Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
New York Post ad exposes Obama's "real father"
48 views
Skip to first unread message
Obumkum Nigerian
Nov 9, 2015, 10:00:05 AM11/9/15
to
http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/09/gilbertad.jpg
The New York Post has accepted a full-page ad declaring Barack
Obama’s real biological father is the late Communist Party
activist Frank Marshall Davis, not the Kenyan Barack Hussein
Obama.
Filmmaker Joel Gilbert makes the case in his full-length
documentary “Dreams from My Real Father: A Story of Reds and
Deception.”
The ad will run in the Post’s New York City, national and
international editions Tuesday and Sunday.
Convincing the newspaper to accept the full-page ad required
Gilbert to go personally to the Post’s main editorial office in
Manhattan.
“It took a lot of discussion,” Gilbert told WND, “but we were
given a very favorable position at the front of the newspaper in
the news section.”
Joel Gilbert’s DVD “Dreams from My Real Father” is available at
WND’s Superstore
Gilbert told WND the placement of the ad is “part of our
national publicity campaign, designed to circumvent the
mainstream media that is either too afraid or too corrupt to
cover the evidence presented in this film.”
In an effort to reach the voting public directly, Gilbert is
planning to mail out millions of DVDs in bulk across the United
States.
Advertising anti-Obama DVD a ‘tough sale’
In July, Gilbert tried to place a similar version of his full-
page advertisement in three of the nation’s most prominent
newspapers – USA Today, the Washington Post and the New York
Times – offering first to pay USA Today $90,000.
All three newspapers rejected the advertisement, with the New
York Times specifically telling Gilbert, “The ad isn’t for us.”
“You would think the print media could use the money,” Gilbert
told WND. “But apparently, an ideological bias toward supporting
Barack Obama is more important to the newspapers than the money.”
Gilbert’s problems getting his DVD advertised have not been
limited to establishment newspapers.
Newsmax.com also rejected the “Dreams from My Real Father”
banner advertising campaign in early May, even after Gilbert had
reached an agreement and paid for the campaign in advance.
“Newsmax pulled the banner advertising campaign at the highest
level of the organization,” Gilbert said. “Newsmax told me the
organization was trying to appeal to the political center and
the concern was that publicizing Gilbert’s DVD might make the
news organization appear too conservative.
Newsmax’s Tom Mulcrone told WND that Newsmax never accepted
Gilbert’s banner ad.
“We are a news organization, and we need to be careful with what
we send out,” Mulcrone told WND.
The cell phone call to Mulcrone ended abruptly and Mulcrone did
not return voice messages WND left requesting to complete the
interview.
A Communist Party mentor
“Barack Obama sold himself to America as the multi-cultural
ideal, a man who stood above politics,” Gilbert explained. “His
father was a goat-herder from Kenya, so Barack Obama would bring
people together, so the story went.
“However, as I show in the documentary, the truth is Barack
Obama has a deeply disturbing family background, including a
father who was a propagandist for the Communist Party USA – a
fact Obama has intentionally hidden in order to obscure his
Marxist political foundations.”
Gilbert acknowledges voters are willing to overlook many faults
a politician may have.
“However, providing a false family background to hide a Marxist
political agenda is irreconcilable with American values and a
totally unacceptable manipulation of the electorate,” Gilbert
stressed.
Gerald Horne, a contributing editor to Public Affairs, an openly
Marxist political review, made the first positive identification
of “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis.
In March 2007, Horne gave a speech at New York University on the
occasion of the Communist Party USA archive being placed at a
NYU library.
In the speech, Horne discussed Davis, noting Davis, who was born
in Kansas and lived much of his adult life in Chicago, had moved
to Honolulu in 1948 at the suggestion of his good friend, actor
Paul Robeson. In the 1940s, Robeson was an outspoken critic of
segregation and racial discrimination in the United States, who
was also a strong advocate of the Soviet Union and a member of
the Communist Party USA.
Horne also documented Davis’s friendship with the Dunham family
in Hawaii.
“Eventually, [Davis] befriended another family – a Euro-American
family – that had migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young
woman from this family eventually had a child with a young
student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack
Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to
Chicago.”
Lorne further documented Davis was “a decisive influence in
helping [Obama] to find his present identity as an African-
American, a people who have been the least anti-communist and
the most left-leaning of any constituency in this nation.”
After Horne’s speech, the identity of “Frank” was never in
doubt, nor his importance in the development of the young Barack
Obama.
On Dec. 5, 1956, Davis appeared in executive session before the
U.S. Senate Subcommittee investigating “the scope of Soviet
activity in the United States,” one of the McCarthy-era
committees seeking to expose communists considered to be a
security threat.
Invoking his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination,
Davis refused to answer a direct question asking if he was then
a communist.
A year earlier, in 1955, a Commission on Subversive Activities
organized by the government of the Territory of Hawaii
identified Davis as a member of the Communist Party USA; the
committee singled out for criticism several articles Frank
Marshall Davis published in the “Communist Honolulu Record” that
were critical of the commission.
See the “Dreams from My Real Father” trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jrrnkKmUzo
The New York Post has accepted a full-page ad declaring Barack
Obama’s real biological father is the late Communist Party
activist Frank Marshall Davis, not the Kenyan Barack Hussein
Obama.
Filmmaker Joel Gilbert makes the case in his full-length
documentary “Dreams from My Real Father: A Story of Reds and
Deception.”
The ad will run in the Post’s New York City, national and
international editions Tuesday and Sunday.
Convincing the newspaper to accept the full-page ad required
Gilbert to go personally to the Post’s main editorial office in
Manhattan.
“It took a lot of discussion,” Gilbert told WND, “but we were
given a very favorable position at the front of the newspaper in
the news section.”
Joel Gilbert’s DVD “Dreams from My Real Father” is available at
WND’s Superstore
Gilbert told WND the placement of the ad is “part of our
national publicity campaign, designed to circumvent the
mainstream media that is either too afraid or too corrupt to
cover the evidence presented in this film.”
In an effort to reach the voting public directly, Gilbert is
planning to mail out millions of DVDs in bulk across the United
States.
Advertising anti-Obama DVD a ‘tough sale’
In July, Gilbert tried to place a similar version of his full-
page advertisement in three of the nation’s most prominent
newspapers – USA Today, the Washington Post and the New York
Times – offering first to pay USA Today $90,000.
All three newspapers rejected the advertisement, with the New
York Times specifically telling Gilbert, “The ad isn’t for us.”
“You would think the print media could use the money,” Gilbert
told WND. “But apparently, an ideological bias toward supporting
Barack Obama is more important to the newspapers than the money.”
Gilbert’s problems getting his DVD advertised have not been
limited to establishment newspapers.
Newsmax.com also rejected the “Dreams from My Real Father”
banner advertising campaign in early May, even after Gilbert had
reached an agreement and paid for the campaign in advance.
“Newsmax pulled the banner advertising campaign at the highest
level of the organization,” Gilbert said. “Newsmax told me the
organization was trying to appeal to the political center and
the concern was that publicizing Gilbert’s DVD might make the
news organization appear too conservative.
Newsmax’s Tom Mulcrone told WND that Newsmax never accepted
Gilbert’s banner ad.
“We are a news organization, and we need to be careful with what
we send out,” Mulcrone told WND.
The cell phone call to Mulcrone ended abruptly and Mulcrone did
not return voice messages WND left requesting to complete the
interview.
A Communist Party mentor
“Barack Obama sold himself to America as the multi-cultural
ideal, a man who stood above politics,” Gilbert explained. “His
father was a goat-herder from Kenya, so Barack Obama would bring
people together, so the story went.
“However, as I show in the documentary, the truth is Barack
Obama has a deeply disturbing family background, including a
father who was a propagandist for the Communist Party USA – a
fact Obama has intentionally hidden in order to obscure his
Marxist political foundations.”
Gilbert acknowledges voters are willing to overlook many faults
a politician may have.
“However, providing a false family background to hide a Marxist
political agenda is irreconcilable with American values and a
totally unacceptable manipulation of the electorate,” Gilbert
stressed.
Gerald Horne, a contributing editor to Public Affairs, an openly
Marxist political review, made the first positive identification
of “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis.
In March 2007, Horne gave a speech at New York University on the
occasion of the Communist Party USA archive being placed at a
NYU library.
In the speech, Horne discussed Davis, noting Davis, who was born
in Kansas and lived much of his adult life in Chicago, had moved
to Honolulu in 1948 at the suggestion of his good friend, actor
Paul Robeson. In the 1940s, Robeson was an outspoken critic of
segregation and racial discrimination in the United States, who
was also a strong advocate of the Soviet Union and a member of
the Communist Party USA.
Horne also documented Davis’s friendship with the Dunham family
in Hawaii.
“Eventually, [Davis] befriended another family – a Euro-American
family – that had migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young
woman from this family eventually had a child with a young
student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack
Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to
Chicago.”
Lorne further documented Davis was “a decisive influence in
helping [Obama] to find his present identity as an African-
American, a people who have been the least anti-communist and
the most left-leaning of any constituency in this nation.”
After Horne’s speech, the identity of “Frank” was never in
doubt, nor his importance in the development of the young Barack
Obama.
On Dec. 5, 1956, Davis appeared in executive session before the
U.S. Senate Subcommittee investigating “the scope of Soviet
activity in the United States,” one of the McCarthy-era
committees seeking to expose communists considered to be a
security threat.
Invoking his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination,
Davis refused to answer a direct question asking if he was then
a communist.
A year earlier, in 1955, a Commission on Subversive Activities
organized by the government of the Territory of Hawaii
identified Davis as a member of the Communist Party USA; the
committee singled out for criticism several articles Frank
Marshall Davis published in the “Communist Honolulu Record” that
were critical of the commission.
See the “Dreams from My Real Father” trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jrrnkKmUzo
Rhino
Nov 9, 2015, 10:23:06 AM11/9/15
to
prove without some DNA from both Davis and Obama - proving it today
would still be 7 or 8 years too late to make any difference.
If this information had been presented in 2007/2008, before the
election, it might have been quite relevant to a signficant number of
people. In 2015, with Obama starting his final year as president, what
difference does it really make now?
--
Rhino
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
Nov 9, 2015, 12:03:04 PM11/9/15
to
In article <b76d7ffeaeefe612...@dizum.com>
"Obumkum Nigerian" <n...@kenyans.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.
>
Flush delusional bullshit.
Barb May
Nov 9, 2015, 12:56:29 PM11/9/15
to
Rhino wrote:
> Even if Davis was Obama's real father - which you probably couldn't
> prove without some DNA from both Davis and Obama - proving it today
> would still be 7 or 8 years too late to make any difference.
>
> If this information had been presented in 2007/2008, before the
> election, it might have been quite relevant to a signficant number of
> people.
Correction: "it might have been quite relevant to a significant number
> Even if Davis was Obama's real father - which you probably couldn't
> prove without some DNA from both Davis and Obama - proving it today
> would still be 7 or 8 years too late to make any difference.
>
> If this information had been presented in 2007/2008, before the
> election, it might have been quite relevant to a signficant number of
> people.
of racist and/or dishonest assholes"
> In 2015, with Obama starting his final year as president, what
> difference does it really make now?
This BS only makes a difference to the crazy bastards who read WND --
and the despicable cretins who produce this trash and those who finance
it.
Ezekiel 18:20
"The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father
suffer for the iniquity of the son."
--
Barb
BTR1701
Nov 9, 2015, 3:32:54 PM11/9/15
to
In article <n1qmo9$4dj$1...@news.albasani.net>,
Since we have the media telling us now with regard to Carson that lying
about anything in your past, no matter how distant in time and
inconsequential in effect, is significant and newsworthy for a
candidate, it's hard to imagine how Obama lying about his father's
identity wouldn't have been significant and newsworthy as well.
"Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:
> Rhino wrote:
> > Even if Davis was Obama's real father - which you probably couldn't
> > prove without some DNA from both Davis and Obama - proving it today
> > would still be 7 or 8 years too late to make any difference.
> >
> > If this information had been presented in 2007/2008, before the
> > election, it might have been quite relevant to a signficant number of
> > people.
>
> Correction: "it might have been quite relevant to a significant number
> of racist and/or dishonest assholes"
>
> > In 2015, with Obama starting his final year as president, what
> > difference does it really make now?
>
> It doesn't matter now who or what Obama's father was and it never did.
Well, at a minimum, it would mean Obama was lying about his father.
> Rhino wrote:
> > Even if Davis was Obama's real father - which you probably couldn't
> > prove without some DNA from both Davis and Obama - proving it today
> > would still be 7 or 8 years too late to make any difference.
> >
> > If this information had been presented in 2007/2008, before the
> > election, it might have been quite relevant to a signficant number of
> > people.
>
> Correction: "it might have been quite relevant to a significant number
> of racist and/or dishonest assholes"
>
> > In 2015, with Obama starting his final year as president, what
> > difference does it really make now?
>
> It doesn't matter now who or what Obama's father was and it never did.
Since we have the media telling us now with regard to Carson that lying
about anything in your past, no matter how distant in time and
inconsequential in effect, is significant and newsworthy for a
candidate, it's hard to imagine how Obama lying about his father's
identity wouldn't have been significant and newsworthy as well.
RichA
Nov 9, 2015, 6:29:37 PM11/9/15
to
> > Times - offering first to pay USA Today $90,000.
> > fact Obama has intentionally hidden in order to obscure his
> > Marxist political foundations."
> >
> > Gilbert acknowledges voters are willing to overlook many faults
> > a politician may have.
> >
> > "However, providing a false family background to hide a Marxist
> > political agenda is irreconcilable with American values and a
> > totally unacceptable manipulation of the electorate," Gilbert
> > stressed.
> >
> > Gerald Horne, a contributing editor to Public Affairs, an openly
> > Marxist political review, made the first positive identification
> > of "Frank" as Frank Marshall Davis.
> >
> > In March 2007, Horne gave a speech at New York University on the
> > occasion of the Communist Party USA archive being placed at a
> > NYU library.
> >
> > In the speech, Horne discussed Davis, noting Davis, who was born
> > in Kansas and lived much of his adult life in Chicago, had moved
> > to Honolulu in 1948 at the suggestion of his good friend, actor
> > Paul Robeson. In the 1940s, Robeson was an outspoken critic of
> > segregation and racial discrimination in the United States, who
> > was also a strong advocate of the Soviet Union and a member of
> > the Communist Party USA.
> >
> > Horne also documented Davis's friendship with the Dunham family
> > in Hawaii.
> >
> > "Eventually, [Davis] befriended another family - a Euro-American
> > Marxist political foundations."
> >
> > Gilbert acknowledges voters are willing to overlook many faults
> > a politician may have.
> >
> > "However, providing a false family background to hide a Marxist
> > political agenda is irreconcilable with American values and a
> > totally unacceptable manipulation of the electorate," Gilbert
> > stressed.
> >
> > Gerald Horne, a contributing editor to Public Affairs, an openly
> > Marxist political review, made the first positive identification
> > of "Frank" as Frank Marshall Davis.
> >
> > In March 2007, Horne gave a speech at New York University on the
> > occasion of the Communist Party USA archive being placed at a
> > NYU library.
> >
> > In the speech, Horne discussed Davis, noting Davis, who was born
> > in Kansas and lived much of his adult life in Chicago, had moved
> > to Honolulu in 1948 at the suggestion of his good friend, actor
> > Paul Robeson. In the 1940s, Robeson was an outspoken critic of
> > segregation and racial discrimination in the United States, who
> > was also a strong advocate of the Soviet Union and a member of
> > the Communist Party USA.
> >
> > Horne also documented Davis's friendship with the Dunham family
> > in Hawaii.
> >
> > family - that had migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young
FPP
Nov 9, 2015, 6:51:17 PM11/9/15
to
On 2015-11-09 09:54:30 -0500, "Obumkum Nigerian" <n...@kenyans.com> said:
> The New York Post has accepted a full-page ad declaring Barack
> Obamaís real biological father is the late Communist Party
> The New York Post has accepted a full-page ad declaring Barack
> activist Frank Marshall Davis, not the Kenyan Barack Hussein
> Obama.
What gets ME, is that they never show his cloven hooves.
> Obama.
Or barbed tail...
Sure, we've seen his horns... but when are we going to get the rest of
the story?
--
"Didn't believe we needed to "Make America Great Again" - until I saw
the people we're seriously considering putting on the Presidential
ballot." - Kelly Hines 2015
FPP
Nov 9, 2015, 6:55:15 PM11/9/15
to
what's the big deal with Obama's dad?
Carson's ONLY selling point is his biography. He has no other relevant
experience, outside of medicine.
Without his backstory, his resume outside of the medical field is
negligible. He NEEDS that backstory to be inspiring.
And Carson's assertion that no other candidate gets this kind of
scrutiny is simply LAUGHABLE!
... like the rest of his campaign.
FPP
Nov 9, 2015, 6:57:15 PM11/9/15
to
Obama's cloven hooves?
Or barbed tail?
Sure, we've seen his horns... but when are we going to get the rest of
David Johnston
Nov 9, 2015, 8:00:08 PM11/9/15
to
Michael Black
Nov 9, 2015, 8:07:59 PM11/9/15
to
I thought Trudeau senior dabbled in early days. And certainly he was a
friend of Castros. I'll never forget his funeral the boys in prominent
display, but the step sister over there, ignored. And Castro went over and
said something to her, acknowledging what the "proper" people wouldn't.
And don't forget, we now have 2 Muslim cabinet members, including the
Minister of Defence. I'm a little disappointed that there are no black
people in the cabinet, but there are two more or more natives in the
cabinet. That seems more diverse than in the US.
Michael
David Johnston
Nov 9, 2015, 8:13:53 PM11/9/15
to
BTR1701
Nov 9, 2015, 11:32:10 PM11/9/15
to
In article <n1rbof$14c$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 2015-11-09 15:34:22 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <n1qmo9$4dj$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > "Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Rhino wrote:
> >>> Even if Davis was Obama's real father - which you probably couldn't
> >>> prove without some DNA from both Davis and Obama - proving it today
> >>> would still be 7 or 8 years too late to make any difference.
> >>>
> >>> If this information had been presented in 2007/2008, before the
> >>> election, it might have been quite relevant to a signficant number of
> >>> people.
> >>
> >> Correction: "it might have been quite relevant to a significant number
> >> of racist and/or dishonest assholes"
> >>
> >>> In 2015, with Obama starting his final year as president, what
> >>> difference does it really make now?
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter now who or what Obama's father was and it never did.
> >
> > Well, at a minimum, it would mean Obama was lying about his father.
> > Since we have the media telling us now with regard to Carson that lying
> > about anything in your past, no matter how distant in time and
> > inconsequential in effect, is significant and newsworthy for a
> > candidate, it's hard to imagine how Obama lying about his father's
> > identity wouldn't have been significant and newsworthy as well.
>
> Laughable.
And yet it's interesting that you can't *actually* explain why Carson's
lies are super-duper important, yet Obama lying about his father's
identity would be <shrug>.
wrote:
> On 2015-11-09 15:34:22 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <n1qmo9$4dj$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > "Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Rhino wrote:
> >>> Even if Davis was Obama's real father - which you probably couldn't
> >>> prove without some DNA from both Davis and Obama - proving it today
> >>> would still be 7 or 8 years too late to make any difference.
> >>>
> >>> If this information had been presented in 2007/2008, before the
> >>> election, it might have been quite relevant to a signficant number of
> >>> people.
> >>
> >> Correction: "it might have been quite relevant to a significant number
> >> of racist and/or dishonest assholes"
> >>
> >>> In 2015, with Obama starting his final year as president, what
> >>> difference does it really make now?
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter now who or what Obama's father was and it never did.
> >
> > Well, at a minimum, it would mean Obama was lying about his father.
> > Since we have the media telling us now with regard to Carson that lying
> > about anything in your past, no matter how distant in time and
> > inconsequential in effect, is significant and newsworthy for a
> > candidate, it's hard to imagine how Obama lying about his father's
> > identity wouldn't have been significant and newsworthy as well.
>
> Laughable.
lies are super-duper important, yet Obama lying about his father's
identity would be <shrug>.
Michael Black
Nov 10, 2015, 12:07:53 AM11/10/15
to
I would write, and writing it, I somehow mixed it up. What's worse is
that I wanted to make the point that Sikhs were part of the cabinet.
Michael
RichA
Nov 10, 2015, 12:18:22 AM11/10/15
to
Also, Trudeau Sr. rode around Montreal in WW2 wearing a German helmet. I'm surprise he wasn't shot.
RichA
Nov 10, 2015, 12:20:40 AM11/10/15
to
On Monday, 9 November 2015 20:00:08 UTC-5, David Johnston wrote:
> >> Rhino
> >
> > It's noteworthy the U.S. elected a Muslim president with a commie dad.
> >
>
> And I thought you liked Ronald Reagan!
Huh? Anyway, what if Obama isn't Christian or Muslim? What is he's...African? Practicing voodoo in the White House, having the Secret Service kidnap and dismember albinos for potions he makes?
> >> Rhino
> >
> > It's noteworthy the U.S. elected a Muslim president with a commie dad.
> >
>
> And I thought you liked Ronald Reagan!
FPP
Nov 10, 2015, 12:46:55 AM11/10/15
to
a bear, but don't worry about being eaten by a dragon.
You're a smart boy... can you figure it out all by yourself, or do you
need some hints?
Hint: One is a FACT, and the other a fanciful wish.
--
"The two most common elements in the Universe are Hydrogen and
stupidity… and I'm not sure about Hydrogen" -Ellison
David Johnston
Nov 10, 2015, 1:07:31 AM11/10/15
to
FPP
Nov 10, 2015, 1:12:00 AM11/10/15
to
she'd seen.
She was blackmailing him...
--
The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit. W. Somerset Maugham
David Johnston
Nov 10, 2015, 1:14:13 AM11/10/15
to
On 11/9/2015 10:20 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Monday, 9 November 2015 20:00:08 UTC-5, David Johnston wrote:
>
>>>> Rhino
>>>
>>> It's noteworthy the U.S. elected a Muslim president with a commie dad.
>>>
>>
>> And I thought you liked Ronald Reagan!
>
> Huh?
The Muslim president with the commie dad. Ronald Reagan!
> On Monday, 9 November 2015 20:00:08 UTC-5, David Johnston wrote:
>
>>>> Rhino
>>>
>>> It's noteworthy the U.S. elected a Muslim president with a commie dad.
>>>
>>
>> And I thought you liked Ronald Reagan!
>
> Huh?
trotsky
Nov 10, 2015, 7:24:52 AM11/10/15
to
On 11/9/15 2:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <n1qmo9$4dj$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> Rhino wrote:
>>> Even if Davis was Obama's real father - which you probably couldn't
>>> prove without some DNA from both Davis and Obama - proving it today
>>> would still be 7 or 8 years too late to make any difference.
>>>
>>> If this information had been presented in 2007/2008, before the
>>> election, it might have been quite relevant to a signficant number of
>>> people.
>>
>> Correction: "it might have been quite relevant to a significant number
>> of racist and/or dishonest assholes"
>>
>>> In 2015, with Obama starting his final year as president, what
>>> difference does it really make now?
>>
>> It doesn't matter now who or what Obama's father was and it never did.
>
> Well, at a minimum, it would mean Obama was lying about his father.
Yes! And we should all hit the "unelect" button in protest!!!
> In article <n1qmo9$4dj$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> Rhino wrote:
>>> Even if Davis was Obama's real father - which you probably couldn't
>>> prove without some DNA from both Davis and Obama - proving it today
>>> would still be 7 or 8 years too late to make any difference.
>>>
>>> If this information had been presented in 2007/2008, before the
>>> election, it might have been quite relevant to a signficant number of
>>> people.
>>
>> Correction: "it might have been quite relevant to a significant number
>> of racist and/or dishonest assholes"
>>
>>> In 2015, with Obama starting his final year as president, what
>>> difference does it really make now?
>>
>> It doesn't matter now who or what Obama's father was and it never did.
>
> Well, at a minimum, it would mean Obama was lying about his father.
trotsky
Nov 10, 2015, 9:16:51 AM11/10/15
to
On 11/9/15 5:29 PM, RichA wrote:
> It's noteworthy the U.S. elected a Muslim president with a commie dad.
Are you sure that isn't Canada?
> It's noteworthy the U.S. elected a Muslim president with a commie dad.
trotsky
Nov 10, 2015, 9:20:34 AM11/10/15
to
have horrible candidates, a ridiculous former President, and they are
conditioned to foam at the mouth regarding Obama. Their cynicism is
understandable, those a total beatoff and "Washington outsider" such as
Ben Carson gets recognition.
BTR1701
Nov 10, 2015, 9:52:04 AM11/10/15
to
In article <n1s083$hd9$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
I didn't say this Obama thing was true. I was addressing "Barb May's"
claim that it wouldn't matter even if it was true.
Given that assumption for the sake of argument, that Obama has been
lying about father's identity, I noted "Barb May's" peculiar but
predictable hypocrisy regarding the lies of presidential candidates.
claim that it wouldn't matter even if it was true.
Given that assumption for the sake of argument, that Obama has been
lying about father's identity, I noted "Barb May's" peculiar but
predictable hypocrisy regarding the lies of presidential candidates.
moviePig
Nov 10, 2015, 10:29:31 AM11/10/15
to
is of considerable importance. E.g., lying to hide an unsavory family
member is far more forgivable than falsely claiming a personal
achievement. And, since when are we supposing than anyone anywhere
who's intellectually capable of lying never has?
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
BTR1701
Nov 10, 2015, 11:14:55 AM11/10/15
to
In article <56420d58$0$8236$c3e8da3$cc4f...@news.astraweb.com>,
Well, at least you're not hiding your hypocrisy.
> lying to hide an unsavory family member is far more forgivable
And it's good to see that you at least still consider being a communist
unsavory. Many do not.
> lying to hide an unsavory family member is far more forgivable
unsavory. Many do not.
Barb May
Nov 10, 2015, 11:35:00 AM11/10/15
to
BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <n1qmo9$4dj$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> Rhino wrote:
>>> Even if Davis was Obama's real father - which you probably couldn't
>>> prove without some DNA from both Davis and Obama - proving it today
>>> would still be 7 or 8 years too late to make any difference.
>>>
>>> If this information had been presented in 2007/2008, before the
>>> election, it might have been quite relevant to a signficant number
>>> of people.
>>
>> Correction: "it might have been quite relevant to a significant
>> number of racist and/or dishonest assholes"
>>
>>> In 2015, with Obama starting his final year as president, what
>>> difference does it really make now?
>>
>> It doesn't matter now who or what Obama's father was and it never
>> did.
>
> Well, at a minimum, it would mean Obama was lying about his father.
Except that he never did lie about who his father was. The lies were
> In article <n1qmo9$4dj$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> Rhino wrote:
>>> Even if Davis was Obama's real father - which you probably couldn't
>>> prove without some DNA from both Davis and Obama - proving it today
>>> would still be 7 or 8 years too late to make any difference.
>>>
>>> If this information had been presented in 2007/2008, before the
>>> election, it might have been quite relevant to a signficant number
>>> of people.
>>
>> Correction: "it might have been quite relevant to a significant
>> number of racist and/or dishonest assholes"
>>
>>> In 2015, with Obama starting his final year as president, what
>>> difference does it really make now?
>>
>> It doesn't matter now who or what Obama's father was and it never
>> did.
>
> Well, at a minimum, it would mean Obama was lying about his father.
created by political operatives
> Since we have the media telling us now with regard to Carson that
> lying about anything in your past, no matter how distant in time and
> inconsequential in effect, is significant and newsworthy for a
> candidate,
--
Barb
Barb May
Nov 10, 2015, 11:36:44 AM11/10/15
to
anything close to that, you liar. I said, "It doesn't matter now who or
what Obama's father was and it never did."
The entire point of the lie created by the right-wing propaganda machine
was to "prove" that Obama's father was a communist. And as I pointed
out:
Ezekiel 18:20
"The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father
suffer for the iniquity of the son."
You knew that when you lied about what I said.
> Given that assumption for the sake of argument, that Obama has been
> lying about father's identity, I noted "Barb May's" peculiar but
> predictable hypocrisy regarding the lies of presidential candidates.
based on the lie you created. That's pathetic, and yet that's what you
do time and time again. Why are you so freakin dishonest?
--
Barb
Barb May
Nov 10, 2015, 11:36:45 AM11/10/15
to
FATHER. The lie was created by the right-wing propaganda machine and
broadcast by the right-wing echo chamber. Cleary, BTR doesn't give a
crap about how many lies were created about Obama, and how many lies he
himself has repeated about Obama; lies that he knows are untrue. Nope,
it only matters to BTR how long the lies that were created to smear
Obama can be kept alive by repetition.
--
Barb
Adam H. Kerman
Nov 10, 2015, 11:40:25 AM11/10/15
to
university. They haven't been P.C. in decades and were forced out.
Remember when they'd been forced to form alliances with certain conservatives
at university to fight for academic freedom?
moviePig
Nov 10, 2015, 12:17:54 PM11/10/15
to
and I think neither instance *ought* to amount to a hill of beans, as
far as unpresidential character flaws go. And, btw, that's the only
fire I'm holding Carson's feet to. I'm way past thinking of prominent
politicians as choirboys -- or even of wishing they were.
moviePig
Nov 10, 2015, 12:27:03 PM11/10/15
to
indicator of overzealous idealism outstripping a grasp of the real
world. And the only argument I'd consider there re Obama is one that
claims such traits are biological. Sure, kids are often inspired by
their parents, but the direction of that inspiration is a crapshoot.
Rhino
Nov 10, 2015, 2:14:27 PM11/10/15
to
On 2015-11-09 12:52 PM, Barb May wrote:
> Rhino wrote:
>> Even if Davis was Obama's real father - which you probably couldn't
>> prove without some DNA from both Davis and Obama - proving it today
>> would still be 7 or 8 years too late to make any difference.
>>
>> If this information had been presented in 2007/2008, before the
>> election, it might have been quite relevant to a signficant number of
>> people.
>
> Correction: "it might have been quite relevant to a significant number
> of racist and/or dishonest assholes"
>
>> In 2015, with Obama starting his final year as president, what
>> difference does it really make now?
>
> It doesn't matter now who or what Obama's father was and it never did.
> This BS only makes a difference to the crazy bastards who read WND --
> Rhino wrote:
>> Even if Davis was Obama's real father - which you probably couldn't
>> prove without some DNA from both Davis and Obama - proving it today
>> would still be 7 or 8 years too late to make any difference.
>>
>> If this information had been presented in 2007/2008, before the
>> election, it might have been quite relevant to a signficant number of
>> people.
>
> Correction: "it might have been quite relevant to a significant number
> of racist and/or dishonest assholes"
>
>> In 2015, with Obama starting his final year as president, what
>> difference does it really make now?
>
> It doesn't matter now who or what Obama's father was and it never did.
> and the despicable cretins who produce this trash and those who finance
> it.
>
> Ezekiel 18:20
> "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father
> suffer for the iniquity of the son."
>
How typical of you to make this about race. Do you really think anyone
> Ezekiel 18:20
> "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father
> suffer for the iniquity of the son."
>
cares whether his father was Barack Obama, Sr. or Frank Davis? They're
BOTH black!
The issue that would likely have been deemed relevant by the electorate
is the openly Marxist proclivities of Davis vs. those of Obama, Sr and,
of course the fact of the lie - if indeed it is a lie - about his
parentage.
By the way, the quote from the Bible is supremely ironic if you look at
the history of the Soviet Union. In Stalin's day, people WERE punished
for the sins of their relatives. It was an actual section of their
criminal code and was exercised quite frequently. If someone were found
guilty of crimes against the state - and Stalin's goons tortured a lot
of innocent people into admitting to such crimes - their husbands,
wives, children, parents, aunts and uncles could all be sent to the
Gulag just for being related to someone who had done something.
Here in the West, things work a little differently I'm happy to say.
--
Rhino
Rhino
Nov 10, 2015, 2:24:39 PM11/10/15
to
How about Angela Davis, long-time professor in California and leading
member of the Communist Party? She was the VP on the Communist Party
ticket twice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Davis
--
Rhino
Barb May
Nov 10, 2015, 2:28:58 PM11/10/15
to
years ago. He's telling some whoppers right now:
"My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store
grain. Now all the archaeologists think that they were made for the
pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully
big if you stop and think about it. And I don’t think it’d just
disappear over the course of time to store that much grain"
"Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no federal elected
office experience"
"I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I
absolutely would not agree with that"
"A lot of people who go into prison straight and when they come out,
they’re gay"
"You know Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened
in this nation since slavery. And it is in a way, it is slavery in a
way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and
it was never about health care. It was about control."
"You know, we live in a Gestapo age, people don’t realize it."
"First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works. The
president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the
land come from the legislative branch. So if the legislative branch
creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a
responsibility to carry it out. It doesn’t say they have the
responsibility to carry out a judicial law. And that’s something we need
to talk about."
"I got that idea, quite frankly, from the Bible, tithing. You make $10
billion a year, you pay a billion. You make $10 a year, you pay one. You
get the same rates. That’s pretty darn fair if you ask me."
"I would not just stand there and let him shoot me. I would say ‘Hey,
guys, everybody attack him! He may shoot me but he can’t get us all."
"Just clarify, if there had been no gun control laws in Europe at that
time, would six million Jews have been slaughtered?"
Carson on Obama's appearance: "Like most psychopaths. That’s why they’re
successful. That’s the way they look. They all look great."
"If you're gonna have rules for war, you should just have a rule that
says no war. Other than that, we have to win."
"There may be a war on what's inside of women, but there is no war on
women in this country."
"I mean, [our society is] very much like Nazi Germany."
"The No. 1 cause of death for black people is abortion."
"I think what’s happening with the veterans is a gift from God to
show us what happens when you take layers and layers of bureaucracy
and place them between the patients and the health care provider."
--
Barb
Adam H. Kerman
Nov 10, 2015, 2:36:36 PM11/10/15
to
I think she was one of the ones I was thinking of, having to form an
alliance with conservative faculty to fight for academic freedom when
radical Commies had become passe on campus.
They used to be pretty important at one time, and every major university
wanted its own radicals. Not today.
Barb May
Nov 10, 2015, 2:45:59 PM11/10/15
to
Rhino wrote:
> Do you really think anyone
> cares whether his father was Barack Obama, Sr. or Frank Davis? They're
> BOTH black!
>
> The issue that would likely have been deemed relevant by the
> electorate is the openly Marxist proclivities of Davis vs. those of
> Obama, Sr
Once again:
> Do you really think anyone
> cares whether his father was Barack Obama, Sr. or Frank Davis? They're
> BOTH black!
>
> The issue that would likely have been deemed relevant by the
> electorate is the openly Marxist proclivities of Davis vs. those of
> Obama, Sr
Ezekiel 18:20
"The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father
suffer for the iniquity of the son."
not" do you not understand?
> and, of course the fact of the lie - if indeed it is a lie
> - about his parentage.
the lie as if it might be true.
>
> By the way, the quote from the Bible is supremely ironic if you look
> at the history of the Soviet Union.
>
> Here in the West, things work a little differently I'm happy to say.
self-awareness.
You:
"The issue that would likely have been deemed relevant by the electorate
is the openly Marxist proclivities of Davis vs. those of Obama, Sr "
whether Obama's father was a communist, but you're "happy to say" we're
not like the Soviet Union?
Wow. You are really something...
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were only doing this for comedic
effect, but the truth is you're so freakin clueless you are actually
trying to be sincere.
--
Barb
Adam H. Kerman
Nov 10, 2015, 3:15:15 PM11/10/15
to
The Continental Congress wasn't a government at first, although it
evolved into one when the Confederacy was established.
>"I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I
>absolutely would not agree with that"
pages say he's Catholic.
It's not going to happen until it happens. No one thought anyone would
vote for a Catholic either.
>"A lot of people who go into prison straight and when they come out,
>they're gay"
>"You know Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened
>in this nation since slavery. And it is in a way, it is slavery in a
>way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and
>it was never about health care. It was about control."
>"You know, we live in a Gestapo age, people don't realize it."
American society isn't as free as it could be. While Gestapo is clearly
an exaggeration, our Founding Fathers would be horrified as to many of
the freedoms we've so willingly given up.
>"First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works. The
>president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the
>land come from the legislative branch. So if the legislative branch
>creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a
>responsibility to carry it out. It doesn't say they have the
>responsibility to carry out a judicial law. And that's something we need
>to talk about."
>"I got that idea, quite frankly, from the Bible, tithing. You make $10
>billion a year, you pay a billion. You make $10 a year, you pay one. You
>get the same rates. That's pretty darn fair if you ask me."
>"I would not just stand there and let him shoot me. I would say 'Hey,
Great. What one talks about, versus what one does, is useless.
>"Just clarify, if there had been no gun control laws in Europe at that
>time, would six million Jews have been slaughtered?"
up, yeah, it would have required shooting and killing those who were doing
the rounding up. It's hard to see Germans standing up to the state.
Or are you denying the Holocaust?
>Carson on Obama's appearance: "Like most psychopaths. That's why they're
>successful. That's the way they look. They all look great."
>"If you're gonna have rules for war, you should just have a rule that
>says no war. Other than that, we have to win."
The rest were pretty nutty.
Rhino
Nov 10, 2015, 3:17:08 PM11/10/15
to
and see how it is distinguished from "lies" and "facts".
> "Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no federal elected
> office experience"
>
not my country - so can you name a signer of the Declaration of
Independence who *did* have significant experience in some kind of
elected office? Obviously, it would have to be in offices of the British
Crown but I would think governorship of a British colony would be
comparable to governorship of an American state, for example.
> "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I
> absolutely would not agree with that"
>
context of the remark was that he wouldn't favour a Muslim president
RIGHT NOW with all the trouble in the Middle East connected with
Muslims. He isn't saying there can never be a Muslim president.
> "A lot of people who go into prison straight and when they come out,
> they’re gay"
>
representations of prison life on TV and in movies, from Oz to the
Shawshank Redemption, all of which were well received by critics and
not, to my knowledge, criticized for major inaccuracies. Orange is the
New Black has depicted straight characters being preyed upon by gays
trying to convert them as did Oz and Shawshank. That doesn't PROVE what
Carson said is correct but it would be interesting to see before and
after studies of the sexual orientations of individuals who had been to
prison to see just how many were turned gay.
> "You know Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened
> in this nation since slavery. And it is in a way, it is slavery in a
> way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and
> it was never about health care. It was about control."
>
of fact. We're all entitled to our opinions.
> "You know, we live in a Gestapo age, people don’t realize it."
>
he meant by a "Gestapo age" so I can't agree or disagree.
> "First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works. The
> president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the
> land come from the legislative branch. So if the legislative branch
> creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a
> responsibility to carry it out. It doesn’t say they have the
> responsibility to carry out a judicial law. And that’s something we need
> to talk about."
>
saying there. Politicians tend to get very little time to make very
complicated points. I don't envy them trying to explain complex issues
in 10 second soundbites. Sometimes, they're not going to do a good job
of it.
> "I got that idea, quite frankly, from the Bible, tithing. You make $10
> billion a year, you pay a billion. You make $10 a year, you pay one. You
> get the same rates. That’s pretty darn fair if you ask me."
>
> "I would not just stand there and let him shoot me. I would say ‘Hey,
> guys, everybody attack him! He may shoot me but he can’t get us all."
>
in a room full of people and a gunman came into the room apparently
intending to slaughter them, he'd advocate jumping the guy rather than
meekly standing there waiting for a bullet. Good for him!
> "Just clarify, if there had been no gun control laws in Europe at that
> time, would six million Jews have been slaughtered?"
>
successful if they had free access to lethal weapons? We'll never know
but it seems likely that some would have fought back successfully. You
might want to watch a film called Defiance, starring Daniel Craig (the
current Bond) and Liv Shreiber (star of Ray Donovan) for a true story of
Jews fighting the Nazis in WW II.
> Carson on Obama's appearance: "Like most psychopaths. That’s why they’re
> successful. That’s the way they look. They all look great."
>
is not a psychopath, it would be a lie but I don't think this was
intended so much as a statement of fact as an insult.
> "If you're gonna have rules for war, you should just have a rule that
> says no war. Other than that, we have to win."
>
> "There may be a war on what's inside of women, but there is no war on
> women in this country."
>
just that he needs to clarify himself so that people can figure out if
it makes sense.
> "I mean, [our society is] very much like Nazi Germany."
>
needs to get elaborated so that people can figure out if it makes sense.
> "The No. 1 cause of death for black people is abortion."
>
black women, as I understand it. Isn't it the case that abortions on
black women exceed the number of blacks who are murdered each year? If
so, then Carson is correct.
> "I think what’s happening with the veterans is a gift from God to
> show us what happens when you take layers and layers of bureaucracy
> and place them between the patients and the health care provider."
>
>
--
Rhino
Rhino
Nov 10, 2015, 3:45:04 PM11/10/15
to
for decades and presumably taught thousands of students over the years
and may have influenced a good percentage of them. Or not. (Maybe they
all snickered about her when her back was turned. Then again, why take a
class from her if you already knew and disdained her views?)
> I think she was one of the ones I was thinking of, having to form an
> alliance with conservative faculty to fight for academic freedom when
> radical Commies had become passe on campus.
>
> They used to be pretty important at one time, and every major university
> wanted its own radicals. Not today.
>
schoolteachers are at least Left-leaning so that people like Davis are
the norm, not outliers ;-)
I really don't know since I never studied in the US and am certainly not
studying there now.
There are certainly some strange ideas being propagated in the
universities and colleges though. I was just reading about some unrest
at Yale:
http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2015/11/08/sowing-the-wind-reaping-the-whirlwind-at-yale/
These kids are going ballistic about someone's remarks about Halloween
costumes! Real people are being killed by ISIS and their associates and
they go to the barricades over Halloween???
I'm sure the professors who inspire the Social Justice Warriors aren't
all Communists. There are plenty of other whacky ideologies out there
and some of the strange ideas being propagated in educational
establishments is probably not Marxist-inspired. I can't believe NONE of
it is though.
And even if the number of card-carrying Communists in the professoriate
is not that high, I suspect that the number of "fellow travellers" is
still substantial. Those are people who never joined the Party but may
subscribe to a significant number of that same views.
--
Rhino
Barb May
Nov 10, 2015, 3:55:24 PM11/10/15
to
you. It is truly a testament to your profound ignorance. You don't know
jack shit about American politics, but you still feel qualified to
venture your uninformed opinions. Even when you admit to not knowing
something, you expect others to spoon feed it to you. Every single one
of these statements (which I referred to "whoppers" rather than "lies
and embellishments") has already been thoroughly debunked, and if you
had any question about it you could easily look it up.
Let's just take one example:
>> "I mean, [our society is] very much like Nazi Germany."
>>
> Again, that's so vague that I don't know how to agree or disagree. It
> needs to get elaborated so that people can figure out if it makes
> sense.
Full stop.
That you would defend any of his statements quoted above, not to mention
damn near all of them, in such a pathetic and uninformed manner is ample
proof that you would try to excuse anything and everything he says, no
matter how insane. I bet you still think (despite all the evidence to
the contrary) that Sarah Palin is really smart too.
--
Barb
Barb May
Nov 10, 2015, 4:09:29 PM11/10/15
to
Rhino wrote:
> And even if the number of card-carrying Communists in the
> professoriate is not that high, I suspect that the number of "fellow
> travellers" is still substantial.
"card-carrying"
> And even if the number of card-carrying Communists in the
> professoriate is not that high, I suspect that the number of "fellow
> travellers" is still substantial.
"fellow-travellers"
An example of why wingnuts are almost never misquoted because simply
repeating their own statements is always sufficiently damaging to their
credibility that no embellishment is necessary.
--
Barb
Rhino
Nov 10, 2015, 4:46:46 PM11/10/15
to
Communist Party of the USA if "card-carrying" doesn't cut it for you?
Not that I'd use it anyway but I thought card-carrying was a way that
was likely to be understood by all. Ditto for "fellow travellers".
It's not surprising that you are resorting to ad hominem slurs rather
than discussing the gist of what I actually said: after all ad hominem
is your go-to move when you can't refute the actual point being made.
--
Rhino
moviePig
Nov 10, 2015, 4:50:31 PM11/10/15
to
scarier. (Well, not his statement about Muslims. That's just an
instance of his grandstanding completely outrunning his brain. Still
scary, though...)
Adam H. Kerman
Nov 10, 2015, 5:11:28 PM11/10/15
to
could get the governor of California to denounce her. Today, no one cares
about Commies. Once upon a time, it was a huge deal; not today.
>>I think she was one of the ones I was thinking of, having to form an
>>alliance with conservative faculty to fight for academic freedom when
>>radical Commies had become passe on campus.
>>They used to be pretty important at one time, and every major university
>>wanted its own radicals. Not today.
>Some conservatives are of the opinion that *most* professors and
>schoolteachers are at least Left-leaning so that people like Davis are
>the norm, not outliers ;-)
>I really don't know since I never studied in the US and am certainly not
>studying there now.
and a socialist. We won't discuss various aspects of socialism provided by
the state that Republicans favor.
>There are certainly some strange ideas being propagated in the
>universities and colleges though. I was just reading about some unrest
>at Yale:
>http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2015/11/08/sowing-the-wind-reaping-the-whirlwind-at-yale/
>These kids are going ballistic about someone's remarks about Halloween
>costumes! Real people are being killed by ISIS and their associates and
>they go to the barricades over Halloween???
>I'm sure the professors who inspire the Social Justice Warriors aren't
>all Communists. There are plenty of other whacky ideologies out there
>and some of the strange ideas being propagated in educational
>establishments is probably not Marxist-inspired. I can't believe NONE of
>it is though.
>And even if the number of card-carrying Communists in the professoriate
>is not that high, I suspect that the number of "fellow travellers" is
>still substantial. Those are people who never joined the Party but may
>subscribe to a significant number of that same views.
party platform?
Barb May
Nov 10, 2015, 5:15:32 PM11/10/15
to
Rhino wrote:
> On 2015-11-10 4:09 PM, Barb May wrote:
>> Rhino wrote:
>>> And even if the number of card-carrying Communists in the
>>> professoriate is not that high, I suspect that the number of "fellow
>>> travellers" is still substantial.
>>
>> "card-carrying"
>> "fellow-travellers"
>>
>> An example of why wingnuts are almost never misquoted because simply
>> repeating their own statements is always sufficiently damaging to
>> their credibility that no embellishment is necessary.
>>
>
> And what is your preferred terminology for official members of the
> Communist Party of the USA if "card-carrying" doesn't cut it for you?
> Not that I'd use it anyway but I thought card-carrying was a way that
> was likely to be understood by all. Ditto for "fellow travellers".
Those pejorative phrases are McCarthy-era. There are no "card-carrying"
> On 2015-11-10 4:09 PM, Barb May wrote:
>> Rhino wrote:
>>> And even if the number of card-carrying Communists in the
>>> professoriate is not that high, I suspect that the number of "fellow
>>> travellers" is still substantial.
>>
>> "card-carrying"
>> "fellow-travellers"
>>
>> An example of why wingnuts are almost never misquoted because simply
>> repeating their own statements is always sufficiently damaging to
>> their credibility that no embellishment is necessary.
>>
>
> And what is your preferred terminology for official members of the
> Communist Party of the USA if "card-carrying" doesn't cut it for you?
> Not that I'd use it anyway but I thought card-carrying was a way that
> was likely to be understood by all. Ditto for "fellow travellers".
communists or "fellow travellers." In fact, there are very few actual
communists. US membership is estimated at a mere 2,000
> It's not surprising that you are resorting to ad hominem slurs rather
> than discussing the gist of what I actually said: after all ad hominem
> is your go-to move when you can't refute the actual point being made.
ad hominem.
--
Barb
Rhino
Nov 10, 2015, 5:18:06 PM11/10/15
to
used to it. You don't need to read my posts and you can refute any fact
I get wrong if you like. But you can't refute opinions and that's the
vast majority of what Carson provided in those examples you provided.
> Even when you admit to not knowing
> something, you expect others to spoon feed it to you. Every single one
> of these statements (which I referred to "whoppers" rather than "lies
> and embellishments") has already been thoroughly debunked, and if you
> had any question about it you could easily look it up.
>
websites that torture language to make the true false and the false
true, like Bill Clinton try to hair-split the meaning of 'is'.
> Let's just take one example:
>
>>> "I mean, [our society is] very much like Nazi Germany."
>>>
>> Again, that's so vague that I don't know how to agree or disagree. It
>> needs to get elaborated so that people can figure out if it makes
>> sense.
>
> There are no circumstances where that statement makes sense. Period.
> Full stop.
>
"like". It's just preposterous to say that American society is in NO WAY
WHATSOEVER like Nazi Germany, which is essentially the position you're
taking.
There *are* similarities, both trivial and not. For instance, Nazi
Germany, like the United States today, is populated by human beings and
is situated on the planet Earth. (Those are some of the trivial
similarities just so you're clear.) Nazi Germany's leader was elected
democratically, as was the current president of the United States.
(That's one of the less trivial ones.) Nazi Germany persecuted those who
its leader saw as opposed to his rule. The United States persecutes
those who its leader sees as opposed to him. (I'm speaking of the IRS
dragging out approvals for those seeking 501(3c) status by those
perceived as conservative and expediting them for those deemed liberal.)
> That you would defend any of his statements quoted above, not to mention
> damn near all of them,
entirely different thing that an opinion but you don't seem to be able
to understand the difference. Here's a quick course for you:
"The United States is a country in Asia." That's a lie. It is never true
for anyone, anywhere.
"The United States is on the North American continent". That's a fact.
It is always true for everyone, everywhere.
"I like jazz music." That's an OPINION. It is true for me but may not be
true for you.
Most of your statements by Carson were OPINIONS. I was trying to explain
that in my remarks. Apparently your dazzling intellect was unable to
discern that. I'll try to speak more slowly next time.
> in such a pathetic and uninformed manner is ample
> proof that you would try to excuse anything and everything he says, no
> matter how insane.
thing I said with an actual fact? For instance, you could have cited a
single Declaration signer than had significant experience in
government. That should be dead easy for someone as informed as you
claim to be. The fact that you didn't tells me that you have no idea if
it is true or not. You just heard someone else say that it was a lie
and parroted it back here. Or maybe you're not nearly as informed as you
think you are.
I bet you still think (despite all the evidence to
> the contrary) that Sarah Palin is really smart too.
>
You are beyond pathetic.
--
Rhino
Rhino
Nov 10, 2015, 5:26:51 PM11/10/15
to
On 2015-11-10 2:45 PM, Barb May wrote:
> Rhino wrote:
>> Do you really think anyone
>> cares whether his father was Barack Obama, Sr. or Frank Davis? They're
>> BOTH black!
>>
>> The issue that would likely have been deemed relevant by the
>> electorate is the openly Marxist proclivities of Davis vs. those of
>> Obama, Sr
>
> Once again:
>
> Ezekiel 18:20
> "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father
> suffer for the iniquity of the son."
>
> What part of "it doesn't matter whether Obama's father was a Marxist or
> not" do you not understand?
>
I saw you argue with someone else that this was irrelevant because
> Rhino wrote:
>> Do you really think anyone
>> cares whether his father was Barack Obama, Sr. or Frank Davis? They're
>> BOTH black!
>>
>> The issue that would likely have been deemed relevant by the
>> electorate is the openly Marxist proclivities of Davis vs. those of
>> Obama, Sr
>
> Once again:
>
> Ezekiel 18:20
> "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father
> suffer for the iniquity of the son."
>
> What part of "it doesn't matter whether Obama's father was a Marxist or
> not" do you not understand?
>
Marxism isn't passed in the genes. That, of course, is completely
correct. But Marxism IS passed on via education and the people who are
around a child growing up are among its first educators. That includes
parents and close family friends. If the people around Obama when he
grew up WERE Marxists, it is entirely likely (although obviously not
certain) that they exposed him to Marxism and presumably spoke very
favourably about it. That *IS* relevant if it is significantly informed
- and continues to inform - his world view now that he is President.
I would think that would be self-evident to anyone but apparently it
has eluded you so far. Hopefully my explanation has enlightened you.
>
>> and, of course the fact of the lie - if indeed it is a lie
>> - about his parentage.
>
> You have zero proof that Obama lied about his father, and yet you repeat
> the lie as if it might be true.
>
And you have no proof that it ISN'T true yet assert categorically that
>> and, of course the fact of the lie - if indeed it is a lie
>> - about his parentage.
>
> You have zero proof that Obama lied about his father, and yet you repeat
> the lie as if it might be true.
>
it is a lie rather than admit that it *may* be true as any reasonable
person would agree.
>>
>> By the way, the quote from the Bible is supremely ironic if you look
>> at the history of the Soviet Union.
>
> Which has nothing to do with Obama
>
>>
>> Here in the West, things work a little differently I'm happy to say.
>
> OMG. The only thing supremely ironic here is your appalling lack of
> self-awareness.
>
> You:
>
> "The issue that would likely have been deemed relevant by the electorate
> is the openly Marxist proclivities of Davis vs. those of Obama, Sr "
>
> So you, and according to you "the electorate" thinks it's relevant
> whether Obama's father was a communist, but you're "happy to say" we're
> not like the Soviet Union?
>
> Wow. You are really something...
> If I didn't know better, I'd think you were only doing this for comedic
> effect, but the truth is you're so freakin clueless you are actually
> trying to be sincere.
>
Those last few paragraphs are just incoherence mixed with ad hominem. I
>> By the way, the quote from the Bible is supremely ironic if you look
>> at the history of the Soviet Union.
>
> Which has nothing to do with Obama
>
>>
>> Here in the West, things work a little differently I'm happy to say.
>
> OMG. The only thing supremely ironic here is your appalling lack of
> self-awareness.
>
> You:
>
> "The issue that would likely have been deemed relevant by the electorate
> is the openly Marxist proclivities of Davis vs. those of Obama, Sr "
>
> So you, and according to you "the electorate" thinks it's relevant
> whether Obama's father was a communist, but you're "happy to say" we're
> not like the Soviet Union?
>
> Wow. You are really something...
> If I didn't know better, I'd think you were only doing this for comedic
> effect, but the truth is you're so freakin clueless you are actually
> trying to be sincere.
>
have better things to do that untangle it.
--
Rhino
Adam H. Kerman
Nov 10, 2015, 5:46:18 PM11/10/15
to
Barb May <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:
>Rhino wrote:
>>Do you really think anyone
>>cares whether his father was Barack Obama, Sr. or Frank Davis? They're
>>BOTH black!
>>The issue that would likely have been deemed relevant by the
>>electorate is the openly Marxist proclivities of Davis vs. those of
>>Obama, Sr
>Once again:
>Ezekiel 18:20
>"The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father
>suffer for the iniquity of the son."
>What part of "it doesn't matter whether Obama's father was a Marxist or
>not" do you not understand?
Don't quote selectively from the Bible.
>Rhino wrote:
>>Do you really think anyone
>>cares whether his father was Barack Obama, Sr. or Frank Davis? They're
>>BOTH black!
>>The issue that would likely have been deemed relevant by the
>>electorate is the openly Marxist proclivities of Davis vs. those of
>>Obama, Sr
>Once again:
>Ezekiel 18:20
>"The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father
>suffer for the iniquity of the son."
>What part of "it doesn't matter whether Obama's father was a Marxist or
>not" do you not understand?
Try the more famous "sins of the father" quotation, from the 10 Commandments:
Exodus 20 King James Version (KJV)
20 And God spake all these words, saying,
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I
the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation
of them that hate me;
As always, it depends on ghod's mood.
FPP
Nov 10, 2015, 7:36:38 PM11/10/15
to
On 2015-11-10 09:53:30 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> In article <n1s083$hd9$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>>> In article <n1rbof$14c$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>>>>> In article <n1qmo9$4dj$1...@news.albasani.net>,
And, no... it wouldn't matter if it were true.
Why should who his father is make any difference? That's his
business... and we're not electing his father.
If it's a personal family matter, and a man didn't want it to be public
knowledge, what does it matter?
Ben Carson is lying about his qualifications, not his family. That's
not a personal matter, and it reflects on his character because he's
trying to make it seem like he's somehow better than he is.
Now, if Obama had lied about being editor of the Harvard Law Review, or
his employment... then I'd say it was relevant. But just to the
identity of his father - that's his business, not ours.
--
"Irony is wasted on the stupid" -Oscar Wilde
> In article <n1s083$hd9$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>>> In article <n1rbof$14c$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>>>>> In article <n1qmo9$4dj$1...@news.albasani.net>,
Why should who his father is make any difference? That's his
business... and we're not electing his father.
If it's a personal family matter, and a man didn't want it to be public
knowledge, what does it matter?
Ben Carson is lying about his qualifications, not his family. That's
not a personal matter, and it reflects on his character because he's
trying to make it seem like he's somehow better than he is.
Now, if Obama had lied about being editor of the Harvard Law Review, or
his employment... then I'd say it was relevant. But just to the
identity of his father - that's his business, not ours.
--
"Irony is wasted on the stupid" -Oscar Wilde
FPP
Nov 10, 2015, 7:40:59 PM11/10/15
to
don't constitute a "double standard" they just constitute a "standard".
Like you shouldn't outright lie about something you didn't do. That's
not even in the same ballpark as lying about who your family is.
It's a standard... not a double standard. Family isn't relevant.
Achievements are. We don't elect Presidents for their families, we
elect them for their qualifications.
--
Liberals believe in global warming because of the scientific data.
Conservatives don't believe in global warming because it felt a little
nippy this morning.
FPP
Nov 10, 2015, 7:46:02 PM11/10/15
to
On 2015-11-10 15:17:20 -0500, Rhino
• John Adams. Elected to Massachusetts Assembly, 1770; attended First
Continental Congress, 1774-1776.
• Thomas Jefferson. Represented Albemarle County as a delegate in the
Virginia House of Burgesses, 1769-1775
• Benjamin Franklin. Philadelphia councilman, 1748; elected to the
Pennsylvania Assembly, 1751.
• John Hancock. Elected to the Boston Assembly, 1766; president of the
provincial congress of Massachusetts, c. 1773; elected to the
Continental Congress, 1774, and then president of the congress in 1775.
• Samuel Adams. Elected to Massachusetts Assembly, 1765; delegate to
the First Continental Congress, 1774.
• Elbridge Gerry. Elected to Massachusetts Legislature, 1773;
provincial Congress, 1774.
• Roger Sherman. Elected to Connecticut General Assembly, representing
New Milford, 1755-1758 and 1760-1761; elected to various offices
representing New Haven in the 1760s and 1770s; elected to the
Continental Congress starting in 1774.
• Caesar Rodney. Elected to Delaware Colonial Assembly, 1758-1770 and
1771-1776; delegate to the Stamp Act Congress, 1765; elected to the
Continental Congress, 1774.
• George Taylor. Elected to Pennsylvania provincial assembly, 1764-69;
elected to Continental Congress, 1775.
• John Morton. Elected to Pennsylvania provincial assembly, 1756-1775;
delegate to the Stamp Act Congress, 1765; president of the provincial
assembly, 1775.
• George Ross. Elected to Pennsylvania provincial assembly, 1768-1776;
Elected to Continental Congress, 1774.
• James Wilson. Elected to Pennsylvania provincial congress, 1775;
elected to the Continental Congress, 1775.
• Thomas McKean. Member of the Delaware Assembly, 1762-79; Delegate to
the Stamp Act Congress, 1765; delegate to the Continental Congress,
1774.
• Matthew Thornton. Member of the New Hampshire provincial assembly, 1758-1762.
• William Whipple. Elected to New Hampshire provincial congress, 1775 and 1776.
• Stephen Hopkins. Speaker of the Rhode Island Assembly,1750s; member
of the Continental Congress beginning in 1774.
• Lewis Morris. Member of New York provincial legislature; delegate to
the Continental Congress, 1775.
• Philip Livingston. Alderman, New York City.
• Carter Braxton. Virginia House of Burgesses, 1770-1785; delegate to
the Continental Congress, 1774-75.
• Thomas Nelson Jr. Member of the House of Burgesses, 1774; Virginia
provincial convention, 1775.
• Francis Lightfoot Lee. Member of the Virginia House of Burgesses
1758-1775; elected to Continental Congress, 1775.
• Benjamin Harrison. Elected to Virginia House of Burgesses, 1764;
member of the Continental Congress, 1774.
• George Wythe. Member of the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1755-65.
• William Hooper. Elected to general assembly of North Carolina, 1773;
member of Continental Congress, 1774-1776.
• Joseph Hewes. Member of the colonial assembly of North Carolina,
1766-1775; member of new provincial assembly, 1775; elected to
Continental Congress, 1774.
• John Hart. Member of the New Jersey Assembly, 1761-1771; member of
provincial assembly, 1775; elected to the Continental Congress, 1776.
• William Williams. Town clerk, selectman, provincial representative,
elected state legislator, delegate to colonial conferences, 1770s.
• William Paca. Delegate to the Maryland Legislature, 1771; elected to
Continental Congress, 1774.
--
"To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable." -Barry Goldwater
<no_offline_c...@example.com> said:
>
>> "Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no federal elected
>> office experience"
>>
> I don't know the history of the American Revolution terribly well -
> it's not my country - so can you name a signer of the Declaration of
> Independence who *did* have significant experience in some kind of
> elected office? Obviously, it would have to be in offices of the
> British Crown but I would think governorship of a British colony would
> be comparable to governorship of an American state, for example.
Christ Jesus, at least half of them did...
>
>> "Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no federal elected
>> office experience"
>>
> I don't know the history of the American Revolution terribly well -
> it's not my country - so can you name a signer of the Declaration of
> Independence who *did* have significant experience in some kind of
> elected office? Obviously, it would have to be in offices of the
> British Crown but I would think governorship of a British colony would
> be comparable to governorship of an American state, for example.
• John Adams. Elected to Massachusetts Assembly, 1770; attended First
Continental Congress, 1774-1776.
• Thomas Jefferson. Represented Albemarle County as a delegate in the
Virginia House of Burgesses, 1769-1775
• Benjamin Franklin. Philadelphia councilman, 1748; elected to the
Pennsylvania Assembly, 1751.
• John Hancock. Elected to the Boston Assembly, 1766; president of the
provincial congress of Massachusetts, c. 1773; elected to the
Continental Congress, 1774, and then president of the congress in 1775.
• Samuel Adams. Elected to Massachusetts Assembly, 1765; delegate to
the First Continental Congress, 1774.
• Elbridge Gerry. Elected to Massachusetts Legislature, 1773;
provincial Congress, 1774.
• Roger Sherman. Elected to Connecticut General Assembly, representing
New Milford, 1755-1758 and 1760-1761; elected to various offices
representing New Haven in the 1760s and 1770s; elected to the
Continental Congress starting in 1774.
• Caesar Rodney. Elected to Delaware Colonial Assembly, 1758-1770 and
1771-1776; delegate to the Stamp Act Congress, 1765; elected to the
Continental Congress, 1774.
• George Taylor. Elected to Pennsylvania provincial assembly, 1764-69;
elected to Continental Congress, 1775.
• John Morton. Elected to Pennsylvania provincial assembly, 1756-1775;
delegate to the Stamp Act Congress, 1765; president of the provincial
assembly, 1775.
• George Ross. Elected to Pennsylvania provincial assembly, 1768-1776;
Elected to Continental Congress, 1774.
• James Wilson. Elected to Pennsylvania provincial congress, 1775;
elected to the Continental Congress, 1775.
• Thomas McKean. Member of the Delaware Assembly, 1762-79; Delegate to
the Stamp Act Congress, 1765; delegate to the Continental Congress,
1774.
• Matthew Thornton. Member of the New Hampshire provincial assembly, 1758-1762.
• William Whipple. Elected to New Hampshire provincial congress, 1775 and 1776.
• Stephen Hopkins. Speaker of the Rhode Island Assembly,1750s; member
of the Continental Congress beginning in 1774.
• Lewis Morris. Member of New York provincial legislature; delegate to
the Continental Congress, 1775.
• Philip Livingston. Alderman, New York City.
• Carter Braxton. Virginia House of Burgesses, 1770-1785; delegate to
the Continental Congress, 1774-75.
• Thomas Nelson Jr. Member of the House of Burgesses, 1774; Virginia
provincial convention, 1775.
• Francis Lightfoot Lee. Member of the Virginia House of Burgesses
1758-1775; elected to Continental Congress, 1775.
• Benjamin Harrison. Elected to Virginia House of Burgesses, 1764;
member of the Continental Congress, 1774.
• George Wythe. Member of the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1755-65.
• William Hooper. Elected to general assembly of North Carolina, 1773;
member of Continental Congress, 1774-1776.
• Joseph Hewes. Member of the colonial assembly of North Carolina,
1766-1775; member of new provincial assembly, 1775; elected to
Continental Congress, 1774.
• John Hart. Member of the New Jersey Assembly, 1761-1771; member of
provincial assembly, 1775; elected to the Continental Congress, 1776.
• William Williams. Town clerk, selectman, provincial representative,
elected state legislator, delegate to colonial conferences, 1770s.
• William Paca. Delegate to the Maryland Legislature, 1771; elected to
Continental Congress, 1774.
--
"To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable." -Barry Goldwater
FPP
Nov 10, 2015, 8:12:18 PM11/10/15
to
>> "My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store
>> grain. Now all the archaeologists think that they were made for the
>> pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully
>> big if you stop and think about it. And I don’t think it’d just
>> disappear over the course of time to store that much grain"
>>
> You may want to reaquaint yourself with the meaning of the word
> "theory" and see how it is distinguished from "lies" and "facts".
It's not a theory... there is writing on the walls of the pyramids. It
>> grain. Now all the archaeologists think that they were made for the
>> pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully
>> big if you stop and think about it. And I don’t think it’d just
>> disappear over the course of time to store that much grain"
>>
> You may want to reaquaint yourself with the meaning of the word
> "theory" and see how it is distinguished from "lies" and "facts".
tells us what they were for.
There are descriptions of the pyramids, and they explain the entire
afterlife theories of Ancient Egypt. Carson is a nut.
That's like saying that it's your "theory" that the Stars and Stripes
on the flag are there to celebrate Walpurgis night. When, in fact, we
KNOW what the represent because it's written down by those who were in
a position to say.
--
"The two most common elements in the Universe are Hydrogen and
stupidity… and I'm not sure about Hydrogen" -Ellison
FPP
Nov 10, 2015, 8:19:41 PM11/10/15
to
On 2015-11-10 17:18:17 -0500, Rhino
- but then, I was a history major and I already knew Carson was dead
wrong. I's also how I KNOW he's also dead wrong about the pyramids.
100%, at least.
My problem is that you say you don't know if what he says is right or
wrong... well that makes you uninformed.
No big deal, there... but if, in fact, you want to stay that way -
well, then, that would be truly pathetic.
What Carson is saying isn't just wrong, it's crazy wrong. And he'
being called out on it, and uninformed people are defending him. If
you don't know if he's right, or wrong, then say so and stop at that.
Me... I KNOW he's wrong, and I'm going to say so because I'm NOT uninformed.
--
"Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie", until you can find a
rock." - Will Rogers
<no_offline_c...@example.com> said:
> Pathetic and uniformed? If you're so informed, why didn't you refute
> ONE thing I said with an actual fact? For instance, you could have
> cited a single Declaration signer than had significant experience in
> government. That should be dead easy for someone as informed as you
> claim to be. The fact that you didn't tells me that you have no idea if
> it is true or not. You just heard someone else say that it was a lie
> and parroted it back here. Or maybe you're not nearly as informed as
> you think you are.
I gave you dozens of names, and it took me all of 30 seconds on Google
> Pathetic and uniformed? If you're so informed, why didn't you refute
> ONE thing I said with an actual fact? For instance, you could have
> cited a single Declaration signer than had significant experience in
> government. That should be dead easy for someone as informed as you
> claim to be. The fact that you didn't tells me that you have no idea if
> it is true or not. You just heard someone else say that it was a lie
> and parroted it back here. Or maybe you're not nearly as informed as
> you think you are.
- but then, I was a history major and I already knew Carson was dead
wrong. I's also how I KNOW he's also dead wrong about the pyramids.
100%, at least.
My problem is that you say you don't know if what he says is right or
wrong... well that makes you uninformed.
No big deal, there... but if, in fact, you want to stay that way -
well, then, that would be truly pathetic.
What Carson is saying isn't just wrong, it's crazy wrong. And he'
being called out on it, and uninformed people are defending him. If
you don't know if he's right, or wrong, then say so and stop at that.
Me... I KNOW he's wrong, and I'm going to say so because I'm NOT uninformed.
--
"Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie", until you can find a
rock." - Will Rogers
FPP
Nov 10, 2015, 8:25:02 PM11/10/15
to
On 2015-11-10 17:27:03 -0500, Rhino
anything about you, if you couldn't?
Of course not... because you can't prove most negatives, and neither
should you have to.
--
"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen
with the intent to reply" - Stephen R. Covey
<no_offline_c...@example.com> said:
> And you have no proof that it ISN'T true yet assert categorically that
> it is a lie rather than admit that it *may* be true as any reasonable
> person would agree.
I mean, can you prove you're not a pedophile? And would it say
> And you have no proof that it ISN'T true yet assert categorically that
> it is a lie rather than admit that it *may* be true as any reasonable
> person would agree.
anything about you, if you couldn't?
Of course not... because you can't prove most negatives, and neither
should you have to.
--
"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen
with the intent to reply" - Stephen R. Covey
David Johnston
Nov 10, 2015, 9:30:41 PM11/10/15
to
On 11/10/2015 3:27 PM, Rhino wrote:
> On 2015-11-10 2:45 PM, Barb May wrote:
>> Rhino wrote:
>>> Do you really think anyone
>>> cares whether his father was Barack Obama, Sr. or Frank Davis? They're
>>> BOTH black!
>>>
>>> The issue that would likely have been deemed relevant by the
>>> electorate is the openly Marxist proclivities of Davis vs. those of
>>> Obama, Sr
>>
>> Once again:
>>
>> Ezekiel 18:20
>> "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father
>> suffer for the iniquity of the son."
>>
>> What part of "it doesn't matter whether Obama's father was a Marxist or
>> not" do you not understand?
>>
> I saw you argue with someone else that this was irrelevant because
> Marxism isn't passed in the genes. That, of course, is completely
> correct. But Marxism IS passed on via education and the people who are
> around a child growing up are among its first educators.
Davis hypothetically being Obama's biological father has absolutely no
> On 2015-11-10 2:45 PM, Barb May wrote:
>> Rhino wrote:
>>> Do you really think anyone
>>> cares whether his father was Barack Obama, Sr. or Frank Davis? They're
>>> BOTH black!
>>>
>>> The issue that would likely have been deemed relevant by the
>>> electorate is the openly Marxist proclivities of Davis vs. those of
>>> Obama, Sr
>>
>> Once again:
>>
>> Ezekiel 18:20
>> "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father
>> suffer for the iniquity of the son."
>>
>> What part of "it doesn't matter whether Obama's father was a Marxist or
>> not" do you not understand?
>>
> I saw you argue with someone else that this was irrelevant because
> Marxism isn't passed in the genes. That, of course, is completely
> correct. But Marxism IS passed on via education and the people who are
> around a child growing up are among its first educators.
bearing on that. Calling Obama's parentage into question seems like
scurrilous gossip at best.
BTR1701
Nov 10, 2015, 10:26:39 PM11/10/15
to
In article <n1tks3$qr6$1...@dont-email.me>,
that is completely divorced from any actual rational (if wrong-headed)
economic theory.
For anyone curious to view a modern leftist in action, here's the video
that prompted all this. This little pampered hysteric is confronting the
"master" of her dorm regarding an email that was sent claiming that it's
not their place to ban or censor the Halloween costumes of Yale students.
http://youtu.be/9IEFD_JVYd0
The author of the article at the link said it best:
It's here that we return to Hosea 8:7: "They that sow the wind
shall reap the whirlwind." American campuses have for many years
been treating their charges as childish ATMs: delicate creatures
who, though they dispense a small fortune over the course of four
years through the proxy of their parents or, thanks to the
redistributionist mechanism of financial aid, through the parents
of other students, nonetheless must be treated as irresponsible
toddlers, protected at every turn from ideas they might find
challenging or-- the king of words these days-- "offensive".
Colleges have set themselves up as multicultural, sexually, and
racially exotic hothouses to breed these noxious, neurasthenic
but politically correct creatures who are capable of emotional
hysteria but not reasoned argument. They know less and less of the
past, because the past is such a dangerous place, full of things to
offend the racially sensitive, the sexual confused, the politically
ignorant, and morally obtuse. Colleges and universities have thus
sown the wind. Is it surprising that they are now reaping the
whirlwind? What just happened at Yale is an early pustule appearing
on the body of American academia. But the bacillus is systemic: I
predict more and more, and more and more violent, outbreaks. The
question is whether the patient is robust enough to weather the
fevers and pustules that are on their way. One thing is certain,
the condition will get worse before it gets better-- assuming,
that is, that it does get better.
Of course, Yale being a private university, it may sow the wind to its
heart's content. As we've just been through in another thread, public
universities-- as arms of the government-- are restricted from punishing
student speech for its content, much to the dismay of the "Barb Mays"
and FPPs among us.
Back in that other thread, FPP and "Barb May" challenged me to provide
citations to back up my claim that public universities are legally
prohibited from engaging in censorious conduct regarding student speech.
I did so, but I've recently come across several more instances where
universities were slapped down for their attempt to censor student
speech in the name of multi-culti sensitiviy and diversity. I'll cite
them here in case "Barb May" or FPP is reading:
In cases too numerous to mention, courts across the country have
held that the 1st Amendment does not permit the prohibition of
speech simply because someone finds it offensive.
Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, 410 U.S.
667 (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that "the mere dissemination
of ideas-- no matter how offensive to good taste-- on a state
university campus may not be shut off in the name of 'conventions
of decency.'"
Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir.
2001), holding that there is "no question that the free speech
clause protects a wide variety of speech that listeners may consider
deeply offensive."
Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich. 1989)
"Nor could the university proscribe speech simply because it was
found to be offensive, even gravely so, by large numbers of people."
And today we have the situation at the University of Missouri, where
protesters succeeded in inducing the resignation of the university
president. Which was fine. They engaged in free speech, and their
message was heard. The problem came during their victory celebration.
The protesters' proposition was wantonly naked: the university's public
spaces that activists had chosen to occupy were a no-dissent zone, where
activists were entitled to be free from differing interpretations of
events:
ConcernedStudent1950
@CS_1950
We ask for no media in the parameters so the place where people
live, fellowship & sleep can be protected from twisted insincere
narratives
The "parameters" in question were the public university's quad, one of
the most quintessentially public spaces in American law and tradition.
This sentiment-- that students could take over a public space, use it to
express their views on a public issue, and shut other views out of it in
the name of emotional safety-- was vigorously enforced by a crowd
threatening a photographer and a communications professor (an employee
of the university, and therefore a state actor) shouting for "muscle" to
help her expel media.
And as of today, we now have an American public university actually
asking its students to call the police if someone says something that
hurts their feelings:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/88475764/Mizzou.jpg
This is American progressivism on naked display. How do you like it?
Rhino <no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:
> There are certainly some strange ideas being propagated in the
> universities and colleges though. I was just reading about some unrest
> at Yale:
>
> http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2015/11/08/sowing-the-wind-reaping-the-whirlwi
> nd-at-yale/
>
> These kids are going ballistic about someone's remarks about Halloween
> costumes! Real people are being killed by ISIS and their associates and
> they go to the barricades over Halloween???
>
> I'm sure the professors who inspire the Social Justice Warriors aren't
> all Communists. There are plenty of other whacky ideologies out there
> and some of the strange ideas being propagated in educational
> establishments is probably not Marxist-inspired. I can't believe NONE of
> it is though.
>
> And even if the number of card-carrying Communists in the professoriate
> is not that high, I suspect that the number of "fellow travellers" is
> still substantial. Those are people who never joined the Party but may
> subscribe to a significant number of that same views.
These people aren't even communists. It's some sort of cultish PC lunacy
> There are certainly some strange ideas being propagated in the
> universities and colleges though. I was just reading about some unrest
> at Yale:
>
> http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2015/11/08/sowing-the-wind-reaping-the-whirlwi
> nd-at-yale/
>
> These kids are going ballistic about someone's remarks about Halloween
> costumes! Real people are being killed by ISIS and their associates and
> they go to the barricades over Halloween???
>
> I'm sure the professors who inspire the Social Justice Warriors aren't
> all Communists. There are plenty of other whacky ideologies out there
> and some of the strange ideas being propagated in educational
> establishments is probably not Marxist-inspired. I can't believe NONE of
> it is though.
>
> And even if the number of card-carrying Communists in the professoriate
> is not that high, I suspect that the number of "fellow travellers" is
> still substantial. Those are people who never joined the Party but may
> subscribe to a significant number of that same views.
that is completely divorced from any actual rational (if wrong-headed)
economic theory.
For anyone curious to view a modern leftist in action, here's the video
that prompted all this. This little pampered hysteric is confronting the
"master" of her dorm regarding an email that was sent claiming that it's
not their place to ban or censor the Halloween costumes of Yale students.
http://youtu.be/9IEFD_JVYd0
The author of the article at the link said it best:
It's here that we return to Hosea 8:7: "They that sow the wind
shall reap the whirlwind." American campuses have for many years
been treating their charges as childish ATMs: delicate creatures
who, though they dispense a small fortune over the course of four
years through the proxy of their parents or, thanks to the
redistributionist mechanism of financial aid, through the parents
of other students, nonetheless must be treated as irresponsible
toddlers, protected at every turn from ideas they might find
challenging or-- the king of words these days-- "offensive".
Colleges have set themselves up as multicultural, sexually, and
racially exotic hothouses to breed these noxious, neurasthenic
but politically correct creatures who are capable of emotional
hysteria but not reasoned argument. They know less and less of the
past, because the past is such a dangerous place, full of things to
offend the racially sensitive, the sexual confused, the politically
ignorant, and morally obtuse. Colleges and universities have thus
sown the wind. Is it surprising that they are now reaping the
whirlwind? What just happened at Yale is an early pustule appearing
on the body of American academia. But the bacillus is systemic: I
predict more and more, and more and more violent, outbreaks. The
question is whether the patient is robust enough to weather the
fevers and pustules that are on their way. One thing is certain,
the condition will get worse before it gets better-- assuming,
that is, that it does get better.
Of course, Yale being a private university, it may sow the wind to its
heart's content. As we've just been through in another thread, public
universities-- as arms of the government-- are restricted from punishing
student speech for its content, much to the dismay of the "Barb Mays"
and FPPs among us.
Back in that other thread, FPP and "Barb May" challenged me to provide
citations to back up my claim that public universities are legally
prohibited from engaging in censorious conduct regarding student speech.
I did so, but I've recently come across several more instances where
universities were slapped down for their attempt to censor student
speech in the name of multi-culti sensitiviy and diversity. I'll cite
them here in case "Barb May" or FPP is reading:
In cases too numerous to mention, courts across the country have
held that the 1st Amendment does not permit the prohibition of
speech simply because someone finds it offensive.
Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, 410 U.S.
667 (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that "the mere dissemination
of ideas-- no matter how offensive to good taste-- on a state
university campus may not be shut off in the name of 'conventions
of decency.'"
Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir.
2001), holding that there is "no question that the free speech
clause protects a wide variety of speech that listeners may consider
deeply offensive."
Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich. 1989)
"Nor could the university proscribe speech simply because it was
found to be offensive, even gravely so, by large numbers of people."
And today we have the situation at the University of Missouri, where
protesters succeeded in inducing the resignation of the university
president. Which was fine. They engaged in free speech, and their
message was heard. The problem came during their victory celebration.
The protesters' proposition was wantonly naked: the university's public
spaces that activists had chosen to occupy were a no-dissent zone, where
activists were entitled to be free from differing interpretations of
events:
ConcernedStudent1950
@CS_1950
We ask for no media in the parameters so the place where people
live, fellowship & sleep can be protected from twisted insincere
narratives
The "parameters" in question were the public university's quad, one of
the most quintessentially public spaces in American law and tradition.
This sentiment-- that students could take over a public space, use it to
express their views on a public issue, and shut other views out of it in
the name of emotional safety-- was vigorously enforced by a crowd
threatening a photographer and a communications professor (an employee
of the university, and therefore a state actor) shouting for "muscle" to
help her expel media.
And as of today, we now have an American public university actually
asking its students to call the police if someone says something that
hurts their feelings:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/88475764/Mizzou.jpg
This is American progressivism on naked display. How do you like it?
BTR1701
Nov 10, 2015, 10:27:58 PM11/10/15
to
In article <n1tqa0$tj$1...@news.albasani.net>,
ideology as some other person or group.
So yes, "Barb May" there are fellow travelers of every movement and
ideology under the sun. Pretending they don't exist because you don't
like the term, is idiotic.
"Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:
> Rhino wrote:
> > On 2015-11-10 4:09 PM, Barb May wrote:
> >> Rhino wrote:
> >>> And even if the number of card-carrying Communists in the
> >>> professoriate is not that high, I suspect that the number of "fellow
> >>> travellers" is still substantial.
> >>
> >> "card-carrying"
> >> "fellow-travellers"
> >>
> >> An example of why wingnuts are almost never misquoted because simply
> >> repeating their own statements is always sufficiently damaging to
> >> their credibility that no embellishment is necessary.
> >>
> >
> > And what is your preferred terminology for official members of the
> > Communist Party of the USA if "card-carrying" doesn't cut it for you?
> > Not that I'd use it anyway but I thought card-carrying was a way that
> > was likely to be understood by all. Ditto for "fellow travellers".
>
> Those pejorative phrases are McCarthy-era. There are no "card-carrying"
> communists or "fellow travellers."
"Fellow traveler" is just a euphemism for someone who shares the same
> Rhino wrote:
> > On 2015-11-10 4:09 PM, Barb May wrote:
> >> Rhino wrote:
> >>> And even if the number of card-carrying Communists in the
> >>> professoriate is not that high, I suspect that the number of "fellow
> >>> travellers" is still substantial.
> >>
> >> "card-carrying"
> >> "fellow-travellers"
> >>
> >> An example of why wingnuts are almost never misquoted because simply
> >> repeating their own statements is always sufficiently damaging to
> >> their credibility that no embellishment is necessary.
> >>
> >
> > And what is your preferred terminology for official members of the
> > Communist Party of the USA if "card-carrying" doesn't cut it for you?
> > Not that I'd use it anyway but I thought card-carrying was a way that
> > was likely to be understood by all. Ditto for "fellow travellers".
>
> Those pejorative phrases are McCarthy-era. There are no "card-carrying"
> communists or "fellow travellers."
ideology as some other person or group.
So yes, "Barb May" there are fellow travelers of every movement and
ideology under the sun. Pretending they don't exist because you don't
like the term, is idiotic.
BTR1701
Nov 10, 2015, 10:29:19 PM11/10/15
to
In article <n1u2eb$h58$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 2015-11-10 09:53:30 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> > Given that assumption for the sake of argument, that Obama has been
> > lying about father's identity, I noted "Barb May's" peculiar but
> > predictable hypocrisy regarding the lies of presidential candidates.
>
> And, no... it wouldn't matter if it were true.
>
> Why should who his father is make any difference?
If it were true, it would mean he lied about his background, which we've
been recently told is a horrible sin for a presidential candidate.
wrote:
> On 2015-11-10 09:53:30 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> > Given that assumption for the sake of argument, that Obama has been
> > lying about father's identity, I noted "Barb May's" peculiar but
> > predictable hypocrisy regarding the lies of presidential candidates.
>
> And, no... it wouldn't matter if it were true.
>
> Why should who his father is make any difference?
been recently told is a horrible sin for a presidential candidate.
BTR1701
Nov 10, 2015, 10:35:36 PM11/10/15
to
In article <n1tj7p$j68$1...@dont-email.me>,
people. That allows "Barb May" to disingenuously argue that saying "the
number one cause of death for black people is abortion" is a lie.
Rhino <no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:
> On 2015-11-10 2:28 PM, Barb May wrote:
> > Carson has much bigger problems than the lies and embellishments he told
> > years ago. He's telling some whoppers right now:
> On 2015-11-10 2:28 PM, Barb May wrote:
> > Carson has much bigger problems than the lies and embellishments he told
> > years ago. He's telling some whoppers right now:
> > "The No. 1 cause of death for black people is abortion."
> >
> A great many of the abortions that take place in the US DO take place on
> black women, as I understand it. Isn't it the case that abortions on
> black women exceed the number of blacks who are murdered each year? If
> so, then Carson is correct.
No, you see the pro-abortion people don't consider the aborted to be
> >
> A great many of the abortions that take place in the US DO take place on
> black women, as I understand it. Isn't it the case that abortions on
> black women exceed the number of blacks who are murdered each year? If
> so, then Carson is correct.
people. That allows "Barb May" to disingenuously argue that saying "the
number one cause of death for black people is abortion" is a lie.
BTR1701
Nov 10, 2015, 10:38:56 PM11/10/15
to
In article <n1u2vv$ilb$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:
And none of them were federal positions. The only ones who *might*
qualify are those who served in the Continental Congress, which was the
governing body during the Revolution, but since it was organized under
the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution, the claim is murky
at best.
wrote:
qualify are those who served in the Continental Congress, which was the
governing body during the Revolution, but since it was organized under
the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution, the claim is murky
at best.
Adam H. Kerman
Nov 10, 2015, 11:03:36 PM11/10/15
to
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>And none of them were federal positions. The only ones who *might*
>qualify are those who served in the Continental Congress, which was the
>governing body during the Revolution, but since it was organized under
>the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution, the claim is murky
>at best.
The Continental Congress raised on army. Did that make it the federal
>And none of them were federal positions. The only ones who *might*
>qualify are those who served in the Continental Congress, which was the
>governing body during the Revolution, but since it was organized under
>the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution, the claim is murky
>at best.
government? It's hard to argue that it was a federal government prior
to 1781.
FPP
Nov 10, 2015, 11:18:07 PM11/10/15
to
what was being referenced in the post - so it's not our of the realm of
possibility to say that it was a reference to communists or communism.
> In its literal meaning 'fellow traveller' just means someone who
> travels with you. It was first applied to non-communists who were
> inclined toward the views of the Communist Party by Leon Trotsky. He
> used the Russian word popútchik to indicate that. The term 'fellow
> traveller' in this sense came rather later, in the New York publication
> Nation, 1936:
BTR1701
Nov 10, 2015, 11:26:29 PM11/10/15
to
In article <n1ufdj$ev8$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Even if it was a reference to communists, that doesn't make it an
invalid term or that it references something non-existent.
wrote:
invalid term or that it references something non-existent.
FPP
Nov 10, 2015, 11:26:51 PM11/10/15
to
On 2015-11-10 22:40:20 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> In article <n1u2vv$ilb$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-10 15:17:20 -0500, Rhino
>> <no_offline_c...@example.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>>> "Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no federal elected
>>>> office experience"
>>>>
>>> I don't know the history of the American Revolution terribly well -
>>> it's not my country - so can you name a signer of the Declaration of
>>> Independence who *did* have significant experience in some kind of
>>> elected office? Obviously, it would have to be in offices of the
>>> British Crown but I would think governorship of a British colony would
>>> be comparable to governorship of an American state, for example.
>>
>> Christ Jesus, at least half of them did...
>>
>> Ä John Adams. Elected to Massachusetts Assembly, 1770; attended First
> In article <n1u2vv$ilb$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-10 15:17:20 -0500, Rhino
>> <no_offline_c...@example.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>>> "Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no federal elected
>>>> office experience"
>>>>
>>> I don't know the history of the American Revolution terribly well -
>>> it's not my country - so can you name a signer of the Declaration of
>>> Independence who *did* have significant experience in some kind of
>>> elected office? Obviously, it would have to be in offices of the
>>> British Crown but I would think governorship of a British colony would
>>> be comparable to governorship of an American state, for example.
>>
>> Christ Jesus, at least half of them did...
>>
>> Continental Congress, 1774-1776.
>>
>> Ä Thomas Jefferson. Represented Albemarle County as a delegate in the
>> Virginia House of Burgesses, 1769-1775
>>
>> Ä Benjamin Franklin. Philadelphia councilman, 1748; elected to the
>>
>> Pennsylvania Assembly, 1751.
>>
>> Ä John Hancock. Elected to the Boston Assembly, 1766; president of the
>> provincial congress of Massachusetts, c. 1773; elected to the
>> Continental Congress, 1774, and then president of the congress in 1775.
>>
>> Ä Samuel Adams. Elected to Massachusetts Assembly, 1765; delegate to
>> Continental Congress, 1774, and then president of the congress in 1775.
>>
>> the First Continental Congress, 1774.
>>
>> Ä Elbridge Gerry. Elected to Massachusetts Legislature, 1773;
>>
>> provincial Congress, 1774.
>>
>> Ä Roger Sherman. Elected to Connecticut General Assembly, representing
>> New Milford, 1755-1758 and 1760-1761; elected to various offices
>> representing New Haven in the 1760s and 1770s; elected to the
>> Continental Congress starting in 1774.
>>
>> Ä Caesar Rodney. Elected to Delaware Colonial Assembly, 1758-1770 and
>> representing New Haven in the 1760s and 1770s; elected to the
>> Continental Congress starting in 1774.
>>
>> 1771-1776; delegate to the Stamp Act Congress, 1765; elected to the
>> Continental Congress, 1774.
>>
>> Ä George Taylor. Elected to Pennsylvania provincial assembly, 1764-69;
>> Continental Congress, 1774.
>>
>> elected to Continental Congress, 1775.
>>
>> Ä John Morton. Elected to Pennsylvania provincial assembly, 1756-1775;
>>
>> delegate to the Stamp Act Congress, 1765; president of the provincial
>> assembly, 1775.
>>
>> Ä George Ross. Elected to Pennsylvania provincial assembly, 1768-1776;
>> assembly, 1775.
>>
>> Elected to Continental Congress, 1774.
>>
>> Ä James Wilson. Elected to Pennsylvania provincial congress, 1775;
>>
>> elected to the Continental Congress, 1775.
>>
>> Ä Thomas McKean. Member of the Delaware Assembly, 1762-79; Delegate to
>>
>> the Stamp Act Congress, 1765; delegate to the Continental Congress,
>> 1774.
>>
>> Ä Matthew Thornton. Member of the New Hampshire provincial assembly,
>> 1774.
>>
>> 1758-1762.
>>
>> Ä William Whipple. Elected to New Hampshire provincial congress, 1775 and
>> 1776.
>>
>> Ä Stephen Hopkins. Speaker of the Rhode Island Assembly,1750s; member
>> of the Continental Congress beginning in 1774.
>>
>> Ä Lewis Morris. Member of New York provincial legislature; delegate to
>>
>> the Continental Congress, 1775.
>>
>> Ä Philip Livingston. Alderman, New York City.
>>
>> Ä Carter Braxton. Virginia House of Burgesses, 1770-1785; delegate to
>> the Continental Congress, 1774-75.
>>
>> Ä Thomas Nelson Jr. Member of the House of Burgesses, 1774; Virginia
>> provincial convention, 1775.
>>
>> Ä Francis Lightfoot Lee. Member of the Virginia House of Burgesses
>> 1758-1775; elected to Continental Congress, 1775.
>>
>> Ä Benjamin Harrison. Elected to Virginia House of Burgesses, 1764;
>>
>> member of the Continental Congress, 1774.
>>
>> Ä George Wythe. Member of the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1755-65.
>>
>>
>> Ä William Hooper. Elected to general assembly of North Carolina, 1773;
>> member of Continental Congress, 1774-1776.
>>
>> Ä Joseph Hewes. Member of the colonial assembly of North Carolina,
>>
>> 1766-1775; member of new provincial assembly, 1775; elected to
>> Continental Congress, 1774.
>>
>> Ä John Hart. Member of the New Jersey Assembly, 1761-1771; member of
>> Continental Congress, 1774.
>>
>> provincial assembly, 1775; elected to the Continental Congress, 1776.
>>
>> Ä William Williams. Town clerk, selectman, provincial representative,
>>
>> elected state legislator, delegate to colonial conferences, 1770s.
>>
>> Ä William Paca. Delegate to the Maryland Legislature, 1771; elected to
>>
>> Continental Congress, 1774.
>
> And none of them were federal positions. The only ones who *might*
> qualify are those who served in the Continental Congress, which was the
> governing body during the Revolution, but since it was organized under
> the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution, the claim is murky
> at best.
What did you use to split that hair... a laser?
>
> And none of them were federal positions. The only ones who *might*
> qualify are those who served in the Continental Congress, which was the
> governing body during the Revolution, but since it was organized under
> the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution, the claim is murky
> at best.
But that isn't what originally Carson said... he edited it to add the
word "Federal". Here is Carson's original statement:
> "You are absolutely right — I have no political experience," Carson
> wrote in the initial version of his post. "The current Members of
> Congress have a combined 8,700 years of political experience. Are we
> sure political experience is what we need.
>
> Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no elected office
> experience. What they had was a deep belief that freedom is a gift from
> God. They had a determination to rise up against a tyrannical King.
> They were willing to risk all they had, even their lives, to be free."
His edit is as laughable as his claims, if he (or you) think that's
going to get him off the hook.
> The signers had 'no federal elected office experience'
>
> The edit Carson made to the Facebook post doesn’t help his case, since
> there was no federal government before the Declaration of Independence
> was signed. This makes his entire claim illogical, experts say,
>
> "Of course they did not have federal elected office experience because
> there was no federal government at the time -- we were a British
> colony," said Michael Gerhardt, scholar in residence at the National
> Constitution Center and professor of constitutional law at the
> University of North Carolina.
>
> "It does not make sense to use the term ‘federal’ when no federal
> government existed," agreed Danielle Allen, a political theorist and
> author of Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence
> in Defense of Equality. "The signers of the declaration very often had
> leading political experience in their colony or, as they called them,
> in their ‘countries.’ "
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/08/ben-carson/ben-carson-said-no-one-who-signed-declaration-inde/
The
man is an idiot... and anybody who defends his idiotic statements is an
idiot as well.
--
When we talk to God, we're praying. When God talks to us, we're
schizophrenic. -J Wagner
FPP
Nov 10, 2015, 11:30:58 PM11/10/15
to
If so, I'd gather that showering is a greater killer of people than abortions.
Or scratching ones balls...
--
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. -W Rogers
BTR1701
Nov 10, 2015, 11:32:43 PM11/10/15
to
In article <n1ug5m$gjt$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 2015-11-10 22:36:55 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <n1tj7p$j68$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Rhino <no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-11-10 2:28 PM, Barb May wrote:
> >
> >>> Carson has much bigger problems than the lies and embellishments he told
> >>> years ago. He's telling some whoppers right now:
> >
> >>> "The No. 1 cause of death for black people is abortion."
> >>>
> >> A great many of the abortions that take place in the US DO take place on
> >> black women, as I understand it. Isn't it the case that abortions on
> >> black women exceed the number of blacks who are murdered each year? If
> >> so, then Carson is correct.
> >
> > No, you see the pro-abortion people don't consider the aborted to be
> > people. That allows "Barb May" to disingenuously argue that saying "the
> > number one cause of death for black people is abortion" is a lie.
>
> Do you consider a collection of cells to be a person?
*Everyone* is a collection of cells, you dipshit.
wrote:
> On 2015-11-10 22:36:55 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <n1tj7p$j68$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Rhino <no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-11-10 2:28 PM, Barb May wrote:
> >
> >>> Carson has much bigger problems than the lies and embellishments he told
> >>> years ago. He's telling some whoppers right now:
> >
> >>> "The No. 1 cause of death for black people is abortion."
> >>>
> >> A great many of the abortions that take place in the US DO take place on
> >> black women, as I understand it. Isn't it the case that abortions on
> >> black women exceed the number of blacks who are murdered each year? If
> >> so, then Carson is correct.
> >
> > No, you see the pro-abortion people don't consider the aborted to be
> > people. That allows "Barb May" to disingenuously argue that saying "the
> > number one cause of death for black people is abortion" is a lie.
>
> Do you consider a collection of cells to be a person?
FPP
Nov 10, 2015, 11:33:57 PM11/10/15
to
Because it wasn't part of the discussion here.
Carson is a liar. He lies about his qualifications. He lies about his
achievements. He just plain lies about things because, although he's
very accomplished in his field, he's a moron when it comes to many,
many things outside of his field.
Like the Declaration of Independence, and Egyptian food storage containers.
And idiots love him for it!
--
I no doubt deserved my enemies, but I don't believe I deserved my
friends. -Whitman
FPP
Nov 10, 2015, 11:39:05 PM11/10/15
to
person, either.
So... is a collection of cells a person, or not?
BTR1701
Nov 10, 2015, 11:40:23 PM11/10/15
to
In article <n1ugkt$hbs$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 2015-11-10 23:34:07 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <n1ug5m$gjt$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-11-10 22:36:55 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >>
> >>> In article <n1tj7p$j68$1...@dont-email.me>,
> >>> Rhino <no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2015-11-10 2:28 PM, Barb May wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Carson has much bigger problems than the lies and embellishments he told
> >>>>> years ago. He's telling some whoppers right now:
> >>>
> >>>>> "The No. 1 cause of death for black people is abortion."
> >>>>>
> >>>> A great many of the abortions that take place in the US DO take place on
> >>>> black women, as I understand it. Isn't it the case that abortions on
> >>>> black women exceed the number of blacks who are murdered each year? If
> >>>> so, then Carson is correct.
> >>>
> >>> No, you see the pro-abortion people don't consider the aborted to be
> >>> people. That allows "Barb May" to disingenuously argue that saying "the
> >>> number one cause of death for black people is abortion" is a lie.
> >>
> >> Do you consider a collection of cells to be a person?
> >
> > *Everyone* is a collection of cells, you dipshit.
>
> Every living thing is a collections, you moron... but an amoeba isn't a
> person, either.
I'm not the one making the "collection of cells" argument. You are.
> On 2015-11-10 23:34:07 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <n1ug5m$gjt$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-11-10 22:36:55 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >>
> >>> In article <n1tj7p$j68$1...@dont-email.me>,
> >>> Rhino <no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2015-11-10 2:28 PM, Barb May wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Carson has much bigger problems than the lies and embellishments he told
> >>>>> years ago. He's telling some whoppers right now:
> >>>
> >>>>> "The No. 1 cause of death for black people is abortion."
> >>>>>
> >>>> A great many of the abortions that take place in the US DO take place on
> >>>> black women, as I understand it. Isn't it the case that abortions on
> >>>> black women exceed the number of blacks who are murdered each year? If
> >>>> so, then Carson is correct.
> >>>
> >>> No, you see the pro-abortion people don't consider the aborted to be
> >>> people. That allows "Barb May" to disingenuously argue that saying "the
> >>> number one cause of death for black people is abortion" is a lie.
> >>
> >> Do you consider a collection of cells to be a person?
> >
> > *Everyone* is a collection of cells, you dipshit.
>
> Every living thing is a collections, you moron... but an amoeba isn't a
> person, either.
David Johnston
Nov 11, 2015, 12:34:09 AM11/11/15
to
did exist before the Declaration of Independence. Carson's claim is
false. And more importantly dumb since he was trying to claim that
before the federal government existed nobody had been elected to a
position in it, an idiotic circular statement as a fallback from his
original claim that none of them had a track record as politicians.
David Johnston
Nov 11, 2015, 12:37:05 AM11/11/15
to
On 11/10/2015 8:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <n1u2eb$h58$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-10 09:53:30 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
>>> Given that assumption for the sake of argument, that Obama has been
>>> lying about father's identity, I noted "Barb May's" peculiar but
>>> predictable hypocrisy regarding the lies of presidential candidates.
>>
>> And, no... it wouldn't matter if it were true.
>>
>> Why should who his father is make any difference?
>
> If it were true, it would mean he lied about his background,
No it wouldn't. Not every incorrect statement is a lie. You have to
> In article <n1u2eb$h58$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-10 09:53:30 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
>>> Given that assumption for the sake of argument, that Obama has been
>>> lying about father's identity, I noted "Barb May's" peculiar but
>>> predictable hypocrisy regarding the lies of presidential candidates.
>>
>> And, no... it wouldn't matter if it were true.
>>
>> Why should who his father is make any difference?
>
> If it were true, it would mean he lied about his background,
knowingly and deliberately say something false in order to lie.
Adam H. Kerman
Nov 11, 2015, 12:49:11 AM11/11/15
to
Confederation. The Declaration of Independence was signed by representatives
of each "former" colony, now referring to itself as a state. They were
"United States of America" for the purposes of the Declaration but hadn't
gotten to the point unifying as a nation.
Johnston, do you have a clue as to why it was called the "Continental"
Congress? They were still hoping to get the British entirely off the
continent. The not-yet Canadians were still royalists.
David Johnston
Nov 11, 2015, 12:55:57 AM11/11/15
to
qualify as a government.
Adam H. Kerman
Nov 11, 2015, 1:01:54 AM11/11/15
to
I'd still say it wasn't yet a government either.
The Third wrote the Articles of Confederation, which formed a weak
central government.
FPP
Nov 11, 2015, 2:50:05 AM11/11/15
to
were greater than the number of blacks murdered.
So, you need to define the terms, if you're going to present Carson's
viewpoint as correct. So define them. What constitutes an abortion?
Is cleaning out a collections of cells equivalent to killing a person?
How many of these abortions are done because to carry to term would
kill the mother? Are those included?
Until we can determine these things, Carson's points are not comparable.
FPP
Nov 11, 2015, 3:05:30 AM11/11/15
to
> On 2015-11-11 04:41:38 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
>>>>>> No, you see the pro-abortion people don't consider the aborted to be
>>>>>> people. That allows "Barb May" to disingenuously argue that saying "the
>>>>>> number one cause of death for black people is abortion" is a lie.
>
You're fond of making legal pronouncements, right... so tell me, how
>
>>>>>> No, you see the pro-abortion people don't consider the aborted to be
>>>>>> people. That allows "Barb May" to disingenuously argue that saying "the
>>>>>> number one cause of death for black people is abortion" is a lie.
>
many times do you think "abortion" has been listed as "Cause of Death"
on Death Certificates?
That is, legally, how we record Deaths in the USA... so what are the stats?
Last I checked, if the abortion was legally performed, it doesn't count
under the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
--
It's true hard work never killed anybody, but I figure, why take the
chance? -R Reagan
trotsky
Nov 11, 2015, 7:06:48 AM11/11/15
to
On 11/9/15 10:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <n1rbof$14c$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-09 15:34:22 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <n1qmo9$4dj$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>>>> Even if Davis was Obama's real father - which you probably couldn't
>>>>> prove without some DNA from both Davis and Obama - proving it today
>>>>> would still be 7 or 8 years too late to make any difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> If this information had been presented in 2007/2008, before the
>>>>> election, it might have been quite relevant to a signficant number of
>>>>> people.
>>>>
>>>> Correction: "it might have been quite relevant to a significant number
>>>> of racist and/or dishonest assholes"
>>>>
>>>>> In 2015, with Obama starting his final year as president, what
>>>>> difference does it really make now?
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter now who or what Obama's father was and it never did.
>>>
>>> Well, at a minimum, it would mean Obama was lying about his father.
>>> Since we have the media telling us now with regard to Carson that lying
>>> about anything in your past, no matter how distant in time and
>>> inconsequential in effect, is significant and newsworthy for a
>>> candidate, it's hard to imagine how Obama lying about his father's
>>> identity wouldn't have been significant and newsworthy as well.
>>
>> Laughable.
>
> And yet it's interesting that you can't *actually* explain why Carson's
> lies are super-duper important, yet Obama lying about his father's
> identity would be <shrug>.
Excellent point, but the more important one is that you're admitting to
Carson's lying. Oops!!
> In article <n1rbof$14c$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-09 15:34:22 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <n1qmo9$4dj$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>>>> Even if Davis was Obama's real father - which you probably couldn't
>>>>> prove without some DNA from both Davis and Obama - proving it today
>>>>> would still be 7 or 8 years too late to make any difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> If this information had been presented in 2007/2008, before the
>>>>> election, it might have been quite relevant to a signficant number of
>>>>> people.
>>>>
>>>> Correction: "it might have been quite relevant to a significant number
>>>> of racist and/or dishonest assholes"
>>>>
>>>>> In 2015, with Obama starting his final year as president, what
>>>>> difference does it really make now?
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter now who or what Obama's father was and it never did.
>>>
>>> Well, at a minimum, it would mean Obama was lying about his father.
>>> Since we have the media telling us now with regard to Carson that lying
>>> about anything in your past, no matter how distant in time and
>>> inconsequential in effect, is significant and newsworthy for a
>>> candidate, it's hard to imagine how Obama lying about his father's
>>> identity wouldn't have been significant and newsworthy as well.
>>
>> Laughable.
>
> And yet it's interesting that you can't *actually* explain why Carson's
> lies are super-duper important, yet Obama lying about his father's
> identity would be <shrug>.
Excellent point, but the more important one is that you're admitting to
Carson's lying. Oops!!
trotsky
Nov 11, 2015, 7:11:29 AM11/11/15
to
On 11/10/15 10:35 AM, Barb May wrote:
> Nope. You lied about what I said and now you're calling me a hypocrite
> based on the lie you created. That's pathetic, and yet that's what you
> do time and time again. Why are you so freakin dishonest?
Teabagger.
> Nope. You lied about what I said and now you're calling me a hypocrite
> based on the lie you created. That's pathetic, and yet that's what you
> do time and time again. Why are you so freakin dishonest?
Teabagger.
trotsky
Nov 11, 2015, 7:14:38 AM11/11/15
to
On 11/10/15 4:15 PM, Barb May wrote:
> Rhino wrote:
>> It's not surprising that you are resorting to ad hominem slurs rather
> Rhino wrote:
>> than discussing the gist of what I actually said: after all ad hominem
>> is your go-to move when you can't refute the actual point being made.
>
> Yawn. That wasn't an ad hominem, you idiot. <--------------- That's an
> ad hominem.
And yet, interestingly, Rhino correctly used "ad hominem" as an
adjective and you didn't.
trotsky
Nov 11, 2015, 7:19:50 AM11/11/15
to
On 11/11/15 1:50 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 2015-11-11 04:41:38 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
>> I'm not the one making the "collection of cells" argument. You are.
>
> You're presenting Carson's viewpoint that the number of blacks aborted
> were greater than the number of blacks murdered.
Yes, but in a previous post he also admitted that Carson is a liar.
> On 2015-11-11 04:41:38 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
>> I'm not the one making the "collection of cells" argument. You are.
>
> You're presenting Carson's viewpoint that the number of blacks aborted
> were greater than the number of blacks murdered.
moviePig
Nov 11, 2015, 9:17:59 AM11/11/15
to
'communism' (a.k.a. 'godless communism').
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
moviePig
Nov 11, 2015, 9:29:46 AM11/11/15
to
> *Everyone* is a collection of cells, you dipshit.
Michael Black
Nov 11, 2015, 11:33:38 AM11/11/15
to
who had similar thoughts, but weren't card carrying members. I can't
remember if Woody Guthrie was a card carrying member, or just a fellow
traveller.
It reminds me, since it's Remembrance Day here in Canada today, of the
father of a friend, who was the last surviving Canadian volunteer to the
Repulbican side during the Spanish Civil War. He died two years ago, he
was one of the youngest Canadian volunteers.
Anyway, one book has a passage about him. He was asked, by the Russian
communists in Spain, to do some spying or something on behalf of the
party, which he declined. In essence, he was a good communist, not a
great communist, at least by party terms.
He spent about a year in Franco's POW camps, then came back. He served in
WWII, but they wouldn't let him overseas, so he taugh maps skills and
such.
Michael
Barb May
Nov 11, 2015, 12:10:42 PM11/11/15
to
BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <n1tqa0$tj$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> Rhino wrote:
>>> On 2015-11-10 4:09 PM, Barb May wrote:
>>>> Rhino wrote:
>>>>> And even if the number of card-carrying Communists in the
>>>>> professoriate is not that high, I suspect that the number of
>>>>> "fellow travellers" is still substantial.
>>>>
>>>> "card-carrying"
>>>> "fellow-travellers"
>>>>
>>>> An example of why wingnuts are almost never misquoted because
>>>> simply repeating their own statements is always sufficiently
>>>> damaging to their credibility that no embellishment is necessary.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And what is your preferred terminology for official members of the
>>> Communist Party of the USA if "card-carrying" doesn't cut it for
>>> you? Not that I'd use it anyway but I thought card-carrying was a
>>> way that was likely to be understood by all. Ditto for "fellow
>>> travellers".
>>
>> Those pejorative phrases are McCarthy-era. There are no
>> "card-carrying" communists or "fellow travellers."
>
> "Fellow traveler" is just a euphemism for someone who shares the same
> ideology as some other person or group.
"Fellow traveler" is nothing but a cheap smear tactic used by losers who
> In article <n1tqa0$tj$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> Rhino wrote:
>>> On 2015-11-10 4:09 PM, Barb May wrote:
>>>> Rhino wrote:
>>>>> And even if the number of card-carrying Communists in the
>>>>> professoriate is not that high, I suspect that the number of
>>>>> "fellow travellers" is still substantial.
>>>>
>>>> "card-carrying"
>>>> "fellow-travellers"
>>>>
>>>> An example of why wingnuts are almost never misquoted because
>>>> simply repeating their own statements is always sufficiently
>>>> damaging to their credibility that no embellishment is necessary.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And what is your preferred terminology for official members of the
>>> Communist Party of the USA if "card-carrying" doesn't cut it for
>>> you? Not that I'd use it anyway but I thought card-carrying was a
>>> way that was likely to be understood by all. Ditto for "fellow
>>> travellers".
>>
>> Those pejorative phrases are McCarthy-era. There are no
>> "card-carrying" communists or "fellow travellers."
>
> "Fellow traveler" is just a euphemism for someone who shares the same
> ideology as some other person or group.
rely on false equivalencies.
--
Barb
BTR1701
Nov 11, 2015, 1:20:17 PM11/11/15
to
In article <n1urr1$emj$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
No, I'm challenging "Barb May's" claim that it's a lie by pointing out
the disingenuous way she (and other progs) gets there.
the disingenuous way she (and other progs) gets there.
BTR1701
Nov 11, 2015, 1:22:14 PM11/11/15
to
In article <56434e15$0$1619$c3e8da3$12bc...@news.astraweb.com>,
And right after that she said "There are no 'card-carrying' communists
or 'fellow travellers.'"
And "Barb May" has no business complaining about the use of pejorative
descriptors, since that's pretty much her stock in trade.
or 'fellow travellers.'"
And "Barb May" has no business complaining about the use of pejorative
descriptors, since that's pretty much her stock in trade.
BTR1701
Nov 11, 2015, 1:24:15 PM11/11/15
to
In article <n1vsqf$sfc$1...@news.albasani.net>,
Yes, "Barb May", everyone knows one of the tried and true methods of
every prog is to demonize, then sanitize the language of anything
derogatory to the agenda.
No need to put on a master class for us here.
every prog is to demonize, then sanitize the language of anything
derogatory to the agenda.
No need to put on a master class for us here.
Barb May
Nov 11, 2015, 2:24:47 PM11/11/15
to
FACT: The term was not turned into a pejorative by "progs" but instead
by conservative red-baiters during the 1940s and 1950s
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404100437.html
"In the post-World War II era, "fellow traveler" became a term of
derision, applied by conservatives to people who were communists in all
but party affiliation. Albert Einstein, for example, was called a "dupe
and a fellow traveler" by Time magazine in 1949 for his outspoken belief
in socialism."
--
Barb
BTR1701
Nov 11, 2015, 2:46:13 PM11/11/15
to
In article <n204ls$c5t$1...@news.albasani.net>,
Says the person who recently gave us this beaut:
"Overcoming ethnocentrism through developing intercultural communication
sensitivity and multiculturalism"
> FACT: The term was not turned into a pejorative by "progs" but instead
> by conservative red-baiters during the 1940s and 1950s
I didn't say it was. I said it's progs who try and sanitize language.
"Overcoming ethnocentrism through developing intercultural communication
sensitivity and multiculturalism"
> FACT: The term was not turned into a pejorative by "progs" but instead
> by conservative red-baiters during the 1940s and 1950s
FPP
Nov 11, 2015, 3:25:27 PM11/11/15
to
--
Atheism is a non prophet organization.
FPP
Nov 11, 2015, 3:29:03 PM11/11/15
to
lied about his father - and your contention is that it's the left
that's demonizing people?
Outside of whining, what has the right managed to do, besides trick a
bunch of rubes into voting against their own self interests?
Were you asleep during the last 7 years, where Obama has been demonized
for just about any and all positions he's taken?
--
Only the mediocre are always at their best. - Giraudoux
FPP
Nov 11, 2015, 3:32:08 PM11/11/15
to
Tell us... or continue to try and have it both ways. Because THAT
always wins in the end.
--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice there is. -Yogi Berra
Barb May
Nov 11, 2015, 4:13:32 PM11/11/15
to
http://www.uab.edu/Communicationstudies/humancommunication/11.1.3.pdf
Overcoming Ethnocentrism through Developing Intercultural Communication
Sensitivity and Multiculturalism (2008)
by Qingwen Dong , Kenneth D. Day , Christine M. Collaço
Abstract
This study, based on a survey of 419 young adults, found that high
levels of individuals' intercultural communication sensitivity and
multiculturalism are significant predictors of reducing individuals '
ethnocentrism. As a leading country in diversity, equality and
democracy, the United States is expected to continue its leading
position in appreciating cultural diversity and respecting
ethnic/cultural identities. The results suggest that promoting
intercultural communication sensitivity and multiculturalism is a
possible measure to overcome ethnocentrism and reduce conflicts among
intergroup interactions.
--------------------------------------------
I quoted it to prove that reducing ethnocentrism is indeed a legitimate
educational goal.
>
>> FACT: The term was not turned into a pejorative by "progs" but
>> instead by conservative red-baiters during the 1940s and 1950s
>
> I didn't say it was. I said it's progs who try and sanitize language.
--
Barb
BTR1701
Nov 11, 2015, 4:41:18 PM11/11/15
to
In article <n20b1p$on3$1...@news.albasani.net>,
You still used it in furtherance of your argument.
> >> FACT: The term was not turned into a pejorative by "progs" but
> >> instead by conservative red-baiters during the 1940s and 1950s
> >
> > I didn't say it was. I said it's progs who try and sanitize language.
>
> You said it in reference to "fellow traveller."
Yes.
> So you lied....again.
Nope, because that's exactly what you're doing.
> >> FACT: The term was not turned into a pejorative by "progs" but
> >> instead by conservative red-baiters during the 1940s and 1950s
> >
> > I didn't say it was. I said it's progs who try and sanitize language.
>
> You said it in reference to "fellow traveller."
> So you lied....again.
Nope, because that's exactly what you're doing.
trotsky
Nov 12, 2015, 6:56:36 AM11/12/15
to
Didn't Carson read the training manual?
trotsky
Nov 12, 2015, 6:57:59 AM11/12/15
to
0 new messages