Posted on 02/13/2008 3:45:25 PM PST by newbie2008
my pleasure!
youre being intentionally obtuse.
Arent you?”
Why would you post something as stupid as:Cool. And I need a Photoshop of you boinking a 10 year old boy.?
OK, I ‘splain.
Veni, Vidi, Vici (odd name, isn’t it?)said he needed a Photoshop of Obama in front of a Cuban/Che Guevara flag. In other words, he wanted someone to MANUFACTURE a FICTIONAL photo of Obama to bring disrepute to and embarrass Obama.
SO, I sarcastically asked if someone could/would make up a FICTIONAL photo to embarrass him (Veni, Vidi,Vici) thus demonstrating the unfairness and ...well...you get it now...
for sure.
Did he graduate from high school?
Did you?
In fairness, doesn’t the Supreme Court ruling say that the President MAY detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants, not that he MUST? I’m no Obama supporter, but I would say that a decision to reverse Bush's policy might be foolish, even dangerous, but it is not ignoring the Court.
bump for later.
So lawyers can't make stupid statements? My lawyer daughter-in-law devoutly believed that Bush was going to draft her and send her to Iraq. Lib lawyers say stupid things all the time.
If he's so smart, why's he a liberal, unless he's totally evil?
Oh...
I got it the first time.I just think your example was a poor choice.
Sorry, (Side note: Federalist Papers and all the debate plus intentions of Amendments post Bill of Rights)
‘...but lacks the wisdom of those dead white guys who actually wrote the constitution.”
Well, yeah, doesn’t everyone?
You set a pretty high bar for him.
OK
Hardly. First, that's the syllabus, which, as the disclaimer that has been at the top of Court syllabi since what seems like time immemorial states, "constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader."
Second, and to make matters worse, you're quoting from the syllabus's summary of the holding of the Fourth Circuit below, not from any summary of what the Court itself held.
Hamdi was a complicated opinion from a fractured Court and does not lend itself to Rush's kind of sound bite showmanship. It was a plurality opinion by O'Connor. In a nutshell, the only holding that a majority of the Court joined in on was that the Bush Administration did not have the authority to hold a U.S. citizen nonenemy combatant indefinitely without providing a "meaningful opportunity" to go before a neutral decisionmaker or judge and challenge his detention.
Rush mischaracterizes the holding, and I would bet for entertainment's sake he mischaracterized what Obama said. Plus Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review and then worked for a civil rights firm in Chicago. Rush is qualified to interpret Supreme Court holdings how?
As opposed to McCain who violated the First Amendment all in the name of politics?? McCainFeingold Act.
Well, you may be right, Bob. Lotsa people around speculate Obie is the antiChrist. Then again, lotsa people speculate that McCain is the Manchurian candidate. Interesting year, 2008!
Your about page is great! You have an interesting life. Do you get to go to Brazil? I’ve never been but I’m a big fan of Brazilian music. I like the older singers, Gal Costa, Cauby Peixoto, Doris Monteiro but my favorite is Jane Duboc. If you like Brazilian music, check out Paraiso, an album she did with Stan Getz. “Wave” in particular. I know, everyone records “Wave” but it’s a wonderful song and this is a fabulous performance.
Happy caipira,
BD
Now to take this PChop you did for me and send it to the papers! I'm sure everyone will believe it's true!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.