Windy City Attorney
-
Posts
12 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Windy City Attorney
-
-
Windy City Attorney/ Paul/Kris/Guest. Paul is like a box of chocolates, you never know who you're going to get.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The "story" in the OP is utterly bogus. The only place it appears is on blogs and message boards populated by people whose worldview absolutely cannot tolerate the idea that someone other than a white male is President.
And Paul doesn't seem to have any problem posting what he thinks under his own name.
-
It has just been announced by Justice Antonin Scalia that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President. A lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act forced Occidental College to release Obama's transcripts which revealed that Obama, using the name Barry Soetoro, applied for and received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia.
To qualify for the scholarship, from the Fullbright Foundation Scholarship Program, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
There have been 160 lawsuits filed, challenging Obama's citizenship. He has never produced a valid U.S. Birth Cerificate and it appears the FOIA has finally caught up with "Barry Soetoro".
It could be "Barry Soetoro" is a terrorist plant with the intention of driving the U.S. into bankruptcy. His spending so far over 103 days would seem to bear that theory out.
If "Barry" is forced to resign over this, the mass suicides by the Loonies will make Jonestown look like a Sunday School picnic.
Be sure to tune into O'Reilly for the no-spin facts about Barry.
I know that facts aren't generally your strong suit, but had you done even five seconds of research, you would have found that this story is utter bull. An April Fool's joke that is well past its sell-by date.
-
I just love the way defeatocrats are so quick to give Clinton a pass by simply saying "he had an affair" . As a sitting President, he had an incestuous relationship, perhaps rape, with a young girl, in the White House.
Incestuous? Perhaps rape? Do you even know what those words mean? Clinton and Lewinsky were not related, and their relationship was never alleged to be anything but consensual. And they were both of legal age, so no statutory rape.
Defeatocrats talk the talk but they can't walk the walk. Must be something in the Kool-Aid.Are Newt Gingrich, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, Henry Hyde, David Vitter, Mark Foley, Ronald Reagan and Larry Craig all Democrats now?
-
I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
Yeah, and? Bill Clinton did not run on as a family values candidate. He never said that his moral superiority gave him the right to judge the morality of others, or was the reason why voters should choose him over the other guy. He never claimed to be the defender of traditional marriage. Neither did Edwards.
McCain may not be either, but he is running as the candidate of the party that relies on bogus claims of moral and religious superiority. It is a bigger deal when Republicans are caught with their pants down, since there is such a large chunk of their party that believes that they have the right to dictate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, and to deny basic human rights and dignity to those who don't fit within their narrow paradigm of an "acceptable" relationship.
Colmes' question was totally legitimate - if Republicans believe that Edwards' adultery makes him unfit for the Presidency, then what about McCain's? Hannity's lame "he was a POW" excuse just doesn't cut it - McCain began his affair with his now-wife years after he returned. It's particularly lame for a conservative to argue that past trauma excuses present immorality, since they are particularly aggressive about rejecting that claim when the person accused is non-white and poor, instead of the privileged son of admirals.
-
Graham is right on. Terrorists have no rights, other than to die. Leftist fags like Manscum can hide under their beds while they cry about the
awful treatment of terrorists (the same people that blow up women and children) , while true heros like Bush and Graham are protecting America.
Then it's a good thing that we know that everyone in Guantanamo is a confirmed terrorist and that the U.S. government never makes any mistakes when it decides who is and isn't a terrorist.
Well, except for Sami al-Haj, an Al-Jazeera cameraman who was detained at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border while crossing with a fellow Al Jazeera journalist. He was kept in an Afghan prison for six months, and then sent to Guantanamo, where he has spent the last six years. He has never been interrogated about terrorists or Al Quaeda, simply about the operations of Al Jazeera. He has never been charged with any crime.
Oh, and then there is Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri. He was legally in the U.S. on a student visa when he was arrested in Peoria, Illinois for credit card fraud. President Bush canceled his trial, declared him an enemy combatant, and sent him to Guantanamo. He has been there for four years, has been tortured, and never charged with any crime.
And how about Maher Ahar? He's a Canadian citizen who was detained at JFK airport while in transit between the U.S. and Canada. He was then shipped to Syria, where he was tortured for ten months. Turns out, he wasn't the right guy. Ooops!
Let's not forget Khaled el-Masri. He's a German citizen, arrested while on vacation in Macedonia, bounced around prisons around the world, and tortured by the CIA. Another case of mistaken identity. What are the odds?
And the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case, Lakhdar Boumediene, was a Bosnian citizen living in Bosnia who was arrested at the request of the U.S. government on suspicion of plotting to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo. The Bosnian Supreme Court found him innocent and ordered his release. He was promptly picked up by U.S. forces in Bosnia and sent to Guantanamo. He has not been charged with a crime.
I think the point is made - mistakes happen. This is why the burden is always on the government to justify detaining someone, not the detained's burden to show why they should be let go. That's what habeas corpus is about, and is all that the Supreme Court's decision allows. What the Bush administration is claiming is the right to detain anyone, anywhere, for any length of time, without charging them, and without the accused having the right to challenge his or her detention. That is profoundly un-American, and to claim otherwise is unpatriotic.
-
"Windy City Attorney" ?? Please. 10th grade "C' student I'll believe.
And yet, you're the one answering a question with an insult. Even 10th grade "C" students know that it's not good behavior to do that.
Those that don't figure it out become Republican water-carriers, I guess.
-
Don't tell me you're so naive as to believe the leftist propaganda spewed on these Loony Left hate sites. My God, I've been debating a moron.
Please explain how the Program on International Policy of the University of Maryland (which conducted the survey) is a "Loony Left" organization. Is it just that it's got "University" in the name without the words "Patrick Henry," "Bob Jones," "Regent," "Oral Roberts," or "Liberty"? Or is it the "Program on International Policy" that proves it? I can see how someone who thinks that we've made all the right moves in foreign policy over the last seven years might think that - after all, the Bush/Cheney/neocon approach to foreign policy has two aspects- threaten war and wage war. If you're part of the 28% and falling that still thinks this group is doing a great job, I could see how you might not understand the need for actually studying international policy. Or anything else for that matter - you probably think that the President should be chosen based on whether you'd want to have a beer with him, not whether he or she actually knows anything relevant to the job of President.
It's a study. Just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't mean it's propaganda.
-
Furthermore, this is a far different world than the one our founding fathers lived in, terrorism was
unknown in their world.
To try to make the argument that the contents of a document hundreds of years old is completely
relevant today and will never need tweaking to adjust to today's dangers is unrealistic.
That's not an position one usually hears from Bush supporters. Usually they're all about "strict construction."
There is actually a process for "tweaking" the Constitution if there is a perception that it needs to be tweaked. It is not "tweaking" the Constitution to do something that it actually forbids. It's simply illegal. Much like a President saying that he can pick and choose which provisions of a statute he will follow. But then, this President hasn't been much for respecting limitations on his power, has he?
-
No, what's really scary is knowing that there are people out there willing to enable a public school teacher's flagrant abuse of his authority and violation of the Constitution, and who denigrate and even threaten those who bring such violations to light.
-
Student Sues History Teacher Over Anti-Christian Comments
The Christian Post reports that a lawsuit filed by a high school honors student and his parents against California history teacher James Corbett for anti-religion bias has ignited debate about the role of a teacher's convictions in the classroom. Chad Farnan, a sophomore, tape-recorded his Advanced Placement European history teacher's remarks, including: "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth" and "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies -- that's interfering with God's work." Farnan said, "It just shocks me that someone would think that and say that. He's my teacher, and I've lost respect for him. I'm offended." The 16-year-old and his parents are suing Corbett for violating the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from advancing religion or promoting hostility toward religion. "Corbett causes students who hold religious beliefs to feel like second-class citizens because of their protected religious expression, beliefs and conduct," stated an announcement by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a Christian legal group representing Farnan.
A christianist gets her feelings hurt and files a lawsuit. Now the Establishment Clause prohibits promoting hostility toward religion? What a crock! And remember, this is only the girl's side of the story.
This was originally reported here:
http://www.ocregister.com/news/corbett-cap...7-teacher-court
And there's been another incident in North Dakota:
http://www.kfyrtv.com/News_Stories.asp?news=13949
Now, someone who actually understands and cares about the Constitution would view both of these incidents AND Paskiewicz's in-class ramblings as equally violative even though (wait for it) the California incident involved a teacher criticizing Christianity. And all those "atheistic secular-humanist terrorist-loving America-destroying gay-marrying libruls" at groups like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State would agree. It is only the theocrats who would find some way that the Constitution prohibits what the California teacher did and allows what Paskiewicz and the North Dakota teacher did.
-
More Republican Hypocrisy
in Kearny
Posted
Bill Clinton did not run on a family values platform. Bill Clinton has not (to my knowledge) ever said that extending marriage to same-sex couples would destroy "traditional" marriage. So comparing Bill Clinton to Sanford, Vitter, Ensign, Craig, etc. is inapposite. They all held themselves out as arbiters of "traditional family values." Clinton did not.
And the bigger issue with Sanford is not the adultery, but the fact that his adultery took him out of state incommunicado for nearly a week. He's not a private citizen. He is (for the moment) the chief executive of a state. What if something had happened while he had been gone? His adultery is a private matter up to the point it affects his official duties. At that point, it is public business. So far as anyone can determine, Bill Clinton's private conduct had no impact whatsoever on his performance as President until his adversaries, having failed to convince the voters that it was a problem, decided to try and make it an issue through the courts and impeachment process. (Indeed, p. 63 of the Starr report describes an incident that speaks well of Clinton's powers of concentration.)
Clinton is an adulterer and a scoundrel, but Sanford, Vitter, Ensign, Craig, Gingrich, et. al. are hypocrites. That's the difference.