Skip to main content

Think Obama's Moving to the Center? I've Got a Bridge I Want to Sell You

David Limbaugh's picture

For those who argue that Obama deserves a second chance at proving he's not at war with American business and the free market, I ask what he has done to indicate he's changed his philosophy that drives that war.

It's admirable to give people the benefit of the doubt in personal relationships, but we are talking about more than a personal relationship here and have a responsibility not to ignore the evidence. That evidence tells us that he is still an intractable left-wing ideologue committed to destructive progressive policy prescriptions.


Most liberals, such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, understand that Obama's gestures toward the center during his State of the Union speech will be just that, gestures. They know that by invoking the vernacular of the right — e.g., promoting competitiveness — Obama will merely be engaged in what Krugman calls "packaging."

But the left is not Obama's target audience. His goal is to convince moderates and some credulous conservatives that he is willing to move to the center so that he can acquire the political capital to do precisely the opposite.

Has Obama once acknowledged that his policies haven't worked, but have driven the nation further into the financial abyss? Has he ever apologized for any policy failure?

He said that we needed his nearly trillion-dollar stimulus package to "jump-start the economy" and "put people back to work" and that if implemented, it would prevent unemployment from going above 8 percent. When his stimulus failed to stimulate and unemployment soared and remained way above 8 percent, he didn't say, "Oops, sorry I wasted your children's money. I'd better have a course correction."

Instead, he said President Bush left us an even worse mess than he'd told us before, as if it's conceivable that he could have bad-mouthed Bush worse than he had. Obama said that he actually didn't spend enough money and that he needed $50 billion more to spend on infrastructure, all the while insisting he was committed to fiscal responsibility.

He also retrospectively invented this blame-avoiding device of claiming he'd been employing a two-phased approach from the beginning: First he would save the economy; next he would create jobs.

But are we all supposed to have amnesia? He never told us that "saving the economy" would involve a bifurcated process. He wouldn't have dared to make such an absurd claim, because everyone knows that you can't divorce jobs from a proper evaluation of economic performance.

But it's worse than that, because from day one, Obama promised that jobs were his No. 1 priority. Remember all the smoke and mirrors about "saved and created" jobs? And when the jobs never appeared, he continually pretended that he had never promised his policies would yield jobs and that each time he repeated it, he was saying it for the first time. Check the record; this has happened multiple times in the past two years.

Now, with the State of the Union speech, he's going to try it again, but this time, he'll "package" it in a form more palatable to moderates and conservatives. But until he has an epiphany that government doesn't create private-sector jobs — a truth validated by the 2011 Index of Economic Freedom, which shows an inverse relationship between government spending and economic growth — he will not change course.

He would have us believe that he's going to launch a new era of cooperation between government and business — that this time when he says he's a "fierce advocate of the free market," he truly believes it. But all this means is that he's going to continue to stick government's nose where it doesn't belong and get it even more involved in picking winners and losers.

Only a progressive thinks in such terms — that the way to increase a competitive business climate is through a government-business partnership, as if business can't blow its own nose without the superior wisdom of socialist bureaucrats.

If Obama intended to change course, would he be signaling his intention to call for new domestic spending on education and infrastructure under cover of the euphemism "investment"? Even his virtual admission that he deceived the people with his promise of shovel-ready jobs hasn't led to a change in policy. Just more of the same — with different packaging.

Obama may throw business a few bones, e.g., reducing the corporate income tax rate, but until he abandons his class warfare against producers and wealth, declares a cease-fire in his war against domestic energy production, complies with the people's will not to have socialized health care, gets serious about entitlement reform, shows the slightest inkling toward meaningful spending reductions, and commits to revamping the nation's smothering tax system, for starters, we'll know that any apparent shuffling to the center is designed only to disarm the conservative opposition so that he can continue on the same leftist path.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His new book, "Crimes Against Liberty," was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website at www.DavidLimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Comments

#1 At least we know that they

At least we know that they can't vote on anything tonight.  That might have been the liberals' plan.  Get everyone sitting intermingled and then when the President raises some leftist point, he could call for a show of hands and the Democrat sitting next to the Republican raises both arms.  I do think the main idea is to try and shame Republicans into a few more ovations than Obama would have received if the chamber was divided as usual.  Let's hope they stick to their principles and their guns (I can use gun metaphors because I've promised not to kill anyone with them.)

 

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."  - Sir Winston Churchill

#2 Really, I think the push for

Really, I think the push for another chance originated with the left, It is simply a one-two punch combo. It is misdirection. Obama is a solid far left social justice kind of guy. That is not going to change with the results of one election. The only change is in how he speaks. The ideas remain the same.

 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!

#3 Doesn't matter

We know for a fact that everything that's happened in the last two years has been deliberately designed to destroy this country.  This so-called move to the right is just outright baloney and this manchild needs to be removed from office and thrown in jail and deported.  That's the ONLY change I want to see.  That and everything he's done to be rendered null and void.

Why people are still willing to give him a chance, I'll never understand.

-Jon

#4 Think Anyone Would Actually Care What David Limbaugh

has to say if his name was David Jones..then I have a bridge to sell you!

#5 bnsy, what makes you think

bnsy, what makes you think anyone cares what Obama has to say? Be nothing but continued lies anyway.

The EPA and OSHA have new regulations just out that will stiffle industry even farther than they are. These new regulations are disigned to force shops out of business so that fabrication can be moved overseas.

If Obama is moving to the middle, he would be ensuring that the EPA and OSHA were encouraging businesses, not regulating them out of business.

 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!

#6 bass, Welding is now a crime.

Oh the feds have new make work programs. Feds now send out multi-page forms that are MANDATORY to fill out. No the feds do not pay for the time to fill 'em out we do!

Ain't that great the feds are forcing the greedy business owners to pay their own employees, to rat them out, for fines and additional fees, and inspections.

Work place injuries? Don't have any, so what fill it out anyways!

EZ to follow instructions..

#7 Is that like "Kennedy"? 

Is that like "Kennedy"?  Supposedly that last name somehow made you a governing nabob.  All I ever saw there was an ability to legislate to protect their own arses and assets and an imagined tolerance for alcohol that caused a lot of public property damage and one or two deaths.  You can't attack Mr. Limbaugh's facts and logic, so you go after his last name.  What a sophisticate!

 

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."  - Sir Winston Churchill

#8 Keep it up

That's twice you've insulted the authors of articles in just a couple days.

Keep it up knuckle-head.

_____________________________________________________________ I'm not too drunk to dance! It's just that people keep stepping on my hands!

#9 The only people buying that Obama is moving to the center....

...are the same dumbMasses who believe that we are going to have an economic recovery while Obama is still in power and his nation-destroying policies are still in place.

Neither is going to happen.

-Dave

Vote for the American in November

#10 Your right Dave

No-one believes this, not even the paid media hacks trying convince us.

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#11 I've been arguing this for weeks...

Obama's "move to the center" and his sudden "bipartisanship" is merely cover for his continued push for progressive socialism.  His team is hoping that by making him out to be the "unifier" and, by extension, the Republicans and conservatives out to be the "destroyers", they hope to gain enough support from the middle through this obfuscation to ensure his reelection.  This is simply his way of position himself for the 2012 elections, where winning will ensure that he will have four more years to drive his destructive poilicies in place, cementing socialism forever in this once great nation. The hope of the progressives is that, once in place, socialist policies and their empty promises of easy living will be like the Ring to the American peoples' Gollum: Coveted to the point of self-destruction. And even if Obama eventually is seen as the deceitful, lying, freedom-hating leftist/statist that he is, the left believes that once his policies are in place, he will have accomplished all of their goals, which is to make the people work for the state, not the other way around.  He's no centrist, folks.  He's a socialist wolf in political-sheep's clothing.

If you voted for Obama to prove you're not racist, OK. But this time, vote against him to prove you're not an idiot. "I'm the kind of Conservative Republican your Democrat friends warned you about."

#12 Mr. Limbaugh

"And the jobs never appeared..." Except, they did. Since the stimulus was enacted, job losses fell steadily throughout 2009, and 2010 saw 12 consecutive months of private sector job growth. In fact, 2010 saw more or less of a "Conservative recovery" as about 1.3 million jobs were created in the private sector while about 250,000 jobs were lost in the public sector.

 

"But it's worse than that, because from day one, Obama promised that jobs were his No. 1 priority."  

The Republicans also promised that too, and what have they done regarding jobs so far?  We already have a bill requiring an aloud reading of the Constitution in Congress, a repeal of health care reform that is expected to add to the deficit and cause job loss, a bill to make absolutely sure that no taxpayer funds are going towards abortion (even though that's already the case as there's very strict restrictions on that issue, even included in the health reform bill!), and five separate bills repealing the estate tax.

 

"but until he abandons his class warfare against producers and wealth..."  

In order to leave them as the only ones fighting the war? Not like they've been the only ones really fighting/winning to begin with.

 

"complies with the people's will not to have socialized health care..." 

I am and will always be open to an explanation as to how the failure of single-payer and the public option, and the subsequent funnelling of millions of uninsured to private insurance companies, constitutes socialized health care.

#13 Garlock, you are a liberal mook---

and the only thing open about you is your mouth so that Obammie can French ya when he kisses ya.
"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#14 If there was ever a substantive, reasonabl response on this site

This has to be it.

#15 The Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

The SLGT touts a million jobs created in 2010 as proof the Stimulus Plan worked. LIE LIE LIE. SLGT fails to tell us 4.1 million jobs were lost in 2009.

The SLGT tells us the 112th Congress has failed in its promises. LIE LIE LIE. The 112th Congress convened January 3, 2011. 23 days ago.

The rest of the SLGT's statements don't even make sense, but if they did, we know they would be a lie. It is all he has ever done.

#16 Stimulus takes time

Did you expect all job losses to immediately cease and for there to be immediate job growth the day the stimulus was enacted?  Most economists agree that the effects of the stimulus and other couldn't really begin to show until April, much less have a wider impact felt on the economy.  It's true that 4.1 million jobs were lost in 2009, but about 2.2 million of those were in the first three months of 2009, which was still seeing the brunt of the consequences of the previous Administration, before the stimulus could really effect much.  Then, job losses began to slow and became very small by the end of the year, with job growth starting in 2010.  Is that really hard to understand, or do you really think Obama is at fault for all of the job losses during 2009?

 

I did not lie about the 112th failing in its promises, because they still have yet to address the jobs issue or introduce/enact any jobs legislation, despite all their rhetoric over the last several months.  They still have another several months to go though, so I'm hoping they start something soon instead of wasting time relitigating everything that happened over the past couple years and focusing on abortion.  Is abortion really that important of an issue right now, ahead of jobs?

#17 The Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

SLGT: ...still have yet to address the jobs issue or introduce/enact any jobs legislation...

Congress does not create jobs. Businessmen create jobs. SLGT LIES again.

Government Projects do not "Create Jobs"

Economic Fallacies 101: Government Does Not Create More Jobs Through "Stimulus" Debt Spending

The Fallacy That Government Creates Jobs

Rand Paul Wins: Government Does Not Create Jobs Why Government Can’t Create Jobs

 

http://biggovernment.com/lkudlow/2010/07/03/business-not-government-create-jobs/

The Stupid Lying Garlock Troll is the most viscious nonstop NONSTOP LYING little snit this site has EVER SEEN.

EVERY SINGLE POST HE LIES.

EVERY

SINGLE

POST

#18 Vet

Here's something I found in your very first link:

"State projects may create jobs..."

But wait, I thought you said government couldn't create jobs?  Here's your very first source stating something the complete opposite; how do you rectify that, Vet?

Here's the thing: Business and government can BOTH create jobs, and even be synergistic.

1) Government can directly employ people.  For instance: Congressmen, police, firefighters, teachers, local government treasurers, etc. Are those not jobs that pay people money for their work?

2) Government can pay private businesses for their products/services.  Have you ever heard of defense contractors?  I'm sure you have, you're a veteran.  Companies such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Gunman, and Blackwater pretty much rely on government contracts for their revenues, as they receive tens of billions of dollars each year for the work they provide the government. Surely jobs are created (or at least saved/maintained) with all that money, right?  Maybe it just goes straight into the executives' bonus pay and stock dividends, who knows?  And the thing is, there are literally THOUSANDS of other companies who receive federal/state/local government contracts for their products and services that aren't related to defense. I'm sure all of them are just putting that money directly into their profits and not using it to pay for labor, right?

3) Government can also fund research and development that private companies can then use to turn into products and sell them.  In fact, they've been doing it for years.  In some cases, the government actually creates the intial market as well, so that costs can fall a bit and enable economies of scale so companies can start to buy and use those things in their own products.  Case in point: microchips.  Also, computers.  And, the internet.  Or did you think the internet was created entirely via private business?

4) Government can pay for infrastructure.  This is key.  Not only can government fund construction jobs (via government contracting), better infrastructure can make travel more efficient by easing congestion.  Not only that, but connecting communities via a highway or high-speed rail can make travel between them easier and more efficient, and help business in each area.  Moreover, in an example that can best be illustrated with high-speed rail, in addition to the construction jobs there are also jobs that can be created as businesses develop around each of the stations.

Most jobs are in the private sector, and there are many areas where the private sector can do things more efficiently, but don't act like the government can't create jobs or help the private sector create them.  The public and private sector can work, and has worked, in tandem.

#19 Learn how to talk to people.

  I am not reading a book from you on my most gracious day. Try again Stupid Lying Garlock Troll. Did not read a thing of your 5 page book report.

#20 Vet

I don't need to "learn" how to talk to people, I know how to do that.  Why don't you just "learn" how to read something that isn't less than 2 paragraphs?  Or is your ADD too much for you to handle?  If you would have taken the maybe two minutes to read what I wrote, you would have understood what I'm trying to say and then we could talk about it.  Instead, you just dismiss it because 450 words is somehow too long for your little brain to handle.

#21 Pack Sand troll. Pack it hard. Pack it tight.

Still hostile and still begging me to read what he wrote.

See a problem there Retard?

#22 You're way more hostile than I am

And while I'm not "begging" you to read what I wrote, it would be helpful since it contains many points that contradict your points.  If you read those, as I read what you write, then we can have a discussion about substance, rather than just insults.

#23 You are going to have to offload that Stupid offshore.

  We do not have a terminal big enough to handle that amount of stupid here in the harbor.

I'm not "begging"... 

...it would be helpful...If you read those...

No Stupid Lying Garlock Troll, You iz not begging. Honext.

Looks like I have to quote myself, only STUPID trolls cannot understand what I wrote the first time.
 

I will not discuss ONE thing with you until you learn how to talk to the monkeypeople.


I do not, I have not, nor will I ever discuss anything with the most viscious unrepentant lying troll NewsBusters has ever seen.

But whatever, you keep begging little lying stupid troll.

#24 I wouldn't debate, argue, or converse, even,---

with someone who managed to work the word "synergistic" into a conversation.

That lost soul would be waaaaaaaay too smart for me.

Haw.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#25 The Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

SLGT: Did you expect all job losses to immediately cease and for there to be immediate job growth the day the stimulus was enacted?

SLGT: The Republicans also promised that too, and what have they done regarding jobs so far?

Ths SLGT expects us to wait 5 years for Democrat legislation to take effect. But won't wait 2 weeks for Republican legislation.

The Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

#26 Vet

I didn't say I was waiting "5 years for Democrat legislation to take effect".  I'm talking about giving some time for the stimulus to filter through the economy via the multiplier effect.

I'm just saying it's a bit hypocritical for the Republicans to continually talk about how little they think Obama and the Democrats are doing for jobs while they were out of power, but once they're in power they go for a month without introducing any legislation that has to do with jobs (I call it a month because they're now on vacation for 2 weeks), even though jobs is clearly the biggest issue the public wants them to work on - NOT health care reform repeal, NOT abortion, NOT the estate tax, NOT reading the Constitution aloud, NOT overturning gay-marriage in D.C.

I know that their legislation will take some time to have an effect, but I'd like to see them at least get the ball rolling.

#27 When the LIAR ain't busy lying, he is busy whining.

The Stupid Lying Garlock Troll: I didn't say... I'm talking about ... I'm just saying... I call it.... I know that...

I have an I statement too. Are you ready?

 

 

 

 

Are you?

 

 

 

 

Hold on.

 

 

 

It is coming.

 

 

 

Are you ready now?

 

 

 

 

Here it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. Don't. Care.

#29 By "Administration"

I'm generally referring to government as a whole.  You're right though, the President can't "run" the economy, especially when he has a divided Congress.  However, GWB had a full Republican administration (Presidency and Congress) for 6 years, during which the bubbles that played major factors in ruining the economy built steam.

But let me take this a step further.  If you say that the President or an Administration (however you define it) has little influence on the economy, then how RIDICULOUS must all of your, and your fellow conservatives, claims be about how Obama is ruining the economy and America through his socialism?  Contradictory, eh?

#30 The Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

  I had links and quotes to back up everything I said. Where is yours LIAR?

#31 See

I don't need any sources for what I discussed in that comment, except for maybe the part where the bubbles grew under the Bush Administration, because that's common sense.  I can easily find one for you though, if'd you'd like (or if you took a few seconds to google it yourself...you know, self-reliance and all)

#32 The Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

SLGT: ...bubbles grew under the Bush Administration...

Bubbles have grown and popped under every administration in my life. YOU LIE AGAIN. A VISCIOUS PARTISAN LIAR.

 A Government Failure, Not a Market Failure --- During Bill Clinton's first term, government housing policy changed substantially...  ........

Who’s to Blame for the Housing Bubble? --- If the housing bubble began during the Clinton administration... If it began under George W. Bush, then it can... Of course, as we all know, the causes of today’s mess are far more complicated than either of those hypotheses allow. 

WIKIPEDIA - Subprime crisis impact timeline - 1938–1989 -

From Bubble to Depression? -- Bubbles have been frequent in economic history,  ... In just the past 40 years there were two other housing bubbles, with peaks in 1979 and 1989, but the largest one in U.S. history started in 1997 

YOU ARE A DAMNABLE PARTISAN LIAR THAT LAYS THE BLAME FOR EVERYTHING ON ONE POLITICAL PARTY.

PACK

SAND.

PACK

IT

TIGHT.

PACK

IT

HARD.

#33 Vet

I didn't say it started under Bush and was entirely his fault, I simply said it grew under his full administration's watch for 6 years, and then another 2 while he was still President.

Also, the FCIC report's conclusions say that while it was both government AND private sector to blame, part of the government's problem was that it was too inactive.

#34 ~.....

Yeah, it was inactive alright. The Dems wouldn't do anything about it when the Repubs tried to reign Fannie and Freddie in.

But don't let the truth get in the way of a good Dem talking point.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#35 You do realize

That Fannie and Freddie weren't a major part, nor all, of the problem?

#36 You do realize

What a Presidential Administration consists of, right?

#37 You do realize

The Iraq War is over and we won. Right?

#38 You do realize

You can't just make up your own definitions. A Presidential Administration is already defined. RETARD. BOY.

Come on Sissy. Tell us ALL about a President that has been retired for 2 years.

Say. Maybe you can talk about some Presidents that are dead. How about Garfield. Why don't you LIE about him and really get us riled up.

Sissy. Lying Stupid Sissy.

#39 Official Request: Idiot to English Translator Needed ASAP

SLGT: ...under his full administration's watch for 6 years, and then another 2 while he was still President.

Anyone know what the Retard is saying here? Was he not still President the fist six years? Did he not have a full administration those final two?

Overnight Shipping has been approved.

#40 ~Yes sir

He was trying to imply that a Republican-controlled Congress is de facto part of the Republican presidential administration.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#41 You got it. Keep it. troglodyt keeps leaving it out in the rain.

 Holy Schnikes Batman. I told you he is Stupid. Dumb as the day is long.

Wikipedia --- In United States usage, the term refers to the executive branch under a specific president ...

 

Ding. Ding. Ding. Ding. The Stupid Lying Garlock Troll just got smacked upside the head with the Stupid Stick so hard.... Looks like we will have to wait until next week to see him. That is where he ended up.

...his full administration's watch for 6 years... .....

Yeah, Stupid thinks Congress is part of the FULL administration.

That is a keeper Stupid Lying Garlock Troll. It don't get much dumber than that. Well unless you think you will be poisoned by CO2 in a closed garage with a car engine running.

#42 ~LOL

Another episode of liberal stupidity brought to you by the wonder and glory that is the internet.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#43 Garlock Amnesia*

Garlock wants us to wait for the Dems policies to work but already trashing the Reps after one month. Read this link carefully Garlock and maybe it will awaken your faulty memory.

Since 1956 the Dems have had a majority in the house for a combined total of 44 yrs, the Rep have had a majority for a combined total of 12 years. How is that Dem majority working out for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

#44 cajun2

I'm not trashing the Reps for their policies not having an effect yet, I'm trashing them because they haven't even introduced anything yet that could even have an effect in the future.

#45 Garlock*

Do you have any idea of how the legislative process works?

The new leadership has to set up committee chairs, interns, lawyers, review proposed legislation, work with the CBO, as well as move offices, equipment, personnel, not to mention the loss of one of their own. The Dems have been in a majority in the house since 2006. Much internal change has to occur. The republicans have already offered many pieces of legislation that are being reviewed by committees. Go to various official govt websites or those websites that are non-partisian government watchdogs and you will see much is actually going on. These actions will never be revealed by the lying leftist media. Expand your search for accurate information and then we will have valid issues for discussion and debate.

There are pieces of legislation and policies that are ripe for discussion. Such as the ban on earmarks, filibuster changes, procedural changes in the house and senate have already taken place and been voted on.

Since the election in Nov, the senate, which still has a dem majority has actually done little or nothing. The reason is internal power shifts and politics as usual. When the House is prepared to begin debate on major resolutions, then you will see which way the wind blows. Then we will have much to debate. The future of the economy, the future of this country is indeed in the balance. The legislative branch, whether republican or democrat should have at least more than 30 days to determine the fate of our country, dont you think?

The following is of course a biased link but the issue is of import.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/committee-passes-plan-for-internet-kill-switch-in-egypt-u-s/

Then again, there may be a clear explanation as to why some committees are not very functional.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48371.html

#46 The Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

The Stupid Lying Garlock Troll: ...your, and your fellow conservatives, claims be about how Obama is ruining the economy and America through his socialism?

1. I speak for no one but myself.

2. Find one quote from me that claims President Obama is ruining the economy and/or is a socialist. You won't. YOU LIE AGAIN.

A LIE with every single post. The most viscious liar here.

#47 Fine, you speak for yourself

But you cannot deny that many conservatives/republicans have and continue to call Obama a socialist and that his policies are "destroying" America.

And so, if I won't find one quote from you saying Obama is not a socialist nor that his policies are ruining the economy, then can I get you on record as saying you believe Obama isn't a socialist?  And that his policies aren't hurting the economy/America?

#48 The Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

The Vet: I speak for myself.

SLGT: ...deny that many conservatives/republicans...

You truly live up to the STUPID in your name. I just finished telling you I speak for myself and the very next post you AGAIN want me to speak for others.

STUPID. STUPID. STUPID.

I will not discuss ONE thing with you until you learn how to talk to the monkeypeople.

#49 Vet

So then, stuff like "Poll: Majority of Republicans believe Obama is a 'socialist'" and Rush saying "President Obama and the Democrats are destroying the US economy.  They are purposely doing it" has no bearing on you?  No meaning whatsoever?

#50 I decide nothing by poll Troll

  There is one person, seven dogs and seven cats in this room. POLL TIME!!!! All right, who here will have steak for dinner?  Cupid, Cujo, Pogi, Ducky, Pixie, Morgan, Jackie, Louie, CeeCee, Ranger, Charlie, Stanley Copperpot, KC, Kyla, sorry your vote don't count. I am having steak for dinner, you all eat from a bag. How did that poll work out for you there, Stupid Lying Garlock Troll?

LISTEN UP RETARD.

I. Speak. For. My. Own. Damn. Self.

How stupid are you?

Learn how to talk to people. DO NOT GIVE ME A VIDEO WHEN A TRANSCRIPT IS AVAILABLE. I don't have all day to watch your stupid videos. Nor do I have more than 4 seconds to read a MM lie before I walk away. LINK TO ORIGINAL SOURCES AND/OR OPINION of people smarter than me and you.

+++

THE LINK to the interview with Rush Limbaugh and Greta Van Sustern - Rush: But we've got great health care here. We don't need to redo this. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with it. He's running it down. We've got health care that is better than anywhere else in the world. My point is, he doesn't talk about this.

When it comes to his jobs plan, the stimulus plan -- lied through his teeth! We're bringing the deficit down? We are creating jobs? We're saving the economy? You know, this is very difficult for me to say because it's drastic, but he's doing the exact opposite. President Obama and the Democrats are destroying the U.S. economy. They are purposely doing it, I believe.

+++

That was from 2009.  I...   Almost had me Retard. You blew your chance at civility from me long long long ago. Pack sand. Pack it tight. Pack it hard. Pack it neat. And learn how to interact with the monkeypeople from your interactions with The Vet. You may just walk away from this with some dignity.

#51 Wait a second

You want me to link to an actual transcript, and not a video, when you can't even read a few paragraphs I wrote that only total 450 wordsI'm amazed at the contradiction.

#52 It is contradiction Retard.

Diction - words
Contra - against

Tell us what a Presidential Administration consists of Retard? Does Montana count. Is Montana part of the Presidential Administration? Lay it out Retard. We already know you think Congress is part of a Presidential Administration.

Oh and retard, reading people that don't lie LIKE YOU. No contradiction. Retard.

#53 The Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

SLGT: So then, stuff like "Poll: Majority of Republicans believe Obama is a 'socialist'"

 

The LYING IDIOT links to a poll from Research 2000 that Markos Moulitsas is suing.

++++

Daily Kos Founder Suing Pollster Research 2000: 'We Were Defrauded'

Moulitsas cut ties with Research 2000 earlier in June after Nate Silver's popular website FiveThirtyEight.com rated the company as one of the least accurate pollsters in operation.

+++

of course NewsBusters already carried this but whatever Idiot.

Chris Matthews Highlighted Faulty Daily Kos/Research 2000 Poll on Hardball

 

 

#54 duplicate

.

#55 The Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

SLGT: ...you really think Obama is at fault for all of the job losses during 2009?

I do not, I have not, nor will I ever discuss anything with the most viscious unrepentant lying troll NewsBusters has ever seen. To imply that I have said or think anything in my replies is ANOTHER VISCIOUS LIE.

#56 If you won't discuss it

Then I'll just take it as your acquiescence to that point.

#57 Yeah, you keep that dream alive little trollie.

  That is what Teh Veet does. Acquiesce to all the Lying Stupid trolls. Yeah, day one here lying little diaper troll?

#58 The Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

SLGT: ...wasting time relitigating everything that happened over the past couple years...

  • The GOP's Health-Care Offensive Has Just Begun
  •  
  • This is why health-care reform—unlike every other major piece of social legislation in modern history—has become less, not more, popular since it passed. A poll this week from Resurgent Republic (a group I helped form) showed that voters support Republican efforts to repeal and replace the health-care law by 49% to 44%, with independents supporting repeal 54% to 36%.
  •  
  • A slew of recent polls also show that Americans favor replacing ObamaCare with sensible reforms that increase competition and choice, and thereby expand access and lower cost. For example, the Resurgent Republic poll showed voters support, by 70% to 23%, the ability to buy health insurance across state lines. They back proposals that would make it possible for workers to take their health insurance from job to job by 53% to 36%. And they believe frivolous lawsuits drive up health-care costs by 53% to 38%.
  •  
  • Other GOP initiatives—like allowing people to save more of their paychecks tax free for out-of-pocket medical expenses, and letting small businesses pool risk to get the same discounts that big companies get—are similarly popular. President Obama said after the midterm election results that "he'd be happy to consider . . . ideas for how to improve" health care. Fortunately, Republicans have a ready agenda with widespread public backing.

 Most viscious non-stop LIAR I have ever seen.

WSJ Review & Outlook: The stunning political reality is that a new entitlement that was supposed to be a landmark of liberal governance has been repudiated by a majority of one chamber of Congress only 10 months after it passed. This sort of thing never happens.

A viscious unrelenting LIAR.

WSJ Review & Outlook: Meanwhile, six additional states have asked to join the momentous constitutional challenge to ObamaCare in Florida, bringing the total to 26, plus Virginia's separate suit. A majority of states resisting this mandate is another "symbolic" threshold.

Horrific Unrelenting Viscious Liar.

#59 Vet

So I'm supposed to trust a WSJ op-ed written by Karl Rove?  And trust the poll results of a group that Karl Rove helped found?  Please.

Moreover, just because a Republican majority in one house of Congress favors a repeal does NOT mean the other house does, nor the President, nor the rest of the country.

In fact, "Americans don’t necessarily want Republicans to spend time trying to dismantle it" and "only 33 percent of respondents like the idea of defunding the legislation, and 62 percent disapprove."  Additionally, as I've said before, a good portion of people who support repeal don't support it the same way Republicans do.  A recent Kaiser poll, like others who do a breakdown of why people support or oppose repeal, shows that a 47-43 plurality either wants to keep the Affordable Care Act or expand it, rather than repeal it.

That Economist article also says that yes, a majority of the people oppose the individual mandate, but that if Republicans remove it, due to favorable views of most everything else in the reform, then the result will be a move towards a single-payer or Medicare-for-all type situation.

#60 Learn how to talk to people.

You do not dismiss out of hand a quote/link from another user and then expect them to read anything you have to say/quote/link.

Now YOU are dismissed.

 Learn how to talk to people without LYING and TROLLING.

#61 The difference is

Karl Rove is a habitual liar and is not respected.  The Economist and the Kaiser Family Foundation?  The COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

#62 And I will never know will I?

  You can't post without lying and needling. So I did not read nor click on your links.

#63 Vet

"I don't believe anything you say nor do I trust your links because highly respected people might say something I think is wrong.  So I'm not going to read nor click on your links, I'm just gonna STAY RIGHT HERE IN MY LITTLE BUBBLE THANK YOU VERY MUCH"

#64 The Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

 Poor little Butt Hurt Diaper Troll dismisses Karl Rove as biased but holds up his precious Economist as "all teh truffies Veet".

DAMNABLE LIAR. VISCIOUS TURD LIAR. HOPELESS LIAR.

EDITOR of the ECONOMIST: Because the Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative. 

MRC, the PARENT WEBSITE of NewsBusters: The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media...

Liberal DOES NOT equal RESPECT BOY.

YOU BETTER START GROWING UP BOY. BECAUSE MY PATIENCE FOR YOUR CONSTANT LIES IS WEARING THIN.

 

#65 Vet

So Kaiser Family Foundation is a liberal organization because the conservative MRC says it is? What other sources state that it's a liberal organization? KFF itself says it's a non-partisan organization...whatever that's worth.

The Economist's Bill Emmott did indeed say that their "philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative", but the rest of the world's definition of "liberal" is a bit different than the U.S.'s in that it's closer to "classical liberalism".  Here's The Economist's philosophy in its own words:

"What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage.

Established in 1843 to campaign on one of the great political issues of the day, The Economist remains, in the second half of its second century, true to the principles of its founder. James Wilson, a hat maker from the small Scottish town of Hawick, believed in free trade, internationalism and minimum interference by government, especially in the affairs of the market. Though the protectionist Corn Laws which inspired Wilson to start The Economist were repealed in 1846, the newspaper has lived on, never abandoning its commitment to the classical 19th-century Liberal ideas of its founder."

As you can see, if you read that or if you actually read the Economist, it's more of a centrist magazine but with underlying belief in free-markets and limited government.

#66 Mookster- ain't buying your definition of liberal---

as per what "the rest of the world" says. This is a conservative blog site in the U.S.A.; not a network based upon "world news" opinions as presented by the "liberal media" networks.
"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#67 Still Presidential Administration Stupid.

  What makes you think I will read what you write now Stupid Boy? Gawd you are Rock Stupid. Retard. Boy.

#68 Brainlock

"KFF itself says it's a non-partisan organization... whatever that's worth."

Good GRIEF, you are one hilarious, mind-numbing simpleton.

We know our stuff around here. We know that -- from truck loads of sourcing and doing our homework -- nearly any liberal-funded/operated outlet that doesn't have the name "Democrat" or "Liberal" in it's title or masthead, or that's publicly funded by a Dem politician or group and informs you as much in it's "about us", is going to claim to be some "non-partisan organization."

But if you lift a finger and pull up a couch pillow here and there at any one of those sites -- find out about the people running them -- you'll have your answer. But you don't want that answer.

- Shytini

#69 "Karl Rove is a habitual liar and is not respected"---

Jeez, Garlock; you ever look in the mirror?

You truly are a liberal mook.

I am unsure at this point which of the words, "liberal," or "mook," relative to you, should be heavily accented, but I am leaning towards "MOOK ". 

Garlock, the 'Mookster".

It is perfectly fine to have a different opinion; but man, you have got to learn to put it together on a higher plane if you desire to cross ideological swords with conservatives on this site. 

Amazing amount of density, even for a lib, that is packed in between your ears.

MD

 

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#70 Garlock doesn't get it...

He/She/It want's to take on The Vet... BIG MISTAKE! The Vet will take the libby talking points and slice and dice them with.... wait for it.... FACTS! Use their own words, videos, posts etc. But NO! Garlock must keep on with the BS and take on the Vet. Sheesh! Guess He/She/It likes it. Only reason I can think of...

The Vet for Pres '12!

_____________________________________________________________ I'm not too drunk to dance! It's just that people keep stepping on my hands!

#71 Enough is enough.

 The Collected Stupid and Lies of the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll.

40 lies and he has only posted in 5 blogs since the New NewsBusters was implemented.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.