Taking advantage of the

stupidity of the average voter

. is actually something I recognise in the “Liberal” Platform.

1) We’ll only Tax those who might “Hire” you for a Job..
2) We’ll only Tax those who invest money in “Companies” which may “Hire” you for a Job..
3) However, you won’t “need” a Job for the “Free” Health Care.

Who’s trying to Kid Who??

Many Conservatives are Liberals who’ve been Mugged..

Don’t you know? There was “National unity” after 9/11 and Bush is the one who destroyed that national unity.

But first, you have to ignore the part of America who blamed us for the attacks on 9/11.

You have to ignore all of the insults against “Jesusland”, about the “rednecks”, about the how “stupid” Bush is and everybody who supported him.

You have to ignore the supposedly “anti-war” group that formed immediately after 9/11, well before the invasion of Iraq. This group led most of the “anti-war” marches the “there was unity” crowd happily marched in.

If you ignore all of that, and only if you ignore all of the ugly divisiveness, can you say that there was “national unity”.

The disunity started a day after when some parts of the country asked, “what did we do to deserve this attack”.

Don’t be fooled when the blame-America-first crowd claims that there was national unity that George Bush destroyed. They’re lying to you.

These lines, even if poorly delivered sell very well to Leftist America and even many of those on the Right. It sounds so wonderfully compassionate, reasonable, heartfelt and American. It is bullshit, lying bullshit, but it sounds nice and people will not care if he means it or not, it is another version of “I feel your pain.”

JFK said, in compassionate, reasonable, heartfelt words that he felt the pain of those behind the Berlin Wall, but he did nothing th bring down that wall. Reagan didn’t sound compassionate, reasonable or kind hearted, in fact the media and the Left raged against his speech; but he said to Gorbachev “tear down this wall,” and the wall came down and millions of people were set free from bondage and given the opportunity to enjoy liberty. JFK felt their pain, Reagan did something about their pain, but the media praise JFK as a god and demean Reagan as as senile old fool.

Obama will be praised for feeling the pain of those that wear their feelings on their sleeves and think words of compassion are the same thing as compassion. McCain will not be praised, because he is willing to win the war against Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world.

We will never go broke betting in favor of the stupidity of the average voter.

Instead of guessing, why not just ask us what we think?

Particularly interesting given Obama’s comments earlier in the speech about taking a politically inconvenient (at the time) stance on the Iraq war from the beginning. That’s not actually a true statement. In 2002 Obama was a very liberal politician representing a very liberal district in Chicago.

This is a lie for two reasons.

One: Obama was not talking about the political risk in only Chicago, as Rob suggests. That would make a stupid argument for Obama. What Obama was talking about what that it was a political risk for a politician in this country, and he was right. At the time, few people opposed the war in Iraq.

Two: Chicago was not the only anti-war city in the country as Rob lies. Chicago, just like every city, San Francisco, New York and all heavily Liberal cities were not willing to buck the system during the National unity we enjoyed after Bush destroyed it.

Rob is lying again. Four Pinnochio’s for Rob.