you saying he did it countless times, are you being truthful ? The school seems to go on record as saying he was a professor, should I believe you guys, or the school as being most accurate ? "UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined"
just saying, the spin here is intense. The orignal post was about Obama really being a "TA"...is that truthful ?
What I think is obama was more accurate and truthful that what was posted here...so if you think he has credibility issues, guess what. .
grandpa, notice how only your peers use the term global warming ?
"In short, we found: Concern about the effects of climate change is high across political groups, with majorities of Democrats and Independents expressing concern about global warming and its potential harm for themselves and future generations. Across party lines, there is support for taking action to reduce global warming, with pluralities of all groups favoring medium-scale efforts. Even among Republicans, a sizeable majority support making some effort to address global warming. Independents more closely resemble Democrats in their attitudes and beliefs about global warming, and like Democrats,most support efforts to address the problem. Thus, the issue of global warming is a political opportunity to connect with most Independents. A majority of registered voters (58%) say they will consider candidates’ position on global warming when deciding how to vote. Policies to promote renewable energy are favored by the majority of voters across party lines. Majorities support eliminating federal subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, but oppose ending subsidies to the renewable energy industry. Instead, solid majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans support funding more research into renewable energy sources. Registered voters support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. They are also willing to support a candidate who promotes a carbon tax but this depends on how the money is used. Candidates garner greater support when the money is used to create jobs, decrease pollution, or pay down the national debt compared to giving a tax refund to American families. Democratic and Independent majorities want Congress and President Obama to do more to address global warming, as do increasing numbers of Republicans. - "
in summary, I think more people are looking to make informed decisions...not just parrot "global warming is hoax"
oh those wacky liberal heads of military
"As a follow-up to its landmark 2007 study on climate and national security, the CNA Corporation Military Advisory Board's National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change re-examines the impact of climate change on U.S. national security in the context of a more informed, but more complex and integrated world.
The Board’s 2007 report described projected climate change as a “threat multiplier.” In this report the 16 retired Generals and Admirals who make up the board look at new vulnerabilities and tensions posed by climate change, which, when set against the backdrop of increasingly decentralized power structures around the world, they now identify as a “catalyst for conflict.”
In the seven years since the first Military Advisory Board (MAB) report, developments in scientific climate projections, observed climate changes (particularly in the Arctic), the toll of extreme weather events both at home and abroad, and changes in the global security environment have all served to accelerate the national security implications of climate change. While there has been some movement in efforts to plan effective responses to these challenges, the lack of comprehensive action by both the United States and the international community to address the full spectrum of projected climate change issues remains a concern.
The specific questions addressed in this update are:
1. Have new threats or opportunities associated with projected climate change or its effects emerged since our last report? What will be the impacts on our military?
2. The 2014 National Climate Assessment indicates that climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present. What additional responses should the national security community take to reduce the risks posed to our nation and to the elements of our National Power (Political, Military, Social, Infrastructure, and Information systems (PMESII))?
just to pss off an old crabby retired (aka..mr deleted). I too am getting old, and it is painful becoming irrelavent. That too will pass.
I don't think they will ask about global warming at all. that term is from the early 90's, a bit after disco days.
bad as mainstream media is, they don't use old man phrases. Do you still call asians orientals ? I'm 60 and did that until about a decade ago.
I took a look at the referenced data...decided to take some silver bets off the table too, like you, just short term I think.
Now that I looked it up, I know why...it has been discussed for 6 years.
truthdeleted, more like truthperthepointedhatman.
glorified TA ? Seems like you like to spin things also...mr moe. I do get tired of having to look stuff up all the time....you can depend on everyone being a spin doctor...even those critiquing others of the same.
"Q: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?
A: His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.
When I was in law school, I addressed all of my course instructors as "professors," regardless of their rank or formal position in the school academic hierarchy (tenured professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, lecturer, etc.). Was Obama exaggerating or factually wrong in referring to himself as a "constitutional law professor" at the University of Chicago Law School even though his official title was lecturer?
Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."
Recently, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:
Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.
The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)."
because they rely on people being interested in what they report....you didn't know how news reporting works ? When you go to your favorite news source..they also cater to your interests in what they report.
don't take it so personal.
like your name...crabby and just proud of it.
yep, still law of the land...goes with the position I guess, next guy or gal can change it, and the band plays on.
short term, I think there will be another PM correction (not big)...but I sold some PAAS and Pslv today.
Sure hope there is not another housing correction...not sure it would be a correction in most markets, but more like a continuation.
just noting the correlation I see between strong christian beliefs and the abortion is murder perspecive.
Sure he does have that right. Interestingly, he is also an american indian (Lumbee), and from the southern bible belt. got it all going on :)
but good pushback....not sure why I felt compelled to respond like that.
yes, that is what they objected too. I don't have a problem with our tax dollars going to planned parenthood...correct me if I am wrong, but my single person tax dollars go to all kinds of things I don't necessarily support. I think all tax exemptions for religious groups, and support the have as many kids as you can (mostly christian) parents...should be removed. How about the big christian family folks pick up their own tab, or use their tax exempt church funds to man up for the cost ?
that is what I am talking about
jesus make you post that ?
how come, so many far rights tend to be religious ?...and show their christian beliefs by ragging on those with opposing views.
I have a co worker that is a one issue voter..and that is his perspective too (same as mr fair)...he also believes the world is only 5000 years old, and any evidence to the contrary is here to test our beliefs.
I think many with views like mr fair also believe in what my coworker does. Tough topic though...abortions. I expect Mr Hobby lobby will declare next that premature withdrawal is in essence...murder