Wednesday, January 27, 2010

7 Lies of Obama

We’ve all heard of the 7 deadly sins and the 7 Wonders of the World but what about the 7 Lies of Obama? They exist, except you won’t hear about them on the MSM -- they’re probably hidden in a vault in a dungeon under the MSNBC building and guarded by Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman.



#1. Open and Transparent Government.

Um, yeah, this has worked out really well for us, hasn’t it? Have any of YOU seen MORE transparency with our Government? Or is it just the same old same old?

#2. Obama said, Sunlight is the greatest disinfection*.

I believe it should be, “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman .” Which is a well known quote by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

#3. He promised to make it impossible for Congressmen and Lobbyists to slip pork barrel projects or corporate welfare into laws when no one was looking.

I must've blinked. How about you, did you blink or were you looking?

#4. No more secrecy. Open to the public.

Oh, so that’s why the doors are CLOSED! I was under the impression that CLOSED doors meant PRIVACY, what the heck was I thinking!

#5. He said we will have 5 days to look on-line and find out what’s in a bill.

We had zero days for the Stimulus bill and three days for the Health Care bill. I believe 0 and 3 are LESS than 5. I could be wrong—I’m not a math wizard…

#6. He said we will know the names of corporations who benefit and how much money they will get on all tax bills.

Again, I’m thinking—NOT.

#7. Every corporate tax break and every pork barrel project and who asked for them will be on-line so we will know if our Representative is doing his job and working for us.

I checked on-line but couldn't find this information. Oh, wait! I didn’t check the internet that Al Gore invented! That’s probably where these bills are posted! My bad.



In all seriousness, BROKEN promises in less than 2 minutes.

Now, did Candidate Obama make those promises knowing he would not be able to fulfill them? Or did he make them with every intention of fulfilling them but once becoming President realized he couldn’t?

I’m sure I won’t get an answer but tonight is his State of the Union Address –it should be interesting at best.


*I've listened to this part of the video 6 times and it sounds like he's saying disinfection. If you think it's disinfectant, let me know.

121 comments:

  1. Okay. You can call them "lies." Others can call them "promises broken."

    PolitiFact has done an excellent job of tracking President Obama's campaign promises and Mr. Obama has actually broken 15 of his promises, but has kept 91.

    He has compromised on 33 promises.
    ("You can't always get what you want...")

    87 promises are stalled due to various reasons--among them the obstructionist GOP.

    275 promises ARE IN THE WORKS. No president in the history of this country was able to fulfill every campaiagn promise in his first year. None.

    So one could call an unkept promise a lie, or just finding out that promising something during a campaign then discovering that that promise is not feasible or would be politically imprudent are two different things.

    I know this is a blog with a conservative POV, and so I expect people here to get on Mr. Obama's backside for not fulfilling campaign promises.

    However, if one looks at his record, one can see that he's doing damn good on keeping campaign promises.

    It's a matter of looking at the glass being half full. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. “Mr. Kool” was never cool, nor does he know anything about heat.
    Obama just doesn’t get it, and neither does his supposedly “brilliant” Attorney General Herr Eric Holder!
    He is over his head and panicky and should get some sensible people around him who care about the country rather than the cult of The One and left wing weirdo programs.”

    One of his MANY problems is that his closest advisers are his top campaign staff holdovers, from Timothy Fritz Geithner,to Eric Holder, to Jarret and Rahm Emanuel may know how to run a campaign but they don’t know sh*t about governing the country...
    Fortunately, he will be a one term president and hopefully his agenda won't get any further than the floor of Congress.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lies, yes, that's about all this sack of crap does is tell lies one after another.
    It is very difficult to keep telling the same lie and not expect the people to begin to see through it. Obama hasn't made a case for his agenda because he cannot tell the truth about it and survive politically.
    In only one year into this administration all indications point to the conclusion that many of the electorate have measured Mr. Obama's worth and found him lacking. Severely. After a litany of missteps, inappropriate appointments, pedantic conclusions, outright lies, outrageous back room deals, ostentatious spending and pointless blabberings, it seems there is not only serious buyer's remorse. Even his own pary is sick of him and his socialist agenda. He has wasted a whole year on his healthcare crapapola and even that is in deep doo doo right now. Obama won't really change because he is a statist/socialist idealouge who truly believes an elite cadre of fellow leftists know what is best for this country... From Marx to Hitler to Stalin to Mao to Castro they have always been failures as is Obama and will be...The spell is broken, the people have woken up, the fairytale is at an end.

    The Madness of King Barack (Mr. Phoney) is becoming evident. As is Lady "Antoinette" Pelosi.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's hard to believe it but it's true, this guy is a lot worse than Jimmy Carter. I guess experience does matter.......Fortunately, he will be a one term president and hopefully his agenda gets put on the shelf. Obama is a disaster.
    And to you Liberal, Democrats Obama lover's let me say this... Get off the koolaid, buck up, live with the humiliation and start demanding more of your party. They are supposed to serve you after you vote for them, not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You make some very good points, I’d add that this WH thinks their problem is their message is not getting out (despite hundreds of speeches, press conferences, phony stacked “town hall” meetings, etc..), that’s where they’re wrong. It’s not delivery, it’s the policies, Americans by and large do not want RADICAL change. Bambi promised in 2008 that if elected he would govern from the center, unfortunately his definition of the word “center” is his insatiable need to be the center of attention.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A lesson in the gullibiliy of the American people who were looking for one man to save the world.
    To the the bobble heads that voted for him, there's a sale on all of his memorabilia ... Everything is now 50% to 75% off.
    By the way Pam, this site is always much better when there are fewer Libs posting here.
    A word to the wise...

    ReplyDelete
  7. The things more frightening than the Christmas Airline Bomb attempt are the implications of the Obama Administration’s response to it. A great deal of media effort has gone into avoiding the disclosure of the name of the administration official who made the decision to try the bomber in civilian courts. Holder is left in position to take the fall for that which is clearly Obama’s decision in the matter. Placing Holder under the bus now would be a good thing to do for everyone involved. There is no doubt now that the administration IS attempting to return us to a pre-911 mentality and has embraced leftist attitudes about terrorist acts of war. The administration began by playing with definitions like trying to describe 911 as a “manmade disaster.” We no longer have a global war on terror with two major fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan; we have “two wars.”

    Evidently the administration will be taking the liberal’s attitude that a string of occasional losses of 3 or 4 hundred airline passengers and even 3 thousand lives on 911 is not to be the provocation for a military response by war. It must instead be defined as a criminal episode because the administration has its socialist agenda to follow and it seeks to tap the military budget along the way to fund that agenda. Maybe if we ignore terrorist attacks they will like us better and not attack us anymore? As long as one of our own loved ones is not among the victims, who cares?
    If President Obama is serious about keeping the American people safe, he should reverse his irresponsible and ill-advised decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility,” she said.

    “He should reverse his decision to usher terrorists from Guantanamo onto U.S. soil. He should reverse his decision to bring the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to New York. He should reverse his decision to give KSM and other terrorists the rights of Americans and the benefit of a criminal trial in an American civilian court.
    He should immediately classify Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bomber, as an illegal enemy combatant, not a criminal defendant. He should inform Attorney General (Eric) Holder that he will no longer allow the Justice Department to treat terrorism as a crime instead of an act of war.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Shaw; But some of the promises were so EASY. Easy for Obama to keep without any involvement from others. No external forces on which to hang excuses.

    Consider his promise to veto earmark-laden bills as one, and his promise not to hire lobbyists as another. Easy to keep, but he could not wait to break them.

    It's his White House staff. His veto pen.

    As for the promise of "Open and Transparent Government", is there any record of the President objecting to many efforts by the Dems in Congress to keep the workings of the healthcare bill secret?


    This article shows the President directly breaking that promise with closed-door healthcare meetings.

    "Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation expressed the watchdog community’s frustration when he said, bluntly, “This is a broken promise. We didn’t get anywhere near the level of transparency that we were promised.”

    Another promise he was eager to break.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This guy has learned nothing and continues to be all form and no substance. His insane CONSTANT Bush bashing is the sign of a man with not one thought of his own.
    He said that we should stop finger pointing..and that the American people are tired of the partisanship. A very Interesting choice of words,. except in the next sentence he gets on the Bush Bashing wagon again.
    Well Mr. Cool, we are tired of the way you blame Bush, and treat Republicans and react to the criticism aimed at YOU!
    This guy is mentally disturbed in my opinion. But he sure know how to smile and act COOL!
    By the way, did anyone besides me notice that Joe Biden's head looked like a Bobble head!

    ReplyDelete
  10. That was an excellent post and sespone to Obama's spech Malcontent. Great Job.. There were so many lies and absurdities in last night's SOTU that I had to take some time to cool off. It didn't work. How dare he blame President Bush for his mishandling of any issue over one year after he's left office.

    Any Republican or Democrat who cares about saving their skin should drop this whole farce of health care insurance and cap and trade (tax). It is nice to be able to tell people how to run their lives when you don't have to live under those same rules. You fly around on a jet that we pay for, you live in a house that we paid for, and you have the gall to talk to us as if we're idiots? Seriously, this "dude" needs a reality check.. This kind of performance (LIES, Blame, Finger Pointing ) is simply NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR AMERICA!

    ReplyDelete
  11. At best the speech was incoherent and self-contradictory. The Bush Bashing was completely uncalled for in a speech designed to unite.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I thought it was like a childish rant from a reckless adolescent president. A very embarrassing moment in American history. His speechwriter should be fired except it was most likely written by one of his daughters.
    The audacity and the arrogance of this fool is just astounding! Just how stupid does he and his cronies think the American public are?
    Obama defined himself last night. Obama insulted the opposition last night. He drew a line in the sand and dared the nation to defy him. All across the this country, patriots prepared for battle. He's an idiot idealogue who never generated an original or charitable thought of his own, and mirrors himself in the faces of his drooling Court.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, as expected, this brain dead jackass has shown his remarkable ability to learn nothing from experience. The economy is floundering, the government is stealing the citizens blind, the intrusions into the lives and the freedoms of the people have never been more numerous and onerous, and the people are rumbling in the initial stages of rebellion, and this communist-moron wants more of the same.
    By the way did he forget to talk about National Security! Oh I forget there was ONE line about it.. Anyone remember what it was?
    Anyway you look at it it, He is still stuck on stupid

    ReplyDelete
  14. Last night's speech was President Obama at his oratorical best.
    He expreessed his bullshit with a brilliant display of his oratorical gift. The most disappointing part of Obama’s address aside from his lies, was on international affairs, a subject he finally turned to about an hour into his speech.
    the president seemed to treat consequential matters of war, terrorism and foreign relations generally as an afterthought. This may suit the public’s present mood, but it didn’t reveal much about how this president connects America’s purposes abroad to what he wants to achieve at home.

    ReplyDelete
  15. So, Let’s Recap “2009″………what a year!

    1. The American people elect a black president with a total of 142 days experience as a US Senator from the most politically corrupt state (city) in America whose governors have been ousted from office.

    The President’s first official act is to order the close of Gitmo and make sure terrorists civil rights are not violated.

    (honest mistake?)

    2. The U.S. Congress rushes to confirm a black Attorney General, Eric Holder, whose law firm we later find out represents seventeen Gitmo Terrorists.

    (An honest mistake?!)

    3. The CIA Boss appointee, Leon Panetta, has absolutely no experience, has a daughter Linda, we find out, who is a true radical anti-American activist and a supporter of all the Anti-American regimes in the western hemisphere.

    (There were socio-economic factors involved!)

    4. We got the second most corrupt American woman (Pelosi is #1) as Secretary of State; bought and paid for.

    (You can put lipstick on a pig, but it still stinks!)

    5. We got a Tax Cheat for Treasury Secretary who did not properly file his own taxes for 12 years.

    (He misspoke!)

    6. A Commerce Secretary nominee who withdrew due to corruption charges.

    (Another honest mistake???)

    7. A Tax cheat nominee for Chief Performance Officer who withdrew under charges.

    (Hmmm… another screw-up?)

    8. A Labor Secretary nominee who withdrew under charges of unethical conduct.

    (Ok, maybe this person was just plain stupid.)

    9. A Secretary HHS nominee (Daschle) who withdrew under charges of cheating on his taxes.
    (I’m running out of excuses for these idiots!!)

    10. Multiple appointments of former lobbyists after an absolute campaign statement that no lobbyists would be appointed.

    (Dear God, I am getting a headache!)

    All this occurred just during the first three weeks. . . but who’s counting?

    America is being run by the modern-day Three Stooges; Barry, Nancy and Harry and they are still trying to define stimulus…”it’s spending!!!”

    The congress passes the $800,000,000,000 (that’s $800 billion) pork-loaded spending bill where the government gives you a smidgen of your tax dollars ($13 per week), making you feel so good about yourself [stimulated], that you want to run out to Wal-Mart and buy a new Chinese-made HDTV and go home and watch Telemundo!

    Only with the Liberals…

    Pray for our country.

    Here’s the good news though – Obama took Air Force One to Denver to sign the stimulus package, wasting as much as 10,000 gallons of fuel OR 24 JOBS FOR ONE YEAR.

    Don’t you just love hypocrites?

    Speaking of praying, Obama has now been president for eleven months and yet he & wife (first lady) Michelle, the Christian family they claim to be, have not attended church since the inauguration.

    He must miss Reverend Wright!

    In these times ‘I’ll keep my God, my freedom, my gun and my money. Anyone that supports this insanity can keep “THE CHANGE”.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Last night's speech was President Obama at his oratorical best.
    He expreessed his bullshit with a brilliant display of his oratorical gift. The most disappointing part of Obama’s address aside from his lies, was on international affairs, a subject he finally turned to about an hour into his speech.
    the president seemed to treat consequential matters of war, terrorism and foreign relations generally as an afterthought. This may suit the public’s present mood, but it didn’t reveal much about how this president connects America’s purposes abroad to what he wants to achieve at home.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I Said: According to Google, your comments here have been spammed to at least 67 blogs or forums.

    Now, I have no idea what Pamela's rules are on spammers.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And Shaw said: "Okay. You can call them "lies." Others can call them "promises broken."

    I know the difference. The lies include things like Obama saying that he had cut the exorbitant pay of White House aides to a certain level.... and then a simple fact check shows that there are White House aids being paid more than twice the level he claimed as the ceiling.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Finally, Shaw, what do you call a promise made when there is no evidence that he intended to keep it? i.e. one broken quickly without any thought to it?

    Are those lies, or not? Thinking about his ethics-related promises.

    ReplyDelete
  20. dmarks: "Finally, Shaw, what do you call a promise made when there is no evidence that he intended to keep it? i.e. one broken quickly without any thought to it?

    Are those lies, or not? Thinking about his ethics-related promises."

    The key word is "intent." Where's the evidence that he DIDN'T INTEND to keep a promise? Where do you find it? In your own mind or suspicions? [I'm not referring to "you" personally--but the "you" as in "one."]

    Unless you can find concrete evidence where a president says or writes "I promise no lobbyists in the WH, but really I don't intend to keep that promise," then all you have is a SUSPICION that he didn't INTEND to keep a promise--but absolutely no evidence. That wouldn't hold up in court.

    And how on earth does anyone know that a promise is broken "without any thought to it?" You cannot read the president's mind. You're projecting what you think he's doing. There is no way you know the thought processes of another person.

    I set out in the first comment in this thread all the promises he's broken, kept, is working on, promises that are stalled, and ones that are in the works. His record is pretty good.

    As I said it's one thing to make promises during a campaign, it's another thing to find out it is not fiscally or politically feasible to do so.

    To call a broken promise a "lie" is, IMHO, going overboard.

    It's a good lesson for all politicians to learn. Don't make promises you can't keep.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dmarks said: I Said: According to Google, your comments here have been spammed to at least 67 blogs or forums.

    Now, I have no idea what Pamela's rules are on spammers.


    Dmarks: I think spammers are as bad as trolls..."I Said's" comments-- all 10 of them, have been deleted. I thought they were kind of "odd". Thanks for checking into them. 67 blogs! That person needs a life!

    ReplyDelete
  22. I stopped watching Obummer's speech less than halfway through. First, I couldn't stand the repetitive stupidity, and,secondly, I couldn't stand watching the bouncing botox dame behind Obummer.............
    Another tactic from a Marxist this is really it's getting old
    Talk is cheap as were those promises.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Shaw asked: "The key word is "intent." Where's the evidence that he DIDN'T INTEND to keep a promise? Where do you find it"

    Well, if he quickly breaks it very early, that perhaps could be evidence he never intended to keep it, but not proof of course.

    "That wouldn't hold up in court."

    Well, I don't plan on taking the President to court for carelessly making promises that were quickly broken as if they were never made.

    "And how on earth does anyone know that a promise is broken "without any thought to it?"

    Evidence of thought helps. Like some delay, or objection. The one about lobbyists was broken before he even got inaugurated.

    "You cannot read the president's mind. You're projecting what you think he's doing."

    Mostly, I'm looking at what he did. That is, quickly break promises as if they were never made.

    "To call a broken promise a "lie" is, IMHO, going overboard."

    Just tell that to those who said that Dick Cheney lied when he said that US troops coming into Iraq would be welcomed as liberators. That's not even a broken promise: it's a prediction.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Pamela: The Zen guy is another spammer. I popped his "5. We got a Tax Cheat for Treasury Secretary who did not properly file his own taxes for 12 years." line into Google, and found that his entire list has been spammed into 355 blogs or forums.

    It's pretty easy to tell with these. There's always something press-releasy about the proclamations, and they read as if someone barged into a room and started shouting without even bothering to check if someone was in the room first.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Laughing At Them" is also a version of this type of spammer. His/her comment was cut and pasted out of

    "State of the Union: Obama Still Missing a Master Narrative
    January 28, 2010
    Will Marshall"

    at the Progressive Fix web site.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It always makes me feel so much safer knowing that dmarks Chief of the Blog Police is on duty.

    Isn't it more, in fact MUCH MORE important to read the content of the comment rather then dice it and splice it as to whether or not someone "Cut and Pasted" it?

    Dmarks, I would rate your comment in the Top 2 on the “The 5 Stupidest Comments” list.
    Is the message important, relevant, and is it true, is far more important than if someone cut and pasted it.

    I don't see anything in your ridiculously off-base comment that is really important or relevant.
    As for last night's speech, It's not what a politician says, it is what he does. And all I heard from Obama last night was It’s Bush’s fault said in 20 different ways.
    And when it came to he Healthcare bill, He thinks that we don't understand it because he didn't explain to us well enough.
    I guess he thought that AMERICANS ARE TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION WHEN IT IS NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED TO THEM. What a bozo!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Professor: I actually appreciate it when someone points out links like the Zen. Check it out for yourself, it’s…well…you’ll see. And in all honesty I consider THAT type of site “spam” which is the same as a “troll” and I don’t want either on my site.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Prof asked: "Isn't it more, in fact MUCH MORE important to read the content of the comment"

    No. I don't read spams once I find out they are spams,

    Now I will let you go back to reading all those c1al25 and other pharameutical ads you get in email. After all, they're all good deals.

    And how's that money from Nigeria piling up?

    (And there's only one blog cop, as far as I know only Pamela deletes troll posts)

    ReplyDelete
  29. dmarks said...

    Prof asked: "Isn't it more, in fact MUCH MORE important to read the content of the comment"

    (And there's only one blog cop, as far as I know only Pamela deletes troll posts)


    Now Pam has a Apprentice Volunteer to assist her.

    ReplyDelete
  30. An Open Letter To All Democratic Senators!
    The following is a sample of the letter I have e-mailed to all of the Democrats in the United States Senate:

    Dear Senator,

    Please be advised that if the Democrats try to cram a Health Care bill down the throats of The American People using any form of reconciliation, there will be "HELL TO PAY"
    I will VOTE YOU OUT if you vote yes for a Government Health Care take over
    After all you work for us! "We The People" have come out in overwhelming numbers against the House and the Senate bills! It is time to listen to "We The People"

    Here's a novel idea! How about you invite some of your Republican colleagues to meet with you to share their ideas as well. You should also have these meetings in public and televised on CSPAN as your President said numerous times on the campaign trail. REMEMBER!

    When you ignore the "Will of the People" you will find that you are committing political suicide!
    I, and everyone in my family and my friends etc. vow to vote against any Senator or State Representative that votes yes for this government take over of our health care system. As I am sure Nebraska will vote Ben Nelson out!

    The government of a free people does not have the right to make decisions that belong between a patient and their doctor.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Pamela D. Hart said...

    Professor: I actually appreciate it when someone points out links like the Zen. Check it out for yourself, it’s…well…you’ll see. And in all honesty I consider THAT type of site “spam” which is the same as a “troll” and I don’t want either on my site.


    Humm, I must be missing something. I don't get it. Why is he considered "Spam" or a "Troll"
    I didn't find anything stupid, or sarcastic in his comment. Or on his site.
    Well, I guess I’m a too much of a newbie to this blogging thing and I don’t know all the ins and outs of it all, but it seems to me that all your rules would stand to reason. But I can't see why it applies here. I realize that common courtesy and tact should always be used when leaving a comment on another ones blog, but it shouldn't be a requirement. .

    ReplyDelete
  32. I won't comment on any disappointments I've had with President Obama since he seemed to have addressed my concerns with his approach last night.

    I do appreciate Dmarks investigating the spammers and trolls for us. I wonder how our friend from Long Beach New York that posts under dozens of monikers feels about all this spamming and trolling.


    You're a professor professor of Life. Your insight would be valued good sir.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The naivete of the people who think any one President can change the way Congress does its business, is their delusion.
    The naivete of the President to think he can change how the Congress does its business, is his delusion.
    To blame Obama for the working rules of the Congress, or to blame him for not being able to change those rules, is also naive by anyone who thinks it is possible for a President to control the rules of the Congress.
    Your complaints should be directed to the leaders of the Congress, namely Pelosi and Reid, not the President.
    I won't blame Obama for something I knew he could not change, even if he did not. Although, his attempt to try, is better than past Presidents, who never tried at all and used secrecy to advance their policies.
    He is the first President to ban lobbyists from his administration. He has signed authorizations to override his own rules about that, but only in a few cases. Don't give him credit for the 90% of something no other President has done before, just condemn him for the 10% he decided were justified.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Why would anyone listen to the maniacal ravings of a superfluous twit? Because he is president? I tried but all I heard was me me me and them. His solutions are ludicrous. His grasp of our constitution is unparalleled lunacy, which says a lot considering he supposedly taught constitutional issues. Everything he touches turns to, well lets say it isn't pretty or smells so sweet. BHO is a communist who intends to destroy the USA. Along with the rest of his communist cronies. Vote the ALL out, for none are worth a pinch of salt. Let the next batch understand that their oath of allegiance to the USA is punishable by death to traitors.

    ReplyDelete
  35. TRUTH 101 said...I won't comment on any disappointments I've had with President Obama since he seemed to have addressed my concerns with his approach last night.

    Well I will...
    He either hasn't really heard what Americans are saying and are concerned about, or he doesn't care. I believe the latter. He probably is under extreme pressure from Soros and others to complete the agenda he was "hired" to push through, so he's sticking with healthcare "reform" (what a joke), cap and trade, etc. This man is a danger to our country and our constitution. We have to keep up the pressure on Congress to say no to the socialistic policies Obama is trying to push through.

    I was appalled by the tone of his speech and his cocky attitude. Huge turnoff and it just made me angrier. Sounds like it had the same effect on many, many others!

    Only one more comment...he explained his health care "reform" legislation AGAIN to us like we are so stupid that we don't understand what the bill will do. He basically said the same thing, word-for-word, that's he's been spouting for the past year. WE DO UNDERSTAND what the bill will do...expand government even more, allow goverment to intrude in our healtcare decisions, allow government into our bank accounts, force Americas to buy something they may not want, determine who they think should get continued health care based on age, value to society, etc., AND WE DON'T WANT IT!

    And the blame Bush thing again...really? Sorry Obama, but you own this mess now! You've spent more in one year than any other president in history. You OWN it! It's all yours!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Professor of Life said: Humm, I must be missing something. I don't get it. Why is he considered "Spam" or a "Troll"

    Professor: Because he is “trolling” along “pasting” other people's comments, like these:

    Tater Salad

    mustangluver

    mike anthony


    Or copied word for word from these blogs:

    here

    here

    and here

    There are dozens more, by the way.

    The Zen’s comment is NOT original which leads me to believe it’s cut and pasted from another blog. I don’t know about you, Professor, but I put a lot of work into my blog and take a great deal pride in it so I would appreciate SOME blogging etiquette.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Pamela said:
    "The Zen’s comment is NOT original which leads me to believe it’s cut and pasted from another blog. I don’t know about you, Professor, but I put a lot of work into my blog and take a great deal pride in it so I would appreciate SOME blogging etiquette."


    I see what you mean and I totally agree with you.
    And while I'm here I'd like to ask you and your readers what you thought about Obama's acting like a the boneheaded radical arrogant Mr. Cool and slapping the Supreme Court Justices in the face last night?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Obama banned lobbyists: in his promise. But he ended up hiring many. So that's something not good to point out about him, as he has broken his promise many times.

    Truth: Are you referring to the New York Verizon spammer? If so, I have deleted him many times on my own blog.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I guess he thought that AMERICANS ARE TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION WHEN IT IS NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED TO THEM.

    Some Americans ARE too dumb to understand the situation even when it's explained to them in third grade English with diagrams and illustrations.

    Or have we forgotten the 'KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE' protesters?

    Plenty of people get so caught up in all the excitement and fun of going to protests, being on TV news, carrying a big fancy colourful sign.. that they don't take the time to learn what the hell they're protesting, or why.

    And the people who organize these protests don't necessarily feel (nor should they, actually) compelled to educate anyone on the topic, because first of all that's not their job, and second of all, they want as many people as they can get to come to these things, even if they're protesting that McDonalds stopped using the little plastic coffee-stirrer spoons back in the day and replaced them with the little plastic coffee-stirrer paddles.

    Really. Some people are too dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I must not get the Verizon one very often Dmarks. The LOng Beach one used to visit up to fifty times a day. While it stroked my ego to see the hit count for a moment, seeing that out of 150 to 200 visits, a quarter of them were one guy ended up being a disappointment. Pamela is still the traffic queen.

    Long Beach stopped posting comments regularly about two months ago and is down to ten visits a day.


    I get just enough traffic that it's impossible to figure out who is who but when one guy (Guys?) is visiting that much it's easy to figure out.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Truth: My visitor tracker identifies the spammer as using Verizon and being from New York. I'm thinking that my tracker is different from yours and is identifying the same spammer in a little different way.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The President and many politicians think we're all stupid, don't they?! He gave us his "shut up and sit down, I'm your god and have spoken" speech last night. We got his "Oh, we have to all get along ..." whining side of Comrade Zero too. But why? He doesn't even need the Republicans. Demoncrats are in the majority.

    But you see, he can't add. I'm convinced of that now.

    Also, it's more of the commie lib touchy feely crap and they're up to something evil again. Comrade Zero keeps demonizing the 'special interests'. All the 'special interests' are the government. The government is the problem! You want to create more jobs? [he doesn't] THEN GET THE GOVERNMENT THE HECK OUT OF THE WAY! Stop penalizing business for doing business by burdening them with asinine regulations and paperwork.

    By the way, businesses don't pay taxes. Consumers do. Yep, that's right. Economy 101. No company has ever paid taxes from it's own pockets, consumers do. Try running a business for 5 minutes and not make a sizeable profit. All costs get passed along to the consumer or you'll last about that long: 5 minutes.

    Hey you Government people ... here's More Economy 101: Businesses create jobs, not government. Stop making businesses collect taxes for the government.

    I am really tired of Zero's condesending way of speaking to us.

    Oh, and get this! We also got the communist side of Comrade Zero in the speech.

    Now He The Anointed One Speaking To The Great Unwashed says, that all students will only have to pay back 10% of their student loans only if they chose a "public service job". Comrade Zero thinks this is a stimulus?! This is not a stimulus! This is not only idiotic, it's a dangerous, foolish presidency!

    Unemployment is now at about 16%. People are losing their homes, their fortunes, and some their lives to despair.

    And now, the coup de grâce, the government claims it needs more money to bail out more Unions with the new 'Jobs Bill'! Oh, didn't you get that memo? It's not a 'stimulus' anymore, the new PC term is Jobs Bill. [source]

    "Hey, gummit, turn up that heat! The frogs not hoppin' out yet." America is just about to get really cooked.

    Anyway, I get it now. Just like a friend of mine blogged about recently, the fool CAN'T ADD!! Another victim of public schooling no doubt. [shaking head in disgust]

    Also, off subject, did you see the Supreme Court Judge Samuel Alito shake his head and mouth "That's Wrong!"? He was disgusted over Comrade Zero's open criticism and misquote of a court ruling. [In all my 50 yrs I have never seen a sitting President do that openly!] Judge Alito was sitting next to the Affirmative Action Poster Child Sonia Sotomayor. She looks stoned, as usual, or maybe it's just that it's another of Zero's boring Let's Destroy America speeches. [yawn] [source]

    And, get this, I heard PMSNBC host Chris Matthews say he (speaking of Comrade Zero) "forgot he was black". [source] Whoa Nelly! That one made me LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The President and many politicians think we're all stupid, don't they?! He gave us his "shut up and sit down, I'm your god and have spoken" speech last night. We got his "Oh, we have to all get along ..." whining side of Comrade Zero too. But why? He doesn't even need the Republicans. Demoncrats are in the majority.

    But you see, he can't add. I'm convinced of that now.

    Also, it's more of the commie lib touchy feely crap and they're up to something evil again. Comrade Zero keeps demonizing the 'special interests'. All the 'special interests' are the government. The government is the problem! You want to create more jobs? [he doesn't] THEN GET THE GOVERNMENT THE HECK OUT OF THE WAY! Stop penalizing business for doing business by burdening them with asinine regulations and paperwork.

    By the way, businesses don't pay taxes. Consumers do. Yep, that's right. Economy 101. No company has ever paid taxes from it's own pockets, consumers do. Try running a business for 5 minutes and not make a sizeable profit. All costs get passed along to the consumer or you'll last about that long: 5 minutes.

    Hey you Government people ... here's More Economy 101: Businesses create jobs, not government. Stop making businesses collect taxes for the government.

    I am really tired of Zero's condesending way of speaking to us.

    Oh, and get this! We also got the communist side of Comrade Zero in the speech.

    Now He The Anointed One Speaking To The Great Unwashed says, that all students will only have to pay back 10% of their student loans only if they chose a "public service job". Comrade Zero thinks this is a stimulus?! This is not a stimulus! This is not only idiotic, it's a dangerous, foolish presidency!

    Unemployment is now at about 16%. People are losing their homes, their fortunes, and some their lives to despair.

    And now, the coup de grâce, the government claims it needs more money to bail out more Unions with the new 'Jobs Bill'! Oh, didn't you get that memo? It's not a 'stimulus' anymore, the new PC term is Jobs Bill. [source]

    "Hey, gummit, turn up that heat! The frogs not hoppin' out yet." America is just about to get really cooked.

    Anyway, I get it now. Just like a friend of mine blogged about recently, the fool CAN'T ADD!! Another victim of public schooling no doubt. [shaking head in disgust]

    Also, off subject, did you see the Supreme Court Judge Samuel Alito shake his head and mouth "That's Wrong!"? He was disgusted over Comrade Zero's open criticism and misquote of a court ruling. [In all my 50 yrs I have never seen a sitting President do that openly!] Judge Alito was sitting next to the Affirmative Action Poster Child Sonia Sotomayor. She looks stoned, as usual, or maybe it's just that it's another of Zero's boring Let's Destroy America speeches. [yawn] [source]

    And, get this, I heard PMSNBC host Chris Matthews say he (speaking of Comrade Zero) "forgot he was black". [source] Whoa Nelly! That one made me LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Our Dear Leader has spoken. He has revealed his great wisdom and oratory skills. We will unite behind our dear leader and follow him right off the cliff like lemmings just to prove that we are not a racist nation anymore. Long live our great leader. There is nothing positive that Obama has done since he assumed the presidency; and things are likely to get a whole lot worse before he leaves office.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Bravo, well said Sparky; you’re right on the mark. You speak nothing but the truth about this disgrace of a President. This incompetent fool in the WH is an embarrassment to our country. And the biggie at the speech was him taking us the American people for idiots when he said "it's his fault for not explaining his health care plan correctly so that the people could understand it" We understood it you fool! We just didn't like it and we DON'T want it! Do YOU understand that? And, unfortunately, in the U.S. the MSM is completely IN THE BAG for Obama and were instrumental in getting this incompetent socialist elected! Our own press continues to spin and deny the truth and continue to shove his horrible agenda down our throats! Can’t wait till November 2010 and 2012. We’ll throw this idiot out along with his lib allies in congress.
    Our enemies across the globe are laughing at us. Putin found his new lapdog to intimidate. The Chinese have him over a barrel on Iran and North Korea. He is threatening the North Koreans and Iranians with paper threats. No one overseas takes him seriously.

    And what he said about the Supreme Court was just about the biggest slap in the face I've ever seen. SHAME, SHAME on a shameful excuse for a US President.He's a classless tool.
    Maybe Our Dear Leader should just abolish the Supreme Court if they can't be trusted to make a decision to suit him.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Spammer Alert:

    The Sparky comment above was cut and pasted from The Reluctant Patriot", without attribution.

    And it was double-spammed.

    ReplyDelete
  47. dmarks said...
    Spammer Alert:
    The Sparky comment above was cut and pasted from The Reluctant Patriot", without attribution.
    And it was double-spammed.!
    ===================================
    Professor of Life said...

    It always makes me feel so much safer knowing that dmarks Chief of the Blog Police is on duty.

    Isn't it more, in fact MUCH MORE important to read the content of the comment rather then dice it and splice it as to whether or not someone "Cut and Pasted" it?

    Dmarks, I would rate your comment in the Top 2 on the “The 5 Stupidest Comments” list.
    Is the message important, relevant, and is it true, is far more important than if someone cut and pasted it.

    ==================================


    I say, The Proffessor is 100percent right.

    SO WHAT if someone cuts and pastes. It's the substance in the comment that's important.
    I do not share Demarks position on this though I respect Pamela's.
    I can understand deleting a comment if the person is insulting but not if they cut and paste an article.
    And then there are blogs where the most politely expressed disagreement will still be deleted only because the person that commented is of another political belief. Thus anything said by the commenter will be deleted. Such as done at "Progressive Eruptions"
    The problem with comments policies is that they have to account for a wide range of circumstances, and in an ideal world be implemented impartially and without favor, rather hard for us frail humans.
    But just posting for the sake of calling someone a 'spammer' as does Demark is stupid and childish
    It would be interesting to see if this comment is deleted or not.
    So seriously Dmark, ease up a little on this spam business. It doesn't make good reading.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Things said: "And then there are blogs where the most politely expressed disagreement will still be deleted only because the person that commented is of another political belief. Thus anything said by the commenter will be deleted. Such as done at "Progressive Eruptions""

    I've never seen that, at Prog. Erupts. Have you, Pamela?

    Anyway, I see that Things thinks it is OK to trash more than 300 blogs with identical machine-blasted comments. As long as someone things it is true or relevant.

    i.e. "common decency about spamming should apply to everyone else but me, because what I say is REALLY important!"

    It wouldn't be nearly as bad if the spammers would:

    1) show some sign that they actually read the blog post they are spamming on.

    2) say "I found this here", tell who wrote it originally or link to it.

    Instead, it comes off as a sort of plagiarism, as these spams usually are identical but are posted by many different sources each claiming it as their own original material.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Earlier today, someone forwarded me an article about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial in Manhattan.

    I thought you would like to know about it. As it is a VICTORY for us the people.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/01/28/2010-01-28_white_house_orders_justice_department_to_look_for_other_places_to_hold_911_terro.html


    The White House ordered the Justice Department Thursday night to consider other places to try the 9/11 terror suspects after a wave of opposition to holding the trial in lower Manhattan.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Things: Example:

    "Zen of Community Organizers" long laundry list above is found on many other places.

    The writers who claim to have written it include:

    vietnamwar
    mustangluver
    naturecamper
    "WE The People and The 2nd Amendment"

    and many many others.

    One of these might be the one who originally wrote this. The rest are spamming it in a way where they are trying to take credit for it.

    Now tell me, do you honestly think that Zen is the one who originated this?

    No, of course not. Many of the spammers posted this comment elsewhere before Zen posted it here. So, even if spamming is OK, Zen is posting someone else's comment on this blog while claiming it is her/her own.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I have TWO words for dmarks ...


    "Who Cares"

    And by the way, it is OK to trash more than 300 blogs with identical machine-blasted comments. As long as someone things it is true or relevant.


    Wow you actually counted things said on 300 blogs? Wow, you must have a Bionic eyesight and a Bionic memory as well as a Bionic reader.
    How do you find the time to read 300 blogs?

    Don't you have a real job? Or are you a ACORN employee? And Why the "F" do you care so much

    ReplyDelete
  52. "But just posting for the sake of calling someone a 'spammer' as does Demark is stupid and childish
    It would be interesting to see if this comment is deleted or not."

    I have backed up each of my accusations, and my use of the term "spammer" is not an insult, but is keeping with the definition of the term. And thus does not violate her blog rules.

    "So seriously Dmark, ease up a little on this spam business. It doesn't make good reading."

    Perhaps the spammers should ease up? And this is far from the only blog being hit by it.

    And does anyone honestly think that spam makes for good reading? Are you one of those who looks forward to seeing it in your inbox?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Malcontent asked: "Wow you actually counted things said on 300 blogs? "

    Actually, all you have to do is put a few words from part of any one of the mindless spams into Google and Google automatically counts them for you.

    "Don't you have a real job? Or are you a ACORN employee? And Why the "F" do you care so much"

    Thanks for the non-sequitur insults. Not surprising, as other blogs have kicked you off for activity like this.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Here’s the deal. I’m at work so I don’t have time to respond to ANY of the comments that have been posted this morning, therefore the subject of spammers is closed until you hear from me. Any comments AFTER this one regarding spammers will be deleted EVEN if it‘s mixed in with something pertaining to the 7 Lies of Obama.

    Thank you for your cooperation.

    ReplyDelete
  55. The list of Obama's lies keeps growing Pam.... It doesn't stop at 7..
    In fact after the State of The Union address I lost count.

    ReplyDelete
  56. As for Obama’s State of the Union address boo boo about the Supreme Court, This just shows the real Obama has no sense of decorum or respect for anyone, let alone the Supreme Court Justices. He's a pompous and arrogant moron. He is so arrogant that he has forgotten the value of common decency.
    When he criticized the Supreme Court, he criticized the United States of America's Constitution which he's never had any respect for in the first place. How soon do you think it will be before they announce that he is having a Beer Summit with the Supreme Court?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Obama is an abomination. He is ripping our Constitution to shreds and destroying America, as he wants to "remake" America. His speech was awful. It attacked free speech and he clearly is bullheaded and is ignoring the American people's wishes with regards to health care, instead of dropping the Dems version of reform. This has nothing to do with health care. He just wants to gain more power and control over our lives. The man is a radical leftist and needs to be booted out of office in 2012, following the rest of the commies that are going to be booted out this November

    ReplyDelete
  58. Things That Piss Me Off said: I say, The Proffessor is 100percent right.

    Things: Did you happen to read this comment from the Professor after I explained why I didn’t want “spammers” on my blog?

    Professor of Life said: I see what you mean and I totally agree with you.


    Things That Piss Me Off said: And then there are blogs where the most politely expressed disagreement will still be deleted only because the person that commented is of another political belief. Thus anything said by the commenter will be deleted. Such as done at "Progressive Eruptions".

    Dmarks said: I've never seen that, at Prog. Erupts. Have you, Pamela?

    To answer Dmarks’ question and address the claim made by Things: No, I have not seen POLITE comments deleted. I have seen obnoxious, rude, insulting and off-topic comments deleted just like I do here.


    Things That Piss Me Off said: The problem with comments policies is that they have to account for a wide range of circumstances, and in an ideal world be implemented impartially and without favor, rather hard for us frail humans.

    Things: I don’t believe it’s “partial”, biased, prejudiced or even unfair when I delete a comment that is rude, obnoxious or off-topic. I have a comment section because I wish to have civil, intellectual debates. If I wanted bloviating BS I could read numerous blogs in the blogosphere where they parrot one another endlessly! THAT is NOT what I WANT in my comment section therefore cut and paste comments aren’t welcome. I also appreciate it when a fellow Blogger looks out for my welfare.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Malcontent said: Wow you actually counted things said on 300 blogs? Wow, you must have a Bionic eyesight and a Bionic memory as well as a Bionic reader.
    How do you find the time to read 300 blogs?


    Mal: I didn’t have to read the blogs that I referenced when I explained my position to the Professor about the Zen. I googled and dozens of blogs popped up with the EXACT same wording which proved to me the Zen cut and pasted his comment from some other blog or comment section.

    I don’t know about you, but I don’t want those types of comments as the “spammer” doesn’t return to discuss his "comment". He just cuts and pastes, hence spams, then moves on to his next target/blog. As I told the Professor, I would like others to practice some blogging etiquette.

    I would like to add that I understand if you need to defend yourself against what Dmarks has said about being “kicked off” a blog. HOWEVER, you can do that without insulting Shaw or anyone else for that matter. The issue was between you and Dmarks NOT Shaw and I don’t appreciate you calling her names. So please refrain from the insults.

    My comment section is for YOU and everyone else to “express” yourselves, HOWEVER I ask ONLY one small request---be civil. And if I have to delete comment after comment because people refuse to grant that request, then so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  60. It's apparent nobody here watched President Obamas meeting with the Republican House members today. The questions directed by your party's members to Obama were answered with ease and INTELLIGENCE, whether you believe it or not President Obama is one smart guy. After the 90 minutes of air time GOP aides were not so sure they made the right decision to air the program. See, your guys didn't throw Obama off his game, the questions didn't confuse and fluster him in the least. He was masterful! In fact this kind of Q and A should happen every month, that way we can all see who is working for the people and who isn't. BTW, today was not scripted, no notes, and no teleprompters. Obama did a super job. This my friends is why HE is President and NOT you! Those of you who criticize so strongly are probably the ones who don't even listen to your president! Fox, BTW, did not show word for word the 90 minutes like the other networks did, this is why you don't get the full story when you only view FOX.

    ReplyDelete
  61. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  62. C'mon Pamela. My comment was thoroughly relevant to your topic. Just cause you have to delete a rightie doesn't mean you have to smack me down to prove you're fair and balanced.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Truth: I SAID: Any comments AFTER this one regarding spammers will be deleted EVEN if it‘s mixed in with something pertaining to the 7 Lies of Obama.

    You must’ve been off today because I expected a BETTER comment that would’ve MISSED the trash can!

    ReplyDelete
  64. My comment was yet another witty expose of the folly of my detractors Pamela. You denied your readers the pleasure of reading it. Shame on you.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "The last three Republican presidents produced the highest deficits in history."

    And the current President, a Democrat, has topped them.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Gracia: Despite the length of yours insult-laden content-light rant, you said nothing to dispute the facts which I started, which you quoted in the beginning (the part about how a Democratic president has set the record for the highest deficit).

    And there's nothing "two faced" about my statements. Like anyone who looks at these matters critically, I refuse to see my political opponents as 100% evil nor do I see those who agree with me me politically as 100% good.

    And I'm not even a Republican. Caught you in a lie when you claimed I was.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Also, Gracie said:

    "If the Republican leaders spent as much time improving the country as they do trying to get re-elected and smearing their opponents, maybe we'd get somewhere."

    Well, that is true. The Republicans should try harder to improve the country. I do wish they worked harder on such positive efforts such as more tax cuts, limiting waste spending, healthcare reform through increasing free-market options and tort reform, and other great ideas which they have put forth that would make the country a lot better.... ideas they need to fight harder for.

    ReplyDelete
  68. President Bush's last budget had a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit.
    That is the budget the country is still working off of.
    President Obama has not even submitted his first budget yet. That should happen next week.
    Demarks is simply wrong, or lying.

    ReplyDelete
  69. The answer is that I am neither lying or wrong. The current President took over more than a year ago. The budget is his too accept, change, or add to. It has been for a very long time now. And he actually has added a lot of spending to it.

    One example of spending that is part of a new effort of the Obama administration is the stimulus package. (as opposed to spending plans leftover from Bush which Obama has not bothered to change).

    This link details it: $172 billion so far. This huge amount of spending makes any claim that Obama just following Bush's spending plan completely false.

    And that is just Obama's new spending. The rest of it is Obama's old spending: the budget plan which he has liked well enough to not change much for a year now.

    There's also some overlap here: a huge chunk of the Bush budget deficit was the bailouts of Fall 2008. Which Senator Obama happened to have voted for. So, part of the Bush budget plan which Obama inherited was pre-approved by Obama before Obama took office. Obama's policy already at work during the waning months of the Bush years.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Blame Obama for ALL Bush's mistakes.

    Seems to be the general talking point of all Republican party hacks.

    Since you go so far out of your way to explain your deception, I can only conclude you are intentionally lying.

    Check the official government definition. It is Bush's budget and will go down in History as Bush's budget.

    Just as Clinton's last budget had a 200 billion dollar surplus, but gets no credit for it, because Bush drove it into deficits before his first year was over, or his first budget was submitted.

    Can't have it both ways, although I understand that's also a Republican slander tactic.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I only blame Obama for his own mistakes, and when it comes to Bush mistakes, I only blame Obama for those Bush mistakes that he had a chance to change, but chose to do nothing instead. These include the spending plan inherited from Bush when OBama took office.

    And inside the Bush spending plan, there's a large amount of it which Obama directly voted for before he became President.

    ReplyDelete
  72. And I won't apologize for going "out of my way" to prove that Obama has quite actively contributed to the rising budget deficit through entirely new spending initiatives.

    If these figures are a lie, then I look forward to seeing documented figures showing that $0 was spent in 2009 on new spending initiatives of President Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Why do you keep denying the facts (lying)?
    It is a fact recorded by the federal government that this is Bush's budget and another Bush deficit. It will still be official United States fact for centuries to come.
    Hypocrite is all I read here. It's fine to claim (and you always have) that Clinton never had a surplus because Bush ruined it, but now you want Obama to take blame for Bush's budget mistakes, because its OK in the situation to claim its Obama's budget.
    Your delusion is your problem. You are entitled to that delusion, you are not entitled to change the facts of the budget rules that America has gone by for decades.
    Continue with your Republican talking points, but you are lying.

    ReplyDelete
  74. You say you don't blame Obama for Bush's mistakes, then you go on to define the criteria by which Obama is to blame for Bush's mistakes.

    Wow, delusional Republican blame game.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I feel change in the air!

    The Dummies got what they deserved. Let’s get some momentum to get this idiot out of the white house.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Obama made promises he knew he couldn't keep just to get elected.

    The progressive/socialist realizes he must compromise and become the pragmatist to get anything done. Not unlike politicians and Presidents before him.

    However, this President is keeping his eye on the golden socialist irresponsible promise of Utopian existence and remains committed to radically changing America and the body politic.

    Such is the evolution of a government that fails to respect individualism, and a people that have have been so lulled into sleep they fail to recognize the dangers.

    In the end we shall get that which we choose, either knowingly or unknowingly. Call it the self fulfilling prophesy.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Rational Nation USA said...

    Obama made promises he knew he couldn't keep just to get elected.


    Now there's something we didn't know~ *Sarcasm*

    ReplyDelete
  78. RN: "The progressive/socialist realizes he must compromise and become the pragmatist to get anything done. Not unlike politicians and Presidents before him."

    Progressive, yes. Socialist? Do your tax dollars contribute to your police and fire departments? How about schools? Farm subsidies? The federal government collects taxes from all the states and REDISTRIBUTES the monies to the poorer states, which are mainly our southern states.

    This country practices various forms of socialism and has for years, and yet I hear this branding of a president only now, only when a Democrat is in office. Redistribution of federal tax dollars was going on during Reagan, Bush I and Bush II's presidencies--where was the "socialism!" outcry then?

    "However, this President is keeping his eye on the golden socialist irresponsible promise of Utopian existence and remains committed to radically changing America and the body politic."

    Democratic AND Republican presidents since Teddy Roosevelt have been proposing a national health care policy.

    In fact here's a "socialist" Republican President speaking on the very subject:

    President Richard Nixon's Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan

    February 6, 1974

    From The American Presidency Project, University of California at Santa Barbara

    To the Congress of the United States:

    One of the most cherished goals of our democracy is to assure every American an equal opportunity to lead a full and productive life.

    In the last quarter century, we have made remarkable progress toward that goal, opening the doors to millions of our fellow countrymen who were seeking equal opportunities in education, jobs and voting.

    Now it is time that we move forward again in still another critical area: health care.

    Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.


    Source

    Americans have depressingly short memories, or they are too easily led by the charlatans who pass themselves off as pundits.

    This country has become so polarized that the opposition party demonizes the Democratic president for proposing something their own Republican presidents have advocated in the past.

    "Nixon’s proposal for health care reform looks a lot like Democratic proposals today. In fact, in some ways it was stronger. Right now, Republicans are balking at the idea of requiring that large employers offer health insurance to their workers; Nixon proposed requiring that all employers, not just large companies, offer insurance.

    Nixon also embraced tighter regulation of insurers, calling on states to “approve specific plans, oversee rates, ensure adequate disclosure, require an annual audit and take other appropriate measures.” No illusions there about how the magic of the marketplace solves all problems."--PK

    ReplyDelete
  79. SK said: "Nixon also embraced tighter regulation of insurers, calling on states ...."

    That is what we have now, and the states have set regulatory barries rather high to prevent all 1,200 health insurance companies from doing business in all 50 states. This greatly limits choice.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Who are the shameless ones here. tell me Savage, Limbaugh, Robertson, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, O'reily, etc.. Take your pick..
    As Haiti reeled and staggered and the rest of the world rushed to the aid of a humble, beleaguered people, two icons of American conservatism reared up last week and offered analysis of the earthquake that has devastated the impoverished island nation. The Rev. Pat Robertson opined on his program, "The 700 Club," that Haiti's woes stem from the fact that it made a deal with the devil two centuries ago and now is "cursed." Rush Limbaugh suggested the relief effort would "play right into" President Obama's hands, allowing him to appear "humanitarian, compassionate" and thus, "burnish" his standing within the African-American community.

    It left me wondering, just for the briefest of seconds, whether conservatism has a conscience, whether conservatism has a soul.

    But the Limbaughs and Robertsons of the world say some variation of, God hates you. Or, You had it coming. They call that conservative.Pathetic? Pathetic indeed!A fine representation of conservatism .. I'm sure you're quite proud of yourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  81. rwnobles: If I’m not mistaken, quite a few people have spoken out against Pat Robertson’s insanely disgusting comment. Also, I’ve read here in the blogosphere where Conservatives spoke out against Rush Limbaugh, one even gave him an “Asshat” award.

    Stop branding ALL Conservatives with the same branding iron. I don’t do that to Liberals and I won’t allow YOU to come on MY blog and do it to Conservatives. There are ample people on BOTH sides who are dufuses.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Pamela D. Hart said...

    rwnobles: If I’m not mistaken, quite a few people have spoken out against Pat Robertson’s insanely disgusting comment. Also, I’ve read here in the blogosphere where Conservatives spoke out against Rush Limbaugh, one even gave him an “Asshat” award.

    Stop branding ALL Conservatives with the same branding iron. I don’t do that to Liberals and I won’t allow YOU to come on MY blog and do it to Conservatives. There are ample people on BOTH sides who are dufuses.


    This guy should be getting the Ass-Hat award of the year Pam, and as for the "Branding conservatives with the same branding iron... This is what LIBERALS do... Like it or not.
    You just have to read the Truthless one's blog to see that.

    Oh, yes I forgot, he excludes you, and one or two others...

    ReplyDelete
  83. Mr. Conservative: I’d give out an “Asshat” award, but it was created by Patrick M at Sane Political Discourse.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Pamela D. Hart said...

    Mr. Conservative: I’d give out an “Asshat” award, but it was created by Patrick M at Sane Political Discourse.



    No he did not originat it, I believe, Hustler magazine first did when they featured people they did not like as "Asshole of the month. And then people called it "Ass-Hat" to be a bit more polite.
    However I have also been using it on my blog. In the upper right hand corner.
    I think that your blog would be a perfect place for it as well.

    ReplyDelete
  85. " The Fly" Has had this award since 2008


    http://ibankcoin.com/flyblog/category/asshat-of-the-week-award/


    He even has an Ass Hat of the year award.

    http://ibankcoin.com/flyblog/category/asshat-of-the-year-award/

    My pick would be a tie between. Barack Obama, Tiger Woods, and Kanye West.
    Close runner's up would be the OctoMom Nadya Suleman and John Edwards.

    ReplyDelete
  86. the malcontent reads Hustler?? Who woulda thunk it...

    ReplyDelete
  87. Mal: Oops! My bad. I first saw it on Patrick’s blog and when I think of “asshat” his blog comes to mind because he will write a post with AOTW in the title. Thank you for the clarification.

    Professor: My picks would be Male: Kanye West and female: Octo Mom. And thank you also for the link/information.

    Sue: Not a magazine for us “ladies” but hey, whatever!

    ReplyDelete
  88. Oscar de la GrouchFebruary 1, 2010 at 8:37 AM

    Look at the signs: White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel last week said health reform had to wait its turn in line, right after jobs and regulatory reform — a process that would put it months down the road. Harry Reid seemed in slow-walk mode, only promising movement “this year.” These are the same people who spent months arguing that reform had to be jammed through quickly, or it would fail.

    They were right the first time,said the Democratic staff director for the Senate Finance Committee during the Clinton health care debate. “There’s no such thing as ‘Let’s take a pause in legislating so that we can gain momentum on it.’ It’s insulting.”

    Yeah, no kidding, we the people we insulted when the Democrat leaders said it had to get passed right now, but would kick in until years late

    ReplyDelete
  89. Pardon me, while I throw in my 2 cents. And While I roll my eyes at the same time!
    I'm very unimpressed with what I've just read...
    Isn’t it funny (or is it) some meat-head that calls himself “rwnobles “ writes a post and slams a bunch of Conservative talk show hosts including Mike Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly, ALL with the same brush.
    And than Pamela asks:

    “Stop branding ALL Conservatives with the same branding iron. I don’t do that to Liberals and I won’t allow YOU to come on MY blog and do it to Conservatives. There are ample people on BOTH sides who are dufuses” And “ Pamela D. Hart said...
    Mr. Conservative: I’d give out an “Asshat” award, but it was created by Patrick M at Sane Political Discourse.

    So BOTH “the malcontent” and “the Professor of Life” correct Pam by looking that up in “Google” and giving Pam the correct answer to her post about where the term “Ass-Hat”started.
    And “SUE” found it necessary to tale a swipe at “the Malcontent” with a derogatory comment insulting Mal’s character by referring he reads porn.
    While Pam has NOTHING at all to say about the but a rely saying “Sue: Not a magazine for us “ladies” but hey, whatever!”
    Instead of deleting SUE’S insulting and back stabbing comment.
    I write this post only after a visit to SUE’S blog where I also noticed that it contained the exact message for that TROLL “rwnobles” and the rest of her comment pages were filled with a CESSPOOL of anti republican comments from the likes of the USUAL suspects.
    Now my question to Pam is why did you allow Sue to slam Mal that way and then let her follow up with a smiley post like “:-)))” meaning you are in agreement!

    These are all facts, no name calling
    Pam, is your Glass Half Empty Or Half Full?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Frank: In agreement to WHAT? The fact that Sue mentioned a MAN reads a nudie magazine? No surprise there, Frank, what MAN doesn’t? Most NORMAL men have a look here and there. It’s NOT a big deal. It’s NOT derogatory for a MAN to look at Hustler and/or Playboy. So I don’t know why you are reading something sinister into Sue’s comment.

    Sue’s smiley was in response to MY comment that we ladies DON’T read nudie magazines. WHAT was WRONG with THAT?

    As far as Sue’s blog is concerned—THAT is HER business, NOT mine! As YOUR blog is YOUR business, NOT mine! I will NOT discuss OTHER blogs on MY blog—read MY blog rules, Frank.

    Let me get this straight, you and others used to bash me for going to Truth’s and Shaw’s blog, now it’s Sue’s blog! So, I’m supposed to sit on my little blog and not go anywhere or allow any Liberals on my blog then Frank and others will all be happy, is that it?

    As far as: “is the glass half full or half empty”. I won’t be TOLD what to do; I’m an adult, not a child. If you don’t like my blog and are so “unimpressed” and have to “roll your eyes” so much then maybe it’s not the blog for you.

    ReplyDelete
  91. The curtain has come down on what can best be described as a brief un-American moment in our history. That moment began in the fall of 2008, with the great financial panic, and gave rise to the Barack Obama phenomenon..
    And yet half of our fellow Americans actually approve of this Moron in Chief.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Pam siad:

    you and others used to bash me for going to Truth’s and Shaw’s blog, now it’s Sue’s blog! So, I’m supposed to sit on my little blog and not go anywhere or allow any Liberals on my blog then Frank and others will all be happy, is that it?



    No I'm not telling you what to do or not to go to either Sue's blog or Shaw's!

    I'm just wondering why you post that claim on your home page and delete every post that is a non-subject post and yet allowed Sue's stupid joke about Mal to be not only posted , allowed her to follow up with a jackass smile pic.
    Who cares who your friends are, I don't.. I just had the impression that you were fair, but I see now that you've learned some of their liberal tactics. ..More confirmation of what we been seeing for a long time

    ReplyDelete
  93. Pamela D. Hart said...

    Frank: In agreement to WHAT? The fact that Sue mentioned a MAN reads a nudie magazine? No surprise there, Frank, what MAN doesn’t? Most NORMAL men have a look here and there. It’s NOT a big deal. It’s NOT derogatory for a MAN to look at Hustler and/or Playboy. So I don’t know why you are reading something sinister into Sue’s comment.



    No it was NOT that, what Sue meant was that she wasn't surprised that Mal read porn. That was a dig at Mal
    That was very clear. And that is why I posted my comment in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  94. The win in Mass. was precisely what had awakened the snoozing American puplic.
    From her on, we will not let that Marxist off the hook. Obama is Red, that is his color problem,not black or white. Americans now see him as a President, who literally believes that he has no limitations, refuses to accept responsibility and maniacally clings to plans and proposals that have clearly failed.

    ReplyDelete
  95. such immaturity, and why does a man have to stick up for Mal, can he not defend himself? Seems kinda odd to me...

    I did joke around with Mal only because he's so uptight all the time, nothing more, nothing less. Stop being so defensive, we're all supposed to be adults here.

    ReplyDelete
  96. You can rest assured that I can defend myself, if I wanted to, but I didn't think this even warranted my comment.

    Pam is right, she has every right to do as she pleases... It’s her blog.. Concurrently, I have every right to answer people if they post dissenting opinions.

    Personally, I consider my time valuable. If I spend my time commenting on ever blog that posts a derogatory comment about me , I’d have no time for anything else. Unless it crosses the line into obscene or abusive, I say, let freedom of information and thought flow.
    And I no longer get irritated if my comments get deleted, and hence, my time wasted. I just don’t bother to return there.
    But thank you to Frank for getting my back when I was doing something of importance. As for Sue’s comment. I have nothing against these people personally. I don't even know them. I think that my opinion of Liberal blogs are well enough known.

    ReplyDelete
  97. fabulous work Pam..good Grief..how much more of this can we take!!

    ReplyDelete
  98. WomanHonorThyself said...

    fabulous work Pam..good Grief..how much more of this can we take!!

    =====================================

    Of Obama, or of Sue?
    LMAO

    ReplyDelete
  99. thank you Mal. I think I hear a more calm tone from you, you have evolved I think? Good for you...

    ReplyDelete
  100. A more calm tone? I don't know about that.

    I take it Issue by Issue.

    If somebody's comment pisses me off, my "more calm tone" is out the window.
    There are those who do need thicker skins and take this place too seriously. I really don't. Your little remark didn't bother me.

    ReplyDelete
  101. When Obama "lies" no one dies.

    And no lie will ever be as big as WMDs.

    Not saying it makes everything ok, I just want to know where you have been for the last 8 years.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Toad734 said...

    When Obama "lies" no one dies.

    And no lie will ever be as big as WMDs.

    Not saying it makes everything ok, I just want to know where you have been for the last 8 years.

    8=8=8=8=8=8=8=8=8=8=8=8=8=8=8=8=8=
    What rock did you crawl out from under?
    Obumbler protecting the U.S. from Muslim Jihadists. HAHAHA What a joke that is..

    Who's protecting us from Obumbler? He's the real Muslim Jihadist threat. All these other crotch bombers pale in comparison.

    He's scarier than Hitler. His goal is to eradicate the white christians AND the Jews. His health care bill will go a long ways to accomplishing that goal. The death panels will replace the need for the internment camps with the gas showers. The master race envisioned by the progressives such as those in Obumbler's CZAR corps is being implemented with the help of the village idiots in congress and the senate. These people are either so stupid to see the master plan or they are more than willing to see it implemented.

    The fact that both Republicans and democrats are not raising holy hell over the lack of leadership in the intelligence community is very telling.
    So, dems in the intelligence community think their savior will wake-up to the necessity of what's required to keep America safe. hmmm. Did it ever occur to these people that, just maybe, their savior *is* siding with the Muslims - and that includes Muslim fanatics who want to kill Americans?

    It's called "plausible deniability". I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing. Sgt. Schultz was more likable. Grow Up!

    ReplyDelete
  103. He's scarier than Hitler. His goal is to eradicate the white christians AND the Jews. His health care bill will go a long ways to accomplishing that goal. The death panels will replace the need for the internment camps with the gas showers.

    This is without a doubt the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.

    Do you think giving people access to health care is worse, and more detrimental to their health, than having no insurance at all, as so many millions of people do now?

    Do you think that insurance companies don't today and at this moment decide what procedures you can and cannot have covered? They do. Or have you never had a claim refused? Insurance companies decide what doctors you can see ('in network', unless you'd like to see them for a whole lot more money than you'd otherwise pay), decide what procedures you can and can't have covered, and decide what medications are and are not on the 'preferred drugs' list. I'm not really sure why people either don't know these things or choose to ignore them in favour of the melodrama of the nonexistent 'death panels'. I think it's mostly for attention.

    Either way, I beg you to educate yourself on the reality of the situation. You'll be able to sleep better at night; surely these paranoid imaginings must keep you awake.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Satyavati devi dasi said...


    Do you think giving people access to health care is worse, and more detrimental to their health, than having no insurance at all, as so many millions of people do now?

    Do you think that insurance companies don't today and at this moment decide what procedures you can and cannot have covered? They do. Or have you never had a claim refused? Insurance

    ----------------------------------

    Oh yeah right, take advice form a Hare Krishna women... That will be the day!

    ReplyDelete
  105. Oh yeah right, take advice form a Hare Krishna women... That will be the day!

    I'm sorry. This response just makes you look silly and as if you have no cogent argument against what I said.

    My religion is a moot point. Could you really come up with no better response than this?

    Besides being a Hare Krishna, as you so aptly (and irrelevantly) pointed out, I'm also a registered nurse, and know whereof I speak when it comes to healthcare.

    So please, I invite you, reconsider, and come up (if you can) with some better argument.

    Or admit that you have no comeback, because I'm right.

    Either way, man up and stop playing silly games.

    ReplyDelete
  106. The WMD lie is so tiny as to not exist: Saddam had WMD, and they were found. From 50 to 500, according to varying sources.

    The claim that Saddam really had no WMD... now there's a huge lie.

    ReplyDelete
  107. The United States conducted a two year physical search of Iraq. Their official report to the President and the nation was, there were no WMDs.

    President George Bush admitted to the nation, that there were no WMDs.

    Secretary of State Colin Powell confirmed to the nation, that there were no WMDs.

    Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld confirmed to the nation, that there were no WMDs.

    Vice-President Cheney confirmed to the nation, that there were no WMDs.

    And the list of officials in the Bush administration who stated there were no WMD's goes on.

    Seems Dmarks like to promote falsehoods. Check the official records of the United States Government, for the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Why, because the government always tells the truth?

    Well, here's the report that is closer to the truth. closer to the source:

    "The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.">

    And let's run it through Factcheck.org. <a href = "http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/were_there_really_weapons_of_mass_destruction.html'>Here</A> is there report on it. While the conclusion of the report says their were none, the text of their report contains the statement "total of 53 munitions have been recovered" when referring to WMD that have been found."

    So there is the evidence to back up my earlier claim that there were from 52 to 500. Either way, the claim that Saddam had none is a falsehood. Toad would have been better off saying "there were too few", or "the stockpiles were not as threatening as the hype led us to believe".

    I do not like to promote falsehoods. I like to cut through them.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Also, check this page about the definition of WMD. A sub-group of WMD are "NBC" weapons. Nuclear, biological, chemical. The chemical mitions (between 52 and 500 warheads) which Saddam had stockpiled and kept hidden from the UN and the world until G.W.Bush, Hillary, and Vice President Biden were forced to invade Iraq definitely met the definition of WMD.

    "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton Remarks at the Pentagon , February 17, 1998.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Right.
    The Bush administration uses WMD's as the reason they invaded Iraq, then years later they admit there were no WMD's, just to what, give the Democrats the ability to say they were liars?
    I'll believe The U.S. Army, all the Bush officials I mentioned above, and the rest of the government, before I believe you, or your other sources.
    You probably also believe in Black helicopters, UFO's, alien abductions, and the World is going to end in 2012.
    Stop watching so much Star Trek in your parents basement and get out in the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  111. One source was the US Army (which you said was good) and the other was Factcheck.... neither are black helicopter sites. And both are very "Real world". And I'm not sure what 2012 has to do with it. It is probably a "subject change". Regardless, I knew of that apocalyptic hoax a long time ago.

    It appears that you have some sort of anti-"Trekkie" bias that is coloring your arguments. I do not confuse anything "Trek" with serious statements, nor do I mix the two. I suggest you do the same. You don't see me confusing the two and putting Star Trek references into discussions of WMD.

    The whole irrelevant, or dare I say "illogical" Star Trek fixation sort of backfires on you, too (as does continued insistence on unprovoked playground taunts), when you consider that President Obama is a Trekkie, and McCain, Bush, and Palin are not.

    ReplyDelete
  112. The reference is to those who believe in fairy tales, fantasy, and irrational, irresponsible, false facts.
    People who in the face of reality, choose to believe, that which has been disproved by the facts on hand. Like you, who believes there were WMDs, when the facts are overwhelmingly against you. You have presented no evidence that proves all the references to leaders and government institutions I provided, that made it official, there were no WMDs.
    Have fun living in your delusion.
    You have been pre approved for membership in the Birther club.
    I don't make childhood taunts. I do speak to those (you) with child like minds, as children. Since Pam won't let me call you in simple words, what you are, I rely on metaphors(look it up).

    ReplyDelete
  113. "You have presented no evidence that proves all the references to leaders and government institutions I provided, that made it official, there were no WMDs."

    "You have been pre approved for membership in the Birther club."

    A complete change of subject, and another low-brow insults. An extremely ignorant one also, as I have many times sharply criticized the "birther" movement.

    Of course, the solid proof I provided and documented of the WMD have nothing to do with Star Trek, black helicopters, fairy tales, or Birthers. Your introduction of these is a complete change of subject, and has nothing to do with the sites which document the existence of WMD.

    You said "there were no WMD" even after being proven false. Do some research, please. Hint: It has nothing to do with Star Trek.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Your twisted proof, is no proof. Again you refuse to believe the official records and the officials (President Bush and Vice President Cheney) who have stated there were no WMDs. That is your delusion, enjoy it.
    It is recorded factual History that there were no WMDs. That factual History will not change because fringe loonies want to believe otherwise.
    There is no tooth fairy, yet some believe there is. There is no Santa Clause, yet some believe there is.
    You cannot spend more money than you make, without going into debt, yet Republicans believe you can.
    You claim to not be a Republican, yet you orate their beliefs and talking points. If it walks like...talks like... it is.
    it is rational for people to believe what they see and hear. It's your judgment of yourself that is diluted, not the judgement of others, who judge what you say.
    Self examination and education is needed on your part, not those who correctly judge what you say.
    Now, back to your delusional World. And stop sending "corrupted" emails to me.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Tom, arguing political points is one thing. But accusing me of engaging in email viruses or hacking is way out of line, especially when either (1) you have no idea what you are talking about or (2) are just making stuff up.

    I have only ever sent you three emails, none of them had viruses. The last one had me asking for details of the virus emails. You refused to provide any so we could solve this. It is only reasonable to assume that this is something you made up.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Tom: I’m not sure what’s going on with “corrupted emails” but since it’s something personal I feel you and Dmarks can work that out amongst yourselves and not air it in the comment section. Thanks for your consideration.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Professor of Life said... all I heard from Obama last night was It’s Bush’s fault said in 20 different ways.

    I didn't hear President Obama mention ex-President Doofus a single time by name in the SOTU. He did accurately describe the state of affairs when he assumed office. They were crappy. And, YES, that was thanks in LARGE part to ex-President Doofus.

    Why the hell should President Obama assume all the blame when that honor rightly belongs to the moron who held the position previously?! Which is what he would be doing if he never mentioned how bad those previously in power screwed things up. And that would be pretty stupid.

    The only reason I think righties whine about it so much is because they realize how true it is. And they know that if people woke up to that fact nobody would vote Republican ever again.

    (L) said... An Open Letter To All Democratic Senators! The following is a sample of the letter I have e-mailed to all of the Democrats in the United States Senate...

    Your letter was ignored. Not a single Senator read it. I guarentee it.

    Professor of Life said... Obama's acting like a the boneheaded radical arrogant Mr. Cool and slapping the Supreme Court Justices in the face last night?

    President Obama did not "slap the Supreme Court Justices in the face". He spoke out against the ruling handed down by the fascists on the court. Four Justices did disagree.

    RepublicanGirl said... When he criticized the Supreme Court, he criticized the United States of America's Constitution which he's never had any respect for in the first place.

    This was a bad decision and President Obama's criticism was entirely justified. The court has made bad decisions before. If you had been alive at the time of the Dred Scott decision I suppose you'd have had the same criticism for anyone who spoke up against it.

    Declaring laws unconstitutional is not a power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. I don't think you give a damn what the Constitution acutally says, you're just mad that a Democratic President disagrees with Repubican appointed judges.

    Sparky said... ...GET THE GOVERNMENT THE HECK OUT OF THE WAY! Stop ...burdening them with asinine regulations and paperwork. By the way, businesses don't pay taxes. Consumers do. Economy 101.

    Do you mean "Economics 101"? I don't think I'll take economic advice from someone who doesn't even know what the field of study is called. Also, President Obama didn't call for raising corporate taxes in the SOTU. And Bush never called for eliminating corporate taxes. Which is the argument you're making. Only Libertarians and Libertarian-leaning Republicans believe in this BS you call "economy 101".

    Sparky said... I am really tired of Zero's condesending way of speaking to us. And, get this, I heard PMSNBC host Chris Matthews say he (speaking of Comrade Zero) "forgot he was black". Whoa Nelly! That one made me LOL.

    Why? Because you aren't forgetting he is black? Is that why you believe he can't add, despite the fact that he graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School (where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review) and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School?

    Is that why you think he was condesending in the SOTU? Because a black man can't speak with authority?

    ReplyDelete
  118. Sue said... It's apparent nobody here watched President Obamas meeting with the Republican House members today. He was masterful!

    I watched it, and I agree with your conclusion. I don't see how the teleprompter put-down can be used any longer.

    dmarks said... And the current President, a Democrat, has topped them (referring to "The last three Republican presidents produced the highest deficits in history.") I am neither lying or wrong. OK, you are 100% correct (in reference to Tom's comments about how bush is responsible for the deficit).

    You disagreed twice, then suddenly you admit Tom is 100 correct? Good for you if you did suddenly wake up to reality. The deficits under President Obama most certainly are due to bush's reckless spending...

    "When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When he ended his term, he left a $1.3 trillion deficit and a projected 10-year shortfall of $8 trillion" ~ David Axelrod on 1/15/2010 in an op-ed in the Washington Post.

    Politifact says: Mostly True.

    CarlyinNJ said... The Dummies got what they deserved. Let’s get some momentum to get this idiot out of the white house.

    I agree, except you got your tense wrong. What you meant was "[thank God we] got some momentum [and removed the] idiot [from] the white house". Unfortunately we will continue to suffer the consequences of the disasterous policies he lead the way on: tax cuts for the wealthy and two illegal wars.

    It boggles my mind that some dummies try to pin the consequences for these reckless decisions on President Obama!

    Satyavati devi dasi said... This is without a doubt the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time (referring to the prior post by "I Ain't Got No Blog"). ...come up (if you can) with some better argument.

    Agreed. Obviously he couldn't come up with anything better than ad hominems.

    dmarks said... You said "there were no WMD" even after being proven false. Do some research, please.

    Bush LIED (and he KNEW he was lying) when he pushed the "mushroom cloud" rational for war with Iraq. Tom claims have not been "proven false".

    Even the high level bush administration officials Tom referenced knew the American people wouldn't buy the discovery of degraded, burried and forgotten chemical weapons qualified as "finding WMD". I think you need to do some research dmarks.

    ReplyDelete
  119. NO Blog:

    You are an idiot.

    If you only get your "news" from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, that's the only excuse for being as completely uninformed and paranoid as you are. Or are you being ironic?? You know, jokingly and sarcastically spouting all the inane talking points of the mouth breathers?? If so, then I apologize.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...