Friday, May 13, 2011

Things That Can Stand To Be Repeated (Continually)

When you get into a debate with a "Progressive," the ONE thing that you can be assured of hearing is "Barry Obama is very smart."

They "prove" this point by pointing out that Barry Obama was the President of the Harvard Law Review. Of course, Barry held that post in 1990. Fully twenty-one years ago. Four years before he wrote Dreams from my Father. The writing of Dreams supersedes President of the Harvard Law Review because it happened AFTER. And Dreams was a racist screed, written by a dumbass.

To show you how this "superseding" thingy works, I'll use Prohibition. The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1919 put in place a national BAN on the production, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages. By the way, Mississippi was FIRST to ratify this amendment! Mississippi was FIRST!!!

The Twenty-First Amendment in 1933 "repealed" the Eighteenth, thereby "superseding" it. Since the 21st happened AFTER the 18th, the 18th is null and void. By the way, Mississippi has YET to ratify the 21st!!! Neither has President McDumbshit's home state of Hawaii, but it was not a state at the time, either.

To further degrade the argument about Barry Obama being smart because he was President of the Harvard Law Review over 21 years ago, let's go to the New York Times article from February 1990 that addresses Barry being BLACK!!!
Change in Selection System

Mr. Obama was elected after a meeting of the review's 80 editors that convened Sunday and lasted until early this morning, a participant said.

Until the 1970's the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.

That system came under attack in the 1970's and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review.
So, basically, the New York Times is telling us that the ONE qualification for making Obama appear to be smart 21 years later was the fact that he looked kinda black in 1990. So, let's sorta lower our standard for Obama's "MERIT" of which he has none other than skin color.

So, to "Progressives," Obama is smart because of the color of his skin. That is actually the best argument that they have ever made. And, if you go back to my posts on Obama the candidate, I explicitly told you that was the ONLY reason that you could give to vote for him because he is dumb as fuck and has proven it over and over again by his actions.

So, where do we go from here? Well, we have the choice of two different directions. Either we can continue to give Barry a pass because of his skin color, RAAAAACISM!!! Or, we can continue to hold his feet to the fire and CHANGE his direction away from the path of stupidity.

One choice that we simply do not have is to continue to say that he is smart. That is because he is NOT SMART. If you continue to argue that Barry Obama is smart, it proves one thing, that YOU are not smart, either. Can we MOVE ON? Thanks.

Why is this intelligence thingy such an issue with the "Progressives?" Why do results not matter to these people? Why are the things that they see as successes actually such debilitating failures as to defy all logic? Because such is the nature of "Progressivism."

They also argue that is impossible to be President and NOT be smart. But, at the same time they argue that W. Bush was an idiot. Ummmm, that is what is known as a "contradiction." Contradictions are not possible in reality.

One glaring fact that "Progressives" tend to overlook is that Barry Obama went to law school. His chosen profession was LAW. Can y'all point to some accomplishments in his chosen profession? ANYTHING?

Final statement, again, to "Progressives," Bill Clinton was smart and still got busted shoving a cigar up an intern's privates in the bathroom off of the Oval Office. This is NOT the behavior of a smart person. The very same people that argued that Bill Clinton was smart, are now arguing the same for Barry Obama.

Their definition of "smart" is not a valid one.

Please take the time to comment.


Jill Guidry said...

History is littered with 'smart' people who had zero common sense and did stupid shit that is all they will be remembered for.

Roderick said...

His intelligence put him in the white house. Nuff said.

He knows how to position himself in a nation that is going through a transformation.

If it weren't for white supremacy (feeling your race is superior) there wouldn't be an America. See if the Native peoples were respected then how could their land be "taken?" Don't bring up fair trade, because where did you think the term "Indian giver" came from. They had no notion of property rights or commerce as we now interpret the term.

Well anyway, the majority population has turned away from this doctrine that resulted in the formation of the country and Obama knows how to milk that. He knows how to make them see what they want to see..

He is simply doing what Hitler did in Germany...Hitler wasn't a fool, so why do think Obama is?

See you look for "accomplishment" when Obama has realized that shit no longer matters, so tell me again who is the genius and who is the fool?

Actually re-electing Obama could be a good thing, if your wish is for the decapitation of the federal gov't.


paul_mitchell said...

Roderick, a complicit media put Obama in the White House. If our national media had done single thing to show his past, he would have been dead in the water. Everyone knows this. And if Obama is reelected, that is a mandate, according to the powers that be, already Boehner is rolling over to get scratched. I'm fed up.

Skunkfeathers said...

Barry's not that intelligent; it's more a case of voters who have been dumbed down and/or achieved apathy/gullibility. Paul's right on the media; thankfully, the media doesn't sucker me the way they did pre-1992.