moonbattery.gif


« Al Gore Exploits Envirofascism for Fortunes | Main | NJ Democrats Using Gangbangers for GOTV? »


November 3, 2009

Moonbat Blames Constitution for Obama's Inadequacy

Posted by Van Helsing at November 3, 2009 8:38 AM

What's a Moonbat Messiah to do when blaming Bush just makes people's eyes roll? Aussie Obamunist Anne Davies has the answer — blame the Constitution:

A year ago a jubilant Barack Obama stood in Grant Park, Chicago to claim victory before his exuberant fans. … The first year of the Obama Administration has tested the strength of the true believers who gathered in Grant Park on that November night last year. During the campaign they had suspended their beliefs in how the American system works and embraced Obama's heady promises of a changed America…
Yet a year after the November 4 election, the checks and balances the founding fathers built into the US political system to moderate the revolutionary zeal of its early settlers have worked, all too well, to blunt Obama's agenda.

Those angry white male Founding Fathers are oppressing The People from beyond the grave with all that liberty stuff.

Chairman Zero was no fan of the Constitution, even before it thwarted his plan to "fundamentally transform" America into a socialist utopia:

FDR managed to effectively repeal the Tenth Amendment, opening the door to decades of explosive government growth at the expense of our freedom. Time will tell how much damage The Anointed One will do, as media moonbats like Davies slap their hands together and hoot with delight.

On a tip from mandible claw.


Comments

Thank God for the Founding Fathers' wisdom in making checks and balances to thwart the usurpation of liberty. That was he whole idea, you stupid, stupid woman!

Posted by: Lawler Nicoteri at November 3, 2009 9:35 AM


This idiot's own moonbattery isn't even consistent. What has the Constitution done to blunt the pork spending, expansion of welfare programs, job-killing regulation, cap and tax, or health care nationalization? Absolutely nothing.

The checks and balances aren't working because the administration, Congress, and the Supreme Court could care less about the founders' intent. The current government is a conspiracy of usurpers of the Constitution.

About the only things the Constitution has slowed down is the assault on free speech and the assault on gun rights, but those aren't a part of the agenda.....yet.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 3, 2009 9:39 AM


"To uphold and to defend the constitution of the United Sates of America, so help me God"

Remember THAT ?

No only is this weasel in the deep end of the pool, way over his head, he's now prepairing to pull the rest of us down with him.

God help us save this great nation that has been bequeathed to use through great courage and sacrifice.

Posted by: Ron USA at November 3, 2009 9:46 AM


The Constitution IS flawed if you're trying to institute "share the wealth" policies. The Constitution wasn't written that way, Moonbats!

Posted by: tyrannomac at November 3, 2009 10:05 AM


MOONBATTERY MENTIONED IN THE WASHINGON TIMES TODAY here

Posted by: mega at November 3, 2009 10:06 AM


"the checks and balances the founding fathers built into the US political system to moderate the revolutionary zeal of its early settlers have worked" You guys may want to read this again. What she is stating that "year after year" President elect(s) promise quite a bit, but are curbed by the system we have. Whether it "universal health care" or "helping or citizens survive". This is nit picking a quote you apparently do not understand.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 3, 2009 10:08 AM


Anne Davies = Yet another Self-Hating White Woman. What the hell is wrong with white women these days?
Why are they suicidal?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 3, 2009 10:12 AM


Too bad Aussie moonbat, your opinion doesn’t count.
Worry about your own country.

Posted by: G at November 3, 2009 10:29 AM


Hey Anne, we'll trade Obama to Australia for a kangaroo, straight up.

OK, OK, we'll throw in some cash too. Deal?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 3, 2009 10:38 AM


A single unknown Aussie commenting on the U.S. constitution deserves a thread on Moonbattery??

Stay vigilant patriots.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 3, 2009 10:50 AM


@ Anonymous Countermoonbat:

Excellent post!
Check out this brief thinkpiece, I think it says a lot of what we're all thinking:

Here it is.

Posted by: EvilResident at November 3, 2009 10:56 AM


Anonymous at November 3, 2009 10:08 AM

BO-Breath,



We have a Constitution designed to quell "revolutionary zeal."
Any change or laws made to affect the 'system' should be made with moderation and thoughtful deliberation based on Constitutional principles...not by ramrodding far-reaching laws that will have enormous and unpredictable consequences, as written by uneducated, unqualified socialists with ideas antithetical to fundamental freedoms.

Government or systemic problems are not with the Constitution; liberalism and outlandish and ridiculous promises made by hack politicians are problematic; this one reason why the Constitution is a document of negatives.

But its a lunch break, so in terms of further "nitpicking":

"A year ago a jubilant Barack Obama stood in Grant Park, Chicago to claim victory before his exuberant fans."

(FANS...that's correct; not concerned citizens, not patriots, not Americans, but ...FANS. BO has fans or 'Followers', i.e., ideologues)


"During the campaign they had suspended their beliefs in how the American system works..." aw. the poor, suppressed innocents. Sucks to be stupid and lazy doesn't it?


so they 'suspended their beliefs in how the American system works'...

Interesting characterization, but true. 'beliefs' is all BOs FANS have. Which is a totally different thing than 'understanding' or 'knowledge' of something.
Upon closer examination, it should be obvious that BO's FANS have 'beliefs' that are based on confabulations, emotions and misinformation derived from decades of liberal propaganda brought to life by a Marxist-communist bitter about what he perceives as American apartheid.

"and embraced Obama's heady promises of a changed America…"

(empty headed, more like it) And changed America...to what? A Marxist-communist government?

Once again Breath, a government should not be in the business of providing "universal health care" or "helping or citizens survive" (the latter unless warfare is involved).

It is hard for liberals to understand, clinging to villains and heroes as they do, but the American Constitution was designed to insure that freedom meant freedom from the herd mentality that government so greatly desires to create.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 3, 2009 10:59 AM


Last one was me.

Posted by: Fiberal at November 3, 2009 11:04 AM


You are absolutely wrong here. We are the only industrialized country who does not offer universal health care, and it is a shame. Follow the trails of health care to bankruptcy to foreclosures et al. Also, you misunderstanding her statement, it is the Constitution that blocks some social programs from being enacted. Yet, we do have something called Amendments. Now the GOP wants to block unemployment extensions to those unable to find work. To slow the layoffs, I would suggest we go to a European style unemployment insurance. Whereas should workers be facing a lay off, they would only be dropped to part-time for 36 weeks and government pays the difference. It would reduce amount of benefits paid out, and allow employers to keep some workers. You strike me as one of these "no regulations!" types, that is willing to let America run into the ground. You seem to have some fear of big government, but if you do not have big government, you have big corporations. You have no say over the corporations.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 3, 2009 11:59 AM


Anon would rather bankrupt the whole country than look at ways to address the small percentage of people who go bankrupt due to health care crises.

Posted by: Judith M. at November 3, 2009 12:08 PM


You seem to have some fear of big government, but if you do not have big government, you have big corporations.
~ Posted by: Too stupid to know who I am so I post as Anonymous at November 3, 2009 11:59 AM

This is a very confused and very false choice.

Posted by: Kevin R. at November 3, 2009 12:15 PM


Corporations create wealth, Government destroys it.

Posted by: Stephana at November 3, 2009 12:26 PM


Excuse me ladies and germs but didnt obama take a oath to UPHOLD,PROTECT,& DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES? Well then if he rejects the constitution he is no president he is a dictator

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at November 3, 2009 12:44 PM


Anon. wrote:
"We are the only industrialized country who does not offer universal health care, and it is a shame."

So we should be the last pig to the trough, when the other pigs, having already fed, are groaning in pain, trying to purge the poison they consumed?

Didn't your mother ever tell you, just because everyone else is doing somthing stupid, doesn't mean you should too? Nor does it excuse you from suffering the consequences when you do, even if you are a liberal.

Posted by: addy at November 3, 2009 12:52 PM


As in ANIMAL FARM the head pig OBAMA stands at the podium to oink to all those who care to listen to him oink

Posted by: Flu-Bird at November 3, 2009 12:53 PM


FDR managed to effectively repeal the Tenth Amendment, opening the door to decades of explosive government growth at the expense of our freedom.

As the grandaddy of socialism, FDR did his damage, but the 10th amendment problem goes all the way back to Lincoln.

The Civil War changed everything. It's too easy to blame all our current problems with a federal power grab on 20th century politicians. The problem goes back much further than that.

Posted by: Cylar at November 3, 2009 2:07 PM


I'm pretty tired of the suggestion that the US is "behind the times" compared to European nations and other western-style democracies. Especially with regard to healthcare.

Anonymous poster. (GREG, STOP ALLOWING THIS. MAKE 'NAME' a required field!) The US does not have a true socialized medicine system, but it also is the source of most of the medical innovations and discoveries, and your odds of survival from cancer or some other chronic condition are better here. Do you think this is a coincidence?

I'm not interested in hearing from any more European posters who suggest that our opposition to the Obama healthcare plan is some kind of overreaction. No, it isn't.

Posted by: Cylar at November 3, 2009 2:12 PM


Why would I want to get my name hijacked like others have? You cite the survival rate on cancer, yet that is a bogus claim given the variety of cancer. Big government was not an issue until it did some things for the poor, then it became a problem.Before that it was only helping the rich. A public option is just that, an option. If you like your premium rates going up on a whim, keep it. The insurance companies need to be reigned in with the pre-existing conditions and rate increases. Regulation if you will. You also fail to mention that much of that innovation is paid for by the government.As I stated, if you do not have a big government, you have big corporations. You do not get to vote for corporations.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 3, 2009 2:31 PM


Follow the trails of health care to bankruptcy to foreclosures et al.

Scare tactic based on bogus statistics. The statistic derives from counting every bankrupt whose liabilities included a medical bill – no matter how large, or how small – as a "healthcare-related" bankruptcy. Most of those people also had liability for car payments – were those counted as "auto-related" bankruptcies? Please. The comrades were massaged the criteria to try to make their argument look better.

Also, you misunderstanding her statement, it is the Constitution that blocks some social programs from being enacted. Yet, we do have something called Amendments.

So...try to amend the Constitution. Problem solved.

To slow the layoffs, I would suggest we go to a European style unemployment insurance.

Compare the European structural unemployment rate with ours. It runs much, much higher. Why? Because hiring is much more expensive – because of all your "social programs" – and firing is difficult to impossible. Upshot: employers don't hire if they can help it. Do we really want to follow Europe, of all places, in this?

Whereas should workers be facing a lay off, they would only be dropped to part-time for 36 weeks and government pays the difference.

Where does "government" get the money to do this? Hmmm? It extracts money – taxes - from other workers, and businesses, increasing the burden of the productive, and punishing them for their productivity. Did you like the hosing of the auto industry's lenders? Did you know who those lenders were? Hedge funds and such, right? Where did those hedge funds get their funds to hedge? (Never thought about this, did you?) A lot of it comes from pension plans and university endowments (didn't know that, did you?) It's why the Indiana State Police Pension Trust filed suit to block the sale of Chrysler's assets ( Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler).

You seem to have some fear of big government, but if you do not have big government, you have big corporations. You have no say over the corporations.

And what say do you have over the government? Ask Cubans how much their vote counts. The government is a corporation, too, numbnuts. (A corporation is a legal construct that treats an organization as if it were a natural person.) It's just one with guns, an army, police, and prisons. And you're scared of big companies?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 3, 2009 2:41 PM


Big government was not an issue until it did some things for the poor, then it became a problem.

Rubbish. Pure Marxist claptrap. The government wasn't that big until relatively recently (40 years ago). The stimulus bill is saddling us with more debt in one shot than it cost us to win WWII. True.

You also fail to mention that much of that innovation is paid for by the government.

Government pays for a lot of basic research, but not the stuff that patients ever see (new medical devices and drugs). I live in this world, and most NIH grants are either for clinical medicine (e.g., determining which existing treatment protocol which best, that sort of thing) or basic research (e.g., sequencing the human genome) that is light years away from clinical application. Knowing that a gene may be associated with a greater incidence of some pathology provides targets for future pharma research (research that will take decades, typically), but is not useful in and of itself.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 3, 2009 2:57 PM


Posted by: Anonymous at November 3, 2009 11:59 AM

Okay, so enough with the junior high school platitudes.

What's your specific European model of health care that you would like this country to adopt? Or are you just recommending any old idea. (Well, you actually have that proposed in Congress right now).
In the meantime I won't mention that our Constitution does not provide a means for the establishment of a nationalized health care mandate. You need a Constitutional amendment for that with states ratification...were we in fact to follow the Constitution.

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at November 3, 2009 12:44 PM
"Excuse me ladies and germs but didnt obama take a oath to UPHOLD,PROTECT,& DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES? Well then if he rejects the constitution he is no president he is a dictator"

Excuse me, SPURWING, but I think you might be assuming that we have an honorable man in there as "president" today.

Posted by: Fiberal at November 3, 2009 3:07 PM


"Anonymous at November 3, 2009 10:50 AM"

Translation:
"Stop noticing our anti-Americanism!"

Posted by: KHarn at November 3, 2009 3:27 PM


Posted by: Anonymous at November 3, 2009 2:31 PM
"You also fail to mention that much of that innovation is paid for by the government."

I assume you're pontificating about health care innovation.

This is one of the more ignorant beliefs the left has.
This myth persists since liberals are so heavily invested in government aid they see everything from that perspective.
Basically, where this comes from, is from an understanding that grant money distributed by NIH, DOJ, DOD and other government agencies provides broad-scale medical care.

To coin a favorite liberal term, the real situation is more "nuanced".

With respect to the majority of government grants accounting for most of the funding (RO1 and R23 types of grants), these carry no strings attached; there is no payback, there is no contract or obligation even to publish the results or to patent new inventions. If the science is sound and passes peer review, the money is awarded free of restraint. These kinds of government funds pay for what is almost always, basic fundamental scientific research which rarely sees commercialization.

Although private industry can access (at a price) data published from government-paid research, its almost never directly pertinent to the kind of applied research needed to move commercial projects forward. In addition, basic research is not nearly as burdened by regulatory laws as applied research.

Commercial innovations that derive from applied research carried out by industry, on the other hand, whether its pharmaceuticals, medical devices, computing or imaging, or just about anything else on the open market, come from private industry supported by private investors. Government input to the applied science is relatively minor (some in the form of SBIRs/STTRs) or indirect, and non-existent for regulatory fees, marketing and commercialization.

One other point; the reason that industry is innovative is solely because of intense competition for profits. This last factor is what is removed from most "European models" and why the applied science abroad is so comparatively small. This difference is not due to a difference in governments and their input to industry.

That is, unless they laid off the looting for a bit...no chance of that.

Posted by: Fiberal at November 3, 2009 3:41 PM


No chance of that...heh.

Posted by: Al Gore at November 3, 2009 3:44 PM


Thanks, Fiberal, I see you've lived the life too. I debated getting into R01s and all that, but decided against it. That particular leftist canard - that the government is responsible for medical innovation - drives me up the wall.

As you point out, and our crimson friends should take on board, the government funds primarily basic research (partly as a way of subsidizing universities, and partly as a way of subsidizing the training of grad students). The commercial value of that research is typically minimal.

Lefties refuse to believe this, but they need only talk with anyone who has experience with academic technology transfer to find out the truth: most tech transfer offices can barely give their stuff away, because it's so early stage, and so likely to be worthless, that no one is willing to pay hardly anything for it.

It'd be like drafting players for the major leagues in a maternity ward. Signing bonuses are going to be pretty minimal. Some baby throws his rattle all the way out of his crib, OK, he gets a little larger signing bonus, but not much. The chance that any given infant make it to the bigs is vanishingly small.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 3, 2009 4:09 PM


Posted by: TED at November 3, 2009 5:12 PM


Jay,

Right.

The RO1 route is treacherous for a lot of reasons, although I have to say I'm sympathetic having done a lot of this kind of thing. There is a place for this however; big science like astronomy, the Large Hadron Collider, and pure mathematics, and others, I think, have to be subsidized in order to progress. Private donations can also do a lot (The American Heart Association is a great example.)
But isn't it infuriating that the pharmaceutical industry (I believe you mentioned that you do toxicology consulting) is an essential branch of industry, commerce, health and science that is continually victimized by governments in the form of taxes and regulatory requirements? And yet in no way, at least in the US, is ever subsidized. And what this industry needs to move innovation to a new paradigm shift of health, medicine, longevity and nutrition, are tax breaks.

Nevertheless, I would wager that millions of citizens believe that our government directly funds this kind of research in an RO1 fashion and are inordinately hostile to the industry.

Its understandable: the US citizen has been fed a mix of easily digestible propaganda and bulls--t. Its no wonder that liberals resemble cockroaches lose in a kitchen.

The biggest problem with federally-subsidized research is that it isn't tied well enough to commercial enterprise. Without this critical link, funds becomes agenda driven.

For ex: the public actually has no idea how much money is available for behavioral/social engineering modeling studies related to AIDs, alcoholism and gender and racial bias. Not to mention, global warming. A fraction of these budgets could launch robotic exploration around the solar system for the next 1000 years.

As soon as government gets involved in research and has no obligation to applied interests, an unbalanced view of reality results.

But all this aside, I do think we have neglected what used to be known as the "gentleman's science": y'know...watching newts in the backyard.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 3, 2009 5:26 PM


That's me again...oops...Michelle said it right: damit!

Posted by: Fiberal at November 3, 2009 5:29 PM


Why would I want to get my name hijacked like others have?

The issue is knowing whom to direct a response. I have no way of knowing who is making what "anonymous" comments. The name hijacking thing is easily-enough dealt with, but I notice it only seems to happen to left-wingers who really shouldn't be here to start with.


You cite the survival rate on cancer, yet that is a bogus claim given the variety of cancer.

You got any data to back that up?


Big government was not an issue until it did some things for the poor, then it became a problem.

Yes, before the 1930s or so, the "poor" relied on churches and their neighbors for help, both of whom helped the truly indigent but had little tolerance for moochers and freeloaders. Imagine that. Today, some of us resent having part of our income siphoned off so that a segment of the population can use drugs and watch TV all day.


Before that it was only helping the rich.

I've got two words for you: trust buster. Remember Teddy Roosevelt? Yeah, fine example of favoring the powerful over the weak there, eh? Your logic is a house of cards.


A public option is just that, an option.

...which will crowd out all private-funded options within a year, since the public option doesn't have to worry about going broke.


If you like your premium rates going up on a whim, keep it.

1,300 existing insurers provides competition and plenty of options. You're like my girlfriend's left-wing brother from San Francisco. He thinks that in cities that don't have rent control, landlords can apparently charge whatever they want without losing renters.


The insurance companies need to be reigned in with the pre-existing conditions and rate increases.

The only thing around here that needs "reigning in" is government and its endless appetite for controlling every little facet of our lives. Remember, once the socialists get their long-awaited 'single-payer' option, everything we do - what we drive, where we live, ad nauseum - will fall under the rubric of "potentially affecting healthcare costs." I personally want to see people living their own lives and making their own choices, without forcing me to pay for any of the consequences.


Regulation if you will. You also fail to mention that much of that innovation is paid for by the government.

Yes, I'm sure the FDA, US Dept of Agriculture, NASA, or some other federal agency is sitting around developing the drugs that are being deployed in the fight against AIDS or cancer. The high cost of the drugs is due to the regulation imposed by said government. Love it or loathe it - it's a fact.


As I stated, if you do not have a big government, you have big corporations.

Bill Gates can't force me to do anything. Obama can.


You do not get to vote for corporations.

Bull. You vote with your dollars. You choose whether or not to do business with them. If you like, you can buy stock in publicly-traded corporations, which in turn gives you X votes for or against members of the board of directors. Don't argue about this with someone who has a bachelor's degree in Business Administration.


Posted by: Anonymous at November 3, 2009 2:31 PM

Pick a name and use it, coward.

Posted by: Cylar at November 3, 2009 7:00 PM


Hey Anne, we'll trade Obama to Australia for a kangaroo, straight up.

OK, OK, we'll throw in some cash too. Deal?


Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 3, 2009 10:38 AM

I like Kangaroo's

Posted by: Dan at November 3, 2009 7:02 PM


Cylar sez re name highjacking:

"The issue is knowing whom to direct a response. I have no way of knowing who is making what "anonymous" comments. The name hijacking thing is easily-enough dealt with, but I notice it only seems to happen to left-wingers who really shouldn't be here to start with."

Laugh out loud!! So you don't want us here as is proven by the fact that whenever we do adopt a name, someone on YOUR SIDE highjacks it to make some stupid comment in support of kiddie porn.

You don't like anonymous?? Tough. We "shouldn't be here"? Tough.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 3, 2009 7:25 PM


This is Anon @ 7:25PM.

I am a big fag.

That is all.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 3, 2009 9:07 PM


You don't like anonymous?? Tough. We "shouldn't be here"? Tough.

You don't like being called a coward Tough. You don't like being hijacked? Tough. You don't like being mocked and ridiculed? Tough.

I may not make the rules here, but GoY does.

Posted by: Cylar at November 3, 2009 9:15 PM


Yes Cylar, and one of the lame "rules" he used was he decided to add a name of his choice, to someone else's anonymous post.

Tell me about cowardice Cylar.

The right LOVES the first amendment. So long as it's only they who get to use it.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 4, 2009 7:39 AM


Oh come on now you guys: since when have Leftists EVER blamed themselves for their own failures? Never, that's when. It's ALWAYS someone or something else's fault.

Posted by: Nunya at November 4, 2009 9:54 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)