Anderson659 wrote: Obama is not an idiot, far from it, he has a vision for America that is defined by radical left progressive social marxism, trickle down economics from the government. The Democrat party us now a party of secular humanist radicals. -Idiots Offer Hope, Change, Blame, Revenge- and Self Government
Dear Brother Anderson,
The Democrat Party has been a bunch of secular humanists for quite some time. This isn’t Harry Truman’s Democrat Party, although I’ll admit that Truman’s economic policies were really bad.
I disagree with your evaluation of Obama however.
First of all, he’s dedicated his whole life to running for office. There has to be a microchip dislodged in anyone’s brain to decide to do that. Also, there’s no evidence that we have from his professional body of work that Obama has nothing but average intelligence.
Quite the contrary actually.
Uniquely in American history, Obama was given the opportunity to help heal centuries of racial division as the first black president.
An opportunity like that, to really change something that has plagued our country for hundreds of years, may not come again. There isn’t much in our country that’s hundreds of years old, but racial division is one area where we “enjoy” some antiquity. And helping heal some of that was the fundamental change that all Americans could have supported. It’s what history really set Obama up for.
“Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history,” wrote Abraham Lincoln prior to signing the Emancipation Proclamation. “We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.”
Lincoln saw his place in history and took advantage of what history had denied others.
Obama squandered his opportunity. He chose poorly.
Because Obama is enthralled by the most outdated and discredited economic theories- ever. And because he couldn’t openly argue for them, he tried to impose them by fiat on the rest of us.
There has never been a time in history when socialism has been more discredited than it is today. If the economic history of the last twenty-five years has shown us anything, it’s that confiscating wealth to try to build a utopian dream is not just foolhardly, but the first step in a path of destruction that will kill young and old alike. The Soviet Union, the Eastern Block, Spain, Greece, North Korea, Cuba and China all argue against the very socialist economic policies that Obama covets.
And that’s what he picked versus being the greatest racial uniter since Abraham Lincoln.
Even if it was explained to him, he wouldn’t understand how badly he blew his opportunity. But more than his opportunity, he blew ours.
Of course he’s an idiot.
Robert1824 wrote: The Democratic party certainly has its share of idiots, but the Republican party has far worse ones, and far more of them. It is the party of, by, and for idiots. -Idiots Offer Hope, Change, Blame, Revenge- and Self Government
Dear Comrade 1824,
I hope you are right. And I’m glad you guys are finally beginning to see that you are badly outnumbered by the GOP.
But if we want to match political corruption, party versus party, I’m not going to argue that either side is pristine.
But I will say this: Here’s another demonstration of why liberals are unfit to govern.
You actually believe that your political philosophy makes you more morally fit to govern. And so when you get power, you transfer more and more power to yourselves, because of course you are much more morally fit by virtue of your superior political philosophy. The Democrats today represent more political snobbery and elitist distaste for common sense than any party in our history, including our days as colonies.
As conservative I understand that any person- right, left doesn’t matter- is corrupted by political power in proportion to the amount of political power they hold.
That is one of many reasons why limited government is the only political philosophy for those who care about freedom and security.
Jmonaco wrote: I wish folks who never worked with Steve Jobs would stop edifying him. Did he drive innovation at Apple? Yes. Did he create wealth for many? Yes. Did he have vision? Yes. Few could have taken the clever inventions created at Xerox PARC and commercialized them (by "hook or crook"). That says as much about short-sighted Xerox management (at the time) as it does about Jobs' brilliance. I met him once and knew people who worked directly with him. I believe there was significant employee turn over at Apple, NeXT, etc. for people who worked directly with him. He was driven, but he was also crass, impatient, bullying, and arrogant. He did many unethical, immoral, and illegal things. He was no demigod. -Idiots Offer Hope, Change, Blame, Revenge- and Self Government
Dear Comrade JM,
He actually sounds like a Speaker of the House.
I don’t know what Jobs was like personally. I know many powerful, successful people who are crass, impatient, bullying and arrogant. So what? So he should pay higher taxes because you don’t like his management style?
I don’t like how you write. Should I get to impose a tax on you?
You’re just bent because he ended up no fan of Obama’s.
I wasn’t arguing that Jobs was a saint. I argued essentially what you conceded: “Did he drive innovation at Apple? Yes. Did he create wealth for many? Yes. Did he have vision? Yes. Few could have taken the clever inventions created at Xerox PARC and commercialized them.”
He should be able then to hold on to the whole of his labor, rather than being punished by the political class who want to use his money to buy votes for themselves.
What the heck have they created?
Loadstar wrote: Hey, the Obamas are buying a $40 million estate in Hawaii with the help of billionaire heiress Penny Pritzker. The wealthiest families in Chicago are being leaned on heavily to contribute with Penny aggressively guilting them with appeals of "You don’t want the President to be homeless in January, do you?!” Tough life touting wealth transfer in your first ever real job! -Left Indicts Bloomberg for Deviation Crime against Obama
Yes, I understand that the Obamas won’t be calling Chicago home anymore.
I don’t know who should be more relieved, Obama or Chicago?
This is a city that keeps Jesse Jackson Jr. elected and well-fed after he has spent months in the Mayo Clinic for bi-polar depression, is possibly being investigated by the FBI and undergoing a for-certain ethics probe by the House.
This is also the city that could be sending back to the state legislature the first Representative it has kicked out in 107 years.
From the CSMonitor:
Derrick Smith managed the rare feat of being expelled from the Illinois House. He faces corruption charges that could send him to federal prison. Authorities say they've got a recording of him requesting that a $7,000 bribe come in cash because he didn't "want no trace of it."
And yet, a smattering of blue-and-white "Vote Derrick Smith" yard signs dot the West Side. It's also not difficult to find people who say they're going to cast a ballot for him. As the Democratic Party's candidate, the board is naturally tilted in Smith's favor.
So, do I find it outrageous or unbelievable that Penny Pritzker is holding out the hat for Barack Obama, helping him buy a $35 million mansion in Hawaii?
If true, nope.
Obama bought his Hyde Park home with a little help from some “friends.”
Chicago power politics will always stick to Obama no matter where he goes, even if Obama doesn’t stick with Chicago.
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist wrote: Jeez, Ransom needs to up the dosages on his ADHD medictaions! This column hops all over the place. Well, when I look back on the 2002-2003 tax cuts (purportedly to give the JobCreators funds to go create lots of jobs) and the results of the last decade, and then listen to the RightWIngNut chorus of deregulation and tax cuts to free the job creators to go create lots of jobs, I have to say that your [criticisms] above apply quite nicely to Conservatives, too.-Left Indicts Bloomberg for Deviation Crime against Obama
Dear Comrade FMC,
Yeah, I was a little ambitious in that column. I actually cut out some of the best one-liners because I’d like to continue to have a job. That said, while it’s not as tight as I normally would write, I still really like it. It’s almost post-modern in both execution and scope.
You’re problem is that you only get 237 characters to express yourself and you’re jealous. For example this column is 17,927 characters long.
OK, so here’s the part that liberals don’t understand about job creation numbers.
The presidents who get credit for job creation are the ones who benefit by winning an election because of a recession.
That’s because they start out at a low point in the business cycle.
When Bush took over in January 2001 unemployment was at 4.2 percent. How do you create a ton of net jobs when unemployment is as close to zero as it’s ever been?
Even though unemployment jumped to 6.2 percent by 2003 in the wake of 9/11, Bush still brought it back down to 4.4 percent by 2006.
Truth is that only Obama could have blown his opportunity as badly as he has. He’s an ideologue in economics, foreign policy and social policy. He’s busy antiquing government while the rest of us live in the modern world.
Blair31 wrote: Mayor Bloomberg, aka, Nanny Bloomberg, is endorsing Obama because of his "climate change" policies. Not his economic policies. -Left Indicts Bloomberg for Deviation Crime against Obama
Yeah. Another Obama "Great Moment in History" when he gets the Bloomberg endorsement just after the mayor fumbles the ball on New York City. Right now, the Hugo Chavez endorsement is looking like it will win more votes.
Bloomberg was prepared to confiscate every Big Gulp in the city, but when it came to actually doing something involving the basic safety and security of the residents of New York, Bloomberg told everyone that New York City Marathon was more important.
In a way, isn't that kind of Bloomberg endorsement of Hurricane Sandy?
Somehow the Bloomberg endorsement of Obama just feels right, now.
Yachtsman388 wrote: Gov. Etch a Sketch knows full well he can't afford to let that news carry the day. What to do? He LIES. He takes the stage and tells his audience that Jeep is moving all production to China. There, problem solved. Once again Romney achieves his objective with a whopper. Instead of the Ohio voters talking about the success of Jeep and contrasting that with the guy who said "Let Detroit go bankrupt", he's depending on his conservatards to defend his lies. -Left Indicts Bloomberg for Deviation Crime against Obama
Dear Comrade Admiral Boat Snob,
The COO of Chrsyler-Fiat, head of Jeep, and Emperor of ALL of Asia created this a problem by his ill-considered words.
Here’s the relevant part of the quote from Bloomberg: “We’re reviewing the opportunities within existing capacity” as well as “should we be localizing the entire Jeep portfolio or some of the Jeep portfolio.”
When someone says to me, Hey, John we’re considering “localizing the ENTIRE Jeep portfolio,” as a native speaker of English I think he means that he’s considering “localizing the ENTIRE Jeep portfolio.”
I know, I know. You only speak liberal. It’s a whole different thing.
M. Hillinger wrote: Aaron Bragman, a senior analyst with IHS Automotive, a financial research group, said the government couldn’t sell Chrysler because it never owned it. In fact, the auto industry and Chrysler were in such bad shape, this wasn’t a sale at all in the conventional sense. "I'm astonished that more people aren't thrilled by the fact that an American company on the brink of literal oblivion has come back strong enough to now once again be making and selling its products in the hottest auto market in the world," Bragman said. "It is a phenomenal success story, quite frankly, and one that has sadly been bizarrely twisted out of shape for political expediency." -Left Indicts Bloomberg for Deviation Crime against Obama
Dear Comrade Hillinger,
Boy you guys really have tied yourself in knots on this one, heh?
So I looked up the Pulitzer-Prize winning Politifact site that you cited. By the way, these fact-checks are just editorials masked as objective journalism. The part that I quoted in your comment comes directly from the Politifact site.
Here’s the part that immediate precedes it:
In Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama took the oath of office, Fiat announced it was interested in buying Chrysler. Obama created an auto task force and in March, the task force told Chrysler to cut a deal with Fiat or be cut off from further government loans. In early April, Chrysler filed for bankruptcy and at the same time, announced an alliance with Fiat.
By the end of April, the terms of the deal were complete and by June, it was finalized. Cerberus Capital had lost its stake, and Fiat held 20 percent of the new Chrysler and had full operational control.
Steve Rattner, chair of the president’s auto task force, said Fiat was essential to Chrysler’s survival.
"If we had been unable to strike this arrangement with Fiat, I believe that we would have allowed Chrysler to liquidate. So it was a great outcome for all concerned," Rattner said.
So the president created a task force that told Chrysler “sell to Fiat” or we cut you off from federal bailout money? And the chair of the task force tells us that “If we had been unable to strike this arrangement with Fiat, I believe that we would have allowed Chrysler to liquidate.”
I’ve bolded the important words because I don’t have any crayons for you to highlight with.
Good thing that WE the government had NOTHING to do with the sale of Chrysler to Fiat. Good thing that Politifact worked so hard to tell us to pay no attention to the actual words and actions of anyone. How dare we trust our eyes and ears? We just need to continue to believe your explanations.
Look if you don’t want the president to be criticized over things done by companies he favors with federal money or federal policy, you should probably ask the president to stay out of the private sale of an auto company.
Or at least man up and defend the sale rather than pretend that we’re too stoopid to understand.
Ericynot wrote: Not only was George Romney a good man (he supported the civil rights movement even though the Mormon church was opposed to it; and he opposed the Vietnam War after he traveled to that country in 1965), he's yet another old-line Republican who'd not be allowed a place in the party today because he was too moderate. -Left Indicts Bloomberg for Deviation Crime against Obama
Dear Comrade Y,
Yeah, George Romney would be running to the Democrats right because of their moderate positions? Ha!
Now here’s a choice: Do I believe Comrade Y when he says that George Romney would abandon the GOP or do I believe Mitt Romney is carrying on the legacy of his dad?
Is there nothing in the world that liberals aren’t too smart about to refrain from instructing the rest of us on?
Please Comrade Y, lecture me about my dad too. I’m begging you. What were his dying words to me?
Oh and I need to find a good school for my kid and a doctor who specializes dry eyes.
When you are finished managing every aspect of my life, including the relationships within my family, text me.
I’ll be working.
Work you'll criticize.
Charles_V wrote: Actually this might not be a bad idea. However Obama doing this is bad. Like giving a kid matches to play with near a gasoline pump. The united states has been at a disadvantage with other countries because congress has total control over the economy and makes decisions politicallly based. Japan has MITI which organizes businesses, trade and the economy. I am suggesting non partisian limited control and not totalarian control. we need more effective organization for the economy and recommended directions for the legislative and executive branches to work. -Obama Needs Secretary of Business as Clinton Needed an Intern- and for Same Reason
Dear Comrade V,
Here’s a new rule we should follow:
If we aren’t comfortable handing over powers to Obama, we shouldn’t hand them over to ANY government, under ANY leader.
Obama’s the worst, yeah.
The worst so far.
Isabella wrote: Take a good look at what you write then go look at yourself inthe mirror and maybe you can now see that you are the DUNB one. Very very DUMB---that's you. You are so jealous of the intelligence of our President. You wish you were that intelligent.- Maybe They are Just that Dumb
It looks like you took at good look at what you wrote and then re-wrote it in the mirror.
That’s it for this week,