the biggest hustle in human history

Topspin said:
Again I respect Harvard a lot, you a tiny bit:321:
Click to expand...

Yurt said:
why can't you give an explanation? you called me a racist for wondering why, now you're telling me to fuck off....yet the one thing you can't actually do is discuss the issue, its an honest question....why can't you be honest and discuss it?

i am sure your reply will be something like....kkk, racist or whatever, anything but actual discussion....
Click to expand...

i knew you couldn't actually discuss anything rationally
 
christiefan915 said:
Yes, he did.

"As president of the Harvard Law Review and a law professor in Chicago, Senator Barack Obama refined his legal thinking, but left a scant paper trail. His name doesn't appear on any legal scholarship.

But an unsigned — and previously unattributed — 1990 article unearthed by Politico offers a glimpse at Obama's views on abortion policy and the law during his student days, and provides a rare addition to his body of work.

The six-page summary, tucked into the third volume of the year's Harvard Law Review, considers the charged, if peripheral, question of whether fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers. Obama's answer, like most courts': No. He wrote approvingly of an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that the unborn cannot sue their mothers for negligence, and he suggested that allowing fetuses to sue would violate the mother's rights and could, perversely, cause her to take more risks with her pregnancy.

<snip>

Law students elected to the prestigious Harvard Law Review spend two years working there. In their first year, most write the brief, anonymous "case comments" like Obama's, which bears the unwieldy heading: TORT LAW - PRENATAL INJURIES - SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE CAUSE OF ACTION BROUGHT BY FETUS AGAINST ITS MOTHER FOR UNINTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF PRENATAL INJURIES.

Obama's tenure at the Review has been chronicled at length in the Politico, the New York Times, and elsewhere.

But Obama has never mentioned his law review piece, a demurral that's part of his campaign's broader pattern of rarely volunteering information or documents about the candidate, even when relatively innocuous. When Politico reporters working on a story about Obama's law review presidency earlier this year asked if he had written for the review, a spokesman responded accurately - but narrowly - that "as the president of the Law Review, Obama didn't write articles, he edited and reviewed them."

The case comment was published a month before he became president.

The notion that Obama hadn't written at all for the Review prompted skepticism.

"They probably don't want [to] have you [reporters] going back" to examine the Review, University of Southern California law professor (and Michael Dukakis campaign manager) Susan Estrich said at the time.

The Obama campaign swiftly confirmed Obama's authorship of the fetal rights article Thursday after a source told Politico he'd written it. The campaign also provided a statement on Harvard Law Review letterhead confirming that the unsigned piece was Obama's - the only record of the anonymous authors is kept in the office of the Review president - and that records showed it was the only piece he'd written for the Review."

(Article continues)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705.html
Click to expand...


And now you'll witness the insipid stubborness of the neocon parrots...who despite facts to the contrary, will just keep repeating their assertions in various forms...taking information out of context to bolster their mantras.
 
Taichiliberal said:
And now you'll witness the insipid stubborness of the neocon parrots...who despite facts to the contrary, will just keep repeating their assertions in various forms...taking information out of context to bolster their mantras.
Click to expand...

i debunked that article in #80 neolib parrot
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And now you'll witness the insipid stubborness of the neocon parrots...who despite facts to the contrary, will just keep repeating their assertions in various forms...taking information out of context to bolster their mantras.
Click to expand...

Yurt said:
i debunked that article in #80 neolib parrot
Click to expand...

Actually, YOU made some claims and assertions WITHOUT providing any documentation or proof of any kind. Seems you neocon parrots can't wrap your little brains around this simple concept....YOUR SUPPOSITION AND CONJECTURE DOES NOT SUBSTITUTE FACTS AND THE LOGIC DERIVED FROM THEM.

Also, "neo-lib", your mimicking of the abbreviation "neocon".... would signify that I was a former conservative who now expouses a new form form of liberalism.

:palm: As I've stated for years, I'm an Independent....never have been a conservative, never belonged to the GOP or any right-wing ideology.

"neocon" stands for "new conservative", the mindset which supports the power of the Executive Branch to supercede all other branches of gov't and the judicial process, and to the imperialistic usage of the military...a mindset expounded upon in the PNAC agenda and seen in the 8 year reign of the Shrub.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
Actually, YOU made some claims and assertions WITHOUT providing any documentation or proof of any kind. Seems you neocon parrots can't wrap your little brains around this simple concept....YOUR SUPPOSITION AND CONJECTURE DOES NOT SUBSTITUTE FACTS AND THE LOGIC DERIVED FROM THEM.

Also, "neo-lib", your mimicking of the abbreviation "neocon".... would signify that I was a former conservative who now expouses a new form form of liberalism.

:palm: As I've stated for years, I'm an Independent....never have been a conservative, never belonged to the GOP or any right-wing ideology.

"neocon" stands for "new conservative", the mindset which supports the power of the Executive Branch to supercede all other branches of gov't and the judicial process, and to the imperialistic usage of the military...a mindset expounded upon in the PNAC agenda and seen in the 8 year reign of the Shrub.
Click to expand...

LOL. Try #16 on for size, nitwit.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Actually, YOU made some claims and assertions WITHOUT providing any documentation or proof of any kind. Seems you neocon parrots can't wrap your little brains around this simple concept....YOUR SUPPOSITION AND CONJECTURE DOES NOT SUBSTITUTE FACTS AND THE LOGIC DERIVED FROM THEM.

Also, "neo-lib", your mimicking of the abbreviation "neocon".... would signify that I was a former conservative who now expouses a new form form of liberalism.

:palm: As I've stated for years, I'm an Independent....never have been a conservative, never belonged to the GOP or any right-wing ideology.

"neocon" stands for "new conservative", the mindset which supports the power of the Executive Branch to supercede all other branches of gov't and the judicial process, and to the imperialistic usage of the military...a mindset expounded upon in the PNAC agenda and seen in the 8 year reign of the Shrub.
Click to expand...

neolibtard....are you suggesting obama's campaign said he PUBLISHED something....you once again show yourself for a dishonest neolib parrot

please tell me you believe obama's campaign said he published something, if you know i am right, it is stupid to demand evidence...

and you are not at all an independent, you are neolib parrot that does nothing but spout party talking points
 
Post #54 says it all.
Click to expand...

AssHatZombie said:
Post #54 says it all.
Click to expand...

:palm: I keep forgetting how you neocon parrots think your empty slogans and mantras like a logical and fact based response....so much more to pity you lot.

Incidently, let me know when you stop braying like an ass and actually form a logical response to Post #45. If you can't, I'll just ignore you.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually, YOU made some claims and assertions WITHOUT providing any documentation or proof of any kind. Seems you neocon parrots can't wrap your little brains around this simple concept....YOUR SUPPOSITION AND CONJECTURE DOES NOT SUBSTITUTE FACTS AND THE LOGIC DERIVED FROM THEM.

Also, "neo-lib", your mimicking of the abbreviation "neocon".... would signify that I was a former conservative who now expouses a new form form of liberalism.

As I've stated for years, I'm an Independent....never have been a conservative, never belonged to the GOP or any right-wing ideology.

"neocon" stands for "new conservative", the mindset which supports the power of the Executive Branch to supercede all other branches of gov't and the judicial process, and to the imperialistic usage of the military...a mindset expounded
Click to expand...
upon in the PNAC agenda and seen in the 8 year reign of the Shrub.

AssHatZombie said:
LOL. Try #16 on for size, nitwit.
Click to expand...

:palm: I keep forgetting how you neocon clowns think throwing out any empty slogan or mantra is a fitting logical, fact based response....so much more to pity you.

Let me know when you've got some rational, mature and logical response to Post #45....if you don't or won't, I'll just ignore you.
 
Yurt said:
One thing Obama did not do while with the review was publish any of his own work. Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama didn't write any articles for the Review, though his two semesters at the helm did produce a wide range of edited case analyses and unsigned “notes” from Harvard students.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257_Page2.html
Click to expand...

What's your point? Here's the article's title:

Obama kept Law Review balanced

Hardly fits in with the howls from neocons, birthers and teabagging yahoos of a hell bent socialist cum communist.

:palm: Once again, another idiot neocon parrot types without thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top