Recent history lesson....(sm)

• Let's get back on subject of this board - Backwards typist
  • I'll pick one...LOL...(sm) - Just the big bad
    • Since when is gay sex a RIGHT? - sm
      • Recent history lesson....(sm) - Just the big bad
        • Slavery used to be legal. Does that mean it's a RIGHT? - nm
        • It wasn't legal, it was unlawfully allowed; thus, the - prop 8............ nm
          • So, if there's a law that you don't agree with...(sm) - Just the big bad
            • Like I said, they have every civil right I have..... - never enough is it? nm
              • Except for the right to marry who they want....nm - Just the big bad
                • It has never been a right for gays to marry.... - nm
                  • Swing and a miss...again...(sm) - Just the big bad
                    • Three Strikes - YOU'RE OUT
                    • I stand by what I said....... they have no "rights" - to marry, only to civil unions.... NM
        • Pop 8 was vote of MAJORITY of citizens who said NO... - it's called majority rules..... nm
          • Wrong....(sm) - Just the big bad
            • They have every right afforded everyone else..... - sm
              • No sale....(sm) - Just the big bad
                • What a hypocritical tyrade.... - sm
                  • Well....(sm) - Just the big bad
                    • Question...... - sm
                    • You need to get a clue...........really! - sm
                      • oh come on.... - cj
                        • What is your problem with just teaching no bullying - on anyone..... PERIOD?! sm
                          • wait one minute - cj
                            • You threw that all together, not me...... - sm
      • Okay, point taken, but... - Troublemaker Butting In
    • I agree with you to a point but - Backwards typist
      • Trust me....(sm) - Just the big bad
        • Well, are you saying it should be O's decision? (nm) - Backwards typist
          • Have you heard about the lawyers...(sm) - Just the big bad
          • Not O's decision...(sm) - Just the big bad
  • Regarding ACORN... - Zville MT
    • I heard that a couple weeks ago, but don't know where and - Backwards typist
      • Here's the video of the above report - Backwards typist
      • I am sure that ACORN was - Trigger Happy
        • Yes, even board members that were - Backwards typist
    • Actually Bill O'Reilly debunked this. - Trigger Happy
  • I think it is a shame that - Trigger Happy
    • Ummm....(sm) - Just the big bad
      • Bill O'Reilly is not right-winged. - Trigger Happy
        • Barry is a joke for sure........... - nm
        • Mixed butt? ...(sm) - Just the big bad
      • But where does the money come from? - Backwards typist
        • Me watching Fox is not big news...(sm) - Just the big bad
  • I agree that some of the discussions.........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 agree that we should stay OUT of this, though I fear the timing of this all was purposely designed to drag us into it right before Inauguration Day.

Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen

A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.

Hamas responded by firing a wave of rockets into southern Israel, although no one was injured. The violence represented the most serious break in a ceasefire agreed in mid-June, yet both sides suggested they wanted to return to atmosphere of calm.

Israeli troops crossed into the Gaza Strip late last night near the town of Deir al-Balah. The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away. Four Israeli soldiers were injured in the operation, two moderately and two lightly, the military said.

One Hamas gunman was killed and Palestinians launched a volley of mortars at the Israeli military. An Israeli air strike then killed five more Hamas fighters. In response, Hamas launched 35 rockets into southern Israel, one reaching the city of Ashkelon.

"This was a pinpoint operation intended to prevent an immediate threat," the Israeli military said in a statement. "There is no intention to disrupt the ceasefire, rather the purpose of the operation was to remove an immediate and dangerous threat posted by the Hamas terror organisation."

In Gaza, a Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum, said the group had fired rockets out of Gaza as a "response to Israel's massive breach of the truce".

"The Israelis began this tension and they must pay an expensive price. They cannot leave us drowning in blood while they sleep soundly in their beds," he said.

The attack comes shortly before a key meeting this Sunday in Cairo when Hamas and its political rival Fatah will hold talks on reconciling their differences and creating a single, unified government. It will be the first time the two sides have met at this level since fighting a near civil war more than a year ago.

Until now it had appeared both Israel and Hamas, which seized full control of Gaza last summer, had an interest in maintaining the ceasefire. For Israel it has meant an end to the daily barrage of rockets landing in southern towns, particularly Sderot. For Gazans it has meant an end to the regular Israeli military raids that have caused hundreds of casualties, many of them civilian, in the past year. Israel, however, has maintained its economic blockade on the strip, severely limiting imports and preventing all exports from Gaza.

Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, had personally approved the Gaza raid, the Associated Press said. The Israeli military concluded that Hamas was likely to want to continue the ceasefire despite the raid, it said. The ceasefire was due to run for six months and it is still unclear whether it will stretch beyond that limit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians

influx of rudeness on this board change your mind about coming here.  As you can see by reading the whole board, most of us don't treat each other rudely.

I don't agree with the present administration in this country, but I'm basically a very happy, cordial, friendly person.  Most of the other posters on this board seem to be very friendly and easy going, too.

So don't let a few bad apples spoil your experience here.

Excellent movies.  Should be required viewing in high school civics class.  If, like Mrs. Palin wishes, creationism be taught along side science, then Michael Moore's beautifully patriotic films should be too.

interview.  There is much more to the story that the article does not include.  Biden's explanation seemed reasonable when I heard it.  You can, of course, disagree with me on that point.

Take a look at the date... Olbermann Still Lying About O’Reilly, Fox Ratings

Sunday, November 9, 2008 8:45 PM By: David A. Patten Article Font Size

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann has won the Worst Liar in the World Award once again. His latest big fib is not a new one. He continues to claim that he is beating “The O’Reilly Factor,” the longtime king of cable news programs hosted by Bill O’Reilly of Fox News. But the numbers show otherwise. But that apparently doesn’t bother Olbermann. MSNBC took out a full-page ad in The New York Times proclaiming “A Sweeping Victory” for its ratings and declared “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” the No. 1 cable news program. Independent ratings consistently show O’Reilly gets about twice the ratings Olbermann does. Although Olbermann frequently leads his viewers to believe he has overtaken “The O’Reilly Factor,” in this case the numbers really do speak for themselves. O’Reilly’s program, which Fox airs at 8 and 11 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, averaged about 4 million viewers a night during the month of October, compared with Olbermann’s average of about 2 million, according to TVbytheNumbers.com, a leading Web site that analyzes the Nielsen ratings. Olbermann not only overlooks the fact that O’Reilly trounces him but also claims the opposite is true. Olbermann wrote on MSNBC’s Web site on Oct. 24 that O’Reilly “has seen the ratings spike here at MSNBC and decided that it is the result of a fraudulent conspiracy . . . ” So how can a news network tout ratings that actual Nielsen research doesn't support? The explanation is an almost-invisible line of fine print at the bottom of the ad, stating it refers to the 8 to 9 p.m. time slot for the dates Oct. 27 through Oct. 31, for viewers between 25 and 54 years of age. In other words, MSNBC is touting one time period or ratings category, which is the exception to the overall ratings. Consider: According to the Nielsen ratings, show on Thursday was the single most-watched program on cable television that week, other than Disney’s “Hannah Montana” and “Monday Night Football.” The second-most-watched program the week of Oct. 27 was O’Reilly’s program that Tuesday. And by the way, O’Reilly also hosted the fourth-most-watched cable program that week. The highest any of Olbermann’s programs placed that week was 19th. (It was the only Olbermann show to crack cable’s top 40 programs that week.) “O’Reilly’s lead in average viewers is large and has never been challenged by Olbermann,” Bill Gorman, co-founder of TVbytheNumbers.com, tells Newsmax. He points that “Olbermann has substantially increased both his average viewers and adults 24 to 54 substantially over time.” But data shows Reilly continues to regularly outpace Olbermann even in that key demographic group. Olbermann appeared elated this past week with the election of Barack Obama to the presidency. But the win may be a Pyrrhic victory for the liberal news anchor. Olbermann had positioned himself as the anti-Bush, anti-Republican news source on MSNBC. With Democrats firmly in control of the White House and Congress, it’s questionable that his audience will grow. Fox, meanwhile, may be a big beneficiary of the Obama win. So far, the “early returns” suggest Fox may be growing already. On Nov. 5, the day after the elections, Fox kept about 12 percent more of its Election Day audience than MSNBC.

This was pulled from journalism.org.

After four years of war in Iraq, the journalists reporting from that country give their coverage a mixed but generally positive assessment, but they believe they have done a better job of covering the American military and the insurgency than they have the lives of ordinary Iraqis. And they do not believe the coverage of Iraq over time has been too negative. If anything, many believe the situation over the course of the war has been worse than the American public has perceived, according to a new survey of journalists covering the war from Iraq.

Above all, the journalists—most of them veteran war correspondents—describe conditions in Iraq as the most perilous they have ever encountered, and this above everything else is influencing the reporting. A majority of journalists surveyed (57%) report that at least one of their Iraqi staff had been killed or kidnapped in the last year alone—and many more are continually threatened. “Seven staffers killed since 2003, including three last July,” one bureau chief wrote with chilling brevity. “At least three have been kidnapped. All were freed.”

A majority of journalists surveyed say most of the country is too dangerous to visit. Nine out of ten say that about at least half of Baghdad itself. Wherever they go, traveling with armed guards and chase vehicles is the norm for more than seven out of ten surveyed.

Even the basics of getting the story are remarkably difficult. Outside of the heavily-fortified Green Zone, most U.S. journalists must rely on local staff to do the necessary face-to-face reporting. Yet nearly nine out of ten journalists say their local staff cannot carry any equipment—not even a notebook—that might identify them as working for the western media for fear of being killed. Some local staffers do not even tell their own families.

Most journalists also have a positive view of the U.S. military’s embedding program for reporters. While they acknowledge the limited perspective it provides, they believe it offers access to information they could not otherwise get.

And most journalists, eight out of ten, feel that, over time, conditions for telling the story of Iraq have gotten worse, not better.

The survey, conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism from September 28 through November 7, was developed to get a sense of the conditions journalists have faced in trying to cover the war over the last couple of years. It was not designed to poll their sense of the situation in Iraq at this one or any other particular moment in time, or to offer a referendum on the success of the surge. It will be followed, later this year, with a content analysis of coverage on the ground from Iraq.

The survey included responses from 111 journalists who have worked or are currently working in Iraq. The vast majority, 90 of them, were in Iraq when they took the survey or have worked there in 2007, and most have spent at least seven months in the country cumulatively since the war began.

The journalists are from 29 different news organizations (all of them U.S. based except for one) that have had staff in Iraq—including newspapers, wire services, magazines, radio, and network and cable TV. This represents, by best estimates, every news organization in the U.S. save one that has had a correspondent in Iraq for at least one month since January 2006.¹

Nearly everyone surveyed also responded to open-ended questions – often at length – offering a vivid and sobering portrait of trying to report an extraordinarily difficult story under terrifying conditions.

“The dangers can’t be overstated,” one print journalist wrote. “It’s been an ambush – two staff killed, one wounded – various firefights, and our ‘home’ has been rocked and mortared (by accident, I’m pretty sure). It’s not fun; it’s not safe, but I go back because it needs to be told.”

Whatever the problems, a magazine reporter offered, “The press….have carried out the classic journalistic mission of bearing witness.”

“Welcome to the new world of journalism, boys and girls. This is where we lost our innocence. Security teams, body armor and armored cars will forever now be pushed in between journalism and stories,” one bureau chief declared.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism, which is non-partisan and non-political, is one of eight projects that make up the Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C., a “fact tank” funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Princeton Survey Research was contracted to host and administer the online survey.

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?" 

impact of Supreme Court decisions on the role of government?  I guess it really has nothing to do with being VP.  All you need is a rah-rah speech, a sense of victimization and a flag pin and you are good to go.  Sorry, sometimes I think.

This election has me very worried.  So many things to consider.  About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than.  I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another.  I must say this drives my husband crazy.  But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with.  About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'.  I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight.  We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans. I started looking into Obama's life.
 

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California.  He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.  During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip.  Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family.  My question - Where did he get the money for this trip?  Neither I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college.  When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York.  It is at this time he  wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry.  Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia?  It's not cheap! to say the least.  Where did he get money for tuition?  Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year.  Why Chicago?  Why not New York? He was already living in New York.
 

By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago.  Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year.  Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'.  About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School.  Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School?  Where did he get the money for Law School?  More student loans?  After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down.  But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what?  They represented 'Rezar' which Rezko's firm.  Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago.  In 20 03, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money'  for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price).  With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property?  On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased.  Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
 

 Now, we have Obama running for President.  Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss.  She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first.  Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran!  Do we see a pattern here?  Or am I going crazy?
 

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran.  This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.
 

Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan?  They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contribution for Obama.  Where is that money coming from?  The poor and middle class in this country?  Or could it be from the Middle East? 

And the final bit of news.  On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos.  Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'.  When questioned, 'he made a mistake'.  Some mistake!

 All of the above information I got on line.  If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

 Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?
 

 A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from within'!!!

Scroll down to the bottom of the 5th page of this report and start reading.  Ogden has argued against opposed the Child Internet Protection Act of 2000, challenged the Child Obsenity and Obscenity Enforcement Act and has represented numerous p*ornographic publishers in various causes.  I think this is more than enough reason to oppose him as DAG.

http://www.scribd.com/full/11607068?access_key=key-18yr2u50t8o0sz54rbrl

Look what I found in a book about the Democratic party:

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, championed by the party despite opposition at the time from its Southern wing, has continued to inspire the party's liberal principles.

_________

There are also multiple chapters as well as multiple books written about the metamorphosis of BOTH parties since their inception.  See, sometimes books really can be a good thing!!!  By the way, do you get your historical information from the chronic-liars-library or something?  Cuz it surely seems like it.