Ken demeans himself by posting about Obama supposedly demeaning himself by using a term tea-baggers use to describe themselves. Gee Ken, can you reach any further?

Ken:

I don’t know whether my side ever exploited the term “teabaggers” to embarrass your side or not, but I DO know that we never used the term “conservative” as a pejorative as your side has done trillions of times, (and that’s just Hannity) with the word used to describe one of the best movements in history, (can you name it?)

OK, Hannity couldn’t have possibly done that on his own, but I’m not so sure about the larger conspiracy.

Your outrage is silly.

Who does the President think he is, Cliff?

There is no change, and Obama has his own masters, nigga please! He is not the leader of the free world, he is snubbed by diplomats wherever he goes.

His is a job to finish that was begun by Reagan, which is why Obama acts more like a Republican than any Democrat does. He is the Gold man’s (nut) Sack, where the bankers keep their balls.

Here is the house boy’s job in a nut shell.

http://www.richardccook.com/2009/11/09/reaction-to-fort-hood-stupidity-beyond-belief/

Thousands of protesters — some dressed in colonial wigs with tea bags hanging from their eyeglasses — showed up in states from California to Kentucky to Massachusetts, holding signs and reading speeches lambasting the Obama administration’s tax-and-spend policies.

From here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/thousands-anti-tax-tea-party-protesters-turn-cities/

I can understand why you’d find it demeaning, but for the rest of us outside of the tea-baggn’ crowd, it was a moment of pure joy.

Ah to have a President call it like it is.

Good for him.

Well, so much for Ken’s manufactured moral outrage and hand-wringing over political etiquette:

Washington Independent: The Slur the Must Not Be Named?

This, says a RedState blogger, is “pornographic” and “name-calling.” I think that’s a bit much. Is there some way to talk about people who wave around tea bags to make political points without mentioning the tea bags? Generally, I think there is, and I go to some lengths not to make crude jokes when I write about the Tea Party movement. But like many slurs devised by a movement’s opponents, I’ve heard this slur being co-opted by the people working the Tea Parties. I’ve actually talked to Tea Party activists who referred to themselves as “Teabaggers.” And at the 9/10 pre-March on Washington event at the D.C. Armory, I bought this button on sale from a vendor…

[Pic available in link above]

Always fun to see conservatives bristling like Victorian prudes. And it encouraging to see they still have no real criticism for Obama as President outside of the ridiculousness displayed here by Ken.

Richard

I am sure Obama has taken many “ludes” in his life.

Another story about conservatives today. This one about Murdoch’s NY Post

“On one occasion when Ms. Guzman and three female employees of the Post were sharing drinks at an after-work function. Defendant Allan approached the group of women, pulled out his blackberry and asked them ‘What do you think of this?’ On his blackberry was a picture of a naked man lewdly and openly displaying his penis. When Ms. Guzman and the other female employees expressed their shock and disgust at being made to view the picture, Defendant Allan just smirked… [N]o investigation was ever conducted and the Company failed to take any steps to address her complaints.”

Why do conservatives run around with pictures of male genitalia on their phones?

Ken:

Well this post has been utterly debunked with pictures and stories of teabaggers calling themselves teabaggers. If you would stop listening to liars, you would look a lot less silly.

Liberals have the truth. Come on over!

Why do you ask about possibky gay republicans Cliff, are you trying to make hay over the fact that someone might be a homosexual?

Janeane Garofalo is a low life?

Oh my God! Obama demeans himself and this country by bowing to Emperor Akihito. What a incompetent, spineless, subservient weenie. American leaders don’t bow to others; they bow to us. This is the greatest country on earth populated by God’s select. And its being ruined by Obama, liberals, atheists, homosexuals, labor unions, minorities, the poor, and the lazy, brown hordes streaming across the southern border.

There Ken. Now you don’t have to waste time parroting Fox News and the right wing blogosphere.

Well, there’s bows and then there’s bows.

I prefer the photos of GW holding hands with the major Saudi dude.

…or Rahm fondling blue-dog frontal lobes.

But that’s just me.

It is going to be a bloodbath.

Ken–I guess you didn’t read my first post. Shame on you. You just can’t admit your error.

OneUtah–You should also note that past Presidents (Bush and Clinton) have made similar signing statements in regards to similar laws. Obama’s promise was to not circumvent the intent of Congress. I’m opposed to the Executive branch interpreting the law, but where Congress doesn’t specify, interpretation is necessary. The intent is that a person who prevents the whistleblower from contacting Congress won’t get paid. Obama is asserting his and his officers’ authority to oversee communications by employees using office equipment or in regards to official communications. I don’t, however, believe that this implies oversight in any situation but in the workplace. It would be a far stretch indeed to interpret his statement to mean that his officers could oversee and modify personal communications outside of the office. Such communications would instead be governed by confidentiality laws and concomitant whistleblower protections.

Nevertheless, I agree with the idea that signing statements are dangerous things. Traditionally, the President should veto the law and send Congress his recommendations. If Congress really wants to pass the law, let them change it a little or get a 2/3 majority. If the President really wants to pass the law, let him bend a little, too. There is, however, some validity to the legality of signing statements–in certain uses.

One of the unfortunate realities of big government is that laws become so large that nitpicking can go on eternally. Rather than vote on each individual part of the Omnibus Bill, congresspersons choose to vote on all of it at once, throwing caution to the wind a bit. The President, likewise, realizes the uselessness of nitpicking, and instead simply makes parts of the law defunct. Maybe it’s advisable to slow down a little–to be satisfied with less but better laws.

On the other hand, until the signing statements become expressly abusive or evidence of their misuse is found (such as if abuse has already occurred in the area defined by the signing statement [torture, etc.], if the signing statement has been used excessively [signing nearly every law with one], or the intentional suppression of a legitimate whistleblower), patience may be warranted. I still don’t like signing statements as a general rule, but these ones don’t seem particularly bad. Nevertheless, we should keep our eyes open for the potential–and reality–of abuse.

Dwight Sheldon Adams