http://gamingtrend.com
November 26, 2014, 11:13:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama opens mouth, inserts foot  (Read 2854 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5375


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« on: August 18, 2008, 06:06:04 PM »

From the Wall Street Journal's opinion page comes a piece about Barack Obama's opinion of Clarence Thomas.

Wow.  Saying a sitting Supreme Court Justice wasn't a "strong enough jurist or legal thinker" for the job when he was given "that elevation" to the position?  Way to go, Obama.  Implying someone isn't smart enough to be on the Supreme Court is classy.

Plus, added richness to that statement comes from the fact that Obama doesn't exactly have the greatest qualifications to match his own political aspirations, either.

I also like ths closing paragraph:

Quote
So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama's advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won't let slip what he really believes.
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2008, 06:23:31 PM »

Uh, Clarence Thomas isn't qualified to be a supreme court justice.  He spent barely a year as an appeals court judge.  Then there's this:

"Upon the conclusion of the 2006-2007 term of the Supreme Court, it was widely noted that Thomas had failed to utter a single word from the bench during the course of the entire term. In November 2007, in a tongue-in-cheek manner, the Law Blog of the Wall Street Journal initiated the "When-Will-Justice-Thomas-Ask-a-Question Watch", noting that the justice had not asked a single question during oral arguments since February 22, 2006.  February 22, 2008, marked the two year anniversary of Thomas's last question during oral argument, a milestone which was noted by several media outlets, including CNN."

So, no clarifying questions in two years?  Sign me up for a job like that one.

edit:  I meant "clarifying".  Ugh.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2008, 06:37:35 PM by Brendan » Logged
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21081



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2008, 06:36:36 PM »

Quote
Obama opens mouth, inserts foot tells truth
Fixed that right up for ya.

Gotta agree with Brendan on this one.
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5375


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2008, 07:02:02 PM »

Quote from: Knightshade Dragon on August 18, 2008, 06:36:36 PM

Quote
Obama opens mouth, inserts foot tells truth
Fixed that right up for ya.

Gotta agree with Brendan on this one.

Wow.  You've both missed the point.  The hypocracy is dripping off Obama here.  He bashes Thomas by saying "I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation", yet he aspires to be President of the United States with what qualifications, exactly?  He was a US Senator for all of 2 years before announcing he was running for president.  How does that give him the necessary qualifications?
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18616



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2008, 07:23:25 PM »

GWB lowered the bar dramatically.

Stewie Griffin just got the VP nod.
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Toe
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1494


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2008, 07:24:20 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on August 18, 2008, 07:02:02 PM

Quote from: Knightshade Dragon on August 18, 2008, 06:36:36 PM

Quote
Obama opens mouth, inserts foot tells truth
Fixed that right up for ya.

Gotta agree with Brendan on this one.

Wow.  You've both missed the point.  The hypocracy is dripping off Obama here.  He bashes Thomas by saying "I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation", yet he aspires to be President of the United States with what qualifications, exactly?  He was a US Senator for all of 2 years before announcing he was running for president.  How does that give him the necessary qualifications?

He bashes Thomas because Thomas suckatude is plainly evident. To me it more reads like he was trying to imply Thomas has gotten better so as to not come off too critical. Nothing hypocritical about that. Apples and oranges. As for as qualifications for presidency, when you line up the good with the bad, are there really any "necessary qualifications"?

Logged
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18616



View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2008, 07:27:38 PM »

Quote from: Toe on August 18, 2008, 07:24:20 PM

Quote from: pr0ner on August 18, 2008, 07:02:02 PM

Quote from: Knightshade Dragon on August 18, 2008, 06:36:36 PM

Quote
Obama opens mouth, inserts foot tells truth
Fixed that right up for ya.

Gotta agree with Brendan on this one.

Wow.  You've both missed the point.  The hypocracy is dripping off Obama here.  He bashes Thomas by saying "I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation", yet he aspires to be President of the United States with what qualifications, exactly?  He was a US Senator for all of 2 years before announcing he was running for president.  How does that give him the necessary qualifications?

He bashes Thomas because Thomas suckatude is plainly evident. To me it more reads like he was trying to imply Thomas has gotten better so as to not come off too critical. Nothing hypocritical about that. Apples and oranges. As for as qualifications for presidency, when you line up the good with the bad, are there really any "necessary qualifications"?



Needs to either be A) Marketable B) For Sale. biggrin
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2008, 07:40:08 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on August 18, 2008, 07:02:02 PM

Quote from: Knightshade Dragon on August 18, 2008, 06:36:36 PM

Quote
Obama opens mouth, inserts foot tells truth
Fixed that right up for ya.

Gotta agree with Brendan on this one.

Wow.  You've both missed the point.  The hypocracy is dripping off Obama here.  He bashes Thomas by saying "I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation", yet he aspires to be President of the United States with what qualifications, exactly?  He was a US Senator for all of 2 years before announcing he was running for president.  How does that give him the necessary qualifications?

I think it's easier to define those of a Judge, considering that knowledge of the law is the primary qualification.  

But what are the qualifications to be President?  Is it an expert on domestic financial issues (McKinley)?  Do you define it by his role as Commander-in-Chief, meaning a strong military leader with extensive combat experience is needed (Eisenhower)?  Does he need to be an expert in foreign affairs, making a role like being a former diplomat a primary job qualification (Thomas Jefferson)?  Or is he a visionary leader, who has the ability to inspire those with his public speaking (Reagan)?  Does he need to have an extensive legislative background (Ford)?  A champion of the people (Clinton)?  Someone with extensive leadership experience (Roosevelt)?

Considering that no one is going to be all things, what are the necessary qualifications for President?
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2008, 07:45:11 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on August 18, 2008, 07:02:02 PM

Quote from: Knightshade Dragon on August 18, 2008, 06:36:36 PM

Quote
Obama opens mouth, inserts foot tells truth
Fixed that right up for ya.

Gotta agree with Brendan on this one.

Wow.  You've both missed the point.  The hypocracy is dripping off Obama here.  He bashes Thomas by saying "I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation", yet he aspires to be President of the United States with what qualifications, exactly?  He was a US Senator for all of 2 years before announcing he was running for president.  How does that give him the necessary qualifications?

Clarence Thomas was nominated to a lifetime (lifetime!!) position in our top court having spent 1 year as a jurist.  Meanwhile, Obama is more qualified to be President than the current occupant, thank god, having spent 7 years in the Illinois Senate, 3.5 years in the US Senate, and 12 years lecturing on consitutional law.  Contrast that with Bush's 5 years as governor of Texas, with no other legislative experience at all.  Did you decry Bush's inexperience?
Logged
Sarkus
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2593


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2008, 07:46:40 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on August 18, 2008, 07:40:08 PM

Quote from: pr0ner on August 18, 2008, 07:02:02 PM

Quote from: Knightshade Dragon on August 18, 2008, 06:36:36 PM

Quote
Obama opens mouth, inserts foot tells truth
Fixed that right up for ya.

Gotta agree with Brendan on this one.

Wow.  You've both missed the point.  The hypocracy is dripping off Obama here.  He bashes Thomas by saying "I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation", yet he aspires to be President of the United States with what qualifications, exactly?  He was a US Senator for all of 2 years before announcing he was running for president.  How does that give him the necessary qualifications?

I think it's easier to define those of a Judge, considering that knowledge of the law is the primary qualification.  

But what are the qualifications to be President?  Is it an expert on domestic financial issues (McKinley)?  Do you define it by his role as Commander-in-Chief, meaning a strong military leader with extensive combat experience is needed (Eisenhower)?  Does he need to be an expert in foreign affairs, making a role like being a former diplomat a primary job qualification (Thomas Jefferson)?  Or is he a visionary leader, who has the ability to inspire those with his public speaking (Reagan)?  Does he need to have an extensive legislative background (Ford)?  A champion of the people (Clinton)?  Someone with extensive leadership experience (Roosevelt)?

Considering that no one is going to be all things, what are the necessary qualifications for President?

No kidding.  And that Abraham Lincoln had tons of qualifications.

It seems to me that people that think Obama made a mistake by explaining why he would not have appointed Thomas to the Supreme Court need to look at McCain's answer to the same question.

Oh, and the WSJ is no longer an unbiased source, particularly in an opinion piece.  Or have you forgotten who owns them now?

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.
Syndey: That's alright.  I have both.

- American Dad
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2008, 07:57:35 PM »

Quote from: Sarkus on August 18, 2008, 07:46:40 PM

Oh, and the WSJ is no longer an unbiased source, particularly in an opinion piece.  Or have you forgotten who owns them now?

To be fair, the WSJ editorial board has been insane for years; it's not due to Rupert's direct influence.  The non-editorial portions of the paper seem to have remained journalistic.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2008, 11:22:49 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on August 18, 2008, 07:02:02 PM

Wow.  You've both missed the point.
You're in the wrong place if you're expecting people able to "get the point."
Logged
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5108



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2008, 01:10:36 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on August 18, 2008, 07:57:35 PM

Quote from: Sarkus on August 18, 2008, 07:46:40 PM

Oh, and the WSJ is no longer an unbiased source, particularly in an opinion piece.  Or have you forgotten who owns them now?

To be fair, the WSJ editorial board has been insane for years; it's not due to Rupert's direct influence.  The non-editorial portions of the paper seem to have remained journalistic.

Isn't the point of the Editorial Page to offer a biased, um, opinion?

Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2008, 01:20:11 AM »

Sure; it's at one extreme of the political spectrum, though, so that should be a point of consideration when evaluating their perspective.
Logged
godhugh
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1064


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2008, 04:22:35 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on August 18, 2008, 11:22:49 PM

Quote from: pr0ner on August 18, 2008, 07:02:02 PM

Wow.  You've both missed the point.
You're in the wrong place if you're expecting people able to "get the point."

If there was an actual point to made, people would get it regardless of location. As it is, proner is trying to compare apples to elephants and declare HYPOCRISY!!! as a result.
Logged
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5108



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2008, 05:06:30 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on August 19, 2008, 01:20:11 AM

Sure; it's at one extreme of the political spectrum, though, so that should be a point of consideration when evaluating their perspective.

Absolutely. My point was with Sarkus saying "WSJ is no longer an unbiased source, particularly in an opinion piece." which we shouldn't expect to be without bias. That's the point of an opinion piece.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2008, 07:11:55 AM »

Quote from: godhugh on August 19, 2008, 04:22:35 AM

Quote from: cheeba on August 18, 2008, 11:22:49 PM

Quote from: pr0ner on August 18, 2008, 07:02:02 PM

Wow.  You've both missed the point.
You're in the wrong place if you're expecting people able to "get the point."

If there was an actual point to made, people would get it regardless of location. As it is, proner is trying to compare apples to elephants and declare HYPOCRISY!!! as a result.

Thank you so much for giving me the funniest thing ive read in a long long time.    I agree totally with Cheeba that proner was writing to the wrong audience expecting most people here to be able to grasp what he was saying.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2008, 12:39:33 PM »

Quote from: brettmcd on August 19, 2008, 07:11:55 AM

Quote from: godhugh on August 19, 2008, 04:22:35 AM

Quote from: cheeba on August 18, 2008, 11:22:49 PM

Quote from: pr0ner on August 18, 2008, 07:02:02 PM

Wow.  You've both missed the point.
You're in the wrong place if you're expecting people able to "get the point."

If there was an actual point to made, people would get it regardless of location. As it is, proner is trying to compare apples to elephants and declare HYPOCRISY!!! as a result.

Thank you so much for giving me the funniest thing ive read in a long long time.    I agree totally with Cheeba that proner was writing to the wrong audience expecting most people here to be able to grasp what he was saying.

Actually, given that legitimate questions were raised about Presidential qualifications *and* how the original point regarding Thomas was actually correct, there's nothing wrong with the audience.  And that you and Cheeba can't address either one and would rather just pop in to spout another insulting one-liner rather than post anything of substance, it seems to me that the audience did just fine.

In other words:

I find your post to be intellectual dishonest and/or confusing.  Please clarify.
You've stated this before in previous threads but have never addressed follow-up responses.  Please clarify.

biggrin
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2008, 03:25:28 PM »

Quote from: Moliere on August 19, 2008, 05:06:30 AM

Quote from: Brendan on August 19, 2008, 01:20:11 AM

Sure; it's at one extreme of the political spectrum, though, so that should be a point of consideration when evaluating their perspective.

Absolutely. My point was with Sarkus saying "WSJ is no longer an unbiased source, particularly in an opinion piece." which we shouldn't expect to be without bias. That's the point of an opinion piece.

I read his comment as saying that the news side of the WSJ is no longer unbiased (because of Murdoch's takeover), and that the opinion side was (of course) even more biased, not that he was saying that the opinion side was once unbiased.  I'm sure we all agree that editorial boards aren't aiming to present both sides of most issues. slywink
Logged
Sarkus
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2593


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2008, 09:18:30 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on August 19, 2008, 03:25:28 PM

Quote from: Moliere on August 19, 2008, 05:06:30 AM

Quote from: Brendan on August 19, 2008, 01:20:11 AM

Sure; it's at one extreme of the political spectrum, though, so that should be a point of consideration when evaluating their perspective.

Absolutely. My point was with Sarkus saying "WSJ is no longer an unbiased source, particularly in an opinion piece." which we shouldn't expect to be without bias. That's the point of an opinion piece.

I read his comment as saying that the news side of the WSJ is no longer unbiased (because of Murdoch's takeover), and that the opinion side was (of course) even more biased, not that he was saying that the opinion side was once unbiased.  I'm sure we all agree that editorial boards aren't aiming to present both sides of most issues. slywink

That is correct.  I was pointing out that 1) using an editorial to support your argument is not a "source" and that 2) the WSJ in general is no longer a source that can be considered unbiased in general.  Murdoch and his new management have made it clear that they are trying to turn the WSJ into a national newspaper aimed at countering what he sees as a bias on the part of our other "national" newspaper, the New York Times.

It makes me wonder if a subscription to the WSJ is still required the way it was for certain business classes I took when I was in college, back when the WSJ was simply a business news oriented paper.

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.
Syndey: That's alright.  I have both.

- American Dad
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2008, 09:30:33 PM »

That reminds me of this article from the Columbia Journalism Review from 12 years ago.  Back then, their news reporting was still top notch, but the editorial page had displayed their lunacy for years prior:

Quote
CJR examined some six dozen examples of disputed editorials and op-eds over the past seven years, and a clear sense of Bartley's modus operandi emerged. On subjects ranging from lawyers, judges, and product liability suits to campus and social issues, a strong America, and of course, economics, we found a consistent pattern of incorrect facts, ignored or incomplete facts, missing facts, uncorroborated facts. Repeated efforts to discuss the paper's editorial practices with Bartley were unsuccessful. Absent a conversation with him about the section's objectives, one can only conclude that affecting policy and changing the course of history matter most.
Logged
Sarkus
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2593


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2008, 09:37:29 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on August 19, 2008, 09:30:33 PM

That reminds me of this article from the Columbia Journalism Review from 12 years ago.  Back then, their news reporting was still top notch, but the editorial page had displayed their lunacy for years prior:

Quote
CJR examined some six dozen examples of disputed editorials and op-eds over the past seven years, and a clear sense of Bartley's modus operandi emerged. On subjects ranging from lawyers, judges, and product liability suits to campus and social issues, a strong America, and of course, economics, we found a consistent pattern of incorrect facts, ignored or incomplete facts, missing facts, uncorroborated facts. Repeated efforts to discuss the paper's editorial practices with Bartley were unsuccessful. Absent a conversation with him about the section's objectives, one can only conclude that affecting policy and changing the course of history matter most.


One thing I've always found interesting is that we have this ideal of an unbiased press when in fact our history is that the press has almost always been biased, often blatantly so.  While Hearst and his attempts to influence opinion through his papers is widely known, what people fail to remember is that all he was doing was applying nationally what had been going on locally since the dawn of newspapers.  Late 19th century US cities were full of newspapers that existed primarily to espouse a particular political or philosophical viewpoint.

What changed was that by nationalizing the airwaves, Congress was able to impact the "fairness" of radio and later OTA TV by enforcing certain standards.  Newspapers followed this for a time. The rise of cable and sattellite services has once again removed the media from direct Congressional control, so we're seeing a move back towards opinion driven media.

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.
Syndey: That's alright.  I have both.

- American Dad
whiteboyskim
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7850


Hard partier


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2008, 01:26:14 AM »

For the record, Frogs Honey was able to sit in the Supreme Court all day in '99 listening to arguments (it helped that she had a friend clerking for one of the justices) and on that particular day, Thomas spoke. Her friend pulled her aside after and told her, "You're really lucky, you know that? Normally Thomas doesn't speak."

So it does happen. Sort of like Haley's Comet does pass close enough to the Earth to see every now and then. slywink
Logged

Behold the glory of my new blog!
Filmmaking is vision plus faith plus balls, all 3 of which Hollywood knows little about.
Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2008, 10:24:22 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on August 18, 2008, 07:45:11 PM

Clarence Thomas was nominated to a lifetime (lifetime!!) position in our top court having spent 1 year as a jurist. 

That's true.  However, he also served as an assistant attorney general for a few years, which is nearly unparalleled exposure to the way the courts work.  You don't necessarily have to be a judge for many years to be a Justice; John Roberts was only a judge for a few years before joining the Supreme Court (though he was regarded as one of the finest SCOTUS advocates while in private practice).  Heck, many Justices were not judges previously; for example some names you may know of Justices who were not judges previously:  Earl Warren, Byron "Wizzer" White, William Rehnquist, and Harlan Stone.

FWIW, I think Thomas is a poor Justice as I find his legal reasoning in his written opinions as not equal to others on the Court, but he's qualified enough to serve when you look at the history of the Court.

And yeah, the few times I've been to the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments, I've not heard him talk.  Though, it's supposedly because he finds the questioning interrupts the attorneys who are presenting in the Court.  Whatever...
Logged
Laner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4694


Badassfully


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2008, 12:59:50 AM »

Quote from: Sarkus on August 19, 2008, 09:37:29 PM

One thing I've always found interesting is that we have this ideal of an unbiased press when in fact our history is that the press has almost always been biased, often blatantly so.
Indeed; on top of that I find it quite amusing how supposedly only those dirty conservatives in the media are capable of being biased.
Logged
Graham
Managing Editor
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4017


View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2008, 02:23:27 AM »

Quote from: Laner on August 21, 2008, 12:59:50 AM

Quote from: Sarkus on August 19, 2008, 09:37:29 PM

One thing I've always found interesting is that we have this ideal of an unbiased press when in fact our history is that the press has almost always been biased, often blatantly so.
Indeed; on top of that I find it quite amusing how supposedly only those dirty conservatives in the media are capable of being biased.
It's because their best argument is name-calling, such as "crazy" or "lunacy," and doesn't take much thought at all.
Logged

Partial Owner of the World Champion Green Bay Packers
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.162 seconds with 74 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.053s, 2q)