Law School Discussion

Why Obama will lose in the fall

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #1240 on: November 01, 2008, 09:30:52 PM »
Just when I thought that the extent of hilarity of this thread was exhausted.

It's a pretty epic fail when the best support for your argument is that Latinos and Jews won't vote for Obama.

Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #1241 on: November 01, 2008, 09:33:11 PM »
Just when I thought that the extent of hilarity of this thread was exhausted.

It's a pretty epic fail when the best support for your argument is that Latinos and Jews won't vote for Obama.

Agreed. But I was referring more to the latter part of this thread.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #1242 on: November 01, 2008, 09:33:55 PM »
Just when I thought that the extent of hilarity of this thread was exhausted.

It's a pretty epic fail when the best support for your argument is that Latinos and Jews won't vote for Obama.

Agreed. But I was referring more to the latter part of this thread.

Oh, sure, but it was pretty golden the whole way through.

Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #1243 on: November 01, 2008, 09:34:59 PM »
Yeah.  The choice is simple.  I don't want to live in a reality where people elect a president based on how cool he seems and how black he is.

Arguably the weakest argument I've read on LSD to date.  Running a training squadron IS DIRECT EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE.  The fact that he did it well enough to earn that squadron it's first ever commendation IS an example of success.  Obama got onto the Harvard Law review because:
1)  His grades were good
2)  He writes well
3)  He's black



Ya know, if you let someone run their mouth for long enough, their real issues with particular people will come to light.  You seem really hung up on the race issue.  That's unfortunate for you.  Good luck in law school.  I heard that's where you actually have to make real arguments instead of setting up strawmen and knocking them down.  From the posts you've authored that I've read, it seems like that might be difficult.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #1244 on: November 02, 2008, 12:20:16 AM »
Yes.  Rush Limbaugh had me write all of this. 

I didn't suggest that he commanded you to write it; I suggested that he's your source -- or your source's source.

You said:

This is the oath every President is required to take:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Interesting, especially since Obama said in 2001:
The Constitution " reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day” .
...
Well THAT's certainly not protecting or defending the Constitution now, is it?

Rush said:
Quote from: Limbaugh
I don't see how he can take the oath of office, which is this: "I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." He has rejected the Constitution. . . . How is he going to -- I asked this earlier -- how is he gonna place his hand on the Bible and swear that he, Barack Hussein Obama, will uphold the Constitution that he feels reflects the nation's fundamental flaw.

and then played the exact same 28-second clip (from a 45-minute interview) that you did.  So this was your own analysis based on an "independent study" of the campaign?  I suppose you can ask the readers of this thread to believe that, but it doesn't seem all that likely to me.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #1245 on: November 02, 2008, 12:20:35 AM »


And it is an example of bigotry to believe that marriage is currently defined as being between a man and a woman.

I called it a "casual wink to bigotry," as in, you decided to throw in this irrelevant bit seemingly to make a point about the current battle over the rights of gay people to marry spouses of their choice.  See also Mighty Aphrodite's post.

And I'm sure that Obama's grandmother was terribly ill, which is why he didn't take Michelle and the kids with to see her.

Why do you think he went to Hawaii?  Just curious.  I don't find Tutu's relationship with Michelle and the kids to be particularly relevant to Obama's qualifications for office, but I'll add that a lot of people wouldn't pull their children out of school to see their great grandmother who lived thousands of miles away even if she were very ill.  They may not even be all that close.

And Obama admitted to selling and buying drugs, including cocaine.

Link?  AFAIK, Obama never claimed to sell drugs.  Moreover, the Times concluded last year that he had, if anything, exaggerated his drug use to make a point about how lost he was during those years -- and how politics and religion gave him a sense of purpose (much like Bush).  (I agree with Sax about the rest.)

I will happily defend Palin's comment.  Asking questions about a potential president's association, positions and beliefs should not be censored by anyone and should be fair game.  Let's try and play a little game:  think back to 2000, where the press hammered Bush with stories about alcoholism and drug use.  Were you upset by that?  No - bc it's fair game when it is a republican being hammered.  Palin is concerned with the media's obvious liberal tilt when instead of investigating and producing journalism, they call her campaigning negative.  She has a right to free speech and I don't have an issue with anything she said in that story.

See Susan B. Anthony's post (asking how any of this supports Palin's claim that the media were -- and were even able to -- violate her freedom of speech through their own exercise of First Amendment rights, and positing that you haven't taken conlaw).

I didn't imply that Obama was treasonous or a traitor.  I stated that he intends to cheat the system to change the constitution through judges instead of amendments.

You also said that he couldn't fulfill his oath.  Based on statements he made that parallel some made by Justice Roberts, General Powell, Secretary Rice, and President Bush.  About slavery.

I take issue with his continued attack on the 2nd amendment and his desire to squelch honest reporting.

Do you realize that Obama supported the Heller decision, the first Supreme Court case to find an individual right to bear arms in the constitution?

Here's what he said:

Quote from: Obama
I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
 

This view is actually very controversial among constitutional scholars (Chemerinsky doesn't buy it, for instance), historians, Justice Department employees, members of congress, etc.  The American Bar Association sees things differently.  It was a 5-4 decision.  How, exactly, are Obama's views on the Second Amendment too far outside of the mainstream for you?  Did Scalia also attack the Second Amendment? 

He doesn't give tough interviews.  He throws newspapers off the campaign trail because the papers endorse his opponent.  I take issue with the idea that he has used the media, most of whom obviously are in the tank for him, to spread lies about his past, his association, and his positions while encouraging them (helping in some cases) to try and destroy Sarah Palin.

He doesn't give tough interviews?  What, the way Sarah Palin does?  I have seen more Obama press conferences, interviews, and investigative pieces than I have of any major candidate in my lifetime.  And I've been paying attention to presidential politics since at least 1984; this will be my sixth time voting in a presidential election.

The Dallas Morning News said that it didn't believe the decision was unfair or overly political, but a matter of space.  The newspapers all got advance warning, and the plane has been crowded.  Meanwhile, I didn't see you up in arms when McCain and Palin (both) kicked Joe Klein and other Time and Newsweek reporters off the plane, or when Palin kicked the AP off the plane even though everyone says there are empty seats, or when the campaign declared that all chatter on the plane would be "off the record."  At least try for consistency.

Don't accuse me of talking points by throwing your own at me.  My opinions are a result of independent study of the campaign and the small amount of publicly available information on Barack Obama.  It is not unpatriotic to demand that a Presidential candidate tell the truth, share records, and be able to prove his citizenship.  Why it doesn't concern you that the only evidence provided by Obama's citizenship is a document that has been altered by photoshop is beyond me.

Could you please provide some evidence of this?  I mean, seriously, what are you talking about?

Why you don't care that he has had close personal association with racists, terrorists, and radicals is beyond me.  Why you can't be bothered to defend your own candidate and instead demand that I defend my own positions is beyond me.

I don't believe he does have such "close personal associations," but I don't know why my opinion on this matters to you at all.

I am asking you to either apologize for or defend your attacks on the candidate's patriotism, not your beliefs about who makes a better candidate.  If I called John McCain anti-American, I think you would be completely within your rights to ask the same of me.

Worst of all, sucker like you think your candidate is a 'moderate'.  Interesting falsehood you seem to enjoy spreading.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

"Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 key votes on which he voted;"

In 2007, he was listed as the NUMBER ONE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR. 

That's not a moderate and it is not an example of bipartisanship.  It is an example of exactly how not- moderate Obama is.

But keep telling yourself that he's a moderate.  Keep pretending he'll reach across the aisle.  Keep believing that the lies he's been caught in aren't that bad.  Keep pretending that Obama is truly moderate.

I actually didn't claim that he was "a moderate" or a "bipartisan" -- at least not here.  I said that, by all accounts, he has a moderate, centrist view of the constitution.  Which was actually relevant to your accusations about his take on the courts and the constitution.  Try harder.

But seriously, the man has Paul Volcker and Austan Goolsbee as his chief economic advisors.  He's not a leftist by any stretch.  Here's an article for you to read, if you have the attention span: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html

Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #1246 on: November 02, 2008, 12:30:33 AM »
miss p, this is the last time I'm going to ask you to stop endangering the first amendment

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #1247 on: November 02, 2008, 12:45:30 AM »
miss p, this is the last time I'm going to ask you to stop endangering the first amendment

::makes laws abridging your PANTS::

EDIT

Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #1248 on: November 02, 2008, 01:40:12 AM »
miss p, this is the last time I'm going to ask you to stop endangering the first amendment

::makes laws abridging your PANTS::

EDIT


Crap.

::zips up::

nealric

  • ****
  • 2248
  • a.k.a. Miguel Sanchez
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #1249 on: November 02, 2008, 08:07:59 AM »
Quote
She has a right to free speech and I don't have an issue with anything she said in that story.

Just to pile on...

State action doctrine bey-atch.


I think the possibilities are the following:

#1. Jeffislouie has not taken conlaw
#2. Jeffislouie took conlaw, but failed
#3. Jeffislouie is just trolling and knows full well he is talking out his arse