Have we ever in the history of our nation had a president who was so out of touch with the average American as is Barack Obama? I don't think so.
Keep it up, Mr. President, and it will be "Adios, Amigo" come 2012, unless, of course, you resort to cheating and amnesty to win extra voters. You're a real class act.
Read from Red State:
The Curious Case Of Barack Obama’s Fading Presidency
"Even before I saw this Politico piece I was planning to point out how odd it is that Obama keeps picking the wrong side of all the major issues of the day.
Seventy percent favor Arizona’s immigration law so Obama calls in the DOJ dogs to take the State to Court. Sixty percent favor repeal of healthcare reform so Obama takes a victory lap around the country, with a hand out for donor dollars, telling us we’re just afraid of what we don’t understand (and, of course, gives us the obligatory “the GOP is nothing but a bunch of fear mongers” speech).
Nearly 70% are opposed to the ground zero mosque…heck, even within his OWN party there is a deepening chasm…and what does the leader of both the free world AND the not-going-to-be-in-charge-much-longer party do? He steps in it with both feet, speaking out in support of the mosque when (as the WaPo rightly points out) he never really had to even open his mouth on the matter.
Sixty five percent of us are angry at the Federal Government, so what does Obama do? He changes the bloody subject in the National dialog and picks a fight with the GOP over Social Security…an issue his first term hasn’t even mentioned so far, and one he’s had no intention of trying to address as he spends the country willy nilly into the abyss of economic collapse.
Rasmussen has him at nearly 60% disapprove, and it all sorta makes sense. He seems more interested in being President of (and choosing sides with) the least among us…that 30-40% of us out there that go along with any old thing he says and does, paying little to no attention to the mid and long term effects of his ineptitude.
It’s no wonder then that even Politico’s Roger Simon (not the smart one mind you, but the one who gets bitterly drunk and writes straw man articles about how people who oppose the mosque are equivalent to slaveowners and segregationists) sees Obama’s as a one-term presidency."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
If the American people had done their homework and spent a couple hours researching this individual before the 08 election and found out what most Conservatives already knew.
They would have made the connection between his socialist/marxist associations and his radical leftwing agenda and plans for the transformation of America.
Instead, they fell for the lying leftwing media's portrayal of a good Christian man that respects the American Constitution and Christian Americans, I hope they are reaping all the benefits of their stupidity.
Stupid People make Stupid Mistakes that will cost everyone for generations to come!
Making the right decision isn't always popular...especially amongst the Rightwingnut Loonie Brigade. Heck, 75% of you conservatives would probably reinstitute slavery, if you had the opportunity.
DiogenASS: conservatives would probably reinstitute slavery?
How do you come to that conclusion, since the democrats were the only party that fought for the right to own and abuse slaves?
Republican's were the party that freed black slaves from the democrats bondage and abuse.
Are you rewriting history again thumbsucker?
And I guess you believe the myth that the Civil War was started to end slavery.
It wasn't.
Not even close.
Lincoln started the war to "preserve the Union". It wasn't until midway through that Lincoln morphed it into a war to end slavery.
Try reading a book sometime, AnonyMouse. Maybe even one without pictures. Comic books just don't do American History justice.
DiogenASS: I didn't say that the civil war was started to free the slaves, although it was the end result.
The Republican party had run on an anti-slavery platform
But, Lincoln in his inaugural address said that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed or repeal the Fugitive Slave Law, but this statement did not satisfy the Confederacy which had seceded 3 month prior to his address.
What did concern the Confederacy was Lincoln's statement of maintaining the Union and felt that this statement would be a direct assault on their states rights and their newly formed Union, the Confederacy was unsatisfied with Lincoln’s reassurances and attacked Fort Sumter, thus the war was on.
I've said this before, moron!
AnonyMouse: "I've said this before, moron!"
LMAO Actually, YOU haven't said this before, AnonyMouse. You've never written ANYTHING that coherent before, on ANY topic.
However, what you cut & pasted this time certainly HAS been said before.... by someone else. On the PBS website, "The CIvil War",to be exact:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2967.html
"The Republican party had run on an anti-slavery platform.... In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter...."
Damn, AnonyMouse, I've seen fifth graders that are better at plagiarism than you are!
You just can't go from specializing in such erudite phrases like "thumbsucking leftwingloons" -- then suddenly turn around and start using words evidencing education and moderation -- and not expect anybody to notice the stark difference.
You're a complete and utter fraud, AnonyMouse. You know nothing, you understand nothing. YOu claimto be a Christian,and then ask why Christians should turn the other cheek? How truly, literally moronic of you.
You're simply a human parrot.
Actually, I apologize... to parrots everywhere. It was horribly unfair for me to lump innocent parrots in with the likes of you!
DiogenASS: yea, yea, while all that's very entertaining, that’s really not the point! Is the information at pbs false? If not, what freggin hell are you whining about, fool? Your attempt to change the argument is immature and childish, I never claim to be a historian or a so-called history teacher like yourself, the argument isn't about me, it's about the racist democrats and how they beat and abused black slaves in America's history, end of story. The only thing I cared about in history class was Mrs. Brown massive breasts and short skirts, praying that she would drop the chalk or eraser, while you on the other hand were probably the punk in the front seat picking up the chalk and eraser and ruining it for the rest us. I don't know how pointing fingers at the source of my information has anything to do with your defense of the democrats racist past other then changing the argument because you don't have a defense for the democrats abusive past. take thumbsucking leftwingloon tirades and get lost or take your meds.
Glad you got SOMETHING out of history class, AnonyMouse.
No wonder you're as stupid and uninformed as you are.
You indiscriminately take bits of information and try to make sense of them,when you simply don't have the tools or skills needed to do that. So you steal somebody else's words and pretend they're your own, so that you don't sound quite as stupid as you might, otherwise.
I apologize. It's not really your fault, in a way, since you are, in fact, that ignorant.
I hope you can still get off thinking of your teacher's boobs. I bet she would have gotten off if you thought about what she tried to teach you.
DiogenASS: who's really ignorant?
In reality, history is the least beneficial course when it comes to actually getting employment and supporting a family, my paychecks made your checks (my tax dollars) look like chump change!
Only boobs like yourself that can't hack it in the private sector take the easy way out and settle for a welfare job.
your mindless regurgitation of ad hominem attacks doesn't change the fact that the racist democrats beat, abused and hung black slaves in American history, you can argue about what I did in my history class all day long but that still won't change the facts of the democrats racist past.
just because someone enjoyed the appearance of their teacher or wasn't interested in the subject matter of the course doesn't mean that individual didn't do well in the course, now does it fool?
your continued attacks on others makes you look childish, ignorant, uninformed and unprofessional.
So, one must conclude that your probably not a teacher at all.
DiogenASS: Man, you have lost all sense of reality if you believe that anything you or I say will change anything in the grand scheme of things, our opinions are inconsequential and will have very little influence on anybody or anything.
So, Trying to marginalize the facts by attacking my intelligence is an act of your desperation, I've never claimed to being a historian like yourself, but if someone finds information on the "information highway" and uses that information to support their arguments or beliefs, then how can you argue that the facts are not accurate or legitimate?
Just by attacking the messenger discredits the message?
the messenger of the information has nothing to do with the validity of the actual facts.
I've used facts that others have written and researched to support my opinion or argument, just like millions of others on the internet, including yourself, so, don’t try and give that self-righteous indignation crap, everything you’ve posted hasn’t been of your own research and investigation, I just haven't called you out on it to support my side of the argument.
your ability to reason with actual facts seems irrational and incoherent, but your desperation needs to addressed by a psychiatrist.
You're a putz, AnonyMouse. Of course, an intelligent person uses facts from other sources. But an HONEST person acknowledges where their data comes from, and they sure as hell don't copy somebody else's work and pretend it's their own. That's called plagiarism; everhear of it?
And the basic fact that you tap-dance all around is that all of the stuff you stole from PBS is about stuff that happened 150 years ago. You have yet to acknowledge that the political scene shifted dramatically starting in the 1960s, and is now the polar opposite of what it was a century and a half again.
Will this make it easier for you? I'll freely admit that the Democratic Party was the home for Southern racists through the 1960s. Since then, almost every one of the racists have switched allegiances to the Republican Party. That's why the South is now considered to be solid red. Are you ready to admit that? Nawww, I didn't think so.
No one with even a shred of intellectual honesty would try to argue that what the Republican Party may have represented in the 1860s means that it's the same way in 2010. If you had studied ANYTHING other than your teacher's boobs, you might not be the boob you are today. And, if you got a decent grade in history class, it had to be because the teacher appreciated your attention.
Diogenes, you ranting about plagiarism. Now, that's rich being that you voted for a plagiarist in 2008, as in Joe Biden, the DC clown and mascot for Team Obama.
I didn't voteforBiden,I voted for Obama... and Uncle Joe came along with the price of admission.
Even a plagiarist is better than Ancient McCain and Never-Was Sarah.
And, for all of AnonyMouse's diatribe about avoiding the point, it seems like ALL of you are avoiding this point: the majority of the racists switched party affiliation,from Democrat to Republican, in the late 1960s. And they're still firmly in the Red States 50 years later.
Prove THAT wrong.... you can't!
DiogenASS: Where's the proof that Republicans are racist?
Just because a thumbsucking leftwingloon say's it’s so?
Riiiight!
Get a life fool!
Oh, please, AnonyMouse.... I'm not chasing you down that rathole!
Trent Lott.
Strom Thurmond.
Louis Gohmert.
Dick Armey.
Teabaggers.
There's not enough minutes in the day.......
Post a Comment