I'm afraid my history lesson disqualifies your argument.
Posted By: You are trying to......sm on 2008-11-09
In Reply to: I was not talking about 16 other presidents...... sm - m
be a smartass and ask what has changed since his statement. I simply stated the obvious answer. What has changed is his MIND. If he didn't feel qualified, he would not have run. Evidently, 65,431,955 citizens agreed with this chane of heart. You cannot argue away the fact that GREAT presidents have held office with much less experience than Obama...and I look for him to be adding his name to that list of the BEST our country has to offer in short order.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Thank you for the history lesson!
That was hilarious! Especially the girlie-man part - boy, do I know some of those liberals! =)
I don't need a history lesson
I majored in it in college. I know there's discrimination and I know there are people who will discriminate in this election - either for or against Obama. But I think it's just a shame that you think Democrats are all above this. I live in a pretty hick town in southeastern Ohio where there are MANY Democrats who are voting McCain simply because they won't vote for a black man, plain and simple. And if you think that southeastern Ohio is the only place this kind of mentallity is, you'd be wrong. Discrimination is a terrible thing, but don't think it's just a Republican thing.
We need to do a little history lesson
Israel DID create the situation. Gaza is landlocked on all it's borders by Israel. They are not allowed in and out. Dr. Ron Paul had made a comment about concentration camp state; that is accurate. They have no means to get supplies in and out. A lack of supplies doesn't meant the leaders are starving their people. Supply and demand. Simply economics. Those who can afford things get them. That wouldn't be the case if the market was allowed to flow within Gaza, but that will never happen because as of now Israel has them in a full nelson and at their mercy. Mercy isn't something Israel abounds with. Barely anything is allowed in, so the supply is small. That lack of food you talk about to feed families isn't the fault of the leaders. Demand is high, supply is low, so yes, the rich SOBs running the joint will do what rich people do -- buy what they can afford because no one else can.
Hamas was created by Israel as a counter to the PLO. Much like we go about the world creating little counter-revolutions everywhere, so does Israel in the middle east. They create groups to do their bidding, using useful idiots who might actually BE extremists or just idealistic people, then when the group deteriorates away from their original purpose, Israel doesn't like that and starts crying that they're being persecuted by everyone around them. Poor little Israel can't get a break. Always getting pushed around by the big mean Arabs. Yeah, the Arabs with AK-47s that are 50 years old. You know, the same Israel who would just assume firebomb entire neighborhoods, killing anything and everything around. Mossad is active in every country in the world in the same fashion that the CIA is. Slapping around a bee's nest only invites them to sting you to death. That's what's occuring.
Hamas has eventually become a tool of the people around and has been elected into governments. Israel doesn't like that. It's a threat to their tyranny.
Extremism exists on all sides. Not just the poor idiots that get talked into blowing themselves up. Zionism has been a blight that has existed for generations and will continue to exist as an excuse to kill millions of innocent people in the name of God.
Recent history lesson....(sm)
Before Prop 8 gay marriage was legal in Calf.....therefore, a RIGHT. Prop 8 took that RIGHT away.
Dissent during WWII - A history lesson the right forgot....sm
Dissent during WWII - A history lesson the right forgot.
Posted by ChrisSal on Wednesday June 28, 2006 at 3:04 pm MST [ Send Story to Friend ]
One of the right’s favorite things to do is to compare the Iraq invasion to WWII and Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler. They claim that anyone who opposes the war is an appeaser, a terrorist sympathizer, or a traitor. This rhetoric is absolutely laughable not only because it is a huge stretch, but also because Republicans have obviously forgotten their own history.
Following the rejection of the League of Nations treaty in 1919, America developed a strong isolationist foreign policy. This was, perhaps, in response to the expansionist policies put in place by Teddy Roosevelt and the abject horror experienced in WWI. The citizenry wanted nothing more to do with sending its men to fight in foreign conflicts.
However, in 1935 Italy invaded Abyssina, which provided the first real test of America’s isolationist foreign policy. Congress passed the Neutrality Act, applying a mandatory ban on the shipment of arms from the U.S. to any combatant nation. FDR vehemently opposed the bill, but signed it under intense Congressional and public pressure. Two years later, Japan invaded China starting the Sino-Japanese war. As China was our ally and public opinion was favorable, FDR found ways to circumvent the Neutrality Act and assist China. Another two years later Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and began their conquest of Europe.
In May 1940 Germany overran the low countries, which left Britain open to invasion. By the end of 1940, Britain was financially ruined and the isolationist support was beginning to rapidly erode. 1941 brought about the Lend-Lease act and a more aggressive US posture in the Atlantic. Some claim, with some validity, that FDR provoked both Germany, with the US Naval presence in the Atlantic, and Japan, with support to China and crippling embargoes, particularly the oil embargo, into war. For the purpose of this discussion, that is neither here nor there.
As it became more apparent that the US involvement in WWII was going to deepen, a group named ‘America First’ organized to put pressure on FDR to keep America out of the war. “America First” garnered the support of people from across all shades of the political spectrum, but it was the GOP, who hated FDR and everything he did, that started the ball rolling. Twelve days after Pearl Harbor, Sen. Taft (R-OH) gave a speech to the Executive Club in Chicago. He railed against US intervention into WWII and spoke on the need for dissent, particularly during wartime.
As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur. - Sen. Taft (R-OH) December 19, 1942
So, the next time a rabid right winger claims that opposition to the war is unpatriotic and treasonous, remind them that as Germany rolled through Europe, Japan rolled through the Pacific, and before the fires of Pearl Harbor were extinguished it was conservative Republicans that took the lead in opposing FDR and the American entry into WWII.
and steal another 700 billion! Be afraid, be very afraid. nm
xx
Be afraid.........be veerrrry afraid. n/m LOL
x
I could take a lesson from you in cut and paste perhaps....
.
Thanks for the geography lesson. nm
nm.
You could take a lesson from your last four words.
Sarah Palin has infintely more class that you exhibited.
Pub lesson on how to win friends and
This must be some sort of new maverick style of reaching across the aisle and getting that bipartisan cooperation Americans are so anxious to see again...he just left out the part about looking at his opponents down two barrels of a shotgun.
He/she passed first lesson - lie.
NM
Thanks for the lesson on the constitution, however ...
There are TWO fundamental flaws in your premise.
1) The provision for Congress to declare War is for the purpose of STARTING a war where none exists. If "the other guy" starts one, no such declaration is needed nor appropriate. For example, if Canada invades, guess what? We're at war with Canada and Congress need not legislate to determine if this reality in fact exists. That is applicable to the present because SADDAM started a war in 1991 that was never concluded until the 2003 invasion. (There's been a Stability And Support Operation since then).
2) Congress DID declare war against Iraq. (redundantly, since as per #1 above, we already WERE at war.) There is nothing in The Constitution nor US Code that spells out specific language such declaration must utter. The fact that no resolution was passed with the words, "we declare war" or whatever you imagine it has to say, does not alter the inescapable fact they DID expressly vote to use military force against Iraq, specifically authorizing the invasion, in fact. You can claim that's not a declaration of war if you like but no honest person will join you.
The lesson I learned is that Sam has class...you are
3rd grade civic lesson
Posted by Don Rasmussen of CampaignForLiberty. com on 10/30/08
Special thanks to my mom for sending this along.
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.
To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia’s mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat down. The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.
”
She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn’t know. The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide.
Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth he offers ice cream, and fifty percent of America reacts like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other fifty percent know they’re going to have to feed the cow.
Just taking a page out of sam's lesson plan.
nm
The lesson here is...not everything people "believe" is correct! (nm)
xx
Learn to spell lesson first before you preach right
--
A civics lesson in the Constitution of the United States
Our country's highest governing document, The Constitution, has been our guiding light throughout most of this country's history and has provided protection and equal treatment of the citizens of this country for over 200 years. Now, some people are saying that it needs to be changed, amended or done away with because it is "old-fashioned" and out of date. What I think these people want done away with is just the parts that they don't find fits their particular needs or desires at the moment, in particular, it would seem, the 14th Amendment and its definition of who is a natural citizen of this country and eligible to run for the office of President of the United States.
Let's look at the constitutional requirements for President of the United States, the 14th Amendment which further defines a natural citizen and the law which fills in the gaps and makes the explanation whole and more easily understood.
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
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:"
- Anyone born inside the United States
- Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
- Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
- Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
- Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
- A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
Some have theorized that because John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
If one group of people who want to see Obama in office manage to do away with the 14th Amendment, then what is to keep another faction of people from doing away with any of the other constitutions? The Constitutions, its Amendments and Articles were put in place not to oppress the American people but to protect them and their rights and freedoms. What if all the men in the country decided they wanted to do away with the 19th Amendment? I bet we would see some really mad women in this country. Or how about doing away with the 22nd Amendment which limits the number of terms that a President can serve? Can we say "dictatorship?"
So enlighten us, I love to learn, the past 8 years were a hard lesson indeed.....nm
nm
LOL No argument s/m
I'm neither Democrat or Republican, I usually call myself independent. I march to my own drum. I would have liked to have seen 2 different candidates than what we had. I would have liked to see a true Christ-like man, humble and honest in his/her campaign...i.e. the "Straight Talk Express" which McCain claimed to have and didn't.
I simply voted AGAINST the man who bragged that he had voted "with the president over 90% of the time, more than even his Republican colleagues." We certainly need change. I know I haven't fared so well under Bush. All is not lost for those who think Obama is a monster if he in fact turns out to be what he's been accused of being. . Remember Richard Nixon?
you win the argument
If you like Bush you are a rare person indeed. His approval rating is 26%.
So now is your time to shine because your guy is still in charge and you should enjoy it.
History is history and opinion is opinion. You need to learn the difference.
x
Yes, anything to make an argument...sm
No pun intended to reality check, but yes anything can turn into an argument. Yep.
Why don't you take your little argument over to the CON board.
You can con each other on the CON board. How's that?
So is posting the same argument.
I remind you that the monitor recently posted we could cross-post, as we have had liberals on the conservative board, as long as the posts were not bashing.
Wow, that's a good argument....
it is not a personal choice. There are two people involved, one of whom has NO choice. Not fair.
Is that your only argument for socialism?
My word....people are committing adultery on both sides of the fence, that will never change. What in the world does that have to do with socialism and socialists candidate?
But you have made your argument here FOR
You already know where Obama stands. He has said outright he will raise taxes to pay for more social programs. He wants to tell you how to get your healthcare. I agree we definitely need to do something about healthcare but then that could be easily done if the fat cats on capitol hill, including Obama, would stop insurance lobbyists and make it illegal for lobbying....period!!! They then would have to make it more affordable or they will not have a business to run in the first place.
I too would like to see our troops come home from Iraq but not give that money to Obama because it will be wasted faster than you can blink and on what? More socialist programs...
If you look deep into what Obama hasn't detailed in his healthcare plan, you will see that you WILL be paying DEEPLY for it. He has managed to waltz around the details of his plan, which include HUGE tax hikes to pay for that wonderful healthcare he wants to give you.
With the two candidates I am left to choose from, I choose a capitalist over a socialist any day. I'm about to believe Obama would sell his soul to the devil to get in that position.
Okay, that argument aside, here's a legitimate
What will be your thoughts, and more importantly - your ACTIONS - if the candidate of your choice doesn't win?
Where do you go from there?
Do you have a plan as to what you will do, or not do, or change, or flee, if your candidates lose the election?
I can see both sides of the argument
Yes, many people are getting threatened and businesses getting picketed for supporting Prop 8. You cannot deny that (what was the pink taliban or whatever that disrupted church service a month or so ago?)
But on the other hand, if they want these donations anonymous, than that means Obama and other politicians can make their donations anonymous, and I think it's the publics right to know who is financing the next leaders of the country.
I just find it interesting that the homosexuals are assaulting and threatening supporters of the Prop 8 for what they believe in when they themselves are asking for fair treatment for what they believe in.
You don't do your argument any good
by talking down to people. The point I gathered from the the Bloomberg article seems to state what many have said and that is that with all the spending the government has done and will continue to do, the government could have paid off almost all mortgages and settled what was touted as the root cause of all the problems, the subprime mess.
Bailouts don't work, handouts don't work, the free market does.
With one mistake after another, rookie Obama's decisions and policies demonstrate one thing only and that is his stimulus package is political payback instead of finding genuine solutions. The vagueness of his campaign speechmaking was the work of a hollow wordsmith after all.
"I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
-Winston Churchill
I am so sick of this argument
All that clause means is that their will be no state sponsored religion - like saying everyone has to be Baptist or Lutheran or Catholic. It had nothing to do with taking God out of the white house or supreme court or anywhere else! The only reason that happened is because Christians just sat by and didn't say anything while everyone else whined about it and now it's too late to reverse all that because the mindset now is "oh we have to have separation of church and state!"
Of course as greedy and grimy as politicians are these days they probably feel better thinking that God doesn't pay attention to politics!
Here's some quotes from the founding fathers:
William Bradford
• wrote that they [the Pilgrims] were seeking:
• 1) "a better, and easier place of living”; and that “the children of the group were being drawn away by evil examples into extravagance and dangerous courses [in Holland]“
• 2) “The great hope, and for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world"
John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61
Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry
Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”
"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
Article 22 of the constitution of Delaware (1776)
Required all officers, besides taking an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe to the following declaration:
• "I, [name], do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
That is a valid argument. Thank you
I heard that argument..(sm)
They're saying they'll have to raise taxes when the extended benefits run out. This doesn't make sense to me. If while they are receiving extended benefits they are creating jobs with the other aspects of the stimulus, wouldn't the total bill for unemployment go down?
Not a good argument...(sm)
I could just as easily say that if you believe in the sanctity of life so much, why are you willing to torture and kill others.
That argument won't work because most people who are pro-choice do not believe that life begins at conception.
Ah, the persecuted Christian argument. Please.............
That was the argument in 1960. We didn't buy it then and we are...sm
not buying it now almost 50 years later. Religion should have no part of politics any more than race, gender or anything else that has no bearing on whether a person can lead.
That whole "blood for oil" argument is garbage.
nm
An argument for redistribution of wealth
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
FY 2007
Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:
1. Individual income tax 45%.
Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.
2. Payroll taxes 35%
Social insurance (Social Security). Funds used to pay for Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Individual's share of this is 17.5%.
3. Corporate Income Tax 15%
4. Excise Tax 3%.
Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas.
5. "Other" 2%
So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%.
If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950. For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.
A couple of other points of interest:
http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html
"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.(6) Put another way, small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.
http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion? Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information:
Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS. The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS). To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade. I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages. Pay special attention to the last 3 items.
1. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s
2. Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s
3. Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s
4. Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s
5. Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s
6. Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s
7. Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s.
From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture. I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth. This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another. This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.
Citizenship argument...another red herring on
Get over yourself.
The closing argument that lifts us up
what it really means to be an American. No amount of harsh rhetoric or divisive tactics can touch the hope I hold nor the joy I take in knowing that the country I love, which has lost so much of late, is still there, is on the mend and that better and brighter days are just around the bend.
Good argument for the 10% threshold. :) nm
nm
What kind of good solid argument is that?
All I saw was a good article assessing the state of our emergency readiness and the conservative comes back with nyah nyah, a guy got shot, hope you're happy.
Is that what anyone calls good solid argument?
I just knew some people would make this into an argument
I just thought it was pretty cool and on the lighter side. But...as usual, some people just want to argue.
Your argument does not hold a drop of water.
Number one. No they wouldn't...journalists are like lawyers...they don't rat out their sources. It is a question of professional integrity. Furthermore, the LA Times went into great detail to describe precisely what was on the video. No cigar on that media bias whining. This is what happens when campaigns declare war on the media, keep their VP pick on a short leash, avoid one-on-one interviews like the plaque and squeal out loud when the rogue goes off script. The media would not be having a field day if there weren't such an abundant pool of news stories being generated daily by this pathetically mismanaged and misguided camp.
Since when is the International REPUBLICAN Institute, chaired by McCain, the REBPULICAN presidential candidate apolitical? Explain this to me, please. The Center for PALESTINIAN Research and Study...apolitial? On what planet is the subject of Palestine apolitical? Seriously, can you point out any Palestinian living either in OCCUPIED Palestine or in the diapora who is NOT political. If it weren't political, there would have been no exchange of funds. Not at all the same as what...a little incoherent here.
The "meeting" was a farewell dinner for Khalidi held at a Palestinian community center in Chicago for this American born, Yale graduate, Oxford University Doctor of Philosophy, former professor and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the Center for International Studies at the University of Chicago, current professor at Columbia University. He is a member of the National Advisory Committee of the US INTERreligious Committee for Peace in the Middle East...a national organization of Jews, Christians and Muslims. He is also a member of the Board of Sponsors of the Palestine-Israel Journal, a publication founded by prominent Palestinian and ISRAELI journalists.
Radical Israel hater? Sam, this may come as a shock to you, but Palestinians take great pride in crossing cultures and religions for the sake of garnering peace in their war-torn country. You need help interpreting what Obama meant by "showing me my own personal bias." This is what occurs when people cross cultures, talk to one another, listen to points of view other than their own and start the process of coming to terms with the ethnocentric bias they carry around from their own cultures. I know exactly what he means. It is precisely the quality an effective foreign policy leader need to have to make effective diplomatic inroads. If you want to make something suspicious and subversive out of that....be my guest. In the absence of the tape, Sam, just how is it that you claim to know precisely what transpired during that farewell dinner?
Notably absence from you post is any direct comment on the fact that Chairman McCain's IRI funded the organization that Khalidi founded for 2 years in a row. If he is the Jew hater you suggest he is, then wouldn't that mean that once again, Chairman McCain had a vetting deficit?
Rabid rants will not support your argument.
with anything. Rememer the burden of proof thingy in the courts? Why do you think Berg the Boob is suing on grounds of "standing" and alleged "harm"...claims that thus far have been laughed out of court?
Another argument based on false premise.
underpinnings of our democracy? Here's a clue just for you. What is the function of the Supreme Court? Since when do the 3 branches of our govt NOT interpret the constitution? This has absolutely nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with the ignorance you seem to feel compelled to display, and dern proudly, I might add.
Before you try to tell the rest of us how we should be thinking and such, perhaps you should be addressing your own severe afflictions, starting with your blind hatred.
Wow, that was a powerful, cogent, scholarly argument!..................nm
nm
The fire safety argument is a lot of hooey.
Is it more of a fire hazard just because more than 15 people meet on a regular basis than if someone has a single party for 30 people?
As long as you and the other wiccans are clothed and no open-burning laws are being broken (in a residential area, that would be a fire hazard) I would have no particular problem with your rituals. Depending on the time of day/night and loudness of chanting, it might constitute a disturbance of the peace, same as a loud barbecue party in the neighborhood. But with the basic concept of your meeting, no big deal.
sam, weak argument based on semantics, that reporter's
implication was all too clear, and just another stupid accusation in order to mislead yet more uneducated, misinformed voters.
|
