Some chains are easier too pull than others, especially when it deals with hard hitting investigative journalism like this.
On 7/31/10, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> wrote: > > 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:324231 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
