Gay Patriot Header Image

Did president’s budget speech cause his numbers to plummet?

According to the “Gallup Daily tracking three-day average,

41% of Americans approving of the job Barack Obama is doing as president. That ties his low as president, which he registered three times previously — twice in August 2010 and once in October 2010.

The current 41% approval rating from April 12-14 polling includes interviews conducted before and after Obama announced his plan for deficit reduction on Wednesday. It also comes in the same week Congress is voting on the 2011 budget deal reached last Friday. The deal did not seem to have an immediate effect on the way Americans viewed Obama, given his 44% approval rating in the three days prior to the agreement and his 46% rating in the initial days after the agreement.

July 2009-April 2011 Trend: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president? % Approve

The president has also lost considerable support among independents, only 35% of whom approve of him, “nine points off his average from independents this year.”

Perhaps they’re turning because the speech because most people expected a conciliatory gesture after Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, introduced a serious plan to rein in federal spending.  They may well have been expecting that he the president would acknowledge Ryan’s efforts, praise him on his commitment to reducing the deficits and then offered his plan, explaining why it was the better alternative.

Ryan himself certainly expected the speech would be “a call for common ground on deficit reduction”, but found instead as Allahpundit puts it, “that it was a campaign stemwinder aimed at ambushing him and the GOP.”  Obama, the blogger opines further, “elected as a healing force of post-partisan pragmatism, is willing to turn into Godzilla when there’s an electoral opportunity in front of him.

Peggy Noonan, once supportive of Obama, thought the speech showed that the president to be an out-of-touch executive:

His speech this week brought together all the strands of his flawed leadership. It was at moments clever, but merely clever, not up to the needs of the moment—and cleverness in a time of crisis comes as an affront. The speech seemed oblivious to recent history, as if the president had just discovered something no one knows about, a problem with spending, and has decided to alert us to the danger. He said other politicians attempt to cut by focusing on “waste and abuse,” but he knows the real secret: The problem is entitlement spending. But addressing entitlements is all anyone serious has been talking about for years; it’s what the Ryan plan is all about!

The speech was intellectually incoherent. An administration that spent two years saying, essentially, that high spending is good is suddenly insisting high spending is catastrophic. The president appealed for bipartisan efforts but his manner and approach leave his appeals sounding like diktats. His attempts to seem above the fray leave him seeming distanced and unwilling to risk anything.

Most important, the speech signaled that the White House, after all this time, sees the question of spending as a partisan tool, a weapon to be deployed in an election, and not an actual crisis. This is disrespectful toward citizens who feel honest alarm.

She too thinks the president is gearing more for the upcoming presidential than for the current round of budget negotiations.  Read the whole thing.

Share

67 Comments

  1. >>>a conciliatory gesture after Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, introduced a serious plan to rein in federal spending.

    You mean Ryan’s plan to throw the elderly and disabled on ice floes and wave buh-bye? Obama most certainly did address Ryan’s silly proposal: ‎

    “The fact is, [the Republican] vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.”

    Don’t hide your agenda to dismantle 75 years of this country’s social contract with its people behind a budget crisis without hitting your side and the Pentagon with the same kinds of pain you expect the rest of us to endure so your billionaires can have their taxes lowered and your corporations can continue ducking their tax responsibilities by hiding behind loop holes.

    Fifty years ago, corporate taxes accounted for 55 percent of federal tax revenues. Today, corporate taxes account for just 9 percent. The biggest corporations pay nothing.

    Comment by Auntie Dogma — April 16, 2011 @ 4:34 pm - April 16, 2011

  2. Is anyone else amused by Auntie Dogma, who, like the gay and lesbian community Auntie Dogma represents and speaks for, supports HIV-positive men having bareback sex with eight-year-olds, screaming about the “disabled” and “elderly”?

    In Auntie Dogma’s world, as is fully supported by the gay and lesbian community, it’s GOOD to be disabled. In fact, Dogma and the rest of the gay and lesbian community it represents want to disable MORE people with AIDS, with their plan to “take care” of the elderly being to make sure they die of AIDS-related complications before they ever reach that age.

    No surprise that Barack Obama appealed to the child-molesting gays and lesbians like Dogma. But the rest of the world recognizes that Barack Obama is nothing more than a helpless and idiotic demagogue, a racist and a fool who is incapable of dealing with the basic problems facing our country.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 16, 2011 @ 5:05 pm - April 16, 2011

  3. Don’t hide your agenda to dismantle 75 years of this country’s social contract with its people behind a budget crisis without hitting your side and the Pentagon with the same kinds of pain you expect the rest of us to endure so your billionaires can have their taxes lowered and your corporations can continue ducking their tax responsibilities by hiding behind loop holes.

    Sorry, Auntie Dogma, but if you want to talk about “ducking tax responsibilities”, then you should explain why liberals and Obama Party members don’t pay their taxes, as exemplified by John Kerry, Charles Rangel, Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, Claire McCaskill and others.

    What’s the matter, hypocrite Dogma? Can’t you explain why you scream it’s wrong not to pay taxes while you support and endorse those in your Obama Party who don’t? Just going to run away like the tax cheat you are, Dogma?

    Auntie Dogma and the gay and lesbian community that Dogma represents and speaks for are nothing more than a bunch of lying tax cheats. Period.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 16, 2011 @ 5:13 pm - April 16, 2011

  4. Well in Granny Goodness’ case, she just wants to be on top of the children.

    Fact: Social Security/Medicare are not affected for anyone over 55. People 54 and below will have to deal with the extended age requirements.

    Heck, I plan to be working into my 70′s anyway. to help plug the hole made by Obama.

    Fact (n) Things that Liberals can’t understand.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 16, 2011 @ 5:15 pm - April 16, 2011

  5. Nice to see you jump right into the comment thread, Miss Dogma, with a commitment to civil discourse, failing to address the issue addressed in the post to which you attach your comment. Instead of addressing the president’s tone, you go on the attack.

    Wonder why.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 16, 2011 @ 5:42 pm - April 16, 2011

  6. Aunti Dogma, are you David Plouffe? I would be in a bad mood too if I was mistaken for a check out boy at a hotel instead of some kind of political guru of President Obama’s cult of personality. Furthermore, Plouffe’s book was so much of a bomb that he had to cancel his book tour to go back to work for President Obama in the White House. Plouffe’s book bombed because Obama bombed as leader. David Plouffe would be wise to change his name legally to Auntie Dogma. As Bill Clinton said to Monica Lewinsky, “I feel your pain…now give me more pizza woman in a blue dress.”

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — April 16, 2011 @ 6:40 pm - April 16, 2011

  7. You mean Ryan’s plan to throw the elderly and disabled on ice floes and wave buh-bye?

    Auntie Dogvomit…would you care to point out the page number paragraph of Ryan’s budget plan where this is proposed?

    kthxbai

    Comment by AF_Vet — April 16, 2011 @ 7:01 pm - April 16, 2011

  8. I used to scroll over Nanny NAMBLA’s posts because they were nonsensical. But watching her implode in a fireball of bitterness and derangement is very amusing.

    Comment by V the K — April 16, 2011 @ 7:27 pm - April 16, 2011

  9. [...] GayPatriot » Did president’s budget speech cause his numbers to plummet?. [...]

    Pingback by Did president’s budget speech cause his numbers to plummet? « Interned In Northfield — April 16, 2011 @ 7:31 pm - April 16, 2011

  10. The Auntie of All Dogma quotes from Obambi’s campaign speech:

    “The fact is, [the Republican] vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.”

    1.) Obambi has no more ability to comprehend the Republican vision than he has ability to explain what he is doing for and to the United States. Therefore, he blindly flails away with the frustration of a petty satrap who can not force his will upon the his designated enemies.

    2.) The “social compact” is less than even smoke and mirrors if the deficit is not controlled and said “social compact” strangles on its own life support connections as a result of uncontrolled deficit spending.

    3.) How do you “spend money” (a trillion Obama dollars) on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires? The money of millionaires and billionaires can be forced out of people by confiscation through taxation. But tax cuts only back reduce the confiscation of people’s money. So where does the “spending” on tax cuts come into play? Perhaps The Auntie of All Dogma considers all money the property of the government which ii doles out to the subjects of the government in the form of allowances and entitlements.

    4.) There is no basis for the claim of millionaire and billionaire tax cuts “costing” the government a trillion dollars. I would give The Auntie of All Dogma high kudos if she could produce substantiation for Obambi’s demagoguery on this one. But, for the sake of argument, let us stipulate this is true. Why would you prevent a trillion dollar tax cut if it reduced the deficit by the same amount or greater? Answer: because class warfare is more important to “progressive” politics than actually confronting the deficit.

    5.) The Auntie of All Dogma is here first with the dead fish slap across the face for an increasingly obvious reason. This bicycle riding entitlement queen has been named the designated distributor of leftist toenail fungus for the GayPatriot site. The good thing about leftist toe nail fungus is that it no more exclusive than jock itch and no more effective than baying at the moon.

    6.) Why parse either Obambi’s stupid demagoguery or The Auntie of All Dogma? Because both of them are desperate to pull us down to their level in the muck and mire of gang warfare.

    7.) Does the Auntie of All Dogma know that he/she/it is simply fulfilling his/her/its role as Obambi’s “useful idiot?” No.

    Comment by Heliotrope — April 16, 2011 @ 7:47 pm - April 16, 2011

  11. [...] posts on BashesTrump bashes Bush, Obama « Business TelevisionRelated posts on budgetGayPatriot » Did president's budget speech cause his numbers to …Related posts on deficitLyons: Bush Tax cuts are to blame (Real Cause of Deficit Pt 7 …zoloft [...]

    Pingback by Newsbusters: Maher Says Ending Bush Tax Cuts Would Solve 75% of Budget Deficit Then Bashes ‘Evil Liar’ John Kyl | Katy Pundit — April 16, 2011 @ 7:54 pm - April 16, 2011

  12. [...] | Simple Weight Loss TodayWhat Many Don't Know About Posture BraceRelated posts on budgetGayPatriot » Did president's budget speech cause his numbers to …Related posts on CitiesFilthy Cities « New HDTV TodayTop 55 Cities in Ukraine | City lifeNews Clip [...]

    Pingback by Reuters: States, cities brace for budget deal cuts | Katy Pundit — April 16, 2011 @ 9:15 pm - April 16, 2011

  13. What, exactly, do the 41 percent who approve of Obama’s job performance approve of?

    And why are we still paying attention to Auntie??? He/she/it swoops in, extrudes a turd thought, and leaves.

    Surely, somewhere, there’s a liberal able to explain and defend Obama’s policies (and then again, maybe smart liberals know there is no explanation).

    Comment by SoCalRobert — April 16, 2011 @ 10:32 pm - April 16, 2011

  14. Well, SoCal, I think it comes down to the 21% of Americans who are socialists and the 20% of Americans who are terrified to criticize a Black Man.

    Comment by V the K — April 16, 2011 @ 11:01 pm - April 16, 2011

  15. oh goodness, what happened in OC with the Tea Party folk

    http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/04/racist_orange_county_republica.php

    Comment by rusty — April 17, 2011 @ 12:31 am - April 17, 2011

  16. V and NDT, it’s even more fun when Auntie Dogmatic arrives at twisted fragments of truth – without meaning to or understanding their meaning.

    Don’t hide your agenda to dismantle 75 years of this country’s social contract

    The Democrats became the carriers, in America, of the popular 1920s/1930s philosophy of National Socialism. In acknowledging that it has only held sway for 75 years (or I would have said 80), Auntie implies, correctly but inadvertently, that AMERICA WAS NOT FOUNDED THAT WAY. The Democrat philosophy of National Socialism was and is something alien to America, an import from Italy (Mussolini) and Germany (Hitler, though prototyped earlier by Bismarck) which America ought to reject.

    And this:

    The biggest corporations pay nothing

    …courtesy of Obama and the Democrats. For example: the Obama-supporting General Electric.

    Mind you, the Left’s new demon (Koch Industries) DOES pay plenty of corporate taxes. Ironic? Or expected, again given the Democrat philosophy of National Socialism wherein certain favored corporations receive government favors that they don’t deserve?

    So let’s see, the broken clock was right (without understanding how) exactly twice today.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 17, 2011 @ 1:58 am - April 17, 2011

  17. God bless Jon Stewart: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/16/video-jon-stewart-oddly-unimpressed-with-obamaspeak-on-spending-reductions-in-tax-code/

    If you can overlook his ritual Republican-bashing, he ends by nailing Obama’s budget speech.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 17, 2011 @ 2:15 am - April 17, 2011

  18. ILC, I think the “Social Contract” forged under the New Deal worked out about as well as the contract Katie Couric worked out with CBS.

    Comment by V the K — April 17, 2011 @ 7:59 am - April 17, 2011

  19. Foul-mouthed leftists protesting the Tea Party: “I wipe my a– with the American flag. Nanny NAMBLA and her friends, no doubt. And I think I spotted Levi in there to, trying to drag someone kicking and screaming into the future.

    Comment by V the K — April 17, 2011 @ 8:08 am - April 17, 2011

  20. Get real. Obama will not call for any conciliatory actions on his behalf until he is absolutely sure that he will be thrown out on his can in November 2012. Such is the mind of the sociopath/psychopath.

    Comment by RJLigier — April 17, 2011 @ 9:49 am - April 17, 2011

  21. [...] Gay Patriot wonders if Obama’s latest speech caused his ratings to plummet [...]

    Pingback by Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove — April 17, 2011 @ 10:13 am - April 17, 2011

  22. Meanwhile, Palin rocks: http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/04/sarah-palin-rallies-patriots-in-madison-wisconsin-video/

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 17, 2011 @ 10:22 am - April 17, 2011

  23. P.S. I loved her tagline. Explaining that the Tea Party takes clear stands on America’s fiscal troubles unlike either major party, she says “We’re here, we’re clear, get used to it.” She was cute :-)

    Now cue some leftie claiming she is somehow too dumb to know what she was paraphrasing, in 4… 3… 2…

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 17, 2011 @ 10:35 am - April 17, 2011

  24. Does the left (or many others for that matter) realize that there really is no such thing as corporation paying taxes? Corporations are merely pass throughs because they pass on their taxes to the consumers in the form of prices (and price increases). In fact, in order to become more competitive in the world and to prevent even more work from going off shore) we should reduce our corporate taxes. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world (second on to Japan…that former economic global power house).

    Comment by Mary — April 17, 2011 @ 11:06 am - April 17, 2011

  25. Does the left (or many others for that matter) realize that there really is no such thing as corporation paying taxes? Corporations are merely pass throughs because they pass on their taxes to the consumers in the form of prices (and price increases). In fact, in order to become more competitive in the world and to prevent even more work from going off shore) we should reduce our corporate taxes. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world (second on to Japan…that former economic global power house).

    Comment by Mary — April 17, 2011 @ 11:06 am - April 17, 2011

  26. Guess what, Dogma? Looks like your Barack Obama and his puppet boy Eric Holder got called out as tax cheats.

    And know why they were so far behind? Holder’s moocher mother hadn’t been paying HER taxes either. Guess she didn’t feel she needed to, knowing that her black skin and her idiot son would keep her from ever being prosecuted for not doing so.

    What’s the matter, Dogma? No answer? Can’t you explain why you and your Obama Party don’t pay your taxes?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 17, 2011 @ 11:45 am - April 17, 2011

  27. “Nice to see you jump right into the comment thread, Miss Dogma, with a commitment to civil discourse”

    Dan, are you saying that Auntie Dogma should engage in civil discourse like this:

    ” In fact, Dogma and the rest of the gay and lesbian community it represents want to disable MORE people with AIDS, with their plan to “take care” of the elderly being to make sure they die of AIDS-related complications before they ever reach that age.”

    In fact I don’t find Auntie Dogma’s posts very helpful, even when I basically agree with his point, but you really come off as a hypocrite to decry his lack of civility when you continually allow your supporters nasty ravings to go unchallenged.

    In a recent post Levi made substantive criticisms of your critique of bi-partisanship. It is fine if people disagree with Levi, but your supporters attack him like rabid animals and not once is their any criticism of their lack of civility.

    Comment by Brendan — April 17, 2011 @ 12:57 pm - April 17, 2011

  28. I don’t think even Dogma (whoever he is) believes what he posts…..Dogma exemplifies something seen over and over again in emotionally compromised social loners who are shunned and rejected by everyone.

    People like Dogma will adopt views of a group they wish they were one of to feel like part of a group even though they are shunned by them as well.

    How extreme do the views need to be before Dogma can even imagine kinship with a certain group…..In his case I think NAMBLA is very telling.

    When we respond to Dogma on here a classic reinforcement happens..In Dogma’s own mind he is not being rejected as an individual (even though he is) but as a member of the group he imagines himself to be a part of…More simply…In Dogmas mind “I am not being rejected….WE are” even though there is no we.

    Comment by Nathan — April 17, 2011 @ 2:40 pm - April 17, 2011

  29. As to Brendan’s point, I don’t think he is making a rational comparison with Dogma..to respond to someone in the same way they address you in simply communicating with them in a manner they set as a precedent…. I would not treat someone’s irrational ravings as civil discourse any more than I would treat a mugger as someone who politely asked for five dollars. I think Dogma is responded to on the whole much better than how he addresses posts. Were this “live” then it would be possible to ignore Dogma and just leave him alone. But since anyone has to wade through his post to get to others, ignoring is not really an option.

    Isn’t it hypocritical to decry someone for not “policing” there side when you don’t either? When have you as the “rational” liberal corrected Dogma’s posts….

    Comment by Nathan — April 17, 2011 @ 2:55 pm - April 17, 2011

  30. One must understand, Nathan, that Brendan has no interest whatsoever in “civility”, as is seen from his defense of and refusal to “police” Dogma; he’s just using that as an excuse to try to get conservatives to shut up and stop criticizing his Barack Obama.

    Brendan is no more than a con man; he simply tries to exploit the trust and better values of others to get his way. This is a typical tactic of the amoral Alinsky left; they try to appeal to the better values of others that they lack. They mooch money by whining about “the poor”, they steal from others in the name of “compassion”, and they shut others up in the name of “civility”.

    Don Surber phrases best my feelings:

    Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.

    The left suddenly wants civil discourse.

    Bite me.

    The left wants to play games of semantics.

    Bite me.

    The left wants us to be civil — after being so uncivil for a decade.

    Bite me.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 17, 2011 @ 3:14 pm - April 17, 2011

  31. I think Dogma is responded to on the whole much better than how he addresses posts.

    Yes. Nanny NAMBLA is responded to “on the hole..” (Smirk)

    Comment by V the K — April 17, 2011 @ 3:45 pm - April 17, 2011

  32. For 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush 41 and 8 years of Bush 43 the trolls in the left wing media said
    Republcians were going to kill women, starve old people, throw grannie out of her house, and send children back out to the farm fields.
    None of it happened, the number of people on the dole increased it didn’t decrease.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 17, 2011 @ 4:39 pm - April 17, 2011

  33. Obama has to shore up his support with the leftists, he’s dropped from 95% approval among A Americans to 83%. He’s down 18% with all Democrats. To shore that up he can’t also attract the moderate independents. If he continues to attack as though he hasn’t been in Wash DC for the past 2 and a half years, he’ll never attract any Republicans and his approval with independents will drop even lower than 35% currently.
    Avoid picking a Bob Dole or John McCain and Obama and Michelle are toast. The next president will not be a communtiy organizer.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 17, 2011 @ 4:43 pm - April 17, 2011

  34. I don’t think NDT needs, nor wants, me to defend him. He has made it clear that his style is to respond to lefties on the terms they have set for the argument. That’s not my choice of style, but it has a certain logic to it.

    And when NDT makes broad-based criticisms of the gay left and their support for certain shocking indecencies, he’s not just making stuff up. Gay left activists universally defended the “Safe School Czar” when it was found out that he had facilitated an exploitative relationship between an older man and a minor boy and that he had belonged to an organization (GLSEN) that promoted unsafe sex to teenagers. If you can’t condemn involvement in those sorts of things, you should carry some sort of taint on you, IMHO. Also, note how Auntie Dogma and other gay leftists shamelessly hold up Harry Hay — an early supporter of NAMBLA — as a hero and icon. There is something seriously wrong with people who aren’t ashamed of this kind of thing. .

    Comment by V the K — April 17, 2011 @ 4:57 pm - April 17, 2011

  35. “I don’t think NDT needs, nor wants, me to defend him. He has made it clear that his style is to respond to lefties on the terms they have set for the argument. That’s not my choice of style, but it has a certain logic to it.”

    If you have found a relationship between logic and ND30 please explain. I think it is safe to say to most of the world he seems to be a raving lunatic. I really do suspect he lives in a halfway house and he writes his screeds right when the medication is wearing off and before he is returned to his rubber room.

    Comment by Brendan — April 17, 2011 @ 8:37 pm - April 17, 2011

  36. The “certain logic” I alluded to is based on the apparently valid supposition that it is futile to argue with doctrinaire leftists (Nanny NAMBLA, Levi, et c) using reason. He enjoys mixing it up with leftists. (I don’t particularly, precisely for that reason.) Since reasonable argument is futile, he opens up with guns blazing … as a form of entertainment, maybe.

    So the logic is… if you can’t change a leftist’s mind, you might as well amuse yourself by f–king with them.

    Comment by V the K — April 17, 2011 @ 9:27 pm - April 17, 2011

  37. V, I don’t know but I figured that NDT’s logic could be, give them a taste of their own medicine. Leftist ideology, and many real-life leftists, use broad-brush, demonizing/personalizing tactics and much worse. NDT throws it in their faces – with the virtue of at least being right (or better-sourced) on the substantive issue. Still, I must disagree with his broad-brush/personalizing tactics (while sometimes being entertained by his execution) just from the standpoint that I don’t think 2 wrongs make a right.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 17, 2011 @ 11:11 pm - April 17, 2011

  38. Brendan, as for you: Don’t be so snotty; when NDT makes comments on the substance of an issue they are generally much better than yours.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 17, 2011 @ 11:56 pm - April 17, 2011

  39. Oh, ILC, thank you for the smile and good laughs. . .

    and a sidenote, ILC, you have enlightened me. THANKS

    Comment by rusty — April 18, 2011 @ 1:49 am - April 18, 2011

  40. “What I Said was Ignorant”

    Towleroad.com has a link to an ESPN interview with Kobe Bryant who, at last, goes beyond his brief apology made last week after he called a referee an anti-gay slur during a recent Lakers game.
    Here is part of what he had to say: “Even though I didn’t mean it that way, I’ve since learned what that word still means to a lot of people. I went on-line myself and I did my own research and I saw and I read about kids who were committing suicide because of being teased for who they are. I don’t play that. I used to beat up a lot of kids even in high school who used to tease my friends because they were gay, or because they were black, or because they were Jewish, or because they were yellow, or because they were whatever. For people who don’t think my apology is sincere, they don’t know me. This isn’t over for me. I really plan to do more. What I said was ignorant and I really didn’t realize what I was saying. Now that I do and realize how it affects people I really plan to do more and to help with the awareness.”
    http://www.opposingviews.com/i/kobe-bryant-apology-for-anti-gay-slur-%E2%80%9Cwhat-i-said-was-ignorant

    Comment by rusty — April 18, 2011 @ 1:53 am - April 18, 2011

  41. Peggy Noonan supported Obama for god knows why, and she still has the gall to call others “out of touch”?

    Comment by American Elephant — April 18, 2011 @ 1:55 am - April 18, 2011

  42. Can’t quite tell what you mean, rusty. “Oh, well.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 18, 2011 @ 2:06 am - April 18, 2011

  43. Republcians were going to kill women, starve old people, throw grannie out of her house, and send children back out to the farm fields.

    Meanwhile, Chairman Obama’s kin folk live in huts and projects. Not to mention his BFF ties to slum lords.

    Libs, as usual, are full of the most detestable shit.

    Comment by TGC — April 18, 2011 @ 5:34 am - April 18, 2011

  44. ILC, I admire your style

    Comment by rusty — April 18, 2011 @ 7:28 am - April 18, 2011

  45. NDT makes comments on the substance of an issue they are generally much better than yours.

    Yes, thanks ILC, that is a point I should have made. Unlike Nanny NAMBLA, Levi, or Brendan for that matter, NDT brings the links and the cites to support what he asserts.

    And NDT’s direct approach is far less annoying than Cas’s nit-picking passive aggression.

    Comment by V the K — April 18, 2011 @ 9:19 am - April 18, 2011

  46. Peggy Noonan has to write far more scathing articles on her past support for then Candidate Obama from 2008 in contrast to the Marxist Obama of 2012. She’s still got some ways to go to regain her credibility; otherwise, she’s just as out of touch as Obama. Obama’s been out of touch with the real world for along time before 2008.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — April 18, 2011 @ 9:55 am - April 18, 2011

  47. Brendan @#27:

    ” In fact, Dogma and the rest of the gay and lesbian community it represents want to disable MORE people with AIDS, with their plan to “take care” of the elderly being to make sure they die of AIDS-related complications before they ever reach that age.”

    NDT @#2:

    In Auntie Dogma’s world, as is fully supported by the gay and lesbian community, it’s GOOD to be disabled. In fact, Dogma and the rest of the gay and lesbian community it represents want to disable MORE people with AIDS, with their plan to “take care” of the elderly being to make sure they die of AIDS-related complications before they ever reach that age.

    Context is terrible thing to manipulate if you are making a charge you expect to win on.

    NDT notes that Auntie Dogms lives in a (liberal) world where “it’s GOOD to be disabled.” That is to say, the “victim” world where everything is a civil rights battle waiting for the government to agree and to use the force of penalty to reward the “victim.” It is all part of the amorphous “social justice” charade.

    Then NDT throws a live bomb. You can prevent the spread of AIDS like all STDs can be prevented with caution, responsibility or celibacy. However, libertine gay too often chooses to play with the odds of infection and disease. In fact, the libertine gay is often actively involved in promoting such a lifestyle. Hoewever, Auntie Dogma and too many liberals in general refuse to stand against this type of societal threat.

    NDT specifically notes that the gay and lesbian community which Dogma represents is so empowered by the victimization caused by AIDS that they have come to depend on AIDS to perpetuate their claim to victimization.

    I stand four-square with NDT. The gay and lesbian “community” is not monolithic. There is no gay and lesbian “culture.” That, too, implies a monolithic group. The fact of people being gay or lesbian is clearly known. From that beginning point, gays and lesbians take on value systems and begin to create differing identities along with being gay or lesbian.

    Auntie Dogma comes here to taunt, jeer and to say certifiably inane stuff. But along the way, we have teased some personal information from him/her/it. NDT has taken Auntie to task on the destructive, libertine side of being recklessly gay.

    NDT is anathema to some, because he throws the worst of libertine gay mud back at the liberals who are so strung out on playing the “victim” card and trying to cash in on “civil rights” that he makes them mad.

    This whole theme about “civility” that Brendan unleashed is nothing of the sort. It is the censorship of political correctness that Brendan is wielding. Brendan does not want any dirty laundry brought out that might wreck the whole “social justice” charade.

    Comment by Heliotrope — April 18, 2011 @ 10:58 am - April 18, 2011

  48. Thank you rusty. It was only that there is enough /snark and /sarc flying around (including from me, I admit) that I can never be sure about reading things literally.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 18, 2011 @ 11:04 am - April 18, 2011

  49. Heliotrope – Yes, but NDT sometimes personalizes issues (throwing Alinksy back in the Left’s face), and in a way that leaves out the logical connections that would let people follow along, or that would make it more valid. Take this example from #2:

    Is anyone else amused by Auntie Dogma, who, like the gay and lesbian community Auntie Dogma represents and speaks for, supports HIV-positive men having bareback sex with eight-year-olds, screaming about the “disabled” and “elderly”?

    The link was in the original. It goes to a news article about an 8 year old who was raped on weekends by his dad’s boyfriend. Very, very sad. But as for Auntie Dogmatic – granted that she is hateful and her comments are largely insane, and it’s often amusing – was there a comment thread where Auntie had condoned or supported such things?

    Maybe there was, because some other people are on this “Granny NAMBLA” thing. But, by now, the offensive comment has faded from my memory. It might have been a better thing for NDT to link (so people like me, who are inclined to sympathize with NDT’s views, are reminded what he means).

    Or if not – if, alternatively, there isn’t a thread where Auntie condoned having sex with 8 year olds – then NDT has offered a highly complex conclusion in a highly condensed form; I would say, overly condensed. The complex conclusion would be: that Auntie is part of the immoral/inhumane sexual Left, and some of its denizens condone/excuse HIV-positive men having bareback sex with 8 year olds, and therefore Auntie probably would or should or might or does do the same. The third part of that needs proof. Again, maybe the proof exists in Auntie’s case, but then reasonable people might need reminders. Otherwise, the appearance is that “broad-brush” tactics were used, painting with an overly broad brush. Broad-brush tactics are very Alinsky and there is something cute about seeing a conservative throw Alinsky tactics back at left-leaning individuals; but at the end of the day, I can’t really get behind it.

    NDT: Sorry to talk about you like this. You know I respect you, and think that you are right most of the time, and that I don’t claim to be perfect myself, and DO very much condemn HIV-positive men (or any adults) having bareback sex (or any sex) with 8 year olds.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 18, 2011 @ 11:54 am - April 18, 2011

  50. Maybe there was, because some other people are on this “Granny NAMBLA” thing.

    It goes back to a comment where AD held out Harry Hay — an early and outspoken supporter of NAMBLA — as an iconic gay hero.

    Comment by V the K — April 18, 2011 @ 12:46 pm - April 18, 2011

  51. Thank you, V. See, I missed that thread.

    Read it now. To be perfectly fair, Auntie Dogmatic could have meant to praise one aspect of Hay (his outness) while ignoring another (his advocacy of NAMBLA). I know, it’s a stretch… the more so as it would have been Auntie’s responsibility to make that clear, and she apparently did not even try. Like this: I condemn NAMBLA, and its supporters.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 18, 2011 @ 1:46 pm - April 18, 2011

  52. ILC,

    Thanks for your very thoughtful points about my stand with how NDT approached the hypocrisy of ignoring extreme gay behavior. You are correct that NDT occasionally skips a few steps before reaching the jugular. I, also, fail to layout the groundwork each and every time I strike back. In my case, sometimes I am talking to fellow travelers more than I am trying to “communicate” with the lefty. I have played the endless “communicate” games with Hi! Cas and his/her/its insufferable, eely, meandering, “reframing” of the argument. I do not even pretend to “communicate” with the incognito Auntie of All Dogma, because he/she/it has no agenda, only a maddening itch from which he/she/it can not find relief.

    Ergo, I do not exactly value “civility” as the best means of communicating with those who practice to deceive. On the other hand, one must always keep one’s hyperbole within defensible bounds.

    Thanks again for your moderating thoughts. I remain four square behind NDT. His “incivility” has not been gratuitous in my opinion. In fact, his “incivility” is more akin to ferreting out the ugly truth than it is related to incivility. And, naturally, “incivility” is name calling at best. It is in the mind of the beholder and sometimes the beholder has a questionable mind. I put references to Palin’s vagina at the top of the list of dialog by a questionable mind. In my world, aging men fascinated with Palin’s crotch are just a bit more than horny.

    Comment by Heliotrope — April 18, 2011 @ 2:51 pm - April 18, 2011

  53. I, also, fail to layout the groundwork each and every time I strike back. In my case, sometimes I am talking to fellow travelers more than I am trying to “communicate” with the lefty… I do not exactly value “civility” as the best means of communicating with those who practice to deceive.

    Understood. “Me, too.”

    I believe that one owes one’s fellow human being two things: civility, and justice (or moral clarity). And when the two conflict, the second one is more important. NDT believes he is delivering justice. I am trying to make clear, that I respect his motives even when I think he has gone out on a limb where (from my own sense of justice) I cannot go.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 18, 2011 @ 3:06 pm - April 18, 2011

  54. Auntie Dogma: If you confiscated every single cent of income from all taxpayers making 100,000 or more this year it STILL would not make up Obama’s DEFICIT _this year_. We would. Still. Be. Spending. More. Than. We. take. In.

    Comment by Ryan Aaron — April 18, 2011 @ 3:13 pm - April 18, 2011

  55. To be perfectly fair, Auntie Dogmatic could have meant to praise one aspect of Hay (his outness) while ignoring another (his advocacy of NAMBLA).

    I understand your point, but there’s a certain, “Despite supporting the Klan, he was otherwise a nice guy” aspect to that. There are some things in life that are just so far beyond the pale that any association with them ought to be a permanent taint.

    Comment by V the K — April 18, 2011 @ 3:26 pm - April 18, 2011

  56. V, I grant your point as fair. And it’s fair to say to Auntie, did you know Harry Hay was a strong NAMBA supporter? Are you willing to condemn NAMBLA, and Hay’s support for it? And then, when Auntie spins and evades the question, OK that would kind of settle it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 18, 2011 @ 10:29 pm - April 18, 2011

  57. ILC,

    Except that Granny Goodness doesn’t reply to posts. So I think letting the statement stand on its own merits is fine.

    It’s not as damning as Tim’s infamous statement that anyone who thinks adults haveing sex with 15 years olds is wrong needs their moral compass adjusted, or Levi’s comments about Arabians being unable to comprehend democracy. Or Levi’s ‘dragging us into the future’ statements, but giving the previous threads on the blog, it’s pretty damning.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 19, 2011 @ 8:06 am - April 19, 2011

  58. Livewire, you might want to remind Timmeh of that in the Atlas Shrugged thread; where he is still baffled why NDT doesn’t think gays who don’t have a problem with molesting underage kids shouldn’t be allowed to adopt.

    Comment by V the K — April 19, 2011 @ 9:27 am - April 19, 2011

  59. TL, yeah. I thought about it some more, I am trying to bottom-line it.

    She praised Harry Hay, without distancing herself from or even acknowledging his NAMBLA connection. OK, that is really disgusting.

    But here is somebody relatively sympathetic (to your viewpoint) and attentive (to the blog) – namely, me – and y’all are slinging around Granny NAMBLA and she-supports-bareback-sex-with-8-year-olds, and I’m lost. And again, most people would describe me as attentive to the blog.

    I’m not blaming anybody because in the rush of debate, we all say things in a condensed way – i.e. cut a few corners. But could we all try to cut fewer corners? Criticism, to be effective, must make sense to the audience.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2011 @ 11:00 am - April 19, 2011

  60. And TL, yes you do a pretty good job of explaining what you mean (as you just did, about Tim and Levi).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2011 @ 11:05 am - April 19, 2011

  61. But could we all try to cut fewer corners? Criticism, to be effective, must make sense to the audience.

    I’ll drink to that!

    (One exception, please. In my experience Hi! Cas can not ever quite settle for an explanation.)

    Comment by Heliotrope — April 19, 2011 @ 11:30 am - April 19, 2011

  62. Heh :-) Well yes Heliotrope, it also takes an audience that isn’t wholly unwilling to understand.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2011 @ 11:33 am - April 19, 2011

  63. For me, it’s something more to comment on when deconstructing posts. I started calling it ‘Granny Goodness’ because it fits the image and voice (as done by Ed Asner) of the comic book character. Granny’s known for torturing Children (Her female furies, Mr. Miracle, Big Barda, etc) so Dogma’s praise of Harry Hay just adds to the image.

    It’s like when I mock Tim that he can’t understand us because we’re too old for him.

    Most of ‘us’ have clearly defined positions. And by ‘us’ I mean the ‘clean and articulate’ posters. I don’t think I’ve ever tried to obscure where I stand (or when I get things wrong), Pat is clear on his beliefs (if wrong) :-) etc.

    It’s only when someone tries to take the ‘moral high ground’ I feel the urge to point out how far they have to go.

    Praising Harry Hay is like praising Stalin for his sense of humor, or Edi Amin for his cooking skills. I feel there’s so much evil to outweigh any ‘good’ they may have.

    (veering even more off topic, I support the boy scouts. Any ‘evil’ that might be inferred from their morally straight clause is more than offset by the good they do. You don’t like their membership standards, form your own group. :-) )

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 19, 2011 @ 11:36 am - April 19, 2011

  64. ‘I’m not saying Obama’s popularity is tanking, but Kenyans are now claiming he was born in the United States.’ – Dennis Miller

    Comment by V the K — April 19, 2011 @ 12:57 pm - April 19, 2011

  65. the left wanting all of the riches monies has nothing to do with the money, it has more to do with punishing achievment. Don’t you see, if you are well off, that means you did better than the down trodden Democrat whinning in the corner over there. And well,….that just ain’t fair.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 19, 2011 @ 5:29 pm - April 19, 2011

  66. The modern Democrat Party is really Communists; the “fairness” they screech about is to destroy wealth for them to distribute it to their cronies. Why don’t the modern Democrats just move to a Communist country such as China, Cuba, Venezuela, & North Korea? They would, of course, be hounded by minders because they are still Americans. So why do the modern Democrats want to turn America into a Communist pothole? Besides the lust for power & the need to divide others with their class warfare crap…

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — April 19, 2011 @ 7:06 pm - April 19, 2011

  67. And here’s the latest example of Levi, Brendan, and Barack Obama’s “civility”: sending death threats to the wrong individuals.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2011 @ 8:43 pm - April 19, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.