Does it rhyme with "Kiev" or with "weave"?

 

I'm saying Kiev in my head but I'm not 100% sure.

I assume you mean "that are are NOT many dumb attorneys." You cannot be dumb and make it through law school and pass the BAR exam. Can't be. That, though, does not mean you're good at your job. That's not even really a subtle distinction , thus, it should be able to be picked up.

No, I meant exactly what I said. I have worked with some great lawyers, including one who was a professor of law at UK and served as an alternate on the Kentucky Supreme Court. He and a corporate lawyer who taught me a great deal about effective business writing are the two best writers that I have ever known. I also have seen some attorneys who are absolute idiots, including a public defender who represented a man accused of murder on a jury on which I served.

 

It is not nearly as hard to become an attorney as they make you believe on TV and most attorneys are not nearly as competent as TV lawyers either. Congress is full of lawyers and you can see their level of competency in the results. Ditto for the White House.

 

I would love to see Obama's academic records. It is too bad that he has not been as transparent as Cruz in that area. It seems like lots of students and professors remember Cruz from his college days but few remember Obama. I wonder why. Don't you?

Does it rhyme with "Kiev" or with "weave"?

According to IMDB, it is pronounced "Lee-ev." I cannot recall hearing his name pronounced. I have liked his work even in the less well known movies that I have seen him in.

So because Clyde doesn't start anti-Obama threads he's not a moderate?

 

I would say the large discrepency between defending and disagreeing with him is a good sign . But his actual stances he listed are a better .

So he's not allowed to call Cruz whacky based on what he saw Cruz say and what no one denied Cruz has said? He's not allowed to base his beliefs on what he believes he heard? It just seems like more of the same to me. Anti-Obama folks are allowed to believe whatever they want to believe but as soon as someone appears pro-Obama or moderate they need more than one quote to validate their opinion.

If you see me do anything close to this torward Obama call me on it .

That's what I want to know. I think it comes on Showtime maybe. Not sure.

You would enjoy it. Awesome show.

For the record Clyde if you feel me labeling you as a liberal is an attack I apologize. I just think all debates need proper context. I consider myself in the Libertarian arm of the Republican party which I think a majority of republicans 35 and under reside. Which I think is scary to democrat power structure that the future leadership of GOP is a lot more socially liberal. Which is why the trend of attacking the character of those GOP members has become more of a trend.

Liev is pronounced "Leave." I first remember him as Cotton Weary from the original Scream trilogy. Pretty sure he was in The Omen remake too. He plays Ray Donovan in the Showtime series Ray Donovan.

 

The show is nowhere near as entertaining as this thread. :lol2:

He is whacky based on his unrefuted comments about the govt wanting to eliminate paved roads and golf courses. He just seems to not understand the nullification issue. Two different things.

 

I'd say he understands the nullification issue. I just think he disagrees with the precedent that has been set by previous administrations that have sought to make the United States Government a monolithic entity rather than a voluntary union.

 

 

The President supports violating the constitution in ghe name of fighting terrorism and I have consistently criticized that stance. Doesnt make him whacky - just wrong.

 

He's allowed his DOJ to get involved in state cases -- most recent, DOJ is withholding Zimmerman's gun even though, by law, the state of FL should return. Dangerous precedent to be setting.

 

It's just easier to be a simple thinker and yell "LIBERAL" instead .

 

 

Like you he has no freaking clue as to how I lean.

 

No need for the passive-aggressive jab.

A government big enough to give you all you need is big enough to take all you have.

 

In light of one of subjects of this thread I need to rephrase this...

 

A GOVERNOR big enough to give all you need is big enough to take all all you have (or spy on all you do).

 

I am somewhat disappointed Christy has gone somewhat Alinsky with his comment directed at Paul - playing up the victims families of 9/11 as a reason to rationalize intrusion into ordinary Americans lives. But this is a debate that should be had. We need to debate privacy and less government intrusion vs. safety. This debate also goes into border protection and foreign visitor enforcement (green card, visa monitoring, etc.)

No need for the passive-aggressive jab.

 

Goes both ways. Don't call out one and not all of them.

Goes both ways. Don't call out one and not all of them.

 

Thanks, dad.

In light of one of subjects of this thread I need to rephrase this...

 

A GOVERNOR big enough to give all you need is big enough to take all all you have (or spy on all you do).

 

I am somewhat disappointed Christy has gone somewhat Alinsky with his comment directed at Paul - playing up the victims families of 9/11 as a reason to rationalize intrusion into ordinary Americans lives. But this is a debate that should be had. We need to debate privacy and less government intrusion vs. safety. This debate also goes into border protection and foreign visitor enforcement (green card, visa monitoring, etc.)

 

So, fat jokes somehow hammer home Christie's inability to lead?

Thanks, dad.

 

No problem, Son. And make sure your chores are done and that the grass is cut by the time I get home from work. You're going to earn your $1.50 allowance this week. No more handouts.

Whew!! What a thread! I can't believe I missed this debate. So here is what I think I just read over these 9 pages:

 

1. When I read this quote in post #26, "Cruz is simply whacky and not good for the country. Period." , I had a pretty good idea why the thread was 9 pages long. Then when I saw this quote in post #34, "the lens through which I see tells me that there is too much compromising on important issues in Washington" , .... well enough said. But the second quote is just a small snippet taken out of context so I doubt we will ever get an admission that is was actually stated.

 

2. The next time I am looking for an example of stonewalling a political question, I will pull up this thread. Half of the thread is because Mitch Rapp cannot, and I am pretty sure still has not, admitted that Ted Cruz said what he said. He is better than any politician in Washington about talking around a direct question and is more like every politician he despises than he realizes, or will ever admit.

 

3. Liberal is still the ugliest label on the planet. I am not sure who made liberal that great, one word label - Atwater?, Rove?, Gingrich? - but whoever did it has to get more credit for creating what may be the greatest one word label in political history. It's use is on prominent display in this thread.

 

4. On Chris Christie, who I thought this thread was about when I first started reading :lol2:, I like the guy more and more. Here is what I really like about Christie. He isn't beholden to toeing the line. His job is representing the people of his state and he never forgets that. If it is in his consitutents best interest to do or say something that flies directly in the face of his party, he doesn't care. He is going to do what he feels is right for the people he represents. I also like his openness. We could sure use a lot more of that in politics. If I had to vote right now for my choice for President in the next election, Christie is my pick.