One of the more annoying characteristics of President Obama is his lack of graciousness, his tendency to gloat, to take victory laps, and his overall peevishness even in victory. Rather then having a “first class temperament” as the buffoonish Christopher Buckley declared in October, 2008, Obama exhibits all the tendencies of having an immature temperament, vindictive and petty and being a malignant narcissist.
“For many years, the word that Democrats hurled at Republicans was ‘divisive.’ (Their other great word was ‘mean-spirited.’) I can’t think of people — certainly of Americans — more divisive than the Obama Democrats.
You remember what Obama said during the campaign, right? He said it in a television ad: ‘Mitt Romney. Not one of us.’ Can’t get any starker than that, really.”
Jay Nordlinger
by Michael Goodwin
A Favorite apocryphal tale goes like this: A New Jersey town where 90 percent of the residents are Irish and 10 percent Jewish had an election. The Irish candidate got 90 percent of the vote, and the Jewish candidate got 10 percent, whereupon the Irish victor celebrated by lamenting the clannishness of the Jews.
Sore winners have always been with us, but they are especially grating when they include the president of the United States.
“It makes me so sad,” a self-employed woman I know said during Monday’s inauguration. “It’s so amazing and wonderful that America elected a black man, but I can’t enjoy it. He’s not talking to me.”
I share her dismay at the partisan, joyless event, but she is wrong in one respect. Barack Obama was talking to her. He was scolding her about America’s imperfections and warning her that the liberal train will roll over her if she doesn’t get on board.To hear Obama, you would think he was anointed by unanimous consent. The more than 63 million people who voted for someone else were cited only as obstacles to his vision. Apparently, his victory makes all other views illegitimate.
The banana-republic approach was one of many demoralizing flaws in a speech that fell short of the grand occasion. In tone and content, it struck me more as an omen of trouble than a celebration of our democracy.
The speech was full of Obama oddities, from straw men easily demolished to hazy promises wrapped in juvenile phrasings. Consider this doozy assertion to justify big government: “No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future.”
And here’s a line noteworthy for its dissonance: “A nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American, that is what this moment requires.”
[.......]
While a certain license comes with the job, being president does not confer the right to deny reality. Passing references to the debt and deficit were just that, as though these are trivialities instead of mortal threats.
His naked claim that “economic recovery has begun” doesn’t do justice to the devastation of the recession, or to the anemic pace of the recovery. Then again, jobs were never his obsession.
That distinction belongs to success, and for that he carries a chip on each shoulder.
Three times he decried the privileges or happiness “of the few,” setting the stage for more class warfare.
He sang the praises of the middle class, without acknowledging that median family incomes have fallen on his watch. Not his fault.
[......]
The disappointment is that he lived down to expectations and didn’t seize the chance to be more inclusive. He could have pretended to respect the idea that no political party has a monopoly on patriotism, but didn’t bother.
So he sounded like a president only for the people who want more government instead of a president of a diverse nation of 315 million people. Even the Page 1 headline of The New York Times declared that “Obama Offers Liberal Vision.” For the Times to call you a liberal means you’re pretty far out there.
Obama, of course, fancies himself a modern Abe Lincoln, but he’s actually a reverse Lincoln. The 16th president went to war to save the union. The 44th seems determined to start a war to divide the union.By that yardstick, his first term was a roaring success, and his second is off to a great start.
[........]
Taking aim, rationally
Now that there is a pause in the gun-control fever, this is a good time to focus on two little-remarked facts about weapons and crime in New York City.
First, there are probably more than 100,000 legal gun owners in the city. Second, cases where any of those owners were charged with using guns to commit crimes are as rare as the proverbial hen’s tooth.
About half the legal gun owners, or some 50,000 people, are current or retired members of the NYPD. The department says there are also about 3,100 private New Yorkers with “carry” permits, and more than 14,000 permits that allow owners to keep handguns at home for protection.
Nearly 2,900 permits are issued to private security guards, and some 20,000 rifles are registered to private citizens, most used for hunting outside the five boroughs.
Add in various state and federal law-enforcement officers based here, and the total surpasses 100,000 legal gun owners. Yet there are very few cases where owners used a legal gun illegally.
Paul Browne, deputy police commissioner, said he could think of none offhand — although he did turn up several in a later search, including some involving rogue cops. But by a clear measure, the city’s system of background checks, registrations and permitting, while cumbersome, allows gun ownership without jeopardizing public safety. Indeed, letting guns get into the right hands improves public safety.
[.......]
Read the rest – Left off Bam’s train
Tags: Michael Goodwin
I keep hoping that Obama’s hubris will meet its nemesis.
Amen to that. The man has no dignity at all.
The Progressives have near complete control of the country. They have no serious opposition and the national GOP is a joke. Why are they so angry?
Rodan wrote:
Because they still want 100% control. 90-95% of ass licking by the media is not enough, hence their War on Fox.
Rodan wrote:
On the previous thread I agree with you on Hillary in 2016 having little chance. She is fugly!
@ Speranza:
They have the perfect opponents in the Republicans. The GOP is politically a bunch of paraplegics.
@ Speranza:
Yeah it’s going to be Deval Patrick or Martin O’Malley.
Remember the last “election” Saddam held? He got 100% of the vote. That’s what the Democrats want and if they do not get it they act like two year olds.
Rodan wrote:
Right now that is where my betting money is at. Deval Patrick although a miserable failure is Black and Martin O’Malley is the most liberal governor in the nation.
Very interesting and not surprising at all.
@ Rodan:
@ Speranza:
Speranza is right but you have to look at their hippy dippy roots in the 60′s to understand their “concern”.
The establishment failed to stomp out the anti-war movement despite winning elections (most notable being Nixon’s ass-stomping of McGovern). They are very familiar with the results. And guess what? THEY ARE THE ESTABLISHMENT NOW!
Shallowness cuts both ways folks. It’s hard and slow but when the kids revolt they do so against those in power regardless of who it is.
Lol!
unclassifiable wrote:
Obama was the only incumbent in my memory who ran for re-election as an “insurgent”.
@ unclassifiable:
See see I can be optimistic
@ unclassifiable:
That’s why the GOP should try to turn younger voters against Democrats. The Left is the Establishment. But this is the GOP we are talking about. They are Political paraplegics.
Rodan wrote:
Dysfunctional is an over used term but it is appropriate as a description of the GOP.
@ Speranza:
Romney helped him by running as Presidential.
@ Speranza:
They are national laughing stock. I no longer take them serious. That is why I am not doing political threads. Why bother when your own side is a joke.
@ Speranza:
Oh he’ll get out of this relatively unscathed but the next Dem is going to be left with a big ol’ stinky bag of wet drippy platitudes, a bare treasury, and one hacked off group of unfulfilled 20-30-somethings.
Life will be grand.
@ unclassifiable:
The Democrats will probably win in 2016, but then the piper will have to be paid and the collapse happens on their watch.
unclassifiable wrote:
That is why I am not as pessimistic as Rodan is for 2016.
I recall reading about the death of the Democratic Party after 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988.
@ Rodan:
Aw lets not even think in these terms.
Let’s think of our assets.
Many grew up punk, grunge, heavy metal, hip-hop, or rap.
We already have the requisite snotty attitude about authority. We need to take that out for a walk.
He ignores a couple of things: 1) NYCs system of gun control is too cumbersome to pass constitutionality, most likely. We can’t have multiple checks and levels of permission to be obtained for any other Constitutional right. Why is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms different? Before you say a life may be involved, understand that every choice that leads to abortion takes a human life. That is the simple calculus of it. Why, therefore, should guns be more restricted than abortion?
2) he says nothing about crime in NYC as a whole. While it is not as bad as it was in the 1970s and 1980s, it is my understanding that crime is still pretty rampant in NYC. Making guns practically illegal has done nothing about the overall crime rate. Guns were practically illegal in th e1970s, and crime was very high. Crime has gone down despite, not because of gun control.
Rodan wrote:
Great, leave me with the serious threads then. //
Iron Fist wrote:
No it is not. It is no where near 1970 -90 levels.
Rodan wrote:
Romney took a brief lead on October 3, 2012 and sat on that lead forgetting that there was still 10 minutes left in the game. Shmuck and a third!
When someone says Rand Paul brutalized Hillary we should cheer.
We should make fun of them for their limp-wristed grasp of true brutality.
We should tell them to go back to their fair trade monkey crap coffe shops and suck on a latte.
Speranza wrote:
I don’t think the Republican Party is dead, I think it’s just passed out by the toilet, pants around its ankles, in a puddle of its own vomit.
good ground to take a stand…right here, right now
Remember the Alamo mf’s
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-epa-kills-power-plant-3900-jobs-in-texas/article/2519575#.UQFhEGf0_C0
MacDuff wrote:
Lovely imagery, sort of like Elvis in 1977.
MacDuff wrote:
You’ve been hanging out with P.J. O’Roark?
Now that’s funny MacDuff.
MacDuff wrote:
no, that’s your sister!
bada boom
unclassifiable wrote:
For $7 too!
@ Speranza:
I stand corrected then, but my bigger point didn’t change. You had ultra-restrictive gun laws and high crime. Now you have ultra-restrictive gun laws and lower crime. The gun laws aren’t a causal factor. We have very liberal gun laws, and low crime. Chicago has very restrictive gun laws and an extremely high crime rate. Gun lawsdon’t help at all, therefore they can’t Constitutionally be imposed. The State has to have a compelling reason to infringe on a basic right, and making Liberals feel better isn’t a compelling reason.
@ Iron Fist:
New York City is the safest big city in the world. That said, I do not like NYC’s gun laws.
Iron Fist wrote:
sane with my link above with the EPA arbitrarily closing another power plant in Texas…Perry should simply defy the feds until they prove, scientifically the benefit…just say no and force a showdown
@ Rodan:
Probably. Hillary is going to run and win the Democratic nomination. You guys are going to slobber over Chris Christie once the Republican primaries are over, and he’s your candidate.
@ Speranza:
The Democrats lost 5 out of 6 elections 1968-1988. They eventually got their act together. The GOP is 4/6 and 5/6 with the popular vote. I do not see them getting their act together. Instead many Republicans have lashed out at different groups that didn’t vote for them with the free stuff noinsense. They have dug a deep hole. Nothing will change until the GOP suffers a 40 state landlside.
The Democrats are going for the kill now!
Democrats launch plan to turn Texas blue
Since the GOP are a bunch of paraplegics, I would not be shocked if the Dems pull it off.
Rodan wrote:
Me too. I actually at one time was thinking about moving to Texas but do not want to go to another California if you get my drift.
theoutsider wrote:
Get this through your thick skull. I will NOT vote for Chris Christie in 2016. Hillary will not be your nominee. Deval Patrick is Black and that will be enough for win to win the Dem nod. If Christie is the nominee, the Republicans will lose in a landslide since many Conservatives will not vote for him.
I will not vote Republican if the following are the nominee:
Jeb Bush
Rick Santorum
Mike Huckabee
Chris Christie.
Is this clear to you now?
Speranza wrote:
liberals are like piles of dog shit in the park…they’re everywhere…it’s their ferocious stupidity and blind partisanship that that makes them so annoying among all their other bad habits
@ Speranza:
If the Texas GOP plays its cards right, they will not go the way of California. But since this is the Republican Party I will not be shocked if they botch it.
@ heysoos:
The GOP are clowns, that is why the Dems run circles around them.
@ Speranza:
If Texas turns Blue, there will be nowhere to hide in America. You’d best be making plans to emigrate to a free country. Like Russia. But I don’t believe that the Democrats can pull that off any more than we’re going ot make California Red. And there are a lot more Conservatives in California than there are Liberals in Texas.
Iron Fist wrote:
I am re-reading a book that was first published in 1973 by a former Deputy Police Commissioner named Robert Daley called “Target Blue”. It brought back a lot of memories about NYC in the late 60′s and early 70′s with the Greenwich Village Townhouse Weatherman bombing (1970), the Black Liberation Army murders of policemen (1971 -72), Frank Serpico and the Knapp Comisison (1969 -72), the assassinations of mafiosos Joe Colombo (1971) and Joey Gallo (1972), the murder by the Nation of Islam of policeman officer Phillip Cardillo (1972), The French Connection (1968)), Very interesting stuff.
The wheels are gonna fall off the currency before they manage to turn the USA blue. Then the splitting of the Union of 50 States will happen
Speranza wrote:
I am re-reading a book that was first published in 1973 by a former NYC Deputy Police Commissioner named Robert Daley called “Target Blue”. It brought back a lot of memories about NYC in the late 60′s and early 70′s with the Greenwich Village Townhouse Weatherman bombing (1970), the Black Liberation Army murders of policemen (1971 -72), Frank Serpico and the Knapp Comisison (1969 -72), the assassinations of mafiosos Joe Colombo (1971) and Crazy Joey Gallo (1972), the murder by the Nation of Islam of police officer Phillip Cardillo (1972), The French Connection (1968), the JDL bombings of Soviet cultural events (1973) Very interesting stuff.
@ Iron Fist:
This is the Republican Party we are talking about. I do not have much faith in them stopping the Dems. It would be temporary anyway. once the Dems have complete power, things will fall apart and a New Reformed GOP can make a comeback.
Irony of history, huh?
Speranza wrote:
Those would be the same Weathermen that Bill Ayers was part of, wouldn’t it? Bill Ayers was a trerrorist. Obama wants to keep me from buying guns, but he pals around with a guy who’s built bombs and was part of an organization that’s killed people.
@ Rodan:
Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee in 2016. If the Republican nominee is Bush or Christie, you will vote for them. No way in hell would you vote for Huckabee or Santorum.
Iron Fist wrote:
The very same. The Weathermen were an offshoot of the S.D.S. (Students for a Democratic Society) just as the Black Liberation Army was an offshoot of the Black Panthers. Most of the weathermen were children of upper class whites.
@ theoutsider:
Better you root for Mooch. After all moochers need to stick together
If you have a Kindle or Nook you can download Target Blue for no more then $5.99.
http://www.amazon.com/Target-Blue-insiders-view-N-Y-P-D/dp/B0006WFK8Y/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1359046442&sr=1-1&keywords=Target+Blue
It is a great description of the Mean Streets of NYC in the 1970′s and this was written even before the Son of Sam (1976-77) spree killing, the Etan Patz murder/kidnapping (1979), and the Bernhard Goetz subway shootings (1984) a few years later.
theoutsider wrote:
Deval Patrick (he’s black you know which gives him a one up on Shrillary) or Martin O’Malley. Both are relatively young.
@ Rodan:
@ Speranza:
You guys really do not understand this state.
Ted Cruz anyone?
Louie Gohmert?
Well look talk is cheap. Stay where you are at.
The real motto of this state is “we don’t give a crap”.
Bernhard Goetz should have never turned himself in. As I recall, though, the police were a lot more concerned with catching him than they would have been if his assailents had murdered him and stolen his wallet. When that is the culture of the police force, it is no wonder crime is rampant.
@ Iron Fist:
Bill Ayers is the son of Thomas Ayers, who was Chairman
of Commonwealth Edison & a friend of Mayor Richard J Daley.
When Ayers walked out of the courtroom after his acquittal
he said, “Guilty as sin, free as a bird”
Justice is blind./
@ Speranza:
You are forgetting Joe the Biden. Whomever wins the Dem nomination will have to take it away from him. I don’t know how easy that will be.
unclassifiable wrote:
Get enough transplanted California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts liberals and watch the changes. See Arizona, Vermont, Nevada, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, etc. I hope you are right.
unclassifiable wrote:
true, true.
(breaks out the minor threat CD)
theoutsider wrote:
I despise the Bush family. I voted against Bush in 2000 and only for him 04 because I hated Kerry. I only voted for McCain and Romney because I hate Obama. Unlike you I do not vote lockstep. Odds are I will vote Libertarian in 2016. I do not like current state of the GOP and this is case where the Party left me. I am boycotting the 2014 elections.
Hillary will not be your nominee. Deval Patrick will because he is Black. No Democrats will vote against a Black candidate. Plus Hillary is ugly and fat.
There are others here who are loyal Pro Republican voters. You are better off debating them. I owe the GOP nothing and I have no respect for that party. I am more interested in the Superbowl than politics right now.
Are you not happy at the iron grip Democrats have in politics? This is your moment in the sun, enjoy it!
@ Speranza:
The problem is on the GOP. They do not know how to appeal to beyond their base.
@ Iron Fist:
a study for all of this would be to take equally dense population population areas with like demographics and compare crime rates with gun laws as a variable.
then try to adjust for other factors like race, et cetera.
Feinstein trots out her arsenal…what a pathetic clown…these people are stupid beyond belief
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/278993-report-feinstein-to-introduce-assault-weapons-ban-thursday
theoutsider wrote:
i will not ever vote for christie, period. never. i will vote 3d party.
Rodan wrote:
they have zero fighting spirit and for me that count’s for a lot…no guts…just show me a stand up guy that won’t take any shit, anybody
@ Speranza:
Hipsters!
I’d almost be more concerned about Christie’s running mate. The campaign trail is gruelling
Rodan wrote:
If there was no language barrier I would prefer Prague.
Rodan wrote:
heysoos wrote:
God I wish we had several of them. Someone with an absolute commitment to victory.
It looks like Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee in 2016. The Republican nominee is going to be either Bush or Christie. Who are you supporting?
waldensianspirit wrote:
what is this mythical base i keep hearing about?
@ heysoos:
I have no respect for the national Republican Party. There are Republicans I respect like Pat Toomey, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio outside of his foreign policy, Susanna Martinez, Rick Perry and others. As an organization I do not respect the GOP. Their arrogance and submissiveness of people who did not vote for them has turned me off. Plus their obsession with nation building and interventionism in support of the Muslim Brotherhood is a no no for me.
Ray Lewis has more credibility with me that GOP chairman Priebius.
coldwarrior wrote:
John Lott has done that. The book is called More Guns, Less Crime. The science of this is known. The gun controllers can’t argue the science, so they try to use emotion to carry the day.
Half of all the murders in the United States are comitted by black youths and young adults. Half of them, or near enough. Mor eoften than not they are killing other black youths or young adults. The murder rate in the United States, bar that, is really very low now. You can never stop something like happened at Sandy Hook, though, and the gun controllers will always be there to pounce.
theoutsider wrote:
Neither, I will vote Libertarian in that case.
@ waldensianspirit:
All the GOP does is kiss the ass of a segment of the base. Who writes the platform and forces GOP nominees to take stances that kills them in the general election? It’s a segment base.
You have won, the GOP is yours. People like me who believe in Individualism, Free Will, Capitalism, National Unity and a Cautious foreign policy have no room. Enjoy your party!
theoutsider wrote:
3d party, but if hillary can govern like billyjeff (after newt got in his brain)and preside over a booming economy…well…
Rodan wrote:
Even with near total control, the Left is never happy. The more power Stalin achieved (and he had more control over his people then Hitler did over Germany) the more paranoid he was.
@ theoutsider:
what do you care for?…how much debt is too much?
Iron Fist wrote:
i completely forgot about that book that is sitting on my shelf over here.
Iron Fist wrote:
See? The truth is racist.
Rodan wrote:
I have said for years, and posted here to much chagrin, that the GOP will fail you personally, cut your throat and leave you high and dry…I favor conservative ideology but the GOP is weak, stupid, and way out of focus…people here didn’t want to hear that
coldwarrior wrote:
You mean the base where allegedly (it actually was bullshit) 3 million of them sat it out last November because Romney was not as conservative as they wanted and they had not problems with an Obama re-election? /
@ Speranza:
One other thing.
This state has heat.
In the summer we shake hands with hell.
This has a way of shaking the wannabe’s out real fast.
But if that doesn’t work we got floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes (as in more than one cat 2 in one year).
And we got a whole state full of crazies both left and right.
And we got Ted Nugent and tfk.
So yeah, come on down.
@ Rodan:
You forget. I’m an independent
The GOP is Democrat square root
@ unclassifiable:
you also have Jimmy Vaughn, the Winter brothers, ZZ Top…guys like that
So, Obama and the commie Democrats win because conservatives will not get along with one another in this fight to the death of freedom, the constitution and liberty.
Seems to some the commie Democrats are not the real problem.
First Know Thyselves.
@ unclassifiable:
I am aware of Texas weather as I have spent many days in Texas (East Texas i.e Marshall and Longview as well as in Dallas) and as Governor Perry says “Nobody moves to Texas because of the weather”. Still, people go where the jobs are.
@ Speranza:
Keep saying that therte is no base. That’s what Bush I said for the entire duration of his second term.
Iron Fist wrote:
Oh there is a “base” but they ain’t nearly as large as you think it is and they have been catered to and pandered to (they practically write the platform) by phonies like the doofus Bush family, yet we keep on losing.
heysoos wrote:
I like when Billy Gibbons goes on the show Bones and scares the bejeebers out of his son-in-law
Example: John McCain.
Just possible he will lick Lt. for life, traitor John F. Kerrys ass in public before God and everyone today.
NO fool like an old fool.
@ taxfreekiller:
Hope you don’t mind me mentioning you in the roll call of the great state’s attributes.
taxfreekiller wrote:
That’s in the interest of bipartisan peace. It’s what they call “the Pacific Rim.”
Iron Fist wrote:
its a serious question, really.
who are the base? what are their demographics?
what do they believe in?
what are their core political beliefs?
i’m not being an ass, i just want to know who they are.
@ Speranza:
As I recall, Bush won twice. Narrow wins, but wins. Would he have done better if he’d been more “moderate”? Ask President Romney about that.
waldensianspirit wrote:
I get a huge kick out of those guys, and they are better than ever live…Gibbons is a genius
@ coldwarrior:
The base is a coalition of Evangelical Christians, hard fiscal conservatives, and other social conservatives. They represent about 68% og the Republican vote, give or take. To many of these people, social issues take precedence over economic ones, though they are almost all small-government types. Abortion and Gun Control are litmus tests. Romney only partially passed these. Romney didn’t pander to the base. Lots of Tea Party types in the base, and Romney ran from them like they had the plague.
@ coldwarrior:
The base is whoever shows up and votes for you.
Instead of worrying about that why don’t we take tfk’s advice in #88?
We are so lost with so many different folks calling themselves conservative that we don’t really know what that means.
I myself am trying to formulate that in my head and that is disturbing to me because I would have thought I would have had that par of my life wired pretty tight by now.
@ coldwarrior:
And maybe that is what you trying to express.
Seems like I have to re-read things more these days.
unclassifiable wrote:
just give me the old conservative three-legged stool, clearly separated from liberal policy and the support will roll in on it’s own
Iron Fist wrote:
Bush was to the Left of Romney. His narrow wins was due to his reaching out to Hispanics.
ms tfk is way more than me
She scares the shit out of RINO’s state wide.
She has changed with others like her the Republican Party in Texas.
She has been in the trenche knife fights with the Bushes and other RINO’s now from her Goldwater days.
use her@ unclassifiable:
Iron Fist wrote:
hmmm….well, i’m not evangelical, i am very fiscon, i prefer individual rights to ‘social issues’, abortion is not going to change into illegal anyway, so its a moot point to me, i dont care if clair down the street gets an abortion, she has to live with it. 2d amendment is a litmus test.
i am a TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY party member and participant (its an economic organization that wants smaller govt).
bush doubled the debt from 5 to 10 trillion in that largest spedning hike since johnson and very very few on the right got agitated, i did. so i guess i am more fiscon than anything else. from the looks of it, the econ base was not represented in the 2000′s. free shit was given out all over in the 2000′s. but now free shit is bad.
interesting to ponder. i have to pull the mains here in the house and run an electrical conduit.
bbl. this is interesting.
Private Carnegie Foundation joins with the government’s National Endowment for the Humanities to spend $800 million bestowing books about Islam on the hinterlands to make sure they get the right ideas about it.
@ Iron Fist:
Seeing your description I am definitely not part of this base. I believe in Fiscal responsibility, Individualism, Non Nation building/Cautious foreign policy and a live/let live attitude. The only stance I have in common with the base is guns, that’s it.
The GOP definitely doesn’t represent me then. Neither do the Democrats. I am without a party then.
@ taxfreekiller:
God Bless here, I despise that family!
@ taxfreekiller:
nice tribute
Classic tfk
@ Rodan:
You’ve got the answer in your question. They have near complete control.
ProgressivesStatists will not be happy until they have complete control.another republican backs down, avoiding conflict….this stuff adds up, is exploited by the donks, and THEY determine the image of their opponent…what am I missing here?
http://thehill.com/video/senate/279007-sen-johnson-shouldnt-have-speculated-on-clintons-emotions
@ taxfreekiller:
bless her…no guts no glory
@ coldwarrior:
Yup, It makes me realize I am not a Republican anymore. The party left me.
@ AZfederalist:
Yeah, they want total absolute control.
@ coldwarrior:
and bush 1 had a steep debt curve too
@ Rodan:
No, you are not part of the Republican base. That doesn’t mean that you are without a Party, but the core of the Party isn’t necessarily aligned with what your core principles are. Fiscal Responsibility (as well as individual responsibility; abortion is as much about responsibility for one’s actions as anything else), Individualism are there, but I’d say the base doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Nation Building either way. TThey do want to win a war if we are in it, though. Bush’s handling of 9-11 initially really scored him some points with the base. And don’t forget, we really won in Afghanistan in 2001-2002. Our casualties were very low, and Afghanistan wasn’t a training ground for terrorists. It wasn’t until Obama took over and changed our war aims that Afghanistan became suck a bloody clusterfuck. You blame Bush for too much. Bush wasn’t the greatest President we’ve ever had, but he was far and away better than what we have now.
So, Rodan,
What good comes from you getting your feelings hurt by some piss ant RINO’s.
You gonna join something like Luap Nor or what?
Get 1% of the vote just to make sure the commie Democrats win a close race?@ Rodan:
@ waldensianspirit:
Reagan hd a fairly steep debt curve as well, but no one, not even Bush II, had anything like Obama has had for the last four years. We have argued about the budget deficit all of my life. My father used to say that the two greatest lies in politics were that the Democrats were for the black man and the Republicans were for a balanced budget. I think on that he could be right.
Great VDH!
Europe’s Dream Becomes Its Nightmare
@ taxfreekiller:
That’s the way the girls are from Texas.
@ taxfreekiller:
And there; sthe rub. Successful politics is abou tthe possible. There are no perfect candidates. None. Not even Reagan waas perfect in office. In general you have to go with the party that you can stomach the most, even if it is still nauseous swill. There are litmus tests, though. FOr me it is the gun control issue. At first, it was hard for me to vote for Romney, even though he gave a good speech at the NRA Convention. I’d have preferred to see some actions to back that change of heart up. Be that as it may, I knew Obama would be coming for strict gun control the moment he was re-elected. It wasn’t hard for me to vote for Romney, in that regard, given the competition.
@ Iron Fist:
That is a huge problem. I don’t want to hear the base is against Islamic terrorism, when they support establishing Sharia based states.
But reading what you wrote, I am on the Right, but I am a distinct Right. I am more Libertarian-Nationalist than Conservative. basically I really do not have a party who share my values.
Ah such is life you know, too short to worry about things!
I am working on Hitler was a Hipster for next week!
@ taxfreekiller:
I have voted Republican, but the party and I no longer have much in common. The Base and I have different values and priorities.
I believe in Individual liberty, Free Markets, Fiscal responsibility, an anti-Islamic/Non Nation Building foreign policy and leaving social issues up to the states. The only issue I agree with Republicans is guns. But outside of that, you see I don’t have much in common.
Both Republicans and Democrats support the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islams agenda. They are no different in that regard. Both are pitting Americans against each other. Screw them both. I will support some Individual Republicans who share my views, but I am done blindly support the GOP.
I am focused on enjoying my life and taking care of myself.
@ Iron Fist:
Anyone who didn’t see it coming must have been a fool or blind. Obama was just waiting for the election to be over before he went for his gun grab.
Rodan wrote:
You should post it as a thread. Excellent article.
Rodan wrote:
“After the next election I’ll have more flexibility”
Obama to Medvedev
@ Iron Fist:
You called this!
Gun control proposals could split President Obama, Harry Reid
Its called quitting.@ Rodan:
@ Speranza:
Yeah, but hey it is what it is!
I’m not letting this get to me. Life is too short.
@ taxfreekiller:
It’s called living your life.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
The Knish has an excellent article about this.
The Guns Of Obamerica
Without sheep dogs all the sheep get killed and then the sheep dogs themselves got no reason to be.
You will not be allowed to just “live your life” the commie Democrats will own your life lock stock and barrell.
The only way out is to fight. Other wise your dead meat in the commie gulags.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
At the same time the DC School District is considering
dropping Civics and replacing with additional gym classes.
They are trying to bump up their graduation rate.
@ Rodan:
Yeah, not so much Reid (who is really wishy-washy about the Seocnd Amendment), but Bauccus, Liandrieu, and people like that. They aren’t going to want to vote on this, because any way they vote hurts them. Their Democrat base (most of it) wants more gun control, but the votes that they need to stay in office generally does not, and people vote on the gun issue. That is what the Democrats learned in 1994. That’s why they haven’t touched it again until now. Obama is trying to carve out a place for himself in history like LBJ. He wants to be the Liberal’s New Messiah, and he has the cult to go with it, but really few accomplishments. I don’t think there is any way Feinstien’s bill passes the Senate. I doubt they can get the 60 votes necessary to have a vote on it unless the Republicans sell us out on the issue.
@ Iron Fist:
Even worse, he wants to create a One Party nation.
Little bit of local news, Big outdoor show that decided to pre-emptively ban its vendors from showing scary black rifles cancels the week long show due to backlash.
This article cites a NRA boycott. I know from my local shooters forum that as soon as the news hit that ARs were banned at the show members were emailing the promoter asking they not ban ARs, and they if they did they would not go to the show.
NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons
.
RIX wrote:
Why not just throw out reading and replace it with a graduation requirement based on the number of children had out of wedlock?
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Not that far fetched is it?
Rodan wrote:
And pay for the party with someone else’s credit card.
@ taxfreekiller:
Without sheep dogs all the sheep get killed and then the sheep dogs themselves got no reason to be.
The Republicans are lousy sheep dogs are are an exclusive Party. I do not belong to the base so the Party does not represent me. Besides, I am wolf and do not need a guardian sheep dog.
Ask yourself an honest question. How are the Republicans better than the Democrats if both support the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda? Think about that.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Yup and they will succeed at it. That is I am planning my life out to survive the coming Progressive dictatorship.
My Senators name is Richard, but he will always be
a dick to me.
RIX wrote:
when you have a wealthy, long tern Senator talking like that, you know we are deep shit
This story just gets weirder and weirder!
Manti Te’o logged hours on phone
@ heysoos:
They are emboldened and now showing their true colors.
@ heysoos:
t
Durbin has always been a goof. The Unions own him &
he had no problem slandering our troops.
@ citizen_q:
Well they withdrew their booths.
It does not look like they asked for a boycott and I have been hearing that folks were not attending this show because of Reed’s actions before the NRA made this announcement.
Someone else (forgot who) pointed out that this is different from a boycott. Folks just looked at Reed’s actions and made up their minds not to attend. In a way is a promotion of freedom rather than the jack-booted synchophants that the organizations of the left demand.
Rodan wrote:
Domestic issues. Everything from gun control to taxation. It used to be that politics stopped at the water’s edge. You didn’t see the Republicans back-stab FDR the way the Democrats back-stabbed Bush. Maybe you should have. I don’t really think so, but the Democrats have shown that such tactics pay off. It was a different time though. The truth of th ematter is that the vast bulk of the people don’t care one way or another about foreign policy. They don’t see how it impacts their lives. That is especially true for those low information voters you keep telling us we need ot court. GOing on about “Nation Building” is just going to turn them off. They don’t care. The death toll in our two wars has been unusually low, really. People don’t see the war as affecting them. The reason you see both parties persuing essentially the same foreign policy is because that foreign policy is generally what the American People want to see persued. They don’t want a Shermanesque march through Islam’s heartland. I wish they did, but they sjut don’t. To the extent that they think of it at all, the American people want to believe the “Religion of Peace” bullshit. I don’t know if Bush could have changed that. Probably not, with the treasonous Democrats controlling the media the way they do.
heysoos…
Sen Durbin, will you please outline in detail the failure of your state to even reduce the murder rate in Chicago?…describe the political and social policies that led to this epic problem and the role of strict gun control?
@ Rodan:
Wait until it becomes public that Ludwig was cheating on
Miss S with Lannai Kekua.
@ RIX:
Dick Durbin (D-al Qaeda) is a traitor. He is one of the ones I was talking about in my last post. With people like him giving aid and comfort to the enemy, it is no wonder that we can’t fight this war to win it.
This is crazy!
Man ‘forced fiancée to swallow engagement ring when she tried to leave him’
@ buzzsawmonkey:
They’re going to have to do something similar if they go forward with this harebrained scheme to allow women into combat arms MOSs in the military.
It’s physically impossible for 99.9% of women to meet the standards required.
@ Rodan:
Yawn.
@ RIX:
Ha ha ha ha. Did you see Ludwig’s banning?
Iron Fist wrote:
I’ll settle for a Curtis LeMay style flyover.
New Mexico Gov. Martinez says committed to repeal of illegal immigrant license law
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/24/new-mexico-gov-martinez-says-committed-to-repeal-illegal-immigrant-license-law/?test=latestnews#ixzz2Iv514JIH
maybe she’s somebody…she talked about carrying her Python while working for her dad’s security firm a while back
Iron Fist wrote:
If a president really used the pulpit of the Presidency—I will not use the tired old “bully pulpit” because too many people no longer understand what that means, and confuse it with “bullying”—and the actual power of the Presidency, he could whipsaw the media into getting the public behind such a Shermanesque march. Indeed, I’d suggest that the only reason we haven’t had another major terrorist incident on a 9/11 scale since 2001 is that our flabby and unexpected response to 9/11 both scared the jihadis and killed off a bunch of ‘em. They should be nice and re-emboldened, however, just in time to set off an incident in 2014 that will let Obama look Presidential enough to kick the GOP’s ass in the midterm elections.
Meantime, to get back on topic—IF the President created an Office of War Information, encouraged wartime-measure kabuki theater (that is what most of the scrap drives in WWII were), provided constant press releases and War News updates via traditional media, put out lots of posters, bumper stickers and T-shirts, and the like, you’d see the public behind a Shermanesque march in short order.
lobo91 wrote:
Yeah, but men can’t have babies! So there!
What happened to that “separation of church and state” thing?
@ Iron Fist:
Actually, you are wrong. Low Information voters are against Nation Building. One of the facts why Romney lost was because he wanted to go to war in Syria. Iraq left a bad tastes in the public’s mouth.
Actually the majority of Americans want nothing to do with the Mideast anymore.
Your nuts imho.@ Rodan:
lobo91 wrote:
Umm, he lives tax free?
Theoutsider will be thrilled:
Yeah I did, Lud went off the rails again.
he was never going survive his spat with Weasel anyway.
Where’s the list? DiFi’s bill was introduced today, and supposedly bans 150 firearms by name. Well where the heck is the list? Anybody see it yet?
is lud theoutsider?
The man is a disgrace.
Rodan wrote:
Including, sadly, Jewish Americans and Canadians.
@ lobo91:
Obama is building Biden up to be “Presidential” by 2016. I expect him to have a lot more high-profile (and hard Left Wing) jobs over the next four years.
Mike C. wrote:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/dianne-feinstein-gun-list/61374/
Bullshit. Connecticut already has a similar ban in effect. Didn’t work, did it?
Here’s a copy of the list of guns the ignorant bitch wants to ban.
theoutsider wrote:
Highly unlikely. You are trying to read our minds and frankly you have no idea how any of us think. Now you …will vote D no matter who they put up the devil himself could run and if he had a D behind his name you’d vote for him.
@ unclassifiable:
That was my take too.
I just happened across the News item. I did not know of the NRA had withdrawn. And the big news was that the entire show was cancelled.
This is grotesque. Eleven-year-old “transgender” responds to Obama’s inaugural speech. Even more grotesque, the two guys in the video at the top discussing it.
@ lobo91:
Our side has got to stop using the left’s terminology. It is not a campaign against gun violence, it’s a campaign for gun control. Whenever a conservative is interviewed, they need to make sure to never use the words gun violence and always use gun control. We can’t let the left control the language.
Well, I currently own two guns on the idiot’s list. And of course, most of my magazines.
Screw her and the donkey she rode in on.
unclassifiable wrote:
On Texas going blue?? Yeah that will be a cold day in hell to be honest.
fixing…
If they put up another devil you outsider would vote for that devil too.@ Lily:
@ Moe Katz:
Not wanting to be involved in the Mideast does not mean not supporting Israel. Americans just are tired of spending billions and sending their kids to die to establishments Sharia law states.
@ taxfreekiller:
He disappeared once you came on. Coincidence, nope!
This is crazy!
Rare Half Cent sold for £225,000 Belonged to Tragic Mountaineer
I’d really like Diane Feinstein to explain to me what makes a rifle with a bayonet lug on it more dangerous than one without.
I would pay good money to be able to ask her that question on live TV.
outsider,
It hurts my feelings and its not fair for you not to answer any of my questions.
Seems to me your not a real liberal if you go around hurting peoples feelings and not being fair.
lobo91 wrote:
Being from the San Francisco area, Senator Feinstein’s comprehensive bill to ban firearms makes an exception for Mattachine pistols…
Rodan wrote:
I know, Rodan, but many liberal Jews under 60 have stopped caring about Israel. But the main thrust of your post was against nation building, and I’m not disagreeing with that. Consider my comment as an aside.
New Thread.
@ heysoos:
Thank you.
@ lobo91:
Thank you.
@ lobo91:
Note that they are going after the LAW 12 and SPAS 12, too. Those are no different than a Remington 1100 or a Benelli. They just look different. Like I’ve said, though, I don’t see this getting through the Senate at this time. Let Obama keep the Senate and win the House in 2014, though, and Feinstein will be back with her list, and a much greater chance of passing the Legislature. I don’t care who they are. You can’t trust Democrats on the gun issue at all.
@ Iron Fist:
They also included one particular model of the Mini-14. The one that comes with the synthetic folding stock is on the list. The other models aren’t.
They’re all exactly the same rifle.
A Ruger Mini 14 is an “AR type”? In what universe?
@ Iron Fist:
Who needs the House or Senate?
Obama will probably issue an Executive Order directing the ATF director to declare that those guns have no “sporting purpose.”
@ lobo91:
There’s a lot of things not on that list that would be banned under the bill.
Mike C. wrote:
The one where Diane Feinstein has two brain cells to rub together?
Mike C. wrote:
It’s all based on appearance.
Which should come as no surprise, given that it came from Democrats.
@ Moe Katz:
Gotcha!
gun grabbing yet ignoring the blood bath in the inner cities is flat out racist…somebody please start screaming
@ lobo91:
Actually, I’m pretty sure the Mini 14 Ranch Rifle would be banned for magazine capacity, or at least reduced to CA capacity.
Mike C. wrote:
That’s going to be true of anything that uses a detachable magazine.
Rodan wrote:
He made it very clear if he was re-elected there was sooooooo much he was going to do….because he’d have more lee-way!
/that comment alone should have clued a lot of people in…apparently it didn’t. Dummkopf’s!!!!!!!
@ lobo91:
Yeah, the ’68 GCA and NFA are both laws that need to go away. They’ve always been there just waiting for the right President to come along and abuse them.
The Osprey wrote:
And what his B-29s on one mission did to sixteen square miles of Tokyo…
lobo91 wrote:
If she does have two, one is dying of loneliness.
Iron Fist wrote:
Hell, if it weren’t for high crime rates and an unarmed citizenry, most of them wouldn’t have jobs.
Rodan wrote:
They aren’t.
Both are trashing Christians and Jews all over the world as well as supporting the MB and AQ.