« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Obama: ‘We tried our plan and it worked’ – ‘You would think they’d be saying Thank You!’

By: Jeff Emanuel (Diary)  |  July 26th, 2012 at 07:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

President Obama’s latest clarification-inducing comment came Wednesday, and it’s eyebrow-raising to say the least. Speaking on employment and the economy, the silver-tongued president declared, “Just like we’ve tried [the Republicans'] plan, we’ve tried our plan, and it worked. That’s the difference.”

Moe, who has graphically shown the fallacy of Obama’s “it worked” claim, summed up his rebuttal by declaring that “the only way that you can possibly justify suggesting that Obama’s economic program ‘worked’ is if you define ‘not working’ as ‘the country is now on fire’.”

Given this obvious state of affairs, Democrats, media, and apologists (but I repeat myself) have once again entered full-on spin-and-clarification mode, claiming (yet again) that their skilled orator and effective communicator in chief has been taken out of context, and that he was actually referring to something else, like the economic policies of President Clinton and his Republican Congress. Of course, a look at the transcript – combined with Obama’s penchant for taking credit for policy successes where (to put it charitably) none is due, makes this claim unlikely at best.

Being out of touch and making outlandish claims about his own policies’ effectiveness is nothing new for Obama, of course. We all recall “the private sector is doing fine” and if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it.” Further, the condescending, exasperated tone he strikes with the “it worked” comment is similar to his 2010 comments about tax day rallies, in which he said, “I’ve been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been havin’ these rallies about ‘taxes,’ ‘taxes,’” and famously declared, “you would think they would be saying ‘Thank You!’”

Jim Geraghty called the president’s bluff as well, writing:

Forty-one straight months of unemployment above 8 percent,  8.2 million people working part-time who want full-time work, a record 88 million Americans not in the labor force, 1.9 percent GDP growth in the past quarter, more bad GDP numbers expected tomorrow, a stagnant housing market, $5 trillion in new debt, the downgrading of the U.S. credit rating,  38 percent of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, 45 million Americans on food stamps, food prices continuing to increase dramatically, the poverty level likely to rise to the highest level in nearly fifty years…

and this means the plan “worked”?!?

Perhaps the president really thinks his “plan” – trillions in new debt, almost-double-digit unemployment, massive new taxes, and hundreds of billions trillions in wasted “stimulus” dollars Renminbi – “worked.” Perhaps he just thinks repeating ridiculous things will fool the commoners into voting for him.

Perhaps, in the end, he just needs to go. Maybe as a parting gift, he can take an iPod pre-loaded with his own speeches to watch. After all, he’s already demonstrated a belief that that’s a gift fit for royalty.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Finrod

    .. is if the plan was to destroy the economy.

    • DerKrieger

      As Rush says, this economic destruction is intentional so in Obama’s opinion his plans HAVE worked. Too well.

      If he sought to increase government dependence, his plan has worked.

      If he sought to increase government power, his plan has worked.

      If he sought to crush private industry, his plan has worked,

      If he sought to choke off fossil fuel development, his plan has worked.

      Depending on the definition of “working” Obama can claim to have been a success.

      I don’t believe for a minute that his goal has ever to increase private sector employment. We can’t judge Obama’s claims by OUR standards. In his mind he’s not lying.

      • stevenf

        The plan DID work, the goals were (are?) just not the ones we want.

      • vespo

        The silver tongued Sheik Obama’s economic plan has worked. Create more Americans dependent upon government programs – Yep, worked well.
        Create more government jobs, while handcuffing the Private Sector – Yep, is working well
        Dismantle Capitalism – Yep, going as planned
        Attacking Free Enterprise – Yep, “You didn’t build that by yourself”
        Disrespect and disregard for the U.S. Constitution – Yep, working like a charm. Working so well that even those in Congress are not holding him accountable for violating oh say Article 2 Section 2.2 and Article VI Section 2

        Implementation of International Law to supplant the U.S. Constition – Yep, doing a great job
        Eroding the First Amendment, limiting Free Speech, To Peaceably Assemble, Freedom of Religion and to Petition Government for a redress of grievances,
        Yep working very well.
        Funding Designated Terrorist Organizations like Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood – Yep, doing it under the guise of “rebuilding” and “Arab Spring”
        So Sheik Obama’s plan for America is working well and his double-entendre speak is working well to deceive the American people.

      • rodguy911

        Truth is I think most of this pap is devised by Axelrod eta all.The brains behind the prompter.When you have a presidency that has absolutely nothing going for it save taking credit for killing OBL when in actuality you had to be taken off the golf course to come watch the event,your administration is in big trouble.
        For the bent axel its a matter of loading the prompter, faxing the DNC, and e-mailing the press of what their next move/story should be about. “Tomorrow you guys will write about how it all worked.”Problem solved.

    • bcoley

      I do not get it – this unending addiction you folks who oppose President Obama have with taking his words out of context. I’ve been paying attention to politics for more than 40 years, and I can’t recall a campaign so dependent on contorting an opponent’s words.

      Within the last two weeks, the nation has suffered through a mud pit made soggy by claims that Obama said small business owners didn’t build their own businesses, even though IN CONTEXT, the President was clearly, inarguably, going to pity you if you believe otherwise, saying that what those small business owners didn’t build were parts of the economic system in which those businesses operate — things such as roads, bridges, and the Internet. His obvious-to-a-sixth-grader point was that in our economy no one goes it alone, we are interconnected…the same basic point Mitt Romney made to Olympians in Salt Lake City when he told them they didn’t achieve their success on their own — they owed part of their success to parents, coaches, and local communities which had built training facilities.

      The President’s point was almost unimaginably clear to anyone who listened to the 20 seconds before and the 20 seconds after the infamous “…you didn’t build that” line. BUT SOMEHOW YOU FOLKS MISSED IT!!!!

      And now you declare that Mr. Obama claims we’ve tried his economic plan and it worked, a laughable proposition given current data. AGGGGHHHHHH! Listen to the 30 seconds before that line and it is once again abundantly, excruciatingly obvious to anyone who passed fifth grade English that the “plan” the President says we tried was not his own, but rather Bill Clinton’s — the plan that raised the top tax bracket to 39%, balanced the federal deficit, and produced the budget surplus that the succeeding administration…didn’t exactly maintain as a surplus.

      IN CONTEXT, Obama’s point is blatantly obvious: We tried the Republican economic approach – in the George W. Bush years – and we tried the Democratic economic approach – in the Bill Clinton years. Our plan worked, theirs didn’t. BUT SOMEHOW YOU FOLKS MISSED IT!!!!

      I get it if you disagree with the President’s philosophy. Good. Fine. Have fun with that! But I don’t get this perpetual habit you have of completely distorting Obama’s words. I know it happens on our side, too (Romney saying “I like to fire people,” or John Sununu saying Obama needed to learn how to be an American) but you folks have made it a political science! Please, please, please explain to me how you can participate in such obvious rhetorical malfeasance,

      Thanks.

      • gekster

        Who has said something that isn’t true.

      • lineholder

        what President Obama meant when he said that he planned to “fundamentally transform” our country.

        Transform it into what?

        People didn’t ask that question very much at the time. It’s only been since that time, as we have seen the policy decisions that have been made and the impact that it has had economically on our entire society that his true meaning has been revealed.

        • bcoley

          …when you tell people “He said THIS!” when he clearly, obviously, irrefutably did not say that.

          Save other statements the President has made for other threads. For the moment the only issue is this : In its proper and accurate context, whose “plan” did President Obama refer to when he said “We tried ours and it worked”?

          • lineholder

            From his viewpoint, his plan of action that he has implemented, regardless of what background or source that plan may have come, is succeeding.

            That is what he meant when he said “we tried our plan and it worked”.

            Go back and look at the information in the shaded area of the article. Think about the information that is provided regarding our nation’s current economic status

            Now, ask yourself this question…what KIND of transformation is taking place?

            That’s the point. There’s a very specific kind of transformation that President Obama was referring to when he said that he intended to “fundamentally transform” our country.

            And as far as he is concerned, he is succeeding in it.

          • bcoley

            Economic statistics and interpretations of economic system transformation are irrelevant to the point I’m making. Those seem like useful components for your side…IN ANOTHER THREAD!!!!!

            You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll ask it again: In its proper and accurate context, whose ?plan? did President Obama refer to when he said ?We tried ours and it worked??

          • lineholder

            ,

          • bcoley

            Watch the video. Listen to the President’s reference to a “plan” in its full and accurate context. Since you don’t seem to be willing to refer to the speech in question, here’s is the relevant text:

            “I’m running because I believe you can’t reduce the deficit — which is a serious problem, we’ve got to deal with it — but we can’t reduce it without asking folks like me who have been incredibly blessed to give up the tax cuts that we’ve been getting for a decade.

            I’ll cut out government spending that’s not working, that we can’t afford, but I’m also going to ask anybody making over $250,000 a year to go back to the tax rates they were paying under Bill Clinton, back when our economy created 23 million new jobs, the biggest budget surplus in history, and everybody did well.

            Just like we’ve tried their plan, we tried our plan — and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.”

            One last try: In its proper and accurate context, whose ?plan? did President Obama refer to when he said ?We tried ours and it worked??

            [And if you insist on avoiding the text quoted above - the actual context of the remark at issue - then please quote, IN ACCURATE CONTEXT, portions of the same speech in which Obama made the point you claim he made. Such quotations will not be germane to the issue I originally raised, of course, but they will make it look as if we're talking about the same speech.]

          • aesthete

            Obama is running on Clinton’s record — a record which was characterized by a strong Republican Congress, at that? Incredible.

            RS is a partisan-affiliated site, so I won’t pretend that it’s a disinterested onlooker or that some pretty facile pro-R argumentation isn’t employed by the editors and in the comments section. That said, this is just embarrassing. Obama’s record is much closer to that of GWB’s on domestic issues than that of Clinton. Clinton’s one and only serious proposed attempt at stimulus in 1993 was relatively small, and was strangled in the crib by GOP Senators. Obama in contrast has passed a failed stimulus bill and is hungry for more. (Bush also passed various smaller stimulus bills, as well.) Clinton signed bills on welfare reform, deregulatory legislation, and a fair number of big-ticket items which were supported and well-received by conservatives. Obama has been loathe to work with conservatives or Republicans on much of anything at all, and certainly hasn’t passed anything approaching economic liberalization of any part of the economy. Clinton promoted markets abroad — Obama supported greater centralization abroad.

            In short, their records in office are very different and it’s ludicrous for Obama to run on someone else’s record. Bush couldn’t run on Reagan’s record for his second term, and Obama can’t do the same for a popular Dem politician. Given all of that, however, I would happily accept Clinton-era tax breaks in exchange for Clinton-era size of government.

          • bcoley

            At least you’re willing to acknowledge the elephant in the room (play on words almost not intended!) Your reference to “pretty facile pro-R argumentation” suggests anemic concession to my one and only point: that the President’s words are being taken out of context. For that small mercy, I say thank you.

            I didn’t enter this fray to defend the performance of the economy over these first Obama years. For my purposes, that debate is for another thread (in which I’m sure we’d disagree). But in the context of the presidential remark at issue, I think it’s arguable that the “plan” Obama refers to is not Clinton’s eight year legislative agenda, but specifically the Clinton tax rate policy in which the top tax rate was 39%. Obama seems to say that rate produced good results – that rate worked. The Bush-era approach didn’t.

            You may vehemently disapprove of higher tax rates or any other Obama policy. It’s your forum. Have fun! I’m here only to criticize the practice of taking words out of context. It’s wrong when Dems do it. It’s wrong when you do it. It’s just plain wrong, and neither of us should tolerate it.

            If Obama is as bad and destructive a president as your side claims, then you shouldn’t need to distort his words. You ought to be able to go to any of his speeches and quote, IN FULL AND ACCURATE CONTEXT, words that prove the evil of his intentions. But you don’t do that. Instead, you contort and distort his words to such a degree that rather than our side defending a president, your side has to defend obviously political editing.

            Make your case. Protest all you want. Just quote the man correctly and in context.

          • aesthete

            If he were actually for a full restoration of the Clinton-era tax rates as a whole, that would be one thing. In point of fact he is conflating two very different positions: restoring *all* of the Clinton-era tax rates, and restoring the rate only for the top bracket while keeping in place the tax credits and middle class Bush-era deductions. There would have been no surplus if only the Clinton-era tax rates for the top bracket had been in place, and CBO estimates for the revenue which would be generated by restoring only the Clinton-era tax rates for the top bracket are under 10% of the current deficit. (Keep in mind that almost all CBO estimates on revenue have ranged from wildly optimistic to mildly optimistic, and that revenue collection during recession tends to be dampened.) If Obama is truly concerned about the deficit, he would be offering serious cuts. Instead, it’s all sophistry and magic tricks to conceal the fact that he wants to spend much more on his favored constituencies, while raising taxes on a constituency that doesn’t really matter to him (the upper middle class and noveau rich, none of which vote for him in large numbers).

            Thank you for alerting me to the full context; now I have a full understanding of just how utterly facile and pathetic the President’s argument is.

          • APA Guy

            You people live to deflect from this guy’s crappy record any time you can because you know and understand that focusing on the poor metrics of HIS economy (not Bush’s, OBAMA’S) spells D-O-O-M for him in November.

            But point of fact here, genius: No one is quoting “the man” out of context. He is saying precisely what he means when he opens his mouth and spews what is driving his numbers down. Conservatives aren’t obliged to run spin control for him; that;s what he has you morons for.

            By the way, you trolled here for Obama in 2008…disappeared for four years…now come back to troll for him again. How is it you are allowed by Mods to continue this garbage again?

          • Jack_Savage

            Obama is like the yogi sitting cross-legged on the mountain, and when his followers descend and are asked what life-chaning words he imparted, they all mutter, “Well, he SEEMED to say…”. Congratulations on your descent from the mountain, but sorry for the task you have now.

            Your argument is that Obama is so utterly pathetic that he is running AS an ex-President (Clinton) AGAINST another ex-President (Bush). He is so completely incompetent that even if were aware of his surroundings, there is not a nugget of any coherent policy that he can point to that is central to the mythical economic progress he is flogging.

            He can’t seem to put two sentences together, and it’s only July. That water you’re carrying is sure gonna get heavy.

          • aesthete

            Threadwinner.

          • jmartin70

            ……The problem is, President Obama isn’t presiding as president during the 90′s, is he? Clinton was working {imagine that, working, while not involved with… anyway…} with a Republican-controlled Congress, with low unemployment, a smaller debt load, the dot.com-led economic boom, and welfare reform signed by him but spearheaded by Republicans which forced people to actually look for……. oh, I don’t know……. WORK.
            If the current president thinks that the “tax rates” of that time were the silver bullet that raised all that wonderful money, when he has made SO many conscious decisions through his policies and his administration’s willful plan to systematically discourage free enterprise, and that the Clinton tax rates ADDED to that will work again………he is having another dream, perhaps a dream of his father…
            Tax rates won’t do the trick. Economic freedom will. Smaller government will. Less class warfare will.

            Soooo……. if the President thinks Clinton’s plan will work, right now, he’s flat out wrong…….
            If the President thinks his own plan is working, right now, he’s wrong….
            If his plan is different than what would be good for the economy, as others have speculated…….well, then you might say it worked……

            Hope this helps put the President’s words in context, whichever of those three contexts he meant.

          • darl444

            If Obama thinks the Clinton’s tax rates were so good for the economy, then perhaps he should repeal all the Bush tax cuts. Repealing the tax cuts on those making over $200,000 is more symbolic so he can say: “I taxed the rich”, It’s all part of his class warfare rhetoric. His plan will do little to nothing to reduce the deficit, and he’ll probably just increase spending to consume the extra taxation. Repeal all or none of the Bush tax cut. We are all Americans and should be treated the same. Why should any one group of citizens be punished for Government mismanagement. All should be blamed and punished equally, or not at all.

            If Obama and his comrades feel they should be taxed more, then we should just let them donate it to government, or some charity that will make more efficient use of those dollars than government ever can.

          • APA Guy

            And regarding his plan, we are, of course, referring to the so-called “stimulus” that created virtually no jobs, yet wasted hundreds of billions of dollars. We’re also talking about massive debt – almost 6 trillion worth – added to the country’s burdens…also resulting in virtually no job growth.

            Finally, we’re talking about Obama’s disaster health care law and its record tax increases on the working class should they opt not to pay 4 times the tax amount and buy health insurance they don’t want or need.

            Does that answer your question, lefty troll?

          • Common_Cents

            nt

      • PowerToThePeople

        and so full of sh*t you are stinking up the place. No one is buying your BS here or in this country. I wish I could see your face when your “jesus” is fired in just a few more months.

        Bet you scream racism then. Who wants to take that bet?

        • bcoley

          I originally posted to call you folks out on your practice of taking the President’s words out of context. In so doing, I asked a simple question to which no one has provided an answer grounded in the speech at issue.

          Your reply to me suggests that you’re a person of significant political sophistication. Please help me out by responding directly to this: In its proper and accurate context, whose ?plan? did President Obama refer to when he said ?We tried ours and it worked?? (If you need the context, see the manuscript quoted previously)

          Thanks.

          • ohiohistorian

            that we take him out of context.

            For example, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia

            If this is a “misquote”, or “taken out of context”, then why did he spend about 3 minutes amplifying his misquote. You cannot read the transcript and come away with that opinion if you are a rational human being. I have read it several times, and I get madder every time I read it. You guys told us he was the great communicator. To make a 3 minute, CONSISTENT statement and to try to tell us we misquote is unbelievable.

            He not only said “we tried our plan and it worked”, he then continued to talk about how he has built such wealth of people taking vacations, etc. To call this a misquote is also strange, as this seems to be what this President believes he has done.

          • PowerToThePeople

            and do not debate you POS. I also do not like liars, have no use for liars. and do not debate POS liars. So since you fit both catagories, sorry bub, I have nothing for you.

            Since you question has been answered, not sure why you keep asking.

            Now crawl off into the pile of sh*t from whence you came, you are not wanted here.

        • rayrmelc123

          Every time Obama says something stupid the Democrats line up to spin it .If they would work as hard to try to find a job, we night have something.

      • 6eorge Jetson

        The level of taxation caused the Great Recession? Seriously?

        There was this thing called the housing bubble out there that popped, having somewhat less-than-helpful consequences. A housing bubble that Democrats did everything in their power to inflate.

        Oh, and if you recall, Clinton was the beneficiary of the inflation period of the tech bubble. Granted, that bubble was one of many private actors making. But any “surplus” was gone when in popped in 2000.

      • darl444

        His tone of voice and body language are key to understanding the “you didn’t build that” comment. Just listen to how condescending his tone is regarding any one that takes credit for building a business. Let’s make it clear, all the roads and streets a government builds would go to waste if it were not for people willing to take the risks to build a business. Obama’s condescending tone, motions, and words, certainly downplayed the hard work it takes to build a business. The government/business relationship is a two-way street, but Obama’s tone throughout the speech implied it is one-way street…a business owner?s success is totally dependent on the Government.

        When a developer builds a new subdivision, the developer is usually the one that put in the streets, water, sewer, and other utilities, and only after it is complete does the city take over the maintenance.

        Actually, Government success is more dependent on the success of the individuals. Government could give education to everyone all the way through college, but if there is not initiative by the individual, it would all be for not.

        Sure there is a lot of smart people and a ?few? hard workers in government, but their salaries are paid for by the taxes the business owners and citizens pay. So in reality, it is the public that is paying for government, not government paying for business. While government needs to get compensated for what is does, it should not be doing more than what is needed. Limited and efficient government is the objective, not outrageously expansive and expensive government.

        Without the people there is no need for government, so Obama needs to take the back seat, and stop thinking the world revolves around him, and his ideas of government.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        You didn’t build that is just political codespeak. It’s euphemism. What he and Quotahontas Warren really mean to say is that “You don’t legitimately own that.” There. Fixed it. I hope you’re satisfied.

      • tnfriendofcoal101368

        We tried our plan after Carter tried your plan and ours worked.

        It is a RIDICULOUS argument that the President meant the plan in the Clinton era…he tried his plan and it led to the largest increase in poverty in US history, the largest number of people on food stamps in US history, nearly 6 million people out of work for longer than 6 months, the largest expansion of Social Security disability in US history, a real unemployment rate of 15-20%. Now, you and your Democratic liberal buddies say we should continue down this path that has brought so much pain. I have only one question:

        Have you no common decency left?

        • APA Guy

          CNBC: U.S. economic growth slowed less than expected in the second quarter

          When “good” economic news is that the economy didn’t slow as much as expected, you are in for a heaping helping of defeat in a presidential election year.

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            Today on the White House blog, not only were “the private sector is doing fine”, “you didn’t build that” and “our plan – it worked” not taken out of context; The President and his economic advisors are doubling down.

      • utahdrifter

        Come on man–you have got to be smarter than this. The country is in ruins.
        Employment is over 8% for 40 months and this is a good thing?? People on food stamps has increased how much and his is a good thing???
        Government shuts down kids lemonade stands to crush incentive and this is a good thing??
        Do you even have a job? count yourself lucky! If you do not then you are part of the problem!
        I would have to think that your IQ and the room temperature in an igloo must match.
        Drifter

      • belcatar

        The whole argument, either way, depends on the meaning of the “our” in “our plan”. If the President is referring to 1996, as you seem to claim, then the President is associating himself with one of two organizations: Congress, or the Republican Party.

        If “our” plan was Congress’s plan, then the President has no business associating himself with it, because he was a newly elected state senator at the time. At that time, Congress was under the control of the Republican Party, so if it’s the Republicans the President is referring to, he has no affiliation with them, either.

        It might be difficult for Obama-basking lickspittles to understand, but there are actually three separate, equal branches of the Federal Government. Congress is supposed to be responsible for raising and spending money, although they seem to have abdicated their responsibility in recent years when it comes to producing a budget. If the President was talking about the Executive Branch, he is again associating himself with an organization he had no part in. Adding himself into the Clinton White house is similar to rabid sports fans who talk about their teams as if they were in uniform as well. Something like “Yeah, We played the Denver Broncos on Sunday. Our defense was pretty good, but we didn’t do a good job moving the ball. Also, those turnovers cost us a touchdown.”

        Obama wasn’t associated with any of the groups making the decisions happening at the federal level during that time. So either he’s talking about his OWN vomit pile of a “plan”, or he’s taking credit for someone else’s work.

      • rosegrower

        Except for the Obama supporters who continually try to shore up this epic failure with lame excuses. Now to your points:

        The next few lines of the “You didn’t build that” speech included, “You might think, ‘Hey, I got here because I’m smart,’ well let me tell you, there are a lot of smart people out there. Or you might say, “I have this because of all my hard work,” well, there are a lot of hard working people out here.” It’s very clear from those statements that Obama is saying that business owners don’t deserve what they have – as long as there are other “smart” or “hard-working” people who haven’t achieved as much.

        Second, the Bush policies – and the Reagan policies – did work. G W Bush had two small incidents occur during his administration that created economic chaos – the attacks of 9/11, which decimated the heart of the financial sector and flattened the travel industry, and Hurricane Katrina. However, by 2007, the marketplace had recovered so well that the DOW had hit over 13,000 and employment was at 96%, which in a Democrat administration would be touted as “full employment.” During 2006, there were rumblings of corruption at Fannie Mae (reported widely in financial news but not by the mainstream media) and calls for investigations of Franklin Raines who was at the helm. One Barney Frank came out blustering that “there was nothing wrong” with Fannie Mae and defended Raines. By mid-2007, Raines resigned, shortly ahead of a full-blown investigation and potential criminal charges being levied against him. Fannie Mae, of course, was responsible for backing all of those bad loans that ultimately crashed the economy. BTW, Raines is Obama’s ECONOMIC ADVISOR!!!! If there is any doubt that Obama’s agenda is engineered toward wealth redistribution by collapsing the economy, this should put those doubts to rest.

        No one is distorting Obama’s words, nor are we trying to whitewash Obama’s ACTIONS; to me, these are more telling and more illustrative of his values and goals. Sorry, but you have no defense, unless you are also a marxist with a chip on your shoulder who thinks the producers of this country deserve what they are getting.

      • vespo

        This is the new mantra from the left, bemoan the fact that Obama’s words were “Taken out of Context”. That’s hogwash and you all know it. Your so enamored with this silver tongued devil that you are incapable of seeing him for what he is, but then again you must espouse those radical Anti-Capitalistic and Anti-Free Enterprise values.
        Sheik Obama clearly was taking a page out of the Newly Born Cherokee Indian Elizabeth Warren’s October 2011 Speech where she said: “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody”. Warren like Obama live out of a school book, a big government school book. They believe it’s government who is responsible for all roads, bridges, tunnels and jobs. Well it’s not! If it were not for taxpayers funding government, governments would not exist. There are plenty of cities and towns across America where the tax base has been eroded by businesses closing and people moving away. When that happens, governments cannot exist. Who is the government? It’s the taxpayer! Why do roads and schools exist in America? Because it’s the small businessman or large corporation who opens their business, attracts employment, which then demands services such as housing and enterprise. It’s business who sees that as an opportunity. Even when the evil Walmart opens a store, it attracts the small businessman/woman to maybe open a small restaurant or dentist/doctors office. As businesses thrive so does that community. As that community thrives it generates tax revenue for the local government and economy. That in turn should generate expendable income to build roads, bridges, employ services such as police, fire and medical.
        Sheik Obama’s words were not taken out of context. That campaign speech he gave in Roanoke VA two Friday’s ago, was an extention of Elizabeth Warren’s October 2011 speech where she said the same thing. There is no taking out of context what Sheik Obama stated, nor what he said to Joe the Plumber in 2008. He’s an Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Free Enterprise, Big Government Socialist! And he now has the record to prove it!

      • napresto

        Hi bcoley,

        A couple of points that, I hope, will address the criticism you level to your satisfaction. I’m going to address this under the standards which you set, namely, by closely reading the language of the quotes and their context.

        First, the economic “plan” being referred to… The isolated quote makes it appear as though Obama is referring to his own economic plans. Taken in context, I am willing to concede that he is actually referring to Clinton’s plan. This does you absolutely no good politically (in fact, reading the quote in context is worse), and I?ll show you why.

        Obama?s use of the word ?our? here is clever but disingenuous. It is an attempt to substitute Clinton?s economic record for Obama?s own. By saying that Clinton?s plan was ?our? plan (i.e. his own plan), Obama sets himself to take credit for it while also directing the conversation away from his own economic record. Yet Obama had nothing at all to do with Clinton?s economic record (he was a community organizer and state senator at the time). Simply being a democrat during the Clinton years is not enough, not when you are applying for the job of president. This isn?t some dorm room debate session pitting ?our? plan against ?their? plan; this is a presidential election between two real, actual men who must run on their own, real, actual records. The fact that Obama is attempting to claim credit for anything accomplished during the Clinton administration using the word ?our? is both a lie and a tacit admission that his own plans haven?t worked at all. So you must take your pick: do you prefer the out-of-context interpretation (Obama is out of touch) or the in-context one (Obama thinks his own record isn?t worth running on)?

        Now, about the more famous quote, ?if you have a business, you didn?t build that.? I am less willing to concede that Obama was not, in fact, referring to the businesses themselves. I haven?t listened to the audio, only read transcripts, so there may be some inflection (or not) that clarifies this. From the written transcripts, however, it isn?t as clear as you seem to think that the quote refers to infrastructure and not the businesses themselves. This is an irrelevant distinction; the quote plus context has essentially the same meaning as the quote alone.

        Let?s assume for the sake of argument that the quote is indeed referring to the bridges, highways, electrical systems, etc. that businesses ?didn?t build.? Obama?s own extended, fully contextualized clearly suggest that business owners owe something for the use of those public utilities. Yet, those businesses and businesspeople pay taxes, just like the rest of us; presumably, then, they are also entitled to use our national infrastructure, just like the rest of us. Why should Obama single them out as special? Why should he argue that they owe MORE than the rest of us?

        Here?s why: in Obama?s view, businesses are a collective (not individual) effort, ergo credit for business success belong to society. Businesses and business owners OWE society for their success, and that?s why they are expected to give extra back (speaking of tortured words, this is never phrased as businesses ?paying more;? it is always that the other ?98%? of us need a break). The problem with Obama?s quote is not that republicans are using it out of context. The problem is that either in- or out-of-context, the quote is expressing Obama?s collectivist ideology. Who cares whether you use the short version or the long version, when the message from either interpretation is exactly the same obnoxious (as well as unjust and economically illiterate) sentiment?

        Finally, let me address your larger point that both democrats and republicans like to take quotes out of context to cast their opponents in the worst light possible. Yes. You?re right. Welcome to politics.
        Okay, okay, since you phrased your own criticisms and questions respectfully and eloquently I?ll steer clear of flippant remarks myself. However, there?s a reason politicians and partisans do this, namely that politics is essentially advertising for an ideology, and most people (i.e. customers) can?t be bothered to read lengthy discussions of context, meaning, word parsing, and interpretation. This is sad but true, so just like selling a product, politicians and partisans seek ways to boil down their opponents? sentiments into simple, quick phrases that capture the essence of that person?s worldview. Instead of my 800 word essay dissecting two quotes (which, sadly, will go unread by many) you get, ?If you have a business, you didn?t build that.?

        Simple. Quick. Devastating. Accurate enough for political purposes. The world is a lousy and unfair place sometimes…

        • streiff

          nt

          • napresto

            nt

          • gekster

            I think I figured it out, maybe.

          • streiff

            good find with the video

        • morningintheglory
          Hi, napresto,

          My previous posts (via ?bcoley?) generated lots of feedback — much of it decorated with juvenile name calling and pedestrian political silliness. Easily the most provocative feedback I received from those posts was that I was kicked out of this site. I guess the keepers of the Grail here do not tolerate informed dissent.

          Always celebrate free speech…except on RedState.com.

          While many (but not all) of the responses to my posts do not deserve a reply, yours does, napresto. Since I’m pretty sure this user ID will be – what do you folks call it? – “dead” really soon, I’ve decided to make my one shot with this ID a reply to you.

          In two words, the headline of that reply is thank you. While I believe you incorrectly interpret both my point and the President’s tack, I respect and actually admire the cogency and thoughtfulness of your post. Were conservatives and liberals to engage each other as you did me, our political landscape would have a much brighter appearance.

          To the content of your post:

          You say your concession that, in context, Obama’s “our plan” remark indeed referred to the Clinton presidency does me no political good. As I said in several posts before the powers that be here banned me, the political ramifications of the reference were never at issue for me. Argue the politics all you want…in other threads. My ONLY point was that we should take remarks in full and proper context. When right wing partisans edit the Clinton reference out of the President?s remarks, then interpret the surviving ?We tried our plan and it worked? snippet as if the Clinton reference doesn?t exist, that?s not full and proper context; in fact, that?s willful rhetorical malfeasance. That was my only point. I wasn?t arguing the validity of Obama?s argument. I wasn?t nominating Clinton for Mt. Rushmore. In truth, I raised an issue of fifth grade English (proper context), not political analysis.

          Your observation that Obama is subtly using the Clinton record for political cover is astute – I think that, if not an overt tactic, such cover is certainly a result of the reference. In the context of the President’s speech, however, the most obvious purpose of the tie to Clinton is a defense of Obama?s policy contention that the top tax rate can rise without economic harm. You will disagree, I know, but Obama is clearly saying that the top rate should rise, and that we know from the Clinton era that it can be higher and still produce seasons of economic vitality.

          You say you haven’t listened to the audio of the “you didn’t build that” line. Thank you for the honesty. When you hear the voice inflection in context, I bet you will agree that he’s referring to infrastructure, et al. not to businesses.

          I disagree with your assertion that Obama was telling businesses they owe something for use of public utilities, if by that you mean they owe money in addition to society?s standard impositions such as taxes and fees. In context, the President was saying to business owners what Mitt Romney told Olympians in Salt Lake City in 2002: You didn’t succeed on your own. We are interconnected. Those UPS and FedEx trucks that will deliver your goods to customers are traveling on roads you didn’t build. The customers who purchased your goods online did so on an Internet you didn’t originate. Without those roads or that Internet you wouldn’t have the business you have today.

          Do businesses “owe” for their success? Yes. In our system, the more you succeed, the higher your potential profits. The higher your profits, the more taxes you pay. People with million dollar salaries ought to pay more in taxes than people with $30,000 salaries. Success does have its price. That’s not a bad thing. That’s our system.

          And finally, you seem to accept blatantly, intentionally distorted political speech as part of the game. To me, that’s cynical resignation. We can do better than that. We should demand better than that from our political representatives and their campaign operatives.

          When my side jumped on John Sununu’s Obama should “learn how to be an American” line ten days or so ago, I refused to join the fray because I knew in context Sununu had made a horrible choice of words to say something very different from questioning the President’s national loyalties. That wasn’t hard for me to do, even though I am as politically partisan as anyone. From reactions on this site, it appears that such concession to accuracy is hard for many RedState residents, perhaps particularly difficult for those who banned me.

          And I simply must ask you: RedState banned me, apparently for holding a dissenting view. I was not rude. I did not use profanity. I didn’t call anyone names Do you endorse that decision? Do you endorse as a practice RedState banning points of view too much different from the site?s accepted dogma? [FWIW, were you posting on a liberal blog, especially were your contributions of the civil and respectful character reflected in your response to me in this thread, I would howl in protest were you to be removed simply because you dissented.]

          Thanks for making your way through this. If you reply, don’t expect my response since I’m likely to be banned again real soon.

          Bill (bcoley)

          p.s. This post would have appeared sooner, but RedState imposes a waiting period between an account?s opening and its first post….. Waiting periods. Does RedState support such things when it comes to firearms? :)

          p.p.s. I was banned from the site for having unpopular opinions. Such a reaction is small-minded and parochial, but in the end, the Site?s right. It?s worthy of note, however, that below the input box for posts is a command to ?be respectful,? and not to use profanity. I wonder whether the welcome I received from RedState posters comported with those commands:

          Let?s see, they called me a ?lefty troll,? an ?Obama lickspittle,? and a ?POS.? In fact, ?sh*t? appeared more than once in posters? welcome: One told me I was full of it, while another requested that I ?crawl off into the pile of sh*t? from which I had come. Not to be shut out of this display of RedState hospitality, still another poster suggested my ?IQ and the room temperature in an igloo must match.?

          Respectful, profanity-free posts are required of RedStaters. I?m sure you’re all depressed now that so many of your colleagues have been banned for violating site policy…..Oh wait. I just checked. Those posters haven’t been banned yet. I’m sure it’s an oversight. Any moment now, I’m sure they’ll all be gone. (perhaps “nt” is the appropriate acronym)

          • APA Guy

            This is most definitely NOT the Hotel California, pal.

          • PowerToThePeople

            some of those insults were quite clever. Must have really hurt his feelings.

          • gekster

            You zombies are a riot.

            And from what I could tell of your posts, it was not informed descent.
            Try again.

          • morningintheglory

            I’m not familiar with what you call “informed descent.” Please define.

            Is that where, before you come down off a mountain peak, you read a book about the subject, or watch a movie to learn how to do it?

            I have to admit that most of my descents have been pretty much uninformed.

            My *dissents*, however, well, that’s another story! :)

          • gekster

            Last line of your first paragraph:
            “I guess the keepers of the Grail here do not tolerate informed dissent”.

          • PowerToThePeople

            we can sum you up with one word, loser. To take the time to come back to a place you were unwanted and banned just to cry like a little girl allows us to award you the loser of the year award.

            Congrats!

            PS You were banned for stupidity, not dissent.

          • conk

            You should use the TOR network/project to access to this site as well as all others. Download at
            https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy.html.en

            It is a Neal-free zone.
            Hi Neal!

          • APA Guy

            Thank you for identifying yourself, retread.

            Adios…

          • Bill S

            You see, we ban Tor users, and especially ones like you who advocate breaking site rules with it.

            Bye, sleaze bag.

          • Bill S

            .

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            You have violated the following posting rules (rules that by posting, you agreed to)

            ? 6. It is forbidden to promote or give any kind of support for parties other than the Republican party, or candidates running against Republican primary, caucus, and/or convention nominees. Exceptions to this rule are granted when announced prominently on the front page of the site.
            ? 12. Re-registration under a new username by a person who has been banned on a previous account, without permission from the site proprietors, is forbidden. Circumventions of site bans is not allowed.
            ? 13. The dissemination of talking points from the Democrat Party, or its politicians and allies, is not allowed.
            ? 14. It is forbidden to attempt to discredit or bring disharmony to the site, the Republican party, any of its candidates, or the conservative movement by pretending to be something one is not and posting maliciously. The practices known as ?concern trolling? or ?mobying? are included in this ban.

            You were banned for posting dishonestly in violation of the rules; you agreed to. If you want to post propaganda for the President, DKos is the website for you. We are not interested in debating the relative merits of Barack Obama’s Presidency; we know he is incompetent and we are dedicated to voting him out of office. If you are not; you are not welcome. Sorry, if that hurts your feelings.

          • APA Guy

            The Rembrandts are out in full force here on RedState tonight…that’s for sure :)

      • edintexas

        Before this month, it was last heard from in 2008. Ignore it and it will go away for 4 years again.

        • funwithknives

          and cannot figure out why 46 plus months of abstinence was not sufficient.

          Maybe he was lonely and no one will talk to him after initial exposure, and we all know Progressives are such an accepting lot.

          Looking at his posts and his ignoring of answered questions, here and now, it really obvious WHY no one talks to him :
          He’s pedantic, boring, and doesn’t use the gifts his Creator lavished on him.
          You can talk to a rock for a while, and eventually get tired and pitch it.

          Maybe he’s part cicada……they come in cycles, too

      • gwbramhall

        You may recall that during most of the Bush years things were rather
        rosie, low interest rates, low unemployment, low inflation. Towards
        the end the you know what hit the fan as the Democrats’ everybody
        deserves a home (whether they can afford it or not) and the banks
        must make these loans (whether they think they can be repaid or not)
        came home to roost (in the words of President Obama’s long time
        spiritual advisor.) The damage that was done by these Democrat
        policies represent the hole Obama thinks he’s digging us out of. The
        Bush administration was no study on conservative governance, but
        I’d take it gladly over the chaos of the Obama 1st (and hopefully last)
        term in office.

      • lionelpeach

        The basic thrust of the speech was to defend the role of govt. Period. It had that typical accusatory tone that pervades ALL of his speeches with regard those who are cynical about how much and how far he intends to INCREASE that role. That is the subtext and indeed the main text of his argument. But then to throw sand in our eyes he mentions roads and bridges. Well heck, no one regardless of their political stripe denies the importance of govt’s role in infrastructure. Where’s the argument there? Ain’t none. You see what I’m saying? It’s intellectually dishonest. A sixth grader may be fooled but not those paying attention (and believe me, we are paying attention). His modis operandi is of his own construction. WE are merely observant of it. And we will decide how much context matters (since we believe that he’s not honest in the first place.)

        The resources that allowed Bill Gate’s business to grow was Bill Gate’s sweat and determination, not the concrete that his garage was built upon. THAT is the main point, and Obama’s speech IMO was one of the more clueless and sophomoric speeches he’s ever given.

        • gekster

          kudos

        • morningintheglory
          You declare that in your interpretation of the President’s remarks, you (plural) will decide how much context matters . That’s rich.

          However, your hermeneutic gives me the right to report that you posted that “Bill Gates…is…one the more clueless and sophmoric (sic)…ever….” You DID write those words in that order. And it can’t possibly matter that I leave out a word or two here and there because, I DO get to decide how much context matters.

          Rich.

        • morningintheglory
          You and most others on this forum always want to make the political argument. I know that’s where the pride and passion are, but that’s not where I am.

          If you want to believe Obama argued for an expanded role for government, GREAT! I don’t care. The philosophy and validity of his speech’s ambitions are irrelevant to the rudimentary, elementary school notion of the objective *context* of his “you didn’t build that” remark.

          Have you no sense of the basics of good communication? Does it not occur to ANY of you that before you *subjectively* interpret a speech, you must first *objectively* understand it?

          In context, he clearly, no doubt about it, did NOT say small businesspeople didn’t build their own businesses. That’s an objective, rhetorical fact. You are welcome to believe that in his heart he THINKS they didn’t build them — that’s your partisan passions — but you cannot say he said so in that speech because he didn’t.

          Some on my side of politics think John Sununu believes Obama is not an American. That’s their right. But they CANNOT say Sununu said made that claim in that television interview, because he objectively, obviously did not.

          I suspect many of you are among the 1/3 of Republicans in the country who still doubt that Obama was born in the U.S. You are free to believe that, but you are objectively, patently wrong. Your political perspectives do not veto objective truth.

          Whether you like it or not, Obama did not say businesspeople didn’t build their businesses. Get over it!

          (Retreads don’t get to express their opinions…Mgmt.)

          • gekster

            Want to make any other excuses for him while you’re still here?

          • emptybucket

            that word but good heavens you are either just trying to keep the arguing going or you have over used your bong tonight or whatever.

            Am so sick and tired of the left trying to not only walk back Obama’s remarks but heck, they want us to suspend our stream of consious thought and just sit quiet like good little girls and boys and believe what Obama REALLY meant.

            I am not going to sit here and take your nonsense. Obama said what he said, objective, subjective, perspective —- REJECTED.

          • emptybucket

            still getting used to how things work here. Again sorry, your comments never, ever apologize for the current Obamination.

          • gekster

            See the blue line on the left of this comment.
            Follow it up and it goes under who you are replying to.

            Follow the blue line next to the comment you think you said to me.

            And no problem. ;)

          • emptybucket

            2 or 3 blue lines I get a little confused. Just kidding. Thanks for the hint. I thought maybe you were going to yell at me, so thanks for being kind.

            I may have to have a little, teeny drink before I sign on to RS from now on. Some of the conversations from the left are just that annoying! You can’t debate with them for some reason. What the conservatives stand for is so elusive to their closed minds.

            I definitely got to learn how to ignore the trolls.

            God bless, Elaine

          • gekster

            I read your comment and knew it wasn’t meant for me.

            (and my friends use a small g ;) )

          • acat

            (bad pun, I know)

          • gekster

            Don’t know where you got that from,
            but you must have seen something.

          • acat

            Avoiding a Capital Gain …

            Mew

            (I *said* it was a terrible pun)

          • gekster

            Sometimes I miss the obvious.
            And is was a good one. :)

      • christopher770

        If you cannot see that Obama’s words were NOT taken out of context, that they were disseminated exactly as the Obama intended, you never will. It is painfully clear that Obama’s intent of his message that we must grow government, that without it…there would not be business owners like myself. More poignant of Obama’s message was this quote: “There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges.” I recall in 2008 that Obama was continually touting that he was going to “Fundamentally Transform America”. Therefore, which is the lie? If he truly believes we have this “Unbelievable American System”, then what is/was he going to “Fundamentally Transform”. Was he lying then, or lying now. If Obama could possibly speak straight and the truth to the American People, he may have a small chance of not going down in history as the Worst President ever.

    • noveldog9

      You are absolutely right. It was meant to destroy the economy. Obama’s every investment was expected to be a failure draining our resources. His every piece of legislation was meant to enslave us and cost us billions. He is doing a super fine job for somebody…just not us.

      There are two kinds of slavery. One is forced slavery where the enslaved people fought and lost then became slaves.

      The other formof slavery is those who were mentally enslaved through censorship, propaganda, and tailored news meant to brainwash them into accepting their new masters.

      The present group of slaves have become so because they are too stupid, or lazy, to listen to other news sources. They see only the one side presented to them by the Democrats who have been taken over by the Socialist, Progressives, Communist, and idiots, who think they know best what we should, or should not do.They buy their votes by offering them free stuff and being greedy ande stupid they accdept it giving up their freedoms that their ancestors fought and died for. They (theLiberal Democrats traitors) want a One World Government in which they will be our leaders (masters) and we will be their docile slaves from cradle to grave.

      Come November it will be much clearer as to whether or not they have succeeded?

  • earlgrey

    out to their rank and file. I saw a lot of comments today that Obama was referring to Clinton’s work.

  • ctredstater

    when the Left needs him?

    This has been quite a couple weeks for “Homina, Homina, Homina”.

    It is as if, to honor the Olympic Games, The World’s Greatest Orator is trying to prove he can “out-gaffe” the reigning Olympic Gold Medalist in the Freestyle Gaffing Event – Plugs Biden!!!

  • renl57

    …then the obvious conclusion is that the Democratic Party should have nominated Hillary in 2008 instead of Obama.

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      Clinton was more or less forced by the new Republican House majority to ‘triangulate.’ If Obama really wanted to have linked up with Clinton, then Obama should have not visibly given up after the 2010 election.

      • tnfriendofcoal101368

        Move to the center- take credit for everything…

  • bk

    1. It puts Obama totally on the defensive.

    2. He tries to convince people that what they heard with their own ears isn’t what he said.

    The RNC came out with this minute-long ad that is just right. “The more context you get, the worse it sounds.”

    • ctredstater

      Feels like the bottom is dropping out of the Obama Presidency, finally.

      Reminds me of the scene in the Wizard of Oz – “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”.

      This man was the greatest fraud ever to win the American Presidency.

      I watched Jon Steward pathetically try to cover up for his guy – it was pathetic. Stewart is pretty smart and often quite funny – but this was pure desperation.

      These two incidents are the “I voted for it before I voted against it” of the 2012 campaign. I am not overconfident about the outcome – but it is fun to watch this anti-America demagogue unmask himself.
      \

  • 6eorge Jetson

    Sincerely,

    Stockholm Syndrome sufferer.

  • jonedanger

    “We tried Newt’s plan…”

  • ohiohistorian

    For the last 60 years, it has been Gospel in the schools that Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved us from the Depression. And that he did so by the same methods that Obama is currently using. Even though Morgenthau, Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Treasury, said that

    “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ? somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. ? I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ? And an enormous debt to boot.” http://www.burtfolsom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/Morgenthau.pdf

    What is even more interesting is that the liberals claim this is a fake diary entry. You can see why. Morgenthau says that the great hero of the Depression screwed the country just as hard as the current occupant of the White House.

  • justperhaps45

    If Obama’s meaning was that I didn’t build the roads, etc. that my customers use to come to my business. He’s right only in the sense that I did not weild the shovel.

    He just doesn’t realize that government builds nothing without taking resources from the productive private sector.

    Much government spending is so wasteful that it is like going to the grocery and dropping off your money and leaving with an empty bag and the memory of the smell from the bakery.

  • bob570

    You don’t understand, Obama’s plan is working. Every day more and more people are going on Food Stamps, and other forms of Welfare. The Federal Government is taking over 1/7th of the once free market system of this country. While his Regulations, and Taxes are poised to destroy the rest of Free enterprise system in the Country. While he keeps his Rich, and Powerful Cronies’ coffers well greased with Tax Payer monies

  • uncmike

    when he should want to be talking about anything but the economy has really thrown this idiot off his game. Hopefully, Romney and his team can continue to keep the Won on defense from now until November.

  • Viet71

    Anything but those years.

    Romney at Bain.

    The “Clinton economy.”

    Anything but 2009 – 2012.

  • westcoastpatriette

    unfit for office.

  • APA Guy

    Yep…likely voters are definitely saying “Thank you”…

    …more like “F**K you if you ask me :)

    (Sorry Mods…couldn’t help myself)

  • wlcjr

    “Cash for Clunkers”

    It helped one aspect of the industry for a short time (new car sales), while hurting other parts of the industry (used car and parts), and overall had a net zero effect on the aspects it helped.

    Tried and failed in Europe beforehand.

    Actively destroyed wealth while increasing our debt load.

    Everything you need to know about Obamanomics can be found in the “Cash For Clunkers” program.

    • uselogic

      And it hurt his supposed constituents the most…. middle and lower income folks. Try buying a decent, lower-priced used car, right now. Glad I picked up my second one in 08. 4 years later with 75K more miles and it’s going market price is the same or even more than what I paid.

  • methodius

    repeating anyone above, but I only scanned the comments as I have to get ready for . . . you know . . . that four letter word Obama and crew seem allergic to.

    I am simply of the opinion anymore that the “out of context” defense holds about as much water as the “racism” criticism. The man couldn’t communicate his way out of a wet paper bag without a teleprompter and only then he’d simply use it to rip a hole in said bag (no, I am not referring to Pilosi)..

  • Nunyabidness

    Does anybody believe we can make this country more free having to deal with ?these Elected officials?

    Maybe it’s time that those of us who believe in a Free country should take a page out of our history and declare our indepence from a tyrannical government.We can almost use the original word for word.

    Re write an ironclad ?bill of rights And a constitution.

    The tyrants will have no power to do anything about it as we can use their UN against them.They loath oppression and hate America!
    P.s. never become a signatory of the U.N. after

  • rightlane1111

    Of course Obama is right about us being interconnected. That is why…with “HIS” SYSTEM, we are obligated to pay for Illegals in this country. That is why we are obligated to take what we have earned and give to someone else who does not even care to work. That is why we must get involved in PRIVATE business and stick it to the taxpayers, i.e., GM for one; that is why he gave our money to HIS PRIVATE bundlers OUT OF STIMULUS money; that is why he gave away “OUR” LAND, i.e., Alaskan Islands to Russia; that is why he is desecrating our Constitution…so that we can get “INTERCONNECTED”… in a sick, dysfunctional way to sink this country.

    This is Mr. Obama’s “collective”…and let there be no mistake about that and the meaning behind it. Mr. Obama’s system did work…there is no “incentive” to do much of anything…until he and his cronies “BLEED” us dry of our money, our land and our spirit…and then we will collapse. That is his plan.

    Now…bcoley…if there were not people in PRIVATE business paying into the government…there would not be bridges, roads, etc. But…with HIS PLAN…put up all the roadblocks to private business…less revenues into the government…i.e., NO BRIDGES AND ROADS.

    This guy, Obama, is a master at repeating over and over again a misconception until the uneducated believe this drivel. People, through their hard work, contribute to our government’s ability to build infrastructure. It does not happen the other way around FOR A SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME. So…if I decide to build a bunch of bridges and roads and no companies to support it….Mr. bcoley…how do they get built? HINT…DEFICIT SPENDING.

    As far as his system working. I think there is enough proof on this board to substantiate that his Kenysian Economics DOES NOT WORK…WILL NEVER WORK…and needs to never rear its ugly head.

    Besides…the man said what he said…and he can’t change his words. We understand PERFECTLY what he said and we understand PERFECTLY how his “SYSTEM” works..i.e., Stalin, Lennin, Hitler, Communism (of which he is a FAN) that is why we are in a mess…a mega mess…and so are ALL the other socialist countries with the same sick mindset as his.

  • Ned Reck

    “Obama: “We tried our plan and it worked”

    A snot-blowing-bubbler… no doubt. With this kind of humor… hard to contain this involuntary “whale-spew”…

    Good grief… only an MSNBC lacky would believe that statement….

    Ned

  • Pingback: gsdfghsdkflhgksdfl

  • Pingback: Bernardine Antonini

  • Pingback: Mi Etcitty

  • Pingback: hier

  • Pingback: Claretta Weekley

  • Pingback: Leola Kresha

  • Pingback: getwhgdrthfyjfygujfuyg

  • Pingback: Going Here

  • Pingback: Delicia Skyberg

  • Pingback: paleo recipe book Review

  • Pingback: cardio workouts

  • Pingback: leapfrog leappad

  • Pingback: canon 650d

  • Pingback: lainat

  • Pingback: rank site SEO

  • Pingback: mastercard casino

  • Pingback: brahmi online

  • Pingback: Make money Youtube video

  • Pingback: Full Report

  • Pingback: ugg boots pas cher

  • Pingback: google sniper 2.0 warriorforum

  • Pingback: Archie Morimoto

  • Pingback: pond5 promo

  • Pingback: Read Full Article

  • Pingback: Jenifer Baiotto

  • Pingback: Carletta Snaples

  • Pingback: sushi delivery Somerville ma

  • Pingback: stables

  • Pingback: Hien Jou

  • Pingback: how to get edu backlinks

  • Pingback: Scottie Coursey

  • Pingback: Heriberto Woolwine

  • Pingback: real estate in dubai

  • Pingback: online personalization

  • Pingback: paleo bread recipe

  • Pingback: website design

  • Pingback: Car Forum

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Investment Opportunities

  • Pingback: randki w tarnowie

  • Pingback: read what he said

  • Pingback: distillation

  • Pingback: spy bubble

  • Pingback: randki za darmo

  • Pingback: website services majorg33k.com/store

  • Pingback: darmowa strona randki

  • Pingback: best supplements for muscle gain

  • Pingback: visit this site

  • Pingback: legal steroids

  • Pingback: best supplements for muscle gain

  • Pingback: alternatives to steroids

  • Pingback: Sell Used Cars

  • Pingback: darmowy serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: auto motorcycles

  • Pingback: homepage

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: randki za darmo

  • Pingback: Bernadine Mckamie

  • Pingback: laptop adapter

  • Pingback: Christmas stuff

  • Pingback: teen cams

  • Pingback: estate agents glasgow

  • Pingback: gay

  • Pingback: astral projection how to leave the body

  • Pingback: check out this

  • Pingback: Lower Abdominal Pain

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: read more

  • Pingback: Setup

  • Pingback: supply chain disaster

  • Pingback: You Can Try These Out

  • Pingback: homes for sale in Indianapolis Indiana

  • Pingback: Investigate This Site

  • Pingback: You Can Try This Out

  • Pingback: tools

  • Pingback: listen to this podcast

  • Pingback: spss online training workshop

  • Pingback: Best Credit Repair

  • Pingback: dell charger

  • Pingback: 2013 honda civic si redesign

  • Pingback: swissdent

  • Pingback: breast active program

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: mortgage help

  • Pingback: Mutual funds

  • Pingback: turkey

  • Pingback: This Site

  • Pingback: toronto plumbing

  • Pingback: great site here

  • Pingback: tartamudez tratamiento farmacologico

  • Pingback: skachat igru karos

  • Pingback: Business Advertising Directory

  • Pingback: koleksi tas

  • Pingback: get more tumblr followers

  • Pingback: Home Decor

  • Pingback: kc1.info

  • Pingback: Make Money Youtube

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: NHL schedule

  • Pingback: Nikon v2

  • Pingback: sushi delivery Somerville ma

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Visit Thailand

  • Pingback: Minerva Stagnitto

  • Pingback: lecteur datamatrix

  • Pingback: haccp zachodniopomorskie

  • Pingback: Union Flooring Installations

  • Pingback: breaking events

  • Pingback: Remote Control

  • Pingback: abc blinds

  • Pingback: 123moldtesting

  • Pingback: aloe vera juice for hair

  • Pingback: "??? ????? ????"

  • Pingback: Rottweiler

  • Pingback: Deliver my Dumpster

  • Pingback: check this link right here now

  • Pingback: Autos Blog

  • Pingback: Dumpster Deliveries

  • Pingback: curriculum vitae

  • Pingback: cv

  • Pingback: weight loss diet

  • Pingback: married one night stands

  • Pingback: target baby registry discount

  • Pingback: babies r us gift registry

  • Pingback: madamlux

  • Pingback: free annual credit report gov

  • Pingback: Youtube Make Money

  • Pingback: talk for free

  • Pingback: how to make money online

  • Pingback: Organo Gold Scam

  • Pingback: super cheap car insurance

  • Pingback: bear grylls messer

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: Chiropractor boardman

  • Pingback: HD Wide Screen

  • Pingback: http://ldlhdlcholesterollevels.org

  • Pingback: hair loss treatment for men

  • Pingback: gigi spice video

  • Pingback: custom logo design

  • Pingback: http://seemlymisfit7450.blinkweb.com/1/2012/11/pennsylvania-criminal-defense-law-firm-36803/

  • Pingback: lida ile zayiflama

  • Pingback: Go Here

  • Pingback: real-time flight booking

  • Pingback: cartier bracelet price