the biggest hustle in human history

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

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....
 
Annie said:
I've noticed posters claiming he was a 'Constitutional law professor' at Chicago Law School, University of Illinois, a Chicago University. At the time he was running at least around here, in Chicago, that he was an occasional lecturer at University of Chicago.

I'm all for getting rid of this guy, but this seems much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...

Read posts #26, 35 and 36. I've got no problem with people being criticial of the Obama administration.....just so long as they stick to the FACTS and NOT the lies and distortions of the anti-Obama crowd.
 
AssHatZombie said:
(Msg 57) smarmy cunt.
Click to expand...

TuTu Monroe said:
(Msg 62) Knock it off asshat, that's disgusting. You're talking like a fucking liberal. SHEEESH!!
Click to expand...

AssHatZombie said:
(Msg 67) Okay okay, kathianne has cajoled me with her feminine wiles into apologizing for my foulness.

SOrry, annie. :rolleyes:

(I really mean it)
Click to expand...

Smarmy: Cheesy, pretentious, not as attractive as one thinks one is and/or greasy and slimy. (Urban dictionary)

You should be sorry! Very sorry!! The least of the least of cunts are beautiful, awe-inspiring entities. They are the very essence of humanity and of a woman. Whether seen as the portal of life or providing unparalleled ecstasy there is nothing smarmy about them.

To refer to the nectar with which we're all bathed as we come into this life as being "greasy and slimy" is sacrilege!!

That has to be the worst comment you ever posted, AssHat. Disgusting doesn't even come close to describing such a statement. Karma will get you for that remark and in your later years your two best friends will be a magazine and a box of Kleenex.
 
apple0154 said:
Smarmy: Cheesy, pretentious, not as attractive as one thinks one is and/or greasy and slimy. (Urban dictionary)

You should be sorry! Very sorry!! The least of the least of cunts are beautiful, awe-inspiring entities. They are the very essence of humanity and of a woman. Whether seen as the portal of life or providing unparalleled ecstasy there is nothing smarmy about them.

To refer to the nectar with which we're all bathed as we come into this life as being "greasy and slimy" is sacrilege!!

That has to be the worst comment you ever posted, AssHat. Disgusting doesn't even come close to describing such a statement. Karma will get you for that remark and in your later years your two best friends will be a magazine and a box of Kleenex.
Click to expand...

F you, whore.
 
Southern Man said:
Because he never wrote anything in the paper.
Click to expand...

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
 
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...

I saw that before, but wanted an Obama-bot to bring it up to prove me wrong. How ironic that it takes a paper your messiah wants to hide to do that. :)
 
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...

his own campaign denied he had anything published, nothing he wrote was published, the fact that your source above lied about that, casts dooubt on the entire article
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top