97 Replies to “The Buck Stops Here”

  1. Bleet
    I am offended by your racist and hateful remarks- you just called me a racist and a hater.
    Perhaps bleet is experiencing the early stages of grief or post traumatic stress disorder due to being let down and betrayed by his idol and messiah. I can understand your grief – it must be humbling to have fallin in love with a teleprompter. I think you may be in the denial stage.

  2. MBerridge The government endorsement of affirmative action is institutional racism and sexism. They may hire for merit but it is still affirmative action and is counted for bonuses as such. It isn’t like they separate out the AA and the competent. They are all AA by definition of colour or sex.

  3. Tanker
    It’s sad that you can’t even see the unquestioned racism which lies at the heart of your argument, which is: what reason, other than race, was there for people to support Obama over McCain?
    Off the top of my head, there are two obvious ones. First, the Iraq war has been enormously unpopular with the American public for some time. McCain supported the war. Obama did not.
    Secondly, a major factor was the candidates’ reaction to the economic crisis. McCain’s reaction was to freak out, ‘suspend his campaign’ and generally seem erratic. Things really went downhill for him there – people didn’t like that. By contrast, Obama seemed calm and measured.
    Finally, aside from McCain’s ineffectiveness at communicating his ideas, people did not like the ideas. They were ideas that had proven to be utter and dismal failures over the past 8 years, as they were enacted by someone who left the office as the most hated president in US history.
    If you can look at all I’ve cited and say the only reason Obama won was because he’s black, you have a cognitive disorder. He won because he has better ideas – ideas that hadn’t already proved to be failures – he presented them better, and showed himself to be more of a leader during the economic crisis. For you to continue to ascribe his success to race, race, race, is a pitiful demonstration of denial and…racism.

  4. ET
    My reference to “hayseeds and other assorted racists” referred to the person who identified Obama as an ‘affirmative action president’ earlier in the thread.
    No, I don’t think Obama – or any president -should not be criticized. He and his policies are fair game for criticism.
    Nor do I think his race should have anything to do with criticism levelled at him. That is why I objected to the racist comments inthis thread, and have objected to them in other threads on this site. Do you have an objection to my doing this?

  5. Some people miss the point: no one, including Bush, considered that he was the Messiah. (Honest!)
    On the other hand, a certain politician and His followers seem to think He is the Messiah. Messiahs are supposed to be perfect! (And this One doesn’t seem to be—a lot.)
    (How about the fact that the deficit Obama is foisting on the US will, in the next five years, double the accumulated debt of the last two centuries—all the money owed from George Washington to George W. Bush? How does a country, that’s going to be so crippled with debt, prosper? This is a recipe for disaster. I thought Messiahs were supposed to make the lame walk—not knee cap them.)

  6. bleet – then if your reference was only to the one and I repeat, one ‘affirmative action’ comment, then why didn’t you specifically address that? Why did you instead say ‘the hayseeds and other assorted racists here’…which obviously refers, not to one person, but to a plurality of people.
    With regard to your later comments on ‘affirmative action’, the suggestion that Obama was elected because of ‘affirmative action’, i.e., because of black support and white guilt support, is a legitimate question. To ask it, and explore it, is hardly an act of racism but is instead one that requires asking and answering.
    I also feel that his campaign rhetoric of ‘hope and change’ was vapid, empty emotionalism, based on misinformation and constant emotional manipulation.
    With reference to your comparison to Lincoln’s experience – I think that Lincoln, who actively practiced as a lawyer, dealing with quite a few famous cases, and who spent active years in the House of Representatives, had far, far more experience than Obama. There is no comparison between the two. But, that’s not the issue.
    I would disagree with you that Obama was ‘calm and measured’ during the early economic crisis; non-reaction is not indicative of any capacity to deal with the situation, and so far, in his pork-filled stimulus, his reliance on Pelosi and Reid to write it, his ignorance of its content, his trillion dollar deficits – he doesn’t seem to ‘have a handle’ on the economy.
    Might I also point out to you that the strategy of trying to deflate and deflect someone’s argument by saying that you ‘are laughing at it’, is a false ‘argument’. You are, by saying that you are laughing, asserting your superiority. But, you aren’t providing any facts about your superior argument!
    As for the Irish president – your comment that Obama was ‘just joking’ is one view. Others say that Obama was just automatically, as usual, reading from the teleprompter.
    Your focus on Bush is irrelevant. Some people approve of his doctrines, particularly, his democratic doctrine. But, that’s also not the issue and you are diverting from the issue, which is: Should Obama be criticized?
    Of course he should be criticized, and I, for one, am strongly critical of his actions so far. I’ve outlined a few of my concerns above. But I’d add his stem cell, his focus on strengthening the unions, his ideas about 90% tax, his notions about taking over companies, his ideas about taxing executive bonuses – even of companies that do not take govt money, his increased taxes rather than lowering them..and etc.
    I criticize also, his personal attacks against people who criticize him, such as Limbaugh, Hannity etc. I criticize his suggestion to make veteran’s private health care pay for their military on duty injuries.

  7. I think what’s most bothersome about Obama’s mispronunciations and flubs is that he always seems to try and distract from them, putting the attention and ‘blame’ for the mistake off of himself; It seems like he tries to make others wear his mistakes. In the widely viewed ‘It would cost..uh…it would cost..’ video, Obama chides a woman who cheers him on when he can’t remember his facts, saying ‘Hold On, I can’t hear myself think!’. In this video, he points offscreen at the entrepreneur and asks if he said his name properly. It’s clear that he’s unsure of himself, but he tries to shift attention to the entrepreneur instead. It’s uncomfortable and embarrassing to watch; sort of like that know-it-all kid in you grade school classes who could never admit a mistake.

  8. “This is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal.” — Barack Obama, Minneapolis, June 2008.

  10. “Obama-isms”
    “57 states” — June-July, 2008
    “A tornado killed 10,000 people” — Campaign Rally, August, 2007.
    “The Canadian President, Harper” — Ohio Democratic Debate, March, 2008

  11. A plank from an anti-slavery naval ship, in exchange for “The Top 25 American Movies” on DVD — coded NTSC, not in PAL format.

  12. ET
    My reference to ‘other assorted racists’referred to the commenter who made the affirmative action comment as well as to the history of people making racist comments against Obama at this site. Perhaps you’ve seen some of them. Do you not find them objectionable?
    I would say that the suggestion that Obama was elected wholly because of affirmative action, as commenters here have said, is racist. First, because it allows for no recognition of whatever gifts Obama may have – it ascribes his success entirely to race – which is racism.
    Secondly, these people apparently can’t debate the differences they have with Obama’s policy. So they try to shut down debate by branding him an ‘affirmative action’ president – and thus not worthy of serious debate – in the same way that the casting of a racial epithet would do so in earlier times. They make Obama’s race an issue where it is not.
    Your consistent harping on the question “Should Obama be criticized?” is bizarre. Especially since I’ve already said that of course he should be criticized. Go for it! All I ask is that the criticism should be honest and not directed as his race. Is that really too much to ask?

  15. ulianov;
    “three verbal goofs” by Obama? I’m not sure where you’ve been for the last 2 months, but welcome back. Since you’ve been gone it’s been amateur hour at the White House. People are noticing. His polling numbers are about 50-50 now, way down from the positive numbers he had and with no sign yet that they’ve hit bottom.

  16. That “overblown rhetoric” in Minneapolis was something he read from what his handlers gave him — before he accepted the nomination, let alone after inauguration.
    How do his supporters see him? (Thanks, Kate): BadPaintingsOfBarakObama.com
    Nothing yet about how he treats guests:
    “A plank from an anti-slavery naval ship; in exchange for “The Top 25 American Movies” on DVD — coded NTSC, not in PAL format.”

  17. Again, high opinions of ones-self before inauguration:
    The modified Presidential Seal in white and Democrat blue. The “Recovery.gov” website, when only official U.S. government agencies are allowed to use that domain suffix.
    After inauguration: Presidential poll numbers where negative opinions are separated from positive opinions by 4 points.
    Rhetoric is meeting reality. Hard.

  18. immature gibberish…..
    Posted by: ulianov at March 25, 2009 4:20 AM
    And that mentality is why the whole world is in an economic mess SINCE the affirmative action guy got a hold of the reins. Every time he opens his stupid mouth, world wide stock tumbles. No one but feeble minded unicorn lovers has faith in this big empty suite.
    Can’t even pronounce Orion. Unreal.
    AND he’s writing another book, already, again about himself. Really-so he feels he’s already accomplished what he wants, the rest of it is just too mundane to bother with now – so now’s the time to whip out a book, about himself?
    The next three generations full of debt – now there goes your hope and likely all pocket change as well.
    Wonder if his upcoming book will touch on that?

  19. bleet, I believe you have serious language processing difficulties.
    I’m the one who’s expressed the opinion that Obama’s an affirmative action president, which, under the circumstances of his unlikely and fast-forward ascendency from junior senator to Commander in Chief, with almost no vetting by the MSM and powers that be, is fair comment. (Especially as his race was altogether front and centre during the campaign: “Wow, a black president! It’s about time! Isn’t it great?! It’ll be the end of racism!” Did you somehow miss the hype?) And I’ve never suggested that he’s “wholly” an affirmative action president—that’s your conceit and straw man, bleet: a typical, smoke and mirrors Obama trick.
    I’ve also given plenty of reasons why I’m against Obama’s presidency: as you’ll note, his race isn’t one of them, as I’ve made perfectly clear. I believe that the whole concept of affirmative action—quotas for certain groups based on lowered expectations—is racist.
    You harp on about my affirmative action statement, completely outside the context of my many other remarks. Your conclusion is unjustified piffle.
    Smarten up.
    P.S. Perhaps the Obama supporters here could stop the name calling. It’s most unbecoming and totally belies any idea that “the grown ups are in charge”.

  20. SDA KOTUS sheeple are the biggest doofuses going. For people that claim to be on the high road they seem to find new lows every time.
    Keep it up rightoid rightards, you’re only showing how stupidly immature you all are.

  21. nse: more infantile name calling. No sign of higher brain activity here, but, hey, have a good day!

  22. Eat his dust, haters!
    Posted by: bleet at March 24, 2009 5:04 PM
    Hmm…
    1. Depicting CEOs as terrorists/suicide bombers: CHECK
    2. Using the red herring AIG bonuses as “bait/switch” and inciting the public’s wrath against people who deserved them (they were known by D’ohbama at the time of the bailout): CHECK
    3. Using taxation and redistributionist/Marxist policies to set up hatred of the producers by the “have-nots”: CHECK
    oh, and…
    4. Making a snotty remark against the handicapped during another campaign-mode desperate grab for adulation on the Chin’s show: CHECK
    Yep, bleet, there’s hatred all right. But if you’re blaming it on SDA and the right, you’re just projecting. Try heaping it on the “haloed One”, where it belongs.
    mhb23re
    at gmail d0t calm

  23. What was today’s Obamism? He said that if AIG were a bank, they could help them out by “increasing their capital requirements”, this was just from the news conference last night. I don’t think he really understands what he is saying. he is just using buzzwords and mixing them up. If he knew what he was talking about, he would have corrected himself.
    Before, he talked about the “profits/earnings” ratio. I think what he meant their is that the profits are unjust income and earnings are just, so he is going to take the profits by taxation, and leave you with the “earnings” that he figures you deserve. Therefore, the profits/earnings ratio equals the tax rate he thinks you should pay.

  24. ulianov/lberia – your reference to ‘three verbal goofs’ in two months, vs your list of those of Bush over 8 years is hardly a valid comparison. I’m sure you know the difference between 2 months and 96 months.
    bleet (aka ted?) – the reason some people suggest that Obama was elected because of race has to be examined. After all, despite your attempt to link him, incorrectly, to Lincoln, Obama has unlike Lincoln, no experience. No analytic experience, no administrative experience, no executive experience. None. Therefore, one has to ask, on what grounds would a population elect someone as leader when he has no experience at intellectual or executive or even co-executive leadership?
    Obama himself brought up the issue of race, frequently, during the campaign. Remember his remark about his white grandmother being afraid of ‘big black men’. Hmm? I’d bet she’d be afraid of big white men, be they Hell’s Angels or Skinheads. But Obama focused on skin colour. That makes all white people listening to him feel ‘white guilt’. The racial factor, implying that if you don’t like Obama it’s because you are racist, was a constant during his campaign.
    But, regardless of skin colour (and I don’t happen to believe in races)..one has to ask, why would a population vote for someone with so little intellectual content and no experience?
    Therefore, my suggestion is that it was a negative reaction vote. He wasn’t Republican, he wasn’t part of the Washington establishment..and he emphasized this; he was against Iraq. What was he for? Hope and change, which are both amorphous ungrounded emotions. What was the ground for hope and change? Nothing..vague talk about ‘all of us’ and ‘all of you’..and ‘sharing the wealth’.
    It’s like someone rejecting an apple because you don’t want an apple, and picking up a peach instead. Only to find out that it was completely rotten inside.
    That’s what is happening now. People are becoming aware that because they voted in a negative way (we don’t want ‘that’)..it doesn’t mean that they want what Obama..and his Backroom Boys..are doing.

  25. I’ve heard that Swiffer is developing a better teleprompter. It will slap you behind the head if you mispronounce or read something that was meant for someone else…Also being that Daddy O loves to be on TV, Swiffer has approached him to do TV commercials based on their current mop commercial were the old sponge type is trying to win back the heart of it’s old owner except using Obama’s old teleprompter instead.
    Bleet:
    I see no difference between calling Obama an affirmative action prez compared to Bush being called a redneck cowboy Prez or a trailer trash president.
    Affirmative Action and a country who’s screwed up by PC gone haywire, race guilt and yes, racism made it so that Barrack Obama slip through and became President.
    The worst possible choice in the worst possible time for President. NOT BECAUSE HE’S BLACK, NOT BECAUSE HE’S WHITE: HE’S BOTH!
    BECAUSE HE’S SIMPLY WAY OVER HIS CAPABILITIES, HIS EDUCATION, HIS EXPERIENCE, HIS JUDGEMENT.
    WANNA BET HE QUITS AND/OR FORCED TO STEPPED DOWN BEFORE HIS FIRST TERM?

  26. bleet,
    I notice that you had no accomplishments for Obama. This is because none exist besides a fine talent for getting selected or elected to stuff.
    I guess bleet’s point is that governing has not grown any more complex than it was 150 years ago so it is OK to have to go back 150 years to find someone with a similar level of government experience.
    Obama’s approval has hit the 50-50 mark in the first poll. Sure it is Zogby’s poll, but he is in a nosedive. I am betting that in a year, even bleet will disown having voted for him.
    BTW, the congressional generic ballot is the highest for Republicans that it has ever been. If the election were held today, the Dems would lose the House. Trouble is, the election is not for 18 months, and Obama plans to have us bankrupt by then.

  27. bleet et al liberals
    People who criticize Obama are not racist, or stupid unless they use arguements such as “he’s black” or “he’s ugly”. So far, the closest I’ve seen to an illegitimate criticism is the affirmative action one, and yet, it has a firm ground because he was given such glowing praise by the MSM despite being horribly underqualified for the position of POTUS. As a woman, I think affirmative action is a horrible thing because it allows people who are not as qualified to get jobs before those who are truly deserving, and I think it lowers the dignity of the position for which a person is hired. Therefore, AA is a reasonable issue in O’s presidency.
    To criticize his use of the Teleprompter is legitimate because he uses it far too often, has thanked himself, has mispronounced simple words, and has honestly looked like a deer in the headlights without it.
    To criticize Obama’s policies is to show concern for one’s country and a desire to see the country thrive and prosper, and will hopefully stimulate INTELLIGENT debate over the best way to keep the country strong. To disagree with the president over LEGITIMATE concerns is fair, but a person must make an effort to learn all the facts before making up their mind, not make up their mind and then attack the facts.
    I’d say Vote Saxon, but America already has.

  29. Wow! I feel like I’m in an kiddies schoolyard with all the name calling going on here. Oh, wait a minute. It’s only the kids name calling. I guess if you can’t present a rational argument it’s okay to resort to calling people doofuses and racists. You lefties are so tiresome.

  30. Hey lookout
    If you think all your other criticisms of Obama are valid, why bring up ‘affirmative action’ thing at all?
    And if you’re so sure that Obama is an affirmative action president, why bother making other criticisms of him at all? Fr if you believe this is true, then it invalidates his entire presidency for you: according to you,
    he was only elected because of his race.
    In this presumption of yours, you invalidate any gifts he might have because to you he fits into a stereotype of a black person getting what he doesn’t deserve simply because of his race. You’re not assessing his strengths or weaknesses honestly. You’re saying his presidency is invalid because he’s black.
    I guess you’re unable to accept the validity of a black person being the head of the most powerful nation on earth. Well – tough titty!
    Again: if you genuinely had confidence in your criticisms of his policies, they would be enough without bringing up his race. The fact that you have done so shows where your real criticisms lie.
    You smarten up, lookout. Smarten up with your stupid racist ideas, and smarten up with your dishonest back-pedalling of them after the fact.

  31. Posted by: bleet at March 25, 2009 7:24 PM
    Sorry to burst your bubble, but race played a major factor in obama’s success. To what factor do YOU attribute his election as POTUS? Experience as a “community organizer”? What a sham. His CV of experience could fit comfortably inside an insect’s evening bag, and the US is paying dearly for that lack right now.
    The major factors for obama’s success were race, the cult of personality, collective white guilt and complete conformity and obeisance of the media. How else could you explain that America elected the hardest left rookie politician in its entire history?
    And the bigotry of race was a major factor… on the part of the Left. It wasn’t Repubs who asked if obama was “black enough”, or had “slave blood” in his veins. That was the Left. Republicans only asked if his politics were correct (and we’re seeing that folly proved now). It was obama himself who pulled the race card on slick willie, leaving him wounded and bewildered that his own tactics were used against him. Obama also was the one who hilighted race when he said, “I don’t look like those other guys on the dollar bills”.
    Race not a factor in obama’s success? Please.
    And before you – predictably – marginalize me as a “racist” (typical tactic of the left), I declare my admiration for the US as a country that has moved beyond its racist roots and is comfortable electing a black man for president… but not THIS particular man. He’s only good for 1 term, and will take the country down worse than jimmy carter, and who on earth would have thought that possible?
    For the record, I’d have been ecstatic had the US chosen Condi Rice for POTUS: an accomplished and intelligent black woman, who would outperform D’ohbama in short order. I’d have chosen her in a heartbeat over McCain, too.
    mhb23re
    at gmail dot calm

  33. Oh really, mhb?
    Race, white guilt, cult ofpersonality and an obeisant media were the MAJOR factors of Obama’s success, were they?
    The fact that Obama’s positions were the ones America favoured according to polls (i.e., his opposition to the war), McCain’s jiterriness in the face of the economic meltdown, and the fact that Bush left office as the most hated Pres in history – none of that was a MAJOR factor, huh?
    You reveal yourself to be intellectually dishonest when you bypass these other, obvious factors in Obama’s success. And then, as a twofer, you reveal your racism in your diminishment of these factors, and his natural skills, in favour of concentrating on his race. You’re using his race to diminish his accomplishment. That’s racism.
    I mean: you really must have contempt for the American people, when you say they were so browbeaten into voting for him as a result of being manipulated by false ideas from the media. What a bunch of dopes you must think them! Undoubtedly, your opinion of them was higher back when they elected GW Bush – twice.
    But to sum up: your intellectual dishonesty is on display for all to see in glossing over the many, non -racial obvious factors in Obama’s success. And in your continued attempt to diminish his success, you casually use his race as another tool – showing your unthinking racism.

  34. Oh, look! Bleet arrives to call me… a racist. Gee, I never saw that coming.
    Actually, to be described as a “racist” by a single-helixed clod such as bleet is actually encouraging; the Left are quick to resort to mud-slinging and marginalizing when their position is weak or failing. So it is on this thread, and bleet lashes out when he’s running low on talking points.
    Q: What is the definition of a “racist”?
    Bleet: Anybody who is winning an argument with a liberal.
    I will attempt – in vain, most likely – to address a couple of the most egregious and wrong-headed points above.
    “And then, as a twofer, you reveal your racism in your diminishment of these factors, and his natural skills…”
    Apparently, there are no right-of-center reporting or blogs on your planet, bleet. The Guinness Book of Records may soon add to its list of World’s Smallest Books, including “Open Minded Liberals in the 21st Century”, “Jack Layton on the Benefits of Free Market Capitalism” the newest entry: “Executive and Other Practical Experience of Barack Obama”.
    Obama is the guy who spent a couple of years in the state senate who had no time to author any legislation but enough time to pen two autobiographies. He was the US senator who – with only 143 days of senate experience – believed he’d become experienced and knowledgeable enough to start his POTUS campaigning. One hundred and forty three days! Think of that, bleet: I bet you have leftovers in your refrigerator older than that. His qualifications were even less than those of hillary clinton, and that’s mind-boggling.
    The only credit I give D’ohbama is his oratory skills – when on teleprompter, anyway. During his campaign he managed to inspire millions on the profound nothingness of “hope and change”. There was no substance to his speeches – go ahead, bleet, stop with your tongue-bathing of barry’s “qualifications” and check out some of the old campaign trail oratories. They are Seinfeldian in their “shows about nothing”. The only time you see the real obama is when he’s off prompter, and in that case he almost makes jean chretien look good by comparison.
    You’re using his race to diminish his accomplishment
    That’s – to use your own phrasing – “intellectually dishonest”. Because in all honesty, apart from snagging POTUS without any tangible experience or abilities, that was obama’s sole accomplishment. What ELSE has he accomplished? The so-called “community organizing”, or rather, fronting for ACORN? Please.
    “…you really must have contempt for the American people, when you say they were so browbeaten into voting for him as a result of being manipulated by false ideas from the media”
    Contempt for the US voter is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Left and the kleptocrats. After all, despite their best efforts, the voters spoke and re-elected Chimpy McHitlerburton in 2004. How THAT hurt, eh? Go back and google some of the op-eds and editorials on the “idiocy” of the American voter after that election, and perhaps you’ll see why you’re reading the graph back-to-front.
    And if you aren’t too intellectually dishonest, bleet, at least admit how much in the tank the MSM was for obama. Even you must recognize that, as far displaced as your reality may be. Do you think that didn’t affect the uninformed or ambivalent voter?
    But let’s finish on the idea of contempt for the US voter. Let’s look at some glaring examples:
    1. Setting up class warfare distinctions to push marxist redistribution of wealth & assets: OBAMA
    2. Likening company CEOs to suicide bombers: OBAMA
    3. Refusing to condemn his old ACORN buddies who stalked the homes of AIG employees: OBAMA
    4. Getting yuks with a cheap shot at the handicapped: OBAMA
    Do these examples suggest a warm respect for and desire to see the common man succeed, bleet?
    Bleet’s homework assignment: surf some of Reagan’s speeches to the US public, then report back the differences compared to obama. Reagan believed in the American Experiment, in the ablity of the individual to achieve their best if the government only got out of the way. Obama believes in “soup line America”, and in his contempt sets up the citizenry as perpetual victims and shlubs who can only survive on government handouts. Unlike you, bleet, I actually do respect the US voter, and believe not only are they discovering just how poor their choice is for POTUS, but they’ll begin to rectify the situation in ’10 & ’12.
    As for Bush leaving office “the most hated Pres in history”, look at the numbers, Wunderkind. Obama’s ratings are lower than those of both bush & carter for this much time into his presidency. He’s had more gaffes and stupid mistakes in his first 60 days than Bush had in his first year, and obama has tabled a budget that costs more than every US budget ever tabled put together. I predict by the end of obama’s first and only term George W. Bush will be vindicated, if not remembered fondly by comparison.
    No need to rebut further, though, bleet. If you’re happy and cozy in barry’s lap, that’s your lookout. Perhaps even a bit of hard reality may start to penetrate your schoolgirl crush on The One if you let your guard down and keep an eye on current events. Or keep your hands over your eyes & ears and cry “racism” whenever somebody questions obama’s qualifications or blunderings if that suits you. You seem to be an expert on racism, as it’s clear your own brand of prejudice regarding obama includes the demonstrable racism of low expectations.
    mhb

  35. mhb, loved your comments on Condi! If I were an american citizen and she had thrown her hat into the ring, I would have voted for her!
    bleet: Go find yourself a copy of “A Slobbering Love Affair” by Bernard Goldberg. Read it (all the way through) and then come back and re-read all your posts accusing people of being racist. You’ll be amazed at what you learn.

  36. Yow, mhb!
    I guess I hit a nerve – judging by your wordy, impassioned post! I almost expected to find footnotes at the bottom.
    You’ve almost mastered the baselessly condescending tone of one who tries to assume a superior position & hopes everyone will react accordingly (yeah I’ll be getting on that ‘homework assignment, mhb).
    Unfortunately the performance is foiled by the fact that your post consists entirely of cut and pasted tired, unoriginal arguments from your fellow partisan hacks (yeah, a ‘racist’ is someone who’s winning an argument with a liberal, mhb! Dat’s funn-ee! You’re so hip! We haven’t heard that one a zillion times before! You’re so witty!)
    No, mhb: a racist is someone who criticizes someone based not on the content of their character but on their race. This is what you have done with Obama. It is a simple statement of fact that your assessent of him as an affirmative action president is racist. Sorry – objective reality can’t be changed on that score.
    As for the rest of your post, with it’s childish namecalling, and the cut-and-pasted tired tropes from other rightwing sites, I’ll give them the attention they deserve: none. As with your inability to refrain from impugning Obama based on his race, they’re merely the excretions of an intellectually mediocre hack.

  38. No point in that, batb; just enjoy the sound of bleet huffin’ and a puffin’ and taking his toys home. Bleet doesn’t debate points, he namecalls. Or, when backed into a corner, he runs away (“As for the rest of your post… I’ll give them the attention they deserve: none”) and namecalls some more. That’s how the Left behave when they’re cornered, and can’t debate facts: they throw ad homs and try to discredit people, rather than deal with (shudder) non-liberal viewpoints. Whether it’s kinsella calling conservatives nazis, rabble.ca/KOS/huffpo screeching at those who don’t bow to PC orthodoxy, or bleet’s “racist/hack” mantra, it’s the same thing: tired, angry fear-mongering boilerplate and complete lack of tolerance for anybody who doesn’t conform. It’s predictable, pathetic and rather boring. The hilarious thing is, bleet thinks this form of discourse is actually an effective form of debate. Well, maybe on rabble.ca it is; here it’s somewhat less effective.
    Taken from another viewpoint, it’s just symptomatic of modern liberalism. It only survives based on hate, lies, the lack of willpower to face it head-on, and requires the power of the state to enforce it.
    mhb

  40. P. S. At Power Line after Obama’s press conference on Tuesday: ‘Minneapolis attorney Andrew Brehm concisely captures the nature of Obama’s performance:
    ‘He is simply intellectually dishonest. He is the master of the False Choice (pass the stimulus or do nothing & let the economy “tank”; socialize health care or “stand pat” — he said that last night), the Straw Man (the approach of putting moral “dogma” above “science”), the Scapegoat (those at the “commanding heights of our economy” (preface to his Budget) and the sly Non Sequitur (the breathtaking argument that to revive our economy and control spending, the government must take over health care and energy and expand federal spending on education). He deploys them in every argument he makes.
    ‘And did you see his response to the stem cell question he got last night? It was rich. Somebody asked him if he personally “struggled” with the morality of the decision he made. He said, yes, indeed he did. Say what? You just got done lecturing us that it was just a matter of following “science” rather than being slaves to “dogma.” He’s confused about his own moral confusion!’
    Gee, not even a mention of race!

  41. Lookout – my pleasure.
    And to your comment on stem cell research above, the idea that obama “struggled” with the decision is patently absurd. This is the man who not only voted against a bill that would ban partial birth abortions in 1997, but voted against 3 bills in 2001/02/03 that would require medical protection of any infant born alive after a botched abortion. Yeah, he’s really torn on conception and preserving life; guess it’s “above his pay grade”.
    Well, forget about “Life”. There’s still “Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”, but obama is making headway on sabotaging those, too.
    mhb

  42. Shorter mhb: The ‘hateful and intolerant left won’t tolerate my racism! Boo-hoo!’
    Hey, lookout – a rabid right-wing website criticizes Obama! Who’d a thunk?!

  44. P.S. For those not acquainted with Power Line, that “rabid right-wing website”, it’s well worth a visit.
    It’s a blog written by two intelligent, well informed Minnesota lawyers and is an excellent source of information and sound analysis.

  45. Posted by: Irene Swain at March 26, 2009 11:59 AM
    Great recommendation, Irene. I’m into Ch. 2 of the book, and the examples of the sycophantic cheerleeding by pro-obama MSM are almost hard to believe. Nauseating, really.
    Small wonder, with that kind of media “objectivity” there is more & more fodder for Kate’s “Not Waiting For the Asteroid”.
    mhb

  46. Unfortunately, mhb, not hard to believe, but certainly nauseating. (Re political correctness and left wing, blatant lying, I’ve discontinued the word “unbelievable”. The lefties’–especially of the MSM variety’s–subversive undermining of the foundations of the West are all too believable. I now often use the word “reprehensible”.)
    Many thanks for your fine contributions to this thread.

  47. Thank you for the compliments, lookout. *blush*
    People are gonna start talkin’, though… 😀

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation