What Grade Would You Give Obama for First 100 Days?

[SirJosephPorter]

Conservatives like logic, fact and common sense, and when they find a columnist that writes accordingly they like to quote him/her. Simple as that.

Nice try, Extrafire, but not quite. Conservatives think that anything that right wing columnists write is the Gospel truth, and would like everybody to accept it. Hence the insistence in these forums that people accept Levant or Sewell at their word.

NO! You don't say!

I would wager that there's more than a few leftist who are embarrassed by that.

Only ‘more than a few’? I thought you would say that most leftist would be embarrassed by that. Evidently you think more highly of me than I thought.

Sowell is only and extremist in your fevered imagination.

Sure. Mine, and that of CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post and al the mainstream press. Have you read his articles in any of the mainstream newspapers? Is he invited on any of the mainstream TV channels for interview, for comments etc.? He may be invited on FOX, I don’t’ know, I don’t watch FOX.

Mush as you may not like the characterization, Sewell is an extremist.

 

[EagleSmack]

Sure. Mine, and that of CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post and al the mainstream press. Have you read his articles in any of the mainstream newspapers? Is he invited on any of the mainstream TV channels for interview, for comments etc.? He may be invited on FOX, I don’t’ know, I don’t watch FOX.

Funny... All those mainstream newspapers are on the decline...

The percent comparisons are for the same period ending in March 2008. (All daily averages are for Monday through Friday.)

Daily circulation at The New York Times dropped 3.5% to 1,039,031. The Times' Sunday circ was down 1.7% to 1,451,233.

The Washington Post lost 1.6% of its daily circ to 665,383 and 2.3% to 868,965.

Not so mainstream anymore. The NY Times is barely alive. They are threatening to shut down their sister liberal rag The Boston Globe as it is losing money (THE BOSTON GLOBE -- 302,638 -- (-13.68%)) because nobody is reading it!

On the other hand the Boston Herald is doing great!

And we all know that the major network news has been on the decline for years now.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Funny... All those mainstream newspapers are on the decline...

The percent comparisons are for the same period ending in March 2008. (All daily averages are for Monday through Friday.)

Daily circulation at The New York Times dropped 3.5% to 1,039,031. The Times' Sunday circ was down 1.7% to 1,451,233.

The Washington Post lost 1.6% of its daily circ to 665,383 and 2.3% to 868,965.

Not so mainstream anymore. The NY Times is barely alive. They are threatening to shut down their sister liberal rag The Boston Globe as it is losing money (THE BOSTON GLOBE -- 302,638 -- (-13.68%)) because nobody is reading it!

On the other hand the Boston Herald is doing great!

And we all know that the major network news has been on the decline for years now.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT] You are changing the subject, EaglSmack. The question we were discussing was, is Sewell an extremist? The answer is, he clearly is. Sewell is pretty much ignored by the mainstream press.

Whether mainstream press is dying is a separate issue and we could debate it (start a separate thread, if you wish). But don’t change the subject just because you don’t have any answer to the points raised by me.

 

[EagleSmack]

You are changing the subject, EaglSmack. The question we were discussing was, is Sewell an extremist? The answer is, he clearly is. Sewell is pretty much ignored by the mainstream press.

Oh... I thought the name of the thread was "What grade would you give Obama for the first 100 days" not "Is Sewell an extremist".

Oh wait... I was right the first time.

Whether mainstream press is dying is a separate issue

Oh it's dying and not really mainstream.

and we could debate it (start a separate thread, if you wish). But don’t change the subject just because you don’t have any answer to the points raised by me.

Sure pot... I am kettle.

Translation...

"You got me again Eaglesmack and I would rather not talk about it. Even though the nature of this thread and many threads change as they go on, I would rather you not call me on things that I declare as facts when in fact they are only my opinions or my incessant babble."

 

[Extrafire]

Again, thanks for the lecture. But what does all this have to do with the fact that the Republican Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, gave Presidency to their Buddy, Bush?

You asked what the electoral college had to do with that US election. So I explained it to you. Now you know a few basics of their presidential election system.

One thing about Katherine Harris. She stayed loyal to Bush all the way to the end, each and every decision of hers as the Secretary of State favoured Bush, and went against Gore.

She was put in a very difficult situation by the Florida SC. As sec. of state she was required to uphold the law of the land, yet here was the court contravening that law. She did bow to the FSC and waited for 19 days to declare the winner instead of the 7 day time limit that the law required. That illegal wait was in favor of Gore. When she did declare Bush the winner (at the end of the 19 day period that the FSC ordered) she went according to the last vote count. That has nothing to do with loyalty to Bush, she made no decision, he was ahead. Duh!
[/quote]

 

[Extrafire]

Extrafire, regarding that 7-2 Supreme Court decision. There were two decisions.

There were several decisions.

as I recall, the 7-2 judgment was on an insignificant point, it was on a general point of law.

I already told you what it was about. Gore wanted recounts only in those districts that voted heavily for him, and that's where they took place. The USSC ruled that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution. Sorry, but the FSC violating the US constitution isn't an insignificant point of law. .

And you may not think it was a partisan judgment,

You've made it very clear that you consider any judgement that favors Bush (or anyone else you're opposed to) to be partisan. I wonder why you haven't noticed that the FSC decisions and orders were blatantly partisan. The Chief Justice of the FSC was a financial contributer to Gore, yet did not recuse himself as required. All their orders and decisions in this case violated Florida law and/or the US constitution. That is what partisan judgement looks like.
[/quote]

 

[SirJosephPorter]

As sec. of state she was required to uphold the law of the land, yet here was the court contravening that law.

Extrafire, so you are a constitutional expert in Florida law, I didn’t know. Indeed, you must be one of the best constitutional law experts (if not the best) in Florida, if you can pass expert judgment on Florida Supreme Court, if you can authoritatively say that the poor, ignorant Supreme Court justices broke the law. Have you recommended any sanctions to the governor, impeachment or something like that?

She was put in a very difficult situation by the Florida SC.

Not at all, I think chances are very high that she worked out a deal with Florida GOP. Favorable decisions to Bush all the way, in return for a safe House seat. She took several decisions, all of which were in favour of Bush, and against Gore.

That has nothing to do with loyalty to Bush, she made no decision, he was ahead. Duh!

Indeed, she declared Bush the winner. She belonged to religious right (in fact, that is what sunk her Senate campaign, she shot off her mouth about how US laws should be based upon the Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible) and Bush was the darling of religious right. So you do the math.

 

[Extrafire]

Nice try, Extrafire, but not quite. Conservatives think that anything that right wing columnists write is the Gospel truth, and would like everybody to accept it.

No, that's just your rationalization. You use that as a way of avoiding having to refute their points.

Hence the insistence in these forums that people accept Levant or Sewell at their word.

None of us have ever insisted on that, or even suggested it. Their columns and statements are made available for anyone to either support or refute, just like our own personal statements. That's because conservatives tend to require fact, logic and data to make up their minds, something that lefties are rather unfamilliar with.

Only ‘more than a few’? I thought you would say that most leftist would be embarrassed by that.

That is what "more than a few" used in that context means.


They say that alzheimers patients don't recognize sarcasm......:roll:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Oh... I thought the name of the thread was "What grade would you give Obama for the first 100 days" not "Is Sewell an extremist".

Oh wait... I was right the first time.



Oh it's dying and not really mainstream.



Sure pot... I am kettle.

Translation...

"You got me again Eaglesmack and I would rather not talk about it. Even though the nature of this thread and many threads change as they go on, I would rather you not call me on things that I declare as facts when in fact they are only my opinions or my incessant babble."

EagleSmack, that is a good effort to change the subject. But that does not change the subject. We were discussing if Sewell is an extremist. Which he clearly is. Whether the mainstream press is dead (as a conservative, obviously you would think that, you wish it dead), what is the subject of the thread, all these are attempts on your part to change the subject.

We were discussing if Sewell is an extremist, and he clearly is. He rarely makes any appearance in the mainstream press.

 

[DaSleeper]

Nine years later........and still counting chads....

and in Canada:roll:

 

[Extrafire]

Extrafire, so you are a constitutional expert in Florida law, I didn’t know.

You think I need to be a constitutional expert to read?

Not at all, I think chances are very high that she worked out a deal with Florida GOP. Favorable decisions to Bush all the way, in return for a safe House seat. She took several decisions, all of which were in favour of Bush, and against Gore.

I've laid out the situtation she was in. Explain to me how that wasn't difficult. I'm also interested in hearing what decisions she made.

That has nothing to do with loyalty to Bush, she made no decision, he was ahead. Duh!

Indeed, she declared Bush the winner. She belonged to religious right (in fact, that is what sunk her Senate campaign, she shot off her mouth about how US laws should be based upon the Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible) and Bush was the darling of religious right. So you do the math.

Let's see. Her job was to declare the winner based on who had the most votes. Bush had the most votes. So you think if she was non-partisan she would have declared Gore the winner, even though he had less votes.8O

 

[Extrafire]

Sir Joe, I have a suggestion . You may just not want to bother with this but I find it's easier that copying and pasting (and colouring) quotes.

Just click on the "quote this" button at the bottom of my post. Then you can interrupt my quote by copying the [/quote] from the end of my quote and paste it wherever you want to interject. After you've written your comment then go to the beginning of my quote and copy

and put it in front of my remaining comment. You can also erase parts that you don't want to include.

Just a suggestion. It would make it a bit easier for me to reply to your posts containing quotes.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

There were several decisions.

No, Extrafire, there were only two, one was 7-2, the other was 5-4.


The USSC ruled that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution. Sorry, but the FSC violating the US constitution isn't an insignificant point of law. .

As I said, the 7-2 decision was on a general point of law. Rehnquist knew that he and his conservative friends will be accused of handing down a partisan political judgment. To give himself some kind of cover, he cooked up a general decision, which will have a broader support. That judgement did NOT stop the recount.


Seven justices (the five Justice majority plus Breyer and Souter) agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties. This was the 7-2 decision. This decision says nothing about stopping the recount.

Five justices agreed that December 12 (the date of the decision) was the deadline Florida had established for recounts (Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist,[27] Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer,[28] Ginsburg, Souter[29] and Stevens opposed). Justices Breyer and Souter wanted to remand the case back to the Florida Supreme Court to permit that court to establish uniform standards of what constituted a legal vote and then manually recount all ballots using those standards.

This was the 5-4 decision which handed the election to their buddy, Bush.

Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You've made it very clear that you consider any judgment that favors Bush (or anyone else you're opposed to) to be partisan.

It was not just me; most of the Democrats considered it a partisan judgment. Indeed, Rehnquist himself knew that it will be regarded as a partisan judgment. That is why he and Justice Thomas took the unprecedented step of denying that it was a political partisan judgment.

Supreme Court got a big black eye out of the whole affair.

 

[Extrafire]

There were several decisions.

No, Extrafire, there were only two, one was 7-2, the other was 5-4.

Dec. 4, USSC vacates FSC decision and orders them to read up on the constitution and federal law.

Dec. 9, USSC orders recounts stopped.

Dec. 12, USSC rules the partial recount unconstitutional violation of Equal Protection clause. (A minority (3) also find that it violates Article II of the constitution.)

That's 3 rulings by the USSC. OK, it's hardly several.

As I said, the 7-2 decision was on a general point of law.

You said insignificant. Not hardly!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I am talking here of the final decision, Firstfire.

Dec. 12, USSC rules the partial recount unconstitutional violation of Equal Protection clause. (A minority (3) also find that it violates Article II of the constitution.)

On Dec. 12, there were two decisions, one was 7-2. This decision says that it was wrong to use different criteria in different places. But it did NOT stop any recounts.

Again on Dec. 12, the second decision was 5-4. This one DID stop the recounts.

Actually if you consider all the decision rendered in December you are right that is a lot. Don’t sell yourself short.

However, I was talking of the final decision, and there were two on the final day, one 7-2, the other 5-4.

You said insignificant. Not hardly!

No decision by Supreme Court is insignificant, anything rendered by Supreme Court has a greet deal of influence somewhere down the line.

This decision was insignificant in that it did not stop the recount. If the other decision, 5-4 had not been rendered, this decision would have sent the matter back to Florida Supreme Court, who would have to reorganize the recounts.

So as far as giving the election to Bush, the decision was insignificant.

 

[JLM]

Seems to me the last couple of dozen posts are miles away from the topic of rating Obama- what happened 8 years ago in Florida between Bush and Gore has absolutely nothing to do with Obama's rating- seems to me like a very few people just have to be right about something. Let's get back to Obama.

 

[ironsides]

Not that it matters anymore, but Bill Clinton did have some responsibility for the bank and mortgage crisis.


Clinton mentioned.
McCain, Obama camps point fingers in banking deregulation, mortgage messes - Phoenix Business Journal:


Breaking the banks - Bill Clinton's economic policies
Breaking the banks - Bill Clinton's economic policies | National Review | Find Articles at BNET


Bill Clinton's Role in the Mortgage Crisis
Progressive Historians: History For Our Future

 

[Extrafire]

However, I was talking of the final decision, and there were two on the final day, one 7-2, the other 5-4.

Well that would make 4 decisions. I guess that is "several" after all.

No decision by Supreme Court is insignificant, anything rendered by Supreme Court has a greet deal of influence somewhere down the line.

Yet you were the one who called it insignificant. :roll:

This decision was insignificant in that it did not stop the recount.

It was significant because it ruled on a violation of the constitution.

If the other decision, 5-4 had not been rendered, this decision would have sent the matter back to Florida Supreme Court, who would have to reorganize the recounts.

So as far as giving the election to Bush, the decision was insignificant.

The electors gave the election to Bush in accordance with the law.

 

[Kreskin]

He's walking on water.

 

[Ron in Regina]

He's walking on water.

Weirdly enough, If you Google (images) "Obama walks on water," there are
lots of images....