Obama's golden camel.

[lawgator1]

I suppose the typical lawgator thread of "Uber right wing, straw man, Satan-worshipping baby torturing, fear mongering, freedom crushing, Obama slandering, Fox News loving, right wingnuts that were cheering for the captured captain to die will hang African Americans at the Teabag parties" is less inflammatory?

Mind if I borrow that?

 

[allvol123]

Well, let's look at his last five:

Dawinists (I assume he means Darwinists) standing on the panic button

Obama's Golden Camel

Another Obama Move ot Make Your Day

Barry in Mexico

Bedwetters at Newsweak need another diaper change




If I did 2-3 threads everyday and they were along the lines of ...

When Clinton lied, no one died

Bush = Hitler

Palin is just plain stupid, but I'd do her


... and I did that every single day, followed up with quoting entire chapters from Daily Kos, I imagine some folks on here might have a problem with that.

Start 10 of those threads a day if you like. I don't think you will see many on here whining for some "ignore thread title" button.

 

[gsvol]

Well, let's look at his last five:

Dawinists (I assume he means Darwinists) standing on the panic button

Obama's Golden Camel

Another Obama Move ot Make Your Day

Barry in Mexico

Bedwetters at Newsweak need another diaper change

Thanks for bumping up this thread, it has information people need to know unlike any of your posts.

 

[rjd970]

I get a certain satisfaction when I see the "This message is hidden because gsvol is on your ingore list". I love it, I have no clue what he is saying...and I don't care because even if I could read it I probably wouldn't have a clue as to what he was saying.

 

[kptvol]

Mind if I borrow that?

Why would I mind if you reclaimed your own property?

 

[gsvol]

Start 10 of those threads a day if you like. I don't think you will see many on here whining for some "ignore thread title" button.

 

[KentheOrange]

i get a certain satisfaction when i see the "this message is hidden because gsvol is on your ingore list". I love it, i have no clue what he is saying...and i don't care because even if i could read it i probably wouldn't have a clue as to what he was saying.

qft

 

[gsvol]

qft

Gafat??? (an extinct language of Ethiopia.)

One thing is becoming painfully obvious, one cannot start a discussion on this board on practically any topic without

trying to hijack the thread.

 

[gsvol]

the mods can, but Janet Napolitano could go one better. After all, criticism of Obama can't be allowed.

I hope you aren't one of those freaky conservative terrorists.

This report was published by the same Department of Homeland Security that has forbade the term Islamic terrorist or Muslim terrorist, but they have no problem referring to former members of our armed services and Conservatives as terrorists.

Napolitano has no problem using the word terrorist or the politics of fear mongering when it comes to slandering the Conservative community or our returning veterans. This report was meant to scare Conservatives and dissuade political action against the Obama administration.

The most impactful portion of the report defines right wing extremists as “Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

Mind if I borrow that?

Borrow???

Aw heck what's ten trillion, give or take a few hundred billion??

That's only about $33,000 for every man woman and child in the USA. (not counting illegals or fictional acorns)

All I am asking is that the ignore list function be expanded to include thread titles. I am not trying to stop him from saying whatever he wants. I am trying to not have to read it.

 

[kev20]

seems funny to me that someone needs an electronic function to ignore something.

 

[lawgator1]

seems funny to me that someone needs an electronic function to ignore something.

I think its a perfectly valid means of balancing the desire of people on the one hand to log onto the site versus on the other hand not having to put up with just bunches of what amount to personalized spam.

 

[lawgator1]

Now, if you want to read about a real effort to stifle speech in a true political forum, here you go:

TALLAHASSEE — A House council hurriedly passed a sweeping rewrite of Florida election laws Friday after shutting down debate and public comment, prompting an uproar and cries of "travesty" from opponents.
Like a similar Senate version, the House bill would ban two forms of voter ID at the polls now used mainly by older voters and require paid initiative-petition circulators to register with the state. It also would require people whose address changed in the month before an election to cast provisional ballots, prohibit anyone from interacting with voters in a floating 100-foot zone outside polling places and make it more difficult for third-party groups to register new voters.
The bill allows political committees registered in other states to be active in Florida without complying with the Sunshine State's campaign reporting requirements, which are stricter than other states. Legislators would be allowed to create leadership funds to solicit large donations from special interests and lobbyists, and it repeals a 2008 law that allows senators and others who hold a four-year term to run for a federal office without resigning.
Absent from the bill is an expansion of early voting hours or locations. That was a major concern of election supervisors in the 2008 election. Gov. Charlie Crist signed an executive order expanding early voting hours, a factor that was cited as helpful to Barack Obama's Florida victory.
The 81-page bill was debated for just six minutes before it passed on a 10-5 party-line vote at a one-hour meeting at 8 a.m. of the House Economic Development Council. No other committee is slated to review the bill, so there's no chance for additional public testimony in the two weeks left in the session.
Similarly, the Senate version (SB 956) was heard for the first time Thursday, passing the Ethics and Elections Committee 5-3 over Democratic objections.
On Friday, Republican Rep. Jennifer Carroll of Green Cove Springs suggested restricting debate to six minutes. When the committee chairman, Rep. Dave Murzin, R-Pensacola, allowed two people to make brief statements, Rep. Rob Schenck, R-Brooksville, insisted that no more testimony be allowed.
Asked later to explain his conduct, Schenck said: "It was just procedural. … This issue will be vetted very thoroughly on the (House) floor and there will probably be hours of debate on it."
"This is a travesty," said Rep. Maria Sachs, D-Boca Raton.
Rep. Audrey Gibson, D-Jacksonville, said the bill "is an attempt at suppressing Democratic voter turnout because they turned out in record numbers" in 2008.
Components of the bill were discussed only fleetingly, such as a proposal that would prohibit any "person, political committee … or other group or organization" from interacting with voters waiting in line to vote.
When Rep. Oscar Braynon, D-Miami Gardens, asked the bill's sponsor if people would be prevented from dispensing water to voters standing in line in the heat, Rep. Dorothy Hukill, R-Port Orange, said she didn't know.
"I think it was unconscionable," said Rich Templin of the Florida AFL-CIO, one of those not allowed to testify. Murzin told him to submit written testimony instead.
The labor group and five other organizations called the House's action "an insult to the hundreds of thousands of Floridians our organizations collectively represent. We are firmly convinced that this legislation will fundamentally alter Florida's most basic democratic institutions and disenfranchise millions of our state's voters." They said a hurried vote, without and public debate, "represents the height of arrogance by some of our legislative leaders."
The House Democratic leader, Rep. Franklin Sands, D-Weston, took the floor on a point of personal privilege to condemn the council's action. He said the bill's contents were not made public until late Thursday night while lawmakers were debating the budget. Sands asked that the bill be returned to the same committee for more study and testimony.
"This morning's deliberations failed to meet the Legislature's promise of open and fair government," Sands said.

 

[kptvol]

I assume you are equally critical of the Fairness Doctrine. After all, you are one of Rush's most loyal listeners.

 

[lawgator1]

I assume you are equally critical of the Fairness Doctrine. After all, you are one of Rush's most loyal listeners.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, I do oppose it. I think it would be totally unworkable -- how do you quantify political commentary so as to make "equal" the opposite political commentary? Impossible.

 

[BigPapaVol]

As for the Fairness Doctrine, I do oppose it. I think it would be totally unworkable -- how do you quantify political commentary so as to make "equal" the opposite political commentary? Impossible.

so...your issue is about enforceability of the idea rather than the sheer stupidity of it?

 

[gsvol]

seems funny to me that someone needs an electronic function to ignore something.

Probably needs an electronic function + a rubber ducky to even have sex.

Now back to the topic lg and company don't want to talk about, their golden camel.

One of Obama's opponents at that time was Mark Patterson, a lobbyist then for Goldman Sachs, the investment banking firm, which opposed the Frank-Obama initiative. Yet Patterson is now chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the embattled point man in the Obama administration's endeavor to undo the notorious AIG bonuses. That is, a Washington influence-peddler who worked against Obama's effort to limit excessive corporate pay is now a key member of the Obama administration team that is supposed to contain excessive compensation in the AIG case and in general.

What was it Barry said about lobbyists?????

Is there one thing that Barry hasn't lied about??

As vice president for government relations at Goldman Sachs, Patterson, who had previously been policy director for Sen. Tom Daschle, handled a wide assortment of financial, banking, patent, energy, and insurance issues. He worked on tribal gaming matters. And he was registered to lobby on credit default swaps and carbon trading.

Because of his lobbying activities, Patterson did not meet the tight ethics rules Obama adopted to slow down Washington's ever-spinning revolving door. His appointment—which was not subject to Senate confirmation—was questioned by White House reporters and criticized by government reform outfits.

But the Obama administration granted Patterson a waiver, and the ex-Goldman Sachs lobbyist was able to join Treasury. (Goldman Sachs has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the federal rescue of AIG; the fallen insurance firm, which has received $170 billion in funds from the Federal Reserve, has used that money to pay Goldman Sachs $6.8 billion.)

Meanwhile Goldman-Sachs tries to stop public criticism.

What does it take to wise up an Obama supporter??

I know all things are possible, but wising up a committed Barry supporter is very improbable to say the least.

 

[lawgator1]

so...your issue is about enforceability of the idea rather than the sheer stupidity of it?

Well, this gets into the debate of whether the airwaves are public property or can be privately owned (not the stations -- the actual space in which the frequency travels). If so, then theoretically, there is nothing wrong with the regulators of that space regulating what is on it.

But, I agree that it is absurd to think it could ever be done in a legitmate or fair or even-handed or correct or accurate or valid or what have you way.

Its a stupid idea to even try.

If the left wants to counter the drive time voices of the right, then they need to find a way to package their product in a way that will entertain as much as the right has. So far, they are nowhere close.

 

[vols4sure]

On the subject of political donations (I think that this thread at some point had something to do with that), I found this pretty disturbing.

"U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd appears to have looked everywhere but his home state to fuel what pundits anticipate will be one of the most hotly contested races in the nation in 2010.

The five-term incumbent reported raising just $4,250 from five Connecticut residents during the first three months of the year while raking in $604,745 from nearly 400 individuals living outside the state."

Only 5 state residents donated to Dodd - The Connecticut Post Online

I don't know how prevalent this is with other senators, but that type of discrepancy between donations taken from your own state compared with funds taken from out of state sources is ridiculous.

Hopefully it just means he will not be able to win reelection.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Well, this gets into the debate of whether the airwaves are public property or can be privately owned (not the stations -- the actual space in which the frequency travels). If so, then theoretically, there is nothing wrong with the regulators of that space regulating what is on it.

But, I agree that it is absurd to think it could ever be done in a legitmate or fair or even-handed or correct or accurate or valid or what have you way.

Its a stupid idea to even try.

If the left wants to counter the drive time voices of the right, then they need to find a way to package their product in a way that will entertain as much as the right has. So far, they are nowhere close.

the gov't enforcing this because it regulates the airwaves is almost as stupid as the idea itself.

 

[MG1968]

Well, this gets into the debate of whether the airwaves are public property or can be privately owned (not the stations -- the actual space in which the frequency travels). If so, then theoretically, there is nothing wrong with the regulators of that space regulating what is on it.

But, I agree that it is absurd to think it could ever be done in a legitmate or fair or even-handed or correct or accurate or valid or what have you way.

Its a stupid idea to even try.

If the left wants to counter the drive time voices of the right, then they need to find a way to package their product in a way that will entertain as much as the right has. So far, they are nowhere close.

maybe if the left had a better understanding of capitalism, or less animosity towards it, they'd be more successful at political talk radio.

 

[gsvol]

On the subject of political donations (I think that this thread at some point had something to do with that), I found this pretty disturbing.

"U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd appears to have looked everywhere but his home state to fuel what pundits anticipate will be one of the most hotly contested races in the nation in 2010.

The five-term incumbent reported raising just $4,250 from five Connecticut residents during the first three months of the year while raking in $604,745 from nearly 400 individuals living outside the state."

Only 5 state residents donated to Dodd - The Connecticut Post Online

I don't know how prevalent this is with other senators, but that type of discrepancy between donations taken from your own state compared with funds taken from out of state sources is ridiculous.

Hopefully it just means he will not be able to win reelection.

Three blind mice.

There is a very good chance Dodd will lose his seat this coming election, it has always amazed me how Frank could ever won a seat to begin with and to keep getting elected just boggles my mind, who would vote for him??

Here are the top recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 1989-2008:

1. Dodd, Christopher J D-CT $133,900

2. Kerry, John D-MA $111,000

3. Obama, Barack D-IL $105,849

Goldman Sachs 2008 Contributions and other COMMERCIAL BANK CONTRIBUTIONS
(This doesn't tell the whole story but it's a start.)

the gov't enforcing this because it regulates the airwaves is almost as stupid as the idea itself.

New senior policy advisor to the Pentagon.

An even more stupid idea, bail out dinosaur media.

No conflict of interest there.

There is only one thing this former special counsel to George Soros has that's close to right, This isn't really that funny anymore.

Actually there is nothing funny at all about what is happening in America today.

Rosa Brooks belongs to several organizations the like National Security Network and Connect U.S. Funds that believe in the elimination of capitalism in America.

Brooks is associated, along with her boss Michelle Flournoy to CNAS, they will be major players in the future of American's counter insurgency policies.

 

[lawgator1]

maybe if the left had a better understanding of capitalism, or less animosity towards it, they'd be more successful at political talk radio.

I don't think that's it. The issue is two-fold, from my perspective. First, the left just hasn't cultivated the right kind of entertainers for talk radio. While the left has plenty of celebrities from television, music, and film, when those folks start talking politics it tends to come out stilted.

Second, the fundamental ideals of the left do not lend themselves well to the one dimensional venue of talk radio. It is hard to defend or describe complex and brainy rationale on things like foreign policy over the radio, whereas its much easier to get some band to do a mock tune that claims that Obama is a Muslim.

 

[gsvol]

I don't think that's it. The issue is two-fold, from my perspective. First, the left just hasn't cultivated the right kind of entertainers for talk radio. While the left has plenty of celebrities from television, music, and film, when those folks start talking politics it tends to come out stilted.

When they start talking it comes out slanted toward air head issues like who was going to shampoo the new white house dog, "Bho."

Back to the thread topic, would a left wing air head talk show ever address the fascist rip off of the American people under Obama's reign???

Would they talk about a much needed audit of the federal reserve banking system??

Second, the fundamental ideals of the left do not lend themselves well to the one dimensional venue of talk radio. It is hard to defend or describe complex and brainy rationale on things like foreign policy over the radio, whereas its much easier to get some band to do a mock tune that claims that Obama is a Muslim.

The left has fundamental ideals???? Do tell.

I do admit they have some brainy rationale, as in brain dead rationale.

You have scant evidence that Obama isn't muslim, not only that he should prove he is an American citizen.

 

[utvolpj]

Second, the fundamental ideals of the left do not lend themselves well to the one dimensional venue of talk radio. It is hard to defend or describe complex and brainy rationale on things like foreign policy over the radio, whereas its much easier to get some band to do a mock tune that claims that Obama is a Muslim.

lol: that's pretty funny

 

[MG1968]

I don't think that's it. The issue is two-fold, from my perspective. First, the left just hasn't cultivated the right kind of entertainers for talk radio. While the left has plenty of celebrities from television, music, and film, when those folks start talking politics it tends to come out stilted.

Second, the fundamental ideals of the left do not lend themselves well to the one dimensional venue of talk radio. It is hard to defend or describe complex and brainy rationale on things like foreign policy over the radio, whereas its much easier to get some band to do a mock tune that claims that Obama is a Muslim.

what a bunch of crap. the claim that the left is more "intellectual" than the right is so bereft of logic it's really not even worth discussing.

I can sum up the left easily.

a bigger government through social dependence programs.

a government that works closely with labor unions at the expense of private companies.

a government that appeases enemies at the expense of allies.

a government that views taxation as a punitive measure against individuals deemed "too successful" for the collective good.