This is even scarier

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Good we can agree that Palin has said some shockingly ignorant things...but I don't see Obama's remark on the "I can see Russia from my house" level or what ever she said.

The reality is that his remark was incomplete. It was not a policy position, it was a response to a question. To place it in a box is a deconstructive response not intended to further the debate.

The constructive action would be to ask what he really meant, which another reporter did and what I've posted above as Obama's response.

That's what you should be reacting to no?

-spence (super cool non-inflammatory poster here)

"The reality is that his remark was incomplete"

OK, so was Palin's comment about seeing Russia...she should have ended her comment with "if I'm looking thriough the Hubble telescope". Therefore, since it wasn't stupid but incomplete, you cannot use it against her. Sound reasonable?

His remark was not imcomplete. It was demonstrably false, it was erroneous, not incomplete.

"it was a response to a question"

So what? So was Dan Quayle when he mis-spelled potato or whatever mistake he made, and people held that against him. Spence, where is it written that you caan only judge Obama's intelligence by his ability to read things off his teleprompter, things that others wrote for him? Was Palin's comment about seeing Russia a response to a question? If so, you're saying that you won't use it against her?

If anything, his unscripted responses are much more revealing than his regurgitation of someone else's words, right?

"The constructive action would be to ask what he really meant" Hold on. You didn't ask Palin what she meant, you called her stupid for saying a stupid thing. Why can't you hold Obama to the same standard as Palin? Why can't Obama handle the same scrutiny? Why must we give Obama time to re-group, and then come back and tell us what he "meant to say"?

You're being very selective here, Spence. When Palin says something stupid, you take it to mean she's stupid. Fair enough. But when Obama says something equally stupid, you dismiss it, and instead give him a pass, because you'rs sure he really meant to say something eloquent and brilliant.

Do I have that right? IS that about right? You see nothing unfair in your system?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Good we can agree that Palin has said some shockingly ignorant things...but I don't see Obama's remark on the "I can see Russia from my house" level or what ever she said.


-spence (super cool non-inflammatory poster here)

snopes.com: I Can See Alaska from My House

The basis for the line was Governor Palin's 11 September 2008 appearance on ABC News, her first major interview after being tapped as the vice-presidential nominee. During that appearance, interviewer Charles Gibson asked her what insight she had gained from living so close to Russia, and she responded: "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska"I think this is geographically accurate


Two days later, on the 2008 season premiere of Saturday Night Live, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler appeared in a sketch portraying Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, during which Fey spoofed Governor Palin's remark of a few days earlier with the following exchange:

FEY AS PALIN: "You know, Hillary and I don't agree on everything . . ."

POEHLER AS CLINTON: (OVERLAPPING) "Anything. I believe that diplomacy should be the cornerstone of any foreign policy."

FEY AS PALIN: "And I can see Russia from my house."
...........................

From the Thursday, September 11, 2008, World News:

CHARLES GIBSON: Let me ask you about specific national security situations. Let's start, because we are near Russia. Let's start with Russia and Georgia. The administration has said, we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

SARAH PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable. And we have to keep...

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked?

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked. And we have got to keep our eyes on Russia. Under the leadership there.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of this state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska

GIBSON: You in favor of putting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia. Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously he thinks otherwise.

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean that is the agreement. When you are a NATO ally, is, if another country is attacked, you are going to be expected to be called upon and help.




what the President did the other day, he has done routinely during his tenure and as usual his supporters struggle to make excuses for his arrogance, ignorance and infantile behaviour

Spence, you know that Saturday Night Live isn't "real life" just because it says "live"...right?

can we cross this off her list of "shockingly ignorant things" said?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

you were trying to side with Obama and say that if the court overturns the health care its unprescedented which is has been proven over and over in this thread to be utter bull$hit.

I never said it was unprecented. I said it is rare. Trying to side with Obama? No, analyzing it as a legal question. Grouchy today, aren't you?

by the way, acts of congress overturned since 1802 is about 160-170.

[The Dad Fisherman]

May I suggest everybody take a deep breath and relax....

I'm pretty sure Bossman wants everybody to play nice in the Sandbox

[spence]

Completely missing the point...again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Completely missing the point...again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's "Spence" for, I've been outed with completely wrong misinformation and don't know what to say...again

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Completely missing the point...again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's deal directly with you "point". Your "point" was that since Obama's idiotic statement was an answer to a question (instead of a prepared remark), that we can't hold Obama accountable for what he says (you must really hold him in low regard if you feel that way, BTW). Yet when Palin gives an idiotic answer to a question, you label her an idiot.

Why the double-standard Spence? How come Obama's answers to a question don't say anything about his intelligence, but Palin's answers to questions do say something about her intelligence?

I'm really curious what you come up with for an answer...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Let's deal directly with you "point". Your "point" was that since Obama's idiotic not necessarily idiotic and more likely intentional and meant to be quite divisive
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/20...what-h/?page=1
and follows the same Alynski model that we've routinely seen from this Pres. when he is displaying contempt statement was an answer to a question (instead of a prepared remark), that we can't hold Obama accountable for what he says no, we must look to the spin released afterward to know what they want us to think about what he may or may not have said despite what he actually said...they think for us... they however, may hold others to things that they never said...see how it works? (you must really hold him in low regard if you feel that way, BTW). Yet when Palin gives an idiotic answer to a question, you label her an idiot. even if it wasn't her..which is quite a feat

Why the double-standard Spence? cause that's the essence of the game How come Obama's answers to a question don't say anything about his intelligence cause he can't be anything but brilliant, anything else would be unnaceptable even if true, but Palin's answers to questions do say something about her intelligence?

I'm really curious what you come up with for an answer...just check with Jay Carney

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
That comment, coming from a professor of constitutional law the facts as to his status as having been a "professor of constitutional law " are debatable..

Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in "undermining?" constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, [COLOR="Blue"]"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."

Recently, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:

Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.

[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by spence

Good we can agree that Palin has said some shockingly ignorant things...but I don't see Obama's remark on the "I can see Russia from my house" level or what ever she said. yes, "whatever", or whatever you think she said which was actually said by a comedian portraying her in a skit

The reality is that his remark was incomplete. it was only "incomplete" when his team realized/reacted to the fact that he'd shown his true colors while off-teleprompter either intentionally or unintentionally and either scrambled or had prepared "damage control" to guide the intentional/unintentional damage done into damage that will benefit them politically down the road by trying to drive a wedge between a portion of the American public and their judicial system It was not a policy position, it was a response to a question. it revealed quite a bit To place it in a box is a deconstructive response not intended to further the debate. there's really not much debate as to how far out of line the President's comments were....there are a small cadre of loyalists that will shamelessly tow the line for the administation but that's about it on this one

The constructive action would be to ask what he really meant, you should apply this comments which another reporter did and what I've posted above as Obama's response.

That's what you should be reacting to no? the reaction is to very clear pattern by this President, in this case he caused the jaws of many on his own side to hit the floor
-spence (super cool non-inflammatory poster here)

I'm sure the President fancies himself "super cool and non-inflammatory"...but nothing could be further from the truth....

OBAMA- "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."

I'd forgotten about this one...this was a good one

[justplugit]

[QUOTE=scottw;931458]Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT


A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."

I'm sure the President fancies himself "super cool and non-inflammatory"...but nothing could be further from the truth....

OBAMA- "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.I'd forgotten about this one...this was a good one:uhuh

[QUOTE]

Acording to Jodi Kantor, NYT, " While most colleagues published by the pound,
he never completed a single work of legal scholarship."
"At a formal institute Barak Obama was a loose presence, joking with students
about their romantic prospects, using first names, referring to case law one moment, and the Godfather the next. He was also an engimatic one, often leaving other faculty members guessing about his precise views."

Somethings haven't changed, may think he's Super cool for sure, a regular "Welcome back Kotter", just what we need in a Commander in Chief.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Cut him some slack(s)

TJ Maxx and Marshalls are both having sales today

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Cut him some slack(s)

TJ Maxx and Marshalls are both having sales today

OK, I'm saving that for next year when JohnR asks for funny stuff from the past year because that's hilarious

[spence]

Palin was defending her foreign policy experience by saying that you could se Russia from Alaska. Not that she's even ever seen it, but if you take a boat into the middle of the straight there's a little island where you can see another little island in russia.

No amount of context is going to remedy that statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Palin was defending her foreign policy experience by saying that you could se Russia from Alaska. Not that she's even ever seen it, but if you take a boat into the middle of the straight there's a little island where you can see another little island in russia.

No amount of context is going to remedy that statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, sir, that dog ain't gonna hunt.

You said Obama is not to be judged for unrehearsed answers to questions. You pointed out that his idiotic comment was not a prepared remark. Palin's comment about Russia was also not a prepared remark.

Spence, if it's good for the goose...

Spence, if it makes it easier for you...every single person here knows why you have such a glaringly obvious double-standard. So it's OK if you admit it...

Whenever Obama says something stupid, his worshippers, like you, try to deflect attention from what he said, and tell us to focus on what he "meant". Like any cult leader, you will never admit he's wrong, even though this mistake is provable with any 8th grade civics text. His error would be depressing enough from a high school senior. That it came from the mouth of a Harvard Law grad who taught constitutional law is breathtaking, and it shows just how vulnerable the megalomaniac-in-chief is without hs precious teleprompter.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Whenever Obama says something stupid, his worshippers, like you, try to deflect attention from what he said, and tell us to focus on what he "meant".

"stupid"...only in the context that his comments are completely offensive to anyone who really understands what he presumes to be speaking about and is not a radical leftist..."brilliant" if you are a Spence type because they are indeed calculated and intended to denigrate the institution and it's power relative to his own, intended to drive a wedge between the American people and the institution should the decision not go his way and begin to imply that Americans ought lose faith in that institution and place more faith in him...his "followers" running around telling us what he meant is simply the follow up on a calculated attack, they are organized, they all say exactly the same thing whether it makes any sense or not because they understand propaganda...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

"stupid"...only in the context that his comments are completely offensive to anyone who really understands what he presumes to be speaking about and is not a radical leftist..."brilliant" if you are a Spence type because they are indeed calculated and intended to denigrate the institution and it's power relative to his own, intended to drive a wedge between the American people and the institution should the decision not go his way and begin to imply that Americans ought lose faith in that institution and place more faith in him...his "followers" running around telling us what he meant is simply the follow up on a calculated attack, they are organized, they all say exactly the same thing whether it makes any sense or not because they understand propaganda...

He did nothing of the sort, it was simply a challenge to not let politics into the judicial process. The fact that three conservative judges as Jeffrey Toobin noted was a hissy fit took the bait so easily proved Obama's point.

-spence

[Fly Rod]

Hissy fit.....toobin

Really Spence....obama is/was trying to steer the supreme court to vote for it regardless of being constitutional or not. He is as guilty of that as was jennefer on Idol trying to steer voters to vote for the long hair kid that got booted last night.

And toobin of all people....I would have believed more if U said pelosi

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

He did nothing of the sort, it was simply a challenge to not let politics into the judicial process. The fact that three conservative judges as Jeffrey Toobin noted was a hissy fit took the bait so easily proved Obama's point.

-spence

really?

Obama setting up Supreme Court as a campaign issue

"We haven't seen the end of this," said longtime Supreme Court practitioner Tom Goldstein, who teaches at Stanford and Harvard universities. "The administration seems to be positioning itself to be able to run against the Supreme Court if it needs to or wants to."..........

"The constitutional issue aside, Obama made it clear that the thrust of his argument is political. He ticked off popular elements of the law that are already in force, and said the consequences of losing those protections would be grave for young people and the elderly, in particular."



News from The Associated Press

................................

It appears to be unprecedented, however, for a U.S. president to have attacked the Supreme Court before it handed down its decision. Some think Mr. Obama and his progressive infantry are trying to intimidate the Justices, specifically Justice Anthony Kennedy. But most legal commentary has said the president's attack is likely to anger the justices, perhaps including some of the court's liberals. Mr. Obama's notion of judicial review diminishes all the members of any court, not just its conservatives. It doesn't help the always difficult struggle for an independent judiciary in other countries if an American president is issuing Venezuela-like statements on U.S. courts.

Henninger The Wall Street Journal: The Supreme Court Lands in Oz - WSJ.com


for many of the Justices this is entirely "judicial process" and a question of Constitutionality...for a few this is a political process and "public policy decision" that will be rendered with little regard to Constitutionality by "activists"...maybe that's who he was "reminding/challenging"...particlarly now that the Constitutionality is so dubious as shown by the arguments before SCOTUS..

we are now reduced to "baiting" members of the judiciary to make points and score points with the base?????

is this "Presidential" ????

no, not trying to "steer" the court(or one particular swing Justice) with public and political pressure regarding his signature accomplishment wrapped in some of the most outrageous and demonstrably wrong comments by any American President...but rather, comments however troubling, that were actually intended as a "message" to his base because he realizes that his signature accomplishment is Unconstitutional no matter how much he wishes it weren't and so he will fire up the base by laying the groundwork for an assualt on the institution and it's Conservative members just as he will run against Congress.. and claim that SCOTUS has taken away his base's Lollipop's and Congress will take away their Twizzlers and Romney will take away their access to healthy food, clean air and water and a host of freebies that he will happily provide if they will just reelect him....great timing

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...-revolt/453666

“we were all inspired by the protesters of the Arab Spring who stood up to totalitarian governments, and inspired the Occupy movement here in America.”

The plan for now is to hold protest training sessions around the nation next week. Over 900 are scheduled so far.

Once ready, the group and dozens of others, notably MoveOn.org and labor unions, will launch the “99 Percent Spring” offensive against government and financial centers.

[striperman36]

Most president's showed similar disdain, it's not an unusual event

[The Dad Fisherman]

Could also be that Bush wasn't happy with a previous ruling by the Supreme Court and was throwing out a little dig at them too.....you really think there is nothing disrespectful about using the term "Judicial Lawlessness" when referring to the SCOTUS.

like I said...I don't disagree with the statement....but I definitely think they were both making their shots at the SCOTUS for their own reasons.

[RIJIMMY]

DadF - bush was not commenting on the SCOTUS, he was commenting on judges "making law"

Mostly the federal courts deciding on cases which established precedence where no law existing - effectively creating a law.
Its a big difference. Obama directly addressed the SCOTUS in particular reference to the health care law. Challenging them directly.

Please note, some of the supreme court judges where in attendance at Bush meeting and applauded.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

DadF - bush was not commenting on the SCOTUS, he was commenting on judges "making law"

Mostly the federal courts deciding on cases which established precedence where no law existing - effectively creating a law.
Its a big difference. Obama directly addressed the SCOTUS in particular reference to the health care law. Challenging them directly.

Please note, some of the supreme court judges where in attendance at Bush meeting and applauded.

He was talking about the Judicial Branch of Government, referring to Unelected officers serving for life....isn't that the SCOTUS?

and the 3 Justices in attendance were also the 3 that voted with him on the Miltary Tribunal decision the previous year.....so they may have enjoyed the little dig as well.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

He was talking about the Judicial Branch of Government, referring to Unelected officers serving for life....isn't that the SCOTUS?

and the 3 Justices in attendance were also the 3 that voted with him on the Miltary Tribunal decision the previous year.....so they may have enjoyed the little dig as well.

I don't recall any off them mouthing the words "you lie" during a State of the Union speach.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

all fed judges are appointed for life not just the sc

I Know that....I just don't see how 1 is a Completely Disrespectful comment and the other is No Big Deal...just not seeing it.

My point I guess is that they all do it....they all make there off the mark comments...with the intention to Inflame one side and/or pander to the other....

Originally Posted by buckman

I don't recall any off them mouthing the words "you lie" during a State of the Union speach.

so you're saying that there is nothing disrespectful about a justice calling the president a liar.....but its completely disrespectful for the president to challenge the SCOTUS.

Look...I'm not trying to stick up for Obama and I'm not trying to slam Bush....I'm just saying they all do it. and it doesn't make it better just because they belong to one side or another.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I Know that....I just don't see how 1 is a Completely Disrespectful comment and the other is No Big Deal...just not seeing it.

My point I guess is that they all do it....they all make there off the mark comments...with the intention to Inflame one side and/or pander to the other....



so you're saying that there is nothing disrespectful about a justice calling the president a liar.....but its completely disrespectful for the president to challenge the SCOTUS.

Look...I'm not trying to stick up for Obama and I'm not trying to slam Bush....I'm just saying they all do it. and it doesn't make it better just because they belong to one side or another.

"I just don't see how 1 is a Completely Disrespectful comment and the other is No Big Deal...just not seeing it. "

Bush's and Obama's comments are similar. But true judicial activism is different from a court saying the the Feds are overreaching with, say, the healthcare law. For example, in some states the people have voted against gay marriage, and then the courts overturn that. That's true judicial activism, that's true legislating from the bench. If SCOTUS throws out the individual mandate, it's not "legislating", that's saying that the feds are trying to do something that the Constitution doesn't give them the authority to do. Maybe it's a subtle difference at best.

"nothing disrespectful about a justice calling the president a liar."

Alito didn't call him a liar, he said that Obama was wrong. Being wrong and lying aren't even remotely the same thing. In that case, the atrocity wasn't that Alito talked back. The atrocity is that Obama knows the Supreme Court Justices are sitting right in front of him, and he feels justified to trash them in his speech, knowing they don't have the opportunity to refute Obama. I have never seen a President do that before, but Obama does it all the time. He trashed Bush at his inauguration speech, with Bush standing right there. He did it to Paul Ryan at a speech about the economy. Obama displays no class towards those who don't kiss his ring, none at all.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

DadF - bush was not commenting on the SCOTUS, he was commenting on judges "making law"

Mostly the federal courts deciding on cases which established precedence where no law existing - effectively creating a law.
Its a big difference. Obama directly addressed the SCOTUS in particular reference to the health care law. Challenging them directly.

EXACTLY......

[scottw]

this is pretty good..

Obama’s selective memory of Supreme Court history
Josh Hicks , 04/09/2012 TheWashingtonPost

Obama’s selective memory of Supreme Court history - The Washington Post

"The Pinocchio Test

Ordinarily, we would not expect a president to know the intricacies of Supreme Court cases, but we hold Obama to a high standard because he used to teach law and because in his remarks he tossed around references to particular cases (“at least since Lochner”).

First of all, the president has a rather distorted view of what constitutes a “strong majority” if he thinks the Affordable Care Act vote makes the cut. Not only was the victory achieved by a margin of just a few votes in the House, but the supporters were from only one political party—his own.

Second, Obama’s remarks implied that the Supreme Court would be acting in extreme fashion by overturning the health-care law. That isn’t necessarily true. Some would say that invalidating an economic regulation isn’t extraordinary at all.

In fact, the president delivered a sort of factual history lesson on Constitutional law, which he then used as the basis for his argument about judicial overreach. When all was said and done, he had suggested twice that the justices are in danger of becoming the next despicable group of activist judges — like the so-called Lochner court."

I'm pretty sure that the President earned a "couple two, three" Pinnochios for the statement that cause Alito to mouth the words "not true" in the State of the Union Address that you guys keep bringing up too...

[RIJIMMY]

all fed judges are appointed for life not just the sc

[RIJIMMY]

no one in the Bush camp had to write a letter on behalf of the president acknowledging the courts authority. This is a first

Holder: Obama recognizes Supreme Court's authority - CNN.com

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

no one in the Bush camp had to write a letter on behalf of the president acknowledging the courts authority. This is a first

What exactly did the Pres. do that required the courts to get involved?