In reference to this development of the BP Gulf oil spill -- Republican forced to apologize for BP apology Texas' Barton called deal with Obama a 'shakedown, isn't alone in GOP -- alleged-President Obama *did* run a shakedown of BP. Mayor Daley and Jesse Jackson would be proud of this astute student of the Chicago Way.
But, the question must be asked: Where does even a real president have the Constitutional authority to do what That Man (*) did to BP ... and does to all of us?
Were I of a mind to be in politics, I'd never be allowed to play with "the big kids," for I refuse to apologize for speaking truth. This refusal to back down when the truth one has spoken offends others (who may be more powerful) ... this refusal to lie about oneself ... seems to be a family trait -- hell! my little sisters have bigger balls that most Republican politicians display in these all-too-common run-ins with the Democrats.
Anyway, here is a column from the excellent David Warren on the matter -- Shakedown
(*) 'That Man' ... is a common way of speaking about a person one does not wish to name. I think that in the future Americans will collectively curse Obama for the injury he and his fellow leftists are intentionally inflicting upon the nation; and that we may have all sorts of names for him while only infrequently using his name.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
By 'That Man', I assume you are referring to George W Bush, who stole an election through his supreme court friends?
As I pointed out before, you're a fool (that is, you're intellectually dishonest); now you're engaging in simple lying.
... which is a slight improvement.
That almost sounds like a compliment!
You may believe that I am intellectually dishonest but I do need to point out that all the conspiratorial and 'birther' theories are all baseless. They are the desperate ructions of people who refuse to accept that the majority of voters chose a democrat and a person of mixed color.
Yet it is well proven that the supreme court did what it did to aid Bush Jr's election.
Therefore I believe that it is you who is intellectually dishonest. But I'd rather just say that we have differing positions in regard to these matters.
@Eric
They did it to aid the rule of law, idiot, not to aid Bush
@Ilion
To be fair to Barton, he only issued one of those fake apologies -- "I'm sorry if people misunderstood."
Eric: "You may believe that I am intellectually dishonest but I do need to point out that all the conspiratorial and 'birther' theories are all baseless. They are the desperate ructions of people who refuse to accept that the majority of voters chose a democrat and a person of mixed color."
Eric: "By 'That Man', I assume you are referring to George W Bush, who stole an election through his supreme court friends?"
Intellectual dishonesty is hypocrisy with respect to reason. And Eric is just such a hypocrite.
Ilion and others, the 'birthers' and others have failed to provide any demonstrable evidence after 18 months. If it was real or true it would have surfaced by now.
There is still ongoing debate within the legal community over the outcome of the supreme court which gave Bush the election.
Not intellectual dishonesty or hypocrisy. A different and at least equivalent observation of the situation to yours. Where's your proof?
You damnable anti-reasonable hypocrite! It is not the duty or responsibility of the "birthers" to prove that alleged-President Obama fails to meet the Constitutional requirements to hold the office he now occupies, it is *his* responsibility and duty to provide the evidence that he meets those quite simple requirements.
He *refuses* to do so.
Ergo, even if he is a natural born US citizen, he is a usurper. And, someday, Americans will curse his very memory on those grounds.
Well apart from the fact that our laws are predicated on the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, it would appear that 'birthers' and others refuse to accept the evidence because it does not suit them.
The Obama campaign released a 2007 certified copy of his birth certificate (in this instance referred to as a "Certification of Live Birth") that states Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. Frequent arguments of those questioning Obama's eligibility are that he has not released a photocopy of his "original" birth certificate, and that the use of the term "certification of live birth" on the document means it is not equivalent to one's "birth certificate". These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations, every judicial forum that has addressed the matter, and Hawaiian government officials, a consensus of whom have concluded that the certificate released by the Obama campaign is indeed his official birth certificate.[8] Asked about this, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo stated that Hawaii "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate."[9] Moreover, the director of her Department has confirmed that the state "has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."[10][11]
Post a Comment