Whats the end result of the Obama hatred? Can he win with all thats been said?

ccRyderzz

A Dead Statesman (1924)

I could not dig; I dare not rob;
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine young and defrauded youngJackie Speier
Member of Congress
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 112
Burlingame, CA 94010
(650) 347-4370Randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter comparison of the
cognitive effects of ziprasidone versus olanzapine in acutely ill inpatients
with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder
Journal Psychopharmacology
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0033-3158 (Print) 1432-2072 (Online)
Issue Volume 172, Number 3 / March, 2004
Category Original Investigation
DOI 10.1007/s00213-003-1652-2
Pages 324-332
Subject Collection Biomedical and Life Sciences
SpringerLink Date Thursday, February 19, 2004
The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary,"
"common law," or "prerogative writs," which were historically issued by the
courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public
authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such
prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and
certiorari. When the original 13 American Colonies declared independence and
became a constitutional republic in which the people are the sovereign, any
person, in the name of the people, acquired authority to initiate such
writs.

The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because
they incorporate the presumption of nonauthority. The official who is the
respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something.
Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any
person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil
process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of
proof.

ccRyderzz

The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary,"
"common law," or "prerogative writs," which were historically issued by the
courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public
authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such
prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and
certiorari. When the original 13 American Colonies declared independence and
became a constitutional republic in which the people are the sovereign, any
person, in the name of the people, acquired authority to initiate such
writs.

The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because
they incorporate the presumption of nonauthority. The official who is the
respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something.
Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any
person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil
process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of
proof.
Randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter comparison of the
cognitive effects of ziprasidone versus olanzapine in acutely ill inpatients
with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder
Journal Psychopharmacology
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0033-3158 (Print) 1432-2072 (Online)
Issue Volume 172, Number 3 / March, 2004
Category Original Investigation
DOI 10.1007/s00213-003-1652-2
Pages 324-332
Subject Collection Biomedical and Life Sciences
SpringerLink Date Thursday, February 19, 2004
The 1960's saw the loss of the Montpellier Pavilion and we can now see with
hindsight what a blow this was for Cheltenham Table Tennis. In the 1960's we
lost several of our top players and the advent of the sponge bat. Names of
successful players that come to mind are Martin White, Tony Smith, Johnny
Mower (who long reigned as Veterans champion) John Marshall, Les Gresswell
(recently appointed as E.T.T.A. coach), "Chalky" White and Derek Grant.

This brings me up to the present time (1973) with the prospects for the
future looking brighter than for some years. Players such as David Harvey,
Bob Thornton, Malcolm Green and Peter Slack should show that the fact that
both the men's and the Junior teams, who won their divisions of the Midland
league last season, was no flash in the pan.

I am afraid that I have just scratched the surface in going over these 50
years. I have had to omit many personalities and many events, but I trust
that these few words have illustrated what great progress has been made from
small beginnings. But one must remember that the players who do not make the
headlines, and the teams who have not won honours are the backbone of our
Association. Finally we must not forget the many officials who, over the
years, have given so freely of their time. All have played a part in the
progress we have achieved over these 50 years.

We are extremely grateful to Ron for providing such an insight to our game
in Cheltenham during those formative years. (Stan Johnstone commenting).
Table Tennis or Ping Pong, as it was first known and played in the 19th
century, never really appeared in its present form until an Englishman,
James Gibb, a prominent athlete, while visiting the USA in 1900 brought back
some coloured plastic balls which he had noticed were children's playthings.
It must have occurred to him that these would be better to use for the new
Parlour game of "Ping Pong" than a child's rubber ball which had been mainly
used up to that date?

Gerald Gurney's book 'Table Tennis - The Early Years', which is perhaps the
best authority on how the game developed, states that celluloid balls were
first introduced about 1900, and it would seem that, ever since, the game
has been attractive to countless generations of youngsters and parents who
always sought to control that bouncing ball. Yet for something like 20
years the game remained in the doldrums and one must ask why this should be
so? Ron gives us many of the answers because we may say with some conviction
that it must have been played with a great deal of interest in Cheltenham
prior to 1923, as when a National tournament was organised by the Daily
Mirror in that year there were more than 30,000 entrants across the UK. Wow!

Yet this must have been only the tip of the iceberg as these are only the
one's who fancied their chances.

Ron tells us that the Cheltenham Ping Pong Association was formed in January
1923 and this fits in with our scant knowledge that the above tournament was
played in 40 areas, from February to May 1923, the finals being played in
London.

On the question of rules we may say that the (English) T.T.A. had
formulated some rules largely due to the efforts of Ivor Montagu, son of
Lord and Lady Swaythling He also changed the name from the Ping Pong
Association to the Table Tennis Association, but it was not until 1926 that
the I.T.T.F. got into the act. They currently represent 186 Affiliated
Associations.

It was interesting to read from those early days that the results of matches
depended on the total number of points scored by a team.

With reference to the old venue of Montpellier Pavilion which served
Cheltenham so well in the past! Venue's have always been a problem over the
years to our C.T.T.A. Committees and Peter Cruwys must take much of the
credit for linking us with our present magnificent venue at the Cheltenham
College. This has meant having to adapt our playing habits to our new
circumstances, where so many teams play their matches at the same venue, but
there is nothing in the rules that prevents any team from having its own
venue providing the conditions are suitable.

---

How Table Tennis Began

Table tennis was invented in England at the end of the 19 th century as a
parlour game based on lawn tennis. The earliest bats were made from
parchment stretched on a
frame - the distinctive sound made by a ball hitting these hollow drums
inspired the name 'ping pong', but early versions of the game were also
marketed as 'Gossima' and
READ HISTORY ASK YOURSELF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 1960's CIA CHINA? FRANCE WAS TAKEN FOR A RIDE

blondieblue227

Obama’s dad is/was a Muslim, right? People took that and twisted it to their advantage and suddenly Obama’s Muslim.

And even if he is 100% Muslim, the Muslims that attacked us were extremist, so I wouldn’t see what the big deal would be. Every group has extremists that could ruin it for the whole group.

I think USA is willing to elect an African American as our leader. But it will only take one extremist to assassinate him.

Strangest Tribe

when Obama wins the election it will be 2 months before he takes office....that will give America some time to recover from the negative campaigns....

Throw in Christmas and maybe some economic recovery and it will be all ok

VOLITION

Man you Americans seriously need to get you shit together.
Your economy is a fucking disaster, i would think this should be the focus of the Republicans platform. BUT oh no all we hear about about is accusations that Obama is a Muslim and therefore he must be Terrorist.
I am embarrassed to be your neighbour.

sponger

Everybody knows that God loves America, and if a non-christian is elected president, Americans might have to suffer God's wrath.

VOLITION

case in point

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/2008/10/custom_1223838327176_racistbf5.png

OffHeGoes29

VOLITION wrote:

Man you Americans seriously need to get you shit together.
Your economy is a fucking disaster, i would think this should be the focus of the Republicans platform. BUT oh no all we hear about about is accusations that Obama is a Muslim and therefore he must be Terrorist.
I am embarrassed to be your neighbour.

You're just angry because we take away all your pro teams......

But all joking aside, this petty BS is part of any election no matter where you go. People in general are easy to sway in the masses, no political system is free from this BS.

Collin

Strangest Tribe wrote:

when Obama wins the election it will be 2 months before he takes office....that will give America some time to recover from the negative campaigns....

Throw in Christmas and maybe some economic recovery and it will be all ok

If he wins there will be a black muslim terrorist in the white house. I don't think the idiots who actually believe he's muslim or a terrorist will change their minds. If they had anything resembling a properly functioning brain they would have realised Obama is not muslim, nor a terrorist long ago.

To my mind, these opinions are not based on negative campaigns and false facts, these opinions are based on hatred, ignorance, racism, fear... and facts and truth can do little to sway them into change their minds.

Collin

VOLITION wrote:

case in point

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/2008/10/custom_1223838327176_racistbf5.png

I love the "Hussein" part. It's like it's a nickname they gave to him. It's his real name people, there's no need to put quotation marks around it.

mammasan

radiohead33 wrote:

I make no bones about my dislike of obama and that i will not vote for him.

However the stuff going around now seems so outrageous one has to wonder where it stops, and whats the end result?

It seems from the Youtube interviews of Mccain supporters and just the whole "fox news" mentality is this: Obama is a muslim and a terrorist supporter. That he is a radical.

To these people, thats a fact. No one can prove them wrong because they believe these are facts.

Thats why I dont think Obama will win. There are thousands maybe millions of people who think obama is a muslim and a terrorist supporter. Millions more who are racist and will not vote for him, solely on the fact his skin tone is dark.

I think also, if he does get elected, as I stated in previous threads and posts, sadly alot of people, will want him dead.

If people are shouting "kill" "bomb" and "off with his head", and people are "scared" of a obama presidency, just think the mayhem that will ensue if he gets into the white house.

As I said, I dont support obama, he isnt a candidate I like. That said he isnt a muslim, or terrorist lover.

I like you am not an Obama supporter but I see it a bit differently. All those people foaming at the mouthes rabid like where never going to vote for Obama. They are firmly entrenched in the Republican base. Those images of people yelling terrorists and kill him will do little in swaying undecided voters. If anything it will scare these voters away. I don't blame McCain for the words and actions of his followers but he needs to get a handle on it because it could end up hurt his chances. His base is already shored up and he needs to focus on the undecided voter. He need to go out there and convince these voters that he is the man for the job. he needs to instill confidence in the people, something that Obama hasn't done either. He also needs to tone down Palin's rhetoric as well. This election is not going to be won by mudslinging. The economy and the markets are too big of an issue and McCain, if he wants to win, needs to tell the Rovians in his campaign to step aside and let him be the John McCain we saw in 2000.

blondieblue227

Collin wrote:

To my mind, these opinions are not based on negative campaigns and false facts, these opinions are based on hatred, ignorance, racism, fear... and facts and truth can do little to sway them into change their minds.

i agree.
my fear is that the sway voters won't research and see the facts. they will vote on the BS mudslinging.