Confederate Yankee
February 12, 2010
Goosed
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:04 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Apparently, the goose didn't like being called dumb. BTW, just what in world is a "Pro Kayak Angler"?
Posted by: Tim at February 12, 2010 09:31 AM (nc6/K)
2
Well, taking it at face value, a Pro Kayak Angler is a guy who gets paid to get filmed fishing from a kayak.... Presumably nice work if you can get it. Why it would be a separate category from simply fishing off a boat, I have no idea...
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at February 12, 2010 12:05 PM (zGCLY)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 11, 2010
Are they Really This Dim?
Just as a people-watcher, reading the blogosphere's responses to David Broder's op-ed about Sarah Palin is fascinating.
I haven't read what Broder has to say, finding it far more interesting to watch as left-leaning bloggers find new and creative ways to both insult Sarah Palin and the significant number of Americans that do not like how this country is presently being run.
Do they think their inability to mask an abiding contempt for their fellow Americans is really going to help their part remain in power?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:36 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You know where the central power of the opposition is located - Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. The attacks on them, which are almost always personal, are designed (I guess!) to convince the world they are bad people. This is what you see when 30% of the people make 100% of the noise. Not to worry; November is fast approaching. Yes, they'll still be slinging arrows, but no one will even care.
Posted by: Dell at February 11, 2010 05:39 PM (o0L0L)
2
She calls rural people "Real Americans" with the implication that urban residents just live here, and don't understand American values. She shares the stage with birther extraordinaire Joseph Farah, who takes her credibility (such as it is) and festoons it with racially-tinged conspiracy theories. She can't tell you the name of any periodical she reads. She can barely explain her own principles, preferring to dishonestly caricature her opponents'. And she has a personal approval/disapproval spread around -20. As much contempt as I have for Sarah Palin, I have more for those in the press who act as if she is any kind of policy thinker (rather than a less-old-and-male reciter of decades-old boilerplate); for those who treat her as the second coming of Ronald Reagan (a skilled and savvy politician who understood what he was talking about, and simplified his principles into talking points rather than replacing the former with the latter); for those who act as if this game of cultural resentment was started by rich coastal liberals (rather than rich inland politicapitalists who recognize a business opportunity when they see it).
Sarah Palin is a huckster, a con artist, plain and simple. She saw that she could make more money by quitting her job, (ghost-) writing a book and running around the country raking in the dough for reading speeches. She spoke at the Tea Party convention, a collection of causes in which she supposedly believes, and let them charge hundreds of dollars per person so that she could pull down more than twice what I make in a year.
The sooner the American press stops checking her Facebook page, the better.
Posted by: Evan at February 11, 2010 06:37 PM (U0pUw)
3
And in comes Evan to entirely prove CY's point.
Of course the delicious part is that the irony is entirely lost on him (her?).
Posted by: ECM at February 11, 2010 08:00 PM (nYKDd)
4
My hope is that someday "reporters" like Mr Broder will start giving a shit about their jobs and pay attention to the reasons no one likes Sarah Palin. You can talk all you want about liberal elitists and the liberal media and how they hate conservatives and real Americans like Sarah Palin, and commentators will bend over backwards to prove that they take her seriously, all the while handling her with kid gloves (which, if I were aligned with her, I would find incredibly patronizing). The day they start to take her seriously is the day they realize she has no positive vision for the country.
So, yes, I genuinely do think that the more liberals present a passionate, reasoned defense of contempt for Sarah Palin, the harder it will be for the Broders of the world to ignore the fact that Sarah Palin is Mitt Romney without the accomplishments.
Posted by: Evan at February 11, 2010 08:53 PM (U0pUw)
5
I honestly don't see how we conservatives can elect another folksy ignoramus. We need someone who can find countries on a world map at the very least. Did we not learn our lesson with W.?
Posted by: Will Butler at February 11, 2010 10:25 PM (LgpMF)
6
She spoke at the Tea Party convention, a collection of causes in which she supposedly believes, and let them charge hundreds of dollars per person so that she could pull down more than twice what I make in a year.
Except that's not true.
At least, Palin is not like Bill Clinton, who reportedly made $10 million in speaking fees last year. But maybe, if she has a sex scandal with an intern, she can get there.
Posted by: Just Sayin' at February 11, 2010 10:28 PM (XUpm+)
7
I honestly don't see how we conservatives can elect another folksy ignoramus. We need someone who can find countries on a world map at the very least. Did we not learn our lesson with W.?
Posted by Will Butler at February 11, 2010 10:25 PM
Not doing a good job of being a concern troll. But I always was pleased that GW knew how many states there were and had no illusions about the size of Iran.
And, compared to the insane clown posse we have in DC these days, a whole lot of people miss GW and the GOP in general. Which is probably why senators like Scott Brown are a harbinger of things to come.
Posted by: iconoclast at February 12, 2010 05:14 AM (I5shO)
8
"Not only is Sarah Palin living rent-free in every Democrat's head, she keeps rearranging the furniture on them."
Right now, that's good enough for me.
Posted by: Looking Glass at February 12, 2010 05:15 AM (zamYU)
9
I enjoy reading "thoughtful" comments such as those posted by people like evan.
Relying upon factually inaccurate statements to create ad hominem attacks on Palin serve as a powerful contrast to what the far left liberal leadership in Washington is attempting to foist upon all of us.
From unconscionable grabs on liberties contained within the health care reform legislation (not to mention the extraordinary lengths that they are going to in order to pass it) to economy killing legislation such as cap and trade, the full court press to a socialist state is well under way.
That a citizen or group of citizens would voice opposition to something that they fundamentally disagree with is the very stuff of a Constitutional Republic.
But carry on, please, evan. We need people like you to continue your screeds.
Posted by: turfmann at February 12, 2010 07:10 AM (SgGTT)
10
Evan,
Don't know what countries are on a map?
Fact Check Time.
The "Africa is a Country" line was a hoax. A hoax that Time repeated a full 6 months after it was debunked. MSM really fell on their sword with that one. Egg on their face.
And here you are beclowning yourself in 2010. It's your integrity on the line. Oops. It's gone.
Also, every time a Lib repeats the line "I can see Russia from my house" line, they're admitting that they literally believe that Fey and Palin are the same person. Argument by metaphor cuts both ways.
Facts are stubborn things.
Posted by: brando at February 12, 2010 10:58 AM (IPGju)
11
brando, thanks for doing me the courtesy of actually reading what I wrote. Didn't mention Africa, didn't mention Russia. (Although she sure did claim to read all newspapers and magazines.)
I don't have a problem with Palin voicing her opinion. I have a problem with people pretending she knows what she's talking about.
Please tell me what she would do about a health care system that costs twice as much as England's and 40% more than Canada's with cost growth 3% above core inflation, that still doesn't manage to cover 10% of the population, where insurance providers can hike premiums 39% and still cancel people policies after they get sick. I can't find any principles on her PAC website except "small government."
Posted by: Evan at February 12, 2010 11:43 AM (U0pUw)
12
I did read it.
Of course you believe that. That's what lockstep means. You believe that "no one likes Palin". Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean that they don't exist as a human being, but that's your stated belief, so it's A-OK for me to address you that way. You don't get the option of picking and choosing what you believe after that. 52% of Americans are hard-core Liberals who literally want to murder Palin, according to Lib. In your mind that's 100%. That's you.
Context matters.
In the context of an article about blind irrational rage against Palin, you jump on the bandwagon, proving CY right.
I offered up facts refuting your collectivist position. And I enjoying doing so.
So. In your last paragraph you started with argument by question. That's easy. I'll do it right back to you, to see if you like it, and break you of that habit. Please answer me this: Why did Pol Pot feel the need to commit genocide, and how can you guys feel as though you're good people in spite of that? I can't find any justification for that on DU other than "Palin Sucks".
Answer, if you can.
Posted by: brando at February 12, 2010 12:33 PM (IPGju)
Posted by: Evan at February 12, 2010 12:49 PM (U0pUw)
14
Evan: Mr. Broder is not a reporter. He is a political columnist with a lot of experience observing American politics. His is an opinion piece. Agree or disagree with him - but understand what he does and is doing.
Get the basics correct first, champ.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at February 12, 2010 04:58 PM (nlRuk)
15
Evan, Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful post. Here's a tip for you as you try to debate with Brando,(I know to be true from personal experience debating with him in the past):
It is absolutely impossible to have any sort of meaningful, truthful political discourse with Brando. As any honest person can see, his forte is attributing things to people that they didn't say. All that one has to do is read what you said and that read what he says that you said. Then, go back and re-read your post. Clearly, this Brando person is either blatantly dishonest or he/she/it is delusional, or both.
You simply can't have a rational discussion with an irrational person. It's impossible. But, it is interesting and educational to read Brando's comments. If you read enough of his posts you will likely see examples of every "fallacy in argumentation" in the book.
That being said, there are visitors to this website who are capable of having intelligent discussions with people who don't share their political point of view. But, I would advise you to remember that Brando isn't one of those people.
Thanks again for your thoughtful and honest first post in this discussion.
Posted by: Dude at February 12, 2010 08:53 PM (5gxhz)
16
"We need someone who can find countries on a world map at the very least."
You're absolutely right, Will. And she should also be able to name all 57 states, too.
Oh, wait...
Posted by: Cicero at February 13, 2010 12:52 AM (BMtTl)
17
Evan,
You are apparantly claiming that Palin cannot find countries on a map. Please provide the evidence for this claim.
Posted by: David Davies at February 13, 2010 10:49 AM (WUESC)
18
What they're refering to is the accusation that Palin stated that Africa was a country (instead of a continent). That was debunked shortly after it was leveled. Yet the lie lives on. Just like the book banning, and the TrigTruthers, and the Russia comment, and that she's a Nazi.
All debunked.
So they only have their rage. In their eyes Palin just has to be evil because...well...um...she just has to be. If you can't argue the facts, then just go ad-hominem.
Oh, and Dude. Don't lecture on honesty. I'll just continute to slamdunk you on that one.
Posted by: brando at February 15, 2010 12:57 PM (IPGju)
19
Evan, Dude, you guys just got your asses handed to you.
Lean up close to the microphone and tell the folks back home how that feels.
Posted by: Randy Rager at February 15, 2010 04:25 PM (x6dJS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 09, 2010
Michelle Obama Channels John Kerry; Accidentally Describes Barack's Presidency
Only a select few individuals have the ability to contradict themselves in the length of a sentence. Former Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry was endlessly pilloried for his variation "I was before it before I was against it," and rest assured if Sarah Palin utters such a blunder we'll be hearing it blared on every cable news channel for weeks.
And yet
this gaffe goes unremarked on:
"I think my husband has done a phenomenal job staying on course, looking his critics in the eye, coming up with clear solutions against staying the course," Michelle Obama told Robin Roberts in an exclusive morning television interview on "Good Morning America."
So according to Michelle, Barack has done a great job of staying the course, even as he come up with clear solutions no to do so.
Actually, that may not be a contradiction. That may simply be an accurate reflection of his policies.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:00 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
left hand points right, right hand points left - "They went thataway!"
Posted by: Wind Rider at February 09, 2010 09:09 PM (XhSwc)
2
"Back to back they faced each other...Drew their swords and shot each other"
Posted by: Dell at February 09, 2010 09:34 PM (o0L0L)
3
Ever get the feeling that while they're in the West Wing, they each wear a t-shirt that says "I'm with Stupid", with an arrow pointing up?
I'm not saying, I'm just saying!
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at February 10, 2010 07:31 AM (+LRPE)
4
Come on, guys. I know it's fun to mock Michelle, but it's pretty clear that what she said is that Obama is good at staying on (his own) course rather than "staying the course" he inherited. Awkward, but not in Kerry's league.
Posted by: Mahon at February 10, 2010 04:28 PM (hPOpf)
5
So he is going in circles? Staying on course by not staying on course - the compass headings change but the ship stays in position.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at February 12, 2010 05:04 PM (nlRuk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Ripping Birtherism in the Media
The birthers remind me of the freaks who occasionally show up in court with long diatribes about how the Federal Reserve, in conjunction with the Trilateral Commission, is acting unconstitutionally under their idiosyncratic view of the 16th Amendment, which all boils down to meaning that they don’t have to pay taxes. Oh, and the gold fringe on the flag in the courtroom makes it a flag of admiralty, meaning the court has no jurisdiction over them. The judge usually nods, and the deputies haul the "sovereign citizen" off to jail. And I laugh.
Kurt Schlichter at
Big Journalism is
dead-on accurate.
The handful of Birthers in fringe media outlets undermine and dilute legitimate criticism of the Obama Administration, and those outlets that aspire to keep the fever-dream alive should be marginalized and then ignored.
Love him or hate him, Barack Obama was duly elected by a solid majority of our fellow citizens. You can't revise that history, but you can take on his policies and head on... and those who insist on muddying the waters as they indulge conspiratorial fantasies should be ashamed of their obstructionism, if nothing else.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:05 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Legitimate criticism of the Buffoon-in-Chief should also extend to his personal promises, one of which is "transparency".
To call out, and thus limit, those who want such transparency on all matters regarding Barry Soetero, "birthers" allows the Left to limit the debate by defining the terms.
ZERO retains high personal popularity because he's been allowed to continue his personal mythology as a "cool guy" and "well-educated, intellectual" guy. Too many still view him as being bright, but frustrated, rather than devious and dull, more interested in parties and golf than in governing.
The real tragedy is excoriating the birthers as "nuts", instead of expanding their claims to "full disclosure" of all of Barry's past deeds and efforts. Let the birthers have their place among the full disclosure gorup and don't let the Left so easily dismiss them!
Every time they trot out the birther sneers, simply rebut with "its about full disclosure" in response and hammer home every shortcoming in that regard! Turn the tables and attack the leftists on our terms, there' no need to beat up those on our own side, "fringe" though they may be!
Posted by: Earl T at February 09, 2010 10:12 AM (tbxAn)
2
I am not a Birther. Period. Full Stop. He is a US Citizen as far as I am concerned.
However, I think it is legitimate to ask why various parts of the Democrat party have spent significant amounts of money defending against Birther claims. So far, all cases decided have been thrown out due to lack of standing, but at the cost of a few hundred thousand dollars of legal fees.
Simply signing the needed release document in Hawaii would end most of them at no cost. Of course, nothing will stop the real crazies who argue that the microfilm records from the Honolulu newspapers showing birth announcements are somehow "photoshopped" or otherwise invalid, and the birth certificate is fraudulent. It would, however, pretty much stop the nuisance suits. And that is what puzzles me about the way this is being handled.
The positive on this is that it does give the Birthers some visibility, highly negative in most cases. Being judged by your enemies, and all that. It gives Chris Mathews something to throw at a conservative, along with questions about evolution. So I really would like to see a fully public release of his birth certificate, because I too am tired of the Birthers!
Posted by: Tregonsee at February 09, 2010 10:40 AM (lSIZT)
3
He was "duely" elected, but that does not make him a natural born American citizen. What makes him Constitutionally qualified for office is his status, or not, as a natural born citizen. He has yet to prove that. His refusal to release his birth certificate is evidence enough to doubt his status as Hawaii, like many other states, issues birth certificates to those not born in Hawaii. You have to deal with those facts.
What is he hiding? Some claim that this is some judo move that he planned years ago. Not release the birth certificate so as to cause his opponents to go crazy, then, at some future time, release the birth certificate and cruise to some sort of victory over the Republicans sometime in the future.
Well, that ain't happening and the birth certificate controversy will not cause unemployment to fall or Iran to give up nuclear weapons.
The Constitution and its requirements mean something and you just cannot waive them away.
Posted by: Federale at February 09, 2010 10:56 AM (q3Oy6)
4
Keeping Obama's birth certificate out of view has, by some estimates, cost Democrats over $1.5 million. I think it's fair to say that Obama doesn't understand the value of a million dollars. This is yet another example. How does the Democratic party tell a $200 donor that his donation, and 5000 more like his, will help keep Obama's birth certificate from the light of day for another year? Just what do they think they are paying for?
Posted by: George at February 09, 2010 11:03 AM (WA19M)
5
I saw O'Riley making fun of the birthers a while back. And Libs are always telling us that they hold positions that are the polar opposite of Bill O'Riley. Therefore...
Posted by: brando at February 09, 2010 11:22 AM (IPGju)
6
We won the election and now these sore losers will continue to spew your hate with lies. The way our courts work is that you get a competent lawyer, verifiable facts and present them to a judge, if the facts are real and not half baked lies, then, and only then, you proceed to trial. The Birthers seem to be having a problem with their so called facts that they present. Let’s face it no one will go along with you until you guys win a case, but until then, you will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three. Keep plucking that chicken.
Posted by: Montana at February 09, 2010 12:14 PM (t9AvQ)
7
Montana-Obama, you're out of line. I happen to know a few Hilary suporters, and just because you personally won the election, doesn't mean that every member of the Democratic Party are literally Crazy. Dumb. Racists. And Liars.
Oh Wait. Racist? You'd know.
I might not like them, but as a President you represent us, and your behavior is heinous.
Shape up Mr. President. You are crass and base. You owe the whole world an appology. Make it good. You can start with me.
Posted by: brando at February 09, 2010 12:38 PM (IPGju)
8
Montana if you checked your fatcs befor you open your mouth you would know that the birth certific cases started from the Hillery suporters.
Posted by: Rich at February 09, 2010 01:08 PM (siQqy)
9
The handful of Birthers in fringe media outlets undermine and dilute legitimate criticism of the Obama Administration
But for some reason the "Bush lied!" crowd never undermined legitmate criticism of the Bush administration. How does that work again?
This is just another example of the rights terror of the media.
Posted by: flenser at February 09, 2010 01:21 PM (xQXBf)
10
The GOP started the Tea baggers but you do not see Dems blindly following their claims like the GOP. To all the Birthers, prove it, Oh thats right you can’t, just more of your unsubstantiated rumors you keep writing on your hands to help you keep up. You are just another Palin, just like “W”, just like Quayle, just like Reagan. I love you guys. Keep plucking that chicken.
Posted by: Montana at February 09, 2010 03:36 PM (t9AvQ)
11
The GOP started the Tea baggers...
Huh? On what planet?
Posted by: Pablo at February 09, 2010 03:59 PM (yTndK)
12
The real tragedy is excoriating the birthers as "nuts", instead of expanding their claims to "full disclosure" of all of Barry's past deeds and efforts.
The Birthers are nuts. There's abundant, legally sufficient evidence that Baracky was born in Hawaii. Full disclosure requests for the rest are all well and good, but no one is entitled to the rest of the records we'd all like to see, so I don't see where that leads politically. But asking for his transcripts, etc doesn't look kookoo like screaming about his birth certificate does.
Posted by: Pablo at February 09, 2010 04:03 PM (yTndK)
13
Montana is the only tea bagger around here
Posted by: Rich at February 09, 2010 04:35 PM (siQqy)
14
"The GOP started the Tea baggers"
Um. No. The proper words are 'gay', or 'homosexual'. Look it up. In a book. And, um, not started by the GOP. Gay folks have been around a lot longer than the GOP.
Time's linear, Barak. If that is really you? If not, maybe don't claim you won the election next time.
Zing.
Posted by: brando at February 09, 2010 04:39 PM (IPGju)
15
I doubt Stanley Ann Dunham was stupid enough to want to give birth in a Kenyan hospital; or that Barack Hussein Obama Sr wanted her there, given he already had a wife and family there. The Hawaiian birth certificate is a distraction from the documents that really should be investigated: Obama's records from Occidental and the other schools he attended.
Posted by: zhombre at February 09, 2010 04:54 PM (FBJBT)
16
Where is the abundant legally sufficient evidence of anything that verifies who president bozo is? Altered COLB? Backdated draft registration? 1.5 million spent on quashing legal challenges? His sister was born in Indonesia, she has a COLB from Hawaii as well. So I'm crazy according to CY because some people have a problem with the federal reserve scam and obviously others who don't accept fake documents are like minded wackos. As if anyone in osamas administration cares about your "legitimate criticisms". How about putting up on your site both sides of the evidence...aah forget it. Anyone that won't agree with you is some kind of freak.
Posted by: ron at February 09, 2010 05:43 PM (cwBuu)
17
1.) What is the legal definition of a Natural Born Citizen? (two citizen parents + born here?)
2.) Does The One fit that definition? (one citizen parent, probably born here?)
If I wanted to hide something, but claim I was revealing it and simultaneously limit the investigation into it, would I:
a.) Reveal it to one or more of the major news networks -or-
b.) Reveal it to an unknown, Joe Miller, at hole-in-the-wall web site factcheck.org?
If I wanted to reveal something in a fashion where it could be fully explored by the public, would I:
a.) Reveal it to one of the major news networks -or-
b.) Reveal it to an unknown Joe Miller at hole-in-the-wall web site factcheck.org?
I'm not saying he's not an NBC, but I am saying I don't know, neither do you, and it's a legitimate question to ask.
Posted by: scp at February 09, 2010 10:11 PM (dRX4b)
18
The funniest thing about the birthers, including the Hillary ones, is that it's a more legitimate accusation for John McCain, and that's what it probably started out as.
Senator McCain was born in Panama on whis father's ship but the Senate unanimously voted to clarify his status as an NBC a few years ago. Hillary supporters were probably planning to use it if she won the primary, but decided getting to the Federal election was more important, so they made some crap up about obama being born in Kenya or Indonesia or something
Posted by: MAModerate at February 10, 2010 11:53 AM (/O2Yg)
19
"Senator McCain was born in Panama on whis father's ship" Ship????
Posted by: davod at February 10, 2010 01:10 PM (GUZAT)
20
McCain III was not born on a ship, but at a U.S. naval base hospital in the Canal Zone.
SCP,
the legal definition of natural born is real complicated. you have to be born in the U.S. Period. Parents residency status is immaterial. That is why pregnant illegals risk sneaking into the country to have "anchor babies."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 10, 2010 01:22 PM (WjpSC)
21
thanks for correcting me
i knew he was born in Panama, i just guessed at the details. My bad
Posted by: MAModerate at February 10, 2010 03:32 PM (/O2Yg)
22
CY, maybe. I've also seen people who write that there's a distinction between a native citizen (born in US) vs. Natural Born Citizen (born in US + 2 parent citizens). I don't have an opinion on whether that's right or not, but I think it's plausible. I'd sure like to have an answer from the courts.
How 'bout my other point? Do you honestly think Joe Miller at factcheck.org would be someone's first choice for disclosing a document to silence the rumors if there's nothing to hide?
Posted by: scp at February 10, 2010 10:44 PM (dRX4b)
23
Whatever his citizenship status, Obama is going about proving that he's just barely American.
Posted by: Locomotive Breath at February 11, 2010 08:39 AM (tuuQT)
24
The problem - as I see it - with the 'natural born' requirement is that the Constitution provides no means to enforce that requirement, and Congress has not passed legislation for enforcing that requirement.
It seems to be left to the state officials who approve the ballots in each state and the Federal electors. And of course, Congress' certification of the election
So if you want to do something about that, get Congress to set up a body to pronounce how the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates can meet the requirements and whether they have.
This dog won't hunt otherwise - 'cause its long dead.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at February 12, 2010 05:14 PM (nlRuk)
25
the legal definition of natural born is real complicated. you have to be born in the U.S. Period. Parents residency status is immaterial.
Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. Your last sentence is true. But, a natural born citizen can be born in a foreign country if one parent is a US citizen.
There are two kinds of US citizens, natural born and naturalized. There is no other legal definition of citizenship. Period.
Millions of US citizens have been born abroad with one or both parents being US citizens. Those citizens born abroad to US citizen parents have not had to go through the naturalization process. Therefore, they are considered to be natural born citizens.
Posted by: Dude at February 12, 2010 10:26 PM (5gxhz)
26
What's the deal? Bigjournalism, redstate, and confederateyankee have all recently decided to dump big time on "birthers".
#1 Freerepublic.com has the best piece on why bho is not a natural born citizen and it has only to do with his father, not his birth certificate.
#2 If Max Clelland, can demand and get (with the full support of the press) George W. Bush's National Guard paystubs which are totally insignificant and decades old, then the Obama should be forced to show his pertinent documents. And if the standard is paystubs from the national guard, then anything can be requested.
Posted by: Jayne at February 14, 2010 11:09 PM (dwIL0)
27
Give it up, Jayne. You're never going to get what you want in regards to the BC. Even if you did, you still wouldn't be satisfied.
Obama has met every legal standard required by law proving his status as a natural born citizen. He is under no obligation to "prove" anything at all to you or to others who question his status. He has has already done all of the proving that he needs to do.
If you or anyone else has evidence to prove otherwise, our court system is open for you to pursue your challenge. In fact, I would suggest that it's your patriotic duty to do so if you have such evidence. Pool your resources with other like minded individuals, hire a competent attorney to take your case and file suit in Federal Court.
Posted by: Dude at February 15, 2010 12:27 AM (5gxhz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NPR Drone Hopeful That Bush Billboard is Ironic
I find his attempt at deflection amusing:
At first glance, it would seem to be from some person or group who isn't thrilled by President Barack Obama's performance so far -- unless it's a more ironic message from those who didn't think too much of Bush and want to remind voters about him.
The message he is referring to is a billboard along the side of I-35 that contains the photo of a smiling George W. Bush and the simple question, "Miss me yet?"
The message is long-running internet meme against the perceived incompetencies of Barack Obama's administration, with variations of the saying with the same image of Bush being
very simple to find online. Several minutes of Internet research would have should that this message is firmly directed against the Obama Administration.
Apparently, due diligence isn't to be performed if it obstructs your goal of muddying the waters in favor of "your guy."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:29 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
YES, we miss W. He was not the best president we ever had, but he was a lot better than the incompetent boob we now have!
Deflection - ha!
Posted by: Warren_Beatty at February 09, 2010 03:19 PM (RKUr7)
2
Memmott was probably too busy servicing obumble to do any research for his screed. Typical lib/prog/socialist behavior in the media arm of the dnc.
Posted by: emdfl at February 09, 2010 09:08 PM (6uumz)
3
I miss Bush. My cousin met him in Reno a couple of weeks ago and told him the same thing. But the President said he didn't miss the job. Too bad. Obama is leaving a stain on the US that is going to prove indelible.
Posted by: mytralman at February 10, 2010 02:21 PM (q8Y4l)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 08, 2010
Murtha Dead
It's a shame. I was hoping he'd last long enough to at least get indicted, and apologize to those Marines he smeared.
From the comments: "I wonder if Obama will speak of his time as a member of the Marine Corpse"
Update: ABSCAM Jack.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:51 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Good Riddance. With Kennedy gone we now only need Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, and Feinstein to finally die. What a wonderful world it would be. Murtha was, probably, the most corrupt of the bunch however. Of course this will cost my home state money. Oh well.
Posted by: Tim in Philly at February 08, 2010 03:00 PM (PnG/3)
2
I wonder if Obama will speak of his time as a member of the Marine Corpse
Posted by: Neo at February 08, 2010 03:11 PM (tE8FB)
3
He might mention it at the next Press Corpse gaggle.
Posted by: D-lo at February 08, 2010 05:55 PM (WV0bV)
4
I wish he would have hung on long enough for the good people of Pennsylvania to boot his ass out of office in November.
What a disgrace of a human being. Good riddance.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at February 08, 2010 09:01 PM (OQEcO)
5
Hit the road, Jack. And don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more...
Posted by: Pablo at February 09, 2010 04:04 PM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Selling Fear and Politics
Because she could not recite the alphabet, Joshua Tabor shoved his daughter face-down into a bowl of water. When authorities came for her, she was found cowering in a closet, covered in scratches and bruises.
Joshua Tabor is mentally ill and an unfit father. No sane person disputes that.
The UK
Daily Mail, however, sensationalizes the brutality with the headline "U.S. soldier 'waterboarded his own daughter, 4, because she couldn't recite alphabet.'"
Tabor's sadistic act—as described by the
Daily Mail itself—isn't waterboarding or remotely similar to it. Tabor's act of brutality was
drowning. Waterboarding, as brutal as it is, only simulates drowning, and is done by professionals in controlled conditions. Tabor could have very easily killed his daughter.
By purposefully mis-characterizing Tabor's brutal act, the
Daily Mail both minimized the life-threatening abuse of his daughter and simultaneously made an (as yet) unfounded correlation between his being a soldier and his suffering some sort of post-combat mental condition, when they did not know at press time if he was ever deployed.
It is cheap political grandstanding from a newspaper that has the obvious goal of warning UK readers that if their soldiers continue to fight in Afghanistan,
their children could be next.
The
Daily Mail should be ashamed of themselves, but they would have to be capable of feeling shame first.
A U.S.-based
version of the story provides both more facts, and less editorializing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:24 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The Brits have given up any pretense of civil rights or manliness.
Posted by: Iman Azol at February 08, 2010 12:54 PM (51hT+)
2
Wow. They sure are giddy to smear servicemen. Here are some comments:
"it is no wonder that some soldiers lose all sense of perspective after what they have seen/been told to do in Iraq and Afghanistan."
"We will be living with the consequences of these wars in our communities for many decades"
"Bet he just loves being in the army and getting a chance to actually kill people."
"Send him out to Iraq on the front line, as far away as possible from that poor girl."
There's only one cause in the mind of a Liberal. Just like with their Fort Hood Massacre.
Posted by: brando at February 08, 2010 01:43 PM (IPGju)
3
Sir, it is obvious you haven't a clue what waterboarding is. As a SERE school graduate I do. You waste the readers time.
Posted by: thomas stubblefield at February 08, 2010 08:24 PM (MB5dH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 07, 2010
The Night The TEA Party Ended
I think he's on to something.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:35 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"I think he's on something."
Fixed it for you.
Posted by: Dell at February 07, 2010 10:10 AM (o0L0L)
2
Sort of a "who peed in my tea cup?" attitude. Is this guy an America First isolationist? Sorry, but it is a bigger and much more dangerous world than that and I don't think we have the luxury of insulating ourselves and ignoring the rest of the world.
Posted by: zhombre at February 07, 2010 10:14 AM (FBJBT)
3
Perhaps the only real error that was made involved the use of the word "convention". Or, better yet, what we Americans consider a "convention". Wiki describes it as thus:
"In politics, a political convention is a meeting of a political party, typically to select party candidates.
In the United States, a political convention usually refers to a presidential nominating convention, but it can also refer to state, county, or congressional district nominating conventions."
This particular event would be better described as a gathering of people with similar political ideas.
The writer goes out of his way to tell us that Sarah Palin offered nothing by way of a "plan" or positions on the usual and customary political agenda, but it wasn't designed to do that at all! In fact, it was designed to be just the opposite.
What the Tea Party "Convention" actually involved was a gathering of lots of people with like political thoughts and feelings; the exchange of ideas to promote political candidates who would advance those political opinions and ideas and how best to go about doing just that.
To that end, Sarah Palin did exactly as she should have done, and was expected to do.
This particular gathering was NOT, in the purist sense, a political convention - designed to set party policy, nominate candidates, etc., etc., but they chose to call it that anyway.
When the time comes to nominate candidates, set a party platform and do most all of the things a "political convention" does, you can rest assured that those things will be addressed, if the political situation warrants.
The establishment in Washington has refused to recognize any opinion other than their own. Perhaps today they better understand that much of America is VERY unhappy with them and the warning has been issued. Listen up or Pack up!
Posted by: Dell at February 07, 2010 10:46 AM (o0L0L)
4
I honestly don't see the Tea Party going anywhere. Here's why: everyone wants smaller government. Even leftists want smaller government. They want to scrap the fleet and halve the army.
The issue is that everyone has things they consider vital. Since the Constitution is dead, we can't use that to say what programs are allowed and not. So we get is a whole country full of people, each of them with a pet program or project, and so they all get funded.
The Tea Party trends older. Go up there and give a speech calling for the end of the crushing entitlement programs that are bankrupting this country: Social Security and Medicare. See how you're received.
At this point the GOP and the Democrats are both stuck. The old are too big a voting bloc, too powerful to cross. You cannot end SS or Medicare, but they are the problem. So the GOP proposes ending earmarks or cutting discretionary spending. The Dems, well, they throw their hands up and shovel as much cash to their supporters as they can before the roof falls in.
I don't see a way out. It is political suicide to fix the system, which means you can lie about your plans (the Obama method)and then be shut down by public opinion or you can be honest and never even win the election.
Posted by: Britt at February 07, 2010 02:07 PM (DcWbe)
5
The Tea Party isn't a party, it's a bunch of people who are sick of big gov't and corrupt politicians.
Getting rid of corrupt politicians is a bi-partisan affair, but getting rid of big gov't is a Republican affair.
The tea partier want America to be small-gov't types, so the tea party has to take over the GOP, the other way around ain't gonna happen.
The Tea Party protests weren't a top down thing, they were a bunch of people who wanted Washington to know they're pissed off and who heard about a protest they could go to.
The Tax Day Tea Party in DC was a lunch-time affair. There was probably no more than a couple thousand there at one time, but it was a working day crowd who came on their lunch hours. So it wasn't the same 1,500 people standing in the rain at 1 who were there at 11:30.
They didn't go because they were card-carrying members of a Tea Party, they went because they were pissed off.
There is no Tea Party. There are only tea partiers.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 07, 2010 03:24 PM (XNrtO)
6
If you really truly believe he "is on to something", I've been reading the wrong blog.
And you didn't listen to (or read a transcript of) her speech.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at February 07, 2010 05:03 PM (OmeRL)
7
I think you're wrong.
It's a movement not a party.
The Sons of Liberty weren't a party either.
Posted by: maxx at February 07, 2010 08:30 PM (bFNvP)
8
He's right that the GOP would prefer to co-opt the Tea Party rather than be co-opted by it, and that Palin seems to be too much in the McCain mold to be its natural leader. But it's premature to say that the Tea Party is dead.
Posted by: flenser at February 07, 2010 08:41 PM (JMQHF)
9
Veeshir nailed it! Tere's no "tea Party' , thank goodness! We've already seenthe destructive power of third party whacko-ism, when Ross Perot hand Slick Willie the White House on two occasions!
As Sarah noted, Tea Partiers need to seize the Republican Party and turn out the Countryclub bluebloods and RINOs and CINOs.
Posted by: Earl T at February 07, 2010 10:29 PM (tbxAn)
10
I am not sure how Sarah Palin can "hijack" something she was invited to. She specifically said the movement was about ideas and should not be about personalities. She did the exact opposite of hijacking. She encouraged the grassroots movement to continue as a grassroots movement and to avoid becoming centralized with a single leader. Is she popular with the Tea Party people? Wildly, but not because she's hijacked a leadership role. It's because she's essentially their most visible member.
Posted by: OCBill at February 08, 2010 01:33 AM (p28Ei)
11
"Getting rid of corrupt politicians is a bi-partisan affair"
There is no evidence Democrats have any interest in that. Rather, there is plenty of evidence they consider corruption their natural right.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at February 08, 2010 08:38 AM (ZJ/un)
12
I agree with Maxx'x comment. And I also agree with this one from the commentary on this issue from Uncle Jimbo's website:
The Tea Party movement needs to be extremely careful not to become a tool of Sarah, Newt, or any other politician/party that is trying to latch onto it. Politicians too often are opportunists, usually for their own gain, and I distrust any persons motives when I hear she is also slated to speak at the Nevada and Boston Mass Tea Partys.
I undertsand she gave some great talking points at the convention and good for her and the crowd if that’s what they wanted/expected from her speaking. By being the key speaker at a number of these events, this movement runs the risk of being attached to her star and if that happens this ground swell of voter who are pissed off and angry at their government, will undoubtedly lose followers and momentum.
Posted by: Son of Liberty at February 08, 2010 10:59 AM (260f2)
13
I'm 43. Get rid of medicare and social insecurity tomorrow and I will cheer. Next question.
Posted by: Iman Azol at February 08, 2010 01:07 PM (51hT+)
14
I am one of those people who have been a Republican my entire life. I am also someone who has watched the TEA party movement with a lot of interest because I truly sympathize with them. I feel betrayed by all of our political leadership no matter what party they are members of.
Because of my interest in the TEA party movement I have read most of the articles that I have found about it over the last year or so. I have come to the conclusion that beneath all of the rhetoric that the fault lines over the movement in general, and Sarah Palin in particular, are religious. I am what is usually described as an evangelical Christian even though I do not use that term myself (a lot of people use it as an insult). I have come to believe that it is evangelical Christians such as me who like Sarah Palin. I haven’t, nor will I try to, define those who seem to get queasy at the mere mention of her name.
Whenever I see an article like the one you link to by A.C. Kleinheider I will try and check out some of the writer’s previous columns to get a sense of their worldview. Well, Mr. Kleinheider seems to be someone who would be much more comfortable with, say, a Christopher Buckley Republican than someone like me. It seems that Mr. Kleinheider has generated his fair share of controversy over the years but I found one of the comments after this article to be most interesting:
Let’s see. We’re talking about the same guy who says that Vladimir Putin “eh, not such a bad fella”. Probably just a coincidence that Russia is the third most dangerous country in the world for jouranlist but no…Putin’s far too smart for that.
That fired, foul-mouth, anti-Christian John Edwards blogger “Amanda Marcotte is a woman of honor” for the noble act of falling on her sword rather forcing Silky Pony to be a man and make an executive decision and fire her. Even though she complained ad nauseum about it afterwards. Honor, it seems, has an expiration date.
Who practically had to have a restraining order against him to keep him from throwing himself at Harold Ford Jr. Who voted for Ford because a deranged leftard nutbar like Chris Lugo wasn’t politically savvy enough for his tastes.
“This dreadlocked fiend has neither the presentation nor the authentic leftist views that I can get down with.”
Edwards pimping his wife’s breast cancer to tweak his failing candidacy. Tut, tut you cynics. Silky is man at his most man. But mention Romney’s wife’s illness and you’re just pathetic.
“Hey, remember, our candidate has a dying wife, too! Don’t forget us. Goodness, that’s pathetic. Let the Edward have their specific sympathy today.”
There’s more. Plenty more. Little cartoons showing Condoleeza Rice as being a white woman in black face.
WKRN’s “conservative” sociopath who ingratiates himself by brown-nosing leftists.
And as long as he “toes their line”, they are more than happy to pay him to do it.
By smantix on 03.23.07 9:28 pm
Well, if that is A.C. Kleinheider then Sarah Palin must have done something right.
Glenn
Posted by: Glenn at February 08, 2010 04:11 PM (o9MxP)
15
I have come to believe that it is evangelical Christians such as me who like Sarah Palin.
That seems to be the case. But just as Bush let your down, Palin will do the same. Your enemies enemy is not neccessarily your friend.
Posted by: flenser at February 08, 2010 06:30 PM (M7skp)
16
"cut social programs, especially those that protect the elderly, the young, the ill?"...These are not specified in the Constitution as a federal area of jurisdiction, so YES, cut them.
"cut subsidies that have been around since the First World War, but most of those are directed towards agriculture"....These are not specified in the Constitution as a federal area of jurisdiction, so YES, cut them.
Nothing is stopping each state from having it's own programs in these areas.
"The US spends more per capita on its military than on anything else".....That is one of the few areas defined as a federal jurisdiction. Although I have a problem with some of the costs, I have no problem with the US spending on its military.
Posted by: REB at February 08, 2010 10:10 PM (K78C6)
17
"I have come to believe that it is evangelical Christians such as me who like Sarah Palin."
I'm agnostic, and I like Palin.
"The US spends more per capita on its military than on anything else."
Wrong. We spend more on social programs like Social Insecurity, Medicare/Medicaid. Look at the entire budget, not just the "discretionary" budget.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at February 08, 2010 11:27 PM (n2wxa)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 04, 2010
Gotta Love That Vaunted Harvard Education
There's a world of difference between a corpsman and a corpse-man.
For most people.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:09 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Harvard? You mean a shuck 'n jive affirmative action success story. B+.
Posted by: twolaneflash at February 04, 2010 08:35 PM (svkhS)
2
I really dislike the way this phony looks down at people - raises his chin so that his eyes go down on you especially when he then goes and butchers the language of the country and, worse yet, the military of the country he's supposed to defend. Ugh I can't stand the a-holes who voted for this guy.
Posted by: Jayne at February 04, 2010 10:56 PM (dwIL0)
3
Harvard / real world. A world of difference.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at February 04, 2010 10:58 PM (qjRSd)
4
Harvard is a good law school--when you have to actually work to stay there. If you are there because you have the right skin color...not so much.
Posted by: iconoclast at February 04, 2010 11:00 PM (O8ebz)
5
Not only that (and he actually says "corpse-man" again, a few seconds later, he calls the corpsman first Christian, then Christopher.
How did this guy get the reputation for being so smart?
Posted by: Stoutcat at February 04, 2010 11:22 PM (8LmGF)
6
Don't forget that in Chicago, the corpses get to vote.
Posted by: Neo at February 05, 2010 12:31 AM (tE8FB)
7
It's even worse than you think. People with the rank of corpsman serve in the White House. President would have been introduced, with their title, by permanent WH staffers.
Worse, lets pretend that Obama rehearsed this speech. His staff listened to him recite the speech. Obama would have mispronounced the word then as well. Why didn't anyone say anything?
Secret Service can't speak up? I wonder how long the current President has been saying 'corpse-man'
to the people who serve him.
Posted by: Jack at February 05, 2010 01:11 AM (bvDV5)
8
I think all the head turning to look at the teleprompters is scrambling his brain. He must get really dizzy during a spreech.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at February 05, 2010 07:51 AM (+LRPE)
9
Come on. This is petty and a non-issue. Conservatives would do wise not to demonize education; it makes the educated among them "no longer part of the group".
Posted by: Steve Schwab at February 05, 2010 08:29 AM (ckoi7)
10
ya Steve and the libs didnt trash Bush every day as being stuped!
Posted by: Rich at February 05, 2010 09:04 AM (siQqy)
11
Maybe when he says Corpse-Man it's wishful thinking. Or gloating. It couldn't be error. Gods don't make mistakes, do they?
Posted by: brando at February 05, 2010 09:30 AM (IPGju)
12
The real secret of the teleprompter is that it gives our genius president cover when he makes these little affirmative action screw-ups: he can always claim that it's not him, it was those ignoramuses who wrote the teleprompter copy...
"See, my little teleprompter gerbils should have entered the phonetic spelling of 'corpsman' instead of trying to confuse me with that neo-French military jargon."
Hey, Tarheel: Why is it that Bambi still has a neck with all that back and forth exercising he does?
Posted by: Texas Pete at February 05, 2010 11:20 AM (giU14)
13
Consider that he is the comander of the military. It seems he would have learned a little about who he commands. I think this petty little thing will really tick off the military guys I know.
Posted by: David at February 05, 2010 02:01 PM (tRxsX)
14
I'm pretty sure Obama's book smart enough to make Harvard solo.
He's just not very intelligent
Posted by: MAModerate at February 05, 2010 02:22 PM (nuh/4)
15
So he cannot pronounce corpsman correctly, yet he flies on a "Marine-corpse" helicopter and talks to the "press corpse" at the White House. Strange he doesn't have trouble with those pronunciations.
Ignorance, stupidity, or studied insult? You make the call.
Posted by: Just Sayin' at February 05, 2010 08:45 PM (XUpm+)
16
Like most of you, I don't like this dude. On the other hand, despite his poor pronunciation, I have a hard time disagreeing with his message. Does that make me a prophet of satan?
Posted by: Mescalero at February 05, 2010 11:08 PM (e7NAO)
17
The blogs devoted to Bushisms wrapped up way too early.
Posted by: megapotamus at February 06, 2010 07:43 AM (LWhHe)
18
Ah, and an education bought and paid for with the color of his skin and his grandparents green, brought to you via a tokenized American edukation sistem.
Posted by: Doom at February 06, 2010 08:25 AM (x/3mH)
19
I have worked with Harvard graduates for about 40 years in different occupations. I have found that the Ivy League education is very much over rated. About the only thing that such an education can give you is entrance into the networking of our power grid. In some businesses, I have seen a token Harvard graduate accepted only for his contacts. Then two people had to be assigned to watch him for mistakes. In the world of medicine, I would avoid an Ivy League graduate like the plague. They will be more prone to a higher morbidity and mortality. Most of the time they can not function without the best of instruments and assistance. In our area, we go for LSU graduates. They can do anything, do it fast and are not imperious.
Posted by: David at February 06, 2010 12:59 PM (tRxsX)
20
Have you all forgotten the rampant Bushisms of the last 8 years!? Drunky Chimpy McStagger butchered the language, leaving a verbal deficit in his wake that this administration has labored mightily to overcome. If an egregious mistake pops up now and then, well, that's merely the Legacy of GWB
Posted by: zhombre at February 06, 2010 05:22 PM (FBJBT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
I Guess They Don't Throw Fruit Anymore
DC Caller's Jim Treacher was injured in a hit-and-run yesterday:
I was more than halfway there when a black SUV made an illegal left turn and hit me head-on. I absolutely had the right of way. I yelled something like, "Are you really doing this?" as it hit me before I could move. I landed on my face on the street and smashed my glasses and scraped my hand and immediately I knew something was wrong with my left knee. I lay there screaming and cursing for I don't know how long, and a crowd of people gathered and told me to hold still.
Treacher's knee was broken. Pretty rough criticism, if you ask me.
According to witnesses, the vehicle that made the illegal left turn, ran Treacher down, and then sped away without stopping, belonged to the Secret Service (update:
State Department security?).
Watch out, Jon Stewart.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:23 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Shocked but not surprised.
Posted by: brando at February 04, 2010 03:53 PM (IPGju)
2
I wonder what State Department emergency the driver was responding to.
I hope Treacher recovers well and quickly.
Posted by: Penfold at February 04, 2010 04:23 PM (1PeEC)
3
Back in the duelling days of the 1700s and 1800s, a pistol shot to the knee was considered one of the most painful injuries a duellist could endure. I hope that Mr. Treacher has better painkilling meds than were available back in that day, and I wish him a speedy recovery.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at February 04, 2010 07:24 PM (Aaj8s)
4
Not wishing to sound like I am excusing the idiot driver of that vehicle;
howsomever, the State Department has a Bureau of Diplomatic Security known as the Diplomatic Security Service. DSS is charged with providing the protective details for everyone other than the POTUS and VPOTUS. All visits by foreign heads of state are protected by DSS agents as are visits by dignitaries to American Embassies and Consulates around the world. For the most part they are all very profesional and dedicated personnel. It appears that one of them may have screwed the pooch here.
On the other hand it is not unknown for non-agents to be driving DSS provided vehicles on occasion.
Posted by: emdfl at February 04, 2010 07:48 PM (8pwCb)
5
Running down a pedestrian and leaving the scene of the accident before the police arrive is a felony. Except maybe for our elite nobles and their cronies, of course.
Read how much farther this has gone and see if you can keep your systolic blood pressure under 200....
Posted by: iconoclast at February 04, 2010 08:50 PM (O8ebz)
6
To add insult to injury, the police gave Treacher a citation for jaywalking at an intersection 4 blocks from where the SUV hit him.
In Obama's Washington, even the "cover-up" is done badly.
Posted by: Neo at February 05, 2010 12:35 AM (tE8FB)
7
Now we know why the collective media is so 'supportive' of Obama. It's submit or die.
Posted by: Jerry in Detroit at February 05, 2010 01:38 PM (cpnKw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 03, 2010
Apology Unacceptable
As I noted yesterday, Tim Shriver of the Special Olympics simply isn't in a position to accept Rahm Emanuel's apology for calling the netroots "f—ing retarded."
Thanks to Allahpundit, I now know that
Shriver gets this, even Emanuel isn't bright enough to figure it out on his own, and
apologized again.
He's... uh...
Nevermind.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:39 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I have to say I'm enjoying a leftist being hoisted by his own petard and crucified by the lunatic PC culture his ilk have spawned.
Posted by: ECM at February 04, 2010 11:18 AM (nYKDd)
2
What we need to do is object to every word in the dictionary and thus eliminate the spoken word.
Posted by: David at February 04, 2010 06:22 PM (tRxsX)
3
Believe me, David, we're probably going to need every word in the dictionary to express our horror and disgust at what's going on in the present administration's idea of 'democracy.'
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at February 04, 2010 07:28 PM (Aaj8s)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Mixed Messages
So I've noted the approving left-wing applauding of Admiral Mullen's stand on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," allowing gays to open serve in the military. For the record, Mullen's thoughts on the matter more eloquently reflect my own general belief that we should thank and applaud anyone willing to serve in our nation's military.
But have you noticed that many of the
same characters that applaud the possible end of DADT are those who have stood solidly against our servicemen being used in actual wars?
Somehow, I doubt their motives.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:01 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Shouldn't the question be how this effects morale amongst our service men and women? If it's determined to have a negative effect is it still ok if it leads to more American military deaths?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at February 03, 2010 08:40 PM (MxQFN)
2
My military experience is a bit dated, but I am concerned about GLBT NCOs imposing their wills on young enlisted folks. I've had folks relate personal experiences with this. As far as I know, ADM Mullen has never had to share close quarters with someone who has total control over his daily life, duty assignments, and exposure to combat. Don't tell me that there are procedures in place to report and prevent this. There were procedures in place to report and prevent MAJ Hasan's radical Islamic hatefest and no one would do anything.
Posted by: Mikentexas at February 04, 2010 09:39 AM (7nc0l)
3
Don't ask don't tell should be the philosophy we all live by in America. I don't want to know what sexual proclivities people have. Don't shove it in my face and I won't hold it against you. But definitely keep it out of the military. What the heck is happening when men who are ex-military just up and go all wimpy, let's just honor whoever, blah blah...It's not right to ask men to live under strenuous situations and oh by the way there's some homosexuals in the foxhole with you, now we'd like you all to live comfortably together, k?
Posted by: Jayne at February 04, 2010 11:01 PM (dwIL0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"You Lie! " Government May Lose 824,000 Jobs In Revision
The U.S. may lose 824,000 jobs when the government releases its annual revision to employment data on Feb. 5, showing the labor market was in worse shape during the recession than known at the time.
Drudge cites this
Bloomberg claim and claims that the government's original data had been purposefully manipulated to show things were better than what they really were.
Really? The same people who encouraged climate change scientists to exaggerate data for their political benefit would do the same with economic data? I'm
shocked.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:36 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis revise their data on a regular schedule, producing 'advance' estimates which are then amended at later dates. I doubt there is anything particularly untoward here.
Posted by: Art Deco at February 03, 2010 09:25 PM (lCK/O)
2
The White House sees this coming ...WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A White House spokesman said on Thursday it was possible that a jobs report due on Friday could include a revision in monthly data showing more jobs were lost in the recession than previously been thought. 800,000 jobs is something like 0.8% making funemployment 10.8%
Posted by: Neo at February 05, 2010 12:44 AM (tE8FB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Rough Audit? Probably Not.
Over at the John Locke Foundation's Right Angles blog, Jon Ham asks what I think about the Internal Revenue Service's intended purchase of 60 shotguns:
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.
The firearm in question does not seem to exist on Remington's Law Enforcement
web site (at least by that model number), but the specs sound somewhat similar to a variation of the Wilson Combat/Scattergun Technologies
Border Patrol Model.
I don't think there is any reason to worry about rank and file IRS agents showing up at your door with these shotguns. Instead, they seem like they would likely be used by the
Criminal Investigation agents that focus on "Illegal Source Financial Crimes; and Narcotics Related and Counterterrorism Financial Crimes." They would presumably be raiding terrorist cells, drug cartels, and organized crime, er, organizations that participate in money laundering, tax evasion, and other socially unacceptable behavior under their jurisdiction who tend to go heavily armed.
But I'd still be nice to all IRS agents, just in case.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:30 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I got no love for anyone who gets their daily bread with a job in armed robbery. I've prayed for my enemies, but never for an IRS employee. May they rot in hell, enemies all of The Constitution and The Republic. I do pray for the day I'll see the IRS aboloished and it's 100,000+ parasites on the street begging.
Posted by: twolaneflash at February 03, 2010 11:34 AM (svkhS)
2
See, there is only one point to make. Come to my door with weapons drawn and see what happens. I promise at least one death other than mine. Is the job really worth all that? I notice of late many deaths due to law enforcement fear. I you are a'scairt get another job. There are many of us citizens who ain't a'scairt. Draw down on me and see.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at February 03, 2010 11:34 AM (brIiu)
3
I've had a couple of bad experiences with the IRS and won them all. In each and every case, the IRS was in error, but that didn't stop them from seizing my bank account with checks outstanding, seizing my paycheck, and putting me through the grinder to prove them wrong. The first time, the IRS was changing to computers, and didn't enter my return into the computer. Despite me spending the day at the IRS office with a copy of my return and of the refund check I had already received, the IRS employees demanded I go to another office, fill out more forms, then wait weeks for them to release my bank account and paychecks. I turned my then two year old daughter loose in a room of agents, and after a day in hard plastic chairs, she started ripping stuff off the desks and distributing it on the floor. My face let them know they best not say one word to that child, for my wrath was great. It took a lot of angry screaming, to the point I was expecting to be hauled out in chains, but four or five supervisory levels up, I got to the person who could sign a one-page form and release my money. It took her ten seconds or less. The IRS is an evil empire.
My next encounter was a three year audit. Not being a fool, I've always left my returns with the IRS "owing me" money. I took my three children with me to the IRS office, sat them up against the wall with their toys in the agent's office and told them to watch their government at work. After the finishing the first year, with the IRS sending me an additional refund check with interest, the agent said he would let the other two years' audits slide. I said "like hell he would". I did all the work to prepare for a 3 year audit and by God I would have it. The IRS sent me 3 checks, one for each year plus interest. I've never heard from the IRS again. I truly and deeply hate that cancer on the soul of America.
Posted by: twolaneflash at February 03, 2010 11:56 AM (svkhS)
4
They won't come to the door with them openly. They'll be in their nerd briefcases.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 03, 2010 12:38 PM (voyJF)
5
sounds a lot like how I outfitted my 870.....
Posted by: rumcrook at February 03, 2010 01:01 PM (kE0L/)
6
I will put my Mossberg Maverick 88 up against their stuff any time.
Theirs hold 4 mine holds 8.
Posted by: 1sttofight at February 06, 2010 10:27 PM (+2Y7s)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 02, 2010
A Trumped-Up Appeal to Authority
Ben Smith notes that Sarah Palin wants Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel fired for calling progressive critics "F—ing retarded" at a weekly strategy session.
Emanuel seems to think he's absolved of the insensitivity of his comment because he called Tim Shriver, chairman and CEO of the Special Olympics, to apologize.
I'm sure Shriver was gracious in taking Emanuel's call, but who elected Shriver to a position where he has the authority to absolve Emanuel for his insult?
I find the White House's attempt to dismiss this juvenile outburst with a faux-sincere call far more insulting than the initial offense. It asserts that Shriver is somehow a spokesman for an entire slice of the American population, and that his acceptance should nullify the anger of families and caregivers upset over his choice of words.
The Obama Administration has the ability to make bland speeches and write economy-crippling budgets, but it does not have the power to pass out absolute moral authority to individuals they intend to use as props.
2/4 Update: Heh. One of the rocket scientists at left-wing snark blog
Sadly, No has shrieked "Ah-
hah!" because he discovered that if you Google this site for the word "retarded," you get 80 hits.
Oh, the hypocrisy!
Of course, if you actually
look at the the search she ran, you'll see that the vast majority of the hits were from comments people left on the blog—and the majority of those came from liberals.
I didn't bother to read all the results, but scanning over them, it appears that the only times I used the word was to use the
verb form to denote something or someone with slowed mental acuity or growth, such as
this example that they cited (and of course truncated):
I've long thought that the mental acuity of the average leftist was highly retarded by a wall of anti-Bush agi-prop (hence the tagline, "liberalism is a persistent vegetative state"
, but even still, I was blown away by the blatant paranoia, open delusions, and thinly-veiled hatred of American soldiers manifested on liberal blog Talk Left, regarding the killing of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The only other time I've used the term that I can find was when I criticized one of the local news media outlets for using the verb version in a way I thought was
somewhat insensitive.
In essence,
Sadly No! based an
entire blog entry on the facts that:
- they lack the reading comprehension to understand my problem with Rahm Emanuel wasn't so much his use of the term "retarded," but how he sought to cover himself politically with an appeal to authority
- they are either too lazy to differentiate bloggers from blog commenters, or are too dim to understand the difference, and
- they can't can't tell a noun from a verb.
I don't expect much from the formulaic schtick writing of
Sadly, No, but this is a sad effort, even for them.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:01 PM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Mr. Emanuel shouldn't have apologized at all. Sarah Palin is a sad and desperate and opportunistic woman I think.
Can't she go play word police back in Alaska? We're all full up with stupid here.
Posted by: happyfeet at February 02, 2010 05:41 PM (qXYKO)
2
Let's not forget the Palin hating Liberals wanted to force an abortion on her and to burn down her church. Yikes.
Liberals know no bounds.
Happyfeet, simmer down now, take a breath, and realize that Sarah did nothing wrong in this situation. The horrific people are wrong. Once you put your rage aside, you'll start to feel ashamed. That will be the first step. Standing up for good people who aren't able to do it for themselves isn't wrong; it's noble.
Try to be more like me.
Posted by: brando at February 02, 2010 06:04 PM (IPGju)
3
She wasn't standing up for anyone, brando. She was trying to get attention. That's what Fox News babe Sarah Palin does. It's who she is. But it's always a maximally self-serving exercise.
Posted by: happyfeet at February 02, 2010 06:11 PM (qXYKO)
4
With what is known of Emmanuel, his employment in the White House is an indication that Barack Obama is indifferent to the help.
The cartoonist Scott Adams, in his capacity as an alumnus of the Crocker National Bank and as a correspondent of many in the corporate world, offered this as suggestion number one for the aspirant good manager: "fire the assholes...they may on occasion have valuable skills, but the trade-off is almost never worth it." The President did not heed Mr. Adams' advice; the President had prior to his inauguration no experience as a superintendent of an apparatus not created to serve him; maybe there's a connection.
At the very least, Rahm Emmanuel's appointment should have been held in abeyance until he explained in loving detail just what he, a man with no previous history of salaried employement in a commercial enterprise, did to merit that eight-figure sum of money he was paid by Wasserstein, Perella.
Posted by: Art Deco at February 02, 2010 07:23 PM (lCK/O)
5
I don't care that Rahmbo called them retards. They are retards. Which is why we call them leftards--because they are retarded leftists.
Retarded is a perfectly good insult. While I rather like Palin, I dislike this attempt to play word police. We get way too much of that from the leftards as it is.
Posted by: iconoclast at February 02, 2010 09:16 PM (lvx3I)
6
I like Palin and dislike Emanual, but she appears to have gotten hysterical over a choice of words, not actions. The presidency is not for her, unfortunately.
Posted by: mytralman at February 02, 2010 09:29 PM (q8Y4l)
Posted by: daleyrocks at February 02, 2010 09:59 PM (3O5/e)
8
Oh, I've used the word too. And I don't have a huge problem with it. What I have a problem with is people who are omniscient and relentlessly PC, actively and intentionally breaking their own rules.
There are people who believe that her mentally handicapped child should be put to death, and that her teenaged daughter should be raped. I personally don't think that's a good way to treat citizens. If I were her, I'd strongly put goons in their place too.
Actually hysterical? I don't think she was. And the focus shouldn't be on her, as she did nothing wrong.
Remember that "nappy headed hos", is a perfectly acceptable firable offense for a lowly shock-jock.
At the very least Obama can say that Rahm "acted stupidly", and it can be a "teachable moment".
Posted by: brando at February 02, 2010 10:45 PM (LjEkE)
9
I'm no fan of Rahm but I don't see the insult to millions with Down's Syndrome. He didn't call them retards - which I would find offensive, he used the word retarded to describe their overall mental faculties. To see someone who considers themselves to be a conservative, call for the resignation of the Chief of Staff over this comment is pathetic. You can't be a conservative and then not support free speech. Is Rahm an idiot for making this statement? A cretin? Probably. Now am I going to be banned from this site for using words that used to be routinely used to describe people with deficits in their metal capabilities? PC speech has become ridiculous and we have allowed many, many words to be pre-empted and used as tools against the majority by minority groups whose feelings get hurt by neutral words.
Posted by: PENNY at February 03, 2010 12:37 PM (5sGLG)
10
"You can't be a conservative and then not support free speech."
Who is saying that Congress should pass a law abridging the freedom of speech, in relation to this topic?
Posted by: brando at February 03, 2010 02:27 PM (IPGju)
11
Absolutely Rahm should apologize. He insulted every Down's Syndrome and developmentally disabled person by equating them with progressives/liberals.
You go Sarah!
Posted by: Tom J. at February 04, 2010 01:37 AM (xiby+)
12
check out this google search of 'confederate yankee, retarded'. it appears that the good Mr Owens has used this 'slur' quite a few times himself.
http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS357US357&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=site:confederateyankee.mu.nu+retarded
so Bob, are you just a hysterical hypocrite, or are you retarded?
Posted by: but seriously at February 04, 2010 08:50 AM (rGzVh)
13
but seriously,
When did I ever say I didn't use the term? I just said it was an insensitive and juvenile insult, not that I don't use it myself on occasion.
READING IS FUNDAMENTAL.
My beef with Rahm is that he tried to apologize to one person to gain absolution, when that person didn't have the authority to accept that apology... a fact that Tim Shriver (the person he tried to apologize to) said himself.
If your reading comprehension was better, you'd understand that, but I guess you're simply the product of a failed public education system.
Or a reader of Sadly, No, which is pretty much the same thing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 04, 2010 09:16 AM (WjpSC)
14
Wow CY, you put the fools on tilt. They're really having trouble reading.
Posted by: brando at February 04, 2010 10:06 AM (IPGju)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Punxsutawney Phil Predicts Six More Weeks of Climate Change Fraud
Every day it seems a new revelation comes to light about how climate change advocates doctored research, tweaked models, excluded objective results that subverted their predetermined conclusions, or otherwise corrupted the scientific process in a heavily-politicized push for control over the smallest aspects of our lives in the name of saving the planet.
Even the loudest of global warming proponents are now calling for top global warming researchers to
resign in disgrace.
How much longer can climate change cultists hang on to their fantasy that
reputable science proves the existence of anthropogenic climate change?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:18 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
How much longer can climate change cultists hang on to their fantasy that reputable science proves the existence of anthropogenic climate change?
Since leftards still believe that their bogus economic philosophies actually improve rather than degrade economies, I would guess.....forever.
After all, a leftard is nothing if not stubbornly insistent on failed proscriptions and policies.
Posted by: iconoclast at February 02, 2010 03:44 PM (zKViF)
2
Punxsutawney Phil is the perfect spokes-rodent for global warming! That's brilliant! Love it!
Posted by: Jim at February 02, 2010 05:09 PM (mrYqZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Top Prosecutor in Landrieu Phone Incident Steps Down
This probably isn't close to being what it seems:
A Justice Department news release said Jim Letten, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana, recused himself from the case a day after the Jan. 25 arrests in Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in New Orleans. Letten's top lieutenant, assistant U.S. Attorney Jan Mann, has taken over.
The news release didn't say why Letten removed himself, and his spokeswoman Anna Christman said she couldn't comment.
One of the suspects is the son of Letten's Shreveport-based counterpart.
Earlier Monday, the man who first published James O'Keefe's explosive videos exposing wrongdoing at community organizer ACORN came to the filmmaker's defense, claiming he "sat in jail for 28 hours without access to an attorney" while the prosecutor made his case to the media.
O'Keefe was "framed" by the media and the U.S. attorney's office, Andrew Breitbart, publisher of BigGovernment.com, told Fox News.
Click here to read the affidavit.
"James O'Keefe sat in jail for 28 hours without access to an attorney, while the U.S. attorney leaked the information about his arrest, helping the media frame it as 'Watergate Junior,'" Breitbart said.
While the timing of the announcement of Letten's pulling himself of the case seemed suspicious because of Brietbart's claims of a set-up, the simple fact of the matter is that Letten recused himself more a week ago, on Jan. 26, with the most obvious reason being that one of men arrested with O'Keefe is the son of a colleague.
That being said, I would not be surprised at all if Eric Holder's Selective Justice Department is going to do all it can to discredit and smear O'Keefe considering the damage he did to ACORN, and if O'Keefe really did go 28 hours with an attorney and the Justice Department did leak information designed to smear these young men, then we could very well see a situation develop where the charges against O'Keefe and his fellow defendants simply go away.
While letting O'Keefe off would bring howls of protest from progressives still out for blood over ACORN's exposure as a bunch of thugs who willingly enable child sex slavery, avoiding an investigation into improprieties in Justice would be far more important to Holder, Obama, and the "Chicago Way" of politics if there is any truth in Breitbart's claims.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:44 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
And don't be surprised to hear that one of the witnesses the defense will call is Jim Letten!
It would be fun to watch him squirm and twitch as he declares "work product" as a reason for not answering questions surrounding his activities in the matter.
He might even be forced to plead the 5th Amendment Right against self-incrimination to a few of those questions.
Dang, that would be just too funny.
Posted by: Dell at February 02, 2010 04:02 PM (o0L0L)
2
Of course the charges will just go away. They've done their nasty, small minded democrat thuggery damage to a freedom fighter and truth revealer. From here on out the orks will rail against the "wire tapper" OKeefe with no shred of proof. John Edwards was right about one thing - there are 2 Americas.
Posted by: Jayne at February 03, 2010 12:01 AM (dwIL0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 01, 2010
Can Nan
There simply isn't a clearer example of abuse of power in our current Congress, as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi abuses her power to commandeer military aircraft for use as private jets for her children.
Pelosi should step down immediately as Speaker. If Democrats have any integrity at all, they'd push for her to resign from office entirely and support an inquiry into whether she should face criminal charges.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:18 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
A totally blatant disregard for ethics; the woman has now established her own personal "airline" at taxpayers expense. But the existing House Ethics Committee won't even consider spanking its leadership, so we have to wait until November and pray she's voted not only off the plane, but out of the HOUSE!.
One of the richest of the rich in federal government and now we all know how she amassed at least some of her fortune - at taxpayers expense!
Posted by: Dell at February 01, 2010 12:05 PM (o0L0L)
2
"If Democrats have any integrity at all..."
Hahahahahaha ROLFLMAO
Ethics and integrity rules only apply to Republicans and conservatives.
Ethics and integrity rules are only extremely loose guidelines for Democrats and liberals.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at February 01, 2010 12:53 PM (FJRFk)
3
"Ethics and integrity rules are only extremely loose guidelines for Democrats and liberals."
That's simply not true!
Ethics and integrity rules are considered the BASELINE for Democrat corruption. Anything less and their compatriots consider them amateurs.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at February 01, 2010 04:22 PM (ZJ/un)
4
http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp
Posted by: Snopo Grande at February 01, 2010 11:29 PM (I+nwi)
5
The Snopes link was updated last March, and has nothing to do with this except as some background. I expect nothing better from this lame excuse for a 'leader' and would hope that she is removed. I do not expect any better from politicians, though, so I'm sure this will be covered over and not really covered by any of the reputable, 'real' news organizations. LOL!
Posted by: Jim at February 02, 2010 09:38 AM (YTe8V)
6
I expect Steny Hoyer will be Speaker in 2011 if the Dems hold on to the House.
Posted by: Neo at February 02, 2010 11:13 AM (tE8FB)
7
The Democrats have shown that persecuting those out of power is a legitimate use of the law. So definitely the next GOP administration should begin prosecution of all these crooks.
Posted by: iconoclast at February 02, 2010 03:47 PM (zKViF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Call Him Jack
Since he's a bower.
AP Photo/Edmund Fountain, Pool
The
Mayor of Tampa Pam Iorio looks more Presidential than Barack Obama. Then again, she has far more leadership experience and actually likes those she works for, so maybe that has something to do with her having the gravitas Obama so obviously lacks.
Someone please try to beat some protocol into our moron President's brain. He's an embarassment to himself, and to the Office he temporarily holds.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:39 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
He has run out of people to bow to.
This guy is a total embarrassment to the office. He has brought down the status of the president like none other.
Posted by: David at February 01, 2010 11:58 AM (0MhQP)
2
You know, I've often pondered on his upbringing as a very young child. We been taught that the formative years of ha child are under the age of 5. His upbringing at a young age was in a Muslim surrounding. Is bowing customary in the Muslim society? If so, that would explain the bowing he seems to do. It certainly explains his wish to please the Muslim community.
Posted by: Tibby at February 01, 2010 11:58 AM (S/Fac)
3
If I were wealthy, or won the lottery, I'd pay to give Obama a spinal fusion operation, so that he'd stand up like a man, and nod his head in acknowledgment of greetings, like Presidents are supposed to do.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at February 01, 2010 12:39 PM (Aaj8s)
4
He isn't bowing to Pam Iorio, just bending over so she can read the secret message printed on the top of his head..
Posted by: JayJay at February 01, 2010 03:04 PM (dlZM1)
5
He's just looking for the reflection up her skirt from her patent leather pumps!
Posted by: Earl T at February 01, 2010 03:13 PM (tbxAn)
6
@ Earl T, that is exactly what it is!!
Posted by: gDavid at February 01, 2010 04:54 PM (PKySw)
7
I hate him. He is repulsive and evil. I hate the suit he is wearing and the way he is disrespecting the military guy. He is a stupid mean jerk. Only the worst, most stupid, most awful country would elect somebody so utterly devoid of any value as a human being.
Palin in 2012!
Posted by: Jim at February 01, 2010 07:15 PM (jbQMR)
8
I think this has a form of Tourette's Syndrome, except that he impulsively and uncontrollably bows to people.
Who the hell taught him to do this? Really. Who the hell ever told him to bow to people? Chicken George? Step and Fetchit? Rochester from Jack Benny?
As Don Corleone once said, "You could act like a man!"
Posted by: Adirondack Patriot at February 01, 2010 07:30 PM (XVmbw)
9
For crying out loud, send that man to "finishing school" so he can learn protocol and manners! Obviously he was never told that A MAN should look people in the eye when shaking hands.
Posted by: MikeM at February 01, 2010 08:02 PM (30CMs)
10
He can't help it. He is weak and knows to bow to his superiors. Michelle makes him bow to her and the kids.
Posted by: seamus at February 01, 2010 08:08 PM (KkbTG)
11
C'mon. Obama probably learned to bow in his homeland of Indonesia. The same place where he learned how many states there are in the USA.
Posted by: iconoclast at February 01, 2010 08:51 PM (zKViF)
12
Jim:
Shut up and stop trolling
Posted by: MAModerate at February 01, 2010 10:19 PM (nuh/4)
13
I know, the teleprompter fell over and he is trying to read it....
Posted by: Retired Navy at February 02, 2010 12:34 PM (dxluS)
14
He's just covering up - pretending this is how he acts to everyone he meets so people will get off his case for showing subservience to the Saudi King. Whatever the reason this guy is not presidential and we are not america as long as we tolerate this fraud. Impeach him now or declare him ineligible due to his father being a Kenyan which makes Obama not a natural born citizen. Time is way past to admit a mistake was made and move on.
Posted by: Jayne at February 03, 2010 12:44 AM (dwIL0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Group Obama Was a Director of Calls to Reinstitute Black Codes
If a conservative think tank called for the civl rights and liberties of the black community to be removed because they could not exercise them responsibly, then every news outlet in the country would cry out in anger.
So why does a left-wing special interest get away with the
exact same thing?
One can only hope that Josh Sugarman, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, is completely ignorant of the many mob actions and the thousands of deaths that resulted from laws that stripped African-Americans of their rights and liberties. Considering his long-running and strident anti-gun advocacy, it seems likely that Sugarman and the organization are well aware of history but made a political calculation in asking that African-Americans be disarmed.
Barack Obama is a former director of the Joyce Foundation, one of the groups that funded the so-called research. I'd love to see someone in the White House Press Corps asked Robert Gibbs what the Administration's view is of the report.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:31 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY,
That was a good article!
Posted by: Penfold at February 01, 2010 10:16 AM (1PeEC)
2
The report doesn't say that the access for blacks should be reduced, but that access be reduced. I suspect they would favor applying it to the entire nation.
Posted by: MikeM at February 01, 2010 08:08 PM (30CMs)
3
I wonder how they would define "Black," or "African-American," for the purpose of banning gun ownership. Would they, perhaps, use a paper bag? Maybe a DNA test? What's an appropriate percentage of white blood before gun ownership is permitted? How about Brown blood? Are Mexicans more responsible?
As a middle-aged conservative white guy of Celtic heritage, I'm just gob-smacked at the cluelessness of these characters!
Posted by: MichigammeDave at February 02, 2010 07:03 AM (VOPPq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 67 >>
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.1355 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1092 seconds, 190 records returned.
Page size 128 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.