Went to a rally today
- Thread starter papajohn56
- Start date
My policy is to read the first few comments before reading articles. It's easy to know the tone of the article when you read what all the bobble-heads have say about it.
When I saw the name "Teabagger Conservatives" used 7 times in one post I decided this was one article where 30 idiots that agree with each other got together for their evening circle-jerk.
So to answer your question: No.
I would love to see BO's grades etc....Oh yea he won't release them. Now, why wouldn't you release your transcripts if your as smart as all the liberals say you are. I mean what harm can come out of a transcript full of A's.
Unless your not as intelligent as all the libs think you are. I bet BO doesn't want all the liberal nut suck lickers to realize that he is a result of affirmative action not extreme talent and intelligence.
I hate to defend Obama, but he did get into Columbia University and Harvard Law, so I'm guessing his grades were decent. Not that grades are necessarily an indicator of intelligence...
Affirmative Action could have played a role. Bush went to Yale and Harvard MBA.
I should note too - Cynthia McKinney is fucking insane and anyone who voted for her is a certifiable moron. I don't even think they fall under the category of 'liberal', they fall under the 'we let these people vote?' category.
March 29, 2006, Capitol Hill police incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
She's also a 9/11 Truther, and a racist.
March 29, 2006, Capitol Hill police incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
She's also a 9/11 Truther, and a racist.
Ahahha. I may hang out for a bit. Getting burnt out on code, so I figured I may as well bicker with yall for a bit to regain sanity :updown:
You don't get to be the President of the Harvard Law review because of Affirmative action.
At this point I disagree with the majority of the man's policies, but he's not stupid...he's calculating. Watching his administration position themselves in the current PR wars with Israel and the Republicans(especially on Banking issues for the Republicans) has been fascinating.
Ron Paul invited McKinney to his press conference and encouraged people to vote for her or one of the other alternative candidates, instead of for Obama or McCain.
Ron Paul Press Conference (2008) | Ron Paul .com
See what I did there? It's not good to make the same sort of ad hom attacks against other people that are made against your guy. It's a race to the bottom (all politics is really) which no one wins.
McKinney is heroic on some things, terrible on others. What she has over mainstream candidates is that she is the real deal, warts and all. You can fault her for being wrong or misguided, but you cannot fault her for being insincere or dishonest.
family placements, which was really a form of affirmative action for Bush. (And most rich C graders)
Quote from somewhere I don't remember. If you need it referenced use the Google yourself.
"I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement)."
"I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement)."
This is just a general post, not directed specifically at anyone (including UG).
I think it is important to clarify that because...
Small "L" libertarianism is a moral philosophy, not necessarily a political one. In fact, libertarian anarchists are apolitical and still consistently libertarian.
Libertarians are driven by one moral axiom. Non-aggression. It is never morally permissible to initiate force against someone else for any reason. This axiom is based on self-ownership.
Progressivism, conservatism, neo-liberal/conservatism, liberalism, socialism, are not based on such a simple and coherent foundation.
Which brings me to...
There are a lot of shades to morality. Facts however are black and white. 1+1 = 2.
It is a bad habit in all of us to confuse our morality with fact. That is why politics exist. So the largest group can impose their morality on the smaller group through the use of force, justified by some artificial legal construct that makes what is immoral for the individual (stealing, murder) moral for the majority (taxes, war).
Libertarians see a way that does not require politics (conservatism or liberalism) for all groups to have their personal freedom.
What is important to remember is that they are political ideologies. A liberal may be for abortion to protect the mother, or to help reduce population. A conservative may be for less spending because it is more efficient, or because debt leads to vice. They are political ideologies which reflect particular policy positions, not necessarily the same justification or moral basis for those positions.
I think it is important to clarify that because...
Libertarians are not conservative or liberal.
Small "L" libertarianism is a moral philosophy, not necessarily a political one. In fact, libertarian anarchists are apolitical and still consistently libertarian.
Libertarians are driven by one moral axiom. Non-aggression. It is never morally permissible to initiate force against someone else for any reason. This axiom is based on self-ownership.
Progressivism, conservatism, neo-liberal/conservatism, liberalism, socialism, are not based on such a simple and coherent foundation.
Which brings me to...
Opinions are indeed subjective. They differ from person to person, moment to moment. What is not subjective is objective reality. An apple is an apple for example. How we feel about apples, whether we want apples, that is subjective. That an apple is an apple is however key to being able to think without contradiction (law of identity).
There are a lot of shades to morality. Facts however are black and white. 1+1 = 2.
It is a bad habit in all of us to confuse our morality with fact. That is why politics exist. So the largest group can impose their morality on the smaller group through the use of force, justified by some artificial legal construct that makes what is immoral for the individual (stealing, murder) moral for the majority (taxes, war).
Libertarians see a way that does not require politics (conservatism or liberalism) for all groups to have their personal freedom.
3 things.
1. So what's a big L libertarian?
2. You say facts are black and white but that is on the premise that facts are, well, factual.
Fact:
S:
fact (a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred) "first you must collect all the facts of the case"S:
fact (a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened) "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"S:
fact (an event known to have happened or something known to have existed) "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"S:
fact (a concept whose truth can be proved) "scientific hypotheses are not facts"Many time "facts" are just assertions formed by everyday people with flawed judgements and questionable perceptions. (look at the facts from multiple eye witness testimonies to one event and see how much they vary) Much like re-written history, a fact can be in the eye of the beholder.
and finally 3.
made me think of this shirt.
Political libertarian aka Libertarian Party member. Comes in two basic flavors.
1. Radical libertarian who uses the political election process to educate about liberty and government.
2. Statist libertarians who use the political election process to become part of government and change it from within. Until Bob Barr, nearly every LP candidate ran to gain more votes, only as a way of measuring the spread of libertarian ideas. Barr (a conservative who bought his way into the LP) actually wanted some political power to wield.
Wielding power, even "for the greater good" is precisely what libertarians oppose. It is why Ron Paul doesn't seek any power and votes alone on bills, when he could go along and gain more power on even very small issues no one cares about.
It is based on the law of identity which is essential for logic.
The law is usually expressed like this. A = A.
A cannot be equal to A, and not equal to A at the same time, without being a contradiction.
Anything which is a contradiction, cannot be a fact.
Those aren't facts though. Those are observations. Observations are subjective. Facts are not.
We can observe gravity and it is also a fact. If we didn't notice gravity, it wouldn't cease to be a fact. We can observe the sun moving from east to west, and yet it wouldn't make the sun revolving around the earth a fact.