President Obama: U.S. Gotten a Bit “Lazy” on Attracting Businesses

President Obama: U.S. Gotten a Bit “Lazy” on Attracting Businesses. Amazing hubris coming from the anointed one who’s almost on a permanent golf, fund-raising, campaigning and vacation schedule. Talk about lazy.

This post was last modified on January 26, 2021

CO2Insanity: Tired of the CO2 BS and all the other BS in the US and the world.

View Comments (456)

    • disgusting “Commander, give us our orders. Tell us where we are going. Give us the mission.”

      he doesn't realize that obama is only CIC of the military, The Air Force being excepted I believe.

  • Olivia:"they (Palin's legal bills) wouldn't be likely to 'bankrupt' the Palins"

    You're right to write a shaky, unsure statement like that. Sarah Palin's legal bills were said to surpass $600,000. As the frivolous lawsuits against her were dismissed do you think her lawyers were dismissing their bills? Were they working pro bono? Was Legal Aid helping her? A defense fund set up for Sarah Palin had to refund the $400,000 it had raised by the middle of 2010. So she was looking at a $600,000 hole in the middle of last year. If much of that money had already been paid to her lawyers then she would have had to personally refund her donors because it was ordered that that money had to be paid back to them. She has since set up another legal fund. Has she raised the $400,000 it took her quite a period of time to raise when she was more in the limelight? I don't know. I doubt she would get the funds her first defense fund received. Bottom line: If I don't come from means, have a large family, and have hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills hanging over my head which I'm not sure a legal fund is going to cover I would quit my job as Governor too if it was the only way I could earn the money necessary to pay my bills. Palin wasn't a gazillionaire politician like Kerry and Feinstein and all the common man Democrats. She obviously didn't have gazillionaire Wall Streeters donating to her legal fund the way they do to Obama's campaigns. She didn't have the rich elite liberal gazillionaire New York publishing world salivating over her mixed-race childhood in Keyna abandoned by a bum father. The funny thing about you being worried about her chasing the limelight is: Have we ever had a fame-chasing narcissist to the degree of Obama in the White House before? He makes Bill Clinton seem humble.

    I put two links up but they're not working. I had to edit them out. Sarah Palin's legal bills of 500,000 to 600,000 dollars are easy to find on the Internet.

  • So, everyone here seem to be against big gov and excessive regulation. I wonder what this community stance's is on the SOPA bill?

    The responses will be a clear indication on any hypocrisy.

    • And what effect does this have on piracy in China, and other Asian countries, you know the ones who do the bulk of copyright infringement?

    • Well the devil is in the details isn't it and with democrats they have to pass the bill before they can tell you what's in it - not that RINOs are much better.

      Self policing is already available. When copyright infringement takes place now the aggrieved party has recourse.

      By putting the onus on the content provider and other web sites, it effectively shifts the responsiblity from the entity committing the offence to the provider. This is similar to blaming gun manufacturers for the crimes committed with their product. This proposed legislation smacks of lobbyist payoffs.

    • Well, it seems that SOPA looks to punish everyone except the pirates. Could that be because the US government has no legal authority over the pirate website owners? So in it's usual heavy handed way, it seeks to punish everyone!
      Until the legitimate concerns of the companies affected can be resolved, I say no. If they can come up with a reasonable way to protect intellectual property without screwing everyone, then we can discuss it. But as the bill stands, no.

          • Its Olivia and her life partner..Her and John are conjoined twins who's parents were Brother and sister..somewhere there is banjo music softly playing and a lot of one eyed children eating bowls of mush.

            Like Dad use to say: You can't change a left handed threat to a right handed thread no matter how hard you try, these are bolts that will never fit in. Best to leave them in the drawer gathering dust.

    • I'm not a grammar anything, John. You came in here like an asshole so I took the easy low hanging fruit shot. Not my most mature moment but there it is.

      You last wrote: I haven’t been around as much either. I work for living unlike some of these loonies here!!

      You omitted the "a" between for and living.

      • Wow. Thanks for clearing that up.

        I would like to apologize for being an "asshole". I didn't know you have thin skin.

  • Welcome back Olivia!!!!!!!!

    I haven't been around as much either. I work for living unlike some of these loonies here!!

  • You’re beautiful when you’re a snarky little scrunt!

    It is not an accusation it is a statement of fact. Auto bailout and nationalization of the student loan industry were extra-Article 2.
    **************************
    So show me the part of the Constitution that states that the Chief Executive may not approve or spearhead such actions.

    I'll wait......

    • Show me where it says he does. It DOES howver, say that anything not specified to the federal government is left to the states. So if the Constitution does not specifically say he CAN, then he can't.

      • Show me where it says he does. It DOES howver, say that anything not specified to the federal government is left to the states. So if the Constitution does not specifically say he CAN, then he can’t.
        **************************
        Well, then, I guess the president can't fly on Air Force One, since the Constitution doesn't say he can.

        It doesn't say anything about appointing aides, or "czars" (which have been in use since Reagan was in office), or being protected by Secret Service agents, either----so I guess the president can't have those conveniences, either, huh?

        It doesn't say he can travel to other countries, or communicate by telephone, or organize photo-ops (like, say, strutting across a flight deck beneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner, all at taxpayer expense) or talk Congress into giving him the power to invade a sovereign nation, as Bush did. So would you say all those actions are unconstitutional?

        There have been many arguments about the expanding of presidential powers which (no matter how you try to spin it) has been slowly progressing for many, many years. I guess you could be a purist, and say that none of that is right or constitutional (of course, the Supreme Court would have the final say on this)----but, if you did, you'd also have to admit that the most "imperial" presidents in living memory have all been Republicans: Nixon, Reagan and Bush Jr.

        I suspect that would be a hard reality for some of you to face.

        • Actually it DOES say he can interact with foreign governments, And going to Congess to request a declaration of war is precisely what is demanded, rather than a note left "invaded libya. Catch you on Monday." Flying on AF one is not a governmental function. It is a priviledge conferred upon the President as the leader of the country. Secret service has been legislated by congress, and telephones are commonly used by all citizens. Youare really reaching today. Running out of liberal references?

          • "You are really reaching today. Running out of liberal references?"

            That's what happens when a liberal has nothing, makes up her own version of history, been exposed as ignorant, and is unwilling to concede that she is wrong out of sheer block headedness.

            That she routinely just writes this kind of made-up nonsense on thread after thread is just weird. Her butt must be gigantic to hold all that she pulls out of it.

        • Flying on Air force One is not a "power'. Czars are unconstitutional and I oppose any president appointing them.

          It doesn’t say he can travel to other countries, or communicate by telephone, or organize photo-ops (like, say, strutting across a flight deck beneath a “Mission Accomplished” banner, all at taxpayer expense) or talk Congress into giving him the power to invade a sovereign nation, as Bush did. So would you say all those actions are unconstitutional?

          Traveling and communicating are also not powers.

          The War Powers Act , IMO, is also unconstitutional and Obama went one step further and got involved in Libya without congressional approval at all.

          No, I used to think Nixon was the most imperial but I now believe Obama to be.

          Bush Jr. never avoided Congress the way the current president does.

          • Bush Jr. never avoided Congress the way the current president does.
            **********************
            I have no idea what you mean by "avoiding" Congress (you mean, he's crossing to the other side of the street when he sees a senator or House representative walking toward him?). But there's a reason Obama isn't on the most cordial and cooperative terms with his Congress, and it has nothing to do with him, his competence or his character.

            During most of Bush's misrule, the Republican-led Congress willingly supported his spending sprees and warmongering efforts. (As the saying goes, Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like.) They also ceded to him the "right" to invade a sovereign nation if all other measures failed (and he promptly turned around and invaded Iraq without waiting to see if those other measures failed). Bush had nothing to fear from a rubber-stamp Congress, that was strong enough to keep the Democrats out of the legislative process as much as possible.

            Obama's Congress isn't like this. The Senate has only a small majority of Democrats, and the House, with a Republican majority, seems to have forgotten its "Where are the jobs?" mission, and is focusing on stonewalling Obama at every opportunity, instead. I guess they no longer believe that their purpose is to serve their constituents and their country, huh?

          • I have no idea what you mean by “avoiding” Congress

            Playing stupid again?
            Avoiding Congress by issuing executive orders instead of following the proper procedures.

          • You can tell Olivia is back. Long winded posts that make no sense and my email inbox has increased by about 150 a day.

          • Correction. NOW Obama has a different Congress. The initial 2 years in office he had a majority in both houses, but wasted all that on getting his stupid healthcare bill bulldozed through. NOW the VOTERS removed many of those Democrats and replaced them with Republicans to show their displeasurem and to hopefully get a better outcome. As far as stonewallin, even the DEMOCRATS voted down Obam's jobs bill, so don't blame the Republicans.

          • "Obama’s Congress isn’t like this. The Senate has only a small majority of Democrats, and the House, with a Republican majority, seems to have forgotten its “Where are the jobs?” mission, and is focusing on stonewalling Obama at every opportunity, instead. I guess they no longer believe that their purpose is to serve their constituents and their country, huh?"

            Are you forgetting the super-majorities that Obama had? The health care law was passed only for that reason despite it having at best marginal popular support and they still had to use every dirty trick and bribe their people to get it done. During that time he added $4T to the national debt, thank goodness he lost the House. Bush overspent but BHO took that to a new level from 2009 through the mid-term.

            Cry me a river that Obama can not manage with only having the Executive Branch and the Senate. The House has sent up many many bills to the Senate but your boy, Reid, will not even allow debate.

            Further you seem to be whining that BHO is blocked at every turn by the House....where on Earth are those superhuman powers of persuasion and charm that the President is supposed to have?

            Now to the point about wars. Obama is far more adventurous than Bush was. He has opened up an air war over Pakistan, he went into Libya without congressional approval, Uganda, Yemen, and who knows where else. If you condemn Bush you better do the same with BHO. It must really be galling to you that Gitmo is still open and that he surged in Afghanistan. We are leaving Iraq ONLY because BHO failed to secure legal immunity for our soldiers there. Why? Because he failed to dialogue with Iraqi leadership since he was inaugurated. That left a vacuum that Iran was only too happy to fill.

            "I guess they no longer believe that their purpose is to serve their constituents and their country, huh?"

            Well, as I noted before, the House has sent up numerous bills but the Senate will not hear them and BHO is simply campaigning and not at all governing. So who is "they"?

          • What is wrong going into Libya? Without the collective airstrikes Gaddafi would still be alive.

            I am going to be honest with you Sidekick. I am disappointed in how Obama is handling the economy. Personally, I prefer how Clinton amended the economy but that is for another conversation (I believe we discussed this in the past). You have to admit that Obama has done really well in foreign affairs. I would like to argue that he has done more in regards to international affairs then Bush did during his 8 grand years.

        • Way to go Olivia. Districts are not mentioned in the Constitution as well. Looks like the Framers didn't intend for republicans to gerrymander districts either!!

          • They had the good sense not to give DC the same privileges and powers as the states. Oh, wait. The District of Columbia=guess they did do districts. Though actually, I suspect voting districts are supposed to be the states problems until the courts stepped in to make them more "fair."

          • Article 1 Section. 2.

            Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

            Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

            Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (See Note 2) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

            Pretty clear, John. Oh, and while gerrymandering is based on the census and population shifts, Democrats do it too. As the population grew the 30,000 person district grew, naturally.

      • Wasting your breath, Olivia is so hopelessly ignorant she can not grasp these simple concepts. It goes against her programming.

        • I think trying to talk sense to any liberal is a complete waste of time. Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.

    • See, this is what I love about ignorant liberals who pretend that they know what they are talking about. The Constitution details what the federal government can do. It does not get into abstract ideas about what it might be able to do under certain circumstances. So, does Article 2 authorize the president to nationalize entire industries or economic sectors? Answer: No it does not. I know for morons like you that is a stretch to understand much less bother to actually read a 3700 word document, that according to Ezra Klein, another idiot, is too hard to read (only for liberals).

      Is that clear enough? Concrete thinker!? Hilarious. You are the dumbest person I have ever come across on the Internet. Period. you bring nothing to the discussion as usual.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9hZpJp7U3Y

      Try this....

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4-AKcH3eC8

      or this

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of61E1FesPU&feature=related

      or this

      • See, this is what I love about ignorant liberals who pretend that they know what they are talking about. The Constitution details what the federal government can do. It does not get into abstract ideas about what it might be able to do under certain circumstances. So, does Article 2 authorize the president to nationalize entire industries or economic sectors? Answer: No it does not.
        ******************
        My boy, you've got a great deal to learn about our Constitution. You see, it's a (flexible) framework, not a laundry list of what the president, or the government, or the general public, are allowed to do.

        That's basic eighth-grade stuff, Kick, and I'm amazed that you didn't grasp it. Did you seriously think that the president isn't allowed to do anything that isn't specifically "authorized" within the Constitution? You've got it exactly backwards. In keeping with the spirit of a free country, the premise is that the president, the government and the people may do as they deem appropriate, provided (1) it isn't expressly forbidden in the Constitution, or (2) it doesn't trample on rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

        If you don't understand this very basic premise, then you don't understand the whole concept of what it means to be a free country.

        • There are special circumstances where the President can perform quai legislative powers (like executive orders) which stand until congress repeals them. But yes, it IS something of a laudry list. The fillout must be done legislatively through congressional action. (not the courts by the way.) THAT is basic 8th grade stuff Olivia.

        • "My boy, you’ve got a great deal to learn about our Constitution. You see, it’s a (flexible) framework, not a laundry list of what the president, or the government, or the general public, are allowed to do. "

          Actually it is precisely that, a list of what the government can do. Please, please, please, show me where in the Constitution it says that it is flexible and subject to arbitrary changes and is merely a flexible framework? You see, idiot, we have something called an amendment process to affect changes. So, if 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states so agree a change can be made.

          If it were just a "flexible framework" why bother writing it in the first place? Don't ever presume to have a clue about what you are talking about. Despite many liberal courts subverting things like the Commerce Clause the Constitution was written simply so that there would be no misunderstanding of the intent. Unbelievable. Only a liberal says this kind of thing, why is that?

          Your second paragraph describes a dictatorship. I realize that is the liberal preferred form of government but it is ummmm.... unconstitutional.

          • Please, please, please, show me where in the Constitution it says that it is flexible and subject to arbitrary changes and is merely a flexible framework?
            ******************
            I'm sorry, Kick, but the Constitution doesn't provide Special Instructions for Dummies. Read it, and note that it doesn't go into great explanation over each point. THAT is how you can see, and appreciate, the flexibility built into it.
            *******************
            You see, idiot, we have something called an amendment process to affect changes. So, if 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states so agree a change can be made.

            If it were just a “flexible framework” why bother writing it in the first place?
            ********************
            The founding fathers were a great deal smarter and more far sighted than you. They knew that this Constitution must be able to withstand the many changes that come to any society over time. They knew (as apparently you don't) that a rigid document, like other rigid government models (for example, the Russian empire and the French monarchy) would be likely to crumble under its own weight eventually, so they kept the Constitution flexible. And it worked. Our Constitution, and the government it delineates, have outlasted those of a great many other nations, and served as a model for others.

            If they'd intended to create a rigid book of rules and regulations, they would have written a much longer document, and the wording would have been much more specific. These were not morons, you know----they were, by and large, well educated men, with a knowledge and understand of the law. They had a good grasp on just how much flexibility to build into the document, without making it so vague as to be useless.

            Apparently you don't understand much about dictators or dictatorships, if you think that's what I was describing in my post. A dictator, you see, has UNLIMITED power. He does exactly as he pleases, without regard for the rights of others.

            I realize that you're just sweating blood to depict Obama as a dictator, when in fact the only reason you hate him (well, besides the usual reasons cherished by bigots) is that he won't surrender his own constitutional rights, and allow disgruntled right wingers to treat him like a slave.

          • Actually they didn't go into a great deal of specificity because they never wanted a big central government, and left most things to the individual states. The federal government is charged with protecting us, the citizens, and the sovereign land of the U.S. It is also charged with interaction with foreign governments, and passing such limited laws that affect the entire country, like infrastructure, crimes crossing state lines. Everything else has to be specifically legislated on, using these guidelines. Everytime the Federal government holds states hostage to things like speed limits (remember, we won't support you with infrastructure money unless you drop the speed limit to 55). They are violating the Constitution. A permanent income tax is on shaky ground, and things like Obamacare are not covered ANYWHERE. I keep telling you , you cannot read the Constitution according to the Socialist Democratic party. It has to be the Consitution, as written. ( socialist democrats-wan't that the government of East Germany under Communism?)

          • Your opinions do not outweigh anything. You are wrong on every point. Period. Wow, you are seriously ill-informed. Read a history book. Next you will tell me the 3/5 Clause is racist.

          • http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

            This link takes you to the Federalist Papers (all 85 essays). I have not read them all and not since college but the full rationale for our constitutional republican form of government is contained here. No where will you find the rationale to arbitrarily change the Constitutional because "things change". The Framers knew that there would be progress, which is precisely why the document is written simply and the powers granted so clearly outlined.

            It is a simple document because the Framers intended for an unobtrusive federal government (though there was disagreement among the Founders about how unobtrusive it should be). In order to have the states ratify it, the Constitution could not usurp all of their authority. The Founders were brilliant and it is a damn shame they no longer are discussed in any detail in the schools anymore.

          • Kick, you know better than to give her homework! She'll just tell you she doesn't have to do your research and tell you to pinpoint each word that pertains to the discussion.

        • My boy, these are not legitimate "gaffes and goofs." Most are examples of right wingers fairly sweating blood to find something to b*tch about. For example, the "flips off Hillary" one: That is so far fetched it's laughable. As for "throws like a girl": Bush Sr. was similarly criticized during his presidency. Yet I don't see any of you ridiculing him. Why not?

          Come on, Kick, you're grasping at straws. Most of this is shameless nitpicking, that amounts to nothing beside any of a number of major screw-ups we've seen GOP hopefuls, or the last GOP president, make.

          It's very telling, by the way, that you have to rely on somebody else's blog to feed you examples. Kind of like being dependent on a teleprompter, isn't it? ;)

          • Wow, just wow, my girl. Your stupidity is literally off the charts. I'm not sure what your definition of a goof or gaffe is but those of us here in the Milky Way Galaxy would consider everything I posted a gaffe, a goof, and illustrative of being unable to speak extemporaneously.

            "As for “throws like a girl”: Bush Sr. was similarly criticized during his presidency. Yet I don’t see any of you ridiculing him. Why not?"

            Because it is not true. Bush Sr, played varsity baseball for Yale, dumbass.

            Here is his son showing the world how a ceremonial first pitch is done.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXuxCqPKflo

            Obama demonstrates how a pussy throws a first pitch.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJBlwUfIoDk

            BTW, it is not a question of relying an another's blog but simply a useful convenience to post video to PROVE my points. You see, here on the Internet, we must rely on links to pass along information since we are not in the same room, Of course, you being a failure at debate and rational thought would see that as akin to Obama being fed virtually every utterance. Simply put, when he goes off the script he is a disaster.

            You, on the other hand, are just a disaster, period,

          • You don't understand. He could have been photograpohed dead drunk, dancing on a table with a lampshade on his head, and Olivia and friends would sayit wasn't really a gaffe or goof. After all the Chosen One makes no mistakes, becasuse he is PERFECT, right?

  • http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=d2MzWHVEvUE
    http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=HHIUdMVN_V0
    http://ratify.constitutioncenter.org/constitution/details_explanation.php?link=069&const=02_art_02

    You decide if BHO can speak coherently without a teleprompter, or operates within Article 2 of the Constitution.
    ******************
    Well, I clicked on your links, and got two Youtube favorite lists (featuring a Crazy Toilet Paper Dare), and a copy of the Constitution. In what way is that supposed to convince me that Obama can't speak well? ;)

    That tired old Rush Limbaugh non-issue about the teleprompter was merely an attempt to discredit a popular and successful president, and you righties fell for it. Yes, Obama is hesitant at times-----he has to be, with thousands of angry extremists analyzing every word he utters under a microscope. Yes, he sometimes makes mistakes.....who doesn't? (I think it's unendingly funny the way you guys can make excuses for Cain's deer-in-the-headlights reactions to basic questions---I LOVED his "I'm not supposed to know anything about foreign policy!" excuse!---Bush's many Bushisms, Perry's efforts to BS his way through difficult interviews, and Sarah Palin's "The lamestream media is always pickin' on me!" moans; yet keep trying to depict Obama as a poor speaker!)

    As for your accusation about Obama failing to "operate within Article 2 of the Constitution": suppose you state exactly what you're referring to, instead of trying to BS your way through the discussion. Then we'll talk, okay?

    Waiting for your clarification....... ;)

    • And still she reefuses to capitalize President. Veerrry interesting! Be real, Olivia. Obama does not speak well off the cuff. He needs pre written, prescreened speeches. He has had several incidents whenthere was probl;ems with the teleprompter, and he was lost. I know teleprompters are commonly used, to allow the speaker to appear to be looking at the audience, but really, at an elementary school?

      http://youtu.be/omHUsRTYFAU
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Ju6kWfXEk
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVpOH4MGPBg
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../obama-teleprompter-sixth-grade-video_...

      • And still she reefuses to capitalize President. Veerrry interesting! Be real, Olivia. Obama does not speak well off the cuff. He needs pre written, prescreened speeches. He has had several incidents whenthere was probl;ems with the teleprompter, and he was lost. I know teleprompters are commonly used, to allow the speaker to appear to be looking at the audience, but really, at an elementary school?
        *********************
        Presidential speeches are important enough, I think, that it makes sense to want to ensure accuracy. And, as anyone who's ever spoken in public knows, it's very easy to get distracted and accidentally omit part of a prepared speech. So it makes perfect sense that a president would choose to use a teleprompter, to make sure the speech is delivered exactly as prepared---without errors or omissions. And that includes speeches made at elementary schools.

        Why is that such a problem for you? Previous presidents----including the sainted Reagan, who had plenty of experience at memorizing script lines------chose to use them. In fact, it was never an issue at all, until right wing hero Rush Limbaugh set out to make it one. And, as usual, his dittoheads fell right into line, assuming that, if Rush was making a big noisy fuss about it, there must be something to it.

        • As I said, I understand teleprompters are commonly used. THat isn't the problem. Its when the teleprompter is off that he appears unable to string together and intelligible sentence. And despite his trying to wave it off due to sleeplessness, I feel the President needs to snap it together pretty quickly sleep or no. You know, that 3 am phone call?

        • "Why is that such a problem for you? Previous presidents—-including the sainted Reagan, who had plenty of experience at memorizing script lines——chose to use them."

          The difference is those presidents didn't step all over themselves when they were not making a speech and speaking off the cuff. Obama can not do that. Really, Olivia, this concept is simple. You can understand if you really try.

          The difference

          • The difference is those presidents didn’t step all over themselves when they were not making a speech and speaking off the cuff.
            ************************
            Neither does Obama. If he seems hesitant at times, it's because he's choosing his words VERY carefully, knowing that the far right will leap at any excuse, no matter how ridiculous or far fetched, to twist them.

            I'm simply amazed that you're so quick to blast Obama's off-the-cuff speaking skills, but haven't a complaint in the world to make about this candidate's difficulties: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW_nDFKAmCo

          • "The difference is those presidents didn’t step all over themselves when they were not making a speech and speaking off the cuff.
            ************************
            Neither does Obama. If he seems hesitant at times, it’s because he’s choosing his words VERY carefully, knowing that the far right will leap at any excuse, no matter how ridiculous or far fetched, to twist them."

            Yes, that must be it. He carefully chooses his words lest the evil right-wing media cartel should make fun of him.

          • She took that one from Hillary's playbook. "it a vast right wing conspiracy." Can you NEVER come up with something original?

          • Neither does Obama. If he seems hesitant at times, it’s because he’s choosing his words VERY carefully, knowing that the far right will leap at any excuse, no matter how ridiculous or far fetched, to twist them.”

            Yes, that must be it. He carefully chooses his words lest the evil right-wing media cartel should make fun of him.
            ********************
            Not what I said, Mr. Spin-Like-A-Top. First of all, I don't use the word "evil" lightly. And, second, I'm not talking about "making fun of" Obama. I'm talking about deliberate attempts to spin what he says, in order to delude gullible right wingers like yourself.

            Get it right, please, or don't even bother trying, okay? ;)

          • Because that candidate hasn't been help up by a slobbering media as a genius and God-like figure sent to lift the masses out if darkness.

    • As for your accusation about Obama failing to “operate within Article 2 of the Constitution”: suppose you state exactly what you’re referring to, instead of trying to BS your way through the discussion. Then we’ll talk, okay?

      You're beautiful when you're a snarky little scrunt!

      It is not an accusation it is a statement of fact. Auto bailout and nationalization of the student loan industry were extra-Article 2.

    • "Well, I clicked on your links, and got two Youtube favorite lists (featuring a Crazy Toilet Paper Dare), and a copy of the Constitution. In what way is that supposed to convince me that Obama can’t speak well?"

      I clicked on the links and the Obama vids were there, so not sure what you're looking at. By the way, you're not fooling anyone by being obtuse about Obama's inability to speak well without a script.

      The third link is Article 2 of the Constitution, which, since you probably have no idea, details the powers of the Executive Branch. Thought you might like to see what a sitting president is actually authorized to do.

      • “Well, I clicked on your links, and got two Youtube favorite lists (featuring a Crazy Toilet Paper Dare), and a copy of the Constitution. In what way is that supposed to convince me that Obama can’t speak well?”

        I clicked on the links and the Obama vids were there, so not sure what you’re looking at.
        ***************************
        Sorry, but, if you can't be bothered to provide specific links, I don't see how you can expect me to plow through a list of your favorites, in search of videos vaguely described as "Obama vids."
        ****************************
        By the way, you’re not fooling anyone by being obtuse about Obama’s inability to speak well without a script.
        ****************************
        I'm not being "obtuse." Perhaps you assume he's a poor speaker, because he's often speaking in the abstract. I realize that concrete thinkers tend to be confused by that sort of thing.......
        *****************************
        The third link is Article 2 of the Constitution, which, since you probably have no idea, details the powers of the Executive Branch. Thought you might like to see what a sitting president is actually authorized to do.
        ****************************
        Translation: "I dunno if he's violating the Constitution, but I'm going to make vague insinuations that he is, and hope they will bluff you into agreeing with me."

        Sorry once again, Mr. Avoidance. If you've got a particular beef about Obama's adherence to constitutional law, then spit it out instead of hemming and hawing. Sounds like YOU, not Obama, are the one who needs a teleprompter.

        • BTW, Obama stutters like Porky Pig on crystal meth!
          You just don't notice because you're so enamored with him he could behead a child on TV and you would applaud his effort at ending hunger.

          • BTW, Obama stutters like Porky Pig on crystal meth!
            ******************
            Wrong. Hesitation between words (even if punctuated by "uh" and "er") isn't the same as "stuttering," which is actually a speech defect.

            What you're seeing is a very natural hesitation, in a person who's analytical by nature, to choose his words very carefully, and therefore minimize the chance of his political enemies trying to spin them for political purposes.

            Now, Poopajoe, I've seen several examples of your trying to show off and be witty here, and instead revealing some serious ignorance about disease, addiction, parenteral drug administration, and now communication disorders. Why don't you give it a rest for a while?

          • funny isn't it how obama didn't stutter when he called the cops stupid. Nor when he called kanye west an asshole (which is quite possibly the only time in office he's ever said anything that even approximates intelligence OR unifying the country.)

            "in a person who’s analytical by nature," where is your proof that obama is such a person? seriously, you're always on about the right proving statements, it's your turn now skankivia.

          • funny isn’t it how obama didn’t stutter when he called the cops stupid.
            ***********************
            Why, no, it isn't. As I already pointed out, Obama doesn't have a stuttering disorder. You people really don't know much about communication disorders, do you?
            ***************************
            Nor when he called kanye west an asshole (which is quite possibly the only time in office he’s ever said anything that even approximates intelligence OR unifying the country.)
            ***********************
            He referred to him as a "jackass," not an "asshole." Get your facts straight, please.

            Both of these instances are examples of Obama learning the hard way to be twice as circumspect about his wording, since there's always some right wing moron looking for an excuse to pounce. (Although I agree that he should not have stated that the police acting "stupidly," even if it was true.)
            ******************************
            “in a person who’s analytical by nature,” where is your proof that obama is such a person? seriously, you’re always on about the right proving statements, it’s your turn now skankivia.
            *****************
            Wrong again (are you ever correct about anything?) If you were paying attention, you would have noted that I don't challenge people to "prove" anything, since, as I've said until I'm blue in the face, it's impossible to "prove" anything in cyberspace.

            What you're asking me to do is defend my observation. Obama is a constitutional lawyer, which suggests that he is (1) trained to seek accuracy and precision in wording, and (2) skilled at thinking in the abstract. Both of which characteristics are typical of someone with an analytical mind.

            Of course, you would also recognize this in the fact that he has a cool, dispassionate and thoughtful demeanor (which spiteful right wingers like to describe as "arrogant"). But. believe it or not, there are Americans who believe it's more presidential to show a cool demeanor, than it is to sob and blubber, as seems to have become fashionable among Republican hopefuls this season.

            P.S. Do you need someone to show you how to use the "shift" key on your keyboard? Or are you just inept at knowing when to capitalize?

          • since you're a nurse i think you should be glad that you can read what i have to right. as for capitalization I prefer to use it only when i feel it's relevant to making a point, not in casual conversation with such as you. that being said. asshole and jackass amount to the same thing and since i was working from memory (which seems to work so much better than yours) i didn't use the exact word that obummer used.

            (Although I agree that he should not have stated that the police acting “stupidly,” even if it was true.) The point is it was NOT true, and yet you tend to gloss over the meat of the issue and go after the condiments.

            "Wrong again (are you ever correct about anything?) If you were paying attention, you would have noted that I don’t challenge people to “prove” anything, since, as I’ve said until I’m blue in the face, it’s impossible to “prove” anything in cyberspace."

            oh really? what about you demanding proof from Poppajoe about the Down's Syndrome you made, according to many witnesses?

            And while we're at it, what is your definition of proof?

            "Of course, you would also recognize this in the fact that he has a cool, dispassionate and thoughtful demeanor," not so, he's arrogant, plain and simple, and this has been proven by not only his remarks about the cops, but also by his remarks regarding conservatives and the Bible and guns.

            "What you’re asking me to do is defend my observation. Obama is a constitutional lawyer, which suggests that he is (1) trained to seek accuracy and precision in wording, and (2) skilled at thinking in the abstract." "SUGGESTS" doesn't prove anything.

            And since you like to think you can't PROVE anything in cyberspace, then why do you constantly troll these threads if not in a vain attempt to prove that you're a morally, intellectually superior individual?

            And your arrogance in telling me what is stuttering and what is not is abhorrent, child.

          • Here is the cool demeanor of President Obama (assuming my iPad allows this video to properly upload).
            ******************
            Actually, he was quite cool, considering the fact that he was trying to get a word in edgewise with professional interrupter Bill O'Reilly. Other examples in your highly slanted video were, as I pointed out earlier, merely examples of Obama searching for the right, most accurate, most spinproof words possible.
            *************************
            BTW, I haven’t noticed anyone sobbing or blubbering on either side lately. Boehner seems to have overcome those displays.
            ********************
            Then you haven't been paying much attention. Most of the GOP presidential hopefuls (along with Rick Santorum, but excluding Romney) were recently interviewed at a pious blubberfest, hosted by Frank Luntz. (It may be assumed that Luntz also supplied them with peeled onions to conceal in their sleeves.)http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/herman-cain-rick-santorum-tear-up-at-iowa-presidential-forum/

            Each one took his turn crying about some heart-rending life experience (taking care to throw in the usual hokey religious platitudes). Well, all except Newt, who apparently couldn't think of any-----so he sobbed and cried about a neighbor's son's brain surgery instead.

            (Mind you, I can understand why Cain might have teared up while remembering being diagnosed, some years ago, with Stage IV colon cancer. But it was a bit far fetched for him to continue to cry about not having spent enough time with his family. Let's face it: If it really bothers him that much, to the point of crying, to be away from his wife and kids, then why the Sam Hill did he choose to run for president?)

            For some reason, the whole tear-jerking interview brought to mind a passage from Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, in reference to another con man's attempt to manipulate the sympathies of bystanders:

            >>Well, by and by the king he gets up and comes forward a little, and works himself up and slobbers out a speech, all full of tears and flapdoodle about its being a sore trial for him and his poor brother to lose the diseased, and to miss seeing diseased alive after the long journey of four thousand mile, but it's a trial that's sweetened and sanctified to us by this dear sympathy and these holy tears, and so he thanks them out of his heart and out of his brother's heart, because out of their mouths they can't, words being too weak and cold, and all that kind of rot and slush, till it was just sickening; and then he blubbers out a pious goody-goody Amen, and turns himself loose and goes to crying fit to bust....

            That Mark Twain certainly had these phonies pegged....a good century and a half in advance. ;)

          • The O'Reilly bit was about 10 seconds of a four- minute video. I doubt you watched the whole thing. Try as you might to convince someone otherwise, people have eyes and ears and they do not lie, Obama does not perform well off the cuff.

            To the rest of the sobbing thing, I did miss that entire "fest". Twain was right but I believe he was speaking of all politicians as did Will Rogers. Not one side or the other.

            The Bill Clinton lip bite affectation (to show deep concern) comes to mind as I read Twain's quote.

  • Actually, he is a terrible speaker. Take away his favorite teleprompter....
    *********************
    And here comes that ridiculous "teleprompter" non-issue that was so aggressively invented and hyped by Rush Limbaugh, and dutifully parroted by his dittoheads. Nah....Rose NEVER listens to Rush Limbaugh............
    **************************
    ...............and he seems to barely be able to choke out his own name. And his grasp of the Constitution leaves a GREAT DEAL to be desired. I don’t know what he was doing in those classes, but he was clearly NOT studying the Constitution.
    *******************
    So tell me, Ms. Constitutional Expert, what specific errors you've seen Obama make in reference to the Constitution. (NOTE: Any attempts to duck the issue, like "Look it up for yourself," or "Read this right wing opinion piece----it's all listed there" qualify as mud slinging, not detection of errors.)

    I'll wait......... ;)

  • via:”he’s (Obama’s) just not that comical, that off-the-wall, or that poorly prepared.”

    Really?
    http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-isms.htm
    *******************
    Yes, really. You have ten examples spanning 3 1/2 years; about half of them are ordinary slips of the tongue (such as we're all inclined to make, especially those who do much public speaking), and the other half are views that you don't agree with.

    I suspect that, like most far righters, your ego is still smarting from the criticism and ridicule aimed at Bush during his 8 years of misrule, and you're eager to turn the tables. Unfortunately, Obama is a better speaker, has a much better education to grasp the fine points of our Constitution (magna cum laude JD in constitutional law, as opposed to an MBA----Bush couldn't get into law school, as you might recall), and isn't much for buffoonery.

    Does he make mistakes sometimes? Of course. What human being doesn't? But that's a very far cry from being the bumbling incompetent that you so badly want to pretend he is.

    • Actually, he is a terrible speaker. Take away his favorite teleprompter, and he seems to barely be able to choke out his own name. And his grasp of the Constitution leaves a GREAT DEAL to be desired. I don't know what he was doing in those classes, but he was clearly NOT studying the Constitution. The list offered was a few of the comical missteps. His overall behaviour in office has not just suggested, but proven that he IS a bumbling incompetent. Actions speak louder than degrees.

      • Three thousand percent. Say that once. Then he smiled and repeated it. A completely idiotic thing to say but all his minions applauded, so he repeated it! They are still waiting for the free gas and rent.

        • Three thousand percent. Say that once. Then he smiled and repeated it. A completely idiotic thing to say but all his minions applauded, so he repeated it! They are still waiting for the free gas and rent.
          *******************
          I think it was fairly obvious---at least, to anyone with a working synapse----that he meant to say $3000. Yes, it was a speaking error. Yes, even smart people make errors from time to time, especially if they're very busy or very tired. I think we've already gone over that several times here.

          By the way, those weren't "minions." That's what's known as an "audience." And I seriously doubt they were so gullible as to think that Obama was promising them "free gas and rent"---especially since he was talking about company insurance premiums.

          Nice try, but it's just one more example of making a mountain out of an all-but-nonexistent molehill.

          • Every audience is carefully vetted and chosen, so there will never be a voice of disagreement, only wild applause and support. So yes, they ARE his minions. Everyone is afraid to tell the Emporer that he has no clothes.

          • Every audience is carefully vetted and chosen, so there will never be a voice of disagreement, only wild applause and support.
            **********************
            Evidence, please?

            This, in fact, was standard practice at Bush's speaking engagements (and, yes, I have evidence, since Bush spoke before area businessmen here in the Chicago area, and tickets were available only to loyal Republicans). And let's not forget those "free speech zones" a mile away from the speaking venue, for those who disagreed with his policies.

            Do you think it was wrong of Bush to pack his audience with loyal supporters, Rose? Or are you willing to make excuses for him, since he says the kind of things you want to hear?

          • Every audience is carefully vetted and chosen, so there will never be a voice of disagreement, only wild applause and support.
            **********************
            Evidence, please?

            This, in fact, was standard practice at Bush’s speaking engagements (and, yes, I have evidence, since Bush spoke before area businessmen here in the Chicago area, and tickets were available only to loyal Republicans). And let’s not forget those “free speech zones” a mile away from the speaking venue, for those who disagreed with his policies.

            *************************************

            You have evidence? Olivia that was a claim? Perhaps YOU need a dictionary more than the other posters here.

          • I never made any claim nor would I doubt that every presidential audience is carefully screened. You would be naive to believe otherwise. Again, why your fixationwith Bush anyway? Did you know that he no longer is president?

            You earlier said you had evidence and then just wrote some drivel as evidence. I merely called out the error on your part. Really couldn't care less.

            By the way, the libs seem to have invented free-speech zones. From what I can recall, they were first used on college campuses.

          • I never made any claim nor would I doubt that every presidential audience is carefully screened. You would be naive to believe otherwise.
            *******************
            Not just "carefully screened." "Hand picked" would be a more accurate term. And you seem to be trying to ignore my point about those not-particularly-constitutional "free speech zones" for dissenters. Why am I not surprised? :D
            ********************
            Again, why your fixation with Bush anyway? Did you know that he no longer is president?
            *****************
            Translation: "Please don't mention Bush again here. I'm still smarting under the humiliation of having supported him-----and, when you point out how enthusiastically we all supported his spending sprees, it just makes it uncomfortably obvious what hypocrites we are now, when we pretend to be fiscally conservative."

            Oddly enough, I can't find ANY Republicans who are comfortable discussing Bush's presidency, or the-----uh-----shall we say, "contributions" it made to the betterment of society and our economy?

            But, then again, his own party avoided even mentioning him at the 2008 GOP convention. He was then the sitting president, and they were too uncomfortable even to admit it!

Related Post
  1. DALLAS POLICE SHOOTING: ‘ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE ASSAULT VEHICLE AND TROOP TRANSPORT’
  2. Kim Jong-un was a child prodigy
  3. Top GOP Leader Promises Total Amnesty In 2015