Reading President Obama’s piece in the Wall Street Journal last week made me think of something Tom Dye, one of my Political Science professors at Florida Sate used to say when discussing the Soviet approach to arms negotiations: “If it’s someone’s goal to kill you, you should not be surprised to discover that they are more than willing to lie about it in the first place.” That basic truth of that statement seems fairly obvious, but it’s a lesson liberals never learned during the Soviet era and President Obama demonstrates he thinks Americans have not learned it today.
He starts off paying homage to the free markets that he rightly acknowledges allowed the United States to become the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. He then goes on to (again accurately) state that it is our entrepreneurial spirit that is the key to our continued leadership in the world.
The remainder of the piece involves his demonstrating for us his understanding that too much government regulation can be a hindrance to those free markets and can suffocate entrepreneurship. He talks about regulatory excess and highlights how agencies can even work at cross purposes to one another. He also discusses his plan to sign an executive order that will instruct federal agencies to reduce excessive regulation, eliminate redundancy and repeal regulations that are obsolete.
The take away from this piece however is that President Obama thinks Americans are incapable of logical thought. He says all the right things, but few people paying attention will believe a word of it.
The President’s stated willingness to destroy the coal industry, his nationalization of the auto industry and his administration’s threats to business leaders who go off script might suggest to a reader that he may not be quite the fan of the free markets as he suggests. It is the 5th paragraph however that puts a lie to the entire piece: Over the past two years, the goal of my administration has been to strike the right balance. And today, I am signing an executive order that makes clear that this is the operating principle of our government.
After rubbing one’s eyes and re-reading that two sentence paragraph then re-checking the byline you have no choice to conclude that either President Obama is a victim of body snatchers or he thinks you were born yesterday. The President’s assertion that his administration has been a model for good governance and balanced regulation is like someone beating you to a pulp and then proclaiming himself a pacifist.
President Obama’s first two years could hardly have been any less balanced had Ralph Nader been sitting in the Oval office. The examples of the President’s duplicity are legion.
- His FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski has moved forward with rules to regulate the Internet despite a court ruling in April explicitly stating the Commission had exceeded its authority.
- His EPA, led by Lisa Jackson was a regulation machine. Not only did it seek to regulate CO2 (the stuff we exhale) as a pollutant but it also decided that states that disagreed with its air quality rules (Texas in this case) would simply lose their ability to issue industry permits within its borders.
- He appointed a Pay Czar to dictate salaries for private companies, some of whom were forced to take loans from Uncle Sam.
- His (recess) appointment of Andy Stern’s right hand man, Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board did not suggest a balanced approach to a free market America. Becker once said “employers should have no right to be heard” in cases before the Board, which supervises union elections, investigates labor practices and most ominously, issues rulings that interpret the National Labor Relations Act.
Then there is of course the minor issue of the 159 new bureaucracies, agencies, boards, commissions, and programs that ObamaCare creates, not to mention the myriad mandates such as the one requiring restaurant companies with more than 20 locations to list their nutritional information virtually everywhere but on the toilet paper. Then there are the 1099’s. And of course, not to be forgotten is the unknown number of agencies and regulations that Dodd Frank – one of the most far reaching and incomprehensible financial laws ever passed – will produce. Together these two laws alone – all 4,000 pages of them – will produce strangling regulation for almost 1/4 of our economy.
Given that the beginning of the 2012 election cycle has just begun no one should be surprised that the President is seeking to paint himself as a centrist once again. No doubt his SOTU speech will be full of rhetoric that tacks to the right. It certainly worked well three years ago. Now however, despite a still fawning media, we have demonstrable proof that Barack Obama is nothing but a man of the far left. There’s an old saying: “Trick me once, shame on you; Trick me twice, shame on me.” The question is, how many Americans are going to be sufficiently gullible to take the President’s words at face value and disregard Ronald Reagan’s advice of “Trust but verify?” Hopefully fewer than did in 2008.
See author page
@rich wheeler:
I’m not banning anyone. Nor am I even mildly threatening such. I don’t have the power to make such a threat or decision.
Just checking to see if you had the courage to support your insinuations with actual facts because, after all, if I leave your words unanswered, then my “silence [would] connote[] acceptance”…at least in your mind.
Barring any actual examples from you to support it, I’ll consider your contention to be baseless and blatantly false.
And as I previously stated to you Rich, the fact you are still here tells me you are full of it and know it.
rich’s silence to Aye’s question must connote that he thinks FA is full of racists…
Just using your own words there, rich.
Have a nice day.
Lefties like Little Dickie and Greg drop into FA and through garbage all over. They want to prove Conseratives wrong or recruit us to their ideology. Most of us here are conserative because we are widely read and are open to logical thought. Our experiences in life as well as our studies of our history have reinforced our view of the world. We are also open to exploration of new ideas. Every Skook writes a new post, he causes us to think beyond where we have been.
On the other hand, lefties, progressives or liberals believe in unproven ideas and they believe that the only reason those ideas have not worked in the past is because the government lacked sufficient power to make their ideas work. They now push socialism even though it has never been successful. Medical care for all is a great idea and spawned Obamacare. The model it is based on has never worked as proposed.
I have learned a lot here from the folks at FA and resent the bombs dropped by a few that changes the course of the thread.
@Randy:
You clearly suffer from insecurity and assume Lefties judge you intellectually. By the way, I think you meant “throw”.
@anticsrocks:
Antics, Rich had already answered the question posed to him before it was asked. Try reading the all the comments from the beginning. If you still don’t get it, please broadcast your reading incomprehension and i’ll be happy to point you toward the relevant posts.
Tom has just made my point. He has provided a psychological analysis of me based on a few sentences. He didn’t discuss the issue presented, he attacked the person who wrote it. If you look at the few who post here that disrupt the thread, they are all lefties.
Randy, Tom likes to project his failings onto others like most leftists.
He whined when I mocked his absurd statement about obama accommodating the Republicans too much. He complained I was causing the thread to “bog down.” Yet he didn’t have a response when I pointed out how he’d derailed another thread just to call Aye a liar.
He’s just a troll and Rich has joined him under the bridge.
@Hard Right: I think that people who know me would likely die laughing for someone to suggest I am insecure. You don’t get here where I am by being insecure! For the most part, I make a good effort to explain my thoughts. I enjoy discussions concerning issues. Attacking someone here is like wrestling with pigs.
I simply enjoy giving them a taste of their own medicine. You’ll notice I tend to go after a certain kind of leftist poster. Greg, Rich, Tom, and recently even Larry have shown themselves to be devout leftists. Not moderate dems, but leftists. Considering Tom and Rich are only interested in trolling, I especially enjoy shoving their dishonesty and hypocrisy back in their faces. I know that getting trumped by someone they dislike bothers them. That’s just me tho. I understand others would rather ignore them and there is nothing wrong with that.
@Tom: You said:
Wow, rich can now foresee questions before they are asked. So in real life he is Carnac the Magnificent??
ROFLMAO
I agree with Mark Levin – libs can be fun when they aren’t in power. Tom just proved this point for me.
Really Tom, too easy.
/chortle
So tell us Tom, in what post did Rich answer the following questions?
Rich replied:
At no point in the thread did he specifically name anyone as a racist or offer proof. So Tom, I guess you shouldn’t be attacking anyone’s reading comprehension considering yours isn’t even at Sesame Street level.
It’s a beautiful and truly commendable trait that you right wingers “Never Personally attack anyone.”
Hard Right “You enjoy trumping me.”
You guys are great fun.Keep em coming.
I don’t normally use a word like “Hero” very often, but sometimes, well, it’s just warranted.
How cute. Are you and Tom a couple now Rich? You post so close together it’s hard to tell where Tom ends and Rich begins. Tell me Rich, is Tom the reason you’ve decided to become a troll? Or was it because we refused to play dead like in the past when lefties slandered us in the Tucson shootings?
Tom is a fine example, coming here to attack us for defending ourselves against those blaming us for the shooting.
So Rich, name the racists here at FA and post proof. The fact you haven’t tells us even you know you are full of shite.
H.R. Actually the menage a trois enjoyed by minuteman26,anticsrocks and yourself is what I find interesting.Like I said,the few racists here know who they are and they’re damn proud of it.Why should I call out what’s so blatently obvious.F.A. should clean it’s own house.
How many threads are these clowns going to derail, it’s obvious they don’t want to discuss the topic, why is that? We are well aware one of the tactics used more and more frequently by the left is the accusation of racism effectively stopping debate.
Now where have we seen this tactic before? Remember the Journolisters?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/#ixzz1CQaykSXI
Vince put a lot of thought into Obama’s Unconvincing Feint To The Center, man up, you jokers owe him an apology for destroying his thread.
@rich wheeler: Are you calling me a racist?
Your subtle innuendos and cowardly insults are growing tiresome.
You claim there are racists here at FA and that we all know “who we are.” Pretty gutless to call the race card and then back down when pressed for names.
There are times when you make sense and make your point in an intelligent way.
This is clearly not one of those times.
Yo… Tom. “racist” old hag here. As I said before, I’ll accept the “old hag” moniker. Racist? You still remain the imbecile.
So, Tom, if you believe (your above statement) that was why billy bob was banned, you are a simpleton indeed. So allow me to again restate and ‘splain it to one less adept at getting the point.
billy bob… small “b’s” deliberate… attempted to “coax” some sort of perceived admission of racism. And because billy bob considers “manchild” to be a racist term – but *only* when describing a man who is black, and doesn’t apply to whites or sports figures – we are all, therefore, racists.
I repeat… he deliberately attempted “coax” out what he believes to be racism from individuals personally in order to accuse them of being racist. That attempt becomes more amusing when you consider it was Missy he was singling out… a class act lady who doesn’t harbor a racist bone in her body.
What’s the difference between the term “raghead”, which I don’t like nor use, and small-b-billy-boob’s behavior? First of all, his was personal and directed to specific individuals. Second, it’s a liberal (in the wide sense of linguistic interpretation, not the political sense) definition to consider the term, “manchild” racist when I’d given instances of it’s useage applied to others for the same character traits.
Indeed the large point he missed is that it’s rather racist for one to consider a term UNacceptable for anyone other than a black American. I feel that way about… groan… the “n” word. Language that we now have to refer to in context using a single letter. Oh, but wait. A black can use that term… but only a black.
How absurd have we become to tiptoe around the billy bob’s of the world? How much of a word Nazi have we become if we conclude words can only be acceptable when used by one of a particular race?
Lastly, “raghead” is a usually denigrating slur based on attire… i.e. headdressing… and has been used by those with a penchant for the term to apply also to American allies in India, or others with distinctive cultural head dress. There are no slavery connotations, just as there are none with the term “manchild”, save in billy bob’s victim mind. Apparently he thinks we all live in the gutter where he continually dwells.
Hummm.. if attire is now the threshhold for derogatory words that should be banned, in your less than humble opinion, as being “racist”, what do we do with the low hip, underwear revealing trousers kids wear these days? How about baseball caps on backwards? All these emulate gang attire?
Now let’s address your hypocrisy, and refusal to acknowledge the forum’s tolerance for billy bob way too long. Tell me… did you think he bandied about his typical “you con’s” commentary as an endearing name? He would be the first to tell you that’s short for neocon. And where’s that from? A short trip from neo-Nazi, of course. And it’s not done with love in the heart when used by a lib/prog.
How about his continual use of the sexual term, “teabaggers” in order to denigrate? Where were you, leaping out of your PC armchair in dismay and rebuttal? Think that’s a term of endearment? It’s considerably closer to being derogatory than “manchild”… which requires chasms of leaps to get to his racist interpretation.
Where were you when he further denigrated the tea party movement by also calling them “rednecks”, as much of a slur as “cracker”?
Talk about “doth protest too much”…. yeeaasssh.
If you so mourn the loss of small-b-billy-bob, just search b-rob and you’ll find his rhetoric in other places where he remains either welcome, or ignored.
Not only that, Mata Harley, but we cannot keep allowing overly sensitive liberals to, in the name of political correctness or racism to keep co-opting meaningful words out of the English language!
In Newspeak from 1984 the allowable words had shrunk so much that no one could even express a properly mounted disagreement with Big Brother.
Those words that made debate possible had been removed.
Freedom of EXPRESSION is bigger than the right to put down a lot of words.
It is the right to say your thoughts in the best way you can.
Your way.
Remember the Burger King “Have it YOUR WAY” campaign?
That’s all we want.
My old unabridged Webster’s Dictionary is in need of a replacement.
I hope the bookstore still sell them.
@Missy: Missy, having read so many of the comments here from a lot of folks that find FA a good place to vent, I can honestly say that when some of the Commentators run out of Logic or Ammo the Race Card is played like a Trump Card. As if it bears some relevance or carries any importance or value. It quite frankly tells me that the battle of wits or discussion is on it’s last dying breath.
Then it becomes what is commonly referred to as a P*ssing contest and there is no point in continuing it any further.
@MataHarley: My all time best fail safe clue that B-Rob is out of Logic and just slinging Cow Pies is when I read “You Cons”. Then I know that it is a challenge to the P*ssing Contest that I know is coming next.
Some Sage advice I received from My Grand Father many moons ago is that when You argue with Idiots, You just gave them the Home Field Advantage and are playing at Their Level”.
Somehow, Old Trooper, I’m betting there weren’t many “idiots” even willing to step on a field where your Dad was playing….. unless, of course, they were simply too dumb to realize they were out of their “league”. LOL
Yup, Nan G. The PC police, tho not official, have been a force in operation for some time. It’s just more recently they feel comfortable, stepping out into the open with their attack on the 1st amendment while pleading “can’t we all just get along”…
@MataHarley: You may find it hard to believe but My Dad had a far shorter tolerance for Fools than I do. He would often just walk away and ignore them.
The First Amendments promises a whole lot but the thing that a lot of Folks don’t understand is that once you open your pie hole you cannot take words back. You just showed everyone the “Hand” that you are holding. All of Your Cards “on display”.
@Mata – You hit the nail on the head once again. 🙂
Thank you for including braindead rob’s continued use of the term “teabagger.” I called him on it many times, and to my recollection he only once lamely defended it’s use. He said something about Tea Party members wanting to “teabag” Harry Reid – or something like that. When I pressed for proof, he ignored me.
Anticrocks and Co.. Lets be honest.How many here knew tea bagger to have negative connotations? I sure didn’t.
Americans For Prosperity an anti tax group and one of the first Tea Party orgs. advocated sending tea bags to elected officials who’d voted for the stimulus package.
At the first New American Tea Party rally in D.C. a protestor carried a sign saying “Tea Bag the liberal Dems.before they Tea Bag you”
Andrew Breitbart posted a video in which he claimed “I’m proud to be a Tea Bagger”
On this one it’s you guys who are much too sensitive and P.C.
richard wheeler: Hold on there.
Breitbart said it in an effort to point out the hypocrisy of the left. Same with the sign you say you saw. (link to a pic of it?)
As for your assertion that no one knew what it meant – well two things come to mind:
1. Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt just for argument’s sake and say you are right, that no one did know it. We all know it now right and left, so you would think that you compassionate liberals who are so tolerant would stop using the term.
2. Since we are being too “PC” on this one, how’s about you admitting that braindead rob was too “PC” over the manchild moniker?
a.r The sign was at that rally.My point is at that time the neg.connotation was unknown to all but a few.B-Rob was also being too P.C. BUT manchild does carry neg. racial implications for some.
My point has always been.It is worse to actually BE a racist or a bigot than to be a perceived race baiter.
@RICHARD WHEELER: MSNBC first used the phrase and it was all over the news. Anyone who didn’t know the meaning didn’t want to knw! RW you are what you accuse others of being!
Racism is something ingrained in one’s heart and mind.If someone accuses you of being a racist but YOU KNOW you are not,I say “no harm no foul”.Move on.
@rw: Like I said, “you would think that you compassionate liberals who are so tolerant would stop using the term.”