Still voting present;
President Obama endured a 50-minute diatribe from socialist Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega that lashed out at a century of what he called terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America and included a rambling denunciation of the U.S.-imposed isolation of Cuba's Communist government.
Obama sat mostly unmoved during the speech but at times jotted notes. The speech was part of the opening ceremonies at the fifth Summit of the Americas here.
This is the same man who "endured" twenty years of hate-America-first diatribes from his "spiritual mentor" Jeremiah Wright. Of course he took notes. You never know when you'll need a new book title.
(Besides, it's all Kennedy's fault).
And your point is? And the problem is? President Obama is reaching out to Cuba after years of failed Cuban policy. Thank god that Canada has been a strong trading partner with Cuba and most of the tourists there are from Canada. That is certainly a feather in our hat. Cuba is a beautiful country!
Here in Silicon Valley, there's a term for the Obamas of the world (it probably exists elsewhere, as well): empty suits.
His spiritual mentor, inspiration for his book title, and Christener of his children, said most of the same things for decades.
His wife was proud of America "for the first time" when Obama was president.
He associated with the most radical America hating individuals one could find (Ayers et al).
That he has thrown America under the bus on his worldwide "its not me its America" tour, should surprise no one.
No one willing to look past the smooth talking and slick smiling and to what he has done and not done over the years, that is.
As an aside, its really quite remarkable that Sean Hannity's constant rantings/warnings that were wearing thin on even ardent Obama opponents, all appear to be coming to fruition.
"He's just placating his base on the left, he's not really going to be an America hating neo-socialist" thought most moderates.
Yes. Yes he is.
Cuba is a large island jail, where Cubans have no rights, no freedoms, live in abject poverty while the Castro gang slats away $billions in Swiss banks.
Cuba has a failed economy, an economy that should be exporting food like it used to but now must import 80% of of its basic foodstuffs.
Cuba is a brutal dictatorship, ruled by the communist party and the guns of the army. There is no public dissent allowed, no free press, no workers or feminist rights or any rights - just obligations to be a slave to Castro's brutality.
Canadian tourists going to Cuba are enabling the brutality to continue, are enabling the slavery of the Cuban people to continue, are making the Castro's richer and Cubans poorer.
Enjoy your next vacation Tom. So progressive of you to promote slavery of a nation.
I am a little less sanguine on some of this, with lots of caveats.
On the surface, there is nothing wrong with this, given that it is the first time, first with each country. The problem will be if he continues to let it happen.
The tactic of letting someone dump like this is to let them get it off their chest. But it had better lead to proper dialogue. If thats the result, and letting these guys sound like the idiots they are, then I have less a problem with it. But if at the next meeting Obama lets ortega andcastro and chanvez etc do the same thing without response then you have a major issue.
Same thing with Iran. You can be open, but if the other guy isnt then you just greenlighted the option to bomb the crap out of them, or ignore them or return to the previous policy.
The rev wright issue, yup he sat for 20 years and listened. If he does the same then he wont be president past 4 years. The rule at the Obama white house needs to be one diatribe per dictator.
Which direction were the boats headed Tom?
Another semi tinpot dictator bashes America. Who cares? What should Obama have done - taken off his shoe and slammed it into the desk a la Khruschev?
Or retort with a 50 minute rant on how America's policies were sound to a crowd that holds no sympathy for him or American policy?
Both would be a solid waste of time.
There are two ways to look at this issue. He could make an angry speech defending America and march out of the Summit angrily. What would that achieve? Nothing. At the moment he needs every country to avoid becoming protectionist. The moment one goes protectionist, all will start. If he marches out there or gives them a principle-heavy - but pragmatically poor- speech, he could give them the excuse for going protectionist. He has to engage them on their terms. And don't they know that. I can't think of any administration - Republican or Democrat - doing otherwise.
I don't doubt that ET will be here blaming Obama's narcissisim shortly, but I want everybody else (at least those who try to remain objective) to put forth any alternatives they think Obama could have pursued.
The way I see it, Obama is full of hot air (always has been, I mean, "yes we can"???!?@!#) However as any practitioner of foreign policy would tell you, diplomacy operates on a different level. When you want someone's cooperation, you ignore the flaws and hope that you can get concessions. Obama's main goal here is to avoid the Latin American countries from slipping into protectionism. Lets be honest - most of them are socialist regimes that will go protectionist at the slightest excuse. The only thing working against their protectionist tendency is a strong global opinion against it. However even one hegemonic misstep will give them an excuse to go protectionist and if most of Latin Americagoes that way, its going to hurt the whole world a lot. As we all know, socialists dont mind inflicting misery on their people as long as they are convinced that they are right "in theory". This does not bode well for anyone. Obama has to be very cautious. Remaining unmoved was his best tactic. Its a nice way of saying - "I dont really care. I will listen to you. But it is irrelevant to the present and future".
I expect another diatribe on his narcissism, but I implore you to humor me and put forth something more salient.
"the U.S.-imposed isolation of Cuba's Communist government"
For a country that's supposedly so isolated, there's an awful lot of trade, tourism and sucking up going on.
What could he do? He can't rebut something he doesn't know anything about. Nothing of what Chavez said had anything to do with Obama, so he was probably jotting notes about how 'that funny little man wasn't speaking about me personally - send him my books'.
You probably missed this, "toiken":
"I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old."
I think it's fair to expect that past observations about "President Me" will continue.
One can only smile and think fondly of what Ronald Reagan would have said.
Actually Fred Thompson would have verbally torn Ortega a new one as well.
I think it is going to be a long four years.
people that vacation in Cuba on a coastal resort with a side trip to Havana are clueless about the real Cuba .
cigars and not much else.
Dr. Megele Suzuki praised the Cuban agricultural system , in a country that imports 80% of its food. substandard rather than sustainable.
Cuba is a 50 year remnant of a failed system.
Of course this is old hat from some of these guys, as seen here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Kzbo7tNLg
And the response from those who have heard it many times before is exhibited by the King of Spain.
Same old same old from Chavez and Ortega. Obama can listen once, but next time he better speak up like the Spainish PM did, it all depends on who is chairing the meeting.
Silicon Valley Jim - your expression is "empty suit". Up in Canada we call them "empty helmets".
http://www.anncoulter.com/
making fun of the Dems and Barney Frank.
here in Canaduh she would face a richard war man lawsuit and a kangaroo court.
Obama goes to the continent where hundreds of thousands of American soldiers died to liberate it from the Nazis, where trillions in American dollars were spent defending it from the Soviet gulag state, where its nanny state economies were allowed to function this long solely because America powered the world economy,
and apologizes.
For what? For spending the blood of America's youth, and the treasure of its citizens ousting a brutal mideast thug and establishing a democracy in the mideast, and for daring to defend itself from terrorists that killed thousands of civilians, in the now defunct "war on terror".
A disgrace doesn't come close to describing Obama.
Hey Tom:
In 2001, Canada had about 32,000 people in prison or about 0.13% of the total population, Cuba has 12,000,000 people. 500,000 of them are in jail. That would be roughly 4%. So you are 30 times more likely to wind up in jail in Cuba than in Canada.
Cuba - such a beautiful country!
"I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old."
Is it me or does anyone else notice that the One seems to forget he was born in August of 1961, Bay of Pigs was in April of 1961.
The One didn't handle this well on so many levels, brought the immediate issue directly back to himself (ET's batting average on this the me me thing, 1.000).
And..... a Freudian slip on his true age and true birthplace...... to still be determined apparently.
As a marxist thug, no way Obama ENDURED the rant. You only ENDURE that which makes you suffer. He enjoyed it. That's his milieu. Old Home Week.
BTW, I recently read that "Reverend" Wright supported Hezbollah in one of the "church's" publications. The ideology that "church" espouses, "black liberation theology", is marxist through and through. One of its principal themes is anti-middle-classness: it teaches its "congregates" to shun middle class values, those being oppressive of course. Marxist class warfare.
Well, my comments on this are -
First, Obama was right to stay, and listen, for the entire speech. That affirms the First Amendment, the right to freedom of speech, the right to dissent and debate and disagreement. [Something he and his MSM are rejecting by the Tea Parties].
His original comment on Ortega's speech that 'it was 50 minutes long. That's what I thought' was right. And, his next comment, in his speech, began well with ""to move forward we cannot let ourselves be prisoners of past disagreements".
And that's where he should have ended it. This would have clearly stated that focusing on past grievances is unproductive and would have thrown the 'agency', the activity of making things happen, back to Ortega, and to anyone else mired in past grievances. Obama should then have returned to discuss the key issues - which are about the economy, protectionism, and the devt of democracy etc.
But Obama didn't give them this power to act.
Instead, in true, yes, narcissist fashion, Obama moved the focus of agential force..back to himself.
He said that he was glad that Ortega had not blamed him, Obama, for things that had happened when he was three months old.
Got that? It's the 'agency', the 'causes of action', the 'agential force' or whatever term you want to use that is the key. Obama moves it, always, to himself.
This sentence declared that HE is different, that causes of problems with the US were based on past presidents (not on issues within the US or within the other countries such as Nicaragua) and that HE is different. Therefore, 'moving forward' will be based on HIS agential force, on these other nations interacting differently with the USA because HE, Obama, is not the same as the past presidents.
And then, Obama set himself up as the champion of Cuba - a strange role...and one that I find puzzling. Obama is always on the campaign trail, for himself, therefore, his championship of Cuba isn't about economics, democracy, human rights or any such trivia. It's about some benefit to himself. Hmmm.
As the Youtube video that Stephen links to above says.
Hugo Chavez, Why dont you Shut Up...as the King of Spain gets up and leaves the room.
Opening paragraphs of a piece at IsraPundit, gets it right. This cat is way way too friendly, too smiley with these thugs:
The handshakes between President Obama and Venezuelan Marxist dictator Chavez and Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega looks reminiscent of what British Prime Minister ‘peace in our time’ Neville Chamberlain and French Prime Minister Deladier did with Herr Hitler and IL Duce with the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938.
The handshakes at the Americas Summit in Trinidad/Tobago between Obama and President for Life Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega bespeaks of appeasement, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, given Chavez continuing drum roll of propaganda against the US and actions against the small Venezuelan Jewish community depriving them of liberty and worse. Chavez called Obama an ‘ignoramus’ in late March..
BTW, remember this too: Obama sent a congratulatory message to Chavez when he managed to changed the constitution to become President for Life. He referred, I believe, to the wonderful display of democratic process at work.
Aunty-American:
""Isn't it great that there are no Americans here?""
It's O's fault.
...-
"U.S. lifts embargo, we lose a quiet paradise
Face it, Canada, when it comes to protecting our sun and sand, we're a selfish lot.
While Cuban Americans are celebrating the easing of some U.S. restrictions on their lives, many Canadians are already mourning what seems the inevitable loss of their piece of American-free paradise."
urlm.in/cdar
Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent column on 'Obamatopia' at Pajamas Media. Here are some long excerpts which I include because they are, in my view, so accurate:
"One wonders whether President Obama grasps why certain nations hate us. Does he really believe that in the pre-Bush era we all got long (cf. his al Arabiya interview); then Bush’s strutting, unilateralism, and preemption, presto, caused anti-Americanism?"
"So far all the Obama apologies for the sins of his own country (note always before he came on the scene), the serial “Bush did it” invective, the promises of a brave new Obama transnational world, the evocation of his middle name, and non-traditional lineage, and shared demagoguery against “them” (Wall Street, the greedy, the unpatriotic who make over the mythical trip wire $250,000), have not, and will not, change much abroad. Has Cuba promised to release prisoners, or apologized for all those killed? Has Chavez vowed to restore constitutional governance and quit subversion of his neighbors?
Elsewhere did the “their old America did it, not my new one” Obama approach calm the waters with anything? Russians helping out to prevent a nuclear Iran, or stopping the killing of dissidents abroad, or promises not to bully the former Soviet republics? More European combat units going to Afghanistan? Mexico vowing to curb illegal immigration? Turkey ceasing its new anti-Western Islamic screeds?"
"His supporters would rejoin, “Oh, but give him time. He’s sowing the field with good will for a bountiful harvest of future cooperation”. I do think he’s sowing, but a minefield rather than a crop, whose explosions will be as inevitable as they will be numerous. Sarkozy’s crude dismissal and appraisal of Obama (nothing is worse for a liberal administration than to have their idolized French brethren bite their extended limp hands) are the template of things to come.
My only confusion is over motive. Does Obama do this for (a) domestic political purposes: trashing Bush abroad*, coupled with fawning foreign crowds and photo-ops, remind Americans that someone made them liked abroad after someone else did not? (b) Is it more personal, as in messianic: he sees himself as a sort of Mandela/Gandhi figure, post-national, post-patriotic, post-American in whom the souls of 6 billion are invested for ‘hope and change’? (c) Is there a touch of Democratic savvy as well—the more these “breakthroughs” are associated with Obama, the more Hillary seems sidelined, and / or forced to implement his lead? Compared to the high Rice profile, her stature seems more and more dwarfish. (d) Does he really believe in conflict resolution theory that postulates escalating disagreements arise from miscommunication and misunderstanding rather than an aggressive party sensing that its putative opponent cannot or will not impede it—in other words faith in the UN rather than age-old balance of power, deterrence, and ‘quiet but carry a big stick’ preparedness? (e) Does Obama, whether being nourished on the mother milk of Wright, Ayers, Khalidi, etc, or from his university training and Chicago organizing, really see the U.S. as historically a uniquely oppressive society in terms of race, class, and gender, and hence perhaps have empathy for a Castro or Chavez, at least more than he does for Americans of the sort who go to tea parties and listen to Fox News? I’ll let readers decide, but so far his rhetoric has been harsher to those on Wall Street, his opponents in Congress, those who make over $250,000, and those who criticize him than it has to those who clearly don’t like us abroad.
And the result will be soon, as Sarkozy presciently saw, a general sizing up of the Obama two-step. They will either believe that we are weak, and cannot stand in the way of their illiberal agendas, or believe that Obama is somewhat sympathetic to their anti-capitalist, anti-democratic scenarios, or believe that he is a true multiculturalist who believes in the “Post-American world”.
So- I note that Hanson suggests that Obama is 'sowing a minefield rather than a crop". I fully agree.
The first explosion will be between Israel and Iran - and that is due to the Obama's open equation of dictatorships with democracies, and his ignorance of or indifference to the basic reasons for the military and political agendas of both nations. Israel wants the West Bank without its Palestinian inhabitants; a war will serve as the excuse to turf them. Iran wants imperial control over the ME, including such states as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, SA. Neither nation is interested in a Palelstinian state and both are using that as a trojan horse for their real agendas.
Hanson asks why Obama is behaving in this manner. I suggestion answer 'b' - that messianic self-image of his redemptive power. And it's important to note Hanson's comments that Obama is far more critical of people in the US earning over that mythical line of 250,000, of people criticizing him - he can't handle criticism ..of entrepreneurship (he wants dependency); of anyone in Congress who dissents from him.
Note how Obama dealt with the Tea Parties. When asked about them, he claimed ignorance of their reality. That's half a million protesters - and Obama says he knows nothing about such events. How's that as a tactic for dealing with criticism? He left it up to his MSM and press staff to denigrate, mock, and belittle the American citizens who protested his regime's massive spending and expansion of govt into every aspect of individual rights.
I won't repeat my comments about his prime role in setting up the lynch mob hysteria against the AIG executives...but..Obama is setting up minefields not only in the international world but in America.
That affirms the First Amendment, the right to freedom of speech, the right to dissent and debate and disagreement. [Something he and his MSM are rejecting by the Tea Parties].
I don't think anyone is infringing on free speech, dissent or disagreement. Responding to the teabaggers with the derision they deserve is also exercising free speech and is completely appropriate. You seem to want to shut down the "MSM", ET,
because it doesn't agree with your crackpot world view, including your utterly shallow and one dimensional narcissism fixation.
ET,
I wonder how you think Obama will react when they inevitably burn him in effigy, as they have every single US Prsident, including Carter, that I have been alive for.
Will he accept it as part of the job or will he be personally offended.
If he acts as a US President he will be burned soemwhere. If not he might avoid the fate in non U S countries.
philboy - why do the Tea Parties deserve derision? Please explain.
And note that my comment on the MSM's response to the Tea Parties has absolutely nothing to do with Freedom of Speech - but was a critique of their 'criticism' of those same Tea Parties. Please explain why critiquing the MSM comments about these Tea Parties is unacceptable.
Where do I say or imply that I want to shut down the MSM?
Please explain why you have concluded that my world view is 'crackpot'. Thanks in advance.
Ortega must be pissed that he didn't get a gang-banger handshake from Obama like Hugo got.
stephen - that's a non-question, really.
As a narcissist, Obama must feel that he can control how others interact with him. If he cannot control them and they are 'still in his visual field' - he can attack them (as he denigrated Hannity, Limbaugh etc); or his staff will do so, or his MSM followers will do so.
Or - he'll act as if you don't exist. Literally, you are no longer 'alive'.
So, if anyone burns him in effigy, he'll just ignore it. It didn't happen.
Reading back on Hanson's column - with his list of 'why does Obama behave like this' ...I'd even suggest it's a bit of all of them. But his root, is his pathological narcissism - not any ideological beliefs.
No doubt Obama'a personal popularity will increase with the thugs when largesse, er, foreign aid is sent. Obama will learn the hard way that GWB was right about at least one thing - democracy is crucial to US security interests.
Nodding understanding of past grievances is fine at first, now Obama needs to engage the thugs and ensure they play by the rules, not smiling while bankrolling enemies, as is the case with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
To be sure Chavez and Ortega are pipsqueak threats on the order of Kim Il Jong, but continued naivete when dealing with, for instance Russia, will sow the nuclear minefield of Hanson's warning.
Obama won election fair and square. He has the legitimate right to be POTUS. I've been somewhat bemuzed by the negative feeding frenzy that's taken place at SDA and other blogs. Having said that, this latest behaviour is somewhat worrying.
My only substantive criticism before was his pork laden debt package. I feel he has held back some of the more radical elements of his party, and deserves praise. Alas, he seems to have fallen for their line with his acquiescence to these corrupt brutal thugs.
why do the Tea Parties deserve derision?
Please explain why you have concluded that my world view is 'crackpot'. Thanks in advance.
Res ipsa loquitur
no, philboy, that's not an answer. It's a cop out.
Again, please explain why the Tea Parties deserve derision.
And, please expalin why you conclude that my worldview is 'crackpot'.
You see, it's not self-evident that the Tea Parties deserve derision. Nor, heh, is it self-evident that my worldview is 'crackpot'.
So, if you refuse to explain, then, I'll have to conclude that your style of argumentation is not valid as such but is simplistic name-calling.
That means that you apply derogatory terms to issues and people - without evidence, without facts, without logical analysis, without substantiation. Is that how you choose to discuss issues? Try again.
ET, you are like the guy whose only tool is a hammer, ergo every problem looks like a nail.
One can apply your trite, crackpot narcissism analysis to anybody and come up with a negative conclusion. You're ET one note, obsessive and pathological.
Aside from the fact the tepid tea parties were promoted and sponsored by Fox "News" and Republican operatives, what were these "grassroots" really protesting.
Are they really willing to put an end to entitlements to special interests that are part of the Republican constituency?
In the same way in Canada, are those bleating about big government and high taxes willing to give up THEIR entitlements? Until they are, that angry right fringe hypocrisy is deserving of nothing but contempt and derision.
"I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old."
I may be wrong, but I think that was more a case of disarming humor than a serious observation. The transcript from the speech certainly suggets that if it was a serious statement from him, it was met with "(laughter)". Again, I see it more as a case of him dissociating with a past that does not help his cause, than any real statement about how much he loves himself (cue ET).
"and apologizes."
International Relations is characterized by short memories. It is the way the world works. If Obama had ranted and raved about how the Europeans owe America for WWII, he would have got the same unmoved reaction from them. It is the diplomatic way of expressing irrelevance. You can't stop them from saying it, but if they don't provoke a reaction from you, they've essentially lost.
"Got that? It's the 'agency', the 'causes of action', the 'agential force' or whatever term you want to use that is the key. Obama moves it, always, to himself."
*Yawn* Ever heard of a joke? If he was moving it to himself with any serious intent, he should be outright offended that people laughed at it.
"Therefore, 'moving forward' will be based on HIS agential force, on these other nations interacting differently with the USA because HE, Obama, is not the same as the past presidents."
Find me one President who says "more of the same". Presidential campaigns are about change - more specifically about how one particular candidate will change things. Overwrought analaysis aside, Obama is NOT the same as past Presidents, nor are any individual past presidents the same as other past presidents. His campaign is built on doing business in a different manner (relative to Bush), and I fail to see how he is in the wrong for stating that he will do things differently when that was the basis of his campaign. I can see many flaws with his policies and personality, but this narcissism thing is a bit absurd because the parameters ET and all are using would allow us to indict all US presidents as narcissistic.
"I suggestion answer 'b' - that messianic self-image of his redemptive power."
That is amusing. What if he actually proves to be right. Not that I think he will be, but I do think it is way tooo early to be drawing conclusions about him. Hes been in office for 4 months. I think he's a complete charlatan, but I will give the American voters the benfit of doubt. Besides, theres a whole system of political checks and balances to keep his messianic tendencies in check. I have plenty of faith in them. The rest here seem to have none.
"But his root, is his pathological narcissism - not any ideological beliefs."
Leave the dead horse alone, willya? We know where you, ET, stand on this issue. Its getting tiring reading the same stuff word-for-word on every post. Its especially rich from someone promoting logical analysis, facts, and substantiation. I take it you are a psychiatrist who has studied and spoken to Obama. Or are these conclusions from afar. If they are the latter, I suggest you stop making the same mistake the MSM does - drawing ideologically biased baseless conclusions.
CNN is tongue-tongue tied:
"the nation's first African-African president,".
The Black-Black caucus is not amused.
...-
"The Congressional Black Caucus said it was "deeply dismayed" by the decision made by the nation's first African-African president, saying it was inconsistent with administration policies."
"Boycotts hit U.N. racism conference"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/19/racism.conference/index.html
Open Question: What's the current status of Hugo Chavez's presidency in Venezuela?
Some specific questions:
1. When will the next election for president happen there?
2. Are there any suspicions that elections in Venezuela are now rigged?
Answers with reference URLs would be much appreciated!
I also posted on that earlier...
Obama Refuses To Dis Fellow Socialist Facist Ortega
http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-refuses-to-dis-fellow-socialist.html
IMHO, y'all may find it an entertaining, socialism-slamming read. Funny pix/animations worth stealing, too.
The teaparties scared you did they philboy? By the way, Fox didn't do the organizing. They came late to the party, but at least they showed unlike the other media.
Guys like you better be afraid philboy, your day is coming. You and your ilk were relentless in bashing Bush and now that your loser in in power you can't stand anyone who doesn't toe the idiot's line. Too f*cking bad.
The best sign at the tea party I saw was.."We came unarmed, this time."
Be afraid philboy. There are many who will fight for freedom, whether you like it or not. You're the one who deserves derision.
I'll give up bleating and whining about big government and high taxes when I know what entitlements I'm entitled to. Seems all I'm entitled to is being insulted by the welfare- entitled mentalities and paying more taxes of course.
Yeah, storm, I'm shaking in my birkenstocks.
Fighting for what freedom, exactly?
I'm all in favour of freedom.
The only thing is, you right-wingnuts talk the talk, but that's it. You only want small government for groups and programs you don't like.
When you're willing to walk the walk, I'll listen to your preaching. Until then, it's all just so much angry, right fringe blather.
Philby illustrates the standard lefty notion....
.......anything counter to the leftist agenda is automatically wrong, treasonous, racist or someother 'ist simply by default.
OBAMA is an empty suit on a power trip....a dangerous man..........
Lessons learned from 'philboy' today:
1. Anyone who has a view different from him is a "rightwing nut".
2. Anyone who dares disagreeing with putting a nation deeply into debt is a mindless twit, controlled by the likes of Fox News.
3. Anyone who dares ask him any serious question doesn't deserve any semblance of a serious response.
What a way to run one's life!
His hate-filled views remind me of what happened last December when I went down to Library Square in Vancouver to protest against the Coalition. The event was organized on Facebook by two young fellows in Ontario. Conservative Party members were there to be sure, but there were a lot more of us who didn't belong to any political party. Many of the signs were homemade ones, not a mass of pre-printed ones as were predominately seen on the pro-Coalition / Union rallies.
Yet, a few people like 'philboy' were also there at Library Square and refused to accept that any of us could possibly independently hold the views that we did. Instead, it was (and remains) simpler to just dismiss us as Harper (and now Fox News) mindless minions. Technically this is not preventing our right to free speech but by dismissing one's opponents in such a manner, it's effectively & precisely the same thing.
'philboy' is just the latest in a long line of intellectual thugs on the Left who claim they're "open minded" . . . but only if you happen to agree with their views. Beyond pathetic.
O'sassinator?
...-
Obama denies claim of US plot to kill Bolivian president: Official
19 Apr 2009, 2134 hrs IST, AFP
PORT OF SPAIN: US President Barack Obama denied at the weekend trying to assassinate Bolivian President Evo Morales, despite claims of such a plot, a US administration official said on Sunday at the close of a summit of American leaders.
"The president made clear his administration policy of not supporting any such activity," the official with Obama at the summit in Trinidad and Tobago said. He declined to be identified.
Obama made the denial Saturday during a meeting with South American leaders after Morales, one of the fiercest critics of the United States in the region, made the allegation."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2232883/posts
philboy - before you come to a conclusion, be sure your facts are accurate.
First, the Tea Parties were not started by FOX; they were totally and completely grassroots. You can't ignore the power of the Internet in our modern world for its communicative networking. FOX then picked up on these local initiatives and certainly promoted and publicized them. They were, after all, newsworthy.
Nor were they bound to any political party; they weren't Republican. In fact, quite a number of Republicans were strongly criticized by these Tea Parties for being part of that growing expansion of government programs, the growing intrusion of government into private business, the increasing taxes to fund these 'social welfare programs.
Nor were these Tea Parties about 'entitlements to special interests'.
I don't think you paid much attention to the speeches, the signs, the comments made by people engaged in those Tea Parties. They were about the massive increase in government socialist programs, the concomitant increase in taxes to fund these programs, the trillion dollar deficit spending, the increased govt intrusion into business affairs, the notion that taxpayers should pay for the homes and services of people who don't work, the lack of accountability of Congress (didn't you read the signs that said: "READ the bill before you Sign it".
So - you still haven't told me why you consider the Tea Parties worthy of derision. How about it, philboy? Try again.
Nor have you explained how my views are 'crackpot'.
It's untrue that one can apply a 'trite crackpot analysis' to anyone and come up with a narcissist conclusion. Again - how is my analysis 'crackpot'..as well as trite?
philboy, it's easy to fling derogatory terms around. How about some actual data and reasoned analysis to substantiate your opinions?
token - my suggestion to you, with regard to your being so stressed by my posts, is that you scroll to the bottom of the thread and scroll up. That way, when you see the dreaded initials of ET, you can zip right by without reading.
No, your attempt to reduce Obama's focus on himself as 'unique and special' by suggesting that ALL presidents are about change, is extremely weak. Why? Because this suggests that a society changes its infrastructure every four years. Obviously not, and the campaign is not usually about a rejection of the past but about a particular approach to basic policies and programs..i.e., larger vs smaller govt, stronger foreign role, etc.
Obama's campaign wasn't about policies and programs - indeed, that was a frequent criticism. It was a purely emotional campaign about 'hope and change'. No-one was quite sure what was hoped for or what this change was about, other than his oft-repeated health care and 'the climate' - but he didn't articulate the policies and programs.
As for my comments on his narcissim, since they are mine and not yours, I'll continue to make them as I see fit. My advice, again, is to scroll past my posts without reading them.
philboy wrote: Yeah, storm, I'm shaking in my birkenstocks.
Fighting for what freedom, exactly?
I believe you are shaking in your girlie boots. As for freedom, I guess you haven't noticed that your hero is a raging socialist who wants to control everyone and everything. Now that may be fine with you but there are many who are not fine with it.
If you think for one minute all the people will just bow down to your idiot hero, well philboy, you'd be wrong.
ET, I for one, absolutely adore you! I'm forwarding your last large post to several friends & colleagues. Bravo dear sister in the East!
Once Obama opens up trade with Cuba,How will he prevent Russia or China or North Korea from investing in Cuba? Remember that when Obama closes Guantanamo he gives up control over shipping access to the Panama Canal.
Pillboy never misses Operah, his power for his telly and the roof over his head, all supplied by mummy and daddy, and his views were installed by the likes of Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers. There is no hope for this Unidork ET. Soon the survivors will have to do just that, and the "waiters" will not get their inheritances, due to huge debts being run up by empty suits and a 4 for 1 currency change. Hope you will lick Obies boots then pillboy.
Hey, Tokyo Wild Rose, you have a little issue to atone for.
Take your time.