That certainly explains why Issa’s 50 weeks of hearings per year delivered “0 indictments.” ‘He’s damaged goods. That’s why they had to replace him as Chairman.’-Leader Pelosi nails the constitutionally & fiscally illiterate torture party. ‘The public debt shall not be questioned’-1868 14th A.
That certainly explains why Issa’s 50 weeks of hearings per year delivered “0 indictments.” ‘He’s damaged goods. That’s why they had to replace him as Chairman.’-Leader Pelosi nails the constitutionally & fiscally illiterate torture party. ‘The public debt shall not be questioned’-1868 14th A.
No. The most prominent profession in Congress is LEGISLATOR. Additionally, many legislators with law degrees are neither members of their home state’s bar association or active lawyers.
And why would they still be a member of the bar, whilst in congress? Because they can’t get more lucrative jobs if they decide to go back to private sector instead?
Your own link obliterates your foolishness “This is incorrect: Barack Obama did not “surrender” his law license.” And “Not true. Information about the statuses of both Barack and Michelle Obama’s licenses is readily retrievable, both show no record of any disciplinary actions or pending proceedings.”-Snopes further busts you: “This is hardly remarkable or suspicious: neither of the Obamas holds a currently active law license because neither President of the United States nor First Lady is a position that requires one. It’s also inaccurate in referring to the Obamas as the “first Lawyer President and First Lady,” as both Bill and Hillary Clinton held law degrees and engaged in legal work prior to the former’s election to the presidency.”
On the WaPo scale you earned yourself 4 of 4 possible Pinocchio’s, while debunking these faux TP emails as uninformed jiberish. Furthermore: “Because they can’t get more lucrative jobs”-Lol! They’l have no problem running their own foundations, turning away numerous lucrative offers, and compounding their family fortune from $50M+ to beyond $150M+, which is greater than the entire outcast Bush Family combined wealth!
The term “law” in that chart seems to be very loose in it’s use. It certainly doesn’t imply lawyer. It looks like it could include a court stenographer, or clerk. It is a term used to describe a broad category including everything from top to bottom. Basically it is pretty much worthless as far as really defining anything. So in essence your comment has very little merit.
YES! Sara IS the dumb one! -Rally she is!- Rally!
She’s dumb enough to read what is on her dumb teleprompt without stopping to think about what she just read, then tries ever so desperately to nail one of her 10,000 points of flashing lights with a Limpbag Viagra addicted version.
She may think she’s hot stuff when flying across town in a rented Cessna, but it’s POTUS Obama that’s traveling the world in a Flying Palace luxuriant enough for REAL ROYALTY! (twice over!!!)
No. The most prominent profession in Congress is LEGISLATOR. Additionally, many legislators with law degrees are neither members of their home state’s bar association or active lawyers.
And why would they still be a member of the bar, whilst in congress? Because they can’t get more lucrative jobs if they decide to go back to private sector instead?
As snopes has shown, neither is Obama. Apparently it’s not all that hard, if you go down and read snopes rebuttal to get your law licenses reinstated if they have lapsed or you put it on inactive.
I’ll edit this part in, to let y’all be lazy.
”
Reactivating an inactive law license is a fairly easy procedure, as noted in the Volokh group blog for law professors:
The fact that someone who doesn’t actually practice law, and is unlikely to practice law, voluntarily retires is hardly a sinister signal: It costs money to be a member of the bar, and if you’re not going to practice, it may make sense to retire. Nor does this somehow undermine claims that he’s a lawyer; a retired lawyer is still commonly called a lawyer — as an indication of what he has studied, and his general professional field — even if he is no longer a member of the bar.
The bar record says that [Michelle Obama] is “Voluntarily inactive.” This is even more common for lawyers who don’t need a bar card, such as many lawyers who don’t appear in court or counsel clients other than employer. Being an active status lawyer costs more money than being inactive, and it requires one to do Continuing Legal Education classes, unless one is in certain jobs for which the CLE requirements are waived. The difference in bar fees, for instance, is why I myself was inactive in 2001. Moreover, it’s pretty easy to switch back to active status should one need to do that.
Your own link obliterates your foolishness “This is incorrect: Barack Obama did not “surrender” his law license.” And “Not true. Information about the statuses of both Barack and Michelle Obama’s licenses is readily retrievable, both show no record of any disciplinary actions or pending proceedings.”-Snopes further busts you: “This is hardly remarkable or suspicious: neither of the Obamas holds a currently active law license because neither President of the United States nor First Lady is in a position that requires one. It’s also inaccurate in referring to the Obamas as the “first Lawyer President and First Lady,” as both Bill and Hillary Clinton held law degrees and engaged in legal work prior to the former’s election to the presidency.”
On the WaPo scale you earned yourself 4 of 4 possible Pinocchio’s, while debunking these faux TP emails as uninformed jiberish. Furthermore: “Because they can’t get more lucrative jobs”-Lol! They’l have no problem running their own foundations, turning away numerous lucrative offers, and compounding their family fortune from $50M+ to beyond $150M+, which is greater than the entire outcast GWB, GHWB & other Bush Family members combined wealth!
The term “law” in that chart seems to be very loose in it’s use. It certainly doesn’t imply lawyer. It looks like it could include a court stenographer, or clerk. It is a term used to describe a broad category including everything from top to bottom. Basically it is pretty much worthless as far as really defining anything. So in essence your comment has very little merit.
YES! Sara IS the dumb one! -Rally she is!- Rally!
She’s dumb enough to read what is on her dumb teleprompt without stopping to think about what she just read, then tries ever so desperately to nail one of her 10,000 points of flashing lights with a Limpbag Viagra addicted version.
She may think she’s hot stuff when flying across town in a rented Cessna, but it’s POTUS Obama that’s traveling the world in a Flying Palace luxuriant enough for REAL ROYALTY! (twice over!!!)
Yawn, yes he graduated harvard law, that doesn’t mean he’s a constutional scholar. Nor does it mean he has a lot of experience with constitutional law.
Reading over his resume, which btw was pulled from political fact, you see he was an assistant to an esteemed harvard constitutional scholar. You see he did a lot of community action work. I’d be more impressed with his boasts if he did work for ACLU or any of the community action works that do a lot of work for constitutional issues. Project innocence mayhaps. No he did a lot of voting work.
How many times did he argue before Scotus. Phelps has on many different occasions before he died and before he made the Westboro Baptist Church. If you check out his career as a lawyer, you would see he has a lot of experience in constitutional arguments. POTUS does not measure up to Phelps.
Also if you saw the first link it showed what the 2014 congress consists of. It shows what the majority of Congress people were before becoming congress people, thus invalidating POTUS argument in the meme above.
Again facts pummel you via Politifact: “1993-2004 — part-time lecturer, University of Chicago Law School — Chicago — lectured on constitutional law.”-Taught Constitutional Law with a Ph.D in Law and “1988 — research assistant, Lawrence Tribe — student assistant to this Harvard Law School professor and renowned constitutional scholar.”-“Renowned Constitutional Scholar” Plus “Taught Constitutional Law with a Ph.D in Law” as well as many other anti discrimination Constitutional case law equals “Constitutional Scholar”-POTUS Obama44’s bio on Mt. Rushmore!
not to mention the FACT that Obama is cruzing the world in style in a flying palace with the POTUS Seal like a ‘dummy’ while someone as ‘brilliant’ as Sara is going across town in a rented Cessna.
FACTS is always so distorting, no wonder brilliant RWNJ’s have the super intelligence to ask mommie to adjust the antenna until a Constitutional expert drugged out on Viagra is located!
Now you see, Bianca, you Konservative Kristin RepubliKons is always giving the American People such tough choices!
Do we want to vote the way a RWNJ DJ expert who’s never actually been a party to a political structure, or Someone who has dedicated a good part of their life in preparing for servitude of the People by seeking higher education?
(by your experienced radio listening assessments, RWNJ’s know more about the Constitution than the originators)
Geez, always the toughies, no wonder most Americans are flipping a double headed coin and voting for the Democrats.
Apparently biased toward Obama, because if you bothered to read it, it clearly shows a bias for him. If I wanted a clear conservative bias, i’d have put in townhall link.
IBT has a clear-cut conserv ative bias. And Obama is, by the way, no liberal. You would know this if you were paying attention. But then, you are too busy asserting that the number one occupation in Congress is lawyer when in fact it is LEGISLATOR.
Obama is very much left wing, to the point of socialist. He is not a moderate, he is not a conservative. As for his constitutional quote, even Chomsky is critiquing him on his civil rights abuses.http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/chomsky_on_obama/
Now we could argue why anyone would want to listen to someone’s who’s vast experience is with linguistics and not with politics(chomsky).
Not only have I given a government agency link that shows the professions of members of congress, to disprove what Obama has said, as well as you. I have disproved your other point with a snopes link.
Have fun with your nitpicking.
IBT did not have a clear cut conservative bias in that article. It was leaning toward approval to Obama and clearly, if you bothered to read it, lecturing those who critiques Obama’s real world business experience.
Then you have a very skewed knowledge of what a Republican is. Reagan was a moderate Republican. Goldwater was a conservative. McCain is a liberal Republican.
Quit trying to make him something he’s not. More to the right of Eisenhower, snorts, really???? Really???
Absolutely to the right of Eisenhower, who said, ” Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed”
That’s why the Birchers called him a communist.
(Now, they are called Tea Partiers).
Maybe instead of looking at progresssive meme quotes, you could instead look into the context of the speech. It was aimed not at gun rights, but instead at stopping the cold war.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than
30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It
is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete
pavement.
We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. […] Is there no other way the world may live?
-Dwight David Eisenhower, “The Chance for Peace,” speech given to the
American Society of Newspaper Editors, Apr. 16, 1953.
The right would call that communism and be OUTRAGED that the government would be expected to provide housing, food, schools or hospitals.
You may know the whole speech, but you sure as hell didn’t look at the context. It was 3 months after Stalin died. The context was about the cold war, not about the problems today.
As to the right calling Eisenhower a communist, you really need to get a grip.
If you want to know what the “right” at that time would have said, then look at the “right” at that time. You have Goldwater to look at. http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch24t9.htm
Otherwise you are just reaching and reacting and not at all using critical thinking skills.
You may know the whole speech, but you sure as hell didn’t look at the context. It was 3 months after Stalin died. The context was about the cold war, not about the problems today.
_________
Oh, please.
I think it is you who doesn’t know.
It dovetails nicely with Teddy Roosevelt’s speech in Osawatomie, Kansas
Eisenhower was speaking at a time that was almost the peak of the rise of the Middle Class as a result of the New Deal.
“There is no doubt that Dwight D Eisenhower is a dedicated, conscious agent of the international Communist conspiracy.”
Bob Welsh, founder of the John Birch Society .
He also wrote a letter to his brother Edgar on November 8, 1954, about Social Security and the New deal;
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among
them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
critical thinking requires and education and not selected blips from the neo computer planet that has you and your ilk living in fear of the boogey man.
“Then you have a very skewed knowledge of what a Republican is.”
Can ya blame us for not knowing? The only elections the right can win lately is small sections of white land. The gop closed its tent so tight a cub scout couldn’t sit down inside it,
Ever hear of the expression of black tracking? Thats holding a position until its known that your position is the same as President Obama, and then black tracking, for instance the aca, deficits don’t matter, drone attacks all popular before Mr Obama took office. Being against black people isnt a smart campaign slogan, if you want to win generals.
I’ts not against drone strikes, but against drone strikes against U.S citizens on U.S soil. It’s one thing to go against people who you know are enemies, it’s another to do drone strikes on your own citizens.
He is very much black and that’s why you’re calling him an extremist. You claim he is not conservative or moderate, but then you point to a leftist who wrote a piece critiquing Obama for not being left enough. Which is it? You criticisms aren’t even compatible with each other. What words would you use if a real liberal was President like Sanders or Howard Dean?
I don’t give a damn about his melanin content. The racist claim is getting very old, very fast. It also goes to show just how weak your argument is. I find it amazing that you guys continue to use it, when Conservatives have shown time and again, they would happilly put Condaleeza Rice in charge. It clearly isn’t the skin color, but his attitude and what he has done. Amazing that. Though the ones showing the racism aren’t the conservatives.
I don’t like him, because he’s whiny, he’s an elitist prig, who can’t take a critique, who ignores his advisors. Yeah I did point to Chomsky critiquing him, because it’s ironic that even those who supported him are critiquing him on stuff he’s saying in the meme above.
When I was 17, I would have voted for Dean. I’m older and wiser now and realize he’s a twit. Dean is no more a “real” liberal than any other Liberal is. Obama is very much a liberal. Quit trying to foist him off on another political group.
“Conservatives have shown time and again, they would happilly put Condaleeza Rice in charge.” While waving their Dixie swastikas? Maybe they’l bake her a birthday cake!
“Conservatives have shown time and again, they would happilly put Condaleeza Rice in charge.” While waving their dixie swastikas? Maybe they’l bake her a cake!
CONservatives showed Herman Cain, by golly!
-to just before the Iowa Caucus!
-and Herman had a 666 plan that even had some biblical attraction to the Southern WHITE RACIST Evangelicals that are so non discriminatory they’d vote for a Mormon Bishop that’d ‘brown’ himself just to appeal to the liking of Latino’s before they’d support an ‘Hawaiian’.
Yep. won’t find any racial bias in the WHITE Republican Party at all! It’s all about his uppity attitude and all the horrible things Obama has done!
On to LIMPBAG’s next Viagra Addicted Political Fantasy in audio!
older and more wrinkled maybe but wiser? Ya gotta be kidding. You are just babbling unsubstantiated garbage that has been oozing through the gop cracks since day one.
I don’t give a damn what your excuse are. Obama is barely left of center, yet you screech like he is the furthest left you can get — while also mocking the fact that a far leftist criticizes Obama for not being…a leftist. Your criticisms don’t add up and that just proves that you’re a racist or at least have some other irrational reason for your stupid hatred.
Then RWNJ DJ Constitutional Law experts should have backed Fred instead of the LOSER Mitt in 2012. (if they ‘truly’ had the courage to stand with their zany restrictions).
Yawn, yes he graduated harvard law, that doesn’t mean he’s a constutional scholar. Nor does it mean he has a lot of experience with constitutional law.
Reading over his resume, which btw was pulled from political fact, you see he was an assistant to an esteemed harvard constitutional scholar. You see he did a lot of community action work. I’d be more impressed with his boasts if he did work for ACLU or any of the community action works that do a lot of work for constitutional issues. Project innocence mayhaps. No he did a lot of voting work.
How many times did he argue before Scotus. Phelps has on many different occasions before he died and before he made the Westboro Baptist Church. If you check out his career as a lawyer, you would see he has a lot of experience in constitutional arguments. POTUS does not measure up to Phelps.
Also if you saw the first link it showed what the 2014 congress consists of. It shows what the majority of Congress people were before becoming congress people, thus invalidating POTUS argument in the meme above.
Again facts torture you via Politifact: “1993-2004 — part-time lecturer, University of Chicago Law School — Chicago — lectured on constitutional law.”-Taught Constitutional Law with a Ph.D in Law following “1988 — research assistant, Lawrence Tribe — student assistant to this Harvard Law School professor and renowned constitutional scholar.” Meanwhile your dead homophobic idol Phelps burns in Hell achieving none of the above.
“Renowned Constitutional Scholar” Plus “Taught Constitutional Law with a Ph.D in Law for 11 years” as well as many other anti discrimination Constitutional case law work and achievements equals “Constitutional Scholar”-included on POTUS Obama’s Mt. Rushmore bio.
not to mention the FACT that Obama is cruzing the world in style in a flying palace with the POTUS Seal like a ‘dummy’ while someone as ‘brilliant’ as Sara is going across town in a rented Cessna.
FACTS is always so distorting, no wonder brilliant RWNJ’s have the super intelligence to ask mommie to adjust the antenna until a Constitutional expert drugged out on Viagra is located!
Now you see, Bianca, you Konservative Kristin RepubliKons is always giving the American People such tough choices!
Do we want to vote the way a RWNJ DJ expert who’s never actually been a party to a political structure, or Someone who has dedicated a good part of their life in preparing for servitude of the People by seeking higher education?
(by your experienced radio listening assessments, RWNJ’s know more about the Constitution than the originators)
Geez, always the toughies, no wonder most Americans are flipping a double headed coin and voting for the Democrats.
Apparently biased toward Obama, because if you bothered to read it, it clearly shows a bias for him. If I wanted a clear conservative bias, i’d have put in townhall link.
IBT has a clear-cut conserv ative bias. And Obama is, by the way, no liberal. You would know this if you were paying attention. But then, you are too busy asserting that the number one occupation in Congress is lawyer when in fact it is LEGISLATOR.
Obama is very much left wing, to the point of socialist. He is not a moderate, he is not a conservative. As for his constitutional quote, even Chomsky is critiquing him on his civil rights abuses.http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/chomsky_on_obama/
Now we could argue why anyone would want to listen to someone’s who’s vast experience is with linguistics and not with politics(chomsky).
Not only have I given a government agency link that shows the professions of members of congress, to disprove what Obama has said, as well as you. I have disproved your other point with a snopes link.
Have fun with your nitpicking.
IBT did not have a clear cut conservative bias in that article. It was leaning toward approval to Obama and clearly, if you bothered to read it, lecturing those who critiques Obama’s real world business experience.
Then you have a very skewed knowledge of what a Republican is. Reagan was a moderate Republican. Goldwater was a conservative. McCain is a liberal Republican.
Quit trying to make him something he’s not. More to the right of Eisenhower, snorts, really???? Really???
Absolutely to the right of Eisenhower, who said, ” Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed”
That’s why the Birchers called him a communist.
(Now, they are called Tea Partiers).
Maybe instead of looking at progresssive meme quotes, you could instead look into the context of the speech. It was aimed not at gun rights, but instead at stopping the cold war.
Nope, not to the right of Eisenhower, not even close to Eisenhower.
The “same” crowd. That crowd that decried Eisenhower and JFK are dead. Heres a reality. No President or political figure in the U.S is going to be liked all the time.
Instead of being derisive about “that” crowd, maybe instead look at their critiques. Gods forbid that people actually look at the meat of the issue and not at the shallow labels.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than
30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It
is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete
pavement.
We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. […] Is there no other way the world may live?
-Dwight David Eisenhower, “The Chance for Peace,” speech given to the
American Society of Newspaper Editors, Apr. 16, 1953.
The right would call that communism and be OUTRAGED that the government would be expected to provide housing, food, schools or hospitals.
You may know the whole speech, but you sure as hell didn’t look at the context. It was 3 months after Stalin died. The context was about the cold war, not about the problems today.
As to the right calling Eisenhower a communist, you really need to get a grip.
If you want to know what the “right” at that time would have said, then look at the “right” at that time. You have Goldwater to look at. http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch24t9.htm
Otherwise you are just reaching and reacting and not at all using critical thinking skills.
You may know the whole speech, but you sure as hell didn’t look at the context. It was 3 months after Stalin died. The context was about the cold war, not about the problems today.
_________
Oh, please.
I think it is you who doesn’t know.
It dovetails nicely with Teddy Roosevelt’s speech in Osawatomie, Kansas
Eisenhower was speaking at a time that was almost the peak of the rise of the Middle Class as a result of the New Deal.
“There is no doubt that Dwight D Eisenhower is a dedicated, conscious agent of the international Communist conspiracy.”
Bob Welsh, founder of the John Birch Society .
He also wrote a letter to his brother Edgar on November 8, 1954, about Social Security and the New deal;
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among
them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
critical thinking requires and education and not selected blips from the neo computer planet that has you and your ilk living in fear of the boogey man.
“Then you have a very skewed knowledge of what a Republican is.”
Can ya blame us for not knowing? The only elections the right can win lately is small sections of white land. The gop closed its tent so tight a cub scout couldn’t sit down inside it,
Ever hear of the expression of black tracking? Thats holding a position until its known that your position is the same as President Obama, and then black tracking, for instance the aca, deficits don’t matter, drone attacks all popular before Mr Obama took office. Being against black people isnt a smart campaign slogan, if you want to win generals.
I’ts not against drone strikes, but against drone strikes against U.S citizens on U.S soil. It’s one thing to go against people who you know are enemies, it’s another to do drone strikes on your own citizens. Just like the Libertarians, the Dems, the Republicans are not always in agreement with each other.
He is very much black and that’s why you’re calling him an extremist. You claim he is not conservative or moderate, but then you point to a leftist who wrote a piece critiquing Obama for not being left enough. Which is it? You criticisms aren’t even compatible with each other. What words would you use if a real liberal was President like Sanders or Howard Dean?
I don’t give a damn about his melanin content. The racist claim is getting very old, very fast. It also goes to show just how weak your argument is. I find it amazing that you guys continue to use it, when Conservatives have shown time and again, they would happilly put Condaleeza Rice in charge. It clearly isn’t the skin color, but his attitude and what he has done. Amazing that. Though the ones showing the racism aren’t the conservatives.
I don’t like him, because he’s whiny, he’s an elitist prig, who can’t take a critique, who ignores his advisors. Yeah I did point to Chomsky critiquing him, because it’s ironic that even those who supported him are critiquing him on stuff he’s saying in the meme above.
When I was 17, I would have voted for Dean. I’m older and wiser now and realize he’s a twit. Dean is no more a “real” liberal than any other Liberal is. Obama is very much a liberal. Quit trying to foist him off on another political group.
“Conservatives have shown time and again, they would happilly put Condaleeza Rice in charge.” While waving their dixie swastikas? Maybe they’l bake her a cake!
CONservatives showed Herman Cain, by golly!
-to just before the Iowa Caucus!
-and Herman had a 666 plan that even had some biblical attraction to the Southern WHITE RACIST Evangelicals that are so non discriminatory they’d vote for a Mormon Bishop that’d ‘brown’ himself just to appeal to the liking of Latino’s before they’d support an ‘Hawaiian’.
Yep. won’t find any racial bias in the WHITE Republican Party at all! It’s all about his uppity attitude and all the horrible things Obama has done!
On to LIMPBAG’s next Viagra Addicted Political Fantasy in audio!
older and more wrinkled maybe but wiser? Ya gotta be kidding. You are just babbling unsubstantiated garbage that has been oozing through the gop cracks since day one.
I don’t give a damn what your excuse are. Obama is barely left of center, yet you screech like he is the furthest left you can get — while also mocking the fact that a far leftist criticizes Obama for not being…a leftist. Your criticisms don’t add up and that just proves that you’re a racist or at least have some other irrational reason for your stupid hatred.
Then RWNJ DJ Constitutional Law experts should have backed Fred instead of the LOSER Mitt in 2012. (if they ‘truly’ had the courage to stand with their zany restrictions).
Obewon June 8th, 2014 at 10:39
That certainly explains why Issa’s 50 weeks of hearings per year delivered “0 indictments.” ‘He’s damaged goods. That’s why they had to replace him as Chairman.’-Leader Pelosi nails the constitutionally & fiscally illiterate torture party. ‘The public debt shall not be questioned’-1868 14th A.
Chinese Democracy June 8th, 2014 at 14:57
baggers always cite the hearings as if the hearings alone are proof of something. Yet always forget to cite the outcome .. zero indictments
makes me go hmm
Obewon June 8th, 2014 at 10:39
That certainly explains why Issa’s 50 weeks of hearings per year delivered “0 indictments.” ‘He’s damaged goods. That’s why they had to replace him as Chairman.’-Leader Pelosi nails the constitutionally & fiscally illiterate torture party. ‘The public debt shall not be questioned’-1868 14th A.
Chinese Democracy June 8th, 2014 at 14:57
baggers always cite the hearings as if the hearings alone are proof of something. Yet always forget to cite the outcome .. zero indictments
makes me go hmm
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 10:42
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42964.pdf Page 2, the most dominant profession of congress is law. Clearly Obama doesn’t even know how to read his own reports.
If that’s to long for our “esteemed” President to look at 43percent. http://www.measureofamerica.org/113-congress-infographic/
Oh look Obama is showing his bum. But Palin is the dumb one, smdh.
Obewon June 8th, 2014 at 10:52
In the 21st Century just one member of congress was “A Constitutional Lawyer”-as POTUS Obama’s actual quote says. “But Palin is the dumb one”-LOL! Transcription http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/01/masked-avengers-prank-cal_n_140023.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN3KUXWppNs
Orrin Cratch June 8th, 2014 at 12:00
That recording never gets old.
Chinese Democracy June 8th, 2014 at 14:55
lol luv that it sums everything up so nicely.
fahvel June 8th, 2014 at 11:07
it’s not too rare but not many people here tell us all how really stupid and uneducated they really are. Thanks for the heads up bianca.
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 11:47
Didn’t look at the links did you.
Chinese Democracy June 8th, 2014 at 14:58
yes people have been looking at your links and debunking them as well as using them against you
I suggest you read your OWN links next time
mea_mark June 8th, 2014 at 15:47
But then she would have no way to support her conjectures. Facts be damned, there has to be a supporting link, even if it isn’t.
fahvel June 8th, 2014 at 16:03
yours???? Nope.
Orrin Cratch June 8th, 2014 at 11:55
No. The most prominent profession in Congress is LEGISLATOR. Additionally, many legislators with law degrees are neither members of their home state’s bar association or active lawyers.
Nice fail, Bianca. Have a nice day.
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 12:02
And why would they still be a member of the bar, whilst in congress? Because they can’t get more lucrative jobs if they decide to go back to private sector instead?
Obewon June 8th, 2014 at 14:17
Your own link obliterates your foolishness “This is incorrect: Barack Obama did not “surrender” his law license.” And “Not true. Information about the statuses of both Barack and Michelle Obama’s licenses is readily retrievable, both show no record of any disciplinary actions or pending proceedings.”-Snopes further busts you: “This is hardly remarkable or suspicious: neither of the Obamas holds a currently active law license because neither President of the United States nor First Lady is a position that requires one. It’s also inaccurate in referring to the Obamas as the “first Lawyer President and First Lady,” as both Bill and Hillary Clinton held law degrees and engaged in legal work prior to the former’s election to the presidency.”
On the WaPo scale you earned yourself 4 of 4 possible Pinocchio’s, while debunking these faux TP emails as uninformed jiberish. Furthermore: “Because they can’t get more lucrative jobs”-Lol! They’l have no problem running their own foundations, turning away numerous lucrative offers, and compounding their family fortune from $50M+ to beyond $150M+, which is greater than the entire outcast Bush Family combined wealth!
mea_mark June 8th, 2014 at 14:28
The term “law” in that chart seems to be very loose in it’s use. It certainly doesn’t imply lawyer. It looks like it could include a court stenographer, or clerk. It is a term used to describe a broad category including everything from top to bottom. Basically it is pretty much worthless as far as really defining anything. So in essence your comment has very little merit.
granpa.usthai June 8th, 2014 at 15:40
YES! Sara IS the dumb one! -Rally she is!- Rally!
She’s dumb enough to read what is on her dumb teleprompt without stopping to think about what she just read, then tries ever so desperately to nail one of her 10,000 points of flashing lights with a Limpbag Viagra addicted version.
She may think she’s hot stuff when flying across town in a rented Cessna, but it’s POTUS Obama that’s traveling the world in a Flying Palace luxuriant enough for REAL ROYALTY! (twice over!!!)
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 10:42
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42964.pdf Page 2, the most dominant profession of congress is law. Clearly Obama doesn’t even know how to read his own reports.
If that’s to long for our “esteemed” President to look at 43percent. http://www.measureofamerica.org/113-congress-infographic/
Oh look Obama is showing his bum. But Palin is the dumb one, smdh.
Obewon June 8th, 2014 at 10:52
In the 21st Century just one member of congress was “A Constitutional Lawyer”-as POTUS Obama’s actual quote says. “But Palin is the dumb one”-LOL!
FAKE SARKOZY: I must say, Gov. Palin, I love the documentary they made on your life – you know, Hustler’s “Nailin’ Palin”.
GOV. PALIN: Oh good, thank you! Transcript http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/11/sarah_palin_pranked_by_sarkozy.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGRHUht6fg
Orrin Cratch June 8th, 2014 at 12:00
That recording never gets old.
Chinese Democracy June 8th, 2014 at 14:55
lol luv that it sums everything up so nicely.
fahvel June 8th, 2014 at 11:07
it’s not too rare but not many people here tell us all how really stupid and uneducated they really are. Thanks for the heads up bianca.
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 11:47
Didn’t look at the links did you.
Chinese Democracy June 8th, 2014 at 14:58
yes people have been looking at your links and debunking them as well as using them against you
I suggest you read your OWN links next time
mea_mark June 8th, 2014 at 15:47
But then she would have no way to support her conjectures. Facts be damned, there has to be a supporting link, even if it isn’t.
fahvel June 8th, 2014 at 16:03
yours???? Nope.
Orrin Cratch June 8th, 2014 at 11:55
No. The most prominent profession in Congress is LEGISLATOR. Additionally, many legislators with law degrees are neither members of their home state’s bar association or active lawyers.
Nice fail, Bianca. Have a nice day.
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 12:02
And why would they still be a member of the bar, whilst in congress? Because they can’t get more lucrative jobs if they decide to go back to private sector instead?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp
As snopes has shown, neither is Obama. Apparently it’s not all that hard, if you go down and read snopes rebuttal to get your law licenses reinstated if they have lapsed or you put it on inactive.
I’ll edit this part in, to let y’all be lazy.
”
Reactivating an inactive law license is a fairly easy procedure, as noted in the Volokh group blog for law professors:
The fact that someone who doesn’t actually practice law, and is unlikely to practice law, voluntarily retires is hardly a sinister signal: It costs money to be a member of the bar, and if you’re not going to practice, it may make sense to retire. Nor does this somehow undermine claims that he’s a lawyer; a retired lawyer is still commonly called a lawyer — as an indication of what he has studied, and his general professional field — even if he is no longer a member of the bar.
The bar record says that [Michelle Obama] is “Voluntarily inactive.” This is even more common for lawyers who don’t need a bar card, such as many lawyers who don’t appear in court or counsel clients other than employer. Being an active status lawyer costs more money than being inactive, and it requires one to do Continuing Legal Education classes, unless one is in certain jobs for which the CLE requirements are waived. The difference in bar fees, for instance, is why I myself was inactive in 2001. Moreover, it’s pretty easy to switch back to active status should one need to do that.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp#3tERi0HzjpUXytaY.99
“
Obewon June 8th, 2014 at 14:17
Your own link obliterates your foolishness “This is incorrect: Barack Obama did not “surrender” his law license.” And “Not true. Information about the statuses of both Barack and Michelle Obama’s licenses is readily retrievable, both show no record of any disciplinary actions or pending proceedings.”-Snopes further busts you: “This is hardly remarkable or suspicious: neither of the Obamas holds a currently active law license because neither President of the United States nor First Lady is in a position that requires one. It’s also inaccurate in referring to the Obamas as the “first Lawyer President and First Lady,” as both Bill and Hillary Clinton held law degrees and engaged in legal work prior to the former’s election to the presidency.”
On the WaPo scale you earned yourself 4 of 4 possible Pinocchio’s, while debunking these faux TP emails as uninformed jiberish. Furthermore: “Because they can’t get more lucrative jobs”-Lol! They’l have no problem running their own foundations, turning away numerous lucrative offers, and compounding their family fortune from $50M+ to beyond $150M+, which is greater than the entire outcast GWB, GHWB & other Bush Family members combined wealth!
mea_mark June 8th, 2014 at 14:28
The term “law” in that chart seems to be very loose in it’s use. It certainly doesn’t imply lawyer. It looks like it could include a court stenographer, or clerk. It is a term used to describe a broad category including everything from top to bottom. Basically it is pretty much worthless as far as really defining anything. So in essence your comment has very little merit.
granpa.usthai June 8th, 2014 at 15:40
YES! Sara IS the dumb one! -Rally she is!- Rally!
She’s dumb enough to read what is on her dumb teleprompt without stopping to think about what she just read, then tries ever so desperately to nail one of her 10,000 points of flashing lights with a Limpbag Viagra addicted version.
She may think she’s hot stuff when flying across town in a rented Cessna, but it’s POTUS Obama that’s traveling the world in a Flying Palace luxuriant enough for REAL ROYALTY! (twice over!!!)
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 10:48
Obama’s work history http://www.ibtimes.com/yes-president-obama-has-worked-private-sector-759767 Frankly Fred Phelps has a better resume for “constitutional” lawyer.
Obewon June 8th, 2014 at 11:25
Politifact is far more accurate & inclusive than IBT’s omissions. -There you have it. By our count, Obama earned paychecks from 11 for-profit businesses, compared to just six nonprofit or government employers. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/15/joe-scarborough/heres-scoop-obama-has-worked-ice-cream-business-am/ POTUS Obama also graduated Harvard Law Phi beta kappa in the top 10% of his class earning a Ph.D. as a Juris Doctor.
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 11:52
Yawn, yes he graduated harvard law, that doesn’t mean he’s a constutional scholar. Nor does it mean he has a lot of experience with constitutional law.
Reading over his resume, which btw was pulled from political fact, you see he was an assistant to an esteemed harvard constitutional scholar. You see he did a lot of community action work. I’d be more impressed with his boasts if he did work for ACLU or any of the community action works that do a lot of work for constitutional issues. Project innocence mayhaps. No he did a lot of voting work.
How many times did he argue before Scotus. Phelps has on many different occasions before he died and before he made the Westboro Baptist Church. If you check out his career as a lawyer, you would see he has a lot of experience in constitutional arguments. POTUS does not measure up to Phelps.
Also if you saw the first link it showed what the 2014 congress consists of. It shows what the majority of Congress people were before becoming congress people, thus invalidating POTUS argument in the meme above.
Obewon June 8th, 2014 at 14:37
Again facts pummel you via Politifact: “1993-2004 — part-time lecturer, University of Chicago Law School — Chicago — lectured on constitutional law.”-Taught Constitutional Law with a Ph.D in Law and “1988 — research assistant, Lawrence Tribe — student assistant to this Harvard Law School professor and renowned constitutional scholar.”-“Renowned Constitutional Scholar” Plus “Taught Constitutional Law with a Ph.D in Law” as well as many other anti discrimination Constitutional case law equals “Constitutional Scholar”-POTUS Obama44’s bio on Mt. Rushmore!
granpa.usthai June 8th, 2014 at 16:13
not to mention the FACT that Obama is cruzing the world in style in a flying palace with the POTUS Seal like a ‘dummy’ while someone as ‘brilliant’ as Sara is going across town in a rented Cessna.
FACTS is always so distorting, no wonder brilliant RWNJ’s have the super intelligence to ask mommie to adjust the antenna until a Constitutional expert drugged out on Viagra is located!
granpa.usthai June 8th, 2014 at 16:05
Now you see, Bianca, you Konservative Kristin RepubliKons is always giving the American People such tough choices!
Do we want to vote the way a RWNJ DJ expert who’s never actually been a party to a political structure, or Someone who has dedicated a good part of their life in preparing for servitude of the People by seeking higher education?
(by your experienced radio listening assessments, RWNJ’s know more about the Constitution than the originators)
Geez, always the toughies, no wonder most Americans are flipping a double headed coin and voting for the Democrats.
Orrin Cratch June 8th, 2014 at 11:53
Outside of business news, IBT is a biased journalistic joke, about reliable as other sources of bullshit such as the Daily Worker or Drudge.
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 11:54
Apparently biased toward Obama, because if you bothered to read it, it clearly shows a bias for him. If I wanted a clear conservative bias, i’d have put in townhall link.
Orrin Cratch June 8th, 2014 at 12:23
IBT has a clear-cut conserv ative bias. And Obama is, by the way, no liberal. You would know this if you were paying attention. But then, you are too busy asserting that the number one occupation in Congress is lawyer when in fact it is LEGISLATOR.
Have a nice derp.
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 12:30
Obama is very much left wing, to the point of socialist. He is not a moderate, he is not a conservative. As for his constitutional quote, even Chomsky is critiquing him on his civil rights abuses.http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/chomsky_on_obama/
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/oct/13/noam-chomsky-extradition
Now we could argue why anyone would want to listen to someone’s who’s vast experience is with linguistics and not with politics(chomsky).
Not only have I given a government agency link that shows the professions of members of congress, to disprove what Obama has said, as well as you. I have disproved your other point with a snopes link.
Have fun with your nitpicking.
IBT did not have a clear cut conservative bias in that article. It was leaning toward approval to Obama and clearly, if you bothered to read it, lecturing those who critiques Obama’s real world business experience.
TiredOfThemAll June 8th, 2014 at 12:47
Obama is very much left wing, to the point of socialist.
________
That anyone would say that is amazing.
But then again, the same crowd called Eisenhower and JFK communists, and Obama is to the right of Eisenhower.
Actually, Obama is what USED to be called a “moderate Republican”.
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 13:23
Then you have a very skewed knowledge of what a Republican is. Reagan was a moderate Republican. Goldwater was a conservative. McCain is a liberal Republican.
Quit trying to make him something he’s not. More to the right of Eisenhower, snorts, really???? Really???
TiredOfThemAll June 8th, 2014 at 13:28
Reagan was a plutocrat.
Absolutely to the right of Eisenhower, who said, ” Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed”
That’s why the Birchers called him a communist.
(Now, they are called Tea Partiers).
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 13:32
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/09/30/the-origins-of-that-eisenhower-every-gun-that-is-made-quote
Maybe instead of looking at progresssive meme quotes, you could instead look into the context of the speech. It was aimed not at gun rights, but instead at stopping the cold war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_for_Peace_speech
Nope, not to the right of Eisenhower, not even close to Eisenhower.
TiredOfThemAll June 8th, 2014 at 13:37
I know the whole speech.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than
30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It
is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete
pavement.
We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. […] Is there no other way the world may live?
-Dwight David Eisenhower, “The Chance for Peace,” speech given to the
American Society of Newspaper Editors, Apr. 16, 1953.
The right would call that communism and be OUTRAGED that the government would be expected to provide housing, food, schools or hospitals.
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 13:44
You may know the whole speech, but you sure as hell didn’t look at the context. It was 3 months after Stalin died. The context was about the cold war, not about the problems today.
As to the right calling Eisenhower a communist, you really need to get a grip.
http://dailysignal.com/2012/08/29/eisenhower-goldwater-and-reagan-on-gop-foreign-policy/
If you want to know what the “right” at that time would have said, then look at the “right” at that time. You have Goldwater to look at. http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch24t9.htm
Otherwise you are just reaching and reacting and not at all using critical thinking skills.
TiredOfThemAll June 8th, 2014 at 13:53
You may know the whole speech, but you sure as hell didn’t look at the context. It was 3 months after Stalin died. The context was about the cold war, not about the problems today.
_________
Oh, please.
I think it is you who doesn’t know.
It dovetails nicely with Teddy Roosevelt’s speech in Osawatomie, Kansas
Eisenhower was speaking at a time that was almost the peak of the rise of the Middle Class as a result of the New Deal.
“There is no doubt that Dwight D Eisenhower is a dedicated, conscious agent of the international Communist conspiracy.”
Bob Welsh, founder of the John Birch Society .
He also wrote a letter to his brother Edgar on November 8, 1954, about Social Security and the New deal;
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among
them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
fahvel June 8th, 2014 at 16:00
critical thinking requires and education and not selected blips from the neo computer planet that has you and your ilk living in fear of the boogey man.
TiredOfThemAll June 8th, 2014 at 13:42
Gods forbid that people actually look at the meat of the issue and not at the shallow labels.
_______
I would agree.
Perhaps it goes both ways.
And “The “same” crowd”, just put on a tri-cornered hat and changed their name.
craig7120 June 8th, 2014 at 13:41
“Then you have a very skewed knowledge of what a Republican is.”
Can ya blame us for not knowing? The only elections the right can win lately is small sections of white land. The gop closed its tent so tight a cub scout couldn’t sit down inside it,
Ever hear of the expression of black tracking? Thats holding a position until its known that your position is the same as President Obama, and then black tracking, for instance the aca, deficits don’t matter, drone attacks all popular before Mr Obama took office. Being against black people isnt a smart campaign slogan, if you want to win generals.
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 13:48
http://theiowarepublican.com/2013/rands-stand-against-drones-reverberates-in-iowa/
I’ts not against drone strikes, but against drone strikes against U.S citizens on U.S soil. It’s one thing to go against people who you know are enemies, it’s another to do drone strikes on your own citizens.
The republican are not tightly closed.
granpa.usthai June 8th, 2014 at 14:48
Really. – check Eisenhower’s policy on Immigration, for one.
fahvel June 8th, 2014 at 15:57
if you were there when Ike was pres then your wrinkles have got to be incredible – too bad there aren’t the required wrinkles in your brain.
wolfndeer June 8th, 2014 at 12:59
He is very much black and that’s why you’re calling him an extremist. You claim he is not conservative or moderate, but then you point to a leftist who wrote a piece critiquing Obama for not being left enough. Which is it? You criticisms aren’t even compatible with each other. What words would you use if a real liberal was President like Sanders or Howard Dean?
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 13:28
I don’t give a damn about his melanin content. The racist claim is getting very old, very fast. It also goes to show just how weak your argument is. I find it amazing that you guys continue to use it, when Conservatives have shown time and again, they would happilly put Condaleeza Rice in charge. It clearly isn’t the skin color, but his attitude and what he has done. Amazing that. Though the ones showing the racism aren’t the conservatives.
I don’t like him, because he’s whiny, he’s an elitist prig, who can’t take a critique, who ignores his advisors. Yeah I did point to Chomsky critiquing him, because it’s ironic that even those who supported him are critiquing him on stuff he’s saying in the meme above.
When I was 17, I would have voted for Dean. I’m older and wiser now and realize he’s a twit. Dean is no more a “real” liberal than any other Liberal is. Obama is very much a liberal. Quit trying to foist him off on another political group.
William June 8th, 2014 at 14:05
The racist claim is getting very old, very fast. …
Right wing denial of racism is getting very old very fast.
Obewon June 8th, 2014 at 15:50
“Conservatives have shown time and again, they would happilly put Condaleeza Rice in charge.” While waving their Dixie swastikas? Maybe they’l bake her a birthday cake!
Obewon June 8th, 2014 at 15:54
“Conservatives have shown time and again, they would happilly put Condaleeza Rice in charge.” While waving their dixie swastikas? Maybe they’l bake her a cake!
granpa.usthai June 8th, 2014 at 15:54
CONservatives showed Herman Cain, by golly!
-to just before the Iowa Caucus!
-and Herman had a 666 plan that even had some biblical attraction to the Southern WHITE RACIST Evangelicals that are so non discriminatory they’d vote for a Mormon Bishop that’d ‘brown’ himself just to appeal to the liking of Latino’s before they’d support an ‘Hawaiian’.
Yep. won’t find any racial bias in the WHITE Republican Party at all! It’s all about his uppity attitude and all the horrible things Obama has done!
On to LIMPBAG’s next Viagra Addicted Political Fantasy in audio!
fahvel June 8th, 2014 at 15:55
older and more wrinkled maybe but wiser? Ya gotta be kidding. You are just babbling unsubstantiated garbage that has been oozing through the gop cracks since day one.
wolfndeer June 8th, 2014 at 18:26
I don’t give a damn what your excuse are. Obama is barely left of center, yet you screech like he is the furthest left you can get — while also mocking the fact that a far leftist criticizes Obama for not being…a leftist. Your criticisms don’t add up and that just proves that you’re a racist or at least have some other irrational reason for your stupid hatred.
granpa.usthai June 8th, 2014 at 14:44
POTUS Obama is ON RECORD as being 40X times LESS SOCIALIST than POTUS Reagan. No BS, check the NUMBERS.
fahvel June 8th, 2014 at 15:53
my goodness, you are an ass.
granpa.usthai June 8th, 2014 at 15:22
Then RWNJ DJ Constitutional Law experts should have backed Fred instead of the LOSER Mitt in 2012. (if they ‘truly’ had the courage to stand with their zany restrictions).
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 10:48
Obama’s work history http://www.ibtimes.com/yes-president-obama-has-worked-private-sector-759767 Frankly Fred Phelps has a better resume for “constitutional” lawyer.
Obewon June 8th, 2014 at 11:25
Politifact is far more accurate & inclusive than IBT’s omissions. -There you have it. By our count, Obama earned paychecks from 11 for-profit businesses, compared to just six nonprofit or government employers. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/15/joe-scarborough/heres-scoop-obama-has-worked-ice-cream-business-am/ POTUS Obama also graduated Harvard Law “Phi Beta Kappa” and maxima cum laude in the top 10% of his class earning a Ph.D. as a Juris Doctor.
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 11:52
Yawn, yes he graduated harvard law, that doesn’t mean he’s a constutional scholar. Nor does it mean he has a lot of experience with constitutional law.
Reading over his resume, which btw was pulled from political fact, you see he was an assistant to an esteemed harvard constitutional scholar. You see he did a lot of community action work. I’d be more impressed with his boasts if he did work for ACLU or any of the community action works that do a lot of work for constitutional issues. Project innocence mayhaps. No he did a lot of voting work.
How many times did he argue before Scotus. Phelps has on many different occasions before he died and before he made the Westboro Baptist Church. If you check out his career as a lawyer, you would see he has a lot of experience in constitutional arguments. POTUS does not measure up to Phelps.
Also if you saw the first link it showed what the 2014 congress consists of. It shows what the majority of Congress people were before becoming congress people, thus invalidating POTUS argument in the meme above.
Obewon June 8th, 2014 at 14:37
Again facts torture you via Politifact: “1993-2004 — part-time lecturer, University of Chicago Law School — Chicago — lectured on constitutional law.”-Taught Constitutional Law with a Ph.D in Law following “1988 — research assistant, Lawrence Tribe — student assistant to this Harvard Law School professor and renowned constitutional scholar.” Meanwhile your dead homophobic idol Phelps burns in Hell achieving none of the above.
“Renowned Constitutional Scholar” Plus “Taught Constitutional Law with a Ph.D in Law for 11 years” as well as many other anti discrimination Constitutional case law work and achievements equals “Constitutional Scholar”-included on POTUS Obama’s Mt. Rushmore bio.
granpa.usthai June 8th, 2014 at 16:13
not to mention the FACT that Obama is cruzing the world in style in a flying palace with the POTUS Seal like a ‘dummy’ while someone as ‘brilliant’ as Sara is going across town in a rented Cessna.
FACTS is always so distorting, no wonder brilliant RWNJ’s have the super intelligence to ask mommie to adjust the antenna until a Constitutional expert drugged out on Viagra is located!
granpa.usthai June 8th, 2014 at 16:05
Now you see, Bianca, you Konservative Kristin RepubliKons is always giving the American People such tough choices!
Do we want to vote the way a RWNJ DJ expert who’s never actually been a party to a political structure, or Someone who has dedicated a good part of their life in preparing for servitude of the People by seeking higher education?
(by your experienced radio listening assessments, RWNJ’s know more about the Constitution than the originators)
Geez, always the toughies, no wonder most Americans are flipping a double headed coin and voting for the Democrats.
Orrin Cratch June 8th, 2014 at 11:53
Outside of business news, IBT is a biased journalistic joke, about reliable as other sources of bullshit such as the Daily Worker or Drudge.
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 11:54
Apparently biased toward Obama, because if you bothered to read it, it clearly shows a bias for him. If I wanted a clear conservative bias, i’d have put in townhall link.
Orrin Cratch June 8th, 2014 at 12:23
IBT has a clear-cut conserv ative bias. And Obama is, by the way, no liberal. You would know this if you were paying attention. But then, you are too busy asserting that the number one occupation in Congress is lawyer when in fact it is LEGISLATOR.
Have a nice derp.
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 12:30
Obama is very much left wing, to the point of socialist. He is not a moderate, he is not a conservative. As for his constitutional quote, even Chomsky is critiquing him on his civil rights abuses.http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/chomsky_on_obama/
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/oct/13/noam-chomsky-extradition
Now we could argue why anyone would want to listen to someone’s who’s vast experience is with linguistics and not with politics(chomsky).
Not only have I given a government agency link that shows the professions of members of congress, to disprove what Obama has said, as well as you. I have disproved your other point with a snopes link.
Have fun with your nitpicking.
IBT did not have a clear cut conservative bias in that article. It was leaning toward approval to Obama and clearly, if you bothered to read it, lecturing those who critiques Obama’s real world business experience.
OldLefty June 8th, 2014 at 12:47
Obama is very much left wing, to the point of socialist.
________
That anyone would say that is amazing.
But then again, the same crowd called Eisenhower and JFK communists, and Obama is to the right of Eisenhower.
Actually, Obama is what USED to be called a “moderate Republican”.
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 13:23
Then you have a very skewed knowledge of what a Republican is. Reagan was a moderate Republican. Goldwater was a conservative. McCain is a liberal Republican.
Quit trying to make him something he’s not. More to the right of Eisenhower, snorts, really???? Really???
OldLefty June 8th, 2014 at 13:28
Reagan was a plutocrat.
Absolutely to the right of Eisenhower, who said, ” Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed”
That’s why the Birchers called him a communist.
(Now, they are called Tea Partiers).
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 13:32
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/09/30/the-origins-of-that-eisenhower-every-gun-that-is-made-quote
Maybe instead of looking at progresssive meme quotes, you could instead look into the context of the speech. It was aimed not at gun rights, but instead at stopping the cold war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_for_Peace_speech
Nope, not to the right of Eisenhower, not even close to Eisenhower.
The “same” crowd. That crowd that decried Eisenhower and JFK are dead. Heres a reality. No President or political figure in the U.S is going to be liked all the time.
Instead of being derisive about “that” crowd, maybe instead look at their critiques. Gods forbid that people actually look at the meat of the issue and not at the shallow labels.
OldLefty June 8th, 2014 at 13:37
I know the whole speech.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than
30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It
is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete
pavement.
We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. […] Is there no other way the world may live?
-Dwight David Eisenhower, “The Chance for Peace,” speech given to the
American Society of Newspaper Editors, Apr. 16, 1953.
The right would call that communism and be OUTRAGED that the government would be expected to provide housing, food, schools or hospitals.
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 13:44
You may know the whole speech, but you sure as hell didn’t look at the context. It was 3 months after Stalin died. The context was about the cold war, not about the problems today.
As to the right calling Eisenhower a communist, you really need to get a grip.
http://dailysignal.com/2012/08/29/eisenhower-goldwater-and-reagan-on-gop-foreign-policy/
If you want to know what the “right” at that time would have said, then look at the “right” at that time. You have Goldwater to look at. http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch24t9.htm
Otherwise you are just reaching and reacting and not at all using critical thinking skills.
OldLefty June 8th, 2014 at 13:53
You may know the whole speech, but you sure as hell didn’t look at the context. It was 3 months after Stalin died. The context was about the cold war, not about the problems today.
_________
Oh, please.
I think it is you who doesn’t know.
It dovetails nicely with Teddy Roosevelt’s speech in Osawatomie, Kansas
Eisenhower was speaking at a time that was almost the peak of the rise of the Middle Class as a result of the New Deal.
“There is no doubt that Dwight D Eisenhower is a dedicated, conscious agent of the international Communist conspiracy.”
Bob Welsh, founder of the John Birch Society .
He also wrote a letter to his brother Edgar on November 8, 1954, about Social Security and the New deal;
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among
them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
fahvel June 8th, 2014 at 16:00
critical thinking requires and education and not selected blips from the neo computer planet that has you and your ilk living in fear of the boogey man.
OldLefty June 8th, 2014 at 13:42
Gods forbid that people actually look at the meat of the issue and not at the shallow labels.
_______
I would agree.
Perhaps it goes both ways.
And “The “same” crowd”, just put on a tri-cornered hat and changed their name.
craig7120 June 8th, 2014 at 13:41
“Then you have a very skewed knowledge of what a Republican is.”
Can ya blame us for not knowing? The only elections the right can win lately is small sections of white land. The gop closed its tent so tight a cub scout couldn’t sit down inside it,
Ever hear of the expression of black tracking? Thats holding a position until its known that your position is the same as President Obama, and then black tracking, for instance the aca, deficits don’t matter, drone attacks all popular before Mr Obama took office. Being against black people isnt a smart campaign slogan, if you want to win generals.
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 13:48
http://theiowarepublican.com/2013/rands-stand-against-drones-reverberates-in-iowa/
I’ts not against drone strikes, but against drone strikes against U.S citizens on U.S soil. It’s one thing to go against people who you know are enemies, it’s another to do drone strikes on your own citizens. Just like the Libertarians, the Dems, the Republicans are not always in agreement with each other.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/07/nation/la-na-pn-gop-debate-drones-20130307
The republican are not tightly closed. Also I suspect you are getting your info from highly biased sources.
granpa.usthai June 8th, 2014 at 14:48
Really. – check Eisenhower’s policy on Immigration, for one.
fahvel June 8th, 2014 at 15:57
if you were there when Ike was pres then your wrinkles have got to be incredible – too bad there aren’t the required wrinkles in your brain.
$89204762 June 8th, 2014 at 12:59
He is very much black and that’s why you’re calling him an extremist. You claim he is not conservative or moderate, but then you point to a leftist who wrote a piece critiquing Obama for not being left enough. Which is it? You criticisms aren’t even compatible with each other. What words would you use if a real liberal was President like Sanders or Howard Dean?
Bianca Bradley June 8th, 2014 at 13:28
I don’t give a damn about his melanin content. The racist claim is getting very old, very fast. It also goes to show just how weak your argument is. I find it amazing that you guys continue to use it, when Conservatives have shown time and again, they would happilly put Condaleeza Rice in charge. It clearly isn’t the skin color, but his attitude and what he has done. Amazing that. Though the ones showing the racism aren’t the conservatives.
I don’t like him, because he’s whiny, he’s an elitist prig, who can’t take a critique, who ignores his advisors. Yeah I did point to Chomsky critiquing him, because it’s ironic that even those who supported him are critiquing him on stuff he’s saying in the meme above.
When I was 17, I would have voted for Dean. I’m older and wiser now and realize he’s a twit. Dean is no more a “real” liberal than any other Liberal is. Obama is very much a liberal. Quit trying to foist him off on another political group.
William June 8th, 2014 at 14:05
The racist claim is getting very old, very fast. …
Right wing denial of racism is getting very old very fast.
Obewon June 8th, 2014 at 15:54
“Conservatives have shown time and again, they would happilly put Condaleeza Rice in charge.” While waving their dixie swastikas? Maybe they’l bake her a cake!
granpa.usthai June 8th, 2014 at 15:54
CONservatives showed Herman Cain, by golly!
-to just before the Iowa Caucus!
-and Herman had a 666 plan that even had some biblical attraction to the Southern WHITE RACIST Evangelicals that are so non discriminatory they’d vote for a Mormon Bishop that’d ‘brown’ himself just to appeal to the liking of Latino’s before they’d support an ‘Hawaiian’.
Yep. won’t find any racial bias in the WHITE Republican Party at all! It’s all about his uppity attitude and all the horrible things Obama has done!
On to LIMPBAG’s next Viagra Addicted Political Fantasy in audio!
fahvel June 8th, 2014 at 15:55
older and more wrinkled maybe but wiser? Ya gotta be kidding. You are just babbling unsubstantiated garbage that has been oozing through the gop cracks since day one.
$89204762 June 8th, 2014 at 18:26
I don’t give a damn what your excuse are. Obama is barely left of center, yet you screech like he is the furthest left you can get — while also mocking the fact that a far leftist criticizes Obama for not being…a leftist. Your criticisms don’t add up and that just proves that you’re a racist or at least have some other irrational reason for your stupid hatred.
granpa.usthai June 8th, 2014 at 14:44
POTUS Obama is ON RECORD as being 40X times LESS SOCIALIST than POTUS Reagan. No BS, check the NUMBERS.
fahvel June 8th, 2014 at 15:53
my goodness, you are an expletive.
granpa.usthai June 8th, 2014 at 15:22
Then RWNJ DJ Constitutional Law experts should have backed Fred instead of the LOSER Mitt in 2012. (if they ‘truly’ had the courage to stand with their zany restrictions).
fancypants June 8th, 2014 at 14:49
Obama is right
Many have accused but none have been able to convict
fancypants June 8th, 2014 at 14:49
Obama is right
Many have accused but none have been able to convict