- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Soccer's doing a good job, but I figured I'd throw in a clip of my own:
Emphasis mine.
Ah, the Wall Street Journal, that bastion of liberal brain-rot. :lol:
It's always hilarious to see the hyper-partisan jokes around here flinging their own poo at the people they hate so blindly.
LA Times are liberal rag that would never speak against Obama?
By saying to vote initiated political speech.
Don't worry it is Chicago. Daley will make sure nothing happens to her highness the first Lady.
If see continued the conversation and took it over i would say she is also guilty.
Oh, about the last time the truth mattered to the freakishly partisan hacks around here who bought the first interpretation they could find that the First Lady did a bad thing. :lol:
How about the WSJ? Go ahead, tell me how the WSJ is totally in the tank for Obama. :lol:
So, despite the fact that a publication which is not typically associated with her cheering section and an assortment of other experts say she didn't do anything wrong, you're so ready to believe she broke the law that you totally blind yourself to reality?
Read the article I posted.
Hell, read the section I quoted.
****ing DUH. :lol:
I am saying it is Chicago and it does not matter there she is an Obama and a democrat so nothing will happen but justification for her actions.
Right, and I'm saying that a reputable source of information which is not in bed with the President is clearly stating she did nothing wrong.
Please explain to me why you are ignoring that? Do you want to be regarded as little more than a hyper-partisan joke?
So they quote a Chicago newspaper and that means they agree?
You aren't reading the WSJ article.
Read the WSJ article.
I highly recommend reading the WSJ article.
Reading the WSJ article may prove beneficial for you.
All the cool kids are reading the WSJ article.
How many freaking ways do I have to say it, huh? :lol:
As I said thet use a chicago newspaper report.
“Usually we picture electioneering as somebody with a sign, a concerted effort to convince voters,” said Richard Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. “It’s hard to imagine that a casual comment like that would be taken seriously as a violation of the law.”
Deanna Mool, who practices election law in Springfield, Ill., said the statute is intended to protect voters from being pressured at the ballot box. She said she hadn’t heard of anyone being prosecuted for violating the statute. Instead, poll workers generally ask violators to stop or move their activities 100 feet outside the polling station.
While electioneering is usually understood as involving signs or pamphlets, “political discussion” doesn’t seem to have a legal definition, Mool said.
As I said thet use a chicago newspaper report.
Michelle Obama and Illinois Election Law - Washington Wire - WSJ
The question arose after the first lady, who voted early at her Chicago precinct Thursday, responded to voters who voiced support for her husband. It’s unlawful in the state to have a “political discussion” or engage in “electioneering” within 100 feet of a polling place.
A pool report by Chicago Sun-Times reporter Abdon Pallasch said Obama had a photo taken with electrician Dennis Campbell, 56 years old. It quoted Campbell as saying, “She was telling me how important it was to vote to keep her husband’s agenda going.”
Honestly, who really cares? Even if she did do something wrong, the fact that it was so tiny, speaks more to it being a simple mistake. She has the money, power, fame and contacts to go nutz campaigning for her husband's agenda. Why she would ignore that and go after a small group of people is ridiculous.
I don't like her. I think she's too much of a Marie Antoinette for this time, but this story is just silly.
You stopped reading there because it doesn't fit your hackery:
Oh well, feel free to continue making a complete ass out of yourself. :lol:
And the Fox News source said that officials say she didn't. You are just so hung up on her being guilty of something you are ignoring the fact she didn't do anything wrong.
I think it's hilarious that you of all people are accusing others of not caring about the truth, when you've clearly demonstrated that the only truth you're interested in is the kind that fits your agenda.
Chicago Officials? They are so credible. They even let the dead vote.
The fact is if she did something wrong in Chicago she will be given a pass just like here. Facts do not matter it was such a small thing. So I guess election laws are a small matter and it is OK for the white house that is to be an example to the nation to bend them.
That is different from you and Obama and the liberal press how?
Chicago Officials? They are so credible. They even let the dead vote.
The fact that you think if she was talking to some one about politics when they approached her and continued the conversation just goes to show you want her to be guilty of something.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?