Topic: Slow Joe, Expert Terrorist Profiler or Hate-Spewing POS?

[Libertas]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html

I wonder if someone can bring this before Judge Timothy S. Black in Cincinnati?

http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,2352.0.html

 

[ToddF]

I vote dumbass

When Biden was asked about what he spoke with Giffords about, he joked, “She’s now a member of the cracked head club like me.”

One monkey among many parroting their pre-packaged "terrorist" line doesn't bother me.  Consider the trash that is the source, and all that.  Plus, it lets me keep the high ground as I slip it onto my Facebook page, to piss off the leftist relatives. 

[trapeze]

Yeah, I have to go with dumbass, too.

After reflecting on the last two years I have to say that O'Bama couldn't have picked a better person to stand in for him in an emergency. I know that the competition is pretty fierce for number one and number two biggest dumbasses in the Senate but somehow we ended up with them running the executive branch.

[Pandora]

Yeah, I have to go with dumbass, too.

After reflecting on the last two years I have to say that O'Bama couldn't have picked a better person to stand in for him in an emergency. I know that the competition is pretty fierce for number one and number two biggest dumbasses in the Senate but somehow we ended up with them running the executive branch.

There is nothing dumb about Duh Wun.  He knows exactly what he's doing.

[IronDioPriest]

...it lets me keep the high ground as I slip it onto my Facebook page, to piss off the leftist relatives.  

I've been having a series of those pleasant exchanges via email with a second cousin. I found out a couple years ago that she works for the MN Dept of Health. Talk about your card-carrying Leftist apologist. Funny thing is, she thinks she's all smart-n-stuff, as she spews her Soros crap and DFL talking points. She started including me on emails because she sent me a Christmas invite a couple years ago, and kept me on the mass-mailing list. The first time I responded, she wasn't up to it, and after a few times, she took me off. But thanks to others who she sends the stuff to, I end up getting it anyway.

I can tell you that at least one rank-and-filer on the Left is extremely frustrated. I take little satisfaction in it though, as I watch my country teeter on disaster caused by her ilk.

ETA: And to me, it doesn't matter much whether Biden is a hate-spewing POS, a craven coward, or a bona-fide retard. That gets to his motivation, which is largely irrelevant. The bottom line is that he is an agent of evil. They all are. Anyone who supports or enables the Left.

[Dan]

Can anybody ever remember a sitting pres or veep who so glibly insulted fellow citizens so often?
These people are nothing short of our enemies.
And they run the gov't!!!

[Pandora]

Can anybody ever remember a sitting pres or veep who so glibly insulted fellow citizens so often?
These people are nothing short of our enemies.
And they run the gov't!!!

They've performed a coup; stolen the place right out from under us.  We're getting closer to Venezuela every day and I used to wonder how they let that happen there.  Now I know, 'cause we're still sitting.

[RickZ]

Can anybody ever remember a sitting pres or veep who so glibly insulted fellow citizens so often?
These people are nothing short of our enemies.
And they run the gov't!!!

They've performed a coup; stolen the place right out from under us.  We're getting closer to Venezuela every day and I used to wonder how they let that happen there.  Now I know, 'cause we're still sitting.

Even thgough some would say Godwin's Law applies, I still think the Obama/Hitler analogy is spot on.  Hitler tried a putsch in 1923, failed and went to jail.  There he laid out his plans in his book, Mein Kampf.  During the chaos of the Weimar Republic, the Nazi Party grew as people supported Hitler, knowing full well what he wrote and where he stood, with him eventually becoming Chancellor.  Obama has also written books, laid out where he stands and what his plans are.  He's been very clear concerning his deisre to the destroy America, to give her a comeuppance.  Yet people still voted for him, elevating him to the Presidency.  Hitler, once in power, used the 'crisis' of the Reichstag fire, a Nazi Party false flag operation, to propose and have enacted the Enabling Law.  That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers.  Obama creates crises about everything.  The Porkulous, the GM takeover, banking 'reform', and the debt crisis (which his party created by not passing a budget from 2009 on, even though they had House and Senate supermajorities).  We see the attempted creation of a false flag crisis with Operation Gunrunner, where Obama was attempting to lay the groundwork for severe restrictions on gun ownership, if not outright confiscations.  Then once the populace would have been defanged, as Hitler did with Germany, Obama could have have totaly run roughshod over the Constitution (worse than he is doing now) by ignoring the 22nd Amendment and would have gotten, except for the rise of the TEA Party, his party thugs in the House and Senate to pass their own Enabling Law, giving Obama dictatorial powers as the crisis would have been severe.  But Germany had no grass roots opposition to Hitler, no TEA Party, and we do.  At the moment, that is the only thing stopping Obama.  We saw its influence in changing the tone of the debt ceiling debate, from just a pro forma increase to demanding spending cuts.  The Dems calling the TEA Party people terrorists, suicide bombers, Wahabbists and the like is coldly calculated to marginalize the only opposition to their grand progressive goals.  The main difference is Obama is lazy while Hitler was not, and on such a trivial thing as work ethic does the fate of this Country ride.

[Pandora]

We saw its influence in changing the tone of the debt ceiling debate, from just a pro forma increase to demanding spending cuts.

Pardon me for raining on your parade, but there are no cuts, regardless of the TEA Party demand.

Furthermore, I'm here to inform you that I heard snatches of Duh Wun's victory speech, followed by Dingy Harry's, just a few minutes ago, and what they talked about was TAX INCREASES.

Obama don't need no work ethic; he's got Pelousy and Dingy Harry for that.

I'm sorry, but right now, for me, there's no light, there's only tunnel.

[John Florida]

 HI my name is John and I'm a terrorist:

[IronDioPriest]

I heard a caller on Rush this afternoon who basically said that while he is disappointed that more opposition was not accomplished, he was nonetheless encouraged by the influence over the debate that was forced by the Tea Party. His point was that we have a divided government, and that it would be unrealistic to expect things to get fixed in one election cycle. He suggested that if the American people do again in 2012 what we did in 2010, there would be no mistaking but that our will is the only political mandate that matters.

He's right, of course - as much as I love to wallow in my disgust for DC. Yes, GOP leadership failed. Yes, politicians caved in to pressure. But with a grip on only one body of congress, the Tea Party agenda was never going to become the law of the land. The best we could hope for was to raise holy hell over government spending as the sole cause of our misery, and we did that. We resisted tax hikes for now. We got a reduction in projected spending increases to match the debt ceiling increase.

As Rush said, a moral victory is a loss, and I agree with him. But it is not a vacant loss without merit. It is something, not nothing. Imagine 2012, taking control of the Senate, bolstering conservative membership in the House, and capturing the Presidency. We could demand at that point that our will be done - that true victory be delivered to us. If we show up and send that message - demand that mandate - defiance from DC would warrant armed insurrection, as it would be in our faces that political recourse was finally exhausted beyond any doubt, for all to see.

[Pandora]

I'm going to have Francis Porretto speak further for me in answer to your post, IDP:

    “I believe, when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties....they lead their country by a short route to chaos.” [Thomas More, in Robert Bolt's screenplay A Man For All Seasons]

Actually, with reference to the case of the United States of America in this year of Our Lord 2011, Saint Thomas understated the problem. It's bad enough when legislators set aside their private consciences in pursuit of some notion of the "greater good." When persons entrusted with the powers of high office deliberately sideline not just their consciences but their intellects and their accumulated knowledge as well, they lead their country directly into Hell.

That's where we're headed.

***

The "compromise" debt-ceiling legislation is a complete betrayal of the public trust:

    There are no spending cuts in it. All the "cuts" touted are merely reductions proposed to the rate of increase of program spending. The current spending baseline has been treated as sacrosanct.
    Even the rate-reductions that have been agreed on are back-loaded. None of them take effect before January 1, 2013.
    The legislative commission that's supposed to find an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions is under no enforceable obligation to do so. More, it is quite permissible for that commission to propose tax increases rather than spending "cuts."
    The "trigger" that's supposed to fire should the commission fail of its task would, according to the bill, take $600 billion from defense spending and $600 billion from all other programs combined. This, at a time when we're militarily engaged in three faraway countries, we're under siege along our southern border, China is building aircraft carriers and landing ships, Iran and North Korea are amassing nuclear weapons, Pakistan is about to go Talibanic, and Europe has eschewed all thought of defending itself.
    Obama, of course, gets to sail to November 2012 without further consideration of the debt ceiling -- and with $2.5 trillion more to spend buying votes for his re-election.

Yet despite all that, Jeff Sessions, one of the "better" United States Senators, has this to say:

    The recently announced debt-limit deal is far from perfect. However, it will reduce spending and does represent a step forward.

The editors of the Washington Times added their approbation:

    Conservatives won a clear but qualified victory by standing strong for principle and pushing President Obama and Senate Democrats to agree to a spending-cuts-only deal in return for Republicans accepting the biggest single increase ever in the debt limit.

We have been betrayed. Insult upon injury: our betrayers and their media acolytes are striving to persuade us that they've saved us.

***

This farce cannot be salvaged with nostrums. It was not "the best we could do." Nor can we salve the wound by noting that "a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy." Nor will anyone avert my ire by intoning that "politics is the art of the possible."

The Republican caucus in the House of Representatives was quite capable of preventing any increase in federal spending and the debt limit. All appropriations bills must originate in the House. There's no Constitutional obligation upon the House to take up a bill passed by the Senate. Therefore, with or without a budget in place, the GOP majority in the House could have prevented this disaster merely by "sitting on its hands" -- i.e., voting down any bill that includes a provision to increase the debt ceiling. As for the budget itself, there's no Constitutional obligation to maintain the funding of any program or government department. Thus, the House alone could have compelled the federal government to live within its means.

It chose not to do so. So much for Republicans' limited-government principles.

Here's what we can expect henceforward:

    A large surge of inflation.
    Rising interest rates for private borrowers.
    Intensified combat over the funding for redistributive programs.
    Intensified budgetary pressure on state governments as tax receipts continue to lag.
    Continuing reluctance by large employers to begin new projects or take on new employees.
    Complex international negotiations over lending to Washington, which might well include shameful concessions over our defense of Taiwan, South Korea, and Israel.
    The smarmiest, most deceitful campaign season in American history, to be characterized by wild claims of "victory" and massive finger-pointing over the failure to hold to principles.

And those are just the obvious consequences.

My most recent novel, Shadow Of A Sword, has been praised, among other things, for its depiction of a truly honest and principled candidate for President: a sincere Constitutionalist. In the story I tell, he's greeted with immense enthusiasm and wholesale approbation. But if such a figure were to present himself to the American electorate this coming year, what sort of reception would he get? After all, he'd be promising to derail the gravy train, cut off the flow of free goodies, compel everyone to get by on his own abilities rather than as a parasite on the energies of the more productive. If elected, he'd overturn just about every rice bowl in Christendom.

Would you vote for him? What about your friends and relatives?

Think about it. Your answer could tell you a lot about the state of this country -- the moral state -- and the future to which we've seemingly committed ourselves.

I've written on several occasions that there's no substitute for character. Plainly, our political class doesn't have it. Whether Americans generally still have it is now the sole determinant of our national destiny.

Torches and pitchforks time is here. 

[IronDioPriest]

...Torches and pitchforks time is here.  

No question about it. I agree with Frank and you - it's a sh*tty deal. But torches and pitchforks is a metaphor meant to suggest that it is time for the people to gather together in likemindedness and force their will upon oppressors.

The Tea Party rallies are torches and pitchforks. That energy has been directed and redirected into concrete political action. We saw the fruit of it as we took our torches and pitchforks to the ballot box in 2010, and forced enough of a mandate to matter, but not enough to prevail. Those torches and pitchforks have been singeing and poking the DC asshats since Obama was elected and the Democrats began their tyranny in '09. It may feel like it's been in vain, and it may well prove to have been in the end. But the end isn't here yet.

I'm all for a show of strength from the American people. I envision a 10,000,000 man march, shutting down Washington DC, and refusing to leave until demands are met. Torches and pitchforks.

In addition to that, I am for showing up again in 2012 with my torch and pitchfork in hand, and doing what I can to finish the work that was begun in 2010.

How about enough Tea Party candidates in the House to oust John Boehner as speaker and replace him with Michele Bachmann? How about enough Tea Party senators to take the majority, and replace McConnell with someone more conservative like Marco Rubio. How about replacing Obama with ANYBODY right-of-center, and then forcing that President to either enact the people's agenda or face our wrath?

It may all be too little too late. But we're the American people, dammit. Not the GOP, not the Democrats, not the media. We. If we do not try, no one will. If we do not succeed, failure is guaranteed.

[RickZ]

While I agree that the economic situation in this country is dire, I must also say Rome wasn't built in a day.  By that I mean that Democrats have controlled Congress from 2007-2011, along with controlling the White House from 2009-2001.  The Dems in charge then, the triumvirate of Obama/Pelosi/Reid are, to be sure, radical leftists (really radical in a flip off the Constitution way, not faux TEA Party radical) who rammed their progressive agenda down America's throat.  That said, one cannot expect miracles with only the House in Republican control, even with the influx of TEA Party backed candidates.  AS IDP states, it will take another election in 2012, with better results than 2010.  This time, the House must be strengthened, the Senate turned into a Republican body and a White House with Obama evicted.  Then things can begin to change the way we know things must change:  More fiscal responsibility and less spending, that is, following Consitutional precepts.

I'm not happy with the deal.  I don't think they should have given Obama an election campaigning free pass.  But like I said, the conversation has changed.  While that is a baby step, and might not be enough, it's the best we can do at the moment.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903520204576482083738819032.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond

Fine! Call My Bluff!
By JAMES TARANTO


Remember a few weeks ago when President Obama reportedly said to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor: "Eric, don't call my bluff"? Lots of commentators said that this was a "tell"--that by referring to "my bluff," Obama was admitting he was bluffing.

Actually, his play was even worse than that. A bluff is a pretense. The bluffer knows he has a weak hand but bets as if he has a strong one in order to induce his opponents to fold. Obama had a weak hand but thought he had a strong one. His next words to Cantor, according to Politico, were a vow to "take his case 'to the American people.' " He actually believed--for all we know, he still believes--all that World's Greatest Orator nonsense.

Obama's hand wasn't even this good.

Thus he ended up maximizing his losses. Last weekend congressional leaders appeared to be on the verge of striking a deal, but Obama scuttled their efforts and commandeered the airwaves for a prime-time address. As we predicted, the American people were unmoved.

Obama had looked at his cards and seen that he was holding a 2, a 3, a 4 and a 5. He was sure he had an ace to complete the straight, but in reality he was looking in the mirror. By the time he realized how weak his hand was, there was no time left to improve it or to bluff. Faced with an imminent liquidity crisis--which would have been a political disaster for him as well as an economic one for the country--he was forced to agree to a deal more or less along Republican lines.

From the standpoint of a small-government conservative, the agreement is far from perfect, but it's probably the best possible outcome as long as a left-wing Democrat is in the White House and his party has a Senate majority. One measure of that is the rage it has provoked on the liberal left.

A New York Times editorial calls the deal "a nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists. . . . This episode demonstrates the effectiveness of extortion. Reasonable people are forced to give in to those willing to endanger the national interest." Haha, remember "civility"?

Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman is even huffier: "By demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, [the deal] will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status. . . . What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question."

Roars Robert Kuttner of The American Prospect: "The United States has been rendered ungovernable except on the extortionate terms of the far-right. For the first time in modern history, one of the two major parties is in the hands of a faction so extreme that it is willing to destroy the economy if it doesn't get its way. And the Tea Party Republicans have a perfect foil in President Barack Obama."

And, as Roll Call reports, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, the Kansas City, Mo., Democrat, "said early reports of the new deal appeared to be 'a sugar-coated Satan sandwich.' " Hey, it's better than peas!

It was left to the cynically detached Maureen Dowd, of all people, to say something with a grain of truth:

Consider what the towel-snapping Tea Party crazies have already accomplished. They've changed the entire discussion. They've neutralized the White House. They've whipped their leadership into submission. They've taken taxes and revenues off the table. They've withered the stock and bond markets. They've made journalists speak to them as though they're John Calhoun and Alexander Hamilton.

Obama and [Speaker] John Boehner have been completely outplayed by the "hobbits," as The Wall Street Journal and John McCain called them.

What if this is all a cruel joke on us? What if the people who hate government are good at it and the people who love government are bad at it?[/b]

Dowd is right about the Tea Party's achievement. She is wrong (and thinking wishfully) to suggest that the Tea Partiers and Boehner have a fundamentally adversarial relationship. True, last Thursday they were at cross-purposes over tactics, and it was quite possible that the impasse would end up wrecking the GOP's negotiating position. That it did not is testimony to the effectiveness of Boehner's leadership.

James Taranto on the big deal.

But let's ponder Dowd's interesting speculation that "the people who hate government are good at it and the people who love government are bad at it." Surely this is not a timeless truth. It was not the case in the 1930s or the 1960s. Or even in the 1990s: Bill Clinton's early setbacks notwithstanding, he proved a much more effective political leader than Newt Gingrich.

Times have changed. In the 1930s, government was small. Expanding it massively in order to solve problems might or might not have been a good idea, but there's no denying it was innovative. Today government is sclerotic. Those who believe more government is the solution to America's problems are at best unthinking reactionaries. The Tea Partiers, having clearly identified this problem, are today's true progressives (to employ the term in its literal rather than ideological sense).

They are not, however, "good at government"--or, more precisely, at politics. Their purism cost the GOP as many as three Senate seats last year, and if a competent Democrat were in the White House, it probably would be helping him to re-election right now. The experience of 1995-96 is instructive here. Gingrich had the Tea Party's worst qualities: grandiosity and impatience. He was no match for a president who knew how to play the game.

Today's Republican House has two great strengths that Gingrich's lacked. One is the Tea Party's clarity of purpose. But the other is experienced leadership. Gingrich was highly effective in the minority--an Alinskyite community organizer, if you will, taking on entrenched power by exposing its weakness and corruption. Neither he nor any member of his caucus had ever served in the majority. Between them, Boehner and Cantor alone have 18 years in the majority.

Contrast that to Barack Obama. In addition to a left-liberal ideology that is decades out of date and a Gingrich-size ego, he came to the presidency with virtually no relevant experience. True, he has the "mainstream" media on his side, but that almost certainly hurts him more than it helps. Their flattering but false narratives--he was the "adult in the room," polls clearly showed the American people were on his side--likely encouraged him to mistake his weaknesses for strengths.

There is a danger now that Republicans will fall into the trap of overconfidence. Sarah Palin posted a Facebook note a week and a half ago declaring Obama a "lame duck president." But in the 15 months and five days before he can actually earn that designation, there will be other battles. It is not inconceivable that Obama will fight them more effectively, having learned some lessons from his failure in this one.

Speaking on the House floor Saturday, Politico reports, silly Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi invoked "Star Wars," declaring that Boehner "chose to go to the dark side." The Tea Partiers could do worse than to follow a bit of counsel from that classic movie: "Great, kid. Don't get cocky."

--SNIP--

[Pandora]

No.  This is not the best "we" could do.

At the risk of having me have Fran repeat himself:

"The Republican caucus in the House of Representatives was quite capable of preventing any increase in federal spending and the debt limit. All appropriations bills must originate in the House. There's no Constitutional obligation upon the House to take up a bill passed by the Senate. Therefore, with or without a budget in place, the GOP majority in the House could have prevented this disaster merely by "sitting on its hands" -- i.e., voting down any bill that includes a provision to increase the debt ceiling. As for the budget itself, there's no Constitutional obligation to maintain the funding of any program or government department. Thus, the House alone could have compelled the federal government to live within its means."

And it doesn't entail waiting for 2012 or bemoaning only having 1/3 of the government; it could have been done RIGHT NOW.  By the time we mayhap get more control, we'll be that much further in debt.

[charlesoakwood]

Technically more could have been done; however, leadership didn't want it. 
Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy, & Co didn't want it.  What was achieved was achieved because of a small minority of TeaParty zealots.  It's not a victory but it is an illustration of what a small band of dedicated
men and women can do.  We must commit and dedicate money and time to victory in 12, everywhere.

As IDP said, when we elect enough Conservatives to the House and they elect Conservative leadership with spines it shall be done.  If not we'll see each other in DC 2012^1/2, that's for sure.

[Pandora]

As far as being called a terrorist by being lumped in with the TEA Party, they have no idea they're poking the bear.  None.  If they did, they wouldn't be poking.  They're not afraid of us.

[rickl]

I want to get a bumper sticker and T-shirt that say TEAorrist.

[AlanS]

I want to get a bumper sticker and T-shirt that say TEAorrist.

Another capitalistic moment. You need to get some printed up. When can we order them, Rick?

[charlesoakwood]

Can anybody ever remember a sitting pres or veep who so glibly insulted fellow citizens so often?
These people are nothing short of our enemies.
And they run the gov't!!!

They've performed a coup; stolen the place right out from under us.  We're getting closer to Venezuela every day and I used to wonder how they let that happen there.  Now I know, 'cause we're still sitting.

Even thgough some would say Godwin's Law applies, I still think the Obama/Hitler analogy is spot on.  Hitler tried a putsch in 1923, failed and went to jail.  There he laid out his plans in his book, Mein Kampf.  During the chaos of the Weimar Republic, the Nazi Party grew as people supported Hitler, knowing full well what he wrote and where he stood, with him eventually becoming Chancellor.  Obama has also written books, laid out where he stands and what his plans are.  He's been very clear concerning his deisre to the destroy America, to give her a comeuppance.  Yet people still voted for him, elevating him to the Presidency.  Hitler, once in power, used the 'crisis' of the Reichstag fire, a Nazi Party false flag operation, to propose and have enacted the Enabling Law.  That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers.  Obama creates crises about everything.  The Porkulous, the GM takeover, banking 'reform', and the debt crisis (which his party created by not passing a budget from 2009 on, even though they had House and Senate supermajorities).  We see the attempted creation of a false flag crisis with Operation Gunrunner, where Obama was attempting to lay the groundwork for severe restrictions on gun ownership, if not outright confiscations.  Then once the populace would have been defanged, as Hitler did with Germany, Obama could have have totaly run roughshod over the Constitution (worse than he is doing now) by ignoring the 22nd Amendment and would have gotten, except for the rise of the TEA Party, his party thugs in the House and Senate to pass their own Enabling Law, giving Obama dictatorial powers as the crisis would have been severe.  But Germany had no grass roots opposition to Hitler, no TEA Party, and we do.  At the moment, that is the only thing stopping Obama.  We saw its influence in changing the tone of the debt ceiling debate, from just a pro forma increase to demanding spending cuts.  The Dems calling the TEA Party people terrorists, suicide bombers, Wahabbists and the like is coldly calculated to marginalize the only opposition to their grand progressive goals.  The main difference is Obama is lazy while Hitler was not, and on such a trivial thing as work ethic does the fate of this Country ride.

The parallels are frightening and without a doubt when he puts on his nightcap these sugarplums dance in his head.  The biggest thing in our favor is that he has less than two years to pull it off and too many Americans will not be fooled by an accidental knight of the long nives.