7 Responses to “May 16, 2011”

1. The David Pakman Show - May 16, 2011 - The Liberty Lounge Political Forums
   

   16. May, 2011

   [...] [...]

2. Lawrence D. Woodroof
   

   17. May, 2011

   I was surfing the channels this morning looking for something more meaningful, intelligent or entaining than REgis and Kelly when I stumbled across your show on a local channel cable feed from some obscure source. At first I thought your show was a sketch from SNL satiring small-minded liberals attempting to disparage popular politicians and celebrity political talkk show hosts, the I realized it wasn’t. You two fellows are real and either don’t have a clue or are trying to defend and promote anything political that would tear down and destroy our free country. What came across from you was a constant tyriad of “I hate America… I hate free speech except for my persoanl views… I support Shar ria law and feel women are supposed to be chattel and never were intended to have the same rights and priviliges as men… Anyone who supports the US Constitution is an idiot who never should have been allowed to read it and should only listen and believe what Anti-Americans and people like me (David Pakman) claim the Constitutioin and its Amendments mean…”

   In the long run, I guess I am glad there are shallow-minded, know-it-all egotists such as yourself out there for those of us who have studied and understand what principles Our Country was founded upon and have actually read the US Constitution and its amendments and understand what they mean to be able to point you out as an example to our children as a good example of a bad education and anti-American indoctination by radical leftists calling themselves “progressives”.

   We have the Reverend Wrights and their followers at one end of the spectrum and you and your peers at the other. Neither have any idea what it means to be a citizen of this great country nor the common sense to want to protect it and our individual rights.

3. bill
   

   17. May, 2011

   To Lawrence (Dumbass) Woodbrain

   Here is some more free speech for you…..You are an Idiot and an obvious T-bag plant. You expose yourself as incompetent lack of knowledge concerning placement on a spectrum. I doubt very much you even know what a spectrum is. You must be a graduate of Liberty University. I am sure I have seen you as a young highschool, undisciplined, moronic child, espousing absurdities, as is the normal custom for T-bagging, toe jam sniffers like yourself. In fact here is a link for everyone to watch you luuurrrrnin.
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNGGNomLx_c&feature=share

4. Mat Weller
   

   18. May, 2011

   I didn’t get to yesterday’s poll in time, but my answer would have been this: Obama and the Democrats will think the assassination of Bin Laden will matter enough to put him over the top in 2012, but the problem is that they seem not to realize that the people that helped him win in 2008 — the far lefties and the radical new voters — have not yet seen him live up to any of the issues he campaigned on that they cared about. If he brings all the troops home AND the civilian contractors were paying mad money for, and if he makes gay marriage legal across the country, that might be enough to get him elected again. As it is, he’s looking at a 2012 election day that may take longer to sort out than Bush v. Gore because it’ll be so close.

5. Christiaan
   

   18. May, 2011

   I understand the outed concerns, unfortunately, nothing Ron Paul stated was engaged. Only concerns of ludicracy where conveyed at the thought of making dope not illegal. The principles of that ideas were not questioned. So let me, in “defense” of Ron Paul, throw in some thought, statements and questions to spice things up
   1. How do voilent drug lords make their money and why are they voilent in the first place?
   2. After 30 years and hundreds uppon hundreds, perhaps on local and federal lever, more then a trillion dollars later, how much has drug abuse gone down realy?
   3. How does the policy of the last 30 years exactly effect society in Mexico and countries like Bolivia?
   4. Do you realy think that by not illegalizing dope, the problems indicated in points 2 and 3 would be EVEN worse?
   5. Were drugs always there?
   6. When did they become illegal?
   7. What can you say about drug prohibition in US society and trends in voilent drug related crime?
   8. Of dope werent illegal, and somebody smoked crack, afterwards, what harm did that person do?
   9. What good does it do to put the person described in point 8 in prison for 10 years, spending time with rapists, psychopaths and murderers? What does that person or society as a whole have to gain by doing that and spending 24 thou a year on each one AND paying his welfare, cause he sure as hell ain;t gonna find a job after a stint like that.
   10. What gives anyone the right to tell an other person what he can or cannot do to his own body? Why not ban McDonalds. If you can afford the costs of the habit, it is much healthier to shoot up with high grade opium everyday, than to eat a Big Mac everyday. The health risk in Opium usage are selfneglect (spending all your money on your habit instead of your health) and hygenic complacency (dirty needles, prostitution when your money runs out)
   11. How many people have thought :”I’m gonna become a herione junkie and ruin my life ! O no..no wait, it says here it;s illegal. Awell…”?
   12. There are so many ways of geting totaly lost, bumed out and hooked to addicting household items. Strong glue but a small but potent example. How is it no one is banning glue and how is it millions of people are NOT sitting home sniffing glue all day?
   I could go on, but when the hell will there ever by a real adult discussion about matters like this, except the adolecent ones waging in the States for 30 years now? Searching your underbelly and then claiming outrage at the things you have felt there are not a very compelling way of intellectualy engaging propositions like those Ron Paul puts forth.

6. Isaac B
   

   25. May, 2011

   I enjoy your podcast from NYC. You raised an interesting question regarding how the Hasidic community/paper that photoshopped Hillary Clinton and Audrey Thomason out of the now famous “situation room” photo.

   First off, I oppose such suppression of females. This is not an apologetic.

   But your question implies that the people who did this would not have done so to the prime minister of Israel, had she been female (as was Golda Meir, who served in the role from 1969 through 1974). I believe that you would be interested in my take on the answer(s).

   1. As far as I understand it, “Der Tzeitung”, the Yiddish language paper that did the photoshopping, is a publication for the Satmar sect of Hasidic Judaism, which, while having adherents world-wide, is concentrated in Brooklyn and Kiryas Joel, NY. The community (as I recall) supported Hillary Clinton in her run for senate and as I recall, Hillary “did good” for the community. I believe there’s as decent mutual respect for Hillary in the Satmar community as any symbiotic politician-constituent relationship. I’d venture to guess that Hillary accepted being photoshopped as the cost of doing business.

   2. The Satmar community is noted for following a tradition of non (or anti) Zionism – that for Jews to re-establish a state in the land of Israel prior to God’s appointed messenger (i.e., the Messiah) coming to lead the way is not acceptable. They consider the government of Israel to be illegitimate. So, a female prime minister of Israel would get no break. I’m not sure if they would be eager to display photos of male Israeli prime ministers (I don’t read this paper, so I can’t say for certain).

   3. Had this taken place in the early ’70s, when Golda Meir was Israeli prime minister, showing her image would have been non-controversial. There are three key reasons for this: The first; the Hasidic community was less insular and radical three decades ago. Second; this particular sect was much smaller, three decades ago, as it was just beginning to regenerate a population decimated by the Holocaust. This paper likely did not yet exist. Finally; There was a much larger Yiddish language speaking population in the USA and NYC, with several newspapers. That community had been in the country for several more decades than the Satmar community, who arrived post WWII. It was much more diverse in its religious orientation and political views. The “mainstream” Yiddish papers (which the Satmar community members would have been just a slice of the overall readership) would have reported the news “as is” and used pictures of women, any women, unretouched.

   Thanks for your great shows, as always.

7. Larence D. Woodroof
   

   22. Feb, 2012

   Bill, I just stumbled across your response to my May 16, 2011 comment to your anti-American, anti- Constitution rants. Funny how I was looking for a webpage setup by my 40 year old son and ran across your childish remarks.
   Let me correct some errors on your ASSumptions about me. I am not a member of the Tea-Party. (The Tea-Party is the accurate name of the grassroots political group that you thiink sounds quite cute referring to as people particiapting in homosexual acts. Of course your making such comments is both childish and bigotted not only toward the Tea Party organization but also toward homosexuals. It reveals one of your poorer personality traits.) Also, I am not a teenager, Some of my grandchildren are teenagers. I am a veteran of the Marine Corps. I have been in the civilian workforce for 40 years. I have been listening to politicians and voting for 42 years. No, I am not a college graduate. My life experiences and majority of education came form the real world, not the lips of some anti-American socialist with a University job who has spent their drug using lives brainwashing the naive minds of the less strong willed, clingie momma’s boys and angry little girls into opposing Our great Nation and Constitution. Please, take the time to actually read and understand Our Constitution. If you ever do, you will realise how wrong your tainted political opinions have been. Also, I will be voting for the presidential candidate who understands and supports the US Constitution, not the current elected official in office who doesn’t have a clue…