Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fourteen editors (two from each 1L section) are selected based on a combination of their first-year grades and their competition scores. Twenty editors are selected based solely on their competition scores. The remaining editors are selected on a discretionary basis. Some of these discretionary slots may be used to implement the Review's affirmative action policy.
The selection of Editor-in-Chief was changed in the 80s. It is unclear how Obama was selected for this position having never had anything published with his name attached. Another miracle.
Fourteen editors (two from each 1L section) are selected based on a combination of their first-year grades and their competition scores. Twenty editors are selected based solely on their competition scores. The remaining editors are selected on a discretionary basis. Some of these discretionary slots may be used to implement the Review's affirmative action policy.
which we don't know specifically which of the three ways obama got accepted as an editor of the revue. but the president of the revue is elected to the position by the members of the revue.
can you find any support in either of oldboy's links for his claim that every president of the harvard law revue has been published and/or that being published was a requirement?
if you can i'd greatly appreciate if you could post the direct quote.
I don't really care. It's just funny watching you run wild trying to prove something that doesn't matter isn't true. lol
Maybe you need to skim a bit closer one more time. There is a reference to just what you are questioning ......
read the article completely ( plus it's links ). there is nothing there that supports your claim that all presidents of the harvard law revue have published articles.
Do all of Obama's adamantine supporters only support him because he is: 1) half-African, 2) NOT George Walker Bush, 3) a self-acknowledged symphatizer toward Marxism/Communism, 4) hateful of any idea that the man is just highly fraudulent (just like his 'nemesis' Romney), and 5) utterly blind to how they, too, are being played for their knee-jerk reactionary sentiments?
One would think that after November 2000, any American candidate, for any important American office, would be considered an obvious sham, yet here we are nearly 12 years later miraculously putting substance into a shadow game that will not benefit anyone other than the toy makers who direct these tools! Meanwhile, as you are distracted... The Rules Have Changed. For those of you who identify as 'progressives' that does not mean you are winning now.
Who cares about Obama in Pakistan in 1981? (he is Muslim or a familiar, like the Bushes and Hilary and... so on) Who cares about Romney and recycled scripts? (Surprise! No one who cares enough can slay this media beast; Biden knows envy) What you do see is American figurehead leaders and potential figurehead leaders being treated as underlings and fools (they are that! And less media-narcotized people know this).
If you are looking for a divination to interpret these miracles, watch some Monty Python. Or just sit back and watch the modern version that is broadcast via all aspects of the media when it comes to the dramatizations of American sham politics. These people you identify as saints or sinners are just actors anyway and really ought to be nominated for many Oscar awards just like their more obvious Hollywood brethren.
Lot of things in that video and you have been screaming about this one thing for what three pages or so now? lol
three things actually:
- there has never been a travel ban to pakistan for US citizens
- none of his academic or medical records are "sealed". they are private records and are protected under law.
- there is no requirement for the president of the harvard law revue to be published.
those were just the ones i knew off the top of my head.
i also looked into the "communist high school" claim. i'd say that claim was false but i did find out that the chairman of the school board had been a member of the communist party and had testified in front of congress in 1955 ( from what little i've seen i doubt his testimony was pro-communism ). if that's enough to consider a school communist in your opinion...... so be it.
the rest of the claims and "miracles" i haven't researched.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
