Abraham Lincoln was a licensed bartender.
The system of democracy was introduced 2,500 years ago in
Athens, Greece.
No president of the United States was an only child for his
parents.
Kim Jong-il is only 5' 2'' tall. He wears four-inch lifts in
his shoes to compensate for his short stature.
When George W. Bush was 30 years old, he was
arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.
George W. Bush was also the head of the cheerleading team in
his high school.
President George W. Bush and Playboy founder Hugh Hefner are
cousins!
Jimmy Carter is the first U.S. President to have been born in
a hospital.
J. Edgar Hoover liked to fire FBI agents whose
palms were sweaty when shaking hands.
Former U.S. President Franklin Pierce was arrested during his
term as President for running over an old lady with his horse, but the charges
were later dropped.
Every U.S. president with a beard has been a Republican.
George Washington grew marijuana in his garden.
Now I want to go on record against the second amendment,
“The right to bare arms.” It is my fervent belief that the second amendment is
ageist. As we age our arms lose tone and muscular looks, should we be mocked
for this act of nature; let us feel free to bare our flabby arms? Tennis players should be against it as well as their
playing arm is often much larger than their nonplaying arm, they are not
deformed, just a part of their occupation. Dinah Shore feeling this social
mandate always wore long sleeved top after a certain age, it must have been
very hot during the summer which is constant in California she should have felt free to bare her arms. There is also
reverse discrimination as well; Michelle Obama gets criticized for wearing
sleeveless clothes, so she is fit, it that a sin? No, it is her constitutional right. No we are obvious wrongheaded
with it comes to bare arms. So Larry the cable guy is and extremist in this area, let it be. Repeal the
second amendment I say, ban it…
Oh, I just read the Bill of Rights and say to”
bear arms”, as Emily Latella would say, “Nevermind.”
But it seems a bit silly for us to have such hairy appendages, bears can have hairy arms if they want and women can shave them if they want. But I ambivalent as to whether bears should have the right to own guns.
But it seems a bit silly for us to have such hairy appendages, bears can have hairy arms if they want and women can shave them if they want. But I ambivalent as to whether bears should have the right to own guns.
The right to bare arms related constitutionally to the introductory clause 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' until 2008. The Supreme Court decided then that the clause was null, invalid
ReplyDeleteand unrelated. The same court decided the presidential election of 2008 in favor of the
candidate with fewer votes..and that a corporation is a 'person'. Essentially we have
"We the corporations of the United States in order to (fill in the blanks)". Lucky us, we
have the right to bare arms, without having to
serve our country as part of the short-sleeved
militia? Texas has whole-heartedly jumped in:
you can vote with a concealed weapons permit:
if you are a minority, student or democrat, however, you need produce a birth certificate in
triplicate, academic records from kindergarten on, references from 6 sources and blood type (all notarised). Oh..wait, as you note...
...nevermind. :)
"The same court decided the presidential election of 2008 in favor of the
Deletecandidate with fewer votes".
The Supreme Court has never decided any election. It is always the Electoral College that does it. It's the law of the land.
As for 2008, the candidate with the most votes (which doesn't matter under the law) was the same candidate that won the Electoral College. From Wikipedia.
"Obama received 365 electoral votes, and McCain 173. The popular vote was 69,456,897 to 59,934,814, respectively."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
ReplyDeleteSince you like wikipedia, this may clarify things for you.
Well, that is 2000, not 2008. But in 2000, the electoral process was in place, just as in 1996, 1992, 2004, 2008, etc.
DeleteThe person who won enough states to win the electoral college won in 2000, just as in the elections before and after. The Supreme Court did not "decide" this election, but ruled to ensure that the actual voting in one particular state in question was accepted.... so the process could move on, as usual.
2008 was a typo..mea culpa, meant 2000 and was referring to:
Delete"Tuesday, Dec. 12—The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bush v. Gore 7–2 to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts in certain counties. The Court contends that the recount was not treating all ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees. The Supreme Court of Florida would be required to set up new voting standards and carry them out in a recount. The justices, however, split 5–4 along partisan lines about implementing a remedy. Five justices maintain that this process and the recount must adhere to the official deadline for certifying electoral college votes: midnight, Dec. 12; other justices question the importance of this date. Since the Court makes its ruling just hours before the deadline, it in effect ensures that it is too late for a recount. The decision generates enormous controversy. Those objecting to the ruling assert that the Supreme Court, and not the electorate, has effectively determined the outcome of the presidential election. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes in a scathing dissent, “the Court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.” Since SCOTUS
split on partisan lines and the Florida Secretary of State, Kathryn Harris was a GOP
of questionable integrety
(Harris has been criticized for what a New York Times editorial called "Katherine Harris's massive purge of eligible voters in Florida." Harris, along with state division of elections director Clay Roberts, and Governor Jeb Bush used an inaccurate ineligible-voter list that eliminated a disproportionate number of non-felon African Americans from Florida voter rolls. According to journalist Jake Tapper, the problem went uncorrected for two years despite the warnings and complaints of elections supervisor Ion Sancho, and affected the 2000 presidential election.) the affair
had a distinct odor..and was an "enormous controversy" that will become part of US history.
The earlier the vote was, the more accurate it was, as it turns out the counters were detaching chads from the ballots in the redundant re-counts, thus altering them from how they were when voters actually voted on them. But as it turns out, all of the counts of actual votes, from early to late, including after the Supreme Court decision, had Gore losing Florida.
Delete"disproportionate number of non-felon African Americans from Florida voter rolls."
This is both misleading in its summary, and has nothing to do with . The purge of non-voters (individuals who threw away their right to vote) in question was first put in place by a Democrat, not Harris. And it removed names entirely without regard to race. The attachment of African-American to the list cleaning process comes from racists on the Left who tend to argue that black = criminal.
The controversy will remain, yes, just like the controversy about Obama's birth certificate. Both being kept alive by a small number of sore losers.
Thanks BB-Idaho, I had already made that assumption of a typo as it was clear what was being referenced. The added detail should clear up any confusion.
ReplyDelete