Watching the unscripted Barack Obama can be both entertaining and educational. Check out this video of Obama squirming last Saturday over which current Supreme Court justice he would throw over the side:
Schulzke Brief- For the good of investors, FASB should withdraw its loss contingencies disclosure draft
- Citigroup bows out of Wachovia talks . . . finally
- Why is Judge Ramos pushing a Wachovia-Citigroup marriage?
- Wachovia responds: Citigroup violated confidentiality agreement
- Wachovia-Citigroup letter: Non-binding agreement to agree
{ 1 trackback }
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
Thomas Forguson 08.18.08 at 5:48 pm
What a hypocrite you are! The right are experts at smear jobs. You know one when you see one.
Kurt Schulzke 08.18.08 at 6:19 pm
Thomas —
You are, as they say here in the South, a “piece o’ work.”
What exactly are you saying by this silly response to a video of Obama himself showing his intellectual and moral vacuity?
K
April 38 08.19.08 at 10:12 am
Experts at smear jobs? It is Obama who is smearing Clarence Thomas here, but it seems Forguson missed the point.
The whole nomination of Clarence Thomas was under the cloud of an incredible smear job against him by the left. Remember Anita Hill, and her absurd accusations? And how they were embraced by–cough, cough — the left? Obama dishes out more of the same here, and Forguson says the RIGHT is the expert at smear jobs. Go figure.
Johannes Steiner 08.19.08 at 10:58 am
Isn’t it a little ironic that Obama, possibly the least qualified presidential candidate EVER, certainly in my time, uses Clarence Thomas being untested as an argument against his nomination as a justice?
Johannes Steiner 08.19.08 at 11:00 am
Where is the hypocrisy Thomas? Do you know the meaning of the word hypocrisy, or is that just something that you heard once with a negative connotation and decided to “smear” someone with it when you didn’t like what they said?
marttie 08.19.08 at 5:11 pm
How would you answer that question?
Who would you “smear”? Would you tell the truth?
Johannes Steiner 08.19.08 at 6:06 pm
Who is that question directed for Marttie?
marttie 08.19.08 at 9:21 pm
to whom it may concern
marttie 08.19.08 at 9:32 pm
I meant that everyone should ask theirself that question “Which supreme court justice would you not have nominated?” Would it have been better? If not then we have got some serious rising out of the gutter to do.
Thomas Forguson 08.21.08 at 10:19 am
Kurt i mean the decade long vendetta against Bill Clinton. This began before any body ever heard of Monica Lewinsky. The Republicans knew they couldnt win the 2004 election by defending George Bush. They only won by attacking John Kerry. Obama and I think Afgahnistan are important. Bush and McCain prefer to fight in Iraq , a country that did not attack us.
Thomas Forguson 08.21.08 at 10:22 am
Mr. Steiner Obama has more qualifications than Abraham Lincoln. The sole qualifications of George W. Bush was that his name was Bush.
Johannes Steiner 08.21.08 at 11:07 am
Bush was a governor of a state. He had held an executive position. Obama has not. That being said, I don’t think Bush was a great president. I don’t even think he was a particularly good president. Bush also served in the National Guard, Barry didn’t.
As to Abraham Lincoln, that simply isn’t true. Lincoln spent four terms in the Illinois legislature, and one in the United States House of Representatives. That is more than Obama, who has served three terms in the Illinois legislature, and only a partial term in the House. Lincoln also served his country in the military, Barry, didn’t.
How did you think that he was more experienced than these two?
Thomas Forguson 08.21.08 at 11:43 am
to quote Kurt you are a piece of work Lincoln served in the militia in the Black Hawk War and never saw action. He rediculed his military service. The Governor of Texas is a prestigious postition but is in fact only the fifth most powerful position in the state. Bush was a drunk until he was 40. Mr. Steiner serving in the National Guard in that era meant you didnt go to Vietnam. Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in the streets of Chicago.
Johannes Steiner 08.21.08 at 2:26 pm
Obama edited a newspaper? THAT is a qualification for being President of the United States?
Lets not kid ourselves here. Lincoln and Bush BOTH had more experience, no matter how you ridicule their military service.
Bush was Governor of Texas, as well as a chief executive of his own companies. Gubernatorial experience and executive experience in the private sector. Lincoln had more experience in the legislature than Barry Boy, and regardless of your contempt for military service, did serve. The fact that he volunteered to serve demonstrated a love of country that unfortunately Obama didn’t. He happened to be captain of that militia, which is a MUCH more significant position, in terms of preparation to lead, and in terms of who gives a $#%^, than Barry’s little editor position in the Harvard Law Review.
How do you figure that the Governor of Texas is the fifth most powerful man in the State? The only one that you could really make an argument for (albeit a weak one) is the Lieutenant Governor, because he has certain powers concerning the legislature that the governor doesn’t, but it would seem rather far-fetched to call him more powerful.
Bush wasn’t a drunk, although he did have a D.U.I in Maine, and some issues while in the National Guard. Obama used drugs, so that angle won’t really help your argument.
HatInwab 11.29.08 at 3:34 pm
Hi. I regularly scan this forum. This is the oldest together undisputed to ask a topic.
How multitudinous in this forum are references progressive behind, disingenuous users?
Can I depute all the communication that there is?
R 11.29.08 at 6:44 pm
HatInwab, are you a native English speaker? I can’t make sense of what you’re trying to say.