First time visitor? Learn more.

What’s The Difference?

by Flyovercountry ( 131 Comments › )
Filed under Uncategorized at January 25th, 2013 - 2:00 pm

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Some things in life defy description. Yesterday, one of those things happened. Our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, finally put an end to her long, and often comical delay of answering any questions relating to the single worst foreign policy debacle since 1978. The tactics used to delay the on-the-record Q & A included birthday parties abroad for foreign dignitaries never before seen in the presence of any U.S. diplomat, let alone our very top one, faking several, as in more than two, illnesses which magically occurred at the last moment, and of course simply refusing to appear for months on end.

Of all of the quotes that came out of yesterday, this one has to be top of the list of any American who cares in the slightest about any reasonable semblance of accountability that our Executive Branch should be held to.

What’s the Difference why these people were killed?

Putting aside for the moment that righteous indignation is a faux tactic only ever employed by the incredibly guilty, I nearly jumped through the office television in a vain attempt to confront a woman who clearly holds a low opinion of the American People, those brave souls who died as a direct result of her incompetence, and more specifically the very few public officials who dared to ask questions of a member of the self anointed elite class of dictatorial rulers known as the Obama Administration.

Hillary hardly faced the tough questions yesterday that were deserved of such a travesty. Two, count them two Senators dared to cross that line separating fawning dotage and actual inquiry. Ron Johnson and Rand Paul seem to be the only two Senators on the Foreign Affairs Committee interested in understanding what accountability for the consequences of stupidity should look like.

Bear in mind that the whole goings on in Benghazi represent that rare instance in American political scandal where the crime was far, far, worse than the pitiful attempt at cover up. The crime was that we put into place the world’s dumbest foreign policy, a second time. Not content with the unmitigated disaster suffered time and again during the Carter years, the Kumbayah School of foreign policy again was instituted. Shockingly, the very same result was gleaned as the last time we tried to pretend that projecting American weakness abroad would really get our enemies to respect us. The plan was, that when we extended an olive branch to the Muslim world in response to their giving us the finger, they would suddenly realize that we meant them no harm, and Unicorns would begin shooting rainbows out of their hind parts, and all would be well in the world.

Unfortunately, that worked no better in 2012 than it did in 1978. Four Americans paid for the naivete with their lives, and the cover up of this stupidity went almost completely unreported by a sycophantic American Media.

The difference dear Hillary, and any who took the inexplicable position of championing her obfuscation today, is that these people died as a direct result of the idiotic policy agenda enacted by Hillary Clinton. Rather than beef up security in a world hot spot in response to the danger there, created by herself, She attempted to keep Americans from realizing that she had put our interests abroad in that danger. As a result, four people lost their lives, and after begging her to do something in order to help them stay safe.

The pitiful lies told by the Administration in the aftermath of this lunacy are only secondary to the real problem at hand. The real problem here is that our foreign policy is at best moronic, and at worst, treasonous. Pretending that Islamofascism does not exist will only lead to more of these disasters in the future. Guess what, we just sold these very same people in the Muslim Brotherhood some F-16′s.

Let’s not forget the small fact that the producer of that moronic film, seen by no one coincidentally, is still imprisoned, because apparently the First Amendment does not protect the rights of those who are a convenient scapegoat for our President.

We are halfway through this thing, officially on the back nine. Hunker down, thank God that it can all be corrected, and realize that no changes to our Constitution have been permanently enacted yet.

Cross Posted from 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!

131 Responses to “What’s The Difference?”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | January 25, 2013 2:09 pm

    We haven’t had a good foreign policy since the end of the Reagan era, although you can make a case for Poppy. Clinton, Bush and Obama all suck on foreign policy.


  2. 2 | January 25, 2013 2:11 pm

    What’s the difference?” Well, that’s fine if she’s talking about Bill cheating on her left and right, but this is about national security and the death of Americans here.


  3. heysoos
    3 | January 25, 2013 2:12 pm

    I don’t think we really have a foreign policy…at least well defined and articulated…these frat boys just react and make stuff up as they go along, oblivious to the body count…and nobody calls them out


  4. 4 | January 25, 2013 2:14 pm

    @ heysoos:

    Our foreign policy is either Nation Building or Appeasement. There’s no realistic course.


  5. waldensianspirit
    5 | January 25, 2013 2:15 pm

    Only Prince Harry of the elite goes into battle


  6. lobo91
    6 | January 25, 2013 2:15 pm

    @ heysoos:

    Probably just as well, since we’ll no longer have a military:

    Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dempsey: If Women Can’t Meet Standards For Combat Units Then Standards May Be Lowered…

    Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that with women now eligible to fill combat roles in the military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded – and, if women can’t meet any unit’s standard, the Pentagon will ask: “Does it really have to be that high?”

    Dempsey’s comments came at a Pentagon news conference with Defense Sec. Leon Panetta Thursday, announcing the shift in Defense Department policy opening up all combat positions to women.


  7. RIX
    7 | January 25, 2013 2:21 pm

    Hillary rolled the Senate & House Committees.
    The Dems drolled all over her being totally impressed
    that she is a frequent flyer.
    The Republicans with the exceptions of Ron Johnson,
    Rand Paul & John McCain were unprepared.
    The unprepared members should have givenn their time
    to those three.


  8. Da_Beerfreak
    8 | January 25, 2013 2:22 pm

    We do have a foreign policy.

    Buttcrack Obama’s foreign policy is to treat our Friends as Enemies and our Enemies as Friends. His goal is to destroy all trust and respect any Country had in America.


  9. SciFiGuy
    9 | January 25, 2013 2:24 pm

    Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dempsey: If Women Can’t Meet Standards For Combat Units Then Standards May Be Lowered…

    This is a very stupid statement. planned destruction of the UNited States.


  10. SciFiGuy
    10 | January 25, 2013 2:26 pm

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    Only Prince Harry of the elite goes into battle

    Can we revert back and have him as a leader???


  11. Da_Beerfreak
    11 | January 25, 2013 2:26 pm

    @ lobo91:
    The real goal is to demilitarized the military.


  12. 12 | January 25, 2013 2:30 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    The Republican foreign policy of nation building and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t a better alternative. Both parties suck at foreign policy.

    That is why I don’t take Republican criticisms of Obama on foreign policy serious. What’s their alternative?


  13. RIX
    13 | January 25, 2013 2:30 pm

    @ SciFiGuy:
    The higher the rank of the military officers, the more they remind
    me of corporate execs trying to please the CEO.
    it just seems to me like Lt. Cols are the most focused on their
    actual job descriptions.


  14. darkwords
    14 | January 25, 2013 2:31 pm

    @ 6 lobo91: If he wants to lead the lower standard trained troops into combat personally, then I could reserve my judgement of him as being hopelessly out of touch with the enemy.


  15. 15 | January 25, 2013 2:32 pm

    Keynote Speaker for Association of Teacher Educators: Bill Ayers

    Another reminder that the most radical excesses of the acid-crazed flower child era are now effectively mainstream:

    Left-wing ’60s radical and onetime domestic terrorist Bill Ayers will be a keynote speaker at the Association of Teacher Educators annual conference in Atlanta next month.


  16. darkwords
    16 | January 25, 2013 2:33 pm

    Cory Booker should rescue Chris Christie from his carb overload. Bloomberg would approve.


  17. 17 | January 25, 2013 2:33 pm

    @ RIX:

    Maybe they get Derek Jeter as a spokesman!

    :lol:


  18. 18 | January 25, 2013 2:34 pm

    @ darkwords:

    I like Corey Booker. Too bad he’s Democrat, he would be formidable for our side.


  19. RIX
    19 | January 25, 2013 2:42 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ RIX:

    Maybe they get Derek Jeter as a spokesman!

    Jeter seems like a good guy, but he is over his head.
    Maybe he can join with Sheryl Crowe & the renowned
    Climatologist Charles Foster Johnson & form a think tank.


  20. RIX
    20 | January 25, 2013 2:48 pm

    Richard L. Trumka ✔ @RichardTrumka

    Strongly disagree with reasoning and shocking decision today by the panel of Republican judges on the DC Circuit
    5:17 PM -- 25 Jan 13
    7 RETWEETS 1 FAVORITE ReplyRetweetFavorite

    So Trumka isn’t happy, boo efin hoo.
    Doesn’t this thug remind you of a cast member on the Sopranos?


  21. Da_Beerfreak
    21 | January 25, 2013 2:50 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    The Republican foreign policy of nation building and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t a better alternative. Both parties suck at foreign policy.

    That is why I don’t take Republican criticisms of Obama on foreign policy serious. What’s their alternative?

    What we have today is the result of not teaching honest History in the schools. Both Parties are filled with ignorant idiots that are clueless about making real foreign policy based on the historical facts of what works and what doesn’t.


  22. 22 | January 25, 2013 2:51 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Both Parties are filled with ignorant idiots that are clueless about making real foreign policy based on the historical facts of what works and what doesn’t.

    Yup! Add in Saudi and Gulf money and presto, a perfect storm!


  23. Da_Beerfreak
    23 | January 25, 2013 2:52 pm

    @ RIX:
    The Unions will go ballistic once this ruling has a little time to sink in… :twisted:


  24. Da_Beerfreak
    24 | January 25, 2013 2:54 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Both Parties are filled with ignorant idiots that are clueless about making real foreign policy based on the historical facts of what works and what doesn’t.

    Yup! Add in Saudi and Gulf money and presto, a perfect storm!

    History also shows us that these storms never end well…


  25. RIX
    25 | January 25, 2013 2:56 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    @ RIX:
    The Unions will go ballistic once this ruling has a little time to sink in…

    Hard to see how this will be overturned. Technically the Senate was
    still in session.
    Obama got too cute by half.


  26. 26 | January 25, 2013 2:56 pm

    @ lobo91:

    That is exactly why women shouldn’t be allowed into combat. Decisions like this will get people killed. That is what they want.


  27. 27 | January 25, 2013 2:59 pm

    @ RIX:

    The ruling actually went a good deal further than that. Take a look over at The Volokh Conspiracy.


  28. 28 | January 25, 2013 3:00 pm

    Wanna know why I hate Slate?


  29. 29 | January 25, 2013 3:03 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    That is exactly why women shouldn’t be allowed into combat. Decisions like this will get people killed. That is what they want.

    I see you are at DOD. Did you check out the Ludwig banning?


  30. 30 | January 25, 2013 3:04 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ darkwords:
    I like Corey Booker. Too bad he’s Democrat, he would be formidable for our side.

    I like that he went out of his way to help that dog. That’s really endearing, and Booker has demonstrated common sense in the past but was too easily smacked down by the Progs in charge.


  31. 31 | January 25, 2013 3:05 pm

    @ Rodan:

    I saw that! Most of the time I can’t read DoD during the day. My work firewall has it blocked as “Adult Material” 8O


  32. 32 | January 25, 2013 3:05 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    I have a post tomorrow on the origins of Dogs. This will be the Left’s next targets, Pets. Just you wait and see.


  33. 33 | January 25, 2013 3:06 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    My work firewall has it blocked as “Adult Material

    Probably because of the Penis Penis stuff that goes on over there.


  34. The Osprey
    34 | January 25, 2013 3:07 pm

    Newt gives the smackdown to the soutpiel!

    Newt Gingrich to Piers Morgan: “Lovely Propaganda”


  35. 35 | January 25, 2013 3:07 pm

    @ Urban Infidel:

    He will go nowhere in the national Democrat Party. They maybe interested at first because he’s Black, but once they see he’s not a Leftist, he will be shunned.


  36. The Osprey
    36 | January 25, 2013 3:08 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    My work firewall has it blocked as “Adult Material
    Probably because of the Penis Penis stuff that goes on over there.

    Soutpiel soutpiel soutpiel! LOL.


  37. buzzsawmonkey
    37 | January 25, 2013 3:09 pm

    Buzz Ballad: “The Difference Made.”


  38. buzzsawmonkey
    38 | January 25, 2013 3:10 pm

    How Romney Lost: How Obama Won.

    I’m posting this for the tech types here. The cover post is over at the Tatler here.

    There is a link to a download which I hope the tech folks here will look at.

    I hope they study it and consider what it means—for the country, for conservatives, for themselves in terms of what they can glean from this to assist conservative candidates in the next election. I understand only some of it.

    The upshot is that Obama’s campaign built a truly formidable tracking, testing campaign using online means, to target donors, to track voters, to shape the campaign’s advertising. Romney’s campaign failures with his untested get-out-the-vote software was nothing; he had already lost, or nearly so, by the time it failed.

    Go and look.


  39. RIX
    39 | January 25, 2013 3:11 pm

    Mike C. wrote:

    @ RIX:

    The ruling actually went a good deal further than that. Take a look over at The Volokh Conspiracy.

    Thanks, i just looked over there.
    Even if the Supreme Court takes it on appeal, I expect the decision to
    be affirmed.
    Technically the NLRB couldn’t have a quorum during those rulings.


  40. unclassifiable
    40 | January 25, 2013 3:14 pm

    I think that not only is this latest Supreme Court ruling going to drive the unions crazy but when their man Obama tries to take their guns they are going to go off the reservation big time.

    Just a hunch.


  41. Moe Katz
    41 | January 25, 2013 3:14 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Oh, good, I was looking for you. Have a look at this when you get the chance. Shabbat Shalom.


  42. 42 | January 25, 2013 3:18 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    There’s no way the Republican Party as structured can compete with this. The Dems will win every election until the GOP gets rid of the old guard.

    This is scary stuff and the foundations of a One Party State.


  43. buzzsawmonkey
    43 | January 25, 2013 3:22 pm

    Moe Katz wrote:

    Have a look at this when you get the chance.

    Interesting. Yet another attempt to make fragmentary scientific data substitute for morality and justify political constructs.


  44. Moe Katz
    44 | January 25, 2013 3:27 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    So now you’re a neuroscience maven?


  45. buzzsawmonkey
    45 | January 25, 2013 3:34 pm

    Moe Katz wrote:

    So now you’re a neuroscience maven?

    Apparently you neither understand how to read popular press articles critically, nor are aware that they must be read critically, nor are aware that what is passed off as “science” has for decades been busy trying to put a “scientific” gloss on social agendas to remove the social agendas from debate—particularly, though not solely, in this area.


  46. Da_Beerfreak
    46 | January 25, 2013 3:36 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Mike C. wrote:

    @ RIX:

    The ruling actually went a good deal further than that. Take a look over at The Volokh Conspiracy.

    Thanks, i just looked over there.
    Even if the Supreme Court takes it on appeal, I expect the decision to
    be affirmed.
    Technically the NLRB couldn’t have a quorum during those rulings.

    White Hut is already making it clear that they will continue to ignore court rulings they don’t agree with because they know nobody will stop them from doing what they want to to do anyways…


  47. 47 | January 25, 2013 3:39 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Yeah, but that’s a two-edged knife. They can ignore the court here, but the businesses negatively impacted can ignore the NRLB, and the Courts will back them up. What you are seein g is the break-down of the rule of law from these unlawful and unwise actions by the Obama Administration.


  48. whosoever
    48 | January 25, 2013 3:39 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    from the article:

    Guillamon isn’t sure whether the four regions are at all associated with notions of gender, but Ivanka Savic-Berglund at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, thinks they might be. One of the four regions – the superior longitudinal fascicle – is particularly interesting, she says. “It connects the parietal lobe [involved in sensory processing] and frontal lobe [involved in planning movement] and may have implications in body perception.”


  49. whosoever
    49 | January 25, 2013 3:40 pm

    In other words, a guess


  50. unclassifiable
    50 | January 25, 2013 3:41 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    “You’re one of very few people receiving this email because, based on what
    you’ve told the Obama organization in the past. We think you might know
    someone who should quit his or her job and come work on the Obama
    campaign’s digital team for the next 18 months.”
    “It won’t pay very well. The hours are terrible …. Most people who come to
    work here will take a pay cut.”

    Maybe that was true but maybe it ain’t.

    Look the inducements don’t necessarily have to be money — at least not up front.

    My impression is this. Obama had twice as much staff for the same cost that Romney was expending if you looked at what they were “officially” paid. But the difference is that Obama gave these folks a seat at the table sort-of-speak rather than make them subserviant to political operatives. This is a non-monetary exchange that encouraged participation. It is not really technology as much as psychology.


  51. 51 | January 25, 2013 3:42 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Read Buzz’s #38. This should send chills down the spine of any Democrat Party opponent.


  52. RIX
    52 | January 25, 2013 3:42 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    I am not familiar with White Hut. Did they get a bad NLRB ruling?


  53. buzzsawmonkey
    53 | January 25, 2013 3:44 pm

    whosoever wrote:

    Guillamon isn’t sure whether the four regions are at all associated with notions of gender, but Ivanka Savic-Berglund at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, thinks they might be.

    The Microbe
    —Hillaire Belloc

    The Microbe is so very small,
    You cannot make him out at all,
    Yet many sanguine people hope
    To see him through a microscope.

    His jointed tongue which lies beneath
    A hundred curious rows of teeth;
    His seven tufted tails with lots
    Of lovely pink and purple spots,

    On each of which a pattern stands,
    Composed of forty separate bands;
    His eyebrows of a tender green;
    All these have never yet been seen—

    But Scientists, who ought to know,
    Assure us that they must be so…
    Oh! let us never, never doubt
    What nobody is sure about!


  54. 54 | January 25, 2013 3:47 pm

    @ unclassifiable:

    The Democrats have their stuff together when it comes to campaigns. The current Republican Party can not compete against this.


  55. Da_Beerfreak
    55 | January 25, 2013 3:48 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Yeah, but that’s a two-edged knife. They can ignore the court here, but the businesses negatively impacted can ignore the NRLB, and the Courts will back them up. What you are seein g is the break-down of the rule of law from these unlawful and unwise actions by the Obama Administration.

    Not just a small break down, but a full collapse could be beginning here if enough companies take this ruling and run with it. :shock:


  56. Da_Beerfreak
    56 | January 25, 2013 3:51 pm

    whosoever wrote:

    In other words, a guess

    It’s what us tech folks call a swag, a Scientifically Wild Ass Guess.


  57. Da_Beerfreak
    57 | January 25, 2013 3:54 pm

    RIX wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    I am not familiar with White Hut. Did they get a bad NLRB ruling?

    Obama’s White Hut is located at 1600 Pennsylvania Av., Washington DC, 20006. :grin:


  58. citizen_q
    58 | January 25, 2013 3:55 pm

    @ The Osprey:
    Bet that left a mark.


  59. 59 | January 25, 2013 3:57 pm

    EgyptAir reviews in-flight movies after Islamist complaint

    CAIRO (Reuters) -- Egypt’s national airline said on Thursday it will analyze its onboard movies to make sure they respect “Egyptian values and customs”, following a complaint by a Muslim Brotherhood member who took offence at a film screened during one of its flights.

    EgyptAir said the film had been turned off at the request of Ahmed Fahmy, the speaker of Egypt’s upper house of parliament and a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party. In a statement, EgyptAir said he had “expressed reservations about one of the scenes” in the movie.

    The statement did not name the film, but local media identified it as “Arees Mama”, or “Mother’s Suitor”, a decades-old movie starring the Egyptian actress Nelly. Al-Masry Al-Youm, a newspaper, said Fahmy had taken offence at scenes of intimacy.

    Fahmy could not immediately be reached for comment.

    The case is likely to fuel concerns about the extent to which the Muslim Brotherhood, which propelled President Mohamed Mursi to power in an election last year, could use its new position of power to curb freedom of expression.

    Critics of a new, Islamist-tinged constitution approved by a popular referendum in December worry it gives wide scope for conservatives to limit forms of expression deemed harmful to public morals.

    Responding to media reports of a confrontation between Fahmy and the EgyptAir crew aboard Wednesday’s flight from Khartoum to Cairo, the EgyptAir statement said Fahmy had asked for the film to be switched off “politely and without a row”.

    “The film screening was halted in business class and there was no annoyance or objection from the passengers,” it said.

    In a separate statement, EgyptAir said it would form a committee to review all films shown on its flights.

    Roshdy Zakaria, chief executive of the state-run company, said the committee would pull films it deemed “depart from Egyptian values and customs”.

    Put a fork in ‘em. They’re done.


  60. AZfederalist
    60 | January 25, 2013 3:57 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    How Romney Lost: How Obama Won.

    I’m posting this for the tech types here. The cover post is over at the Tatler here.

    There is a link to a download which I hope the tech folks here will look at.

    I hope they study it and consider what it means—for the country, for conservatives, for themselves in terms of what they can glean from this to assist conservative candidates in the next election. I understand only some of it.

    The upshot is that Obama’s campaign built a truly formidable tracking, testing campaign using online means, to target donors, to track voters, to shape the campaign’s advertising. Romney’s campaign failures with his untested get-out-the-vote software was nothing; he had already lost, or nearly so, by the time it failed.

    Go and look.

    I’ve read a statement by someone who stated he knew Obama would win before the election because of how the campaign was using “big data”, basically tools that are capable of extracting information from very large data stores. One of the observations made was that the Jugears campaign was able to target advertising down to the household level. One example given was that the campaign identified donors to pro-abortion groups and would send campaign advertising propaganda a our the Republican “war on womenses” to those households, even if they were in neighborhoods that were strongly pro-life (think heavily catholic areas) while sending advertising about entitlement compassion to the neighbors, thus motivating the abortion supporters while not alienating those voters who were not thrilled about supporting a baby killer but who supported having other people pay the living expenses of those not working. (OK, those weren’t his exact words, but that was the bottom line). Basically the obummer campaign targeted its positions down to the household level. That is not so much smart as devious. Dude who wrote the exposition was gushing about how smart it was to use big data to target the message.


  61. unclassifiable
    61 | January 25, 2013 3:58 pm

    @ Rodan:

    That was not always the case.

    Do you really think “The Plumbers” just died a quiet death?

    There are many manifestations of them now in both parties and they have gotten slick enough to avoid detection and arrest.

    What buzzsawmonkey is focusing on is a different aspect. The technology is the pointer dog on this but you still have to handle the quarry sort of speak.

    I am still reading the Analytics brief for that piece of the election machine.


  62. RIX
    62 | January 25, 2013 3:58 pm

    On Monday, the New Jersey state Senate, in a party-line vote, passed a bill that would exclude construction workers who are not a part of a union from doing work related to Hurricane Sandy cleanup and reconstruction in the state.
    The bill will now heads to the New Jersey assembly. If it passes there, it goes to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) desk.
    According to RedState, New Jersey state Senate President Steven Sweeney (D), who also happens to be an Ironworkers’ union organizer, drafted the bill that would “expand union-only Project Labor Agreements” to “included Hurricane Sandy cleanup and reconstruction.”

    This really is an outrage. They should entertain all credible proposals.


  63. RIX
    63 | January 25, 2013 4:00 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    I am not familiar with White Hut. Did they get a bad NLRB ruling?

    Obama’s White Hut is located at 1600 Pennsylvania Av., Washington DC, 20006.

    Got it. There actually is a White Hut hamburger restaurant.


  64. 64 | January 25, 2013 4:02 pm

    @ RIX:

    It is much more important that people live in a tent city until Union labor can be used to get them out, than it is to get them out with non-union labor.


  65. 65 | January 25, 2013 4:04 pm

    @ Rodan:

    I read it, but I’m not sure I believe it. If Obama had perfected the Election Machine, he’d have won the Hous and a filibuster-proof Senate.


  66. buzzsawmonkey
    66 | January 25, 2013 4:05 pm

    RIX wrote:

    There actually is a White Hut hamburger restaurant.

    Fast-food hamburger joints, back in the Twenties and Thirties, used to be called “whitefronts”; it was common for a burger quickie lunch counter to have a street facade, even in an urban commercial row on an old-fashioned street, that was done in white tile. It was a common thing, even if it was not a chain—white-tile front meant “quickie hamburger joint” the same way swinging doors meant “saloon.”

    White Castle, which became a chain, was only one of the thousands of “whitefronts”; it became a white freestanding building as America moved to the suburbs. I was not aware that there were other “whitefront” chains, but apparently White Hut is one.


  67. buzzsawmonkey
    67 | January 25, 2013 4:06 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    I read it, but I’m not sure I believe it. If Obama had perfected the Election Machine, he’d have won the Hous and a filibuster-proof Senate.

    Not if he only used it for himself, and figured his coattails would suffice.


  68. Da_Beerfreak
    68 | January 25, 2013 4:08 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    I am not familiar with White Hut. Did they get a bad NLRB ruling?

    Obama’s White Hut is located at 1600 Pennsylvania Av., Washington DC, 20006.

    Got it. There actually is a White Hut hamburger restaurant.

    There’s a White Castle not far from me. First time hearing about White Hut hamburgers.


  69. unclassifiable
    69 | January 25, 2013 4:08 pm

    @ AZfederalist:

    Spot on AZ!

    Tell a different lie to different people and make them all think they are getting something. They used the general increasing isolation of the population (neighbors don’t know neighbors) to fashion a strategy were everyone who voted for O thought they were going to get something.

    On a different note, returning to my “buy in” theme there is this:

    AND… little to no interference from campaign management on content
    (!!!)

    Again when your soldiers get in on the spoils they tend to fight better. In this case they were in control of the message and new it. They did not have to worry that some political consultant pinhead was going to waste all that effort by some fuzzy emotional fiat.


  70. Da_Beerfreak
    70 | January 25, 2013 4:11 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Always learning something new around here… :grin:


  71. 71 | January 25, 2013 4:11 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    The Republican foreign policy of nation building and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t a better alternative. Both parties suck at foreign policy.
    That is why I don’t take Republican criticisms of Obama on foreign policy serious. What’s their alternative?

    Whether it be Democrat or Republican, LIBERAL policies are designed to fail in protecting America’s interests, at home or abroad.


  72. 72 | January 25, 2013 4:14 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    Our foreign policy is either Nation Building or Appeasement. There’s no realistic course.

    Reagan scholars may be able to find the exact quote or the context, but I believe when asked what his foreign policy was, Reagan replied: “It’s simple. We win.”


  73. buzzsawmonkey
    73 | January 25, 2013 4:16 pm

    @ Carolina Girl:

    Hey, CG! Two Ballads up at the Tatler, if you haven’t seen ‘em; haven’t the time to post links right now.


  74. 74 | January 25, 2013 4:19 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    I’ll take a peek, Buzz!
    Sorry I have been so neglectful to my brothers and sisters in arms this week, but I’ve been buried in witness interviews, and Speranza and Rodan will vouch that I haven’t been on the email either.

    (Twitter yes -- there’s an APP for that!)


  75. unclassifiable
    75 | January 25, 2013 4:21 pm

    @ AZfederalist:

    Now let’s fast forward to now.

    Obama has won.

    But now he must govern.

    Can he take guns from unions and please them?

    Can he enroll Catholics in an anti-gun crusade and force them to fund contraception through Obamacare?

    Can he expect support from Jews when he bolstering Muslim Brotherhood?

    There are these little bubbles one can see developing. The realization that you have been had.

    On our side of the fence this is easy. We already thought Obama was a terrible president and we still lost. Our pre-election pissed-offedness is just transaitioning to post-election pissed-offedness.

    But when you are happy and you know it and you dutifully clap your hands over his re-election and you find they are full of shit — what then?

    I suspect this is intentional but it goes more towards part of the Cloward-Piven strategy than anything else. They have to destroy rule of law. That will give entre to rule by raw power. This is the key ingredient to totalitarianism.


  76. unclassifiable
    76 | January 25, 2013 4:27 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    You know pretty early on the Obama campaing told the down ticket Dems not to expect any help because Obama campaign was trailing in fundraising to Romney. The documentation buzzsawmonkey provided via PJM showed that at one point the Obama campaign was extremely worried about the fund raising gap. But through the approach AZfederalist outlined and described in the document in more detail they were able to target their fundraising to be more efficient — more productive.


  77. RIX
    77 | January 25, 2013 4:29 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ RIX:

    It is much more important that people live in a tent city until Union labor can be used to get them out, than it is to get them out with non-union labor.

    That is a disgrace.We are sending aid all over the World.
    These re our people. Take the lowest credible bids (They will be non-union)
    and get these people back into their homes.


  78. 78 | January 25, 2013 4:31 pm

    @ unclassifiable:

    Of course, having a trillion-dollar slush fund to give your your donors in the form of “grants” so that they in turn funnel it back to you is helpful, too. And he’s had one every year he’s been in office thanks to baseline budgeting. Everyone says the Senate Dems refused to pass a budget because we’d know what the spending was. I say it’s because if they didn’t, that trillion dollar stimulus from the previous budget stayed in there and Obama was able to funnel more and more money. Pass a budget and that slush fund is removed. Of course, the Dems thought that Obama would share this largesse. I imagine they were more than a little annoyed when he didn’t.


  79. Da_Beerfreak
  80. 80 | January 25, 2013 4:33 pm

    BTW Rodan -- if we ever do another “Diary of Daedalus” edition of the radio show, we should get Drew from Weasel Zippers as a guest.


  81. RIX
    81 | January 25, 2013 4:34 pm

    There’s a White Castle not far from me. First time hearing about White Hut hamburgers.
    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    White Hut is in Mass.
    White Castles are the best at two in the morning after adult beverage.


  82. 82 | January 25, 2013 4:34 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    I’m sure that committee was chock-full of Reagan conservatives.


  83. buzzsawmonkey
    83 | January 25, 2013 4:34 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    I’ll take a peek, Buzz!

    There’s also a piece—now off the front Tatler page, but in the archives—called “Reason not the Need”, which is a short essay, not a verse parody, that I think will interest you.


  84. 84 | January 25, 2013 4:34 pm

    @ RIX:

    In Mass. my favorite was Friendly’s. Are they still around? The Fribble was to die for.


  85. RIX
    85 | January 25, 2013 4:36 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ RIX:

    In Mass. my favorite was Friendly’s. Are they still around? The Fribble was to die for.

    they are big in Wisconsin.
    When I am in the Boston Area, I like Legal Seafood.


  86. Da_Beerfreak
    86 | January 25, 2013 4:39 pm

    RIX wrote:

    There’s a White Castle not far from me. First time hearing about White Hut hamburgers.
    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    White Hut is in Mass.
    White Castles are the best at two in the morning after adult beverage.

    Oh don’t I know it… :oops:


  87. unclassifiable
    87 | January 25, 2013 4:39 pm

    @ Carolina Girl:

    I think some Team Obama post-election forensics would be interesting.


  88. buzzsawmonkey
    88 | January 25, 2013 4:40 pm

    RIX wrote:

    When I am in the Boston Area, I like Legal Seafood.

    Man comes to Boston, gets in a cab, has the cabbie drive him around to look at the city. Taps on the divider, and asks him, “Where can I get scrod?”

    The cabbie says, “I’ve been driving a cab for twenty years, and that’s the first time I’ve ever heard someone use the pluperfect of that verb.”


  89. taxfreekiller
    89 | January 25, 2013 4:41 pm

    This girling by the joint chiefs and commie Obama etal.

    My bet is they think the real fighting men of the all vol. military will start to leave the f’d up place and only the go along types will joins and or stay.

    They want an Army that will turn its guns on U.S., the current ones will not obey those orders. If they by hook or crook or lie and fruad and diliberate pissing off the good guys and they leave the commie hate American Democrat Party just might manage to get enough thugs in to shoot at U.S. from behind and for sure out in the islamic world let the evil ones win for the commies goals.

    In My Not So Humble Opinion


  90. RIX
    90 | January 25, 2013 4:42 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    I am not sure if White Hut is a chain or a single Restaurant.
    I used to have White Castle as a client.
    There Corporate offices were a store front in a strip mall
    in Bridgeview, Il.
    At that time they never took a bank loan, but built all of their stores with cash.
    I am sure that has changed.


  91. buzzsawmonkey
    91 | January 25, 2013 4:43 pm

    taxfreekiller wrote:

    They want an Army that will turn its guns on U.S.

    Speaking of that, and of the end of DA/DT, one of the early slogans of the (communist) Gay Liberation Front was, “An Army of Lovers Cannot Lose!”


  92. RIX
    92 | January 25, 2013 4:43 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    That’s good.


  93. 93 | January 25, 2013 4:49 pm

    @ unclassifiable:

    Then there are the irrregularities in his website turning the verification features on and off to keep foreign contributions out. I know that in 2008, many people complained that donations were being made on their credit cards and then credited right back. Federal Election Commission totally ignored it.

    I think he believes he’s safe in what he does until 2014. That’s why he really wants to get amnesty going -- I think he’s quite worried about a Republican Senate coming after him. Right now if the House impeached him for his criminal acts, it wouldn’t matter. Senate would never convict.


  94. 94 | January 25, 2013 4:50 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Yeah, I’m sure al-Qaeda will take that into account. Right after they behead them for being lovers.


  95. taxfreekiller
    95 | January 25, 2013 4:50 pm

    Put ms tfk’s idea of funding the NRA big time for two to four years all around today.

    Vote yes around 80%
    Vote no fund the RNC 10%
    Vote for NRA and real conservatives direct 10%

    so there she goes with the idea, will report how the rest of her buddies think on this later


  96. RIX
    96 | January 25, 2013 4:54 pm

    I think he believes he’s safe in what he does until 2014. That’s why he really wants to get amnesty going — I think he’s quite worried about a Republican Senate coming after him. Right now if the House impeached him for his criminal acts, it wouldn’t matter. Senate would never convict.

    reply | quote

    @ Carolina Girl:
    Clinton actually became more popular after the House impeached him.
    Obama has the race thing working & his popularity would go through
    the roof.


  97. taxfreekiller
    97 | January 25, 2013 4:55 pm

    Only the mean ass drill sgt. line in the sand keeps U.S. free now.
    Should that group slow or missplace its work, we of the U.S. are in big trouble.

    So far the commies and the elites have prevented the draft from forceing some decipline on many 18 year olds, now they step it up to force the drill sgt.’s to do things they know are bad and will not work. They want to cut the pride, the spirt of the corps. To mold the civil society to their dark ends.


  98. 98 | January 25, 2013 5:01 pm

    @ RIX:

    Yeah, but with Clinton, it was basically about the lying under oath and subornation of perjury about sex, which many thought was overboard and harmless (they were wrong -- you might ask Mark Fuhrman about how harmless perjery is). This creep and his criminal enterprise are committing actual violations of the Constitution and are indirectly responsible for the deaths of 300 Mexican nationals and Brian Terry. They make Richard Nixon look like an amateur.

    Would the House impeach? Probably not. But that lying sack of shit criminal in the White House knows he’s safe as long as there aren’t 60 GOP in the Senate.


  99. 99 | January 25, 2013 5:03 pm

    Mark Levin pointed out that if they are planning a program of women in combat, if they ever have to re-instate the draft for any reason, they will be hard pressed to explain why it should be limited to just men.

    I imagine that “women in combat” policy will last right up until the time the daughter or granddaughter of a Democrat Congress Critter gets a low lottery number.


  100. 100 | January 25, 2013 5:03 pm

    @ RIX:

    Obama is impeachment proof. It’ll never happen. It is slightly more likely (though still unlikely) that Obama will have a veto overriden and an executive order or two nullified. That isn’t likely, but it is far more likely than impeachment. They wouldn’t impeach Obama if he cut Michelle Antionette’s head off in th eOval Office on camera.


  101. RIX
    101 | January 25, 2013 5:06 pm

    @ Carolina Girl:
    I agree with every word of that. But Obama has the race card and a slobbering
    Media.
    he runs a criminal enterprise and should be read his Miranda Rights, though.


  102. 102 | January 25, 2013 5:06 pm

    unclassifiable wrote:

    I think that not only is this latest Supreme Court ruling going to drive the unions crazy but when their man Obama tries to take their guns they are going to go off the reservation big time.
    Just a hunch.

    Not a SCOTUS ruling -- a panel ruling of the Federal District Court for DC. That’s two steps down.


  103. 103 | January 25, 2013 5:07 pm

    Second Obama agency ignores an appellate court ruling:

    From the NLRB:

    The Board respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the President’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld. It should be noted that this order applies to only one specific case, Noel Canning, and that similar questions have been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other courts of appeals.

    Let’s all remember that Interior didn’t lift the drilling ban after being told to my a judge.


  104. Da_Beerfreak
    104 | January 25, 2013 5:07 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ RIX:

    Yeah, but with Clinton, it was basically about the lying under oath and subornation of perjury about sex, which many thought was overboard and harmless (they were wrong — you might ask Mark Fuhrman about how harmless perjery is). This creep and his criminal enterprise are committing actual violations of the Constitution and are indirectly responsible for the deaths of 300 Mexican nationals and Brian Terry. They make Richard Nixon look like an amateur.

    Would the House impeach? Probably not. But that lying sack of shit criminal in the White House knows he’s safe as long as there aren’t 60 GOP in the Senate.

    To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required.


  105. unclassifiable
    105 | January 25, 2013 5:12 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    I’m sorry. I was wrong.


  106. 106 | January 25, 2013 5:13 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    And there’s the rub. The Democrats control the Senate. There’s no way enugh of them would vote to vcconvict for it to actually be possible. I frankly doubt you could get one Democrat Senator to vote for conviction, no matter what the charge.


  107. Da_Beerfreak
    107 | January 25, 2013 5:19 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    And there’s the rub. The Democrats control the Senate. There’s no way enugh of them would vote to vcconvict for it to actually be possible. I frankly doubt you could get one Democrat Senator to vote for conviction, no matter what the charge.

    It was after watching the farce that was the Clinton Senate trial I realized just how bad the 17th Amendment was screwing the country over.


  108. 108 | January 25, 2013 5:20 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    I don’t suppose we could arrange for all the Democrats in the Senate to dine at “Botulism in the Box” the night before?


  109. RIX
    109 | January 25, 2013 5:22 pm

    Nine former contestants are taking legal action against American idolclaiming that they were forced off the show because of their race.
    American Idol is at the centre of a racism row after nine black former contestants claimed that they were all forced off the show as part of a racist plan to boost ratings.

    The singers, from various seasons, are preparing to take legal action against the hit talent show which they say “permanently and severely impaired” their personal and professional lives.

    Corey Clark, Jaered Andrews, Donnie Williams, brothers Terrell Brittenum and Derrell Brittenum,Thomas Daniels, Akron Watson, Ju’Not Joyner and Chris Golightly insisted that they were targeted by producers of the Fox show who set out to humiliate them by making them audition and then disqualifying them due to their criminal records.

    “Criminal Records?” This joke tells itself.


  110. Da_Beerfreak
    110 | January 25, 2013 5:24 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    I don’t suppose we could arrange for all the Democrats in the Senate to dine at “Botulism in the Box” the night before?

    That would be worth looking into. There’s always the “bad shell fish” way too… :wink:


  111. RIX
    111 | January 25, 2013 5:24 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ RIX:

    Obama is impeachment proof. It’ll never happen. It is slightly more likely (though still unlikely) that Obama will have a veto overriden and an executive order or two nullified. That isn’t likely, but it is far more likely than impeachment. They wouldn’t impeach Obama if he cut Michelle Antionette’s head off in th eOval Office on camera.

    True, he will not be impeached.


  112. Da_Beerfreak
    112 | January 25, 2013 5:28 pm

    Obama impeached??
    Hell no!!
    This Congress is afraid to even criticize him…


  113. Bumr50
    113 | January 25, 2013 5:33 pm

    @ RIX:
    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Soetoro could get caught with kiddie porn red-handed and most of this congress wouldn’t vote to impeach.

    No joke.


  114. Da_Beerfreak
    114 | January 25, 2013 5:38 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    @ RIX:
    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Soetoro could get caught with kiddie porn red-handed and most of this congress wouldn’t vote to impeach.

    No joke.

    BO is the OJ of DC. :evil:


  115. 115 | January 25, 2013 5:42 pm

    unclassifiable wrote:

    @ Mike C.:
    I’m sorry. I was wrong.

    My money is on them skipping right over an appeal for an en banc District Court hearing and going straight to SCOTUS, probably on a rush basis to be heard this season.


  116. 116 | January 25, 2013 5:43 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    Er, “session”, not “season.”


  117. 117 | January 25, 2013 5:44 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Or the Jim Harbaugh “I think I just ate bad shrimp” look.


  118. heysoos
    118 | January 25, 2013 6:03 pm

    would the feds squeeze private business to support their political agenda?…of course
    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/01/25/rahm-goes-fascist-on-firearms/


  119. 119 | January 25, 2013 6:12 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    And actually, “term” would be better than “session.” CRS Syndrome strikes again…


  120. unclassifiable
    120 | January 25, 2013 6:22 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    You and me both.

    I wish I had CRS for the last 4+ years.

    And then you couple it with CTS and CSS and it is a wonder I can even post an intelligble comment.


  121. lobo91
    121 | January 25, 2013 6:24 pm

    Biden And Bloomberg To Plot Gun-Grabbing Plans Over Dinner…

    New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is meeting with Vice President Joe Biden Friday and expects to get updated on the White House gun control push.

    “I’m going to spend some time with Biden tonight … to get a better update,” Bloomberg said in an interview with POLITICO, when asked about where things stand at the federal level since the White House made its recommendations on gun control.

    The two are planning to meet over dinner Friday evening, along with Jill Biden and Bloomberg’s longtime girlfriend, Diana Taylor.


  122. lobo91
    122 | January 25, 2013 6:28 pm

    Bloomberg and Biden and Commies…oh my

    Communist Party USA Cheers On Obama’s Gun Grab…

    It should come as no surprise that the Communist Party USA is on board with President Obama’s plan to attack Americans’ right to keep and bear arms as a means to “end gun violence.” A cardinal feature of communist regimes, like all dictatorships, is the prohibition of private ownership of arms, creating a monopoly of force in the hands of the State.

    In a January 18 article, People’s World, an official publication of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), declared that “the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right — one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.”

    The article, entitled, “Fight to end gun violence is key to defending democracy,” written by People’s World labor and politics reporter Rick Nagin, claims that “the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans.”

    “It is for that reason,” declares Nagin, “as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.”

    Can we quit pretending that there’s a difference between the DNC and the CPUSA now?


  123. lobo91
    123 | January 25, 2013 6:31 pm

    And the Roe v. Wade celebration continues:

    MSNBC’s Touré Thanks God For Abortion…

    Today MSNBC’s Touré had his turn at The Cycle’s end-of-show commentary in which he chose to make the argument that America is a stronger nation without the millions of babies lost to abortion, even going so far as to thank God for the procedure.

    Calls to God for comment were not immediately returned.
    //


  124. lobo91
    124 | January 25, 2013 6:35 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    Not a SCOTUS ruling — a panel ruling of the Federal District Court for DC. That’s two steps down.

    It was the DC Appeals court. That’s one level down.


  125. 125 | January 25, 2013 6:40 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Yep -- but I wouldn’t be surprised if they requested and got an “en banc hearing -- the liberal judge mobthink might not want to pass up that opportunity.


  126. lobo91
    126 | January 25, 2013 6:43 pm

    @ Carolina Girl:

    I can’t see any way this gets overturned.

    If it does, you may as well just toss the Constitution into the shredder. It means the president has unlimited power.


  127. huckfunn
    128 | January 25, 2013 6:53 pm

    Just a drive-by. Judicial Watch has just put out a report that concludes the Benghazi fiasco was a direct result of systematic failures at the State Department.

    Read the entire report here.


  128. lobo91
    129 | January 25, 2013 6:58 pm

    @ huckfunn:

    “What difference does it make who’s responsible?
    --Hillary Clinton


  129. lobo91
    130 | January 25, 2013 6:59 pm

    @ huckfunn:

    How dare you suggest that Saint Hillary screwed up! She earned over 1 million frequent flyer miles!
    //


  130. Moe Katz
    131 | January 25, 2013 8:41 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Moe Katz wrote:
    So now you’re a neuroscience maven?
    Apparently you neither understand how to read popular press articles critically, nor are aware that they must be read critically, nor are aware that what is passed off as “science” has for decades been busy trying to put a “scientific” gloss on social agendas to remove the social agendas from debate—particularly, though not solely, in this area.

    If you want actual articles in the peer-reviewed journals I can give you those too, but I tried to give you something at your level of scientific sophistication. The consensus in the literature seems pretty solid that something developmental and biological is going on in these cases. But if you’re determined to believe it’s all a liberal plot to promote “immorality” I doubt anything could convince you.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David