lostfan Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 This is really not gonna go over well. http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/17/ve...ppy-with-obama/ By Adam Levine CNN WASHINGTON (CNN) — Veterans groups are angry after President Barack Obama told them Monday that he means to go ahead with a proposal to have treatment for service-connected injuries charged to veterans’ private insurance plans. Leaders of the country’s most prominent veterans groups met Monday at the White House with Obama, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel and Steven Kosiak, the director in charge of defense spending for the Office of Management and Budget. Some of the veterans groups were caught off guard when the president said the administration wants to go ahead with the idea as a way of generating $540 million for the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2010. The groups and some members of Congress have been very vocal in opposing the idea. The message, according to some of the people in the room, was that if the groups do not like this idea, they need to come back with another way of saving or raising revenues for the VA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Yeah, that seems awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 01:45 PM) This is really not gonna go over well. http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/17/ve...ppy-with-obama/ Obama cares about us Americans, especially our vets! Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 01:45 PM) This is really not gonna go over well. http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/17/ve...ppy-with-obama/ get shot in Afghanistan serving your country? come home with a $30,000 medical bill wtf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 02:52 PM) get shot in Afghanistan serving your country? come home with a $30,000 medical bill wtf A funding shortfall is a funding shortfall, but if I'm reading this correctly, it's bulls***. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Barack Obama has selected a leftist, David Hamilton, to be his first nominee for the federal bench. Hamilton is Obama's nominee for a spot on the Seventh CIrcuit Court of Appeals. Appropriately enough, Hamilton reportedly was once a former fund-raiser for the radical activist outfit ACORN, a key Obama ally. He is also a former leader of the Indiana chapter of the ACLU. Hamilton's record as a federal district judge confirms his ultra-liberalism. Recently, he invalidated a law requiring the registration of sex offenders. He also prevented enforcement of an Indiana law that required information and a waiting period before an abortion. The Seventh Circuit (the court to which Hamilton now has been nominated) found that the law in question was materially identical to a law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Casey decision. It noted that no judge in the land, other than Hamilton, has found such a law invalid since Casey was decided. Apparently, Hamilton did not consider himself bound by decisions of the Supreme Court with which he strongly disagreed. In addition, Ed Whelan points out that Hamilton somehow managed to invoke the doctrine of substantive due process to suppress evidence of a criminal defendant's possession of cocaine. The Seventh Circuit unanimously reversed that ruling. Not to worry, though, the New York Times calls Hamilton a "moderate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 03:19 PM) Barack Obama has selected a leftist, David Hamilton, to be his first nominee for the federal bench. Hamilton is Obama's nominee for a spot on the Seventh CIrcuit Court of Appeals. Appropriately enough, Hamilton reportedly was once a former fund-raiser for the radical activist outfit ACORN, a key Obama ally. He is also a former leader of the Indiana chapter of the ACLU. Hamilton's record as a federal district judge confirms his ultra-liberalism. Recently, he invalidated a law requiring the registration of sex offenders. He also prevented enforcement of an Indiana law that required information and a waiting period before an abortion. The Seventh Circuit (the court to which Hamilton now has been nominated) found that the law in question was materially identical to a law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Casey decision. It noted that no judge in the land, other than Hamilton, has found such a law invalid since Casey was decided. Apparently, Hamilton did not consider himself bound by decisions of the Supreme Court with which he strongly disagreed. In addition, Ed Whelan points out that Hamilton somehow managed to invoke the doctrine of substantive due process to suppress evidence of a criminal defendant's possession of cocaine. The Seventh Circuit unanimously reversed that ruling. Not to worry, though, the New York Times calls Hamilton a "moderate Is this from an article? Please link or cite your sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 03:19 PM) Barack Obama has selected a leftist, David Hamilton, to be his first nominee for the federal bench. Hamilton is Obama's nominee for a spot on the Seventh CIrcuit Court of Appeals. Appropriately enough, Hamilton reportedly was once a former fund-raiser for the radical activist outfit ACORN, a key Obama ally. He is also a former leader of the Indiana chapter of the ACLU. Hamilton's record as a federal district judge confirms his ultra-liberalism. Recently, he invalidated a law requiring the registration of sex offenders. He also prevented enforcement of an Indiana law that required information and a waiting period before an abortion. The Seventh Circuit (the court to which Hamilton now has been nominated) found that the law in question was materially identical to a law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Casey decision. It noted that no judge in the land, other than Hamilton, has found such a law invalid since Casey was decided. Apparently, Hamilton did not consider himself bound by decisions of the Supreme Court with which he strongly disagreed. In addition, Ed Whelan points out that Hamilton somehow managed to invoke the doctrine of substantive due process to suppress evidence of a criminal defendant's possession of cocaine. The Seventh Circuit unanimously reversed that ruling. Not to worry, though, the New York Times calls Hamilton a "moderate well, compared to the NY Times, just about everyone is a moderate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 01:47 PM) well, compared to the NY Times, just about everyone is a moderate. Based on the standard you guys apply when labeling someone a leftist...Glenn Beck is a moderate. President Barack Obama nominated David Hamilton, an Indiana federal district judge with bipartisan support, for a U.S. appeals court seat in the new administration’s first judicial appointment. Hamilton, 51, a former aide to then-Governor Evan Bayh of Indiana, is a 15-year veteran of the federal trial court in Indianapolis. He has backing from Bayh, now a Democratic U.S. senator, and Richard Lugar, Indiana’s Republican senator, the White House said. If confirmed by the Senate, Hamilton would serve on the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “Judge Hamilton has a long and impressive record of service and a history of handing down fair and judicious decisions,” Obama said in a statement. “He will be a thoughtful and distinguished addition to the 7th Circuit.” The selection is the first concrete sign of how Obama might reshape a federal court system that now has three Republican appointees for every two Democratic nominees. The vacancy that Hamilton would fill is one of 15 at the federal appeals court level. The president also may have multiple Supreme Court openings to fill in the next four years. A senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, pointed to Hamilton’s appointment as a signal that the Obama administration was looking to reduce the level of controversy over judicial nominations. Still, interest-group reaction to Hamilton’s nomination suggested that the feuding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 05:03 PM) Based on the standard you guys apply when labeling someone a leftist...Glenn Beck is a moderate. Glenn Beck is the tv host right wing version of the New York Times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 05:36 PM) Glenn Beck is the tv host right wing version of the New York Times I was going to go with John Stewart, but potato, potAto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 06:34 PM) I was going to go with John Stewart, but potato, potAto. that comparison is better. lets go with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 04:52 PM) that comparison is better. lets go with that. At least one of them realizes he's running a comedy show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 06:56 PM) At least one of them realizes he's running a comedy show. glenn beck is supposed to be comedy too; from what i can tell. at least to a certain extent. so is glenn beck is the new Rush Limbaugh? i can't keep up with the feuds. so now Obama will be complaining about Glenn Beck. seems pointless, to be honest. Edited March 18, 2009 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 04:59 PM) glenn beck is supposed to be comedy too; from what i can tell. so is glenn beck is the new Rush Limbaugh? i can't keep up with the feuds. so now Obama will be complaining about Glenn Beck. seems pointless, to be honest. Because I am Barack Obama. Therefore, Obama has now gone from feuding with Limbaugh, rapidly through feuding with Glenn Beck, to feuding with Mr. Genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 07:00 PM) Because I am Barack Obama. Therefore, Obama has now gone from feuding with Limbaugh, rapidly through feuding with Glenn Beck, to feuding with Mr. Genius. well, this new feud between me and Mr.Obama can easily be remedied with a some front row sox ticket bribes from the president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 05:14 PM) well, this new feud between me and Mr.Obama can easily be remedied with a some front row sox ticket bribes from the president. They will be at your door in a large envelope shortly. Do not be concerned if the envelope is ticking...that is just, um, the new receipts. We've instituted a new anti-identity-theft receipt, and yeah, it ticks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Terrorism no, more like man made disaster. GMAFB Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 08:59 PM) Terrorism no, more like man made disaster. GMAFB It's going to take a few more thousand people to die for these assholes to wake the f*** up and stop with the god-damned PC bulls***. These people are afraid of standing up for anything except PC crap. But they make us FEEL SOOOO much better! :) :) :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 06:56 PM) At least one of them realizes he's running a comedy show. One of them is a fraud who says he runs a comedy show, but gets to push his political beliefs without accountability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 07:10 AM) One of them is a fraud who says he runs a comedy show, but gets to push his political beliefs without accountability. Beck? It's a comedy show satirizing the news and current events. Of course his political beliefs are intertwined with that. Is South Park run by frauds because they're a cartoon which often has political or social messages? What about the Simpsons? Edited March 18, 2009 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 07:48 AM) Beck? It sounds funny to defend guys like Limbaugh, Hannity, and the whole lot of them, but at least they are honest enough to say up front that they are trying to influence people's opinion. Guys like Stewart are the lowest form, because they scream about accountability towards others, then hide behind the comedy genre when someone wants to do the same to them. Get some testicular fortitude and at least be willing to stand up for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 07:10 AM) One of them is a fraud who says he runs a comedy show, but gets to push his political beliefs without accountability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 07:56 AM) It sounds funny to defend guys like Limbaugh, Hannity, and the whole lot of them, but at least they are honest enough to say up front that they are trying to influence people's opinion. Guys like Stewart are the lowest form, because they scream about accountability towards others, then hide behind the comedy genre when someone wants to do the same to them. Get some testicular fortitude and at least be willing to stand up for yourself. Stewart's biggest target for criticism has always been the media. Their response is always "well, you don't do it!" He then correctly points out that he does a satirical comedy show while they're supposed to be a news organization with journalistic integrity. Yeah, he gets to hide behind the comedy shield because that is what he is -- a comedian. Comedians can be and often are political, but that doesn't make them journalists or reporters. It's not Jon Stewart's job to expose AIG's CDS mess or to do investigations of CEO's claims. It's his job to take clips out-of-context and poke fun at people. It's like the court jesters in Shakespeare's plays. Sometimes the only ones willing or able to speak the truth are those under the protection of a comedy shield. I don't take much comfort in Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. being "up front" about how much they're trying to influence opinion if they still lie and distort the truth. And before you say it, Stewart and Colbert are guilty of hyperbole and distortions, too. Edited March 18, 2009 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:04 AM) Stewart's biggest target for criticism has always been the media. Their response is always "well, you don't do it!" He then correctly points out that he does a satirical comedy show while they're supposed to be a news organization with journalistic integrity. Yeah, he gets to hide behind the comedy shield because that is what he is -- a comedian. Comedians can be and often are political, but that doesn't make them journalists or reporters. It's not Jon Stewart's job to expose AIG's CDS mess or to do investigations of CEO's claims. It's his job to take clips out-of-context and poke fun at people. It's like the court jesters in Shakespeare's plays. Sometimes the only ones willing or able to speak the truth are those under the protection of a comedy shield. I don't take much comfort in Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. being "up front" about how much they're trying to influence opinion if they still lie and distort the truth. And before you say it, Stewart and Colbert are guilty of hyperbole and distortions, too. Kinda like Al Franken is a comedian? Sorry, I don't buy the company line on Rush Stewart for a second. He gets the best of both worlds because he hides behind his little "comedy" badge anytime he gets questioned. Its a straight up b**** move if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts