Confederate Yankee
March 10, 2010
The Punk White House
Having a sense of decorum and has never been a requirement for the Presidency. It is a pesky, almost irrelevant detail the Founders wisely chose not to include becuase it could be abused to exclude otherwise qualified candidates from seeking the office. That said, having a President without a sense of decency and respect for the Office is painfully embarrassing for the nation, both domestically, and in the eyes of the world.
Barack Obama's presidency has been an unending trainwreck this far, from serial protocol gaffes that disrespected foreign heads of state, to attacks against the media that debase the office, to his recent and embarrassing attack against the Supreme Court that overshadowed his first State of the Union address. Justices are required by protocol and tradition to sit stoically throughout the Address. Obama's assault on them over an unconstitutional law they overturned was the equivalent of kicking a defenseless dog on a chain.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts diplomatically attempted to answer questions about the breach of decorum by simply calling it "
very troubling."
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, a perfect representative for the most thin-skinned of presidents, did not have the grace to let even that innocuous comment slip by without going into attack mode. Instead, Gibbs magnified the breach of decency and it's measured response by launching into an attack on the court
yet again:
"What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections - drowning out the voices of average Americans," Gibbs said. "The President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response."
The push back against the Supreme Court header from the White House seems almost unprecedented in its directness, though White House officials claim previous administrations expressed equally public criticisms of the court. Undoubtedly, it's bound to spur another round of debates over what constitutes proper decorum between the two branches.
Gibbs' answer is filled with lies and hypocrisy—the White House has appointed lobbyists with reckless abandon and allows the special interests they represent to write policy on everything from education, to climate change, to recreational fishing—but what is most troubling is the inability of this President and his staff to respectfully represent the Office of the Presidency that they temporarily inhabit.
Perhaps Obama is simply lacking in class and decency. Perhaps his thuggish mentors and allies did not adequately teach him to respect his position or his nation. Whatever the excuse, Barack Obama and his closest allies are an international embarrassment as the continue to engage in the petty and banal.
This behavior is beneath the Office, and if Obama and his lackey's can't respect that, one can hope they develop the political sense to at least go mute.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:28 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I think he learned everything at the feet of his masters, they didn't respect the country so neither does he. they gave him all the rules he thinks he needs to go by and that is what he does.
Posted by: tjbbpgobIII at March 10, 2010 01:46 PM (eXdIs)
2
"This behavior is beneath the Office, and if Obama and his lackey's can't respect that, one can hope they develop the political sense to at least go mute."
Never gonna happen. The clueless and the classless both believe that having the last word on a subject is a sign of their strength and superiority; while those who are more aware understand that this is not always so.
Obama is both clueless and classless, and because of this I suspect his will always be the last word on any subject.
"I won."
Posted by: Stoutcat at March 10, 2010 02:05 PM (kKdtK)
3
Not to mention a recent visit by rapper Jay-Z and singer/spouse Beyonce on a White House tour that included the normally super-secret part of the building, sitting at the table in the Situation Room. Yes, I guess you could say I'm still worried about who will answer the red phone at 3am. (Shaking head...rolling eyes)
Posted by: Pat at March 10, 2010 02:15 PM (s9yAb)
4
Posted by Pat at March 10, 2010 02:15 PM
Images of these fools (Obama and Michelle) walking through the Situation Room with these celebrities trying to impress them by showing how important they were.
But what do we expect when we elect a POTUS whose only qualifications were that he was half-african, could speak english, and could lie through his teeth?
Posted by: iconoclast at March 10, 2010 02:40 PM (zKViF)
5
Hmm. Let's see how many I can remember in just a few minutes...
1) Gratuitously insulting Nancy Reagan.
2) Gratuitously insulting special olympians.
3) Repeatedly and crudely giving the finger to debate opponents during the campaign, and to Rep Ryan during the recent health care summit by oh-so-cleverly holding his extended middle finger alongside his cheek.
4) Refusing to meet with the Dali Lama.
5) Pulling the national defense rug out from under Poland and the Czech Republic.
6) Throwing the bust of Churchill out of the White House.
7) Giving the British PM a WalMart quality set of DVD's, useless because American and British DVD players use different encoding standards.

Giving the Queen of England an iPod loaded with his speeches.
9) Telling John McCain that the campaign is over at the recent Health Care Summit.
10) Telling Democrats that the 2010 elections will be different because they have him.
We have, upon occasion, had presidents who said or did something foolish, but never have we endured a man who has no respect for the office, for the nation, for its people, who has no class, no sense of shame, no conscience, and a burning desire to amass as much power as possible to the detriment of the nation.
God help us all.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at March 10, 2010 11:35 PM (qjRSd)
6
Obama is both clueless and classless, and because of this I suspect his will always be the last word on any subject.
"I won."
Posted by Stoutcat at March 10, 2010 02:05 PM
Ah, but there will soon be an opportunity for the people to have another set of last words: "You lose."
Posted by: Pablo at March 11, 2010 08:23 AM (yTndK)
7
Remember when Obama invaded a country with a force a quarter of the size required, headed the reconstruction effort with incompetents and political hacks and wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of lives!? What a bonehead!
oh wait...
But he gave the queen some dvds!!!! Oh no! Impeach!
Posted by: ek at March 11, 2010 10:01 PM (ii90o)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Comical: NAACP Calls for Resignation of School Board Head Who Called People "Animals"... For The Way The Crowd Treated a Black Speaker
Perhaps the most obvious thing about the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in the decades since the Civil Rights era is that "advancement" doesn't seem to be their goal in many instances. Instead, they often tend to fall back into a defensive mode, circling the wagons to defend ineffective or even destructive situations in the name of political expediency and patronage politics.
We have a perfect example of that idiocy developing here in central North Carolina, after a slate of candidates swept into office on a reform platform began to attempt to fix the faltering Wake County schools.
One of the proposals supported by voters and the new school board they sent to shake things up was the return to a community schools model. The proposal is simple. Instead of busing students all over the county to enforce diversity artificially, most parents and the school board desire to limit the amount of time students spend commuting. The hope is to send students no further than five miles away from their homes to school.
As the parent of a child that faces a 45-minute one-way commute every day (admittedly by choice to a centralized magnet school), I can certainly understand why parent would like to have their kids closer to home.
But North Carolina NAACP head Rev. William Barber did what the NAACP always does. Instead of debating the philosophy or statistics of the change, he instead immediately attempted to cry that the attempt to change a broken system was designed to hurt minorities.
To try to bolster his
weak cries of racism, he has attacked (and continues to attack) Wake County School Board Chairman Ron Margiotta for comments he made in a meeting earlier this month.
After U.S.House candidate
Bill Randall spoke in favor of ending the current busing policy—a speech that was consistently interrupted by outbursts by supporters of a failed status quo—Margiotta growled "Here come the animals out of their cages, " as he braced for an onslaught of opposition to the plan that was based on politically and racially-motivated fear-mongering instead of facts.
Despite the fact the crowd was indeed mob-like and disruptive, Margiotta was probably out of line to speak of opponents so dismissively. But he simply wasn't singling out one group or entity. He was responding to a contentious, diverse, and disorderly crowd.
Rev. Barber—a defender of patronage politics designed to infuse people such as himself with power—is using his position as the President of the state NAACP to bring the national organization to bear against Margiotta, trying to get him to step down by misrepresenting his non-racial comment.
Barber's goal is clear: use false charges of racism to undermine the clear will of the majority of Wake County voters.
But is is clear that there was no racism in Margiotta's outburst, even if he was in a foul temper by that point. Congressional Candidate Randall was trying to make a speech, and opponents tried to drown him out.
Barber and the NAACP are welcome to debate the merits of various approaches to education policy, and they are welcome to file lawsuits if the feel they the new policy will negatively impact children in Wake County schools.
But trying to claim there is racism when it clearly does not exist is the petty act of an organization that has long outlived its originally function and utility, and the state and national leaders that stoop to this level are the leaders that desperately need to be replaced.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:18 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It seems that all you need to do these days to be called a racist is to exist.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at March 10, 2010 10:11 AM (FJRFk)
2
Before 2008 anyone could scream "racist" at any event and almost immediately the offending party would retreat and send an apology. The same thing proposal was brought up in Greensboro many years ago to save money busing students, Skip called racism, and it was dropped. In an off the record interview he admitted that it was good idea to save money. The wording was poor but yet so accurate.
Posted by: Picric at March 10, 2010 12:11 PM (xJEYd)
3
Stop it Barack. Stop it! Or I will hit you with my gavel
Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at March 10, 2010 12:44 PM (vZ8Oa)
4
As long as the majority of black and white people keeps letting itself be cowed by the minority, the R Card will keep working.
Folks, the more you do of what you've done, the more you'll have of what you've got. And that goes for both sides.
Posted by: Bill Smith at March 10, 2010 01:36 PM (x+krw)
5
The NAACP is about black people as much as NOW is about women.
Posted by: ECM at March 10, 2010 05:24 PM (nYKDd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 09, 2010
Good News: Obama's Eco-Nazis A Threat to a Million Sport-Fishing Jobs
That this is even a possibility is incredibly absurd:
"In spite of what we hear daily in the press about the President's concern for jobs and the economy and contrary to what he stated in the June order creating this process, we have seen no evidence from NOAA or the task force that recreational fishing and related jobs are receiving any priority."
Consequently, unless anglers speak up and convince their Congressional representatives to stop this bureaucratic freight train, it appears that the task force will issue a final report for "marine spatial planning" by late March, with President Barack Obama then issuing an Executive Order to implement its recommendations — whatever they may be.
Led by NOAA's Jane Lubchenco, the task force has shown no overt dislike of recreational angling, but its indifference to the economic, social and biological value of the sport has been deafening.
Additionally, Lubchenco and others in the administration have close ties to environmental groups who would like nothing better than to ban recreational angling. And evidence suggests that these organizations have been the engine behind the task force since before Obama issued a memo creating it last June.
As noted later in the article, policies based on junk science are being pushed by anti-use environmental extremists friendly to the Administration could be a threat to a multi-billion dollar industry employing over a million people.
I'd think this was a parody, if this wasn't the exact path Obama's energy policy has already taken.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:54 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I have a bud that works for the Texas Parks and Wildlife and he says this is all that they talk about. It is going to upset the apple cart as he says and make thousands of Texans lose their businesses and go broke.
Fishing on only on the coast is big business here in Texas
Nobody can believe that this is happening.
Papa Ray
Posted by: Papa Ray at March 09, 2010 07:41 PM (JpVJn)
2
Should Say: "fishing, not only on the coast, is big business here in Texas
Posted by: Papa Ray at March 09, 2010 07:43 PM (JpVJn)
3
I will be very surprised if Texans don't simply ignore this. This could be the spark that starts a general repudiation of this crap on a grand scale. I cannot see how this big an action by executive order is Constitutional.
Posted by: Bill Smith at March 09, 2010 10:03 PM (MlY/g)
4
Not to mention all the state revenues that will be missed. This would just continue the downward spiral.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 10, 2010 07:26 AM (8X9tr)
5
Oh, for crying out loud. This is the same argument used by the factory trawlers that sweep up colonies of tuna, including next year's crop which is tossed dead into the seas.
It is the same argument used in Newfoundland until they had no cod left to fish. A famous sign reads, "In Cod We Trust-ed".
It's shocking to me the short-sightedness. Have you even been to the Marine Spatial Planning site?
http://www.msp.noaa.gov/
Posted by: Steve Schwab at March 10, 2010 08:02 AM (BPzn1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Not Too Bright
The Brady Campaign apparently thinks the best way to convince their fellow citizens to disarm themselves is to make penis jokes in the captions of their photos. The anti-gun group has since removed the captions entirely, but not before the damage was done.
I'd simply like Brady, the Violence Policy Center, and related anti-gun groups to make fact-based arguments for their positions, instead of resorting to cheap emotionalism.
Or is that too much to ask?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:00 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
what? Liberals using emotion to push an agenda in lieu of facts? Well, when the fact wont fit the agenda. . . .
Posted by: JP at March 09, 2010 11:39 AM (VxiFL)
2
"make fact-based arguments for their positions, instead of resorting to cheap emotionalism.
Or is that too much to ask?"
I asked you to do the same thing in the Obama thread a few days ago, and all you gave me was snark served with a helping of red herrings. Judging by your example, then, yes: it is too much to ask.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 09, 2010 03:03 PM (l6wAD)
3
What is it with liberal organizations and their mmembers' seemingly endless dimensional interest in non-members sex organs???
Posted by: emdfl at March 09, 2010 03:49 PM (vwRFo)
4
The facts and the law are both against the Brady Campaign and other gun control fanatics. All they have left is to attack the other side personally.
Pretty much sums up what remains to our left: name calling. That they are so good at it just shows how long the Left has been without defensible ideas or true facts.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 09, 2010 05:36 PM (O8ebz)
Posted by: Basil at March 09, 2010 06:38 PM (HGSz8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Agents of Incompetence, Part II
U.S. Customs inspectors and BATF agents claim that a shipment of Airsoft guns are machine guns, because of a BATF determination that claims that these toys can easily be modified into automatic weapons.
In the
second installment of Agents of Incompetence, two teams of experts take the BATF determination apart:
In short, the gunsmith determined that the entire upper receiver would have to be replaced by an upper from a real M4/M6 type rifle to have a hope of functioning, and a trigger pack from a real M4 would have to undergo extensive modification to even fit. And even when modified to fit, it wouldn't fire. If this gunsmith is correct, then all the effort to take a $400 toy and $600-plus of real gun parts — plus significant labor from a proficient gunsmith — would result in a thousand-dollar club less functional than the original toy...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:17 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Just a point of order, there is no such thing as U.S. Customs, the inspection function of U.S. Customs and the INS was combined and replaced with Customs and Border Protection, and the title is CBP Officer, not inspector. BATF is now BATFE, but they are the same bozos.
Posted by: Federale at March 09, 2010 11:38 AM (thedx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 08, 2010
And Bush Was The Idiot?
A year ago, Barack Obama had strong personal favorability ratings and very good poll numbers, a supermajority in the Senate, and an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives.
In the course of little more than a year, he's destroyed his favorability ratings and illusion of competence, has abdicated his role as leader and ripped apart the Democratic Party and the House and Senate to the point no one trusts anyone. Now, the biggest story of the day on the eve of yet another push to pass his health care rationing bill is a claim by a Democrat that he was
framed by House leaders in a gay sex scandal so that he would resign and not be a vote against the bill, a bill in which Obama has unwisely invested all of his political capital.
He's now
reduced to stump speeches attacking American businesses in the feeble hope of salvaging his wounded pride.
How far he has fallen, and how little he has to show for his zealotry.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:52 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This is what zealots and ideologues do. They do not want to be confused by facts or even other opinions. America has not seen in recent history a zealot as committed to his own misguided beliefs as Obama. He is oblivious to his own self destruction and that of his party. He will be a sad, pathetic figure by the time he leaves the White House which cannot be too soon.
Posted by: Jerry M at March 08, 2010 04:45 PM (q5unL)
2
It is called Making Jimmy Carter Look Like a Model of Presidential Efficiency and Dignity.
Posted by: zhombre at March 08, 2010 05:33 PM (vUWth)
3
I guess it is the expected result of a pathalogical narcissist and lier - who may well be, when it is all said and done, one of the top 5 WORST presidents in history.
Posted by: mixitup at March 08, 2010 07:17 PM (Z21cb)
4
Where is Al Gore?
http://sarah-palin-2012.blogspot.com/2010/03/global-warming-effects-felt-in-spain.html
Posted by: History Chaser at March 09, 2010 12:35 AM (D72TY)
5
Boy, for a second there I thought I was reading a liberal blog from 2007! See the similarities?
Posted by: Steve Schwab at March 09, 2010 08:12 AM (BPzn1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Lazy Unemployed
Steve Benen writes that THE GOP STILL JUST DOESN'T LIKE THE UNEMPLOYED....
My immediate response to the headline was the snarky thought, "...as opposed to the Democrats, who are doing everything in their power to
make everyone unemployed."
But I clicked through anyway, to see Benen trying to set up his argument by citing Tom DeLay:
It's astounding, but in the midst of an unemployment crisis, prominent Republicans continue to castigate those struggling to find jobs.
Yesterday, for example, disgraced former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) argued that unemployment benefits are a bad idea, because, as he sees it, they discourage people from entering the work force.
"You know," DeLay said, "there is an argument to be made that these extensions of these unemployment benefits keeps people from going and finding jobs." When CNN's Candy Crowley described his argument as "a hard sell" to the public, DeLay replied, "It's the truth."
Crowley followed up, asking, "People are unemployed because they want to be?" DeLay again said, "Well, it is the truth."
After citing other examples of no-doubt evil Republicans making similar comments, Benen then concludes:
As a matter of conscience, having prominent Republicans chastise those struggling to find work during an unemployment crisis is just callous and cruel.
And as a matter of politics, who, exactly, is going to be impressed by Republicans attacking the unemployed as lazy? Since when is "screw struggling families, let's worry about corporate tax cuts and the estate tax" an effective election-year message during difficult economic times?
I can only assume Benen chooses to turn a blind eye to the phenomena of
funemployment, the breezy, recreational abuse of unemployment benefits that has a become a lifestyle of its own, with
Web sites and
blogs dedicated to it.
This is the kind of abuse that DeLay and other Republicans are targeting, and I cannot see how any sane person can defend making unemployment benefits to those who choose to abuse the system instead of finding a way to become a contributing member of society.
Then there are the purposefully underemployed, those that could be working full time jobs—often with benefits—but at lower salaries that they previously made. They choose to remain unemployed because they are arrogant and feel entitled and would rather be unemployed than take a position they feel is beneath them.
These people, again, are those that continue to sponge off the taxpayer as they sit on their plump backsides watching
The View because they system is broken and allows them to live a life without accountability (or at least with reduced accountability) for their inaction.
Unemployment should be a safety net, not a plush feather bed or even a futon.
It's a simple concept: If you don't work because you won't work, you don't eat.
It's so simple, even a liberal can grasp it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:55 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Our whole system is dependent on the industry of a handfull of its citizens. Consider that 10% of people pay meaningful tax and that this tax funds all of these people and the Obama projects. I don't think this is what people invision as a democracy.
We need to put some basic limits into the system. It would help if we had a Constitutional amendment limiting the amount of tax that any individual or company paid. With that in place we would know that the government could not come in and take it all. This would also limit the government's feeling that it can spend without reservation, knowing that they can always tax more. Another good amemendment would be the to get the national government out of what should be the states business. When did the Feds decide on unemployment? This is a state issue only.
Another concept would be restriction in rights of those living off the government. As much as many do not like David Duke, and I am one, he did have some good points. People on welfare should not vote, have babies, or any of the other freedoms we enjoy. They should be helped, but it should not be without consequence.
Of course, the best thing would be a new government that actually listened to its citizens. Particularly those paying the bill.
Posted by: David at March 08, 2010 11:24 AM (jHK8i)
2
"Yesterday, for example, disgraced former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) argued that unemployment benefits are a bad idea, because, as he sees it, they discourage people from entering the work force."
DeLay is correct. Unemployment benefits DO discourage people from entering the work force. I speak from personal experience.
In 2002-2003, I was out of work for ten months. My unemployment benefit came to $10 per hour (assuming a work week of 40 hours). I'm not an idiot, so I didn't ever CONSIDER job openings that paid less than that. In fact, I didn't even consider jobs that paid $10/hr or even a bit more (say, $12/hour).
Why? Because as long as I could collect an unemployment check, I could spend my entire week looking for a job paying much more than $10/hr. (Jobs in my profession typically pay two or three times that much.) If I took a job at $10/hr, I wouldn't increase my income at all, and I would have to spend 40 hours a week working instead of looking for a better job. Why would I do that?
Even a job paying, say, $12/hr would not be worth it. I would receive a bit more money, but not enough to make up for the loss of those 40 hours a week.
Eventually, I did take a job for $10/hr, but only when my unemployment benefits were in danger of running out. (I kept looking in my spare time, and eventually landed a much better job.)
There is no question that the unemployment checks encouraged me to turn down jobs that I otherwise would have taken. Any sane person would make the same choice.
Posted by: Sundog at March 08, 2010 12:51 PM (c6S8U)
3
Why is it that Republican leaders are eager to point to welfare cheats and "funemployment" criminals, and then suggest that everyone who takes such benefits is a criminal, but these same Republican leaders assure us that despite the alarming number of crooked contractors who do shoddy work for the Department of Defense (sometimes killing our troops) that we should consider that to be an aberation? I suspect that while the numbers of welfare cheats and the willingly unemployed might be higher than the number of dishonest contractors, the actual dollar cost to the government for contracts that are skimmed or scammed is probably much higher. Where's the umbrage? Where's the clamor to fix the contracting system? Where's the unlevened suspicion of contractors? Of course, contractors have lobbyists and the poor do not, and when you are naturally inclined to believe that business is always better than the government, it sure must be easy to overlook corruption by the corporate folks who line your pockets.
Posted by: Unbalanced but fair at March 08, 2010 04:33 PM (yPC4s)
4
DeLay is right. How can anyone be expected to find a job when he/she can get paid for not working?
Posted by: Warren Beatty at March 08, 2010 05:37 PM (RKUr7)
5
While I recall the indictment of Delay on several charges I cannot recall his conviction on any of them. I seem to remember that the prosecutor who brought the charges is no longer in office and his successor is not proceeding.
There's an old saying that a good prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted so unless there is a conviction I don't see how Delay has been disgraced.
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at March 08, 2010 06:41 PM (+xi30)
6
Why is it that Republican leaders are eager to point to welfare cheats and "funemployment" criminals, and then suggest that everyone who takes such benefits is a criminal,
Where'd you get that idea?
Posted by: Pablo at March 09, 2010 01:40 PM (yTndK)
7
Pablo - the same place these liberal lying pos get ALL their ideas; he made it up.
Posted by: emdfl at March 09, 2010 03:53 PM (vwRFo)
8
Not all of the people who hold off on getting a job do so because they are lazy bastards. It's pretty bad to take a job just for a few weeks until you get the job you actually will keep. It is not fair to employers, as they spend the time training you only for you to quit.
When I was unemployed, I spent 4-8 hours a day doing resumes, cover letters, and job searches. Ironically, I got my job via a personal recommendation.
Posted by: OmegaPaladin at March 11, 2010 04:42 AM (tQ7bO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Lazy and Unqualified
Surely, they can't be serious.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:35 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Agents of Incompetence
Don't you think that U.S. Customs and the ATF should be able to tell shipments Airsoft guns from machine guns? And if they did determine that such toys could be converted into real weapons, that they should stop all imports of the toys, and not just the imports to a single store?
In the first article of a three part series at Pajamas Media, I tackle what can only be descried as
Agents of Incompetence.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:10 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What is the purpose of the ATF? They seem more than reduntant.
Posted by: David at March 08, 2010 11:25 AM (jHK8i)
Posted by: David at March 08, 2010 11:26 AM (jHK8i)
3
but these atf guys are ok right? I mean thier pensions and all are safe? thier gonna be ok?
cause im worried about them,
you know its hard to find work in the real world when you've spent a life time being a snide dictatorial thin skinned jerk making stupendously idiotic decisions lacking any common sense what so ever only to justify your existence as a bureaucrat.
Posted by: rumcrook™ at March 08, 2010 12:30 PM (60WiD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 05, 2010
Obama To Dems: It's All About Me
For the first time in his life since the last time, Barack Obama reminds America that his Presidency isn't about leading America, but about satisfying his ego:
President Obama's message to progressives who are dissatisfied with the Senate health care bill is two fold: First: Don't forget about the uninsured. Second: Don't forget what failure to pass this bill would do to the party and my presidency.
Wow.
...and my presidency.
I want to ask a simple question: are there still citizens that believe that Barack Obama cares more about the uninsured than he does about how he will be remembered?
And are there still Democrats who think he won't hang them out to dry in his raw pursuit of self-glorification?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:41 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What the hell are you talking about? Please show some kind of evidence?
Posted by: Johnny Obscure at March 05, 2010 11:53 AM (bZZsj)
2
the bold black letters in the post link to an obama interview stating the need to pass the bill "in order to maintain a strong presidency"
Posted by: MAModerate at March 05, 2010 02:57 PM (pbZzH)
3
Of course, the best joke in the world will be on any democrat who believes any promise Obama, Pelosi or Reid makes to them about fixing the Senate bill in reconciliation. "Oh course Congressman Gullible, we'll remove the abortion funding in the reconciliation process, right after you pass the Senate bill in the House." "You will? Gosh, I'll vote for it right away!"
The minute the Senate bill is passed in the House, it will rushed to the Oval Office where it will be signed by Obama. "But you said you'd keep your promise! Why did you do that?"
"You knew I was a rattlesnake when you agreed to help me."
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at March 05, 2010 10:37 PM (qjRSd)
4
"the bold black letters in the post link to an obama interview stating the need to pass the bill "in order to maintain a strong presidency"
So what is your evidence that he was speaking about his own personal legacy, rather than the strength of the office in general?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 06, 2010 12:11 PM (Fj5iY)
5
Doc Wash,
Any reference that Obama has made over the last two years has been to him. Thus when he says he wants to maintain the presidency, it is Obama speak for "keep me pumped up". He has little concern for the balance of powers. That is evident in his every move.
Posted by: David at March 06, 2010 01:17 PM (jHK8i)
6
So what is your evidence that he was speaking about his own personal legacy, rather than the strength of the office in general?
Posted by Doc Washboard at March 6, 2010 12:11 PM
Well, the language itself-"my presidency"-is a pretty good clue. At least for anyone who can read English and knows the difference between a possessive pronoun and an article. Also, over two years of watching Obama displaying his malignant narcissism is more than sufficient evidence.
Obama wants to be another FDR--his personal legacy. If it vaporizes some Democrats, no problem for him as long as it saves HIS presidency. It won't, but no one can tell TheWon that fact. Probably because TheWon is too dumb and too unrealistic (years of sitting listening to Rev Wright's bigotry and hate will do that) to know that he is destroying himself. And Obama will stick his snout in the air attending his never-ending string of White House parties the whole time as well.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 06, 2010 04:41 PM (O8ebz)
7
"Well, the language itself-'my presidency'-is a pretty good clue."
Yes, it would be a fantastic clue if it hadn't been made up.
The actual quote apparently was, "To maintain a strong presidency we need to pass this bill." See? An article, not a possessive pronoun.
So CY's ginned-up dismay——"Wow. ...and my presidency"——is based on something that the president didn't say, at least in the linked article. (But let's not let pesky facts get in the way of our fun.)
You might want to try reading the articles before you start trying to teach grammar to an English teacher, iconoclast.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 06, 2010 05:39 PM (Fj5iY)
8
I still think this isn't about HCR alone.
It's about HCR and immigration reform, which together can give the Democrats a new majority.
The old majority, which included seniors, is in danger because even they realize that eventually the seniors are going to get dumped on, either by the Republicans or the Democrats .. it will happen and the other party won't be able to bring them back .. a lose-lose. So the new strategy is to dump the seniors now and add in millions of new immigrants to the Democratic election rolls with health care, the way FDR won over the Blacks from the Republicans.
Posted by: Neo at March 07, 2010 10:31 AM (tE8FB)
9
Doc W, you're an idiot. Sorry, there's no way to soften it. Who, besides a complete fool, would grant that the effect on the presidency (either MY presidency or THE presidency) is in any way a valid reason to pass the bill?
"Also, over two years of watching Obama displaying his malignant narcissism is more than sufficient evidence."
There's also that aspect - consider the source. Based on Obama's record of incredible and unwarranted self-regard, I for one have absolutely no problem with the conclusion that it's HIS presidency that is meant.
How about we call you "Doc Clinton", since you are metaphorically arguing about the definition of "is"?
Posted by: alanstorm at March 07, 2010 11:07 AM (c9sYp)
10
A follow-up to Doc W's comment: Am I the only one who's noticed that the liberal/lefties, the alleged masters of nuance, who continually portray conservatives as the folks who see things in black & white, are usually the ones who resort to seeing things in black & white?
"Well, he said THE presidency, so he COULDN'T be referring to himself..."
But the conservatives are the unintelligent rubes. Yeah. Right.
Posted by: alanstorm at March 07, 2010 11:17 AM (c9sYp)
11
"To maintain a strong presidency we need to pass this bill."
Every lie reveals some truth.
Here the lie is "to maintain a strong presidency" in that this bill does not MAINTAIN some presidential power, but grants power never before had to the presidency.
So, to paraphrase this as, 'Don't forget what failure to pass this bill would do to the party and my presidency' is as (in)accurate as the lie.
The truth is for the speaker, the President, to get that power, "we need to pass this bill."
President Obama has invested a lot of political capital into this effort to strengthen the presidency - do not let him down, pass it now so that he may enjoy the fruits of his labor.
Posted by: No 1 Obama Fan at March 07, 2010 11:21 AM (Gct7d)
12
I thought democrats were against a "strong presidency" given the "abuses" of executive power during the Bush years.
Is that meme old and busted now?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 07, 2010 11:52 AM (RC/9C)
13
Doc
I cannot seem to find the article again, but I did check it and read the "my presidency" line. It seems you are engaging in some creative history. Not much of a surprise for an Obami.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 07, 2010 01:57 PM (O8ebz)
14
Doc, did you click the link? It was a lefty blog that said that line, which I quoted quite accurately.
OF course, Doc lacks the intellectual integrity to go after one the source when it is one of his own.
Right, Doc?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 07, 2010 02:18 PM (qhZ5Z)
15
Oops. I was searching the wrong site. I did find it here and found that TPM interpreted Obama's comments as "my presidency".
There must have been others besides leftard thug Grijalva reporting as well. This was clearly about Obama (isn't everything?) and these thugs recognized it (one thug knows another).
Posted by: iconoclast at March 07, 2010 02:34 PM (O8ebz)
16
Doc is distracted. One of the left's allies (Adam Gadahn) was recently captured in Pakistan and the whole seething mass of anger without intelligence known as the Left is moving to grant this killer a civil trial in NY....
Posted by: iconoclast at March 07, 2010 02:36 PM (O8ebz)
17
"Right, Doc?"
Well, I'd answer, but I'm afraid that my comment would disappear down the memory hole, just like the last one.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 07, 2010 05:41 PM (Fj5iY)
18
Some have commented that Obama is trying to be like FDR. I have to agree that he is succeeding. FDR inherited an economic downturn that was global in scope. He then proceeded to inact policies and laws that robed us of our freedom and at the same time worsened the economic distress. In fact, the nation only recovered after his death and the distruction of all other economies of relivance. Note that most of the world recovered from the economic downturn within a few years. Ours was from 1929 to 1952 principally due to FDR's programs.
Posted by: David at March 07, 2010 05:42 PM (jHK8i)
19
Ours was from 1929 to 1952 principally due to FDR's programs.
Posted by David at March 7, 2010 05:42 PM
personal power is all "progressives" really want. Obama is just a recent--and rather incompetent--example of the megalomania and narcissism of the Left. Their appetite for power and the graft gained through that power overwhelms their limited intellect--they don't realize that if everyone becomes richer they will as well. Their disproven zero-sum game view of economics only allows them to imagine taking wealth from someone else with political power. The idea of actually creating something to earn that wealth is completely foreign to them.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 08, 2010 12:53 AM (O8ebz)
20
For anyone who cares, Doc Washboard is an extremely well-known troll. He's been around CY's place (and many others) under many guises. The last I knew he blogged at "Mike's Dumb America". I refused to even give him one hit so if you really want to investigate then Google will get you there. I'd stay away though...cesspools tend to leave their mark.
Posted by: PhyCon at March 08, 2010 02:47 PM (4od5C)
21
"Doc Washboard is an extremely well-known troll."
Why, PhyCon, you just gave me a boner.
Unfortunately, the rest of your post is incorrect.
1) It was "Mike's Dumbmerica," not "Mike's Dumb America."
2) The site hasn't existed for a long time, so Googling will do nothing.
3) If you refused to "give [me] even one hit," then how do you know how cesspool-like the site was?
Virulent opinion about something he admits to knowing nothing about? Done and done! PhyCon must be a wingnut!
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 08, 2010 08:53 PM (Fj5iY)
22
I reviewed that site several months ago when you made your appearance at ACW and posted from my memories of said visit. My refusal to "give him one hit" was in reference to my comment above.
Your site was (presuming it is dead) a cesspool attacking a conservative site.
Done and done? Not while you still spout your continuing bilge.
Posted by: PhyCon at March 10, 2010 01:30 PM (4od5C)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Global Warming Scientists Scramble to Find Way To Blame Man for Earth's Methane Release
I can only imagine that Phil Jones, Algore, and the rest of the anthropogenic global warming fetishists are wracking their brains to find a way to blame mankind for this discovery:
Vast amounts of methane are bubbling up from the East Siberian sea, raising fears of a massive hike in global warming.
Permafrost in the seabed has been previously assumed to act as an effective cap for the enormous amount of methane in the area.
But researchers at the Russian Academy of Sciences, the University of Alaska and Stockholm University have found that eight million tonnes of methane are currently leaking into the atmosphere every year.
"The amount of methane currently coming out of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is comparable to the amount coming out of the entire world's oceans," said Shakhova, a researcher at UAF's International Arctic Research Center. "Subsea permafrost is losing its ability to be an impermeable cap."
The problem with this discovery is two-fold for the AGW Truthers.
First, the role of methane release in triggering previous warming periods is well documented, and the continuing release would seem to provide a far more likely explanation for any warming that may have occurred or which may occur in the near future than the anthropogenic argument.
Second, the release of the discovery comes at a time when the anthropogenic warming supporter are
reeling under a continuous stream of revelations that have undermined the credibility of the "settled science" itself and many of the scientists/officials involved.
The great fear for anthropogenic warming supporters isn't that the world may be warming, but that they won't be able to find a way to profit from it, financially, or politically.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:16 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Oh Oh
It might get as warm as the Medevial Warm Period was!
Posted by: Rick at March 05, 2010 03:56 PM (oPo4E)
2
Worse yet, with average global temperatures tumbling at the same time as huge amounts of additional methane are being released into the atmosphere, that kinda blows the entire greenhouse gas hypothesis to hell and back.
A few weeks back there were studies released showing that changing CO2 levels weren't having an impact on reflection of infrared radiation. Now we find that a huge flood of methane did nothing to increase temperatures. So much for the greenhouse fable, time for the climate scientologists to go back to rent-seeking school.
Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at March 05, 2010 07:02 PM (Fnr44)
3
Author John Barnes wrote a novel, 'Mother of Storms' back in the 90's about a massive methane release in the Arctic caused by....the UN! You get a giant hurricane in the Pacific that spawns daughters all over the place and the only hope for salvation is a US astronaut.
A little dated in the tech area but still a really fun read!
Posted by: tps at March 06, 2010 10:18 AM (4Pleu)
4
A few weeks back there were studies released showing that changing CO2 levels weren't having an impact on reflection of infrared radiation.
CO2's GHG effect isn't linear (something the media INVARIABLY FAILS to mention). It follows a logarithmic curve instead, and we're well off the steep vertical part and well onto where it starts to flatten out. So, at this point, even largish increases (a doubling or tripling) in CO2 concentrations would have only small very incremental (possibly so small as to not be discernible from noise) effect.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 07, 2010 11:57 AM (RC/9C)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Pentagon Attacked by Anti-Bush Nut/ 9/11 Truther
Patterico has the details.
Two police officers were wounded in the attack. The shooter was fatally shot during the attack. His name was John Patrick Bedell of Hollister, CA.
According to MSNBC, he had prior arrests for cultivating marijuana and assaulting cops.
Update: The shooter was a
registered Democrat, not that the fact will keep dishonest, ideologically-driven propagandists such as
Peter Grier from attempting to smear those on the center right..
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:18 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The news just said that the guy was bipolar with a long history of mental issues. Being a Democrat as well, could he be in the Obama administration?
Posted by: David at March 05, 2010 07:22 PM (jHK8i)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 04, 2010
Trash Sues For Cash
Give me a freakin' break:
VICTIMS of Hurricane Katrina from Mississippi are seeking to sue carbon gas-emitting multinationals for helping fuel global warming and boosting the devastating 2005 storm, legal documents showed.
The class action suit brought by residents from southern Mississippi, which was ravaged by hurricane-force winds and driving rains, was first filed just weeks after the August 2005 storm hit.
"The plaintiffs allege that defendants' operation of energy, fossil fuels, and chemical industries in the United States caused the emission of greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming," say the documents, seen by AFP.
The increase in global surface air and water temperatures "in turn caused a rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, which combined to destroy the plaintiffs' private property, as well as public property useful to them".
Every single person taking part in this lawsuit emits carbon dioxide with every breath they take. Hopefully someone will countersue to keep these idiots from breeding.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:11 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What a pile of boloney. The only foks who would believe this are the scientifically ignorant. Al Gore style liars. Attorneys.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at March 04, 2010 03:55 PM (brIiu)
2
I wonder how many of these idiots were living in houses that replaced those destroyed by Hurricane Camille in 1969. You know, back when we were facing a new ice age.
Posted by: Tim at March 04, 2010 03:56 PM (xq7pr)
3
What law firm would take such a frivolous case? What's its name?
Posted by: Rick at March 04, 2010 04:07 PM (GmIEI)
4
Rick, the Democrat Party.
By the way, I worked on several CDBG housing projects on the coast after Katrina. Check the photos of one of the government subsidized housing developments in Biloxi, Mississippi. Covered parking, hot tub, swimming pool, weight rooms, the whole nine.
PHOTOS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.
Posted by: paul mitchell at March 04, 2010 06:52 PM (P/J3z)
5
Can I countersue to keep them from breathing?
Posted by: Ken Hahn at March 05, 2010 11:59 PM (Kdjo7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More Incompetence From Obama
Despite the headline, Barack Obama is almost certainly not selling judgeships to secure heath care votes.
For starters, holding on to the appointment until after the vote would have been Obama's power play, and it is also rather difficult to claim that Scott Matheson isn't a good candidate for the position.
But any politician—even a neophyte city councilman—simply has to know how bad the optics of this appointment are at this time. While the appointment is probably perfectly legitimate, even amateurs know better than to create the appearance of possible bribery, especially leading into a close-run and controversial vote on a high-profile piece of legislation with little public support.
Supporters claim that Barack Obama is refreshingly smart and cerebral compared to our last President.
How much longer do we have to wait until he shows it?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:29 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Obama is a one trick pony. He can give a speech with a teleprompter, but only with a teleprompter.
Posted by: Jack at March 04, 2010 11:44 AM (bvDV5)
2
What makes you think that this isn't corrupt? Obie is immeshed in Chicago style politics up to his nostrils, and it isn't in the least bit unlikely that he would do something this brazen.
Posted by: TimothyJ at March 04, 2010 12:22 PM (IKKIf)
3
Yea...bush was really good at speaking. Morons.
Posted by: Johnny Obscure at March 05, 2010 12:00 PM (bZZsj)
4
Perhaps Obama is not, in terms of cash changing hands, exchanging judgeships for Obamacare votes, but one would be hard pressed to tell the difference here. There are such things as coincidences. This is not among them.
At the very least, doing this, on the very day Matheson's brother is wined and dined in the White House, reveals either a total lack of political smarts, or reveals Obama's complete contempt for the American public and his belief in his own brilliance and infallibility. This goes far beyond bad optics and treads in the realm of clinical narcissistic derangement. Apparently Obama believes that he can say and do anything he wants.
Will we let him get away with it?
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at March 05, 2010 10:44 PM (qjRSd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Domestic Violence Lobbyist Guns Down Husband After Five Day Marriage
While it is far from always being the case, most of us tend to think of domestic violence as a crime that typically occurs within the home, not blocks away:
Witnesses told police that Bridges was wearing a nightgown and a shower cap as she argued with Rankins on the sidewalk on North Avenue near West Peachtree Street around 10:45 p.m. Monday.
And moments later, witnesses said, they heard shots. They said she then "calmly walked away."
A MARTA police officer stopped her as she was getting into her car, perhaps to return to her home nearby on Centennial Olympic Park Drive.
Arelisha Bridges apparently chased down her new husband in her car and then shot him down on the street after an argument.
Bridges is registered as a lobbyist for the little-known National Declaration for Domestic Violence Order, but seems to have been almost inactive in that role.
Seems she should have been a lobbyist for Orderly Domestic Violence.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:38 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
anty gun responce in 3.2.1.
Posted by: Rich at March 04, 2010 10:18 AM (siQqy)
2
May his family be comforted ...
Posted by: Adriane at March 04, 2010 10:22 AM (0U2C0)
Posted by: a anvals at March 07, 2010 11:13 PM (yrY/j)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 03, 2010
The Kind Of Leadership We Need...
...can't be found in Washington, DC.
People always want something for nothing, and politicians, being the craven creatures they are, always try to provide it even when their actions create crushing debt on future generations. They trade long-term prosperity for temporary power, and the political class we've been cursed with has abused the system's holding capacity for such incompetencies to its quite generous limits.
We live in a time where we see states and entire nations on the verge of bankruptcy, and yet the people who have caused this problem think the proper response is not just to continue a pattern of chronic spending abuse, but to make it worse. They'll go so far as to
completely ignore the pleas of those they swore to serve, threatening the solvency of the very union they should protect and defend with their lives.
As others have noted,
it's all about ego for a generation of elected representatives that has convinced themselves they are something akin to a ruling class. November cannot come fast enough.
We must purge ourselves of those politicians that revel in their own sense of importance and believe that they, not the American people, are the source of this nation's greatness.
We've suffered these condescending fools and their scheming for too long. We can only hope they don't cause irreparable damage before they are dragged or driven out.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:03 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The only way for this to happen is to have a true conservatively fiscal party. Unfortunately neither of the two parties we have are so this will likely not change.
Posted by: AlvinM at March 03, 2010 12:19 PM (gkOEo)
2
"We must purge ourselves of those politicians that revel in their own sense of importance and believe that they, not the American people, are the source of this nation's greatness."
Exactly. And those politicians are called: Democrats and Republicans. Anyone who continues to vote for, or in any way support, the Democratic and Republican Parties and their candidates for office does nothing but reproduce the the tyranny of the two-party state and the duopoly system of government. Freedom and independence begins with freedom and independence from Democratic-Republican Party government.
Posted by: d.eris at March 03, 2010 04:14 PM (/qYtv)
3
I second both of the above comments. Unfortunately both parties have rigged the system so thoroughly that it's almost impossible for a third party to break through. I think our best option would be to go to a parliamentary system with proportional representation, like every other democracy in the world has except us. That would take a hell of an effort and our ruling political class would fight tooth and nail every step of the way.
Posted by: Will Butler at March 03, 2010 07:43 PM (LgpMF)
4
Ditto. Well said, CY. Perhaps we should have term limits.
Posted by: Daithi at March 03, 2010 08:35 PM (G0syV)
5
First 3 comments are bull, and you can bet the media and democrats will be banging that same "no difference between the parties" line to help the Democrats. But the difference is clear and stark - who voted for the stimulus bill, who voted for cap and tax, who voted for government run health care? All democrats with a RINO here and there.
Posted by: Jayne at March 03, 2010 09:32 PM (dwIL0)
6
...like every other democracy in the world has except us.
Except we're not a democracy. We're a republic.
The founders warned against the dangers of a democracy and also warned against the very system we have today; one where a "ruling class" of politicians seeks wealth and power at the expense of the citizenry.
Agreed, this is not about Democrat vs. Republican. It is about getting back to the basics of the smallest government with the least intrusion on the lives of citizens. At this point in our nation's decline, I question whether such a fundamental change is possible.
Posted by: Just Sayin' at March 03, 2010 10:47 PM (XUpm+)
7
Please research your cause and effect. You seem to imply that the current economic crisis is the result of Democrats. True, it is the result of spending, but it is the result of spending on two wars without an increase in taxation (required to fund wars), and tax decreases for the people that should be footing more of the bill, to name a few of the causes.
The Democrats' failure was placing too many conservative on the tickets, thus creating an ultra-fractious Congress. A third and fourth party would probably be a good idea. I'll go left, you go right.
Posted by: Steve Schwab at March 05, 2010 07:59 AM (Oo4zp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
SPLC's Interesting Ideas of "Right Wing Hate"
I'll let others dissect liberal Mark Potok's increasingly irrelevant claims about the growth of right wing hate, and instead focus on what the group claims about my home state of North Carolina.
My first observation is that our typically "red" state that many urban liberals like to mock for being part of the Old South has less than half the listed hate groups (29) of "tolerant" California. Bigots.
But what I find especially interesting is that in their report on right wing hate, they link to their so-called "
hate map" as if to imply all groups listed are right wing.
They most certainly are not.
Of the 29 hate groups the SPLC lists in North Carolina, 8 are black separatist groups, including chapters of the Nation of Islam, the New Black Panther Party, and two branches of The Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ.
While I'm not at all familiar with the last group, the Nation of Islam and New Black Panther Party both tie themselves closely to the Democratic Party and many left-wing initiatives, including advocating the Presidency of Barack Obama. The Nation of Islam's leader was and is openly praised and accepted at Obama's church and among his closest mentors in Chicago.
By the SPLC's standards of guilt by loose association, the Obama Administration should clearly be listed as a black separatist hate group operating with branches in Chicago and Washington, DC, if not nationwide. Of course, this same loose standard was applied and Obama-supporting groups were documented, then Potok would have to explain the explosive growth of left wing hate groups... and Potok is not about to document that.
Certainly, most sensible people would view the way the SPLC pigeonholes groups on vague and arbitrary standards as absurd.
But then, people with sense don't fund the SPLC.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:29 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Looks like most of the "hate" is concentrated in the occupied South. That seems about rigt. I am sure that occupied France and Poland in WWII felt the same.
Posted by: David at March 03, 2010 11:24 AM (dccG2)
2
The SPLC in itself is a hate group. They hate anything that promotes the ideals of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They promote the idea that Marxism is the new social order of the world and are doing everything in their power to promulgate that idea. The founder, Morris Dees was an out and out racist, who hated the White race — which is strange, because he is a white man.
Posted by: Stan25 at March 03, 2010 11:50 AM (N1Gru)
3
More and more I feel that the concept of "Right Wing Hate" suffers from incorrect word order...Based on those breathless and fearful in their reporting simply "Hate Right Wing"...
They cant counter ideas effectively, so they go down the hate/racism path in an effort to marginalize...wont work.
Posted by: Mick Kraut at March 03, 2010 02:04 PM (NMK3S)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 02, 2010
Tea Party Knockoffs: Watered Down, Bitter
It looks like our friends at the NY Times and Washington Post are thrilled to jump on the bandwagon of the left-wing Coffee Party.
Too bad their articles cheerleading the group just happened to come out on the day Pajamas Media published my article exposing them as the front-end of a left-wing
astroturfing campaign.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:07 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: TimothyJ at March 02, 2010 01:53 PM (IKKIf)
2
Well what do you know, the NYT writer on the coffee party is Zernike, the same hack who called Mattera racist for being a latino man with a brooklyn accent
Posted by: MAModerate at March 02, 2010 06:47 PM (pbZzH)
3
I think that there is more in common with the Tea Party and the Coffee Party than you may like to admit. The accountability of government and elected leaders to the citizenry.
The big difference is the overall view that government is NOT the enemy. That government is NOT a bad thing. That government actually serves the will of the people.
Posted by: Steve Schwab at March 03, 2010 08:17 AM (zv7b3)
4
Actually these days the government pretty much serves the will of its own bureaucracy and politicians.
Posted by: emdfl at March 03, 2010 09:51 AM (vwRFo)
5
Uh, Steve, yeah right. The Coffee Party is nothing more than an arm of Obama 4 America. After ignoring, deriding and slandering the Tea Parties for a year the witless, cowardly vermin of OFA are now trying to usurp their position. It won't work. The only way American Lefty radicalism could proser electorally as it has is for most of the nation to remain ignorant of their true agenda, character and composition. Obama has tried mightily to rule in secret but it just is not that easy. He and the Left have had the advantage of a pet press corpse that would let them get away with saying mutually contradictory things to various demographic or interest groups until Obama could confidently say whatever needed to be said at any moment. Jeremiah Wright put it quite well, saying that Barack says what he needs to say as a politician. No need to take it too seriously. Only now these morons have the simple necessities of reality intruding and the result is not pretty. A poisonous ideology wedded to an arrogant, indifferent incompetence can lead to many things, none of them good. That is where we are today and the slide, friends and foes, has barely begun. BARELY BEGUN!
Posted by: megapotamus at March 03, 2010 01:32 PM (LWhHe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Climate Change Cultists Don't Believe in Peer-Reviewed Science, Unless Reviewed By Like-Minded Believers
Two interesting ways of telling the same, sad story.
Via
Breitbart:
A British climate researcher at the centre of a row over global warming science has admitted he wrote some "pretty awful" emails to sceptics when he was refusing their requests for data.
But Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, defended Monday his decision not to release the data about temperatures from around the world, saying it was not "standard practice" to do so.
"I have obviously written some pretty awful emails," Jones told British lawmakers in response to a question about a message he sent to a sceptic in which he refused to release data saying he believed it would be misused.
And from the UK
Daily Mail:
Giving evidence to a Science and Technology Committee inquiry, the Institute of Physics said: 'Unless the disclosed emails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research and for the credibility of the scientific method.
'The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.'
Last month, the Information Commissioner ruled the CRU had broken Freedom of Information rules by refusing to hand over raw data.
But yesterday Professor Jones - in his first public appearance since the scandal broke - denied manipulating the figures.
Looking pale and clasping his shaking hands in front of him, he told MPs: 'I have obviously written some pretty awful emails.'
He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.
And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.
Uh, how is that scientific method supposed to function again? This is from Wikipedia, but I think they still have this
mostly correct (my emphasis below):
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently-derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
A core principle of the scientific method is the full-disclosure of all relevant documentation. Dr. Jones, along with many of his peers damned in the Climategate emails, have decided to completely abandon the scientific method for faith-based beliefs.
There seems to be very little separating climate change cultists from the
evolutionists creationists they love to mock, except that they don't have the self-awareness to know their beliefs are based on faith.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:23 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There is a huge misunderstanding as well of the meaning that a paper has been peer-reviewed. All that really means in everyday terms (for research areas other than climate science) is that knowledgeable reviewers have vetted the paper for obvious mistakes and contravention of well-proven theories (which is why you will not see any papers on perpetual motion).
There is precious little implication of peer-review that a given paper is correct and accurate. Just that the paper doesn't make obvious errors or completely untenable claims.
Which is why Jones, Mann, Hansen and others perversion of the peer-review process is so heinous. By assuming that a research paper skeptical of the AGW hypothesis was ipso facto an obvious error--even though the AGW hypothesis was the point of the research paper--then Jones, et al could filter out from scientific publication any papers skeptical of the AGW research.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 02, 2010 04:37 PM (O8ebz)
2
'There seems to be very little separating climate change cultists from the evolutionists they love to mock...' Did you mean 'creationists they love to mock'?
Posted by: RNB at March 02, 2010 07:28 PM (WkjqG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 01, 2010
Obama is Not a Drunk
The Guardian made it appear that President Obama was told to moderate his drinking (suggesting he drinks too much), a story that quite a few bloggers have reported on.
Unfortunately, a copy of
Obama's medical exam released to the press confirms that he cannot blame alcohol abuse for his Presidency.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:03 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well, at least he got a colorectal exam. Considering all he's been trying to shove up our...eh...exam sites.
Posted by: bonzochimp at March 01, 2010 05:29 PM (RGndA)
2
Overuse of alcohol will reduce your effective IQ, which would explain many of Obama's actions in the last year.
Not to mention all the parties...
Posted by: iconoclast at March 01, 2010 05:42 PM (zKViF)
3
I thought the recommendation about a diet change to reduce LDL below 130 was much more alarming.
Posted by: Neo at March 01, 2010 05:56 PM (tE8FB)
4
Let him drink, let him smoke for God's sake. It may be all keeping him from jumping off a bridge and if you smile at that thought let me remind you of the one absolutely genius move of Team O.... putting Biden in the second chair. This innoculation is near absolute, isn't it?
Posted by: megapotamus at March 03, 2010 01:36 PM (LWhHe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 64 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.1048 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0873 seconds, 125 records returned.
Page size 97 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.