Name: Jayson Blair
Publication: The New York Times
Busted: May 2003
Offense: The undisputed heavyweight champion of journalistic fakers did more than pilfer quotes from The Washington Post, borrow phrasing from the AP, and plagiarize The San Antonio Express-News (the event that solidified his downfall). When pressed for deadlines, Blair simply made up breaking stories. Among his best work was the front-page exclusive that claimed D.C. sniper suspect John Lee Malvo’s DNA had been identified on grape stems found near one of the crime scenes. In an interview with The New York Observer, Blair explained that his penchant for alcohol was one of the reasons he turned to fiction: “I was drunk on assignment.”
Cashing In: Literary agent David Vigliano is fielding book and movie offers for Blair, and reportedly is already showing publishers a sample chapter from Blair’s inevitable tell-all memoir. Ka-ching!
Name: Stephen Glass
Publication: The New Republic
Busted: May 1998
Offense: Glass became the young hot shot of the New Republic staff after a string of sensational stories, including a piece on The First Church of George Herbert Walker Christ, an expose on the immoral shenanigans taking place at a religious retreat, and a story on a group of investment bankers who had erected a shrine to Alan Greenspan in their office. The only problem: None of these events happened. An investigation turned up fabrications in 27 of Glass’ 41 bylined articles. Only after an editor forced Glass to take him to the site of one of his tall tales did the writer break down and admit his deceptions.
Cashing In: Glass earned a reported six-figures for his new Simon %26amp; Schuster novel (about a young hot shot reporter who makes up his best stories), The Fabulist. Glass also sold his story to Hollywood. Shattered Glass, starring Hayden Christensen in the title role, hits theatres this October.
Name: Janet Cooke
Publication: The Washington Post
Busted: April 1981
Offense: In late 1980, Cooke ran a heartbreaking story about “Jimmy,” an eight-year-old heroin addict. Alarmed activists demanded to know where the boy lived, so that he might be helped, but Cooke claimed that the boy’s life (as well as her own) would be endangered if she revealed her sources. The pressure to name the boy grew more intense when the story was awarded a coveted Pulitzer Prize. Finally, after a heated confrontation with her editors – during which the veracity of several academic credentials on her resume were also questioned – Cooke admitted that the whole story was made up.
Cashing In: Disgraced, Cooke left Washington and the world of writing. At first, the only job she could land was behind a fragrance counter in a department store. But after several years of reclusive living, Cooke sold her story to GQ, and later to Columbia Tri-Star Pictures for a reported $380,000
Name: Patricia Smith
Publication: The Boston Globe
Busted: June 1998
Offense: During what editors described as a “routine review” of Smith’s work, it was discovered that she had fabricated quotes in four recent columns. This shocking news came only weeks after Smith had been announced as a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. In a statement following her resignation, the chagrined columnist said, “From time to time in my metro column, to create the desired impact or slam home a salient point, I attributed quotes to people who didn’t exist.” Oops. The revelation prompted the American Society of Newspaper Editors to rescind an award they had given her earlier that year.
CASHING IN: Although her career as a journalist was destroyed by the scandal, Smith’s moonlighting gig as a poet went unharmed. Three volumes of her work have been released since the scandal, and all have sold well.
Name: Mike Barnicle
Publication: The Boston Globe
Busted: August 1998
Offense: After Patricia Smith was canned by the Globe, the paper announced that it would review the work of all their columnists, for good measure. Among those reviewed was Mike Barnicle, a controversial figure who had already settled a lawsuit with Alan Dershowitz over allegedly falsified quotes and been accused of plagiarism by Chicago Tribune columnist Mike Royko. The investigation found that Barnicle had lifted jokes verbatim from George Carlin’s book, Brain Droppings, copied passages from A.J. Liebling’s book, The Earl of Louisiana, and had invented key elements of a story about two cancer-stricken boys. Barnicle was fired after he refused to resign.
CASHING IN: Barnicle went on to become a weekly columnist for The New York Daily News. He is also a cable-TV staple, offering commentary and frequently guest-hosting Hardball with Chris Matthews.
Name: Michael Finkel
Publication: The New York Times Magazine
Busted: February 2002
Offense: In 2001, Finkel spent three weeks in the Congo investigating tales of child slave labor on plantations. The riveting article that trip produced, “Is Youssouf Male a Slave?” not only profiled a 14-year-old cocoa farm slave, but included a photograph of the boy. Nothing seemed out of place until a group called Save the Children claimed to have located the boy in the photo… and it wasn’t Youssouf Male. After first sticking by his story, Finkel eventually admitted that Male was a composite of many boys he had met on his trip. Even after his resignation from the Times, Finkel stuck by the facts of his story. “I didn’t want to inundate the readers with complexities and numbers. I wanted the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts and felt, wrongly, that a greater truth could emerge using this technique. I know that the article, at least in spirit, accurately reflects the situation among the young farm laborers of West Africa.”
Cashing In: Dropped from the Times, Finkel wasted no time in combining the story of his deception with the story of Christian Longo, a man who killed his wife, fled to Mexico, and then assumed the identity of “Michael Finkel, New York Times reporter.” The interweaving tales made for a great read, and HarperCollins bought Finkel’s manuscript for a reported $300,000.
Name: Christopher Newton
Publication: Associated Press
Busted: September 2002
Offense: Newton’s trail of journalistic trickery was uncovered after he wrote an article on declining crime rates that quoted two men, Bruce Fenmore of the Institute for Crime and Punishment in Chicago and Ralph Myers of Stanford University. When reporters from The New York Times and three other publications sought out these men for follow-up stories, it was discovered that neither man (nor the Chicago institute) existed. An AP investigation found similarly manufactured quotes in more than 40 of Newton’s other stories. Upon being confronted by his editors, Newton denied that any of his sources were made-up… and then resigned.
Cashing In:In America, anyone can cash in on their misfortune if they simply admit their wrongdoing with a marginally believable tone of contrition. But Newton seems to be taking the Pete Rose approach, saying, “I was not given an opportunity to account for the names of those people The AP did not find. I am pursuing the situation with an attorney. We have already located some of those people The AP says do not exist.”
Name: Tom Junod
Publication: Esquire
Busted: June 2001
Offense: Junod’s profile of REM lead-singer Michael Stipe raised eyebrows with the revelations that Stipe ate an entire dispenser of sugar during their meeting, chartered a limo for a five-hour ride to the Hoover dam, and incessantly sucked on pennies, which he often stuck to his eyelids. An uproar over the article forced Junod to admit that he made up large portions of his story. But this story doesn’t end like the others. Upon his revelation, Esquire chose to defend Junod, claiming that the farce was “given away” with a subtle sub-headline and claiming (rather unbelievably) that “in the first place, one of our duties is to amuse and entertain our audience.” Objective achieved… sort of.
Cashing In: The furor over Junod’s actions never slowed down his career. Or his attitude. Says Junod, “Hell, in order to make him a great mythic rock-’n’-roller, it’s almost as if you have to make half the story up. So that’s what I did.”
Name: Marcia Stepanek
Publication: BusinessWeek
Busted: January 2001
Offense: Stepanek, a 20-year veteran of the reporting scene, sabotaged her reputation when an article she filed for BusinessWeek about the company Pharmatrak bore more than a striking resemblance to a similar piece that ran months earlier in The Washington Post. Confronted by her bosses, Stepanek denied having ever read the Post story and blamed the similarities on sloppy notes. BusinessWeek was unsatisfied with her explanation, fired her, and ran a retraction that apologized for using “information and wording without proper attribution.”
Cashing In: The scandal hardly dented Stepanek’s career. Within three months of her dismissal, she was hired by Ziff-Davis as executive editor of CIO Insight, a position she still holds today.
Name: Julie Amparano
Publication: The Arizona Republic
Busted: August 1999
Offense: Amparano, who wrote three columns a week for the Republic, was canned for allegedly conjuring her sources from thin air. Amparano may have never been caught, but in a stunning lapse of judgment, she actually used one fake source (“Jennifer Morgan”) on multiple occasions. Despite the seemingly obvious transgression, Amparano firmly defended her actions, claiming, “I think this has been just very unfair to my name and credibility.” (No, really?). Amparano also claimed that the private investigator hired by the Republic couldn’t track down her sources because “they are real people, and real people are sometimes hard to find.”
Cashing In: Amparano left the Republic to become President and CEO of AmericanLatino.net, a website devoted to Hispanic news and issues. Despite rumors to the contrary, Jennifer Morgan is not a staff writer for that same publication.
What is your response to these journalists?
Every barrel of apples has one or two bad apples in it, and you have just named a couple of them.
Fortunately all reporters, and columnists are not like them, and try to report fairly, and accurately.
wallflower
Friday, July 31, 2009
There are no English requirements to speak of in this immigration bill?
Amnesty Si, English No
There are no English requirements to speak of in this immigration bill.
President Bush’s May 19 radio address on the Senate’s immigration bill was typical of the many recent White House tributes to the importance of English:
This legislation will also strengthen our efforts to help new immigrants assimilate. The key to unlocking the full promise of America is the ability to speak English. This bill affirms that English is the language of the United States. And it provides new opportunities for immigrants to learn English and embrace the shared ideals that bind us as a nation.
Unfortunately, this rhetoric is just so much hot air. If an illegal immigrant has not learned English, it is not because he has lacked the “opportunity” to do so. It might have something to do, however, with the fact that he has no need to — not even to apply for the amnesty that Bush is trying to defend. So let’s clarify some things about the nature of the English requirements in this immigration bill.
English is the language of the United States, except when it isn’t.
Section 702 of the bill states:
(b) ... Nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights under the laws of the United States relative to services or materials provided by the Government of the United States in any language other than English.
(c) Definition: For the purposes of this section, law is defined as including provisions of the United States Constitution, the United States Code, controlling judicial decisions, regulations, and Presidential Executive Orders.
This means that bilingual education continues, bilingual ballots continue, and, worst of all, Clinton Executive Order 13166 will be codified as the law of the land.
E.O. 13166 requires all recipients of federal funds to provide, upon request, all information and services in whatever language a person wants. E.O. 13166 would also apply to applicants for the Z (amnesty) visa. This means every single illegal alien who wishes to apply for amnesty may do so in any language of his choice.
There is no requirement that an illegal alien learn even a word of English before he can apply for amnesty.
White House staffer Kerrie Rushton claimed in “The Corner” last Friday that, included among the requirements for illegal aliens “to obtain a Z visa” was “agree[ing] to meet accelerated English and civics requirements.” That is false.
As for obtaining a Z visa, the bill states that “to be eligible for Z nonimmigrant status an alien shall meet the following and any other applicable requirements set forth in this section.” Those requirements are: (1) be physically present, (2) be here illegally, (3) be currently employed on the date of applying, (4) pay a processing fee of “no more than” $1,500, (5) pay a $1,000 penalty, (6) pay a $500 “state impact assistance fee,” (7) “appear to be interviewed” (not specified if in person or by telephone), and (8) be registered for the Military Selective Service, if of the required age.
There are certain English requirements for renewing a Z visa, which brings us to the next point.
Illegal aliens are required to demonstrate merely a modest knowledge of English — eight years after they first obtain amnesty.
As Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff (almost accurately) explained to the press on May 17: “They’ll have to learn English at the end of year eight.”
After eight years, Z visa holders will be allowed three tries to pass the “naturalization test,” whose English requirements are set by current law at an “elementary literacy level.”
Illegal aliens will not need to know English in order to learn that the U.S. government is begging them to apply for amnesty.
Page 280 of the bill, section (q), requires that information about the Z visa “be broadly disseminated, in no fewer than the top five principal languages, as determined by the Secretary in his discretion, spoken by aliens ... including to television, radio, and print media to which such aliens would have access.”
English fluency barely figures into calculations for “Merit Based Immigrants.”
Pages 240-241 of the bill describe the new point-system for “merit based immigrants”: English fluency earns, at maximum, 15 points; having “worked in agriculture for five years” earns 25 points.
One Congress cannot bind a future Congress.
Anything regarding the requirements for amnesty passed by this Congress can be undone by any future Congress. Given that the Senate immigration bill might mean 12 million, 20 million, or even more new citizens, who knows what future politicians might do to further endear themselves to the vastly increased “Hispanic vote”?
Even the modest English requirements asked of today’s illegal aliens will not kick in until eight years after the amnesty visas and Social Security numbers have been distributed. Eight years is an eternity in American politics. A future president just might decide that his political future would benefit if he could bless 20 million people with American citizenship, no questions asked.
The Inhofe amendment would remedy at least some of this mess.
Senator James Inhofe (R., Okla.) plans to offer an amendment to the immigration bill removing its codification of Clinton Executive Order 13166. (Full disclosure: the Inhofe amendment was endorsed by English First then and now.) The Inhofe amendment passed the Senate last year, 62-35. (The initial vote was 63-34, but Senator Mary Landrieu (D., La.) officially changed her vote for “yea” to “nay” one week after the vote.)
If the Bush Administration wants to prove it means what it is saying about assimilating today’s immigrants, President Bush should repeal Clinton Executive Order 13166 — he can do it with a stroke of the pen. As for why he hasn’t already done this, he could easily say that he received bad advice earlier (which he certainly did, as I documented here and here). Another trust-building gesture would be for the White House to stop playing games regarding the border fence.
Too many people believe — understandably — that Ted Kennedy, John McCain, and the National Council of La Raza are deciding America’s immigration policies. President Bush should strongly consider putting the Senate bill in a deep freeze and starting over, with more advice from his friends.
There are no English requirements to speak of in this immigration bill?
Long letter! The short answer is, no habla englasa! Keep um down on the farm!
Reply:Aprender idiomas debería ser decisión de cada uno. Aprender inglés es importante por muchas razones. Sin embargo no todos pueden aprender inglés fácilmente.
Learning languages should be a personal choice. It is important to learn English for many reasons. However not everybody can learn English easily.
Reply:there are already laws requiring english to be learned, the whole bill sucks. need to stop all imigration for now, we need to clean up and out our country first, after all we the people should be able to have a voice in such a srious matter
Reply:What would you suggest? How about financial support for widespread English as a foreign language classes.
Reply:My personal favorite is the $1500 max impact fee for a family. It cost us 10K to educate a student per year. This bill is so full of loop holes in the illegals favor and the people know it. that is why they are pissed. The Senate picked the wrong topic to screw over the American public with .
Reply:I agree here, the two main problems I have with Latinos are; the lack of English, and not paying taxes. All else does not bother me.
Reply:People in the United States speak English, and it's the language all immigrants learn to speak. Making it "official" isn't going to change ANYthing. Sorry.
Reply:in 2 yrs the USA wil be spanish speaking. This is sad
There are no English requirements to speak of in this immigration bill.
President Bush’s May 19 radio address on the Senate’s immigration bill was typical of the many recent White House tributes to the importance of English:
This legislation will also strengthen our efforts to help new immigrants assimilate. The key to unlocking the full promise of America is the ability to speak English. This bill affirms that English is the language of the United States. And it provides new opportunities for immigrants to learn English and embrace the shared ideals that bind us as a nation.
Unfortunately, this rhetoric is just so much hot air. If an illegal immigrant has not learned English, it is not because he has lacked the “opportunity” to do so. It might have something to do, however, with the fact that he has no need to — not even to apply for the amnesty that Bush is trying to defend. So let’s clarify some things about the nature of the English requirements in this immigration bill.
English is the language of the United States, except when it isn’t.
Section 702 of the bill states:
(b) ... Nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights under the laws of the United States relative to services or materials provided by the Government of the United States in any language other than English.
(c) Definition: For the purposes of this section, law is defined as including provisions of the United States Constitution, the United States Code, controlling judicial decisions, regulations, and Presidential Executive Orders.
This means that bilingual education continues, bilingual ballots continue, and, worst of all, Clinton Executive Order 13166 will be codified as the law of the land.
E.O. 13166 requires all recipients of federal funds to provide, upon request, all information and services in whatever language a person wants. E.O. 13166 would also apply to applicants for the Z (amnesty) visa. This means every single illegal alien who wishes to apply for amnesty may do so in any language of his choice.
There is no requirement that an illegal alien learn even a word of English before he can apply for amnesty.
White House staffer Kerrie Rushton claimed in “The Corner” last Friday that, included among the requirements for illegal aliens “to obtain a Z visa” was “agree[ing] to meet accelerated English and civics requirements.” That is false.
As for obtaining a Z visa, the bill states that “to be eligible for Z nonimmigrant status an alien shall meet the following and any other applicable requirements set forth in this section.” Those requirements are: (1) be physically present, (2) be here illegally, (3) be currently employed on the date of applying, (4) pay a processing fee of “no more than” $1,500, (5) pay a $1,000 penalty, (6) pay a $500 “state impact assistance fee,” (7) “appear to be interviewed” (not specified if in person or by telephone), and (8) be registered for the Military Selective Service, if of the required age.
There are certain English requirements for renewing a Z visa, which brings us to the next point.
Illegal aliens are required to demonstrate merely a modest knowledge of English — eight years after they first obtain amnesty.
As Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff (almost accurately) explained to the press on May 17: “They’ll have to learn English at the end of year eight.”
After eight years, Z visa holders will be allowed three tries to pass the “naturalization test,” whose English requirements are set by current law at an “elementary literacy level.”
Illegal aliens will not need to know English in order to learn that the U.S. government is begging them to apply for amnesty.
Page 280 of the bill, section (q), requires that information about the Z visa “be broadly disseminated, in no fewer than the top five principal languages, as determined by the Secretary in his discretion, spoken by aliens ... including to television, radio, and print media to which such aliens would have access.”
English fluency barely figures into calculations for “Merit Based Immigrants.”
Pages 240-241 of the bill describe the new point-system for “merit based immigrants”: English fluency earns, at maximum, 15 points; having “worked in agriculture for five years” earns 25 points.
One Congress cannot bind a future Congress.
Anything regarding the requirements for amnesty passed by this Congress can be undone by any future Congress. Given that the Senate immigration bill might mean 12 million, 20 million, or even more new citizens, who knows what future politicians might do to further endear themselves to the vastly increased “Hispanic vote”?
Even the modest English requirements asked of today’s illegal aliens will not kick in until eight years after the amnesty visas and Social Security numbers have been distributed. Eight years is an eternity in American politics. A future president just might decide that his political future would benefit if he could bless 20 million people with American citizenship, no questions asked.
The Inhofe amendment would remedy at least some of this mess.
Senator James Inhofe (R., Okla.) plans to offer an amendment to the immigration bill removing its codification of Clinton Executive Order 13166. (Full disclosure: the Inhofe amendment was endorsed by English First then and now.) The Inhofe amendment passed the Senate last year, 62-35. (The initial vote was 63-34, but Senator Mary Landrieu (D., La.) officially changed her vote for “yea” to “nay” one week after the vote.)
If the Bush Administration wants to prove it means what it is saying about assimilating today’s immigrants, President Bush should repeal Clinton Executive Order 13166 — he can do it with a stroke of the pen. As for why he hasn’t already done this, he could easily say that he received bad advice earlier (which he certainly did, as I documented here and here). Another trust-building gesture would be for the White House to stop playing games regarding the border fence.
Too many people believe — understandably — that Ted Kennedy, John McCain, and the National Council of La Raza are deciding America’s immigration policies. President Bush should strongly consider putting the Senate bill in a deep freeze and starting over, with more advice from his friends.
There are no English requirements to speak of in this immigration bill?
Long letter! The short answer is, no habla englasa! Keep um down on the farm!
Reply:Aprender idiomas debería ser decisión de cada uno. Aprender inglés es importante por muchas razones. Sin embargo no todos pueden aprender inglés fácilmente.
Learning languages should be a personal choice. It is important to learn English for many reasons. However not everybody can learn English easily.
Reply:there are already laws requiring english to be learned, the whole bill sucks. need to stop all imigration for now, we need to clean up and out our country first, after all we the people should be able to have a voice in such a srious matter
Reply:What would you suggest? How about financial support for widespread English as a foreign language classes.
Reply:My personal favorite is the $1500 max impact fee for a family. It cost us 10K to educate a student per year. This bill is so full of loop holes in the illegals favor and the people know it. that is why they are pissed. The Senate picked the wrong topic to screw over the American public with .
Reply:I agree here, the two main problems I have with Latinos are; the lack of English, and not paying taxes. All else does not bother me.
Reply:People in the United States speak English, and it's the language all immigrants learn to speak. Making it "official" isn't going to change ANYthing. Sorry.
Reply:in 2 yrs the USA wil be spanish speaking. This is sad
Are Americans finally being heard on the hill?
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satell...
Is the will of "We the people" finally going to to hold sway on immigration into America?
WASHINGTON
The House and the Senate moved yesterday toward a piecemeal crackdown on illegal immigration, pushing forward separate bills to require photo identification to vote, build fences on the U.S.-Mexico border and speed the deportation of undocumented workers. The bills would take the place of President Bush's far broader rewrite of the nation's immigration laws.
Voting almost completely along party lines, the House voted 228-196 for a bill that would require all who register to vote in federal elections to show photo identification that proves that they are U.S. citizens.
The Senate, meanwhile, voted 94-0 to take up a bill passed by the House last week to build 700 miles of double-layered fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border, with a final vote to come as early as Monday.
Today, the House is scheduled to take up bills to speed up the deportation of illegal immigrants, ratchet up penalties for immigrant gang members and human smugglers, end an exemption for Salvadoran illegal immigrants from rapid deportation, make it a crime to tunnel under the border, and overtly deputize state and local police officers to enforce federal immigration laws.
In an interview on CNN, Bush said he would sign the legislation, even though it does not embrace a more comprehensive approach - including a guest-worker program - that he has backed.
"Yes, I'll sign it into law," he said. "I would view this as an interim step. I don't view this as a final product."
Passage of the legislation - should it occur - would permit leaders of the Republican-controlled Congress to claim they have taken steps to deal with the flood of illegal immigrants. It is an issue that has rent the party, spawned demonstrations in many cities last spring, and called into question the Republicans' ability to face tough issues.
"Border security is national security," said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Rules Committee, with House GOP leaders by his side. "We're going to try our daggonest to enact as many of these bills as we can."
With little more than a week left before the Sept. 29 start of Congress's scheduled recess, GOP leaders are considering appending some or all of the bills to a must-pass spending bill before they leave town. But Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., the Appropriations Committee chairman, appeared to close off that avenue last night, saying he will not add any legislative language onto the spending bills that could slow their progress in the final days before the coming recess.
The sudden rush of activity startled immigrant and civil-rights groups, which had largely thought a legislative response on illegal immigration was dead for the year. The National Immigration Law Center sent out an "urgent" notice to allies to prod them into action, saying, "In recent days, there has been a serious deterioration of the position of pro-immigrant forces in Congress."
The legislators' embrace of a piecemeal approach came as members of a private task force on immigration repeated its belief that a comprehensive solution is necessary to solve the nation's problems with illegal immigration. The task force's plan includes strong border enforcement and a program that allows illegal immigrants already in the country to stay by paying a stiff fine.
But it also proposes that the president and Congress establish two federal organizations that would regulate the flow of immigrants and help them assimilate into society. Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., who was a co-chairman of the Migration Policy Institute task force with former Sen. Spencer Abraham, R-Mich., said that the House's approach is too draconian against illegal immigrants, and a Senate bill approved in May is too complex.
Most of the provisions in the bills the legislators are now considering were plucked from the House's border-security and anti-illegal-immigration bill that passed in December, then prompted protests this spring that brought millions of illegal immigrants into the streets. But Republicans say that the politics of illegal immigration have shifted in favor of their get-tough approach. Even some Republicans who have backed Bush's approach, such as Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., said yesterday that the shift among voters in favor of "enforcement first" is palpable.
"While I've made it clear that I prefer a comprehensive solution, I have always said we need an enforcement-first approach to immigration reform," said Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., the majority leader, who surprised many immigration-rights activists when he took up the House border-fencing bill.
Cecilia Munoz, the vice president of the National Council of La Raza, said that Republicans "are politically playing with fire" with Hispanic voters, who gave 40 percent of their vote to Bush in 2004.
The rhetoric in the House yesterday was particularly heated, with a stream of black and Hispanic Democrats taking to the floor to denounce a voter-ID bill that they called a "modern-day poll tax" intended to disenfranchise minority, elderly and disabled voters who lean Democratic.
Are Americans finally being heard on the hill?
I want to see these passed into law,I'm tired of pre election promises.I think that the way we all vote in November will decide what if any of theses bills will become law.They are on recess now right so there will be no action taken until after the election.If we that oppose illegals don't make our votes heard loudly by those in Washington it will be the same old BS that its always been.We must send a message to the politicians that if they don't get the borders secured and ASAP that they will be among the unemployed.We hire and we can fire them.Get out the vote.I will be ferrying people that don't have a way to the poles,I will pick them up and take them home .Think about doing that in your city.We must be heard.
No amnesty
Secure our nations borders
NOW
bubba if you don't like long questions don't answer them,its a good post
Reply:Yes.
Reply:Let's see what happens in the Senate. I am particularly watching to see if the fence both passes and is FUNDED and if local law enforcement is reaffirmed as being able to enforce immigration law (something the House passed today). I also want to see what the Democrats do with the voter's ID law, but I suspect they will not let that be taken up before elections.
We'll see.
The news is good so far as it goes, though!
Reply:No, unfortunately they are just blowing smoke!
Reply:Wonderful reading, thanks
Now, I will be thrilled when we see the illegals leaving by the thousands....that will be our day of celebration.
Those on the Hill better believe that we are the ones to be heard and continue to "stun" La Raza with their actions. This isn't mexico....we do not submit to mexico...we are America!
Reply:they don't care the tax payers
Reply:First of all neither party is going to do anything before the elections because of the Hispanic vote. It is pretty sad when the people we elect to represent us are afraid of one group of people. It is sadly the Republicans who again are bowing to these people not Democrates. The Democrates do not have to bow to them because they have all ready given them everything they asked for. Also may I make a suggestion? The next time ask a question not give a commentary.
Reply:no just election year bs.congress can pass anything they want because they the senate will not.after the election both parties wil forget all about immigration
Reply:Wow. I was surprised that it was mostly republican, because I think it's the poor, disabled, etc that have to compete with the illegals for every scrap. Good to know.
Reply:Be more concise. Your question rables on and on and on and on and on and on. If it is a question. I could read the article myself if you provided the link. Blah Blah Blah
Reply:It's all about the votes.
Is the will of "We the people" finally going to to hold sway on immigration into America?
WASHINGTON
The House and the Senate moved yesterday toward a piecemeal crackdown on illegal immigration, pushing forward separate bills to require photo identification to vote, build fences on the U.S.-Mexico border and speed the deportation of undocumented workers. The bills would take the place of President Bush's far broader rewrite of the nation's immigration laws.
Voting almost completely along party lines, the House voted 228-196 for a bill that would require all who register to vote in federal elections to show photo identification that proves that they are U.S. citizens.
The Senate, meanwhile, voted 94-0 to take up a bill passed by the House last week to build 700 miles of double-layered fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border, with a final vote to come as early as Monday.
Today, the House is scheduled to take up bills to speed up the deportation of illegal immigrants, ratchet up penalties for immigrant gang members and human smugglers, end an exemption for Salvadoran illegal immigrants from rapid deportation, make it a crime to tunnel under the border, and overtly deputize state and local police officers to enforce federal immigration laws.
In an interview on CNN, Bush said he would sign the legislation, even though it does not embrace a more comprehensive approach - including a guest-worker program - that he has backed.
"Yes, I'll sign it into law," he said. "I would view this as an interim step. I don't view this as a final product."
Passage of the legislation - should it occur - would permit leaders of the Republican-controlled Congress to claim they have taken steps to deal with the flood of illegal immigrants. It is an issue that has rent the party, spawned demonstrations in many cities last spring, and called into question the Republicans' ability to face tough issues.
"Border security is national security," said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Rules Committee, with House GOP leaders by his side. "We're going to try our daggonest to enact as many of these bills as we can."
With little more than a week left before the Sept. 29 start of Congress's scheduled recess, GOP leaders are considering appending some or all of the bills to a must-pass spending bill before they leave town. But Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., the Appropriations Committee chairman, appeared to close off that avenue last night, saying he will not add any legislative language onto the spending bills that could slow their progress in the final days before the coming recess.
The sudden rush of activity startled immigrant and civil-rights groups, which had largely thought a legislative response on illegal immigration was dead for the year. The National Immigration Law Center sent out an "urgent" notice to allies to prod them into action, saying, "In recent days, there has been a serious deterioration of the position of pro-immigrant forces in Congress."
The legislators' embrace of a piecemeal approach came as members of a private task force on immigration repeated its belief that a comprehensive solution is necessary to solve the nation's problems with illegal immigration. The task force's plan includes strong border enforcement and a program that allows illegal immigrants already in the country to stay by paying a stiff fine.
But it also proposes that the president and Congress establish two federal organizations that would regulate the flow of immigrants and help them assimilate into society. Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., who was a co-chairman of the Migration Policy Institute task force with former Sen. Spencer Abraham, R-Mich., said that the House's approach is too draconian against illegal immigrants, and a Senate bill approved in May is too complex.
Most of the provisions in the bills the legislators are now considering were plucked from the House's border-security and anti-illegal-immigration bill that passed in December, then prompted protests this spring that brought millions of illegal immigrants into the streets. But Republicans say that the politics of illegal immigration have shifted in favor of their get-tough approach. Even some Republicans who have backed Bush's approach, such as Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., said yesterday that the shift among voters in favor of "enforcement first" is palpable.
"While I've made it clear that I prefer a comprehensive solution, I have always said we need an enforcement-first approach to immigration reform," said Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., the majority leader, who surprised many immigration-rights activists when he took up the House border-fencing bill.
Cecilia Munoz, the vice president of the National Council of La Raza, said that Republicans "are politically playing with fire" with Hispanic voters, who gave 40 percent of their vote to Bush in 2004.
The rhetoric in the House yesterday was particularly heated, with a stream of black and Hispanic Democrats taking to the floor to denounce a voter-ID bill that they called a "modern-day poll tax" intended to disenfranchise minority, elderly and disabled voters who lean Democratic.
Are Americans finally being heard on the hill?
I want to see these passed into law,I'm tired of pre election promises.I think that the way we all vote in November will decide what if any of theses bills will become law.They are on recess now right so there will be no action taken until after the election.If we that oppose illegals don't make our votes heard loudly by those in Washington it will be the same old BS that its always been.We must send a message to the politicians that if they don't get the borders secured and ASAP that they will be among the unemployed.We hire and we can fire them.Get out the vote.I will be ferrying people that don't have a way to the poles,I will pick them up and take them home .Think about doing that in your city.We must be heard.
No amnesty
Secure our nations borders
NOW
bubba if you don't like long questions don't answer them,its a good post
Reply:Yes.
Reply:Let's see what happens in the Senate. I am particularly watching to see if the fence both passes and is FUNDED and if local law enforcement is reaffirmed as being able to enforce immigration law (something the House passed today). I also want to see what the Democrats do with the voter's ID law, but I suspect they will not let that be taken up before elections.
We'll see.
The news is good so far as it goes, though!
Reply:No, unfortunately they are just blowing smoke!
Reply:Wonderful reading, thanks
Now, I will be thrilled when we see the illegals leaving by the thousands....that will be our day of celebration.
Those on the Hill better believe that we are the ones to be heard and continue to "stun" La Raza with their actions. This isn't mexico....we do not submit to mexico...we are America!
Reply:they don't care the tax payers
Reply:First of all neither party is going to do anything before the elections because of the Hispanic vote. It is pretty sad when the people we elect to represent us are afraid of one group of people. It is sadly the Republicans who again are bowing to these people not Democrates. The Democrates do not have to bow to them because they have all ready given them everything they asked for. Also may I make a suggestion? The next time ask a question not give a commentary.
Reply:no just election year bs.congress can pass anything they want because they the senate will not.after the election both parties wil forget all about immigration
Reply:Wow. I was surprised that it was mostly republican, because I think it's the poor, disabled, etc that have to compete with the illegals for every scrap. Good to know.
Reply:Be more concise. Your question rables on and on and on and on and on and on. If it is a question. I could read the article myself if you provided the link. Blah Blah Blah
Reply:It's all about the votes.
Im looking for 100 answers...could you help me out?
Hi, I'm doing a project for my mental health class in school, and I'm talking about suicide related to depression. I have to interview 100 people, so this seemed a good idea!
So could you please answer this?
Have you ever:
A. Been severely depressed
B. Thought of suicide
C. Attempted suicide
D.Been treated for depression
E. No depression
Thanks for all your help!
I'll post the stats if the question becomes successful!
Im looking for 100 answers...could you help me out?
A... yes (quite a bit last year)
B... no
C... no (I don't think I could even if I wanted to ... someone close did when I was a child, it wasn't pretty)
D... yes (took an anti depressant for several months last year)
E... doing just fine now =D
# 42 ... just 58 to go! Good luck! =)
Reply:............ no sorry, i don't do these "i'd like x amount of answers" thing.....................
*drat!!!* I just answered. *sighs* oh well, might as well take your survey.
At the expense of what's left of my reputation and some more friends.... here i go:
A: Yes
B. Yes
C. Yes
D. Yes
E. n/a (as A-D were answered 'yes').
Peace like hair grease. Hope you do well in class. Good Luck Honey.
♥
Reply:A
B
C
and
D
I was A in 1994 and at various stages during the following years, B in 1995, 2002, C 1995 and 1997 and 2002, D for 14 years (1994 - 2008).
Diagnosed with Bi-Polar II in 2004, and recently diagnosed with Schizoaffective disorder after another psychosis episode in 2007, for more very helpful information and case-studies go to this link - http://www.rethink.org/how_we_can_help/o... you'll be amazed.
Reply:uh...E...
but i was really sad after i found out that one of my all time favorite contacts was leaving on vacation for god know how long...no idea when their coming back or anything...
does that count as like.....retarded? i feel so dumb....
but no thoughts of suicide or anythin' else...hoped i helped...i starred if anything...(((good luck))
Reply:A.Not severly
B.Yes,I'm sure veryone has thought of suicide before.
C.Nopers.
D.Nope,I'm onyl depressed at a certain point I go through every year.
E.I'm inbetween.
=)
Reply:Have you ever:
A. Been severely depressed-yes
B. Thought of suicide-no
C. Attempted suicide-no
D.Been treated for depression-yes
E. No depression-no
Reply:A. Been severely depressed-yes
B. Thought of suicide-yes
C. Attempted suicide-no
D.Been treated for depression-no
E. No depression-no
xxxxxxxxxx
Reply:A- I've never been depressed
B- Never thought of suicide
C- Never attempted suicide
D- I haven't been treated for depression
E- No depression xD
Reply:A. Well there was a certain time in my life where I was really sad so yes :(
B. Never, because even if you're going thru the worst you got to keep on :)
C. Never
D. Nope
I wish you good luck with your project :)
Reply:E
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
Reply:A. Yes, Been severely depressed
B. Yes, Thought of suicide
C. no
D.Yes, Been treated for depression
E. n/a
Reply:A. yes because of my parents
B. a lot of times
C. I wanted to over does on unprescribed pills but didn't have the balls to do it
D. nope
Reply:A - Yes
B - Yes, many times
C - No
D - Yes - still undergoing treatment
E - No
Reply:A. Yes
B. Yes
C. No
D. No
E. um... No--see A %26amp; B
But that was mainly as a teenager... most people I think go through phases of thinking of suicide unless they had everything going for them in high school
Reply:E
theres nothing to be depressed about
Reply:A- yes.but not SEVERLY.just depressed.
B- Yes
C- ermm..not really.
D- no, unfortunatley
E- doest apply to me.
Reply:E. No depression.
Reply:annoyingly i don't fit into any of those catagory's i occasionally suffer from mild self limiting depression but never been treated.
so E is the closest I guess
Reply:I am on anti depressants at the moment....
Good luck with your 100 answers but these questions normally get pulled long before then....
Reply:Hi!!
A) erm... not really,, only for VERY short periods of time...
B) Yes,, but never very seriously
C) No.
D) no
E) No.
hope that helps!
Reply:B .. yes every normal person thinks about suicide
E ... i have been midly depressed :)
Reply:Yes,
A, most of all, becuase of *unknown name*. He is a celebrity.
Reply:No depression
Reply:No depression
Reply:No Depression.
Reply:F: mildly depressed...vitamin B6 helped big time, guess I had deficiency of it♥
Reply:a. yes
b. no
c. NO WAY
d. no
e. yes depression
glade i could help.
Reply:E. No depression
Reply:E. No depression
Reply:A. yes
b, yes
c. no
d. yes
e. no
Reply:Pretty much E.
There was one time when I was like REALLY sad but I don't think I would have done anything.
So could you please answer this?
Have you ever:
A. Been severely depressed
B. Thought of suicide
C. Attempted suicide
D.Been treated for depression
E. No depression
Thanks for all your help!
I'll post the stats if the question becomes successful!
Im looking for 100 answers...could you help me out?
A... yes (quite a bit last year)
B... no
C... no (I don't think I could even if I wanted to ... someone close did when I was a child, it wasn't pretty)
D... yes (took an anti depressant for several months last year)
E... doing just fine now =D
# 42 ... just 58 to go! Good luck! =)
Reply:............ no sorry, i don't do these "i'd like x amount of answers" thing.....................
*drat!!!* I just answered. *sighs* oh well, might as well take your survey.
At the expense of what's left of my reputation and some more friends.... here i go:
A: Yes
B. Yes
C. Yes
D. Yes
E. n/a (as A-D were answered 'yes').
Peace like hair grease. Hope you do well in class. Good Luck Honey.
♥
Reply:A
B
C
and
D
I was A in 1994 and at various stages during the following years, B in 1995, 2002, C 1995 and 1997 and 2002, D for 14 years (1994 - 2008).
Diagnosed with Bi-Polar II in 2004, and recently diagnosed with Schizoaffective disorder after another psychosis episode in 2007, for more very helpful information and case-studies go to this link - http://www.rethink.org/how_we_can_help/o... you'll be amazed.
Reply:uh...E...
but i was really sad after i found out that one of my all time favorite contacts was leaving on vacation for god know how long...no idea when their coming back or anything...
does that count as like.....retarded? i feel so dumb....
but no thoughts of suicide or anythin' else...hoped i helped...i starred if anything...(((good luck))
Reply:A.Not severly
B.Yes,I'm sure veryone has thought of suicide before.
C.Nopers.
D.Nope,I'm onyl depressed at a certain point I go through every year.
E.I'm inbetween.
=)
Reply:Have you ever:
A. Been severely depressed-yes
B. Thought of suicide-no
C. Attempted suicide-no
D.Been treated for depression-yes
E. No depression-no
Reply:A. Been severely depressed-yes
B. Thought of suicide-yes
C. Attempted suicide-no
D.Been treated for depression-no
E. No depression-no
xxxxxxxxxx
Reply:A- I've never been depressed
B- Never thought of suicide
C- Never attempted suicide
D- I haven't been treated for depression
E- No depression xD
Reply:A. Well there was a certain time in my life where I was really sad so yes :(
B. Never, because even if you're going thru the worst you got to keep on :)
C. Never
D. Nope
I wish you good luck with your project :)
Reply:E
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
Reply:A. Yes, Been severely depressed
B. Yes, Thought of suicide
C. no
D.Yes, Been treated for depression
E. n/a
Reply:A. yes because of my parents
B. a lot of times
C. I wanted to over does on unprescribed pills but didn't have the balls to do it
D. nope
Reply:A - Yes
B - Yes, many times
C - No
D - Yes - still undergoing treatment
E - No
Reply:A. Yes
B. Yes
C. No
D. No
E. um... No--see A %26amp; B
But that was mainly as a teenager... most people I think go through phases of thinking of suicide unless they had everything going for them in high school
Reply:E
theres nothing to be depressed about
Reply:A- yes.but not SEVERLY.just depressed.
B- Yes
C- ermm..not really.
D- no, unfortunatley
E- doest apply to me.
Reply:E. No depression.
Reply:annoyingly i don't fit into any of those catagory's i occasionally suffer from mild self limiting depression but never been treated.
so E is the closest I guess
Reply:I am on anti depressants at the moment....
Good luck with your 100 answers but these questions normally get pulled long before then....
Reply:Hi!!
A) erm... not really,, only for VERY short periods of time...
B) Yes,, but never very seriously
C) No.
D) no
E) No.
hope that helps!
Reply:B .. yes every normal person thinks about suicide
E ... i have been midly depressed :)
Reply:Yes,
A, most of all, becuase of *unknown name*. He is a celebrity.
Reply:No depression
Reply:No depression
Reply:No Depression.
Reply:F: mildly depressed...vitamin B6 helped big time, guess I had deficiency of it♥
Reply:a. yes
b. no
c. NO WAY
d. no
e. yes depression
glade i could help.
Reply:E. No depression
Reply:E. No depression
Reply:A. yes
b, yes
c. no
d. yes
e. no
Reply:Pretty much E.
There was one time when I was like REALLY sad but I don't think I would have done anything.
Vindictive boss?
After 5 years at my job, some stuff came up in my life that caused me to give my notice. I gave her a month's notice, and she shortened it to 2 weeks and so that it lands on my birthday (temper tantrum on her part). She's been extremely rude and has taken what I've done very personally. Her little comments about my work ability and my choices in my life are not welcome nor appreciated anymore. We used to be pretty close, but I have lost all respect for her and she has hurt me very badly. I will not get this close to people in the workplace again (duh).
However, my question is, do I bust my butt to get everything caught up? I started a "how to" book, but I don't even really want to do that anymore. Or do I just let it go? Do what I can, but not worry about the rest? I don't want to stoop to her level, so....
I don't want to talk to her about it either, b/c she'll make my life a living hell for the last week I'm here. I plan to mention it in the exit interview though.
Vindictive boss?
She's really immature. She should be sorry to see you go, but wish you well and be happy for you.
I have always tried to get everything done before leaving a job because that's just how I am. I can tell you are the same way. It would be so tempting to say "Screw it" and just do the minimum to get by. I honestly think, though that I would go ahead and do the best I could. Don't give her any ammunition. When you mention her behavior at your exit interview they will most likely talk to her. You don't want her to be able to say you were lazy and didn't do anything your last two weeks. I would want to be able to say I did my best and that SHE was unprofessional.
Good luck in your new job!
Reply:Just do what you can...think about it...you will not get a decent reference from this person anyway...so why create more stress for yourself...call in sick on the last day...she is planning a humiliation for you....
Reply:Get a hold of your human resources department, that is what they are there for.
Reply:Whatever you do finish any job that would cause you to look insufficient..The new employer will call and ask her about your work.I do believe that the only question they are able to ask is are you re-employable at their company.Did you ever bring up any of your grudges to her?I would have, to have a record.Get a copy of your employee record to take with you.That way they can see you evaluations and raises with all comments.Good idea to leave, no one can work with stress...
Reply:It's unfortunate, but it does happen. The best thing and least stress option for you is to let it go. Move on. I know it's hard to understand, but I don't believe it will help in the exit interview. You have two choices, make it a big deal, or let it roll off your back. Of course these choices are hugely difficult, don't get me wrong. But to decide what to do, look down the road at the decisions you could choose. It's pretty easy to see where they'll take you. Example. Option 1 - Do your best to keep movin on as normal - this will keep your blood pressure down, your boss may lay off more, being that your not reacting. Option 2 - Confront your boss - worst case, your boss continues doing what she's/he's doing, and you need to last the week. Or your boss backs off a bit.
Your options aren't easy, but they are clear. I wish you best of luck.
Reply:ask urself.
hollyhock
However, my question is, do I bust my butt to get everything caught up? I started a "how to" book, but I don't even really want to do that anymore. Or do I just let it go? Do what I can, but not worry about the rest? I don't want to stoop to her level, so....
I don't want to talk to her about it either, b/c she'll make my life a living hell for the last week I'm here. I plan to mention it in the exit interview though.
Vindictive boss?
She's really immature. She should be sorry to see you go, but wish you well and be happy for you.
I have always tried to get everything done before leaving a job because that's just how I am. I can tell you are the same way. It would be so tempting to say "Screw it" and just do the minimum to get by. I honestly think, though that I would go ahead and do the best I could. Don't give her any ammunition. When you mention her behavior at your exit interview they will most likely talk to her. You don't want her to be able to say you were lazy and didn't do anything your last two weeks. I would want to be able to say I did my best and that SHE was unprofessional.
Good luck in your new job!
Reply:Just do what you can...think about it...you will not get a decent reference from this person anyway...so why create more stress for yourself...call in sick on the last day...she is planning a humiliation for you....
Reply:Get a hold of your human resources department, that is what they are there for.
Reply:Whatever you do finish any job that would cause you to look insufficient..The new employer will call and ask her about your work.I do believe that the only question they are able to ask is are you re-employable at their company.Did you ever bring up any of your grudges to her?I would have, to have a record.Get a copy of your employee record to take with you.That way they can see you evaluations and raises with all comments.Good idea to leave, no one can work with stress...
Reply:It's unfortunate, but it does happen. The best thing and least stress option for you is to let it go. Move on. I know it's hard to understand, but I don't believe it will help in the exit interview. You have two choices, make it a big deal, or let it roll off your back. Of course these choices are hugely difficult, don't get me wrong. But to decide what to do, look down the road at the decisions you could choose. It's pretty easy to see where they'll take you. Example. Option 1 - Do your best to keep movin on as normal - this will keep your blood pressure down, your boss may lay off more, being that your not reacting. Option 2 - Confront your boss - worst case, your boss continues doing what she's/he's doing, and you need to last the week. Or your boss backs off a bit.
Your options aren't easy, but they are clear. I wish you best of luck.
Reply:ask urself.
hollyhock
When is it appropriate to tell a prospective employer...?
A friend asked me for advice but I do not know how to answer her. She is currently in C.A. for school and has been looking for a job since March. She applied for a job at a homecare facility. She was told that they are checking on her references. Now heres the fun part. She will be coming home to Hawaii in Dec. for 3 weeks. I asked if she would be willing to stay in CA or cut her vacation short if the job hires her. But she refuses. She keeps saying that this is her only free time between semesters - she wont be able to come home for even the summer. She is 27 years old - I told her that it doesnt look well if she isnt willing to compromise. Most places arent willing to train someone just for that person to go on vacation. I have a feeling that this job is looking for someone to cover the holidays. Now the question is - when she should tell the employer about her vacation plans? Should she tell them during the interview or when she gets offered the job?
When is it appropriate to tell a prospective employer...?
When she's offered the job. If a company wants her they'll be willing to work with her schedule.
Reply:Do you work for this employer as well? Do you know her well enough to attest to how responsible she is? It sounds like she might be a bit irresponsible and selfish which may not bode well in her new career. Remember that if you recommended her, and she performs poorly, it will be reflected upon you. So it may behoove you to bring it up to the employer. Don't rat on her, just bring up her strengths and weaknesses. If you are not related to the employer, then I would not get involved. She will have to deal with her own career and if she makes poor choices, she will have to deal with the consequences. Some people just have to learn on their own.
Reply:When she gets the job offer. Most places that plan on hiring someone are understanding if someone already has plans set up before the job comes along.
Reply:Personally, I would tell them during the interview.
Reply:Morrally she should tell them right away.
I wouldn't tell them at all if I wanted to get paid.
When is it appropriate to tell a prospective employer...?
When she's offered the job. If a company wants her they'll be willing to work with her schedule.
Reply:Do you work for this employer as well? Do you know her well enough to attest to how responsible she is? It sounds like she might be a bit irresponsible and selfish which may not bode well in her new career. Remember that if you recommended her, and she performs poorly, it will be reflected upon you. So it may behoove you to bring it up to the employer. Don't rat on her, just bring up her strengths and weaknesses. If you are not related to the employer, then I would not get involved. She will have to deal with her own career and if she makes poor choices, she will have to deal with the consequences. Some people just have to learn on their own.
Reply:When she gets the job offer. Most places that plan on hiring someone are understanding if someone already has plans set up before the job comes along.
Reply:Personally, I would tell them during the interview.
Reply:Morrally she should tell them right away.
I wouldn't tell them at all if I wanted to get paid.
An open letter from ..... Your president?
And so during these holiday seasons, we thank our blessings. .
I think we all agree, the past is over.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!
I think we are welcomed. But it was not a peaceful welcome."
I'm looking forward to a good night's sleep on the soil of a friend."
It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way
Free societies are hopeful societies. And free societies will be allies against these hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat
I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."—
My job is to, like, think beyond the immediate
Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace.
I'm the master of low expectations
First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill.
"I think war is a dangerous place."—Washington, D.C., May 7, 2003
"I don't bring God into my life to—to, you know, kind of be a political person."—Interview with Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One, April 24, 2003
"You're free. And freedom is beautiful. And, you know, it'll take time to restore chaos and order—order out of chaos. But we will."—Washington, D.C., April 13, 2003
We need an energy bill that encourages consumption
If you don't have any ambitions, the minimum-wage job isn't going to get you to where you want to get, for example. In other words, what is your ambitions? And oh, by the way, if that is your ambition, here's what it's going to take to achieve it."—Speech to students in Little Rock, Ark., Aug. 29, 2002 (Thanks to George Dupper.)
"See, we love—we love freedom. That's what they didn't understand. They hate things; we love things. They act out of hatred; we don't seek revenge, we seek justice out of love."—Oklahoma City, Aug. 29, 2002
"There's no cave deep enough for America, or dark enough to hide."—Oklahoma City, Aug. 29, 2002 (Thanks
I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here."
''I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe—I believe what I believe is right."—
They have miscalculated me as a leader.
It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."--
I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully
An open letter from ..... Your president?
He's so articulate isn't he? Don't ya just wanna hug him?I work with the mentally handicapped and I know how hard it is for them to make themselves clear.Shame on you !
The HIM I'm refering to is Bush btw and I'm being sarcastic.
Reply:I certainly will miss the "Bushisms".
Reply:Hes IGNORANT, and hes gonna end up beheaded by the islamics..or he will convert, but hes not a Christian anyway.
Reply:WOW
President Bush is supposed to speak today from the Rose Garden also.
Maybe we all need to take time out to smell the flowers.
I think we all agree, the past is over.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!
I think we are welcomed. But it was not a peaceful welcome."
I'm looking forward to a good night's sleep on the soil of a friend."
It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way
Free societies are hopeful societies. And free societies will be allies against these hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat
I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."—
My job is to, like, think beyond the immediate
Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace.
I'm the master of low expectations
First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill.
"I think war is a dangerous place."—Washington, D.C., May 7, 2003
"I don't bring God into my life to—to, you know, kind of be a political person."—Interview with Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One, April 24, 2003
"You're free. And freedom is beautiful. And, you know, it'll take time to restore chaos and order—order out of chaos. But we will."—Washington, D.C., April 13, 2003
We need an energy bill that encourages consumption
If you don't have any ambitions, the minimum-wage job isn't going to get you to where you want to get, for example. In other words, what is your ambitions? And oh, by the way, if that is your ambition, here's what it's going to take to achieve it."—Speech to students in Little Rock, Ark., Aug. 29, 2002 (Thanks to George Dupper.)
"See, we love—we love freedom. That's what they didn't understand. They hate things; we love things. They act out of hatred; we don't seek revenge, we seek justice out of love."—Oklahoma City, Aug. 29, 2002
"There's no cave deep enough for America, or dark enough to hide."—Oklahoma City, Aug. 29, 2002 (Thanks
I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here."
''I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe—I believe what I believe is right."—
They have miscalculated me as a leader.
It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."--
I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully
An open letter from ..... Your president?
He's so articulate isn't he? Don't ya just wanna hug him?I work with the mentally handicapped and I know how hard it is for them to make themselves clear.Shame on you !
The HIM I'm refering to is Bush btw and I'm being sarcastic.
Reply:I certainly will miss the "Bushisms".
Reply:Hes IGNORANT, and hes gonna end up beheaded by the islamics..or he will convert, but hes not a Christian anyway.
Reply:WOW
President Bush is supposed to speak today from the Rose Garden also.
Maybe we all need to take time out to smell the flowers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)