-
The Man With the Plan: April 2010
August 11, 2012 | 0 comments
-
A Wonk in Sheep’s Clothing
March 25, 2011 | 293 comments
-
Scapegoating Mitch Daniels
March 17, 2011 | 150 comments
-
Money Train
March 1, 2011 | 109 comments
-
The Race for Comparative Advantage
February 14, 2011 | 87 comments
The Obama Watch
Obama’s Moral Universe
This week, Obama affirmed why he is always the noble man in an ignoble world.
This week, the president found himself in a familiar spot — starring in a morality play of his own making.
At every point in his life as he tells it, Obama has been a noble soul making his way through an ignoble world. He gave up the prospect of a high-paying job following college to work as a community organizer, rejected the top law firms to become a civil rights lawyer, and rose in the state senate as a reformer in the corrupt swamp of Illinois politics.
His campaign for the presidency was no different. He wasn’t just running against the record of George W. Bush — every Democratic candidate was at the time — but against the cynicism and divisiveness of the political process. In that sense, his inexperience wasn’t a problem, but evidence of his purity.
“They say I need to be seasoned; they say I need to be stewed,” he was fond of saying in his early stump speeches in Iowa and New Hampshire. “They say, ‘We need to boil all the hope out of him — like us — and then he’ll be ready.’”
Obama found perfect foils in Hillary Clinton and John McCain, both representatives of the old style of politics, both infected by Washington, both too consumed with tactics and process to appreciate what could be possible with just a little bit of hope.
In the early weeks of his presidency, Obama was the savior figure selling his economic stimulus package, which he said would “save or create” four million jobs. He warned that if Congress didn’t pass his preferred legislation, “this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.”
Obama got his $862 billion stimulus package, but as the months wore on, unemployment soared into the double-digits and there was no real way to prove to an increasingly skeptical public that it had created millions of jobs. By this fall, Democrats’ prospects in the impending midterm elections were looking grim, so Obama’s new spin was that he was taking a political hit to do what was best for the American people.
“[W]hen I reflect back on the last two years, I do think that given how much stuff was coming at us, we probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right,” he explained to the New York Times. “There is probably a perverse pride in my administration — and I take responsibility for this; this was blowing from the top — that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular.”
That brings us to this week. Finding himself with diminished political standing following his party’s overwhelming defeat in the Congressional elections, Obama cut a deal with Republicans to extend the Bush tax rates for two years for all income levels.
Upon winning the Iowa caucuses in 2008, Obama declared that “the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that’s consumed Washington.” Yet this Tuesday, he unleashed a furious assault on Republicans who he had just negotiated with, blasting them as “hostage takers” who he was “itching for a fight” with on “a wide range of issues.”
Yet he had to concede this time, he said, because “I don’t make judgments based on what the conventional wisdom is at any given time. I make my judgments based on what I think is right for the country and for the American people right now.
His displeasure didn’t end with Republicans. In fact, he reserved his harshest criticisms for his fellow liberals who attacked the compromise. Obama lashed out at those on the left who were ungrateful for the passage of national health care merely because it didn’t contain their cherished “public option,” a government-run plan to be offered within newly created government-run insurance exchanges.
“If that’s the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let’s face it, we will never get anything done,” he said. “People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are, and in the meantime, the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of preexisting conditions or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out.”
In the midst of Obama’s rift with his core supporters, it’s illuminating to remember his primary against Hillary Clinton. With very few policy disagreements, their battle came down to Hillary portraying herself as experienced enough to know how the real world worked, and Obama inspiring his fans to imagine a better one. Yet in his press conference, Obama had morphed into the role of Hillary, scolding his base for having unrealistic expectations.
One can imagine candidate Obama charging that President Obama was too small-minded — that with the right attitude and proper approach, Democrats could have had a public option and that they could have ended tax cuts for the rich.
A lot has changed since Obama’s candidacy, but one thing that has remained the same is that Obama himself — whether he’s urging people to expect more or schooling them on why they should be happy with less — is always the righteous one.
“An artist creates his own moral universe,” a character quips in Woody Allen’s Bullets Over Broadway. So, too, does our president.
About the Author
Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein
Letter to the Editor View all comments (527) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Philip Klein
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/10/obamas-moral-universe
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Current Wisdom
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
- The Demise of Money and Credit
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 12.10.10 @ 6:42AM
Yep, the college sophomore who had all the worlds problems solved despite never living or working in that world, who knew better than TheMan -- that stupid old dinosaur who would live, he vowed, to regret dumping his mother fo another man and never paying the child support -- and getting a hard lesson that every liberal sophomore learns when he graduates to discover that he has to pay those loans back even if he spent his whole university stretch burning things down and lecturing the adults on how they got everything wrong.
Could we please hire an adult next time? Somebody who has had an actual job and not screwed it up? Is there anybody like that who actually wants the job?
Scot Cerullo | 12.10.10 @ 9:51AM
OMG! True that. Wow. I was going to leave a comment, but why spoil the moment. You, Appleby, nailed it.
Nice post. God Bless.
Scot
Citizen Jerry| 12.10.10 @ 10:18AM
Actually, that should read OMB! As in "Oh my Barack!"
The Underwearinator| 12.10.10 @ 5:43PM
Your a rasist!
WestTexan| 12.10.10 @ 5:57PM
Improper word use. "You are", or the contraction "You're" a racist. (not rasist). Not your first language? The racist dirt-ball doesn't work anymore dude/dudette.
jen| 12.10.10 @ 7:36PM
I think he/she was making a joke. (Right?) Notice the phonetic spelling of "racist" to make fun of the ignorant ones who throw out that claim.
kenneth | 12.10.10 @ 10:27PM
perfect responce.
MARIANNE| 12.12.10 @ 2:11AM
@kenneth.....It's response, not responce. SPELLCHECK PLEASE!!!
seigrella| 12.13.10 @ 1:58PM
Marianne, Stop being so anal. This is NOT a literary convention. Just regular people having a conversation.
sablegsd| 12.10.10 @ 11:22PM
You're a moron.
Citizen-Comrade| 12.16.10 @ 4:16PM
Your a maroon, to.
Larry Foster | 12.12.10 @ 12:19AM
Spoken and spelled like a true democrat. You're an idiot and I hope you vote with more intelligence that you are showing in this comment of yours. Learn English if you want to stick your nose in our business!
marianne| 12.12.10 @ 2:02AM
and you cant spell
Nate | 12.13.10 @ 9:12AM
Cant is not a word. Can't, with the apostrophe, is a contraction of can not.
To help, here are some improper word usages which I have seen on these comments.
Word Usages – Simplified
break v. brake break is to destroy; brake is in your car
Why did you break your toy?
You need to apply the brake to slow the car down.
their v. there their refers to possession; there refers to a place
They are going there to get their belongings
bear v. bare bear is a big animal, stand-by; bare you have no clothes on or barren
I can't wait for bear season to go hunting.
Just bear with me for a while.
I accidentally walked into the girl's shower. All the girls were bare.
The cupboard was bare as they had no money for food.
hear v. here hear is to ear; as here is to a place
I called to my friend to come here but I don't think he could hear me.
whether v. weather whether refers to choice; weather is the outdoor condition, snow, rain.
Whether you want to stay or go is up to you.
The weather outside is frightful; windy and cold.
waste v. waist. waste is garbage; waist is the middle part of your body.
The job interview was a waste of time.
Your belt goes around your waist.
.
write v. right. write is putting pen to paper; right is correct, proper or direction
Will you write that letter now?
Do you have the right experience to do this job?
Take a right turn at the end of the street.
I don't know why but improper word usage drives me crazy. The above is a quick guide only. For a more detailed definition and understanding refer to a dictionary or thesaurus.
ALIKATT| 12.13.10 @ 12:26PM
Maybe they should all move to England where the education is FREE!(almost).
Steve| 12.15.10 @ 7:14PM
ALIKATT, what world did you come from when you say education in England is FREE! (almost). Do you think the money to pay for the schools, books, computers, teachers, supplies, ect. ect. came from money off the money tree that sombody crapped out in the corner. TAXPAYERS, OUT OF THEIR POCKETS, that's where it comes from. Don't get me wrong, I know we have to have education but to think it's free & the money comes from pixy dust is just mind boggeling.
Radioman777| 12.13.10 @ 4:33PM
Actually, cant is a word. It means a tilt or angle.
M. Koch| 12.14.10 @ 7:45PM
I beg to differ regarding "Cant" without the apostrophe. "Cant" is, in fact, a word. Please see:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cant
As an English teacher who also enjoys woodworking, I have an affinity for a "partially sawn log" or "flitch".
Perhaps we could "break" with 'correct' word usages which might apply a "brake" on digressions. If only Obama put the "brakes" on his many thoughts, we might break with tradition and written legislation that consumed a single page rather than several thousand. Ah. Perchance to dream....
M. Koch| 12.14.10 @ 7:48PM
Ohmygoodness!!!! I ain't got no grammar! "If only Obama had put the "brakes" on his many thoughts, we might have "broken" with tradition and written legislation that consumed a single page rather than several thousand."
Parella| 12.12.10 @ 7:11AM
Ahhh...the unthinking and despicable retort from a moronic supporter...way to go! What depth, what aplomb, what character you have shown!
Deborah,Texas| 12.12.10 @ 8:09AM
Actually, you are the racist. You sling the word racists out when you don't "like" what another person says.
Obama issues are that he is incompetent, thin skinned and a control freak. He had the opportunity of a life time to make America greater, but has failed miserably.
Like many leaders of color, he uses color as an issue to supress and control everytime someone disagrees or he wants something outside the Constitutional directives of his office.
You see, PC is no longer acceptable in America. We have Obama and his thugs to thank for finally waking Americans up to the fact that CHARITY mongers are users and abusers of the system.
bill| 12.12.10 @ 11:01AM
hate america is what he doing is that racist,debra or distroy the american soul,u must not understand what this evil man is doing to our country,he is bringing it down to its knees like the teriost didhe is killing this country,and that makes him uless
Mary Sue Tamea| 12.12.10 @ 11:09AM
Congratulations! You have gotten to the heart of the matter. I couldn't agree more!
Mary| 12.12.10 @ 1:29PM
Absolutely correct. thank you Deborah of Texas.
They have awaken the American Patriot..
Pamela| 12.13.10 @ 1:08PM
So true, Deborah, so true!! Couldn't have said it better!
seigrella| 12.13.10 @ 2:08PM
Deborah in Texas Very well said ... You must be a school teacher
Jim| 12.12.10 @ 8:37AM
Learn to spell STUPID !
Dennis| 12.13.10 @ 5:26PM
You already spelled it for us. S-T-U-P-I-D. See how quickly I learned?
M. Koch| 12.14.10 @ 7:53PM
You could try "stuped". See: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stuped
R.ScottB| 12.12.10 @ 9:34AM
That should be racist - c not s! But I agree, an attack on Obama for his failing presidency and lack of leadership obviously means you are a racist.
RER| 12.12.10 @ 7:39PM
R.ScottB: This racial problem is way over used! If I was sitting next to a black man and I passed gas he would holler racist! If the black man passed gas I would just get up and move! How many non-colored people have you noticed using the race excuse? Al Sharpton is one of the worst next to Obama for pressing the racial thing!
George| 12.12.10 @ 9:59AM
Find something else to use, that ones worn out. Talk about the real issues instead of just lashing out calling names like a 2 year old.
Jon| 12.12.10 @ 10:30AM
You are an obvious Democratic Socialist. One of a select group in addition to people of color that are granted special privilege by our arrogance and innate inabilities to call someone else racist, when you are all the true racists. Pity, you cannot respond to any comment or criticism without resorting to a thrust of the rapier of racism. But then, any other response requires examination and creativity. Attributes obviously missing from your political genre.
The Underwearinator| 12.12.10 @ 7:08PM
I'm a rasist! I'm a rasist! I'm a rasist! I'm a rasist! I'm a rasist! I'm a rasist! I'm a rasist! I'm a rasist! I'm a rasist!
fity cent| 12.12.10 @ 7:16PM
Racist? Remember the dude is half white! Which half I haven't figured out yet!
RER| 12.12.10 @ 7:44PM
fity cent; The white never come out in him! That's easy to see! M I racist? I hope not....one of my best friends is black!
Nate | 12.13.10 @ 9:26AM
And one of my nieces told me, "my best friend is a Muslim. That is such a racist remark. Does it mean that you love all black people? All Muslims? All the black dope dealers or Jihadists? My best friend is my dog. My best friend is my sheep which I can't get virgin wool off of anymore. That statement doesn't prove anything as to whether you're a racist.
Martin Riggs| 12.13.10 @ 9:39PM
I believe racism is alive and well in America. I don't think it will change in my lifetime; a sad thought. While working in a warehouse I was forced to listen to a radio station that catered to Black people. I refuse to say African American as they are no more "African" than I am a German, Norwegian, Dutch, and English American. This station with a nationally renowned Black personality spoke of Obama as if he was the Messiah and specifically that his running and potential win had nothing to do with race. The day after the election this same personality cheered "We have the first African American" President! I thought, Wow! What an incredible racist!" But not for the reasons you might think. Why is Obama "African American"? Why is that his label? If one of his parents is white, one black, how is he not white. Well obviously because of the color of his skin. Until America can see past this, not just Obama, racism will not change.
seigrella| 12.13.10 @ 2:12PM
Thanks for the laugh ... I needed one to start my day right.
mzk1| 12.13.10 @ 4:31AM
C'mon, everybody, lighten up! Don't you know irony when you see it? And the spelling is likely intentional.
P.S. Some of us do not type very well or very quickly, and do not have intgrated splling checkers.
will| 12.13.10 @ 1:31PM
Your a racist yourself!!!! And stupid to boot!!
Arizona boy| 12.13.10 @ 11:26PM
Hey, watch the homonyms.
Steve| 12.15.10 @ 7:01PM
Underwearinator as in underwear bomber???? Just a different version????
Conservative Teamster| 12.10.10 @ 5:48PM
Amen to that! I don't know why the American public (at least some of them) put this guy in office. These same people would not go to an auto mechanic, a roofer or any other business person they didn't check out, but they put him in there basically without knowing anything about his "experience".
Floyd| 12.12.10 @ 1:18AM
No one would listen to any of us who have family that live in IL. I learned about him while he was still a state senator. He was a stupid screwed-up idiot then too.
Jane | 12.12.10 @ 3:57PM
Floyd: I live in Illinois. When someone from another state asked me if I was going to vote for Obama I said no. Their immediate response was "Is it because he's black"? My reply was I didn't care about his race, but live in Illinois and he is a Chicago politician. That is the reason I didn't vote for him. I knew what we were going to get. I think a lot of people voted for him because they didn't want to be branded a racist. Which is exactly why they shouldn't vote for someone. It is called intimidation.
Nate | 12.13.10 @ 9:33AM
I have a different answer for that stupid question. I would have said yes. I hate all blacks and I'm a racist. Guaranteed that the idiot would never bother you again.
kathi| 12.12.10 @ 3:51AM
Experience? What would that be, smoking his "Kool" cigarettes? He never had a job that someone else didn't get for him, but then again when you are "Joe Cool" why bother to work when you can scam, con, lie, whatever you want to call it and not bust a single bead of sweat.
seigrella| 12.13.10 @ 2:20PM
Could not agree more ...
kathi| 12.12.10 @ 3:51AM
Experience? What would that be, smoking his "Kool" cigarettes? He never had a job that someone else didn't get for him, but then again when you are "Joe Cool" why bother to work when you can scam, con, lie, whatever you want to call it and not bust a single bead of sweat.
DT| 12.12.10 @ 6:39AM
Isn't that the truth, Conservative Teamster!!!!!
Jon| 12.12.10 @ 10:40AM
Realizing that a Marxist is in the oval office is reason enough for grave concern by anyone who cherishes liberty and democracy. Realizing that he is narcissistic is reason for even greater concern. The American electorate battling great financial support to a corrupt liberal media from the likes of George Soros, et al, have committed the most grievous electoral error of their existence. We have and will continue to pay dearly for the divisive ploys and arrogance of deception from Obama. He is inept and the laughing stock of the world's leaders. Speak to me all you like of his purported intellect, it his his corruption that shines, nothing more.
seigrella| 12.13.10 @ 2:23PM
Just remember that intellect and WISDOM are not the same thing as demostrated by the sophomores, or knowledge morons ...
RER| 12.12.10 @ 7:54PM
Yes! He was "tall, dark, and hansome" ! If youn looked into his ears you could see all the way thru to the other side! He's like the muscular guy "all braun....no brain"! This country could fail just because people voted their eyes instead of their brain! This is a free country but it won't last long with someone like Obama in the Whitehouse! And whom do we have to blame.....the Liberals!
Alan Brooks| 12.10.10 @ 11:30PM
"Somebody who has had an actual job and not screwed it up?"
Bush 41 had a real job-- but not his son, his jobs were silver-platter jobs: being the som of a man with impeccable connections was a good deal. Now POTUS is a real job, a tough one, and Bush is tough as nails. But please tell me why he had to ruin it by saying such things as (in Decision Points) "my being called a racist after Katrina was the worst thing."
What about 9-11?? wasn't THAT the worst thing? the ugliest surprise? wasn't the suffering of those burnt & crushed to death at the WTC worse than Dubya's precious wittle feewings?
Dubya is similar to Carter: the more time goes by since he left office, the better it is.
DaveS| 12.11.10 @ 8:14AM
Comparing Carter to Bush? Carter, who we thought finally found a job he could do (Habitat for Humanity) and created a sigh of relief in that organization when he left? Carter, who consulted his teen-age daughter over plutonium? Carter. who was the presiding anti-hope over the economy and oil embargo? Carter, who was so pro-Palestinian that he got the only statue erected by the PA in 2005 (just kidding, but point made)? Carter who, along with the Clinton axis, provided the means for North Korea to presently threaten East Asia? Carter = wreckage. Insofar as the worst that happened to him, the racist label after Katrina was personal; 9/11 was not personal, but he gave our response to it his best.
W| 12.11.10 @ 12:11PM
Alan, what job , if any, you have?
Vince| 12.12.10 @ 1:22AM
Don't attack the poster. Seriously, no President has represented the American public since at least JFK (Reagan tried but he was railroaded by powerful interests). Bushie was a puppet, as is our current O'Commie. Pretty soon when we're all in FEMA camps after economic collapse, you'll wonder why you didn't see this coming BEFORE O'Commie arrived. So just stop with the false left-right paradigm and petty bickering and name-calling.
MARIANNE| 12.12.10 @ 2:19AM
@vince....Stop with the name calling? What is O'commie and Bushie? Or do you think it's ok for you to call names , but no one else?
Bob K.| 12.12.10 @ 7:31AM
It was in the public's interest to get the USA mired in Viet Nam? How did that represent the American Public?
Richard | 12.12.10 @ 2:00PM
If you knew the facts you'd be quiet. Vietnam War kept the rest of Asia from the Communists.
When people in Vietnam thanked us for fighting over there and asked when are you coming back, in March of this year. Their answer would be yes.
Communisim wanted to take over your life and mine, they were the enemy. Get a clue! Are you one of those ignorant hippy protesters?
Lloyd| 12.12.10 @ 7:44AM
Ah, finally the voice of reason. I'm 79 years old and for the last three decades I've been wondering how did I get in this handbasket and where is it gong so fast! Vince, if you wish to consult with me after the crash I'll be in the third tent in the first row from the main gate.
RER| 12.12.10 @ 8:04PM
Stop, my butt.....We're just stating the facts as we see them! I'm Republican and voted for JFK! But since have learned a leson.....never vote Liberal! Reagan is the only one to succeed in the Whitehouse! Bush tried but the Liberals proved to be too much for him the last two years....the Democrats took over Congress and it's been going down hill ever sense!
Ruz| 12.12.10 @ 4:20AM
In case you haven't noticed, Bush didn't defend himself while he was president about the wild accusations that he blew up N.O. levies in order to kill black people. Obviously he was just as affected as the rest of us by the suffering that occurred because of 9/11 and Katrina.
Patty| 12.12.10 @ 6:11AM
I think you're comparing apples to oranges. I think if he were asked what was the most horrific thing he'd have said 9/11 hands down. I know what it's like to be labelled racist. It rocks you to your core, especially if you happen to be someone who opposed racism whole-heartedly. Would he have hired Condi if he were such a racist. Please. America needs to stop this racist crap once and for all. Spend some time in Europe and notice that they for the most part are "color-blind." It's just time to get over all this. G.W. feels this way and that's why it rocked his soul to be called that because he probably feels just the opposite. It's horrible being wrongly accused of something...have you ever been? remember the feeling?
e.nies| 12.12.10 @ 11:11AM
If you think Europe is not racist, it is because you obviously have not spent any extended time there and don't know their language!!!!!!!!
Deborah,Texas| 12.12.10 @ 8:19AM
Alan, check out what the NWO (New World Order) has in store for the world, including the US.
Genocide! Yep.
You bring up the WTC and 911. Do you believe for a second that it was the just "Muslims" that murdered those 3,000?
You need to watch the video where the WTC 7 was imploded. You need to research to find the truth about Katrina. You need to find out what the FEMA camps are really about.
Bush is a murderer and war monger. We are next in line for mass genocide. Other countries have already experienced what it means to be rejected by the NWO.
Obama is just the puppet and willing participant in this Bilderberg decision/plan. He has no love for America....what he calls "A Muslim Country".
Huh?| 12.12.10 @ 9:31AM
Deborah,
You will feel much better in the morning if you take your blue pill. But you know that only YOU have the truth, right?
Don't forget that Congress makes legislation. So who's responsible??
Jon| 12.12.10 @ 10:43AM
You are the voice of cynicism and corrupted information crying in the wilderness of facts!
What's Up?| 12.12.10 @ 11:41PM
My goodness, such pure hate coming from you. The worst thing for him to hear was the fall-out from Katrina. After 9/11 the people were grateful for his leadership. Get it straight!
What's Up?
JeffT| 12.11.10 @ 1:20PM
I would actually take a person who has tried AND screwed it up, not once, but a few times, then got it right. That's the story of most business people. Success is borne of failure and learning the lessons of that misstep.
Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 10:22PM
...I mean it is really despicable, and Bush is detestable, for having his wittle itty bitty pwecious feewings hoited
that he was called a wacist after Katwina. worse than almost three thousand killed at WTC? at the Pentagon?
The thousands of Servicemen killed in the wars? the civilians killed? hundreds of thousands of injuries and PTSD, and the son of Reagan's mediocre vice president had his ittle bittle feewings hoited by being called a wasist?
Just you watch, Bush will change his little mind someday and say what he-meant-to-say.
Phil | 12.12.10 @ 12:08AM
Amazing how many Bush haters can't get over that he's out of office and still want to blame everything on him. Get over it the problems facing the country now are created by your own savior, he's had two years of on the job training and still hasn't learned anything. Get a life please.
marsh| 12.12.10 @ 2:13AM
Ya know the Bushes are both out of office and here you are still crying like a spoiled little brat kid.Man up Bitch! WHAT KIND OF MAN USES BABY TALK ANYWAY!
Ken Roberts| 12.12.10 @ 2:51AM
Wow talk about wasting time ! reading your posts is right on top of the list.
Truthseeker| 12.12.10 @ 9:46AM
Talking "baby talk" only detracts from whatever sensible point you are trying to make. Do us all a favor and write like a grown-up please. We are looking for wisdom and intelligent discourse.
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 7:11PM
I mean I'm really despicable! I mean I'm really despicable! I mean I'm really despicable! I mean I'm really despicable!
Jay Dee| 12.12.10 @ 7:32PM
For once you are correct Alan.
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 10:17AM
"For once you are correct Alan."
Tim* wrote it; and then he denies it!
woodsman| 12.13.10 @ 12:34AM
Some of you guys are do nothing but waste space and time, why not stop calling oneself, or others names and write something intelligent that may help save our country. Don't continue to blame Bush as he did not have any power for the last 2 years of his term. The current Congress has ran the country out of control for the past 4 or more years. Please write something that may show some wisdom and intelligence.
What's Up| 12.12.10 @ 11:45PM
What a twisted take on Pres. Bush.
Jim C| 12.13.10 @ 12:52AM
I've had much fun reading these comments, but when it comes to reading Alan Brooks comments, without vomiting, I had to stop reading his rubbish. Too bad he has no actual idea other than his name-calling crap being the answer to our country's problems...sorry I missed the rest of the comments below...I cannot take his HOGWASH any longer.
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 1:30AM
WAIT:
Bush himself re-opened the wound by publishing his mediocre book and articles. The Derb can express it better than I, we both are mystified at how we could have at one time thought Bush had a conservative bone in body.
And what matters most is Bush's feelings, not those drowned by Katrina?? only Carter could say something so asinine.
Dennis| 12.12.10 @ 1:08AM
Hey Alan, you really enjoy hearing yourself talk. A lot of rhetoric and no Substance. I guess you went to the same University that taught our esteemed Al Gore. He learned fuzzy math. You learned fuzzy English.
Floyd| 12.12.10 @ 1:22AM
Do you have anything usefull to say? Stop wasting our time.
Robert| 12.12.10 @ 4:52AM
And your precious obummer thinks that he is the messiah, better than Dr. Martin Luther King., "THE ONE!!" Obummer is the antithesis of
legitimate reasonable thought and action.
Patty| 12.12.10 @ 6:20AM
Alan, from your vile it's obvious you didn't absorb anything from the book. You went into trying to find something to hate and the hate just eats away at you. You were supposed to imagine yourself having to make those tough decisions, sit back and really chew on how it felt to have those things on your shoulders. It's easy to tear apart everyone's words later. Hindsight is 20/20. I think if you had started reading the book without an agenda to find something to solidify your hate of the man you might have an argument. Bush wasn't perfect. No human is. He is simply trying to explain to people why he made the decisions he did. I'm sure if someone were to go over all the decisions and remarks you made over an eight year span there'd be plenty of things to hate. It's this hate in people that doesn't allow them to rationalize properly. Callling Americans "enemies, hostage takers, stupid?" sound like presidential things? Please. When you find that perfect president let us all know where he/she lives, okay?
Ron Christopher| 12.12.10 @ 1:44PM
Smack. Right on the point (chin).
Follow up: obama is a sociopath. Pure and simple. He is nothing else, no a communist, not a muslim, not an American, etc, just a sociopath. Read his books. You can then figure it out. Good post by the way.
Jon| 12.12.10 @ 10:47AM
Another Democrat immediately comes to mind when you mention not getting it right the first few times in his personal business life. Harry S. Truman. He was unable to succeed in any of his business ventures before becoming a career politician. That fact speaks volumes for whom American's elect into prominent positions of political office!
Ron Christopher| 12.12.10 @ 1:58PM
Jon, not quite true. You need to do a little more studying about the life of "give em hell, Harry." In doing so, consider the time frame. And by the way, I am not a democrat, but Harry S. was one of our best presidents. I am a history buff. obama sucks. He is a sociopath. Roosevelt, well, flip the coin.
GREG| 12.12.10 @ 3:44PM
Thanks for the rational viewpoint, JeffT. I would call that person "normal". In my life I've had a couple of bad failures and a number of major successes, just living life.
BTW: I get a lot of entertainment reading these, especially when someone obviously misses the sarcasm of another.
Pastor27| 12.12.10 @ 12:45AM
Appleby,
Your commentary was brilliant. I stand with Scot. Please read my comment to Alan Brooks further down in this post. Thank you.
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 2:15AM
So why do you keep praising Reagan?:
a) you secretly think Bush was as good as Reagan, but you can't say it.
Or (more likely):
b) You really don't think Bush was as competent as Reagan; which is tantamount to writing that Bush was a mediocrity.
Patty| 12.12.10 @ 6:06AM
Yup. You nailed it beautifully. Next time let's hire an adult. Huckabee should be watched. He has an honesty that this country is dying for. He has been around the block and back and treats obstacles with fairness and respect. Wouldn't that be nice in Washington for a change.
Michael W.| 12.12.10 @ 9:32AM
thanks for some intelligent ideas, Patty.. Hate is
hate straight up... I too would like to see Gov.
Huckabee in the White House...
taxmaiden| 12.12.10 @ 6:34AM
Gary Johnson - Two term Governor of New Mexico where he cut government spending and lowered taxes and left the state with a surplus of revenue. Started and succeeded in his own business (yes, real world experience). He would be the best thing for this country right now. He's not going to cave into political pressures and he won't be beholden to anyone except the American people and our constitution.
DT| 12.12.10 @ 6:37AM
Isn't that the truth!!!!!
R. Neville| 12.12.10 @ 7:20AM
Let's face it....Obumble got elected because he's "historic". He had no qualifications, no experience. Riding on the wave of Bush Derangement Syndrome, he hyped up his brothers who turned out in droves. They still support him, making them the most racist population alive today as they judge him "by the color of his skin rather than the strength of his character" (sincere apologies to MLK.....your message didn't get through to the ignorant masses.). They couldn't care LESS what Obumble has done to America or is planning to do to America, as long as they get their piece of the pie with no effort. Don't confuse them with logic, history, or facts....just lead them to the voting booth like lemmings. It's depressing, but we're less than two years from ending this total dung-heap of a social experiment. If he somehow gets elected, count me as one of the rapidly increasingly number of expatriates, for America as I once knew it is gone.
Jon| 12.12.10 @ 10:55AM
"His brothers" as you refer to black Americans represent about 13% of America's population. And an even smaller percentage of the electorate. Surely you are not naive enough to believe they were able to elect him. Sorry! Caucasian, middle-class , mostly college educated, liberal women elected him! Just as they did Bush ll and Clinton. Look up the election facts.
marianne| 12.12.10 @ 9:22PM
Yes, a lot of women and he/she's voted for him because they thought he was sexy . Well, when it comes to someone giving crotch votes, it's time to take the voting right away from that voter again, until he/she learns to use their brain :)
marianne| 12.17.10 @ 3:11AM
Voting fraud sure helped him a lot too!!!!
cuffie| 12.12.10 @ 11:12AM
I hereby refuse to give credence to any post in which the President of the United States, past or present, is addressed in childish, snotty, petty, and/or ridiculous terms. The job comes with heavy burdens. We have the right and responsibility to make our views and wishes known. We may have the right to downgrade our President but it is a stupid act to do so on a whim or without substance. Do you really think the world does not watch our messageboards in order to figure out the undercurrents of the American people? CUFFIE
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 1:38AM
"I hereby refuse to give credence to any post in which the President of the United States, past or present, is addressed in childish..."
I used to think blacks were exaggerating the hate aimed in their direction, but the hateful attacks on Obama have pushed me to want more than anything in politics to re-elect Obama; even if (that is, just for starters) merely to prevent another Bush-type clone from occupying the White House.
WOODSMAN| 12.15.10 @ 1:56AM
Alan, I don't think any of the so call attacks on Obama have been without merit. Maybe you can clear up somethings that concerns me. Who is Obama ? where did he come from ? why can't we get information about his background ? where did he get his money ? what are his qualifications ? what has he done that has helped the future of the American people ? why has he not had the open government that he promised ? why has all been behind closed doors. As far as a clone in the white house, What do you call him ? we know now he is not the leader that we hoped for. It appears there may be others that are pulling the strings. Is that not a clone ? I sure hope you can answer these concerns with a intelligent response.
Truthseeker| 12.12.10 @ 8:54AM
Appleby, you have completely nailed a simple truth that every college sophomore should be exposed to. It is not wrong to be "idealistic" however it should always be tempered with reality and the knowledge that throwing the baby out with the bath water is just a way of perpetuating the status quo (or worse).
Hunter Comstock| 12.12.10 @ 11:16AM
We Had better just hope there is a next time.
RedRiverD| 12.12.10 @ 11:44AM
Can't say it any better than Appleby did.
Great work Appleby.
Want to run against Obama in 2012?
William Hoy| 12.12.10 @ 11:58AM
The great majority of the liberals I've met have never worked in a field that leaves blisters, scars, or dirty fingernails. They work for government, science, academia, or the media where they use their minds to decide what the real world should believe.
Wm Hurdlow| 12.12.10 @ 8:45PM
Yes Sarah Palin. If she wants the job.
If she is not a masocist she will decline.
noopy| 12.13.10 @ 11:09PM
With Steele exiting RNC chair position, I would have thought this spot would be ideal for her. In some sense, she is already doing the job.
beebop| 12.10.10 @ 6:59AM
And the moral of the 0bama story ...
He is ignominiously defeated in 2010 and lives out the rest of his days staring at Michelle obama across the breakfast table and wishing he was a Supreme Court Justice ....
John Navratil| 12.10.10 @ 9:43AM
... drawing $200K per year pension for service to his country.
DodAederen| 12.10.10 @ 10:37AM
I vote to give him ten times that to retire today.
On second thought, we need him in office to galvanize the American voter in 2012. How deep is the Dem's self delusion that they keep in office that triptych of failure; Pelosi, Reed and Obama, to help them win our hearts and minds?
Patrick| 12.10.10 @ 3:28PM
I don't know how deep their delusion goes, but I suspect down to Malbolge. Regardless, let the Dems fasten themselves to those political millstones until heavier ones are found.
Jon| 12.12.10 @ 10:58AM
I would vote to have him impeached retroactive to inauguration day in January of 2009!
RedRiverD| 12.12.10 @ 11:47AM
I am with you Jon!
He NEEDS to go and go NOW not after he and his czars can do even more damage that will or already is IRREVERSIBLE.
RacerJim| 12.11.10 @ 1:30PM
When Obama is eventually found ineligible to have served as POTUS his pension will be cancelled.
R. Neville| 12.12.10 @ 7:22AM
I agree, RacerJim. I truly believe that the truth will come to light and it'll be the biggest scandal to ever hit America. And I can't wait for the mainstream media's nose to be rubbed in the pile of dog waste known as "Obama's background". I'll be laughing hysterically on the sidelines.
RedRiverD| 12.12.10 @ 12:07PM
We can only hope, but I doubt it.
Heck the guy even got the Nobel Peace Prize without having done a single thing for it! He wasn't even nominated to receive it!
I am reservedly hopeful that the truth WILL come to light, however I am dumbfounded that he was EVEN eligible to be on the ballots. That every single Secretary of State across America FAILED in their duty to check his eligibility BEFORE allowing his name on the state ballot! And to top all that off, there has been NOTHING done to any one of those officials whose responsibility it was to ensure that the candidate was eligible in the first place. Aren't there laws that they have to adhere too? What is it with this country that we need to make MORE laws rather than UPHOLD THE EXISTING LAWS. You know, like ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! We don't need any more laws, we need to UPHOLD the ones already on the books and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO DO THEIR JOB rather than sue our own states trying to protect their citizens!!!!!
And what about Boston's own prosecuting attorney using ILLEGAL ALIENS in their office? Doesn't the laws apply to their office either??????
I just don't understand it. If I break the law, I go to jail, if they [illegal immigrants] break the law they get handed college educations, free health benefits, etc, etc, etc. And they don't have to prove a damned thing, but I do, then I get refused assistance. What the hell is wrong with that? I am a natural born, US citizen who honorable served during the Viet Nam Conflict and I was injured while serving, but because of bureaucratic crap I don't have ANY benefits, except I am told that when I die I get a whopping $400 towards my funeral. WHOOPEE!!
I can hardly wait. (sarcasm) I tried to get education benefits and was denied, yet if I am an illegal alien I get all the benefits I want just for being ILLEGALLY in the country, what is wrong with that? If I rob a bank, that is ILLEGAL, and I get arrested, but if I am in the country ILLEGALLY I get everything I need handed to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you are illegally in ANY OTHER COUNTRY in the world, [except the US] you would be in prison immediately and with NO trial. And for who knows how long, but in the good old US you get benefits you never worked for or paid for while US citizens have to PROVE they are citizens, are needy enough for those funds even though they WORKED and PAID for while working most of their adult lives in this country!!!!
Okay, sorry, enough.
Woodsman| 12.15.10 @ 10:30PM
Well said RedRiver !!! When are the people going to wake up and say enough is enough. We all know that if we stopped all the charity to the illegals our states and cities would not be going bankrupt. We have the law in place to solve the problem, but none of our congressmen or senators have the balls to push the issue. History has shown that a country that continues to let people freely cross their borders will fail.
Alan Brooks| 12.10.10 @ 11:34PM
"Amen to that! I don't know why the American public (at least some of them) put this guy in office. These same people would not go to an auto mechanic, a roofer or any other business person they didn't check out, but they put him in there basically without knowing anything about his "experience"
You hold a Rightwing quasi-Marxist outlook: that everything is a machine to be lubed & ratcheted. IAs Marxism, it derives from an outmoded vulgar Newtonianism.
Dave C| 12.11.10 @ 12:43AM
Go back to school and leave politics to people who live in the real world. As Obama has proven, academic poweress and big words don't help you make better decisions.
The press met with Henry Ford one day, and were ribbing him about his lack of education on even simple things. He pointed out that he didn't have to have all the answers, he could hire subject matter experts. His genius was in making better decisions than his counterparts. Obama may be the most intellectual of presidents, but he's an abysmal failure as a leader.
Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 12:48AM
No, the Reagan unity is finished.
We trusted you on Bush 41 & 43, but no more.
Do what you think is necessary, but count we who do not trust you, out.
Appleby| 12.11.10 @ 7:16AM
Trust WE?
Somewhere your English teacher just burst into tears.
RacerJim| 12.11.10 @ 1:34PM
Counting you who do not trust us is becoming easier and less time consuming every day. :-)
Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 10:33PM
Right, so you can waste ANOTHER decade with your mediocre politics.
Barbara| 12.12.10 @ 12:54AM
I will take another decade of what you call mediocre politics any day over your Marxist philosophy.
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 2:18AM
But you HAD your chance; unfortunately for all of us, in the almost 22 years since Reagan left office you went nowhere.
Bill| 12.12.10 @ 10:06AM
Going nowhere is better than going to hell.
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 1:42AM
"Going nowhere is better than going to hell."
In that case the GOP is doing .008 percent better than one might have supposed, Bill.
Claypoole| 12.12.10 @ 5:45PM
We don't know anything about Obama's academic/intellectual record. Where are his records from Columbia and Harvard? Why have we not seen any of his writing from Harvard Law Review? What is he trying to hide?
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 7:14PM
I don't know why the American public (at least some of them) put Obama in office.
What's Up?| 12.12.10 @ 11:57PM
Alan Brooks,
You are blind as a bat! Most liberals are. Just keep up the psycho- babble. We all need a good laugh!
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 1:44AM
What's Up,
Tim* wrote that comment in my name;
Tim*'s mommy pulled him out of his playpen so he could get on the computer.
Mattled| 12.10.10 @ 7:43AM
I'm starting to take bets on when he will announce he is not seeking a second term or just outright resign. My money is on July. That would be the latest anyway.
He has devoured himself. Quite fascinating to watch.
ranging rangefinder | 12.10.10 @ 2:07PM
you r on, I bet too
deserttrek| 12.10.10 @ 7:20PM
obama does not have the capacity to look into himself. He is never wrong, it is everybody else who is wrong, or evil, or pick your insult. Don't doubt this guy, he will go to sulk, plot and scheme and in no time comes out refreshed and ready to do it all again. Like all despots and tyrants he cannot be wrong. He learned a lot from the clintons and will never back down or resign. The only way to remove him is by the elctoral process.
Big Ugly| 12.12.10 @ 12:17AM
Obama reminds me of Gollum ...... looking in the mirror ...... endlessly repeating; "My Precious, My Precious".
Alan Brooks| 12.10.10 @ 11:39PM
But don't forget who inflated the Executive Branch to behemoth proportions: Bush.
And that's fair since to this day many of you blame Clinton for what happened after 2001.
Again: it was Bush who blew the Executive Branch up like a balloon;
not Clinton, not Obama.
RacerJim| 12.11.10 @ 1:38PM
Good Obot.
Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 10:38PM
RINO chump, you were conned by Bush; now you can be conned by Palin, who wants power more than she wants tens of million$.
YOUR time will be wasted, you are setting yourself up for it- so you are to be blamed.
patty| 12.12.10 @ 6:29AM
Alan. Why do you seem so convinced everyone is for Palin. there are plenty of great people who might run in 2012. It's like you are obsessed with her. It's this tunnel-vision that makes for poor elections. If someone were truly honest, fair, and had a clear vision to REALLY put American's wants above theirs wouldn't you vote for that person no matter which party? You obviously go with party politics and that's what's really wrong with this country. We are loosing track of the big picture here.
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 7:18PM
Chump, you were conned by Obama; now you can be conned by Clinton, who wants power more than she wants tens of million$.
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 1:47AM
"Chump, you were conned by Obama; now you can be conned by Clinton, who wants power more than she wants tens of million$."
This is another of Tim*'s comments that he writes in my name before his mommy changes his diapers.
Tim*| 12.13.10 @ 4:59AM
You're A Liar ObamaBoy Brooks. That also wasn't my post.
Again, ObamaBoy Brooks sees Tim* behind every BUUUUSSSHHH.
rachelle| 12.13.10 @ 12:34AM
You are marinated in marxism and can not see an American patriot who is willing to help save us fro m our own bad decisions -- including allowing people to reach whatever age you are without learning history. SOLCIALISM DOESN'T WORK. Drill baby! Sarah is as good as we can hope for and a 1000 times better than Pres. Bush II. I can't type enough 000000's to quantify how much better than Mr. O. You need to start thinking/reading and apologizing.
Vince| 12.12.10 @ 1:30AM
And you're a hopeless right-winger (never thought I'd say that given that I can't stand the current administration). Look what the PATRIOT ACT hath wrought (the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity and their surveillance tactics). Bush was NO CONSERVATIVE. In name only at best.
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 2:21AM
RacerJim writes that I'm an O(bama)bot, and you
say I'm a rightwinger?
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 1:32PM
You must be doing something right then. Independent thought is hard for people on the fringes.
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 7:16PM
I'm a rightwinger!
carnot| 12.12.10 @ 9:10PM
nahh...you're about to be a broke Californian
thundereagle| 12.12.10 @ 4:17AM
Alan B., give it up already! It took them all to bring us where we are today. Clinton, and his Black Widow of a wife did the biggest number on
America...what a betrayal of trust and confidence!
Obama is an egotist who thinks that he is King already. He is by far the worst president we have
ever had in America. Whether he is a natural born
citizen or not, he is not and has not been raised as
an American Citizen..he has no loyalty to this country whatsoever and the continuance of his
agenda will prove that. There is so much going on
behind the scenes that we the people do not know
about. He will be the one who will probably launch
us into WWIII. Right now he has us involved in a
big to do over the control between the two Muslim
forces in the middle east concerning the control of
the major oil sources there. It is felt that this will
bring about major armament in Saudi Arabia and
the begining of Armagedon... Obama is a scorpion
in the blazing desert sun waiting and ready to strike no matter the cost!
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 7:15PM
But don't forget who inflated the Executive Branch to behemoth proportions: FDR.
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 1:50AM
"But don't forget who inflated the Executive Branch to behemoth proportions: FDR."
This above is Tim* again, in my name. However he is correct--
only FDR was nothing as to baby Bushclone's incompetence.
Steven| 12.12.10 @ 9:20AM
I'll take that bet. As much as I oppose President Obama, I don't believe he will WILLINGLY leave office. On January 20, 2012, he will be ARRESTED for refusing to leave the oval office.
RedRiverD| 12.12.10 @ 12:14PM
Obama is way too arrogant to resign. He even thinks he will win in 2012. Especially if he gets the illegal aliens all nice and legal. But what he doesn't count on is that the LEGAL aliens that got here the hard way aren't too happy about amnesty. And there are a bunch of them around.
He needs to be IMPEACHED and embarrassed and known as the WORST PRESIDENT IN US HISTORY.
Brian Mc| 12.10.10 @ 7:44AM
Poor, poor Alien.
Would someone please break out the violins before I remember that he is trying to destroy the country I love: that I would give my dying breath to defend?
And while you're tuning those violins, explain to me why someone who makes more needs to pay more...I'm having serious trouble with that one.
Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 10:42PM
"what I would give my dying breath to defend"
You are hokier than you are dishonest. You would sacrifice your life and your treasure? yeah, right,sure.
But if you mean it, then go on a suicide mission.
Pastor27| 12.12.10 @ 12:41AM
I served my country during Vietnam. I did risk my life for my country and did not have a choice in the matter. If called again I would do it again. Why? I am a patriot. So Alan are you a veteran? If not shut up!
The truth is that the political machine is broken. Provisions for this problem are written in the U.S. Constitution. The truth; politicians & judges have made themselves above the law. What law you ask? The United States Constitution. Alan you should read it. All you have to do is Google US Constitution. Duh!
You can also Google Democratic Presidents and see for yourself what their record is when it comes to serving the people and this country. You can do the same for Republican Presidents. The end result is the political machine is broken. The only way to fix it is involk the US Constitution as the ultimate law of the land that it is. Then the politicians & judges will be prosecuted and tried as traitors and they will all get the death penalty and their pensions will stop and there will be an immediate incress in our economy and the deficit will be cut as well. All of Obama's spending will be wiped out plus he will be tried for treason as well as lying to the people about being eligable to serve as President.
Do you understand now?
Vince| 12.12.10 @ 1:32AM
Thank you for your bipartisan response. I truly think JFK was the last great President who truly had the people in mind. Others may have had good intentions but were beat into submission by the machine.
Thundereagle| 12.12.10 @ 4:34AM
JFK was a good president...but personally, I will go with Ronald Reagan. I must admit that when he
first ran for office I thought..he's an actor, what can he know about being Commander-in-Chief/
President of the U.S.A. ?! Then he showed us! Of
all those who have been president in my life time
I have more respect and admiration for him than
any other. I will always respect and uphold the
office of the President of The United States of
America...but I do not have to like or respect the
man or woman who sits in the oval office. I believe that person should be a person of integrity, compassion, honesty and a true blue
American...no divided loyalties (dual citizenship.
or moral allegiance to any other culture or country). I believe the U.S. Constitution was
divinely inspired by God and that it is what makes
America the great Nation that she is. Wicked men
would have us believe otherwise. They shall not
stand. There is but one God and under His direction this country was founded and His Laws
were given to sustain and direct it. When the wicked rule, the people mourn, when the righteous rule the people rejoice. Obama needs
to answer for the treason he and his cronies are
commiting against God and the American People.
And yes, so are the judges who thumb their noses
at Constitutional Law. Treason used to be punishable by death. Now it seems it is treated the
same as a whisper and by word. I don't know about you but I am sick of it all.
Margie| 12.12.10 @ 12:20PM
Well said, Thundereagle.
That Bible verse is this:
"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule, the people groan." Prov. 29:2.
And to add to your excellent points, I again happily quote John Adams when he said:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The Leftist cry babies try and say that conservatives want to force our beliefs on others and that we are extremists. Well then, so must have the Founding Fathers have been.
We don't want our form of government destroyed. They are the ones who need to take heed and take a look at what they have fallen from. It is THEY who are wrong, and we who are Right.. as we stand with the Founders and with the Biblical principles that our country was founded upon.
Rachelle| 12.13.10 @ 12:40AM
Not even close. JFK was a nothingburger who probably couldn't have won re-election, which is why the left got rid of him to bring in Ole Lyndon. Ronald Reagon was great but limited by the misery inflicted by every president since Wilson and not a few before. My personal favorite, Washington! Let's go back to the Constitution and get rid of the recent amendments to bring back America.
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 2:25AM
"Do you understand now?"
You want to arrest (in the millions) judges and politicians, put them on trial so they can receive the death penalty??
RedRiverD| 12.12.10 @ 12:55PM
Pastor27
You have said it all.
RIGHT ON!!!!!!
Truthseeker| 12.12.10 @ 10:00AM
Alan, after reading a number of your posts, I still have no idea what point or points you are trying to make. You seem angry but have little idea as to where to direct your anger. Perhaps if you took your time to articulate your core beliefs and what you are trying to get us to sign on to, we might be able to share ideas. For what its worth!
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 7:22PM
I am hokier than I are dishonest. I would sacrifice my life and my treasure. Right. I mean it, I'm going on a suicide mission.
carnot| 12.12.10 @ 9:12PM
one can only hope!
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 10:26AM
"I am hokier than I are dishonest. I would sacrifice my life and my treasure. Right. I mean it, I'm going on a suicide mission."
I didn't write this either; and if it isn't Tim*'s handiwork, then it is a good imitation of Tim*'s style to the point that it might just as well be Tim* himself.
woodsman| 12.15.10 @ 10:39PM
Alan !! I bet you have never defended anything except maybe you dinner plate in you life. Brian sounds like he cares about the future of our country. Why not stop talking down to everyone and make a comment that makes some sense.
Larry Foster | 12.12.10 @ 12:31AM
when we have to defend our rights, I have your back.
S Nichols| 12.12.10 @ 1:15AM
If the millionaires want to pay more taxes, like the liberals claim so many of them do, let them do it voluntarily and we'll see just how many are really willing to put their money where their mouth is!
bluecollarbytes| 12.10.10 @ 7:50AM
In order for Obama to win the presidency in 08, it was necessary to maintain his 'immaculate political conception' front. PopMedia obliged, refusing to analyze his roots.
Obama has nothing if not his PURITY.
Just as millions of Americans know instinctively what's right about AMERICA, Obama 'knows' with every fiber that we are wrong, guilty, and worthy of punishment.
Alan Brooks| 12.10.10 @ 11:42PM
"Obama 'knows' with every fiber that we are wrong, guilty, and worthy of punishment."
The Bible says just that.
MarxistRot| 12.12.10 @ 1:43AM
@Alan: Cite where in the Bible it says that "Obama 'knows'. . . that we are wrong, guilty, and worthy of punishment." No, it says we ALL are guilty. . . Obama knows nothing of the kind. In his mind he's infallible, almighty, and good - attributes only God Himself can claim!
Go find a mirror, Alan, and follow your master's example: worship yourself, . . .
"and _ don't _ come _ back!"
P.S. Bush has not been P.O.T.U.S. for 2 years now. . . wake up and smell the . . . ewwwww! Yep, it still stinks in Washington.
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 2:29AM
Yet the GOP will mess it up again as they did
1995- '99.
Ron Christopher| 12.12.10 @ 2:21PM
Alan, I think you are simply an agitator. You probably laugh every time you make a post, knowing full well that you have just gotten someones goat. What I cannot figure out is whether you are serious or just plain stupid, or in the worst, unknowing. For example: Who controlled the congress during the last half of the Bush administration? It was they who destroyed the first half of the Bush administration. I think you need to do a little more studying instead of listening to your liberal friends, who by the way, will find any excuse whatsoever to justify their arrogance.
carnot| 12.12.10 @ 9:16PM
RC...it doesn't matter brotha!
he's here for sport. so what? at the end of the day.....he has nothing to sell and so no buyers.
I will concede he has gotten rather boring. but...that's why there are good books!!!
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 10:29AM
"Who controlled the congress during the last half of the Bush administration? It was they who destroyed the first half of the Bush administration."
No, Bush and his advisors inflated the Executive Branch; it was THEIR doing. THEY controlled the Executive Branch.
Thundereagle| 12.12.10 @ 4:43AM
Alan, please, chapter and verse when you quote the Bible. I like to rid the 'good word'. The Lord
is a just and merciful God and He believes in the
Law of Repentance. If He hasn't given up on us
then while should anyone else be so quick to con-
demn us. You make Obama sound more radical
muslim with every word you say. And who gave
him or anyone else the right to condemn us~certainly we do that ourselves by our choices
and actions. He can come down off his self-rightous high horse and apologize for his wrongs
against the American People. God will forgive
whom He will. I do not contest the fact that I do
believe that this indeed is the only answer for our
woes in this nation. Turning full heartedly to God
has saved many a people and nation. It is to God
that I look for an answer to this great conflict. He
alone can deliver us from evil.
ronald bell| 12.12.10 @ 8:34AM
What Bible exactly are you referring to, The Communist Manifesto ? Barack Hussein Obama, guide book, his motto is disrupt,dismantle, destroy, and in his finite wisdom that is what he is trying to do.
RedRiverD| 12.12.10 @ 1:02PM
Amen to that Ronald Bell.
That is exactly what Obama is up to so that he can declare Marshal Law and become dictator of the US.
Don't think so? Look at the facts. He has destroyed the economy in the name of Bail Out, he has destroyed the health system in the name of Obamacare, he is devaluating the US dollar as fast as he can (they are printing 6 Billion dollars as we read this) so when the economy fails (by his [Obama's] hand he can become dictator!
Margie| 12.12.10 @ 12:10PM
Brooks:
There is false guilt and real guilt.
Obama and the Communists suffer with false guilt.
Real guilt and that of Biblical meaning is the guilt human beings suffer from because of Sin. That is in our very fibers.. and we all fall short.
But it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with with what Obama spouts. He lies.
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 7:24PM
The Bible never said that.
Margie| 12.13.10 @ 8:35PM
"For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." Rom. 3:20.
"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned--sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Rom. 5:12 & 13.
"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom. 6:23.
"We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin." Rom. 7:14.
"but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members." Rom. 7:23.
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." 1 Jn. 1:8.
"Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin." Rom. 7:25.
"so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with Sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him." Heb. 9:28.
Merry Christmas.
martin j smith| 12.10.10 @ 7:57AM
Obama' s version of being a "centrist" is to curse Republicans and to curse his own party's "apparent opponents"( I say that because I am not YET convinced that the Party faithful are not play acting to make Obama look good to moderates ). In Obama's denouncing Republicans he told the absolute truth of who he truly is--a hateful ideologue who wants to drag this country down.
His speech should be used in any 2012 campaign--it is instructive.
In the end I believe it would be in this country's best interest if a referendum were held with ONE QUESTION: Do you support or oppose Obama's agenda YES/NO ? As, in 2010 the 2012 election will be an implicit referendum on exactly those lines. Obama is an extremely dangerous man--as are the remaining LEFT Socialists in what is called the Democrat Party. Obama is just the momentary titular head of that group.
Intelligent Design| 12.10.10 @ 7:58AM
Do we have to look at the impostor's face every day? Obama turns my stomach.
DaveS| 12.11.10 @ 8:19AM
Obama is the teenager who talked his way into our collective swooning pants. Heart over head in 2008; corrections began in November - more to come.
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 2:33AM
"corrections began in November - more to come."
If you couldn't do much starting in 1995-'6, how can you do better 2011-'12?
carnot| 12.12.10 @ 9:19PM
cuz we all know 95-96 is a perfect analogue for 11-12!
solid reasoning there AB!
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 10:33AM
"cuz we all know 95-96 is a perfect analogue for 11-12!"
And in 2012, as in 2000, you elect another POTUS-mediocrity?
or will you do so in '16?
Thundereagle| 12.12.10 @ 4:46AM
Intelligent, amen.
Mimi| 12.10.10 @ 8:10AM
YEP....He's literally thrown his crumbs to the 20% (LIBS)...The 80% (AMERICAN PEOPLE) are furious and scared to death their losing their country. They won't let him serve all of us....and serve the NATION as a whole! Looks like a one termer to me..... SOON we will need a CONSTITUTIONAL GENIOUS....To teach the nation...so this repair JOB can begin...The founders gave us the TOOLS and Basics....The political process is beginning to be set in place....BIG JOB AHEAD America....STAY STRONG!!!
Bob K.| 12.10.10 @ 8:11AM
Stop using the term "liberal" when describing him!
He is a man of the Left and the people criticizing him in the Democratic party for not going far enough with health care were men and women of the Left.
Keep identifying them as "Leftwingers!" Stop describing them as cushy, warm "Liberals."
For once, control the way we define the opponents of freedom!
Ted R.| 12.10.10 @ 9:24AM
Hah. Now this is rich. You Cons try for a quarter-century to make the word "libruhl" into an epithet - now, that didn't work out so well, did it? Proud Liberals like myself have always embraced the term. Are we on the Left Wing of the political spectrum? Damn right we are. The mere fact that what we CALL ourselves riles the wingnuts, is all the more reason for us to embrace the language.
Steve A| 12.10.10 @ 9:38AM
Ted R, I bet you play all the sucker bets in Vegas when you go. Go ahead & run around beating your chest as a proud liberal all you want. Perhaps you could pen a summary of liberal economic successes here for our readers??
Mimi| 12.10.10 @ 9:54AM
TED ....The election of 2008 was an ANOMALY!! for you " LIBRUHL'S".... Hopefully ...never again will we ever want another disaster with 20% trying to govern the 80% of us AMERICANS. You can take leave at anytime...The air is brisk, the skiing great in outer SIBERIA you may find more LIBS.... or ..er " LIBRUHLS"
Ray| 12.10.10 @ 10:03AM
What DO you call yourselves? Every time I hear a Democrat refer to their political leanings, they always avoid that "liberal" label, usually resorting to the "progressive" label.
John Navratil| 12.10.10 @ 10:54AM
Ray,
That's just the "nom de jour". It was Progressive in the early 20th century, but became liberal when the Progressives were shown to be Communists. Now that images has receded from memory and liberal has become the epithet, it's back to Progressive.
Call it what you will, it's the same old garbage.
John Boy| 12.10.10 @ 12:17PM
Ever notice the word liberal sounds like littlegirl?
Grzmlyk| 12.10.10 @ 11:47AM
This from a classic left-wing marxist.
Who is it again who's been branding the other side with pejorative labels? "Right wing" "Tea bagger" "Nazi" "Neocon" "fascist, " "intolerant," Homophobe," "bigot" and "greedy" come to mind just off the top of my head. In case you haven't noticed pejorative labels are the currency of the left-wing politico-media complex.
And, as usual, you got your history wrong. It was you schmucks who co-opted the word "liberal." In America, that used to mean somebody who believed in the individual freedoms as laid out by the Constitution ("liberal" deriving from the Latin word "liber," meaning free).
What you people crave is the opposite of freedom - tyranny through goverment control of what we do with our lives, how much we earn, what we eat, how we travel, what we can possess, where we can live, for whom we can vote, and on and on and on.
Like the dystopia laid out in A Brave New World, you advocate libertinism in the name of moral degradation and chaos, because, in your minds, if the ignorant masses are preoccupied with sybaritic and inconsequential pleasures, they won't notice that you're taking their lives away from them. And for one thing and one thing only: Power. That's the iron fist that lies beneath the soft kid leather glove of all liberalism. Naked, raw, unapologetic, tyrannical, coercive power over your fellow man. Subjugate others to your will.
Proud liberal my ass. You might as well have said "proud pedophile" or "proud slave-owner," or "proud disciple of moral vanity and intellectual foppishness in the name of gettng my rocks off."
Why don't we tie it all together and just call a spade a spade, shall we?
You're an asshole.
And proud of it.
cuban pete| 12.10.10 @ 12:05PM
Grzmlyk:
I love the way you cut to the chase.
The wise old owl without a vowel.
Have a great weekend.
idalily| 12.10.10 @ 12:15PM
Post of the day. Hell, post of the week...month...day...YEAR.
Margie| 12.10.10 @ 1:26PM
GRZ,
Except for that last "yucky" word you used, (I would have preferred asiNINE, perhaps.. heh).... BRAVO!
Bravo once again, Mr. Grz!
Frisbee| 12.10.10 @ 10:20PM
Well said Grzmlyk!
Mark Crevier| 12.11.10 @ 3:18AM
Thanks! Grzmlyk I don't think I have read a better discription of a spade. Your a master of our language. Hope to read from you again.
TennesseeVolunteer| 12.11.10 @ 8:06AM
Have you noticed the proud liberals in the media have quit taking on the Tea party and don't use the "tea bagger" name calling rants? Hmmmm....
sequim| 12.12.10 @ 12:58AM
GRZ...you really nailed it dude!
Vince| 12.12.10 @ 1:37AM
Namecalling is not exclusive to one side or the other (though, to be fair, Marxist and commie is earned). Fascism is also alive and well on both sides of the spectrum. Look at Walmart and the Department of Homeland Insecurity for that, or BP and the authority they were granted in the so-called oil spill cleanup, or MONSANTO's VP now a food safety czar. We're in deep sh*t, people, and it goes way beyond piddly party lines.
Fredrick Ward| 12.10.10 @ 3:43PM
Ted, you are a moron to even own up to the idea that you would support such failed policies for this great country. However, I am glad that you liberal idiots stand up so tall because then it is not so hard to know who are the enemies of this great country.
Bob K.| 12.10.10 @ 6:49PM
Ted R.
You have let the left wingers take over your party and you are now a fellow traveler. The democrats with good sense abandoned your heroes this past election and they won't be back as long as Obama, Pelosi, Frank et al are still running it!
Occam's Tool| 12.10.10 @ 10:36PM
Dear Bob and Ted:
myself, I never use the word "Liberal" without its perfect modifier, "Scum." That solves that problem.
Only Republican at Woodstock| 12.11.10 @ 12:47AM
Sorry, Occam's Tool. Scum is the noun, so in that case Liberal would have to be the modifier. Now if you were to say "scum sucking Liberal" then "scum sucking" would be the modifier, and liberal the noun. Can't help it - raised by an English teacher back when NYC schools actually taught English.
Occam's Tool| 12.11.10 @ 10:40PM
Yessir, Woodstock, but that was also before Liberal became and adjective modifying scum. I stand corrected.
victor| 12.11.10 @ 1:17AM
Actually, I have always used the expression:
"Flamin' Liberal".
What colors do you see when you look into a flame?
REDS, Oranges, YELLOWS?
Appleby| 12.11.10 @ 7:19AM
Bob and Ted: Give my regards to Carol and Alice!
(Okay, somebody had to say it. As you were)
Margie| 12.12.10 @ 2:52PM
And may they all give their regards to Broadway, and be remembered in Herald Square!
Alan Brooks| 12.10.10 @ 11:48PM
"Hah. Now this is rich. You Cons try for a quarter-century to make the word "libruhl" into an epithet - now, that didn't work out so well, did it? Proud Liberals like myself have always embraced the term. Are we on the Left Wing of the political spectrum? Damn right we are. The mere fact that what we CALL ourselves riles the wingnuts, is all the more reason for us to embrace the language."
Ted, they only really care about their own people; they want the state to help their families, which is why upper and middle class goodies are more popular than lower class handouts.
They want their children and grandkids to be at the top of the foodchain,-- as being near or at the bottom is not too good if one values self-respect.
Let them find out the hard way, when their children inherit a world of cant.
W| 12.11.10 @ 12:14PM
Alan, there is no need to adress Ted, you are the same person using different names
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 7:26PM
"Hah. Now this is rich. You Cons try for a quarter-century to make the word "libruhl" into an epithet - now, that didn't work out so well, did it? Proud Liberals like myself have always embraced the term. Are we on the Left Wing of the political spectrum? Damn right we are. The mere fact that what we CALL ourselves the wingnuts is all the more reason for us to embrace the language."
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 7:29PM
"Hah. Now this is rich. You Cons try for a quarter-century to make the word "libruhl" into an epithet - now, that didn't work out so well, did it? Proud Liberals like myself have always embraced the term. Are we on the Left Wing of the political spectrum? Damn right we are. The mere fact that what we CALL ourselves the wingnuts is all the more reason for us to embrace the language.
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 7:45PM
I'm the one who's been branding the other side with pejorative labels. "Right wing", "Tea bagger", "Nazi", "Neocon", "fascist, " "intolerant," Homophobe," "bigot" and "greedy" and that's just off the top of my head. In case you haven't noticed pejorative labels are the currency of the left-wing politico-media complex.
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 10:36AM
Tim* wrote the last three "comments" under my name- his mom gave him too much ritalin.
DaveS| 12.11.10 @ 8:22AM
What did Depp say to Knightley at the end of the third 'Pirates' movie? "Keep telling yourself that, love." Almost as good a movie line as the never-said Dathan's, "Where's your precious Moses now?"
ConservativeTeamster| 12.10.10 @ 5:53PM
Liberals are leftwingers. However, that said, I have to admit he is not a liberal. I would say Marxist . . .Communist . . .or just a plain old "America hater".Whatever you call him he is the last thing country needs.
NoelleP| 12.10.10 @ 8:58PM
Well, Bob K, at least you have the guts to say you are a liberal and not a progressive. It annoys me when people call themselves progressives, as if we don't know the difference: none. But you are right, there is "liberal" and there is "left wing," although it appears that people use liberal and left wing interchangeably.
Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 12:41AM
Doesn't matter the label, the govt. is divided:
blue Senate, red House.
The govt. can't come to an agreement.
Bob K.| 12.11.10 @ 2:31AM
NoelleP
Please read my comments more carefully in the future. You have me confused with Ted who is a mush brained "liberal" and who has helped let Left Wingers take over HIS Democratic party which is not MY party.
Left Wingers run the Democratic Party with the help of the mushbrained "liberals" who can see no danger to our freedoms from the policies that Obama, Leftwinger in chief, and his henchmen have foisted on the United States!
Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 10:48PM
"who can see no danger to our freedoms"
Exactly: YOUR partisan freedoms, not someone else's.
Bob K.| 12.11.10 @ 11:33PM
Alan,
The "our" is all inclusive and includes yours which, I believe, you would use to deny me mine.
Such are the perils of living in an age of populism run by demagogues who people with unkempt minds find appealing.
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 2:36AM
"I believe, you would use to deny me mine."
Not at all; I don't care about you either way-- we are strangers.
Bob K.| 12.12.10 @ 7:39AM
Exactly the response one expects from one who sees the causes of all problems and the answers to all problems in the government.
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 7:31PM
Not at all; I don't care about me either way-- I am stranger!
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 10:38AM
Tim* wrote the above, his diaper rash is acting up.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 12.10.10 @ 8:28AM
I'm loving every minute of this Democratic Party Civil War, and I hope it keeps on going until it's too late to fix it, and the damage is irreversible. This Bush Tax cut extension deal is "far" from perfect, but to his credit, at least the President has come down on the right side of an issue for a change (even though he can't help himself, by talking crap about the deal he just cut).
So now the Commies in his Party are going completely nuts (and yes, there really are at least 70 members of the Socialist Party of America in Congress at the moment), and they're going to try to destroy this deal in anyway they can, to which I say, go for it!! Raise Taxes on everybody (that's their new slogan for 2012, it should be a winner)!!
The Tax rates "will" be extended, if not in this Congress, then they will be extended in the next one come January. But in the meantime, we get to sit back, watch, and enjoy as the Democrats, the Progressives, and the Commies knock each other off, over how to steal more money from the American Taxpayer, to fund their little Communist schemes, while at the same time, undermining their own Party Leader, the President. It sure is lonely at the top, now isn't it? Anybody for a game of hoops? Anyone?
Ted R.| 12.10.10 @ 9:31AM
Be careful what you wish for. If the Democrats don't pass a bill before the end of the session, the Republicans will be up next. The Republicans plus their vocal Tea-Party cohort, that is - whom Boehner is going to have to ask to raise the debt ceiling AND keep in place irresponsible tax cuts.
If Obama is smart, that will be the time to pick a political fight with Republicans. The establishment will be hobbled by their Tea-Party flank, and the president can use Republican intransigence on taxes to hammer them. Right out the gate, your Republicans will really have stepped in it. All the Democrats have to do is to keep the pressure on the president, and force his hand for the next Congress. The days of the Party of NO are about to backfire, bigtime. Can't WAIT.
Stan Redmond| 12.10.10 @ 10:14AM
Irresponsible tax cuts? Who's money is it anyway???
Ted R.| 12.10.10 @ 10:47AM
It belongs to America as a corporate body politic. And if that body politic wants government to provide a certain range of services, THEN it is only responsible to raise sufficient revenue to meet the expenses - not to pay part of them, and charge the rest to our children.
George True| 12.10.10 @ 11:06AM
Thank you, Ted! You have come right out and stated the truth of what leftists really think. Those on the left think the money that citizens earn actually, by right, belongs to the government, and NOT to the person who earned it. It is only due to the government's compassion that we are allowed to keep more than half of it. Thank you again for being honest enough to state what leftists really believe in their heart of hearts.
Ted R.| 12.10.10 @ 11:49AM
Yeah, retail for us once more the lies you guys keep telling yourselves. Taxes are the price we pay for a stable, free, well-ordered society. Not ALL of our income goes to support the State. To claim that it does, is a lie of course - a lie you Cons love to indulge in. And moreover, in a democracy, the State is ultimately nothing but the people taken as a whole - all taxes are paid by the people, FOR the people. There is no ultimate adversarial relationship between the Democratic State and its Citizenry.
Furthermore, since wealth accumulation is only secure within the State, in a very real sense NO ONE "earns" everything that they make. People can only earn a living in the CONTEXT of a stable, well-governed civil society; given this, the State is a necessary partner, is necessarily invested, in the value that everyone trades for their income. The wealthy among us benefit the most from participation in the State; therefore it is incumbent upon them to contribute the most back in support of it.
In the Democratic State, the Citizenry decides how much government they want. A responsible citizen body will raise the revenue to pay for the range of services they want, rather than borrow against their own future. THAT is what leftists like myself believe.
Grzmlyk| 12.10.10 @ 11:59AM
Give me $1,000.
idalily| 12.10.10 @ 12:34PM
Jesus, Ted, didn't you even take basic civics in school? The United States is NOT a democracy. We are a representative Republic. So all your crap about what a Democracy does is irrelevant. The people do not decide how much government we have. The Constitution already made that decision. It is people like you who are not satisfied with that because you want more Power.
BTW, wealth accumulation is never secure, within a State or out of it. But that is irrelevant. That wealth is still mine. A certain level of tax is necessary, I agree: I am mandated by the Constitution to give tax dollars to provide for the National Defense, a basic diplomatic corps, and to maintain law and order (police, fire, etc.). I am NOT mandated in this compact to provide for food stamps, healthcare, energy advisement, other people's retirement income, education, or any other damn thing you liberals want me to pay for so that you can buy votes and Power.
And historically it is leftists like you (regardless of party affiliation) who have done all the damn borrowing you refer to, in order to pay for the range of services you think will buy you the most votes and gain more power. The rest of us think you are THIEVES.
A truly stable government provides the basics as outlined in our Constitution, and otherwise STAYS OUT OF THE WAY. It is Progressives' interference in this balance that has led us to instability. In other words, your ilk is the problem, not the solution. Get out of the damn way.
skip| 12.10.10 @ 12:58PM
Hey, we need to remember, we don't actually have a copy of Ted R.'s curriculum. Maybe he doesn't take these courses until his junior year.
After all, he will not receive any of the real world experience Obama never received until after his graduation in '13 when the house, senate, and oval office are all republican tea party ruled.
RCV| 12.10.10 @ 2:22PM
Sorry, Idalily, but the Constitution in a Democratic Republic (and that is the proper term) doesn't mean whatever each person chooses to think it means. We have provided for in he Constitution a mechnaism for reslution of disputes about what it means, and that's why we have a judiciary. And it is settled constitutional law that your tax obligations extend far beyond the very limited powers you wrongly assert the federal government has. Nor is this some new "Progressive" idea -- it was settled while our Founders still walked the earth in early opinions by Chief Justice John Marshall.
idalily| 12.10.10 @ 4:52PM
But is is not a Democracy and was never designed to be one. It has been eroded via the JUDICIARY and has begun to morph but that is not what it was founded and DESIGNED to be. A perfect example of this morphing erosion is the 17th Amendment, which began the replacing of our Republic with a Democracy that it was never intended nor designed to be and which led to a perversion of the LEGISLATIVE as well, making things even worse. The mechanism for resolving disputes to which you refer is BROKEN (the perverted commerce clause is a perfect example of that!). As a result of decades of fiscal malfeasance and pork barrel politics, we are BROKE, with trillions of dollars debt. Don't tell me the Founders would have thought that a good idea. They would be horrified.
And I love how leftist always claim something is "settled." No it's not. It's never settled. Taxation without representation led to one war. It can lead to another. We are taxed, and the past two years of blatant Dem voter fraud have shown us we are anything but represented.If we choose to, we can reverse this idiocy that has brought us to the brink and once again be a sane, fiscally responsible government that doesn't steal and waste the money of its citizens on things that we don't need and can't afford to buy votes. Or we can overthrow it and start again at the beginning. If things don't change, that is eventually what will happen.
And I don't "wrongly" assert anything. The Constitution clearly stated the enumerated powers. What has happened since goes light years beyond the scope of that document and was never intended. The public trough was never intended by our Founders to be the place we put our tax money. It is nothing more than a way to buy votes. It's perverted our REPUBLIC almost to meltdown.If we choose to, we can reverse this idiocy that has brought us to the brink and once again be a sane, fiscally responsible government that doesn't steal and waste the money of its citizens on things that we don't need and can't afford to buy votes.
Nick| 12.10.10 @ 8:10PM
RCV,
You are wrong.
The correct term is not "Democratic Republic."
The correct terms would be "Constitutional Republic" or "Representative Republic."
The loose way "democracy" is used today was foreign to the founding generation. There is a reason the term "republic" is used continuously in the Constitution. Article 4 Section 4 guarantees the States shall have "Republican Form of Government." Not a democratic one. Why is that?
The Constitution, as originally written, was very un-democratic. Only the members of the House of Representatives were elected directly by the people. The President, by electors chosen by the state legislatures. Senators, by state legislatures. Justices serve for life.
A minority of 40 can stop bills in the Senate. Five people out of a population of over 300 million decide what the Constituion means today. How is that democratic?
The minority can stop much in our form of government, as the Framers intended.
In a representative democracy, the majority decides how society is run by directly electing represetatives to make laws, decide disputes, and deal with foreign nations. This is not the United States of America, yet.
RCV| 12.10.10 @ 9:53PM
Sorry, Nick, but you're wrong, and on several key points: We're talking about our government form today, not "as originally written.". The government then was indeed very undemocratic, though far advanced for it's day. But today, we have universal suffrage: unlike then, all men regardless of property can vote, as can women and non-whites. And we do directly elect all our governmental leaders.
As for the Senate, the 60 vote cloture rule is extra-Constitutional.
I'm definitely not arguing, or advocating, a direct democracy. We need the Constitutional protections and judicial mechanism we have to protect minority rights against an inflamed majority. We are a
constitutional republic - which is why marriage
equality rulings will continue whether the majority wants them or not.
Nick| 12.11.10 @ 12:28AM
RCV,
Don't you claim to be a Constitutional lawyer?
We do not "directly elect all our governmental leaders."
The president is still elected by the electoral college. Judges are still appointed. As are the officers of the federal government.
The 60 vote cloture rule is not extr-constitutional.
It states clearly in Article 1 Section 5 that "[e]ach House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings [...]."
I didn't write anything about "direct democracy." I explained the difference between a representative republic and a representative democracy. And why it is wrong to call our federal government a democracy.
I didn't even get into all the requirements in the Constitution for 3/5 and 2/3 votes . Again, not very democratic.
Also, universal suffrage (except for minors) and self-rule does not necessarily mean one lives in a democracy. The Framers rejected democracy, as it was the last stage before anarchy, and formed a Republic.
RCV| 12.11.10 @ 1:33AM
Nick: we're arguing semantics. We both agree we live in a republic with lots of controls on the passing will of the majority. It is deliberately designed to slow down change, to insure that the passions of the moment won't cause radical shifts in policy. That's why the three branches are designed so that thevwill reflect majority passions gradually: the House every two years, the Presidency every four, the Senate every six in staggered terms, and slowest of all, the Judiciary.
It's an ingenious system, a work of beauty, and I support and admire every check and balance for the protection it affords our Constitutional liberties.
idalily| 12.11.10 @ 2:26PM
I agree with your last paragraph. So WHY do Progressives keep trying to change it into a democracy? Perverting the Commerce Clause to force us to buy health insurance, for example. The Founders would be horrified to know we are forced to buy a product, forced to pay for others' retirement, forced to pay exorbitant taxes, obstructing our right to keep and bear arms...I could go on and on about the perversions Progressives have made to our Constitution. The meme floating around now is that this beautiful document was written by old white men who don't understand today's realities. Hell, Hillary even floated the trial balloon of getting rid of that "archaic" mechanism, the Electoral College. If Progressives loved and believed in our Constitution and our Republic as much as you claim to do, they would not being doing all these things to subvert it. Their entitlements are nothing but pork in the barrel to BUY VOTES and GAIN POWER.
Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 10:56PM
"Their entitlements are nothing but pork in the barrel to BUY VOTES and GAIN POWER."
Tell it to RINOs in your party. Even if you are a Tea Partier, you are allied in some way with the GOP.
idalily| 12.11.10 @ 11:36PM
How do you know what party I belong to? And I don't give a damn WHO did the spending, or what letter they put behind their name. I am not "allied" with anything but the Constitution. So STFU about what I am affiliated with. You don't know jack about me.
Margie| 12.12.10 @ 12:04PM
Pardon, should have read lawyers, above, not layers.
Margie| 12.12.10 @ 12:03PM
Actually RCV~ it's designed to slow down WRONG change, not just change. The country was founded on Biblical principles. The Leftists have taken over every branch.. activist Judges rule wrongly and have changed the course of our country~ and NOT for the better. To try and say otherwise is disingenuous.
If you are one of these layers who fights for the WRONG side then you are part of the problem, and that's too bad. Judging by the way you speak to Ken for one.. and if indeed you've done what he says you have~ reported him to Homeland security~ you would be on the side of the Communists, (don't pardon the shorthand.)
Is it true? Have you done this?
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 12:38PM
Of course it's not true. If he has indeed been visited by Homeland Security, it's likely because they spend time on the Internet looking for people talking about stockpiling weapons and shooting government officials. That's their job. But I have a lot better things to do.
On the issue of the Constitution, it was designed to promote consensus and slow all change. And I'd hardly call the current Supreme Court, dominated by Roberts, Scalia and Alito, "leftist."
Merry Christmas to you and Victor, Margie. I mean that sincerely.
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 1:53PM
Further on the subject, Margie: there is much that I like about Ken - he is colorful, funny and obviously does lots of good things in his life. I have no problem with his general bombasts. I could even handle his explicit threats to shoot me personally. But once he started talking about putting bullets in my children's heads, he crossed the line of acceptable discourse. I don 't know if he has a drinking problem that leads him to such excesses, but I want nothing to do with that kind of threat. But the truth is, I don't know people in Homeland Security, and have never had any contact with them, except when I go through thevstupid line at the airport.
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 7:37PM
On the issue of the Constitution, it wasn't designed to promote consensus. And I'd hardly call the current Supreme Court, dominated by Roberts, Scalia and Alito, "leftist."
RCV| 12.13.10 @ 1:23AM
Timmie/Skippie posting in my name again.
Tim*| 12.13.10 @ 5:07AM
You're A Liar TCV Obama LawBoy.
That Wasn't My Post.
You ObamaBoys see Tim* Behind Every BUUUSSSHHH.
skip| 12.15.10 @ 9:14PM
I would never post under the name of the idiot who, when asked about the petition signed by thirty one thousand four hundred eighty seven real scientists in the field of physics on their thorough debunking of manmade global warming, stated
"I don't sign silly petitions on science matters"
I will post under my own name and ridicule such an unintelligent and dishonest idiot 100% of the time.
Or as R(idiculous) C(ontemptible) V(omitus) would say
'liberalism is right 6000 thirds of the space of ketchup'
or whatever other idiotic drivel the idiot posts.
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 7:50PM
Nick you're right. We're talking about our government form today. The government was indeed far advanced for it's day. Today we have universal suffrage: unlike then, all men regardless of property can vote as can women and non-whites. But we don't directly elect all our governmental leaders.
As for the Senate, the 60 vote cloture rule is extra-Constitutional.
I'm definitely not arguing, or advocating, a direct democracy. We need the Constitutional protections and judicial mechanism we have to protect minority rights against an inflamed majority. We are a
constitutional republic - which is why marriage
equality rulings will continue whether the majority wants them or not.
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 7:50PM
Nick you're right. We're talking about our government form today. The government was indeed far advanced for it's day. Today we have universal suffrage: unlike then, all men regardless of property can vote as can women and non-whites. But we don't directly elect all our governmental leaders.
As for the Senate, the 60 vote cloture rule is extra-Constitutional.
I'm definitely not arguing, or advocating, a direct democracy. We need the Constitutional protections and judicial mechanism we have to protect minority rights against an inflamed majority. We are a
constitutional republic - which is why marriage
equality rulings will continue whether the majority wants them or not.
Occam's Tool| 12.10.10 @ 10:40PM
Dear RCV,
Wasn't that the Justice Marshall about whom the greatest President between Jefferson and Lincoln said: "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"
RCV| 12.10.10 @ 11:17PM
You mean Andy Jackson, the old populist, the hell-with-the-rich Indian genocidist whom my party celebrates every year? Yes, although he wasn't speaking of Marshall's seminal opinions on the expanse of federal power, which Jackson was never shy about using.
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 7:34PM
Sorry, Ideally, the Constitution in a Republic (and that is the proper term) doesn't mean whatever each person chooses to think it means. We have provided for in he Constitution a mechanism for resolution of disputes about what it means. And that's why we have a judiciary. And it is not settled constitutional law that your tax obligations extend far beyond the very limited powers you assert the federal government has. This some new "Progressive" idea -- it wasn't settled while our Founders still walked the earth in early opinions by Chief Justice John Marshall.
Juantex| 12.11.10 @ 5:52PM
Great comments. True and maybe open a few eyes, if they can be open minded. Thanks.
elizabeth| 12.10.10 @ 3:59PM
I love how carefully you lable our form of government as a "democratic state." The term democratic state is liberal code for Socialist State. Sorry to have to remind you ted, but we are still a REPUBLIC. You and your socialist ilk will have to wait for your ridiculous eutopia, because you are still in the minority, and you have been exposed. There are too many of us out there who are willing to go to the mattresses for what we believe in, and we are prepared.
RCV| 12.10.10 @ 5:30PM
I didn't label it a "democratic state", I labelled it a "democratic republic" to indicate that it is a constitutional republic, in which the people choose their government democratically. The socialists are indeed in the minority, and a very small one at that. As for the mattresses, you can go to them and do on them whatever it is you want to for all I care, but the minute you try and shortcut the electoral process because you're dissatisfied with the results, you've crossed the line.
skip| 12.10.10 @ 7:36PM
...said the self-proclaimed lifelong student of the constitution and self-proclaimed lifelong student of Jefferson who again and again contradicts both in ignorance and dishonesty.
63 years stupid.
beebop| 12.10.10 @ 4:41PM
Following your pathetic logic down the rat hole, we would assume that this money we pay for (how did you put it?) 'Taxes are the price we pay for a stable, free, well-ordered society ...'
We all want the same thing. We just believe that we don't need so much intervention from the government to instruct as as to how we measure "stable, free and well-ordered." We kind of like to make some of these choices for ourselves!
Bob K.| 12.10.10 @ 7:08PM
From each according to his ability to each according to how much he can grab!
Right Ted?
Truthseeker| 12.12.10 @ 10:11AM
Ted R. - spoken like a true devotee of either; (pick one) the Brave New World (Huxley) or 1984 (Orwell). That is the mark of a "True" Liberal/Progressive. Only a fool is willing to give away one's freedom in exchange for; safety, security and/or unearned comfort as afforded by your confiscation of what producers produce. Your approach is doomed to failure as has been witnessed in the past and it will always be. You can not "modify" human nature and your socialism (yes, that is what it is!) will only work as long as there is a producer whose wealth you are able to confiscate. When that person is gone, where will you go next? I would love to hear your thoughts on that Truth.
Grzmlyk| 12.10.10 @ 11:58AM
Hey asshole:
I'm part of the body politic.
Give me $1,000.
Now.
Mark Crevier| 12.11.10 @ 3:37AM
Again Thanks! Grzmlyk your profound grasp of the english language keeps me in stitchs thank you!!!!I would love to be able to articulate with such clarity!!!
skip| 12.11.10 @ 4:26PM
G(lorious)
r(etaliatory)
z(ingers)
m(utilating)
l(iberal)
y(aptrap)
k(nowledgably)
Alaskan| 12.10.10 @ 12:15PM
Ted believes the money belongs to the state. That is classsic marxism. Of course, this does not affect Ted because Ted does not pay any income tax because Ted does not work. Maybe if Ted joins the real world by getting a job, or better yet, by starting a business and having to deal with the government on payroll taxes, workers comp, unemployment tax, etc., Ted may change his mind. Like George McGovern said when he bankrupted his business, "Gee I didn't know."
If I am wrong on you not paying income tax, please correct me.
Grzmlyk| 12.10.10 @ 1:11PM
I don't know if "Ted" is a faded baby boomer, a perpetual grad student, an eternal teaching assistant at a generic community college, a trendy artist living in SoHo, a television script writer, an esteemed member of our "scientific" community, a journalist, a welfare lay about or even a hedge fund manager playing both sides of the street.
But I do know this: 99% of Marxists will not live in the world they prescribe for you (see liberal wealth redistributors Geithner, Tim; Kirk, Ron; Rangel, Charles; Sebelius, Kathleen; Solis, Hilda et al).
In a liberal's mind, SHE'S (gotta be politically correct) to be credited by the fawning hordes with a beatific generosity, and deemed to embody the true spirit of fairness, and to have achieved the godhead of Purveyor of Social Justice, if she tells you that it is YOU who must fork over YOUR money; liberals are always far more, shall we say, "circumspect" when it comes to parting with their own funds.
Then again, moral vanity is a delicious indulgence and well worth a few bucks, as long as it doesn't eat into your principle.
Of course there is a small minority of ascetics - those messianic types who've taken secular vows of poverty and live meager, spartan lives far away from their trust funds because, well, self flagellation is just SOOOO medieval.
But even those types are scratching vanity's itch, assuaging their own desires - not solving the world's problems or producing something of value to their fellow man; they are merely posturing.
And, in any case, Tim isn't one of those. After all, he's accessing the Internet with a computer, which is the product of evil capitalism.
And I'm sure he owns an ipod or an ipad and various other accoutrements of the evil rich.
And to think that the money he spent - OUR money, by his own account - on such totems of the free market went to line the well-heeled pockets of that evil capitalist Steve Jobs (or is Jobs exempt because his products are so cool?) instead of feeding the poor and hungry oppressed classes here in America or, even better, the ideal poster children for White Oppression, authentic Africans, whose abject suffering makes for such satisfying agitprop and pretty post cards.
Hypocrisy is the LEAST offensive thing about these phonies, although it is perhaps the only resource on this planet that will never be depleted.
No, it is their nihilistic desire to subjugate others, to break others on the wheel of Marxism, to sadistically tear down every last edifice of freedom and genuine humanity that is so odious.
Adam| 12.10.10 @ 4:16PM
Just a theory, but I'm starting to think that the progressives have been so successful at taking over our government for one reason: many of them don't work, so they have a lot of extra time on their hands. Meanwhile, the rest of poor slobs have to work for a living, and simply don't have the time to come up with ways to co-opt our government. Just a theory....
Frisbee| 12.10.10 @ 10:25PM
True, Adam. Conservatives spend time raising their kids, while Libs just put them in public warehousing.
Alaskan| 12.10.10 @ 8:02PM
If you want to silence Ted ask him why he does not work, or how much he pays in taxes. It is easy to be for high taxes when you do not have to pay it.
skip| 12.10.10 @ 8:23PM
See the genius in action (no, not RCV, Ted R.) at "Diversifying C.S. Lewis" on AmSpec 12/6/10 opining on his favorite, atheism. Lecturing all the ignorant people all the way into the obliteration that is Lewis' signature Christian apologetic argument.
Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 11:00PM
After Nixon, Ford and both Bushes, the GOP cannot be taken seriously as a brake on the state.
Do you remember how Nixon abused the state? he was almost trying to destroy himself-- and he did.
W| 12.12.10 @ 11:14AM
Alan/Ted
Why don't you just use one name, concentrate on the present OBAMA.
Margie| 12.12.10 @ 11:54AM
I really don't think Alan is Ted. Ted is hardcore Leftist. Alan.. I don't believe really is. IMNSHO, there is hope for him.
Alan Brooks, you know I'm right, don't you? You keep playing both sides in your mind and have said you want another Reagan to run. What Leftist would want that? But Alan, one thing: you need to truly come all the way to your Right mind.. and join your conservative brethren.
Notice how the Leftists don't want you. They hate that you stand against certain aspects of their philosophy. Namely the lawlessness of Libertarianism, and anti-semitism.
They chew you up and spit you out.
The Communists eat their own, Alan, as we've been discussing.
Are you on the fence still or have you truly given yourself over?
Come back.. don't do it!
Fredrick Ward| 12.12.10 @ 1:36PM
Uh Margie, Libertarianism has nothing to do with liberal agenda anymore. At one point it did, but that was back in the 1800s. At that time Liberals were individualists, distrustful of state power, supported the free market, and opposed the feudal and mercantile system that was in place then. Liberals did not actually turn to socialism until around 1870 when they were seduced by the idea that government should be used to guarantee "social justice".
Libertarians, however, want no part of such a system of government. They want to abolish as much government as is absolutely possible.
Margie| 12.12.10 @ 2:43PM
Uh, Frederick Ward, Libertarianism has everything to do with Liberalism:
Where do you stand on abortion?
Where do you stand on the legalization of drugs?
Where do you stand on open borders?
Where do you stand on anti-war?
Where do you stand on anti-Israel?
Where do you stand on same sex marriage?
There are more, but you get the point.
Libertarians share more with Liberals than they would care to admit to.
They try and call themselves conservative, but none of the above things are. They try and call ones like me "Statists." (Among other false accusations. There are none so haughty and so wrong, as today's Libertarians. That's capital "L", not small "l".
Those who are for Liberty and our Constitutional form of government are the true libertarians... not those who wish to destroy it.
Fredrick Ward| 12.13.10 @ 4:12AM
Margie, the classic definition of Libertarianism had absolutely nothing to do with giving merit to base moral behavior. The forefathers of our great country were, in point of fact, Libertarians. I do not give credence to this ridiculous practice of redefining words because people are uncomfortable with the fact that they are responsible for their actions and words. Little "L", or big "L"..., seriously? There is but one classical meaning and that is what will be the measure. Such tactics of politics is only meant to confuse and disrupt; I will not tolerate such ignoble practices.
Margie| 12.13.10 @ 8:18PM
Actually, there is a huge difference between a libertarian, one who loves liberty~ and the Libertarian party with its platform.
Like Ronald Reagan said, and I agree:
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."
Today's Libertarian party is very much not in line with conservatism.
It is:
Anti-war.
Anti-Israel.
Anti-laws
For the legalization of drugs, prostitution, etc.
Now... what were you saying to me about my "tactics?"
RCV| 12.14.10 @ 12:31AM
Thanks for fleshing out the full quote that Timmie repeatedly misuses to prop up the Libertarian Ron Paul.
W| 12.12.10 @ 2:50PM
What is IMNSHO?
I think Alan is Ted trying to disrupt. "Neither" has denied or replied.
Margie| 12.12.10 @ 3:52PM
It means In My Not So Humble Opinion.
Christopher| 12.12.10 @ 6:48PM
Alan, Vietnam was the liberals' war, Kennedy-Johnson, the "Best and the Brightest." Nixon had to clean up their mess.
Watergate? One of the charges against Nixon was that he wanted to to have the CIA tell the FBI to "back off." Of course the CIA did not do this, and the FBI investigated. So he was punished for thinking about it. Now, we have an actual cover-up where the Obama Justice Dept decided to not prosecute the Black Muslims in the Philadelphia voter intimidation case.
Another charge against Nixon was the "secret war in Cambodia" in 1972. That charge was drafted by Hillary Rodham, who worked for the impeachment committee. Now we have a secret bombing war in Yemen, under Obama and Secretary of State Hillary.
You liberals are obsessed with Nixon , Reagan, and now Bush. It is a mental disorder, blaming all the problems on them. Try some rational analysis.
Bruce Berger| 12.10.10 @ 12:17PM
Except when those "services" are transfer payments from one group of citizens to another. Then it is legalized theft, nothing more, nothing less. Yes, one can gather a mob of 98 people to surround the houses of 2 people, demanding protection money, but that doesn't make it right.
idalily| 12.10.10 @ 12:20PM
No, it does not. It belongs to ME. It is my money, that I earned! By the risks I took, the choices I made, and the damned work I DID. It does NOT belong to the body politic. It is mine, and by taking it against my will, you are STEALING it. That is morally wrong, wrong, wrong. And you, sir, are an advocate of theft.
George True| 12.10.10 @ 12:37PM
The theft is a crime. The left's doctrine of covetousness that leads to the theft is a sin.
Garwoodv6| 12.12.10 @ 2:59PM
Quote: George True| 12.10.10 @ 12:37PM:
"The theft is a crime. The left's doctrine of covetousness that leads to the theft is a sin."
AMEN!!!
Some of them are the nicest thieves you'll ever meet, if you just over look that major character flaw...
terrestre | 12.10.10 @ 9:14PM
I think so
beebop| 12.10.10 @ 3:41PM
Uh, Ted?
It doesn't belong to the "corporate body politic" (whatever the hell that actually MEANS) until I earn it and the government grasps its share. I have an idea ... why doesn't the FEDERAL government take less and the states more and those of us who were smart enough to elect conservatives can watch the rest panhandle?
Texas Mom 2012| 12.10.10 @ 8:49PM
I will be happy to pay more taxes when EVERYONE has to pay something. It is not right that nearly have the country has no skin in the game and yet they demand hardworking people like my hubby should pay more, their 'fair share.' How fair is it that some pay NOTHING? Not even $10 a year... Everyone should have to pay something or they have NO right to ask anyone else to pay even MORE. Because when hubby works 60-80 hours a week, he already pays more... When he gives up family to work out of state or overseas in order to earn more, he already pays through the nose for the chance to save some for our future and our sons education. Why should we pay more when there are many in thus country who pay nothing. Some of them get free health care, free lunches, assistance for college and a hundred other subsidies for the working poor like the earned income tax credit. I see no reason why hubby and I should pay more when our taxes already seriously reduce our standard of living. It is morally wrong to ask some to pay more and more while others pay nothing and receive more and more 'benefits!'
Hell no, do not raise taxes on income earners.
Texas Mom 2012| 12.10.10 @ 8:51PM
Nearly half of the country, not 'have'
My bad...
Mark Crevier| 12.11.10 @ 3:45AM
Hey Texas Mom 2012 your not bad your right on half or have!!!
Kishego| 12.10.10 @ 4:16PM
In the famous words (ok maybe not so famous) of Chic McGee "you sir, are an assbag"!!
Fredrick Ward| 12.10.10 @ 6:31PM
As a corporate body politic member I vote to sieze all of Ted R.'s monetary value in whole; both current and future. This will be done to the betterment of the homeless in his area. Who cares if we make him homeless while doing so.
Martin Treptow| 12.10.10 @ 6:37PM
Ted,
"It belongs to America as a corporate body politic" is the most f***ing awesome thing I have ever read anywhere in all my forty-one years on this planet (or any other planet, I'm sure).
Please run for office! Preferably national office. Find a way to put that sentiment on a bumper sticker:
TED R. FOR SENATE
Your income belongs to America as a corporate body politic!
Ted, really... calm down, this one is for you:
"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
--- Thomas Jefferson
Troll.
Fail.
Cheers!
Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 12:43AM
The wealthy OWN America.
W| 12.11.10 @ 12:17PM
Alan, get a job, and you too can be an OWNER
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 7:53PM
The wealthy don't OWN America. The Federal Reserve does.
victor| 12.11.10 @ 1:21AM
limi(Ted R)eader:
"It belongs to America as a corporate body politic."
That is as much of an admission by any of you Flamin' Liberals that you believe that we are a Communist nation, as in "The People's Republic of America".
That notion has not only failed everywhere its been tried, but also responsible for 100 Million Dead People around the world.
skip| 12.11.10 @ 12:28PM
limi(Ted R)eader
Classic!
George True| 12.11.10 @ 1:45PM
Victor: You are partly right. The 100 million people murdered by leftist/marxist/socialist/communist regimes during the 20th century are just the ones who were directly killed with bullets, knives, bombs, gas, torture, etc. When you add in the additional people who were starved to death, worked to death, and eventually died of injuries or disease caused by their betters on the left, the figure is closer to 200 million.
skip| 12.11.10 @ 4:35PM
It's even worse than that. They kill their own. In less than the last century in America, Russia, Germany, and China alone it is at least 208 million of their own people, not counting foreign enemies.
America 50 million 'legally' aborted Americans
Germany 20 million Germans and nationals of
occupied lands by Hitler
Russia 62 million Russians by Stalin
China 76 million Chinese by Mao
skip| 12.11.10 @ 4:38PM
Notice these four nations are four of the most advanced - ever.
Margie| 12.12.10 @ 11:45AM
George True,
God indeed knows the exact number of all of the souls murdered under these regimes.. and victor's Mother, my Mother-in-law, is a survivor of the Nazi camps. Right now as we speak she is under the care of hospice nurses, at her other Son's home.
The most amazing thing to me about her is that although she suffered greatly and nearly starved to death having been taken as a teenage girl from her idyllic Russian farm home and thrown into the back of a truck and carted away to a life of misery until the end of the war, the thing that amazes me is constant cheerful demeanor. It's like God purified her soul permanently. I've always wondered if this verse applies from the Bible:
"Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same thought, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin.." 1 Pe. 4:1.
Anyway, the same spirit that drives the Communists drives the Socialists in this current administration. It is pure evil. But we will prevail, as Christ prevailed, and will prevail again.
God bless.
zionisticamerican | 12.11.10 @ 9:26AM
Since when does anybody ever sign up for buying anything in perpetui ? If a business needs 2 million in liability insurance one year but then lays off all workers and goes into mothballs do they still need that cost? My point is that if we signed up for services in 2002 and now they are no longer necessary why are they still in the budget and costing US? Maybe many of the goodies we taxpayers voted for in the past are really obsolete and we are now coming to realize we don't need that anymore, are we still stuck with that tab forever? According to the Big Govt. Liberals the answer is yes!!
zionisticamerican | 12.11.10 @ 9:26AM
Since when does anybody ever sign up for buying anything in perpetui ? If a business needs 2 million in liability insurance one year but then lays off all workers and goes into mothballs do they still need that cost? My point is that if we signed up for services in 2002 and now they are no longer necessary why are they still in the budget and costing US? Maybe many of the goodies we taxpayers voted for in the past are really obsolete and we are now coming to realize we don't need that anymore, are we still stuck with that tab forever? According to the Big Govt. Liberals the answer is yes!!
Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 11:07PM
It's hopeless, Ted: I guess Vietnam, Watergate, and all the other social catastrophes have poisoned America's political bloodstream. Theses "conservatives" (rightwingers) talk of freedom, but will attack minorities if it is their interests. They can't grasp how important it is to protect the minority (in the past, blacks; today, gays) from the majority.
They only deep down care about their own families- everyone else can drop dead. Christianity they wear as a badge, an amulet.
W| 12.12.10 @ 11:15AM
Alan/Ted
It is obvious you are the same person, stop talking to each other, man up
George| 12.12.10 @ 4:23PM
Alan, Obama had two years of a democrat Congress, why didn't you liberals pass laws to protect the gays from the majority? Was any law proposed in Congress and voted upon to protect gays from the majority?
Christopher| 12.12.10 @ 6:53PM
Alan, Vietnam was the liberals' war, Kennedy-Johnson, the "Best and the Brightest." Nixon had to clean up their mess.
Watergate? One of the charges against Nixon was that he wanted to to have the CIA tell the FBI to "back off." Of course the CIA did not do this, and the FBI investigated. So he was punished for thinking about it. Now, we have an actual cover-up where the Obama Justice Dept decided to not prosecute the Black Muslims in the Philadelphia voter intimidation case.
Another charge against Nixon was the "secret war in Cambodia" in 1972. That charge was drafted by Hillary Rodham, who worked for the impeachment committee. Now we have a secret bombing war in Yemen, under Obama and Secretary of State Hillary.
You liberals are obsessed with Nixon , Reagan, and now Bush. It is a mental disorder, blaming all the problems on them. Try some rational analysis.
Reply to this
Ted R| 12.12.10 @ 7:55PM
It's hopeless, Ted: I guess Vietnam, Watergate, and all the other social catastrophes have poisoned America's political bloodstream. Theses "progressives" (leftwingers) talk of freedom, but will attack minorities if it is their interests. They can't grasp how important it is not to protect the minority (in the past, blacks; today, gays) from the majority.
They only deep down care about their own families- everyone else can drop dead. Atheism, they wear as a badge, an amulet.
Concerned Montanan| 12.13.10 @ 12:07AM
"If that body politic wants gov. to provide a certain range of services" - Another liberal who thinks they know what we the people "the body politic" need and want better than we do. For goodness sake, what part of NO MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL! don't you understand?
carnot| 12.12.10 @ 9:26PM
raise my taxes and I'll withhold even more consumption than I have the last two years. as will millions of others.
no matter.....the last two years have demonstrated with piercing clarity what you get when Liberals are in charge! however painful...this was a service worth its weight in gold.
John Navratil| 12.10.10 @ 9:47AM
L,L&L,
I can't believe myself! I'm agreeing with Ted R. again!
This "No Tax Hike" bill contains $850 billion in new stimulus. Trash it and come back in January.
Of course, the rest of Ted R.'s post is more of his wishful thinking. Let's give him what he wants :)
John2| 12.10.10 @ 2:13PM
Go ahead, give him what he wants -- like all the Marxist mental cases, he wants a spanking.
victor| 12.11.10 @ 1:23AM
"like all the Marxist mental cases, he wants a spanking."
With an Iron Fist in a Velvet Glove, eh?
Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 11:10PM
You are mistaken;
divided govt. means there is no hope next year.
John Navratil| 12.12.10 @ 11:59AM
There are twenty-three Democrat senators up in 2012. None of them want to be one the wrong side of this issue. It will only take a few of them to make this happen, and happen it will. When the middle-class tax hike increases taxes for a typical family by $4000, there will be a hue and cry which will not be ignored. Coupled with the fact that the Dems in the Senate cannot block it from coming to a vote, I see little downside.
The biggest downside to passing this bad bill today is that it WILL become law. The next Congress can pass all they want, but it won't get passed a veto. If this bill is not passed now, a veto of a new bill is unlikely to be sustained.
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 7:57PM
There is no hope for me. There is no hope for me. There is no hope for me. There is no hope for me. There is no hope for me. There is no hope for me. There is no hope for me.
Curly Smith| 12.10.10 @ 8:33AM
Clinton and McCain may represent old style politics but Obama fully embodies the world's second oldest profession - con man. His ancestors sold snake oil to Cain and Abel that was "guaranteed from the Garden of Eden". The infomercial masses couldn't wait to get in on the latest fad, they couldn't wait to vote for a man who told them that they were special, pretty, smart and part of an historical event. And the infomercial masses bought it hook, line and Chia Pet.
Pecos Pete| 12.10.10 @ 8:44AM
Assume obama is not reelected in 2012. Then, we have a young ex-president who will continue to blather for decades to come ... ala Jimmah Carter.
Makes me ill to think of it.
Down South| 12.10.10 @ 9:32AM
Pecos Pete, at least he will be an ex-president. Jimmah was so disliked in Georgia that he could not have been reelected Governor but because he could not succeed himself, could not run. That's one thing the liberal press kept a secret back then.
Carter is now back in Georgia (some of the time) but is just as irrelevant here now as he was then.
One thing I will give the man (Carter), he's probably the best sunday school teacher that I've ever heard. That's something that will never be said about the current occupant at 1600 Penn. Ave.
I've had my faith restored in my country lately, we always get it right in the end. I was worried there for awhile.
Boston12GS| 12.10.10 @ 10:07AM
I sure hope so--he can keep reminding future generations of what not to do. Just as I use Carter's continuous exposure to educate my children, who were not yet born when he reigned. Real time learning from history--I love it. Just like getting them vaccinated.
John2| 12.10.10 @ 2:15PM
Don't worry about Jimmy Carter or Obama-after-retirement, let him talk. Nobody has to listen to him.
beebop| 12.10.10 @ 3:43PM
Nah. He's pretty contemptuous of us as a group. He'll go someplace -- like Greece maybe -- where the weather is great and they speak English because after all, that's the only language he actually knows.
solidground| 12.10.10 @ 9:19AM
Obama's stupendously churlish speech and behavior is bad enough. What's worse is how many Americans still buy his nonsense hook, line and sinking economy. At times I find myself truly amazed, as I was during the 2008 campaign, at the inability of average voters to recognize an outright con. I gave up believing in fairy tales years ago, mostly on the basis of everyday experience. Yet millions of Americans apparently have not shaken the childish urge to believe everything that's spoon fed to them without a single rudimentary doubt. The MSM is of course Obama's ever-present and preening pimp to all of his mischief, but how long can some people participate in hide the weenie without a clue to the dishonesty of the game? I really wonder.
Ned| 12.10.10 @ 11:35AM
The "average voters" who bought his garbage couldn't name a single Supreme Court Justice, didn't know who controled Congress at the time, and would have voted for a jackass - well, okay, DID vote for a jackass - as long as the jackass wasn't neamed "Bush"...
RCV| 12.10.10 @ 12:18PM
You're confusing the average voter with Sarah Palin
Steve A| 12.10.10 @ 12:49PM
RCV, I'm pretty sure (not positive)that Sarah voted for McCain....
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.10.10 @ 12:51PM
Hey RCV.
You finally let her explode your head TOO ...YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY, SARAH!
Keep on truckin', girl. Sooner than later you will blow all the communists' ,(pardon the shorthand), heads up.
Then we will put them in protective asylum where they belong. (grin)
RCV| 12.10.10 @ 2:25PM
Oh, Ken. Still beset with the juvenile fantasies of blowing people's heads off and shooting them. You have a lot in common with Josef Stalin, whose fantasies were similar.
Have a nice holiday.
elizabeth| 12.10.10 @ 4:12PM
RCV, I see you come to this conservative website too. What, you have time to go around all the conservative websites and post your drivel? I guess you must be relieved to know your welfare (sorry, um, unemployment) check will still be coming to you for another 99 weeks. How many weeks does that make it for you?
Back to Obama, who is more Stalin like in their thinking, ken here, or your precious leader?
RCV| 12.10.10 @ 4:59PM
Elizabeth, I'm 63 years old, and have been gainfully employed every day of my adult life, and much of my non-adult years. Even though I was born to a very poor family (who also worked all their lives, sometimes two jobs at a time), I've ended up very wealthy thanks to this great country. And this is the only conservative (actually, quite far right) site I ever post on.
And the answer to yur question is, Ken. I've never heard our President speak of blowing away political opponents with guns if he loses at the ballot box.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.10.10 @ 7:25PM
RCV,
Dumbass, read his lips..."We bring guns to the knife fight..."
Sir, you have sold out to the communists, (pardon the shorthand).
...or the mob who supports you.
Go somewhere people will fall for your BS...
(Excuse me dear people. What I meant to say was "nightsoil of male oxen".)
Please, RCV, I do understand that you forward my posts to homeland security. My buddies at the Texas Rangers laugh their hineys off, every time the feds show up at my house.
Seriously though... everyone here has finally figured out that you are nothing but a "provacateur" for the communists.
Come on down to Houston...County Line Bar-b-que.....and we can discuss further.
Dumbass.
Just name a date and time and I will buy the ribs.
Your feds and my Rangers can discuss further also.
Dumbass.
RCV| 12.10.10 @ 9:56PM
Ken, you're a colorful but deluded lunatic.
Occam's Tool| 12.10.10 @ 10:45PM
RCV: If you are 63 years old (I believe you), then you made the majority of your money under the tax brackets of Ronald Reagan and afterwards. Since the wealth you have is no longer taxed, please get your hands off my money so that I, too, can retire wealthy thanks to this great country of ours. If you're wealthier than me, I shouldn't be paying for your health insurance, which I will be shortly.
RCV| 12.10.10 @ 11:24PM
I agree whole-heartedly with you on that. Neither Medicare nor social security ought to be paid to wealthy individuals like myself. And for your info, I'm still working full time and paying very high taxes as well. (Most of the investment income in my retirement funds was made during the boom Clinton years, Btw.). And the top tax rates today ate not higher than they were during the Reagan years.
victor| 12.11.10 @ 1:34AM
RCV:
"And the top tax rates today ate not higher than they were during the Reagan years."
Actually, the top rate was dropped to 28% in the 1986 Tax Reform Act and was later raised by the Democrats in 1990 to 31% and was later raised your Boy Lollipop, I mean Billy J Clinton and the Robbin' Hoods, to 36% with a 10% surcharge.
BTW the boom Clinton years was fueled by the tech boom, the drop in capital gains taxes and reduced spending and increased revenues due to Newt Gingrich and the Capitalist Conservatives.
Lowering tax rates works every time it's tried.
RCV| 12.11.10 @ 2:41AM
Victor, you are indeed correct that Reagan lowered the top marginal tax rate to 28%, but that only came into effect his last year in office. For most of Reagan's presidency, the top marginal rate was 50%, far higher than it is today.
Reagan's lowering of the top marginal rate did little except balloon the deficit. The economy was still so sluggish four years later that it led to Clinton's election ("it's the economy, stupid).
What fueled growth was the innovative technological revolution, which took off largely in high-tax rate California, and after Clinton had raised marginal rates as you say.
There is little correlative evidence that reducing the top marginal rate on the wealthiest tax layers has any economic stimulative effect. GWB is only the latest example.
victor| 12.12.10 @ 12:42AM
RCV:
"Victor, you are indeed correct that Reagan lowered the top marginal tax rate to 28%, but that only came into effect his last year in office."
RCV:
"And the top tax rates today ate not higher than they were during the Reagan years."
Would you swear under oath that your first statement does not contradict your second statement?
Even if it were for ONE day, it would contradict your whole argument.
For five years, 82-86, the rate was 50% then it was reduced to 35 in 1987 and finally down to 28% for two yeras, 1988-1989.
"There is little correlative evidence that reducing the top marginal rate on the wealthiest tax layers has any economic stimulative effect."
Is that why we had five straight quarters that averaged 8% growth from 1984-1985?
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-.....es-economy
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 12:45PM
Exactly, Victor. The five straight quarters of 8% growth under Reagan took place when the top marginal rate was 50%! Read your own posting. Slashing the top rate ballooned the deficit and led to the sluggish BushI economy.
W| 12.11.10 @ 12:22PM
to RCV, congratulations on the wealth. Since you can afford your health insurance, you can send the U.S.Treasury a check for the cost of the Medicare and Social Security you receive. IRS will gladly cash your check. You are allowed to make a gift to the government. Also, if you believe you do not pay enough in taxes, you do not have to take all the permitted deductions on your return.
There is no fee for this free tax advice to help the government.
RCV| 12.11.10 @ 2:02PM
As I said, at 63 and still working, I don't receive either, but I'll keep it mind. I don't feel resentful at the taxes I pay, because I understand the real benefits I receive living in this great country.
W| 12.11.10 @ 5:02PM
It is the greatest county, on that we all agree. It is not great because of high taxes, though. We do need taxes for the essential services of government. Can you honestly defend the expenditures of our bloated governments, state, local, federal? You seem to equate paying taxes with making this country great. Not true. If it were true you would voluntarily pay more taxes.
RCV| 12.11.10 @ 5:11PM
No, there's lots we spend money on that if I were making the decisions on my own, I wouldn't: billions for a senseless and unnecessary war in Iraq. Congress authorizing weapons systems that the armed services don't want because some Congressional representative wants to bring pork to his or her district. Massive subsidies for tobacco, ethanol, etc. Cash payments to corrupt dictators.
But in a self-governing state, I don't get to make all the decisions. The consensus of the representatives all of us send to Congress, subject to the checks and balances in place and review by an independent judiciary, if legally challenged, decides the issue.
When I look around the world and see the myriad of systems other societies have adopted, and the burdens placed upon them versus the benefits the society they have organized affords, I feel profoundly fortunate to live here. I don't think the price I'm paying is excessive.
skip| 12.11.10 @ 9:07PM
Retardo:
What you think is excessive or not is a non sequiter.
A lifelong Constitutional scholar such as yourself should know that.
R(eality really)
C(onsistently confuses)
V(ile venal virulent vacuous vomitus)
espoused by RCV every time
W| 12.12.10 @ 11:21AM
I agree we your spending cuts, and would go further, to the departments of agriculture, energy, education, FCC, ICC, etc
If you really care about the right of privacy and liberty, then eliminate the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax. This would remove the intrusive, abusive IRS from scrutinizing how you spend your money, and would eliminate the power of politicians to award tax credits/deductions to favored groups.
Think, why is Charlie Rangel yukking it up on TV while other tax cheats are in jail?
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 1:06PM
I'm completely with you. I would strongly support a VAT or sales tax as a replacement for the income tax. Taxing consumption rather than income is fairer, would eliminate most tax avoidance, would render the IRS largely unnecessary, and would be naturally progressive. It would also minimize the distortions in economic behavior that the myriad of deductions produce.
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 1:07PM
I'm completely with you. I would strongly support a VAT or sales tax as a replacement for the income tax. Taxing consumption rather than income is fairer, would eliminate most tax avoidance, would render the IRS largely unnecessary, and would be naturally progressive. It would also minimize the distortions in economic behavior that the myriad of deductions produce.
RCV | 12.12.10 @ 1:08PM
Apologies for the double post - the Ipad is temperamental this morning.
W| 12.12.10 @ 2:54PM
RCV, we agree. I knew that a serious constitutional attorney would agree about IRS.
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year.
victor| 12.12.10 @ 1:00AM
RCV:
"I don't feel resentful at the taxes I pay, because I understand the real benefits I receive living in this great country."
And just what would those benefits be, eh?
Coming here and telling us lies, distortions and fabrications all day long?
"I don't think the price I'm paying is excessive."
Did you know that there is a provision in the tax code that allows you pay more taxes than you permitted by law?
Yes, you can figure what you would pay under the old rates of 39.5%, 50%, 70% or even the Special FDR or First Degree Redistribution tax rates of 90%!
Yes, RCV, you can write out a check, money order or banque cheque for whatever confiscatory tax rate you desire and send it to the Dep't of the Treasury in Washington D.C. or District of Corruption.
Just because you get all giddy and delirious when you file your taxes, doesn't mean WE have to lose control of our faculties, does it?
carnot| 12.12.10 @ 9:29PM
give him time. he does like his drones! (like you, for example)
Alaskan| 12.10.10 @ 8:04PM
RCV, you think you are smarter than Sarah? What have you accomplished besides your liberal rants?
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 7:58PM
You're confusing the average voter with Alan Brooks
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 9:36PM
Needless to say, Alan, not my post.
Fredrick Ward| 12.12.10 @ 1:50PM
No, they voted for him en masse because he is black. None of them could actually describe what Obama believed. All they cared about was the color of his skin.
buckeyeman| 12.10.10 @ 9:20AM
Obama has now been president for two years. Isn't it about time for a new autobiography? I hear Bill Ayers has some free time.
post*tenebras*lux| 12.10.10 @ 9:26AM
...some Americans see this President as a godly man annointed to lead us at this important time. But the sowing of division is not God's work. Dividing people is the surest way of preventing them from advancing goodness in this world. Goodness is about bringing things together, about harmony, about wholeness. Tearing things apart---turning one group against another, displacing cooperation with conflict, shredding structures of good order--manifests a spirit of an altogether different sort. "by their fruits you shall know them"..Matt:7:20". When such a divisive spirit rules our country, we are called not to get over it, but to overcome it............for more see the website, NONE SO BLIND http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?page_id=17
Ted R.| 12.10.10 @ 9:38AM
No, Obama is not being more realistic than the Democrats. He is being far too timid in his approach to you clowns. For sure, president H.R. Clinton would have taken it to you. But we didn't choose her, for among other reasons because she would be blamed for the current bitter divisiveness in politics. When people look back on this time, they will remember that Obama made the mistake of trying to be reasonable with rabid Con partisans.
We need someone with Clinton's grit, just not Clinton herself. Soon as we get that candidate - watch out.
John Navratil| 12.10.10 @ 9:58AM
The Democrats are showing what they have been for years. A party riven by conflict between moderates and the left wing. The only Democrats of national prominence to win the presidency since Truman where Kennedy and Johnson. Ever since the party was taken over by the left, the only winners have been obscure southern governors and the equally obscure Obama.
I don't know what rock you'll have to turn over to find the next winner, but we are waiting with bated breath.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.10.10 @ 11:59AM
Folks,
Don't you all just love Ted R.?
He gives me a giggle every time he drops in.
niggling in the back of my mind is the thought that he is an under-cover arch constitutionalist, putting bright sunshine on the communist, (pardon the shorthand), mindset.
His posts are simply too stupid to be anything else aren't they?
Redstateboy| 12.10.10 @ 5:01PM
Ted?? You are a Banana-head. Let's examine your successes shall we? The People's Republics of CA, NY, MI, ALL of New England.. FAILING!! and ruled by who?? and for how long? Decades Ted!! and your failing cities?? Kill-a-delphia? Buffalo? Detriot, Wash. DC., LA?? They're collapsing in a heap Ted.. and they've been ruled by your Slave Party again Ted.. for decades! Your political philosophy Ted is Bankrupt.. and if you had a wit of intellectual honesty - Ted.. you'd examine your wasted life and realized - well - that you've wasted it.
Texas Mom 2012| 12.10.10 @ 9:02PM
Amen!
Ted R.| 12.12.10 @ 7:59PM
I am a Banana-head. I am a Banana-head. I am a Banana-head. I am a Banana-head. I am a Banana-head. I am a Banana-head. I am a Banana-head.
carnot| 12.12.10 @ 9:32PM
I have to concede..you do have a sense of humor!
when people look back on this time they'll recall what a fulsome mess this guy made of the economy.
ncatty| 12.10.10 @ 9:42AM
If the economy improves by election time 2012, he will be re-elected.
Steve A| 12.10.10 @ 9:51AM
The only way the economy improves by 2012 is if Obama is forced to concede that Conservative Principles trump the Progressive agenda & legislates acordingly. Otherwise, his policy will continue to drag the economy along, stagnant at best.
Stephanie| 12.10.10 @ 10:08AM
Good God Ncatty, bite your tongue!
ncatty| 12.10.10 @ 11:32AM
Ok, the economy will continue to founder and he will lose in 2012. If you had to choose, which would it be?
JeffW| 12.10.10 @ 12:49PM
As painful as those choices are I chose foundering economy. After 2012 the country can still recover. After 4 more years of Obama, I am positive it would be dead.
It's like taking Radiation therapy to cure Cancer. Sure the radiation will make you sick in the long run but can be used safely in the short term. Cancer (and Obama) not so much.
elizabeth| 12.10.10 @ 4:16PM
I completely agree, I will take a lagging, stunted economy over another 4 years of Obama any day of the week.
JD Lee| 12.10.10 @ 5:03PM
Seriously?
So if Obama is either forced, coerced or otherwise has an epiphany and adopts sensible free-market policies, you'd still rather see this economy limp along just so you could nurse your own petty greivances and have him - and the country - fail? That's no different than the crazies on the left you keep railing against.
Cut your noses off to spite of your faces, eh?
Todd S| 12.10.10 @ 6:26PM
Get real JD, Obama is not going to adopt sensible free-market policies. Just what planet are you living on if you think that would happen? He is playing the class warfare card because that is all he has now that his stimulus was an abject failure. The only reason he might moderate any of his economic policies (doubtful) is in an attempt for a 2nd term so he can force more of his socialized agenda on America and take us down to a 2nd rate country. Make no mistake, this country is done for if he gets a 2nd term because we will have passed the point of no return.
It is rather simple when it comes down to it. If Obama fails, America wins. If Obama succeeds, America fails. Get it? Nothing petty about wanting Obama to fail because we put the country first and its long-term future as a country of prosperity and freedom under assault from the Democrat Socialist.
martin j smith| 12.10.10 @ 10:05AM
I hope ( but not betting on this ) that the Left will scuttle the 'compromise". Politically it will be a Republican win as for Obama, he would look incompetent for putting out a deal he had no support for. in the end th truth will come out one way or the other. The Democrat socialist party supported by the CPUSA will have to show their hand--
either they support the agreement ( which shows that they were FOS ) or they don't which shows actually the same thing particularly Obama. And, it highlights the class warfare. A clear and present danger to our nation. We get excellent material for political advertisements right into the face of the Socialist Left Party.
VBMax| 12.10.10 @ 10:58AM
I have come to the conclusion that there is no solution for America other than to redistribute our population based on its ideological views. Conservatives will never be satisfied being forced to live in a society that is so alien to their own views, both culturally and economically and vice-versa. There will be constant turmoil no matter who is elected and I forsee even a possiblility of civil war unless the two sides are separated both territorially and economically. Let the leftists have their socialist utopia and try to make that work for themselves and leave the rest of us alone. I'm tired of the daily assaults on my sensibilities by those who aim to make us slaves. It has gotten far worse in the last 2 years and I don't believe elections can restore what was once the freest and most successful country on earth. For our own and our children's sake it would be wise to explore the possibility of severance from those we despise.
DeJa| 12.10.10 @ 12:09PM
Thank you for articulating that which I have been saying for a long time; except in my scenario, I had a civil war with the winning side possessing the guns. Your depiction is so much better.
JENIF| 12.10.10 @ 4:53PM
Amen.
Texas Mom 2012| 12.10.10 @ 9:13PM
Idea smacks of William J Johnstone's novels and the TriState Manifesto. The problem with dividing the country along conservative/ liberal lines is that the conservative state would thrive and the liberal state would want to take from the conservative because they had wealth, all in the name of fairness. And they would still want to enforce no smoking etc bans on everyone not in their liberal utopia/conservative nightmare. The TriState philosophy was live however you want as long as you do not infringe on the rights of properties of others. Care for the old and infirm and everyone else must work to provide for themselves.
He also wrote that the neighbor who burns their trash so that the smoke blows into his neighbors window could not last in the TriState world.
Some of his books, no matter how far they diverged from current reality, devastatingly described the type of federal power grab and over reach that we see today.
Shorebreak911| 12.10.10 @ 11:11AM
After our current president is de-elected he will become even more dangerous in his role as an ex-president! He has seen the entire government/military "play book" as has his cohorts. He is not going to go build houses like Carter during his afterlife. He will redefine the term "community organizer" times 10,000 and not in a manner beneficial to the country he loves so much...
cruiszn| 12.10.10 @ 11:19AM
I won't feel safe again, until this man is long gone out of office.
Liberal Reader| 12.10.10 @ 10:07PM
You don't ever feel safe because you -- like far too many of your countrymen -- are a COWARD.
Margie| 12.10.10 @ 11:55PM
You always pick on the newbies that come in here.. I'd say THAT is pretty cowardly.. more true to the definition.
Fredrick Ward| 12.12.10 @ 2:48PM
Margie, don't be too hard on Liberal Reader. He just lost his favorite poster of Jane Fonda smoozing with the North Vietnamese. His idea of being a patriot is turning coat and chumming with the enemies of this country just like all other Liberals.
victor| 12.12.10 @ 9:59PM
You mean this one?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Z5IE.....a+tank.jpg
beenthereseenthat| 12.10.10 @ 11:23AM
"Liberal" is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as a laissez-faire capitalist with left leaning social views, ala George W. Bush. There are actual "Liberal" political parties scattered throughout the political landscape of Europe, e.g., FDP in Germany. The true Liberals in the USA are the neo-conservatives, a term created in American universities to describe liberals and free the term liberal to describe socialists, statists, communists and anarchists brought back into the Democratic Party by McGovern in conspiracy with the 4th estate.
No Jobama| 12.10.10 @ 12:26PM
Which Soros funded group is Ted paid by? I have no doubt he is one of those guys that answered one of those jobs listed in the paper for political activism. All bought and paid for by the far left.
LarryG| 12.10.10 @ 12:33PM
There is this defintion but I'm not sure of the the exact word. It has something to do with doing the the same wrong thing (or same thing wrong) time after time and expecting a different result. What is the word? Progressive , liberal , socialist or stupid or all of them?
Intelligent Design| 12.10.10 @ 2:48PM
Einstein said the word is "insanity".
Liberty4USA | 12.10.10 @ 2:31PM
The Left considers what most of America believes to be on the "fringe."
We believe in defending ourselves and deciding for ourselves, while they work ceaselessly to deny us these capabilities.
GodsCountry| 12.10.10 @ 3:09PM
BHO's moral universe is as airless as it's metaphoric namesake. The better term; politically correct insularity.
martin j smith| 12.10.10 @ 3:14PM
This article's title is: Obama's moral universe. This debate that the Left Marxists are having about Obama's so called compromise on the Bush tax cuts is or should be an eye opener for those who do not understand either Obama or the democrat Socialist Marxist Party. AANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN SHOULD NOW KNOW WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE COMMUMNISTS AND WILL DO ANYTHING TO TAKE POWER. THIS INCLUDES FORMENTING VIOLENCE IN THE COUNTRY. THUS I THINK IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO NEGOTIATE OR MAKE DEALS WITH THEM
AND THIS HAS BEEN TRUE SINCE AT LEAST THE YEAR 2000. It is my oppinion that the voters who care about this country need to prod their congress critters to stand up and battle against these ideologues going directly to the American people and argue the case that the Democrat Party program is nothing more that a totalitarian state with total control of their lives.
This case b ased on the speeches and other statements from Obama on down are right there for the taking. All of the cursing at Obama is actually at us, the war has begun.
Alan Brooks| 12.10.10 @ 3:26PM
Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!
Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite aSome idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!! while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!
Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite aSome idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!! while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!
Occam's Tool| 12.10.10 @ 10:49PM
"Losel" means worthless person: an archaic usage. I don't recall Mr. Brooks caring much, as the real Alan Brooks is erudite even when wrong.
Margie| 12.10.10 @ 11:52PM
Occam's Tool,
I have to agree with you about Brooks. And he claims to be a Liberal but I say I am not fooled. I know there is a conservative in there somewhere yearning to be free.. :^)
It is also (from a psychological standpoint, and tell me if you can also see this as true) interesting that because Mr. Brooks despises the anti-semites among us, (as I do as well), and also cannot bear their "political philosophy" along with it, he is an easy target to them.. they do as they have done to me, post using his own name in order to try and make him worse than the Liberal he (pretends?) to be, or really is, whichever the case may be.
Posting using the name of the individual and posing as them is not only despicable, but cowardly. The craven hateful people who do it are seen by their Creators, and He isn't pleased.
Alan Brooks| 12.12.10 @ 8:02PM
A published report that Iran recently agreed to send to Venezuela medium-range ballistic missiles that could reach the United States has been questioned by U.S. government sources who say they are monitoring Tehran's increasingly close relations with the Latin American country, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
elizabeth| 12.10.10 @ 4:29PM
How long does it take for an idiot to type all that out?
beebop| 12.10.10 @ 4:30PM
In the photo that accompanies this, he looks startlingly like Nefertiti ...
David| 12.10.10 @ 4:39PM
Ted R., if liberals are proud to be liberals, why does virtually every one of you (pundits, newscasters, politicians, college professors, etc.) pretend to be objective. Very few of you morons will admit to being liberals.
To those who think Bam Bam has no chance in 2012, and will even not run for a second term, had better think twice. Clinton's election twice, and Obama's once, proves that a majority of voters are uninformed morons and have very short memories; and, you can be assured the ruling class media will not remind them of Bam Bam's and the dems' screw-ups.
Michael L. Hauschild| 12.10.10 @ 5:21PM
Did anyone actually get to catch Clinton usurping the microphone and reassuming the Presidency? He droned on and on, so much so most people turned the channel, the news media switched back to the burning house, and even Obama (after a snide comment) left to escape the Me, Me, not him Me. Dear Lord, are we ever going to escape the egocentric left. The Republicans capitulate, the Democrats raise taxes and they all are like a cut rate horror movie where the monster just keeps coming back to life. Where is a KT event when you need one?
beebop| 12.10.10 @ 5:31PM
It must chap -bama that he can't get rid of Bubba the racist ...
MIMI| 12.12.10 @ 3:53PM
Obummer is the usurper...look at the droopy eylids, the stoned demeanor and smirk he had on his face, he couldn't wait to hand off the presidency to someone else to go to a party, or maybe another vacation
SamJ| 12.10.10 @ 6:02PM
This mock revolt by the left feels staged.
Some may truly never be satisfied until they punish those who are successful by taking away another 4% of their money, but Obama's 'painful' compromise to avoid a tax increase for all includes some heinous spendings in there.
I know that if noone does anything everybody will face massive tax increases next year, so everyone had to blink a little, but the details of what Obama managed to squeeze into the deal are problematic if you're looking at the total debt picture.
Letting people keep their own money is the best stimulus, but extending new spendings --- that's going to add to the debt bomb, it the growth from letting people keep their money enough to make up for the extra debt piled on?
The problem after all this is still the spending. That's never changed.
CNK| 12.12.10 @ 1:45AM
"The bill also only extends rates for two years. We don't have a temporary economy so we shouldn't have temporary tax rates. Individuals and businesses make decisions looking at the long-term and we're not going to create jobs without giving people certainty as to what their taxes will be in future.
The bill also fails to extend all of the tax rates. It actually increases the death tax from its current rate of zero percent all the way up to 35 percent. One economic study shows that this tax increase alone will kill over 800,000 jobs over the next ten years.
Finally, the bill now includes dozens of earmarks for special interests, including ethanol subsidies, tax breaks for film and television producers, give aways for Puerto Rican rum manufacturers, favors for auto racing track owners, and a hand out for businesses in American Samoa. "
The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 12.10.10 @ 7:27PM
We took a shellacking, Frau Teddie and RCV. I will not be your Sancho Panza, morons. I know I said a lot of stuff to get elected but you guys need to grow up. You really believed that stuff? Can't you see what is going on in Europe? Every one of those fascist states, I mean progressive states is going down the tubes. Did you guys notice what has happened to every communist government during the cold war? Are you following Venezuela? What you want will not work. The party is over. We are not closing Gitmo, we are not ending rendition, we are not getting out of either Iraq or Afghanistan anytime soon, we are not going to totally cripple ourselves with a cap and trade law, we are going to endorse the Bush tax cuts, we are not going to turn our military into a San Fran bath house. Get over it, we won. Sorry, I am beginning to identify with the enemy. Your mindless following of make believe ideals will keep us from getting our economy back on its feet so we can shakedown businesses again. You guys are so juvenile. Didn't you hear President Clinton said today? What was with the splotchy face and wrinkles? Does he smoke too? Could this happen to me? I had to get out of there. What a big mouth. That was my podium. What kind of idiots voted for him anyway? Oh yea they are some of my biggest supporters. They hung in there and supported that lecherous bastard while he was doing welfare reform and why not me now. I will tell you why Teddie and RCV. It is because you are typical white people. That's right. Oh you give for the white guy. He can sodomize your daughter or rape your wife and you look the other way. But a black, ok half black, guy comes along and you ditch him because of a little tax break for the rich. You are nothing but slimy racists. Progressives are bunch of nut case racists. I am a progressive too you know. Michelle is calling. She is not so proud of her country anymore. Don't ask, don't tell about cap and trade, baby. By the way, out of respect, if you must shorten my name, please refer to me as Lame Duck. Ciao.
vladdy| 12.10.10 @ 8:21PM
Don't give us that half-black stuff. We know about the 44% arab.
Liberal Reader| 12.10.10 @ 10:01PM
Why are so many racist scum-bags attracted to this websty?
Vladdy -- you are a fascist and a fucking douche bag. You know that, don't you?
Obama is 10 TIMES more American than you and most the people that post here.
Margie| 12.10.10 @ 10:33PM
Moderator alert! Moderator alert!
Heh, double standard!!
C'mon, editors~ give this person a warning, hmm? After all, I got one!!
W| 12.11.10 @ 12:27PM
Why did you get a warning?
Margie| 12.11.10 @ 6:39PM
Because I called the resident anti-semite Tim*, now posting as Clint, names. Like scum and low life. Of course that was after his repeated referring to me as an "Israel-Firster, White Trash, phony Christian, hypocrite, Slut, and numerous other things.. and for months on end. I finally had it. Well, one of the friendly editors prevailed and got me back.. I must "behave". Now Tim* is posting as Clint and he continues in the same manner.. as well as numerous other people using filthy language.. I say there are editors who mind some people, and not others, but hey~ what do I know?
W| 12.12.10 @ 11:24AM
Stick to the issues, avoid personal comments, do not descend to the level of the name-callers.
Margie| 12.12.10 @ 2:34PM
W,
Well then, one would have to be perfect then, wouldn't one? After all, I just personally commented to you and you to me. :^)
Of course I'm being rather smartily-pantedly in saying that, and of course I get your gist of the matter. My gist is the double standard. That certain Leftists and foul mouthed anti-semites are permitted.. ah, what's the point?
In the words of our lovely fellow poster, Mr. Treptow,
"Cheers!"
Clint| 12.12.10 @ 6:32PM
Don't forget Insane Fanatic Anti-Catholic Nut Bag, Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.
Politenessman| 12.10.10 @ 10:56PM
Mr. Reader: People like you are why I can't have my kids read this website. Was there a need for such vulgar profanity? Couldn't you have left it at "racist?"
Unfortunately, I have run out of stainless steel hankies.
beebop| 12.11.10 @ 5:21AM
Polite ...
This is what passes for "intelligent" discourse from the set that demands:
"interpreting him and his motives generously and THEN criticize"
and also insists:
"In short, you sound like kind of a dumb ass, don't you? You don't reason well because you don't like the way it feels to reason. You're lazy. Probably fat. Certainly dull. One of those would-be fascists who can't find a home anywhere but in the fringes of the internet."
Chronically ADD/HD and a ninconpoop to boot.
Best not to read him. And never just before bedtime.
;)
RCV| 12.10.10 @ 11:26PM
There is no need or place for such language in what should be a discussion of ideas and issues.
skip| 12.11.10 @ 12:51AM
You mean issues like the petition at www.petitionproject.com where 31,487 scientists provide their bonafides and debunk the ideas that are espoused from the 2,500 fraudulent political appointee pseudoscientists at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
Where when asked about the petition you responded "I don't sign silly petitions about science matters". Discussion of ideas and issues like these?
Occam's Tool| 12.11.10 @ 10:51PM
"Racist scum bags..." hmmm. Ok, maybe Clint and Tim* (who Are the Same person, obviouSly, Having A penchanT for capitalizing), but I know Ken isn't, or the Mikes, or Eric, or Margie, or Victor. Personally, I'm an expert on psychiatric problems of indigenous peoples in Australasia and the US, having practice extensively with them over the last 4 years.
There are some jerks on this website (see Clint and Tim*), but generally I find the people are respectful in their disagreements, until pushed. Hey, I learn something from almost everyone here, even the people I disagree with (mostly), like RCV and Alan (although I suspect Tim*/Clint occasionally hijack Alan's name. Easy to tell---the IQ of the writer drops 70 points.). Otherwise, I wouldn't read the website.
By the way, RCV, well played on "space junk." I used to be a real DEVO-tee as a college kid.
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 1:08AM
Thanks, and it's always a pleasure to spar or just kick around ideas with you and a number of other posters, including JohnII. You're smart, educated and most importantly, gentlemen. A number of posters, unfortunately think that calling someone names is an adequate substitute for discussion or debate. I always enjoy reading your posts, even if I am liberal scum, or scummy liberal, as the case may be. :D
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 1:10AM
...and Space Junk was always a favorite of mine as well.
Liberal Reader| 12.12.10 @ 8:04PM
Why are so many progressive scum-bags attracted to this website?
RCV -- you are a fascist and a douche bag. You know that, don't you?
Bush is 10 TIMES more American than you and most the people that post here.
Occam's Tool| 12.10.10 @ 10:53PM
Gentlemen:
Among the ducks native to kenya, according to wikipedia (look up native kenyan birds) is the following:
Fulvous Whistling-Duck: Dendrocygna bicolor. Look at that name, in English and Latin. Apropos, no?
John II| 12.11.10 @ 2:13PM
The term "fulvous" would indeed be Latin, Occie, from a 1st-/2nd-declension adjective meaning "tawny" or "dun." But "dendrocygna" would be Greek, not Latin. It would mean "tree-swan," I guess. Ordinarily one shouldn't mix roots that way in technical phraseology.
It's amazing how the literal translations of technical zoological terms throw us right back on the indirection of metaphor and the implicit acknowledgment of both the dazzle and the mystery of language.
Still, I prefer "whistling-duck" to "dendrocygna" on strictly stylistic grounds. As to the designation of the Professor's fauna, I should think something of a more generic and less specific characterization to be apt, such as "equus asinus maximus," which would be rendered in the vernacular thus: "colossal jackass."
Occam's Tool| 12.11.10 @ 10:59PM
Every time I read you, John II, I learn something. I thought the "bicolor" part was amusing.
However, I must disagree with you on the "jackass" being more appropriate, as The Professor reminds me of a passage in The House of G-D: a thoroughly incompetent attending named Donovitz had ripped open an end stage kidney disease patient's arm by accident. The would became infected, and the culture revealed bacteria that were native only to the rectum of the domestic duck. The brilliant Internal Medicine resident, "The Fat Man," wanted to write up the case as "The Case of Duck's Ass Donowitz." I had this story in mind as I pondered the case of the Professor and the old saw that "if it walks like a duck," etc. That led me to look up ducks from Kenya.
Thus, the discovery of the Fulvous Whistling Duck. Also, the reason I don't drink or do drugs---I don't need to.
Thanks again, John II.
Occam's Tool| 12.11.10 @ 11:00PM
Sorry--the "wound" not "would."
John II| 12.12.10 @ 1:36AM
Oh. In that case, I withdraw my suggestion. I had no idea how minutely nuanced your connection was.
There was a later edition of that novel (which came out in the late seventies, as I recall) with an introduction by John Updike comparing it to Heller's "Catch-22." But Heller didn't have the same effect on the military that Shem/Bergman had on the medical profession. At least for measurable social consequences, a better comparison might be with Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and the effect it had on the meatpacking industry. Many, many more literary send-ups of academia have been written (in fact, the "academic novel" is virtually a distinct genre), yet to no effect whatsoever.
On the other hand, I read somewhere not too long ago that the feeling among some otherwise sympathetic MD's of Shem/Bergman's generation
is that the medical internships have now become too soft.
Anyhow, I'm getting old enough to worry vaguely about the prospect of being treated like a gomer, especially if corrections to the Professor's pending government takeover of the medical system are less than thorough.
PaulD| 12.10.10 @ 7:46PM
Ain't he a bit o' terrific?
vnohara| 12.10.10 @ 8:04PM
Underneath of all of Obama's shortcomings lays a major one: his lack of love and pride for this country. I've never found anything coming out of him, in voice or in print, evidence to his loving and being proud of this country. There is an air of detachment from him all the time, and that of a natural liar.
I could never trust a person who cut off his/her mentor of 20 years instantly and coolly. I could never trust a person who, due to skin color, spoke unfavorably about and distanced himself from the grandparents who had fed, raised and pushed him so he could reap the success he had. I really couldn't fathom why 52% Americans would find blatant betrayal and ungratefulness acceptable instead of raising red flag about his character. Worse, as if having been brainwashed, they bought that he was brilliant without seeing any proofs and voted him into highest office. Incredible!
Liberal Reader| 12.10.10 @ 9:06PM
Mr Klein --
This is a contemptibly ungenerous interpretation of Obama based upon NO evidence.
You assume you understand his secret, innermost motivations and then draw conclusions based on those assumptions.
Try interpreting him and his motives generously and THEN criticize what he says and does: you'll find, to your surprise, thoughtful people taking you seriously.
As of now, people who agree with you would agree with you no matter what you said. What good is that? You sound like a hack, your arguments are simply dismissed as craven hackery, and no one not on the absurd fringes will care what you think.
Truth to Power| 12.10.10 @ 9:28PM
What a load of projection. It is time to go back to rehab.
Liberal Reader| 12.10.10 @ 10:04PM
If I thought you knew what the word "projection" meant when used the way you seem to be trying to use it, I might have more to say. Clearly you're not interested in elaborating on your point -- I think probably because you don't have one. In short, you sound like kind of a dumb ass, don't you? You don't reason well because you don't like the way it feels to reason. You're lazy. Probably fat. Certainly dull. One of those would-be fascists who can't find a home anywhere but in the fringes of the internet.
Occam's Tool| 12.10.10 @ 11:05PM
Projection: to take a quality within you and attribute it to another person. More precisely, quoting Kaplan and Sadock, synopsis of psychiatry, 10th edition:
"Unconscious defense mechanism in which persons attribute to another those generally unconscious ideas, thoughts, feelings that are in themselves undesirable or unacceptable as a form of protection from anxiety arising as a result of an inner conflict; by externalizing whatever is unacceptable, they deal with it as a situation apart from themselves." Considered a narcissistic defense.
Truth To Power understands the term correctly. As a board certified psychiatrist, so do I.
Occam's Tool| 12.10.10 @ 11:10PM
Sorry, Synopsis of Psychiatry.
Incidentally, Mr. Reader, the assumption that Conservative equals stupid is an insulting one, and quite wrong. Conservatism has an intellectual symmetry that Liberalism (the modern kind) lacks. I don't, for example, get those John Stuart Mill vibes off you. And your use of profanity is quite "Beyond the Pale." Do you know what that term means, and from whence it derives? I do, and I'm using it correctly.
Liberal Reader| 12.11.10 @ 1:32PM
I believe the "pale" refers to a stone demarcating customarily held territory. I could be wrong and will look it up.
As for "symmetry" -- it could be a sign of atrophied thinking as well as "intellectual" acuity. See Leonardo's notebooks, for example.
As for "profanity" -- from profanus, outside the temple: What I have to say is far less obscene than the opinions routinely espoused on this website. And that's the goddamned truth.
John II| 12.11.10 @ 3:42PM
Actually, the term designates a stake (Latin "palus") used to demarcate a boundary, and thus to a fence made up of such stakes, and thus to the boundary itself or even the area circumscribed by the boundary.
Whence the term "beyond the pale," as in "Professor Obama's boutique-Marxian economic views show only that he is a typically smug, intellectually lazy, and constitutionally unreflective child of his class; but his serial deceptions in pursuit of those views are beyond the pale."
RCV| 12.11.10 @ 4:46PM
In modern times, the term was used to describe those favored Jews in the Russian empire who were allowed to live beyond "the pale of settlement" to which Jews restricted under the rules set in place by Catherine the Great.
John II| 12.11.10 @ 5:19PM
Yes, Roberto, I recall. But it strains the metaphor a bit, inasmuch as "beyond the pale" has come to mean something like "utterly unacceptable." (If some Jews were permitted to go "beyond the pale," how is doing so unacceptable?)
One may go back much further, I think, for a tighter linguistic connection. The so-called Pale of Dublin was set up by the 12th century English settlers of that township who had to fortify themselves against hostile incursions from the natives. My own forebears come from both sides of that pale, so it's easy for me to affect historical detachment when I point out that the Brits were the relatively civilized colonists while the Micks were, shall we say, a tad on the wild side.
If you were a Brit settler who ventured "beyond the pale," you exhibited not only contempt for your own but also an imprudent disregard for your own safety and well being. So, if we source the expression earlier, we find better sense in its current application.
Just saying.
RCV| 12.11.10 @ 6:58PM
My own ancestors were all on the wild side of Dublin.
John II| 12.11.10 @ 10:41PM
Nowadays, of course, there's no other side to Dublin. I just hope the Micks comport themselves better than either the Greeks or the Brits or the Frogs in the wake of the current (and inevitable) fiscal retreats from the indulgent nanny state.
And now back to "How the West Was Won" (1962), narrated by the liberal Spencer Tracy in the days when liberals still loved America.
RCV| 12.11.10 @ 10:48PM
I doubt they'd riot. If they're like my relatives, they'll just sulk and drink themselves into maudlin state, blaming the British for whatever befell them
RCV| 12.11.10 @ 10:55PM
...and, some of us still do.
On this day in 1941, Adolf Hitler, thinking that his friends had delivered a real knockout blow at Pearl Harbor, gave Winston Churchill an early Christmas gift by declaring war on the United States.
John II| 12.12.10 @ 3:04PM
Oh--and by the way, that's your best historical day-post so far, Roberto. And it was Schickelgruber's second major military blunder (the first being a year and a half earlier, when he unleashed the Wehrmacht against Russia), proof positive that he was a delusional nutcase. By late 1943 Germany was finished, although it took another horrifying 18 months to clean up the mess. By God, NOBODY declares war against the U. S. of A.
But I like the way you put it, a Christmas present to Churchill. I teach a course in classical rhetoric in which I use the Dunkirk speech as a modern example of the genre. By then (June 1940), Churchill was already making plaintive references, Cato-like, to his expectation that "the New World shall come to the rescue of the Old" in the universal struggle against the depredation of the Nazi renegade. Damn. They don't write or deliver speeches like that any more.
Now I ask you, Roberto: does not Professor Obama's cheap rhetoric and, withal, his undisguised contempt for the memory of Winston Churchill give you even the slightest pause?
Besides, you gave the whole show away several postings back on this very thread when you spoke out with eloquence and conviction against the imbecility of the income tax.
I stand vindicated: you're a conservative. An appropriate stance for a man of your advanced years and experience, as Churchill himself famously alleged.
And now, while awaiting Monday's TAS posts, back to a relaxing Sunday stretch with "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948), in which Bud Abbott delivers to a skeptic the deathless line: "I saw what I saw when I saw it!"
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 11:30PM
John: I'm a great admirer of Churchill, his stirring speeches, his quick and piercing wit, his clear-sighted vision and recognition of how to deal with evil at a time when most of Britain was blinded and still numb from the loss of a whole generation of fine men in the Great War less than two decades earlier.
But I can understand, tho not agree, that other good people with different perspectives and backgrounds - say a father born in India or Kenya- might feel differently. My own sainted grandmother, the one with a portrait of DeVelara over the sofa, never had a single good word to say about him in her life, and indeed just conflates him with the evil (in her eyes) Randolph Churchill, opponent of Home Rule for Ireland.
As for our President's own oratory, I was there in person on caucus night in Iowa, and I can assure you that the speech I heard was one of the finest, and as moving as anything delivered in my lifetime.
I don't particularly like labels, because they purport to determine your views on a myriad of issues. But I would never characterize myself as conservative. An American Patriot, yes. I love my country deeply.
John II| 12.13.10 @ 1:32AM
Okay, slight emendation. I believe you're conservative (adjective)--and in myriad ways--but not "a conservative" (noun).
Myself, I'm a Roman Catholic Christian convert in full assent to the Church's magisterium. I'm also a husband and a father and a grandfather and a teacher and a movie buff and a writer and a book freak and a baseball fan and, for some reason, a kind of father-figure to many of my students.
As Chico Marx might say, I could go on and on: labels don't bother me at all.
John II| 12.12.10 @ 1:46AM
Well, if the whiskey is at least the quality of Jameson's, the anticipated response is eminently more civilized and apropos of a self-respecting folk.
victor| 12.11.10 @ 6:32PM
Liberal reader:
Memo:
"from Prof Anus," from outside the temple".
To all of you at AmSpec:
Kiss off!
Occam's Tool| 12.11.10 @ 11:03PM
The "Pale of Settlement" referred to the restricted area in which the Jews of Russia under Catherine were permitted to live. RCV noted it. Jews settling there generally was not done.
Truth to Power| 12.11.10 @ 11:59AM
Lets follow up on the projection idea and build a profile of the Liberal Reader. He is insecure and a coward. He harbors ill feelings toward people of other races. He finds himself obsessively attracted to a web site he claims to hate. He thinks he is a douche bag and a scumbag at the same time. I put forward the idea that he has both mommy and daddy issues. He thinks he understands the innermost motivations of others. He knows that he is a hack and that his arguments are easily dismissed. He thinks that only those on the fringes care what he thinks. I think he is aiming high on this one. He can't elaborate his point of view and suspects it is because he really doesn't have one. Without talking points he would disappear. He realizes that he is not too bright. He doesn't like to reason because it takes him away from his fantasy world. He is lazy, fat and dull and only connects with people on the fringes of the internet. That is quite a profile but unfortunately looks like most progressive trolls. Tell us more LR. We get you.
W| 12.11.10 @ 12:29PM
Great description, Truth, but doesn't this describe most lefties?
idalily| 12.11.10 @ 2:35PM
You left out emotionally immature, convinced they are intellectually superior to anyone who thinks differently, lacking the ability to make reasoned philosophical arguments to back their beliefs, insulting, and lacking in critical thinking skills.
Liberal Reader| 12.12.10 @ 8:08PM
If I thought I knew what the word "projection" meant when used the way I seem to be trying to use it, I might have more to say. Clearly I'm not interested in elaborating on your point -- I think probably because I don't have one. In short, I sound like kind of a dumb ass, don't I? I don't reason well because I don't like the way it feels to reason. I'm lazy. Probably fat. Certainly dull. Im one of those would-be fascists who can't find a home anywhere but in the fringes of the internet.
George True| 12.10.10 @ 10:22PM
It's very simple, Mr. Reader. We watch what he does, and not what he says. That tells us everything we need to know. You should try it sometime.
Occam's Tool| 12.10.10 @ 11:12PM
By the way, George, Merry Christmas. You deserve it.
George True| 12.11.10 @ 1:54PM
Thank you! And also to you.
xqqme| 12.10.10 @ 9:17PM
The best conservative porn I've read for quite some time!
LarryK| 12.11.10 @ 8:01AM
Our Obama,
who art in Washington,
Hallowed be thy name,
Thy government come,
They will be done,
across the land as it is in D.C.,
give us this day our daily dole,
and forgive those that don't believe,
as they don't forgive you,
and lead us not into self reliance,
but deliver us from evil conservatives,
for thine is the government , the power , and the answer to all our woes forever and ever or until 2012.
Salah!
simon templar| 12.11.10 @ 11:27AM
Larry, excellent parody! Insightful!
Tenn Slim | 12.11.10 @ 9:48AM
"I'm starting to take bets on when he will announce he is not seeking a second term or just outright resign."
There are multiple site (Left and Right) comments on just this subject.
Obama plainly is and was way over his head, politically, practically, and governingability. His advisors, mainly theorticians of the Left, also. Our USA has and continues to suffer from such.
Obama has eyes on the UN Leadership, as a platform for Global Governance. His resignation may well come in July. That is the period of UN transistion in their Leadership.
Standby, we may have to deal with Old Biden.
simon templar| 12.11.10 @ 11:23AM
Am I the only one in the US that was stunned by the unprecendented and outrageous demonstration of incompetence, weakness, and unpresidential behavior of the Obamanation when he turned over the white house brief room to a former President and then went on to holiday parties? Do you have any idea just how outrageous this is? This has NEVER happened before in my lifetime! He is not a teacher who can take a day off and just get a substitute teacher to fill in for the afternoon!! It is perfectly fine to get advice from former presidents in private but it is not appropriate for him to do what he did. I swear this idiot could burn the constitution on the front lawn of the white house and he could get away with it!
George True| 12.11.10 @ 2:04PM
I was also thunderstruck when I saw that. I thought to myself: Does Obama have even the faintest idea just how bizarre that was and how incredibly un-presidential that made him look? Does he realize how diminished it made him appear to be? Does he even care?
This is just the latest in a series of bizarre faux-pas on his part, such as leaving Netanyahu to dine alone and showing the Dalai Lama out the back door with the garbage.
There is something very off with this guy.
Occam's Tool| 12.11.10 @ 11:11PM
My Dear George:
A problem you have (and I mean this in the nicest possible way) is that you are an optimist. It is unbeleivable to you that someone could have so little respect for his duties as chief of state that it leaves you gob-smacked. Whereas I, being a pessimist, never have any except pleasant surprises. (I am paraphrasing Nero Wolfe, of course) I expect Mr. Obama to be a gluteal implant of the ripest, fullest kind, and thus am shocked at nothing he does. I assumed he was a traitor when I first read about him.
He's the Presidential equivalent of the "Pina Colada Song." I knew when I heard that song the first time that it sucked (hard), and that it was going to be a hit. I prepared for the pain.
By the way, I'm writing this while listening to a great album (disclaimer: no financial interest in this): The Chicago Harmonica Project. Very apropos as background music whenever one is writing about Obama.
Occam's Tool| 12.11.10 @ 11:12PM
Dear George:
sorry. I before E, etc---unbelievable.
John II| 12.12.10 @ 1:38PM
You're also a perfectionist, Occie. But I suppose that comes with the pessimist's territory. Unlike yourself, I have no formal training in shrinkery, but I've acquired the plausible bias of the literary type that human psychology is best understood by soaking oneself in great literature. In fact, I've used that line to lure many a former psychology major into a new major (or at least a minor) in classics.
And now back to the fourth season of "Monk," a steady diet of which is positively therapeutic.
[Yes, here we all are on Sunday, milling around and buffing our nails idly as we wait for Monday's TAS posting so we can get back to the Great Conversation.]
vnohara| 12.11.10 @ 4:00PM
He's too lazy to care. Moreover, he's gotten the best perks in the world, will get them for the next two years, and who knows, his masters may decided to give him four more years, then afterward, he and his wife can say more outrageous craps, insult America even more, publicly admit that he's a Muslim, really kiss their derrieres and bow to them even deeper, wave the school records which probably show what we have been suspecting with glee and still have us paying for his $500K annual rent office - a la Clinton, and his security while he earns the hundreds of millions from speech fees and international charitable foundation - again a la Clinton - and his wife frequenting drug cartel haven beaches in trendiest couture.
The punk walked away because he's got it made, insulting every one, even his own Democratic base and comrades because he knows he got white under his thumb on the race card, blacks under his feet on the race card, browns under his behind because they want to over take the white Americans.
He was picked by his masters because of what he is, what he is not, what little substance his character has, what of it he lacks.
White Americans, this is the case of too good of a good thing can kill you. You have gone too far being open-minded and kind.
Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 11:15PM
Even if he tries to destroy America, he can't do worse than the Bushes. 12 years down the drain between the two Bushes; now you are going to elect another RINO in 2016? or even in 2012? you have learned nothing.
nmgene| 12.12.10 @ 1:28AM
You should be thankful Obama wasnt president when the bushes were he would have voted present and went on vacation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Occam's Tool| 12.11.10 @ 11:15PM
Whaddya think, guys: is this Obama's theme:
Somebody once told me the world is gonna roll me
I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed
She was looking kind of dumb with her finger and her thumb
In the shape of an "L" on her forehead
Well the years start coming and they don't stop coming
Fed to the rules and I hit the ground running
Didn't make sense not to live for fun
Your brain gets smart but your head gets dumb
I think so. The rest of the song is too upbeat, but the opening is perfect.
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 1:18AM
...and we could all use a little change.
Truth to Power| 12.12.10 @ 10:14AM
He wasn't dealing with just any man. Once he let Clinton on that podium, he was in trouble. It could have been worse. Chuck Schumer couldn't stop until the camera left. Bernie Sanders would be chattering on to sound of his own voice. Our own Liberal Reader would be uttering paragraphs of profanities and insults directed at all those that his talking points tell him to attack. RCV would still be talking about how smart he is. Obama got off easy and maybe learned a lesson. Probably not.
beebop| 12.11.10 @ 12:21PM
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need ...
Bill is able. 0bama in need. Hat tip to K Marx
Nick| 12.11.10 @ 1:21PM
RCV,
Per our discussion from above, yes, we are arguing semantics. But, they a important semantics.
Important enough that the Framers made the distinction multiple times in the Constitution.
RCV| 12.11.10 @ 11:03PM
Which reminds me of one of the Supreme Court's most ill-reasoned decisions, Reynolds v. Sims, which held that the guarantee that states insure a "republican form of government" meant that all legislative districts had to be of equal population, thus depriving large states like California, with diverse geographic interests, from reflecting those differences by having a state senate with one representative from each county, regardless of population.
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 8:10PM
Which reminds me of one of the Supreme Court's most reasoned decisions, Reynolds v. Sims, which held that the guarantee that states insure a "republican form of government" meant that all legislative districts had to be of equal population, thus depriving large states like California, with diverse geographic interests, from reflecting those differences by having a state senate with one representative from each county, regardless of population.
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 11:33PM
Another juvenile post under my name.
MississippiMac| 12.12.10 @ 12:22AM
Alan,Alan,Alan,...take a pill dude.
Desert_Don | 12.12.10 @ 1:25AM
Well I hope this isn't too late for some spirited discussion.
How many of our dear debaters, readers, discussers and so forth honestly believe that Obama will even -allow- the next congress to be seated?
Does anyone beside myself see the looming declaration of martial law and dissolution of congress?
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 12:50PM
That is truly delusional.
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 8:11PM
I am truly delusional.
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 9:41PM
Timmie or Skippie are out unsupervised again. Please forgive their juvenile antics.
skip| 12.15.10 @ 9:23PM
...said the idiot in response to a petition signed by 31,487 real live actual honest to God scientists in fields of physics
"I don't sign silly petitions on science matters"
I wouldn't post under an idiot's name ever.
John II| 12.12.10 @ 1:44PM
Not really, Donny--but what I DO see is an explosion of government by executive and bureaucratic and judicial fiat for the next two years.
And THAT ain't delusional, Roberto.
On the other hand, it ain't prophetic either. I mean, the sun will rise and set tomorrow: is that prophecy?
RCV| 12.12.10 @ 2:45PM
Get thee back to Monk, Johnny. (love that show!)
And on this day, in 1917, the good Father Flanagan founded Boys Town.
John II| 12.12.10 @ 3:23PM
Whoa--another good historical day-post. We get hit up by Boys Town at least four times per year for a donation--always with a useful gift of return-address labels.
I shan't belabor the fact that a few other things of consequence happened in 1917, as for example, when Montana's first (and so far last) female representative to the House, the indomitable Republican pacifist crank Jeannette Rankin, voted against Wilson's declaration of war against Germany. She happened to be back in the House in 1941, when she cast the ONLY vote against Roosevelt's declaration of war against Japan.
Meanwhile, something else happened in a place called Fatima, in Portugal in 1917. The central figure of that event was a woman of a disposition more elevated than that of Professor Rankin. But her name escapes me.
Nick| 12.12.10 @ 11:05PM
John II,
Ha-ha! Good one!
You forgot to mention that Rankin lost each of her subsequent elections after both votes. She had just clawed her way back into the House, in '41, when she decided to repeat history.
Today people like her get elected by our fellow citizens from places like Berkley, San Francisco, and Manhattan.
John II| 12.13.10 @ 2:01AM
She was one of the founding members of the ACLU (which I take as proof that the far-left metamorphosis of that organization is not so far removed from its roots)--and, inevitably, a devotee of Gandhi.
Montana was never a proper fit for Ms. Rankin; she eventually settled in Carmel, California--a kind of chic coastal redoubt for uppercrust lefties, artistes of uncertain talent, second-rate poets and intellectualoids, self-conscious world citizens, and the comfortably rootless.
There has always been an element of such studied asininity in the Americano landscape, but our current era is the first time in which that element exercises political power over all the rest of us.
"For the time being." (Frank Thring in the role of Pontius Pilate in "Ben-Hur" [1959]--referring with Stoic detachment to the power exercised by Rome)
nmgene| 12.12.10 @ 1:26AM
A brooks
Come on up here to Alaska with your far left lies and bull crap and try to explain your self to real americans. You will be lucky not to get fed to a Grizz. Take your left wing lies and get the hell out of my country.
wake up| 12.12.10 @ 2:16AM
ALAN BROOKS: you know, Allan, every now 'n them you ALMOST come close to getting it - so why don't you actually take a deep breath and jump right in. Let me help...
Repeat 50 times a day until you DO get it:
1) the Obama madness is OVER. It's OVER, and we're coming to fix it.
2) every day of the present insanity shows just how much greater, more noble and more stable a man George W Bush is than both his predecessor and his successor.
If you can bring yourself to actually understand those two truths, you may have something useful to contribute.
Until then, your absurd anti-Bush pathology (shown most starkly in your messy, cheap-shot collation of Katrina and 9/11 in Bush's book - read it again Allan; you've got that 100% wrong) is a waste of your time - and worse, it's also a waste of ours.
Reggie| 12.12.10 @ 2:23AM
What O'Bummer wantedto say and could not is:
Hey my comrads, don't push too hard or we get push back . Just remember how far we have come with just a little step at a time.
Patience Comrads, Patience
Walt| 12.12.10 @ 4:59AM
Comrads? So communism is what you support for the destruction of what has been one of the best societies to live within? Further so much of the comments that have been left on this site is pure blatant ignorance.
Bowmanjedi| 12.12.10 @ 6:18AM
My favorite Republican is Rev. Martin Luther King Junior. Fun Facts to know and tell: The history of the Republican Party is one of promoting freedom and justice for people of all races. Born of the pro-abolition (of slavery) Whig party, The Republican party was the natural home of Black Americans for many years. Nearly every freed slave was a Republican until the KKK wing of the Democrat party took back the south by force. How did we ever let the Democrat controlled Media and Teachers Unions brainwash us into thinking that they somehow are the "party for the poor minorities". The Democrats and "big government" Republicans have re-enslaved the poor and minorities by getting into the charity business and making so many dependent on "entitlements". We are entitled to Freedom and Justice, Nothing More or Less
DT| 12.12.10 @ 6:46AM
Hmmmmmm......sounds like we're definitely in the last of the last days. God has left us over to our depraved minds and there is no wisdom left in this world. Whether we put a democrat, a republican, a tea partier, an independent, a black, white, green or yellow, there is no one with the answers on how to fix this country/world. After all, the One with the answers was kicked out because man thinks they are wiser than God. Well, the proof is in the puddin'........"the wisdom of man is foolishness to God"!!! Maranatha, come, Lord Jesus, come!! He is our only blessed hope.
kj| 12.12.10 @ 7:50AM
I chuckle to read some of these posts, especially those of Alan Brooks! Conservatives need to open their eyes and see what is happening here. It's a technique called "diversion tactics." When your dirty laundry is being exposed, don't defend yourself, ATTACK! This article is about the ineptness of Obama, but the discussion has resulted in attacks of Reagan, the two Bushes, Sarah Palin, etal. Wake up, conservatives. Don't be so easily lead down the slippery slope of diversion. And, when necessary, use diversion techniques of your own! P.S. Hooray to Bowmanjedi - well said!
kdbar| 12.12.10 @ 10:43AM
I am a racist,,,,, toward democrats.....
Richard Cancemi| 12.12.10 @ 11:27AM
Obama is full of himself which means he's full of ..it! His omniscient thinking is the height of arrogance. His narcissism is revolting.
VP| 12.12.10 @ 12:24PM
Some of you voted for BO to prove you were not a racist. Who are you going to vote for to prove you're not an idiot?
glenda buck| 12.12.10 @ 12:45PM
Appleby, you are so right. I'd like to see America run like a business, and would be in favor of putting Donald Trump at the helm for awhile. He's smart and there can be no question of his ability to run a successful business. I'd like to see him have a shot at balancing the budget and getting us out of hock to China! Now, there'd be a leader!
John Navratil| 12.12.10 @ 1:22PM
It would, perhaps, be amusing... but seriously!?!?
Trump has no trouble losing money either. And he'd have to line the oval office with mirrors.
Idylewylde| 12.12.10 @ 3:21PM
Why does everyone keep calling Obama a Marxist?
If you bother to actually read Marx, you'd realize that these idiots can't even get Marx right.
It's like a Greek comedy conducted by mimes, with a mentally and morally dysfunctional narrator telling us the Politically Correct plot.
The Greek tragedy is that Obama has made it possible for anyone to run against him .. even Donald Trump is looking good.
Myke| 12.12.10 @ 3:43PM
I am a 70 yr old white woman. Never in my life was I called a racist. Then B.O started campaigning and every time I told someone a truth about him they called me a racist. They could not call me a liar because I was stating facts. So they yelled racist. It hurt at first. Now it has become so commonplace that it is a joke. My husband and I now call each other a racist pig when one does or says something the other one doesn't agree with.
There is no longer a Dem party. There is a Progressive party out to destroy America. To make us into a land of elites and slaves. Most of the Dems would not agree with what they are trying to do if only they would face the facts before them. But they are masters of self deception. And when they end up in a FEMA camp they will be the first ones to say why weren't we warned about this. They actually believe that B.O and his thugs care about them. It won't be just Reps who get health rationing and all of the other atrocities being planned by the Progressives.
John Navratil| 12.12.10 @ 3:55PM
Myke,
The year was 1973 when I was asked to sign a petition to create a federal holiday to honor MLK. When I declined (we have enough federal holidays), I was called a racist.
Welcome to the club.
H.R.I.M.| 12.13.10 @ 12:23PM
I prefer the word "realist" rather than the word "racist;" thank you very much. jms
Dan| 12.12.10 @ 7:21PM
The socialist, Muslim Obama is in office because of white guilt and the dislike of Bush at the end of his term. It is white guilt and the fear of being called a racist that eneables this non citizen to remain in office. Wouldn't you like to see the country of birth he listed on his college applications? Well you never will because our courts don't have the stomach for such a fight.
H.R.I.M.| 12.13.10 @ 12:58PM
All I want for Christmas is to see this fraud's criminal history. jms
John| 12.12.10 @ 7:21PM
Traitors in American government are still runnint the show steering American stimulus funds to China to build and operate a new Texas wind faem. Only loyal representatives would bring jobs back ot America instead of feeding the communist Asian modern slavery machine. Corrupt American government still lives, Americans are still un-employed so that Walmart and their retail cohorts can make maximum profit. Traitors in government still need to be voted out in 2012. Then and only then can America recover financially. All Americans have the right to work for a living. We need to say "No" to made in Asia and "Yes" to "Made in America". We have compromised national security through "Free Trade Policy" as we have discontinued training American apprentices how things are made. The thing that America needs to remember is we can not buy weapons from our enemies at time of war. Even American Military has been bitten by the "Free Trade Bug" as they currently purchase a large portion of their goods from foreign sources. If the American Military were still required to buy their goods from American manufacturers, the American economy would be benefiting from the 2 wars that we are currently envolved in. Special interest lobyists need to be hung in public and the jobs that they sold to Walmart need to be brought back to US period.
C. Brooks Nielsen| 12.12.10 @ 7:26PM
Bowmanjedi - thanks for the heads-up!
omg - me, a charitable Republican, responsible for entitlements? Now I know why many of my conservative friends refused to support my community based project (eventual Boys & Girls Club) created for and by teenage "nusiances" who were just looking for a positive place to make positive decisions for themselves. What turned this great place into a cheap daycare center were those who said they were already paying too much in taxes and said "let the government do it." I hope I live long enough to see a return to local responsibility for local community schools as well as the rest of community business like when I was a kid!
TORRRR| 12.12.10 @ 7:52PM
The first one to scream "Racist" is someone of color! This fake president uses it to flog his opponents, or those that oppose him! He is in love with himself! He learned his morality in the school of Chicago's corrupt political machine, in other words he has no morality!
Jamie J| 12.12.10 @ 8:16PM
i checked "angie's list" for a presidential qualifier ... and HUSSEIN wasn't even on it.
LibertyAtStake | 12.13.10 @ 10:32AM
Excellent read and spot-on analysis. One of the more amusing examples of Obama's self-constructed moral superiority: remember when he mocked DC schools closing in a light snow dusting that first 2008-2009 winter of his reign? Then came the delicious schadenfreude of his cap & trade agenda collapsing in parallel with Snowmageddeon, winter of 2009-2010.
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
Mary| 12.13.10 @ 3:00PM
Obama is an immature, inexperienced shill who knows how to move other peoples money around in his various "community organizations", which are plentiful, robbing peter to pay paul, all with tax payer money. Then by some insane reason, this lose gets elected and he clearly demonstrates he in not a leader but a spender. That is what he does. He uses other peoples money to push his anti-colonialist agenda (and that is it, plain and simple), not really caring about one other soul in this world other than his dead loser dad. He is an atheist in all he says and does, depending only upon his own lack of wisdom to guide his next unfortunate move to destroy America. That is all he wants to do. Not help blacks, Indians, muslims, poor..... none of them, he want's America to fall and to blend sadly into this new world utopia his progressive puke friends have worked for over the last 60+++ years. And he is close to Bill Ayers, that domestic terrorist, sucking off taxpayer money at the University in IL. They all take, take take. Heartless bastards, all of them.
robert craft| 12.13.10 @ 5:05PM
you can read and study books,but if you don't have any on job training,you really don't know what you're talking about.
Col Wayne P.| 12.14.10 @ 7:51AM
Has anyone noticed he doesn't know anything about leadership?
John Pachol| 12.14.10 @ 9:41AM
“I don’t make judgments based on what the conventional wisdom is at any given time. I make my judgments based on what I think is right for the country and for the American people right now.” If I were interviewing him I would like to stop the President at this point in the conversation and say, “Mr. President, are you saying that you have no moral absolutes and that your moral standards can change based on whatever blows by at any given time? Do you base your decisions based on feelings, mystical intrusions from alien beings, or your own inner sanctum of god-like spirit?” Then after he grovels for an inadequate answer, I would ask a rhetorical question, “When will politicians become statesmen and begin by living by timeless moral absolutes established in the law of God? The law of God addresses with wisdom every decision ever to be made by any magistrate and all levels of government.”
stan | 12.15.10 @ 12:08PM
Response to John Pochol,
I absolutely agree with your views, but I doubt if Obama would grovel for an inadequate answer. No morals means no conscience. He would simply do what he does best, and sidestep your question with devious rhetoric. Besides the fact that the major decisions about policy making are not made by him, he is simply follwing orders from those from whom he receives his directives...and, as we can see, he is being handsomely rewarded for his obedience.
Yes, the law of God (should) address with wisdom every decision to be made by magistrates at all levels of government. But this can only be properly implemented if the Judicieary itself were not inundated with corrupt, socialistically indoctrinated judges & magistrates, which Obama (again under orders) has installed by abuse of his Presidential Executive powers. He is in effect, completely by-passing Congress and blatently ignoring the Constitutional principles upon which this nation was founded.
John, he has been groomed, financed and selected by those who put him there, his character and background render him an ideal candidate for their agenda. And nothing on their agenda has anything to do with what is good for the American people or the salvation our sovereign nation. His answers to your questions would not be deserving of the question, because he is, among his limited talents, a professional liar.
Hoboheb | 12.16.10 @ 12:42PM
You guys lay off Underwearinator; That simply means he urinates in his underwear. Have pity.
Garry Owen| 12.16.10 @ 12:42PM
Dear Mr. President:
Fool me once shame on you - fool me twice shame on me.