Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
packsaddle

McCarthy Lives?

Recommended Posts

"Still I will take 1-million from Morgan Freeman, and 1 or 2 million from any other actor or director of Hollywood and the 10-thousand or 20-thousand from Labor Unions which need alot more of them accumulated together to pull in decent money..

 

I just can't take the 100 million plus from a handful of one percenters.. Who are not all Oil and Defense anymore."

 

Washington is pay to play. According to PolitiFact.com (the truth meter folks), unions contributed a documented $206.7 million in 2008. But they don't have to report it all any more than other artificial entities have to.

 

One Union, the Service Employees International Union, which has a legitimate stake in government employment to be sure, has already pledged $85 million for 2012.

 

"one percenters" ?

 

Speaking as a former Meat Cutter and Teamster. poor little unions. LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knox vs SCIU.. Not that I disagree with the ruling mind you.. States that Unions need to get approval from everyone they represent before spending money on a political campaign.. Which means if you are paying your union dues, you get to say if you want some of it split off to go to supporting politics..

 

Corporations though do not have to check with shareholders to spend money toward political campaigns, of course billions do not have to check with anyone to spend their billions..

 

Just means Labor unions have to jump through hoops others do not need to.. I am also unsure if they need a majority vote, or if you check some box to say $10 of you union dues can go to a political campaign or not or how they work it..

 

Thing is when unions spend the money, it is not anymore the big Labor boss buying the politician.. It is all the little people the union represents.. Somehow the "we the people".. The "we the little guys put collectively put our little dollars together" takes the sleaze, and sinister out of the whole thing for me.

 

Before this ruling, unions could look just as sleazy.. It might make it harder for the unions to compete, but it brought them down a notch or two on the sleaze odometer.. A big Union Labor leader is not giving this money, all these little guys collectively are giving this money.

 

Do the little guys pool their money collectively to keep someone in power who they feel will be more favorable to them and their unions.. Sure! When do you ever contribute to someone you think will not represent you favorable?

 

I am surprised that with this hoop jumping this union was able to contribute this much.. But, all I said was it makes it harder, not impossible.

 

Still feel better about a Union who gets their members to agree to support a canadate, rather then one man who wakes up and decides today he would like to buy a country.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an attempt to drag this thread kicking and screaming back to the original topic, lol, I'm going to depart from what has been characterized in the past as "my ilk" and offer a defense of Bachman and her 'ilk'.

In this case at least, I commend them because they did NOT demand to see Huma Abedin's long form birth certificate. Of course, there's no such qualification for her to meet in the first place but when did a detail like that ever stop the loonies?

Or perhaps there's something even more sinister....perhaps they're trying to deflect attention from the fact that Romney still has not produced HIS long form birth certificate - to prove that he isn't an illegal space alien from Kolob.

New slogan: WWMD (What Would McCarthy Do?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "McCarthyism" charges give us a glimpse into minds that perceive vast spectra of phenomena through the lens of a clich.

 

AFAIK, Abedin has access to information classified top secret and she is widely known to have ties that might disqualify an ordinary US citizen from such access, not because they are criminal ties (this is not about charging someone with a crime) but because they are standard things OPM takes into account in security clearance investigations.

 

Not just any US citizen is granted such access. The current POTUS might not qualify for access were he not an elected official. OPM would scrutinize his foreign associations and his background and, without accusing him of any crime, could deny him a security clearance. For obvious reasons, he does have clearance. The reasons are not so obvious for Abedin; she is not an elected official. So one might wonder... with her questionable (and they ARE questionable from the standpoint of granting a security clearance) is she exempted from the normal standards OPM uses in security clearance investigations because she is a friend of the Secretary of State?

 

If those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it, are those who do "study" it doomed to see what they think happened repeating itself always?(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Callooh! Callay! I think you are trying to rationalize with that rambling that you follow the crackpots.. Wow! Your even believing "The president is a Muslim" conspiracy.. Even the normal Republicans are laughing at these guys and there remarks..

 

Every Muslim is a terrorist.. Everyone who is not "like me" is a spy.. Any one who disagrees with me is a mole.. Maybe they are a foreigner.. They are not like "us". They are not one of "us".. The new code to words..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BHO a Muslim? Not likely. We shouldn't even assume Huma Abedin is a Muslim in the sense of actually taking canonical Islam seriously. Just because her name, Abedin, comes from the Arabic عبد الين (meaning "Slave of The Religion" - Islam, that is) and just because she claims to be a Muslim and is intelligent and charming, doesn't make her "interpretation" of Islam authoritative or even reasonable.

 

So, no... not only is BHO not a Muslim, it would be surprising to learn that Huma Abedin takes canonical Islam very seriously. It seems likely that the Islam she professes is an "interpretation" that suits her preferences.

 

But the issue isn't her name or her religion. The issue is whether or not she's been cleared as meeting the standard criteria via a background investigation for access to classified. Foreign associations, particularly close familial ones (even if the relative is deceased), must be investigated - and that's not crackpots clamoring to demonize anyone who is different; that's the law and the system governing such access. Being a Muslim doesn't make one exempt from the requirements any more than being a Frisbeetarian would.

 

Some people with foreign relatives do get clearances. But that's after their foreign associations are investigated and deemed benign. Were Abedin's? Did she have her background run through the OPM gauntlet that EVERYONE else does or does she get a pass because she's Hillary's friend or because we want to grandstand as standing up to the Islamophobia of requiring Muslims to meet the same criteria as non-Muslims prior to granting them access to classified information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to attack someone's position, please do not start by distorting it. Otherwise, one might suspect that you have talent on loan from God.

 

Specifically, she didn't suggest that "The president is a Muslim", that "Every Muslim is a terrorist," that "Everyone who is not "like me" is a spy," or that "Any one who disagrees with me is a mole."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KNOX vs SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 dealt only with donations to political causes of the proceeds of the forced contributions of nonunion members of the bargaining unit. It has no impact on union leadership's handling of money from union members in the bargaining unit. Thus, your reliance on Knox as a guarantee of individual members' approval of political contributions is misplaced.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

 

 

 

Obama presumably never had occasion for a security clearance before he was elected to the Senate.

 

Obama's background and the political and social history of his father might lead a reasonable person to call that association "questionable" in my opinion.

 

Obama's curious history in Indonesia as a youth might be called questionable from a security clearance perspective (I'm guessing of course).

 

His later history in college and law school starts to look a lot more main stream.

 

Of course, his association with his nutty pastor and left wing terrorists left over from the 1960s again might raise warning flags.

 

He had loads of foreign relatives who might be used for leverage by a foreign power.

 

But until he got into the Senate he had no occasion for a security clearance. Did he get one then? Interesting question.

 

Dismissing all of Obama's baggage is not a reasonable thing to do without carefully weighing the risks that might go along with that baggage.

 

I'm not qualified to do so, but raising the issue is certainly reasonable.(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Callooh! Callay!, please explain what the cliche' is"

 

The cliche is "McCarthyism." Cliches can transmit meaning (see example in next senence). But "McCarthyism" steals too many bases. It's transparently calculated to condemn what it labels and to do an end run around having to think about any point the condemned might have. It suggests that the condemned's point is unworthy of consideration, so if one does consider it.... well, that one might be a McCarthyite too! And we're all deathly afraid of being called naughty things like "McCarthyite."(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, hmmmm.... Good heavens.

 

But that's after their foreign associations are investigated and deemed benign. Were Abedin's? Did she have her background run through the OPM gauntlet that EVERYONE else does

 

Yah, this is what's despicable about da Bachmann wing of the modern Republican party, eh? It for some reason thinks it's OK to slander folks in a way that can't be answered. Da details of background and security checks are quite properly not public. They're not public because they're not other people's business, and they're not public because makin' 'em public would compromise national security by allowin' foreign powers to exploit weaknesses in the person or in da background check process.

 

So demanding that someone's security clearance investigation be revealed so as to "prove" that she isn't a foreign operative is just about as un-American as yeh can get on any number of levels.

 

As to President Obama's "curious history in Indonesia" I just have to laugh, eh? The lad, all of 6 years old, was taken by his parents with them when they had to move. I'm sure no red-blooded American kids have ever had to do that. He enrolled in da top Catholic school in da country, and those Catholics are certainly extremist Islamic supporters. Gimme a break.

 

This sort of stuff is a millstone around da neck of the conservative movement. McCain is quite right to condemn it in da strongest terms.

 

Beavah

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Da details of background and security checks are quite properly not public. They're not public because they're not other people's business, and they're not public because makin' 'em public would compromise national security by allowin' foreign powers to exploit weaknesses in the person or in da background check process."

 

That's only partly correct and only about the detail that it's the DETAILS that must be protected as private. But whether or not the person has submitted to an investigation and provided OPM with a completed security questionnaire is no secret. And the details are kept within very specific channels so as to protect the person's right to privacy, not as you claim, because "because makin' 'em public would compromise national security by allowin' foreign powers to exploit weaknesses in the person or in da background check process." If weakness of that sort come to light, the person is NOT granted a clearance - that's a main purpose of the background check - the vast majority of clearances denied are denied because of such weaknesses - NOT because there is suspicion that the person is a "foreign agent."

 

"So demanding that someone's security clearance investigation be revealed so as to "prove" that she isn't a foreign operative is just about as un-American as yeh can get on any number of levels."

 

Not so fast. The folks who do the investigations and grant the clearances are not un-American folks. Beyond their dealing with the very personal details of such investigations, there is a substantial informational and human infrastructure set up specifically to track and verify the results of security clearance investigations. Every time someone enters an area where certain levels of classified information are used, they present credentials that prove that they have been investigated and found to be worthy of more than just ordinary trust. The system doesn't just exclude "foreign operatives" from access, it excludes everyone who can't prove they've been investigated and been granted clearance.

 

If McCain were more interested in settling this matter than in moral exhibitionism - he'd cut to the chase and say "look, OPM investigated her thoroughly and she's been granted a clearance".... BUT that still would not mean that some body of elected federal officials should not have access to more details than are public - or are we against having our elected civilian officials exercise bipartisan oversight over matters of national security?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say union members, but everyone who the union represents.. That does mean something different then union members, but I am uncertain what as the union is suppose to represent it's members.. But, perhaps if it is a union that represent groups within different corporations then it is a vote from each corporate group.. As I said I am not sure how the approval is met..

 

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/48106643#48106643

 

As for the rest of you, it is all speculations, innuendos and hope & wishing.. Absolutely nothing but crackpot theroys, with nothing to back it up. Perhaps you too can put a wanted poster up with a reward in the Washington post for someone who can proove a crackpot theroy.

 

TAHawk stated

 

Specifically, she didn't suggest that "The president is a Muslim", that "Every Muslim is a terrorist," that "Everyone who is not "like me" is a spy," or that "Any one who disagrees with me is a mole."

 

 

I suppose "she" is the crackpot in Congress (Michele Bachmann, for those of you who can't figure out a crackpot when you see one) who is making unwarrented accusations against Humin Abedin..

 

My comment was not toward that "she" .. But more directed toward Callooh! Callay! Comment. The current POTUS might not qualify for access were he not an elected official. OPM would scrutinize his foreign associations and his background and, without accusing him of any crime, could deny him a security clearance.

 

Along with others of the same beliefs like Seattle Wow Seattle, scandalous that in the melting pot of America we may have other people working in close proximity of the President who are not all white middle-aged men.

 

The birther crackpots, like Donald Trump..

My own states lovely John Sununu who is representing Romney I wish our president could learn to be an American..

 

Romney himself : his Obamas policies are foreign, ..his course is extraordinarily foreign.. the course we are on right now if foreign to us.. Foreign.. No Democrats have been around for a long time, and they have even run the country before, and they have even created created policies before..

 

But, seriously the message is to feed the crackpots among you.. It is code, that "hey, you crackpots are on the right track".. ?Hes a foreigner".. It is crackpot code talk for "psst I can't say it, or I will be labeled a crackpot with the rest of you.. But, I agree with all you crackpots"..

 

So now all you true believers can put on your little tinfoil hats and look for the hidden meaning behind perfectly straight forward sentences.. Go out on your Obama hunts.. Post rewards for someone proving your conspiaricy theroies are more then simple delusions inside your brains.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

My comment was not toward that "she" .. But more directed toward Callooh! Callay! Comment. The current POTUS might not qualify for access were he not an elected official. OPM would scrutinize his foreign associations and his background and, without accusing him of any crime, could deny him a security clearance.

-end quote

 

The quoted quote that was quoted in the quote quoted above in NOT crackpot and not a theory.

 

The fact is that the POTUS gets access to classified information, not because OPM has investigated and cleared him using the criteria that they use for ordinary citizens, but rather because our constitution stipulates civilian control over the national security apparatus and he is the highest ranking person in the executive chain of command over that apparatus - so he is cleared.

 

And that he might not pass a background investigation were he not an elected official is blindingly obvious. There are many things well known about his background that are not disputed at all but that are in the category of things for which people are commonly denied security clearances. We don't even need to consider the more inflammatory and disputed claims about him, just things well known to be factual.

 

You don't have to commit a crime, or be a bad person to be denied a security clearance. A clearance investigation is not like one for a crime for which you are innocent until proven guilty. For clearance to access to classified information - the default position is not trust; you are denied access until you are proven trustworthy (to the extent possible via the investigation - and the criteria are stringent)... and have a need to know.

 

Just because crackpots glom onto something - doesn't make it strictly a crackpot issue. Crackpots breathe too. Does that make all who breathe crackpots? As for that crack about the hats... do you have any idea how hard it is to get the right kind of foil ever since the illuminati made sure most of the stuff on the market was Al rather than Sn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×