AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Face it, Emmanuel is a foul mouthed Chicago thug politician and bully, and not a person that deserves the office he has. If this guy was a Republican, the press would have run him out of Washington years ago.

Clearly you are saying the government is better at providing insurance for some people.

Better never hear a ******* word outta her about teleprompters again.

Cycloptichorn

Well he has only been in Washington (in the Obama Administration) for about one year. He was previously a functionary & bag man in the Clinton White House in the late 1990s.

Give them time. Obama will likely have to throw some folks off the bus in the months ahead and Emannuel is among the likely candidates.

Did you manage to get out of D.C. ahead of/during the snowstorm, Georgeob? I recall you saying you were there.

I'm still here. Sunday departure delayed 'till Monday evening. Odds look pretty good ... if the snow plows come near our neighborhood. Most of the main roads are functioning to some degree now.

Beautiful sights everywhere. 30+ inches of snow on the roofs around here, but the local roads are generally still impassable.

As long asd the food & wine hold out ...

Why ??

Because you don't get to make criticisms like that, when you have to put crib notes on your hand to give a speech, George.





A bunch of you guys voted for this person.

Cycloptichorn

This appears to be a rather trivial basis for such a sweeping criticism. All politicians use both teleprompters and other aids during their speeches. The criticism levelled at Obama was generally lighthearted and focused on his rather excessive use of them. Some of the criticism was a bit unfair as well, and some was merely a natural reaction to exaggerated claims of his oratorical skill.

It is a good thing that you are not in a position of political or administrative power. You lack humor & flexibility and you appear given to a streak of rather overbearing intolerance. A line from Gray's Elegy comes to mind , "What Cromwell, guiltless of his country's blood ..."

Lighten up.

I assure you, I find this to be quite funny.

Cycloptichorn

Sarah Palin uses a hand prompter and a paper prompter, but not a teleprompter. A teleprompter requires more equipment than a hand or paper prompter.

Barach Obama uses a teleprompter.

Why does any of this matter except for the humor of it all?

She was just checking her Palm pilot

Cycloptichorn

I, like many others, would vote for Palin in 2012. In my opinion, she represents a demographic that subscribes to a very established concept of what America is all about. Naturally, that does not mesh with many of those that like "change"!

Foofie, I would like a big change. I would like for America to return to the very established concept of what America once was and should be all about.

Let's return to our Constitutional Republic and the ruel of law. Let's return to our Capitalist system and making it probable more people will prosper. Let's return to rooting for the success of each of us. Let's return to appreciation of the most productive among us and what they have lawfully and can do lawfully for all of us. Let's return to us helping one another succeed and not requesting our government do that.

Let's abandon government forced redistribution of wealth. Let's abandon hatred of those who accomplish more than we do. Let's abandon slandering and libeling our fellow Americans.

Apparently she needed the notes for the Q & A session following the speech, though:



Just to be clear: she needed to write down (and look up, we have to assume from the video)

Energy
Budget Cuts
Tax
Lift American
Spirits

in order to answer a couple of soft-ball questions at a Tea Party Convention. After making fun of Obama for reading his speeches from a teleprompter.

what is she a retard





oh no he di'int

'Okie wrote
Yes, there is much more hope for all taxpayers since the exposure of the CRU (Climate Research Unit) e-mails of the University of East Anglia. Just heard some rumblings that a subsidiary of NOAA is being investigated for CRU-like actions, but I'm not sure how much more we will hear about this. More importantly is Sen. Inhofe's successful efforts at insisting on science based decisions RE Cap and Trade legislation. However, as you well know, this [man caused global warming] movement has gained a significant amount of economic momentum. Aside is the interests of Al Gore, Phil Jones (CRU) and Penn State's Michael Mann. We now see major Auto manufacturers and others invested deeply with this. Additionally the SEC's Shapiro has promulgated (by a 3-2 party line vote) interpretative guidance for disclosure of business or legal developments relating to climate change. What? The Securities and Exchange Commission is concerned with this while ignoring years of fact based inquiries into Bernie Madoff Inc? http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2010/01/climate-control-disclosure.html )

As to your second observation regarding Obama's disingenuousness, you are too kind. This is a president that, along with his administration, lies on a continuing basis to the American public. The Obama promised and proposed CSPAN televised Health Care Debates are legendary in their Unicorn like attributes. The POTUS State of the Union dressing down of the SCOTUS Justices with the lie that their recent decision now allows foreign corporations to contribute to political campaigns (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) now competes with the recent kerfuffle about the Christmas Day Bomber's 50 minute, (WH characterized) initially sufficient interrogation, now being replaced with the WH info that he is now imparting more info about his comrades. So did the WH lie initially or are they lying now? We won't even address why this administration decided to call a special news conference to let Abdulmutallab's terrorist buddies know he is spilling the beans thereby making such intelligence virtually useless.

But yes, there is hope. This hope is something that even ICAN has agreed that would be desirable (but secondary to Obama's Impeachment) and that is that Nov 2010 is coming and events in VA, NJ, and MA portend conservative gains and a Congress more capable of curbing progressive excess. Further, the Administration supported by the liberal press and commentators are commiserating via false hope and reasoning as to why Obamacare, Cardcheck, and Crap and Tax are vaporizing before the Dems eyes. I hope they continue to do so. After all, more "I just didn't explain it well enough" self deprecating Obama gyrations and denunciations of (Party of NO!) Republicans can only help further infuriate, especially independent, Americans. Charles Krauthammer replies to the question: 'Don't they understand Massachusetts?'

Indeed, what if the Dems decided to use the reconciliation process to push thru Obamacare early in the morning before the July 4th holiday. Imagine. Every Nov 2010 Republican candidate, from dogcatcher on up could campaign on one line: "Elect me and I will work to repeal this much hated bill forced down patriotic Americans' throats!"

JM

There could be a silver lining in the Obama presidency cloud, James. It could usher in one of the biggest landslides for new conservatism in Washington D.C. It certainly does not hurt to hope so anyway. The polls sort of oscillate up and down, I tend to watch Rasmussen, and although the Strongly Support vs Strongly oppose number has been slightly more negative in the past at a couple of points, it now stands at -17, and his "at least somewhat approve" rating is again at its lowest point ever, at just 44%. It would not take much of a nudge to push it into the 30 some percent range, and if he has a major gaffe, the strongly approve / strongly disapprove index could threaten -30. There is no question that he is in the running for worst president ever.

The primary problem for Obama voters to now turn against Obama is their tremendous emotional investment in the man, it makes it very difficult on them to totally give up on him. A huge number of Obama supporters were emotional supporters, not necessarily fact based supporters, so that is still part of the problem, but at least a large portion of the people that are independents in the middle will I think gravitate back to more sensible political candidates once again.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

"Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That matches the lowest level of overall approval yet measured for this president. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove. "

This could be a fun game...


Give us an example of when we are supposed to go back to. Pick a year, any year in American history. Tell us what year we had it right. This way we can examine what your view of what America "should be about."


...as long as those laws aren't enforcing annoying and costly regulations on businesses to make them safe and to ensure they don't damage the environment...


Hooray! No more subsidies for mega-retailers that give them an unfair competitive edge!


Well, some of us have been rooting for this for some time. You're welcome to join.


Everyone appreciates those that are successful, and have achieved success in a lawful and ethical way. It's those that have achieved success by not being lawful and ethical who we don't appreciate. You know, the people that pay illegal immigrants crap wages to cut overhead and increase profit. I'm sure they plan on using that extra money to promote growth in a American job market. I mean, everybody knows that when rich people have more money, it trickles down to the middle class.


Example?


Yay! No more tax cuts for the wealthy!


Yay! No more anti-intellectuals!


Yay! No more slander and libel about our president being a...

Marxist
Communist
Secret Muslim
Foreigner
Racist

You're a bunch of fun ican. We should do this more often.

T
K
O

I posted:
I would like for America to return to the very established concept of what America once was and should be all about.


The day before the day the Supreme Court decided the Constitution was a "living document" such that the powers the Constiitution granted the federal government could be amended--that is, reinterpreted--by a majority of Congress, the President, and a majority of the Supreme Court, in addition to being amendable according to Article V of the Constitution.

I recollect that day was between January 1 and December 31, 1913.