Re: [ADMIN] Want to help?
As usual, I'm late to the party ... donation posted but not showing up on page (Ed: Contact me off-line if you don't see anything from Malcolm Greene) Thanks for supporting our community all these years - best on the internet! Malcolm ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/1353267880.25914.140661155209173.35158...@webmail.messagingengine.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Republican senators set up showdown over possible Rice nomination
On 11/17/2012 10:33 PM, Charlie Coleman wrote: At 09:07 AM 11/17/2012 -0600, lelandj wrote: Leland, try to take off your liberal-at-any-cost hat for a moment and think sincerely about the following: Petraeus may have done a lot of good things but his resignation is appropriate. And the revealing of it by the Intelligence Community is absolutely right and just. ... Why should one group of Americans be held to a higher standard than the whole. Why should the government, including the intelligence community, be allow to meddle into the personal affairs of Americans? LOL - pun intended. The founding fathers of the USA, having experienced first hand persecution, torture, alienation, and other injustice from their governments, put strong privacy protections into the USA Constitution to protect Americans against an overreaching government. ... First, the why. Why should government officials be held to a higher standard? Because their office reflects a trust of the citizens. I hold my trusted friends to a higher standard of conduct with me than, say, I expect out of total strangers. So to me, if I give you my trust you should expect that I expect more out of you. I believe our Founding Fathers saw it this way as well: their correspondence intoned a public office in our union engendered the utmost responsibility to those governed. Next, governmental positions have power over others. So any given action they take has a far greater potential to affect people than just an average citizen. I did a Google and found many links regarding, Federal Employee Code of Ethics, but it all related to the job. I believe it would be government overreach to impose standards, Codes of Conduct, or Code of Ethics on Americans who are off work. When off work, Americans should be able to live their lives in privacy, free from outside interference, and the USA Constitution provides Americans such protection. http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=5cad=rjaved=0CEkQFjAEurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pacom.mil%2Fdocuments%2Fpdf%2Fnewcomers-code-of-ethics%5B1%5D.pdfei=rUCpUKzVIon02QWqm4CwCwusg=AFQjCNFuaY-RymdzCj8DTNdrOhhrx3USnQ or http://tinyurl.com/banfddo The above is the general ethical/moral view. But lets talk about common sense for a moment. Any official that commits illegal, unethical, or even anything that may be personally embarrassing becomes a risk to their office. They become a target for blackmail or bribery. For example, a city councilman has an affair with an underage girl. A certain shady set of folks get photos and threaten to go public if the councilman doesn't change his vote on a zoning issue. The same scenario holds for those with access to classified information. This is the common sense reason why they must be held to higher codes of conduct. If you don't want to live by that code, don't try to get a job with the government. Again, the Federal Employee Code of Ethics only address conduct while on the job. For example, If David Petraeus had an affair, it's nobodies business, including his employer, as long as he keep the affair out of the public arena by using a little discretion. If his affair became know by some unsavory operative that coerced sensitive information out of him, then he has failed in performing his job and would be subject to discipline, dismissal, and even criminal misconduct. But what actually happened in David Petraeus' case was the affair was leaked to the press that splattered it all over kingdom come. David Petraues really had no choice but to resign, which was the right thing to do. Regards, LelandJ But Leland's thoughts reflect the general sentiment of the country. Since Clinton got away with lying about his affair the nation has dropped it's expectations of elected officials dramatically (no it wasn't all Clinton's fault, we have been ... believe the wealthy has cheated the rest of us and that they should be forced to give up their money/property to be fair. Adversaries of the US and democracy in general can rejoice. The Great Experiment is winding down, proving out once again that man's greed and jealousy outweigh his intelligence. Get a life, Charlie. It really is OK. We're not the Taliban here in the good old USA. LOL How about you get a brain Leland? The fact that we're NOT the Taliban means our government officials MUST answer to us. If we were a dictatorship or socialistic government then sure, the folks in charge could do whatever they want to whomever they want whenever they want. Think about that for at least a couple minutes. But I imagine you would be the first in line to string up an official that didn't share your liberal bias. You're a walking contradiction to rational thinking. And like I said, you're not alone. There's a bunch of other people out there that's let their mind deteriorate to the point of just repeating the brief snippets they get from their favorite
Re: [OT] Republican senators set up showdown over possible Rice nomination
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:04 PM, lelandj lela...@mail.smvfp.com wrote: Go one Pete, LOL, but you'll have to translate yŏu jīng shén bìng for me. Microsoft is your friend? ;- -- Stephen Russell Sr. Analyst Ring Container Technology Oakland TN 901.246-0159 cell --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/cajidmy+6fihjkogiign4mk2ou7p4m+xpfm3b7by50g8so15...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
[OT] Say What?
900 ballots for 7 registered voters? http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2012/11/18/allen-west-recount-update-7-registered-voters-and-900-ballots-cast-voter-fraud-alert/ -- - Michael Oke, II oke...@gmail.com 661-349-6221 - --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CACBEV=VH6+bHR4AWhLUzdUWHocEFYD4zEhx5Y4yh=qxfa4v...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Say What?
On 11/18/2012 05:33 PM, Michael Oke, II wrote: 900 ballots for 7 registered voters? http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2012/11/18/allen-west-recount-update-7-registered-voters-and-900-ballots-cast-voter-fraud-alert/ Only in Florida! -- Regards, Pete http://pete-theisen.com/ http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/50a96709.6030...@verizon.net ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Say What?
On 11/18/2012 05:33 PM, Michael Oke, II wrote: 900 ballots for 7 registered voters? http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2012/11/18/allen-west-recount-update-7-registered-voters-and-900-ballots-cast-voter-fraud-alert/ Hi Michael, A recount can go against you - you take your chances. I remember a time, 25 years ago now. In a before-med-school life as a household mover I picked up a lady's furniture and personal effects during a pretty good snow storm, which tapered off while I was loading so she wasn't affected by the weight of the snow on the truck more than a few pounds - there was snow on the truck when I weighed empty, and about the same snow on it when I weighed full. When I delivered she protested the bill, on and on about us trying to take advantage of her (and by the way, in addition to being sexists, did she tell us what racists we were?) and demanded a re-weigh. I tried to explain how the re-weigh would go against her since the snow had melted and it would look to the scale like we delivered whatever the snow weighed as furniture to her house, but she would have none of it. So, her bill included the charge for hauling, loading and delivering melted snow. About $1000. The rules did not allow her to pick the lesser bill, which she had protested. You protest, you pay whatever the re-weigh is. -- Regards, Pete http://pete-theisen.com/ http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/50a96ce6.5090...@verizon.net ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
[OT] 3 words define Obama 2.0
Hi Everybody, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/16/three-words-to-define-obama-20/?intcmp=obnetwork evasive, strident and pugnacious Benghazi is a big deal. Even the puppy-dog press might not save him this time. -- Regards, Pete http://pete-theisen.com/ http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/50a993ea.1040...@verizon.net ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] 3 words define Obama 2.0
I just read that article and I don't know the guy or even much of the back-story. As a result it was pretty transparent that the write is very pro-republican. Any even half-way bipartisan article might have equated Obama's forcefulness with the last terms experience for the Republicans opposing any and every measure he put forward regardless of its worth. Or at least hinted that perhaps after failing to get the Republicans to negotiate in good faith that he was adopting a more attacking posture. what it wasnt was an article written without significant bias. -Original Message- From: ProFox [mailto:profox-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Pete Theisen Sent: Monday, 19 November 2012 12:36 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: [OT] 3 words define Obama 2.0 Hi Everybody, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/16/three-words-to-define-obama-20/?in tcmp=obnetwork evasive, strident and pugnacious Benghazi is a big deal. Even the puppy-dog press might not save him this time. -- Regards, Pete http://pete-theisen.com/ http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/000601cdc616$b48026d0$1d807470$@com.au ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
[OT] Lying Obama saught to silence Petraeus.
Hi Everybody, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/15/silencing-general-petraeus/?intcmp=obnetwork In the modern era, office-holders with forgiving spouses simply do not resign from powerful jobs because of a temporary, non-criminal, consensual adult sexual liaison, as the history of the FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton presidencies attest. So, why is Petraeus different? Someone wants to silence him. -- Regards, Pete http://pete-theisen.com/ http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/50a9c885.5040...@verizon.net ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] 3 words define Obama 2.0
On 11/19/2012 12:28 AM, geoff wrote: I just read that article and I don't know the guy or even much of the back-story. As a result it was pretty transparent that the write is very pro-republican. Any even half-way bipartisan article might have equated Obama's forcefulness with the last terms experience for the Republicans opposing any and every measure he put forward regardless of its worth. Or at least hinted that perhaps after failing to get the Republicans to negotiate in good faith that he was adopting a more attacking posture. what it wasnt was an article written without significant bias. Hi Geoff, I suppose it is somewhat difficult to get the backstory from Oz news sources. But maybe . . . Has the Oz press covered the ecstatic worship of foreign crowds toward Obama? If they have, keep that in mind. Similarly, the flexibility Obama promised Medvedev into an open mike after the election . . . None of this is in the best interest of the American people. If it were, it would be pro-republican, as you put it. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/16/three-words-to-define-obama-20/?in tcmp=obnetwork evasive, strident and pugnacious Benghazi is a big deal. Even the puppy-dog press might not save him this time. -- Regards, Pete http://pete-theisen.com/ http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/50a9d3bb.1010...@verizon.net ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
