Bern
-
Posts
538 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Bern
-
-
It was actually "no cattle", as applied to the little Connecticut born, prep-schooled, Ivy League educated, raised with a silver spoon in his mouth nitwit who tries to play cowboy to poor reviews.
And he's scared of horses
The former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, in a recent interview with the Washington Post called US President George W Bush a "windshield cowboy" and claimed the US President despite his rough Texan cowboy image is in fact afraid of horses.Fox told the Washington Post how he remembered offering President Bush a ride on one of his horses and the President backed away from the animal. Fox said, "a horse lover can always tell when others don't share our passion."
He also pointed out that the ranch President Bush purchased in 1999 and speaks so fondly has no horses and only five cattle.
-
So you're betting on the young, new doper?Polls are meaningless.The only thing that matters is who's standing on the platgform 01/20/2009, my money ain't on the old, lousy pilot.
-
Then why do you Obamites use the "professor" title whenever possible? Even when a discussion has absolutely no academic context.The entire discussion was lame. No one gets elected by calling himself "professor." -
George Dumbya Bush was all for using the National Guard to hide from war until he needed it to fight one. She's just continuing a proud Resmuglican tradition of going whatever way the wind blows.
On a different note any guesses how long 'til her hairstyle reaches the 21st century?
Another intelligent sexist comment to put women in their place.
-
You could make all of the same arguments against McCain or anyone else. But you only make them against Obama. So all you're proving is that you're biased against Obama. There's no reason for anyone to be persuaded by that; the only thing it persuades me of is that I shouldn't take my guidance from you.
So you're saying, if I lived in 1930's Germany and I criticized Hitler but not Himmler, you would then reply that I'm biased against Hitler because I did not criticize Himmler.
Brilliant logic.
I also criticized McCain. But it is the common, constant, infantile swooning over Obama really got me started on Obama.
And what's this biased against Obama nonsense? I see that in many forums, where those who do not swoon over and actually have the temerity to criticize Obama are often called biased and racist.
Do really you think the labeling of others as biased or racist, this thuggish behavior by so many Obama supporters, will actually silence or intimidate those who do not support Obama?
-
Common sense tells you that, jackass. There's nothing in Obama to suggest the qualities of a dictator or a murderer, let alone both.
There rarely is. Did you think before they got power, the Hilter's and the Stalin's of this world, ran on platforms announcing their less desirable traits? When Stalin started, he was known as jolly Joe, the nice guy everyone wants in their family. When some warned that Stalin may not be as he seems, they, like you, criticized the detractors with, "there's nothing to suggest that Stalin may be bad."
Stalin falls into the character of lovable Uncle Joe, a right jolly old fellow with a twinkle in his eye and a fondness for teasing.I'm not saying Obama is really bad. But his actions compared to his campaign rhetoric, show us that he is an ambitious duplicitous politician, a "chameleon", who changes his position as needed to get votes. A graduate of the Democratic party machine of Chicago.
I previously documented his duplicity in many posts on this forum. For those of you who are intellectually challenged, I'll repeat this simple example
From the Chicago Sun-Timeshttp://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/635462,...sweet05.article
Living in a glass house
Sometimes Obama has come late to the game. He did not stop taking rides on subsidized corporate jets until the week he was tapped to be the Democrats' chief spokesman on ethics in January 2006. In 2005, Obama took 23 such private aircraft flights, some to attend fund-raisers he headlined. In 2006, Obama led the fight to ban lawmakers from taking cut-rate private air travel.
A convenient Obama change.
Does Obama have any values?
-
Think about just one issue. Palin would outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape. If that ever happened, this country would be so divided it would make these past eight years look like a love-fest. She was part of Pat Buchanan's pitchfork brigade in 1992. She is a radical with no track record anywhere near the level of a vice president. You right wingers are living in a sick fantasy world.
Lets cut this emotional rhetoric, this Democratic party abortion talking point. A tactic designed to scare the simple minded into voting democratic.
Palin and McCian cannot outlaw abortions. The supreme court may reverse Roe v Wade provided new very strong anti abortion candidates are appointed. If they are, then you can also blame the democratic party which will control the senate and will supply the votes to put these individuals on the court.
Now, if Roe v Wade, does get reversed, abortions will not be automatically made illegal. The decision will then bounce back to the state governments. In NJ and NY you can expect abortions to remain legal.
-
You right wingers seem to think everything is about ideology. For you maybe it is, but that's only because you don't see anything else.
Hillary Clinton proved herself on the national stage. She is highly respected in the Senate by colleagues from both parties. She has demonstrated a detailed grasp of important national issues. She is clearly qualified to be president.
If Sarah Palin can do that, she will be an asset to the Republican ticket, but if she can't, then her nomination should be seen for the irresponsible act that it is - because even if she does it, McCain nominated her before she proved her qualifications. She has done nothing to prove herself so far. One scripted speech doesn't do it. Eating moose doesn't do it. Having five kids doesn't do it. If she wants the respect and trust of intelligent voters, she'll have to earn it. Stop hyperventilating and let's see if she can do it.
Not that it will matter to you. You're going to vote for the right winger. Facts are meaningless to you guys.
One thing I have never done in any post is said experience matters. Look at Bush jr, with his years of executive experience as Gov of Texas or Lincoln with his lack of executive experience.
Nominating Palin may be irresponsible because of her belief that we should teach creationism in public schools or because she does not believe in man made global warning. But experience should not be used against her.
-
I see swooning, but I don't see any servile infatuation. There's a big difference. The last thing Obama said in his acceptance speech this evening is that his opponents don't get it: the election isn't about him. It's about us. If he fails us, he'll lose our support. I believe he is keenly aware of the fact.
What politician doesn't say they are here for us, to serve the people?
If he fails us, he'll lose our support. Lot of good that does after he is elected. Don't count on him then resigning.
-
Here's what she told the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, during the race for the governor's seat (via Nexis):
5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?
Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.
So much for the maverick who puts the national interest ahead of local pork. You can forget that story - but we won't.
And here’s the after (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003844472)
Getting to Know Her, Part I: Fairbanks Paper Hits Palin Veep Pick
By E&P Staff
Published: August 29, 2008 7:10 PM ET
NEW YORK Since, even as her leading backers admit, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska is unknown nationally -- until today, when she was picked by John McCain as his running mate -- E&P will provide a number of pieces in coming days about her, taken strictly from Alaska newspapers and reporters for same.
The first one comes from the Daily News-Miner in Fairbanks, Alaska. Surprisingly, considering she is now the highest profile political figure to ever come from Alaska, the newspaper in an editorial posted on its site today declared her flatly not qualified for the office of vice president.
It also brought up an intriguing fact. Palin in her speech on Friday -- also a point used by McCain surrogates -- is that she refused to go along with the plan to build the so-called "bridge to nowhere" in her state, wanting to halt wasteful spending. But the Fairbanks editorial points out that the state still kept the money for the project.
Here is an excerpt from the editorial.
*
Sen. John McCain’s selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate was a stunning decision that should make Alaskans proud, even while we wonder about the actual merits of the choice....
Alaskans and Americans must ask, though, whether she should become vice president and, more importantly, be placed first in line to become president.
In fact, as the governor herself acknowledged in her acceptance speech, she never set out to be involved in public affairs. She has never publicly demonstrated the kind of interest, much less expertise, in federal issues and foreign affairs that should mark a candidate for the second-highest office in the land. Republicans rightfully have criticized the Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, for his lack of experience, but Palin is a neophyte in comparison; how will Republicans reconcile the criticism of Obama with the obligatory cheering for Palin?
Most people would acknowledge that, regardless of her charm and good intentions, Palin is not ready for the top job. McCain seems to have put his political interests ahead of the nation’s when he created the possibility that she might fill it.
It’s clear that McCain picked Palin for reasons of image, not substance. She’s a woman. She has fought corruption. She has fought the oil companies. She’s married to a union member. These are portrayals for campaign speeches; they are not policy positions.
There was also some pandering right from the start. “I told Congress `Thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere,’ ” Palin reported to the crowd in Dayton, Ohio. “If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we’d build it ourselves.”
But the state kept the bridge money. That’s because Alaskans pay federal gas taxes and they expect a good share to come back, just like people do in every other state. We build very little by ourselves, and any governor who would turn that tax money down likely would be turned out of office.
Read ‘em and weep, right wingers. Your pandering presidential candidate just picked someone who won’t stand up to the vetting she’s about to get.
I'm not surprised that the Daily News-Miner is against her. A news rag published by right winger and supporter of corrupt political machines, William Dean Singleton. He, by the way, called Obama, Osama bin Laden at an AP luncheon.
His Alaska paper is a big supporter for the corrupt old Alaska Republican machine. Palin getting nominated and being elected threw a wrench into that political machine, something Singleton did not appreciate. The editorial is payback time.
Running on a clean-government campaign in 2006, Palin upset then-Governor Murkowski in the Republican gubernatorial primary.She has challenged the state's Republican leaders, helping to launch a campaign by Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell to unseat U.S. Congressman Don Young and publicly challenging Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation into his financial dealings.
So if you're in favor of corruption, then please be against Palin. I'll take Palin any time over Biden, the long time Washington Beltway insider.
-
Let me know when Obama overuses the title "Professor" even 10% as much as McCain does "P.O.W."
Lame. When you can't intelligently respond, then its time to divert and change the topic.
ps - I know POW is overused.
-
Palin was the part time mayor of a town of 6000 people.
She's a governor with an 80% popularity rating. How many politicians have a rating that high? She must be doing something right.
Usually, we commend people when they move up very quickly and do well.
Instead, we get the usual Obamite whining and nitpicking. McCain selected someone of exceptional accomplishments, which our resident Obamites are trying to turn into a negative.
-
The Democratic majority was quick to support this classic pork -barrel farce, one's as corrupt as the other.
One hand washes the other.
-
John McCain just named a two-term city councilwoman and governor of Alaska for less than two years as his running mate. McCain, who is 72 years old, is losing his memory and may not survive for four years.
That means that the presidency could be turned over, in a heartbeat, to an inexperienced 44-year-old woman with no foreign policy experience whatsoever if they are elected.
The reasons for McCain's choice are obvious. McCain wanted a woman on the ticket to take any voters who might be unhappy about Hillary not getting on the Democratic ticket.
Oh, and she just happens to be an ex-beauty queen, like both of McCain's wives.
So much for choosing the best person.
So much for the value of experience.
So much for readiness for office.
So much for putting country above an election.
In fact, so much for caring about your country, Mr. McCain. You should crawl in a hole and hide.
Is Biden any better? The consummate long time Washington beltway insider who is part of the problem. The Biden who cared so much for the consumer, the regular Joe, the he voted for the odious bankruptcy bill?
The Obamites soundly criticized Hillary for voting for the 2002 Iraq "war" resolution. Biden, the supposed foreign policy expert, also voted for it, but strangely the criticism all of a sudden absent.
-
Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth at once! If the title doesn't matter, then why are you making such a big deal out of it?
I thought I've been arguing it does matter. It is earned, not given away on a silver platter because you exist or people feel like creating or using it for political purposes.
Dinkin's title is used when needed, not constantly. Being a real professor, he has the right to use his title, but he, his colleagues and his acquaintances don't throw it around in a cavalier fashion. Again, which is why very few know he is a Professor.
-
"Very talented and patriotic leader"?? What??? Having spent 142 working days in the Senate, he has no experience any area of government. I haven't seen any talents on display nor have I seen any examples of patriotism. Your nonsensical babbling is typical of the Kool-Aid sideshow.
I find this swooning over, this infatuation of Obama by many of his supporters, quite frankly, disquieting and disgusting. It validates the assertion that many Obama supporters don't really look at the issues.
-
Hitler rose to power by keeping his message brainlessly simple and repeating it endlessly. That is the tactic of the Republicans and their media cheerleader Fox noise, not the Democrats and certainly not Obama.
Actually, Noam Chomsky is saying exactly that. Obama's message is is brainlessly simple (and it does repeat endlessly). And you can't accuse Chomsky of being part of the Republican cabal.
This is a business-run society: you market commodities, you market candidates. The public are the victims and they know it, and that’s why 80% think, more or less accurately, that the country is run by a few big interests looking after themselves. So people are not deluded, they just don’t really see any choices.The Obama phenomenon is an interesting reaction to this. Obama’s handlers, the campaign managers, have created an image that is essentially a blank slate. In the Obama campaign the words are hope, change, unity - totally vacuous slogans said by a nice person, who looks good and talks nicely - what commentators call “soaring rhetoric” - and you can write anything you like on that blank slate. A lot of people are writing on it their hopes for progressive change.
But the similarity to fascist propaganda techniques is quite striking, and it’s not accidental. The Nazis explicitly, consciously, and openly adopted the techniques of American commercial advertising, and said so. They took a few simple ideas, stressed them over and over again, and made them look glamorous - that was the technique of American commercial advertising in the 1920s and it was the model that the Nazis explicitly adopted, and it’s the model of business propaganda today.
So, yes, the Obama phenomenon, I think, reflects the alienation of the population that you find in the polls: 80% say the country is run by a few big interests. While Obama says we are going to change that, there’s no indication of what the change is going to be. In fact, the financial institutions, which are his major contributors, think he’s fine, so there’s no indication of any change. But if you say “change,” people will grasp at it; you say “change” and “hope,” and people will grasp at this and say, OK, maybe this is the savior who will bring about what we want, even though there is no evidence for it.
-
What should/should not be and what is are vastly different things in today's world.
Watching the news about the Democratic convention showed it to be not much more than a lobbyist feeding frenzy, a target rich environment for corporate America to buy themselves a Congressman or two. Anyone with open eyes knows the Republican convention will be more of the same. The government has been sold and the people couldn't afford it. Government for the people has become nothing but another meaningless sound bite. I don'y beliee it will be all that long before we sell the naming rights to America, in the same manner athletic arena naming rights are sold today, welcome to China West.
True.
I think Noam Chomski put it well
This is a business-run society: you market commodities, you market candidates. The public are the victims and they know it, and that’s why 80% think, more or less accurately, that the country is run by a few big interests looking after themselves.The Obama phenomenon is an interesting reaction to this. Obama’s handlers, the campaign managers, have created an image that is essentially a blank slate. In the Obama campaign the words are hope, change, unity - totally vacuous slogans said by a nice person, who looks good and talks nicely - what commentators call “soaring rhetoric” - and you can write anything you like on that blank slate. A lot of people are writing on it their hopes for progressive change. In the campaign, as the Wall Street Journal correctly notes, issues have received little attention. Personal characteristics are the key element. It’s character that’s up front.
So, yes, the Obama phenomenon, I think, reflects the alienation of the population that you find in the polls: 80% say the country is run by a few big interests. While Obama says we are going to change that, there’s no indication of what the change is going to be. In fact, the financial institutions, which are his major contributors, think he’s fine, so there’s no indication of any change. But if you say “change,” people will grasp at it; you say “change” and “hope,” and people will grasp at this and say, OK, maybe this is the savior who will bring about what we want, even though there is no evidence for it.
Of course, the same marketing techniques will be applied by the Republicans. They will market themselves as the choice for a better, safer, more secure America while in reality maintaining the status quo.
However, what will hurt McCain is that the Bush admin reached new heights in mismanagement and politicization of the Federal departments. Will it carry over?
-
The likes of me is perfectly happy to refer to him as Senior Lecturer. It's a fine title, a considerable accomplishment, and a significant bit of experience. But there's nothing wrong with calling him a professor either. Like it or not, "senior lecturer" is a subset of "professor". It's no different from calling an ESD consultant an electrical engineer. In both cases, the more general term will be recognized by more people, making that a good choice for a non-specialized audience.
Tell me, Bern, do you believe that Obama doesn't know how many states there are?
Call me "simple" if you like, but I think that Obama's teaching experience, regardless of what words you think should be used to describe it, is entirely sufficient evidence that he would know such a thing. Gross overkill, actually. You'd be hard pressed to find even a preschooler who doesn't know it.
I previously said, in this forum, that I did. But why did feel the need to validate Obama's statement by using Obama's "professor" title?
David Dinkins is a Professor (a real professor with an endowed chair) at Columbia Univ. However, when Professor Dinkins makes statements, which at times are questioned, I don't ever remember seeing his title used to validate his statements. Which is why most don't know he is a Professor (a real one).
-
lol, if they looked at the issues? If they look at the issues, they would see that Clinton and McCain agree on NOTHING.
Actually, they agree on some things. Illegal alien amnesty is an example (but now McCain is slithering to the right because that does not agree with his party). They agree on the Afghnanistan war on terror, as does Obama.
This list may not be accurate (the internet)
* Support Roe v Wade-----McCain N Clinton Y Obama Y
* Support the Death Penalty-----McCain Y Clinton Y Obama Y
* No Child Left Behind----- McCain Y Clinton Y Obama undecided
* Embrionic Stem Cell Research-----McCain Y Clinton Y Obama Y
* Drilling in ANWAR----- McCain N Clinton N Obama N
* Support Kyoto Treaty -----McCain N Clinton Y Obama Y
* Assault Weapons Ban -----McCain N Clinton Y Obama Y
* Gun Background Check -----McCain Y Clinton Y Obama Y
* Patriot Act -----McCain Y Clinton Y Obama Y
* Guantanamo-----McCain N Clinton N Obama N
* Torture -----McCain N Clinton N Obama N
* Wiretapping -----McCain N Clinton N Obama N
* Border Fence -----McCain Y Clinton Y Obama Y
* Military Action Iran -----McCain Y Clinton Y Obama mixed
* Iraq War -----McCain Y Clinton Y to N Obama N
* Troop Surge -----McCain Y Clinton N Obama N
* Iraq Withdrawl -----McCain N Clinton phased Obama phased
* Minimum Wage increase -----McCain N Clinton Y Obama Y
* Same Sex Marriage -----McCain N Clinton N Obama N
* Civil Unions -----McCain states' right Clinton Y Obama Y
* Constitutional Ban Same Sex -----McCain N Clinton N Obama N
* Universal Health Care -----McCain N Clinton Y Obama Y
-
Where I come from and hang out, teaching 3 classes per year for 8 years at a respected law school is a very respectable achievement, and does not in any way joke, insult, or denigrate the word "professor". If you and your faculty member friends are offended by it, that's your failing, not anyone else's.
Not where I come from. Three classes per year, means two classes in one term (three hours per week, 3 months) and one class in the other term (1 1/2 hours per week, 3 months). Or he would simply do three classes in the fall (4 1/2 hours per week, 3 months) while taking care of legislative business in the spring. That is when he was present. Guest lecturers are a blessing.
Maybe law schools have longer classes.
I would love to have a job that took 3 months a year, working 4 1/2 hours per week and have that called are respectable achievement. Of course, he did have to work extra generating grades.
-
I know you don't understand law schools or law professors, but I do. If you would take a moment to read the University of Chicago link that was supplied on this topic, you would see this statement from the University: "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." To answer your question, there are two legitimate reasons why Democrats might point out that Obama was a law professor: (1) the term is more easily understood than "lecturer" and (2) it's accurate, as attested by the University itself.
And if Hitler and Stalin weren't enough, now you invoke Goebbels. Tell you what, Bern, I think you're just like Hitler because he had a rectum, too. How's that for a "valid comparison?"
If you really understood the issues you would have known about this law school link (statement) supplied by William a long time ago. I knew about it months ago, as you the supposed expert should have.
Getting a little testy eh? Cute rectum comparison.
-
So just WHAT part of Commander in Chief IS it that says the final decision to go IS NOT his?
Or did you miss that lesson while you were busy making ANOTHER ASININE Kool-Aid remark?
I always felt that the Commander in Chief title is really to indicate to all that a civilian is in charge of our military, not some Generalissimo.
Being CinC should not give the CinC the preeminent right to set policy or at his whim to divert our military into adventures or hide things from the congress.
-
Bern, The Loony Left doesn't deal in fact. Your accurate description of Congression powers doesn't fit well with the "Bush lied us into war" scenario favored by those who drink from the Kool-Aid cup.
You and I disagree on most things but here we agree. Of course, many Democrats will say they did not control congress but what is the excuse for the last two years?
They told us to vote Democratic and things will change. An example is this Pelosi statement before the 2006 elections:
“With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.” - Nancy Pelosi Press Release
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases...ubberstamp.html
Where is the plan? Now that they have congress, is it a secret?
Whereupon, they play you by telling you to again vote democratic for change. Fool me once . . .
So much for putting the country first
in Kearny
Posted
Don't you believe in home rule? The good people of those states voted for their Governors and legislatures. Would you deny them the right of self-determining, deciding what they want? Deny the will of the voters? Do you want a centralized Federal government to override and control all, to meet your beliefs?
To answer your question, yes they will be. But only if Roe V Wade gets overturned with the help of new SC appointments. Appointments which require the approval of democratic party senators.
So lets not spin the calumny that we need to vote for a democratic president to prevent to prevent the republicans from taking over the SC. The Republicans, can not take over the SC without the assent of the senate Democrats.