Don't Be Impatient

Buyer's remorse?

No "lemon-law" to fall back on?

All the "I-told-you-so" offerings won't change a thing.

The ONLY tarnished-silver-lining is that a lot of those waiting for the unicorns are going to be eating leftovers made of broken promises.

"Fools" is not an adequate description.

As far as their apologies: too late, not accepted.

These are too funny!

Yoop - I disagree - I accept their apologies - but from the media - no, I won't accept theirs (not that they would ever apologize).

To those who send in their photos, (if they are real and if they did vote for Obama), I say, welcome to the real world, and now let some other people (eg here) tell you why the press shouldn't be listened to.

sorry, but 'sorry' ain't good enough.......what i WOULD respect is the same quality of contrition Lord Jim manifested.

Dont judge too harshly guys, take the moral high road. Accept their apologies on the condition that they wont be so stupid as to vote for Obama a second time!
Maybe encourage voting with one's brain as opposed to one's heart in the future.

Electing Obama just might be what America needs at this point in time. After all Jimmy Carter led to Ronald Reagan.
Of course that will only work if the GOP has a Reagan waiting in the wings of course.

Too bad Teleprompters were invented.

Too bad the Internet wasn't invented at the same time as the printing press.

Too bad Hollywood wasn't shaken loose by San Andras

Too bad the suit left the hangar.

Too bad things always have to get worse before they get better.

Too bad Mankind always has to learn the hard way.

john begley re Joseph Conrad - well, I agree that genuine contrition, and actually having to work towards earning redemption are noble, I like small steps first.

We are in the 21st century where personal responsibility is an abstract historical term, and many people flip on their principles at the briefest change of wind direction.

Once they say sorry, though, the next question should be "Why?"

By the time this is all finished the democrats and the left in general could take a real beating, but the best part of all is the brutalizing the MSM will take.

Does anyone have a list of all of the "so called Blogging Tories" who endorsed Obama despite his 3 year voting record as the most left wing senator. If they haven't apologized by now they should be removed from the blog roll.

What is interesting is how the Republicans are now in the media. I'm musing and speculating, but I think it's too early for the 'right' to clarify, to focus on one key message, one key spokesman. I think what is needed now, is 'lots of noise', scrapping, arguing very loudly.

This will bring in more different voices, more debate, more questions. THAT'S what is needed now. Not certainty. You see, on the left, there is certainty - an agenda of a socialist take-over of the government, and a type of socialism that is so controlling that it dissipates a middle class and reduces the people to both silence and internal strife (ie not arguing against the government).

But what is needed now - is numbers. Lots and lots of people asking - What the heck is this Obama doing? Not answers yet; just stunned surprise. Then, comes rejection. And thought. And then, the new policies.

Meanwhile, Obama and the Democrats will be trying to: reduce the numbers, reduce the sound, reduce the thinking and analysis, reduce the questions.

They'll do this be inserting Internal Strife among the population. This will divert dissent from being against Obama/Democrats, to conservatives vs moderates. And most certainly, race will be used. And class: rich vs poor victims.

Then, they'll use the Shame on You strategy where they'll attempt to shame dissenters who will be seen as unpatriotic, unwilling to 'suffer'.

And then, actual tactics to silence people. The Fairness Doctrine. Other tactics.

So, we'll see how this plays out. It's only one month and the shock is just starting to move in.

Onward to 2010...

Excellant post ET......
The left has prepared for this coup d'etat for generations. They are solidly entrenched...note their success in discrediting/silencing dissentto their un-scientific science of AGW/CC which even blizzards fails to dislodge.
No doubt they have anticipated a backlash and are prepared....see "fairness doctrine".

I tend to agree with you ET, but for the proclivity of Americans to go wacko when seeking a solution to a systemic problem.

Abe Lincoln, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Rev. M.L. King, et al.

Sorry, perhaps "go postal" would be more accurate.

Hey SDA sheeple!

How many people voted for Obama?

How many of those are saying they're sorry. How many of those can confirm they actually voted for Obama.

Finally, what has he done (or not done) that voter apology is necessary?

The new liberal & NDP Spin is:
Every answer to a question or thought or speach whether in the HOC or Tom Clarks Power Play, or CPAC etc...
Must include a Ref to Obama.
Just watch power play & you will see this, Martha Hall-Findlay every time she has been on since the swearing in of Obama, any question Guaranteed.

IMO: i think the Liberals have just invented a new Canadian College Drinking Game.

A Trilli (remix by the BIG OWE)

A trillion here a trillion there
got my hands in your pocket, right next to ur derrierre

Spend’n yo money like air
I open the Lamborghini
Hopin' them crackers see me " the big Owe is so dreamy"

He's a genius, he's so cute, he personifies stardom
Okay you're a goon, but what's a goon to a goblin
Nothin, nothing, you ain't scarin nothin
on conservative bulls**T
call him Ronald Raygun

better have my money bit%h
call me on my sidekick
brown paper bags, transactions done in private.
Damn I hate a smart bit%h

Don't you hate a smart bit%h
yeah I hate a smart bit%h
You ain't smart no more, you changed your name to my bit$ch
yeah nigga you my bit$h, so when I tax your a$$ don't pretend to be surprised bitch

It ain't pimpin if I ain't got it
But like a hoe hiding doe, you in deep sh*t
Muthaf*cker I'm ill, not sick
but I'm okay cause my knot's thick

Yeah my heads thick
yeah my elections fixed
and I won't quit
I'm it
MuthafuC$er I’m ill

They say I’m tax’n like Bill, Gord and Herbert
Jimmy Carter, where is Jean Chretien at?

Who that? Who that say blowing this money’s insane
It’s George Bush’s fault, he’s the one to blame, man

Now who that wanna do that, boy you knew that chew that swallow
And I be the sh$t now you’ve got loose bowels
I don’t OU like two vowels
But I’d like to tax you by the hour

One day you’ll be pushin flowers
But before then you’ll be sharing showers
If you think that moneys yours not ours
Even though Regan told us government is sour

Don’t second guess me, don’t doubt my power
I’ma trim your stacks, call me Mr.Lawnmower
Boy I got so many hoes I’m Mike Lowey
Even Colin Powell supports me cause I’m black see

I do what I do, and you do what you can do about it
Bit%h, I’ll keep taxin no point in poutin
Dare me

Don’t you compare me, cause there ain’t nobody near me
No experience, racist comments, they don’t hear me
But they fear me
I’m illie

Yes, 2010 will be a huge turning point.

The stock market just does not like O. People will vote with what's left of their money.

""Fools" is not an adequate description.
As far as their apologies: too late, not accepted."

I could not agree more!

So you didn't think he'd be this bad? Really?
A one term senator who has never run a damn thing in his life? Or did you not notice that?
Don't tell me you fell for the faux Greco-Roman columns and Oprah wetting herself all over the place!
Idiots! If any of you are planning on procreating, please do us a favour: Don't!

first glimmers of what is going to happen in 2010:

Michael Barone is reporting that Dodd is in big trouble and may get beat by - get this Larry Kudlow.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2009/3/2/chris-dodd-is-ripe-for-the-picking-for-gop-in-2010--sen-kudlow-of-connecticut.html?s_cid=rss:barone:chris-dodd-is-ripe-for-the-picking-for-gop-in-2010--sen-kudlow-of-connecticut

(via robinson and long)

Great post ET, The key is to put the fear into rank and file dem sneators and congressmen that if they support BO's agenda they will be defeated in 2010. BO's approval numbers are high whilst the congress's numbers are the polar opposite. That is BO's achilles heel. And there only needs to be about 100 congressmen that need to be taken out of the pelosi herd.

It is our only hope. BO's legislation has to be defeated - we cannot wait for 2010.

I agree with the "lot of noise" comment.

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh - I find him too bombastic, and for Republicans to see him as the sole gateway to the future is ridiculous.

As you say, lots of voices are required from the "right", sounding and putting forth different ideas, but all with the common underlying principles of freedom and responsibility. "The right" needs to avoid a cult of personality, and rather replace it with the strength of ideas and a sound ideology.

Not Stirred: "How many of those are saying they're sorry."

In the polls. O's Approval Index is less than half what is was on January 21. Many sorry people I'd say.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

Sounder:

It appears people with money are going on strike by taking their money out of the markets.

Better to keep it in a mattress than hand it over for redistribution.

Every time Obama opens his mouth on economic matters, the market goes down.

This trend will continue until next year's mid-term elections, I suppose.

Stirred - for once I can agree with you. Those who voted for Obamarama have nothing to apologize for. Obamarama is the guy who owes the apology. He needs to beg for the forgiveness of the American people for making well over campaign promises - most of which he is not and will not be able to keep.

When you tell that many lies you need to get down on your knees and apologize real good!

Make that "over 500 campaign promises" (must remember to "preview")

Obama has a rock solid support level of 40% the strongly approve number ain't moving. I am betting that will be his approval number in about 12 months or so. 4 out of ten people are low IQ high emotion voters. We shouldn't be surprised to see his drooling acolytes all over ever blog comment thread to a post critical of the mystical one. The first and easiest targets are the "he is more conservative than you think" voters, we are getting them. Lots of global warming skeptics supported Obama thinking that he would not be able to implement his magical thinking as energy policy. Well, he probably won't be able to implement it, but he will make it policy.

This won't be so hard, and the Senate lines up for the R's in two years, and the House, as we have seen, blows with the political winds.

One aspect of american politics versus Canadian politics is the while Canadian politicians primary interest is party/policy....american politician's priority is getting re-elected.
Most american politicians are very cognizant that success relies upon the nebulous "swing vote".
I can't help but feel that many, who must stand for relection in the 1910 midterms, are already getting nervous.
If they are not nervous, then this chaos will continue until 2010, to end like the Berlin Wall.

erik larsen - exactly. You said what I was trying to say - the right needs to avoid a cult of personality and focus only on ideas, on policies, on pragmatic programs.

That's why, now, they shouldn't be focusing on a leader. Not at all. But on articulating, loudly, as many voices, different voices, questions, comments, viewpoints..as possible. The winnowing out to the accepted platform ought to take at least a year.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are attacking these voices by blaming the right for NOT having a leader. But they shouldn't have one. Not yet. Because a leader will reduce the multiplicity and diversity of voices. Now is the time to explore, speak, question...and then, in a year, narrow these views down to a solid, acceptable platform.

And no personalities, no cult leaders. Solid policies and ideas based around freedom and responsibility.

a different bob - yes, obama and his promises. I recall one time, he was saying 'this will lead to 5 million jobs!'. Then, it was 4 million. Then, it was 3 million. Now?

And here's more from Rasmussen Reports.

Political Mood

In October of 2004, 43% thought America was on the right track. In May of 2006, only 27% thought the US was on the right track. And now, February 2009, it's 30%. That, to me, doesn't fit with the utopian fever of Obama mania. His role as president is still high but gradually, gradually, slipping.

What's needed now, are voices, many voices, diverse and not unified, from every range of the middle and the right. Focusing on concerns about this infrastructural change of the very nature of the USA.

This time around the Conservative American will not be inclined to blindly help his Country. This time their money will be kept close to the chest and out of the clutches of the O ring. Blind American patriotism of the past, is dead.

You know, if Obama were a genuine Marxist, he could handle debate and questions on the theory of the state. He'd write and expound on the virtues of such a policy.
- ET (the other thread)

Shockingly naive, ET. Obama is a revolutionary marxist ideologue who knows that he would gain no traction with a frank and honest discussion of his ideology. He knew that he would have to hide behind the standard lib-left, social-democrat label to win. He's never discussed Alinsky either, right? Surely you wouldn't cite his failure to discuss Alinsky's Rules for Radicals as evidence that he wasn't firmly in this Marxist camp!

BUT, don't assume that the absence of writings (he has suppressed all his records, written no scholarly articles or books over a 12-year academic career, voted present 130 times, etc) therefore means he isn't a ideological Marxist.
This is kind of the mirror image of another very naive statement you made on the A-I conflict where you cited as evidence Arafat's letter of 1993 to the effect that he recognized Israel and rejected violence.
In the former case, you presume the lack of an ideology because of a lack of written and oral evidence; in the latter you presume innocent intentions on the strength of a cynical deceptive letter.

Again, this is what I mean when I allude to your lack of street smarts, something Obama has in spades (no racist pun intended!)

I certainly agree with most of what you say however, and much of it in fact supports the notion that he is a revolutionary marxist!

The right should be all about freedom freedom freedom freedom

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

Freedom freedom freedom

Does that sound like freedom to you?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/bullish-obama-s.html

Obama said the following today

"What you're now seeing is ... profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you've got a long-term perspective on it," the president said on a day that trading continued to hover under 7,000"

So the howls from the Liberals and NDP about Harper being a stock broker will now be turned on Obama?

Too funny.

But me no dhimmi - you haven't provided any evidence for your claim that Obama is a 'revolutionary marxist'. None.

Calling me 'shockingly naive' isn't evidence.

Your assertion that 'Obama knows' that he can't reveal his marxist ideology - is pure speculation. After all, there are many genuine marxist thinkers who do debate and discuss their theories - and Obama could have done so long before he entered politics. He didn't.

Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals' isn't a marxist tract! It's about small scale social organization from the grassroots. It has nothing to do with any political ideology. Not only did Hillary Clinton refer to it and later she was the one who tried to hide it, but Obama did refer to it during his community activist years and even later.

You simply cannot assert that BECAUSE there is no evidence that Obama IS a Marxist, because he wrote nothing about such an ideology, THEN, this means that he IS a Marxist. Surely you see the illogical nature of such a claim (argument from ignorance).

I certainly do presume the lack of an ideology because of the lack of evidence. Again, what proof do you have to claim, without evidence, that Obama is a Marxist???

As for your analogy about Arafat, that can't be used to substantiate your claim about Obama as a Marxist.

And by the way, I did not say that the letter claimed that Arafat rejected violence, only that the letter acknowledge the Palestinian acceptance of the State of Israel. You prefer to assert that the letter was 'cynical and deceptive'. That's your claim, which you can't substantiate.

As for 'street smarts' - that's an empty phrase. You'd have to define it - and prove that I have or don't have it. If you mean a knowledge based on everyday experience - I have that. And I don't think that Obama does because his knowledge isn't based on his experience but on his psychological needs to control his environment.

Again, you have provided no evidence that Obama is an ideological Marxist. None.

It's true, I can't PROVE it. He's made sure of that. We are talking probabilities here, along the lines of "if it walks like a duck, etc". This is only a partial list. On balance, I'd say the probabilities much more strongly support my contention than yours, for, you too have no evidence for your assertion that he isn't a marxist. I push on this, because a lot of people think he's just a far left liberal.

- Father was a marxist.
- Mentor (and pedohpile) Frank Marshall Davis was a communist.
- William Ayers describes himself as a 'small c communist. As his his wife, Dohrm (sp?).
- Black Liberation Theology is unquestionably a form of Marxism, definitely not Christianity. He steeped himself, and his wife and children in it for 20 years.
- He has stated that at university he sought out the marxist professors and "structural feminists".
- He was a star pupil of the Alinsky method (which is to destroy liberal democratic capitalism).
- His mysterious past. 12 years as a academic professional without a single scholarly article or book (all records sealed -- we don't even have his theses).
- His Orwellian lying: saying he's not in favour of big government, saying there's no pork in the "stimulus" bill despite the presence of 8000 earmarks.

Alinsky was a Marxist.

Maybe Obama will finally be the end of style over substance.
I doubt it but maybe.

me no dhimmi - no, our assertions aren't empirically or logically the same.

First, kindly provide proof that Alinsky was a Marxist.

Now, your assertion that Obama is a Marxist, despite your inability to provide a shred of evidence for it, is not comparable to my assertion that he isn't a Marxist. My assertion that he isn't a Marxist is that there is no evidence for his being a Marxist. This is an empirical conclusion. If I cannot find any evidence that there is a disease, then I cannot claim despite the lack of evidence, that you have the disease.

You are being utterly illogical to claim that lack of data is irrelevant. For example, would it be logical to declare that BECAUSE there is no data that shows that Harper is a Marxist, this means that he is?

There is plenty of data that shows that Obama is not a Marxist.
It isn't hereditary therefore his father, whom he never knew, isn't relevant.
Black Liberation Theology is not 'unquestionably' a form of Marxism. [I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what Marxism means].

Alinsky's method wasn't to 'destroy democratic capitalism'. It was a strategy to mobilize grassroots activism. And again, Alinsky wasn't a Marxist! He was a far left socialist, typical of the 60s, a utopian idealist, a cultural relativist, filled with nonsense about economic determinism, i.e., that 'poverty causes criminality'.
Was Obama a follower of the methology of Alinsky. Most certainly. And so are, and so have been, many other different groups. Remember, it's a very effective method of motivating and developing mass movements. It's not a political ideology.

Obama's past isn't mysterious; he didn't write scholarly articles. He's not a theoretical analyst.

The fact that he lies is hardly indicative of being a Marxist!

Don't you realize that Obama's push for Big Centralist Government, moving all powers to the centralist state, is a clear sign that he isn't a Marxist? That it means that he's a far left socialist. Do you know what Marxism actually means?

ET:

Isn't this ‘centralization' the exact thing that Trudeau did?

ET and MND.....Maxist,socialist,facist,little green man from Mars. Who cares what. He is going to f&*k America over,and instead of debating human hating ideologies,we should be working to remove all of them! Remember,where America goes,the mouse up here called Canada follows,or is trampled.

ET: It's my fault, but this is a silly argument. We do seem to agree that Obama is a socialist. That's good enough for me. Marx was a socialist, no?
So, let's put it this way: Marx was a socialist; Obama is a socialist. Both are hard left socialists. Obama ran as a left-lib social democrat. He's a con artist.
Marx was a white man with a Santa Claus beard. Obama is a clean-shaven mullato.

Heh, I can't even prove Marx was a marxist? Maybe he really, really, down deep, didn't believe all that nonsense? I think he hated his industrialist father.

I don't require "doctrinal purity" to call someone a Marxist. I'm not a scholar. Remember our little conversation about whether or not China was a "capitalist" country. You say yes, I say no, from a doctrinally pure sense of the word.

Was Bush a capitalist. Are any of the big Wall Street firms "capitalist". Are the auto companies capitalist? Is Obama-supporting Warren Buffet a capitalist? Is George Soros a capitalist, or a marxist, or a Nazi?

I was just a bit startled at your nutty premise that because Obama hadn't had a public discourse about his Marxism -- a public seminar --that he wasn't a Marxist. That's all. Simply put: he couldn't win an election being openly marxist. Period.

Oh, a big push toward a central government isn't Marxist? I didn't know that. You're referring to the "dictatorship of proletariat" right? That the state would wither away, right? LOL.

Justthinkin. LOL. You're right! BLUSH.

Very pleasant to read the exchange between 'ET & Me No Dhimmi'. I think that had better look back on the USA governments for the last 20 years before 'the big O' was put into office.

GHB - was a rhino republican who started to dis-mantel the Conservatism that Reagan put into place.
BC - was a socialist liberal democrat who pushed for bigger government and dis-manteneling the armed forces and pushing the socialist liberal agenda.
GWB - was a liberal rhino socialist who had the opportunity of centralization of armed forces, homeland security, fema and that's just a few.
BHO - is a communist socialist liberal democrate and he is going to the 'centralization' of things at 'warp speed'.

No need to blush,MND.I enjoy reading the discussions between you and ET,but can you peoples try discussing different ways to perhaps fix these problems? Think of the good. Besides of informing people like me (I'm getting a free education out of it),it might upset a few lefties too!!! Win-win...heh.

me no dhimmi

ET is a "teacher", therefore a dictionary perfect word user, street smarts is a gut feeling type of thing, just rite out of her league, I'v pointed out her lack of street smarts before, whoooosh, rite over her head

that fact that she sees anything credible about Arafat, shows just how gullible she is at street level:-))))

but I still enjoy her input in here

Don't be so patronizing, gym.

'Street smarts' does not mean 'gut feeling type of thing'. Any and all of us have that.

It means, to me, an ability to survive in a hostile or unfriendly 'street' environment, i.e., one outside of normative or open rules. I certainly don't think that Obama has that! He requires a cocoon, a nested buffer against others. As for myself - I won't comment because I don't get into personal histories. But I think that very few of us have lived their entire lives in the security of a rule-based environment.

Nor did I say that I saw anything credible about Arafat. I've always maintained that he was not interested in a Palestinian state for that would mean his own loss of power. I merely pointed out to some people here that Palestine had accepted the Israeli state, and pointed to an official 1993 letter signed by Arafat as President of the PLO affirming that recognition. Like it or not, it was official.

And there's no need for you to enjoy 'my input' here.

ET: "It means, to me, an ability to survive in a hostile or unfriendly 'street' environment, i.e., one outside of normative or open rules."

Sounds scary. What are academic smarts?

ET.....
I've seen Obama's jump shot.

He's a Marxist......
No doubt in my mind.

Re the discussion between ET and MND - I don't enjoy reading the exchanges.

As per the comments above, MND does not show respect for someone else's viewpoint, and engages in mild vitriol.

To say things like "your nutty viewpoint", and "Shockingly naive", well, that just doesn't wash with me.

Crap like that just turns me off. I don't talk to other people like that in "real life", and I wonder how many people who post talk to others the way they do here

I'm know from previous posts that MND has many great ideas, better than mine, but when I come across comments like that I just stop reading; it turns me off.

I'm not an apologist for ET or anyone else, s/he can take care of him/herself.

So, please, let ideas compete. Take personalities out of it.

___

On a separate topic, it's the same thing as when left wingers like phil and whomever post. Stop namecalling. It's a waste of everyone's time.

Either counter with facts and ask for a response, or don't bother posting. phil does not answer rational fact-based postings. And if he does, our ideas and ideals should be able to quickly dispatch him. And if they don't, we have to figure out why (unless the provocateur is an idiot, then you don't bother answering them ever again)

Sorry everyone (esp MND for whom I have a lot of respect), but I had to say it, and I feel better now.

ET & MND

I enjoy both of your comments (usually), regardless of the necessity of my enjoyment.

BTW I saw BO's jump shot, and two-step. Musings about if BO is really "black" become more believable each time I see him. (Just kidding)

I have known many fair skinned bros, and I have observed that many of them are more "black" than darker bros. From what I've seen, BO forces his "blackness", perhaps trying to get acceptance. He was at the Wizard vs. Bulls game, and everything about him just seems fake.

Apparently the 80's were the "good'ol days" for the fair skinned bros, I've had many laughs at fair skinned comedians reminiscing about those "good' ol days”.

Erik

The problem is, you can't squeeze water from a rock, so you’re right “don’t argue with fools, cause people a distance can’t tell who is who”. I suspect the name calling and lets say “playing down to their level" is a reaction out of frustration, and I'm sure those of us who've done that are embarrassed about it.

Personally the intellectual dishonesty from commenter’s like Stirred just drives me batty, but I will give credit where it's due. He can be a funny guy.

Homez - yep - I've had a few conversations here with Stirred - and have enjoyed some of them, oddly enough

But the "name calling" crap - oh man, it drives me nuts, because I know once it starts, I can then scroll through several screens of lllieberal/lefttard/intolerant/not thinking/blah blah/etc invective garbage

Blech