On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:22 AM, morgan l <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't read many liberal writings, so that explains that. My apologies for > not being as well-educated as you; my family was and is poor, and college > was out of the question. I've worked my entire adult life just to survive, > and after 20 years of getting kicked while I was down I'm finally seeing > some light. Now I get to spend the next 20 or 30 years hoping I can provide > enough to get my daughter out of the quagmire. Being poor is not an excuse for anything. I've been there and never need to use it to justify anything. BTW, I never read Alinsky, I just know about it. >> Are you saying if the SC refuses to take a case it's considered a >> verdict on the case? > No, I'm saying it's a pretty strong indication that there is no real > evidence. We fall back to innocent until proven guilty. You need evidence of > guilt before you can get a hearing. No evidence, no hearing, no guilt. > Legally speaking, anyway. I agree with innocent until proven guilty, you stated the case has no merrit unless the SC accepts it. I was just pointing out that's not correct. > That's you, not the so-called "Birthers." Nowhere have I seen them asking > this question. I admit I can't answer it, but I despise politics so much I > don't even know what you're talking about. And I don't care. The point is > irrelevant for at least another year and a half. I'm confused, you follow the birthers and yet think everything they claim has no merit? Glad I was able to show you at least one item. > What if he wasn't born in a hospital? Many people weren't back then. He said he was. Then the White house Web site named a different hospital, then removed it. The one Obama named mentioned him on their site and quickly removed it after he mentioned them as his hospital of birth. Now neither hospitals nor the White House will confirm where he was born. Why the mystery? > Not just to me. It's quite obvious that you're willing to step up and take > on all debates from the most extreme right-wing viewpoint. If that is not > your true stance, then you are "playing one on the Internet." I disagree > with the stances of many of the other right-leaning on the list, but few, if > any, take up the truly extreme side of the debates like you do. What you call extreme I call middle of the road. I just don't argue the lefty talking points because most here are already sold. > No you said I was in the center. And you're the one throwing labels on > people. I didn't say you were an extremist, I said "[sic]you sure do > play one to the hilt." Because you mocked the liberals and conservatives leaving the center as you. I think you're a lot more of a liberal then you admit. If you were referring to the fringe of those groups you forgot to mention it. > Both parties have members that range the gamut, but the parties themselves > are both bad to the core with nothing in their sights but what they can do > to get more of the taxpayers' money into their own pockets. Power corrupts. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:323998 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
