(OT) LA Times Endorsement
L
endorsed a candidate
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-endorse19-2008oct19,0,5198206.story
L
S'mee
> FYI, this is the first time in at least 30 years that the LA Times has
> endorsed a candidate
>
So? It's calipornia...'nuff said. Neither is worth anybodies vote.
What would happen if NOBOY voted for a president and Vice president?
What if none of those people even wrote in a candidate? What then?
I don't know and I don't care, that's what would happen...
--
Keith
Vito
"L" <L...@reeky.net> wrote:
>> FYI, this is the first time in at least 30 years that the LA Times has
>> endorsed a candidate>
>> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-endorse19-2008oc...
>So? It's calipornia...'nuff said.
Mike Huckabee says
The sad thing about voter anger is that it's misdirected. While there is
plenty of blame and fault to go around for both parties, there really is
hard evidence that John McCain tried in vain to get attention focused on the
totally absurd lending practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that are at
the heart of the meltdown. Barack Obama (OTOH) is the second highest
recipient of political cash from the big bosses of these entities, and one
of his economic advisors Franklin Raines took over $90 million in bonuses
from Fannie Mae. That's right---$90 MILLION. Do you really think that Barack
Obama will lead "reform" of a system that his advisors have helped create?
His radical views ...are beyond most of even the most extreme leftists. His
work with ACORN, a radical political organization is especially noteworthy
in light of the fact that ACORN received over $760 million in "fees" from
banks to help push people into No Income; No Job; and No Assets loans.
S'mee
> "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com>
If you really wanted to stir up the nuts and fruits...just mention
Obama has two birth certificates and there could subsequently be a
question of his nationality. 8^) I am writing in someone other than
the republican/deocrat nominee.
--
Keith
L
"L" <L...@reeky.net> wrote in message
news:TOidnZoEHPz8vGfV...@earthlink.com...
Another viewpoint of the LA Times position.
Southern California is strongly pro-Obama, so the LA Times has to go along
with that. The Chicago Trib, which owns the LA Times and hasn't endorsed a
Democrat since Christ was a corporal, endorses Obama, too.
The editorial is pompously pissy and putrid: "it can be disorienting when
the nation stumbles or loses confidence in bedrock principles or
institutions." The principle of right-wing control of everything including
private phone calls and emails? The institution of a stock market that
exists to make the rich richer? The phrase "venerable private financial
houses" is enough to make me puke, and it would make Charles Dickens puke if
he were alive.
"John McCain distinguished himself through much of the Bush presidency by
speaking out against reckless and self-defeating policies." How can the
whores in charge of the Times have the balls to say that? I saw "Rock" Obama
demolish that stupid lie in the third debate after McSame said, "I'm not
Bush." Obama pointed out, and America heard, that McBush voted with the Bush
league 90% of the time on issues of substance.
Anyone who reads that Times editorial will come away thinking McCain was
once an honorable man. NOT! NEVER IN HIS LIFE! Read
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick/print
More stinking shit from the LA Crimes: "We are not sanguine about Obama's
economic policies. He speaks with populist sweep about taxing oil companies
to give middle-class families rebates that of course they would welcome, but
would be far too small to stimulate the economy." Those bastards! Those sons
of motherfuckers! They want us to believe that rolling back insane welfare
to the rich is a "populist" idea. Fair taxation of oil companies was never
presented as a way to stimulate the economy; it's a way to right a grievous
wrong.
Then comes the same old moronic musings about Obama's lack of experience.
That stupidity could only be mouthed by someone who has no clue about
Obama's life and his achievements. How about running the most successful
campaign in history with no authority except intelligence and greatness? How
about achieving consensus and respect in the vicious jungle of Chicago
politics? How about winning the active, dedicated support of Reader's
Digest-type Republicans in Illinois?
Yes, I know, the Times did say some good things out of one side of its dirty
mouth while taking them back with the other side.
I repeat: Southern California is strongly pro-Obama, so the LA Times has to
go along with that.
Kevin
news:52e9c775-4ac9-470b...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Just a question? why write in when the constitution party has a real
canidate that actually understands what the constitution doesn`t allow
the gov to do? KB
--
THUNDERSNAKE #9
Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others
S'mee
Because they are naive idealists and after doing multiple surveys adn
reading on candidates to only discover Biden is the only dirt bag I
have anything in common with... It just proves to me once again the
american government is run be idiots, morons and self serving
beurocrats.
I vote not just on issues but what kind of person a candidate is. The
dems all feel like slimy self serving power hungry thieves. The
republicans come across as bufoons, clueless and totally lost. The
rest of the world is clueless and lacking the spine to do what should
work regardless of whether they get reelected or not.
When there is a candidate with the willingness to do and the disregard
for their re-electability. Maybe I'll vote for them...even if they are
a stinking menshivik.
p.s. the socialist can piss off. They don't want true democracy.
--
Keith
Twibil
> I repeat: Southern California is strongly pro-Obama, so the LA Times has to
> go along with that.
It was dumb the first time you said it; and saying it twice doesn't
make you look any smarter.
(A) Southern California is the conservative half of the state:
*Northern* California is strongly pro-Obama.
(B) The *other* southern California papers -which exist in the very
same markets and sell their papers to the same buyers- are not paying
any attention to your claim that they're going to *have* to endorse
Obama just because they publish in southern California. The Riverside
"Press-Enterprise", for instance, came out endorsing McCain this very
morning.
Therefore; (C) do you suppose that it might be that the Times
Editorial Board came to their own conclusions for their own reasons
and endorsed Obama strictly on what they consider to be his his merits
instead of simply caving in to what *you* consider to be public
pressure? And that you're simply whining about a political endorsement
that you don't care for?
If not, you're going to have to explain why those other publications
see no reason to cater to what you mistakenly think are the southern
California public's preferences in politicians, but the L.A. Times
*does*.
Snort.
Twibil
> p.s. the socialist can piss off. They don't want true democracy.
Uh, neither did the framers of our Constitution want a "true" or
"pure" democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
That's why we have a "Representative Democracy", instead, and always
have.
Vito
>If you really wanted to stir up the nuts and fruits...just mention
>Obama has two birth certificates and there could subsequently be a
>question of his nationality. 8^) I am writing in someone other than
>the republican/deocrat nominee.
Yup, and his African half-sister swears he was actually born in Kenya when
his mother's flight to Hawaii refused to let her board because of her
advanced pregnancy - meaning he can't be president. <g>.
.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com
wrote:
And there are two ( count 'em two ) federal suits in court
right now ( one by a Republican, one by a Democrat ) trying to get him
thrown off the ticket.
I also heard a rumour that Heidi Klum is headed to my place
right now, to beg me to sex her down.
Given the odds ( and the relevance of the outcome to my
personal existence ), my money's on Heidi, it's more likely :-)
--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/
Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm
Bob Myers
"Vito" <vi...@xxcrosslink.net> wrote in message
news:48fb9b55$0$13075$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> Yup, and his African half-sister swears he was actually born in Kenya when
> his mother's flight to Hawaii refused to let her board because of her
> advanced pregnancy - meaning he can't be president. <g>.
Given that his half-sister is nine years younger, it doesn't
seem that she'd be in much of a position to "swear" to
anything regarding his birth.
It would be irrelevant in any case - a person born abroad
to an American citizen is still an American citizen.
Interestingly, John McCain's eligibility on these grounds has
also been questioned in this election - as he was born in
the Panama Canal Zone. The Zone was not technically
American territory; the U.S. leased the Zone from Panama,
but did not in so doing gain territorial rights. McCain's
citizenship derives in exactly the same manner as Obama's,
by being born of at least one American parent even though
on foreign soil (making the assumption that Obama was born
in Kenya rather than Hawaii, which is hardly a given).
Therefore, if Obama's eligibility for the Presidency were
successfully challenged, you would have to assume that McCain
would also be ineligible, putting us in the interesting situation of
both major parties having nominated persons not eligible for
the office.
However, Obama's Hawaiian birth is not seriously in question.
Bob M.
Vito
> "Vito" <vi...@xxcrosslink.net> wrote
>> Yup, and his African half-sister swears he was actually born in Kenya
>> when his mother's flight to Hawaii refused to let her board because of
>> her advanced pregnancy - meaning he can't be president. <g>.
>
> Given that his half-sister is nine years younger, it doesn't
> seem that she'd be in much of a position to "swear" to
> anything regarding his birth.
Bwahaha! Gotcha!
>
> It would be irrelevant in any case - a person born abroad
> to an American citizen is still an American citizen.
But not a *natural born* citizen and hence ineligible to be president.
(Of course http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html)
>
> Interestingly, John McCain's eligibility on these grounds has
> also been questioned in this election - as he was born in
> the Panama Canal Zone. The Zone was not technically
> American territory;......
>
Hmmm ... so McCain might not be "natural born" either.
What about Bob Barr?
> However, Obama's Hawaiian birth is not seriously in question.
Awwwwww ..... sad but true.
S'mee
SNIP
> However, Obama's Hawaiian birth is not seriously in question.
>
> Bob M.
Hawaii is a state? WTF who let those loonies into the country!
--
Keith
Kevin
>>
>> > --
>> > Keith
>>
>> Just a question? why write in when the constitution party has a real
>> canidate that actually understands what the constitution doesn`t
>> allow the gov to do? KB
>
> Because they are naive idealists and after doing multiple surveys adn
> reading on candidates to only discover Biden is the only dirt bag I
> have anything in common with... It just proves to me once again the
> american government is run be idiots, morons and self serving
> beurocrats.
a idealist is what your looking for. all the others worry about
reelection.
>
> I vote not just on issues but what kind of person a candidate is. The
> dems all feel like slimy self serving power hungry thieves. The
> republicans come across as bufoons, clueless and totally lost. The
> rest of the world is clueless and lacking the spine to do what should
> work regardless of whether they get reelected or not.
>
> When there is a candidate with the willingness to do and the disregard
> for their re-electability. Maybe I'll vote for them...even if they are
> a stinking menshivik.
That unfortunatly was Ron Paul, which didn`t have a chance because our
public school educated voters have no clue what the constitution LIMITED
the gov to be able to do. Unfortunatly the big slide started almost 100
years ago and now looks unreverseable. RIP the Good old USA. KB
>
> p.s. the socialist can piss off. They don't want true democracy.
> --
> Keith
--
Rob Kleinschmidt
I'd say the problem's more Alaska than Hawaii.
S'mee
obviously you've not had long term contact with polynesins or
samoans...nice people but totally barking mad in a somewhat normal
kind of way.
--
Keith
Rob Kleinschmidt
And your point is ?
You got something against the barking mad,
WTF are you doing here ?
One of the more attractive things about reeky IMHO.
S'mee
Like I said...WTF am I doing here? Hell I was hoping you'd tell me!
Near as I can figure I wander in one day, drank from the other Kool-
Aid and now the door keeps moving when I get close to it. I guess it
could be the "Hotel Claifornia" effect only fun.
> One of the more attractive things about reeky IMHO.
Indeed, indeed and nobody looks at you funny if you ride 2 smoke and
are covered in dead bugs (on just the front side)
--
Keith
BrianNZ
>
> Indeed, indeed and nobody looks at you funny if you ride 2 smoke and
> are covered in dead bugs (on just the front side)
> --
> Keith
You just keep telling yourself that......... :)
Robert Bolton
Sarah was born in Idaho.
Robert
Chuck Rhode
> Just a question? why write in when the constitution party has a real
> canidate that actually understands what the constitution doesn`t
> allow the gov to do?
Hear, hear! What this country needs is a prompt return to the
policies of Andrew Johnson.
--
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 43° — Wind N 7 mph
S'mee
Well, they don't look at you funny when you are riding, just after you
get off and lick your gloves clean.
WHAT?
--
Keith
Twibil
> >I'd say the problem's more Alaska than Hawaii.
>
> Sarah was born in Idaho.
Were I a native-born Alaskan, I'd be disavowing her too.
B. Peg
>> I repeat: Southern California is strongly pro-Obama, so the LA Times has
>> to
>> go along with that.
> It was dumb the first time you said it; and saying it twice doesn't
> make you look any smarter.
> (A) Southern California is the conservative half of the state:
> *Northern* California is strongly pro-Obama.
With all the Hollywood types living along the coast, I'd also say that L.A.
is democratic as well as S.F.
Move inland maybe 5-10 miles and it appears to change to republican.
If you divide California West and East, I would say the West (coastal) would
be definitly democratic and the Eastern portion would fall into the
Republican portion. Not that much difference in a No.and So. diviision;
but East and West - look out!
B~
Twibil
> > (A) Southern California is the conservative half of the state:
> > *Northern* California is strongly pro-Obama.
>
> With all the Hollywood types living along the coast, I'd also say that L.A.
> is democratic as well as S.F.
Uh, contrary to what you hear from Bill O'Reilly, "all the Hollywood
types" only comprise around 50% of L.A.'s population. The other half
vote conservative, and the population as a whole will vote for
whichever candidate they think is best, political party
notwithstanding. In total, L.A. votes centrist.
> Move inland maybe 5-10 miles and it appears to change to republican.
Well, if you completely ignore the several million staunch Republicans
who dominate the politics of the 100-mile coastal corrider that runs
all the way from Orange County in the north to San Diego in the south,
you might be right if it weren't for the fact that Democrats now
outnumber Republicans in inland San Bernardino County and are making
serious inroads in other inland districts as well...
> If you divide California West and East, I would say the West (coastal) would
> be definitly democratic and the Eastern portion would fall into the
> Republican portion. Not that much difference in a No.and So. diviision;
> but East and West - look out!
Nope. It's still pretty much a Democratic majority in the north and a
Republican majority in the south
Vito
same.
Bob Myers
> LA Times isn't the only one endorsing Obama. Kadaffi (Lybia) is doing the
> same.
As is Colin Powell. So - what exactly, now, was
your point re Kadaffi?
Bob M.
Twibil
> > LA Times isn't the only one endorsing Obama. Kadaffi (Lybia) is doing the
> > same.
>
> As is Colin Powell. So - what exactly, now, was
> your point re Kadaffi?
Obviously they're all Commies! (And I'm none too sure about *you*
there, lefty!)
M. MacDonald
> > (A) Southern California is the conservative half of the state:
> > *Northern* California is strongly pro-Obama.
>>
>> With all the Hollywood types living along the coast, I'd also say that
>> L.A.
>> is democratic as well as S.F.
> Uh, contrary to what you hear from Bill O'Reilly, "all the Hollywood
> types" only comprise around 50% of L.A.'s population. The other half
> vote conservative, and the population as a whole will vote for
> whichever candidate they think is best, political party
> notwithstanding. In total, L.A. votes centrist.
....umm.. You're wrong.
LA county is a Blue county (Democrat). San Bernardino is still Red
(Republican).
Out of the 15 or so counties that line the California coastline, only about
4 or five of the least populated are Red, the majority are Blue.
See the USA Today poltical map that shows the counties and their party. The
East vs. West is a better split with regards to counties that remain in the
red (except the Markleville township area (Alpine county?) with a population
of maybe a 1208 (in 2000) south of Lake Tahoe.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
Mack
M. MacDonald
Mack
S'mee
No at a seacret commitee meeting on turncoats he was determined to be
a traitor to the proletariat and the central commitee of the United
Socialist State of America.
--
Keith
Rob Kleinschmidt
So then howcome McCain is sending letters
to the Rooshuns, asking them for money ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7681168.stm
Now that it's come to light of course, he now says
that it's a mistake.
Hey, everybody makes "mistakes", right ?
Twibil
> ....umm.. You're wrong.
>
> LA county is a Blue county (Democrat). San Bernardino is still Red
> (Republican).
All "blue" means is that there is one more Democrat registered in the
County than there are Republicans. It doesn't tell you how the
population will vote in a given election, and, as I posted above, L.A.
County tends to vote for the man rather than the party.
As for San Bernardino County, it's expected to be blue in terms of
registration numbers by election time; which is the only time that
matters. Riverside County is trending the same way.
> Out of the 15 or so counties that line the California coastline, only about
> 4 or five of the least populated are Red, the majority are Blue.
Uh, if you refer to the map that *you* posted, you'll find that in all
of southern California only *two* coastal counties went blue in the
last elections.
> See the USA Today poltical map that shows the counties and their party.
Read it again. It shows how the counties *voted* -red versus blue- in
the 2004 Presidential elections. It says *nothing* about the
comparative numbers of Republicans and Democrats registered to vote in
2008.
Twibil
> And Powell was wrong about Iraq too.
Let's see: Bush claimed that Iraq was developing WMDs and was
dangerous to both his neighbors and the US. Turns out Bush was lying,
there never *were* any WMDs, and Iraq was never a threat to anyone
except themselves.
And you think *Powell* was wrong?
Good one!
Twibil
McCain needs a committee to follow him around to explain "what he
*really* meant to say", much as the Republicans did during Reagan's
second term when the Alzheimer's was beginning to take effect.
I'll never forget the looks on the Air Force General's faces when
Reagan forgot the script during his announcement of the cruise missile
program and explained that cruise missiles were a great improvement
over conventional ICBMs because they could always be recalled if the
launch should prove to be a mistake...
Of course, cruise missiles *cannot* be recalled, nor would you *want*
a bunch of live H-bombs turning around and heading back home when they
were sent a certain signal.......by somebody...
S'mee
> On Oct 19, 11:31 am, "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > p.s. the socialist can piss off. They don't want true democracy.
>
> "pure" democracy.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
>
> That's why we have a "Representative Democracy", instead, and always
> have.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
Actually you and wiki would be wrong. It is supposed to be a
represenative REPUBLIC...it hasn't been a republic since it became a
socialist state in the mid 30's.
--
Keith
S'mee
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:52:04 +0000, Kevin wrote:
> > Just a question? why write in when the constitution party has a real
> > canidate that actually understands what the constitution doesn`t
> > allow the gov to do?
>
> Hear, hear! What this country needs is a prompt return to the
> policies of Andrew Johnson.
ITYMTS Andrew Jackson and all I can say to that is NO! Emphaticly NO!
If I'd been around then he'd have only lived as long as it took to
find him.
--
Keith
S'mee
> "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >If you really wanted to stir up the nuts and fruits...just mention
> >Obama has two birth certificates and there could subsequently be a
> >question of his nationality. 8^) I am writing in someone other than
> >the republican/deocrat nominee.
>
> Yup, and his African half-sister swears he was actually born in Kenya when
> his mother's flight to Hawaii refused to let her board because of her
> advanced pregnancy - meaning he can't be president. <g>.
AND JUAN McCain was born in Panama not in the Panama Canal Zone. He
ought to go home to Panama and fix their problems. Obama ought to stay
in ohio, get a green card like everyone else.
So what does that leave us? Palin and Bidden? <SIGH> All right girls
first round is on me. 50 y/o cask strength McCallen with just a splash
of H2O. Well go riding when the barrel is empty.
p.s. sure hope it rains or snows to make it interesting.
--
Keith
S'mee
ITYMTS "They officially found no biological or chemical weapons" The
simple answer to why that dog didn't bark is that what little there
was, was hidden in syria either with the central governments knowldege
or not.
If I was down wind of their chemical weapons (vx, vg etc) then you are
a teenage mormon hooker.
--
Keith
Robert Bolton
Most Alaskans are not native born, with the exception of the Alaskan
Native. People come up here to get away from the lower 48 lunacy
and/or to seek opportunities in a developing area. As a result, a lot
of the people who come up here are transient, and will only stay 10 or
15 years. Alaska is a mix of people from many different parts of the
world. Wasilla is a place where those who shun things urban move when
they come up to Alaska. Generally very conservative/independent and
very religious. The meth labs are out there too. It's not surprising
that her folks moved there, given they came from Idaho.
I kind of like Sarah's image, even though our politics differ. She
broke into state politics when she became governor, in spite of the
Republican Good Ole Boys Party up here who wanted Frank Murkowski to
be re-elected. McCain offered her the chance of a lifetime, so she
took it. I respect her drive and daring.
She sure came across as a bimbo in the Couric interview though. Having
her take over for McCain should he pass away would not be a good thing
though, as it doesn't look like she could handle being President.
Robert
Twibil
(A) *YOU*, my friend, were the one who said "the socialist can piss
off. They don't want true democracy." (See above.)
(B) Originating the use of the term and then objecting that it's
inaccurate when someone else uses it in the same way is a level of
hypocrisy that's rare to see, even on Reeky.
(C) Labeling anything you don't care for as "Socialism" is nothing
more than Rovian political spin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
We're yet a long, *long* ways from Socialism, unless, like Lewis
Carroll's famed Humpty Dumpty, you claim that "When *I* use a word it
means just what I choose it to mean; neither more nor less" .
Sheesh!
Twibil
> ITYMTS "They officially found no biological or chemical weapons" The
> simple answer to why that dog didn't bark is that what little there
> was, was hidden in syria either with the central governments knowldege
> or not.
You'll have to excuse me if instead I believe the Army guys I know
personally; guys who were there at the time and who have told me that
in their opinions there were never any WMDs found simply because there
hadn't been any there for years and years.
Twibil
> She sure came across as a bimbo in the Couric interview though. Having
> her take over for McCain should he pass away would not be a good thing
> though, as it doesn't look like she could handle being President.
I personally admire her efforts to clean up at least some of the
corruption she ran across; particularly when it meant going after some
fellow Republicans. That took some guts.
Unfortunately, she simply hasn't the background *or* the education
needed to run the country should McCain suddenly drop dead while in
office.
S'mee
> On Oct 21, 7:49 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 1:33 pm, Twibil <proehl...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 19, 11:31 am, "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > p.s. the socialist can piss off. They don't want true democracy.
>
> > > Uh, neither did the framers of our Constitution want a "true" or
> > > "pure" democracy.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
>
> > > That's why we have a "Representative Democracy", instead, and always
> > > have.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
>
> > Actually you and wiki would be wrong. It is supposed to be a
> > represenative REPUBLIC...it hasn't been a republic since it became a
> > socialist state in the mid 30's.
>
> (A) *YOU*, my friend, were the one who said "the socialist can piss
> off. They don't want true democracy." (See above.)
I'll take that lump. Fair cop.
> (B) Originating the use of the term and then objecting that it's
> inaccurate when someone else uses it in the same way is a level of
> hypocrisy that's rare to see, even on Reeky.
Yep and it's a propriatary thing. Unless we'll agree that it's likely
I missread, like that never happens here.
> (C) Labeling anything you don't care for as "Socialism" is nothing
> more than Rovian political spin.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
No I was being factual and expressing an informed opinion. I got into
many a discussion with history proffesors over this 20+ years ago.
> We're yet a long, *long* ways from Socialism, unless, like Lewis
> Carroll's famed Humpty Dumpty, you claim that "When *I* use a word it
> means just what I choose it to mean; neither more nor less" .
>
> Sheesh!
Nope I was stating what I believe to be a factual opinion. Unlike Rove
who just makes shit up...I've done actual THINKING after reading.
--
Keith
S'mee
Okay I will. It's not like I've been there twice already. I haven't a
clue how the assyrians think. Might have a clue on the babalyonian and
mesopatamians think and nobody has ever really understood the
mentality of the persian people.
--
Keith
Vito
"M. MacDonald" <mmacdon...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
IIRC Powell told the UN that Iraq had WMDs, so ......
Vito
> "Vito" <vi...@xxcrosslink.net> wrote
>> LA Times isn't the only one endorsing Obama. Kadaffi (Lybia) is doing
>> the same.
>
> As is Colin Powell. So - what exactly, now, was
> your point re Kadaffi?
>
Chuck Rhode
> ITYMTS Andrew Jackson and all I can say to that is NO! Emphaticly
> NO! If I'd been around then he'd have only lived as long as it took
> to find him.
Nope ... Andrew Johnson who campaigned against ratification of the
14th Amendment, which extended US citizenship to Black slaves and
their children (but not those of Indians) and children of Chinese
immigrants. The 14th was ratified by carpetbag legislatures of the
occupied South, previous legislatures having rejected it, thus
ushering in radical Reconstruction.
The 14th goes further though to trump any state and local laws that
impair equal application of Federal, state, and local laws to all the
people. This has been the source of much mischief lately in realm of
Constitutional law.
You, too, can cast your vote today against the Imperial Presidency as
conceived and implemented by Lincoln and Grant. The Constitution
Party (on the ballot in 25 states) nominates Chuck Baldwin:
"I believe the South was right in the War Between the States, and I am
not a racist. (And I invite anyone to ask any of the numerous members
of minority races that attend my church to verify that!) Neither do I
believe that the leaders of the old Confederacy were racists. In fact,
I hold men such as General Robert E. Lee and General T.J. 'Stonewall'
Jackson in highest regard."
o Baldwin, Chuck. "Me in a Nutshell." 2 May 2006. 22 Oct. 2008
<http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin297.htm>.
It is curious though that, alone among the major political parties,
the states-rights Constitution Party wishes the Federal government to
defend states' borders against illegal immigration.
--
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 49° — Wind SE 13 mph — Sky mostly clear.
Chuck Rhode
> She sure came across as a bimbo in the Couric interview though.
This is for TOG who just doesn't understand how expensive it is to
commute with children in the US:
"The Palins began charging the state for commercial flights after the
governor kept a 2006 campaign promise to sell a jet bought by her
predecessor.
Palin put the jet up for sale on eBay, a move she later trumpeted in
her speech at the Republican National Convention, and it was
ultimately sold by the state at a loss.
That left only one high-performance aircraft deemed safe enough for
her to use -- a 1980 twin-engine King Air assigned to the public
safety agency but, according to flight logs, out of service for
maintenance and repairs about a third of the time Palin has been
governor."
o "Palin Charges Alaska for Kids' Travel." _CNN_. 22 Oct. 2008
<http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/21/palin.travel.ap/index.html>.
--
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 47° — Wind ESE 13 mph
Twibil
> "Twibil" <proehl...@roadrunner.com> wrote
Powell made the career-ending mistake of believing what he was told by
Bush/Cheney: then discovered that he'd been set up to take the fall
when it developed that Bush/Cheney had been cherry-picking the
intelligence and there *were* none of the WMDs that he'd been told
were there.
And because he acted exactly as he was supposed to -like a good
soldier- now half-assed second-guessers like you can blame him for
doing so; exactly as Bush/Cheney hoped you would.
You are *such* a sucker!
Kevin
_aF2LVnZ2dn...@posted.excelnet:
why would defending against forein invasion not be the fed
responsibility as clearly in the constijtution? By the way it is not
illegal immigration. you can not be a illegal immigrant. you can only be
a immigrant if invited. KB
--
THUNDERSNAKE #9
Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others
Vito
> "I believe the South was right in the War Between the States, and I am
> not a racist. (And I invite anyone to ask any of the numerous members
> of minority races that attend my church to verify that!) Neither do I
> believe that the leaders of the old Confederacy were racists. In fact,
> I hold men such as General Robert E. Lee and General T.J. 'Stonewall'
> Jackson in highest regard."
>
secession mentioned slavery as a cause.
Chuck Rhode
> why would defending against forein invasion not be the fed
> responsibility as clearly in the constijtution?
Well, illegal immigration is not exactly invasion: No military force
is involved.
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" is stipulated in
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (Powers Delegated to the
Federal Government). Clearly this is not power over immigration.
Powers not enumerated are reserved to the states, so a strict reading
of the Constitution *would seem* to support the quaint notion that
states alone had the power to admit, refuse, and expel whomsoever they
pleased -- at least up until the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
The Slavery Clause of Article I, Section 9 (Powers Prohibited to the
Federal Government) reads, "The Migration or Importation of such
Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit,
shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand
eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such
Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." Clearly the
power over immigration was prohibited to the Federal government,
although this clause lapsed into dead letter long ago. It is a
stretch to read into it any existing Federal authority over
immigration.
No, the Supreme Court constructed the Constitutional power to control
immigration out of another Section 8 Federal privilege -- control of
foreign commerce through the Interstate Commerce Clause: "To regulate
Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian Tribes." While this custom is a settled matter of long
standing and tons of administrative law is built upon it, its
Constitutional foundation has always been controversial.
--
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 51° — Wind ESE 8 mph — Sky mostly clear.
Ted Mittelstaedt
"Chuck Rhode" <CRh...@LacusVeris.com> wrote in message
news:leKdnd7sN_29DWLV...@posted.excelnet...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:48:38 -0800, Robert Bolton wrote:
>
> > She sure came across as a bimbo in the Couric interview though.
>
> This is for TOG who just doesn't understand how expensive it is to
> commute with children in the US:
>
Why exactly was she commuting with them? Is Todd Palin incapabable
of raising their children while his wife is flying around on business?
Oh, I forgot, Todd is too busy being an unpaid interference in Alaskan
state government to have time to raise children. All accounts from there
say that he is included in just about every meeting his wife has, and
spends his day walking around bothering Alaskan state legislators at
the capital.
No wonder Palin's daughter is unmarried and pregnant. Nobody is
paying any attention to her.
Ted
Mark Olson
> No wonder Palin's daughter is unmarried and pregnant. Nobody is
> paying any attention to her.
That's pretty funny. I wonder if she'll be giving birth in a manger.
Kevin
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:55:40 +0000, Kevin wrote:
>
>> why would defending against forein invasion not be the fed
>> responsibility as clearly in the constijtution?
>
> Well, illegal immigration is not exactly invasion: No military force
> is involved.
First of all there is no such thing as illegal immigration. they are
crininal tresspasers. the moment they cross our borders they are a
criminal. it is the law. not a immigrant which has to be invited. and
invasion does not take a military force to be done.
>
> "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" is stipulated in
> Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (Powers Delegated to the
> Federal Government). Clearly this is not power over immigration.
> Powers not enumerated are reserved to the states, so a strict reading
> of the Constitution *would seem* to support the quaint notion that
> states alone had the power to admit, refuse, and expel whomsoever they
> pleased -- at least up until the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
>
> The Slavery Clause of Article I, Section 9 (Powers Prohibited to the
> Federal Government) reads, "The Migration or Importation of such
> Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit,
> shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand
> eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such
> Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." Clearly the
> power over immigration was prohibited to the Federal government,
except this sounds nothing like immigration. it is imported workers that
were never going to be US citicizns hense the tax or fee for importing
them. KB
> although this clause lapsed into dead letter long ago. It is a
> stretch to read into it any existing Federal authority over
> immigration.
>
> No, the Supreme Court constructed the Constitutional power to control
> immigration out of another Section 8 Federal privilege -- control of
> foreign commerce through the Interstate Commerce Clause: "To regulate
> Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with
> the Indian Tribes." While this custom is a settled matter of long
> standing and tons of administrative law is built upon it, its
> Constitutional foundation has always been controversial.
>
--
Robert Bolton
<CRh...@LacusVeris.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:48:38 -0800, Robert Bolton wrote:
>
>> She sure came across as a bimbo in the Couric interview though.
>
>This is for TOG who just doesn't understand how expensive it is to
>commute with children in the US:
>
>"The Palins began charging the state for commercial flights after the
>governor kept a 2006 campaign promise to sell a jet bought by her
>predecessor.
>
>Palin put the jet up for sale on eBay, a move she later trumpeted in
>her speech at the Republican National Convention, and it was
>ultimately sold by the state at a loss.
>
>That left only one high-performance aircraft deemed safe enough for
>her to use -- a 1980 twin-engine King Air assigned to the public
>safety agency but, according to flight logs, out of service for
>maintenance and repairs about a third of the time Palin has been
>governor."
>
>o "Palin Charges Alaska for Kids' Travel." _CNN_. 22 Oct. 2008
><http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/21/palin.travel.ap/index.html>.
A little info on the jet.
Prior to Frank Murkowski becoming Governor, politicians up here flew
on Alaska Airlines. I've never seen a governor on it, but I have seen
a lieutenant governor and US Senator Ted Stevens flying on Alaska
Airlines. Frank Murkowski bought the private jet after he was elected
governor, which is one of the reasons he only got 19% of the vote in
the primary election when he ran for re-election. People were already
pretty upset that he cut the Longevity Bonus, which gave the elderly
$150/mo, then he bought himself a private jet.
The cost of maintaining the jet was high enough that selling it for a
loss still saved us money. I see no problem with her borrowing a
plane that is used regularly by another agency, as then you aren't
stuck with paying to maintain a plane, but otherwise she's got Alaska
Airlines just like the rest of the politicians.
Robert
mayner
> On Oct 20, 7:57 pm, BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>>> Indeed, indeed and nobody looks at you funny if you ride 2 smoke and
>>> are covered in dead bugs (on just the front side)
>>> --
>>> Keith
>>
>> You just keep telling yourself that......... :)
>
> Well, they don't look at you funny when you are riding, just after you
> get off and lick your gloves clean.
>
>
> WHAT?
Protien baby. ;-)
Chuck Rhode
> Chuck Rhode <CRh...@LacusVeris.com> wrote in
> news:ZpqdnRDk4ejsypzU...@posted.excelnet:
>> The Slavery Clause of Article I, Section 9 (Powers Prohibited to
>> the Federal Government) reads, "The Migration or Importation of
>> such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper
>> to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year
>> one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be
>> imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each
>> Person." Clearly the power over immigration was prohibited to the
>> Federal government.
> [E]xcept this sounds nothing like immigration. [I]t is [about]
> imported workers that were never going to be US [C]it//iz[e]ns[,]
> hen[c]e the tax or fee for importing them.
Exactly! This clause was understood from the get-go to apply to
slaves.
--
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 37° — Wind NW 13 mph — Sky overcast.
.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com
<CRh...@LacusVeris.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:07:02 +0000, Kevin wrote:
>
>> Chuck Rhode <CRh...@LacusVeris.com> wrote in
>> news:ZpqdnRDk4ejsypzU...@posted.excelnet:
>
>>> The Slavery Clause of Article I, Section 9 (Powers Prohibited to
>>> the Federal Government) reads, "The Migration or Importation of
>>> such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper
>>> to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year
>>> one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be
>>> imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each
>>> Person." Clearly the power over immigration was prohibited to the
>>> Federal government.
>
>> [E]xcept this sounds nothing like immigration. [I]t is [about]
>> imported workers that were never going to be US [C]it//iz[e]ns[,]
>> hen[c]e the tax or fee for importing them.
>
>Exactly! This clause was understood from the get-go to apply to
>slaves.
An unless it's now 'prior to 1808' today, it really doesn't
matter much :-)
--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/
Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm
Chuck Rhode
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:04:41 -0500, Chuck Rhode
> <CRh...@LacusVeris.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:07:02 +0000, Kevin wrote:
>>> Chuck Rhode <CRh...@LacusVeris.com> wrote in
>>> news:ZpqdnRDk4ejsypzU...@posted.excelnet:
>>>> The Slavery Clause of Article I, Section 9 (Powers Prohibited to
>>>> the Federal Government) reads, "The Migration or Importation of
>>>> such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper
>>>> to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the
>>>> Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may
>>>> be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for
>>>> each Person." Clearly the power over immigration was prohibited
>>>> to the Federal government.
>>> [E]xcept this sounds nothing like immigration. [I]t is [about]
>>> imported workers that were never going to be US [C]it//iz[e]ns[,]
>>> hen[c]e the tax or fee for importing them.
>>Exactly! This clause was understood from the get-go to apply to
>>slaves.
> An unless it's now 'prior to 1808' today, it really doesn't
> matter much :-)
You have to reason as a lawyer would reason: "The powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If the Federal government had the power to police immigration, that
should have been made explicit in Section 8. If the Federal
government was not to have power to police immigration, then that
should have been made explicit in Section 9, or it should have gone
without saying (in which case the area would be presumed reserved for
the exercise of state sovereignty). However, the framers did have
something to say about immigration wrt to slavery in Section 9, to
wit: The most the Federal government could do was tax the importation
of slaves and that for only thirty years.
Some read this as implying that the Federal government was not
intended to police immigration. Which implication did not lapse with
the Slavery Clause.
--
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 36° — Wind WNW 7 mph
Vito
> You have to reason as a lawyer would reason: "The powers not delegated
> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
> States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
>
> If the Federal government had the power to police immigration, that
> should have been made explicit in Section 8. If the Federal
> government was not to have power to police immigration, then that
> should have been made explicit in Section 9, or it should have gone
> without saying (in which case the area would be presumed reserved for
> the exercise of state sovereignty). However, the framers did have
> something to say about immigration wrt to slavery in Section 9, to
> wit: The most the Federal government could do was tax the importation
> of slaves and that for only thirty years.
>
> Some read this as implying that the Federal government was not
> intended to police immigration. Which implication did not lapse with
> the Slavery Clause.
>
for all the illegal aliens, not the federal gummymint which has no
jurisdiction.
Chuck Rhode
> By Gawd-a I think you're right! California, Texas, et al, are
> responsible for all the illegal aliens, not the federal gummymint
> which has no jurisdiction.
Now you are prepared to vote the Constitution Party ticket.
--
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 39° — Wind NNW 8 mph
Bob Myers
"Chuck Rhode" <CRh...@LacusVeris.com> wrote in message
news:18mdnYVC3PN0GJXU...@posted.excelnet...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:31:15 -0400, Vito wrote:
>
>> By Gawd-a I think you're right! California, Texas, et al, are
>> responsible for all the illegal aliens, not the federal gummymint
>> which has no jurisdiction.
>
> Now you are prepared to vote the Constitution Party ticket.
AKA "What is the sound of one vote being flushed away?"
Bob M.
Vito
>
> AKA "What is the sound of one vote being flushed away?"
>
>
Each party knows exactly what it costs to win and Obama has a proven record
of extortion so he can buy the most votes.
Twibil
> Each party knows exactly what it costs to win and Obama has a proven record
> of extortion so he can buy the most votes.
Funny how someone with a "proven record of extortion" who's willing to
"buy votes" isn't being charged by a Federal justice system that's
largely staffed and run by conservative Republicans.
(I mean, who could have guessed that *they'd* be complicit in these
awful felonies?)
Or, you could be lying again, as usual...
Vito
>Funny how someone with a "proven record of extortion" ...
Yes, it is funny. If "Tony Soprano" offers to protect your building project
from union picketing and license problems, not to mention vandalism, for a
fee, we'd call it extortion. But if Obama offers to protect your bank from
OEO lawsuits and CORE picketing, not to mention vandalism, also for a fee,
then it is not. Hmmm.....
And if Repubs try to attack the "mob" from the top they get shouted down by
Democrat senators, including Obama, who run the Banking Committee.
If DOD diverted $billions to certain senators and congressmen the perps
would land in jail. But when Fanny and Freddy did it it was suddenly legal.
Hmmm ....
And why isn't McCain raising hell about all the $millions those same
Democrat senators got? Because he got some too.
But I'm no doubt lying cuz you know that our troubles are all caused by
Mexicans.
Chuck Rhode
> "Chuck Rhode" <CRh...@LacusVeris.com> wrote in message
> news:18mdnYVC3PN0GJXU...@posted.excelnet...
>> Now you are prepared to vote the Constitution Party ticket.
> AKA "What is the sound of one vote being flushed away?"
1) Both major parties started out as third parties.
2) A vote for a third party in this election cycle helps keep it
eligible for inclusion on the next cycle's ballot.
3) Progressive planks adopted into major party campaign platforms are
usually pioneered by third parties.
4) A vote counted against both major candidates, though unlikely to
change the tally in the Electoral College, is an irrefutable
demonstration of public dissatisfaction more potent than a vote
against only one.
--
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 46° — Wind SSW 16 mph
Bob Myers
"Vito" <vi...@xxcrosslink.net> wrote in message
news:4909c0ab$0$17045$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> And if Repubs try to attack the "mob" from the top they get shouted down
> by Democrat senators, including Obama, who run the Banking Committee.
Sen. Obama isn't even a member of the "Banking Committee,"
let alone "running" it.
Obama's Senate committee assignments are:
Foreign Relations Committee
Committee on Veteran's Affairs
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Bob M.
Twibil
>
> >Funny how someone with a "proven record of extortion" ...
>
> Yes, it is funny. If "Tony Soprano" offers to protect your building project
> from union picketing and license problems, not to mention vandalism, for a
> fee, we'd call it extortion. But if Obama offers to protect your bank from
> OEO lawsuits and CORE picketing, not to mention vandalism, also for a fee,
> then it is not. Hmmm.....
(A) You're pulling things out of your ass again. Obama's never done
that.
Because if he *had* it would be extortion and he's not been prosecuted
or ever even accused of it by anyone but wingnuts such as yourself.
> And if Repubs try to attack the "mob" from the top they get shouted down by
> Democrat senators, including Obama, who run the Banking Committee.
Ass-pulling again. Obama doesn't "run the banking committee".
> If DOD diverted $billions to certain senators and congressmen the perps
> would land in jail. But when Fanny and Freddy did it it was suddenly legal.
> Hmmm ....
If true, then tell us why they Republicans in the Justice Department
aren't prosecuting?
Hmmmmm?...........
> And why isn't McCain raising hell about all the $millions those same
> Democrat senators got? Because he got some too.
>
> But I'm no doubt lying cuz you know that our troubles are all caused by
> Mexicans.
Oh my! You've actually begun to froth!
"Mexicans"?
Wow!
Vito
> Sen. Obama isn't even a member of the "Banking Committee,"
> let alone "running" it.
>
> Obama's Senate committee assignments are:
>
> Foreign Relations Committee
> Committee on Veteran's Affairs
> Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
> Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
>
from the Freddy/Fanny crowd as Dodd.