»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Any Topic Goes Thread
| The Alley |
|
Any Topic Goes Thread |
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Here you go, an all purpose thread for discussing abortion, birth control, sex ed, a rapist’s parental rights, repealing R v W, back alley abortions and women who die from them, fetal rights, Sarah Palin’s big hair and narrow mind, terrorist fist jabs, McCain the fornicator, Obama the closet Muslim, Barney Franks boy friend, Puff the Magic Dragon and anything else that’s on your mind. Have at it, but be respectful of other posters and their opinions. PS - Even if you don't have actual facts, feel free to just make stuff up as you go along. |
||
| © Copyright 2008 JenniferMaxwell - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear J.M., That's very generous of you. Thank you very much. It's nice to have such a venue. My theory is, however, that it's as important to watch the form as the content of these things if you want to gain a fuller understanding. There's a short and fairly readable classic study by W.R.Bion called Experiences in Groups that gives a glimpse into this fascinating world. Always a pleasure to talk with you. See you later alligator, Bob Kaven |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Thanks for getting the ball rolling, Bob! Keeping in mind the fact that I'm blonde, not old enough to drink legally or understand complicated things, could you kindly, when/if you have time, add a little to help me understand your statement: "it's as important to watch the form as the content of these things if you want to gain a fuller understanding" Thanks! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
In Spanish, there is a saying which, translated, means "What you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying". My guess would be that bears some significant point to Bob's comment. More than words are on display in these threads. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Poster number 2 already! Thanks, Balladeer! I was really a little concerned that no one would want to join in. Your post really lifted my spirits and makes me feel like I've done a good thing. Thanks again for giving my self esteem a much needed boost! |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I don’t think it’s generous at all. Offering posters the opportunity to introduce any topic at all is clearly an insidious attempt to dilute in-depth debate and deflect attention away from the important issues that really need to be discussed. This kind of tactic, first used by Genghis Khan to deflect discussion away from his controversial “Three steppe plan to weight loss” video, is a standard tactic used by the far left and shouldn’t, in my opinion, be tolerated. Despite your attempts to dodge the issue Jen the question still remains, can the American people really vote for a man who believes fervently in the existence of a walking, talking, six foot mouse? Despite numerous denials by, so called, experts Obama is clearly on record as admitting that in 1966 he was a member of the radical movement known as The Mickey Mouse club. The same extremist organisation that sources close to George Bush as recently as 2007 suggested had close links with Brittney Smears and Christina Agalearhole, both suspected of numerous and serious crimes against humanity and popular music. How un-American can this guy get. Granted there are rumours on some untrustworthy socialist blogs that McCain has claimed to have conversed on several occasions with Donald Duck Rumsfeld. Quite frankly even if there is some truth to the rumour it pales into insignificance alongside Osama’s “palling around” with known undesirables. We don’t need no Mickey Mouse Behind the man in the White House. (advertisement sponsored by Bugs Bunny and the Palin Foundation for fluffybunnyness) |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Now Grinch, don’t get your knickers in a twist, those in depth forums are all still there. Though I do have to admit it’s hard to distinguish some of them from this one. Is “palling around” an Alaskan euphemism. Sounds kind of Barney Frankish to me. Perhaps Jimbeaux knows. I expect he'll have something to say in rebuttal to your accusing Obama of having stinky cheese breath. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
http://www.thoseshirts.com/mic.html This link was sent to me by an anonymous but obvious patriot, the accompanying letter (written in lipstick) contains too many expletives to reproduce in full but this excerpt should show the depth of feeling among honest hardworking Americans. “ As I said to my pregnant daughter the other day before hockey practice I will do everything within my power to ban any books containing any reference to this “pal” of Obama’s. Anyone promoting a belief in this moose.. sorry mouse, doesn’t see America as you or I see America.” The truth is out there Jen. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
PTL, Grinch, you've opened my eyes to the truth about Obama's cheese addiction and mouse cross dressing! Tammy Faye is smiling down from Heaven cuz I've seen the light! Maybe that's who Palin is imitating, the late, great, biggest hair ever,Tammy Faye? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I actually have a serious question. There are sourced rumors floating around that McCain may be having a relapse. So if he did have to withdraw before the election for health reasons, what happens then? Do the Republicans choose a new Presidential candidate, do they bump Palin up on the ticket, would the election be postponed or what? Anyone know? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
The evidence mounts. A well respected t-shirt manufacturer and Photoshop enthusiast Willy Clinton from Wisconsin has a friend who works with the sister of the bloke that supplies shaving foam to Britney’s hairdresser. He told me just yesterday in a spam email addressed directly to me and 13 million other people that Britney has been working on the new national anthem on behalf of Obama, a pre-production press release by roger rabbit records is apparently due shortly. Willy included this snippet allegedly recovered from a trash can close to Britney Oh, say! can you see by the dawn's early light Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me? B-a-r-a-c-k o-b-a-m-a Hey there, Hi there, Ho there. You're as welcome as can be! B-a-r-a-c-k o-b-a-m-a BTW - Palin would lead the ticket according to the rumour, but it’s just a rumour. I prefer the Wyllie Coyote\Porky pig option. There’s another story that suggests that Biden will step down and Hillary Clinton will step in as VP - that’s a rumour too. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Now that would be a real match, Grinch, Palin and Hillary - dueling lipsticks at 30 paces. Ding dong, Avon calling! |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
This just in via email: The other day I went downtown to run a few errands. I went into a coffee shop for a snack. I was only there for about 5 minutes. When I came out, there was this cop writing out a parking ticket. I said to him, 'Come on, man, how about giving a retired person a break?' He ignored me and continued to write the ticket. His insensitivity annoyed me, so I called him a 'Nazi.' He glared at me and then wrote out another ticket for having worn tires. So I proceeded to call him a 'doughnut eating Gestapo.' He finished the second ticket and put it on the windshield with the first. Then he wrote a third ticket when I called him a moron in blue. This went on for about 20 minutes. The more I talked back to him the more tickets he wrote. Personally, I didn't really care. I came downtown on the Metro. The car he was putting the tickets on had one of those bumper stickers that said McCain '08'. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote:  OOOOO errrr Mister Ballydear - promises promises!!  |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Billions to save the banks and our greedy and self-serving way of life, while the real world http://www.iucn.org/news_events/events/congress/index.cfm?uNewsID=1695 dies. Pathetic. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
When anyone mentions promises, I always think of Frost, Moonbeam. Most know his line about promises to keep, but one of my favorite Frost lines comes from his early poem "My Butterfly". The line: “ fate had made thee for the pleasure of the wind” Ah, V8 moment, maybe I’ll borrow the line for my self portrait poem. I'll read your link a little later, looks interesting. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Jen, I’d just like to say that I’m not suggesting that absolutely everyone with an imaginary friend is necessarily bad. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7655585.stm Just some of them. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
ya gotta laugh... Just saw on the tv news that Joe Biden's offer to folks to meet him down at Katie's restaurant to hear the thoughts of the middle class might be a little tough to do. Katie's restaurant closed down over 20 years ago! Not even Letterman's comedy writers could make this stuff up!  |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Balladeer, I'm so pleased you're enjoying the thread. Thanks for posting again. Grinch, what to say? That pink tank was a bit OTT. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Deer, It’s apparently now a “wings to go” franchise - maybe he’s an angel. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Wings to Go, hmmmmm, sounds like a Los Vegas wedding chapel or fire and brimstone revival meeting. This just in: http://i36.tinypic.com/1z6ufo.jpg |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Jenn! I object to the fact that you did not source your inspiration for this thread, namely me. I refer, of course to the private email I sent you yesterday which I quote here: "I'm looking for a site to confirm the rumors that Palin had an affair with Drew Barrymore and both of McCain's parents were members of the PTA, a known communist front group. Palin has never denied the rumor, and McCain has never denounced his parents. I know these rumors to be true because I just made them up, and I'm a source second in infailability only to the Pope herself. (You knew that one, right, that the Pope was born a woman but underwent a sex change operation at a private Copenhagen clinic in October, 1955. The attending physician was Lars Knudsen, son of the founder of Knudsen Dairy, a major supplier of sour cream to the WPA, "Red" Roosevelt's welfare program for artists, writers, and other deviants in the 30's.) This might make for a great new Pip Forum: You Heard It Here First! -- where anyone is invited to make up anything, the more outrageous the better." I of course, would never stoop to posting anything so scurrilous on this Family Friendly site, even though it is not particularly friendly towards me, and as far as I can tell I'm not only a family oriented guy, but in fact, have a family. And a cat who looks like Morris, but never made it to the big time. But then, I don't want to go off on a tangent. I call upon Ron to close this thread immediately on the grounds that neither satire, sarcasm, irreverence, bullyragging, tangents, nor a decent pastrami on rye with mustard have a place in the Alley. Now, when I post anything serious in the Alley, backed by a level of incontestible logic equalled only by Immanuel Kant in his "Critique of Pure Reason," and Yogi Berra in his post game interviews, I am routinely misquoted, misattributed, or just missed. I know for a fact that the Pip community has been aligned against me from the start, when my last name was purposefully misspelled THREE CONSECUTIVE TIMES! Yes, there IS a "t" in my last name, and no, you don't pronounce it. Or if you do pronounce it, you shouldn't, just as I don't, my mother didn't, my father didn't, and at least two of my grandparents didn't. (The other two, being Murdochs, weren't quite as clear on the concept.) I, for one, am tired of the abuse of the Alley by people whose opinions differ from my own, and urge them all to stop it in deference to their batters. Batters, as we all know, go sour when left unattended. And, while certain naturally occurring bacterial strains may improve the flavor of certain breads and pancakes, they add NOTHING positive to the texture or flavor of a white cake with haupia filling, the coconut custard which by itself justifies the cost of airfare to the Hawaiian Islands, even at the peak of the tourist season! Because of the frequent admonisions to address the post, not the poster, I can only say that whomever started this thread had, at least, the intelligence to steal from the best. Me. Yanking the chain and awaiting the flush, Jim with a silent "t" Aitken [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (10-06-2008 11:54 PM).] |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Well, Jim, what can I say, when you snooze you lose. Your quick wit may have inspired the thread, but my quicker fingers did the typing. But I will put up a plaque in your honor if this thread lasts an entire day. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I live on an Aitken Crescent, so I know it well that Aitken has a silent t. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Jenn -- You've got it backwards. I'll put up a placque in your honor -- probably something scraped from my teeth... Maybe we can take a poll on who's the fastest typist. I know it isn't me. I'd vote for Bob. Either he has more free time than anyone I know, or spent a previous life as a court stenographer. ESS -- But then, you're a Canadian, and Canadians know everything. Really, you're a funny guy, and I wish you'd let your wit out more often. It's delightful. I personally live on Aitken croissants, which have too many letters altogether. Best, Jimbeaux [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (10-07-2008 12:41 AM).] |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I wish I'd grown up in Canada, the educational system is far superior to ours, and of course, so is the healthcare system. You don't have to cough up a week's pay for a routine office visit. Croissants, yum yum, one of my favorite things! Thank goodness Bush and the "patriots" didn't do away with them like they did French Fries. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Let's another argument have about contorted but correct syntax.  |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
M -- Bother why? Or is that: Bother! Why? Two offerings to be burnt: 1. I sometimes find it practical In matters thought syntactical That when limit I me to one word, My phrasing out comes less absurd. 2. If one took a hammer To each instance of odd grammar that appears on pages Pip, One's eyes would soon grow bleary, And one's hammer arm quite weary, Though amusing be the trip. I hope this isn't getting off topic. Jimbeaux [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (10-07-2008 12:53 PM).] |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Hits the spot, Jim! Anyway, a shout out to Bob. Somewhere in the Alley I mentioned a Naomi Wolf interview I'd watched and promised to post the link. Here it is. Very interesting stuff and well presented. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XgkeTanCGI |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
I don't have a sewing needle to fix your open thread, but I can contribute to a topic that has always bothered me: Democrats always point to the 'rich Republicans' and how they did this and that: here is a list, in exact order of earnings by $ of the top 38 senators and what they earn: Senate millionaires John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399 Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016 John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018 Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025 Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109 Peter Fitzgerald, R-Illinois: $26,132,013 Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey $17,789,018 Bill Frist, R-Tennessee: $15,108,042 John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029 Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: $9,905,009 Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico: $7,981,015 Bob Graham, D-Florida: $7,691,052 Richard Shelby, R-Alabama: $7,085,012 Gordon Smith, R-Oregon: $6,429,011 Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island: $6,296,010 Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska: $6,267,028 Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee: $4,823,018 Mike DeWine, R-Ohio: $4,308,093 Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota: $3,974,037 Ben Campbell, R-Colorado: $3,165,007 Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska: $2,963,013 Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: $2,955,037 James Talent, R-Missouri: $2,843,031 Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania: $2,045,016 Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire: $1,916,026 John McCain, R-Arizona: $1,838,010 James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma: $1,570,043 John Warner, R-Virginia: $1,545,039 Kay Bailey Hutchison, R - Texas: $1,513,046 Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky: $1,511,017 Harry Reid, D-Nevada: $1,500,040 Sam Brownback, R-Kansas: $1,491,018 Thomas Carper, D-Delaware: $1,482,017 Ted Stevens, R-Alaska: $1,417,013 Maria Cantwell, D-Washington: $1,264,999 Barbara Boxer, D-California: $1,172,003 Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: $1,086,023 Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana: $1,080,014 Bill Nelson, D-Florida: $1,073,014 Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: $1,016,024 *These figures are base estimates provided by senators on their financial disclosure forms. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/ *** REVISION NOTE Current figures are not assembled - so this would be pertinent to the last election, but not necessarily this one. Also H.Clinton thru book sales easily got onto this short list. Sorry about the out of date listing, but it's the closest I could get to current. If you have a more current one, by all means, please post it. The wives incomes are not included in the individual senators total incomes. A senator is required to file his tax return 'individually' by law. This post, like most of my posts, serves one of three purposes: to expose the fallacies of a myth; and/or to bring light to an important topic that the media ignores (for whatever reason and sometimes I just like to defend a deserving underdog! *** 18 of these are Dems/20 are Repubs The Top 5 earners all all Dem's In the Top 12 earners, 10 of them are Dems ***footnote: I recently got to interview a fairly new Senator. He's not rich, makes about $150,000 a year, and has to somehow pay for a home and maintain it in two locations: here and Washington D.C. He says that what voters don't know is that several of the guys at the bottom of the Senator earnings list wind up sleeping in their offices because they can't afford a 2nd home. They shave and shower daily at their local gym after workout, and spend many many lonely evenings with only their thoughts while their family is far away in their own comfortable beds. Just thought that aside was worth nothing...errrr....noting. t.b [This message has been edited by threadbear (10-08-2008 12:56 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-45A6I-N5I&feature=related I repeat...show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Interesting that you should post that list, tb. I see McCain's name on it as being among the richest but not Obama's or Biden's. Well, Balladeer, that certainly is an interesting video. Thanks for posting. It's an excellent example of the smear tactics McCain supporters have resorted to. As they say, desperate measures for desperate folks. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Jenn, I am not surprised that we don't see Obama's name on the list... we haven't even seen his birth certificate. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Just curious, who is the "we" you're talking about, Sunshine, and why would they want to see Obama's birth certificate? Anyway, if you want to see it, Google would be the place to start. Not sure what connection Obama's name not being on the list has to with his birth certificate. Is there one? [This message has been edited by JenniferMaxwell (10-08-2008 08:32 AM).] |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
OMG, McCain referred to Obama as "that one" and then wouldn't shake his hand after the debate. How rude! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
[Edit Please talk about the post, Bob, not the posters. - Ron] [This message has been edited by Ron (10-08-2008 08:17 AM).] |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
(peeks in after long hiatus)  Who else here thought the debate format tonight was terrible? Last thing I heard, we were promised 1) a "town hall" debate format, where 2) audience members were given the ability to ask their questions live and 3) the moderator Tom Brokaw would forward questions submitted via the Internet. In contrast, unless either candidate happened to stand very close to the audience member (like when McCain shook Terry's hand or Obama stood several feet away explaining his position on one question) not only did the audience barely get to ask anything..........they weren't even allowed a follow-up or footage of their reactions. With new voter registrations soaring through the roof this election cycle, it's especially absurd to me there wasn't a more inclusive feel here. Top that with Brokaw's rigidity as a moderator and the entire ninety minutes felt utterly dull!  * Having said that, Obama will all but certainly win this election after tonight. McCain had no embarrassing moments (I'm not convinced that "That One" moment will have much staying power) but neither did Obama, and post-debate polling already indicates not only are Obama's favorable ratings and advantages on economic policy continuing to increase, but he's even stealing thunder in an area traditionally playing to McCain's advantage: who is depicted as the "stronger leader". Sarah Palin's style of campaigning this past week certainly hasn't been helping either. I defended her at the beginning (even when I knew she was a terrible VP pick from the beginning) from criticisms I thought were disingenuous regarding the experience issue, but now she sounds incredibly desperate, to the point where, while campaigning in Clearwater, Florida, she was unable to speak when someone shouted "Kill him!" in the audience after bringing up Ayers, nor when she criticized the Couric interview and the media in general and a handful in the audience started threatening reporters on-site. Despite her lack of experience, she nonetheless had potential to be a popular candidate with her special brand of charm and folksiness, but she has instead traded much of it off for low-brow desperate attacks which, frankly, will only sink the campaign further. Granted Biden has made his share of gaffes, like suggesting Franklin D. Roosevelt was president in 1929 (in fact it was Herbert Hoover) and got on television when the stock market crashed (um, television wasn't invented until a decade later at the World's Fair) most recently, but with both McCain and Palin's unfavorables moving up sharply, the inevitable attacks their campaign and 527's favoring them will make won't make any significant difference. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
SEA
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you |
Noah...you are such a gentleman. I don't agree with you, but I sure think you say things nice |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Re: Birth certificate. . http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=63543 Re: The word "we". Read that as "we the people..." |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Sorry, Sunshine, I'm not seeing the point. I too have only a certified copy of my birth certificate and it's been accepted as a legal document whenever I've needed to show proof of citizenship. So why is Obama's certified copy, which is shown on his website, not a legal document? Interesting note, seems like there's also some question about McCain's birth certificate, whether or not he's a natural born citizen. Have you read about that? |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Yes, Jenn, I have, and I'm about ready for a "do over". As for the legality of the Obama site photostat copy, Jenn, I don't have it in my hands and cannot be certain that what we see is actually what is. All I know is that to date, he has either refused or objected to showing anyone the real thing. So it makes me ask, why? |
||
|
Abe Senior Member
since 2003-05-28
Posts 694Looks like Vero Beach, FL until the end! |
Palin "terrorists"! http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/07/palins_unamerican/ Del "Abe" Jones |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
While what you brought up is important in that it highlights how disingenuous Palin has been on the ground of her attacking Obama's connections with individuals that are arguably more than suspect, nonetheless I believe most voters simply are disenchanted with the kind of campaigning and they want to hear about where they stand on pocketbook issues in particular. In a typical election season where you have a generally pro-incumbency fragrance filling the atmosphere, one candidate is more apt about getting away with personal attacks in that sort of setting. However, when there's an anti-incumbency vibe sweeping the nation, and you have an economic crisis gripping the nation (it wouldn't be a recession in the traditional sense of the word since traditionally you must have three consecutive quarters of net economic loss to have a recession in the true sense of the word) then those fears of your financial health and providing for your family overshadow the personality attacks candidates will unleash on one another. This is essentially another "It's the economy, stupid!" brand of election, where the candidate that looks best on this issue will win. At this point, either candidate would be wasting time going with the Ayers and the Voglers, and whoever spends the most time talking about pocketbook issues will win. And Obama presently has a wide advantage exceeding his national poll numbers on this issue. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I couldn't provide my original birth certificate either, Sunshine, not even if the Bush Administration sent me to Gitmo and had me waterboarded. I simply don't have it, just a certified copy like Obama has of his. Have you seen McCain's birth certificate, held it in your hands and verified it was genuine and that the information is correct? I think perhaps we can rest assured that both sides have digently explored the question of whether or not the opposition candidate meets the legal requirements for holding office and accept that questions about Obama's and McCain's birth/birth certificates are more internet conspiracy theories than anything else. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Before we say, fraudently, that Sarah Palin has terrorist friends: 1) there is zero connection between her and Joe Vogler of the AIP 2) Joe Vogler is dead, murdered, as he said he would be, and mysteriously 3) Todd Palin is not a member of the group, but was at one time 4) The group itself is a States-Rights group, not a terrorist group 5) Vogler never terrorized anyone, so how does that make him a terrorist? 6) Sarah Palin's only connection with them was at a fundraiser where she said to AIG: keep up the good work. Big deal. 7) Vogler never went to dinner with Palins, were friends, or even casual friends. Palin herself wasn't Governor until 15 years AFTER Vogler died. Facts matter people. Salon dot com is one of the WORST blog sites for not tying facts to allegations. Here is a classic example of how two totally unrelated people are thrown together by Salon in order to propogate a smear lie to counter balance Obama's ties with Ayres. It's so transparent, its nauseating. T.Bear p.s. To be fair here, I am not convinced that Obama's relationship to Bill Ayers (Weatherman terrorist) is much closer, although Ayers did have Obama in his living room to promote his candidancy in 1995. The later links between Ayers and Obama are extremely tenuous at best. They served on a board together 13 times. I think the conservatives are simply trying to make a cause that Ayers and him WERE both radicals at one time, and that perhaps Ayers had some influence on Obama. Still, until concrete evidence surfaces that the two are still in cohoots over Gosh-knows-what, then I'll reserve judgement on the Obama-Ayers connection. [This message has been edited by threadbear (10-08-2008 03:53 PM).] |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
The scariest thing about this McCain smear tactic is that it's inflaming McCain's base and cranking up the hate factor. In my opinion, that's irresponsible and very, very dangerous. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
YouTube: John McCain/Sarah Palin In Bethlehem, Pennsylvania: October 8th, 2008 No complaints about anything he said here. I'm just utterly baffled where that "prisoners" part came from. Was this just a Freudian slip or something?  Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
I wonder how this "anything goes" thread is being turned toward yet another bunch of ludicrous, but unfunny, political diatribes. To paraphrase the remark of a Senator who's name I've forgotten to Senator Joe McCarthy, who's name only Republicans forget, I ask: "Have you, at last, sirs, no sense of humor? No sense of humor at all?" Notice, this is directed at posts, not posters. T-Bear: Thank you for the list. It confirms my belief that Democrats are at least as savvy capitalists as Republicans. I suggest, with some temerity, that capitalism in an economic system while democracy is a political system. There are capitalists in both Russia and China, though neither of those countries seem to be shining examples of democracy at work. There are capitalists in Kenya and Uganda, though neither of thos countries seem to be shining examples of anything that works at all. Now, we all know that Obama's parents came from Lithuania, that he was educated in a madras in Ethopia, that he bows three time a day to Mecca, that he never eats chitlin's (a code name for pork,) is really a really a white guy in black face, has a state certified and notarized fradulent copy of his birth certificate, good enough to get a driver's license, but not the real thing, and that his first car was a Toyota -- purchased BEFORE Toyotas were manufactured in America! So why do we keep beating these dead horses to death? They are already dead. Why can't we just accept or bury them and move on. Oh, I know -- to Move On is to secretly admit a kinship with that communist fund raising organization! So why then, can't we just get over it? Personally, I don't care that Sarah Palin had to repeat the third grade twice. At least, she got through it, and intelligence has never been a qualification for office. And I don't mind that she fed her children moose meat, despite moose being known carriers of the salmonella bacteria. If she wants to put her children at risk, including the six she had outside of wedlock -- and none of whom can provide birth certificates -- well, that's her business. And we all know that Alaska wasn't even a State until 1959 and the people still talk like Canadians, but that's not necessarily a disqualification for running for office. Even the Kennedy's spoke some kind of mangled American-ish incomprehensible to voters in Iowa. And so what if she didn't like her brother in law! I don't like my brother-in-law either, and if I could figure out a way to trump up some charges against him and make his life miserable out of spite, I probably would too! And look, I don't mind that McCain spent an extended period of time in a VA hospital undergoing psycological counseling. Lincoln himself was something of a manic-depressive nut case, even though he was never a prisoner of war. And if McCain fooled around and finally married for money, well, what harm that? It worked for Anna Nicole Smith and everybody who married Anna Nicole Smith after her sugar daddy died. Isn't that the American way? I even understand why McCain hasn't published his birth certificate. In the original document obtained by the New York Times and its left wing liberal media correspondents, McCain's birth date is clearly July 13, 1917, making him irrefutably 90 years old. It is to McCains great credit, or genetics, that he is able to hide the more obvious symptions of age related dementia, and hasn't resorted to the use of a cane to hobble around. This, I think, is particularly courageous, given the fact that at any moment he is likely to fall off the national stage. The only advice I can give to Joe Biden would be good advice. I'm sorry if this comes a little late Joe, after poor advice ruined your chances for the nomination, but don't try to walk and chew gum at the same time. Just cop to your birthday, publish your tax returns, admit that every word in the Bible, particularly one of those written in English, is a verbatim transcript of everything that God ever said, and let the American people choose. It's sort of a shame that they will actually be choosing the half-black Muslim rabble rouser you're running with, but hey, keep your nose clean and you get to go along for the ride. OK, I'm done with posting satire in this thread. In a few weeks, though, I hope to start a new thread entitled "Neener, neener, neener!" My only remark will be "Neener, neener neener!" Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Jim, chill, I put up the plaque. OK? See, right there in the back booth over the passed out wino. Seriously, I know we keep beating dead horses, but I think a lot of us are really scared (I know I am) and need to let off steam or take another shot at trying to persuade others to see the light that we've seen regarding who would be best to lead us out of the darkness the Bush Adminstration has created. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Jenn -- I said I would chill, "IN THIS THREAD ONLY" per the suggestion in your post. You can already tell how sincere that remark was by the fact that I'm posting again ten minutes later. As to "giving it a rest," I'm just being a chicken picking at the odd bit of corn. Many posts and ripostes in PiP forums are so amatuerish as to be beneath contempt. I'm talking about posts, not posters. I just wrote a note to Ron thanking him for letting this thread, which includes both purposeful satire and the inane, to co-exist. Yeah, we all, left, right, and English people, occasionally choose to let off steam. There aren't many venues which permit steam whistles from trains going in six different directions at the same time. From the start, this thread was, and is, open to satire, as part of "anything goes." Anyone else interested in the differences between satire, sarcasm, polemics, and lunacy? My guess is not, just as there was no interest, in this, a literary site, in the nature of inverted syntax. Oh well, I certainly can't expect anyone to be amused by what amuses me. On the other hand. McCain will be defeated handily, so don't worry. Most of my remarks in Pip are "defrosted" a wee bit anyway. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I am highly amused, Jim, your humor is delicious and your syntax sheer perfection, inverted or otherwise. Since I've already told you that in private email, stop fishing for compliments. Makes you look needy. I'm also interested in the difference between satire, sarcasm, polemics, and lunacy. Well, the lunacy part I'm familiar with so you could skip that if you're short on time. I'd like to learn how to better express my dry wit and droll humor. I'm often accused of being sarcastic by those who don't know me. Others who know me well recognize it's just my tongue in cheek style. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Jimbeaux...  Loving the humor in a thread named "any topic goes thread". I mean, who can really get serious in a thread so obscure? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
VIRUS ALERT!!! VIRUS ALERT!!! If you receive an e-mail with the subject of "Nude Pictures of Sarah Palen", DO NOT OPEN IT! . It may contain a virus!!! VIRUS ALERT!!! VIRUS ALERT!!! If you receive an e-mail with the subject of "Nude Pictures of Hillary Clinton, DO NOT OPEN IT!!! . It may contain nude picture of Hillary Clinton! |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
 |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
That's "Palin", btw Mike. Anyway, what I really dropped by to say was: YAY for Connecticut! http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/10/connecticut_sup.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed3 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Where are those pictures, Balladeer. Maybe we can photoshop them together with some pictures of Senator McCain for some hot muscrat video action fun. Shudder, shudder. I do believe I've creeped myself out in the backblast of my own bad joke. Gak! Gag! Sorry, Balladeer, Must get to can of spinach. . . . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Oh, terribly sorry! I thought this was the oil question thread where the Hillary/McCain joke might actually go over. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Mooonbeam -- Aw, the Connecticut repeal wasn't that big a deal. The whole country already has "happy marriage" rights, the kind which enabled Arianna Huffington to marry the millionaire Michael Huffington, who admitted to parting his hair in both directions. Just a cheap shot to keep the balls roiling. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No problem, Bob. You have a record of getting your threads mixed up I was responding to Jimbeaux's call for levity. The "joke" won't go over on any thread to Democrats. That's ok. I didn't post it for them. (psssstt...it goes over well with Republicans. Trust me on this one....') ) |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
A Tale for Jenn: OR How to use Humor, Satire, Sarcasm Lunacy, and Story-telling at the same time. The Story is in qoutes, not the original boldface, didn't show up in the box. THE GREAT NEMATODE CAPER (1.) Start with a silly sounding title. Other examples include “Moby Dick.” "Burrell Weeks was tired of living in the poor folks home." (2) Pick an odd name (“Ahab” comes to mind) and set the stage in the first line. "For one thing, everybody else in the poor folks home was old and white to boot." (3) Distinguish the character immediately from the rest of the characters who are likely to crop up in the story (“Pequod” comes to mind.) (4) Write in the vernacular if your character is going to speak in the vernacular, and keep your sentences short. Use stupid notes like these to interject an element of satire. (5) Avoid the temptation to drift into sarcasm too early in the tale. Don’t say something like: "Not only were they old and white, but they were Jewish on top of it, and ate a lot of lox, which was, as far as Burrell could tell, the waste of a perfectly good piece of fish." (5a) Your reader isn’t nearly ready for a sarcastic whomp, and will probably think you are a Jew-baiting racist (satire), unless your reader is Jewish, in which he/she will recognize this as a joke (sarcasm, except it doesn’t have anything to do with the story, and the sentence contains too many subordinate clauses, which tends to interfere with humor unless you happen to be a genius like John Barth or Woody Allen (humor.) So be a genius. (humor) "And the view wasn’t too hot, either." 6: Two things accomplished here: You’ve expanded the set-up, giving another reason why Burrell is unhappy, and firmly establishing that the story is going to be told from Burrell’s point of view for those who couldn’t get it from the first line (sarcasm). “Solly” Burrell asked, “What do you see when you look across the street?” 7. You can’t start throwing in dialog too soon. (“Call me Ishmael” comes to mind. (satire). "Burrell and Solly were sitting on the front steps of poor folks home, killing themselves with cigarettes, which not only kept away the bat-sized Miami mosquitoes, but discouraged the blue haired old ladies from sitting out there too." 8. Ah, here you get to break the rule about subordinate clauses while introducing a “buddy.” Every good comic story has a buddy. Where would Dobie Gillis (note funny name) be without Maynard G. Krebs? (note funny name). Technically speaking, the “buddy” is often known as the “Foil”) (more story telling mechanics). Not only that, but by saying Miami, you’ve used a cultural reference to explain why “Hmm,” Solly said. “Looks like the ugly-ass-end of a K-Mart where they pile up the junk” “Well, yeah,” Burrell agreed, but what do you see before that?” “Big old empty lot.” “Right,” Burrell, said “And what do people do with big old empty lots” “Put up cardboard shacks and sleep in them?” 9. This is an important exchange. First, it establishes that Burrell has at least one friend, whose name Solly indicates he’s a Jewish guy, and it sets up the black guy/white guy equality thing (sarcasm) which works in comedy because, after all these years, we still don’t really expect it (more sarcasm). And Second, it lets the reader know that the buddy is going to get some of the good lines too (story telling). “No, man, they grow plants on’em and then they sell’em." 10: Here, you’re teasing out the premise… “Why’d you want to do that?” “So I can make some money and get out of this damned poorhouse!" 11: There’s the motivation (storytelling) and you’re still on page one. Good job! “I thought you had money?” “I do have money! I got enough money to BUY this roach ranch. But I can’t get ahold of it!" … 12: Ah, THE CONFLICT! … “But when I stroked out, what, eight years ago, my damned daughter-in-law, Margarethe, she got Conservatized and she’s been Conservatizing my cash ever since! Put me in the poor house! And I ain’t stroked no more! I’m just broke!” 13: Ah, the antagonist! Every story has to have one! “So how do you buy plants?” “We don’t. We steal’em! And we blame in on Margarethe! 14. And now you have THE CAPER, the basis of the funny story. There’s an old Hollywood saw about how a story works: First, you chase a monkey up a tree. Then you shake the tree. Then you figure out how to get the monkey back down. Hope you seriously didn’t think I was going to tell you the whole story, but here’s one way to work out act two (story telling) Burrell “invents the DADE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL COMMISSION NEMATODE CONTROL PROJECT, prints up some t-shirts, badges and official looking documents, “signed “ by the phony Commissioner, Margarethe herself, and proceeds to appropriate nursery stock from every wholesale nursery, retail outlet, and landscaped parking lot he and Solly can find, for nematode research, of course. Now, you have to shake the tree pretty hard, that’s called the “plot,” and then you have to get Burrell and Solly out of the tree, and you have to imagine all the comic complications that might ensue. I mean that. You HAVE to imaging the comic complications. That’s what makes it a funny story. And, once you get rolling, you can be as satiric, sarcastic, or just plain looney as you want. Well, that pretty much killed my day, but none of my favorite college football teams are on TV until later. Best, Jimbeaux PS: I alsmost forgot: The "Lunacy" part is using "Moby Dick" as an example of comic writing. [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (10-12-2008 09:53 AM).] |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Thanks, Jim, sorry to be so late responding, been a little under the weather. What came to mind as I started reading was Vonnegut. Hope you take that as the compliment it was meant to be. Yep, some lovely pointers, Jim, and much appreciated. Could you also send me a cup or two of your brilliance and wit to give me a fighting chance? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itf6XLPo874&feature=related |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://believe.amnestyusa.org/atf/cf/{7B7C46E5-9835-46E3-9557-BBD225E306DB}/AI_AIBI_4IMAGES.GIF |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ar least that fun-loving group the Black Panthers are there at the polling places in Philadelphia, resplendent in leather jackets and billy clubs, encouraging people to vote their hearts. I suppose THAT'S what the new America is all about. There have been 137 calls so far from Philadelphia complaining of coercion/intimidations. Aren't those panthers cute??? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZANq7nnc2w&feature=related |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
One was a certified poll watcher, the other, the one with the night stick wasn't and was removed. Not to worry, everything's ok now. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
When I saw those Black Panthers it sent a shock through me. I remember how they decimated this city back in 1970 when they murdered Sgt. Von Colin, who worked under my father, Capt. Corbley. My dad was on his way to work and was just a few minutes from the station when the call came over his radio that there was trouble there. I guess these thugs are some people's idea of democracy. Maybe in Kenya. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Well, I really don't think one misguided person with a night stick is a real threat to democracy here or anywhere else. No one was threatened and no one was prevented from voting. And, just so you know, the two weren't "Black Panthers". |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Intimidation of Republicans and White voters is no more acceptable than the reverse, Jen. And yes, it is a threat to democracy. And yes, they are Black Panthers. Only now they are called the New Black Panthers. Same ideology. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80036 http://townhall.com/blog/g/cf47766b-5a6d-44ab-95e7-ce60631bcadc |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Really, it's ok now, honest. The misguided person has been removed and the one person left is an official poll watcher. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, it's not okay that it happened, Jen. It will never be okay that it happened. And it's not okay that Republican poll watchers were thrown out of several voting districts. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
A subdued McCain says goodbye to press on plane - Cindy McCain had tears in her eyes A subdued McCain came to the back of the plane to talk to reporters on the flight from New Mexico back to Arizona. Cindy McCain, who stood beside her husband, had tears in her eyes. "Well, my friends, this is our last flight on this airplane together so I just wanted to stop back," McCain said. "And yesterday I know was really a fun day starting out at the crack of dawn and ending up at 2 am. We went 3700 miles yesterday, had a great ride, and looking forward to the election results tonight and I'm feeling good, feeling confident about the way things have tured out. We've had a great ride, a great experience, it's full of memories that we will always treasure, including the last one up there in Colorado, where people were so warm-- and the enthusiasm as you've seen in rallies has been really quite remarkable and quite heartwarming. So, we've spent a lot of time together, so, been together for almost two years--others, those are the ones who rode around in the van with us on the $39.99 flight to Manchester. So anyway, we've had a great time and I wish all every success. Look forward to being with you in the future. Thanks very much." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Tell the 138 people that called in complaining of coercion it's ok. of course, they are probably just cry babies, no doubt. And yes, they were billy clubs and carrying them is against the law...not to mention they are not standard issue to poll watchers. The lengths some people will go to for justification of actions is always appalling. Misguided person. I love it |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Was the person who carried the night stick arrested and charged? If so, what were the charges? Of course his actions, the actions of one person, were wrong. The police handled the situation properly, removed him and the incident is over. ............................................... I think McCain's farewell to the reporters on his plane was very touching. I wish he'd gotten the nomination in 2000 instead of Bush. I think he was quite a different man then, one I might have actually voted for. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thank you Jenn. (I agree with you about McCain in 2000.) But I guess I can say whatever I like, since nobody ever listens to me. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's not true, serene one. There must be SOMEBODY out there who listens to you! |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No he wasn't arrested, Jen, but he should have been. I guess the police had to make a call as to whether they wanted to risk inciting increased tension, or just thought it best to try to diffuse the situation. But technically the guy should have been arrested for having that billy club and assuming a menancing stance with it in front of the polling place. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I understand how you feel, Denise, about the guy with the night stick not being arrested. I was just as shocked when I learned that a Bush appointed prosecutor dropped charges against the three skinheads who had weapons and threatened to kill Obama. [This message has been edited by JenniferMaxwell (11-04-2008 09:01 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
That is shocking. Where did you hear that? The last I read was on the 30th where a Federal Magistrate said they must remain in jail. There were three? I thought it was two skinheads. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Sorry, Denise, I messed up. I meant the three arrested in Colorado around convention time. The two skinheads are still in custody as far as I know. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I saw the McCain concession speech and thought it was a class act all the way. I'm very sorry that anything marred the vote in Philadelphia; there's no excuse for it at all. I'd like to get a more fully detailed report in a day or two, because the details often change over time as reporters have a chance to digest and get the accounts straight. Perhaps there were more panthers, perhaps it was a matter that the police reacted to in a way that was more appropriate than we're in a position to judge at this point. I'm simply sorry that any incident took place at all. I'm upset that the events made the day more difficult for the Republican folks here who tied high hopes to the election, though I have nothing but praise for the way that McCain dealt with his concession speech. It would be nice if we could all find some way of working across the aisle. There's a lot of stuff that needs to be done, and if the Democrats try to do it without the support of the Republicans, it's not going to work out as well as it might otherwise. The Democrats are going to have to learn to be a bit flexible. I certainly hope Obama will find some method for returning some of the powers the executive branch has gotten away from the legislative branch back to proper hands. I 'd like to see greater access to Freedom of Information documents, for example, now and some investigations of exactly what's been happening in our names here and around the world. Even if this means we may have to give up possible prosecutions to get a full account of the truth, it may be worth it. But the truth about some of this stuff should be gotten out. And the damage to the democracy somehow must be healed. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Mike?  .....................> |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I certainly hope Obama will find some method for returning some of the powers the executive branch has gotten away from the legislative branch back to proper hands The "proper hands" being Pelosi, Reed and Murtha? Now THAT is REALLY scary! Obama gave a brilliant acceptance speech at the end of the day. There is no doubt he is a class act. Time will tell for the rest. I wish him (and us) the best. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Unfortunately, these folks didn't put up as much of a fight about giving these rights up as I would have wanted them to. This is not the first time you've heard me say that; it's a bitter truth. If I recall correctly, some of the ideas in the patriot act and in the Homeland security bill were democratic creations. That is as bitter or more bitter a pill for me to swallow. I think the Democrats should have stood their ground against the rising tide of neo-conservative anti-democratic (the principle, not the party) rhetoric. It was more difficult for them than they were able to do. They were not principled enough for me, though I don't know if what they did do was wise in political terms or not. It may have ensured their survival on some level. The animus you bear these people is on entirely different grounds. I will not criticize you for it at this point. I have tried to suggest that people need to work together to make this country an ongoing enterprise when President Bush and his Friends were running things. I would be wrong to say differently now. The next four yours will be difficult enough without pretending my brothers and my sisters are my enemies; we will need to lean on each other to find a way to pay back the debt we've run up and to put the economy back on track and to earn back the respect we've given up in the world. I know that it must have been a tough Tuesday for you, but I do hope that all is well. Best wishes to you. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, 'tough" is when I'm holding three aces and someone hits a gutshot straight to beat me out of a hand they shouldn't have been in in the first place. Tuesday wasn't tough...it was simply disappointing, but not unexpected. The cards were stacked against McCain, carrying the weight of an unpopular president, with a press that ran negative stories of McCain over Obama by a ration of over 3 to 1, and the simple fact that McCain was not that strong of a contender, although he did his best. It would have been a shock to have seen McCain even come close, all things considered. It was tougher seeing slime like Murtha get re-elected, although the Florida ladies' man got shot down at least. The "tough" days are the ones that will come when we get "tested". That worries me. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, You and I ought to have a conversation about your thinking about the press and the conservatives some time. I disagree with many of your conclusions. In some of the "negative" coverage of McCain by the press, straight reportage was apparently considered "negative coverage." For example, a report saying that McCain was five points behind in the polls was "negative." It was also straight factual reportage and didn't reflect any sort of slanting of the news in favor of one candidate or the other. This sort of rote repetition of standard positions voiced by talk show hosts such as O'Reilly and Hannity are not, I believe, born out by examination of the facts. When things have gotten a bit quieter, maybe we can have a look at some of them together? You may feel Representative Murtha is slime. I would point out to you that that his district seems to disagree with you. He does have a Bronze Star and a couple of Purple Hearts. He was in the Marines, and the woman who said that he was a coward on the floor of the House Apologized for saying it in the first place, and claimed that she was quoting a Marine who'd written her. The Marine in question said he'd never said any such thing, and the Lady in question was somehow unable to find any evidence to support her claim. I didn't like anything about Abscam, myself, and I think that Murtha should have been a lot clearer about turning down the bribe. Myself, I think that the overall level of discomfort I have with the thing is about the same as I have for McCain and The Keating Five, which I wasn't all that thrilled with either, but which overall didn't seem to cook McCain's goose. I saw no reason for Murtha's level of non-involvement in Abscam to cook Murtha's either. I understand you may well disagree, but I don't believe I'd like to accuse either of them of being slime. The gentleman in Florida's problems with having affairs I believe were very much bad news. I was glad he was voted out, though I would have been pleased at having the extra Democrat in office. He seemed a very unpleasant man overall. I'm glad he's gone. Maybe he can use his extra time to work on his marriage, if his wife will have him. Yuck. As you said in your note: "The "tough" days are the ones that will come when we get "tested". That worries me." It worries me too. Biden said it was coming, and before the concession speech was over we had stuff coming in from Carzai — if that's how you spell it — from Kabul and the new Russian President threatening to give very hard-line responses to our "defense shield" deployments in Eastern Europe. There's that George Bush foreign policy for you, the gift that keeps on giving. Oh good. Apparently we living in interesting times. I still wish you well, and hope you have a good weekend. Best of luck, Best wishes, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There's that George Bush foreign policy for you, the gift that keeps on giving. Ah, yes. That shall be the mantra of the Democratic party for years now. Whatever goes wrong, whatever problems surface in the future, whatever promises Obama made that can't be kept will all elicit that Democratic response. I confess I didn't think it would be used so early, like one day after the election, but it's not surprising. I'm afraid we could never have a conversation over press coverage, Bob, because we are way too far seperate in our conclusions, although I think it would be pleasant to sit down over a cup of coffee and try. I'll get some facts that do NOT come from Fox or Hannity or Rush and get back to you. It's all there. Enjoy your Thursday and, if it rains, please don't blame Bush for screwing up the environment and causing it |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, I don't know about Afghanistan, Mike. I tend to think that he backed off when he should have pressed. The result might have been at this point different and more to our liking. That's a big Might Have, of course. If possibly we'd have taken the Taliban up on their offer of turning Bin Ladin over to a neutral third party in 2002, things could be substantially different now. I wouldn't know how to judge, but a "yes," on our part would have been a very inexpensive step one. There are a lot if "ifs" in between, though. None of them were helped by Bush's comment about saying that he didn't think about bin Ladin a few years back. That Bib Ladin wasn't all that important. That sort of unannounced vacillation in foreign policy is indeed a gift that kept on giving; among others, it gave to the Democrats. It was poor foreign policy. Pushing against Russian borders when there is apparent peace between the two countries is a pretty clear way of getting a crazy response. This is exactly what Bush managed to get, and he managed to get it at a time when he's leaving office, making it a problem for his Democratic successor. This is a gift that will keep on giving. It will take a certain amount of artfulness to sidestep a confrontation with the Russians while maintaining a posture of some strength in the world and at the same time deal with the financial problems. Again, This is a gift that will keep on giving, and a hearty and sarcastic thanks is due to the current administration for this gift as well. I can imagine the congressional rhetoric as I write. I would rather that the new President have time to address the financial problems directly, without demands that large amounts of money be spent at this point for a military repair budget that's been put off ever since President Bush said it was urgent in 2000, and then ground down the army he was given by his predecessor, Bill Clinton in what many of us have seen as an ill chosen adventure, extraordinarily disrespectful of the lives and the personal fates of the troops he was given the honor of commanding. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Murtha’s War Hero Status Called Into Question By Marc Morano and Randy Hall January 13, 2006 (CNSNews.com) - Having ascended to the national stage as one of the most vocal critics of President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq, Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha has long downplayed the controversy and the bitterness surrounding the two Purple Hearts he was awarded for military service in Vietnam. Murtha is a retired marine and was the first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress. Since 1967, there have been at least three different accounts of the injuries that purportedly earned Murtha his Purple Hearts. Those accounts also appear to conflict with the limited military records that are available, and Murtha has thus far refused to release his own military records. A Cybercast News Service investigation also reveals that one of Murtha’s former Democratic congressional colleagues and a fellow decorated Vietnam veteran, Don Bailey of Pennsylvania, alleges that Murtha admitted during an emotional conversation on the floor of the U.S. House in the early 1980s that he did not deserve his Purple Hearts. http://sweetness-light.com/archive/murthas-purple-hearts-questioned slime. A published report that U.S. Rep. Jack Murtha “threatened to withdraw support from a defense project” after a spat with fellow U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahrt may have placed him afoul of House ethics rules, research by the Majority Accountability Project (majorityap.com) has found.According to the May 8, 2007, report in the Hill newspaper, Murtha was irate that Tiahrt voted against a $23 million project in Murtha’s district. Murtha allegedly retaliated “by unleashing a loud, finger-jabbing, spittle-spraying piece of his mind” against Tiahrt, threatening to withdraw his support for a project that would create between 800-1,000 jobs in the Kansas Republican’s district. slime In the early 1980’s, Murtha was named an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Abscam investigation, an FBI sting operation where agents posed as Arab sheiks and offered bribes to a host of elected officials. Six members of Congress - one Senator and five U.S. Representatives - were later convicted of conspiracy and taking bribes. slime More recently, questions were raised about Murtha’s relationship with the lobbying firm of his brother, Robert “Kit” Murtha. According a 2005 Los Angeles Times study, Murtha authored legislation that “benefited at least 10 companies represented” by Kit Murtha’s firm, costing taxpayers almost $21 million dollars. Another employee of the firm was Carmen Scialabba, “who worked for Rep. Murtha for 27 years.” slime In June, 2006, the Washington Times reported that Murtha “leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco.” According to that report, “Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land.” slime Here you can also see the FBI video of Murtha taken during the Abscam scandal... http://majorityap.com/Did-Murtha-violate-House-ethics-rules slime and double slime In the on-going controversy over the defamation lawsuit against Rep. Jack Murtha, one of the collateral issues has been whether the Marines that he accused of a massacre would be tried for murder. Today, it appears that there will be no such charges coming out of the killing of roughly two dozen Iraqi citizens in the town of Haditha in November 2005. The recommendation is that Sgt. Frank Wuterich face trial for lesser charges of negligent homicide. Murtha is in hot water because he indicated that he was basing his decision on information from an official source – making it more difficult to argue opinion. He also made the comments outside of Congress – stripping away his constitutional protection as a member of Congress. slime Murtha's Freddie/Fannie Distortions John Murtha has taken some pretty stiff criticism for slandering his constituents as racists -- and deservedly so. But it's worth looking at the rest of his recent interview to get a sense of how he views the credit crunch. Here's how Murtha describes how we got into this financial mess: Six months ago they said to me... Paul Kanjorski - who's on the Banking Committee said 'Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren't going to make it. A hundred banks are going to go bankrupt.' I said 'well what the hell are we doing about it? What do you mean?' I could hardly believe that. Finally the president kept saying things are all right. Well the president has no credibility. When he says something nobody believes that. And so finally Bernanke and Paulson came over. Scared the hell out of us. I mean, scared us... made us... convinced us that we had to do something. And of course they sent a 3 pages thing over -- an open door.' It's amazing that even after all the discussion about this crisis over the last few weeks, Murtha is either so oblivious to current events, or so non-plussed about not telling the truth. In September, 2003, the president proposed a new agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie because they were extended too far. In May, 2005, John McCain warned of the threat faced by the two GSEs. There were literally dozens of warnings from the White House. And John Murtha takes so little interest in the issue that the first inkling he had of trouble was when Paul Kanjorski told him 6 months ago? Murtha paints a picture that does not reflect reality. He is either foolish or dishonest--or both. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/10/murthas_freddiefannie_distorti.asp[/ URL] [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybgHkAPBVFI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybgHkAPBVFI slime Murtha named as one of ten worst members of Congress By Wally Edge Democratic Congressman John Murtha is having a real bad week. First he calls his district and Western Pa. racist, then he cancels out of a candidate forum so he doesn't need to face the constituents he called racists. William Russell then posts a fundraising quarter of $1.6 million and to top it off Esquire has named Murtha as one of the ten worst members of Congress. http://www.politickerpa.com/wallyedgepa/2188/murtha-named-one-ten-worst-members-congre ss |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://www.alternet.org/story/38145/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Here you go, Bob. Not a Fox among them...... How the Media Vote. Surveys of journalists’ self-reported voting habits show them backing the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1964, including landslide losers George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. In 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Connecticut found journalists backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a greater than two-to-one margin. See Section. Journalists’ Political Views. Compared to their audiences, journalists are far more likely to say they are Democrats or liberals, and they espouse liberal positions on a wide variety of issues. A 2004 poll by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press found five times more journalists described themselves as “liberal” as said they were “conservative.” See Section. How the Public Views the Media. In increasing numbers, the viewing audiences recognize the media’s liberal tilt. Gallup polls have consistently found that three times as many see the media as “too liberal” as see a media that is “too conservative.” A 2005 survey conducted for the American Journalism Review found nearly two-thirds of the public disagreed with the statement, “The news media try to report the news without bias,” and 42 percent of adults disagreed strongly. See Section. Admissions of Liberal Bias. A number of journalists have admitted that the majority of their brethren approach the news from a liberal angle. During the 2004 presidential campaign, for example, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas predicted that sympathetic media coverage would boost Kerry’s vote by “maybe 15 points,” which he later revised to five points. In 2005, ex-CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter confessed he stopped watching his old network: “The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me.” See Section http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp Conservatives are utterly convinced that the mainstream news organizations have been deeply unfair to the Republican ticket, and they have some points they can cite as evidence. For example, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that there were twice as many favorable Obama stories after the convention as favorable McCain ones. Conversely, twice as many McCain stories were negative. The Center for Media and Public Affairs found that network TV coverage of Obama was 65 percent positive, compared to 31 percent positive for McCain. As Politico.com put it: "in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press." Indeed, one of the editors of Politico.com received a scolding note about bias from his own mother. Then there's also the well-known fact that national reporters for major news organizations are disproportionately likely to vote Democratic. Slate.com polled its staff and found that Barack Obama won 55 votes, and John McCain 1. That's partly because Slate's staff is composed of young, urban, highly educated techies, but still -- that's some margin. http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20081105.asp#8 Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist By Meg Sullivan | 12/14/2005 5:36:31 PM While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left. These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly. "I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." "Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar. The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx You're not imagining things - the national press has been beating John McCain and Sarah Palin over the head. And now there's an academic study that proves it. The Project for Excellence in Journalism of the Pew Research Center (which has never been accused of harboring conservative sympathies) concludes: "Coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable - and has become more so over time." How unfavorable? According to Pew's survey of 2,412 stories from 48 news outlets during the period between the end of the conventions through the final presidential debate, negative stories about McCain outweighed positive ones "by a factor of more than three to one." Indeed, fully 57 percent of news stories on McCain were negative; only 14 percent were positive. For Palin, the figures were 39 percent negative and 28 positive - and most of those positive stories appeared right after she was nominated. The study's authors played it safe: "For a story to be deemed as having a negative or positive spin," says Pew, "it must be clearly so, not a close call." And this is just a select bunch of news stories. It doesn't reflect the negative drumbeat against the GOP ticket from other parts of the media, including late-night and early-morning talk shows, cable news and the blogs. Nor does it cover the period since the last debate - when coverage of McCain, by Pew's own accounts, was growing increasingly negative. To be sure, the folks at Pew bend over backward not to interpret their own findings as evidence of conscious journalistic bias, calling it inconclusive. But hey, the numbers pretty much speak for themselves. http://www.nypost.com/seven/11012008/postopinion/editorials/media_bias_made_scientific_136350.htm |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Journalists are mostly Democrats. So what? The people get what the people want. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Journalists are supposed to be the watch dogs of government and those who wish to obtain power in government. They aren't supposed to be in bed with them. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Spiffy reply, grinch. Nice work... Journalists, at least in the past, were supposed to have been unbiased in their reporting. Their job was to convey facts, allowing the listener to make up their own minds. Yes, they had their own political affiliations but they were to be left at the door before sitting down at the mike. They have since become Ellsworth Tooheys, fashioning their broadcasts and news medias to sway public opinion. Yes, I know. What an old-fashioned way to think. That's why newspaper sales and advertising is down and mainstream news viewers have gone to cable. The liberal press has been so blatant in their prejudices, they have exposed themselves to even the most forgiving audience. They are not to be taken seriously any longer. The Murrows and the Cronkites are relics of the past when the media reported the news, not created it. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The official website of US President-elect Barack Obama for his transition to the White House, www.change.gov, went online on Thursday inviting users to offer their ideas for the future of the country. Under the headline of "Open Government," the website asks readers to "Share Your Vision" via email. "The story of the campaign and this historic moment has been your story," the website states. "Share your story and your ideas, and be part of bringing positive lasting change to this country." The website's homepage notes that it's "75 days until inauguration," when Obama is to be sworn in as president on January 20, 2009. It also features a quote from Obama: "Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today." A blog posting includes a link to a YouTube video of Obama's victory speech in Chicago on Tuesday. Users can also apply for jobs via the website or read about the president-elect's agenda and priorities for his administration. http://change.gov/ |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, I wasn’t trying to be flippant, I think I simply have a pragmatic view of the media - that unbiased reporting isn’t conducive to selling news, they just give the people what they want. I’ve a sneaky suspicion that when the people want a Republican President the media will reflect it and I’ll be saying the same thing to Bob when he starts decrying a media bias. Put simply I think that the media reflects public opinion rather than shaping it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Grinch, that's the same argument they use about Hollywood movies. Do the movies reflect real life or do they influence real life? When Harrison Ford appeared in the first Indiana Jones movie, sales of the hat he wore went up over 2000 percent and he was given a national haberdashery award. When Clark Gable had a scene wearing a white undershirt, sales also exploded. When Oprah Winfrey said she didn't eat beef because she feared mad cow disease, beef sales plummeted over 20% and she was sued by the beef industry. Exorcism went up drastically after The Exorcist hit the scene. Professional poker was relatively unnoticed until the movie Rounders came out. Now the World Poker Tour is one of the most watched shows on television and tournaments have sprung up all over the world, thanks to the movie. Saying that they (the news, movies, etc) only reflect real life and give the people what they want is a pathetic excuse used by them to justify their actions. They create the need and then they fill it. That's what they do. A news agency is supposed to report the news. They are not supposed to create it, nor are they supposed to influence the reader's or listener's way of thinking. Yes, I realize that way of thinking belongs to the past. Maybe I do, too..who knows? There are some things that should involve ethics. Reporting is one, so is medicine and the law. right now we are 0 for 3, in my book. Don't know if you ever read The Fountainhead but, if you ever get around to it, you will see exactly how newspapers do it, step by step. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, I read The Fountainhead. I don't understand why you would think that the book was other than a provocative and interesting (for me, though not for many others) piece of fiction. Why you would think that it was a better description of the newspaper business in the thirties and forties than Front Page, or His Gal Friday, or Citizen Kane is beyond me. Why you would think it reflects anything about today's newspaper or news business is even more of a puzzle. The majority of the sources you quote in the comments you make about Rep. Murtha, by the way, go back to organizations founded by or organized around the thinking of Brent Bozell. Mr. Bozell's dedication is to exposing "The Liberal Media," without actually having proved in advance that such a thing exists in any more widespread a fashion than does the right wing media. Much of the disparity in coverage in this past election had to do with reports of McCain trailing in the polls. Certainly a lot of the things that McCain and and Palin said didn't seem to help themselves out very well, and it seems pretty easy to blame the press for the actions of the Republican Party over the past two terms that simply haven't made them the darlings of the public. Have no fear, though, Mike. If the press feels that Obama is falling short, the press will do a number on him pretty quickly. It simply won't be quickly enough for you, I suspect. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: If that’s true Mike they’re not very good at it. If the media controls who wins elections and the media are biased towards Democrats you’d expect them to win every election by a landslide. Reality doesn’t seem to match your assertion. In fact if you look at election results over the past 50 years I think you’ll find that the landslides have general slid in favour of the Republicans. I think the reality is that there are staunch Republican biased media outlets and there are staunch Democrat biased media outlets and a whole heap of Capitalist media outlets that can and do blow either way. If I’m right the Republicans will win an election at some point in the future, if you’re right those clever media moguls will keep the Democrats in power forever. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Grinch, I said that's what they do. I didn't say they were especially good at it. They did the same with Gore but Gore was too superficial to win. They did the same with Kerry, but he was too busy shooting himself in the foot. The fact that the democrats lost those two elections was not due to the non-attempts of the media, it was due to the bozos the democrats put up. Bob, if you don't see where the Fountainhead is an excellent representation of how the media uses mind control, you didn't read the Fountainhead. It goes into great detail for those who can see how little snippets and subliminal hints go into all phases of the paper, from the food section to the comics to wherever, promoting whatever the paper is trying to shovel in order to plant their messages in the reader's mind, even without them knowing it. Citizen Kane was excellent, also, but dealt more with how to sell newspapers and create the empire, a la the National Enquirer. True enough, Kane tried to use the same tactics to promote his wife's singing career but, as I explained to Grinch, even when you are on a cause, you still need a little talent on the part of whoever you champion. Do I want Obama to fail? You couldn't be more wrong. As I stated in the other post, as he goes so goes America and I would be very content to see him succeed, if it's done in the right way. I have retirement savings, too, Bob, and I get no pleasure out of watching them go down daily. Nor (unlike congressional Democrats) would I like to see America or the economy fail just so I can say "told ya!". In this case, I would be more than happy to be wrong. |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
This is an any topic thread, right? I am having trouble sleeping...racing thoughts....herbal/holistic help? please. I will go back to my corner fetal position now. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
I just feel so very, very, sad, and yes even a little mad for 18,000 couples in California today, especially Ellen, whom I adore, and three couples I know down there that "tied the knot." I thought the Supreme Court held the last word in the United States, so I learned something today. I guess twice voting on it, makes it clear this is one "change" we are not ready to see happen. Please don't turn this into a religious discussion that was not my intent. I just really feel for those having experienced a severe loss on this day, of something given to them that was important to them, then taken away. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Not to worry Sharon. All those who were already married are still married. They are grandfathered, so to speak. It just won't be allowed going forward, unless the courts get involved and turn it around again. |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Oh good! Thanks Denise One couple I know has been together over 25 years, and are the nicest people you ever would wish to meet. They got married finally and were so happy when the day came that they could make it legal. They paid for all of us who lived elsewhere to attend their ceremony in San Diego, and I was worried that day was now going to be taken away from them. Whew! I didn't quite know what to say when I called next time. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: In a week when the election of Obama smashed one glass ceiling it's indeed very sad to see another closed up. God's tears will be bouncing on the glass. And regrettably, as I read past history, there IS indeed a risk that existing marriages could be annulled. |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
Florida voted the same way and I was so disappointed. This will change and that change is soon. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
As much as I am immensely disappointed in Californians for backing Proposition 8, I also applaud them for backing Proposition 2!  Proposition 2 Overview For those of you unaware with this measure, Proposition 2 will add a chapter to Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code to prohibit the confinement of certain farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. The measure deals with three types of confinement: veal crates, battery cages, and sow gestation crates. Now that Proposition 2 has passed, the statute will become operative on January 1, 2015. In the six years beforehand, farming operations will be required to implement the new space requirements for their animals, and the measure prevents animals in California from being confined in these ways in the future. Many communities worldwide have taken strong action against battery caging recently as it is. In fact, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and Austria have all banned battery cages for egg-laying hens, and the entire European Union is phasing out battery cages by 2012. Intensive confinement has proven to have adverse effects on the health of all living things. Scientific research has consistently found that the immune systems of animals are weakened when under intense stress and, consequentially, develop higher levels of pathogens, including the infamous Salmonella. Beyond the concern of animal welfare, in addition, this measure is crucially important because smaller, local, family farms have in recent years continued to decline due to intensive competition by factory farms, and now that Proposition 2 passed, smaller farms will enjoy a rejuvenated competitive edge over the bigger farms, which sadly many agribusiness industries tend to be more profit-based and in effect are more likely to compromise animal welfare, environmental and public health standards. * I'm just very optimistic that this common-sense animal welfare campaign will continue to pick up momentum and we'll see a domino effect take place in other states very soon! Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Yes that is good news Noah. It would be even better news if governments would tilt the board in favour of free range farming methods and organic production. Meantime the citizens of California seem to be schizophrenic. Seeking to free their animals, while building cages round some of their own people. Weird. M PS Noah, often what you write is very interesting and very good sense. Unfortunately the centre justification and colour mean I have to wear shades and cross my eyes. Any chance of a nice unpretentious, black, left justified font? Oops, I mean blue! I was forgetting, nothing in PiP is black and white. |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
Here is the problem I had when I voted: There were several "props" on my ballet. And shame on me, I didn't get the time to research before I went to the polls (on the props, that is). In any case, when I read each prop, I literally had to read them several times to make sure of the wording. Now, at the risk of sounding a bit pretentious, I am more formally educated than the average American. If I had to read them several times to understand exactly what was being asked, then I am inclined to believe it isn't all that clear and may just cause erroneous voting. For example: I would read one of the props and think to myself, "are they asking me to vote yes if I agree or yes if I don't?" And that was the case with most of the props. Is it just me or did anyone else find this to be the case? "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Susan, on sleeping: When I am having the twitchies, can't find my spot, etc, I think about baseball. Sarandon and Costner aside, the snore sets in about the middle of the second inning... Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
thanks. I am sleeping better.. Baseball didn't work but rather a realization that "it's" Okay. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi All -- Anyone know how to cure a dog of a destructive digging habit, short of shooting it? In the main, I am a good doggy daddy, feeding ol' Maggie regularly, and spend quality time with her each day. In return, she digs my garden beds, digs under the cross fence to wreak havoc in my nascent nursery, and digs under the front fence to play in the fields of the Lord and risk getting shot by those who don't appreciate her sense of humor. PS -- Maggie is a pit bull, but don't tell her. She thinks she's a family pet. Also she has the front acre to wander around it, so it's not like she's chained to a tree and tossed the occasional bone. Pit bullied, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Jim, Here are two tricks to dissuade unwanted behaviour in dogs, they’re both based on negative association. The first is to squirt water at them while they’re doing the unwanted deed, accompanied by a stern, but not shouted, “no”. The second is to put a few pebbles into a plastic water bottle and shake it near them accompanied by a stern “no”. Personally I’d be tempted to report your dog as a suspected terrierist to the local authorities and sit back and wait for the inevitable extraordinary rendition. If three years in gitmo doesn’t cure the dog the Blackhawk helicopter and 15 special forces personnel rappelling onto the lawn might at least distract it from it‘s excavationary tendencies. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Grinch: I shot the(insert something blasphemous here)dog. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ah! You went for the CIA dog training manual solution (page 19), you need to follow the instructions on page 20 though and be sure to include he words “while attempting to escape” when reporting the incident. Otherwise those namby-pamby liberal bleeding heart do-gooders will try to make out you’ve done something wrong. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Grinch -- OK, I lied. Don't want to bring the wrath of the Animal Rights people down on my head. Still considering contracting the job out. (CIA manual, page one, under CYA.) Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
New thought: If a doctor confirmed that you had less than thirty days to live, what would you do besides seek a second opinion? Why aren't you doing it now? Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Because the consequences come due on day thirty-one? |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
I'm going to change the subject if people don't mind.. What are feelings\thoughts on Israel-Palestine? I personally am not pro either- I'm pro peace and what it takes to get there. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I think America should ease back on it’s support of Israel. America’s backing of Israel is causing an asymmetric balance of power in my view and is allowing Israel to avoid moving towards a two state solution to the problem. I’m not saying America should abandon Israel altogether, just ease off enough to leave enough room for each side to look at the alternatives. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Okay, I gotta back up to Denise’s concern on the natural born citizen* nbczn * thing. She’s piqued my curiosity. I heard a radio announcement today that the U.S. Supreme Court will be addressing the issue on Monday. Most courts threw out the cases, so I wonder why they are entertaining the issue. Some of the vids I watched are mixed covers of pshaw sarcasm to genuine concern to disgust and back again. It would be nice if they’d do something to put this thing to rest or what can/will they do if they can’t?? McCain received a “non-binding” resolution back in April by the US Senate for his nbczn issues, which is still coming under attack. Then there’s Hill. Her appointment would be null and void?? Which she has her own issues. Constitutionally, she’s barred from serving such appointment because of the “emoluments” clause while serving a current term, Article 1, section 6. Plainly explained, (a pay raise which began in January 2007, cabinet salaries were increased from $186,600 to $191,300.) Niiiice. Some close advisor said that the Supreme Court judges were still very raw over the Bush/Gore ordeal and they probably would not give much attention at all to the case? Huh? Me oh my. I didn’t post linkage because I have a headache, and that song “Should I stay or should I go” from the Clash has gotten into my brain over all of this. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Aside from the serious questions raised over Obama's eligibility, if, in Obama selecting Hillary for Secretary of State, and she accepting, both knowing that the Constitution forbids it under the circumstances, doesn't highlight the fact that we have people in power who don't view the Constitution as something to be obeyed, I don't know what would. To me it shows they have no respect for the Constitution nor the process for amending it, or they don't know the Constitution. And we know that they are well versed in the Constitution, being lawyers. And, in addition, given Obama's own statement as to his disappointment that the Supreme Court "...didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted..." regarding redistribution of wealth in the Civil Rights issue, I'm not confident that he respects the Constitution. If the requirements of the Constitution aren't taken seriously by our leaders, what other Constitutional requirements or guarantees may fall by the wayside at their whim? If the rule of law, based in the Constitution falls, we will be a nation 'ruled by men', the very thing the Constitution was set up to prevent. I hope that the members of the Supreme Court exibit some intestinal fortitude and address any and all of the issues that may wind up on their doorstep in the near future. If not, they may find that their very life-time appointed positions, authorized by the Constitution, disappear. I also read something about that non-binding resolution regarding McCain. This explanation makes the most sense of anything I've read about the Senators (all Democrats) going to the trouble of even bothering with something that was non-binding anyway. Political games. "Why were Democratic Senators trying to pass a Resolution making Senator McCain undoubtedly LEGALLY ELIGIBLE when this issue had already been cleared up in 2000 & again in 2004? And why did Senators McCaskill and Obama reportedly INSERT the following clause? ******"Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President"****** This Clause has no particular relevance to McCain and the following Clause, which it is reported McCaskill & Obama ATTEMPTED TO REMOVE shows that: "; and Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:" It seems clear that McCaskill and Obama were attempting to create a blanket Resolution covering ALL FOREIGN BORN candidates. Why do that if not to benefit a Foreign Born Democratic Candidate, who DID NOT HAVE A (PARENTAL) MILITARY BACKGROUND? McCain & (Dem Gov) Richardson did not need this resolution... nobody needed this Resolution UNLESS SOMEBODY IN THE RACE WAS BORN OUTSIDE THE USA & was "covering his/her (profanity removed)" and the only individual in the race that could apply to was Senator Obama! This in turn would show that the Senator is a liar who has been peddling untruths about his birth for at least 16 years! The full article is here: http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/obama-born-in-kenya-new-information/# |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I wouldn’t hold your breath if I were you. As I understand the situation it would be unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to hear a claim of ineligibility, they’ll have to throw it out for the same reason they threw out the challenge against McCain - the plaintiff has no standing to sue. The Constitution seems clear regarding the process for determining eligibility and the procedure for any challenge, a written challenge must be presented to Congress, the Supreme Court would only get involved if the process laid out in the Constitution wasn’t followed. For he Supreme Court to intercede they’d have to ignore the Constitution and act outside their Jurisdiction. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here's an article that expresses perfectly my views on this matter. What happens if it turns out that Barack Obama is not a "natural born" citizen of the United States? Does it really matter? He has won the popular vote; he has, in effect, won the Electoral College vote; and he has nominated an impressive array of high-powered people to lead the nation. Should he be forced to relinquish the presidency simply because his mother reportedly was too pregnant to fly and was forced to deliver Obama in Kenya? What difference does it really make? Is he not the same person that he would have been had his mother actually made it back to Hawaii before he was born? What would be the public reaction if the Supreme Court forced the state of Hawaii to release his birth certificate that revealed that he was actually born in Kenya and his birth "registered" in Hawaii? Would the millions of people who voted for Obama respect the Constitution and demand that he step aside? Or would they demand that the Constitution be ignored so Obama could take the oath to "… preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"? This scenario – in the unlikely event that it should unfold – would reveal just how deep and wide is the chasm between the two Americas that occupy the 50 now-divided states of America. Every elected official takes an oath to "… preserve, protect and defend the Constitution …" and then many of them proceed to ignore both the oath and the Constitution. Hillary Clinton's reaction to Al Gore's failure to win the Electoral College was to declare that she would work to abandon the Constitutional system. Congress has repeatedly rejected efforts to establish rules or law that require every new legislative proposal to cite the constitutional authority for the proposal. Every time a new Congress convenes, the Constitution is pushed a little further back into irrelevance. The system of governance created by the U.S. Constitution is unique in the world. It was created expressly to recognize that the government is limited by the Constitution and is empowered only by the consent of the people. This government created by the Constitution no longer exists. The America that would ignore the Constitution in order to welcome Obama into the White House now dominates the political machinery of both the executive and legislative branches of government. So thorough is this domination that the very sovereignty of the United States is in jeopardy. The Americans who would demand inauguration of President Obama, whether he is a citizen or not, would not hesitate to subject the United States to a power that is not limited by the consent of the governed. If the "natural born" provision in the Constitution is irrelevant, then so is the provision that limits the power of the government. Obama and his high-powered team have already declared their willingness to subject the sovereignty of the United States to the supreme power of the United Nations. The United Nations is constructed on the belief that government is the source of power – and grants, or denies, rights to individuals. Individuals have no rights that are not granted by government, and government has the innate power to enforce those rights by whatever means it may deem necessary. The system of governance created by the U.S. Constitution cannot exist under the authority of the U.N. Obama and his team will embrace U.N. treaties that have been successfully stalled for years. They will embrace U.N. initiatives such as a new emissions-reduction scheme, a new global central banking system, new funding mechanisms for the U.N. and submission to the International Criminal Court. On the other hand, the people who say Obama must step aside if he is not a natural born citizen have much work to do. It is too late to undo what the November election did, but it's not too late to begin to limit the damage. Every elected official who is an Obama supporter should be challenged to declare whether they would support inauguration of Obama were it proven that he is not a natural born citizen. Those who would support Obama in violation of the Constitution should be targeted now for removal in the next election. Every parent who has a child in middle school or beyond should see that their children read and understand the U.S. Constitution. This essential knowledge cannot be left to the public schools. Every Parent-Teacher Association, every church and civic club, and every community organization should undertake a study of the Constitution, with emphasis on current policies that are not authorized by the Constitution. If there is ever to be a United States of American again, it must begin with a united respect for our founding documents. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=82822 |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: According to the Constitution Biden gets sworn in as President. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It has been conjectured that that would only happen after the inauguration. If he is disqualified prior to that then the entire ticket would be disqualified. It has also been conjectued that the candidate with the next highest electoral votes would have to be voted in by the electoral college, but only if they consider him qualified as 'natural born', which there seems to be some disagreement on that issue as well. There may even have to be a new election entirely if neither candidate is deemed to meet the requirements of the Constitution. The Constitution seems clear regarding the process for determining eligibility and the procedure for any challenge, a written challenge must be presented to Congress, the Supreme Court would only get involved if the process laid out in the Constitution wasn’t followed. Can you point me to that section of the Constitution, Grinch? I can't seem to locate it. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Denise, I think your concerns for Obama's eligibility for the office of President are valid. I don't share them, but I respect them. Your concerns for our Constitution, however, seem to rest on an unspoken assumption that "natural born citizen" has been definitively defined. It hasn't. The Constitution certainly doesn't tell us what the term entails. And so far, the Supreme Court -- who is solely responsible for interpreting the Constitution -- has never specifically determined the meaning of "natural born citizen," either. Without a legally binding interpretation of the phrase, I think it is perfectly acceptable to both respect and uphold the Constitution while simultaneously arguing its meaning and intent. In 1787, John Jay (who, coincidentally, later became our first Chief Justice) wrote a letter to Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, and said, "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to expressly declare that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on any but a natural born Citizen." Now, I know you don't sit on the Supreme Court, Denise, and neither do I, but I would nonetheless ask you: Does it sound like the intent of the requirement was meant to preclude leaders like McCain and Obama? Neither man was a naturalized citizen, or as Jay put it, "Foreigners," but rather inherited their citizenship at the moment of their birth. Which, ironically, is more than can be said for George Washington. Interpreting the Constitution, in my opinion, is NOT a sign of contempt. If it was, anyone who believed in our legal Right to Privacy, something never directly mentioned in the Constitution, would be guilty of gross disrespect. Our country has survived and thrived not just on the words of the Founding Fathers, but rather on their intent as interpreted by the courts. The ability to argue the Constitution makes us stronger, not weaker. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Grinch, As Denise states: That's only if Obama has been sworn in as President. Obama is still President Elect. The Obama-Biden ticket will be "nullified," and McCain-Palin gets a toss in the Electoral College vote. But the Dems might appeal for a fair election and re-nominate a new candidate/s. AND they would no doubt drag out McCain's eligibility issues to insanity, which could result in Palin being president if McCain is sworn in and gets ousted. Or Pelosi! Ha. Our first female President by default. Here's where I verified most of my info, which I hope is legit, but who knows these days. The political process nearly requires a degree to peel away the layers on legal sites. TCW I agree with Ron. The U.S. Supreme Court does decide, just like they decided Bush/Gore...which means during all this crazy stuff, Bush's term will be extended...arghhh. sighs... This is crazy, this is crazy I have to be honest. I'm for Obama. And I also agree with Ron about the Constitution. I feel there is a great need for clarification/amendment so this will not come into play in the future. We the people, are not so easy to define, anymore. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I was going to do some homework on this, but I haven't had time. Two points: 1. Ron brings up 'naturalized' versus 'native' citizens and that's what was bothering me as well. My two children didn't become Americans because I went to the Embassy and filled out some forms. They were already Americans and I just formalized it. This is a middle ground that will come up again and again. (My children will be Americans for the rest of their lives. If they do not move to America and live there for at least five years, they cannot pass on that citizenship to their children. This makes sense to me.) 2. I am told that this loophole has been closed but I honestly don't know if it has or hasn't: A few years ago, one of the rumors going around was that pregnant Korean women were jumping on a plane, landing within American borders, having their children become American citizens, then jumping right around, and returning to Korea. Don't know anybody who actually did this. It is ridiculous to think that the children of (2) should have a shot at the Presidency whereas my kids do not. In reality, of course, people will vote for people who they feel 'akin' to. Shouldn't that be enough? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Are you sure, I thought the process was pretty clear: quote: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. George Washington was covered, Ron! The Framers grandfathered themselves in with the phrase or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution And yes, I agree that it is the Supreme Court who is soley responsible to interpret the Constitution, and they should officially determine the meaning of natural born citizen and issue a ruling on it. I doubt that they will though. But in any event, it isn't the right of individual candidates to interpret the meaning of the requirement for themselves, either, when they know the circumstances of their birth could be considered disqualifying by a reasonable and common understanding of the requirement. I think that is contempt, just as I think intentionally violating provisions that they don't like, as with Hillary's appointment as Secretary of State, is contempt. I believe that the definition can be deduced from the distinction being drawn between natural born citizen and citizen in the section, and the Founders concerns that the President should only be someone who did not have dual national allegiances at birth, and by extension, later in life. I tend to believe that McCain qualifies even though born in Panama since both his parents were U.S. citizens and he was born on a military base. There was no dual citizenship or allegiance issue involved at the time of his birth. The problem in Obama's situation is that he, whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya, became a subject of the British Crown through his father, at birth, and subsequently a citizen of Kenya after its independence, along with American citizenship through his mother. Add to that his subsequent Indonesian citizenship after his mother married an Indonesian citizen, a country that did not allow for dual citizenship. So his mother effectively renounced her and her son's American citizenship at that time, which he also would have had to renounce at the age of 21 if he renewed his Indonesian passport to be able to travel to Pakistan in 1981. Also, his recent involvement in the Kenyan elections on behalf of his uncle, Raila Odinga, and Odinga's claim to have helped Obama win the U.S. election, and his expectations of reward for that from Obama, has certainly raised suspicions that Obama just may have divided national loyalties. Odinga is a Luo tribesman affiliated with Obama's father when Odinga's communist father was Kenya's first vice president after Kenyan independence and Obama's father was a Harvard-educated economist working in the Jomo Kenyatta government. Obama campaigned openly for Odinga for president in 2006 when Obama was in Kenya on a U.S. Senate "fact-finding" mission. Kenya's President Mwai Kibaki asked Obama to stop interfering with Kenyan presidential politics. Obama raised an alleged $1 million for Odinga to run for president in Kenya in December 2007, adding to the $1 million raised for Odinga's 2007 presidential campaign by Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. When Odinga lost the December 2007 presidential election by approximately 233,000 votes, Odinga called for protests which led his Luo tribesmen to murder approximately 1,000 Kikuyu tribesman, displace another 350,000 Kikuyu tribesmen and destroy 800 churches, while not a single mosque was destroyed. Obama helped negotiate a settlement in which Odinga was appointed co-head-of-state and appointed prime minister to end the violence, even after it became publicly disclosed Odinga signed a letter of understanding with radical Muslims in Kenya in return for their votes. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80564 There are some serious concerns by many people who believe that Obama is not qualified to be the Commander in Chief, given his background. Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified Well, there you go. Biden would be President until someone was found who qualified. Thanks Grinch. Have you been able to find the process for determining eligibility and the procedure for any challenge in the Constitution, that a written challenge must be presented to Congress, and that the Supreme Court can only get involved if that process isn't followed? [This message has been edited by Denise (12-06-2008 05:10 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Yes. A challenge should be made during the count of the votes of the electoral college as per - 3 U.S.C. 15. Section 15 This was referenced in Robinson v. Sec. of State, et al (the second 2008 McCain Case) and used to justify the claim that the plaintiff had no legal standing to bring a case - that there was already a process in place to deal with such a claim. The Supreme Court will probably reject the representation they’re considering at the moment for exactly the same reason. It’s likely that they’ll only get involved if Congress decides that Obama isn’t eligible and Obama petitions them to verify the decision of Congress at which point the question falls squarely within their jurisdiction. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: quote: Ha, I can say, "You can be POTUS if you want," to my kids! |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Brad, You need to check when each of the definitions became legal - that was McCains problem - he was born a year or so before a change in the law. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Hmmm, perhaps, but unless the above were specifically prohibited and reversed, I suspect the date of legalization would be irrelevant. It's a matter of clarifying the law, not of changing it. This doesn't mean that people won't bring lawsuits to challenge it, it's just that those challenges become frivolous. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Isn’t the date of legislation very important Brad? Especially if, as in the case of McCain, the law isn’t retrospective. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
This was last updated by Congress in 2007. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. (?) lol, what's that about? On or after Dec. 24th 1952 it was either parent was required to be a U.S. Citizen, but prior to noon on May 24th 1934 it had to be the mother that was the U.S. citizen? And all those born between those two dates are excluded? Is this the section that possibly excluded McCain, because he was born prior to 1952, so he wasn't covered under that section, and the only provision for those born prior to 1934 was to those born of an alien father and U.S. citizen mother, and not for those born where both parents were U.S. Citizens, and within the limits of U.S. Jurisdiction (a military base)? How do they come up with this stuff? I'm not sure though if being declared a "citizen at birth" is necessarily the same as "natural born citizen". I definitely think the Supreme Court needs to define the term. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
3.USC 15. Section 15 The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. This reads to me that this option of objection to the certifying of the electoral college votes is only available to the members of Congress, and not to the average citizen. So I guess citizens don't have standing before the courts because of this option for objection, but they don't have standing even in this option, either, if it's only open to members of Congress. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It sure looks that way Denise. Citizens had an opportunity to object when they voted and they have another opportunity through their representatives in Congress when the electoral college votes. It’s part of your Constitution and the checks and balances of your electoral process. The Supreme Court should only get involved if the process isn’t followed or where a decision returned through that process may be un-constitutional. Asking the Supreme Court to interpret the validity of a constitutional process before the completion of that process is like asking a judge to sentence someone without waiting for the due process of a trial. You’re asking the Supreme Court to do something that, in itself, is unconstitutional. I may be wrong of course, this is only my interpretation, I’m not an expert on your legal process or Constitution so feel free to correct any errors. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The above law in the U.S. Code isn't dealing with the Electoral vote, though, Grinch. It is dealing with the procedures of the Congressional ratification of the Electoral College vote, State by State. The electors meet on Dec. 15th to cast their ballots, and Congress ratifies the Electoral College vote on January 6th. I think the previous lawsuits that were brought should not have been thrown out in the lower courts for lack of standing, though. They were brought by individuals against the Secretary of State of the various States petitioning the courts to have the Secretary of State investigate and validate or invalidate the Constitutional qualifications of the candidate/candidates prior to their being placed on the ballot, and then after the election prior to their certifying the popular vote to their members on the Electoral College. So I suppose the options left to citizens is to let their concerns be made known to the individual electors prior to their voting, and to raise their concerns with their Congressional Senators and Representatives prior to their ratification process. But I suppose the odds are good that the courts, Lower, Superior and Supreme, would all say that their is lack of standing now because the issue should have been taken up with the Secretaries of State prior to this stage in the process! The Electors in the Electoral College, after all, are only working with the votes certified to them by their Secretary of State as being valid, so they can't be faulted, and then Congress is only working with the votes certified to them from the Electoral College as being valid, so they can't be faulted!  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Only if no objections or challenges have been raised, if one Senator and one member of he house of representatives object to the first vote in favour of Obama in writing on the grounds that Obama is ineligible Congress has to rule on the matter. The state is responsible for entering legitimate candidates names on the ballot but that responsibility isn’t to you as a citizen, their responsibility is to Congress and the Constitution. So individual citizens have no standing if the State fails in that regard. Think of it as a shopkeeper selling you faulty goods, I can’t sue the shopkeeper on your behalf - I have no standing because the implicit contract was between you and the shopkeeper. Here’s what I think should happen. The state official should refuse to add Obama’s name to the Ballot if he or she thinks he’s ineligable Obama would then seek redress in the courts and the Supreme court would probably be asked to clarify his status by interpreting the Constitution. If they rule him eligible he gets to stand, if not he doesn’t. If his name gets added to the ballot by accident or incompetence you get to voice your opinion by voting for him, or not, what you don’t get is the right to sue the state for their mistake - you have no standing. Congress has the right to sue but only after he’s deemed ineligible and that won’t be decided until the electoral college meets and a written challenge is presented. Once Congress gets a challenge they will appoint Biden as President until Obama’s qualification can be decided. If hey decide he’s ineligible they can sue the States that added him to the ballot. Meanwhile Obama would be seeking redress in the courts and the Supreme court would eventually be asked to clarify his status by interpreting the Constitution. If they rule him eligible he gets to be President, if not he doesn’t. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks Grinch. That's sounds likely to be the procedure. With all the red flags that have raised questions as to his eligiblilty, I would like to believe that at least one Senator and Representative would review all of the issues raised and lodge an objection if they believe his qualifications need clarification. But that's probably as likely as Congress or the FEC instituting a requirment that candidates, in the future, actually show their documentation as oppossed to just taking their word for it that they meet all the requirements. It's kind of scary to realize just how easy it is for someone who isn't eligible to actually win election and take office anyway. Oh, and Jim, that tape of Obama's grandmother has been released by Philip Berg. It is on his web site at http://www.obamacrimes.com/ |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Born in the USA http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3090/3094552680_4f6b174053_o.jpg Just because I love the pic. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And all he's being asked to do is to verify it, Jen, in light of all the doubts that have arisen as to his eligibility under the Constitution. A picture isn't always worth a thousand words, no matter how dramatic. He has three law firms, not lawyers, but firms fighting to keep his records out of the public eye. That seems like an extreme measure to take when he could simply submit his original birth certificate to one of the controlling authorities for validation. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That pic could have the caption, "What kind of dog SHOULD I get for the kids???" |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I think it's UNPATRIOTIC and UN-AMERICAN to imply the President-elect is lying about where he was born unless you have credible evidence disproving his sworn statement, that he was born in Hawaii. God Bless America and God Bless Barack Hussein Obama! http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3117/2748139098_60f55d7d22.jpg |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Actually, Jennifer, it would be unpatriotic and un-American to NOT question our leaders at every turn. What you are suggesting is much more akin to the old Soviet Union, I think, than to the United States. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Will someone please tell me that this: http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/12/08/whew-obama-c an-still-be-president-supreme-court-declines-case/ means Denise can now relax. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Jennifer, your statement might also hold more weight if no American president had ever lied to us. I'm hopeful of positive results concerning Obama, but the truth is definitely a concern of many. I wouldn't want Obama's eligibility issues swept under the rug no more than any other fact check and requirement necessary for public office. Even school teachers have to face extensive background checks before they receive a position (or I hope they do.) |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Actually, Ron, there’s a vast difference between questioning and implying a person is lying. But you probably already knew that. Indeed it’s fair to question Obama about where he was born, but to suggest that he posted a forged certified birth certificate is implying that the President Elect is not only a liar but a criminal. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Liar is already a given. Criminal has yet to be determined. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Guys -- I'm finding it funny that the last few times I've tried to post longer responses, I hit a key that kicks me out of Pip. Maybe the universe is telling me to shut up. More to the point here, in this anything goes thread, I'd like to tell my friends that wife Deb is in the hospital with pneumonia that is proving hard to treat. Politics and other games aside, I hope you'll send her some good thoughts. She's a sweetie, and deserves them. Best, Jimmy [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (12-09-2008 08:30 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
For sure, Jimmy. My thoughts are with her... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
My best to your wife, Jim. I'll keep her in my thoughts and prayers. Actually Jen, some might even call it blasphemy! The Certification of Live Birth, which is not a Birth Certificate, has been deemed a forgery by some documents experts. The one currently posted on Fight the Smears has white and gray pixels between the letters instead of the green pixels that it should have, indicating manipulation of the document, through cutting and pasting and/or photoshopping. It also has a 2007 Border with a 2008 Stamp and Signature. These change yearly in Hawaii. There were also problems with the first one that was posted on the MoveOn.org site, but I don't remember now what they were. But even so, neither are the Birth Certificate that lists the hospital of birth with a doctor's signature. That's under lock and key in Hawaii, for some reason. There's also the matter of Sarah Obama, his paternal grandmother, on tape, accompanied by the affidavits of those involved in the phone conversation, the interviewer and the translator, where she states that he was born Kenya, and she was present at the hospital when he was born. There's also the matter of the Kenyan Ambassador answering in the affirmative during a phone interview from the Mike in the Morning program, when asked if there was going to be a plaque erected at the site of the President-Elect's birthplace in Kenya. He said that the plans were already underway. There's also the matter of Gov. Richardson referring to Obama as an immigrant during a campaign rally to a group of Hispanics. There's also the matter of Jerome Corsi being detained at gunpoint by soldiers in Kenya for 9 hours and the government cancelling a planned news conference that Corsi had scheduled to discuss his findings during his investigations into Obama's Kenyan connections and conversations that he had with family members and members of the community about Obama's place of birth. I don't know how you define credible evidence, but I certainly believe that a number of red flags have been raised to warrant a call for an investigation by one of the controlling authorities and a demand for Obama's original birth certificate to be submitted and verified. Moonbeam, there are currently 16 lawsuits in 12 States ongoing, most of which will probably arrive at the Supreme Court sooner or later. Two are currently pending for Conference. Maybe they will decline every one that comes their way. We'll just have to wait and see. And relaxation has never been a problem for me! Obama could end this all right now and make all of us with concerns about his eligibility status look to be the tinfoil-hat conspiracy nuts that the far-left are already calling us (why do they resort to name calling but never address the issues?), or he can continue to pay three law firms to keep things locked up tight for as long as he can. (This is the same guy who sent 30 lawyers to Alaska to delve into every aspect of Palin's life). Either way is fine by me. I just want the truth. It will either come out sooner or later, but it will eventually come out. It always does. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
You forgot one, Denise. When Obama went to Hawaii in October supposedly to visit his dying Grandmother, his real mission was to alter or replace the vault certificate and to make sure that she made no deathbed confession about the “real” location of his birth, Kenya, Krypton or the same little village in Mexico where Bill Richardson grew up. Remember to wear the shiny side out! |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Rather than resort to mocking, Jen, why not actually comment on the verified specifics that I shared above? They aren't baseless conjecture. They actually happened. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Denise, one of your favorite souces, WND, had forgery experts examine the birth certificate and found it to be authentic. If you don't believe them, I really don't think you're going to believe me so I'd be wasting my time debunking what's already been debunked. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
This from a LAT comment column made me chuckle (despite its fatal flaw): "George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson also weren't born in the United States. They were British citizens at birth. Hence Jefferson is disqualified from being President. Thus his Louisiana Purchase was illegal. Which means Louisiana, Arkansas and Missouri are not part of the United States. Therefore neither Harry Truman nor Bill Clinton were US-born. Truman signed the treaties ending World War 2, which means that is invalid and the USA is officially still at war with Germany and Japan. Conspiracy theories are SO easy!" After we've done this one can we have a crack at Princess Di and Dodi please. Such fun. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Jimmy, I've been catching up on my reading, so please accept my best thoughts and prayers for your wife. I hope she's doing much better now. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And what's your point, Jen? They also ran articles where experts claimed that it appeared to be a forgery. So go ahead, address the issues and debunk away. Or just keep resorting to mockery because you can't debunk the issues or don't care to. I guess no one told them that the Founders grandfathered themselves regarding that requirement, Moonbeam. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
The thing is though Denise one wonders, looking back at your comments on this, whether in fact you are at all balanced in your approach, or whether you have effectively mentally tried and condemned your President elect, and therefore will not be satisfied until real life reflects your conviction. For instance, if all the present cases are thrown out by the Courts (Supreme Court?) will you then be happy to accept the validity of his election? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Will I accept the validity of his Presidency without proof of natural born citizenship? No, I won't. I can accept the fact that he would be the President, but I can't be sure he will have attained it validly without proof, so how can I accept its validity? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Sorry Denise, I should have been clearer, what I meant was: if the Courts accept the validity of his Presidency by throwing out the cases, will you? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, I think you have every right as an American to be concerned that your Constitution might be being circumvented or downright ignored. However I’m a little suspicious of foreigners masquerading as Americans - there seems to be a lot of it about. Is there any chance that you could send me a copy of your birth certificate or post it online so I can validate your right to be concerned? What! - You don’t see why you should? But if you don’t how can I ever accept your right to be concerned? quote: Here’s some advice, if you ever find an expert who offers evidence of skulduggery that a seven year old can debunk in a minute flat don’t trust anything he says. The document expert that examined the internet image determined that it had been manipulated by Photoshop and there was evidence of cutting and pasting - way to go Sherlock. Every image on the internet has been cut and pasted at some point and run through some sort of graphics software on the way, that’s not evidence of forgery so why present it as such? All this comes down to is whether you have any faith in your Constitution. There are processes inherent in it to resolve the question of whether Obama can be President but you can’t have it both ways Denise - you can’t demand adherence to the parts of the Constitution that you agree with then totally ignore the bits you don‘t like. If I were Obama I wouldn’t present my birth certificate unless or until I was compelled to simply because some Tom, Denise or Harry asked me to. Would you? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The Supreme Court can simply decline to hear a case, Moonbeam, without comment or judgment. That doesn’t mean that they have decided that he is Constitutionally eligible. It means they decided not to get involved, and haven’t declared him eligible or ineligible. I’m not trying to have it both ways Grinch. I’m all for the Constitutional procedures being followed. But if those in authority take a pass when the issue arrives at their doorstep, thereby giving Obama a pass on the issue, then the issue of his eligibility will never have been addressed or resolved. Procedures can be in place without actually being utilized by those who can utilize them. We’ll have to wait to see if there is one Senator and one Representative who believes an investigation is warranted and who will raise an objection and call for one when they are called upon to ratify the Electoral College vote. If they don’t, then they don’t believe that it is an issue, or an issue worth raising. It doesn’t mean, though, that they have proven his eligibility. And you must have me confused with a politician if you think I am picking and choosing which part of the Constitution I demand adherence to and which bits I choose to ignore! I think the issue of the Certification of Live Birth document on the web site should cause concern when there is a border from one year and a seal and signature from another, and white and gray pixels between the letters when they should be green like the background that the words were supposedly laser printed onto, as they are in other known legitimate documents examined in the same way. And I’m not asking Obama to show me anything. I’m asking someone, anyone, with the authority to do so, to verify it in light of all the red flags that have cast doubt upon his status. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Geez Denise, you were Clinton's secret advisor when he was evading the Monica questions weren't you? Grinch didn't confuse you with a politician at all, you are more adroit at avoiding questions than most politicians. I'll try again. IF the Supreme Court eventually hears a challenge to Obama's natural born status and throws out that challenge (after hearing it in full) will you then accept the validity of his Presidency? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Someone with authority? Here you go Denise, this should put your mind at rest: Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu. The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate. Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 1 2008: "This has gotten ridiculous," state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. "There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy." . . . Will this be enough to quiet the doubters? "I hope so," Fukino said. "We need to get some work done." Alvin Onaka is the authority when it comes to the question of Obama’s citizenship Denise, he’s the first, and possibly last person that the Supreme Court would call to verify Obama’s status. Of course you don’t believe him do you. I’d hazard a guess that there isn’t anyone you would believe, seeing doesn’t always guarantee believing Denise, whatever anyone says there’ll always be a reason to doubt if you really don’t want to believe. As for one anyone challenging Obama during the electoral college, well, it’s not likely to happen unless you can find two politicians willing to commit political suicide, the risks are too high. No Democrat will do it, for obvious reasons, and if a Republican challenges Obama’s status and they turn out to be wrong that would be the end of him and possibly the whole Republican party. They‘d be about as popular as Lee Harvey Oswald wearing an Al Qaeda t-shirt while kicking a kitten. And what would they gain if they challenged him? Biden would certainly be acting President for a few years while Obama fought the decision in court. He’d be in effect a lame-duck caretaker President and that would almost certainly stifle his ability to lead your country out of the present mire. There’s no upside to forcing the issue Denise, it’s a little bit like cutting your nose off to spite your face, you might be proved right but you’ll lose more than you can possibly gain doing it. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Funny thing Grinch, to some people being proved right is more important than living - my mother-in-law for example. Takes all sorts I guess. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate. Of course they hold it, Grinch, they didn't reveal any earth-shattering news with that admission! What they didn't do is verify that it says that he was born in Hawaii. That was a bit of a deceptive headline by the AP, Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu because Fukino said no such thing. What she did say was that she and Onaka have verified that the health department holds his original birth certificate. And what would they gain if they challenged him? The respect of hundreds of thousands of Americans who take the Constitution seriously. I'm not trying to avoid questions, Moonbeam. You've refined your question a couple of times, and I am trying, with each revision, to give you my honest answer. If the Supreme Court actually does hear the arguments in the case, and eventually throws it out, it would depend on their reasons for throwing it out. I would accept the eligibilty of Obama if it is actually proven that he is eligible, not just because the Court throws it out. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: So in other words if the Supreme Court, having looked at all the evidence presented to them decided that Obama had a valid birth certificate that made him a natural born citizen, you would then accept that he would be a validly appointed President. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Of course I would, Moonbeam, if one of those pieces of evidence presented is an authentic original birth certificate proving that he is a natural born citizen of the U.S. But then if that were the scenario, the Court wouldn't have thown out the case, they would have made a finding based on the evidence presented. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
That's what I wanted to hear Denise. You would actually believe the Supreme Court if they told you: "we have seen the original birth certificate and it's real, and it proves him to be a natural born American." It's good to know you will believe someone, I was beginning to wonder |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
IF the Supreme Court eventually hears a challenge to Obama's natural born status and throws out that challenge (after hearing it in full) will you then accept the validity of his Presidency? This question reminds me why I consider Tom Daschle such a piece of garbage. After Bush defeated Gore amid the "hanging chad" subterfuge, Daschle was on Good Morning America speaking of it being the time for bi-partisanship, etc, etc. He was asked if he considered George Bush to be the president of the United States. This was after all of the recounts, the court rulings and everything was done. Daschle said something like "The courts say he is the president". He was pushed..."Do YOU accept him as the president?" Daschle repeated, "He is the man who will be sworn in." AGAIN he was asked, "Do YOU, sir, accept him as your president?" He would never answer the question but kept giving the same kind of answers. This idiot, on national tv, asking for bi-partisanship, displayed in front of millions of viewers that he was NOT accepting Bush as a valid president, despite the recounts, the investigations and the court rulings. Supreme court decisions obviously don't carry much weight with Democrats like Daschle. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: I'm not entirely sure what that was intended to demonstrate apart from why you consider Mr Daschle to be "a piece of garbage". Is that all, or was there more? For instance: It may just mean that there are some people who don't respect Supreme Court decisions? Perhaps the Supreme Court is unreliable? Or perhaps you were simply point out the obvious, viz, that there are Democrats who are distrustful of the Supreme Court? Or was it that, as Mr Daschle may be distrustful of the Court, it is ok for Denise to be? Not sure where you were going with this Balladeer. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
JIM LEHRER: Do you bear any resentment toward him over how he finally was elected president? SEN. TOM DASCHLE: No, I don’t. I think he did what he had to do, and the Vice President did what he had to do. Obviously, I’m still disappointed with the Supreme Court decision and with the way this all worked out, but I don’t question the legitimacy of this presidency. I don’t question his right to claim the office. We’ve demonstrated today with the Electoral College that he has the electoral votes. That’s now behind us. Now we’ve got to work together, put politics behind us, and get on with really governing. http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:TlOca-LJ8xcJ:www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/daschle_12-18.html |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ahhh I see. Humm was this another example of Balladeer's propensity to crush the garbage to fit the preformed trash can? Poor Sen. Daschle. (Thanks Jenn. I'm trying on the poem. Honest I am ) |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Very nice research, Jennifer. That was not the interview in question I was referring to but you have spurred me on to find it. Thank you. Moonbeam, no, I thought the connection was obvious. You asked Denise if a Supreme Court decision clearing Obama would be proof enough for her, finishing it off with "It's good to know you believe in someone" as if not even believing the Supreme Court would be outlandish...whereas I showed you where people like Daschle would not. Same song... [This message has been edited by Balladeer (12-11-2008 05:58 PM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: I am still not sure I get you? It seems incredible but are you saying that it would not be outlandish for Denise to deny the Supreme Court? You're equating her possible legitimate attitude in repudiating the court with Daschle's attitude? The piece of garbage? The idiot? Denise? There must be some mistake? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: But you also maintain that he’s garbage and an idiot Mike, two attributes that tend to suggest outlandish behaviour and kind of support the point you thought Moon was making. Then again the transcript posted by Jen seems to suggest that Daschle accepted the Supreme Courts decision. If he’s an idiot he’s a bad example of someone who wouldn’t accept a Supreme Court decision, unless you’re suggesting that only an idiot wouldn't. If he did accept the decision, as the transcript suggests, he’s no example at all. Moon, I guess I should have hit refresh before posting. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, grinch. I see your point. It would have been better to keep my opinions of Daschle out of it and just made the comparison of two people being asked if they would change their minds based on Supreme Court decisions. Hope that clears it up, moonbeam. grinch, I'm still trying to track down the interview. As senate majority leader at that time no doubt there were several. This one could have been a result of him being taken aside and spoken to. Interesting that his call was for bi-partisanship and then, shortly after when a Republican senator switched parties and Democrats regained control of the Senate, bi-partisanship was not discussed further by them. Well, no surprise there...... |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
October 27, 2001 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Praising the spirit of bipartisanship in Congress since the September 11 terror attacks, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle stressed the importance for Democrats and Republicans to work together to combat the threat of bioterrorism and the economic downturn. - |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
WASHINGTON - A bipartisan Senate report released today says that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials are directly responsible for abuses of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and charges that decisions by those officials led to serious offenses against prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere. The Senate Armed Services Committee report accuses Rumsfeld and his deputies of being the principal architects of the plan to use harsh interrogation techniques on captured fighters and terrorism suspects, rejecting the Bush administration's contention that the policies originated lower down the command chain. "The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," the panel concludes. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees." The report, released by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., and based on a nearly two-year investigation, said that both the policies and resulting controversies tarnished the reputation of the United States and undermined national security. "Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority," it said.  |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
I'm just your acerbic alter ego Grinch All clear Balladeer. Cool clock Jenn. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://www.jwz.org/images/stoogew.gif |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I found a chart that defines natural born citizen, citizen of the U.S., and native born citizen, "elements for each of the constitutional terms that are used in the Constitution or in Caselaw by the Supreme Court." http://theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenChart2.htm |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
LOL. Well, I guess that saves the Supreme Court a lot of time, Denise. I mean, it's posted on the Internet, right?  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Well, no, of course not, Ron. I just thought that it might be of value to see the past usage and understanding of the terms by the Supreme Court in the cases cited. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Actually Denise, thanks for this. It made interesting reading, and seemed quite balanced until I got to the 2 + 2 = 4 bit which was a little worrying (not as worrying as lawyer + accountant mind you ). Then I read: quote: Is a fact? Is not in dispute? Not in dispute!? What am I missing now Denise? Surely the fact (a real fact) that it appears probable that Obama will shortly be crowned (or whatever you do over there) President, means it IS in dispute? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I only posted that link to show the definitions of the different terms as previously used and understood by the Supreme Court in the cases cited, Moonbeam. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with any opinions otherwise stated, just as I don't necessarily agree or disagree with all of the opinions stated on this site! 2 + 2 still does equal 4 though, right? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Yes I understand why you posted it Denise, and like I say, as a complete ignoramus where US politics are concerned, I found it helpful. The problem was that the same writer made that puzzling statement at the end and, in my eyes, devalued, and made me mentally query, everything else he'd written. And Yes! Last time I looked 2 + 2 equalled 4, perhaps it's just me, or perhaps it was my usual morning mopes, but I thought it was just a mite patronising. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, I just checked out your link to TheObamaFile. The man makes no sense to me. I include my response to him below. Sincerely, Bob Kaven Dear Missouri Lawyer, Wow! This is an interesting legal strategy! Apparently by limiting precedents to those that do not include a time when either Alaska or Hawaii were actual States, we can pretend that citizens of those states do not have the legal right to run for President. With that logic, you could probably still sell slavery if you limited the precedents to those prior to, say, 1850. And what's to stop you? Roll back the income tax? Have the President and the Vice President from different parties? Get those pesky women out of politics? You could no doubt show us some truly illuminating charts to illustrate your point on those as well. What does the nature of arithmetic have to do with stacking the deck in a discussion and hoping nobody will notice? You haven't been robbed of your rights; you simply haven't been able to make the clock stop in 1939, where your precedents do. There are now actually 50 states, and not 48; though you are reading the law — predictably, in a legalistic and literal fashion — as though there are still only 48 states, and we must disregard equal protections for those pretenders who have somehow gotten the impression they had achieved legal statehood, and actually had representatives in Congress and were paying taxes like everybody else. The more fools they! Wow! Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ahh yes, I see Bob, thank you. Now why didn't I spot that. lol British politics is sooo much simpler. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You could just mentally replace "mainland" (which was synonymous with all the States at that time) with "within the United States", Bob. I'm sure if the cases had been decided after the inclusion of Hawaii and Alaska, the wording would have reflected that. I think the chart is still valid even if you modify it from "mainland" to "within the United States". |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, I don't think so, Denise. In fact, I believe that one of the point in Case II pivots on that very point, birth in the Mainland United States, and not simply for Obama, but for McCain as well. I believe this is why the case law quoted stopped at 1939. An actual thorough case law review of these things would have had to cover this point, and not left it open to speculation — I believe — unless this were some of the initial law being adjudicated on the subject. Failure to cover that material would probably gain the lawyer a minimum of a glare from a judge reviewing a brief on the subject. Not that I'm a lawyer, or even play one on TV. If there is one in the house, perhaps they could offer a thought or two on the subject? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I just found this link that sheds more light on the meaning of natural born citizen. ALL of the Founding Fathers were born in this country. That really surprised me! I thought at least a couple of them would have been born in England. So what was the purpose of the grandfathering clause then? Why did they draw a distinction between themselves (as citizens of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of the Constitution) and a natural born citizen? Apparently it seems they defined a natural born citizen as a citizen whose parents were U.S. citizens, either born or naturalized, at the time of the child's birth in the U.S., someone born without dual citizenship, and possibly divided national loyalties. The Founders had dual citizenship at the time of their births via one or both of their parents, so according to their definition they weren't natural born, even though they were all born here, which necessitated the grandfather clause. There was one, Chester Arthur, who wasn't natural born since his father didn't become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after Chester's birth, and "Chester Arthur lied numerous times about his past to obfuscate his ineligibility to hold Vice-Presidential and Presidential office. Burned all personal records upon his death." For any history buffs here this is a fascinating list of facts on all of our presidents! http://rochesterconservative.com/blog/ |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yes, as I undertand it Bob, they were the first cases speaking to the issue. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I don't think so, Denise. They were all British subjects at the time of their births. Later, they became traitors to the Crown. And only after that did they become American citizens. That had to be legislated, I imagine, because being born in a British colony apparently didn't carry a lot of weight. I'll have to track down some references, but I'm pretty sure there were several former Presidents and Vice-Presidents who could potentially have been interpreted as something other than natural born citizen. It's iffy, of course, because natural born citizen is a phrase without any official meaning. My last child, for example, wasn't a natural born citizen. He had to be delivered by C-section. Did you know that we were seven or eight American presidents into our history before we got one that wore long pants? Somehow, I just can't stop myself from imagining Bush in knickers. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: You've been reading The Scottish Play too much. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You're right Ron. Of course they were British subjects at birth. I shouldn't try to think that late at night!And I'd be interested in reading whatever you come up with on the issue. I am absolutely fascinated by history. I think we can ascertain what they meant by the term by discovering their reasoning behind the stipulation through their other writings. I read somewhere that they were very concerned about the divided national loyalties issue. And I think the previous opinions of the Supreme Court can shed light on the issue as well. But whatever they actually meant by it, I think we can safely rule out C-Sections as being a concern to them! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Alexander Hamilton was born, I believe, in Jamaica. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
But he wasn't a President or Vice President, Bob, so his place of birth isn't an issue. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
It is absolutely true that he was not a President or Vice President. He was, however, a Founding Father, wasn't he? And that was the assertion that was made, that all the Founding Fathers were born in this country. The reason I bring this up is that I believe the reason for the native born stipulation in the constitution — and I cannot remember exactly where I read this, so if anybody else has run across this and can remember, I'd be grateful — is specifically to exclude Hamilton from running for President. If you will remember the way the early elections were held, the victor in the election was elected President, and the loser from the other party was then the Vice-President. This was the policy through at least the first few election cycles, until the full folly of the practice became clear. So, you see, Hamilton is especially important because he supplies at least part of the reasoning for these Constitutional Provisions in the first place. This makes this particular aspect of the Constitution one of the first aspects of American law specifically enacted to exclude the presence of a single person, and the ideas he most powerfully presented, from having the effect they might otherwise have had in the emerging nation. Another example is the granting of the southern states the right to count their slave populations at three fifths parity when figuring out the representation for Congressional Representation. This is a sad compromise, but one that enabled the country to exist; the south had otherwise refused to ratify the constitution. I mention these things because I wanted to make clear that the wisdom of the founders was often not wisdom but compromise forced by necessity, and not necessarily a matter of transcendent knowledge. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm sorry, Bob, I misspoke (now I really sound like a politician). What I meant to say was that I was surprised that all of the Founding Fathers who became President were born here. I read that 'exclusion of Hamilton' explanation somewhere too, but I highly doubt that was the reason for the natural born clause because it wouldn't have excluded him in any event since he would have been covered under the grandfather clause in that he was a U.S. citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. He may very well have become one of our Presidents if he hadn't been killed in that duel with Aaron Burr. Because some of their decisions may have been based on necessity shouldn't cast doubt on all of the decisions made in framing the Constitution. I think that is just a weak argument by some in an attempt to undermine the validity of the Constitution in its entirety and an excuse to ignore what they don't like. As it stands, it is the foundation of our form of goverment and laws. If some portion of it is now deemed outdated or unnecessary, there is a process for dealing with that. And that process is NOT simply ignoring what one doesn't like. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, I don't think the fact that the Constitution was arrived at by a human process means that it isn't valid. If we pretend the Constitution wasn't a human document, we distance ourselves from it and don't understand how very important it is to our everyday lives. I don't pretend the Constitution is perfect, merely that it is good enough to be a living document than needs to be respected. As I said before, Denise, we are jousting at different windmills here, and I would be sad if you didn't follow through on yours. Because I see you being critical of the man in other fora, I believe you are trying your best to keep Obama out of office in whatever way you can. (Something about information vacuums is the most recent one I recall) This one seems possible to you; you put a lot of energy into it. I remember my feelings in both 2000 and 2004. I remember my feelings of betrayal. Because I'm myself and not you, I certainly feel my own cause was better, but then if you didn't feel the same way about yours I'd feel completely perplexed as well. I'd like to blame the current mess on Bush, you'd possibly like to go back to Clinton and Carter. Perhaps we can settle on Chester A. Arthur. I have it on good authority that he wasn't a natural born citizen, and that he destroyed the evidence. What do you say? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Who is pretending that the Constitution is not a human document, Bob? And it is a living document in that it has a process built in for amending it. I have many disagreements with Obama, from his stand on abortion and euthenasia, the fact that he was a member of the New Party (Communist) in his earlier years in Chicago, to his views on redistribution of wealth and his disappointment that the Supreme Court did not break away from the constraints of the Constitution on the issue, his views on legalizing the illegal immigrants and government controlled health care, to his affiliations and associations over the years with some very unsavory characters, including terrorists and racists. I am under no delusion, however, that I can keep him out of office! I am just exercising my Constitutional right to express my views. And as tempting as it may be to blame previous administrations for messes we find ourselves in, I don't think it serves any useful purpose. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Sorry, Denise, I apparently misunderstood you when you said, quote: to mean that some folks might think that necessity-based decisions might in fact cast doubt in the minds of some people on all the decisions made in framing the constitution. It seems to meant something entirely different that used the same words in the same order but somehow came to a completely different conclusion, apparently the complete opposite of what you actually said. Forgive my confusion. I'll try to stay on top of that in the future. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
While I'm at it, Social Democrats are not socialists. And socialists are not communists, despite what folks have been telling you. Communism has to do with mutual ownership of the means of production and division of the fruits of labor according to necessity without a class system devoted to the ownership and management of Capital. I frankly find that pretty boring. Socialism allows private ownership and management of Capital, with some state support of specific areas where private investment alone is not enough to take care of the social necessity. This is the only industrial country in the world, as I understand it, where trains are not at least in part subsidized by the government, and where trains are supposed to show a yearly profit. France, Germany, England, Japan and all the other major auto manufacturers have government help in keeping their shipping charges low in getting their products to market, and in making sure that their worker's health is maintained without tacking extra money onto the sticker price of the cars. People can still buy stock in the auto makers and start businesses. Most of those countries also have a lower rate of infant mortality today than we do because of their medical programs, and most of their populations live to older ages as well. Most of them also have substantially longer vacation times. None of them are Communist. Some are or have been socialist. Socialist is a party, like Republicans or Democrats. It is also an economic philosophy, like Capitalism and like Communism, but distinct from them both. You sometimes — and pardon me for saying so — have difficulty acknowledging these distinctions, and it makes you a bit difficult for me to follow on occasion. I understand you don't believe this leads you to erroneous conclusions. From my perspective, admittedly very different from your own, it appears that this is sometimes the case, as when you conflate socialism and communism. Where is the actual evidence that Obama is a communist? That he once said that he thought tax money should be re-distributed? That is the purpose of taxes, to take money from one place and purpose, and put it to another purpose in another place. You can find Senator McCain making the same sort of statement at much greater length in previous campaigns — not because either man is a communist, but because that is an accurate description of how taxes must and do work. Do you think I want my tax money being used for a missile program that I'm certain will be ineffective? To go for a war I think is evil? To go for industrial welfare? But it goes there, redistributed, by vote of my representatives in Congress. This is not Communism, even if I'm clearly not thrilled with it. It has, in fact, the consent of the governed. Simply because the word redistributed was used, doesn't mean I don't have the obligation to understand how it is the same and how it is different from the way Karl Marx used the word. So, Denise, How is it the same and how is it different? Pardon my rant. I've tried to keep it polite. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Sure it does, Denise. It allows others to also exercise their Constitutional rights to express their views. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Bob, I merely stated the fact that Obama was a member previously in the New Party, which was Communist. I provided a link here ages ago that showed a picture of him with other members and a caption under the picture that stated he was one of the members and was also a recently elected State Senator. The Party is now defunct. Well then I guess there is one use for it, Ron! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, Apparently, I didn't make myself clear. The New Party was not Communist. To state that it was communist is an error. quote: This is the repetition of your original error. You may check out the Wikipedia article on the subject, which is straightforward. They state that The New Party was Social Democratic in leaning. Social Democratic is another non-communist political party more common in Europe than here. But still not Communist. Not even close. You persist in calling this party Communist, and you have also suggested several times that Obama has Communist leanings. This is not true. You suggest that he has connections with terrorists. Senator Obama is unlikely to have proportionately more connections with such people than The President, or Senator McCain or many republicans in Government when President Reagan was in power, and deals were being made with the Iranian Government — who then as now, supported terrorist activity — to sell them arms in exchange for hostages. These were people with whom the United States government was actively in conflict, I would remind you. The Current Vice-president and the former secretary of Defense were high officials in that administration. Negroponte, who was filling a position for this administration in Iraq within the last few years, was a figure in in Iran Contra affair and was involved with the latin american death squads that murdered nuns. This also means that President Bush was involved with these terrorists as well, certainly more directly than somebody who knew a guy who was in the SDS when he was in college. Many of these Republican luminaries had to be pardoned, or otherwise they would have been jailed with felony records. Several of them could have arguably been tried and convicted of treason for trafficking with the Iranian government and making deals for personal political gain in the 1980 election while Iranians were still holding our people hostage. If you actually believe the The New Party to be Communist, or Obama to be CommunistI request that you please offer some citations to back up what seem to me to me repeated errors in fact. If these allegations are accurate, you should substantiate them. If they are not, you should retract them or account for why you continue to state them as if they were accurate. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You may check out the Wikipedia article on the subject, which is straightforward. Sorry to butt in, Bob, but perhaps you can understand my chuckle based on the flak I got over using Wiki as a valid reference and then seeing your comment. You brightened ole Balladeer's morning |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The New Party was designed as a loose confederation of unions, socialists, communists, and black activists who shared common values, but often had different goals. http://archive.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/barack_obama_sought_the_new_partys_endorsement_knowing_it_was_a_radical_left_organization |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
That’s not evidence Denise - it’s hearsay. Repeating unsubstantiated claims from biased sources doesn’t make them any more credible. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, You may have gotten flak about using Wikipedia as a reference, but if you'll look back at the postings at that time, you'll notice you got nothing but sympathy and support from me because of the self-correcting nature of that encyclopedia. Which is why I have continued to use it. Even though Ron doesn't like it. And why I will continue to do so. Sincerely, Bob Kaven As Grinch says, Denise, Hearsay. Repetition of slander doesn't make the slander true. Not that calling somebody a member of a legitimate political party in this country, by the way, should have ever been allowed to have been turned into a slander. Obama being endorsed by The New Party says nothing but they endorsed somebody that they believed was somewhat in like with issues of social justice that they agreed with. There may be elements of their platform you might agree with yourself, how would I know, Denise? Endorsements also frequently come on the basis of incomplete agreement. For example, the support of Saddam Hussein by several American Governments prior to the first Gulf war didn't mean, one might hope, our agreement with his gassing of the Kurds or the rape and murder of dissidents by his police. Yet we still sent him money. As an example. You have still showed no evidence of Obama being a communist or a Marxist that would stand up to any sort of investigative scrutiny. Nor indeed any evidence of The New Party being Communist. I did see in one article somebody triumphantly proclaiming that there were Marxist and Socialist members of The New Party, as though that made The New Party Socialist or Communist. Certainly Klansmen have run as Republicans, which doesn't make the Republican Party The Ku Klux Klan, does it? When the Democrats in the south supported segregation, certainly there were Klansmen who were registered as Democrats. That didn't make The Democratic Party The Ku Klux Klan either. I'm afraid that you're going to have to do better than this article, Denise. I have recommended in the past that neutral sources, neither right nor left, and sources with a history of paying close attention to documentation are the most convincing. I haven't been tossing any left wing sources at you, have I? I've been making a point of avoiding them in our discussions. Using them would be unfair, since you would rightfully feel them biased in the first place. Whether they were or not. How could you prevent yourself? [This message has been edited by Bob K (12-21-2008 12:55 PM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
I think Wiki is great as a jumping off point for further research. Denise, one sparrow doesn't make a Spring. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Whether they were Socialist, Communist, or anything in between, they certainly seem to have leaned toward the extreme left view in their agenda. I tend to believe that their membership had a various assortment of left-leaning thinkers, no matter how they personally described their own brand of political philosophy. But you were right Bob. In re-reading my original source, it described them as a Socialist organization, and not as Communist one. My apologies for the mistake. What is more troubling than any particular label that one could ascribe to it, is that Obama, having been a member of the New Party, distanced himself from it during the campaign, having his campaign disavow his membership, and leaving it out of his official bio. Was he ashamed of it, or did he believe that he would never have won an election for President if he admitted to it? I guess he wasn't counting on anyone digging up old New Party news clippings that countered his assertions. http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-file-41-obama-was-new-party.html LOL Moonbeam, you're right, one sparrow doesn't make a Spring! I think in Obama's case though we've seen a flock of them! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Dear Denise, Based on the scan of a photocopy of a newsletter that was proof-read by whom, Denise? High-schools have better fact-checkers than most local political party newsletters. They're at least under faculty supervision. Was there a fact checker here. I mentioned a diving platform once in a poem, "a 16 meter tower." The magazine came back wanting to change the spelling of meter to "metre" and told me that there was no such thing as a diving platform at that height in competitive diving. I'd had no idea; it was a mistake on my part. When they asked me if I wanted to change it, I said, "no." I don't remember what I said about "metre." Simply because it's in print, doesn't make it true. If this weren't something where an affectionately held dislike weren't being confirmed for you, I would hope that you would hold out for a more stringent standard of proof yourself. Especially when there are other sources that speak of Obama as being endorsed by, and not as being a member of the party, even prior sources quoted by the same New Zealand author, if you check his references listed in the article itself, and not merely the article on the second page of the same newsletter that is made reference to in the discussion of the blog on the same page as the reference you quoted. The author of the response on the blog to having had this anomaly pointed out was to suggest that one might endorse a member. This suggests that he thought that Obama had a secret membership in The New Party, which brings us back to that Joseph McCarthy thinking again, doesn't it, Denise? Prior mentions of Obama that the writer of the article says he published, however, make mention of of endorsement and not membership, which suggests error rather than cover-up. Occam's Razor; I fear you have been deafened by the sound of a stampede of thundering zebras, here, as are all of us from time to time. As seems usually the case though, Denise, you have been burned by taking your sources from dubious sources. This one, apparently published in October, was reportedly forwarded to Fox News and apparently died there. Fox News apparently decided they didn't want to go with it. As a suggestion — one you may have already followed up on, for all I know — why not write or e-mail Fox News and ask why they didn't go with this particular bit of information. Perhaps they didn't get it? Being a Liberal myself, and loathe to conceal that fact, I fear they would not take the e-mail from me at all seriously, but I would be interested in hearing what they said to you. If they haven't heard, I'm sure they'd love the tip. If they have heard, perhaps you'll get an answer about why they didn't go with the report. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
From another article that I read that quoted one of the New Party's upper echelon/administrators, the Party had no official membership, per se. So in that regard the Party article may have mis-stated that Obama was a 'member'. He did however, whatever you want to call him in reference to them, associate with and accept the endorsement of, the New Party in Illinois, neglected to mention that affiliation in his official bio, thereby distancing himself from them when he hit the national stage. Should I think more highly of him as a transparent and above-board politician since the Party did not have an official 'membership' roll for their endorsed candidates? At the very least it is just one more extreme left political association to add to the rest in that information vacuum. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Yeah, well, depite all that, in this anything goes thread, I wish you all a Happy Merry day. Good times for us. Deb has been home for a week, in great spirits. We had a conversation in French this morning. Amazing! Next year will bring what it brings, but I hope you all get off to a good start! Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Jim, Merry non-sectarian madness to you and J as well, and I hope everything is going along well with you there. How's the draft on the screenplay going? I hope that's working well for you as well! Dear Denise, Thank you for being willing to stop calling Obama a member, then, in the light of new information. You may have noticed that you still stigmatize a perfectly legitimate party with legal aims and objectives. They have the right to endorse anybody they wish, and that should be perfectly all right. Even the socialist party is a perfectly legal party here in the United States, and in my opinion Bernie Sanders has done a wonderful job representing his constituents. Enough of them agree to return him to office over and over again. What you are attempting to say about Senator Obama when you say that he accepted the endorsement of The New Party and that he associated with them escapes me. It sounds remarkably close, however to the logical fallacy called "guilt by association." If so and so keeps bad company, he or she must be bad him or herself. This leaves us with the problem of who's making the judgement of what's bad company in the first place, and the fact the decent people can actually hang out with people who aren't so nice because not all decent people share our prejudices. Jesus had some things to say about this, as I recall, but they've been pretty much covered over in practice for a long time, from what I've seen. Guilt by association isn't usually considered a kosher type of thinking in the logic texts. It's an appeal to emotion rather than reason, and a way of bypassing the logical processes. It wins elections and court fights often enough, mind you, because of its cracker-barrel practicality. But, to make a bad joke here at my own expense, I'm not sure I'd want to hang around with the kind of people who talk like that. You know what they're like. Exit left, quacking like a duck, sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
All I will say today is: Merry Christmas To All and God Bless Us, Every One! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Merry Christmas to you too Denise! Have large amounts of fun with the grandkids, take some walks, spend time with friends. I'll be off for several days, and look forward to hearing that you've had a great time when I get back! All my best, Bob Kaven Season's greetings, and my my affection to everybody here! |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
