Liars, Hypocrites, and Cowards

Posted Wednesday, February 3, 2010, at 3:15 PM
View 57 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, there is no defense for Scott Roeder's actions. Murder is not the way to prevent murder of the unborn. Trying to link Scott Roeder to either political party is a stretch in any direction. He is an extremist, plain and simple.

    -- Posted by TrailMix on Wed, Feb 3, 2010, at 8:20 PM
  • *

    Except that he reguarly watched and listened to Bill O'Reilly and had several of Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter's books as well as other far right authors books in his house. He had no leftist literature in his house. But it is interesting that I did not bring party affiliation into Scott Roeder at all. I left it out.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 5:34 AM
  • *

    "People all across this nation have fallen for their lie and unfortunately Democrats are just standing around with their hands in their pockets not really sure what to do."

    That's because they are equally corrupt in nature. But I agree with you otherwise. I think it's become outrageous. There is a collective insanity going on that is definitely fostered by lies and hatred.

    Good blog with good points, but hard to read. Might have helped to proofread it.

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 8:02 AM
  • *

    The interesting thing to me is that judging from the title of your blog today, I thought you could be referring to either Rupublicans or Democrats.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 12:42 PM
  • *

    Really now! The problem is not with any Party or 'ism', the problem is with the people who OWN the politicians. The bankers, the Multi-National Corps, Big Oil, Big Ag etc. Raling against the stooges and puppets is useless, and actually makes the powers that be that much stronger. The facts are that the Obama administration has become, or was all along, and extension of the cheney/Bush administration.

    All of the most influential advisors are former Bush advisers, the policies are continuations of Cheny policies, from Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo, monetary policies.

    The bailout of Wall St began in September of 2008, NOT in Jan of 2009. That policy was then expanded by this administration. CEOs got the big bonuses, the banks got the taxpayers piggybank to continue their gambling and small business and Main street got zip. The middle class numbers declined aat the most rapid rate since the Great Depression and still no aid from Washington, because there was no money left after the contracts and TARP was funded.

    So the only real question left is this: When is the American Public going to recognize who the real enemies are, and go after them?

    -- Posted by didereaux on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 1:58 PM
  • Most of main street wouldn't have taken the money if it was similiarly offered to them for 3 main reasons. Main street was not the one who got themselves into trouble with risky business practices and pride themselves on that fact, they would not want the strings that the government was attaching to this money and finally, they know better when the government shows up saying, I'm here to help "you". By taking this money the government believes they can tell these companies what to do with their businesses, all in the name of "taxpayer dollars" when really, they just care about a new tool they found to gain direct power over private enterprise.

    Hopefully, people will see that this TARP program is being constantly changed and distorted from what it was originally supposed to do and I'm sure they're not done manipulating this program to gain more control yet. This was a bill to bailout banks who were in danger of collapsing then it went to just about any bank that wanted it but they actually had to sell some banks on the idea of taking the money, whether the bank needed it or not. Then they actually started refusing to let banks pay back all the money when the banks realized the true purpose of this money was to gain control over their businesses. Then there was the auto bailout which is such a stretch from bank failure that it's just ridiculous.

    I'm sure they'll find a way to warp TARP into something else that it was never meant to be or is in conflict with the original purpose of the program. In fact they should just start calling it WARP. I'm not here to defend the original TARP plan, I'm just pointing out how this so-called bailout program is just another way for even more government control over the private sector.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 2:45 PM
  • Mike, I cannot believe you actually said, "Here's the thing, the far right and Fox News have propped Roeder up as a defender of unborn children by "taking out" Dr. Tiller."

    That is an outright lie. Sheesh, how far left are you, anyway?

    No one has defended Roeder in ANY way, except the other whacko currently in prison. Everyone agrees that Roeder's actions were outright murder, and indefensible.

    Further, the real "pro-life" people are EXACTLY all human life. We are given absolutely no justification for vigilante justice. Justice belongs to our government on Earth, and to God.

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 4:54 PM
  • You also said, "He wants to bring the Bush deficits down, Republicans oppose it (even though it's something they have been barking about for a year). He wants to freeze spending on government programs, they oppose it (again, even though they have been scaring people for a year about out-of-control spending, they now apparently support it)."

    Slant, spin, and tell half-truths, Mikey.

    The Republicans do NOT oppose bringing down the deficit. They oppose the higher taxes that will further damage our economy. We've all seen how the proper tax CUTS actually INCREASE revenue.

    They also don't oppose a freeze on government spending programs, they opposed a meaningless freeze that is held out in front of the largest deficit ever.

    What is the point of castigating the right if you have to tell lies to do it?

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 4:59 PM
  • Mike,

    I have been looking all over for Fox News propping up Scott Roeder and have been unsuccessful. With your permission, may I forward this post to Fox News, perhaps they may help with my search.

    -- Posted by Dudley Dawson on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 5:20 PM
  • "We've all seen how the proper tax CUTS actually INCREASE revenue." Mrs. Smith - Feb. 4, 2010

    Just not between 2001 and 2009.

    Simple reality, give an average family a $500 tax refund or credit, or tax cut -- and 99.9999% of those families will spend the money for food, clothing, shoes, school supplies, a replacement tire on the pickup, catching up the orthodontist bill, new eye glasses for two kids -IT GETS SPENT!!!

    Give the guy with the $800,000 annual income, augmented with the $400,000 annual bonus and dividends from stock optioned during 20 years with the company -- and he invests every dime from a 10% tax cut in China Energy Corp. stock -- a la Bank of America making good use of "Bail out" funds.

    Give 3,000 working families $500 each in tax cuts, rebates or refunds -- and at least $1.4-Million of it will be circulating within two weeks.

    Give 100 $1.2-Million per year high rollers each an extra $100,000 annually via tax cuts for the wealthy -- and 99.9999% of that money will move through the London, Beirut, Zurich or Dubai, or Hong Kong banks.

    It will help put several thousand Chinese workers into jobs.

    "We've all seen how the proper tax CUTS actually INCREASE revenue." Mrs. Smith - Feb. 4, 2010

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 5:21 PM
  • *

    MrsSmith, exactly where was I to quote you providing, "Slant, spin, and tell half-truths, Mikey"? The next day, THE NEXT DAY Republicans came out and opposed bringing down the deficit as long as Obama was in charge.

    Tax CUTS do not bring down the deficit, they increase the deficit. We had tax cuts throughout Reagan AND Bush and the deficit skyrocketed under them.

    I do find it interesting how now all of a sudden after Roeder was convicted of murder how the far right is running full sprint away from him and denying that they ever supported him. Shoot, there's one on this website.

    And actually if you support the death penalty then no you aren't pro all human life.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 5:25 PM
  • *

    To add to that if you are pro war then no you aren't in fact pro all human life.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 5:37 PM
  • *

    Chunky feel free to forward away to Fox News.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 6:02 PM
  • *

    Exactly what have I lied about MrsSmith? What exactly is a meaningless spending freeze? Why is it only meaningless because a Democrat proposed it? Republicans have been demanding it for a year yet now all of a sudden when Obama proposes it Republicans say they don't favor it and you call it meaningless. Where's the logic.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 6:06 PM
  • *

    Yes, McCook, because obviously the government is absolutely controlling what the banks and auto dealers are doing.

    But good job of getting that old fear mongering charge of the government taking over everything in there, because obviously they have.

    Yes this statement was dripping with sarcasm.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 6:09 PM
  • Mike, the spending freeze proposed is on a TINY portion of the budget. The rest of it goes through the roof. It's like telling your kids that they can't have an extra dollar for candy once a week...then buying yourself 2 Hummers. Your wife would instantly vote against your spending "freeze," just as the Republicans have to vote against Obama's.

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 8:38 PM
  • Hey Chunky...good luck with your FoxNews search. :-)

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 8:38 PM
  • Tax cuts increase revenue.

    Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003. No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 from 3.5% in 2003.


    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 8:41 PM
  • *

    MrsSmith, can you find me a non-biased web site that talks about tax cuts? I think the rich would be very surprised to find out that George W. Bush took money FROM THEM.

    And last I heard the spending freeze was on just about everything. Even still if we go with your approach what you are saying is that Republicans are going to sell their political souls and vote against every spending freeze because it isn't big enough? Come one, I'm not buying that.

    The Republicans said at the outset that they were going to do everything they can to stop Obama from passing everything and now suddenly they say they are voting against everything because of their conscience.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 8:48 PM
  • *

    "With your permission, may I forward this post to Fox News, perhaps they may help with my search."

    Wait! You may be running the off chance that someone at Fox News reads more than this blog and discovers Sam Eldredge and wants to add him to their prestigious gang of panicked freaks. NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, at 7:39 AM
  • *

    "I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it."

    Rush Limbaugh, Jan 16th 2009

    Sums up our Republican "GOP" regardless of whether he's an "entertainer" or not. We all know how much the right hangs on to every word uttered by this hatefrog.

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, at 7:48 AM
  • Gearjammer and Friends,

    This terrible Obama administration is proposing to take $30-Billion of the repaid TARP bail-out funds and spread it through small banks for small business loans.

    Sam, how about your predictions as to what majority of small businessmen will refuse an operating or inventory loan from their local banker, because the funds came down from Uncle Sam.

    Will 99% of all small business people on Main Street reject those loans?

    How about 89%?

    How about 79%?

    I'm betting about .00000000001% will refuse the money because it is recycled TARP money, with their loan being extended by the same banker they have worked with for decades.

    If I commit to donating $1000 to a conservative cause you select, if 95% of the entire fund is not gladly used by small businessmen?

    Will each of you commit to donating $1,000 to a recognized fund for assisting military families?

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, at 10:34 AM
  • When Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is out there saying that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now "public policy instruments of the government" after their bailout, what do you expect? People can see government trying to control the private sector through "previously private companies".

    Why is it that banks are rushing to pay back this money? It's not because they are suddenly making record profits and don't know what else to do with it. They have the government telling them what they can and can't spend their money on and how to invest that money. As bad as the banks have been with their investments, tell me, how are the government's investments going? Social security looking good, how's that going?

    Another great testament to the government's investment genius: as soon as they get the money from the first banks they are already looking for something else to spend it on. Not going to the deficit, oh no. This administration only has one answer to any problem... spend.

    Republicans aren't opposed to the pay freeze. They're opposed to a limited pay freeze WHILE increasing overall spending that actually leads to a HIGHER deficit.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, at 11:25 AM
  • *

    I feel like a shark with one of those parasytic little fishies attached to me every time Joe chimes in on me. He's my personal little heckler. He calls me fredd. He adds NOTHING of value. He has been openly racially offensive towards blacks. I'm black and I don't like that. I'm waiting patiently for him to be banned for trolling. Doesn't this forum ban trolls?

    The posts I made were spot on topic, concerning the Republicans and their unprecedented obstructionism. Thank you, thank you very much.

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, at 11:30 AM
  • Hank,

    Small banks HAVE money to loan to small businesses and they're already lending to small businesses. Small banks were the ones that were more careful with their investments and that's why they didn't suffer like the larger banks did.

    The government encouraged banks to make risky loans to people who were higher risks but smaller banks kept following their same cautious lending practices. If the government develops this small business loan program like they did their mortgage programs, the smaller banks will refuse to lend to higher risk businesses, regardless of any government loan funds, just like they did before with home loans.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, at 11:39 AM
  • Jaded,

    You're thinking a remora and they actually help the shark. Bad analogy maybe.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, at 11:41 AM
  • *

    Thanks, McCook1. It's inspiring to see that you would embrace and defend a web troll, just because you agree on politics. Appropriately classy.

    How about a squawking parrot that says the same dumb thing every time you talk? Is that a little better? Do you feel better? I hope so! :)

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, at 11:50 AM
  • Jaded,

    Your defensiveness blinds you. I simply stated that maybe you made a bad analogy. This is what happens when you take things too seriously.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, at 12:25 PM
  • *

    Thanks. Got it. You have done a great service here. You are very knowledgable.

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, at 12:34 PM
  • *

    Joe, I do find it amazing that those of your ilk demanding undying respect to our former president and likened anyone that didn't call Bush, President Bush or had the nerve to call him Dubya as un American and traitors.

    Yet we fast forward to a new president and you and your ilk have abandoned all pretenses of respect. I called Bush Dubya from time to time I readily admit, but I never failed to call him President Bush. As much as I hated it, he was the president and at least deserved that much respect.

    But you and your ilk are truly the most disrespectful group I have have ever seen in my life. Not for one day have you shown President Obama the tiniest amount of respect. You're refusal to show any form of respect for the president for things you don't understand or just flat make up are things that would make most people blush.

    Instead you revel in it and pat yourselves on the back any time you can come up with yet another lame name for him.

    You claim he wasn't born here. You were proven wrong, yet you won't except that so you still claim that he wasn't born here.

    He won the presidency by the largest margin since the 1980s so you claim that he had the elections rigged. You don't have any proof that he did so you blame ACORN with no proof. That organization is cleared of any wrong doing, but you don't accept that so you can continue to claim in some grand conspiracy theory that the entire government was in on the supposed rigging of the election.

    You claim that he is a communist or socialist trying to ruin the country yet that doesn't pan out for you either so you continue the lie.

    He starts accepting policies from the right and all of a sudden you and your ilk decide that your old policies that you have been preaching on for 25 years or more are suddenly leftists.

    Every lame charge that you and your ilk have thrown at Obama has been frivolous at worst, silly at best so the only thing you have left to do is to call him names?

    You, sir, are irrelevant. It's amazing that every time you post on this website you have nothing to add, nothing to say, except call those that don't agree with you names and the president names.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, at 4:07 PM
  • Calling a President by just their last name has always been fine in my book. It's been done to every President for decades. So that I see no trouble with as a sign of disrespect because there's really no disrespectful tone to it.

    Dubya was a term that, when used, was used as a disrespectful reference to Bush while he was President. Similiar to the way people emphasized Obama's middle name when saying his full name. You could say Dubya is just Bush's middle intitial or that Hussein is just Obama's middle name but everyone can see the disrespect that was meant in both cases.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, at 5:45 PM
  • Mike, I'm not even going to read your blog or the comments following it because I'm sure it's more of the same "GOP is a clueless bunch of racist dolts that are on their way out but there are just enough of them lingering around to prevent the greatest president in history from ressurecting this great country."

    I just want to say it must be a doozy that there are already 40 comments in only a couple days.


    Also, if I may comment on the title of the last I also did not read about Obamunism or whatever you called. It was no doubt a lashing against all us conservatives that are throwing that word around, although, even in my vast political interest I had yet to even hear that term. I was thinking you could insert the word Mikism and get the same kind of effect. You know, Mikism, the lying that keeps on giving....

    -- Posted by Justin76 on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, at 6:13 PM
  • *

    "Again, Jaded whatever, I remind you of your promise which, like bozo the chief, you have neglected to keep!"

    You got me there, and I explained why recently. Thanks for not calling me fredd on that last one. I don't get the joke. Sorry. Is it funny or stupid? I'm guessing it's not very funny because your sense of humor is usually not very humorous, especially for women and people of color. It goes over well with some of the cons on here, which is very telling.

    And I am not out of line for pointing it out.

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, at 6:25 PM
  • *

    Justin, if you seriously had not heard the term Obamunism in the year plus of Obama's Administration until I put it is a title of my blog all I can say is that you must have been in whole. Not meant to be an insult to you, but the fact that the term has been a major these at every Tea Party rally and had been said on every cable news network must mean you did a heck of a lot of work to avoid that term for this long.

    That or you aren't being completely honest.

    Also, why post on a blog that you haven't read but just to insult me, that's just weird.

    Also, I don't lie. I may be mistaken from time to time but I don't go out on national television and proclaim that there is a provision in the health care bill for "senior death panels" that I know doesn't exist. I don't go into the public or post on websites that Obama is taking away rights when I know that he isn't.

    When I've been wrong and have been proven wrong I admit that I was mistaken and immediately correct that mistake.

    But then again since you have said that you are not reading my blogs or any comments to go with it then I have just wasted my breath with this comment, so there it is.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, at 6:45 PM
  • *

    Actually Joe I get along well with those that disagree with me it's the ones whose only purpose is to come on this website and call everyone in the book that disagrees with them names yet never contribute anything to the debate, such as yourself, who are irrelevant.

    You call Obama a liar, what exactly has he lied about?

    You say ACORN is guilty of "shenanigans". What exactly would those be? Congress cleared ACORN[tt_news]=22648&tx_ttnews[backP...

    What I said was "I do find it amazing that those of your ilk ..." the entire entry was not directed solely at you but those like you. The end of it was completely aimed at you as the only thing you do on here is pick out people who disagree with you and start calling them names but never debate them. I think it's sad that you delight in calling the president names. I've never bought this straw man argument offered by either side that you can respect the office but not the man. I don't buy it ... if you disrespect the man in the office you are disrespecting the office.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, at 7:02 PM
  • Hey Carl

    "Hey Joe, lets not forget it was conservatives who put our kids into "a pile of camel-dung that is worthless to us."

    your democats voted for these wars. So don't get too smug.

    Self Righteous Goof

    -- Posted by boojum666 on Sat, Feb 6, 2010, at 3:42 PM
  • Jose,

    The last Marine combat unit left Iraq TODAY.

    Nixon pulled out of Viet Nam and it took considerably longer, and the final days were well documented chaos, with Americans and VietNamese employees, dependents and friends scrambling to board military helicopters from roof tops.

    We are pulling combat people out of Iraq and the drawdown will be completed in an orderly manner.

    Don't expect anything resembling a repeat of the final chaos in Nam.

    GitMo is closing in an orderly manner, without sending more Al Qaeda leaders to Yemen to organize attacks on U.S. targets and Yemen's targets. Remember, those Yemen terrorists got released by a Republican President.

    You and your fellow conservatives will have to pardon my unrestrained hilarity the past two days as the "Real World of Governor Palin" was revealed through those 3,000-Plus Emails which were finally discovered.

    FIRST DUDE "stole" confidential financial records from his North Slope oil employer and turned them over to an Alaskan state official.

    The Governor pushed her staff to create an excuse for her entire family to fly commercially to FIRST DUDE'S parents' home at state expense, when there clearly was no Reason of State for their travel;

    The Governor instructed her staff in how to bill the state for electrical work ($3200)in the Governor's Mansion to support her "Tanning BED";

    FIRST DUDE actively engaged in decisions involving official appointments and actions of the Governor's office;

    And tonight, Miz Sary is speaking before the Tea Party National meeting in Nashville. Is she gonna continue railing about politicians conspiring to use public funds improperly for their personal benefit, about tax-paid travel for politicians and their families, about illegal governmental intrusion into business, about government illegally obtaining confidential business documents, or about a non-elected spouse with admittedly limited education or career credentials -- interfering in official governmental business.

    Assuming the folks in their first national convention have found an American Flag to display during their super patriotic sessions -- I am truly eager to see how Miz Sary and the Tea Party Bunch handle these revelations -- direct from the former Governor's own personal and official email files.

    The Saturday Night Live crew could not have written this scenario. Tonight, I watch SNL for sure.

    Almost as good as the YouTube distribution of the entire John Stewart-Bill O'Reilly exchange, which O'Reilly edited to avoid embarrassment on his show.

    Bill just forgot to warn his Internet staff, and they streamed the entire deal - wherein O'Reilly just got verbally drawn and quartered.

    Bill would attack, object or "attempt to clarify" and Stewart would turn O'Reilly's line into chopped liver.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Sat, Feb 6, 2010, at 6:39 PM
  • *

    Joe, OH I see now, the fact that troops have been drawn down significantly and they should be out of the country by 2011, doesn't count in your book?

    So by your definition if someone says they are going to do something and are working towards that goal but haven't completed it as of yet are nothing more than a bunch of liars.

    I think it's hilarious that you are trying to catch people being hypocritical about the war by asking where are they now that Obama is in office. They are still there and still just as loud about getting the troops out now.

    For all the hate and spew that was uttered to those that wanted troops out immediately now you are turning around and proclaiming that you are angry because they aren't out yet, nevermind the fact that when pulling such a large military force out of a country it does take time and(something you apparently lack) patience.

    Honestly I don't think this is how you truly feel. I think you believe you have a "gotcha" on all us libs and you are trying to catch us in it.

    I think what most of us who did not support the war from the beginning all agree on is that our troops need to come home. But they need to come home in an orderly fashion and leave Iraq at least somewhat able to defend itself. We broke it we have to fix it.

    Gosh, I wonder what will be your next "gotcha" moment.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Feb 6, 2010, at 9:46 PM
  • *

    Dang I forgot about the former governor's speech tonight I was in town watching the number 1 team in the nation (in division 2) win their 21st straight win this season.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Feb 6, 2010, at 9:47 PM
  • *

    Then again nothing she said could come close to former politician and ardent racist, Tom Tancredo, demanding that we have literacy tests before people can vote, just as they did in the old Jim Crow days.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Feb 6, 2010, at 9:50 PM
  • *

    I do find it very interesting that at this big mighty Tea Party Convention in Tennessee (which most counters have them topping the 600 mark) it was revealed that Tea Partiers must endorse the Republican Party's platform.

    Hmm, I could have sworn that several posters and a blogger on this site have claimed that the Tea Party movement was a true grass roots movement and did not support either party and yet here they are endorsing the Republican Party platform.

    Don't look now but I see some hypocrisy going on here (and not that faux hypocrisy claim that is constantly made on this site against liberals, but the true hypocrisy about saying one thing and doing another).

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Feb 6, 2010, at 10:02 PM
  • *

    In more real hypocrisy news, Sarah Palin disparaged President Obama for using a teleprompter in the same speech she was using crib notes to get through. I don't really care if she uses crib notes to get through a speech because honestly most people can't get through a speech fully memorized, but to poke fun at another politician for doing a very similar thing that you yourself are doing smacks of hypocrisy.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Feb 7, 2010, at 1:25 PM
  • *

    Sarah Palin took the path that most us expected her to take after she took Rahm Emanuel to task and asked him to resign for saying retard and then Rush Limbaugh came out and took her to task for getting upset about it, she apologized for Rush Limbaugh.

    She is of course the hypocrisy queen, not to mention the political moment queen. She had an opportunity to be someone who truly stands up for people, like her son, that have mental disabilities by standing up to two people on different ends of the spectrum, but in the end she was the same old ideologue that we have come to expect. She was using one of her children, again, for a political play.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 6:48 AM
  • "Small banks HAVE money to loan to small businesses and they're already lending to small businesses."

    Attended a session for businessmen last weekend, and another 200 miles further north tonight.

    Ever last man and woman would like the name of that local bank with plenty of money to loan small businessmen.

    One lady needs $140,000 to move on a new operation, is willing to pay private lenders 12% for six months.


    I am in daily contact with businessmen from California to Long Island and Miami.

    They are all seeking business financing.

    There is nothing out there.

    The major banks are not a source.

    Local banks don't have it.

    Possibly some High Plains banks have money to lend.

    But at the moment, 90% - 98% of small businessmen cannot obtain normal Commercial Line of Credit loans, "flooring loans," expansion loans or restructuring loans.

    The money ain't there.

    Moving $30-Billion of the repaid TARP money to local banks, who would have orders t o get it out to businessmen and home buyers.....would see more jobs being created.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 3:58 AM
  • Hey Neo-Cons,

    The big banks accepted their TARP bailout, with the understanding the taxpayers were providing them with corporate welfare -- so they could put the money to work as loans to American businesses and American homebuyers.

    They got that message directly from congressmen and senators in open committee meetings, and ignored the very concept -- rushing off to invest YOUR money into China Energy Corporation and similar overseas situations.

    With the $700-Million received in the Obama stimulous package -- there was clear language telling them to put the money to work here - in the good old U.S. of A.

    Some of that was MY MONEY. I do not want those greedy illegitimate rectal orifices using my money to finance China, when I can't go to the bank and get financing to add inventory to a going business, buy equipment or a building for expansion, train a dozen new employees and increase production for a proven export market.

    The banks took my money specifically to put it out within the U.S. for business and homebuyers.

    Their dislike for accepting my money with conditions such as put it to work here in the U.S. is nonsense.

    When was the last time any of your conservative genuises went to your bank to borrow $50,000 and did not have that banker slap on restrictions about how the money could be used, etc.??

    The president, Tim Geitner and the various deputies work for me. I am not the least bit happy with the concept they should kiss that banker's rear.

    Kick it so hard, he would need to unzip his fly to blow his nose -- Now that's a fine idea.

    Kiss his rear? No way, Jose!!!

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 2:51 PM
  • *

    What I love even more than that Hank is now the Obama Administration is going to penalize the big banks that don't cooperate and those penalties are going to go right back to the taxpayers. Guess who doesn't support that idea. The Repubservatives. They want to give tax breaks (to the rich only) but they'll be whipped if any money goes back to "Joe the Taxpayer".

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 3:55 PM
  • *

    The Republican Party has a new entry into the hypocrite club. Senator Richard Shelby of Atlanta has put a blanket hold on about 70 Obama nominees. Before you go celebrating Shelby has holding back the Obama socialist machine let's dig a little deeper. It turns out the only reasons that Shelby is doing this is to get an Air Force tanker project in his state and an FBI counter-terrorism center built there. If you are wondering where they hypocrisy comes there's actually two cases here.

    The first is Shelby, who in 2006 when Democrats blocked Bolton's appointment to the UN, demanded an up and down vote on Bolton and a little civility. Fast forward four years and whoops what do you know all of a sudden up and down votes aren't that important, so long as he gets what he wants.

    The other hypocrisy occurs with some of the regular posters on this site who lambasted Louisiana Senator Landreau and home state and town Senator Nelson for giving yes votes to kill the filibuster on health care in exchange for some nice little additions to their states.

    So what's changed that have caused the denunciations against two senators giving votes for additions to their states to absolute silence about a senator now holding up confirmation votes for additions to his state? It's quite simple really, the two senators were Democrats, this Senator is a Republican.

    You can sputter and spit as much as you want to about what the "true" difference is, but it's pointless because that is the true difference the Ds and changed to an R so all is right in the world.

    Hypocrisy at it's finest.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 6:15 PM
  • Actually mike, it's all about power. Bolton got in, and the mighty 59 democrats cannot overpower the wittle 41 Republicans.

    You leftist liberals had your opportunity and blew it. Now sit back and watch what real political power looks like.

    That, or I'll eat crow.

    -- Posted by Dudley Dawson on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 7:36 PM
  • Chunky,

    The situation is:

    The Republicans will use any parliamentary tactic to block anything from happening, hoping they will be able to label President Obama the do nothing president and the Democrats the do-nothing party.

    Since the Republicans are the only ones willing to use the Filibuster to thwart majority action -- the answer is obvious, legally outlaw filibusters.

    The constitution won't let us shoot Congressional Republicans -- proving once again, the Constitution jus' natcherlly ain't perfect.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 7:05 AM
  • *

    What in the world are you smoking Chunky. It has long been tradition that if the party that has a majority in the Senate does not have more than 60 votes then the party in the minority will have all the power.

    For all I care the Republicans can hold up these nominees until the recess and then Obama can just appoint them during the recess and there's nothing the Republicans can do about it. If I remember correctly, and I do, Bolton was a recess appointment not and up and down voted appointment so you argument runs dry.

    Herndon, we don't have to completely do away with filibusters (though in reality they serve no purpose), just change the vote requirement again. The original vote was much higher than 60 at one point. I'm all in favor of bringing it down to a simple majority since that's all it takes to pass laws.

    Unfortunately the Democrats are too spineless to do that. They have yet to realize that people actually want them to take charge and put the Republicans in their place. People are turning on the Republicans. I say if they are going to vote no on everything anyways take them out of the equation

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 10:34 AM
  • Mike,

    There is one major factor.

    This President is using every tactic trying to get a truly functional bi-partisan system working again.

    What the U.S. has now is a disgrace.

    A bunch of spoiled brats determined that if they don't get their way, no one gets to play in the sandbox. They'll stand in the middle, unzip and let fly to spoil all efforts.

    Don't be surprised if by summer the President hasn't requisitioned an idle Captain's Gig from the Navy or Coast Guard to start taking congressional members from both parties yachting on the Potomac, in the manner of Harry Truman.

    'Boys there's no-one from the press here, so you don't have to act like a bunch of warring idiots, THIS IS MY BOAT and I'm the only one who gets to yell on this deck."

    Cruise down the river, sip a little bourbon or whatever, catch a few fish, chow down on some dead cow and some of those fish, and get some decisions made for the good of the country.

    If one of the early boating excursion guests proved to be an obstinate, mule-headed idiot, he was pointedly uninvited and everyone took note.

    If you were on the cruise, you did not get to have any part in any decisions.

    That's practical politics.

    The same as it was years ago when the Republican Stud Duck of the Republican Valley could pick up the McCook Elks Club phone and call the White House, announcing, "This is Harry Strunk of McCook, Nebraska -- I need to speak to the President."

    And before that Missouri farmer hung up, he probably had talked to half the Republicans in McCook Elks Club's bar that night.

    That's practical politics.

    The present Republican congressional leadership is about as practical as four mis-matched square wheels on a manure spreader with a 40-mph wind coming up from behind.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 5:08 PM
  • None the less, Ambassador Bolton got in, I don't see boy wonder Obama having the onions to shove a recess appointment through. A clear majority of voters see him as the weakling he is. Either way, Obama the democrat, had overwhelming democrat majorities in both houses, which he still has, and continues to prove himself impotent.

    -- Posted by Dudley Dawson on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 9:53 PM
  • *

    What does Obama need to do then? It's been a year, and it takes a long time to get something handled in DC with the GRIDLOCK. My concern is this: it seems opposition opinion, whether by politicians or by brainwashed Tea Partyers, is based on just a hate of Obama. You actually have to dig for credible reasons to discredit a president and I haven't seen any yet.

    So we call him boy wonder. Hmm. Boy. Nice!

    Short of instantly becoming a white man, and waving his hands in the air and making every problem go away, and hosting a White House reception for the second coming of Jesus Christ what does Obama need to do. Instantly. Stat. Five minutes ago?

    To hold a human to the standard of a god (who can make sweeping massive changes instantly with the waving of a mighty hand) and then curse, mock, and openly spread hate for the human because of the human's inability to have the power of God, is basically insane.

    To do the same thing collectively against the president is shameful. I think that history will reveal the Tea Partyers and like minded angry fitful citizens as a shameful moment in our history. There are serious things to do as the world passes us by and systems crumble and we are behind on our work. And there's mutiny. Great.

    I think (but I hope I'm wrong) that this mindset and the people who spread it will be the ultimate reason that we fail. Chunky.

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Fri, Feb 12, 2010, at 8:08 AM
  • *

    I've noticed Jaded that the only people that actually compare Obama to a god are the people that HATE him the most. The swear that his supporters are doing it but the only time you hear any comparison between a god and Obama is when the extreme right is making that comparison.

    Funny CPB, I haven't seen any new polls out asking Americans if they see Obama as a weakling. Must be some internal polling of you asking yourself if he is a weakling, answering that yes in fact he is, and then further deciding that if you in fact think that then most Americans must think that. I hear Rasmussen is looking for pollsters such as yourself.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Feb 12, 2010, at 10:41 AM
  • *

    Hypocrites Part 2 blog coming later this afternoon

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Feb 12, 2010, at 10:41 AM
  • *

    Sarah Palin continues on her hypocritical streak. Last week she excused Rush Limbaugh and his use of the word retard as satire. On Sunday, Family Guy used satire to go, indirectly, Sarah Palin by having Chris date a girl that was mentally handicapped whose mother was the former governor of Alaska. Sarah, once again having the opportunity to show that she is truly the voice of the people and not just a shill for conservatives and failing, called it a kick in the gut.

    So once again a review, Rahm Emanuel uses the term "retard" to describe liberals and she demands that he resign, Rush Limbaugh uses the same word to describe the same people (actually agreeing with Rahm) and she excuses him as using satire, Family Guy's creator Seth McFarlane uses a character satirically to take a jab at Sarah Palin and she calls it a kick in the gut.

    There's not doubt Seth McFarlane did this to see what her reaction would be no doubt knowing that she would do a complete 180 turn from excusing Rush Limbaugh and see using retard in the satirical form as a kick in the gut.

    So I guess my question to those that defended Sarah Palin's defense of Rush as he is an entertainer and so it excusable is, Will you agree with Sarah that Family Guy's usage was a kick in the gut or will you disagree with her? The ball, so to speak, is in your court.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Feb 16, 2010, at 2:09 PM
  • *

    Wow it must be really hard for Sarah Palin being called out by a person with down syndrome that she doesn't have a a sense of humor. Of course, Sarah has a sense of humor but only when it's coming from conservatives. Remember when it was on the left side of the spectrum she called for one person to resign and that Family Guy's usage was a kick in the gut, but when it was on the conservative side it was only used as satire. Maybe there's a little more to the half term governor, but then again maybe not. She is a political hack who won't even spare her own children when she needs a political score.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, at 5:13 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: