Obama's Abominations 2009-2012
Re: Obama's Abominations 2009-2012
Just look at the political advertisement at the bottom of this page. Guess we know which way this site leans. Also guess we're lucky they even let us post on it! FYI- it was anti-Toomey.
Last edited by Manfred on September 20th, 2011, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
It ain't over until it's over.
-
southpaw
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 2901
- Joined: September 5th, 2003, 12:33 pm
- Location: Helixville
Re: Obama's Abominations 2009-2012
From the editor in chief/founder of the Daily Beast. Unbelievable point of view.
As soon as Tuesday’s drubbing ends, Barack Obama needs to embrace the theatrics of the presidency, however cheesy that may seem to him.
One thing I hope Obama dumps when the Wednesday morning hangover dawns: all that talk of changing Washington. A president who thinks he can change Washington is as misguided as a new studio head thinking he can change Hollywood. He may say he’s arrived to foster new ideas and adapt the great novels he was raised on, but he will still wind up doing Pirates of the Caribbean IV or succumbing to some bollixed-up development process that ends in tears or a frightful Nicolas Cage movie.
Voters seem to understand what a big waste of time trying to change Washington is. After a brief love affair with the new possibilities Obama represented in the 2008 campaign, the electorate has turned its attention elsewhere to try to get things done—to makeshift projects developed by enterprising mayors, or by joining the Tea Party movement, or turning to comedians to express their point of view en masse, or forging private public partnerships to spawn social innovation that has as little as possible to do with the local congressman they hate.
Obama has, as he wanly insists, accomplished a lot in the last two years—ended torture, got us out of Iraq, extended health care, and prevented another Great Depression, all with absolutely no help and nothing but obstruction from the people who are about to collect the big political rewards. Which is why it irritated me to find him observing in Peter Baker’s excellent profile in the Oct. 17 New York Times magazine: “I think anybody who’s occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection of policy and politics and that you cant be neglecting of marketing and P.R. and public opinion.” Roger to that. Amazing that Obama, possessed of the bully pulpit of the presidency, is musing here about having forgotten as core a political value as bringing the public along.
As from Wednesday, I’d like the president to stop being so high-minded about avoiding corny symbolic theatrics and start playing to win. The absurd myth, for instance, that he's really a Muslim would be easier to knock out if he strode from the White House every Sunday with a big old Gutenberg Bible and marched his family—with the first daughters in adorable Sunday best—to the nearest Episcopalian church. Back in his Chicago Senate days, when he was seeking greater black credibility, Obama was happy enough to attend the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. What’s wrong with a bit of God-fearing symbolism of a different kind now? There was a reason Hillary Clinton showed up at the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfasts when she was trying to network across the aisles. “Worshipping in private,” as Obama does, comes off as just another form of annoying elitism.
• Howard Kurtz: Beware the GOP Coronation
• Leslie H. Gelb: Give the People What They Want And then there is the vaunted fury of the business world. Some of that is stoked by dissing so many of its big ego’d leaders. When Obama has them over to the White House, he should at least scratch his chin and pretend to listen to their views on the economy, instead of, as one brand-name entrepreneur told me recently, seeming “to be just checking the box.” When the Business Roundtable came over to moan it didn’t endear them that he read a speech about the economy at them, then pissed off without glad-handing. Until Warren Buffett’s visit to the White House in July, the seer of Omaha, who endorsed Obama before he became president, hadn’t been asked back in 18 months to give his views on the dire state of the job market. That’s rude as well as clueless. The guy knows a thing or two about finance. Obama may think that donors who pout if they don’t get perks beyond the satisfaction of knowing they’re helping their country are jerks, but social access, as Bill Clinton knew all too well, is a golden tool. A night in the Lincoln Bedroom is a better deal for the public than a zillion-dollar rich guy tax break or a fat no-bid contract, which is what the Republicans offer.
• The Most Political StatesOn the cultural-symbolic front, Obama has failed too to make the grand gesture—think of how meek his concert-and-arts initiatives have been, compared to the ones Jackie Kennedy foisted on Jack. Its strange to have a great writer-president mum on the arts.
Pete Souza / The White House
I’ve never understood why Obama didn’t say that we’ve come to the end of the carnival of spectacle and selfishness, and need to return to a republic of sanity and citizenship. And then give honors to ordinary folks who have been good citizens first.
Rather than look with disdain at what the Democrats seem to see as the vulgar theatrics of the Tea Party or try to capture the youth vote with an onslaught of cable comedy shows, Obama should go broad, not niche; megaphone, not dog whistle. Big gestures with a halo effect.
Along with all those books about Lincoln, Obama might read some biographies of Napoleon. The general who established the Legion d’Honneur understood that people fought as much for medals as for morals.
Tina Brown is the founder and editor in chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times bestseller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
As soon as Tuesday’s drubbing ends, Barack Obama needs to embrace the theatrics of the presidency, however cheesy that may seem to him.
One thing I hope Obama dumps when the Wednesday morning hangover dawns: all that talk of changing Washington. A president who thinks he can change Washington is as misguided as a new studio head thinking he can change Hollywood. He may say he’s arrived to foster new ideas and adapt the great novels he was raised on, but he will still wind up doing Pirates of the Caribbean IV or succumbing to some bollixed-up development process that ends in tears or a frightful Nicolas Cage movie.
Voters seem to understand what a big waste of time trying to change Washington is. After a brief love affair with the new possibilities Obama represented in the 2008 campaign, the electorate has turned its attention elsewhere to try to get things done—to makeshift projects developed by enterprising mayors, or by joining the Tea Party movement, or turning to comedians to express their point of view en masse, or forging private public partnerships to spawn social innovation that has as little as possible to do with the local congressman they hate.
Obama has, as he wanly insists, accomplished a lot in the last two years—ended torture, got us out of Iraq, extended health care, and prevented another Great Depression, all with absolutely no help and nothing but obstruction from the people who are about to collect the big political rewards. Which is why it irritated me to find him observing in Peter Baker’s excellent profile in the Oct. 17 New York Times magazine: “I think anybody who’s occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection of policy and politics and that you cant be neglecting of marketing and P.R. and public opinion.” Roger to that. Amazing that Obama, possessed of the bully pulpit of the presidency, is musing here about having forgotten as core a political value as bringing the public along.
As from Wednesday, I’d like the president to stop being so high-minded about avoiding corny symbolic theatrics and start playing to win. The absurd myth, for instance, that he's really a Muslim would be easier to knock out if he strode from the White House every Sunday with a big old Gutenberg Bible and marched his family—with the first daughters in adorable Sunday best—to the nearest Episcopalian church. Back in his Chicago Senate days, when he was seeking greater black credibility, Obama was happy enough to attend the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. What’s wrong with a bit of God-fearing symbolism of a different kind now? There was a reason Hillary Clinton showed up at the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfasts when she was trying to network across the aisles. “Worshipping in private,” as Obama does, comes off as just another form of annoying elitism.
• Howard Kurtz: Beware the GOP Coronation
• Leslie H. Gelb: Give the People What They Want And then there is the vaunted fury of the business world. Some of that is stoked by dissing so many of its big ego’d leaders. When Obama has them over to the White House, he should at least scratch his chin and pretend to listen to their views on the economy, instead of, as one brand-name entrepreneur told me recently, seeming “to be just checking the box.” When the Business Roundtable came over to moan it didn’t endear them that he read a speech about the economy at them, then pissed off without glad-handing. Until Warren Buffett’s visit to the White House in July, the seer of Omaha, who endorsed Obama before he became president, hadn’t been asked back in 18 months to give his views on the dire state of the job market. That’s rude as well as clueless. The guy knows a thing or two about finance. Obama may think that donors who pout if they don’t get perks beyond the satisfaction of knowing they’re helping their country are jerks, but social access, as Bill Clinton knew all too well, is a golden tool. A night in the Lincoln Bedroom is a better deal for the public than a zillion-dollar rich guy tax break or a fat no-bid contract, which is what the Republicans offer.
• The Most Political StatesOn the cultural-symbolic front, Obama has failed too to make the grand gesture—think of how meek his concert-and-arts initiatives have been, compared to the ones Jackie Kennedy foisted on Jack. Its strange to have a great writer-president mum on the arts.
Pete Souza / The White House
I’ve never understood why Obama didn’t say that we’ve come to the end of the carnival of spectacle and selfishness, and need to return to a republic of sanity and citizenship. And then give honors to ordinary folks who have been good citizens first.
Rather than look with disdain at what the Democrats seem to see as the vulgar theatrics of the Tea Party or try to capture the youth vote with an onslaught of cable comedy shows, Obama should go broad, not niche; megaphone, not dog whistle. Big gestures with a halo effect.
Along with all those books about Lincoln, Obama might read some biographies of Napoleon. The general who established the Legion d’Honneur understood that people fought as much for medals as for morals.
Tina Brown is the founder and editor in chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times bestseller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Last edited by southpaw on September 20th, 2011, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I'm your huckleberry"
-
southpaw
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 2901
- Joined: September 5th, 2003, 12:33 pm
- Location: Helixville
Re: Obama's Abominations 2009-2012
This piece has much more perspective and insight and grounded in history and facts. Unlike th e above piece that is a ultra-liberal-elistist perspective that is biased, self righteous, and arrogant.
Is President Obama the New Woodrow Wilson?
John Steele Gordon - 10.31.2010 - 1:15 PM
Jen referred this morning to David Brooks’s column, in which he advises the President to change his ways after the midterm election, especially if it turns out to be as disastrous for Democrats as nearly everyone expects. And this means changing his politics, just as Bill Clinton did after the 1994 midterm:
Obama needs to redefine his identity. Bill Clinton gave himself a New Democrat label. Obama has never categorized himself so clearly. This ambiguity was useful in 2008 when people could project whatever they wanted onto him. But it has been harmful since. Obama came to be defined by his emergency responses to the fiscal crisis — by the things he had to do, not by the things he wanted to do. Then he got defined as an orthodox, big government liberal who lacks deep roots in American culture.
Unlike Clinton, who doesn’t have an ideological bone in his body, I’m not sure Obama has the capacity to do that. I’ve just finished reading Louis Auchincloss’s mini-biography of Woodrow Wilson (part of the “Penguin Lives” series), and I was struck by the similarities between the country’s first liberal president and the man who might be its last (I know, I know, ever the optimist).
Wilson was, at heart, an academic, the author of several books, (including Congressional Government, still in print after 125 years). He thought and acted like a professor even after he entered politics. Wilson always took it for granted, for instance, that he was the smartest guy in the room and acted accordingly. Does that sound familiar? Wilson was a remarkably powerful orator. (It was he who revived the custom of delivering the State of the Union message in person, a custom that had been dropped by Thomas Jefferson, a poor and most reluctant public speaker.)
Both men had very short public careers before the White House. Wilson’s only pre-presidential office was two years as Governor of New Jersey. And Wilson thought he had a pipeline to God, which allowed him to divine what was best for the world and gave him a moral obligation to give it to the world whether the world wanted it or not. This last tendency, evident even when he was president of Princeton University, became more pronounced with age as a series of debilitating strokes (the first at age 40) increasingly rigidified his personality.
Both Wilson and Obama were the subjects of remarkable public adulation, and both won the Nobel Peace Prize for their aspirations rather than their accomplishments. In Wilson’s case, at least, it only increased his sense of being God’s instrument on earth. Although the Republicans had won majorities just before Armistice Day in November 1918, in both houses of Congress — and the Senate’s consent by a two-thirds majority would be necessary to ratify any treaty — Wilson shut them out of any say in the treaty he went to Paris to negotiate with the other victorious powers. Obama, of course, shut the Republicans out of any say in both the stimulus bill and ObamaCare.
The result was disastrous for Wilson’s dream of world peace. So obsessed was he with creating a League of Nations that he was willing to surrender on almost everything else enunciated in his Fourteen Points to get it. Clemenceau and Lloyd George, shrewd and ruthless negotiators, played him like a fiddle. The result was the Treaty of Versailles, perhaps the most catastrophic work of diplomacy in world history, which produced a smoldering resentment in Germany at its harshness, a resentment exploited by Adolf Hitler.
When Wilson returned home, he flatly refused to compromise with the Republicans in the Senate and embarked on a speaking tour to build public pressure to force the treaty and the League through. The result was another stroke that left him incapacitated. The treaty was defeated 55-39, and when the Republicans tried to add a “reservation” that was essentially trivial but would have resulted in ratification, Wilson would have none of it. If he could not have the treaty, word for word, that he had negotiated, then he preferred nothing. He asked Democratic senators to vote against the amended treaty, and they did so. As a result, the United States did not join the League, which was hopelessly ineffective without the world’s greatest power, and what Wilson had hoped would be eternal peace became a 20-year truce.
President Obama, so far as I know, is in the best of health, but will he be any more able to deal with a changed political reality and work with Republicans? I hope so, but even this incorrigible optimist is not too confident of that.
Is President Obama the New Woodrow Wilson?
John Steele Gordon - 10.31.2010 - 1:15 PM
Jen referred this morning to David Brooks’s column, in which he advises the President to change his ways after the midterm election, especially if it turns out to be as disastrous for Democrats as nearly everyone expects. And this means changing his politics, just as Bill Clinton did after the 1994 midterm:
Obama needs to redefine his identity. Bill Clinton gave himself a New Democrat label. Obama has never categorized himself so clearly. This ambiguity was useful in 2008 when people could project whatever they wanted onto him. But it has been harmful since. Obama came to be defined by his emergency responses to the fiscal crisis — by the things he had to do, not by the things he wanted to do. Then he got defined as an orthodox, big government liberal who lacks deep roots in American culture.
Unlike Clinton, who doesn’t have an ideological bone in his body, I’m not sure Obama has the capacity to do that. I’ve just finished reading Louis Auchincloss’s mini-biography of Woodrow Wilson (part of the “Penguin Lives” series), and I was struck by the similarities between the country’s first liberal president and the man who might be its last (I know, I know, ever the optimist).
Wilson was, at heart, an academic, the author of several books, (including Congressional Government, still in print after 125 years). He thought and acted like a professor even after he entered politics. Wilson always took it for granted, for instance, that he was the smartest guy in the room and acted accordingly. Does that sound familiar? Wilson was a remarkably powerful orator. (It was he who revived the custom of delivering the State of the Union message in person, a custom that had been dropped by Thomas Jefferson, a poor and most reluctant public speaker.)
Both men had very short public careers before the White House. Wilson’s only pre-presidential office was two years as Governor of New Jersey. And Wilson thought he had a pipeline to God, which allowed him to divine what was best for the world and gave him a moral obligation to give it to the world whether the world wanted it or not. This last tendency, evident even when he was president of Princeton University, became more pronounced with age as a series of debilitating strokes (the first at age 40) increasingly rigidified his personality.
Both Wilson and Obama were the subjects of remarkable public adulation, and both won the Nobel Peace Prize for their aspirations rather than their accomplishments. In Wilson’s case, at least, it only increased his sense of being God’s instrument on earth. Although the Republicans had won majorities just before Armistice Day in November 1918, in both houses of Congress — and the Senate’s consent by a two-thirds majority would be necessary to ratify any treaty — Wilson shut them out of any say in the treaty he went to Paris to negotiate with the other victorious powers. Obama, of course, shut the Republicans out of any say in both the stimulus bill and ObamaCare.
The result was disastrous for Wilson’s dream of world peace. So obsessed was he with creating a League of Nations that he was willing to surrender on almost everything else enunciated in his Fourteen Points to get it. Clemenceau and Lloyd George, shrewd and ruthless negotiators, played him like a fiddle. The result was the Treaty of Versailles, perhaps the most catastrophic work of diplomacy in world history, which produced a smoldering resentment in Germany at its harshness, a resentment exploited by Adolf Hitler.
When Wilson returned home, he flatly refused to compromise with the Republicans in the Senate and embarked on a speaking tour to build public pressure to force the treaty and the League through. The result was another stroke that left him incapacitated. The treaty was defeated 55-39, and when the Republicans tried to add a “reservation” that was essentially trivial but would have resulted in ratification, Wilson would have none of it. If he could not have the treaty, word for word, that he had negotiated, then he preferred nothing. He asked Democratic senators to vote against the amended treaty, and they did so. As a result, the United States did not join the League, which was hopelessly ineffective without the world’s greatest power, and what Wilson had hoped would be eternal peace became a 20-year truce.
President Obama, so far as I know, is in the best of health, but will he be any more able to deal with a changed political reality and work with Republicans? I hope so, but even this incorrigible optimist is not too confident of that.
Last edited by southpaw on September 20th, 2011, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I'm your huckleberry"
-
southpaw
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 2901
- Joined: September 5th, 2003, 12:33 pm
- Location: Helixville
Re: Obama's Abominations 2009-2012
http://nation.foxnews.com/nancy-pelosi/ ... cause-bush
Wow still delusional, and this woman was third in line to the WH!
Wow still delusional, and this woman was third in line to the WH!
Last edited by southpaw on September 20th, 2011, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I'm your huckleberry"
-
CRBL Baseball
- Senior
- Posts: 192
- Joined: April 25th, 2008, 11:28 pm
Re: Obama's Abominations 2009-2012
SouthPaw they are all delusional - does not matter what the party is and at what level (federal, state or local) - the voters need to vote them all out and require accountability and not deficit spending - watch the 60 minute special a few weeks ago titled The Day of Reckoning - very scary and the elected politicians has put us in this mess and not an easy task to get out of & things are going to get ugly in the public sectors.
Last edited by CRBL Baseball on September 20th, 2011, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Obama's Abominations 2009-2012
Hope, Change, and 'Invest'
by Ann Coulter
01/26/2011
I missed the middle section of Obama's State of the Union address when I took a break to read "War and Peace," but I gather he never got around to what I was hoping he'd say, which is: "What was I thinking?"
The national debt is $14 trillion, the Democrats won't stop spending, and President Nero gave us a long gaseous speech about his Stradivarius.
I feel so Southern whenever I watch a Democrat give a State of the Union address -- and not just because it makes me want to secede. Consternating the rest of the family, my Kentucky mother always talked back to the TV. I do it only when a Democrat is giving a speech.
And if liberals didn't like Samuel Alito mouthing the words "not true," they should be really happy I wasn't in the House chamber Tuesday night.
All I kept hearing was, "Ann pays more." That's all I ever I hear when Democrats start in with all that "investing."
Apparently the government will be "investing" in education, "investing" in technology, "investing" in roads and "investing" in lots and lots of government workers. Ann pays more, Ann pays more, Ann pays more.
Obama compared "investing" in education to our sending a man to the moon after the Russians launched Sputnik. Say, who was the president who recently gutted spending on NASA? Oh yes, that was Obama.
So he reminded us of the glory days of the space program, but now he's taking that money and funneling it to public school teachers. As the Democrats say: "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we hire another 10,000 public school teachers?"
Also, solar panels. Obama said the government was already "investing" in solar panels! That's a total relief. This must be how the president who brought us "Recovery Summer" is going to dig us out of the second Great Depression.
But I do wonder why no private lender considered solar panels a wise investment, forcing solar panel manufacturers to turn to the government for loans, followed by endless tax credits just to break even.
I guess people who work for the government are just smarter. We're so lucky to have them "investing" our money for us! Boy, egg must be on Warren Buffett's face!
Remember how massive government "investments" gave rise to the telephone, the light bulb, the automobile, the airplane, the personal computer ... OK, none of those.
But massive government expenditures did give us Amtrak and the TSA!
The only thing Obama vowed to cut were "earmarks." Yippee! The guy with the ears is against earmarks. Yes, the same president who quadrupled our deficit by giving money away to his UAW pals, Wall Street cronies and government workers is now lecturing us about earmarks. This is a bit like being scolded by Charlie Sheen for ordering a second wine cooler.
You knew it was bad when John McCain leapt up and enthusiastically applauded. The last time I saw McCain applaud Obama like that was when he debated him.
Obama said, "We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook."
And then the government outlawed Edison's great invention, made the Wright brothers' air travel insufferable, filed anti-trust charges against Microsoft and made cars too expensive to drive by prohibiting oil exploration, and right now -- at this very minute -- is desperately trying to regulate the Internet.
On the bright side, President Al Gore would have actually outlawed the cars in those driveways.
I especially enjoyed his pitch for high-speed trains where you "don't have to receive pat-downs." At least until one of those Muslims who is "part of our American family" blows one up -- at which point they'll be staffed with armies of genital-fondling, unionized TSA agents on the public dime.
Still, I can't wait for Obama's America. An America where I can use lightning-fast, high-speed Internet to file electronically for my unemployment benefits. Or better yet, I can ditch my old "oil-powered" car and take a "sunlight and water"-powered high-speed train to the unemployment office for a change.
And I hear CalTech is working on biofuels to power "Recovery Summer 2011."
The big laugh line was when Nero said mockingly, "I heard rumors that a few of you still have concerns about the health care law." That's called "60 percent of the American public." It's not a joke, and it's not funny.
Here's one: Hey, Obama! Guy walks into a bar in the Gaza Strip. The bartender says, "What'll you have?" But the guy is killed instantly when an Iranian-made CT-28 missile strikes the bar, also killing a woman and small child next door. Get it, Obama? HA HA!
Synthesizing Karl Marx and Ronald Reagan, Obama said the government will soon be taking over every aspect of our lives, and Republicans can't stop him -- but gosh, isn't America a great country! Teachers are great, we need to innovate, children are our future, we need paved roads, kids should do their homework, Labrador puppies are cute, I like apple pie, I (heart) Justin Bieber, and how about them Yankees! Now, here's your 2011 tax bill -- how would you like to pay for that?
Actually, I was glad to hear him say that "there isn't a person here" -- which presumably included Democrats -- who would live anyplace else.
Then why are they always trying to turn us into Western Europe?
by Ann Coulter
01/26/2011
I missed the middle section of Obama's State of the Union address when I took a break to read "War and Peace," but I gather he never got around to what I was hoping he'd say, which is: "What was I thinking?"
The national debt is $14 trillion, the Democrats won't stop spending, and President Nero gave us a long gaseous speech about his Stradivarius.
I feel so Southern whenever I watch a Democrat give a State of the Union address -- and not just because it makes me want to secede. Consternating the rest of the family, my Kentucky mother always talked back to the TV. I do it only when a Democrat is giving a speech.
And if liberals didn't like Samuel Alito mouthing the words "not true," they should be really happy I wasn't in the House chamber Tuesday night.
All I kept hearing was, "Ann pays more." That's all I ever I hear when Democrats start in with all that "investing."
Apparently the government will be "investing" in education, "investing" in technology, "investing" in roads and "investing" in lots and lots of government workers. Ann pays more, Ann pays more, Ann pays more.
Obama compared "investing" in education to our sending a man to the moon after the Russians launched Sputnik. Say, who was the president who recently gutted spending on NASA? Oh yes, that was Obama.
So he reminded us of the glory days of the space program, but now he's taking that money and funneling it to public school teachers. As the Democrats say: "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we hire another 10,000 public school teachers?"
Also, solar panels. Obama said the government was already "investing" in solar panels! That's a total relief. This must be how the president who brought us "Recovery Summer" is going to dig us out of the second Great Depression.
But I do wonder why no private lender considered solar panels a wise investment, forcing solar panel manufacturers to turn to the government for loans, followed by endless tax credits just to break even.
I guess people who work for the government are just smarter. We're so lucky to have them "investing" our money for us! Boy, egg must be on Warren Buffett's face!
Remember how massive government "investments" gave rise to the telephone, the light bulb, the automobile, the airplane, the personal computer ... OK, none of those.
But massive government expenditures did give us Amtrak and the TSA!
The only thing Obama vowed to cut were "earmarks." Yippee! The guy with the ears is against earmarks. Yes, the same president who quadrupled our deficit by giving money away to his UAW pals, Wall Street cronies and government workers is now lecturing us about earmarks. This is a bit like being scolded by Charlie Sheen for ordering a second wine cooler.
You knew it was bad when John McCain leapt up and enthusiastically applauded. The last time I saw McCain applaud Obama like that was when he debated him.
Obama said, "We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook."
And then the government outlawed Edison's great invention, made the Wright brothers' air travel insufferable, filed anti-trust charges against Microsoft and made cars too expensive to drive by prohibiting oil exploration, and right now -- at this very minute -- is desperately trying to regulate the Internet.
On the bright side, President Al Gore would have actually outlawed the cars in those driveways.
I especially enjoyed his pitch for high-speed trains where you "don't have to receive pat-downs." At least until one of those Muslims who is "part of our American family" blows one up -- at which point they'll be staffed with armies of genital-fondling, unionized TSA agents on the public dime.
Still, I can't wait for Obama's America. An America where I can use lightning-fast, high-speed Internet to file electronically for my unemployment benefits. Or better yet, I can ditch my old "oil-powered" car and take a "sunlight and water"-powered high-speed train to the unemployment office for a change.
And I hear CalTech is working on biofuels to power "Recovery Summer 2011."
The big laugh line was when Nero said mockingly, "I heard rumors that a few of you still have concerns about the health care law." That's called "60 percent of the American public." It's not a joke, and it's not funny.
Here's one: Hey, Obama! Guy walks into a bar in the Gaza Strip. The bartender says, "What'll you have?" But the guy is killed instantly when an Iranian-made CT-28 missile strikes the bar, also killing a woman and small child next door. Get it, Obama? HA HA!
Synthesizing Karl Marx and Ronald Reagan, Obama said the government will soon be taking over every aspect of our lives, and Republicans can't stop him -- but gosh, isn't America a great country! Teachers are great, we need to innovate, children are our future, we need paved roads, kids should do their homework, Labrador puppies are cute, I like apple pie, I (heart) Justin Bieber, and how about them Yankees! Now, here's your 2011 tax bill -- how would you like to pay for that?
Actually, I was glad to hear him say that "there isn't a person here" -- which presumably included Democrats -- who would live anyplace else.
Then why are they always trying to turn us into Western Europe?
Last edited by vman on September 20th, 2011, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
I have to say thank you to me ..." for not being stupid enough to go to Penn State."
-
Crimsoncrush67
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 649
- Joined: September 9th, 2006, 8:04 pm
Re: Obama's Abominations 2009-2012
I expected more from you than to quote this lunatic.
Last edited by Crimsoncrush67 on September 20th, 2011, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
southpaw
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 2901
- Joined: September 5th, 2003, 12:33 pm
- Location: Helixville
Re: Obama's Abominations 2009-2012
I didn't watch Bozo's SOTUA but saw excerpts of the what I call "fluff" he bantered about. The bigger issue out there confronting Barry is the total collapse of our state dept. under Hilary Clinton. The totally got blindsided by the uprising in Tunisia, okay that was her wake up call. Now the same thing in Egypt on a much bigger world stage and we have no response except to hit the Sunday morning news programs and say Egypt needs to let democracy take over? Are you kidding me? This is amatuer by our diplomats and abassadors especially our top diplomat Hilary Clinton. What' going on in the MIddle East now is as bad and probably be worse than the Jimmy Carter catastrophe in Iran 30 years ago. By now I hope everyone sees how woefully inadequate our current president and his administration is both on domestic and foreign policy.
Last edited by southpaw on September 20th, 2011, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I'm your huckleberry"
-
Crimsoncrush67
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 649
- Joined: September 9th, 2006, 8:04 pm
Re: Obama's Abominations 2009-2012
I dunno about all that. What would you like to see us do in Egypt, and the world? Hostile take over and put in place a US friendly democracy? Or do we allow what I think will be bloody revolution, or bloody revolution repression? Do we fear that if don't become involved that a very anti-Israeli government will spring up? With the amount of problems we have at home is it time to turn towards isolationism? The speak softly and carry a big stick stuff will not work anymore.
Last edited by Crimsoncrush67 on September 20th, 2011, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Obama's Abominations 2009-2012
As a nation, we need to wake up, start voting in our own best interest and start to work together on issues and take care of our fellow citizens. The number one problem we have is that the distribution of wealth is concentrated in the highest 0.05% of the population. The irony is that the working poor don't realize that the parties they support are financed and work for the top 0.05% of the wealth. I am afraid that if this continues that within 20 years there will be a class war and the often-referenced second amendment remedy will be taken up by the working class. Have you ever seen "Idiocracy" ? Picture that, with guns. We aren't that many years away, I'm afraid.
The problem is that many are brain-washed by the opinion-based media, not the news, but the talking heads with their rants and snide comments. In vogue now are those that mock Obama, and host talk-shows that castigate him with references such as a socialist or a communist. The same went for the Democrats, who have their share of pundits that blame Bush for everything. The amount of vitriol that emanates from both sides has reached epic proportions. At the center of much of this is an argument about whether or not wealthy insurance companies should get more customers. Undoubtedly, the availability of all of this "programming" over the past 20 years has had a dumbing down effect on this country. (Idiocracy?)
To wit, where was this type of 'outrage' when we wrongly invaded a country and killed 25,000 civillians with indiscriminate bombing in Irag in 2003. We were in front of our televisions watching the "shock and awe" because our "Idiocracy-like" society was led to believe that Saddam was such a bad man and that he had WMDs. We were glued to our sets to try and watch as Jr made sure that this bad man was going to pay for having WMDs which he didn't even have. Apparently he was so bad that 100,000 innocent Iraqis people had to die to prove our point. Meanwhile civilians are still dying, but we are too busy to notice because we are taking sides on the arguments about whether or not the SOTU was too superfluous and unobtainable.
Start thinking for yourself. Watch the news on different networks, not just one, and ignore the self-serving opinion. Wise up and realize that someone is paying Coulter, Limbaugh, Olberman, Maher, Beck, etc to try and brainwash you and increase their ratings (profits).
Its not too late to start thinking for yourself...
The problem is that many are brain-washed by the opinion-based media, not the news, but the talking heads with their rants and snide comments. In vogue now are those that mock Obama, and host talk-shows that castigate him with references such as a socialist or a communist. The same went for the Democrats, who have their share of pundits that blame Bush for everything. The amount of vitriol that emanates from both sides has reached epic proportions. At the center of much of this is an argument about whether or not wealthy insurance companies should get more customers. Undoubtedly, the availability of all of this "programming" over the past 20 years has had a dumbing down effect on this country. (Idiocracy?)
To wit, where was this type of 'outrage' when we wrongly invaded a country and killed 25,000 civillians with indiscriminate bombing in Irag in 2003. We were in front of our televisions watching the "shock and awe" because our "Idiocracy-like" society was led to believe that Saddam was such a bad man and that he had WMDs. We were glued to our sets to try and watch as Jr made sure that this bad man was going to pay for having WMDs which he didn't even have. Apparently he was so bad that 100,000 innocent Iraqis people had to die to prove our point. Meanwhile civilians are still dying, but we are too busy to notice because we are taking sides on the arguments about whether or not the SOTU was too superfluous and unobtainable.
Start thinking for yourself. Watch the news on different networks, not just one, and ignore the self-serving opinion. Wise up and realize that someone is paying Coulter, Limbaugh, Olberman, Maher, Beck, etc to try and brainwash you and increase their ratings (profits).
Its not too late to start thinking for yourself...
Last edited by say_oww on September 20th, 2011, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.