Yep.
posted by jr at 09:11 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 17, 2005 #
I said itin another Topic about Bernadette, I'll say it again:
BEHIND EVERY GREAT MAN AND EVERY GREAT CRIMINAL: THERE'S A WOMAN.
Nancy Reagan ran the Whitehouse.
Hillary Clinton was the ROCK behind Bill.
Bonnie was the WOMAN behind CLYDE (lol).
Women are beautiful and we MEN cannot live without them; but, deadly POISEN that they can be!
:-)
posted by ajeepthing at 09:12 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 17, 2005 #
divamom26,
"she went over to the dark side after she met Noe",/i>
I'm still a little fuzzy on this whole "dark side" thing, are you also confused?
;-)
posted by Hooda_Thunkit at 09:55 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 17, 2005 #
I'm confused too, I thought we Liberals had the market on the phrase
"welcome to the dark side"
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 10:15 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 17, 2005 #
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b251/Foolkiller/hillary_vader2.jpg
posted by Foolkiller at 10:49 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 17, 2005 #
Taft, and Noe are just two more names to add to the long list of republican criminals since Nixon and Watergate. Skunks can't change their stripes,and they all smell the same.
The pity is, the smell doesn't linger in the minds of voters when election time rolls around.
posted by toledoan at 07:07 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 18, 2005 #
toledoan - didn't know the republicans had a corner on criminal activity...there are plenty of democrats who've done criminal acts...but your point remains the same regardless of party affiliation..."the smell doesn't linger in the minds of voters when election time rolls around."
posted by intrepid at 07:35 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 18, 2005 #
"the smell doesn't linger in the minds of voters when election time rolls around."
I disagree. I think it does linger. That's why most Americans don't vote.
posted by jr at 09:49 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 18, 2005 #
Hadn't thought it about that way - but you're probably right, jr...
posted by intrepid at 10:14 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 18, 2005 #
The thing that amazes me about the whole,"coingate" deal is this. If Noe is dirty, and he probably is, why hasn't he been charged with anything yet?
posted by JeepMaker at 03:40 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 18, 2005 #
The thing that amazes me about the whole,"coingate" deal is this. If Noe is dirty, and he probably is, why hasn't he been charged with anything yet?
Because there's about a dozen different agencies investigating him, they all need to sort out the paper trail from the boxes and boxes of records and documents that were seized, and basically it's a clusterfsck of which agency/authority/investigating team has what info where and when and who gets to file which charges under what jurisdiction.
posted by anonymouscoward at 04:10 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 18, 2005 #
Agreed, a/c.
Two possibilities spring to mind (I favor "A"):
A. Noe was a lousy bookkeeper who began to mix personal, business, and state monies (known in accounting as "comingling"), and he honestly has so screwed up the accounting that neither he nor investigators know exactly what is criminal and what is incompetence.
or
B. Noe was an out-and-out crook who deliberately jacked up/destroyed/doctored his records, and he's not talking, while the investigators have a monstrous forensic accounting task ahead of them.
Either way, it may be a several more months before the complete picture is known. There are dozens of bank accounts, many thousands of transactions, and millions in inventory to catalog and sell.
Heck, it used to take my accountant two days to do my year-end reconciliation with just 2 bank accounts and an integrated software package. I can only imagine the clusterf**k (as a/c so aptly described it) that investigators must be seeing, especially if Noe deliberately trashed the records.
posted by historymike at 04:21 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 18, 2005 #
JeepMaker, haven't you been reading the news about the grand jury empaneled to handle Noe's campaign-money-laundering? That's a major point about what's going on.
Well, THAT, and Jim Petro's Amazing Delay Machine{tm} has been chuggin' away at 110% of designed capacity. It's never a good sign when your state's supreme court has to (1) order your state's Atty Gen to do something when he's been told to do it before, and then (2) take away the authority of said Atty Gen to perform the task any further, once it becomes apparent that he STILL won't do what he's been told to do.
BTW ... Petro's got to go. He clearly refuses to properly prosecute Noe. Of course, Ohio's utterly stupid voters (note: those who DO vote) pay little to no attention to any of this, and will vote party lines in Petro's case, so he'll probably survive the next election. Pretty sad, eh? Just think about how many OTHER thefts are going on that Petro's ALSO ignoring, due to the "Republican Connection".
posted by GuestZero at 03:38 A.M. EST on Fri Aug 19, 2005 #
GuestZero - as someone who's worked in the legal area, I have a different perspective of Petro. I don't think he's delaying, but that he cannot release any records that the numerous investigations are using as "confidential investigatory documents." They are an exception under Ohio public records law. Trying to figure out how all those thousands of pages of documents fit into the investigations is not easy when you're dealing with Federal prosecutors, three grand juries and two county prosecutors. Before you can hand something out, you have make sure none of those entities are using the document as part of their investigation.
Also, private information is not a public record and, from what we're all reading, determining which of the papers are public and which are private is the crux of the matter - did Noe co-mingle state money with his private money and how to track all that down.
Interesting point I saw in one of the Blade's daily articles - our Lucas County prosecutor has copies of all the documents - in fact, all the parties doing the investigating have their own copies. Ever wonder why the Blade decided to go after Petro for those records when they could have easily gotten them from their local DEMOCRAT prosecutor Bates?
The answer is because Dem pros. Bates would have said the same thing - we have to review them for what's public and what's not - and that doesn't fit into the Blade's bias or their agenda! Heaven forbid that a Democrat take the same position as a Republican in this issue...how can they continue their "culture of one-party corruption" claims if a democrat defends the actions of a republican.
Further, all the legal people broke up the prosecution aspects of this case. Petro is only responsible for the CIVIL case that will be the BWC suing Noe for breach of contract, et.al. Petro has a reputation for not letting political perspective interfer with his job - and he's received significant praise from both Republicans and Democrats for the way he handled audits, etc. as the State Auditor.
Try reading the Columbus Dispatch articles right next to the Blade's and you'll see very divergent descriptions of what's going on.
posted by intrepid at 07:17 A.M. EST on Fri Aug 19, 2005 #
When I said the "Dark Side"-I ment that she was a "Dem's"-came from a long line of them and after she met Noe became a "Rep's"......I never thought of liberals as the "dark side"...I think of liberals like myself as enlightened......Divemom
posted by divamom26 at 01:06 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 19, 2005 #
Divamom26 - if you know her so well, you probably know that the primary reason for her switch to the Republican party was because of the abortion issue. Now, I don't want to get into a debate about abortion, but, in the past, I've heard her talk about this. I believe she talked with conviction when she said that she couldn't reconcile her faith (Catholicism) with the Democratic Party's position on abortion. I believe that she was very sincere when talking about this.
She also said that she chose to work with Mike Dewine on his campaign as a result of this issue which helped her make up her mind to switch parties. And that was before she met Noe, according to a couple of articles that have been published.
It's too bad that you see this switch as a a turn to the "dark side" instead of seeing it as an individual who knows her faith and wants to live it in everything she does - including her politics.
Of course, this information I have is from "then." I don't have information from "now."
I guess I just find criticism of a person's choice of political parties a bit below the belt. I also know her father and if he doesn't have a problem with her switch - why should you?
posted by intrepid at 08:15 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 19, 2005 #
Why do so many voters choose a candidate on the basis of ONE issue (for example abortion) and ignore that candidate's ability or lack of ability to perform all the rest of job. Would you hire an employee who (in your eyes) could do only one thing right, but was unable to do any other part of the job well? One issue voters snub the general welfare of all citizens in their arrogant zeal.
posted by holland at 10:40 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 19, 2005 #
I agree, holland. I got so frustrated last fall listening to people base their important votes on a candidate's views on gay marriage.
Look, I respect the fact that people have strong religious beliefs, and that some religions prohibit gay relationships. But given the very important issues last fall (Iraq war and the economy, for starters), it floors me that gay marriage was the wedge issue that got so many people fired up.
posted by historymike at 10:56 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 19, 2005 #
I guess it depends on how important you believe certain issues are. Myself, several years ago I would vote primarily Democrat. Then I realized there were several issues that I felt completely the opposite from the general Democratic stance. Those issues, in my opinion are estremely important. So much that I cannot support anyone who feels contrary to what I believe on them. Those issues are; the 2nd ammendment and gun control. Democrats are for the most part strong supporters of gun control, a proven failure. ; abortion, democrats mainly support abortion rights; and welfare reform. It seems the Democrats are very quick to toss my taxpayer dollars to people able, but unwilling to work.
Now, to be perfectly honest, the 2nd ammendment issue is usually enough for me. People don't realize just how important an issue it is. It is my opinion that the bill of rights is central to what makes our nation great. We, in this country are free to disagree about most anything, but IMHO the bill of rights is off limits. If you let someone chip away at the bill of rights, you invite disaster. Liberals seem fine with certain parts of the bill, but they are happy to trample on the 2nd. Remember the bill of rights is ONE work, 10 ammendments, written at the same time, meant to outline the basic, God given rights of every American.
Now pardon me while I step off this soapbox :)
posted by JeepMaker at 08:38 A.M. EST on Sat Aug 20, 2005 #
The Bill of Rights amendments were not God-given. That would be the Ten Commandments.
When the Constitution was written guns were part of the survival of people who were conquering the wilderness of America. We no longer need guns for food (or to deprive natives of their land but I digress) or to fight a revolution. We still need them for war and we use them.
If we want to follow the Constitution as written more than 200 years ago without any modifications then I say we just use the guns that were available when it was written.
If the founding fathers really wanted the Bill of Amendments followed without changes based on a growing and expanding America they would not have set up a legislative branch to make new laws or a judicial branch with the responsibility of making sure the laws were within the framework of the Constitution.
I was raised in a family of avid hunters and I fully support that. I am not willing to support people who want the right to have weapons that are only designed to hunt people. Using the Second Amendment as a cover for that is unconscionable.
posted by thinkingwoman at 09:53 A.M. EST on Sat Aug 20, 2005 #
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
posted by Foolkiller at 05:44 P.M. EST on Sat Aug 20, 2005 #
If we're outlawing guns, let's also outlaw steel plates. Apparentlly, it's okay in this jerkwater area of ours to kill people by dropping steel plates on them. For some reason, that doesn't sound too cool to me. So I say, outlaw steel. Go back to adobe.
posted by jr at 06:04 P.M. EST on Sat Aug 20, 2005 #
I agree with the writer who said that Bernadette Noe had to know about her husband's picking the pocket of the BWC. For starters, she had to wonder where the money was coming from. It seemed to appear overnight in their lifestyle and spending. Second of all, she was active at the LC Board of Elections and served the LC Republican Party. Both of those positions put her in the limelight and able to have access to information and people her husband could use. Remember the missing ballots after the primary last year?? Boxes found later in a storage closet at the LC Board of Elections. I am not blaming her, but no one ever fessed up to that incident and I don't believe it was ever discovered as to how those boxes so mysteriously were placed there for months and as mysteriously found a few months later!! Personally, I am surprised no one caught on, especially to the lavish lifestyle with condos, boats and cars and donations to politicians from someone who not that long ago had a little 'baseball card' business. I have read lots of the articles and some not in the political loop for benefits, such as the president of UT could see through the cracks. He mentioned in an article that he had received what he considered an inappropriate call from Tom Noe in regards to a speaker that was going to be on campus before the presidential election a year ago. Tom Noe was pushing his new found glout around and trying to get favors bestowed based on committees and boards he had been appointed to. He wanted UT President Johnson to cancel the speaker simply based on the fact that, he..Tom Noe was asking. Where would it all end..? Well, I think we see where it all ends! Their Florida move was planned before the charges and investigation were widely known. They knew they were in hot water while packing yet, Bernadette was asking for prayers for her husband! This is surely a case of someone getting more power than he could handle and only wanting more.
posted by rednrowdywoman at 07:16 P.M. EST on Sat Aug 20, 2005 #
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Free speech, my absolutely favorite right, is controlled. I cannot yell FIRE in a theatre unless there really is one (and maybe not even then). I cannot slander someone without consequence. Announcing plans to kill kids at school on a website has not been viewed favorably.
Control is different than outlawing whether it is guns, speech, gathering in a large group, etc.
Criminals probably don't pay attention to the other amendments either. But we don't seem too concerned that only outlaws will have free speech, the right to gather in groups, etc. It's a bogus argument.
posted by thinkingwoman at 07:28 P.M. EST on Sat Aug 20, 2005 #
It is better to have a gun & not need it than to need one & not have it.
posted by Foolkiller at 11:58 P.M. EST on Sat Aug 20, 2005 #
rednrowdywoman - you need to get ALL the facts regarding UT...Tom Noe did call Dr. Johnson and tell him that many state legislators were calling Tom to complain about UT sending invitations - on UT letterhead - to a George Soros event at the University. The state legislators wanted to know why a state-funded University was promoting a political event with UT letterhead, staff and invites.
The point was that UT should definitely allow Soros to come, but that the event should NOT be hosted and paid for with UT monies...invitations should have been sent by the sponsoring organization and that should NOT have been UT as it was a clearly partisan function.
Noe told Johnson that state legislators were threatening UT's budget over this one...that if UT was going to spend it's taxpayer money on partisan politics, it obviously had more money than it needed.
Guess you also didn't know that JRB was in the middle of this as well. The arrangement was for UT to host Soros and, in exchange, Soros would place a double page, full-spread ad in the Blade.
The only reason The Blade made such an issue over this is because Noe caught onto Block's scam and made sure that UT knew it was doing something wrong.
You need all the facts - not just what you read in the Blade.
posted by intrepid at 07:44 A.M. EST on Sun Aug 21, 2005 #
just goes to show you the arrogance of mr. and mrs. noe all the time pointing out that others are doing something wrong and look at all they were doing. conflict of interest with his dealings at UT, pointing fingers at joe kidd while scamming the state at the same time crying unfair politics and taking political appointments,now crying about there lack of spending money while living in a million dollar mansion put in bernie's name to try to protect it in a state with liberal bancruptcy laws, what i find to be the most irritating is the shear arrogance of these two scoundrals at least we can rest in the fact that their lives will never be whatever they had thought they might be and they will both be doing jail time in the future
posted by so_you_think at 01:40 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 21, 2005 #
The lives they planned, are now flushed down the toliet, that is a dear price for people of that sort to pay!
posted by lets_talk_serious at 03:29 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 21, 2005 #
Not to defend the bad things the Noe's did or didn't do - still no charges filed yet - but just because a person does something wrong in one part of their lives doesn't mean that they can't be right in other parts.
If I make a mistake, recognize it, apologize for it and dedicate to never doing it again, I do not lose all moral authority if I tell someone else - about to make the same mistake - that they're wrong.
This is the same reason parents are using today to not discipline their kids...'I smoked weed when I was young, so I can't tell my kids not to smoke it...'
In the UT case, Noe was right and UT was wrong. The university's money should not have been used to sponsor and pay for a partisan political event at the request of John Robinson Block so that Block could get a full double-spread ad. That Noe was wrong in the other things he did does not give excuse to the University for what it did wrong.
I just don't buy that line of reasoning.
None of us is perfect, but we still have the obligation to point out wrong-doing.
posted by intrepid at 06:24 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 21, 2005 #
Apparently thinkingwoman thinks just like a typical liberal. The Bill of Rights aren't God given, they are a list of rights given by God.
The basic concept is the same, even after over 200 years. Using your arguement about using the guns that were available 200 years ago then I guess the 1st ammendment only applies to quill pens and primitive printing presses.
Law-abiding people, no matter if they are armed with whatever type of weapon are no threat to another law-abiding citizen.
posted by JeepMaker at 07:21 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 21, 2005 #
they are a list of rights given by God
No they are not.
God influenced the founding fathers in their thinking. I'm okay with that; God influences me too. It' easy to find a list of commandments. I cannot find anywhere a list of rights given by God.
The right to bear arms is legitimate. I said as much in the previous posting. That is different than thinking that automatic weapons are okay, that selling guns to people without checking identification is okay, that selling to people outside the U.S. is okay.
I agree that law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from other law-abiding citizens. It's the failure to use simple controls to keep them from non law abiding citizens that annoys me. The person who buys an AK47 sure as heck isn't hunting rabbits.
posted by thinkingwoman at 07:40 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 21, 2005 #
Agree one hundered percent with you, thinkingwoman, well said!
I will add, I don't like guns, too many accidents happen in these law abiding citizens homes with guns, usually the tragedy is children!
posted by ajeepthing at 07:46 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 21, 2005 #
And, as far as the founding fathers, a number of them were agnostics or Deists.
Even the prima facie Christians were skeptical of a government dominated by religion. Here are some quotes to consider:
John Adams: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion ...." (Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary).
Ethan Allen: "I have generally been dominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not strictly speaking, whether I am one or not." (Reason ,the Only Oracle of Man, 1784)
Thomas Jefferson: "Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisioned ; yet we have not advanced on inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
(Notes on Virginia)
James Madison: "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion to all other sects?" (1785)
Tom Paine: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." (The Age of Reason)
posted by historymike at 08:03 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 21, 2005 #
Note that an "AK47" that you sppeak of would be a semi-automatic version. Fully automatic weapons have been strictly controlled since IIRC 1934. You can get a special license to own a fully automatic weapon but the background check is extremely thorough. It's also expensive I believe. Thats why most people who own fully automatics are collectors.
The anti0gun people deliberately lead the uninformed to believe that assault weapon=machine gun. It's absolutely untrue. The (thankfully) expired assault weapon ban was the most ridiculous excuse for legislation ever enacted. It basically outlawed guns that "looked ominous". There were guns banned that, in operation were 100% identical inoperation to gunned that weren't banned. They just looked scary. Examples; Guns with a bayonet lug were outlawed-that outa cut down on the infamous drive-by bayonettings; Gun with flash suppressors were outlawed- a flash suppressor isn't a silencer, I guess again it's because they made the gun look mean. The bottom line, the governments own studies showed that guns that fell under the "assault weapon" ban were used in less than IIRC 1% of the crimes. Therefore, the ban was useless, just another attempt by the liberals to get a foot in the door. Barbara Boxer herself was quoted as saying that if it were in her power she would ban all guns. As for accidents, the truth is the number of accidents keeps fallong every year, the Brady folks and there ilk routinely exxagerate the numbers. It's the responsibility of the gun owner to store/handle their weapons properly. Take your kids out to the shooting range, teach them proper gun care/handling. When the mystery surrounding guns is gone, kids are much less likely to handle guns improperly/without permission. My pistols, when not on my person are kept in an electronic gun safe that when needed I can have open in under 3 seconds in total darkness.
Lastly, perhaps I would have been better describing the Bill as natural rights, since not everyone believs in God and those of us who do can't force our thinking onto them. So the commandments can't be used as law.
posted by JeepMaker at 08:09 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 21, 2005 #
Does Bernadette even have a gun?
posted by BrianInFlorida at 04:40 A.M. EST on Mon Aug 22, 2005 #
I remember when this whole mess broke, it was reported that Bernadette went to the Lucas County Prosecutor to report alleged crimes committed by Joe Kidd. (which was also mentioned a few posts ago) I recall that the prosecutor's office found nothing on Kidd, but it was Bernadette's contact with the prosecutor that made them look into Tom. Can you imagine? ( Is she kicking herself for that or what? DOH!)
However, I've never read what it was that Bernadette was reporting Joe Kidd for? Anyone know?
posted by corky at 07:57 A.M. EST on Mon Aug 22, 2005 #
The issue with Joe Kidd was some "comments" by the Diebold lobbyist/representative that raised red flags about their relationship and whether or not there was undue influence or other improprieties.
Speculation - note SPECULATION - is that there was something inappropriate, but the Kidd offered the Noe issue instead and got immunity for his actions.
Kind of what's happening all around...going after the bigger fish...
posted by intrepid at 08:42 A.M. EST on Mon Aug 22, 2005 #
The way I heard it from a number of people, Bernadette and Kidd got into a war because Bernadette found out about Kidd's extra-marital affair, told his wife (who worked with her at Wise & Dorner), and things went downhill from there.
The Diebold stuff, I am told, was tangential to the earlier personal stuff, and came out later, almost as an "official" reason for the war.
The other posters, as I understand the chronology, are correct that the Noe sagas came out after Bernadette went to Julia Bates.
Questions that may some day be answered:
1. When did Julia know about Coingate, and did the Blade get tipped off by her office?
2. When did Julia know about the 2003 fundraiser, and did her office tip off the Blade?
The Blade's public story is that the Columbus bureau discovered this all on their own. You can decide for yourself if you believe the "well, they were just poking around a bunch of BWC reports and stumbled onto this" story that they are pitching.
Me? I think they got tipped off by someone. Out of the billions of pages of paper generated by the state, I find it hard to believe that the Blade was not told exactly where to look for certain documents.
posted by historymike at 10:06 A.M. EST on Mon Aug 22, 2005 #
Actually, the work issues with Joe Kidd were very numerous...just ask anyone who worked with him - heard he used to lock himself in his office - rumor, but one that came out of the BOE...the personal stuff was over and above all the work-related issues. Some have speculated that the personal stuff negatively impacted his work.
The other complaints heard around town have to do with our local prosecutor's office. The comment was "this is the leakiest investigation ever." But when you have assistant prosecutors discussing grand jury issues and confidential investigative reports in line at the grocery store, it's hard to keep things quiet.
But in defense of the Blade - they began checking out the BWC either late 2003 or very early 2004. I don't think they realized what was there - their initial impetus was to try and make Tom Noe look bad and, with him, all the Republicans. JRB truly hates Noe and has wanted to destroy him for a very long time - this goes back at least 10-12 years.
posted by intrepid at 01:18 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 22, 2005 #
And historymike, his wife learned about the affair long before Bernadette knew of it. Though Bernadette did help his wife out when Joe stopped supporting her financially.
posted by intrepid at 01:20 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 22, 2005 #
One thing that I noticed is that all of the other Grand Jury All-Stars (Schultz, Perz Sr., Perz Jr., Owens, yada yada yada) are said to have donated $2000 to that infamous dinner-fundraiser. All of the them, except for Maggie and Sam Thurber who each donated $1995.
That raises big flags for me on the bs-ometer. I've read that the penalties for violating campaign finance reform laws become more stiff when the donations reach $2000 and higher. Me thinks that perhaps the Thurbers wondered THEN if everything was, shall we say, copacetic?
posted by corky at 01:37 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 22, 2005 #
The Diebold stories are breaking out all over, Columbus Disp. has found a lot of interesting donations Diebold has made all over the state(like $50,000 to repub. party in columbus) bernie thought joe kidd was going behind her back with Diebold and leaving her out so she went to the prosecutor. when the pros,. cleared joe kidd he told them to look into tom and his contributions to candidates you know like making them in other peoples names and stuff. this was the initial story on the whole mess then the coin deal with BWC came out and the accusations by the Blade that it was a pay to play scheme only after tom noe admitted that the fund was $13mill. short did all this other garbage come out so you think bernie really cared if joe kidd was messing around on his wife no one cared when she was cheating on her ex. or tom was on his ex. it is all about bernie and tom getting the one up on somebody it always has been
posted by so_you_think at 02:27 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 22, 2005 #
Intrepid-about the party switch-Bernie stated it was because of the abortion issue?-it is possible to be a democrat and be pro life-we dem's are not dragging women to clinics to have abortions-did she really need to switch partyies for that?-no she saw a golden opporunity-as in $$$$$ and went-as for joe kidd and his wife,some nerve of her to be outraged about his affair when she met Noe under the same circumstances!-But then it is liberals like me who have no family values!-Right.....please!This whole thing is nothing more than simple greed and power..and it has biiten her in the ass. ANd it has nothing to due with what party they belong to-exept they hide behind the guise of "family values" and all that other religious bull-
posted by divamom26 at 08:02 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 23, 2005 #
Divamom - you're certainly entitled to your opinion, as am I. I spoke of what I heard her say - that her main reason for her switch was that she couldn't reconcile her faith with her party. I agree that many Democrats are pro-life, but the Democratic Party Platform had this issue as a main component, so I can understand a faithful Catholic wanted to align themselves with a party that reflected their opinion on this highly-charged issue. My impression of her, speaking on this issue, was one of sincerity.
I don't know whether or not she was outraged about Joe Kidd's affair...I only know that she helped Kidd's wife when he stopped providing support for her. As for her and Tom Noe having an affair, that's something I wouldn't know about - but it appears that you believe you do. I just wonder if you have facts or mere speculation, rumor and innuendo.
divamom - your words imply to me extreme anger at Bernadette. You appear to me to be overly angry about the switching of parties, and your insistance that this is all greed. Perhaps you have personal reasons for feeling this way, but your reaction to this seems to be a 12, on a scale of 1-10, when most people are responding with a 2.
posted by intrepid at 12:54 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 23, 2005 #
I still maintain....a woman of Bernadette's background (political) and education is not likely to sit back and 'accept' what she is told by her husband.
I am convinced, way down deep, that she knew, that she supported, and that she chose to claim that it was all a surprise to her.
Another instance of NOT taking responsibility for one's own actions.
posted by DoknowDocare at 07:35 A.M. EST on Wed Aug 24, 2005 #
Intrepid-extreme angry at Bernie-,no- I've said nothing different than most-the affair she had with Noe is not specualtion- this is fact- And she can belong to whatever party she wants-but I believe her motiffs were not sincere as you seem to think. How smart to use the abortion issue though-greed and power I still maintain were her motiffs-and that sounds angry too you? And by the way her parents were upset with her switch my family knows Jane and Bud well,although they too said less sabout it all and got caught up with the lavish lifestyle-at least she and Tom spread the wealth around the family. Her parents are strong,devoted Catholics and still are Democrats-something she could have done too. Why not work within the party to make change happen? I always admired her for knowing what she wanted and going after it,but thought that one day it might bit her in the butt. Of course this ment using people and dumping people that did not serve her needs. I saw this happen to many of her "friends" and it saddened me. She burned a lot of bridges with her old buddies. Why she did not do this to me,I have no clue-possible because of our family ties-I remember a time when I wanted to visit her. She kept putting me of saying she was so busy and I told her"Slow down, remember where you came from,you are going too fast. Don't forget the friends who really care about you" It finally looks like she bit off more than she could chew.My main concern is for her children. Divamom
posted by divamom26 at 12:20 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 24, 2005 #
Her parents are strong,devoted Catholics and still are Democrats-something she could have done too. Why not work within the party to make change happen?
Maybe she didn't want to. Period. There's no law requiring children to be the same political party (or religion) as their parents no matter how strong and devoted they are.
I always admired her for knowing what she wanted and going after it,but thought that one day it might bit her in the butt. Of course this ment using people and dumping people that did not serve her needs.
These two sentences could very well be mutually exclusive. Knowing what you want and going after it does not necessarily mean using people and dumping people. What it might mean is her experiences led her in a totally different direction that did not include some of the people she grew up with. I never met Bernadette but I don't think I ever heard she was friendless.
My main concern is for her children.
I am sure if they read your post they will deeply appreciate your comments and concerns.
posted by thinkingwoman at 06:22 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 24, 2005 #
Nicely said, thinkingwoman...
posted by intrepid at 05:30 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 25, 2005 #
Dear thinging woman-yes I agree that knowing what you want and going aftrt it does not mean you you have to use people-.As I said I admired her for being a go getter-but I do know that she hurt long time friends along the way-I saw it and it worried me. No nshe is not friendless-she is very outgoing and circles of friends do change as we grow and move on-I just know what I saw-I told her once that she seemed restless-never satisfied and she had so much going for her-What ever happens with all this mess,I hope she learns and grows from it. ANd by the way I am nothing like my parents-I admire her for not just being a follower....thinking on her own-
posted by divamom26 at 09:45 A.M. EST on Fri Aug 26, 2005 #
She knew.
Guns are here to stay.
Taft's a baby.
Tom's a crook.
Julia Bates cuts in line at Wixey's Bakery.
Jeep needs to bring back the Cherokee.
and that picture of Hillary Vader is hilarious.
posted by Reluctant_OM at 07:52 A.M. EST on Sat Aug 27, 2005 #
I've got a question . . . does the filing of Jim Petro's lawsuit against the Noes officially allege that Bernadette knew that state funds were being used to finance their lifestyle?
I notice that today's
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051002/NEWS24/510020327
article in the Blade is the first one to name her along with him.
posted by corky at 08:56 A.M. EST on Sun Oct 02, 2005 #
corky - I've not seen the actual filing, but everything I've read says only that she used money in their joint account (which is reasonable for a wife). There have been no charges filed against either of them yet, and no article yet has said that she's under investigation.
Petro has said that she and their kids benefitted from the money and her assets were frozen along with his. She did file something with the court to prevent all her accounts from being examined, but I think the court ruled against her.
posted by intrepid at 05:14 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 02, 2005 #
and that picture of Hillary Vader is hilarious.
----------------------------------------
Thank you. ;)
posted by Foolkiller at 05:58 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 02, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
