Do I need to order up more crow?

I can't remember why I was suppose to eat crow, only something about the election.  Whatever it was, I'm gnawing on a crow bone as I speak.  I am VERY unhappy with the people Obama is surrounding himself with.  Doggone it if I wanted the Clintons back I'd of voted for Billary!!!  I think we can safely dispense now with Ayers et al.  Clintons and Bushes are still gonna rule and that's a surprise for me.

Another order of crow and please send some more BBQ sauce!! LOL

• Do I need to order up more crow? - gourdpainter
  • No, gourdpainter...it's gonna be Obama ruling....make no mistake.... - ms
    • No use arguing - gourdpainter
      • ah...I see your post below...interresting conspiracy theory....sm - ms
      • Right......sm - ms
  • LOL! No crow for you, GP! - Marmann
    • ah no! - gourdpainter
      • LOL! No, there's plenty. - Marmann
  • For key cabinet position, just where would you suggest - Obama find people with experience?...sm
    • Please see message. - Marmann
    • Excellent Post. - Kim
  • No reason for anyone to eat crow. - Chele
    • That's very true; however, kind of ironic - voteinde
    • You're right about that. s/m - gourdpainter
      • I know we get bashed for - Chele
        • You put your finger on it, chele. - true blue
        • You get it s/m - gourdpainter
          • Exactly! - Marmann
        • I couldn't agree more... - Marmann
          • Please define the "change" you expected - in terms of cabinet appointees...sm
            • My idea is this........ - gourdpainter
              • Another one I would be interested in vetting is - gourdpainter
            • Please see message. - Marmann
              • On HC and other staff appointees... - sm
                • I responded to the OP post above. (sm) - Marmann
                  • Yes, I noticed that about you. - In stark contrast to...sm
                    • The stark contrast came... - Marmann
                • Hillary looking to Obama for guidance? Surely you jest. n/m - gourdpainter
                  • Not really. She's no dummy and if she wants to stay - viable in the party....sm
                    • I guess we'll see. n/m - gourdpainter
              • P.S. about Greg Craig appointment - Marmann
              • Marmann...the OP would be 3rd under GP's - "For key cabinet position, just where would you
                • I apologize for the confusion. - Marmann
              • Correction. - Marmann
        • Well if we storm in better do it before the new CD sm - Hoping for peace
  • obama won...he wouldn't really because people won't really vote for black and lie to polls - ...
    • What? - gourdpainter
      • Poster is talking about when you said that would be the case (nm) - MeMT
  • I'll agree with you - not on the crow thing - Kaydie
  • Actually, makes me wonder what is - really going in the O's
    • That very same thought not only... - Marmann
  • GP, you tickle the heck out of me! - linda
  • At least know you're not alone... - Zville MT
  • Actually GP, you said McCain would - Stardust
    • the crystal ball is obviously no good and should be trashed - ...
    • Crystal ball - gourdpainter
      • Don't beat yourself up too much GP sm - m
        • Actually I am beating myself up. s/m - gourdpainter
          • Equal opportunity basher....... sm - m
        • I have a friend whose husband is Muslim - she told me (sm) - MeMT
          • I'm not Muslim, but... - Marmann
            • I agree, corrected myself in a post below. I shouldn't have added that part as a factor nm - MeMT
              • Oops. (sm) - Marmann
          • Your friend probably just guessed - gourdpainter
            • I think she did just guess also (sm) - MeMT
          • Did she state a reason? sm - m

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I looked back to see why you originally offered to eat crow, and it was because of Obama's potential appointment of Hillary for SOS.

Don't worry, though.  Since the majority of Obama's appointments seem to be former Clintonites, you (and I) will have plenty to eat once he's finished recreating the Clinton cabinet.

P.S.  Thanks to "ms" for the kind wishes to me.  I just saw them now (and responded) when I looked back for GP's post.

After our rather heated debate tonight, I went off in search of answers to the questions of Obama's qualifications to be POTUS, and here is what I found. 

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

US Code Title 8,1401 states the following as a qualification of a natural-born US citizen.  (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html).  This is the only qualification that Obama actually passes to qualify to be POTUS, but one is all that is needed as all the qualifications listed are exclusive of each other. 

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

Since this does not specify a particular time frame in which the US citizen parent must live in the US prior to the birth of the child, it must be assumed that any one-year residency would satisfy the requirement. 

Somehow crow for Thanksgiving dinner just isn't quite what I had in mind.  Please make sure it is well done with lots of BBQ sauce. 

or GP or me...not today.  Today is turkey day!

Tomorrow, the three of us can get back to our crow-eating endeavors.  LOL. 

I was just saying that I'm not happy so far, didn't really expect to be from the beginning BUT I will give anyone a chance and I don't see how his plans are going to work for the common good.  If the insurance companies are fighting his medical care overhaul, then it's a safe bet that he MIGHT be on the right track.  Time will tell.  In maybe a year (?) when this stimulus (nonsense to me) has all been spent, there will be time enough to see whether he was right or wrong.  I know the day will never come when I will regret voting AGAINST McCain/Palin.  McCain himself probably wouldn't have been so bad but I personally wouldn't vote for Palin for dog catcher.  Why people (my son included) think she would have saved the world is beyond my comprehension.  If the Republicans are dumb enough to run her in 2010, it wouldn't surprise me if she wins and if she does, some of you who supported her may be eating crow.

As for the late abortion issue, I'm dead set against that.  HOWEVER, I'll never pass judgment on anyone.  I still think that issue belongs with the woman, her doctor and her pastor if she has one.

those nineteen 9/11 guys drinking in strip bars to 'blend in' while taking flight training and planning the attacks.  I realize it is only heresy to actually defect from Islam, not just to appear to convert for strategic purposes.  Still it would have to be a very big conspiracy, wouldn't it?  And you would think some Imam or other would be issuing a show fatwa or two just to keep up appearances?

for quite some time for just such a thing. We haven't spent foolishly or lived above our means. New toys and technology don't impress us much. We have been fortunate and blessed.

Do you lie on purpose to emulate your God Bush or are you just so lacking in common sense and intelligence that you unquestioning believe everything ANY neocon says?

Either way, YOU'RE SPREADING LIES.  In case you haven't noticed lately, AMERICANS ARE GETTING FED UP WITH LIARS....especially UNDEREDUCATED, ILLITERATE, HATEFUL, JUDGMENTAL liars. 

CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here's what Clinton signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

• the physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers. Translation: You can't search American citizens.
  
• and there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person. Translation: You can't search American citizens.
  


• Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. Physical searches, as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.
  
  
  CARTER DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
  And now, Carter's turn:
  
  1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

• the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.
  
• there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.
  

Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law.

It's called check and balance!

China leads the New World Order.

Don't believe it?  Look at Bush toasting the commie leaders... all of our trade deals with them...Who has us by the balls financially.... A huge component of the creation of the North American Union is megaports on the Western coast to accommodate huge Chinese tankers.... Look at Paulson and his ties with commie China.... The lone Republican lawmaker who voted against Berancke's confirmation says that Bernacke has extensive ties to commie China so it is a conflict of interest...

The above is just a sampling. The bottom line is that we will wind up just like China, with slave labor, before it's all over with.

our F.L. must first crack the whip on Congress, who are the ones that can change tax codes to make offshoring less profitable.   ''Yes we can'' will have to take a back seat as long as special interests can spread around enough dough to Congress to buy ''Oh no you can't!'' 

I'm no Obama fan, but don't we all realize that presidential candidates run on a wish list of items they would like to implement, knowing that they will never be permitted to accomplish many of these things?  But, gosh darn it, they still get credit for trying real hard! 

Obama may believe he has a Dem-majority congress firmly in hand, but these guys count on campaign money for re-election.  And that money is, for the most part, donated by business interests.  The businesses certainly do not consider these to be charitable gifts, but investments in obtaining legislative outcomes that work for them. 

Obama has, at most, one presidential re-election to worry about.  Congressmen can run for unlimited terms and have to make very long-range calculations before they dare to offend offshoring companies by closing tax loopholes that make it better for them to offshore than not.