Great quote. Too bad we don't know who wrote it....
The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.
It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.
The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.
Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”
-- Author Unknown
HT to a patriot serving in Afghanistan
17 comments:
We might be able to survive President BO, but it won't be easy. We must help or fellow citizens understand that he IS responsible for the current deficit, debt, and coming extremely high taxes for us and our progeny.
Bush also shares the blame for our current ills.
We were foolish to elect Obama. He was a clean slate with no experience to suggest he would even know how to run anything. He also had a very liberal background which many centrist voters chose to ignore.
Conservatives made a similar mistake electing Bush. He was no conservative, but we deluded ourselves into believing he was. All we Bush voters can say in our defense is that he was the more conservative of the two.
I hate politics...
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency."
I'm almost inclined to say that stupid people don't think about their vote and get what they deserve, except that those of us who saw this bastard for what he is long ago all suffer for the stupid people's actions.
I think we should have to take a test on the Constitution in order to get a voting card. If you don't know the basic laws of this country, how can you be expected to select competent representation?
@SB
"I think we should have to take a test on the Constitution in order to get a voting card."
Amen brother! Fellow Coloradan Tom Tancredo sent the libs into a convulsive fit of the screaming meemies by saying almost the same thing at the CPAC convention.
I would go a step farther and suggest that we go back to the days when you had to be a land owner to vote, or perhaps allot a weight to the landowner's vote based on his present year property tax bill: the worthless shit who collects welfare, foodstamps and lives in the public tenement gets a tenth of a vote, and Bill Gates gets 10 votes.
You know, those folks who have some skin in the game should have a bit more weight given to their positions as to how our we all should manage our national resouces. In this manner, we can do something about Alexis de Toqueville's observation about ne'er do wells wrecking our nation by voting themselves largess from the public trough.
We're actually at the point Tocqueville predicted. Half the country pays no taxes, so they keep voting themselves more goodies. Add in city, county, state and feral government workers, and you have a solid liberal democrat voting block.
Amen to Fredd. Not one single solitary person should be able to vote unless they own REAL realastate meaning land.
This is not discriminatory but rather fair. Un educated,lazy squatters have no busines voting away my rights!
I say to them get a job, save money, buy land. To attain these thing s requires an education self-taught or not. Afterwards you can indeed vote.
ROFLMAO This might be fun. LOL.
RZ, Read back some. This is a very rare post. I usually discuss ideas, not people, but this was e-mailed to me and it was too good to pass up.
Like the photochop at the bottom? It's very subtle...
It's cool. I have you on my blogroll. I WILL BE BACK. LOL.
Silverfiddle,
Don't blame me man, I voted Paul in the primary then Nader in the general.War was the major issue for me.I take a lot of flak from Democrats for admitting I go third party when principle won't let me vote for what I think of as the "Lesser of two assholes".
It took me two years with GWB before I couldn't even stand to look at him or hear his voice.
BHO has accomplished this in one year. Maybe I'm just gettin' old.
We're all gettin' old, Oso...
I am also anti-war, but just not in the flagrant manner that many conservatives are. I've been there and seen it.
Yeah, we've done a lot of good, but ultimately people have to do for themselves or they won't respect it or cherish it.
Look at El Salvador. We helped them help themselves, and now the FMLN is a political party instead of an insurgency.
Having said that, we need to wrap up Iraq and Afghanistan the best we can and then firmly resolve to set a much higher bar for future involvement.
We're there, we've got to end it right.
I liked your comment somewhere to the effect that we need a competent, non-charismatic old person as president. It will take someone that the people really trust to steer us out of the mess we are in. Everyone's ox will have to be gored (apologies to Al).
RE: "we need a competent, non-charismatic old person as president."
If we could bring him back from traversing the cosmos, my nominee would be Gen. Smedley D Butler. He is one of my all time true hero's.
LOL Silverfiddle, yeah somebody Gore All's ox!
Maybe Walter Cronkite could get us out of this.
What got me thinking,I don't know if you're old enough to recall the Kennedy-Nixon debates? Folks listening on the radio felt Nixon had won.Those watching TV felt the opposite. Consensus was,Kennedy had a bright smile which contrasted with Nixon's 5'oclock shadow.Kennedy looked directly into the camera when he responded,rather than looking at and responding to his opponent as is proper in debate and what Nixon did.
I really think that was when things began to turn.
IMO GHWB was the only qualified President we've had since Nixon left office.
I'm not saying the more experienced candidates weren't flawed or that experience necessarily makes the best choice, and it doesn't necessarily mean old. Robert Byrd has been in office for about 600 years and I wouldn't want him in the oval office.
At the risk of pissing people off I don't put St Ronnie in the mix either.I would actually view him as symptomatic, he used camera presence and likability to ingratiate himself with the media and hence the electorate.He is far more popular now than during his terms of office.
SF: This one is for you. LOL
http://realityzone-realityzone.blogspot.com/2010/02/war-on-terror-is-anti-conservative.html
This is all thanks to the dumbing down of each new generation in our public school system, starting in the mid to late 1960's. It is also the fault of those parents who knew what was happening but did nothing to stop it.
Good point Reverend. I'll have a post on that in a few days...
Post a Comment