Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  He's a Sick, Sick, Sick Man (Page 17)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 20 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   He's a Sick, Sick, Sick Man
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 30, 2011 11:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If you had income of less than $25,000 and paid income tax...net income tax on a 1040 tax return after all legal deductions against "income" then...you truly do need a new accountant.

If you're saying you had an income tax deduction from you weekly or monthly paycheck...that's a different matter.

Now, back to...He's a Sick, Sick, Sick Man! Oh boy, is he ever!

November 30, 2011
Another jaw dropping foreign policy gaffe by Obama
Rick Moran

This one's a doozy. Via Nile Gardner at Heritage blog:

In a press conference this evening, the president referred in stumbling fashion to the "English Embassy" in Iran instead of the British Embassy. One can only imagine the kind of howls of derision that would greet any presidential contender if that kind of basic error were made before, say, the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. You can watch the video above.

In case the president is unaware, England forms part of Great Britain, which also includes Scotland and Wales, though not Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. There is no such thing as an "English" embassy anywhere in the world, and there hasn't been one for several centuries.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by this latest slip-up by President Obama. After all he recently described France as America's closest ally, and famously declared that he has traveled to no less than 57 states. But it would be nice if the leader of the free world bothered to look at a map once in a while, or even paid a visit to the British Embassy in Washington, currently housing the Churchill bust that Mr. Obama unceremoniously threw out of the Oval Office soon after his inauguration.

Obama's latest gaffe also raises questions about his overall approach to the Special Relationship. This has been a presidency that has significantly downgraded traditional US alliances, from Britain and Israel to eastern and central Europe, while appeasing brutal enemies like Iran as well as strategic adversaries such as Russia. All too often, Washington's allies have been taken for granted, and even undermined. As a senior State Department official put it in 2009, in the eyes of the current administration: "there's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."

From siding with Argentina on its call for UN-brokered negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falklands, to placing "a boot on the throat" of BP, Britain's largest company, the Obama administration has downgraded relations with America's closest friend and partner on the world stage

Aside from Obama's giggle-worthy grasp of even the simplest facts about our number one ally in the world, one might ask what credibility Obama has in criticizing Iran when he stayed virtually silent while demonstrators were being gunned down in the streets following the rigged election in 2009? The Iranians cruellly mocked him for his "outreach" efforts, making him and the US the laughingstock of international diplomacy. And now anyone - especially the Iranians - are supposed to take him seriously?

Go back to sleep, Mr. President. We'll wake you up when it's time to leave.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/another_jaw_dropping_foreign_policy_gaffe_by_obama.html

Yeah, we'll put in a wake up call for you for the morning of January 20, 2013 so you can catch your plane back to Chicago.

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted November 30, 2011 02:12 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
yes jwhop, my payperiod deductions were 10% across the board, i did receive a refund for same HOWEVER i paid almost half of the total in INCOME TAX. please stop talking to me as if i were some sort of bush baby.

a W2 employee only gets so much leeway in the expense dept. perhaps you have never been an "average" worker, earning $9/hr on a W2 and this is why you can't grasp that lowpaid workers PAY TAXES. if i had had qualifying children i could have had it all back, yes, but my children are grown with kids of their own. not my shout.

someone who can't afford to invest, whose lunches and travel are not allowed as deductions etc, pays TAXES - INCOME TAXES on everything over 6 grand-something.

people on social security income do not pay tax on it. they are a good percentage of those who "don't pay taxes" because they are living off their own prior taxes in essence...and the deal is that the capital gains that make their check possible is waived in exchange for the investment at the time.

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted November 30, 2011 02:25 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
as to SICK MEN, fluffing "english" for "british" is a minor gaffe compared to what JOHN MCCAIN and CARL LEVIN are trying on in the senate now.

i suppose it would be worth living under martial law to get rid of the "embarrassment" of having an educated black man who occasionally fumbles his words as president, eh?

mccain must think that he really was robbed in 08 and by hook or crook he is going to be the master of us all...as one of the most senior senators and most experienced militarily in congress, i guess he thinks HE will be head of our new military JUNTA.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/your-front-yard-is-a-battlefield-senate-to-vote-on-legislation-that-allows-u-s-military-to-detain-citizens-without-charge-or-trial_112011

IP: Logged

shura
Knowflake

Posts: 1088
From: kamaloka
Registered: Jun 2009

posted November 30, 2011 04:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for shura     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"I'm ready for the 'gotcha' questions and they're already starting to come. And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I'm going to say, you know, I don't know. Do you know?" –Herman Cain

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 01, 2011 01:09 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That's OK!

O'Bomber thinks they speak Austrian in Austria!

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted December 01, 2011 02:39 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
yes and that is of the UTMOST importance right now, isn't it? earth to jwhop! i am beginning to think your silence on the NDAA bill is due to agreement.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 13, 2012 08:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Every day, in every way, O'Bomber is proving to be exactly what I said he was when he was candidate O'Bomber.

He's a phony made up persona who never existed and it's a persona which would have fallen apart well before the 2008 election if the so called "watch dogs guarding the people's right to know" had barked, whined or even whimpered. But the O'Bomber droolers in the press never seemed to find any difficult questions for O'Bomber.

O'Bomber would have withered and wilted under the constant barrages the press launch at the current crop of Republican candidates to replace The Messiah, The One!

Now, we find that while our little Marxist Socialist Progressive O'Bomber was in Iraq to visit the troops, some wanted to take pictures with The One and some wanted The One to sign copies of his book.

Don't ask me why anyone would want a picture with a phony or want his signature or even want the little phony's book. But, some did.

This is the story of what happened when The One, The Messiah O'Bomber visited the troops in Iraq. It's just more of the Sick, Sick, Sick Man's real persona being revealed.

Imagine that! Then candidate O'Bomber...didn't really want to be with the troops. They were just a photo op for O'Bomber and when the right number of O'Bomber campaign pictures had been taken and video shot, The One, The Messiah O'Bomber wanted out of there and away from the very troops for whom he was campaigning to be "Commander in Chief".

Book Depicts Cranky Obama On Baghdad Visit
The then-candidate “didn't want to take pictures with any more soldiers.

Michael Hastings' new book, The Operators, jabs at what could be a vulnerable spot for the Obama Administration, the president's relationship with the troops.

The book describes a visit to Baghdad:

After the talk, out of earshot from the soldiers and diplomats, he starts to complain. He starts to act very un-Obamalike, according to a U.S. embassy official who helped organize the trip in Baghdad.

He’s asked to go out to take a few more pictures with soldiers and embassy staffers. He’s asked to sign copies of his book. “He didn’t want to take pictures with any more soldiers; he was complaining about it,” a State Department official tells me. “Look, I was excited to meet him. I wanted to like him. Let’s just say the scales fell from my
eyes after I did. These are people over here who’ve been fighting the war, or working every day for the war effort, and he didn’t want to take ******* pictures with them?"

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/book-depicts-cranky-obama-on-baghdad-visit

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 17, 2012 11:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, no one can say they weren't warned about Barack Hussein O'Bomber...while he was till candidate O'Bomber. I told you O'Bomber would destroy the economy..and he has. I told you O'Bomber is a phony made up persona..and he is. I told you O'Bomber is an "authoritarian"...and he is. I told you O'Bomber is a narcissist and he is. I told you O'Bomber would discard the "rule of law" and he has.

O'Bomber thinks he was born to "RULE" over others and that's typical of Marxists, Socialists and Progressives.

I even warned you what was coming after O'Bomber was elected and I saw Valerie Jarrett...the O'Bomber spokeswoman say to Tom Brokaw..."Obama is ready to "RULE" on day 1."

Strangely, there are some O'Bomber droolers and Kool-Aid drinkers who just never get the message.

January 17, 2012
The Transformational Tyrant
By William L. Gensert

No man is born a murderer, or evil or cruel. In America, no man is born a king or a tyrant. Just as a man must learn to be a killer, men must teach themselves to be tyrants. Barack Obama has learned how to be a tyrant.

The proclivity was always there, along with the arrogance and narcissism. When you are better than everyone else, it is a small step to wish to reign over them as well. Yet, few expected a University of Chicago lecturer on constitutional law to decide the Constitution did not apply to him, only to mere mortals like us. After all, when speaking of George Bush in 2007, he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.

"I refuse to take 'no' for an answer," said Barack Obama in defense of his usurpation of our Constitution, which established three coequal branches of government, sharing power, designed to impede the machinations of a transformational tyrant refusing to take "no" for an answer, or a power-drunk Congress, or an out of control judiciary.

The checks and balances codified in our Constitution are the foundation of the balance of power intrinsic to our system of government. It is an exercise in divided authority -- adversarial, confrontational and restricted.

The Constitution is meant to curtail the extremes of unbridled authority. It protects liberty by throttling the wet dreams of would be tyrants.

A constitutional law professor should know this, but Barack Obama was a Senior Lecturer, not a professor on the track to tenure. Apparently, he had no desire for the rigorous imperative of publish or perish. He had bigger plans. Why write about the Constitution, when as a tyrant, he could rewrite the Constitution?

Tyranny is so much easier; tyrants control everything and don't have to take "no" for an answer.

It was apparent from the beginning that he was uncomfortable with governing. Trying to convince others that his ideas were the best was difficult, especially since he really didn't have any new ideas. It was more satisfying for him to rule by making rules.

Now, the President has chosen to bypass the Senate, using his power of recess appointment to name Richard Cordray as the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, despite not having the benefit of an actual recess. The CFPB is a regulatory agency created by the Dodd Frank Financial Reform legislation. It is accountable to no one, with the ability to set its own budget using funds from the Federal Reserve, without congressional approval. It alone, decides what and who to regulate, with no oversight from the Legislative and Executive branches. Its director cannot be fired and his decisions cannot be overruled.

Recess appointments, however, can only be made during a recess, and the Senate decides, with the approved of the House of Representatives, when it is in recess. Barack Obama does not have the constitutional authority to dictate its time for recess, perhaps for Sasha and Malia, but not for the U. S. Senate.

The Executive controls only the Executive branch, not the Legislative branch. Refusing to recess is the prerogative of the Senate and a tool used very effectively by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democrats, with the full support of Senator Obama, to prevent George W. Bush from making recess appointments in 2007 and 2008.

In essence, Barack Obama has unconstitutionally made Mr. Cordray a king of what is probably an unconstitutional agency, with the power to regulate all aspects of the American economy.

The President also illegally diverted TARP funds, without the consent of Congress, toward bailing out political supporters -- the UAW and the auto industry -- while simultaneously reversing the order of creditors and ignoring a hundred years of bankruptcy law.

He dedicated much of his trillion dollar stimulus to crony-capitalist ventures like Solyndra and Light Squared, and transfer payments to the states to ensure that no backer of Barack would have to suffer through the economic downturn.

He decided that there would be no more drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, on land or off our shores, ignoring court orders and making a mockery of the permit process, while costing the nations hundreds of thousands of potential jobs.

Hope and change has left 25 million Americans unemployed, but our President doesn't care about jobs in the fossil fuel industry. He would rather trumpet the decline in the unemployment rate, which happens as discouraged people stop looking for work. As a result, labor force participation has plummeted to 64%, the lowest in decades.

Cap and Trade legislation, his carbon trading scheme, died in the Senate. Yet, Mr. Obama has decided that green energy is our future, tasking his EPA and various other agencies to wage war on America's fossil fuel industry through regulation. After all, we don't need coal, natural gas and nuclear energy for electricity, or to heat our homes. The bright, hot intensity of his brilliance will light our way and keep us warm.

We don't need gasoline to power our cars, we have high-speed rail and electric vehicles that cost $40,000, and have a range of 40 miles.

So-called "Dirty" Coal produces 50% of the electricity needed to charge electric cars. A hybrid costs an extra $10,000 to save $3,000 in gasoline, while saddling humanity with hundreds of years of heavy metal, battery disposal issues.

It's for our own good. After all, he does know best. Didn't he go to Harvard? Wouldn't it be so much easier to be president of China, if only for a day, or emperor, or anyone who makes all the decisions and decides all the important stuff? Who are we to disagree or question his judgment? Who are we to expect him to obey rules, when others clearly won't do what he tells them to do?

Most Americans are just happy to kiss their children goodnight, and make enough money working to pay their mortgage, and perhaps not die too soon after they retire. Few aspire to be king and fewer still, would ever become tyrants. But we are not Barack Obama.

When you are the food stamp President, the anti-business President and the anti-jobs President, as well as the anti-energy President, what do you have left but tyranny?

The Fast and Furious scandal is the perfect metaphor for our tyrant. This administration, in order to bolster arguments for additional gun control, deliberately and illegally, promoted the arming of Mexican cartels, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans. While the "my people," Attorney General Eric Holder has turned the Justice Department into a gun running enterprise, the administration acts as if it is no big deal, and that the uproar is somehow racially motivated.

The lawlessness of Barack Obama and his minions is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of human beings and they don't care, because they're only Mexicans. Yet, those outraged by this are the ones labeled as racist. It's staggering the mental gyrations a tyrant will go through to justify his tyranny.

And, make no mistake, Barack Obama has crossed the dictatorial Rubicon to become a full fledged tyrant, and tyranny never ends well.

Today, we stand on the cusp of history. Will we be governed or ruled? Our parents and grandparents had World War 2; we have our battle against the tyranny of Barack Obama. So far, he's winning.

Yet he is winning the way Charlie Sheen was winning. While Mr. Sheen was the only one hurt by his actions, Barack Obama's addiction to power hurts not only the nation and its future as a constitutional republic, but each and every one of us.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/the_transformational_tyrant.html

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 17, 2012 04:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
'The Obamas' Confirms Worst Fears About the President
Tuesday, 17 Jan 2012 11:28 AM
Ronald Kessler

It’s one thing to view President Barack Obama’s failings from the outside. It’s another to learn from the inside that his thinking really is that of the community organizer he once was and that he attributes criticism of his policies to the fact that he is African-American.

In that fashion, “The Obamas” by Jodi Kantor confirms our worst fears about the president.

A New York Times reporter, Kantor is not out to get Obama. But by telling an honest story based on interviews with his close associates, Kantor manages to paint a devastating portrait of the current occupant of the White House and show how radically different his attitudes are from that of every other American president.

Unlike Ron Suskind’s “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President” reviewed in my story "Don’t Trust Suskind’s New Obama Book," Kantor’s book is believable and compelling.

In “The Obamas,” we learn that the first couple had misgivings about coming to Washington and having the honor of occupying the White House.

From the beginning, the bedrock of the Obamas’ relationship was their “shared passion for social change,” Kantor writes. The question was whether being president could achieve that ambition.

“The Obamas had spent their marriage debating how much change was possible within the political system and whether public life could be made livable,” Kantor writes. “The first lady was the worrier, with little trust that government could create lasting change and fear that political life was inherently corrosive.”

Kantor quotes Michelle as saying, “I didn’t come to politics with a lot of faith in the process. I didn’t believe that politics was structured in a way that could solve real problems for people.”

In the end, “Michelle wasn’t exactly overjoyed to move to the White House, an aide said, but she was determined,” Kantor writes. Obama did not disagree, she writes.

Kantor recalls that Michelle Obama said when her husband began running, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” Both Obamas believed that the gap between those who are successful and those who are poor “lay less in talent or hard work than in opportunity, power, access, and wealth.”

In other words, they rejected the very foundation of the American dream — that anyone can make it in America if they have the drive, ambition, and brains.

Equally shocking, Obama views his wife as representing the average American.

“Michelle’s role was to pull him back into the world of everyday concerns, telling him what she believed regular people truly thought,” Kantor says. She quotes Obama as saying, “In some ways Michelle is similar to the audience we want to be speaking to.”

Michelle, he said, “gives me a good read on what’s penetrating her consciousness in terms of the news because she’s not following it all the time.”

In undertaking such initiatives as his healthcare legislation, Obama appears intent on pleasing her. Obama’s aides warned him that the legislation was too radical.

As chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel mounted what another aide called a “nonstop campaign” to convince the president to scale back his efforts on healthcare. Obama’s aide David Axelrod showed him poll after poll indicating that the effort was costing him precious public support.

But Obama listened to Michelle. Tellingly, when the president talked to aides about his eagerness to pass the legislation despite the political costs, he cited his wife.

Behind the scenes, Obama displays the arrogance of a teenager.

“Obama had always had a high estimation of his ability to cast and run his operation,” Kantor says. “When David Plouffe, his campaign manager, first interviewed for a job with him in 2006, the senator gave him a warning. ‘I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it,’ he said.

Obama said to Patrick Gaspard, whom he hired to be the campaign’s political director, “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters.” He added, “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

As Obama began to slip in the polls, he looked to Michelle even more than before for approval.

“With the president’s isolation increasing, with his own solitary nature exacerbated by the loneliness of the presidency, Michelle’s feel for the emotional element of an argument, for what most Americans cared about, was more essential than ever,” Kantor says.

Yet the fact is “she had only a little more contact with everyday people than her husband,” Kantor says. “The fact that he was still relying on her as a barometer of public opinion was evidence of just how removed he was from it.”

Neither Obama “fully grasped the dramatic change in the public mood that had taken place in the months since he was elected, or the collective sudden panic about government spending,” Kantor says.

Cut off from the texture and nuance of American daily life, the Obamas viewed the opposition to the president’s agenda as a series of tendentious and ill-motivated allegations, a continuation of the nastiest rhetoric from the 2008 campaign, Kantor observes in her book, which is based in part on interviews with 33 current or former White House aides or Cabinet officers.

“Because of prejudice, some Americans were never going to accept anything he did as president, Obama told aides,” according to Kantor. “As a consequence,” the book says, “it is not clear that the Obamas heard what was most valuable and true in the public resistance to the healthcare plan and its overall cost.”

Indeed, Kantor says Obama is an elitist.

“He often showed a sweeping disdain for entire categories of the powerful — members of Congress, bankers — and a natural attraction to underdogs, to anyone he saw as vulnerable, ignored, or left behind,” Kantor says. He even has no use for the fawning press, which occasionally ventures criticism of him.

“In private, advisers were struck by Obama’s sadness and anger,” Kantor says.

“In his mind’s eye, they said, he could still see the faces of his supporters in 2008, the crowds gathered in parks and on riverbanks, sometimes a hundred thousand people strong. He didn’t understand how his own version of the presidency had come to depart so completely from the one the public believed, and he hated that the public thought he was weak, unsuccessful.”

As for running again, it’s not to restore the country to strength and prosperity. Rather, “Obama’s rationale for another term still sounded mainly defensive: He had to run to save the country from Republicans, or he wanted four more years to validate the work he had already done as president,” Kantor says.

Still, Obama looked forward to leaving the presidency. Then, writes Kantor, he would “finally be unencumbered by politics and free to create real, lasting change.”

So far, the press has focused on the book’s depiction of friction between Michelle Obama and the White House staff. Many in the media see the book as otherwise favorable to the Obamas because they view the world through the same liberal lens.

While admitting she had not read the book, Michelle told CBS’s Gayle King that it portrays her as an “angry black woman,” a notion she rejects. Her comment is telling. The book does not paint her in racial tones. She could just as easily have been described as an angry liberal white woman who sounds much like the Occupy Wall Street protesters. But Michelle Obama carries a chip on her shoulder.

Reading “The Obamas” is like finding out from your doctor that, after suspecting it based on symptoms, you really do have cancer. The only question is how Americans could have been fooled into electing Barack Obama president.

http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/The-Obamas-Kantor-book/2012/01/17/id/424414

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 19, 2012 09:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yep, now we know who was right about O'Bomber... back when he was candidate O'Bomber.

January 19, 2012
Now We Know Who Was Right about Obama
By Karin McQuillan

Now we know. After three years in office and the launching of his second election campaign, we have experienced President Obama's leadership. We can see whom we elected president -- the mystery man of 2008 revealed.

Democrats were in ecstasy over the great healer, the multiracial candidate who would bring together red states and blue states, black and white, coasts and flyover country. Republicans saw the man with the most leftist, least bipartisan voting record in Congress being installed in the White House. We now know who was right.

Democrat professionals Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen this July pleaded with Obama in a Wall Street Journal column, "Our Divisive President," not to run for a second term. They describe his leadership as toxically divisive to our country. According to Gallup, Obama's approval gap after one year was the most polarized in history, with an average approval of 88% among his own party and 23% among Republicans.

Obama's disdain and hostility to opponents has been quite visible. He dissed the Supreme Court to their faces, dismissed Congressman Ryan's efforts to work together on the deficit with a "you lost, we won" crack, and told Republicans to shut up and go to the back of the bus. He rammed through the biggest changes to health care in history by chicanery, to avoid having to make compromises with Republicans through the normal conference process. He ignored the recommendations of his own bipartisan commission on controlling debt and deficit. His favorite activity (next to golf) is class warfare. Obama is indeed the great divider, and the country shows it.

What else do we know? To the surprise of many, we now know that Obama does not pay attention to the black community -- he doesn't visit them, talk to them, encourage them, propose policies to benefit them. He hasn't helped this suffering community, and when he does go to speechify, this is what he says:

Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes. Stop complainin'. Stop grumblin'. Stop cryin'. We are going to press on. We have work to do.

What work is Obama referring to -- jobs for the black community? No, the work is the re-election work he feels blacks owe him!

Look at black teenagers' 40% unemployment rate. Our president's "stimulus" package was not targeted to create private-sector jobs for them or anyone else. Eighty percent of the almost trillion dollars went to teachers' unions, Obama's re-election army, the very teachers who are failing those black teenagers so spectacularly.

In the words of Congressional Black Caucus leader Maxine Waters, "We're supportive of the president, but we're getting tired. We're getting tired. The unemployment is unconscionable. We don't know what the strategy is. We don't know why on this trip that he's in the United States now, he's not in any black community." Actions speak louder than words. The black community is right to feel abandoned.

What else do we know about our president? We now know that the elites were half-right: Obama is an intellectual. He surrounds himself with Ivy League economic advisors and follows their formulaic prescriptions. He believes them despite the evidence of his own eyes. He was told that there exists a "multiplier effect" by which $1 in government spending on anything -- government salaries, a bankrupt solar power company, aid to the states for Medicare or food stamps -- automatically creates $2 worth of jobs. Instead of creating jobs, the Democrat stimulus policy set our recession in stone, made unemployment skyrocket, and has pushed federal government spending to a crippling quarter of our GDP. Obama the intellectual is still a believer, still wants to spend more. He believes in the Ivy League elite's brilliance, not common sense.

On intelligence, sadly, the Democrats were completely wrong. Democrats swooned over Obama's suave self-presentation. They constantly cited his position as editor at the Harvard Law Review as an impressive qualification to be president of the United States. (Strange, but true.) Republicans who did their homework knew that Obama was not the first black, but only the first affirmative action Harvard Law Review editor. He did make history at the Law Review: he was the only editor never to write an article for the Review. Indeed, Obama has never written a law article on anything. Despite being given a job as lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, he is unpublished.

Journalists proclaimed him the most intelligent man to ever hold the White House. What does this great brain do with his free time? According to the New York Times, his favorite activities are playing Taboo, Wii video games, and basketball. It seems that the Republicans were right who wondered about a mediocre high school student who smoked dope and drifted through his early college years at Occidental and was an "unspectacular" student at Columbia. As Donald Trump asked, "I heard he was a terrible student, terrible. How does a bad student go to Columbia and then to Harvard?" Percy Sutton, former borough president of Manhattan, in a TV interview, gives one possible answer: Islamic supremacist Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, an advisor to a wealthy Saudi, paid for Barack Obama to go to Harvard Law School.

We now see the lazy student, the charmer in the White House, busy at what he likes best: golf, basketball, vacations, parties, speeches, and raising money. He has not been the policy wonk Democrats dreamed of, President Clinton redux. Obama doesn't do hard work. He farmed out his health reform to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, showing no interest or capability in formulating the details of the policy or even working the politics to get it through Congress. He famously didn't lift the phone to call Capitol Hill and get his signature policy passed. Obama's only contribution was nonstop speeches, which failed to win over the country. He doesn't seem interested in or capable of formulating an intelligent economic policy or foreign policy. He doesn't care enough to even try.

Progressives saw Obama as worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, before even taking office. Republicans warned that Obama was a psychologically troubled man who deified his anti-colonial father, resented American power abroad, and had a troubling history of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel relationships (think Reverend Wright and Rashid Khalidi), never outgrowing an adolescent idolization of Castro and Che Guevara.

Tragically, once again, the Republicans were right. We now can see that Obama doesn't understand what it takes to support stability in the Middle East. He and Hillary Clinton have overturned the hard work of decades that created a neutral Egypt, key to the forty-year hiatus since the last Arab war against Israel. He's furthered Iran's nuclear ambitions, thrown all the gains made in stabilizing Iraq down the drain, and even managed to turn Libya over to the jihadis, losing track of Gaddafi's weapons caches on the way. Obama cares about happy headlines about the Facebook Revolution and the "Arab Spring," not about the hard work of supporting our allies and defeating our enemies. He and the State Department do not care about the spread of the Nazi Muslim Brotherhood, Hitler's living legacy.

To everyone's surprise, Obama doesn't care about some very important hot-button liberal issues, such as closing Guantánamo or protecting the rights of terrorists. Unlike the typical liberal, he's happy to use drones to kill individuals, even American citizens, without trial. It's more important to our president to avoid Guantánamo interrogations because the headlines would cause him electoral headaches. (He doesn't care about national security all that much, or he'd make sure we got those interrogations.) He's "still working" on his position on gay marriage.

We now know that Obama doesn't care about seniors. He took $500 billion out of Medicare to redistribute via ObamaCare to the uninsured. His payroll tax holiday is gutting our Social Security fund; he used that "solution" rather than working on bipartisan reforms to keep the next generation of seniors safe. Obama cares a great deal about scaring seniors to get them to vote Democrat. He does not care about fixing the safety net's serious problems.

Our law professor president doesn't care about rule of law. He and his attorney general and his Cabinet prefer government by fiat and by exemption -- the government of favoritism, not equality before the law. This is very important issue not written about enough. George Marlin's comments on the ballot box apply equally well to laws already passed:

If you look at the extreme left elites, they really don't have much use for democracy anymore because they're afraid people will not vote their way. So they bite away at the democratic process by imposing upon us a managerial state where agencies and bureaucracies basically rule things by going around the ballot box.

The most dangerous thing the Obama administration is doing is filling up government agencies all over the United States with like-minded people who will be running the administrative state. What Obama cannot get done through the Congress, through a democratically elected Congress, he's trying to do administratively.

We now know that our charming president has a narcissism problem. Like all narcissists, he likes people's adulation, but actual people, not so much. His most avid supporters complain that he is a cold fish. He is an empty suit, the famous narcissistic false self, in the words of one Democrat, a "Where's Waldo" president, or in the words of another, "Members of Obama's own party ... wonder who he really is." He takes criticism badly, has little empathy for others, and suffers from envy. In fact, envy is his one great leadership ambition. He wants the whole country to operate on envy instead of hard work.

A pathological narcissist, Obama has no capacity to learn, because he cannot admit mistakes. This grandiouse self-evaluation, from a December 2011 60 Minutes interview, is typical of the man:

I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president -- with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln -- just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history.

Which brings us to the persistent question of who Obama really is. He is not a traditional liberal, not a great help to the black community, not interested in protecting seniors or safeguarding our safety net. He doesn't care about jobs, or he'd change from a failing policy. He doesn't care about working-class Americans, or he wouldn't kill oil and gas development, a one-two gut-punch which jacks up gas prices -- meaning the price of everything -- and kills jobs. He doesn't care about rule of law or clean government, but he does care about all the power he can grab.

The only constituencies he has worked for are government unions and the greens, his radical base. The two policies he focused on were ObamaCare and cap and trade -- two policies that promise to destroy American prosperity and power, permanently. He does not act like a normal liberal politician, such as Clinton, who backed off from the unpopularity of attacking our health care system. A normal politician would have made economic recovery a priority. Obama did not.

Conservative Republicans believe that Obama stands not for a failed presidency as much as for a malevolent one. He is unknown even to his own party, because he is hiding his true goals and values. He does not act like a typical liberal, because he is actually a radical. He's not interested in crafting good laws and policies or working with the opposition, because his goal is destruction. He is following the exact prescription of "the late American socialist Michael Harrington's 'socialist realignment strategy' -- deliberately dividing Americans by class 'with Republicans marked out as the aggressors,' forcing the 'have-nots' to act as a unified, pro-socialist - and electorally dominant - force."

Stanley Kurtz describes how Obama found his vocation as a community organizer at the 1983 Socialists Conference.

The socialist conferences Obama attended were filled with talk of community organizing as the key to socialist strategy. Every socialist faction at those conferences was entranced with the idea that African-American political leaders could emerge out of socialist-run community organizations and move the country to the left.

In 2008, Americans didn't know what a community organizer was, and most still don't -- they think of it as something like a social worker, an aura of compassion for the poor. They don't know that community organizing is the modern spearhead and training ground for the present-day American radicals' dream of destroying capitalism.

Obama has been implementing the teachings of America's leading socialists. One of their proposed strategies was to use ACORN pressure tactics on the banks, by false accusations of racism in their lending practices, to force a mortgage/finacial crisis that would ultimately bring down capitalism.

Peter Dreier, one of the speakers Obama heard at the Socialist conference, worked for Obama in 2008 as a campaign advisor. Dreir proposed to bring down American capitalism from below by swamping governments with entitlement programs. Dreier claimed that "the process leads to expansion of state activity and budgets, and ... to fiscal crisis in the public sector. In the longer run, it may give socialist norms an opportunity for expansion[.]"

In the words of the Wall Street Journal's New Year's Eve editorial in 2011:

For today's left, the main goal of politics is not to respond to public opinion. The goal is to impose the dream of an egalitarian entitlement state whether the public likes it or not[.]

The dream of an egalitarian state -- we now know that we did elect a socialist for president.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/now_we_know_who_was_right_about_obama.html

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted January 19, 2012 11:09 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
masterful piece of SMEAR. throw in a little racism, pepper it with intellectual insult, blame the man who took ON the recession for creating it, and please, MORE racism just to make sure no one is unaffected by it. and for the sauce, slathers of communist paranoia to cover all the half-truths and assumptions and make them easier to swallow...

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted January 19, 2012 11:10 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
justfortherecord, jwhop, the same could be done to you, me or anyone who is seen from a distance by the public.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 19, 2012 12:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Printing or speaking the truth is not a SMEAR tactic katatonic.

The only things O'Bomber has taken on are US taxpayers, American jobs, American energy and American business.

Most Americans want O'Bomber to stop attacking them, stop attacking our jobs, stop attacking our economic system and stop attacking our energy resources which are vital to a healthy vibrant economy.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 29, 2012 11:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
He's a sick, sick, sick man; yes he is, yes he is, yes he IS.

So, I recall when O'Bomber was hectoring and lecturing CEOs for flying around in their corporate jets for business meetings and booking conventions in Vegas for their employees.

This is what O'Bomber said then....

FLASHBACK: Obama: 'You can't go take a trip to Vegas on taxpayer's dime'...

Of course, they weren't taking trips to Vegas on taxpayer's money. The were spending corporation money. Oh wait, in O'Bomber's warped little Marxist mind, all the money belongs collectively to the people and government just distributes THE MONEY to those worthy to receive government handouts...like his billionaire campaign contributors who ran Solyndra and all the other boondoggles to whom O'Bomber handed out Billions of taxpayer money. Money straight down the toilet or into their overstuffed bank accounts.

So, now we find out O'Bomber...in spite of his hectoring and lecturing CEOs about flying into Vegas on the taxpayer's dime...when they were not....sent his wife and daughters to Vegas ON THE REAL TAXPAYER'S DIME.

Wow, as Sarah Palin says:

November 6th can't come too soon!

Mar 29, 2012
The Obama Women Are in Vegas

It’s spring break for the Obama daughters and mom has taken them West for the week. Michelle Obama and her daughters visited Mount Rushmore Wednesday to see the monument where four U.S. presidents are immortalized in stone on the soaring mountainside.

the Obamas have arrived in Las Vegas for a private family visit.

At the depths of the recession, President Obama seemed to disparage Las Vegas visits, at one point warning hard-pressed Americans, “You don’t blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.”

There is lingering dismay in the Las Vegas travel and tourism industry but, during the political campaign, Obama has been a frequent visitor on official and political trips to the swing state of Nevada.....
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/the-obama-women-are-in-vegas/

No, wait! I'm just positive Michelle O'Bomber flew to Vegas coach class on a commercial flight...without all the black SUVs filled with Secret Service personnel.

O'Bomber couldn't possibly be so big a hypocrite that he would hector and lecture corporate CEOs about flying corporate jets to Vegas on their OWN CORPORATE FUNDS and then have his own wife and daughters...with full protective details...flown to Vegas in a jet or jets owned by the US government..with full fuel costs charged to US taxpayers.

Naw, that would never happen! Right! Check!

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted March 30, 2012 11:50 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
more blubbering? back when michelle obama went to spain and spent, largely, her own money, which she has plenty of, on a vacation, we had the same old saw...have you read the books? please state how you conclude that the taxpayer is paying for this trip? since obviously you do not know how she got there or who is paying?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 30, 2012 03:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Spent her own money?

Pleeeeease don't do any more damage to your credibility than you already have.

Anyone who believes O'Bomber paid for those government jets, jet fuel, government secret service personnel, government cars, government employees on Michelle O'Bomber's staff or anything else; needs an immediate infusion of some brain cells.

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted March 30, 2012 03:23 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
i'm not interested in your wild leaps of "logic" jwhop. assumption and more assumption. and yes, that is called a smear. just as surely as spike lee is jumping to conclusions and taking lynch-mentality action in the george zimmerman case without examining the facts. anyone can say the man is guilty or innocent but none of us knows yet.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 31, 2012 09:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Don't delude yourself or try to blow smoke up everyone's ass katatonic.

Michelle O'Bomber's trip was on the taxpayer's dime.

And this, after her little Marxist jerk husband was hectoring and lecturing CEOs about flying THEIR OWN CORPORATE JETS, USING JET FUEL PAID FOR WITH CORPORATE FUNDS AND BOOKING CONVENTION TIME IN VEGAS PAID FOR WITH CORPORATE FUNDS...not taxpayer funds as the lying little Marxist twit hypocrite O'Bomber alleged.

It was Michelle O'Bomber who was enjoying all the perks of flying on government aircraft, with government protection details, armored limos and her staff...and all that WAS ON THE TAXPAYER DIME. And, to make it worse, SHE FLEW TO LAS VEGAS.

The more we find out about this little jerk the more clear it becomes he's a liar, he's a hypocrite, he's a phony, he's a dummy..not the most intelligent president ever and he's totally unfit to ever teach law anywhere in the United States. He signed O'BomberCare which is going to be found unconstitutional in whole or part because O'BomberCare is unconstitutional. He's exactly what I said he was from the very beginning. There's no there....there!

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 31, 2012 09:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A very bad week for O'Bomber!

HURT: Brutal week for Obama, the worst of his presidency
By Charles Hurt
Thursday, March 29, 2012

The past seven brutal days will go down as one of the worst weeks in history for a sitting president. It certainly has been, without any doubt, the worst week yet for President Obama.

Somehow, Mr. Obama managed to embarrass himself abroad, humiliate himself here at home, see his credentials for being elected so severely undermined that it raises startling questions about whether he should have been elected in the first place —let alone be re-elected later this year.

Consider:

• Last Friday, Mr. Obama wandered into the killing of Trayvon Martin. Aided by his ignorance of the situation, knee-jerk prejudices and tendency toward racial profiling, Mr. Obama played a heavy hand in elevating a tragic situation in which a teenager was killed into a full-blown hot race fight.

Americans, he admonished, need to do some “soul-searching.” And then, utterly inexplicably, he veered off into this bizarre tangent about how he and the poor dead kid look so much alike they could be father and son. It was election-year race-pandering gone horribly wrong.

• By the start of this week, Mr. Obama had fled town and was racing to the other side of the planet just as the Supreme Court was taking up the potentially-embarrassing matter of Obamacare. While in South Korea he was caught on a hidden mic negotiating with the president of our longest-standing rival on how to sell America and her allies down the river once he gets past the next election.

• Meanwhile, back at home, the Supreme Court took up the single most important achievement of Mr. Obama’s presidency and, boy, was it embarrassing. The great constitutional law professor, it turns out, may not quite be the wizard he told us he was.

By most accounts, Mr. Obama and his stuttering lawyers were all but laughed out of the courthouse. They were even stumbling over softball questions lobbed by Mr. Obama’s own hand-picked justices.

• Mr. Obama closed his week pulling off a nearly unimaginable feat: He managed to totally and completely unify the nastily-fighting Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Late Wednesday night, they unanimously voted — 414 to zip — to reject the budget Mr. Obama had presented, leaving him not even a thin lily’s blade to hide behind.

So, in one week, Mr. Obama got caught whispering promises to our enemy, incited a race war, raised serious questions about his understanding of the Constitution, and then got smacked down over his proposed budget that was so wildly reckless that even Democrats in Congress could not support it.

It was as if you lumped Hurricane Katrina and the Abu Ghraib abuses into one week for George W. Bush. And added on top of that the time he oddly groped German Chancellor Angela Merkel and got caught cursing on a hot mic.

Even then, it wouldn’t be as bad as Mr. Obama’s week. You would probably also have to toss in the time Mr. Bush’s father threw up into the lap of Japan’s prime minister. Only then might we be approaching how bad a week it was for Mr. Obama.

Not that you will see any trace of embarrassment in the face of Mr. Obama. He has mastered the high political art of shamelessness, wearing it smugly and cockily. Kind of like a hoodie.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/hurt-was-week-was-obama-style/ #contentShared-tab

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 89202
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 31, 2012 11:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Wow! I wasn't aware of some of that. I know Obama tried to cause divisiveness in the country by saying that the police use racial profiling most of the time by stopping African Americans much more than other races.

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted March 31, 2012 02:56 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
i see you take rush's and newt's view of what obama said. did you hear his words? because you have seriously misinterpreted what he said. the kid does look like he could be his son for a start. the flack was already creating a storm. it SHOULD be investigated.

soul searching IS in order, when a nationwide reaction like this comes into play because the victim was black and unarmed and the shooter was armed and not black. why is their colour such an issue? because racism is, that's why.

and whether he looks like obama or not, any compassionate person could identify with the parents. the fact that he is black is only an issue in the minds of closet racists when it comes to obama saying he could be his son...

and many people are appalled that a man who chased this kid can claim self defense, even with the "stand your ground" law, since it sounds like martin was the one who had cause to stand his ground. he was running away!


did you know that this dead child, who was carrying ID, was labelled as a john doe and his parents weren't notified until three days later? despite an address on his ID?

as i said, this whole thing is being blown up BY BOTH SIDES to the point where an impartial jury will be impossible to find. sad, because

it is possible the shooter WAS defending himself. however if it is not investigated there will be more ugliness coming.

and again i ask, where is your evidence that michelle obama is flying on the taxpayer's dime? the fact that someone said so? and how many other presidents have done the same??

i know kennedy gave his presidential salary to charity, but i haven't heard of any major economies for the taxpayers by any president, have you? i'd love to hear about how george w paid for all HIS holidays, at camp david and elsewhere...he who had more vacations than any president in history from what i recall...off the cuff.

as to the budget, that is CONGRESS's job, not the president's!

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted March 31, 2012 03:06 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
no one whispered promises to the enemy. he STALLED the russian by pointing out a political fact...if he does anything now and does NOT get re-elected it will be reversed by the next president, won't it?

and if he does get re-elected he has PROMISED NOTHING but to revisit the subject. he is a politician, isn't that what the president is supposed to be? what the founding fathers were?

did you notice that THEY passed an act to make importing of slaves illegal...and set the date for decades later? i wonder why?

it's called political expediency. and it is used all the time.

how you get "whispering promises to the enemy" from what he said is anyone's guess!

and the last line of your post is a beautiful example of how the writer sees obama FIRST as a black man - above all, a black man, missing only the supposed signature apparel...

which piece of apparel, by the way, is the basis of the very UNblack Juicy Couture's success across all national and race boundaries, by the way. i hope they sue rivera for slander!

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 21, 2012 08:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
He's a Sick, Sick, Sick Man; Yes his is, Yes he is, Yes he is!

And women...those whom O'Bomber prattles on most about helping are bearing the brunt of his idiotic Marxist economic policies..in the workforce and in salary disparity.

Even dedicated liberals are catching on to our empty suit infesting the Oval Office of the White House.

Obama: Stop Condescending to Women
CAMPBELL BROWN

WHEN I listen to President Obama speak to and about women, he sometimes sounds too paternalistic for my taste. In numerous appearances over the years — most recently at the Barnard graduation — he has made reference to how women are smarter than men. It’s all so tired, the kind of fake praise showered upon those one views as easy to impress. As I listen, I am always bracing for the old go-to cliché: “Behind every great man is a great woman.”

Some women are smarter than men and some aren’t. But to suggest to women that they deserve dominance instead of equality is at best a cheap applause line.

My bigger concern is that in courting women, Mr. Obama’s campaign so far has seemed maddeningly off point. His message to the Barnard graduates was that they should fight for a “seat at the table” — the head seat, he made sure to add. He conceded that it’s a tough economy, but he told the grads, “I am convinced you are tougher” and “things will get better — they always do.”

Hardly reassuring words when you look at the reality. According to the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, about 53.6 percent of men and women under the age of 25 who hold bachelor’s degrees were jobless or underemployed last year, the most in at least 11 years. According to the Pew Research Center, if we broaden the age group to 18- to 29-year-olds, an estimated 37 percent are unemployed or out of the work force, the highest share in more than three decades.

The human faces shouldn’t get lost amid the statistics. I spent last weekend with a friend who attended excellent private schools and graduated from Tufts University two years ago. She’s intelligent, impressive and still looking for a full-time job.

The women I know who are struggling in this economy couldn’t be further from the fictional character of Julia, presented in Mr. Obama’s Web ad, “The Life of Julia,” a silly and embarrassing caricature based on the assumption that women look to government at every meaningful phase of their lives for help.

My cousin in Louisiana started a small company with a little savings, renovating houses. A single mom, she saved enough to buy a home and provide child care for her son. When the economy went belly up, so did her company. She was forced to sell her home and move in with her parents. She has found another job, but doesn’t make enough to move out. Family, not government, has been everything to her at this time of crisis. She, and they, wouldn’t have it any other way.

Another member of my family left her job at an adoption agency just before the economy crashed. Also a single mother, she has been looking for a way back to a full-time job ever since. She has been selling things on eBay to make ends meet. Friends and family, not government, have been there at the dire moments when she has asked them to be. Again, she, and they, wouldn’t have it any other way.

This is not to say that government doesn’t play a role in their lives. It does and it should. But it isn’t a dominant one, and certainly not an overwhelming factor in their daily existence.

It’s obvious why the president is doing a full-court press for the vote of college-educated women in particular. The Republican primaries probably did turn some women away. Rick Santorum did his party no favors when he spoke about women in combat (“I think that can be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission, because of other types of emotions that are involved”); when he described the birth of a child from rape as “a gift in a very broken way”; and how, if he was president, he would make the case for the damage caused by contraception.

But Mitt Romney will never be confused with Rick Santorum on these issues, and many women understand that. (I should disclose here that my husband is an adviser to Mr. Romney; I have no involvement with any campaign, and have been an independent journalist throughout my career.) The struggling women in my life all laughed when I asked them if contraception or abortion rights would be a major factor in their decision about this election. For them, and for most other women, the economy overwhelms everything else.

Another recent Pew Research Center survey found that voters, when thinking about whom to vote for in the fall, are most concerned about the economy (86 percent) and jobs (84 percent). Near the bottom of the list were some of the hot-button social issues.

Tiffany Dufu, who heads the White House Project, a nonpartisan group aimed at training young women for careers in politics and business, got a similar response when she informally polled young women in her organization. “The issues that have been defined as all women care about are way off — young women feel it has put them further in a box they don’t necessarily want to be in,” she told me. “Independence is what is so important to these women.”

I have always admired President Obama and I agree with him on some issues, like abortion rights. But the promise of his campaign four years ago has given way to something else — a failure to connect with tens of millions of Americans, many of them women, who feel economic opportunity is gone and are losing hope. In an effort to win them back, Mr. Obama is trying too hard. He’s employing a tone that can come across as grating and even condescending. He really ought to drop it. Most women don’t want to be patted on the head or treated as wards of the state. They simply want to be given a chance to succeed based on their talent and skills. To borrow a phrase from our president’s favorite president, Abraham Lincoln, they want “an open field and a fair chance.”

In the second decade of the 21st century, that isn’t asking too much.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/opinion/sunday/obama-condescending-to-w omen.html?_r=3&smid=tw-share

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted May 21, 2012 01:42 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
last time i mentioned the high unemployment of college grads, jwhop, you shouted me down and insisted that unemployment among grads was - from memory - 4%...a single digit number for sure.

so which is it? whatever works today?

i don't mind that you hate obama so much, but please stop pretending that FACTS are the least bit important to you?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 11030
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 22, 2012 07:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Last time we talked about college grads katatonic we weren't talking about only women college grads and we weren't talking about only "recent" women college grads.

Face it katatonic, O'Bomber is the biggest failure in American presidential history...in every metric in which records are kept. O'Bomber is exactly what I said he would be and I said it long before he was ever elected.

You and the rest of the O'Bomber Kool-Aid drinkers should be ashamed of yourselves for falling for the blither, blather, bloviation and utter bullshiit of this empty suit Marxist Socialist Progressive who is trying to destroy the American economy and the middle class.

IP: Logged


This topic is 20 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright 2000-2017

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a