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
Fine I’ll ask the question in a way that you don’t have to explain.
Are roads and bridges and fire departments, police, and the eduction system necessary in order for business to thrive in this country? If you say that tney are then you really have no beef with the President’s statement. If you say they’re not, then i say you’re nuts.
By the way Deadman, if you’re getting a paycheck, Obama has cut your taxes.
I’m fairly certain not a single person here takes you seriously insipid, except maybe joe, but he doesn’t really count.
That’s not answering the question, Redacted. You’re still wimping out. Let me guess, now you’re going to accuse me of having cooties?
Wow dude, keep proving my point.
“If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to 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.”
The context is worse than the quote itself.
You’re not making any point for me to prove or disprove. You’re merely making declarations that Obama’s speech is obviously bad and are now incapable of stating the obvious. If it’s so self evidently false, then you should be able to state what is false about it. You can’t do that so instead you’re resorting to Argumentum ad poulum: “no one on this site likes you, therefore you’re wrong.” It’s redirecting, lame and yes, wimpy.
I really don’t care what you think, insipid, he said what he said, and it is what it is. There is no hiding it. And I think it’s more accurate to say no one on this site likes you BECAUSE you’re wrong, constantly.
What makes you think i care what you think. I’m right about you wimping out and evading a pretty simple question.
And not only are you always wrong, you’re a flagrant asshole about it too, every time.
From argumentum ad populum to argumentum ad hominem. Anything to avoid giving an “obvious” answer.
I did give you an answer, you’re just not paying attention.
Insipid, I’d like to ask an honest question. Why do you keep coming here making arguments you KNOW you’re never gonna win? The vast majority of us here are conservatives with a few independents and a couple of moderate liberals.
From what I’ve read and heard, comrade obama is saying I didn’t build my consulting gig through my own hard work. To me, he’s saying I didn’t work my way through college using the GI Bill and tending bar at night while raising a family. If someone helped me, I’d sure as hell like to know who it was. My education and consulting have nothing to due with infrastructure. My best friend, Linda’s, own small printing business has nothing to do with a favorite teacher.
Insipid- Obama’s statements are fucking retarded to rational people because roads and bridges get funded through taxes on fuel. Think about that. Who do you think pays more fuel taxes? The middle class family of four with two cars running on regular unleaded, or the business shipping it’s goods out every day using trucks burning diesel? If “they” didn’t build that, than no one did.
Also, STFU about fire departments and teachers. Those services are traditionally funded locally through property taxes. Businesses pay an assload of property taxes. Also, there is no such thing as a federal fire department, or a federal high school. If there isn’t funding in the tax base to afford a teacher, school taxes (which are paid only by property owners) are raised to cover it, or the position is cut. Or Obama signs a trillion dollar stimulus to make sure it’s funded for a few years, lulling the district into a false sense of financial security that comes crashing down a few years later when they’re dead fucking broke, exactly like what’s occurring everywhere now. But hey, another job “saved or created” for people like you to brag about.
The “full context” of Obama’s idiotic “you didn’t build that” statement is that it was pulled directly from a socialist’s (George Lakoff’s) notes on how to frame “progressive” talking points:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/25/1077756/-How-Elizabeth-Warren-Relates-to-George-Lakoff-and-Progressive-Nationalism
And we all know how much socialists love small businesses, right? Because if “everyone” owns the means to production, businesses can’t be small.
Regarding insipid’s inane leftist drivel above: consider the source, folks. This is the same guy that thinks Maryland’s gun laws are “very lax” – even though MD has the 7th most restrictive state gun laws in the nation and is more restrictive in that respect than either IL or RI.
Per the Brady Campaign, only CA, NJ, MA, NY, CT, and HI are more restrictive than MD regarding firearms law. (DC’s firearms laws weren’t addressed by the Brady Campaign.)
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=31145#comment-654824
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/stateleg/scorecard/2011/2011_Brady_Campaign_State_Scorecard_Rankings.pdf
And, for the record: that other state across the river from DC, VA? Per the Brady Campaign, VA’s gun laws are the 19th most restrictive in the nation. By my math, that’s top 40% or so of all states – with #1 (CA) defined as “most restrictive”, of course.
In insipid’s little alternate reality, everyone would be nice and sociable; a policeman would always be there to resolve disputes; and no one would ever need to defend themselves. I’m guessing he believes in unicorns, too.
Reality, of course, is often a bit different. When a guy’s coming at you with a knife or a tire iron and seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Your arguments are just assinine. Yes, a business pays for a portion of the roads and bridges, but they don’t pay for the entire infrastructure. It’s not the companies road or bridge. They don’t pay for everything. We all do it working together. The fact that these services are paid for through a variety of different tax structures and from a combination of state and federal government is besides the poin.
His argument is unarguable and not controversial and you’re entire argument is tantamount to a hissy fit that someone is stating that Government does anything for anyone.
As far as the stimulus running out, that’s the GOP’s fault. Bills supporting states are routinely passed in hard times. The dems did it for Reagan and Bush and, to be fair, more reasonable Republicans did it for Clinton. It’s Modern conservatism that has made politics a zero sum game. It’s not principles that is keeping money from flowing to the states for teachers, it’s politics.
LOL, insipid. Businesses had as much of a hand “building that” as regular people did. Moreso in the case of non-federal highways when pertaining to people who don’t own property. You admit that. You say Obama knows that. So why did Obama insist that “they didn’t build that”? Was he lying? Is he stupid? Consider what it takes for a business to get started. Someone had to take a considerable financial risk. A risk NOT SHARED BY EVERYONE (unless you’re a government crony in the “too big to fail” category, or you’re an Obama donor starting a solar panel company). That’s not besides the point, IT IS THE POINT. EVERYONE, including businessmen, funds the roads, teachers, bridges, police and firemen that we use. Even you, as dim-witted as you appear to be, admit that. So, what was Obama’s point? Why is he “struck” by people who think that, because THEY took the financial risk, because THEY had the idea, because THEY had the motivation to put in the hours to make their business succeed, that THEY should be entitled to their profits? If they’re funding the roads, bridges, education, firefighters, and policemen as much as everyone else, why go after them for more money? They don’t benefit more from these things. Businesses don’t get their own special police departments, or their own personal fire departments, unless they contract out for private services. Even then, they still have to pay for the public ones. Why should they pay more (remember, they already “pay more” to use the roads though taxes incurred through increased consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel) to fund firefighters, teachers, and policemen? For the same reason it’s not proper to ask businesses to “pay more”, it is NOT reasonable for the federal government to assist states, and for states to assist local communities, in living beyond their means. If they don’t have the capacity to fund their services, then they should make adjustments to those services, sell bonds to borrow the money responsibly, or adjust the tax rates that are funding those services. Getting “free money” from Uncle… Read more »
insipid? Tax cut? How, exactly? And from what is this “cut” being funded? Don’t tell me that my SS temporary reduction is a “cut”. That has to be made up somewhere, and oh yeah, why are they still called the “Bush Tax Cuts” when Obama signed the extension in 2010, and I’m willing to bet that when he loses in November, he’ll refuse to sign an additional extension or making those levels permanent, leaving 2013 tax rates as his great big, “Fuck ya’ll, I’m out!” statement as he leaves office.
Thx, Sparky, I was going to ask that.
And, Paul Krugman, the left’s favorite economist says, in a refreshing but temporary burst of honesty, that “If Obama’s reelected, I think that there’s a quite good chance that for a month or two we actually will go off the cliff”. “We” being the economy.
But, no problem, because it’s only “temporary”.
Going off the cliff is ALWAYS temporary. But sooner or later you hit the ground. And it hurts. And a lot of times people don’t recover.
NHSparky, UpNorth: I believe insipid was talking about the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003.
You know, the ones that kept the economy from going down the toilet after 9/11.
“If you’re successful, you didn’t get there on your own?” What a load of utter crap. The poster child for making it on your own is Amanda Hocking, the author of a successful and very popular trilogy of fantasy novels self-published under the collective title “Tryll”. She could not get a literary agent or a publishing house in NYC to take her seriously or accept her work, so she self-published, did all the PR and advertising herself, promoted her work herself, and in the process earned an after-tax income of $2 million. All by herself, too. She is widely known as a prime example of self-made success. She has continued to self-publish her novels until the volume of work she has created required turning the PR and distribution over to a secon party. Now she’s more prolific than ever. George Stieglitz and Ansel Adams, two of America’s best-known photographers, worked as freelancers who sold their products to publishers and art galleries. Dicky Chappelle, one of the few civilian women photojournalists who went to Vietnam, freelanced on the battlefield until she was killed when she stepped on a land mine. She’s my idol. All freelancers sell their work to an available market, including freelance graphic artists. And then there are the prolific fine artists like Georgia O’Keefe, who dumped Stieglitz and moved to the Southwest; Andy Warhol, the 1960s pop artist; and the current enormous crop of fine artists who do not use galleries to market their work, but rather, choose an online presence and sell directly to customers. Writers: Anne McCaffrey, the author of the “Pern” series of novels; Kathryn Kurtz, author of the Deryni novels; Katherine Kerr, author of the Westlands novels; J.R.R.Tolkien, author of “The Hobbit” and “The Lord of the Rings” novels; C.S. Lewis, author of “The Chronicles of Narnia”; Elmore Leonard, author of many, many novels about the rather gritty area that used to be North Lincoln Avenue in Chicago; Robert Ludlum, author of the Jason Bourne novels, as well as a whole slew of other novels; James Patterson, author of many, many thrillers; Maya Angelou,… Read more »
A man with soft hands knows nothing about where calluses come from. And they generally despise the men that wear them.
Would have to argue that he (that fraud who everyone is quoting here) told us exactly what he planned to do and has done it. All we needed to know was that he planned to “fundamentally transform” America. Since we were slipping from being the greatest civilization in the history of mankind, there were only two options in that statement – either his intention was to place us once again at the top of the heap (not something which makes any sense at all) or to destroy what kept us at the top of the heap for quite a while. One can argue how long, what characteristics Americans had which put us there, etc, but the fact that we were in inarguable.
Did he lie? No, actually. He told us exactly what he intended to do and he has now denied at least a generation or two any hope of achieving “the American dream.” That is a fundamental transformation.
Thank you, Pinto.
@OWB, yeah, he campaigned on ‘hope and change’. People who voted for him got hope, all right, which is not going to put food on your plate or pay the bills or keep you employed when the economy is in the toilet. They also got change from him, and most of them don’t like it now, ’cause it isn’t what they ‘hoped’ for in the way of ‘change’.
Empty rhetoric is hot air. Hot air makes balloons fly. That’s about all it’s good for.