June 08, 2009
"I Did Not Vote to Lower My Standard of Living"
Michael Jones of PoliGazette voted twice for Barack Obama last year—in the primaries and in the general election—but he is one of a rapidly growing number of disillusioned moderates that is coming to regret his decision.
Here is a taste of his discontent:
Like many Americans last November, I voted for change. I had hope. I no longer have hope since the president I voted for never mentioned a fraction of the agenda he now espouses. I did not vote to lower my standard of living, humble as it may be. Nor did I ask to jump into the economic abyss in order to "save" the planet.
Every time I hear another Obama supporter-turned-opponent claim that they had no idea what Obama was going to do as President, I have to shake my head in amusement.
If these new critics had relied upon the media, peer pressure, and party allegiance to help them decide how to cast their vote, then I can certainly understand how they ended up voting for Obama. The neophyte from Chicago certainly looked good, was charismatic, and said all the right things, while giving them the added bonus of being a (partially) African-American candidate that could help them wash away any guilt they may have of their own bigotry (we all prejudiced to varying degrees, and anyone who tells you they are completely unprejudiced is a liar and/or a dunce). For people not willing to put in the time to actively research a candidate's record or positions—which, let's face it, is most voters—he represented a package that was hard not to vote for.
I make no excuses at all for the pundit class, however. The Christopher Buckleys and Peggy Noonans of this world earn their living by (presumably) researching voting records and positions on issues both major and obscure, investigating ties to organizations and individuals of questionable propriety, and forecasting, to the very best of their ability, what a candidate might do if elected to the office.
The amateur pundit class—bloggers, for the most part—fired dozens of warning flares about significant issues with Obama's record, his dubious activities working of the board of radical charities, his lack of political courage or accountability, his strong biases, his temperament, his alleged affair, and his verified multi-decade associations with not one, or two, or three, but four hardcore radicals on the fringes of society, from a Catholic priest the advocates lynching, to a racialist church and it's radical pastor, to a pair of domestic terrorists, one of which already did jail time for obstruction of justice in a armored car robbery that left police officers and security guards dead, and who masterminded at least three politically-motivated mass murder attempts that (thankfully) all failed because of their associate's incompetence.
The punditry had every reason to sound the alarm on any of a dozen warning signs that Barack Obama was going to ruin our relationship with our allies, be a patsy for our enemies, be soft of terrorism, and preternaturally lethal to our economy and way of life. He's proven to be exactly what we expected... if anything, he's worse than we ever could have feared.
I'm glad to have Michael and others like him join the legions of us who knew Barack Obama was a dangerous choice for President, one who advocates policies that threaten the very core of the capitalist Republic.
I simply wish they had come to that realization prior to November 4.
Posted by Confederate Yankee at June 8, 2009 10:32 AM
Sad to say, but, most people would vote for satan himself, provided he had the right party affiliation. Once their minds are made up, they won't hear or even look at what you show them. I warned friends against this ass in office. I told them to look at his Illinois record. Didn't matter. It won't in the future either.
The media failed and continues to fail their consumers ... and they wonder why newspaper sales are down.
The puzzle is this:
I am not very bright and I can quickly gather testimony in support of that claim--the most recent evidence might be that I thought is was a good idea to vote for "least damage" (I now see that if we are ever to get back into power, we need for ALL of the big-spend-big-goobermint-socialists the sign their names with (D- following)....but I digress.
All of these bright folks couldn't see Obama for what he is (the only thing that startles me is the rapidity of the establishment of his dictatorship-of-the-big-spenders).
But I could. How can that be?
Ahhhh... another troll rears it's ugly, ignorant and possibly British head from under the bridge...
My assumtion of British in that the "p*ss off" comment isn't the normal phrasing that an American would utilize. If he is British, all I have to ask is how's that gun-control-big-brother-cameras-on every-corner-neo-fascist-far-more-corrupt-than-Italy-gummint(and that takes effort!!!) working out for you?
Not so much I'd say.
Me? I'm an equal opportunity bigot. I hate everyone equally regardless of race, color, creed, religion, or political affiliation... until they prove to me that they are worthwhile human beings, I'd safely say that I wouldn't spare the steam off last weeks dog squeeze of the front lawn to save anyones life.
Dunce and liars? You qual on both and then some. Enjoy that sand you've buried your head in... just realize that with the head in the sand, you are in the prime position to be anally raped...
FYI, the comment Big country was responding to was scrubbed, but yeah... troll.
So if you "hate everyone equally regardless of race, color, creed, religion, or political affiliation..." are claiming to be not at all prejudiced?
Are you a dunce or a liar - or both?
Or are you only prejudiced against anyone you perceive, incorrectly I might add, to be British?
If you wish to paint all of humanity with a broad brush and label anyone who questions or challenges the slander ... Well it's your blog do as you wish.
And for what it's worth, I agreed with the entire post except for the "we all prejudiced" parenthetical.
Did Obama actually think that quadrupling the national debt would be good for the economy? Did he actually think spending more than Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 combined would be good for the economy? What is he going to do when he runs out of other people's money? (which should be soon)
Obama's economic program is so bad that even the Chinese are telling us to proceed with caution. I never thought I would see that.
Everyone in the nation knew what was coming wiht Obama and to claim otherwise is what the psychologist call denial. That or stupidity.
As to prejudice, I am not to a specfic group unless 80% of there associates have criminal records, do not advocate higher education, take my hard earned money in the name of democracy and equality, ask for priveledge for abuse 150 years ago and are prejudiced to me. Does any group fit that description?
I forgot, we really need another country, government, or whatever you want to call a seperation from this tyranny that we call democracy.
I have no -- zip, zero, nada -- sympathy for any so-called "moderate" that now wants to complain because Obama turned out to be...exactly what he's always so obviously been. These people swallowed the lie hook, line, and sinker, and now that it's going to affect them personally in ways their self-inflicted blindness didn't allow for imagining, they're shocked -- SHOCKED -- that a long-self-avowed Leftist is going to govern like (gasp!) a Leftist.
Tough noogies, chumps; the information was always out there, and it was never all that hard to find. I only wish there was some way they could be made to suffer even more than the rest of us will; it seems only fair, since their willful ignorance did so much to help foist this fraud off on all of us in the first place.
Try paying attention next time, willya? Assuming, of course, that there is one. Now that the move is afoot to do away with the 22nd Amendment, who knows...
Rats. Sorry, Bob, screwed up my link there.
I don't shake my head in amusement - I shake my fist in anger. It's not amusing in the least. These people knew what Obama is all about. They wouldn't listen when we told them. We should suggest to anyone who claims to have been fooled by Obama that they voluntarliy give up their vote, because they're obviously too stupid to be trusted with such a great responsibility.
I lived in Mississippi in the 50's. At that time the states could set requirement for the priveledge of voting and the enormous responsibility it carries. The requirement was that people read the preamble to the constitution. This was considered too much and that Blacks were being descriminated against, despite that all potential voters had to do the same. This is what resulted in the invasion of the state by enlightened intellectuals from the north that changed the policy so that even non-citizens with false papers can now vote.
Mike: Rep. Serrano has been submitting that particular piece of legislation since 1997. Each time it either died right out of the gate, or died in committee or subcommittee.
Heck, let them work their butts of on stupid stuff like this. If it gets them to leave the big stuff alone, we can only be better off!
Yeah, I actually did know that, SC. Apparently this is the guy's number-one bugaboo; he's been plumping for it a good long while, and can be counted on to re-introduce a bill pretty regularly. But I must admit my faith that such legislation won't eventually get through ain't what it once was. it's one of the Left's favorite and most successful tactics: keep plugging away until the social climate has been manipulated enough to ensure success -- which is what they define as "progress." And in my lifetime I've seen it work too many times not to worry about it at all.
So if you "hate everyone equally regardless of race, color, creed, religion, or political affiliation..." are claiming to be not at all prejudiced?
Are you a dunce or a liar - or both?
Sorry not to have responded sooner... Had a pool party to attend... anywho...
Both actually I have been, both stupid and a liar... I don't attempt to (unlike yourself) lie to myself about these things... In saying "we all prejudiced" parenthetical" as you stated, I find your use of specific syntax informative. The "p*ss off" attack in your scrubbed post is not an Americanism by far, but in my experience more the vernacular used in England and Australia, and some of the other areas originally founded/inhabited by the Irish, Brits and Aussies.
A ligustic analysis of your use of the "we all prejudiced" could even be seen as an attempt to either use a poorly rendered "Southernism" or an attempt to broaden the brush with the "Uneducated Ignoramous" attack. Either way, I sincerely doubt it was a poor typo, inasmuch as the other lame attempts at denying that which cannot be denied: i.e. humans inherently discriminate, if not with wrath or anger in the heart or mind, but more in the "I prefer Italian food versus Vietnamese food" theory, and in your feeble attempts to state that YOU don't discriminate, YOU then try to state that WE do, and that then YOU are above such horrible things. Ergo: You discriminate against us discriminating, therefore, you discriminate.
Kind of puts the spin on it don't it?
That's life/That's what all the people say/Vote for pie in the sky in November/Now a sh*t storm is on the way
Just what did the damned fool think that Obama's clearly marxist agenda was all about other than lowering his and everyone else's standard of living?
Meanwhle, about that repeal of the 22 Amendment thing, it is as much trouble to repeal a Constitutional Amendment as it is to get one in the first place - requires the approval of good chunk of the states too. Not gonna fly.
My use of "we all prejudice" was an attempt at nothing. It was copied from the original post.
The accusation contained in the parenthetical was one of racism. I tend to bristle at such an insult particularly when made by someone who passes judgement on me, never having met me. I guess that proves the point about CY's prejudice and perhaps yours as well.
That said, if you wish to define racism down to level of preferring the flavor of garlic and oregano over nuoc mam or coconut, I don't see much point in continuing the discussion since the only thing left to use will be a rousing debate on the meaning of "is."
The original quote you use to justify your own ad hominem is thus:
...while giving them the added bonus of being a (partially) African-American candidate that could help them wash away any guilt they may have of their own bigotry (we all prejudiced to varying degrees, and anyone who tells you they are completely unprejudiced is a liar and/or a dunce).
In rereading the entire posting, to include your responses, and my own offers a better grasp of what your problem is, which is in fact that you DO suffer from the exact issues Bob had laid out here. The matter that the post primarily deals with "Presidential Buyers Remorse" (which, in light of the attacks you've made, that line in itself which meant as innocuous, you're probably going to ask me my sheet size).
But, as unfortunate as the term is, it is what it is. Buyers Remorse. You can sieze on ONE aspect of the post, which conviently ignoring the "larger picture" of a election not based on ability, but on a empty rhetoric and race. And now, having realized that y'all blew it are in the "hands over the ears la-la-la I can't hear you RACISTS!!!" rant mode.
No where in MY postings did I define racism or equivocate it with how you have now tried to paint it. I simply broadened and assisted you in the wider understanding of prejudice and, as Bob stated that we are ALL prejudiced. In your liberal viewed mind's eye however, 'prejudice = racism'
Me? I'm flat out prejudiced all the time. I regularlly pass judgement on people I don't know all the time. If I meet someone, I can usually tell within 5 minutes whether or not they are an a$$, and having made that judgement call, I no longer feel the need to waste my valuable time with them, as life is too short.
Good Day to you sir. (tips hat)
It was there for anyone who cared to look at it, what Obama was going to do. I predicted when he was elected that the country would be turning against him by the 4th of July, makes me look like a prophet now.
Because of Obama's agenda and the dolts who voted for him people are losing their homes and jobs at a staggering rate, I have no sympathy for "I didn't realize..." Because we on the other side TOLD you what he would do, it was so obvious to anyone not shrieking like a high schooler at a beatles concert at his very mention.
A friend of mine's brother is about to be put out on his arse because of Obama's economic blundering. He had two jobs and lost both within 2 weeks of each other- Now he can't score a job at Taco Bell.
His sister is trying to help out but it may be too little too late. Here's her blog post about it:
In response to Sean's comment: "It was there for anyone who cared to look at it, what Obama was going to do. I predicted when he was elected that the country would be turning against him by the 4th of July, makes me look like a prophet now."
A prophet? Maybe a delusional prophet or a false prophet. We've less than a month to go until the 4th of July and Obama's approval ratings are still in the 60%+ range.
Though I'm not fond of all of the President's ideas nor all of his agenda, I'm still glad that I voted for him and proud to be among the majority of Patriotic Americans who do, in fact, embrace much of his agenda.
Don't worry yourselves into a tizzy folks. We're still a democratic republic. We're still a capitalist society. Sure, we're going to see some needed common sense socialism introduced into our government and our society. Many of us think that's a good thing. In fact, according to many polls it would appear that a majority of us approve.
Barfing up the Kool-Aid, are you?
Too late, you've learned to think and look beyond the bumper-stickers. You've learned that the definition of a "rich person" is "anyone with a job". You've learned that the "wealth" that the Marxists mean to "spread" is yours.
You swallowed the shallow, undefined notions of "hope" and "change" and you defiled your sacred franchise to vote, a privilege gained for you by generations who sacrificed for it. You pissed it away in an orgy of credulity, stupidity, and naivete.
Lap it up.
If you look above, you will see that I have absolutely no problem with the rest of the post. And if you care to follow the link to my site ( http://nomayo.mu.nu/ ) I doubt you would be labeling me a liberal.
In the context of the original post, prejudice was used as a synonym for bigotry and racism. In other words to pass judgement on an individual's character based on preconceived ideas about a race, color, religion etc. I reacted - perhaps badly - to the unfounded assertion that I am a bigot or a racist. I say unfounded, because the author has no basis on which to pass judgement on my character. Something I do not generally regard as innocuous.
To the extent that you have you have tried to judge me based on this exchange you have been completely wrong as I am not a British Liberal Troll.
Any attack that I made was simply to question your own statements. In your first response you wrote of me "Dunce and liars? You qual on both and then some" signifying your agreement with the original assertion. You also wrote: "I hate everyone equally regardless of race, color, creed, religion, or political affiliation" which reads to me as saying that you do not prejudge people (using the term in the context in which it was originally used in the post as a synonym for bigotry and racism). I merely questioned the apparent contradiction.
To expand upon your example and assist you in the wider understanding of prejudice, having a preference for Italian food over Vietnamese does not indicate prejudice if one has sampled both broadly. Preference does not equal prejudice. Rejecting one cuisine outright, never having tasted it, due to its ethnic origins, would be prejudiced, bigoted and racist.
In your last comment you wrote: "I'm flat out prejudiced all the time. I regularlly pass judgement on people I don't know all the time. If I meet someone, I can usually tell within 5 minutes whether or not they are an a$$, and having made that judgement call..." To my reading these statements are self contradictory. You state that you are prejudiced - that you pre judge people all the time - then say that you make a judgement call on a person within five minutes of meeting them. If you have met them and observed enough of their character to judge then an a$$, that is not prejudging. And if you make that judgement according to your original statement "regardless of race, color, creed, religion, or political affiliation" but based on your assessment of their character, then you are in fact not prejudiced, bigoted or racist and I would not regard you as either a dunce or a liar for saying so.
LIve Long and Prosper.
I guess "Dude" voted for 10+% unemployment and the quadrupling of the national debt. But that's exactly what you get when you put "some needed common sense socialism" into society. We all get to be equally miserable. Are socialists like Dude really that naive or stupid? It's been proven in every socialist government. How can they continue to ignore facts?
I don't think it's a matter of them ignoring facts - I think it's simple hubris. They don't blame the failures of socialism on the ideas they blame it on the people putting it into practice.
Their version of socialism will work where every other version has failed because they are better than everyone else and they will do it right.
Stephen, but anywhere Capitalism has been tried it's been wildly successful. Why would anyone want to change that? Never mind, I get it, it's all about control. They want to control the people.
The more power they have over people, the better they think they will feel about themselves. They are empty hollow shells of human beings too terrified to look at themselves objectively and judge their worth, their only estimation of their own value is in comparison to others.
Then they're pretty worthless
I think the term morally bankrupt fits them well. Unfortunately they are looking to use our lives as their ego stimulus package.