Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on November 16, 2003, 03:29:37 AM
-
yet another perfect example of democrat hypocrisy!
They support civil rights and equal oppertunity ONLY if you support THEIR views
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/14/miller.lynching/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/14/miller.lynching/index.html)
AND HE"S A DEMOCRAT
Democratic senator under fire for 'lynching' comment
Miller stands by remark
Friday, November 14, 2003 Posted: 5:45 PM EST (2245 GMT)
Sen. Zell Miller, D-Georgia, makes a point during a recent talk-show appearance.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia came under fire Friday from civil rights activists who demanded an apology from the conservative Democrat after he equated his party's opposition to the nomination of a conservative African-American judge to a lynching.
Miller -- who has already rankled Democrats by endorsing President Bush for re-election -- refused to apologize.
"Either Senator Miller has conveniently forgotten a frightening period of American history, or he is willfully demeaning all those African-Americans who were hung from trees throughout the period of racial segregation in the South," said Wade Henderson, the director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
Henderson and others were reacting to comments made by Miller on the Senate floor around 2 a.m Friday, when he blasted Democrats for blocking the nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Miller was taking part in a marathon debate in the Senate where Republicans criticized Democrats for blocking some of President Bush's judicial nominees and Republicans blasted the administration's economic policies. Miller, who has often broken ranks with his party leaders, supports GOP efforts to end the filibusters of the judicial nominees.
Brown is the daughter of an Alabama sharecropper who entered the law field after being inspired by lawyers during the civil rights movement.
"The Democrats in this chamber refuse to stand and let her do it. They're standing in the doorway, and they've got a sign: Conservative African-American women need not apply. And if you have the temerity to do so your reputation will be shattered and your dignity will be shredded. Gal, you will be lynched," Miller said.
-RIGHT ON
Henderson then called on Miller, the former governor of Georgia, to apologize -- a call that was echoed by Democratic Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
"I was offended. I think it was unfortunate," Daschle said. "I think those within the civil rights leadership who have commented and have asked for an apology are right."
Henderson said, "Senator Zell Miller's comment equating opposition to the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to a lynching is despicable on its face."
-whats despicable is you not approving her cause she's a republican
Miller refused to back down from his comment, releasing a statement later in the day saying he is "not the first to use this analogy." He said African-American columnist Thomas Sowell "first used it" in a column on October 24, and "I think it sums up the situation accurately."
-its ok if a black guy says it but if your white and you go against the democrats your despicable, neanderthal, neo-nazy...pick one i dont care
"The tragedy here does not lie in my floor speech this morning. The tragedy lies in what is happening in the United States Senate to this highly qualified conservative, African-American jurist," he said.
"I would put my record on civil rights up against anyone's. As Georgia's governor, I named more African-Americans to state boards than any Georgia governor, and I named more African-Americans to judgeships than all previous governors combined. I named an African-American female as the first to serve on the Georgia Supreme Court. I also appointed an African-American as state Attorney General, the first one in the nation at the time."
-
Tolerance of opposing views is not a common trait whether it be liberal, conservative, democrat, and/or republican people just to name a few groups.
-
SaburoS, you couldn't possibly be more wrong! Jeeze I hate people with your attitude, it makes me so mad!:mad:
-
SaburoS speaks the truth. What is it about the truth that makes you so mad, McGroin?
MRPLUTO
-
Ironic that when a fault of leftists/liberals/democrats is pointed out it is a fault shared by us all and is tolerable. But if it's a fault of the rightists/conservatives/republicans then it's deplorable and must be condemned.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
SaburoS, you couldn't possibly be more wrong! Jeeze I hate people with your attitude, it makes me so mad!:mad:
Am I the only one that caught the sarcasm?
-
Uh, Martlet, you may have been. Hehe. Ooops.
Nevermind.
MRPLUTO
-
AKIron,
Which fault of conservatives is it that is condemned only when they do it?
And which faults of liberals are overlooked?
Certainly, so-called "reverse" discrimination by liberals has been widely discussed and criticized in the media, hasn't it?
Clue us in with some specifics, please.
****************
By the way, I think equating the Democrat's opposition to 4 judges (vs. 168 approved) to a lynching is pretty ridiculous, no matter who says it.
MRPLUTO
-
Brown is the daughter of an Alabama sharecropper who entered the law field after being inspired by lawyers during the civil rights movement.
She is utterly qualified and a Liberal dream choice ( if only she was a democrat) for a judicial nominee, except she doesn't conform to their "mold" on abortion and the democrats will stop at nothing to preven even an up or down vote to take place on her nomination. The minority of Democrats is preventing a VOTE to take place on the nomination because I guess they know best what Americans need..... no need for further discussion. How open minded of them.
That is their hypocracy: they always say they are the party that most supports minorities, most blacks vote for them, and this is how they treat a completetly qualified African American up for nomination.
They have done the same thing to a perfectly upstanding and qualified hispanic nominee.
When will minorities realise that the democrats just use them and take them, and their expected loyal votes for granted
Where is Jesse Jackson now? Seems a perfect chance for him to decry this case? Yet since it's a black republican, Jesse stays silent.
Hypocrites.
-
Here is what Ted Kennedy, Liberal dream-boat, had to say about the nominees..... 2 of which are minorities, ALL of which are very respected and qualified professionals:
Ted calls them "Neaderthals" (http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/14/182203.shtml)
"What has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president of the United States for any court, federal court in the United States."
How "open-minded"
Funny how only 3 papers in the entire country reported this, yet a privat party misspeak by Trent Lott which was far less offesnive cost him his job.
-
while i agree with saburo that these views exist in both parties....I have to say this enrages me because this would be the apidamy (spelling sucks) of what the democrats stand for when it comes to civil rights.
another example: if it was a republican who made this statement black groups would be screaming for a resignation. Why are they so critical that a white senator made a comment that a black journalist allready made when they should be wondering why a black WOMAN cant be voted on?
-
I'm still searching for the hypocrisy...
-
NUKE you say so many things that are misleading or just plain wrong, it's hard to know where to start, or if it's worth wasting the time, but here goes...
*********************
Just because a candidate for judgeship is black, with a noble life story of rising from tough circumstances, does not make that person a "Liberal dream choice". There are many Democrats who admire Colin Powell, even though he is a Republican.
The Democrats have every right to stop someone from becoming a judge whom they feel is a bad choice. Whether one agrees with those methods or the reasons for the hold, it's legal. The Republicans did the same with legal (and anonymous) Senatorial holds.
********************
"...I guess they [the Democrats] know best what Americans need...", you wrote.
All political parties say they know what is best for the country, if you think about it, don't they? To be honest, I think you wrote your response without ever looking at it again. You never looked it over to make sure it made sense. You think you have made a good argument because you sarcastically type, "How, open-minded", or call people hypocrites.
***********************
You wrote that the Democrat's hypocrisy is that though they say they "support minorities", they aren't this time. You realize that what you're saying is that the Democrats should knee-jerk support all minority candidates (because of their ethnicity), and not consider other issues. That would be a racist way of selecting whom to support, wouldn't it?
What the Democrats are doing is opposing someone they disapprove of based on his/her opinions, or beliefs, and not his/her race. Which is how it should be. Same argument goes for Jesse Jackson: why should he always be expected to support a black candidate? That would be racist.
Again, I don't think you read your post after you wrote it.
**********************
Perhaps when you wrote this post only 3 papers had picked up the story. I expect more have already. It was mentioned on the Sunday morning talk shows. So to imply that the "liberal" media is ignoring the insult (and it was an isnsult, I agree), is misleading.
Also, what Trent Lott said was that the country would be a lot better off if Strom Thurmond had been elected president running on a segregationist platform. That seems incredibly more offensive to say that America would have better off with it's own system of Apartheid than calling some people "Neanderthals". Not a nice thing to say, but there's no comparison with Lott's racist lament.
**********************
MRPLUTO
-
I did read my post and I stand by it MrPluto.
And the deomcrats are blocking someone for their opinions and beliefs....when they are soppossed to be looking at qualifications.
They are blocking a nomination in an unprecidented way. No other time in history has a filibuster been used to prevent a vote for a nomination.
A nomination is supposed to be voted by a simple majority. By filibustering, the minority number of Democrats are requiring a super-majority in order to break the filibuster. That is wrong and probably unconstitutional.
The sole reason for the block of the vote is due to the fact that, no matter how qualified the nominee, the dems DO NOT a pro-lifeer ever having a chance to get a supreme court position. That's it in a nutshell.
Any nominee has a personal opinion about a lot of theings. As long as the nominee is qualified and has a history of ruling based on the law and the constitution, then personal beliefs do not matter.
What the dems are doing is flat out wrong and it will probably come back to bite them.
btw, I say so many things that are wrong or missleading? Like what? I mostly state my opinions and beliefs.
>edit when I said "I guess they know best what Americans need..... " I meant that they are deciding the matter themselves, without a vote. They are deciding what is best with no other opion.
What the republicans should do is make the dems have a REAL filibuster....make them do it non-stop until they cant talk any longer no matter how long it takes. Then they will have the vote. I don't understand why the reps wont make the dems conform to a real, true filibuster.
-
overall they are doing what they have a right to do. and after your boys went after a sitting president....
all bets are off and your boys started it.
its funtime
-
Since you asked, how about Trent Lott and Robert Byrd for starters? Specific enough?
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
AKIron,
Which fault of conservatives is it that is condemned only when they do it?
And which faults of liberals are overlooked?
Certainly, so-called "reverse" discrimination by liberals has been widely discussed and criticized in the media, hasn't it?
Clue us in with some specifics, please.
****************
By the way, I think equating the Democrat's opposition to 4 judges (vs. 168 approved) to a lynching is pretty ridiculous, no matter who says it.
MRPLUTO
-
Some of you DOLTS (again thanks HT) are missing the point here:
reguardless if they are trying to opose her for being republican...civil rights groups went after Sen. Zell Miller, D-Georgia for repeating comments made by a black journalist.
HE'S TRYING TO GET HER APPOINTED...THATS WHY THE COMMENTS ARE BEING SHUNNED!
the other point would be that civil rights groups (who are usually librals) arent saying A WORD to help this woman out.
SO sandman there's your hipocracy:
if she was a libral and the republicans were opposing her the black activists would be all over this screaming racism and such
since she's a republican they remain silent
-
AKIron,
Thank you for being specific...now we have something to talk about:
Sen. Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK, it's true. He is no longer, and, to the best of my knowledge, has not expressed pro-segregationist beliefs in a long, long time, and I believe has renounced them.
George Wallace repudiated his racist beliefs as well. For that matter, so did Strom Thurmond, if I'm not mistaken.
And because they did, they were/are accepted as leaders by the citizenry.
Now, imagine if tomorrow Byrd came out with a statement that, "Segregation would have been a better path for our country." He would catch worse flak than a Lanc formation over a CV group at 5k. His power would evaporate instantly...the Democrats themselves would want nothing to do with him. His goose would be cooked. Well, that's what Lott did; he said maybe we'd have been better off if a segregationist had been elected president. Lott kept his seat in the Senate [note to NUKE: he did not lose his job], but you can't blame the Republicans for getting him out of leadership positions.
That's the difference in the example you brought up: one man seems to have changed his beliefs, the other clearly has not. That, or he's just incredibly stupid while trying to be polite, which I believe was his excuse. Either way, a Republican or Democrat lamenting the end of racial segregation would be crucified by his own party.
Any other examples?
*************************
Gunslinger,
Your point is well made. There are many activists who use the race card at every possible occaision, whether or not there is any merit to the charge. In this case, they certainly can't charge racism however, since the nominees are opposed because of their beliefs, not their race. (Or their party, for that matter. If these people were Democrats with the identical ideology they'd still be unacceptable.)
But don't put all "black activists" (or any group) into such neat little boxes of limited beliefs. As I pointed out above, you certainly wouldn't want liberals or black activists to automatically support candidates based on their race, since that would be racism.
*******************
NUKE,
Here's what I thought was misleading: implying the liberal media was ignoring Ted Kennedy's rudeness; suggesting that the Democrats automatically support minorities, except when they are Republican; and accusing the Democrats of using illegal methods to block the nominations.
Also, I think you're wrong again...nominees can be rejected for their beliefs, not just thier qualifications, or lack of them. Also, it's not unconstitutional to block the nominations with a filibuster. Annoying, yes. Illegal, no.
In the case of Estrada, there is very little written material available on his legal thinking and the Republicans aren't supplying much to evaluate him on. That seems like a valid argument to hold his nomination up.
I agree with you that the Republicans should force the Democrats to have a real filibuster.
You're completely correct when you say that the Democrats don't want a pro-lifer in a position to get on the Supreme Court. That is it, "in a nutshell", and it's the topic for a whole 'nuther post:
"What would happen if the Christian Nationalist, errrr, I mean the Republican Party gained a solid majority in the legislature, held the Presidency for many years, and greatly increased its power in the courts?"
Could they begin rolling back abortion rights, stop equal rights for gays & lesbians, etc., and keep a majority of the voters on their side? And if they could, wouldn't the backlash by the large liberal minority cause the "Culture War" to heat up to dangerous levels?
MRPLUTO
-
Mr Pluto your post was well written, well thaught out, and very specific. But I disagree with you.
My beliefs are that if the republicans were blocking a judge that happened to be black they'd be labled even more as "racists Neo-nazis" reguardless of there beliefs. I havnt heared one minority group make a peep about these judges and that to me is wrong. I believe they dont care about them because they are republicans.
you certainly wouldn't want liberals or black activists to automatically support candidates based on their race, since that would be racism.
but this IS what they do. They support there own kind and lobby for programs that support THEM!
This is entirely another double standard because a white pride parade would be looked at as a skin head ralley and a black pride parade would just be a "celebration of culture" just look at febuary....that's black history month right.
now I havnt said anything bad about any particular minority except that they are biased. With this line of thinking I'm considered a neo nazi racist because i'm not a libral.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
overall they are doing what they have a right to do. and after your boys went after a sitting president....
all bets are off and your boys started it.
its funtime
you dont support black judges, you must be racist then
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
Now, imagine if tomorrow Byrd came out with a statement that, "Segregation would have been a better path for our country." He would catch worse flak than a Lanc formation over a CV group at 5k. His power would evaporate instantly...the Democrats themselves would want nothing to do with him. His goose would be cooked. Well, that's what Lott did; he said maybe we'd have been better off if a segregationist had been elected president.
MRPLUTO
That isn't what Trent Lott said and I think you know it. You have changed what he said to suit your purpose.
I'll give you some more examples of the double standard so frequently embraced by liberals at another time.
Here's another off the top of head.
Bill Clinton womanizes to the point of sorely abusing his public position yet it is his personal life and he shouldn't be held politically accountable. Arnold Schwarzenegger womanizes as a private citizen yet he is burned at the stake by the same people so willing to look the other way when one of their own is guilty. Tell me that's not true?
-
So the civil rights groups are being hypocritical. Not the Democrats... got it.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
SO sandman there's your hipocracy:
if she was a libral and the republicans were opposing her the black activists would be all over this screaming racism and such
since she's a republican they remain silent
... and this would be a example of such hypocrisy?
"I was offended. I think it was unfortunate," Daschle said. "I think those within the civil rights leadership who have commented and have asked for an apology are right."
-
This is what Lott said:
"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years either."
Remember, Thurmond's political platform was explicitly racist: "We stand for the segregation of the races, and for the integrity of each race."
Some more quotes from Lott's past make it perfectly clear what he thinks:
1992: Lott was the keynote speaker at the Conservative Citizen's Council, an openly racist and anti-semitic group. He told them: "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy."
1980: Lott spoke at a Republican rally, telling the Mississippi crowd, if we had elected Thurmond "30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today."
I do not think I distorted Sen. Lott's beliefs at all. Again and again he has said we'd be better off today if we had elected a segregationist in 1948.
**********************
On the other hand, you have a pretty good point about Schwarzenegger. There are some true liberal hypocrites who looked the other way at Clinton's atrocious behavior, but can't ignore Arnold's. But in the end, both "got away" with it...Clinton wasn't impeached, and Arnold was elected. Ultimately, the standard for both Repbulican & Democrat was, "We'll overlook this."
For the record, I didn't think Clinton should be impeached for the Lewinsky affair, but I do think the pardons he gave as he left office were very probably criminal. But since he was leaving office, the Republicans didn't care. Also, if I were a Californian, I think I might have voted to recall Davis and vote for Arnold.
*********************
Gunslinger,
I think minority groups are looking at the issues and not the party. Nevertheless, I agree there are some kooks who would call you a racist neo-Nazi for opposing a non-white, even if you had very valid reasons for doing so.
Also, while I believe that affirmative action was the necessary path at the time, it is not a solution to racism and lack of opportunity among minorities.
And as for the Black history months, I think we should simply have "Our History".
MRPLUTO
-
Clinton was impeached.
he was impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice ( for of inducing others to lie in order to conceal his affair with Ms. Lewinsky.)
Only the 2nd President in our history to be impeched.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Clinton was impeached.
Yes he was... It ended with an acquittal.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Yes he was... It ended with an acquittal.
The fact is that he was impeached and had to go to trial before the senate . Only the second president in US history.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
... and this would be a example of such hypocrisy?
"I was offended. I think it was unfortunate," Daschle said. "I think those within the civil rights leadership who have commented and have asked for an apology are right."
DICK here was offended that a white democratic senator who supports a black republican judical nomne repeated what a black journalist had allready said
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
This is what Lott said:
"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years either."
Remember, Thurmond's political platform was explicitly racist: "We stand for the segregation of the races, and for the integrity of each race."
MRPLUTO
"Was" is the keyword there. It seems that you are saying Strom Thurmond, a 48 year US Senator, WWII Vet, Army Reserve Major General, had no other notable qualities than supporting segregation and that it could only be that that Trent Lott acknowledged on Thurmond's 100th birthday.
Is it necessary to condemn someone that may not agree completely with your ideaology? What if they value many of the same principles you adhere to? Can you not show appreciation for those without being branded a racist for supporting someone that was a segregationist 50 years ago?
Hypocrisy in politics? Most definitely, but I see a lot more of it among democrats than republicans. I admit being biased but that doesn't automatically make my observation invalid.
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
This is what Lott said:
"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years either."
MRPLUTO
I laugh when Republicans speak proudly that the GOP is the party of Lincoln...
Any one who knows his history, writing and speaches knows Lincoln was also a seperatist... he believed in colonization of blacks back to Africa... He did not want them running free in the north... nor did he want interracial marriages... he did not believe in equal rights for blacks.... he was a politician... championing anti-slavery only after the abolishionist movement became large enough to be an influence in elections.
O'tay.... how's that relevant to today?
It's not.... unless secretly Republicans continue this belief.
The Republican party continues to be the party of "the man." :rofl
Rich, white, anglo-saxon, protistant...sporkting power ties... wealth... and christian values.... not necessarily moral values.
Save the unborn babies... but kill 3rd world poor people through colonial agression and occupation...because their leaders are "Evil."
Save the unborn babies... force them to say prayers to a god they don't believe during school... and ensure they have their 2nd admendment rights to carry military assault rifles...never know when it's necessary to massacre fellow classmates...
Save the unborn babies.... but kill the rest of the population by allowing big business to polute the environment, polute 3rd world countries, and kill their workers with unsafe work practices ...
Hey at least unborn babies are being saved from abortion!...
that's the christian and moral thing to do.
Rant... rant... rant... rant.... :aok
-
Do you ever research your information before you throw it up here to get laughed at? Stop getting your data from OpEd pages.
-
Rich, white, anglo-saxon, protistant...sporkting power ties... wealth... and christian values.... not necessarily moral values.
yet if we are poor, non-religious, and the only power we have is at the town hall meeting we're considered "trailer-park conservatives."
OH yea nexus you librals are so for the people.
being conservative doesnt mean you're part of the christian right.
thats like saying if you are a libral your a tree hugging dope smoking hippie.
yet another example of libral hypocracy......bigits
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Yes he was... It ended with an acquittal.
Just like an OJ case. Jury nullification in both cases.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
I laugh when Republicans speak proudly that the GOP is the party of Lincoln...
I laugh when a closet libral thinks all republicans are racists. And when we support a minority cause they just bring up any past ill will they can think of.
Any one who knows his history, writing and speaches knows Lincoln was also a seperatist... he believed in colonization of blacks back to Africa...
return them to there homland...is that such a horendous idea did all of them have to go?
He did not want them running free in the north... nor did he want interracial marriages...
do you have any proof of this or are you ranting?
he did not believe in equal rights for blacks.... he was a politician...
oh i get it he didnt want to free the slaves at all to follow the peoples will
championing anti-slavery only after the abolishionist movement became large enough to be an influence in elections.
OH WAIT he did free the slaves cause the people wanted it...now i'm confused...did the slaves get freed or not. did the people want this?
Rant... rant... rant... rant.... :aok
yea basically the rest sound like that rant rant rant unborn babys...more sterotypes that all of us want everyone to worship god.
here's one.....most republicans are pro life....but when a republican presidant commits troops to war all you hear about is all the babys that are being killed
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
do you have any proof of this or are you ranting?
Yes... I do!
From the mouth of Abe himself:
here's his speech at New Haven.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/newhaven.html
by the way the emacipation proclamation... only freed the slaves in the rebellious south.
"The War on Slavery
Lincoln signed a bill ending slavery in the Western territories in 1862. Some historians believe that economic as well as moral concerns prompted this decision. Lincoln believed the expansion of slavery would depress white wages."
"On Jan. 1, 1863, the Emancipation Proclamation freed all slaves within the Confederacy."
http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2000/02/front.180200.lincoln.jhtml
"Abraham Lincoln may indeed have believed that blacks should enjoy the same legal rights as whites. But he also believed that the freed blacks should enjoy them somewhere separate from whites. Lincoln therefore worked, even during the war, to ship freed blacks to colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and South America."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman50.html
The Republican party has never been a friend to the Negro, and in fact is not one today either.
-
Wonder what Lincoln was talking about when he used the phrase "...a new birth of freedom..." in the Gettysburg Address?
After all, he wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa. Didn't he?
Shuckins
-
The Republican party has never been a friend to the Negro, and in fact is not one today either
and the librals are?
-
Is it a constant theme among liberals to post links to OpEd pieces as facts and proof positive?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
and the librals are?
According to the Republicans everyone who isn't a Republican is a liberal..... yah... I guess there's a few people in that group that would fit.
Your guess is as good as mine... if they are or aren't.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
You guess is as good as mine... if they are or aren't.
According to the Republicans everyone who isn't a Republican is a liberal..... yah... I guess there's a few people in that group that would fit.
and according to you everyone who isnt libral is a racist bigot neo-nazi who just cares about saving unborn children and pushing rlegion down peoples throats.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Is it a constant theme among liberals to post links to OpEd pieces as facts and proof positive?
That's a rather disingenuous comment comging from you, given how this BBS works... JBA is notorious for posting OpEds.. as well as a few others.
Just so I know what the rules are...
What would you accept as a "non OpEd" link?
If it's an original source... for example a transcript of a speech... is that an OpEd?
Or how about a link to a press release by the White House or from the congressional record a declassified CIA report
How about a link to a mainstream news media site reporting a court ruling with PDF files of the judge's ruling.
Or from a historian who's an expert on Lincoln and his many writings and political views.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
and according to you everyone who isnt libral is a racist bigot neo-nazi who just cares about saving unborn children and pushing rlegion down peoples throats.
As Reagan was popular for saying when Jimmy Carter would misspeak... "Ah there you go again..."
I only say that about the Republicans who promote Bushism and Rumsfeldianism
Chenny is actually sort of benign.. so is Powel.
Karl Rove is the Great Satan!
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
If it's an original source... for example a transcript of a speech... is that an OpEd? No
Or how about a link to a press release by the White House or from the congressional record a declassified CIA report No
How about a link to a mainstream news media site reporting a court ruling with PDF files of the judge's ruling. No
Or from a historian who's an expert on Lincoln and his many writings and political views. Yes