Maureen Dowd opined in a column about the death of Osama Bin Laden it was not evil to kill evil. The column predictably drew more than a few comments. Here are some that give you a glimpse into how the other side thinks. Enjoy.
""Killing evil doesn't make us evil" - I disagree. Assassinating a sick old unarmed man made us just as "evil" as anyone. And the celebrating - no different from the crowds celebrating 9/11 in some parts of the world.
Neo-libs are as bad as neo-cons, and it's sad to see you in the neo-lib camp, Maureen. Obama now thinks he can assassinate an American citizen with no Due Process - which shreds the Constitution. What if Nixon had tried that? He would have been impeached and imprisoned in a few weeks.
Bin Laden and Al Qaeda won - they dragged us down, below their level. We're no longer a constitutional republic - we're just a banana republic, no different from Gaddhafi's Libya or Hassad's Syria."
"just wonder how many"Go free" cards we're allowed. We gave ourselves one for:
-the Patriot Act
-Guantanamo
-Waterboarding
-Killing an unarmed man
At some point, do we put the the "High Moral Ground" up for auction?"
"So American would rather now slap a bully to make itself feel better, rather than assuming its proper responsibilities of engaging with the world in a reasonable, responsible, and just manner.
Restraint, and the pain that can cause, is a sign of maturity. So is respect for law.
Sadly, the United States has, once again, ceded those responsibilities in favour of a response that will certainly make itself "feel" better, while also guaranteeing its early demise as a global leader. And rightly so.
America is the repository of more than two millennia of legal jurisprudence carefully built up over generations, layer upon layer, into an edifice of principle-based civil code.
Unfortunately, as soon as trouble strikes, the United States is so immature the first thing it does is cast the rulebook aside.
And this is supposed to win you friends and respect?
By its own failure to manage itself responsibly, the United States is securing not only its own demise, but the demise of the Western world.
We have laws; our forefathers created them precisely to deal with this type of situation. Why then are we ignoring them?
If the United States is incapable of respecting its own laws, and conducting itself with restraint, it is manifestly unfit for global leadership.
America would win more friends, not to mention respect, by upholding its own principles with a little more rigour, a little more discipline, a little more restraint.
At least acknowledge that you've just given the Chinese, the Russians, the Arabs - whoever - the right to invade your country without your knowledge or permission, in order to conduct extra-judicial killings of Americans accused of criminal acts in other countries. So don't complain when they turn the predators on you."
"I completely disagree. From my perspective, murder is murder. Obviously the murder of 3,000 is worse than the murder of one, but all are wrong. It looks a whole lot like Osama Bin Laden was simply gunned down in cold blood rather than killed defending himself against people who were trying to bring him to justice. Capturing him and putting him on trial (where if found guilty he'd be imprisoned for the rest of his life) would be the mark of a civilized society. Murdering him in cold blood makes us no better than him and is the archaic and terrible Lex Talonis ideas that have been responsible for so much suffering and death. I will never celebrate murder - doing so it not merely wrong, but vile. This nation and its people should be better than that."
"Usually I agree with Ms. Dowd, but not today. I don't have a problem with college kids feeling good about their country, and I am completely without sympathy for Osama bin Laden. My concern is for whatever shreds remain of the rule of law in this country. If President Obama can order bin Laden killed without trial, and then order Anwar al-Awlaki (a U.S. citizen) killed without trial, who can't he order killed? The rule of law is the only thing that keeps us from becoming a dictatorship, and to toss it out for the temporary pleasure of rejoicing over bin Laden's death is a terrible mistake."
"You called the killing of Osama bin Laden "a win that made us feel like Americans again". Personally, sending eighty people to shoot an unarmed old man in the head didn't make me feel very good, but it did, unfortunately, make me feel like an American. It was such an iconic Neo-American moment, the massive overkill, the seemingly magical way that our guys escape without a scratch, while everyone else in the room is brutalized, including four unarmed people who were massacred (some suggest there were many more, and the story does keeps changing after all) and bin Laden's wife, who was shot in the leg. Collateral damage has become so commonplace when there are American interests involved, hasn't it Maureen? Missiles slam into buildings from miles away. Drones take the place of human intelligence, and blow up perfectly innocent funeral processions. Helicopters gun down teenagers gathering wood on top of a hill, and journalists relaxing in the street.
So we finally catch up with Osama, and he's unarmed, putting up almost no resistance at all, and we just kill everyone in the room. How American is that? I guess they all those evil people just deserved it, right Maureen?"
"I could not disagree more. If American soldiers executed an unarmed man who posed no imminent threat to their safety and who was not given a chance to surrender, then that was a cowardly and illegal act. In that case, Bin Laden should have been captured and put on trial. Of course, I do not know what happened in that compound, and our soldiers may have done exactly the right thing. What disturbs me is Ms. Dowd's smug assertion that we had a right to kill Bin Laden regardless of the circumstances. That is not true, and will never be true, in a country governed by the rule of law. "
"You're right, Maureen, killing evil doesn't make us evil, but it doesn't make us morally superior either. You've developed a taste for blood. When will your thirst be satisfied? We have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent of Afganistani and Iraqi men, women, and children in the name of your revenge for those innocent 3,000 who died here. Not nearly enough. Let's kill them all."
"So, violent revenge is acceptable in the United States? Your opinion is moral relativism dressed in political double-speak laced with arrogance and disrespect. Who are you to say that people would have been less offended had we dropped a bomb? What do you know about how people feel? I would have been equally offended by our actions,whether by gun, bomb or any other method. Killing is killing. It is never acceptable. Journalists and pundits can debate other journalists and pundits, but millions of Americans are having a genuine dialog and many are appalled. As Ghandi said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." If we want to live in a peaceful world, we have to be peaceful."
"What a courageous article! It takes real talent to turn "USA! USA!" into a full-length op-ed."
"I will rejoice when Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Bush, Yoo, Bybee, Wolfowitz, Perl, and all the other neocon war mongers who destroyed Iraq on the basis of bald-faced lies, tortured thousands, and killed scores upon thousands more ascend to the gallows.
Osama bin Laden was a side show, a homicidal maniac who got lucky once and has been milked ever since for all the evil the American ruling class has used him to justify. If BushCo had not been so busy looting the American economy to pay attention to all the alarm bells going off before 9/11, that unimaginable atrocity would never have occurred. Yes, bin Laden did it. But it was BushCo's fault he was able to pull it off."
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Unbelievable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
83 comments:
Even though Dowd was trying to block for President Simpleton, it did not play well to her crowd. But, then again, when was the last time that "Progressives" chose to side with the United States on anything?
I can't wait for the day when Maureen Dowd experiences Shia law up close and very personal.
You see this ad for Mark Sandridge for Madison Co. sheriff?
http://youtu.be/ufEaHmg0IFY
Isn't this more appropriate for the Bulgle crowd? They would be the type to celebrate everything is wrong because its cool to think so.
There is no reason to even try to spend time validating this person's inability to conceptualize the death of a friend, Christopher Colasanti.
F-off Maureen.
4:38 and 8:12
These are apparently blog comments in response to Dowd saying that " killing evil wasn't evil" so wishing she experience shia law or do something anatomically impossible seems rather excessive.
Indeed, I would hope no conservative would want to inflict shia law on any woman whose opinion or politics didn't dovetail with theirs. If you do really want to see Dowd subjected to shia, I should be as afraid of you as of them.
Gosh KF...I'm kinda disappointed ...crazy bloggers on both sides shouldn't get taken seriously by either side or get a second hearing...they are indicative of nothing except bizarreness...4:38 being a case in point..hate to see the libs use that example of why one should fear conservatives.
I'm still LMAO at "shia " law. It's "sharia", you moron.
Hey reximus.....perhaps shia law is a cousin to Shia Labeouf!
Saying that "the left" criticizes the death of OBL is like saying "the right" wants old people to die without healthcare. It's true only of some.
I like to think my "left" creds are reasonably in order, and I had zero problem with the OBL raid. That also has been the majority view at the lefty blogs I visit, where the minority's criticisms haven't fared well.
Anderson, the left has criticized every technique used that led to the death of Osama. President Obama was most harsh in his criticism back when he was a Senator. The problem with being a "Progressive" is that one set of rules is used when y'all are in power, and a directly contradictory set of rules where y'all aren't.
Let's pray we never have to deal with y'all in power again, you do so poorly with it. (Worst Misery Index in history right now, BTW. Yes, even worse than when Obama's intellectual predecessor was in office in the late 1970s.)
"The problem with being a "Progressive" is that one set of rules is used when y'all are in power, and a directly contradictory set of rules where y'all aren't."
"Progressive" could just as easily be replaced with "conservative" in this statement.
I'm with Anderson. I'm extremely liberal and have no issues with killing OBL. None. I have problems with the heated street rejoicing. Because, I'm sorry, it eerily mirrored the rejoicing in Arab countries after 9/11. It did. And we all talked about how they were "animals" when they did it.
But, then again, I actually possess critical thinking skills and do not take a "democratic" line because most of the time the "democratic" line is even a little too conservative for me.
To each his own.
Butterknife, how exactly is it the same for people to celebrate the collapse of WTC, where innocents are going to work, minding their own business, and to celebrating the death of the person responsible for attempting to kill 50,000 people? That is why "Progressives" prove their stupidity every day. Your moral relativism is sickening to normal people.
Paul, I suspect that you are seriously misinformed, but your bare assertion makes that difficult to evaluate.
However, we do know that candidate Obama said he would go into Pakistan after OBL if necessary, for which he was declared "naive" by John McCain, and roundly mocked by the usual horde of GOP flying monkeys.
Regardless, you have changed the subject from the OBL raid itself to alleged "techniques." I wonder why you found that necessary?
Butterknife, I think the people woulda been dancing in the streets just the same had we captured OBL instead of killing him. "We got the bastard" was the operative sentiment.
No, Anderson, President Lie-biscuit said that he would WORK with the Pakis to secure the area along the border and to bring OBL "to justice." To someone as intellectually dishonest as the Smartest President in History, "working with the Pakis" means to fly in a SpecOps, in the cover of darkness, without informing the Pakis of the mission, and NOT bringing OBL to justice. But, let's just say that I am the misinformed one. Look, the President lies, he is a "Progressive." Stereotypes get that way because they are mainly TRUE.
And, I changed to topic? The techniques are mentioned right there in the post.
By the way, you ever wonder why no one listens to you?
"Lie-Biscuit"?
Anyway, as I said, you are misinformed. Obama, 8/1/07:
"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will."
As for torture & OBL, the last week or two of posts at the Emptywheel blog have been devoted to the issue; this one, for instance. For ex, KSM knew the courier's real name and never gave it up, under waterboarding or otherwise.
By the way, you ever wonder why no one listens to you?
No. Should I?
More Obama quotes. 1st debate:
"if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out."
2d debate:
"And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority."
That's one campaign promise kept, at least. Arguing to the contrary is stupid.
Paul--You are funny. And also blinded by hate. But still funny.
Actually, I believe you would be referring to my "moral absolutism"--where I agreed that the same behavior based on the same action (celebration based upon death) should be treated the same--as morally reprehensible. Your statement is actually more "moral relativism" as you absconded from the normal Christian moral viewpoint that "death is bad" and in this case stated that "death was justified".
I wasn't making assertations about his death. I was making them about the celebration afterwards.
Moral relativism doesn't actually exist in a pure form (let's get all existential here). And, if it does, it sure isn't shown by the Democratic Party.
Paul--You are funny. And also blinded by hate. But still funny.
Actually, I believe you would be referring to my "moral absolutism"--where I agreed that the same behavior based on the same action (celebration based upon death) should be treated the same--as morally reprehensible. Your statement is actually more "moral relativism" as you absconded from the normal Christian moral viewpoint that "death is bad" and in this case stated that "death was justified".
I wasn't making assertations about his death. I was making them about the celebration afterwards.
Moral relativism doesn't actually exist in a pure form (let's get all existential here). And, if it does, it sure isn't shown by the Democratic Party.
The ABSOLUTE BEST "progressive" reaction to the bin Laden death is from Jon Stewart. When he got to the part about "Abbattabad," I almost choked on my ice cream.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-2-2011/big-deady
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-2-2011/to-kill-a-mockingturd
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-2-2011/to-kill-a-mockingturd---reaction-to-bin-laden-s-death
Who the hell litens to the idiot Dowd. She just spews venom. Whp cares except the crazy lefts.
Also, Butterknife, re: the celebrations, Tom Ricks has a point here:
"I have been struck all week at how people in their teens and twenties have reacted to the killing of bin Laden. A shadow that had hung over their entire conscious lives has been removed."
Same link also gives us the recipe for mixing the new hot campus drink, the Osama bin Laden:
Two shots and a splash of water.
Okay, I laughed at the Tomason thingy. But, the very same thing can be said about Obama not sitting at the adults' table in that very photo. The photo that we have received about 27 differing statements on?
Please do not link Hamsher's site as some sort of reference. You beclown yourself. You might as well use Cindy Sheehan or Organizing for America.
And do I really need to point out that statement was ONE of the many conflicting and contradictory statements that candidate Obama made about the War on Muslims after being pummeled on his lack of experience with everything by Hillary Clinton early on?
By the way, Butterknife, yes, I hate what Obama has done to our country, I shall ALWAYS be against fascism. My point on the moral relativism was that you equated the terrorist attack on Manhattan with the killing of the terrorist that financed it. Sorry, I'll explain things in a more elementary and rudimentary fashion from this point forward.
Emptywheel is the site of Marcy Wheeler, who I'd say has forgotten more on the subject than Paul Mitchell has ever known, except it seems that Marcy hasn't forgotten anything.
If you can't refute the facts and the arguments, dismiss the source. Stay in your bubble.
Here btw is a good short piece from the New Yorker (that right-wing rag!) on why killing OBL was lawful.
"Sorry, I'll explain things in a more elementary and rudimentary fashion from this point forward."
Please don't. The regular way you talk is stupid enough. I can't imagine how bad it can get if you try to focus the stupid. Bless your heart.
Anderson, firedoglake is Hamsher's site. The bloggers on her site have one thing in common, stupidity. There is no such thing as an intelligent "Progressive."
Look, I understand your predicament on Obama, normal people had to vote for The McCainiac and before that, Bob Dole. W. Bush was an easy vote for normal people against Al Gore and then John Kerry. It would just be a whole lot easier if you "Progressives" would just come out and say what they want and quit having to defend the worst president ever. Do you know why normal people do not have any respect for y'all? Because you cannot be honest about what you want or anything else for that matter.
Spades are spades. (NOT the RAAAAACIST!!! way, BTW.)
Goodness, Kingfish, the Bill Minor School for the Intellectually Helpless must be having Spring Break or something...
Paul, a President is like the gorilla in the room...he can sit wherever the hell he wants.
That is one of your dumber " points"
From the original piece unworthy of KF to the comments...this is "
much ado about nothing"
Anon 3:53, he just got back from the golf course, that was the only chair left. Sorry, if that is stupid to you.
Well said, Anderson and Butterknife.
Thank you for taking the time to put some facts on the table and watch Mr. Mitchell recoil.
It's interesting that, in the face of actual debate, the ad hominem attacks on everyone begin in substitute of the initial topic.
Andrew Newcomb
YAY! It is the trifecta of Obamabot Homers!!! It would not be a completely silly comment thread without Andrew.
To y'all, facts come from Firedoglake. Heh.
Mr. Mitchell may be a smart man -- smart enough to successfully conceal his intelligence in this thread.
Well, sometimes I do post things like this to show you how the other side thinks.
Anderson, I appreciate your sarcasm. Go grab some more "facts" from Firedoglake.
Paul Mitchell: I will skip the name-calling and other silliness and go straight to the facts: please list the reasons (factual ones) why you consider obama to be the "worst president ever."
bonus question: in your own personal ranking of presidents (based on whatever imagined criteria), where does GW Bush rank?
2:07,
Unfortunately you can't battle stupid with actual facts. Just hope that Mr. Mitchell has the forethought for the rest of the world not to procreate and pass on his divinely ignorant genes.
Anon 2:07, how about 22% unemployment, the worst since the Great Depression? What about the worst housing market since 1907? (Construction is a WHOPPING part of our economy.) What about increasing the debt four fold in two years? What about tripling the FISA wiretaps? What about further amnesty for criminals from Mexico? The FACTS are overwhelming, but of course, you'll never admit it.
W. Bush is about middle of the road as far as Presidents go. Not too good, not too bad. I would have liked to have seen Bush actually VETO some spending from 2007 on, after the Democrats took control of Congress. The worst thing that Bush did during his two terms was sign the Democrats' minimum wage increase. Wonder why all of the sudden prices and unemployment have skyrocketed?
Of course, if you like Barry Obama, you probably loved Clinton, the impeached President and Jimmuh Cartuh, the intellectual equal of Obama.
Anon 2:25, I agree, it is impossible to battle stupid with facts. That is why President Obama is going to try to lower gas prices by getting rid of the tax subsidies for gas companies.
Of course, I do not imagine that y'all will be swayed by facts.
Paul: are you holding GW Bush equally responsible for the above list of things you apparently are blaming on Obama? More specifically, what specific action did GW Bush take to address the list of problems you mention?
You either are as dumb as the above commentors say you are, or you know better and are, for whatever reason, just acting stupid. Either way, it's neither flattering nor interesting.
Anon 6:26, yes I hold Bush responsible for signing the stupid minimum wage legislation that the Democrat Congress passed, that is why I typed that out.
However, I do not blame Bush for the housing market, I blame Carter and then Clinton. I do not blame Bush for increasing the debt fourfold or tripling FISA wiretaps, that was Obama. And I do not blame Bush for pushing amnesty for criminal Mexicans today, that was Obama as well.
Obama actually said today, since he killed Osama, we should work toward legalizing the Mexicans. Seriously, Nancy Pelosi could not say something that stupid. Even that comment from her about doubling the amount of crude not lowering gas prices was not as stupid as Obama's comment today.
Might as well say something like, "Since, uh, um, well, um, since, the moon; amnesty. YES! WE! CAN!"
The fun part is that "Progressives" blame Bush for a whole lot of stuff without any facts to back it up, well other than quoting Firedoglake. I am not doing that with the Smartest President in History. With a simple cursory look with a modicum of honesty, most miss W. Bush wholeheartedly, since Barry rode into town.
Paul: I just read your blog. Or enough of it, anyway. In your world, Obama (ed-in-chief of Harvard Law Review) is "stupid," and you are "smart." Forget I said anything. I understand now. The rest of your comments (especially blaming the housing crash of 2007 on Carter's 1970s presidency) make perfect sense.
CRA was implemented under Carter. Sorry, it matters.
I have been trying to use smaller words so more people can understand my blog. Sorry if it is above your comprehension level.
By the way, Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review and even the New York Times said that it was an affirmative action move. That doesn't mean he is intelligent, it means he was BLACK.
And according to the published Obama SAT scores, his IQ is around 116. I have never scored that low, even though it is above normal. By comparison, W. Bush is right around 125. FACTS!!!
By the way, in the 1990 article from the NYT, this:
Change in Selection System
Mr. Obama was elected after a meeting of the review's 80 editors that convened Sunday and lasted until early this morning, a participant said.
Until the 1970's the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.
That system came under attack in the 1970's and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review.
Wonder why they thought to add that? RAAAAACISM!!!
Nice. Now we have some 'neck posting his IQ versus the president's. This has moved to the sublimely absurd.
Anon 5:12, I am most certainly a redneck, thanks for noticing.
Sorry that you still think Barry Obama is a smart guy.
Actually Paul you are wrong. Carter and the CRA didn't have much to do with the housing collapse. You want to blame Democrats, go blame Cuomo in 99. He's the one that started forcing Fannie and Freddie to start taking subprime mortgages.
It wasn't Fannie and Freddie who were responsible for the subprime meltdown although their books were obviously cooked. Companies like New Century and Aames would use crank out approvals, close the loans, bundle them, and sell them on wall street directly to investors. Fannie and Freddie were never involved. Subprime lenders were responsible for about half the problem and they had NOTHING to do with CRA.
NOW Fannie and Freddie WERE responsible for the other half and you can put the blame for that on the Dems from 99 on, first with Cuomo and then with Frank et al blocking every attempt to examine and reform the GSA's.
Oh, and the biggest factor that caused this whole mess? The 2004 SEC decision to remove leverage limits. That was HUGE and yes, it happened under Republicans.
Kingfish, I know your thoughts on the CRA not being a factor, and to an extent I agree, but with HW Bush's (a Republican!) signing of the Recovery and Enforcement Act in '89 to save the S&L's, attached to CRA, none of your scenario would have happened. (See Ben Bernanke's statements in March 2007.) But, again, without Jimmuh's CRA, none of this would have happened, so I stand by my statement.
I have no clue how this post comment thread has gotten to this point, I only said that "Progressives" have always failed in everything they have attempted, which is true, and now we have folks talking about how smart the President is, when the evidence that he is NOT is overwhelming. The only evidence I have ever heard that Obama is intelligent is that he was President of the Harvard Law Review over 21 years ago. Weak.
Bullshit. Complete bullshit and you don't know what the hell you are talking about. I could testify as a mortgage industry expert witness right now and although Bush did sign that law, it had nothing to do with what i said. Had NOTHING to do with the removal of leverage limits that allowed Lehman to be at 30:1 or Fannie to be at 80:1. The subprime mortgage market was ALL private industry and had nothing to do with CRA or the GSA's. I was in the industry in the 90's and Fannie and Freddie didn't do anything crazy or unsound then. It wasn't until 99 and on that they started going after people with bad credit and in 03 started offering crazy ass stated income programs.
Tell Bernanke.
Would love to considering how wrong he is about everything else.
Would he even recognize a 1003 or a 1008?
Ben said his weakness was monetary policy. He was honest about that.
Wait....Obama is Black???
Rebekah, allegedly.
5:21 - My sentiments exactly. I am shocked, shocked I say, to see that in spite of Mr. Mitchell's "higher-than-Obama" IQ, he does not appear to understand basic rules of grammar and punctuation. If you have had to suffer through glancing at his blog, you'll see.
Anon 11:02, it would be great if we could compare my writing v. the President's, but he will not release his. Of course, his wife's stuff is hilarious and according to the "Progressives," Barry must have married WAY down because he is so very smart.
Uhhhh, don't worry about it Paul, there's no need to compare your writing with Obama's. None at all.
I'm not, Anon 11:14. But, how is it possible that everyone on Earth cannot see that Obama is a clown? How is that possible?
That is possible because pretty much "everyone else on Earth" is smarter than you are.
Not if they think Obama is smart.
hey Paul: Was Obama born in Hawaii?
Sure, and that is why "Progressives" think he's smart, too.
What does that even matter? Geez...
When did the Smartest President in History lose his license to practice law?
Y'all never quit...
You are a dumbass.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp
Anon 11:53, again, you point out EXACTLY when Obama lost his law license and I am the dumbass. Nicely played.
Now, ask any attorney went they voluntarily surrendered their law license and for what reason. Or, ask a doctor when they did the same thing.
Of course, normal people would wonder why the Obamas are on court ordered inactive status, but I am sure that just continues to prove that Barry is smart.
I am an attorney. Obama did not "lose" or "surrender" his law license, he went on inactive status, which was and is not "court-ordered" and which is done for many reasons, many of which are listed in the article above (if you would read it). Having to pay fees and complete CLE requirements being the main ones, not to mention the fact that a sitting President will not be practicing law in Illinois and thus does not need an active law license in any state.
You are even dumber than I thought. You are an unfortunate combination of dumb AND ignorant. You could at least do a bit of reading to help with the ignorant part. Especially when people like me show you the reading you need to do. I am done with casting perals before swine, for now though.
Oh, then I stand corrected then, I am just so stupid. I guess Obama is so smart that inactive means that he just decided to give up his law license for no particular reason at all.
Good thing you are an attorney. I really do need to work on MY reading skilz...
(Do you find it odd that there are no links to the Obamas' licenses, just screen shots? Do you find it odd that Michelle surrendered her license a mere three years after passing the bar? The first time I saw Barry's inactive status on Illinois Lawyer Search, it listed 1998, now it is 2008 on Snopes, what gives?)
I am done with casting perals before swine, for now though.
See ya. Of course we won't miss you because your f'ing anonymous. And since we don't know who you are we can't kiss your ass. Toodles.
Any anonymous can claim to be an attorney or brain surgeon or leader of a downtown business district or editor of an alt-weekly.
Who the Hell ISN'T editor of an alt weekly?
By the way, I did a little digging on the screengrabs from Snopes. Why would they link the ARDC instead of the Illinois Bar? Any lawyers know anything about that?
And what about those comments on Dowd's column?
OK, assume I am lying and I am NOT an attorney.
Now that is behind us, why not focus on what I said about the Obamas' respective law licenses? The facts I cited?
The only fact that I saw you sited was a link to Snopes. Did I miss something?
Again, I ask, why would Snopes have screengrabs for the ARDC instead of the Illinois Bar? In case you were unaware, the ARDC is the Registration and DISCIPLINARY Commission.
Just saying...I need to work on MY reading. And I took you at your word on being an attorney.
I will let you call the IL bar ass'n and/or check their website, since you apparently don't believe the info on the snopes site. This issue is even sillier than the "birth certificate" issue, but knock yourself out and let me know what you come up with.
There IS no information on the Snopes website other than screenshots of the ARDC, that support your arguments. But, you know, part of that acronym is the "DISCIPLINARY Commission."
Well, there is also a partial link to Volokh, that is dead, but Volokh also states elsewhere that Barry's license lapsed in 2003, so Snopes' links do not support their info on their own page.
Also, there is a link on Snopes to a Reg 770 that was not put in place until 1999, but that has also been debunked by Volokh. It seems that 770 was to support Reg 759, which neither Obama ever filed, so again, THAT is a deadend.
Sadly, since I am not a licensed attorney, I can't use the "Search" function on the Illinois Bar. Neither can either Obama, so thanks for taking care of that for us, in advance.
How about those "Progressive" comments on Dowd's column?
disclaimer: I am not licensed in IL. No wonder you Tea Party types had such a hard time locating a birth certificate.
https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=197197080
https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=816255629
Yeah, I found my BC in one second, what does that have anything to do with this stuff? And again, I FOUND the ones on the Disciplinary Commission website. I cannot access the Illinois State Bar, though.
I need to work on MY reading...
Yes, you do. The "ARDC" is the "ARDC" of the Supreme Court of Illinois, which is the entity that handles licensing issues for the IL state bar. It's the same thing. Mississippi operates pretty much the same way.
Paul,
I am beginning to think I need to work on MY reading.
I got your point that you cannot access the "horse's mouth" ie. the Bar website to gain access to the information you seek.
I also understood that the dates are all over the place.
I also watched an anonymous person continue to throw out arguments that had nothing to do with what you were asking.
Again, I too have to work on MY reading skilz...lulz
Um, the ARDC "claims" to not be a government entity, or so THEY say, maybe they are LYING.
By the way, do you know what you, the Obamas, and me have in common? None of us are licensed to practice law in Illinois. I think that means that we are all very, very smart.
Kapn'n, I am glad you understood what I said, but already my writing has been compared to some crap that would not make onto your program. If I promised to cut out the smarmy, would you and Mr. Green Jeans let me write for your show?
I'm still LMAO at "shia " law. It's "sharia", you moron.
IT'S SHIA MORON
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Family_Law
Keep going, Paul. You keep on trucking. The more letters you type, the less your words mean.
"Registration" is, of course, the word located right before "Disciplinary". As someone else pointed out, most state's Supreme Courts handle registration and discipline, as a function of their office. Mississippi and Illinois clearly do. But you conspiracy nuts choose which facts to believe and which not to.
By the way, I have searched online and I CAN'T FIND YOUR ARCHITECTURE LICENSE!!! HOLY SH#T; YOU'RE LYING!!! It's a huge conspira- oh, that's right, you're not an architect; you never got that far. You just act like one.
Maybe your rage against what you believe is a black man who got further than you because of his color has made you go crazy. Or, you're just a cock for fun.
You say Shia,
I say Sharia,
Shia!
Sharia!
Shia!
Sharia!
Let's call the whole thing off.
I have never acted like an architect, I cannot stand them. Ask anyone that knows me. Plus, I do not offer ANY architectural services at all. Check my website.
Again back to the topic at hand, rather than the AD HOMINEM ATTACKS from "Progressives!!!," I can only go by what the ARDC says on its OWN website, it is NOT a government agency that is licensing anyone, they keep a record of the licensure as a function for the Illinois Supreme Court. Yet, it is funny how they have that "Disciplinary" in the title, huh?
If I was going to start, let's say, a private architectural licensing recording agency, you know what I would certainly put in the title of that agency? Disciplinary, because that JUST. MAKES. SENSE.
Still, yet again, I cannot access the Illinois State Bar, so that makes me at least as smart as Obama and his wife, because they cannot either.
I actually dig the architecture you feature on your blog Paul.
As for show writing, I think I'm gonna' defer to Reb and her colorful language to see if I can't move the ratings chart before I bring in the big guns!
Post a Comment