Palin skewers Obama’s Cap and Trade plan in op-ed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1302852_pf.html Media works feverishly on ways to discredit her.

Palin skewers Obama’s Cap and Trade plan in op-ed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1302852_pf.html Media works feverishly on ways to discredit her.

Palin writes entire op-ed piece on cap and trade without ever mentioning "Global Warming", readers left wondering what cap and trade does.

Palin skewers Obama’s Cap and Trade plan in op-ed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1302852_pf.html Media works feverishly on ways to discredit her.

See the Palin thread on this very topic. In order to "skewer", she may have wanted to provide even the slightest "fact" or "evidence" to make her case.

 

Eh, not exactly my point. There's more to "politics" than being a politician. Perhaps I should have said "complex social hierarchies" that exist in most aspects of life.

 

Also, I'd love to hear how Obama has helped kill babies.

 

I should have said he will... at least once FOCA gets passed.

I should have said he will... at least once FOCA gets passed.

I believe that FOCA simply codifies existing jurisprudence (Roe v Wade).

 

test

test

 

Its broken.

test

 

Fail.

Fail.

 

It's now "pass" but most won't understand that.

 

NPR's Nina Totenberg, on Monday's Charlie Rose, told the PBS host that Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor actually has "a pretty conservative record." Totenberg claimed Sotomayor's record is "very much in the mainstream," and that "you could say that she's more conservative than some members of the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia, perhaps."

 

Hey Nina, "Let me have some of what you're smoking."

 

 

 

More conservative than Scalia? Come on.

Edited July 16, 200916 yr by Cknolls

NPR's Nina Totenberg, on Monday's Charlie Rose, told the PBS host that Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor actually has "a pretty conservative record." Totenberg claimed Sotomayor's record is "very much in the mainstream," and that "you could say that she's more conservative than some members of the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia, perhaps."

 

Hey Nina, "Let me have some of what you're smoking."

 

 

 

More conservative than Scalia? Come on.

They have to spin it that way - which says plain and simple that they have to make her something she's not - and furthermore says that her biased and liberal views of the constitution and the way she judges isn't in the mainstream, if all she has to do is come across as "conservative". Kind of bass ackwards if you ask me and funny that she has to do this to get nominated. (holy run-on, batman).

They have to spin it that way - which says plain and simple that they have to make her something she's not - and furthermore says that her biased and liberal views of the constitution and the way she judges isn't in the mainstream, if all she has to do is come across as "conservative". Kind of bass ackwards if you ask me and funny that she has to do this to get nominated. (holy run-on, batman).

Its the Karl Rove school of political marketing. Label something the opposite of what it actually is - some people will believe, others will have that condition their thoughts on it to make it seem more neutral. For example, let's take away personal freedoms in the name of the non-war on terrorism, then make sure to fill the speeches about it with words like "freedom".

 

All of this is a recent phenomenon, the last 15 years or so.

All of this is a recent phenomenon, the last 15 years or so.

The worst thing about it is, the obvious motivation for doing it is that these politcal operatives obviously think that a large swath of the US population is so dumb, that they will take such things at face value. And I think they might be right.

 

The worst thing about it is, the obvious motivation for doing it is that these politcal operatives obviously think that a large swath of the US population is so dumb, that they will take such things at face value. And I think they might be right.

They are (that dumb)... that's why we have who we have in the White House today.

 

They are (that dumb)... that's why we have who we have in the White House today.

lol @ "today", as if somehow that doesn't apply to the one before him.

 

lol @ "today", as if somehow that doesn't apply to the one before him.

 

And the one before him...

And the one before him...

And the one before him...

 

All of this is a recent phenomenon, the last 15 years or so.

 

Is that so? When did the names of bills change from descriptive to cutesy?

Is that so? When did the names of bills change from descriptive to cutesy?

I meant SCOTUS nominees being so politically polarizing and turning into a partisan fundraising circus. You can see this if you look back to about the 80s, and see people getting confirmed 96-2 by the Senate or what have you. A filibuster against a nominee was unheard of.

I meant SCOTUS nominees being so politically polarizing and turning into a partisan fundraising circus. You can see this if you look back to about the 80s, and see people getting confirmed 96-2 by the Senate or what have you. A filibuster against a nominee was unheard of.

The modern filibuster, where you don't have to keep your entire caucus on the floor and continue talking the entire time, is a very recent invention too.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=up...;show_article=1

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told The New York Times Obama intends to use the news conference as a "six-month report card," to talk about "how we rescued the economy from the worst recession"

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 200916 yr by mr_genius

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=up...;show_article=1

 

 

f*** you, Rahm Emanuel.

Obama is bombing! Wow, horrible address so far.

Big mistake pushing all this with trillions in an annual deficit, massive unemployment (underemployment) which has led to far less federal income based on taxes, a stimulus which was an absolute failure, and not addressing the economy.

Edited July 23, 200916 yr by mr_genius