posted March 16, 2009 12:35 PM            

First came the appointed Clintonista brigades...after O'Bomber promised a new tone and brigades of brand new faces in his administration.

Then came all the lobbyists O'Bomber appointed to his administration...after promising there wouldn't be ANY.

Then came the embarrassing appointment of Bill Richardson to head Commerce...while Richardson is under investigation in a pay for play scheme back in New Mexico.

Then came a string of tax cheats, tax evaders appointed by O'Bomber for his administration...including the Sec Treasury who is in charge of the IRS.

Then came the so called Stimulus Bill..really the Porkulus Bill in which O'Bomber said there wasn't one pork project or earmark.

Then came the broken promise there would be no earmarks permitted in any bill O'Bomber would sign into law...then, O'Bomber signed the budget busting Budget Bill with more than 8500 earmarks.

And from the beginning, O'Bomber has promised a transparent administration...then, hid his birth records and university records behind an absurd notion of "privacy".

In another broken promise, O'Bomber promised to post on line, the text of all bills passed by Congress for 5 days so "The People" could see what's in there...before he signed the Bills into law...then O'Bomber rushed to signing before the public could see them and even before members of Congress had time to even read what was actually in the Bill.

And now, another appointment looks like it's heading down the tubes...from a federal investigation of the workplace where this appointee worked...was in charge of...and he's now on "Administrative Leave".

To say it's "Amateur Hour" in the White House would greatly overstate the competence of these clowns.

All this in less than 8 weeks.

March 16, 2009
Transparency, Or a Case of The Invisible Man?
Marcus Motley

I have a very intelligent and well educated friend who seems to be suffering from H.I.S. (Head In Sand) syndrome when it comes to Obama. I have been for sometime providing her with the proof of Obama’s duplicity between his words and his deeds as evidenced by his unsavory rise up the ladder of Chicago politics and the Illinois Combine as described by John Kass of The Chicago Tribune Despite my providing many examples, she remains steadfastly wedded to the “image” of Obama that was sold to the public by David Axelrod & Co.

There are several instances of this on F.I.S.A., on accepting public campaign financing, Bi-Partisanship and most egregiously his claim of transparency . Others have already covered Obama’s unwillingness to provide the documentation of his past, such as any of his college or Illinois State Senate records. And much has been made of his reneging on the "sunshine before signing" pledge. But his latest antic may be the finest example yet of the Orwellian nature of this administration.

It centers around his latest embarrassment Vivek Kundra, his appointee (soon to be former appointee, and now on administrative leave) to the Office of Information & Technology. The technology part might be accurate, on the information side…not so much. In the investigation of a possible connection between Mr. Kundra & Chicago, (shady procurement practices and ghost-payrollers ) my web search for Kundra’s bio took me to this little gem on the OI & T websiite. And poof. just like that, he’s an unperson. Office of information? Lack thereof is more like it.

posted March 16, 2009 05:32 PM            

I accurately reported what you actually had to say and it could have come straight out of the mouth of any of the leftist extremist twits at any of the leftist extremist nutty putty sites on line.

Further, what you said, that I reported here were total lies. Now, do you deny you said what I say you said?

You never said the United States oppressed/repressed Iraqi citizens?

You never said the American people oppressed/repressed Iraqi citizens?

You never said Bush lied when he said Saddam had sought large quantities of Uranium from Africa?

You never said Bush distorted/slanted intelligence data he got from US intelligence agencies?

You never said Bush pressured intelligence analysts for findings favorable to take the US to war against Saddam?

You never said al-Qaeda terrorists were "ballsy" for opening up with automatic weapons on unarmed civilians..."ballsy" because they were killing people they didn't know?

You never said the United States should have packaged up a water treatment plant and shipped it Saddam in Iraq?

You never accused Bush of being a murderer?

posted March 16, 2009 05:46 PM            

quote:

---

You never said the United States oppressed/repressed Iraqi citizens?

---

I did say that within a specific context, which wasn't extremist in the slightest.

quote:

---

You never said the American people oppressed/repressed Iraqi citizens?

---

That is correct. I never did say that.

quote:

---

You never said Bush lied when he said Saddam had sought large quantities of Uranium from Africa?

---

I don't recall having a yellow cake conversation with you, but that wouldn't be an extremist thing to say.

quote:

---

You never said Bush distorted/slanted intelligence data he got from US intelligence agencies?

You never said Bush pressured intelligence analysts for findings favorable to take the US to war against Saddam?

---

I did post something that someone from inside the intelligence agency said with regard to the matter. You presented a decent argument to the contrary on that occasion. Still not extremist.

quote:

---

You never said al-Qaeda terrorists were "ballsy" for opening up with automatic weapons on unarmed civilians..."ballsy" because they were killing people they didn't know?

---

I never included the use of automatic weapons (Mr. Dramatic), but I still stand by my statement that to take a human life requires courage, yes, and that's not an extremist thing to voice.

quote:

---

You never said the United States should have packaged up a water treatment plant and shipped it Saddam in Iraq?

---

That is correct. I never said that they should have done that. I did imply that they shouldn't have blocked genuine humanitarian aid which included means of water purification, but that is not the same as saying that I said the U.S. should have shipped a water treatment plant. Talking about humanitarian aid not given is not extremist.

________________________________________________________________________________________

posted March 16, 2009 10:48 PM            

there are so many sh-t things happening in this world, jwhop, that i wonder you have time to dig the knife in to people who give you the time of day. how about a little room for disagreement and DISCUSSION instead of all the bull and character assassinations?

posted March 19, 2009 11:43 AM            

I said this:
"posted August 23, 2005 12:12 PM

That's right acoustic, I do have a fixed nature...something for you to keep in mind when you shoot your mouth off and accuse the United States of repression of the Iraqi people. I've never heard such twaddle...except from other far left radicals.

You went even further suggesting the United States was also responsible for repressing Iraqi citizens by not packaging up a water treatment plant to send to Saddam...one not ordered by Saddam or anyone else in Iraq for that matter. You went even further by suggesting American citizens were also responsible for repressing Iraqi citizens.

This is the kind of mush brained blathering typical of far left radicals, leftist radicals who define themselves with no help needed from me."
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001434-2.html

You certainly didn't deny you said any such things...back then when I brought it up from an earlier post. You took a pass and didn't speak to it at all...because you did say them and lots of members here saw them..back then.

Something interesting. It seems some threads have disappeared from GU..some threads I remember.

Something else interesting acoustic. Your profile shows your membership date at LindaLand to be May 9, 2005. Yet, by August 2005 you had made 14,766 posts.

posted March 19, 2009 04:12 PM            

First, I said the government or more specifically those overseeing the Oil for Food program. Further, you didn't say "American citizens" in the post you mentioned, so even if I had responded to that it still wouldn't be the same statement.

Either way, it's still more moot than you can possibly imagine. There's no points you can make off me, because there's no one you can convince (not that you've ever claimed to be trying to convince anyone here ever, though the opposite seems overwhelmingly apparent). It's an impractical exercise in futility.

quote:

---

Your profile shows your membership date at LindaLand to be May 9, 2005. Yet, by August 2005 you had made 14,766 posts.

---

posted March 19, 2009 05:15 PM            

You said exactly what I said you said and within the context in which I presented what you said.

To think anyone would mount a defense of Saddam Hussein, who raped, tortured and murdered his own citizens and call terrorists who were deliberately killing unarmed Iraqi citizens, including women and children..."ballsy" is both disgusting and contemptible. It's more so when you also allege the United States and American citizens were repressing/oppressing Iraqi citizens while Saddam was in full control in Iraq.

posted March 19, 2009 06:53 PM            

quote:

---

I don't need to make points off you acoustic.

---

I'm pretty certain you do. If you had the capability of examining your own motives you would find me right on. Since you don't, you just subject yourself to looking more ridiculous, because as I've pointed out to you there's no one here whose mind you can change. That's reality brother.

quote:

---

You said exactly what I said you said and within the context in which I presented what you said.

---

No. You didn't provide context at all, and now you're trying to say that I was mounting a defense of Saddam, which is another thing that I did not do (as you yourself acknowledge at the end of your post). I commend you for apparently looking for the thread, but as I said, it that would do more harm to you than it would me.

quote:

---

call terrorists who were deliberately killing unarmed Iraqi citizens, including women and children..."ballsy" is both disgusting and contemptible.

---

It is neither. You are assigning it your opinion, but your opinion is at best an opinion, and at worst just plain wrong. I specifically remember illustrating by asking you to take a gun, and go kill a stranger. See how cowardly you feel about it. There are innocents killed in any war, are there not? And what would you say of the accidental killing of innocent civilians? Would you say their killers were cowardly? Even if they were American? No, you wouldn't. You lack basic perspective. You're a ball of untamed emotion.

posted March 19, 2009 07:04 PM            

If you were able to succeed in proving your bizarre statements about me being an extremist of some sort, you'd have done it a long time ago.

You have tried several times.

You have failed several times.

Nothing has changed.

You're not bringing anything new to the table, and you have no audience besides me, and I've been through this stuff with you a more-than-adequate number of times.

posted March 19, 2009 07:27 PM            

What I said you said, you said and within the context.

Now you may waffle, duck, dodge and deny you meant what your words say..but not with me. Attempting to magnify the bravery of terrorists for killing unarmed civilians is disgusting. They're not "ballsy". It's the mark of abject cowards as is hiding behind and among civilians to launch attacks. Only a sociopath could take that view.

Neither the United States or American citizens oppressed/repressed Iraqi citizens. Saddam did that and he did it for almost 30 years. In the end, his own citizens convicted Saddam and hung him for his crimes. In my opinion, it's a shame Saddam could only be hung once.

Other of your lying allegations was that Bush lied to the American people, twisted and distorted intelligence data and pressured intelligence analysts to slant their intelligence reports.

4 separate commissions looked at all your allegations and others and found none of that happened. They took testimony under oath. One of those commissions was British which concluded that the Bush statement that Saddam had sought uranium from Africa..."Was well founded".

This was never a matter for personal interpretation. It was always about facts and you didn't have any facts, only allegations picked up from nutty leftist websites. You were making the very same allegations they were making.

posted March 19, 2009 07:47 PM            

quote:

---

You seem to think we're in some sort of contest here acoustic. I've told you before, I'm not. You're the one with something to prove and that's a job you can't get done.

---

You've already forgotten that you're trying to prove that I'm an extremist? That's...a little crazy to me. How could you forget that fast?

quote:

---

Now you may waffle, duck, dodge and deny you meant what your words say..but not with me.

---

I don't have to worry about you, Jwhop. You're not a threat.

Furthermore, I encouraged you to post the links. I'm not afraid of people seeing the context behind the things I've written. If you were sensible you'd understand why that is true.

quote:

---

Other of your lying allegations was that Bush lied to the American people, twisted and distorted intelligence data and pressured intelligence analysts to slant their intelligence reports.

---

Remember that you're trying to prove extremism. There's no extremism there. Further, there's data to support any of those things.

You don't realize that the problem with your presenting an argument is that there's never a shortage of people wanting to disagree with you. Never. If you were a scientist, you'd get literally nothing past peer review. Normal people would catch that, and adjust accordingly. You, you seem to be ok with your error. As long as something is true to you, then who cares what anyone else thinks?

quote:

---

It was always about facts and you didn't have any facts, only allegations picked up from nutty leftist websites.

---

You've got your facts wrong once again. (In your language: You lied) Show me the "nutty, leftist websites" I cited. I still don't even remember this argument (and in this argument to prove me an extremist, this seems like grasping at straws).

This idea of me browsing leftist websites has always been such an terribly ironic line for you to attempt. The only regular visitor to partisan websites that I'm aware of is you. You continue to try to link me to leftist sites, but you can't cite anything, because that's not where I go for information (and never has been).

quote:

---

End of your lies about Bush, about the United States and about American citizens..just like before.

---

posted March 19, 2009 10:25 PM            

You didn't challenge what I said ...you said back in 2005 and you had every chance to do so. You didn't challenge my statements because you knew there were members here who would remember. 4 years later, there's newer members here who were not here to see you denigrate the United States and American citizens with false accusations.

My point is proved. You are a leftist radical. Those were the very same kinds of things leftist websites were posting at the time.

I once said you had no opinions of your own and pointed you in the direction of those who could give you your opinion. It's apparent you went there and got your opinions from nutty putty leftists who never bother with the truth.

The truth is never the friend of leftists and the truth is certainly no friend of yours either.

posted March 19, 2009 11:43 PM            

Just because I didn't address part of your post does not mean I endorsed the thinking behind it. That's completely illogical. Completely beyond reason really. This deampt up notion that I didn't address it because people remembered otherwise is ...ultimately on par with the rest of what you have to say about me, which is to say that it's utterly ridiculous nonsense. If the reason had to do with other people, it would be that other people remembered what I said, and I therefore didn't feel the need to repeat myself.

For another thread from AUGUST 2005 (what's this? The SAME time period as the thread you posted?! OMG! ) where I do answer Jwhop's question on this (even though we'd already discussed this thoroughly) go here:
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002245-4.html

I called you a moron earlier in this thread. You didn't address that in any subsequent post. Am I to assume that you agree with me? (This is your version of logic.)

quote:

---

My point is proved. You are a leftist radical. Those were the very same kinds of things leftist websites were posting at the time.

---

That's interesting, because this is what I had to say about that very charge two-and-a-half years ago (from the thread you linked to for Christ's sake):

You can say that, but who's quoting far left websites here? Who's even quoting the NY Times? No one is. You're making an argument against something that isn't even happening here.

Nothing has changed. I'm still not quoting far left sites, while ironically you still are posting articles from rightwing, biased sites. A normal, rational human being couldn't conceive of how you could even dream of trying to pull this line.

quote:

---

I once said you had no opinions of your own and pointed you in the direction of those who could give you your opinion. It's apparent you went there and got your opinions from nutty putty leftists who never bother with the truth.

---

Hmmm...who was just describing their source as an "opinion journal"?
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/004891.html

Who posts Ann Coulter articles? Who has been caught touting ideas and catch-phrases from Limbaugh and Savage by multiple people?

quote:

---

The truth is never the friend of leftists and the truth is certainly no friend of yours either.

---

The truth is that your mind is about 40 years removed from its peak performance, and any intimacy you may have had with objectivity is long gone.

quote:

---

You said what you said and refuse to be a man and own up to it.

---

I think it's weird that I address everything you said (despite having dealt with all of these things previously, and on multiple occasions), and you want to claim I'm not manning up to it?

Do you have anything logical, reasonable, non-ironic to throw at me?

posted March 20, 2009 12:27 AM            

You think people don't see and recognize your lies and deceptions but you're wrong about that. Your denials and refusal to own up to what you said are perfectly in line with a proper interpretation of Mercury oppose Saturn. You certainly are defensive and you've bent the truth out of shape here since you showed up on this forum...in order to not appear to be wrong. Still operating in Cancer South Node...instead of Capricorn North Node.

"The opposition from Mercury to Saturn shows that you are strongly opinionated and defensive."

"You may be inclined to bend the truth in order to get your way with people, but people are more discerning than you realize and often are aware of your deceptions."
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002245-4.html

posted March 20, 2009 12:42 AM            

So, after warning O'Bomber Kool-Aid drinkers O'Bomber is an empty suit held up only by hot air, he's shown himself to be a total screwup. Get used to it, O'Bomber isn't going to grow into the Office of President of the United States. He's going to be another Carter or worse.

March 16, 2009
Obama's essence
By James Lewis

Undisciplined. Disorganized. Overreaching. Dangerous. Even the Democrats are taking off the upside-down plastic buckets they've kept over their heads, like David Broder, David Ignatius, and even David Brooks, the house conservative at the NYT, who keeps trying to hug that dangerous median strip on the superhighway of life, dancing and dodging between all the whizzing cars and trucks.

But the commentariat still doesn't understand that Obama is the worst control freak to occupy high office in the history of the United States. Obama is the Nanny to end all Nannies. Socialism is not a political philosophy for him. It's the other way around. Control freakery is Obama's basic personality. Socialism is just his way of making it look good to his buds on the Left.

It's called obsessive-compulsive personality, and if he can get himself a good doctor he might be able to get a pill for it. But he doesn't see it as a problem for one Barack (Barry) Soetoro Obama, the Reinvented Man. He sees it as everybody else's problem, including the stock market, high-paid executives, people who objected to his weird appointee's weird choice of Chas Freeman for a top intelligence post, and just about everybody else who doesn't march in lockstep with his frantic fantasy life. We all just need a leetle more controlling and he'll be just a titch happier with us.

Unfortunately for him this is the most naturally anarchic country in the world: What do you think Rock ‘n Roll is about, not to mention Gangsta Rap? It's not a Mozart minuet. It's the drumbeat of rebellion that has run this country since 1776.

Obama is oddly foreign in that respect. He's more like Kim Jong-Il or Robert Mugabe, or Saddam Hussein for that matter. Control. He is profoundly afraid of losing it, and has learned to project total control in his very persona. That's what earned him the faith of the liberal masses. The trouble is that nobody else will take orders! No wonder he doesn't like Israel, a country that is as wildly anarchic as America. No wonder he admires the disciplined Swedes, and gave his first big speech at the Berlin Prussian victory monument. Citizens of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your freedom.

The reason why this White House is so chaotic and can't even staff the Treasury at a time of wild economic turmoil is that Obama needs to micromanage it all. That's why he's got six Secretaries of State. Hillary is just a figurehead. He's got Joe Biden, who's not all that together himself, he's got his special reps to the Middle East and Af-Pakistan, he's got his letter to Khamenei in Iran, he wrote his own letter to Russia's prime minister (which was contemptuously dissed in public), he's got his "Up yours, British Imperialist!" meeting with Gordon Brown, followed by some mysterious "high State Department source" telling the Brits they're no different from all the other 200 countries in the world, and on and on. FDR famously played off his bureaucrats against each other to keep more power in his own hands. Obama is trying the same thing, except that he can't resist the urge to meddle and micromanage. No wonder Warren Buffett is getting freaked out watching it.

Take something as small as Obama's need for a word-for-word script, just to answer questions at press conferences. His teleprompter dependency is simply unprecedented. Any Republican president would be laughed out of the room with that kind of hand-holding from Axelrod, or Bill Ayers, or Michelle, or whoever is dictating the words behind the scenes. No wonder Obama is considered eloquent. Like a talking head on TV he constantly needs his writers to feed him the words, so he can pay total attention to his acting style. But even his acting is degenerating in front of our eyes: Obama is turning Obombastama. You can tell from the tone of hysteria creeping into his operatic baritone. Maybe they need to switch that reverb circuit back on? That should impress all the lickspittles of the White House press.

The paradox of it all is that the free market will have to get us out of this mess, simply because whatever policies Obama conjures up from day to day are contradictory. You can't spend a trillion plus on the phony stimulus bill, and then expect to spend more and more trillions of Monopoly money on your liberal wish list: universal healthcare, carbon trading schemes, declaring CO2 to be a poison. "Pardon me for breathing," as New Yorkers used to say. That was a joke. Soon breathing out CO2 may require a carbon trading license from Carol Browner at the EPA. Not a joke. As for the other end, methane is next.

With Obama running around in all directions at the same time, the market will find ways to get around overregulation. It usually does. The old military maxim is "order, counter-order, disorder." Another useful rule is "never give a command that won't be obeyed." But that's precisely what the Big O keeps doing. It's an odd way to liberate those markets that cannot be controlled -- which is most of them -- but what the hell, it's a libertarian dream.

posted March 20, 2009 01:35 AM            

I can play this game, too:

You are likely to hold psychologically defensive attitudes towards life, not able to trust in the beneficience of the universe or people around you, often expecting that rejection and failure will be the only results that will come to you. With such expectations, the mirroring by the universe will bring such results. A transformation in your worldview is required to alter this pattern. http://www.astrologyweekly.com/astrological-aspects/sun-square-saturn.php

Those 'enemies' that you can project out into the external world are often your own unresolved inner demons that are slowly consuming you from within.

You need to release any tendencies towards impracticality, antisocial attitudes and hidden urges for personal power, to stop being antagonistic purely for the sake of performing the adversarial role, and use the freed energies to renew your own life. Compromise and balance within your nature, and allowing an inner transformation to strengthen your focus on your solar centre, is the key to a more satisfying relationship with the greater community, and for you to enter into more beneficial and harmonious intimate relationships. http://www.astrologyweekly.com/astrological-aspects/sun-square-uranus.php

Being so closely identified with your thoughts, beliefs. attitude, values and opinions, you often fail to listen properly to differing views or treat them with due respect and consideration. This is because any challenge to your perceptions is equated with a challenge to yourself, and as you assume a more egocentric stance this is rarely welcomed. While you enjoy vigorously expressing your thoughts, you also feel it necessary to be dominant in company and through sheer force of communication may attempt to pressurise others into agreeing with you. Some may react against your style, especially if you are obvioulsy disregarding alternative points of view. Your tendency to be overly preoccupied with your thoughts and personal concerns can restrict real communication, and others may gain the impression that their concerns are too easily dismissed or that your apparent interest in them is not genuine.

You have a quickness of thought which may not always work to your advantage, as you prefer to be active as soon as possible, and in some case you may be failing to evaluate relevant information or options sufficiently to make sensible decisions. Allowing that charged nervous energy to dominate will also increase your tendency for making unwise choices, and you may need to modify that compulsive activity from sending you along futile paths.

Once you ensure that you note the reactions of others to your style of expression, modifying this accordingly, or realise that you lack objectivity concerning your nature and then attempt to gain a clearer self-perception, you should be able to make more positive use of the abilities implied by this conjunction. http://www.astrologyweekly.com/astrological-aspects/sun-conjunct-mercury.php

Self-preoccupation blinds and deafens you to much in life; and your obstinate insistence on being right can lead to difficulties which defeat even your own objectives. http://www.astrologyweekly.com/astrological-aspects/mercury-square-uranus.php

quote:

---

I'd much rather keep you around so I can continue pointing out the fallacies of leftist thought...as a public service of course.

---

posted March 20, 2009 01:35 PM            

there are a lot of REALLY good points in that film, including the fact that, as i mentioned somewhere here, KENNEDY was the last guy to try to BUCK THE BIG GUYS. if you DON"T reward them for getting you in GUESS WHAT? you get nowhere but an early grave...eisenhower warned against this and kennedy was probably the last man to try to actually BE president in the true sense of the word.

posted March 26, 2009 11:05 AM            

President Teleprompter is such a total screw up in every area of presidential responsibility that he's wrecking the US economy for years to come, loading up America's future with unpayable debt, destroying the value of the dollar, proposing a personal army, loyal to him that is as well funded, as well trained and as strong as the US military...for internal security..Sieg Heil comrades, your papers please.

On the foreign policy front, his initiatives are not only naive but dangerous and his ass kissing attempts with Socialist dictators and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have been met with the equivalent of F-Off. Not only that but they see President Teleprompter as the weak sister he really is and are in the process of testing President Teleprompter in the present.

His appointments and attempted appointments read like an IRS list of income tax evaders, clowns, jesters, incompetents, corrupt lying politicians, apologists for terrorists and terrorism and international "One World" Socialists as screwed up as he is.