He Has a Little List

He Claims They Shan’t Be Missed

Or, why does this mal-Administration insist on taking warnings as “How-To” lessons?

One such warning came from the late Robert A. Heinlein, who wrote:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”

Which brings us back to the SCoaMF and his (not so little) list, as described by the Sage of Selma.


Are You ‘Them!’?

By Victor Davis Hanson | Works and Days

Until the appearance of Barack Obama on the national scene, I knew of “them” only from an old sci-fi movie in which huge ants (“Them!”) ate people.

But there are new monsters in America, and I am starting to wonder whether I am to be considered among them: those of the uninvolved and uninformed lives, the bar-raisers, the downright mean ones, the never deserving of respect ones, the Vegas junketeers, the Super Bowl jet setters, the tuition stealers, the faux-Christians who do not pay higher taxes, the too much income makers, the tormenters of autistic children, the polluters, the enemies deserving of punishment, the targets to bring a gun against, the faces to get in front of, the limb-loppers, the tonsil pullers, the fat cats, the corporate jet owners, the one-percenters, the stupidly acting, the not paying their fair sharers, the discriminators on the “way you look”, the alligator raisers and moat builders, the vote deniers, the clingers, the typical something persons, the hunters of kids at ice cream parlors, the stereotypers and profilers, the cowards, the lazy and soft, the non-spreaders of money, the not my people people, the Tea party racists, the not been perfect and mistake makers, the disengaged and the dictating, the not the time to profiteers, the ones who did not know when to quit making money, and on and on.

My God, man, how did Barack Obama & Co. conjure up so many demons?


Well, it’s not as if he can run on his record with either his base or his critics.  His base has been consistently disappointed and his critics have found he has exceeded most of their worst predictions.  When added to his public statement to the effect that if he couldn’t get the economy turned around in three years (which three years ended on January 19th, 2012 with the economy stagnant and the work force at it’s lowest participation rate in thirty years) he’d be a one term president, it’s clear he’s painted himself into a corner.

It seems his plan to get out of that corner he has painted himself into is an enemies list that makes Richard Nixon’s look short and rational.

A lot of the entrepreneurial class has already “Gone Galt” for the duration.  Declaring them to be enemies will not improve the situation, and may yet result in “bad luck” that none of us would care to live through.


Expanded from Google Plus where for once, I was one step ahead of the Blogfather.

Clint Eastwood 'Half-time in America' ad invites criticism
A reminder as we ponder the Giants win over the Pats in the Super Bowl
  • GarandFan

    Barry’s got nothing to run on.  So you can bank on the fact that we’ll continue to hear from Barry on whom we should hate, despise and envy.  Of course Barry is the only one you can “trust”.

  • jim_m

    When you have no accomplishments to run on you create an enemy, you dehumanize that enemy, you claim that they (not you) are the source of everyone’s misery and that if properly empowered you will deliver unto that enemy the punishment they deserve. It’s the favorite tactic of thugs and dictators the world over. 

    The best way to keep an oppressed people down is to provide them with an inhuman enemy to fixate on.  In the middle east (and early 20th century Europe) it is the Jews, in the Soviet Union, it was the wreckers and hoarders, capitalists and, of course, Jews. Hugo Chavez focused on Private industry and rich capitalists (and oddly, Jews, although perhaps only to cozy up to his new friends in Iran), Mugabe focused on the wealthy land owners (and destroyed his country’s ag industry). Funny how the obama admin and the left are settling on wealthy capitalists (and Jews) as their enemy.  Fascists really only have one tune to sing.

    • Commander_Chico

      The best way to keep an oppressed people down is to provide them with an inhuman enemy to fixate on.

      Yes, thank God there’s never been any of that in the USA before Obama.

      • jim_m

        Please do tell.  When until now (and really we are not yet oppressed in this country but Dear Leader does show every desire to do so) has the American people been oppressed?

        • herddog505

          Look a the history of the democrat party.  Before the Late Unpleasantness, it was those nasty ol’ abolitionists.  After the war, it was carpetbaggers.  Then, it was “the Negro” and Jim Crow.  Wilson came along bringing the scourge of Progressivism in his wake along with hatred of Reds and robber barons.  FDR had those who opposed the New Deal, including Supreme Court justices.  Since the ’60s, it’ been the list that Hanson presents.  I remember Algore uttering dark warnings in 2000 about “powerful forces” who wanted to oppress the American people.  “Women, children and minorities hardest hit” has been the democrat mantra for decades.

          But, in fairness, a hefty part of politics is about demonizing the other guy.  The problem with Barry is that “the other guy” includes a huge chunk of the American people.

        • Commander_Chico

          Hmmm, fixating on an “inhuman enemy” to get the PATRIOT Act, the FISA amendments to allow them to monitor all electronic communications, invade Iraq, waste a couple trillion dollars there and Afghanistan and then say Medicare and Social Security has to be cut, issue all kinds of new rules on foreign banking and domestic banking surveillance.  Just off the top.

          • jim_m

            Umm, not to put too fine a point on it, but we were attacked and there actualy was a real enemy.  Or are you so obtuse that you can’t recognize that fact?

            My point was that you create and enemy where there really isn’t one and you characterize that enemy in dehumaizing terms making them easy prey for mobs that you whip up. Kind of like the couple that was assualted by leftists a couple of years ago in N.O. Their guilt was attending a GOP function so they broke his nose and broke her leg.

            That is the quality of the discourse you are defending.

          •  That is the “quality of discourse” that it practices.

          • Commander_Chico

            19 guys hijacked some planes.  That was the attack, they were the enemy.  Then we had the still-mysterious anthrax attacks, which were quickly blamed on the “inhuman enemy.”  Then we had the PATRIOT Act and a bunch of other unconstitutional and illegal bullshit, again all directed at the “inhuman enemy.”

            Since then, the USA invaded two countries, one of which had nothing to do with the attacks of the “inhuman enemy,” at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and going on three trillion dollars.  We finally got the leader of the 19 hijackers last year, but we’re still at war.

          • jim_m

            19 guys hijacked some planes.  That was the attack, they were the enemy.

            Wow!  That’s naive.  By your statement, they had no help.  There was no one else doing planning. There was no one doing logistics.  They figured out how to get the uniforms etc, how to get into the flight schools, and the whole idea came out of Mohammad Atta’s brain.

            No they had help.  And there were millions of supporters who flooded into the streets singing and dancing and handing out candies in celebration of murdering 3000 Americans.

            You ever so conveniently forget the polls showing that ~70% of muslims believed that murdering innocents in terrorists acts is Ok if you are doing it for Jihad.

            You also conveniently forget that Iraq was paying terrorists to commit acts of terror.  How convenient it must be that every bit of intel from the Clinton admin that the left backed as reason to drop missiles on their country wasw essentially the same intel that lead Bush into Iraq. 

            It must be nice when the information that excuses your actions is the same information that you accuse your enemies with.  I’m just not that dishonest.

          •  Still wrasslin with that thar pig…

          • Actually, they were in civvies as passengers… but otherwise? No real quibbles.

          • Commander_Chico

            OK, you’re one of the nuts who think we’re at war with all Muslims because of Al Qaeda.  I get it. 

          • jim_m

            No I just think that you need to destroy the lunatics that want to kill everyone else and teach the spineless majority that follows them that you aren’t going to sit by passively while the lunatics behead people they disagree with.

            Clearly you belong to the apeasement left that thinks if you kiss enough ass yours will be the last head to be cut off and you are OK with everyone else getting it as long as you are last.

          • Oysteria

            That was lame.

          • You left out bombing Libya, conveniently it seems.  Also the fact that your hero has not only continued a lot of Bush policies but gone way past what Bush ever thought of.

          • donwalk

            When was the PATRIOT Act repealed, or did it just expire when B.O. took office?
            The two invasions that B.O. promised to end immediately? Even though President Bush had already signed a treaty with a withdrawal date in Iraq – an agreement that B.O. is trying to take credit for?
            A war in Afghanistan that B.O. has managed to the point where we have suffered more deaths during B.O.’s three years than ALL of the years combined under President Bush?
            Not to even mention Libya and soon to be Syria, Egypt and Iran!

      • herddog505

        How things change!  A few years ago, we were supposed to vote for Barry because of Hope and Change: he would do things differently!  He was a different kind of politician!

        Now, we’re supposed to just shrug at his antics, tell ourselves that, “Meh, everybody does it” but Romney would be worse.

      • Really chico?

        How Bushhitler?

    • jim_m

      As if on cue:  Listen to Alcee Hastings (D, Fascism) declaring people who think differently from the left the enemy: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/02/dem-congressman-fox-news-is-the-enemy-video0/

      And little Stephen was laughing at me when I quoted Alinsky and said that the left considered their political opponents the enemy.

  • Commander_Chico

    Yes, Victor Davis Hanson, you are a monster: Chickenhawk Supremo and a pompous ass.

    What is it with right-wing nerds and Heinlein?  Heinlein was not exactly an upholder of traditional family values, there wasn’t much “conservative” about him. Maybe it’s the orgies in Stranger in a Strange Land.

    One good thing is that Victor Davis Hanson would not be able to vote in Heinlein’s world, I do admit.

    • jim_m

      It’s because Heinlein, regardless of what ever else you may think of him, was quite correct in his assessment of ludites and anti-capitalists.  Do you care to argue that point, or do you find it sufficient to try to defame the author? 

      Nice to see that like the other leftist fascists, you would be very happy to ensure that your ideological enemies would be refused a voice in government.

      Or perhaps it is that you are just too close to the jealous and hateful obama crowd to recognize that the list Hanson made is of the dehumanizing, sterotyping and hateful names obama gives to those who oppose him.

      • Commander_Chico

        How did I defame Heinlein?  There are orgies in Stranger in a Strange Land.  Just pointing out there is little that is conservative in the original Burkean sense in Heinlein.

        What kind of nonsense is a string of terms, few of which Obama actually said (“tormenters of autistic children?”  yes, I’m against them, I admit)

        The only thing he left out is a bombastic quote from Cato the Elder or Thuycidides.

      •  You waste your time Jim.  Ignore the troll.

        • jim_m

          All too true.

        •  Translation – “you keep losing arguments with libs, why not just pretend you don’t hear them…”

          • Stop whining, Steve. Chico has been here a LOT longer than you have, and this is the usual quality of his incoherent “argument.” If people ignore him, it’s because that’s what he deserves. I’ll give Chico a bit of credit, though… he sometimes slips away from doctrinaire leftist positions. Unlike you, who never deviates from the Democrat party line.

          • Gmacr1

            When you find the coherance to make an argument valid to the subject perhaps someone will find the time to swat it down with facts. You never do that though.

    • EricSteel

      Ever notice that if a Conservative didn’t serve in the military he is called a Chickenhawk, but if he did serve in the military he is a Warmonger.

      • jim_m

        Add to that:

        If he serves and comes back home and denounces his country:  He’s a war hero.

        If he is a dem congressman and denounces military action but earmarks millions in defense spending for his home district he is a “hawk” on defense.

        If he is a conservative and served in any capacity but was not killed in battle, he evaded hazardous duty and received special treatment due to his connections.

      • Commander_Chico

        I would say Vic-tor Da-vis Han-son is both a chickenhawk and a warmonger, but it’s kind of redundant.

        • EricSteel

          My point Chico, is that the Democrats have a template for describing Republicans and you followed it perfectly. 

    • You ever actually READ “Starship Troopers”?  You didn’t have to have been in the military per se – you had to complete some sort of federal service.  Not all service was military.  From Der Wiki…

      “Another accusation is that the Terran Federation is a fascist society, and that Starship Troopers is therefore an endorsement of fascism. These allegations have become so popular that Sircar’s Corollary of Godwin’s Law states that once Heinlein is brought up during online debates, “Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days.”[44] The most visible proponent of these views is probably Paul Verhoeven, whose film version of Starship Troopers portrayed the Terran Federation’s personnel wearing uniforms strongly reminiscent of those worn by the Third Reich-era Wehrmacht; but Verhoeven admits that he never finished reading the actual book.[45] Most of the arguments for this view cite the idea that only veterans can vote and non-veterans lack full citizenship; moreover, only veterans are permitted to teach the course “History & Moral Philosophy”, children are taught that moral arguments for the status quo are mathematically correct, and both capital and corporal punishment are accepted as methods of teaching morality and reducing crime. Federal Service is not necessarily military, although it is suggested that hardship and strict discipline are pervasive. According to Poul Anderson, Heinlein got the idea not from Nazi Germany or Sparta, but from Switzerland.[13]”

      The movie sucked – badly.  The sequels sucked even worse.  I’m talking industrial-grade high-speed drawdown vacuum pump quality.  Sat through the first one, got the others on Netflix and didn’t make it past about five minutes each.

      The book was pretty decent – even as a YA novel.  I’d suggest you take a few hours and read it sometime.

      “Stanger in a Strange Land” was pretty racy for the time.  His later stuff… well, he needed an editor badly.  And he was a proponent of the government being controlled by the people – not the other way around.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yes, I read both books. Read ST at least twice, when I was 13 or so.  I know the movie is a spoof, although it’s more of a spoof of war propaganda in general than ST itself. 

        I am actually sympathetic to the ideas of ST the book — again, because the likes of Victor Davis Hanson would not be able to vote.

        • And I guess that’s where we differ.  I can look at something like ST and go “Hmm.  Interesting ideas.”

          You look at it and go “Hmmm. It would keep someone from voting, and that’d be a GOOD thing.”

          Interesting. In a disturbing sense..

      • herddog505

        JLawsonThe movie sucked – badly.

        That is the understatement of the millenium.  ST is one of my very favorite novels, and I was as excited as a kid getting his first car when I heard it was being made into a movie.  And then… I saw it.

        There aren’t torments in hell bad enough for Verhoeven.

    • Chico, you forget that Heinlein presents muliple universes in his novels. Surely Hanson would be able to vote in at least one of those universes.

      •  chicka would be tried and executed by a bystanders jury in more than one of Heinlein’s worlds.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yes, but I was engaging in a bit of irony and hyperbole there.

  • I just started a book called “The Coming Jobs War” by a gentleman from Gallup.  This is not a plug, since I have not finished it yet (and since I am a conservative, it will take me a long time – too many multi-syllable words).  The author’s premise is that most people (voters) want good jobs more than anything else.  In addition, jobs growth comes from new (small) business and the entrepreneurs who take the risks to create jobs are those who make (or want to make) more than $250K a year.  It is interesting that the President of the United States considers these people his enemies.  I am against higher taxes, but at least hit those of us with W-2 income, not those with K-1 or Schedule C income.

  • Hugh_G

    “My God, man, how did Barack Obama & Co. conjure up so many demons?”

    He didn’t conjure up anything. I’m one of his base and though I don’t like everything he’s done (he played way too nice with the Congress) I’ll happily vote for him on his merits. His path is not guaranteed by any means but if Mitt Romney isn’t the second coming of Bob Dole I don’t know who is.

     I can’t wait for the ads. Romney is a walking ad mans dream machine. Even better that the insane Gingrich who is so freaking crazy that he’d be dismissed as a fool and a gasbag. But Romney? He’s the out of touch with reality mouth who keeps on giving.

    (OK, let the name calling begin.)

    • herddog505

      WHAT merits???

    • 914

      He had control of Congress and everything else for 2 years and didn’t even submit a budget? Talk about a complete dolt! Figures you’d support that!

    • jim_m

      The point is that obama ran on empty dreams and promises.  The MSM never asked him a single question about his background and still doesn’t. 

      obama’s problem is that he now has an actual record and it isn’t a good one.  He said his policies would turn unemployment around and they have failed completely.  The economy is not recovering as we have seen in other recessions, it is staggering along.  The media once called 5% unemployment the worst economy since the depression and now we are supposed to believe that this is the greatest recovery ever? Some of us have memories.

      What obama is going to do now (because he really has no other choice) is to demonize and dehumanize a scape goat. 

      Notice that he isn’t even going after the GOP.  He is going after citizens.  He is assailing people who run businesses and employ workers. He is attacking people who aspire to become wealthy and leave a legacy for their children.  He is attacking people who want better than living on the government dole.

      It’s one thing to attack your political opponent, but obama is creating an enemy of a class of citizen and arguing that they should be punished for bringing upon America these current ecnomic hardships.

      Ignore it if you like. Obviously if you think that obama is doing a good job you will gladly turn on your fellow Americans.

      • Brucehenry

        Hahaha perhaps you can link to a quote in which Obama “assails” people who run businesses. Or a quote in which he “attacks” people who aspire to become wealthy. Or a quote in which he “attacks” those who “want better than living on the government dole.”

        Let’s see the actual words that you say constitute an assault or an attack.

        • “We’ve got to make
          sure that people who have more money help the people who have less

          – From each according to his ability; to each according to his need?

          Quotes scripture: “For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”

          My understanding, that is “to whom God has given much, much shall be required”  – why does the government have a right to expect anything?

          ” I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” – who gets to decide?  I think that Jon Corzine and George Soros have made enough money.  Is it up to me?  I believe that Bruce Henry has made enough money.

          • Next up Teh 0ne will no doubt be telling us that “Money is the root of all evil.” 

            (Actual correct quote: “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through
            with many sorrows.” 1st Timothy 6:10).

        •  Nice try, but I guarantee Jim made it up — and dollars to donuts that he’ll just fling poo rather than admit he made it up.

        • Jwb10001

          How about this one Bruce:

          If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, “We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,” if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder, and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November?

        • jim_m

          Relly Bruce, One would think it would be enough to recall obama’s support for the OWS movement and characterizing his opponents in part as “people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don’t feel a sense of obligation to their communities and their companies and their workers… ”

          Otherwise I would also cite the things that Tex has and point out that every class warfare comment by his administration is by definition an assault or attack on anyone who aspires to accumulate wealth.

          • Brucehenry

            Just as I thought, neither you nor anyone else here can supply even ONE quote from the president that can be characterized as “assailing” people who run businesses or “attacking” people who aspire to become wealthy or who want “more than living on the dole.”

            The Texas Accountant gives me three examples of Obama lip-serving mealy-mouth liberal platitudes, but “attacks?” I don’t see ’em.

            Jwb1001 cites some quote about what Latinos might or might not do in an election — see anything about business owners, wealth-aspirers, or dole-avoiders there?

            Below, he tries again with an Obama crack about “fat cats.” Want me to find a few thousand quotes of politicians railing against “fat cats,” including Republican quotes? Can you say “Palin”? Puuhleeeze. And the Dobbs/Limbaugh quote from 2008? I thought we were talking about THIS campaign. And Limbaugh and Dobbs aren’t representative of business owners or wealth-aspirers, are they?

            But please, Jim, tell us about the “class warfare comments by his administration” that constitute “assaults” and “attacks” on the people you mentioned. Not “his opponents” — no, what I’m looking for here are “assaults” and “attacks” on those who own businesses, aspire to wealth, and who wish to live off the dole.

          • Brucehenry

            BTW, also show me the quote where Obama declares his “support” for the OWS movement.

          •  In an interview that will be aired tonight on ABC News, President Obama continues to express his commitment to the Occupy Wall Street protesters. 

            “The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in
            leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and
            we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard
            work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded,” Obama tells ABC News.
            “And that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don’t
            feel a sense of obligation to their communities and their companies and
            their workers that those folks aren’t rewarded.”


          • jim_m

             Yeah, several people provide numerous quotes and Bruce ignores them like a dutiful, dumbass lefty and says you showed me nothing.

          •  Thus the wisdom of ignoring his posts.

          •  See, I  told Jim M was making it up. He can’t provide the quote you ask for because ti doesn’t exist except in the voices in his head.

          • Brucehenry

            Texas Acct comes closest with an out-of-context one-liner that could arguably be construed as “support” of the OWS movement, but the other Weekly Standard clip (Wodney’s) is one in which he expresses understanding of why these guys are protesting, hardly an endorsement.

            But the whole team of madly-Googling Jeopardy contestants here can’t come up with one single quote in which Obama “assails” or “attacks” business owners or those who aspire to wealth.

            If one spends all day every day surfing from one wingnut website to another one gets a lot of ideas in one’s head that just ain’t so.

          • jim_m

             We’ve provided several comments and I stand by my position that every class warfare comment is an attack.

            If Stevie is your only support I feel sorry for you.

          • You’re the biggest supporter — you’ve been proven wrong again and all you can do in response is a weak=kneed slap.

            You’ve been caught lying again Jimmy….

          • jim_m

             It’s not a lie because you disagree with me dumbass.  Many of us here have said that obama’s remarks are an attack on the wealthy and people who aspire to become so.  They characterize these people as enemies of society in terms not unlike those used by the Soviet Union.

          • No, it’s a lie because you were challenged to come up with one quote that me the criteria you yourself set -and you coulnd’t.

          • jim_m

             One thing to consider, Brucie, is that if others are saying that obama is attacking the wealthy and people who aspire to be wealthy, then it isn’t just me making things up. 

            Your delusional lap dog, Stephen, might kiss your ass thinking that you’ve made some kind of point, but the fact is that my opinion of obama’s actions is not exclusive or out of line with the reaction that others are having.

            You can disagree but disagreement is not invalidation.

            I doubt you have the wit to tell the difference.  I know Stephen lacks it.

          • But you lied… what you say happened never happened.

            You’re so full of bullshit you’re normal everyday life is spent trying to convince people you’re not a lying sack of shit.

            And you fail at that…

          • jim_m

             See above asswipe.  Just because you disagree with me and numerous other people doesn’t mean that my opinion of obama’s remarks is a lie.

            Stop calling people liars and actually make an argument to defend your position.

            And quit stalking me creep.

          •  Heh heh, ever get the impression that this is personal for Stevie?

          • Gmacr1

            Meh, he’s an ankle biter.

          • Stalking you? Oh, poor baby! Jimmy is wetting his pants.

            Just quit lying and you won’t be chased down and challenged to back up your lies, wimp.

          • Brucehenry

            ANOTHER thing to consider, Jim, is that if one spends all day every day in Wingnutechochamberstan, one soon starts spouting over-the-top rhetoric. Like you with your “assails” and “attacks.”

            A few comments downthread, Herddog posts some excerpts that state a case similar to yours without going full nutjob, as you have. However, I suggest that most of HIS examples can be explained by Obama criticizing specific actions of certain businesspeople, not “attacks” on all “people who own businesses” or all those who “aspire to become wealthy.”

             Critics take those examples and spin them into an “anti-business attitude” for political purposes. Fair enough, but “assaults”? “Attacks”? I don’t read Obama’s rhetoric that way, and you can’t provide even ONE quote that could fairly be construed as one, on the people you name. Instead, you claim that your supporters have provided “several quotes” — but they haven’t. They’ve mentioned Latinos, Limbaugh, and some unnamed “fat cats” — but not assaults on business owners.

            As regards Stephen, I must admit I sometimes wish he wouldn’t act in such a juvenile manner, calling people liars, etc (sorry, Stephen, but it’s true). However, my exchange with you is independent of whatever Stephen says. I say you can’t provide quotes where Obama “assails” or “attacks” business owners, wealth-aspirers, or dole-avoiders, and you CAN’T.

            If you’d tone down your overheated rhetoric, you’d not be so open to being called out.

          • No, it’s not just you lying  – many people are lying, but guess what? Lying in a crowd doesn’t change the lie.

          • jim_m

             Bruce if you are saying that obama has not supported the OWS movement I can give you dozens of links from everything from blogs to the Financial Times saying ht he has.  I will assume that you recognize the FT as a reputable media outlet.

          • Again — no quote, no proof. Just a waving of hands promising he CAN produce a quote — and yet he NEVER does…

        • Jwb10001

          Here’s another one:

          “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall
          Street,” Mr. Obama said in an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” program on Sunday

          I suppose he meant that as a compliment.

          • jim_m

             Hey Stevie,  If you’re not stalking me then why aren’t you calling Jwb here a liar?

            Maybe it’s because you are a jackass and completely unserious about everything you say.

          • @jim_m723:disqus I’m inclined to believe it’s deadly serious for the twenty minutes or so it takes for it to type in a two line off topic reply…

          • Waiting for you to produce a quote, Jimmy.

            You are unable to do so…

          • Commander_Chico

            But that’s how he ended up – no prosecutions for mortgage fraud.

        • Jwb10001
    • Hugh –

      Seriously – what merits?  Because I’m really not seeing why he’d be capable of managing a McDonald’s, much less the country…

      • Hugh_G

        Well then there’s no point in telling you since you obviously would hurl shit at whatever response I made.

        • I think what you see as huge successes I see as dubious achievements that are gonna backfire like crazy, if they haven’t already.  (Cash4clunkers, anyone?)

          He’s really not too familar with the concept of unintended consequences, I think, and has no idea of the complexities of the economy he’s so casually meddling with. 

          Ideology is one thing.  Real-world effects are something else…

          • Hugh_G

            I appreciate your perspective. Obviously time and history will tell. I believe that he’s an incredibly smart man who indeed understand complex problems and the solutions to them. 

            My major gripe, and that of many of my democratic friends, is that he’s played way too nice with an opposition that doesn’t give a rats ass about the consequences of their own actions and has only one objective that trumps the good of the people.

          • Wait – are we looking at the same person here?  😉

            I see someone who isn’t terribly smart, is reclusive, and is pretty inept when it comes to the niceties of diplomatic protocols.  Who doesn’t seem to have any concept of problem-solving beyond “throw money at it”, and when that fails, he shifts to “throw more money” – never questioning whether that was what was needed in the first place.

            Supposedly he even wants his decisions limited by his staff, with the issues he must deal with boiled down to short memos with yes/no blocks he can check off.

            That doesn’t strike me as the way an incredibly smart man deals with the Presidency – it strikes the as the actions of someone who’s in way over his head, and knows it – but doesn’t want to tarnish his image, because that’s all he’s got.

            Well… I guess perceptions vary, don’t they?

          • Jesus, he spent the first two years completely unopposed at all.  WTF, dude?

          • Hugh_G

            If that weren’t so dishonest it’d be almost laughable “dude.”

            NOT including judicial and other appointments:

            Here’s a tiny fraction of what the right has opposed, blocked or attempted to block:
            Tax on companies that ship jobs overseas; Political Ad disclosure bill; The DREAM Act; The Small Business Jobs Act; Repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’; Immigration reform;Unemployment extension; Fair Pay Act of 2009; oil spill liability.

            Get a grip on your self and come out of the wilderness you live in.

    • Hank_M

      Sorry to repeat herddogs question, but what merits?

      I expect you’ll list saving the auto industry, saving us from the next great depression, health care and getting bin laden. Those seem to be the standards from Obama’s teleprompted speeches.

      Are those the merits you refer to?

      • Hugh_G

        Just a few.

        • Gmacr1

          You will find those to be listed as his biggest mistakes when history records the greatest failure to be elected President of the US is recorded.

          • Hugh_G

            Just so I understand what is an almost incomprehensible statement. You’re  saying That killing Bin Laden was one of his biggest mistakes? The guy President Bush swore to get “dead or alive” and didn’t in 7 years. You’re saying that?

            You’re saying that saving the auto industry from complete collapse is one of the “biggest failures” in history? The bailout which is now 50% paid back.

            You sir are either so blinded by hatred or too dumb to converse with.

          •  No, you are saying that “That killing Bin Laden was one of his biggest mistakes.”

            That straw man belongs to you and no one else.

            Hugh_G wrote: “…killing Bini Laden was one of his [Obama’s] biggest mistakes.”

            You’ll be seeing a lot of that quote.

          • Hugh_G

            What the f*** are you even talking about?

            ????????????????????????……just so you know those are question marks. Just like the one in the sentence you misquoted.


          •  Welcome to Wodney’s World…

  • 914

    He can always run on the fact that he’s the 2nd Black man to hold the office? And by far the best in front of a prompter.

    • Sky__Captain

      I thought he was the 3rd “Black” President.

      Anyway, Barack’s not “Black”.
      He does have skin color that is considered “Black”, but his parents’ racial backgrounds indicate otherwise.

      • Ok, now book my luggage onto Flight 174, it’s the grey duffle and the roller with the yellow handle —

        and don’t shuffle your feet like that, get a move on! Here’s two bucks…

        • Gmacr1


          • excuse me? Did you see something racial in what I wrote?


          •  @Gmacr1:disqus You flummoxed your opponent who conflates bigot with racist.

  • Hank_M

    This, in my opinion, is the take-away from VDH’s excellent article:

    “In the last 36 months I have heard about all sorts of enemies and
    victims, but not a word from the president that he respects those who
    pay off mortgages even when equity falls, who do not charge things they
    cannot afford, and who try to pay their own children’s tuition without
    state grants and scholarships.”

    I also find it ironic that Obama is essentially running against the vast majority of people that elected him. You know, those who are now lazy, soft, arrogant, etc.

    If Romney’s people have any political brains at all (which is suspect) they’ll have an easy time using Obama’s own words to show that damn near every american is on Obama’s “enemy” list.

  • herddog505

    With regard to Barry “attacking” business, I say this:

    1.  It depends on what constitutes an “attack”.  Has he gone full-on communist?  No.  Is he clearly not friend of Wall Street and “fat cats”?  Yes.

    2.  If the idea is that Barry HASN’T attacked business and is otherwise anti-business, then I suggest that quite a few people in the corporate world and even the White House disagree.  Jack Welch certainly thinks so:

    President Barack Obama’s administration has an “anti-business” bias which manifests itself through intimidation, trade, taxes and regulation, Welch also said.

    Soon after he came into office, Obama slammed companies that benefitted from taxpayer money for taking corporate trips to Las Vegas.

    Businesspeople said tourism in Nevada took a hit partly because companies decided to cancel trips to Las Vegas following his comment.

    “You get all these little things that have consequences beyond ‘we can’t have corporate jets and fat cats going to Las Vegas,'” Welch said.


    Mort Zuckerman agrees:

    The (credibility) gap is being aggravated by Mr Obama’s recent sharp turn to the left. This resort to divisive populism – laying the blame on “fat cats” and pillorying the president’s favourite villains – “millionaires and billionaires” – is exactly the wrong approach. It seeds the suspicion that the administration is more interested in campaigning and undermines the confidence that business needs if it is to invest in the face of new regulations, healthcare costs and an increased bureaucracy. Businesses sense that the administration no longer understands how this perceived hostility saps the animal spirits required for taking risks on expansions and start-ups. [note: the author of the article goes on to say that Zuckerman is full of it and “should be thanking Obama, not attacking him.”]


    As for the White House:

    Obama has been happy to be seen by voters as cracking down on Wall Street but those efforts have had an unintended result: feeding a sense that the president and his party are indifferent or even actively hostile toward big business, whether those businesses are Silicon Valley tech companies, Midwestern manufacturers or Main Street small businesses.

    And it is more than just politics: Obama’s aides believe confidence in the general direction of White House policy has an effect on the willingness of corporations to hire, invest and push the economy toward a more solid recovery.


  • Jwb10001

    Sorry the race card isn’t accepted here.

    • And SCoaMF doesn’t have any racial component anyway.  It’s purely action/result based, and has nothing to do with skin color.

  • Graves law violation on your very first post here at Wizbang (at least under the name “Cortney[sic] Moore”).  You have ceded whatever point you were trying to make and are encouraged to go elsewhere.

  • Gmacr1

    Checked yourself in front of a mirror recently?
    You’ll be shocked to see the person facing you is a racist.
    You don’t do projection very well.

  •  That’s strike three!

  • Waah! A new troll visited, and I didn’t get to play with her/him.