The Only Bush I Trust Is My Own: After I stopped laughing...

Friday, September 12, 2008

After I stopped laughing...

I got really scared.

I love how she goes on all snarky about Obama being just a "community organizer" (btw how dare you given your skinny ass resume) but in this interview goes on to say that this country desire isnt for someone with a big fat resume because its not politics as usual. Ummmmmm... what?

This girl is uninformed and just delusional. Its absolutely stunning. Just listen to her views on invading Pakistan, on the war. And I love how she backtacks on her wacko sermon by stating her comment about the war being "gods will" as it being a quote from Abraham Lincoln. Know what? This is just silly.

Attention everyone- please watch this- please please please watch this because if McCain is elected this is our Vice President. If something happened to McCain, ladies and gents, this would be our president. WOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Charlie Gibson made her look like SUCH AN ASS.

12 Comments:

At 12:38 AM, Anonymous said…

....but that's all B. Hussein Obama was. He was a "community organizer"...Al Sharpton is a "community organizer".

Sarah Palin was a Mayor and is currently a Governor and has more 'Executive' experience than B. Hussain Obama and Joe "(Hillary) might have been a better pick than me" Biden combined.

Joe Biden...aka, 'the most dumbest man in the Senate' made that remark after B. Hussain Obama made it clear than Joe Biden was absolutely the best choice for VP.

I am so glad the most arrogant man in the Senate chose the dumbest man in the Senate. They really do make a great team.

.....and the obvious disrespect shown by B. Hussein Obama towards the women's movement by not even vetting Hillary who received 18 million Democrat votes in the primary....casting her off on the side as mere carcass.

And the way liberal Democrat men treat their women....between BJ Clinton, to Jim McGreevey, to Ted Kennedy, to Elliot Spitzer, to JFK, to LBJ, to John Edwards(for God's sake, even while his wife had cancer).....yet these liberal women stand by their men.

...how sad a party these DemocRATS have become.
At 2:35 AM, Anonymous said…

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe

By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage
At 2:44 AM, Anonymous said…

Facts are never stupid things. But when you manipulate them, they are by all means stupid.

until you travel the world and realize that you will be heckled because of your appearance or vagina in public and in person no matter what class, country, or race you are socializing with, you won't even begin to understand.

Next time you are physically or emotionally violated because of your gender, feel free to elaborate.

Plus.... where in the hell did Marxism come into play? and why in the hell are we suddenly assuming that republicans never had affairs? So naive... people in power demean others, despite political affiliation (or gender for that matter.)
At 8:49 AM, Anonymous said…

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'

Barack Obama = Karl Marx With a Twist
One of the more insightful analyses of Obama's latest gaffe came from Bill Kristol. Among many things that Kristol pointed out, he quoted this from Karl Marx...

Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.”

This quote is of course awfully reminiscent of Obama's own gaffe.

I don't want to be overly provocative and make leaps just for the sake of leaps. In fact, Obama's latest gaffe is just one piece of what I will show to be a fairly sophisticated puzzle that makes Obama's domestic agenda really nothing more than Marx updated for the 21st century. For instance, it has recently come to light that Obama's father wrote some economic theory that was itself quite Marxian. Still, trying to paint Obama with Marxist brush because of an offhanded comment and writings of his father is not only unfairly provocative, but simply unfair. In fact, the most evidence comes from Obama's own policy proposals.

Attacking capitalism comes first and foremost by attacking its roots: capital. Capital is the lifeblood of capitalism because it is the engine that drives the competition necessary to sustain capitalism. Capitalism is founded on the principle that ultimately competition benefits everyone. Competition is spawned by investment. The income that a company sees now is the fruit of years of investment of capital. Thus, in order to stunt capitalism you need to punish capital investment. Of course, in modern times the best way to do that is to tax it. Of course, one of Barack Obama's priorities is to raise the capital gains tax.

Barack Obama yesterday said he'd raise the capital-gains tax as president - but
softened his estimate on how much it would go up.

"I haven't given a firm number," Obama told CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, speaking of how much the levy would rise over the current rate of 15 percent. He "guessed" it would be "significantly lower than" the 28 percent it was under President Bill Clinton.

Another principle of Marxism is the consolidation of power in the hands of government, and by extension, the government creating economic wealth and growth rather than the private sector. So, let's look at his job's plan.

Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that as president he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries, as he tried to win over economically struggling voters. Obama's investment would be over 10 years as part of two programs. The larger is $150 billion to create 5 million so-called "green collar" jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources.

Sixty billion would go to a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama estimated that could generate nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in the construction industry that's been hit by the housing crisis.

Keep in mind that this government spending will be paid for by among other things, increasing capital gains taxes. In other words, Barack Obama would punish capital investment in order to create jobs through the consolidation of power in the central government. More government spending is a nice way of saying that a politician wants to consolidate more power in the hands of government.

Obama's consolidation of power in government only begins with his job's plan. His whole economic agenda has a plethora of new government regulations.

To renew our economy — and to ensure that we are not doomed to repeat a cycle of bubble and bust again and again — we need to address not only the immediate crisis in the housing market; we also need to create a 21st century regulatory framework, and pursue a bold opportunity agenda for the American people,” Obamasaid.

“We do American business — and the American people — no favors when we turn a blind eye to excessive leverage and dangerous risks,” he added.

Now, a "21st century regulatory framework" is another euphemism for more government regulations. Keep in mind that inherent in Marxism is a fear of capitalism and the free market. Marx believes that capitalism was doomed to failure and that it was government's job to not only manage it but frankly to control it. Obama also has an inherent fear of the free market because in every proposal he wants to manage and control it as well.

Nowhere is this more clear than in health care. Here, Obama simply wants to throw the free market away entirely in favor of socialized medicine. Clearly, he sees the deficiencies of our health care system being fixed not by the free market but by a health care system run and controlled by the government.

Also, Obama seems to have a knack for rhetoric that shows nothing but contempt for capitalistic principles and affinity for Marxist principles. Here are examples of each.

There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market.

...

In the interview, for example, he argued that his proposals on health care and the economy, which call for a stronger government role and more regulation, were really about what works.

Now anyone that thinks that stronger government role and more regulations are what works is someone that has roots in Marxism. Furthermore, anyone that sees mergers and acquisitions as inherently bad is someone that has a natural disdain for capitalism.

Then there is the inherent belief of Marxism. Marx believed that capitalism punished the working class while consolidating power in the bourgeoise, the wealthy. Marx envisioned a system in which the wealthy were punished in order to provide for the working class. That is exactly how Obama sees the world.

Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed overhauling the tax code to lower taxes for the poor and middle class, increase them for the rich

These so called targeted tax cuts are nothing more than Marxism updated for the 21st century. (for a great explanation of how targeted tax cuts are Marxist and other principles check out the book Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies) Obama's robin hood economic philosophy is really nothing more than an updated version of Marxist principles.

Finally, there is the twist: free trade. Marx was himself a big free trader.

The Repeal of the Corn Laws in England is the greatest triumph of free trade in the 19th century. In every country where manufacturers talk of free trade, they have in mind chiefly free trade in corn and raw materials in general. To impose protective duties on foreign corn is infamous, it is to speculate on the famine of peoples.

Cheap food, high wages, this is the sole aim for which English free-traders have spent millions, and their enthusiasm has already spread to their brethren on the Continent. Generally speaking, those who wish for free trade desire it in order to alleviate the condition of the working class.

But, strange to say, the people for whom cheap food is to be procured at all costs are very ungrateful. Cheap food is as ill-esteemed in England as cheap government is in France. The people see in these self-sacrificing gentlemen, in Bowring, Bright and Co., their worst enemies and the most shameless hypocrites.

That is an excerpt of a speech Marx gave on free trade. Marx saw free trade as giving to the working class. He saw free trade as providing the workers with cheaper goods.

Obama sees free trade as taking away from the working class. To Obama, free trade is an extension of another capitalistic ill...competition.

Thus, if Obama has his way, we wil have a society that punishes investment. It will be dependent on government. It will be a government that consolidates significant economic power and with it creates new regulations. Furthermore, we will have an economy isolated from the rest of the world. Like I said, Barack Obama is Karl Marx with a twist, a very troubling twist.
At 8:56 AM, Anonymous said…

Another Obama Marxist
By Lance Fairchok

Barack Obama has a thing for Marxists. He befriends them, listens to their counsel, and he even hires them to work in his campaign. And they seem to feel the warmth. President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, who led a revolution there in 1979, says Barack Obama's presidential bid is a "revolutionary" phenomenon, and Americans are "laying the foundations for a revolutionary change." A captured computer revealed that an unknown person chatted with Marxist FARC guerillas on Obama's behalf (they believed), stating he would be the next President and US policy towards Columbia would change. Frank Marshall Davis, a dear Obama friend and mentor was as a member of the Communist Party USA. Barack Obama just seems to attract Marxists.

If the people he surrounds himself with are any indication of his core beliefs, a higher capital gains tax to punish the rich, even if it diminishes actual tax revenue, may be only the beginning. Obama's Official campaign blogger, Sam Graham-Felsen, a former writer for the leftist Nation magazine and a contributor to the Socialist Viewpoint, is certainly a believer in class warfare.

The capitalist ruling class of the United States exercises a virtual dictatorship not only over American society, but also over the entire world. This capitalist class rule is the basic cause of the poverty, wars and the degradation of the natural environment.

After being expelled from Socialist Action in 1999, we formed Socialist Workers Organization in an attempt to carry on the project of building a nucleus of a revolutionary party true to the historic teachings and program of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky.

Socialist Viewpoint (info@socialistviewpoint.org

The product of a Harvard education, Sam is an admirer of anti-American academic Noam Chomsky, a hypocrite and fraud masquerading as a political philosopher. Mr. Chomsky, perhaps admired by Obama as by his official blogger, is fond of visiting dictators and terrorists and giving speeches blaming all the worlds' ills on America. All while accepting money from military conteacts at MIT. Chomsky was an ardent supporter of Pol Pot, and to this day denies a holocaust occurred in Cambodia (1.67 million died). He is unrepentant about the horrors his vile ideology encouraged and supports Hamas and Hezbollah with the same willful blindness today.

In an article in the Harvard Crimson, Sam writes of his hero:

For me, hearing Chomsky speak for the first time was a life-changing experience. His ability to take preconceptions and destroy them-to completely remodel one's understanding of reality with cold, hard facts-blew me away. When I left what was then the ARCO Forum last fall, I felt as though I had been through the Matrix and back. Chomsky really has this effect because he bombards you with evidence and logic, not empty rhetoric. It is nearly impossible to hear him or read him-once you've actually checked his facts yourself (he even cites page numbers in public addresses)-and deny what he's saying.

For anyone who has actually endured one of Chomsky's muddled rants or tried to verify the claims in his books, young Sam's praise is comical; and a clear indication he has never actually read one. You find very quickly Chomsky is not overly concerned with "facts," as he fabricates them with abandon. He cites page numbers, to his own books, which recycle themselves with astonishing success. Hardly an example of a towering intellect, his tired canards are sufficient to impress the worshipful Sam Graham-Felsen, and endear himself to the same leftist academics that so easily embraced dictators such Ho Chi Min and Pol Pot, idolize Chavez and Castro and legitimized terrorists like Yasser Arafat. Chomsky is the master of post-modern moral relativism, quick to excuse atrocity with obfuscation.

On the day after 9-11, Chomsky wrote:

"The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people."

It may be simple self-aggrandizing hypocrisy that inspires Mr. Chomsky's comments, though I suspect, more likely he mistakes the accolades of twenty year old activists as confirmation of his own genius. He plays what works with the crowd. Here are some other nihilistic gems gleaned from his pedantic and incomprehensible writing:

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied today, then every Post-War American president would have to be hanged."
"Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."
"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media."

"The United States is unusual among the industrial democracies in the rigidity of the system of ideological control - "indoctrination," we might say - exercised through the mass media. "

"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."

"I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system."

Sam Graham-Felsen, hired to run Obama's blog, writes about Noam Chomsky in a Marxist publications that openly calls for revolution against the American government. This is a Presidential candidate's choice to run the on-line portion of his campaign. That speaks volumes of his character and worldview. Contradicting what he says in public, Obama is surrounding himself with poeple who never seem to learn that their absurd ideologies end in misery and ruin.

Sam is young and has much to learn, so we can forgive his silly hagiographies, the ones about Chomsky and the ones about Obama. His hero worship is eager and emotional and completely without substance, much as Obama's campaign promises are without substance. Obama is a community organizer in the Saul Alinsky mold, and knows where to get people like Sam who have energy and drive. His staff is nothing if not energetic. He even cut his activist teeth in Chicago, the stomping grounds of Alinsky and so many others in the "progressive" community. One wonders why the windy city still has a murder rate higher than Baghdad, after so many years of enlightened activism.

The adults in the Obama campaign expect us to believe that a campaign staff filled with Marxists and radicals does not reflect the candidate. We are supposed to believe that ideologues who distain America and Americans can improve the system that has brought humanity more prosperity and well-being than any nation before it. Speaking out of both sides of their mouths, they tell us we are great, and then insist we must change because we are responsible for all the bad things that happen in the world. That alone should anger the electorate enough to defeat them. The change Obama will bring will not be the change America needs or expects. It will be the change of naive adolescents, which think Noam Chomsky wise.
At 8:59 AM, Anonymous said…

Mike Huckabee supporter Tony Beam says that evangelicals must beware Barack Obama and his rhetoric of change: "There can be no doubt that Barack Obama is both a Leftist dream and an Evangelical nightmare. He supports the most extreme agenda ever proposed for the American people. Yet most of his supporters don’t have a clue because all they know is he represents 'change.' It would be good to remember that Karl Marx brought change to Russia and Fidel Castro brought change to Cuba. Both forms of change came complete with chains that still bind people to the lie of Marxism. Change without knowing which direction the change will take us is a scary proposition."
At 10:18 AM, Mary said…

Wow. You really stirred the conservative fecal pot. Good job! You got these conservative guys all twitterpated about the prospect of a liberal back in the white house. I just don't get how any reasonably intelligent person can say that the republicans have done a great job over the last 8 years. Of course, if they can use the scare tactic of Obama being Marxist, you can always throw back the notion that the U.S. has become a corporate fascist state. So do we want more of the same? I think not.
At 10:42 AM, Anonymous said…

Maybe you conservatives should voluntarily relinquish your Social Security, Medicare, and even civil rights...all of which are brought to you by liberals. Then again, I guess you are in the process of doing just that by continuing to promote the conservative view and blaming everything bad on those nasty old liberals.
At 3:10 PM, Anonymous said…

It is kind of funny (in a tragic way) that the conservatives have hood-winked a lot of middle and lower classed people (who would actually be the ones to benefit from a more liberal regime) into buying in to their belief system by making it all about "issues" like gay marriage, religion and flag pins.
At 8:16 PM, Anonymous said…

"Wow. You really stirred the conservative fecal pot. Good job! You got these conservative guys all twitterpated about the prospect of a liberal back in the white house."

* Guys ? my how one tracked our liberal minds are.

Is it possible that Mrs. Palin will give us that, dear me, dreaded third Bush term ?

How many leftists would leave the country were that to happen ?

We conservatives(surprisingly both genders) would help raise money for the airline tickets.
At 11:48 PM, Anonymous said…

Wow Ted, way to cut and paste from wikipedia to try and sound intelligent...original thought much. Besides, you only come across sounding more ignorant with each comment you leave. B. Hussein, that's rich...here's a website to checkout...snopes.com, oh yeah factchecker.com too. Biden "the most dumbest man", at least he can speak proper English. Way to argue over our country and not be able to annunciate our core language. Disrespect towards Hillary, no it's called not choosing a running mate just because of the gender card. Hillary doesn't even want McCain or Palin ( a woman) in office). As for liberals disrespecting women, no, liberals wouldn't say such things as you did below as to how "us women got it so much better here than any other country and we should be thanking our lucky stars you allow us to" Liberal men treat their women like equals. Unlike John McCain who left his first wife because she was severely disfigured in a car wreck only to marry a younger more beautiful Cindy, unlike John McCain who has been documented numberous times for calling his wife Cindy a CUNT in public. He's a real charmer that one. So why don't you go and be a good little Republican husband and do something productive like, I don't know, have sex with your wife instead of dicking around on here with a friend of yours to see who can cut and paste the fastest from wikipedia to insult someone who is actually intelligent and knows their facts.
At 6:28 PM, Anonymous said…

"Maybe you conservatives should voluntarily relinquish your Social Security, Medicare, and even civil rights...all of which are brought to you by liberals."

1- The Civil Rights Amendment was signed by Democrat President LB Johnson only because the overwhelming majority of Senators that placed the bill to his desk were Republicans. Democrat Senators such as Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr. and many if not the majority of Democrat Senators voted AGAINST the bill.

It was first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln that got the ball rolling with the Emancipation Proclamation which brought freedom to Black-Americans. Prior to Lincoln, there were 5 Democrat Presidents of the first 15(the others represented other parties at the time such as the Whigs and Federalists) that did nothing with the issue of slavery.

Republican President Theodore Roosevelt was the first President to hold a dinner with a Black-American at the White House.

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower called in the military to push desegration and allow Black-American students to attend the Alabama schools as Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front blocking the school doors in that infamous moment in our history.

Republican President Ronald Reagan signed the Martin Luther King day into law.

Republican President George W. Bush became the first President ever to have Black-Americans, Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice to serve as his Secretary of State.

Impeached Democrat President Bill Clinton had eight years to have a Black-American serve at a high level position in his cabinet and decided not to.

Social Security and Medicare were brought to you by liberals and both government programs are complete disasters that are losing money and will go broke if they continue the same road they have traveled over the past few years.

The Only Bush I Trust Is My Own

Friday, September 12, 2008

After I stopped laughing...

12 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts