How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 A Plea For Sanity   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ]
 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

A Plea For Sanity

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


250 posted 04-11-2010 08:35 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

I’m having difficulty understanding why a moderator thinks it’s ok to discuss one PiP member with another, especially when it’s usually in an unfavorable way.

I let your $5 hooker personal attack go but I am getting very tired of seeing you, a moderator, trying to press a PiP member into making a comment about another member’s character or intentions. So, Balladeer, I’m asking you to stop. If you want to attack me again, take your best shot, but stop trying to drag other PiP members into your little personal vendetta. Got it?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


251 posted 04-11-2010 08:44 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

No, I don't have it at all and your accusations are groundless. I have said nothing about judging your character at all, Jennifer. You can say whatever you want to. The entries of yours that I used for examples are entries you posted.  You labeled certain comments as hate speech. I asked Bob if he considered them to be that, as well, since the two of you have such similar thoughts and feelings on so many topics. There is nothing out of line there. If you aren't willing to have your comments come under scrutiny, don't post them.

She has made the assertion that the comments listed are hate speech. Do you agree?

You will find nothing there that impunes or even questions your character in any way. If you do, or if you find anything inaccurate in that statement, please let me know.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


252 posted 04-11-2010 01:01 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Remember Obama's Fight the Smears website during the campaign? And his link on the White House website for reporting 'lies and misinformation' about Healthcare, where it asked people to forward emails or report neighbors who spoke against it?


The part about reporting neighbours is untrue.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


253 posted 04-11-2010 03:59 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, we had this....


Forward Your Dubious Healthcare Emails to Flag@Whitehouse.gov
On August 4, 2009 Macon Phillips posted to the Briefing Room blog the notation entitled "Facts are Stubborn Things." Within this posting, chain emails and also online videos are referenced, some of which offer false or misleading information on the healthcare debate -- all under the guise of revealing truths that ostensibly are not there. This, of course, is quite annoying in any form of discourse, especially when President Obama wants to speedily push through legislation that changes the way the country does business in the healthcare sector.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2033911/report_your_neighbor_to_the_white_house.html?cat=9

....which was followed by this...


According to 5 U.S.C. § 552a, United States agencies, including the Executive Office of the President shall, "maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity."

The White House may take the position that certain of its offices aren't subject to the Privacy Act (that is a longstanding Office of Legal Counsel position, see here), but most Presidents instruct their staffs to comply. This will be a the first significant time the White House has ignored the Privacy Act and may open President Obama up to litigation.

This is another example of the Obama administration ignoring long time precedent when it is no longer convenient for them. And ignoring this precedent lets them collect data on and potential harass individual American citizens.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/08/president_obamas_report_your_n.php

...and finally this...


Following a furor over how the data would be used, the White House has shut down an electronic tip box — flag@whitehouse.gov — that was set up to receive information on “fishy” claims about President Barack Obama’s health plan.

E-mails to that address now bounce back with the message: “The e-mail address you just sent a message to is no longer in service. We are now accepting your feedback about health insurance reform via http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck.”  

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26188.html

Whatever Obama was trying to pull, was discontinued when it was brought to light.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


254 posted 04-11-2010 05:45 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

quote:
"These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation," Phillips wrote. "Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Well, that caused serious outcry and some amusing responses, too. Americans have fun with fascism! There is a serious side, though. This information, must, by law, be kept forever. York says:

Read the whole thing. So, the White House, the President of the United States, is asking you to inform on a friend even in "casual conversation".

And, it's likely illegal. Says Erick Erickson:

The legality is troubling. The information is troubling. Perhaps the most distressing element is the knee-jerk reaction the President has to disagreement with his policies. He doesn't view disagreement as legitimate. In fact, President Obama assumes that all disagreement is disinformation.

This seems like another revealing way that President Obama has statist tendencies.


http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/08/president_obamas_report_your_n.php

Yes, it is true, Grinch. Whom else does one have 'casual conversation' with, but with family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, email-buddies? Neighbors is a generic term that covers them all.

Sadly, Michael, Obama didn't discontinue anything. Information was just redirected to another email link.  

And thanks for the links. It's always good to have a refresher course in what actually transpired.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


255 posted 04-11-2010 06:16 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Yes, it is true, Grinch.


No Denise it isn’t.

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


256 posted 04-11-2010 06:21 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Apparently, you're not interested in trying to define Hate Speech yourself, despite my invitation for you to do so.  Nor are you interested in defining your version of what I call "personal loathing" yourself.  These are the two ways that I tend to divide that sort of conversation at this point in time.

     Perhaps your interest isn't actually in talking about this material and in talking with me about it, but in attacking me about my views about it, and trying to play Jennifer and me off against each other, sort of a version of divide and conquor?  That would be sad.

     Most of the stuff you've quoted is not hate speech, Mike.  The "Aging Queen" remark is because, as you'd see if you'd comp[are it with the Wiki criteria, it is attempting to link Barney Frank with his sexual orientation and then to use language that speaks about his sexual orientation  disparagingly.  This was from a site you commened to us, and then defended rigorously against any upset.

      So, what are your definitions of Hate Speech and my personal catagory  of "personal loathing," which I realize you do not necessarily share?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


257 posted 04-11-2010 06:29 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

With whom do you have casual conversation, Grinch?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


258 posted 04-11-2010 06:54 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Lots of people Denise, including my neighbours, why do you ask?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


259 posted 04-11-2010 08:09 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Answering questions with questions, Bob? Never mind. Jen gave you a back door to slip through and you have. That's ok. I never really expected you to answer because there is no way that you can without exposing a double set of standards.

If you don't want to answer, that's fine. You can just say so with no need for diversion. I understand.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


260 posted 04-11-2010 08:25 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
The "Aging Queen" remark is because, as you'd see if you'd comp[are it with the Wiki criteria, it is attempting to link Barney Frank with his sexual orientation and then to use language that speaks about his sexual orientation  disparagingly.

Aging Queen is only disparaging, Bob, if you believe there is something wrong either with growing older or being homosexual. Which of those do you wish to disparage?

Still, I suppose that's a different thread for a different day. Essentially, you have now backpedaled and admitted that absolutely not one single quotation from one single activist or politician now meets your apparently new definition of hate speech? Is that a correct assessment?


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


261 posted 04-11-2010 08:36 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

quote:
"These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation," Phillips wrote. "Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."


Again, from the original message on the flag@whitehouse page, which I read personally before reading any commentary on it, Phillips included casual conversation. And I got the same impression as the commentators did. Even though he didn't mention it again in the next sentence, it's obvious he was encouraging the reporting of 'misinformation' gathered in casual conversation, as well as from chain emails and web content. Why else would he have put that in there? Granted, it doesn't ask to report the names of those engaging in casual conversation, as forwarded emails and web content would provide the government, but if someone is dumb enough or contemptible enough to forward the contents of private casual conversations to the government, what's to prevent them from providing names? I see this as an encouragement, by the government, to attempt to gain access to information they have no right to, by using citizens against citizens.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


262 posted 04-11-2010 08:50 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

quote:
Aging Queen is only disparaging, Bob, if you believe there is something wrong either with growing older or being homosexual. Which of those do you wish to disparage?



But Ron, aren't you the one that said that one should use the dictionary as the authority on words?  

It says right at dictionary.com under "queen" (bold lettering added by me):

4.Slang: Disparaging and Offensive.
a.a male homosexual, esp. one who is flamboyantly campy.


If you aren't familiar with its offensive use, that is alright, but that doesn't mean others aren't, particularily the people that may be called and ridiculed by such names.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


263 posted 04-12-2010 01:03 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

  

     Sorry, Ron, I happen to think "aging Queen" is hate speech.  Perhaps you can find a situation where it isn't, but that would be an exception.  Should I wish to backpedal on that, I'll let you know, though.

quote:


Bob, I'm just confused at what you consider to be personal loathing and what you call hate speech. There has been a lot of comment by both you and Jennifer about hate speech coming from tea-partiers and I'm trying to determine just what you define as this "hate speech" you refer to. The example Jennifer provided us with confused me further when you referred to it as only "personal loathing" and also added the comment that you can forgive a lot for someone you feel provides a lot of facts most of the time. I would sincerely like to know what you consider the "hate speech" that has become such a topic here. If you could help me out, perhaps I could understand. For example, which of these would you call hate speech and which personal loathing?

Obama is a socialist.
Obama and democrats are ruining the country with their spending.
Kick these bums out of office.
Pelosi looks like a platypus on drugs.
We need to kick the dems out of office in November.
Obama is only interested in redistribution of wealth.

  

     None of the above seem to me to be hate speech.  Ms. Pelosi is, in addition, too thin to look like any platypus that I've seen.  Some of the statements are incorrect, objectively, such as the assertion that The President is a socialist.  His politics are far to much toward the center to be thought of as Socialist, and folks that make this assertion do not seem to be familiar with Socialist thinking, or seem to be unable to compare it clearly with accurate renderings of President Obama's policies.

     I say "incorrect" because I have no indication that the statement is made despite clear knowledge to the contrary, which is what would be required to classify it in my mind to classify the statement as a lie.

     The statement about spending is unclear.  It doesn't specify what part of the spending is to repay debts incurred by the previous administration, and what parts are caused by actually putting the war spending on the budget instead of hiding it, as was done during the Bush years.  I would say the statement is naive because it doesn't look at where the debt came from and what needs to be done to deal with it.

     It is certainly not hate speech.  It is a statement that needs a lengthy response impossible to offer in a short space.  If you want to start another thread on some of these things, please feel free.

     Kick the bums out of office is spirited campaigning.  I don't even know that it amounts to serious dislike, let alone loathing on the basis of the short snippet you offer here.  

     As for kicking the Dems out of office in November, it's more spirited campaigning.

     As for the Characterization of The President only wanting to redistribute the wealth, no, it's not hate speech, but is is stupid.  Clearly the president wants to eat breakfast, spend time with his kids, and do what he can do to get re-elected.  He wants to prevent the economy from collapsing, and has gone about it the way that keynesian economist has traditionally gone about it, by trying to stimulate the economy.

     Therefore, suggesting that the only thing that the President wants to do is redistribute the wealth is plainly wrong:  There are other items on his agenda.

     The question of whether or not he wants to redistribute the wealth is up in the air as well.  I would suggest that he doesn't believe he does want to do so.  

     My own opinion is that every political point of view want to re-distribute the wealth someplace.  The Republicans were able to re-distribute it upward very effectively at the expense of the middle and loiwer classes.  The tax plans passed during the Bush years were massive wealth re-distribution plans that put billions of dollars into the pockets of the wealthy, and most of the economic policy in the country since the Carter administration seems to have had trhe same effect, that of redistributing wealth upwards.

     The current fury is, it seems to me, about the possibility that some of it might end up going to peopole in the middle class and the lower classes.  When we talk about redistribution of wealth these days, we talk about redistribution downward, from the top perhaps one percent to the bottom sixty or seventy percent.

     While money going to the rich seems to provoke no concern, money to the poor does.  The rich can afford all the great PR.

     My thinking is that President Obama is still pretty much on the side of the way things are going now, and he'd like not to rock the boat too badly.  That's been his history.  That's what makes him a decent politician.

     But I notice you haven't commented on my request for you to say what you think hate speech is, and for you to say what you think simple nasty commentary is, and how you might distinguish them.  You do seem to be trying to get me to talk a lot obout what I think without returning very much.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


264 posted 04-12-2010 07:38 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     "Never mind?"

       Certainly I mind.  You make some sort of a nasty back hand comment about ":answering  a questing with a questing" to a guy Jewish enough to be gassed for it, and you expect me not to mind?  And to let it pass?  Certainly I mind.  And I did answer your question.  And you are avoiding answering mine.  That was about as uncalled for a swipe as any I have seen.

     If you don't want to dialogue here, exactly what is the point of you semblence of conversation?  Dialogue, as in back and forth conversation requiring some sort of openness.  Is your agenda something other trhan that?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


265 posted 04-12-2010 07:46 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

   But I notice you haven't commented on my request for you to say what you think hate speech is

For two reasons, Bob. First, I'm still waiting for an answer and, second, both you and Jennifer have commented several times on the "hate speech" coming from republicans and tea-partiers. I have asked simple questions about how you define "hate speech" in your mind. Since you have acknowledged that many of the talking points, like the ones you just addressed, are not hate speech, I still don't know what you mean by your comments. The hate speech comments and accusations have been yours, not mine, and that;s why I am the one asking questions and asking for explanations.

I have listed a link and comment from Jennifer  that list things that the right wing is saying, like..
President Obama "is a socialist,"
"wants to take away Americans' right to own guns,"
"is a Muslim,"
"wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government,"
"has done many things that are unconstitutional."

She refers to these things as hate speech. My simple question to you, without personal comment or accusations by me, is do you agree with that assessment? It's not an invalid or trick question. Instead of getting an answer, however,  I get a complaint from her that I am criticizing  her character, attacking her due to some ficticious "personal vendetta". Instead of getting an answer from you,  you respond by claiming I am attacking you concerning your views about it, and trying to play Jennifer and you off against each other, sort of a version of divide and conquor. .All of this not to answer a simple question.

The answer is fairly obvious. If you agreed with her assessment, you would simply say so. Apparently, you do not but do not wish to say you are not and, therefore, the claims of personal attacks and evasion tactics come into play. You listed a Wiki definition of hate speech but, since none of the comments in that article seem to fit in with it, and since you still will not answer whether or not you agree, I still don't know what "hate speech" is, in your mind.

In this case, it appears that your refusal to answer IS the answer,

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


266 posted 04-12-2010 08:17 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     "Never mind?"

       Certainly I mind.  You make some sort of a nasty back hand comment about ":answering  a questing with a questing" to a guy Jewish enough to be gassed for it, and you expect me not to mind?  And to let it pass?  Certainly I mind.  And I did answer your question.  And you are avoiding answering mine.  That was about as uncalled for a swipe as any I have seen.

     If you don't want to dialogue here, exactly what is the point of you semblance of conversation?  Dialogue, as in back and forth conversation requiring some sort of openness.  Is your agenda something other than that?

quote:
    
A Harris poll released on March 24 found that a majority of Republican respondents believe that President Obama "is a socialist," "wants to take away Americans' right to own guns," "is a Muslim," "wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government," and "has done many things that are unconstitutional." The findings follow a year of such smears and attacks on Obama by conservatives."



     While the conclusions about the Harris Poll are by Media Matters, a Left Wing organization, the Poll itself is politically neutral.

     The feeling and statements do reflect those of some Tea Party Members and Activists..  There is a Library of U Tube videos to choose from showing TEA Party Rallies with all sorts of signs and there are filmed interviews to go with them, some including TEA Party Members actively apologizing for statements that other TEA Party members have made.  And Rightfully so.

     Please have a look at this section from the Wiki definition of hate speech:

quote:

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic



     I'd suggest to you that speech designed to portray the President to vulnerable segments of the population as being part of many of the activities the Harris poll identifies would fall into that category.  Portraying the President — an elected official of the Federal Government — in these ways may well incite violence against him.  It may or may not come under the "Fighting Words" exception to the first Amendment.  I'm not a lawyer, and I have no ambition to become one,  That exception appears to be constructed more narrowly these days.  It appears to me, though, that there's plenty of Hate speech about  Speaking of the President as a Muslim to an audience of  far right wing Christian extremists, for example, would be an example of what seems to me to be Hate Speech.  And for Far Right Wing Christian extremists to be talking about the President back and for this way between themselves seems to be inciting to violence.

     It wouldn't bother me except as a lie.

     But to the wrong audience, it can be very provocative.

     This, by the way, is the same reason, that calling Barney Frank "an aging Queen" is hate speech.  I am not bothered by Frank's sexual orientation, nor by his age, and it seems reasonably clear that The Representative is reasonably at ease with them as well.  That doesn't mean that to the right audience, this isn't incitement to violent action, nor that it isn't part of the ritual that some hate fetishists use to work themselves up to a violent attack.

     Some of the oddest things can be turned to fetishistic uses in the world of violent pornography.  In sexual fetishes, a pair of shoes can become hight sexualized.  In violence, words can frequently serve the same function, and can arouse a crowd to lynchings, even if the word in other contexts is not particularly terrible.

     Jews can use the word "Hebe" in a friendly way, but I wouldn't recommend a non-Jew try it, for example.  Other groups have similar words.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


267 posted 04-12-2010 09:44 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

"Cristina Corbin of FOX News has spent a few weeks embedded with the Tea Party Express, and writes about how tea party leaders are cringing at what the movement is attracting.

But while organizers have held the tour as a way to stay front-and-center as a political force, the rallies have also attracted the kinds of mistruths, exaggerations and conspiracy theories that make Tea Party leaders cringe. Though the movement is still trying to shore up its credentials as a grassroots power that’s here to stay, the so-called “fringe” and its accompanying antics continue to give critics fodder.

A number of tea party revelers believe Obama is a socialist, a secret Muslim, and someone hell-bend on destroying America.

Some suggest Obama wants to keep Americans unemployed so that they become dependent on government-run programs. Lenin and Stalin have become catchwords to describe Obama in the speeches denouncing his policies.

Going further, swastikas, as well as pictures of Obama’s face next to Adolf Hitler’s, have appeared on signs at dozens of rallies blasting the president and the Democrat-controlled Congress.

Other Tea Party members continue to question the president’s citizenship

– a sign reading “Show Us Your Birth Certificate” popped up at a recent rally in Traverse City, Mich.

The tea party leaders disavow some of the more radical points of view, but the fringe is not isolated."
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/04/12/4147334-fox-news-reporter-embedded-with-tea-party-express-shocked-shocked-to-find-a-cauldron-of-conspiracy-theories-mistruths-and-exaggerat ions

[This message has been edited by JenniferMaxwell (04-12-2010 12:24 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


268 posted 04-12-2010 10:45 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The question isn't about 'citizenship', Jen. The concern is, is he a 'natural born citizen', which is a requirement for the Office of President, which is a requirement only for the Offices of President and Vice President. There's a big difference between 'citizenship' and 'natural born citizenship'.

Many legal experts contend that 'natural born citizenship' is that which is according to nature, a person born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country, who don't owe allegience to any other country, and not a citizenship that is dependent on a law. Obama claimed on his website that he was born with British citizenship through his father, making him a dual citizen, partly owing allegience to another country. And he subsequently became a citizen of Kenya after their Independence from Britain, and also became a citizen of Indonesia after his step-father adopted him. He also claimed that he had citizenship through I think it was the 14th Amendment. The courts would have to look at it to see if he is or is not qualified as a 'natural born citizen', or if he is instead perhaps a 'native born citizen' if he was born in this country, or a 'naturalized citizen', if he was born elsewhere. But of course it would help if he would release his documentation to the courts to determine the pertinent facts, which he won't do. He has spent close to 2 million dollars in attorney's fees to keep all his records sealed: birth records, school records, health records, passport records, law firm records, Ill. Senate records, etc. It tends to raise suspicion that he is hiding something about his past, whatever that may be.

And it isn't a 'fringe' issue. There are dozens of lawsuits past and ongoing seeking to get an answer from the courts to that question, some of which began during the primary.

I also don't see anything wrong with asserting that Obama is a socialist. That seems to be his political ideology. What more would he still need to do to be considered a socialist, in your opinion, Jen?
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


269 posted 04-12-2010 11:04 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Q: How do you drive a Birther mad?
A: Put him in the oval office and tell him the President's Kenyan Birth Certificate is hidden in the corner.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


270 posted 04-12-2010 11:51 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Very intelligent response, Jen. About what I expected, if anything at all.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


271 posted 04-12-2010 11:58 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Jennifer, please, if you're going to use another person's words we'd all appreciate it if you would use quotation marks, attribution, a link, pretty much anything that let's people know you aren't speaking for yourself nor trying to take credit for someone else's work. Thank you.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


272 posted 04-12-2010 12:26 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Thank you.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


273 posted 04-12-2010 12:32 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Q: What's wrong with Birther jokes?
A: Birthers don't think they're funny and other people don't think they're jokes.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


274 posted 04-12-2010 01:21 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

I like jokes.

They’re all over the place, told by professional comedians in pubs and clubs and spread rapidly through society, passed on via casual conversations, the internet and by email. There are so many I can’t keep track of them all, which is a pity, if you hear any good ones I wouldn’t mind hearing them - send them by email.

Denise,

In case you're wondering - Jokes only please. Under no circumstance do I want you to send me the name, address or inside leg measurement of anyone who may have told you a joke.

  
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> A Plea For Sanity   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors