31 Replies to “Say It Isn’t So, Joe!”

  1. Good for Chris McMurray for standing up for his principles. If I could I would buy some of his and his wife’s cupcakes.

  2. Agreed Ken. Great job of standing up to your principles Mr. McMurray!
    …and Obama still hasn’t created anything other than a huge debt and a divide.

  4. Although I’m on a carb free diet at the moment, I’d make an exception if I happened to be walking by Chris McMurray’s establishment. I think the increased sales are a good barometer of Obozo’s popularity.

  5. This observation from the last survivor of Hungarian immigrant parents, to Canada ………
    Stephen Harper is the BEST PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA …………….
    EVER!!!!!!!
    and yes …… Fu$k Joe B & Barry O …. in the U.S. , commies both!!!!

  7. Agreed, Joe, that Harper is the best PM Canada has ever had.
    With regard to Obama and Biden, that’s an interesting scenario. Why was he chosen? He is, as noted, a shallow, ignorant and utterly incompetent individual. We might acknowledge that Obama cannot have anyone around him, in the public eye, who is NOT such an empty vessel, but other than his incompetence, what did and does Biden offer?
    Did the Democrats consider that Obama’s appeal in 2008 was so great that they could get away with a non-entity as the VP, since they must have realized that Obama’s thin-skinned ego couldn’t handle anyone competent to share the podium in the public eye?
    But now, with the movement from fiction to fact of Obama, from Obama as messiah to Obama as incompetence, Biden ADDS to the view of incompetence of the Democratic ticket.
    What will the Democrats do? If they can’t get rid of Biden, then how will they paint Obama? Obama already self-defines himself as a victim. Of Bush, of the evil Congress that blocks his good deeds, of the EU, of the tsunami, of your ignorance in not understanding him. Of racism, of bigotry, of FOX news..and so on. Is this their only tactic? Obama as Victim?
    They are portraying Obama now, as ‘the boy next door’. That is, not as a superhuman messiah as they did in 2008. Now, Obama is just an ‘ordinary guy’ on talk shows with his telling us his favourite foods, colours, dreams. But what about his duties as a leader? How are they going to portray that?
    I don’t think the Democrats can use the Obama as Messiah as they did in 2008. Can they, as they did in 2008, win via racism? What other tactics can they use?

  8. Hats off to Chris McMurray! Like Loki, if I were anywhere near Crumb and Get It, I’d buy a dozen cupcakes and have a celebration party.
    I’m wondering about the future of those Secret Service guys … reassignment or resignation?!

  9. So it begins. I wonder how Obama will respond when it becomes more people start doing this.
    They can play the race card but is nobody cares then it is ineffective.
    P.M. Harper is doing a very good job slowly dismantling the nanny state.

  10. I wonder how long it will take Biden or Obama to run this guy out of business?
    They don’t take these type of actions anyway but personnel. Remember Joe the plumber? Palin.
    I see him invaded by Lawyers with a bevy of tax-men. Every thing he has done in his life opened up like a three bypass patient. It will be interesting to see if this persons livelihood still remains in a year. I give him big points for withstanding the Obama political machine.

  16. Their Facebook page now has almost 11,000 Likes. Most of the comments are super positive, though there is this one Obama devotee comment that is striking for its stupidity:
    While it takes guts to take a stand, this stand was based on misinformation. President Obama didn’t insult small business owners. He reminded rich people that the context for their success was a country that provides the freedom, protection, and right to pursue happiness. I imagine that when the right gives “rah-rah, go team” speeches the response isn’t to complain about how the individual is being slighted. To respond that way when it’s President Obama is just voluntary partisan deafness.
    Others contributed, and you should therefore recognize that you’re part of a team, a system, that is mutually beneficial. Even the windfall Crumb & Get It appears to be receiving from similarly misinformed supporters is evidence that we depend on others. They aren’t growing their own ingredients, harvesting them, delivering them to themselves in trucks they built on roads they built, and selling their products to themselves. There are connections between components of our society, and it is selfish to claim you accomplished something completely independent of everyone and everything else, and therefore shouldn’t have to pay your fair share of taxes.
    And President Obama didn’t dismiss hard work, as the blurb in your youtube link says. It’s that there is more than just hard work independent of everything else. We don’t succeed in vacuums.

  17. ET, I don’t know if you’re on Facebook, but you in particular would LOVE debating the Useful Idiot named Eli Seed, a high school English teacher who is deeply steeped in Marxist ideology. He’s the author of the quotation I provided in my earlier comment.
    I’ll invite him over to this thread. The debate between you two will be glorious!

  18. robert w – no, I’m not on facebook.
    The error, and it’s a fundamental error, in the Obama devotee’s comment, is what Krauthammer points out; the fallacious confusion of a civic community’s societal and economic activities, with government activities. That is, a government is NOT identical to the activities of people in a society.
    The government isn’t growing the wheat, milking the cows, churning the butter; that’s all part of the private or civic economy. The government isn’t paying the farmer’s workers in the fields. The government didn’t build the trucks, doesn’t manage a trucking company. And NONE of these private businesses, the farmer, the trucker, the worker, are paid by your taxes.
    Taxes are for common, I repeat, common uses, such as the roads, the security (there’s that freedom), the fiscal management (common currency). NOT for businesses! I’ll repeat that; government doesn’t create or run businesses! Taxes aren’t used to plough a farm or pay the trucker.
    Obama most certainly does dismiss hard work and brains. He trivializes both by declaring that they are universal; that everyone works hard and has the ‘smarts’ to invent and develop a private business.

  19. The big issue is the role of government, and how far we, the individual citizen, should go in support of government.
    Government is NOT equivalent to a society. A society is made up of centuries of accumulated knowledge, of centuries of developed rules and laws. A society is made up, now, of many diverse people interacting with each other, freely, within this accumulated infrastructure of knowledge and rules of behaviour. This is NOT government.
    All that a government is, is a section of the society, set up by and elected by the people, whose duty is to oversee the common needs of the people. Not the private individual activities but the common. Security to be free, common means of communication, common currencies, common means of transportation such as roads. The government has the right to tax us to develop these common needs. That’s it.
    It is a profound error to confuse that small segment of any society, its government, with the whole society.

  20. It’s a fair clarification, ET, that several of the things I mentioned are more the work of individuals operating w/in the society protected and preserved by the govt than the work of the govt itself. It’s approximately the only fair thing said in relation to my being cited and drawn into this thread.

  21. The epilogue to this incident is that afterwards the Secret Service thanked him, and purchased a bunch of bake goods.
    Democrat apologists spin it as the SS relieved that it forced a change of venue, that the bakery’s location, layout, etc. was going to be a major pain in the ass for them to do their job in securing the area. That’s plausible, although the new site just around the block couldn’t have changed the logistics that much.
    Republicans and anti-Obama independents are gloating that even the officially-neutral staff can’t stand the members of his administration. Maybe it’s just projection, but it’s not hard to believe, either. Most security and law enforcement types tend to be right-wing, and they’ve had to quietly sit there and listen to all the off-the-record policy sessions and seen the Commander in Chief and his cronies at their worst when they took off their public masks of insincerity and could say what they truly thought.
    And besides, hating your boss is universal; even if your employer is a hard-working entrepreneur, the mirror opposite of Obama, it doesn’t preclude them from also being a total ass.
    Of course, both sides could be reading too much into it. It could have been just been routine politeness. “Thank you for your time anyway, no hard feelings. And since we’re here anyway, we might as well grab lunch.”

  22. In Canada, Chris McMurray would have his a$$ in front of a Human Rights tribunal fo refusing to serve a customer!
    Well, maybe not – Biden’s white. But had it been Obama…

  24. From Rex Murphy:
    “In fact, when I think of Ryan in comparison with the Jar Jar Binks who currently serves President Obama, that bundle of malapropisms, confusion, malice and profound shallowness the world knows as Joe Biden, I think the Romney choice is a stoke of contrasting genius.”
    Brilliant!

  25. Eli – again, I consider that you are making the error of positing a government as the infrastructure of a society rather than the knowledge base of the population as its infrastructure.
    The knowledge base includes not only its technological and scientific knowledge but also its societal system, its Constitution, laws and normative patterns of interaction amongst its population.
    You are setting up a government as some kind of agential and intellectual force of authority. That is false. A government belongs to the people and is valid only as long as the people will it to be ‘their government’.
    The society is not ‘protected and preserved by the government’. What protects and preserves a society is the will of the population to accept its knowledge, its beliefs and behavioural modes.
    The government is not the Constitution nor the Rules of law. These are the knowledge base of the people, developed by them and accepted by them. A government is merely the means by which the people establish an enforcement of its Constitution and laws. A government is merely the means by which a population ensures that common interests are dealt with; a government deals only with the common issues and never with the particular.
    Who protects a society? The people who live in that society and accept its Constitution and rules. Who preserves a society? Same answer. All that the government does, is enforce the WILL of the people that its Constitution and rules are accepted.
    If the people want to amend these rules, it is up to the people. Never, ever, to the government.
    A government as no Will. It is a servant of the people.

  26. A recent immigrant friend, who consumes zero western media and speaks broken English, mentioned the “you didn’t build that” meme to me recently. It’s huuuuugge. Romney wins if that’s the ballot question.

  27. Eli at 1:49 PM
    what you and people like you seem to fail to grasp is that the level of participation one exercises is an expression of free will, thus the gov’t has NO part in this except as a “tool” used by society, ie; the individual as a member of this society

  28. @ ET at August 19, 2012 8:43 PM
    “A government has no Will. It is a servant of the people.”
    Perhaps at one time, but far too much power has been delegated to the bureaucrats under government control. They now make decisions with impunity on everything from safety to lifestyle choices and far beyond. Rules are put into place that affect the majority of the population and there is often no recourse unless government can be convinced to repeal. Difficult and cumbersome. The CHRC , Alan Rock’s gunlaws , Gay marriage and other supreme court rulings come to mind as things jammed down our throats without a vote. Any hot potatoe seems to be passed down to lower rungs for implimentation where they should have been voted on in Parliament. Am I wrong here ?

  29. peterj. The popular image of government is that it is a power in its own right.
    But a bureaucrat cannot legislate and cannot make a law. A government is elected; its legislated rules can be undone by another elected government.
    It takes time. But the CWB was finally rejected, the gun laws were rejected. Gay marriage was accepted as a constitutional freedom and not as an issue of legislation. There’s a difference beween the two.
    It’s harder to change the Constitution; it can be changed but it’s extremely difficult, eg, it’s almost impossible to undo our official bilingualism. That’s because we, the people, via our government, set up amendments as almost impossible to carry out.
    I don’t see the bureaucrats as capable, legally, of legislation.

  31. NME666 @ 10:39pm, 8/19
    “what you and people like you…”
    Have we met?
    ET @ 8:43pm, 8/19
    I think you’re jumping to conclusions about what I mean and ranting rather than getting any clarification, and I also think you’re splitting hairs to insist the govt has so little role as to almost be nonexistent. It’s not all one way. I’ve acknowledged it doesn’t deserve credit for every last thing, as I previously, carelessly implied. If you insist on pushing me toward more and more concessions, you’re going to come across as increasingly unreasonable and extreme.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation