Masrudin wrote: "Name Calling" =Equals= Bullying. Please, we give the other side reasons to ignore us and discount our message when we stoop to name calling. Calling people "chicken" is beneath us. - in response to Obama as Mr. Chicken
It was hard for me to stop laughing when I read your post. Really.
Bullying? In my opinion we aren’t bullying this president and the rest of the politicians nearly enough. If I thought it would make a difference I’d call them all every name in the book and then switch languages and do it again.
Chicken may be the nicest thing I say about Obama between now and next November.
Harold wrote: I have to interject here that many of those Democrats who put Obama in the White House get all their "news" from NPR, PBS and New York Times, Washington Post and other liberal rags. It will be very hard to convince them of the truth if they continue to ignore the only fair and balanced outlets in the main stream media. - in response to Obama as Mr. Chicken
I think that it’s virtually impossible for liberals not to admit that if Obama is the nominee that he’ll take them all down with them. On the other hand, it’s virtually impossible to replace a sitting president as nominee if he doesn’t want to go.
I have a family member who voted for Obama who will now admit that he/she is “disappointed” by the job Obama’s done.
Plus I’m seeing signs in the liberal press even they are disgruntled.
The other day there was a piece in the Washington Post saying the OWS movement was over, dead. Chris Matthews, notorious for the tingle that Obama gave Matthews leg went on an epic rant about Obama.
Three years ago this never would have been permitted.
A year is a long time, but I can’t see Obama getting re-elected unless the GOP nominates Ron Paul. Even Romney would beat him.
Robert wrote: Except the British won the Battle of Jutland. They lost more ships, but the German navy was no longer a threat. Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty. - in response to Obama as Mr. Chicken
The German navy never was a threat, really. That’s why the German high-seas fleet avoided a large set-piece battle like Jutland. They knew they could not slug it out toe-to-toe with the British navy.
I think most historians would call the battle a draw. Certainly Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty was disappointed in the outcome.
Britain never had the ability to knock Germany out of the war by the effort of their land forces. It was only by bringing to bear their great naval superiority by either a decisive victory in a battle like Jutland or in a sea-flanking movement like the one tried at Gallipoli, that British naval power could have directly affected the outcome of the war.
When people talk about Jutland being a disappointment for Britain, that’s what they are referring to.
Ken wrote: I always wanted Newt to run for President. He has his John McCain moments, however, such as sitting down with Pelosi on the global warming theory. - in response to Newt Vows to Break Welfare Empire.
Boy does he ever.
A Churchill contemporary, since we were on the subject above, once observed that Churchill had a “noisy mind.”
I think that afflicts Gingrich as well.
From a professional political view, one of the problems with Newt as a candidate is getting him to stick to the script.
In politics the candidate is primarily responsible for getting out the campaign message. Your opponent and the media want to go on goose chases that get you off message. Message discipline is very important, indeed critical, for Newt if he wants to win.
Jaybird wrote: "If you friend me." Yes, now you can friend people. I'm glad my old grammar teacher never lived to see this new idiotic language. – in response to Giving Thanks for Gigantic TVs
So you wanted your old grammar teacher dead? You’re probably not the first.
Diabloggical wrote: In our present fiscal condition it would be infinitely better for Warren Buffett and other wealthy people & corporations to pay more tax than to try to get more from the middle class that has been devastated since 2008. – in response to The Broken President
You’re giving people a false choice.
Why do we have to raise taxes on either? How about we take the one option we’ve neglected thus far and cut spending?
We’ve tried raising taxes, cutting taxes; it’s about time people started opening up their ears and hearing the truth: We’re spending too much money.
40 cents of every dollar goes to government. That’s too much. It is mathematically impossible to sustain government spending at that rate. And thanks to Medicare and Social Security, the rate is going to go up for the next 25 years.
Ronald Reagan isn’t going to save us, nor is Warren Buffett and his friends.
We the people might.
Annfan wrote: I see no evidence that Obama was or is in any way fit to be a state senator, let alone president. A couple of his books? The idiot only wrote two, and they were all about him. He drips with pompous arrogance. – in response to The Broken President
I agree completely with you on this.
I think when history is written that Obama will go down as a huge mistake.
The truth is that the amount of sheer incompetence in the administration, when it all comes to light- and it will come to light- is much worse than even guys like me are writing about. But so few people involved in the government have come forward to tell the truth. When it happens, people will be appalled.
You get the comment of the week award.
XJNYC wrote: If you honestly believe the problems the US faces today came into existence with his Presidency than you're suffering from paranoid delusions. I'm holding up the mirror so that you can really see how you appear to people -- read those posts and tell me that you're not acting like a paranoid old man who has too much time on hands. – in response to The Broken President
It’s interesting that you and your liberal friends are no longer declaring Obama the Messiah, Healer of Nations, but instead have only the weak defense that the problems aren’t Obama’s fault.
You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t give a guy who started a shooting war in Libya a Nobel “Peace” prize for beating up on old man John McCain and then not expect some backlash when it turns out Obama is not the guy you represented him to be.
He’s either the One, or the None.
Ultimately, the best practitioners understand, politics is about truth.
The truth is that many of the problems this country faces have been greatly exacerbated by your friend Obama purposefully- see below- and not one of the problems has really been solved.
Now he either can take responsibility for that lousy record…or not.
HerbBerg wrote: Citigroup Inc. (C) and Bank of America Corp. (BAC) were the reigning champions of finance in 2006 as home prices peaked, leading the 10 biggest U.S. banks and brokerage firms to their best year ever with $104 billion of profits. And, uh.... gee wiz, wasn't the Speaker of the House a Republican from January, 1995 through January, 2007? . – in response to The Broken President
Another stunning admission by liberals that they are unfit for anything more important than some adjunct professorship at a community college for community organizers.
I wish we could go back to the day when banks were making record profits, home ownership was on the rise and the country was prosperous.
Boy that would suck for you though wouldn’t it?
Didn’t see you occupying anything but a paycheck back then.
You think that the problems with the country will be solved when no one makes a profit. Apparently, so does your president.
And that’s why you guys have ushered in the worst post-war economic record of any administration. Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter did better than you guys.
Think of that.
That’s why until we get rid of parasites like you the country will continue to be on the dole both fiscally and morally.
What I can’t understand, though, is how you can grow up in the greatest country ever in the history of all mankind and have such contempt for what makes us so.
That’s it for this week,