Gay Patriot Header Image

The rumors of Barack Obama’s first-class temperament were invented out of whole cloth

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:48 am - May 2, 2013.
Filed under: Media Bias,Obama Watch

Remember back in the days when Barack Obama was promising a new kind of politics, that his supporters promised he would, through sheer force of his personality, transform the partisan divides which polarized our discourse and usher in a new age of civility.  The Democrat, many claimed, had a “both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament.

He would rise above petty bickering and, in his own words, help “break [that] pattern in Washington where everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame.

Only problem Obama didn’t have much of a record acting in the way he had promised to.  And four years and three months as president have shown him to be quite the opposite of the transcendent leader he promised to be.  He, for example, blames others for his failures, whines about the problems he has to face, and questions the motives of his ideological adversaries.

Nowhere is this more manifest than in his public speeches and press conferences.  And he showed his peevish streak in his press conference earlier this week when he refused to take responsibility for his failure to compromise with Congress, responding to a question about his clout with Congress by saying that the questioner seemed ” to suggest that somehow these folks over there have no responsibilities and that my job is to somehow get them to behave.  That’s their job.

Yea, but, did this guy who wasn’t supposed to transcend political differences and want to break the blame-game that pervades in the nation’s capital reach out to Congress and try to avoid the sequester (which the journalist mentioned in his question)?  Couldn’t he, with his “first-class temperament” have managed to prod congressional leaders often at loggerheads to hammer out a compromise.

As James Taranto, in commenting on Tuesday’s press conference his Best of the Web column yesterday, put it:

. . . governing or legislating is more complicated. It requires both compromise and persuasion–the ability to yield to your adversaries and to make them feel it is in their interest to yield to you. It also requires a practical sense of both how your ideas will go over politically, how to make them go over favorably, and how they will actually work in practice.

Obama is sorely lacking in all these skills–which even his detractors must acknowledge makes his re-election an impressive feat.

To a very large extent then, Barack Obama lacks the very skills he purported to have in his bid for the White House, the very skills which would supposedly set him apart from the polarizing politics that needed changing.

No wonder we conservatives remain incredulous that he was reelected to a second term.

Back in 2008, many on the right, pointing to his record in Illinois and his rhetoric before his rise to fame, said as much.  But, yet all too many of our friends in the media ignored our questions about his record, taking instead his claims at face value.

And four years of such press conferences notwithstanding, some still do.

Share

64 Comments

  1. The man runs a campaign so ruthlessly efficient (H/T: MSM), Patton himself would to be proud to come in and take a dump.

    Unfortunately, when it comes time to put on his helmet and get in the game, he’s little more than a Pop Warner kid who’s been told he’s far more talented than he really is.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 2, 2013 @ 5:19 am - May 2, 2013

  2. All I have to say is, well, duh. And, I do miss George W. Bush.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — May 2, 2013 @ 6:18 am - May 2, 2013

  3. He’s a community agitator, what does anyone expect? His job has always been to stir things up, whip up resentments, and basically create a problem others have to solve. That’s pretty much what he’s done as President. He whips up emotion (say, over the Sandy Hook shootings), then insists Congress fix the problem.

    He’s simply unwilling or unable to govern. Rush made the point several times that Obama doesn’t want to be seen as governing, that it allows him to play at being the powerless outsider trying to fix the problem (which he has no intention of doing).

    Remember when Obama said change can only come from outside Washington? Why did none of the rumpswab apologists of the media then ask President Historic First why he wanted the office? I mean, if he wanted to affect real change, and it could only come from outside Washington … then again, how dumb am I, expecting anything approaching honesty or integrity from the media (aka the Propoganda arm of the Democratic Party)?

    Compromise means everyone walks away with less than they wanted. Can you see the petulant Sun King who said “I won” accepting anything less than total capitulation?

    Barack Obama got elected, and re-elected, because the media carried him. They hid his past, outright lied about his opponents, and simply didn’t cover a story if it didn’t suit the narrative. Had Obama suffered even a tenth of the scrutiny and negative press GW Bush or Sarah Palin received, he would never have been elected President.

    Thanks for posting!

    Comment by acethepug — May 2, 2013 @ 6:41 am - May 2, 2013

  4. He lacks reverence.* In my opinion that alone explains 80-90% of his behavior and rhetoric.

    *Paul Woodruff, Reverence: Renewing a Forgotten Virtue, especially his chapter on reverent leadership.

    Comment by Rick67 — May 2, 2013 @ 7:06 am - May 2, 2013

  5. Yeah, this is what happens when a “narrative” is valued over the truth. The left created a narrative under Bush and then, like a Hollywood script (since liberals think Hollywood is reality), they created Obama in the image of a Hollywood archetype:

    The Magical Negro is a supporting stock character in American cinema who is portrayed as coming to the aid of a film’s white protagonists. These characters, who often possess special insight or mystical powers, have been a long tradition in American fiction.

    Link

    And the low-information voters lapped it up.

    Comment by V the K — May 2, 2013 @ 7:39 am - May 2, 2013

  6. …is a supporting stock character in American cinema who is portrayed as coming to the aid of a film’s white protagonists.

    Then we’d all be better off if Morgan Freeman had been elected President.
    ;)

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 2, 2013 @ 8:57 am - May 2, 2013

  7. The story of his first-class temperament go back to the financial panic of September 2008, when John McCain panicked so badly. I’ve always thought that the reason Obama was able to remain calm was that he simply could not understand what was happening, or why it was serious. His blissful ignorance of economic reality persists to this day.

    Comment by grassmarket — May 2, 2013 @ 9:19 am - May 2, 2013

  8. Yeah, this is what happens when a “narrative” is valued over the truth. The left created a narrative under Bush and then, like a Hollywood script (since liberals think Hollywood is reality), they created Obama in the image of a Hollywood archetype:

    Excellent find, V!!!!

    And unfortunately for the SCOAMF (contrary to whatever delusions he may be under), he’s simply not capable of growing the beard:

    The opposite of Jumping the Shark, Growing the Beard is the definitive moment when a television series begins to become noticeably better in quality. This often involves a new writer or other creative person coming on board, the happy discovery of a popular character, or the exit of a meddling executive. In general, this is where the franchise starts to find its voice. Getting someone new into a series with an abysmal beginning can be difficult, as they only have one’s word that “it gets a lot better, really.” Can occasionally accompany a downplay or removal of less popular characters.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 2, 2013 @ 9:25 am - May 2, 2013

  9. As I see it, Obama (believing every complimentary word about himself from those throughout his life who feel awfully pleased with themselves having given an ambitious young black person the encouragement borne of soft bigotry) is having difficulty reconciling the roles of executive and agitprop. Since his narrative has been that of the professional outsider, he enjoys the perks of being the ultimate insider while not understanding the role.

    Ironically, Reagan ignored and even scorned his handlers and the newsmakers, going directly to the American people and asking them to put pressure on Congress. We now have a community organizer unable to organize; when he cannot let a particularly American moment of tragedy go to waste, he becomes angry — angry that all those seeming kindnesses, all the good grades as a reward for not showing up, all the applause for pretty speeches, all of it wasn’t about himself. It was all symbolism.

    Obama’s anger is a frustration that he has reached the point where the people (right, center, and even the left) are not willing to disarm, that efforts to severely limit access to the ability to defend themselves crosses a certain, peculiarly American line — that we didn’t elect him that much. He’s beginning to realize that the magic is gone, that the moment has arrived where the wave of racial equality symbolism cannot last forever, and that he will not get his way. Just as many Republicans thought an Obama defeat imminent considering his record and were in disbelief at the outcome, Obama couldn’t believe that Sandy Hook and his persona were surmountable. And he’s angry.

    I wonder what Obama’s legacy will be. For many presidents, it is asked whether they were worthy of the office. For this one, some will ask whether the office was worthy of him.

    Comment by Ignatius — May 2, 2013 @ 10:13 am - May 2, 2013

  10. he is a myth created by the democratic party-media complex.

    Comment by tommy651 — May 2, 2013 @ 10:24 am - May 2, 2013

  11. The brat has been pumped up and pampered all his life by others to the point that he truly considers himself a legend in his own mind. Truth is, he is just another over rated sub performer with a god complex.

    Comment by OldmanRick — May 2, 2013 @ 10:59 am - May 2, 2013

  12. David Barack Axlerod Obama pulled off a remarkable coup. They figured out how to blend the political machine with Progressive “reform” while denying association with either machine politics or Progressive statism and socialism.

    The political machine harnessed the votes of the lower-class workers. They sought out the poor, the immigrants, the working stiffs and delivered help, service and opportunity. Their contribution to the American lexicon is the “ward heeler” who helped widows, found jobs, twisted arms and generally God-fathered his territory all in exchange for loyalty and votes. Think: community organizer. If you are loyal to the party of the ward heeler, think: hope and change.

    Progressives kicked the job of ward heeler in the butt. Progressives demand reform. They want delivery on promises made. There is never an end to reform because even Utopia can be tweaked.

    The fact is that machine politics is plantation politics and in many ways the opposite of Progressivism. That is where David Barack Axlerod Obama and John Podesta and Cloward/Piven and The Center for American Progress come in. They have taken the constituency of the machine and the promises of Progressives for structural improvement and blended them together into one huge salmagundi of abstractions such as “hope” and “change.”

    Obama can’t deliver. In fact, he doesn’t have anything to deliver. Seriously, what is “gun control.” His adoring fans see it as ending gun violence. Conservatives see it as the door to the police state. Obama obfuscates and reads the teleprompter or just golfs instead of talks.

    What did Obama contribute to “Obamacare”? Just vague assurances of what would be protected and what would not happen and how tomorrow would be sunshine and lollipops.

    What is the whole reasoning behind immigration “reform”? For the Progressives it is citizenship and bringing people out of hiding and so, forth. For Conservatives it is overwhelming educated voters with a fresh batch of takers who will vote early and often for the party of wealth transfer. What does Obama say? Just about nothing substantive, but everything he can to demonize the Republicans.

    By the time David Barack Axlerod Obama’s second term is over, the low information public will be so confused and mismanaged that only a super-strain David Barack Axlerod Obama candidate can propel them to the polls. Obamaphones and SEIU handouts and ACORN-redux will be status quo and the next machine Progressive will have to up the “hope and change” promise to something much more substantial and specific. It will take a national minimum income and paid vacations to feed the bread and circuses crowd.

    David Barack Axlerod Obama is a one trick pony. He is term limited. Breaking the “black” glass ceiling was way more dramatic that breaking the “female” glass ceiling. The David Barack Axlerod Obama Presidency leaves a void in terms of how they pulled off their trick.

    Jimmuh Cahtah taught us how to “shoot the moon” by taking the primaries. In the game of spades you try to avoid taking a spade or you recklessly attempt to get the whole suit. Cahtah’s strategy was the latter and by the time the party machinery discovered that the peanut was in control of the nomination it was too late.

    Who is out there to replace David Barack Axlerod Obama? We ask the same question concerning Ronald Reagan. But in our case, we are looking for a person of deeply held, established principles. In the Demonizingrat’s case, they are looking for someone who can fool a majority of the people a majority of the time.

    Obama is an eel. He has never really worked at anything other than messing around with other people’s money and oozing his way to power. After 2016, he, like Bill Clinton, will become enormously wealthy doing nothing and will traipse around the country basking in the light of his own flame.

    He has shown us that we do not need a President. He hides from leadership by delivering occasional bromides and permitting the petty meanness of his underlings provide us with warnings concerning a darker future for those who get in the way.

    His “temperament” is the ice-cold demeanor of a socio-path. He would throw Michelle under the bus if he found it “necessary” to his further his own advantage.

    Too many smart people are still trying to imbue Obama with Presidential qualities as would be fitting of a person who is president of all the people and has the good of the nation at heart. Schemers who rob the bank are not worried about the depositors. They are there simply for the money.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 2, 2013 @ 11:03 am - May 2, 2013

  13. Is Obama the end-result of the “every child gets a gold star”, “there are no winner or losers”, “everybody gets a trophy” mentality of the New Left? And he’s still a cypher as to how—and how well–he got through college and law school.

    He was the token minority/foreign student head of the Law Review, yet really no-one remembers him? …WTF?

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — May 2, 2013 @ 11:35 am - May 2, 2013

  14. Ted B., if his performance at law school was anything like his performance as president, it’s no wonder people try to forget him.

    Comment by V the K — May 2, 2013 @ 11:44 am - May 2, 2013

  15. When Obama’s term expires, he will not go quietly into the night. If you think seeing Carter and Clinton on the news is too much, wait until Obama is on every news program expounding on what a Republican is doing wrong and what a Democrat is doing right. He will be consistently seen (at least as long a Michelle isn’t elected as Pres or VP) to enlighten the Proles, organizing to the end.

    Comment by eeyore — May 2, 2013 @ 12:18 pm - May 2, 2013

  16. Let’s not let the twice-willingly-deceived ignoramuses (ignoramii?) that voted for this guy. And let’s not exonerate the GOP primary process that manages to produce lackluster candidates from a field of entertaining but unelectable bomb throwers and people apparently running just for something to do. My opinion is that Romney is an honorable and decent man but I can’t say that he was on a mission. McCain may have been a good soldier but other than that – a loser.

    I tremble to think what it would take to get a majority of voters to figure out that elections are serious business.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — May 2, 2013 @ 12:36 pm - May 2, 2013

  17. eeyore – Maybe so. But my own bet remains that the coming economic storm, and Obama’s cluelessness in the face of it, will annihilate his reputation, even beyond what his liberal allies in media and academia can repair in 20 years. It took about that long for Jimmeh Carter’s face to re-emerge.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 2, 2013 @ 12:41 pm - May 2, 2013

  18. More and more Obama is revealing that he isn´t what he first campaigned to be. Nowhere was it more evident than at the press corp dinner, where in his stand up comic routine he unveiled, in cartoon form, what his presidential library will look like. It will be built next to the G.W. Bush Library with a sign and arrow pointing at 41´s that reads ¨Blame Bush.¨ The MSM has been and continues to be his lap dogs. We might as well be living in Venezuela, where the only media is that which was approved by Chavez. I see little difference between Chavez and Obama, except the former is now dead.

    eeyore is right Obama will not go quietly into the night. Except he won´t limit his appearences to news programs. Oh no. He doesn´t want to deprive his fans. He´ll be a frequent guest on The View where the liberal ladies can reminisce on how great it was to live in his historic presidency. He will probably show up on the late night shows; he might even become a substitute host. To fill out his calendar, he´ll be in pro am golf tournaments. During his term in office, I think he already broke President Eisenhower´s record for games played, which it took him eight years to achieve.

    Comment by Roberto — May 2, 2013 @ 2:37 pm - May 2, 2013

  19. correction: not 41 but 43rd´s.

    Comment by Roberto — May 2, 2013 @ 2:40 pm - May 2, 2013

  20. Obama is a Marxist. He has no interest in our economy our strength or our sovereignty. He is interested in moving our policies, our institutions and the size of government toward Marxism. Many disagree with the use of the term Marxism, and I’m fine with that. But the point remains.

    Comment by Gus — May 2, 2013 @ 6:46 pm - May 2, 2013

  21. Roberto, Obama is the MFM’s dream come true. An imbecile who believes as they do.

    Comment by Gus — May 2, 2013 @ 6:47 pm - May 2, 2013

  22. …is a supporting stock character in American cinema who is portrayed as coming to the aid of a film’s white protagonists.

    Then we’d all be better off if Morgan Freeman had been elected President.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 2, 2013 @ 8:57 am – May 2, 2013

    Or Bagger Vance.

    Comment by Ralph Gizzip — May 2, 2013 @ 9:50 pm - May 2, 2013

  23. Projection Much???
    Jeepers you guys…Obama is not the boogeyman…

    Seems its all a matter of perspective isn’t it? Just yesterday Republican Christie was praising Obama and discussing how Obama “has kept all his promises”
    Just a few days ago Obama was laying praise on LaHood.

    So clearly a few non absolutists republicans find him good to work with. Maybe its time for republicans in the House to look inward a bit and ask why they fight Obama on absolutely everything?
    Why even popular measures can’t sail through? Maybe they need to ask themselves why the first instinct of Republicans is to citizen Obama even when he compromises and offers cuts to entitlements.

    Surly Obama could be better at this type of give-and-take, but I don’t the republicans are interested and instead dig their heals in the ground and throw bratty temper-tantrum’s despite their recent election loss.

    Comment by mike — May 2, 2013 @ 10:48 pm - May 2, 2013

  24. Jeepers you guys…Obama is not the boogeyman…

    He’s worse. He’s a Marxist bent on turning us into a North American version of Venezuela.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 2, 2013 @ 11:06 pm - May 2, 2013

  25. Because, concern-troll mike, Barack Obama has stated that his goal is to kill Republicans.

    You do not compromise with killers. You do everything in your power to stop them from killing.

    Your Obama is a killer, mike. And you support every personal slur, every destructive hate statement, and his overall goal to kill Republicans.

    Your Obama is a sick, hateful man, the leader of a party of sick, hateful people who want Republicans dead.

    And you agree that Republicans should be dead.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 2, 2013 @ 11:44 pm - May 2, 2013

  26. “He’s a Marxist bent on turning us into a North American version of Venezuela.”
    Peter H. I believe you are joking…but…its so hard to tell with the internet being is what is it is.

    NDT – its amusing to me that the link you used as evidence that the President wants to murder Republicans discusses that Obama was planning to go after Romney exactly as Bush went after Kerry. (the only real difference is Bush’s was slamming the military service of a veteran while Obama went after Romney’s business/tax decisions)

    So…by following your illogical logic, can I assume that you and every single conservative on this site support every single Bush policy and therefore support the killing of Dems and slandering of veterans?

    I didn’t think so.

    Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to apologize for such a sick accusation. I think everyone knows you don’t believe a single thing you type and instead just enjoy the thrill of the flame.

    Comment by mike — May 3, 2013 @ 1:30 am - May 3, 2013

  27. Actually, mike, you’ve already been called out on your attempts to play this game.

    I quote:

    In my years of participating in GP threads, I’ve noticed that some who are opposed to the blog or its usual viewpoint, may be excessively fond of the “consistency game”, demanding that anyone who would criticize them must first meet some standard of consistency that has been issued by themselves.

    It’s a cute game. They declare the standards and they appoint themselves the judges – which means they can’t be criticized in the thread, because they will never judge their critic as having been consistent enough, and will always change the subject back to their critic’s alleged inconsistency.

    I called it “cute”, because little kids do it to their parents (or try to). But the game’s effects, and likely its intent, are destructive.

    it also backfires, because you were stupid enough to start screaming about how awful and evil and bad Bush was while acknowledging that your Obama, your Mocha Messiah, who is so wonderful and awesome and good and perfect, was doing the same things as those for which you were criticizing Bush.

    So not only is your fake “consistency” game exposed, you also managed to demonstrate how wholly inconsistent you are.

    Furthermore, as for slamming the military service of a veteran, we should also keep in mind that Kerry and the Barack Obama Party went so far as to create, push, and defend false documents regarding Bush’s ANG service record, with the express purpose of smearing and destroying Bush.

    Take a lesson from this, mike. Your incoherent blathering of Obama Party talking points is easily and succintly destroyed by people who are educated, aware of the facts, and recognize that Obama filth like yourself will stop at nothing to smear and attack Republicans.

    Because you want us dead.

    Don’t worry; I don’t expect you to respond. Everyone here knows you’re nothing but a desperate Obama concern troll whose only purpose in coming here is to lie about and attack Republicans.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 3, 2013 @ 2:19 am - May 3, 2013

  28. #23: “Maybe they need to ask themselves why the first instinct of Republicans is to citizen Obama even when he compromises and offers cuts to entitlements.”

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!…………

    Comment by Sean A — May 3, 2013 @ 3:07 am - May 3, 2013

  29. NDT
    I think its pretty obvious that I was not playing any consistency game but instead calling you out for your horrible use of logic.

    Sorry if you missed that. In the future, I will try and be more clear when I try to explain just how illogical your rants have become.

    But as I have said many times, I am not a dem, or even a liberal but consider myself a stalwart of moderates and have voted for both the Party of Bush and the Party of Obama.
    Apparently moderatism is considered “concern trolling” around here. Fine. To play to my stereotype, my greatest “concern” in the House republicans screw around so much the public throws them out next election and brings us unified government.
    That would be the worst!

    SeanA – it took my a few re-reads to find my typo. You are right. That is amusing

    Comment by mike — May 3, 2013 @ 3:41 am - May 3, 2013

  30. No typo’s that funny, mike. It’s the assertion you made that merited it’s own laugh-track.

    Comment by Sean A — May 3, 2013 @ 4:32 am - May 3, 2013

  31. But my own bet remains that the coming economic storm, and Obama’s cluelessness in the face of it, will annihilate his reputation, even beyond what his liberal allies in media and academia can repair in 20 years.

    I am so firmly convinced that America is an Idiocracy that not even total collapse will mar the Mahogany Marxist Messiah’s reputation; Obama’s economic policies are basically Brawndo, they destroy everything they touch, but people are so dumbed down whenever anyone suggests the free market, the response is roughly comparable to when Not Sure suggests using water on crops instead of Brawndo. “You mean like toilet water? I ain’t never seen no plant growin’ outta no toilet.”

    Comment by V the K — May 3, 2013 @ 8:47 am - May 3, 2013

  32. Sean A — Remember, mike voted for Obama supposedly because he was the “fiscally conservative” candidate.

    Carrot Top should have such material.

    Comment by V the K — May 3, 2013 @ 8:48 am - May 3, 2013

  33. Peter H. I believe you are joking…but…its so hard to tell with the internet being is what is it is.

    With Americans being forced to endure a second SnObama term, the joke’s on us.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 3, 2013 @ 9:52 am - May 3, 2013

  34. …its so hard to tell with the internet being is what is it is.

    Comment by mike “I fell down and I can’t get up! And I hit my head, too! Owww!!! — May 3, 2013 @ 1:30 am

    *** A team of eminent and accomplished physicians has been assembled, and after a thorough and exhaustive review of the medical history and all of the relevant literature, we have discovered that this patient is suffering from Bovine Excreta Infinitus, which is commonly referred to, in lay terminology:

    Sh*t For Brains

    We are doing, and will continue to do, all that is medically and humanly possible to address this situation. But at present, in terms of improvement, we consider it hopeless.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 3, 2013 @ 10:02 am - May 3, 2013

  35. I think its pretty obvious that I was not playing any consistency game but instead calling you out for your horrible use of logic.

    Sorry if you missed that. In the future, I will try and be more clear when I try to explain just how illogical your rants have become.

    Yes, mike, we’re all aware that you are mentally incapable of understanding that anyone who criticizes your Obama, your Mocha Messiah, the center of all good in the universe, could possibly be acting logically or rationally.

    But as I have said many times, I am not a dem, or even a liberal but consider myself a stalwart of moderates and have voted for both the Party of Bush and the Party of Obama.

    Yeah, of course. We are supposed to believe that you voted for people from a party that you scream is the reincarnation of Nazis.

    Again, you’re spinning for Obama, which you think makes you rational. Out here in the real world, we see the incoherence of your ranting.

    Apparently moderatism is considered “concern trolling” around here. Fine. To play to my stereotype, my greatest “concern” in the House republicans screw around so much the public throws them out next election and brings us unified government.
    That would be the worst!

    While in the same breath you call them insane racist Nazis for disagreeing with your Obama, your Mocha Messiah, the center of all good in the universe.

    You would have us believe that “moderate” means you endorse and support, as you do, Obama’s and his Obama Party’s statements and actions to kill Republicans and brand them as evil, mean Nazis.

    That only becomes coherent when one remembers that Obama, who rants about killing Republicans and endorses and pushes his Obama Party’s screaming that all Republicans are evil mean racist Nazis who support rape and want women to die on the floor considers himself a “moderate”.

    But it’s not reality. Obama and his acolytes like you are fascists who want their opposition destroyed and will stop at no matter of malicious and destructive lies and hate speech to do it — even, as we see in Wyoming, faking hate crimes to smear and attack Republicans.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 3, 2013 @ 10:56 am - May 3, 2013

  36. NDT, to me a moderate is somebody who says, “Oh, I could vote for Republicans if they would just become pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-birth control, pro-taxes, pro-welfare, pro-Amnesty and told the Christians to go f–k themselves.”

    IOW, if Republicans became Democrats, they’d be okay with them.

    Comment by V the K — May 3, 2013 @ 12:14 pm - May 3, 2013

  37. I think its pretty obvious that I was not playing any consistency game but instead calling you out for your horrible use of logic.

    This from the same littlelettermike’s towering logic when he posted this @ #23:

    Just yesterday (1.)Republican Christie was praising Obama and discussing how Obama “has kept all his promises”
    Just a few days ago (2.)Obama was laying praise on LaHood.

    (1. a.) Republican Christie praised Obama. True. (1. b) He praised Obama for keeping all his promises. True. (1. c) important omission: “all his promises” were limited to promises given to the State of New Jersey concerning Hurricane Sandy.

    Christie will need to be asked if he believes Obama has kept all of the promises he has made in running for President and while being President irrespective of whether they concerned New Jersey or not.

    Christie will need to be asked if he favors taxing and taxing and taxing and deficit spending and deficit spending and deficit spending and debasing the currency through continuing buying up Treasury notes by the FED using imaginary money. Who knows, maybe Republican Christie is all hot for state socialism. You might be right. We Conservatives would love to know if he is wearing the wrong label.

    However, littlelettermike, you have lied through the “sin of omission.” If you didn’t mean to lie, then your ability to parse “logic” is nil. There is a huge difference between Christie saying that Obama kept his word on Hurricane Sandy and Christie saying “Obama has kept all his promises.”

    (2.) Obama lay praise on LaHood. Huh? If Obama were even slightly bi-partisan in nature, he would regularly meet and work with Republicans to garner bi-partisan support for his agenda. He managed to avoid any conversation with Paul Ryan and then set him up in a front row seat at the White House for a very personal smack down. Here is a recap of that moment:

    Congressman Paul Ryan has earned the respect of millions of Americans for his hard work on the budget and for developing his plan for dealing with the fiscal and debt challenges facing the nation. Earlier this year, Ryan and a few other Republican leaders were specifically invited by Obama to attend one of his speeches. Ryan was given pride of place in the front row. Ryan said that he and others were hopeful that Obama was signaling a shift and a willingness to work with them in the spirit of bipartisanship that Obama preached in 2008. The congressman should have learned that hope was just a four-letter campaign slogan:

    However, to Ryan’s amazement what he got from Obama, publicly, was not an olive branch at all but Obama poisoning the well! In front of the whole audience Obama lashed out specifically at Rep. Ryan! It was like watching a strict school teacher chastising a wayward school boy in front of the class.

    Obama insulted Ryan and the other Republican “guests,” dismissing Ryan’s plan as unserious and un-American. Lori Montgomery of the Washington Post was perplexed by the president’s behavior:

    “What came to my mind was: Why did he invite us?” Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.) said in an interview Thursday. “It’s just a wasted opportunity.”

    The situation was all the more perplexing because Obama has to work with these guys: Camp is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, responsible for trade, taxes and urgent legislation to raise the legal limit on government borrowing. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.) chairs the House Republican Conference. And Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is House Budget Committee chairman and the author of the spending blueprint Obama lacerated as “deeply pessimistic” during his 44-minute address.

    At a time when the parties risk economic catastrophe unless they can come together to raise the debt limit, Obama’s partisan tone made no sense, Republicans across Capitol Hill said Thursday. Even some Obama allies wondered whether the president had made a tactical error.

    Ryan said he should have suspected that something was afoot when he did not see the White House budget director or the secretary of the treasurer at a speech billed as the rollout for Obama’s budget plan. (As has been true of so many anticipated Obama plans, what Obama introduced as his budget plan in this case was “vaporware.”) Whom did he see? David Plouffe, Obama’s senior political adviser.

    Obama had again lured Republicans into an ambush. (Memo to the GOP: Priam and his people learned their lesson about accepting gifts when they took in the Trojan Horse. Beware of invitations from Obama.) In his quest to score cheap political points or vent his rage at those who resist his plans, Obama again put partisanship above country. What was needed was comity and maturity, not political ambushes. Washington works best when leaders grease the gears of government by at least being cordial to each other — but this is a lesson Obama has failed to learn.

    Obama heaped praise on Ray LaHood while sand-bagging La Hood’s replacement in the House of Representatives at a speech in the 18th Congressional District of Illinois with Congressman Aaron Schock standing helplessly by. Obama had invited the freshman Congressman to ride on Air Force One to his home district and then he set the Congressman up as a punching bag and took repeated blows at him.

    Your light coat of frosting over the turd that Obama is when it comes to bipartisanship does not change a thing about the core of what he is and how he behaves.

    From the first “I won” spit wad fired at John McCain to a an endless string of snark, blame-setting and invective, Obama has laid his inner character open for all who are not blinded or unwilling to see.

    One little slobber over Ray LaHood is like praising a hand grenade thrower for marksmanship when a single minuscule piece of shrapnel grazes the target.

    The irony in your trying to manipulate us by misrepresentation is palpable. You are mocked by the echo of Marcus Antonius. We hear your breathless adoration for Obama and imagine your oration on how Obama hath wept for the poor, how you have come to report on Obama, not praise him and how Obama has filled the coffers with money from the FED and how Obama says he is not a dictator and how you, littlelettermike, are an honorable man as are all Progressives honorable men.

    Do you really have the Moxie to try to sell that level of crap to sentient people on this site?

    Just so you know. Marcus Antonius was damning Brutus through exaggerated praise steeped in irony. I have turned that around and presented you as a Marcus Antonius who is true believer trying to sell horse manure to people in the know.

    To be clear: You have really shown your ignorance. You will have to do a whole lot better in your defense of “The Won” if you are going to win over even the Democrats who are distancing themselves from this train wreck of a president.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 3, 2013 @ 12:24 pm - May 3, 2013

  38. mike,

    Peter H and I are not joking. Apparently you didn´t see that early in Obama´s first term he attended a meeting of the Organization of American States and El Comandante Hugo Chavez gave him a big hug. Then he gave him a copy of his book which he tells how he was able to mount his revolution (his words) to implement Socilismo por El Siglo 21 (socilism for the 21st century). That book and Alinsky´s Rules For radicals is how he governs.

    Comment by Roberto — May 3, 2013 @ 12:47 pm - May 3, 2013

  39. Yeah, it’s not surprising to me that concern trolls are pushing Chris Christie. They are always advising Republicans that the only way to win is for them to nominate northeastern blue-state “moderates;” like Senator Scott Brown and President Mitt Romney.

    Comment by V the K — May 3, 2013 @ 1:25 pm - May 3, 2013

  40. “From the first “I won” spit wad fired at John McCain to a an endless string of snark, blame-setting and invective, Obama has laid his inner character open for all who are not blinded or unwilling to see.”

    Truer words were never written. However, I would contend that it is you who is the one “blinded” when looking at his inner character.

    I think there is a reason that many liberals are angry with him when he hung them out to dry on issues like the single payer health care, environment, Gitmo, Drones, wars, entitlement cuts, regulations and some appointments. Unfortunately, many on the right are “blinded” with their baseless fears of the BoogeyManDictatorSatan Obama projection they have created and can’t see all the times he has come to the center on many issues. This is one of the reason I like Obama. Because he is willing to compromise on some issues as long as he gets something in return. This is way things get done in America and its why divided government is the best kind of government.
    - Immigration for example, where he stood on the sidelines and let a bipartisan group hammer a bill out which he then embraced.
    - Gun Control for example where he stood on the sidelines and watched a reasonable bipartisan Bill get crafted but was defeated by special interest groups.

    If you could let go of your fear/hatred or whatever it is that “blinds” you would see a president who is more than willing to throw his base under the bus and compromise on something so a deal gets hammered out. Unfortunately, it takes two to tango and the Republicans have decided to oppose absolutely everything he does when they should be picking their battles. – For example, when republicans criticized him for offering entitlement cuts.

    Comment by mike — May 4, 2013 @ 3:21 am - May 4, 2013

  41. Actually, mike, both Heliotrope and I have provided clear links and quotes demonstrating Obama’s malice and hatred toward Republicans, his utter contempt for bipartisanship, and his stated goal to kill his opposition with constant and slanderous personal attacks, calling anyone who disagrees with him a racist and child-killer.

    You blather and spin, but you can do nothing but repeat Obama’s lies. No one expects you to do better, because none of your posts here have ever said anything other than “Obama is always right and anyone who disagrees with him is a racist bigot who hates the poor and wants children shot” — essentially all Obama has said his entire Presidency.

    I don’t expect you to answer this, because you can’t. You’ve revealed yourself fully by stating that anyone who disagrees with Obama is “blinded” and operating out of “fear/hatred”. You have finally outed yourself as a complete and total bigot, as well as a cultist who openly states that disagreement with Obama is always wrong.

    You lose.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 4, 2013 @ 2:12 pm - May 4, 2013

  42. He threw his “base” under the bus? No the problem is that Obama’s base is so very far left that Reid and Pelosi couldn’t get their agenda through Congress when their opposition had Zero chance of stopping anything they proposed. The Democrats couldn’t move far enough left to pass the Obama wish list. The Democrats stopped Obama.

    I loathe and despise Obamacare. I loathe and despise Reid and Pelosi for forcing this on me while they EXEMPTED themselves. I will be paying thousands more per year for health insurance that I do not want by FORCE of law. My parents are victims of Obamacare through the theft of over 500 billions dollars taken from Medicare to fund Obamacare. My children will be poorer because this bill forces young healthy people to buy expensive insurance that covers all kind of care they do not need. Their earnings are garnished to pay for other’s insurance needs by FORCE of law. And I haven’t started on the cornucopia of new taxes in Obamacare. Taxpayers are shafted while drug dealers and deadbeats get their “free care.”

    As far as dealing in faith with Obama, he has proved it cannot be done. Boehner turned on his base and cut a compromise last fall with Obama. After the deal was made Obama insisted on more tax increases being added. You cannot negotiate with someone like Obama.

    You are living in a dream world when you think Republicans who have been excoriated at every single chance Obama has had or has been able to make but you think they should not be critical in return? LOL.

    The gun control bill was reasonable? Again, you are nuts. Under this bill, my husband could not allow my son to borrow his rifle for hunting or practice range firing with paying for a background check on our son? That is completely unreasonable. We could not buy a used rifle or pistol from a friend or relative without a background check. That is completely unreasonable.

    But you are okay with federal agencies allowing illegal gun purchases without tracking them and while forcing gun shops to allow these purchases. (Operation Fast and Furious debacle) You are okay with those agencies making zero attempts to track said weapons so that at least two federal agents have been killed by these same guns. And while most of the weapons ended up in the hands of the cartels in Mexico resulting in the violent deaths of hundreds of their citizens thus far. And you are A-Okay that Obama went to Mexico this weekend and blamed America for Mexico’s gun violence problem. Stating falsely that our loose gun laws have led to so many guns coming from America to Mexico. When his administration is directly responsible for promoting a wave of guns into Mexico in an obvious attempt to ram more restrictive gun laws into place?

    Obama has never compromised with Republicans, that is a complete fabrication. He has only compromised with factions of his OWN party. His latest budget once again received bipartisan results, it did not get a single yes vote from a Democrat or a Republican.

    Sequestration is a joke. We are spending more this year than last year. And we are to somehow believe that the federal government must furlough Air Traffic controllers because the Feds don’t have as big of a budget increase as they wanted? Ridiculous. Looks like most of the public can see right through Obama’s actions.

    Saying that Obama “compromised” is the biggest joke I have heard this year. There was not a single solitary Republican idea allowed in the Obamacare nightmare. They were not even allowed into the Senate meetings on Obamacare. Remember the closed door? The late night votes, all the legal high jumps Democrats went through to pass this bill that were so bad that the opposition to this bill is the only bipartisanship about it? Any “compromise” was with Democrats like Bart Stupak and that promise was broken by Sebilious and her dedication to all abortion.

    Obama the compromiser, what a joke.

    My apologies for the screed. I don’t normally respond to the trolls but this guy chaps my hide.

    Comment by Texann — May 4, 2013 @ 2:26 pm - May 4, 2013

  43. Sorry the above was in response to Mike not ND30!

    Comment by Texann — May 4, 2013 @ 2:29 pm - May 4, 2013

  44. If you could let go of your fear/hatred or whatever it is that “blinds” you would see a president who is more than willing to throw his base under the bus and compromise on something so a deal gets hammered out.

    Well, mental midget mike, we kept saying that for the eight years that Dubya was in office, but your side wouldn’t listen.

    Who are the intolerant ones now?

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 4, 2013 @ 5:17 pm - May 4, 2013

  45. Bush allowed Ted Kennedy, one of the most liberal Senators to write the No Child Left Behind Act. Can you imagine Obama allowing Ted Crux or Jim DeMint to write even an amendment? Heck the Republican Senators were NOT even allowed into the room while Reid and company were writing the Obamacare mess.

    The only kind of compromise that Obama will allow the Republicans to do, is to simply let Obama have his petulant little way on every single issue. Why would anyone do that?

    Negotiating with Obama is like negotiating with Abbas. If you give him anything, rather than getting something in return, Obama demands something more in concessions.

    Republicans need to remember that dealing with Obama is like giving a mouse a cookie. He is going to want a glass a milk next.

    Comment by Texann — May 4, 2013 @ 6:42 pm - May 4, 2013

  46. “Under this bill, my husband could not allow my son to borrow his rifle for hunting or practice range firing with paying for a background check on our son”

    Unfortantly you gave been lied to as that is not accurate.
    http://politix.topix.com/homepage/5621-sen-manchin-accuses-nra-of-lying-about-his-bill-to-expand-background-checks

    The bill was written by a Dem with an A rating from the NRA and a republican and was a true bipartisan effort.

    Fast Furious. You are right. Thats a bad program. But again. Obama took a Bush era program and kept it going when many liberals would want this type of thing gone.
    Health care. You are right. But he had 60 dems in the senate so he only needed to compromise with them. Which he did and it made the deal vastly different from his starting point.

    And I doesn’t change he fact that many times he has reached across and thrown his base under the bus so he could forge a deal.

    Comment by mike — May 4, 2013 @ 6:53 pm - May 4, 2013

  47. The Obama shill keeps shilling away with his DNC talking points.

    Comment by V the K — May 4, 2013 @ 7:28 pm - May 4, 2013

  48. Texann —

    “We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

    Yeah, totally sounds like the kind of guy willing to reach across the aisle in a bipartisan manner.

    (And before any of the leftards say it was “taken out of context,” here’s the context: Obama was on a campaign tour in RI, assuring his Democrat audience that he would reject any Republican solutions for economic recovery.)

    Comment by V the K — May 4, 2013 @ 7:36 pm - May 4, 2013

  49. Nope, sorry, mike, you lied.

    We read the actual bill and not the lies your Obama shill Manchin pushed.

    And as even your fellow Obama worshipers admit, your Obama and your Obama Party want all guns confiscated, want all gun owners punished, and are even putting children in jail for wearing NRA t-shirts.

    Choke on that, mike. You can’t answer because those are facts. You are a liar, a desperate anti-gun BIGOT who endorses and supports your own Obama’s screaming demands that you support gun confiscation or you’re a child-killer.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 4, 2013 @ 7:45 pm - May 4, 2013

  50. And don’t forget what I quoted above, V the K: Obama and his Obama Party do not WANT bipartisanship because they hate Republicans and think they’re all crazy, evil, and mean.

    So mike’s “bipartisan” blather is all lies. And that’s all that Obama supporters do is lie. They really don’t have any morals or values; all they do is lie, lie, lie and smear, anything to get power.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 4, 2013 @ 7:50 pm - May 4, 2013

  51. NDT, I don’t even know that Democrat leadership really believes Republicans are crazy, evil, and mean. But they have discovered that promoting and fomenting hate against Republicans is an effective strategy in motivating their emotion-driven, low-information base.

    Comment by V the K — May 4, 2013 @ 7:54 pm - May 4, 2013

  52. Also, their standards of validation are pathetically amusing: “The NRA is lying about Joe Manchin’s Gun Bill,”says…. Joe Manchin.

    LOL.

    Comment by V the K — May 4, 2013 @ 7:57 pm - May 4, 2013

  53. NDT
    Thank you for providing the link that distinctively proves that Texann was lied to.
    Per your own link:
    “Exempted are gifts within a family, such as by grandparents to grandchildren” So indeed her hubby could loan her sons a gun.

    Was it a perfect bill? – God no. But it was a clear bi-partisan effort. This bill along with immigration, entitlement cuts and a others are just a few examples of bi-partisanship that Obama has displayed and I think many on the extreme right are “blinded”by their hate/fear/politics/bias to see.

    Comment by mike — May 4, 2013 @ 10:32 pm - May 4, 2013

  54. Wrong, mike. You lied yet again.

    I cited my practice of shooting with friends on public land because that’s very common in much of the country, and it doesn’t win Sen. Schumer’s favor. If you want to try a buddy’s gun, it has to be:

    at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range

    or

    at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition

    So Texann was correct. You lied, and your desperate pig Manchin lied. You CANNOT loan a gun without running a background check, even to a family member. You cannot even loan a gun unless it is in a specific location.

    Links once again prove you are a liar. That’s why we provide them. Showing facts destroys the lies of Obama hypocrites like yourself, who can only blather and tell more lies and try to demonize law-abiding Americans as child-killers.

    V the K has you nailed. You are a stupid low-information voter who doesn’t care about anything other than cashing your welfare checks and hating Republicans. That’s why you just repeat Obama talking points and rant about how awful Republicans are for daring to criticize or contradict your Mocha Messiah.

    You won’t answer that, because you can’t. Nothing you have posted has been intelligent; it’s just been blathering about how Republicans are all racist bigots and child-killers, just like your idiot Obama does.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 5, 2013 @ 12:18 am - May 5, 2013

  55. Moreover, concern-troll mike, your Barack Obama has admitted he’s “too busy” to enforce EXISTING gun laws.

    So therefore, Barack Obama is responsible for the Newtown murders, since had he actually cared and done background checks like the law said he should, those children would be alive today.

    So come on, mike. Either Barack Obama is responsible for the Newtown murders, or background checks aren’t the magical panacea you push them as being.

    We know you won’t answer. That would make too obvious that your Barack Obama is a lying grief pimp who is trying to scream and demonize his way into political power using the bodies of dead children.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 5, 2013 @ 12:36 am - May 5, 2013

  56. And don’t forget, mike, we also know that Barack Obama and his administration openly bragged about how they were going to brainwash people against guns.

    Not to mention how Barack Obama and his supporters like the idiot Manchin openly admit that they intend to confiscate all guns as soon as they get the votes to do it.

    So mike, why do you support and endorse gun confiscation? Why do you and your liar Barack Obama want to brainwash people against guns? Why do you sit here and blather and blather when the facts are clear that you are lying, that you don’t respect the Constitution, that you don’t respect peoples’ rights, and that you endorse Barack Obama’s attempts to lie, manipulate, and brainwash people into banning and confiscating guns?

    Don’t worry; I don’t expect you to respond. Everyone here knows you’re nothing but a desperate Obama concern troll whose only purpose in coming here is to lie about and attack Republicans.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 5, 2013 @ 12:44 am - May 5, 2013

  57. NDT, a couple of points to add.

    1. Manchin and Obama lied about the contents of the bill. They claimed it prevented the Federal Government from establishing a gun registry. In fact, it only prohibited one specific Federal Official, the Attorney-General, from establishing a registry. Any other agency, any other cabinet office, would have been allowed to gather and keep registry data.

    2. The concern troll is pretending that the Manchin-Toomey Bill was the only bill Obama supported (because it was “bipartisan.”) He ignores that Obama and Biden supported many more restrictions, including the ban on “high-capacity magazines,” Chuck Schumer’s bill that would have criminalized a hunter loaning his best buddy his hunting rifle, and Diane “Gee, what a coincidence, my husband’s company just won a billion dollar high-speed rail contract despite past criminal indictments for fraud” Feinstein’s ban on weapons-with-cosmetic-features-that-scare-liberals.

    Comment by V the K — May 5, 2013 @ 1:25 am - May 5, 2013

  58. BTW, didn’t four or more Democrat senators vote against the Toomey-Manchin bill, too? Isn’t that bipartisan?

    Comment by V the K — May 5, 2013 @ 1:28 am - May 5, 2013

  59. NDT-
    I am sorry, but that is not factual at all. Per your link and every where else, Family-to-family transfers are clearly exempt. You can keep block quoting other irrelevant sections but its not going to change facts.

    But I do appreciate you once again linking to it again, as I didn’t have to go back and double check.

    V – Indeed he did support lots of other restrictions on guns. I would not be surprised if he would support a total registry as well.
    But he did not get those things and instead in the spirit of bi-partisanship he let a repub and a dem craft a bill that went against a lot of what he wanted.

    Does that sound like a dictator to you?

    Comment by mike — May 5, 2013 @ 10:16 am - May 5, 2013

  60. Yes, Obama exhibits many of the characteristics of a dictator:

    - Wants his subjects disarmed.
    - Loots the public treasury to hand out billions of dollars to his cronies
    - Promotes himself with Soviet-style iconic imagery
    - Rules through Executive Fiat, bypassing the legislature
    - Selectively enforces some laws and neglects others in order to help his political allies and punish his opponents (a.k.a. selective immigration enforcement)
    - Uses the press as a propaganda organ for himself and his regime

    Comment by V the K — May 5, 2013 @ 11:55 am - May 5, 2013

  61. Wrong, mike. It is factual, and I have provided numerous links and references to demonstrate it. Perhaps if you were not blinded by your hatred and fear of Republicans, you could recognize that.

    Moreover, as V the K points out, Obama’s gun ban was rejected by a true bipartisan vote of both Republicans and Democrats. Obama’s response was to scream and rant and call them all child-killers, thus demonstrating that Obama does not respect “bipartisanship”, and in fact is a childish slandering brat who accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being a murderer.

    We know you won’t answer those facts, because you can’t. You are only here to lie and smear Republicans and spin for your Barack Obama. You support Barack Obama’s malicious slanders that anyone regardless of party who disagrees with him is an in-Anerican traitor who wants children murdered, showing what a sick, delusional, and amoral bigot you elected.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 5, 2013 @ 2:07 pm - May 5, 2013

  62. And don’t forget the latest push of Barack Obama and the Obama Party: arresting NRA members and sending them to Guantanamo.

    Which is exactly what the bigoted concern-troll mike wants done anyway, so don’t expect any condemnation or demands that the Pbama Party and Obama repudiate this behavior, as the concern troll and Barack Obama would have demanded that Bush do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 5, 2013 @ 2:24 pm - May 5, 2013

  63. And don’t forget the latest push of Barack Obama and the Obama Party: arresting NRA members and sending them to Guantanamo.

    Sort of like what Hitler did to his political opponents (and others) in the 1940s?

    And yes, I went there. Deal with it.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 5, 2013 @ 8:14 pm - May 5, 2013

  64. Passingly curious that all of the gun legislation is focused on making life harder on responsible gun owners, and not on punishing people who use guns in a criminal manner.

    Curious, that.

    BTW: Here’s a great article with a long list of the reasons we don’t trust the anti-gun crowd. (Too long, too intelligent, and too many big words for lower case concern trolls to read and understand, though.)

    http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_1c144792-b36d-11e2-8ac6-001a4bcf887a.html

    Comment by V the K — May 5, 2013 @ 9:20 pm - May 5, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.