fear of going to jail.”

The way that the lllinois "Born-Alive" law would have "undermined Roe v. Wade" (Obama's words) was not federally, but in Illinois itself.

Supporters of abortion rights say Obama was right to oppose the 2003 bill, even though it had the same wording as the federal measure. The wording could have had a different effect at the state level, they say, by undermining Illinois' legal precedents on abortion.

Once more, the key is the 1975 Illinois abortion law, which contains language that's similar but not identical to the later bill. The 2003 bill could have affected the way courts interpret the 1975 law, which Planned Parenthood and the Illinois State Medical Society contended could have far-reaching implications.

The groups opposed the entire group of "born alive" bills that were introduced starting in 2001, saying they could ultimately threaten the physician-patient relationship and increase civil liability for doctors.

In 2005, Illinois lawmakers inserted an extra provision asserting that the law would not affect "existing federal or state law regarding abortion." The measure passed without opposition from Planned Parenthood and with the support of groups opposed to abortion.

As the sponsor says in his letter quoted above, after this extra provision backstopping state law was added, the measure was passed unopposed in the Illinois legislature.

Full disclosure: this post was written with the materials provided at Obama's website, Fight the Smears.
Read entry | Discuss (5 comments)
Posted by boloboffin in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sat Aug 16th 2008, 09:30 AM
...than the Hebrew Scriptures are anti-Semitic.

Jerome Corsi has fully exposed his racist core beliefs on Washington Journal. Again and again, he stated that the core of black liberation theology was hatred of America. This is a foul lie.

In an interview with Terry Gross, Cone explains the movement, which has roots in 1960s civil-rights activism and draws inspiration from both the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, as "mainly a theology that sees God as concerned with the poor and the weak."

...Cone explains that at the core of black liberation theology is an effort — in a white-dominated society, in which black has been defined as evil — to make the gospel relevant to the life and struggles of American blacks, and to help black people learn to love themselves. It's an attempt, he says "to teach people how to be both unapologetically black and Christian at the same time."


Dwight Hopkins, a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, says black liberation theology often portrays Jesus as a brown-skinned revolutionary. He cites the words of Mary in the Magnificat — also known as the "Song of Mary" — in which she says God intends to bring down the mighty and raise the lowly. Hopkins also notes that in the book of Matthew, Jesus says the path to heaven is to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and the prisoners. And the central text for black liberation theology can be found in Chapter 4 of Luke's gospel, where Jesus outlines the purpose of his ministry.

"Jesus says my mission is to eradicate poverty and to bring about freedom and liberation for the oppressed," Hopkins says. "And most Christian pastors in America skip over that part of the book."

Hopkins attends Trinity United Church of Christ, where Rev. Wright just retired as pastor. In the now-famous sermon from 2003, Wright said black people's troubles are a result of racism that still exists in America, crying out, "No, no, no, not God bless America! God damn America — that's in the Bible — for killing innocent people."

According to Hopkins, that was theological wordplay — because the word "damn" is straight out of the Bible and has a specific meaning in the original Hebrew.

"It means a sacred condemnation by God to a wayward nation who has strayed from issues of justice, strayed from issues of peace, strayed from issues of reconciliation," Hopkins says.

You don't call a nation back to justice that you hate. You don't call a nation back to peace that you despise. You don't call a nation back to reconciliation with God when at your core you wish to see it burn in hell.

This point is made most specifically in the book of Jonah, where the prophet was called to preach to a nation he did hate and despise. Jonah tried to flee, but God sent a storm and a fish and got him back on track. Then Jonah went and preached condemnation but not reconciliation, and the people of Ninevah repented anyway and were reconciled. Then God chastised Jonah for the hate in his heart with the incident of the gourd.

God has ALWAYS taken the side of the oppressed over the oppressors. God has ALWAYS done this. The apostles of hate, the servants of the principalities and powers of this earth like Jerome Corsi will lie and denigrate and cast their aspirations, but God will not be fooled, God's people will not be fooled, and those interested in hearing the truth will not be fooled.

THAT is what Black Liberation Theology is all about.

Judge it by its fruits! Look at Trinity United Church of Christ. How do they express this radical identification with the poor and the oppressed as seen in the Bible? 71 community outreach programs, helping people to stand up, to be proud of who they are, to build a society of justice and peace. You don't see terrorists flinging bombs coming out of there. You see people following Christ, who tend to the sick, who help the unfortunate, who visit those in prison. I am no Christian, I'm an atheist, but I tell you here and now, I'd rather be a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ standing before the Lord of Hosts in judgment than a smug hypocrite like Jerome Corsi.

God Damn Jerome Corsi's America.

eta: link to second quote
Read entry | Discuss (13 comments)
Posted by boloboffin in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon May 12th 2008, 09:07 PM
Eight Reasons Why Karlin's "Flight 93 Shot Down" Scale Should Be A Zero

“But on a scale of 1 to 10, BuzzFlash would put it at an 8 likelihood that Flight 93 was indeed downed by an American missile.”
Let me help you place that likelihood down to the 0 where it belongs.

1. United 93 crashed at 10:03 am. NEADS was not notified of United 93 until Cleveland Center did so at 10:07. Cleveland was unaware of the crash and gave NEADS the last known information about the plane. NEADS looked for 93, but could not find it since it had already crashed.

Only until they called Washington Center at 10:15 did NEADS learn that United 93 had crashed. This is verifiable by the released audio records of the day.

2. At 10:10, independent of this, NEADS told the Langley fighters over Washington that they did not have clearance to shoot down potential targets. Again, this is verifiable from the released tapes.

So at this point, no shootdown order had been received by the military from Bush, Cheney, or whoever.

3. The Secret Service was being told about United 93 from about 10:02. They were getting their information from the FAA. Because 77 had turned off its transponder and because erroneous information had led to a belief that 11 was still airborne (and yet could not be found since it had crashed), the FAA had begun tracking possible hijackings on a system that took the last known information and projected the future flight.

All information being fed to the Secret Service was coming from this projected flight, and not actual radar contact with 93.

4. Cheney was told about the aircraft being 80 miles out between 10:10 and 10:15. His wife and Scooter Libby were both keeping a log of everything happening in their vicinity. This is the time frame for the first callout. This is indirectly supported by the first two points.

He was asked if the fighters should engage, i.e., shoot down the incoming plane. However, there was no incoming plane. It had crashed about ten minutes earlier.

5. At 10:15 - 10:18 came the second callout at 60 miles. It was then that Joshua Bolten challenged Dick Cheney’s authority to be making that decision. It was then that all logs record a call between Cheney and Bush, during which he confirmed the engage order.

This is the real story. Dick Cheney, frustrated with a lack of communication with George Bush, pulled a Haig. It doesn’t matter that it was the right decision. It wasn't his to make. And why was George Bush so hard to get hold of? Because he’d sat seven minutes in a classroom after being told that America was under attack, and then he stayed at the school to give a speech, and then he headed for Air Force One. If he’d left immediately, Air Force One would have been in the air before 9:30, well before the Pentagon was attacked. He could have been in contact with anyone there. But, no, not George.

This incident is why the 9/11 Commission insisted that they speak with Bush and Cheney, and why they would not agree to do so unless there was no oath, no transcript, and no separate interview.

6. There is further information to consider. Both the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder were discovered. The actual FDR data has made its way into the public domain, and we have a transcript of the CVR. (Family members have heard the actual tape and I’ve heard of no objections raised about the transcript.) Seen together, they show that Flight 93 was intentional crashed by the terrorists, most likely in response to the passengers finally gaining access to the cockpit.

The last cell of data from the FDR showed nothing wrong with the plane other than the direction it was flying and the speed at which it was traveling. It had descended 7000 feet in 40 seconds. It was traveling over 563 mph. It was upside down, and the nose was pitched down at 40 degrees. Every other system in the aircraft was reporting normal. If it had been hit by a missile, there would have been engine malfunctions, fuel pressure problems, hydraulics, cabin pressure -- the FDR would have been screaming in pain. There was only the fatal plunge, a passenger’s “No!” and the triumphant cry of the hijackers to their God.

7. A friend writes here: “If UA93 was shot down, it would be in the audio loop, there would be a radar vector called, (most likely) a radar ID call, a visual ID call, a visual ID confirmation, a request to fire, an "away" call, and an initial damage assessment call. According to what platform was used, you'd also expect some combat camera. Pilot's keep a fairly detailed (though often very quick) record of engagements for later study.”

None of this is present in the released audio recordings. There is no report back to NEADS about any of this. The NEADS tapes are in the public domain as well.

8. What possible reason could the Bush Administration have for admitting that the order was given, but covering up that the order was accomplished?

Especially if the passengers were on the verge of taking over. How could anyone have known? How could anyone have been blamed except for the people who hijacked the plane and the people who financed them? It doesn’t hurt them to announce that the plane was shot down. It actually increases sympathy for them.

Mr. Karlin, Flight 93 was not shot down by military jets. It was intentionally crashed by the terrorists.

Joseph Nobles
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by boloboffin in September 11
Fri Apr 25th 2008, 05:07 PM
Page L-2:

The building was constructed over a pre-existing electrical substation owned by Con Edison. The original plans for the Con Ed Substation included supporting a high-rise building, and the foundation was sized for the planned structure. However, the final design for WTC 7 had a larger footprint than originally planned.

The structural design of the Con Ed substation included elements that would support a high-rise building that would later be built on the property. 7 World Trade exceeded a lot of the expected parameters of this anticipated building, but allowances were made and additional cassions were added through the Con Ed substation to the foundation. It's good to be the Port Authority.

Is it wrong to say that not much weight at all was being redistributed through the Con Ed substation structure? Yes and no. Loads were being distributed only to those sections of the substation already designed to accept those loads. The overall structure, however, wasn't designed to accept those loads.

However, I will be more precise in the future. Only those sections of the Con Ed substation designed to take loads from the building above did so. And much more of the Con Ed substation structure now on the site was made available for this function. (This is the one thing in my memory I haven't been able to track down again. But it's out there.)

Let's also be clear about everything here, though. The support columns you circled in my diagram are not the core columns supporting the back span of the cantilever girders. They are perimeter columns.

Floor 4's basic blueprint shows this. The perimeter columns of this floor, the first one of 7 World Trade to extend over the Con Ed substation, are inset. They get cantilevered over to the northern facade at floor 7.

The core columns supporting the back-span of the cantilever are actually columns 64, 67, 70, and 73. They connected to a braced frame erected on the south side of the Con Ed Substation. This became a crucial part of the lateral system.

You can see them here, but they were left out of L-18.

The cantilevered girders are also supported by 61, but because this girder didn't connect to this braced frame in the Con Ed substation, it needed truss #3. 76 also has a cantilever girder going to it. That column is braced by transfer truss #1. It's sending part of the load to the framed brace in the Con Ed building via 73, and part to its own brace further east in the building.

This is all talking about a key difference between the towers and Building 7, btw. Lateral loads were dealt with 100% by the perimeter columns in the towers. Their cores only dealt with gravity loads. But the lateral system of 7 World Trade channeled the lateral loads into the core. This is indeed what the diaphragms on 5 and 7 were doing.

The substation’s lateral system consisted of a moment frame along the northern row of interior columns. Along the south edge of the substation there was a braced frame. This braced frame was coincident with the north side of the WTC 7 core, at columns 64, 67, 70, and 73. Lateral loads from WTC 7 were passed directly from the core above to the Con Ed braced frame below. There were also two moment frames within the substation oriented in the north-south direction, one on each end of the WTC 7 core.

...Above Floor 7, WTC 7 had a perimeter moment frame. Exterior columns were typically rolled W14 shapes of ASTM A36 grade steel. Column trees were fabricated for the east and west facades with field splices occurring every other story in the columns and at the spandrel beam midspan between columns, where the tree stubs were spliced with a bolted connection. On the north and south facades, the moment frames were constructed with spandrel connections at the face of the columns. Some column splices were shown on the erection drawings to be partial penetration groove welds between the column flanges.

At Floors 5 to 7 and Floors 22 to 24, there was a perimeter belt truss, shown in Fig. L–19. Below Floor 7, a combination of moment and braced frames around the perimeter and a series of braced frames in the core, is shown in Fig. L–20. The strong diaphragms of Floors 5 and 7 transferred load from the perimeter to the core. Above the loading dock at the south facade, two of the columns were hung from the belt truss at Floors 5 through 7. Above the Con Edison vault at the north facade, eight columns were also hanging from the belt truss between Floors 5 and 7.

The gravity loads were transmitted through each individual column, core and perimeter, all the way down to the foundation.

Above Floor 7, the building had typical steel framing for high-rise construction. The floor systems had composite construction with steel beams supporting concrete slabs on metal deck, with a floor thickness of 5.5 in. The core and perimeter columns supported the floor system and carried their loads to the foundation. The perimeter moment frame also resisted wind forces. Columns above Floor 7 did not align with the foundation columns, so braced frames, transfer trusses, and transfer girders were used to transfer loads between these column systems, primarily between Floors 5 and 7. Floors 5 and 7 were heavily reinforced concrete slabs on metal decks, with thicknesses of 14 in. and 8 in., respectively.

The lateral system is described by the project manager for the structural engineering firm that built 7 World Trade in a November 28, 1985 article in the Engineering News-Record. I knew you'd have to have a copy of this, and it's not available online, so I took the time to go downtown and make a copy from the Dallas Public Library's stacks. This is a pdf made from a scan of a copy, so I'm sorry about the quality:

From level seven to the top, the structural-steel building has a perimeter moment-resisting frame. Two two-story-high belt trusses, one at the 22nd story and one at the seventh, reduce deflection during high winds.

The first seven stories are more complicated. To resist lateral loads, the structural engineer designed a seven-story braced core linked through floor diaphragms to seven-story-high wind truss systems on the shorter sides of the building. "The end frames create channel action to stiffen the building," says Tamboli. Horizontal bracing in the fifth and seventh-story floor slabs transfers lateral loads from the moment frame to the braced core.

...The first seven stories were also difficult . The building's 350-ft side cantilevers 7 ft of the substation from the seventh floor to the roof. Eight 55-ton, 60-ft-long girders that taper from 9 to 3 feet deep had to be lifted over the substation and placed under seventh floor framing to carry cantilever loads to the core. The weight and reach involved prompted the use of two cranes and a derrick to lift each girder.

Cantilever loads to the core. Not to the perimeter columns that you so helpfully circled, the core.
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by boloboffin in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Feb 20th 2008, 10:28 PM
I can't even believe this. My brother is stuck in South Alabama, surrounded by crazy Republicans at work. They sent him an email on the subject, Bush Lied, People Died???

The email itself has been reproduced at a stupid right wing site that I found. Here's the link: /

Bet you didn’t know the following! I surely did not.

These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afganistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics:

The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

1980 ……… 2,392
1981 ……… 2,380
1984 ……… 1,999
1988 ……… 1,819
1989 ……… 1,636
1990 ……… 1,508
1991 ……… 1,787
1992 ……… 1,293 ———-
1993 ……… 1,213
1994 ……… 1,075
1995 ……… 2,465 8 Clinton years: 13,417 deaths
1996 ……… 2,318
1997 ……… 817
1998 ……… 2,252
1999 ……… 1,984 ———-
2000 ……… 1,983
2001 ……… 890
2002 ……… 1,007 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
2003 ……… 1,410
2004 ……… 1,887
2005 ……… 919
2006………. 920 ———-

If you are confused when you look at these figures…so was I.

Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton ’s presidency; when America wasn’t even involved in a war? And, I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!

These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those ‘facts’ which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth. Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?

The email goes on to link to an actual military documents and blithely tells you to go verify the numbers, if you want. (pdf)

Well, I did. The email is pulling those numbers out of Cheney's dark, polluted soul.

Here's the actual death figures of Active Duty Military for ALL the years, not just the ones this email selects. It's on page CRS-7 and CRS-8 (pages 10 and 11 of the pdf).

As you can see, the numbers under Clinton have undergone some revision. As in, some idiot Republican ran them through a Diebold machine.

Those are deaths from all causes, suicide, homicide, hostile action, terrorism, undetermined -- the whole lot. As you can see, the numbers drop steadily under Clinton. Truth be told, it's continuing a clear trend line from Reagan and Bush (the numbers bop around, especially for Operation Enduring Freedom in 1991, but you can draw a general slope).

But Dubya throws the numbers right up there again. And how did he do it? /

The story beneath the story is BUSH LIED, PEOPLE WERE MAIMED FOR LIFE.

The PDF shows that World War 2 had a 1:1.7 ratio of Death to Wounded. That means for every one death, 1.7 people were wounded.

Vietnam was 1:2.6.

Korea was 1:2.8.

Operation Iraqi Freedom, as of February 2007, was 1 .8. It's right there on page CRS-9 (page 12 of the pdf).

Those vets are coming back injured in the service of their country. Guess what Bush is doing to their health care?

He's got to get that budget balanced somehow.

So when your favorite Republican coworker flings this piece of elephant dung in your face, do you want some real fun? Here's a nice little question.

Guess how many people the military classified as dying due to Hostile Action during the entire eight years Bill Clinton was President?


They will start screaming Black Hawk Down!!!! The Somalia deaths was considered a terrorist attack by the military. TAKE IT UP WITH THEM. If they start yelling about how Clinton juggled the numbers, tell them that's where Reagan stuck the Lebanon Marines. There they are: 1983, all 241 of them. (the number says 263 because there were a few more throughout the year. If two more had died that day, it would have tied the first day of the Tet Offensive.)

Total deaths because of terrorist attacks under Bill Clinton? 76. All eight years. Including Somalia. Including Kosovo.

165 less than Reagan in a single day.

How many active duty died in Kosovo? ZERO. NADA. EL ZIPERINO, if you're not into that whole brevity thing.

Of course, Clinton didn't lie about Kosovo, did he? He lied about a sex act.


The email is a Total Lie, and links to an actual military document as if it proves their point. Wow. Just wow.
Read entry | Discuss (21 comments)
Posted by boloboffin in September 11
Tue Jan 01st 2008, 05:34 AM
This one is my very own. I noticed that Richard Gage and his gang of fruit loops weren't using the domain name, so I am.

I'm working on it slowly, very slowly. I'm only up to 28 slides out of over 300 hundred in that wretched PowerPoint of his. However, I was contacted by someone who knows Gage. I evidently popped up in a search engine. The gig is up, so the doors are open to the public.

Unlike Gage, I have no plans to plead for your money. Please save it for more worthy causes than myself. Enjoy!
Read entry | Discuss (182 comments)
Posted by boloboffin in National Security
Tue Dec 04th 2007, 03:38 PM
H.R 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, passed the House 404-6. It was then submitted to the Senate as S. 1959 with the same name.

This bill will do two things if enacted into law.

It first establishes a commission to produce a report on both the causes of violent radicalization and any appropriate legislative solutions to be able to frustrate this process. The commission is authorized to hold hearings, it is given a budget and permission to use the U.S. Postal Service, and it has 18 months to produce this report. Once the report is issued, the commission ceases to exist 30 days later.

It also establishes an Center of Excellence that will continue to study this problem for the Department of Homeland Security. Many COEs exist for many various reasons, and can be established by corporations, private individuals, or the government. Any COE authorized by the government must be authorized by Congress, which is why this bill exists.

The Center of Excellence is a research group and thus is usually administered by a university. This COE is no different.

The final part of the bill reads as follows:


`(a) In General- In carrying out this subtitle, the Secretary shall ensure that the efforts of the Department to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described in this subtitle do not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

`(b) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the commitment of the Department to racial neutrality.

`(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not result in a disproportionate impact, without a rational basis, on any particular race, ethnicity, or religion and include the results of its audit in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.

It is therefore specifically mandated in the bill that any legislative solution or action of the commission or COE must not violate the civil liberties and constitutional rights of any American citizen or legal permanent resident.

There are some problems with this bill. Both the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights have been monitoring its passage. From the ACLU:

The framework established by the measure will unavoidably make the focus of the commission the bill creates more likely to lead to unconstitutional restrictions on speech and belief – in addition to more appropriate restrictions on actions. Experience has demonstrated that the results of such a study will likely be used to recommend the use of racial, ethnic and religious profiling, in the event of a terrorist attack. We believe this approach to be counter-productive, and it will only heighten, rather than decrease, the spread of radicalization.

And the CCR:

If we are lucky, the commission will just be a way for Congress and committee members to have a few meetings in expensive hotels and work on their tan. However the greater fear should be the possible future outcomes of any report, which will focus in on passing additional federal criminal penalties that are sweeping and inclusive in criminalizing dissent and protest work more surveillance on thought rather than on actions. Further this bi-partisan attempt can set the ground for an even more acquiescent Congress to Presidential power, never wanting to look weak on terrorism.

The CCR's objections come down to three points: the phrase "extremist belief system", the emphasis on the Internet in the bill, and the word "force." Each approaches what the ACLU calls "unconstitutional restrictions on speech and belief."

The Senate committee considering this bill would do well to define "extremist belief system" and "force" in a way that makes it clear what is being isolated. People engaged in non-violent protests should not be considered terrorists for exercising their First Amendment rights. Many in Congress may feel that Section 899F quoted above guards against this well enough. However, a little extra effort in committee can defuse these two troublesome spots, and we should urge Congress to do so.

The last, emphasis on the Internet, is no doubt what has sparked the massive onslaught you have experienced against this bill.

No one can deny that the Internet is a tool, able to be used for good or ill. Its incredible power to bring people together and make information accessible has brought unparalleled good to our world, but it has also enabled terrorists to conduct their business on an unparalleled scale as well. This is undeniable.

However, we have been treated in the past few weeks to a deluge of hysterical rants, accusing this bill of incredible offenses against the American people. It will set up a Star Chamber, some say, judging people to be terrorists by any standard whatsoever. Write your Congressperson and threaten to withhold your vote and you shall be called a terrorist! Quakers and Al Gore could be arrested!

This bill has been painted as a bludgeon to completely silence dissent in the United States of America, and it simply is not. This bill is not becoming a part of the criminal code. It criminalizes no activity whatsoever. No agency is empowered to enforce any penalty at all.

Again and again I have asked people ranting about this bill to produce the specific language justifying such outrage. To date, no one has done so.

Indeed, this hysteria clouds the actual concerns about the bill. If the Congress is swamped with calls and letters ranting about the loss of civil liberties and they then actually read the bill, the objections will be seen as foolish and cast aside. There is a reason that the bill passed 404-6, and it is not that no one read it. They did.

It is PORK, ladies and gentlemen. It's an easy vote to take back home and say that Congress is doing something about terrorism. The ACLU is "working with senators to improve First Amendment and civil liberties protections in the Senate version of the legislation," and we should support them in this, not hinder them.

The bill seeks a way to frustrate terrorism while maintaining civil liberties. This is its plain, unforced meaning. If it can be done, it should be done. If the concerns of responsible organizations like the ACLU and the CCR can be met, then no one in America should fear the slightest slosh of tanning lotion that results from this bill.

I beg you to read this bill, realize the true problems with it, and respond with an appropriate level of concern. Chicken Little pronouncements only hurt the efforts to amend this bill.
Read entry | Discuss (10 comments)
Profile Information
Bolo Boffin
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
Joseph Nobles
Not a DU Donor
19471 posts
Member since 2002
I'm Joseph Nobles, a lifelong Democrat. @boloboffin is my Twitter feed
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
Random Journal
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.