PDA

View Full Version : Unprecedented cheap shot and lack of class



Eric Johnson
01-28-2010, 12:09 PM
It is long and well established that members of the judiciary do not make public utterances or arguments. For this reason, they are essentially defenseless. President Obama should know this because he's an attorney.

President Obama lowered himself last night. Whether you agree or disagree with him or the Court in their recent decision, what he said about the Court was an absolute cheap shot. The Rep who called him a liar was out of bounds. However, that action pales compared to this. I don't know that a President has ever criticised the Court in a public forum such as last night.

Amongst anything else said about the President, he's a public bully.

Don't know what they can do except not come next time.

Eric

Franco
01-28-2010, 12:25 PM
Obama is desperate. He has come to realize that he is in way over his head.

The question is; How to we minimize the damage he is creating in the present & future? Can we afford 4 years of this administration?

BonMallari
01-28-2010, 12:53 PM
SCOTUS always gets the last laugh, because when they make a ruling, thats it...you either make a new amendment or try a new law...I still believe that Obama THINKS he knows more about constitutional law because of his stint teaching it at a university level..I also think the media has blown the ruling way out of context, I am no legal eagle but I think it just overturned McCain-Feingold which had so many loopholes that PAC 's exploited to the fullest...

achiro
01-28-2010, 12:56 PM
Someone posted this on another site
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html

YardleyLabs
01-28-2010, 12:57 PM
It is long and well established that members of the judiciary do not make public utterances or arguments. For this reason, they are essentially defenseless. President Obama should know this because he's an attorney.

President Obama lowered himself last night. Whether you agree or disagree with him or the Court in their recent decision, what he said about the Court was an absolute cheap shot. The Rep who called him a liar was out of bounds. However, that action pales compared to this. I don't know that a President has ever criticised the Court in a public forum such as last night.

Amongst anything else said about the President, he's a public bully.

Don't know what they can do except not come next time.

Eric

Yes, and as is apparent in the quote below, he beat them senseless while they lay helplessly before him. If criticizing a Court opinion amounts to bullying, that must explain why all those comments over the years concerning Roe v Wade, the abuses of the Warren Court, etc., were spoken with such quiet respect..

Obama's abusive rant against the Court:

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

Vile, shameful, bullying words indeed.... Odd that he didn't even say that the decision was wrong, just that legislation was needed to prevent a negative impact.
:D

Eric Johnson
01-28-2010, 12:58 PM
Well....

The decision didn't overturn McCain-Feingold, merely parts of it.

The decision clearly didn't overturn "100 years" of election law. President Obama was referring to a law passed in about 1906-8 that made it illegal for corporations to directly contribute to campaigns. That law wasn't touched.

Eric

Goose
01-28-2010, 01:05 PM
His tactics are striaght ouf of the Hugo Chavez playbook.

What's next...night of the long knives, Obama style?

We live in Cuba now.

YardleyLabs
01-28-2010, 01:13 PM
Someone posted this on another site
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html
in reading the Politico story, I am struck by their misquote of what the President actually said in that section of the speech.

Politico quotes Obama as saying: "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."

The actual quote was: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections."

The bolded text are the parts they left out, and the red text in the Politico statement is text that they inserted. I believe the misquote was designed to make it appear that the President was attacking the integrity of the Court's decision. You can check the video linked in their story to hear what the President actually said. My quote came from the official transcript distributed prior to the speech and I did verify it against the actual for this quote.

achiro
01-28-2010, 01:19 PM
in reading the Politico story, I am struck by their misquote of what the President actually said in that section of the speech.

Politico quotes Obama as saying: "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."

The actual quote was: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections."

The bolded text are the parts they left out, and the red text in the Politico statement is text that they inserted. I believe the misquote was designed to make it appear that the President was attacking the integrity of the Court's decision. You can check the video linked in their story to hear what the President actually said. My quote came from the official transcript distributed prior to the speech and I did verify it against the actual for this quote.
I didn't even read the article, just watched the video, and I assume what the prez said is what he said.

YardleyLabs
01-28-2010, 01:21 PM
Well....

The decision didn't overturn McCain-Feingold, merely parts of it.

The decision clearly didn't overturn "100 years" of election law. President Obama was referring to a law passed in about 1906-8 that made it illegal for corporations to directly contribute to campaigns. That law wasn't touched.

Eric
I actually agree with you on the substance of what the decision did. I don't see a century of precedents overturned either. The issue I had was your characterization of the President's speech as a form of low class bullying of a defenseless Supreme Court.

Of course, that is nothing compared with Goose's nonsensical efforts to suggest something Nazi-like and totalitarian about the speech. I'd love to know what tactics Obama used in his speech that "are striaght ouf of the Hugo Chavez playbook." Goose, I know you are geographically challenged (No, you are NOT in Cuba now), but your post suggests a completely different form of mental challenge that might warrant some clinical attention.:D

kjrice
01-28-2010, 02:43 PM
It is long and well established that members of the judiciary do not make public utterances or arguments. For this reason, they are essentially defenseless. President Obama should know this because he's an attorney.

President Obama lowered himself last night. Whether you agree or disagree with him or the Court in their recent decision, what he said about the Court was an absolute cheap shot. The Rep who called him a liar was out of bounds. However, that action pales compared to this. I don't know that a President has ever criticised the Court in a public forum such as last night.

Amongst anything else said about the President, he's a public bully.

Don't know what they can do except not come next time.

Eric
That is the Chicago Machine way....

Eric Johnson
01-28-2010, 02:52 PM
Politico quotes Obama as saying: "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."

The actual quote was: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections."


Unless we were to go back and listen to the actual speech, there's no way to judge this. The text of the speech is made available to news outlets 30-60 minutes early. However, the President can deviate from the text, So....was it real or Memorex? Which, or either, represents what he said?

Either interprestation leads me to the same conclusion. Obama is a bully. It was the criticism in public while they sat in front of him and the legislators stood in applause that leads me there. (The applauding legislators are of much the same ilk.)

Eric

dnf777
01-28-2010, 03:19 PM
Oh yes, those poor, poor judges with lifetime appointments and lifelong benefits that are untouchable. I feel so bad for them.:(

Yes, they had to sit there and take it. Kind of like YOU and I will have to sit back and take the effects of the court's decisions, and not have any say! Did you also feel so sorry for the poor helpless judges on the Roe decision? I may be wrong, but hasn't that decision been criticized a few times also??

Eric Johnson
01-28-2010, 04:11 PM
Yes, they had to sit there and take it. Kind of like YOU and I will have to sit back and take the effects of the court's decisions, and not have any say!

You're missing the point. I can and do criticize court decisions.

Congress can get at a President by passing or not passing legislation, by affirming or denying appointments. The President can get at the Congress by veto, by public opinion. Only the Judiciary is unable to use the powers they have in a spiteful, or perhaps the word is political, fashion.

Suppose that the Court had got up and walked out of the Chambers in the midst of the speech? That would have been the measured response to the event. However, that would have raised heck amongst the commentators.....and you.

I'm not a judge. Don't play one on TV. I just think that the President overstepped the bounds of civility in doing this.

Eric

YardleyLabs
01-28-2010, 04:19 PM
You're missing the point. I can and do criticize court decisions.

Congress can get at a President by passing or not passing legislation, by affirming or denying appointments. The President can get at the Congress by veto, by public opinion. Only the Judiciary is unable to use the powers they have in a spiteful, or perhaps the word is political, fashion.

Suppose that the Court had got up and walked out of the Chambers in the midst of the speech? That would have been the measured response to the event. However, that would have raised heck amongst the commentators.....and you.

I'm not a judge. Don't play one on TV. I just think that the President overstepped the bounds of civility in doing this.

Eric

The Court has acted in a political manner since its foundation. The Florida decision in 2000 was a good example. Individual justices routinely speak out in a political manner. Scalia and Alito are prime examples. In his own reaction to the President's comments, Alito himself showed a clear lack of judicial reserve. Presidents have been complaining about Court decisions forever. That is part of the process.

Pals
01-28-2010, 04:39 PM
I can't recall a President complaining about SCOTUS at a State of the Union address. Typical Chicago style bullying, wait until you have an audience to make yourself look like a classless jerk.

Eric Johnson
01-28-2010, 05:00 PM
The Florida decisions were a part of their job. An issue was presented to them. Had the Florida Supreme Ct done it's job, perhaps the Supreme Court of the United States would not even have been a player. Let's leave it at that.

As for Alito's response, it was that, a response. In fact, in the terminalogy of the judicial system, it was an "excited utterance." Chances are, he feels badly. Obama doesn't. There's the difference.

Eric

road kill
01-28-2010, 05:09 PM
President Obama is the product of entitlements.
He has never been told NO and has all his C's made into A's for him.
All his messes have been tidy'd up for him.

Hey, welcome to the real world......


NO!!


rk

dnf777
01-28-2010, 06:36 PM
You're missing the point. I can and do criticize court decisions.

Congress can get at a President by passing or not passing legislation, by affirming or denying appointments. The President can get at the Congress by veto, by public opinion. Only the Judiciary is unable to use the powers they have in a spiteful, or perhaps the word is political, fashion.

Suppose that the Court had got up and walked out of the Chambers in the midst of the speech? That would have been the measured response to the event. However, that would have raised heck amongst the commentators.....and you.

I'm not a judge. Don't play one on TV. I just think that the President overstepped the bounds of civility in doing this.

Eric

I wouldn't go so far as to say this overstepped civility. After all, he said it courteously. I would agree it may not have been the place or time, but jeez, I think there's a whole lot of ado about no BFD! On both parts. The court KNOWS that any decision they make will have opponents, and shouldn't get their panties in a bunch when someone says so! OTOH, so he mouthed quietly "not true". Again, BFD! He was not disruptive or overtly disrespectful....no more or no less than Obama's comment. Let it go!

This sounds like a kindergarten argument playing out. There's more important issues out there for both sides to worry about.

Henry V
01-28-2010, 07:23 PM
President Obama is the product of entitlements.
He has never been told NO and has all his C's made into A's for him.
All his messes have been tidy'd up for him.

rk
You are totally kidding, right, or do you just have him confused with a different president?

K G
01-28-2010, 07:36 PM
I can't recall a President complaining about SCOTUS at a State of the Union address. Typical Chicago style bullying, wait until you have an audience to make yourself look like a classless jerk.

There have been 98 State of The Union addresses. Only three prior Presidents (Harding, FDR, and Nixon) took on the SCOTUS during the SOTU address.

ABC World News Tonight trivia regards,

kg

Pals
01-28-2010, 08:06 PM
Well that's why I can't recall it-I'm tooooo young!! I guess I should have looked it up-my bad. However I'm exercising my female right and NOT changing my mind-classless jerk.

Eric Johnson
01-28-2010, 08:52 PM
Keith-

Your comment sent me to searching. I searched all the State of the Union addresses of Harding, Roosevelt, and Nixon for the words "Supreme" and "Court". The latter made no mention of these key words. Harding said,

>>Closely related to this problem of education is the abolition of child labor. Twice Congress has attempted the correction of the evils incident to child employment. The decision of the Supreme Court has put this problem outside the proper domain of Federal regulation until the Constitution is so amended as to give the Congress indubitable authority. I recommend the submission of such an amendment.

Unless you can think of any word or words that would be used instead of Supreme and Court to mean the Supreme Court.....the reference is not there.

I don't doubt that Roosevelt had some angst at the Supremes over the decisions and the court packing scheme. It's just not in the State of the Union addresses unless he used a code phrase or word.

Eric

Buzz
01-28-2010, 09:05 PM
Here is one instance:


Roosevelt criticized the Supreme Court without using those words. Upset that the Court had thwarted his efforts to pull the nation out of the Depression, Roosevelt a month later introduced his ultimately unsuccessful "court-packing" plan that would have allowed him to expand membership of the Court and add justices of his own choosing. Here is what Roosevelt said in his State of the Union address: "The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good. The process of our democracy must not be imperiled by the denial of essential powers of free government."

cotts135
01-29-2010, 09:52 AM
President Obama is the product of entitlements.
He has never been told NO and has all his C's made into A's for him.
All his messes have been tidy'd up for him.

Hey, welcome to the real world......


NO!!


rk

Do you have a link to that?

Didn't think so

You just made it up,,,,,,,,,,,,,didn't you:p

K G
01-29-2010, 10:00 AM
Keith-

Your comment sent me to searching. I searched all the State of the Union addresses of Harding, Roosevelt, and Nixon for the words "Supreme" and "Court". The latter made no mention of these key words. Harding said,

>>Closely related to this problem of education is the abolition of child labor. Twice Congress has attempted the correction of the evils incident to child employment. The decision of the Supreme Court has put this problem outside the proper domain of Federal regulation until the Constitution is so amended as to give the Congress indubitable authority. I recommend the submission of such an amendment.

Unless you can think of any word or words that would be used instead of Supreme and Court to mean the Supreme Court.....the reference is not there.

I don't doubt that Roosevelt had some angst at the Supremes over the decisions and the court packing scheme. It's just not in the State of the Union addresses unless he used a code phrase or word.

Eric

You might want to query ABC news, particularly Good Morning America, Eric. That's where my info came from....;-)

kg

david gibson
01-29-2010, 10:08 AM
President Obama is the product of entitlements.
He has never been told NO and has all his C's made into A's for him.
All his messes have been tidy'd up for him.

Hey, welcome to the real world......


NO!!


rk

exactly - the guy has been praised as the "annointed one" so long he believes it. even pop songs "i have a crush on Obama" (although she is changing her tune as well... )

Buzz
01-29-2010, 10:16 AM
Do you have a link to that?

Didn't think so

You just made it up,,,,,,,,,,,,,didn't you:p

My impression was that he was saying that Obama is a product of affirmative action.

Blackstone
01-29-2010, 01:10 PM
President Obama is the product of entitlements.
He has never been told NO and has all his C's made into A's for him.
All his messes have been tidy'd up for him.

Hey, welcome to the real world......


NO!!


rk

What particular entitlements is Obama a product of? Are you referring to his academic performance when you say his C's have been made into A's? What messes have been tidied up for him?

Eric Johnson
01-29-2010, 01:13 PM
You might want to query ABC news, particularly Good Morning America, Eric. That's where my info came from....;-)

kg

Keith-

I actually queried every one of the actual SOTU addresses of the three presidents. When in doubt, use source documents. What I did was search for "Supreme" and "Court" and let it go at that. Turns out that Roosevelt was more circumspect than that and used "judicial."

For reference, every SOTU address seems to be available as a part of the Penn State Electronic Classics series. Search for: "State of the Union" and {president'sname}

You said Nixon in the first message when in fact it was Reagan, which you then corrected.

This has gone on longer than a really minor point needs to. I just felt that the comment was decidely more pointed than it needed to be and that he told an untruth to make the point.

Eric

Blackstone
01-29-2010, 01:16 PM
exactly - the guy has been praised as the "annointed one" so long he believes it. even pop songs "i have a crush on Obama" (although she is changing her tune as well... )

Who is it that has referred to Obama as the "Annointed One?" I have never heard this from Democrats or Obama supporters. The Annointed One and Messiah references have come from his opponents, and is certainly not meant as praise.

road kill
01-29-2010, 01:19 PM
Who is it that has referred to Obama as the "Annointed One?" I have never heard this from Democrats or Obama supporters. The Annointed One and Messiah references have come from his opponents, and is certainly not meant as praise.

I think the term "Annointed One" is not so much about President Obama as it is about those of YOU who have "Annointed" him!!;-)


rk

road kill
01-29-2010, 01:22 PM
What particular entitlements is Obama a product of? Are you referring to his academic performance when you say his C's have been made into A's? What messes have been tidied up for him?


How is this MESS working out for you??


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/01/28/2010-01-28_white_house_orders_justice_department_to_look_f or_other_places_to_hold_911_terro.html

_______________________________________________

Acorn got "tidy'd up for him.
_______________________________________________
Reverand Wright was a tad messy, cleaned up nicely though!!
_________________________________________________
That ugly Bill Ayers thing.....all gone now!!


I got more...............



rk

Julie R.
01-29-2010, 01:38 PM
Who is it that has referred to Obama as the "Annointed One?" I have never heard this from Democrats or Obama supporters. The Annointed One and Messiah references have come from his opponents, and is certainly not meant as praise.

Yeah right, and his opponents created the idol painting of him in Jesus robes that one of your fellow liberals had on here as his avatar. :barf:

Even those of you that inhale his jenkem have to admit he'd never have gotten in Harvard if he was a white, documented U.S. citizen, much less won the democratic nomination.

Blackstone
01-29-2010, 01:39 PM
I think the term "Annointed One" is not so much about President Obama as it is about those of YOU who have "Annointed" him!!;-)


rk

Actually, it seems to be used most often as a snide, sarcastic comment intended to belittle Obama. As far as I’m concerned, I have not “anointed” anyone as anything. Perhaps, it would be smarter to actually ask someone what they think before attributing a mind set to them.

huntinman
01-29-2010, 01:53 PM
Obama said during the campaign that he was the one we have been waiting for...and that the sea levels would start to recede. Maybe he believes his own BS...

YardleyLabs
01-29-2010, 02:01 PM
Yeah right, and his opponents created the idol painting of him in Jesus robes that one of your fellow liberals had on here as his avatar. :barf:

Even those of you that inhale his jenkem have to admit he'd never have gotten in Harvard if he was a white, documented U.S. citizen, much less won the democratic nomination.

Juli,

Care to share your evidence? Being passionate, articulate, and intelligent, combined with coming from an economically challenged background, is a pretty good recipe for admission to Harvard, Princeton or Yale regardless of skin color.

Blackstone
01-29-2010, 02:08 PM
Yeah right, and his opponents created the idol painting of him in Jesus robes that one of your fellow liberals had on here as his avatar. :barf:

Even those of you that inhale his jenkem have to admit he'd never have gotten in Harvard if he was a white, documented U.S. citizen, much less won the democratic nomination.

Julie,

First, I don’t consider myself as a liberal or conservative. I do not subscribe to the rhetoric of either ideology. I prefer to think for myself. Depending on the issue, my opinions may fall on side or the other, or somewhere in between. So, what someone else used as an avatar has nothing to do with me, and probably not much to do with what most other people are thinking. If that avatar had been adopted as a symbol of a “pro-Obama” movement, it would have much more relevance. However, it has not.

Are you actually saying Obama only got into Harvard because he is black? That’s crazy! Aren’t the overwhelming majority of the students at Harvard white? How did they get in? Contrary to what you believe, being black in America has never been an advantage! The fact is, Obama won the Democratic nomination and the presidency in spite of being black, not because of it.

Besides, why do you see the issue of race as relevant to this discussion?

Blackstone
01-29-2010, 02:14 PM
Obama said during the campaign that he was the one we have been waiting for...and that the sea levels would start to recede. Maybe he believes his own BS...

Hasn't every president said they are the one we have been waiting for? Which one of the former presidents campaigned on the premise that America really doesn't need a president like them?

Again, just like the messiah and anointed one comments that are attributed to Obama, where are you getting the "sea levels would start to recede." comments. I certainly never heard Obama say anything like that.

Blackstone
01-29-2010, 02:52 PM
How is this MESS working out for you??


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/01/28/2010-01-28_white_house_orders_justice_department_to_look_f or_other_places_to_hold_911_terro.html

_______________________________________________

Acorn got "tidy'd up for him.
_______________________________________________
Reverand Wright was a tad messy, cleaned up nicely though!!
_________________________________________________
That ugly Bill Ayers thing.....all gone now!!


I got more...............



rk

It appears the venue of the trial is being changed because of concerns over how it will impact the City of NY. Obviously, the administration did not anticipate the possible disruption to local business. So, they decided to move the trial. Does that constitute a mess?

Obviously, the Reverend Wright “mess” was not tidied up. You’re still talking about it this forum. This is not the first time a president has been tied to radical, race based religious figures. What about Reagan’s association with Jones University (or, Bush’s association with them for that matter). Were those “tidied” up for them?

The “ugly Bill Ayers thing” was never a real mess. It was trumped up, and blown out of proportion to begin with. There never was any real association between Obama and Ayers. They knew each other, and their paths crossed on a few occasions, but that was it.

What if, or was, Obama’s real involvement with ACORN? I have heard a lot of accusations from Obama opponent, but never any proof of his support or activism on their behalf.

So, if you have more, let’s hear it. But, please make sure they are real.

duckheads
01-29-2010, 03:40 PM
Looks like we have another lefty that calls himself an independent. you should fit in well with the other "independents" on this forum. Why is it that no one will admit to being a liberal democrat?

Hew
01-29-2010, 04:24 PM
It appears the venue of the trial is being changed because of concerns over how it will impact the City of NY. Obviously, the administration did not anticipate the possible disruption to local business. That the Obama administration didn't anticipate that disruption doesn't scare you?!? Hell, people on this forum were pointing that out immediately after the decision was announced. Does it not give you pause that there's a boatload of other issues they likely didn't consider before making that brain-dead decision to try terrorists in US criminal court? So, they decided to move the trial. Does that constitute a mess?
-----
The “ugly Bill Ayers thing” was never a real mess. It was trumped up, and blown out of proportion to begin with. There never was any real association between Obama and Ayers. They knew each other, and their paths crossed on a few occasions, but that was it. You're seriously misinformed and parrotting moveon.org pap. The notion that Ayers was, to Obama, "just some guy in the neighborhood" has pretty much become a debunked laughingstock. You should look into their relationship a little bit more before you hang your credibility on statements like the above.

What if, or was, Obama’s real involvement with ACORN? I have heard a lot of accusations from Obama opponent, but never any proof of his support or activism on their behalf. You mean other than working as an attorney for Acorn or Obama paying Acorn $830k for get-out-the-vote work in the last campaign? Don't be afraid of Google. It won't bite.

So, if you have more, let’s hear it. But, please make sure they are real.

....................

ErinsEdge
01-29-2010, 04:33 PM
exactly - the guy has been praised as the "annointed one" so long he believes it. even pop songs "i have a crush on Obama" (although she is changing her tune as well... )
Yup, even Obama girl said she probably wouldn't vote for Obama again.

dnf777
01-29-2010, 04:53 PM
Looks like we have another lefty that calls himself an independent. you should fit in well with the other "independents" on this forum. Why is it that no one will admit to being a liberal democrat?

I think you highlight the reason John McCain is still a senator, and Obama is President. The right wing spends so much energy placing labels on others, while narrowly defining who and what is acceptable to their camp, that they don't recognize that MANY of those you are calling names like "RINO" used to vote republican. You can take that advice from a former republican....or you can just call me more cute little names and thump your chests in front of the TV screen watching Fox news.

david gibson
01-29-2010, 05:10 PM
Julie,

First, I don’t consider myself as a liberal or conservative. I do not subscribe to the rhetoric of either ideology. I prefer to think for myself. Depending on the issue, my opinions may fall on side or the other, or somewhere in between. So, what someone else used as an avatar has nothing to do with me, and probably not much to do with what most other people are thinking. If that avatar had been adopted as a symbol of a “pro-Obama” movement, it would have much more relevance. However, it has not.

Are you actually saying Obama only got into Harvard because he is black? That’s crazy! Aren’t the overwhelming majority of the students at Harvard white? How did they get in? Contrary to what you believe, being black in America has never been an advantage! The fact is, Obama won the Democratic nomination and the presidency in spite of being black, not because of it.

Besides, why do you see the issue of race as relevant to this discussion?

exactly - race is NOT relevant. heck - the guy is a light-skinned black, and doesn't talk like a "homey" unless he wants to. and geee - we all forgot he was black for an hour the other night.

wow - there it goes again - another chill up my leg!

Hew
01-29-2010, 05:46 PM
You can take that advice from a former republican....
Out of curiosity, what event/timeframe caused you to determine that the GOP no longer represented your political views?

dnf777
01-29-2010, 06:36 PM
Out of curiosity, what event/timeframe caused you to determine that the GOP no longer represented your political views?

Ironically, about the same time I could have really benefitted from republican tax cuts personally, but saw what damage was being done to the country to favor the "good 'ol boys" network of defense contractors with $600 toilet seats for airplanes, and the $200 hammers. But hey, that was Reagan, it's ok!

Bush I, having to eat his words, had the sense to do what was fiscally responsible at the time, and reverse the trend of increasing deficit spending that Reagan started.

Also, as I was in a dorm room listening to a young arrogant republican (who was receiving more state and federal grants and low-interest loans than I could count) blasting away at Clinton for spending programs, including education spending, and realized the arrogance and hypocrisy that I still see to this day.

Maybe if I become owner or a significant shareholder in a major corporation, I will return to being a republican. Until then, neither the republicans or democrats have anything to offer me. The dems are in bed with trial lawyers who rape the medical system with no fear of "legal malpractice". The republicans had 8 years to do something about it, and didn't lift a finger. (thankfully, several states took it upon themselves)

BonMallari
01-29-2010, 06:49 PM
Looks like we have another lefty that calls himself an independent. you should fit in well with the other "independents" on this forum. Why is it that no one will admit to being a liberal democrat?


because as Hillary said during the campaign...she is a progressive


same thing on the right, Republican , thanks to the last administration has become a hated label, so the new hip term is ...conservative...or in my case Libertarian :D:D

YardleyLabs
01-29-2010, 06:58 PM
Looks like we have another lefty that calls himself an independent. you should fit in well with the other "independents" on this forum. Why is it that no one will admit to being a liberal democrat?

because as Hillary said during the campaign...she is a progressive


same thing on the right, Republican , thanks to the last administration has become a hated label, so the new hip term is ...conservative...or in my case Libertarian :D:D
If you go far enough to the right everyone looks like a lefty. It takes rational moderates a little bit of time to adjust to the relatively extreme perspective of many on this forum.

Blackstone
01-29-2010, 07:02 PM
Looks like we have another lefty that calls himself an independent. you should fit in well with the other "independents" on this forum. Why is it that no one will admit to being a liberal democrat?

Well, you can try to label me if that makes you feel better (obviously, you know me better than I know myself). It really doesn't matter to me. I'm not really trying to fit into any category.

Marvin S
01-29-2010, 07:11 PM
If you go far enough to the right everyone looks like a lefty. It takes rational moderates a little bit of time to adjust to the relatively extreme perspective of many on this forum.

That's FUNNY - hahahahahahahahahahahaha - & next you are going to tell us U fit that label - Yardley, the Rational Moderate - but, credit where credit is due - you didn't say you were now an INDEPENDENT. :) :)

JDogger
01-29-2010, 07:58 PM
Looks like we have another lefty that calls himself an independent. you should fit in well with the other "independents" on this forum. Why is it that no one will admit to being a liberal democrat?

Because most have stopped coming here to engage in pointless arguements.
Myself, I return for the entertainment value I derive from doing a little stick-pokin' now and again. http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/smilies/poke.gif

Self-labeling can be difficult, labeling others is easy.

On a state and local level I have voted for both major parties, and when presented with a third party candidate, occasionally in their favor. On the national level, like many others, I vote for what I percieve as the lesser evil.

I believe in national security, but I'm anti-war.

I believe in fiscal responsibility, but enjoy that I now live on a paved street with municipal water and sewer, and storm drains, subsidized by the fed. (no more septic leeching into shallow wells).

I recognize the abuses of various entitlement programs, but I also recognize the legitimate needs of others in my community.

I recently served three months on a local Grand Jury. I didn't want to, it was inconvenient, but I didn't try to worm out, and I attended every panel.

I don't believe illegal immigration is a good thing, but I recognize that a portion of my neighbors and my business customer base, (and some are very good hard working people) now reflect that reality.

I don't want the government to hold my hand and support me, but I want to be able to afford my healthcare premiums.

I don't go to church and I have differing feelings on organized religion, but I believe in a creator.

I find a lot of the GW thesis disingenous, but I think it should not be ignored either.

I watch the MSM, the cable news networks, both MSNBC and FOX and the others, but when I'm at the cabin, with no TV, no internet, I tune the short-wave to the foreign english language broadcasts and broaden my perspective.

I could go on...but it is time to cook dinner, and the last two days of ducks is coming up, and in two weeks my pup goes back to his trainer.

Niching, if you find no one particular niche, is why some might call themselves "Independent".

JDogger

road kill
01-29-2010, 08:16 PM
Because most have stopped coming here to engage in pointless arguements. Seems pretty busy to me.
Myself, I return for the entertainment value I derive from doing a little stick-pokin' now and again. http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/smilies/poke.gif

Self-labeling can be difficult, labeling others is easy.

On a state and local level I have voted for both major parties, and when presented with a third party candidate, occasionally in their favor. On the national level, like many others, I vote for what I percieve as the lesser evil.

I believe in national security, but I'm anti-war.

I believe in fiscal responsibility, but enjoy that I now live on a paved street with municipal water and sewer, and storm drains, subsidized by the fed. (no more septic leeching into shallow wells).

I recognize the abuses of various entitlement programs, but I also recognize the legitimate needs of others in my community.

I recently served three months on a local Grand Jury. I didn't want to, it was inconvenient, but I didn't try to worm out, and I attended every panel.

I don't believe illegal immigration is a good thing, but I recognize that a portion of my neighbors and my business customer base, (and some are very good hard working people) now reflect that reality.

I don't want the government to hold my hand and support me, but I want to be able to afford my healthcare premiums.

I don't go to church and I have differing feelings on organized religion, but I believe in a creator.

I find a lot of the GW thesis disingenous, but I think it should not be ignored either.

I watch the MSM, the cable news networks, both MSNBC and FOX and the others, but when I'm at the cabin, with no TV, no internet, I tune the short-wave to the foreign english language broadcasts and broaden my perspective.

I could go on...but it is time to cook dinner, and the last two days of ducks is coming up, and in two weeks my pup goes back to his trainer.

Niching, if you find no one particular niche, is why some might call themselves "Independent".

JDogger
Scary, we agree to a large degree.
The reason most of my posts are (to me at least) humorous in nature is that no one here (myself included) is real interested in changing their minds.
Most of us have arrived to where we are honestly based on the crap we have lived thru.

I thought my post about "90% of the dead people in IL voting Democratic" was maybe the best post of my career, no one said a word, so maybe I ain't that funny, but I ain't gonna be serious about this stuff either.

Life is way to short, and I am running out of time.
I have met a few from here, they know what kind of person I am.
(big, obnoxious and a bit immature)

This is but a small part of our lives.

The main thing is the love for our dogs!!
That is the common thread!

So, relax you progressives, it's all in fun.:D

And me.....just another loony right wing extremists that loves God and my guns!!
(and Elvis & the Redhead!!)

PEACE!!



rk

Hew
01-29-2010, 09:34 PM
Ironically, about the same time I could have really benefitted from republican tax cuts personally, but saw what damage was being done to the country to favor the "good 'ol boys" network of defense contractors with $600 toilet seats for airplanes, and the $200 hammers. But hey, that was Reagan, it's ok!

Bush I, having to eat his words, had the sense to do what was fiscally responsible at the time, and reverse the trend of increasing deficit spending that Reagan started.

Also, as I was in a dorm room listening to a young arrogant republican (who was receiving more state and federal grants and low-interest loans than I could count) blasting away at Clinton for spending programs, including education spending, and realized the arrogance and hypocrisy that I still see to this day.

Maybe if I become owner or a significant shareholder in a major corporation, I will return to being a republican. Until then, neither the republicans or democrats have anything to offer me. The dems are in bed with trial lawyers who rape the medical system with no fear of "legal malpractice". The republicans had 8 years to do something about it, and didn't lift a finger. (thankfully, several states took it upon themselves)
Apparently you were a Republican-in-training up until your 9th birthday or so. Begging the pardon of your uber-advanced pre-teen political conscience, but it ain't like the party "lost you" when you possibly couldn't have had an educated idea of where you were at the time.

I think a lot of folks' poltical idealogy jumps around at various stages of their life. As a college kid I remember regurgitating socialist swill to my dad as he patiently listened and nodded. :rolleyes:

Marvin S
01-29-2010, 10:14 PM
Ironically, about the same time I could have really benefitted from republican tax cuts personally,

The "Tax Simplification Act of 1986" actually raised more funds than it gave away :confused:. As our accountant stated "It should have been called the "Accountants Full Employment Act". It cost us in the high 5 figures when we sold our business due to higher CG taxes.

But Reagan did not use his veto pen as he should have when Tip O'Neill loaded up the bills with PORK.

More money came in but unfortunately, more was spent!!


damage was being done to the country to favor the "good 'ol boys" network of defense contractors with $600 toilet seats for airplanes, and the $200 hammers. But hey, that was Reagan, it's ok! [quote]

As with many things, your lack of actual experience dealing with the government shows. Costs get that way because of Public Procurement policies.

[quote=]Bush I, having to eat his words, had the sense to do what was fiscally responsible at the time, and reverse the trend of increasing deficit spending that Reagan started.

Bush 1 was a nice guy who was definitely in over his head as the POTUS, though certainly not as much as the present occupier.

Raising taxes is not fiscally responsible, it just begs the question of making government leaner & more efficient.

dnf777
01-30-2010, 07:09 AM
Bush 1 was a nice guy who was definitely in over his head as the POTUS, though certainly not as much as the present occupier.

Raising taxes is not fiscally responsible, it just begs the question of making government leaner & more efficient.

You guys crack me up! "leaner and more efficient?" Who has done that in the past 50 years? Oh, yeah, clinton shrunk the gov't payroll and had a balanced budget. Pretty embarrassing when a democrat has to show you how it's done!

Just a point of record, after Bush took his necessary steps to control the deficit, despite cries of financial collapse, we began the largest expansion of the economy in the nation's history, since perhaps the industrial revolution, and we were barely a country then.

When have we suffered the LARGEST expansion of government in both spending and power?? Bush and his republican congress. Not to mention the largest downturn in the economy since Hoover. Again, embarrassing for republican party men. The proof is in the outcomes. You can play shell-games and spin the bottle all you want, but republicans have made a mess of things once again! I'm all for tax cuts, don't get me wrong, but not when you're launching two wars and don't know how to control spending!

sinner
01-30-2010, 09:57 AM
And the next President will be Bank America and the VP will be Halliburton with the Secretary of State, Blackwatch.
At least the court cleared up what has been going on anyway.

Joe S.
02-01-2010, 07:50 AM
You are totally kidding, right, or do you just have him confused with a different president?

ROTFLMAO...

Exactly Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
02-01-2010, 07:56 AM
Even those of you that inhale his jenkem have to admit he'd never have gotten in Harvard if he was a white, documented U.S. citizen, much less won the democratic nomination.

Hi Julie,

Hope you are doing well.

You make an interesting point. I was wondering if you thought 43 would have gotten into Yale if 41 hadn't been there first...

Just Askin' Regards,

Joe S.

Julie R.
02-01-2010, 09:31 AM
Hi Joe,

Glad to see you back, it's actually good to see the Democrat viewpoint with humor and knowlege, even if you did slip to a lil Rogeresque Bush bashing.

In answer to your question,

I was wondering if you thought 43 would have gotten into Yale if 41 hadn't been there first...

Just Askin' Regards,


Possibly not, but at least 43 has transcripts and a birth certificate that are not hidden within some Byzantine Da'Obama Code from those (from both sides) who sought to overturn the boulder and shed light on such things.

And though you didn't ask, what I meant by my comment that the Obama got where he is today in large part BECAUSE of rather than in spite of his skin color is exactly that: If he was white, he'd never have been the recipient of affirmative action/diversity preferential admissions treatment despite mediocre grades.

Nor would his shady background and the company he kept in Chi Town prior to and in the early days of his after-academia career have stood up under the scrutiny of the DNC during the nomination process had it not been shielded by the heart-warming cloak of the trump card. The trump card being the rallying cry of lefties everywhere to keep such scrutiny leashed:


"That's RACIST!"
http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smilies/racist.gif

YardleyLabs
02-01-2010, 10:29 AM
Hi Joe,

Glad to see you back, it's actually good to see the Democrat viewpoint with humor and knowlege, even if you did slip to a lil Rogeresque Bush bashing.

In answer to your question,


Possibly not, but at least 43 has transcripts and a birth certificate that are not hidden within some Byzantine Da'Obama Code from those (from both sides) who sought to overturn the boulder and shed light on such things.

And though you didn't ask, what I meant by my comment that the Obama got where he is today in large part BECAUSE of rather than in spite of his skin color is exactly that: If he was white, he'd never have been the recipient of affirmative action/diversity preferential admissions treatment despite mediocre grades.

Nor would his shady background and the company he kept in Chi Town prior to and in the early days of his after-academia career have stood up under the scrutiny of the DNC during the nomination process had it not been shielded by the heart-warming cloak of the trump card. The trump card being the rallying cry of lefties everywhere to keep such scrutiny leashed:


"That's RACIST!"
http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smilies/racist.gif

While not clearly meaningful in either case, Bush released his transcripts from Yale -- showing a C average -- but not his pre-college transcripts or any information concerning his time at Harvard Business School. He characterized himself as a middling student throughout his academic career.

Obama has not released any transcripts from pre-college or college. He has said he was a bad student at Occidental an a middling student at Columbia, where he received his Bachelor's Degree. However, he did graduate magna cum laude from Harvard Law, meaning that based solely on his grades he was in the top 10% of his graduating class.

Bush's transcripts were not actually released by the candidate until after they were located and published by reporters. As far as I know, prior presidential candidates did not make a practice of releasing transcripts. In fact, one of the mini "scandals" surrounding JFK was that he entered Princeton as a Freshman and then left, not reappearing again until he entered Harvard as a Freshman the following year. JFK's photo appeared in the "Freshman Herald" at Princeton, but no record of his attendance ever surfaced. As a general rule, the only way to have your record expunged or to be dropped from the roles of alumni at Princeton, once you have matriculated, is to be expelled for honor code violations. This remained a matter of speculation at Princeton for years following JFK's death. Some believe he never actually showed up at the beginning of the year because of medical problems. Others believe he came but was expelled for cheating. No one has evidence either way.

zeus3925
02-01-2010, 06:20 PM
If these dudes had mediocre academic records, how did they get into such prestigious graduate schools?

Joe S.
02-01-2010, 08:24 PM
If these dudes had mediocre academic records, how did they get into such prestigious graduate schools?

I would think that sometimes, for some people, at some schools, all it takes is a phone call...

Good Old Boy Regards,

Joe s.

paul young
02-02-2010, 06:52 AM
....and a donation!-Paul

Uncle Bill
02-04-2010, 05:11 PM
Yes, and as is apparent in the quote below, he beat them senseless while they lay helplessly before him. If criticizing a Court opinion amounts to bullying, that must explain why all those comments over the years concerning Roe v Wade, the abuses of the Warren Court, etc., were spoken with such quiet respect..

Obama's abusive rant against the Court:

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

Vile, shameful, bullying words indeed.... Odd that he didn't even say that the decision was wrong, just that legislation was needed to prevent a negative impact.
:D


And of course you being a shill for your almighty messiah, go along with this ignorant statement. Which only plays up the childish person you libs have placed in the White House.

Did any of you even bother to digest what was ruled on by the SCOTUS? Try this explanation:



"How about Obama's claim in his State of the Union address last week that a recent Supreme Court ruling would allow "foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections"?

In the case Obama mentioned, the court overruled section 441a of the campaign-finance law, which had banned all corporate spending on elections. The case did not concern, nor did the court address, section 441e, which prohibits foreign corporations from making any "contribution or donation of money or other thing of value ... in connection with a Federal, State or local election."

History will record that these remarks from his State of the Union address were the only case legendary barrister Barack Obama ever argued before the Supreme Court. And he lost."

That bit of information comes from a journalist that is published across the nation. Wanna bet that info has more value than anything you and your ilk are regurgitating, Yardley.

But then, we are to believe that all you spew around here is the facts and only the truth. Try again. Your first attempt was only what your party's talking points want you to repeat.

UB

Buzz
02-04-2010, 05:31 PM
President Obama is the product of entitlements.
He has never been told NO and has all his C's made into A's for him.
All his messes have been tidy'd up for him.

Hey, welcome to the real world......


NO!!


rk

I see where you guys get your talking points.

In an interview taped on Jan. 29, 2010 with Gretchen Carlson for Fox and Friends, Rush Limbaugh made up another smear about Barack Obama:


I think this is the first time in his life that there's not a professor around to turn his C into an A, or to write the law review article for him he can't write. He is totally exposed. There is nobody to make it better. I think he's been covered for, all his life.

Author John K. Wilson looked into the matter, and this is what he found:


I asked some Harvard law professors about this charge. Laurence Tribe responded to me, "The allegation is absurd. Obama earned every one of his enormously high grades. ‘Affirmative action’ had nothing to do with his success there. He was the most impressive student and research assistant I have taught in my 40 years at Harvard."

Charles Fried, a Harvard Law Professor who served as Solicitor General during the Reagan Administration, wrote to me, "It’s paranoid nonsense. Grading is anonymous by a randomly generated exam number and it takes a vote of the faculty to change a grade."

This isn’t the first time Limbaugh has made the false allegation that Obama gained from favorable grading. In 2008, Limbaugh declared that Obama "probably didn’t get out of Harvard without affirmative action."

In reality, Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law, which meant that there would have needed to be a vast conspiracy to raise the grades of this unknown student. Limbaugh’s attack on Obama is particularly ironic coming from a man who flunked out of college and had his two books (and an earlier newspaper column) ghostwritten for him.

Limbaugh did not respond to my request for any evidence to support his accusation. Unfortunately, there’s no sign that the mainstream media will follow up. The Politico quoted Limbaugh’s claims without bothering to point out that they’re completely false, or asking him for any basis to support his allegation. Nor did Fox News Channel bother to ask Limbaugh about how he knows such things. It’s time for the media to follow up on Limbaugh’s lies, and also ask Republican officials if they embrace these ridiculous claims.

YardleyLabs
02-04-2010, 06:23 PM
And of course you being a shill for your almighty messiah, go along with this ignorant statement. Which only plays up the childish person you libs have placed in the White House.

Did any of you even bother to digest what was ruled on by the SCOTUS? Try this explanation:



"How about Obama's claim in his State of the Union address last week that a recent Supreme Court ruling would allow "foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections"?

In the case Obama mentioned, the court overruled section 441a of the campaign-finance law, which had banned all corporate spending on elections. The case did not concern, nor did the court address, section 441e, which prohibits foreign corporations from making any "contribution or donation of money or other thing of value ... in connection with a Federal, State or local election."

History will record that these remarks from his State of the Union address were the only case legendary barrister Barack Obama ever argued before the Supreme Court. And he lost."

That bit of information comes from a journalist that is published across the nation. Wanna bet that info has more value than anything you and your ilk are regurgitating, Yardley.

But then, we are to believe that all you spew around here is the facts and only the truth. Try again. Your first attempt was only what your party's talking points want you to repeat.

UB
Despite the wording of your post (or quote), Section 441e does not restrict corporate activities at all, only activities by foreign nationals. The only restriction on electioneering activities by foreign corporations were those in section 441b. (See http://openjurist.org/title-2/us-code/section-441-e/contributions-and-donations-by-foreign-nationals)

The full quote from the law, injudiciously excerpted by your soothsaying journalist, and noted above in red, reads:

"It shall be unlawful for
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;" (emphasis added)


The majority opinion noted in its opinion that it was not ruling one way or the other on whether it would be possible to prevent such spending by a foreign corporation. However, it overturned the only portion of the law that would prevent such spending. Thus, Obama's comment is accurate and your renowned journalist is full of BS.

EDIT: By the way, your post is one of the only ones I have ever read that suggests that Ann Coulter should be relied upon for anything having to do with factual accuracy.

Uncle Bill
02-05-2010, 02:11 PM
The majority opinion noted in its opinion that it was not ruling one way or the other on whether it would be possible to prevent such spending by a foreign corporation. However, it overturned the only portion of the law that would prevent such spending. Thus, Obama's comment is accurate and your renowned journalist is full of BS.

EDIT: By the way, your post is one of the only ones I have ever read that suggests that Ann Coulter should be relied upon for anything having to do with factual accuracy.


Hmmm...let me see now. When you become a 'published' writer in anything more than "Pictures R Us", or this BB, you might develope a following beyond the other liberal fanatics that lap up your bloviating.

Is there NO chance you'll ever be honest with your following mental midgets? All the squeeling from the socialists in Washington, including the lefty press that lost their monopoly on spewing editorial favoritism.

Now, rather than your socialist icons like George Soros pouring money into those "get-around-McCain-Feingold" 527 inventions for campaign donations, the field has gotten leveled. But that is never good enough for your ilk is it?

Like most leftists, you only favor 'selective' free speech. It will be fun to see my NRA have the opportunity to speak out as often as the NY Times, and Washington Post writers.

UB

YardleyLabs
02-05-2010, 02:59 PM
Hmmm...let me see now. When you become a 'published' writer in anything more than "Pictures R Us", or this BB, you might develope a following beyond the other liberal fanatics that lap up your bloviating.

Is there NO chance you'll ever be honest with your following mental midgets? All the squeeling from the socialists in Washington, including the lefty press that lost their monopoly on spewing editorial favoritism.

Now, rather than your socialist icons like George Soros pouring money into those "get-around-McCain-Feingold" 527 inventions for campaign donations, the field has gotten leveled. But that is never good enough for your ilk is it?

Like most leftists, you only favor 'selective' free speech. It will be fun to see my NRA have the opportunity to speak out as often as the NY Times, and Washington Post writers.

UB
I've actually been published in various journals as well as by the American Bankers Association and the Securities Industry Association, but have not sought to publish anything, other than photos, for many years. However, I am not a professional journalist or writer. Are you suggesting that being a journalist is now a credential for honesty?

I notice that for all the foam coming out of your mouth, you haven't put forward a single factual statement to contradict my post which demonstrated that Ann Coulter managed, yet again, to mangle the facts in her own bloviation.

By the way, free speech has always been selective, with conservatives normally leading the charge to prevent it. However, the notion that corporations have the status and rights of individuals is not only relatively new but would have horrified our forefathers. At the time the Constitution was adopted, corporations were generally distrusted. They could only be formed with the consent of the state and their activities were limited strictly to the terms of their charters. The notion of a corporation as an entity able to act with the rights of a citizen would have been abhorrent. With respect to leveling the field, Republican and conservative leaning groups have been very successful in raising and spending money through both PACS and 527's. Democrats have had a bit of an edge in 527's and Republicans with PACS. Until 2008, Republicans have been consistently successful in raising more money for elections than Democrats. 527's were also never a way of getting around McCain-Feingold; they were created by McCain-Feingold.

EDIT: To be clear, 527's are not permitted to do any electioneering and, if they do, fall under FEC regulation. Corporations, under McCain-Feingold, have been permitted to do unlimited advocacy activities using corporate funds, just like the 527's. Actually, corporations were also permitted to engage in electioneering activities -- prohibited for 527's -- except for the period 30 days prior to a Federal office primary or 60 days prior to a Federal office election. Such activities were prohibited for 527's and both MoveOn.org and Swift Boats were fined for violations. However, a Federal District court has raised questions about the restrictions on electioneering by the 527's and this challenge will probably go to the Supreme Court if the FEC appeals the district judgment (Unlikely to do so).

M&K's Retrievers
02-05-2010, 11:04 PM
I've actually been published in various journals as well as by the American Bankers Association and the Securities Industry Association, but have not sought to publish anything, other than photos, for many years. However, I am not a professional journalist or writer. Are you suggesting that being a journalist is now a credential for honesty?

I notice that for all the foam coming out of your mouth, you haven't put forward a single factual statement to contradict my post which demonstrated that Ann Coulter managed, yet again, to mangle the facts in her own bloviation.

By the way, free speech has always been selective, with conservatives normally leading the charge to prevent it. However, the notion that corporations have the status and rights of individuals is not only relatively new but would have horrified our forefathers. At the time the Constitution was adopted, corporations were generally distrusted. They could only be formed with the consent of the state and their activities were limited strictly to the terms of their charters. The notion of a corporation as an entity able to act with the rights of a citizen would have been abhorrent. With respect to leveling the field, Republican and conservative leaning groups have been very successful in raising and spending money through both PACS and 527's. Democrats have had a bit of an edge in 527's and Republicans with PACS. Until 2008, Republicans have been consistently successful in raising more money for elections than Democrats. 527's were also never a way of getting around McCain-Feingold; they were created by McCain-Feingold.

EDIT: To be clear, 527's are not permitted to do any electioneering and, if they do, fall under FEC regulation. Corporations, under McCain-Feingold, have been permitted to do unlimited advocacy activities using corporate funds, just like the 527's. Actually, corporations were also permitted to engage in electioneering activities -- prohibited for 527's -- except for the period 30 days prior to a Federal office primary or 60 days prior to a Federal office election. Such activities were prohibited for 527's and both MoveOn.org and Swift Boats were fined for violations. However, a Federal District court has raised questions about the restrictions on electioneering by the 527's and this challenge will probably go to the Supreme Court if the FEC appeals the district judgment (Unlikely to do so).

It's been my observation, Yardley, that when painted into a corner you eithor disappear or try to grind everyone down on this board with volumes of your bullshit. That's just my opinion but I could be wrong.

limiman12
02-06-2010, 02:23 AM
Julie,

First, I don’t consider myself as a liberal or conservative. I do not subscribe to the rhetoric of either ideology. I prefer to think for myself. Depending on the issue, my opinions may fall on side or the other, or somewhere in between. So, what someone else used as an avatar has nothing to do with me, and probably not much to do with what most other people are thinking. If that avatar had been adopted as a symbol of a “pro-Obama” movement, it would have much more relevance. However, it has not.

Are you actually saying Obama only got into Harvard because he is black? That’s crazy! Aren’t the overwhelming majority of the students at Harvard white? How did they get in? Contrary to what you believe, being black in America has never been an advantage! The fact is, Obama won the Democratic nomination and the presidency in spite of being black, not because of it.

Besides, why do you see the issue of race as relevant to this discussion?

Agree with ALMOST all of what you said,,,, BUt there was a significant portion of the US, especailly college students that wanted to be "part of history" by voting for the first non-totally white (remember raised by a WHITE family) and the AA's came out in "unprecidented" numbers to vote for him...

He played "just black enough" expertly, which goes to prove his intelligence and his ability to act in front of a crowd/camara

Jullie R....As for the idea that he is not a US citizen. FOX NEWS reported that there was a birth announcement in two seperat Hawaian papers reporting his birth. Give it up it makes all conservatives sound crazy!!!!

limiman12
02-06-2010, 02:30 AM
It appears the venue of the trial is being changed because of concerns over how it will impact the City of NY. Obviously, the administration did not anticipate the possible disruption to local business. So, they decided to move the trial. Does that constitute a mess?

.

Giving war criminals consittuional rights is not even popular with Dems

Spending 200 million dollars to defend someone that I wish the marines would have just put a bullet in their head

and not "forseeing" that a trial of this magnitude would disrupt local business shows a lot of insight....

kinda sounds like he is going to have a hard time getting this trial held somewhere else cause it is about as popular as taking prisoners from Guntanamo.


Obama was first (or one of first) introduced as a political canidate at a banquet/fundraiser at Ayres house. prettty sure I remmeber him doing legal work at somtime helping to get money to ACORN

limiman12
02-06-2010, 02:40 AM
Hi Joe,

Glad to see you back, it's actually good to see the Democrat viewpoint with humor and knowlege, even if you did slip to a lil Rogeresque Bush bashing.

In answer to your question,


Possibly not, but at least 43 has transcripts and a birth certificate that are not hidden within some Byzantine Da'Obama Code from those (from both sides) who sought to overturn the boulder and shed light on such things.

And though you didn't ask, what I meant by my comment that the Obama got where he is today in large part BECAUSE of rather than in spite of his skin color is exactly that: If he was white, he'd never have been the recipient of affirmative action/diversity preferential admissions treatment despite mediocre grades.

Nor would his shady background and the company he kept in Chi Town prior to and in the early days of his after-academia career have stood up under the scrutiny of the DNC during the nomination process had it not been shielded by the heart-warming cloak of the trump card. The trump card being the rallying cry of lefties everywhere to keep such scrutiny leashed:


"That's RACIST!"
http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smilies/racist.gif

Juli does have an excellent point here that the "race card" protected him from a lot of scrutiny. Who'd a thunk that the woman would be the one viewed as the establishment.....

Still gotta say thought the whole birth certificate thing is getting old....
Hell i don't know where mines is either ;-)

limiman12
02-06-2010, 03:01 AM
Any one that really think letting coorp's foreign or domestic buy as much tv time as they want to influence an election apparently either has interest in a tv station or wants politicians to really be in the pockets.....

Might be a blessing though, we will know where the money is coming from hopefully anyway, unless they set up shells to take the credit for a paid by segment....


I am for no tv ads at all, just have debates 2 times a week with a moderator that will cut you off if you aren't answering the questions and a simply fifty or so question on which side of which issues.... tell us what you BELIEVE not what you think we want to hear and then let us decide. Problem is too many people are too stupid to handle it, they are going to vote for the good looking guy that "inspires" them....


Back to the how/why he got elected......

Right before the election I had a patient start talking politics, a ten minute talk quoting 90% of the repub platform, then said oh yeah I love Obama, I am gonna vote for him cause he "inspires me" honest to God I about fell of my stool. Never mind what he believes, "He INPIRES me".....


The electoral college and teh nomination conventions themselves weer designe by our forfathers to protect us from people "gifted in the oratorical arts but with no real qualifications" (Paraphrased, geoge Will I believe) Over time the populous movement has doen away with some of the checks, the dems super delegates are supposed to be a check but most of them cave to their constituants.

Unfortunatly, for a lot of these reasons I do believe that our democracy is broken.........

Uncle Bill
02-06-2010, 12:44 PM
It's been my observation, Yardley, that when painted into a corner you eithor disappear or try to grind everyone down on this board with volumes of your bullshit. That's just my opinion but I could be wrong.


I believe you hit the nail on the head, as the "saying" goes.

You are witnessing a "dyed in the wool" Obama follower, almost identical to his icon.

Yardley is the epitome of an Obamaite...like Biden said, and I paraphrase, "clean and articulate."

Yes the Euridite Pennsylvania Liberal (EPL) is another messiah in his own eyes, like the one in the White House.

Neither are concerned about what happens to the nation they live in, only their own personal agrandizement.

While the dude in the White House is a know-nothing charleton, trying to pass himself off as God's gift to humanity, our Yardley is quite an accomplished wordsmith aimed at promoting to all his fawning followers at this so-called "tailgate" confab, his fathomless knowledge of all that's political.

While the Obama disciples ooh and aah at Yardley's wordy explanations, it's always amusing how those posts are primarily designed to promote Yardley, and his omniscient (if an atheist can have that attribute) view.
It's quite a knack. I applaud you for your perspicacity.

UB

dnf777
02-06-2010, 01:01 PM
Jeff does not need me or anyone else to defend him, but just for the record, I don't see him ever "self-aggrandizing" himself or anyone else for that matter. It is due to the constant attacks by some on this list, that some feel the need to state their credentials or experiences in justifying their observations or opinions.

I've come to see the pattern here, whereby most enjoy spirited debate and banter, sometimes with sharp edges, but all friendly at the close of the day. While the object here is not to change anyone's mind, I would hazard the position that it does happen sometimes. I for one have changed my opinion and hopes I held a mere year ago, not in any small part by the discussions and topics revealed here. There are one or two however, that offer nothing of substantial debate, but rather well-articulated (as if that somehow justifies or validates) personal attacks and smears.

During the thread of "what's your politics", I found that we're all not so different at all, even those who butt heads often, probably agree on more than not. One thing for certain I gathered from the "what do you do for a living" thread, is that everyone here is hard working, successful, and deserving of at least a modicum of respect and freedom from attacks on their personal accomplishments!

YardleyLabs
02-06-2010, 01:04 PM
It's been my observation, Yardley, that when painted into a corner you eithor disappear or try to grind everyone down on this board with volumes of your bullshit. That's just my opinion but I could be wrong.


I believe you hit the nail on the head, as the "saying" goes.

You are witnessing a "dyed in the wool" Obama follower, almost identical to his icon.

Yardley is the epitome of an Obamaite...like Biden said, and I paraphrase, "clean and articulate."

Yes the Euridite Pennsylvania Liberal (EPL) is another messiah in his own eyes, like the one in the White House.

Neither are concerned about what happens to the nation they live in, only their own personal agrandizement.

While the dude in the White House is a know-nothing charleton, trying to pass himself off as God's gift to humanity, our Yardley is quite an accomplished wordsmith aimed at promoting to all his fawning followers at this so-called "tailgate" confab, his fathomless knowledge of all that's political.

While the Obama disciples ooh and aah at Yardley's wordy explanations, it's always amusing how those posts are primarily designed to promote Yardley, and his omniscient (if an atheist can have that attribute) view.
It's quite a knack. I applaud you for your perspicacity.

UB

I would have to say that what strikes me most about posts by both of you is that the ideas and wording is almost never original, and that when challenged on your facts, you both resort to personal attacks as a first line of defense. If you reasoned your opinions based on facts, instead of rehashing the unfiltered claims of your own messianic leaders, you would not be caught out quite so often having repeated lies and nonsense.

Uncle Bill
02-06-2010, 01:14 PM
In the words of Limiman:"Unfortunatly, for a lot of these reasons I do believe that our democracy is broken........."

Not positive about the democracy, as is being proven by the various Tea parties.

But I am concerned about the form of republic on display. As is currently being foisted upon the electorate, we appear to be on the threshold of an oligarchy or fascism.

As more of the current Democrats get voted out of office, and replaced by more believers in the US constitution, the nation will return to it's more conservative roots.

It's my major concern, however, if the Obama-Reid-Pelosi policies are allowed to pass, there won't be a USA as we once knew it to salvage. God help what's being perpetrated on our future generations. That in itself is almost too grisly to contemplate.

As I've frequently warned, should this current administration have it's way, Humpty Dumpty won't be able to be put back together again. Atlas will have shrugged, and only the something-for-nothing crowd will be left to grovel and pick at what remains of a once great nation.

UB

Uncle Bill
02-06-2010, 01:43 PM
I would have to say that what strikes me most about posts by both of you is that the ideas and wording is almost never original, and that when challenged on your facts, you both resort to personal attacks as a first line of defense. If you reasoned your opinions based on facts, instead of rehashing the unfiltered claims of your own messianic leaders, you would not be caught out quite so often having repeated lies and nonsense.

Oh Ohhhh... I hate it when I'm not 'original' enough for you.

But when your right, your right...(which I realize is completely anathema to you), I copied that entire post from Ann Coulter. She is so clever in her admonishments I just couldn't resist. She is my tutor, so I just feed her ideas on what to say, and VOILA!

It gives me dynamite standing in the community.:rolleyes:

As to MY messianic leaders, I have but one that goes by the initials of J.C., and when refered to with that term, it's always capitalized...as in Messiah.

UB

PS Always fun to have your 'main man' so worried he couldn't resist siding with and protecting you from my 'unoriginal' post. Nice to see you policing the thread, dnf777. How's that "hope & change" working out for ya?

Blackstone
02-06-2010, 03:41 PM
Agree with ALMOST all of what you said,,,, BUt there was a significant portion of the US, especailly college students that wanted to be "part of history" by voting for the first non-totally white (remember raised by a WHITE family) and the AA's came out in "unprecidented" numbers to vote for him...

He played "just black enough" expertly, which goes to prove his intelligence and his ability to act in front of a crowd/camara

Jullie R....As for the idea that he is not a US citizen. FOX NEWS reported that there was a birth announcement in two seperat Hawaian papers reporting his birth. Give it up it makes all conservatives sound crazy!!!!

Unfortunately, there were those that voted for Obama because he is black. By the same token, there were those that voted against Obama for the same reason. However, you cannot account for the intelligence, or lack there of, of some people. Race should never be the deciding factor of whether or not you vote for a candidate. However, it often is.

I don’t think Obama played “just black enough” during his campaign. In fact, I think he went out of his way to keep race out of his campaign. I think it was the media (both mainstream and fringe) that was determine to make race an issue. Unfortunately, it still seems to be an issue with some people today, especially among his detractors.

Early on, there were a significant number of black people that thought Obama was not black enough to relate to their issues. I think that change, for the most part, as the campaign went on. However, I’m sure there are still some that feel that way.

Blackstone
02-06-2010, 07:45 PM
Giving war criminals consittuional rights is not even popular with Dems

Spending 200 million dollars to defend someone that I wish the marines would have just put a bullet in their head

and not "forseeing" that a trial of this magnitude would disrupt local business shows a lot of insight....

kinda sounds like he is going to have a hard time getting this trial held somewhere else cause it is about as popular as taking prisoners from Guntanamo.


Obama was first (or one of first) introduced as a political canidate at a banquet/fundraiser at Ayres house. prettty sure I remmeber him doing legal work at somtime helping to get money to ACORN

I agree that it was not the best decision to hold the trial in NY. His administration should have considered the possible consequences before making that decision. However, once the consequences were brought to his attention (and, I assume a little pressure was applied) he agreed to move the trial. I would be much more concerned if he had shown a total disregard for the citizenry of NY, and not backed down. At least, unlike some previous administrations, this one seems to at least consider what the American public thinks.

I looked around on the web for verification of Obama’s connection to Ayers. Here is what I found.

In 1995 Ayers hosted a “coffee” at his house at which then Illinois State Sen. Alice Palmer announced her plans to run for Congress, and introduced Obama to some of her long-time supporters as her chosen successor. According to a New York Times story, it was one of several neighborhood events held that year on Obama’s behalf. It was not the first, it was not a fundraiser.

Ayers donated $200 to Obama’s state senate re-election campaign in 2001.

Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund, a philanthropic organization in Chicago, from 1993 until 2002. Bill Ayers joined the board of the Fund in 1999.

Because they ran in some of the same political circles, I’m sure their paths crossed from time to time. That would not be unusual. However, I did not find anything to suggest any on going communication between the two or any meaningful association.

I once served on the board of a local organization with a guy that later murdered 2 people. I had been to his home for dinner. I had hunted and fished with him. I probably knew him much better than Obama knows Ayers. I didn’t condone what he did, and I don’t think the fact that I knew him should damage my reputation or credibility in any way. But, maybe someone else would see it differently.

ACORN appears to be a groups that originated with the intent to do good things fo certain communities. However, somewhere they went astray. There is obviously a connection between Obama and ACORN. He and two other attorneys represented ACORN in a 1995 federal civil lawsuit against the state of Illinois, and won. It also appears he hlped train ACORN nenbers as community organizers. I do not have a problem with any of that.

However, his campaign gave $800k to an ACORN front group during the primaries to help register voters. By then Obama had to be aware of the previous voter fraud issues with ACORN. However, Obama knew that the vast majority of voters ACORN would register would vote Democratic, and probably for him. It turns out that at least ½ of the registration applications turned in by ACORN in some areas were fradulant (dead people, fake address, etc.). However, there is a difference between voter registration applications and actual fraudulant voters. Nonetheless, I cannot condone or overlook Obama’s association with a group that operates in such a fashion. He should have stayed as far away from ACORN as he possibly could!

YardleyLabs
02-06-2010, 08:16 PM
Good post, Blackstone.

M&K's Retrievers
02-07-2010, 12:57 AM
.

He should have stayed as far away from ACORN as he possibly could!

Hmmmmm. Wonder why he didn't?

M&K's Retrievers
02-07-2010, 01:30 AM
I would have to say that what strikes me most about posts by both of you is that the ideas and wording is almost never original, and that when challenged on your facts, you both resort to personal attacks as a first line of defense. If you reasoned your opinions based on facts, instead of rehashing the unfiltered claims of your own messianic leaders, you would not be caught out quite so often having repeated lies and nonsense.

With the exception of a few referals to Rasmussen Polls, all my posts are my opinions which are based on my experiences in life, business, etc and not based on stats from government "studies" and pie charts you like to bore us with. They are certainly not lies nor nonsense and I don't appreciate you refering to them as such.

Blow it out your pompus arse regards

M&K's Retrievers
02-07-2010, 01:31 AM
Good post, Blackstone.

Even shorter....:rolleyes:

Terry Britton
02-07-2010, 01:33 AM
It is long and well established that members of the judiciary do not make public utterances or arguments. For this reason, they are essentially defenseless. President Obama should know this because he's an attorney.

President Obama lowered himself last night. Whether you agree or disagree with him or the Court in their recent decision, what he said about the Court was an absolute cheap shot. The Rep who called him a liar was out of bounds. However, that action pales compared to this. I don't know that a President has ever criticised the Court in a public forum such as last night.

Amongst anything else said about the President, he's a public bully.

Don't know what they can do except not come next time.

Eric

Since Obama is a licensed attorney, his Bar Association should go after him on ethical grounds, and either suspend his license to practice law or disbar him if that is true. I am for holding those with professional licenses accountable when their ethical actions do reflect on a profession. So, the question does become, will they actually do anything?

M&K's Retrievers
02-07-2010, 01:52 AM
Since Obama is a licensed attorney, his Bar Association should go after him on ethical grounds, and either suspend his license to practice law or disbar him if that is true. I am for holding those with professional licenses accountable when their ethical actions do reflect on a profession. So, the question does become, will they actually do anything?

Good luck with that.

Blackstone
02-07-2010, 12:53 PM
Since Obama is a licensed attorney, his Bar Association should go after him on ethical grounds, and either suspend his license to practice law or disbar him if that is true. I am for holding those with professional licenses accountable when their ethical actions do reflect on a profession. So, the question does become, will they actually do anything?

You may disagree with what Obama did, but there is nothing unethical enough in what he did to have him disbarred.

Blackstone
02-07-2010, 01:13 PM
Hmmmmm. Wonder why he didn't?

It's called politics. Both sides will pretty much do whatever it takes to get votes.

YardleyLabs
02-07-2010, 01:20 PM
Since Obama is a licensed attorney, his Bar Association should go after him on ethical grounds, and either suspend his license to practice law or disbar him if that is true. I am for holding those with professional licenses accountable when their ethical actions do reflect on a profession. So, the question does become, will they actually do anything?
I agree with Blackstone. What possible ethical breech are you discussing? Would you then disbar Alito for mouthing "That's not true" in defiance of Eric's beliief that Justicie's are "defenseless"? What about Alito's unprecedented refusal to attend the traditional pre-inaugural meeting of the Justices with the incoming President as a protest against the fact that Obama voted against his confirmation? Presidents and presidential candidates have been attacking Supreme Court decisions throughout our history, and Supreme Court Justices have acted politically throughout our history. Obama's attack was mild relative to many in the past. Similarly, Alito is perfectly within his rights in the ways he has expressed his own dislike of the President. It's simply no big deal.

M&K's Retrievers
02-07-2010, 01:42 PM
It's called politics. Both sides will pretty much do whatever it takes to get votes.

I'm afraid you are correct.

road kill
02-07-2010, 06:12 PM
I agree with Blackstone. What possible ethical breech are you discussing? Would you then disbar Alito for mouthing "That's not true" in defiance of Eric's beliief that Justicie's are "defenseless"? What about Alito's unprecedented refusal to attend the traditional pre-inaugural meeting of the Justices with the incoming President as a protest against the fact that Obama voted against his confirmation? Presidents and presidential candidates have been attacking Supreme Court decisions throughout our history, and Supreme Court Justices have acted politically throughout our history. Obama's attack was mild relative to many in the past. Similarly, Alito is perfectly within his rights in the ways he has expressed his own dislike of the President. It's simply no big deal.
So, by your reasoning, the standard of behavior for Supreme Court Justices and the office of the President of the Untited States are the same?


All-righty then!!:D



rk

dnf777
02-07-2010, 06:17 PM
So, by your reasoning, the standard of behavior for Supreme Court Justices and the office of the President of the Untited States are the same?


All-righty then!!:D



rk

I agree with what I think you're saying.

The whole event should be nominated for the BFD award.

YardleyLabs
02-07-2010, 06:21 PM
So, by your reasoning, the standard of behavior for Supreme Court Justices and the office of the President of the Untited States are the same?


All-righty then!!:D



rk
I believe both should be held to high ethical standards and that neither reached their positions by being choir boys..

BonMallari
02-07-2010, 08:54 PM
Remember Justice Alito has a lifetime term....BHO will be one term President ( thank goodness)

Terry Britton
02-07-2010, 09:36 PM
You may disagree with what Obama did, but there is nothing unethical enough in what he did to have him disbarred.

Well, lieing is unethical and should invovle some censorship of some sort. A second violation would mean disbarring. For some reason, either these ethical violations are not reported or not prosecuted. It is like a police officer letting one of his fellow buddies or mayor get by with speeding and running red lights. If it is documented (recorded on TV), and a complaint filed with the BAR, something would have to be done.

Is there not somone in Illinois sending the BAR complaints on Obama's ethical violations (lies) while he is in office? Making him come testify on oath on lies would force him to be the first honost politician, or he would go quiet.

JDogger
02-07-2010, 10:31 PM
I guess we all need some sort of dream to follow...

...and come fall 2010, and fall 2012. when the tide shifts, as it will, anyone on the left that is critical will be called unamerican, unpatriotic, and the partisan bickering will continue.

Will anything have really changed though? Politics ebb and flow, and really nothing will change.

If those on the extreme right, and those on the extreme left feel the cause is lost...what about the rest of us?

Maybe it's time to stop viewing politicians as the ones truly in charge.

JD

charly_t
02-07-2010, 11:18 PM
A distant family member sent an e-mail to me that her brother (I think) sent to her. I can't remember the whole thing but it said "no incumbent left behind" as part of it. It seemed like a good battle cry for most elections.

Blackstone
02-07-2010, 11:18 PM
Well, lieing is unethical and should invovle some censorship of some sort. A second violation would mean disbarring. For some reason, either these ethical violations are not reported or not prosecuted. It is like a police officer letting one of his fellow buddies or mayor get by with speeding and running red lights. If it is documented (recorded on TV), and a complaint filed with the BAR, something would have to be done.

Is there not somone in Illinois sending the BAR complaints on Obama's ethical violations (lies) while he is in office? Making him come testify on oath on lies would force him to be the first honost politician, or he would go quiet.

So, are you just going to enforce this with Obama, or are all politicians going to be held to this level of accountability? If so, you are not going to have many politicians left. If this is only going to be for presidents, please look back, and tell me which president in the last 40 years hasn’t lied while in office. To be fair, broken promises aren’t always lies. Sometimes politicians with good intentions find out they can’t accomplish what they set out to.

You must not have spent much time around police officers. I have been with a police officer that was stopped for speeding. He showed his badge, and was shown a “professional courtesy” and let go without a ticket. Life ain’t fair, is it?

BonMallari
02-07-2010, 11:38 PM
I guess we all need some sort of dream to follow...

...and come fall 2010, and fall 2012. when the tide shifts, as it will, anyone on the left that is critical will be called unamerican, unpatriotic, and the partisan bickering will continue.

Will anything have really changed though? Politics ebb and flow, and really nothing will change.

If those on the extreme right, and those on the extreme left feel the cause is lost...what about the rest of us?

Maybe it's time to stop viewing politicians as the ones truly in charge.

JD

I find myself agreeing with you on this statement...the extremes get all the ink and coverage and the majority of America rests in the middle, is it because they talk a good game but when it comes time to make their voice heard suddenly become apathetic, and dont vote thereby leaving up to whatever extreme gets more of their BASE involved :(

JDogger
02-08-2010, 12:02 AM
So, are you just going to enforce this with Obama, or are all politicians going to be held to this level of accountability? If so, you are not going to have many politicians left. If this is only going to be for presidents, please look back, and tell me which president in the last 40 years hasn’t lied while in office. To be fair, broken promises aren’t always lies. Sometimes politicians with good intentions find out they can’t accomplish what they set out to.

You must not have spent much time around police officers. I have been with a police officer that was stopped for speeding. He showed his badge, and was shown a “professional courtesy” and let go without a ticket. Life ain’t fair, is it?

No, it isn't Blackstone.
I recently served on a district court grand jury in my county. Everytime I entered the courthouse I had to empty my pockets, no cell phones, no magnetic money clips, no electronics of any kind, I-pods, MP3, etc. No pen knives on my key chain, no leatherman on my belt. No food or drink of any kind except the bottled water in the GJ waiting room.
The assistant DA's though, and the PO's, entered through a side door and were allowed to carry any and everything they wanted. PO's wore their sidearms, and even though I was encouraged to ask them questions...I faced armed respondents.
Sure, GJ targets are allowed to testify in their own behalf, but without counsel.
PO's though, have their counsel there, the assistant DA's.
The GJ system as it exists in many localities is very one-sided, and it exists to make things convenient for the court. ie; no need for preliminary hearings by a judge to busy to deal with it.

If this the standard by which the legal system deals at the local level, no wonder we're in trouble at the national level.

JD

Hew
02-08-2010, 12:21 AM
No, it isn't Blackstone.
I recently served on a district court grand jury in my county. Everytime I entered the courthouse I had to empty my pockets, no cell phones, no magnetic money clips, no electronics of any kind, I-pods, MP3, etc. No pen knives on my key chain, no leatherman on my belt. No food or drink of any kind except the bottled water in the GJ waiting room.
The assistant DA's though, and the PO's, entered through a side door and were allowed to carry any and everything they wanted. PO's wore their sidearms, and even though I was encouraged to ask them questions...I faced armed respondents.
Sure, GJ targets are allowed to testify in their own behalf, but without counsel.
PO's though, have their counsel there, the assistant DA's.
The GJ system as it exists in many localities is very one-sided, and it exists to make things convenient for the court. ie; no need for preliminary hearings by a judge to busy to deal with it.

If this the standard by which the legal system deals at the local level, no wonder we're in trouble at the national level.

JD
JD had to hike his dashiki to prove that he left his weed in the Volvo, therefore, the country's entire judicial system is a mess. That makes sense.

JDogger
02-08-2010, 01:07 AM
JD had to hike his dashiki to prove that he left his weed in the Volvo, therefore, the country's entire judicial system is a mess. That makes sense.

:lol::lol: well good. I knew it would make sense to someone here, Hoss.

YardleyLabs
02-08-2010, 06:28 AM
There has actually been a relatively continuous stream of complaints filed against Obama for violation of legal ethics since his candidacy for President began. Complaints have focused on his admitted drug use as noted in his first book, the fact that he had an unpaid fine of $400 at the time he filed his application for admission to the Bar, the manner in which he raised money on the Internet, the fact that he posted a "forged" birth certificate on his campaign web site, etc., etc. This has been part of a concerted political strategy of harassment to force the accused to incur costs and significant inconvenience to respond. Of course, a number of the complaints have been filed anonymously, as permitted by Illinois law, or by out of state attorneys, since in-state attorneys might find themselves facing similar ethics complaints for frivolous actions. This has created a separate legal case filed on behalf of anonymous filers since the state will not provide public updates of the status of investigations without identification of the filer. Given that the real purpose of the complaints is to be able to use docket numbers and filing quotes as "evidence" of corruption.

Roger Perry
02-08-2010, 04:27 PM
Well, lieing is unethical and should invovle some censorship of some sort. A second violation would mean disbarring. For some reason, either these ethical violations are not reported or not prosecuted. It is like a police officer letting one of his fellow buddies or mayor get by with speeding and running red lights. If it is documented (recorded on TV), and a complaint filed with the BAR, something would have to be done.

Is there not somone in Illinois sending the BAR complaints on Obama's ethical violations (lies) while he is in office? Making him come testify on oath on lies would force him to be the first honost politician, or he would go quiet.

Well, talking about lying Presidents, I would like to see GW Bush and Dick Cheney take the stand under oath to answer questions about their 8 years in office.

huntinman
02-08-2010, 04:33 PM
Well, talking about lying Presidents, I would like to see GW Bush and Dick Cheney take the stand under oath to answer questions about their 8 years in office.

Bush derangement syndrome reigns supreme! He's out of office, he's not coming back (although he would be better than the doofus we currently have). Time to get over Bush and realize we are stuck with what the hope and change revolution brought us.

Sundown49 aka Otey B
02-08-2010, 04:33 PM
Well, talking about lying Presidents, I would like to see GW Bush and Dick Cheney take the stand under oath to answer questions about their 8 years in office.

Well at least Roger they have done something besides being on TV and running their mouth about the same old stuff.

menmon
02-08-2010, 04:52 PM
Hugo Chavez playbook, Chicago Machine, Etc. This is the constant misrepresentation that the Becks of the world like to connect to someone they want to demonize. So the really mis-informed think they are bad because they don't understand the posturing of the political process, but they make the connection of him being a socialist and fasciest, when besides being false these are conflicting adjectives.

One may disagree with his politics, but don't even pretend that his isn't smart. The jury is still out on whether he will be effective, but this is the smartest man that sat in that oval office in my lifetime.

road kill
02-08-2010, 05:16 PM
Well, talking about lying Presidents, I would like to see GW Bush and Dick Cheney take the stand under oath to answer questions about their 8 years in office.

WTH....why stop there, let's get Obama to answer questions under oath as well!!:D



rk

Hew
02-08-2010, 05:19 PM
One may disagree with his politics, but don't even pretend that his isn't smart. The jury is still out on whether he will be effective, but this is the smartest man that sat in that oval office in my lifetime.
Maybe you should call a corpseman to treat your calloused knees. If you're a fallen hero living in any of our 57 states you may be eligible for bennies to cover the knee treatment. If you don't have coverage the treatment may be as expensive as OAR-e-on's Belt (you know, the famous constellation Orion, pronounced by us dummies who aren't in the same intellctual class as Obama as o-RYE-on).

huntinman
02-08-2010, 05:22 PM
Hugo Chavez playbook, Chicago Machine, Etc. This is the constant misrepresentation that the Becks of the world like to connect to someone they want to demonize. So the really mis-informed think they are bad because they don't understand the posturing of the political process, but they make the connection of him being a socialist and fasciest, when besides being false these are conflicting adjectives.

One may disagree with his politics, but don't even pretend that his isn't smart. The jury is still out on whether he will be effective, but this is the smartest man that sat in that oval office in my lifetime.

If he's so damn smart, how come a can't complete a sentence without his telepromter? Also, if he's so smart, how come he and his administration keep forming these circular firing squads? They can't seem to do anything right and it takes them at least 3 tries to get their story straight on every issue? Hell, at least Clinton could see when things were not working and change directions. Obambi is too petulant to admit when he's wrong.

Roger Perry
02-08-2010, 05:28 PM
WTH....why stop there, let's get Obama to answer questions under oath as well!!:D



rk

I'm all for it.

dnf777
02-08-2010, 05:53 PM
If he's so damn smart, how come a can't complete a sentence without his telepromter? Also, if he's so smart, how come he and his administration keep forming these circular firing squads? They can't seem to do anything right and it takes them at least 3 tries to get their story straight on every issue? Hell, at least Clinton could see when things were not working and change directions. Obambi is too petulant to admit when he's wrong.

He just did a Q&A in front of the republican caucus, where he embarassed them to the point they wish they hadn't allowed cameras in! All w/o a teleprompter. Ditto with the democrats. He now wants a joint Q&A. Wanna bet the republicans no-show?

If you're a republican, what you should be worried about, is that Dear Sarah will get your party's nomination! She pulled a third-grade stunt with her hand notes! That was hilarious!

Frankly, it would also rank for the BFD award, but its the fact SHE blasted Obama for using a teleprompter for speeches, when she can't remember THREE BULLET POINTS for a 5 minute interview!!!! Did you see her looking at her hand for those three elusive, forgetful points??

Please, but PLEASE restore my faith that there is intelligent life in the republican party by admitting that you were at least a LITTLE embarrassed by her performance! (or was this the 'gotchya media' again??!!)

I'll tell ya, the republican primary race is going to have more democrats contributing to Sarah Palin's run than teabaggers!

Just when I thought she couldn't get any worse......I mean better.....

Blackstone
02-08-2010, 06:03 PM
If he's so damn smart, how come a can't complete a sentence without his telepromter? Also, if he's so smart, how come he and his administration keep forming these circular firing squads? They can't seem to do anything right and it takes them at least 3 tries to get their story straight on every issue? Hell, at least Clinton could see when things were not working and change directions. Obambi is too petulant to admit when he's wrong.

He seemed to do okay without a telepromter when he answered questions by Republican Senators about a week ago. Whatever you might think of him as a president, he is certainly not a stupid man.

huntinman
02-08-2010, 06:10 PM
He seemed to do okay without a telepromter when he answered questions by Republican Senators about a week ago. Whatever you might think of him as a president, he is certainly not a stupid man.

I watched that and all he did was basically stick to his lame talking points and he looked like a little kid saying stop picking on me! His idea of bi-partisanship is "do it my way". He did succeed in getting all you libs excited that he made it through a 20 minute debate without a telepromter. first time for everything!

Buzz
02-08-2010, 07:20 PM
If you're a republican, what you should be worried about, is that Dear Sarah will get your party's nomination! She pulled a third-grade stunt with her hand notes! That was hilarious!

Frankly, it would also rank for the BFD award, but its the fact SHE blasted Obama for using a teleprompter for speeches, when she can't remember THREE BULLET POINTS for a 5 minute interview!!!!



Nothing like getting hoisted with your own petard.

Blackstone
02-08-2010, 07:22 PM
I watched that and all he did was basically stick to his lame talking points and he looked like a little kid saying stop picking on me! His idea of bi-partisanship is "do it my way". He did succeed in getting all you libs excited that he made it through a 20 minute debate without a telepromter. first time for everything!

Personally, I think he handled the debate pretty competently. You must know some pretty smart little kids!!! :rolleyes:

First, according to you, he wasn't smart enough to "complete a sentence without his telepromter." Now, it's no big deal that he could make it through a 20 minute debate without one. So, are you admitting you were wrong about him? ;) Actually, the debate was 1-1/2 hours long. But, how could that be? How could he have possibly made it through 90 minutes without a telepromter? It just boggles the mind, doesn't it? :p

I think you hear what you want to hear, and twist what he says in the way that best suits your opinion of him, whether it's realistic or not.

Buzz
02-08-2010, 07:25 PM
I watched that and all he did was basically stick to his lame talking points and he looked like a little kid saying stop picking on me! His idea of bi-partisanship is "do it my way". He did succeed in getting all you libs excited that he made it through a 20 minute debate without a telepromter. first time for everything!


I'll have what you're drinking. Must be good stuff.

huntinman
02-09-2010, 01:18 PM
I'll have what you're drinking. Must be good stuff.

I think it was some Lib Kool-Aid...just had an opposite effect on me.

Buzz
02-09-2010, 02:24 PM
I think it was some Lib Kool-Aid...just had an opposite effect on me.

Funny how much I missed arguing with you guys when RTF was down.:rolleyes:

M&K's Retrievers
02-09-2010, 02:42 PM
Funny how much I missed arguing with you guys when RTF was down.:rolleyes:

Didn't notice