This entry was posted on August 3, 2010 at 6:13 am and is filed under Free For All . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Newsweek magazine sells out for a buck– heck, i’d pay that for it as long as that denizen of Morning Mika lefty know-it-all Jon Meachum would have to be my lackey for the next 10 years– (ps. i almost used “smarmy” ’cause i know how much u guys like that word!)– http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-03/newsweek-losses-revealed
O’Reilly says that he, Beck or Hannity might take the new FNC front row seat in the WHBR.
One can only hope & pray.
I know Gibbs will be begging Major Garrett to let it happen. In fact I’ll bet he teases Major about it when he gets to ask next question at a WH briefing.
I’ll also bet Garrett is not so amused by Billo’s sense of humor.
Caught the re-air of Special Report last night (after the worst trainwreck of a Red Eye I’ve ever seen): Baier aired the anti-mosque video without the graphic 9/11 images. Nice to see someone over there with a little editorial judgment.
It’s fascinating all this sudden interest by Republican politicians in repealing the 14th amendment. Aside from the obvious appeal to the ‘Tea Party’ base of the party it also is a way to keep the birther issue alive (Obama wouldn’t be a natural born citizen if the 14th amendment didn’t exist) without the side effect of looking crazy. Obviously some good focus group work here (can you say Frank Luntz); advocating an issue popular with the far right base but also having no chance of ever happening. Smart political move.
“It’s called a ‘joke’. Most people are able to deal with it.”
Right you are laura. I just wonder Garrett and the other FNC White House reporters see it the same way; as they are going to be the butt of the joke and the ones being razzed by their coworkers about it. Not Billo.
I’m pretty sure that being from Fox gives them a reasonably thick-skin, so it shouldn’t be too much of a trial. They just won a front-row-seat. Most snide comments will be taken in that light.
“I’m pretty sure that being from Fox gives them a reasonably thick-skin”
They still can’t be happy about having their jobs being trivialized by Billo.
We’ll see how it plays out.
“without the side effect of looking crazy”
Actually I may be wrong here.
Having done a bit more research on the 14 amendment advocating its repeal does make you look somewhat crazy.
Hazards of Live TV. GVS shows video of Shirley Sherrod on a story about Maxine Waters ethics problem.
Honest mistake by staffer which Greta, to her credit, apologized for unconditionally at the first opportunity. For me it’s no harm no foul.
KO went after Tom Shales last night for suggesting that Christine Amanpour had tried to glorify the Taliban dead on the ‘This Week’ ‘in memoriam’ segment. KO was right on this one; Shales was way over the top in his snide suggestion.
RM had a really funny bit on ‘Tea Party’ types who go to Colonial Williamsburg and try to discuss current politics with the reenactment actors or get them to spout ‘Tea Party’ talking points. You can’t make this stuff up.:-)
I’m pretty sure Obama would still have been an American citizen if the 14th amendment didn’t exist. His mom was American and he was born on US soil.
Section one, clause one, of the 14th amendment states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Hawaii was a state in 1959, prior to Pres. Obama’s birth.
corny: The quoted passage would not apply if the amendment was repealed.
Who would or wouldn’t be a citizen would then end up being a matter of debate. You could make a case against Obama or John McCain, for that matter.
Anyway, it’s not going to happen so the whole debate is only a political prop for Republican pols.
I think Fritz has a point about Major Garrett. When I heard O’Reilly’s joke, the first thing I thought was that Major isn’t going to appreciate a Fox opinionater implying that the FNC seat is a conservative one to shout attacks at Gibbs from. It’s a joke, but it connects a dot Garrett could do without.
But Obama, as the son of an American, would still be an American citizen. I don’t think the repeal of the 14th amendment would change that. Same with John McCain.
For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986 (Obama, for instance), a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:
1. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born
2. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
3. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.
I think he would still be a citizen, unless Obama’s mother lived abroad for an extended period of time.
The real reason for repealing the 14th amendment, or at least amending the amendment with a new amendment, would be to prevent anchor babies.
after finally getting rid of that anti-jewish bigot from the front row i’d expect old Gibbsy is rarin’ to go– now he can take on that faux news channel Fox upfront and personally– he can also channel his disdain for “The Entertainer” Rush Limbaugh through that Fox reporter in the front seat– and when it comes to Garrett, well… i’m not sure how seriously anybody should take a guy with the first name of “Major”– but then when u’r the WH Press Sec’y and u’r working for a man whose poll numbers are dropping quicker than Bill Clinton’s pants, u tend to flail around for anything that distracts the voters–
yeah fritz, the “powers that be” tried that before and it didn’t work– would u deny me my place in the sun because of my upbringing or my education?– would u keep me from being a productive member of the blogging society with ur prejudice?– perhaps if i looked and sounded just like u, then u would accept me, yes?– maybe i don’t know the difference or correct usage between a ” and a ‘ (some on this site don’t know either) but i ask u this… can’t we all just get along?–
I’m not aware of any serious proposals seeking repeal. There are, however, discussions on efforts to revise it so that citizenship is not automatically granted simply by being born here if neither the mother nor father are in-country legally. It’s a legitimate debate worth having.
It would have to face a Supreme Court challenge, but the wording of the 14th Amendment leaves open the possibility that a simple Act of Congress could deem that the children born of persons in-country illegally not be citizens.
As for Barack Obama’s citizenship status, even absent the 14th Amendment he would qualify (although it could be argued that relevant federal law and court rulings would not have existed absent the amendment, but this leads into a complicated debate). John McCain would also still be a citizen as the amendment does not address all possibilities – those born within the District of Columbia or US Territories, for example.
The more I see of the Ground Zero mosque story on FNC, the less I care. It’s a church, it has nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11, and I no longer see what the big deal is. A month after it’s finished, no one else will, either.
^he that does not understand history is destined to repeat it– as someone said– u libs have no idea of the anger outside of the left coast and east coast– no one will put up with this crap anymore– the mosque may get built but only after lots and lots of delay– the muslims build mosques on sites they have conquered– i don’t know how to explain it more succinctly to u–
oh don’t have a cow- i think islam as a religion is a crock of crap- but it’s just a church- your “muslims conquering a battlefield” conspiracy is ridiculous-
Did anyone read the article about Spc. Bradley Manning at the Washington Examiner? It seems that he’s a radical gay activist who threw a tantrum over the breakup of his ex boyfriend.
As I’ve stated before numerous times, I’m no fan of Rush Limbaugh but his joke yesterday about Obama’s birthday is a classic example of how some (many?) on the liberal/left are simply incapable of not going off the deep end when he speaks. And, of course, he relishes in playing them.
Limbaugh’s joke was (paraphrasing), “How can Obama celebrate his birthday since we’ve seen no evidence he was ever born!”
Now that’s pretty funny and, as is obvious, was meant entirely in cheek.
Not surprisingly, some on the left are claiming that Limbaugh’s a semi-birther or he’s spreading birther lies.
Yes, Limbaugh’s a crank but c’mon, get some perspective.
God I hate these generalisations. Which “some”? Actual respected commentators like Rachel Maddow who suddenly and inexplicably can’t take a joke..or some college kid on a laptop?
August 3, 2010 at 7:14 am
Newsweek magazine sells out for a buck– heck, i’d pay that for it as long as that denizen of Morning Mika lefty know-it-all Jon Meachum would have to be my lackey for the next 10 years– (ps. i almost used “smarmy” ’cause i know how much u guys like that word!)–
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-03/newsweek-losses-revealed
August 3, 2010 at 7:50 am
O’Reilly says that he, Beck or Hannity might take the new FNC front row seat in the WHBR.
One can only hope & pray.
I know Gibbs will be begging Major Garrett to let it happen. In fact I’ll bet he teases Major about it when he gets to ask next question at a WH briefing.
I’ll also bet Garrett is not so amused by Billo’s sense of humor.
August 3, 2010 at 7:54 am
It’s called a ‘joke’. Most people are able to deal with it.
August 3, 2010 at 7:58 am
Caught the re-air of Special Report last night (after the worst trainwreck of a Red Eye I’ve ever seen): Baier aired the anti-mosque video without the graphic 9/11 images. Nice to see someone over there with a little editorial judgment.
August 3, 2010 at 8:03 am
It’s fascinating all this sudden interest by Republican politicians in repealing the 14th amendment. Aside from the obvious appeal to the ‘Tea Party’ base of the party it also is a way to keep the birther issue alive (Obama wouldn’t be a natural born citizen if the 14th amendment didn’t exist) without the side effect of looking crazy. Obviously some good focus group work here (can you say Frank Luntz); advocating an issue popular with the far right base but also having no chance of ever happening. Smart political move.
August 3, 2010 at 8:07 am
“It’s called a ‘joke’. Most people are able to deal with it.”
Right you are laura. I just wonder Garrett and the other FNC White House reporters see it the same way; as they are going to be the butt of the joke and the ones being razzed by their coworkers about it. Not Billo.
August 3, 2010 at 8:13 am
I’m pretty sure that being from Fox gives them a reasonably thick-skin, so it shouldn’t be too much of a trial. They just won a front-row-seat. Most snide comments will be taken in that light.
August 3, 2010 at 8:19 am
“I’m pretty sure that being from Fox gives them a reasonably thick-skin”
They still can’t be happy about having their jobs being trivialized by Billo.
We’ll see how it plays out.
August 3, 2010 at 8:21 am
Edge of my seat.
August 3, 2010 at 8:45 am
“without the side effect of looking crazy”
Actually I may be wrong here.
Having done a bit more research on the 14 amendment advocating its repeal does make you look somewhat crazy.
August 3, 2010 at 8:55 am
Hazards of Live TV. GVS shows video of Shirley Sherrod on a story about Maxine Waters ethics problem.
Honest mistake by staffer which Greta, to her credit, apologized for unconditionally at the first opportunity. For me it’s no harm no foul.
August 3, 2010 at 9:10 am
KO went after Tom Shales last night for suggesting that Christine Amanpour had tried to glorify the Taliban dead on the ‘This Week’ ‘in memoriam’ segment. KO was right on this one; Shales was way over the top in his snide suggestion.
RM had a really funny bit on ‘Tea Party’ types who go to Colonial Williamsburg and try to discuss current politics with the reenactment actors or get them to spout ‘Tea Party’ talking points. You can’t make this stuff up.:-)
August 3, 2010 at 9:14 am
I’m pretty sure Obama would still have been an American citizen if the 14th amendment didn’t exist. His mom was American and he was born on US soil.
Section one, clause one, of the 14th amendment states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Hawaii was a state in 1959, prior to Pres. Obama’s birth.
August 3, 2010 at 9:40 am
corny: The quoted passage would not apply if the amendment was repealed.
Who would or wouldn’t be a citizen would then end up being a matter of debate. You could make a case against Obama or John McCain, for that matter.
Anyway, it’s not going to happen so the whole debate is only a political prop for Republican pols.
August 3, 2010 at 9:43 am
Ed Schultz called FNC’s Steve Doocy, “Steve Douchey,” yesterday on the Ed Show. I guess he will apologize today.
August 3, 2010 at 10:19 am
I think Fritz has a point about Major Garrett. When I heard O’Reilly’s joke, the first thing I thought was that Major isn’t going to appreciate a Fox opinionater implying that the FNC seat is a conservative one to shout attacks at Gibbs from. It’s a joke, but it connects a dot Garrett could do without.
August 3, 2010 at 11:17 am
But Obama, as the son of an American, would still be an American citizen. I don’t think the repeal of the 14th amendment would change that. Same with John McCain.
For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986 (Obama, for instance), a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:
1. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born
2. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
3. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.
I think he would still be a citizen, unless Obama’s mother lived abroad for an extended period of time.
The real reason for repealing the 14th amendment, or at least amending the amendment with a new amendment, would be to prevent anchor babies.
August 3, 2010 at 11:21 am
– anchor babies –
Of course that’s the issue. It’s just so much more fun to obfuscate by talking about those wacky Tea Party-birthers, All twelve of them.
August 3, 2010 at 11:34 am
People forget that the birther movement was “birthed” from the primary fight between Obama and Hillary.
She also pushed the Rev. Wright issue a lot harder than McCain did. In fact, McCain didn’t allow his campaign to bring it up.
August 3, 2010 at 11:37 am
Still not going to happen; so it’s just a cheap appeasement to the base by hypocritical politicians.
Gee that never happens!
August 3, 2010 at 11:51 am
after finally getting rid of that anti-jewish bigot from the front row i’d expect old Gibbsy is rarin’ to go– now he can take on that faux news channel Fox upfront and personally– he can also channel his disdain for “The Entertainer” Rush Limbaugh through that Fox reporter in the front seat– and when it comes to Garrett, well… i’m not sure how seriously anybody should take a guy with the first name of “Major”– but then when u’r the WH Press Sec’y and u’r working for a man whose poll numbers are dropping quicker than Bill Clinton’s pants, u tend to flail around for anything that distracts the voters–
August 3, 2010 at 11:54 am
^Try sentences and maybe even punctuation.
August 3, 2010 at 11:56 am
^ We don’t need your stinking liberal grammar..
August 3, 2010 at 11:58 am
^LOL
August 3, 2010 at 12:05 pm
yeah fritz, the “powers that be” tried that before and it didn’t work– would u deny me my place in the sun because of my upbringing or my education?– would u keep me from being a productive member of the blogging society with ur prejudice?– perhaps if i looked and sounded just like u, then u would accept me, yes?– maybe i don’t know the difference or correct usage between a ” and a ‘ (some on this site don’t know either) but i ask u this… can’t we all just get along?–
August 3, 2010 at 12:07 pm
^ Yeah, Fritz. Chuckleheads are people too!
August 3, 2010 at 12:08 pm
thank u Miss Kitty–
August 3, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Thank you Festus.
August 3, 2010 at 12:38 pm
“powers that be”?
Just trying to help. Loonie ideas sound much more rational with proper sentence structure.
August 3, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Hey look, cable-news news!
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/pam_stevens_to_msnbcs_last_word_169586.asp
August 3, 2010 at 3:08 pm
sorry Marshall, please proceed–
August 3, 2010 at 3:08 pm
That woman…is an idiot. With a demonic smile..
http://www.mediaite.com/online/sharron-angle-would-like-reporters-to-ask-her-questions-she-wants-to-answer/
August 3, 2010 at 3:19 pm
We don’t need no stinking ‘cable news’. Wait..
August 3, 2010 at 4:05 pm
My cable-news news is that an ex-Reagan/Bush person is working on O’Donnell’s show.
August 3, 2010 at 4:06 pm
-14th Amendment-
I’m not aware of any serious proposals seeking repeal. There are, however, discussions on efforts to revise it so that citizenship is not automatically granted simply by being born here if neither the mother nor father are in-country legally. It’s a legitimate debate worth having.
It would have to face a Supreme Court challenge, but the wording of the 14th Amendment leaves open the possibility that a simple Act of Congress could deem that the children born of persons in-country illegally not be citizens.
As for Barack Obama’s citizenship status, even absent the 14th Amendment he would qualify (although it could be argued that relevant federal law and court rulings would not have existed absent the amendment, but this leads into a complicated debate). John McCain would also still be a citizen as the amendment does not address all possibilities – those born within the District of Columbia or US Territories, for example.
August 3, 2010 at 4:11 pm
The more I see of the Ground Zero mosque story on FNC, the less I care. It’s a church, it has nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11, and I no longer see what the big deal is. A month after it’s finished, no one else will, either.
August 3, 2010 at 4:18 pm
You may be right about that mosque story. I’m not convinced yet, but it’d be easy to convince me.
August 3, 2010 at 5:17 pm
^he that does not understand history is destined to repeat it– as someone said– u libs have no idea of the anger outside of the left coast and east coast– no one will put up with this crap anymore– the mosque may get built but only after lots and lots of delay– the muslims build mosques on sites they have conquered– i don’t know how to explain it more succinctly to u–
August 3, 2010 at 5:22 pm
oh don’t have a cow- i think islam as a religion is a crock of crap- but it’s just a church- your “muslims conquering a battlefield” conspiracy is ridiculous-
August 3, 2010 at 5:24 pm
yikes – it’s contagious-
August 3, 2010 at 5:29 pm
” the muslims build mosques on sites they have conquered”
Gee Then they must have conquered half of Michigan
August 3, 2010 at 5:32 pm
^ – that’s what happened to the auto industry.. -
August 3, 2010 at 6:06 pm
of course the have fritz– look at the Census take– are u blind?–
August 3, 2010 at 6:20 pm
are u blind?–
oh man that’s funny-
August 3, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Hannity teasing his segmant with Nikki Haley: “Underdog candidate discusses her commanding lead in the polls.” Um, which is it, Sean?
August 3, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Wow, I misspelled ‘segment’. Spellchecker Girl’s gonna have a field day..
August 3, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Now this is funny:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/funny/play_rick_sanchez_bingo_169652.asp
- if I spelled the link correctly.
August 3, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Did anyone read the article about Spc. Bradley Manning at the Washington Examiner? It seems that he’s a radical gay activist who threw a tantrum over the breakup of his ex boyfriend.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2010m8d2-Wikileaks-leaker-angry-over-treatment-of-gays-by-military
August 3, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Oh. MG Take my word for it..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1Sk8RTxTzk&feature=player_embedded
August 3, 2010 at 9:30 pm
A little something for Laree.
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=4298724&w=600&h=374
August 4, 2010 at 5:50 am
^heh,heh– i saw that interview and i’ve never seen Dean look like such a deer in the headlights!– AAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!
August 4, 2010 at 6:31 am
As I’ve stated before numerous times, I’m no fan of Rush Limbaugh but his joke yesterday about Obama’s birthday is a classic example of how some (many?) on the liberal/left are simply incapable of not going off the deep end when he speaks. And, of course, he relishes in playing them.
Limbaugh’s joke was (paraphrasing), “How can Obama celebrate his birthday since we’ve seen no evidence he was ever born!”
Now that’s pretty funny and, as is obvious, was meant entirely in cheek.
Not surprisingly, some on the left are claiming that Limbaugh’s a semi-birther or he’s spreading birther lies.
Yes, Limbaugh’s a crank but c’mon, get some perspective.
August 4, 2010 at 8:34 am
…some on the left…
God I hate these generalisations. Which “some”? Actual respected commentators like Rachel Maddow who suddenly and inexplicably can’t take a joke..or some college kid on a laptop?
August 4, 2010 at 9:28 am
^ Gee, maybe the ‘some’ who couldn’t figure out that O’Reilly was joking?
August 4, 2010 at 11:31 am
I doubt even a college kid on a laptop would care but KO might.