Tucker Carlson interviews David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor sm
Posted By: LVMT on 2006-08-11
In Reply to:
He is a theology professor and member of Scholars for 911 Truth (one of those on the fringe loonies they keep telling you about - you will see he is not).
Check out Tucker's new look (I am LMAO). He is not wearing his trademark bow tie, and looks like he set his hair with curlers.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=2a3290a0-4b79-4bf5-8119-b91b7dede110&p=News_Comment%20-%20Analysis&t=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8063292/&fg=
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
True but Tucker Carlson actually arranged this. sm
People only gloss over things and the media knows this. Dr. Paul was surprised Tucker showed up with them. Just another smear attempt by the media is all it is, and those who believe what they are spoonfed by them will believe it. He is not aligned with Tucker. Tucker is writing an article on him. Quote by Tucker below from the AP article:
"Dennis Hof is a good friend of mine, so when we got to Nevada, I decided to call him up and see if he wanted to come check this guy out," said Carlson, who hosts the show "Tucker" on MSNBC.
You really should not harbor such anger and animosity sm
It's over now, he is our new President. It takes so much more anger to carry around versus embracing history and what has happened. Why would you even call him such a name as a *****. So many people are still amazingly ignorant. He is not a muslim, if he was he would not be attending a baptist church because the Bible and Curan do not mix. OMG, how people make me crack my side laughing with some of the ridiculous things they say.
This pearl of wisdom is brought to you by
someone who proved herself ridiculous 500 posts ago....
carlson
He sure is conservative and from what I can read and see, some others on MSNBC, like on Connect, what is her name, Monica or something with Ron Reagan, are also conservative..what about scarborough (spell?)..He truly is not kind to liberals..
"There you go." A Reagan-esque pearl of wisdom.
Miers: Margaret Carlson & James Dobson know. Why doesn't Bush?
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=ajuZsQQbuwl4#
With Miers, Bush Gets Fifth Vote Against Roe: Margaret Carlson
Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) -- What if former President Bill Clinton had nominated his White House counsel, Bernie Nussbaum, to the Supreme Court? I can hear Bill Frist now. What does Slick Willy think he's doing -- filling a job at FEMA?
At first glance, there seems to be no other reason for Harriet Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court other than that she is President George W. Bush's Bernie Nussbaum. The notion that a careerist corporate lawyer would have risen to the top of Bush's list if she weren't down the hall is preposterous.
Unlike famous self-selector Dick Cheney, no one suspects the modest Miers looked in the mirror and saw the best replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor staring back at her. Only Bush could see the ``heart'' and ``character'' in Miers that made her the perfect selection. She's been his consigliore, fixer and confidante for more than two decades, and she thinks the way he does.
The fact that Miers is a woman helps enormously. It looks as if Bush listened to wife Laura, who publicly suggested he should replace a woman with a woman. It's far more likely that Laura publicly suggested it because he already had decided to do so. The choice prompts automatic praise from some liberals, excites Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and placates Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Bush's Wants
And notice how tongue-tied a potential critic, Senator Edward Kennedy, was two days ago trying to criticize her.
Miers satisfies a number of Bush's proclivities: his inability to distinguish an insider job from an outside one (White House counsel is the most partisan legal job in government), his desire to reward loyalty and his love of surprise.
Ambitious Republicans should be on notice that the best way to get ahead in the Bush years is to work anonymously inside. It was only because the White House floated Miers's name that she was on anyone's list.
This is not to say that Miers isn't a decent, competent (she may be a crony, but she's no Michael Brown) and respected person. She's devoted to her mother and brothers, a regular churchgoer, an early riser, an avid celebrator of birthdays.
Up the Ladder
In Dallas, she broke the glass ceiling for female lawyers (although she lived the life of a nun to get there). After meeting Bush in 1989, she represented him in matters ranging from his purchase of a fishing cottage in East Texas to questions about his National Guard service.
At the same time, she climbed a steep corporate ladder, becoming co-manager of a huge Dallas firm and chairwoman of the Texas Bar Association, specializing in commercial transactions for large corporations.
She served on the Dallas City Council and headed the Texas Lottery, where, some say, she cleaned up Powerball. She moved with the president to the White House, where the only complaint against her was that she lingered over paperwork too long.
She became counsel to the president when Alberto Gonzales was promoted to attorney general. Gonzales is another loyalist who proved himself to Governor Bush by speed-reading through death row appeals in Texas and redefining torture in the White House for purposes of allowing more of it in Iraq. With her nomination, Miers has gotten an even bigger promotion than her predecessor.
Shocked Conservatives
Some conservatives are loudly shocked that Bush ignored the long list of known quantities among conservative jurists in the mold of his favorites, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. It depressed Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. Rush Limbaugh was so agitated Cheney gave him an interview to calm his listeners.
What those conservatives are missing is what Dr. James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel to the American Center for Law & Justice, see in Miers: a fifth vote for overturning Roe v. Wade. Bush even got Dobson's approval beforehand.
Like Bush, Miers had a late-in-life born-again moment, joining a conservative evangelical church in Dallas where she taught Sunday School.
In an interview in yesterday's Dallas Morning News, Miers's former campaign manager, Lorlee Bartos, said Miers told her when running for city council in 1989 that she had been ``pro-choice in her youth.'' Then, according to Bartos, Miers said she underwent ``a born-again, profound experience'' that caused her to change her mind and oppose abortion.
Keeping the Promise
That conversion fits with her $150 contribution to Texans United for Life in 1989 and her successful effort to get the American Bar Association to move from support for abortion rights to neutral in 1991. After the ABA switched back to a pro- abortion-rights position, Miers in 1993 failed in a bid to have the endorsement put to a vote of the full membership.
At his press conference yesterday, Bush claimed that in all the years he's known Miers he never learned her view on abortion. Dobson and Sekulow will have their hands full reassuring the base about that comment. It's one thing for Chuck Schumer to be left in the dark, quite another for Bush to say he purposely kept himself there.
Didn't he promise the base he'd turn the light on and give them a selection sure to reverse Roe?
I think he has. This time he's tricking Harry Reid.
I used to think the younger Bush was like his dad on abortion -- pro-life for purposes of getting elected, pro-choice otherwise. But I now see him as a victim of Stockholm syndrome, adopting as his own view that of his right-wing captors. My money is on Dobson knowing what Bush claims not to. Assuming Miers is confirmed, it won't be long before we all know.
To contact the writer of this column:
Margaret Carlson at mcarlson3@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: October 5, 2005 00:16 EDT
The author
Well, as soon as I got to the part where the author said that teachers work 6 hours a day, 10 months a year, I was ticked. My sister and brother-in-law are both teachers, and I can tell you that they work way more than that, at least 7-8 hours in the school a day, plus nights and weekends grading papers, lesson plans, etc. Days in the summer in trainings, preparing materials, etc.
Other than that, there wasn't a whole lot of substance to the article, just like most things posted here!
I saw interviews of
black people saying how wonderful it was that we now have a black president. I saw pre-election clips of black people saying it was time we elected a black president - one would assume that's how they voted. I overheard conversations in public to the same effect. I saw folks begging royal favors (a house, a higher hourly wage) of Obama at a town meeting. I saw a woman-on-the-street interview of an African American woman saying Obama was going to pay her mortgage and fuel her car 'If I help him, he'll help me.' Is it politically incorrect to comment on these facts?
Wonder when JM or SP interviews on MSNBC
Won't hold my breath on that one. They'll be ll tied up with emergency response damage control and leadership image management.
Yes, the author of this is completely...
truthful and trustworthy. Ahem. And you left out this part of his letter:
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.
It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.
(b) It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment. Allah has challenged anyone to bring a book like the Quran or even ten verses like it.
(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.
(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.
We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.
(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:
She is right, they don't like, in fact they hate, everything about this country. They hate it because we don't have Sharia law. The only way they will stop trying to kill us is if we kill enough of them first, or convert to Islam and fall under Sharia law.
Which do you choose?
God is not the author of confusion........ sm
so it would seem that you are the one speaking jibberish and lack credibility.
author is Richard Morris -
that is hilarous!!! Get your facts right here folks.
It is worth mentioning that the author
of this article is a a conservative Republican and contributing Editor of Red State, a conservative blog. Since we are always hearing after this or that article about that paper or station being liberal, I think it should be be noted that this is clearly republican and biased on that account.
Same here. Watching these people in interviews is
nm
I have already written the author of this- others should email
Doctors swamped, having to dictate from a zoo. Honestly. How many of us have heard doctors dictating from the bathrooms, doing their business 1 and 2, their homes with dogs barking, eating, snorting, and the list goes on. Also as an Editor was amused by the fact "only doctors are allowed to edit reports or change." I do not know of any physicians here in the US doing that. As far as what is not to like, when my hospital tried to send work overseas the physicians up in arms because of the horrible work they got back. That did not last long with them when the doctors spoke.
Quick - can you see this author's logical
Whether someone says "You shouldn't be able to do in your bedroom" or someone says "You should be able to do in your bedroom", it's just opposite sides of the same thing, i.e. someone offering an opinion about your bedroom activities. Whether it's "may" or "may not" doesn't change the fundamental character of the statement.
Got brain?
Newspaper interviews are not usually video taped. nm
even brittany stopped giving interviews
She is under no obligation to stay in the spotlight and should decline all further interviews. seriously.
Jon Stewart interviews Elizabeth Warren...
...overseer of the TARP Program. Though it's pretty funny, it's also very informative and explained in a way that most people can "get," and I highly recommend it to those who are interested.
It's a two-part video, and I believe it's worth watching, though, unfortunately, some people will probably criticize it without even bothering to watch it in its entirety).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/elizabeth-warren-makes-jo_n_187635.html
Jon Stewart interviews Elizabeth Warren...
...overseer of the TARP Program. Though it's pretty funny, it's also very informative and explained in a way that most people can "get" (in a Jim Cramer/Jon Stewart interview kind of way), and I highly recommend it to those who are interested.
It's a two-part video, and I believe it's worth watching, though, unfortunately, some people will probably criticize it without even bothering to watch it in its entirety).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/elizabeth-warren-makes-jo_n_187635.html
Okay. Then let's have David Freddoso...
moderate it.
David Freddos once said - s/m
<< All things in Moderation.>> So maybe he would be the best choice as a moderator. All things do come down to how they are moderated, especially in an election debate.
No...I like David Ogden.
This is old news that has been hashed out on the Politics forum and the Faith forum ad nauseum. I support President Obama's choice of David Ogden and will not be calling or writing anyone about it.
FOR LIBERALS ONLY: 60 Minutes Interviews Iranian President Sunday.
I am looking forward to watching this interview because I am truly interested in hearing what this man has to say.
I can recall as a child growing up to the tune of We have to fight Vietnam because the Communists want to take over the world. During those times, the worst thing a person could be called in the USA was a Communist.
It seems to me these days the USA is the one that wants to take over the world. It has no respect for any government that cares about its poor people or even America's poor, for that matter. (For example, Chavez tried to provide cheap oil to the poor last winter while Bush didn't care if poor Americans froze to death.) Any country that removes the profit incentive from medicine or education for its citizens is a terrorist nation in Bush's eyes. We're quickly approaching the day when most of us will be poor as the middle class continues to disintegrate before our eyes.
I am suspect of everyone Bush labels as terrorist these days, and I want to hear both sides. Bush refuses to sit down diplomatically and listen to what Ahmadinejad has to say, so I'm grateful that Mike Wallace took the time to do so.
I stand by David Ogden.....
It is his legal ethical duty to represent his clients, not his beliefs. My parents decided I was too young to raise a child at 15 and forced me to have an abortion. Yes, the relief was enormous.....as well as the guilt. I got over it and am glad they made that decision for me.
Author of this link is an acid-mouthed witch hunting hate monger
has made a career out of spreading division and hate. She makes Michele Malkin look like a Marxist comrade. She is Anti Obama, Anti-Hillary, Anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, Anti-McCain (he's too "liberal", Pro-Palin and (gt this) Pro-Bush. She positively worhips the guy.
I reviewed the titles of her newspaper articles and WITHOUT EXCEPTION she publishes these types of articles. Some of her more notable titles:
1. Obama's Contempt for our Constitution.
2. In Palin-Gibson Throwdown--Gov Get A, Media F (I am SO SURE).
3. Where is Obama's TESTICULAR Fortitute? (little trash mouth).
4. Ding Dong, the With Is Dead...referring to Hillary's defeat in the primaries.
5. Barack Obama's Snake Oil.
6. Is Hillary Mentall Ill?
7. Hillary's Slapped-Around-By-Men Problem Bodes Ill for the Presidency.
8. The STELLAR Legacy of George W. bush.
9. The Rest of the World Loves President Bush (this woman needs some serious antipsychotic drugs).
10. Liberals Don't Support Our Troops. If she were in the same room with me, the only way I could control my urge to deck her would be to remove myself from her presence over this outrage.
11. Pathology of Liberalism.
12. Hillary: Typical Actions of an Abused Woman.
13. The 7 Deadly Sins of Liberals.
You see, this is why citing sources matters. Credibility....NOT. She is a fanatic hawking a hateful agenda. No surprise there that she would be onboard with this BC lunacy.
David Brooks - New York Times - sm
David Brooks is an objective analyst and I believe his column in today's NYT is very interesting. I see him on PBS along with Mark Shields and always find him fair and nonpartisan.
Google David Brooks or New York Times and take a look at his article today.
Beautiful psalm, written by David
This is a beautiful psalm, written by David, not by G-d, and therefore, is not part of Jewish law.
David Rees is a satirist. This is supposed to
??
Maybe we can get David Ogden to defend him? LOLOLOL!
Nothing like a hypocrite take a fall to make MY day!
Interesting Bhutto interview with David Frost.sm
She is talking about the man who murdered Osama bin Laden. She did not stutter, she did not retract it, and no one corrected her. I guess this is why they can't find him - he's dead. Go to the 6:00 minute mark on the clip and listen for 30 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ
David Horowitz on "Obama Derangement Syndrome"
I don't think they make 'em much more conservative than Mr. Horowitz. I've never agreed with anything he's had to say, and I disagree with a few statements in this piece, but I totally agree with its premise.
December 08, 2008, 4:00 a.m.
Obama Derangement Syndrome
Shut up about the birth certificate.
By David Horowitz
The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, a demagogue who lost a Senate election to the then-unknown Obama by 42 points, should be a warning in itself.
This tempest over whether Obama, the child of an American citizen, was born on American soil is tantamount to the Democrats’’ seditious claim that Bush ""stole"" the election in Florida and hence was not the legitimate president. This delusion helped to create the Democrats’’ Bush derangement syndrome and encouraged Democratic leaders to lie about the origins of the Iraq war, and regard it as illegitimate as Bush himself. It became ""Bush’’s War"" rather than an American War —— with destructive consequences for our troops and our cause.
The birth-certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil. (McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.)
What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for president trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if five Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?
Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been riven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means. The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to five Supreme Court Justices (since no one is delusional enough to think that the four liberal justices are going to take the presidency away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this?
It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country’’s economy and defending its citizens, and —— by the way —— its Constitution.
—— David Horowitz is the author of Party of Defeat.
|
David Ogden - please write or call your reps
Obama has picked a man called David Ogden to be deputy Attorney-General. Ogden has made his legal career from representing pornographers, trying to defeat child protection legislation and undermining family values. As reported this week, he once represented a group of library directors arguing against the Children's Internet Protection Act, which ordered libraries and schools receiving funding for the Internet to restrict access to obscene sites. And on behalf of several media groups, he successfully argued against a child pornography law that required publishers to verify and document the age of their models, which would have ensured these models were at least 18.
The Family Research Council has more examples of his contribution to upholding American and western values. In one such case, he expressed the view that abortion was less damaging to a woman than having children:
In sum, it is grossly misleading to tell a woman that abortion imposes possible detrimental psychological effects when the risks are negligible in most cases, when the evidence shows that she is more likely to experience feelings of relief and happiness, and when child-birth and child-rearing or adoption may pose concomitant (if not greater) risks or adverse psychological effects ...
In another, co-authored brief, he argued that it was an unconstitutional burden on 14-year old girls seeking an abortion for their parents to be notified -- because there was no difference between adults and mid-teens in their ability to grasp all the implications of such a decision:
There is no question that the right to secure an abortion is fundamental. By any objective standard, therefore, the decision to abort is one that a reasonable person, including a reasonable adolescent, could make. [E]mpirical studies have found few differences between minors aged 14-18 and adults in their understanding of information and their ability to think of options and consequences when asked to consider treatment-related decisions. These unvarying and highly significant findings indicate that with respect to the capacity to understand and reason logically, there is no qualitative or quantitative difference between minors in mid-adolescence, i.e., about 14-15 years of age, and adults.
Newsletter: MADONNA SAYS SHE OFFERED DAVID'S FATHER MONEY..sm
Madonna appeared on NBC's Today show yesterday (Wednesday, November 1st) to talk about her plans to adopt 13-month-old David Banda of Malawi. She told host Meredith Viera that the boy's father, Yohane Banda, refused her financial offer to help raise his son. Madge said, When I met (Yohane), I said I would be happy to bring (David) back to your village and help you financially raise him. And he said no. She added, I think he truly felt in his heart of hearts that -- and who knows if he was telling me the truth -- that he would have a better life with me. So, when he said no, that was my sign that it was my responsibility to look after him.
Madonna also said that she was saddened by all of the criticism surrounding her decision to adopt David, adding that a week ago she was in the depths of my depression about the negativity and the state of the world. She thinks that racism has something to do with the reaction as well, saying, I think a lot of people have a problem with the fact that I've adopted an African child, a child who has a different color skin than I do...I think it's still considered taboo. You know, I have people say to me on the streets, 'Why did you adopt a black child?'
As for David, Madonna said he's doing well, describing him as very flirtatious and hysterically funny. He also has a temper.
More of Madonna's interview will air today (Thursday, November 2nd).
Meanwhile, David's father said in a recent interview, Madonna was like a bulldozer who has cleared the way for a better life for my son, according to the Associated Press.
Madonna's new children's book, The English Roses, Too Good To Be True, came out last week.
|
