I’m Questioning WHEN They Are Patriotic


I’ve already seen it, celebrities and elites just glad that bin Laden’s death happened under Obama’s watch, not Bush’s because “he’s a good man”  and such. Well, I’m sorry, but I can’t get the memories out of my head regarding the full blown war against everything the Bush Administration was doing in the war on terror. Bush lLied & People Died, Code Pink, Murtha’s Cold Blooded Killers line, Bush Betrayed……   Cowboy diplomacy….. Water boarding, Rendition, And Olberdork’s spittle filled rants

Well, where is Code Pink & Olberdork today? Its priceless hypocrisy including a video of Olberdork railing against Cheney & a Constitutional Crisis.

I can’t forget how for 8 years, Democrats, Liberals, & Progressives did everything with in their power to undermine the Commander in Chief, but now that its a Democrat sending our troops into sovereign nations to shoot first and inform our “allies” later, the very same people who would impeach Bush & Cheney for raising their voices in a Library are praising Obama carrying out the orders Bush first made about a decade ago.

Look, Obama deserves credit for not listening to his base and sending the SEALs in. But if his own party, and the main stream media are to be taken seriously, they must be questioned why its OK for Obama to assassinate bin Laden, but not Bush?

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Here’s a ”patriotic” liberal…..

A newspaper owner in CA was contacted by the White House and told to remove a sentence from an article about Marine One because she made Michelle Obama look ”snotty.”
“Inside Marine One, President Obama’s helicopter,” ran in the Pleasanton Weekly on April 20.
In it was a sentence about how Michelle doesn’t speak with pilots of these helicopters.
But she makes eye contact with them.
The owner of the Pleasanton Weekly took the offending sentence out, rather than make a fuss.*

*A Fuss = insisting on one’s 1st Amendment rights…..and facing any consequences from doing so.

Not making a fuss = being patriotic while your rights are being ripped away.

: No one is truly holier-than-thou.

Where was all the righteous indignation about “generational theft” in the Reagan 80s and Bush 00s?

Obama has added a grand total of $250 billion more to the deficit than McCain and a GOP controlled Congress would have added (and, in the process, helped avert Great Depression 2.0), and now he’s single handedly responsible for the economic disintegration of the USA?

“ObamaCare” was modeled directly on “RomneyCare” which, in turn, was designed by GOP Senators Grassley and Dole in 1993, but only under Obama is this a “socialistic government takeover of health care.”

You are shocked, SHOCKED that politicians practice politics?

I strongly opposed the Iraq War (and predicted, on the Internet discussion group alt.politics.usa.republican prior to the March, 1993 invasion that no WMD would be found). This wasn’t because it was the idea of a Republican (I even more strongly opposed the Vietnam War, which was the idea of a Democrat). I also think that we should get out of Afghanistan as soon as it is practically feasible. The Afghans want us to leave, just as the Iraqis want us to leave. You don’t spend much time, I presume, on liberal-leaning blogs, and you probably don’t watch Bill Maher, but there’s been a lot of criticism from the Left over Obama’s military policies, to date. I certainly don’t want to see us get involved in Libya (in anything more than a supporting role, following the lead of NATO allies), and George Will, among other non-liberals agrees with this, even though John McCain doesn’t.

At least there was some linkage between Afghanistan and 9/11. I listened, yesterday, to an interview with an Iraq War veteran who was talking about the sacrifices made in Iraq in the quest to bring down Bin Laden.

The disconnect continues to this very day.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Larry: I strongly opposed the Iraq War (and predicted, on the Internet discussion group alt.politics.usa.republican prior to the March, 1993 invasion that no WMD would be found).

Well, now… that’s a precarious perch on which you balance that is totally dependent upon what you define as a WMD, doesn’t it? Apparently mustard gas and other sundry chem stashes don’t count? Partial labs, torn apart at last minute are just a matter of inconvenience?



As I’ve written many times, the day that George W Bush claims that they really found WMD in Iraq is when I’ll start paying attention.

Three times while in office, including in his exit interview, when addressing the issue of why we didn’t find WMD there, he replied that we were misled by “bad intelligence.” His precise words. He said the same thing in his memoir. He never tried to claim that they’d found the WMD on which the case to invade was presented to the UN and to the American people, although he certainly had ample opportunity and ample motivation.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA


There is quite a bit to take exception to in your post #2, not the least of which is that Obama and the dems averted ‘Great Depression 2.0, but I will address your comment relating to the article posted by Curt.

You said;

You are shocked, SHOCKED that politicians practice politics?

No, Larry, I highly doubt that Curt is shocked that politicians practice politics. What is to be questioned is the lefts’ constant badgering and berating of Bush for actions Obama has continued, and the revisionist history being rewritten by the left that resulted in UBL’s demise. In their rush to prop Obama upon such a high pedestal, for the recent news, they have falsely claimed that which is not true, or simply choose not to mention that which is pertinent, almost as if their intent is to claim all thing’s great are due to Obama, and anything bad, no matter what the root cause, to be blamed on Bush. It is intellectual dishonesty, and you are practicing that right now.

johngalt, I’m just wondering when someone might start questioning Larry’s math abilities, and his “only $250 bil” added to the deficit claim. LOL

Me? Been there, done that. Let someone else bang their head against the brick wall for awhile.

@mata (#6):

Since 2008, we have $700 billion in bailouts — a tag team affair between Bush/Paulson and Obama/Geithner. Then we have the $750 billion Obama “stimulus,” which is $250 billion greater than the alternative $500 billion stimulus proposed at the time by the GOP.

Now, on top of that, we have the extension of the Bush tax cuts, which both sides share (and richly deserve) the blame and criticism.

As I said elsewhere, $250 billion isn’t trivial but neither is it what the GOP has made it out to be. $250 billion is an additional 1.6% added onto the debt:GDP ratio. Reagan added 30 points to the (previously declining) debt:GDP ratio, for comparison.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

um… Larry… here’s the history of US deficits.

As I’ve pointed out time and time again, any Congress has the right to refuse or alter a POTUS presented budget. Constitutionally, they are in charge of the US purse strings.

2008 deficit was $455 billion dollars. The 2009 budget leaped to $1416 billion dollars. A budget that your “centrist” hero voted for.

Bush signed that budget, which was yet another continuing resolution (#312), yes. However he signed that budget with only two GOP aye votes in the Senate, and zip GOP support in the House. This means that budget deficit add was purely a devil’s pact between the Pelosi/Reid controlled Congress, and Bush. Something that a bunch of us rail against to this day. Had there been any respectable GOP representation in that era, life would not have been so easy to blow the deficit out of the water.

House roll call vote for H. Con. Res 312

Ayes: 212 (Democrat: 212; Republican: 0)
Nays: 207 (Democrat: 16; Republican: 191)
Abstained: 12 (Democrat: 5; Republican: 7

However the idea that you can absolve Obama of his participation with an aye vote on the 2009 budget deficit, that leaped $961 billion dollars, just because Obama was a Senator with a vote instead of a POTUS, is a desperate leap over the bridge to nowhere.

@mata: The $700 million bailout was approved in the Senate 74-25 and here’s the House votes:

The revised HR1424 was received from the Senate by the House, and on October 3, it voted 263-171 to enact the bill into law. Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 95 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote.[6][12]

(from Wiki):

Otherwise, the budget for 2009 wasn’t all that different from 2008 or 2007 or 2006. There wasn’t any massive new spending — just the normal inflation and normal bipartisan pork.

The only new things which added to the deficit were exactly what I described. The bipartisan $700 billion bailout and the $750 billion Dem stimulus, which must be balanced against the counterproposed $500 billion GOP stimulus.

– larry

You really need to stop using Wiki, Larry. I’ve given you the Con Res #. I’ve given you the vote on that Con Res. You obviously chose not to look at the link documenting the deficits since 1941. And now you’ll understand why I just said to others, they are welcome to bang their heads against your brick wall. For me, it’s like communicating in the cone of silence, without you in there with me.

Added… had you used GovTrack, a link I’ve given to you before, you’d see that H.Con.Res 312 lead to S.Con.Res.70, which was the reconciliation for the 2009 budget, and the vote with the two single GOP supporters.


The bipartisan $700 billion bailout and the $750 billion Dem stimulus, which must be balanced against the counterproposed $500 billion GOP stimulus.

Aren’t you leaving some things out, Larry? Like the Omnibus spending bill of 2009, in which spending was increased by 20% over previous years? And the difference in how the GOP stimulus was to be distributed, vice the dem-passed bill, which wasn’t just a one-time $750 Billion dollar piece of legislation, but increased departmental baseline budgets by a few hundred billion for years to come? And the auto-bailouts, of which it isn’t, and was never meant to be, a zero-sum game, where GM paid back every bit they took from the government?

My take is that Obama, with his dem-controlled congress, increased spending by hundreds and hundreds of Billions over what the typical, average spending increases had been. But I suppose, with an Obama supporter, that one must follow the leader, and blame Bush and the GOP for everything, while not accepting responsibility for their own actions.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:

Obama has added a grand total of $250 billion more to the deficit than McCain and a GOP controlled Congress would have added (and, in the process, helped avert Great Depression 2.0)…


…the budget for 2009 wasn’t all that different from 2008 or 2007 or 2006…

Revisionist history anyone?

From gpoaccess.gov –

The Budget forecasts that the deficit will continue to decline as a percentage of GDP. In 2005, we project a deficit of 3.5 percent of GDP, or $427 billion. And if we maintain the policies of economic growth and spending restraint reflected in this Budget, in 2006 and each of the next four years, the deficit is expected to decline.
By 2009, the deficit is projected to be cut by more than half from its originally estimated 2004 peak—to just 1.5
percent of GDP
, which is well below the 40-year historical average deficit, and lower than all but seven of the last 25 years.

But it sure does sound good when you try to excuse Obama from his atrociously insane spending habits. Had we stayed on the projected budget outlays set out by the Bush administration, by now our deficit would be miniscule compared to the gargantuan $1.6 trillion that it is.

However, to address your claim that Obama barely added to the debt.

2006 budget was 2.65 trillion dollars
2007 budget was 2.78 trillion dollars
2008 budget was 2.98 trillion dollars
2009 budget was 3.99 trillion dollars

So how can you say that the 2009 budget was not much different? It was ONE TRILLION DOLLARS higher.