Obama – A Potentate In His Own Mind.

The Obamazoids are wandering around like their programming was corrupted which, after all, it was… compliments of the US citizenry. You’ll notice it much more in places around the country other than the Marxist (read communist) stronghold here in the San Francisco Bay Area, but most specifically in San Francisco itself where soft tyranny rules. An abundance of space-trip airheads that comprise many of San Francisco’s voters along with gray pony-tailed 60s drop-out, drop-in, turn-on types that infest most liberal enclaves.

I’ve seen these types move into peaceful bucolic communities on the coast here, up in the mountains where I have many friends of long-standing. It’s a little tougher for them to gain a footing up there because most of the people there are rugged individualists who don’t take crap and know how to use the weapons they own… not that they wish to dispose of their newbie liberal neighbors you understand.

I had some veteran friends move up north to Oregon and Washington to live in the woods. To their utter shock and dismay, they found the self-same cretins that infest the liberal enclaves moving in up there. Ok, it’s a free (so far) country.

They’re a lot like Barack Obama’s radical Islamist friends, or masters, depending on how dark your opinion of his machinations is. The simile is that like Muslims, these liberals cannot live in peace with their neighbors. Not being satisfied at having destroyed the cities where their liberalism held sway, they migrate.

Obama has just taken the largest entourage of any president in history to India, to save what face he can after taking one of the greatest political shellackings in the history of this country. Obama’s narcissistic and, I believe, megalomaniacal bent has been addressed by the voters and he and his Marxist Congress and administration have been most thoroughly repudiated by the American people. Even in the face of this historic defeat, Obama and the DeMarxists still don’t get it.

I can tell them one thing for sure. Compromise is going to be a very rare item in Washington and the Obama Red House. Our Conservative Congress has received their marching orders and we have, with the innate wisdom of the American voter, elected those who will carry the banner of the Constitution and liberty, to reverse the course of the country and defeat Obama and DeMarxists who are up for election in 2012.

Hey, Obama… it ain’t over by a long shot. And there’s not one potentate in sight.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

1
Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Comments

You started off pretty good

...and then you took a wrong turn.  The second part of the article does not relate to the first.

Didn't know you lived in Frisco.  That explains a lot of the anger.  I think I'd be a lot angrier if I lived there.

But yes, that whole coast is pretty much populated by weirdos.

But that's not what America is.

They are part of America.

Paleo, you or Skip need to explain something to me.  Last time I checked, San Francisco -- heck, the whole left coast -- was part of America.  Unless you've got a cite to a credible source that shows they've seceded, they remain part of "what America is."  I'll even go out on a limb here and claim they're actually real Americans because almost all of them have birth certificates that say that.

Their lifestyles, interests, talents, views and values may be different than yours.  You don't like them or you feel threatened by them for some reason, no problem.  Could be because they've been fantastically successful entrepreneurs in some cases, what with their fancy computin' designin' skills and all that.  Could be because some are trust fund bums.  Whatever the reason, you're entitled to dislike them.

But here's the thing:  you don't have to like them but denying that they're American rips our country apart.  To a person, they don't care one way or the other how you feel about them.  The one thing you can't do, by virtue of your own distaste or insecurities, is strip them of their citizenship.  When last seen in the wild, true conservatives believed in state determination on topics not governed by the federal constitution.  If you don't like living in California, Skip, follow your friends to the forests in Oregon or head down to Texas.  It's a big country. 

But you best not diss California too much, because it's still a net contributor state.  In other words, it gets less back from the Feds than it sends.  You'd be better off haranguing your friends in the red states who are net takers to get off the California crack.  Those Arkansas welfare queens need to stop living off the hippies.

 

The problem is with California dictating to the rest of the 49

California, which is desperate for Water since most of the state lives in the Desert, has "imposed" its toilet flushing "technology" upon the rest of us, along with the Shower Head laws for how much water you can push through a shower head.  

So the Idiots in the Desert, push upon the other 49 states and the manufacturers of toilet fixtures,  their concept of how to flush and take a shower.

Last time I looked at a NASA photo from space, I noticed we live on a WATER PLANET and there is NO SHORTAGE of Water.......except in California.

That is reason enough to bad mouth the Idiots in California.  And don't you dare tell them to come to Texas where there is NO State Income Tax and they will get a 10% take home salary raise the minute they arrive.  It takes 5 years to correct their Liberal Disease.  There's being water boarded, and then there is living in California, take your pick of torture.   I prefer water boarding.

Is that FIRST picture in Skip's post a picture of the NEW California Governor, Moonbeam Brown ?

Stop whining, 4speed, and seize your red state opportunity!

4speed, you have an idea for a red-state entrepreneurial startup right there in your whine.  Since wasting fresh water is apparently important to non-Californians, why don't you start manufacturing high-flow shower heads and toilets for those who are itching to pay the highest water bill possible?  You couldn't sell them in California because of their laws but since you're saying that Texans like to waste money paying higher water bills than necessary, it should be very profitable for you.  Instead of coming on here to whine about California, why don't you get busy serving a need in Texas?

I have to ask though:  are people in red states really upset because they can't shower in sea water?  I'd never heard that before but that's all I can gather from your blathering about all the water on Earth (most of which is sea water) and low flow shower heads.

To your credit, you are honest about waterboarding being torture.  Many are not so honest, so I'm sincerely impressed by your stand.  I agree completely on that point.

Your "entrepreneurial startup" is against Govt. regulations

You have to manufacture NEW Toilets and showerheads to the new California inspired regulations.   The only "entrepreneurial startup" is in used Toilets and showheads selling at a premium.

Instead of putting 2 bricks in your OLD toilet to save water (simple solution), the Government steps in with Regulations.

As for your water boarding is Torture comment, I'll quote George Bush ... "Damn right"... and if anyone attacks and kills Americans again, they've been warned that we're not a politically correct group of "Victims" anymore, we fight back. 

Sorry about that "Managing the Water Bill" problem in the California Desert, but Californians shouldn't  export their pain, they should just move out of the Desert, or shaddup and pay the water bill.   Kuwait fixed it, why can't California ?   

And no more earmarks for the Harvest mouse in San Fran anymore, either.  The times they are a-changing.

Well, for starters, let me

Well, for starters, let me ask why it matters to anyone what the regulations for manufacture of NEW toilets are, if their old one is still working?  If your old one is still working, why wouldn't you just put the bricks in and call it a day?  If or when you need a new toilet, doesn't it save you a step if you have don't to put in bricks, because the new toilet is already using less water?  Where's the fauxtrage?  I recall hearing a lot about drought in Texas and the Southeast a few years ago.  California isn't by any means the only state that benefits from minimizing water waste.

And of course, I should have known that you're onboard with an official government policy on torture.  That 24% figure comes up a lot!  Your kindred spirits in Iran and North Korea thank you for your support.

Mitch McConnell wants to have a word with you if you think things are a-changin with earmarks...

It matters because the NEW ones don't work as well as the OLD

Now, one has to double flush because we're saving water with the NEW Toilets.  The lessons learned (in case you can't understand) is you do "NOT" use less water, and that too many Government regulations do NOT fix a problem, they make it worse, they make it cost more, and then the Bureaucracy that wrote the FIRST lousy regulation has to justify its existence by writing even MORE regulations that don't work.

As Paleo says, "I don't need a new Mother because I left my old one years ago".

Enter the new $6.00 light bulbs with Mercury to save energy, more government regulations that don't work exactly as intended.  

save your eyes.

http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/compact_fluorescent_32_ctg.htm
non mercury too. read the writeup -- DOE scientists got new research out.

If you have to double flush half the time, you're still saving energy. plus, the new toilets have two settings... one heavy, one light.

I'd be madder than hell if they took the incandescents off the market. the others would burn out toot sweet in the bathroom.

glad i don't live in australia ;-)

Well, I hate to tell you Knackers, but........

One of the first things the Democrat Congress did when they were sworn in and took the oath in 2007 was this lightbulb ban. 

They set a delayed fuse, but the fuse exploded recently, and the Incandescent ban is in effect.  Don't you just love the Liberal DC infestation ?

I don't think that's what I said

I never denied that Californians are Americans.  I was born in Oakland myself, after all.

I'm not even claiming that they're not a part of America.  Not once.

I'm saying that the part does not constitute the whole:

[T]hat whole coast... that's not what America is. 

No, the part is not the whole.

I'm saying, in effect, that focusing on the part gives a distorted view of the whole.

No, I dislike them because they're arguably the most liberal state in all the nation, and liberals just have a way of telling other people what to do.  I know where they're at if I want to go there, but I'm not there.

And I don't feel threatened by them.  I believe that these are some really sick people that need our help.

 

But that's not what America

But that's not what America is.

Paleo, I understand and appreciate the clarification.  I was responding to the quote above.  But while it's true that the part is not the whole, the whole is comprised of the parts, all of them. 

Focusing on any subset of the country gives a distorted view.  If we focused only on Skip's heavily-armed friends hiding in the Oregon forests, wouldn't that also be distorted?  Some may think that they are "some really sick people that need our help."  It's nothing but tribalism: we understand and approve of what we're familiar and comfortable with, and disapprove of those who aren't in the tribe. 

One of our biggest challenges as a nation is finding a way to rise above the tribalism and grant others the dignity of their choices.  It makes sense that you avoid California if you don't like the liberalism; it makes much more sense than staying there and whining about it, like Skip does. 

But I think you're both going to be disappointed in your efforts to win hearts and minds (I assume that's what you want to do?) by making a sport of bashing outlandish caricatures and describing them as sick people who need your help.  That sounds rather nanny state, doesn't it? 

I believe I understand this

And I understand the concerns about tribalism, although I disagree.

Because I do believe that certain things which are objectively good, right, and proper, as a corollary I also believe that there exists other things which are, by their very nature, in and of themselves, are bad, wrong, and improper.  For example, spitting on my doorstep is one thing that is bad.  I know of no person in this world that needs to spit so bad that they can't take two steps from the door.  That's bad.  And I don't care what some law, some political philosophy, or some obscure thinker from the mid-1800's might have to say about it-- I'm going to have something to say about it.

Now, I accept that there are legitimate variants which are often at odds; but nature also has the capacity to produce aberrations.  And I do not believe that it is the lot of Man to remain idly passive at the unimpeded course of Nature.  No, not at all.  I believe that coming in out of the rain is good, right, and proper; shoveling snow off the walk is good, right, and proper; and a warm jacket on a windy day is good, right, and proper.  It is Man's lot to shape his environment, and to do so willfully.  Every manner in which he does so is a statement of his character.

And because of this, the proclivity toward aberration is in no wise to be emulated.  No, but this is an error to be avoided.  There's only so un-human you can get before you become inhuman.  Man is a higher being only so long as retains that character; and other than this, he is only another bloodthirsty beast.

Basically stated, I'm not so willing to accept things on the mere fact of their existence, but of their condition.  It is the condition which yields the higher value.

And I believe that the best way that I could possibly help them is to set a good example for them.  That's sort of my way of doing things.

setting a good example is always nice.

If I ever need to do the responsible thing, and off myself, I'll do it on your doorstep. ;-)

Because I don't believe you'd care a whit if I didn't do it there. Lord knows nobody cared about the kid who died from a rotten tooth the other year. In the united states of we don't fucking care about you.

Bitter much? Didja know acne is a preexisting condition? Didja know that if you don't notate all preexisting conditions, they'll cancel your policy when you're sick, and hope you die? And they'll keep your money, because You're in the Wrong.

I think you're missing something there

You're equating two things which are not the same.

Seriously, back in March, I watched from my bathroom window as the police put 8 slugs into a man I had known for 11 years.  He was released from a rehab program on that day, and his blood/alcohol level was 1.8 at the time of his death.

I have nothing but compassion for the human condition.  In a way, this is an acknowledgment of my own human frailty.  But I believe that to overcome is greater than to succumb.

It's not about who cares and who doesn't.

It's about: Is government really the one social institution that you're able to place your trust and endeavor into?

Whatever I have to give, I would rather it be on a personal level.

I don't want the government to be my mother.

I already have a mother, and I moved out of the house a long time ago.

sorry... guess in making a point, i got a bit far afield.

I put no trust in corporations, farther than their charter, which overwhelmingly is to put profit over America, over life, and over cleanliness.

You make what sounds like a nice thing: "I want to give close to home"... but what I hear is "I want to make sure the Right People get the money."

There are too many people who lack the social skills (whether by deliberate injury via bullets or otherwise) for me to put my trust exclusively in private donations.

(and many would have me swear to their god before giving me a dime. those scare me.)

If I had my way, you could give back in your community, and give a lesser portion to the whole. It's fair -- you're probably more efficient than the gov't is!

That's a good start

We're really not so far apart.

I, too, distrust corporations, avidly.  I can tell you that this pair of Red Wings I've got here is a replacement, paid for by the company, for a pair that got a bit doused with some toxic sludge that they really don't know what is at some chemical plant.

I grew up working the oil field, and then refineries and chemical plants.  Later, I went to commercial fishing vessels, and then back to the refineries.  I know that corporations poison a lot of people.  I can't even tell you how many family members among them.

Now, I've been an environmentalist for all of my life-- not in the manner of Sierra Club or Greenpeace, mind you.  Hunting and fishing were a part of the culture that I grew up in.  These were rights won from the king in the Magna Carta, and I can't believe that anyone would either give them up or consent to their poisoning.  I have no idea why people would forego their freedom.

I think you need to trust in the humanity of others more.

I'm quite sure these big-ticket donors are much like myself on a larger scale.  Instead of donating to two or three candidates, they get to give to seven or eight.  Instead of two or three hundred, they get to max out.  But directing where it goes to is probably pretty much the same operation.

I pick a few candidates that I really like that I think could use a little nudge.  That's all.  Same with them.  That's their right.  If you don't like it, then get into a business that makes more money.

Now, I come from a sect that believes in only one God.  And so, I see these other names of God as being exactly that-- various names of the One God.

And giving to the community should properly require no monetary benefit.  The benefits are exponential in themselves.  Bringing money into the matter strikes me as vulgar.

first, what are redwings?

second, some of those big ticket donors are psychopaths. it's about the only job qual for CEO these days (not kidding.known a few). People who spend millions to buy congressmen are not the same as you or me. I ain't got nothing against the $2000 doctor/lawyer/small businessman.

You say that liberals are always telling you waht to do... name some examples?

*

Red Wings

I was in Kansas City when they were discussing an indoor smoking ban for bars & restaurants, and I was in Milwaukee when they were discussing the same thing there.  In Kansas City, it was all a public health issue, while in Milwaukee, it was a property rights issue.

[L]iberals see no limits to state power as long as it is used to advance what they think is right.

Perhaps the greatest sin of liberals is their belief that it is possible for them to know everything necessary to manage the economy and society....  [C]onservatives... understand that the collective knowledge of the people as expressed in the free market is far greater than any individual, government bureau, or even the most powerful computer can possibly have.  And in politics, they believe that the will of the people as expressed through democratic institutions is more likely to result in correct policies than those devised by Platonic philosopher kings.  Liberals, on the other hand, are fundamentally distrustful of the wisdom and judgment of the people, preferring instead the absolutism of the courts to the chaos and uncertainty of democracy.

---Bruce Bartlett

I'll get to your simple-minded view of wildlife management later.

public health my ass. insurance company money.

follow the money my friend. Who pays all the climate skeptics? Exxon and friends.

And... as for liberals liking courts more than conservatives do... It wasn't liberals made me have my wedding in the county jail. That was some fucked up conservative tying up the whole damn thing in courts.

Need I mention the Dover Dilemma? Where the conservatives stick the school district with all the bills, and they run away scot free?

Yet alone the printed lies sold as "abstinence only" education (documented by Congressional hearings, no less!).

Me? I'll stick to the will of the people, and that includes the courts, where I'll continue to elect my damn judges.

Local Judges you can elect (some states) Fed Judges... nope

And Federal Judges and their ruling pretty much turmp the State Judges.   

How the Federal Courts Are Organized

Federal judges and how they get appointed

Supreme Court justices and court of appeals and district judges are appointed to office by the President of the United States, with the approval of the U.S. Senate. Presidents most often appoint judges who are members, or at least generally supportive, of their political party, but that doesn’t mean that judges are given appointments solely for partisan reasons. The professional qualifications of prospective federal judges are closely evaluated by the Department of Justice, which consults with others, such as lawyers who can evaluate the prospect’s abilities. The Senate Judiciary Committee undertakes a separate examination of the nominees. Magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges are not appointed by the President or subject to Congress’s approval. The court of appeals in each circuit appoints bankruptcy judges for fourteen-year terms. District courts appoint magistrate judges for eight-year terms. 

you get up to NW pa

shoot some deer for me. destroying the forest tree by tree...

Paleo, I'm not sure what

Paleo, I'm not sure what you're driving at in light of Skip's original post.  He set up the dirty hippie strawman to punch but never said what is inherently 'wrong' about the strawman. 

Yes, there's right and wrong.  But to varying degrees.  As a society, we're basically in agreement that murder is wrong.  Rape is wrong.  Stealing is wrong.  Our laws reflect that agreement, and impose punishment for those and various other behaviors.  That is society defining right and wrong.  I don't have any problem with you advocating for a local ordinance that would make spitting on someone's doorstep a misdemeanor, or with your local city council approving such an ordinance if they think most of the residents want that.  The enforcement headache would be theirs, not mine.  If you live in my city and I disagree with the council enacting laws like that, I need to vote against them at the next election.  Extrapolating that to SF, if most San Franciscans think their kids should get Happy Meals with toys regardless of the food content, I assume they'll have the SF council members in the crosshairs at the next election.  So the only real issue is the patience required to wait for the next election.  Are we as a culture really so impatient that we want what we want now and no one can deny us instant gratification?  Or if a majority of our neighbors think their kids can live without Happy Meal toys in exchange for healthier options, my opinion alone should trump the majority's?

With other behaviors, I think there is a wide and acceptable range in how they can be viewed.  Personally, I don't think coming in out of the rain is always good, right and proper.  Sometimes walking through a light rain is invigorating and can impart a deeper appreciation of nature.  Even if I get wet, where's the harm?  I'm not going to melt and my clothing eventually dries. But if I go out in a thunderstorm and get hit by lightning, and the county's emergency personnel have to risk life and limb to retrieve me and haul me to the nearest ER, where I'm treated at taxpayer expense because I don't have insurance, then, yes, I've harmed others with that action (not to mention my stupid self).  So, "good, right and proper" can be relative to the circumstances.

I think you need to provide specific examples of how California liberals are, by definition, not behaving in a good, right and proper manner.  Let's go back to Skip's hippie strawman, because I've known a few.  They were trust fund kids living like free spirits because they could afford to, on inherited wealth.  Don't conservatives generally approve of inherited wealth?  Since they were paying their own bills, who were they harming by dressing differently or having long hair or being less than squeaky clean or eating organic arugula? 

I think you need to see Skip in a new light

First of all, here's the guy that stayed and tried to change things when I went on to other parts.

Every one of us has our own strengths, those which are best suited to us.  These strengths serve ourselves and the aggregate much better when applied-- the potential is of only so much value, as it would be if you were selling a mine where a shovel had never turned.  These things are best realized in a place appropriate to them; but for the moment, let's stick to this one: our dear Skippy chose to stay and try to make things better.

Now, I believe you're confusing hyperbole with argument; and the two are not the same.  It's not even close to an argument, and he tells you why: He's too close to the subject.  Not a bad thing in itself, but it produces a certain effect; in this case, outrage.

So, when Skip talks about "gray pony-tailed 60s drop-out, drop-in, turn-on types that infest most liberal enclaves," he's not referring to any one person in specific, but a collection of prominent traits on the mean.  And perhaps even not as representative of the whole, but the representation of a portion of the whole-- a significant enough portion to produce this outrage.

As for your scenario of the pleasant walk in the rain, this is the error of equating the incidental with the characteristic.

Or, I suppose you could say, this walk in the rain doesn't hold water.

thank good old fashioned capitalism!

for those fucking anti-smoking laws, the anti-obesity laws, the wear a goddamn seatbelt laws.
it's called insurance companies buying the gov't.
Ain't no liberal wants any part of these laws, so don't you tar me with it!

You're probably right, that

You're probably right, that Skip feels he's made a decision to stay and 'fight,' but so many of the battles he's fighting are fauxtrages manufactured by paid shills hawking boner pills and survival seeds.  The inclusion of some wheezy Limbaugh rant or tear-stained Beck incoherency in every post marks him, for me, as someone feeding themselves a steady diet of misinformation and half-truths ginned up into phony issues.  That's why I usually don't even respond to him; I was more interested in responding to your points.

He needs to keep in mind that his media heroes make more money for themselves and their corporate sponsors by feeding his 'outrage' on a daily, escalating basis.  He has to realize that no one but the hard core 24-percenters are going to listen when he introduces loons like Beck and hucksters like Limbaugh into the discussion.  Only in Limbaugh-land are the old culture wars of the 60's and 70's still raging. 

If Skip feels better living in a constant state of media-induced outrage who am I to question it, but if he's at all concerned about real-world solutions to deadly serious national challenges, he better start using his own voice to make his argument, it better be a good one, and based at least loosely in the real world.  Otherwise, he's just tilting at windmills.

Sorry, this is in the wrong place.

Was intended as a reply to Paleo-Skeptic above.

I see that too

It's in the language.  I don't care for it myself because honest brokering is done with legitimate terms; and the alternative to honest brokering is not a palatable one.

I'm sure his outrage is real, though the incitement effect is obvious.  But for people placed in this position of outrage, sounding the alarm is always a preliminary to more effective steps.

I had thought he was in Chicago for some reason.  It makes more sense that he's holed up in a liberal stronghold like San Francisco.  That's where the bunker mentality comes from, I'm sure.

He had the flag painted over and the O for Obama.

He had the flag painted over and the O for Obama. Now these things are symptomatic of a man who would like to be a potentate, Just once I'd like to hear Obama say that is isn't planning on building forced work camps for white Christians in Ohio.

***Cell Phones