I don’t think “gutsy” means what you think it means
Yeah, I’m going to pile on this one, too. For some reason, my work computer tells me that The Daily Caller is an attack website, so I have to rely on our buddy, McQ at Blackfive for the details on the story that Caller is reporting, that being; Obama cancelled the Osama bin Laden mission three times on the advice of f’n Valerie Jarret, his assistant for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs – a freaking PAO jock.
Most of our past presidents have relied on their military advisers for, you know, military advice. But not this guy. He has to poll the strap hangers and pencil sharpeners first. After all, they know more about military matters than the folks responsible for pulling triggers and stuff. As Bruce said;
Sorry, despite the fact that I’m not at all a fan of this President, I’m also not much for anonymous single sources. However, this would certainly further damage the already widely panned “ “gutsiest calls of any president in recent history” claim even more. And, who knows, if true, there may very well have been legitimate reasons for the cancellations. The inclusion of Valarie Jarrett in the decision cycle, however, would lead me to believe otherwise.
Yeah, if the whole story is true, a everyone thinks it is, it kinda puts a damper on that whole “gutsiest call” thing we heard Joe Biden yanking his crank about a few months back. And to borrow from Mr. Hanson;
The truly sad thing is that this is the one accomplishment he thinks makes him worthy of another four years of destruction.
Like I said before, if I was running for president this year, I’d go on vacation until November, because nothing can hurt the current administration more than what they’re doing to themselves.
Category: 2012 election, Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Military issues
About the only thing worse than Obama’s domestic policy over the past 3 1/2 years is his foreign policy.
Insipid swooping in to cry, “Racism!!!” in 3…2…1…
This is an administration that’s not shy about leaking classified documents that make the president look good. The only document ordering this operation that’s seen the light of day is a memo from Panetta saying that he was told over the phone by Obama’s NSA that Obama had given the okay for the commander on the ground to go ahead. Even the official narrative at the time was that Obama had to sleep on it after his final briefing and was on the golf course until the raid was about to start. It’s easy for me to believe that after watching a political consultant call off the raid three times, somebody else made the “gutsy call” that the president wouldn’t.
Here is the original text as I received it back in April of this year. Quite disturbing! There had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East. Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed? A: Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one. Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of. Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that… Read more »
Not sure exactly who “Mr. Hanson” is but there is nothing the Chicago POS Gangster can do that would qualify him to even clean latrines, let alone be president again.
The SOB has made a mockery of the office, besides being a communist bastard.
Hey, he’s golfing, working on NCAA tournament brackets, partying with Hollywood/Manhattan liberal elites, vacaying at Martha’s Vineyard & Hawaii, at White House he sits around all day watching ESPN and smoking. His day is filled up – he is only one man. He can’t be expected to be decisive as well -c’mon man he never had a real job before.
I’ll do it for insipid…
You are all racist because you don’t like obama because he is white…
Devtun–you forgot beer summits and bowing to foreign leaders.
I always knew Panetta was in charge. He takes turns with Madam Secretary.
@1 I am not Crying “racism”, NH Sparky, but I am crying bullshit. The “single anonymous source” which Miniter sites is in direct contradiction with every other source that has knowlege of the operation, including Admiral McRaven. Media Matters exposes this bullshit nicely (and no, you can’t cry fowl about Media matters if The Daily Caller is fair game): http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07/30/the-daily-callers-highly-suspect-bin-laden-raid/189012 And the source of media matters debunking is a New Yorker article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?currentPage=all The article states: ========================================================== According to the New Yorker, in late 2010 President Obama ordered Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to “begin exploring options for a military strike” against the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan where Bin Laden was thought to be hiding, and that planning began in February 2011. At that point, according to the Caller’s vague reporting, Obama is alleged to have already twice “canceled” the mission. =========================================================== Later on he writes: =================================================== Obama convened his national security team in mid-March to review the “possible courses of action” devised by “Brian” and his team, at which point Obama ordered Admiral William McRaven, commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command, to begin planning the raid on Bin Laden’s compound. That plan was delivered to the president on March 29, and the SEAL team began training for the operation on April 10. This means that, according to the Daily Caller, by late March the president had “canceled” three times a “mission” that didn’t yet exist. ============================================================= So the allegation is pretty clearly not true. Not that I’m even conceding that it would be “devestating” if it were. We’d need to know WHY he canceled the supposed order before we can condemn him for it. Here’s Admiral McRaven: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZoKkoBjDbA Click forward to 5:16 if you don’t want to listen to the whole interview and you’ll hear him say: ========================================================== The President and his National Security team….they were magnificent in how they handled the start to finish…. We went through a number of meetings. The president asked all the right questions. His national security team, with Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, Chairman Mullen, the vice chairman, Tom Donilon, Denis McDonough and John… Read more »
Media Matters
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Credibility, meet shitter.
Tell me, how do you feel about David Brock’s bodyguards doing concealed carry in DC?
McRaven is a political animal far removed from the Teams. You don’t get 3 or 4 stars on your collar without playing the game, and he’s going to say what the administration wants to hear, OR ELSE.
Just ask General McChrystal if you don’t believe me.
Trust me, he’ll listen to Jarrett over those who know what the fuck they’re talking about.
I’m sorry you’re going to have to do better then that. Simply proclaiming that media matters has no credibility does not make it so. Media Matters is a credible organization. The daily caller is not. The article that they sourced to discredit the daily caller was written WAY before Miniter’s book. Unlike Miniter, the sources of the New Yorker article are varried, named and unnamed. If you can’t find anything specifically wrong with the article itelf then you’re just throwing a tantrum shouting “LOOK OVER THERE!” because the credibility of this source has been destroyed.
Plus why would they lie about a timeline? Because they know that a year later a story is going to allege that President Obama canceled the attack three times and they want to debunk it a whole year in advance? Is that the story you’re sticking with?
Also, I love the way you claim to love the troops until they won’t tow any line you want them to tow then they’re obviously lying. Bush appointed Robert Gates is retired now and STILL says the same thing that McRaven says, is he a liar too? In fact the only folks that say any different are the unnamed ones.
Credibility, meet shitter indeed.
Admit it guys its because he can’t dance…
“Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation”. That sinks your idea that MM is “credible”, they admit they’re progressive, not unbiased.
Because you say that MM is credible doesn’t make it so. And the New Yorker? Puh-lease. There’s this about the New Yorker, “Jonah Lehrer, a staff writer for The New Yorker, has resigned from the magazine and his latest book has been halted after he acknowledged inventing quotes by Bob Dylan.” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-57482439-10391698/jonah-lehrer-resigns-from-the-new-yorker-admits-he-made-up-bob-dylan-quotes/
Yeah, that’s another credible source.
Let’s see now, Media Matters, a Soros-funded left-wing sump, run by a homosexual neo-lib with a fondness for gun-toting, beefcake bodyguards, and linked professionally to that source of fair and balanced news presentation, MSNBC, is a credible organization, but Daily Caller is not? I think most of the readers at TAH are likely to find the libertarian Tucker Carlson, to be a more credible news manager than an unprincipled hypocrite (guns for me but not for thee) and philosophical turncoat like David Brock who was once vilified by the same socialist flock that now gazes upon on him adoringly with dumb-sheep eyes.
By the way, Sip, you have claimed that you have the academic credentials to be an attorney but just don’t want to? You have all those advanced degrees and never learned the difference between “then” and “than?” Or “tow” and “toe? ” Hmm…
You should remember, Sip, that you’re trolling a site where the readers are quite adept at spotting too-clever-by-half phonies.
Too bad there’s not a Stolen Valor equivalent for phony, wannabee lawyers.
Or a law school DD-214…
Bias does not mean that they’re not objective. Probably both of us are “biased” against the Nazi’s during WWII and also “biased” in favor of the allies. Does that mean that we’re incapable of making a fear assessment or does that mean that the Nazi’s were a truly evil regime? I would argue that anyone who is NOT biased against the Nazis is lacking in objectivity.
The fact that media matters states outright that they’re progressive adds to their credibility. Fox News STILL states that they’re “fair and balanced” when they’re mostly the media outlet for the Republican Party. If they outright stated their position, i wouldn’t have nearly the problem with them.
I’ve asked many times for folks to state where media matters lies and the answer is always: “They’re progressives/ liberals”. Well that’s no answer. The way you destroy their credibility on a story is to say where they’re lying. You haven’t done that here.
As far as the New Yorker goes. Jonah Lehrer is not the author of the piece referenced by Media Matters. Jonah Lehrer’s falsehoods were printed in a book, not the magazine. Bad and lazy reporters slip through even the most regarded news organizations. If he were still working their it would be a reflection on the magazine. His lie is a reflection on him.
The New Yorker piece referenced is a simple time-line of the events that occured. Why would the New Yorker lie about events to cover for Obama regarding an accusation that is a year away from even existing? The Daily Caller article simply does not pass the laugh test.
Right now, I’m still skeptical because all that has been presented is one anonymous source. I have a wait and see attitude on this.
Now should it turn out to be true, then I think Romney’s campaign has just had a big Christmas present given to them a few months early.
I never said i was qualified to be a lawyer, Poe. I merely stated that if I had the desire to go to law school, I could.
There’s a difference between writing a paper for a class and farting around on a right wing blog. I know the difference between tow and toe and then and than. I just don’t give a rats ass what the grammar cops think.
I can write a a similar diatribe to the one you wrote about Media Matters on the Wall Street Journal: WSJ is funded by Rupert Murdoch a hetorosexual Australian who is married to an Asian hussy half his age who is linked to a phone tapping scandal yada yada yada guilt by associations fishcakes. The fact is that, at the end of the day, The Wall Street Journal is STILL a pretty good paper. I might have some issues with their editorial page but I’ve never seen the paper or its writers to lie.
Again, the New Yorker Piece seems like a pretty straight-forward time line. The time-line seems to indicate that Miniter is full of shit.
Before you write another post assaulting my credibility, make sure you kiss your black wife and mulatto children for me!
You simple thing, you. I mentioned the New Yorker, because Jonah Lehrer is a “staff writer for the New Yorker”. Get it, he’s on their staff and writes articles for the New Yorker. So, is he the only one on staff that’s lied? How many times, in how many articles did he lie?
As far as MM goes, they’re still trying to help Baracka walk back his “you didn’t build that” fuck up. MM is whining that Baracka was “taken out of context”, even though he stopped one thought, then went on to the next point, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen”.
Then, MM cries, ” It’s(Fox News) manufacturing campaign ads for the GOP.” Must be none of their TV’s can pick up the alphabet networks.
What’s hysterical is that many of you don’t even believe your own sources. Twice in the original piece John Lilyea hedges with “if true”.
Well, now the White House has weighed in and it’s not exactly a non-denial denial. They’re saying that Miniter is a lying sack of crap and that Valerie Jarret knew nothing of the raid.
Usa Today:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/wh-obama-did-not-postpone-bin-laden-raid/1
The White House is flat denying claims in a new book that President Obama had postponed the raid that killed Osama bin Laden on three previous occasions.
“It is an utter fabrication,” said White House spokesman Joshua Earnest.
In a book called Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisers Who Decide for Him, author Richard Miniter said Obama canceled the raid three times on the advice of senior aide Valerie Jarrett.
Said Earnest: “Mr. Miniter doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Earnest said Jarrett wasn’t apprised of super-secret plans for the raid that took place in May 2011. “So I wouldn’t put any stock into that vignette or into the book itself,” he added.
The “you didn’t build that” was OBVIOUSLY referring to the roads and not the business itself. Media Matters is simply reporting an obvious fact there, not “covering” for Obama.
@19 “What’s hysterical is that many of you don’t even believe your own sources.”
Not true. If they’re OUR sources (Jonn, TSO, etc.)–yes. We believe them. If it’s some other source…trust, but verify. And since none of us was a fly on the wall when these events occurred, we leave room for doubt and error. God did not speak on high to any of us about any of this, so that is why we discuss these things.
And you’ve been on this site how long, and you still can’t spell Jonn’s name?
“Gutsiest calls of any president in recent history”? What?
Sorry, this does not even qualify as gutsy. I was in high school when Jack Kennedy ordered the naval embargo of Cuba during the Curan missile crisis. Every student in all of my classes knew exactly what was at stake: either Krushchev blinked in this Mexican standoff, or we would all be facing the very real probability that the bomb shelters in our backyards might be our homes for some time to come. My family lived 10 miles from Decatur, IL, which was considered a ground-zero site as a nuclear missile target. GE had an electronics factory there (now gone), Firestone had a tire factory there (now gone), Caterpillar had an assembly plant there (still there), Staley Co. had a grain processing plant that required a large railyard for the grain hopper cars to pull into (still there). Rantoul’s Chanute AFB was 30 miles away.
Jack Kenney did not make the decision to order the naval embargo lightly, but it worked. Krushchev backed off. We were THISCLOSE
Crap. I hit the wrong button before I finished my last sentence.
We were THISCLOSE to real nuclear war. Kennedy knew what the consequences would be if the embargo did not work. He did it anyway and won. THAT is gutsy.
The individual currently occupying the seat in the Oval Office is not.
Well…House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers was on Fox’s Special Report today reporting the White House is still leaking classified info. Its a small circle -less than a dozen people with authorized access at the WH. Someone didn’t get the memo that there are lots of pissed off people – VERY angry powerful people. Yet leaking continues with impunity. So who is it Donilon?, Brenner?, McDonough? Lew? Obama himself? I smell subpoenas to force testimony before Congress…this is snowballing.
@#20, what part of the sentence from the speech didn’t you understand? “If you’ve got a business,”? “You didn’t build that.” or, “Someone else made that happen” See the comma, ‘sip? I know you don’t use them often, so maybe you don’t understand, but it means that “you” follows immediately after “business”, it’s not a separate thought. Then, the Chicago Jesus followed dumb with stupid with, “Someone else made that happen”.
Devtun, as most of the leaks have been done for political purposes, I’d bet good money on Jarrett. But, who’s going to subpoena anyone, the two little dildos who work for Holder, who are “investigating” the leaks?
@25-UpNorth, just a question, and you can give me a gut reaction answer.
What business does any public relations consultant have making decisions in classified matters for any sitting president?
Here’s the complete quote:
============================================================
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”
=============================================================
He was clearly not referring to the businesses but to the roads and bridges. Hence the reason why Romney truncates President Obama’s remarks. If Media Matters did something like that you’d, justifiably have a cow. This doesn’t even constitute a gaffe. This is really just a syntactical error that the Romney team is trying to turn into a gaffe. Romney has made the same sentiment here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GhL6eeeSMo
The infrastructure of this country is what enables businesses to be successful. This is not even a controversial statement. You can have the greatest idea for a business ever, but if you try to build it in Somalia you’re not going to succeed.
EX PH2, absolutely none. The PR hack has no business even sitting in on matters of national security.
As for the idiocy that infrastructure is what makes business successful, I guess if you open a business and do absolutely nothing, it’ll be successful, because there’s a bridge down the road, and you have a two lane, or four lane, road out front?
You can have the greatest idea for a business ever, and do nothing to push your business, but, if you have a four lane road out front, you’ll be successful.
“married to an Asian hussy half his age…”
Is Mr. Insippycup trying to clue us in on the real roots of his rage here? Rupert Murdoch’s interracial marriage?
I agree that a public relations consultant has no business making decision on classified matters for sitting presidents. But there’s no evidence that this happened other than Miniter’s anonymous source. There’s also considerable evidence that Miniter is full of shit.
UpNorth- I’m not saying that infrastructure is the entire reason for a companies success. Nor is Obama arguing that. But arguing that infrastructure is meaningless and has nothing to do with success is as silly as arguing that hard work is meaningless. You need both. This is not really all that controversial a statement. Eisenhower- a Republican- built the national highway system.
Basically it seems like we all agree on the obvious, but we’re all jumping up and down screaming because one party didn’t say it just the right way.
Well, there’s always Obama’s less well known, overlooked statement when explaining high unemployment, the rising national debt, the blossoming deficit and the downgrade in the U.S.’s rating, “Just like we’ve tried their plan, we tried our plan — and it worked”.
“Here’s the complete quote:
============================================================
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help… ”
No it’s not, Insipid. Here’s the complete quote, and oh, look at that, it’s in a Romney ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llQUrko0Gqw&feature=player_embedded#!
I’m sure there’s a perfectly innocent reason why you’d choose to ignore the first part of the quote. The problem for you leftists isn’t that Obama was taken out of context, even if we grant you that the most gifted orator of his generation can’t speak at an elementary school level. The problem is that every part of the context is a disparagement of the hard work, ingenuity and willingness to take risk that separate successful American entrepreneurs from every other American who has access to exactly the same infrastructure and isn’t a successful entrepreneur.
And by the way, this is just laughable considering the White House was caught 4 days ago flat out lying when trying to accuse someone else of lying: “Well, now the White House has weighed in and it’s not exactly a non-denial denial. They’re saying that Miniter is a lying sack of crap and that Valerie Jarret knew nothing of the raid.”
I’m pretty agnostic about this whole Valerie Jarret thing, but having known liars issue a statement calling somebody else a liar certainly isn’t going to convince me one way or another.
Thanks, UpNorth. I just wanted a little feedback from someone with a bit of common sense. Your perception is the same as mine.
I’m aware that probably no one here particularly likes Hillary Clinton or Mr. Panetta or Bill Daley (don’t know how you feel about Robt. Gates, as he was in Bush’s admin), as I read that article, I was relieved to see that Bill Daley cloistered himself with Ms. Jarrett, ostensibly to chew her ass right down to the bone, which should have been done long ago, and that Clinton, Panetta and Gates did the job the way it should have been done from the getgo.
I found it very disturbing that the Pres was out on the golf course while an important issue like this was under discussion. This is a mark of pure, unadulterated incompetence. It is NOT how you delegate responsibility. It is sheer incompetence.
The ad is still full of shit and Romney is still a lying liar. And if you want to compare gaffe records, i’m all for it. Especially since this isn’t even a gaffe, but just mostly clever editing.
Heres what else Obama said in the same speech which you’re leaving out:
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.”
Look, you can try all you want to paint the man as a Marxist, socialist, communist lenninist moaist whatever the fuck label you want. But it won’t stick because try as you will, the guys always going to be a centrist Democrat.
Nor is the idea that we all help eachother either in the form of taxes or public service a controversial notion. Here’s Mitt Romney saying the same thing to Olympians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zSWm2qZ8Oc
So to quote Louis Black, “It takes a village to run a four minute mile, but running a business is done COMPLETELY on your own.”
It’s a bullshit way of trying to create a controversy where none exists because the Romney campaign would rather go through the next 99 days without saying anything. Neither Mitt’s statement nor Obama’s statement is hardly controversial.
The point is, liberals are too stupid to realize the quote in it’s entirety sounds WORSE. But please keep playing it. I hardly doubt anyone has to try hard to paint the FINC as what he actually is. He’s doing a good job of it on his own.
Fine, Redacted. Enlighten this “stupid” liberal. What exactly is wrong with the quote? Do you honestly feel that a person born in Somalia has the same chance of success as someone born in the USA? Do you honestly feel that the infrastructure the education system, the legal system and the relatively stable government that we enjoy is inconsequential to our success?
It seems like your entire argument isn’t that he said something wrong, just that it’s bad manners to point out the fact that having a functioning government that everyone pays a part of is actually a good thing. That it’s just not cricket to point out that the roads, bridges, education system and yes, military that we all enjoy is paid for out of taxes and that it is a part of citizenship to contribute.
Of the two people running for office, the one that most resembles the American Dream is not Mitt Romney but President Obama. Raised by a single mother who was on food stamps grew up to become the first black editor of the Harvard Law review, paid for college through student loans, went on to become best-selling author, Senator and President.
Mitt Romney is the son of a multi-millionaire businessman, got through college by selling stocks given to him by his daddy, did slightly above mediocre in college and went on to become a multi-millionaire businessman.
The rags to riches story here is Barack Obama, not Mitt Romney.
You know what’s wrong with it insipid, you read it and watched it on tv just like everyone else did. Shit you want everyone to do your thinking for you too?
Don’t expect anyone to buy that rags to riches bullshit either. Why is it Nobama wants Romney to trelease all of his records, when the anointed ones are sealed? Guess it would be bad if the reason he went to college on FOREIGN student loans got out, wouldn’t it. Hell one of the good things going for the Romney Campaign right now is the Obama campaign. All we can hope for now is Biden in front of a mic a little more frequently; that would definetly lesson our chances of four more years of destruction.
Obama has revealed the last 12 years of his tax records, Redacted. You can look at them right here:
http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns
There’s been no “destruction” under Obama. In fact, Obama is the one person that has saved us from a great depression. During the last for months of George W. Bush, the appointed one, we lost 2.5 million jobs. Since Barack Obamas policies came into effect we’ve had an excellent record of job creation, only stifled by layoffs in the private sector led by Republican governors and a Republican Congress more concerned with seeing Obama fail then helping the States and the country. His record of job creation is FAR better than W’s even better then Hannity’s god, Ronald Reagan:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011-11-03/jobs-and-the-presidential-election/51065798/1
I have no problem with Obama’s economic record, nor with his campaign. Mitt Romney is advocating the same policies that got us into this mess.
@37- I had a feeling you’d wimp out on answering the question. The fact is that you just can’t stand anyone bringing up the fact that government is a good thing and it’s worth paying for. So you’re just having a tantrum.
“Since Barack Obamas policies came into effect we’ve had an excellent record of job creation, only stifled by layoffs in the private sector led by Republican governors and a Republican Congress more concerned with seeing Obama fail then helping the States and the country.” What? Did you even read what you posted? You just admitted that the only jobs the Campaigner in Chief has created are government jobs.
Kindly explain how the Republican governors and Republican congress men and women have led the way on layoffs in the private sector?
Remember the 500K jobs he was going to create in the “Clean Energy” field? Well, after Solyndra, not so much. But his bundlers and cronies got their money, the taxpayers, not so much.
Insipid are you still running your ball washer? Just shut up, no one cares that your lips are stuck to Obummers ass.
Wimp out? Fuck you pal. Big government is not good. Maybe it’s good for people like you who don’t want to lose their handout, but I work for a living.
@41- I should of wrote public sector, up north. Good catch. @42- And people say that Conservatives have no sense of humor….
@43- Yes, you did wimp out. I do work for a living. And if you really consider fire fighting, education and roads to be examples of “big government” then you’re even more off the rais then i suspected.
No, I didn’t, I prompted you to think for yourself which, obviously, you’re incapable of. I guess the path of least resistance for you is namecalling.
Oh by the way, the washington Post’s factcheck.org gives the “Just like we’ve tried their plan, we tried our plan — and it worked”. 4 Pinochios. Obama was clearly referring to tax policy when he stated that. A policy that Republican’s have effectively blocked him from implimenting:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-obama-quote-taken-out-of-context-yet-again/2012/07/27/gJQAcZfbEX_blog.html
The complete quote:
I’m running because I believe you can’t reduce the deficit — which is a serious problem, we’ve got to deal with it — but we can’t reduce it without asking folks like me who have been incredibly blessed to give up the tax cuts that we’ve been getting for a decade. I’ll cut out government spending that’s not working, that we can’t afford, but I’m also going to ask anybody making over $250,000 a year to go back to the tax rates they were paying under Bill Clinton, back when our economy created 23 million new jobs, the biggest budget surplus in history and everybody did well. Just like we’ve tried their plan, we tried our plan — and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.
#46 You know that whole quote makes your argument even funnier. This part right here, “I’ll cut out government spending that’s not working, that we can’t afford”. Is that what he calls sticking everyone with Obamacare on top of whatever else is destroying my paychecks?
@45- I didn’t call you any names. I merely stated that you wimped out. You did. There’s nothing that controversial about the statement, Mitt Romney said the same thing. It’s a statement that is undeniably true. You can make an argument that there’s too much government and infrastructure spending, but you can’t say that it is irrelevant for the success of a Nation or the people in it.
@47: what has “Obamacare” cost you, Deadman?
Nope, sure didn’t. Obfuscate all you want, everyone here knows just how full of shit you are.