Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 22, 2014, 10:52:55 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83380 Posts in 2260 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 33 Print
Author Topic: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness  (Read 198158 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #850 on: June 18, 2011, 03:04:59 PM »

1631 news stories publicly promoting the fact that they are going to play golf.  6 hours later it reminds me of his economic plan... still no results.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #851 on: June 24, 2011, 08:42:38 AM »

**Remember how smart Obama was supposed to be?

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/06/president-obamas-terrible-mistake.html

President Obama's Terrible Mistake
 
Posted By Blackfive • [June 23, 2011]

 
From a Blackfive reader "T":
 
The President addressing the 10th Mountain Division today at Fort Drum:
 
"First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously."

As we all know, SSG Sal Giunta, of the 173rd Airborne, was the first living recipient (2011) of the MOH who fought in Iraq/Afganistan. SFC Jared Monti, 10th Mountain Division, was KIA in Afghanistan in 2006. He was posthumously awarded the MOH by Obama in 2009.
 
How does the Commander-in-Chief mix these heroes up? He put that medal around Giunta's neck and he stood with Monti's parents as they grieved. These fallen heroes leave such a great legacy, and we should know all their names. The ironic part of the speech, and this comes after the announcement of the politically pressured drawdown of troops in Afghanistan, was Obama's closing remark, "Know that your Commander-in-Chief has your back."
 
It shouldn't take a teleprompter for the C-in-C to get it right.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #852 on: June 28, 2011, 10:17:46 AM »

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #853 on: July 01, 2011, 10:06:29 AM »

http://americanglob.com/2011/06/29/one-american-family-will-be-taking-a-nice-vacation-this-summer/

One American Family Will Be Taking A Nice Vacation This Summer




It’s a good thing too because Obama must be exhausted from those countless rounds of golf.
 
What’s that? You can’t afford a family vacation this summer? Nonsense.
 
You’re paying for this one, aren’t you?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #854 on: July 01, 2011, 10:13:13 AM »

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2011/06/06/

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2011/06/19/

« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 10:24:13 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #855 on: July 05, 2011, 04:41:20 PM »

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/01/corporate_jets_and_tax_breaks__110438.html

July 1, 2011
Corporate Jets and Tax Breaks
By Jonah Goldberg

President Obama's core message in his Wednesday press conference, his first since March, could be found in his advice to Republicans. "You go talk to your constituents and ask them, ‘Are you willing to compromise your kids' safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?'"

This was just one of six shots the president took at corporate-jet owners. A novice might be forgiven for thinking that the president really doesn't like corporate jets or that the Republicans cared so much about the darn things that they had proposed crossing out "arms" in the Second Amendment and replacing it with "corporate jets." Where's Charlton Heston to proclaim, "From my cold dead hands you can have my Learjet 85 . . . "?

A novice might also think that tax status of corporate jets is of disproportionate significance in how to move this country toward a balanced budget.

But the novice would be wrong. For starters, Obama's most recent budget calls for adding $9.5 trillion in new debt over the next decade. If you got rid of the "accelerated depreciation" of corporate jets, Reuters economics columnist James Pethokoukis calculates, it would save a whopping .03 percent of that total.

Sadly, the room was full of journalists who do not consider themselves novices but who nonetheless let Obama get away with this demagogic dishonesty. No one asked the president why he suddenly cares so much about getting rid of a tax break he himself was for before he was against it. Indeed, no one asked why, if it is such an affront to the liberal conscience, it was part of Obama's stimulus bill, which was passed without any Republican votes in the House and only three in the Senate (which means Nancy Pelosi voted for special tax breaks for corporate jets and the GOP didn't).

More broadly, no one threw a flag on his claim that "every single observer who's not an elected official, who's not a politician," agrees with him on the burning need to raise taxes as part of any budget deal. This is a good example of Obama's most grating tic, his need to claim that all reasonable and serious people agree with him and anyone who disagrees must be doing so for base or ideological motives.

No one queried why he talks about the need to raise taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" but the fine print of his proposals defines millionaires and billionaires as people who make $200,000 a year as individuals or $250,000 as joint-filing couples. Jay Duckson at Central Business Jets tells the Wall Street Journal that the starting price for a private jet is $10 million dollars. Annual upkeep and fuel is about $500,000. You do the math.

This points to what is most offensive about Obama's focus-grouped class-warfare rhetoric: the total incoherence of the underlying policies.

The day before his press conference, Obama was in Bettendorf, Iowa, at the Alcoa Davenport Works plant to highlight his economic vision for manufacturing. "Alcoa is showing us the future we can build here in eastern Iowa and across the country," he proclaimed.

"The idea is to create jobs now, and to make sure America stays on the cutting edge of manufacturing for years to come," Obama declared.

The factory Obama visited, however, isn't a generic aluminum plant. It is, according to Alcoa, the "premier aerospace supply plant and is today the hub of Alcoa's $3 billion aerospace business."

That includes the general aviation industry, which is centered in Wichita, Kan., where they make private jets "right here in America" as Obama likes to say. The upshot: Obama says that Alcoa must lose business among American customers to repeal a tax break Obama and the Democrats supported because Republicans want to balance the budget.

To be fair, Alcoa's biggest customers aren't manufacturers of private jets but the big manufacturers of commercial jets - you know, like Boeing. Well, that company is being told by Obama's union-hack-packed National Labor Relations Board that it cannot open a new manufacturing plant in South Carolina, because to do so would offend Obama's beloved unions in Washington State.

The point isn't that there's no merit to any of Obama's positions (personally, I'm all for clearing the junk out of the tax code). The point is that at this point merit simply has nothing to do with the positions Obama takes.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #856 on: July 07, 2011, 09:12:13 PM »

"Iowahawk is a genius!" ... continued here:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/07/questions-so-many-questions.html

Are you in favor of gay marriage for Libyan bombing crews on Boeing planes made in South Carolina?

Would you get tougher with Iran if you knew they were working with Scott Walker?

When your economic advisers hold policy meetings, do they stuff a towel at the bottom of the door?

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #857 on: July 08, 2011, 10:24:17 AM »

Isn't in Kali-fornia there is a bill that would make mandatory gay history in schools.

We have a large percentage of children who cannot tell you what Abraham Lincoln looks like, who do not know the US was originally part of the British empire but we must have gay history in grade school!

Right.  And it wasn't the gays spreading aids it was Ronald Reagan.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #858 on: July 11, 2011, 11:30:09 AM »

Obama v. Obama
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-vs-obama_576524.html
In the session, Obama rejected a Republican proposal to seek $2.5 trillion in spending cuts and reforms, and insisted on higher taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals.

It is so hard catching this guy in a contradiction. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #859 on: July 15, 2011, 11:04:28 AM »

Constitutional Law Professor Barack Obama ruled out extreme measures in a budget deal like the Balanced Budget Amendment.  Constitutional amendments do not go through the Executive Branch and are none of his business, except to comply if ratified.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #860 on: July 15, 2011, 11:36:59 AM »

"Constitutional Law Professor Barack Obama"

Mark Levin had a law professor from Univ of Chicago on his show last year.  He knew Brock and is a pro 2nd amendment professor.  Apparantly this is rare.  He stated Brock was the only prof who would never speak to him because of his political stance.  He said this was unusual.  The other liberal professors would at least be polite and friendly.  The world's first post partisan prez was the only one who was a cold fish.  This professor also stated he witnessed absolutely no research, no original legal thought, and no real insterest in the Constitution by Brock.  the whole reason from what he could tell Brock was at U of C was to establish a political base.  It is was all about political calculation. 

This goes along with the other circumstantial evidence that Brock was the chosen one by the progressive movement to be their mouthpiece.  It also goes along with the obvious that he is not an original thinker, not a conciliator, very political/partisan.

He is the angry Black, who dislikes Jews (he just uses them), whites, capatilizism, and America.

Krauthammer had it slightly wrong.  It is not Brock's temperment that is what makes him "special" it is his ability to lie and deceive.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #861 on: July 15, 2011, 12:19:02 PM »

CCP,  Even the 'temperament' is a myth according to an opinion on the Wash Post site yesterday:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/the-myth-of-obamas-great-temperament/2011/03/29/gIQALFPvDI_blog.html
The myth of Obama’s great temperament
By Jennifer Rubin

During the 2008 campaign Obama-spinners and nearly the entire press corps (I repeat myself) bandied about the notion that what the candidate lacked in experience (none when it came to running anything other than the Harvard Law Review) he made up in superior temperament. He was cool, calm, unflappable — a sort of Mr. Spock who put rationality above emotion. Has there ever been a worst case of false advertising?  Throughout his presidency Barack Obama has shown himself to be thin-skinned and cranky...
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #862 on: July 15, 2011, 12:24:37 PM »

I hate to pile on, but I can't remember seeing this covered here:
Whoops, Obama lied repeatedly about his mom's health coverage:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/07/14/obama-lied-about-mother%E2%80%99s-health-insurance-problem/
It's not a health care issue, it's a character flaw.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #863 on: July 15, 2011, 01:19:55 PM »

"It's not a health care issue, it's a character flaw."

Yes, we spoke of his obvious narcisstic personality disorder.

It is not called a "disorder" for nothing.  These people can be extraordinarily deceptive, dishonest, placing blame always on others, never really accepting responsibility for anything.  They love themselves and think they are superior.  As a result they think they can charm and manipulate everyone around them to their whim.

In the beggining they often/usually are successful.  Savvy people will soon catch on.  Those who think they are good judges of character but are not will take longer.  And of course there are those that will always be suckered.

It does appear more and more people are catching on.  WE can only hope the Repubs can rally behind a candidate who can give an alternative message before it is too late.

Mark my words if Brock loses we will see him pardon every illegal here and around the world.  That will be HIS payback.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #864 on: July 17, 2011, 03:50:47 PM »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jun/21/cocaine-addiction-linked-brain-abnormalities

Scientists have found "significant abnormalities" in the brains of people addicted to cocaine, which could help explain some of the compulsive behaviour associated with using the drug. It may also hint at why some people are more prone to addiction.

Brain scans revealed that cocaine users had a "dramatic decrease in grey matter" in their frontal lobes, according to researchers, which affected key functions including decision-making, memory and attention, while some of their brain's rewards systems were significantly bigger. Karen Ersche of the Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute at the University of Cambridge, who led the latest work, found the longer a person had been using cocaine, the poorer their attention was, and the more compulsively they used the drug.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/07/obamas-senior-moment-ill-be-turning-50-in-a-week.html


Obama's Senior Moment: 'I'll be turning 50 in a week.'

July 15, 2011 3:38 PM
 

Actually…he’ll be turning 50 in three weeks. His birthday is August 4, two days after the debt ceiling deadline. Senior moment?

**He doesn't know how old he is, or how old his daughter is, who he has given the medal of honor to, how many states are in the country.....
« Last Edit: July 17, 2011, 03:54:56 PM by G M » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #865 on: July 18, 2011, 03:36:23 PM »



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/laura-ingraham-airs-scary-obama-remix-of-jimmy-carters-malaise-speech/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #866 on: July 20, 2011, 06:53:21 PM »

http://www.punditandpundette.com/2009/09/what-not-to-wear-to-medal-of-honor.html

September 20, 2009


 

What not to wear to a Medal of Honor award ceremony



You might think a posthumous Medal of Honor award ceremony would be a somber occasion, but not everyone would agree with you. Either this is an especially skillful photo shop effort or Michelle Obama has no clue whatsoever about the nature of this event. U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Jared C. Monti's parents received the award for him. I hope they didn't notice the first lady's stunningly inappropriate dress, but that's unlikely.
 

« Last Edit: July 20, 2011, 06:55:47 PM by G M » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #867 on: July 20, 2011, 11:07:55 PM »

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2011/07/16/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #868 on: July 22, 2011, 10:00:14 PM »

Brock in *his* tizzy speech tonight stated:

"The American people voted for a divided government, not a dysfunctional government."

Wrong on both counts Brockster:

The American people voted for *less* government -  ya stooge.

God almighty we have to get rid of this guy.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #869 on: July 27, 2011, 11:25:17 PM »

By JAMES TARANTO

So this is what we have come to: the president of the United States, and not just any president but the World's Greatest Orator, standing in the White House petulantly reproving his partisan opponents and imploring his supporters: "If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know."

Three cheers to the U.S. Postal Service, which by all accounts has dealt with the ensuing flood of mail without missing a step.

Earlier yesterday, as National Journal reports, Obama "let his frustration over the stalled debt talks seep into an address on Latino issues, confessing that he'd like to 'bypass Congress and change the laws on my own' ":

He told the National Council of La Raza, "Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you."
But, he had to concede, "that's not how our system works."

Being a dictator is a relatively easy job. Even junior tyrants like Bashar al-Assad and Kim Jong Il can do it. All a dictator needs to be effective is the ability to instill fear. An effective democratic leader needs to be able to command respect.


European Pressphoto Agency
Obama has a problem commanding the respect of his adversaries. Immediately after his address to the nation last night, Speaker John Boehner went on TV with a response. Fox News Channel's Bret Baier reported that apart from the State of the Union, it was the first such response from the opposing party to a presidential address since 2007, when George W. Bush gave a speech on Iraq.

And Boehner mocked Obama's rhetoric: "The president has often said we need a 'balanced' approach--which in Washington means we spend more, you pay more." One might observe that the partisan sniping was mutual. But the president is the higher-status player. He diminishes himself by punching down.

Obama has turned into President Rodney Dangerfield: He doesn't get no respect. (For readers too young to remember Dangerfield, that's not litotes. He used the double negative as an intensifier.) "So we're left with a stalemate," he said last night. "At least that's what Michelle tells me."

OK, we made up that punch line. But it's true that lately Obama hasn't been getting much respect from his friends, either. "I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama believes he's doing," Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent self-styled socialist from Vermont said last week. John Nichols of The Nation, a hard-left magazine, cites a CNN poll that finds this feeling increasingly common among Obama's base:

The number of Americans who say they disapprove of the president's performance because he is not liberal enough has doubled since May. "Drill down into that number and you'll see signs of a stirring discontent on the left," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland, who explains that, "Obama's approval rating among liberals has dropped to the lowest point in his presidency, and roughly one in four Americans who disapprove of him say they feel that way because he has not been liberal enough, a new high for that measure."
"What evidence do we have that Obama knows what he's doing?" former Enron adviser Paul Krugman asked last week. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but Krugman then asked: "When has Obama given progressives any reason to believe they can trust him?"

That may explain Obama's unwillingness to compromise in the debt debate. "Nobody today is talking about tax increases except Barack Obama," CNN's Gloria Borger noted last night. Reports over the weekend had congressional Republicans and Democrats negotiating for an agreement to cut spending without raising taxes. By butting in with his demand for tax increases, Obama only prolongs the standoff. Why? There's one logical explanation: to pander to his left-wing base.

Obama's position is as brittle as it is rigid. It's true that some polls suggest the public is more inclined to blame congressional Republicans than the president if the dispute remains unresolved and the results are disastrous. But Obama would have to be delusional to think that presiding over such a disaster would enhance his re-election prospects.

Fox Business's Charlie Gasparino reports that "administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen." Our guess is that Obama will end up signing whatever last-minute agreement Congress comes up with. As with last December's deal to avert the Bush tax increases, he will bitterly protest, disclaiming responsibility for the outcome. He will maintain the left's sympathy, but respect, once lost, is hard to recover.

A couple of other points on the Obama speech: The president said he rejected Boehner's plan that "would temporarily extend the debt ceiling" because it "would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now." Today the White House issued a written veto threat. Yet last night he praised Congress for raising the debt ceiling 18 times during Ronald Reagan's presidency--once every 5.3 months on average.

In demanding an extension that would carry him through next year's election, Obama is departing from the precedent he cites in support of his position. His anxiousness at the prospect of another such confrontation reflects his political weakness in this one.

Toward the end of his speech, the president threw in some of the sort of airy pieties to which he owes his status as World's Greatest Orator:

America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We've engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, . . . from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice.
Wait a minute, he's citing slavery as an example of "fierce and passionate debates" leading to "compromise"? As The Nation's Kai Wright wrote in December 2010, the last time Obama trotted out this trope, "Mr. President, WTF?!":

Which one of the "compromises" that allowed a slave republic to endure from more than a century is he celebrating here? Perhaps the one where black people were counted as a fraction of humans in order to preserve a balance of power that allowed Northern and Southern aristocrats alike to get rich off of murderous slave labor? No, we wouldn't have had a union without that. Or maybe he's pitching forward to the "compromises" of the post-Reconstruction era, when the white capitalists of the North got too spooked by white laborers' demands for reasonable wages, and so abandoned the promises of Emancipation. That, too, kept the union plowing forward--into another century of apartheid and state-sanctioned terrorism.
No wonder Obama doesn't get any respect. Either he's woefully ignorant or he thinks everyone else is.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #870 on: July 28, 2011, 02:15:18 PM »

"Earlier yesterday, as National Journal reports, Obama "let his frustration over the stalled debt talks seep into an address on Latino issues, confessing that he'd like to 'bypass Congress and change the laws on my own' ":

He told the National Council of La Raza, "Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you."
But, he had to concede, "that's not how our system works."

He said this??  The guy is "f*ing" tyrant.

This kind of talk should certainly be headline news on every national media.  But of course not a peep from MSM.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #871 on: July 28, 2011, 11:29:39 PM »

I gather that Boener does not have the votes, and this piece by Peggy N. was written before that was known.  Still, its comments on His Glibness remain pertinent.


The Republican establishment reasserted itself this week, and good thing, too, because the establishment was right. It said Republicans in the House should back and pass the Boehner bill on the debt ceiling because it goes in the right directions, contains spending cuts but not taxes, and is viable. So accept victory, avert crisis, and get it to the Senate.

The establishment was being conservative in the Burkean sense: acknowledges reality, respect it, and make the most progress possible within it. This has not always been true of them. They spent the first decade of this century backing things a truly conservative party would not have dreamed of—careless wars, huge spending and, most scandalously, a dreamy and unconservative assumption that it would all work out because life is sweet and the best thing always happens. They were mostly led by men and women who had never been foreclosed on and who assumed good luck, especially unearned good luck, would continue. They were fools, and they lost control of their party when the tea party rose up, rebuking and embarrassing them. Then the tea party saved them by not going third party in 2009-10. And now the establishment has come forward to save the tea party, by inching it away from the cliff and reminding it the true battles are in 2012, and after. Let's hope the tea party takes the opportunity.

As this is written the White House seems desperate to be seen as consequential. They're trotting out Press Secretary Jay Carney, who stands there looking like a ferret with flop sweat as he insists President Obama is still at the table, still manning the phones and calling shots. Much is uncertain, but the Republicans have made great strides on policy. If they emerge victorious, they had better not crow. The nation is in a continuing crisis, our credit rating is not secure, and no one's interested in he-man gangster dialogue from "The Town." What might thrill America would be a little modesty: "We know we helped get America into some of this trouble, and we hope we've made some progress today in getting us out of it."

***
But that actually is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about something that started to become apparent to me during the debt negotiations. It's something I've never seen in national politics.

View Full Image

Martin Kozlowski
It is that nobody loves Obama. This is amazing because every president has people who love him, who feel deep personal affection or connection, who have a stubborn, even beautiful refusal to let what they know are just criticisms affect their feelings of regard. At the height of Bill Clinton's troubles there were always people who'd say, "Look, I love the guy." They'd often be smiling—a wry smile, a shrugging smile. Nobody smiles when they talk about Mr. Obama. There were people who loved George W. Bush when he was at his most unpopular, and they meant it and would say it. But people aren't that way about Mr. Obama. He has supporters and bundlers and contributors, he has voters, he may win. But his support is grim support. And surely this has implications.

The past few weeks I've asked Democrats who supported him how they feel about him. I got back nothing that showed personal investment. Here are the words of a hard-line progressive and wise veteran of the political wars: "I never loved Barack Obama. That said, among my crowd who did 'love' him, I can't think of anyone who still does." Why is Mr. Obama different from Messrs. Clinton and Bush? "Clinton radiated personality. As angry as folks got with him about Nafta or Monica, there was always a sense of genuine, generous caring." With Bush, "if folks were upset with him, he still had this goofy kind of personality that folks could relate to. You might think he was totally misguided but he seemed genuinely so. . . . Maybe the most important word that described Clinton and Bush but not Obama is 'genuine.'" He "doesn't exude any feeling that what he says and does is genuine."

Maybe Mr. Obama is living proof of the political maxim that they don't care what you know unless they know that you care. But the idea that he is aloof and so inspires aloofness may be too pat. No one was colder than FDR, deep down. But he loved the game and did a wonderful daily impersonation of jut-jawed joy. And people loved him.

More Peggy Noonan

Read Peggy Noonan's previous columns

click here to order her book, Patriotic Grace

The secret of Mr. Obama is that he isn't really very good at politics, and he isn't good at politics because he doesn't really get people. The other day a Republican political veteran forwarded me a hiring notice from the Obama 2012 campaign. It read like politics as done by Martians. The "Analytics Department" is looking for "predictive Modeling/Data Mining" specialists to join the campaign's "multi-disciplinary team of statisticians," which will use "predictive modeling" to anticipate the behavior of the electorate. "We will analyze millions of interactions a day, learning from terabytes of historical data, running thousands of experiments, to inform campaign strategy and critical decisions."

This wasn't the passionate, take-no-prisoners Clinton War Room of '92, it was high-tech and bloodless. Is that what politics is now? Or does the Obama re-election effort reflect the candidate and his flaws?

Mr. Obama seemed brilliant at politics when he first emerged in 2004. He understood the nation's longing for unity. We're not divided into red states and blue, he said, we're Big Purple, we can solve our problems together. Four years later he read the lay of the land perfectly—really, perfectly. The nation and the Democratic Party were tired of the Clinton machine. He came from nowhere and dismantled it. It was breathtaking. He went into the 2008 general election with a miraculously unified party and took down another machine, bundling up all the accrued resentment of eight years with one message: "You know the two losing wars and the economic collapse we've been dealing with? I won't do that. I'm not Bush."

The fact is, he's good at dismantling. He's good at critiquing. He's good at not being the last guy, the one you didn't like. But he's not good at building, creating, calling into being. He was good at summoning hope, but he's not good at directing it and turning it into something concrete that answers a broad public desire.

And so his failures in the debt ceiling fight. He wasn't serious, he was only shrewd—and shrewdness wasn't enough. He demagogued the issue—no Social Security checks—until he was called out, and then went on the hustings spouting inanities. He left conservatives scratching their heads: They could have made a better, more moving case for the liberal ideal as translated into the modern moment, than he did. He never offered a plan. In a crisis he was merely sly. And no one likes sly, no one respects it.

So he is losing a battle in which he had superior forces—the presidency, the U.S. senate. In the process he revealed that his foes have given him too much mystique. He is not a devil, an alien, a socialist. He is a loser. And this is America, where nobody loves a loser.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #872 on: July 29, 2011, 10:47:35 AM »

"The fact is, he's good at dismantling. He's good at critiquing. He's good at not being the last guy, the one you didn't like. But he's not good at building, creating, calling into being. He was good at summoning hope, but he's not good at directing it and turning it into something concrete that answers a broad public desire."

Not exactly right in this analysis.  The problem is the guy does not like America as we know it.  He is angry at whites, capitilism, conservatism.  He is hugely anti what America has been all about for 200+ years.   As his obnoxious statement,
""Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you."
But, he had to concede, "that's not how our system works."
He *again* reveals his disdain for our republic and is in all out effort to change the system to what suits him.  He has been obvious this way from day one but only to those who listened carefully and were not stupid of naive enough to fall for his con.

I have agreed with all those about his true nature - liberal, angry minority, personality DISORDER.  I suspected this guy would fold once people finally started to catch on more and more to his con.

Unfortunately there are many people who are quite happy to support him and many indeed who feel he has not played liberal enough and want wealth transfer and big government so Brock is certainly not without a big group of people who are also angry and dislike America.

Yes he is ultimately a loser, but it is his whole philisophy about himself his role who he is and his beliefs that make him that way.

Not just incompetance.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 778


« Reply #873 on: July 29, 2011, 12:30:40 PM »

President Obama Is No Longer Tethered To Reality
By Peter Ferrara | Forbes – Thu, Jul 28, 2011



President Obama Is No Longer Tethered To Reality

President Barack Obama's speech to the nation Monday night was highly disturbing.  Because read carefully, it reveals a president wildly divorced from the fundamental realities of the nation he is supposed to be leading.
 
President Obama actually told America on national television that it is a nation "with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few."  It is incomprehensible how a man serving as president of these United States could make such a fundamentally false assertion about his own country.
 
As I explain in my new book, America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, before Obama was even elected, official IRS data showed that for 2007 the top 1% of income earners paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95% combined.  The top 1% paid 40.4% of all federal income taxes that year, almost twice their share of income.  The middle fifth of income earners, the actual middle class, paid 4.7% of federal income taxes.  Deck stacked against the middle class in favor of the wealthiest few?
 


Moreover, the bottom 40% of income earners as a group paid no federal income taxes that year.  They instead received net payments from the IRS equal to 4% of total federal tax revenues.  As my book explains, this was actually the result of nearly 30 years of Reaganomics.  Today close to 50% of Americans pay no federal income tax.
 
We see the same in some states.  In California, the top 1% pay 48% of all state income taxes.  In New York, the top 1% pay 41% of all state income taxes.  In New Jersey, until recently the top 1% paid 46% of state income taxes.
 
Moreover, America's corporate income tax rate is virtually the highest in the industrialized world at nearly 40% on average, counting state corporate rates.  Even Communist China has a 25% corporate rate, with the average in the mostly socialist European Union below that.  In formerly socialist Canada, the corporate rate today is 16.5%, scheduled to fall under current law to 15% next year.  Doesn't sound like America suffers a deck stacked against the middle class in favor of the wealthiest few.
 
And already scheduled under current law for 2013 are increases in the top tax rates of every major federal tax, apart from the already too high corporate tax rate.  That is because the ObamaCare taxes become effective that year, and the Bush tax cuts expire.  So the top two income tax rates would go up nearly 20%, the capital gains tax rate would go up nearly 60%, the tax on corporate dividends would nearly triple, and the Medicare payroll tax would go up 62% for the nation's small businesses, job creators and investors.
 
Obama's wildly erroneous statement Monday night indicates he is not living in the real world, which is dangerous for America.  These tax policies so heavily skewed against the nation's small businesses, job creators and investors are central reasons why there has been no recovery from the last recession, why working people can't get jobs, why their wages are falling in real terms, why unemployment is still rising 3.5 years after the last recession started, why a record number of Americans are in poverty.  As a consequence, in reality, it is Obama's anti-market economic policies that are actually in effect stacked heavily against the middle class, working people and the poor.
 
Obama also told the nation Monday night he wants to "ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries."  This is another false truism that is widely circulated throughout the liberal/left.  The allegation arises because capital gains income is taxed at 15%, while individual income tax rates range higher than that.  But as I explain in my book, the fundamental mistake is the failure to recognize that capital income is taxed multiple times, not just by the capital gains tax.  It is taxed at least four times, by the individual income tax, the corporate income tax, and the death tax, besides the capital gains tax.  That is why the most fair as well as most economically productive rate for the capital gains tax would be zero, as is the case in much of the industrialized world.
 
The president further proclaimed Monday night that "most Americans don't understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare benefits before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get."  But his ObamaCare law already more than asks seniors to pay more for their Medicare benefits.  It requires them to pay 40% to 200% more if they, in the President's infinite wisdom, earn too much, defined as over $85,000 a year this time.
 
Note also the tax break for corporate jet owners was adopted in the Obama stimulus to create jobs in corporate jet manufacturing.  Yet, such tax breaks for corporate jets or oil companies that other companies do not get are special interest, central economic planning loopholes that undermine the economy rather than advance it.  The only truly pro-growth tax policy is the lowest possible tax rates for all, with no special interest loopholes.  But the amount of revenue lost on Obama's corporate jet scam is so trivial it is not even worth talking about as possibly even contributing to solving the deficit and debt crisis.
 
Finally on Monday night, Obama threatened America's seniors with more, saying that if House Republicans don't agree to his tax increase to increase the debt limit, "we would not have enough money to pay the bills -- bills that include monthly Social Security checks."  This can only be described as calculated deception.
 
The Social Security trust funds include $2.7 trillion in government bonds, which are due and payable when needed to pay Social Security benefits.  As I also show in my book, those bonds do not represent any real savings and investment.  They involve only a statement of the legal authority Social Security has to draw from general revenues, on top of payroll tax revenues.  But in dealing with a crisis over the debt limit, that legal authority can be the critical factor.
 
While those bonds are explicitly not transferable, and so cannot be sold to the public to raise money, under prior practice they would be cashed out by selling new government bonds to the public.  Since the Social Security trust fund bonds are included in the national debt subject to the debt limit, they can be replaced by such new public bonds without the total debt going over the limit.
 
Moreover, those Social Security trust fund bonds are explicitly backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S.  That means Obama is constitutionally required to pay them when needed to pay Social Security benefits.  In addition, there is more than enough general revenue coming in to just cash out the trust fund bonds as necessary in any event, even without issuing any new public bonds.
 
As a result, Obama is constitutionally required to pay Social Security benefits, under his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.  That means failing to pay those benefits would be an impeachable offense.
 
Peter Ferrara is director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, general counsel for the American Civil Rights Union and senior fellow for the Carleson Center for Public Policy.  He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as associate deputy attorney general under the first President Bush.  He is the author of America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, now available from HarperCollins.


 Copyright © 2011 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

http://news.yahoo.com/president-obama-no-longer-tethered-reality-160512355.html

                                                   P.C.
Logged

G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #874 on: July 29, 2011, 01:28:48 PM »

Unfortunately, it's as secret as his academic and health records.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #875 on: August 01, 2011, 11:46:32 AM »

This PROVES we will not have fiscal responsibility till Brock is thrown out once and for all. 

****By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR - Associated Press | AP – 8 mins agotweet153ShareEmailPrintWASHINGTON (AP) — Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said Monday in a decision with far-reaching implications for health care as well as social mores.

The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women's preventive care under President Barack Obama's health care law. Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual "well-woman" physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services.

"These historic guidelines are based on science and existing (medical) literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

The new requirements will take effect Jan. 1, 2013, in most cases. Over time, they are expected to apply to most employer-based insurance plans, as well as coverage purchased individually.

Sebelius acted after a near-unanimous recommendation last month from a panel of experts convened by the prestigious Institute of Medicine, which advises the government. Panel chairwoman Linda Rosenstock, dean of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that prevention of unintended pregnancies is essential for the psychological, emotional and physical health of women.

As recently as the 1990s, many health insurance plans didn't even cover birth control. Protests, court cases, and new state laws led to dramatic changes. Today, almost all plans cover prescription contraceptives — with varying copays. Medicaid, the health care program for low-income people, also covers contraceptives.

Indeed, a government study last summer found that birth control use is virtually universal in the United States, according to a government study issued last summer. More than 90 million prescriptions for contraceptives were dispensed in 2009, according the market analysis firm INS health. Generic versions of the pill are available for as little as $9 a month. Still, about half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Many are among women using some form of contraception, and forgetting to take the pill is a major reason.

Preventing unwanted pregnancies is only one goal of the new requirement. Contraception can help make a woman's next pregnancy healthier by spacing births far enough apart, generally 18 months to two years. Research links closely spaced births to a risk of such problems as prematurity, low birth weight, even autism. Research has shown that even modest copays for medical care can discourage use.

In a nod to social and religious conservatives, the rules issued Monday by Sebelius include a provision that would allow religious institutions to opt out of offering birth control coverage. However, many conservatives are supporting legislation by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., that would codify a range of exceptions to the new health care law on religious and conscience grounds.

Although the new women's preventive services will be free of any additional charge to patients, somebody will have to pay. The cost will be spread among other people with health insurance, resulting in slightly higher premiums. That may be offset to some degree with savings from diseases prevented, or pregnancies that are planned to minimize any potential ill effects to the mother and baby.

The administration did allow insurers some leeway in determining what they will cover. For example, health plans will be able to charge copays for branded drugs in cases where a generic version is just as effective and safe for the patient.

The requirement applies to all forms of birth control approved by the Food and Drug Administration. That includes the pill, intrauterine devices, the so-called morning-after pill, and newer forms of long-acting implantable hormonal contraceptives that are becoming widely used in the rest of the industrialized world.

Coverage with no copays for the morning-after pill is likely to become the most controversial part of the change. The FDA classifies Plan B and Ella as birth control, but some religious conservatives see the morning-after drugs as abortion drugs. The rules HHS issued Monday do not require coverage of RU-486 and other drugs to chemically induce an abortion.

Advocates say the majority of women will be covered once the requirement takes effect in 2013, although some insurance plans may opt to offer the benefit earlier. Aside from the religious conscience clause, there is one additional exception. Plans that are considered "grandfathered" under the law will not be affected, at least initially. Consumers should check with their health insurance plan administrator.****

If people want their erectile dysfuction and birth control paid by insurers than they should pay more for insurance and others can opt for plans that do not include this and those people don't get shafted with these bills.

If we can't even do this than there really is NO hope.

I agree with the greatest conservative talk show host of all time Bob Grant - it is too late.

We are in MHO looking at some serious upheavels and social disruption. 

We are looking at Europe.

Bob Grant noted when a caller to his program this weekend to his talk show expressed his belief that Brock's goal is to destroy this country that one of Brock's favorite pet sayings was if you want to rebuild a house you have to tear it down first.

Well he doing an outstanding job.

With all the fiscal problems he is now telling us to worry about birth control - a nod to the female activists.  sad
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #876 on: August 02, 2011, 05:50:36 AM »


Snapshots from President Obama's efforts to improve America's standing in the world, 923 days into his administration:

A is for the Arab world, and our standing in it: This year, Zogby International found that 5% of Egyptians had a favorable view of the U.S. In 2008, when George W. Bush was president, it was 9%.

B is for the federal budget deficit, which is estimated to come in at around 11% of GDP in 2011, up from about 3% in 2008.

C is for China's military budget. For 2012, Beijing plans to increase spending on defense by 12.7%. The Obama administration, by contrast, proposed Pentagon cuts in April averaging out to $40 billion per year over the next decade, and Congress may soon cut a lot more.

D is for—what else—the federal debt, which grew to $14.3 trillion this month from $10.7 trillion at the end of 2008. D is also for the dollar, which has lost almost half its value against gold since Aug. 2008.

E is for energy. The average retail price of a gallon of gas hovered near the $1.80 mark when Mr. Obama was inaugurated. It has since more than doubled. E is also for ethanol, the non-wonder fuel the U.S. continues to subsidize to the tune of $5 billion a year.

View Full Image

Getty Images
F is for free trade. Bill Clinton signed Nafta in 1994, which facilitates $1.6 trillion in the trade of goods and services between the U.S., Mexico and Canada. George W. Bush midwifed more than a dozen FTAs, from Australia to Singapore to Morocco to Bahrain. Number of FTA's signed by the current president: zero.

G is for Guantanamo, which remains open, and for Gadhafi, who remains in power, and for Greece, which offers a vision of America's future if we don't reform our entitlement state.

H is for Hillary Clinton, who—I can't believe I'm writing this—would have made a better president than Mr. Obama.

I is for Israel, a Middle Eastern country the president claims to support even as he routinely disses its prime minister, seeks to shrink its borders and—why not?—divide its capital.

J is for jobs. In November 2008, president-elect Obama promised he would create 2.5 million jobs by 2011. By October 2010 the economy had shed 3.3 million jobs.

K is for Karzai, Hamid, Afghanistan's feckless leader. Still, the Obama administration probably did itself no favors by publicly dumping on the man, leading him to seek new best friends in Tehran.

L is for Laden, Osama bin. The president's greatest triumph, which will forever put him one notch—if only one notch—above Jimmy Carter.

M is for Mexico, a country that manages 5.4% unemployment and 4.2% annual growth even as it fights a war against the drug cartels.

N is for NATO, once a pillar of Western security, which Mr. Obama is in the process of destroying through his decision to withdraw from Afghanistan and his refusal to give NATO the push it needs to win in Libya.

O is for ObamaCare, which goes far to explain B, D, J as well as the Greek part of G.

P is for Pyongyang, whose ruler the administration is once again attempting to engage in the six-party talks. This is after the Kim regime welcomed Mr. Obama's plea for a nuclear-free world by testing a nuclear bomb, torpedoing a South Korean ship, shelling a South Korean village, and unveiling a state-of-the-art uranium enrichment facility.

Q is for QE2, the most disastrous experiment in monetary policy since Fed Chairman William Miller's low-interest rate policy crashed the dollar in 1978.

R is for the reset with Russia, the principal result of which is an arms-control treaty that brings us to parity in strategic nuclear weapons, leaves us behind in the tactical category, and ill-equips us for the challenge of a proliferating world.

S is for shovel-ready. Enough said.

T is for taxes, which Mr. Obama would like to see raised for "millionaires and billionaires"—curiously defined as people making $200K and up.

U is for Iran's uranium enrichment. When Mr. Obama came to office promising to extend his hand to the mullahs, Iran had enriched 1,000 kilos of uranium. Today they have produced more than 4,000 kilos.

V is for Venezuela, a country whose extensive subterranean links to Iran the administration has consistently downplayed.

W is for the Dubya, whose presidency now looks like a model of spending restraint.

X is for Liu Xiaobo, an example of what a deserving winner of the Nobel Peace Prize looks like. X is also for Xanax, likely to be remembered as the drug of choice of the Obama years.

Y is for Yes, We Can! Unfortunately, it's also for Yemen.

Z is for zero, which is the likelihood that one of the current GOP hopefuls will defeat Mr. Obama in 2012.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #877 on: August 02, 2011, 10:43:03 AM »

"Z is for zero, which is the likelihood that one of the current GOP hopefuls will defeat Mr. Obama in 2012."

I disagree.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #878 on: August 02, 2011, 12:23:03 PM »

I agree with CCP.  Other than that ending, it was a clever and wide ranging recap (Bret Stephens, WSJ) of the Obama years so far. The surprise ending that none of a wide range of challengers can possibly defeat him, more than a year out, seems to defy the reality that Obama has sank like a stone in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, etc etc. 

I guess his point is either that the successful victor will come from other than 'one of the current GOP hopefuls' (other than Perry and perhaps Palin I don't expect more serious entrants), or is it that this country and world is doomed so why bother subscribe or read his future columns(?)
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #879 on: August 02, 2011, 12:59:34 PM »

To me it is a wonderment that his numbers are as high as they are.  Also remember that a goodly percentage of his negatives (25% IIRC) come from disappointed progressives.   Note too the approval numbers of Congress are WAY lower than Baraq's.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #880 on: August 02, 2011, 01:46:12 PM »

"To me it is a wonderment that his numbers are as high as they are."  - Agree, unfortunately.  We are only winning the argument against all powerful government at the margins.  We had to lose almost all industries to complete government control in order to approach 50% of the people saying they have gone too far.

"Also remember that a goodly percentage of his negatives (25% IIRC) come from disappointed progressives." 

Yes, maybe not that high but becoming very significant.  A two edged sword: the loss of support from his base will never turn into Bachmann, Perry or Cain votes, but it does weaken him.  Loss of support from his base contributed to the growing irrelevance and early lame duck status of G.W.Bush, (but that was during his second term).

"Note too the approval numbers of Congress are WAY lower than Baraq's."

Yes.  These numbers were consistently miserable for a long time and I don't understand exactly why.  I watch the numbers at Real Clear Politics.  Currently they have congressional approval at 18.5% with the number that follows fairly evenly split, R's over D's by 1.2%.  My read of that number with poll bias (poll responders versus actual voters) has been that Republican had to be less than 4-5% behind to break even in the real election.  In that sense they are up by a little more than the 1%.  Congressional approval is difficult to judge.  How is a John Boehner or Harry Reid fan supposed to judge the other chamber or like the overall results?  75% disapproval means that R's, Dems and independents alike agree that they are not getting their way in congress. 

For the President, the Rasmussen index maps strong approval against strong disapproval for a pretty good idea of where the energy in the room is.  That bottomed at -21% a few days ago when no deal was coming through, now back to -18%, 23% strongly approve vs. 41% strongly disapprove:  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #881 on: August 02, 2011, 02:18:19 PM »

"To me it is a wonderment that his numbers are as high as they are."

I agree.  I guess it shows the power of bribery for those who are getting entitlements.  It goes to show the exteme hurdle the right must overcome when 50% pay no fed income taxes.

"These numbers were consistently miserable for a long time and I don't understand exactly why."

I don't think it is much better than when Pelosi was in charge.
Some of it those on the right and left wings are not happy.
The MSM likes to encourage bashing the House yet protect Brock. 
The MSM likes to demarginalize the Tea Party.

It is easier for Americans to blame the Houses for all our spending rather than admit many of us are responsible or need to stop feeding at the trough.  You know the not in my back yard or don't take from me take from them attitude.

The circus was not what happened with this debt ceiling debate but the lack of fight over all previous debates.  In the past the clowns were those in both houses who would raise the debt ceiling endlessly without question.

We were the dupes.  If not for the T party we still would be.



Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #882 on: August 02, 2011, 03:00:52 PM »

Looking forward to the first mainstream analysis to point out that the timing deadline of the deal was based more on the Aug 4 birthday party than the Aug 3 default.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #883 on: August 03, 2011, 02:09:34 PM »

I consider myself quite accomplished in the field of bungled analogies, but President Obama telling the nation, or was it just the rich, to eat peas will go down sadly as the most memorable moment of this lousy episode that we just survived of our nation's great history.

A degree from Columbia and a degree from Harvard, he came from the very best private schools in Hawaii, he served in the State Senate of Illinois and then in the world's greatest deliberative body - the United States Senate, and the best he could do to characterize the incentive/disincentive effects of raising tax rates on the producers and job creators in the private sector of a dynamic, competitive, global, capital investment based productive economy is ... ... "eat your peas"??

We may think Carter was the bungler with his malaise speech and his gas rationing lines, but people should recall that the Republican economic wisdom of those years wasn't a whole lot better.  President Ford thought the answer to spiraling inflation was a PR campaign called "Whip Inflation Now", as if merchants foregoing a price increase and workers turning down a wage increase was the cure for inflation or the path to prosperity.  That was only a little better than his predecessor, President Nixon, who in a Stalinist moment decided to implement a nationwide "price, wage, freeze" and form a committee, in advance of the Obamacare waiver committee, to review any emergency exceptions to our national price fixing program that may be necessary.

Reagan slashes tax rates and revenues double in a decade.  Volcker gets control over the money supply and the dollar stabilizes.  Clinton and Gingrich end welfare as we know it, pass Reagan's hemisphere-wide free trade and slashed the rate of taxation on gains from long term capital investments and the economy surged to the point of a briefly, unheard of, balanced budget!

The Bush economy surged 50 months only after growth policies finally kicked in and retreated after the ending to growth policies was electorally certain.

Then along comes President Obama.  Program after Keynesian program has failed, from 'Cash for Clunkers' to Shovel Ready Projects' to the tune of a trillion and half 'fiscal stimulus' per year and with new debt at the permanent rate of borrowing an amazing $4 billion a day.  All of it making things worse.  Why?  Because the problem in the first place was not that the public sector had gotten too small!

So what is this President's last flailing?  Eat your peas. 

Excuse me but where is the evidence to support the idea that higher tax rates are good for us?  History seems to say otherwise.  Aren't boiled and canned peas about the least nutritious of all the green vegetables, besides still being bland even with all the added salt? 

Lastly Mr. President, with all due respect, we are adults now and you are not our parent.  The vegetables will be of OUR choosing and we might even decide to have a little ice cream later - without asking.   wink

  - Doug

Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #884 on: August 04, 2011, 12:04:56 PM »

What if I'm alergic to peas or not rich?
Good stuff Doug. I agree completely.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #885 on: August 04, 2011, 01:41:07 PM »

Thank you Hello Kitty for the kind words.

"What if I'm allergic to peas..."

Very funny!

It turns out fresh peas are high in fiber, iron, magnesium, potassium, and Vitamin A, B6, and C.

But if you are allergic or are fighting hypermagnesemia, the answer with an all-powerful central government is still eat your peas.  If a new federal minimum wage law does more harm than good in an isolated village somewhere in America, the answer is fire everyone working below the new minimum wage.  If 26 states don't want Obamacare, their answer is Obamacare.  If your kidney, heart or diabetic condition could be eased with raw milk (http://www.realmilk.com/milkcure.html) or some new drug bogged down in the FDA bureaucracy, the answer is... tough luck.  Government knows best and you just don't realize that how good coercion can be for you.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #886 on: August 04, 2011, 02:28:51 PM »

The comments from the Democratic party led by Brock is so of the charts crazy now one has to conclude he really is about destroying America only to rebuild as a some sort of Marxist state.  I firmly believe this is what he is all about.

But the mainstream media that protects him is really criminal....

There cannot be any compromise - he must be completely defeated along with the rest of the progressives.

I hope it is not too late.

I hope those bribed on entitlements will soon wake up and smell the rot that has infected America.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #887 on: August 04, 2011, 03:48:43 PM »

 shocked
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #888 on: August 06, 2011, 11:36:01 AM »

A family man with a wife, 2 small children and a dog named BO wouldn't want to spend this special birthday during August recess with his family, when the opportunity presents itself to sell tickets to big donors for big money.
------------------------

Here a clip you just might hear during the campaign:

Today Show with Matt Lauer Feb 1 2009 (with Gallup approval rating at 66%):

“Look, I’m at the start of my administration. One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years,” Obama told The Today Show’s Matt Lauer on February 1, 2009.

“A year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress,” said Obama. ”But there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/28975726/ns/today-today_people/t/obama-were-suffering-massive-hangover/#.TjsAwL9bapU

Video at the link.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #889 on: August 06, 2011, 11:50:13 AM »

"One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable"

To finish his unstated thoughts...

..... by my political enemies.  Howevery I will deny responsibility for anything that turns out bad and take credit for every and any good news.

I will deny responsibility at every moment every turn every stop.

It is all the fault of the tea party, the republicans, the racists, the rich, the corporations.

Thank God I am here to protect the American people from them.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #890 on: August 06, 2011, 12:04:22 PM »

CCP, Yes, 'it was worse than we thought'.  George Bush screwed up left field so badly that nobody can play it.
-----------------------
CNBC Oct 16, 2009

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33342777/My_Interview_With_Treasury_Secretary_Tim_Geithner

...
Sec. GEITHNER: Well, recovery is going to work for Americans requires a recovery led by the private sector, requires recovery led by private demand that's going to be strong enough to be sustainable. And that means that you're going to have to still make sure there's enough support to reinforce that process of recovery. But when we have growth back in place, we also got to bring down those long-term deficits, make sure we go back to living within our means. And that's like the difficulty--that's the--that's the difficult balance to get right. But I think we're going to get that right. We're not going to make the mistake many countries made in the past of putting the brakes on too early and creating risk that we have a, you know, weaker recovery with even higher levels of unemployment going forward.
...
Sec. GEITHNER: Stimulus has been remarkably effective, and the combined effect of stimulus, as it was designed and the efforts we took to stabilize the financial system, bring capital and private capital in, have been remarkably effective in arresting the freefall in economic growth we saw here and around the world and laying the foundation for growth. Now, you're seeing growth now for the first time, really, in almost two years. And that's a very encouraging sign. But it's very early still, and again, our job is to make sure that we're encouraging that process. And recovery act was designed so it's going to provide support over a two-year period of time, and you're just now starting to see--probably in the summer you started for the first time to see money start to flow and projects start to get financed. But a key part of stimulus was tax cuts to businesses and families and support to state and local governments, and those things had very immediate, very powerful effect.
...
BARTIROMO: So do we need a second stimulus? ...
BARTIROMO: A good case for a second stimulus?

Sec. GEITHNER: No
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #891 on: August 06, 2011, 12:06:19 PM »

Some turnover is normal, but what happened to economic advisers Volcker, Buffet, Summers, Roemer and now Goolsby?

Austan Goolsby, Obama's current Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, will leave his position this summer and return to teaching.

http://www.news-gazette.com/opinions/editorials/2011-06-10/bad-economy-taking-its-toll-advisers.html

"Goolsby, a longtime Obama adviser, has been one of the leading proponents of the idea that increased government spending would stimulate the economy into a roaring recovery."

SHOULD HE BE TEACHING?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #892 on: August 07, 2011, 09:52:38 AM »

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/06/flashback_geithner_says_no_risk_to_us_aaa_credit_rating.html

Flashback: Geithner Says No Risk To US' AAA Credit Rating

"No risk of that, no risk," Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner said on the Fox Business Network in April. (source The Hill)    Video at the link.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #893 on: August 07, 2011, 12:56:21 PM »

How do you handle the stress, as Commander in Chief, of identifying Navy Seal Team Six as the group who "got him" [bin Laden] only to have them shot down over an enemy territory within just a few months, worst loss in 10 years in Afghanistan, that he has already announced abandoning?

How do you respond to the worst financial slap in our history, to have S&P Frriday after market closing downgrading the United States of America, for the first time in our history, leaving 18 countries with higher ratings, and planning to downgrade us further if you continues on the same course?

What is your next course of action, if you are President, on both fronts, not to mention jobs?  He must be swamped in advisory or deep in his own thought, brainstorming for solutions and direction.  Maybe even praying for wisdom and solutions to come to him in church?

Nope, he's commanding his SUV motorcade over to the golf course today.  Followed by a beer and cheeseburger.  It's Sunday and he's the leader of the free world and he will do what he wants, whenever he wants.  Crisis? What Crisis?

Right now, saving bogey is more important than any economic or military setback.  Those can be led from behind.  The golf ball just sits there on the tee until you take a swing at it.  Good luck America.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/08/where-is-the-leader-of-the-free-world-golfing/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #894 on: August 07, 2011, 01:00:38 PM »

Too bad he doesn't play violin. He could play while the markets burn tomorrow.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #895 on: August 07, 2011, 02:20:25 PM »

Sinking like a stone, but maybe people will like us better without all that prosperity.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #896 on: August 08, 2011, 08:24:06 AM »

Is Obama finally bringing left and right together?

Byron York on Drew Westen’s Sunday NYT piece chopping up Obama from the left:
 
Why has Obama been such a disappointment?  Westen comes up with a few theories that sound strikingly familiar to Obama’s critics on the right.  Perhaps Obama “is simply not up to the task” of being president.  Perhaps the Democrats who were so dazzled by his campaign speeches should have noticed “some disquieting aspects of his biography.”  Among those disquieting aspects: “that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted ‘present’ (instead of ‘yea’ or ‘nay’) 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.”  Go to any conservative blog, and you’ll find many similar critiques, dating to well before the 2008 election.
 
P.S.: Westen also finds Obama’s core argument that his health care reform will “bend the cost curve” to be an “unbelievable and even more uninspiring claim.” Common ground! …


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/08/obama-brings-us-together/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #897 on: August 08, 2011, 09:32:32 PM »

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/08/krauthammer-blasts-obama-as-weak-plaintive-and-small/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #898 on: August 09, 2011, 02:30:26 AM »

The aircraft was large, modern and considered among the world's safest. But that night it was flying straight into a huge thunderstorm. Turbulence was extreme, and airspeed indicators may not have been functioning properly. Worse, the pilots were incompetent. As the plane threatened to stall they panicked by pointing the nose up, losing speed when they ought to have done the opposite. It was all over in minutes.

Was this the fate of Flight 447, the Air France jet that plunged mysteriously into the Atlantic a couple of years ago? Could be. What I'm talking about here is the Obama presidency.

When it comes to piloting, Barack Obama seems to think he's the political equivalent of Charles Lindbergh, Chuck Yeager and—in a "Fly Me to the Moon" sort of way—Nat King Cole rolled into one. "I think I'm a better speech writer than my speech writers," he reportedly told an aide in 2008. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I'll tell you right now that I'm . . . a better political director than my political director."

On another occasion—at the 2004 Democratic convention—Mr. Obama explained to a Chicago Tribune reporter that "I'm LeBron, baby. I can play at this level. I got game."

Of course, it's tempting to be immodest when your admirers are so immodest about you. How many times have we heard it said that Mr. Obama is the smartest president ever? Even when he's criticized, his failures are usually chalked up to his supposed brilliance. Liberals say he's too cerebral for the Beltway rough-and-tumble; conservatives often seem to think his blunders, foreign and domestic, are all part of a cunning scheme to turn the U.S. into a combination of Finland, Cuba and Saudi Arabia.

I don't buy it. I just think the president isn't very bright.

Socrates taught that wisdom begins in the recognition of how little we know. Mr. Obama is perpetually intent on telling us how much he knows. Aristotle wrote that the type of intelligence most needed in politics is prudence, which in turn requires experience. Mr. Obama came to office with no experience. Plutarch warned that flattery "makes itself an obstacle and pestilence to great houses and great affairs." Today's White House, more so than any in memory, is stuffed with flatterers.

View Full Image

Associated Press
 
President Barack Obama
.Much is made of the president's rhetorical gifts. This is the sort of thing that can be credited only by people who think that a command of English syntax is a mark of great intellectual distinction. Can anyone recall a memorable phrase from one of Mr. Obama's big speeches that didn't amount to cliché? As for the small speeches, such as the one we were kept waiting 50 minutes for yesterday, we get Triple-A bromides about America remaining a "Triple-A country." Which, when it comes to long-term sovereign debt, is precisely what we no longer are under Mr. Obama.

Then there is Mr. Obama as political tactician. He makes predictions that prove false. He makes promises he cannot honor. He raises expectations he cannot meet. He reneges on commitments made in private. He surrenders positions staked in public. He is absent from issues in which he has a duty to be involved. He is overbearing when he ought to be absent. At the height of the financial panic of 1907, Teddy Roosevelt, who had done much to bring the panic about by inveighing against big business, at least had the good sense to stick to his bear hunt and let J.P. Morgan sort things out. Not so this president, who puts a new twist on an old put-down: Every time he opens his mouth, he subtracts from the sum total of financial capital.

Then there's his habit of never trimming his sails, much less tacking to the prevailing wind. When Bill Clinton got hammered on health care, he reverted to centrist course and passed welfare reform. When it looked like the Iraq war was going to be lost, George Bush fired Don Rumsfeld and ordered the surge.

Mr. Obama, by contrast, appears to consider himself immune from error. Perhaps this explains why he has now doubled down on Heckuva Job Geithner. It also explains his insulting and politically inept habit of suggesting—whether the issue is health care, or Arab-Israeli peace, or change we can believe in at some point in God's good time—that the fault always lies in the failure of his audiences to listen attentively. It doesn't. In politics, a failure of communication is always the fault of the communicator.

Much of the media has spent the past decade obsessing about the malapropisms of George W. Bush, the ignorance of Sarah Palin, and perhaps soon the stupidity of Rick Perry. Nothing is so typical of middling minds than to harp on the intellectual deficiencies of the slightly less smart and considerably more successful.

But it takes actual smarts to understand that glibness and self-belief are not sufficient proof of genuine intelligence. Stupid is as stupid does, said the great philosopher Forrest Gump. The presidency of Barack Obama is a case study in stupid does.

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #899 on: August 09, 2011, 10:07:28 AM »

My psychoanalysis is that he is intelligent in certain respects but has a deficient personality.

He has no self insight.  He is unable to take real responsibility.

He blames others for his faults mistakes and errors.

He cannot get past this.

I believe one aspect of real intellegence is to be able to objectively evaluate oneself and one's beliefs.  He is unable.  He is deficient in this regard.  In this respect he is totally mentally retarded.

His triumphant con game no longer flies.  He is unable to change.  This is a hallmark of a personality disorder.  They are always right.
They love themselves beyond anything else.  It is all about him and his self love.

He can't see it any other way.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 33 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!