Commenting on a link Glenn Reynolds provided to an Examiner post requesting that the President and Speaker Pelosi apologize for smearing the Tea Party movement, his reader Marc Greendorfer offered:
I can’t recall a single instance during his eight years where President Bush derided American citizens who took to the streets to protest his administration. In fact, I think that President Bush always acknowledged the right of citizens to disagree with him and he was always respectful of that dissent. If Obama’s mocking of dissent is the change he promised I don’t think I like it.
This mocking of dissent is entirely at odds with Obama’s campaign portrayal of himself as a post-partisan figure able to transcend political divisions. In a post last month, I suggested he could make that rhetoric a reality if he “acknowledge[d] the sincerity of the Tea Party protesters and fault[ed] those who would question it.”
A leader confident in his ideas would welcome a debate on his policy proposals. He would not need deride his critics because he would know that an airing of various opinions would not weaken his arguments justifying those proposals.
Whey has the President (and his supporters) been so thin-skinned on this? Do they fear their proposals won’t stand up to public scrutiny?
Look, let’s have a debate on this. Let the President defend his big government approach to the economic crisis and let a leading economist supporting the Tea Parties respond to his points. Then, maybe have another member of his (the President’s) team respond to that.
If the President truly wishes to be the unifying image that his campaign promised, an idea he still promotes in his rhetoric, he would acknowledge the sincerity of the Tea Party protesters’ concerns and address them point by point, without mockery or derision. Not only would that speech be a gracious gesture, he could also use it to promote his policies, to show why they’re in the national interest.
And he would fulfill his campaign pledge to serve as a transcendant, unifying figure.
They know (while pretending not to) that they’re on a very, very wrong course.
Yes.
The Left has dogma, not principles and ideas. They really cannot compete in the arena of ideas, as Rush says. They say we live in a bubble or echo chamber, but for conservatives there is no such thing. We are challenged daily, hourly, from all kinds of sources (media, family, co-workers, etc.). The Left because they own the media/academia/entertainment coterie, never have to hear challenges and truly do live in a bubble or echo chamber. They hear just enough from us to know they cannot win arguments so they refuse to engage. What they do on TV is not engaging, it’s demagoguery and filibuster so conservatives can’t speak.
They don’t have confidence because they’re not battle-hardened and tested in defending their policies. Obama is one of the absolute worst in this respect. He has zero principles, but he does have an overwhelming disdain if not outright loathing for this country and he has the Alinsky handbook and his Marxist friends to guide him, along with the greatest arrogance and megalomania in a president that I can remember.
Peg,
I don’t think(although don’t know) the Pres has a didain for the country.But ,I do think his value system n anything is ,”Does it help me.”He ,and the Democrats resemble a shaman muttering incantations and wondering where the rain is.Ahnd the longer he’s in office,the more things lurcg towards chaos and the more fevered his defenders will become.
Of course he does. He ran a campaign on the theme that America sucks ass and still campaigns on the same theme when travelling abroad or speaking to the Proles.
Name ONE instance where he’s spoken publicly which made you proud to be an American and proud of your country. Has he ever said anything remotely inspiring other than his purposely vague “hope” and “change” bullshit?
I can’t quite figure out how anybody could possibly come to the conclusion that Chairman Obama has anything other than disdain for our country.
All of the polling data I’ve seen gives him the benefit of the doubt on the enonomy. i.e. “He’s trying”
It’s the inherent optimism of the American people and… it’s charming.
We’ll have our day in the sun again and sooner than most think. Let’s not start rooting for ill omens like those losers on the left did.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Perhaps you’ve forgotten. The conservative movement has a political wing. It’s called the Republican party. They proposed a few pretend alternatives to the stimulus plan: they involved massive tax cuts, again – tax cuts for the wealthy and big business. That’s all they had to offer. You may have forgotten, but those ideas just lost in the election. We’ve had this debate. You’re free to keep shouting the same ideas that just lost the support of the populace nationwide, but you’re not obligated to have people pay attention to you. But please – clap louder.
Polls show majority or plurality support for most of Obama’s positions, positions he campaigned on. He and the Congress are going to do what he said he would do. You can try to convince the American people to trust you in 2010, but acting like “losing” is the same as being disenfranchised and taking one comment from the President as proof of some grand unifying theory of the Left says a lot more about your own thin-skinned nature and the courage of your own convictions than it does about Obama. You’re acting like he blasphemed or something by mentioning the teabags. For heaven’s sake – lighten up before you strain something. You’ll never make it to the mid-terms at this rate.
Torrentprime: You’re free to keep defending the administration all you want, but you still gloss over with the same pathetic meme that your side uses to try and marginalize conservatives.
Here are a few points for you to attempt to digest. Better get a tums, they’re going to upset your frail stomach.
One: Money does not grow on trees, else it would be worthless. Tell me who’s going to pay for Obama’s multi-trillion dollar deficits. Tell me HOW he’s going to pay for everything he wants to do while maintaining the level of spending he’s already set. Answer: He’s going to be borrowing so much money China will practically own half of the nation. Or, he’s going to print that money (pretending it DOES grow on trees) as to pay off the debts, and in the process make those people who don’t make a lot of money a LOT poorer through the severely weakened dollar. Or, (the big one the tea parties are about, if you can’t or refuse to understand) they’re going to have to raise taxes on EVERYBODY. New taxes, raised taxes, new fees. They’re going to extract every last penny they can from everyone, not just those wealthy people you think can pay for all of it. And guess what? IT STILL WON’T BE ENOUGH. If you think you’re going to create some kind of economic justice for people who won’t do for themselves (we’re not discussing the ‘cants’ here, nobody argues with caring for them) by extracting money from the achievers, you fail to understand the term ‘motivation.’ Why work for something someone is willing to give to you, for free? Health care, education, hell, a living? If you don’t have to do anything to get it, then why bother? I guess its just the lefts tendency to ignore human nature since it hampers their utopian vision.
2. If you didn’t notice, Obama has flipped, in a major way, on many many issues. Or, in other words, he had to pretend to be closer to the center than he is so that people who are wary of fringe radicals like him could vote for him. To his credit, he’s backtracking on all of the ‘unicorns and rainbows’ stances he took the day he stepped into office. The amount of stuff he conjures out of nowhere is alarming, however. Churchill saying “We don’t torture” is a lie. ‘Saved’ jobs is a load of crap. Unmeasurable. Make up a number, thats how many jobs you’ve saved. Anyone with a scrap of common sense can see through that ruse. Flip flopping on prosecution of legal advisors on alleged ‘torture.’
3. This is the money quote from your block of text: “You’re free to keep shouting the same ideas that just lost the support of the populace nationwide, but you’re not obligated to have people pay attention to you.” And yet, here you are. The left sure didn’t act like people weren’t obligated to pay attention to them, or else they wouldn’t have egged President Bush’s limo on his inauguration day. The schtick that we have to sit down and take it because we lost an election is already worn thin. The Tea parties are the perfect example. We DON’T have to take it, and we WON’T take it, especially from the crowd that’s rallying cry was “Dissent is patriotic!” If it isn’t patriotic anymore, then stop dissenting. You’re making yourselves look bad.
Some of the leftists here seem seperated from reality. Obama derides the tea party protesters because he is fearful. He is not a man of confidence. Arrogance yes. Confident of his positions, no.
Wanna hear some polls that show Obamateleprompters weaknesses?
33% strongly approve of Obama/32% strongly DISAPPROVE.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
For just the second time in more than five years of daily or weekly tracking, Republicans now lead Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot. $1% would chose the Republican in their district, 38% would choose the Democrat.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_ballot/generic_congressional_ballot
The liberal Democrats can whistle past the grave yard, but THE PEOPLE are restless already. Yep day 102. Imagine if the country, God forbid was attacked after Obama has lowered our defenses. Imagine this administration of bunglers had their own Katrina. BTW the recent horrific floods in ND and SD might qualify but they were in red states and the MSM ignored the suffering.
On most nights FOX news programming is tripling or quadrupling MSNBC and CNN. Yes the people want the country to progress. Wait til more bad news starts to roll in for our friends on the left.
12% unemployment, 10% inflation 10% and rising interest rates. NICE.
* 41% would choose the Republican…
Oh lord. Someone actually is brandishing Rasmussens phony little “approval index”. THat silly measure that he made up just for the Obama administration so that he need not have to report, on a daily basis, all those really big numbers.
Like 67% approval (today’s Gallup tracking poll). Or, considering the 28% disapproval, a net +39 approval.
Wouldnt be doing the interests of the GOP any good to report numbers like that!
Heck, even Real Clear Politics, another Republican site, but one with at least a modicum of interity, reports a net +30 approval.
No. Ras has his consistently biased numbers (check it out – ALWAYS 5-7 points higher approval than the average of all polls during the Bush administration, 7-10 points lower duriing the Obama admin. And then he concocts this phony “approval index” using only the strongly approve and strongly disapprove, so that he can report numbers down near zero.
Its a measure of the intesity by which the right-wing base is fired up, thats all.
Go to Real Clear, or Pollster.com. Obama is not afraid of teabags. He has the support of 2 out of 3 Americans.
You guys are a ever-shrinking minority. And acceptance of that reality is the first step in starting on the road back. Convince yourself that your ideas are actually popular, and you will doom us all to a one party state. Thats not good. The GOP should be competitive, and you guys aint helping.
ahhh Rasmussen had the election right on the money toadies. Now he’s not accurate? Typical of the Obamaphiles. And you didn’t address the generic congressional ballot….that has been used for umm 50 years. hehe
Breaking news….After the Biden flu gaffe, another of the Obama administrations daily bungles and blunders….the Democrat Vice President, Obamas first big choice as President, has been kicked out of the country. Between the tax cheats, pay for play Democrat Governors, and administration members spreading the swine flu, Obama figured he’d had enough of ole Jumpin Joe’s loose mouth.
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/01/biden-kicked-out-of-country-after-flu-remarks/
how did Obama deride the tea parties?
In a post last month, I suggested he could make that rhetoric a reality if he “acknowledge[d] the sincerity of the Tea Party protesters and fault[ed] those who would question it.“
How is this anything but whiny, pathetic, I’m-such-a-victim!! bullsh*t? Aw, poor GayPatriotWest, the President won’t ‘acknowledge your sincerity.’ Do you need a hug?
Look, let’s have a debate on this. Let the President defend his big government approach to the economic crisis and let a leading economist supporting the Tea Parties respond to his points. Then, maybe have another member of his (the President’s) team respond to that.
Hey Dan, no one is trying to stop you. The President is making his case, so make yours. Right now, the Republican party seems content to be making fun of Obama for using a teleprompter. Nobody is trying to avoid a confrontation with you, though you guys seem to be running behind any ridiculous line of nonsense you can find to avoid one with us. The ball is in your court, and all you’re doing with it is blaming Obama for war casualties.
You’re your own worst enemies, and you don’t even know it.
If the President truly wishes to be the unifying image that his campaign promised,
Just stop. ‘Unifying’ is a two way street, and Obama is an idiot for ever believing that there would be even a token effort to do so from the Republicans. Your party has become infamous for their inability and unwillingness to work with people, and after all of the absurd things that were irresponsibly lobbed at Obama during the campaign, it’s absolutely dumbfounding to see him make so many overtures to your insulting and irrelevant little party. Dan – could you tell me with a straight face that you think the conservative movement has given Obama a fair chance?
I just wrote a comment on the thin-skinned Left in the Carrie Prejean thread that would fit as well here.
how did Obama deride the tea parties?
He said something about how you could turn on a television network that doesn’t particularly like him and see people waving tea bags around. According to the GayPatriots, this qualifies as a deeply offensive and inappropriate insult. It also proves, somehow, beyond any reasonable explanation, that 1) Obama is scared of tea parties, 2) that Obama is thin-skinned, and 3) Obama is not at all confident in any of the policies that he proposes. The arguments of children, these.
Hey, Tano, Rasmussen’s pre-election polls in 2004 and 2008 nearly perfectly forecast the election results. Guess that’s a pretty good sign of their reliability.
Too funny:
Really? When was the economic prosperity vs. historically massive debt debate?
And he’s going to start doing what he campaigned on when?
Ever see the poll numbers which show the majority of Americans don’t trust bigger government?
Here’s a poll question idea: Try and find out how many people would have voted for Chairman Obama if they knew he was going to take over private businesses and force the auto companies to shut down for the summer.
Except when it comes to ramming through massive pork spending and Socialist healthcare.
Let’s see:
He’s a “Magic Negro” – democrats
(paraphrased) “He’s black, so you know he deals drugs!” – democrats
He’s not “black enough”. – democrats
“I will bring a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002. I think that is a significant difference,†– democrats
“Rhetoric is not enough. High flatulent language is not enough,†– democrats
Shall I go on?
And the main point remains, the liberals like ghillie and Levi haven’t got the gear necessary to express any confidence in Chairman Obama.
Wonder why they refuse to defend the policies of massive deficits.
Remember during the campaign when Obama talked about instigating something like Britain’s “Prime Minister’s Question’s” here in the United States?
Now he is threatening to use the lap dog White House Press Corps to smear citizens who don’t do as he wishes.
CHANGE!
#14: “Hey Dan, no one is trying to stop you. The President is making his case, so make yours…Nobody is trying to avoid a confrontation with you, though you guys seem to be running behind any ridiculous line of nonsense you can find to avoid one with us.”
Again, Levi’s argument is based exclusively on what he WISHES
Oops! Hit return too soon accidentally. Meant to say:
Again, Levi’s argument is based exclusively on what he WISHES were true, but happens to be categorically untrue.
“At the White House Tuesday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he wasn’t sure if Obama was aware of the tea parties but said the president would be using the April 15 tax filing deadline to make a point of his own.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=7337117&page=2
Apparently, for Obama (and Levi) “making the case” for the virtue of unprecedented, out-of-control government spending is to simply pretend that any opposition to it does not exist.
no one can answer how Obama derided the tea parties.
why?
#6: “They proposed a few pretend alternatives to the stimulus plan: they involved massive tax cuts, again – tax cuts for the wealthy and big business. That’s all they had to offer. You may have forgotten, but those ideas just lost in the election. We’ve had this debate. You’re free to keep shouting the same ideas that just lost the support of the populace nationwide, but you’re not obligated to have people pay attention to you.”
I’ve commented on this before, but it’s always striking to me how revealing these kinds of statements are of liberals like torrentprime.
Notice how he writes that conservative IDEAS “just lost in the election” and that the IDEAS “lost the support of the populace nationwide”? Liberals are only concerned with POWER. Thus, liberal ideas “win” when a liberal wins an election. Whether their ideas, when implemented, actually work is INCONSEQUENTIAL. They won the election. The predominant objective has been accomplished. That’s the end of it. The debate about IDEAS is over, i.e., “we’ve had this debate.” The very idea that there might additional “debate” if (when) the “stimulus plan” is an epic failure doesn’t even enter their minds.
And to liberals, the fact that a Republican lost an election means that conservative IDEAS have been vanquished for the rest of eternity “nationwide.” It’s like they assume that voters who supported McCain (46%, by the way) are as unprincipled as they are and have simply abandoned all conservative principles because their candidate didn’t win an election. They’re so hypnotized by Obama that they think the rest of us will eventually come around and conclude that liberalism is a more sound political formula simply because Obama managed to win the White House by 7 points.
FYI, TP: JOHN MCCAIN lost the Presidential election, but conservative ideas and their supporters are still very much in existence. For conservatives, IDEAS “win” if they actually WORK when implemented–not when a conservative wins an election. (As insane as it may sound TP, “good intentions” are no substitute for actual results. I KNOW! CRAZY, RIGHT?!)
And unfortunately, when the primary objective comes up again (RE-ELECTION), the MSM will not demand an explanation from Obama or his minions in Congress for why his ideas flopped–they will be satisfied with the party (a) somehow blaming Republicans (despite the GOP’s utter lack of influence or power) and (b) saying their ideas worked in the face of massive evidence to the contrary. (Don’t think so? The MSM allows Obama to go on TV and call his own policies “fiscally conservative” and no one bats an eye-lash.)
#23: “no one can answer how Obama derided the tea parties. why?”
gillie, I don’t expect you to be intellectually honest and acknowledge it as “derision,” but you can see exactly what Obama said about the tea party protesters here (that is, once he actually acknowledged their existence):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Geewdx_OwOw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpurplepeoplevote%2Ecom%2F2009%2F04%2F29%2Fobama%2Don%2Dpeople%2Dwaving%2Dtea%2Dbags%2Daround%2F&feature=player_embedded
He described them as “people waving tea bags around” as seen on Foxnews (a channel on which he’s “not very popular”). It’s nothing but pure, dismissive marginalization (followed by the usual platitudinous lip service about having a “serious conversation” about spending, cost-cutting, etc.) His reference to Foxnews is just the liberal talking-point that the protests were a right wing, illegitimate hit-job, cooked-up by the news channel–an outright, demonstrable lie.
If Bush had referred to “women camped out in front of my ranch” (Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink) as reported on news channels where he’s “not very popular” (CNN, MSNBC, etc.), the MSM and the Left would have gone so totally ballistic that it would have triggered a catastrophic bitterness explosion capable of knocking the globe off its axis.
That’s the truth. But again, to acknowledge these facts would require intellectual honesty on your part and no one here expects that of you.
Because GPW has already answered it in several other posts on this blog – in fact, you could almost say it’s something GPW won’t shut up about, in a good way 😉 – and if you, gillie, are so inattentive and foolish that you want to insistently raise a question that has been answered over and over already, none of us want to stop you or clue you in because (1) it makes good entertainment, and (2) it’s par for the course with you – you wouldn’t learn anything anyway – you don’t take clues or new information.
Sean A – the correctly proportioned analog to Obama’s light mocking would have been if Bush referred to “women waving their breasts around”. Imagine how fun that could have been, if he’d done that! 🙂 But he was/is too classy and thick-skinned.
Bullcrap. As GPW has put it,
That is what lots and lots of people thought they were voting for. Not for $1.8 trillion deficits. People may have been foolish to think it – but so they did. And current polls show majorities of the American people against Obama’s deficits and bailouts.
Sorry, this is what I meant to link:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15/debate.transcript/index.html
Sean A, I think you’re right except that it’s even worse than that.
As Rush Limbaugh likes to point out, left-liberals win by hiding who they really are and what they’re really going to do. After the election, lefties are deeply confused about what the people just voted for. They think, “The people voted for us – They must like who we really are – Hahaha!” – conveniently forgetting that *they never told the people who they really are*. Examples:
– The 2006 election. The American people didn’t vote for withdrawal from Iraq; rather, they voted against defeat in Iraq. Americans wanted victory and Bush hadn’t delivered, so Americans voted for “the other party”. “The other party” never told the American people that *they* (unlike the American people) wanted actual defeat in Iraq. Post-election, “the other party” assumed they had a mandate for defeat – and were stunned to find Bush and McConnell and McCain and Lieberman running circles around them, on the issue of Iraq, producing “the surge” and eventual American victory.
– The 2008 election. As we’re seeing, Obama campaigned on spending cuts – not on massive spending increases leading to $1.8T deficits. Americans wanted spending cuts among other things and Bush hadn’t been delivered, so Americans voted for “the other party”. “The other party” never told the American people that *they* (unlike the American people) wanted massive growth of government and spending increases. Post-election, “the other party” now assumes they have a mandate for spending – and are stunned by the Tea Party movement, responding (in essence) “It can’t be! We won, so you’re not allowed to object!”
It just gets stupider and stupider around here. Now we’re declaring that Obama only won in 2008 because he said the words ‘net spending cut’ in a debate? Man, the Republican Party is now at cultish levels of denial. With these daily posts about Obama being mean and dismissive to the tea partiers, this could hardly even be considered a political blog. GPW is repeating himself over and over and over again with his whines about no one giving him any respect while real political issues that everyone is talking about aren’t even mentioned. If you were relying on this place for information about the world, you wouldn’t know about swine flu, or the torture memos, or the impending Supreme Court vacancy, but you’d know that the overly sensitive tea party people are butt-hurt because Obama said people were waving tea bags around! Oooo, what an egregious offense! You’ve been so wronged!
Post-election, “the other party†now assumes they have a mandate for spending – and are stunned by the Tea Party movement, responding (in essence) “It can’t be! We won, so you’re not allowed to object!â€
Who is saying you’re not allowed to object? Did anyone try to stop your retarded little protests? Get to a psychiatrist man, you need to get that persecution complex checked out (bring 250,000 of your closest friends, too.)
Chairman Zero’s poll numbers are unpersuasive. At one time, Bush had a 90% approval rating, and 70% of Americans approved of the Iraq War. But a steady drumbeat of criticism, coupled with mismanagement by the administration, brought them down. Did you guys think we weren’t watching and learning from your example?
Chairman Zero’s poll numbers are unpersuasive. At one time, Bush had a 90% approval rating, and 70% of Americans approved of the Iraq War. But a steady drumbeat of criticism, coupled with mismanagement by the administration, brought them down. Did you guys think we weren’t watching and learning from your example?
That 90% figure totally undermines everything that conservatives say about liberals – that we hated Bush irrationally and wanted him to fail. But you can’t get to 90% without a huge majority of liberals at the very least giving him the benefit of the doubt and hoping that he would do a good job. So no, I don’t think you were watching and learning from our example, I think you were conjuring up fantasies of what you wished liberalism was because bitterly partisan whining is the fabric of your party and the only means available to you with which to view the political world.
Honestly, who throws integrity under the bus? Or a cupcake at a bald head?
Also, Linkage!
You mean a huge majority of liberals taking advantage of a tragedy so they can appear that they really give a damn.
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel
And within a few days, those “loyal opposition” folks, you crow about, went right back to putting union interests above national security, blocking Bush appointees and shelving any requests that came from the WH. Not to mention the incessant pissing & moaning because Algore wasn’t allowed to steal an election.
Seriously?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZaR19xDDUk&feature=player_embedded
And I suppose calling tea partiers “racist” was done out of loveâ„¢, compassionâ„¢, and toleranceâ„¢, eh?
Could you possibly make any stupider comments instead of defending Chumpy Obamalini, Levi?
This is funny. Obamateleprompter was going to bring us all together. He was going to be everyones President. Now it is Repbulicans fault for not going along with the man 100% of the time? Crazy.
I heard a stunning stat….
When Bush 43 left office the average new child being born was going to be saddled with $8,000 worth of debt. After 4 years of Obama socialism, Pork bills, and company takeovers, the average new born in 2012 will be saddled with …….$38,000 worth of debt. That’s his college education, up in smoke. Nice job Mr President. Wait for these kind of numbers to percolate thru the American people. hehe
http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2009/01/29/glenn-becks-debt-chart/
when only 250k nationally show up for a protest, one can deride it. heck, the illegal immigration march of 2006 had that many in Chicago alone.
Face it, the GOP is a minority party for a generation. You should try to come up with a few ideas, rather than just bitch and moan.
I edited some papers written in the few days before Germany invaded Poland. Here is a diary entry of an American official living in Berlin:
We have become so accustomed to refighting our differences by spouting yesterday’s headlines, that we have become purveyors of limited thought and slanted debate.
George W. Bush and his eight years have been ground up by media hysteria and handy sound-bites and nothing much can be done to redeem them.
Obama campaigned on hope, change, transparency, justice, shunning lobbyists, restoring America to respect in the world. etc. Fine. Now his most ardent defenders and the confirmed Obamnauts are having to face the reality of how “infantile (they have been and will continue to be) when compared to the cold reality of events.”
This is the predictable outcome for those who absorbed too much Peter Pan and not enough Aesop.
My goodness.
You have to use projection to claim that Obama derided the tea parties!?!?!?
Yow
Who is thin skinned agian?
Who you callin’ an “agian?”
#42: Okay, gillie, we get it–you don’t believe Obama derided the tea parties. You have been provided with the link to video, so tell us. How do you characterize Obama’s remarks?
When exactly did the Obama administration and the leftists in here quit being bipartisian and openminded? Was it day 15, day 90, day 101? He didn’t say during the campaign that he would try to reach out during the first two weeks of his presidency and then resort to mocking and calling names.
When exactly did the Obama administration and the leftists in here quit being bipartisian and openminded? Was it day 15, day 90, day 101? He didn’t say during the campaign that he would try to reach out during the first two weeks of his presidency and then resort to mocking and calling names.
You’re getting this all wrong. Liberals are tired of bipartisanship. I didn’t want Obama to even try to work with you guys, because anyone that’s been even casually paying attention to politics over the past couple years knows that the Republicans would never do it. He hasn’t mocked you or called you any names, either.
#46: “You’re getting this all wrong. Liberals are tired of bipartisanship. I didn’t want Obama to even try to work with you guys, because anyone that’s been even casually paying attention to politics over the past couple years knows that the Republicans would never do it.”
Translation: Obama promised bipartisanship and cooperation with Republicans, so Levi is relieved that it turned out to be just another one of Obama’s bald-faced, shameless lies.
Translation: Obama promised bipartisanship and cooperation with Republicans, so Levi is relieved that it turned out to be just another one of Obama’s bald-faced, shameless lies.
If you think President Obama is an example of a bitterly partisan progressive liberal, you’re just wrong. You guys are too wrapped up in frivolous bullsh*t to know anything about what liberalism does and doesn’t actually represent.
As ballistic as you guys are about Obama, your head would explode if we ever got a real liberal in there.
I think that would cover the textbooks for a semester. Good luck selling those back.
No wonder when you have the Worker’s World Party (Communists), ACORN and union rent-a-mobs. It’s easy to have huge crowds when the price is right.
So the people are just going to bite on a pillow for Chairman Obama’s hatred of America, endless lies, massive debt, cronyism, undermining national security, releasing terrorists on American soil (in violation of the law), government run (into the ground) auto industry, government rationing of death to those unable to lift a shovel, tax cheats, Chicago mob rule etc. etc. etc.
You guys ginned up hatred for the rich. How long do you think $560 sneakers, Kobe steak dinners, importing pizza chefs, firing up AF1 to travel 90 miles, firing up AF1 to terrorize New Yorkers etc. is going to be tolerated?
How much are you willing to bet on the safety of Barak Hussein Robespierre’s neck?
Really? So you were full of shit when you were bitching about it for 8 years? Is that what you’re telling us?
Can you or can you not defend Chairman Obama’s policies? Yes or no. It’s really simple, Levi.
#48: Levi, my point was not about whether Obama is bipartisan or exactly where he falls on the political spectrum. My point is that he’s fucking liar and you’re fine with it.
HOORAY!!!!!!!!
Levi is about to deliver the 10 core principles of liberalism and the 10 greatest misconceptions about liberalism.
Please stand back and make room for Levi’s edifying exposition of political philosophy and clarifying information.
Levi, the stage is yours………………..
#48: Levi, my point was not about whether Obama is bipartisan or exactly where he falls on the political spectrum. My point is that he’s fucking liar and you’re fine with it.
He isn’t a liar, at least not on this issue. He has tried to work with the Republicans. I know you don’t believe that and I expect you’ll probably come back with the ‘I won’ statement, but he just has.
HOORAY!!!!!!!!
Levi is about to deliver the 10 core principles of liberalism and the 10 greatest misconceptions about liberalism.
Please stand back and make room for Levi’s edifying exposition of political philosophy and clarifying information.
Levi, the stage is yours………………..
First, everything you know is wrong.
Second, read Paul Krugman’s latest book.
#52 – That is the worst answer I’ve ever heard anyone give. If I were your professor I’d give you an “F” immediately.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
And so is #53, for that matter. Much, much worse.
The old Soviet Union had a word for you, Levi = useful idiot. Emphasis on the second word.
Regards,
Peter H.
#52 – That is the worst answer I’ve ever heard anyone give. If I were your professor I’d give you an “F†immediately.
Try again.
I’m not going to waste a lot of words on something that you’ll deny up and down regardless of what they say.
#52: “He isn’t a liar, at least not on this issue.”
What a surprise. A liberal isn’t a liar as long as he only lies about certain issues. Stop the presses.
“He has tried to work with the Republicans. I know you don’t believe that and I expect you’ll probably come back with the ‘I won’ statement, but he just has.”
I won.
I guess Levi read Krugman’s latest book and can’t recall 10 core beliefs which undergird Levi’s liberal philosophy. Wow. Maybe Levi should carry a cheat sheet so he can at least appear to have a small clue to undergird his sanctimonious carping.
Bert Lahr can play Levi in the movie version.
Remember the G8 (I think it was 8 at the time) meeting in Seattle where the protestors practically took over? Clinton spoke and said he was glad to live in a country where dissent is allowed, and the other countries were pissed that he said that. He got it.
This current President is such a letdown in so many ways. I even believed his “post-partisan” crap back in the beginning, it wasn’t until he started saying things like “we have to do more than bomb civilians” that I started catching on he’s the same thinking he’s better than most of the country.
Yeah he has tried way back in the past to work with republicans, like the Washington Post article about how he reached across borders to pass that law that police in Illinois must videotape all confessions. But he didnt’ get it passed, it wasn’t passed until George Ryan was out and almost every State Assembly Republican lost that year and Democrats completely took over. He never passed anything or got anything done “trying to work with” Republicans.
Because when Obama says he “tries to work with them” what he means is “I tried to enlighten them on the proper way things should work, but they just wouldn’t listen, they refused to compromise to do things my way.” The thing is people like Obama actually believe what they are shovelling.