If Obama ’08 Had Explained His Actual Plans


Via AoSHQ from National Review.

This basically summarizes part – just part of all the idiocies, arrogance and Chicago-style dirty politics since 2008.

Just one excerpted paragraph:

Attitude: “Finally, Michelle and I want to bring a fresh, alive new attitude to the White House, where hip hosts invite in rapper poets bold enough to urge that action be taken against racist police and George Bush. In this regard, I will be meeting more Americans from every walk of life on the golf links than any past American president, and Michelle will be reminding Americans of the great vacation opportunities that they need to explore in Costa del Sol, Martha’s Vineyard, and Vail. America, under my leadership, once more will be a downright kind country!”

More Chicago thuggery: threatening to stop all Texas flights, siding with Mexico to sue Arizona, giving aid to Mexico while denying it to Texas (Mexico 386 square miles burnt, Texas 2.5 million acres devastated), threatening to withold Medicaid from Indiana unless they lay off Planned Parenthood.


23 Responses to “If Obama ’08 Had Explained His Actual Plans”

  1. wits0 Says:

    Buyers’ regret now abound for many. Don’t we feel vindicated, Scott?

  2. Ron Says:

    “…giving aid to Mexico while denying it to Texas”

    FEMA has already given Texas 22 separate grants totaling over $20 million. Doesn’t sound like denial to me.

    Besides, I thought Republicans were opposed to federal handouts.

  3. jestme Says:

    On a hot summer’s day, invite your closest liberal friends ’round for dinner— with the air conditioning turned off. Explain you are trying to acclimatize to the coming era, as planned for by the Environmental Protection Agency’s and Obama’s enviro (energy and climate) czar Carol Browner, in which the government will be able to control how much electricity you use, especially in regards to idle luxuries like air conditioning.
    Say: “Knowing how you support the EPA’s aims, I thought you guys would appreciate the chance to share with me…”

  4. jestme Says:

    Brag that you often travel by private jet.
    Not only will this make you sound important, but when the liberal splutters about your carbon footprint, cite the Leonardo DiCaprio defense:
    “There are situations within my industry where I have to get to someplace during a time frame where it’s impossible to fly commercial.”

  5. capische Says:

    “Besides, I thought Republicans were opposed to federal handouts.” – Ron

    Handouts are for lazy layabout dope smoking good for nothing bums and pretentious know alls.
    Aid is a different thing all together.

  6. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Is it true Obama didn’t use the Bible when he swear/took oath as the US President at White House last time? I believe he is NOT a Muslim…but who knows, he could be a Muslim.. who doesn’t proclaim!

  7. Ron Says:

    It would have been a bold, refreshing, and (dare I say) progressive change to see the leader of the world’s most powerful nation assume office without reference to all that religious BS, but unfortunately it was not to be — like every other president before him, Obama made his oath with one arm raised and the other firmly planted on a book of Jewish fairy tales.

    Oh well, at least he doesn’t claim to hear voices like his immediate predecessor.

  8. Ron Says:

    Handouts are for lazy layabout dope smoking good for nothing bums and pretentious know alls.

    Aid is a different thing all together. –capische

    So how come the Republicans blocked H.R.847 – James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010?

    Were the 9/11 responders who now suffer ill health all “lazy layabout dope smoking good for nothing bums and pretentious know alls” who don’t deserve aid?

  9. Scott Thong Says:

    1) There is a difference between handouts and aid.

    2) Conservatives are for limited government, not no government – the latter are anarchists.

    3) The GOP has often acted downright moronic. Part of the reason GW Bush lost so much popularity is because he alienated the Left with most of his actions, and then alienated the right with his support for amnesty.

  10. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “a book of Jewish fairy tales ” -Ron said.

    Maybe… like any atheist, Ron has studied extensively all religious scriptures, before he came to that conclusion. Those holy scriptures are nothing but all ‘fairy tales’..

    I recommend Ron to ask that question to himself (and answer it frankly):

    “Did I study them extensively…or I came to such a conclusion without knowing them, studying them ? ”

    It is “okay” if an atheist professor of theology studied them extensively, meticulously..and after exhausting it, he made a decision to disbelieve it. I wonder (to be frank)..many atheists never have done so, but claimed to be “knowing it all” or “well-versed” etc BEFORE making such a decision.

    I like to discover to understand the attitude of some people..thus I’m asking people like Scott Thong or anyone of the same caliber, if it true that atheists mostly studied and understand the scriptures beforehand (or actually NOT), before they make a presumption. This is because, ones can be mistaken if they simply based their thoughts on personal believe only.

  11. Ron Says:

    @Nasaei

    Although I have studied the Bible extensively, you don’t really need more than a basic knowledge of science and anthropology to conclude that most of the stories contained within cannot be interpreted as literal historic events. And anyone possessing even the slightest bit of empathy and compassion will realize that the moral code espoused by the Bible is barbaric, to say the least.

  12. Ron Says:

    1) There is a difference between handouts and aid. ~Scott

    Aid: to provide support for or relief to; help

    Handout: a gift of money, food, or other goods to a needy person

    In common usage, the difference boils down to one of connotation: the first implies that the recipients are deserving of aid, while the second implies that they’re not.

    2) Conservatives are for limited government, not no government…

    In ideology, maybe — in practice, not so much.

  13. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Ron says:
    “…moral code espoused by the Bible is barbaric, to say the least”

    Maybe too offensive for us to say “barbaric” Ron… after all, who, or which group of people should have the ultimate ‘authority’ in classifying or declassify the term of anything? Other peoples may have their own terminology etc.

    People around the globe (of any faith) should refer to atheists for classification of terms to be used universally? …maybe…

  14. Ron Says:

    Which is more offensive?

    1) A book which promotes or condones racism, xenophobia, genocide, looting, slavery, rape, torture, human sacrifice, misogyny, infanticide, homophobia, lying, stealing, etc.

    2) Pronouncing the moral code contained within that book barbaric.

  15. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    I have no more words to say Ron, my friend. I think if I argue with you in a court of law, your straight to the point – laywer-like arguments, I would lost my case..maybe..

    But Scott Thong argued and exchanged ideas with me last time. He said, what ever in the ‘Holy’ Bible contained, THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT CONDONES SUCH THINGS, ALL. To my understanding by Scott’s explanations, its only recorded events, but not ‘condones’ them.

    I have very limited knowledge Biblical knowledge, however as far as I know, it doesn’t condemned as well – I hope I’m wrong. So, maybe you are ‘absolutely right’ on that points.

    Take for example the history of a drunken “prophet” (prophet??) who was
    ‘lured’ by his own daughter..and had committed adultery/incest. Any condemnation by Bible ? PERSONALLY, very difficult for me to accept the veracity of that particular verse to be

    Have you studied Quran or any other scriptured as well Ron ? How do you find and compare them? Alla are ‘fairy-tales?’

    Maybe many more such records in the Bible that of similar integrity/credibility.

  16. Ron Says:

    Of course Scott (and every other Christian apologist) tries to whitewash the events recorded in the Old Testament — they describe horrific atrocities committed at God’s bequest. Who wouldn’t want to distance themselves from such a vile and capricious deity?

    As for the Quran, I haven’t studied it much, mainly because I live in a predominantly Christian nation and seldom encounter Muslims. However, what I have read (in English) isn’t very inspiring. It seems to promote just as much violence as the OT; and since it makes claims for the existence of a supernatural deity, I see little reason to study it further.

  17. Scott Thong Says:

    However, what I have read (in English) isn’t very inspiring. It seems to promote just as much violence as the OT; and since it makes claims for the existence of a supernatural deity, I see little reason to study it further. – Ron

    In other words, his grouse is with Christians, so why provoke Times Square bombers to redirect their efforts away from Comedy Central?

    Besides, surely the Bible is much worse than the Quran, being much older and longer and thus filled with much more barbarism. After all, just look at how barbarous modern Christian-majority/heritage societies are compared to the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa.

    It would be hypocritical and biased of Ron to go after Islam when JudeoChristianity is responsible for so much more suffering, particularly in this modern day and age. Why, those Bible thumpers are commanded to execute atheists wholesale, doncha know?

    The above is wholly my unfounded conjecture, of course. With plenty of sarcasm.

  18. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Ron says:”…

    “…As for the Quran, I haven’t studied it much, mainly because I live in a predominantly Christian nation and seldom encounter Muslims. However, what I have read (in English) isn’t very inspiring. It seems to promote just as much violence as the OT; and since it makes claims for the existence of a supernatural deity, I see little reason to study it further”.

    In this particular issue, it is the roots of the problems. People claimed, some of the Quran’s verses promotes violence. Muslims say, non Muslim have mistaken it. Non Muslim replied, “No, no, it is crystal clear
    “Quran promotes violence/terrorism”. The argument goes on..and on.

    Muslims say, (according to Quran) if your are attacked, you should attack (counter attack) too to defend. And some of the verses were revealed during clans wars in Arabia that deal with the situation.

    Never mind if we repeat the old issues again, pinpoint it again. Ron, please give us all those “violence promoting” verses so that we’ll see, discuss it, in order to avoid misinterpretation, misconception or whatever.

  19. Ron Says:

    Nasaei,

    There’s no need to debate what the verses say. Muslims demonstrate how they interpret the Quran every time young men strap C4 to their chests, scream “ALLAHU AKBAR” and detonate themselves in crowded shopping plazas. It’s further demonstrated when Muslims burn flags, lay siege to embassies, go on rampages and issue fatwas just because someone criticizes Islam or draws cartoons mocking their illiterate, child-molesting founder Muhammad. Yours is a religion of extreme violence and hatred towards all outsiders. The news reports bear witness to that fact on a daily basis.

  20. Ron Says:

    The above is wholly my unfounded conjecture, of course. With plenty of sarcasm. ~Scott

    Admission is the first step on the road to recovery.😉

  21. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “…It’s further demonstrated when Muslims burn flags, lay siege to embassies, go on rampages and issue fatwas just because someone criticizes Islam or draws cartoons mocking their illiterate, child-molesting founder Muhammad..” – Ron said.

    This is typical idea and consistent with your mind set and mental state of an atheist I think. Since we also acknowledge (aware) those who went on rampage, burn flags etc are not just Muslims only, but politic of other faiths as well. Atheists do not do such things, and if theists mocked your leader, you laughs and thanks them..?

    And you tend to blame the cars also, not the drivers, as though all of us drive a Merceds the same way anytime, anywhere. A mistaken generalization I think. Maybe not all drivers on the road obey the laws/ traffic regulations.

    You already made up your mind. Another gross mistake Ron.

    Why can’t we look back and see again those “violence inciting” verses, if it true ? Frankly, I guess you’ve mistaken Ron, my friend !

  22. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “No, no Nasaei, athaeist never ever have mistaken!”

  23. Ron Says:

    Of course my mind is made up. I can only judge the merits of a religion by observing the actions of its adherents? So if Islam is supposed to be the religion of peace, then why do so many of its followers commit such grave acts of violence, not only against non-Muslims, but against each other as well?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: