In comments here, I ended with:
"[that was snark, btw]"
But on second thought, no it wasn't.
Ben wants us to believe that because he quotes an unsourced opinion that that calls into question Jindal's story, but he will laugh at any one who suggests Obama is not eligible hold the office of president because he wasn't born on American soil, and issues of adoption and such. He and other Liberals have one standard of proof for themselves and another for everyone else, especially conservatives who have the audacity to stand up, let alone speak up.
Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE embellishes and amends the events of their lives. We tell ourselves and others lies to the point we begin to believe our lies-- we blur the lines between truth and fiction. Everyone does it.
Ben's unsourced quote questions Jindal's memory. Why? Because the source Ben is listening to dislikes what Jindal had to say... how dare he speak against Obama!"... or some such other reason. At the very least his source distrusts Jindal's boat story.
On the other hand, Obama's Kenyan grandmother distinctly remembers attending his birth in a hospital in Kenya. Can she not tell the difference between Hawaii and Kenya? Is she so old she doesn't remember where she was when Obama was born? We all tell ourselves lies. Obama could have put all this to rest by presenting a birth certificate. But he has not. And almost no one on the Right wants to hold on to the constitution long enough to demand he do so... something besides a "Certificate of Live Birth," which is different than "Birth Certificate."
So who do you want to listen to? Do you want to listen to people who have an obvious ax to grind in destroying the life and credibility of another person? Or do you want the truth? Because, truth is, very few people actually want truth; they want whatever best suits their need or desire. Ben doesn't like Conservative thought? Fine. None of us who post here like Liberal thought. But the verity of our arguments are not determined by our preferred political ideologies.
Ozark said he relied on bloggers he trusts for his opinion of the whole affair, and that's fine as far as it goes. But that is no substitute for first-hand observation or personally formed opinion. I listen to Rush too; he's both very informative and entertaining, but I've learned in the last few years that I can't supplant my his thoughts and ideas for my own. How can I ever defend what I believe if all I believe is what HE says? If someone asks "why," what am I supposed to do? Send Rush an email and hope he responds and gives me marching orders? Uh-uh. No sir. You cannot adequately defend something you do not personally believe; and when I say 'believe' I mean 'personally invested in' ...unless you're a shyster lawyer.
Is Obama a legal citizen? What does it matter? He's in office, democrats control both House and Senate, and no vote to defrock him will ever occur. Is his grandmother correct? Did she really witness his birth in Kenya? Again, it doesn't matter.
Does Jindal remember the events of Katrina differently? Does it matter? Really? Democrats politically castigated Bush for staying at the ranch. They ridiculed him for just "flying over." They rightly cast doubt on FEMA chief Michael Brown for FEMA's pathetic and deadly response. So why would anyone doubt the scenario Jindal offers wherein a FEMA bureaucrat demands proof of insurance before taking the boats out to rescue Katrina victims?
Too many people are listening to and relying on others for what they should believe about any given subject or situation. It's inevitable; with what is going on in the world today it is impossible to glean first-hand information about everything that happens each and every day. Which is why we have to be careful; try not to let our own biases and prejudices cause us to gravitate to voices that ONLY reinforce said biases and prejudices.
If Ben's unnamed source can prove Jindal misspoke he or she is free to do so, but we all saw the devastation in New Orleans. We all saw the bodies. We watched with awe. And horror. We laughed when Wal Mart was able to get in where FEMA could not. And now I'm expected to believe that Jindal was not telling the whole truth?
Who is Ben listening to that he accepts the voice of someone over the evidence of FEMA's disastrous showing in the aftermath of Katrina? What ax does Ben's source have to grind?
The answer to that is obvious. Jindal said some things that were true and, in the mind of Liberals, antithetical to Obama's position and vision of the future of America.
Jindal did NOT shoot his proverbial wad, but too many people are listening to and accepting the opinions of other as their own.
Wednesday morning, in the office Ben and I share, Ben made the statement that he thought Jindal sounded like he was addressing a bunch of first-graders (or the equivalent of --Correct me if I'm wrong Ben), and I replied, "I didn't hear that."
I DID hear what democrats were saying about Jindal... just what Ben said. But I did NOT hear Jindal talking to elementary school students. He was talking to me. He was talking to you (those of you who listened). He was talking to Ben. Was he as eloquent as Obama? No. Few are. But look how far we've come from judging a man by the color of his skin to the content of his character. And yet we've come no great distance at all in judging a man for the content of his ideas rather than the quality of his oratory.
If we are to judge our politicians by HOW they present their arguments rather than the content of their arguments, GOD help us all. We deserve every disaster they give us.
Whether you know it or not, whether you accept it or not, that's where we are now. It not an Obama reality. It's a Washington reality, and it encompasses more than the current ass warming the president's chair. It's not just a democrats, its republicans too. God help us all if we don't kick every last bastard out.
"The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens."
--Bobby Jindal, Feb 24, 2009
Show me someone who objects to this and I'll show you someone who places politics over people.
Not Ben, EL...BenT.
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear, I am not attacking, criticizing, or singling out Ben.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you are saying here, Eric, but I think you still miss the point about HOW one delivers a statement or speech.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first began my martial arts training (either 35 years ago, or when dinosaurs walked the earth), I was able to pick up how to perform each technique taught fairly easily. But applying them in free-sparring or self-defense was a bit different. My progress wasn't what I'd hoped for. Then came my fourth instructor. I don't know what it was, but when he explained concepts, the light bulb in my head was like a freakin' nova. It actually made me understand what the previous people were saying.
In politics, as has been stated, Reagan said the same things many conservatives now say, but he turned on enough people to be elected twice. HOW he said what he said made a difference.
Now I agree also that we each should think for ourselves. But for those who are already conservatives, we easily agree with anyone who voices conservative philosophy and ideas. But it's for those who aren't AS conservative, who are "moderates" and who only think they are liberal until they really hear what it is to be either, it is for THOSE people that delivery is an important aspect. The fact is we can't rely on anyone thinking for themselves. The facts are that some don't think at all and we have seen that for ourselves with the last election, and how well it was illustrated in those videos by the guy at "howobamagotelected.com".
I once thought I was a lib, or at least a Dem. I bought into all the touchy-feely crap and it all sounded just so good and Jesus-y. But then I listened and actually thought for myself and found that the philosophies of conservatism rang truer and mirrored the real world far more closely, if not exactly.
Not everyone takes the time. Some need inspiration or some need to be attracted. How the message is delivered does matter in order to attract people and when attracted, most will be compelled to think. We can't lose then.
Eric, I don't "rely" on other bloggers for my opinion! You of ALL people should know my opinion is my own!
ReplyDeleteHowever, I DO seek others opinions on certain events. You know...I didn't witness the Gettysburg Address. Neither did I listen to MLK's speeches as they were delivered. JFK's speeches meant nothing to me when I was an infant.
But I have formed opinions about them since.
I wonder...are you defending Jindal (whom I have acknowledged had the potential to be a strong voice for conservative ideals until he allowed an impotent and inneffective GOP to guide his actions), or are you defending the GOP (who has failed the American people so miserably)?
You know...I agree with Rush MOST of the time. But I OFTEN point out where I believe he is wrong. And he was wrong to criticize fellow conservatives who criticized Jindal's delivery.
Not just Rush - my blog is filled with criticisms of bloggers I RESPECT for saying stupid things!
Again...you of all people...should know that I form my own opinions and voice them even when I know they might be controversial.
Eric, obviously you haven't visited my blog in a while.
ReplyDeleteMy latest post deals with Obama's citizenship issue. I would very much like to prove Obama isn't a U.S. Citizen, but alas, I can't. From the research I've done so far, (which is much more extensive than usual for me) I can find no proof that he isn't a natural born U.S. Citizen.
Lord, I wish I could!
I have, however, found overwhelming proof that he is.
It looks as if we are going to have to find a better reason to throw the bum out.
If this isn't a perfect example of me thinking for myself, and reaching my own, albeit somewhat unpopular conclusions, I don't know what would be.
Also, look at the previous post I made on here. Obama has all the traits of a narcissist. And, not just a run of the mill narcissist, but a pathological narcissist.
I posted on that on the post previous to my Obama's questionable citizenship post over at my place, as well.
His mental disorder is a better reason to remove him from office than his citizenship, IMHO.
According to the 25th amendment:
"4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office."
I admit, getting Harry Reid and company to sign a declaration of incompetence sounds impossible, but if Obama continues to flex his narcissistic muscle in the affairs of state, even Harry Reid might get fed up.
One can only hope, eh?
Another reason to remove Obama, here:
ReplyDelete"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Obama has already stated previously that he fully intends to change the Constitution, and changing it is a far cry from preserving, protecting, and defending. If he changes, or attempts to change the Constitution, he will be violating his oath of office, which is reason enough to remove him from office, the 25th amendment notwithstanding.
Obama has already stated previously that he fully intends to change the Constitution
ReplyDeletePerhaps, but so have conservatives who want an amendment to ban abortion and also want an amendment to ban gay marriage.
In fact the constitution has been changed 27 times. But Obama can't change it without going through the legal method of doing so.
What, you think he can somehow wave his hand and new articles appear or old ones vanish?
How delusional are you?
Jim delusionally vomited, "In fact the constitution has been changed 27 times"
ReplyDeleteWrong again, Obamabreath. The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Legally. What Obama wants to do is change the intent of the main document. He wants to remove the parts that guarantee states rights and liberty and freedom and give the states power over to the Federal Government.
And Conservatives don't want to ban gay marriage and abortion.
Well, we do, but what it comes down to is repealing amendments that are unconstitutional in the first place, such as the mythical "right to privacy". Those two issues are Constitutionally the issues that the states are to decide on. Not the federal Government. We simply want to return the Constitution to the Constitution as it was framed.
Nice, Mark!
ReplyDeleteAn amendment is a change whether it's an addition, deletion or simply a change.
You're going to tell me that no conservative has ever suggested amending the constitution regarding abortion or gay marriage?
What Obama wants to do is change the intent of the main document. He wants to remove the parts that guarantee states rights and liberty and freedom and give the states power over to the Federal Government.
Prove it.
what it comes down to is repealing amendments that are unconstitutional in the first place An amendment is by definition constitutional as long as it was adopted according to constitutional law.
such as the mythical "right to privacy". And what "unconstitutional amendment" are you referencing here?
The constitution is the constitution. If you want to change it, use the process, the same as Obama would HAVE to do if in fact he wanted to.
But then you haven't shown how he wants to change it. You simple assert that he does.
Item 1 EL is uninformed as to my mental state, so I hold no animus when he says "how dare he speak against Obama!" he simply doesn't know he's wrong. I don't place Barack Obama above other politicians, I don't reflexively defend his actions, without question. He is a strong orator with the opportunity to sway the populace to ideas I endorse. He could be a liberal equivalent to Ronald Reagan.
ReplyDeleteDon't tell me conservatives don't have a strong affinity for The Great Communicator.
Second the websites and bloggers I read are reputable and seldom speak without having verified their words. Places like Talking Points Memo and Mother Jones. Blogs attached to journalistic endeavors which would have their reputations grievously wounded if they didn't verify their words. But we even have print media like the New Orleans Times-Picayune saying that Gov. Jindal must be mistaken in his recollections.
"Louisiana Democratic Party spokesman Scott Jordan said Friday, "Gov. Jindal told the story in a way that made it sound like he was assisting Harry Lee in the Sheriff's Office as rescue boats were being turned away, which the governor's office now says wasn't the case. The first responders' heroism during Katrina is something that Louisianians hold sacred, and people are upset that Governor Jindal framed the incident as if he was one of those first responders." "
Secondly EL seems to not realize the irony of accusing me of unthinking belief of irresponsible critics, when he himself can point to very few reputable media sources for questions of Pres. Obama citizenship.
Thirdly i heard the content of Gov. Jindal's speech and while some of his statements were ideologically opposed to what I believe. Many of his statements were so generic or unpartisan that any politicians could claim them for their cause.
Like EL favorite statement. "The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens."
--Bobby Jindal, Feb 24, 2009
Show me someone who objects to this and I'll show you someone who places politics over people.
Of course Gov. Jindal himself has placed politics over reputable governance. By denying Louisiana the funds from the stimulus bill he is placing his presidential aspirations over the well-being of the citizens of Louisiana.
Thank you Ben for the lack of animus, because this post is not about you.
ReplyDelete"By denying Louisiana the funds from the stimulus bill he is placing his presidential aspirations over the well-being of the citizens of Louisiana."
Please source this then explain how Jindal's refusal of porkulus funds would inhibit the well-being of the citizens of Louisiana. Obama, with his so-called "stimulus" bill has spent money that hasn't even been created yet. He has mortgaged the future of our children and grandchildren. Remember, the US already owes (is obligated to payout) 78.8 trillion dollars; 55 trillion to social security and medicare alone.
Why would anyone who can clearly see the scope and danger of Obama's "stimulus" package want any part of it UNLESS, like president Obama, they didn't care about their children's future, or who in the end was going to have to pay for it. Jindal is the Governor of Louisiana, NOT Obama's underling. Jindal was elected to serve the state of Louisiana and its citizens, Obama wasn't. BAMA was elected to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Apples and Oranges.
Governors do not hold office to serve the whims of presidents, but rather, those of the citizens who elected them.
Bent,
ReplyDeleteDid you really read or hear Jindal's speech? If you had, I doubt you'd have used the quote from Scott Jordan. Only one who didn't hear the speech would be fooled by Jordan's nonsensical version of Jindal's words. Just to be safe, I re-read the speech and Jindal's account of what happened in the Sheriff's office is as one of a mere bystander relating the tale of one phone call. You'll need to do better than that.
Marshall, Jindal's story has already been proved to be false, so you might as well move on.
ReplyDeleteThe stimulus bill provides funds for a whole host of items that would benefit the people of Louisiana.
ReplyDeleteThe least of these being extended unemployment benefits, health insurance for children, infrastructure improvements, job creation/training programs, etc.
Gov. Jindal can't rescind the bill, or the spending. By denying his state these funds he only worsens the economic hardships of Louisiana citizens.
He is placing his personal political aspirations and ideological beliefs above the good of his state.
To address EL's second comment I would point to this chart from the Washington Post.
ReplyDeleteWe ran even worse deficits during the 1940's But those were followed by the largest surpluses ever.
Let us not fixate on the deficit or the debt now. Those are problems that are less immediate than our current economic crisis.
Ben! What a lovely chart! Such pretty colors! My!
ReplyDeleteCuriously though, Obama's budget is spelled out in millions, billions, and trillion, while the 1940's Ben points to are spelled out in percentages. 1940's America did not have the GDP we do today, nor did they owe 55 trillion in stolen social security funds. The deficit as a percentage in 1945 is the merest flicker of a candle flame to 2009's 78 trillion dollar debt and obligations.
No, let's talk about the deficit NOW before it gets beyond our ability to recover.
Obama says he's going to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term? Liar. No one making less that 250k will see their taxes increase? Liar. In order to pay for the 3 trillion stimulus bill (including interest), EVERYONE'S taxes will go up. This man, our president, is the most fiscally irresponsible man this nation has ever seen.
When comparing historical figures, you have to normalize. You have to correct for population and productivity growth. Showing the deficit as a percentage of the federal budget for each year is a statistically sound way to compare apples to apples.
ReplyDeleteNormalize? Is that how you rationalize adding another 3 trillion to 78.8 trillion? No feasible amount of robust surpluses will reduce that, even by half, in twenty years.
ReplyDeleteOur debt is a big number. Woo hoo. Compared to your salary or my salary our government's budget is mind numbing. Our debt is likewise a large number. The important thing is to see it in context of our entire country. To illustrate again I point you to this chart.
ReplyDeleteOur debt has ballooned in the last decade, but our history of repayment is strong. To get a very layman view of our financial situation here's a cute graphic put together that figures the US's FICO credit score.
You weren't this debt conscious under the Bush administration. Take a chill pill. Traditionally Democratic president's have paid down the debt. Mad Max times are not around the corner.