1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Where's Obama?

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by halfmile, Sep 11, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,639
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    I know where McCain is, at the Pentagon paying his respects to the fallen.

    Haven't seen The Arab. Is there a country club fund raiser somewhere?

    HM
     
  2. RAScott

    RAScott Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Messages:
    813
    Probaly with Bill Ayers. Pi--ing on, and burning a flag somwhere.
     
  3. H82MIS

    H82MIS TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,052
    Man I love this site,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,good one RA,,,,,
     
  4. Barrelbulge(Fl)

    Barrelbulge(Fl) Banned User Banned TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,666
    Location:
    West Central Florida
    ON A MORE SERIOUS SIDE. I DON't KNOW IF MCCAIN WAS AT THE PENTAGON, BUT I DO KNOW HE WAS AT SHANKSVILLE, PA. FOR A MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR THE FLIGHT 93 HERO'S. LOOKED FOR OBAMA THERE BUT COULDN.T FIND HIM. I DID FIND A "NOBAMA 2008" BUMPER STICKER THAT I BOUGHT. MURRAY.
     
  5. stokinpls

    stokinpls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    6,481
    http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74877

    Why Obama is mum about Harvard

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: September 11, 2008
    1:00 am Eastern

    © 2008

    "On the surface, at least, Barack Obama's single most impressive accomplishment has been his 1990 election to the presidency of the Harvard Law Review.

    This position also provided Obama his only real executive experience as he supervised the law review's staff of 80 editors.

    One has to wonder, then, why neither he nor wife Michelle emphasized this singular honor during the up-by-the-bootstraps biographical sections of their respective speeches in Denver.

    In fact, neither of them so much as mentioned Obama's time at Harvard, this despite his vulnerability on the executive experience charge.

    Their silence likely derives from one verifiable fact: Obama's record at Harvard was no more authentic than John Kerry's record in Vietnam.

    Kerry was justifiably swift-boated because he fraudulently positioned himself as a war hero. Obama seems to have learned from Kerry.

    In the age of the Internet, the less said about a dubious credential the better, and Obama's law presidency credential is dubious on any number of levels.

    For starters, Obama did not do nearly well enough at his previous stop, Columbia University, to justify admission to Harvard Law.

    According to the New York Sun, university spokesman Brian Connolly confirmed that Obama graduated in 1983 with a major in political science but without honors.

    In the age of affirmative action and grade inflation, a minority in a relatively easy major like political science had to under-perform dramatically to avoid minimal honors. Obama apparently did just that.

    The specifics we may never know. As the New York Times concedes, Obama "declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years."

    Would that Bristol Palin could get off so easily!

    There are any number of possible reasons for Obama's reticence about Columbia: his grades, the courses he took, his writing samples and, of course, his associations.

    At that time, for instance, both Bill Ayers and Obama fell within the orbit of left-wing Columbia superstar Edward Said. Just recently out of hiding, Ayers was attending the Bank Street College of Education, which adjoins the Columbia campus.

    Five years after leaving Columbia, Obama decided on law school. His lack of resources did not deter him from thinking big. Nor did his B-minus effort at his Hawaii prep school or his equally indifferent grades at Columbia.

    As Obama relates in "Dreams From My Father," he limited his choices to only three law schools – "Harvard, Yale, Stanford." (It must be nice to be Obama.) He does not mention his connections.

    Harvard Law School is notoriously difficult to get into. Annually, some 7,000 applications apply for some 500 seats. Applicant LSAT scores generally chart in the 98 to 99 percentile range, and GPAs average between 3.80 and 3.95.

    If Obama's LSAT scores merited admission, we would know about them. We don't. The Obama camp guards those scores, like his SAT scores, more tightly that Iran does its nuclear secrets.

    We know enough about Obama's Columbia grades to know how far they fall below the Harvard norm, likely even below the affirmative action-adjusted black norm at Harvard.

    As far back as 1988, however, Obama had serious pull. He would need it. As previously reported, Khalid al-Mansour, principle adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, lobbied friends like Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton to intervene at Harvard on Obama's behalf.

    An orthodox Muslim, al-Mansour has not met the crackpot anti-Semitic theory he could not embrace. As for bin Talal, in October 2001, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani sent his $10 million relief check back un-cashed after the Saudi billionaire blamed 9/11 on America.

    These are not connections that Obama would like to see broadcast, which further explains his shyness about the Harvard experience.

    There is more. Obama did not make the Harvard Law Review (HLR) the old-fashioned way, the way HLR's first black editor, Charles Houston, did 70 years prior.

    To Obama's good fortune, the HLR had replaced a meritocracy in which editors were elected based on grades – the president being the student with the highest academic rank – with one in which half the editors were chosen through a writing competition.

    This competition, the New York Times reported in 1990, was "meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review."

    It did just that. At the end of his first year, Obama was named, along with 40 or so of his classmates, an editor of the HLR.

    Unlike most editors, and likely all its presidents, Obama was not a writer. During his tenure at Harvard, he wrote only one heavily edited, unsigned note.

    In this note for the third volume of the 1990 HLR, he argued against any limits on abortion, citing the government's interest in "preventing increasing numbers of children from being born in to lives of pain and despair."

    Obama's timing, however, was better than his writing. In the same spring 1990 term that he would stand for the presidency of the HLR, the Harvard Law School found itself embroiled in an explosive racial brouhaha.

    Black firebrand law professor Derrick Bell was demanding that the Harvard Law School appoint a black woman to the law faculty.

    This protest would culminate in vigils and protests by the racially sensitive student body, in the course of which Obama would compare the increasingly absurd Bell to Rosa Parks.

    Feeling the pressure, HLR editors wanted to elect their first African-American president. Obama had an advantage. Spared the legacy of slavery and segregation, and having grown up in a white household, he lacked the hard edge of many of his black colleagues.

    "Obama cast himself as an eager listener," the New York Times reported, "sometimes giving warring classmates the impression that he agreed with all of them at once."

    In February 1990, after an ideologically charged all-day affair, Obama's fellow editors elected him president from among 19 candidates. As it happened, Obama prevailed only after the HLR's small conservative faction threw him its support.

    Curiously, once elected, Obama contributed not one signed word to the HLR or any other law journal. As Matthew Franck has pointed out in National Review Online, "A search of the HeinOnline database of law journals turns up exactly nothing credited to Obama in any law review anywhere at any time."

    One more thing: The 1990 Times article about Obama's election notes that the president of the HLR usually goes on to serve as a clerk for a Supreme Court justice.

    Not the Mansourian Candidate. Here, oddly, his ambition deserted him. He told the Times that he planned "to spend two or three years in private law practice and then return to Chicago to re-enter community work, either in politics or in local organizing."

    In this unlikely surrender to Chicago politics, the realist sees insecurity at best and, at worst, the quid for al-Mansour's quo. "
     
  6. arnie2

    arnie2 TS Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2008
    Messages:
    49
    Obama is at Ground Zero with McCain.

    They had the decency and common sense to put politics aside today. I guess some here are lacking those traits.
     
  7. pendennis

    pendennis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,567
    Location:
    Southeast Michigan - O/S Detroit
    Earlier Obama visited with Bill Clinton in New York, Harlem.

    Dennis
     
  8. Big Heap

    Big Heap TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,748
    Some of you might remember Hugh Downs. He's a retired 'elder statesman' of the TV industry and sometimes author. Obviously still has a keen mind with an interesting insight and analysis of the Obama Miracle!
    His analysis is persuasive and I truly hope he's right about the result!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It's time to throw my hat in the ring as regards predicting the election results. So here it is: Barack Obama will be defeated. Seriously and convincingly defeated. Not due to racism, not due to the forces of reaction, not even due to Karl Rove sending out mind rays over the national cable system. He will lose for one reason above all, one that has been overlooked in any analysis that I've yet seen. *Barack Obama will lose because he is a flake.*


    I'm using the term in its generally accepted sense. *A flake is not only a screwup, but someone who truly excels in making bizarre errors and creating incredibly convoluted disasters.* A flake is a 'fool with energy', as the Russian proverb puts it. ('A fool is a terrible thing to have around, but a fool with energy is a nightmare'.)
    *Barack Obama is a flake, and the American people have begun to see it.* The chief characteristic of a flake is that he makes choices that are impossible to either understand or explain. These are not the errors of the poor dope who can't grasp the essentials of a situation, or the neurotic who ruins things out of compulsion, or the man suffering chronic bad luck. The flake has a genius for discovering solutions at perfect right angles to the ordinary world. It's as if he's the product of a totally different evolutionary chain, in a universe where the laws are slightly but distinctly at variance to ours. When given a choice between left and right, the flake goes up -- if not through the 8th dimension. And although there's plenty of rationalization, there's never a logical reason for any of it.


    After awhile, people stop asking. Obama's rise has been widely portrayed as a kind of millennial Horatio Alger story -- young lad from a new state on the outskirts of the American polity, a member of once-despised minority, works his way by slow degrees to within arm's length of the presidency itself. That's all well and good -- we need national myths of exactly that type. But what has been overlooked is the string of faux pas marking each step of Obama's journey, a series of strange, inexplicable actions, actions bizarre enough to require some effort at explanation, through such efforts have rarely been offered. It's as if the new Horatio made it to the top by stepping into every last manhole and open trapdoor in his path. And we, the onlookers, the voters who are being asked to put this man in the White House, are supposed to take this as the normal career path for a successful chief executive.


    What are these incidents? I'm sure many of you are way ahead of me, but let's go to the videotape. Here's a young man who graduated from Columbia with high marks, with a held to be a close match to Paradise . One, furthermore, that can be characterized as the most successful multiracial society in the world, with harmonious relations not only between whites and blacks, but also Japanese-Americans and native Hawaiians as well. To top it off, a state controlled in large part by a smoothly-functioning Democratic machine.


    So where does he choose to go? To Chicago . One of the windiest, coldest, most brutal cities in the country. One that is also infinitely corrupt in a sense that Hawaii is not. One that remains one of the most racist large cities in the U.S. ( Cicero , Al Capone's old stomping grounds, a suburb that is effectively part of the city, is completely segregated to this day.) It would be nice to learn which of these aspects most attracted young Obama to the city. But if you'd asked at the beginning of the campaign, you'd still be waiting.
    And what does he do when he reaches the city? Why, he joins a cult. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church has been turned inside out since the videotaped sermons appeared early this year, without anyone ever quite explaining exactly what Obama was thinking of when he joined up in the first place. Street cred, so it's claimed. But there are a plethora of black churches that would have provided him that without the taint of demented racism that Wright's church offered. Obama apparently had to swear an oath of belief in 'black liberation theology' when he joined the church. (It is the little touches of that sort that make it a 'cult', and not simply a 'church'.)


    Did the thought of his career ever cross his mind? Didn't he realize that church would inevitably cause him trouble somewhere down the line? That he' d be required to repudiate it and its ideas eventually? We can ask -- but we won't get an answer.


    Back at school, Obama got himself named editor of the Harvard Law Review. This is a signal achievement, no question about it. The kind of thing that would be mentioned about a person for the rest of his life, as has been the case with Obama. But then... he writes nothing for the journal. Now, let's get this straight: here we have one of the leading university law journals in the country, one widely cited and read. Entire careers in legal analysis and scholarship have been founded on appearances in the Review, including some that have led to the highest courts in the country. Yet here's an individual who, as editor, could easily place his own work in the journal -- standard practice, nothing at all wrong with it. But he fails to do so. And the explanation? There's none that I've heard. We can go even further than that, to say that there is no explanation that makes the least rational sense.


    We follow Obama down to Springfield , where as a state legislator, he voted 'present' over 120 times. What this means, as far as I've been able to discover, is that he voted 'present' nearly as much as he voted 'yes' or 'no'. Now, statehouses work very simply: a member approaches his colleagues and asks them to vote for his bill. Some comply, some do not. Some ask, 'Is it a good bill?' and some don't; Either way, they customarily, except in unusual circumstances, vote 'yes' or 'no'. All except for Barack Obama. And how did get away with it? How did mollify his colleagues? How did he square himself with the party bosses? Echo answereth not. (A good slogan could be made of this: 'You can't vote present in the Oval Office.' I hereby commend it to the McCain campaign.)


    We turn eagerly to learn what his term in the U.S. Senate will reveal, only to be disappointed. But it's not surprising, really. After all, he was only there for 143 days. And there lies one of the keys to Obama's rise. David Brooks pointed out in a recent New York Times column that Obama spent too little time in any of his positions to make an impact one way or another. This is what saved him from the normal fate of the flake: he was never around long enough for his errors and strange behavior to catch up with him.
    But a presidential campaign is a different matter. A man running for president is under the microscope, and can't duck anything, as many a candidate has had reason to learn. If Obama is a flake in the classic mode, now is when it would come out. And has it? The case could be made. Here we have a campaign with everything going for it -- the opposition party in a shambles, a seriously undervalued president, the media i n the candidate's pocket, the candidate himself being worshiped as nothing less than the new messiah. And yet the results have comprised little more than one fumble after another.


    First came the Wright affair. Obama apparently thought he was above it all -- a not-uncommon phenomenon with flakes -- and allowed the revelations to take on a life of their own before bothering to respond. Even then, his thoughtful and convincing explanation (that he hadn't been listening for twenty years) did little to settle the crisis, which instead guttered out on its own after nearly crippling his campaign. Even months afterward it threatens to pop back up at any time. The latest word is that Wright -- now a deadly enemy of his onetime protégé -- has written a book. I can't wait.


    Obama learned his lesson, and confronted the next threat immediately, tackling The New Yorker cover with the avidity of a man having discovered zombies in the basement. A development that could have been defused with a chuckle and a quip (the customary method is for the politician to ask the cartoonist for the original) was allowed to explode into a major issue. The campaign's relentless attacks on one of the oldest liberal magazines extant merely perplexed the country at large. After all, any Republican has had to endure far worse.


    Almost simultaneously, the birth certificate saga was unfolding. On no reasonable grounds, the campaign blew off requests for a copy of the document, at last releasing it through one of the least reputable sites on the Internet, and so badly copied that literally anything could be read into it -- and was. I'm not one of those who believes that Obama was actually born in Indonesia/Kenya/Moscow/the moon, but I still have plenty in the way of questions, almost all of them arising from how the matter was handled. Well played.


    The latest pothole (or one of them, anyway) involves Jerome Corsi's The Obama Nation. Corsi has been given the full New Yorker treatment, with the campaign hoping to avoid John Kerry's 'error' in not challenging Corsi's 2004 book, Unfit for Command. What Obama missed was the fact that Kerry's major problem was not with Corsi but with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who were disgusted with Kerry's hypocrisy in running as an experienced military veteran, and set out to take him down. Corsi's effort dovetailed with the veteran's campaign and to a large extent was swept up with it. No such campaign is in operation against Obama. The smart method of answering Corsi would have been to allow the media to handle it, instead of drawing attention to the book and raising it to level of an issue.


    This appears to be a real talent for the Obama campaign. We could go on. The victory tour of Europe, and the speech in which Obama declared himself 'citizen of the world', a trope guaranteed to focus the attention of Middle America . His inept handling of Hillary, in which he wound up appearing frightened of the opponent he'd just beaten. Allowing Hillary (and her husband there, what's-his-name) a starring role in the Democratic convention is not a solution any sane individual would be comfortable with -- much less a roll-call vote. This threatens the near-certainty of turning the entire affair into BillandHillarycon, with the nominee winding up as a footnote.
    But it's all of a piece with the campaign Obama has waged up until now. We've never had a flake as president. We've had drunks, neurotics, cripples, louts, and fools, but never a career screwup. (I except Jimmy Carter, whose errors arose from sincere, misguided goodwill.) And I don't think we're going to get one now.


    Another three months of flailing, incompetence, and a collapsing image will do little to assure voters concerned with terrorism, the oil crunch, a gyrating economy, and a bellicose Russia . (Anyone doubting that Obama will go exactly this route can consider the Saddleback church fiasco, which unfolded as this piece was being wrapped up. Evidently, the campaign goaded NBC news personality Andrea Mitchell into all but accusing John McCain of 'cheating' by failing to take his place within the 'cone of silence' during Obama's part of the program. The grotesque element here is that Obama's people and much of the liberal commentariat -- including Mitchell -- apparently believe that the 'cone of silence', a gag prop for the old Get Smart! comedy series, actually exists and was in use at Saddleback.)


    Many of us have dealt with flakes at one time or another, often in settings involving jobs and careers, and not uncommonly in positions of some authority. We all know of the nephew, the fiancé, the boyfriend, whose whims must be catered to, whose reputation must be protected, who must be constantly worked around if anything at all is to be accomplished, always at the cost of time, money, efficiency, and personal stress. In the fullness of time, we will inevitably see such a figure in the White House.


    But not this year, and not this candidate. Such acts of national flakery occur only when there's no real alternative. In this election, an alternative exists. Whatever his shortcomings, nobody ever called John McCain a flake.










    =
     
  9. Bruce Specht

    Bruce Specht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,049
    Location:
    Near but not in chicago
    With any luck at all he's in a cave some where knealing on a rug facing east, Never to be seen or heard from again. We should be so lucky
     
  10. JH

    JH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,359
    Meeting Bill Clinton for lunch in trying to figure out ways to recapture his MOJO......I heard after lunch they went cruising for impressionable left-wing college co-eds.......
     
  11. ricks1

    ricks1 TS Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,545
    thanks stokinpls I have asked where he got the money to go to Harvard for a year NO one knows. In the next 3 weeks he will have to take a leave to rest. Biden will destroy the rest
     
  12. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,639
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    Big Heap, super duper. NIcely done. I had not seen Hugh Downs for a while. After the Jack Paar stint he was on some quiz shows and did commercials. Probably some stuff I missed.

    HM
     
  13. Bluzman98

    Bluzman98 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    840
    Putting lipstick on Michelle........
     
  14. pendennis

    pendennis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,567
    Location:
    Southeast Michigan - O/S Detroit
    Hugh Downs was on ABC's 20/20 for a long time. I always thought he took a rather neutral position whenever they ran a story, more like a reporter than an analyst.

    He does a bang-up job on this essay.

    Dennis
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.