[thecavemaster]

"...the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers." from SOU address

Thus, a jobs bill, emphasis on clean energy as driving the economy of the future, focus on American innovation, emphasis on post high school education and training for all, a need for healthcare reform (a need for consensus, yes, but A NEED FOR REFORM), .... seems like a cohesive line of reasoning to me... now whether one agrees with it or not is a whole different animal.

[Beetle01]

Its easy to say nice things. I could get up there and say all of that, doesnt mean I know how to get it done, or if my ideas to get it done will actually work.

[Stardust]

"...the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers." from SOU address

Thus, a jobs bill, emphasis on clean energy as driving the economy of the future, focus on American innovation, emphasis on post high school education and training for all, a need for healthcare reform (a need for consensus, yes, but A NEED FOR REFORM), .... seems like a cohesive line of reasoning to me... now whether one agrees with it or not is a whole different animal.

Oh yeah, no doubt, he is just as good of a speechgiver as Clinton. It appeared that Pulosi and Biden are the one's who worked with the speechwriter over the last three weeks. It was reported that Obama added symantics but made virtually no changes to the speech content when presented to him

[Hoot Gibson]

Obama may already have more experience reading a teleprompter than anybody in history. Yet, his speech was so full of misinformation last night that even the AP has called him out.

[Stardust]

Obama may already have more experience reading a teleprompter than anybody in history. Yet, his speech was so full of misinformation last night that even the AP has called him out.

AP :yikes:

Lot's of consternation from the Supreme Court. I forget the name of the newest SC member, but he is ticked after last nights comments from Obama.

Did not look like the President got a lot of support from his typical friends....

[Hoot Gibson]

AP :yikes:

Lot's of consternation from the Supreme Court. I forget the name of the newest SC member, but he is ticked after last nights comments from Obama.

Did not look like the President got a lot of support from his typical friends....

Taunting the Supreme Court to their faces is one of the dumbest things that I have ever seen a president do.

[Truth]

AP :yikes:

Lot's of consternation from the Supreme Court. I forget the name of the newest SC member, but he is ticked after last nights comments from Obama.

Did not look like the President got a lot of support from his typical friends....

You are referring to Justice Samuel Alito who was appointed by GW Bush. The newest member of the Court, Sonia Sotomayor, was sitting to the left of Justice Alito and, of course, showed no reaction to the outlandish attack by BO on the US Supreme Court. After all, BO appointed her to the Court and she is an automatic vote for his agenda.

It was of no surprise that BO found fault with everyone and everything in our society except for himself. There was nothing new there.

Remember his statement when comparing the present political situation with that of 1994. The difference, according to the pompous BO, is that now he is in charge. If we could buy BO for what he is worth and sell him for what he thinks he is worth, there would be no national debt.

[Beetle01]

I know they kept showing the Justices sitting up front there, and a few times I kept waiting for the really old lady to just fall over asleep, she looked terrible. She probably hasnt stayed up that late in 30 years.

[thecavemaster]

I know they kept showing the Justices sitting up front there, and a few times I kept waiting for the really old lady to just fall over asleep, she looked terrible. She probably hasnt stayed up that late in 30 years.

Justice Ginsberg is recovering from cancer. The "attack" on the Supreme Court is one short paragraph in the text, is nothing new, as Republicans from Reagan to Bush to McCain have called out judges as "legislating from the bench," even naming certain judges, causing concerns about judges being attacked. Appointed for life, fine. Immune to criticism, I don't think so.

[Truth]

Justice Ginsberg is recovering from cancer. The "attack" on the Supreme Court is one short paragraph in the text, is nothing new, as Republicans from Reagan to Bush to McCain have called out judges as "legislating from the bench," even naming certain judges, causing concerns about judges being attacked. Appointed for life, fine. Immune to criticism, I don't think so.

Attacking the justices during the state of the union was shallow, partisan, and tasteless. Clearly an example of vulgar Chicago politics. The only precedent for this was FDR when he initiated his assault on the court by trying to pack the court by raising the number of justices from 9 to 15. Fortunately he was unable to do so.

Also, BO is either ignorant of the law or he lied. For one who holds himself out as a "legal scholar", he shows a shallow knowledge of it. Of course, we all know that he was not a Professor of Constitutional Law but, in reality, merely a lecturer. Nor, as some claim, was he editor of the Harvard Law Review (an honor) but, in fact, merely the president of the law review (a popularity contest not based upon scholarship.

Again, I say that if we could buy him for his real fmv and sell him for what he believes to be his fmv, we could easily retire the national debt.

[Hoot Gibson]

Attacking the justices during the state of the union was shallow, partisan, and tasteless. Clearly an example of vulgar Chicago politics. The only precedent for this was FDR when he initiated his assault on the court by trying to pack the court by raising the number of justices from 9 to 15. Fortunately he was unable to do so.

Also, BO is either ignorant of the law or he lied. For one who holds himself out as a "legal scholar", he shows a shallow knowledge of it. Of course, we all know that he was not a Professor of Constitutional Law but, in reality, merely a lecturer. Nor, as some claim, was he editor of the Harvard Law Review (an honor) but, in fact, merely the president of the law review (a popularity contest not based upon scholarship.

Again, I say that if we could buy him for his real fmv and sell him for what he believes to be his fmv, we could easily retire the national debt.

Obama lied about the Supreme Court decision. There is no way that he is dumb enough to have attacked the justices in a forum where they could not defend themselves without understanding full well what he was doing. This is just another example of personalizing a radical political position by attacking a scapegoat.

What Obama did was no different than what the ACORN mobs did when Obama trained them to harass bank executives and their families in Chicago. He is still behaving like the community agitator that he has always been. No class whatsoever.

[Stardust]

Obama lied about the Supreme Court decision. There is no way that he is dumb enough to have attacked the justices in a forum where they could not defend themselves without understanding full well what he was doing. This is just another example of personalizing a radical political position by attacking a scapegoat.

What Obama did was no different than what the ACORN mobs did when Obama trained them to harass bank executives and their families in Chicago. He is still behaving like the community agitator that he has always been. No class whatsoever.

:Thumbs:

[thecavemaster]

Attacking the justices during the state of the union was shallow, partisan, and tasteless. Clearly an example of vulgar Chicago politics. The only precedent for this was FDR when he initiated his assault on the court by trying to pack the court by raising the number of justices from 9 to 15. Fortunately he was unable to do so.

Also, BO is either ignorant of the law or he lied. For one who holds himself out as a "legal scholar", he shows a shallow knowledge of it. Of course, we all know that he was not a Professor of Constitutional Law but, in reality, merely a lecturer. Nor, as some claim, was he editor of the Harvard Law Review (an honor) but, in fact, merely the president of the law review (a popularity contest not based upon scholarship.

Again, I say that if we could buy him for his real fmv and sell him for what he believes to be his fmv, we could easily retire the national debt.

You do understand that a multiplicity of legal scholars share Obama's view of this SCOTUS decision? Opinion is divided, which suggests your characterization of Obama as "shallow" is that of a partisan hack.

[Hoot Gibson]

You do understand that a multiplicity of legal scholars share Obama's view of this SCOTUS decision? Opinion is divided, which suggests your characterization of Obama as "shallow" is that of a partisan hack.

Two can be a multiplicity. The overwhelming majority of legal scholars, including the majority of Supreme Court members who made the decision agree that Obama does not have a clue on this subject.

[Joe Friday]

Professor William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY puts forth this rather interesting theory.

Strategery Behind Dem Attacks On The Sup Ct

Why the sudden slew of attacks on the Supreme Court, specifically Justices Alito and Roberts, by leading Democrats?

The decision in the Citizens United case, which struck down on First Amendment grounds some legislative restrictions on campaign speech by corporations, is the excuse but not the reason.

The Citizens United decision is not a clear victory for either political party, since corporate spending will be matched if not exceeded by union spending, and as we have seen in the health care debate, large corporate interests often support Obama's agenda. Nonetheless, Pat Leahy (D-Vt) has declared the decision the "most partisan decision since Bush v. Gore."

Yet numerous Democratic leaders, not just Obama, are on the offensive against Alito and Roberts, claiming that they "misled" Congress during their confirmation proceedings as to whether they would respect case precedent.

This assertion is patently false. Neither nominee (nor any other nominee in history) ever commits to never overturning an incorrect prior decision of the Court. Many of the most historic Supreme Court decisions, such as Brown v. Bd. of Education, overturned longstanding precedent.

So why the anger and fury?

Let me suggest it has something to do with likelihood that Justice Stevens will be retiring at the end of this term. Democrats are attempting to paint Alito and Stevens Roberts as extremists who misled Congress in order to pressure Obama to pick an activist liberal justice to replace Stevens, and then to justify confirmation.

The argument will go that since Alito and Roberts are activist on the right, there must be an activist on the left appointed as a counterbalance.

There is method to Democrats' madness in attacking the Citizens United decision and in demonizing Alito and Roberts. But it's still madness.

Update: Not surprisingly, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), whose unhinged rant on the floor of the Senate last month launched his career as the Senate's Alan Grayson, has taken a lead in attacking the Supreme Court's "right-wing" activism:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., for instance, said on the Senate floor Friday that he sees the court's recent decision to allow unfettered corporate and union spending on elections (though not as direct aid to candidates) as an overt bid by the majority conservative bloc to pursue "Republican political goals." ...

"Connect the dots," said Whitehouse. "Republicans are the party of the corporations. The judges are the appointees of the Republicans, and the judges just delivered for the corporations. It is being done in plain view."

Tellingly, both Leahy and Whitehouse are on the Senate Judiciary Committee (Leahy is the Chair).

[thecavemaster]

Two can be a multiplicity. The overwhelming majority of legal scholars, including the majority of Supreme Court members who made the decision agree that Obama does not have a clue on this subject.

Uh, two can be a duality... not to quibble over your little illiteracies. "Overwhelming majority"? I think not.

[Hoot Gibson]

Uh, two can be a duality... not to quibble over your little illiteracies. "Overwhelming majority"? I think not.

I would ask you to provide a link to support your assertions but the absence of such links in your previous posts suggest that you may lack the ability to comply to such a request.

Duality is to multiplicity as triangle is to polygon. (The preceding sentence contains two analogies - just let me know if I need to post the definition of an analogy.)

[INDENT]From The Free Dictionary (note the bold definition below)
multiplicity [ˌmʌltɪˈplɪsɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
1. a large number or great variety
2. the state of being multiple
3. (Physics / General Physics) Physics
a. the number of levels into which the energy of an atom, molecule, or nucleus splits as a result of coupling between orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum
b. the number of elementary particles in a multiplet

mul·ti·ple (mlt-pl)
adj.
Having, relating to, or consisting of more than one individual, element, part, or other component; manifold.
n.
A number that may be divided by another number with no remainder: 4, 6, and 12 are multiples of 2.
[/INDENT]

Now, if there is a multiplicity of recognized legal scholars who believe that Obama was right when he asserted that the Supreme Court decision will open the floodgates of donations from foreign corporations, you should have no trouble providing the names of at least two of those brilliant legal scholars. If you prefer to cling to your definition of multiplicity, then perhaps you can produce three or more such opinions.

BTW, Obama does not count as a "recognized legal scholar." He has a master's degree and once was a Senior Lecturer - he was never a tenured professor and he never held the title of "Professor," despite his claims to the contrary.

[thecavemaster]

John Paul Stevens
Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Stephen Breyer
Sonia Sotomayor

All voted against. 5-4 decision. Yet you argue that "overwhelming majority" applies. Isn't it true that the judicial community is about as equally divided on the McCain/Feingold issue? That posting endless links only leads to endless arguments about source integrity? That BGR posters have been asked to limit argument by links? You keep twisting it, Hoot. You used the term "overwhelming majority," I didn't.

[thecavemaster]

And, Hoot, by the way, it was clear with context in the way I used "multiplicity" that it meant great number. Of course, and this is a CONSTANT in the RIGHT WING FLIRTY PARTY, "out of context" is a distortionary art form.

[Hoot Gibson]

John Paul Stevens
Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Stephen Breyer
Sonia Sotomayor

All voted against. 5-4 decision. Yet you argue that "overwhelming majority" applies. Isn't it true that the judicial community is about as equally divided on the McCain/Feingold issue? That posting endless links only leads to endless arguments about source integrity? That BGR posters have been asked to limit argument by links? You keep twisting it, Hoot. You used the term "overwhelming majority," I didn't.

Sorry, CM, not good enough. The fact that four liberal members of the court voted against overturning any part of McCain-Feingold does not support your implication that they agree with Obama's lies about what the majority's opinion accomplished.

Laws against foreign contributions to political campaigns were not affected by the ruling and I have read nothing to indicate that any of the justices voting in the minority are on record stating that it does. If you have evidence to support your position, then post it.

[thecavemaster]

Sorry, CM, not good enough. The fact that four liberal members of the court voted against overturning any part of McCain-Feingold does not support your implication that they agree with Obama's lies about what the majority's opinion accomplished.

Laws against foreign contributions to political campaigns were not affected by the ruling and I have read nothing to indicate that any of the justices voting in the minority are on record stating that it does. If you have evidence to support your position, then post it.

Sandra Day O'Connor, when asked about Obama's statement said that, while foreign corporate monies in our elections is perhaps not an intended consequence, it is a possible one. Main point: the Fortune 100 alone had revenues of 13 trillion, profits of 605 billion. This ruling has the potential to allow insurance companies, banks, drug companies, energy companies and the like to storm the gates of the political process with what is actually the most important color in the world: green. You know it; I know it; we all know it.

[Hoot Gibson]

Sandra Day O'Connor, when asked about Obama's statement said that, while foreign corporate monies in our elections is perhaps not an intended consequence, it is a possible one. Main point: the Fortune 100 alone had revenues of 13 trillion, profits of 605 billion. This ruling has the potential to allow insurance companies, banks, drug companies, energy companies and the like to storm the gates of the political process with what is actually the most important color in the world: green. You know it; I know it; we all know it.

You still have produced nothing to support your position - not even a quote. Forgive me for not trusting your paraphrasing of something that Sandra Day O'Connor might or might not have said. Without a source and a quote to allow verification and to give the quote some context, your words lack credibility.

Oh, and profits are good. Without profits, none of us would have a job in this country. We should celebrate when an American companies post record profits. That means people are working for somebody other than the federal government, which cannot make profits. It means that retirement accounts are doing well. It means that the government is collecting abundant taxes without raising corporate and individual tax rates, thereby destroying more jobs in the private sector.

People who demonize corporate profits want to see this country fail, whether they realize it or not.

Allowing companies to participate in the political process means that they will no longer be sitting ducks when demagogues like Barack Obama set out to destroy their industries or to extort money from them to hand out to his favorite constituents.

[Mr.Kimball]

John Paul Stevens
Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Stephen Breyer
Sonia Sotomayor

All voted against. 5-4 decision. Yet you argue that "overwhelming majority" applies. Isn't it true that the judicial community is about as equally divided on the McCain/Feingold issue? That posting endless links only leads to endless arguments about source integrity? That BGR posters have been asked to limit argument by links? You keep twisting it, Hoot. You used the term "overwhelming majority," I didn't.

Twist? Did you say twist? You dare to accuse anyone else of twisting?


Once again CM,

Based on statements from the Secret Service was Ronald Kessler's claims false?

[Hoot Gibson]

Twist? Did you say twist? You dare to accuse anyone else of twisting?


Once again CM,

Based on statements from the Secret Service was Ronald Kessler's claims false?

CM apparently needs is apparently waiting for me to post the definition of "spamming" and explain to him that a URL link to relevant material to support one's position is the online equivalent to a footnote in written arguments. CM's apparent misunderstanding of forum etiquette saves him the trouble of supporting his opinions with any facts.

[Mr.Kimball]

[quote=Hoot Gibson]CM apparently needs is apparently waiting for me to post the definition of "spamming" and explain to him that a URL link to relevant material to support one's position is the online equivalent to a footnote in written arguments. CM's apparent misunderstanding of forum etiquette saves him the trouble of supporting his opinions with any facts.[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm. And here all this time I thought it was just cowardice and arrogance!!

[Hoot Gibson]

[quote=Hoot Gibson]CM apparently needs is apparently waiting for me to post the definition of "spamming" and explain to him that a URL link to relevant material to support one's position is the online equivalent to a footnote in written arguments. CM's apparent misunderstanding of forum etiquette saves him the trouble of supporting his opinions with any facts.[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm. And here all this time I thought it was just cowardice and arrogance!!

I am just trying to give him the benefit of doubt. Voluntary ignorance is a much easier obstacle to overcome than cowardice and arrogance. :biggrin:

[thecavemaster]

Strange what the Right Wing Flirty Party calls "facts"... appears to me to be opinion. What Kessler wrote in his book came from a source. Has Kessler recanted? I haven't seen it if he has. Did he make it up? I haven't seen him say that he did. The "official" word of the Secret Service brass is that "400%" is incorrect. If the Flirty Boys were on the other side, that wouldn't be good enough. However, since it serves the purposes of their worlview, it is.

[thecavemaster]

[quote=Hoot Gibson]CM apparently needs is apparently waiting for me to post the definition of "spamming" and explain to him that a URL link to relevant material to support one's position is the online equivalent to a footnote in written arguments. CM's apparent misunderstanding of forum etiquette saves him the trouble of supporting his opinions with any facts.[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm. And here all this time I thought it was just cowardice and arrogance!!

"We are here to discuss, not repost content from other web sites." That has been what I have followed. Thus, I will post a source, but not reproduce it here.

[thecavemaster]

You still have produced nothing to support your position - not even a quote. Forgive me for not trusting your paraphrasing of something that Sandra Day O'Connor might or might not have said. Without a source and a quote to allow verification and to give the quote some context, your words lack credibility.

Oh, and profits are good. Without profits, none of us would have a job in this country. We should celebrate when an American companies post record profits. That means people are working for somebody other than the federal government, which cannot make profits. It means that retirement accounts are doing well. It means that the government is collecting abundant taxes without raising corporate and individual tax rates, thereby destroying more jobs in the private sector.

People who demonize corporate profits want to see this country fail, whether they realize it or not.

Allowing companies to participate in the political process means that they will no longer be sitting ducks when demagogues like Barack Obama set out to destroy their industries or to extort money from them to hand out to his favorite constituents.

Of course, the demonization of corporate profits is your twist. When silver and gold are counted as more dear than flesh and blood is when the suits within corporations behave like demons. DId I suggest the pursuit of silver and gold is problematic? No... but when that pursuit dominates all other interests, environment, people's welfare... yes, it is. Who stands between the environment, human beings, and a corporate culture that chooses money over any other consideration? A guy who sells a car with mechanical problems to an unwitting consumer magnified a thousand times? Who speaks for the individual against amassed corporate interest?

[Joe Friday]

[Image: http://radiopatriot.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/11.jpg]

You are right, Cavemaster, this man sure can give a speech!