Ben Stein: Obama Will Be Real Dangerous
Tags: MSM.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Ben Stein on was on “Kudlow & Company,” yesterday, and gave his views on Barack Obama’s economic plan:
“Mr. Obama could become president and derail everything because his understanding of economics is 100 percent wrong. … I must say I’m so scared about Mr. Obama becoming president. I can hardly tell you.
[...]
[Obama] understands nothing. He wants to shut down the oil companies, take away their profits. Kill every state teacher’s pension fund that’s invested in XOM [Exxon Mobil]. I am terrified of this guy. Either somebody has got to wise him up or he has to wise up himself or he will be real dangerous.”
Bad on the economy. Bad on fighting terror. But hey, at least he can give a good speech, right?
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
70 Responses to “Ben Stein: Obama Will Be Real Dangerous”
Caucus of Corruption
Rico#43, Your interpretation of a limited surgical strike is “send in all the assets at America’s disposal “? That is my definition of an invasion. I realize that “is” has different definitions, but you are really pushing limited surgical strike here.
Ricorun:
No, no, no. The recent Predator strike WITHIN PAKISTAN wasn’t an invasion because it was conducted under the careful watch of of the Supreme Decider Himself, War Time Mission Accomplished President George Bush.
A Predator strike WITHIN PAKISTAN under President Obama on the other hand would be a reckless and heartless blow against the sovereignty of a great nation, an ally in the War on Terror (c) which would cause the downfall of dictator Mushareff and allow the clerics access to the Pakistani nukes.
I am surprised you cannot figure that out.
Darva, You and Rico can spin your statement all you want, but here it is again. “send in all the assets at America’s disposal” And Rico spins that I can’t tell the difference in a “surgical strike”. Well guys, using all the assets at America’s disposal is not a surgical strike. Spin all you want.
And now you spin that to mean a “Predator strike”!
And bring W into this as well. Clearly Cult Obama and BDS here. Get well soon. Cultist.
Sew,
A cult is what the majority congregation labels the minority one. Last I checked, bush supporters are not in the majority
SEW, upon re-reading Darva’s original comment, I understand your comment better. He/she(?) did say “all assets at America’s disposal”. And though he(?) followed it with an example of what he(?) meant in a distinguishing context, I can see where someone predisposed to a highly literal reading might be confused. I should have considered the fact that you are such a person. So I apologize. But still, “all assets at America’s disposal” are Darva’s words, not Obama’s. Obama was clearly talking about an action that I have defined as a “limited surgical strike”, not an invasion. And regardless of what Darva said, do you recognize a difference there? Or do you generalize all gradations of attack into the general heading of “invasion”? And if you do, wouldn’t it be accurate to say that Bush invaded Pakistan already?
More spin? So does “send in all the assets at America’s disposal” mean a ‘limited surgical’ strike to you also? Is that a Predator strike, and does Delta Force arrive and exit on a Tomahawk?
Keep spinning. “Send in all the assets at America’s disposal”. Some surgical strike.
And Rico, I referred to Darva as a dimwitt, not Obama. So From where does the confusion arise? Your brain, not mine.
Rico—”If you don’t understand the difference between a limited surgical strike and an invasion, you really shouldn’t be calling other people dimwits.”
Bush did a limited surgical strike. Clearly. And that would be the same for Obama. And that might work for OBL, who is likely already dead,, but not for a GWOT. Libs seem to think taking OBL out wins the GWOT.
SEW: So does “send in all the assets at America’s disposal” mean a ‘limited surgical’ strike to you also?
Absent any clarifying context, no it doesn’t. Absent any clarifying context it would mean “invasion” to me. However, (a) clarifying context was available, and (b) irrespective of (a), Obama didn’t say “send in all the assets at America’s disposal”. You do understand that, right?
SEW, ignore #58 as you already answered the question in #57.
#54 SAR
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWU3NmEwNzhmYjVkZDdlNzVmZDhhODVmMmViZTRlODM
Sorry, wrong link in 60.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/48404.html
In keeping with the new theme of ridiculousness…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RkTh7RwJqc
Since this topic is about Obama, how many of you leftist support Obama’s Global Poverty initiative? How many of you even know about it??
We have a social security system that is unfunded, and a medicare crisis that makes the unfunded SS liablity seem like chump change. There is no plan to deal with either of these. The senate seems more interested in investigating sports figures taking steroids, or illegal filming opposing teams.
In the meantime, under the radar, Obama has introduced s.2433, the Global Initiative on World Poverty. It is schedule for a vote this week. This brilliant piece of socialist legislation pledges 0.007% of OUR GDP to be GIVEN TO THE UN over the next 13 years. This amounts to almost one TRILLION dollars!!!!!
You know, that’s the same UN which has always been so effective and fiscally responsible in the past.
Are you leftists for this??? If so why???
And don’t try to change the subject with spending on the Iraq war or anything else. Try to control you BDS and stay on topic.
*****crickets*****
That’s all you’ve got??? Can’t defend the indefensible???
flexible repair
Consequently, many of the fundamental methods and procedures of modern colonoscopy were developed by Dr. He envisioned a loop of
[...] Ben Stein on the possibility of an Obama Presidency [...]
How can you say that Obama would lead us toward socialism?? This country is already there…the higher ups in our govt (aka bush, cheney & co) own the oil, and the airwaves (not to mention half of you sad peoples’ souls) while the rest of us stand in the indegent care line. I pray for this nation. Wake up and smell the * thats droppin on your foreheads!
Does anyone remember “The Grin Will Win”? Jimmy Carter’s claim to the presidency of U.S. in 1976. And it did just that. Jimmy Carter won because of his wide reckneck grin and fanciful claims to cure the ills of America. If you look into his administration’s results, you’ll see what a dismal failure it was. Double digit inflation, Americans held hostage by a foreign goverment, failed deplomacy, and failed everything else except, of course, for his wide Georgia redneck grin.
John McCain stumbles and fall over nearly every thing he says more than Gerald Ford tripped up while walking.
Obama does have a “smoothness” that’s hard to beat. His look, his tone, his demeanor, and his words are like a balloon: they are bright, shiny, and smooth but full of hot air. He has repeatedly made claims that his administration will do all kinds of great things. He hasn’t explained how they are to be done or who will have to pay for them. We taxpayers will pay for them that’s for sure. Who will figure it out: No one.
Style is more important to most Americans than substance. Since there is no substative difference between the two major parties. We have one major party the DEMOPULICAN party.
I am not voting. Whatever whichever of the dudes ends up being the U.S. President does won’t be because I voted for him
Thank you very much for the great information.
Thanks
511 pants
OBAMA’S ECONOMICS ARE DANGEROUS !!!
Unemployment at 6.1% simply reinforces McCain’s argument that if you raise taxes on businesses, they will have to cut back their work force in order to keep their doors open. In the short run, Obama’s desire to raise taxes on businesses, and give the money to struggling Americans sounds good … but, it panders to people’s desire for hand outs and immediate gratification … for, in the long run, this kind of bad judgement is like eating the goose that lays the golden eggs … or, like eating your seed crop, instead of using the seeds to grow more crops. Raising the taxes on businesses is the best way to dramatically increase unemployment in America.