Thursday, February 26, 2009

Jindal Response Appeals To The People

Just not to the main stream media. Jindal's criticism of The One's address to the nation has drawn the wrath of the talking heads at the networks. Here's a piece that calls his response all kinds of names we never heard from the Democratic response to President Bush.

Insane. Childish. Disaster. And those were some of the kinder comments from
political pundits about Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and his response to
President Barack Obama's speech to Congress on Tuesday night

HOWEVER, there's more to the story. The story not too many sources are telling. The MSM is still trying to prop up The One's popularity.

A CNN poll taken after his speech found 92 percent of viewers had a positive
reaction to it.

Who in the world did CNN poll? Hmmmm. Ninety-two (92) percent favorable. That's higher than The One's favorable rating we hear so much about. On the other hand, we hear very little about Oblahma's "unfavorable" rating which is said to be the highest of any president in his first month. Amazingly, Ol' BC hasn't heard this on NBC's Nightly News. Last figure I heard was twenty-four (24) percent unfavorable. Apparently, CNN didn't find many in that quarter of the population.

Just an observation.


At 7:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, frankly, Jindal's response was laughable. He was condescending and, apparently, even invented the story about the sheriff! I would wager to say his Presidential dreams are over.

I can't wait to see who the Repugnants can come up with in four years.

At 10:40 PM, Blogger Col. Hogan said...

Interesting that whenever a socialist replies to a well reasoned argument, he includes no facts, no actual rebuttals to points made, then resorts to name calling.

Socialists don't actually think, they simply emote. They're angry little twerps--because they can't get everything they want for zero effort. They'd rather tear down the successful than help themselves become successful.

They wish only to exist without the effort of being.

A fact to a socialist is like kryptonite to Superman.

He leaves himself anonymous because he doesn't want to have to take responsibility for his own blathering.


At 10:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ha. Well, forgive me for quoting a friend who informed me that the sheriff story was confirmed to be completely fabricated. As for sources, it is all over the Internet: "But now, a Jindal spokeswoman has admitted to Politico that in reality, Jindal overheard Lee talking about the episode to someone else by phone 'days later'."

Now, let's talk about name calling.

Slick Willy, Godzillary, Hitlery, Donks, and of course, Oblahma, as quoted in the very post we are replying to. The Conservatives are masters of name calling, so let's not point fingers, shall we, Herr Colonel?

And as for the Anonymous, I forgot my logins, since it has been a while. My name is Mark van Dyk. Hi.

At 1:29 PM, Blogger Col. Hogan said...



First, I'm not a conservative. I'm an objectivist, and I recognize no one's claim 'pon a single ounce of my productivity, in absence of my prior consent. Government are thieves, whether it's B Hussein or Bobby Jingles. Jingles merely makes a mite more sense when he talks, and seems to want to steal less. This does not make him a good guy.

....And B Hussein, for his own unfathomable purposes, is deliberately destroying the economy of the US as quickly and completely as he can, the groundwork having been laid by almost every member of Congress over the past few decades, initiated by B Hussein's declared idol, President A Blinkin'--America's first Nazi, who should have been condemned as the murderer of 620,000 Americans.


At 3:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice to know where you stand. I seem to remember why I don't frequent this blog too much. Mostly I come here out of idol curiosity, usually I leave and stay away because talking with folks who call Abraham Lincoln "America's first Nazi" seems somehow to be a less than reasonable, productive use of my time and energy.

At 10:28 PM, Blogger Col. Hogan said...


Um, that'd be idle curiosity, had you not been victimized by the government children's prison system.


At 10:30 PM, Blogger Col. Hogan said...

....Or perhaps you've elevated me to the top of a pedestal, the likes of which few enjoy.


At 8:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or perhaps it was a typo. Ever consider that? But, no, it is safer for you to think that I am a complete moron. You sleep better at night feeling that you are superior. That's okay with me. Sleep well.

At 11:14 PM, Blogger Col. Hogan said...


The question logically becomes, "If A Lincoln murdered 620,000 Americans and is not a Nazi, and A Hitler killed 6 million mostly Jews and is a Nazi, where is the line to be drawn between 620,000 murders and 6 million?"

They both increased the size of government and restricted the liberty of the members of their country.

Just trying to find out how many hundreds of thousands of dead individuals is ok, and how many is over the line.


At 4:50 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

I would wager to say his Presidential dreams are over.

I'd say with a 92% positive reaction to it, that he has as good a shot as anyone.

invented the story about the sheriff!

Big deal. Obama invented the story that he could save the economy by destroying it, the story that he could end the war by setting terrorists free, and a bunch of others, not the least of which is that putting the government in charge of your health would make it better.

Any idea who came up with the story that he was born in Hawaii? Sure doesn't seem to be true. Even if he were, he has shown no proof that he is anything other than a British subject.

Libs come up with these stories all the time. Have you forgotten the black churches that Bill Clinton watched burn as a boy?

And you get your panties in a wad because someone from the center uses the same techniques you do?


At 6:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I think you need to define murder, if you are going to speak in this way. Systematically rounding up people and gassing them is somewhat different than losing ones life after joining a cause and fighting a war.

I am not arguing that loss of life is more or less the same. However, intent is the defining factor when we argue about murder.

Right Wing:

Just because one person does it does not make it right when another does it. Nowhere did I defend lying, no matter who did it. You are putting words into my mouth, then arguing against an invented straw man. Lying is lying. They should all be run out of town, if you ask me.


At 9:16 PM, Anonymous Vincent said...

I think Jindal killed his career that night. He came across as condescending and idiotic. Instead of offering an alternate plan to Obama's, he just said Obama's wouldn't work, then went right into the standard mantra of lower the taxes.

His example with the sheriff was an interesting way to show that since the Republican response to Katrina was overly bureaucratic and an utterly failure, then the Democratic response to the economy must also be a failure.

By saying that the government is incapable of helping, he is implyingthat his own job (as a bureacratic politician) is pointless, Republican or Democrat. Since the government can't help, let's just lower taxes, okay? Yeah. Great response.

At 4:36 PM, Anonymous Vincent said...

I have a comment about the whole "The question logically becomes, "If A Lincoln murdered 620,000 Americans and is not a Nazi, and A Hitler killed 6 million mostly Jews and is a Nazi, where is the line to be drawn between 620,000 murders and 6 million?"" crap.

The problem here is that the definition of Nazi is NOT mass-murderer. A Nazi is a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Abe Lincoln most certainly was NOT. He was a Republican.

While Nazi's were not particularly left or right wing, most of their alliances were on the right. They were largely conservative, pro-Germans. Abe Lincoln was not, to my recollection, particularly pro-German.

So your "Logical Question" is nothing of the sort. Abe Lincoln is not a Nazi because he wasn't a member of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. Hitler was a Nazi because he was a member. The number of people who died in wars have no bearing on whether a person was a Nazi or not.

I wonder if there has been a study on how long an internet debate can go before someone brings up the Nazis in an inappropriate comparison.

At 4:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...



At 10:03 AM, Anonymous Vincent said...

I have to wonder if Col. Hogan considers Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill to be Nazis because of deaths in WWII.

After all, FDR brought about the New Deal and increased the size of government. Col. Hogan implies this is also a Nazi trait. FDR also ordered the interment of Japanese, Italian, and German Americans for the duration of WWII, a restriction on freedom... hmmmm.

I wonder how many people could qualify as a Nazi if Col. Hogan's warped definition were to be used. Fortunately, the only people who qualify as Nazis are those who were members of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

Not a member? Not a Nazi.

At 1:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This brings up another point the Conservatives consistently miss. They blame FDR for increasing government and they give him no credit for ending the Depression. They like to claim that WWII ended the Depression, yet they fail to understand that it was putting people to work building bombers that ended the Depression. And guess who paid for it! Taxes. The point here is that government spending that created jobs ended the Depression. For what it was worth, we could have driven the tanks off of cliffs and sank our own ships, the result would be the same. We created jobs and the economy recovered!

;) Mark

At 6:21 PM, Anonymous Vincent said...

Quite true, Mark. Interesting how economics works.

I teach economics and accounting, and the Democrats' economic theories are much sounder than the Republicans', in general (there are a few things the Democrats could learn from the Republicans). Still, Obama's plan is sound, economically speaking.

There is an old maxim in busines: "You have to spend money to make money."

That maxim holds true in national economics as well. Obama has to spend money to make money. So long as he is spending it primarily on infrastructure, then he is creating assets for future earnings. Bush, by spending so much on wars and non-infrastructure spending, just created expenses. An expense goes against present earnings and does not usually create future earnings like an asset does.

At 8:13 PM, Anonymous Vincent said...

I also note that Col. Hogan called Mark a socialist, even though I can't find anything to indicate that in Mark's post.

I wonder if the Colonel realizes that a program is socialist if it is government run. Therefore, national defence, by virtue of it being a government run program, is a socialist program. Thank God for the socialist programs or we wouldn't have national defence!

Can you imagine the nightmare scenario privately run militaries would create?

Many national or statewide infrastructure projects (roads, schools, are technically socialist by nature of being run by the government instead of private enterprise.


Post a Comment

<< Home