Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Barack Obama is Brilliant Thread; HUH?
Topic Started: Mar 3 2011, 11:12 PM (16,452 Views)
Baldo
Member Avatar

So why is Matthews doing this now? He is on a book tour touting his new book about JFK.

However he is a long way off the Democratic reservation to be accusing his Party's President of being detached by not calling the Democrats in Congress. The Obamas do not like being in the White House? I sure think Obama & Michelle love the perks; Jetting off to Spain, flying here & there, and playing golf every weekend.

I believe Mathews is a bit upset that the power structure has moved to Chicago. I imagine he & others feel out of the loop. Perhaps he also sees a disaster coming down the train tracks.

Trying to distance himself & making some money is my bet.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

This week, obama will be in the White House longer than Kennedy. Via IMus in the morning.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

Like I have said before, neither Barack or Michelle are proud of this country, they are both trying to bring America down. All they care about is getting their own reparations and that seems to be working out well for those two.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

I have always regarded Chris Matthews as a "Mick on the make" - a pejorative that my father (whose mother, my grandmother, was 100% pure Irish) would reserve for those who were always looking out first to line their own pockets and were more than willing to cast principles or previously held positions aside.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

LTC8K6
Nov 21 2011, 08:02 AM
I would have no trouble believing them, Chris...but the source is you...which automatically introduces doubt...

Breitbart has it too.

http://tv.breitbart.com/thrill-is-gone-matthews-turns-on-obama-i-hear-stories-that-you-would-not-believe/

http://www.breitbart.tv/matthews-obamas-dont-like-being-in-white-house-michelle-not-happy/
Some good points made in the video at the 2nd link there. Unfortunately, Obama has his plan for "deficit reduction" in the "we must do it now" campaign that really avoids the "spending cuts" topic ...and we have the Rino's playing with the accounting through the baseline budget increases.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

KUHNER: Obama’s Denigrate America tour

President views us through the eyes of our enemies

President Obama regularly expresses his contempt for America. The latest example was his comment at a business forum in Hawaii where he complained that “we’ve been a little bit lazy over the last couple of decades.” In particular, he meant Americans supposedly have been lax in pursuing foreign investment because “we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America.” This degrades the country he leads.

The statement is patently false. During the past several decades, foreign investment has nearly tripled. Washington has signed multiple free-trade pacts, seeking to expand export markets and attract investment capital. Economic globalism is eroding our industrial base and U.S. wages; it has been a bonanza for foreign investors. Americans have not been passive. Yet Mr. Obama loves to bash America.

This is the latest in a long list of cheap insults. At a San Francisco fundraiser in October, Mr. Obama said, “We have lost our ambition, our imagination and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge.” Earlier that month, he complained, “we used to have the best stuff. Think about it: The world used to say ‘Let’s travel to America. Let’s see the Golden Gate Bridge. Let’s see the Hoover Dam. Let’s see the amazing things that America built.’ ” In September, he claimed America “had gotten a little soft and, you know, we didn’t have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track.”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Mr. Obama denounced “bitter” middle- and working-class voters who “cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” and pull the lever for Republicans. In other words, the heartland is rife with parochial, xenophobic, racist and primitive citizens who still believe in outdated conservative notions such as patriotism, God, the Second Amendment and stopping the flood of illegal immigrants.

Mr. Obama is a typical liberal. He believes America is fundamentally flawed, wicked and in irreversible decline. Like most on the radical left, he has been profoundly disappointed by America, especially over the past several decades. The Soviet Union - the vanguard of socialist revolution - was tossed onto the ash heap of history. The great enemy, capitalism, emerged triumphant.

The truth is that Americans have not lost their work ethic, imagination or competitive edge. In fact, no country has achieved what America has in the past 30 years. We won the Cold War, liberating captive nations and expanding freedom to several hundred million people. We created the Internet and many of the world’s top high-tech companies, such as Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook. We have spearheaded leading innovations in medicine, science and technology. We have become the most productive, prosperous and richest country in history - opportunities exist here that are impossible elsewhere. In short, America has shown repeatedly that it is an exceptional nation. This is what Mr. Obama despises.

Mr. Obama’s presidency represents the culmination of the 1960s revolutionary left. At their core, ‘60s radicals preached hatred for America. In their eyes, the United States was an evil, imperialist power based on economic exploitation, racial oppression and mindless militarism. Mr. Obama’s intellectual mentor, Saul Alinsky, argued that America could only be saved by radical transformation. Christianity, the free market, constitutional limited government, the belief in American exceptionalism all had to be uprooted to pave the way for the coming socialist utopia. In tandem, Mr. Obama’s comments are part of a larger ideological pattern: He spent 20 years in the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church, had ties to the Marxist terrorist Bill Ayers and continues to express sympathy for anarcho-socialist movements such as Occupy Wall Street.

No other American president - not even Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton - has vilified and denigrated his country while in office like Mr. Obama. It is not just that he routinely demonizes segments of his own countrymen - denouncing “fat-cat” bankers, millionaires, billionaires and corporate-jet owners. He has publicly attacked the Supreme Court for its decision on campaign-finance legislation. He has urged Hispanic supporters to “punish our enemies.” He has called Fox News and other media critics “illegitimate.” Since the 2010 midterm elections, he even has questioned the efficacy of our constitutional system, complaining about our “broken politics.” He derides “this big, messy, tough democracy,” openly admitting his temptation to bypass Congress and go it “alone.” This is more than hyperpartisanship. It expresses a deep-seated revulsion for American traditions and American democracy.

Mr. Obama repeatedly has bowed to foreign leaders - Japan’s emperor, China’s strongman president and the Saudi king. He has apologized to the Europeans and the Muslim world for our alleged “arrogance” and imperial meddling in foreign affairs. This is despite America’s heroic role in defeating Nazi Germany and protecting Europe from Soviet communism. The United States also has liberated more than 50 million Muslims from brutal occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Our president constantly talks down his own country while the press corps yawns at his flagrant display of anti-Americanism. In another era, Mr. Obama would have been run out of town. Today, he is applauded by leftist pundits for his cosmopolitan, multicultural sophistication. This kind of “sophistication” is mocked in the corridors of power in Moscow, Beijing and Tehran. Only our rivals and enemies benefit when the American leader conveys that the world’s superpower is losing its self-confidence and self-respect.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

Good article!

It also reminded me of this quote in July 2009

"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.

First of all the Class Clown got his history incorrect again.

Posted Image

On September 2, 1945, on the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay, the Japanese envoys Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu and Gen. Yoshijiro Umezu signed their names on the Instrument of Surrender. The time was recorded as 4 minutes past 9 o'clock. Afterward, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Commander in the Southwest Pacific and Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, also signed. He accepted the Japanese surrender "for the United States, Republic of China, United Kingdom, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and in the interests of the other United Nations at war with Japan."
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/student-of-history-obama-fumbles-japanese-surrender/blog-115679/


Emperor Hirohito wasn't there. McArthur had made the decision to not arrest, nor humilate the Emperor. He sought the higher goal of a new Japan.

Obama is a Bozo when it comes to history. Most likely his leftist upbringing had problems with the USA & its accomplishments.

The surrender of Japan was one a significant events in world history as it brought to a close the worse lost of life estimated anywhere form 60- 100 million and ended the brutal conflict.

So what was he talking about?

President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.

"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.

The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn't so clearly defined, he explained.

"We're not dealing with nation states at this point. We're concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda's allies," he said. "So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States."

The United States and Afghanistan are struggling to shore up security in the country, amid increasing violence. The Obama administration this year stepped up U.S. military operations in the country as the U.S. military presence begins to wind down in Iraq....snipped

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/23/obama-victory-necessarily-goal-afghanistan/


It shows he has a problem with Victory, OURS!
Edited by Baldo, Nov 21 2011, 04:20 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Quote:
 
Extending Payroll Tax Cut Threatens Social Security ‘As We Know It,’ Trustee Warns

(CNSNews.com) – A Social Security trustee says that extending the payroll tax cut, as President Obama is demanding, could make the entitlement program more dependent on income tax revenue in the future, leaving it with less political protection than it enjoys now.

Social Security was established as a worker benefit program, to be funded by what employees paid into the system through payroll tax deductions. Replacing much of that financing with income tax revenue would fundamentally change Social Security, making it more like other government entitlement programs that are subject to political whims and budget priorities, Charles P. Blahous III, a member of the board of trustees for Social Security and Medicare, told CNSNews.com.

snip


This might even work in a "brilliant" thread for all politicians that go along with it. However, it actually makes the hard working citizens contributing less today more reliant upon the taxing of the wealthier in the future not too far out there

...maybe that's the plan! :think:
Edited by kbp, Dec 13 2011, 06:03 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

I tend to agree with the trustee. It is not a tax increase to go back to the social security payroll deductions. It was merely a waiver during bad economic times. Those revenues are not any less needed in the future for Social Security's solvency. Sooner or later they will be needed.

Our real problem is Obama & his idiotic policies of Big Govt. "Brilliant" Obama is digging this country into a very deep ditch. The man is a blooming idiot, witness the current state of affairs economically & in foreign affairs.

Edited by Baldo, Dec 13 2011, 06:52 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Just imagine where we would be if the house was not majority republican.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

chatham
Dec 13 2011, 07:02 PM
Just imagine where we would be if the house was not majority republican.
Lets see if the HOUSE agrees to a payroll tax reduction!

It is just a 'pay later' plan.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

kbp
Dec 13 2011, 07:58 PM
chatham
Dec 13 2011, 07:02 PM
Just imagine where we would be if the house was not majority republican.
Lets see if the HOUSE agrees to a payroll tax reduction!

It is just a 'pay later' plan.
My thoughts on this is that sometime in the future, when you are on the recieving end of Social Security, because you got a break today, you will recieve less when you retire. Somewhere in a future congress theywill say that back in 2010 and 2011, the people got a 2% break in their payments, now they will have to give up 2% in benefits. It is the give me a hamburger today and I will pay you next tuesday scheme.
Edited by retiredLEO, Dec 13 2011, 08:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kerri P.
Member Avatar

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/13/house-passes-payroll-tax-cut-extension-with-keystone-pipeline-deadline/
House Passes Payroll Tax Cut Extension With Keystone Pipeline Provision

WASHINGTON – Defiant Republicans pushed legislation through the House Tuesday night that would keep alive Social Security payroll tax cuts for some 160 million Americans at President Barack Obama's request -- but also would require construction of a Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline that has sparked a White House veto threat.

Passage, on a largely party-line vote of 234-193, sent the measure toward its certain demise in the Democratic-controlled Senate, triggering the final partisan showdown of a remarkably quarrelsome year of divided government.


snip....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

retiredLEO
Dec 13 2011, 08:10 PM
kbp
Dec 13 2011, 07:58 PM
chatham
Dec 13 2011, 07:02 PM
Just imagine where we would be if the house was not majority republican.
Lets see if the HOUSE agrees to a payroll tax reduction!

It is just a 'pay later' plan.
My thoughts on this is that sometime in the future, when you are on the recieving end of Social Security, because you got a break today, you will recieve less when you retire. Somewhere in a future congress theywill say that back in 2010 and 2011, the people got a 2% break in their payments, now they will have to give up 2% in benefits. It is the give me a hamburger today and I will pay you next tuesday scheme.
..except it's 1% of the 7% in withholdings ...or closer to a 14% error for the years the payroll tax reduction is in place.
Edited by kbp, Dec 13 2011, 09:18 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Gallup: Under Obama, Growing Percentage See Big Government as 'Biggest Threat'

(CNSNews.com) - While President Barack Obama has focused his rhetoric in recent weeks on depicting a reckless Wall Street and insufficiently taxed "millionaires and billionaires" as threats to the American middle class, a newly released Gallup poll indicates that Americans apparently have been coming to a different conclusion during Obama's presidency, with fewer people now seeing big business as the "biggest threat" to the country in the future and more seeing big government as the "biggest threat."

Over the last forty-five years, Gallup has periodically asked this question: "In your opinion, which of the following will be the biggest threat to the country in the future--big business, big labor, or big government?"

When Gallup asked the question in a survey conducted Dec. 4-7, 2008, a month after President Obama was elected but before he was inaugurated, 53 percent said big government was the biggest threat, 31 percent said big business was the biggest threat, and 11 percent said big labor.

Three months later, in a survey conducted March 27-29, 2009, 55 percent said big government was the biggest threat, 32 percent said big business, and 10 percent said big labor.

When Gallup asked the question again two weeks ago--in a survey conducted from Nov. 28-Dec. 1--the percentage saying big government would be the biggest threat to the country in the future had grown to 64 percent--an increase of 11 percentage points from December 2008.

At the same time, the percentage saying that big business would be the biggest threat had dropped to 26 percent--a decline of 5 percentage points from December 2008 and 6 percentage points from March 2009.

snip
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply