1,040 Comments on “Barry Soetoro”
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 … 35 »
-
Oigal says:
April 29th, 2010 at 5:20 pmPlenty of academics do not treat other people with disdain.
For sure but Ari does not seem to understand the damage that he, jones and his ilk have done to any reasonable debate. Like it or not unless the average bloke is brought along and feels part of solution then nothing will happen.
-
Odinius says:
April 29th, 2010 at 10:26 pmSorry, but which Jones are you talking about? Surely not Sidney Jones.
As for the general point, I think that’s fair. I’m a big believer in using academic social science to serve the public good. You can’t do that if you can’t talk to non-specialists, or non-degree holders.
-
Oigal says:
April 30th, 2010 at 10:16 amNagh Phil Jones..the idiot at the bottom of email and climate gate issue. Essentially the skeptics greatest weapon. Sidney, I like her, very very smart lady.
But hey…where are the Becky Friends?.I miss the fun
-
April 30th, 2010 at 10:12 pmOh, okay. I do believe in anthropomorphic climate change, but get allergic reactions to activists and dogmatics posing as scholars.
Science is rarely sexy or simple. It’s complicated, full of apparent contradictions and doesn’t fit well into sound-bites for CNN or FOX.
-
Haystacik says:
May 8th, 2010 at 2:24 amYou can thank the brain dead 53%ters who voted for this…………I’m trying to be nice but its hard. IMPEACH!!!!!!!
-
Oigal says:
May 8th, 2010 at 12:08 pmImpeach…what for? 53% voted you say, sounds like a majority or perhaps democracy?
I do believe in anthropomorphic climate change, but get allergic reactions to activists and dogmatics posing as scholars
Trouble is those activists are invariably sucking on the public teat and never have to concern themselves with actually have to make a living day to day.
-
Ross says:
May 8th, 2010 at 7:21 pmAaah! Amazed you guys are still banging on along this thread. Stamina, for sure.
Actually, Oigal, 53% is no barrier to impeachment. Nixon got better percentages, surely, except in 1960 when the foul Kennedy mafia linked up with the real mafia in Chicago’s Cook County to steal the Presidency by fiddling Illinois’ electoral votes.
Incidentally, there’s a new book out, The Manchurian President, by Aaron Klein, which is way up the Amazon best-selling list already, but which has been suppressed by the Muppet Mainstream Media reviewers. I’ve ordered a copy, as it is apparently the best-documented account of Barack Husein’s dissembling so far.
Unlike arrogant twits like Ari Brand, Klein simply assembles facts and let’s them speak for themselves.I think only Fox News, as usual, has given it a mention, which goes to show why Fox is needed in the morass of bias that constitutes much of America’s establishment press.
-
May 8th, 2010 at 10:44 pmNixon also paid operatives to break into his opposition’s headquarters during an election, steal documents, and then engaged in an elaborate scheme to cover it up, which included lying under oath to congress. That’s one thing.
Being a sore loser because more people in your country liked the democrat than the republican is another. I had the same conversation with people on the left fringe in 2004. Democracy means you get who’s most popular, not who you, individually, think is best. “Suck it up, you lost.”
-
venna says:
May 8th, 2010 at 10:57 pmDemocracy means you get who’s most popular, not who you, individually, think is best. “Suck it up, you lost.”
______
Oh, I really like this term. -
Ross says:
May 9th, 2010 at 12:23 amOdinius misses the point. A majority or a plurality, in an election in the USA does not preclude impeachment. Oigal suggested it did.
Nixon indeed authorised those misdeeds, and got caught out, and paid the price, unlike Kennedy, who like his old man and his youngest brother, was a knave of high degree.
Suck it up, Odinius, the Democrats you admire are no better and probably a lot worse, than the Republicans.
Not all of the Democrats, though. The late Senator Moynihan had pretty clear vision, as when he remarked that ‘Whitaker Chambers was right!’ -
May 9th, 2010 at 1:25 amNo, there really is no point. Impeachment is for subverting the democratic process or committing crimes while in office, not for use by people who are upset that their little favorite lost. That’s what we have subsequent elections for.
So my message to the wingnuts is the same the moonbats got 6 years ago. “There was a choice, and people chose freely. You lost. That’s life, and more precisely, that’s democracy. So suck it up and move on. You’ll get another chance in four years. Be happy you have that opportunity, because not everyone does.”
-
Ross says:
May 9th, 2010 at 1:59 amSorry, Odinius, you obviously didn’t read Oigal’s post. He was saying that 53% voted for the Manchurian candidate, so he should therefore be unimpeachable.
Given the sort of people he’s put into positions of authority, he may well be impeachable.
I realise you don’t like contemplating that the idea a slickster like Obama may be up to no good, but his whole record suggests exactly that.
Suck that up and get some sleep! -
May 9th, 2010 at 2:08 amThat’s not what he said, Ross.
The person who used the term “impeach” gave only the rationale that 53% voted “wrongly,” in his opinion. Oigal pointed out that 53% of people voting in one direction is, well, democracy.
If you think the wrong candidate won, you get a chance to do something about it a few years down the line. Or, at least, you get the chance to try…
-
Ross says:
May 9th, 2010 at 4:11 amNo, Haystack, whoever he may be, said we could ‘thank the 53%’ for the fact that Barack Husein is in the White House, which is no doubt true, and he ended his post with a call for impeachment. I don’t think that is the same as saying that the 53% proportion of the vote is grounds for impeachment.
Nor do i think that those many Americans who want the Manchurian out of office do so on the basis that those who voted for him made a mistake.
Americans generally know that you get impeached for ‘high crimes and misdemeanours’ which are not definable in terms of the poor judgement of the electorate but of what an incumbent is doing.
And yes, one could wait while a head of state destroys a country and hope that the damage may be repaired after the next election, or…you can seek to use the constitutional provision for impeachment.
It depends if you think he is out of order. The U.S.Senate will probably more wisely constituted after November, so we must wait and see. It’s their job to impeach if need be. -
Oigal says:
May 9th, 2010 at 6:45 pmAaah! Amazed you guys are still banging on along this thread. Stamina, for sure.
As we said before Ross, this is just a bit of fun albeit a bit cruel alone the lines of burning ants. As Ody pointed out, I never said % is barrier to being impeached but besides the usual looney tunes stuff (birthers and Manchurian candidate fits well here) and the general Glen Beckish nonsense, I have yet to see one coherent point for impeachment.
Just dying for one salient point to be made where he is bringing down the USA in the meantime bring on the moonbats, its fun
-
Oigal says:
May 9th, 2010 at 6:51 pmAmazon best-selling list already, but which has been suppressed by the Muppet Mainstream Media reviewers.
Thanks for the laugh! Amazon and Fox News could hardly be called backyard organisations. In a telling exposure of the average tv watcher, Fox News calls itself the most watched news in the USA. Makes your claim of mainstream bias look a bit silly.
Having said that, is not FOX simply the silliest news channel in the world? Ever notice nothing more than 5mins without a break away, which says a lot about the attention span of their target audience.
-
May 9th, 2010 at 11:30 pmFOX is the most watched cable news in the US, which puts it far ahead of the (also but not quite as) silly CNN and MSNBC. But about five times as many people watch the network news shows, which at least attempt impartiality and analysis.
-
Ross says:
May 10th, 2010 at 12:49 amYou two guys are both literate, and presumably watch and read the US ‘mainstream’ media’ from time to time. They are totally left-lib, except for Fox, which, for whatever reason, offers a non-left-lib voice.
Any survey of US journos shows they are hugely out of kilter with the population at large, overwhelmingly liberal, only a small minority conservative. Americans need an objective channel of news.
They sure don’t get it on NPR, any more than CBC in Canada or BBC in UK or ABC in Aussie offers a balacned approach, all colonised by lefties.
Good night, guys. -
May 10th, 2010 at 1:18 amThe WSJ is ‘left-lib?’ The Chicago Tribune, which also owns the LA TImes, is ‘left-lib?’
Seriously, that’s 3 of the 7 biggest newspapers in the country, and 1 of the remainder is the uber-bland USA Today.
Besides, newspapers have clearly marked divisions between editorial pages and news pages, and even then the actuality is more diverse than than the characiture. Even the NY Times, ‘bogeyman’ of the right, publishes a (very good) monthly column by moderate conservative David Brooks, and let Judy Miller put out her neo-conservative rants for years, until it became clear she was getting her (uncorroborated) WMD “information” directly from Scooter Libby.
-
diego says:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:33 amActually Glenn Beck shows on Fox is quite funny.
-
Ross says:
May 10th, 2010 at 10:30 amJust up, gotta work. I’ll get back to you fellows tonight.
-
Oigal says:
May 10th, 2010 at 10:48 amActually Glenn Beck shows on Fox is quite funny.
Indeed!! In that doltish, redneck populist, conspiracies are us, simplistic kind of way. I do confess watching his “performances” for laughs on a regular occasions.
-
Ross says:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:01 pmYou use ‘doltish’ as if it were the same as ‘populist’ and ‘redneck.’
‘ Redneck’ simply means agricutural working-class, an elitist term coined by limousine liberals with more money than patriotism. As for ‘populist,’ that too is simply lib-speak for democratic, with a small d.
What I find surprising about you Oigal, is the way you dismiss the new book without even reading it, or presumably looking it up on Amazon or somewhere to get an idea of its scope and quality.
Since you’re nt a reviewer, that’s forgivable, though a tad disappointing, but the reviewers who got copies of the book were equally dismissive, even offensive, without even opening it,
They are not doing their jobs, simply acting as point-men, or women, for a man who actually fits quite well the title Manchurian Candidate. -
Ross says:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:10 pmAs for you, Odinius, I’m just amazed that you consider the Chicago Tribune and L.A. Times to be something other than liberal mouthpieces. The Tribune used to be, many years ago, and the Times, but not recently.
As for the NYT, it is notorious, but you know that….but if you doubt, check out a website devoted to the issue. http://www.timeswatch.org -
May 10th, 2010 at 10:50 pmYes, Ross, this is a very liberal newspaper:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-health-md-20100510,0,1391288.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0510-krauthammer-20100510,0,5913151.column
-
Ross says:
May 10th, 2010 at 11:16 pmHere’s some more…interesting pieces too. from DBKP site
‘At first blush the articles seem fairly ethical in regards to journalistic standards, yet DBKP took another look at the stories and found evidence of outright bias against the McCain-Palin ticket: the New York Times article was a “hit piece” about Cindy McCain, the LA Times wrote about Sarah Palin’s college years as “forgetable” but neglected to relay the fact that Biden had been caught in a serious incident of plagiarism while in Law School, and perhaps the most serious transgression of unethical standards by a national newspaper with the seventh largest readership in the country: an admission by the Chicago Tribune editorial staff in their “glowing” endorsement of Obama that they had personally “asked” Obama to run for President in 2006.’
ensuing 22 months he has done just that.”
And what has the Chicago Tribune been up to in the past 22 months in regards to the Presidential election? DBKP decided to take a look at just some of the stories published by the Tribune in regards to the Presidential race and Barack Obama and John McCain and here’s what we found:
On October 17, the Tribune endorsed Obama.
Obama’s relationship with his mother and grandmother in “Mother, grandmother both inspired Obama”.
Barack Obama to visit ill grandmother Madelyn Dunham
Race suspended as he travels to HawaiiObama has date with Grant Park
Catholics for Obama: No qualms about abortion issue
And this piece about Obama and socialism:
Socialists, Obama No Socialist, published by the Chicago Tribune:
John Bachtell, the Illinois organizer for Communist Party USA, sees attempts by Sen. John McCain’s campaign to label Obama a socialist as both offensive to socialists and a desperate ploy to tap into fears of voters who haven’t forgotten their Cold War rhetoric.
“Red baiting is really the last refuge of scoundrels,” Bachtell said. “It has nothing to do with the issues that are confronting the American people right now. It’s just a big diversion.”
VERY CONSERVATIVE PAPER, THE TRIBUNE!
-
Ross says:
May 10th, 2010 at 11:32 pm.’
AND here’s the end of that article, for those who think Palin was anything but accurate when she said Obama was ‘palling around with terrorists!’‘…a case of “red baiting” and a “big diversion”, the assertions that Obama is “socialist”? DBKP found where not only does Obama frequently “sound” socialist but that he actually was a member and endorsed by a socialist party, the Socialist New Party, when he announced his candidacy for Illinois State Senate from the living room of Bill Ayers. Ayers is the guy who was a former member of the Weather Underground who wrote in his 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days, that he and his gang of domestic terrorists “hadn’t done enough” during the Vietnam War when they bombed the Capital and the Pentagon.’
Obama is a menace and a charlatan. It’s up to Americans how they deal with him, but impeachment is always an option.
-
Oigal says:
May 11th, 2010 at 10:44 amWhat I find surprising about you Oigal, is the way you dismiss the new book without even reading it, or presumably looking it up on Amazon or somewhere to get an idea of its scope and quality.
No Ross, I never dismissed the book, what I dismissed was the self defeating line you take spouting the bias of “mainstream” press/media and in the same (amazing) breath tell us the book is advertised on AMAZON and FOX. Amazon and Fox are not exactly hidden away under the bedsheets (I dunno but I would venture that AMAZON is the most widely used book purchase resource in the world these days??).
Redneck..nagh…we all know what it signifies these days no matter the origins, lets not be silly now, you are smarter than that.
All of what you have said Ross, indicates you are not very happy with having OBY in the white house, for some justifiable (from your perspective and some sheer moonbat stuff) however not one justifies any action other than waiting for the next election and the people who can vote..will..
BTW…. Its a bit rich to complain about hit pieces and speak of FOX news in the same breath.
-
Ross says:
May 11th, 2010 at 11:21 pmMSM. Prior to Fox, as you well, know, Oigal, there was no alternative. in America, to supping from the Devil’s Cauldron of left-libbery.
Amazon, last I heard, had no pretension to be part of the journo world, simply a book thing, none the worse for that.
Read the book, and tell us what you think of it.
Of course I’m not happy with a sneaky pro-terrorist in the White House, nor should you be. We are counting off the days till a clean Administration comes in, but meanwhile he’s doing irreparable damage, e.g. the nomination of Kagan to the SCOTUS.
Economic harm can be remedied but demographic and moral injuries are harder to repair. Hence one’s fears over Obamnesty, the war on Arizona and the pro-perv agenda. -
Oigal says:
May 12th, 2010 at 8:36 amOf course I’m not happy with a sneaky pro-terrorist in the White House, nor should you be
The point is the bloke in question is a citizen and good thing or not can hold that position quite legally. The debate on the evils of his personal politics or perhaps a justice system that perhaps failed is another issue altogether.
Ross, you are trying to convince me that OB (Read the book, you say) is not a a fit person to hold the office. Thats fine, I would probably agree if I could be bothered to take that much interest. However that would based on his political and personal stances, not some frothing moonbat rants pounding the drums on places of birth and other such nonsense.
As for AMAZON, Ross you were painting a picture of some vast conspiracy by those shadowy lefties to keep the truth from coming out. Now if the book is a best seller on AMAZON and gets continual plugs on Fox then I suggest those smoking men need to some more reading on how the right does it.
Although to be fair, I did hear the author had been kidnapped and taken to some place called Area 51 or something..
Seriously you don’t really want to be quoting Palin do you?
Prior to Fox …hmmm are you really suggesting the Right in USA have not had a good media run over the past fifty years?
A clean administration…Surely you are not hankering for and suggesting the Bush administration was clean? Nixon perhaps?
Lastly, I still don’t see any reason that would justify an impeachment, legally that is not because its a full moon and the milksop is in blossom.
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 … 35 »
Your view on “Barry Soetoro” :
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-13
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact