once again i found myself COMPELLED to address the lunatic remarks of one of the obama faithful, even though i know that it is an exercise in futility. at best it turns them away to never be heard from again, but at worst they will make an attempt to engage me on subjects for which they have no education or knowledge - both are in typical liberal fashion.
my good friend 'sh' since three lifetimes ago, in high school, found an awesome post from iain martin's blog and created a link to it from her facebook page. the premise of his post - titled "President Barack Obama dislikes Britain, but he's keen to meet the Queen" was that obama treated england's prime minister, gordan brown, as if he were beneath him while being all excited and worked up over the prospect of meeting the queen.
the opening salvo of the article sets the stage for the larger argument:
"President Obama has been rudeness personified towards Britain this week. His handling of the visit of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to Washington was appalling."
as he continues in how the obama's slighted the brown's i got more and more embarrassed for our president and our country. i mean, this should have been in the most basic training lessons for obama and his clan - like in a "how to treat foreign dignitaries 101" class or something to that effect.
but apparently, according to the post from mr. martin, it's not all british officials that the obamassiah holds in such disregard - seems he's all aflutter at the prospect of tea with the queen when he's there for the g20 next month. in the words of mr. martin obama is:
"...in through the front door of Buckingham Palace faster than a Harley Davidson roaring along Route 66.
Note how the coolness of Team Obama disappears when a bit of regal glamour is introduced into the equation. He might not like the Brits, but he can recognise a global superstar when he encounters one. He wants to be associated with her. He's shameless."
and shameless is a good description in this writer's opinion. nothing to comment on for this blog post from mr. martin - unless it's to give him kudos for calling a spade a spade - right? right.
enter the idiocy of the unknowing, uninformed liberal who posted a comment on the post link on sh's facebook page:
from d o'f:
well, I don't think the article's focus was on the (vain) gifts for the boys... the focus was more on the insincerity of our Commander-in-Chief.. from the point of view of a Brit... a journalist from a country who has been avid Obama supporters. hmmmm
The article is about (at least this part) this being a rude gesture because Michelle didn't go out on a big shopping spree - when in fact she really didn't need to... As for your extra insertion, like it or not (obviously you do not), this man is our President, and he has a huge mess to clean up. Instead of griping about his every move, people need to lay off and give the man a chance.
lay off the man and give him a chance? please tell me how spending more money in the first 30 days in office than all of the other commander-in-chiefs in the history of our republic COMBINED. please explain to me how it is possible to spend your way out of debt - can YOU do this in your household? no? well guess what, it doesn't work with government either.obama and his ilk maintain that the reason the "spend our way out of the situation" didn't work with fdr is because fdr didn't spend enough. hogwash. do you realize that in the whole of the rest of the world, when we were having our "great depression" the market was allowed to right itself everywhere but here? in the rest of the world they had a recession that lasted less than two years - here in our country our great depression lasted HOW LONG???fdr was the first president to be heralded as the new saviour. you might be interested in knowing that fdr campaigned on smaller government, reduction in taxes and spending and less interference with the market. as soon as he got into office, he pulled the ole switcheroo. and boy did we pay for it - we're still paying for it - but even fdr drew the line at out and out welfare.there is very little in the stimulus bill that will actually generate a single job. interestingly the bulks of jobs that will be generated will not happen for more than three years and they will primarily be government jobs. government jobs DO NOT help the economy - in fact they hurt it as they drain money from the producing sector of society and give it to the leeches who are fueling the beauracracy.it was our founding father's intention that those who worked and/or were supported by the state would not be permitted to vote. their rationale was that if you derived your livlihood from the state you would vote only for those things that would prolong and/or increase your well being without giving proper weight to what is best for the republic as a whole. that whole thing got turned around in the middle of the last century in an attempt to make things more fair. yeah, we see how THAT's working out. more fair means that the more i work and earn the less i get to keep of it because people who aren't as resourceful or as talented or as smart as i can't/don't earn what i earn.obama is ostensibly our president - i have some serious doubts about that - but as such he is the one calling most of the shots now. however, that doesn't mean that he should get a blank check so we can see how he handles things. good lord, man, by your comments it seems we should only be judging this man AFTER he totally bankrupts the country and puts us so firmly on the path of socialism that there will need to be another revolution to contermand it.you might be interested in noting that socialism - in myriad forms - has been tried AND failed many, many times over the course of human history. the utopia of socialism is such a wonderful concept - isn't it? however, as margaret thatcher so aptly observed: "the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples' money." in short, drew, there is no RIGHT WAY to do socialism. the market works when it is not interfered with.the market did not fail here, the market was failed. congress (and its handmaidens) forced banks to issue credit to people who were not credit worthy or be fined for "racist policies". then when it didn't work out they way they HOPED it would they blamed the market. when the market was in charge, the banks weren't failing. and i might add that obama was one of the attorneys representing ACORN and other groups who lobbied congress and its handmaidens to force the banks to hand out bad loans.i suggest you do some studying of history and get an understanding of what these types of policies have done to this country and other countries throughout history. i also highly recommend that you read the declaration of independence, the u.s. constitution and the federalist and anti-federalist papers.all of these will help you to understand what our government is supposed to be - or not be as the case may be. our country is NOT a democracy, it is a representational republic - our founding fathers KNEW the inherent dangers of democracies and shied away from the creation of that for us. thomas jefferson's words still rings true "government governs best which governs least."what have years and years and years of income redistribution done to help the poor? do we have fewer poor now than we did when lbj launched his great society? do we have a lower level of divorce, broken families, and children born out of wedlock? perhaps drug abuse in our society has been reduced? maybe we can point to our children and say "they're educated at a higher level than ever before in our nation."? no on all of these points? indeed, no on all of these points.i would caution you to think that by continuing to throw good money after bad, we are giving obama and his ilk "a chance" to right the wrongs of the rich. our country guarantees equal OPPORTUNITY to everyone, not equality of outcome. if someone wants something bad enough, then they can figure out a way to get it without theft. and make no mistake, income redistribution is nothing other than theft.i intend to give mr. obama every bit of respect he deserves. i also intend to give him every bit of respect that those on the left gave to gwb. i love my country and so by default i hate what obama and the rest of the leftards are trying to do to it through judicial diktat.one final note: reread the article and perhaps this time you could start with the opening two sentences: "President Obama has been rudeness personified towards Britain this week. His handling of the visit of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to Washington was appalling." and then come back and tell me this article wasn't about how ineptly obama handled the whole visit.
Wow, Hiedi [sic], I didn't mean to get into all this! I will be the first to admit that I do not keep up with all this... Family, career, etc. just don't leave me with the time or energy - I barely get to catch any news - seriously. With that in mind, here's how I see it (and I think how alot of people see it)... for 8 years, our country has been deteriorating...In the past year or so, this downward slide has excellerated...We were in a recession for nearly a year before the government recognized that fact - although it was obvious. Bush's policies obviously were not working. Obama's may not either, but at least he's hitting the problems at a different angle than the policies that were not working. One of the small quips that I did hear Obama say was to the effect that "if it doesn't work, if you end up not satisfied, you can replace me in four years"... I guess this is why I say give it a chance...That's the great thing about our democracy, we can always change.
d o'f - again, we do not have a democracy - well except in the minds of the uninformed and the media - or is that a redundant statment? please get it through your head that we do not have the right, per our constitution, to take from one and give to another under the guise of benevolence or bailouts or whatever euphemism the kids are calling it these days.
the constitution, a legal binding document, sets rules and limits on how the government can wield power and what we see happening is completely against that document. yeah, great idea.
actually we were heading into a recession for about 20 months before the government rolled out it's first "bailout" plan back in september. however, it wasn't the cause of bush. the bailout was required because of the laws that the democrats (admittedly with some help of a few rino's) put into place telling the banks and credit companies how to run their businesses. had the glass stegall act never been repealed, we would not be in this mess today.
if we wait to counteract the one's policies for four years, it may very well be too late for our republic. just doing "something from a different angle" is a dangerous and stupid approach.
there isn't an actual economist who supports what obama is doing. he's not doing it to help the country, he's doing this to help those who got him elected. ultimately that will hurt those who elected him AND the country as a whole.
did you ever consider not voicing an opinion on things where you have no backstory or history or understanding?