DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: William Wallace on October 28, 2010, 08:23:40 PM
-
https://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/28/shocker-bush-beats-obama-4843-in-poll/
“Despite voters feelings toward Obama personally, 56 percent say he does not deserve to be re-elected, while 38 percent say he does deserve to be re-elected president.” Worse, Schoen adds, “43 percent say that Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, while 48 percent say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.”
-
I'll wait to pass judgement when Obama's 4 years are comming to it's end. It's too early to say.
-
I'll wait to pass judgement when Obama's 4 years are comming to it's end. It's too early to say.
This. What the hell are people judging him for NOW? Keep it til election day, I say
-
What can I say? We elected a guy from Chicago, and expected transparency.
-
Aside from the fact that GWB got us into two useless wars, I think they're pretty much the same president, just in a different package.
-
I'll wait to pass judgement when Obama's 4 years are comming to it's end. It's too early to say.
Why? The Nobel committee didn't waste any time. :biggrin:
-
Aside from the fact that GWB got us into two useless wars, I think they're pretty much the same president, just in a different package.
Well, that's a pretty big fact, but of course I agree.
-
Aside from the fact that GWB got us into two useless wars, I think they're pretty much the same president, just in a different package.
Well, that's a pretty big fact, but of course I agree.
It is a big fact, and that's the reason why I would rank Obama higher than Bush. But Obama also hasn't done anything to stop what we're doing over there, so he doesn't earn a whole lot of points from me.
-
Wait until Obama's Presidency ends (whenever that may be) before you judge. Only way to compare them, imho.
-
I thought there was going to be a poll in this thread as well.
-
Bush was in no shape or form better than any president, not even nixon.
-
Bush was in no shape or form better than any president, not even nixon.
If you think Bush is the worst President, you are seriously mistaken. We've had Presidents who were far worse.
-
Bush was in no shape or form better than any president, not even nixon.
If you think Bush is the worst President, you are seriously mistaken. We've had Presidents who were far worse.
Elaborate please.
-
I'll wait to pass judgement when Obama's 4 years are comming to it's end. It's too early to say.
This. What the hell are people judging him for NOW? Keep it til election day, I say
Because it's Obama and people make a sport out of badmouthing him at every opportunity they can.
-
Bush was in no shape or form better than any president, not even nixon.
If you think Bush is the worst President, you are seriously mistaken. We've had Presidents who were far worse.
An idiot puppet in the hands of the military who made the entire population earth hate usa can not be topped.
-
Both suck.
-
Bush was in no shape or form better than any president, not even nixon.
If you think Bush is the worst President, you are seriously mistaken. We've had Presidents who were far worse.
Yeah, I agree with the consensus that we haven't. Even people like Taft were arguably better.
-
The man was a piece of shit, but it'll be at least another 20 years before it's reasonable to start talking about him in a historical context.
-
I'll wait to pass judgement when Obama's 4 years are comming to it's end. It's too early to say.
Why? The Nobel committee didn't waste any time. :biggrin:
Thats a great point..!!! only Democrats can win one! Carter, Gore, Obama..
-
The man was a piece of shit, but it'll be at least another 20 years before it's reasonable to start talking about him in a historical context.
History will judge GWB well.. sorry to say, but he will look like a prince compared to Obama when history takes an objective look back at both. pundits who have any objectivity will see that GWB was a decent man who loved his country. I dont sense that Obama loves the USA in the same way..
actually GWB today is more popular in some polls then Obama..
-
It is too early, but it would appear Bush had a better first two years then Obama.
Then came 9/11 Who knows what his presidency would have been without his pride sending us into 2 unnecessary wars?
-
It is too early, but it would appear Bush had a better first two years then Obama.
Then came 9/11 Who knows what his presidency would have been without his pride sending us into 2 unnecessary wars?
He only had 9 months, and he spent those on vacation, but that's not a bad thing at all.
You raise an interesting point, though. I suspect that his presidency would have been viewed as successful without 911, although it's debatable as to whether or not he would have gotten a second term without the "war-time leader" nonsense. His style would have been to stay in the background and not meddle in things he doesn't understand, which most view as a reasonable approach. The simple truth is that he's an imbecile, but that doesn't matter too much if he doesn't interject himself into situations needlessly. He would have made some silly decisions, but probably no more than any other president.
-
It is too early, but it would appear Bush had a better first two years then Obama.
Then came 9/11 Who knows what his presidency would have been without his pride sending us into 2 unnecessary wars?
Tick, id love to dsicuss that flash point of "was Iraq unnessary" there was 17 UN resolutions and the war was not illegal.. I think many forget the carpet bombing Clinton did daily, for no fly zome violations to take our eyes off "Lewinsky" to me that was ILLEGAL.
Post 9/11 GWB had tough choices, and Saddam was part of oil for food and said he had WMDs and he had used them on the Kurds.. The UN is complicit
-
EB,
any proof of those "9 months of vacations" prior to 9/11?
fun stat..I never heard of it
-
It is too early, but it would appear Bush had a better first two years then Obama.
Then came 9/11 Who knows what his presidency would have been without his pride sending us into 2 unnecessary wars?
He only had 9 months, and he spent those on vacation, but that's not a bad thing at all.
You raise an interesting point, though. I suspect that his presidency would have been viewed as successful without 911, although it's debatable as to whether or not he would have gotten a second term without the "war-time leader" nonsense. His style would have been to stay in the background and not meddle in things he doesn't understand, which most view as a reasonable approach. The simple truth is that he's an imbecile, but that doesn't matter too much if he doesn't interject himself into situations needlessly. He would have made some silly decisions, but probably no more than any other president.
and Obama is an intellectual imbecille. His actions prove it. He is all brains and zero common sense. Slow down...think... then react. :tick2: Gets better results.
-
It is too early, but it would appear Bush had a better first two years then Obama.
Then came 9/11 Who knows what his presidency would have been without his pride sending us into 2 unnecessary wars?
He only had 9 months, and he spent those on vacation, but that's not a bad thing at all.
You raise an interesting point, though. I suspect that his presidency would have been viewed as successful without 911, although it's debatable as to whether or not he would have gotten a second term without the "war-time leader" nonsense. His style would have been to stay in the background and not meddle in things he doesn't understand, which most view as a reasonable approach. The simple truth is that he's an imbecile, but that doesn't matter too much if he doesn't interject himself into situations needlessly. He would have made some silly decisions, but probably no more than any other president.
and Obama is an intellectual imbecille. His actions prove it. He is all brains and zero common sense. Slow down...think... then react. :tick2: Gets better results.
I don't really understand your intellectual imbecile remark. However, slow down, think, react is a fine approach. Honestly, that's what Obama seems to do, and gets some flack for it. Just because you disagree with the decision doesn't mean that the decision making process was flawed.
-
I agree 100% with Tick...and who was Obama? he is not qualified for much...But Soros bought that election
we were told he was the great "orator" and he cant even form a sentence without a teleprompter..
GWB would screw up a few words with no teleprompter talking from the heart, and the media would scream that GWB was an idiot..
Man do I hate the Liberal media..
-
I actually liked W's personality a lot. It's a shame he was a shitty leader. With some honest advisers, he might have been a lot better. Obama, overall, is smarter that W., but I but his advisers suck. And he's boring. For all that W. was, he was not boring.
-
I agree 100% with Tick...and who was Obama? he is not qualified for much...But Soros bought that election
we were told he was the great "orator" and he cant even form a sentence without a teleprompter..
GWB would screw up a few words with no teleprompter talking from the heart, and the media would scream that GWB was an idiot..
Man do I hate the Liberal media..
so you are siding with a spoiled drunk who got the job thanks to his daddy than a guy who actually worked with the poor and worked his way up the party on his own? good to know.
-
EB,
Only an embicile would try to change America... and spend us into the abyss..
we cant even talk about Obama radicla connection here...which any due dilligence on this "Barack Hussein Obama" would easily derail any cnadidate..but oddly ..not Obama? ,,,
can any imgaine if GWB had those sort of radical connections?
deduction on Obamas decision making point to "He is an imbecile"
PJ Crowly today wished Ahmadinejad a "happy birthday"....BRILLIANT!!!
-
EB,
any proof of those "9 months of vacations" prior to 9/11?
fun stat..I never heard of it
I don't remember an exact amount of time, but I distinctly remember him being on vacation a LOT before 9/11 ended that crap.
Of course, he inherited a great situation from Clinton, so no reason not to party as much as possible.
-
I agree 100% with Tick...and who was Obama? he is not qualified for much...But Soros bought that election
we were told he was the great "orator" and he cant even form a sentence without a teleprompter..
GWB would screw up a few words with no teleprompter talking from the heart, and the media would scream that GWB was an idiot..
Man do I hate the Liberal media..
so you are siding with a spoiled drunk who got the job thanks to his daddy than a guy who actually worked with the poor and worked his way up the party on his own? good to know.
POOR? really...and you may want to look at Obamas drug test..LOL and his curret smoking habit..and how he never served our coutnry in any capactiy
-
well we know the 'now watch this drive' clip. anyone who does that is either a complete retard or a heartless war mogul.
-
I agree 100% with Tick...and who was Obama? he is not qualified for much...But Soros bought that election
we were told he was the great "orator" and he cant even form a sentence without a teleprompter..
GWB would screw up a few words with no teleprompter talking from the heart, and the media would scream that GWB was an idiot..
Man do I hate the Liberal media..
so you are siding with a spoiled drunk who got the job thanks to his daddy than a guy who actually worked with the poor and worked his way up the party on his own? good to know.
POOR? really...and you may want to look at Obamas drug test..LOL and his curret smoking habit..and how he never served our coutnry in any capactiy
who gives a shit about their habits, the drunk was a comment on how he went through college, and ivy league for that matter. there is no way that man has enough iq to clear community college.
-
EB,
any proof of those "9 months of vacations" prior to 9/11?
fun stat..I never heard of it
I don't remember an exact amount of time, but I distinctly remember him being on vacation a LOT before 9/11 ended that crap.
Of course, he inherited a great situation from Clinton, so no reason not to party as much as possible.
Hef you may want to look at the Clinton recession we had entered ..and you may want to look at the WTC1..
Bush did a good job of keeping us going post 9/11
stats show us that
-
I agree 100% with Tick...and who was Obama? he is not qualified for much...But Soros bought that election
we were told he was the great "orator" and he cant even form a sentence without a teleprompter..
GWB would screw up a few words with no teleprompter talking from the heart, and the media would scream that GWB was an idiot..
Man do I hate the Liberal media..
so you are siding with a spoiled drunk who got the job thanks to his daddy than a guy who actually worked with the poor and worked his way up the party on his own? good to know.
and by what basis and experience did Obama become president? He should thank his lucky stars Bush fucked up or where would he be?
It is too early, but it would appear Bush had a better first two years then Obama.
Then came 9/11 Who knows what his presidency would have been without his pride sending us into 2 unnecessary wars?
He only had 9 months, and he spent those on vacation, but that's not a bad thing at all.
You raise an interesting point, though. I suspect that his presidency would have been viewed as successful without 911, although it's debatable as to whether or not he would have gotten a second term without the "war-time leader" nonsense. His style would have been to stay in the background and not meddle in things he doesn't understand, which most view as a reasonable approach. The simple truth is that he's an imbecile, but that doesn't matter too much if he doesn't interject himself into situations needlessly. He would have made some silly decisions, but probably no more than any other president.
and Obama is an intellectual imbecille. His actions prove it. He is all brains and zero common sense. Slow down...think... then react. :tick2: Gets better results.
I don't really understand your intellectual imbecile remark. However, slow down, think, react is a fine approach. Honestly, that's what Obama seems to do, and gets some flack for it. Just because you disagree with the decision doesn't mean that the decision making process was flawed.
Whats not to understand? I'm saying he is way above average in intellect, yet exudes horrible judgment in his decisions, proving brains don't always equal success.
-
I agree 100% with Tick...and who was Obama? he is not qualified for much...But Soros bought that election
we were told he was the great "orator" and he cant even form a sentence without a teleprompter..
GWB would screw up a few words with no teleprompter talking from the heart, and the media would scream that GWB was an idiot..
Man do I hate the Liberal media..
so you are siding with a spoiled drunk who got the job thanks to his daddy than a guy who actually worked with the poor and worked his way up the party on his own? good to know.
POOR? really...and you may want to look at Obamas drug test..LOL and his curret smoking habit..and how he never served our coutnry in any capactiy
who gives a shit about their habits, the drunk was a comment on how he went through college, and ivy league for that matter. there is no way that man has enough iq to clear community college.
sounds to me like you are talking about Obama..you may want to look into that...really
-
EB,
any proof of those "9 months of vacations" prior to 9/11?
fun stat..I never heard of it
I don't remember an exact amount of time, but I distinctly remember him being on vacation a LOT before 9/11 ended that crap.
Of course, he inherited a great situation from Clinton, so no reason not to party as much as possible.
ENDED THAT CRAP! He racked up the most vacation time of any president. 911 didn't change his vacation habits one bit. Bush was 487 days at Camp David and 490 at Crawford. I read that amounts to 33% of his term.
Again, I don't have a problem with that--more power to him.
-
are you really comparing the intellect of a lawyer and a guy who went to ivy because his dad is a president and an alum? c'mon man, you're embarrassing yourself.
-
I love how people seem to "know what Barry did in college( GENIUS OF COURSE) but when they see the proof of his "drug use" in his books..and if he was poor how did he get to Harvard? ( who piad for it?) and they dismiss
But GWB who flew in the National Guard, wanted to serve and came from a military family is not qualified?
they seem to know Bushs IQ? and Obamas?
lets please stay objective!!!!
-
EB,
any proof of those "9 months of vacations" prior to 9/11?
fun stat..I never heard of it
I don't remember an exact amount of time, but I distinctly remember him being on vacation a LOT before 9/11 ended that crap.
Of course, he inherited a great situation from Clinton, so no reason not to party as much as possible.
ENDED THAT CRAP! He racked up the most vacation time of any president. 911 didn't change his vacation habits one bit. Bush was 487 days at Camp David and 490 at Crawford. I read that amounts to 33% of his term.
Again, I don't have a problem with that--more power to him.
PROOF???
-
are you really comparing the intellect of a lawyer and a guy who went to ivy because his dad is a president and an alum? c'mon man, you're embarrassing yourself.
YES... and what other Lawyer was President? and why is that a good thing?
-
I don't care about either of their drug use, except that I appreciate when people are honest about it. As I pointed out before the election, I find Obama's smoking to be a redeeming quality.
What I do mind is when people try to spin something. Bush was by all accounts a good pilot--which doesn't surprise me at all. He was also absent during a great deal of his service; a service which he only got into because of his father's influence. TANG was a great gig, particularly if the alternative is Da Nang.
Honestly EV, if you're going to maintain that Bush was a better speaker and intellectually superior to Obama, then there really isn't much point in carrying on. You'd be better off maintaining that an apple really is an orange.
-
I love how people seem to "know what Barry did in college( GENIUS OF COURSE) but when they see the proof of his "drug use" in his books..and if he was poor how did he get to Harvard? ( who piad for it?) and they dismiss
But GWB who flew in the National Guard, wanted to serve and came from a military family is not qualified?
they seem to know Bushs IQ? and Obamas?
lets please stay objective!!!!
If we were staying objective, you would stop referring to Obama as "Barry."
-
US Politics & Gov't (tags: obama, democrats, ethics, elections, congress, terrorism, usa, war, troops )
NE
- 16 days ago - humanevents.com
President Obama has played 52 rounds of golf in less than two years in office. The U.S. unemployment, down economy and two wars have not tampered his leisure time. In comparison, President Bush played a total of 24 rounds of golf in eight years
-
your epic view of teh world is too much for me to handle, i will let you stay in your world and please keep out of our sane world.
-
I love how people seem to "know what Barry did in college( GENIUS OF COURSE) but when they see the proof of his "drug use" in his books..and if he was poor how did he get to Harvard? ( who piad for it?) and they dismiss
But GWB who flew in the National Guard, wanted to serve and came from a military family is not qualified?
they seem to know Bushs IQ? and Obamas?
lets please stay objective!!!!
If we were staying objective, you would stop referring to Obama as "Barry."
This thread is objective? News to me.
-
It is too early, but it would appear Bush had a better first two years then Obama.
Then came 9/11 Who knows what his presidency would have been without his pride sending us into 2 unnecessary wars?
He only had 9 months, and he spent those on vacation, but that's not a bad thing at all.
You raise an interesting point, though. I suspect that his presidency would have been viewed as successful without 911, although it's debatable as to whether or not he would have gotten a second term without the "war-time leader" nonsense. His style would have been to stay in the background and not meddle in things he doesn't understand, which most view as a reasonable approach. The simple truth is that he's an imbecile, but that doesn't matter too much if he doesn't interject himself into situations needlessly. He would have made some silly decisions, but probably no more than any other president.
and Obama is an intellectual imbecille. His actions prove it. He is all brains and zero common sense. Slow down...think... then react. :tick2: Gets better results.
I don't really understand your intellectual imbecile remark. However, slow down, think, react is a fine approach. Honestly, that's what Obama seems to do, and gets some flack for it. Just because you disagree with the decision doesn't mean that the decision making process was flawed.
[/quote]
Whats not to understand? I'm saying he is way above average in intellect, yet exudes horrible judgment in his decisions, proving brains don't always equal success.
[/quote]
I agree completely with your basic premise, though I don't think his judgment is as bad as people make it out to be. The problem is that more often than not, the smart guy will make better decisions than the dipshit. No, being smart doesn't make you right, something I often remind myself, but it's a helluva lot better than being a moron.
-
I will boil it down..
I feel GWB loves this country..was unapolagetic about our greatness and what the USA has done, that the USA is a Beacon for freedom..and he acted on that..
Obama I do not for one minute feel like he even likes the USA, he is here to make us into what he likes..and thats not the USA we in America grew up in...
the medias sickening lap dogging of him makes me despise him more....where GWB was under constant attack from the media..
Obama could never deal with the hatred the media threw at GWB...Obama cant take much, he was made..
-
your epic view of teh world is too much for me to handle, i will let you stay in your world and please keep out of our sane world.
fine ...
but in the sane world.. we see that Obama is spending us into bankruptcy...
-
Bush was in no shape or form better than any president, not even nixon.
If you think Bush is the worst President, you are seriously mistaken. We've had Presidents who were far worse.
Elaborate please.
Andrew Jackson damn near destroyed the country economically
I realize this is a bit off topic, but I'll never understand why anyone would consider Jackson a good president
-
It is too early, but it would appear Bush had a better first two years then Obama.
Then came 9/11 Who knows what his presidency would have been without his pride sending us into 2 unnecessary wars?
He only had 9 months, and he spent those on vacation, but that's not a bad thing at all.
You raise an interesting point, though. I suspect that his presidency would have been viewed as successful without 911, although it's debatable as to whether or not he would have gotten a second term without the "war-time leader" nonsense. His style would have been to stay in the background and not meddle in things he doesn't understand, which most view as a reasonable approach. The simple truth is that he's an imbecile, but that doesn't matter too much if he doesn't interject himself into situations needlessly. He would have made some silly decisions, but probably no more than any other president.
and Obama is an intellectual imbecille. His actions prove it. He is all brains and zero common sense. Slow down...think... then react. :tick2: Gets better results.
I don't really understand your intellectual imbecile remark. However, slow down, think, react is a fine approach. Honestly, that's what Obama seems to do, and gets some flack for it. Just because you disagree with the decision doesn't mean that the decision making process was flawed.
Whats not to understand? I'm saying he is way above average in intellect, yet exudes horrible judgment in his decisions, proving brains don't always equal success.
[/quote]
I agree completely with your basic premise, though I don't think his judgment is as bad as people make it out to be. The problem is that more often than not, the smart guy will make better decisions than the dipshit. No, being smart doesn't make you right, something I often remind myself, but it's a helluva lot better than being a moron.
[/quote]
I think I fall squarely in the middle ground between genius and moron. :biggrin:
-
Love of country shouldn't be synonymous with blindness. One can love their country but recognize when it's fucked up. That's part of the problem with American politics nowadays. If you criticize one of the numerous things there is to criticize, you HATE AMERICA! Patriotism in today's political world is simply insisting that America is perfect whenever somebody says otherwise. Saying something over and over doesn't make it so.
And here's some vacation data. The cites go to Factcheck.org. And once again, I won't hold vacation time against anybody--even Dumbass.
Presidential vacations: A little perspective, perhaps?
posted 7/28/2010 2:53:24 AM |
1 kudo give kudos what's this?
report abuse
SweetNapaGuy
As of a week ago, Obama has spent 65 days on vacation, in 19 months (3.42 days of vacation per month).
For comparison, Bush Jr. by this point in his presidency had spent 120 days on vacation in 19 months (6.3 days of vacation per month). Cite
Of the recent Presidents (going back to Carter), in their first year in office (not including Camp David):
Carter spent 19 days on vacation (1.6 days per month)
Reagan spent 42 days on vacation (3.5 days per month)
Bush Sr. spent 40 days on vacation (3.3 days per month)
Clinton spent 21 days on vacation (1.8 days per month)
Bush Jr. spent 77 days on vacation (6.4 days per month)
Obama spent 26 days on vacation (2.2 days per month)
Cite
And before anyone leaps on the qualifier "not including Camp David," Obama spent an additional 27 days at Camp David. Bush Jr. spent an additional 78 days at Camp David.
Note that the only Presidents who spent less time on vacation than Obama were fellow Democrats...
(https://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/[quote author=tick link=topic=17950.msg650548#msg650548 date=1288368988)
-
your epic view of teh world is too much for me to handle, i will let you stay in your world and please keep out of our sane world.
fine ...
but in the sane world.. we see that Obama is spending us into bankruptcy...
Bush started the spending far before Obama did. We were essentially bankrupt when he took office. The continued spending doesn't help, but what else do you suggest he do?
We can't raise taxes to make money; that's a big no-no
We can't spend money on programs to help people/business stay afloat to stimulate the economy (if only a little bit), because that's a no-no too
Any solutions?
-
I can't understand at all where EpicView is coming from, but thankfully I've stopped juding people based on shit they say in PR.
-
To Ticks point....GWB surrounded himself with solid people in his cabient.. everyone Obama has is a radical..from Susan Rice to Eric Holder...all of them...America is catching on
Obama called the GOP "the ENEMY that needs to be punished" the other day!!!!? I mean WTF? thats the words of a half wit..
He wont even call the Fort Hood shooter an enemy terrorrist..
I wouldnt trust Obama with my lunch money..
-
I can't understand at all where EpicView is coming from, but thankfully I've stopped juding people based on shit they say in PR.
I agree..I dont judge either..I like everyone here a lot..its a very nice group..
I hope one day you understand my "view"..lol
-
Bush was in no shape or form better than any president, not even nixon.
If you think Bush is the worst President, you are seriously mistaken. We've had Presidents who were far worse.
Elaborate please.
Andrew Jackson damn near destroyed the country economically
I agree PLM..Jackson was not good in my opinion of history of him
I realize this is a bit off topic, but I'll never understand why anyone would consider Jackson a good president
-
To Ticks point....GWB surrounded himself with solid people in his cabient.. everyone Obama has is a radical..from Susan Rice to Eric Holder...all of them...America is catching on
Obama called the GOP "the ENEMY that needs to be punished" the other day!!!!? I mean WTF? thats the words of a half wit..
He wont even call the Fort Hood shooter an enemy terrorrist..
I wouldnt trust Obama with my lunch money..
To point one: NOBODY ON HIS CABINET IS A RADICAL. As far as Obama's administration is concerned, it's decidedly moderate. I think you're confusing 'slightly liberal' with 'ZOMG SOCIALIST'
To point two: He's not a half wit. Congress as a whole had been acting ridiculous, and so the whole of them should be punished, but the GOP's unwillingness to work with the Democratic party on issues makes them look more like bratty children than the Democrats. Hence the punishment line. Would you say the same thing if it concerned the Democratic party?
To point three: What proof do YOU have that says the Fort Hood shooter is an enemy terrorist? Yes he is a Muslim. That does not make him a terrorist. Unless you proved proof that you have saying he's a terrorist, I'm inclined to disbelief
-
your epic view of teh world is too much for me to handle, i will let you stay in your world and please keep out of our sane world.
fine ...
but in the sane world.. we see that Obama is spending us into bankruptcy...
Bush started the spending far before Obama did. We were essentially bankrupt when he took office. The continued spending doesn't help, but what else do you suggest he do?
We can't raise taxes to make money; that's a big no-no
We can't spend money on programs to help people/business stay afloat to stimulate the economy (if only a little bit), because that's a no-no too
Any solutions?
How about instead of the focus being corporate bailouts and an infrastructure stimulus, you take some of that money and make it available for the small businessman who is teetering on going out of business the availability for funds to stay a float? If small business survives, people are working. If people are working, the economy works better.
If business's close more people lose homes and the deeper the shit becomes.
The stimulus was poorly thought out. America needs people to work to thrive. If business has no access to loans, were doomed.
-
To Ticks point....GWB surrounded himself with solid people in his cabient.. everyone Obama has is a radical..from Susan Rice to Eric Holder...all of them...America is catching on
His attorney general anointed himself with oil, refused to dance, and covered the tits of the justice woman! And you're going to call Holder a radical?
-
your epic view of teh world is too much for me to handle, i will let you stay in your world and please keep out of our sane world.
fine ...
but in the sane world.. we see that Obama is spending us into bankruptcy...
Bush started the spending far before Obama did. We were essentially bankrupt when he took office. The continued spending doesn't help, but what else do you suggest he do?
We can't raise taxes to make money; that's a big no-no
We can't spend money on programs to help people/business stay afloat to stimulate the economy (if only a little bit), because that's a no-no too
Any solutions?
How about instead of the focus being corporate bailouts and an infrastructure stimulus, you take some of that money and make it available for the small businessman who is teetering on going out of business the availability for funds to stay a float? If small business survives, people are working. If people are working, the economy works better.
If business's close more people lose homes and the deeper the shit becomes.
The stimulus was poorly thought out. America needs people to work to thrive. If business has no access to loans, were doomed.
I largely agree (although I'm not sold one way or another on TARP). But keep in mind that Bush and McCain would have gone along with the bailouts, as well. In fact, I believe the auto industry bailouts were Bush's, weren't they? I'm still puzzled how Obama get's saddled with nationalizing Detroit.
-
Id call Holder much worse EB....he is beyond radical....
I hate Holder..cant stand him.. he is trying to give civi rights to terrorists and having the 9/11 trial in NYC...
and one wonders why I hate Obama?...really?
-
To Ticks point....GWB surrounded himself with solid people in his cabient.. everyone Obama has is a radical..from Susan Rice to Eric Holder...all of them...America is catching on
Obama called the GOP "the ENEMY that needs to be punished" the other day!!!!? I mean WTF? thats the words of a half wit..
He wont even call the Fort Hood shooter an enemy terrorrist..
I wouldnt trust Obama with my lunch money..
To point one: NOBODY ON HIS CABINET IS A RADICAL. As far as Obama's administration is concerned, it's decidedly moderate. I think you're confusing 'slightly liberal' with 'ZOMG SOCIALIST'
To point two: He's not a half wit. Congress as a whole had been acting ridiculous, and so the whole of them should be punished, but the GOP's unwillingness to work with the Democratic party on issues makes them look more like bratty children than the Democrats. Hence the punishment line. Would you say the same thing if it concerned the Democratic party?
To point three: What proof do YOU have that says the Fort Hood shooter is an enemy terrorist? Yes he is a Muslim. That does not make him a terrorist. Unless you proved proof that you have saying he's a terrorist, I'm inclined to disbelief
Im sorry but on each point you are off base
-
To Ticks point....GWB surrounded himself with solid people in his cabient.. everyone Obama has is a radical..from Susan Rice to Eric Holder...all of them...America is catching on
Obama called the GOP "the ENEMY that needs to be punished" the other day!!!!? I mean WTF? thats the words of a half wit..
He wont even call the Fort Hood shooter an enemy terrorrist..
I wouldnt trust Obama with my lunch money..
To point one: NOBODY ON HIS CABINET IS A RADICAL. As far as Obama's administration is concerned, it's decidedly moderate. I think you're confusing 'slightly liberal' with 'ZOMG SOCIALIST'
To point two: He's not a half wit. Congress as a whole had been acting ridiculous, and so the whole of them should be punished, but the GOP's unwillingness to work with the Democratic party on issues makes them look more like bratty children than the Democrats. Hence the punishment line. Would you say the same thing if it concerned the Democratic party?
To point three: What proof do YOU have that says the Fort Hood shooter is an enemy terrorist? Yes he is a Muslim. That does not make him a terrorist. Unless you proved proof that you have saying he's a terrorist, I'm inclined to disbelief
Im sorry but on each point you are off base
Unless you tell me why I'm just going to throw away all your arguments
-
for PLM
Point two
Laura Ingraham said Obama’s comments about "punishing our enemies" was not something the man occupying the Oval Office should say and called it un-presidential on "GMA" this morning.
“He is the president, George. He is the president of all the people,” she told me.
President Obama told Univision recently,“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,' if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's going to be harder."
“I know that everyone is rough and tumble in this campaign. But he is still the president,” Ingraham said. “And the fact of the matter is there is a national revolt going on against many of the policies that he and Nancy Pelosi pushed through against the will of the people, number one health care reform. That is not an enemy of the country those are the people of the country.”
-
Point 3 for PLM
Officials: U.S. Army Told of Hasan's Contacts with al Qaeda
Army Major in Fort Hood Massacre Used 'Electronic Means' to Connect with Terrorists
602 comments By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS
Nov. 9, 2009
PrintRSSFont Size: Share:EmailTwitterFacebookMoreFarkTechnoratiGoogleLiveMy SpaceNewsvineRedditDeliciousMixxYahooU.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with an individual associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.
Army knew suspected Fort Hood gunman had contact with al Qaeda recruiter.According to the officials, the Army was informed of Hasan's contact, but it is unclear what, if anything, the Army did in response.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said that he requested the CIA and other intelligence agencies brief the committee on what was known, if anything, about Hasan by the U.S. intelligence community, only to be refused.
In response, Hoekstra issued a document preservation request to four intelligence agencies. The letter, dated November 7th, was sent to directors Dennis Blair (DNI), Robert Mueller (FBI), Lt. Gen Keith Alexander (NSA) and Leon Panetta (CIA).
Hoekstra said he is "absolutely furious" that the house intel committee has been refused an intelligence briefing by the DNI or CIA on Hasan's attempt to reach out to al Qaeda, as first reported by ABC News.
"This is a law enforcement investigation, in which other agencies—not the CIA—have the lead," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said in a response to ABC News. " Any suggestion that the CIA refused to brief Congress is incorrect."
Related
WATCH: Fort Hood Suspect's Ties to Terrorists'Cop Killer' Gun Used In Ft. Hood Shooting, Officials SaidWATCH: What Turned Major Into Alleged Killer?Investigators want to know if Hasan maintained contact with a radical mosque leader from Virginia, Anwar al Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen and runs a web site that promotes jihad around the world against the U.S.
In a blog posting early Monday titled "Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing," Awlaki calls Hasan a "hero" and a "man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people."
According to his site, Awlaki served as an imam in Denver, San Diego and Falls Church, Virginia.
The Associated Press reported Sunday that Major Hasan attended the Falls Church mosque when Awlaki was there.
EmailsSign Up For Blotter Alerts!
E-mail address:
More Newsletters »
Subscribe RSS Feeds Podcasts Mobile
The Telegraph of London reported that Awlaki had made contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers when he was in San Diego.
He denied any knowledge of the hijacking plot and was never charged with any crime. After an intensive investigation by the FBI , Awlaki moved to Yemen.
People who knew or worked with Hasan say he seemed to have gradually become more radical in his disapproval of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On Sunday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) called for an investigation into whether the Army missed signs as to whether Hasan was an Islamic extremist.
"If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have a zero tolerance," Lieberman told Fox News Sunday.
-
There is no solid evidence in either of those clippings that says that he was a terrorist. Only that he had contact with someone with radical views. And I don't doubt that Awlaki had no knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Just because somebody has extreme views doesn't mean they act on them.
I think a lot of people these days are far too quick to label Muslims as terrorists if they have extreme views
-
Point 1 for PLM
Obama’s Radical Czars
One is judged by the company he or she keeps.
Yet for over a year now, we — or more specifically the state-run media —have failed to hold Our Lord and Savior Barack Hussein Obama to that same standard.
Why? Because Obama has been allowed to pass Himself off as some sort of centrist, a post-partisan, post-racial political figure who will bring all Americans together despite His longstanding connections with some of the most radical figures in the history of American politics.
Take Obama’s first political mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist. Or Bill Ayers, the domestic terrorist, who helped start Obama’s political career. Or the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor in the church of black liberation theology, in Chicago, in whose church Obama sat for 20 years almost every Sunday.
Now, there are even more radicals surrounding the Chocolate Jesus in Washington. Some are the constitutionally-questionable czars, individuals who are part of the Obama administration yet have not been confirmed by the Senate, as would, say, Cabinet members and other official advisers to the President. Yet these individuals have been granted unrestrained power and authority over everything from the auto industry to manufacturing to energy to communciations and the Internet. Accountable to whom? Only Barack Obama Himself.
One who is not a czar but is a high-ranking legal adviser in the State Department is Harold Koh, former dean of the Law School at Yale University. In other words, an Ivy League pinhead elitist, but even more dangerous that that.
Koh is an advocate of transnationalism, which is defined as being:
… a concept that argues in favor of “global governance” as opposed to the constitutional sovereignty of independent nation-states.
In other words, he does not support the sovereignty of the United States and the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land.
Here’s another shocker: Koh supports the introduction of sharia law into the United States.
Robert Spencer, who runs the Jihad Watch blog, wrote this piece at Human Events earlier this year, when Koh was being appointed to his current position:
Among numerous questionable and controversial statements, Koh has said that the “war on terror” — a term which the Obama Administration has already quietly abandoned, was “obsessive.” And in a 2007 speech, according to a lawyer who was in the audience, Koh opined that “in an appropriate case, he didn’t see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.”
Sorry, but the supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution. The introduction of sharia law is something we are seeing in England and Canada and it isn’t for the better.
Also, with rumors that another justice on the U.S. Supreme Court is ready to step down, there is a very real chance that Harold Koh would be The Anointed One’s next nomination to SCOTUS.
You can read more about Koh’s leftist leanings and “Blame America First” mentality here.
Another radical that we’ve talked about before here and here is John Holdren, the Dr. Mengele wannabe that is now Obama’s science czar.
Reposting a summary of Holdren’s views, which we said at the time would be right at home in Nazi Germany:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
Forced abortions. Forced sterilization. Government control of reproduction. Confiscation of babies from families at the whim of the state. Elimination of so-called undesirables.
Anyone care to defend this as being mainstream? It’s not next to impossible to do so. It is impossible to do so.
Then there is Mark Lloyd, Obama’s FCC diversity czar, who is an open admirer of leftist thug Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
Here is a summary of what Lloyd thinks of freedom of speech on the airwaves:
In 2006 while at the liberal Center for American Progress Lloyd wrote a book entitled, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America. In the book he presents the idea the private broadcasters (private business) should pay a licensing fees which equals their total operating costs so that public broadcasting station can spend the same on their operations as the private companies do. By doing so he hopes to improve the Corporation for Public Broadcasting currently at $400 Million for 2009.
Not only does he want to redistribute private profits, he wants to regulate much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focus on “diverse views” (Progressive Views) and government activities.
Lloyd is just doing the work of the real Puppetmaster, George Soros, who is the one pulling the strings on the entire Obama administration:
A Senior Fellow at the George Soros’ Center for American Progress, Mark Lloyd’s antipathy towards non-leftist participation in the public square is well known. He has written two anti-free speech hit pieces on “conservative talk radio” … a CAP “analysis” “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” which never examines talk radio in the larger sphere as being the only alternative to Leftist dominated broadcast television (news and entertainment), newspapers, university and college campuses … and “Forget the Fairness Doctrine”, a whiney little piece where Lloyd tries to bare his teeth against people who oppose his conclusions in the first piece and defends his Trojan Horse plan to achieve his own STFU policy towards conservative talk radio with so-called “local diversity” objectives.
Still, there’s Cass Sunstein, the regulatory czar. Sunstein believes that hunting should be banned and animals should have the right to sue people. Oh, he also believes there should be a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.
And now we get to the latest moonbat to emerge from the shadows: Van Jones, the so-called green jobs czar.
Van Jones is the individual behind the movement to silence Fox News commentator Glenn Beck. His group, Color For Change, has urged a boycott of Beck’s advertisers because the host called The Messiah a racist who hate white people.
He is … there’s plenty of evidence to show that He is and does. But that’s beside the point.
The night of the September 11 attacks, Van Jones and another group known as STORM — Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement — held a Blame America for the Attacks vigil.
Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), the revolutionary group formed by self-described “communist” and “rowdy black nationalist” Van Jones, held a vigil in Oakland, California, “mourning the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world” on the night after Sept. 11, 2001.
The reason this is important is because Van Jones is now President Obama’s green jobs czar. He does not appear to have distanced himself from his past communist activities and is now part of the Obama administration’s push to turn Sept. 11 into a National Day of Service focused on the promotion of the radical environmentalist agenda.
STORM’s website has been scrubbed of its radical documents, but they can still be viewed here. Pure Maxism, Communism, whatever. Blame. America. First.
“Reclaiming Revolution” also blamed the U.S. for 9/11. A passage on page 45 (27 of the PDF file) reads:
That night, STORM and the other movement leaders expressed sadness and anger at the deaths of innocent working class people. We were angry, first and foremost, with the U.S. government, whose worldwide aggression had engendered such hate across the globe that working class people were not safe at home. We honored those who had lost their lives in the attack — and those who would surely lose their lives in subsequent U.S. attacks overseas.
What’s more, Van Jones is an open and admitted communist.
Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit has more on the commie green jobs czar here and here.
Also, David Horowitz, himself a reformed 60s radical, notes:
[Glenn] Beck also focused on Van Jones, a self-described Communist who is now the Special Assistant to the President for “Green Jobs”. Beck ran some revealing clips on Jones, who is a Jeremiah Wright radical — a black racist and Ivy League elitist. Beck noted Jones’ radical “past” — actually he became a Communist in 1992 and for the next 10 years was a member of a communist party dedicated to “organizing a revolutionary movement.” In his 2007 book The Green Economy, Jones blamed the devastation of Hurricane Katrina on white supremacy and the war in Iraq, which he blamed, in turn, on America’s “need for oil.”
Beck perspicaciously pointed out that Jones was the candidate of the Apollo Alliance — which is a communist party of the green movement composed of social justice and racial justice groups. As I pointed out in Unholy Alliance, social justice (and racial justice) is a term that, when used by far left groups, is a code for a Marxist future despite the phony lip service they frequently pay to the private sector when they address a broader public. The Apollo Alliance had proposed an $11 billion budget for green jobs. They got it from Obama. Beck also pointed out that the “Cash for Clunkers” stimulus program was proposed by Jones. He omitted one other salient fact: Jones was picked for his White House job by the Soros-funded and -organized Center for American Progress (John Podesta, its head, was the head of Obama’s transition team).
The Apollo Alliance, of course, may very well have been the real author of the porkulus bill, which we discussed here. Social justice is nothing more than a code word for Marxism.
Van Jones thinks Republicans are, well, a word not printable on a famly blog:
As Patrick at Badger Blogger observes:
Is it any wonder that Obama’s poll numbers have dropped like a rock, the man surrounds himself with communists, terrorists and racists …
Birds of a feather …
And now we learn that Van Jones is a 9/11 Troofer moonbat. Via Gateway Pundit, the screen cap that shows his name on the 9-11 Truth document (in case it disappears down the rabbit hole):
Over at Hot Air, Allahpundit adds:
I’ve been trying to come up with a joke all morning about what sort of leftist lunatic might be next on O’s hiring list, but I simply can’t top “Truther communist.” Congratulations, Barry: You’re now parody-proof.
Also, AP notes the need for the next Republican-controlled Congress to introduce and pass legislation calling for all of these so-called czars to have to undergo confirmation hearings by the Senate, as would Cabinet officials and top-level advisers.
Once again, you are judged by the company you keep. For His entire adult life, first as a community organzer, then as a political hack from the Chicago machine and now as POTUS, Barack Hussein Obama has been closely aligned with and has associated with dangerous leftwing radicals, communists, Marxists, et al.
Clearly, He is not uncomfortable with their beliefs and ideas. What is it they say about birds of a feather?
Oh right, they flock together.
-
again for PLM
and his point 1
Anita Dunn is resigning as Barack Obama’s White House Communications Director. No real reason has been given but we can rest assured knowing that another radical in Obama’s cabinet has been forced to resign. I think that most of us know why she is leaving, she is a radical who worships Mao Tse Tung, what else do you need to know?
First the radical Van Jones offered his resignation after comments that were politically embarrassing to the White House emerged and now the woman who considers Mao Tse Tung as one of her favorite political philosophers has decided to leave the White House.
She became an embarrassment to the White House and as such she has become expendable. While this is great news for freedom loving Americans all across the nation the fact remains that Barack Obama himself is just as much of a radical as Van Jones and Anita Dunn, that is why he hired them in the first place– he agrees with them. But Americans are starting to wake up and they are realizing that Obama has surrounded himself with radicals.
Obama has spent his life around many radicals, so it is not surprising that he would have this type of person in his cabinet. But most Americans are not as radical as Obama, this is something that Obama probably didn’t realize because of all of his past associations but as time goes by he is beginning to realize that. He cannot afford to keep radicals like Jones and Dunn around and when they are exposed he kicks them to the curb.
-
There is no solid evidence in either of those clippings that says that he was a terrorist. Only that he had contact with someone with radical views. And I don't doubt that Awlaki had no knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Just because somebody has extreme views doesn't mean they act on them.
I think a lot of people these days are far too quick to label Muslims as terrorists if they have extreme views
but he acted on them..so what should we call him? a Boy Scout?
The funny part is Obama wont call him a terrorist.. in Obamas world nobody is a terrorist..they dont even exist..and thats dangerous..
-
Now...can you imagine if this was GWBs history of appointments?...
if it was..Id hate GWB..LOL
-
I agree 100% with Tick...and who was Obama? he is not qualified for much...But Soros bought that election
we were told he was the great "orator" and he cant even form a sentence without a teleprompter..
GWB would screw up a few words with no teleprompter talking from the heart, and the media would scream that GWB was an idiot..
Man do I hate the Liberal media..
so you are siding with a spoiled drunk who got the job thanks to his daddy than a guy who actually worked with the poor and worked his way up the party on his own? good to know.
Yea I guess that's true. I believe he likes working with the poor. It's pretty obvious since he's working so hard to make us all poor.
-
I agree 100% with Tick...and who was Obama? he is not qualified for much...But Soros bought that election
we were told he was the great "orator" and he cant even form a sentence without a teleprompter..
GWB would screw up a few words with no teleprompter talking from the heart, and the media would scream that GWB was an idiot..
Man do I hate the Liberal media..
so you are siding with a spoiled drunk who got the job thanks to his daddy than a guy who actually worked with the poor and worked his way up the party on his own? good to know.
Yea I guess that's true. I believe he likes working with the poor. It's pretty obvious since he's working so hard to make us all poor.
LOL..good one!!
-
I can't help but groan when I see people attempting to defend Bush. There's no reason to try and rank him in a historical context yet, but that shouldn't prevent us from acknowledging that the man was a horrible president. On every front, from protecting civil liberties to reducing the size government, things conservatives supposedly stand for, W. sucked out loud. What's more, Obama is essentially no different, but somehow Obama is a "radical." What a bunch of bullshit.
I guess I'l post this again; it's my favorite demolishing of the "OMG Obama's a radical socialist!" argument.
https://reason.com/archives/2009/10/08/obama-and-the-socialist-canard
-
your epic view of teh world is too much for me to handle, i will let you stay in your world and please keep out of our sane world.
fine ...
but in the sane world.. we see that Obama is spending us into bankruptcy...
Bush started the spending far before Obama did. We were essentially bankrupt when he took office. The continued spending doesn't help, but what else do you suggest he do?
We can't raise taxes to make money; that's a big no-no
We can't spend money on programs to help people/business stay afloat to stimulate the economy (if only a little bit), because that's a no-no too
Any solutions?
How about instead of the focus being corporate bailouts and an infrastructure stimulus, you take some of that money and make it available for the small businessman who is teetering on going out of business the availability for funds to stay a float? If small business survives, people are working. If people are working, the economy works better.
If business's close more people lose homes and the deeper the shit becomes.
The stimulus was poorly thought out. America needs people to work to thrive. If business has no access to loans, were doomed.
Only problem with that is it would be a logistical impossibility. You cant make small loans to millions of small companies....the due diligence, application and approval process, and administration and collection of the loans...would be a nightmare.
The only thing that the govt could do was to make sure the only infrastructure that could do the small business loans (the banks) stayed healthy. There were requirements in the bailout to make sure the banks loaned money out and get credit unfroxzen. Did it work? Not as good as hoped...but there really wanst any other realistic alterrnative.
-
this was interesting:
IQ Obama vs GWB
How come Obama's IQ. is lower then Bush's?
Bush 148
Obama 128
-
The Intelligence Quotient isn't an accurate measure of intelligence, as you should know. Depending on how old you were when you were tested and a bunch of other variables, it can change
My IQ was tested at 13 and it was 130. But how do I know it's the same today?
-
The Intelligence Quotient isn't an accurate measure of intelligence, as you should know. Depending on how old you were when you were tested and a bunch of other variables, it can change
My IQ was tested at 13 and it was 130. But how do I know it's the same today?
mine is in that range also...
Im not sure what it means...all I know is GWB can fly a plane...Ive never seen Obama even drive a car. LOL
-
Bush's IQ is 148? You gotta be shittin' me.
-
Bush's IQ is 148? You gotta be shittin' me.
look it up..see what you find..be objective
-
Bush's IQ is 148? You gotta be shittin' me.
You forgot the decimal
it was .148
and it wasnt his IQ, it was his BAC
-
Bush's IQ is 148? You gotta be shittin' me.
You forgot the decimal
it was .148
and it wasnt his IQ, it was his BAC
haha ;D
-
The Journal of Psychology estimated that Bush's IQ was about 125.
Let's also note that IQ greatly measures memory, and from what I understand he has a great memory. That doesn't have anything to do with intelligence.
-
The Journal of Psychology estimated that Bush's IQ was about 125.
Let's also note that IQ greatly measures memory, and from what I understand he has a great memory. That doesn't have anything to do with intelligence.
estimated? and what did they estimate Obamas..
-
this was interesting:
IQ Obama vs GWB
How come Obama's IQ. is lower then Bush's?
Bush 148
Obama 128
source?
-
The Journal of Psychology estimated that Bush's IQ was about 125.
Let's also note that IQ greatly measures memory, and from what I understand he has a great memory. That doesn't have anything to do with intelligence.
estimated? and what did they estimate Obamas..
They haven't. It was done in 2008 I believe. But I think they estimated clintons at 148.
-
The Journal of Psychology estimated that Bush's IQ was about 125.
Let's also note that IQ greatly measures memory, and from what I understand he has a great memory. That doesn't have anything to do with intelligence.
estimated? and what did they estimate Obamas..
They haven't. It was done in 2008 I believe. But I think they estimated clintons at 148.
from looking at a bunch of thier IQ's..suffice to say they are close...they both are between 120 and 130
-
The Journal of Psychology estimated that Bush's IQ was about 125.
Let's also note that IQ greatly measures memory, and from what I understand he has a great memory. That doesn't have anything to do with intelligence.
estimated? and what did they estimate Obamas..
They haven't. It was done in 2008 I believe. But I think they estimated clintons at 148.
I think it might have been 2006
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00524.x/pdf
-
The Journal of Psychology estimated that Bush's IQ was about 125.
Let's also note that IQ greatly measures memory, and from what I understand he has a great memory. That doesn't have anything to do with intelligence.
estimated? and what did they estimate Obamas..
They haven't. It was done in 2008 I believe. But I think they estimated clintons at 148.
from looking at a bunch of thier IQ's..suffice to say they are close...they both are between 120 and 130
so where did you get 148 for bush?
-
I know who can throw a better first pitch at a ball game..!!!
-
Bush's IQ is 148? You gotta be shittin' me.
You forgot the decimal
it was .148
and it wasnt his IQ, it was his BAC
Now that's some funny shit right there. :rollin
-
Who cares?
I don't judge a president based on their IQs or potential IQ's. I don't base it off of their history or their personal life. I base it 100% solely on what they do as president.
That said. Bush did really really bad and dumb things.
Obama has done very little to correct said things.
So I'd say Bush was a terrible president, and as of yet, Obama is a worthless president.
-
The Journal of Psychology estimated that Bush's IQ was about 125.
Let's also note that IQ greatly measures memory, and from what I understand he has a great memory. That doesn't have anything to do with intelligence.
estimated? and what did they estimate Obamas..
They haven't. It was done in 2008 I believe. But I think they estimated clintons at 148.
from looking at a bunch of thier IQ's..suffice to say they are close...they both are between 120 and 130
so where did you get 148 for bush?
prove it not...arent you worried about why I said Obamas was so high?
-
The Journal of Psychology estimated that Bush's IQ was about 125.
Let's also note that IQ greatly measures memory, and from what I understand he has a great memory. That doesn't have anything to do with intelligence.
estimated? and what did they estimate Obamas..
They haven't. It was done in 2008 I believe. But I think they estimated clintons at 148.
from looking at a bunch of thier IQ's..suffice to say they are close...they both are between 120 and 130
so where did you get 148 for bush?
prove it not...arent you worried about why I said Obamas was so high?
cant prove a negative. I guess you just made it up.
-
The Journal of Psychology estimated that Bush's IQ was about 125.
Let's also note that IQ greatly measures memory, and from what I understand he has a great memory. That doesn't have anything to do with intelligence.
estimated? and what did they estimate Obamas..
They haven't. It was done in 2008 I believe. But I think they estimated clintons at 148.
from looking at a bunch of thier IQ's..suffice to say they are close...they both are between 120 and 130
so where did you get 148 for bush?
prove it not...arent you worried about why I said Obamas was so high?
cant prove a negative. I guess you just made it up.
again....do some research and be objective...try to find a good source..
-
The Journal of Psychology estimated that Bush's IQ was about 125.
Let's also note that IQ greatly measures memory, and from what I understand he has a great memory. That doesn't have anything to do with intelligence.
estimated? and what did they estimate Obamas..
They haven't. It was done in 2008 I believe. But I think they estimated clintons at 148.
from looking at a bunch of thier IQ's..suffice to say they are close...they both are between 120 and 130
so where did you get 148 for bush?
prove it not...arent you worried about why I said Obamas was so high?
cant prove a negative. I guess you just made it up.
again....do some research and be objective...try to find a good source..
Already did. 125. I guess you just think that misunderestimates his intelligence :)
-
Yea I looked around at a bunch of sites too, 125 seems to be the general answer.
And stop the quoting, good xenu.
-
I can't help but groan when I see people attempting to defend Bush. There's no reason to try and rank him in a historical context yet, but that shouldn't prevent us from acknowledging that the man was a horrible president. On every front, from protecting civil liberties to reducing the size government, things conservatives supposedly stand for, W. sucked out loud. What's more, Obama is essentially no different, but somehow Obama is a "radical." What a bunch of bullshit.
I guess I'l post this again; it's my favorite demolishing of the "OMG Obama's a radical socialist!" argument.
https://reason.com/archives/2009/10/08/obama-and-the-socialist-canard
I jsut listed the reasons... how many attacks on the USA did we have after 9/11...and then how many after Obama got into office?...why is Obama looking to dismantle the HSA?
and what right did youy lose under GWB?...that cannard is really BS, find out about how Obamas is taking your rights away..with healthcare...thats a real canard there
-
Yea I looked around at a bunch of sites too, 125 seems to be the general answer.
And stop the quoting, good xenu.
yep...I agree...they both are pretty close..the point being the beloved genius Obama is not a genius..unless GWB is a genius too...LOL..
to my point..the media each day beat the drum that GWB was an idiot..and they tell us each day Obama is a genius...thats BS
-
IQ has nothing to do with being a genius.
-
IQ has nothing to do with being a genius.
If you insist..I understand your macro point..
-
I met Bush once. He was at a restaurant one night after a fund raiser. I was there picking up wings. I stood with him and a couple other people, and talked for a few minutes. I definitely felt he has a certain charisma, and seemed intelligent.....but some of the things he would say would have me go :facepalm:.
The first thing I said about Obama after watching a speech was that he was light years ahead in his mastery of public speaking and communication.
I dont feel either of them are geniuses, or retards. They are both intelligent men as far as I can tell.
-
I met Bush once. He was at a restaurant one night after a fund raiser. I was there picking up wings. I stood with him and a couple other people, and talked for a few minutes. I definitely felt he has a certain charisma, and seemed intelligent.....but some of the things he would say would have me go :facepalm:.
The first thing I said about Obama after watching a speech was that he was light years ahead in his mastery of public speaking and communication.
I dont feel either of them are geniuses, or retards. They are both intelligent men as far as I can tell.
well..that was kinda objective..
My issues on Obama I have posted here...I also think Obama is dangerous and if you dont think Obama says stupid things then I dont know what to say..unless you just believe that the GOP is the "enemy" lol..
PS: How were the wings?
-
Obama is no more dangerous than Bush was.
-
I met Bush once. He was at a restaurant one night after a fund raiser. I was there picking up wings. I stood with him and a couple other people, and talked for a few minutes. I definitely felt he has a certain charisma, and seemed intelligent.....but some of the things he would say would have me go :facepalm:.
The first thing I said about Obama after watching a speech was that he was light years ahead in his mastery of public speaking and communication.
I dont feel either of them are geniuses, or retards. They are both intelligent men as far as I can tell.
well..that was kinda objective..
My issues on Obama I have posted here...I also think Obama is dangerous and if you dont think Obama says stupid things then I dont know what to say..unless you just believe that the GOP is the "enemy" lol..
PS: How were the wings?
I dont think the GOP is the enemy. I think blind hatred of anything that isnt your beloved party is the real danger.
That goes for both sides of the coin.
THAT is being objective.
-
Obama is no more dangerous than Bush was.
sorry thats just not true.. we are now trillions in debt.. our rights are being taken with healthcare, his appointments are radical..the Jihad sees him as week and sympathetic to their cause.. He just wished the madman of Iran a happy birthday... he has Holder dismantling the HSA that we know kept us safe.. he is defuding our National defense..He is selling us out with Cap and Trade. He called the GOP the "enemy"..Kagen is a moron who wont uphold the constitution..adn I cant even get into the guts of radical sharia sympathy here
just not enough pixels to say it all
-
I met Bush once. He was at a restaurant one night after a fund raiser. I was there picking up wings. I stood with him and a couple other people, and talked for a few minutes. I definitely felt he has a certain charisma, and seemed intelligent.....but some of the things he would say would have me go :facepalm:.
The first thing I said about Obama after watching a speech was that he was light years ahead in his mastery of public speaking and communication.
I dont feel either of them are geniuses, or retards. They are both intelligent men as far as I can tell.
well..that was kinda objective..
My issues on Obama I have posted here...I also think Obama is dangerous and if you dont think Obama says stupid things then I dont know what to say..unless you just believe that the GOP is the "enemy" lol..
PS: How were the wings?
I dont think the GOP is the enemy. I think blind hatred of anything that isnt your beloved party is the real danger.
That goes for both sides of the coin.
THAT is being objective.
I know you dont!! Im saying what about Obama saying that..
-
If a republican said that "The Democrats were the enemy" would you have the same outrage?
Edit: 2500 posts! woot!
-
If a republican said that "The Democrats were the enemy" would you have the same outrage?
Edit: 2500 posts! woot!
Sad thing about all of this is, from Obamas perspective, it seems accurate and surprisingly truthful.
From EV's view, Obama and the Dems ARE the enemy.
That is what is so sad and pitiful about todays govt, politics, and losers who literally take it to heart and actually HATE the opposition.
It is so disheartening that so many people have literally turned into a personification of a negative campaign ad.
-
If a republican said that "The Democrats were the enemy" would you have the same outrage?
Edit: 2500 posts! woot!
Yes...Id find it idiotic and offensive.. especially in the context Obama did..
-
If a republican said that "The Democrats were the enemy" would you have the same outrage?
Edit: 2500 posts! woot!
Yes...Id find it idiotic and offensive.. especially in the context Obama did..
Do you think Obama and the Democrats are the enemy?
(Think, and perhaps review what you have written here in this forum before you answer)
Be objective :)
-
If a republican said that "The Democrats were the enemy" would you have the same outrage?
Edit: 2500 posts! woot!
Yes...Id find it idiotic and offensive.. especially in the context Obama did..
I'm not offended by it either way because its what I expect from politics. Republicans call Democrats the enemy, and Democrats call Republicans the enemy. Honestly I'm surprised when they don't do that.
-
To Eric,I find Obama to be sided with mentors like Wright Soros , Alinsky, Ayers , Rezko and lots of very dangerous people..I can not even mention some of his associations that I find unsettling and UNLIKE any other President.
I will be honest..I find Obama very dangerous..and his lack of loyalty to the USA unsettling...
and trust me I came to this realization with doing lots of research on him..he need to be a one term President..we may never recover from the damge he has done..
I wish I was wrong..Im not happy about it..
-
To Eric,I find Obama to be sided with mentors like Wright Soros , Alinsky, Ayers , Rezko and lots of very dangerous people..I can not even mention some of his associations that I find unsettling and UNLIKE any other President.
I will be honest..I find Obama very dangerous..and his lack of loyalty to the USA unsettling...
and trust me I came to this realization with doing lots of research on him..he need to be a one term President..we may never recover from the damge he has done..
I wish I was wrong..Im not happy about it..
Didnt answer my question.
-
If a republican said that "The Democrats were the enemy" would you have the same outrage?
Edit: 2500 posts! woot!
Yes...Id find it idiotic and offensive.. especially in the context Obama did..
I'm not offended by it either way because its what I expect from politics. Republicans call Democrats the enemy, and Democrats call Republicans the enemy. Honestly I'm surprised when they don't do that.
fair enough.. but I dont find him Presidential, his words are of an idiot..who says that? oh I know a community agititator
-
To Eric,
Traditionaly I do not view the Dems as an enemy...but I do view Obama as an enemy of the fabric of the USA...
Obama is unlike any other politician..as he was made.. bought and sold to us..
-
Dude that's just wrong
-
Christ, EPICVIEW.
-
To Eric,
Traditionaly I do not view the Dems as an enemy...but I do view Obama as an enemy of the fabric of the USA...
Obama is unlike any other politician..as he was made.. bought and sold to us..
:facepalm:
-
Dude that's just wrong
why? have you read his mentors books?...whats worng is how the media kept this all from us, when they knew..George Soros is very dangerous..
-
"idiotic and offensive"
-
To Eric,
Traditionaly I do not view the Dems as an enemy...but I do view Obama as an enemy of the fabric of the USA...
Obama is unlike any other politician..as he was made.. bought and sold to us..
:facepalm:
You wanted honest? my question is you dont?...
-
"idiotic and offensive"
No its not.. Obama walked around quoting from Alinskys Rules for Radicals...thats OFFENSIVE
-
To Eric,
Traditionaly I do not view the Dems as an enemy...but I do view Obama as an enemy of the fabric of the USA...
Obama is unlike any other politician..as he was made.. bought and sold to us..
:facepalm:
You wanted honest? my question is you dont?...
I wanted a yes or no.
No, I dont HATE anyone, nor do I think any president or political party is the ENEMY of the country.
-
"idiotic and offensive"
No its not.. Obama walked around quoting from Alinskys Rules for Radicals...thats OFFENSIVE
You are quite literally, the personification of a negative campaign ad.
-
To Eric,
Traditionaly I do not view the Dems as an enemy...but I do view Obama as an enemy of the fabric of the USA...
Obama is unlike any other politician..as he was made.. bought and sold to us..
:facepalm:
You wanted honest? my question is you dont?...
I wanted a yes or no.
No, I dont HATE anyone, nor do I think any president or political party is the ENEMY of the country.
I again dont hate the Dems..But I do not like Obama..PERIOD..really whats to like? thats my question in general
-
"idiotic and offensive"
No its not.. Obama walked around quoting from Alinskys Rules for Radicals...thats OFFENSIVE
You are quite literally, the personification of a negative campaign ad.
maybe... Im not sure what you ar thinking..but maybe...did I make Obama walk around with Alinskys book at the election quotiong from it? have you read it?
-
"idiotic and offensive"
No its not.. Obama walked around quoting from Alinskys Rules for Radicals...thats OFFENSIVE
You are quite literally, the personification of a negative campaign ad.
maybe... Im not sure what you ar thinking..but maybe...did I make Obama walk around with Alinskys book at the election quotiong from it? have you read it?
no maybe about it.
-
For Eric,
well its hate filled ...
we havent even gotten into Acorn..
https://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/obama_alinsky_and_scapegoats.html
-
Eric,
Id like to speak on that piecw when you are done reading it..its a good synopsis
-
Eric,
Id like to speak on that piecw when you are done reading it..its a good synopsis
Why in the world would I want to speak with you on that?
The best thing about that piece of crap was the hilarious irony of the name of the publication...American Thinker? :lol
Thanks but no thanks.....I prefer to read reputable and unbiased articles....not negative campaign ads.
-
Eric,
How do you feel about this? He sees us as the enemy obviously
And Obama's Department of Homeland Security has now pinpointed our chief terrorist danger: It's "right-wing extremists," including Iraq War vets coming back home.
-
Eric,
Id like to speak on that piecw when you are done reading it..its a good synopsis
Why in the world would I want to speak with you on that?
The best thing about that piece of crap was the hilarious irony of the name of the publication...American Thinker? :lol
Thanks but no thanks.....I prefer to read reputable and unbiased articles....not negative campaign ads.
How much you want? there is endless amounts...
-
He sees us as the enemy obviously
Only to you and fellow haters.
-
Eric,
Id like to speak on that piecw when you are done reading it..its a good synopsis
Why in the world would I want to speak with you on that?
The best thing about that piece of crap was the hilarious irony of the name of the publication...American Thinker? :lol
Thanks but no thanks.....I prefer to read reputable and unbiased articles....not negative campaign ads.
How much you want? there is endless amounts...
Youre not the brightest bulb are you? Are you seriously asking me if I want MORE articles from YOU to read?
-
He sees us as the enemy obviously
Only to you and fellow haters.
hater? you have me confused with Jeremiah Wright...LOL...Im just viewing the total mosaic of this Obama..
-
And Obama's Department of Homeland Security has now pinpointed our chief terrorist danger: It's "right-wing extremists," including Iraq War vets coming back home.
If I believed this to be true, I'd be happy about it.
And I've been concerned about guys coming back from the Sandbox getting jobs in civilian law enforcement for a while. That should scare people.
-
He sees us as the enemy obviously
Only to you and fellow haters.
hater? you have me confused with Jeremiah Wright...LOL...Im just viewing the total mosaic of this Obama..
No. Not confused. Your posts have given us a pretty good "mosaic" of EPICVIEW.
-
And Obama's Department of Homeland Security has now pinpointed our chief terrorist danger: It's "right-wing extremists," including Iraq War vets coming back home.
If I believed this to be true, I'd be happy about it.
And I've been concerned about guys coming back from the Sandbox getting jobs in civilian law enforcement for a while. That should scare people.
really? you really think thats what Napalitano should be worried about our returning heros? not real terrorism? does she have anything to go on? Ive never heard of an instance of this as a threat ..?
-
He sees us as the enemy obviously
Only to you and fellow haters.
hater? you have me confused with Jeremiah Wright...LOL...Im just viewing the total mosaic of this Obama..
No. Not confused. Your posts have given us a pretty good "mosaic" of EPICVIEW.
I gave you facts.. he carried the book, is photod with it.. and taught from it.. its a hate filled book.and shows us what he believes in as far as social re-engineering..
-
I dont get it.. I gave my reasons.. gave the back up..and showed why I dislike Obama..a lot.
My question is "This Obama aint nothing like GWB..and I ask why would I like Obama?
simple question to the people who like Obama...why do you like him?
please list reasons to like him? I DONT SEE IT!!!!!! at all
-
Honestly, dude, not many people here actually do like him. We just think your reasons for hating him are insane.
-
Honestly, dude, not many people here actually do like him. We just think your reasons for hating him are insane.
I give him credit for doing some things that HAD to be done, even though there would be a huge negative backlash from the uninformed public.
Bailing out the financial industry, even though it seemed unfair to the common man, was something that had to be done. The clusterfuck this economy would be in if it wasnt done would be mindboggling.
I dont "like" or "dislike" him. I actually feel a bit bad for him, as I feel that he hasnt had much of a choice in many matters due to the seriously fucked up economy he inherited. (An economy which wasnt soley Bush's fault either...the President doesnt have all that much influence on a globally intertwined economy)
-
Honestly, dude, not many people here actually do like him. We just think your reasons for hating him are insane.
EB,
I swear I havent even scratched the surface on Obama... I gues my point is, "if people did their homework on Obama, I think they would be blown away"...I am honeslty very worried about Obama and would he protect us, he is bringing the country to its knees financially..adn we have shunned our true allies like the UK, France Germany, and Poland for some insanity that our sworn enemies will be blinded by Obamas smile and now like us..we jsut saw Syria laugh at us and reject our overtures.. I dont think Obama knows what he is doing at best..and at worst I think he is not that keen on our country period...
-
EB,
I swear I havent even scratched the surface on Obama... I gues my point is, "if people did their homework on Obama, I think they would be blown away"...
:facepalm:
We just think your reasons for hating him are insane.
Quoted for truth
-
EB,
I swear I havent even scratched the surface on Obama... I gues my point is, "if people did their homework on Obama, I think they would be blown away"...
:facepalm:
We just think your reasons for hating him are insane.
Quoted for truth
who is we?
-
EB,
I swear I havent even scratched the surface on Obama... I gues my point is, "if people did their homework on Obama, I think they would be blown away"...
:facepalm:
We just think your reasons for hating him are insane.
Quoted for truth
who is we?
Virtually everyone on P/R.
-
EB,
I swear I havent even scratched the surface on Obama... I gues my point is, "if people did their homework on Obama, I think they would be blown away"...
:facepalm:
We just think your reasons for hating him are insane.
Quoted for truth
who is we?
start a poll and find out
-
Wright
Rezko
Ayers
Koh
Dohrn
Khalidi
The name I cant say
Van Jones
Anita Dunne
Holder
PJ Crowley
Kagen
Soros
Move On
Acorn
Farakan
Alinsky
Susan Rice
Illegal National Healthcare
Trillions in Debt on a False Stimulus
SEIU
Natioanlizing of the Auto Industry
Illegal Tax policies
Class warfare
Phleger
defunding of the military
dismantling of the HSA
Napalitano
Fort Hood not being called what it really was
Not securing the border
Treatment of our true Allies
need I go on? those are not valid reasons?
-
EB,
I swear I havent even scratched the surface on Obama... I gues my point is, "if people did their homework on Obama, I think they would be blown away"...
:facepalm:
We just think your reasons for hating him are insane.
Quoted for truth
who is we?
start a poll and find out
I hope its a long list.. you do it..you have the answers!!
longer then my list?
-
Wright
Rezko
Ayers
Dorin
Khalidi
The name I cant say
Van Jones
Anita Dunne
Holder
PJ Crowley
Soros
Move On
Acorn
Farakan
Alinsky
Susan Rice
Illegal National Healthcare
Trillions in Debt on a False Stimulus
SEIU
Natioanlizing of the Auto Industry
Illegal Tax policies
Class warfare
defunding of the military
dismantling of the HSA
Napalitano
Fort Hood not being called what it really was
Not securing the border
Treatment of our true Allies
need I go on? those are not valid reasons?
LOL
no, and no.
-
Eric,
show me a list of reasons to like Obama?
good luck..
I cant wait to see the list..
I gave you real reasons not sutff like " I dont like the way he talks, he is a losuy speaker, his jokes are bad"..
these are real concerns..
-
Eric,
show me a list of reasons to like Obama?
good luck..
I cant wait to see the list..
You are just having a tough time understanding, and I must admit, I am feeling kind of sorry for you.
I would try to explain better, but I just dont think I could do any better, make it any more clear or concise, than ElBarto did:
Honestly, dude, not many people here actually do like him. We just think your reasons for hating him are insane.
-
Eric,
show me a list of reasons to like Obama?
good luck..
I cant wait to see the list..
You are just having a tough time understanding, and I must admit, I am feeling kind of sorry for you.
I would try to explain better, but I just dont think I could do any better, make it any more clear or concise, than ElBarto did:
Honestly, dude, not many people here actually do like him. We just think your reasons for hating him are insane.
again you dwell in subjective...when Im and dealing in objective reality...and you always go personal..its not enough to just say my reasons are "insane" they are not,and you feel sorry for me? please dont
-
Eric,
show me a list of reasons to like Obama?
good luck..
I cant wait to see the list..
You are just having a tough time understanding, and I must admit, I am feeling kind of sorry for you.
I would try to explain better, but I just dont think I could do any better, make it any more clear or concise, than ElBarto did:
Honestly, dude, not many people here actually do like him. We just think your reasons for hating him are insane.
again you dwell in subjective...when Im and dealing in objective reality...and you always go personal..its not enough to just say my reasons are "insane" they are not,and you feel sorry for me? please dont
Not getting personal at all...just quoting ElBarto. :)
Saying your reasons are "objective" IS insane.
Anyway, Im out. Hey, Its 4:20!!! :hat
-
Eric,
show me a list of reasons to like Obama?
good luck..
I cant wait to see the list..
You are just having a tough time understanding, and I must admit, I am feeling kind of sorry for you.
I would try to explain better, but I just dont think I could do any better, make it any more clear or concise, than ElBarto did:
Honestly, dude, not many people here actually do like him. We just think your reasons for hating him are insane.
again you dwell in subjective...when Im and dealing in objective reality...and you always go personal..its not enough to just say my reasons are "insane" they are not,and you feel sorry for me? please dont
Not getting personal at all...just quoting ElBarto. :)
Saying your reasons are "objective" IS insane.
Anyway, Im out. Hey, Its 4:20!!! :hat
no its not..each of those names are valid concerns..and or the subject is of real concern
-
Let's try and keep this simple. Can you accept that all presidents have associated with sleazy people? All meaning both Republicans and Democrats?
-
Let's try and keep this simple. Can you accept that all presidents have associated with sleazy people? All meaning both Republicans and Democrats?
sure..sleaze is on both sides.. but Im being very honest about Obamas associations and how they affect us, policy and funding. to dismiss that as "insane" is not nice, nor is it correct.
ok EB, you have a real vocal "dislike" of GWB ...so can you for the sake of discussion list his radical associations that made you feel uncomfortable, unsafe.. so we can compare and contrast it with my list on Obama..
-
Let's try and keep this simple. Can you accept that all presidents have associated with sleazy people? All meaning both Republicans and Democrats?
sure..sleaze is on both sides.. but Im being very honest about Obamas associations and how they affect us, policy and funding. to dismiss that as "insane" is not nice, nor is it correct.
ok EB, you have a real vocal "dislike" of GWB ...so can you for the sake of discussion list his radical associations that made you feel uncomfortable, unsafe.. so we can compare and contrast it with my list on Obama..
Many would think that his association with Cheney qualifies, and is then magified exponentially by making him vice-president :)
-
I can't participate in this thread anymore.
It's just too... silly now
-
(https://420.thrashbarg.net/graham_chapman_stop_that_silly.jpg)
-
Let's try and keep this simple. Can you accept that all presidents have associated with sleazy people? All meaning both Republicans and Democrats?
sure..sleaze is on both sides.. but Im being very honest about Obamas associations and how they affect us, policy and funding. to dismiss that as "insane" is not nice, nor is it correct.
ok EB, you have a real vocal "dislike" of GWB ...so can you for the sake of discussion list his radical associations that made you feel uncomfortable, unsafe.. so we can compare and contrast it with my list on Obama..
There's no way I'm going to get into a lunacy competition with you.
My point was that associating with nutjobs, crooks or otherwise sleazy individuals doesn't necessarily make you a nutjob, crook or sleazeball. If so, there would be nobody left to run.
-
Let's try and keep this simple. Can you accept that all presidents have associated with sleazy people? All meaning both Republicans and Democrats?
sure..sleaze is on both sides.. but Im being very honest about Obamas associations and how they affect us, policy and funding. to dismiss that as "insane" is not nice, nor is it correct.
ok EB, you have a real vocal "dislike" of GWB ...so can you for the sake of discussion list his radical associations that made you feel uncomfortable, unsafe.. so we can compare and contrast it with my list on Obama..
Many would think that his association with Cheney qualifies, and is then magified exponentially by making him vice-president :)
if you can prove why , but the Haliburton thing just dont cut it to me
-
I can't participate in this thread anymore.
It's just too... silly now
I hope I answered your 3 questions ..
-
Epicview, not to say you're crazy, but Glenn Beck would tell you to tone it down.
-
Epicview, not to say you're crazy, but Glenn Beck would tell you to tone it down.
He's actually made some great points. Let's recap in bulletpoint form.
1. Bush can fly a plane and Obama can not.
2. Bush has an IQ of 148 that no one in the world can confirm
3. Obama has friends who aren't cool.
4. So does bush, but whatever
5. Obama thinks of america as the enemy
6. Obama wants to impose sharia law
7. Obama is black
8. Bush is white
All of these FACTS prove 100% that bush was a better president than anyone in history.
-
Epicview, not to say you're crazy, but Glenn Beck would tell you to tone it down.
He's actually made some great points. Let's recap in bulletpoint form.
1. Bush can fly a plane and Obama can not.
2. Bush has an IQ of 148 that no one in the world can confirm
3. Obama has friends who aren't cool.
4. So does bush, but whatever
5. Obama thinks of america as the enemy
6. Obama wants to impose sharia law
7. Obama is black
8. Bush is white
All of these FACTS prove 100% that bush was a better president than anyone in history.
How can you argue with logic like that?
-
Let's try and keep this simple. Can you accept that all presidents have associated with sleazy people? All meaning both Republicans and Democrats?
sure..sleaze is on both sides.. but Im being very honest about Obamas associations and how they affect us, policy and funding. to dismiss that as "insane" is not nice, nor is it correct.
ok EB, you have a real vocal "dislike" of GWB ...so can you for the sake of discussion list his radical associations that made you feel uncomfortable, unsafe.. so we can compare and contrast it with my list on Obama..
There's no way I'm going to get into a lunacy competition with you.
My point was that associating with nutjobs, crooks or otherwise sleazy individuals doesn't necessarily make you a nutjob, crook or sleazeball. If so, there would be nobody left to run.
That's pretty broad isn't it? Are their no parameters at all to separate what should give us pause and what shouldn't when judging someones character? Or should we just lump everyone together is a bowl and call them all equal slime regardless of their transgressions?
Just sayin...
-
Let's try and keep this simple. Can you accept that all presidents have associated with sleazy people? All meaning both Republicans and Democrats?
sure..sleaze is on both sides.. but Im being very honest about Obamas associations and how they affect us, policy and funding. to dismiss that as "insane" is not nice, nor is it correct.
ok EB, you have a real vocal "dislike" of GWB ...so can you for the sake of discussion list his radical associations that made you feel uncomfortable, unsafe.. so we can compare and contrast it with my list on Obama..
There's no way I'm going to get into a lunacy competition with you.
My point was that associating with nutjobs, crooks or otherwise sleazy individuals doesn't necessarily make you a nutjob, crook or sleazeball. If so, there would be nobody left to run.
That's pretty broad isn't it? Are their no parameters at all to separate what should give us pause and what shouldn't when judging someones character? Or should we just lump everyone together is a bowl and call them all equal slime regardless of their transgressions?
Just sayin...
Deeds remain more important than associations. Consider that Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt were good friends up until the Reverend's death. Nobody ever accused one of being the slightest bit similar to the other. If Falwell had been caught banging strippers, or Flynt attending church, then their associations might be relevant, but until then, it just doesn't matter. All politicians have highly dubious affiliations, but unless the affiliations affect their actions, they shouldn't matter.
-
Let's try and keep this simple. Can you accept that all presidents have associated with sleazy people? All meaning both Republicans and Democrats?
sure..sleaze is on both sides.. but Im being very honest about Obamas associations and how they affect us, policy and funding. to dismiss that as "insane" is not nice, nor is it correct.
ok EB, you have a real vocal "dislike" of GWB ...so can you for the sake of discussion list his radical associations that made you feel uncomfortable, unsafe.. so we can compare and contrast it with my list on Obama..
There's no way I'm going to get into a lunacy competition with you.
My point was that associating with nutjobs, crooks or otherwise sleazy individuals doesn't necessarily make you a nutjob, crook or sleazeball. If so, there would be nobody left to run.
That's pretty broad isn't it? Are their no parameters at all to separate what should give us pause and what shouldn't when judging someones character? Or should we just lump everyone together is a bowl and call them all equal slime regardless of their transgressions?
Just sayin...
Deeds remain more important than associations. Consider that Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt were good friends up until the Reverend's death. Nobody ever accused one of being the slightest bit similar to the other. If Falwell had been caught banging strippers, or Flynt attending church, then their associations might be relevant, but until then, it just doesn't matter. All politicians have highly dubious affiliations, but unless the affiliations affect their actions, they shouldn't matter.
I respect your perspective, but I also respect someone who chooses to judge based on associations. In my eyes its fair. That's pretty much all I want to say about it. Carry on. :tick2:
-
Epicview, not to say you're crazy, but Glenn Beck would tell you to tone it down.
He's actually made some great points. Let's recap in bulletpoint form.
1. Bush can fly a plane and Obama can not.
2. Bush has an IQ of 148 that no one in the world can confirm
3. Obama has friends who aren't cool.
4. So does bush, but whatever
5. Obama thinks of america as the enemy
6. Obama wants to impose sharia law
7. Obama is black
8. Bush is white
All of these FACTS prove 100% that bush was a better president than anyone in history.
I don't think we have to worry about that from Obama. It's Palin who really wants to make us all submit to Islamic law.
S a r a h P a l i n
|
|
|
\ | /
\ | /
\ | /
\/
S h a r i a P l a n
Coincidence?
-
Oh......my.........god.
And if you spell Obama backwards it's "I hate america and want every day to be 9/11"
Coincidence?
-
If you squint your eyes, EPICVIEW reads as EPICFAIL. And when you unsquint, it doesn't change. It's like, 3-D or something.
rumborak
-
If you squint your eyes, EPICVIEW reads as EPICFAIL. And when you unsquint, it doesn't change. It's like, 3-D or something.
rumborak
The problem I have with everyone ripping him is, he is not being dick or abrasive to anyone is he? As long as someone one remains respectful in there thoughts and feelings I tend to leave them be. That's how I feel.
If I'm wrong and he has been disrespectful to others, point out his posts and I will understand the abuse more then I currently do.
-
If you squint your eyes, EPICVIEW reads as EPICFAIL. And when you unsquint, it doesn't change. It's like, 3-D or something.
rumborak
The problem I have with everyone ripping him is, he is not being dick or abrasive to anyone is he? As long as somjeone one remains respectful in there thoughts and feelings I tend to leave them be. That's how I feel.
If I'm wrong and he has been disrespectful to others, point out his posts and I will understand the abuse more then I currently do.
No. You pretty much nailed it.
However, if PR finds that some posts seem to be irrational you will get ripped.
-
If you squint your eyes, EPICVIEW reads as EPICFAIL. And when you unsquint, it doesn't change. It's like, 3-D or something.
rumborak
The problem I have with everyone ripping him is, he is not being dick or abrasive to anyone is he? As long as somjeone one remains respectful in there thoughts and feelings I tend to leave them be. That's how I feel.
If I'm wrong and he has been disrespectful to others, point out his posts and I will understand the abuse more then I currently do.
No. You pretty much nailed it.
However, if PR finds that some posts seem to be irrational you will get ripped.
That's probably one reason I don't post in this section all that much. I prefer to not be at odds with people if I can help it.
-
Thank You Tick. very nice of you to understand my point!
-
His associations should be concern to everyone.... we are seeing the country slowly find out that "Carter Vol#2" has never worked, and it cant work.
-
Tick, no one has a problem with Epicview as a poster, so while you defending him is nice, it's unnecessary. Epicview is making some pretty big claims, and then when people disagree, he's 9 times out of 10 just copying-and-pasting full, unsourced articles that already agree with him and, before anyone has time to actually read them, he makes another outlandish claim that must be met with.
The fact that we're mostly being so nice about it is probably a bad thing, since the way he posts is NOT good "internet etiquette" AT ALL, and most other places Epicview might go would probably bring down the banhammer on him immediately, which would be unfortunate as we know from other places here he's a pretty cool guy.
But it's doing Epicview a disservice to just let him keep posting as he's posting the way that he has been. Epicview has potential to be a much better, more organized and more focused poster who, by the way, brings a point of view that's not often defending around these parts. But he can't reach that potential if things just keep going as is. You telling us all to "back off" is nice and all, but it's kinda like telling everyone to back-off Nicky. But anyway, Epic: if you're reading this, maybe it'd be a good idea to see how some of the regulars here put their ideas out. I think your threads have been causing such a tantrum for a reason. You're really hitting people over the head with a lot of information, without giving people's responses the time and/or real consideration that they deserve.
-
well thanks Perceptual Change... again nice of you, I sense your trying to help and thats awesome, but I really dont see the fuss about my posts?? My views are how most of Americans feels today, my views are not far off from the Tea Party.. certainly nothing Im saying should really cause a stir..I link to articles when asked , like from PLM to back up my the article and news source of why I was stating what to me was pretty much in every news service being reported on..
I accept others views, I only ask them to prove mine wrong if they want to over emote and claim Im wrong ..to me its fun to debate , although I may disagree with people here on Obama, Im sure Id agree with many of these same people on many other subejcts so I dont get too caught up in it all.. we all have our posting style and to me thats the fun part in many ways.
I like everyone here..to me these are fun subjects to really debate..
-
My views are how most of Americans feels today, my views are not far off from the Tea Party..
Just so you know, the Tea Party =/= most Americans. And most Americans do not have the same views you do because most Americans are (most surprisingly) moderate Republicans/Democrats. The Tea Party only seems bigger because they're yelling the loudest and getting the most attention
-
My views are how most of Americans feels today,
No they aren't.
I accept others views,
Not really.
-
Epicview, not to say you're crazy, but Glenn Beck would tell you to tone it down.
He's actually made some great points. Let's recap in bulletpoint form.
1. Bush can fly a plane and Obama can not.
2. Bush has an IQ of 148 that no one in the world can confirm
3. Obama has friends who aren't cool.
4. So does bush, but whatever
5. Obama thinks of america as the enemy
6. Obama wants to impose sharia law
7. Obama is black
8. Bush is white
All of these FACTS prove 100% that bush was a better president than anyone in history.
Wisdom.
inb4 wisdumb.
-
I don't really care for bush, but I don't really know enough about Obama to hate him, either. In fact, I wanted to hug him when I found out I was getting an extra 1200 dollars tacked onto my tax rebate for being a first-year student.
Also, I thought it was a pretty good idea to hike up cigarette prices to expand eligibility for the SCHIP, even as a smoker.
-
My views are how most of Americans feels today
No, not really.
my views are not far off from the Tea Party
Your views seem more radically conservative in many areas than most Tea Baggers.
certainly nothing Im saying should really cause a stir..I link to articles when asked , like from PLM to back up my the article and news source of why I was stating what to me was pretty much in every news service being reported on..
Most of the articles you supply aren't from generally recognized "unbiased" journals, but from very biased right-wing organizations. That kind of evidence isn't.
-
My views are how most of Americans feels today
No, not really.
my views are not far off from the Tea Party
Your views seem more radically conservative in many areas than most Tea Baggers.
certainly nothing Im saying should really cause a stir..I link to articles when asked , like from PLM to back up my the article and news source of why I was stating what to me was pretty much in every news service being reported on..
Most of the articles you supply aren't from generally recognized "unbiased" journals, but from very biased right-wing organizations. That kind of evidence isn't.
All of these. Seriously, EPICVIEW is getting shit on not because he's a conservative or his views align with the Tea Party, its the method in which he argues. You could have someone argue the same as EPICVIEW and he would get the same treatment even if he was a liberal and worshiped Obama.
-
Yeah, for example, if I was arguing about whether that Clarence Thomas' wife should be acting the way she is, and that he himself is a scumbag, I wouldn't just find a bunch of stuff and post it like this:
US Supreme Court justice’s wife has leading role in ultra-right group
By Tom Carter
1 November 2010
A bizarre incident involving Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has put a spotlight on her activities on behalf of extreme right-wing forces within the political establishment.
Earlier this month, Virginia Thomas placed an ill-advised phone call to Anita Hill, who had testified before the US Senate in 1991 that Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her while he was chairman of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under President Ronald Reagan. In a bizarre voice mail message to Hill’s office left after business hours, Virginia Thomas demanded that Hill “pray about this” and apologize for her 19-year-old testimony.
The imprudent phone call, as well as the lurid details of the 1991 sexual harassment allegations, have been exhaustively covered in the media. But very little has been said about the far more important issue: the political activities of Virginia Thomas. While the wife of a US Supreme Court Justice, she has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in political donations and has, in turn, promoted numerous right-wing election campaigns at the local and national level.
Since his confirmation by a narrow margin in the US Senate, Clarence Thomas, an ultra-conservative who is the only black member of the Supreme Court, has distinguished himself by his reactionary opinions and hostility to fundamental democratic legal principles.
In one of his more infamous and blood-curdling opinions, Thomas justified voting in favor of the legality of military tribunals in the 2006 Hamdan case on the grounds that those whom the president designates as “guilty of illegitimate warfare” are “‘liable to be shot, imprisoned, or banished, either summarily where their guilt was clear or upon trial and conviction by military commission” and that there are no legal limits on the president’s power to act accordingly.
Virginia Thomas is a well-connected Washington lobbyist, a consultant to the conservative Heritage Foundation, and the founder and president of Liberty Central, a newly formed and richly endowed lobbying group affiliated with the Tea Party movement, which backs extreme right-wing candidates in US elections. She has appeared on numerous right-wing talk shows and maintains a public presence on her web site.
There have been no calls by the Democrats or the liberal media for Clarence Thomas to provide an explanation for his wife’s activities, let alone to resign from the court. This fact underscores the deepening erosion of democratic principles and democratic consciousness in the ruling class and in the media. The political activities of Virginia Thomas are without precedent in modern US history, and exhibit contempt for the traditional concept of the independence of the judiciary.
After decades of Washington political lobbying, Virginia Thomas started Liberty Central in 2009 on the basis of two donations—one for $50,000 and one for $500,000—from undisclosed donors. Since that time, the lobbying group has been transformed into an influential right-wing institution, issuing candidate “scorecards” reflecting how closely each candidate follows the organization’s line.
The “Liberty Central” web site advertises a mish-mash of nostrums combining Christian fundamentalism, nationalism, militarism and “free enterprise.” It features articles purporting to demonstrate that President Barack Obama is a “socialist” by documenting his support from various middle-class and ex-left groups such as Communist Party USA. The Liberty Central online forums have attracted the filthiest layers of the American ultra-right. Conversations on the forums revolve around topics such as “America must ban Islam,” “Mexican pirates,” “Marxist Obama,” and worse.
In January of this year, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the Citizens United case removing restrictions on corporate political donations. (See US Supreme Court abolishes restrictions on big business political spending.) The ruling was by five votes to four, with Justice Thomas voting in the majority and thereby casting a deciding vote.
It goes without saying that Virginia Thomas benefited directly from her husband’s ruling in Citizens United. The decision unleashed a flood of corporate money into a political system already dominated by powerful financial interests.
It is worth recalling that Justice Thomas would have gone further than any of the other justices in Citizens United. In a separate 8-to-1 decision, he alone voted to abolish a disclosure requirement preventing certain corporate donations from being made anonymously.
At the time, regarding Thomas’s dissent on that issue, the World Socialist Web Site wrote: “Thomas justified his dissent on this issue on the basis of reported instances where ‘donors to certain causes were blacklisted, threatened, or otherwise targeted for retaliation.’ In other words, a corporation must not only be allowed to spend unlimited money on candidates, but must also be allowed to remain anonymous while doing so. That way, the corporation is insulated from the popular resentment that results from the policies it has secretly purchased.”
During the present Supreme Court term, the constitutionality of Obama’s health care “reform” legislation will likely come before the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Virginia Thomas and her lobbying group have been vigorously denouncing the legislation. On October 21, a memo signed by Virginia Thomas was posted on the Liberty Central web site containing legal arguments that the legislation is unconstitutional. The memo was later withdrawn.
Longstanding legal traditions as well as current laws require judges to avoid conflicts of interest. For example, where a judge has a personal financial interest in a case, or where a judge’s relative or friend is a party to a case, the judge is expected to disqualify himself (called “recusal”).
Canon 2 of the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct requires each judge to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.”
The Supreme Court has always operated as a political tool of the ruling class. Measures like the avoidance of direct conflicts of interest have as well been regarded as essential to maintaining public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the judiciary. Judges in the US—as well as their immediate families—have traditionally avoided political activities of any kind.
Because there is no higher court in the US than the Supreme Court, there is nowhere to appeal if a Supreme Court Justice refuses to recuse himself. The Supreme Court has previously relied on “historic practice” and the discretion of its individual members to prevent the “appearance of impropriety.”
The recent revelations reflect only the latest events in the protracted breakdown of democratic traditions within the political establishment, facilitated by both parties of big business—the Democrats and Republicans. The powers of the government to torture and assassinate, conduct domestic spying, restrict freedom of speech and association, and conduct itself in secret are being expanded. At the same time, the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to privacy, and the right to be free from illegal searches and seizures are under relentless attack.
The media or Democratic Party will conduct no serious fight in defense of the democratic principles flouted by the conduct of Clarence Thomas and his wife.
If the shoe were on the other foot, and it had been revealed that, say, the spouse of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the liberal justices, was engaged in political lobbying, there would have been a deafening media outcry for her resignation. The fact that the Democrats will not lift a finger against Thomas underscores the total prostration and indifference of liberalism to the steady march to the right by the political establishment and its abandonment of democratic principles.
The “Ginni” Thomas revelations call into question a host of decisions since his appointment in 1991 in which Justice Thomas had a clear conflict of interest and in which he cast a deciding vote in a 5-4 decision.
Most importantly, the revelations call into question the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, in which a right-wing majority of judges on the Supreme Court, including Clarence Thomas, called a halt to the counting of election ballots and installed George W. Bush as president. Even at that time, Virginia Thomas was an influential lobbyist and directly benefited from the theft of the election by her husband.
While Clarence Thomas is perhaps the most shameless exemplar of the breakdown of judicial ethics, he is by no means alone. In 2004, Justice Antonin Scalia went on a private duck-hunting outing with Vice President Dick Cheney while Cheney was a named party in a case before the Supreme Court. (See Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s hunting trip with Cheney: the political and constitutional issues.) Scalia refused to recuse himself. It is worth recalling that Scalia received unanimous support from the Senate—including 47 Democrats—in 1986.
The “Ginni” Thomas affair exposes the extent to which once-venerated democratic legal traditions are presently being thrown overboard like so much dead weight.
(The Article, by the way, is from a Socialist website)
-
My views are how most of Americans feels today
No, not really.
my views are not far off from the Tea Party
Your views seem more radically conservative in many areas than most Tea Baggers.
certainly nothing Im saying should really cause a stir..I link to articles when asked , like from PLM to back up my the article and news source of why I was stating what to me was pretty much in every news service being reported on..
Most of the articles you supply aren't from generally recognized "unbiased" journals, but from very biased right-wing organizations. That kind of evidence isn't.
Not really..and its the Tea Party..my views are are from various surces, and if you want to debate my views, simply link to a valid source that can prove otherwise.
should I use the Huffington Post for valid sourcing? LOL , I actually use very valid sources, tell me which you disgree on?
-
For me, I'd just like to see less info-dumping on your part and more of a dialog. It seems like you get so caught up in how fast people are replying to you that you just scrounge up as many links as you can and then copy and paste them onto here. And then when someone responds? You answer with another copy and pasted article. You might be received a bit better if you actually reason through things, respond to other points in a way that shows you care a little bit about what other people are saying, etc. Like I said, you'll see how things go when you check out some of the regulars here a bit more.
You don't have to listen to me, but I think people would be more receptive of you if you did things that way.
-
guys.. when I try use quotes here , I have a tech issue where to bottom of the typing box is out of view, that why I make so many typos..does anyone else have that tech issue? its when the person im quoting had a long post, then its worse, and the whole box jumps around.
Honestly, It really look to me like Ive touched a nerve on the Obama zealots, nothing more,.. but if ripping on me is the only way to refute my posts, then thats ok too. what is the worst is that some of you are saying things that are not very nice, or things I dont say..and never would.
-
For me, I'd just like to see less info-dumping on your part and more of a dialog. It seems like you get so caught up in how fast people are replying to you that you just scrounge up as many links as you can and then copy and paste them onto here. And then when someone responds? You answer with another copy and pasted article. You might be received a bit better if you actually reason through things, respond to other points in a way that shows you care a little bit about what other people are saying, etc. Like I said, you'll see how things go when you check out some of the regulars here a bit more.
You don't have to listen to me, but I think people would be more receptive of you if you did things that way.
I think what you say has some merit..and YOU are VERY NICE!!! PLM asked for PROOF, so I pasted the articles as a form of proof, I usually ask the questioner to "find the info themselves" only so they can find it from a source they feel is objective. Sometimes I paste the article jus because I want to share it, or I dont have the time to type it all out..
-
and Perpetual Change,
I had no issue with your pasting that article..I read it, I dont agree with it, but I read it .
I had read earlier his wife called Anita Hill again requesting she retract her allegations, timing of your article is good as we will be seeing lots of issues of voter fraud coming tomorrow
-
Honestly, It really look to me like Ive touched a nerve on the Obama zelots, nothing more,..
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a single Obama zealot, let alone a "zelot" on this forum.
-
Dude, there really are no Obama zealots here. At this point, I doubt he'd get 5 votes from DTF's P/R posters.
As for your articles, part of the problem is that you're posting opinion pieces from pundits and trying to pass them off as credible sources. Chain mails and blogs don't cut it. If your positions are sound, then you shouldn't have any trouble finding valid sources to back them up.
-
Honestly, It really look to me like Ive touched a nerve on the Obama zelots, nothing more,..
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a single Obama zealot, let alone a "zelot" on this forum.
it would be harder to find a fan of GWB I think..LOL. I sense that if I was ripping GWB that I'd be more welcomed. When I read that people think my "sources are no good" that tells me a lot. LOL. That means they love Obama but have no comeback to my concerns on his overt radical ties, and they wont even aknoledge his own words and associations..
-
Dude, there really are no Obama zealots here. At this point, I doubt he'd get 5 votes from DTF's P/R posters.
As for your articles, part of the problem is that you're posting opinion pieces from pundits and trying to pass them off as credible sources. Chain mails and blogs don't cut it. If your positions are sound, then you shouldn't have any trouble finding valid sources to back them up.
I agree.. but now show me one chain letter or blog that I have posted too?
EB, tell me of the ones that you think I have not backed up and I will RE-back it up, no problem
Good to hear Obama is not popular here, but Im not sure Im sensing that.
-
Dude, there really are no Obama zealots here. At this point, I doubt he'd get 5 votes from DTF's P/R posters.
Assuming he runs for re-election (which he most likely will), I'll still vote for him. I've yet to see any GOP candidate I agree remotely with.
And let's face it, a lot of the problem is Congress, not him.
And when the GOP controlled Congress fails to deliver on their promises, we'll be in an equal and opposite situation in two years (physics applies to politics too)
-
should I use the Huffington Post for valid sourcing?
Probably not for most things, no. I read it from time to time, but they are a little too liberal for me to read regularly. However, they are left-leaning journalists, not just left-wing blowhards (sometimes, at least).
-
should I use the Huffington Post for valid sourcing?
Probably not for most things, no. I read it from time to time, but they are a little too liberal for me to read regularly. However, they are left-leaning journalists, not just left-wing blowhards (sometimes, at least).
so what is truly objective? I ask that ... as you have claimed that I am not objective, and that my linked sources for news ( when ask to prove why I have the views I have) would you say are acceptable?
-
should I use the Huffington Post for valid sourcing?
Probably not for most things, no. I read it from time to time, but they are a little too liberal for me to read regularly. However, they are left-leaning journalists, not just left-wing blowhards (sometimes, at least).
so what is truly objective? I ask that ... as you have claimed that I am not objective, and that my linked sources for news ( when ask to prove why I have the views I have) would you say are acceptable?
There is no objectivity in journalism. Period. Left or Right, they all have their biases and will write stories according to them and hope to sink their teeth into people willing to believe in either side.
The best you can do is to read a bit of everything and take the small 1%'s of truth that exist in them and try to piece something together that resembles the whole truth. There is no one source that is objective at all.
-
should I use the Huffington Post for valid sourcing?
Probably not for most things, no. I read it from time to time, but they are a little too liberal for me to read regularly. However, they are left-leaning journalists, not just left-wing blowhards (sometimes, at least).
so what is truly objective? I ask that ... as you have claimed that I am not objective, and that my linked sources for news ( when ask to prove why I have the views I have) would you say are acceptable?
Any given day, all of them. Or none of them. It's just a matter of recognizing if they're trying to inform you or persuade you. I've actually seen reasonable journalism from FOX once or twice.
My home page has feeds from CNN, Reuters, FOX, and 10 or so rotating stories from all sources as selected by Google. I think Reuters tends to do a good job. Most of the particularly good or bad stories come from the Google Top Stories thing. It's always an interesting mix:
What's at stake in the House: Hostility 'on nitroglycerin'
CNN - all 5184 related »
Saudi Arabia's shadowy connection
BBC News - all 8337 related »
Death Toll Higher in Baghdad Church Attack
Voice of America - all 1588 related »
Election Fraud Charges Swirl Even Before Election Day
ABC News - all 415 related »
Former Rep. Condit Testifies In Levy Murder Trial
NPR - all 298 related »
Brazil Stocks Open Higher As Rousseff Win Reinforces Risk Appetite
Wall Street Journal - all 1861 related »
Rubio coasts into Election Day in Fla. Senate race
MiamiHerald.com - all 1346 related »
The year is 2020: What's happening with marijuana?
Washington Post - all 669 related »
O'Donnell has trouble airing 30-minute TV ad in Delaware
Washington Post - all 73 related »
-
EB,
it would be interesting to see where we all get our news from, has that thread been done?