Why is voting "no" a nullity? Suppose you were in the Senate and a series of bills, one to make abortion available to girls without parental consent, one to make marijuana legal to everyone, regardless of age, one to cut the defense budget by two-thirds, one to increase the subsidy to the UN . . . you get the picture. Would you vote for them, or would you vote "no," and have that "no" express your sense of principles?<br><br>[color:red]</font color=red> [color:orange]</font color=orange> [color:yellow]</font color=yellow> [color:green]</font color=green> [color:blue]</font color=blue> [color:purple]</font color=purple>
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
Obama cowrote the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 which created a national database we can all use to track federal spending. He worked with Sen. Lugar on non-proliferation. While not perfect, he helped to push through the 2007 Government Ethics Bill over Sen. McCain's initial objection. (Remember those angry letters McCain wrote?)<br><br>Very few other Senators have been authoring bills at the pace he has.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
I concur.<br><br>Needless 'words'...<br>why not just talk numbers<br>then when the numbers don't jive<br>cut off that leader early<br>see where we're at now?><br>that's what happens when you keep back your thoughts<br>words are a dime a dozen<br>thoughts that make dollars (w/o blood on them)<br>makes sense<br><br>fyi<br>Florida is no place for the slow.<br><br>[color:green]I'll never forget the day I noticed weather modification happening: "What nature fearing cheaters."</font color=green>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09obama.html?_r=1&ei=5088&en=2a88709e3c7a587b&ex=1360213200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all">NY Times article out today</a> -- snippet starting with Obama in his freshman year of college:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Mr. Obama displayed a deft but unobtrusive manner of debating.“When he talked, it was an E. F. Hutton moment: people listened,” said John Boyer, who lived across the hall from Mr. Obama. “He would point out the negatives of a policy and its consequences and illuminate the complexities of an issue the way others could not.” He added, “He has a great sense of humor and could defuse an argument.”<br><br>Mr. Obama seemed interested in thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud and Jean-Paul Sartre, whom he studied in a political thought class in his sophomore year.<br><br>The professor, Roger Boesche, has memories of him at a popular burger joint on campus.<br><br>“He was always sitting there with students who were some of the most articulate and those concerned with issues like violence in Central America and having businesses divest from South Africa,” he said. “These were the kids most concerned with issues of social justice and who took classes and books seriously.”<p><hr></blockquote><p>yeah, most "empty suits" get into Nietzsche and Freud and discuss the complexities of issues. Numerous "empty suits" can frame issues better with the best of them and most also go on to be president of the Harvard Law Review. other "empty suits" in the Harvard Law review include:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Prominent alumni of the Harvard Law Review include Supreme Court Justices Edward Sanford, Felix Frankfurter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., as well as Secretary of State Dean Acheson, Charles Hamilton Houston, Alger Hiss, Archibald MacLeish, Judge Richard Posner, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Chris Cox, New York governor Eliot Spitzer, Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, Yale Law Dean Harold Koh, former Canadian ambassador Allan Gotlieb, former New York State Solicitor General Preeta D. Bansal, University of Texas President William C. Powers, and Harvard University president Derek Bok.<p><hr></blockquote><p>becoming the President of Harvard Law Review is also what landed him the book deal that eckhard questions. this is why he wrote that book, fwiw. He was the first black president of the HLR and that was national news at the time.<br><br>mojo, i am curious why you're using rhetoric like "empty suit" when the facts don't support what you're saying. i don't believe that you'd reach that conclusion because of something like race, but i honestly don't know how you arrive at it.<br><br>
[color:blue]the book deal that eckhard questions</font color=blue><br><br>Not that he wrote a book, but that the two have both been autobiographical in nature, is what I find interesting... for a young man.<br>I don't doubt for a moment that he would have liked Nietztsche and Freud, however. It still shows. ;)<br><br><br><br><br>
"Humor ist, wenn man trotzdem lacht" (Humour means laughing despite of it)
<br><br>personally, i think he's a "christian" only in name. i don't think he's religious at all. he's been carving this presidential run (or at least involvement in politics) for a very long time. Bill Clinton was the same way so i don't think there's anything wrong with it. but i do wish a candidate could get elected to a high office as an atheist in this country. we're a long, long, long way from that. so they all give a shout out to "God" and some even make it the basis of their campaign (and win, as Bush did).<br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>they all give a shout out to "God" and some even make it the basis of their campaign<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yeah, I mean we had all that with Blair as well, as if any entity could be more important than himself. So he promotes the bombing of Iraq on some spurious foundation claiming to have been commanded by God but when the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope both said he was deluded he started going on about how Muslims were ignoring their spiritual leaders - what an idiot.<br><br>km<br><br>
[Hee]<br><br>INIGO<br>(whirling on Vizzini)<br><br> You keep using that word -- I do not think it means what you think it means. <br><br>(looks down again)<br><br>My God! He's climbing.<br><br>THE MAN IN BLACK,<br><br>and so he is. Very slowly, he is picking his way upwards, sometimes a foot at a time, sometimes an inch.<br><br>CUT TO:<br>The group at the top, staring down. <br><br><br>[/Hee!]<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
_________________________ We are what we repeatedly do - Aristotle
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.