jclalor

I am a firm believer in moan hoaxs, half the women I get in the sack with are not being honest with me when they moan.

"Site" should be "cite". The definition of "cheap" does not mean "priced below world market value". Can you exlpain when Obama cut off the supply of "cheap abundant energy" which is portrayed as oil and coal in the video. You can never go broke peddling fear to the right. .

At the very beginning he say's "cut off cheap plentiful energy" Coud you please site a time when there was energy in the United states, that was priced below world market value.

Junk science and a re-post from 3 weeks ago. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4306225;search_string=PM2.5;#4306225

So much for standing on corners in Winslow Az.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/16/romney-more-prayer-in-schools/ Lets see Romney lead a prayer where he starts out: "Dear Elohim, please bless us tonight...."

I just gave you one.

Why would it matter? anything I would consider based on Biblical teaching, you would just say it's based on Morals, like prop 8. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57372883-503544/romney-gingrich-blast-prop-8-ruling/ Can you imagine a Republican nominee stating they would not govern based upon biblical values? The fact is, the republicans did end up with the least religiously overt candiate out of the major contenders, but then again, we know why that is.

Personally I think that may be more of an issue for people like you...religious folk may have strong opinions, but for the most part it's a personal thing. It's not an issue for Athiest, you can pretty much bet that Romney will recieve very few of their votes. Why would an atheist care which flavor of crazy he's voting for? Obama and Romney both have some crazy religous beliefs, neither of which will affect my vote (though I'd give mormom magic panties my top vote for hilarity). Blues, Dave As an Athiest, a nominee's religous beliefs do not matter to me, the nominee that will use his beliefs on how he will govern does. Romeny already has a history of letting his religous beliefs dictate how he will govern, Obama, not so much.

Thanks for the great idea, I'm gonna get right on it.

This was ted's second offense (that he was caught) in 2 yeas involving baiting, he can now no longer hunt in California or Alaska. Both offenses were during the filming of his TV show, If anyone thinks Ted did not understand the law involving the Baiting of animals, thier just making excuses for him. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/18/ted-nugent-fined-baiting-deer-shot-tv/

Arizona mis-treating a foreigner? That's a little hard to believe.

Wow!!! Great Zinger. Did you think that one up all by yourself? Ya pretty stupid, But then again, you didn't really leave the bar all that high.

So you're claiming that the civil suit that he and the other attorneys brought in Jan 2009 was due to his satisfaction with the lack of criminal charges? And this makes *sense* to you? Looks like you have the same 'excuse at any cost' syndrome that Chris Matthews has. At "any cost" Take a good at look who you guys are voting for the decision not to file criminal charges was made before the civil suit, why was he not hopping mad then. The bottom line; The bush DOJ did not press criminal charges, No consevative objections. The Obama DOJ follows the Bush DOJ, and does not file criminal charges, Consevatives go bat shit. For several weeks, Fox News pundits have been hammering the Obama administration for its handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. The gist of the argument is that the Obama administration backed off a slam-dunk case because it has no stomach for going after minorities for civil rights violations. At issue is an incident on Nov. 4, 2008 -- the day of the presidential election -- when New Black Pather Party members Jerry Jackson and King Samir Shabazz stood outside a Philadelphia polling place dressed in black military-style uniforms. Shabazz held a nightstick, and the two men were accused of making intimidating remarks to both white and black voters. Be one of the 1.5 million people to view the video on YouTube by clicking here. In the video, the men are asking a camera man why he is taping them. On January 7, 2009, a couple weeks before Obama took office, the Department of Justice filed a civil action in federal court accusing the two men, as well as the New Black Panther Party and its leader Malik Zulu Shabazz, of engaging in voter intimidation. Although none of the defendants responded to the complaint, the Department decided last year to drop its case against all but King Samir Shabazz, the one with the nightstick. The department asked for, and got, an injunction prohibiting Shabazz from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling location until 2012. Many Fox News pundits decried the government's position as outrageously lenient, and evidence of an Obama administration double standard on race issues. On July 6, 2010, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly asked Fox News legal analyst Lis Wiehl whether the Justice Department should have prosecuted the Panthers. "Of course," Wiehl said. "I mean, there's absolutely no reason. Just take a look at the video that they didn't prosecute. And it's interesting you use the word prosecute, because all that the department did was file a civil complaint, which they won by default judgment. They dropped that afterwards, because, oh, one of the Black Panthers has said, oh, I'm not going to show up for three years at that particular polling area with a night stick. And that's all they wanted. They never pursued criminal charges, Bill. And they could have done that." "Okay, but you say they should have done that?" O'Reilly asked. "Oh, absolutely," Wiehl said. Later, OReilly asked Fox News legal analyst Kimberly Guilfoyle if the matter should have been prosecuted. "You've got a video," Guilfoyle said. "Yes, they absolutely should have proceeded full on this case...I have to tell you, this bothers me because I believe that they are not being race neutral in their enforcement of the Voting Rights Act." O'Reilly expanded on this point very clearly in a July 19, 2010, column. "If it were just about the Panthers, the story would be meaningless," O'Reilly wrote. "But because Attorney General Eric Holder is involved in the dismissal of the criminal charges, the situation takes on some importance." We're fact-checking the claim that the Obama administration made the call not to pursue a criminal civil rights case against the New Black Panther Party, because we think the answer puts the entire issue into a clearer context. Let's take a walk through the timeline to see who decided what and when. The 2008 election day incident was reported in the media immediately, and the Department of Justice decided to investigate. Officials weighed a number of prosecution options -- both criminal and civil. On Jan. 7, 2009, the Bush Administration Justice Department announced that it filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members. Specifically, they were alleged to have violated Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits intimidation, coercion or threats against "any person for voting or attempting to vote." The aims of the lawsuit were fairly limited: "The Department seeks an injunction preventing any future deployment of, or display of weapons by, New Black Panther Party members at the entrance to polling locations." In other words, the aim was to make sure they didn't do something similar again in the future. This section of the law does not subject violators to criminal penalties (fines or jail time, for example). The Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, which handles all racially motivated voter intimidation offenses, determined that "the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes," according to testimony provided by Thomas E. Perez , Assistant Attorney General, on May 14, 2010. Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler confirmed to PolitiFact that that determination not to file criminal charges was made prior to the filing of the civil case. In other words, the decision not to pursue criminal charges was made by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division prior to the Obama administration. Perez also noted, "In July 2009, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania declined prosecution in the matter. Our understanding is that local law enforcement officials also declined to pursue state criminal charges." Again, none of the defendants responded to the civil complaint, so it's fair to say this was a slam-dunk case for the prosecution. But according to Perez, "that did not absolve the Department of its legal and ethical obligations to ensure that any relief sought was consistent with the law and supported by the evidence." And upon deeper review, the Justice Department decided to dismiss the cases against the New Black Panther Party, its leader Malik Shabazz, and Jackson (the guy without the nightstick at the polling place that day). In order to have violated the statute in question, the New Black Panther Party (which is not affiliated with the original Black Panther Party) would have had to "direct a campaign of intimidation," and Perez noted that while the organization had posted a notice that 300 members of the party would be deployed at polling places on election day, the Philadelphia location where King Samir Shabazz was stationed was the only one where an incident occurred. Perez further noted that the group posted a message on its website -- prior to the civil action being filed -- which stated, "Specifically, in the case of Philadelphia, the New Black Panther Party wishes to express that the actions of people purported to be members do not represent the official views of the New Black Panther Party and are not connected nor in keeping with our official position as a party." The Justice Department, did, however, follow through with its case against King Samir Shabazz, concluding that his display of a nightstick at the polling place "supported the allegation of voter intimidation." The Department asked for, and got, an injunction prohibiting Shabazz from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling location until 2012. Some may say the government was too lenient, that the case should not have been dropped against the three other defendants, or that the injunction against Shabazz should have extended nationwide -- not just in Philadelphia -- and for a much longer time (not just until 2012). Those decisions were made during the Obama administration. But the pundits have often blurred the distinction between the civil and criminal cases. O'Reilly and other Fox commentators have confused the issue by suggesting Holder and the Obama administration made the call not to pursue more serious charges against the New Black Panther Party members. Perez stated that the Civil Rights Division decided pre-Obama not to pursue more serious, criminal charges. So when O'Reilly brings on legal analysts who paint it as an outrage that the Justice Department did not pursue a criminal case, and the only person condemned by O'Reilly is Holder for not "representing the United States in a fair and balanced way," that's misleading and misplaced. We think it's fair to hold Holder accountable for the decision to limit the civil case, but not the criminal one. We rate O'Reilly's statement False.

He was hoping to get the 'racist Bush supporter' vibe going, I think. I think he and Hugo Chavez have much in common in regards to their hatred of Bush. Definitely a case of BDS bubbling to the surface here. Coate's never seemed to be outraged when the Bush DOJ never persued criminal charges. Looks like you have the same hatred for Obama that Bin Laden had.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=grasping+at+straws&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS407US407&biw=1150&bih=589&tbm=isch&tbnid=EJNMZGpKHTAqjM:&imgrefurl=http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/israel-grasping-at-straws-to-stop-the-flotillas/&docid=mRNBINF9PtQ2mM&imgurl=http://desertpeace.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/grasping-at-straws1.jpg&w=750&h=600&ei=CFKXT8u2LePx0gHli4m1Dg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=92&vpy=135&dur=2265&hovh=201&hovw=251&tx=163&ty=91&sig=117446999945249420641&page=1&tbnh=117&tbnw=159&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:69 Was he there during the Bush Era? I never said he was not there under Clinton. See how it works both ways?

All based on Bush-era DOJ guy, nice.

I suppose if this book drew the conclusion that conservatives are the worst at opening minds, you never would have posted this. You do prove the authors premise, just not his subjective conclusion.

You said, The term, " Not even being charged" perhaps means something different to you. Even when it it is explained to you in black and white, you still refuse to accept it. You're the bread and butter of the Fox news channel.

As a nurse, I would never claim that myself and friends would ever bring IV supplies in anticipation of heavy drinking in Reno or Tahoe.

Just not marriage licenses. they were recognized across states until the politics around gay marriage popped up. That was my point.

Let me help you out with the full quote; "But the pundits have often blurred the distinction between the civil and criminal cases. O'Reilly and other Fox commentators have confused the issue by suggesting Holder and the Obama administration made the call not to pursue more serious charges against the New Black Panther Party members. Perez stated that the Civil Rights Division decided pre-Obama not to pursue more serious, criminal charges. So when O'Reilly brings on legal analysts who paint it as an outrage that the Justice Department did not pursue a criminal case, and the only person condemned by O'Reilly is Holder for not "representing the United States in a fair and balanced way," that's misleading and misplaced. We think it's fair to hold Holder accountable for the decision to limit the civil case, but not the criminal one. We rate O'Reilly's statement False."

Got it, one person who is convicted of frausd is equal to the massive frauds perpetrated by Democrat surrogates. And equal to Black Panthers stationing themselves at voting places with the sole intent of preventing anyone except Dems from voting and then not even being charged by Obama's Justice Dept. You sure have a strange sense of parity. You have a strange sense of reality. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/23/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-blames-obama-administration-not-pursu/

What all you Reaganites need is a class in history. Who raised income and payroll taxes? Who traded weapons to the Iranians? Who gave amnesty to millions of illgals? Who vetoed and anti-aparthied bill, only to have Republicans over-ride it? Who did nothing to stop abortion? What did reagan say about the secretary paying a higher tax rate than her wealthy boss? The Bus driver paying more than the rich? Reagan would not stand a prayer in todays GOP.

Personally I think that may be more of an issue for people like you...religious folk may have strong opinions, but for the most part it's a personal thing. It's not an issue for Athiest, you can pretty much bet that Romney will recieve very few of their votes. For some, their religion is a personal thing, but for many, the trinity is the foundation of their Christian faith. This is mainly an issue with the religious right, one that the left, and present company included, is all more than happy to sit back and watch play out. People are going to learn more about Morminism in the next 6 months, than they learned prior in a whole lifetime. Then again, many on the right will have the old " the enemy of my enemy is my friend" attitude torwards Romney, and they will hold their nose long enough to vote for Mitt.