Tammy Osier
-
The Basics
-
Tammy on Patch
-
More Stuff
Comments
-
On the article We Are in Danger of Losing Our Freedoms
-
On the article We Are in Danger of Losing Our Freedoms
Tammy Osier
9:08 pm on Wednesday, May 22, 2013
"In my experience, a legal counsel never would believe that there was information that was appropriate for the chief of staff to know but that was inappropriate for the president to know.
-
On the article We Are in Danger of Losing Our Freedoms
Tammy Osier
9:08 pm on Wednesday, May 22, 2013
I read something along these lines. A former aide to the Chief of Staff for George H.W. Bush, wondered how White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough learned of an impending report on the agency’s targeting of conservative groups but did not tell President Barack Obama about it. Her found it very odd since the only reason the legal counsel would tell the chief of staff about an impending report or disclosure would be so the chief of staff could tell the president.
I wondered too, how he can be so woefully ignorant of everything happening under his nose. Either that , or he knew all along. -
On the article We Are in Danger of Losing Our Freedoms
Tammy Osier
8:50 pm on Wednesday, May 22, 2013
ReplyEVEN Franklin Graham has been targeted, but was vindicated. In a letter to President Obama, Graham points out that during the election in 2012 the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association — based in North Carolina — ran a series of newspaper ads in that state that, in Grahams words, supported “the Marriage Amendment in North Carolina.” Later the ministry ran ads “encouraging voters to cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel.” Graham’s ads concluded with the request that voters “Vote for biblical values this November 6, and pray with me (Billy Graham) that America will remain one nation under God.” At no time did the ads violate IRS rules by mentioning candidates by name or urge voters to vote for or against specified candidates. What’s more, the ads were purchased “with designated funds given by friends of our ministry for this purpose.” Again in complete compliance with IRS rules. The NAACP specifically used names and made political statements concerning who to vote for, violating the 501(c) rules.
But this wasn't the first time that the NAACP politically attacked Bush. In 1999 it ran political ads against then candidate Bush for not signing a hate crimes bill as governor of Texas. And in 2000 this non-partisan 501C group (with zero proof) accused Florida Republicans of stealing the presidential election for Bush by turning black voters away from the polls.
-
On the article Is Declining to Be Searched, When You Did Nothing Wrong, Disorderly Conduct?
Tammy Osier
6:04 pm on Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Karsten, had the store employees followed proper protocol, it would have never been an issue. Got to blame store management on that one. As good manager might have gone down the list and seeing that there wasn't enough evidence, let it slide. I worked retail once, and saw the person slip the perfume in her pants. I reported it, but she got suspicious that I had done so, and put it back on a counter before she left. We found it, and my manager told me to remember that a person might decide to shoplift, but change their mind. That's why we had to keep our eyes on her the ENTIRE time and go through the entire spiel. Otherwise, the store would have been in a lot of trouble. I had a good manager obviously.
I still standby the unruly. Like I said, he could have played his cards really well. having worked in retail, I can tell you, he might have made off like a bandit. I'm sure that law enforcement enlightened the management afterwards. I guarantee you they did. If anyone understands making a charge stick by following the right procedures, it's law enforcement. -
On the article We Are in Danger of Losing Our Freedoms
Tammy Osier
5:17 pm on Wednesday, May 22, 2013
ReplyMr. B., you know there's a question has been asked of our liberal friends a thousand times and has gotten no answer. And that question is, "If it were Bush being investigated, would you still be defending these allegations?" I have the answer after looking at the title question. NO. they wouldn't. because when the Patriot Act was enacted, the liberals yelled and screamed loss of liberty at the top of their lungs. I defended it because we were at war at the time. However, it was conservatives and liberals both that made the comment, "what if we get someone in the White House that will abuse it?'" Little did anyone know that there might have been a reason to curb it back once we were not actively deployed in the middle of the thick of things. Now we know, huh?
-
On the article McDonald's is Giving Its Signature Quarter Pounder a Makeover
Tammy Osier
5:10 pm on Wednesday, May 22, 2013
ReplyJada Daniel, think about it, the filet of fish is the cheapest and has the least amount of calories. So, basically I'm getting the cheapest thing on the menu (for get the fries now!). Without looking at the high calorie count, I can at least fool myself into thinking maybe it isn't all that much. But nooo! they have to post it and show you that it's worse than you thought!
Mickey- D's must be run by a man. Who else would be stupid enough to put the calorie count up there like that? A woman would only post the calories IF they were saving you calories. Really now! -
On the article Do You Think Recent Scandals Will Hurt the President’s Second-Term Agenda?
Tammy Osier
6:38 am on Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Rick, there is evidence upon evidence stating what the TEA Party is made up of Democrats, Libertarians, republicans, independents. It's a conservative thing, not a republican thing. people don't realize that there are many conservatives who hold tenets of different parties. I remember in the beginning how surprised I was at the democrats that I know who supported it. Taxed enough Already says it all. It's the most non partisan group there is (no wonder it gets attacked so much). It's too bad that people only listen to the gossip columns to get their information. I remember people who went to one and had a multitude of ethnic participants (some were speakers), but then they went home and watched the coverage, and lo and behold, none of the diversity was reported! Says a lot, especially when you hear the uninformed speak so ignorantly of it.
-
On the article McDonald's is Giving Its Signature Quarter Pounder a Makeover
Tammy Osier
6:30 am on Wednesday, May 22, 2013
ReplyThey've got slumping sales because when you begin to order, you see the 1190 calories posted and drive off. That was not a good idea. I want you to tell me how many calories I saved, not getting ready to overeat. lol
-
On the article Do You Think Recent Scandals Will Hurt the President’s Second-Term Agenda?
Tammy Osier
6:37 am on Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Rick, there is evidence upon evidence stating what the TEA Party is made up of Democrats, Libertarians, republicans, independents. I remember in the beginning how surprised I was at the democrats that I know who supported it. Taxed enough Already says it all. It's the most non partisan group there is (no wonder it gets attacked so much). It's too bad that people only listen to the gossip columns to get their information. I remember people who went to one and had a multitude of ethnic participants (some were speakers), but then they went home and watched the coverage, and lo and behold, none of the diversity was reported! Says a lot, especially when you hear the uninformed speak so ignorantly of it.
Tammy Osier
9:08 pm on Wednesday, May 22, 2013
I read something along these lines. A former aide to the Chief of Staff for George H.W. Bush, wondered how White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough learned of an impending report on the agency’s targeting of conservative groups but did not tell President Barack Obama about it. Her found it very odd since the only reason the legal counsel would tell the chief of staff about an impending report or disclosure would be so the chief of staff could tell the president.
I wondered too, how he can be so woefully ignorant of everything happening under his nose. Either that , or he knew all along. He said, ""In my experience, a legal counsel never would believe that there was information that was appropriate for the chief of staff to know but that was inappropriate for the president to know."