What Grade Would You Give Obama for First 100 Days?

[SirJosephPorter]

I just did a little reading up on Dr. Thomas Sowell, he has quite an impressive background with more than his share of adversity. Until someone can prove otherwise I'd say he has a lot more credibiiity than his detractors, but as always I'm ready to be proven wrong.

I looked him up briefly, and he is a conservative through and through. He belongs to the right wing of the Republican Party; he is part of the Republican Party base. He considers himself to be a Libertarian, but he supports banning abortion. So he is just another conservative masquerading as a libertarian.

His views are probably close to what you believe, so you may find his writings appealing. As for me, he is a right winger, a partisan political hack, and so not reliable. I wouldn’t believe anything Dr. Sewell says.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Oh yes they do, because his views are eminently common sensical.

Earthfire, what is it about conservatives, that they quote far right authors here and expect everybody to accept their word as the Gospel truth? First it was Ezra Levant, now it is Dr. Sewell.

I consider myself a liberal, left of centre. You don’t see me quote far left columnists and ask everybody to take his word as Gospel truth, do you? Do you see me quoting from huffingonpost, or dailykos etc.?

When you quote an extremist, the extremist becomes the subject of discussion, what he said stays aside. If you want to make a point, you will be much better off quoting in support a reputable, a respectable publication, rather than quote Townhall and a well known right winger.

 

[JLM]

I looked him up briefly, and he is a conservative through and through. He belongs to the right wing of the Republican Party; he is part of the Republican Party base. He considers himself to be a Libertarian, but he supports banning abortion. So he is just another conservative masquerading as a libertarian.

His views are probably close to what you believe, so you may find his writings appealing. As for me, he is a right winger, a partisan political hack, and so not reliable. I wouldn’t believe anything Dr. Sewell says.

AS long as you're obsessed with this "left wing"/"right wing" nonsense , very few of the conclusions you draw will have much validity. With you it is a SICKNESS.

 

[Cannuck]

When you quote an extremist, the extremist becomes the subject of discussion, what he said stays aside.

That usually only occurs after somebody has explained why their views are extremist. I'm sure I can speak for a number of members here when I say, disagreeing with SJP does not make one an extremist.

Now, SJP has made it clear that if only 25% of people support something, they are extremists. By his own standards, those that supported the Liberal party in the last election (SJP included) are extremists. When self professed extremists like SJP have problems with Sowell, that is evidence enough for me that Sowell is mainstream.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

AS long as you're obsessed with this "left wing"/"right wing" nonsense , very few of the conclusions you draw will have much validity. With you it is a SICKNESS.

Sorry, JLM, but I just don’t have any time for right wing extremist of any stripe, be it Levant or Sewell.

 

[lone wolf]

Sorry, JLM, but I just don’t have any time for right wing extremist of any stripe, be it Levant or Sewell.

Then you have a very closed mind and are not worth debate anyhow.....

 

[JLM]

Sorry, JLM, but I just don’t have any time for right wing extremist of any stripe, be it Levant or Sewell.

That's fair enough, but is it any worse than "left wing" extremists?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That's fair enough, but is it any worse than "left wing" extremists?

I don’t have any time for left wing extremists either. Have you ever seen me quote a left wing extremist?

 

[JLM]

I don’t have any time for left wing extremists either. Have you ever seen me quote a left wing extremist?

No, but I haven't heard you "bad mouth" them either to near the extent you do the right wing.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No, but I haven't heard you "bad mouth" them either to near the extent you do the right wing.

That is because nobody quotes them here. If somebody quotes them, you will see me badmouth them as well. But liberals here don’t quote left wing extremists, conservatives here seem to be inordinately fond of quoting right wing extremists.

 

[gopher]

''his views are eminently common sensical. ''


:lol:

 

[JLM]

That usually only occurs after somebody has explained why their views are extremist. I'm sure I can speak for a number of members here when I say, disagreeing with SJP does not make one an extremist.

Now, SJP has made it clear that if only 25% of people support something, they are extremists. By his own standards, those that supported the Liberal party in the last election (SJP included) are extremists. When self professed extremists like SJP have problems with Sowell, that is evidence enough for me that Sowell is mainstream.

And before Columbus what percentage of the people supported the theory the world was round (or at least said out loud they supported it)? Percentage, methinks has little to do with extremism.

 

[Cannuck]

And before Columbus what percentage of the people supported the theory the world was round (or at least said out loud they supported it)? Percentage, methinks has little to do with extremism.

Columbus was obviously an extremist.

 

[Extrafire]

And what has Electoral College got to do with anything? When Bush appealed the Florida Supreme Court decision to order recounts to US Supreme Court, the justices voted by a 5 to 4 partisan political vote to hand the election to Bush. Where does Electoral College come into it?

I did suggest that you research the US electoral system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elector...(United_States)


In the US, voters do not vote directly for the president. The framers of the constitution apparently believed that a direct vote would be more susceptible to fraud or (in Hamilton’s words) “little acts of popularity”. It’s also supposed to prevent more populous areas of the country from dominating the election as happens in Canada.

Instead the people vote for “electors” who have the temporary and sole purpose of choosing the president. It actually works fairly well. Judges and members of Congress have been caught taking bribes in the history of the US, but never electors.

This system tallies presidential votes state by state, and each state thus selects its electors. If a certain candidate is more popular in states with large populations, he/she could win a majority of the national vote but still not have the majority of electors and thus lose the election.

Each state has its own election laws, and one of the Florida laws states unequivocally that returns must be filed by 5 P.M. on the seventh day following the general election. Any returns not received by the time specified may be ignored. Gore lost the Florida election, lost the recounts and 2 weeks after the election was still trying to get the judges to change the law in order to give him a fourth chance. There was some speculation that Gore might be trying to delay the selection of Florida’s electors until Dec. 18 which is when all the electors must meet to choose the president, because without them Gore had the majority of electors chosen. In football they call that “running out the clock”, and it’s legitimate. In presidential elections, it’s called cheating. The Florida Supreme Court broke the law by granting an extension past 7 days to 19. On November 26 (long after the legal deadline) Florida Sec. of State Katherine Harris certified the Florida vote giving Bush a 537 vote victory over Gore. On Dec. 4 the US Supreme Court unanimously vacated the Florida SC decision and instructed them to read the constitution and federal law. Yet on Dec. 8 the FSC ordered another recount that added 383 votes to Gores total. On Dec. 9 the USSC ordered recounts stopped in accordance with it’s previous ruling and the law. On Dec 12 the USSC ruled (7-2) that recounts only in some ridings violated the constitutions equal protection clause. (Gore only wanted recounts in ridings that had a high support for him, not the whole state)

 

[Extrafire]

Oh yes they do, because his views are eminently common sensical.

Earthfire, what is it about conservatives, that they quote far right authors here and expect everybody to accept their word as the Gospel truth?

Well I'm not Earthfire but I'll take the liberty of anwering anyway.

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. The local paper here has two regular columnists, one center right and the other center left. While I identify more with the center right author, I tend to agree with the center left opinion fairly often because he has a lot of common sense.

I consider myself a liberal, left of centre.

NO! You don't say!

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

When you quote an extremist, the extremist becomes the subject of discussion, what he said stays aside. If you want to make a point, you will be much better off quoting in support a reputable, a respectable publication, rather than quote Townhall and a well known right winger.

Sowell is only and extremist in your fevered imagination.

 

[JLM]

Columbus was obviously an extremist.

Yeah, well he went to the ends of the earth.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I did suggest that you research the US electoral system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elector...(United_States)


In the US, voters do not vote directly for the president. The framers of the constitution apparently believed that a direct vote would be more susceptible to fraud or (in Hamilton’s words) “little acts of popularity”. It’s also supposed to prevent more populous areas of the country from dominating the election as happens in Canada.

Instead the people vote for “electors” who have the temporary and sole purpose of choosing the president. It actually works fairly well. Judges and members of Congress have been caught taking bribes in the history of the US, but never electors.

This system tallies presidential votes state by state, and each state thus selects its electors. If a certain candidate is more popular in states with large populations, he/she could win a majority of the national vote but still not have the majority of electors and thus lose the election.

Each state has its own election laws, and one of the Florida laws states unequivocally that returns must be filed by 5 P.M. on the seventh day following the general election. Any returns not received by the time specified may be ignored. Gore lost the Florida election, lost the recounts and 2 weeks after the election was still trying to get the judges to change the law in order to give him a fourth chance. There was some speculation that Gore might be trying to delay the selection of Florida’s electors until Dec. 18 which is when all the electors must meet to choose the president, because without them Gore had the majority of electors chosen. In football they call that “running out the clock”, and it’s legitimate. In presidential elections, it’s called cheating. The Florida Supreme Court broke the law by granting an extension past 7 days to 19. On November 26 (long after the legal deadline) Florida Sec. of State Katherine Harris certified the Florida vote giving Bush a 537 vote victory over Gore. On Dec. 4 the US Supreme Court unanimously vacated the Florida SC decision and instructed them to read the constitution and federal law. Yet on Dec. 8 the FSC ordered another recount that added 383 votes to Gores total. On Dec. 9 the USSC ordered recounts stopped in accordance with it’s previous ruling and the law. On Dec 12 the USSC ruled (7-2) that recounts only in some ridings violated the constitutions equal protection clause. (Gore only wanted recounts in ridings that had a high support for him, not the whole state)

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?

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.

Republicans did not forget her duty to the party. They rewarded her with a very safe House seat in Florida. Probably that is what she was angling for. It wouldn’t’ surprise me if she had a deal worked out with Florida GOP, where by she would give each and every decision in favour of Bush and GOP would rewards her with a safe House seat.

Unfortunately, after she won the safe House seat, she thought that she won because she was a great politician. She tried to run for the Senate, and immediately spouted religious right, extreme right nonsense (I think she said that every law must have a basis in the Bible, or something like that). She got into trouble for that, her Senate campaign was still born. I don’t know what she is doing now, but I understand she is a multi-millionaire, I assume she is living the life of luxury.

Katherine Harris was the typical example of Republican sleaze which was sadly all too common in those days (Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay etc.).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Extrafire, regarding that 7-2 Supreme Court decision. There were two decisions. The one that gave Presidency to Bush was 5 to 4, split straight on political partisan lines.

However, even Rehnquist realized that it looked bad for US Supreme Court to render a politically partisan judgment. So he cooked up another judgment, which would have a broader, 7 to 2 support.

I don’t want to Google for it right now (I have to leave). However, as I recall, the 7-2 judgment was on an insignificant point, it was on a general point of law. The real decision, which gave the Presidency to Bush, was 5 to 4, split along partisan political lines.

And you may not think it was a partisan judgment, but even Rehnquist realized that the optics of the judgment looked very bad indeed. He commented on the judgment later on, claiming that it was not political judgment. He also sent his crony, Justice Clarence Thomas to say the same thing. He also claimed that it was not a political judgment.

It is unprecedented for justices to comment on their decisions. That tells me that Rehnquist himself felt uncomfortable about the judgment, he knew it was going to be perceived as a party political vote. And he was right. It was a party political vote.

 

[EagleSmack]

Then you have a very closed mind and are not worth debate anyhow.....

They don't get much more close minded than him and that is for sure.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Well I'm not Earthfire but I'll take the liberty of anwering anyway.

Sorry about the name, Extrafire, it has happened before. I think the spell check changes it from Firstfire to Earthfire. If I don’t go back and correct it, it stays Earthfire.