Stupid liberal quote of the day

Today’s quote comes from none other than our President, otherwise known as the idiot-in-cheif,

The very core of what this country stands for is on the line — the basic promise that no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, this is a place where you could make it if you try. The notion that we’re all in this together, that we look out for one another “

 

Yes this supposed to be a place where we can all make if it we try and work hard (he always seems to forget that part)…but since America is supposed to be the land of opportunity we will be giving Obama a big thumbs down in November because there is no way you can have opportunity AND his massive regulations, massive bureaucracy, massive intrusions into private and public life, and a president who demands that Congress pass a bill that trashes the Constitution.  If you believe in the first part of what he says it is very, very clear that you have to vote against Obama, because what our country stands for is on line and Obama is opposed to it.

 

Then there is that second part, “the notion that we’re all in this together, the we look out for one another.”  Okay, yes, because of economics we are all in this together, and the best way to help others is to look out for yourself and make yourself as prosperous as possible (without harming others)…and I don’t get the feeling that Obama is embracing the rationalism of laissez -faire capitalism (especially when he has the insanity of fascist socialism to always go to).  And as to looking out for each other…yes at a personal, individual level we, as human beings, are concerned for those around us and enjoy helping others…but that does not mean we need to outsource humanity and compassion to the government.  America is a country of individuals working with individuals…not government helping interest groups.

Obama is right this is an election where what America stands for is on the line:  liberty, the pursuit of Happiness, individual rights, property rights, the power of law over the individual, the government only setting the rules and not picking the winners, opposition to tyranny, being the shinnying city on the hill that the rest of the world can look to.  Does Obama stand for or support any of those?

 

 

About these ads

8 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Tyranny, Welfare

8 responses to “Stupid liberal quote of the day

  1. Obama is not the best president, but the GOP candidates are even worse. I’m especially concerned that the Separation of Church and State will be forgotten once more if a Republican president should be elected. Republicans and conservatives are generally not willing to accept that we live in a rapidly globalizing world and that we no longer live in a state of unilateralism with America at the top.

    • What article are you referencing? Because this reads like a stock liberal talking point more than a comment on this actual blog.

      Okay, granted Santorum wants to put in a complete theocracy…but what beyond knee jerk liberalism has any of the other candidates said that would make you think they don’t respect the freedom of religion. Before she dropped out would it have been Bachmann’s statement she didn’t support gay marriage BUT she wouldn’t do anything to stop states that enacted that as a law because it was a state’s rights issue in her mind, and the wall between federal and state will always be a better defense than the made up wall between church and state (go on tell me exactly where it is in the Constitution). As to the other candidates they are religious but other maybe (and it’s a big maybe) Perry none of the others seem all that motivated by religion. The topic of the day has been economics and foreign policy and only Santorum wants to make it about social issues.

      Also the stuff about globalization is also out of left field (pun intended). While I’m not thrilled with all the candidates economic stances Obama is the one who does not want to deal with a globalized economy and believes in economic protectionism (along with wacky Santorum and Paul). Romney and Gingrich seem to be the only candidates left who understand even to the slightest degree how global economics work so I find your comment about “generally not willing to accept that we live in a rapidly globalizing world” to be a baseless charge.

      And lastly “unilateralism.” A fun word that means when you know something is right and must be taken care of…you shouldn’t do it because everyone else needs to be involved too. It’s the theory that only what is popular is right… last time I check reality worked on different terms, that what is popular and what is right have little (if anything) to do with one another. America needs to take stand (which it has not done in the last four year, and didn’t have a terribly great track record before that) even if the world is against us. By the way what unilateralism are you referring to the 39 nation coalition that invaded Iraq or the 45 nation coalition that invaded Afghanistan?

  2. The definition of unilateralism in reference to international politics is when instead of contributing to negotiations and helping in the decision making progress, countries follow the lead of another country.
    America needs to mind it’s own business, in my humble opinion. We are not the policeman of the world

    • Cathy

      I am sorry Andrea but you do not get to define words yourself as there is already accepted definitions for those words:
      World English Dictionary
      unilateral (ˌjuːnɪˈlætərəl) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

      — adj
      1. of, having, affecting, or occurring on only one side
      2. involving or performed by only one party of several: unilateral disarmament

      As you can see that means that if you have 1 or more individuals/countries on your side then it is not unilateral regardless of your personal feeling about the subject. The reason we use accepted definitions for words is so we can all understand each other. When you start making up your own definitions then it causes a problem in the communication area. But if countries are all in agreement it is not unilateral it is in cooperation/agreement to work together to accomplish something. Being as the majority of the current (approx.) 180 countries in the world do not actually have any power (economically or militarily) I would say that 39 to 45 countries actually is the majority of countries that were working together as the only really major countries not involved were Russia and China and really who would want to follow their lead???
      I agree it is a shame that we are often the policeman of the world but based on our own constitution and bill of rights we are morally obligated to defend those rights for all individuals (even those not in our country) who are not given their God given rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Although it is not possible to do this all at once (unfortunately money is a problem) we should do it as we can. We belong to this organization call the United Nations (not that I support that) and as a main member of that organization we are supposed to follow its rules. When the UN sanctioned and warned Iraq over 14 times and threatened them then all we and all of our accomplices did was fulfill the threat and repercussions of the UN. If you recall we presented to the UN and all those (39) others sided with us to do this. We will not discuss the events following the removal of a vicious dictator but up to that point we morally fulfilled our obligation. Although we did not declare a formal war but with Afghanistan we were given permission by our own congress to retaliate against the aggression upon us by the Taliban. We were grateful for the 45 nations that joined us in this retaliation. Again I will defer the discussion about how this was done to another day.
      I can see you are young by looking at your blog and I commend you for getting out there and working out your belief system. I would hope that you spend time actually reading documents of our forefathers and the actual constitution prior to making up your mind about how you feel on these subjects. Many of our countrymen do not support our following the direction of our forefathers (to be the shining example for the world and spread our freedoms and liberties as we can) but I think it is a moral and right argument and certainly deserves more attention than a knee jerk dismissal.
      Cathy

      • While it was not word for word, I got the definition from my AP Human Geography textbook. I paraphrased because the definition involved other geographic, political, and spatial terms that I did not feel like having to define for you.

  3. Andrea, you’re wrong in your thought. Other countries are involved in helping and negotiations. they have troops in the feild of battle with the U.S.A. and that is the best negotiation anyone can have when you have the power and means and authority to do something. We can’t mind our own business as we are the leaders in liberty and freedom and to rid the world of tyranny and dictators is just part of who we are. We are the “sleeping giant”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s