Thursday, January 22, 2009

And now, just you aren't left hanging...

A quick roundup of what DIDN'T happen on Tuesday:

- Bush didn't suspend the 2008 election

- Bush isn't going to have a third term
(although Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y seems to want that for The One)

- Bush didn't declare martial law and become our first dictator.

And let's not forget...

- Bush didn't stage false flag events to reinstate the draft, either.

Amazing!
All that Eeeevil - and it was like he Didn't. Even. Try.

... of course, staying on the topic of 'What Didn't Happen' - I am left wondering...


Where the hell is my Rainbow-Farting-Unicorn that pees Healthcare?


Just Askin',

- MuscleDaddy

12 comments:

  1. Those are some absolutely loopy comments at commondreams.

    Of course, I have read - even on EEE - people wringing their hands over Obama and his new army of volunteers who are going to shred the consitution, round up all the redstaters and intern them en route to the ovens. Lots of calls to buy all available ammo and more guns and get ready to blow away these Obamatroopers when them come-a-callin' to take you away for not loving the trees enough or emitting too much carbon.

    Heck, according to Lisa Schiffren, his entire presidency may the culmination of an insanely clever and subtle commie plot.

    Will you make sure to point out how none of these absurd Obama fantasies came true in 2012/2016? We don't want one-sided views now :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unfortunately, the analogy breaks down when you add in one - fairly important - dataset:

    Bush never SAID he was going to do any of those things.

    Obama-fantasies - NotSoMuch:

    Constitution-shredding - check:
    http://www.e3gazette.com/2009/01/because-his-election-is-bigger.html (start below the video)

    Introduction of Brownshirts - Check:
    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/17/are-the-media-airbrushing-obamas-speeches/
    (remember "Just as strong, just as well-funded"?)

    Party working toward *ahem* extended-presidential-stay - check:
    http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=86324

    Maybe when The One stops PROMISING these things, we'll stop WORRYING about them.

    - MuscleDaddy

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bush never SAID he was going to do any of those things.

    Well, with our departed president's well-known penchant for security and holding as much information as close to the chest as possible, why would he state his intentions before?. I do remember, back in 2000, something about how the US is not in the business of nation building...

    Constitution-shredding - check:

    The constitution was imperfect - or else why the need for so many amendments? Pointing this out hardly qualifies as a bold statement commencing the route to the United Commie States of Obamistan now, does it?

    And, of the cuff, I'm going to guess that - from the POV of the One - the imperfection lies in a constitution created for a state in which certain humans were chattel - a condition unchanged until twelve amendments had already been passed.

    The part about the revolution, to me, is typical progressive rhetoric. Since the US is, allegedly, a right-of-center nation, all leftie parties need to make a gesture to their rightward brethren about ending ideology and cleansing the poisonous atmosphere in Washington. The new declaration sounds like part of Obama's long-running theme to try and get Americans off their asses and out doing something instead of bitching about it non-stop. I don't see anything sinister in it - of course, with the Bush legacy of Executive orders, bypassing our bicameral institutions, mayhaps this points to something that more should be concerned about.

    Introduction of Brownshirts - Check:

    I think FactCheck does a nice job with this one. I agree with them that Obama, in context, is talking about expanding our diplomatic services, Peace Corps work, a FreedomCorps mix of vets, students, etc that engages on the health care, environment, energy conservation front, etc. Despite the ready availability of small arms available in the US, I'm not prepared to start keeping my eyes open for a new mauveshirt brigade sneaking .357's up the alleyways.

    Party working toward *ahem* extended-presidential-stay - check:

    Oh for Pete's sake, MD, stop trolling. Serrano first introduced this in a bill back in January 2004. He had no co-sponsors then. He has no co-sponsors now. It is not going to pass. Serrano also wants to lift the embargo on Cuba and ensure all and sundy are notified if poultry they purchased may have come from land on which sewage sludge may be near. As if Serrano is the first congressman to try and cram some hare-brained and personal passion bill through the house.

    I should think that a certain ex-president that held people incarcerated - for years - at his pleasure - all in the name of keeping us safe and warm, like a good father - would have aroused more passionate denunciation from constitution stalwarts such as your good self. I guess it's a person's intentions that make such stuff bush-league worries when there's meat like Serrano's to chew. :)

    Still - there's no proof like in the seeing, eh MD?

    Adios.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interesting comment, Tyrone. "There's no proof like in the seeing." Do you see that GWB didn't do the things his opponents accused him of planning? You claim "with our departed president's well-known penchant for security and holding as much information as close to the chest as possible, why would he state his intentions before?" That applies to Obama in spades. Seen his birth certificate? His college transcripts, or any documents from his school days? How about his Illinois Senate record? How can we know his intentions if he won't show us what he's done before? By your standards, anyone can be suspect of anything. That's paranoia, my friend.

    On the other hand, MD has shown where Obama has openly called for some deeply disturbing changes to our society, including radical changes to our Constitution, the creation of a gigantic "civilian" force answerable only to him, and more. Yes, we'll see what he actually tries to do, and what he succeeds in doing. But his rhetoric is straight out of the 1930s. And not the 1930s in the US...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tyrone,

    Oooh, right – no, that’s a good one.
    ‘Because Bush DIDN’T say anything, that makes the tinfoil-hat conspiracy-fears about him EVERY BIT as valid as concerns/fears over what Obama HAS said.’

    Of course – Just The Same!

    “The constitution was imperfect - or else why the need for so many amendments? Pointing this out hardly qualifies as a bold statement commencing the route to the United Commie States of Obamistan now, does it?”

    Uh, yeah (nice temporal dodge there, btw)– except that, if you listen to what he’s saying it’s VERY CLEAR that he’s speaking in the PRESENT TENSE – not ‘historically’ about the pre-12th –amendment version of the Constitution.

    To wit: “The Constitution IS flawed and we WILL change it” – which, just for the sake of throwing in a corroborating data-point, dovetails nicely into (again) his own words concerning ‘The Constitution As An Impediment to Wealth Redistribution’
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-redistributionist-obsession/

    “I don't see anything sinister in it - of course, with the Bush legacy of Executive orders, bypassing our bicameral institutions, mayhaps this points to something that more should be concerned about.”

    You mean like ‘particularly with Obama’s jump on the early-executive-orders record’?

    “I think FactCheck does a nice job…”

    Ah yes – FactCheck.

    Have you checked FactCheck RE: Factcheck being a subsidiary of the Annenberg foundation?

    I know, the standard Lefty response is “But, but – Annenberg is a Conservative organization!” which is disingenuous, since it takes VERY little poking around into the people running things to see that, like Public Broadcasting or NPR, it was taken over by the Left a LONG time ago, however 'conservative' its founding.

    “I agree with them that Obama, in context, is talking about expanding our diplomatic services, Peace Corps work, a FreedomCorps mix of vets, students, etc”

    ‘In context’, the statement is QUITE plain:

    ***“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”***

    Let’s look at that statement :

    - The ‘topic’ is “National Security Objectives”.
    - The ‘problem’ is that “we cannot rely on our military to achieve” them
    - The ‘solution’ is to institute a “Civilian National Security Force”

    Now – continuing ‘In Context”:

    A Civilian National Security Force – that is “just as Powerful” (as the aforementioned ‘Military’)
    A Civilian National Security Force – that is “just as Strong” (as the aforementioned ‘Military’)
    A Civilian National Security Force – that is “just as Well-Funded” (as the aforementioned ‘Military’)

    BTW – That last one would then be to the tune of a half-trillion dollars annually.

    Yah – I’m sure you’re right – plenty of wiggle-room – we’re definitely talk Peace-Corps here.

    “Serrano first introduced this in a bill back in January 2004. He had no co-sponsors then.”

    Yup – and he has far fewer on the ‘opposing side’ to shout him down this time.

    Have you looked at the current Pork..er,..’Stimulus’ package?
    http://www.e3gazette.com/2009/01/biggest-boobdoggle-in-american-history.html

    Do you need a better indicator that the Dems are absolutely drunk on their “majority+President” situation?

    You think they’re not genuflecting at the altar of Obama just as enthusiastically as those lunatics in The One’s great-big-database-o’-supporters?

    “Pelosi said one of her favorite moments from Inauguration Day was when Marine One lifted off the Capitol grounds, signifying former President George W. Bush's exit from Washington. "It felt like a 10-pound anvil was lifted off my head," she said.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/21/MN5Q15EJQ2.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

    Yeah – pull the other one – wait and see what slides-right-through.

    “I should think that a certain ex-president that held people incarcerated - for years - at his pleasure - all in the name of keeping us safe and warm, like a good father - would have aroused more passionate denunciation from constitution stalwarts such as your good self.”

    You’re absolutely right – there are certain conventions that should be followed in war - that clearly were not.

    Many on the Left have raised a cry to the heavens that the Geneva Convention should have been strictly adhered-to, and I agree with them 100%.

    Those men were taken on the field of battle, while dressed as civilians – also known under Geneva as “clandestinely or on false pretences”.

    They should have been taken as spies, given a brief trial to verify the time, place and circumstances of their capture, and then been summarily executed as such.

    The president really dropped the ball with all that white-gloved-Koran-handling, soccer-in-the-common-areas and halal-meals business.

    ...and laptops...
    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/13/Judge_allows_laptops_for_Gitmo_detainees/UPI-69551223919310/

    Nothing Constitutional or Geneva about laptops.

    - MD

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Doug - let me say up front that I have appreciated your contributions to the EEE commentaries I have been perusing over the past several months. Good stuff.

    MD - the real life beckons. I will address your lengthier rebuttal anon, hopefully sooner rather than later.

    Do you see that GWB didn't do the things his opponents accused him of planning?

    My initial comment about Bush was intended as a tongue-in-cheek tweak at the esteemed MD - I was flippantly trying to contrast him with Obama in a "Barry says he'll do this aforehand, Bush is smart enough not to say stuff upfront". Of course Bush did not bring about any of the perilous and lunatic fantasies concocted by the psilocybinic shrikes at the websites MD provided.

    Believe it or not, I am not a Bush-hater and have, over time, developed an appreciable sympathy for the shockingly-aged-over-eight-years chief executive. I found the oblique repudiations of Bush in the inaugural speech a petty thing to engage in, and thought he should have received a more graceful and pointed acknowledgement for his service - but that's just pretty ol' me.

    That's paranoia, my friend.

    Absolutely! :)

    As for the rest of your comment - to the degree it has occupied my attention [which is very close to nil] I am satisfied that the birth certificate question has been settled - in the same manner I am satisfied that "Panama John" McCain is a US citizen. I have not seen any college transcripts, but I have not sought them out. I have listened to Obama on the campaign trail and after his victory, and read his first book. I have read a fair amount of third-party opining of his words and actions. For me, it has distilled into a belief that the president is a sober, cautious, pragmatic man, but one who lacks in experience and has not yet shown a marked ability to translate lofty thoughts into practical results. Despite the mostest pink senator in teh ever!! fanfare, I, myself, believe his native temperament to be conservative, even as his politics are liberal. I think he has surrounded himself [as president] with people who seem to be of the same mold.

    The proof, of course, will be in his actions and what he achieves, and tries to achieve. I do not think he is a dictator-in-waiting, and a modest national shift leftward would not be, for me, a terrible thing. The danger lies in the fact that the global economy has been shattered, and, as job losses mount and emergency funds shrivel, the mood is going to get ugly for both sides. In such times the temptation to make drastic changes is highest, and I an not complacent about the potentialities for authoritarian power plays. I do not at the moment, however, believe that Obama's presidential desire is to radically re-make the United States, campaign rhetoric notwithstanding.

    However, I'm half Canadian - and thus my thoughts this way are suspect! :)

    Adios.

    ReplyDelete
  7. MuscleDaddy wrote: Uh, yeah (nice temporal dodge there, btw)

    Twasn't a temporal dodge, but clumsy writing. The constitution was and is an imperfect document. It's a superb document, it has guided and provided for an amazing string of peaceably transferred administrations and institutions that have driven the nation forward - oftimes over bumpy terrain and through various valleys of shadow - on route to its current preeminence. Nevertheless, the ability to amend the constitution still exists, because perfection in politics in an impossibility.

    After all, it's not like Obama can snap his finger and turn the United into the Obamaic States of America. There is a process that must be followed and adhered to. It is not a simple procedure because changing such a time-honoured and tested document should not be an easy or hasty thing. And at no point, anywhere, does Obama state that The Constitution IS flawed and we WILL change it. He says it was an imperfect document, with the ability to be made more perfect, like the nation, as time passes. I agree with that. He makes a rhetorical call for a new declaration of independence from ideology, which has nothing to do with your worries about some manner of new Constibamatution being forced down the throats of right-thinking Americans. This is not evidence of Obama showing his Stalinist desire to re-do the US Constitution - you're reaching, MD.


    You mean like ‘particularly with Obama’s jump on the early-executive-orders record’?

    Yes, that is what I meant. Unfortunately, history has shown us that executive power, once attained, is seldom willingly relinquished. There has been a clear road map laid out for Obama that allows him to circumvent the congress under the all-encompassing and daddy-knows-best umbrella of National Security.

    On the brighter side, although I'm afraid I don't know all of the details, I do believe that one of Obama's orders yesterday will make it harder for the government to deny Freedom of Information requests.

    Have you checked FactCheck RE: Factcheck being a subsidiary of the Annenberg foundation?

    No. I don't consider FactCheck the be-all and end-all of evidenciary arbitration. It's simply a site I have found to be useful in helping to get to the root of the truth of certain competing claims.

    Yah – I’m sure you’re right – plenty of wiggle-room – we’re definitely talk Peace-Corps here.


    First off, if we're going to match word-for-word, how in the world is Obama going to find the funding, in this economic climate, for a Sturmabteilung force of volunteers, that would rival the military in weaponry, size, and budget? What does he expect the Pentagon to say about this modest intrusion into its turf? It's utterly ridiculous. Where will these millions of warriors be based and housed? How in the world would he imagine the US people would abide the formation, off the cuff, of a paramilitary force in a country where there are strict rules about making military forces operational and the CIA cannot spy on its own citizens? What politician is going to commit political suicide by authorizing this budget or getting on board with this proposal? Or is this another of your "Obamatution fantasies" you have described above?

    I have read the entire wording of the speech - to me it's clear that he is referencing a force of volunteers, in the context of expanding the AmeriForce by 250,000 people. What kind of paranoia would lead you to believe Barry, seeking the presidency, is going to say "We need to increase our volunteer forces, get people working for communities and on the environment front, oh, right, and create an Obama-army of some three million armed Mauveshirts to keep an eye on those annoying characters from Red State and smelly rich people."?

    I take funding, strong, powerful to refer to the fact he wants this Americ-Peace-Foreign Service group to be more populous, have a more prominent voice, be more active, have more budget dollars from government, and create more enthusiasm in the average [young] American to volunteer time and service to their community.

    Yup – and he has far fewer on the ‘opposing side’ to shout him down this time.

    It will still never pass. It's a non-starter. And it has nothing to do with Obama.

    You think they’re not genuflecting at the altar of Obama just as enthusiastically?

    As enthusiastically? No. But once again, it's not like this is some brand new, isolated incident. Are you going to try and tell me Republicans made some manner of serious effort to trim Bush's powers, or alter his agenda? They couldn't have been more accomodating if they tried. A popular president is going to make congress critters wary of taking early stands. They are political critters, though, so as the political winds drift, so will their agendas and stances.

    They should have been taken as spies, given a brief trial to verify the time, place and circumstances of their capture, and then been summarily executed as such

    Well, that's the problem. Since we are not fighting a uniformed army - are not at war with any actual nation - this makes the matter of sorting before killing of even more importance. How easy do you think these verifications are going to be, with people in civilian dress, who typically tend to be heavily bearded, who speak an alien tongue? How many caught red-handed weren't executed? How many of our detainees are battlefield red-handers, so to speak, as against prisoners brought in for bounties? Do you know? I realize they happen, and there are procedures for it, but I'm not a fan of battlefield executions under regular circumstances. I'm much less so in this nebulous War on Terror.

    Nothing Constitutional or Geneva about laptops.

    That's all very cute, MD, and very tough - it must be a sheep dog thing. :)

    Adios.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Tyrone, MD quote Obama's exact words about his intended “Civilian National Security Force” and you say "to me it's clear that he is referencing a force of volunteers, in the context of expanding the AmeriForce by 250,000 people." So his words don't matter, you interpret them to mean whatever you'd like them to mean? Shades of Alice in Wonderland!

    ReplyDelete
  9. MD, DL, Tyrone has consumed the Kool-Aid. He IS an Obamabot, but perchance with half a brain left he may yet be saved. If you can continue the production of truth, they may yet be saved.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Doug Loss wrote: So his words don't matter, you interpret them to mean whatever you'd like them to mean? Shades of Alice in Wonderland!

    Civilian National Security Force is a strange line. Now, when I first heard of it, I wanted to get the entire speech verbatim. It sounded to me, in the context of the speech, that national security force had to fit into his previously announced plans for a whole slew of volunteer forces - expanding AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild, the Senior Corps, creating Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, etc. It certainly sounds like community organizing run amok - but not gestapo like.

    Now, perhaps I have drunk a boatload of kool-aid and am filtering everything through an Obamanic haze; however, I wouldn't be the only one.

    From the American Thinker, not exactly a left wing bastion.

    From the Volokh Conspiracy, not a legal group that likes their steak Chicago rare.

    The latter opined that Barry was including in his corps conglomeration our Foreign Service Corps, Homeland Security, perhaps several of our sixteen intelligence agencies. I know that I never thought SA for an instant. If he means a civilian security force, a paramilitary unit based in the United States, with force, strength and funding to match the armed forces, I have to ask:

    1. Where is he going to get the funding? How is he going to get this money through the House?

    2. How is he going to sell such an un-American organization to the public? Is this something the left has long been pining for?

    3. How will the men be selected? Where would they be trained? Barracked? What armaments would they have? How would their force structure be organized in relation to our current armed services?

    4. What purpose would they serve? Why would they be needed and explained? How could he justify this massive expense and undertaking? What need has the US of several million armed militiamen?

    5. Since there has never been any mention of it, before or after, did Barry accidentally let slip some nefarious scheme he has been waiting to unleash upon a supine American public?

    6. Does he imagine the Republicans will stand around, hands in pockets and muttering, whilst he assembles this force? That they might support him in this?

    It doesn't make a lick of sense. Not a bleeding lick. I don't think he's the smartest man to hold the office of president, but I also don't think he's a moron. I don't think he harbors a desire to be a dictator. Thus, my strangled interpretation of this remark.

    Hopefully this clarifies my delusion. :)

    Adios.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You're right, Tyrone. It doesn't make a lick of sense. But he did say it. There are many Americans who know exactly what he said and whose antennae are up and alert. Whether his vaunted communication ability failed him and he actually meant what you think he did (without his teleprompter he's not always very articulate, after all), or he actually meant what he said plainly, you can rest assured that if the government won't stop him the American people will.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You're right, Tyrone. It doesn't make a lick of sense. But he did say it.

    Yes, he did say it - and, frankly, it is a disturbing choice of words. I cannot deny that my interpretation of this phrase was through a mental parsing system inclined to paint it in a favorable light. I would like to always be able to evaluate such things dispassionately, but I'm often well short of the mark. One can only try to learn and get better at it! :)

    you can rest assured that if the government won't stop him the American people will.

    Of that I have absolutely no doubt. This is not a nation to suffer tyranny.

    I'm out for the weekend - have a great one gentlemen.

    Adios.

    ReplyDelete

We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.

In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.

We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.