Well, it's been 2 days and I have yet to hear any retractions from the teleprompter thread so I'll try them up here since the topic of President Obama has come up again.
"he can't even address a group of twelve year-olds without the TOTUS?"
"Everything he does is scripted for him by his handlers. Of course, we can't say he's an actor, because actors can actually memorize lines."
"I wouldn't be suprised to find out that there's a teleprompter next to his bed that says "Breathe" every two seconds."
"Can't be a rock star without monitors to put your foot up on during the poignant refrain."
"His chutzpah, his arrogance, and his self-centeredness know no limits."
That's one hour and seven minutes. No teleprompter and quite gutsy, I must say, to stand there and take shit for that long.Yep, pretty much an arrogant asshole.
Make sure that you watch it all. I'll be checking back from time to time to see if past assertions regarding admission of fault and error hold true. If not, well...then we'll know that what I've been saying all along regarding your collective ideology is valid.
Since Mark is cross-posting now, I figured I'd do the same in response. I'm a little less lazy and quite a bit less stupid, though, so I'll write something different.
Ok, Mark. Explain to us why that one hour and seven minutes explains why the President of the United States required audio equipment, a podium with his logo, teleprompters, and god knows what else in order to speak to a small group of children.
Then explain why the "collective ideology" accusation holds against a handful of comments you quoted when the sources of those quotes do not substantially make up Kevin's readership or even those you regularly accuse of walking in step with Rush or being like Al Qaeda. I will leave it up to you as an exercise to figure out why that might be pertinent.
"Ok, Mark. Explain to us why that one hour and seven minutes explains why the President of the United States required audio equipment, a podium with his logo, teleprompters, and god knows what else in order to speak to a small group of children. "
What? You expected something from him other than his Standard Response #7?
What I'd like explained is why Mark apparently thinks a retraction of "Obama can't speak without a teleprompter" is more important than a retraction of "AGW skeptics should be tried a la Nuremberg and summarily executed for crimes against humanity."
Right. Because the way to convince us that Obambi knows what he is doing is even more exposure to the man's speaking faults.
Here's another little fun one:
49:05 - 49:24 Obama is nodding like he is paying attention.
49:25 - Criticism hits, Obama stops nodding and his eyes glaze over. Blinking slows down for a second, then he starts to blink erratically. Obama nods whenever the speaker is just going over known facts, stops when there is a hit of criticism.
50:50 The Republican finishes up his weakly worded question/rambling and Obama begins his response. Obama dances around the question a bit, makes a joke, says the American public are too stupid to understand how politics are played. He also blames the media.
53:09 He finally starts to address the original question. Blames the Republicans again. Doesn't really answer the question as the how, but Obama hopes things will be good. And thank goodness Obama will be talking more about trade this year!
55:14 He ends his non answer.
Sheesh, the whole thing went this way. I want my hour back!
Think about it too, Obama has been giving interviews his entire Presidency over anything else, he's had countless hours of prep and practice. And yet, this is the best he could do? Didn't sell anything but, you guessed it, Change and Hope.
And all of this lacked his usual flair while reading a prepared speech.
Obama's had a supermajority in both houses and yet still can't get anything done. Watching him blather on, again, I can see why. He isn't a leader. He's a meeting facilitator.
GOF, I was told several times on here that people would a) admit when they are wrong and b) give Obama credit when he deserves it. I have just shown you that he a) does go places without the teleprompter and b) did so by directly confronting the issues that you regularly call him out on at this retreat. His responses were thoughtful and factual.
"Sheesh, the whole thing went this way"
(loud buzzer sound). Wrong. And you ODS is showing...beter cover it up with a slip.
Pence said Obama was trying to defend "a so-called stimulus that was a piecemeal list of projects and boutique tax cuts." Obama replied, "When you say they were boutique tax cuts, Mike, 95 percent of working Americans got tax cuts." "This notion that this was a radical package is just not true," he said.
FACT: 95 percent of working American families got a tax cut. This a rock granite fact. You folks to like tax cuts, right?
"It was the kind of discussion that we frankly need to have more of," said House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia. "I'm having fun, this is great," Obama said when Pence asked if he had time for more questions. "So are we," said Pence.
“For him to say, ‘I have read your proposals and they are substantive proposals,’ that is a huge thing for Republicans,” Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said afterward.
Mr. Chaffetz challenged the president on what he characterized as a series of broken promises to change the system, including the fact that health care talks were not broadcast on C-Span. Mr. Obama conceded failing to televise the closed talks. “It’s a legitimate criticism,” he said. “So on that one, I take responsibility.”
Show me any conservative that says the above in bold. Not.fucking.happening.
Here's the deal, though, folks. We will NEVER...and I mean NEVER fucking see a conservative or "classic liberal" president do what President Obama did at that retreat...take shit for over an hour by a bunch of fear mongering ass hats. For you to characterize him as you have, Russel, is laughable and hypocritcal.
Obama can't get anything done in either house because of this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
It only takes one hyper-paranoid moron to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.
Oh, god, the old "Stupid American voting against their interests canard"
Puhlease.
People who can't get over their collectivist world view have been trotting that out for 100 years whenever Americans reject any premise that involves spewing largesse out of the public coffers.
Sure, I'll admit he is capable of speaking without a teleprompter. Had you seriously asked, I would have conceded that point at any time since I first heard of him. For someone who had no problem with the unabashed viciousness aimed at Bush for eight solid years, often with even less factual basis, you seem awfully thin-skinned about people making derogatory jokes, remarks and comparisons about "your guy", as you call him.
But no, since I remembered the actual wording of the phrase, what I found fascinating was that you considered the teleprompter jokes "significant errors".... and yet calling for the trial and execution of global warming skeptics, or claiming that Republicans want everyone to "die quickly", are apparently insignificant errors.
FACT: 95 percent of working American families got a tax cut. This a rock granite fact
No, that's a claim.
You're doing what Obama does, and insisting that things are facts when they're just claims.
Alternatively, demonstrate that with real math.
His responses were thoughtful and factual.
I'd totally disagree to the thoughfulness, they were argumentative, they were certainly not always factual, and they were disjointed.
President Obama did at that retreat...take shit for over an hour by a bunch of fear mongering ass hats.
Already forgotten the last 8 years of Chimphitler Bush?
Mr. Obama conceded failing to televise the closed talks. “It’s a legitimate criticism,” he said. “So on that one, I take responsibility.”
So? He could have fixed it. "Taking responsibility" while not changing the underlying behavior is dishonest, Mark.
He made a claim. He didn't live up to it. He "claims responsibility" now -but has yet to apologize, either modify his claim - made to get elected - or retract it, or put the damn negotiations on C-SPAN as he promised.
Same old thing from the Left: If you have good intentions, and fail to deliver results, you can apologize and that means you're redeemed.
Record low crime rates in 1960 turned into incredible amounts of violence by 1970 thanks to leftist jurisprudence, but they had good intentions so we can ignore the dead and the raped and the homes burned and the property stolen.
We were told in the 60s that moving away from abstinence sex-ed would lead to a drop in teen pregnancy, divorce, and venereal disease. Instead, the exact opposite happened. Teen pregnancy grew despite a tripling in the number of abortions. The social tinkerers were wrong, and millions of people suffered as a result.
So the tinkerers wait a decade or so and then they come back with the same "solutions". What's the definition of insanity again?
For someone who had no problem with the unabashed viciousness aimed at Bush for eight solid years, often with even less factual basis
This point brings up a very significant difference between the left's agner towards Bush and the right's anger towards Obama. Bush's statements and subsequent actions (and the results from both) are why the left were angry at Bush. The right hated Obama before he even did anything and now are making up reasons to be angry at him. It was said several times on this blog that President Obama was going to curtail gun rights. He has, in fact (and in a small way), increased them.
But let's take a look at some facts.
1. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9-11.
2. The leaders of Al Qaeda are Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahari.
3. In December 2001, Gary Berntsen was the CIA field commander in charge of capturing and killing Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahari in the Tora Bora mountain region in Afghanistan. According to Berntsen, they had intercepted bin Laden's radio transmissions and had him cornered. American forces combined with Afghan and Pakistani forces had forced him into an area that was somewhat large and needed to be more thoroughly searched. Up to this point, Berntsen had felt somewhat uncomfortable relying so heavily on non-US forces so he sent a request to CENTCOM (Central Command for US Forces) for more troops. His request went unanswered and they were left with only 50 men to find bin Laden and Zawahari. They escaped into Pakistan.
This account is available in his book Jawbreaker.
4. On March 13, 2002, President Bush said, in regards to bin laden " I truly am not that concerned about him" twice in this news conference.
We assess the group has
protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a
safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational
lieutenants, and its top leadership.
So, it is not unabashed viciousness but a reaction to his complete incompetence, based on these facts, to either kill or bring to justice the two men chiefly responsible for the greatest attack in out country's history. Bush attacked Iraq instead and let the problem in AfPak whir out of control. Strategically, this was incompetent. This is but one example of his incompetence.
Now, the right yells, screams, and stomps their feet that President Obama is weak on terror. Yet they have no proof of this. Where are his statemtents and actions that prove this? In fact, the right were saying this before he even took office. During his time in office, we have foiled one major attack, two minor attacks, and gotten lucky on a third one. During Bush's time in office we had 9-11, the anthrax attacks, and gotten lucky on a third one.
"This point brings up a very significant difference between the left's agner towards Bush and the right's anger towards Obama. Bush's statements and subsequent actions (and the results from both) are why the left were angry at Bush. The right hated Obama before he even did anything and now are making up reasons to be angry at him. It was said several times on this blog that President Obama was going to curtail gun rights. He has, in fact (and in a small way), increased them. "
Are you really arguing that they just personally disliked the guy, and not because of his record, stated goals, beliefs, the people he associated with, his demeanor, and his actual actions and promises?
And we've been over the fucking gun rights shit, Mark. Either go back, man up, and deal with the points made there or stop bringing it the fuck up.
"In fact, the right were saying this before he even took office. "
OH MY GOD. You mean they assessed his statements and made a conclusion based on what he said, instead of just waiting for him to not do something?
"Where are his statemtents and actions that prove this?"
Giving KSM a civilian trial AFTER he freakin' confessed to high level terrorism back in 2007. (Transcript here; go to page 17. Recording was here and they hope to have it back up shortly.)
"During Bush's time in office we had 9-11, the anthrax attacks, and gotten lucky on a third one."
"Are you really arguing that they just personally disliked the guy, and not because of his record, stated goals, beliefs, the people he associated with, his demeanor, and his actual actions and promises?"
Yes. Yes he is, in spite of arguing with us during that time and seeing exactly what our arguments actually were. Once again, Marxy demonstrates his complete and utter refusal to remember anything he doesn't want to remember. His continuous use of the strawman fallacy (Standard Responses 6 and 7) even regarding arguments he personally took part in is part of the reason why he actually has negative credibility here.
Oh, and BTW, we went over Marxy's Bush and Bin Laden bullshit YEARS ago. As usual, he is so completely convinced of his position that he is absolutely immune to facts and logic.
He has, in fact (and in a small way), increased them.
Not via his own actions.
Something that's been discussed at you. Funny you should be talking to US about being stuck in a mindset.
And I pointed out to you the problem with your cite and the "additional men" - we didn't have the logistics to be able to put those men into position and feed them.
But, it's Bush's fault, right? Nevermind the facts, you've got a great theory.
Bush attacked Iraq instead and let the problem in AfPak whir out of control. Strategically, this was incompetent. This is but one example of his incompetence.
As above, you've not proven that you're one to make such judgement calls. It was hardly incompetent to invade Iraq, and it would have been grossly negligent not to. If, that is, you have any faith in the UN as an institution.
Now, the right yells, screams, and stomps their feet that President Obama is weak on terror. Yet they have no proof of this. Where are his statemtents and actions that prove this? In fact, the right were saying this before he even took office.
It wasn't just the right - and as it turns out, that was correct.
We capture a terrorist trying to blow up a plane, and without consulting anyone in the chain of command that's supposed to make the decisions, Obama's administration MIRANDIZED HIM. He's decided to try KSM in NYC - which the New Yorkers aren't happy about - and has PROMISED THAT HE WILL BE KILLED.
Yes, this is what I and others predicted. WE WERE RIGHT. You were totally wrong.
During Bush's time in office we had 9-11, the anthrax attacks, and gotten lucky on a third one.
You're leaving off at least 10 conspiracies busted and the terrorists stopped. Both internal and external.
But then, you're stuck on stupid. You can't even admit when you've been wrong, you just double down on anything you can find to try and ... well, hell, I don't know what you're trying. You routinely just make shit up, refuse to ever change your points when they're refuted or even when they're proven to be debatable.... and then accuse us of some sort of mental insanity.
Meanwhile, you repeat the latest that Kos or Moore says, unthinkingly, and call us ditto-bots.
Well, Mark, you're wrong, yet again. Obama, is, as we predicted, trying to use prosecution against terrorists, and it's working about as well as we'd predicted. That is, not as you'd predicted.
"You mean they assessed his statements and made a conclusion based on what he said, instead of just waiting for him to not do something?"
We also assessed his actions as Illinois State Senator and what he taught (Alinsky) when he was with ACORN, i.e., what little history he did have available.
Gotcha, Mark. The 2000 Democrat Presidential campaign, among many, many other things, never happened in your world.
I'm not going to bother with you anymore. This is the same as your contention that the left accusing all Republicans of mass murder isn't as bad as calling an attempted takeover of 1/6 of the US economy what it is.
Hmmm...nowhere do I see anyone disproving the facts that I have listed above. So, instead of speaking to them we have regressed into personal attack mode again. And bizarre rants about civilian trials. Ever heard of this?
http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/07/29/
Show me your comprehensive study that rivals their study.
GOF, you're going to have to elaborate on what you mean by the Dem 2000 campaign. And, honsetly, I don't get the mass-murder to economy take over comparison. One other note, I'm thinking about what you wrote in the other thread...some good stuff...I'm going to take some time with it before I respond.
nowhere do I see anyone disproving the facts that I have listed above
.. because we're merely referencing the PREVIOUS times we rebutted them.
And, again by your own claims, you're proven to be a hypocrite. For you ignored the rebuttals - and then claimed that since you "didn't see them" that you've made points.
But more telling, is how you're avoiding Kevin's big next post down. The one that lays out the difference between the constrained and unconstrained visions.
Funny, that. No, actually, it's what I'd and most here would predict.. Much as our predictions about Obama have been still much more accurate than yours...
Of course you don't get it. Since you believe Bush masterminded 9/11, even after I pointed out that it would require him to be directing national policy during the Clinton years when he was still governor of Texas, and you believe "F*ck it! McCain '08" constitutes refusal to admit that the Republican Party has any flaws whatsoever, I'd be surprised if you did.
"nowhere do I see anyone disproving the facts that I have listed above "
What's the point? I mean, sure, it can be fun to do it at times, but really, it bangs off you like it never happened. Your memory is almost as bad Leonard's, minus the charm.
"nowhere do I see anyone disproving the facts that I have listed above."
We have disproved them over, and over, and over, and over, and …
Which just proves that you are blind to our responses. I'm really curious about whether this is due to cognitive dissonance, willful blindness, or some psychological condition, maybe due to some sort of traumatic event.
I'm really curious about whether this is due to cognitive dissonance, willful blindness, or some psychological condition, maybe due to some sort of traumatic event.
Go read the next post down - the one Markaphasiatic is dodging, because it does a pretty good job of explaining this. :)
"... nowhere do I see anyone disproving the facts that I have listed above."
In contrast, I do not see you disproving the facts that I have listed below:
http://js-kit.com/api/static/pop_comments?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fsmallestminority.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F01%2Fare-you-smarter-than-sixth-grader.html&title=The%20Smallest%20Minority&path=%2F2173175776294967827&standalone=no&scoring=yes&backwards=no&sort=date&thread=yes&permalink=http%3A%2F%2Fjs-kit.com%2Fapi%2Fstatic%2Fpop_comments%3Fref%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fsmallestminority.blogspot.com%252F2010%252F01%252Fare-you-smarter-than-sixth-grader.html%26path%3D%252F2173175776294967827&skin=echo&smiles=no&editable=yes&thread-title=Echo&popup-title=Echo&page-title=The%20Smallest%20Minority
Indeed, the silence of your response is deafening, ain't it?
You do not stand on moral high ground here, sack boy. Your hypocrisy is boundless, as is your dishonesty. Underlying it all is your utter inability to admit significant error. You have thoroughly demonstrated what you are for almost three years now. The ink is dry and you fool no one.
To borrow a bit from Thomas Reed, you do not put your fingers on your keyboard without subracting from the sum of human knowledge. The overpowering unimportance of your words generates no incentive whatever to respond to them, other than to give you yet another well-earned dope slap.
"One such translator was an American of Haitian descent -- representative of the extraordinary work that our men and women in uniform do all around the world -- Navy Corpse-man Christian [sic] Brossard. And lying on a gurney aboard the USNS Comfort, a woman asked Christopher: "Where do you come from? What country? After my operation," she said, "I will pray for that country." And in Creole, Corpse-man Brossard responded, "Etazini." The United States of America."
Surprise, surprise, ladies and gents. Even the Dimocrats have awakened to the fact that President Obamateur isn't a leader, and they are actually complaining about it, by golly!
I'll paste in the good parts, with emphasis added: "The only surprise is that it’s taken this long for Democrats to acknowledge — in private — what everyone else has already deduced in broad daylight. Barack Obama doesn’t want to lead or govern as much as he wants to campaign. Even when he campaigns, as he did in both his State of the Union and September 2009 speeches to the joint session of Congress, Obama rarely offers any specifics to his proposals, preferring to avoid getting entangled in the various interests competing on the issues.
"Of course, many of us predicted just that from a man who racked up an impressive number of “presents” in the state legislature before coming to Congress. Before taking the oath of office as President, Obama had never been put in the position of providing political leadership.
[...]
"Still, what did Democrats expect when they backed Obama for the nomination?"
They expected CHANGE. They got it.
His lack of leadership was predictable, and it was predicted.
Of course you don't get it. Since you believe Bush masterminded 9/11, even after I pointed out that it would require him to be directing national policy during the Clinton years when he was still governor of Texas, and you believe "F*ck it! McCain '08" constitutes refusal to admit that the Republican Party has any flaws whatsoever, I'd be surprised if you did.
Whatever, I'm done with you.
Oh, now I do. Bush stealing the election in 2000. Right. Ok, first of all, he probably wouldn't have been able to steal it if Gore hadn't been such a poor candidate at the time. Plus the Elian Gonzalez thing really hurt him in Florida. The Gore of 04 would've been better.
There were beacoup irregularities in that election. I wonder if any of you would be complaining about election fraud if Al Gore's brother was the governor and the head of his campaign was also the Florida Sec of State. I have no problem admitting that Democrats have stolen elections. Why is it "loony" if the GOP does it?
Where did you get the idea that I think Bush masterminded 9-11? Al Qaeda attacked us, plain and simple. I have plenty of questions about what happened that day but that doesn't mean I'm crazy.
His lack of leadership was predictable, and it was predicted.
Um..DJ? I believe you predicted a Thompson win over Hillary. That turned out to be...not correct.
But let's take a look at President Obama's record, shall we?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
Hmm...91 promises kept....that's a pretty impressive list. Acutally governing and accomplishments, DJ. Doesn't really fit with your little 8 year old boy I-told-you-so-tantrum up there.
Still, though, 14 promises broken. But, see, that's OK. He's only human. He has faults...unlike "classic liberals" ;)
Google "Obama admits mistakes" and see what you come up with...it's quite a list for such an "arrogant" person.
There were beacoup irregularities in that election.
Nothing compared to the irregularties in 04 and 08. But those were frauds for Democrats.
I know a lot about what happened in Florida, care to discuss them? Oh, right. You'll run away again.
I wonder if any of you would be complaining about election fraud if Al Gore's brother was the governor and the head of his campaign was also the Florida Sec of State.
Nope.
Because when it was all said and done, every single recount has proven that Bush won.
I have no problem admitting that Democrats have stolen elections. Why is it "loony" if the GOP does it?
Because that's not factually based. Saying that you'll admit the democrats steal elections (Thought you fight and scream and deny any time there's specific, identifiable issues) doesn't give you credibility to accuse the Republicans of the same without proof.
Oh, and all the issues in Florida? Were in heavily Democratic counties. Theresa Lapoor is a lifelong Democrat, and ran for office as a D.
The problems with the ballots were good-faith efforts on her part to help. But in no way was it a result of Republican anything.
Facts. Not emotions.
Still, though, 14 promises broken. But, see, that's OK. He's only human. He has faults...unlike "classic liberals"
... And 277 "in the works".
No. 119: Appoint a special adviser to the president on violence against women
No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq
Gee, maybe we need to re-look at that list.
"Direct.. to end.. war.." Great. I'm sure Truman told 'em to get out of Germany, too.
That's not a "kept promise" - it's a worthless platitude, and for you to double-down on that... Hell, we know you Mark, better than you know yourself. Google "Obama admits mistakes" and see what you come up with...it's quite a list for such an "arrogant" person.
Obama will "admit" a mistake, but he does not change what he's doing, and he'll go and do it again. That's not an apology or an admission - it's like you saying you've researched or looked into something.
It's simply words that mean what you mean them to, assuming other people will assign other meanings. Like "apology".
It was a thread from a long time ago, DJ. I didn't book mark so I don't know where it is.
Let's get back to President Obama, though. Now we do have this statement of yours.
His lack of leadership was predictable, and it was predicted.
and campaign promise #134:
Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
Not only has he done that but he has gone beyond his promise by sending 30,000 more troops to the area and actually complete the mission that Bush-Cheney failed to do. So, I really don't see any lack of leadership here. In fact, I see strong leadership in comparison to the last president who stopped paying attention to AfPak after he got what he wanted in Iraq.
"It was a thread from a long time ago, DJ. I didn't book mark so I don't know where it is."
Credibility, liar boy, credibility. You have NONE, remember? You ground it into the dirt years ago.
"So, I really don't see any lack of leadership here."
You don't look for it and you refuse to recognize it and/or admit it when we show it to you. Even members of his own party are complaining about his lack of leadership.So look elsewhere, you blithering idiot.
As usual, you're coughing up, yet again, your Standard Response #7. You can find them here, remember?
First of all, what do I care what other Democrats think? Are you appealing to authority, DJ? ;)
Anyway, let's see how long it will take to get through to you, DJ. You said
His lack of leadership was predictable, and it was predicted.
And here we have promise #167:
Make military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti terror efforts.
On Oct. 15, 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law a bill that will provide $7.5 billion in additional aid to Pakistan over the next five years, with all of the conditions described in Obama's promise during the presidential campaign.
Title II of the bill — Senate Bill 1707 — speaks to the conditions tied to security assistance to Pakistan.
According to the bill, before any money goes to Pakistan, the U.S. secretary of state must certify that the government of Pakistan "is continuing to cooperate with the United States in efforts to dismantle supplier networks relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapons-related materials, such as providing relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks."
It also requires the government of Pakistan to show that during the last year it has "demonstrated a sustained commitment to and is making significant efforts towards combating terrorist groups," including:
* "Ceasing support, including by any elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agency, to extremist and terrorist groups, particularly to any group that has conducted attacks against United States or coalition forces in Afghanistan, or against the territory or people of neighboring countries."
* "Preventing al Qaida, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, from operating in the territory of Pakistan, including carrying out cross-border attacks into neighboring countries, closing terrorist camps in the FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Area), dismantling terrorist bases of operations in other parts of the country, including Quetta and Muridke, and taking action when provided with intelligence about high-level terrorist targets."
* "Strengthening counter-terrorism and anti-money laundering laws."
An earlier section of the bill dedicated to democratic, economic and development assistance to Pakistan satisfies the second part of Obama's promise. The bill spells out that aid to Pakistan will support: "democratic institutions; efforts to expand the rule of law, build capacity, transparency, and trust in government institutions, as well as promote human rights; economic freedom and development; investments in people, particularly women and children; and public diplomacy to combat militant extremism and promote a better understanding of the United States."
I'll go through all 91 of them if I have to, DJ. And every single time I do I will put up your statement to show how incapable you are of reason, logic, and critical thinking.
"First of all, what do I care what other Democrats think? Are you appealing to authority, DJ?"
You don't care what anyone thinks, as far as I can tell.
No, I am not appealing to authority. I am pointing out that, if people in his own party, those who have behaved so far as if he walks on water, are complaining that he is not a leader, then likely there is meat to it. If even they can see the problem, then you should treat it as a wake-up call, but you won't. You won't see his failures or his lies, instead you see only his successes and his truths.
Now, remember what I explained to you before; one AwShit cancels out all AttaBoys. Your view is that one AttaBoy cancels out all AwShits. No, it doesn't work. The analysis is not a balance sheet, in which successes cancel out failures and fulfilling promises cancels out lies. A failure remains a failure, even if one has successes elsewhen. The ink is dry; his failures are documented. A lie remains a lie, even if one tells the truth elsewhen. Again, the ink is dry; his lies are documented.
So, you can trot out examples of his successes all you want, and I won't dispute them. I don't dispute that he has had some successes. You can trot out examples of his making good on promises all you want, and I won't dispute them. I don't dispute that he has made good on some promises.
In contrast, we trot out examples of his failures, and you deny or ignore them. We trot out examples of his lies, and you deny or ignore them.Again, the ink is dry; his failures and his lies are documented, and your ignoring them won't make them go away.
To illustrate by analogy: You complain to Mommy that, because this time you didn't get a cookie from the cookie jar, then you didn't get a cookie from the cookie jar those other times when she caught you red-handed. What you simply will not understand, little boy, is that you don't fool Mommy so easily.
Do you see why you are treated with such utter contempt here? You have earned nothing more and nothing less. You fool no one. All you have to offer is your Standard Responses. You just can't help yourself.
His lack of leadership was predictable, and it was predicted.
You preface it with a quote which intimated that all he does is vote "present" and campaigns, as opposed to actually leading. I have now responded with 2 of 91 examples of him leading our country. Unless of course you have a different defintion of leading than I do.
Here's one that I didn't even know about:
Allocate Home Security Funding according to risk
In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security awarded $90 million in Operation Stonegarden grants to support security initiatives along the Southwest border. According to DHS, the department acted on the president's call for increased emphasis on the Southwest border in response to cartel violence along the U.S.-Mexico border. Based on greater risk, heavy cross-border traffic and border-related threat intelligence, nearly 84 percent of the funds went to Southwest border states (up from 59 percent in 2008).
FEMA says that in 2010, for the first time, the $48 million Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program will allocate money based on risk, using a 50% all-hazards risk component and a 50% terrorism threat component.
For the 2010 budget year, DHS revised its grant guidance for the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) so that a higher percentage of total funding (next year, $832 million) will go to the most at-risk U.S. cities. Based an analysis of relative risk of terrorism faced by the 100 most populous metropolitan statistical areas in the United States, 63 percent of total UASI funding will go to the highest risk cities, up from 55 percent in 2009.
"You preface it with a quote which intimated that all he does is vote "present" ..."
No, troll boy. The quote does not say that and it does not mean that. Yet again, you cough up yet another instance of your Standard Response #6. You deliberately miss the point and, yet again, you lay on yet another straw man. Same old shit, different day.
I have pointed out several times, as have others here, that he voted "present" 137 times as an Illinois State Senator. Voting "present" is the opposite ofleadership. Voting "present" says, in effect, "I'm here, but what I think isn't important, so y'all go ahead and vote and pay no attention to what I think." Such is abdication of leadership on a per-piece basis.
Doing it once is excusable. Doing it a few times ought to raise questions of "Why?". Doing it 137 times and then running for President ought to raise red flags. With us, it did. With you, it didn't matter at all. But then, you adore him, and we don't.
"I have now responded with 2 of 91 examples of him leading our country."
And you have ignored everything shown to you in which he has not exhibited leadership. Yup, my analysis in my preceding comment is spot-on.
Even a four year old child can see through your behavior. You fool no one, little boy.
Well, I suppose I could spend hours trying to find it but what a waste of time that would be.
Since we are on the subject of President Obama's personality and leadership skills, DJ also said, in another thread...
Yup, he is one arrogant sumbitch.
I highly doubt Dick Cheney would submit himself to one hour and seven minutes of discussion with Democratic leaders...let alone admit mistakes in the same meeting.
"Mr. Obama said that he was frustrated by special deals for legislators, such as earmarks, that got into the healthcare reform bills.
"They did not help. They frustrate me," he said. "But this is a democracy. I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, academically-approved approach to health care, and didn't have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it and just go ahead and have that passed. But that's not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately, what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people, many of whom have their constituents' best interests at heart. What ends up happening is it ends up looking like each individual senator, each individual legislator is just looking out for their own thing, and don't have the larger public interest at heart."
In other words, "This 'democracy' stuff pisses me off. It would be so much easier to get things done if you peons would just make me Dictator-For-Life."
And at the end of this quote: "Lawmakers listening to the public equals harming my, err, um, The Public interest." Arrogance.
I like, also, that it should've been "academically-approved." After all, it just had to have the right people in charge. Sound people. Intelligent people.
Obama is apparently not aware of what a republic is and how it functions. Legislators "looking out for their own thing" is the entire point.
Okay, I gotta actually defend Marky's position here. He's right, it is erroneous to claim Obama is exhibiting a lack of leadership. Leaders lead by example, and that's just what we're seeing here:
- Energy conservation:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."
...and then turns the White House thermostat up to 80 in the winter.
- Transparency:
"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this Presidency"
...followed by backroom deals with lobbyists on everything from healthcare to banking to cars to...
- Ethics:
"Lobbyists won't find a job in my White House."
...with dozens of "exceptions", and the only real "economic boom" this country has seen so far has beenin lobbying.
The Rule of Law:
"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this Presidency."
...but his lobbyist turned Attorney General refuses to prosecute an open and shut case of voter intimidation. And his administration has a record number of "czars" accountable only to... Barack Obama. His Treasury Secretary is a tax cheat, and he considered her refusal to enforce the law a positive aspect of his Supreme Court Justice nominee's resume.
Fiscal responsibility:
"I'm pledging to cut the deficit IN HALF by the end of my first term."
...while he gives sweetheart deals to the UAW, plans on tripling the deficit, and proposes a "spending freeze" that only affects 1/6 of the budget, doesn't take place until 2012, and largely involves "freezing" spending in areas that Democrats have already increased spending to by 20% or more already. At the same time, he plans to repeal the tax cuts of the previous administration, even though those cuts generated an amount of tax revenue unequaled in the history of the republic.
Bipartisanship:
"I`m going to go in there with a spirit of bipartisanship."
...while his party locks Republicans out of their backroom deals and, those times he's not actually involved, he certainly knows about it and doesn't object. And then of course, there's "I won."
He leads by example. Nobody ever said it was a good example.
I don't think the President Obama is perfect but he certainly isn't what you paint him to be in this list...although some of your criticisms are legitamate. He has already owned up (though it was actually the fault of Congress) to the lack of transparency and bipartisanship regarding health care. I agree--some of it was a mistake. At the same time, however, I'm not certain what the poing would be of including principled and unwavering communists in a discussion on deregulation. The current form of the GOP has demonstrated, through their actions and words, they have no interest in pursuing what our country needs right now. They are only interseted in two things: a) President Obama failing and b) not being wrong. They are going to great lengths--even wildly distorted reality in many cases--to make certain that both of these goals are met.
This would be why they are wavering on the upcoming Feb 25th meeting. They know Obama made them his sons at the retreat two weeks back. They also know they are going in there with nothing to really offer the American people except hate, anger, and fear (all emotions b to the w).
Any sort of success for Obama means doom to them because they would then have to admit fault. Not. Going. To. Happen.
1) What does "transparency" mean in the context of the Department Of Defense? Sharing our military plans with the enemy? Or something else?
2) What does "transparency" taking place in the DOD have to do with President Obama's promised transparency in the process of making laws? A promise which is conspicuously NOT being fulfilled…
They know Obama made them his sons at the retreat two weeks back.
By looking and sounding drunk?
They also know they are going in there with nothing to really offer the American people except hate, anger, and fear (all emotions b to the w).
How about freedom? Not following all the countries with failures in government-run and dictated health care?
That's enough for me, anyway.
But no, according to his "invitation" it doesn't matter what they "bring" - the "meeting" is only to pass "Obamacare". Period. No other "ideas" need apply.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/01/seen-today-at-range.html (69 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Well, it's been 2 days and I have yet to hear any retractions from the teleprompter thread so I'll try them up here since the topic of President Obama has come up again.
"he can't even address a group of twelve year-olds without the TOTUS?"
"Everything he does is scripted for him by his handlers. Of course, we can't say he's an actor, because actors can actually memorize lines."
"I wouldn't be suprised to find out that there's a teleprompter next to his bed that says "Breathe" every two seconds."
"Can't be a rock star without monitors to put your foot up on during the poignant refrain."
"His chutzpah, his arrogance, and his self-centeredness know no limits."
Really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBuG2TdgMn0&feature=player_embedded#
That's one hour and seven minutes. No teleprompter and quite gutsy, I must say, to stand there and take shit for that long.Yep, pretty much an arrogant asshole.
Make sure that you watch it all. I'll be checking back from time to time to see if past assertions regarding admission of fault and error hold true. If not, well...then we'll know that what I've been saying all along regarding your collective ideology is valid.
Ah, the House Republican Retreat. Twelve year-olds are smarter. ;)
Since Mark is cross-posting now, I figured I'd do the same in response. I'm a little less lazy and quite a bit less stupid, though, so I'll write something different.
Ok, Mark. Explain to us why that one hour and seven minutes explains why the President of the United States required audio equipment, a podium with his logo, teleprompters, and god knows what else in order to speak to a small group of children.
Then explain why the "collective ideology" accusation holds against a handful of comments you quoted when the sources of those quotes do not substantially make up Kevin's readership or even those you regularly accuse of walking in step with Rush or being like Al Qaeda. I will leave it up to you as an exercise to figure out why that might be pertinent.
I won't hold my breath.
"Ok, Mark. Explain to us why that one hour and seven minutes explains why the President of the United States required audio equipment, a podium with his logo, teleprompters, and god knows what else in order to speak to a small group of children. "
What? You expected something from him other than his Standard Response #7?
As always, they're found here:
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/08/standard-responses-of-markadelphia.html
You know what might be fun to discuss? Shunning.
Why? Oh, no reason.
What I'd like explained is why Mark apparently thinks a retraction of "Obama can't speak without a teleprompter" is more important than a retraction of "AGW skeptics should be tried a la Nuremberg and summarily executed for crimes against humanity."
As usual, the priorities are astounding.
Markadelphia has raised straining at gnats while crapping out camels to a high art.
"Yep, pretty much an arrogant asshole. "
Yep.
"I won"
Well, no, this time you didn't. So now he's got to *start* to "reach out" to the other side.
And he looked drunk, bobbled, weaved, was factually incorrect multiple times...
Oh, right. Mark's stuck on his standard responses.
Not, you know, facts.
License plate? Priceless!
@ 10:14
"I.. I , uh. I am not an ideologue."
Right. Because the way to convince us that Obambi knows what he is doing is even more exposure to the man's speaking faults.
Here's another little fun one:
49:05 - 49:24 Obama is nodding like he is paying attention.
49:25 - Criticism hits, Obama stops nodding and his eyes glaze over. Blinking slows down for a second, then he starts to blink erratically. Obama nods whenever the speaker is just going over known facts, stops when there is a hit of criticism.
50:50 The Republican finishes up his weakly worded question/rambling and Obama begins his response. Obama dances around the question a bit, makes a joke, says the American public are too stupid to understand how politics are played. He also blames the media.
53:09 He finally starts to address the original question. Blames the Republicans again. Doesn't really answer the question as the how, but Obama hopes things will be good. And thank goodness Obama will be talking more about trade this year!
55:14 He ends his non answer.
Sheesh, the whole thing went this way. I want my hour back!
Think about it too, Obama has been giving interviews his entire Presidency over anything else, he's had countless hours of prep and practice. And yet, this is the best he could do? Didn't sell anything but, you guessed it, Change and Hope.
And all of this lacked his usual flair while reading a prepared speech.
Obama's had a supermajority in both houses and yet still can't get anything done. Watching him blather on, again, I can see why. He isn't a leader. He's a meeting facilitator.
Well, I see Markadelphia's back to "Comment Shitter Mode" - run in, drop one, run out....
GOF, I was told several times on here that people would a) admit when they are wrong and b) give Obama credit when he deserves it. I have just shown you that he a) does go places without the teleprompter and b) did so by directly confronting the issues that you regularly call him out on at this retreat. His responses were thoughtful and factual.
"Sheesh, the whole thing went this way"
(loud buzzer sound). Wrong. And you ODS is showing...beter cover it up with a slip.
Pence said Obama was trying to defend "a so-called stimulus that was a piecemeal list of projects and boutique tax cuts."
Obama replied, "When you say they were boutique tax cuts, Mike, 95 percent of working Americans got tax cuts."
"This notion that this was a radical package is just not true," he said.
FACT: 95 percent of working American families got a tax cut. This a rock granite fact. You folks to like tax cuts, right?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/28/barack-obama/tax-cut-95-percent-stimulus-made-it-so/
"It was the kind of discussion that we frankly need to have more of," said House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia.
"I'm having fun, this is great," Obama said when Pence asked if he had time for more questions.
"So are we," said Pence.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/29/face-face-obama-urges-gop-join-dems-job-creation-efforts/
“For him to say, ‘I have read your proposals and they are substantive proposals,’ that is a huge thing for Republicans,” Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said afterward.
Mr. Chaffetz challenged the president on what he characterized as a series of broken promises to change the system, including the fact that health care talks were not broadcast on C-Span.
Mr. Obama conceded failing to televise the closed talks. “It’s a legitimate criticism,” he said. “So on that one, I take responsibility.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=2
Show me any conservative that says the above in bold. Not.fucking.happening.
Here's the deal, though, folks. We will NEVER...and I mean NEVER fucking see a conservative or "classic liberal" president do what President Obama did at that retreat...take shit for over an hour by a bunch of fear mongering ass hats. For you to characterize him as you have, Russel, is laughable and hypocritcal.
Obama can't get anything done in either house because of this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
It only takes one hyper-paranoid moron to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.
Oh, god, the old "Stupid American voting against their interests canard"
Puhlease.
People who can't get over their collectivist world view have been trotting that out for 100 years whenever Americans reject any premise that involves spewing largesse out of the public coffers.
"... I was told several times on here that people would a) admit when they are wrong ..."
You miserable, little hypocrite.
Once again, liar boy, go read the whole goddamned comment thread:
http://js-kit.com/api/static/pop_comments?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fsmallestminority.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F09%2Frapture-of-marxists.html&title=The%20Smallest%20Minority&path=%2F4052956117793022172&standalone=no&scoring=yes&backwards=no&sort=date&thread=yes&permalink=http%3A%2F%2Fjs-kit.com%2Fapi%2Fstatic%2Fpop_comments%3Fref%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fsmallestminority.blogspot.com%252F2008%252F09%252Frapture-of-marxists.html%26path%3D%252F4052956117793022172&skin=echo&smiles=no&editable=yes&thread-title=Echo&popup-title=Echo&page-title=The%20Smallest%20Minority
The phrase was "admit significant error."
Sure, I'll admit he is capable of speaking without a teleprompter. Had you seriously asked, I would have conceded that point at any time since I first heard of him. For someone who had no problem with the unabashed viciousness aimed at Bush for eight solid years, often with even less factual basis, you seem awfully thin-skinned about people making derogatory jokes, remarks and comparisons about "your guy", as you call him.
But no, since I remembered the actual wording of the phrase, what I found fascinating was that you considered the teleprompter jokes "significant errors".... and yet calling for the trial and execution of global warming skeptics, or claiming that Republicans want everyone to "die quickly", are apparently insignificant errors.
FACT: 95 percent of working American families got a tax cut. This a rock granite fact
No, that's a claim.
You're doing what Obama does, and insisting that things are facts when they're just claims.
Alternatively, demonstrate that with real math.
His responses were thoughtful and factual.
I'd totally disagree to the thoughfulness, they were argumentative, they were certainly not always factual, and they were disjointed.
President Obama did at that retreat...take shit for over an hour by a bunch of fear mongering ass hats.
Already forgotten the last 8 years of Chimphitler Bush?
Mr. Obama conceded failing to televise the closed talks. “It’s a legitimate criticism,” he said. “So on that one, I take responsibility.”
So? He could have fixed it. "Taking responsibility" while not changing the underlying behavior is dishonest, Mark.
He made a claim. He didn't live up to it. He "claims responsibility" now -but has yet to apologize, either modify his claim - made to get elected - or retract it, or put the damn negotiations on C-SPAN as he promised.
Same old thing from the Left: If you have good intentions, and fail to deliver results, you can apologize and that means you're redeemed.
Record low crime rates in 1960 turned into incredible amounts of violence by 1970 thanks to leftist jurisprudence, but they had good intentions so we can ignore the dead and the raped and the homes burned and the property stolen.
We were told in the 60s that moving away from abstinence sex-ed would lead to a drop in teen pregnancy, divorce, and venereal disease. Instead, the exact opposite happened. Teen pregnancy grew despite a tripling in the number of abortions. The social tinkerers were wrong, and millions of people suffered as a result.
So the tinkerers wait a decade or so and then they come back with the same "solutions". What's the definition of insanity again?
For someone who had no problem with the unabashed viciousness aimed at Bush for eight solid years, often with even less factual basis
This point brings up a very significant difference between the left's agner towards Bush and the right's anger towards Obama. Bush's statements and subsequent actions (and the results from both) are why the left were angry at Bush. The right hated Obama before he even did anything and now are making up reasons to be angry at him. It was said several times on this blog that President Obama was going to curtail gun rights. He has, in fact (and in a small way), increased them.
But let's take a look at some facts.
1. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9-11.
2. The leaders of Al Qaeda are Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahari.
3. In December 2001, Gary Berntsen was the CIA field commander in charge of capturing and killing Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahari in the Tora Bora mountain region in Afghanistan. According to Berntsen, they had intercepted bin Laden's radio transmissions and had him cornered. American forces combined with Afghan and Pakistani forces had forced him into an area that was somewhat large and needed to be more thoroughly searched. Up to this point, Berntsen had felt somewhat uncomfortable relying so heavily on non-US forces so he sent a request to CENTCOM (Central Command for US Forces) for more troops. His request went unanswered and they were left with only 50 men to find bin Laden and Zawahari. They escaped into Pakistan.
This account is available in his book Jawbreaker.
4. On March 13, 2002, President Bush said, in regards to bin laden " I truly am not that concerned about him" twice in this news conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPTwsMEiI0g&feature=response_watch
Followed by this was an expression of concern "when he had taken over a country" but not now.
5. In July of 2007, this National Intelligence Estimate was issued by Bush's own administration regarding the status of Al Qaeda at the time.
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf
We assess the group has
protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a
safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational
lieutenants, and its top leadership.
So, it is not unabashed viciousness but a reaction to his complete incompetence, based on these facts, to either kill or bring to justice the two men chiefly responsible for the greatest attack in out country's history. Bush attacked Iraq instead and let the problem in AfPak whir out of control. Strategically, this was incompetent. This is but one example of his incompetence.
Now, the right yells, screams, and stomps their feet that President Obama is weak on terror. Yet they have no proof of this. Where are his statemtents and actions that prove this? In fact, the right were saying this before he even took office. During his time in office, we have foiled one major attack, two minor attacks, and gotten lucky on a third one. During Bush's time in office we had 9-11, the anthrax attacks, and gotten lucky on a third one.
Tell me again who has reality adjustment issues?
"This point brings up a very significant difference between the left's agner towards Bush and the right's anger towards Obama. Bush's statements and subsequent actions (and the results from both) are why the left were angry at Bush. The right hated Obama before he even did anything and now are making up reasons to be angry at him. It was said several times on this blog that President Obama was going to curtail gun rights. He has, in fact (and in a small way), increased them. "
Are you really arguing that they just personally disliked the guy, and not because of his record, stated goals, beliefs, the people he associated with, his demeanor, and his actual actions and promises?
And we've been over the fucking gun rights shit, Mark. Either go back, man up, and deal with the points made there or stop bringing it the fuck up.
"In fact, the right were saying this before he even took office. "
OH MY GOD. You mean they assessed his statements and made a conclusion based on what he said, instead of just waiting for him to not do something?
" Bush's statements and subsequent actions (and the results from both) are why the left were angry at Bush. "
Right, cause Bush ate babies, just like the protestors said. http://www.pbase.com/kayakbiker/image/32805073
" It was said several times on this blog that President Obama was going to curtail gun rights. He has, in fact (and in a small way), increased them."
My God, it's full of stupid.*
* Apologies to Sir Arthur Charles Clarke
"Where are his statemtents and actions that prove this?"
Giving KSM a civilian trial AFTER he freakin' confessed to high level terrorism back in 2007. (Transcript here; go to page 17. Recording was here and they hope to have it back up shortly.)
"During Bush's time in office we had 9-11, the anthrax attacks, and gotten lucky on a third one."
Wow… just… your bias is simply amazing…
You MUST watch this interview with Marc Thiessen.
Adam,
"Are you really arguing that they just personally disliked the guy, and not because of his record, stated goals, beliefs, the people he associated with, his demeanor, and his actual actions and promises?"
Yes. Yes he is, in spite of arguing with us during that time and seeing exactly what our arguments actually were. Once again, Marxy demonstrates his complete and utter refusal to remember anything he doesn't want to remember. His continuous use of the strawman fallacy (Standard Responses 6 and 7) even regarding arguments he personally took part in is part of the reason why he actually has negative credibility here.
Oh, and BTW, we went over Marxy's Bush and Bin Laden bullshit YEARS ago. As usual, he is so completely convinced of his position that he is absolutely immune to facts and logic.
Yup. He CANNOT admit error.
He has, in fact (and in a small way), increased them.
Not via his own actions.
Something that's been discussed at you. Funny you should be talking to US about being stuck in a mindset.
And I pointed out to you the problem with your cite and the "additional men" - we didn't have the logistics to be able to put those men into position and feed them.
But, it's Bush's fault, right? Nevermind the facts, you've got a great theory.
Bush attacked Iraq instead and let the problem in AfPak whir out of control. Strategically, this was incompetent. This is but one example of his incompetence.
As above, you've not proven that you're one to make such judgement calls. It was hardly incompetent to invade Iraq, and it would have been grossly negligent not to. If, that is, you have any faith in the UN as an institution.
Now, the right yells, screams, and stomps their feet that President Obama is weak on terror. Yet they have no proof of this. Where are his statemtents and actions that prove this? In fact, the right were saying this before he even took office.
It wasn't just the right - and as it turns out, that was correct.
We capture a terrorist trying to blow up a plane, and without consulting anyone in the chain of command that's supposed to make the decisions, Obama's administration MIRANDIZED HIM. He's decided to try KSM in NYC - which the New Yorkers aren't happy about - and has PROMISED THAT HE WILL BE KILLED.
Yes, this is what I and others predicted. WE WERE RIGHT. You were totally wrong.
During Bush's time in office we had 9-11, the anthrax attacks, and gotten lucky on a third one.
You're leaving off at least 10 conspiracies busted and the terrorists stopped. Both internal and external.
But then, you're stuck on stupid. You can't even admit when you've been wrong, you just double down on anything you can find to try and ... well, hell, I don't know what you're trying. You routinely just make shit up, refuse to ever change your points when they're refuted or even when they're proven to be debatable.... and then accuse us of some sort of mental insanity.
Meanwhile, you repeat the latest that Kos or Moore says, unthinkingly, and call us ditto-bots.
Well, Mark, you're wrong, yet again. Obama, is, as we predicted, trying to use prosecution against terrorists, and it's working about as well as we'd predicted. That is, not as you'd predicted.
Hey, liar boy, did you forget where you were? You were here, last time I checked:
http://js-kit.com/api/static/pop_comments?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fsmallestminority.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F01%2Fare-you-smarter-than-sixth-grader.html&title=The%20Smallest%20Minority&path=%2F2173175776294967827&standalone=no&scoring=yes&backwards=no&sort=date&thread=yes&permalink=http%3A%2F%2Fjs-kit.com%2Fapi%2Fstatic%2Fpop_comments%3Fref%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fsmallestminority.blogspot.com%252F2010%252F01%252Fare-you-smarter-than-sixth-grader.html%26path%3D%252F2173175776294967827&skin=echo&smiles=no&editable=yes&thread-title=Echo&popup-title=Echo&page-title=The%20Smallest%20Minority
Now, what is this? Just another episode of your Standard Response #10?
"You mean they assessed his statements and made a conclusion based on what he said, instead of just waiting for him to not do something?"
We also assessed his actions as Illinois State Senator and what he taught (Alinsky) when he was with ACORN, i.e., what little history he did have available.
Gotcha, Mark. The 2000 Democrat Presidential campaign, among many, many other things, never happened in your world.
I'm not going to bother with you anymore. This is the same as your contention that the left accusing all Republicans of mass murder isn't as bad as calling an attempted takeover of 1/6 of the US economy what it is.
Hmmm...nowhere do I see anyone disproving the facts that I have listed above. So, instead of speaking to them we have regressed into personal attack mode again. And bizarre rants about civilian trials. Ever heard of this?
http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/07/29/
Show me your comprehensive study that rivals their study.
GOF, you're going to have to elaborate on what you mean by the Dem 2000 campaign. And, honsetly, I don't get the mass-murder to economy take over comparison. One other note, I'm thinking about what you wrote in the other thread...some good stuff...I'm going to take some time with it before I respond.
nowhere do I see anyone disproving the facts that I have listed above
.. because we're merely referencing the PREVIOUS times we rebutted them.
And, again by your own claims, you're proven to be a hypocrite. For you ignored the rebuttals - and then claimed that since you "didn't see them" that you've made points.
But more telling, is how you're avoiding Kevin's big next post down. The one that lays out the difference between the constrained and unconstrained visions.
Funny, that. No, actually, it's what I'd and most here would predict.. Much as our predictions about Obama have been still much more accurate than yours...
Of course you don't get it. Since you believe Bush masterminded 9/11, even after I pointed out that it would require him to be directing national policy during the Clinton years when he was still governor of Texas, and you believe "F*ck it! McCain '08" constitutes refusal to admit that the Republican Party has any flaws whatsoever, I'd be surprised if you did.
Whatever, I'm done with you.
"nowhere do I see anyone disproving the facts that I have listed above "
What's the point? I mean, sure, it can be fun to do it at times, but really, it bangs off you like it never happened. Your memory is almost as bad Leonard's, minus the charm.
"nowhere do I see anyone disproving the facts that I have listed above."
We have disproved them over, and over, and over, and over, and …
Which just proves that you are blind to our responses. I'm really curious about whether this is due to cognitive dissonance, willful blindness, or some psychological condition, maybe due to some sort of traumatic event.
I'm really curious about whether this is due to cognitive dissonance, willful blindness, or some psychological condition, maybe due to some sort of traumatic event.
Go read the next post down - the one Markaphasiatic is dodging, because it does a pretty good job of explaining this. :)
"... nowhere do I see anyone disproving the facts that I have listed above."
In contrast, I do not see you disproving the facts that I have listed below:
http://js-kit.com/api/static/pop_comments?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fsmallestminority.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F01%2Fare-you-smarter-than-sixth-grader.html&title=The%20Smallest%20Minority&path=%2F2173175776294967827&standalone=no&scoring=yes&backwards=no&sort=date&thread=yes&permalink=http%3A%2F%2Fjs-kit.com%2Fapi%2Fstatic%2Fpop_comments%3Fref%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fsmallestminority.blogspot.com%252F2010%252F01%252Fare-you-smarter-than-sixth-grader.html%26path%3D%252F2173175776294967827&skin=echo&smiles=no&editable=yes&thread-title=Echo&popup-title=Echo&page-title=The%20Smallest%20Minority
Indeed, the silence of your response is deafening, ain't it?
You do not stand on moral high ground here, sack boy. Your hypocrisy is boundless, as is your dishonesty. Underlying it all is your utter inability to admit significant error. You have thoroughly demonstrated what you are for almost three years now. The ink is dry and you fool no one.
To borrow a bit from Thomas Reed, you do not put your fingers on your keyboard without subracting from the sum of human knowledge. The overpowering unimportance of your words generates no incentive whatever to respond to them, other than to give you yet another well-earned dope slap.
*Snorfle*
The Won can't pronunce "Corpsman", or the sailor's name.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNXMAFGXOUA&feature=player_embedded
"One such translator was an American of Haitian descent -- representative of the extraordinary work that our men and women in uniform do all around the world -- Navy Corpse-man Christian [sic] Brossard. And lying on a gurney aboard the USNS Comfort, a woman asked Christopher: "Where do you come from? What country? After my operation," she said, "I will pray for that country." And in Creole, Corpse-man Brossard responded, "Etazini." The United States of America."
Nono. He's simply changing how it SHOULD be pronounced.
And it appears I can't spell "pronounce"!
"And it appears I can't spell 'pronounce'!"
Don't worry - Marky Mark will be along shortly to try and point out that you spelled "pronoun" incorrectly.
Surprise, surprise, ladies and gents. Even the Dimocrats have awakened to the fact that President Obamateur isn't a leader, and they are actually complaining about it, by golly!
Start here:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/05/franken-blasts-obamas-lack-of-leadership-in-meeting-of-senate-democrats/
I'll paste in the good parts, with emphasis added:
"The only surprise is that it’s taken this long for Democrats to acknowledge — in private — what everyone else has already deduced in broad daylight. Barack Obama doesn’t want to lead or govern as much as he wants to campaign. Even when he campaigns, as he did in both his State of the Union and September 2009 speeches to the joint session of Congress, Obama rarely offers any specifics to his proposals, preferring to avoid getting entangled in the various interests competing on the issues.
"Of course, many of us predicted just that from a man who racked up an impressive number of “presents” in the state legislature before coming to Congress. Before taking the oath of office as President, Obama had never been put in the position of providing political leadership.
[...]
"Still, what did Democrats expect when they backed Obama for the nomination?"
They expected CHANGE. They got it.
His lack of leadership was predictable, and it was predicted.
Of course you don't get it. Since you believe Bush masterminded 9/11, even after I pointed out that it would require him to be directing national policy during the Clinton years when he was still governor of Texas, and you believe "F*ck it! McCain '08" constitutes refusal to admit that the Republican Party has any flaws whatsoever, I'd be surprised if you did.
Whatever, I'm done with you.
Oh, now I do. Bush stealing the election in 2000. Right. Ok, first of all, he probably wouldn't have been able to steal it if Gore hadn't been such a poor candidate at the time. Plus the Elian Gonzalez thing really hurt him in Florida. The Gore of 04 would've been better.
There were beacoup irregularities in that election. I wonder if any of you would be complaining about election fraud if Al Gore's brother was the governor and the head of his campaign was also the Florida Sec of State. I have no problem admitting that Democrats have stolen elections. Why is it "loony" if the GOP does it?
Where did you get the idea that I think Bush masterminded 9-11? Al Qaeda attacked us, plain and simple. I have plenty of questions about what happened that day but that doesn't mean I'm crazy.
His lack of leadership was predictable, and it was predicted.
Um..DJ? I believe you predicted a Thompson win over Hillary. That turned out to be...not correct.
But let's take a look at President Obama's record, shall we?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
Hmm...91 promises kept....that's a pretty impressive list. Acutally governing and accomplishments, DJ. Doesn't really fit with your little 8 year old boy I-told-you-so-tantrum up there.
Still, though, 14 promises broken. But, see, that's OK. He's only human. He has faults...unlike "classic liberals" ;)
Google "Obama admits mistakes" and see what you come up with...it's quite a list for such an "arrogant" person.
Damn. Mark's sliding BACKWARD.
There were beacoup irregularities in that election.
Nothing compared to the irregularties in 04 and 08. But those were frauds for Democrats.
I know a lot about what happened in Florida, care to discuss them? Oh, right. You'll run away again.
I wonder if any of you would be complaining about election fraud if Al Gore's brother was the governor and the head of his campaign was also the Florida Sec of State.
Nope.
Because when it was all said and done, every single recount has proven that Bush won.
I have no problem admitting that Democrats have stolen elections. Why is it "loony" if the GOP does it?
Because that's not factually based. Saying that you'll admit the democrats steal elections (Thought you fight and scream and deny any time there's specific, identifiable issues) doesn't give you credibility to accuse the Republicans of the same without proof.
Oh, and all the issues in Florida? Were in heavily Democratic counties. Theresa Lapoor is a lifelong Democrat, and ran for office as a D.
The problems with the ballots were good-faith efforts on her part to help. But in no way was it a result of Republican anything.
Facts. Not emotions.
Still, though, 14 promises broken. But, see, that's OK. He's only human. He has faults...unlike "classic liberals"
... And 277 "in the works".
No. 119: Appoint a special adviser to the president on violence against women
No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq
Gee, maybe we need to re-look at that list.
"Direct.. to end.. war.." Great. I'm sure Truman told 'em to get out of Germany, too.
That's not a "kept promise" - it's a worthless platitude, and for you to double-down on that... Hell, we know you Mark, better than you know yourself.
Google "Obama admits mistakes" and see what you come up with...it's quite a list for such an "arrogant" person.
Obama will "admit" a mistake, but he does not change what he's doing, and he'll go and do it again. That's not an apology or an admission - it's like you saying you've researched or looked into something.
It's simply words that mean what you mean them to, assuming other people will assign other meanings. Like "apology".
Or "verbatim".
"Um..DJ? I believe you predicted a Thompson win over Hillary. That turned out to be...not correct."
No, I never predicted a Thompson win over anyone. If you think I did, then show me my own words.
Now, go Google "list of Obama lies so far". You'll get about 18.2 million hits. Just skim the first one. That game works both ways.
You aren't fooling anyone, teacher boy.
It was a thread from a long time ago, DJ. I didn't book mark so I don't know where it is.
Let's get back to President Obama, though. Now we do have this statement of yours.
His lack of leadership was predictable, and it was predicted.
and campaign promise #134:
Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
Not only has he done that but he has gone beyond his promise by sending 30,000 more troops to the area and actually complete the mission that Bush-Cheney failed to do. So, I really don't see any lack of leadership here. In fact, I see strong leadership in comparison to the last president who stopped paying attention to AfPak after he got what he wanted in Iraq.
I don't see a pony....Where's the pony?
"It was a thread from a long time ago, DJ. I didn't book mark so I don't know where it is."
Credibility, liar boy, credibility. You have NONE, remember? You ground it into the dirt years ago.
"So, I really don't see any lack of leadership here."
You don't look for it and you refuse to recognize it and/or admit it when we show it to you. Even members of his own party are complaining about his lack of leadership. So look elsewhere, you blithering idiot.
As usual, you're coughing up, yet again, your Standard Response #7. You can find them here, remember?
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/08/standard-responses-of-markadelphia.html
First of all, what do I care what other Democrats think? Are you appealing to authority, DJ? ;)
Anyway, let's see how long it will take to get through to you, DJ. You said
His lack of leadership was predictable, and it was predicted.
And here we have promise #167:
Make military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti terror efforts.
On Oct. 15, 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law a bill that will provide $7.5 billion in additional aid to Pakistan over the next five years, with all of the conditions described in Obama's promise during the presidential campaign.
Title II of the bill — Senate Bill 1707 — speaks to the conditions tied to security assistance to Pakistan.
According to the bill, before any money goes to Pakistan, the U.S. secretary of state must certify that the government of Pakistan "is continuing to cooperate with the United States in efforts to dismantle supplier networks relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapons-related materials, such as providing relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks."
It also requires the government of Pakistan to show that during the last year it has "demonstrated a sustained commitment to and is making significant efforts towards combating terrorist groups," including:
* "Ceasing support, including by any elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agency, to extremist and terrorist groups, particularly to any group that has conducted attacks against United States or coalition forces in Afghanistan, or against the territory or people of neighboring countries."
* "Preventing al Qaida, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, from operating in the territory of Pakistan, including carrying out cross-border attacks into neighboring countries, closing terrorist camps in the FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Area), dismantling terrorist bases of operations in other parts of the country, including Quetta and Muridke, and taking action when provided with intelligence about high-level terrorist targets."
* "Strengthening counter-terrorism and anti-money laundering laws."
An earlier section of the bill dedicated to democratic, economic and development assistance to Pakistan satisfies the second part of Obama's promise. The bill spells out that aid to Pakistan will support: "democratic institutions; efforts to expand the rule of law, build capacity, transparency, and trust in government institutions, as well as promote human rights; economic freedom and development; investments in people, particularly women and children; and public diplomacy to combat militant extremism and promote a better understanding of the United States."
I'll go through all 91 of them if I have to, DJ. And every single time I do I will put up your statement to show how incapable you are of reason, logic, and critical thinking.
And every single time I do I will put up your statement to show how incapable you are of reason, logic, and critical thinking.
.. Of course, nothing you said above refuted DJ's claim of lack of leadership.
Seriously, go down, and *read for retention* the post below this, about the constrained and unconstrained visions.
You'll seem less a fool if you'd do that, rather than continue to double down here where you've proven inadequacy.
I'll go through all 91 of them if I have to,
Might want to do that, and find out how trivial most of them are. And how thin your argument, as a result, is.
Nothing you just said there refutes in any way DJ's "Lack of leadership" prediction.
I'll go through all 91 of them if I have to, DJ.
Actually, let me expand on that.
You'll cut and paste what polifact said about them with no other context.
In other words, it's not YOUR WORDS or thoughts, but someone else's.
How about you go through those 91, and find the ones that might refute DJ. And explain WHY they demonstrate leadership.
That's how you actually present and rebut arguments. To those of of us who insist on reason, logic, and critical thinking. ...
Of course, it *might* help if you actually corrected your previous errors on critical thinking, too...
"First of all, what do I care what other Democrats think? Are you appealing to authority, DJ?"
You don't care what anyone thinks, as far as I can tell.
No, I am not appealing to authority. I am pointing out that, if people in his own party, those who have behaved so far as if he walks on water, are complaining that he is not a leader, then likely there is meat to it. If even they can see the problem, then you should treat it as a wake-up call, but you won't. You won't see his failures or his lies, instead you see only his successes and his truths.
Now, remember what I explained to you before; one AwShit cancels out all AttaBoys. Your view is that one AttaBoy cancels out all AwShits. No, it doesn't work. The analysis is not a balance sheet, in which successes cancel out failures and fulfilling promises cancels out lies. A failure remains a failure, even if one has successes elsewhen. The ink is dry; his failures are documented. A lie remains a lie, even if one tells the truth elsewhen. Again, the ink is dry; his lies are documented.
So, you can trot out examples of his successes all you want, and I won't dispute them. I don't dispute that he has had some successes. You can trot out examples of his making good on promises all you want, and I won't dispute them. I don't dispute that he has made good on some promises.
In contrast, we trot out examples of his failures, and you deny or ignore them. We trot out examples of his lies, and you deny or ignore them. Again, the ink is dry; his failures and his lies are documented, and your ignoring them won't make them go away.
To illustrate by analogy: You complain to Mommy that, because this time you didn't get a cookie from the cookie jar, then you didn't get a cookie from the cookie jar those other times when she caught you red-handed. What you simply will not understand, little boy, is that you don't fool Mommy so easily.
Do you see why you are treated with such utter contempt here? You have earned nothing more and nothing less. You fool no one. All you have to offer is your Standard Responses. You just can't help yourself.
Actually, I don't see why. You made this claim
His lack of leadership was predictable, and it was predicted.
You preface it with a quote which intimated that all he does is vote "present" and campaigns, as opposed to actually leading. I have now responded with 2 of 91 examples of him leading our country. Unless of course you have a different defintion of leading than I do.
Here's one that I didn't even know about:
Allocate Home Security Funding according to risk
In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security awarded $90 million in Operation Stonegarden grants to support security initiatives along the Southwest border. According to DHS, the department acted on the president's call for increased emphasis on the Southwest border in response to cartel violence along the U.S.-Mexico border. Based on greater risk, heavy cross-border traffic and border-related threat intelligence, nearly 84 percent of the funds went to Southwest border states (up from 59 percent in 2008).
FEMA says that in 2010, for the first time, the $48 million Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program will allocate money based on risk, using a 50% all-hazards risk component and a 50% terrorism threat component.
For the 2010 budget year, DHS revised its grant guidance for the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) so that a higher percentage of total funding (next year, $832 million) will go to the most at-risk U.S. cities. Based an analysis of relative risk of terrorism faced by the 100 most populous metropolitan statistical areas in the United States, 63 percent of total UASI funding will go to the highest risk cities, up from 55 percent in 2009.
"You preface it with a quote which intimated that all he does is vote "present" ..."
No, troll boy. The quote does not say that and it does not mean that. Yet again, you cough up yet another instance of your Standard Response #6. You deliberately miss the point and, yet again, you lay on yet another straw man. Same old shit, different day.
I have pointed out several times, as have others here, that he voted "present" 137 times as an Illinois State Senator. Voting "present" is the opposite of leadership. Voting "present" says, in effect, "I'm here, but what I think isn't important, so y'all go ahead and vote and pay no attention to what I think." Such is abdication of leadership on a per-piece basis.
Doing it once is excusable. Doing it a few times ought to raise questions of "Why?". Doing it 137 times and then running for President ought to raise red flags. With us, it did. With you, it didn't matter at all. But then, you adore him, and we don't.
"I have now responded with 2 of 91 examples of him leading our country."
And you have ignored everything shown to you in which he has not exhibited leadership. Yup, my analysis in my preceding comment is spot-on.
Even a four year old child can see through your behavior. You fool no one, little boy.
"It was a thread from a long time ago, DJ. I didn't book mark so I don't know where it is. "
That is to say, "I'm making stuff up. And the dog ate my homework."
Well, I suppose I could spend hours trying to find it but what a waste of time that would be.
Since we are on the subject of President Obama's personality and leadership skills, DJ also said, in another thread...
Yup, he is one arrogant sumbitch.
I highly doubt Dick Cheney would submit himself to one hour and seven minutes of discussion with Democratic leaders...let alone admit mistakes in the same meeting.
And now we have this.
http://wcco.com/national/obama.health.care.2.1478002.html
The White House said the half-day bipartisan session will take place Feb. 25 and will be aired live on television.
His arrogance is overwhelming.
"I highly doubt Dick Cheney would submit himself to one hour and seven minutes of discussion with Democratic leaders ..."
We'll never know, will we? He is no longer in politics, so this conjecture is moot.
It is upon Obamateur's behavior that my opinion of Obamateur is based; in that regard, Cheney is irrelevant.
"His arrogance is overwhelming."
No, it is not overwhelming, but it is quite difficult to not notice it. Adoration has that effect, does it?
From the article Marxy linked:
"Mr. Obama said that he was frustrated by special deals for legislators, such as earmarks, that got into the healthcare reform bills.
"They did not help. They frustrate me," he said. "But this is a democracy. I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, academically-approved approach to health care, and didn't have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it and just go ahead and have that passed. But that's not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately, what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people, many of whom have their constituents' best interests at heart. What ends up happening is it ends up looking like each individual senator, each individual legislator is just looking out for their own thing, and don't have the larger public interest at heart."
In other words, "This 'democracy' stuff pisses me off. It would be so much easier to get things done if you peons would just make me Dictator-For-Life."
And at the end of this quote: "Lawmakers listening to the public equals harming my, err, um, The Public interest." Arrogance.
I like, also, that it should've been "academically-approved." After all, it just had to have the right people in charge. Sound people. Intelligent people.
Obama is apparently not aware of what a republic is and how it functions. Legislators "looking out for their own thing" is the entire point.
"But this is a democracy"
No! It's a Constitutional Republic!
"Well, I suppose I could spend hours trying to find it but what a waste of time that would be. "
Cause it's just easier to impugn DJ's judgment then back it up.
Well, I suppose I could spend hours trying to find it but what a waste of time that would be.
To back up your reputation? Yep, waste of time. But who's fault is that?
Okay, I gotta actually defend Marky's position here. He's right, it is erroneous to claim Obama is exhibiting a lack of leadership. Leaders lead by example, and that's just what we're seeing here:
- Energy conservation:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."
...and then turns the White House thermostat up to 80 in the winter.
- Transparency:
"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this Presidency"
...followed by backroom deals with lobbyists on everything from healthcare to banking to cars to...
- Ethics:
"Lobbyists won't find a job in my White House."
...with dozens of "exceptions", and the only real "economic boom" this country has seen so far has been in lobbying.
The Rule of Law:
"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this Presidency."
...but his lobbyist turned Attorney General refuses to prosecute an open and shut case of voter intimidation. And his administration has a record number of "czars" accountable only to... Barack Obama. His Treasury Secretary is a tax cheat, and he considered her refusal to enforce the law a positive aspect of his Supreme Court Justice nominee's resume.
Fiscal responsibility:
"I'm pledging to cut the deficit IN HALF by the end of my first term."
...while he gives sweetheart deals to the UAW, plans on tripling the deficit, and proposes a "spending freeze" that only affects 1/6 of the budget, doesn't take place until 2012, and largely involves "freezing" spending in areas that Democrats have already increased spending to by 20% or more already. At the same time, he plans to repeal the tax cuts of the previous administration, even though those cuts generated an amount of tax revenue unequaled in the history of the republic.
Bipartisanship:
"I`m going to go in there with a spirit of bipartisanship."
...while his party locks Republicans out of their backroom deals and, those times he's not actually involved, he certainly knows about it and doesn't object. And then of course, there's "I won."
He leads by example. Nobody ever said it was a good example.
Well, at least GOF is giving him some credit. 8-)
I don't think the President Obama is perfect but he certainly isn't what you paint him to be in this list...although some of your criticisms are legitamate. He has already owned up (though it was actually the fault of Congress) to the lack of transparency and bipartisanship regarding health care. I agree--some of it was a mistake. At the same time, however, I'm not certain what the poing would be of including principled and unwavering communists in a discussion on deregulation. The current form of the GOP has demonstrated, through their actions and words, they have no interest in pursuing what our country needs right now. They are only interseted in two things: a) President Obama failing and b) not being wrong. They are going to great lengths--even wildly distorted reality in many cases--to make certain that both of these goals are met.
This would be why they are wavering on the upcoming Feb 25th meeting. They know Obama made them his sons at the retreat two weeks back. They also know they are going in there with nothing to really offer the American people except hate, anger, and fear (all emotions b to the w).
Any sort of success for Obama means doom to them because they would then have to admit fault. Not. Going. To. Happen.
"He has already owned up (though it was actually the fault of Congress) to the lack of transparency and bipartisanship regarding health care."
And yet, he hasn't done anything to change that lack of transparency. That certainly seems to indicate that he wants things done behind closed doors.
"They also know…"
More mind reading from the guy who is so bad at it that he can't even match the law of averages.
"Any sort of success for Obama means doom to them because they would then have to admit fault. Not. Going. To. Happen."
And here we have yet more hypocrisy from the little boy who CANNOT admit significant error.
And yet, he hasn't done anything to change that lack of transparency
Well, I did see this today.
http://www.defense.gov/open/
Did we have anything like this during the Bush administration? I honestly don't know...I am simply asking.
Two questions:
1) What does "transparency" mean in the context of the Department Of Defense? Sharing our military plans with the enemy? Or something else?
2) What does "transparency" taking place in the DOD have to do with President Obama's promised transparency in the process of making laws? A promise which is conspicuously NOT being fulfilled…
In both cases, Ed, it means he's coughed up yet another instance of his Standard Response #6. So, were you expecting something else?
They know Obama made them his sons at the retreat two weeks back.
By looking and sounding drunk?
They also know they are going in there with nothing to really offer the American people except hate, anger, and fear (all emotions b to the w).
How about freedom? Not following all the countries with failures in government-run and dictated health care?
That's enough for me, anyway.
But no, according to his "invitation" it doesn't matter what they "bring" - the "meeting" is only to pass "Obamacare". Period. No other "ideas" need apply.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>