January 28, 2010
— Ace He sums up my feelings.
I like to pose as mainly objecting to this jackass on policy, and keep the level of emotion restricted to snide comments, but the fact of the matter is I'm starting to hate this guy.
After that bizarre, defiant, blame-dodging, position-ditching, doubling-back, credit-grabbing performance, IÂ’d be inclined to call Barack Obama a joke. But protocol and manners require me to call him the president of the United States, and after all, weÂ’re stuck with him in that role for another three years, at least.I donÂ’t really want to go down the road the left did, with their rabid hatred and childish insults of George Bush. ItÂ’s probably too late to swear off that. IÂ’ve tried really hard to be respectful to the office and the fact that he holds it. But IÂ’m beginning to get the leftÂ’s visceral reaction to everything our often inarticulate, chimp-like former president did and said. The difference between the Bush and Obama cases is, that clown-like cheering section notwithstanding last night, even ObamaÂ’s own stalwarts are rejecting half of what he does and says, and feel he has betrayed them and let them down.
And that is because he never had an actual mandate for any of this hard-left crap he's pushing on us. He lied. If he had told the truth, perhaps the public would have elected him and then he would have that man--
Oh, of course they wouldn't have elected him. He and the media assured us that he was just a common-sense centrist that wanted to tilt the field slightly away from monied interests and towards the middle class. If he had told the truth about his agenda, even bitter old John McCain could have beaten him.
Say what you want about Bush, but he told us what he'd do as president, and then he did it. He said he was going to cut taxes in such-and-such a way and after wrangling with Congress for a while, he cut taxes in almost the precise way he'd planned. He said he'd give seniors a prescription drug benefit, and he did (not that I think that was a good idea -- but he said he would, and he did). He said he'd fight for a private portion of Social Security, and he did fight for that. He said he'd appoint judicial conservatives to the courts, and he did.
Obama, on the other hand, lied up and down about his true intentions and now here we are with three years left (and it will only be three years) on his corruptly-gained presidency and he's broken every promise he ever made, except the secret ones he made to the hard left, and even there, he's breaking most of them. (But fighting for them before breaking them.)
And it's all because we (well not "we," but America) were sold a bill of goods on this thin-skinned malignant narcissist of the hard left.
Reactions... gathered at ABCNews.
I found this one telling:
“It was the politics of Washington, rather than any specific policy, that the president spoke about with the most passion after a year when the change he pledged proved elusive,” Scott Wilson writes for The Washington Post. “Laced throughout the policy prescriptions, though, was Obama's sharp critique of Washington's political culture and Wall Street's irresponsibility that worked so well for him as a candidate.”
Of course he spoke the most passionately about "the politics of Washington," by which he means criticism of himself, his policies, his competency, and general opposition to His Majesty's Royal Awesomeness.
What he means, of course, is that he wants to change "the politics of Washington" into the cult of personality he still enjoys with his dwindling number of zealots and religious nuts.
He doesn't want disagreement. He especially doesn't want criticism. He just wants to be endlessly told how incredibly awesome he is, as he was told his entire charmed life, and as the press used to on a daily basis.
He doesn't want his failed policies to be the issue. He wants his finely-chiseled pecs (actually kinda-flabby moobs) to be the issue again.
I have real worries about this supposedly "First-Class Temperament." A temperament is only first class if it has been tested, repeatedly, and has held up well under such heat.
His never has been. And we see that "first class temperament" in action-- wars against FoxNews and (for the love of everything holy!) Scott Rasmussen. Claims that, are you kidding me?, the press -- the whole liberal press -- is against him. Endless blame-shifting and refusal to take responsibility. Plaintive and cloying whines of poor-me.
Lying about Supreme Court opinions to the Justices' faces.
And on and on.
And we have another three years of this "First-Class Temperament" continuing to come apart under the stress of actual challenge and testing.
Chuck DeVore's Response: He goes a little bit literary.
The President’s first State of the Union Address was an appropriate reflection of his first year in office: rhetorically ambitious, pragmatically muddled, ideologically dangerous, and surprisingly naïve for a product of the Chicago political machine. But as with F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Amory Blaine, for whom “It was always the becoming he dreamed of, never the being,” so too did Barack Obama focus more upon ascending to high office than on using it well. The President is now stuck upon his pinnacle. To borrow a metaphor from the Owens Valley where I spent my high school years, he’s a turtle on a post: you aren’t sure how he got there, and he’s not sure what he’ll do about it.Before listing the many negatives of the President’s speech, allow me to visit the one positive, when the President said of energy, "That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development..." As someone who has authored five bills on modern nuclear power in the past four years as well as a major piece of offshore oil legislation (the latter actually passed the State Senate) while working on a comprehensive offshore oil and gas bill that I’ll soon introduce, I was delighted to hear these words from the President. His recent record on these matters, however, brings doubt that word will translate into deed.
As for the rest of the speech? The PresidentÂ’s confusion, leavened with indignation at the forces that confound him, was on full display as the evening ground on.
Click the link for the specifics. From Gabe's Twitter feed; he dubs it "must-read."
Posted by: Ace at
08:34 AM
| Comments (149)
Post contains 1114 words, total size 7 kb.
Posted by: Dr Mabuse at January 28, 2010 08:39 AM (AVYqB)
"The difference between the Bush and Obama cases is, that clown-like cheering section notwithstanding last night, even ObamaÂ’s own stalwarts are rejecting half of what he does and says, and feel he has betrayed them and let them down."
Umm...you know...I really don't feel like eating my pie today, either.
Posted by: Barry Obama at January 28, 2010 08:39 AM (zxrQh)
Posted by: Chris Matthews at January 28, 2010 08:41 AM (DxJAb)
oh and looksie here - another party-line vote in favor of another dung heap of debt for our grandchildren.
The Senate approved on Thursday a $1.9 trillion boost in the amount of debt the federal government can take out. The bill, which passed 60 to 40 [along party lines], would establish the new limit at $14.3 trillion — equal to about $45,000 for every American.
-Wash Post.
Posted by: Pre Paid Sex Monster at January 28, 2010 08:41 AM (0fzsA)
Posted by: Samuel J. Wurzelbacher at January 28, 2010 08:41 AM (4Kl5M)
Dr. Mabuse, i had read from one of the Pundits (might have been nro) i also might mis-remember who.
that many times in the past only one or two Justices would appear.
so it's doesn't seem to be mandatory
Posted by: willow at January 28, 2010 08:42 AM (7FgWm)
American is just beginning to understand its prison sentence. He all get 3-7 years based on someone else's behavior.
Posted by: booter at January 28, 2010 08:42 AM (eimUK)
Posted by: RealPoliticky at January 28, 2010 08:43 AM (nGR17)
Posted by: Michelle O at January 28, 2010 08:43 AM (mR7mk)
Posted by: doug at January 28, 2010 08:45 AM (dDxif)
Posted by: Gmac at January 28, 2010 08:45 AM (k2Fyd)
60-40? Is Paul Kirk still casting votes?
Posted by: Michelle O at January 28, 2010 08:45 AM (mR7mk)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at January 28, 2010 08:47 AM (i3AsK)
"I'm Canadian, so maybe an American will be able to tell me: why were the Supreme Court justices all sitting there to personally receive Obama's insults?"
Well, they all weren't there. I'm pretty sure Scalia and Thomas weren't in attendance.
Maybe it's like my wife and her siblings with funerals for extended family . They have a bunch of aunts, uncles and cousins that they've had limited contact with throughout their lives. When someone dies, they take turns showing up.
So next time, maybe Alito and Roberts get to skip it.
Posted by: Barry Obama at January 28, 2010 08:47 AM (zxrQh)
Posted by: Hatchet Five at January 28, 2010 08:48 AM (wPZU5)
Ace,
As your President, I must inform you that calling me "thin-skinned" is an obvious code word for black, and I resent your rampant racist utterings. No pudding for you!
Barry
Posted by: President Obumbles at January 28, 2010 08:49 AM (DH/cp)
Posted by: The Chicken at January 28, 2010 08:49 AM (qvT/A)
Posted by: fluffy, masshole at January 28, 2010 08:50 AM (4Kl5M)
all throughout history brave sorta-men like our mtero president have stood up to the bullies and forged a new direction for his subjects, i mean people...
after pol pot killed a 100,000 people he could have stopped but drove on killing more...
if adolf hitler had yet another chance i am sure he would have invaded russia when he did again and again... whats a little mud anyway?
during that glorious revolution in fran-say the directorate kept killing and killing, they didn't sverve from their goal of killing everyone for anything...sure they got the leadership at the end but thats a small price to pay for progress...
did stalin listen to the whinnig from outside or inside russia, no... he kept on killing and killing for the progressive ideals he stood for...
and so should l'duc-abma... JUST KEEP DOING THE SAME STUPID FUCKING THINGS AND IF YOU HAVE TO - MARSHALL LAW AND GULAGS WORKED BEFORE!!!!!!!!!
i must get back to my sooper smart projects- like spending this stimulus money on whores and shit
Posted by: professor von poopyants at January 28, 2010 08:51 AM (91IME)
Posted by: dr kill at January 28, 2010 08:52 AM (qO6T2)
And holy mackerel, did anyone read Christopher Buckley's slobbering knob job over at Daily Beast? Apparently, it is not satire.
Posted by: Peaches at January 28, 2010 08:53 AM (9Wv2j)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 28, 2010 08:54 AM (UOM48)
Really?!?! For true?!?! He must be super upset that the new IPad didn't include the necessary haptic technology to blow Obama from afar then.
Posted by: taylork at January 28, 2010 08:54 AM (4jZ56)
#2 & #9:
It's not mandatory, but it is customary. The only time I can recall a complete SCOTUS boycott of a SOTU speech was Clinton's last one. Not a single justice showed up.
I think they were all out trying to figure out what the meaning of "is" is, and how Fox News got away with the Trotsky assasination.
Posted by: Paulitics, bringer of truth and lover of Julie Banderas at January 28, 2010 08:56 AM (wzaX3)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at January 28, 2010 08:57 AM (muUqs)
Posted by: Berserker at January 28, 2010 08:58 AM (gWHrG)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 28, 2010 08:58 AM (UOM48)
That's a good observation about The One's supposedly first-class temperment. Say what you like about McCain - and I've said most of it myself over the years - the man was a rock in the Hanoi Hilton. Can you imagine Obama going through a similar ordeal?
No, I can't either.
Posted by: Brown Line at January 28, 2010 09:01 AM (VrNoa)
When he was talking about Al-Qaida at one point I thought he said "Al-Qaida spiders." I think TOTUS was totally messing with him.
Oh, and my friend's 8 year old daughter watched the speech with her father and then spent the rest of the evening storming around the house muttering "I hate him, I hate him, I hate that man."
When you can't even fool 8 year olds the gig is up.
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at January 28, 2010 09:01 AM (RZ8pf)
Or how 'bout this one?
Obama played 'just the tip' with America, and now we're looking at Son of Stimulus.
Posted by: taylork at January 28, 2010 09:01 AM (4jZ56)
Absolutely right on. The tone of the MSM articles about the SoTU this morning could only be described as tenuous, imo. They really wanted something good to say about the performance but, in the end, were left with what they've been fed, 12 month old reheated, reconstituted socialist gruel. They wanted so much that Obama would jink back to the center but instead he leaned even more against the grain of sentiment that will resist socialism for all it's worth.
The U.S. isn't a socialist country and Obama is proving himself to be the same type of socialist joke that Chavez is, with one difference - Obama does not have a majority of oppressed poor to prop him up.
He's finished.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at January 28, 2010 09:02 AM (RkRxq)
Posted by: LGoPs at January 28, 2010 09:03 AM (tm/sN)
Posted by: sheik Yamani at January 28, 2010 09:03 AM (mhD2v)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 28, 2010 09:03 AM (A46hP)
"...Obama will not be re-elected. That makes him a ruptured duck. And the alligators on Capitol Hill gobble the ruptured ducks first.
The State Of The Union is we are presidentless."
Posted by: azlibertarian at January 28, 2010 09:03 AM (fGtbP)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 28, 2010 09:04 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: taylork at January 28, 2010 09:04 AM (4jZ56)
Posted by: Paladin at January 28, 2010 09:04 AM (ho4I5)
posted by: doug
Actually doug Bush was always straight up and told Americans in no uncertain terms that Iraq was going to be a long difficult struggle.
Posted by: bulwark at January 28, 2010 09:05 AM (MdzCh)
Posted by: sheik Yamani at January 28, 2010 01:03 PM (mhD2v)
Yeah and they make up just two percent of all voters - so fuck you.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at January 28, 2010 09:06 AM (RkRxq)
I don't hate The Vapid One©.
I prefer to just pat him on his little head when he says something stupid (which explains why my arm stays cramped up all the time) and tell him to go back to his room and play. It's impolite to interrupt adults while we're doing something important.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at January 28, 2010 09:07 AM (i3AsK)
This reminds me of the same sycophantic behavior Michael Jackson had with his fans and close associates. This is why is is ignoring the economy and pushing this hard left crap no one wants. Just like Michael is is taking the advice of people who just want to ride this thing out until it expires. No one is telling him it might be a bad idea.
"You want to take a chimp and webster to an awards show, good idea"
"You want to share your bed with 8 year old boys, go ahead."
"You want some drip-inol, I call the doctor"
Like wacko jacko Obama is feeding his own political urges than doing the people voted him on for. It is pissing everyone off including his base.
"The economy is in shambles, you want to focus on healthcare, great idea."
Health Care in ways became Obama's Iraq, it is the issue drove a wedge in his presidency and fired up his opposition. Only difference is the Tea Party Movement is far more effective in changing the political climate than Code Pink or any of their ilk were over Iraq.
Posted by: Gary B at January 28, 2010 09:07 AM (1gWfF)
After Barky's bullshit posturing about how he and the Donkeycrats were going to impose fiscal discipline..the fuckheads today just raised the debt limit by another $1.9 trillion putting it now at $14.3 trillion..
...this is not hyperbole...i think Obama really is mentally unbalanced
I honsestly believe he really does suffer from malignant narcissism...how else can he he fucking reconcile in his own mind what are such fucking blatant contradictions
Posted by: beedubya at January 28, 2010 09:09 AM (AnTyA)
You're telling me dressing up in drag and wearing costumes didn't change the political climate. Fuck, I need a new plan.
Posted by: taylork at January 28, 2010 09:09 AM (4jZ56)
J.D. Salinger is dead..
...I guess its significant...I personally didn't like his work...was forced to read it in HS
Posted by: beedubya at January 28, 2010 09:10 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: Hedgehog at January 28, 2010 09:10 AM (oQIfB)
PGiS, that is priceless!
Posted by: Peaches at January 28, 2010 09:10 AM (9Wv2j)
Posted by: dagny at January 28, 2010 09:12 AM (KK4C+)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at January 28, 2010 09:12 AM (muUqs)
Posted by: Barack Obama at January 28, 2010 09:12 AM (CCcDq)
But Ginsburg look like she was ready to drop to the floor, and not be able to get up.
Ginsberg is mostly dead but not truely dead---like health care.
Posted by: dagny at January 28, 2010 09:14 AM (KK4C+)
I think I'll go back to school and get another degree - get a "public service" job and get my student loans forgiven.
Because of course no one should be obligated to pay their student loans after 10 or 20 years. What the hell!!!
What the hell kind of messge is that? Then he does mention the cost of college tuition. Schools like Yale that pay no property tax to the city of New Haven and suck them dry on public services with their billion dollar endowments and million dollar college administrator salaries.
Why not a tax on the universities with the huge endowments ... let's keep this class warfare thing going full steam.
Posted by: tank at January 28, 2010 09:15 AM (CW29u)
BTW, "The last decade, some call it the lost decade..." who calls it that? Who?
Not my fault, wah!
Posted by: dagny at January 28, 2010 09:18 AM (KK4C+)
Posted by: runningrn at January 28, 2010 09:21 AM (CfmlF)
Posted by: runningrn at January 28, 2010 09:30 AM (CfmlF)
Posted by: Paulitics, bringer of truth and lover of Julie Banderas at January 28, 2010 09:31 AM (wzaX3)
Well folks, you would really think that after being exposes as conducting polls with FRAUDULENT SAMPLES in the past, CBS News and CNN would get religion and give us an honest sample.
Not so much.
In the polls conducted last night, CBS News gives Democrats a 23 POINT sampling advantage over Republicans while CNN trims it to only 13 POINTS. Meanwhile, Rasmussen tells us the party affiliation advantage to Democrats is down to 1 POINT.
Isn't there some sort of law against reporting fraud as truth over the airwaves?
Amazing, simply amazing.
Posted by: Bill MItchell at January 28, 2010 09:32 AM (kEBiX)
Posted by: Mr. Chumpo at January 28, 2010 09:32 AM (dDysH)
Posted by: Monty at January 28, 2010 09:32 AM (4Pleu)
"... we took many unpopular, unnecessary ... uh"
[paraphrased, but along those lines]
Will this guy ever get off of my TV??!
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 28, 2010 09:34 AM (A46hP)
Posted by: runningrn at January 28, 2010 09:40 AM (CfmlF)
Oops, should have used the objective pronoun me. I just hope I addressed this before LittleMissSpellcheck says something.
Hmm, SOTU speech was longest speech in 45 years and that it contradicted itself (as per Heritage Foundation via Rush).
Posted by: runningrn at January 28, 2010 09:41 AM (CfmlF)
Posted by: just dandy at January 28, 2010 09:42 AM (MG/Xm)
Posted by: UGAdawg at January 28, 2010 09:44 AM (/VjHB)
WTF is Paul Kirk doing still casting votes? Did the GOP decide not to make a big deal of it so the Dems could wholly own the debt limit increase?
Hopefully.
Posted by: tank at January 28, 2010 09:45 AM (CW29u)
Someone who believes in something so strongly that they'll keeps doing the same damn thing over and over, regardless of the consequences.
Posted by: Russtovich at January 28, 2010 09:46 AM (ZXGQD)
Yesterday I predicted a SOTU of "condescension with a high chance of bullshit". I'll be over to collect my winnings momentarily.
At the odds I was quoted, I reckon I've won about three cents.
Posted by: Zimriel at January 28, 2010 09:47 AM (9Sbz+)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 28, 2010 09:47 AM (eNxMU)
WTF is Paul Kirk doing still casting votes? Did the GOP decide not to make a big deal of it so the Dems could wholly own the debt limit increase?
Yeah, I distinctly recall Scott Brown saying that Paul Kirk told him he was finished. Maybe that was just about voting on health care. Who knows. But the thing is the Dems do own this debt ceiling increase. The vote was completely along partisan lines. It makes me wonder what kind of dirt McConnell has on the twits from Maine--photos of them in compromising positions with animals?
Posted by: runningrn at January 28, 2010 09:49 AM (CfmlF)
I know that there's a long way for him to fall, and it's going to be a real sight to see.
Posted by: nickless at January 28, 2010 09:51 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Monty at January 28, 2010 09:51 AM (4Pleu)
Slightly on-topic and I don't know if this has been hit upon yet:
Obama's high-speed rail thing in the SOTU is the quid pro quo for the states that elected him.
Notice the places mentioned in the ABC report linked above. Compare it to the map of states that elected Obama, and think about the goofy-ass routes mentioned in the piece. Tampa-Orlando? North Carolina in the list, but none of the surrounding states are? WTF?
Posted by: angryoldfatman at January 28, 2010 09:51 AM (Yw4kE)
Posted by: UGAdawg at January 28, 2010 09:56 AM (/VjHB)
The proper explanation of a Post Turtle should read:
You know he didn't get up there by himself. You know he doesn't belong up there. You know he doesn't know what the hell to do while he's up there, and you have to wonder what manner of dumbass put him up there to begin with.
A minor quibble, but I think a much more apropos description of Captain Temper Tantrum.
Posted by: Lamontyoubigdummy at January 28, 2010 09:58 AM (skMdM)
Posted by: Monty at January 28, 2010 01:51 PM (4Pleu)
I'm a Christian too. I have never hated anyone before. I think a large reason for my great animus towards Obama is that he is doing all the stuff he's doing deliberately to bring down and destroy the greatest country in the world. The country that has the greatest capacity for success and for doing good. I love this country and to see someone lie about its past history and its present motives and purposefully wreak havoc and destruction in order redistribute wealth and "atone" for prior sins absolutely infuriates me.
Posted by: runningrn at January 28, 2010 09:59 AM (CfmlF)
Monty's right (again).
Plus, if you let hate become a feature of this blog, next time itzbj / Guest and the rest of the killgore trouts show up here with their "lynch him NAO" crap, we're at risk of having real commenters get in trouble.
Posted by: Zimriel at January 28, 2010 09:59 AM (9Sbz+)
2 I'm Canadian, so maybe an American will be able to tell me: why were the Supreme Court justices all sitting there to personally receive Obama's insults? Do they HAVE to attend this bit of kabuki theatre? Surely the President can't just summon them, but it looked like he thought he was a Sultan, with his vassals assembled before him. Next year, why don't they just skip it? In the past, presidents didn't always even come personally to give this report; it was just dispatched in a letter, which I suppose anyone could read at his leisure. So if the reason for everyone's attendance is "tradition", it's a tradition of not very long standing.
Prior to mass media transmission via TV and Radio, the SOTU was mailed to Congress for the record and then printed and published for mass distribution. Since broadcasting has evolved, the event has been taken by all sides as an opportunity to maximize exposure and publicity. At ANY event in our history where the President chose to address an assembly of both houses of Congress, it was a matter of respect for the Supremes to attend so as to acertain his intentions for future consideration in court rulings. When Congress writes laws the intent must be in the words. When and individual speaks the circumstances and intention are all part of that communication.
Prior to Jimmy Carter, it was a matter of historical record that no past President would comment on the policies and actions of a sitting President. It was assumed that the weight of the job did not improve with any 2nd guessing by someone that hadn't handled the problem during their terms in office. Jimmy, being the classless wonder that he is, was and always will be, was saddled for all eternity with the title of Worst President In History. If he touched it, it failed. Even the actions leading to his Nobel Peace Prize resulted in the death of an Egyptian President, the formation of the progenitors of Al Qaida, and the expulsion of Menachem Begin from the Knesset.
Well, Jimmy couldn't keep his mouth shut. He had no problems bad mouthing Richard Nixon, or leading the opposition to most of Reagan's recommendations. He continued his vocal second guessing during GHWBushs's administraion. In his wake, Slick Willie Clinton had no problems publicly questioning G.W.Bush's actions and policies either. The precident had already been changed by Jimmy. You did NOT however ever see Reagan blamming Jimmy Carter for the problems he inherited. Neither the same for GHWBush or GWBush.
Last night our Classless boy President once again showed his incredible lack of knowledge of American History and Tradition by publicly disagreeing with a recent ruling by the Supreme Court. They were there in a traditional show of respect for his office: The President of the United States. Traditionally, he would respect their office as well if not the men. Last night he showed how clueless he really is by disrespecting them to their face and implying that their actions were wrong.
I fully respect the Supreme Court to continue to uphold their respect for the office, and the traditions, in spite of his arrogance and ignorance. That they had to endure this, should be factored in by voters in all states who understand how the process is supposed to work.
Posted by: Just a Cynic.... at January 28, 2010 10:02 AM (v4UYp)
I don't think it takes dirt anymore. Whatever political advantage back home that could be gained by cooperating with Obama is long gone.
Posted by: just dandy at January 28, 2010 10:06 AM (Cb2GY)
As for American Jews, I don't blame them. Everything in the Jewish experience teaches them that conservative populism is bad for them. McCain chose Sarah Palin, a conservative populist. QED.
We know that American conservatism is pro-Semitic; but your average Jew hasn't met enough conservatives to make that call. At most he's met some Polish union guy, a "Reagan Democrat", whom he remembers as having thrown rocks at Jews after shul when the two were younger.
I expect the Internet to change some opinions over time. So there's that.
Posted by: Zimriel at January 28, 2010 10:06 AM (9Sbz+)
Did you see Pelosi roll her eyes when he mentioned off-shore drilling? She's not letting that through under her watch. Not that it means anything getting Obama on the record, but the GOP will have this to wave at him when they take the House back.
Posted by: just dandy at January 28, 2010 10:10 AM (ST7wd)
Posted by: Jeff at January 28, 2010 10:13 AM (KHmJW)
That was not a State of the Union address, it was a Hate of the Union address ...
Posted by: Jeff at January 28, 2010 10:15 AM (KHmJW)
Posted by: Zimriel at January 28, 2010 02:06 PM (9Sbz+)
I blame liberal American Jews and think that they are playing with fire they are blissfully unaware of. The Indonesian imbecile's position on Israel, the absolute lunatics he surrounded himself with, every indication that he gave that he was going to go after Israel in a truly dangerous way ... American Jews who voted for him really f#cked up more than usual.
Luckily, the Jewish vote is essentially inconsequential, with the caveat that George Bush and the whole US have a tiny slice of confused Jewish voters in Florida to thank for his election in 2000.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 28, 2010 10:15 AM (A46hP)
Posted by: MlR at January 28, 2010 10:18 AM (0G5pp)
You're an idiot. Must explain why you're terrified of "KSM."
Well, actually the latter, you prove yourself to be a risible pussy.
Posted by: Tumescent Republican at January 28, 2010 10:40 AM (Z/lpU)
Posted by: kbdabear at January 28, 2010 10:41 AM (sYxEE)
Yet they shower love on muslims who are vocal in their hate for them and blacks who actively dislike them. They shrug it off as "I'm more afraid of Pat Buchanan than Louis Farrakhan".
Or as I put it, "better dead than unhip"
Posted by: kbdabear at January 28, 2010 10:44 AM (sYxEE)
Posted by: Tumescent Republican at January 28, 2010 10:45 AM (Z/lpU)
I'm going to repeat myself from Russ's thread just because it sums up my mood:
"Is there a usurper upon the Throne?"
"Yes."
"Do you attempt to take your rightful place for the good of the Empire?"
"Yes."
"Will you keep Our Empire safe, hold Our people in your hands, protect them as you would your children, and ensure the continuity of Our line?"
"Yes."
"Then We give unto you Our sword. Bear it under God, to defend the right, to protect Our people from their enemies, to safeguard Our people's liberties, and to preserve Our House."
-excerpted from We Few, by John Ringo and David Weber.
I look at that Kenyan Marxist on TV, the Indonesian Idiot, and my subconscious just screams "outsider" and "usurper" at me.
I'm glad Ace is starting to feel the hate too. I know the King Ewok is more reasonable about such things than I am. I don't feel alone that way.
Posted by: SGT Dan at January 28, 2010 10:46 AM (GgXZc)
Ace,
I beat you to the punch.
I hated this guy over a year ago.
I don't remember whether you were part of a group of commenters who thought I was going overboard by saying, "Obama is a fascist," as my memory on who said what then is a bit foggy.
There were those who couldn't get it out of their heads that fascism isn't necessarily an ultra-nationalist agenda, but instead is properly defined in economic terms as government directing private industry to take certain actions, without actually taking ownership over the private industry.
Obama is a fascist, and would tend toward outright communism if he thought he could get away with it.
And yes, he's smarmy and dishonest too. Our saving grace is he's ineffective.
Posted by: Christoph at January 28, 2010 10:47 AM (0fq7b)
Posted by: cdajoe at January 28, 2010 10:53 AM (jF66V)
The short answer is the SOTU address (like the Presidency in general) is an old, once much more spartan ceremony, which has gotten completely out of hand - now resembling the ceremonies of an imperial court. Now those there are expected to dip their heads to the King.
See http://tiny.cc/VAiVi for more.
Posted by: MlR at January 28, 2010 10:56 AM (0G5pp)
Hate is not the word...despise is. Hate is a passionate emotion - the flip side of love - whereas to despise is to be cold.
When you hate somebody you give yourself over to the passionate heat of your heart; when you despise something you give yourself over to the cold logic of the mind that allows you to have no more sympathy for the subject of your disdain than you would have for the rattlesnake you find in your yard or the roach in your kitchen.
I disdain this man.
Posted by: unknown jane at January 28, 2010 10:59 AM (5/yRG)
Posted by: unknown jane at January 28, 2010 11:01 AM (5/yRG)
It's really hard not to hate a guy who hates me, and I am 100% positive that Obama does. He hates almost everyone in this country, even a fair amount of his supporters. He hates presidents I loved and respected. He hates Republicans. He hates the middle class. He hates Christians and Jews. He hates southerners and Midwesterners. He hates people who don't have Ivy League degrees.
Now, I know I am commanded by my faith not to hate, so I struggle with this every single day. The best I can do is fear him, because I honestly think he's mentally disturbed, perhaps because of his upbringing, perhaps because of his education, or perhaps because of whatever caused that huge scar on the right side of his head that no one will ever talk about.
But I fear for my kids and grandkids. No one is watching the walls while the barbarians are sharpening their knives. Instead, our leader has turned on his own people. I hope we make it to 2012.
Posted by: Miss Marple at January 28, 2010 11:03 AM (4DwVn)
#121, Miss Marple, I assure you a few of the Legions are left on Rome's walls. Maybe not enough to stem the tide when it comes, but perhaps enough to sound an alarm that a second line of defense may be formed.
Now if we can just avoid the temptation to play kingmaker and auction off the crown as the Praetorians once did....
Posted by: SGT Dan at January 28, 2010 11:13 AM (GgXZc)
I don't like Obama. Hell, I said I personally hate him on this thread, and did a year ago. I think he's a fascist and a terrible president. A liar, dangerous, etc.
But you're really stretching by saying Obama hates Christians, when he is one at least nominally, I'm not sure what proof you have he hates Jews, and I think your point about him "hating" people who don't have Ivy League degrees, not to mentioning southerners et al. is actually silly.
Posted by: Christoph at January 28, 2010 11:14 AM (0fq7b)
123 -- Really? He's a Christian?
He doesn't hate all the people Marple mentioned (and she left out some too, probably out of restraint)?
The man is a Gollum -- he hates everything, and perhaps most of all himself.
Posted by: unknown jane at January 28, 2010 11:18 AM (5/yRG)
Those of us in the "bitter clingers group" (you know, those who cling to their FAITH and guns) are pretty sure he holds us in contempt. His antipathy to Israel is evident in his foreign policy, in the way he has treated Netenyahu, and in the fact that he comes from the anti-semitic left.
His contempt for those who aren't in his little in-crowd oozes from every pore.
I have lived a long time, probably a lot longer than you. I know what is evident to those of us who have seen quite a few bad episodes in history. You can call me silly if you wish; old ladies are routinely dismissed as being airheads.
Of course, this is why my namesake was such a successful detective.
I stand by my opinion, silly though you may think it.
Posted by: Miss Marple at January 28, 2010 11:19 AM (4DwVn)
Posted by: unknown jane at January 28, 2010 11:20 AM (5/yRG)
123, Christoph, perhaps he doesn't hate Christians/Southerners or non Ivy Leaguers, but he certainly holds us in contempt. His choice of churches was the Black Muslims with a cross on the door from a theological standpoint. While claiming to rule on behalf of us little people, we've been robbed by the Geitners and Bernankes, with billions of dollars being shuffled away in payoffs, bailouts, and classic Chicago graft.
We're the plebian class to him, a mob that is supposed to shut up and be thankful for whatever crumbs we're given from the elites' table. His hundred dollar a pound Japanese steaks, his "date nights" with his Klingon/Wookie hybrid in Air Force One, the big houses and vacations, those are for the deserving. It's the same attitude that had the elite in the five-star hotels and limousines in Copenhagen bitching about OUR carbon footprint. The trans-national progressives see themselves as the deserving politically correct aristocracy of the whole fucking world. Obama is just an affirmative-action hire into their ranks.
Posted by: SGT Dan at January 28, 2010 11:22 AM (GgXZc)
SGT Dan, it's grateful I am for those of you who stand watch. It's the only thing some days that keeps me from heading for the hills with my family and my dog.
It's just very difficult to watch the country being disassembled, bit by bit, while the people are encouraged to turn on each other, all while we are at war.
I haven't forgotten there is a war. Thanks for serving!
Posted by: Miss Marple at January 28, 2010 11:23 AM (4DwVn)
Last night Barack Obama waterboarded the nation with another baroque flood of words.
Posted by: Neo at January 28, 2010 11:24 AM (tE8FB)
He's Christian in a social sense because he had to be Christian (or possibly a member of another religious group) to have any possibility of accomplishing his life's goals.
And that is a tragedy.
Many people, particularly in the Bible belt, are Christians for this reason. Many more, of course, are Christians because they believe it.
Back on point, Obama went to Church with many people who are strongly believing Christians, albeit of a hard left-wing church. Do I think he "hated" these people?
No, I don't. I think Obama is a narcissist and could hardly be bothered to have much in the way of opinions on them.
And no, unknown jane, I don't think there's any evidence at all that Obama "hates" all the people Miss Marple mentioned. Your believing a thing does not make it reasonable.
He might hate his political opponents, but a lot of the people she mentioned are actually his allies and boosters. The people cheering in crowds for him. I'm sure he doesn't "hate" those.
Posted by: Christoph at January 28, 2010 11:24 AM (0fq7b)
Since Obama is a narcissist, I think that is a more reasonable explanation. I'm still not completely convinced by it, but it is closer to the mark.
Posted by: Christoph at January 28, 2010 11:26 AM (0fq7b)
Posted by: Christoph at January 28, 2010 03:24 PM (0fq7b)
The Indonesian imbecile is a crypto-Christian. In reality, Trinity Church is closer to the Nation of Islam than Christianity. But, The Precedent's true religion is hating the US and the West. He fancies himself an avenging angel of the third world, come to wreak destruction on us for our humiliating his people (the third world) through our creativity, productivity and general advancement. He wants to cut us down to size.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 28, 2010 11:29 AM (A46hP)
Posted by: SGT Dan at January 28, 2010 11:31 AM (GgXZc)
130 He cares about his supporters, really? Do you know anything of his days as a community organizer here and how those communities were served by him?
He does not love them; he uses them -- and that's not love. It isn't even liking; it isn't even caring or concern.
Although I will grant you that again, the appropriate word is not "hate", as hate takes some passion, of which he has none. Disdain and despise, and perhaps unconcern at the least. That I'll grant.
Posted by: unknown jane at January 28, 2010 11:33 AM (5/yRG)
#132, progress, you nailed it. Who makes up most of the permanent bureaucracy at the UN? Third Worlders and their European liberal role models. As long as the US exists as anything more than a UN province, all their failures are highlighted. That is why the UN would stop at nothing to bring us to heel under their banner.
That is the ideological foundation of the Indonesian Idiot, the usurper upon our throne.
Posted by: SGT Dan at January 28, 2010 11:36 AM (GgXZc)
But it's the last part of your post which I mostly agree with. This is one of the reasons why I believe he is, and always was, such a dangerous man.
I wasn't one of the last to see this, I was one of the first.
My point is only that criticising Obama for "hating" vast swaths of people, many of them his supporters, isn't particularly effective, and it's not effective because it's probably inaccurate.
Obama does clearly seem to hate the Capitalist system, America's wealth and prestige, etc., and these seem like troubling beliefs for an American Commander-in-Chief, no?
Posted by: Christoph at January 28, 2010 11:36 AM (0fq7b)
He forgot the most important part of the turtle metaphor,
"...heÂ’s a turtle on a post: you arenÂ’t sure how he got there, and heÂ’s not sure what heÂ’ll do about it."
I'll fill it in.
"It makes you wonder who the dumb SOB was that put him there."
Just needed to be said.
Posted by: pepster at January 28, 2010 11:38 AM (ZuOra)
Did I say that, unknown jane?
Even once?
I said he's a narcissist and he probably doesn't care about them much one way or the other. That accusing him of "hating" them is silly without some evidence that he does.
What is your evidence that he "hates" his supporters? You have none. It's a silly position to take, and politically useless even if you were right. (Which you're not.)
You're not going to convince Obama's supporters, or Independents, or swing-Republicans, that Obama actually hates his own supporters.
Posted by: Christoph at January 28, 2010 11:40 AM (0fq7b)
I liked your compare-and-contrast woth Obama and Bush. It's spot on, except for your conclusion. President Obama does so have a mandate to do everything he's doing.
Here's why: He's the president.
We don't elect presidents on the condition that they keep their campaign promises. Instead, we give them the keys to the executive branch and hope for the best.
Caveat emptor, voters. This is why backgrounds, associates, church memberships, previous jobs, complete military records, past successes and past failures all matter. I don't know what those 66 million people were thinking (actually I have an inkling) but I'll bet they won't do it again.
Posted by: FireHorse at January 28, 2010 11:41 AM (cQyWA)
138 -- Why is it such a "silly" thing? What evidence do you have to the contrary?
It would appear, by his actions (or lack thereof) througout his career as a public servant that the evidence points towards that very conclusion (again, I point to the communities he "organized" -- and I did grant that "hate" was perhaps not the appropriate word and offered up some reasonable alternatives).
I'm not saying it to sway or convince anyone -- it was merely an opinion. Obviously one you are having a great deal of trouble with; I'm sorry that you are, but that does not make it any less my opinion.
Posted by: unknown jane at January 28, 2010 11:45 AM (5/yRG)
Posted by: unknown jane at January 28, 2010 11:46 AM (5/yRG)
But forgive me for insisting on some standards in my intellectual thought process when I form opinions or judge those of others.
You make a strong claim, that Obama hates his own supporters. If true, that would be very damning against the man personally, so much so that Chris Mathews would probably be taken aback.
And I've asked you what evidence you have for this.
YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. AT ALL.
Q. Why is it such a "silly" thing? What evidence do you have to the contrary?
Non A. It would appear, by his actions (or lack thereof) througout his career as a public servant that the evidence points towards that very conclusion (again, I point to the communities he "organized" -- and I did grant that "hate" was perhaps not the appropriate word and offered up some reasonable alternatives).
How does your answer improve my, or anyone here's, understanding of how Obama hates his supporters?
What information did you give that would support your extraordinary conclusion?
Hey, maybe you're right. But if "throught his career" the evidence points to that "very conclusion" then shouldn't it be possible to, you know, name some?
Because otherwise, yes, quite reasonably I have "a great deal of trouble with" your opinion. You haven't given a single reason for it.
Posted by: Christoph at January 28, 2010 11:52 AM (0fq7b)
And if not extraordinary evidence, then at least some evidence.
It is an error in logic to think that a person is required to prove a negative. I can't prove Obama doesn't hate his supporters.
But then, most people don't hate their supporters. Not hating one's supporters is the default position!
If you are claiming the contrary, it is you who have the burden of proof.
Posted by: Christoph at January 28, 2010 11:56 AM (0fq7b)
Me too, unkown jane. The more I try to figure out their thinking, the more I realize how utterly different they are from us.
(Just as an example: People on our side have an underlying respect for other people based on the simple fact that they're people -- but they all hold contempt for everybody else. I swear, even if I agreed with thewm on everything, I could never be one of them.)
Posted by: FireHorse at January 28, 2010 11:56 AM (cQyWA)
142 -- Cristoph, I have given up as evidence the communities that he served as an organizer (I would remind you that I was not the one who first made the claim of his hatred, but merely seconded it -- if you want to start nitpicking rhetorical stylistics here, but I digress; I seconded the first remark and that's when you came in, so I'll stand by what I seconded).
If you look at the history of his service, first to the communities he organized (hah) in Chicago, then the people of IL, then the country -- there has been little to support the arguement that he has done nothing more than use the people he was sworn to serve in a most blatant and calculating manner. There has been no service; there has been nothing more than cold hearted intent to pursue his own agendas (while at the same time pandering to and even inciting many of these same people, often against themselves or their own best interests).
Sadly, language can be such an inexact function of communication (and I did suggest in granting you that there were perhaps more precise words to use other than hate -- but again that is rhetorical nitpicking). Still, the manner in which he has used, pandered to, sold out, decieved, manipulated, divided, and purposely confused people for his own benefit, people he has been sworn to serve and protect can perhaps best be described only by the term "hateful".
As for evidence of this -- well, his entire political and academic career (hell, even his personal life as witnessed in his books) are the evidence and examples. I'm really too damn lazy to start enumerating examples from an overwhelming body of evidence (and I suck with computers, so don't even ask for links). I suppose the manner in which he treated his grandmother and spoke in certain segments about his father (and even his mother a bit) point quite readily to the amount of hatred that this individual feels -- which, if you draw parallels between his personal and professional life, would indicate a certain level of ...hatefulness. (but again, if you are intellectually miffed at my paltry language skills and imprecision, I'll grant once again that there are probably more exact words to use here...if you'd like).
As for being on the same side as you -- well, I don't know. I'm not really on anybody's side (because nobody is really on my side). I think this is a very dangerous and damaging person to have in such a position of power, and dearly pray he will not get to damage things more than is probably his want. If you are of the same opinion on this matter then, goody, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and anyone else of the same opinion. But I would be lying (or dissembling, if you will) if I came to you with a pronouncement of complete, unending loyalty to you and your causes no matter what -- so grant me my opinions and please try to accept my honesty, even if those are distasteful to you.
Posted by: unknown jane at January 28, 2010 12:24 PM (5/yRG)
...and by the way, I'm not here to sway your opinoin or anything of the like; don't even come here to seek approbation.
If I wanted to sway or seek favor I'd first go someplace where there were people who didn't think like me to sway, then I'd use a much difference rhetorical approach -- and as for approval here, well, I certainly wouldn't have outed myself a long time ago as a proclaimed classic liberal, independent, moderate voter. I would have fashioned myself as something more pleasing (I also wouldn't have said I was a washed up middle aged hausfrau and failed two bit humanities instructor -- talk about not pleasing to the general readership here! no?)
Posted by: unknown jane at January 28, 2010 12:28 PM (5/yRG)
Posted by: the peanut gallery at January 28, 2010 12:32 PM (l71WL)
Unknown Jane: What you and I said (#144 and #145) kind of say the same thing, which contradicts a wonderful comment in another thread that I also agree with. "He's not of us" was the thrust, and I agree: he's from a sheltered caste of society that can neither understand nor represent us.
That said, he is of another part of society, the part which holds everyone else in low regard. Call it hate, call it contempt; whatever. The country, sadly, is full of those people. They control, manipulate, condescend, insult, pout and throw temper tantrums. There's no sense of community in the true sense -- no love or brotherhood, only relationships built on expressions of hostility.
President Obama is truly of them, and to the extent that he dismisses his supporters because he knows better than them, he's representing them very well. He also plays the role of overbearing father while blaming every woe on his father, making him a fitting head of state for too much our society. I'd pity them all (Obama included) had they not chosen to be the way they are.
Posted by: FireHorse at January 28, 2010 01:07 PM (cQyWA)
Posted by: unknown jane at January 28, 2010 01:13 PM (5/yRG)
By the way:
washed up middle aged hausfrau
I'm guessing from your choice of words that you make a mean jager schnitzel ...
failed two bit humanities instructor
... and I'm thinking that a failed humanities instructor is actually better in many ways than a successful humanities instructor.
(FWIW.)
Posted by: FireHorse at January 28, 2010 01:32 PM (cQyWA)
Posted by: John Marshall at January 28, 2010 05:04 PM (dVTb+)
At the end of the movie "Downfall" when death reigned supreme in Berlin Goebbels says that the German people are now getting there little throats cuts. Yet incredibly they elected us (the Nazi).
The America voter will have to show some real backbone and NOW, or sadly suffer some very real punishment for their wishful thinking.
Posted by: RPU at January 30, 2010 10:32 AM (LOW7U)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2752 seconds, 277 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Obama, on the other hand, lied up and down about his true intentions and now here we are with three years left (and it will only be three years) on his corruptly-gained presidency
from your lips to G-d's. well you know the shtick.
Posted by: willow at January 28, 2010 08:38 AM (7FgWm)