[Mr.Kimball]

Dearest Kemba, because I care: please take off red nose and large, floppy shoes before putting on Black Robe of Credibility Gown. Again, I didn't come up with the 400%, nor report it as fact... Kessler did... I cited Kessler, and will research further into whether or not the whole Secret Service "leak" means "x" or "y." However, as I am digging, I am finding, of course, that I am not alone by a long shot in the understanding that Obama received more death threats in the first days, weeks, and months of his Presidency. Again, I am not arguing that some certain percent or number of opposition to Obama is based on race, but rather that, political differences aside, race is not irrelevant to the whole "I hate Obama; Obama is Mao" phenomenon. You dispute that?

You sure pushed it as being credible while trying to tag white America as nothing more than a racist lot though. You googled and found something that you wanted desperately to believe was true and pounded it for all it was worth. Your mistake was not verifying it's validity.

[thecavemaster]

You sure pushed it as being credible while trying to tag white America as nothing more than a racist lot though. You googled and found something that you wanted desperately to believe was true and pounded it for all it was worth. Your mistake was not verifying it's validity.

I referenced it, Kemba, referenced it. "White America"? Kemba, Kemba, I don't need to believe that 400% increase somehow proves anything. If your argument is that racism has nothing to do with the extreme vitriol on the right against, your term, "Maobama," I don't see it. Does racism have everything to do with it? Of course not. FIfty percent? No. What percent? Is that really the issue? However, certain phrases you use, Kemba, give me pause for thought as to your beliefs. I believe, with Paul, that all races of people everywhere sprang from one man. Believest thou that, kind Sir?

[Mr.Kimball]

I referenced it, Kemba, referenced it. "White America"? Kemba, Kemba, I don't need to believe that 400% increase somehow proves anything. If your argument is that racism has nothing to do with the extreme vitriol on the right against, your term, "Maobama," I don't see it. Does racism have everything to do with it? Of course not. FIfty percent? No. What percent? Is that really the issue? However, certain phrases you use, Kemba, give me pause for thought as to your beliefs. I believe, with Paul, that all races of people everywhere sprang from one man. Believest thou that, kind Sir?

What your doing now is trying to twist a term that I am not applying. It is yourself and DW that are directly implying that a mass segregational biasness exists, not I. I am simply using your application in this discussion to refernce a sector that you two are citing exists.. But that is what you are all about. Never answer a question simply and directly. Twist it around. But, that's OK. We all have become accustomed to the fact that that's the best we are going to get out of you. The term Maobama is a term refering to a socialist ideology and it's correlation to our administration's agenda and ideology. You know full well that is my purpose.

Again, I was merely quizing you on your claim that an increased death threat rate existance just because our president is black. I asked to to provide stats or other forms of proof to substantiate your claim. You offered quotes from one source. I did not dispute it's claim in any way. However other evidence provided, proved that the 400% figure to be completely false. In fact it's the Secret Service's claim is that no increased rate exists at all. Then you go on in typical batmanesque fashion to twist the idea that the Secret Service will not tell the truth on their own director's statement because it's all Top Secret. Again, it appears that you have nothing more than an offer of personal assumption, if in fact, that concealment does exist. No proof of anything. I ask, are you willing to concede to the fact your claims based on Secret Service claims were in error?

I ask, how does anything that I may personaly believe have any correlation to anything being discussed here? I have neither claimed anything, or disputed anything. However I will do something that you routinely refuse to do . I will answer your question. We are all taught that all men evolved from one Adam and Eve. If that is what you are asking.


How about you just simply answering a question for once without all of the blabber?

[Beetle01]

what your doing now is trying to twist a term that i am not applying. It is yourself and dw that are directly implying that a mass segregational biasness exists, not i. I am simply using your application in this discussion to refernce a sector that you two are citing exists.. But that is what you are all about. Never answer a question simply and directly. Twist it around. But, that's ok. We all have become accustomed to the fact that that's the best we are going to get out of you. The term maobama is a term refering to a socialist ideology and it's correlation to our administration's agenda and ideology. You know full well that is my purpose.

Again, i was merely quizing you on your claim that an increased death threat rate existance just because our president is black. I asked to to provide stats or other forms of proof to substantiate your claim. You offered quotes from one source. I did not dispute it's claim in any way. However other evidence provided, proved that the 400% figure to be completely false. In fact it's the secret service's claim is that no increased rate exists at all. Then you go on in typical batmanesque fashion to twist the idea that the secret service will not tell the truth on their own director's statement because it's all top secret. Again, it appears that you have nothing more than an offer of personal assumption, if in fact, that concealment does exist. No proof of anything. I ask, are you willing to concede to the fact your claims based on secret service claims were in error?

I ask, how does anything that i may personaly believe have any correlation to anything being discussed here? I have neither claimed anything, or disputed anything. However i will do something that you routinely refuse to do . I will answer your question. We are all taught that all men evolved from one adam and eve. If that is what you are asking.


How about you just simply answering a question for once without all of the blabber?

owned

[thecavemaster]

What your doing now is trying to twist a term that I am not applying. It is yourself and DW that are directly implying that a mass segregational biasness exists, not I. I am simply using your application in this discussion to refernce a sector that you two are citing exists.. But that is what you are all about. Never answer a question simply and directly. Twist it around. But, that's OK. We all have become accustomed to the fact that that's the best we are going to get out of you. The term Maobama is a term refering to a socialist ideology and it's correlation to our administration's agenda and ideology. You know full well that is my purpose.

Again, I was merely quizing you on your claim that an increased death threat rate existance just because our president is black. I asked to to provide stats or other forms of proof to substantiate your claim. You offered quotes from one source. I did not dispute it's claim in any way. However other evidence provided, proved that the 400% figure to be completely false. In fact it's the Secret Service's claim is that no increased rate exists at all. Then you go on in typical batmanesque fashion to twist the idea that the Secret Service will not tell the truth on their own director's statement because it's all Top Secret. Again, it appears that you have nothing more than an offer of personal assumption, if in fact, that concealment does exist. No proof of anything. I ask, are you willing to concede to the fact your claims based on Secret Service claims were in error?

I ask, how does anything that I may personaly believe have any correlation to anything being discussed here? I have neither claimed anything, or disputed anything. However I will do something that you routinely refuse to do . I will answer your question. We are all taught that all men evolved from one Adam and Eve. If that is what you are asking.


How about you just simply answering a question for once without all of the blabber?

I have just finished reading four Associated Press stories, from Idaho to Denver, talking about the increased death threats on Obama in the first days, weeks and few months of his Presidency. A simple Google search actually produces the very debate we are having here. MSNBC vs. Fox etc. etc. ad nauseum. As to the 400%, ONCE AGAIN that was Kessler's claim based on an "I'm a leak" interview with a Secret Service guy. I am not suggesting that your personal opposition to Obama is race based. I am suggesting that the level of vitriol against Obama on the right often contains race baiting and, in the less polished, overt racism.

[Mr.Kimball]

I have just finished reading four Associated Press stories, from Idaho to Denver, talking about the increased death threats on Obama in the first days, weeks and few months of his Presidency. A simple Google search actually produces the very debate we are having here. MSNBC vs. Fox etc. etc. ad nauseum. As to the 400%, ONCE AGAIN that was Kessler's claim based on an "I'm a leak" interview with a Secret Service guy. I am not suggesting that your personal opposition to Obama is race based. I am suggesting that the level of vitriol against Obama on the right often contains race baiting and, in the less polished, overt racism.

Again CM, I still stress that the Secret Service themselves state that that situation did/does not then or now exist. Any other source to me is more than likely only a "speculative unwarranted theory". You mention vitriol from the right. Why are you failing to mention the propaganda from the left whose purpose is to incite division or controversy?

Again, all I am asking is if you will acknowledge the statement concerning the 400% claim when you subject it to the statement issued by the United States Secret Service Agency that Mr. Kessler's claim is not accurate? I am not concerned as to what other sources may suggest, unless there is a valid claim from someone within the Secret Service Agency itself that directly accuses that their official statement has been purposely altered from being factual for whatever reason they may suggest. There is nobody else on earth that knows the answer to that better than than the Secret Service themselves. That's a real simple one to answer. Sheesh, it's not like your going to be viewed as an idiot or anything if you answer it honestly. I realize that it was someone else's claim. Please just answer the question.

Then why make the statement "give me pause for thought of your beliefs"? I said absolutely nothing that would cause anyone to question anything. Unless perhaps, you are one of those that intentionaly plants thoughts in the heads of others, again, to incite a hatred induced atmosphere. You have to admit that that is a standard liberal tactic if you are in the leftist camp trying to garner public sympathy. It's "good for business", to help acheive their agenda goals.

[thecavemaster]

Again CM, I still stress that the Secret Service themselves state that that situation did/does not then or now exist. Any other source to me is more than likely only a "speculative unwarranted theory". You mention vitriol from the right. Why are you failing to mention the propaganda from the left whose purpose is to incite division or controversy?

Again, all I am asking is if you will acknowledge the statement concerning the 400% claim when you subject it to the statement issued by the United States Secret Service Agency that Mr. Kessler's claim is not accurate? I am not concerned as to what other sources may suggest, unless there is a valid claim from someone within the Secret Service Agency itself that directly accuses that their official statement has been purposely altered from being factual for whatever reason they may suggest. There is nobody else on earth that knows the answer to that better than than the Secret Service themselves. That's a real simple one to answer. Sheesh, it's not like your going to be viewed as an idiot or anything if you answer it honestly. I realize that it was someone else's claim. Please just answer the question.

Then why make the statement "give me pause for thought of your beliefs"? I said absolutely nothing that would cause anyone to question anything. Unless perhaps, you are one of those that intentionaly plants thoughts in the heads of others, again, to incite a hatred induced atmosphere. You have to admit that that is a standard liberal tactic if you are in the leftist camp trying to garner public sympathy. It's "good for business", to help acheive their agenda goals.

It was Kessler's claim, and it seems to me there is ample corroborative evidence to suggest that Obama did receive a substantial amount more death threats than his predecessors in the early days, weeks, and months of his Presidency. Are you suggesting that Obama = Hitler = Mao and that whole line of stuff creates a "peaceful, easy feeling" atmosphere? Before Obama, I was for healthcare reform. Before Obama, I was dubious as to deregulating the massive corporate uber complex. Before Obama, I was for the minimum wage being a living wage. Before Obama, I was for background checks and a waiting period on handguns and assault type weapons. These type things move me, not devotion to a person. Do I think racism still exists and is a part of the more vitriolic opposition to Obama? I do. Isn't it true that the Right Wing Flirty Pary likes to characterize "liberals" as mindless lackeys who are Obama's homeboys?

[Hoot Gibson]

It was Kessler's claim, and it seems to me there is ample corroborative evidence to suggest that Obama did receive a substantial amount more death threats than his predecessors in the early days, weeks, and months of his Presidency. Are you suggesting that Obama = Hitler = Mao and that whole line of stuff creates a "peaceful, easy feeling" atmosphere? Before Obama, I was for healthcare reform. Before Obama, I was dubious as to deregulating the massive corporate uber complex. Before Obama, I was for the minimum wage being a living wage. Before Obama, I was for background checks and a waiting period on handguns and assault type weapons. These type things move me, not devotion to a person. Do I think racism still exists and is a part of the more vitriolic opposition to Obama? I do. Isn't it true that the Right Wing Flirty Pary likes to characterize "liberals" as mindless lackeys who are Obama's homeboys?

What a ridiculous tap dance you are doing. Your information was wrong. Period. Admit it.

You say that their is "ample corroborative evidence" for your argument. From the very, very limited information that you have provided in this thread, your evidence seems to consists of background statements made by an unnamed source to a single AP reporter. In contrast, you have watched (or should have watched) Obama's Director of the Secret Service testify under oath in a Congressional hearing to a liberal Democrat that there is no basis for your claim.

If Obama thought that his own Secret Service Director had perjured himself by understating the threats to Obama's life, I think that even Obama is competent enough to fire the guy. The testimony, combined with the fact that Mark Sullivan remains the Director of the US Secret Service seems like pretty strong corroboration that you do not know what you are talking about on this subject.

If I were you, I would stop digging the hole and extricate yourself from it before somebody starts filling it in. :biggrin:

[Hoot Gibson]

Back on topic, most experts agree that either Obama lied or the Teleprompter of the United States (TOTUS) lied about the Supreme Court's decision in his State of the Union speech. Justice Alito was correct. The ruling does not lift the prohibition on foreign political donations as Obama claimed.

Until Obama can seat additional liberal judges on the court, I do not expect that more than four of the justices will attend another SOTU address.

What a stupid, stupid thing to do on Obama's part. Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the court, authored the majority opinion and Obama just insulted him and lied to his face when Kennedy and the other justices were in no position to set the record straight. That is how community agitators operate. What a cowardly display!

From the New York Times:

LINDA GREENHOUSE
Linda Greenhouse, the winner of the 1998 Pulitzer Prize, reported on the Supreme Court for The New York Times from 1978 to 2008. She teaches at Yale Law School and is the author of a biography of Justice Harry A. Blackmun, "Becoming Justice Blackmun."

[INDENT]The Next Time

...
The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions. .... (click on title for full column)[/INDENT]

[Mr.Kimball]

It was Kessler's claim, and it seems to me there is ample corroborative evidence to suggest that Obama did receive a substantial amount more death threats than his predecessors in the early days, weeks, and months of his Presidency. Are you suggesting that Obama = Hitler = Mao and that whole line of stuff creates a "peaceful, easy feeling" atmosphere? Before Obama, I was for healthcare reform. Before Obama, I was dubious as to deregulating the massive corporate uber complex. Before Obama, I was for the minimum wage being a living wage. Before Obama, I was for background checks and a waiting period on handguns and assault type weapons. These type things move me, not devotion to a person. Do I think racism still exists and is a part of the more vitriolic opposition to Obama? I do. Isn't it true that the Right Wing Flirty Pary likes to characterize "liberals" as mindless lackeys who are Obama's homeboys?

Is Ronald Kesslers claim wrong based on the statement from the director of the Secret Service?

[Mr.Kimball]

Is Ronald Kesslers claim wrong based on the statement from the director of the Secret Service?

I'll give you the benefit of a doubt that this thread got buried.


Now, CM.



Answer the Question.

[thecavemaster]

I'll give you the benefit of a doubt that this thread got buried.


Now, CM.



Answer the Question.

The "brass" at the Secret Service state that Kessler's claim is not based on valid information. However, Kessler himself stands by his story. Again, the "official" word is never enough for Right Wing Flirty Party if it conflicts with its worldview, but, apparently, taken for gospel if it serves a Flirty Party need. 'Round and round goes the circle.

[Mr.Kimball]

The "brass" at the Secret Service state that Kessler's claim is not based on valid information. However, Kessler himself stands by his story. Again, the "official" word is never enough for Right Wing Flirty Party if it conflicts with its worldview, but, apparently, taken for gospel if it serves a Flirty Party need. 'Round and round goes the circle.

Would you be so kind as to just state Yes or No to this question?

Based on the statement of the director of the Secret Service was Ronald Kessler's claims wrong.

Not being smart, I am just asking nicely.

[thecavemaster]

Would you be so kind as to just state Yes or No to this question?

Based on the statement of the director of the Secret Service was Ronald Kessler's claims wrong.

Not being smart, I am just asking nicely.

Not being smart, but who would "brass" refer to? Ronald Kessler, to my knowledge, stands by his story. Also, wouldn't it be more accurate for the Director to state that Kessler's souce provided wrong information? I've stated that the "brass" doesn't agree with Kessler's figure.

[Mr.Kimball]

Not being smart, but who would "brass" refer to? Ronald Kessler, to my knowledge, stands by his story. Also, wouldn't it be more accurate for the Director to state that Kessler's souce provided wrong information? I've stated that the "brass" doesn't agree with Kessler's figure.

Just to simplify this to my simple mind, can I take your answer as "yes", that based on the statement from the director of the Secret Service the claims of Ronald Kessler are wrong?

[thecavemaster]

Just to simplify this to my simple mind, can I take your answer as "yes", that based on the statement from the director of the Secret Service the claims of Ronald Kessler are wrong?

Ronald Kessler didn't make the claims. His "source" was inside the Secret Service. The Director of the Secret Service, aka "brass," disputed the source's information given to Kessler.

[thecavemaster]

During the course of oral argument, Ginsberg asked about the possibility of foreign corporate interests funneling money into elections through US subsidiaries. Theodore Olsen, lead attorney in the Citizen's case, replied, "I would not rule that out." ...from an article by Joe Conason at Salon.com

[Mr.Kimball]

Ronald Kessler didn't make the claims. His "source" was inside the Secret Service. The Director of the Secret Service, aka "brass," disputed the source's information given to Kessler.

LOL. Thanks CM.

[Hoot Gibson]

During the course of oral argument, Ginsberg asked about the possibility of foreign corporate interests funneling money into elections through US subsidiaries. Theodore Olsen, lead attorney in the Citizen's case, replied, "I would not rule that out." ...from an article by Joe Conason at Salon.com

Obama accepted $200 million in "small" donations during the 2008 campaign. McCain publicly disclosed the source of all of his donations, regardless of the amount. Obama refused because to do so because he was not legally obligated to disclose their source.

Would you rule out the possibility that Obama accepted millions of dollars of campaign donations from thousands of straw men who were not US citizens?

No law is perfect but if you decide not to create a law because of the possibility that it might be broken, there would be no laws. Ginsberg is a radical left wing justice who was formerly lead counsel for the ACLU. She could have phoned in her decision without hearing any arguments or reading any brief. Ditto for the other four justices who voted in the minority.

The only justice whose vote could not have been predicted in advance was Kennedy and he was there when Obama lied about the case and taunted the justices who voted in the affirmative in a forum in which he could not respond. Chicago thuggery is not going to intimidate any of the Supreme Court justices and it will probably backfire on Obama.

[thecavemaster]

Obama accepted $200 million in "small" donations during the 2008 campaign. McCain publicly disclosed the source of all of his donations, regardless of the amount. Obama refused because to do so because he was not legally obligated to disclose their source.

Would you rule out the possibility that Obama accepted millions of dollars of campaign donations from thousands of straw men who were not US citizens?

No law is perfect but if you decide not to create a law because of the possibility that it might be broken, there would be no laws. Ginsberg is a radical left wing justice who was formerly lead counsel for the ACLU. She could have phoned in her decision without hearing any arguments or reading any brief. Ditto for the other four justices who voted in the minority.

The only justice whose vote could not have been predicted in advance was Kennedy and he was there when Obama lied about the case and taunted the justices who voted in the affirmative in a forum in which he could not respond. Chicago thuggery is not going to intimidate any of the Supreme Court justices and it will probably backfire on Obama.

Yes, yes, Hoot, an $80 donation buys the donor as much influence as a few hundred thousand or a couple million. I also dare to say that Ruth Bader Ginsberg read a fair amount more about the case, the issue than you did, ol' Hoot. So now, apparently, disagreeing with the majority decision is "taunting"? Theodore Olson said, "...couldn't rule it out." I figure that doesn't make Obama a liar; it appears to "out" you as a partisan hack.

[Hoot Gibson]

Yes, yes, Hoot, an $80 donation buys the donor as much influence as a few hundred thousand or a couple million. I also dare to say that Ruth Bader Ginsberg read a fair amount more about the case, the issue than you did, ol' Hoot. So now, apparently, disagreeing with the majority decision is "taunting"? Theodore Olson said, "...couldn't rule it out." I figure that doesn't make Obama a liar; it appears to "out" you as a partisan hack.

There is no evidence that those who made small donations even existed. For all we know, ACORN just made up a bunch of names to launder millions of dollars of illegal donations from George Soros.

It is hypocritical of Ginsberg (and you) to suggest that some foreign donations might creep into the process if corporations were allowed to make political donations, knowing full well that foreign donations already find their way to candidates under the current system.

We will never know where $200 million of Obama's contributions originated. All political donations should be disclosed immediately upon receipt. I held my nose when I voted for McCain but he ran a squeaky clean campaign compared to Mr. "Transparency."

[Hoot Gibson]

Obama accepted $200 million in "small" donations during the 2008 campaign. McCain publicly disclosed the source of all of his donations, regardless of the amount. Obama refused because to do so because he was not legally obligated to disclose their source.

Would you rule out the possibility that Obama accepted millions of dollars of campaign donations from thousands of straw men who were not US citizens?

No law is perfect but if you decide not to create a law because of the possibility that it might be broken, there would be no laws. Ginsberg is a radical left wing justice who was formerly lead counsel for the ACLU. She could have phoned in her decision without hearing any arguments or reading any brief. Ditto for the other four justices who voted in the minority.

The only justice whose vote could not have been predicted in advance was Kennedy and he was there when Obama lied about the case and taunted the justices who voted in the affirmative in a forum in which he could not respond. Chicago thuggery is not going to intimidate any of the Supreme Court justices and it will probably backfire on Obama.

I should have said the other three justices who voted in the minority as well as four of the ones that voted in the majority could have phoned in their decisions. My guess is that Kennedy might have been the only one of the nine that had to give much thought to how he was going to vote.

[thecavemaster]

I should have said the other three justices who voted in the minority as well as four of the ones that voted in the majority could have phoned in their decisions. My guess is that Kennedy might have been the only one of the nine that had to give much thought to how he was going to vote.

While I might have figured Scalia's (et al.) vote beforehand, I wouldn't label the "just phone it in" charge, insinuating they didn't even bother to read the briefs. But, then again, I'm not Hack Gibson.