Regarding that Taiwan youtube vidi. I’d take any political commentary from Taiway regarding Romney with a grain of salt. Romney has stated he’s for increasing arms sales to Taiwan and his policy executive is a Taiwanese-American. But true to form, Romney has hedged his investment in Taiwan by investing in their only potential military rival, mainland China As well. One more reason he’s sat on his tax returns.
“Regarding that Taiwan youtube vidi. I’d take any political commentary from Taiway regarding Romney with a grain of salt. Romney has stated he’s for increasing arms sales to Taiwan and his policy executive is a Taiwanese-American.”
Thanks for reminding me of another reason to support Mitt.
By the way I know where Mitts tax returns are hidden, a very safe place, right under Obamas school trascripts.
Puke: I was simply pointing out that the reason that Taiwanese produced video tickled your Limbaugh button so much is because Mit has ingratiated himself towards the current Taiwanese regime. And don’t forget, I also pointed out that Mitt has invested in Taiwanese eternal foes, the People’s Republic Of China, thus assuring Mit he profit regardless of the way any conflict unfolds.
RE Obama’s new conspiracy in vogue, the birther debacle being laid to rest, while records of Obama’s Harvard GPA of 3.7 may be priveliged information, it is public knowledge that Barack graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. He’d have to have some phenominal inside pull to achieve that with less than excellent grades. Also puclic knowledge is the fact that Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review and taught constitutional law for a time. Two more achievements not granted the intellectually unaccomplished.
this is at least the third time I’ve heard Dina bring up the story of Steve Jobs drawing the basic idea for an iPad in 1980, like that was some sort of stroke of genius. Dick Tracy had a wristwatch TV in the 1930′s. Does that mean the cartoonist was a technical visionary?
“Also puclic knowledge is the fact that Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review and taught constitutional law for a time. Two more achievements not granted the intellectually unaccomplished.”
Oh and don’t forget, he got a Nobel prize for uh, well uh, hm uh well uh I guess, nothing.
He is nothing more than a con guy that shows up to receive rewards from “hope and change” believing fools.
“As president of the Harvard Law Review and a law professor in Chicago, Senator Barack Obama refined his legal thinking, but left a scant paper trail. His name doesn’t appear on any legal scholarship.”
Puke: Congrats, you quoted that from the first sentence in the first paragraph of the article I sited. Hope you were able to wade past that point in the article. In a related Politico article. In that article, it describes Obama’s work for the review as “leading discussions and debates to determine what to print from the mountain of submissions from judges, scholars and authors from across the country, supervising the thorough editing of each issue’s contents and giving every article”. It doesn’t sound like there was much time for personal grandstanding with a workload like that.
USC School of Law Prof Susan Estrich, who also headed the Review, said she “believes that Obama must have had something published that year, even if his campaign says otherwise. “They probably don’t want [to] have you [reporters] going back” to examine the Review.”
That article concludes – way, way down on page 3, that “In the end, though, Obama’s time on the Review mirrored other aspects of his life. Even in the staunchly liberal milieus in which he has spent his entire adult life, Obama has managed to lead without leaving a clear ideological stamp, and to respect — and even, at times, to embrace — opposing views. To his critics, that’s a sign of a lack of core beliefs. To his admirers, it’s the root of his appeal.”
So I guess it’s all in how you look at it. Obama. It seems from the article that Obama presided over a publication dominated by mostly conservative legal scholars and alumni. He won their support by promising not to turn his time as Review President into a grandstand for his largely liberal views. That’s what he did. Since he had little to say that would not draw fire from the conservatives, and he wanted to just run the Review, he kept his views mostly to himself – something that has gotten him in hot water with lots of liberals today who criticize him for not being connotative (ie: the debate) enough against the right.
That really is funny. At the end they plug the republicanpartyanimans web site. At the head of the page is an endorsement by the Washington Times – the newspaper no one reads run by the fascio-religous Moonies. I have to wonder who put this flaxen-haired airhead up to this. Probably an unbmployed actress who didn’t get the part in “The Innocence of Muslims.”
The world isn’t awesome, she’s unemployed, her dad died, the healthcare mandate, middle class tax hike; tons of lobbyists infest the not ‘transparent’ Obama administration; the African American community isn’t doing well; “we’ve never been more hated” internationally. Too bad McCain/Palin aren’t in office to take the spanking for not working the miracle cure. Of course by now some right-wing redneck would have popped a cap on McCain and we’d be in Iran with Palin yelling “mush, mush” to the troops – “all the way to Moscow”.
It’s funny how on that web site, they have a video of Clint Eastwood movie tough-guy excerpts put to condemning the left. But at the convention Eastwood said we should bring the troops home “tomorrow” – a stark contrast to Romney’s stand. Apparently Eastwood has replaced the Duke as their tough guy actor who’s never really had a tough time in his life. All facade, no substance.
It makes no difference the left I have come to believe are sick in the head (seriously) or they are poor and are used to getting something for nothing. There’s no other excuse. They lack the ability to reason or think on their own.
I am coming to the conclusion more and more that liberals are masochists, both in their personal lives and what they want for others.
The test i use is that if you follow up most things they say with the phrase “because in the long run we know this will make things worse” it fits most of the time.