|
palijandro7
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2009, 09:46:44 AM » |
|
I am also glad Boehner admitted water-boarding is torture. He tried to cover it up after the fact by saying he was mocking the Dems characterization of it, but I think that is BS.
I think this is really getting scary. Whether you are for water-boarding or against it, it is undisputed it is torture. The rhetoric of Rush and some Republicans is getting incredibly Orwellian, and I am starting to wonder if we are witnessing the beginning of a major breakdown in our democratic, open society.
|
|
|
|
Seth
|
|
« Reply #31 on: April 25, 2009, 08:32:34 AM » |
|
What have they said that's Orwellian?
Should Bush be imprisoned for allowing waterboarding? Weren't attacks on LA and else where averted because of the advanced interrogation techniques? Weren't key Democrats briefed in 2002 about the techniques and were fully supportive? As part of training, don't we waterboard some of our own servicemen?
|
|
|
|
palijandro7
|
|
« Reply #32 on: April 25, 2009, 10:28:26 AM » |
|
No. The attacks on LA were subverted before water-boarding was put into place.
I think it is becoming Orwellian bc you are hearing people say "it's not torture," or "it's not that bad."
I do not know if we waterboard some of our own servicemen. However, even if we do, that has absolutely nothing to do with the debate.
Regarding Pelosi being briefed, that is pure speculation so far. If she was, and she approved, she is guilty, too. I could care less if it's an R or a D.
|
|
|
|
DanB
|
|
« Reply #33 on: April 25, 2009, 10:51:19 AM » |
|
Yeah, of course our enemies are going to respect us, and treat their hostages with more respect. How naive can one be? Who cares what we do to these people? They don't care what they do to us.
Like the 4th pirate. He never should have seen our shores. They should have gently placed him back in the water, and told him to swim back.
|
|
|
|
oakiehigh
|
|
« Reply #34 on: April 25, 2009, 03:05:10 PM » |
|
Like the 4th pirate. He never should have seen our shores. They should have gently placed him back in the water, and told him to swim back.
Yup, copy that!!
|
|
|
|
REK
|
|
« Reply #35 on: April 25, 2009, 04:55:26 PM » |
|
Yeah, of course our enemies are going to respect us, and treat their hostages with more respect. How naive can one be? Who cares what we do to these people? They don't care what they do to us.
Because we're better than they are.
|
|
|
|
KJP
|
Who does Ted Baxter (from the Mary Tyler Moore Show for you kiddies) sound more like.....
John Boehner?
Or Bill O'Reilly?
(BTW, just saw this music video version of "The Meltdown" -- funniest thing I've ever seen! I had to stop the video I was laughing so hard!!!)
|
|
|
|
Hts44121
|
|
« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2009, 02:19:41 PM » |
|
Whoopsie-daisy... John Boehner reads the Constitution. Or the Declaration of Independence. Or something.WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Those pesky founding fathers. Some days it's hard to keep their statements straight. John Boehner, the Republican congressman from southwestern Ohio who also happens to be the House minority leader, addressed a gathering of Republican and Republican-leaning citizens Thursday on Capitol Hill. They were fired up, fighting for the rights guaranteed by America's patriots. So it was only appropriate that when Boehner joined the tea party, he waved a copy of "the Constitution" and read from it. Except his words were from the Declaration of Independence. FULL STORY: http://www.cleveland.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/11/john_boehner_reads_the_constit.html
|
|
|
|
Loretto
|
|
« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2009, 02:29:06 PM » |
|
That's gotta be one of those moments where you just fire all your interns, lol.
|
|
|
|
AJ93
|
|
« Reply #39 on: November 09, 2009, 10:01:20 AM » |
|
Could have been worse. He could have accidentally started reading from his copy of Penthouse letters.
|
|
|
|
Ram23
|
|
« Reply #40 on: November 09, 2009, 12:33:43 PM » |
|
At least his errors are harmless slip ups, and not complete derails of the entire economy like a few other people in Washington are currently erroneously making.
|
|
|
|
Htsguy
|
|
« Reply #41 on: November 09, 2009, 12:44:30 PM » |
|
^You must be referring to the previous administration
|
|
|
|
kingfish out of water
|
|
« Reply #42 on: November 09, 2009, 12:46:51 PM » |
|
Ram: Is there any way you can make the flag behind Boehner in your avatar flutter?
|
|
|
|
Civvik
|
|
« Reply #43 on: November 09, 2009, 12:59:21 PM » |
|
When I watch Boehner on TV I just feel kind of sorry for him. He gets minority leader more or less by seniority, but I don't think he's ever proven to be a very sharp tack, or even a good orator, in his congressional career. Gotta love the fake tan, too.
He does, however, have a textbook-perfect Ohio Valley accent.
|
|
|
|
Hts44121
|
|
« Reply #44 on: November 09, 2009, 01:00:14 PM » |
|
After watching the video, the funniest thing to me was that among these tea party goers - I mean defenders of the constitution - only one of them (an elderly woman) seated behind Boehner even seemed to notice the gaffe.
|
|
|
|
eastvillagedon
|
|
« Reply #45 on: November 09, 2009, 03:27:22 PM » |
|
At least his errors are harmless slip ups, and not complete derails of the entire economy like a few other people in Washington are currently erroneously making.
Amen...among other, uhhh...minor differences of opinion! http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=79225ELECTION 2008 Obama rips U.S. Constitution
Faults Supreme Court for not mandating 'redistribution of wealth'Posted: October 27, 2008 1:46 pm Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily Seven years before Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.
In a newly unearthed tape, Obama is heard telling Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.
|
|
|
|
Civvik
|
|
« Reply #46 on: November 09, 2009, 03:37:52 PM » |
|
^ You need to watch it or this thread will get locked. This is Obama-bashing and needs to go in the correct thread.
|
|
|
|
eastvillagedon
|
|
« Reply #47 on: November 09, 2009, 03:48:28 PM » |
|
^oops, sorry you're right, and I apologize for going off-topic, but I didn't know that pointing out a major philosophical difference by the President of the United States concerning the most important document governing the nation constitutes "Obama-bashing."
|
|
|
|
|
|
eastvillagedon
|
|
« Reply #49 on: November 09, 2009, 03:51:46 PM » |
|
^and how do we know this story isn't a fabrication?
|
|
|
|
kingfish out of water
|
|
« Reply #50 on: November 09, 2009, 03:56:09 PM » |
|
Because the cited source of the "bombshell"--Joe Klein--says it is.
Oh, and the author of the piece pointed out that it was written as satire, albeit not very good. Quote:
"'If you have to explain a joke, it's not funny,' he said. 'I kind of get inspiration from Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. You want people to be let in and then at the end, they realize it, and either find it funny on its own terms or find their reaction to be funny.'"
|
|
|
|
Hts44121
|
|
« Reply #51 on: November 09, 2009, 05:01:10 PM » |
|
Obama rips U.S. Constitution
Faults Supreme Court for not mandating 'redistribution of wealth'
Thanks for serving up this meatball WND, via our very own EVD! Perfect example of how easy these partisan websites sell their propaganda to the public and the public buying it hook, line and sinker. I won't even check for accuracy or selective reproduction of the text because what was served up is plenty good to prove my point. Let's assume that this was a real interview (and it might be - this is different from the thesis hoax of a couple weeks ago where Rush looked like an utter fool) and the quoted text was Obama's actual language. Now, let's analyze it piece by piece: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OKHe is saying here that there were both victories and failures in the civil rights movement. The victory was to invest rights in minorities that did not previously have them - e.g., blacks could now eat their lunch at Woolworth on the same condition as everyone else - you must pay for it. That is all that is said. Nothing more. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.What this means is that the Supreme Court stayed within the confines of its constitutional authority in its rulings on civil rights. It was not a radical court as some have claimed. There were some essential constraints that were placed on the court by the founding fathers and the Warren Court stayed within those parameters. In essense, the constitution says what the government can't do and what it must do, not much else. And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.What he means here is that the Court was NOT empowered to bring about "redistributive change." Any such measure would have to be by other means, but the civil rights movement focused too much on winning the battles in court and lost focus on the grassroots power of the movement that could have brought the community together in a coalition of powers. It gets somewhat more difficult to understand what exactly he means here, but it appears he would have supported organizing among the people to form coalitions and apply political pressure to bring about change - i.e. voting blocks, lobbyists, etc. Regardless, he is definitely not suggesting that any such goal could have been accomplished through the Supreme Court. So, nowhere in the text which I am sure WND very selectively chose to reproduce does Obama "rip the constitution", nor does he "fault the Supreme Court" EVD.... my friend.... you've been propaganized.... AGAIN by those big bold letters. Try your own espoused strategy sometime and actually read and critically analyze what is written.... unless you like the taste of your own foot.
|
|
|
|
kingfish out of water
|
|
« Reply #52 on: November 09, 2009, 05:24:27 PM » |
|
^But NOTHING in the piece coughed up by EVD is true. It is a known piece of satire, and a stale one at that.
|
|
|
|
Ram23
|
|
« Reply #53 on: November 09, 2009, 06:08:30 PM » |
|
Ram: Is there any way you can make the flag behind Boehner in your avatar flutter?
Can animated .gifs work as avatars? I might try it out... Then I could constantly change the face in front of it to various Ohio politicians and celebrities. This could be fun...
|
|
|
|
Hts44121
|
|
« Reply #54 on: November 09, 2009, 06:15:25 PM » |
|
When I hit on the link posted by EVD, I get a 2001 radio interview that Obama did.... not the thesis hoax. What I posted was verbatim from the transcript which surprise, surprise (after I listened to the whole interview) was reproduced selectively by WND. Listen to the whole interview and it only hammers home the point I made above.
Bottom line - Either WND is full of idiots or they think of their readers as idiots... there is no other explanation.
|
|
|
|
kingfish out of water
|
|
« Reply #55 on: November 09, 2009, 06:26:57 PM » |
|
Elements of the 2001 interview are incorporated into the satire piece that WND and their ilk took for fact. Whatever. We're just contributing to their noise machine by posting about it, so I'll do my part and resume ignoring this sort of stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Living in Gin
|
|
« Reply #57 on: November 10, 2009, 09:30:56 PM » |
|
I can't look at a pic of that guy without thinking of 
|
|
|
|
DetroitExPat
|
|
« Reply #58 on: November 16, 2009, 12:47:57 PM » |
|
Dude has a better tan than George Hamilton.
|
|
|
|
Hootenany
|
|
« Reply #59 on: November 16, 2009, 12:55:53 PM » |
|
It's always sunny in West Chester...
|
|
|
|
