OBAMA: You can put lipstick on a pig . . .

[finity]

Isn't getting one right taken away enough?

You say that folks are better off economically with a
democrat administration:
How much are your rights worth?

Heller was a very close vote, do you really want
a socialist like Obama (backed by the current Congress)
appointing the next one or two Supreme Court judges?

How many rights have we lost under the current adminstration? Republicans are not automatically in favor of gun rights. GWB sent his solicitor general to the USSC to argue for DC in Heller.

Do you really want a possible (if he continues down the GWB path) fascist McCain elected so that he can continue to whittle away at our rights just like the last 8 years. At this point I don't think it will be that way. I hope not. The only thing that will stand in his way is the Democratic Congress.

 

[Justus]

yes people are generally better off during a Democratic (SIC) Presidents administration compared to a Republican one. Unemployment is generally lower & inflation is also generally lower. I posted the numbers on here somewhere just recently. Look them up & become educated.

How many times do I have to say it:

I am not enthralled with either candidate. I hate Obamas views on gun control, until recently. McCains isn't terribly better, until recently. We don't need four more years of Bush. I'm looking at both sides.

1) It's easy to blame the cyclical economic statistics on the Republicans
because they have spent more time than the Dems in the White House in the last 30 years.

2) Again I ask, what dollar amount do you place on our 2nd Amendment?

 

[Bill of Rights]

1) It's easy to blame the cyclical economic statistics on the Republicans
because they have spent more time than the Dems in the White House in the last 30 years.

2) Again I ask, what dollar amount do you place on our 2nd Amendment?

Thank you, Justus, for stating the issues so succinctly.

Yes, finity, I am aware of the contrast between the polar opposites of fascism and socialism. As it happens, I was once called both of those in the same post by the same person. Neither applied any more then than they do now, which is not at all. I am a libertarian; I oppose both. Note that that was lower case intentionally.

One of our current major candidates "might" continue down the unConstitutional road GWB pursued. The other has clearly stated he would disregard the Constitution on which he supposedly lectured. This means either that he is intentionally disregarding that which he knows or it means that he is a fraud who knew not his subject matter. The above question is what it comes down to. Oh yeah, we had more money in the bank when Clinton was President, I'll grant you that one. Allow me to put this in perspective, however, finity:

A man saw a beautiful woman in a bar. Both of them were nicely dressed and appeared fairly well-to do. After they talked a little, the man asked the woman if she would sleep with him that night for one million dollars. Shocked, she smiled and agreed to do so. He then asked, "How about for ten bucks?"
Her expression changed and offended, she refused, "Of course not! What kind of girl do you think I am?
And he responded calmly, "We've already established that. Now we're just haggling about price."

If you are willing to sacrifice a few bucks in your bank account or a nice car in your garage to fight for and/or keep your ability to exercise your rights, you are a patriot.
If instead you would sacrifice those rights for some monetary price, there are other applicable terms that fit that situation.

Blessings,
B

 

[CarmelHP]

Do you really want a possible (if he continues down the GWB path) fascist McCain elected so that he can continue to whittle away at our rights just like the last 8 years. At this point I don't think it will be that way. I hope not. The only thing that will stand in his way is the Democratic Congress.

What a load of crap. How many mothers holding "assault babies" has Bush ordered executed? How many churches on US soil has he burned? You wants rights lost, I'll stack that murderer Clinton against Bush any day of the week.

 

[CarmelHP]

His views are in line with most Democratic administrations. People generally are better off economically during Democratic administrations compared to Republican ones. These are facts. As I was told, do your own research instead of being told what to think by Rush or those on Fox & Friends.

What was the tax rate under Johnson or Carter compared to Reagan? What was the unemployment rate or interest rate under Reagan or GHW Bush compared to any Democrat in the last 40 years? You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Episcopus]

My honest opinion of an Obama presidency is that he will handle it no differently than he did his duties as president of the Harvard Law Review (which by the way, he contributed no writing).

Editors edit. He was an editor. The Harvard Law Review isn't a high school newspaper. People from all over the world write scholarly articles on myriad topics and submit them. The editors choose which articles go in the review.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Editors edit. He was an editor. The Harvard Law Review isn't a high school newspaper. People from all over the world write scholarly articles on myriad topics and submit them. The editors choose which articles go in the review.

Aha, THAT explains it! He still thinks he's doing that job, only now he's focusing on "editing" the Constitution.

Not in MY country, Hussein...

Hmm. If he does manage to win this election... Can we give him a Bible to swear his oath of office upon? I mean a very special Bible... say, one with a cover made of pigskin? Go ahead, Hussein... touch it...



Blessings,
B

 

[Episcopus]

Aha, THAT explains it! He still thinks he's doing that job, only now he's focusing on "editing" the Constitution.

Not in MY country, Hussein...

Hmm. If he does manage to win this election... Can we give him a Bible to swear his oath of office upon? I mean a very special Bible... say, one with a cover made of pigskin? Go ahead, Hussein... touch it...



Blessings,
B

 

[Crystalship1]

. People generally are better off economically during Democratic administrations compared to Republican ones

Who is better off??? The ones funding welfare and other entitlement coffers or the ones suckling from them???

 

[Hoosier8]

Editors edit. He was an editor. The Harvard Law Review isn't a high school newspaper. People from all over the world write scholarly articles on myriad topics and submit them. The editors choose which articles go in the review.

Episcopus,

My point is how he handled that position and that one person that knew him stated he had no idea what he stood for as he never asserted any opinions of his own. Most people that have been in that position contribute. The position was also traditionally filled with people that had the highest GPA and were writers, which was abandoned before he assumed the position going to a vote instead. My point is that some people think he got that position due to his skills and grades, it is just not so. One would think that an editor of anything would at least have a background in writing.

 

[Episcopus]

Episcopus,

My point is how he handled that position and that one person that knew him stated he had no idea what he stood for as he never asserted any opinions of his own. Most people that have been in that position contribute. The position was also traditionally filled with people that had the highest GPA and were writers, which was abandoned before he assumed the position going to a vote instead. My point is that some people think he got that position due to his skills and grades, it is just not so. One would think that an editor of anything would at least have a background in writing.

I understand he may not have gotten the position through grades alone. But his grades were high enough to get on the review. He couldn't have been a C student at Harvard. The Harvard Law Review is the most presitgious law review in the country. They have a reputation to maintain. There is no way that they let unqualified people of any race onto it, and there is no way that they selected an unqualified person to be chief editor. Yes, it would be nice if all editors had a background in writing, but that isn't how law reviews work.

 

[Hoosier8]

I understand he may not have gotten the position through grades alone. But his grades were high enough to get on the review. He couldn't have been a C student at Harvard. The Harvard Law Review is the most presitgious law review in the country. They have a reputation to maintain. There is no way that they let unqualified people of any race onto it, and there is no way that they selected an unqualified person to be chief editor. Yes, it would be nice if all editors had a background in writing, but that isn't how law reviews work.

Actually, no one but Obama and Columbia knows what his GPA was before he went to Harvard. He won't release his grades. And yes, he could be a C student and be the Pres of the Harvard Law Review since it was a vote and votes are political in nature and since they dropped the grade requirement to be Pres. Rumor has it that he got help, either with powerful people, money, or affirmative action, to get into Harvard in the first place. I would like for Obama to dispel all of this by releasing his GPA from Columbia.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Actually, no one but Obama and Columbia knows what his GPA was before he went to Harvard. He won't release his grades. And yes, he could be a C student and be the Pres of the Harvard Law Review since it was a vote and votes are political in nature and since they dropped the grade requirement to be Pres. Rumor has it that he got help, either with powerful people, money, or affirmative action, to get into Harvard in the first place. I would like for Obama to dispel all of this by releasing his GPA from Columbia.

I don't recall if it was in this thread or another one, but while they would not release Obama's GPA, someone from Columbia confirmed that he graduated from there. I'll get back to that in a moment.

Harvard Law has been described here as notoriously difficult in re: entrance requirements. Not only is a 98th-99th percentile LSAT score required, but also an exceptional GPA. I don't recall numbers, but I got the impression that a 3.5 would not be acceptable.

In some schools, a 3.5 is the minimum score for an "honors" diploma, that is, "*** laude". By this same criteria, a 3.75 would be "high honors", or "magna *** laude", while only a perfect 4.0 qualifies for "highest honors" or "summa *** laude".

The gentleman from Columbia said that Obama graduated. If I recall correctly, he said that Obama did not graduate "with honors". (note that that does not say, "he did not say that Obama graduated with honors", which could indicate he simply didn't say. He specifically said that BHO did not graduate with honors.)
Therefore, we know that Obama's Columbia GPA was at best a 3.49.

So if Harvard Law's standard is that "honors" is not sufficient, and Obama didn't even measure up to that standard, how was he admitted there in the first place, let alone any later position on the Law Review?

Logic is a bitch, ain't it, Hussein?

Blessings,
B

 

[Hoosier8]

Federal law limits the information that Columbia can release about Mr. Obama's time there. A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors, Mr. Connolly said, though specific information on his grades is sealed. A program from the 1983 graduation ceremony lists him as a graduate.

Full Article Obama's Years at Columbia Are a Mystery - September 2, 2008 - The New York Sun

Not graduating with honors was from Columbia which makes it probable that Obama got into Harvard with the help of affirmative action. Percy Sutton, at the time a powerful borough president in NY, also wrote to Harvard on his behalf.

 

[Hoosier8]

Another reason it could be dangerous, for Obama and for the Country.

All this matters, for if Obama once was a Muslim, he is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed. Were he elected president of the United States, this status, clearly, would have large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world.
In sum: Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim who rarely or occasionally prayed with his step-father in a mosque. This precisely substantiates my statement that he "for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father."

full article: Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam - article by Daniel Pipes



I do not care if he practiced Islam as he was raised as long as he is honest about it. Many of us have been dragged to a church as a child that they no longer attend later in life. It is just that so many questions have, so far, been left unanswered. The media needs to take thier focus off of Palin and get back to the candidates. I don't think the media is doing it's job.

 

[finity]

1) It's easy to blame the cyclical economic statistics on the Republicans
because they have spent more time than the Dems in the White House in the last 30 years.

2) Again I ask, what dollar amount do you place on our 2nd Amendment?

So you are going to blame economic cycles for the statistically improbable fact that bad things (economically) happen during Republican Administrations & good things happen during Democratic ones (with few exceptions)?

So if the economic cycle is solely responsible for fluctuations and Republicans have more time in office then shouldn't we see about the same number of good admins compared to bad ones (economically speaking of course)?

So no one should vote anything other than gun rights? Bad news people, gun rights aren't even on the radar for most people this election.

You are assuming I am an Obama supporter that I have repeatedly denied.

 

[Hoosier8]

So you are going to blame economic cycles for the statistically improbable fact that bad things (economically) happen during Republican Administrations & good things happen during Democratic ones (with few exceptions)?

So if the economic cycle is solely responsible for fluctuations and Republicans have more time in office then shouldn't we see about the same number of good admins compared to bad ones (economically speaking of course)?

So no one should vote anything other than gun rights? Bad news people, gun rights aren't even on the radar for most people this election.

You are assuming I am an Obama supporter that I have repeatedly denied.

I don't think that the President has much influence on the economy. The economy is made up by millions of purchasing decisions made every day, throughout the world as you will find when our economy is down so goes the world. Remember, I think an argument could be made that the Congress is responsible, if you go that route. The up economy during the Clinton years were totally unexpected by the Clinton admin, even though they took credit for it and attributed it to the tax raise, which is ludicrous. Again, no one had control of the economy. I still remember buying a house for 13% interest during a Republican administration, but that was due to what happened in the Carter years, so I suppose you could say the economy is left in a shambles by Democratic administrations.

Whatever is said, I still don't think they have that much influence so the credit and blame is just a game that suckers fall for.

 

[finity]

If you are willing to sacrifice a few bucks in your bank account or a nice car in your garage to fight for and/or keep your ability to exercise your rights, you are a patriot.
If instead you would sacrifice those rights for some monetary price, there are other applicable terms that fit that situation.

So what huge sums of money have you donated to any organization that fights for our rights ($35 annual membership to the NRA doesn't constitute large sums of money)? Any donations to any organization that has fought the fight against warrantless wiretaps, Guantanamo Bay, rendition programs, elimination of Habeus Corpus? How important are those rights to you?

Do you have a nice car in your garage?

Pot & Kettle...

 

[Bill of Rights]

So what huge sums of money have you donated to any organization that fights for our rights ($35 annual membership to the NRA doesn't constitute large sums of money)? Any donations to any organization that has fought the fight against warrantless wiretaps, Guantanamo Bay, rendition programs, elimination of Habeus Corpus? How important are those rights to you?

Do you have a nice car in your garage?

Pot & Kettle...

I don't have huge sums of money to donate. As it stands, I'm barely getting by each month and most days, I can afford only one meal. I do lobby my representatives and I make my voice heard. Most notably, I lobby on gun rights, but not exclusively so.

My car is eight years old. It's paid off, and while it runs well, all it does is get me to and from work. I can't afford gas to do much else, but I can afford that better than I can a car payment.

I'm in the black, but there's not enough left over to make the pot and kettle black, too.

Blessings,
B

 

[Episcopus]

Actually, no one but Obama and Columbia knows what his GPA was before he went to Harvard. He won't release his grades. And yes, he could be a C student and be the Pres of the Harvard Law Review since it was a vote and votes are political in nature and since they dropped the grade requirement to be Pres. Rumor has it that he got help, either with powerful people, money, or affirmative action, to get into Harvard in the first place. I would like for Obama to dispel all of this by releasing his GPA from Columbia.

His grades at Columbia would have little bearing on the Harvard Law Review. Law review selections are made after the first year of law school. A C-student could not be president of Harvard Law Review because a C student would not be on Harvard Law Review. Again, it isn't a high school newspaper, you don't just select it as a class and enroll. Law review is merit based.