Oscar H.'s Comments
Page 1 of 31  first | prev | next 
Mar 4, 2007 | comments: 22
Oscar H. Mar 16, 2007, 2:34am EDT
I did try to find out if there were other similar public schools, but did not come accross any in my searching. As a matter of fact, I still can't find the Zheng Academy, even after gooogling the name and going to the NYC DOE and searching that name. I did see the Amistad school on DOE.

It doesn't matter whether you have to apply or not. You could have a religious public school that you could only get into by applying, but that would still be wrong. As for the funding, as I said before, if it is totally funded by Gates, I couldn't care less, but if it is funded by public monies, then I don't agree with it.

They argued that the school is to promote "international" careers, and as I pointed out earlier, there is more to "international" than just Arabic language and culture. I am sure that you could squeeze a few more languages and cultures in there.

I honestly don't care whether Arab-Americans have a higher average income, that has nothing to do with this topic.
Mar 3, 2007 | comments: 21
Oscar H. Mar 16, 2007, 1:58am EDT
You don't feel pwned? That's good, but you should after now realizing that Alberto Gonzales does not see it your way as you stated in your previous post - not even close.

So then you post an article that effectively says that Presidents only "pretend" to play by the rules of impartiality (impartiality being, of course, nonsense merely by the DEFINITION of the term "political appointee", of which every U.S. Attorney is), but because Bush in some people's views didn't even "pretend", then he is worse than those who DO pretend.

Can you not see the inherent silliness of that position. It is totally indefensible. If it is wrong to remove U.S. Attorneys for "political reasons" then it should be wrong no matter who does it or how it's done. There shouldn't be your type of selective outrage. I still don't know if it's because you just don't understand that the underlying reasons for both Clinton's firings and Bush's firings ARE EXACTLY THE SAME (i.e. that they both had priorities and they wanted Attorney's who would work under their direction and in a way that was satisfactory to them), or if you are just one of those people who will attack the other side just because they are the other side, not bothering to look at the facts.

The second paragraph of the article is a personal attack on the "Bushes", and therefore has no worth whatsoever. It is based on elitist notions that don't require response.

The remainder of the article that you posted has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with what we are talking about. This is what I love about most liberals. When you feel that you have no more argument left, you change the subject. What in Jesus' name does the trial lawyers of the Texas Democratic party, or the notion that Gonzales kept Bush out of jury duty (which isn't that hard to get out of, as I have done it myself), or that Bush was arrested for drunk driving, or that Harriet Miers PROTECTED BUSH'S FINANCES?!?!?!?!? Please explain to me the relevance of those issues to the firing of U.S. Attorneys. So laughable...

Is the left so lacking in intellectual capacity that every argument that they can't win devolves into this type of bait and switch. Stick to the topic, come back to the land of the living, please. I especially like the way you started off by saying that the article has an "interesting view on the topic", yet only three sentences that you posted actually dealt with the topic (and not very effectively at that).

I think this is my last post here. I can't spend another week trying to explain to you how the Constitution works. Maybe you should take a look at it sometime. I've conveniently provided a link.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2

Peace through strength,
Oscar
Mar 4, 2007 | comments: 10
Oscar H. Mar 16, 2007, 1:19am EDT
How do you know that? Was there an investigation that resulted in that conclusion?
Mar 4, 2007 | comments: 10
Oscar H. Mar 15, 2007, 1:33am EDT
Well, I don't think it was done intentionally. Do you believe that every killing of a civilian is intentional, or are some accidental and others intentional, with this particular instance being intentional?

I attribute many of the civilian deaths to the tactics of the Taliban who hide amongst civilians and attack our forces from houses and mosques. I am sure that it is much to difficult in the heat of the moment to single out attacker from innocent in many of these situations. I don't believe that our forces are terrorists, targeting civilians, I believe that the real terrorists are the ones who make sure to put a non-combatant in between them and a bullet.
Mar 13, 2007 | comments: 4
Oscar H. Mar 15, 2007, 1:15am EDT
Well, they may weaken our laws because the people who we vote into office are such appeasers (most of them), but they won't weaken those Americans on the planes. The next time that happens, and the airline refuses to get them off, they might just get a little "tussled up" and leave of their own accord, if you know what I mean.

American's aren't going to sit by while these kooks try and act a fool, even if they are doing it to get attention. If they don't want to sit and be quiet, we'll make em.
Mar 3, 2007 | comments: 21
Oscar H. Mar 15, 2007, 1:11am EDT
Oh you... you misleader you. You little minx. Tried to pull a fast one on ol' Oscar eh? Let me give you Alberto Gonzales' own words so that you don't try and confuse the masses with your little quote.

GONZALES: Again, I accept responsibility for what happened here. And I regret the fact that information was not adequately shared with individuals within the Department of Justice and that, consequently, information was shared with the Congress that was incomplete.

But the charge for the chief of staff here was to drive this process. And the mistake that occurred here was that information that he had was not shared with individuals within the department who would then be providing testimony and information to the Congress.

GONZALES: I stand by the decision.

Again, all political appointees can be removed by the president of the United States for any reason. I stand by the decision, and I think it was a right decision.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300891.html

So as you can clearly see, the mistake that he is talking about in YOUR quote is that information that should have been shared with Congress was not. But as you can see from yesterday's press conference, the AG DOES NOT believe that the firing of the U.S. Attorneys was inappropriate, and that it was well within the President's authority and right to remove those he appoints.

When you look for quotes, try to read through the whole article.

Uber pwnage means that you have been thoroughly demolished and humiliated by your opponent. Every time I come back to this article, the term seems to fit better and better.

Just give it up, in your mind, it may be wrong for Bush to remove USAs (because you despise Bush), but there is nothing illegal about it. Chuck Schumer is a schmuck who is trying to play politics with something that he knows is not illegal, as he is an an attorney himself, and i'm sure he remembers just a little bit of Con Law from his Harvard days.

So don't follow everything you hear on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann", remember, he's just a sportscaster who moved up.
Mar 13, 2007 | comments: 4
Oscar H. Mar 13, 2007, 6:58pm EDT
I forgot to post a link to the two articles that I used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Imams_controversy#Suspicious_behavior

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/119025.aspx
Mar 1, 2007 | comments: 53
Oscar H. Mar 13, 2007, 5:06pm EDT
Armitage, Rove...So the only person who wasn't a leaker (i.e. Libby) is the only one with a conviction. Wow, you libs have a special brand of justice that the rest of us don't know about.

And that Democratic Congress, whew, have they been getting in a good days work. You guys elected them to get us out of Iraq, and they have certainly been putting their foot down. That non-binding resolution is certainly going to make it clear to the President that they are sorta-kinda serious about, well...not the whole war, just the surge of extra troops. Man, I can't wait to see what they do when they actually have a majority and can take real stances on issues. Oh wait...

I don't remember saying anything about the 1982 Intelligence Act, but you can add whatever you want. The fact of the matter is that a judge found Clinton guilty of perjury, and he was disbarred by both the state of Arkansas and the U.S. Supreme Court as a result of the investigations into his sexual harrasment and affair. I know that the Senate did not convict him, but I think you are cleverly focusing on the technicality. We KNOW that he lied under oath. If you don't know that, then you've been in a cave. The fact that the Senate did not convict him was either a gift or a courtesy.
This from a Wiki article:

"In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky [citation needed]. Based on the evidence provided by Tripp, a blue dress with Clinton's semen, Starr concluded that this sworn testimony was false and perjurious.

Apologists for President Clinton claim that the issue was greatly confused by an unusual definition for sexual contact which excluded oral sex. In fact, the definition used was extraordinarily broad, and did include oral sex. During the deposition, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court."[citation needed] The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, which apologists incorrectly claim was limited strictly to intercourse, Clinton answered "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated that he believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations excluded his receiving oral sex"

ROFL. that is your "innocent" Clinton. Give me a break.

Secondly, as a law student, i can tell you that Clinton was ACTUALLY CHARGED, which is called an impeachment. In addition, there was a trial of Clinton. It was in the Senate and it lasted weeks. GOD, you don't even know what you're talking about.

It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about, you don't even know what happened during Clinton's impeachment. Why am I even bothering with you?
Mar 4, 2007 | comments: 22
Oscar H. Mar 13, 2007, 4:45pm EDT
Then we agree, they should not go ahead with the school unless they make it into what they claim it is, a school that focuses on international studies by teaching students about various languages and cultures. Absent that, it is just a ploy, a smokescreen for appeasement and selective multiculturalism.

Another thing, since you brought it up, we really need to get rid of teacher tenure in the public schools. We need to do what Giuliani is suggesting and implement a system of results-based compensation and retention. If a 5th grade teacher does not know the course material to satisfaction, then that teacher should be let go at the end of the year. We should pay teachers who get better results more, and get rid of the rest.

I am never going to send my kids to a public school. It's bad enough I had to deal with it, i'm not going to relegate my kids to that mess.
Mar 4, 2007 | comments: 69
Oscar H. Mar 12, 2007, 9:12pm EDT
Brenda, thank you for the posting. I will most likely be going through Marine PLC in Virginia, so I hope I can make it there. I will sign up.

Another thing. If this was a racial matter, why would the largest number of LEGAL immigrants to the U.S. be from Mexico by far? That debunks the whole racism thing. That's like saying "I think John hates Black people, even though he always invites all his Black co-workers to his Barbecue". It's a poor analogy, but the only one I could think of.
Mar 3, 2007 | comments: 21
Oscar H. Mar 12, 2007, 8:40pm EDT
Come on lady, you can do better than that. So I smashed your argument, now you're gonna do the whole "I agree to disagree" thing. That's lame.

I laid it out clearly and logically for you, and you want to call it confusion? That says a lot. I usually don't resort to step-by-step explanations of very simple concepts, but I did for you, and all you can say is "I agree to disagree". Just say you have no response, that would be more honest.

What uber pwnage...
Mar 3, 2007 | comments: 21
Oscar H. Mar 12, 2007, 3:20pm EDT
Jesus, you have got to be one of the...

Let me explain this simply and with logic.

Attorneys don't do what you want....you fire them.

Clinton saw that the republican attorneys would not do what he wants...he fired them.

Bush saw that some of his attorneys would not do what he wanted...he fired them.

It's not about republican and democrat silly, it's about getting your priorities carried out. Do you think that Bush would appoint another Justice Kennedy to the Supreme Court, even though he is a republican. No, because he will not carry out Bush's priorities. Bush would love to replace him with another Scalia or Rehnquist. And that is exactly the same logic underlying both Clinton and Bush's removal of US attorneys.

Is it crystal clear now.

Not to mention the fact that I really don't see why the Congress changes the process to allow this exact thing, and then whine when it is ACTUALLY USED. What, did you think he was asking for these changes for his health? Jesus, you guys are really confused.
Mar 10, 2007 | comments: 60
Oscar H. Mar 12, 2007, 3:10pm EDT
But Travis, it really is that simple. Just because he has respect for the services doesn't mean that he shouldn't have made it clear that it was inapropriate for them to call him out of class and then return to his seat. What would they have done, gone in and dragged him out again when they have no right to do so? I just think that he should stand up for himself immediately if he knows that he is right. You can't expect the recruiters to be on the up-and-up when they have a quota to meet, so it's up to the kids (especially since he was already in the military and knows the limitations of his term of service, i.e. that it was over) to safegaurd their rights.

Of course, we don't really have all of the information, but i'm just going on what was posted.
Mar 10, 2007 | comments: 60
Oscar H. Mar 11, 2007, 11:33pm EDT
Sounds like the young man left the Marines and then learned how to be a little bitch at college. If he is no longer enlisted, then he should have told them not to bother him again and went back to class. Simple as that. I can't imagine that someone who KNOWS that he is no longer tied to any contract would be intimidated into what you described.

You probably missed some facts.
Mar 4, 2007 | comments: 69
Oscar H. Mar 11, 2007, 7:52pm EDT
Sometimes I think that many Americans couldn't be bothered with this situation if they don't see the illegals everyday. Because I see all these marches by the illegals, but I don't see any by ordinary Americans who want their laws enforced. I wish some organizations would organize a massive march in washington, hopefully during the summer, when I will be near, to support enforcement of the law.
Mar 3, 2007 | comments: 21
Oscar H. Mar 11, 2007, 7:42pm EDT
And one last thing, the President is given the power by the Constitution to appoint US attorneys with the consent of the senate. The Congress changed the process, as provided in the constitution, to allow him to appoint them solely. If you have a problem with what was done, take it up with congress. You can't give the President a specific power, and then cry like a baby when he uses it.

sigh...
Mar 3, 2007 | comments: 21
Oscar H. Mar 11, 2007, 7:36pm EDT
Wait, wait wait.... Let me get this straight....

It is OK for Clinton to fire US attorneys who don't agree with him, or may be from the other side (and i'm not even sure that ALL 93 attorneys were republicans, but for arguments sake, i'll accept the premise). What could possibly be the reasoning underlying that? COULD IT BE THAT HE WASN'T SURE WHETHER THEY WOULD CARRY OUT THE PRIORITIES OF HIS ADMINISTRATION TO HIS SATISFACTION? And is it safe to say that, had Clinton decided, maybe 4 years into his administration that his attorneys were not pursuing his priorities to his satisfaction, that he would be justified in relieving them of their duties? There is only one reason why Clinton would fire attorneys absent poor performance, THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH HIS POLITICS AND THUS, WERE EXPENDABLE. If you know a reason why Clinton would fire attorneys that is different from why Bush fired these attorneys (and less of them too), PLEASE , PLEASE, PLEASE, explain it to me.

So how in Jesus' name is that any different from what Bush did? I don't understand how you people can be so flip-floppy IN THE SAME ARTICLE. If it's wrong for Bush to get rid of attorney's because he doesn't think they will do what he wants, then it should be wrong for Clinton to do so too. Jesus, you guys should at least be consistent.

As for the FBI not doing something properly, big freaking deal. The fact that you can't make one argument work, so you jump to another speaks volumes. Stick to one losing argument at a time please.
Mar 4, 2007 | comments: 22
Oscar H. Mar 11, 2007, 6:54pm EDT
I posted this because, as a NYer, I see a trend here that I really don't like. They want to give special rights to these groups to appease them when they don't deserve any such special consideration. Charles Barron wants to give all residents, even non-citizens the right to vote. When will it end? What will be the benefit of being a citizen of this country if everyone who sets foot in this country will eventually get the same as you have, regardless of whether they love, hate, or care about this country beyond what America can do for them economically.

I hope people wake up and see that.
Page 1 of 31  first | prev | next 
 
Oscar H.
New York, NY
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16961, "Pacino"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.