idrankwhat

No one is running from the facts. Quite the opposite, most of us are capable of looking at more than the narrowly defined "fact" that you're choosing to focus upon. If you guys would go back and read what was posted, like I just did (not even an IT professional), then you would be able to take the quote in context. But let's change the context from decisions regarding race, as made by an all white male court, to decisions regarding torture, as made by a panel of dittoheads. Would you place any more value on an opinion that Judge John McCain wrote based on the richness of his experience, one that is not shared by his armchair warrior counterparts? But then again, this isn't about her, her comments, or her opinions. This whole thing is about galvanizing the Republican base. The Republican strategists have said precisely that and you stated it before when you laid out your strategy. Take her to task about topic "X", thrash her publicly as you vie for attention, then vote in favor of her nomination because she's well qualified and frankly, you're secretly really happy that Obama didin't nominate an ideologue with an axe to grind. edited to add: I think there's a flaw in my hyperbole but I'll leave it to someone else to point it out

I noticed the quotation marks in the thread title and wanted to see if that's where the thread was going. But with regard to the OP, I'd say that al Qaeda doesn't care for Obama's speech or his speach. Which is just fine with me.

Actually, it does look pretty good. I'm sure that we could spend the rest of the day parsing and cherry picking quotes from across the globe to support our arguments. However that fact on its own is a sign of vast improvement over the previous, nearly universal condemnation of our President's rhetoric. I think it was a great speech and couldn't find much to criticize. The proof will be in how well Obama pursues his stated goals. It's a good start with regards to initiating a peace process between Israel and Palestine. And I think the timing of a well received speech in Cairo may have a positive impact, even if only slight, in the upcoming Iranian election. Then again, maybe not, but that's a heck of a lot better than "no way in hell" so we're on the right track. Also, if we're going to talk about his "speach", which I thought this thread might address, we should at least have his speech as a reference.

Actually he was well received. When was the last time you heard a predominantly Muslim audience applauding a US President? As for bin Laden (if that's really his voice) did you think that he was going to change his stripes because Bush was gone? Methinks he dost protest too much. Bush was bin Laden's most prolific and effective recruiter. If Obama can divide what Bush was uniting then the bin Laden's of the world will have much tougher time. And that's a good thing, right?

Man, is it getting thick in here or what? "Next up on FOX Sports Entertainment. ASSAIL IN THE BALE!!! BATTLE OF THE STRAW MEN!!!! Check your matches at the door! This one's guaranteed to Spontaneously Combust!!!!!"

10 01 black-white left-right good-evil with us or against us Did you know you can count all the way up to the number 7 if you add one more space to the binary representation?

IMO, you're looking too hard for something to be critical about. At least wait until he uses "that" when he should use "which"

Thanks for sharing this morning folks. There's some really good stuff there. Laszlo, the second shot, the ummm....."hybrid?" made me laugh out loud. Thanks guys,

I agree. And I think he's got some good ideas on how to change that river but I'm skeptical that he'll be able to do it on maxed out credit cards and with a Congress that's more interested in job retention (and the corresponding campaign donations) than the big picture.

One more question. Do you really want him to release the torture pictures?

You are right. Obama, in many cases is doing the same thing that Bush did. And if that is how you want to limit the discussion then you guys have a great time. However, Obama would likely have never created the problems that are being dealt with now. If that's not a welcome addition in the bash fest then I apologize and will leave you to your picked cherries.

I honestly have no idea why the Obama administration seems to think that the info can't be shared. Not a clue and I'm not going to guess. And for the record, I don't like the secrecy. But I don't think I'm getting my point across very well. Creating the problem and dealing with its aftermath are two different things. Sometimes there are no good solutions. Folks seem to want to rake Obama over the coals because he hasn't cleaned up Bush's messes in a satisfactory manner. The torture/abuse photo release issue is probably the best example of the conundrum. Releasing them is the right thing to do but you know that the media will have a field day with them, and the consequences would be severe. I have a tendency to cut Obama some slack because he seems to acknowledge the problems caused by his predecessor and wants to rectify them. Whether or not he can do that is another story. Meanwhile, the Bush administration continues to state that they didn't do anything wrong. One party desires (possibly unacheivable) accountability, the other runs from it. There's the difference.

Wow! I want to join the discussion but I think you somehow successfully referenced every thread posted in SC in the last three years. I have no idea where to start You win

Yep, its time alright Walking away on a flat or round Earth

There is no such thing, unless your freedom to chose when and how much matters to you. Then it may come to pass.. I know there's no such thing. You can't make one. Efficiency could be improved but we're going to have to rethink power generation to achieve any real overall efficiency. We eventually quit rubbing sticks together to make fire. It's time to start evolving and quit with the technological nostalgia.

The warrantless wiretapping should never have happened in the first place. If it hadn't, then there wouldn't be those questionable documents that might threaten state secrets. Do you see the difference in authorizing the illegal wiretapping and and the disposition of the resultant information? Gitmo represents nearly everything that was wrong with the previous administration. It is an indelible stain on this nation's history. The Congress is simply interested in protecting their seats. There is no reason that we can't put terrorists in our supermax prisons, you know, the ones that already successfully hold terrorists and brain eaters. With one percent of our population being held in jail I'm pretty sure that if there's one thing we know how to do well, it's incarcerate. Bush (actually Cheney) was responsible for the torture. It never should have happened in the first place (are you noticing a trend here?). The Bush administration needed to be held accountable for their illegal actions. The public release of the photos did some real damage to the US. Was it necessary accountability? That's a tough call. I would have been content with Congress holding a private hearing (well maybe not THAT Congress, a.k.a. "rubber stamp") and a subsequent impeachment. I also would have accepted keeping the photos secret and one or more Executive resignations. The problem a few years ago was that the Bush administration was doing illegal things and wrapping themselves in a shroud of unitary executive privilege. There was absolutely no accountability for their misguided and illegal actions. Something had to give. Did it smack us in the face? It sure did. Bush is gone now and Obama would like the world to think he's the anti-Bush. But unless Obama is prepared to hand over the 43rd administration to the world court then nothing good will come from releasing the photos. So once again, Obama is going to have to take a hit for something his predecessor did. No, it was my 17 year old, half crippled cat that wandered out to where I was clearing some land. I had to cut her head off with a fucking bush axe because she was crushed, but not dead. That clear enough for you?

He can't make legislators vote against their NIMBY tendencies. I wish he could in this instance. As for troop levels, I'm guessing that he's still trying to make that happen. But that doesn't mean that he can push a "recall" button and bring them home, especially when things are going to shit in Afghanistan and with our "allies" in Pakistan. When you make a mess I think that you have a responsibility to help clean it up. It sucks, but I think that's the right thing to do. I'll be interested to see how the last 11/12ths of his first term pan out. He's got some good ideas and I'd like to see some progress in those directions.

Maybe you have a point. I mean it's been almost five months already and we're still using foreign oil. Where is this "future" that he keeps talking about? He needs to make some difficult decisions and deliver. I want my efficient electrical grid NOW!

What you guys seem to be criticizing Obama for is that he has not been able to adequately deal with Bush's mistakes as quickly as we would like. Iraq = Bush's mistake. Should not have gone in. Afghanistan = Bush's mistake. Should not have left. Wiretapping - Should not have happened in the first place. Gitmo - Never should have been built (and the legislators need to man up and use the prisons in their backyards). Torture photos - We should not have tortured in the first place (but releasing the photos now would be a bad idea). Saying that his inability to un-fuck the US from the Bush legacy in a timely manner does not mean that he approves of Bush policies or that Bush was doing the right thing. It means that these were major failures and figuring out how to best deal with them is a difficult task. That's one of the reasons that I used to say that someone like George Allen deserved to inherit the Bush legacy (doubtful that the US would have survived that scenario however). I think that most of us would agree that killing your pet is not a good idea. But suppose someone runs over your pet with a tractor and it's not dead yet. Is it ok to kill it now? You'll cry when you do it but you never should have put that idiot in the driver's seat.

They are? Aren't her peers the ones who on whom that average is based? Now admittedly, averages can be deceiving. If she had only had one case reviewed by the SC, and it was reversed, then she'd have a 100% SC reversal score. I think that the 1.3% average based on her total number of cases would be a better indicator.

The SC doesn't hear cases it doesn't have a possible interest in changing. So that 60% needs to be measured against peers, not our notion of what a proper percentage should be. If you'd like to check her stats against her peers, I think you will find 60% is quite high. Actually she's below the average From Factcheck.org: In any case, 60 percent of the cases the Supreme Court has reviewed is not a particularly high number. In any given term, the Supreme Court normally reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears. During its 2006-2007 term, for instance, the Court reversed or vacated (which, for our purposes here, mean the same thing) 68 percent of the cases before it. The rate was 73.6 percent the previous term.

Maybe you should read some more about the case. She didn't throw out the result of the promotions exam. The New Haven Fire Dept. threw them out because they were afraid of being sued based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The question before the three judge panel was whether or not New Haven had to comply with the Federal Statute. And while Ricci's story was very sad and had the court's sympathy, they ruled 3-0 that New Haven acted appropriately based on its obligation to protect itself from lawsuits pertaining title VII. So, in essence, you have provided an example of a judge NOT legislating from the bench and not allowing personal feelings to influence her decision. She upheld the letter of the law despite her empathy. Isn't that the sort of Judge you'd like to see on the SC? Link to the decision

I would certainly not do that, not in any religion. However a well funded whacko minority can have an inordinate influence on the debate.

Apparently quite a few give a shit, and money too. I was flipping through the channels the other morning and came across Pastor John Hagee and Pat Boone lending their talents to the "on wings of eagles" effort. It's a program to encourage a Jewish migration to Israel. From the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews website "The Fellowship’s On Wings of Eagles supporters are showing their compassion and concern for the Jewish people, and helping fulfill the biblical prophecies that promise the return to Israel of Jewish exiles from “the four corners of the earth.”" Hagee and other Christian Zionists are also pretty adamant about not dividing up what they consider to be the promised land. Hagee stated in an interview with Terry Gross ""Joel 3:2 says do not do it. Those who divide up the land of Israel will come under the judgment of God. Therefore, don't do it. It's just that simple."