Obama Offends Disabled, Without Teleprompter, on Leno

Obama speaks English. Bush spoke gibberish. I was amazed at his lack of understanding.

Ummmm....Oooooh.... Errrr....

You consider that English?

Even smart people say "Uhh" or whatever. I have a friend at my school who takes almost all honors classes and is in the Student Body, and sometimes she says "Uhm" or "Err". Just because Obama does it, he's suddenly an idiot?

Guess I'm an idiot. Guess my friend is an idiot. Guess everyone who utters those evil, disgusting words are idiots.

Even smart people say "Uhh" or whatever. I have a friend at my school who takes almost all honors classes and is in the Student Body, and sometimes she says "Uhm" or "Err". Just because Obama does it, he's suddenly an idiot?

A lot people who do are actually really smart. Their minds are thinking of a hundred things at once and the pause is there to allow them to slow down their thought process to communicate.

Nearly all of the psychological and cognitive research that has since been done in this area, which was inspired by George Mahl, says that uttering “uh” and “um” is the sign of thought, a symptom of an additional mental load, rather than the absence of thinking. But while it’s rare for someone to be able to have novel ideas and speak perfectly fluently, many of us continue to equate fluency of speech with fluency of thought.

I have actualy seen some of the studies some time back, but this is the easist article i could find online that explained it

I think O should be smart enough to let Jay be the funny one.

Now try it again, this time insert Obama's name and take out Bush's. Then you will have the flip side. Insert a Nancy for a Coulter. Enjoy!!!

Obummer's Gaffes = Human

Bush's Gaffes = "gibberish"

Here's another one to add to your list of equations:

TheCapitalist = Racist

MN Nick,

TheCapitalist = Racist

"Never mis a chance to shut UP!" -- Will Rogers

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

-- Abraham Lincoln

Please -- I think the prez is a doof, I did not vote for him, hate his politics but really, so what -- he made a dumb joke. He is our president for at least 4 years.. He will get better at not slipping up on this stuff -- lets just HOPE he will get better on the serious issues like Iran and the economy. At this point, early into his administration he is doing about as well as I thought he should. In 4 years I will be planning to vote yet again for a 3rd party candidate unless something CHANGES radically for the better -- isn't that what we were promised?

I'll let my black wife know about my racism.

OMG are you serious, u must not know that poeple can be racist toward their own race or have seen the jenny jones 'i love you but i hate ur race episodes'.

Just because you sleep with/live with/marry/date someone of another race doesn’t make you automatically not racist. After all, slave masters had no problem maintaining their racist beliefs against blacks while raping their slaves and fathering mixed children with them

-mixedmediamatters.com

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1

This is a racist test,

it can tell you a lot about your self, i passed it (and i think only 5 % of the country gets a non racist result. *yay me!* ) I wonder if you can.

Why did you automatically assume because he has a black wife that he is black. You are racist Ohiogal!

I traced my background to mostly Irish, maybe which would explain my late night drinking and posting, but that aside I do have some other mixture in the mostly Irish background. All of that being said I could care less about diversity or racism, especially since racism is used mainly as a crouch these days. "I didn't get a job because of racism!" I would like to point out that Michelle Obama would have never gotten in to Princeton without her being black. She did not have the scores or test high enough to bypass the others who were applying, but she is just now proud of America. Give me a break. She would have went to a state school had she been white with the same intellect. I have to post this link again to a video of a comedy animation show by Aaron MGruder, a black man, in this episode MLK was in a coma and comes back to see what he faught so hard for...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYggWJZZSw8

I guess, it is that O is a shooting Star compared to Bush. He is so shiny and new. A refreshing change to the predictable Bush. Soooo much mental BLING, that everyone is in awe..........then he just does somethng dumb and we remember that he is just as human as Bush.

It was miles better than your mantra of:

Killing Arabs & subverting the Constitution = Freedom

Aparently the MAJORITY of voters seemed to think so anyway....

Not until you take down the picture of Obama walking on his hands like an orangutan.

Why do you find it soooo offensive?

Have you tried that? It might prove to be a better use of time and energy than stuff like this.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!

You call listening to Rush Limbaugh every day if Obama hadn't won a pursuit of happiness? WTH is wrong with you Cap?

I don't listen to Rush, it almost spells Bush.

Yes, Cap, your logic is flawed.

You are trying to make mountains out of a mole hill.

But hey, you're having fun, so WTF. Right?

Yes, everyone says dumb things and this was a slip of the tongue. I am also a parent of a child with disabilities. Am I mad? No. Just a dumb remark. My world is not ending.

I think the real issue is the hypocrisy of what happened here. O had gotten a pass from the media on this. Whereas, if a conservative made this slip, they would have bashed by everyone.

The reality is that O should have gotten a pass, ALONG with the dumb insensitive remarks made by cons in the past.

I think the real issue is the hypocrisy of what happened here. O had gotten a pass from the media on this. Whereas, if a conservative made this slip, they would have bashed by everyone.

How is front page coverage on all the major news sites, radio programs, etc etc considered "a pass" exactly? This non-story is getting so much play in the media today that's it's unavoidable....hell, even Twitter is going crazy with it, blogs, everything...it's obsurd how much attention this is getting. I'm really not sure "a pass" is what I'd call it.

Are you kidding? A pass? I live in D.C. and I heard it on the bus radio, WTOP, at 7:30 this A.M, they played it every half hour all day, I got to work and it was on the music radio station all day long, I got home and it was on the TV news, changed channels and it was on cable news, changed channels and David Schuster on MSNBC played he whole Leno show and then had a panel to discuss The Comment. No he's not getting a pass, that is just the same old tired conservative RHETORIC.

If someone recognizes the error they made and apologizes, why shouldn't we be able to forgive and move on? You seem to just constantly want to beat him up regardless of whether he takes responsibility or not.

If Bush said something similar and immediately apologized, then yea I'd defend him too.

Yes, I was hearing outrage, condemnation, indignation, very negative coverage, even on MSNBC by Schuster. I didn't hear Obama had made an apology until this evening - they didn't mention that on the music radio all day,didn't hear it on (FOX) news radio, it was MSNBC that had Kennedy on for an interview, that's when I heard it. I did defend Bush when he made stupid statements or mangled words because I know how easy it is to screw up when you speak off the cuff. I don't remember Bush ever getting it worse than Obama did today, I don't remember him getting it this bad for a slip ever but apparently you do so I must have missed it. I don't get you - you are completly intollerant of this gaffe and equally intollerant of teleprompters so what do you want? Everything should be the written word, no public appearances?

YOU brought Bush up, twice. I was answering YOUR question. How about YOU move on.

Yes, me specifically, you asked me two questions, see #5.5 and as follows:

Can you image the outrage if Bush said something so stupid?

Would you be defending Bush if he said something so heartless?

OK, thanks, appreciate it.

i heard the clip this morning on Imus. it didn't sound cut up and it was Obama saying his score was 129, the audience cheering, leno and obama talking over each other for a second, and then obama saying it was like the speical olympics. not sure where the Leno praise part comes in that you are talking about.

either way, for the president to make an off color joke like that on national television doesn't sit well with me. of course the president being on Leno in the first place didn't sit well with me either...but this is the world we live in now.

Profchaos;

That's not feasible. Look at the clip. Leno is mugging to the audience as he ridicules Obama's bowling score with false and exaggerated praise. Any other interpretation is tendentious and mertricious.

And "Off color"? You gotta be kidding. THIS is "off color" on a late-night talk show.

like i said i only heard the clip. either way, his bowling aptitude or jay's reaction, a comparison to the special olympics is still an off color comment to be made by the POTUS. yeah, he's human... but either way he compared the situation to that of disabled people. it's not exactly right when someone does it in thier living room and it's not any better when the president does it on national television.

Prof:

Eh. A little banter between adults at midnight is no big deal.

i take in the fact that because the president was one of the adults, the banter holds a little more weight. we all see things differently.

curious what you thought of the Imus situation. that was banter as well.

O, needs to understand that he can't be himself, so much on national TV. Sure he has star quality, but not in the entertainment field.

Whats the big deal about the teleprompter? Bush had a teleprompter and still managed to screw it up. Everyone on tv these days uses a teleprompter. Why should Obama be held to a higher standard? Seems your just grasping at straws.

I agree O is much better at reading a teleprompter than Bush, but I bet Bush had a good laugh.

i'll fully admit that I am not a huge advocate for the disabled community. However, I also don't WANT to be offended by what he says. But when he says something like this it needs to be discussed that the President (role model and leader that he is supposed to be) just made fun of disabled people. Isn't that not a good example to set? Why did his staff apologize for him if it wasn't wrong? They obviously realize it was offensive to some people. Just don't think the pres should be on national television poking fun at the disabled. just my opnion.

I'm surprised that you can't see the obvious Brian. You would be out there leading the charge if the President had said this 6 months ago. You would be telling the world what an idiot the man was and how he was un-fit to lead a bathtub armada and this gaffe just served to prove your point.

You would be out there leading the charge if the President had said this 6 months ago.

I get tired of asking people to do this, because you guys always clam up and disappear in a puff of smoke, but:

I was on Newsvine for *at least* three of George Bush's last 4 years as President. In that time, he made countless gaffes, some arguably far worse than this one.

Please please please go through my history (articles, seeds, comments) and find where I've acted shocked, outraged, or particularly interested in beating that dead @!$%#ing horse further into the ground.

Please?

You'll look really good if you can find some examples, but I suspect...

!POOOOOOF!

There you go...

He just put the target on himself..........made it too easy.

He apologized pretty much immediately. Why would there still be a target?

It's getting a lot of play and will continue to be fodder for the media, til something else distracts them.

If he gets any more human he will be on Bush's level...........

dmkatt78,

Get a life and get over it. His bowling score is like the Special Olympics. I know, I have a friend who was in it once.

And, like the President, your comment is unacceptable.

It amazes me how the only comeback or argument for Obama fans is to bring up the former President and his gaffes. Bush wasn't with Obama on the Jay Leno show.

At the time, those too were discussed so please, get some new material.

Obama does have his own "special needs" which is his Obama-prompter. It's embarrassing to watch him try to think and speak at the same time without watching him writhe in pain.

I hope he enjoys his one term in office.

On behalf of those unfortunate people who rely on teleprompters, I'm incredibly offended by your flippant insensitivity to those who need a little extra help, and who maybe can't think on their toes as quickly as others or as naturally.

I think you should probably apologize.

I agree, people need to get over it. Harvard doesn't have a bowling program, does it????

He's pissin' off one group at a time. Who's next?

Interesting.

I'm going to assume that Get Real For Once is not a former POTUS.

With that in mind, and his view on what you can and can't understand based on whether you've "lived it" or not, I'm going to go ahead and assume I get to ignore any opinions he has on Obama's performance as President, being as he doesn't "have a clue about any of it."

the insult is that the president compared a bad bowling score to that of the special olmypians. implying that speical olympians can not play well or perform well.

Prof:

implying that speical olympians can not play well or perform well.

Shhhhhhh. I don't want to offend your delicate sensibilities but .... they can't.

i find it sad that you think that way jfx. there are some speical olymipans that are quite athletic despite thier handicaps and they can perfrom just fine.

Prof,

I can agree that the President made the reference; I just do not think that his intent was anything other than to be self-deprecating.

It is my belief that those who choose to obviously misinterpret the President's remark, are those who are indeed being "offended" for a group of people who are really quite capable of taking care of themselves; and do so despite their challenges everyday.

I would posit that most folks with disabilities would be offended by your obvious assessment that their sensibilities are so "delicate" that they would not properly interpret the President's remark as it was intended.

You are dissembling Sir; and your agenda is clearly showing...more good old "gotcha" politics!

would posit that most folks with disabilities would be offended by your obvious assessment that their sensibilities are so "delicate" that they would not properly interpret the President's remark as it was intended

so you accuse me of stating I know what people with disabilites think by stating that you know what people with disabilites think. see anything wrong with that picture?

people with disabilites may not be offended by his comment. In my opnion (and mine alone as I don't speak for anyone else), the president referring to his poor bowling game as being like the special olympics is a insult of people who participate in the events. if he was being self depricating, that means HE thinks that the athletes in the special olympics are poor athletes and lesser people since self deprication is to lower onself.

the people in the special olympics are capable of taking care of themselves and most have overcome great adversity and likely done more in thier lives than I have. so for the president to compare his poor performance to them is an insulting comment, in my opnion.

i did not say thier sensibilites were delicate. jfx thinks mine are and was commenting to me (if you look.... he's the one that thinks they can't perform well...which 5 people have voted for so far...). if you read this thread, I am defending the speical olympians as being capable people of performing just fine.

i don't mind that we disagree...but please don't make points against me for things i did not say.

Here's the thing.

Let's just, for the sake of argument, assume it was kind of a stupid thing to say. Let's ignore that all of us (including all of those who are up in arms about this) make comments just like this one, and accept the argument that Obama has to be more careful than most of us.

Even *accepting* all that, a general rule of thumb is that those who aren't targeted by the gaffe should never be *more* angry or *more* offended than those who have some sort of reason or call to be personally offended.

When you see that -- another rule of thumb is that the offense is manufactured.

Prof:

there are some speical olymipans that are quite athletic despite thier handicaps and they can perfrom just fine.

Yeah. I know.

Anything else?

well your statement in 15.2 did not reflect that at all.

I think his statement reflected that they perform at a different level than people without disabilities, which is why they participate in something called the *special* olympics, rather than the regular olympics.

Pretending otherwise is just silly.

On a side note, Jack:

Have you seen the South Park episode wherein Cartman pretend to be disabled (he uses a different word to describe his disability, of course) in order to participate (and win) the Special Olympics, only to have his ass handed to him by the better trained and more capable entrants?

Great episode.

Prof;

so you accuse me of stating I know what people with disabilites think by stating that you know what people with disabilites think. see anything wrong with that picture?

You called it an "insult" which is what I was responding to...Look up the word "posit" and let's move on...

people with disabilites may not be offended by his comment. In my opnion (and mine alone as I don't speak for anyone else), the president referring to his poor bowling game as being like the special olympics is a insult of people who participate in the events.if he was being self depricating, that means HE thinks that the athletes in the special olympics are poor athletes and lesser people since self deprication is to lower onself.

The statement of opinion is just that. It is what you think. How is it insulting to someone to say that you are "like them"?

the people in the special olympics are capable of taking care of themselves and most have overcome great adversity and likely done more in thier lives than I have. so for the president to compare his poor performance to them is an insulting comment, in my opnion.

This may be on a level you missed, but I personally believe that the President's comment was focused on Leno's "over the top" praise of the improvement in his bowling...(in my opinion)...

i did not say thier sensibilites were delicate. jfx thinks mine are and was commenting to me (if you look.... he's the one that thinks they can't perform well...which 5 people have voted for so far...). if you read this thread, I am defending the speical olympians as being capable people of performing just fine.

I am reading your comments as being more derisive of the President than defending anyone else. (Sorry, that's my opinion also!)

i don't mind that we disagree...but please don't make points against me for things i did not say.

I still think you said them...but if it will make you feel better; I will go and check to make sure I understand the meaning of the word "insult"...

"In my opinion"; you continue to dissemble Sir!

Oh Yeah...Brian Ford; you continue to crack me up where ever I run into you on the vine.

I love a guy who not only "gets the joke", but can turn it back around in any genre; be it irony, satire, or even hyperbole!

What you want to bet some here will think this post is "off topic"!?! ;-}

Brian:

Grrrrrrrr. I've tried mightily to resist the evil temptation to watch South Park ever since the Bloody Mary episode, but unfortunately, Yes, I sinned and did watch their Special Olympics take.

GA:

I would posit that most folks with disabilities would be offended by your obvious assessment that their sensibilities are so "delicate" that they would not properly interpret the President's remark as it was intended.

you accuse me of assuming they have delicate sensibilites. when i never said any such thing. i took it as an insult to the special olympic community. i can't speak for them. i never said they were sensitive to it. i don't have to be part of the community to evalute a statement as an insult or not in my eyes. i found the statement to be distasteful and slightly insulting for the president of the country to make. i hold him to a higher standard as he is supposed to be a leader.

How is it insulting to someone to say that you are "like them"?

because 129 isn't a great bowling score? the implication that a special olympian could not get a good score. and if he was responding to jay's reaction, then he is saying that special olympians recieve over the top priase? is it really that hard to see how this could taken as an offensive statement and/or insult?

I am reading your comments as being more derisive of the President than defending anyone else. (Sorry, that's my opinion also!)

this is an article about Obama isn't it? who would you like me to be talking about? did someone else make diparging remarks about a group in america that you would like me to comment on? there is noting to defend for Obama and like i said, i can't speak for the community as i am not part of it. i can however state my opnion of our president and his comments about that community.

You still don't get it Prof,

because 129 isn't a great bowling score?

Obama's previous bowling score was abysmal. The 129 score IS a great score for as long as Obama has been trying to bowl. You get it now? It was an improvement! His best to date! He was simply telling Jay Leno that he is getting better...

It's your judgement that it the 129 is a "bad" score...You have no idea whether or not anyone who is "disabled" would consider 129 to be great or poor, or just average. Yet you build your entire premise for President Obama having "insulted" someone, on your judgement of his bowling score! If the man was saying he was doing better, and Jay starts to lay it on thick with the praise;...at any rate; the President IS responsible for what he says; but he is not responsible for your misinterpretation of it!

The only "insult" here was to your tender sensibilities.

he did take responsibility today and apologized which is a good thing so he must have felt he actually did something wrong unless he is just pandering but i don't think that is the case.

so the score thing aside cause we just don't agree on that...how is jay laying on thick praise and likening that to the special olympics a good thing?

i find it interesting that you think my interpretation is wrong but yours is right. i'll admit i fall into that but just because i took it differently than you, does not mean I am wrong. i still think when you said he meant it to be self-deprecating... that is an insulting thing....somehow you don't see that... different interpretations.

he did take responsibility today and apologized which is a good thing so he must have felt he actually did something wrong unless he is just pandering but i don't think that is the case.

He actually apologized *yesterday* before the show even aired.

He knew he was going to catch hell.........

well it wasn't reported until today... facts don't come at the speed of light even these days...

Oh Paul!

Now THAT 'game" was really offensive! And fun! (My high score was five on the second try!)

LOL if they come out with an Obama bowling game I will play that too! Nice to see a game I might be good at? I might beat a 40? and walking to do it won`t happen!

Of course for some the best game would be throw money at the Capitalist?

Oh Yeah!

You mean like "Santa's Elf Bowling"!?! I love that game!! (Should Obama's version use Senators or House Members?) [...And do we get to pick 'em?!!]

I cannot agree to throwing money at a capitalist though...just because we already threw it all at them; and they call us "socialists" because of it!!

Friend request sent!! ;-}

Haven`t seen the Santa`s elves game, maybe a race to the money game with house and senate members pushing wheelbarrows? Or would they create jobs having others push them? Load the cash and go?

Both sides strike me as pretty dumb, and funny! Pin the tail on the donkey? or elephant?

I accept all handouts!

How about O plays basketball like a____________but bowls like a____________? Everyone happy now?

"schoolyard bully"

Except bullies are usually a little intimidating, not hopelessly ignorant and pathetic.

Well Cap, what I said was "here" in case you didn't catch it. What I meant was "here" in case you didn't understand it. And what you didn't, haven't and most likely won't do is admit that you are wrong "here". I have read enough of your "writing" to find myself in agreement with 3sheets.

That's not frustration, that's comprehension.

I have read enough of your "writing" to find myself in agreement with 3sheets.

Repeat as needed. :-)

Why are you so irrational?

Cap, 3 sheets.....blank sheets, full of hot air.

Why do you hate freedom so much?

Why Cap, I love freedom! Why do you hate clean underwear? In case that is too subtle for you, my question has about as much to do with your comments as your question has to do with my comments.

Frankly, I find your non-sequitur of a query disturbing. How well do you do on word association tests? If President Obama says carrots do you immediately think sea urchin? This is exactly the sort of thing that makes one wonder how you reach any sort of rational opinion of world events.

Your utter inability to take responsibility for your comments just proves my prior observation concerning your lack of maturity. It's just too remincient of the damn fool that we just got rid of.

When he says he gets to determine how much money private citizens can earn, I call that a loss of liberty and freedom.

Um, no, the long needed reform would still allow the board of a publicly traded company to make this decision, but would put in some new requirements that more heavily tie what they can do with the performance of the company.

I'm not talking about "bailed-out" companies, either. The NY Times reported this today!

No, but he is talking about public companies that are owned by the people.

It's never what a Republican says, it's always what they leave out that matters the most.

Democrats are great at telling Americans why siezure of their freedoms is really a good thing and if they were just as smart as the average Democrat they wouldn't be so negative about socialism/communism.

Governments everywhere have always done the right thing by their people, so we should have no qualms about putting such kind, compassionate and loving people like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi in charge of every aspect of our lives. They are obviously just like the common man, just like you and me, only concerned with our children, our families, our jobs. That is why they've killed the economy, taxed the crap out of our kids, made every conceivable policy one could think of to drive business out of this country and favor foreign business, and make policies leaving us and our aliies susceptible to attack. They've spent every dollar currently in existence but they aren't through yet. They are formulating more high cost risky schemes to put every American into submission to the government.

If a company is owned by the public, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi should keep their filthy hands out and off, or we should chop them off (figuratively speaking).

Obama is a damned dictator working his way to that goal. He just ended up in America where his ambitions are a little more difficult to achieve without the cooperation of ignorant sheep. God help us if he gets the control and cooperation of the US military in domestic policy enforcement.

Our militias used to be to protect us, protect the States, from federal government tyranny. So much for that idea. What's the next line of defense?

When he says he gets to determine how much money private citizens can earn, I call that a loss of liberty and freedom.

O.K. Cap, this makes about as much sense as talking to my dog. The quote above is your response to my answer to your question; "Why do you hate freedom so much?"

GWB slashed our freedoms. I voted for Obama to get the freedom killing Republican'ts out of office. What is being done is necessary to repair the damage to the economy that is killing our country and the rest of the world.

Your ilk has done nothing but @!$%# and moan. Let's hear a constructive plan that doesn't keep the status quo. I'd also like to hear which of my freedoms has been limited. If it's the right to make an obscene amount of money while ruining the economy, I'm all for it. Frankly, it not likely something that most of us (honestly) need worry about.

The party of NO. No plan. no leader, no clue.

If that investor owned company is taking bailout for the government then yea, I'd say the government has the right to say that none of the bail out money should be used for bonuses. Further, since the government now has an interest in that company, I think it is right that the government would look at the bonus structure. If the company doesn't accept bail out money, there is no reason for discussion here. There would be no bonus money if the company ends up in bankrupsty.

Is what you're saying is that it's perfectly acceptable for you, that an investor owned, stock company (IBM, Starbucks, GE, etc.) should have their salaries set by the idiots in the federal government?

If I actually owned any stock of those companies, yes, I'd be thrilled that someone somewhere was doing something about excessive executive compensation. If these CEOs weren't making $30 million a year as their company is run into the ground, maybe they'd actually have some incentive to, you know, not run the company into the ground. Publicly traded companies already have greater responsibility that private companies do, this is just another step in common sense regulation that keeps them from running out of control when they are so big that they threaten to take the entire country with them when they burn up.

Besides, nobody outside of the right-wing echo chamber is actually talking about dictating salaries, but tying compensation for executives to the performance of their company. If it passes, it passes. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

That's how a democracy works.

As for the "idiots in the federal government", I'll take them over the idiots in the private sector that ruined our economy with the triple threat of greed, stupidity, and hubris. I don't want them running these companies and they won't be, but I do want them putting a tighter leash on these companies when they very clearly are incapable of any kind of sensible restraint when it comes to executive compensation, and not just because the amount of money being thrown at these guys is unconscionable, but also because as things stand today, they have absolutely no incentive to do a good job when they know that failure is rewarded more richly than success is.

It this hadn't gotten so out of hand, no, I probably wouldn't think very much of it. But clearly something has got to change, and this is a pretty good start that can easily be rolled back if it doesn't help.

In the meantime, the world isn't going to end just because the CEO of Bank of America or whoever can only get $5 million per year instead of $30 million per year.

I also like the idea of forcing these companies to stop giving away massive amounts of free wealth in stock options. It's easy to give away stock options, that costs the company nothing, but if these companies were suddenly forced to pay these salaries in cash, the problem would solve itself immediately. A lot of these firms couldn't afford to pay these outrageous sums if they had to do it with cash from profit, and that's just talking about companies that aren't insolvent in the financial sector.

Are you okay? Seriously! Are you so blinded by your worship of this man, that you can't see the path "He's" taking us down? Why in the world would you want to give the government this much control over your life?

I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand, but it has nothing to do with the President. The right's sickly obsession and glorification of President Bush is well documented at this point and I guess it's somewhat consistent for the right to expect the left to turn around and act the exact same way (though it's been also well documented that progressives are doing no such thing), but generally that kind of hero worshiping just isn't our thing (I'm a progressive.)

I don't care if the President is pushing it as his plan, or if somebody in the Senate is. I don't care where it's coming from, it's a good idea and I'm getting behind it because I think it'll help and I think it's neccessary. If it turns out that it isn't, I'll support repeal.

But this petty whining based on ideological objections (the government "owning" and "controlling" our lives) as opposed to pragmatic concerns, like, you know, will it help or not, really need to stop for now. If you don't think it'll work or do what it is intended to do, fine, say that and defend that and we'll argue about that. But don't sit there and throw these platitudes at me. I don't care if you find it philosophically or ideologically objectionable, that's not relevant at all, it's a total distraction from the problems at hand.

Are you going to argue that this is constitutionally a valid function of "limited" government?

I don't know if it would be constitutional or not, depends on how it's written when it's passed, if it gets brought up at all. Beyond that, "limited" government is a conservative fantasy that I don't care to get caught up in, that's something you value, it's not something that matters to me in the least.

I subscribe to the theory of President Clinton: Government is neither the solution nor the problem, it's simply a tool. We get out of it what we put into it.

This is tyranny!

Are you joking? Do you know what drives me up the wall about conservatives TC, other than rank hypocrisy? This sick combination of fear mongering and exaggeration. You guys abuse words like tyranny and antisemitism so much that they lose all meaning. Real tyranny's don't have a Congress, don't have opposition parties, don't have constitutions or laws. They most certainly don't have a functional court system.

North Korea is a tyranny, for example.

If you want to see what America would look like as a tyranny, look at the Yoo memos that the Bush administration had written. Americans arrested by the military and held forever without trail, spied on by their own government, killed by the military by the order of the President -- a decision unreviewable by a court -- in which the press can also be muzzled (permenantly) by the President without the review of a court.

That, my friend, is a tyranny.

What we're experiencing right now, while not the best of times, is the road to recovery as far as our constitutional representative republic is concerned.

Real tyranny's don't have a Congress, don't have opposition parties, don't have constitutions or laws. They most certainly don't have a functional court system.

It is most disaapointing when apparently intelligent persons can't understand that tyranny can come quickly as in a coup, or slowly as in slow but steady accumulation of the power in a central authority. The USA is moving to tyranny by the slow method. Every new law, regulation, income cap, and tax is a step closer to tyranny. A functioning court system? Ours is all f'ed up. And when the courts no longer use a framework document to base their actions, like when the US Constitution is ignored or is considered a living document that says whatever the courts want it to say, they become a part of the tyranny.

We are not as free as when I was young and we are very much less free than when the coutry was founded. Obama has accelerated the move toward tyranny exponentially. Mandating equal outcomes from the diverse activities of a diverse population is tyranny. Taxing everyone into submission and government dependence is tyranny.

WPT, name some names. What American was inappropriately detained or mistreated under Bush by his "tyranny"? What would you call it when the President whips up the public against private citizens and then moves to make sure those private citizens, the targeted victims of the Presidency, are specifically identified and locations publicized so the President's minions can make an appearance at their homes for intimidation, as Obama did with the AIG executives? That, good sir, is tyranny. Your good man, Obama, is a tyrant, unfit for office.

Killing terrorists or even torturing them is not tyrrany. It's self-defense.

TC,

Killing them sure, but torturing human beings is nothing but disgusting psychopathic behavior by people who enjoy human suffering. It is illegal and immoral, unquestionably, and those that disagree are frankly indistinguishable from that which they hate. Terrorists, like Republicans, see absolutely nothing wrong with torturing their prisoners either.

Nice company you guys keep.

They were people that would kill you at a drop of a dime, or without, and you should be kissing George Bush's butt for keeping you safe, instead of these infantile calls of "foul."

I should kiss the ass of a President that allowed terrorists to kill over 3500 Americans? President Bush was sleeping at the wheel during the worst terrorist attack on American soil in history. No amount of revisionism will change that, not amount of sycophantic worshiping will change that.

That man presided over one of the worst failures of American defense in history, perhaps the worst because it was a failure to protect the civilian population.

Your God is your government, the Barney Franks of the world. You want to give bureaucrats power to determine how much is "too much" compensation.

Our laws which you blithely ignore give the Congress the authority to do this unless a court says otherwise. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with America, because that's the reality of the country we all live in. If you don't like it, too bad, your party lost.

The country has clearly rejected your line of reasoning when it threw your irresponsible party out of power.

Are you in favor of Obummer limiting a Hollywood star from making $20 mill./movie?

Still being a little child I see. Do I need to be as stupid and absurd as you to get your attention, is that the only thing conservatives know, understand, and respond to now that they've been completely stripped of power?

I guess the comparison is apt, you act like an impudent little child, and America spanked you like one in 2006 and again in 2008. Will you learn, or will America have to spank the GOP again in 2010? Will the GOP be the rotten child that never matures, you know, the one that grows up to be a highschool dropout, a drug addict or alcoholic, with five kids and three girlfriends, no job and never actually married, just a loser moving from one domestic disaster to another with no purpose in life?

The drunk wife beater, that's the GOP, that's your party and the way you act, you fit right in.

Why limit it to just the evil CEO's? Maybe he could determine what's fair, in his infinite wisdom, what's fair for a NBA player to make to.

CEOs of publicly traded companies that have driven those companies into the ground. How many times do we have to force-feed knowledge down your throat in an apparently vein attempt to get you to actually learn something?

The comparison is incomprehensible.

WPT, name some names. What American was inappropriately detained or mistreated under Bush by his "tyranny"?

José Padilla was arrested by civilian authorities in Chicago in 2002 and held as a material witness by federal authorities. Two days before a judge was set to rule on the government's authority to hold Padilla, President Bush designated Padilla an "enemy combatant" and had him transferred into military custody and imprisoned in a brig in South Carolina without charge and without notification to his family or attorney.

The President and Department of Justice claimed the right to hold Padilla as an enemy combatant indefinitely without charge.

Regardless of what he had done or what he was accused of, José Padilla is an American citizen.

A short time before the Supreme Court was scheduled to rule on the legality of that detention, President Bush suddenly transferred Padilla back into civilian custody and had him charged (where he was subsequently convicted.) It is widely understood that the Supreme Court was going to rule that the detention of Padilla was unconstitutional (on many levels), and that President Bush only charged Padilla to avoid having the Supreme Court set a binding precedent on the executive branch.

Yasser Esam Hamdi was detained in Afghanistan and suspected of fighting against the U.S. and Northern Alliance. Hamdi was detained at Gito without charge where the administration intended to leave him indefinitely.

Yasser Esam Hamdi, born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, is an American citizen.

The Supreme Court in 2004 strongly rejected the Bush administration's actions of indefinitely detaining a U.S. citizen without charge by the military. Wrote Justice O'Connor, "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." The government was ordered to give detainees a legal process by which they could contest their status as a combatant, as a result.

It was alleged that Padilla -- an American citizen -- was tortured while in military custody.

What would you call it when the President whips up the public against private citizens and then moves to make sure those private citizens, the targeted victims of the Presidency, are specifically identified and locations publicized so the President's minions can make an appearance at their homes for intimidation, as Obama did with the AIG executives? That, good sir, is tyranny.

Uh, no, in modern times a tyranny is when a person takes control over a people outside a constitutional framework or without hereditary inheritance -- rather like George W. Bush did when the Supreme Court appointed him to the presidency in 2000.

But that's really neither here nor there.

A Tyranny is the classical sense is a country or people ruled by a despot, or a dictator. A person whose edicts are absolute, often enforced by the military and without review by a judiciary, and not subject to the rule of law.

In other words it's a lot like what this country looked like over the past eight years, as viewed through the filter of the Bush/Yoo DoJ memos.

When people said after reviewing the Bush/Yoo DoJ memos that this country was a dictatorship for the past eight years, they weren't being partisan, they weren't exaggerating or using hyperbole, they were completely serious and honest -- this country under President Bush meets the literal definition of a Tyranny.

While President Obama has his fair share of distasteful policy positions, they don't amount to much in comparison. Read the Yoo memos, see how Yoo and Bush declared the legal right to use the U.S. military on U.S. soil to kill U.S. citizens that Bush declared to be terrorists without a court interfering, along with the right to physically muzzle the press for writing about it.

Look at that, and tell me that such a thing doesn't make this country a de facto Tyranny.

Look at that, and tell me with a straight face that anything that President Obama has said or done comes anywhere close to that level of un-American, anti-Democratic filth.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests" - Patrick Henry

TC,

So why is that President Bush (or should I be like you, and say President @!$%#?) violated the fourth amendment when he ordered the NSA to spy on his own people? Why is it that President Bush (would you prefer President Bastard instead, is that more appeasing to your 12-year-old sensibilities?) claimed the right to violate the first amendment at will in Bush/Yoo memos?

What about the Bush administration arguing that habeas was optional?

You Republicans have zero credibility when it comes to civil liberties and the constitution. Here's some news for all of you: the constitution is not your personal toy that only comes into play when a Democrat is in the White House. You people ignored the constitution for eight years and yet now it's the most sacred document in the history of the universe.

No, it doesn't work that way.

You people are downright laughable when you pretend that the constitution actually matters. Flat out and in as a literal sense as there ever has been: we laugh at you when you play-act like this.

It'd be cute if it wasn't so incredibly destructive to our democracy.

RO&OOTFLMAO!!

Many of us have provided abundant evidence that we need a Special Publication to get our thoughts into words.

emphasis added...but;...Would that be like..."Newsvine"!?!

GA GUY, why not Newsvine? This is a good place for those who can't run with the big boys to get a little workout. Some will get smarter here and be able to either improve the quality of this site or move on to a higher level like writing for such sages as Limbaugh and others of his ilk.

I somehow get the impression that despite your "handle"; you are neither truly "Old"; or a "Fogey"...;-}

Friend request sent!!

I laughed to, And I love Jesus!

And then I thought, what the heck are you doing in Hollywood while the country goes down the tubes. Get your be-hind back to Washington and start doing your JOB you dill weed, you won the election stop campaigning, and palling around with your Hollywood buddies and DO YOUR JOB. Oh and try reading (with comprehension) some of this crap you are foisting on us, and by the way FIRE Geithner! And DO YOUR JOB!

But beyond that it was a nice interview.

zeet;

"Why can't we be friends"? [Tune from the 70's group called "WAR"]...

We SHOULD be FRIENDS! Request sent!

You got it!

;)

It's like old-lady-chit-chatting.

Coming from you two butties that is funny! Buddies sorry!

Sorry. I know i dont know you personally but by the posts ive read and your constant reference to Obama as "Obummer". I dont really see how you are being respectful to us liberals either. So " it is what it is". I guess if you have no problem insulting your commander in chief i have no problem insulting you. Especially over an irrelevant issue. But i can give respect where respect is due when warranted. Sorry just my opinion.

Precisely right, Rodney.

On this column, it's: "Do as I expect, not as I do"

Capitalist contradicts himself? Ouch.

I agree with almost everything you said Rodney, but I feel that I've got to point out that we don't have a Commander-in-Chief. The military does, yes, but that's as far as it goes. The idea of a military dictator that has power over and can give orders to the general public ended the day that Bush left office.

President Obama is our leader and by most measures a pretty great guy, but he is only CiC of the military, not us.

We need to work hard to get people to stop saying that because all it does is reinforce the sick conservative notion of the United States as a military dictatorship instead of a representative democracy.

They've done enough damage to this country already, let's not help their cause.

Sounds like you came close to being called a retard or special olympian, TheCaptialist.

They've done enough damage to this country already, let's not help their cause.

Our cause is to restore freedom and prosperity to America. We knew the Paul William Tenneys of the world didn't want to help that cause. PWT's cause is to make sure everyone in the subject class has the same, no matter how little that is.

Sorry, President Obama is no leader. Now maybe his teleprompter, but not Obama.

Our cause is to restore freedom and prosperity to America.

By ignoring the first amendment? By ignoring the fourth amendment? By ignoring the fifth amendment (due process clause)? By ignoring habeas corpus? By ignoring the War Powers Act? By ruining the economy through business first, country last style systematic deregulation? By cutting the taxes of the rich while the middle class suffers?

Republican hatred for our constitution and their class war against middle class America is well known.

Don't make me laugh.

So half or more of America is upper class? The middle class is Republican the same as Democrat. More of the low class is Democrat.

Name some names. What American not breaking traditional laws was affected by:

By ignoring the first amendment? By ignoring the fourth amendment? By ignoring the fifth amendment (due process clause)? By ignoring habeas corpus?

The rich are proportionately overtaxed, while the middle class is also overtaxed. The excessive taxation is a Democrat plan.

The Democrats have never consulted the Constitution in policy development. It would be the end of liberalism. Protecting freedom and liberty is the goal of the Constitution, the antithesis of liberalism. The Democrat party's whole goal is to get a solidly liberal Supreme Court so as to make the US Constititution irrelevant.

Bush definitely made blunders, evey time he stepped across the liberalism line.

Name some names. What American not breaking traditional laws was affected by:

Every single American that was spied on by a program that a federal court has ruled a violation of the 4th amendment and of FISA (a felony that makes it an impeachable offense) from 2001 through what, 2005? Gee, that was hard.

Look, even for people that violated the law, the constitution still protects them. It protects everyone all the time, that's the point, it wouldn't have value if it could be ignored just because you felt justified. That is not what the founders intended and that is not what it means to be a real democracy in the world.

The rich are proportionately overtaxed, while the middle class is also overtaxed. The excessive taxation is a Democrat plan.

That doesn't excuse cutting taxes only for the rich. Also, there's no such thing as a "Democrat plan". You meant "Democratic plan". Are you new to politics or something? That's a pretty fundamental error when you don't even know the name of one of the two major parties in this country.**

The Democrats have never consulted the Constitution in policy development. It would be the end of liberalism.

Sometimes I'm taken aback at how daft some people can be. Hmm, "civil liberties"..."liberal"..."liberalism"..."liberties"...I wonder if there might be some kind of connection...ah, yes. There it is.

Our philosophy is actually named after the thing we value and support the most, our core civil liberties. Do Republicans have an organization dedicated to protecting our civil liberties? Hmm, nope. Do liberals? Ah, as it turns out we do.

Imagine that.

Protecting freedom and liberty is the goal of the Constitution, the antithesis of liberalism.

They are exactly the same thing. You can tell, it's right there in our name: liberalism. Liberty..liberal..keep working on it, you'll figure it out eventually.

The Democrat party's whole goal is to get a solidly liberal Supreme Court so as to make the US Constititution irrelevant.

What's "The Democrat party"? Is that some new political party you're inventing? I'm not sure there's a lot of productive discussion to be had with imaginary political parties these days, we've got our hands full with real political parties already.

**Look, I'll give you the same lecture that I give every immature conservative on Newsvine. A "Democrat party" would be a party made up of people who support democratic principles. It is not a cute slur that you can use against Democrats from the actual Democratic party, it has an entirely different meaning than you think it does.

Either you know this, and are intentionally being illiterate just to be petty, or you weren't aware of this because you actually are illiterate. I hesitate to use stronger language because of the Newsvine Code of Honor, but people who use the Democrat slur in this way aren't scoring laughs or political points, they are putting a sticker on their forehead that says retard on it.

No matter what it's bad for you, so if I were you, I'd grow up real fast. It doesn't get any better from here on out.

could it be, that the far right dosen't really care about people with special needs? Maybe that's why they didn't really care about the comment.

Actually, I found similar article after I commented. I think the malcontents are getting fired up over there. LOL

TheCapitalist

I have to save that comment in case I can't remember it.

Would loyal to the death have anything to do with Kool Aid?

I'm sorry that's another insensitive remark.

That's an insult to Kool-Aid!!!