OK Obamaites, In Truth You Did Vote For Bush!

[wkmac]

Celebrate Bushie Boys and Girls, the Obama adminstration is completely vindicating everything your hero did.

And what boys and girls is our word today? Let's all say it together now.


HYPOCRITE!

Hey Johnny, the teacher is wrong, the correct word is LIAR!

 

[Babagounj]

Sorry wkmac, but under the new guidelines what you wrote is now considered to be hate speech. You must conform with the new order. Only positive thoughts about the MIGHTY O will be allowed.

 

[chev]

Sorry wkmac, but under the new guidelines what you wrote is now considered to be hate speech. You must conform with the new order. Only positive thoughts about the MIGHTY O will be allowed.

Yes, and where is his golden image for us to bow down to and pray to 3 times a day?

 

[Sammie]

Celebrate Bushie Boys and Girls, the Obama adminstration is completely vindicating everything your hero did.

And what boys and girls is our word today? Let's all say it together now.


HYPOCRITE!

Hey Johnny, the teacher is wrong, the correct word is LIAR!

Can I pick out the word(s) for tomorrow?

Snake Oil Salesman!!!

 

[diesel96]

1) economy... 2) energy... 3) foriegn policy... 4)education... 5)health

Band of the hand.....their are five fingers of the hand ^.
Take five major issues an apply Bush/Rep philosophies vs Obama/Dem philosophies and compare. I will give you the middle finger , that is foriegn policy (mainly pertaining to the middle East), that's shaping up with similarities by inheriting the cards dealt to them, but with a more defined time table to withdrawal. Now your left with four fingers of seperation. Not exactly what I would consider one in the same, more like 1/5th of the same. Unfortunatly the hand doesn't work as effectively without all five fingers working in unison, especially with those kind of odds. The sad part is, there are those bent on purposely obstructing the function of the hand on the intent to disable it.

 

[Babagounj]

NEWS FLASH....................
.....................................
This just in............Gitmo
Will soon become the first re-education center.
All those ordered to attend will have to pay their own travel charges.
Since the government has spent all its monies on pork projects.

 

[chev]

The mighty anointed one.

 

[wkmac]

Sorry wkmac, but under the new guidelines what you wrote is now considered to be hate speech. You must conform with the new order. Only positive thoughts about the MIGHTY O will be allowed.

Hey Baba, just for you.

February 12, 2009

Criticizing the Regime Is Racist

Posted by Lew Rockwell at February 12, 2009 01:08 PM
I guess it was bound to happen. Free-market economist Arnold Kling said this: "I think about the stimulus as an economist but I feel it as a father. Barack Obama is destroying my daughter's future. It is like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs. That's how I feel, now back to how I think."
So lynch-mob members Andrew Sullivan et al. attack, with James Wolcott saying: "If Kling can't comprehend the implication of racial menace encoded in daughter-gang-thugs/home invasion, he's either fatuously clueless—too innocent for this wicked world—or weaselly disingenuous, and a drama queen either way."
Maybe they're not familiar with libertarian rhetoric. After all, Murray Rothbard famously (and accurately) called the state a "gang of thieves writ large." Nah. They and their cohorts want to smear Obama's critics without havin to answer them. That is, after all, the sort of thing for which the state moral code exists.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/025312.html

and this response

February 12, 2009

Re: Criticizing the Regime Is Racist

Posted by Karen DeCoster at February 12, 2009 02:34 PM
Lew, Wolcott looks like a madman, here. What a pathetic act. And that's what it is - an act. These crazed, guilty-white-leftist, minority defenders still like to play the role of the anti-bully, anti-racists who are defending the world's minorities - even when they don't need defending! - from mobs of dangerous "whiteys" in pointy white hats. They don't believe what they say - they just want to fit into the right circles with the right people, and this sort of thing is a part of earning membership in The Club. Maybe Wolcott was using a web-based postmodern translator to mangle Kling's very clear statement into something recognizable only to one who wishes to play along with the rules of The Club. Perhaps we should force Mr. Kling to do what Prince Harry is doing: attending an "equality and diversity course."
p.s. - I certainly don't want to point readers to the comment left by Bob Murphy on Feb. 11 at 10pm - what a great thing humor is, eh?
p.p.s. - What about the 8 years of incessant criticism of the Bush regime from all of us? No particular crime there?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/025315.html

Let me tell you something, that PC crap can be stuck where the sun don't shine. I've been called racist so many times in my life by PCers and other agenda driven types, it either becomes a badge of honor or rolls off my back like water off a duck's! I'm so way over and done with White Guilt it ain't even funny. According to the 2000' census, 12.9% of America's population is African American http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-5.pdf and a lot of that is consolidated in high density areas around the country. That said, explain to me the racist society of whites in Iowa for example that voted for Obama's election? Look across the breadth of this country and the simple fact that President Obama carried a fairly large % of the white vote and the secret that the PC manipulators don't want out is that it was the white vote that carried Obama to the top of the heep. They can't let that out because the myth of a racist America will be destroyed along with the tool of the trade for manipulation otherwise known as White Guilt!

Start having the 8alls to tell PCer's to just "Go to Hell and Die" and if they threaten you with gov't, have the 8alls to take the bull by the horns and actually send them there yourself!

 

[moreluck]

How's this for racist ??

Obama doesn't know the difference between & Shinola !!

 

[wkmac]

How's this for racist ??

Obama doesn't know the difference between & Shinola !!

You might and I mean might qualify for the "racist lite" program but we'll require training wheels for the time being. A arduous comprehensive training schedule will need to be adhered too!


Well supper's waiting! I got to go wash up because daily cross burning sure dirties the hands!

And for my next impression, Jessie Owens!


I love that movie!

 

[wkmac]

1) economy... 2) energy... 3) foriegn policy... 4)education... 5)health

Band of the hand.....their are five fingers of the hand ^.
Take five major issues an apply Bush/Rep philosophies vs Obama/Dem philosophies and compare. I will give you the middle finger , that is foriegn policy (mainly pertaining to the middle East), that's shaping up with similarities by inheriting the cards dealt to them, but with a more defined time table to withdrawal. Now your left with four fingers of seperation. Not exactly what I would consider one in the same, more like 1/5th of the same. Unfortunatly the hand doesn't work as effectively without all five fingers working in unison, especially with those kind of odds. The sad part is, there are those bent on purposely obstructing the function of the hand on the intent to disable it.

D,

During the Bush years, you correctly pointed out many errors you saw along the way and in many cases you caught a lot of flak for pointing it out. There were and still are areas we disagree but you and I both know there are some where we do.

You being a supporter of Obama while opposing the many aweful policies of Bush should be greatly disturbed about Obama continuing many Bush policies like the State Secrets Priviledge. A Case in point so to speak:

February 14, 2009

Obama/Bush and the State Secrets Privilege

Posted by Stephan Kinsella at February 14, 2009 12:01 AM
To the chagrin of at least some leftists (Salon, Slate, HuffPo), Obama has decided to stick to the Bush administration's view on the State Secrets Privilege. This was made clear earlier this week when Obama's lawyers took the Bush line in still pushing to have the case Mohamed, et al. v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc dismissed, just as Bush had done. In this case, five men claimed to be victims of "extraordinary rendition"--being sent to other countries by the US to be tortured. The case was thrown out a year ago on the basis of national security, relying on the State Secrets Privilege. On appeal, Obama maintained the same position as Bush.
Interestingly, as detailed in Daughters of the Cold War, the State Secrets privilege originated in a 1953 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Reynolds, in which a military B-29 Superfortress bomber had crashed. The widows of three civilian crew members sought accident reports on the crash but were told that to release such details would threaten national security by revealing the bomber's top-secret mission. But in 2000, the accident reports were declassified and released, and it was found that the argument was fraudulent, and there was no secret information. The reports only contained information about the poor state of condition of the aircraft itself--it would have embarrassed the Air Force and made it lose its lawsuit, perhaps, but it was not the dire, top-secret situation the Court assumed when it recognized this privilege. As Emil Bazelon in Slate notes, the federal government "was really engaged in a cover up, not some worthy protection of state secrets." Oh well, what's done is done. And now it's being used to prevent victims of "extraordinary rendition" (sending terrorist suspects off to Syria to be tortured) from suing for damages.
Congrats, Obama. I wonder what position he'll take in other pending cases, such as that of Maher Arar, a Canadian deported by the US to his native Syria after detaining him during a layover at JFK International Airport in September 2002 on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunis, because he was suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda and even though Syria is known to use torture on suspects. "He was detained in Syria for almost a year, during which time he was regularly tortured, according to the findings of the Arar Commission, until his release to Canada." Canada already cleared him and paid him a C$10.5 million settlement, but I suppose Obama will use the "State Secrets Privilege" to stymy him.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/025349.html

Just a little side note to the above and a case of political hypocrisy we see from time to time. During the Clinton years, we heard and to be honest was a true arguement that because Bill Clinton lied about his sexual doings, it denied a lady her just day in court and whether anyone likes it or not, there is truth to that statement. But using that arguement as the basis of pointing out a huge wrong, would saying something is secret to deny judical access in the B-29 case above which in time (of course long past the statue of limitations) turned out the claim of harming national security was in truth bogus and was more apt used as a mechanism to avoid and even deny a just claim, I wonder how many of those here who screamed to high heaven about Clinton would fight you tooth and nail to defend the gov't action in the B-29 case? It's sadly what happens when you lapse into cults of personalities or cults of political parties and stop being Americans dedicated to defending the rule of law no matter who is in power. But anyway....

What concerns me even more is the fact that President Obama has surrounded himself with folks like Rahm Emmanual whose loyality is IMO not to Constitutional authority but to the Unitary Executive Theory and more troubling is pushing this belief beyonds the constraints of Art. 2 of the Constitution. Even though Emmanual spent a short time in Congress, his loyality is to executive power.

On the other hand, democrats like Patrick Leahy and Russ Feingold seem to be starting a process of reeling these powers back in http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200902/021109b.html and even taking back some of the Congressional powers that republicans and for that fact many democrats before had ceded to the Unitary executive. I also agree with Leahy on his idea of a "Truth Commission" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-patrick-leahy/a-truth-commission-to-inv_b_166461.html although I think the title in this case of gov't is rather cheesey if not down right oxy-moronic. But if for once they could leave aside the political partisanship and look at that era for it's historical as well as instructional value, that commission would be worth it's weight in gold. But sadly, there is no Santa Claus and tooth fairy either.

Let's be honest here, you and I both know for all practical purposes President Obama is surrounded by neo-cons dressed under the name of democrat but neo-cons none the less who worship the idea of American Empire. The rub for them comes when they aren't the ones controlling it. I believe down stream there is a huge battle starting to boil between executive branch democrats and Congressional democrats over ths issue of executive power and the sad part is I think most republicans will side with Hillary, Emmanual and others in corraling Obama to defend the powers obtained during the Bush years. I know where the likes of Ron Paul will be and many democrats will be grateful to have him as an ally and God Bless him for it!

I hope you will stay the course of opposition to these abuse of powers you so correctly opposed with Bush and support Leahy and Feingold as well as others as they try and push us back to a more balanced and properly "seperation of powers" type gov't. I know you support Obama and want him to succeed but he's being driven off the reservation by close factions that have other agendas of their own and much of that is protecting political powers they in the future themselves want to wield. AKA President Hillary and VP Rahm Mark it down!

Like Carter, Obama is surrounded by political traitors IMO. Washington will fight a newbie or outsider from mucking up the works they've spent decades building. It's another reason we've got to defang the tiger instead of sharpening his claws.

In 2006' an article on the "Cult of the Presidency" was written at the TomDispatch.com website http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/46791/a_cult_of_presidential_power

Speak up now before this Bush legacy become Obama's!

 

[Hawaii50]

Here's a spoof.

T.I.- Whatever You Like SPOOF! (OBAMA- Whatever I Like)

 

[Jones]

I came across a Mark Twain quote today that seemed to fit this topic:

We are discreet sheep; we wait to see how the drove is going, and then go with the drove. We have two opinions: one private, which we are afraid to express; and another one — the one we use — which we force ourselves to wear to please Mrs. Grundy, until habit makes us comfortable in it, and the custom of defending it presently makes us love it, adore it, and forget how pitifully we we came by it. Look at it in politics. Look at the candidates whom we loathe, one year, and are afraid to vote against, the next; whom we cover with unimaginable filth, one year, and fall down on the public platform and worship, the next — and keep on doing it until the habitual shutting of our eyes to last year’s evidences brings us presently to a sincere and stupid belief in this year’s. Look at the tyranny of party — at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty — a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes — and which turns voters into chattels, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction; and forgetting or ignoring that their fathers and the churches shouted the same blasphemies a generation earlier when they were closing their doors against the hunted slave, beating his handful of humane defenders with Bible texts and billies, and pocketing the insults and licking the shoes of his Southern master.

If we would learn what the human race really is at bottom, we need only observe it in election times. A Hartford clergyman met me in the street and spoke of a new nominee — denounced the nomination, in strong, earnest words — words that were refreshing for their independence, their manliness. He said, “I ought to be proud, perhaps, for this nominee is a relative of mine; on the contrary, I am humiliated and disgusted, for I know him intimately — familiarly — and I know that he is an unscrupulous scoundrel, and always has been.” You should have seen this clergyman preside at a political meeting forty days later, and urge, and plead, and gush — and you should have heard him paint the character of this same nominee. You would have supposed he was describing the Cid, and Greatheart, and Sir Galahad, and Bayard the Spotless all rolled into one. Was he sincere? Yes — by that time; and therein lies the pathos of it all, the hopelessness of it all. It shows at what trivial cost of effort a man can teach himself to lie, and learn to believe it, when he perceives, by the general drift, that that is the popular thing to do. Does he believe his lie yet? Oh, probably not; he has no further use for it. It was but a passing incident; he spared to it the moment that was its due, then hastened back to the serious business of his life.