The Ignorance and Arrogance of Obama...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


In my opinion the President, in his attack on the United States Supreme court belies both his basic ignorance of our republic as well as his arrogance. His last uttering in and of itself is enough to deny the man, and I use the term loosely in this case, another term as President.

Forgive me my rational liberal friends but his recent statement is more telling of his statist leanings than anything he has heretofore said. With this last he has proven beyond any doubt he is indeed clueless.

The Washington Post - There was something rather unsettling in President Obama’s preemptive strike on the Supreme Court at Monday’s news conference.

“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.”...

... Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.” ...

But the president went too far in asserting that it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That’s what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison. The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to “a group of unelected people” precisely to insulate them from public opinion.

I would lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate, but I would not denounce it as conservative justices run amok. Listening to the arguments and reading the transcript, the justices struck me as a group wrestling with a legitimate, even difficult, constitutional question. For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice. {Full Article Here}

Indeed, even a Mitt Romney with all his baggage is preferable to this outrage!

Via: Memeorandum

Comments

  1. Les, Mr. Obama clearly IS as you say. But I still can't help but think how Mr. Scalia would have acted in 1993 had this same case came up back then, back when the individual mandate was a Republican idea. I mean, I hate to say it, but I really don't think that Mr. Obama is only political animal in this maelstrom.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Will: No, Obama is not the only political animal in this maelstrom, but he is the smirkiest, most crass and most classless one. He acts like he's still a street punk in Chicago shaking down bankers. The man is a disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm very uncomfortable with this little war Obama's been waging with the SCOTUS, and it's been going on for some time now. I think it is a destabilizing force, and more for the negative. The Supreme Court weilds a LOT of power with a LITTLE accountability.

    I think I understand why he's doing it, and again, I'm uncomfortable with it. He surely knows there is a valid constitutional question about that rather odd tax penalty in the health law, but it can, for less aware voters, make for a convenient reminder of the dangers of a right wing supreme court, even though this wouldn't technically be that reminder for someone more educated.

    In other words, Obama is playing the court against the GOP for the upcoming election, regardless of the consequences, or whether any particular attack is valid. He never ceases to remind me that he is first and foremost, the consummate American politician. Still, he's better than anything the GOP is offering. As for the court, it's been a partisan playground since the 80's, back when we Americans suffered some kind of cultural stroke, lost 50 IQ points, and started believing right wing nonsense.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Righto jmj. Whatever you say. Especially since you apparently can't see the dangers through your partisan progressive utopian la-la juice.

      I sure liberal progressive activist justices suit you just fine now don't they?

      Delete
    2. Les, I don't know what "partisan progressive utopian la-la juice" you're talking about. America is certainly not steeped in progressive politics these days, let alone actual progressive government. We're been tilted to the right for almost two generations now, and it's been an unpleasant experience for all but the very rich.

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. Jersey: Progressive is not a left-right thing. It is a state vs individual liberty thing. The state has been ever expanding, even Reagan couldn't stop it.

      Delete
    4. Silver, great response by the way, yes, I agree, we can not have the state constantly expanding. There should be projects, those projects should run their course, and they should be done. That's the "effective" in "effective government."

      Oh, and those those projects should be financed legitimately.

      Oh, and there again we need a government to make contracts legal.

      So, we need government for this, and the taxes and all that go with it. Make government benignly "effective" and it is good.

      JMJ

      Delete
    5. jmj - I give you a nod of tepid approval on this one. I say tepid as the devil lies in the details and often your details (comments) leave me scratching my head.

      Delete
    6. Les, you need to stop looking at me as a "liberal." I'm juts a guy, like you.

      JMJ

      Delete
    7. I do look at you as just a guy. A guy with very leftist political leaning. All generally supported by your comments.

      Just as you seem to look at me as a right wing nut job, or something like that. Just as most lefties do without realizing that I, (like you) are really a mixture of varying political views that really don't fit some ideological political stereotype.

      But I'm game to roll the dice and play the game. Just as you are and millions of other lefties and righties are.

      It's what makes life interesting, is it not?

      Delete
  4. Obama's handlers have advised him on what course to take and he does follow orders. He has learned they know best because how else would a no-name, no experience, no accomplishment individual obtain the presidency.

    Obama is all about attacking and nothing about leading. He creates class warfare because it is in his best interest. He is positioning the failure of his takeover of healthcare to blame the GOP. If you look at his performance when he was a community organizer, he never lead people to seek more, he just attacked those having more.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Les, your comment on liberal progressive judges is the point... your side has decried liberal progressive judges for years, stating that a duly elected congress makes the laws and that legislation should not be made, or disposed of from the bench.

    The right even argued it was wrong for the SCOTUS to rule on brown v education, saying they had no right, insisting instead for a constitutional amendment or congressional action.

    President Obama, while not exactly setting the world on fire with his policies, is 100% accurate in his statement regarding the ACA.

    And the right is once again wrong.

    If it is wrong to legislate from the bench when you disagree with the bench it is wrong to do so when you agree.

    Isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nullifying this entire unconstitutional POS would not be legislating from the bench, but rather checking federal power, and it needs to happen.

      Do you see any limits to federal power, Dave? If so, what are they, and what do you base your answer on?

      Delete
  6. I guess the Warren court was not partisan. Only conservative courts are partisan? Partisanship did not exist on the Court until the 1980's? Think again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here's another president lashing out at the SCOTUS:


    "Ronald Reagan ... campaigning in Birmingham, Ala., Thursday, blasted the court’s most recent abortion ruling as 'an abuse of power as bad as the transgression of Watergate and the bribery on Capitol Hill.' ..."

    WOW! Reagan compares the SCOTUS to burglers and bribers? Imagine if Mr. Obama had used that imagery!

    And this:

    "[Imagine] if Eric Holder ever delivered a speech like the one described in this article from the first year of Reagan’s presidency:


    "Attorney General William French Smith accused the federal courts of 'constitutionally dubious and unwise intrusions upon the legislative domain,' and vowed to oppose such 'subjective judicial policymaking.'

    He outlined the [Reagan] administration’s plan for urging greater judicial restraint in areas including abortion rights, desegregation, the constitutional rights of aliens and prisoners, and environmental protection….

    Smith said the department was working 'to identify those key areas in which the courts might be convinced to desist from actual policymaking,' so that 'errors of the past might be corrected' and “past trends might at least be halted.”
    "

    It is no surprise to hear that conservatives flopped on their fainting couches after President Obama acted in the manner of President Reagan, who "blasted" the SCOTUS.



    "He acts like he's still a street punk in Chicago shaking down bankers. The man is a disgrace."

    Really. The only thing missing from this description is Mr. Obama wearing a hoodie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, the more important point that Shaw left out is that it was CANDIDATE Reagan who said that. He was not yet president. Also, the astute reader will note the courteous tone coming from French. Much different than Obama's "punish your enemies" rhetoric that would sound more appropriate coming from Hugo Chavez.

      Liberal propaganda loses its cache' when exposed to disinfecting daylight.

      Delete
  8. SF, I will agree that Mr. Obama's likability has in fact gone down a tad (OK, more than a tad). This, though, I would probably still put him ahead of Mr.s Ginrich and Santorum at least on this indicator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm loving it! So much so I might even do a follow up post.

    The beauty of honest, open, and heated debate is it can clear the sinuses... so to speak.

    As to Newtie and Frothy? Well like I've said so many times, if the only choice was either of them or Obama I'd vote Obama. Or, move to Aruba.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Two wrongs don't make a right, Shaw."

    Will, I don't know what you're referring to.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think the Rightwing extremists on the court are completely out of control and need to be reigned in by Congress. Alito and Roberts should be impeached for lying during their confirmation hearings. Thomas and Scalia for the bribes they've been accepting.

    Anyone outraged by push back against this corrupt institution from our president is a deluded Righty, IMO.

    But, given how unlikely it is that Congress will act, hopefully Obama will be able to replace a couple of these fascists in his second term.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do it. Do it. Write your congressmen and senators and demand, DEMAND! they impeach them.

      Here it is on display, folks. The sputtering, unthinking left, unable to defend their policies in the light of the constitution, declare all who disagree with them to be corrupt or stupid.

      I hope the supremes slam the whole ball of crap back in Obama and the Pelosicrats' faces, if nothing else than to enjoy seeing the lefties descend into slobbering conniption fits. Heh heh heh...

      Delete
  12. IMO, SCOTUS is a good example of why we do not elect congressmen and presidents for life...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jersey said:

    "As for the court, it's been a partisan playground since the 80's, back when we Americans suffered some kind of cultural stroke, lost 50 IQ points.."

    Throw in the term "faggot" (that he used here a while back in describing a Rand character) and "retard" (that he used at WesternHero to demean conservatives) in describing right-of-center folks and you have the consummate Jersey.

    Well done sir, well done. I hate to imagine what you say about, well... black people? in the privacy of your home (or homestead).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Another example of the dishonesty of the left is that it troubles them not at all that Kagan has not recused herself. A woman who devised legal strategies to to defend Obamacare, which she now sits in judgement on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here it is on display, folks. The sputtering, unthinking right, calling for Kagan to recuse herself, when the person who SHOULD be recusing himself is Thomas, due to his wife lobbying against the health care legislation. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps they should both recuse themselves?

      Delete
    3. So a public person's wife can't have a life outside the home? Sounds sexist to me.

      Kagan was involved in crafting this POS, Thomas's wife merely lobbied against it. If you can't see the distinction, you really are blind, and if you read my words, I was not calling for Kagan to recuse herself. That would be silly. Everybody knows progressives exempt themselves from the rules they punish everyone else for not following.

      I was pointing out your gross inconsistency, Dervish.

      Delete
  15. "I hope the supremes slam the whole ball of crap back in Obama and the Pelosicrats' faces, if nothing else than to enjoy seeing the lefties descend into slobbering conniption fits. Heh heh heh..."

    How very much the above reminds me of the 7th grade mean-girls who got their tee-hee thrills thinking about taking revenge on their girly rivals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes indeed,indeed,indeed. I'm reminded of the same when, as it so often does from the other.

      Yup, I feel a follow up post coming soon.

      Delete
    2. I'm enjoying the show already... ;)

      Delete
    3. Shaw, I agree that SF's comment was a tad over the top. I just ask you to also look at the wd comment which precipitated it; his accusation of serious crimes against the conservative jurists and his calling of them fascists. Would you not agree with me that BOTH SIDES need to maybe amp it down a mite?

      Delete
  16. Oh, and Shaw, you missed a spot.

    You forgot to scold Les for calling a black man arrogant.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The word "arrogance" can be used to describe bi-racial, Negroid, Caucasian, Mongoloid, and certain Coloradans who believe they are the only ones who know what truth is.

    The word that one needs to avoid is "uppity" when criticizing Obama, because that is a dog whistle--no, a fog horn.

    So continue unabated, SF, with your little displays of arrogance, and I'll continue with mine without fear of being called racist.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thank you, Shaw. I did not know that. I thought any reference to arrogant was off limits. I'm not up on the latest PC rules.

    I guess it is pretty uppity and arrogant of me to question The One, and Pelosified Policies...

    How dare a mere subject stand up and question the government! I obviously don't know my place...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pointing out a conflict of interest isn't sexist SF. Come on, you know better. And Will, I didn't make any accusation of serious crimes against the SCOTUS cons. I stated facts. Are you saying you have no idea what I'm talking about?

    Maybe both Kagan and Thomas should recuse themselves... although I'd prefer Thomas stepped down in embarrassment. The sexual harasser should never have been appointed to the court to begin with. Now, with the revelations of bribes and ignoring/trying to cover up a conflict of interest, he should definitely be impeached.

    I don't know how the right can complain about Kagan (who didn't do any "crafting", as far as I know) and ignore Thomas. They obviously revel in gross inconsistencies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I would prefer that Kagan recuse herself if only one or the other chooses to do so.

      So, your point really is?...

      Delete
    2. The point is that the Republicans lost in Congress now they're attempting to reclaim victory via the corportist stooges on the court. If they say the ACA is "unconstitutional" it's utter BS. The president didn't say anything "arrogant".

      Delete
    3. No, the point is wd that the ACA, which 51% of the American people are against has been been challenged in the federal courts, making it's way all the way to the Supreme Court.

      The fact that you, the supreme legal scholar you apparently consider yourself to be disagrees has no merit whatsoever. As does mine.

      It is the proper place of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the ACA as written. An example of pour government in action as irt should be.

      Regardless of the courts ultimate decision, which I believe will be to uphold the law, I will accept it. Even though I personally believe it flawed on many levels.

      My question to toy wd is... Will you do the same of the Courts strike the decision?

      And yes, Obama IS arrogant.

      Delete
    4. You accused the justices of committing perjury (every single justice on both sides since the Bork fiasco has BSed the committee - it's the only frigging way that they can get confirmed in such a highly charged political environment) and engaging in bribery despite the fact that no charges have been made, no trials at all have taken place, and no sentencing period rendered.

      Delete
    5. Dervish: Explain how Mrs. Thomas having her own career creates a conflict of interest, and then explain how this is greater than Kagan's, who was in the white house when this anti-liberty stink bomb was being cooked up.

      So now it's lefties who want the wives cloistered? Tut tut tut...

      Delete
  20. Interesting comeback, SF, considering that when we liberals questioned Bush and his policies during his disasterous 8 years, we were labeled "traitors," "unAmerican," and the unimaginative and boring "Commies."

    And don't worry about Mr. Obama being "The One' and whom the conservative perceive as an extremist. Didn't some wise person say a conservative is one who admires radicals years after they're dead?

    When you're a great granddaddy, you can tell your great greandkids, as you dandle them on your bony knee, that you were, as a callow young'un, mistaken about one of America's greatest presidents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shaw - I know this response from you was addressed to SF, but I hope you don;t mind my stepping in.

      As a voice from the "right" (although I was absence a computer during most of GWB's 8 yrs.) I can safely say I think that "real"conservatives", or "righties" had as many problems with the "Bush Doctrine" as did the "liberals" or "lefties."

      We've moved beyond the Bush years, or at least I (and I believe many of my compatriots have as well), so can the liberals move on as well?

      Barrack Obama has many flaws (he is human right?), and is deserving of many criticisms, so lets focus on his deficiencies in the spirit of helping him and belief he will improce with experience.

      There is little doubt, at least in my mind, the crop of republicans (most specifically Frothy Santorum and Newtie Gingrich) would be by far worse than President Obama. Mittens Romney in my opinion would almost be a wash with Obama in all respects. However, I believe his understanding of the Nation's economy, and his understanding of economics far exceeds that of President Obama (the community activist and law professor).

      Please feel free to expound on my comments and perhaps educate me on the finer points of exactly why I should vote for Obama as opposed to Gary Johnson should he eventually become the Libertarian nominees.

      It is clear "my man Paul" is only serving as a "spoiler" at this juncture.

      Thanks for your consideration of my response to your comment Shaw, which I realize was directed at SF. As I stated on your site you are a "class act" and I for one freenthinker value your input.

      Delete
    2. Les and Shaw, you know who else thinks that Romney and Obama are about a wash? George Soros, and he flat-out said as much.

      Delete
    3. Will - Imagine that! The left if they have been paying attention (as conservatives and left leaning moderate have) realize they have nothing to lose in 2012, even if Romney wins. On the other hand the right leaning moderates and reasonable conservatives, as well as the "frothy" conservatives need to be VERY concerned.

      Delete
  21. Yeah, Shaw, it was like a new McCarthyism, right? Who called you traitors and Un-American?

    And after Obama's raids on job creators and unprecedented trillion and a half deficits, the Bush years are looking like the good old days.

    Had Obama not turned into just as big a Wall Street stooge as Bush, you might have a leg to stand on.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Shaw, as much as I respect your point of view and the class act you always personify, I do believe Silver has scored a valid point here, yes?

    ReplyDelete
  23. First let me answer SF's question on who called anti-Iraq war protestors "traitors."

    Here.

    Here.

    Here.

    SF: "And after Obama's raids on job creators and unprecedented trillion and a half deficits, the Bush years are looking like the good old days."

    I don't know what SF means by "Obama's raids on job creators."

    As for the trillion and a half deficits, I refer you both to this:

    Republicans howl that President Obama has exploded the size of federal government spending in his short tenure as President, and it is true that he has increased it. But President Bush actually increased federal spending by more than 2X as much as Obama has. So it is unfair to lay the explosion in spending at the feet of President Obama: Both presidents are responsible.

    The increase in government spending, meanwhile, is actually NOT the only factor that has caused the deficit. The other factor--equally if not more important--is the fall-off in government revenue (tax receipts).

    This second and larger factor can be blamed on two things: First, the Bush tax cuts, which reduced revenue, and, second, the weak economy, which has reduced the incomes and capital gains upon which most federal taxes are based.

    ReplyDelete
  24. In a nation of 300,000,000 you provide a scant few examples and one is *surprise!* Ann Coulter. Ho Hum... Also, I noticed my name wasn't included, so go whine to someone else about it.

    The difference is, Shaw, Bush paid for his spending by increasing revenues. Obama did not, as a simple comparison of each man's deficits show.

    The Bush tax cuts took place way back in the early 2000's. Funny how they were time bomb tax cuts whose deleterious effects only kicked in when Obama took office.

    Nice try, but the illogical lefty propaganda don't fly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Funny how they were time bomb tax cuts whose deleterious effects only kicked in when Obama took office."

      What? Talk about La-la land.
      Bush was still in office when we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.
      Bush left office adding another 5 trillion to the debt.
      Bush's war costs were always supplemental, never in his budget.
      His drug plan was never paid for.
      Bush proposed and passed the first bailout "TARP."
      Coulter was a Republican mouth piece during the Bush Presidency. Listened to, believed, and followed by millions of Republicans. Now she supports Romney. Romney! I think I'd rather have the don nothing Obama.
      Obama has plenty to be criticized for, but your rewriting of Historical facts cements your partisan credentials.

      Delete
  25. Anon: You are the one rewriting history.

    I'll refer you to that biased, right-wing, hyperpartisan news site, CBS News.

    (CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.
    The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.


    And Obama has ended one war in Iraq. Where's the "war dividend?"

    You may live in your own hopium-filled fantasy bubble, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Don't like it? Take it up with the Federal Government. They publish the numbers, not me or CBS.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Reference for Federal Revenues...

    http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1997_2017USb_13s1li111mcn_F0t

    ReplyDelete
  27. Government Spending...

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1997_2017USb_F0f

    ReplyDelete
  28. Not talking about what has happened under Obama. Enjoy your facts(?).

    ReplyDelete
  29. The facts still stand, regardless of what you are blathering about.

    Bush's health care not paid for? What government program is?

    Bush's bailout? Obama's was bigger

    Bush's unemployment rate? Obama's is worse. In fact, Obama is on course to be the first US president ever to have a net job loss. That's impressive.

    And even if money was spent "off budget" it still contributes to the deficit.

    Now, smart guy, answer my question. If Bush's Iraq war cost so damned much, where is the peace dividend? Why are Obama's projected deficits skyrocketing even in the face of the Iraq war savings?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SF - Facts indeed are facts as you point out. To me it seems Obama merely continued, and accelerated the statist Bush policies thus accelerating our headlong descent. So much for the two party system huh?

      Or maybe it's just me that senses this?

      Delete
  30. I'm not in the habit of discussing issues with someone so intrenched in talking points. I prefer those who think for themselves and can answer a question, not spin the issue in hopes of avoiding an honest answer. I enjoy learning from those who think differently than me, but there is nothing to learn from a closed mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fully understand what an active mind means.

      Please if you would define clearly your understanding of just what a closed mind implies or what it actually is.

      Thank ypou in advance for your consideration of this most honest request.

      Delete
  31. One who cannot think for themselves, but recites the thinking of others (talking points). One who cannot focus on the issue, but spins the issue into another issue backing up his preconceived ideas formed by others, thus showing capabilities of group think, not a personal thought process.
    Using false arguments to defend themselves. I already know Obama is a mess (and don't need his government stats to know Obama is a mess) but he was talking about Bush, so I replied. He replied making the case that Obama is worse. Again, not referring to his comment about Bush, or my my reply to his comment about Bush.
    Not interested in discussing issues in a manner that might reveal solutions and understanding, but making opponents look bad no matter true, or not. A closed mind is afraid to meet issues head on with personal thinking, but comforts in the group think, that can be so easily echoed.
    I wasn't defending Obama. Obama is indefensible. I was disagreeing with his statement about the effects of Bush's policies. An open mind would have understood that; his mind led him directly to disparage anyone who would differ from his preconceived group think. An open mind does not address those he is discussing with as blathering, a snide "smart guy", or demanding a response, that's useless anger and an attempt at intimidation.
    How should one reply to, or learn from a discussion that mimics a elementary school playground stance; "he was worse. No he was worse.?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SF actually supplied accepted data (at least some accept it as data) to back up his assertions. No?

      As I see it the problem with your open mind concept is thus... It implies that a individual must accept the ideas of every other "open minded" individual without ever coming to a conclusion as to the correctness or veracity of any idea. In other words all ideas are must be correct simply because someone had the idea.

      That, in my judgement is not how the rational human mind is wired to function. Each and every idea (thought) put out into the public domain should be given consideration. It should be analyzed given available data, conclusions based on rational (not emotional) judgement will lead to the individual determining whether to accept as valid the premise or discard it as invalid.

      Which is why we are unable to achieve full and complete agreement on many things. A wonderful, fascinating, and proper phenomenon of human existence don't you think Anon?

      Delete
    2. Which leads to the "active mind" concept which in MHO is certainly better than the wide "open mind."

      Delete
    3. A mind is not active, if it is only repeating what others say.
      I don't know how you could come to the conclusion, by what I wrote; that all ideas are valid simply because they are voiced. That's not what I said, nor what I believe. Please clearly describe how you came to that conclusion using the words I wrote, so I may better understand your conclusion.
      I never implied that anyone must accept any ideas.
      I would give SF consideration, if he ever addressed my comment, which he did not.
      Please clearly explain: that Bushes policies did not have negative effects while Bush was still in office.

      Delete
    4. Food for though is what I tossed out. The mere concept of an "open mind" implies that to be open one need consider and accept the possibility that all idea regardless of veracity may be valid. To do otherwise would negate the "openness" of ones mind. Something I have long viewed one of the weak links in modern and current liberalism.

      This site has never denied that Bush's policies had deleterious effect on our nation and it's economy. Rather I am in agreement with you his policies did indeed have negative and lasting effects.

      Now it is time for the nation to address the current administrations deficiencies and expect them to "man up" to their responsibilities and hold themselves accountable.

      Delete
  32. So, where do you allege I got these "talking points." If you can find where I've cut and pasted anything, provide the link or otherwise stop making unfounded allegations.

    I provided links to government data back my statement...

    The difference is, Shaw, Bush paid for his spending by increasing revenues. Obama did not, as a simple comparison of each man's deficits show.

    The Bush tax cuts took place way back in the early 2000's. Funny how they were time bomb tax cuts whose deleterious effects only kicked in when Obama took office.


    And I responded to your comments. I don't know what else you want...

    Again, provide links that I have cut and pasted from or shove your unfounded "talking points" allegations in your hopium pipe and smoke 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Please go back to my original comment where I quoted SF.
    The point he made was there was no "deleterious" effects of Bush's policies until Obama took office. I simply pointed out he was wrong. His response was to show me how bad Obama is. I don't doubt his stats, but that wasn't the issue I was responding to. I still say SF was wrong, Bushes policies did have deleterious effects while Bush was still in office, and listed those effects.
    Talking points mean they are the same points made by most anti-Obama supporters, and certainly did not respond to my point, that negative effects of Bush's policies did occur while Bush was still in office.
    He twice accused me of my ideas being born of an opium delusion, sorry I take offense to that. I have no interest in discussing serious issues with a person who spews school boy insults.
    He demands that I provide proof that he cut and pasted anything. Sorry, since I never said that, I won't respond to his false accusation.
    He ASSumes that I am a Obama supporter, wrong.
    He ASSumes that I disagree with his facts, I do not.
    He ASSumes I do drugs, I do not.
    That's a lot of ASSumptions for someone to make when he has no clue what my positions are on either Obama, or Bush. Another sign of a weak, closed mind.
    The mistake of being emotional, was his, proven by the name calling he aimed at me. He never responded to the issue I brought up; that he was wrong to say that Bush's policies never had negative effects until Obama took office.
    Yes, I discarded what he said, because it did not answer my comment, it was a response to satisfy his hate for Obama and his incorrect ASSunption that I was attacking Bush. It was a dishonest reply on his part.
    Different ideas do make a fascinating World, not obfuscation, ducking a question, or personal insults, that's childish behavior.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your point is understood. Its non partisan lack of bias is appreciated. The validity of your comments are acknowledged.

      Thank you.

      Delete
  34. Anon: Name Calling? Where did I call you a name? Funny, coming from someone who accuses me of being in "la la land," and possessing a "weak, closed mind." And it's Hopium, no opium. Are you humor-challenged?

    You challenged my comment on Bush's tax cuts. The were enacted in 2003, and he maintained deficits that were 1/3 or better of Obama's. So how did the tax cuts wait until Obama was in office to explode? That was my point, and I answered every one of your points with facts, so I don't know why you are still grousing.

    Maybe you assume too much about me. I have not defended Bush's policies, but the thread before you got here was about Obama, and the liberals started in with their usual Bush Tu Quoques, inviting the comparisons I ended up making.

    Then you came along and added more "Oh yeah! Bush did ..."

    Go back and notice I didn't disagree with what you said, because you correct. Seeing such a challenge, I assumed you were an Obama supporter, so I showed you how Obama was even worse. I doesn't make Bush right, but it does show that liberal Obama worshipers are blind.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Given what we've seen vis Trump and his MAGA lies i'd more than welcome another President just like Obana. Trump, tge gop, and MAGA is now the real threat to the American experiment in self government. Hands down.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, No Judgement of others. We reserve the right to delete any such comment immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic and respectful of others.



Top Posts

As the Liberal/Progressive Media and Blogosphere Attempt To Destroy Governor Chris Christie...

And The Carnage Continues...

Unspeakable Evil...

Recommended Reading, Thomas Piketty’s best-selling new book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”...

Our Biggest Creditor {China} Tells Us "The good old days of borrowing are over"

On the Zimmerman Trial amd Outcome...