Ummm...wrong Mr. Dean, Einstein
Posted By: Mrs. Bridger on 2009-03-13
In Reply to: Mr. Dean talks thought the mouth of a horse - IMHO
Howard Dean was the Vermont Governor who ran in the 2004 election. JOHN Dean was Richard Nixon's Aide - get it?
John Wesley Dean III (born October 14, 1938) was White House Counsel to U.S. President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973. As White House Counsel, he became deeply involved in events leading up to the Watergate burglaries and the subsequent Watergate scandal cover up, even referred to as "master manipulator of the cover up" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
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
You still got the wrong Mr. Dean, Darwin
Identifying the CORRECT Mr. Dean since you don't know any better........no child left behind?
Ummm....ummm....nope, I'd best not touch that one. nm
x
come on Einstein
somebody wants that baby. And when have you ever heard anyone say that a baby ruined his/her life. It is truly tragic that some people think like you, but at least if both lives are ruined, they both have a chance to live.
Einstein in a robe....
^^
Einstein in a robe....
^^
Hey Einstein they threw out a Republican too
kind of blows your theory out of the water that they throw out just people who don't agree with Bush policies. No, it's not a law but Capitol guidelines for proper attire. Just like I don't have governmental laws telling me I can't throw people I don't like out of my house I still can because I have guidelines for what is acceptable in my house. Everyone knows what Cindy was there for and it was to protest. There was no other reason for her to be there, period. Like the poster below said...catch up. This story is soooo last week like Cindy soooo overexposed.
Probably that precept that Einstein asserted.....
insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
No, not population control, Einstein. But in
an already overcrowded world, what sense does it make to bring an UNWANTED child into the world? Babies dont automatically make people happy when their birth is a mistake and it ruins their lives.
Hey Einstein - its the tax payers money
Good grief!!!!
So Einstein's sentiments mean we're all MORONS
.
Howard Dean is also an MD
so he's just a stupid "crat?" Who's stupid?
James Dean? No way!
Did not know that
article from john dean
Was Pat Robertson's Call for Assassination of a Foreign Leader a Crime?
By John W. Dean
FindLaw.com
Friday 26 August 2005
Had he been a Democrat, he'd probably be hiring a criminal attorney.
On Monday, August 22, the Chairman of the Christian Broadcast Network, Marion Pat Robertson, proclaimed, on his 700 Club television show, that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be murdered.
More specifically, Robertson said, You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, referring to the American policy since the Presidency of Gerald Ford against assassination of foreign leaders, but if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.
We have the ability to take him out, Robertson continued, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.
Robertson found himself in the middle of a media firestorm. He initially denied he'd called for Chavez to be killed, and claimed he'd been misinterpreted, but in an age of digital recording, Robertson could not flip-flop his way out of his own statement. He said what he said.
By Wednesday, Robertson was backing down: I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,' Robertson claimed on his Wednesday show. 'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping.
No one bought that explanation, either. So Robertson quietly posted a half apology on his website. It is only a half apology because it is clear he really does not mean to apologize, but rather, still seeks to rationalize and justify his dastardly comment.
From the moment I heard Robertson's remark, on the radio, I thought of the federal criminal statutes prohibiting such threats. Do they apply?
For me, the answer is yes. Indeed, had these comments been made by a Dan Rather, a Bill Moyers, or Jesse Jackson, it is not difficult to imagine some conservative prosecutor taking a passing look at these laws - as, say, Pat Robertson might read them - and saying, Let's prosecute.
The Broad Federal Threat Attempt Prohibition Vis-à-Vis Foreign Leaders
Examine first, if you will, the broad prohibition against threatening or intimidating foreign officials, which is a misdemeanor offense. This is found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b), which states: Whoever willfully - (1) ... threatens ... a foreign official ..., [or] (2) attempts to... threaten ... a foreign official ... shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
The text of this misdemeanor statute plainly applies: No one can doubt that Robertson attempted to threaten President Chavez.
Yet the statute was written to protect foreign officials visiting the United States - not those in their homelands. Does that make a difference?
It would likely be the precedent of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that would answer that question; the Fourth Circuit includes Virginia where Robertson made the statement. And typically, the Fourth Circuit, in interpreting statutes does not look to the intent of Congress; it focuses on statutory language instead.
And in a case involving Robertson, to focus on language would only be poetic justice:
Robertson, is the strictest of strict constructionists, a man who believes judges (and prosecutors) should enforce the law exactly as written. He said as much in his 2004 book, Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court Is Usurping The Power of Congress and the People.
Still, since the applicability of this misdemeanor statute is debatable, I will focus on the felony statute instead.
The Federal Threat Statute: Fines and Prison for Threats to Kidnap or Injure
It is a federal felony to use instruments of interstate or foreign commerce to threaten other people. The statute is clear, and simple. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c), states: Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (Emphases added.)
The interstate or foreign commerce element is plainly satisfied by Robertson's statements. Robertson's 700 Club is listed as broadcasting in thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia, not to mention ABC Family Channel satellites which cover not only the United States but several foreign countries as well. In addition, the program was sent around the world via the Internet.
But did Robertson's communication contain a threat to kidnap or injure Chavez?
First, Robertson said he wanted to assassinate President Chavez. His threat to take him out, especially when combined with the explanation that this would be cheaper than war, was clearly a threat to kill.
Then, Robertson said he was only talking about kidnapping Chavez. Under the federal statute, a threat to kidnap is expressly covered.
As simple and clear as this statute may be, the federal circuit courts have been divided when reading it. But the conservative Fourth Circuit, where Robertson made his statement, is rather clear on its reading of the law.
Does Robertson's Threat Count as a True Threat? The Applicable Fourth Circuit Precedents Suggest It Does
If Robertson himself were a judge (or prosecutor) reading this statue - based on my reading of his book about how judges and justice should interpret the law - he would be in a heap of trouble. But how would the statute likely be read in the Fourth Circuit, where a prosecution of Robertson would occur?
Under that Circuit's precedent, the question would be whether Robertson's threat was a true threat. Of course, on third reflection, Robertson said it was not. But others have been prosecuted notwithstanding retractions, and later reflections on intemperate threats.
Here is how the Fourth Circuit - as it explained in the Draby case - views threats under this statute: Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat is determined by the interpretation of a reasonable recipient [meaning, the person to whom the threat was directed] familiar with the context of the communication.
This is an objective standard, under which the court looks at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the communications, rather than simply looking to the subjective intent of the speaker, or the subjective feelings of the recipient. So even if Robertson did not mean to make a threat, and even if Chavez did not feel threatened, that is not the end of the story.
In one Fourth Circuit case, the defendant asked if [the person threatened] knew who Jeffrey Dahlmer [sic] was. Then the defendant added that, he didn't eat his victims, like Jeffrey Dahlmer; [sic] that he just killed them by blowing them up. This defendant's conviction for this threat was upheld.
In another Fourth Circuit ruling, the defendant, an unhappy taxpayer, was convicted for saying, to an IRS Agent, that in all honesty, I can smile at you and blow your brains out; that once I come through there, anybody that tries to stop me, I'm going to treat them just like they were a cockroach; and, that unless I can throw somebody through a damn window, I'm just not going to feel good.
Viewed in the context, and taking into account the totality of the circumstances, it was anything but clear that any of these threats were anything more than angry tough talk. The same could be said of Robertson's threats. Yet in both these cases, the Fourth Circuit upheld the defendant's conviction, deeming the true threat evidence sufficient to do so.
For me, this make Robertson's threats a very close question. President Chavez publicly brushed Robertson's threats off, for obvious diplomatic reasons, yet I suspect a little inquiry would uncover that the Venezuelan President privately he has taken extra precautions, and his security people have beefed up his protection. Robertson has Christian soldiers everywhere. Who knows what some misguided missionary might do?
If you have not seen the Robertson threat, view it yourself and decide. Robertson's manner, his choice to return to the subject repeatedly in his discourse, and the seriousness with which he stated the threat, all strike me as leading strongly to the conclusion that this was a true threat. Only media pressure partially backed him off. And his apology is anything but a retraction.
Will Robertson be investigated or prosecuted by federal authorities? Will he be called before Congress? Will the President, or the Secretary of State, publicly chastise Robertson? Are those three silly questions about a man who controls millions of Republican votes from Christian conservatives?
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
Here is a synopsis of the Dean interview.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0714-25.htm
Them's strong words Mr Dean!
John Dean on MSNBC: Dik Cheney may be guilty of "murder"
Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh’s bombshell earlier this week that Vice President Dik Cheney controlled an “executive assassination ring” continues to reverberate throughout Washington, with Nixon aide John Dean going so far as to accuse the former VP of murder if the charges are true.
I mean Dean is a real republican, not like the ones today.
Mr. Dean talks thought the mouth of a horse
Yeah, like anything he has to say is valuable. This is the guy who screamed out all those states - HEEEEE-YAWWWWWW?
Mr. Dean is a spiteful crat to the bone and did not do his job properly. He didn't stand on the side of the people, who stood with the big money people.
If he's going to call anyone a murderer he best go back to Billy boy himself with those wars he started that he had no place involving the US troops. Lots of innocent people were slaughtered because of him back then and no he did not follow the Geneva code.
Jon Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
HNN History News Network Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.
12-20-04 An Interview with Jon Butler ... Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?
By Rick Shenkman
Mr. Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences at Yale University, is the author of Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People(Harvard University Press, 1990). This interview was conducted by HNN editor Rick Shenkman for The Learning Channel series, Myth America, which aired several years ago.
You hear it all the time from the right wing. The United States was founded as a Christian country. What do you make of that?
Well, first of all, it wasn't. The United States wasn't founded as a Christian country. Religion played very little role in the American Revolution and it played very little role in the making of the Constitution. That's largely because the Founding Fathers were on the whole deists who had a very abstract conception of God, whose view of God was not a God who acted in the world today and manipulated events in a way that actually changed the course of human history. Their view of religion was really a view that stressed ethics and morals rather than a direct divine intervention.
And when you use the term deists, define that. What does that mean?
A deist means someone who believes in the existence of God or a God, the God who sets the world into being, lays down moral and ethical principals and then charges men and women with living lives according to those principals but does not intervene in the world on a daily basis.
Let's go through some of them. George Washington?
George Washington was a man for whom if you were to look at his writings, you would be very hard pressed to find any deep, personal involvement with religion. Washington thought religion was important for the culture and he thought religion was important for soldiers largely because he hoped it would instill good discipline, though he was often bitterly disappointed by the discipline that it did or didn't instill.
And he thought that society needed religion. But he was not a pious man himself. That is, he wasn't someone who was given to daily Bible reading. He wasn't someone who was evangelical. He simply was a believer. It's fair, perfectly fair, to describe Washington as a believer but not as someone whose daily behavior, whose political life, whose principals are so deeply infected by religion that you would have felt it if you were talking to him.
Thomas Jefferson?
Well, Jefferson's interesting because recently evangelicals, some evangelicals, have tried to make Jefferson out as an evangelical. Jefferson actually was deeply interested in the question of religion and morals and it's why Jefferson, particularly in his later years, developed a notebook of Jesus' sayings that he found morally and ethically interesting. It's now long since been published and is sometimes called, The Jefferson Bible. But Jefferson had real trouble with the Divinity of Christ and he had real trouble with the description of various events mentioned in both the New and the Old Testament so that he was an enlightened skeptic who was profoundly interested in the figure of Christ as a human being and as an ethical teacher. But he was not religious in any modern meaning of that word or any eighteenth century meaning of that word. He wasn't a regular church goer and he never affiliated himself with a religious denomination--unlike Washington who actually did. He was an Episcopalian. Jefferson, however, was interested in morals and ethics and thought that morals and ethics were important but that's different than saying religion is important because morals and ethics can come from many sources other than religion and Jefferson knew that and understood that.
Where does he stand on Christ exactly?
Jefferson rejected the divinity of Christ, but he believed that Christ was a deeply interesting and profoundly important moral or ethical teacher and it was in Christ's moral and ethical teachings that Jefferson was particularly interested. And so that's what attracted him to the figure of Christ was the moral and ethical teachings as described in the New Testament. But he was not an evangelical and he was not a deeply pious individual.
Let's move on to Benjamin Franklin.
Benjamin Franklin was even less religious than Washington and Jefferson. Franklin was an egotist. Franklin was someone who believed far more in himself than he could possibly have believed have believed in the divinity of Christ, which he didn't. He believed in such things as the transmigration of souls. That is that human, that humans came into being in another existence and he may have had occult beliefs. He was a Mason who was deeply interested in Masonic secrets and there are some signs that Franklin believed in the mysteries of Occultism though he never really wrote much about it and never really said much about it. Franklin is another writer whom you can read all you want to read in the many published volumes of Franklin's writings and read very little about religion.
Where did the conservatives come up with this idea that the Founding Fathers were so religious?
Well, when they discuss the Founding Fathers or when individuals who are interested in stressing the role of religion in the period of the American Revolution discuss this subject, they often stress several characteristics. One is that it is absolutely true that many of the second level and third levels in the American Revolution were themselves church members and some of them were deeply involved in religion themselves.
It's also true that most Protestant clergymen at the time of the American Revolution, especially toward the end of the Revolution, very eagerly backed the Revolution. So there's a great deal of formal religious support for the American Revolution and that makes it appear as though this is a Christian nation or that religion had something to do with the coming of the Revolution, the texture of the Revolution, the making of the Revolution.
But I think that many historians will argue and I think quite correctly that the Revolution was a political event. It was centered in an understanding of what politics is and by that we mean secular politics, holding power. Who has authority? Why should they have authority? It wasn't centered in religious events. It wasn't centered in miracles. It wasn't centered in church disputes. There was some difficulty with the Anglican church but it was relatively minor and as an example all one needs to do is look at the Declaration of Independence. Neither in Jefferson's beautifully written opening statement in the Declaration nor in the long list of grievances against George the Third does religion figure in any important way anywhere.And the Declaration of Independence accurately summarizes the motivations of those who were back the American Revolution.
Some of the conservatives will say, well, but it does make a reference to nature's God and isn't that a bow to religion?
It is a bow to religion but it's hardly a bow to evangelicalism. Nature's God was the deist's God. Nature's God, When evangelicals discuss religion they mean to speak of the God of the Old and the New Testament not the God of nature. The God of nature is an almost secular God and in a certain way that actually makes the point that that's a deistical understanding of religion not a specifically Christian understanding of religion. To talk about nature's God is not to talk about the God of Christ.
John Patrick Diggins has advanced the argument that not only were the Founding Fathers not particularly religious but in fact they were deeply suspicious of religion because of the role that they saw religion played in old Europe, where they saw it not as cohesive but as divisive. Do you agree?
The answer is yes and the reason is very simple. The principal Founding Fathers--Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin--were in fact deeply suspicious of a European pattern of governmental involvement in religion. They were deeply concerned about an involvement in religion because they saw government as corrupting religion. Ministers who were paid by the state and paid by the government didn't pay any attention to their parishes. They didn't care about their parishioners. They could have, they sold their parishes. They sold their jobs and brought in a hireling to do it and they wandered off to live somewhere else and they didn't need to pay attention to their parishioners because the parishioners weren't paying them. The state was paying them.
In addition, it corrupts the state. That is, it brings into government elements of politics and elements of religion that are less than desirable. The most important being coercion. When government is involved with religion in a positive way, the history that these men saw was a history of coercion and a history of coercion meant a history of physical coercion and it meant ultimately warfare. Most of the wars from 1300 to 1800 had been religious wars and the wars that these men knew about in particular were the wars of religion that were fought over the Reformation in which Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other, stuffed Bibles into the slit stomachs of dead soldiers so that they would eat, literally eat, their words, eat the words of an alien Bible and die with those words in their stomachs. This was the world of government involvement with religion that these men knew and a world they wanted to reject.
To create the United States meant to create a new nation free from those old attachments and that's what they created in 1776 and that's what they perfected in 1789 with the coming of the federal government. And thus it's not an accident that the First Amendment deals with religion. It doesn't just deal with Christianity. It deals with religion with a small r meaning all things religious.
What about the conservatives' belief that we need to go back to the religion of the Founding Fathers?
If we went back to the religion of the Founding Fathers we would go back to deism. If we picked up modern religion, it's not the religion of the Founding Fathers. Indeed, we are probably more religious than the society that created the American Revolution. There are a number of ways to think about that. Sixty percent of Americans belong to churches today , 20 percent belonged in 1776. And if we count slaves, for example, it probably reduces the figure to 10 percent of the society that belonged to any kind of religious organization.
Modern Americans probably know more about religious doctrine in general, Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, than most Americans did in 1776. I would argue that America in the 1990s is a far more deeply religious society, whose politics is more driven by religion, than it was in 1776. So those who want to go back would be going back to a much more profoundly secular society.
What do you make of the politicians who take the opposite point of view. It must make you go crazy.
It doesn't make me go crazy. It makes me feel sad because it's inaccurate. It's not a historically accurate view of American society. It's a very useful view because many modern men and women are driven by a jeremiad, that is jeremiad lamenting the conditions in the wilderness. We tend to feel bad when we hear that we are not as religious as our fathers or our grandfathers or our great grandfathers and that spurs many of us on to greater religious activity. Unfortunately in this case the jeremiad simply isn't true. And I don't think that those who insist it is true would really want to go back to the kind of society that existed on thee eve of the American Revolution.
Americans do become religious in the nineteenth century, don't they? That's what you say in your book.
The American Revolution created the basis for new uses of religion in a new society and that was conveyed in the lesson taught by the First Amendment. If government was no longer going to be supporting religion how was religion going to support itself? It would have to support itself by its own means. Through its own measures. It would have to generate its measures. And this is what every one of the churches began to do. As soon as religion dropped out of the state and the state dropped out of religion, the churches began fending for themselves. And they discovered that in fending for themselves that their contributions were going up, they were producing more newspapers, more tracts, they were beginning to circulate those tracts, they created a national religious economy long before there was a secular economy. You could trade more actively in religious goods than you could in other kinds in the United States in 1805, 1810.
What happened in the United States is that the churches actually benefited from this separation of church and state that was dictated by the First Amendment. In addition to which America became kind of a spiritual hothouse in the nineteenth century. Not only did the quantity off religion go up but so did the proliferation of doctrine. There became new religions--the Mormons, the spiritualists--all created in the United States. New religious groups that no one had ever heard of before, that had never existed anywhere else in western society than in the United States.
I seriously doubt the Dems would claim you,Zauber. You're another Howard Dean.
Ummm...yes you did....
You said take it to the conservative board. And I do not see what in the post was bashing. It was stating an opinion, which anyone, no matter what their political affiliation is, still has the right to do on this board or any other to my knowledge. If you perceive the truth as bashing, that is your prerogative. And the truth IS, liberals continue to defend Clinton even though he was and is a morally corrupt individual who broke the law of the United States while a sitting President. He did it, that is the truth, there is no way around that. Yet your party continues to say it was about sex. I will try this one more time...perjury is perjury no matter what it is ABOUT. It is a felony. He broke the law and his oath of office. Never apologized for either. And took his last hours in office an opportunity to pardon all the crony crooks he could. And yet you continue to defend him as a great man. Pardon me if that seriously undermines the credibility of your party. That is NOT bashing. That is the TRUTH.
ummm
The way I read that is these units would be activated in case of natural or manmade diaster, not out on the streets everyday. Good greif.
Ummm, so maybe they can
Then the guilty can be punished, and the innocent prisoners who are not terrorists (or at least weren't when they were initially locked up) can be set free.
Kinda a no brainer, dontcha think?
Ummm....
source of the info and the fact that you "don't know anybody who would think it's right" yada yada yada, chances are you and the author are jumping to conclusions that are most likely a tad over-stated. It might be helpful to keep in mind that the "government" is not some block of concrete buildings or master computer somewhere. They are flesh and blood just like the rest of us and are not likely to be party to placing "control" of the heath care of themselves, their parents and their own children in the thoes of such a scheme. Sorry. Jury's still out on this.
Ummm....
source of the info and the fact that you "don't know anybody who would think it's right" yada yada yada, chances are you and the author are jumping to conclusions that are most likely a tad over-stated. It might be helpful to keep in mind that the "government" is not some block of concrete buildings or master computer somewhere. They are flesh and blood just like the rest of us and are not likely to be party to placing "control" of the heath care of themselves, their parents and their own children in the thoes of such a scheme. Sorry. Jury's still out on this.
Ummm...no....
Get over yourself. If you have something intelligent to say, I'm all ears, but until that time.....
Ummm....(sm)
So you don't think waterboarding is illegal -- even though it goes directly against at least 4 existing treaties? If we aren't going to be held accountable by treaties that WE agree to, what's the point of being in them?
This is actually where I do disagree with Obama. He doesn't want to make this into a partisan thing and is seemingly not too interested in prosecutions. My opinion is that its not partisan to enforce existing laws. As far as I'm concerned the whole bunch from the Shrub gang need to be prosecuted. Maybe we can just extradite them to Spain. That would work for me.
Ummm....(sm)
Doesn't this belong on the gab board? What's wrong....don't want to talk about your heros, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld going down for torture?
Ummm....(sm)
I think I would go with conventional interrogation techniques...you know....the ones that actually worked on KSM before the waterboarding.
Ummm....(sm)
"what right does the government have to take MY money and give to an organization like ACORN to pass out to democratic candidates for their campaigns"
Well, that was straight out of O'Reilly's mouth. LOL. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's just about exactly what he said last night.
So you think that there is a direct funnel that takes our tax dollars and just hands them over to Acorn? Here's a news flash --- as the ladies noted last night on Billo's show, they are a nonprofit organization and have to apply and compete for grants and loans just like everyone else.
As for whether they are completely on the up and up, I have no idea, but I don't think I'll base that judgment on the commentary of a right-wing show host.
Ummm....(sm)
Exactly how is it that Fox's ratings prove that O'Reilly is not far right? LOL.. Ratings have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.
However, since you mentioned Obama and fulfilling his promises, it may not turn out like you think. For the most part people who voted for him are pretty happy with how he's handling the economy and foreign affairs. However, there are a few things that have gotten to a lot of dems. For example, he hasn't gotten rid of "don't ask don't tell" yet. He hasn't fulfilled promises he made to the LGBT community. He's carrying on seemingly with "indefinite detention." He ran on a platform that promised these things would be fixed. Granted, he hasn't been there long and can still come around on these things. However, if he doesn't my guess is that the country will go even farther to the left than they did this time. Now that is what you should be worried about, not Fox ratings.
And just as a side note, if he gets healthcare reform through, it will be decades before a pub sets foot in the White House.
ummm.
Now who's making assumptions? You don't know what he paid for either. Secondly, I am fully aware of what is going on in this country. Spending, printing money, spending, printing money, etc., etc. Get over Bush He is gone. Obama has in four shorts months spent more money than the 43 presidents who preceded him COMBINED. So yeah, I worry about the cost of his date. Because it's just plain wrong. You want logic - you don't spend taxpayer money on a DATE in this failing economy. Logic would be to lead by example, not telling other people to sacrifice and then do something so excessive. Furthermore, who said I voted for Bush? You? Shows what you know. Next time don't vote in Obama and maybe free enterprise in this country will survive so we will all have jobs.
Ummm....(sm)
Obama has writtent 2 books ---- the first, "Dreams From My Father," was published in 1995. The second, "The Audacity of Hope," was published in 2006. --- Both before the election.
Ummm....actually it does...(sm)
The Declaration of Independence is not and was not a legal document. It simply stated the intent of the US to separate from Great Britian and why. It did not define any rules or regulations to be imposed in this nation.
Explain the Treaty of Tripoli that says "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Another note: Not everyone in this country is in the business of impressing your god and therefore has no need of any kind of "blessing" from your god. What if I were a pagan and told you that the sun god was going to scorch the US unless everyone prayed to him/her. Would you do it? That's what you expect everyone else to do to impress your god. Why? Because YOU don't want to be in the mix when your supposed wrath of god experience comes. I would put that in the category of trying to make others do something they don't agree with just to save your behind. Don't even bother with the "but we want to save you too" speech. Believe me, we don't want or need saving.
Ummm...no....(sm)
Your main point was what you initially stated, and that was that there was no mention in the MSM about this incident. Unfortunately for you, I can undoubtedly come up with even more proof of MSM coverage if you'd like, but that would only serve to embarass you further.
As far as Obama not saying much about it, I think that was a good choice. At the time he was only a couple days out from his speech in Cairo. --- That would be the speech where he is seeking to calm tensions between our religous nuts and their religious nuts. Yeah....that would have been just a perfect time to bring that up. How about using your brain for a change instead of just spitting out the right wing talking points.
Ummm....(sm)
I do believe I've more than proven I can take the heat on this board....LOL, even from the loons like you who just lurk around waiting for me to post something so you can jump on it, which is rather funny and pathetic all at the same time, as well as from the paranoid lunatics like Patty.
BTW, you can now take "paranoid lunatic" out of the insinuation box and put in the statement box......just so you don't get confused.
Ummm....(sm)
A gag order was issued:
http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2009/jun/08/gag-order-issed-shooting-case/
The whole point of the gag order (which the prosecutors asked for, btw) is so they can come up with a jury that has not been overexposed to the case. I guess Fixed Noise wants to ensure that everyone hears about this so we can have a really hard time prosecuting this guy. Way to go Fox! 
wrong, full of wrong statements, see my upper post...nm
nm
Ummm....no. The link says sm
it contains a malformed video id. That's what it says when you paste it into the address bar and it takes you to You Tube.
Ummm...Which America would that be?
nm
Ummm....they do, actually, just as they take issue with
and ran with it.
Ummm....for starters
managed to assemble more than a dozen transitional economic advisors in 3 days, and I am certain he will not confine himself to those guys before it's all over. He has a 15 cabinet positions, 6 cabinet-level administrations positions and 3 Level 1 Executive Schedule offices to consider.
He's not been sworn into office, so there is not a whole lot he can do directly except to articulate his intent. No time for ego for a man who is preparing to face one of the greatest challenges as president in the history of our country. BTW, the Office of the President Elect has been around since 1963...not O's idea.
Ummm, think we should be concering ourselves
nm
Ummm...you surely know!!
.
...jealous?...ummm....
asdf
Ummm, this may come as a surprise to you
There are between 1.3 and 1.6 BILLION Moslems in the world. Estimates of how many live in the US are widely disputed, but range between 2 and 7 million. Among them, only a very small percentage of them are extremist. That leaves about a BILLION of them, give or take, for Obama to "win over." Got it?
Ummm....it goes with the territory...
It is their responsibility to entertain ambassadors, foreign heads of state, etc., etc. Use you freaking brain box. At least they didn't REDECORATE.
Ummm....I have a question...(sm)
Exactly what is it that Obama is doing that causes fear?
Ummm..Martha my dear
Woo..Hoo..is this gonna be a **Martha Stewart moment**?
Ummm....let's see....Howard Wolfson....
Lannie Davis, Bob Beckel, Susan Estrich, Greta Van Susteren, Geraldo Rivera...all of those are Democrats and all of those are liberals. Greta was at CNN before Fox. There are many others, I can't remember all their names. Fox has had the highest ratings during the democratic convention and they have covered the whole thing...so much for never reporting on issues important to Democrats. They covered Obama and McCain equally during the campaign season, and while I realize that to please this poster a network would have to be all Obama all the time, THAT is the definition of bias. And decidedly UNDEMOCRATic.
Fox has the highest news ratings in the country by a pretty hefty margin, so I am thinking that while "many" Democrats "despise" Fox News, many others don't mind seeing both sides of an issue. Imagine that!
Ummm...my analogy refers to
I have looked beyond the pretty face. Problem is, I don't see a whole lot there, unless she is trying for her old position as PTA chairman. The depth of your analysis, as you insist on trying to deflect this away from the issue of her paper-thin resume and toward some sort of cat fight over "looks" demonstrates exactly what kind of follower she will attract. Do you think that slam about envy and being unattractive has any bearing on anything of substance? Trust me. These are not some isolated ramblings from an envious, malcontent, ugly, what's-her-name/Cindy McCain wannabe. You and she will have to be answering some really tough challenges from all those groups named in the previous post. Guess you missed that as your post disintegrated into name-calling that has absolutely nothing to do with the very serious issues at hand. In terms of her preparedness to lead this nation, she strikes me and many, many others as being a Bobo. My little post….just the tip of the iceberg. You'd better find some bigger guns than lipstick and nail files.
Ummm. Fox is changing its tone and now
"a problem with semantics," trying to slither out from under its legendary erroneous biased reporting.
|
