JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
0
goodDonkey
It sure is fun to watch conservative politicians talk about Palin; they all squirm in their seats.
She will need to win over an increasing number of Republicans abandoning the Palin ship.
Earlier this year she attended a conference of state senators chaired by Gary Stevens, the Republican president of the Alaska Senate. Asked politely if she would like to share her plans for the coming legislative session, Palin stunned the room by complaining: “I feel like you guys are always trying to put me on the spot.”
She has also accepted and then abruptly rejected invitations to speak at conservative dinners, and had staff vet even the friendliest reporters’ backgrounds. Kessler writes: “Her biggest supporters have been appalled at her transformation.”
David Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative Union, a leading activist organisation, said scathingly last week: “In the period leading up to the resignation she needed to get over the fact that people didn’t like her, get over the fact that she harboured resentment for the McCain people that used her. All of those things are true, but she got more out of it than they did.”
Joining in the attacks on Palin, Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan’s former speechwriter, wrote in The Wall Street Journal last week that Republicans should stop defending her wayward behaviour. “She makes the party look stupid, a party of the easily manipulated.”
She also dismissed the idea that Palin was a champion of hearty middle American values, arguing that she had been created by McCain and the media she purports to despise. “She is a complete elite confection,” Noonan wrote. “She might as well have been a bonbon.”
Levi Johnston, 19, the estranged father of Palin’s teenage daughter’s baby, claimed last week that the opportunity to make money from her book, television and the talk show circuit was behind Palin’s decision to resign. She talked about “how nice it would be to take some of this money people have been offering us and just run with it, and saying, ‘Forget everything else’”, he said.
Sorry Levi, I called that one on JT long before your announcement confirming exactly what I said.
Posted in: Palin says she's not leaving politics
0
goodDonkey
Molenir said:
I said "entitled to know everything" not "should be briefed on everything." If you knew the difference I guess you would have said so. No point in trying to make you understand.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. What does "those congress is briefed on constantly" even mean?
Well you never even understood what I said apparently because you said I stated that Congress should be briefed on "EVERYTHING" when in fact I said they were entitled to know everything. But if you want an example of nonsense I will give you one.
Molenir said:
It was EIGHT YEARS
Article on JT (above quote)
http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/bush-program-extended-beyond-wiretapping-report-says#tool_button
Below from this article:
Molenir, you have one heck of a lesson to learn about facts. Also, in the future please refrain from attributing things to me, which I never said. Feel free to look up "Entitled to know everything" and "should be briefed on "EVERYTHING"."
Posted in: Cheney told CIA not to discuss counterterrorism program
0
goodDonkey
Molenir' Inconsistencies:
We liberals say you created new recruits in Iraq; there was no "they" attacking us in Iraq. Until you came along there was no Al Quada in Iraq.
Reference Please; or you could just claim you were at these parties I'm sure everyone would believe you. It has just about as much credibility as the rest of your statements.
"Regarding the 8-year-old counterterrorism program, the Bush administration’s failure to notify Congress" 8 years! Quit saying "when things are in the planning stages as this was" It was in place 8 years. The article is clear about that above.
It is not discretionary. Please provide references. "Nothing ever went operational" - Please provide references. Here I will help with the oversight question by providing you with information directly from the CIA.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/97unclass/wagenen.html
Molenir said:
She probably did lie.
WhiteHawk said:
Sandy Berger stole files and tried to cover up that fact.
So Molenir and WhiteHawk don't care if politicians break the law? They don't care if Pelosi lied? Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the concealment; He directly ordered the CIA to violate existing requirements. So I ask WhiteHawk and Molenir an unspecific question first. Do they want to investigate and prosecute politicians who are violating the public trust? I will answer the question for myself. Yes, regardless of whether they are Democrat or Republican.
It would appear that WhiteHawk and Molenir have already answered the question. They want Berger and Pelosi to be prosecuted but the want Cheney to remain above the law. So my next question is - Do you want Berger, Pelosi and Cheney to be above the law or do you want all of them to be subject to prosecution? Can't have it both ways gentlemen?
HOLD CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE!
Molenir said, "There wasn't anything illegal done." Let's just look into things a bit further and see what comes to light; shall we? It is not Molenir's job to determine what is illegal or not; that would be the U.S. Department of Justice' job. Something stinks. We need to dig it up and find out - What's Up!
Democrats are not alone. The law is clear and a Republican Senator agreed with Feinstein.
/
He also criticized Pelosi. I don't have a problem with that.
Posted in: Democrats suggest CIA concealment broke law
0
goodDonkey
Altria said:
That one got me laughing.
Posted in: Palin says she's not leaving politics
0
goodDonkey
I thought "Indian Maoists" was a strange name. But when I read, "India’s Maoists say they are fighting for the rights of neglected tribal people and landless farmers." I was truly baffled. Didn't Mao, in China, make previous land owning farmers in China "landless farmers?"
Posted in: Maoists kill 30 policemen in eastern India
0
goodDonkey
sarge said:
By infidels you mean non-christians?
Atheists?
Agnostics?
Posted in: Bombings kill 10 in Iraq
0
goodDonkey
bushlover said:
Fair enough.
Posted in: Bush surveillance program was massive, report says
0
goodDonkey
sailwind said:
What are we playing word games now? Again?
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence are entitled to know everything. These conservatives are either brainwashed or attempting to brainwash us. What next, he is going to try to tell us they don't have to tell "all of Congress" and that is what was meant? Congress has access to it all. They may call an agency into a private session of a committee but I have never heard such an ignorant statement about the authority of Congress that comes straight out of the U.S. Constitution. There is absolutely no agency or department that Congress is not allowed access to except the Executive Branch itself. That is still up for debate as to whether they are required to come before congress because Bush's employees refused to testify. Do not believe that "the CIA is under some pretty strict guidelines as to what they have to inform Congress about..." Just because the executive branch appoints Directors and whatever other members of staff at the CIA does not mean that the CIA is part of the executive branch anymore than the military or IRS. The executive branch of course is responsible for executing their mission and basically has full control over them but they are not part of the executive branch. They must report to Congress. One more time, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence are entitled to know everything that goes on at the CIA.
sailwind said:
8 years - not fully implemented. "Your a riot Alice! A real riot!"
Posted in: Cheney told CIA not to discuss counterterrorism program
0
goodDonkey
bushlover said:
I made the original statement. I haven't said the constitution is outdated. I have always defended it.
I think a "cop out" would much more easily fit a definition of someone willing to attribute words to someone that were never said by that person.
Posted in: Bush surveillance program was massive, report says
0
goodDonkey
The other AP story on JT, Bush surveillance program was massive, report says, would appear to contradict that statement.
Eight year old embryo? Oh, Oh I know it must have meant cryogenically frozen "embryonic intelligence gathering effort."
Mr. "former intelligence official," who is willing to lie for the Republicans so they have cover, you have some 'splaining to do! It appears the conservatives won't use frozen embryos to save American lives but they sure do make good cover for the ass.
Posted in: Cheney told CIA not to discuss counterterrorism program
0
goodDonkey
sarge said:
You use that argument a lot. Very persuasive.
Posted in: Cheney told CIA not to discuss counterterrorism program
0
goodDonkey
I did not agree with Bush's illegal surveillance program. I don't agree with the legislation passed by the Democrats. I never have. Just because someone is flipflopping around after previously supporting the increased restrictions and monitoring of American lives I don't need to defend the Democrats. I can't stand many of the areas they chose to appease the previous administration.
I don't think we needed all this bullshit where the government digs into Americans privacy. I think all we needed to do was get Osama bin Laden and his comrades. We had that opportunity but we blew it. That's all.
Posted in: Bush surveillance program was massive, report says
0
goodDonkey
The bleating conservatives want us to move on. Panetta has not even been able to brief congress on all the concealed information yet. A concealed program that so called "didn't pan out" wasn't exactly allowed to finish.
So it didn't "pan out" because a new administration canceled it. There is absolutely no indication it would have ceased otherwise. It was still active at the end of the last administration and Cheney illegally ordered the CIA not to brief congress.
Maybe Obama said he would veto a new bill because he wanted to see how the current law would work out if it were actually obeyed. Maybe if we actually followed the law and briefed the congressional committee there won't be a need to change the law.
Cheney's defenders claim they may not have had time to brief Congress. That is a far cry from "Former Vice President Dick Cheney directed the CIA eight years ago not to inform Congress." That is illegal.
I am not surprised that the conservatives do not respect the U.S. Constitution in this instance; it is not the first time. Let them back in office before they eliminate the Neo-Cons and it certainly will not be the last.
Posted in: Cheney told CIA not to discuss counterterrorism program
0
goodDonkey
"than did the original program"
That's right the 1978 law needed updating. Republicans had a chance to update it. They never seemed to get around to it; why should they? They don't need to follow the law, they are conservatives. Bush broke the law before it was updated in 2008. Check what he did. Check the existing law at the time. Check the dates!
Posted in: Bush surveillance program was massive, report says
0
goodDonkey
sailwind said:
Who are you trying to b.s? Tthe I.G. report certainly did not exonerate the administration. Like you would ever admit anything if were in black and white (which it has been in the past). I am not the only one who can see through that.
Posted in: Bush surveillance program was massive, report says
0
goodDonkey
I think the president had an obligation to follow the law before it was changed in 2008. Apparently conservatives think they can do whatever they want. Hey, just put it in the "right context" (right meaning conservative). They circumvent the law and expect congress to update it after the fact.
Then we have a conservative whimpering about whether our current president threatens a veto. That's the conservative way; criticize a president who follows the law and chooses to use constitution powers to strengthen the powers of his office. But they defend a president who clearly could not obey the law prior to it being changed.
So much for the constitution.
Posted in: Bush surveillance program was massive, report says
0
goodDonkey
smithinjapan said:
I recall similar words in the past. Too Funny! Sometimes the conservatives are just so odd that it is amusing. Take WhiteHawk for example.
Posted in: Bush surveillance program was massive, report says
0
goodDonkey
sarge said:
sarge asked how many terrorist's attacks - didn't Taka313 list meet that criteria?
sarge, if you backpeddle too fast the chain will get caught in the gears and then you will just have another mess to untangle.
Posted in: Bush surveillance program was massive, report says
0
goodDonkey
sarge said:
Unbelievable, a visit to relatives is what you consider "truly historic?" Wow that explains a lot. I will admit this article is not indicative of the eventful characteristics of most of Obama journeys where he has made major accomplishments. But I hardly see how visiting a half-brother would change that; I guess it would give the Republicans something to criticize him for. But if you want to define "truly historic" in your mind with such mundane qualities who am I to piss on your cornflakes.
Posted in: Obama, in Ghana, hails Africa's promise
0
goodDonkey
Alphaape said:
They did not violate "sanctions" as you said. So don't give me this "I'll type slowly crap." They violated a UN resolution; UN Security Council resolution 707 (1991), UN Security Council RESOLUTION 687 (1991) and UN Security Council RESOLUTION 688 (1991) to be specific. They can violate "provisions" of a resolution but like I initially said they can violate resolutions or agreements. But you insisted once again in your last post that they violated "sanctions." Sanctions are imposed after resolutions are violated. So when you say "so I hope that you can get this." I already got it and I am still waiting for you to understand. I was well aware of the No-Fly zone imposed; I have mentioned it many times when people were trying to say our country was in some, no any danger from Iraq the time. Unlike Alphaape's statement the no-fly zone was never explicit but interpreted from United Nations Security Council Resolution 688.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0688.htm
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0707.htm
Here is a list of the UN resolutions concerning Iraq just in case you want to go through them for yourself.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0707.htm
Your accuracy leaves much to be desired. But it is your logic that I find most disturbing. However your reference to me being slow is hilarious. I am very interested in where you derived the part where we may resume the conflict? “hose sanctions that I talked about were put in place after the first Gulf War, that did have a clause in them that said that the U.N. and others had the right to "resume" hostilities against Iraq if they are violated. “ There is no part of the resolution that says anything about resuming hostilities. For the life of me I can't figure out why people just make stuff up!
That's a joke right? The Neo-Con movement had been planning this for years. Wolfowitz developed this policy years before we reentered Iraq. If you want to believe in the Republican Politburo's part line of "this was an act to liberate Iraqi people" that is just fine. But why do you have to insist that a people who had no say over the matter are ingrates. Alphaape said "but look at how much we have done there to "rebuild" and tried to make up for it." So what your basically saying is they are ingrates for not being thankful we rebuilt some of the things we destroyed either through intentional or unintentional consequences of the war we perpetrated. Could "beware of Greeks bearing gifts" have a more poignant application?
Posted in: Worst violence since U.S. pullback hits Iraq with 60 dead