Jump to content

The Official Obama Scorecard Thread


Recommended Posts

no need to let the facts get in the way of a good story...jeez everyone associated with Fox News ignores the facts every night. why they are even partially owned by the Muslim terrorist funder behind Imam Faisal of the Cordoba Mosque. the version you posted was perfect!!
fyp
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

President Obama ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100 million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.   I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to

no need to let the facts get in the way of a good story...jeez Olberman and the dyke ignore the facts every night on CNBC. the version you posted was perfect!!
So was there more to the story? Not real sure what you meant by this.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"Pay In Proportion" is a flight of fancy. Impossible and would create an accounting bureaucracy that would make the IRS look like a San Francisco Two-Hippie non profit. Total non starter.
It's not really meant to be accurate or anything, just something that supports the average person's notion of fairness, i.e., rich people pay more because they have more to lose. Under an ideal govt, the rich wouldn't benefit much more than others, so I wouldn't expect the difference to be that much. For example, a sales tax with exemptions for necessities (food, housing, clothes, etc) would mean a poor person pays fewer taxes, possibly none, making it politically feasible. I agree, if we attempted to try to make it exactly proportional to pretty much anything but the roughest approximation, it would be worse than we have in no time.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No because you both pay taxes and you don't enjoy the benefits of being a corporation. A corporation is seperate from its individual members and has special privileges. I think it is a fair trade. Also, speaking of ridiculous, the notion that shouting on a street corner is the same as dumping millions into the coffers of politicians is ridiculous.
But the law said that me and a friend cannot pool our resources in one particular business structure, namely a corporation. If we formed a limited partnership or any of the dozens of other structures, we could speak. Corporation, no. WTF sense does that make?As for corporations having certain rights, we can argue the merits of those separately, but it has nothing to do with "congress shall pass no law" regarding free speech.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Monsanto is a pretty shitty company.
WOW ... WTF:Justice Clarence Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto in the 1970s. Thomas wrote the majority opinion in the 2001 Supreme Court decision J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.|J. E. M. AG SUPPLY, INC. V. PIONEER HI-BREDINTERNATIONAL, INC.[103] which found that "newly developed plant breeds are patentable under the general utility patent laws of the United States." This case benefitted all companies which profit from genetically modified crops, of which Monsanto is one of the largest.In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together.Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report.Should there be some obligation that a judge can't weigh in on a case in which his former employer may gain something in the decision? And shouldn't there be some obligation that when you work for the FDA that you need to get seperate approvals for companies in which you worked? Somehow this sounds wrong to me.I mean maybe they are generally good decisions and they would have made the same decision regardless, but somehow that doesn't seem right.EDIT: Also ... WOW:Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications (referring to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) explained the company's regulatory philosophy to Michael Pollan in 1998: "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA's job.
Link to post
Share on other sites
WOW ... WTF:Justice Clarence Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto in the 1970s. Thomas wrote the majority opinion in the 2001 Supreme Court decision J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.|J. E. M. AG SUPPLY, INC. V. PIONEER HI-BREDINTERNATIONAL, INC.[103] which found that "newly developed plant breeds are patentable under the general utility patent laws of the United States." This case benefitted all companies which profit from genetically modified crops, of which Monsanto is one of the largest.In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together.Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report.Should there be some obligation that a judge can't weigh in on a case in which his former employer may gain something in the decision? And shouldn't there be some obligation that when you work for the FDA that you need to get seperate approvals for companies in which you worked? Somehow this sounds wrong to me.I mean maybe they are generally good decisions and they would have made the same decision regardless, but somehow that doesn't seem right.
I keep telling you people: Clarence Thomas is the worst Supreme Court Justice in the history of our country. Any judge with a tiny shred of dignity would have recused himself from that case.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I keep telling you people: Clarence Thomas is the worst Supreme Court Justice in the history of our country. Any judge with a tiny shred of dignity would have recused himself from that case.
But should there be a law banning judges from weighing in on these types of cases? If he should have recused himself then maybe we need to make it clear by making it law?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I keep telling you people: Clarence Thomas is the worst Supreme Court Justice in the history of our country. Any judge with a tiny shred of dignity would have recused himself from that case.
I obviously dont know, but hopefully you reached this opinion based on years of study of supreme court justices and not on a Keith Ohlbermann "Worst person in the world" segment.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas is the only justice that seems to understand the history of the constitution, and is willing to apply it. For example, in the recent McDonald case, he wrote about privileges and immunities and the history of the amendment. No other justice had the courage to do that.Having said that, there seems to be a lot of room to disagree with him on a number of decisions that Cane has previously discussed here. (It's hard to know for sure from a one-line summary of the cases.) But I'd rather have someone who is wrong for the right reasons than someone who is persistently wrong for the wrong reasons, as most of the justices are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But should there be a law banning judges from weighing in on these types of cases? If he should have recused himself then maybe we need to make it clear by making it law?
In the United States, the term "recusal" is used most often with respect to court proceedings. Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The same section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.
I didn't dig deep or anything. it's straight from wikipedia. sounds like a loose definition subject to interpretation. a potential way for the loser to dispute judgment.
I obviously dont know, but hopefully you reached this opinion based on years of study of supreme court justices and not on a Keith Ohlbermann "Worst person in the world" segment.
you're aware CB's a lawyer, yeah? understanding the dynamics of the supreme court was probably part of his course load at some point.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I obviously dont know, but hopefully you reached this opinion based on years of study of supreme court justices and not on a Keith Ohlbermann "Worst person in the world" segment.
I've never watched MSNBC or CNBC outside of clips from the Daily Show.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Which has been fucking awesome as of late.
they basically destroyed Fox News in a segment I posted in the Mosque thread (which SHOCKINGLY no conservative on this forum has responded to). Turns out Fox News is in bed with the same terrorists as Imam Faisal! Ah!
Link to post
Share on other sites
they basically destroyed Fox News in a segment I posted in the Mosque thread (which SHOCKINGLY no conservative on this forum has responded to). Turns out Fox News is in bed with the same terrorists as Imam Faisal! Ah!
I think it's awesome how they've destroyed both parties.How could BG possibly respond to that? Until Rush gives him his talking points, he has no opinion on the matter.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida's governor race just got interesting:Rick Scott, a health-care exec/political outsider spent 50 MILLION dollars of his own money JUST on his primary campaign to narrowly edge GOP establishment candidate Bill McCollum. The problem for the GOP is that McCollum was considered a lock to beat Democrat candidate Alex Sink.....whereas Rick Scott is a giant wildcard who polls badly with independents and Hispanics (since he has made his support of Arizona's SB 1070 a big issue). Just another example of the GOP potentially losing a seat they would have won easily because the Tea Party candidate won the primary. We will see a lot of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Florida's governor race just got interesting:Rick Scott, a health-care exec/political outsider spent 50 MILLION dollars of his own money JUST on his primary campaign to narrowly edge GOP establishment candidate Bill McCollum. The problem for the GOP is that McCollum was considered a lock to beat Democrat candidate Alex Sink.....whereas Rick Scott is a giant wildcard who polls badly with independents and Hispanics (since he has made his support of Arizona's SB 1070 a big issue). Just another example of the GOP potentially losing a seat they would have won easily because the Tea Party candidate won the primary. We will see a lot of this.
I barely want to see a republican win a race over a liberal. However, anything that fucks with our current 2 party system is fine by me.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Without going into why you hate Republicans, what is it about the Liberal platform that makes you feel this way?
Without going into more detail, I come from an upper middle class semi-wealthy family, my father owns a business. My parents are republicans, I don't consider myself one. I agree and disagree with issues on both sides, so I consider myself a right-leaning independent. I agree with small l libertarians a lot of the time. I take issue with liberals because they want to raise taxes and increase the scope of people who aren't me making decisions on my behalf. I'm going to make a shitload of money when I take over the family business, so I would like to keep as much of that wealth as possible, and I don't appreciate people telling me how much salt I am allowed to consume, or whether my kids' meals have a toy or not. I am slowly realizing my hatred of all things political, left or right.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Without going into more detail, I come from an upper middle class semi-wealthy family, my father owns a business. My parents are republicans, I don't consider myself one. I agree and disagree with issues on both sides, so I consider myself a right-leaning independent. I agree with small l libertarians a lot of the time. I take issue with liberals because they want to raise taxes and increase the scope of people who aren't me making decisions on my behalf. I'm going to make a shitload of money when I take over the family business, so I would like to keep as much of that wealth as possible, and I don't appreciate people telling me how much salt I am allowed to consume, or whether my kids' meals have a toy or not. I am slowly realizing my hatred of all things political, left or right.
aren't all our health care costs linked under the current set-up on some level? if so, shouldn't people who make poor health decisions pay a price (as a fat person, I think they should). I don't support banning bad foods but a tax on sodas and white bread would be nice.
Link to post
Share on other sites
aren't all our health care costs linked under the current set-up on some level? if so, shouldn't people who make poor health decisions pay a price (as a fat person, I think they should). I don't support banning bad foods but a tax on sodas and white bread would be nice.
In that scenario would those who are being the most healthy deserve a tax break? So would brown rice, wheat bread, flax seed, fruits and vegetables have tax incentives?
Link to post
Share on other sites
In that scenario would those who are being the most healthy deserve a tax break? So would brown rice, wheat bread, flax seed, fruits and vegetables have tax incentives?
I could live with that. Or a system where you get a health care credit on your premium for meeting certain health benchmarks. Seems reasonable.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's awesome how they've destroyed both parties.How could BG possibly respond to that? Until Rush gives him his talking points, he has no opinion on the matter.
Every time I watch one of these clips, I tear it down and show it for the cut and paste hack job it is.He is in the business for making jokes. Not for investigative reporting.The funny thing to me is you guys want to disparage my listening to Rush, a person who makes no claim to being anything but what he is, a commentator on the news with a right perspective. While you guys get your facts about everything from a guy who purposefully twists the data to get the best joke possible, but who denies his obvious left leaning.And you think somehow that I am the one who doesn't get it.That's funny. Luckily you guys are the minority, as shown by the viewing number of these two people.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...