• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Wall Street Journal sizes up Obama

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Soapweed

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
16,263
Reaction score
51
Location
northern Nebraska Sandhills
Sun. 10/2/11
Wall Street Journal sizes up Obama.....

A "deadly" article regarding Obama, at the Wall Street Journal, which today is the most widely circulated newspaper in America .

Article from the Wall Street Journal - by Eddie Sessions:



"I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he's led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group (George Soros anybody?) took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.

In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? "Dreams of My Father" was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The "Audacity of Hope" followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a "communist with a small 'c'" was the real author.

His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial.. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune
of having Mayor Daley's formidable political machine at his disposal.

He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital.. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the
Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?

He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed "cool" in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.

And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska . It was a ticket that was
reminiscent of 1984's Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.

The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

Now, nearly 3 full years into his presidency, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President.. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.

Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to "wish away" some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain ...

The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign "world tour" were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.

Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party's hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college
professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.

Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allahu Akbar." The absurdity of that was lost on no
one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber "an isolated extremist" only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.

He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America . He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.

The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.

Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual's life.

When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man has spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden.

We laugh at the ventriloquist's dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States of America ?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
We laugh at the ventriloquist's dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States of America ?

If the Pres himself is categorized as a dummy, then what do we call the ones who fell for it and were duped into voting for him? :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
0
Location
The Dark Side
Soapweed said:
He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.

Sigh. This sound familiar to anybody here? :roll:

Great article, Soap. Thanks for posting it. I'd say the guy is right as rain.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
3,173
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
If you chose between he and Hillary, he is still the best choice.

I've said this before, during the debates everything out of his mouth was weasel words. Everything started with a qualification of, "We're looking to it but......." THe translatiion is, he did not truly know but answered with a politically correct opinion that the media bought hook, line and sinker.

It is about time someone from the media started telling the truth. Way to go WSJ.

Either America was duped or else stupidity is widestpread.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Obama's Make-Believe Life

By Alan Caruba

http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/01/obamas-make-believe-life.html


Not sure it was ever published by WSJ, as an editorial (don't think it was) but it was actually written by Alan Caruba and it may have been submitted as a comment to an article in the WSJ.

Just thought I'd let you know. 8)
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
If he is re-elected one will have to wonder if he has been right all along and the voters are too stupid to see what he is up to.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
must be a liberal,,,, wanting someone else to do the work,,,,
google works fine :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
hurleyjd said:
Who owns the Wall Street Journal now?

Dow Jones & Co., a subsidiary of Newscorp

Well, actually the stockholders own it.
As of June 30, 2010, there were approximately 47,000 (different) holders of record of shares of Class A Common Stock and 1,300 holders of
record of Class B Common Stock.

Liberal diversion maneuver? :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
hurleyjd said:
Who owns the Wall Street Journal now?

Dow Jones & Co., a subsidiary of Newscorp

Well, actually the stockholders own it.
As of June 30, 2010, there were approximately 47,000 (different) holders of record of shares of Class A Common Stock and 1,300 holders of
record of Class B Common Stock.

Liberal diversion maneuver? :lol: :lol:

How much of the class B shares does Rupert Murdoch and his family own. Are they the ones that have complete control of News Corp?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
hurleyjd said:
Mike said:
hurleyjd said:
Who owns the Wall Street Journal now?

Dow Jones & Co., a subsidiary of Newscorp

Well, actually the stockholders own it.
As of June 30, 2010, there were approximately 47,000 (different) holders of record of shares of Class A Common Stock and 1,300 holders of
record of Class B Common Stock.

Liberal diversion maneuver? :lol: :lol:

How much of the class B shares does Rupert Murdoch and his family own. Are they the ones that have complete control of News Corp?

The Murdoch's own 40% of the Class "B" shares.

Why would you even care? Does the article bother you that much? :lol: :lol:

Do you think Rupert wrote it? :lol: :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
hurleyjd said:
Who owns the Wall Street Journal now?


I was thinking the same Hurley..... Someone attributed this to the WSJ in an attempt to make them look biased.


edited to add: what do you think of the content of the article? Pretty accurate, eh?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
hurleyjd said:
Who owns the Wall Street Journal now?


I was thinking the same Hurley..... Someone attributed this to the WSJ in an attempt to make them look biased.


edited to add: what do you think of the content of the article? Pretty accurate, eh?


The editorial board has long argued for a less restrictive immigration policy. In a July 3, 1984 editorial, the board wrote: If Washington still wants to 'do something' about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders.' This stand on immigration reform has placed the Journal as an opponent of most conservative activists and politicians, for example National Review, who favor heightened restrictions on immigration.[33]

The Journal in recent years has strongly defended Scooter Libby, whom it portrays as the victim of a political witchhunt.[34] It has also published editorials comparing the attacks by Seymour Hersh, and The New York Times on Leo Strauss and his alleged influence in the George W. Bush administration with those of Lyndon LaRouche, a fringe conspiracy theorist and perennial presidential candidate.[35]

Some former The Wall Street Journal reporters have said that since Rupert Murdoch bought the paper, news stories have been edited to adopt a more conservative tone, critical of Democrats.[36] The op-ed section routinely publishes articles by scientists skeptical of the theory of global warming, including several essays by Richard Lindzen of MIT
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
hurleyjd said:
hypocritexposer said:
hurleyjd said:
Who owns the Wall Street Journal now?


I was thinking the same Hurley..... Someone attributed this to the WSJ in an attempt to make them look biased.


edited to add: what do you think of the content of the article? Pretty accurate, eh?


The editorial board has long argued for a less restrictive immigration policy. In a July 3, 1984 editorial, the board wrote: If Washington still wants to 'do something' about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders.' This stand on immigration reform has placed the Journal as an opponent of most conservative activists and politicians, for example National Review, who favor heightened restrictions on immigration.[33]

The Journal in recent years has strongly defended Scooter Libby, whom it portrays as the victim of a political witchhunt.[34] It has also published editorials comparing the attacks by Seymour Hersh, and The New York Times on Leo Strauss and his alleged influence in the George W. Bush administration with those of Lyndon LaRouche, a fringe conspiracy theorist and perennial presidential candidate.[35]

Some former The Wall Street Journal reporters have said that since Rupert Murdoch bought the paper, news stories have been edited to adopt a more conservative tone, critical of Democrats.[36] The op-ed section routinely publishes articles by scientists skeptical of the theory of global warming, including several essays by Richard Lindzen of MIT



what has all that got to do with the article that Soap posted?

You're trying to attack the messenger and you don't even have the correct messenger......
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole

it was like the party elite and the liberal media teamed up to throw the game.. how he ever became the nominee is still a mystery..
 

Latest posts

Top