« When Eight Cylinders Isn't Near Enough | Main | Topless Photos Revealed of Prejean »

Republican Suggests Obama Intentionally Scuttling the Economy

Luckily the right wing lunatics were all over the recent spicy brown mustard controversy. I feel so much safer knowing that the President's choice of a dijon mustard on his burger isn't going to escape unnoticed by the rapidly-irrelevant right...

But this may be taking their paranoid schizophrenia to new heights. We know have elected Republican officials suggesting that the President of the United States is... well, read it for yourself:

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen is spanking his GOP counterpart for suggesting that President Barack Obama is intentionally scuttling the economy as part of a "divide and conquer" strategy.

National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions told The New York Times on Monday that he thought the administration intended to "diminish employment and diminish stock prices" and "to inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not to kill it."

Thus guys sounds like the wacko nutjobs that spill over into our comment threads - but no - this nutcake is an elected representative from Dallas, Texas.

Oh, maybe that explains it. Didn't President Bush move to Dallas? Didn't the Texas governor hint that the state was considering seceding from the union? These clowns clearly don't want to be a part of America anymore.

Van Hollen responded in a statement: "The latest remarks by NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions have no place in our current economic debate and reflect a party more preoccupied with offering bizarre conspiracy theories than offering credible solutions to get our economy back on track. Families coping with the loss of a job, their home or their health care need solutions from Washington, not more of the same broken politics embodied by Chairman Sessions and the Republican leadership in the House and talk show host Rush Limbaugh."

Lunatics... they've been reduced to babbling lunatics...


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3/5 (4 votes cast)


Comments (18)

DaveD:

Okay then, it's not intentional. The only other alternative is that he's simply brain dead when it comes to economics. He follows his past claim that he inherited a bad economy from Bush which according to his Democrat colleagues destroyed the Clinton surplus by, in turn, deciding to contribute to the deficit 4 to 6 fold defies any semblance of logical action. There can be no dispute on this. Whether it's intentional or he's an idiot doesn't matter. The end point is the same. I invite you to support him to the fullest extent you can. You will always be a cheerleader for him, but the moderates who supported him are in for one of the biggest (and perhaps lasting) political disappointments in this country's history. And we have had our share of disappointments, haven't we?

Allen:

Yes, according to queer Rush, Obama is a socialist, and wants to nationalize everything. Obama doesn't care about getting reelected; he just wants to nationalize the whole country. But Obama won't actually say he's going to nationalize it, because that would be unpopular. One wonders why he cares about being unpopular if he doesn't want to be reelected, but then logic is clearly not at work here:

Better get more talking points from the fat man.

GarandFan:

Fucking A it's intentional. The price of energy will be driven upwards in order to make "green" more palatable. Only problem is that manufacturing costs will also be driven upwards, making our products uncompetitive with the rest of the world. Barry and company haven't thought that part out yet. "Uncompetitive" means lost jobs. Unless your an Obamabot like Lee and actually believe Obama created 150,000 new jobs last month. (Temporary census jobs are not permanent....yet.)

ke_future:

i'm curious, allen. i've seen you do it a couple of times, why do you always use "queer Rush"?

oh, and on the question of intentional vs. incompetent, i vote both, but not the way you think.

this is just the natural result of the increasing power and expanse of government over private enterprise. in one sense, you could call it intentional in that Obama does want the primacy of government in economic matters. but the result he wants is not a weak economy. it's just the effect of bad policy that he thinks is good policy.

which makes it incompetent as well. even tho there are plenty of examples of the negative effect that government has on the economy, and NO examples of the reverse, obama's decision to go with this ideological policies shows incompetancey.

Tim:

Yeah, it's kind of funny that Lee Ward keeps calling Republicans homophobes, but's it's ultra-lib Allen who keeps calling people 'queers'. I guess it's like the way that only black people are allowed to use the N-word.

Lee Ward:

No, it's like treating gay americans as if they are less than equal is wrong -- and calling Rush Limbaugh queer doesn't change that.

ke_future:

i'm curious, lee. what do you consider treating gay americans as less than equal? serious question, i'm wondering what you think on gay issues.

Lee Ward:

Americans who aren't gay can get married.

Gay Americans can't.

That's not equal.

Heralder:

Just like all the 9/11 conspiracy theorists who spent so much effort saying Bush was behind the attacks, I shall now deploy the:

"Hey, I'm only asking questions"

-response. Enjoy.

dan:

what i dont understand about the liberal agenda is this. the left wing is pro-gay marriage right? so naturally they put a bill in writing and have the people vote on it(prop8). but when this gets voted down by the people that they represent, instead of understanding that the majority wants to preserve marriage between a man and a woman, they decide to make gay marriage bans unconstitutional ex. Iowa(i believe). this directly conflicts with the interests and ideals of the people that voted them into office, as is apparent by the legislation that keeps failing to pass. the style of government that this is practicing is neither a democracy nor a republic, because the majority did not make the law nor is the constitution being followed. instead, this form is pushing an elitist or minority agenda.

now, i do lean to the right. i am proudly a republican because i want a republic, not a democracy. but seriously, why not just go with what the people voted for?

Bob Fairlane:

Liberals are faggots, and there are a lot of liberal faggots in the republican party these days too. Spicy mustard is awesome, but Obama is still a kenyan alien with a police state gun theft agenda.

Allen:

Ke, I refer to queer Rush for the reason he was busted years ago for cruising for boys when he was a DJ in PA. He was using a different name then, but the facts do come out. If all the gays in the GOP came out of the closet, people would be surprised at how many there are.

Heralder:

I'm not entirely sure how sexual orientation has any bearing on politics.

So what is it you're hinting at Allen, that there are alot of Republicans that are gay. Being that you seem to be very much a liberal Democrat, this indicates, by Lee Ward's standards that you're a gay-hating bigot.

Good to know.

Oh, and since you seem to know alot of people are gay that have given no indication of it, the obvious question comes to mind: Were you pitching or catching?

Lee Ward:

No question that there are more Republicans gays in the closet, and that they will be outed as time goes forward.

I've heard rumors about Crist. How long before his scandal is fully revealed?

Oh, how about 7 days before the election...

ke_future:

and if there are republicans who don't disclose their sexual orientation, what right does anyone have to "out" them? oh, wait, this is just more of the democrats attempts to destroy their opponents. not through policy discussion or debate, but through personal attacks.

i always found it ironic that it's usually democrats who try to make a person's sexual orientation an election issue.

Heralder:

Personally I don't care if they're gay or straight regardless of party.

Lee seems to think it's important to invade people's personal privacy to somehow discredit them.

If outing them is some sort of discredit, I think this reveals how he really feels about gay people, and shows the incredible hypocrasy in slinging his 'anti-gay bigot' labels towards anything that moves and is conservative.

Lee Ward:

Gay Americans feel betrayed by the hypocrisy of Republican leaders who legislate against gay rights while hiding their own homosexual tendencies, ke. That's a pretty simple equation for most of us to understand.

"Lee seems to think it's important to invade people's personal privacy to somehow discredit them."

"If outing them is some sort of discredit, I think this reveals how he really feels about gay people, and shows the incredible hypocrasy in slinging his 'anti-gay bigot' labels towards anything that moves and is conservative."

Again, the hypocrisy of Republican gays is obvious to most thinking adults. No question that there will be exceptions to that among conservatives.

I mentioned the outing in response to your comment, Heralder. Apparently your meds are still not balanced, and your short-term memory is still lacking.

You said: "So what is it you're hinting at Allen, that there are alot of Republicans that are gay."

I said: "No question that there are more Republicans gays in the closet, and that they will be outed as time goes forward."

When did you lose your marbles, and have you looked under the sofa? You used to show some intelligence, now you're just a troll. Were the election results that traumatic for you?

Heralder:

Alot of attacks there in that post, Lee, did I hit a sore spot?

Again, the hypocrisy of Republican gays is obvious to most thinking adults. No question that there will be exceptions to that among conservatives.

Well, you've begun the debate. You've stated claims. I'll look for that list of Republicans that are legislating against gay rights along with the proof that they are gay themselves.

I mentioned the outing in response to your comment,

While this may be the case, my comment was a response to Allen, and then I commented on your response to my response to Allen.

Being that there is little logical train of throught by any poster throughout this thread (in regards to the actual topic) I can understand the confusion.

Were the election results that traumatic for you?

Actually no. It's good to get the chance to see the Democrats take a shot at leading. They've been doing alot of heckling from the sidelines and have gotten complacent and lazy blaming others. Now they have the weight of responsibility.


Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.