Posted on 01/25/2010 7:01:47 PM PST by DB9
We’ve now seen three landslide Republican victories in three states that President Obama carried in 2008. From the tea parties to the town halls to the Massachusetts Miracle, Americans have tried to make their opposition to Washington’s big government agenda loud and clear. But the President has decided that this current discontent isn’t his fault, it’s ours. He seems to think we just don’t understand what’s going on because he hasn’t had the chance – in his 411 speeches and 158 interviews last year – to adequately explain his policies to us.
Instead of sensibly telling the American people, “I’m listening,” the president is saying, “Listen up, people!” This approach is precisely the reason people are upset with Washington. Americans understand the president’s policies. We just don’t agree with them. But the president has refused to shift focus and come around to the center from the far left. Instead he and his old campaign advisers are regrouping to put a new spin on the same old agenda for 2010.
Americans aren’t looking for more political strategists. We’re looking for real leadership that listens and delivers results. The president’s former campaign adviser is now calling on supporters to “get on the same page,” but what’s on that page? He claims that the president is “resolved” to “keep fighting for” his agenda, but we’ve already seen what that government-growth agenda involves, and frankly the hype doesn’t give us much hope. Real health care reform requires a free market approach; real job creation involves incentivizing, not punishing, the job-creators; reining in the “big banks” means ending bailouts; and stopping “the undue influence of lobbyists” means not cutting deals with them behind closed doors.
Instead of real leadership, though, we’ve had broken promises and backroom deals. One of the worst: candidate Obama promised to go through the federal budget “with a scalpel,” but President Obama spent four times more than his predecessor. Want more? Candidate Obama promised that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House,” but President Obama gave at least a dozen former lobbyists top administration jobs. Candidate Obama promised us that we could view his health care deliberations openly and honestly on C-SPAN, but President Obama cut deals behind closed doors with industry lobbyists. Candidate Obama promised us that we would have at least five days to read all major legislation, but President Obama rushed through bills before members of Congress could even read them.
Candidate Obama promised us that his economic stimulus package would be targeted and pork-free, but President Obama signed a stimulus bill loaded with pork and goodies for corporate cronies. Candidate Obama railed against Wall Street greed, but President Obama cozied up to bankers as he extended and expanded their bailouts. Candidate Obama promised us that for “Every dollar that I’ve proposed [in spending], I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.” We’re still waiting to see how President Obama will cut spending to match the trillion he’s spent.
More than anything, Americans were promised jobs, but the president’s stimulus package has failed to stem our rising unemployment rate. Maybe it was unfair to expect that an administration with so little private sector experience would understand something about job creation. How many Obama Administration officials have ever had to make a payroll or craft a business plan in the private sector? How many have had to worry about not having the resources to invest and expand? The president’s big government policies have made hiring a new employee a difficult commitment for employers to make. Ask yourself if the Obama Administration has done anything to make it easier for employers to hire. Have they given us any reassurance that the president will keep taxes low and not impose expensive new regulations?
Candidate Obama over-promised; President Obama has under-delivered. We understand you, Mr. President. We’ve listened to you again and again. We ask that you now listen to the American people.
- Sarah Palin
You two were pinging me together so maybe I confused you with your teammate. Are you the Bush-bot? Didn’t you jump in on a neocon point?
If you want substantial replies you need to make substantial posts.
True. Hardly a compelling argument. Especially in cases where
no evidence of support for Paul or Romney exists.
It's been done to me and I just have to laugh at the absurdity.
Paul is a nut with his "Reagan sucked" and "9-11 was an inside job" crap.
I laugh even harder when accused of Romney support. I've yet to
come up with an acceptable way to explain that I am an anti-Mormon
bigot who makes fun of Romney's magical underpants. But I'll keep trying.
Then a few of them are outright creepy in how they've made Palin the center of their universe.
Also true. I pointed this out months ago and got slammed for it.
By you yourself, if I remember correctly! ;-)
I'm sure Mrs Palin appreciates the great majority of those supporting her, and winces at the thought of some.
No doubt. I'm sure she does not want blind worshipers.
Also of note is the oh-so-sly "Who do YOU support" tactic.
I'll usually ask for a list of who is running, that I might choose one.
Ain't seen it yet.
I asked you a question yesterday, straight forward, and non threatening, that you would never answer, never deal with.
You're unable to defend yourself in any way, so you blame this on your own confusion...........
*Ponders*
You tore yourself a new one yesterday with your evasions, non answers, and general silliness. Until you go back to the source of your problems (aka YOU!), until you can have a reasonable discussion (go back to my question about your post 61), you're just a nut job.
This is what I posted in #61. What about this is not obvious? You were asking me over and over about 'lies about wars' which I never posted.
I await your answer.
You mean this post? :”Ron Paul's importance is he exposes the neo-con’s lies about wars and massive welfare being free. That is where I agree with him. Neo-con’s bankrupted the country and called the debt ‘economic growth’.” at #61 and repeated at #124
I'm going back to square one. I'm going to try to allow you to explain your quote to me. My original question was what are the neo-con lies about wars? It was simple, direct, non-threatening, and came with no strings attached.
You never answered.
Are you asking me about my post in #61 copied here again or another reply? :” Ron Paul’s importance is he exposes the neo-con’s lies about wars and massive welfare being free. That is where I agree with him. Neo-con’s bankrupted the country and called the debt ‘economic growth’. ” at #61 and repeated at #124 and #127
You're not going to answer are you?
I want to make sure I am answering your question. Sometimes you post that you want me to explain something I said in #61 (’...he exposes the neo-con’s lies about wars and massive welfare being free.’ from #61), other times you ask me about something different than what I posted : “Lies about wars”. I have no comments about the second phrase “lies about wars”, Did you have a question on what I did post above?
I've tried really hard to be patient. I've given you multiple chances to explain yourself. Since you're not trying, I have to come to the conclusion you can't, or Rb miller was right when he said you were a nut job.
If you want to continue to evade, or not answer, that's fine, but you won't get any slack from me for deciding what will be fairly obvious about you as a poster.
I have asked you specifically to clarify your question before I post a response. Is it about #61 :’...he exposes the neo-con’s lies about wars and massive welfare being free.’?? or something else I posted?
I expect nothing but lies and more lies from The Great Pretender tonight.
It was the first half of your sentence, you can do the whole sentence if you wish, but then take some time and break down specifically what are the neocon lies about wars he (Ron Paul) exposes.
Only explain the first half of a sentence? That makes sense to you? There is a reason they teach complete sentences in school.
Example :”You are evading my question.”
So Explain :”You are ...” or “..my question.”
But don’t explain: ‘you are evading my question.’
I'll cross out the first part for you since you can't read.
It was the first half of your sentence, you can do the whole sentence if you wish, but then take some time and break down specifically what are the neocon lies about wars he (Ron Paul) exposes.
I don't expect you to answer, and if you can't, my obervations about you are confirmed once again.
RE :” but then take some time and break down specifically what are the neocon lies about wars he (Ron Paul) exposes’
The sentence clearly says “exposes neocon lies about .... being free”.
The lies are about some things ‘being free’. Not lies about ‘things’.
Was there anything else?
You evade, you avoid. Very Clintonian and very dishonest.
Buh bye nut job. You deserve all the derision you get.
So are you finally satisfied with the answer? The neocons lied about those things listed being free. Anything else?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.