LJWorld.com / "Barack Hussein Obama, The Frog, The Scorpion And Gun Control" by Marion

Blogs home Marion

Barack Hussein Obama, The Frog, The Scorpion And Gun Control

In the LJW article entitled, "Obama Explains Gun Stance"

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/sep/06/obama_explains_gun_stance/

the apologists for Barack Hussein Obama attempt to whitewash his previously stated positions on gun control in the USA.

Barack Hussein Obama has clearly defined his anti-gun stance on more than one occasion and has repeatedly pronounced his efforts to restrict the ability of the ordinary citizen to protect him/her self through the use of firearms.

Barack Hussein Obama has publicly proclaimed his oppostion to the carrying of concealed weapons by law abiding citizens.

Barack Hussein Obama has said that he would restrict the sales of firearms in inner city areas, thus removing responsibility from the inner-city perpetrators of firearms crimes and placing it on law abiding firearms dealers and other law abiding private citizens.

Barack Hussein Obama has said that he wants to ban all semi-automatic rifles and handguns, as well is re-implement the flawed so-called "Assault Weapons" ban, telling us that such weapons are involved in a "disproporionate number of crimes", when even by the government's own statistics, such a statement is entirely false!

In typical Pseudo-liberal/Neo-socialist fashion, Barack Hussein Obama seeks to perpetuate the myth, no; the lie, that inner-city violence is precipitated by the firearm, rather than by the immoral, heartless and criminal thugs who add to the statistics!

Barack Hussein Obama on gun cnontrol (With citations!):

On concealed weapons:

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_560181.html

Of course, he offers no evidence to support this absurd claim!

On the "Assault Weapons" ban:

"35. Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of..

...b. assault weapons?

Yes.

c. ammunition for handguns and assault weapons?

I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html

This position despite the facts!

The TRUTH of the "Assault Weapons" myth:

"According to a 1997 compilation of statistics from the years 1980-1994, from 48 metropolitan police departments, "assault weapons" were used, nationwide, in only 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and only 0.25% of all violent crime, BEFORE the enactment of any state or national "assault weapons" ban. (Gary Kleck, "Targeting Guns," 1997)"

"A study done by the Department of Justice in 2006 (two years after the expiration of the 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban) found no instances of police officers being killed with "assault weapons" that year. (U.S. Department of Justice, "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers", August 2006)

According to the Miami Herald (January 14, 2008), only 1.4% of police officers fatally shot in the line of duty in 2007 were shot with "assault weapons."

Most of these "high-powered" guns labeled as "assault weapons" actually fire significantly smaller, less powerful rounds (bullets) than most hunting rifles."

And what about the frog and the scorpion?

Remember the tale wrongly attributed to Aesop?

"The story is about a scorpion asking a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion reassures him that if it stung the frog, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown as well. The frog then agrees; nevertheless, in mid-river, the scorpion stings him, dooming the two of them. When asked why, the scorpion explains, "I'm a scorpion; it's my nature."

Barack Hussein Obama has not changed his thoughts on gun control; he is merely disguising them to garner support.

Although not a Christian, I do like to borrow the occasional quote or bit of wisdom from the seminal document of that religion and today I'm going to remind you about the leopard and his spots:

Jeremiah 13:23 (King James Version):

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? "

Barack Hussein Obama has not changed but he wants desperately for you to believe that he has!

By Marion Lynn

September 6, 2008

Marion

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

6 September 2008
at 1:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

“Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? ”

On his other story today, he writes that Governor Palin is “a woman who doesn't wear her hair in dreads”

Skin color and dreads.

Yep, Marion is against Barrack Hussein Obama because of the gun issue. Sure he is.
6 September 2008
at 2:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Beatrice:

I thought that dreadlocks (dredlocks) were a hair style not a racial thing!

Thank you for enlightening us all!
6 September 2008
at 2:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

“Skin color and dreads.” One thing and another thing. You are the one to make the racial connection, Marion. I wonder why?

Now, quit attempting to “enlighten” us with your pathetic and hateful blogs. They give a bad stench to the LJWorld.
6 September 2008
at 2:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

XD40 (Anonymous) says…

Marion Lynn: You certainly enjoy bearding the lion in his den.

Can we just call him B.O.?
6 September 2008
at 2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pywacket (Anonymous) says…

Just what do you not get about the short, simple phrase,

“well-regulated”

?????????????????

I don't know anybody who favors banning firearms. I don't run with an extremist crowd.

Most of us, including Obama, just want to see some of that Founding-Father-prescribed sensible regulation in place.

This is not rocket science. But apparently, it's still not simple enough for you and your NRA-nut cohorts to wrap your brains (?) around.
6 September 2008
at 3:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Pywacket:

You have again clearly demonstrated your lack of understanding of both history and the evolution of the language!

Allow me to retort!

“The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word “regulate,” which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.”

And it is with the definition “b”, with which we must be concerend here.

At the time of writing of the amnedment, the word “regulated” did not mean controlled as it does today but rather “well-trained”; military training for the civilian militias was a given at the time; the militias being composed of the people.

cont'd:
6 September 2008
at 3:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

cont'd:

“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
– The Federalist Papers, No. 29.”

” This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
– Saturday, December 13, 1777”

“The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the “to put in good order” definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.

What about the Amendment's text itself? Considering the adjective “well” and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or the proper amount of regulation [depending on the meaning of “well”] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? This brief textual analysis also suggests “to put in good order” is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: well regulated liberty (properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated. This is by no means unusual, just as the word, bear, conveys a different meaning depending on the word it modifies: bearing arms, bearing fruit, or bearing gifts.”

Now go do your homework!
6 September 2008
at 3:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

I guess the take-home message here is:

Hussein! Guns!
6 September 2008
at 3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…

What is this strange, new prolificism wrought by Marion?

Behold! ( or Beware ) the Angina Diaries!
6 September 2008
at 6:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RJ (Anonymous) says…

I have a question. It seems to me that the quote from The Federalist Papers, No. 29 seem to be against a well regulated militia. Is that right? (It doesn't affect your point, I just was curious if I was reading it right.)

One other thing. The 2nd Ammendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

My understanding of this is that the militia (not the firearms) are to be well regulated. The recent Supreme Court decision (concerning the DC ban on handguns) confirmed that the comma between the part of the sentence describing the militia and the part of the sentence about the rights of the people to bear arms signifies that they are two seperate and distinct ideas and freedoms. So as you can see, the right to own and carry firearms are a right that is not to be regulated or infringed!
6 September 2008
at 7:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

RJ; thank you for your question!

Bearing in mind that the term “regulated” as used in the amendment refers to a “well trained” militia; a militia being composed of the people, orignally the right of the people to possess firearms was unrestricted.

Like any other right, certain restrictions have been imposed, many of which make no sense at all.

I can point to the fact that Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my lawfully regstered and fully transferable machine gun.

A Demro XF-7 Wasp, it has both the 9 mm and the .45 ACP kits and uses Sten gun mags in 9mm and Grease Gun mags in .45. I have the 11”, the 6” and the 4 1/2” barrels but that shorty will throw such a muzzle burst that I keep it in the box!

The Demro:

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uplo…

I once owned a Pre-May John Inglis Bren Gun which probably killed a lot of guys in Europe in that WWII thing but it was only doing its job way back then!
7 September 2008
at 9:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_jazz (Anonymous) says…

Marion clearly has a lot of time on his/her hands. I'm curious why s/he is arguing about issues, when the McCain ticket s/he glorifies and worships says this election isn't about issues.

I try not to waste a lot of time addressing people when they're embedded so deeply in their beliefs that there's no hope for logical discourse, so this will be my only post to this particular blog, much to the pleasure of many of you (Marion included).

What I don't understand is why the Radical Right is so bitter. They have controlled the country for the last eight years. They have gotten much of what they wanted — several wars (one largely forgotten), a record deficit for future generations to inherit, a disappearing middle class, sky-high unemployment, rising bankruptcies, massive bank failures, loss of civil liberties, melting ice caps, record numbers of children and adults with no health insurance, and the list goes on.

So, you have what you want. Why the bitterness?
7 September 2008
at 10:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Larry_The_Moocher (Anonymous) says…

Most of the down turn during the last 8 years has happend during the last 2 when the dumb-o-crats took control and have done absoutly nothing except watch fuel cost sky rocket (Did nothing), housing tank (Did nothing)… shall I continue.

You think you have no money now… wait till the Muslim taxes the snarf out of you, redistributes income, and makes this country a socialist country, then lets hear you complain about having nothing.

Why not do something to better yourself, not ask someone else to pay your bills?
7 September 2008
at 10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bndairdundat (Anonymous) says…

Just a thought - muzzle loading rifles were the “assault weapons” when the Constitution / Bill of Rights were written
7 September 2008
at 12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Hmmmmmmmmm……………very little on the actual subject of this blog; Obama's stance on gun control and how he is attempting to soft-soap the fact that he is actually a rabid anti-gunner, intenet on not only banning private firearms possession but in favour of seizure of privately owned firearms.

How is this?

His running mate, Joe Biden is the authour of the oiginal “assault Weapons” ban, which banned firearms by appearance, not function.

Biden is in cahoots with Sarah Brady of Handgun Control which has has its ultimate goal, the banning of privately owned firearms.

Obama will advance his anti-gun agenda through Biden, all the while professing to support the Second Amendment.
7 September 2008
at 1:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tonythetiger (Anonymous) says…

I think this says it all…

Barrack Hussein Obama?
How about an article from Marion HItler Lynn?

Now, since Saddam Hussien was our enemy and I want Obama to be the people's enemy. I am going to make a general association between Barrack Obama and Saddam Hussein.

I am sorry. I am not sure if Barrack Obama is the man for me. I am not sure if Sarah Palin is the right choice.

I do know however that this article is the most worthless piece of propaganda I have ever read.

I think Joe Yelton is the equivalent of the Minute Men leader and when the U.S. Armed Forces come in to take control of Lawrence for harboring criminals that are into espionage and treason for trying to take over the U.S. Government. I think they think they need to use weapons to force their opinion on everyone around them.

I think Johnny Depp is the equivalent of a cute Hitler trying to persuade the American public to kill dissenters from the Anti-White majority and they hold a grudge against all white Europeans and want they sent back to England and killed.

Just watch his movie “Dead Man”
7 September 2008
at 1:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Some folks seem to have a problem with use of the full name of the Democrat candidate, Barack Hussein Obama.

Can you tell me why?

No one seemed to have had problems with such names as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson and Harry S. Truman.

Whatup?
7 September 2008
at 2 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tonythetiger (Anonymous) says…

Why do you think gun control is such an unimportant issue?
7 September 2008
at 3:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

Marion, come on. If you try to tell me you are using Obama's middle name in an objective manner, then I would suggest prevarication.
7 September 2008
at 4:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

Marion, I've also heard Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and, obviously, Harry S. Truman.

Maybe you could switch to just Barack H. Obama?
7 September 2008
at 4:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says:

“Marion, I've also heard Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and, obviously, Harry S. Truman.

Maybe you could switch to just Barack H. Obama?”

Well, now you're on to something, since I've never heard anyone, in any conversation, say more than the middle initial. Of course, the letter “H” would have a little more difficulty proclaiming the “Hey, feer teh Moslums!” point that seems to be the central reason behind the usage of the name (see: Larry the Moocher: 10:27a 2nd pp) so I don't know as it would catch on or not.

And there is nothing wrong with regulation, whether or not founding fathers (who I imagine actually pulled their pants up over their butts just like the rest of us) would have agreed with it. Much like the Bible, the actual civilization that the founder's wrote for (18th century, agrarian, underpopulated) can't really be said to exist anymore.

Perhaps we should be talking about this issue in terms of merit and practicality, not by deifying people 300 years dead.
7 September 2008
at 5:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says:

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says:

“Marion, I've also heard Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and, obviously, Harry S. Truman.

Maybe you could switch to just Barack H. Obama?”

Marion writes:

Why?

Jonas, do you have a problem with his name: Barack Hussein Obama?

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says:

Marion, come on. If you try to tell me you are using Obama's middle name in an objective manner, then I would suggest prevarication.”

Marion writes:

Redwoodoast, do you have a problem with the candidate's name; Barack Hussein Obama or is it just that you have a problem with *MY* use of his full name; Barack Hussein Obama?

Knowing a bit about odd names, I would think that Barack Hussein Obama is proud of his name as I am of mine.

Some of you people have no issue with the use of what you believe to be my full name; Marion Sidney Lynn and use it repeatedly, so why should Barack Hussein Obama receive different treatment in the use of his full name?

What gives?

Could it be………………………………………

No; never mind.

oh wait

Could it be because you are afraid that the use of the middle name of Barack Hussein Obama might cause voters to think twice?

That the middle name of Barack Hussein Obama might remind voters of his Muslim heritage and he does indisputably have such a heritage?

If you are truly “liberal”, why would you fear the use of the full name of Barack Hussein Obama?

Are all men not brothers?

Why are you afraid of the use of The Chosen One's full name; Barack Hussein Obama?
7 September 2008
at 5:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says:

(Referencing the Second Amendment)

“Perhaps we should be talking about this issue in terms of merit and practicality, not by deifying people 300 years dead.”

Marion writes:

OK, perhaps then we should also take a look at the Fifth Amendment, that pesky First Amendment has got to go, for sure, the Fourth Amendment keeps the cops from kicking in your door without a warrant; not suited for modern times at all….whwat the H8ll; get rid of all ten; the people who wrote them are all dead anyway and have no idea about today's society!

While we're at it let's take a look at the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, for darn sure look at the Ninteenth Amendment and get those women out of the voting booth and back into the kitchen; everyone who wrote that one is dead also!

Yeah, don't “deify” those dead guys who wrote amendments like the ones I've mentioned; just get rid of them all and write new ones!
7 September 2008
at 5:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

Righty, right, Mr. Lynn, try and shift the burden of proof here.

Nope. I'm not afraid it will cause voters to change their minds. I just feel that, perhaps, the ostensible (and inane, I must say) motivations for using Obama's middle name just don't add up to the time it takes to type it out. What I am saying is that some folks seem to go out of their way to emphasize Obama's name, somehow trying to turn his name, itself, into an epithet. I have no problem with his middle name. It doesn't make me not want to vote for him.

When paired with cutely condescending monikers like 'The Chosen One,' one cannot but wonder at the intentions of those choosing to take the trouble to include the Hussein, and indeed, even the Barack, when typing out the candidates name.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The widespread use of the full name of Barack Hussein Obama is primarily done pejoratively with the intent of playing on Islamophobia, with fewer votes for the candidate being the desired result. I could suggest that individuals habitually using Obama's full name are fear-mongers—or even hate-mongers—but it probably isn't done pejoratively in every case, right Marion?
7 September 2008
at 5:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

“Yeah, don't “deify” those dead guys who wrote amendments like the ones I've mentioned; just get rid of them all and write new ones!”

A =\= B. Sorry, but nice try. Those amendments were written to meet perceived need, not because they were dropped from the sky in flaming letters from the Almighty. (and even if they were, they could still be examined for merit)

Just admit that you're against weighing ideas on their merits.

… and obviously, some of those those other amendments have some regulations associated with them as well, despite the fact that (gasp) they are From The Constitution. There are things that you cannot say, and there are plenty of current questions concerning the sanctity of the 4th amendment. (warrantless wiretaps, anyone?)

Now, do you have any Non-strawmen to prop up, or are you going to just continue on with the whipped-up hot air?

Silly me, I think I know already.
7 September 2008
at 6:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm,,,,

Take a look at this photo of Barack Hussein Obama with a few of his followers:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd…

A Faux Pas or arrogance?:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8d3_12…

Barack Hussein Obama claimed that his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz but that death camp (Warning: “Revisionist” History follows!) was liberated by the 332nd Rifle Division of the Army of the USSR on January 27, 1945!

Did Barack Hussein Obama's uncle serve under Stalin?

No.

Barack Hussein Obama didn't know what he was talking about!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/322nd_Ri…

How the Obamistas tried to cover up the obvious mistake (Or was it an intentional lie?)

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/…

If you have a problem with the use of the full name of Barack Hussein Obama, maybe you should give Barack Hussein Obama and suggest that he change it, what?
7 September 2008
at 6:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babyl…
7 September 2008
at 6:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

Oh, and no, I don't have a problem with you calling him Barack Hussein Obama. I would wonder why it's the only one who you actually say out his full middle name, except that I know because it's just to point out that it's a Muslim name, and the same as the dead and deposed dictator of Iraq. Since most of the people here know you well enough by now to identify you as what you are, I think that your usage, and you yourself, are pretty much harmless, all things considered.

But again, you know it's the only one. No one Ever says any of those previously mentioned Presidents by their full name, save the few most-formalized exceptions, though the middle initial is used fairly frequently. So if you had started with using the middle initial, rather than shamelessly fleeing to that stance to explain how opposing voices were being unfair, there wouldn't really be anything else to say.
7 September 2008
at 6:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says:

“But again, you know it's the only one. No one Ever says any of those previously mentioned Presidents by their full name, save the few most-formalized exceptions, though the middle initial is used fairly frequently.”

Marion writes:

Is that so?

In the meantime, tell the gentle readers why Barach Hussein Obama shoud not be referred to by his full given name?

Google seaches reveal for the follwoing:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt:

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,680,000 for franklin delano roosevelt [definition]. (0.11 seconds)

Lyndon Baines Johnson:

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,080,000 for lyndon baines johnson [definition]. (0.19 seconds)

Harry S. Truman:

Results 1 - 10 of about 818,000 for Harry S. Truman [definition]. (0.16 seconds)

John Fitzgerald Kennedy:

Results 1 - 10 of about 22,100,000 for John Fitzgerald Kennedy. (0.20 seconds)

Barack Hussein Obama:

Results 1 - 10 of about 715,000 for Barack Hussein Obama. (0.16 seconds)

It would seem that I am not alone in my use of the full name of both Presidents and the full name of Barack Hussein Obama.

Oh and here is how Barack Hussein Obama salutes the US flag during the playing of the “Star Spangled Banner”!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU9iCA…

Barack Hussein Obama refuses to shake the hand of Hillary Clinton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV6_Oj…

Barack Hussein Obama on tornadoes in Kansas:

“10,000 people died”?

In Kansas?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrmkNJ…

I think that it is very impoortant to refer to Barack Hussein Obama by his full name such that there might be no confusion!
7 September 2008
at 6:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

stephenj (Anonymous) says…

propaganda alert!
americans be advised!
all we have to fear is fear itself!
When I see this crap on the LJW I know it's just there to fuel the comment boards, but what's next? KKK klansman blog? Serial killer blog? Puppy torture blog? I guess I'll need a whole shaker of salt, not just one grain.
7 September 2008
at 7:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

Sure you do.

And I didn't know people talked in Google search terminology. Find me references of people actually using full names to talk about them, not formally define them, as I'm willing to bet 99% of those references are, and when I searched for the terms (in quotes of course) that was pretty much what I found.

Would this dissembling of motives be lying, Marion? It seems like it's blatant dishonesty, at least to me. Why don't you just up and admit that you're just emphasizing his Muslim heritage for a scare ploy. No one here thinks you have any credibility anyway, so the notion would hardly shock anyone, or shatter their views of you any more than you've already shattered them already.

But again, you are free to do whatever you want. This is, after all, your Vanity Work.
7 September 2008
at 8:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

Marion: “I think that it is very impoortant to refer to Barack Hussein Obama by his full name such that there might be no confusion!”

Oh trust us, Marion, there is no confusion. We understand exactly why you do so. The only confusion is why the LJWorld would allow such a person as yourself to somehow appear connected to their business.

LJWorld — You Need To Screen Your Bloggers!
7 September 2008
at 8:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Guardian (Anonymous) says…

Marion- let's face it. We cannot defeat these anti-gunners. I'm afraid we must capitulate. After all, tobacco companies are to be held accountable for the illnesses of people who chose to smoke. That is the precedent. We must join with them! From now on, we must hold firearms accountable for all of the crime. We must place the blame on the co-conspirators, automobiles and alcohol, for traffic fatalities. We must persecute spoons for causing obesity. Jump on the bandwagon Marion. We, the people, are too stupid to be held accountable for our own actions. We are not responsible! Place the blame where it belongs. Ban anything we could even remotely harm ourselves with. The government will protect us from ourselves. This is the way of our Saviour, the Chosen One, our Mentor, Barack Hussein Obama.
7 September 2008
at 8:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

Yeah, I think it's just going to be fabulous when all of you idiots who it bandy about shamelessly in the name of fear will be saying the middle name of your President, and it will be Hussein. You'll just be beside yourselves in fury. Not to worry, guys, things will be better *despite* you lunatics.

Marion, tell us how many Barack Obamas appear in the phone books throughout the US, lest there be, um , any confusion as to which one they are talking about. My real name, I could see where there might be some confusion, but that one - very empty excuse, Marion.
7 September 2008
at 8:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TheSychophant (Anonymous) says…

No one seemed to have had problems with such names as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson and Harry S. Truman.

Whatup?

_______________________________________
What's up is that FDR, JFK, and Harry S. and LBJ chose to be identified, for various and unknown reasons, by their full names. That was their right, and their choice. Barack Obama has always identified himself, like most of us folks, through his first and last name only. Yes, his middle name is Hussein. He didn't choose it, his parents did. And until his recent run for president, nobody knew what his middle name was.

Of course, when he emerged as a viable, legiimate, and seroius candidate for POUSA, the far right went to great lengths to publicize that true but irrelevant fact, along with calcualated and malicious lies that he was a Muslim, in a transparent attempt to unfairly assassinate his character.

Such is the unAmerican character of the far right. .

Thats whudup, Marion.
7 September 2008
at 10:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

So many of you seem to have a problem with the full name of the Democrat candidate; Barack Hussein Obama.

Makes one wonder for sure!

Some of you people have a problem with the name of your candidate; Barack Hussein Obama and would conceal the middle name of that candidate for reasons which the gentle readers do not know.

Would you care to explain why you would choose to conceal the middle name of the candidate; Brack Hussein Obama?

I do not conceal my middle name and some of you have fun with it!

Do you hold Barack Hussein Obama to some kind of lower standard?

Whatup?

Do you have a problem with the middle name of the candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, which is “Hussein”?

Reads as “racist” to me if you do!
7 September 2008
at 11:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

“I do not conceal my middle name and some of you have fun with it!”

Right, otherwise, how could you be sure that the attention was going to the correct Marion? Let's not dissemble about the reasons that you broadcast your identity, either.
8 September 2008
at 12:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says:

“I do not conceal my middle name and some of you have fun with it!”

Right, otherwise, how could you be sure that the attention was going to the correct Marion? Let's not dissemble about the reasons that you broadcast your identity, either”

Marion writes:

Whaaaat?

And just what might be those reasons?

(This is going to be good folks, so stay tuned!).
8 September 2008
at 3:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

XEPCT (Anonymous) says…

“Hussein” is the name at issue? O'bama is an Irishmen, his name tells me so; he is the most important Irish-Catholic-secret-Muslim since Bono, cut him some slack. American guns need to be confiscated and redistributed to liberate Belfast from the Redcoats. Besides, Sarah Palin? Canadian fifth column, she answers to the queen.
8 September 2008
at 6:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

Why? Because you crave celebrity, Marion. It's pretty obvious, I'm afraid. The same reason you spent the night after the smoking ban went into effect wearing full Nazi regalia and marching around town.

But that's all the psychoanalyzing I feel up to today. Besides mentioning that both of your blogs are still up, so you'll probably have to work at martyrdom a little harder next time. Hopefully you can figure out what you wrote when your comment got pulled, so you can repeat and then scream about censure into the wind for a bit when they pull it.
8 September 2008
at 7:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says:

Why? Because you crave celebrity, Marion. It's pretty obvious, I'm afraid. The same reason you spent the night after the smoking ban went into effect wearing full Nazi regalia and marching around town.”

Marion writes:

Jonas, that is absolutley not true an' I'm callin' you out on that one!

That little joke was a protest, very much like the anti-war protests down on Mass.

A couple of concerned citizens and myself put together uniforms of the “Smoking Ban Police” and went strolling! There was not a single “Nazi” item in any of the three uniforms and I'll prove that!

My “uniform” was composed of a $10 pair of rubber boots from WalMart, a $3 boy Scout shirt from Arizona, a set of 1923 US army cavalry johdpurs which have been lying around for years, a wide lineman's belt, a leather horse lead for the strap and some “No Smoking” symbols from the office supply store used as patches on the “uniform”. a red “No Smoking” armband and a Russian air force hat, spray painted with auto primer to match the shirt, sort of, with a plastic “No Smoking” button on the peak.

I addressed the city Kommissioners in that absurd regalia; thought Dunfield was going to stroke out, Mike Rundle like to cried, Schauner was furious and they all caved in anyway, as we knew they would to diminish business, property and personal rights in the People's Republik of Lawrence.

My associate wore a set of desert BDUs with “Smoking Ban Police” on the back done up in those plastic peel-off letters you buy at the office supply.

We had a tall slim gal in a short leather skirt, a tie and a peaked cap who was going to hand out “No Smoking” signs but she chickened out!

The point was to draw attention to the fact that Big Government was yet again intruding in the lives of the People. Some of the People cannot make intelligent and responsible decisions on their own, so they must have Big Brother lead them around.

The thing was a toy store “Smoking Ban Police” uniform but you are so PC, Jonas, that you saw a Nazi uniform!

Now……………………………….

Regarding the use of the full name of the Democrat candidate, Barack Hussein Obama; why to you object to its use?

Barack Hussein Obama is his name, last time I checked.

Is there something wrong with his name?
8 September 2008
at 8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

Sure, Marion, sure.

“Is there something wrong with his name?”

How many times must you make me repeat myself? You can do as you wish.
8 September 2008
at 10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

aeroscout17 (Anonymous) says…

Blah, blah, blah. It is not an issue, unless you are only trying to take measure of the man. I'm sure I could probably find other “issues” for both candidates that make no immediate difference in what they can or can't accomplish as president.

I am all for citizens right to guns and concealed carry if licensed. The recent Supreme Court decision upheld this right. This is a non-issue (hopefully at least in my lifetime. If the much more controversial Roe v. Wade decision has not been overturned yet, I doubt we will see this decision overturned anytime soon.