Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

joe bloe · 01-12-2013, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TPJR

According to The2Dogs, Obama is an "avowed" socialist. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of avowed is: to declare openly, bluntly, and without shame. If anybody has evidence of that, I would love to see it. As for this article you posted, if you look closely, it calls Obama an "NP endorsed" candidate, and not a "member" like it does with Ted Thomas and Ruth Schools.

According to Stanley Kurtz, a journalist with National Review, Obama attended meetings of The New Party and paid dues. He was a member. You obviously didn't read the article; you should.

From the nationalreview.com

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-stanley-kurtz

Yssup Rider · 01-12-2013, 09:56 PM

More bullshit. He even quotes the bullshit in his article but ignores it.

Kinda like you Porky!

Old-T · 01-12-2013, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old-T

You do not get it, do you?

There are probably a dozen or more folks on here who are much more expert than the Supreme Court. Just listen to them--post after post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

On both sides of the coin

Absolutely true.

CuteOldGuy · 01-12-2013, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I'm completely certain that no one who posts on this website is an expert on the Supreme Court or the Constitution. This is just a forum for people to bullshit.

You don't need to be an expert on the Constitution to know that SCOTUS frequently reaches the wrong decision, such as Obamacare. Just read the Constitution, and try to find out where such a thing is allowed. It's not.

But Justices aren't Justices anymore. They're puppets. The Constitution is whatever they can twist it to mean. This isn't new, it's been going on a long time. By both parties.

joe bloe · 01-13-2013, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You don't need to be an expert on the Constitution to know that SCOTUS frequently reaches the wrong decision, such as Obamacare. Just read the Constitution, and try to find out where such a thing is allowed. It's not.

But Justices aren't Justices anymore. They're puppets. The Constitution is whatever they can twist it to mean. This isn't new, it's been going on a long time. By both parties.

I'm sure that's true. It may be practiced by both parties, but it isn't practiced as often by conservative judges as by liberal judges. It isn't the conservative judges that advocate a living document view of the Constitution. The living document theory gives them an excuse to rule with complete disregard for original intent; it's at the heart of all judicial activism.

John Roberts' vote to uphold Obamacare was an anomaly. At least I hope it's not an indication that the Republicans have put another stealth liberal on the bench. We have a habit of doing that.

Guest123018-4 · 01-13-2013, 08:21 AM

He joined the party, how much more avowed can you get.

You really should do a little unbiased research on Obama.
Your protests are one of two things; either it is total ignorance or deflection.

Whirlaway · 01-13-2013, 08:24 AM

Here is a video of Obama's long association with the socialist New Party..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzpB_53r5-g

joe bloe · 01-13-2013, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

He joined the party, how much more avowed can you get.

Obama is allowed to hold contradictory positions on issues without being required to explain himself. He joined the New Party and openly embraced socialism. That's a historical fact. To my knowledge, no journalist has ever asked him about it.

Obama is never confronted with his actions. If a Republican president had joined some sort of fringe group the media would have beat him to death with questions. He would be under siege.

Republican politicians have to walk a tightrope without a net. One false step and their career in politics is over. Democrats work with a net. The mainstream media works to hide anything that might hurt the cause of socialism.

TPJR · 01-13-2013, 11:44 AM

1. I'm not sure that he was a member, given the fact that the article and that youtube video clearly identify him as a member in 1 part, and as an endorsed candidate in another part.
2. Even if he were a member, I really couldn't care less as the New Party is not a socialist organization, although their political views are more left leaning than the mainstream Democratic Party. Given that there are actual socialist organizations in the US to compare to, it's ridiculous to claim that Obama and the New Party are anytjhing like them.

essence · 01-13-2013, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Bingo!

Good, I provoked you to find my deliberate mistake. There are other edits, but not at 1:00.

Now, this is the important bit, there is no edit, but if you look at his body language, he does a jerk, there is a clear pause, and it is clear that he is not just continuing from his previous phrase, he is going back to comments before then, he is summarising the situation.

So the transcript you quoted is still a lie, because there is more than a comma at 1:00. There is some kind of gutteral full stop, or semi colon.

So you are still a liar.

You can tell the comman is a lie, it makes the quote nonsense.

A comma can be a lie, a comma can completely change the meaning.

Munchmasterman · 01-14-2013, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You don't need to be an expert on the Constitution to know that SCOTUS frequently reaches the wrong decision, such as Obamacare. Just read the Constitution, and try to find out where such a thing is allowed. It's not.

But Justices aren't Justices anymore. They're puppets. The Constitution is whatever they can twist it to mean. This isn't new, it's been going on a long time. By both parties.

And by you too, you plucked little chicken-hawk.

Another thing you ride the fence on.

Are you chicken or hawk?

Neither.

You're a chicken, hawk.

CuteOldGuy · 01-14-2013, 12:31 AM

How is insisting on an originalist interpretation of the Constitution sitting on the fence? You are making shit up about me, again, Münchausenman.

joe bloe · 01-14-2013, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by essence

Good, I provoked you to find my deliberate mistake. There are other edits, but not at 1:00.

Now, this is the important bit, there is no edit, but if you look at his body language, he does a jerk, there is a clear pause, and it is clear that he is not just continuing from his previous phrase, he is going back to comments before then, he is summarising the situation.

So the transcript you quoted is still a lie, because there is more than a comma at 1:00. There is some kind of gutteral full stop, or semi colon.

So you are still a liar.

You can tell the comman is a lie, it makes the quote nonsense.

A comma can be a lie, a comma can completely change the meaning.

Why would any person in their right mind make deliberate mistakes? I still think you should seriously consider shock therapy. The memory is loss is fairly minor, and since you're a hopeless liberal, you wouldn't be losing anything of any value anyway.

essence · 01-14-2013, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Why would any person in their right mind make deliberate mistakes?

Joking aside, it is a well known technique in software testing. You introduce, say, 5 deliberate mistakes, and then perform a peer review. You then see if all 5 mistakes have been found or not during review, and how many other non-deliberate mistakes are found. You can then get some metrics on the quality of the software and the quality of the review team.

On that basis, TPJR would join my review team, and nobody else on this forum

joe bloe · 01-14-2013, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by essence

Joking aside, it is a well known technique in software testing. You introduce, say, 5 deliberate mistakes, and then perform a peer review. You then see if all 5 mistakes have been found or not during review, and how many other non-deliberate mistakes are found. You can then get some metrics on the quality of the software and the quality of the review team.

On that basis, TPJR would join my review team, and nobody else on this forum

It would be a more efficient use of time to try and find the stuff you get right.