Richard Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, insists that the striking similarity between MDA’s website logo and Obama’s campaign logo is just coincidence. He says the MDA logo was created for a recruiting campaign that preceded the 2008 election, which is confirmed by an October 2008 recruiting ad in MIT’s campus newspaper. There it is on page 17 (large PDF warning), MDA’s Obama-esque configuration of circles and crescents, complete with waves of grain:
MDA logo, left. Circles, crescents, and red-and-white waves of grain (or rocket exhaust), just like Obama’s logo.
The MIT ad means that the MDA logo is not a product of the Obama administration, but that doesn’t mean it is not an offshoot of the Obama logo, which was introduced in early 2007. Unless the MDA recruiting campaign goes back that far, the MDA design could still have been influenced by Obama’s design, or directly created by an Obama supporter. It’s hard to believe it wasn’t, but unless Obama’s own people had some inside influence with the logo designers at TMPgovernment (not an impossibility) any intentional similarity would be a product of the designers’ own initiative, not the Obama team’s orchestration. Big deal. Obama can’t help what his supporters do.
More worrisome is how a branch of the Department of Defense can overlook the overt Islamic symbol shape
The classic Islamic crescent (based on later flags of the Ottoman Empire) is defined by its circular inner and outer arcs. Contrast this to a crescent moon, which has an elliptical inner arc (when projected onto two dimensions). Several jihadist organizations use a full circle-in-circle crescent in their insignias, just like the one in the MDA logo.
Here is the insignia of The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine:
Similar insignias are used by Hamas:
by the Islamic Palestine Block:
and by the Muslim American Society, which was created by the Muslim Brotherhood (the parent organization of al Qaeda) in 1928:
As with the Missile Defense Agency logo, the inner circle in the MAS logo represents the earth. The 360° green crescent formed by the space between the two circles represents Islamic domination of the planet. This Islamic triumphalism is also the depicted on the Hezbollah flag, which uses 2/3rds of of the outline of a globe to create an Islamic crescent covering the more typical 2/3rds of a circle of arc:
It is unclear what the blue crescent formed by the inner and outer circles of the MDA logo is supposed to represent. It’s not a missile trajectory (that’s in red), and if it were supposed to be atmosphere, the thicker side would be the near side (as defined by the missile trajectory). All we are left with is the geometric similarity to the jihadi insignias.
Were concerns about the Islamic shaped crescent suppressed as anti-Muslim bigotry?
Friend vs. foe identification is as basic as military fundamentals get. Every soldier is drilled on every available identifier, over and over and over, and it never stops. It is simply inconceivable that our Defense Department could employ an Islamic symbol shape–in the midst of a war with Islamic terrorists–and not be aware of it.
The question is how the inevitable recognition of the Islamic symbol shapes got suppressed. Did those who recognized the Islamic crescent self-censor from fear of being branded an anti-Muslim bigot, like those who remained quiet about Nidal Hasan’s violent Islamic diatribes (enabling the Fort Hood massacre), or did they raise their concerns and were they attacked, as Tom Burnett Sr. has been attacked (“Efforts to sully Flight 93 memorial deserve scorn“) for protesting the Park Service’s decision to plant a giant Islamic-shaped crescent atop his son’s grave?
The difference is that Flight 93 Memorial architect Paul Murdoch saturated his Crescent of Embrace design with endless proof of terrorist memorializing intent. Not only does the giant crescent point to Mecca (making it a mihrab, the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built) but the design is replete with elaborately repeated Mecca orientations.
If only I would stop exposing the Mecca-oriented crescents, a silly Irishman recently advised, nobody would know and no harm would be done. It is only because I am doing the bad man’s work for him, you see, that the opportunity for mischief arises.
This is exactly what our foolish elites say about Islam. Don’t point out that Osama Bin Laden is a perfectly orthodox Wahabbist or you will just convince the other orthodox Muslims that they should follow him, as if they don’t already know their own religion. We tried this strategy at Fort Hood and we all know the result. We have been squeezing our eyes wide shut for forty years, until we are on the verge of allowing Islamic suicide bombers to get nuclear weapons.
What graver symbol of our peril could there be than a DOD logo with the exact peculiar geometry of a jihadist insignia?
FOIA request has been submitted
I asked the Missile Defense Agency’s FOIA officers to please send me whatever records they have–documents, emails, minutes–where the suitability of the crescent logo is discussed.
Hopefully somebody committed their qualms to writing, spurring enough cloud-chamber reactions to reveal the mechanisms of suppression that set those qualms aside. Very likely there was no opposition, only self-censorship, and it will turn out that an independent jihadi was left free to simply insert an Islamist logo onto the MDA website, just like the sound engineer who inserted “Islam is the light” onto the voice track of Mattel’s Cuddle & Coo doll.
Alternatively, the TPMgovernment designer who composed the MDA’s crescent logo could be completely ignorant and have no idea he was channeling Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. After all, it is the military that is supposed to recognize the insignias of the enemy. If our military is intentionally asleep at the wheel, don’t expect an artsy civilian to do their oversight for them.
If the TPMgovernment designer was/is a simple lefty Obamaton (pretty common amongst artsy civilians) he/she/it might have been aware of the Islamic symbol shape, yet and thought it added a nice touch of multi-culturalism. (I have asked for the designers names too. Pretty sure I won’t get them, but if there are any TPMgovernment employees or ex-employees who know how this happened, please speak up.)
If Obama’s people did somehow exercise direct influence, then the Washington Times criticism applies. Recasting the symbols of the United States to reflect Obama’s personal ensign is, well, call it the ultimate rejection of bipartisanship, but Obama is known to have gone down this road before. Remember this Obamanation:
As for what the MDA needs to do, it really doesn’t matter whether their website logo was done by a free-lance Obamaton, a free-lance jihadi, by direct influence, or by simple accident. Symbols of the American military must not share the peculiar geometry of the symbols of our terror war enemies. Ask any PFC. The MDA logo needs to be changed.
There is far too much of this crap going on for it to be a coincidence. Obama’s trek through college was funded through islamic scholarship funds. His entire career was also helped by those same masters. The 911 memorial in Pa. has the same symbolism. I don’t hold with any conspiracy theories, but this is just too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence.
“and red-and-white waves of grain”
Obama’s logo has blood flowing though the streets.
No one overlooked the crescent, it’s part of the overall plan. Everyone the crazy POTUS has hired in a know member of radical Islam, a Marxist, or a career criminal. I keep praying for help but GWB damaged the terrorist too much for them to take care of our major problem.
0bama is a red jihadist. He is using a seemingly socialist(technically, fascism)as a means to an ultimate end. a Khalifah..
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911207383/homeland-security/warlord-obama.html
h/t commenter bg @ gatewaypundit
“Warlord Obama Walking the Plank to a Dhimmi Nation, Written by Mary Christina Love”
As he said there, copy and paste it before it goes poof. Hell, make hardcopies.
Just when I thought the wingnuts could not get any nuttier, then you folks come up with something even more frigging bonkers than before.
http://www.logoblog.org/wordpress/yes-we-can-steal-the-pepsi-logo-is-obama-guilty-of-logo-design-theft/
Let’s see . . . Obama’s logo was stolen from Pepsi, now the MDA logo is stolen from the Obama logo. So, by definition, the MDA logo is REALLY the bastard child of the Pepsi logo and the frag of Turkey . . . .
And you know what else? If you squint real closely, you can see the black helicopters flying over the blood red waives of grain in the Obama logo . . . honesk Injun!
@BRob:
I don’t really see the Zero logo. I do however see the Muslim imagery very clearly. Why the Zero needed a logo is beyond me. He is the first presidential candidate I can remember having a logo. That is of little consequence however, as his job performance will take care of the nation’s problem all by itself. Get ready for November B-Rob from Clevecago, and look forward to 2012 as well. B. Hussein Obama will achieve his goal of being a one term failure. Destined to be mentioned in perpetuity along with the likes of Jimmy Carter.
@BRob:
I was wondering when you’d summon up the courage to stick your nose back in the room.
I figured we’d see you over on the health care summit thread (it’s right underneath this one)…but I guess that conversation would have been too awkward and uncomfortable for you. Perhaps that required more courage than you could muster.
I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that your TelePromTer Jesus and his minions didn’t do too well. Congressman Ryan et al ate their lunch.
Maybe they should have written some notes on their hands, eh?
Exit question: When you blog from work, during working hours, and presumably, from an employer owned and provided machine, is that billable time…or are you simply scamming money from your employer under the guise of lookin’ busy on the computer?
Soros probably pays BRob’s salary… I think he gets paid by the word.
Bit off topic. There’s a bill going through Congress to rename the Dept. of the Navy to the Dept. of the Navy and Marine Corps. I don’t have a problem with that, from the article:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/84011-bill-to-rename-the-dept-of-navy-will-hit-house-floor-next-month
Just wondering if the big “O” will take liberties with the Navy and Marine Corps logo and stray from dignified traditional designs:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=department+of+navy+logo&oq=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=azGJS7_5LJy0MeG41KUB&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CCgQsAQwAw
to the cartoonish like other government agency “O” logos that have been popping up lately. Here’s one for healthcare that surfaced last summer:
http://www.businesspundit.com/organizing-for-america-designs-obama-healthcare-logo/
Recovery and Dept of Transportation, absent the Obama brand, both done by Obama’s campaign logo designer who I suspect may be doing most of them:
http://www.modeproject.com/news/president-obama-unveils-new-logos-designed-by-mode-project/
Really don’t want to see this country stuck with Obama gimmickry.
flyover —
The problem with staying among conservatives and not getting out among normal people is that you get a very warped perspective. So keep wishing and hoping Obama fails. But don’t be surprised when he is re-elected . . . especially since you have NO ONE ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE who can hold his jock.
Who are you gonna run against him? Palin? Pawlenty, who could not balance his budget without stimulus money? Haley Barber. who will promise to work hard to turn America into one big version of Mississippi?
You best hope that Jeb Bush wants to make a run. But he is probably too smart to take on a lost cause like the GOP. Because, guess what? Obama’s approval ratings, and the Dem Congress’, are STILL HIGHER THAN THE GOP! LOL!
Chihuahua — Little dogs need to stay on the porch.
@BRob:
Paul Ryan et al ate his lunch at the summit. What should have been a cakewalk for your TelePromTer Jesus ended up being a bloodbath with even Dim analysts asking “What was Obie thinking?”
Roll the tape:
Really?
Sources please.
Your Dim Controlled congress is currently polling at 10% approval:
View at EasyCaptures.com
So, that’s your justification for your cowardice?
Yeah.
Here’s the link again.
I’m off to gnaw on a piece of my Dim Congressman.
See you in a bit.
Maybe you can muster some courage in the meantime, eh?
Aye Chihuahua —
So you are suggesting that the GOP run a guy who proposed eliminating Medicare in favor of a voucher program?
I say run with it! LOL! That will go over real well in Florida, Pennsylvania and Arizona! LOL!
By the way: did you notice how NONE OF THE OTHER GOPERS back his plan? Why? Because it would actually take guts for the GOP to, once and for all, take a stand against the REAL socialism in America and come out in favor of eliminating Medicare. And that is one thing the GOPers don’t have — guts. Or actual principals, for that matter. So you have the specter of GOPers arguing against “socialism” and “deficit spending” when they just passed an expansion of Medicare and DID NOT PAY FOR IT, and they are now criticising Obama for daring to make cuts in the same Medicare program that the GOPers AGREE is running us bankrupt! Nope, the GOP (Ryan excepted, maybe) have no principals at all. And that is why they are not trusted.
Ryan, at least is honest in his assessment of things. I think his health care plan is stupid and would put the US businesses at a competitive disadvatage when compared to our Canadian, Japanese and European competitors, who have universal health care and don’t have to pay for that benefit out of their profits like our businesses do. But at least his plan acknowledges the problem. The rest of the GOP is still in the free lunch mode, where their answer to deficit spending is . . . lowering government revenues through more tax cuts . . . as if that actually makes any sense.
And I like the fact that you posted a poll that measures something different than what I pointed out. Yes, Congress, as a whole, is not popular. But the GOPers are even less popular than the Dems. Which, of course, accounts for the dismal GOP voter identification numbers.
@Aye… don’t confuse BRob with facts… it’ll make his head explode. Hmmmm… on second thought… More facts please!
Don, I love how you shy away from the central problem with the GOP: no principals.
It was proven when they refused to approve the deficit reduction commission, which was intended to help solve a problem that THEY CREATED AND THEN EXACERBATED by adding the un-paid-for drug entitlement. Obama’s trying to clean up a budget mess years in the making, and the GOP is content to let the problem fester. They even want to make the matters worse by OPPOSING ANY REDUCTIONS IN MEDICARE SPENDING! W.t.f.? How does that make any sense?
See, Don, that is what you don’t want to discuss. Indeed, I dare you to defend the GOPs actions on spending . . . I double dog dare you!
billy bob, it’s hard enough to get thru your ill-thought out tirades – laden with emotion and sorely lacking in factual substance – without also having to be subjected to repeated errors in the usage of the English language.
You are speaking of “principles”, not “principals”. The GOP has “principals”, as in leadership. And they most certainly have “principles” as well. Whether you agree with those principles can be the heart of your argument. But your persistence in making things up as you go along, and randomly slinging blanket, class warfare personal assaults, just wears on a body’s tolerance levels.
But if you are going to persist in pushing Obama’s OFC agenda here, could you at least pull your paralegal aside and have him/her check your presentation before you hit send? You’re an embarrassment to the bar, and to the illustrious college from which you were graduated.
@BRob:
I didn’t make a comment one way or the other regarding whether Ryan should run or not. Nice try at putting words in my mouth.
I posted the clip of Ryan in order to dispel your myth that “NO ONE ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE who can hold his jock.”
Do, please, try and pay attention.
Ryan, Alexander, McCain, et al ATE HIS LUNCH at the summit and sent him scurrying away to 1600.
I notice you still have nothing to say about that.
Whadda matter? Cat got your tongue?
Again, sources please.
Surely, if that were true, it would be very easy for you to document.
Little dog —
I’ll get over there eventually. As for anyone “eating his lunch” — I bet you thought the GOP House members “won” that meeting in Baltimore, didn’t you? You thought McCain and Alexander . . . did well? Really . . . .
@BRob:
Yeah, “eventually.”
Right.
@BRob
Good thing the GOP was around… the Dems wanted an unfunded prescription drug program much larger than what was passed. It’s all relative.
I’ll give you this… the Republicans have been less than disciplined in controlling spending. But compared to Democrats they are down right miserly. Again it’s all relative.
In the end… Republicans WILL return to their core principles which will mean lower spending. If the Democrats adhere to their principles we’ll see astronomical spending…. oops.. there’s that “it’s all relative” issue.
I could spend more time refuting your bullshit but I have more important things to do… I’m chip leader in the poker tournament I’m playing.
@BRob:
It took me a while to stop laughing at your comment long enough to type this. Are you serious? Obama is the least qualified person in any room he steps into. Just like a liberal though, you take anyone with any real world accomplishment and chalk that up to the evil of success at the expense of the masses. Little Barry comes into the room and speaks in cliches and platitudes, and you insist on him being in charge of the whole enchilada. Then when he is an abysmal failure with nobody around to change his C’s to A’s, you blame the system. This is the problem when people on your side successfully hide who they are and what their intentions are while campaigning for public office. The people who voted for him mostly have adult memories. As for which Republican is more qualified to be President, I think Ron Paul is the only one I can think of that might cause me to vote for the Little Zero. One thing in Obama’s favor for that matchup from hell is little Barry’s ineptitude.
@MataHarley:
Did B-Rob ever tell us which college he is pretending to have graduated from?
BOob seems to think that he/it can filibuster a comment thread.
While it is refreshing to see any liberal loon willing to expand their thoughts to be more than a pithy bumper sticker, it is also disappointing that despite the expansion of thought in word count, the depth of thought and factual content actually gets shallower.
It is like BOob bought a 1 pint can of bright florescent pink paint because he likes the color, and despite being told that it is a water color, he is determined to try and paint a house with it. The more he spreads it, the more everyone can see right through it, but the more furiously BRob tries to paint over everything. If you hose it off the windows, BOob will be busy trying to paint your car. Hose off your car and he’ll be over trying to paint your front door. He never has enough paint and since it is just water color, it wouldn’t hold against any sort of weather even if he did.
While I would like for him to dry up and blow away, just like his flaky ideas, his presence and feeble attempts at logic and historical distortion are easy fodder for the rest of us to sharpen our skills at spotting the insanity of the left. When I read his screeds I want to laugh at is incompetence at the same time I want to cry for my country having produced such a failure of human development.
Mata —
You know, you are truly impressive. You got me good. You are right and I am wrong. Like sometimes people write “capital” when they mean “capitol”. Principle principal. Affect effect. And the Republic crumbles on these kinds of errors.
I just adore how you change the subject whenever you can’t deal. Now I get an extensive lecture from someone who barely graduate middle school and rode the short bus to high school. Wonderful.
Flyover —
I went to the same school as John John Kennedy. Lisa Loeb was one of my counselees. Ted Turner went there, too, as did Christian Bale and Laura Linney. See if you can figure that out, smart guy. And where did you go to school? Columbus State? Tri-C?
As for Obama being “the least qualified” — interesting that. You had your shot to knock off this “least qualified” person. And you numbnuts chose Sarah Palin to carry your sword. So looking at who you guys selected to lead the country, the voters chose, overwhelmingly, to go with “the least qualified” guy as you estimate. This means one of two things:
1) your assessment of his qualifications are wacked; the majority of voters simply disagree with an assessment that has Obama be “unqualified” and Palin “qualified.” or
2) no matter how low Obama’s qualifications, they STILL WANTED HIM CALLING THE SHOTS instead of you losers. So no matter how much you think he sucked, the voters thought you cons sucked even more! It must have hurt to lose to someone so “unqualified” especially since it means you side was even less qualified than he . . . .
And did you actually name someone who could beat Obama? Er, no. But I hope y’all go with Haley Barber. You know, promise to turn America into a bigger version of that bastion of conservative thought and government, Mississippi. That’ll win ya the White House! So go for it!
Don — no rational argument supporting your side’s approach to the deficit, I see. I didn’t expect you to have anything. But “Oh, yeah, well they suck more than we do” does not work when one side is trying to address their “suckitude” and the other is not. It was simply unconscionable for the GOP to bail out of the deficit reduction commission, just as it is unconscionable for them to oppose any cuts in Medicare. But as I said back in 2007, if Obama did not get the nominee, they should have made him the deficit czar — only a liberal can cut entitlements and that is what has to be done. Which is why putting Andy Stern on the panel is a stroke of genius.
As for the Dems “wanting” “an unfunded prescription drug program much larger than what was passed” — Don, that’s an exceedingly weak argument. And it is a flat out lie and you know it.
First of all, the GOPers were in power; it did not matter whether the Dems “wanted” a chicken in every pot: the GOPers controlled what happened. Second, the Dems OPPOSED the elimination of pay as you go. If the Dems had had their way, no expansion of entitlements could have happened without either cutting spending elsewhere, or raising taxes to pay for it. But the GOPers eliminated pay as you go to put through tax cuts with no reduction in spending; this created the atmosphere of increasing deficits and the un-paid-for drug bill. Again — it was Denny Hastert, Tom DeLay decision; the Dems had nothing to do with it at all.
Then, when all was said and done, it was the GOP that passed a bill that was not paid for at all! Your party rammed it through . . . kept the vote open past the time alloted under the rules, twisted arms, anything to pass it . . . and they did it under reconciliation, to boot!
No, son, the GOP made matters all the worse by eliminating pay as you go, then passing a drug bill with no payment mechanism. So don’t try to rewrite history by trying to compare the disasterous GOP drug bill that passed and became law to a non-existent Dem bill that never passed.
TSgt Ciz —
I think you may have had one too many blows to the head. See a doctor.
What on earth gave you the misconception that I considered any of your dissertations here worth addressing??
Would that be the one where your comment revolves around@you wingnuts are even nuttier here?
Or how about that one @speculating who you think is worthy of being the GOP nominee? (like that’s any of your business anyway…) Then you take Aye Chi’s comment about Paul Ryan’s performance, and leap to him being the nominee? yeah… that was relevant. Talk about changing the subject.
Or maybe you thought your representation of the @summit debate was somehow unshakeable fact? heh
Then you change the subject to Medicare D, which is operating 37-45% *under* projected budget. Then, of course, you rewrite vote history and ignore the fact that 11 Dem Senators were in that 54 majority vote for Medicare D in 2003, and 7 GOP Senators were opposing. Hardly party line stuff.
Then I might point out the obvious to the political oblivious… that none of these subjects has anything to do wtih the original post. Talk about diversion techniques…
But since you insist I address whether your worthless talking points merit comment, here’s my comment…. try learning to use the federal sites before removing your foot from your butt, and inserting it into your cyber mouth.
Other than that, you’re usually just an annoying gnat on my monitor.
@BRob… can I get you a refill on those water colors? Such a wonderful and acurate analogy. I’m trying to keep my responses to BRob down to a sentence or two. I hate him wasting my time.
Update for federal legislative challenged billy bob… House vote for Medicare D included 16 Dems pro HR1, and 25 GOPers anti.
Again, hardly partisan. And certainly more inclusive (and productive) than the supermajority Dems here who can only squeak by with the help of 1-3 GOPers because they have so many of their own fleeing from their progressive agenda.
@BRob:
I graduated from The Ohio State University. It was there that I already knew the difference between principal and principle because I had paid attention during my high school career. Supposedly you managed to graduate from law school without gaining that knowledge. Am I supposed to be impressed that Lisa Loeb had supposedly hired you? Why would she even need an attorney in Ohio anyway? I happen to know a few folks who also matriculated at Brown. Be prepared for some comparative questions on which professors you had and or paid attention to. If Obama has any qualifications, since I am whacked, please name five. While it is true that Obama managed to win the election, Americans realize their mistake. The first steps towards correcting that mistake happened in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massechusetts already. November will be an even bigger step. We’ll see if you will be willing to endulge us with your 8th grade wit and wisdom in late November of 2012.
Mata —
Was the drug bill paid for? No it was not. So it added to the deficit. Even if it is “37 to 45% under projected budget” (which is it?), that just means it is not driving up as fat a deficit as projected . . . it’s like dying by 986 cuts instead of 1,000 cuts . . . you are dead nonetheless.
Yeah 11 Dems voted for the deficit busting bill; that means that, by my count, 35 voted against it. It was a GOPer bill that GOPers passed so GOPers get the “credit” for this monstrosity, even though you now want to “spread around” the blame to the party that was NOT IN POWER.
And what leadership have we seen from the cons on the deficit? Nothing. You cannot spin that, Shirley!
GOP and deficit management is deplorable. However Dems and deficit management is a spiral to bankrupting the nation in short order. I’ll use your own analogy against you… “it’s like dying by 986 cuts instead of 1,000 cuts…”. We’re bankrupt nonetheless. Just faster with the brain trusts you put in charge.
I see… so more partisan voting during GOP years when they were no where close to a supermajority scores no points with you, and you give the ineffective supermajority here a pass.
heh
Oh, for the record, the deficit and budget has been increasing for decades, Shirley. And I might point out that the largest budget increases commenced in 2007… strangely enough when your leadership seized control of both chambers. “you cannot spin that”, billy bob. Tho I have no doubt you’ll make bend over trying. Just prescreen your stuff thru your paralegals, please. Perhaps the POTUS is available to help… he’s a top notch paralegal. Or perhaps you can comply with Flyover’s request for that long list of trials on record where Obama was a powerhouse lead attorney instead of a back room paper pusher?
BOob,
As soon as you said ‘you think’ everyone here knew that what ever followed would be a lie. You don’t think, You are incapable of cognitive processes. You should have said that ‘you feel’.
And just to answer your assertion. Yes I have suffered too many blows to the head. My head was partially crushed in an in fight emergency that killed two men and maimed another of my squad while preparing an airborne insertion. I’ve also bounced of tree limbs and broken my back and separated my shoulder while in the service. I’ve bounce of things and had things bounced off me. And yet, despite all that, I still think far more clearly and rationally even while four fingers into a bottle of McCallan than you do on your very best day.
I attended the Air Force Academy and have recently returned to study Computer Technology and still at 53 yrs of age I hold a 4.0 and would make every one of my school transcripts and service records and birth certificate available to friends and foes alike. Because every word I speak is mine and is true to the very length of my knowledge and I will defend them as such.
Obama is a fake a fraud and that is why everything about him is manufactured out of whole cloth with no sustaining record and great expense and effort is expended in hiding that fact. It is also why he can’t string together a coherent thought without a TelePrompTer. Obama, like you, is just a big sock puppet. The only question that is unanswered is, just who is it with their hand up the puppets ass.
flyover —
You are proof positive that crack kills.
I need not list five “qualifications” that Obama had; because we already had this discussion last November and he was deemed “most qualified” by a ten million vote margin. Get over it!
And REALLY — you guys ran Sarah Palin and you thought she WAS qualified. So you have no credibility whatsoever in judging anyone qualifications. It’s like Newt Gingrich and Mark Sanford giving marriage advice . . . “How the f. would you know?”
And, oh, by the way — you mentioned “The first steps towards correcting that mistake happened in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massechusetts already.” Let’s ponder this — the GOP won one federal special election and, by my count, lost the other five. But you are declaring victory? OK. And how does two governorships fit into this equation? I did not know Obama wanted to be governor of Virginia! Such silliness on the right . . . .
To the rest of your post — *yawn*
@BRob:
Well there you have it folks, even an Obama supporter can’t name 5 reasons why Obama should be President. By the way Boob, it was you who said nary a Republican was able to hold Obama’s athletic support. Here is a list of 10 who I feel would be better equipped to serve than the Zero.
1. Newt Gingrich
2. Duncan Hunter
3. Mitt Romney
4. Dick Cheney
5. Jeb Bush
6. Jim DeMint
7. Tom Tancredo
8. Fred Thompson
9. Rudy Guiliani
10. The Republican dog groomer I take my pet to.
Mata —
You wrote “I see… so more partisan voting during GOP years when they were no where close to a supermajority scores no points with you, and you give the ineffective supermajority here a pass.”
This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Please edit.
The first budget cycle with a Dem majority in the House would be the FY 2007 budget. Because the GOP didn’t pass one, if I recall. You know what happened in December 2007, toward the start of the FY 2008 budget? That’s right . . . a recession! Know what happened starting in late spring 2008? Yes, the bank bailouts. If you are not smart enough to grasp how running a deficit in FY 2008, and 2009, for that matter, are different than running deficits in FY 2002 through FY 2006, when the economy was expanding . . . nah, you aren’t smart enough . . . .
By the way — though “deficit and budget has been increasing for decades” — you cons were handed a balanced budget in 2001. All you had to do was STAY THE F-ING COURSE! Cut taxes? Fine! Cut the spending, too! But you refused to do that because Dick Cheney and friends believed “deficits don’t matter.” So the GOPers got rid of pay go, and now we are in a mess. The GOP had no fiscal discipline whatsoever.
But the worse part about it, Mata? The GOPers now won’t cooperate in helping to clean up the mess they made! No cuts in Medicare? But adding more tax cuts? Are you f-ing kidding me? It is all because they do not want Obama to get credit for a balanced the budget. And that is a damn shame . . . .
billy bob, it’s difficult to function at your low reading comprehension level when making points. I suggest it’s a personal problem if you can’t figure out the difference between a small majority held Congress, still managing to pass legislation with aisle defections…. and the ball busting ineffectiveness of a supermajorty who is so far removed from their own, they can’t get anything thru. Virtually impossible to spin your failures to pass bills when the GOP doesn’t have to show up in either chamber. Here’s the truth, bubba… your problem is not the GOP, but your own moderate Dems. And it was those moderate Dems who enabled the 2007 power sweep, to boot. heh
If I thought you were deplorable in the use of the English language, your economic history is even worse. The recession culminating in 2008 started long before Bush. Tho I know with those of you prozac laden BDS sufferers, its hard for you to imagine that the world, and it’s woes, didn’t begin with Bush, and end with Obama’s coronation.
The reason the GOPers won’t “cooperate” in the mess CONGRESS… including the powerhouses of your party members …. made over decades is because what they propose will not “clean up” the mess, but break the bank.
Or perhaps that’s your desire, since it hands over survival to the federal government? In which case, why not just skip all of that here, and head to Greece? They’re a social welfare state that did rapid fire government expansion once on the Euro. Hey, they’ve even got single payer with a mandate. How’s that working out for them? doh!
If Obama actually came up with proposals that did not increase the debt, curbed the costs to medical providers, and didn’t “rebuild the car” but did incremental changes to see how it affected the budget, then you’d find me in support.
But that ain’t what’s happening, tho you desperately so wish to see the sun and the moon in YOUR POTUS. But I will cut him a hair of slack because it’s all been delegated to Pelosi and Reid. Only a hair, I say, because he’s whipping them along a dangerous path instead of offering sage guidance.
Therefore the onus of this poor choice of economic solutions will fall on his legacy shoulders. And the only way that legacy will be a pretty one is a government penned textbook, Castro style, rewriting history.
flyover —
As I said: you had your chance to “prove” he should not be president. You f-ing blew it! Don’t pillory me because your party couldn’t beat a frost belt liberal Dem with a Muslim name who had never held high office until two years beforehand. In fact . . . how incompetent must the GOPers be if the voters would trust HIM over THEM?
Do you even understand why you lost? Do you?
You cons are setting Obama up for a second term . . . you just don’t even know it yet . . . .
@BRob:
Still peddling that myth, eh?
My Dim Congressman was shoveling from that same cart o’ scat this morning too until I presented him with the facts:
BRob is starting to sound irrate…. maybe because he wants to be the one that holds Obama’s jock and he got passed over for the job.
Let’s give billy bob a sanity check and research ability test, shall we? So, billy bob… you sooooo want to talk about Medicare D… a genuinely bi partisan bill passed in a slight majority GOP Congress in 2003. Your beef?
First exam question… and yes, you may consult your smarter paralegals for the answers. In fact, it’s an open-Internet exam. Depend upon Wiki at your own score risk.
1: Do name any amount between 1-5 of HHS social programs that are *not* adding to the deficit.
uh… that oughta take a while….
2: Explain why the Dem’s, after seizing power in 2007, made Medicare D even more deficit intensive by reducing the amount of drugs a beneficiary had to be using in order to qualify. Not only does this action increase the demand on Medicare D, but it increases medical costs to the Medicare system since every prescription requires physician visits.
Need some help in the basic curriculum? Hey…. I’ll accommodate. Anything to add to the deplorable education of which you are apparently a victim of today. In fact, I’ll even put it into pictures for the reading challenged…..
Note the jump of required drug use for Med D qualification between 2006 (GOP Congress) thru 2009 (the bulk being Dem controlled).
Didn’t know you had to be a on State prescribed drugs to qualify? Read and learn…
@ Mata… I hear the pressure in BRob’s head nearing the explosion point. He’s gonna be trying to paint your dog with water colors.
Mata, dearie, you are making less and less sense with each post. Not sure what your point was about the moderate Dems. Because you stung together so many talking points, I forgot what the original subject was . . . oh, yeah . . . spending.
Mata, as simple question: was the drug bill paid for or was it not? No, it was not. Why was it not paid for? Because the GOPer Congress didn’t pay for damn near ANY of its new spending. Didn’t pay for the drug bill or Iraq or the tax cut revenue losses. No, they thought is was A-OK to put it on a ChiCom credit card. And when it came time to reinstates pay as you go, guess what? NOT A SINGLE GOPER SIGNED ON!
So let’s recap: you were handed a surplus. Your turned it into deficits as far as the eye could see, even when the economy was growing. Then the GOP has resisted all the efforts to actually address the deficit. They opposed pay go, opposed a deficit reduction commission (after supporting it) and they have run around screaming at Dems for daring to discuss reducing Medicare . . . which is bankrupting us.
Mata, did you know that Medicare is bankrupting us? If so, then why do you sit there as con after con screams about opposing Medicare cuts?
I just saw a post here on FA whining that the elimination of a NASA program will cost jobs. W.t.f. . . . THAT’S why we should keep spending money ona program that is not needed? Because it saves jobs? When did you cons become so socialistic? Oh, I get it . . . Obama proposed eliminating the program, therefore you must support it!
This is why I left the GOP in 2008 to vote for Obama: because the GOP has been taken over by total nuts. Birthers, Palin nuts, Michele Bachman, Muslim haters, sex perverts . . . totally friggin bonkers. And after reading Hank Paulson’s book, it is clear to me that the party leadership is total batsh*t crazy, too.
Nope . . . if you care anything about restoring our budget to sanity, it is quite apparent to me that Obama and the Dems are going to have to go it alone. Because the GOPers are out to lunch.
And once again B-Rob fails to understand a President of the United States does not handle the spending matters, only signs or vetos the budget bills the Congress finalizes. During Bill Clinton’s administration, a mostly Conservative Republican majority sat in control of Congress and was responsible for the “surplus” you so idioticly credit towards Clinton. An Executive branch of Government is not responsible in any form or matter in tax collection or budget planning for the fiscal year, that falls within the Legislative branch of our Federal Government.
In 2002 to 2006 the Congress has been dominated by Progressive/Liberal Republicans, and for that they lost their seats to the Democrats in 2006 of which only further increased budget sizes without President Bush’s approval of which the Democrats and many Mainstream media were quick to lay blame for increased spending onto as a convient shield due to the mass ignorance in what branch of government truly handles budget issues.
billy bob… dearie… see above test… once again… as a response to your red herring.
Need a repeat?
Part I: Name government social welfare programs that do *not* add to the deficit. Hey, I’m easy. I’ll take even one that you can substantiate… not using Wiki sources. I’ll even take your paralegal’s input, and give them more credibility.
Part II: Explain why – if you’re so disgruntled about the Medicare D social welfare program not passing your all-of-the-sudden-and-not-adhered-to-pay-as-you-go criteria/test – that Dems put it further into the fiscal black hole with their changes by lowering the amount of drugs needed to qualify for Medicare D?
… as usual, billy bob… you are a fish in a barrel target.
Bored now….
and splat… Billy Bob’s head erupts
@BRob:
Buzzer sounds.
Capital gains revenue reality:
Furthermore, revenues were collected at record levels following the Bush tax cuts:
Moving on:
Buzzer sounds.
Again, this argument has been irrefutably proven false.
Let’s continue:
Buzzer sounds.
Ever hear of Senator Bunning?
Yeah, so did those free spending Dims on the Senate floor Thursday evening.
I can very easily dig up other examples as well.
Your boy-prez disagrees with you.
Well, at least he did when he was
campaigningbamboozling:Of course now he’s got a Dim Congressional rep in that district that dared to vote “NO” on health care. Can’t be having none of that dissent now can we?
Just ask Bart Stupak what happens when you kick up a little dust:
Then, there’s this gem:
Buzzer sounds.
Everyone else pardon me for being crass here, but I’m gonna call bullshit on that one.
In the absence of your voter registration records, contribution records, and copies of your votes for Republican candidates prior to 2008, and in light of all of your other postings here, there’s no way that claim is anything more than pure, unadulterated BS.
You’ve been shown to be dishonest, or at least blatantly attempting to mislead on multiple occasions prior to today, so anything else you say must be viewed through that lens.
I believe that is a process known as impeachment of a witness.
Yeah.
It’s all the fault of the GOP.
Which is why there was such caterwauling, shrieking, weeping, wailing, and tooth gnashing when Bunning objected Thursday night.
Another perfect example is how the Dims carried on endlessly because the GOP objected to the expansion of the SCHIP program.
Yeah, history shows the Dims have all the fiscal sanity on their side of the aisle:
Sorry.
Reality betrays you.
I would also like to point out one little tidbit with BRob, it seems he is connecting deficit to the word debt as interchangeables in a topic.
Even during Bill Clinton’s terms of Office the United States still had a National Debt that was being slowly decreased by the “surplus” budget for those terms due to no deficits. The National Debt is monies we owe to various groups of interest be it the United States citizens or foriegn groups such as the People’s Republic of China and with each year we build up a deficit we vastly increase the National Debt. As of now, the sheer bulk of bonds and treasury stocks in Chinese hands far outweigh American holdings, which translates billions of dollars in our monies exiting our Economy which makes the whole purpose of keynesian economics pointless in practice as it relies on INTERNAL loans between legal Citizens and the Government in forms of bond and treasury stock loans.
OK… let’s have a show of hands. Anyone believe that, prior to 2008 and the coming of “da won”, billy bob was a Republican?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
And oh, BTW… if history repeats itself, billy bob will not make another appearance here. And, if he does, he will not address the tough stuff. Look for billy bob’s new B level political movie on another thread…. coming soon to a monitor near you.
Little dog — you are beyond dumb. Did you actually follow the link to the Treasury website that nut had in his post? If you did, you would see that it did NOT HAVE ANY DATA ABOUT THE SURPLUS OR DEFICIT. But look what I found from Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill:
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/po734.htm
“The Administration is today releasing the September 2001 Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government. The statement shows the actual financial totals for the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2001, as follows:
“A surplus of $127 billion. This reflects a $12 billion reduction in anticipated spectrum auction recoveries. Absent this change, the surplus would have been $139 billion;
total receipts of $1,990 billion;
total outlays of $1,863 billion; and
a reduction in publicly held debt of $90 billion.”
This is not me explaining the FY 2001 surplus (off Clinton’s last budget). This is the Bush administration. You can chose to rely on this Craig Steiner person if you chose; but the Bush administration agrees with me: they were handed a surplus and there is nothing you can do to undo that fact. Indeed, you cons had plans for what to do with the extra money in 2000:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
“Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said the GOP wants 90 percent of the surplus used for the debt. In a CNN interview, he said the other 10 percent should be used to ‘take care of a lot of priorities we have, like prescription drugs, making sure that our education needs are met, making sure some of our national security needs are met, and doing that while at the same time protecting the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus.'”
Now what, pray tell, do you think JC was talking about? He was talking about the surplus, moron! The one you and this Craig Steiner person claim did not exist. Indeed, do you know of ANYONE ELSE who claims there was no surplus in 2000 and 2001? I mean someone who does not wear tin foil hats, Little dog . . . .
Now on to your other drivel:
On me leaving the GOP: yes, I was a GOPer once, but I woke up. I left for the same reason Colin Powell and Ron Reagan endorsed Obama, too. The party is intellectually bankrupt. As evidenced by the selection of Sarah Palin and the unmitigated gall of the party elders to try to act like she was even arguably qualified to be the No. 2 in our government. She was a joke. But even worse, anyone with a college education recognized she was a joke. Yet you cons had so little respect for the American public that you tried to sell her anyway!
And I will mention again the racist insanity that became the Palin rallies. Do you know how many moderate voters the GOP lost because of that? I would be willing to bet that cost McCain Virginia, Florida and North Carolina, because who wants to be associate with that kind of ignorant rabble?
And Joe the jack leg Plumber? W.t.f. were you people thinking? Reminded me of this post from The Onion:
“Uneducated Fork Lift Driver To Address Nation On Rush Limbaugh Radio Show: Nation Eagarly Awaits Ohio Man’s Profound Insight Into Current Events”
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48941
Only The Onion was kidding. Back in 1993, it seemed like a joke that anyone would closely follow the pithy musings of a fork lift driver. But you cons, though, were serious! How bankrupt must you be when you rely on the opinions of an unlicensed plumber to explain your worldview? It would be a joke, but y’all were SERIOUS!
And you mention Jim Bunning . . . right . . . the guy who is kindly referred to as “eccentric” . . . that’s who you are rallying around now, huh? Did you by any chance notice that he has NO SUPPORT on his one man crusade to stiffle the extension of unemployment benefits? Indeed, can you explain to me why this particular position that you have highlighted as your ONLY EXAMPLE OF GOPERS TACKLING THE DEFICIT is such a good idea? Please explain the impact it will have on the deficit, as compared to . . . oh, I don’t know . . . REFORMING MEDICARE?!
Like I said, a complete lack of any seriousness from the right.
Finally, on the Bush tax cuts: it is wonderful for you to claim that everything went hunky doory after the tax cuts. There are only two problems with that. One, the deficits soared after the tax cuts. Second . . . the Bush administration ADMITTED that their tax cuts were part of the reason the budget went into deficit! As they stated on page 5 of this Office of Management and Budget report:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf
“An economic slowdown began in 2001 and was exacerbated by the terrorists’ attacks of September 11, 2001. The deterioration in the performance of the economy together with income tax relief provided to help offset the economic slowdown and additional spending in response to the terrorist attacks produced a drop in the surplus to $127.1 billion (1.3% of GDP) and a return to deficits ($157.8 billion, 1.5% of GDP) in 2002.”
Did you understand that? They explained and admitted that revenue dropped because of the tax cuts.
By the way . . . check out page 26 of that Bush administration chart, which shows surpluses of $69, $126, $236 and $127 billion from 1998 through 2001. I did not make these charts . . . the Bush administration did.
Little dog, you best stay on the porch from now on. Seriously, like a bichon trying to take on a pit bull, you are going to embarass yourself and get hurt.
@MataHarley:
Nope.
Not buying it here.
You know, Mr. ParaLegal2 has a couple of very distinct characteristics in his posting style. The use of “cons”, “you cons”, and “GOPers” are markers which occur frequently in his comments.
So, out of curiosity I did a couple of quick Google searches of those things combined with his “B-Rob” screen name.
Interesting the things you can find on the net. Nothing ever goes away.
From way back in March 2006:
From way back in August 2007:
No, Mr. ParaLegal2 didn’t “leave the GOP in 2008.”
Witness impeached Your Honor.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
So wait, now he’s claiming to be a “former” republican when he’s showed very little how a Republic system works?
Mata —
Yeah, I was a GOPer from 2000 through 2008. Voted for McCain in the 2000 primary and Bush for the 2000 election. He disappointed me from the very beginning with the deficit spending . . . there was no friggin reason for that! And no one can explain to me why those deficits were necessary, or why passing that expansion of Medicare was necessary. It just made a bad situation worse. If McCain had chose Kay Bailey Hutchinson to run as veep, he would have made my voting decision pretty hard. But by picking Palin, he made it so so easy . . . What a joke!
RE Aye Chihuahua, A rush of gasps rolls across the room as we all pretend to be surprised the BOob is a pathetic liar.
What!? You must be kidding. Next you’ll tell me that there is no Santa Claus or that Obama can’t fly!