Obama Job Speech Fiasco AGAIN Makes POTUS Look Petty, Weak And Just Plain Small

This has actually degenerated to a level that is simply sad.

It’s hard to even put into a sentence: To say you’ve got a plan when you don’t have a plan, and then go on a fancy vacation, and then come back and have to “scramble” to come up with a plan that you frankly should have had months if not years ago, and then just show the world how petty you are by demanding that Congress call a special joint session the night of a scheduled GOP presidential debate, well, it’s pathetic.

The pathetic president.

Maybe Obama shouldn’t have gone on that fancy vacation, after all. 

Obama’s narcissistic arrogance is simply stunning.  His vacation was important, but Congress’ schedule is irrelevant.  His vacation is essential to the well-being of the nation, but the Republican Party using the democratic process of debate to select their nominee to contend for Obama’s job is trivial.

Obama constantly calls upon Congress to rise above petty partisan politics, but again and again this guy has taken some of the cheapest shots at all.  Going on a vacation and then coming back and saying the ONLY night Obama can give his speech just “happens” to coincide with the exact same date and the even the exact same TIME-SLOT of a GOP presidential debate that had been hard-scheduled for MONTHS is beneath even petty partisan politics.

Even very career and very partisan Democrats acknowledge that Obama was “out of bounds” in his attempt at this petty partisan politcal pissing contest:

Democratic strategist James Carville on Thursday called the White House “out of bounds” for requesting that the president address Congress during the same night as next week’s Republican presidential debate.

“I do think this is a really big debate and I think the White House was out of bounds…in trying to schedule a speech during a debate,” Carville said on “Good Morning America”.

There is absolutely no question whatsoever that Obama has every intention of using his “jobs speech” as a partisan political stunt.

Fortunately, Speaker of the House John Boehner wasn’t in the mood to tolerate a self-appeasing posturing poser:

Posted: 12:16 p.m. yesterday
Obama bows to Boehner; jobs speech will be Sept. 8
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has acceded to House Speaker John Boehner’s wishes to deliver an address on jobs and the economy to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 8. The president had requested Sept. 7 for the long-anticipated speech.

In agreeing to Boehner’s schedule, Obama’s address will compete with the opening game of the National Football League season — a conflict the White House wanted to avoid.

But the change now will allow a planned Sept. 7 Republican presidential debate to proceed without Obama upstaging it.

That’s right.  BOWS again.

Obama has a rather pathetic personal history with bowing down.

Atlas Shrugged has a magnificent pictorial presentation of who Obama bows down to (America’s enemies) and who he treats like dirt (America’s friends).  At least this time Obama bowed down before an actual American.

Speaker John Boehner was incredibly solicitous to Obama:

“It is my recommendation that your address be held on the following evening, when we can ensure there will be no parliamentary or logistical impediments that might detract from your remarks,” Boehner, the speaker of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, said in a letter to the president.

“I respectfully invite you to address a Joint Session of Congress on Thursday, September 8, 2011 in the House Chamber, at a time that works best for your schedule,” he said.

But Obama – who saw this as a chance to upstage his rivals in a petty way while at the same time calling on politicians to “rise above” the very same sort of thing he was himself doing, just got owned.

It is truly sad for America that such a weak and petty man managed to rise to our presidency.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , ,

21 Responses to “Obama Job Speech Fiasco AGAIN Makes POTUS Look Petty, Weak And Just Plain Small”

  1. phil l. s. Says:

    Yes, I guess the President made the mistake of not checking with the House Leader before he plans a speech.

    WordPress is terrific. Your own drive Obama out of office in ’12 program uses very little of the rhetoric provided by Limbaugh-RNC-Ailes-Murdoch-Sammon.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Phil,

    I dare say the president can give a speech any damn time he wants to. The fact that he’s already given like ninety thousand of them ought to be proof of that.

    But hey, if you’re going to call a joint session of Congress, shouldn’t you have the decency and just plain lack of stupidity to NOT do it on an outrageous day?

    See, Phil, if George Bush had done half the crap Obama has done just with this stupid speech (i.e., announced he was going to tell us his jobs plan, then go off on vacation, then not have a damn plan when he got back from vacation, then come back and call a joint session of Congress – reserved for State of the Unions and wars – then try to play stupid partisan political games by screwing up the Democrat presidential debate, then having his aides come out and say his “plan” wasn’t really so much of a plan, but more like part A of a long series of nothing, I’m guessing you would have been livid at Bush.

    You’re just a tiny-minded little leftwing idealogue puke who would NEVER in a trillion lifetimes hold your guy to the same standard that you hold everybody else to.

    Another example of your hypocrisy is your talking about rightwing talking points. Like Democrats don’t trot out with talking points every damn day of their political lives.

  3. phil l. s. Says:

    Hi, What’s a “puke”? How did you know I was a pro-Life, pro-Israel, Nixon admiring Liberal?

    “Outrageous day”? Say what??

    Bush II was criticized mostly in his 2nd term when the slam-dunk strategy in Iraq became odious to Americans. (Yes, the Left initially believed the false evidence. The President is supposed have an exceptional respsonsibility as the provider of real reasons to send the best and the brightest into a bloodbath). So you’re, oh yeah, how come the Libz? stuff is hollow.

    Obama has compromised repeatedly with the GOP and the reverse is not true because the GOP wants to keep unemployment high by encouraging Republican governors to reject stimulus money and infrastructure contracts. Obama threw out the public option and extended the Bush II tax program and offered enough in entitlement cuts during the debt ceiling talks to throw out his chances of re-election.

    You want to call me “puke” or “Lib”? Whatever sails your ship. You want to debate like civilized people, I’ll do that any time night or day.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    First of all, I’ll tell you what you can do with your smarmy pompous self-righteousness just as soon as you’ve demonized every single Democrat politician who has called responsible Republicans “terrorists” and “racists” and worse just for voting their basic values. It never ceases to amaze me how people like you whine like two year olds when someone calls you a name even as you are out calling people the most vile names on earth.

    You call what you’re doing “debating,” do you?

    Anyone with half a brain can see what all the top Democrats said even prior to George Bush taking office:

    http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm
    http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

    So for the official factual record, Democrats said all the same things that Bush later said, but Democrats proved that they were backbiting traitors who cut and run and then tore into a president at a war that they demonized the moment it became politically expedient.

    That’s kind of what a puke is.

    Then there’s Bush’s surge strategy, you know, that strategy that WORKED.

    Here’s what a puke does:

    Barack Hussein Obama, 2007: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. … So I am going to actively oppose the president’s proposal.”

    Barack Hussein Obama’s vice president, 2010: “I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

    That’s what a puke looks like.

    Obama went on a nice vacation and then demanded that Republicans undermine their own presidential debate that had been scheduled on that very same day and that very same hour for months in advance. That’s the “outrageous” thing. Even many liberals have acknowledged that it was both a partisan cheap shot and a stupid thing to do.

    That’s kind of what a puke is.

    Obama has compromised repeatdly with the GOP because all of his ideas are wrong and they are all failing wildly. Obama didn’t compromise with Republicans when he passed the $862 billion stimulus which he promised would turn the economy around and create millions of jobs. Obama didn’t compromise with Republicans when he shoved his socialist takeover of health care down the nation’s throat claiming it would turn around the economy and create jobs. Here’s another example of an utterly STUPID example of how Obama not compromising with Republicans pretty much ruined millions of people’s lives.

    For the record, I further detailed what a “puke” looks like here, where I demonstrated how the Puke-in-Chief is aka the Liar-in-Chief to someone who frankly reminds me of you.

    Your “Republicans want _________” is utterly asinine. Here’s what I’ve said about that kind of drivel.

    Are you stating yourself as pro-Life and pro-Israel, or are you mocking these positions? I was just about to block you as a racist Jew-hating bigot, but realized that maybe you were seriously affirming those views. And personally, I can’t for my life figure out why on earth anyone would admire Nixon.

  5. phil l. s. Says:

    Bush’s strategy worked after he got us into a protracted, bloody, unnecessary war. The surge was necessary after an unnecessary war got started. 2 wars, unpaid for. Obama on vacation? How about Bush’s extended vacation during August, 2001. Because of that the “official” memo did not arrive on slam-dunk Cheney’s desk until 09-04-01.
    Gov’t takeover of HC? Is gov’t involved in Medicaid and Medicare? wanna go back to the death panels of the insurers who decided which cancer patient should get coverage?
    Gov’t take over of autos? How about oversight on loans which will be paid back on time.
    You throwin Obama’s middle name HUSSEIN to show an assoiation with middle eastern, not Western interests. A very tired trick, originating probably with Lady Sarah (“Africa is a country”).
    Obama used the Seals to get Bin Laden. Your man, “W.” said he los interest in that around 2005. Obama was successful in Libya with no American blood spilled.
    You have a very active imagination. I’m still waiting for a literate exp-lanation of what a “puke” is.
    Philip Silveman

  6. phil l. s. Says:

    I’m no “racist, Jew-hating bigot”. Philip Silverman

  7. phil l. s. Says:

    Obnama offered 4.7 trillion in entitlement cuts. He extended the Bush II tax cuts. He extended the Patriot Act. He removed the Fairness Doctrine. He declined to prosecute the slam-dunk team.’He took away the public option. He rescued two American institutions, GM & Chrysler, both set to pay back the loan ahead of time. Re. HC Reform: he eliminated the death panels of the insurers who were allowed to decline on coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.
    He implemented the BUsh II-originated TARP. Corporations now making tons of bucks.
    You say the GOP wants to compromise? Beohner said the word is not in his body. And so Republican governors turn back stimulus $$$ and infrastructure contracts which wuld lower unemployment. But lower unemployment can only HELP Obama in ’12 and so they stonewall. They do not assert 7 jobs bills.
    I guess it’s possible for a Jew to be a “racist Jew-hating bigot” but I am not.
    You still have not defined “puke” in a literate way.
    Unless you looked in the mirror and not your PC when you typed the word.
    Philip Silverman

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m no “racist, Jew-hating bigot”. Philip Silverman

    I’ll take that to mean that you’re pro-LIfe and pro-Nixon (why I don’t know) as well as being pro-Israel. Good for you,on at least 2 out of 3 of those.

    I have no idea whatsoever why you think these things you mention are “compromises” with the GOP.

    Rather than go point-by-point I’ll just take the BIGGIE – the Bush tax cuts. Did Obama “compromise”? Not even close.

    Here’s the fact:

    McConnell said any tax increase or new spending would be counterproductive to economic recovery, and he pointed out that Democrats had been unable to pass tax increases on the wealthy when they controlled both chambers of Congress last year. Last November’s election resulted in the Republicans regaining control of the House of Representatives and reducing the Democrats’ Senate majority.

    “Let’s move past tax hikes, talk about what’s actually possible, and let’s talk about what has and hasn’t worked over the past two years,” said McConnell.

    Try to be sane for at least once in your life, Phil. The Democrats were unable to pass tax hikes EVEN WHEN THEY WERE IN TOTAL CONTROL OF BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE AS WELL AS THE WHITE HOUSE. So just how are you NOT anything other than a total loon for trying to argue that Obama was “compromising” with the Republicans when EVEN THE DEMOCRATS WOULDN’T GIVE HIM TAX HIKES???

    By way of analogy, I’m going to show you how graciously willing to “compromise” with you I am: out of the goodness and generosity of my heart, I am going to graciously allow you to continue breathing my air. I know, but please, don’t thank me. And the fact that I have no power to KEEP you from breathing my air really isn’t the issue on your lunatic understanding of “compromising,” is it?

    Obama took away the public option to compromise with Republicans? Are you more dumb than you are crazy? OBAMA DIDN’T NEGOTIATE WITH REPUBLICANS. That damn unconstitutional obscenity known as ObamaCare was passed ENTIRELY with Democrat votes. Obama was the guy who said, “I won, and elections have consquences.” Nobody “negotiated” or “compromised” with Republicans. They passed the most radical far-leftist takeover that Democrats could pass with their own people.

    It’s kind of interesting how “compromise” becomes the mantra for Democrats only when they lose their power.

    The word “puke” is coming back up my throat, Phil.

    When the people are behind a president, that president can be strong. When the people are NOT behind him, he is weak. AND OBAMA IS WEAK BEYOND THE POINT OF DISGRACE.

    So please don’t argue that Obama is graciously “compromising” with Republicans. The Republicans are right and he is wrong, and the Republicans know it.

    Another place where Obama BACKED DOWN rather than “compromised” is the new EPA rules. Two things: one is that even the DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED SENATE refused to pass Obama’s draconian enviornonmental regulations last year, so your petty little tyrant just tried to implement them himself by executive fiat. Sounds kind of like Bush on steroids in terms of tyranny, but that’s what Obama did. The second thing is that Obama’s EPA crap was a job- and economy-murdering fiasco, and more and more people know it. If these stupid rules had been implemented, the air in Yellowstone National Park would have been deemed “unhealthy.” It was insane.

    When Obama did all this crap with the Patriot Act, or Gitmo or whatever that HE PROMISED HE WOULDN’T DO, don’t insult me by trying to argue Obama graciously compromised. He was too weak to impose his agenda. And Gitmo is still open in spite of the fact that it made Obama a documented LIAR TWO YEARS AGO because it was a stupid and insane and impossible policy in the first place, not because Obama was willing to “compromise.”

    Allow me to give you an example of the Democrats graciously “compromising” with Bush, just to document that you are an abject hypocrite for so stupidly framing your argument on Republicans being bad because they won’t “compromise”:

    The Left now acts as if this never happened. For instance, in a recent television appearance, liberal commentator Bill Press argued that–rather than noisy disagreement–”Americans want discussion” on health-care reform. Who could disagree with that sentiment–except, perhaps, the Obama administration, which pushed Congress to rush through legislation by early August? This timeline was clearly aimed at preempting discussion and presenting the public with a “done deal” on health reform. As one protester put it, the president spent more time choosing a dog than he did discussing health-care reform.

    Likewise, Mr. Press complained that opponents hadn’t put their own reform plans on the table. “The people who are there to protest–what are they for? Are they for the status quo? The Republicans haven’t put any other plan on the table.” But did congressional Democrats offer their own alternative to President Bush’s 2005 Social Security plan? When a fellow Democrat asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi when their party would offer its own Social Security plan, her answer was “Never. Is that soon enough for you?” Democrats would not even negotiate until personal retirement accounts were taken off the table. Why should Republicans act differently today, regarding the “public option”?

    If “compromise” is such a virtue, WHY THE HELL WOULDN’T YOU DAMN LIBERALS DO IT WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT???

    You bitch and whine about the lack of “compromise,” when it was you vile Democrats who first started filibustering -
    “Democrats began filibustering nominations and treaties that in earlier times were accepted as a matter of course or presidential prerogative.”- and when you literally invented “Borking” and my personal favorite of “high-tech lynching” to destroy Republican-appointed judges. Even after Republicans DID very graciously compromise to give you Ruth Bader Ginsburg between your tearing into GOP justice candidates.

    Whine me a river. Seriously. Because I will mock you for every single tear you shed.

    Btw, dumbass, since you will apparently continue harping on it as though you have some kind of a point: a puke is a slang euphamism for someone who is pretty much a loser. I apologize for not understanding that you weren’t bright enough to pick that up for yourself. In the future, I will try to ridicule you on a level you’re capable of comprehending.

  9. phil l. s. Says:

    “Too weak” is highly subjective. His ACTIONS show that he ca assert GOP ideas – wherher or not he believes in them doesn’t really count – extended Bush II cuts – how is that Socialism?

    I still don’t know how you could consider “flagging” me as a “racist, Jew-hating bigot” based upon my writing that I am pro-Israel?

  10. phil l. s. Says:

    Yes, “Obamacare” was rammed thru. No doubt. No GOP votes. Gee whiz. That invalidates the law completely!

    (Would even one GOP have voted for it? Even with all the GOP ideas which were incorporated?).

  11. Michael Eden Says:

    Phil,

    I think if you re-read my statement about “flagging you” you will see that I wasn’t sure what you were saying and elected to give you the benefit of the doubt. When you tell me you’re pro-life, pro-Israel AND a “pro-Nixon” guy, I’m not sure what to make of that. You LIKED Watergate? You LIKED the 19 minutes that Nixon erased from his tapes? You LIKED all the things Nixon did like price controls? So I was kind of wondering if you were engaging in mockery. And if you still don’t see why I was wondering, I’m afraid I can’t help you.

    I think I not only explained but DOCUMENTED why Obama extending the Bush tax cuts did not in any way, shape or form count as “reaching out to” or “compromising with” Republicans. And if you bring them up again without fully explaining how Obama had any PRAYER of raising taxes given that DEMOCRATS COULDN’T RAISE TAXES WHEN THEY CONTROLLED THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE AND THE WHITE HOUSE, I will block you. Because you are ignoring facts at this point and mindlessly repeating pointless assertions. And I’m not going to waste my time with an idiot.

    I have often wondered what would happen if, say, Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin were elected president. Let’s say either of these men ran – but DIDN’T have their record. What platform would they run on? Obviously a leftwing one – because both men were socialists (Nazi = National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party; USSR = Union of Soviet SOCAILIST Republics), and both men were for big government that controlled everything. But it is highly unlikely they would run spouting all the crap that they actually did if they wanted to actually get elected.

    So let’s say they got elected. What next? Well, they would immediately begin to make all sorts of reforms/changes. Would Hitler start rounding out the Jews in his first 60 days? NO. He didn’t even do that in GERMANY!!! Rather, he would push as hard as he could within the system. At times he would have to bide his time. He might even have to temporarily do things that he didn’t want to remove an issue so he could keep pushing in lots of other ways.

    A hard-core socialist, communist or fascist elected as president of America would be as socialist as he possibly could. Since this isn’t a dictatorship (quite yet), he’d keep pushing from within the system until he could MAKE it a socialist dictatorship.

    I see no difference between Obama’s agenda. Obama has increased the size of government by 40%. He has “fundamentally transformed” America via ObamaCare, via the 2,000 plus page financial regulation overhaul, via the $862 billion stimulus (which was actually a $3.27 TRILLION boondoggle), via massive EPA regulations Obama has simply imposed, via Obama’s imperial edict to literally break the law to stop illegal immigrant deportations, etc. Obama’s demand for “unemployment benefits for life” has itself taken us into a European socialist state all by itself.

    Obama has pushed America into a socialist direction as hard as he possibly could.

    Now, you cite ObamaCare and the fact that no Republican would have voted for it even if some of their ideas were incorporated. We’ll never know, first of all, because NONE OF THEIR IDEAS WERE INCORPORATED. So it’s a rather stupid point for you to raise. But second, it was fundamentally unconstittuional – and Obama is now dragging out the Supreme Court decision because he KNOWS it was unconstitutional and will be overturned if he lets it get to the court where it belongs.

    So I’ll leave it for you to explain to me why Republicans should have voted for something that was fundamentally unconstitutional and un-American just because they got some kind of “idea incorporated.” When the Only Republican idea that should have been “incorporated” would have been to kill the whole vile monstrosity.

  12. phil l. s. Says:

    Who are you to “block” anyone? And please answer how you can call someone a “racist, Jew-hater” who simply says he’s pro-Israel. Nixon was pro-Israel. He made anti-semitic remarks privately but what counts is the actions that he took.
    Nixon engaged China; ended the war in Vietnam by reducing troop strength 50% each year; ended the draft; took an interest in the environment; even made room for Affirmative Action. His economy was good.
    Re. Watergate, ok…. bad stuff. But all he did ILLEGALLY was coach witnesses. Missing 18 minutes…very suspicious. Take Nixon in his totality.
    Where can you be read outside this venue? Any scholarly papers?
    I may repeat myself but I don’t use cliches like “arguing with idiots” or words like “puke”.

  13. phil l. s. Says:

    Fundamentally unconstitutional? Some judges think so. WE’ll see. But basing the argument on the “commerce clause” is pretty lame.
    Americans cannot be forced to buy a commercial entity but Healthcare is somewhat nebulous, as the gov’t is a partner. Also, buying healthcare at the urging of the gov’t because of a PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE is very persuasive that the law will stand.
    Interstate health service means Federal oversight, anyway.

  14. phil l. s. Says:

    Injecting Hitler and Stalin is pretty lame. Sadly, many American Presidents have *acted* like those sick idiots at times.
    You trying to say that Obama has things in common with them? Did Beck sell you his blackboard?

  15. phil l. s. Says:

    Ok. I see this is your Column and you *can* block people. My apologies.
    But I think if you’re going to keep this Column going you’ll need to tone down your entries in reply to posters. “Puke”, “Idiot”, etc., is unprofessional.

  16. Michael Eden Says:

    Phil, regarding your 4:46 pm comment,

    It appears that you came across the answer to your question, but yes, it is my blog. I decide who gets blocked.

    My “unprofessional” blog is exactly that. I don’t get paid for it, so I am “unprofessional.” I thought about soliciting funds, but decided that I would rather be able to cite news story content that I would otherwise have to link to. And many of these stories have a weird tendency to get “scrubbed” by the very papers that published them. Also, if you were to take a serious look at the garbage I take from liberals every day, you might understand why I am on a hair trigger dishing it out.

    I’ve got a question for you regarding your being “pro-Life” and “pro-Israel.” Why do you support Obama and damn Bush then?

    Last year a poll was done among Israelis, and it turned out that only 9% of Israelis – who have felt the brunt of Obama’s policies – think he’s “pro-Israel.” With nearly HALF believing Obama is “pro-Palestine” instead. Whereas fully 88% believed George Bush was “pro-Israel,” and only 2% believed he was pro-Palestinian.

    Or you can look at a different poll by the Jerusalem post, in which only 4% of Israelis thought Obama was pro-Israel versus MORE than half who said he is pro-Palestinian.

    So if you’re really “pro-Israel,” as you claim, then why do you support the guy who is ANTI-Israel and hate on the guy who was pro-Israel?

    Again, you claim to be pro-Life, so why love on Obama and hate on Bush, who was clearly pro-life?

    Barack Obama not only had a 100% NARAL rating (that’s really, really, seriously BAD if you’re actually pro-life), but the man even went so far as to support actual infanticide.

    https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/jill-stanek-on-why-barack-obama-voted-for-infanticide/

    https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/obama-crossed-line-from-abortion-to-genuine-infanticide/

    So you can love Nixon all you want. Weird, but okay.

    But I think you ought to be able to see why I would question your integrity.

  17. Michael Eden Says:

    Let’s see, injecting Hitler and Stalin is quite appropriate if and when the shoe fits. History tends to repeat itself if people don’t remember the past. You’re not arguing that you want history to repeat itself, are you?

    I also hope you’re not dumb enough to think I was trying to say Obama = Hitler. Rather, I was taking the most EXTREME socialists I could think of to explain how even the most extreme socialist could not act with total socialist ideology in the American democratic political system.

    Obama is QUITE the socialist; he just can’t get where he wants to go and stay in office.

    I just came across this warning from a New Zealander on how socialist health care ruined New Zealand and it’ll ruin America, too.

    If that fact is “lame” to you, well, I’m just crushed.

    You argue that “some judges think” that ObamaCare is fundamentally unconstitutional. But you’re overlooking the main point – which is that EVEN OBAMA REALIZES THAT OBAMACARE WILL BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Obama is doing absolutely every single thing he can possibly DO to avoid ObamaCare coming up before the Supreme Court. He is taking every delaying tactic he can because it is unconstitutional and it will be struck down. It is simply fundamentally unconstitutional and un-American to require American citizens to purchase a product as a condition of existing. Particularly when they are requiring that such a purchase be made from private companies (well, make that crony-capitalist companies).

    If Obama thought for a SECOND that ObamaCare would pass muster, he would have allowed it to go straight to the SCOTUS so the issue could be resolved in his favor. Which is another way of saying your bullpuckey has the dilemma of being contradicted by the plain facts.

  18. phil l. s. Says:

    I do not support every single thing Barack Obama has done since 01-09.

    Because I support Obama and say I am “pro-Israel” I assert that I am left-of-center as a Democrat and not a Liberal.

    Why does my “integrity” come up in that scenario? What you are doing is labeling, seeing the world in “black and white”, no grays.

    I am pro-Life with exceptions; pro nuclear family.

    To apply the word “racist” because you cannot label someone is very curious.

    I have never voted GOP for President but can objectively evaluate their administrations.

  19. Michael Eden Says:

    Phil,

    When somebody says they are pro-life and supports the most rabidly pro-abortion president in the history of this nation and at the same time opposes one of the most pro-life presidents in the history of this nation, that is a profound demonstration of a lack of integrity.

    When somebody says they are pro-Israel and supports the most rabidly ANTI-Israel president in the history of this nation and at the same time opposes one of the most pro-Israel presidents in the history of this nation, that is a profound demonstration of a lack of integrity.

    That’s where your “integrity” comes up in that scenario.

    This isn’t just about “not supporting Obama on every single thing.” This is about Obama VERY CLEARLY being vitriolicly opposed to the very things you “claim” to be most for.

    I’m going to go ahead and block you. And I always explain to people why I block them.

    You say, “To apply the word “racist” because you cannot label someone is very curious.”

    Here is the ONLY context in which I used that term:

    Are you stating yourself as pro-Life and pro-Israel, or are you mocking these positions? I was just about to block you as a racist Jew-hating bigot, but realized that maybe you were seriously affirming those views. And personally, I can’t for my life figure out why on earth anyone would admire Nixon.

    You have repeatedly engaged in abject whining, which is – btw – very “puke”-like.

    I was not sure WHAT you were saying, and initially it occurred to me that you were mocking the pro-life position and mocking Israel. As I have already patiently explained to you. And in fact as I pointed out in the very damn comment you have now whined about something like five times. I’m done with you.

    There are many annoying things about liberals, but one of the five most annoying is how you people routinely play the game of rhetorical judo to make yourself the victim and then whine about how mean conservatives are.

    Just today a member of “President Obama’s army” declared “war” on the Tea Party and said, “Let’s take those sons of bitches out.” Before that top Democrats were declaring conservatives to be “the real enemy of America” and urging their supporters to “send us straight to hell.” And of course they called us “racists,” something which you hypocritically seem to be so very upset about now when I CLEARLY DIDN’T EVEN CALL YOU THAT, BUT MERELY WONDERED WHAT THE HELL YOU WERE TRYING TO SAY.

    That’s not just some pissant “unprofessional” blogger – as you called me. That’s Joe Biden. That’s powerful Black Caucus Democrat Maxine Waters. That’s Jesse Jackson. That’s your union thugs.

    Oh, and for the record, let’s not forget that your girl – who was Speaker of the House at the time – directly compared the Tea Party conservatives to “Nazis.” And numerous Democrats including Barack Obama have used the “Nazi” comparative. But I guess it’s not bad when your people do it.

    YOUR party is out there at the highest levels calling conservatives the most hateful things imaginable as a matter of routine, and you come here to start whining that I called you a puke? And then have just steadily whined ever since? If you want “civility” then you’re voting for the wrong damn party.

    You’re like a hemmoroid that learned how to type. I’m done with you. Goodbye and begone.

  20. phil l. s. Says:

    If this gets posted, I’m lucky: Number one: I’m not a Liberal. All due respect, but I surmise that due to your age (maybe 22-30) and education (Community College plus one year of College) you cannot fathom how someone would not agree with everything that the President they support, has done in office.
    If someone does not fit the board game definition, then there’s a lack of integrity?
    I’m pro-Democrat when it comes to the Prsidential elections. I support Obama. I do not want Perry, Romney, Bachman, Palin, Santorum, et. al.
    Not whining about your locker room language – just amazement that you are given such a nice platform to express yourself.

  21. Michael Eden Says:

    I was just about to sign off for the night and was emptying my spam when I came across your “work.”

    I’ll let you be lucky. It will be your final words.

    I just wanted to point out that your final words consist in completely false patronizing bullcrap.

    For one thing, I’m actually a fair bit older than your assertion of 22-30 years. You’re completely wrong. Your analysis is wrong. You’re claiming lies as facts.

    Second, I actually not only have not one, but TWO masters degrees. Further, I graduated with highest honors in my graduate education, and am actually listed in “Who’s Who Among Students In American Universities &; Colleges.”

    I don’t point that out to boast; I point it out to document that you are a liar who is completely lacking in integrity as well as being one who engages in slander and elitest character assassination.

    You sneer and assure me that I’d understand if I only had enough education. And like most other liberals you look down with contempt on the people who don’t have educations even as you deceitfully claim to care about them and represent them.

    Third, you say now, “Number one: I’m not a Liberal.” Which is somewhat fascinating given what you said about YOURSELF earlier: “How did you know I was a pro-Life, pro-Israel, Nixon admiring Liberal?”

    So are you lying now, or were you lying then, you documented LIAR???

    Which gets me back to that statement you whined about as I was considering blocking you. Something didn’t ring right about you. And it just so happens that I “fathom” a lot more than you ever have in your life, and very probably more than you ever will in your life.

    You are a bad person, Phil. You are the kind of man who boasts, “I am pro-life,” even while you have voted over and over and over and over again for the murders of 54 MILLION innocent human beings who were in fact murdered by Democrats and judges that Democrats have consistently appointed with their votes for over forty years.

    If you are pro-life, you are in fact a murderer by your very own standard. You vote for murder while you refuse to allow people who would stand for life and who would appoint judges who would stand for life to alter your culture of death. And one day a just and holy God will pronounce judgment on you 54 million fold.

    You can be amazed all you want. But I’m not going to let you do it here any more. You puke.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers

%d bloggers like this: