First time visitor? Learn more.

President Obama, Why Are You So Insistent On Forcing Me To Label You As Incompetent?

by Flyovercountry ( 82 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama at April 2nd, 2012 - 12:00 pm

Yesterday, I chanced upon a television which was broadcasting this fine piece of speechifying by President Obama. Bear in mind, that when he was elected President, I promised myself that I would not fall victim to the same sort of derangement syndrome that so many on the political left were guilty of while George W. Bush was President. I have tried to be fair in my analysis of this man, and gosh darn it, he just makes respecting him impossible. This speech, all eight minutes of it is a great illustration as to why.

Right off the bat, he tells a tale of how our legislative representatives are faced with a choice of standing with the, “big oil companies,” or with the poor down trodden citizens of America. I am tired of this type of demagoguery. All the, “big oil companies,” do is to provide hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs and produce a product that improves every aspect of every life in America and many lives around the world. Their product is in fact so useful, that many in our nation have begun to describe it as some sort of Constitutional Right, when in fact, it is a product, which is produced like any other.

In his next breath, Barack Obama decided to tell me that oil companies are raking in big profits, and as you may have guessed, I have a problem with his statement both factually, and in the tone he used. Oil companies are not raking in big profits, they are earning them. I am not an expert on the oil business, but I believe there is much more to it than raking in. Drilling for oil, from the movies I’ve seen is rough work, and hard. After the stuff is extracted from the ground by people who have worked very hard to do so, it must be transported somehow to a refinery. I bet that those people work hard as well, and deserve to be paid for that service, just like the roughnecks who got it from the ground in the first place. It must be refined, which I am sure involves people working hard, and then transported again, by even more hardworking Americans. On top of that, the company who is selling the oil had to bet a veritable fortune of their own capital on each and every well that they drilled. If the well did not produce, there is no government in the world who would have paid their losses for them. Add to that, the small fact that the revenues that any company produces is a measuring stick in our economic system for how much they have benefited us all, and this statement becomes one of the dumbest I have ever heard.

The next lie has to do with tax payer subsidies for oil companies. Yes, for all of you on the left, I called the statement a lie, as this is something that President Obama knows. The government has never written a check to an oil company to subsidize anything. What our Teleprompter in Chief is referring to are the legal tax deductions that oil companies, just like every other American business, take when filling out their tax returns. He has called all of their legal deductions, subsidies. But, for anyone who is interested, here are the facts on those supposed subsidies.  Just as an FYI, the oil industry as a whole pays the second highest rate of taxation of any American business.  Tobacco companies are the only businesses which pay a higher rate.  He went on in his speech to lie about this fact as well.

He talked about how the oil companies are making record profits from an increase in prices, but he neglects to state why.  Every business strives to seek a return on their investment, which is measured as a percentage of the revenue that they keep.  For oil companies, their margins are in fact the lowest of any industry in existence.  Factually speaking, they make about $.03 per gallon sold.  The government in contrast, which by the way does nothing to help extract, transport, refine, transport, or sell, makes $.44 per gallon sold, a profit which is 14.667 times greater than the profit made by the people doing the actual work.  What Pinocchio Obama also fails to mention is the fact that oil companies also reinvest that money back into their company to fund research into things like alternative energy, and better and safer technology with which to extract oil more efficiently.

Then Barack Pinocchio decided to travel down the path to flat out deception.  Domestic Production is up in our country, but that is in spite of Barack Obama’s efforts and not as a result of them.  Private land being leased by oil companies in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, and in other places have accounted for the increase.  It takes a special kind of person, completely devoid of any integrity, to pose for a photo op in front of pipeline building equipment for a project that he so vehemently opposed, and tried to shut down.  Barack Obama in this little piece of his speech is spiking the football over the Keystone XL Pipeline, something which he still has not signed.  The southern portion of the pipeline was already started under President Bush, the guy that Little Barry blames for everything.  There literally are no words adequate to describe just how disgusting a human being Barack Obama truly is.

So, then we get to the nub of it, right around the 4 minute mark, investments in the, “green fairy,” once again.  Rather than allowing a business to operate which has a proven track record of success, and by the way has made all of our lives better, why not instead put the majority of our resources into something that Obama likes, and something that would help his political allies profit from?  He states the green technologies have never been more promising.  What exactly is that promise that he sees in wind and solar?  Was it the half a Billion we lost on Solyndra?  Is it the fact that not a single company he touted or gave money to in the first stimulus has survived the 3 years of his Presidency, and in fact have lost money despite the federal gift of millions, all of it at our expense?  The Chevy Volt can’t go from here to there without bursting into flames it seems, and every other nation in the world who started down this idiotic path has already ran their morons out of town who inflicted it upon them.  Is that what President Obama finds so promising about the, “green fairy?”

I have never known another human being with the ability to say as many things which are just flat out wrong with the arrogant level of confidence that Barack Obama has.  His statement that gas prices are only low when the economy is doing badly may be the stupidest thing any human being has ever said.  Keep in mind that Richard Gere, George Clooney, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz still walk the Earth.   Gas prices have spiked not due to any economic conditions which the President has laid on the table, but entirely this time due to the purposeful inflation of our currency, inflicted upon us by himself and Ben Bernanke.  Higher gas prices was one of his stated campaign promises, as a necessary, “price signal,” to get us to want his hybrid cars and windmill technology.  One of his major goofs of course, besides his bizarre belief in sticking the nose of government into the free markets that have made us an unparalleled economic success, was the not so small fact that the promised, “green fairy,” technologies are no where near capable of meeting our energy demands on even the tiniest scale. They aren’t there after having been pushed by massive government subsidies in place since the 1970’s, and they won’t be for many decades to come.

Then we get to the money quote, “we can’t just drill our way out of this problem.”  This makes me mad for two reasons.  The minor reason is that this idiotic line is being delivered by a man who has done not one single productive thing during his entire life. What on Earth would Barack Obama know about what would and would not work in any context when it comes to business, economics, productivity, our pricing system, or in any market place?  He has never run so much as a lemon aid stand.  The major reason why it angers me to hear this oft repeated statement of course is that we can just simply drill our way out of this problem.  Part of the issue with using slick sounding catch phrases and nifty slogans for our political discourse is of course that more often than naught, they are simply incorrect.

5 minutes in, and we get that horrendous, “we only have 2% of the oil but use up 20%,” nonsense. Putting aside for the moment that this is complete baloney, a lie, a fabrication, and quite possibly the most egregious piece of bull shit since the peak oil theory was postulated by Marxists in the 1970’s, who cares? What ever oil we use in this country is used for the purposes of getting to work, building products that benefit all of man kind and was rightfully purchased in what ever market place in which it was sold. We grow food with that oil that quite literally feeds the entire world, and even if we produced not one drop of oil here, that does not lead to the moralistic nonsense that we are not allowed by the oil deities somehow to purchase it. There is no law or belief any where that says we should only use what ever we can find within our own borders. Nations have been trading goods and services across their borders for millennia, and suddenly oil is the only thing that stirs up moral outrage. Spare me the idiocy of the political left, and nothing highlights that idiocy quite like the moronic statement which led off this paragraph.

Cross Posted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

82 Responses to “President Obama, Why Are You So Insistent On Forcing Me To Label You As Incompetent?”
( jump to bottom )

  1. Bumr50
    1 | April 2, 2012 12:28 pm

    He continues to lie because he’s allowed to.

    And a significant portion of the population believes him.

    And the media immediately rushes to manipulate data to fit the lie to back it up.

    It’s really that simple.

    He does it because he CAN.

    And it serves his agenda.


  2. 2 | April 2, 2012 12:30 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    Yup, he now leads Romney big among women because the GOP got into the contraceptive crap.


  3. Bumr50
    3 | April 2, 2012 12:39 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    the contraceptive crap.

    Trap.

    BTW, has anyone seen Romney?

    I think his campaign puts him in a cryo-tank when he’s not at a scheduled event.


  4. imtoast
    4 | April 2, 2012 12:40 pm

    I heard snippits of this speech late last week, unbelievable. And yes, the media is allowing him to lie. By the way, why are liberal men so unattractive?


  5. 5 | April 2, 2012 12:45 pm

    @ imtoast:

    He is our first Pharaoh. They treat him like a god-king.


  6. 6 | April 2, 2012 12:48 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    He’s probably being reprogrammed.


  7. 7 | April 2, 2012 12:51 pm

    @ Rodan:

    I think what you are seeing is the inevitible drop-off that is going to happen when Romney sews up the nomination. Obama doesn’t do well against a generic Republican, but we aren’t running Generic R. Republican for President. Romney is a very weak candidate, who has only won this much because both the Republican leadership and the MFM are in the tank for him. Even with those massive advantages, he has had to out-spend his opponents 7-1 to be able to eek out meger victories even in states as Blue as Illinois. He is a terribly weak candidate, and I think it is likely that he will lose to Obama.


  8. pat
    8 | April 2, 2012 12:52 pm

    I saw Charlie Rose pursue this entire line of thinking in questioning an oil exec.. He made a fool of himself. He implied that getting rid of the exploration and depreciation deduction would lower gasoline prices. One has to wonder at the sheer stupidity.


  9. 9 | April 2, 2012 12:52 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    We need to focus on the Senate and holding the House. I doubt Romney can win.


  10. MikeA
    10 | April 2, 2012 12:56 pm

    @ imtoast:

    Wouldn’t know. but the liberal women… now thats some unattractive people… :P


  11. 11 | April 2, 2012 12:57 pm

    @ MikeA:

    Most of them are ugly looking.


  12. MikeA
    12 | April 2, 2012 12:58 pm

    @ pat:

    Oart of me wants to let them do all this so when the price of gas rises, we can say.. “I told you so..”

    Of course, that comes with wrecking the entire economy and causing pain to millions.


  13. Buffalobob
    13 | April 2, 2012 12:59 pm

    The lie justifies the end.


  14. 14 | April 2, 2012 1:02 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Polls this far out are at best meaningless. Michael Dukakis lead Bush 41 by 18 points at this stage in 1988. Once Romney is crowned king of the GOP, (and yes, this pains me to no end to say type those words,) those same guys who have been beating the snot out of him will be singing his praises during the general election. That group of people who are leaning away from Romney out of protest for his dirtier than dirt campaign tactics will sooner or later realize that the alternative is still Obama. Gas Prices are going to spike during the summer, and this bounce, for what ever the reason is for it will soon dissipate, just as it has every other time it has happened.

    The sad fact is that I do not consider Mitt Romney to be any great improvement over the Bamster. But at the very least, he does not hate America or the principles upon which our nation was founded. That alone makes him the better choice.


  15. Bumr50
    15 | April 2, 2012 1:06 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    On my never ending ‘Quest To Find Things To Like About Romney’, I came across this piece at AT a few days back.

    How Mitt Can Win

    With apologies to everyone who thinks the Etch-a-Sketch simile captures the right’s problem with Mitt Romney, I’d suggest that a much better explanation is to be found in an interview-based analysis by the always sensible Stephen Hayes. Hayes reveals Romney as essentially “risk-averse,” the result of being beat up in past campaigns for being too specific. Romney’s consequent 2012 approach, according to Hayes, “goes a long way to explain why some conservatives have been reluctant to embrace his candidacy. They want a list. They want it to be long, they want it to be detailed, and they want a candidate who is not only willing to provide one but eager to campaign on it[.] … That’s not Mitt Romney. It never will be.”

    Anybody who has spent any time watching Romney in public situations that he does not control — like serious interviews and audience/heckler give-and-take on the campaign trail — will have noted a certain hesitation accompanied by a fleeting, deer-in-the-headlights “get me out of here” look, and sometimes a nervous laugh as the candidate formulates a response. Sometimes these responses have been quite effective, but regardless, the gun-shy Romney will never be called a happy warrior. Having convinced himself that he can’t be what he regards as too specific, Romney has erroneously determined that the only alternative is a half-crouching defensive posture, especially with the example of opponents who seem to delight in stepping into messes of their own making constantly before him. The result: for many, Romney’s tentative demeanor, based on an arguably false dichotomy, suggests not excessive caution, but rather lack of conviction. Romney might win or might lose adhering to his current approach, but one thing is sure: he would a win bigger, for him and the nation, with a different one.

    While I completely disagree with the strategy, it goes a long way to explaining Romney. Simply put, he’s scared – not just of conservatism, but of ANYTHING requiring him to take a stance. This comforts me in that it gives me hope that he might still turn out an OK prez.

    Keeping this on topic, in order to defeat Obama we’re going to need a candidate that can effectively call Obama on all of this BS.

    Somebody get Mitt some spinach. LOTS of it.


  16. RIX
    16 | April 2, 2012 1:08 pm

    It is impossible to underestimate Obama.
    He is not all that bright , but he is a
    a tunnel vision ideolouge.
    He will stick to the discredited left wing agenda,
    in spite of all evidence to the contrary


  17. 17 | April 2, 2012 1:13 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    He wants to be President because his daddy wasn’t.


  18. 18 | April 2, 2012 1:13 pm

    @ RIX:

    He’s a demagogue and one of the best campaigners.


  19. RIX
    19 | April 2, 2012 1:28 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ RIX:
    He’s a demagogue and one of the best campaigners.

    That pretty much sums him up.
    he can’t govern, but give him a telepromter,
    wind him up & he can cmpaign.


  20. 20 | April 2, 2012 1:32 pm

    …quite possibly the most egregious piece of bull shit since the peak oil theory was postulated by Marxists in the 1970′s

    Uh, try M. King Hubbert, reasearch geochemist for Shell Oil, in 1956. His prediction was remarkably accurate, BTW.


  21. 21 | April 2, 2012 1:41 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    His predictions have proved accurate not due to the oil in the ground actually, but due to political pressures levied by our government. I am sorry Mike, but I and many others have been beaten senseless by your corrections on the subject of oil and how much there is. I just happen to hear a lot from other sources that I also trust that there is actually a lot more of the stuff under our Earth than previously thought. I hear and read numbers bandied about that would definitely belie the predictions of M. King Hubbert.

    Proceed with your calling me an idiot if it makes you feel good inside.


  22. 22 | April 2, 2012 1:46 pm

    @ Flyovercountry:

    Peak Oil has been debunked. I have seen too many studies disproving it. We are supposed to have run out of oil already. Yet more reserves are found.


  23. pat
    23 | April 2, 2012 1:57 pm

    @ RIX:
    Exactly. And because he has cover from the media it works.


  24. 24 | April 2, 2012 1:59 pm

    @ Flyovercountry:

    Hubbert never made a prediction of hydrocarbons in place, only of U.S. oil production. His prediction was widely disparaged when he made it, and was dead on the money. The fact that he did not accurately predict technology and pricing structures 60 freaking years into the future is hardly his fault. And sod off.

    @ Rodan:

    HUbbert’s original prediction was dead on – see above response. Hubbert never predicted we would “run out of oil.”

    Honestly, guys, political intent or not, if you don’t even know what the terms mean and where they originate and under what circumstances they were used, you come off sounding foolish.. It’s like some HR person talking about the “calculus” or “quantum mechanics” of hiring or promotion – “scientism” at it’s finest.

    And in any case, my original comment still stands unchalleneged – “peak oil” was NOT first propounded by marxists in the 70s. Sorry, but that’s simply incorrect. You’re entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.


  25. Bumr50
    25 | April 2, 2012 2:10 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    There seems to be quite a bit of controversy in the oil industry as to whether or not shale and oil sand production can be developed to be cost-effective eventually, which would correct the decline in production.


  26. 26 | April 2, 2012 2:12 pm

    @ pat:

    Obama would be ranked as a total failure if we had an objective media. He can only survive as a viable presidential candidate with nearly the whole of the media solidly in his court. But that may be enough to win him a second term. He is going to be an incredibly formidible adversary in the fall election.


  27. 27 | April 2, 2012 2:13 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Obama has become a symbol.


  28. 28 | April 2, 2012 2:17 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    Not really. At a certain price point, it becomes economical, and then it’s balls-to-the-wall to develop it. Shale oil (NOT oil shale – that’s different) is there right now. Shale gas, however, is a victim of it’s own success. Prices are too low to support high-tech drilling and completion technologies. These things happen, and change, constantly. Remember, by most models, the lowest price/barrel oil ever reached (adjusted for inflation) was in 1999. If that sounds silly, the US rig count reached the lowest number ever that same year.


  29. RIX
    29 | April 2, 2012 2:17 pm

    pat wrote:

    @ RIX:
    Exactly. And because he has cover from the media it works.

    When you have members of the media refer to him
    as a “lightworker” & as “like a god to strides above
    us” & another guy with a man crush getting a “Tingley
    leg” you know that they are in the tank.
    They have drank gallons of hope & change Kool Aid
    and should be dismissed as dishonest fools.


  30. RIX
    30 | April 2, 2012 2:18 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    He is going to be an incredibly formidible adversary in the fall election.

    Word


  31. 31 | April 2, 2012 2:21 pm

    Chvecking in folks…I am safe and sound for the time being. If you want to know where, please e-mail me.
    Later….


  32. 33 | April 2, 2012 2:23 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    Heck the Black vote and the Progressive White vote. He is a god-king to 45% of this nation.


  33. MikeA
    34 | April 2, 2012 2:26 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    Wait, I thought he was…


  34. 35 | April 2, 2012 2:29 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Bumr50:
    Heck the Black vote and the Progressive White vote. He is a god-king to 45% of this nation.

    Yea, sadly there are some who would watch Obama rape a child live on Television while scooping that sames child’s brains out with a melon ball spoon and eat them and they would still vote for him.


  35. 36 | April 2, 2012 2:34 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    Van Jones is right there. Nothing Obama could do would lose him the black vote. He could campaign on the re-introduction of chattel slavery and the majority of the black vote would go to him. It is scary, really. That is the way the Germans believed in Adolf Hitler


  36. 37 | April 2, 2012 2:36 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    They would justify it. We are dealing with a 3rd World style cult of personality.


  37. RIX
    38 | April 2, 2012 2:38 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    @ RIX:
    @ Iron Fist:
    @ Rodan:
    Van Jones: “If Obama Came Out As Gay He Still Wouldn’t Lose The Black Vote”…

    Then he woud just be Fabulolus!


  38. 39 | April 2, 2012 2:45 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Nothing damages Obama.


  39. 40 | April 2, 2012 2:50 pm

    Did y’all see this shit?

    Capitol Hill lawmakers are doing more than donning hoodies on the House floor to respond to the death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin. Members of Congress are pushing new legislation calling for everything from gun control to restrictions on neighborhood watch groups.

    The legislative steps in the wake of the fatal shooting face an uncertain fate. So far, they come exclusively from Democrats in the Congressional Black Caucus — not power-wielding Republicans who would no doubt be leery of a hasty legislative response, particularly with an investigation still underway.

    The racism on display here is the most naked racism I have ever witnessed in my life. It is vile political oppertunism, coming as it does on the heels of NBC and ABC having to walk back their defamatory “reporting” on Zimmerman. I hope this shit goes nowhere, but at least it has the racists of the COngressional Black Caucus out there where everyone can see their racism. It is no coincidence that they are donning hoods.


  40. gulfloafer
    41 | April 2, 2012 2:51 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Bumr50:
    Yup, he now leads Romney big among women because the GOP got into the contraceptive crap.

    How’s things?


  41. gulfloafer
    42 | April 2, 2012 2:53 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Bumr50:
    Yup, he now leads Romney big among women because the GOP got into the contraceptive crap trap.

    Much better … is it too early to have a beer?


  42. 43 | April 2, 2012 2:55 pm

    @ gulfloafer:

    It is after 5:00 somewhere


  43. RIX
    44 | April 2, 2012 2:57 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    The racism on display here is the most naked racism I have ever witnessed in my life.

    I got an unpleasant wake up call after the OJ verdict.
    There was a different reaction in the Black & White
    Communities.
    The footage was of Blacks whooping & hollering.
    In some interviews some Blacks honestly said that
    the victims were white & that blacks were victims
    for years.
    It was not that they thought that OJ didn’t do it, it
    was that the victims were white.


  44. 45 | April 2, 2012 2:58 pm

    gulfloafer wrote:

    Rodan wrote:
    @ Bumr50:
    Yup, he now leads Romney big among women because the GOP got into the contraceptive crap trap.
    Much better … is it too early to have a beer?

    Nope. <—- Passes gulfloafer a nice warm Arrogant Bastard… cheers… :grin:


  45. gulfloafer
    46 | April 2, 2012 3:02 pm

    @ doriangrey:
    How you been? I was down in your neck of the woods a few weeks ago.


  46. 47 | April 2, 2012 3:03 pm

    @ gulfloafer:

    I’m good now. I can’t believe people still love Obama. This is sick.


  47. 48 | April 2, 2012 3:03 pm

    gulfloafer wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    How you been? I was down in your neck of the woods a few weeks ago.

    My neck of the woods, or in that stinky smelly city down the mountain from me???


  48. buzzsawmonkey
    49 | April 2, 2012 3:04 pm

    Finding out what’s in the bill after it has been passed (and argued over before the Supreme Court): How about $17 TRILLION IN NEW OBAMACARE COSTS?

    Seventeen trillion dollars over and above the $15 trillion debt the US has already.


  49. Dolphin
    50 | April 2, 2012 3:04 pm

    Where is the outrage regarding this?

    4-year-old caught in crossfire of domestic dispute remains on life support

    HOUSTON—A 4-year-old child who was shot in the head at a home in northeast Houston Saturday remains on life support, according to Houston police.
    Isaiah Nicholas and a handful of other kids were at a house in the9200 block of Madera when a couple started arguing outside.
    The boyfriend of a woman visiting the house stopped by and the two began to argue on the front lawn.
    The argument escalated and the boyfriend pulled out a gun and began firing rounds at the house. Isaiah was with five other children watching television and eating in a nursery.
    One of the bullets hit Isaiah in the temple, went through his mouth and lodged into his shoulder.
    His grandmother explained the chaos.
    “He had a gun and started shooting there. And she was screaming telling him ‘Don’t shoot into the room because that’s where the kids at,’” Isaiah’s grandmother, Lisa Cesar, said. “I was just panicking because I thought he was coming in the house, and, it was just like he was coming to kill.”
    Isaiah was rushed to Memorial Hermann Hospital, where he is clinging to life.
    Police know the suspect’s identity, but he was still at large as of Monday morning.


  50. eaglesoars
    51 | April 2, 2012 3:05 pm

    Fly, this is one of the best writings I’ve ever seen.


  51. RIX
    52 | April 2, 2012 3:14 pm

    Obama is now saying that an unelected body (Supreme Court)
    should not be able to decide the fate of his Health Care
    Reform Bill.
    He either doesn’t understand the Constitutional separation
    of powers or he didains the document.
    I would say both.


  52. 53 | April 2, 2012 3:15 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Obama is now saying that an unelected body (Supreme Court)
    should not be able to decide the fate of his Health Care
    Reform Bill.
    He either doesn’t understand the Constitutional separation
    of powers or he didains the document.
    I would say both.

    Obama is a Post Turtle.


  53. m
    54 | April 2, 2012 3:17 pm

    @ RIX:

    Kagan might have put a bug in his ear and he doesn’t like the results?

    *oh please, oh please, oh please*


  54. RIX
    55 | April 2, 2012 3:17 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    Obama is a Post Turtle.

    He is & who put him up there?
    He pretty much came from nowhere


  55. gulfloafer
    56 | April 2, 2012 3:18 pm

    RIX wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    The racism on display here is the most naked racism I have ever witnessed in my life.
    I got an unpleasant wake up call after the OJ verdict.
    There was a different reaction in the Black & White
    Communities.
    The footage was of Blacks whooping & hollering.
    In some interviews some Blacks honestly said that
    the victims were white & that blacks were victims
    for years.

    It was not that they thought that OJ didn’t do it, it
    was that the victims were white.

    This current administration had the opportunity, on many occassions, to put the race-baiting issue to rest once and for all in this country. You tell me what route they decided to take … disgusting.


  56. buzzsawmonkey
    57 | April 2, 2012 3:18 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Obama is now saying that an unelected body (Supreme Court)
    should not be able to decide the fate of his Health Care
    Reform Bill.

    I wonder if the Constitutional Law Lecturer believes that an unelected body such as a court should be able to impose things like same-sex marriage upon the populace? I’m betting yes; we already know that the Lecturer believes that he can unilaterally decide which laws he will enforce, and that his “signing statements” trump the clear intent of the bills he signs.


  57. buzzsawmonkey
    58 | April 2, 2012 3:20 pm

    m wrote:

    Kagan might have put a bug in his ear and he doesn’t like the results?

    You think the Historic First DA/DT Justice™ may have ratted out her colleagues to the White House already?


  58. RIX
    59 | April 2, 2012 3:20 pm

    m wrote:

    @ RIX:
    Kagan might have put a bug in his ear and he doesn’t like the results?
    *oh please, oh please, oh please*

    I’ll bet thet kagan let the White House know what
    the vote was within ten minutes.
    Now he is trying to intimidate them into at least one
    of them flipping his vote.
    The guy is a Marxist.


  59. buzzsawmonkey
    60 | April 2, 2012 3:22 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Now he is trying to intimidate them into at least one
    of them flipping his vote.

    If I were any of the conservative Justices, I’d be extremely wary of hit and runs before the opinion is published.


  60. gulfloafer
    61 | April 2, 2012 3:22 pm

    @ Rodan:
    I feel like I’m living in bizarro world.


  61. RIX
    62 | April 2, 2012 3:23 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    I wonder if the Constitutional Law Lecturer believes that an unelected body such as a court should be able to impose things like same-sex marriage upon the populace? I’m betting yes; we already know that the Lecturer believes that he can unilaterally decide which laws he will enforce, and that his “signing statements” trump the clear intent of the bills he signs.

    The same guy who likes to say, ‘We can’t wait. If Congress
    won’t act, I will.”


  62. m
    63 | April 2, 2012 3:25 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Naaaaaaaaaaaah. Couldn’t be.


  63. RIX
    64 | April 2, 2012 3:26 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    RIX wrote:
    Now he is trying to intimidate them into at least one
    of them flipping his vote.
    If I were any of the conservative Justices, I’d be extremely wary of hit and runs before the opinion is published.

    Yeah, I would say that the three guys who had the
    temerity to oppose Obama, need automatic ignition
    starters & food tasters.


  64. gulfloafer
    65 | April 2, 2012 3:26 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    gulfloafer wrote:
    @ doriangrey:
    How you been? I was down in your neck of the woods a few weeks ago.
    My neck of the woods, or in that stinky smelly city down the mountain from me???

    Anaheim actually, kids soccer tournament.


  65. 66 | April 2, 2012 3:26 pm

    @ RIX:

    Interesting take, and one that I would never have thought of. It’s kind of like sitting on pins and needles until June. Will 9 out of 311,000,000 people have the good sense to preserve our Constitution, or will 5 of those 9 decide that a fundamental change for the worse is in order concerning the relationship between Americans and their government?


  66. buzzsawmonkey
    67 | April 2, 2012 3:28 pm

    Flyovercountry wrote:

    will 5 of those 9 decide that a fundamental change for the worse is in order concerning the relationship between Americans and their government?

    Again, see my #49. Obamacare should go down purely on Constitutional principle—but look at the runaway debt train it is sending hurtling down upon us.


  67. 68 | April 2, 2012 3:30 pm

    gulfloafer wrote:

    doriangrey wrote:
    gulfloafer wrote:
    @ doriangrey:
    How you been? I was down in your neck of the woods a few weeks ago.
    My neck of the woods, or in that stinky smelly city down the mountain from me???
    Anaheim actually, kids soccer tournament.

    That’s not even close to my neck of the woods, that’s in”NORTHERN” California, that’s a whole different State… :twisted:


  68. gulfloafer
    69 | April 2, 2012 3:32 pm

    @ doriangrey:
    Doh! I’ll be in Pomona in a few weeks for another tournament. Bring that hot rod out to the track.


  69. RIX
    70 | April 2, 2012 3:34 pm

    :
    Flyovercountry wrote:

    @ RIX:
    Interesting take, and one that I would never have thought of. It’s kind of like sitting on pins and needles until June. Will 9 out of 311,000,000 people have the good sense to preserve our Constitution, or will 5 of those 9 decide that a fundamental change for the worse is in order concerning the relationship between Americans and their government?

    I think that BHO has got the word that the vote went
    5 to 4 against him. That would explain why he is attacking
    the Court,he would be lauding them if he thought that he
    had the votes.
    He is a dangerous demagouge. It is one thing to disagree, but
    a whole other thing to question their right to decide.


  70. RIX
    71 | April 2, 2012 3:36 pm

    @ RIX:
    I meant Five guys #62


  71. 72 | April 2, 2012 3:37 pm

    OMG… Where do I get one of these…

    httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM-DGaNmtA0&feature=player_embedded#!


  72. 73 | April 2, 2012 3:37 pm

    New Thread.


  73. 74 | April 2, 2012 3:38 pm

    @ gulfloafer:

    Its a cult that has taken over the country.


  74. 75 | April 2, 2012 3:49 pm

    @ RIX:

    Martin Luther King had a dream that his child not be judged by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. I do not believe that that dream is held by a majority of his fellows. It is clear that many of even his contemporaries want a culture where they are judged by the color of ther skin. That just want that judgement to be in their favor.


  75. buzzsawmonkey
    76 | April 2, 2012 3:51 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Given the content of their character, it is wholly understandable that people like Obama, Holder, Sharpton, Jackson, et. al. prefer to demand to be judged by the color of their skin.


  76. 77 | April 2, 2012 4:04 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    Here’s the quote – and it is PRICELESS:

    Obama suggested that the Supreme Court would be guilty of “judicial activism” if it overturned the law, and stressed that he believed the justices would see the individual mandate as an integral part of the law.

    Isn’t judicial activism his sole purpose in appointing that unqualified dolt Elena Kagan to the Court in the first place? And if she DID leak the results to the White House, she’s going to be in a world of hurt with the other justices – that is an absolute breach of protocol.

    Someone needs to remind this asshat that SCOTUS is a co-equal branch of government. Like Congress.


  77. 78 | April 2, 2012 4:07 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ gulfloafer:

    Its a cult that has taken over the country.

    I think the Obama Cult of Personality is far weaker now than it was in ’08 and it’s trending weak still – it was a fad. I really believe that good old-fashioned color blindness will come into favor and Obama has been so racially polarizing he’ll be ill-equipped to deal with it.

    Obama has, by any rational measure, failed at crisis management at every turn. “First Black President” or not, that novelty has long since worn away and as our long-term problems become more apparent and unemployment and gas prices remain high, none but the most rabid disciples will be enthusiastic about giving him another go at it.

    I’m not at all pessimistic about our chances in November.


  78. RIX
    79 | April 2, 2012 4:28 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    It is clear that many of even his contemporaries want a culture where they are judged by the color of ther skin. That just want that judgement to be in their favor

    .

    Kind of like our current POTUS.


  79. yenta-fada
    80 | April 2, 2012 4:39 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    You have a good point about Ozero being abandoned by his own party. They don’t want to lose their free ride on the Congress merry-go-round. Already there are Dems who don’t want to show up at Ozero’s local fundraiser. If there’s anything that scares those people, it’s a loser.


  80. 81 | April 2, 2012 6:22 pm

    yenta-fada wrote:

    @ MacDuff:
    You have a good point about Ozero being abandoned by his own party. They don’t want to lose their free ride on the Congress merry-go-round. Already there are Dems who don’t want to show up at Ozero’s local fundraiser. If there’s anything that scares those people, it’s a loser.

    Of course his “I’m only going to do two fundraisers for all of you and I’m sure as shit not sharing the loot I’m raising to help you” isn’t making them happy either.

    However, it looks like he’s really falling short of that BILLION he was going to raise. Time to call out the illegal foreign donors.


  81. buzzsawmonkey
    82 | April 2, 2012 6:54 pm

    Before I pack it in, this is huge:

    Obama campaign disables credit card verification for donations, just like it did in 2008.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David