Not to call names, but . . .

Just a few words from The Rev. Obama

Posted: January 28, 2013 at 3:47 a.m.

SOMEWHERE in our president’s short inaugural address last week (it only seemed long), our newly re-elected chief executive paused to deliver a pious little sermon on the evils of name-calling—and for good measure, the evils of delay, spectacle and absolutism, too.

This story is only available from our archives.

Editorial, Pages 10 on 01/28/2013

You're at least as guilty of every moralistic piety as you accuse the President of being. If morals are expressed in terms of secular persuasion, then Obama is speaking from the same "bully pulpit" as every president since TR. And if the Democrat Geezer editors and their atherosclerotic public won't give up their devotion to guns, then maybe a blast of piety, as you call it, is just what you need. What does it take to open your ears and eyes to the effects of violence, including that in your denying hearts? (It would be refreshing for once to hear you say something positive about this president -- as you did throughout the last campaign, which you lost you'll remember, about Mitt Romney, who couldn't tell any audience anything except what they wanted to hear.)

Posted by: sladkomn

January 28, 2013 at 7:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Somebody still grumpy about their Romney losing? Sheesh. Get over it.

"[Obama] no slouch himself at staging spectacles like a presidential inauguration.">>

You're reduced to criticizing that he *had* an inauguration ceremony? Or is it that he's no slouch at it? Hilarious.

I like this part best:

"As for name-calling, this president’s rhetoric has not been devoid of that...">>

Well we wouldn't know that from your rant. Surely, since you even put it in the title, you could find a single example to trumpet? Apparently not.

"For someone who’s opposed to name calling, he’s pretty good at it.">>

Really? Then since this seems to be your main complaint, you shouldn't have had any trouble giving a few juicy examples of him being "pretty good at" name calling. You didn't give a single example!

"He somehow manages to preach against name calling while practicing it."

If that is true, then why were you unable to provide a single, solitary, example of him "practicing it."

Who comes up with this swill?

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 28, 2013 at 8:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Seems quite a vicious personal attack on the president to be published anonymously. Who wrote this screed? Seems to have the odor of Harton about it. Greg Harton, if it's you, why don't you put your name the reeking thing?

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

January 28, 2013 at 8:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oh, I missed two cherries:

"[Obama] campaigns against name-calling by calling names.">>

When did he "call names?" Does this writer even know what name calling is? Apparently, because for some reason they think it insulting call him "Rev." throughout this piece.

And then the finale:

"...he might try acting... Greek word for actor is the root of an English one: hypocrite.">>

So, after calling him "Rev." three times (because his speech was a "pious sermon"), the author then has the audacity to call Obama a hypocrite for apparently never doing what the author of this piece has done.

What beautiful, utterly perfect, hypocrisy.

Standing. Ovation.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 28, 2013 at 8:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Congrats, FFT. You've discovered the emptiness of the ADG and its editorial staff. Wait did I call names? Is emptiness a name or description?

Posted by: cdawg

January 28, 2013 at 10:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think that would be a description.

Probably this piece of junk (that's a description too) would be written by one person, you think?

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 28, 2013 at 11:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The piece is bad enough to have been written by a committee, but the tone and the paucity of germane content are so consistent in the overall unpleasantness that I have to agree with the single-writer theory.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 28, 2013 at 11:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I also find the piece horribly unfactual. Instead of Rev. Obana it should have been "Mullah Obama".
That would have raised the truth level meter up to any norman person's perception.

Posted by: JailBird

January 29, 2013 at 8:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Are you defending the Normans against the Saxons, now, Money?
What about the Jutes and the Angles?

Posted by: Coralie

January 29, 2013 at 12:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Who cares about Saxons or Normans, to me its all about the Celts!!!!! Sorry couldn't resist.....

Posted by: drummer1369

January 29, 2013 at 1:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If a Celt could understand my post, Coralie, you shouldn't have a problem with it. But, then on further thought, yor are not norman.

Posted by: JailBird

January 29, 2013 at 4:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"To be or not to be, that is the question. Whither it is nobler to believe the amateur Free, or to believe the professionals on the Democrat Gazzette staff. Tis a far, far better thing I read by professionals than any amateur delopinkvale that developed randomly in a free and unpaid mind."---Me and couple of other great writers

Posted by: JailBird

January 29, 2013 at 4:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Some professionals are not norman, either.

Posted by: Coralie

January 29, 2013 at 5:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Is the subject Danelaw? Goodness gracious.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 29, 2013 at 9:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 29, 2013 at 10:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Even as he campaigns against name-calling by calling names."

I thought this line was an extremely brilliant observation of the rantings of a maniacal leader of the blind 51% of freeloaders and freethinkers in this country who have banded together to form a new policital party.

We are the FREE party and our motto is "Take everything you can, but think about it."

Posted by: JailBird

January 30, 2013 at 8:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The nation's gross domestic product shrank for the first time in three and a half years during the fourth quarter, declining at an annual rate of 0.1% between October and December, the Commerce Department said Wednesday."---Wall Street Journal 1-30-13

Notice to Free party-We tried to tell you and so did the Democrat Gazette staff

Posted by: JailBird

January 30, 2013 at 9:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"...declining at an annual rate of 0.1% between October and December...">>

The ankle biter might want to be careful to not confuse a weather event, with climate. Let's add in a little context to that cherry....

FOX News:

"For the whole of 2012 the economy grew 2.2 percent."

"...first decline since [Bush] recession as businesses scaled back on restocking and government spending plunged."

"Government spending tumbled at a 6.6 percent rate, as defense outlays plunged at a 22.2 percent pace, wiping out the previous quarter's gains. Government subtracted 1.33 percentage points form(sic) growth. The decline in defense spending was the largest since 1972."

"The contraction, coming against a [never ending conservative] backdrop of [republican wanking about] tightening fiscal policy,..."

"The recovery also had to deal with [silly republicans blathering about] uncertainty over the so-called fiscal cliff of scheduled tax hikes and budget cuts, which hurt confidence..."


"Republican criticism of President Obama for the condition of the economy is akin to criticizing firefighters for the condition of a house right after the firefighters had stopped it from burning down. When President Obama took office, the economy was losing 800,000 jobs a month. When President Obama took office, the economy [GDP] was shrinking at an annual rate of 8.9 percent. The economy was burning down. Then the firefighters arrived. The Obama stimulus created some 3,300,000 jobs. Under President Obama's stewardship, the economy has recovered all private sector job losses..."

Republicans continue to oppose stimulus spending. Republicans oppose any potential stimulus by the Federal Reserve. In other words, Dean Baker's analogy didn't go far enough. It's not just that the Republicans are criticizing the firefighters for the condition of the house right after the firefighters saved it from burning down, it's also that the Republicans lit the fire in the first place, tried to stop the firefighters from getting to the house, and now are trying to stop the construction workers from getting to the work of rebuilding it, while themselves planning to add more fuel and light another match."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 30, 2013 at 10:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

And more good news...

"The [president's inaugural] speech itself has received high marks. A recent Huffpost/YouGov poll found that the majority of Americans agreed with the president on key issues he highlighted in his speech, like equal pay for women and protecting Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

Obama's speech has been widely-regarded as his most progressive.

President Obama's popularity among constituents is rising...
According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, 60 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the president, while only 37 percent said they had an unfavorable view.

This is the highest his favorability has been since 2009, the first year of his first term, when he received 79 percent positive responses in a similar poll. It's also up from last year's ratings, which found his popularity in the 50 percent range."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 30, 2013 at 4:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If it shrinks again next quarter would that be climate or just a weather event? What if I, the mere ankle biter, predict it again, could I move up to the knee biter?

Posted by: JailBird

January 30, 2013 at 4:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"if I, the mere ankle biter, predict it again, could I move up to the knee biter?">>

a) You didn't predict it (predictions are made in advance).

b) Yes.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 30, 2013 at 5:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You know where the next bite is above the knee?

Posted by: JailBird

January 30, 2013 at 6:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Some people will put anything in their mouths.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

January 30, 2013 at 9:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hey Money,

If one doesn't agree with numbers and being questioned on it, huffy yelling and blaming Fox News on the Hill is a precedent to follow now.

This is back and forth crap is all part of the cycle. I'm not going to bad mouth President Obama ( I support the man), but certain people would be cheering this kind of article on if it was about President Bush.

What is right above the knee? The femur?

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 30, 2013 at 10:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Some people will put their own words inside quotes and pass them off as from a source the words didn't come from as well. This quote things looks like a pattern. Imagine that.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 30, 2013 at 10:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Right on there Tank, just rattling the food dish of our local free specimen and watching him throw a tantrum, call names, and just become socially hostile by uncontrolled and egotisticalby desperate rants against we who he sees as inferior of mind and perspective.

Posted by: JailBird

January 31, 2013 at 1:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Some here have a prejudice against citing sources, but centuries of tradition support backing up your opinions with facts.
Some sources are more credible than others. This has to do with more than political bias. For instance, while I strongly disagree with the editorial stance of the Wall Street Journal, it has a long history of excellent and neutral reporting (I haven't looked at it lately and hope that hasn't changed).

Posted by: Coralie

January 31, 2013 at 1:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


Incorrectly citing sources isn't backing anything up, it is lying is most cases.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 31, 2013 at 4:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So Tank, what is that general remark supposed to mean? Who incorrectly cited a source, or who cited a source that was itself suspect?
Or what are you talking about?

Posted by: Coralie

February 1, 2013 at 12:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )