I think that Jerry is jerking your chain, dude. Lighten up :) On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Eric Roberts <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > It just amazes the crap out of me that people even look at this for more > than a second before moving on to the plethora of WAY more important things > going on in the world. Who really gives a rat's ass if he knew who Snooki > is or not? How is that important? How is she important. Hel, if she > hadn't been on politifact about the tanning tax, I would know who she was > either. I think this is a symptom of the cancer this country is suffering > from that is keeping it from it's former greatness. People are to busy > muckraking and trying to dig up dirt on people instead of taking care of > more important matters. > > Eric > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry Barnes [mailto:critic...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 12:23 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Snooki Gate > > > President Obama has been caught in a egregious lie. > > Recently on the view, President Obama said "I don't know who Snooki is." > > However, back in May at the White House Correspondents Dinner, President > Obama made a joke about how tan Snooki is. > > The fall out from the scandal may be immense. Be prepared for congressional > hearings and partisan politics to become even more intense. > > Snooki has gone on the record saying that she doesn't use tanning booths > that much any more due to President Obama's new tax. > > > link <http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/29/snookigate> > > For the record, I for one, did not know what a Snooki was until I read this > article. > > > > J > > - > > "When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed > rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the > theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we > have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual > men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, > according to their own views of what it ought to mean." Dred Scott v. > Sandford , 60 U.S 393 (1857) (Justice Curtis dissenting). > > > > >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:324228 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
