Are you the Ultimate Red Sox Fan? Enter your photo in our contest and you could win fan-tastic prizes.
Loch Haven Lake on Thursday afternoon.
“Believe in yourself, not only in swimming, but in life itself. You always have to have fun. You have to have an open mind. If you’re not enjoying it, don’t do it. Life’s too short.”
Debbie Meyer
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
60 COMMENTS
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
FEDS TO FLORIDA: HALT NON-CITIZEN VOTER PURGE
“The Justice Department ordered Florida’s elections division to halt a systematic effort to find and purge the state’s voter rolls of non-citizen voters.
Florida’s effort appears to violate both the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which protects minorities, and the 1993 National Voter Registration Act – which governs voter purges – T. Christian Herren Jr., the Justice Department’s lead civil rights lawyer, wrote in a detailed two-page letter sent late Thursday night.”
“About 58 percent of those flagged as potential non-citizens are Hispanics, Florida’s largest ethnic immigrant population, a Miami Herald analysis found. Hispanics make up 13 percent of the overall 11.3 million active registered voters. Independent voters and Democrats are the most likely to face being purged from the rolls. Republicans and non-Hispanic whites are the least likely.”
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/31/v-fullstory/2826708/feds-demand-florida-cease-its.html#storylink=cpy
Anyone think this isn’t voter supression? Purging only minorities, independents and democrats?
I bet kids sneak in and skinny dip after dark.
I’m guessing the woman being quoted was upset by quotes from terps:
“A lot of people are saying it’s a disgrace to the uniform. They’re comparing it to urinating and defecating [while in uniform],” says Crystal Scott, a military spouse who started Mom2Mom in January as a breast-feeding support group for military moms and “anyone related to the base” at Fairchild AFB outside Spokane, Wash. “It’s extremely upsetting. Defecating in public is illegal. Breast-feeding is not.”
http://moms.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/30/11955844-military-mom-proud-of-breast-feeding-in-uniform-despite-criticism?lite
Kristen, in our younger days, my husband and I did our share of skinny-dipping! It’s so much fun!
My fellow gonzos, going forth, let us not repeat the falsehood that suz lies. After extensive research, I offer conclusive prove that Schwinn did, in fact, manufacture a purple bike that would have been perfect for our simple minded friend suz.
Behold, the majesty and pageantry that is suz’s stylin’ ride. I bet she takes it off some sweet jumps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvWLI8k-cFQ
Yeah, but did she get it from Cardinal?
(It probably came from Coopers)
#5 Schweeeet!
Yeah, but did she get it from Cardinal?
Why don’t you call and find out if Cardinal sold them, Dan? Oh, that’s right. You don’t bother with that investigative stuff.
Changed my avatar. 3…2…1…
Yesterday the DJIA lost 275 points to drop in negative territory for the year. Housing starts fell through the floor in April, and unemployment is even worse. All the WH spin and media hype that we’re in a recovery is a lie. Things are getting worse. Monkey Boy is in free fall.
People who are surprised by this continued downturn given 0bama’s clear anti-capitalist agenda are MORONS. He has governed and campaigned hard on anti-capitalist themes, and we are seeing the results of that philosophy. Team 0bama has known they are in desperate trouble on the economy for quite awhile now, so they have tried to divert the conversation to social issues, hoping the GOP would take the bait. First was birth control (marching out Sandra Slut), racism (Trayvon Martin) then most recently the gay marriage “reversal”.
With this new round of bad economic news, 0bama will be desperate to change the subject again, but he seems to be out of social issues with which to divert and divide.
Any guesses what they might try next?
http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061136010
Guess who got rich by screwing the poor? Who would charge their own brother 9.5% interest to buy a home?
A) Scott Walker
B) Dick Cheney
C) Elizabeth Warren
Read the above article and prepare for a tortured justification from Dan.
The story in the paper today said House Speaker John Boehner and other Republicans are focused ONLY on jobs. For the most part this is a damned lie. It’s true that they’re focused on getting re-elected (their own jobs) but they don’t care a whit about helping poor schulbs who have no jobs get one, or helping underemployed people get a better job.
ALL the Republicans preach w/regard to jobs is “Lower taxes! Less regulation!” All taxes are bad and so are all regulations. Such as the minimum wage. A lot of them want to do away with that. (Right now it translates into $290 for a 40-hour week).
Lowering the taxes will further enrich the big money people who finance the Republicans’ campaigns, but it won’t create one job. Trickle down is an utter myth; that has been proven over and over. And the GOP is not really opposed to regulation. They like regulation on the little guy (such as so-called tort-reform”). They don’t like regulation of big businesses, which pine for the good old days when they could poison our air and water with impunity, cheat employees, put diseased meat into the marketplace, sell dangerous medicines and tell injured workers they were on their own.
So the point is, don’t believe what the GOP says about jobs. Their true intent is to fatten the wallets of the people who underwrite their campaigns. The only jobs they truly care about are their own.
@Kristen: “I bet kids sneak in and skinny dip after dark.”
No, I’m pretty sure the sign will keep them out.
Most ill-informed @10
Evidently a simple minded person needs a simple answer to every question – gas prices jump/Obama did it; the Dow drops/Obama did it; corporations replace hiring with greed/ Obama did it… ad nauseam
The rest of the world and the DJI respond to global issues, something you are pathetically lacking knowledge in. With your insipid responses to every issue on Dan’s blog, your lack of critical thinking or even a decent educated guess you’ve demonstrated that you are way over your head. Coarse language, insulting invectives and ignorance are your strong points – critical thinking, not so much. Many have asked you to go away, thereby increasing the intelligent discussions that could be part of each thread – don’t worry, we will manage to cover your viewpoint: Obama did it….
WHY THE DOW TANKED TODAY
The Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDEX: ^DJI) fell sharply today, erasing yesterday’s gain and then some. For the day, the Dow shed 160 points, roughly a 1.3% drop. Equally dismal, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq each declined to the tune of 1.4% and 1.2%, respectively.
In what makes for a depressing change of pace, it was Spain today, not Greece, that WORRIED INVESTORS. AS NEWS OF DECLINING DEPOSITS CAST DOUBT ON THE HEALTH OF THE SPANISH BANKING SYSTEM, INVESTORS GREW ESPECIALLY WARY OF SPANISH AND ITALIAN DEBT, sending yields on both countries debt sharply higher. Especially since a Spanish bailout would require resources far beyond those needed to foot Greece’s tab, growing deterioration in the larger, heavily indebted European economies should leave investors sweating bullets. As a result, the market’s “fear gauge,” or the VIX (INDEX: ^VIX) , climbed 14.8% during the trading session today.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/05/30/why-the-dow-tanked-today/
SOSO, every time there is bad news, Suzie trumpets it. When there is good news she is silent, or extra twitchy. Suzie, why do you hate American success? Why does bad news for America make you happy? What the hell is wrong with you? Do black people scare you this badly old woman?
It All Comes Down to Race
Your opinions on health care reform, taxes, and even the president’s dog come down to racial bias.
No damn surprise there!
A new low: racist plagiarism.
#11 Terps, have you seen this? http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/299752/transcript-massachusetts-senatorial-debate?pg=1
Terps, so buying a home that the bank foreclosed on is now “screwing the poor”? And yet you can defend Willard the vulture capitalist how? Are you even sane? Your attacks on this woman are unseemly.
What was the going interest rate at the time when she charged her brother that rate? Your article makes her sound like someone with the money and brains to seize an opportunity and if she was a TP/GOPr you’d be cheering her. You remain pathetic!
Re: Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2012 @ 2:33 pm
SOSO, every time there is bad news, Suzie trumpets it. When there is good news she is silent, or extra twitchy.
——–
Not only that but his/her selective application of her/his defense of his/her idols — while at the same time attacking the current POUS.
See: http://tinyurl.com/44ee4mg #61 Comment by Suzie — June 3, 2011 @ 11:07 pm
“It’s who controls Congress that matters.”
She/he is totally lacking in the logical application of his/her basic standards of who is responsible for what (good or bad).
Dan – the link – Wow, just wow…and understatement calling it a new “low”…
couldn’t even come up with his own hate speech…
Sandi
I’m glad you asked. The loan was in 2002. That’s the same year I bought my home. My interest rate was 4.87% for a 15yr fixed loan. She charged double that rate.
Lizzie charged her brother Pay Day lending rates so the poor guy could get a home. How heartless can one be? Does being a liberal permit one to be a Scrooge in their personal life and get away with it?
When there is good news she is silent, or extra twitchy.
It’s been so long since we’ve seen good news, I forgot what it’s like. It’s a long way from 2007 and Bush’s 14,000 DJIA and his 5% unemployment.
Suzie, why do you hate American success? Why does bad news for America make you happy?
I love American success. That’s why I hate this administration which has worked very hard to undermine that success. I’ll be happy when this five-year nightmare of Democrats in control is history.
Terps pens, “Guess who got rich by screwing the poor? Who would charge their own brother 9.5% interest to buy a home?”
Easy, Terps…I’ve exhausted this issue, today. I’ve found not one iota of evidence that she did anything wrong or unseemly. Screw the poor? The homes were auctioned and she was the highest bidder. Loaning her brother money? Those were private business contracts that are none of our concern. As Bill Clinton would say…..This is good work, her performance was sterling. I’m sure most of these were fixer uppers. She put carpenters, electricians, plumbers, and painters to work.
#2 and #4: I grew up by the ocean and my best friend and I used to drive out to the beach late at night, hide our clothes in the dunes and run down the empty beach to skinny-dip in the ocean. Those were the days! It was so much fun but we were always a little worried someone would find out clothes and take them…luckily, that never did happen.
Phil
Your right, there is nothing wrong with buying those foreclosed homes and making a profit. But Warren is a broken record with regard to vilifying those who engage in similar acts of capitalism.. There is a pattern of duplicity and hypocrisy with her that is unprecedented.
Watching the liberal press use tortured logic to defend her is quite entertaining.
Terps, perhaps you can show us a few examples of where Warren has vilified people who buy homes at foreclosure auctions then flip them.
So terps’s beef is that Warren is TOO capitalist?
Someone give me a scorecard.
I just don’t get where Terps is coming from. Warren bought something at auction, resold it at a higher price, helped a bank clear its books, and made herself some small profits.
She has never criticized such a practice. Not once in her career. And the deafening silence from Terps is proof of that.
I guess that he’s peeved that she didn’t keep the properties and operate them as a slumlord.
The next thing you know, Howie Carr will dig us some facts about the last time Elizabeth Warren sold one of her cars. And Terps will be posting messages here calling her a “used car saleswoman.”
#25 terps – I have no idea where you and others on Dan’s site came up with the myth that somehow, if you are a Democrat or progressive, you must therefore be against making money…?!
That is simply a most illogical leap of horse manure continually pushed by the right…[see the Kennedy clan].
Poll any liberal, progressive, right wing, conservative or independent and ask are they in favor of making money [legally] and having more income? I suggest the answer would be a resounding yes. People regardless of political affiliation prefer not being destitute – and having the security of stable finances and a comfortable standard of living – whether in the lower income strata, the overwhelmingly “middle” of the middle income or at the top of the heap.
You just sound foolish to challenge people on this issue. For myself, making money or balancing a budget scavenging off the bones of the elderly, the poor, the disabled, the uninsured, the children and/or laid-off workers is what I personally find reprehensible. Fairness to me is a moral issue – an economic philosophy that hurts “the least” of us is immoral.
Making money through hard work and savvy investment is great, “vulture capitalism” where the intent is to harm many and provide benefit to a few, IMHO is immoral.
Terps, perhaps you can show us a few examples of where Warren has vilified people who buy homes at foreclosure auctions then flip them.
Dan
Substitute “companies” for “homes” and you describe Bain Capital.” I bet those homes were fixed uo and sold for more money. That’s called a profit. The whole community benefits from the improvement. Warren was the “shareholder” in the home and she made a “profit.” I have never heard her speak without vilifying Wall Street for engaging in the exact same activity that made her rich. Wall Street invests in more than just homes, but the principle is the same.
It is OK for HER to get rich from capitalism, but anyone else who tries is greedy. More classic liberal hypocrisy.
Does this mean we are seeing a fundamental shift in the liberal talking points/campaign strategy?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47661998/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/
Are they moving from the “it’s Bush’s fault era” into the “it’s Congress/Europe/China’s fault”? If so it will probably work. It appeals to the growing societal mindset that doesn’t want anyone anywhere to have to accept any personal responsibility for anyhting.
Ironically, I agree that the economy is more dependent on Congress than the President, just like I don’t think the President has much of an effect on gas prices. However, I do find it laughably ironic and terribly hypocritical that Obama and his followers now proclaim that Europe and Congress are the obstacles to a better economy and that is not the fault of his ownfailed presidential policies when they spent the past four years claiming the economic woes were the fault of the previous President. Strange how back then it had nothing to do with the democratic Congress that took power in 2006 which was also coincidentally, shortly before the economy started its slide into the crapper.
Congress’ fault? No, no. Back then, according to liberals, it was clearly the fault of the President. Today, bad jobs report and slipping economic indicators. The fault of the President? No, no. As Obama and his liberals now adamantly tell us, everyone knows there is very little the President can do about such matters and the bulk of the responsibility lies with external factors like Congress and Europe.Really? What changed?
Just to make sure I have this straight, let’s review for a moment. For the first six years of the Bush Presidency, because the Republicans controlled Congress, liberals could do nothing to prevent Bush’s policies even though the wise liberals knew these polices were doomed to fail. Then, when the Democrats took over Congress with the 2006 election, they still bore no responsibility for the economic woes because Bush was still President. Then, in 2008 Obama became President and the democrats still controlled Congress, but the economy still wasn’t there fault because Bush used to be President. Then on 2010, the Republicans regained at least partial control of Congress and as such, the economy was still not the fault of Obama’s policy failures because of the Republican Congress democrats could do nothing to affect or stop (despite the fact that a Republican minority was able to stymie a democrat controlled Congress for years) and, as we are so oft reminded, Bush used to be President. Now, with the election looming, liberals still have no control of or responsibility for the economy because of Congress, Europe, China and of course, the fact that Bush used to be President. Seems to me “It’s Not My Fault” might have been a better campaign slogan than “Forward”.
But that begs the question, if the Republicans are actually the ones who are responsible for everything regardless of whether they are in power or not and democrats can’t seem to get anything done and say they should not be held accountable for anything whether they control or not, why should people vote for democrats. Why would we want the government to be in the hands of a party which, by its own admission, bears no responsibility for or control over the state of the country?
Somehow I missed the story this week about the Pope’s butler stealing confidential documents.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57442557/vatican-scandal-could-further-grow?tag=currentVideoInfo;videoMetaInfo
Dan
I don’t think its so difficult to see where terps is coming from. The amazing thing is that somebody can get get his head tucked that far back between his legs. He must be double jointed, a malady which also describes Mitt Romney’s positions on practcally everything. Thatis except the ones where he has taken three different positions instead of two.
Terps,
Your analogy fails. If Warren had those homes fixed up, she hired people. She didn’t steal anyone’s pension, and she didn’t lay anyone off, and she didn’t shutter the home, break it up into pieces and sell off the pieces. See, so it’s not like Bain.
Elizabeth Warren has a long track record of being against huge banks and finance firms using their power and marketing might to take advantage of little guys (cue BM, arguing that those banks have the right to attempt to take advantage of little guys, and that it is the little guys’ responsibility not to be take advantage of).
That’s why Scott Brown wouldn’t let her be confirmed as the consumer watchdog. Those banks supported him and then called in a favor so she’d be blocked.
I wonder if he’s regretting that action now. Because if he hadn’t blocked her, he’d have been reelected in a cakewalk. Now they’re tied, the election is 5 months away, he’s throwing every bit of mud he can find against her, and her numbers are rising.
Chuck,
The “fundamental shift” that’s happening is this one:
The GOP is suddenly scared that the Supreme Court might overturn the Affordable Care Act. Because it has come to their attention how popular 3 provisions of it are: 1) children on your health insurance to 26; 2) no discrimination against enrollees with pre-existing conditions; and 3) closing the Medicare doughnut hole.
So Republicans are talking about enacting those popular provisions as an Affordable Care Act replacement, should the Supremes overturn it.
The trouble is, the insurance industry is going to launch an onslaught against this, particular #2. It’s because that doesn’t work without the individual mandate. And the Tea Part nutcases want the whole law dumped.
And this is going to be playing out in an election year. Which means that secretly, many Republicans DON’T WANT THE LAW OVERTURNED.
Romney, of course, has promised to undo the ACA, including its popular provisions, on the first day be is president. Ha, ha! He is going to have to explain this in debates this fall.
The correct analogy would be Bain Capital buys a house, using borrowed money. They then go in and strip the house. They remove all the appliances, lighting fixtures, the furnace, the water heater, and anything that’s not tied down and sell it off to make their profit. Then they bankrupt the corporation that they formed to own the house and leave the guys they borrowed the money from holding the bag.
You’re floundering here, terps. Bag it.
Re: Comment by dave — June 3, 2012 @ 12:15 pm
You nailed it.
OTOH, a complete analogy would also include finding a way to stiff the workers who did the work of stripping the house.
The lie here is Bain capital is somehow worse than all the venture capitalists who contribute to 0bama. People aren’t buying it,.
Good article on the use of on-line ads by both camps in the election.
http://tinyurl.com/7yjk6ur
The line that resonated with me (and a major gripe I have with on-line ads) is, “There’s another strong advantage to online video ads: You generally can’t fast-forward through them like you can if you use a DVR to watch TV.”
Wonder how long before there will be an app to fast-forward through them? Anyone know of one? Anyone know of a better ad-blocker add-on for browsing?
I know that the more-restrictions-on-the-RKBA folk object to introducing the subject (unless it is one of their allies doing it) but here’s a very good read on public opinion on the issue:
http://tinyurl.com/7zwkpeq
**
Public opinion about the National Rifle Association
David Kopel • June 2, 2012 10:08 pm
In April, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that the National Rifle Association was viewed favorably by 68% of Americans, and unfavorably by 32%. Unlike most polls, the Reuters poll apparently did not allow “unsure” or “undecided” as a choice. In each of the demographics which the poll provided–Republicans, Democrats, independents, whites, and blacks–the NRA was viewed favorably by at least 55%.
SNIP
Thus, generally speaking, over the last two decades, Americans who favor handgun prohibition appear to have accurately identified the NRA as a major obstacle to their wishes, and have viewed the NRA unfavorably. Americans who oppose handgun prohibition have viewed the NRA favorably for the same reason.
As American public opinion has evolved from a majority to a super-majority which supports the right to own a handgun, public opinion has likewise moved towards a super-majority with a favorable view of the NRA.
SNIP
**
#31 Chuck posted, “if the Republicans are actually the ones who are responsible for everything regardless of whether they are in power”
Chuck I believe I corrected you once before on why the Republicans ACTUALLY are responsible for problems in the economy and progress in jobs
The Senate:
51 Dems – 47 Reps – 2 Ind [way too close to consider an overwhelming majority]
The House of Representatives:
241 Reps – 193 Dems [an overwhelming Republican majority which allows them to control legislation by letting it die or voting it down].
The Republicans have blocked legislation proposed by Democrats, and that is supported by the majority of Americans:
fought the repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
blocked the re-authorization of the VAWA
obstructed legislation to provide reduced interest on student Pell grants,
and obstructed the administration’s jobs bill…
and many many more examples.
Dan
The analogy holds up perfectly. The people who ran the home into the ground(substitute company) lost their home (substitute company) and someone (Warren or Bain…take your pick) came in with Capital to fix it up and sell it for a profit. Think of staples, Dan. People made money AND thousands of jobs were created.
80% of Romney’s capital investments were successful and he used his own money. Obama has a miserable record and he is spending YOUR money.
terps @43 – you really should do some research before spouting off about Romney and Bain and making this false statement – “80% of Romney’s capital investments were successful and he used his own money.” [yikes!]
Read it and weep:
“Bain & Co. and the FDIC agreed to the deal after months of intense negotiations. Moreover, bankers say debt forgiveness is relatively routine when a company is at risk of collapse. BUT THE $10 MILLION COST TO THE FDIC RAISES THE QUESTION OF WHETHER ROMNEY’S SUCCESS, AS WELL AS THE RESURRECTION OF BAIN & CO., CAME PARTIALLY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FEDERAL AGENCY THAT PROTECTS US BANK DEPOSITS”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/06/us-campaign-romney-bailout-idUSTRE8050LL20120106
“Another steel company which Bain invested, GS Industries, went bankrupt in 2001, causing more than 700 workers to lose their jobs, health insurance and a part of their pensions. Before going under, the company paid large dividends to Bain partners and expanded its Kansas City plant with the help of tax subsidies. IT ALSO SOUGHT A $50-MILLION FEDERAL LOAN GUARANTEE.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/12/nation/la-na-bain-subsidies-20120113
He did not use his money – he used the American taxpayers’ money. So you have problems with Eliz.Warren making a profit [using her own money not the governments?], but no problem with Romney/Bain sucking out the profits from companies and then asking the government to help finance this vulture capitalism? Glad you don’t mind your taxes being given to multi millionaires – that clears up a lot – however, Romney is a business man and jobs creator pretender…
You appear, however, to be pretty hypocritical carping about Eliz. Warren…
Terps is correct. The analogy holds up in every way.
It sounds to me like Bain Capital was misnamed. Maybe they should have called it Bain Bailout Capital.
Did Warren get a bailout on those homes she flipped?
It was not “Romney Capital”, he did not ever use only “his own money”. Ever. He also was not in the business of building companies or hiring workers. He was looking for investments to make money from. It is documented fact that they made more money on the vulture version than on just investing. The analogy to Warren is disgusting and so wrong as to be embarrassing.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/as_bain_slashed_jobs_romney_stayed_to_side/
“But in almost all cases Bain Capital made money. In fact, the firm earned substantially more from Ampad than Staples. Staples returned about $13 million on a $2 million investment; Ampad yielded more than $100 million on $5 million, according to reports to investors.“
It sounds to me like Bain Capital was misnamed. Maybe they should have called it Bain Bailout Capital.
Did Warren get a bailout on those homes she flipped?
Is a bammy supporter really complaining about bailouts?
Terps and I have lunch wagers on whether Obama will be reelected, AND whether Obama will win Virginia. I think perhaps we should add one to that mix: Warren-Brown in Mass.
What do you say, Terps?
Dan
Obama will lose in November(USA and Va.)
Warren will win in Mass. because minorities will turn out for Obama when they stayed at home for Coakley. Brown has no chance. We will have our second Indian senator.
I believe Dan also guaranteed Scott Walker would lose.
Here’s something that would make any mother proud:
http://www.mylifetime.com/shows/bristol-palin-lifes-a-tripp
#48 Thank you for confirming that much of whatever success Romney might have had depended on federal bailouts.
Romney Opens Double-Digit Lead Among Independents
http://www.danlovallo.com/943/romney-increases-lead-with-independents/
Dang. I wonder how I missed coverage of this new Politico poll in the MSM. Had to find it in some blog.
The election is SO over.
Maybe that’s because MSNBC read the rest of the story.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74943.html
Anyone concerned about Campaign Finance Disclosure should read this whole article:
http://tinyurl.com/7ccfg79
**
Cynics United: When Did Conservatives Change Their Mind About Campaign Finance Disclosure?
Mark Schmitt
June 4, 2012 | 12:00 am
A decade ago, when Congress was debating the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as McCain-Feingold, the conservative alternative to its modest tightening of regulations on political spending bore the wonderful name DeLay-Doolittle. The name represented not just the two primary sponsors—then-Reps. Tom DeLay and John Doolittle—but also what the bill would do, or not.
SNIP
This type of dodginess has always informed the GOP’s advocacy for campaign finance disclosure laws. The difference this year is that the cynicism has now been brought into full view. This is the first presidential election campaign, after all, since the 2010 Citizens United case, which should have given momentum to the disclosure movement. The unabashed response by conservatives, however, has been to turn against disclosure laws entirely.
SNIP
**
http://tinyurl.com/cp8mpvj
**
Judge Tosses WND’s Suit Against Esquire Over ‘Birther’ Parody Post
Ryan J. Reilly June 4, 2012, 4:30 PM 4021
Updated: 5:50PM
A federal judge has tossed a lawsuit filed by the “birther” website WND against Esquire magazine over a satirical post that claimed the website formerly known as WorldNetDaily was no longer standing behind a book claiming President Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States.
WND founder Joseph Farah told TPM he was considering suing shortly after the publication of a post claiming WND was withdrawing the book after Obama released a copy of his long form birth certificate.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer dismissed the suit, calling the Esquire post a “satirical comment on an issue of public concern.” WND and the co-plaintiffs named in the suit had been seeking $120 million in damages — $100 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages plus legal costs.
SNIP
**
The whole stupid birther thing just baffles me. Obama is a lousy, unpatriotic, spend-hearty, unqualified president, but where he was born is of the least importance of all the issues with him.
I’m a life-long Virginia resident, but born at Bluefield’s local hospital across the state line in West Virginia…. It doesn’t cause people to question my legitimacy as a Virginian. My “American” muscle car Dodge was built across the line in Ontario Canada, but no one considers it a foreign car. Frankly, I think there are many more interesting birther scandals to create than Obama’s.
#58 This just in from Don Asmussen’s “The Bad Reporter”:
Teethers Movement Starts Questioning in What Country Obama Started Teething
Teethers want dental records; what is Obama hiding
John Wilburn, Bush was “a lousy,…spend-hearty, unqualified president” and he was re-elected! If that truly mattered, he would not have been. There are always more issues at play than just the candidate. Willard Romney will, beyond any shadow of doubt be “a lousy,…spend-hearty, unqualified president” as well. So what?
PS: I personally think it is wrong (and reminiscent of McCarthy tactics) to question anyone else’s patriotism. A person can show “love for or devotion to one’s country” in many ways, there is no one concrete definition. Caring about ALL Americans certainly qualifies Obama as patriotic. What he has done on behalf of returning troops is certainly patriotic. What he is trying to do for the future of the nation could certainly be called patriotic.
“Lousy”, “unqualified”, and “spend-hearty” are all relative to your position, but I think “unpatriotic” is grossly unfair for Bush, Obama or Romney.