Constitution Is Endangered If Kagan OK'd
By PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY (http://theunknownzone.us/Search/SearchResults.aspx?source=filterSearch&Ntt=PHYLLIS+SCHLAFLY&Nr=AND(Author%3aPHYLLIS+SCHLAFLY))
Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth."
Now that Obama is president, he has the power to nominate Supreme Court justices who will "break free" from the Constitution and join him in "fundamentally transforming" America. That's the essence of his choice of Elena Kagan as his second Supreme Court nominee. She never was a judge, and her paper trail is short. But it's long enough to prove that she is a clear and present danger to the Constitution.
When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court.
The polar opposite of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "all legislative powers" are vested in the elected legislative body, Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process" and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs."
Barak wrote that a judge "is subject to no authority" except himself, and he "must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundamental values not yet found in it." Channel? Does he mean he channels in a trance, as Hillary Clinton supposedly channeled discourse with the long-deceased Eleanor Roosevelt?
Despite Barak's weirdo writings, or maybe because of them, Kagan called him her "judicial hero." Judge Robert Bork, a man careful with his words, says Kagan's praise of Barak is "disqualifying in and of itself." Bork said that Barak "establishes a world record for judicial hubris." He wrote that Barak embraces a judicial philosophy that "there is no area of Israeli life that the court may not govern."
During Kagan's confirmation hearing for solicitor general, Sen. Arlen Specter asked her views on using foreign or international law or decisions to interpret our Constitution and laws. She wrote in reply that she approves using "reasonable foreign law arguments." Au contraire. The U.S. Constitution says our judges "shall be bound" by "the Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof."
Extreme Feminism
Federal law requires all educational institutions receiving federal funds to present an educational program on the U.S. Constitution on every Constitution Day, Sept. 17. Kagan thumbed her nose at Constitution Day 2007 by hiring a transnationalist to the Harvard faculty, Noah Feldman, and featuring him for two days of speeches.
Transnationalists are lawyers who advocate integrating foreign and international law into the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws. In his Harvard Constitution Day address, Feldman urged the "use of international legal materials in constitutional decision-making ... to help actually decide cases," and opined that "international tribunals' rulings must be treated as law."
Kagan's hero is also a transnationalist. In his book "The Judge in a Democracy," he sharply criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court for failing to cite foreign law, and he praises Canada, Australia and Germany for their "enlightened democratic legal systems."
Kagan is particularly inappropriate because this anti-military woman would replace the only veteran on the court, John Paul Stevens. As Harvard Law School dean, she signed a brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn or rewrite the Solomon Amendment, which she called "profoundly wrong."
That popular law denies federal funds to colleges that bar military recruiters from campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Kagan's argument, proving what an extremist she is.
Kagan showed her feminist extremism when she served as the lead White House strategist advising President Clinton to veto the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Ten years later, substantially the same act was passed by Congress, signed by President Bush and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Feldman has published a New York Times magazine article in which he worries about how the high court will rule on lawsuits over ObamaCare, Obama's corporate takeovers and the stimulus spending cronyism. Feldman hopes Kagan's appointment means "the moment has arrived for progressive constitutional thought" to seize the courts .
The left is counting on Kagan to play a major role in getting the Supreme Court to uphold Obama's transformation of our exceptional private enterprise system to a socialist economy. The New Republic magazine is salivating at the prospect that Kagan will reassert the discredited doctrine of the "living Constitution."
A Rasmussen poll reports 42% of Americans oppose Kagan's confirmation, and only 35% favor her. Are senators listening?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 30, 2010, 10:55:59 AMConstitution Is Endangered If Hagan OK'd By PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY (http://theunknownzone.us/Search/SearchResults.aspx?source=filterSearch&Ntt=PHYLLIS+SCHLAFLY&Nr=AND(Author%3aPHYLLIS+SCHLAFLY)) Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth." Now that Obama is president, he has the power to nominate Supreme Court justices who will "break free" from the Constitution and join him in "fundamentally transforming" America. That's the essence of his choice of Elena Hagan as his second Supreme Court nominee. She never was a judge, and her paper trail is short. But it's long enough to prove that she is a clear and present danger to the Constitution. When Hagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court. The polar opposite of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "all legislative powers" are vested in the elected legislative body, Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process" and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs." Barak wrote that a judge "is subject to no authority" except himself, and he "must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundamental values not yet found in it." Channel? Does he mean he channels in a trance, as Hillary Clinton supposedly channeled discourse with the long-deceased Eleanor Roosevelt? Despite Barak's weirdo writings, or maybe because of them, Hagan called him her "judicial hero." Judge Robert Bork, a man careful with his words, says Kagan's praise of Barak is "disqualifying in and of itself." Bork said that Barak "establishes a world record for judicial hubris." He wrote that Barak embraces a judicial philosophy that "there is no area of Israeli life that the court may not govern." During Kagan's confirmation hearing for solicitor general, Sen. Arlen Specter asked her views on using foreign or international law or decisions to interpret our Constitution and laws. She wrote in reply that she approves using "reasonable foreign law arguments." Au contraire. The U.S. Constitution says our judges "shall be bound" by "the Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof." Extreme Feminism Federal law requires all educational institutions receiving federal funds to present an educational program on the U.S. Constitution on every Constitution Day, Sept. 17. Hagan thumbed her nose at Constitution Day 2007 by hiring a transnationalist to the Harvard faculty, Noah Feldman, and featuring him for two days of speeches. Transnationalists are lawyers who advocate integrating foreign and international law into the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws. In his Harvard Constitution Day address, Feldman urged the "use of international legal materials in constitutional decision-making ... to help actually decide cases," and opined that "international tribunals' rulings must be treated as law." Kagan's hero is also a transnationalist. In his book "The Judge in a Democracy," he sharply criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court for failing to cite foreign law, and he praises Canada, Australia and Germany for their "enlightened democratic legal systems." Hagan is particularly inappropriate because this anti-military woman would replace the only veteran on the court, John Paul Stevens. As Harvard Law School dean, she signed a brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn or rewrite the Solomon Amendment, which she called "profoundly wrong." That popular law denies federal funds to colleges that bar military recruiters from campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Kagan's argument, proving what an extremist she is. Hagan showed her feminist extremism when she served as the lead White House strategist advising President Clinton to veto the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Ten years later, substantially the same act was passed by Congress, signed by President Bush and upheld by the Supreme Court. Feldman has published a New York Times magazine article in which he worries about how the high court will rule on lawsuits over ObamaCare, Obama's corporate takeovers and the stimulus spending cronyism. Feldman hopes Kagan's appointment means "the moment has arrived for progressive constitutional thought" to seize the courts . The left is counting on Hagan to play a major role in getting the Supreme Court to uphold Obama's transformation of our exceptional private enterprise system to a socialist economy. The New Republic magazine is salivating at the prospect that Hagan will reassert the discredited doctrine of the "living Constitution." A Rasmussen poll reports 42% of Americans oppose Kagan's confirmation, and only 35% favor her. Are senators listening?
:fireworks: :fireworks: You want to quote Phyllis Schlafly, pinched nosed, pursed lips, old church lady who for years spend all of her time trying to take women's right to own their own bodies. Trying to get the government and The Supreme Court to make abortion illegal. Who's own uterus had went bye bye or dried up. Minding someone Else's business and lyhing, that's her business.
Constitution endangered with Hagan, hell no. The constitution was put in danger with Robert's. Who pushed the giving to corporations the same rights as a human being.
Oh, she has never been a judge, Oh how terrible. William Rehnquist who was nominated by Nixon for justice and Reagan for Chief Justice was never a judge. How in hell did that get by the Republicans.
Red Neck Jess Sessions and Lindsay Graham, who should come out of the closet, giving her hell for not letting the military recruiters on the campus of Harvard. Is bull shit, smoke and mirrors. Every day these Republican "inquisitors" look more and more just stupid. Is there no end to the Republican shit. :deadhorse:
Oh, this is great! I thought this was going to be another of of those irrational-fear-created-by- fact-challenged-right-wing-propaganda-being-meted-out-by-Henry threads.
Just call me The Amazing Kreskin :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 30, 2010, 03:09:38 PM
Oh, this is great! I thought this was going to be another of of those irrational-fear-created-by- fact-challenged-right-wing-propaganda-being-meted-out-by-Henry threads.
Just call me The Amazing Kreskin :rolleyes:
Hey Kreskin, guess what I am thinkin NOW?
That your post has some merit because you "agree with a lot of what she says" and that I'm being short-sighted or biased b/c I pointed out that it's crap.
SSDD
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 30, 2010, 04:31:26 PM
That your post has some merit because you "agree with a lot of what she says" and that I'm being short-sighted or biased b/c I pointed out that it's crap.
SSDD
:o AMAZING!! Do it again!
LoL! :biggrin:
Henry is quoting Phyllis Schlafly? Holy shit. I must now reconsider my opinion of Henry's powers of discernment.
Tell me, Hank, how do you lend any credibility to a women who made a CAREER out of demonizing women who have careers?
I have to agree.
I'm very disappointed.
Quote from: followsthewolf on June 30, 2010, 06:57:49 PM
I have to agree.
I'm very disappointed.
Let's face it FTW, the kid is brain dead. :flap: :flap: :flap: :yes:
First of all, I can careless if Schlafly is respected by you guys or not....she made a few very interesting observations that brought attention to me, that has REAL concern about ANYONE who may potentially become our next SCOTUS.
She point out that Kagan's personal hero is this Isreali activist judge AharonBarak...
She commented that Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process" and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs."......and that...a judge "is subject to no authority" except himself.....I find this attituted quite disturbing....also she believes that ... integrating foreign and international law into the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws....THAT is a load of crap in my opinion....The U.S. Constitution states that our judges "shall be bound" by "the Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof.".....
Now if anyone here has NO problem that a SCOTUS should be able to "Make and Create" laws....then we truly are sinking quickly as a nation....I hope and pray that this woman does NOT get confirmed.....I hope and pray that IF democrats simply try to pass her on, that at least the republicans has the courage to fillibust her..........
I really wish that you guys would quit merely accepting everything that this POTUS does as something good, just because he is a great speaker, or just because he is a democrat, and take ONE thing serious, and examine WHAT is being done....the Healthcare Bill is a joke...and this nominee reflects more of this man's logic and inability to lead this country....
Keep on hammering away at me, I am NEVER going to back down from what I know is RIGHT and WRONG for this country....ya'll are stuck with me!! :razz:
When you're hot, you're hot!
And damn! I'm on fire!
Predictions .25ç @ the sandbar ;D
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 01, 2010, 08:27:24 AMFirst of all, I can careless if Schlafly is respected by you guys or not....she made a few very interesting observations that brought attention to me, that has REAL concern about ANYONE who may potentially become our next SCOTUS. She point out that Kagan's personal hero is this Isreali activist judge AharonBarak... She commented that Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process" and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs."......and that...a judge "is subject to no authority" except himself.....I find this attituted quite disturbing....also she believes that ... integrating foreign and international law into the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws....THAT is a load of crap in my opinion....The U.S. Constitution states that our judges "shall be bound" by "the Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof."..... Now if anyone here has NO problem that a SCOTUS should be able to "Make and Create" laws....then we truly are sinking quickly as a nation....I hope and pray that this woman does NOT get confirmed.....I hope and pray that IF democrats simply try to pass her on, that at least the republicans has the courage to fillibust her.......... I really wish that you guys would quit merely accepting everything that this POTUS does as something good, just because he is a great speaker, or just because he is a democrat, and take ONE thing serious, and examine WHAT is being done....the Healthcare Bill is a joke...and this nominee reflects more of this man's logic and inability to lead this country.... Keep on hammering away at me, I am NEVER going to back down from what I know is RIGHT and WRONG for this country....ya'll are stuck with me!! :razz:
No George W. , sorry I mean Henry, your never wrong like you idol George W. was never wrong.
Talk about your activist Judges. How about Roberts and his cronies in the Supreme Court, giving the corporations cartblanch in spending money in the elections and taking away your property and selling to private companies so they can make more money it taxes. Yeah, we want more Roberts to screw the common man to death. The bastard. :devil29:
So, you guys have NO problem that a SCOTUS should be able to "Make and Create" laws?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 30, 2010, 10:55:59 AM
Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth."[/i]
She lied. And even worse, she picked unrelated comments and put them together to mean something totally different than what was actually said.
A transcript of what Obama ACTUALLY SAID!
"OBAMA: Right, and it essentially has never happened. I mean, I think that, you know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order in, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.
And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200810280021 (http://mediamatters.org/research/200810280021)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 01, 2010, 09:39:01 AMSo, you guys have NO problem that a SCOTUS should be able to "Make and Create" laws?
IT IS ALL RIGHT WITH ME. If the Supreme Court make laws to protect the people of the United States, IT IS ALL RIGHT WITH ME.
But laws giving the rich the right to rule over us is wrong. Like the state, county, cities and towns taking our property and selling to the moneyed people and giving corporations the same rights as Humans and that is WHAT Is WRONG. That is wrong, isn't it, Henry? Or do the rich and the corporations they own get everything.
The Troll, :flag: :flag: :flag: For the American people, not the rich and the corporations they own.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 01, 2010, 09:39:01 AM
So, you guys have NO problem that a SCOTUS should be able to "Make and Create" laws?
Has Kagan ever actually said that?
Quote from: Olias on July 01, 2010, 10:17:59 AMHas Kagan ever actually said that?
I don't think so. But Olias you had to open Pandra's box didn't you. Henry or "ME" will come up with something from Grlen Beck or the Fox News channel to prove it. So hang on, you started it. :love: the Troll :kiss: :tiphat: ZOO LU LU BOO BOO :smash: :salute:
Quote from: The Troll on July 01, 2010, 10:15:02 AM
IT IS ALL RIGHT WITH ME. If the Supreme Court make laws to protect the people of the United States, IT IS ALL RIGHT WITH ME.
But laws giving the rich the right to rule over us is wrong. Like the state, county, cities and towns taking our property and selling to the moneyed people and giving corporations the same rights as Humans and that is WHAT Is WRONG. That is wrong, isn't it, Henry? Or do the rich and the corporations they own get everything.
The Troll, :flag: :flag: :flag: For the American people, not the rich and the corporations they own.
First of all Troll, I whole heartedly disagee that we should go against our Constitution and allow our SCOTUS to make the laws or create laws...that goes against what our forefathers worked very hard at designing to give us one of the most balanced Govenments...I do not disagree with you on laws giving the rich the right to rule over us...but we the people have the right to control that IF and WHEN we get mad enough to start firing those politicians that are allowing that...
Troll, I too am VERY much for the middle class Americans...but I do not hate the rich folks either....I agree, that greed is hard to govern, but I still believe that TOO much power belonging to politicians in Washington is JUST as, if NOT more so dangerous to this country..............I really don't think we are ALL that far apart from what we want as Americans...
Quote from: The Troll on July 01, 2010, 10:41:53 AM
I don't think so. But Olias you had to open Pandra's box didn't you. Henry or "ME" will come up with something from Grlen Beck or the Fox News channel to prove it. So hang on, you started it. :love: the Troll :kiss: :tiphat: ZOO LU LU BOO BOO :smash: :salute:
Naw..... they'll use that old "guilty by association" ploy, but they won't be able to find where Kagan ever said it.
Because she didn't.
Speaking of guilty by association .....
Most people seem to admire Winston Churchill. This quote from him is one of my favorites ...
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
Quote from: Olias on July 01, 2010, 10:17:59 AM
Has Kagan ever actually said that?
Not that I am aware of, but she has stated, this about Barak, that "He is the judge or justice in my lifetime whom I think best represents and has best advanced the values of democracy and human rights, of the rule of law and of justice,"...she has also said "that he is my judicial hero".......All I can do is take these bits of information that we are getting from these hearings and make conclusions....this is a lifetime appointment....we cannot vote anyone out if we decide later we don't like them.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 01, 2010, 10:46:46 AMFirst of all Troll, I whole heartedly disagee that we should go against our Constitution and allow our SCOTUS to make the laws or create laws...that goes against what our forefathers worked very hard at designing to give us one of the most balanced Govenments...I do not disagree with you on laws giving the rich the right to rule over us...but we the people have the right to control that IF and WHEN we get mad enough to start firing those politicians that are allowing that... Troll, I too am VERY much for the middle class Americans...but I do not hate the rich folks either....I agree, that greed is hard to govern, but I still believe that TOO much power belonging to politicians in Washington is JUST as, if NOT more so dangerous to this country..............I really don't think we are ALL that far apart from what we want as Americans...
Henry, I know how hard of forefathers worked on the Constitution. But Henry, it was 1776 and a lot of water has went over the dam. These men never knew what a germ was, never seen a sperm, know nothing about modern science, didn't know what a soy bean was. Didn't have no idea of what a bank industry was or how large it would get. What a corporation was or how large they would get. They did know that any wound to the brain or body cavaity was fatal. If you got sick you just drew off some blood and prayed, people got well. Things change and things, Humans or Animals that don't change die and that's the same with the Constitution. If you don't change with the way things are growing it will die. The Cons tution is living thing. There are many deadly forces in this country that would like to see the Constitution die.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 30, 2010, 03:09:38 PM
Just call me The Amazing Kreskin
You're
flamboyant clairvoyant!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 01, 2010, 08:27:24 AM
Keep on hammering away at me, I am NEVER going to back down from what I know is RIGHT and WRONG for this country....ya'll are stuck with me!!
Of course not because your ego is too big to even consider the possibility that you are wrong even while everyone around you (with the exception of 'me'...think that through) is telling you that you are and why. I'm thinking that if I was surrounded by people, many of whom were obviously better educated and better read than I, who disagreed with my position, maybe, just maybe, I may want to humble myself and allow for the possibility that it isn't everyone else but me whose thinking is off. Just sayin'.
. . ."When you get on the bench [and] you put on the robe, your only master is the rule of law," she said, adding that she would be "independent and not favor any political party."
Kagan cited the example of Justice Robert Jackson, a Democrat who served as solicitor general and attorney general during President Franklin Roosevelt's administration. Once appointed to the Supreme Court, "he was as independent as they come," she said.. . .
. . .Asked to give her opinion on the large number of recent 5-4 Supreme Court rulings, Kagan said "every judge has to do what he or she thinks the law requires." But "the court is served best and our country is served best when people trust the court as an entirely nonpolitical body.". . .
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/30/pol.senate.supreme.court/index.html?hpt=Sbin (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/30/pol.senate.supreme.court/index.html?hpt=Sbin)
Quote from: Olias on July 01, 2010, 09:54:21 AM
She lied. And even worse, she picked unrelated comments and put them together to mean something totally different than what was actually said.
Henry proved in the run up to the last presidential election that that is a perfectly acceptable tactic so long as his agenda is met. So much for those pesky commandments. :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Troll on July 01, 2010, 11:21:13 AM
Henry, I know how hard of forefathers worked on the Constitution. But Henry, it was 1776 and a lot of water has went over the dam. These men never knew what a germ was, never seen a sperm, know nothing about modern science, didn't know what a soy bean was. Didn't have no idea of what a bank industry was or how large it would get. What a corporation was or how large they would get. They did know that any wound to the brain or body cavaity was fatal. If you got sick you just drew off some blood and prayed, people got well. Things change and things, Humans or Animals that don't change die and that's the same with the Constitution. If you don't change with the way things are growing it will die. The Cons tution is living thing. There are many deadly forces in this country that would like to see the Constitution die.
The Constitution has created the most significant piece of writting that we can NEVER let go....and that is the system of checks and balances that it incorporates.....the founding fathers knew the effects of allowing one group to establish too much power within a county...that is why they established the check and balances system, so no one branch could become all-powerful....
Quote from: Exterminator on July 01, 2010, 11:33:31 AM
Of course not because your ego is too big to even consider the possibility that you are wrong even while everyone around you (with the exception of 'me'...think that through) is telling you that you are and why. I'm thinking that if I was surrounded by people, many of whom were obviously better educated and better read than I, who disagreed with my position, maybe, just maybe, I may want to humble myself and allow for the possibility that it isn't everyone else but me whose thinking is off. Just sayin'.
That is not entirely true, I have lessened my stance on some issues, due to my wacknut friend's here on the zone.. :razz: ...I have at the least grasped WHY some of you believe in what you believe...I tend to think that some ego's on here are prohibiting them from understanding some simple and basic understandings of conservatism....too many on here are wearing blinders, and have already made up their minds to many issues, just as you accuse me of.
I am not as nearly hard headed as I was when I first joined the Hey Martha days, but some issues are clearly black and white to me....despite the attempts at painting them by my counterparts...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 01, 2010, 11:51:17 AM
I have lessened my stance on some issues, due to my wacknut friend's here on the zone.. :razz: ...
WELL, ZOO LU LU BOO BOO :smash: to you, too!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 01, 2010, 09:39:01 AM
So, you guys have NO problem that a SCOTUS should be able to "Make and Create" laws?
Quote from: Olias on July 01, 2010, 10:17:59 AM
Has Kagan ever actually said that?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 01, 2010, 11:07:54 AM
Not that I am aware of
So your answer is "NO"
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 01, 2010, 11:07:54 AM
All I can do is take these bits of information that we are getting from these hearings and make conclusions....
You didn't get that information from the hearings. You got it from that lying Phyllis Schlafly hit piece.
Quote from: LOsborne on June 30, 2010, 06:49:50 PM
Henry is quoting Phyllis Schlafly? Holy shit. I must now reconsider my opinion of Henry's powers of discernment.
Tell me, Hank, how do you lend any credibility to a women who made a CAREER out of demonizing women who have careers?
I thought it was well established that Schlafly is a loon, but I'm not surprised to see HH using a piece written by her. Don't forget that the spawn of her polluted womb gave rise to this nexus of faux intellectualism.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Olias on July 01, 2010, 09:54:21 AM
A transcript of what Obama ACTUALLY SAID!
Congratulations, Olias. You have just proved that Henry doesn't even have enough integrity to fact-check his
own sources.
... and he is also a deceptive little drone. Anybody catch this quote?
Quoteshe has stated, this about Barak, that "He is the judge or justice
She was speaking of Aharon Barak, a justice on the Israeli Supreme Court. Henry hopes you won't look it up, and will think she means the President.
Quote from: LOsborne on July 01, 2010, 07:20:10 PM
Congratulations, Olias. You have just proved that Henry doesn't even have enough integrity to fact-check his own sources.
... and he is also a deceptive little drone. Anybody catch this quote?
She was speaking of Aharon Barak, a justice on the Israeli Supreme Court. Henry hopes you won't look it up, and will think she means the President.
:busted:
Quote from: LOsborne on July 01, 2010, 07:20:10 PM
Congratulations, Olias. You have just proved that Henry doesn't even have enough integrity to fact-check his own sources.
... and he is also a deceptive little drone. Anybody catch this quote?
She was speaking of Aharon Barak, a justice on the Israeli Supreme Court. Henry hopes you won't look it up, and will think she means the President.
Lolly, knock it off, you are starting to piss me off.........I said from the very beginning that she was talking about Aharon Barak...go back and look....
I tell you what you guys are about the biggest babies.......you take EVERYTHING I say, and turn it into something other than the point I was making....
talk about the inability to do research...........you guys are the most two-faced, tunnel vision, left winged losers I have ever faced....
you act like this is some national forum.....we have about 10 of us.....I think what it comes down to is, that you are seeing first hand how the left is failing and you can't stomach it.....so you guy attack those who point out the obvious to you.....
pathetic, really!!
:nocomment: I just sit'n back and watch'n Henry get his ass torn off and handed to him. :rotfl: :rotfl: :pray:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 02, 2010, 08:14:21 AM
...talk about the inability to do research...........you guys are the most two-faced, tunnel vision, left winged losers I have ever faced....
Non sequitur. What does an ability to do research have to do with being two-faced, tunnel vision, left winged losers?
Or was that just a gratuitous insult to obscure the fact that you didn't bother to check out the truth of Schlafly's little comedy routine, and just passed it on mindlessly as fact?
Quote from: LOsborne on July 02, 2010, 08:24:06 AM
Non sequitur. What does an ability to do research have to do with being two-faced, tunnel vision, left winged losers?
Or was that just a gratuitous insult to obscure the fact that you didn't bother to check out the truth of Schlafly's little comedy routine, and just passed it on mindlessly as fact?
yeah go with that Lolly........everything I stated was truthful
Quote from: Exterminator on July 01, 2010, 11:33:31 AM
Of course not because your ego is too big to even consider the possibility that you are wrong even while everyone around you (with the exception of 'me'...think that through) is telling you that you are and why. I'm thinking that if I was surrounded by people, many of whom were obviously better educated and better read than I, who disagreed with my position, maybe, just maybe, I may want to humble myself and allow for the possibility that it isn't everyone else but me whose thinking is off. Just sayin'.
You're pretty amazing yourself! Very perceptive. :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 02, 2010, 08:30:46 AM
yeah go with that Lolly........everything I stated was truthful
Wait a minute .... does that statement mean that you think you can post a hit-piece by Phyllis Schlafly that is full of lies and misinformation, but you're off the hook because you didn't say it?
Sad, Hank!
Quote from: Olias on July 02, 2010, 09:45:22 AM
Wait a minute .... does that statement mean that you think you can post a hit-piece by Phyllis Schlafly that is full of lies and misinformation, but you're off the hook because you didn't say it?
Sad, Hank!
Based on the piece I posted at the beginning of this thread.........show me the "lies' that she stated....and don't put words in mouth that I did not say.....and I will say another thing.....just because you don't agree with someone's opinon pieces doesn't mean I won't keep on posting them if I find they have a point to get across....and if you don't like it; get over it.....this administration is full of lies and misinformation, but you are okeedoke with that.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 02, 2010, 09:56:30 AM
Based on the piece I posted at the beginning of this thread.........show me the "lies' that she stated
:rant:
I already showed you her lies. Last post on page one. Everybody else seems to have read it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 02, 2010, 09:56:30 AM
just because you don't agree with someone's opinon pieces doesn't mean I won't keep on posting them if I find they have a point to get across
Oh I get it. The end justifies the means. Even it the "means" involves
LYING to get your "point" across.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 02, 2010, 09:56:30 AM
....and if you don't like it; get over it.....this administration is full of lies and misinformation, but you are okeedoke with that.
Did I say I was "okeedoke" with that? Hey, bubba! don't "put words in my mouth" either!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck)
okay BUBBA! :rolleyes:
Watch this....this is the actual radio segment where Obama himself is speaking about... the was NO LIE at all....he said exactly what she said he said....with the very intent that he believes that it is a tragedy that the courts cannot redistribute wealth....for civil rights or whatever....redistributing wealth is what he wants...and would love for the courts to have that power...
listen carefully, that is what he is saying....I say you have a problem thinking that "media matters" is the gospel and assume they always have thier facts right... :rolleyes:
Too bad you can't read, Hank, and you have to rely on poorly edited BoobTube with typos in them to get your information. But if you noticed, the written transcript was word for word what I posted on the first page.
Schlafly Lie: "Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth."
"OBAMA: Right, and it essentially has never happened. I mean, I think that, you know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order in, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted."
Quote from: Olias on July 02, 2010, 11:20:18 AM
Too bad you can't read, Hank, and you have to rely on poorly edited BoobTube with typos in them to get your information. But if you noticed, the written transcript was word for word what I posted on the first page.
Schlafly Lie: "Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth."
"OBAMA: Right, and it essentially has never happened. I mean, I think that, you know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order in, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted."
too bad you have to be so biased and read into what you want...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/02/obama-and-the-courts/
and the washington times got it wrong to, huh?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 02, 2010, 11:30:58 AM
too bad you have to be so biased and read into what you want...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/02/obama-and-the-courts/
and the washington times got it wrong to, huh?
Yes they did!
Quote from: Olias on July 02, 2010, 11:37:16 AM
Yes they did!
I think this comes down to what is being enterpeted...because it is pretty clear what Obama was saying....I think there are some serious spinning going on....maybe by both sides...but, his actions as of lately back up what he said....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 02, 2010, 11:30:58 AM
and the washington times got it wrong to, huh?
Go back and look at your source, H. It says in very large letters at the top of the page "EDITORIAL." Editorials are the author's opinion (or the opinion of whatever spin doctor the author uses because he is too lazy to do the research himself) of the meaning of a particular factual event. They are NOT hard, fact-based news. This is why the Op-Ed section existed in the old print newspapers, and why most broadcast news programs clearly tag an editorial piece "opinion." It is an attempt -- evidently a fruitless attempt -- to alert readers and viewers that the article is only one person's interpretation of the facts.
To come to a conclusion on a particular event, you can do what Olias and I do, which is examine the raw data from the factual event, and draw our own conclusions, or you can do what you evidently prefer -- go to whatever FanZine type site you have found spins the facts the way you like them, and take the verbage printed there as gospel. But be prepared to have the "True Believer" title applied to you if you do. You have to be very much afraid of learning something uncomfortable to insist on getting your facts filtered through your "approved" interpreter. And awful damned trusting too.
In the interest of fairness (not that I'm all that interested right now, but I will cool down,) I will concede there are those who oppose you on this board who apparently also get their conclusions and views delivered carefully filtered. I don't. Neither does Olias. Calling either one of us biased only underscores your inability to counter our (factually sourced) remarks.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 02, 2010, 08:30:46 AM
yeah go with that Lolly........everything I stated was truthful
Nothing you posted was truthful. It wasn't even factual.
:hug: