ThunderBolt Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Palin skewers Obama’s Cap and Trade plan in op-ed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1302852_pf.html Media works feverishly on ways to discredit her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 03:26 PM) Palin skewers Obama’s Cap and Trade plan in op-ed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1302852_pf.html Media works feverishly on ways to discredit her. Palin writes entire op-ed piece on cap and trade without ever mentioning "Global Warming", readers left wondering what cap and trade does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 05:26 PM) Palin skewers Obama’s Cap and Trade plan in op-ed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1302852_pf.html Media works feverishly on ways to discredit her. See the Palin thread on this very topic. In order to "skewer", she may have wanted to provide even the slightest "fact" or "evidence" to make her case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 01:10 PM) Eh, not exactly my point. There's more to "politics" than being a politician. Perhaps I should have said "complex social hierarchies" that exist in most aspects of life. Also, I'd love to hear how Obama has helped kill babies. I should have said he will... at least once FOCA gets passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 QUOTE (BearSox @ Jul 14, 2009 -> 09:37 PM) I should have said he will... at least once FOCA gets passed. I believe that FOCA simply codifies existing jurisprudence (Roe v Wade). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 test Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipps Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 QUOTE (BearSox @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 02:38 PM) test Its broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 QUOTE (BearSox @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 03:38 PM) test Fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 02:51 PM) Fail. It's now "pass" but most won't understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) NPR's Nina Totenberg, on Monday's Charlie Rose, told the PBS host that Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor actually has "a pretty conservative record." Totenberg claimed Sotomayor's record is "very much in the mainstream," and that "you could say that she's more conservative than some members of the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia, perhaps." Hey Nina, "Let me have some of what you're smoking." More conservative than Scalia? Come on. Edited July 16, 2009 by Cknolls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jul 16, 2009 -> 10:00 AM) NPR's Nina Totenberg, on Monday's Charlie Rose, told the PBS host that Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor actually has "a pretty conservative record." Totenberg claimed Sotomayor's record is "very much in the mainstream," and that "you could say that she's more conservative than some members of the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia, perhaps." Hey Nina, "Let me have some of what you're smoking." More conservative than Scalia? Come on. They have to spin it that way - which says plain and simple that they have to make her something she's not - and furthermore says that her biased and liberal views of the constitution and the way she judges isn't in the mainstream, if all she has to do is come across as "conservative". Kind of bass ackwards if you ask me and funny that she has to do this to get nominated. (holy run-on, batman). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 16, 2009 -> 10:26 AM) They have to spin it that way - which says plain and simple that they have to make her something she's not - and furthermore says that her biased and liberal views of the constitution and the way she judges isn't in the mainstream, if all she has to do is come across as "conservative". Kind of bass ackwards if you ask me and funny that she has to do this to get nominated. (holy run-on, batman). Its the Karl Rove school of political marketing. Label something the opposite of what it actually is - some people will believe, others will have that condition their thoughts on it to make it seem more neutral. For example, let's take away personal freedoms in the name of the non-war on terrorism, then make sure to fill the speeches about it with words like "freedom". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 All of this is a recent phenomenon, the last 15 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 16, 2009 -> 11:56 AM) All of this is a recent phenomenon, the last 15 years or so. The worst thing about it is, the obvious motivation for doing it is that these politcal operatives obviously think that a large swath of the US population is so dumb, that they will take such things at face value. And I think they might be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 16, 2009 -> 11:58 AM) The worst thing about it is, the obvious motivation for doing it is that these politcal operatives obviously think that a large swath of the US population is so dumb, that they will take such things at face value. And I think they might be right. They are (that dumb)... that's why we have who we have in the White House today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 16, 2009 -> 12:33 PM) They are (that dumb)... that's why we have who we have in the White House today. lol @ "today", as if somehow that doesn't apply to the one before him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 16, 2009 -> 12:35 PM) lol @ "today", as if somehow that doesn't apply to the one before him. And the one before him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 16, 2009 -> 12:37 PM) And the one before him... And the one before him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 16, 2009 -> 04:56 PM) All of this is a recent phenomenon, the last 15 years or so. Is that so? When did the names of bills change from descriptive to cutesy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 16, 2009 -> 12:46 PM) Is that so? When did the names of bills change from descriptive to cutesy? I meant SCOTUS nominees being so politically polarizing and turning into a partisan fundraising circus. You can see this if you look back to about the 80s, and see people getting confirmed 96-2 by the Senate or what have you. A filibuster against a nominee was unheard of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 16, 2009 -> 04:05 PM) I meant SCOTUS nominees being so politically polarizing and turning into a partisan fundraising circus. You can see this if you look back to about the 80s, and see people getting confirmed 96-2 by the Senate or what have you. A filibuster against a nominee was unheard of. The modern filibuster, where you don't have to keep your entire caucus on the floor and continue talking the entire time, is a very recent invention too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=up...;show_article=1 White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told The New York Times Obama intends to use the news conference as a "six-month report card," to talk about "how we rescued the economy from the worst recession" Edited July 22, 2009 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 22, 2009 -> 12:51 PM) http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=up...;show_article=1 f*** you, Rahm Emanuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Obama is bombing! Wow, horrible address so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) Big mistake pushing all this with trillions in an annual deficit, massive unemployment (underemployment) which has led to far less federal income based on taxes, a stimulus which was an absolute failure, and not addressing the economy. Edited July 23, 2009 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts