Really, a Romney advisor thinks the CBO works fo Obama

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by Boreas

It's not the POTUS but the SCOTUS you ought to be worried about. Ever since Marbury v. Madison they've been a law unto themselves and ever since Nixon nominated Lewis Powell to the Court they've been about the business of turning the US into an oligarchy.

SCOTUS has been the bastion of liberals for how long? You lefties sure liked them when they were advancing your causes. Now that they are slightly to the right and you drag out stale conspiracy theories.

Yeah, I thought she did pretty well too...... for a girl.

She is a girl is she not. You PC folks sure imagine a lot into statements.

How is it "attempting to shake her up" to point out that "Obama's CBO" is actually part of the Legislative Branch and not the Executive? "The girl" just kept on going though, repeating and repeating the same mendacious talking point, never answering a totally legitimate question. I suppose I have to give her credit for being pretty tenacious though.

Isn't that what an interviewer is supposed to do? The best way is to be like Obama and minimize the taking of questions.

Her use of the possessive pronoun, apart from being simply wrong, was calculated to reinforce the talking point that Obama "lied" when the CBO predicted that unemployment would be around 6%. The definite article wouldn't have been effective.

And the remarks about Axelrod are uncalled for,even if they're completely to be expected.
John

No, but I thought everyone was bitching because she said his CBO.

Fuck Axelrod. As a political hack, why the hell is he out there making comments on policy anyway?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by bhunter

SCOTUS has been the bastion of liberals for how long?

Say what???

Oh, I guess ever since Herbie Bush appointed Uncle Clarence. That's about right, isn't it?

You lefties sure liked them when they were advancing your causes. Now that they are slightly to the right and you drag out stale conspiracy theories.

Clearly you don't know a fucking thing about Marbury v. Madison or Lewis Powell and the infamous Powell Memorandum, a memo that sold Richard Nixon and John Mitchell - mostly Mitchel - on him for the SC vacancy left by Hugo Black.

She is a girl is she not. You PC folks sure imagine a lot into statements.

So you'll forgive this PC folk for saying, no, she's a woman.

Isn't that what an interviewer is supposed to do?

So, what were you whining about before?

The best way is to be like Obama and minimize the taking of questions.

Like who???? Your boy Romney is the one who won't do any press other than Fox.

No, but I thought everyone was bitching because she said his CBO.

We are.... I am. That's because it has to be "his" for the campaign's lie to work.

Fuck Axelrod. As a political hack, why the hell is he out there making comments on policy anyway?

Like I said, you guys always end up there,don't you? I suppose, ultimately, there's nowhere else for you to go.

Pretty lame.

John

[wgrr]

I love this shit.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Say what???

Oh, I guess ever since Herbie Bush appointed Uncle Clarence. That's about right, isn't it?



Clearly you don't know a fucking thing about Marbury v. Madison or Lewis Powell and the infamous Powell Memorandum, a memo that sold Richard Nixon and John Mitchell - mostly Mitchel - on him for the SC vacancy left by Hugo Black.

Actually I know quite a bit about Marbury v. Madison along with a lot of the other significant SC decisions. A brilliant piece of work by John Marshall. Marbury expanded the power of the judiciary. Remember all those decisions by the Warren Court that were held in such high regard by the left. I'd argue that the court's decisions during the latter part of the twentieth century significantly changed a citizen's relation to his or her government. Civil rights and limitations imposed on law enforcement all initially came about largely through the court and not the legislatures. BTW, most of these were ultimately good for the citizens, but hardly reflected the supposed will of the majority in a lot of places.

Given the times, it is obvious why business would seek to protect themselves from the palpable lawlessness that existed in the late 60s and early 70s among the radical left. I don't think there existed a unified nefarious conspiracy amongst businesses or corporations.

So you'll forgive this PC folk for saying, no, she's a woman.

I did use the diminutive, but meant no disrespect to her. I'm certain my diminutive was less direspectful than the leftists calling her an idiot.

Like who???? Your boy Romney is the one who won't do any press other than Fox.

Romey is not POTUS.

Like I said, you guys always end up there,don't you? I suppose, ultimately, there's nowhere else for you to go.

Pretty lame.

John

Do you like political hacks like Axelrod or Rove? If you were Obama would you want Axelrod representing your policies?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by wgrr

I love this shit.

Me too. Why do you think I waste so much of my life on it?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Given the times, it is obvious why business would seek to protect themselves from the palpable lawlessness that existed in the late 60s and early 70s among the radical left. I don't think there existed a unified nefarious conspiracy amongst businesses or corporations.

Keep your head buried in the sand BH, unfortunately when the corporations have completely taken over we will all get screwed, including you.

Just follow the actions of Donohue at the Chamberpot of Commerce, he is more of a danger than al Queda.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Actually I know quite a bit about Marbury v. Madison along with a lot of the other significant SC decisions.

So, been studying?

A brilliant piece of work by John Marshall. Marbury expanded the power of the judiciary.

Yes, a proactive decision which expanded the Court's power beyond the limits prescribed by the Constitution.

Remember all those decisions by the Warren Court that were held in such high regard by the left.

Specifically?

I'd argue that the court's decisions during the latter part of the twentieth century significantly changed a citizen's relation to his or her government. Civil rights and limitations imposed on law enforcement all initially came about largely through the court and not the legislatures.

I don't get your point - or maybe I do. I'm nowhere near as old as Rob but I'm definitely old enough to have been around for all of that. In the final analysis, it was a pretty balanced combination of executive, legislative and judicial actions and decisions which brought about an end to institutionalized racism and segregation. That's the way it's supposed to work.

BTW, most of these were ultimately good for the citizens, but hardly reflected the supposed will of the majority in a lot of places.

Mostly? Which ones didn't you like?

As for "reflecting the will of the people", that's not the role of the Judiciary. You do know that, right?

Given the times, it is obvious why business would seek to protect themselves from the palpable lawlessness that existed in the late 60s and early 70s among the radical left.

"Business"??? How was it that business sought protection? Insisting on the right to determine whom they'd serve? Employ?

I don't think there existed a unified nefarious conspiracy amongst businesses or corporations.

Who said that? And where?

I did use the diminutive, but meant no disrespect to her. I'm certain my diminutive was less direspectful than the leftists calling her an idiot.

You won't mind if I call you "boy" then, will you, boy?

Romey is not POTUS.

You like to call him Romey? I like to call him Rmoney.

Presidents give press conferences for the most part, rarely granting one-on-one interviews. Been that way as long as I've been around. Candidates, on the other hand are essentially interviewing for a position. They're expected to give us, their prospective employers, a chance to find out who they are. Press interviews are an essential part of that but Romney doesn't have the self-confidence to open himself before objective scrutiny or field difficult but legitimate questions.

The other recent example of this was our beloved hockey mom - and we all know why that was. "I'll... have to get back to you on that, Charlie."

Do you like political hacks like Axelrod or Rove?

Like 'em? Don't know 'em. I suspect I wouldn't like Rove but I have no opinion about Axelrod.

Do you say "fuck so-and-so" to/about everyone you don't like?

If you were Obama would you want Axelrod representing your policies?

No, I'd much rather have Karl Rove, Roger Ailes or Lee Atwater doing that.

John

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I don't get your point - or maybe I do. I'm nowhere near as old as Rob but I'm definitely old enough to have been around for all of that. In the final analysis, it was a pretty balanced combination of executive, legislative and judicial actions and decisions which brought about an end to institutionalized racism and segregation. That's the way it's supposed to work.

The courts were turned to by both the civil rights movement and the environmental movement. Legislators and the excecutives eventually came around, but IMHO the vanguard to both nascent movements were the court cases.

As for "reflecting the will of the people", that's not the role of the Judiciary. You do know that, right?

I never said it was. I said that the court's decisions were not reflective of the will of the majority in some geographic locations. Consider the south for the civil rights movement and mining states for the environmentalist movement during this period.

Who said that? And where?

The current Citizens United decision and the Powell Memo are the current topic here. Corporations were losing the PR game and some decided to get more broadly involved politically. You could also track the rise, or rather, the emphasis change in institutional advertising following the 1960s.

You like to call him Romey? I like to call him Rmoney.

No, but without my Model M keyboard and considering my poor eyesight I sometimes mistype.

Presidents give press conferences for the most part, rarely granting one-on-one interviews. Been that way as long as I've been around. Candidates, on the other hand are essentially interviewing for a position. They're expected to give us, their prospective employers, a chance to find out who they are. Press interviews are an essential part of that but Romney doesn't have the self-confidence to open himself before objective scrutiny or field difficult but legitimate questions.

I can agree with this, however, the press of late likes playing the "gotcha" questions more than objective questions.

Like 'em? Don't know 'em. I suspect I wouldn't like Rove but I have no opinion about Axelrod.

Do you say "fuck so-and-so" to/about everyone you don't like?

I'm generally polite and rarely call non-politicians names. However, Axelrod is such a hypocritical jerk I couldn't control myself. Here he is in 1994:

"David Axelrod, President Obama’s chief campaign strategist, calling former President George H.W. Bush “out of touch” for “tastelessly” playing golf while trying to convince voters that the economy is improving.

“Bush tastelessly did it, often from the ninth hole, and from the cigar boat and other places,” Axelrod said.

Added the adviser: “The impression you got was that he was out of touch.”

No, I'd much rather have Karl Rove, Roger Ailes or Lee Atwater doing that.

I assume you're being a trifle sarcastic here.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by bhunter

The courts were turned to by both the civil rights movement and the environmental movement. Legislators and the excecutives eventually came around, but IMHO the vanguard to both nascent movements were the court cases.

The court decisions were indeed important but so were parallel efforts by the Congress and President. But, of course, this is irrelevant unless you consider these landmark decisions to have been wrongly decided and/or outside the scope of the Court's mandate.

I said that the court's decisions were not reflective of the will of the majority in some geographic locations.

And my contention is that whether or not these were reflective of the will of the people, nationally or regionally, is irrelevant to the mission of the Court.

The current Citizens United decision and the Powell Memo are the current topic here. Corporations were losing the PR game and some decided to get more broadly involved politically. You could also track the rise, or rather, the emphasis change in institutional advertising following the 1960s.

So it's about PR?

You're denying that the Powell Memorandum was the outline for a conspiracy? Or that Citizens United (a case requested by the Chief Justice Roberts, by the way) doesn't advance the aims of that conspiracy?

I can agree with this, however, the press of late likes playing the "gotcha" questions more than objective questions.

Yeah, like what newspapers do you read or what are your views on the Bush doctrine? If these constitute "gotcha" questions to Republican candidates then that party is in serious trouble.

I'm generally polite and rarely call non-politicians names. However, Axelrod is such a hypocritical jerk I couldn't control myself. Here he is in 1994:

What's your problem with that?

I assume you're being a trifle sarcastic here.

I'm never sarcastic.

John

[Rex E.]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I'm never sarcastic.

John

Fixed it for ya