For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: the smartest woman in the world complains about sexism in the campaign (paragraph breaks removed):
In an interview with ABC News' Cynthia McFadden to air on this evening's "Nightline," Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., says it's tougher for her to run as a woman than it is for her male opponent. Asked why she thinks so many women may be feeling sorry for her, Clinton said, "I think a lot of women project their own feelings and their lives onto me, and they see how hard this is. It's hard. It's hard being a woman out there. It is obviously challenging with some of the things that are said that are not even personal to me so much as they are about women."..."Every so often I just wish that it were a little more of an even playing field," she said, "but, you know, I play on whatever field is out there."...But apparently Clinton thinks -- based on this comment -- that the "playing field" is easier for a black man than a white woman.
Can you believe this nonsense? And this from the supposedly smartest woman in the world? Is this modern-day feminism: "Woe is Me" rather than "I am Woman, Watch me Grow!"?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
NBers
February 29, 2008 - 11:15 ET by Noel SheppardNBers,
It's stuff like this that validates what many of us were saying months ago when she was crowned the inevitable candidate: contrary to how the media have presented this woman since 1992, she is a truly gross caricature of an American female. More important, once people got to really see and hear her on the campaign trail, they weren't going to like her.
Regardless of how some Republicans feel about her being more beatable than Obama, I honestly hope that Tuesday is her swan song, and that next week will mark the end of her campaign so that we won't have to hear much from this person for at least three years. ns
If it's President Obama, how
February 29, 2008 - 11:19 ET by Jack BauerIf it's President Obama, how much would you bet against it being Associate Justice Clinton replacing Buzzy Ginsberg?
ARGHH! That would be unbearble
February 29, 2008 - 11:30 ET by SouthJersey1953NO! Please!!! We want to be rid of Hellary.
I cannot imagine having to put up with her for decades as a member of the Supremes
SouthJ... I think it's at
February 29, 2008 - 11:45 ET by Jack BauerSouthJ... I think it's at least a possibility.
She's 60, Obama would likely be a 2 termer, given he'll import 20 million new voters anyway, and it finally rids the DNC of the Clinton problem forever.
And you know that unless Republicans can elect 41 rock solid votes in the Senate, that she'd get confirmed.
Specter would vote for her. Snow.. horrible to contemplate!
Specter would vote for
February 29, 2008 - 13:49 ET by motherbeltSpecter would vote for her. Snow.. horrible to contemplate!
OH, yeah, those two would...in a heartbeat!
And how many other RINO's????
BTW, Jack, speaking of Specter, did you catch it when I posted the reply I got from him regarding his NFL investigation?
Wrong Tree
February 29, 2008 - 12:26 ET by CGattonI'll bet anything reasonable, and maybe even give you odds.
Hillary Clinton specialized in corporate law, although most of her practice actually centered around patent infringement and intellectual property law, while her written output was a gross caricaturization of children's (family) law. Her training in constitutional law is minimal, and a barrier that would be almost impossible to overcome. In addition, her reasoning abilities are severely limited with respect to legal fundamentals.
Even the ridiculously liberal ABA would balk at giving her a qualified recomendation for the Supreme Court. This tidbit, along with the "when Hillary is president she's going to appoint Bill to the Supreme Court," is designed to raise the blood pressure of constitutionalists, and create a feeding frenzy that wastes space and time in blogs, but has no basis in reality. Let's remember now that dear, darling Bill was disbarred - and who does that? Other lawyers, and there aren't enough conservative ones in the country to overrule their liberal counterparts, if they too didn't believe he was unfit to be a lawyer.
Now, before someone else brings it up, I am well aware that there is no requirement that a judge/justice must first be a lawyer - and in fact it has been argued they should not be lawyers as far back as Aristotle - but do you really believe the public would accept that?
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
In addition, her reasoning
February 29, 2008 - 12:54 ET by Jack BauerI cannot argue here as your knowledge of American jurispudence is clearly far greater than mine... however, regarding the above quote, when has that ever been a bar to serving on SCOTUS?
Penumbras and emanations, anyone?
If You Can't Dazzle Them With Brilliance
February 29, 2008 - 13:12 ET by CGatton"...when has that ever been a bar to serving on SCOTUS..."
Clearly not when Douglas was appointed, lol, but that was in 1939, and government worked on a different basis then. The President actually could appoint justices to the Supreme Court when Roosevelt appointed him, without the senate flopping and twitching. Couldn't happen today - and I've already commented about the ABA input - which should have no bearing on the decision, because they should not even be consulted.
Douglas clearly was a member of my old school of thought, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit."
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Not gonna happen
February 29, 2008 - 12:37 ET by ironchefofmunchiesNot gonna happen for two reasons:
1) Hillary has never been a judge at any level. While this is not mandatory, it's awful hard to justify appointing someone to the Supreme Court who never served on any other Court before that. And I don't think raising Hillary's Rose Law Firm experience would be a benefit to Hillary-it'd probably raise some issues she'd rather let lie.
and the MAIN reason it won't happen:
2) You can't run for President as a member of the Supreme Court. If you think Hillary isn't going to run again in 2012 or 2016, you don't know Hillary.
I used to think she'd be
February 29, 2008 - 13:12 ET by motherbeltI used to think she'd be too old, but McCain is paving the way for her, even without Reagan in the past.
Golda Meir was no spring chicken, and didn't Thatcher serve well into her 70's?
Famous political advisor Sharon Stone said HRC was still "too sexy" to be President at the present time. Stone said:
a woman should be "past her sexuality" when she runs for the highest office.
"Hillary still has sexual power, and I don't think people will accept that," she said. "It's too threatening."
Yea, that's right, Sharon. She can't win because (sing it!) she's... too sexy for this shirt, too sexy for this.... party.....LOL
motherbelt, Hillary needs guarantees
February 29, 2008 - 13:14 ET by Mica the MagnificentI don't think Hillary would run again unless she had some guarantees from the democrat party.
You know, things like no opposition or, at the very most, only Dennis Kucinich-like candidates to oppose her.
Well then, we needn't
February 29, 2008 - 14:01 ET by motherbeltWell then, we needn't worry. By that time, literally ALL infatuation with the Clinton brand will be worn so thin as to be non-existent.
Now that I think about it, I think she would be strongly discouraged by the Democrats, for the reason I just stated. They will move on and have no use for either of them.
I stand corrected, by you and by myself. LOL. This is her swan song.
I did say previously that if it were really close between her and Obama, he could be convinced to take VP and go for the brass ring after her terms (of course they're taking 2 for granted), as he is young and she is not. But since it looks like there's not chance of that, if she loses, she'll just entrench herself in the Senate.
I hereby revert to my first-instinct prediction, which I made below, to lightcable.
Never say 'Hillary Clinton'
March 1, 2008 - 01:53 ET by Lord ElicaniNever say 'Hillary Clinton' and 'sexy' in the same sentence again. Ever.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?
What will she do?
February 29, 2008 - 11:26 ET by lightcableAssuming that the Clintons are out of the race soon as now seems inevitable,
does anyone think they'll just go away?
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they left the Democratic Party
and ran an independent campaign. Just imagine, Hil as prez and Bill as VP. I'm
sure there are some big pocket liberals who would love to make it happen.
I've posted my theory
February 29, 2008 - 11:50 ET by motherbeltI've posted my theory before: She will go back to the Senate and attempt to be a female Ted Kennedy...the "Queen Mum" of the Senate.
Bill will go on his "Whining, Venom and Vitriol Tour" during which he will alternately get all choked up about how brave his little Hillary was.... and engage in red-faced, finger-pointing rage at everyone who "opposed" her.
motherbelt
February 29, 2008 - 14:22 ET by QueenMumLet's be careful about taking the name of the Queen Mum in vane.
I suggest the title "Queen Bee" would be more appropriate for Mrs. Clinton.
I am Queen Mum and I approved this message.
Yes, of course Your
February 29, 2008 - 16:30 ET by motherbeltYes, of course Your Majesty! ;-)
How about "Dowager Queen"? (I'm trying to work the "age" angle LOL!)
Queenie
February 29, 2008 - 16:41 ET by CGattonPersonally, I prefer "Queenie," which both nods to her desired royal appellation, and is sufficiently diminutive to demonstrate her true stature, :o).
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
That sounds a little too
February 29, 2008 - 16:57 ET by motherbeltThat sounds a little too young and fun-loving. I think "Dowager Queen" has the proper stiffness and...uh...shall we say....."maturity" to it.
I Concede
February 29, 2008 - 17:47 ET by CGattonOnly because I can't think of anything better, lol, I concede the point. If I may point out, however, "Dowager Queen" has a certain ring of both authority and legitimacy to it, and perhaps conveys some slight amount of pomp (and circumstance?)
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
suggestion............
February 29, 2008 - 19:25 ET by true_texanHow about "Drama Queen"?
With a little luck
February 29, 2008 - 21:06 ET by FastEdit'll be "Queen Wanna Be".
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
What's the Attraction?
February 29, 2008 - 11:31 ET by GothampcI don't understand why women keep buying into her salespitch. The women I've known that have voted for her in NY keep saying: "She'll do so much for women and children." She's had enough time as First Lady and as Senator of NY to really make a mark. Frankly, her career is rather undistinguished. Yet these same women will say vicious things about Condi Rice as if she's eating Christian babies for lunch.
Attraction??
February 29, 2008 - 15:33 ET by ChaitealoverPlease don't judge all women by those you know in NY, that's quite a liberal group you've got there. I don't know any woman in San Diego that's bought into her salespitch, but we're quite conservative, so we know better.
Chai
“...Bury me on my face,” said Diogenes; and when he was asked why, he replied, “Because in a little while everything will be turned upside down.”
Mea Culpa
February 29, 2008 - 16:44 ET by GothampcOh, I didn't mean to imply all women were that way. I know there are women out there that won't vote for Hillary (or any Democrat) because they don't want a socialist government breathing down their neck.
There has been the suggestion
February 29, 2008 - 11:49 ET by FastEd(RL yesterday) that with her candidacy, so goes "feminism". By using the "gender" card, she is admitting that SHE can't make it unless she is treated differently, so sad, but hurray, if you want or need the equality, then you will need or want to be treated as everyone else, no exceptions.
Unfortunately, we will hear from her, as she will still be in the senate, and as the real senior sen from NY, (Chucky is her jr, he's just more verbal and dumber), she will need to keep 'face', by being noticed, using her seats on committees as her pulpit. She will become, like a lot of us here, a loud whiner. ;>0
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Meet Ron Paul's Congressional Opponent!
February 29, 2008 - 11:42 ET by TinianIt's a great interview:
It's time for crazy ol' Uncle Ron Paul to retire.
Even though Ron is nuts he
February 29, 2008 - 12:40 ET by Dan The Man 2Even though Ron is nuts he does have some good point about the constitution and wanting to keep America well America. I think he is nuts and not viable for any office much less congressman, however some of his ideas have been thrown to the wayside by McCain.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Whoa! Wait! Back the
February 29, 2008 - 16:58 ET by motherbeltWhoa! Wait! Back the truck UP!!!!
I thought this campaign wasn't about gender or race!!!
As usual, Her Royal Clintoness wants it both ways.
"but, you know, I play on whatever field is out there."
That's right, Hill, whine about it, but then say it doesn't matter. Just like your whining about the first question, then saying you're glad to field it.
What a joke! On another occasion she said it wasn't about sexism, but then says she's trying to "crash the highest and hardest glass ceiling."
I Am Woman; Hear Me Whine!!
And now, today's Ricin-free
February 29, 2008 - 11:55 ET by Roger the ShrubberAnd now, today's Ricin-free Shrub Report®:
It's Angel vs. Devil!
It's been a busy week in the Father of the Year competition…
Angelina Jolie surprisingly composes an insightful editorial. Good to see her abreast of the situation…The Hufftards react with their usual peace and love: I used to like Angelina but it seems she has become a Nazi collaborator,Only thing that needs to visit the Green Zone is about 10,000 rockets.
While speaking of Hollywood, NBC has no liberal bias. Proof? Watch next week's episode of Medium. Titled "Aftertaste", it's a story about a politician from Arizona who hides a horrible secret: he committed an atrocity as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Gee, a Vietnam War POW Senator from Arizona? Doesn't ring a bell to me….
Forty years ago today, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" wins the Best Album Emmy. Doesn't that make you all feel old?
Today's Culture of Corruption Update. Meanwhile, teamster thug/governor Fast Eddie sings the praises of scumbag.
The Surge is working, and Americans are beginning to see the truth, so, naturally, the Democrat(ic) Party has to ratchet up the "Defeat at all costs!" rhetoric. You lefties just have to be seething at your inept leadership.
The latest in Politically-Correct Douchebaggery…
These tards make Ronulons appear normal.
Code Pink cries out for the Marines.
Are kneepads provided?
Are you ready for March Madness?
Who needs the deserts of Libya and Syria when you have England?
A follow-up to a Shrub Report story from a few days ago.
And, finally, The Pic of the Day, and a bonus Second Great Pic of the Day.
Re: Fast Eddie
February 29, 2008 - 12:02 ET by motherbeltRe: Fast Eddie Rendell
Just so you know..some of us are embarrassed that he is from PA!
Come, on Rog....stop picking on PA.
Ms. Kitchen's bill would amend Title 18, Pennsylvania's statute
delineating state crimes and offenses, to cover displays of symbols
that are "offensive to the race, color, religion, national origin,
ancestry, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender or
gender identity of any individual or group of individuals," according
to a statement by the senator. As such, the legislation could have
implications for the display of objects other than nooses.
Why don't they just outlaw any symbol that offends anyone, anywhere????
Sheesh.
Poor
February 29, 2008 - 12:03 ET by USA4freedomPoor Billary........
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Romney / Jendil 2012 (if,we survive)
If only they would outlaw
February 29, 2008 - 12:27 ET by Roger the ShrubberIf only they would outlaw Steely McBeam....
I am not embarrassed to be from PA, just that we have idiots like Rendell running the show....
I didn't say I'm embarrassed
February 29, 2008 - 13:14 ET by motherbeltI didn't say I'm embarrassed to be from PA (and I'm not really from here, I just live here now)....I said I'm embarrassed that Rendell is.
Only because I know who tired you are,
February 29, 2008 - 12:09 ET by FastEdbeing a Friday and all, but for Pic of the Day, I'd vote for this one, and ask it be Pic of the Decade!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Forty years ago today,
February 29, 2008 - 12:44 ET by Jack BauerOnly when I'm 64.
Not that it makes much of a
February 29, 2008 - 13:46 ET by balboaNot that it makes much of a difference, but "Medium" takes place in AZ, so it makes sense that the senator would be from there, but, you know.
Without so much as a shred
February 29, 2008 - 12:15 ET by maggieqpublicWithout so much as a shred of charisma, Hillary Clinton, alpha female, was elected to the U.S. Senate. I thought the same personal “qualities” assured she would be the presidential nominee of her party. Instead, she will lose to this passive guy who keeps stepping all over himself in the attempt to show his agreement with her policies. Goodbye, Hillary. Hello, Milquetoast.
Looks like everybody's
February 29, 2008 - 12:24 ET by LeonLooks like everybody's favorite gay journalist, Matt Drudge, blew it once again with his impulsive reporting.
Media Blackout? Prince's life? Who cares?
Not Drudge.
LINK
Prince Harry was serving country honorably, now he may have to go home. What a shame.
Yeah, we felt the same way
February 29, 2008 - 12:32 ET by Chris NormanYeah, we felt the same way when the New York Times blew the cover of a major anti-terrorist operation. But, what's that compared to Prince Harry's ability to serve in Afghanistan?
Yes Chris, Spying on
February 29, 2008 - 12:37 ET by LeonYes Chris,
Spying on Americans has yielded tremendous results. Curse the NYT for letting us know our own government was spying on us.
Anti-Terrorist? More like anti-freedom, anti-privacy.
Again, the terrorists won on 9/11 when they forced us into this bizarre state of paranoia.
I understand. You are okay
February 29, 2008 - 12:42 ET by Roger the ShrubberI understand. You are okay with the NYT doing it, because you are a Liberal, but not Drudge, because Drudge is Conservative.
Drudge should not have broken that story, and neither should the NYT. You are a partisan hack, Hater, and not even a good one.
Also, does his sexual preference really matter, Pumpkin? We all know how homophobic you are, but man, keep the hate to yourself, bigot.
Roger, you should know by
February 29, 2008 - 14:05 ET by motherbeltRoger, you should know by now that it's always liberals, the ones for whom such things don't matter, that say the gay journalist or the Latino mayor, or the African-American coach...for people who don't care about that, why is that always the first descriptor that they use?
It's all about groups,
February 29, 2008 - 14:59 ET by Roger the ShrubberIt's all about groups, isn't it? Everybody is separated into their own little group, where they all have their own list of grievances that need to be addressed.
Big tent, my ass.
I keep looking for a better way to put my thoughts onto paper.
Here is a decent example that I recently saw:
"...the left can't survive without groupism, because it generates group grievances. If groups have grievances, liberals can swoop in and save the day by giving them what they want. True Reagan-Conservatives believe (typically) the exact opposite, that individuals make their own way and fend for themselves."
Roger,Whatever happened to
February 29, 2008 - 15:17 ET by Chris NormanRoger,
What ever happened to the notion of "one person - one vote"?
Now, for the Democrats, it's "one group - lots of votes" and to hell with anyone who isn't in one of those groups...
Bizarre state of paranoia? I
February 29, 2008 - 12:54 ET by Chris NormanBizarre state of paranoia? I can't believe you would want to make the things you believe known to others. Perhaps good intelligence, what you call a "bizarre state of paranoia", would have prevented 9/11. I made the mistake of wasting my time responding to your foolish drivel. I won't do that again. You are the kind of person who makes this country less than what it once was.
Live and learn,
February 29, 2008 - 16:33 ET by motherbeltLive and learn, Chris.....;-)
You'll love your privacy LEON
February 29, 2008 - 13:10 ET by PawpawNYou'll love your privacy LEON when they(the terrorists) kill you in private with a gun you turned in because guns kill, people don't!
Leon's world
February 29, 2008 - 13:20 ET by Mica the MagnificentHey! All you have to do is sit down and talk to the terrorists. Don't you remember that old song from the groovy sixties from Friend and Lover called 'Reach out of the Darkness?'
(paraphrased)
"There was a man, who I did not care for,
and then I day, I knocked upon his door,
We sat and talked, and then in a little while,
this man, became a friend of mine.
So reach out . . ."
Didn't that song teach us something?
I have the LP
February 29, 2008 - 13:41 ET by PawpawNI actually have the LP. Co-produced by Joe South of "GAMES PEOPLE PLAY" fame. Ever hear "Ode to a Dandelion" on the LP? James & Cathy Post were CANADIANS, would have never known-RIGHT! Do you remember CAT MOTHER & THE ALL NIGHT NEWSBOYS? And MOTHERLODE?
PawpawN
February 29, 2008 - 15:02 ET by Mica the MagnificentI heard of Joe South, Cat Mother, and possibly, Motherlode (or was it Mothers of Invention?)
I still prefer the Beatles from that era, though.
Leon, you get the Bronx cheer for the most mindless post o' the
February 29, 2008 - 17:23 ET by R D HelmLeon, you get the Bronx cheer for the most mindless post o' the day. Possibly even the week. Did you by chance take your entire month's supply of stupid pills all at once?
First of all, the government is not engaging in "domestic spying," unlike Bill and Al, who were. In fact, Wee Willy and his lackey were data mining just about every electronic pulse that was generated in this country. Funny how you libs were utterly silent while this was going on.
Maybe if Wee Willy had not been spending all his time finding new uses for his stogie collection, and had been paying a little more attention to what was going on in the world, the five attacks Osama's goons pulled off against this country, on his watch, might have been prevented.
Perhaps you would rather have us sitting here blind as a bat, waiting for the next attack. Of course, if that attack were to come, I am wagering that you would be among the first people in here blaming George W. Bush. The fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11 tells me that something is being done right. Who knows?, perhaps one of the attacks that have been thwarted by the government keeping tabs on international calls between potential terrorists may just have been the one that would have taken you out.
The cold hard truth of the matter is that your precious democrat party leaders, Reid and Pelosi, along with their fellow pandering party lap-dogs, are putting all of us in danger in order to pander to one of their largest contributors, the trial lawyers, who are going to make millions filing frivolous lawsuits that the tele-communications companies will most likely settle instead of fight.
I consider this to be criminal negligence on the part of the democrat party.
And when the next attack does come, I'll be here awaiting your attempted expanation as to why said attack is all George W. Bush's fault.
John McCain is a liberal. He said so himself.
Please provide proof that a
February 29, 2008 - 17:06 ET by BDPlease provide proof that a US person has had their communications surveilled by the terrorist surveillance program.
Should be easy to do, right?
Thought Drudge only relayed news from other outlets!
February 29, 2008 - 12:37 ET by PawpawNDoes Drudge have it's own reporters? Was under impression that Drudge only relayed news from other outlets, reporters that gave him info-so he was really outed by some reporter, but who and why?
If he does, I've never seen
February 29, 2008 - 15:33 ET by Chris NormanIf he does, I've never seen one mentioned. His web site consists mostly of links to stories already out there.
He does do some stories
February 29, 2008 - 17:16 ET by motherbeltHe does do some stories that are his own...but most are picked up from other places.
For instance, the original Lewinsky story, where he outed Newsweek for spiking it, was his.
Drudge To Blame?
February 29, 2008 - 12:38 ET by CGattonLet's be reasonable here, shall we. While Drudge may have published it, he wasn't the first, by far. For heaven's sake, even I've known about it for some weeks, although I did not know exactly where he was.
The blame, if you must go that route, lies squarely on all the foolish people on either side, who think that everyone is entitled to know everything about everything and everyone. (Strange as that looks, it's correct, lol) Reporters, editors, and publishers are the worst of the lot, and because of their captive, unthinking audiences the vast majority of the US population believes it is true.
All that aside, I find myself in the very awkward position of agreeing with Leon, to the extent that it was incredibly irresponsible for this even being researched, let alone published.
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
More Media Hypocrisy
February 29, 2008 - 12:42 ET by GothampcIf this had been a Bush or a Cheney child, CNN would have had this information on a continuous international loop.
Prince Andrew was just on CNN bashing Bush and the war. I'm sure CNN knew the Prince was in battle and chose not to disclose it simply because they are protecting a liberal family.
Leon, who leaked this story?
February 29, 2008 - 12:43 ET by PawpawN"The Australian women's magazine New Idea reported on Harry's deployment in January. The news appeared Wednesday in the U.S. Web site the Drudge Report, and media around the world subsequently reported it.
The ministry deplored the leak by "elements of the foreign media."
as if this was a secret
February 29, 2008 - 13:04 ET by TruthMongeras if this was a secret anyway
obsessive UK media: gee, anyone seen harry for the past few months...? We didn't notice he was gone...
...I still think the msm
February 29, 2008 - 13:55 ET by bigtimer...I still think the msm and their obsession with the Royal Family is obscene...they should of left well enough alone, for two days this has been a so-called BREAKING STORY....it makes me sad for Prince Harry...like I heard him say this morning, this is most likely the nearest I'll ever get to normalcy....
I despise the msm.
I thank him for his service.
So, from the party of the BIG tent,
February 29, 2008 - 14:18 ET by FastEdwhat do you have against GAY Drudge? And, your proof?? Maybe, you're Drudgephobia is showing?? And the blackout was agreed to, by those of the Brit media for inside exclusives, sorta tit-for-tat - doesn't sound like "reporting" to me, more like agenda driven market share profit taking.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
FastEd, I don't care if
February 29, 2008 - 14:24 ET by motherbeltFastEd, I don't care if Drudge or anyone else is gay. Leon obviously does, since he took care to point that out. I don't even know if it's true.
I do, however, find it interesting that liberals, who claim to not care about stuff like race, gender, and ethnicity etc. always manage to mention one of those in the first 3 words they use to describe someone.
So, now we know Leon hates
February 29, 2008 - 15:35 ET by Chris NormanSo, now we know Leon hates all gay fat people who live in trailers. Am I missing a hated trait?
Chris,
February 29, 2008 - 15:38 ET by MassConservHome schooled, bible thumpers.
Those too? I must have been
February 29, 2008 - 15:43 ET by Chris NormanThose too? I must have been off that day. This summary could get long...
Mass, I don't hate those
February 29, 2008 - 17:48 ET by LeonMass,
I don't hate those people. I pity them. They are creepy.
Homeschooling is a form of child abuse and a solid indicator of a mentally disturbed parent.
Hey Chris... Don't forget
February 29, 2008 - 15:39 ET by bigtimerHey Chris...
Don't forget people with teeth missing either...
I'm beginning to understand
February 29, 2008 - 15:50 ET by Chris NormanI'm beginning to understand something here, BT. Leon offers up evidence that, underneath a liberal's professed compassion, there is a an elitist snob, who wishes folks not living up to certain standards would be eliminated. It's Liberal Fascism going on to it's next, uglier level...
He doesn't hate them; he's
February 29, 2008 - 17:17 ET by motherbeltHe doesn't hate them and he's not afraid of them; he's repelled (or did he say "repulsed"?) by them.
MB, Here are the people I
February 29, 2008 - 17:45 ET by LeonMB,
Here are the people I hate:
1) Racists
2) Intolerant Religious Wackos
3) Fat People
4) Boston Red Sox Fans
That's it. My whole list.
Oh and I said I was repulsed by fat people and I am. They are gross with their constant sweating, belabored breathing, and foul odor that eminates from the darkness of their fat folds.
You hate yourself? We've
February 29, 2008 - 19:18 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou hate yourself?
We've already covered, long ago your statement about fat chicks only good for black guys to screw.
Many of us remember those shining moments in Hater Douchebaggery.
Thats it Leon
February 29, 2008 - 21:55 ET by well99Thats it buddy!You started a war.Be warned that Red Sox Fans will be signing the offical Declaration of War as soon the quarts of Clams and beer run out.No tailgate partying for you buddy.
I have compassion for
February 29, 2008 - 16:42 ET by balboaI have compassion for everyone...who doesn't meet my superior standards. :-)
Bal
March 1, 2008 - 01:04 ET by well99Yea right.Do you have compassion for these folks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv9Zmy9rSd4
Chris, Just curious.
February 29, 2008 - 17:43 ET by LeonChris,
Just curious. What specifically in my original post indicates that I hate gay people?
Take your time.
As far as I know, the Matt
February 29, 2008 - 14:40 ET by Roger the ShrubberAs far as I know, the Matt Drudge gay rumors were started by Hater's man-crush, David Brock, the loser who runs Media Matters. You know Media Matters: the website Hater claims he never really visits on a daily basis, but seems to pull story after story from...
Hater a not just homophobic bigot, but worse: an UNINFORMED homophobic bigot.
Who cares if Drudge is gay or not? I notice the only person here bringing criticizing one's sexuality is a liberal.
What a shock.
Rog, Ha. Homophobic.
February 29, 2008 - 17:41 ET by LeonRog,
Ha. Homophobic. Good one.
1) I point it out b/c I love when the people the NBs worship possess traits the NBs despise, aka gay Drudge, drug addicted Rush, or hate-mongering Coulter. It's funny to me.
2) Drudge is gay & open about it. He routinely frequents gay bars in the DC & LA area. AND the biggest piece of evidence, he has sex with men, which I'm pretty sure makes you gay.
3) So now you hate David Brock eh? You didn't hate him in the 90s when Scaife was paying him to write fake hit pieces on the Clintons now did you? In fact, people still cite his articles about Whitewater to use against the Clinton's even though he was thoroughly debunked and exposed as fraud/Scaife puppet. Brock was a Republican hit man before he was a Democrat hit man and you all looooooved him. You just hate him now b/c he finally got concerned about his eternal soul and told the truth about his shady past with the Republicans.
4) I love gays. I don't hate gays. In fact, I have a well-documented history of defending gays and their rights against YOU bigots on this site. Nice try though tiger.
5) First, where in my post did I criticize his sexuality? I simply pointed it out. Secondly, who cares if Drudge is gay or not? Not me, but the NBs care. But don't worry, they don't hate Drudge, they just hate his sin.
Rog Rog Rog. You are slipping. Drink some more moonshine, that should warm your bitter soul.
1. Thanks for grouping us
February 29, 2008 - 19:13 ET by Roger the Shrubber1. Thanks for grouping us all together, you tree-hugging, dog-screwing hippy. Whoops! Looks like I grouped you together with a stereotypical liberal! My bad!
2. I have proven quite the opposite. Once again, go to actual news sources and quit being such a Media Matters loser. I posted proof that proven you wrong. Too bad you have no proof of your own.
3. Brock is a hack. Please show where I ever was a fan of him in the 1990's? Throwing around "you" just is another lame attempt to lump everybody here into a group, which, as usual, you failed.
4. You hate gays. You have shown more than once your omophobia (remember your "only gays use the word 'pumpkin'" comment, genius?) Are you trying to convince us, or yourself, homoophobe? What's next? Will you tell us "Some of my best friends are gay?". Laughable. Please show us your "well-documented history". Prove it.
5. Drudge's liberal-media-accused-but-unproven sexual status had no bearing to the conversation. YOU brought it up, homophobe. Now you are squirming, grasping at straws. You thought you were being clever, but were, as usual, beinng your douchebag self.
Prove me wrong, Hater. You cannot, since you have a track record.
You are a liberal, and being a liberal means accusing the Right of doing what the Left does. You accuse us of being homophobes because YOU are.
Don't get all pissy with all of us because you came here and got smacked down by a dozen people. Sucks to be you, Hater.
Have a nice weekend, homophobe.
Shillary singing a Tammy Wynette song!
February 29, 2008 - 12:34 ET by PawpawN"You know it's hard to be a woman"!!!! Straight from the TAMMY WYNETTE song, and after her failure, guess it will be another TW song "D-I-V-O-R-C-E". But you know the media is doing her just like they did Romney, saying when the delegate count is tight that she has no chance. At least the B ain't giving up!
stand by your man?
February 29, 2008 - 13:05 ET by TruthMongerstand by your man?
You got it!
February 29, 2008 - 13:06 ET by PawpawNShe'll go from STAND BY YOUR MAN to D-I-V-O-R-C-E quickly!
Waaaaaa
February 29, 2008 - 12:38 ET by Mica the MagnificentLet's see.
Hillary became a lawyer, lived in the White House for 8 years, traveled the world, and became senator from New York .
Yeah! Life's a bi*** for this woman.
Don't Forget The Perks
February 29, 2008 - 12:44 ET by GothampcDon't forget the lifetime perks she will get as a former First Lady and US Senator. Secret Service protection, huge pension and healthcare benefits, etc.
Is that Fed Healthcare!
February 29, 2008 - 12:46 ET by PawpawNHope she gets the FED HEALTHCARE she wants everyone to have!!
I think it is hilarious
February 29, 2008 - 12:52 ET by MikeBI think it is hilarious that both of the Democrat candidates (or their surrogates) are playing the victim card from the starting gate. If we don't vote for Her Thighness, we are anti-woman sexists. If we don't vote for the Obamessiah, we are racists. How about not voting for Hillary because she is a Communist registered as a Democratic, and not voting for Obama because he is a Socialist. They are both light-weight dweebs when it comes to foreign policy. Barak says he wants to pull our soldiers and Marines out of "the war", that he wants to talk to Iran and North Korea, and wants to invade Pakistan. Huh? What the ____? I suppose Hillary will get her foreign policy advice from Bill, who likes to bomb empty tents and aspirin factories. Yeah, that'll show 'em who's boss.
Hillary wants to "take those profits" from any corporation who shows a profit, thereby destroying the retirement portfolios of just about everyone with a 401k or self-directed IRA. She feels the need to "take from [the taxpayers] for the greater good of everyone." She wants to force people to buy health insurance if they don't sign up for her taxpayer extorted socialized health care plan. Hey, Hillary, here's an idea: tell folks without health insurance that the government will not pay for their health care under any circumstances. The more risk-averse among them will find a way to buy health insurance. Those who decide that their 52" hi-def tv is more important will buy that instead, and hope for the best. But it will be their choice.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Life imitates The Life of Brian
February 29, 2008 - 13:33 ET by Jack BauerMatthias: Look, I don't think it should be a sin, just for saying "Hussein".
[Everyone gasps]
Jewish Official: You're only making it worse for yourself!
Matthias: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Hussein! Hussein! Hussein!
Jewish Official: I'm warning you! If you say "Hussein" one more time (gets hit with rock) RIGHT! Who did that? Come on, who did it?
Stoners: She did! She did! (suddenly speaking as men) He! He did! He!
Jewish Official: Was it you?
Stoner: Yes.
Jewish Official: Right...
Stoner: Well you did say "Hussein. "
[Crowd throws rocks at the stoner]
Jewish Official: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! STOP IT! All right, no one is to stone _anyone_ until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "Hussein. "
[Crowd stones the Jewish Official to death]
I can see Hillary jumping
February 29, 2008 - 15:51 ET by SemperrightI can see Hillary jumping around asking for donations
"alms for an ex-candidate?"
He's not giving you any money so piss off!!!
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
semper -- And what have
February 29, 2008 - 16:20 ET by Jack Bauersemper --
And what have the Chicagoans ever done for us anyway?
The Straight Talk Express
February 29, 2008 - 13:40 ET by bigtimerThe Straight Talk Express rides again...right from the horses mouth.
Priceless!
Priceless Indeed
February 29, 2008 - 13:48 ET by CGattonAs humor, you are correct, priceless. As far as something deeper, just not there. When speaking, I have said far worse, and made far bigger gaffes, just because I am thinking ahead while my gums are a flappin'.
If there wasn't so much rancor being leveled at McCain, and the libs were jumping on this, there would be a massive hue and cry that tired people misspeak, no big deal. And that would be correct.
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Yes CGatton.... I know
February 29, 2008 - 13:59 ET by bigtimerYes CGatton....
I know full well know your support and others here for the liberal conservative McCain....
Some of us will just have to agree to disagree.
I found the words hilarious, for once he spoke the plain truth...accidental of course.
bt...I heard that on Rush
February 29, 2008 - 14:21 ET by motherbeltbt...I heard that on Rush earlier...and I thought...Slip of the Tongue, or Freudian Slip?
Howdy mb....Either way I
February 29, 2008 - 14:23 ET by bigtimerHowdy mb....
Either way I cracked up laughing...I heard it late last night somewhere...I'm still laughing too.
For me...no truer words were spoken from the Straight Talk Express.
As an aside...I had some fun reading the posts under the video from HotAir from my link above.
Freud wore a
February 29, 2008 - 14:27 ET by FastEdskirt? Would explain a lot of his theories. Next thing you'll say is J. Edgar Hoover wore a dress or something.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
FastEd... ROFL.... That
February 29, 2008 - 14:29 ET by bigtimerFastEd...
ROFL....
That took me a minute...until I reread mb's post...
You're on a roll!
No, FastEd....
February 29, 2008 - 17:21 ET by motherbeltNot a skirt......He wore......wait for it.........a SLIP!!!
<ducks under desk, covering head>
Finally, McCain comes out
February 29, 2008 - 14:48 ET by Clear thinkerFinally, McCain comes out of the closet.
"Abstain from McCain"
Hi Ct... ...and that was
February 29, 2008 - 14:54 ET by bigtimerHi Ct...
...and that was by accident...
Of course he really didn't mean it....it was just a subconscious mistake dontcha' know...
As Bill Clinton would say...it was just a little snafu....
We all must move on now...like good little boys and girls.
I don't know if anyone else
February 29, 2008 - 15:03 ET by bigtimerI don't know if anyone else has noticed but msnbc has been reading posts from people on Hillary's blog on and off all day long...
What the heck is this, and why the heck are they bothering...is she threatening them again?
It is unwatchable ...I have the sound down...I just notice they have been doing this all morning long.
It really is quite pathetic...the good ones they are reading I bet are about 75% written by critters that work for her anyway...
Talk about desperation.
From the State of Illinois
February 29, 2008 - 15:04 ET by arbin82How corrupt is the State of Illinois (Land of Lincoln)?
Well, our Governor, who does not even govern from the state capital, has been named as public official A in the Tony Rezko trial. This is the same Tony Rezko that Barry Obama has been tied to. Take a listen to the podcast from Mark Levin's radio show from 2/26/08. which details Obama's dealings with Rezko. Where is the news of this in the MSM...? We will also be trying to unseat Mr. Durbin from his Senate nest this fall.
I am convinced that Abraham Lincoln is rolling in his grave right now.
Unseat Durbin?
February 29, 2008 - 16:01 ET by okiehawk44You good folks in Illinois better be able to field a better candidate than you did last time with Alan Keyes -- at least try to find someone who actually lives in the state. You guys are just giving Democrats the elections without even putting up fights. Where on earth do you think Obama Rama Nama -- the Fighten Rezco Illini -- came from?
Well you know the problem
February 29, 2008 - 18:48 ET by Dan The Man 2Well you know the problem with unseating any Republican, they have the dead vote.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
NB Exclusive! - McCain NOT born in Coco Solo Hospital, PCZ
February 29, 2008 - 16:22 ET by BritcomJohn McCain, widely reputed to have been born in the Panama Canal Zone in the Coco Solo Naval Hospital, COULD NOT have been born in Coco Solo Hospital and probably wasn't born in the Canal Zone at all.
The Coco Solo Hospital was not even built until after 1941 and the nearest hospital to the base was in Panama Proper (in Colon, Republic of Panama), NOT the US Administered Canal Zone and NOT on a US military base.
According to Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Executive Order 8981 - NAVY HOSPITAL AREA, COCO SOLO, CANAL ZONE " Dated *1941* (remember McCain was born in 1936) The executive order lays out the boundries for the land that the hospital would eventually be built on.
Now the Big question is; Where was John McCain REALLY born and why weren't we told the truth? Could it be that John McCain's birth certificate says he was born in the Republic of Panama?
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Who Cares
February 29, 2008 - 16:25 ET by CGattonWhat an utter waste of time....as long as his parents were US citizens, of any stripe, he is a natural born US citizen, even if he was born in a chicken coop in the center of the Ukraine, lol.
Time to get a new topic.
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
US National
February 29, 2008 - 16:46 ET by BritcomAs I said before, the State Department disagrees with your argument. In 1936 children of US Citizens born in Panama soil were born US Nationals, not US Citizens. US National is a lesser status who do not enjoy all of the same rights as US Citizens. If he later became a US Citizen, then he would be a Naturalized US Citizen like Schwarzenegger. The Constitution requres a "natural born Citizen" of the US.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Only You and the MaCain Haters
February 29, 2008 - 16:54 ET by CGattonLOL
Firstly, it's not 1936. Even the State Department knows that is true. After you realize this, please go check and see what happened to all those children born as US Nationals.
Secondly, no one cares, except you and the rabid McCain haters. And even most of those on here don't buy into this garbage.
Thirdly, I get it. You hate McCain (or don't hate him, as the case may be) and want xyz as the Republican nominee. I don't want him either, but am realist enough to know I have to deal with him. You need to get over this little speed bump in your life and start dealing with the reality of the situation.
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Those who learn not history, are condemned to repeat it.
February 29, 2008 - 17:08 ET by BritcomWe can't afford your plan, if nominated, McCain will lose. We must run a governor to ensure a win according to history.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
so no winner in Nov?
February 29, 2008 - 17:28 ET by SouthJersey1953By your statement, none of the candidates can be elected since ALL THREE of them are Senators....
If McLame cannot win because he is not a Governor, then neither can Hellary or Bama-Mama-Ding-Dong
Southjersey, his point is
February 29, 2008 - 17:40 ET by motherbeltSouthjersey, his point is obviously that McCain must step aside and let (Gov.) Huckabee be the nominee.
And you can see by his tagline, he has already chosen his running-mate.
Governors Win, Senators Lose.
February 29, 2008 - 17:46 ET by BritcomActually, I meant that according to the past 100 years of history of presidential elections, no Senator of either party has defeated a Governor.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
With Apologies
February 29, 2008 - 18:05 ET by CGatton"...We can't afford your plan, if nominated, McCain will lose..."
Sorry, but it's your plan/slate that is a guaranted loss. There is far more to the 'governor trumps senator' record than merely the governmental position held at the time of the election - or before it, for that matter. As I said in another thread, I and many like me followed a perc chart to get where we are. Though the details will vary by individual, in my case it was:
Thompson (out) => Romney (out) => McCain
Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo, Paul, and others were never considered because they were already out of the running at the time of the switch, or because of their inherent unelectability, much the same as Dole was never considered until he became the candidate. He was inherently unelectable. Of the remaining GOP candidates, only McCain is electable, and he is vastly more acceptable than either Clinton or Obama.
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
I'd be very interested to see you're definition of "electable"
February 29, 2008 - 18:58 ET by Britcom---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
I Certainly Am Not
February 29, 2008 - 20:11 ET by CGattonlol...to start with, I certainly am not the definition of electable, by any stretch of the imagination, being by inclination somewhat to the far right of Uncle Ronnie. However I would define electability as the ability to garner sufficient popular vote to have a plurality in enough states to get 271 electoral votes.
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
And...
February 29, 2008 - 21:13 ET by BritcomAnd how do you determine this "ability" in a given candidate prior to an election?
Weren't we all told that Giuliani had "electability" only to see him lose by wide margins. Where did his "electability" go?
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Rudy Guiliani Was Electable
February 29, 2008 - 22:18 ET by CGattonMy concern is the electability of a candidate in the general election, not the primaries. Primaries are to tell the eventual candidate what type of coalition he has to establish, if he wishes to get broadbased support. Guiliani would have been electable in a general election, however he could not get past the primary for two reasons.
1) He adopted a failed startegy, banking on Florida to balance and overturn all previous primary contests. Hillary has done much the same, by recklessly spending before 'Super Tuesday' banking on a knockout punch then. He didn't get it, and neither did she.
2) There was little difference to the run-of-the-mill GOP voter between he and McCain, with a slight edge going to McCain because of experience. Since McCain was in from the beginning but losing traction, and because as a rule, Americans pull for an underdog, McCain got the push from behind and there was none left for Guiliani.
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Clyde,
February 29, 2008 - 22:31 ET by BlondeI must agree with your general premise. Giuliani blew it early on....had he had a better strategy, I believe he'd have been our candidate by now. I, for one, would be happier with the Mayor than McCain, but either one trumps Obama or Hillary.
By the time the primaries got to Florida...the true conservatives had dropped out...by that point, I seriously considered voting for Giuliani, because I feel he would have been the best candidate on our National Defense. Further, I believed him when he said he'd appoint strict constructionist judges. Problematic for me, though, was his view on abortion and gun control. So I voted for Romney, even though I believed he was not as electable in the general election. I believed Rudy would still be standing after Florida (well...at least ahead of Huck).
Vote your conscience in the primaries...vote for your very existence in the general. Although I totally understand why so many here are totally against McCain, I just can't abide by the alternative...democrats & socialism.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I for one, am still a
February 29, 2008 - 22:32 ET by general companyI for one, am still a little shocked that Rudy did so poorly. I wonder if his and McCains buttons in the voting booth were crossed?
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
Oh No! Voting Booth Irregularity!
February 29, 2008 - 22:44 ET by CGatton"...I wonder if his and McCains buttons in the voting booth were crossed? ..."
Let's save that one for the Democrats, shall we. lol
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
What traits identify an "electable" candidate for GE purposes
February 29, 2008 - 23:28 ET by Britcom---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Traits
March 1, 2008 - 00:39 ET by CGattonLots of little things, including:
Position within political spectrum
Ability to compromise
Ability to articulate positions
Bearing
Ability to laugh at self
Knowing when it's better to keep quiet
Ability to choose fights
Ability to walk away when necessary
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
political spectrum
March 1, 2008 - 01:19 ET by BritcomWhat is the best position within political spectrum for electabity?
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
McCain is indistinguishable from Putin
February 29, 2008 - 23:33 ET by BritcomWe would lose the Republic under him.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Britcom, I do belive that
February 29, 2008 - 16:57 ET by bassndudeBritcom, I do belive that the Constitution clarifies a natural born citizen as being born to parents who are both natural born citizens. Even if a child is born in Germany, if both parents are natural born citizens of the US then so is the child.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Actually it doesn't say that
February 29, 2008 - 17:51 ET by BritcomThe meaning of natural born has always been seen by the courts in case law as meaning born in the US, which means the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
Only the 14th Amendment speaks of this and it only includes Birth and Naturalization as forms of citizenship.
Congress does have the power to add to this, but not take away.
But the "insular areas and unincorporated territories" are not included in the definition of "the United States" proper, those areas are fully governed by congress, and in 1936 (when McCain was born), congress chose US National for children born in Panama to US Citizens, not Citizen.
One must also remember that congress has not the power to change the Constitution by statute, the amendment process is the only option.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
It would not matter, as I
February 29, 2008 - 16:47 ET by motherbeltIt would not matter, as I have said in two other threads on this. My twins were born in Spain, on Spanish territory. Their government birth certificates say "Birth abroad of a US Citizen"
Translation: a US citizen was born abroad. If his parents are citizens, he is a natural born citizen, no matter where he was born. He is a citizen by birthright, not by where he was born.
Why do you keep harping on this?
To quote yourself:
Let's break this down, shall we?
"No..." means universal exclusion,
"...person..." means any individual or entity,
"...except..." means an expressly limited exception,
"...a..." means a quantity equaling one (1),
"...natural..."
means not by artificial, or man made means; or equally not as a result
of legislation, statute, declaration, or any type of artificial
construction,
"...born..." means the act
of coming forth upon the Earth and separating from ones mother, thereby
achieving the status of individual natural person-hood,
"...Citizen..." means a person owing loyalty to and entitled to the protection of a given State,
"...shall..." means something that will take place or exist in the future,
"...be..." means to remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed,
"...eligible..." means qualified or entitled to be chosen,
"...to..." means for the purpose of,
"...the Office of President..." means the position of Commander in Chief,
Does it say anywhere in your analysis WHERE that person must be born?
I agree with CGatten....this has been beaten into the ground. Get a grip. Move on.
Barack by default?
February 29, 2008 - 16:48 ET by Mica the MagnificentThe libs think if McCain is disqualified, Barack would become president by default.
Comparing Apples and Oranges
February 29, 2008 - 17:03 ET by BritcomApparently you don't understand the Common Law definition of "natural
born" for purposes of becoming President, not just mere Citizen. The
Presidency has a higher bar to reach as John Jay intended and this has
been well established in case law. Your children are not seeking the
Presidency so their status is unrelated to the issue at hand. Besides
there are special laws created that apply to births of persons in
Panama in 1936 and they were born US Nationals.
Persons born US Nationals cannot seek the presidency.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
I'm sorry; I thought we
February 29, 2008 - 17:33 ET by motherbeltI'm sorry; I thought we were governed by the Constitution; not Common Law.
Well, Britcom, I suggest you give Ted Olson a call then.
He's apparently on the wrong track, since he doesn't see a problem. I'm sure he'll appreciate your expertise.
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?
Is that your second line of attack?
The Constitution is a Common Law document.
February 29, 2008 - 17:38 ET by BritcomCongress, which is under Constituional authority, makes Statutory Law.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Give it up - they will not put Huck in Mclame's place
February 29, 2008 - 17:36 ET by SouthJersey1953I know what you are tyring to do....get Mclame disqualified so your boy gets the nomination...
Any Republican Governor would defeat any Dem Senator.
February 29, 2008 - 17:42 ET by BritcomRomney was also a Governor. He could have won too.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
EEK! I just responded to
February 29, 2008 - 17:45 ET by motherbeltEEK! I just responded to you up above with the same observation.
He's not going to give up, although I don't know what he thinks anyone here can do about it.
Britcom, I repeat my suggestion that you give Ted Olson a call.
"Does it say anywhere in
February 29, 2008 - 17:32 ET by Britcom"Does it say anywhere in your analysis WHERE that person must be born?"
No, but the Constitution does, it says in the United States. Panama is not a State, and it is not an incorporated territory.
Even if we follow your line of argument, and assume that McCain was born in the Canal Zone, logic would dictate that John McCain's Citizenship would have been revoked when we gave the Zone back to Panama just like we revoked the US Citizenship of Filipinos born to US Citizens in the Philippines while it was a US Territory after we gave that back. Your argument is circular.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Flat Wrong This Time
February 29, 2008 - 20:05 ET by CGatton"...it says in the United States..."
Well...., not the truth. Are you perhaps afraid of putting down the quote? Let's take a look, shall we.
"...No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President..."
The closest it says to being 'born in the United States' is the phrase, "Citizen of the United States," and clearly they are not equivalent. Even if they were, the phrase is modified by the following statement, "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." This was included to allow someone to be president and immediately, by enabling all who became citizens at the adoption of the constitution the right to become President.
So then, this particular section generates two classes eligible to become president, those who are natural born citizens, and those who became citizens at the adoption of the constitution. Nowhere does it say anything about being born in the United States, or on US soil, or anything else. Two, and only two, categories are listed: born a citizen (ie. natural citizen), and citizen by residence on adoption of the constitution.
So then, where did you come up with this new requirement. I suspect you got it from the 14th Amendment, which states, in part,"...All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ..." However, the 14th amendment was post Civil War, designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have the rights and privileges of any other citizen. To this end, the former confederate states were forced to sign it before readmission to the union. It had and has nothing to do with being natural born, or the elegibilty to become president.
Now, as far as the State Depeartment agreeing with me or disagreeing, I'm sorry, but they don't make the rules for presidential candidates, nor have they any say in this discussion at all. As far as the jus soli versus jus sanguinis argument, the facts follow. John McCain meets the jus soli test because the Panama Canal Zone was a US territory at the time of his birth and jus soli specifically deals with territorial possesssions. He meets the jus sanguinis test because our law, and Constitution, is specifically predicated on English Common Law, and at the time the Constitution was written, jus sanguinis had been an accepted and recognized principle of English Common Law for over 400 years. Either of these tests makes one a 'natural born' citizen under English Common Law, and under our law.
Now I'm sure that even knowing the facts won't change your mind, or reduce your indiscriminate posting on this matter. Likewise I'm certain that someone with deep pockets - can you say George Soros or like - will challenge McCain on this. While I would hope that McCain would request an expedited pre-emptive strike from the Supreme Court concerning this issue, I doubt he will, since the jus soli issue of territorial birth was already answered when Goldwater ran.
If, however, it does go to court, it will be appealed to the Supreme Court regardless of who wins in the lower courts, where one of two things will occur. If the appellate system sends it with McCain not being eligible, the Supreme Court will review the case and overturn, based very closely on what I have outlined here. Should the appellate system find McCain is eligible, then the Supreme Court will refuse the case, and let the lower court's decision stand.
Bottom line: this discussion is a waste of both time and space.
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Amen, Clyde. I know "I" am
February 29, 2008 - 22:13 ET by motherbeltAmen, Clyde. I know "I" am done with it. No more replies to Britcom re McCain's citizenship or lack thereof.
As I suggested, he should go and straighten out the people who actually have some power in the matter.
Now, as far as the State
February 29, 2008 - 22:53 ET by Britcom***They don't make the rules, they know what the rules are and they operate by them.
***First of all his birth in the Canal Zone is now in doubt, he was probably born in Panama proper. Second neither Panama, nor the Canal Zone were ever a US Territory, the CZ was an unincorperated insular jurisdictional possession of the US, not unlike Gitmo.
***American Samoa is a US Territory and Samoans are not US Citizens because it is an UNincorperated territory, the CZ did not even rise to that level.
***Jus Sanguinis was never a principal of English Common Law. It is a principal of European Civil Law and is alien to our Common Law jurisprudence, and Dred v. Scott Repudiated it. The South was trying to argue that blacks had no US Citzenship because Jus Sanguinis applied, the court rejected that arguement and rejected Jus Sanguinis outright as alien law.
***I guess you hadn't heard about the McCain-Soros linkage: Link >>
***Arizona was an incorporated Territory Of the US. McCain was born in whole separate country, the Republic of Panama.
***Even assuming that McCain was born in the CZ, then if you are right, every person born in the Philippines while it was a US Territory is a US Citizen. Are you prepared to address that? They are currently denied Citizenship in the US.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Last Time, Britcom
March 1, 2008 - 00:25 ET by CGatton"...they know what the rules are ..."
Not true, but at best, for your argument, they would have said, "We don't know."
"...the Canal Zone were [was] [n]ever a US Territory..."
Not true, see Article III of the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, quoted here for your benefit.
"ARTICLE III
"The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone mentioned and described in Article II of this agreement and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said Article II which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign of the territory within which said lands and waters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority."
Please note the words "all rights," not "some rights," or "those rights desired by Britcom in 2008," but all rights, in perpetuity. You'll have to go read the treaty to see the words "in perpetuity," since enough space is wasted even quoting this for you.
"...Samoans are not US Citizens ..."
And the agreement with Samoa does not include the language from the previous section. Remember, all rights the US would possess or exercise if it were the sovereign of the territory. If it looks like a territory, smells like a territory...
"...Jus Sanguinis was never a principal of English Common Law..."
It sure was, since German common law was in large measure European common law, specifically including jus sanguinis, and the basis of English Common Law is German common law. The difference in England was that it also clung to jus soli.
"...Dred v. Scott Repudiated it..."
Just what do you think generated the 13th and 14th amendments? They are a direct repudiation of Dred Scott!
"...McCain was born in whole separate country, the Republic of Panama..."
ROTFLMAO You have absolutely nothing except wishful thinking to back this up.
"...if you are right, every person born in the Philippines while it was a US Territory is a US Citizen..."
Please show in the treaty establishing the territory where this is true...I've demonstrated by treaty my belief. On second thought, don't bother...it's not there, and I'm done with this silly discussion.
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Britcom how is the futile mission going?
March 1, 2008 - 00:35 ET by PopularTechI count zero converts that are not social conservatives who are not going to vote for McCain because you do not understand U.S. citizenship laws.
Give it a rest and go send out more mass mailers to your bible buddies because the Christian Leader is slain. Have fun choosing between Hussein and McCain in November. I tried to help a long time ago but you guys were insistent upon the christian leader - your loss.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Quite well actually
March 1, 2008 - 01:07 ET by BritcomWhile we were debating the issue here, and virtually no one else on the internet was talking about it, the story caught fire and went global. I'd call that effective.
I tried to help a long time ago but you guys were insistent upon the christian leader - your loss.
You know us Christians, we like our martyrs.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Britcom
February 29, 2008 - 22:21 ET by BlondeI'm sure I can rustle up a dead horse for you to beat to death again.
Enough already.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
THE QUICKEST ROAD TO INSANITY...
February 29, 2008 - 16:16 ET by RMRTo try and intellegently analyze anything that Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama says will most certainly cause irreparably mental damage.
So guys, please save yourself that unecessary pain.
Kids Get Detention For Paying With Pennies
February 29, 2008 - 17:01 ET by GothampcI'm glad I don't have to get involved with this.
"More than two dozen eighth graders were given two days of detention after they paid for their lunches entirely in pennies."
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=5989226
what's the big deal about 1 in every 100 adults in prison in usa
February 29, 2008 - 21:19 ET by lunaticcringeradioit's very misleading and is a perfect example of how the msm scams and mislead the general american idol watching moron with a quick line or sound bite.
automatically the average network tv zombie will assume that 1 of every 100 adults in america are incarcerated means that they are amercians.
the fact that the lazy illinformed gullible non thinkin' puddin' brain doesn't realize and is conveniently left out in this misleading mindrape story is that a ton of the new guests to americas fine government rest and relaxation facilities are illegal aliens and that percentage of cell fillers and tax moocher is increasing. why would that be, well cause we can't send them back for some idiotic reason. how many bus tickets can you buy for the cost of housing 1 illegal immigrant in jail for a year? how many feet of that wall can that fund also? how many watch tower guys can we pay instead of paying prison guards? now i do think that some of these illegals need to be locked down like the one we had here locally that was a rapist and the one that shot and killed a cop. but the ones that were caught dui or other non violent crimes, oh well back home.
lunaticcringeradio
I thought this was interesting from Huff
February 29, 2008 - 22:00 ET by well99http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/forty-years-on-kerner-an_b_89261.html
Nice look at the hypocricy of NYT.
Obama reassures Canadiens
February 29, 2008 - 22:18 ET by c5thenGetting out of NAFTA just rhetoric
Lest the Canadiens think that he really tells the truth about anything. Apparently the talk of how NAFTA has hurt Ohio is all just to get the votes.
Wow, what a change that is, huh?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
c5then
February 29, 2008 - 22:30 ET by well99I had seen that.I cant wait to see how this gets spun.
Well, I guess they will be
February 29, 2008 - 23:02 ET by motherbeltWell, I guess they will be able to say, as George Stephanopoulos did about Bill Clinton, that he kept "all the promises he intended to keep."
do you suppose anyone in the media will ask him about his two-facedness?
Not holding my breath....
Wow, Hillary is Toast
February 29, 2008 - 22:56 ET by BlondeCounting down until she is officially out.
I sincerely hope she melts down in public though. After all of the nasty things she has done in her life, I don't feel sorry for her in the least.
I hope her exit from the national political scene is devastating and humiliating. To remind those who come after what such astounding hubris and arrogance may cause on a personal level.
Good riddance Hillary. And no, there will no crying for you Hillary (sorry Evita).
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
The Bill Cunningham controversy...
March 1, 2008 - 00:39 ET by m4ster chief...the talking vacu-heads in MSM all assume they know him just because they heard brief comments of his. And, same with many posters in yesterday's thread. Comments like "...two bit radio host," "...[he's] clearly unstable;" and a comment from NB, "...a star is born," etc., etc.
I'm from Cincinnati, and have listened to Cunningham for as long as I can remember...(but, as with Rush, I can't take too much of him at any one time.)
In my opinion he is primarily an entertainer, a jokester, an outrageously funny guy (an acquired taste, to be sure...) but he is also a "leader" in the community, with a HUGE following. He is one of the most rock-solid, dependable conservative/Republican figures in the OH/KY/IN region; has a regular program on a 50,000-watt radio powerhouse in Cincinnati, is on satellite radio, and has been picked up nationally in the last few months. I think he guest-hosted for Rush...but may be wrong on that.
He can sound really "unstable" at times, but it's part of his act. He can also be absolutely serious...and regular listeners know the difference. He is a practicing attorney in Cincinnati, and he owns a chain of sports bars/barbeque restaurants. He is happily married, and has never been involved in a true "scandal," although local liberals and Dems have tried very hard to stir up feelings against him...to no avail, by the way.
Cunningham is extremely articulate and can talk for literally hours on any subject; he is particularly fond of sports, and can recall sports trivia going back thirty years and more. He has real, as opposed to phony, friends in sports, politics, and the entertainment world.
So, "unstable"...no. "Two-bit"...they wish. "A star is born?" Ha! He has been around this town, and a star in his own right for at least twenty-five years that I remember, and probably a lot longer.
And yes...McCain alienated a whole bunch of people when he apologized for Cunningham. And he made a political enemy of Bill Cunningham, who places a high value on loyalty, and who is a local American hero to millions (literally) of loyal radio fans.
IF YOU HAVEN'T LISTENED TO CUNNINGHAM FOR AT LEAST A YEAR...YOU DON'T "KNOW" HIM. So all those people trying to pin labels on him and diagnose a mental problem, including some in here...you sound ignorant.
Last...I would allow Cunningham to babysit my teenaged daughter (if I had one;) I can't say the same about these politicians (or their spouses.)
Latest Huckabee Ad Slams GOP Insiders, McCain Converts
March 1, 2008 - 03:56 ET by BritcomWatch the Video >>
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<