These Are the Geniuses We’re Up Against

From Navy Times:

On the last night of the Democratic National Convention, a retired Navy four-star took the stage to pay tribute to veterans. Behind him, on a giant screen, the image of four hulking warships reinforced his patriotic message.

But there was a big mistake in the stirring backdrop: those are Russian warships.

While retired Adm. John Nathman, a former commander of Fleet Forces Command, honored vets as America’s best, the ships from the Russian Federation Navy were arrayed like sentinels on the big screen above.

These were the very Soviet-era combatants that Nathman and Cold Warriors like him had once squared off against.

“The ships are definitely Russian,” said noted naval author Norman Polmar after reviewing hi-resolution photos from the event. “There’s no question of that in my mind.”

Naval experts concluded the background was a photo composite of Russian ships that were overflown by what appear to be U.S. trainer jets. It remains unclear how or why the Democratic Party used what’s believed to be images of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at their convention…

I don’t blame the admiral – he probably didn’t know what was being flashed behind him.  But what is it with our Democrats?  Don’t they have anyone with enough military experience to differentiate between US and foreign warships?  Go look up pictures of, say, as USN cruiser and compare it to a Russian – they are remarkably different in appearance.  Though I guess the fact that both are painted gray and have all sorts of weapony looking fighting thingies on them can cause some confusion…

Advertisements

82 thoughts on “These Are the Geniuses We’re Up Against

  1. neocon1 September 12, 2012 / 7:55 am

    I don’t blame the admiral – he probably didn’t know what was being flashed behind him

    Why?
    He was SURROUNDED by communists….

  2. Cluster September 12, 2012 / 8:11 am

    2016 is already the #2 documentary of all time and attracting huge audiences in swing states. I hope and pray this help brings down Obama:

    D’SOUZA: Look, what I say is it’s not that Obama hates America. It’s not that he’s a traitor, that he’s a secret Muslim, that he’s a Manchurian Candidate. He simply subscribes to an ideology that thinks it would be good for America to have a diminished economy and a diminished role in the world. In other words, Obama is all about what he perceives as global justice. And global justice to him means a redistribution of wealth and power away from America and towards the rest of the world. That’s his ideology. He thinks it would be good for America to have a humbler role in the world. He thinks it would be good for America not to be No. 1 but to be No. 18 or No. 34 in the world. It’s part of his vision of global justice. Nowhere do I question his motives or say that he is a bad guy. Rather what I’m saying is these are his beliefs, this is his ideology.

    http://www.deadline.com/2012/09/exclusive-2016-obamas-america-filmmaker-reacts-to-presidents-slam-looking-for-network-to-air-before-election-says-mainstream-media-refusing-coverage/

    • irisspirit September 12, 2012 / 1:25 pm

      What a bunch of garbage.

      • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 1:34 pm

        Ooooh, Velma’s back, with yet another pithy political insight.

        Or is that “pissy”?

        I wonder if she will ever bother to actually READ either of Barry’s books, or study his speeches, to see what he really has had to say?

        Nah….that would require effort, whereas being a spiteful petty snarler at her betters comes easy to her.

      • irisspirit September 12, 2012 / 3:46 pm

        Amazona you mistake me for someone who gives a rats behind what you think. You probably are smarter than Neo but not by much.

      • tiredoflibbs September 12, 2012 / 3:53 pm

        You’re not saying much there Velma. You cannot answer simple questions…. So that doesn’t make you even close to the necessary intelligence required to even debate Biden.

        Why do you run from simple challenges that request you to back up your dumb ASSertions?

      • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 7:33 pm

        Well, Vel, I did NOT mistake you for someone with any interest in the truth, that’s for sure.

        But thanks for confirming that.

  3. Cluster September 12, 2012 / 8:22 am

    Let’s be honest here. Obama is not a nice guy, he’s not a “people person”, nor is he very bright. His own personal physician has come out and said that he should not be reelected because he is detached, aloof and has a huge messianic complex. It has been revealed that he rarely even talks with Congress or Senate representatives and when he does, he is condescending. Even after three years, he is still the most far left and inexperienced person to ever hold the office of President and it shows in every decision he makes. He has been artificially propped up, and sheltered from any criticism by the media, but that is starting to unravel. The documentary 2016 and the many books currently available like The Amateur, are starting to open a lot of people’s eyes.

    • Retired Spook September 12, 2012 / 9:47 am

      and the many books currently available like The Amateur, are starting to open a lot of people’s eyes.

      There have been literally dozens of books over the last 4 years that have been critical of Obama, his beliefs, background and policies. Perhaps one of our resident Lefties can steer us toward a book that reveals the kinder, gentler, more competent, more visionary side of Barack Obama. I’m not aware of any.

      • irisspirit September 12, 2012 / 3:56 pm

        tired, glad you asked. I believe the most inexperienced president this country has ever seen was George W. Bush. At least in my life time. No president comes into office for their first term with experience at being the President of the United States – there is a learning curve for all of them. There were other “inexperienced” presidents when they took office, probably the most revered and famous was Abraham Lincoln.

      • tiredoflibbs September 12, 2012 / 4:23 pm

        Velma, that is not what I asked! You did not answer the question. What experiences did obAMATEUR have that made him more experienced than Romney or even Bush?

        Bush and Romney both had executive experience. obAMATEUR had NONE.

        Please answer the question, if you can.

      • tiredoflibbs September 12, 2012 / 9:24 pm

        And predictably, velma runs from the question.

        Pathetic.

        Here velma, I will answer for you. obAMATEUR had ZERO executive experience and practically ZERO private sector experience. He never CREATED jobs before. Romney has both executive and job creation experience.

        obAMATEUR also has ZERO foreign policy experience and his behavior on foreign affairs shows that his “learning curve” curves sharply downward.

        He took Biden as vice-pResident for his alleged foreign policy experience, but as we have seen Biden is useless in all aspects.

        Come on velma take off you obAMATEUR kneepads and answer the question. Stop dodging and running from it.

    • irisspirit September 12, 2012 / 1:37 pm

      Again Cluster, what a bunch of garbage. President Obama is very intelligent and you just cannot admit that. And when did his personal physician come out and make such a statement? Where do you find such nonsense? I know you wish this nonsense to be true, but it just is not. The most inexperienced person to hold office would be the one you are supporting right now – who is even worse than Bush. At least Bush was likable. Not so with Romney. He has absolutely no foreign policy smarts and opens his mouth before he even knows the facts. He pissed off our closes ally when in England. How does one do that in such a short period of time? He is the worst candidate for president the GOP could ever have. For some reason Romney thinks he is entitled to be President of the United States. Ann even stated it “was their turn.” According to who? If Michelle Obama had made such a statement Faux News would have been all over that. Romney wants to be president because he wants to be president – not because he cares about the people of the United States or believes he has something special to offer to our country.
      Yesterday many well known Republicans came out with serious criticism of Romney – Laura Ingraham, Bill Kristol, – even one of your favorites I sure, Limbaugh – was giving Romney advice on how he should be calling President Obama a socialist. That isn’t going to work, but go for it. Republicans are getting scared with what they have here with Romney and Ryan (who obviously was not taught that lying will get you in trouble) and wishing they had someone other than these two as the candidates. You picked a doozie again this time.

      • Cluster September 12, 2012 / 1:47 pm

        Iris dear – I specifically told you where you can find that information, did you miss that? Question on your post though – why do you think that Michelle is, for the first time in her life, proud of her country?

      • tiredoflibbs September 12, 2012 / 2:48 pm

        No Velma, you can’t admit that obAMATEUR is the most inexperienced pResident this country has seen.

        His failure is all the proof you need.

        Please tell us what experience obAMATEUR had to be pResident.
        We want facts not talking points.

      • irisspirit September 12, 2012 / 3:52 pm

        Cluster, let me ask you, why does Ann Romney believe its “their” turn to have the Presidency and White House? Not the Republican’s turn, but the Romney’s turn. And why does Ann think “you people” have all the information we need regarding their tax returns? And one last question, why is it OK for Ann Romney to make such statements, but if Michelle says for the first time she is proud of her country. I believe the words didn’t come out quite like she intended but she was proud that her husband (and he is a good person, a good husband and father and a decent human being despite all the ugly things right wingers have said about him) was in the race for President and was receiving great support across the country.

  4. Kolob Bob September 12, 2012 / 8:24 am

    Well, at least the Democrats consider the troops “important”, unlike Romney and the GOP.

    And it turns out that Americans don’t like “secret tax plans”, or even “secret tax returns”.

    http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tell-us-mr-romney-how-youd-cut-taxes-but-not-lose-revenue/2012/09/11/69cadac8-fc20-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

    Maybe Romney/Ryan don’t even have a plan? Or they realize that the math doesn’t work? Or they think their plan would be so unpopular that it’s better to keep it secret? Or they think Americans are stupid?

    • Cluster September 12, 2012 / 8:38 am

      Good thinking Bob. Like I said in an earlier thread, small minds focus on small issues and you prove that everyday.

    • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 9:36 am

      It’s hysterical to see how quickly you lemmings slurp up every new talking point fed to you and then rush out to regurgitate it. What you don’t see, or don’t care about, is that all you are doing is calling attention to how desperate you are.

      This silly foolish effort to make a big deal out of the fact that Romney did not try to use our military as a political tool is a perfect example. You and your fellow travelers can bleat, squeal and howl all you want about the fantasy spin you put on this, but all you are doing is bleating, squealing and howling.

      If you had anything positive to say about Obama you would be saying it. You don’t, so all you can do is frantically try to demonize Romney, and this is clearer each and every day, each and every time you pull some other non-issue out of your tighty whities and start hurling it.

    • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 9:38 am

      “…..Americans don’t like “secret tax plans”….”

      No, they don’t, which is one reason they have come out so strongly against the so-called “health care plan” once you Dems ramrodded it through Congress, unread, and we got a look at it and the secret tax plans packed into it.

    • Liberty At'Stake September 12, 2012 / 9:51 am

      What will you do when the Empty Suit is deposed?

    • Retired Spook September 12, 2012 / 10:04 am

      Well, at least the Democrats consider the troops “important”, unlike Romney and the GOP.

      Bob (what’s the matter; did Coulterfan wear out his welcome?), Romney spent much of the day before his speech visiting with veterans at American Legion Conference in Indianapolis.

      Mitt Romney continued to take flak from Democrats over the weekend for not mentioning war in his nomination acceptance speech.

      But the Republican campaign was quick to point out what critics seemed to be ignoring – Romney spent the day before his convention speech visiting the American Legion conference in Indianapolis, where he talked exclusively about national security and America’s veterans. President Obama, by contrast, addressed that conference in the form of a three-minute video aired at the conference site.

      “Now that was an invitation that President Obama declined,” Romney senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said in an interview Sunday. “Governor Romney thought it was a privilege to be speaking to people who had served so nobly.”

      Though Romney did not mention the war in Afghanistan on Thursday night, he focused on that issue, as well as the veterans who are returning home, in his American Legion speech.

      “We are still at war in Afghanistan. We still have uniformed men and women in conflict, risking their lives just as you once did,” Romney said.

      Romney went on to accuse the president of giving the cold shoulder to America’s closest allies and allowing rogue actors to exploit the U.S.

      “For the past four years, President Obama has allowed our leadership to diminish. In dealings with other nations, he has given trust where it is not earned, insult where it is not deserved and apology where it is not due,” he said.

      Romney said that in order for this to be “an American century,” the country “must have the strongest military and the strongest economy in the world.” The Republican candidate dove into several specific plans for returning veterans, pledging to “keep faith” with them. He called for modifying the Post-9/11 GI Bill so veterans can be eligible for in-state tuition “regardless of residency,” for hiring more mental health professionals in the VA and for making changes to help veterans find jobs.

      • Cluster September 12, 2012 / 10:41 am

        In dealings with other nations, he (Obama) has given trust where it is not earned, insult where it is not deserved and apology where it is not due,” – Mitt Romney

        WHAT A GREAT, GREAT LINE!!!!

      • irisspirit September 12, 2012 / 4:00 pm

        That was pathetic. These men and women are dying for this country and when Romney speaks at the Convention – nothing for the troops. Had a Democratic candidate done the same you would be all over it. He wants to be commander and chief? Or does he just want to be president because he thinks it is his turn and he deserves to be president? I believe Romney believes he is entitled to be president. This man flip flops more than a carp out of water. But not a word from this group on the flip flops. I guess he is fulfilling. Grover Norquists requirement – just enough digits to hold a pen and sign the legislation enacted by the GOP. Sounds like stellar leadership to me.

      • Retired Spook September 12, 2012 / 4:15 pm

        But not a word from this group on the flip flops.

        Velma, I guess what that shows is that most of us prefer one who has flip flopped over the one who has just flopped.

      • irisspirit September 12, 2012 / 5:03 pm

        No Spook, what it show is that Republicans/conservatives are hypocrites. And they have no problem with lies – in fact they relish them when they put down the President. What is shows is that Republicans are very poor losers, but losers none the less. So now you are OK with a flip-flopper as long as he has a “R” after his name. That really does show how important ethics and morals are to this group you associate with.

      • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 6:58 pm

        Poor pathetic Velma, all wound up because her minders told her Romney should have politicized our military. Of course, if he had mentioned them he would have been savaged for doing so.

        Velma thinks we don’t realize that she would be stomping her little hooves and snorting in outrage no matter what Romney had said or done, and would still be swooning over what a nice loving daddy Barry is, and did you see how sweet he was to his wife?????????

      • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 6:59 pm

        Vel can’t name one lie told about Barry. Oh, she can squeal endlessly about the things she doesn’t LIKE to read about him, but lies? Not a one.

      • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 7:09 pm

        Velma doesn’t even pretend to try to tell the truth any more. Take her claim that Ann Romney has said that she “…believe(s) its (sic) “their” turn to have the Presidency and White House ”

        A lie.

        And why does Barry think “you people” have all the information we need regarding his school records, medical records, and passport records? They are much more relevant to the presidency than how much money someone made.

        And you gotta love Velma’s kneepadding when she scurries to explain that when Michelle said she had never been proud of her country till it was ready to nominate her husband, well, she didn’t really mean that—- the words didn’t come out quite like she intended

        Bull. It was a written speech.

        She’s a pathetic old windbag, is Vel, and probably still trolling the Internet begging people to bite her. But I’ll give her this—-her passion for Barry remains unabated. As we ranchers say when describing a female animal with a certain attitude, she sure has her tail over the fence for him.

      • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 7:32 pm

        “That really does show how important ethics and morals are to this group you associate with” brays the Helen Thomas of Tulsa.

        Well, let’s see—-this from someone fine with Obama having to have a criminal help him buy a house, whose wife was given a made-up job for over $300,000 a year to dump poor people into other hospitals and get government money once Obama got into the Senate, who has surrounded himself with avowed Marxists, Maoists and Communists, who has finagled literally billions of taxpayer dollars into crony deals with companies on the brink of bankruptcy and who managed to make those billions disappear, who stripped retirees of their interest in GM so he could pay back unions for their support—this is all fine with Velma.

      • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 7:44 pm

        What gets Velma all wound up? One thing is the chance to spin an innocent comment into something it was not, is not, and never would be.

        Back in April, during the primaries, Ann Romney said ““I believe it’s Mitt’s time. I believe the country needs the kind of leadership he’s going to offer… So I think it’s our turn now,” Ann Romney said.”

        There is nothing there that has anything to do with a sense of entitlement, but merely a statement of the obvious—that Obama has failed, failed miserably, and that it is the turn of someone else to step in and provide the leadership Obama has not been able to bring to the White House.

        Obama had his turn at proving that he could run the country, and he failed. He screwed it up big time. So it is the turn of someone else to fix it.

        Only a vile envious witch like Velma could turn this into a snobbish statement of entitlement.

        But then………

    • Retired Spook September 12, 2012 / 10:12 am

      Bob/Coulter,

      Your comments remind me of an old Soviet joke:

      Every philosophy is like looking for a black cat in a dark room; Marxist philosophy is like looking for a black cat in a dark room, but the cat isn’t there; Soviet philosophy is like looking for a black cat in a dark room, the cat isn’t there, but you keep shouting “I’ve found it! I’ve found it!”

      • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 11:34 am

        I think there is a version of this joke where the American Libs are looking for the cat, it isn’t there, but they keep shouting “Bush killed it!!”

  5. Amazona September 12, 2012 / 9:57 am

    From an email I received this morning:

    “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

    — Winston Churchill

  6. consigliereciucava September 12, 2012 / 10:53 am

    While you are enjoying this your candidate has just thrown away his political career. Romney, with unprecendented arrogance, broke the 11 September campaigning embargo by pretending he was President. This morning he doubled down on his misleading characterization of the press release from the US Embassy in Cairo, the attack in Benghazi, Libya and the breach of the US Embassy in Cairo. These events happened in that order yet Romney chose to characterize them as if they had happened in reverse. This pandering to his base clearly shows that Romney is not fit to be the Leader of the Free World.

    • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 11:27 am

      Does this mean that you have changed your mind and now you’re not going to vote for him?

      • Cluster September 12, 2012 / 11:58 am

        Don’t tell me we lost consigliereciucava’s vote! Damn!

        LOL

      • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 12:15 pm

        I know. I am sure it was just this horrible, awful, unforgivable, REPEHENSIBLE, arrogant, office-assuming, blahblahblahblah commentary by Mitt that pushed him over the edge, though.

        Have you noticed how content-empty these Romney attacks are? It’s All Personality, All The Time. He didn’t say this, he didn’t do that, what he did do means this, what he didn’t do means that, it’s all fluff and nonsense.

        Not one of them, other than James of all people, has been able to articulate an actual idea of how the nation ought to be governed—-and he claims Democrats find Constitutional governance unacceptable. At least he’s honest about it.

        These other guys just spotlight their political illiteracy and their attraction to and dependence on superficial personality issues.

      • Retired Spook September 12, 2012 / 12:24 pm

        Not one of them, other than James of all people, has been able to articulate an actual idea of how the nation ought to be governed—-and he claims Democrats find Constitutional governance unacceptable. At least he’s honest about it.

        That was surprising, and I for one would welcome James to the discussion if he’d like to defend that position, but I suspect it was more a Freudian slip, like Obama’s “spread the wealth around” comment to Joe the Plumber than an actual honest answer. Liberals, at least the ones who visit this site, have been veeeeeeery careful about admitting what they believe and why they believe it.

      • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 12:53 pm

        Spook, that was my reaction, too—that he truly believes what he said, and is so ignorant of the Constitution that he doesn’t even realize that what he wants is unconstitutional.

        It has taken us seven years of pushing Libs to state their political philosophy to get to this point, but during that time I have come to realize that what they believe, regarding our government, is untethered to any real concept of how the Constitution says we have to govern.

        Their minders and talking heads have implanted the idea that any mention of the Constitution is “extreme” and “far Right” so it is automatically dismissed by them. But they tend to hesitate to come right out and declare that they find the Constitution unacceptable as the rule of law.

        Some, like casper, come right out and claim to “believe in the Constitution” but then advocate policies that are in direct contradiction to the laws laid out in that document.

        Some have a hissy fit when I say that this election is about a choice between big government and small government, squealing that this is an oversimplification, that it is about this policy or that attitude or whatever. But all they do is point out that they really don’t know WHAT it is about. They really might not know that the only way to enact the policies they find so appealing is to ignore or subvert the Constitution.

    • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 11:32 am

      What about Romney’s blueprint for governing the nation do you find inferior to that of Obama?

      Or do you base this important decision about the choice between the Constitutional model of small central government, state sovereignty and limited federal size scope and power and large central government with essentially unlimited size scope and power on things like your reaction to what you see as “arrogance”?

      “Pretending he was president”. Oh no!!!! Did he have a pseudo-presidential seal on his podium? Because THAT would be pretty stupid, as well as arrogant.

  7. Retired Spook September 12, 2012 / 11:44 am

    Just saw the greatest bumper sticker this morning:

    TO RE-ELECT OBAMA WOULD BE LIKE THE TITANIC BACKING UP AND HITTING THE ICEBERG AGAIN

    • neocon1 September 12, 2012 / 1:02 pm

      worse than that spook.

    • irisspirit September 12, 2012 / 5:05 pm

      yuck yuck – so funny.

  8. Retired Spook September 12, 2012 / 12:11 pm

    Lots of good emails going around in the last week or two. This is one of the best:

    Top Ten – Only in America:

    1) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at several $35,000+ a plate campaign fund raising event.

    2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while 12% of the population is black.

    3) Only in America could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

    4) Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

    5) Only in America would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just ‘magically’ become American citizens.

    6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as “extremists.”

    7) Only in America could you need to present a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote. (my personal favorite!!!!)

    8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

    9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a trillion dollars more than it has per year for total spending of $7 million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money.

    10) Only in America could the rich people who pay 86% of all income taxes be accused of not paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay any income taxes at all.

    • bozo September 12, 2012 / 12:43 pm

      Only in America can an email with ten soft lies predicated on faulty logic and factual inaccuracies be spread to millions of gullible haters in a matter of just days, if not hours, and accepted without question or skepticism.

      A Romney/Ryan administration would certainly be a “representative” government of that constituency.

      About this post, though. Geek Powerpoint programmer heads should roll. This is just lazy clip art graphics skullduggery, and I hope, at very least, the Dems get their money back for sloppy computer graphics work-for-hire.

      • bozo September 12, 2012 / 12:47 pm

        PS: good “get” by Mark, though. It’s nice to have a pro posting, instead of the libs haters who seem to have partially taken over the asylum. This was definitely as good a “get” as McCain posing in front of Walter Reed MIDDLE SCHOOL, thinking it was the hospital.

      • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 12:54 pm

        OK—I won’t vote for McCain, either.

        Got any other Blasts From the Past you can pretend are relevant?

      • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 1:07 pm

        freakzo, you seem to be claiming that the list posted by Spook is just “ten soft lies”.

        Will you please elaborate on that?

        What element in any of them is untrue?

        $35,000+ a plate campaign fund raising events or a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black, or Timothy Geithner and Charles Rangel both being tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes, or terrorists killing people in the name of Allah and media primarily reacting by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash, or discussing letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just ‘magically’ become American citizens, or calling people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution “extremists” or needing to present a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote, or investigating whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up, or the country spending of $7 million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money, or accusing people who pay 86% of all income taxes be accused of not paying their “fair share” …?

        These are not soft lies, or hard lies, or lies of any shape, size or description. These are facts, factual observations of things that are part of the United States.

        Yes, it is uncomfortable for an unexamined Lefty like you to read them, because the list points out the stupidity and foolishness of what you believe, but your lack of comfort does not make them untrue.

        It is not our fault that you blindly adhere to an emotion-based allegiance to a political system you don’t understand, primarily because it validates your pathological need to hate. It is not our fault that you are incapable of describing and defining a political system you find better than the Constitutional model of government for the United States, yet attack those who can and do describe and defend the Constitutional model.

        Yes this list does point out the foolish yet inevitable outcome of allegiance to the Left. Too bad.’

        Don Quixote was brought down by seeing himself as others saw him, destroying his illusions of who he was and what he was doing. You may be suffering the first signs of a similar experience, and finding it unpleasant.

      • bozo September 13, 2012 / 9:14 am

        It won’t help. It’s just a game of whack-a-lie, and your guys are faster at the telling than any mortal can be at the whacking. But here goes nothing:

        1. OWS isn’t attending $35K pol fundraisers, but conflating the two is chuckle-worthy. If you have links, please share, but Obozo appealing to the better angels of this nation’s rich to pitch in and help out isn’t “talking about the greed” – unless you are admitting the rich are greedy and not persuadable.

        2. 87% of those stopped by the NYPD “stop and frisk” in 2011 were black or latino. Last time I checked, NYC was not 87% minorities. Nobody is stopping whites in Arizona as potential illegals. Nobody is profiling whites as terrorists even though OKC was blown up by one, and Waco was burned down by one.

        3. The two people most responsible for our tax code: Geithner and Rangel. Yeah. Ok. Sure. A couple centuries of House, Senate, Executive and SCOTUS tax code wrangling was overridden by these two…somehow. You see the soft lie? No, you don’t.

        4. Conflating terrorist and Muslim again, as if one equals the other. Google OKC Murrah.

        5. Links to “magical” immigrant discussions, please. Quotes implies, you know, quotes. Or do you mean to imply that serving in the U.S. military is somehow “magical”?

        6. Really? Clinton, the ONLY guy who actually balanced the budget, is an “extremist”? Obama is an “extremist” because he follows the letter of the Constitution, otherwise your guys would have begun impeachment hearings years ago. Issa must be a total wussy in your eyes. PPACA is the very definition of “constitutional” – stuff gets passed by the congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the SCOTUS. Just because YOU don’t like it doesn’t make it “unconstitutional.”

        7. Why a driver’s license to vote? Would a voter registration card entitle you to drive? Soft, stupid lie.

        8. Uh, what? Oil in general vs. one single oil company vs. tennis shoes? Those hard core right wingers at MSNBC give some context to this false-equivalence, bizarre notion of gouging if you feel like Googling “msnbc oil price gouging”. Defending big oil is soooo funny ’cause it’s so necessary, poor babies.

        9. “Nearly enough money” for what? The biggest military on earth by a factor of 16? Keeping granny and the babies from death by malnutrition or diarrhea? Keeping sewage from polluting groundwater? Collect “from the people” – marginal income taxes on average workers – and the USA is one of the more tax-friendly countries in the civilized world. How does this fiction of super high taxes stay alive? Ours are at lifetime lows. Oh sure, they’re gonna skyrocket…any day now. But tax as a percent of GDP puts the U.S. at # 17, nowhere NEAR “the most.”

        10. Who are “the rich people” who pay 86%, and why is that specific number of “rich people” singled out by poor people? It must be based on some stat somewhere, but it’s meaningless out of context. However, is it “fair” if the top 10% pays 71% of income taxes while controlling 83% of the wealth? How much income tax should people who have no income pay? And where does this block of “people who don’t pay taxes” complain about those who do? When you say “people” do you mean all people, or some people at your local diner?

        Soft lies. But all just soooooo funny!!!

    • Amazona September 13, 2012 / 10:46 am

      1. No one mentioned OWS and it is dishonest to claim OWS is the only group to whine about “greed”. The statement stands as true.

      2. The United States offers equal opportunity but does not guarantee that people will all act the same. It is a hard cold fact that most crime in the United States is committed by minorities, and if you insist that only minorities get ACCUSED of crime, look at the black on black crime rate.

      “Nobody is stopping whites in Arizona as potential illegals.”

      Nobody of color is being stopped in Arizona as a potential illegal, either.

      ” Nobody is profiling whites as terrorists even though OKC was blown up by one and Waco was burned down by one.” Well, Janet Napolitano has profiled returning veterans as potential terrorists, not suggesting that white veterans be eliminated from this list, and Janet Reno is the one who burned down the compound at Waco, not the town, as you state, so it is true that no one has profiled stocky white lesbians as terrorists.

      The statement stands.

      3. Tax code TODAY. The statement stands.

      4. No, and here YOU lie to try to make a point. The statement is quite clear——it refers to terrorists who kill in the name of Allah, and does not say, hint or imply that all terrorists do so. The statement stands. But you lie.

      5. While you nitpick at the use of the word “magical” you cannot deny that citizenship for illegals has been a goal of many Liberals, no matter what a slap in the face this is to those who have followed the rules, and paid the substantial price. You may quibble over the word but not the intent. The statement stands with a change of the word “magical”.

      6. Your entire argument for # 6 is bogus, starting with the claim that CLINTON balanced the budget and not the Republican House, going on into fantasyland about Obama following the Constitution, and misstating the Supreme Court ruling as upholding the entire PPCPA as constitutional. The statement stands but your argument is a lie.

      7. “Why a driver’s license to vote? Would a voter registration card entitle you to drive?” Now you’re just being stupid. A driver’s license does not entitle you to vote, you moron. It merely affirms that you are who you say you are. You can have a driver’s license and not be allowed to vote, for several reasons, the most important of which is that you are not a citizen. If you object to a requirement to provide a government-issued photo ID to vote, say so, and don’t invent this kind of utterly foolish pseudo-argument.

      The statement stands

      8. Here you can’t even pretend to address the actual content of the statement, but have to wander off into the Silly Weeds. It is a fact that the profit ratio is smaller for oil companies than with many companies much in favor with the RRL, including Nike and Apple, yet oil is a favorite target of the Left and therefore demonized, even when it is stupidly demonized, as you did.

      The statement stands.

      9. If you are arguing that tax revenue should only be spent on “Keeping granny and the babies from death by malnutrition or diarrhea and keeping sewage from polluting groundwater” and such, and that it should not be spent on entitlements, please do so more coherently. If you are agreeing that these are not enumerated duties of the federal government, and therefore prohibited to the federal government by the 10th Amendment, you are on the right track, but again, too overwrought with shrill hysteria to make a very good point.

      The statement stands—you just don’t like it.

      10. Oooooh….stepped on your toes here, didn’t we? And, again, spun you off into Sillyville. “is it “fair” if the top 10% pays 71% of income taxes while controlling 83% of the wealth?” What is your rationale for trying to connect the two? It would make far more sense to say “is it “fair” if the top 10% pays 71% of income taxes while using 83% of the resources of the nation?” The whine about how much wealth is controlled by these people is pure class envy and resentment, and any effort to make it sound more noble is just BS.

      This money you snivel about being “controlled” is part of the nation’s economy. It is what funds expansion and operation of business, through investment. It is what builds companies, which is another way of saying creates jobs. It is what buys products built by people who get paid to build them. It is what makes loans to people so THEY can build businesses and create jobs. It is what pays consumption taxes as well as income taxes. Strip this “83% of the wealth” away and you have a nation in complete collapse.

      What would you do with this wealth? Distribute it to those who do not share in it? How? By what formula? And by what calculation would you decide how much to take from those who earned it and how much to give to those who did not?

      If you are curious to see how this kind of experiment works out (and I am sure you are not, preferring just to howl the Leftist mantras without any actual information rattling around in your head) check out what happened in Peru when, in the name of Agrarian Reform, the wealth of the rich was seized and distributed to the poor. Do read up on it—-it is a fascinating study of a half-baked idea resulting in misery and famine and the near destruction of a country.

      ” (W)here does this block of “people who don’t pay taxes” complain about those who do?” Here, in mobs and street rabble, on CNN, on MSNBC, in protests, etc.

      The statement stands. With the exception of the word “magical” there is not one single thing that is not factual and true. The only lies are in your overwrought effort to put a radical Leftist spin on it, and that didn’t work, lies and hysteria notwithstanding.

      But it was a bravura exit from the closet of “moderate” and a coming out of a true radical.

  9. bardolf September 12, 2012 / 12:56 pm

    “Romney blew it and revealed how seriously maladroit he is when it comes to foreign affairs and national security,” said Steve Clemons, the founder of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. “An attack on an Embassy, the murder of U.S. officials including an Ambassador, is an attack on all Americans and the idea of America — and Romney gave terrorists what they want — a divided country still torn emotionally and politically by the events of 9-11. Romney talks of leadership but with his reckless commentary when events were fragile and still unfolding, he belly-flopped.”

    THESE ARE THE GENIUSES WE HAVE.

    As GMB would say, time to catch fishes and bake pies and hope in 2016 the GOP can put up a winner. To think people on this blog had problems with Ron Paul’s foreign policy.

    • neocon1 September 12, 2012 / 1:10 pm

      when the POS was OWOL and his administration was kneepadding islam on yet ANOTHER 9-11 ATTACK on US SOIL Mitt stepped up and stood apart from the marxist muslim kenyan and showed us what REAL LEADERSHIP is all about.

      REMEMBER REAGAN? the hostages? and jimmah begging on his knees?

      REAGAN….. ” I WILL use the ***FULL MIGHT*** of Americas armed forces to FREE our men and women MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!………Helloooooooo !!

      • bardolf September 12, 2012 / 3:21 pm

        Neoconehead

        Romney didn’t step up, he stepped in sh*t. He may have just cost himself the election with his faux leadership. The man has 3 get out of Vietnam passes on his foreign policy resume, he should just STFU when he knows almost nothing.

        RR is a complete different story.

        (1) He never questioned Carter’s loyalty, only his competence. That’s a thing the swing voters can buy.

        (2) When it was time to pack up Beirut he packed up. Nothing good about watching Americans be uselessly butchered.

        Romney should say we just GTFO of these places and leave them to fight among themselves because North America is going to be energy independent.

      • Cluster September 12, 2012 / 3:27 pm

        …he should just STFU when he knows almost nothing. – barstool

        You should take your own advice.

        Romney is the only one articulating the “right” American position. Obama is still sending mixed messages and not answering questions. This is a time for REAL leadership, and that is not Obama. Just FYI

      • neocon1 September 12, 2012 / 6:32 pm

        baldork

        One AMERICAN with military deferments for school and family

        One a kenyan born, indonesia raised, FOREIGN student whose feet never landed on the US mainland until he was 18yo.
        THEN he hung with dopers, commies, mooslems, mobsters, racists, and terrorists.
        glad to see where your “patriotism” lies.
        Tells a lot about you baldork, no wonder you are a government paid drone.

      • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 6:55 pm

        “…..3 get out of Vietnam passes on his foreign policy resume,…”

        Oh, dolf, you moron. You toyed with rationality for a post or two but evidently the strain was too much for you, and your Inner Snot just had to bust out.

      • bardolf September 12, 2012 / 11:33 pm

        Amy

        You class A idiot. The election won’t be decided by your vote alone no matter how important you think of yourself. Mitt has ZERO foreign policy experience and should have a team of advisors telling him exactly what the GOP wonks have said.

        Maybe you liked Clint Eastwood at the convention, but it was bizarre. Maybe you like candidates to shoot their mouths off and then find out facts later. That’s not what the public likes.

        The ONLY story Romney has to sell the public is that he is a steady headed businessman. He can’t afford to blow that role if he is going to win. Why is that so hard for you to get through you numbskull?

      • Amazona September 13, 2012 / 10:57 am

        dolf, darlin’, take a breath, take a pill, get a grip. This shrill hysteria can’t be good for you. A hankie with some lavender, a cool compress on that overheated forehead, you really need to figure out how to handle these surges of raw emotion.

    • neocon1 September 12, 2012 / 1:10 pm

      baldork

      WE ARE A DIVIDED COUNTRY
      get used to it!!

      • bardolf September 12, 2012 / 11:34 pm

        Don’t believe it.

    • irisspirit September 12, 2012 / 3:45 pm

      Romney is an opportunist. He has no idea how to handle foreign policy. What a huge blunder from him and Prebius.

      • Cluster September 12, 2012 / 3:53 pm

        Obama doesn’t show up to his PDB’s, doesn’t have time to meet with Netanyahu, but schedules an appearance at a JayZ and Beyonce fundraiser, and ROMNEY DOESN’T KNOW HOW TO HANDEL FOREIGN POLICY!!!

        That’s hilarious. Look sweety, you should follow barstool’s advice.

      • irisspirit September 12, 2012 / 4:13 pm

        Exactly what does foreign policy have to do with fund raising? Bibi wants a war and wants the US to fight it for Israel. If they are big enough to start it then they need to fight their own wars. Where was Israel while our troops were fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq? Did Israel every send ton soldier to help the American military? We owe the Israeli what and for what reason?????????

      • Cluster September 12, 2012 / 4:41 pm

        Sweety,

        Stick to what you know.

      • Amazona September 12, 2012 / 6:53 pm

        Funny of the day—-ROMNEY has no idea how to handle foreign policy!

        Well, he is not campaigning for the United States presidency in Europe, angling for a speaking venue at the Brandenburg Gate, he is not bowing deeply to foreign leaders, and he and his wife are not pawing the Queen of England. So far I’d say he is far ahead on points.

        He hasn’t been photographed hugging and grinning with Chavez, he hasn’t aligned himself with the Muslim Brotherhood, and he hasn’t snubbed our two oldest allies, the UK and Israel.

  10. Cluster September 12, 2012 / 1:39 pm

    Bozo,

    As Amazona adroitly pointed out, in that email, you are seeing in print what leftism really is. Kind of stings doesn’t it?

    Barstool,

    Romney is the only one being presidential in this current incident. Obama has conflicting statements, one from the Egyptian Embassy, which was disavowed, then reaffirmed by his own domestic spokesperson. Obama doesn’t know what in the hell to do.

    In a very concise, articulate and poignant statement, Romney brilliantly conveyed America’s position.

    • bardolf September 12, 2012 / 3:25 pm

      Clueless

      I’m not quoting lefty foreign policy wonks. I’m quoting GOP foreign policy wonks. Romney looked like a moron trying to gain political advantage from a tragedy. His team just the day before said foreign policy was ‘a shiny thing’.

      Romney will pay a big price for his smugness over the next few days just watch.

      • Cluster September 12, 2012 / 3:33 pm

        barstool,

        Please take your own advice and just STFU when you don’t know what you are talking about. Romney has been concise, articulate and spot on when speaking of this joke as a President. He is also taking questions, which is a hell of lot more than The Amateur in Chief is doing right now. Romney laid out a three point foreign policy plan that is unambiguous, principled and in keeping with this great country. That is already more than the POS Obama has ever done.

        And chance you will take your own advice?

      • Cluster September 12, 2012 / 3:38 pm

        Hey barstool,

        Since you’re such a genius – maybe you can tell us all how this revelation will bolster Obama’s reelection chances:

        According to the White House calendar, there is no public record of President Barack Obama attending his daily intelligence briefing–known as the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB)–in the week leading up to the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the murder of U.S. Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American members of his staff:

        Obama doesn’t even show up to his foreign affairs briefings. Any comment from the genius known as barstool?

      • neocon1 September 12, 2012 / 5:47 pm

        baldork

        this was NOT a tragedy….this was an ACT of WAR.
        the real tragedy is in the wh

  11. Cluster September 12, 2012 / 2:24 pm

    First there is this:

    The Pew Research Center and Rasmussen Reports were the most accurate in predicting the results of the 2008 election, according to a new analysis by Fordham University political scientist Costas Panagopoulos.

    The Fordham analysis ranks 23 survey research organizations on their final, national pre-election polls, as reported on pollster.com.

    On average, the polls slightly overestimated Obama’s strength. The final polls showed the Democratic ahead by an average of 7.52 percentage points — 1.37 percentage points above his current 6.15-point popular vote lead. Seventeen of the 23 surveys overstated Obama’s final victory level, while four underestimated it. Only two — Rasmussen and Pew — were spot on.

    Here is the list –

    1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**

    1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**

    3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)

    4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)

    5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*

    6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*

    6T. ARG (10/25-27)*

    8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)

    8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)

    10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)

    11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)

    12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)

    13. FOX (11/1-2)

    14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)

    15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)

    16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)

    17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)

    18. Marist College (11/3)

    19. CBS (10/31-11/2)

    20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)

    21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)

    22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)

    23. Newsweek (10/22-23)

  12. Cluster September 12, 2012 / 2:25 pm

    Then there is this:

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows President Obama attracting support from 46% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns 45% of the vote. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

    Any questions Bob?

  13. tiredoflibbs September 12, 2012 / 2:45 pm

    Sorry Coulter, the convention bounce has ended.

    My condolences.

  14. J. R. Babcock September 12, 2012 / 3:34 pm

    Just ran across one of the best quotes in recent years:

    “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America ‘s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, “the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

    • tiredoflibbs September 12, 2012 / 3:38 pm

      Yes, obAMATEUR also called it irresponsible and unpatriotic.

      So, by his own words, he validated himself as being irresponsible and unpatriotic.

      But we already knew that in more ways than one.

      • neocon1 September 12, 2012 / 3:50 pm

        Neither this president, nor his sycophants in the media will call the events in Libya and Egypt what they were – acts of terrorism. No, these “people” are not angry mobs, nor are they protestors… they are terrorists. All the whitewashing in the world by Zero and his merry band of Mediates can’t change this fact.

        Of course, the dishonest media is more focused on the film that allegedly caused the terrorism than it is focused on these terrorists. This is an outrage. There is no proportion between the alleged catalyst and the terrorist response.

        Finally, equally abhorrent, is the attempt to politicize Romney’s on-point criticism of this administration’s policy of appeasement. Shame on them!

        US Embassies and personnel are attacked and killed on 9/11, and Obama bows again.

        So, yes, terrorists… you are certainly better off than you were four years ago.

        http://redsideoflife.blogspot.com/2012/09/terrorists-better-off-today-than-they.html

  15. Cluster September 12, 2012 / 3:44 pm

    And now we learn that the Egypt and Libya attacks were most likely coordinated. Furthermore, the chanting in the crowd was – “Hey Obama, we are all Osama’s” – most likely meaning that this a coordinated revenge attack for the killing of Osama Bin Laden which Biden, Obama and the Democrats constantly brag about.

    Maybe Obama should show up for a PDB every now and then. What say you barstool?

  16. neocon1 September 12, 2012 / 5:45 pm

    kolon bob

    1 = evil
    1 = Good Christian
    thanks for telling us that you are on the side of the anti God party, and an islamic apologist.

    • Kolob Bob September 12, 2012 / 7:18 pm

      You have been warned that religious bigotry will get you deleted and put in the spam file. So long. //Moderator

  17. Cluster September 12, 2012 / 5:52 pm

    …. as long as I remember

    Which was yesterday, right?

  18. Amazona September 12, 2012 / 6:48 pm

    Why should Obama get a pass just because it was 9/11?

    What did HE do to earn some kind of special dispensation from acknowledgment of his impotence and ineptness just because of the date?

Comments are closed.