A substantial minority of Americans, perhaps 20 or so percent, do not believe in American exceptionalism. Obama happens to be one. It informs his worldview, and you are correct to be afraid--very afraid--about what this will mean when that 3 a.m. telephone call comes. After all, his reaction will be what the Greeks or Uzbeks would do, not what his predecessors would have done.
Cheney was too kind when he called Obama "dithering." No, he was "polling." And you can damned well expect the same if, God forbids, another terror attack happens on his watch.
Americans ignored the obvious in 2008. I doubt they make the same mistake ever again, or will be left with such a horrible choice in 2012. Every day this Administration implodes is another reminder that elections do have consequences, in this case, very negative ones.Comment Posted By obamathered On 9.12.2009 @ 16:33
Snake oil. Call me.Comment Posted By obamathered On 6.12.2009 @ 01:38
"The larger point is that people are much more willing to give Obama a pass on being ’smart’ than they are Palin."
That is the most obvious point. Both are unqualified, inconsequential pieces of shit. For those of us on the Right, we will be able to kick the Left for a decade or two for having the misfortune of having their low-life trash elected. If we play it correctly, the first shoe to drop won't be retaking the House in 2010. The first shoe to drop will be wiping out Obama in 2012, and then going after these left-wing bastards in the fetid corpses on which they feed: academia, the media, and so forth. Given AGW is based on fraud, the MSM media is composed of now-obvious two-bit whores, along with the other trash armour that protected these dung heaps for decades, we can wipe them out--forever--as long as we don't follow the Democrat mode and replace the ignoramus puppet Obama with an ignoranum puppet like Palin.
Let's be smart, people.
Obama is the last nail in the coffin of the Democratic Party and the Left. Let us not take it out.Comment Posted By obamathered On 4.12.2009 @ 19:29
There is little doubt Palin was every bit as unqualified to be president as was Obama. What we never will now is whether she would have been as incompetent and as big of a buffoon as Obama is. The electorate was left with a dreadful choice in 2008, and will correct it come 2012. While the temptation is to inflict total humiliation on the Democratic Party for the fool it nominated and got elected, we need to keep our eye solely on victory, first in 2010 and then in 2012. From what I see, that is the focus among conservatives so I don't share your apprehension, Rick. The long, slow death of the Democratic Party that was given a brief reprieve from 2006 until now has only stalled and will accelerate from this point forward.
Palin will be a footnote in about a year, and Obama will contest Buchanan as the worst president in United States history when he leaves office January 21, 2013. God willing there will be a country left to revive then.Comment Posted By obamathered On 4.12.2009 @ 16:25
On the other hand, you may be wrong.Comment Posted By obamathered On 3.12.2009 @ 17:30
That was a speech? I thought it was a hostage video without the sincerity.
I don't think there will be any serious Republican opposition to what the hosta---err, president read last night. The Democrats? Batshit Crazy City on meth. Already. I just hope it isn't enough of those left-wing bastards in Congress to cut off funds but who knows with these kooks.Comment Posted By obamathered On 2.12.2009 @ 18:03
Johnson forgot something:
"Bush lied, kids died."
Glad to have added that up for him. I guess the exposure of AGW as, to be kind, not "settled" pushed that cat over the edge since he was so invested in it. Hell, he did everything but where a robe and chant in front of an Al Gore shrine.
He was a whack job when he was an anti-Muslim bigot, and he is a whack job as a full-bore moonbat prick who is shocked, shocked to discover his fellow travelers lied and made a fortune by manipulating science.Comment Posted By obamathered On 1.12.2009 @ 21:04
Yeah, why give a shit about Honduras when there are so many cool commie bastards to jerk off in Caracas and Havana? Jesus, this has to be about the most fucking stupid comment I have read on this site, and it oozes at times. If this is a defense of Obama, he's in really deep Honduran biomass.Comment Posted By obamathered On 30.11.2009 @ 21:29
It may be time to decouple arguments about more or less undetermined CO2-linked environmental problems from the undeniable need to wean ourselves off finite energy sources, too. This isn't a one-way street. Try to get those nuclear plants built and more fossil fuel extracted in the interim with this Administration and Congress. It ain't gonna happen.Comment Posted By obamathered On 28.11.2009 @ 15:17
Good points, busboy, and when I refer to "prove" I refer to tests that can be replicated with the same or similar results. I don't mean "prove" in a courtroom sense. When you write:
"The hypothesis of AGW is a catastrophic/inertal concept, by which I mean that if it IS real, it has as a likely consequence true genocide, and it would be a phenomenon that can’t be rapidly altered (push a button and everything is better).
The theory goes that once we have indisputable “proof” (ocean levels rising and wiping out costal centers, mean temperatures rising to crop-affecting levels for decades, etc.), its too late. We’re screwed."
I think you get to the crux of what has driven what I suspect is a great deal of fraud, which will make East Anglia the norm and not the exception. Because of what is perceived as a race to stop destruction, a greater good is perceived as served when typical methodology is avoided, data skewed, and so forth to speed things along.
"Would it also be logical then to assume that the political motivations of the naysayers drove their science? If the public policy drove the science, where did the initial science come from that drove the public policy? The givernment and society didn’t wake up one day and say “man, I’ll bet pollution will cause the globe to overheat — better go find some scientists to back that up”. That idea came from the initial scientific reports, so they couldn’t have been driven by pressure."
No. While it is true of some, that side doesn't have a pet theory to protect and give credence with policy decision. What has emerged from East Anglia, an Orwellian name I adore, is the pressure was intense not to veer from what became orthodoxy. There is nothing new there, but it has been especially pronounced with AGW.
"What is the logical response to such a situation? Why can’t we continue to investigate the science while at the same time taking steps that (if its true) might avert the disaster? That seems the most prudent and logical path, unless you posit that there is NO evidence supporting the global warming concept, which seems as nonsensical as saying the science is irrefutably settled."
What isn't logical is to massively restructure lives until we know:
a) there is a sound reason to do so; and
b) if there is a sound reason, the disruptions will be effective the perceived threat.
Sometimes we don't even consider the "b" part.
Again, your response was thoughtful.
"Some of you have already decided there is no AGW some of you that there is. That’s in large part rooted in politics, gut feeling and wishful thinking, not science. Climatology is a difficult field because you can’t really make an experiment like in biology."
What I find objectionable is the political response, or the proposed public policy responses, to a theory that is so uncertain for the reasons you set forth. I don't know whether AGW is true or not and am quite agnotic on the topic, but we have seen proposals that treat it as an absolute certainty. Those proposals would cause major hardship on many people, and I can't go there without a greater degree of certitude.Comment Posted By obamathered On 28.11.2009 @ 09:30