Stories have circulated for years that McCain's treatment as a POW weren't the way he described, several organizations exist to prove the truth is otherwise including Vietnam veterans against John McCain:
Additionally it seems that John McCain never felt compelled to pay tribute or honor the Vietnamese farmer that saved his life when his plane was shot down.
On October 26, 1967, Mai Van On ran from the safety of a bomb shelter at the height of an air raid and swam out into the lake where Lieutenant Commander McCain was drowning, tangled in his parachute cord after ejecting when his Skyhawk bomber was hit by a missile.
In an extraordinary act of compassion at a time when Vietnamese citizens were being killed by US aerial bombardments, he pulled a barely conscious McCain to the lake surface and, with the help of a neighbour, dragged him towards the shore.
Perhaps the rumored preferred treatment may help explain his recent acquiescence to allow torture of prisoners in military/CIA custody, perhaps his experience as a POW didn't expose him to torture or teach him that torture is wrong.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Friday, May 09, 2008
Republicans demand the right to vote against Mother's Day
In what has become a common procedural maneuver to slow/stop the business of The House of Representatives.
On Wednesday afternoon, the House had just voted, 412 to 0, to pass H. Res. 1113, "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day," when Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), rose in protest.
"Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote," he announced.
When the votes were tallied 177 Republicans which constitutes a majority of the Republicans in the house including the bills sponsor had voted against the bill.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, asked yesterday to explain why he and 177 of his colleagues switched their votes, answered: "Oh, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on record in support of Mother's Day."
I am confused, if you vote against something how does that show your support?
I guess they were for Mothers day before they voted against it.
See a video of the requested vote here:
On Wednesday afternoon, the House had just voted, 412 to 0, to pass H. Res. 1113, "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day," when Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), rose in protest.
"Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote," he announced.
When the votes were tallied 177 Republicans which constitutes a majority of the Republicans in the house including the bills sponsor had voted against the bill.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, asked yesterday to explain why he and 177 of his colleagues switched their votes, answered: "Oh, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on record in support of Mother's Day."
I am confused, if you vote against something how does that show your support?
I guess they were for Mothers day before they voted against it.
See a video of the requested vote here:
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Why Let old Nuns vote?
Indiana nuns lacking ID denied at poll, thanks to the new Indiana voter ID law a dozen nuns were turned away from voting in the primary election.
“One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, ‘I don’t want to go do that,’” Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.
They were not given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. “You have to remember that some of these ladies don’t walk well. They’re in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts.”
Obviously, this is an extreme case but it illustrates the fallacy that voter ID laws are not an unreasonable burden on the populace. "The vast majority of Americans don’t realize that there are over 20 million Americans of voting age who currently lack a valid driver’s license, including roughly 10 percent of eligible voters." Disproportionately represented among this 10 percent are:
* The legally blind or disabled to the point where it is difficult or impossible to drive
* Older Americans who no longer drive
* Teenagers who can’t afford the cost of acquiring a driver’s license
* Poor families without the means to afford the costs associated with maintaining a driver’s license
* Millions of urban Americans living in cities with public mass transit systems who do not have driver’s licenses
The supreme courts recent decision in Crawford vs Madison County left the opportunity for more onerous laws and extensive litigation even though the defendants were unable to prove 1 case of voter fraud that the law was designed to preclude.
It seems that if you can't offer hope and opportunity the plan is to stifle the opposition by limiting their ability to vote against you.
“One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, ‘I don’t want to go do that,’” Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.
They were not given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. “You have to remember that some of these ladies don’t walk well. They’re in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts.”
Obviously, this is an extreme case but it illustrates the fallacy that voter ID laws are not an unreasonable burden on the populace. "The vast majority of Americans don’t realize that there are over 20 million Americans of voting age who currently lack a valid driver’s license, including roughly 10 percent of eligible voters." Disproportionately represented among this 10 percent are:
* The legally blind or disabled to the point where it is difficult or impossible to drive
* Older Americans who no longer drive
* Teenagers who can’t afford the cost of acquiring a driver’s license
* Poor families without the means to afford the costs associated with maintaining a driver’s license
* Millions of urban Americans living in cities with public mass transit systems who do not have driver’s licenses
The supreme courts recent decision in Crawford vs Madison County left the opportunity for more onerous laws and extensive litigation even though the defendants were unable to prove 1 case of voter fraud that the law was designed to preclude.
It seems that if you can't offer hope and opportunity the plan is to stifle the opposition by limiting their ability to vote against you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)