moonbattery logo

Jun 03 2012

Good for Them, Bad for Us

When Big Government picks the winners and losers, all of us who aren’t donors or cronies of Barack Hussein are the losers — as garishly illustrated by his green energy boondoggles:

On a tip from TrickleUpPolitics.

20 Responses to “Good for Them, Bad for Us”

  1. ED357 says:

    Sorry America……..



    zer0 was “focused like a laser beam on the economy” Friday while he attended SIX (6) fund raisers.

  2. Dr. 9 says:

    Are you starting to get the impression that we’re getting ready to go to war in Syria? The MSM said 108 people were killed there just last week in what is clearly a civil war.

    But what about the “tens-of-thousands” of people being murdered (and butchered) just a few miles south of our southern border? If our totally incompetent govt. is worried about saving people, shouldn’t we then attack Mexico, where the “genuine” threat to our country is coming from?

  3. freebird says:

    Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex.
    He was correct.
    Good point Dr.9- I have to wonder if they’re sowing chaos on purpose.
    Does Syria have oil?
    I know Mexico does.
    Perhaps it’s those 30k acre MJ fields that pay so well..
    Who is behind “narco terrorism?”
    Well who can cross borders w/ impunity?

  4. Bo Jangles says:

    Fact #1:
    Oil is just the excuse that’s used. With all the wars we’re fighting, we haven’t received 1 bbl of oil from anyone we didn’t buy it from.

    Fact #2:
    There’s much more oil in the Western hemisphere than in all of the middle east.

    Fact #3:
    America fights wars because we want to force the world to live as we say they should. It’s like telling your neighbor how to care for his lawn, while you’re living in a vacant lot.

  5. Sam Adams says:

    From the Irony File:

    Jerry Brown to propose limiting environmental challenges to high-speed rail

    The Brown administration is preparing a proposal to limit environmental challenges to California’s high-speed rail project, heightening legal standards under which a court could block construction.

    The proposal could shield the $68 billion project from court-ordered injunctions that might otherwise be issued under the California Environmental Quality Act. Except in the most serious environmental cases, the proposed legislation would let construction proceed while the California High-Speed Rail Authority fixes any environmental flaws identified by a judge.

    That’s right; Governor Moombeam doesn’t want his high speed rail project derailed by environmental suits….those same environmental suits that hamstring private industry every day.

    Sane people continue to escape from the Collective of Kahlifornia.

  6. chuck in st paul says:

    I don’t see the problem. He’s just getting it from his stash.

  7. Spider says:

    “It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error…” — Robert Houghwout Jackson

    Why are they called the “public” airwaves when it’s against the law for any member of the public to use them without Nanny State permission?

  8. TrickleUpPolitics says:

    No one wants to comment on the Romney ad? I think it’s great and educational for people who have not been paying attention to the nitty gritty of Obama corruption. I also think it shows that Romney is going to fight for this election, unlike McCain.

  9. Ghost of FA Hayek says:

    Also consider this a full admission he understands what these enviro-luddites are doing to the economy

  10. lenzap says:

    So when was the last time a Republican administration reduced the size or scope of the Federal government??

    Don’t bother answering, I’ll tell you; NEVER.

  11. KHarn says:

    “lenzap says:June 3, 2012 at 2:45 pm”

    No solutions, only accusations. Typical REGRESSIVE tactic.

  12. M.Wilson says:

    Unfortunately, Romney’s track record is that of a flimsy “moderate”, who will likely continue to let Democrats run the show while making weak attempts to “be reasonable” and “bargain”.

    But I’d rather have a flimsy moderate with an election looming over him than a hard-line Socialist with nothing to lose. Looks like it’ll have to be Romney 2012.

    The habit of Obama and Congressional Democrats of post-dating their bills until after the election is worrying, since it means Romney could be left holding the bag for their mistakes if he doesn’t hit the ground running on damage control, but it’s at least a better chance than letting Obama have a second term to throw a lame-duck party with.

  13. Sinister66 says:

    lenzap says:

    Republicans would like nothing more then to shrink the size and scope of government, When they arent in charge. Kinda along the same lines as democrats complaining about the patriot act and FISA Amendments Act until they were in charge and realized they liked the authority it gave.

  14. Judith M. says:

    I want a full list of all the green boondoggles the Obama administration authorized and how much was lost. Does anyone have that?

  15. Sinister66 says:

    Judith M. says:

    You should just have to google it. or just search for the green company.
    For example if you search Solyndra you can get a whole time line of events starting in 2007 with the loan guarantee program to their demise

  16. Sam Adams says:

    Sinister66 says:
    June 3, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    Which is the reason the TEA party even exists. We haven’t had a true conservative president since 1989; we haven’t had anyone working on slashing the size and spending of government since Warren G. Harding. The first “Progressive” was Teddy Roosevelt (a republican) and to an extent both parties have been taken over by progressives. The democrats used to be the party of “classical liberals” which today would be called libertarians….but we can see that the vast majority of the democrat party are to a greater or lesser extent, simply Marxists.

  17. Sam Adams says:

    By the way, with regards to the ad; I like it. If GW Bush had funneled taxpayer money to campaign donors, we still would be hearing about it today.

    It is called a “double standard.”

  18. dan says:

    Not only does the Obama administration make me miss Bush…I’m beginning to long for the good old days of
    Bill and Shrillery.

  19. Sinister66 says:

    Sam Adams says:

    “Which is the reason the TEA party even exists. We haven’t had a true conservative president since 1989”

    The TEA Party doesnt hasnt really done anything. And how do you come up with “a true conservative president In 1989” when both the size of government and the national debt skyrocketed?

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy