Posts
Comments
    |
| On this day - John C. Calhoun becomes the first U.S. Vice President to resign (1832), Osceola leads his Seminole warriors in Florida into the Second Seminole War against the U.S. Army (1835), the Endangered Species Act is passed in the U.S. (1973), Senegalese marxist group Reenu-Rew founds the political movement And-Jëf at a clandestine congress (1974); b: Woodrow Wilson (1856), Erich Mielke (1907); d: Victor Emmanuel III (1947) |
| HT: The Union News |
... used by Barack Obama when he trained ACORN community organizers: 'Rules for Radicals' by the late socialist Saul Alinsky
Posts
Comments
46 comments:
More projections based on subconscious examination of self.
No one can top the Cheney administration's powergrab.
Obama aint even close. Go figure with a former consitutional scholar.
anonybat,
Obviously the cartoon's message is over your head.
So, do you feel that Obama has engaged in any pervasive or egregious unconstitutional behavior?
If you do, in what concrete and factual ways?
AND, does that differ from any of the presidents over the last, say, 20 years? I mean, honestly, Presidents have for some time attempted to tilt the balance of power in favor of the Presidency.
The wingnut R's are an unstable and excitable bunch. They assume that if the president is advancing policies they disagree with, the president is acting outside of his/her authority. Nuance sort of confuses them, as does level headed reasoning.
And do you know what escapes the D's? That unlike them, we aren't a partisan bunch married to our party instead of the Constitution. Obama is a terrible president for precisely the same reason Bush was bad too, plus a cherry on top.
---
We all know how much of an avid supporter of Bush Coyote has been...
Good grief, Coyote is right when he says "Like fish in a bucket."
Constitutional scholar meaning anything at all my ass. That just means he knows how to usurp it with style. My Con Law professor despises Obama. I guess he's just not a scholar is he.
Please, the majority of Republicans and Conservatives barely said "boo" to anything the Bush administration did. The fact is, when Bush adopted unconstitutional (in my opinion, of course) policies, most Republicans remained silent or muted their criticism. Only a few were vociferous in their complaints.
And, lets be fair, the same will go with Democrats and Obama. It's the nature of party politics.
However, Anon 6:01, when you say, "And do you know what escapes the D's? That unlike them, we aren't a partisan bunch married to our party instead of the Constitution. You are willfully ignorant. Obama has already heard a great deal of criticism and complaint over his change in his Gitmo policy, and his Iraq policy. Nor have all Democrats been happy with his bail out plan. For some of us, the money is being mis-directed. I, for one, would like to see it go to people who need it the most - extended unemployment benefits, etc...; to the people who are most likely to spend it and jump start the economy.
Open your eyes dude, lose the ideological blinders. Fitting things into neat little boxes just doesn't work.
Can anyone (Ted?) name just one thing Obama has done that disrespects the Constitution? Just one?
Anon: "The wingnut R's are an unstable and excitable bunch." Really? Aren't you the ones in a tither over this cartoon?
*snicker* It's a political cartoon, not a political essay. Or can no one on the Left tell the difference anymore?
Anon: "More projections based on subconscious examination of self."
Oh, how brilliant...
Usually I have to go to a fortune cookie to get this kind of psychological depth.
You must have PhD, right?
Hey "One Bad" - try a google search on "Obama unconstitutional" and see what you get among the 3,890 items. It's pretty cool, especially if you've never heard of google before. I'll make it easy. Click: here.
Of course, when you're stuck in a socialist echo chamber, you would never examine Obama critically. Not even once.
Oh.. I see.. so since it's a political cartoon, we are not supposed to question the premises behind the cartoon? Or ask if the person posting it sees it as significant for a reason? Political cartoons, or at least I thought, weren't just meant to be funny, but to carry a political message as well.
So I must I apologize for assuming that Anon 7:16 put more thought into the cartoon than: *snicker* snicker* they're sticking it to Obama *snort* Evidently, if Anon 7:16 is an example, pretty much the political right is nothing more than the party of Beavis and Butthead.
Really, Anon, we could just replace William Jennings Bryan with a caricature of George W. Bush in a cartoon from 1896 and it would be just as funny. Right? Political humor doesn't need a context.
I just did that with Photoshop.. it's the funniest thing I've ever read. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. No really, it's a scream. *snicker* George W Bush and a cross of gold *snort snort*
Hey, Anon 7:42 - try George W Bush and unconstitutional... 33,300,000 results.
Conservatives and unconstitutional gets ya 37,000,000 results.. but guess what, Liberals and unconstitutional has only 4,110,000 results.
Turn off the Talk Radio, pick up a book, and learn to think for yourself.
RHall'bat: This blog has long derided Bush's unconstitutional actions. But you're too new here so we ought to excuse your ignorance. Try turning your stereotype down and your occluded orifices may open up a little. Guess what else? Bush is no longer President. Barack Hussein Obama is POTUS now. Say it again, slowly, now. President Barack Hussein Obama. There.
Investors Business Daily editorial 6/30/09
"It's been suggested that the White House has more czars than the Russian Romanov dynasty. Has the administration forgotten that we have a government of elected officials, not of imperial appointments?
Czars, or functionaries with the task of ensuring White House commands are followed, have been part of the U.S. government for decades. It's unclear, though, how many are in this administration, as it is not an official title. PolitiFact.com from the St. Petersburg Times believes the count has swelled to as many as 28 under President Obama.
...
The growth of a czarist regime is not healthy in a representative republic. When the executive branch isn't checked by the Supreme Court, which shouldn't let the president make fiat law, and Congress, which constitutionally confirms or denies a president's nominees for "public ministers," a risky imbalance of power arises.
Someone who considers himself a defender of the Constitution — say Robert Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat who believes presidents intentionally try to bypass Congress by naming czars — should challenge the administration in court.
The White House shouldn't be center of a dynasty."
Why yes Anon 8:06... I know he's president. However, I don't assume that every conservative who reads or responds to this blog views everything the same way.
Secondly, I started out simply asking if Coyote what, if any, of Obama's policies or actions he saw as being unconstitutional. Evidently that question was too deep for some of the Conservabots that respond on here.
My response to the google foolishness? Was just sarcasm. I would have pointed out that simply throwing the phrases Obama and unconstitutional into a search query was indictive of nothing. I just means that the two words appeared somewhere on the same webpage. So, for instance, if there was text that said "Obama has steered a new course away from the unconstitional actions of the Bush administration..." that page would have been one of the results under Anon 7:42s search. But, I figured that would have confused him so I simply pointed out the disparity in numbers and hoped that he/she would arrive at that conclusion.
I haven't presented a stereotype, actually, if you read more closely. However, your compatriots are filled with them. Phrases that just keep cropping up like "echo chamber." But evidently supposed liberal "ignorance" is not be to condoned, but conservative ignorance is given a pass?
Someone's orifices are so occluded that they've made them cranky and given them tunnel vision, and it ain't me friend. ;)
Oh, by the way... R.Hall'bat.. WOW.. that's really, really funny! And fresh and unpredictable! MAN, you sure have a finely tuned wit!! Betcha no one else would have ever thought of that.
LOL.. ask yourself, does being hypocritical in asking me to turn down my stereotype when you have no intention of doing so yourself bother you? I'm gonna guess it doesn't.
Anon 8:19 -
Now there is a point worthy of discussion. And I would happen to agree with you. It is very troublesome when you have so many high ranking officials who have not been through any confirmation process, and who do not answer to anyone but the President.
And, if past behavior is any indicator, getting them to answer questions, even when presented with a congressional subpoena is problematic at best. Frequently President's have tried to shield them by invoking Executive Privilege.
Doing a vapid Google search to prove a point is pretty ignorant.
Obama Pedophile generated 468,000 results.
Bush Pedophile generated 394,000 results.
Obama Gay generated 69,000,000 results
Bush Gay generated 29,200,000 results.
Obama Sodomy generated 348,000 results.
Bush Sodomy generated 509,000 results
So from my very scientific Google research I can conclude with pure certainty that Obama is more a gay pedophile than Bush, but Bush more likely to actually sodomize a little boy.
How about a new post on healthcare. You guys feel confident about that fight, right?
I'd love for you to show how anti-business you really are.
Healthcare for all = Anti-Republican talk.
Healthcare for all = Boon for ALL INDUSTRIES.
You make the call.
LOL.. Non, oh yeah. Now, lets see if Anon 7:42 gets the point ;)
Thanks to the keen observations here made by well-intentioned Moonbats, I now get it. The google search is just a starting point. There's a lot of very interesting stuff in there about how our "Constitutional Scholar-in-Chief" doesn't give a rat's a$$ about constitutional protections of freedom and liberty.
That's why what's happening in Honduras is more telling about Obama than any other "issue" right now.
If one understands Black Liberation Theology, it all makes sense. Remember Rev. Wright, Obama's spiritual mentor? Turn down the volume on your stereotypesetters, 'bats, and check it all out. There will come a time when you levelers are going to be feeling very sheepish, standing in the same bread line as former Wall Street execs, while "The One" serves $100/lb Kobe beef to his friends at the White House and you're not on the guest list. Of course it will be more like $1000/lb by then thanks to Obamanomics. For that reason, and since Obama wants to cancel the 22nd Amendment so he can campaign forever, he needs more of your cash. It won't matter if you no longer have a job or savings, he'll just hike taxes on jobless benefits. Enjoy the New Progressive Era! It's off to a smashing start.
Fly in the ointment: Rasmussen has Obama at -2 again today; matching his lowest rating ever.
Anon 6:43 - If I'm a leveler, does that make you a cavalier? Or a roundhead? Are ya sure you want to extend that metaphor? Take a deep breath, READ your history (don't just get it from google), think about it, and you might just start making sense.
However, if you're serious, I would love to see how Obama's actions have been influenced by Black Liberation Theology. Which aspects of BLT do you see explicitly in Obama's words and policies?
Oh, are you aware that your rote repetition of the word "moonbat" makes you an anonybot? Flip a switch and you just play that endless loop of - moonbat moonbat moonbat moonbat.
LOL... c'mon put some thought into. I know you can. Do anonybots dream of electric sheep? (With apologies to Philip Dick)
@ R Hall
You are the funniest thing ever! LOL! *no "Beavis and Butthead" snicker here!*
Please, keep on writing enormous comments about the premise of a political cartoon. What you must do with actual political essays... HEE HEE!
"Me thinks Obama sucks very bad as a president! I want good 'ol days of free markets and no spending of trillions on political payoff/stimulus."
Work with that one! Make me laugh again...
RHall, look up the attributes that describe a moonbat.
It is much easier than continually explaining and re-explaining your behavior to you.
yip yip
Throwing the Constitution Out
"The oath of office taken by a United States President states as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Notice it does not say "I will preserve, protect and defend my political agenda," but clearly requires any president to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."
It now seems apparent that our current president must believe that the flub of the oath by Chief Justice John Roberts on inauguration day was tacit permission for him to ignore the wording of the oath. Why do I say this?
Because the series of legislation, presidential orders and other acts taken by President Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress during the last six months has discarded the Constitution by the wayside like so much fast-food trash."
Don't know what to tell ya Coyote.. read the rules.. I guess the only one that I can see that I've "broken" would be #8. But I suspect that ALL of us are bats by that rule. Including, I'm willing to bet, yourself. I mean, really, in real life do you go around calling people who disagree with you, or violate your "rules" moonbats to their face? Do you truly talk to people in person the same way you respond to people on this blog when you don't like what they say or how they say it? I'm willing to bet in the course of your business or job, you don't call people you deal with moonbats. Or if you do, you don't work with the public very much at all.
LOL.. number 8 is just an excuse to call anyone a moonbat when you don't have any other argument or response to offer. ;)
Since you haven't explained ANYTHING to me yet... I seriously doubt you could consider it a continual problem.. and if you're assuming, well, we know what happens when you assume.
But hey, it's your blog, you can have all the silly rules ya want!
Anon 11:03 - everything they've enacted? Or do you have some specifics in mind. I honestly wouldn't be surprised, actually, I don't think there has ever been a congress or a President that hasn't had something overturned by the SCOTUS.
However, they way they've gone about it is constitutional, yes?
Specifis would be really nice. :)
RHall'bat: Moonbat Rules are a specific and direct answer to Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals' -- with which your side is VERY familiar since it has long served as the 'handbook' of the Left.
Both Hillary Rodham and the disgraced ACORN-SEIU co-founder Wade Rathke studied directly under Alinsky, the iconic Chicago socialist who 'invented' community organizing. Obama was too young, as Alinsky died in 1972, when Obama was 11 years old being mentored in Hawaii by Frank Marshall Davis (for more on Davis, click: here).
But Obama did study Alinsky's work -- calling it the best education he ever received, and that includes Pepperdine, Columbia, and Harvard. And Obama did get paid to instruct ACORN / Project Vote organizers in Alinsky's 'Power Rules' during one of the many 'secret socialist' periods of his life.
Rank-and-file Obamanistas ought to bone up on this stuff or they come off as echo-chamber sheeple who know not who and what they worship.
So I'll help you out. Now you'll know what Coyote is all about with 'Moonbat Rules'. Of course, if 'bats hadn't invaded this blog we probably wouldn't be here, now ... but actually it makes for a wonderful 'teaching moment'. Thank you.
In fact, largely due to Obama and the shameless fraud-group ACORN, conservative activists are now studying these new rules of the political road. Once you 'get it', you will see that 'Moonbat Rules' demonstrate 'Rules for Radicals' can be used against Leftists, too. Here you go:
Summary of Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals' -- Rules for Power Tactics:
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Because Alinsky was sensitive to criticism that he wasn't ethical, he also included a set of rules for the ethics of power tactics. You can see from these why his ethics were so frequently questioned.
Rules to test whether power tactics are ethical:
1. One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue.
2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
3. In war the end justifies almost any means.
4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.
10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.
11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."
Pay attention, 'bats. You may be quizzed on this later, and if you hope to advance, you'd better not screw up.
Anonybot 4:05 (there really are a lot of you, are there different models, or are you all programmed the same?).
Your right, I should just be a good little liberal lap dog and lay there and be nice no matter how condescending, idiotic and silly some of you are. I should just ignore the HUGE double standard you practice and be a better person you maybe encourage change by example. But, sadly, I'm not, so here I find myself. In the gutter with you. Now lets hug, kiss, and make up.
R'Hallbat said: I should just ignore the HUGE double standard you practice.
Oh please. Have you never visited a liberal blog?
You were fun up to this point. Now you are either ignorant or dishonest.
Oh please. Have you never visited a liberal blog?
The level of rancor, rudeness, and censorship on this blog far outstrips anything seen on Blue Oregon.
The same is true on most of the COBRA blogs.
One fundamental difference between lefties and righties is the liberals can disagree without being disagreeable, and don't see disagreement as a personal insult.
Those on the right seem to think it's rude to present them with evidence that counters their point of view.
The Left always has bigger, nastier internal fights than any other segment. Historically, that has been true since the beginning of 'modern' Leftism in 19th century Europe and was especially true during the Bloodiest Century when so many folks were exterminated (i.e. USSR, China, Europe) in the name of advancing particular tyrants' particular brand of Leftism.
While there are and have been non-Leftist authoritarian tyrants, these are not Conservatives in the tradition of the Enlightenment. Far from it.
Conservatives have always rallied everyone who is not a Leftist under a Big Tent. While there are disagreements, they don't come close to the ruinous destruction of Leftist fights.
As for this blog, I find the posts informative; mostly stuff you won't find at other sites. I appreciate the entertainment value of skewering the Left via hoisting them by their own petard. They deserve it and then some. Maybe that's why Leftists despise this blog so much.
As for the comment space here, regrettably is serves as a favorite dumping ground for angry Leftists who think they are scoring points by dominating the space. It is so prevalent that it leads one to believe their purpose is to prevent conservatives from having a forum for honest exchange. That kind of Speech Police action is nauseating .. but does offer insight into Leftist morality (a deliberate non-sequitur) that is useful for illumination.
I have not found that Conservatives use Leftwing blog comment space in this rude, impolite manner.
Coyote -
Since when does other people's bad behavior excuse yours? Honestly, dude, I was a little disappointed in that response. LOL, we don't let our kids get away with "but, dad, the Batties next door do it! So it's OK if I do it too!"
Hint: It would have only been ignorant or dishonest if I had claimed others engage in better behavior, or made excuses for it. Logic takes baby steps... baby steps, my friend.
Anon 1:04. If Coyote wants me to stop posting, all he has to do is say so. Honest, it's really that easy. :)
But, I can truly appreciate your desire to wallow in your vicitimization. As a good Lefty, I yearn to help you through it. I feel your pain.
Anon 1:04 - I'm not sure what you meant by "not Conservatives in the tradition of the Enlightenment..."
My understanding of Conservatism, and the roots of that philosophy, is that there is no Enlightenment tradition of Conservatism. In fact, Conservatism (via Edmund Burke)rose out of a reaction against the Enlightenment.
Can't sleep. So many rude pseudo-comments from 'bats who fancy themselves as 'posters' ... Liberal Fascists who don't care about Liberty, dishonoring modern 'enlightenment' conservative who care deeply about Liberty ... 'bats craving power and dependence of the lambs.
RHall'bat: Have you been asleep for the last century? Today's Prog-Corporo-Fascists are the anti-Enlightenment troglodytes.
If you don't get it, we understand. Liberalism is a mental disorder, after all.
roadrunner: "One fundamental difference between lefties and righties is the liberals can disagree without being disagreeable, and don't see disagreement as a personal insult."
LOL! That is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. Better than even R Hall!
The fact that you say this shows how short-sided and partisan you are. Yep, that's right open-mindedness has EVERYTHING to do with political opinions. I bet you just love Jeneane Garofalo, don't you?
Oh, and R Hall, I'm still chortling. You are hilarious. But then if you were in any position of actual authority, instead of posting long diatribes for your own idiocy's sake, I would move to Honduras.
The fact that you say this shows how short-sided and partisan you are. Yep, that's right open-mindedness has EVERYTHING to do with political opinions. I bet you just love Jeneane Garofalo, don't you?
Anon 11:17, just look at the COBRA blogs--rudeness from the bloggers themselves (not just commenters) prevails. Blog posts on Blue Oregon are rarely rude. Yes, there is occasional rudeness from lefty commenters, but it's nowhere near the level seen here.
What I've also seen is that right-wingers are offended by facts that contradict their point of view. They will often respond with name-calling without actually addressing the issues raised.
It's sad to see people like Ted, who shows signs of being intelligent and able to think outside the G.O.P. box, get blinded by what seems to be hatred for everything Democratic.
Little Runner,
Oh get real. You have not been censored on this site, nor at Daniel's nor at Kremer's. You have been chided for your propensity to attempt to hijack topic threads in order to pursue your own silly vendetta.
Anon 11:17, just look at the COBRA blogs--rudeness from the bloggers themselves (not just commenters) prevails. Blog posts on Blue Oregon are rarely rude. Yes, there is occasional rudeness from lefty commenters, but it's nowhere near the level seen here.
What I've also seen is that right-wingers are offended by facts that contradict their point of view. They will often respond with name-calling without actually addressing the issues raised.
If you want to address the subject, fine. If not, you will be subject to ridicule.
If you had an iota of intellectual honesty, you would trot on over to that nutty Lewis&Clark tax-perfesser's site. See how long you last before that tolerant Lefty boots you.
Actually, Max, I have had comments deleted here. That's censorship.
Anonybot 4:07 -
So many rude pseudo-comments from 'bats who fancy themselves as 'posters'
You were so jealous you felt the need to join the club? Or, maybe they don't have an irony chip in your model.
-----------------------------------
Anonybot 6:31 -
Actually, I'm pretty sure that Burke would have seen the violence and excesses of both the Nazi and Stalinist regimes (to name two) as logical outcomes of Enlightenment philosophy. After all, he did develop his thought, in part, in reaction to the excesses of the French Revolution.
Nice to see that your model is developed enough to have a database that includes cute little quotes from Michael Savage. Do you ever worry about getting caught in an endless loop?
----------------------------------
Anon 11:17
1) I think I am funnier than Roadrunner (no offense intended, RR)j
2) You live here? In this time period? Damn. Then I might have to move.
Can I ask you a favor? I have grandkids, think you might be willing to relocate?
Thanks
C'mon ya'll love me. Think how bored you'd be without me. You'd be like Darleks without Dr. Who.
Bored without you Angercrat leftwingers? You 'bat crappers are totally BORING.
P.S. Everyone here knows there is no respect for "democracy" within the Democrat-ACORN Party. Just ask Stuart Smalley or the union thug Card-Check fascists who underwrite all your corrupt politicians like B'Rock O'Bozo.
Dropping the word combination "Democratic Party" here only gains you ROTFLOLs among the readership. We know that cynical construct is an oxymoron ... and that you Angercrat leftwingers -- when it comes to any discussion of Power v. Liberty -- are utter morons.
LOL.. wow. Betcha you felt better after that, huh? That much bile can't possible do your liver any good. Pretty eloquent too. Are you on the Borg ruling council? You got the upgrade to 52k RAM?
RHall: Another boring empty non-comment. Yawn. So you h8 this blog like all the other 'bats that have come before you to crap here. Why bother unless you're just the latest mercenary polluter from MoveOnBat world.
checking.... checking... checking... nope, nowhere did I say I hate this blog. Sweetie, I don't even hate you, no matter how easy you try and make it. Hugs and kisses *muah*
I am willing to discuss issues. Even tried a few times. However, I don't feel the need to tiptoe around anonybots like you who just trot out the same script over and over and over and over and over again. Update the software!
Got to agree with a lot of the people here, R Hall. Once you get off the topic of being offended by a politcal cartoon, then you become boring. *yawn*
You are not funny, but your views are, as is your exaggerated response to a political cartoon, as is your accusation that any who disagree with you are robots or whatever.
"Free-thinkers cannot disagree with me, as I and my lord and savior Obama are only one who think correctly. All others are idiots who must be re-programmed."-- That seems to be what you think, although I'm sure you will deny it since it goes against values that you pay lip-service toward.
You are not unique. *yawn*
Post a Comment