Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is Sarah Palin actually a halfwit?

1235

Comments

  • #122
    Funglegunk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,566 ✭✭✭Funglegunk


    Interesting article on Palin for those interested, debunking any claims of her being a serious policy maker.


  • #123
    alejandro1977
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 505 ✭✭✭alejandro1977


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    A quick google of "Sarah Palin Press Conference" generates some question as to the accuracy of that statement.



    Another quick google for "Sarah palin interview 2011" also gives rise to question the accuracy of that statement, though I will stipulate that she talks to Fox most.

    NTM

    What version of Google are you running on your computer? :rolleyes:

    here's one of the "press conferences" she has given
    http://vodpod.com/watch/5114420-cnn-video-of-governor-palins-haiti-press-conference
    Unfortunately she didn't take any questions - usually a sine qua non of a press conference! Delivering remarks, or taking soft ball questions from a supporter is not a press conference in these here parts.

    I hope you don't have a job that requires looking at hard data rather than relying on ingrained assumptions. The ironic thing is that I'm one of the most right wing people I know, if you point out the obvious that Palin is not very smart and can't separate dogma (religious or otherwise) from fact then people assume you're an Obama loving leftie. Defend Obama from dog whistle smears, ditto.

    Huntsman seems like a together guy, Romney too (though his more interested in himself than others/the USA) but these guys especially Huntsman haven't a chance of getting the nomination.


    P.S. I was a McCain supporter in the 2000 cycle, what a sell out!
    Palin
    P.P.S. Here's what the journalists at Fox News really think of Sarah Palin - before Roger AIles decided it would be a great business move to put Caribou Barbie on TV for all the yokels to watch

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc


    Even Ailes now realises she would be a disaster

    http://nymag.com/news/media/roger-ailes-fox-news-2011-5/


  • #124
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    alejandro1977 wrote: »
    If you're looking for a black male lawyer who has benefitted from AA why not discuss Clarence Thomas, who unlike Obama was never elected to anything in his life but was handpicked to all appointments? Maybe you can tell us if you consider his appointment office to be legitimate? (to his credit his memoir is great, I recommend you read it)

    Nice one.

    That supreme court justices are immune from the same standards of behavior that regular judges are subject to is simply corrupt.


  • #125
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Amerika wrote: »
    No… but if we’re to assume intelligence is dictated by attending a Ivy League school with good credentials, then achieving both a Yale & Harvard degree trumps a Harvard only degree (as we know those other colleges don’t really count ;)).
    This is a complete moot point when you consider the fact that Barack Obama was an editor of the Harvard Law Review, graduated magna cum laude, became the first black President of the Harvard Law Review and is one of the top Constitutional and Civil Rights lawyers in the United States.

    I don't give a shít who you are talking about, that's an impressive C.V.


  • #126
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Overheal wrote: »
    So as I expected, you are acting like a dick and not actually interested in a discussion. Because if you actually wanted to talk about his affirmative action, why not come out and simply say so? Why spend 2 days trolling the thread before making the point you were actually interested in making? It was painstakingly obvious you had something to say about his acceptance into Harvard and now you finally come out with it? Only after you had baited a few people right. You're trolling, you're not actually interested in the discourse.

    I listed several possible reasons. I had no intention on focusing on just one as they are all equally valid possibilities discussed by the news media… ya’ll did that. I must admit though that although I had high hopes, prior experiences of seeing the level of unfounded personal attacks one side seems to consider a Right, my expectations were low.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    This is a complete moot point when you consider the fact that Barack Obama was an editor of the Harvard Law Review, graduated magna cum laude, became the first black President of the Harvard Law Review and is one of the top Constitutional and Civil Rights lawyers in the United States.

    I don't give a shít who you are talking about, that's an impressive C.V.

    was an editor of the Harvard Law Review - Kudos

    graduated magna cum laude - Kudos

    became the first black President of the Harvard Law Review - Kudos

    and is one of the top Constitutional and Civil Rights lawyers in the United States - How do you figure that? From most of the infromation I've researched, he was an anti-constitutionalist Professor, and a shake down artist as a Civil Rights lawyer. Please enlighten me.


  • #128
    Drumpot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    BrerWolf wrote: »
    No she's not.

    Being unable to talk to camera (hell even to other people) does not mean that she's a halfwit.


    However, she is manipulative and dangerous.
    totally willing to use any cause/issue to promote herself.

    If she was a halfwit, we would never have heard of her.

    Actually I dont think this is the case. In America, the people behind the president are nearly more important then the competency of the President themself.

    I have a good friend living in NYC for over a decade who loves American politics. And I believe him when he says that when the Americans had a choice of re-electing Bush or going for John Carey, in many cases people were intimidated by Carey's intellectual use of big words and in depth answers on his policies. In truth, they like Bush's layman/poorly defined explanations of things he didnt really understand, because he didnt make them feel stupid.

    Half wit might be a bit strong, but you only need to be popular with a large section of society to be a potential presidential candidate in most countries. Intelligence is of secondary importance.


  • #129
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Amerika wrote: »
    was an editor of the Harvard Law Review - Kudos

    graduated magna cum laude - Kudos

    became the first black President of the Harvard Law Review - Kudos

    and is one of the top Constitutional and Civil Rights lawyers in the United States - How do you figure that? From most of the infromation I've researched, he was an anti-constitutionalist Professor, and a shake down artist as a Civil Rights lawyer. Please enlighten me.
    http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/mar/07/obamas-20-years-experience

    He was counsel at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 12-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development. (http://www.lawmbg.com/index.cfm/PageID/2711)
    http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/02/20/obama_got_start_in_civil_rights_practice
    http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/700499,CST-NWS-Obama-law17.article
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chi-obama-chicago-htmlstory,0,506256.htmlstory


  • #130
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Amerika wrote: »
    From most of the infromation I've researched, he was an anti-constitutionalist Professor, and a shake down artist as a Civil Rights lawyer. Please enlighten me.

    Step one in enlightenment is to quote your sources.


  • #131
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/mar/07/obamas-20-years-experience

    He was counsel at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 12-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development. (http://www.lawmbg.com/index.cfm/PageID/2711)
    http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/02/20/obama_got_start_in_civil_rights_practice
    http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/700499,CST-NWS-Obama-law17.article
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chi-obama-chicago-htmlstory,0,506256.htmlstory

    This does not sound like a constitutional professor to me, but rather an anti-constitutional one: "And to the extent as radical I think as people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted. The Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. It says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."

    Did not ACORN hire Barack Obama to train their staff to target Chicago banks with the CRA laws, forcing them to make unsound loans, the type of loans that crippled our economy? And did he not funnel money to them through the Woods fund when he sat on its board?

    Regardless, how does any of what you linked classify him as a “TOP” Constitutional and Civil Rights lawyer?


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Amerika wrote: »
    This does not sound like a constitutional professor to me, but rather an anti-constitutional one...

    Its really more of a specialization rather than a pro and anti thing.

    For instance, despite the name, a "criminal Lawyer" isnt actually a criminal.

    Although some might disagree...

    :cool:


  • #133
    Mjollnir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 888 ✭✭✭Mjollnir


    Amerika wrote: »
    was an editor of the Harvard Law Review - Kudos

    graduated magna cum laude - Kudos

    became the first black President of the Harvard Law Review - Kudos

    and is one of the top Constitutional and Civil Rights lawyers in the United States - How do you figure that? From most of the infromation I've researched, he was an anti-constitutionalist Professor, and a shake down artist as a Civil Rights lawyer. Please enlighten me.

    Yawn. Tell you what: why don't name the information/sources you've 'researched', and detail how it indicates he's 'anti-constitutionalist' and a 'shake-down artist'.

    For once in your time here, try actually backing up what you're braying about.

    I won't hold my breath.


  • #134
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,727 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    From most of the infromation I've researched, he was an anti-constitutionalist Professor, and a shake down artist as a Civil Rights lawyer. Please enlighten me.
    I have to agree with the rest of the forum: If you've done this research, maybe you're the one who needs to do some enlightening. But I am aware trolls think the onus is on other people to verify their own claims on their behalf.


  • #135
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Mjollnir wrote: »
    Yawn. Tell you what: why don't name the information/sources you've 'researched', and detail how it indicates he's 'anti-constitutionalist' and a 'shake-down artist'.

    For once in your time here, try actually backing up what you're braying about.

    I won't hold my breath.
    Overheal wrote: »
    I have to agree with the rest of the forum: If you've done this research, maybe you're the one who needs to do some enlightening. But I am aware trolls think the onus is on other people to verify their own claims on their behalf.

    First, Overheal, prove your "troll" claim against me.

    Okay then, moving on... Real nice! Complain first, ask second? If you wanted information/links, all you had to do was ask. I see no reason why I have to always provide backup for my opinions -- up front. God knows ya'll (except for Black_Swan) almost never do. But never fear, I sure will be asking for them going forward. And as for responses to my requests, I'll quote another: "I won't hold my breath."


    Onto business:
    A couple of audios from Obama himself regarding his view of the US Constitution:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_xNyrzB0xI&feature=related

    An interview showing Obama’s disdain for the Constitution.
    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102708/content/01125107.guest.html

    Can you deny the following, which are indications that Barack Obama has anti-liberty, anti-Constitution goals.
    * He wants to deny individuals access to the marketplace --where they can make their own decisions about their own health care -- and instead put the government entirely in charge.
    * He's willing to give government control over American businesses (e.g., the bank takeovers and Government Motors).
    * His administration, while on record as opposing the Fairness Doctrine, is aggressively exploring a backdoor regulatory scheme that would have precisely the same practical effect as the Fairness Doctrine: it would impose government restrictions on content, rather than allowing the market (that means us, the consumers) to control content.
    * His FCC wants to control the internet, a humming beehive of free speech (much of it critical of Obama).
    * As his loud battles with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News illustrate, he desires a single-party press, not a free one.
    * He believes that now that he is in power, the opposition should shut up and "get out of the way," a notion that runs directly counter to the First Amendment.
    * Although he's mostly erased the record that once existed in cyberspace, his dream is to create a civilian national security force, subordinate to the administration, which would be larger than the American military. The military, please note, is controlled by the Constitution and has traditionally existed separate from, but subordinate to, the rest of the American government.
    * He wants to take away the right to bear arms. He'll pay lip service to supporting the Second Amendment, but his fundamental goal is to use government to remove arms from individuals.
    * In a stunning blow to the freedom of born alive infants, he is one of a handful of politicians nationwide who believes it is appropriate to leave such infants to die alone and untended. With few exceptions, even those whose politics are entirely colored by a pro-choice viewpoint couldn't swallow this approach.
    * Without money, people have no choices. The more money the government siphons to itself, the fewer choices we as individuals have. Although he dresses it as fairness (it's "fair" for the "lucky" to pay substantially more), Obama believes that it's government's role to "spread the wealth." That may be "fair," but it's not consistent with liberty, hard work, and individual choices.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/is_barack_obama_antiamerican.html


    Next.

    In his days prior to politics, Obama, leaned on banks and even sued them in order to force banks to make bad loans under the Community Reinvestment Act which – which as we all know was a major factor in causing the economic crisis we now face.
    http://www.mediacircus.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/FH-IL-0011-9000.pdf
    (you will note Barack Obama as being part of the lawsuit)

    Obama acknowledging that that giving sub-prime loans to people who couldn’t afford them is a good idea.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FewmvkaTXHU&feature=player_embedded

    Barack Obama in his legal profession capacity utilized:
    intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America’s financial institutions.

    The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN’s Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards.
    http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/
    Also:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/acorn_obama_and_the_mortgage_m.html
    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/30/video-stanley-kurtz-on-obama-acorn-and-the-cra/

    From this research, I conclude Obama utilized tactics which are consistent with what is considered to be a “shake down artist.”


  • #136
    Mjollnir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 888 ✭✭✭Mjollnir


    Amerika wrote: »
    First, Overheal, prove your "troll" claim against me.

    Okay then, moving on... Real nice! Complain first, ask second? If you wanted information/links, all you had to do was ask. I see no reason why I have to always provide backup for my opinions -- up front. God knows ya'll (except for Black_Swan) almost never do. But never fear, I sure will be asking for them going forward. And as for responses to my requests, I'll quote another: "I won't hold my breath."

    You whine really well.

    Onto business:
    A couple of audios from Obama himself regarding his view of the US Constitution:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_xNyrzB0xI&feature=related

    Neither of which indicate that he's 'anticonstitutionalist'. It is a flawed document. That's why there are Amendments past the 10th. Pity that salient fact is lost on you.

    An interview showing Obama’s disdain for the Constitution.
    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102708/content/01125107.guest.html

    Which, again, does nothing to establish that he's 'anticonstitutionalist'.

    Can you deny the following, which are indications that Barack Obama has anti-liberty, anti-Constitution goals.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/is_barack_obama_antiamerican.html

    Yes, I deny the above, as does anyone with even a shred of intellectual honesty. That, clearly, doesn't include you.

    Next.

    In his days prior to politics, Obama, leaned on banks and even sued them in order to force banks to make bad loans under the Community Reinvestment Act which – which as we all know was a major factor in causing the economic crisis we now face.
    http://www.mediacircus.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/FH-IL-0011-9000.pdf
    (you will note Barack Obama as being part of the lawsuit)

    Obama acknowledging that that giving sub-prime loans to people who couldn’t afford them is a good idea.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FewmvkaTXHU&feature=player_embedded

    Barack Obama in his legal profession capacity utilized:

    http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/
    Also:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/acorn_obama_and_the_mortgage_m.html
    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/30/video-stanley-kurtz-on-obama-acorn-and-the-cra/

    After wading through that nonsense, none of if actually supports your direct claim. I can't say that I'm surprised.

    From this research, I conclude Obama utilized tactics which are consistent with what is considered to be a “shake down artist.”

    Perhaps the problem lies in that you're using words that you clearly don't understand.


  • #137
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,727 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Amusing.
    * He wants to deny individuals access to the marketplace --where they can make their own decisions about their own health care -- and instead put the government entirely in charge.
    Where do we have this in the Health Care legislation? I'm familiar with Single Payer Mandate and all that, but not this idea that Government will be in complete control of Health Care. That's along the same lines of saying the FAA is entirely in charge of air travel; a claim which is not exactly true, either. And plebs certainty get to chose whom they fly with. So I have my doubts about this claim as well.
    * He's willing to give government control over American businesses (e.g., the bank takeovers and Government Motors).
    Controls perhaps, balances and checks. Not control. There's a difference. One implies that the government is micro-managing the plants and giving out to Sally for being 3 days late last week.
    * His administration, while on record as opposing the Fairness Doctrine, is aggressively exploring a backdoor regulatory scheme that would have precisely the same practical effect as the Fairness Doctrine: it would impose government restrictions on content, rather than allowing the market (that means us, the consumers) to control content.
    "That means us." No, in a good chunk of cases, that means Rupert Murdoch. There are problems with the free market. That's why the free market isn't free. That's why Antitrust and Monopoly laws are on the books.
    * His FCC wants to control the internet, a humming beehive of free speech (much of it critical of Obama).
    I'm sure they'd love to, for all the practicality of it. It's not a sudden new goal of Obama's though. Control of the internet has been desired for a long long time. They just used to talk about it as Internet 2.0, not Fairness Doctrine.
    * As his loud battles with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News illustrate, he desires a single-party press, not a free one.
    Thick hypocrisy in your rag's statement there. Fox is a single-party press.
    * He believes that now that he is in power, the opposition should shut up and "get out of the way," a notion that runs directly counter to the First Amendment.
    That's a stretch. And an omission,

    "We've got some work to do. I don't mind, by the way, being responsible. I expect to be held responsible for these issues because I'm the president," Obama said. "But I don't want the folks that created the mess -- I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.

    "I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking," Obama said.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/07/obama-tells-economic-critics-way#ixzz1QCr37giJ
    * Although he's mostly erased the record that once existed in cyberspace, his dream is to create a civilian national security force, subordinate to the administration, which would be larger than the American military. The military, please note, is controlled by the Constitution and has traditionally existed separate from, but subordinate to, the rest of the American government.
    Wow, you really buy into this **** don't you? How convenient that there allegedly isn't a shred of evidence to back this garbage up with.
    * He wants to take away the right to bear arms. He'll pay lip service to supporting the Second Amendment, but his fundamental goal is to use government to remove arms from individuals.
    Hmm a quote from the presidential race which then goes on to cite something he agreed on, and subsequently disavowed as a young man about 15 years ago. I'll get my coat, clearly we don't have much time to buy up firearms.
    * In a stunning blow to the freedom of born alive infants, he is one of a handful of politicians nationwide who believes it is appropriate to leave such infants to die alone and untended. With few exceptions, even those whose politics are entirely colored by a pro-choice viewpoint couldn't swallow this approach.
    Because the vast majority of born alive children will lead such good lives after a failed attempt at induced abortion? I can understand both sides of that issue. But I hardly see how either side of the issue attackes liberty or constitutionalism.
    * Without money, people have no choices. The more money the government siphons to itself, the fewer choices we as individuals have. Although he dresses it as fairness (it's "fair" for the "lucky" to pay substantially more), Obama believes that it's government's role to "spread the wealth." That may be "fair," but it's not consistent with liberty, hard work, and individual choices.
    Are your brainwashers still hanging onto that line from the campaign?

    Have to say I am unimpressed. Both that it was hardly worth the time spent refuting that pile of nonsense and the other that you don't seem to have your own editorial about these issues so you copy and paste someone else's from your absurd thought-master.


  • #138
    Mjollnir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 888 ✭✭✭Mjollnir


    Overheal wrote: »
    Amusing.

    Where do we have this in the Health Care legislation? I'm familiar with Single Payer Mandate and all that, but not this idea that Government will be in complete control of Health Care. That's along the same lines of saying the FAA is entirely in charge of air travel; a claim which is not exactly true, either. And plebs certainty get to chose whom they fly with. So I have my doubts about this claim as well. Controls perhaps, balances and checks. Not control. There's a difference. One implies that the government is micro-managing the plants and giving out to Sally for being 3 days late last week."That means us." No, in a good chunk of cases, that means Rupert Murdoch. There are problems with the free market. That's why the free market isn't free. That's why Antitrust and Monopoly laws are on the books.I'm sure they'd love to, for all the practicality of it. It's not a sudden new goal of Obama's though. Control of the internet has been desired for a long long time. They just used to talk about it as Internet 2.0, not Fairness Doctrine.Thick hypocrisy in your rag's statement there. Fox is a single-party press. That's a stretch. And an omission,

    "We've got some work to do. I don't mind, by the way, being responsible. I expect to be held responsible for these issues because I'm the president," Obama said. "But I don't want the folks that created the mess -- I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.

    "I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking," Obama said.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/07/obama-tells-economic-critics-way#ixzz1QCr37giJ
    Wow, you really buy into this **** don't you? How convenient that there allegedly isn't a shred of evidence to back this garbage up with. Hmm a quote from the presidential race which then goes on to cite something he agreed on, and subsequently disavowed as a young man about 15 years ago. I'll get my coat, clearly we don't have much time to buy up firearms.Because the vast majority of born alive children will lead such good lives after a failed attempt at induced abortion? I can understand both sides of that issue. But I hardly see how either side of the issue attackes liberty or constitutionalism.Are your brainwashers still hanging onto that line from the campaign?

    Have to say I am unimpressed. Both that it was hardly worth the time spent refuting that pile of nonsense and the other that you don't seem to have your own editorial about these issues so you copy and paste someone else's from your absurd thought-master.

    ** crickets **


  • #139
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    That post was a response for a list of my “sources” for which I base my opinion Overheal. And I did that. Now you wish to move the goalposts? (That's okay... I've done it myself on occassion. ;))
    Overheal wrote: »
    Amusing.
    Where do we have this in the Health Care legislation? I'm familiar with Single Payer Mandate and all that, but not this idea that Government will be in complete control of Health Care.
    He would prefer to have a Single Payer Mandate. That means payments to doctors for the types of services, and who they can be provided to, are controlled by the government by means of holding the purse strings.
    Controls perhaps, balances and checks. Not control. There's a difference. One implies that the government is micro-managing the plants and giving out to Sally for being 3 days late last week.
    Firing a company’s CEO and giving their majority stock to the labor union is "control."
    "That means us." No, in a good chunk of cases, that means Rupert Murdoch. There are problems with the free market. That's why the free market isn't free. That's why Antitrust and Monopoly laws are on the books.
    "Justice Warren Berger wrote a unanimous opinion for the Supreme Court in 1974 saying “Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.”

    In 1984 the Supreme Court stated that expanding sources of communication made the Fairness Doctrine unnecessary."
    http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/?p=4676
    I'm sure they'd love to, for all the practicality of it. It's not a sudden new goal of Obama's though.
    Looks like you’ve backed up that point.
    Thick hypocrisy in your rag's statement there. Fox is a single-party press. That's a stretch. And an omission
    The impartial CMPA study contradicts what you claim there.
    http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html
    "We've got some work to do. I don't mind, by the way, being responsible. I expect to be held responsible for these issues because I'm the president," Obama said. "But I don't want the folks that created the mess -- I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.
    "I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking," Obama said.
    Thanks for substantiating that.
    Wow, you really buy into this **** don't you? How convenient that there allegedly isn't a shred of evidence to back this garbage up with.
    Ooooooops.
    “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” – Barack Obama
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
    Happy?
    Hmm a quote from the presidential race which then goes on to cite something he agreed on, and subsequently disavowed as a young man about 15 years ago. I'll get my coat, clearly we don't have much time to buy up firearms.
    Yup, you better. I already have.
    http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin507.htm
    Because the vast majority of born alive children will lead such good lives after a failed attempt at induced abortion?
    So it’s not life, but the quality of life that matters? Who’s next… the elderly, the mentally ill, republicans?
    Are your brainwashers still hanging onto that line from the campaign?
    I do sometimes agree with Obama… “Words have meaning.”


  • #140
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,727 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Amerika wrote: »
    That post was a response for a list of my “sources” for which I base my opinion Overheal.
    And it wasn't a source, it was an opinionated rag.
    He would prefer to have a Single Payer Mandate. That means payments to doctors for the types of services, and who they can be provided to, are controlled by the government by means of holding the purse strings.
    So I can't choose my own insurance? My own Doctor? My own Hospital?
    Firing a company’s CEO and giving their majority stock to the labor union is "control."
    Wouldn't that leave it in control of the Union, not the Government?
    "Justice Warren Berger wrote a unanimous opinion for the Supreme Court in 1974 saying “Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.”

    In 1984 the Supreme Court stated that expanding sources of communication made the Fairness Doctrine unnecessary."
    http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/?p=4676
    And yet we still have Antitrust and Monopoly laws.
    Looks like you’ve backed up that point.
    And it looks like you've evaded it: it's been a government objective since the Web came into populace. There is no news there. It has no special bearing on the office of the president.
    The impartial CMPA study contradicts what you claim there.
    http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html
    Got anything less dated than November 2009? I have clips from a recent interview FOX did of Jon Stewart where they admit that they tell "The other side of the story". Not the balanced portion of it. I also have another fun clip Stewart did a couple days later involving FOX and Politifact.
    Ooooooops.
    “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” – Barack Obama
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
    Happy?
    Is that all? A campaign promise in a town hall? Hell I have Hillary talking like a hillbilly too. Does that mean she's a secret redneck? If you have any proof that this 20 second clip is currently part of the White House ambitions today, please let us know.
    Yup, you better. I already have.
    http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin507.htm
    2009, was that a good year for Merlot or something? What is currently on the table regarding Gun Controls?
    So it’s not life, but the quality of life that matters? Who’s next… the elderly, the mentally ill, republicans?
    Not that I wouldn't place Republicans, the Mentally Ill, and the Elderly in the same room, but an underdeveloped fetus/newborn is certainly a whole lot different than that. I suppose if it you like to prolong the torture of small things.
    I do sometimes agree with Obama… “Words have meaning.”
    Not when they're pasted from Right-wing extremism blogs apparently.


  • #141
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Overheal wrote: »
    And it wasn't a source, it was an opinionated rag.
    That's just your opinion.
    So I can't choose my own insurance? My own Doctor? My own Hospital?
    Not in a single payer system... unless you consider having to wait sometimes for years (or after you die of your illness) as being able to see your own doctor. Regardless, the point is that this is what Obama prefers.
    Wouldn't that leave it in control of the Union, not the Government?
    And yet we still have Antitrust and Monopoly laws.
    If I stole your car and gave it (under suspect methods) to a Childrens Hospital, would you claim the Childrens Hospital stole your car?
    And it looks like you've evaded it: it's been a government objective since the Web came into populace. There is no news there. It has no special bearing on the office of the president.
    Sure it does if Obama gets the power to shut it down. and remember, we're talking "his inclination" here when talking about what I originally responded to.
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-can-shut-down-internet-for-4-months-under-new-emergency-powers/
    I don't recall his objection to this, do you?
    Got anything less dated than November 2009? I have clips from a recent interview FOX did of Jon Stewart where they admit that they tell "The other side of the story". Not the balanced portion of it. I also have another fun clip Stewart did a couple days later involving FOX and Politifact. Is that all? A campaign promise in a town hall? Hell I have Hillary talking like a hillbilly too. Does that mean she's a secret redneck? If you have any proof that this 20 second clip is currently part of the White House ambitions today, please let us know.
    So Fox was fair and balanced in 2009, but not since? And I'll quote Jon Stewart for you since you seem to put him in such high regard as a political expert:

    "I’m not an activist. I’m a comedian"
    “The embarrassment is that I’m given credibility in this world"
    2009, was that a good year for Merlot or something? What is currently on the table regarding Gun Controls?
    I think somebody other than me has been hitting the Merlot a little too hard. And what does it matter if anything is on the table currently. Do you not think he favors strict gun control? Try to stay on course.
    Not that I wouldn't place Republicans, the Mentally Ill, and the Elderly in the same room, but an underdeveloped fetus/newborn is certainly a whole lot different than that. I suppose if it you like to prolong the torture of small things.
    A little coherency please (or a little less Merlot).
    Not when they're pasted from Right-wing extremism blogs apparently.
    You start with opinion, and end with opinion (and just about everything in-between). At least you're consistent.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,727 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    That's just your opinion.
    And that's just theirs.
    Not in a single payer system... unless you consider having to wait sometimes for years (or after you die of your illness) as being able to see your own doctor. Regardless, the point is that this is what Obama prefers.
    So you're saying, under Obamacare, I can't Choose my Own Insurance, or my own Doctor, or my own Hospital?
    If I stole your car and gave it (under suspect methods) to a Childrens Hospital, would you claim the Childrens Hospital stole your car?
    Well, the Children's Hospital would certainly be in possession of my car...
    Sure it does if Obama gets the power to shut it down. and remember, we're talking "his inclination" here when talking about what I originally responded to.
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/oba...rgency-powers/
    I don't recall his objection to this, do you?
    Now you're talking about something completely different. I will assume you have nothing to add to the original point. The internet 'kill switch' is not the same issue as Web 2.0
    So Fox was fair and balanced in 2009, but not since? And I'll quote Jon Stewart for you since you seem to put him in such high regard as a political expert:

    "I’m not an activist. I’m a comedian"
    “The embarrassment is that I’m given credibility in this world"
    I never said he was a political expert. And I'm perfectly aware that he finds his own credibility amusing. The man has a passion for pointing out idiocrisy. If there was no idiocrisy there would be no reason to lend Stewart credibility. This is what he is talking about; he's been saying the same thing for years. If politicians and the media did nothing noteworthy to say that they did what they were supposed to, Stewart would gladly retire I feel.
    And what does it matter if anything is on the table currently. Do you not think he favors strict gun control? Try to stay on course.
    Maybe he does, but since nothing is being done about it what relevance does this have to the conversation?
    A little coherency please
    I think that's pretty clear. If you need clarification on a specific point just let me know.
    At least you're consistent.
    Thanks. I like to clearly distinguish provided facts from derived opinion, good to know that's happening.


  • #143
    alejandro1977
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 505 ✭✭✭alejandro1977


    Amerika:


    Do you realise that GM was bankrupt? And that the retirees are also debtors? And that the the US Gov has been divesting the shares quickly?

    It's not the first car company in the world to be taken over by a government to stave off bankruptcy.

    Equity holders always get hosed in an insolvency. Get over it. If you have McCain's/Bush's secret plans for GM feel free to publish


  • #144
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    alejandro1977 wrote: »
    Amerika:


    Do you realise that GM was bankrupt? And that the retirees are also debtors? And that the the US Gov has been divesting the shares quickly?

    It's not the first car company in the world to be taken over by a government to stave off bankruptcy.

    Equity holders always get hosed in an insolvency. Get over it. If you have McCain's/Bush's secret plans for GM feel free to publish

    Bush is no longer president, and McCain/Palin didn't happen. But if you want an answer from a conservative perspective, Chapter 11 bankruptcy (reorganization) is the answer. And oh, which is what happened anyway on June 1, 2009, even with the billions of taxpayer dollars spent to payback the labor unions for their support of the Democratic party. Do some get hurt in the process... Yes! Did the actions of many of those same "some" contribute to the financial shape of GM... Yes!


  • #145
    alejandro1977
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 505 ✭✭✭alejandro1977


    Amerika wrote: »
    Bush is no longer president, and McCain/Palin didn't happen. But if you want an answer from a conservative perspective, Chapter 11 bankruptcy (reorganization) is the answer. And oh, which is what happened anyway on June 1, 2009, even with the billions of taxpayer dollars spent to payback the labor unions for their support of the Democratic party. Do some get hurt in the process... Yes! Did the actions of many of those same "some" contribute to the financial shape of GM... Yes!



    Just curious - did you approve of the Loans the Socialist Bush Adminsitration gave to GM?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization
    in December 2008 the Bush administration provided a "bridge loan" to General Motors with the requirement of a revised business plan. It said it needed $4.6 billion in loans within weeks, from the $18 billion it had already requested, and an additional $12 billion in financial support in order to stave off bankruptcy. On Feb. 26, 2009, General Motors announced that its cash reserves were down to $14 billion at the end of 2008. G.M. lost $30.9 billion, or $53.32 a share, in 2008 and spent $19.2 billion of its cash reserves. Mr. Wagoner met with President Obama’s auto task force, and the company said that it could not survive much longer without additional government loans.
    On the March 30, 2009 deadline President Barack Obama declined to provide financial aid to General Motors, and requested that General Motors produce credible plans, saying that the company's proposals had avoided tough decisions, and that Chapter 11 bankruptcy appeared the most promising way to reduce its debts, by allowing the courts to compel bondholders and trade unions into settlements. GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner was also forced to resign. GM bondholders rejected the government's first offer, but the unions agreed to the preferential terms. A bondholder debt to equity counteroffer was ignored.

    Can I take from your comments that you are in favour of limits on election contributions from vested interests?


  • #146
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    alejandro1977 wrote: »
    Just curious - did you approve of the Loans the Socialist Bush Adminsitration gave to GM?
    No I did not. And it was Bush's part in the bailouts that spawned the Tea Party you do understand.
    Can I take from your comments that you are in favour of limits on election contributions from vested interests?
    Not necessarily. And by vested interests... do you include lobbying interests, who also provide donations, such as Green Energy organizations, Labor organizations, Disabled Citizen organizations, Consumer Advocacy organizations, etc… Not just EVIL corporations, right?


  • #147
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,727 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    you mean evil orgs posing as green energy societies?


  • #148
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Overheal wrote: »
    you mean evil orgs posing as green energy societies?

    Oh... I'm not so mean. ;)


  • #149
    alejandro1977
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 505 ✭✭✭alejandro1977


    Amerika wrote: »
    No I did not. And it was Bush's part in the bailouts that spawned the Tea Party you do understand.


    Not necessarily. And by vested interests... do you include lobbying interests, who also provide donations, such as Green Energy organizations, Labor organizations, Disabled Citizen organizations, Consumer Advocacy organizations, etc… Not just EVIL corporations, right?


    OK, so you just disapprove of Bush's actions. But he's not a Secular Socialist Kenyan Marxist Atheist Muslim who doesn't have a college transcript. Gotcha ;)


  • #150
    alejandro1977
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 505 ✭✭✭alejandro1977


    looks like ole Sarah's got some competition in the half wit stakes!

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/bachmann-admits-john-wayne-flub-still-insists-john-141138713.html
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jun/27/the-wrong-john-wayne/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsLfL9vMaUY


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    alejandro1977 wrote: »
    ...Gotcha ;)
    How so?


Advertisement