AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Greed for profit is not limited by law and the right dont want it restricted for any reasoning. Any government is restricted by time and the will of the people.

CAn you say, "out of context," boys and girls?

Your baiting has gone on long enough. Good bye.

The right thinks that most legislation aimed at leveling the playing field for blacks is discriminatory toward them.

I love it when they ask for backup and it is supplied to them and they vote it down.

A thumbs down from the right is always a good thing. They can dish it out but they can not take it.

Here's a great examination of pseudo-journalism, how the right has been destroying reputations and how they wriggle out of it by claiming the info came from an anonymous third party:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/76451/andrew-breitbart-pseudojournalist-method?utm_source=TNR+Daily&utm_campaign=febe16da95-TNR_Daily_072210&utm_medium=email

The OD (i.e., Obama Democrats) assume that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by racial group or by political group, and that political or racial groups differ decisively from one another, which is usually coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular political or racial group, and its right to domination over others.

In otherwords, OD are invidiousists.

I wish you would stop hallucinating and get help. How in the hell do you imagine these things? The moon is made of cheese and the Bush admin failed to tell us?

Greed for profit is limited by law. The rule of law requires profits to be made in a lawful manner, and the Right wants that restriction maintained in order to secure the liberty of the people.

Greed for political power is limited by law. The rule of law requires a limited set of political powers to be obtained in a lawful manner.

The powers of the government of the USA are currently limited by the Constitution of the USA, and that limit shall not be changed except by lawful amendment of the Constitution of the USA.

The OD are violating the rule of law in general and the Constitution in particular, because they are seizing and exercising political powers not granted the federal government by the Constitution of the USA (e.g., TARP, Stimulus)

For that reason President Obama should be lawfully impeached and, if lawfully found guilty, he must be removed.

But it is not viewed as against the law when Democrats and their friends do it, ican. Just a couple examples of many are Fannie and Freddie with all of their sweetheart compensation and loan deals made.
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4287756/issa-blasts-fanniefreddie-sweetheart-deals/?playlist_id=87185

For those libs that could not face the truth of my above post and voted my post down, I have provided the youtube documentation of it in the following:

It does look as if the left has killed the 'racism' charge or at least severely diminished its effect via the "Journolist Scandal" * (which brings a feeling of Deja Vu all over again here with the "Climategate Scandal" e-mails where Man Caused Global Warming takes the place of Obama's candidacy here as the leftist cause de jour). Spencer Ackerman (then of The Washington Independent, in those supposedly secret e-mails) expresses what he feels should remedy an inconvenient truth or two about the Rev Jeremiah Wright albatross hanging around Obama's neck:

Can you find the strawman in that last paragraph, parados?

Anyway, Dennis Prager writes:


This he writes regarding the NAACP's claim of a Tea Party with "racist elements". He is right in that the charge of racism has been diluted, by the left, to the ridiculous point of homeopathic proportions. Also, via those e-mails, we have the spectacle of a ‘LAW professor’ who thinks the FCC can pull Fox's license?

But it gets worse for the left. Enter the Obama Administration who weighed in on a video clip that hinted that an USDA employee might be racist (the full clip showed quit the opposite) and broke all records for throwing its people (Americans in general and Sheryl Sherrod in particular) under the bus by calling for her immediate resignation. The NAACP says it was hoodwinked by Andrew Breitbart by the partial clip! Yes it was duped! But in reality it fell victim to its old wolf cry of "Racism!". Sad part is that this latest victim was not only innocent but Afro-American too (see Sheryl Sherrod resignation). It would be interesting to see how she and her family members vote in November.

JM

P.S. I think the FFs would have some kind things to say about Sherrod.

* http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/print/

** http://article.nationalreview.com/438359/naacp-confirms-election-of-a-black-president-made-no-difference/dennis-prager3

Well, perhaps if the House flips in November Daryl (and his other brother Daryl) might do American citizens a favor. Can Issa conduct an investigation? Will he have subpoena power? Even though no Senate ethics charges may be leveled at Dodd can he and Frank be called to testify? Can we call Angelo the 'Moz'? Can we call past employees of Countrywide, and the two FMs?

Seriously, would it be possible to have a commission to study government actions and legislation even back to the CRA of the Carter Admin that might have contributed to this disaster that might indicate government intervention into the free housing market system was a disaster waiting to happen and accentuated by leftist organizations such as ACORN and their federally enabled extortion? Well, anything is possible. But, this probability must wait until serious conservatives are in charge. The GOP establishment is not to be trusted.

Let's face it, there is a real chance that after November the GOP will try to work with the Obama Admin who will just add them to the list of the others it has thrown under the bus--Big Pharma, AMA, Wall Street, Health Insurance Companies, Obama appointees, and even the Democratic members of Congress who were forced to vote for Obamacare and Government paid abortion. Why would the GOP think its treatment would be any different sans a spine transplant? The biggest danger to the GOP in the 2012 elections will be GOP actions in the next two years. GOP efforts towards an Obama Bipartisanship will destroy this country.

On a different note: what would a Hillary Clinton resignation (from being Sec. of State) shortly after the mid-terms mean to Obama? Wouldn't that be interesting?

JM

Xris, I wish you were capable of making rational rebuttals instead of your silly libelous posts.

By the way, President John Kennedy was the first President to discover the moon was reachable by humans carrying sandwiches containing cheese!

Greed is not limited by law only the means, so get your facts right. The right dont like laws limiting the means. They love corporate monopolies, its how they exploit.

I will, if you stop these silly wall charts for the believers.

The petition and info site Care2 shows what the AMerican Right is all about. This is on Michelle BAchman, an exhibitionist first class as well as a ding-bat:

Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann, much adored by Tea Party true-believers, again finds herself defending a statement that could be considered by many to be baffling, unconscionable and downright stupifying. This is not her first time to be hoist on her own petard.

In a recent appearance at a Heritage Foundation luncheon, Bachmann defended BP and referred to attempts to set up a $20 billion escrow fund to pay for claims and clean-up "extortion" (in case you've been in a coma for the last six months, British Petroleum's massive oil spill is responsible for the worst environmental disaster in US history).

She asserted: "…If I was the head of BP, I would let the signal get out there: 'We're not going to be chumps, and we're not going to be fleeced.' And they shouldn't be. They shouldn't have to be fleeced and made chumps to have to pay for perpetual unemployment and all the rest..."

Bachmann, one of Sarah Palin's annointed "Mama Grizzlies," first came to national prominence after Palin was nominated for vice president and introduced a heady new recipe for ultra-conservative-speak: Mix together willful ignorance, issue avoidance, pseudo-populism, fear-mongering and ideological single-mindedness. Set temperature to incendiary, throw in a pinch of sassiness (and some stuff from Neiman Marcus) and work it!

And work it Bachmann did: appearing on national televison in 2008 to accuse her fellow Congresspersons (which members she declined to name) of being un-American and called for a McCarthy-like political pogrom:

"What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out if they are pro-America or anti-America."

Since then, in terms of colorful, ignorant, inexplicable and mind-numbing assertions, Bachmann has not disappointed. Among them (this is a mere sampling):
"Young people will be put into mandatory service… There are provisions for re-education camps for young people where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward."

"Death panels are the bureaucracies that President Obama is establishing where bureaucrats will make the decision on who gets access to health care and how much."

"Back in the 1970s swine flu broke out then under Democrat President Jimmy Carter. I’m not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it’s an interesting coincidence."

One can shudder, shake one's head and snicker (or weep). But, unfortunately, the statements are real and so is Michele Bachmann.
Bachmann, Palin and their fellow Mama-Gs have taken the concept of the soundbyte and made it flesh. Attractively coiffed and dressed, with their aging beauty queen faces and snappy patter, they can come across as just the gals to whip that PTO into shape without chipping a well-manicured nail. But the stakes in this case couldn't be higher.

Playing to the lowest denominator -- preying on the defensiveness and insecurities of the truly vulnerable -- can be a cunning if (please God) shortsighted strategy. We progressives too often become ensnared in our own dither: we fret about the nuances and can seem indecisive. We don't play the game as well as those for whom the rules are made to be flaunted. Maybe we need to take a page from their rulebook and learn to work it a little.

There is the promise of light at the end of this depressing tunnel. Bachmann is in a tough race for reelection, challenged by a strong opponent, Tarryl Clark. According to the Clark campaign, recent polls show that Bachmann's numbers have fallen below 50% and that Clark is keeping up with fundraising, despite Bachmann's access to SarahPAC and other conservative coffers. To unseat Bachmann in her very conservative district, Clark faces a daunting challenge but there seems to be a developing momentum in her favor, aided, no doubt, by Bachmann's own foibles.

Not one, apparently, to let sleeping dogs lie, Bachmann has once again gone rogue by forming an official Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives. The Tea Partyers are both a blessing and a curse for the GOP: they bring enthusiasm and a touching readiness to ignore issues for slogans, but they also tend to drift far outside the mainstream in their radical agendas. The GOP leadership was content to benefit from the movement's energy while sitting comfortably (and safely) on the sidelines: now, for many, that is no longer possible, thanks to Ms Bachmann's fecklessness. Freshly baked hubris, anyone?

Let's put this in plain language: bachmann and her ilk insult the very people they wish to draw as supporters. How long this nation supports professional stupidity, ie, stupidity used to garner political support, is yet to be seen.

Hopefully, the women in jeans and polyester pants with elastic waistbands will rebel against the bachmanns and the palins.

How was it out of context?
I posted your entire statement.

Yes, xris, greed itself is not limited by law. Only the means of satisfying greed are limited by law and/or the individual's propensity to violate the law (e.g., Obama Democrats). As of now, how much money, property and power individuals can accumulate is limited by the law and by the capability of the individual to satisfy his or her greed either in a lawful manner, or in a not prevented unlawful manner (e.g., again, Obama Democrats).

ARE THESE MICHELE BACHMAN QUOTES ACCURATE? ARE THESE ASSERTIONS BY MICHELE BACHMAN TRUE, FALSE, OR ... ?