Monday, May 19, 2008

57 state flag pin


Recently Barack Obama slipped up saying that he had traveled through all 57 states in the United States. Now some creative entrepreneur has come up with an Obama flag pin. You can buy yours from Suitablyflip.com.
Isn't free enterprise great!

31 comments:

L'oiseau said...

Recently, McCain (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/mccain-misspeaks-on-iran-al-qaeda/) slipped up and thought Iran was training Al Quada. Here are some pictures of what the Iraq war has done to its citizens because of this kind of bumbling (WMDs anyone?).

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/uncensored

jazzycat said...

Barack Obama said the following yesterday………
“We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,"

Yes we Can't......... Sounds like a line from a pastor Wright sermon!
All aboard for Kooksville, but remember that Obama, Gore, Kennedy, etc. will not be going hungry, turning down their thermostats, or giving up their limo's!

L'oiseau said...

Jazzycat,

Could you be more specific in what you are criticizing with that quote? Obama was talking about developing new technologies to export to other countries so we will be leaders in helping our environment. What exactly do you have a problem with?

By the way, great work. You fit the elitist AND Rev. Wright, not to mention anti-environment right-wing talking points into one post. That's talent.

jazzycat said...

l'oiseau,
What exactly do you have a problem with?

The part about going hungry, giving up my freedom to have an SUV, and giving up the freedom to cool my house as I see fit.

Furthermore, the solution is to bring freedom and capitalism to the rest of the world so they can raise their prosperity. Destroying the American economic system for the hyped global warming hysteria is not the answer. The danger of believing the manipulated global warming hysteria is displayed here for all to see. We are talking about Marxism and giving away American sovereignty with this guy, and I just happen to be discerning enough to see it for what it is!

Many don't see it and many are for marxist solutions. Which are you?

BTW, it is an absolute insult and hogwash to label me as anti-environment. Just because I don't buy every half-baked idea that kook activists promote, does not make me anti-environment. This tactic will not work with me.........

Dennis said...

Jazzycat, you go girl!!!

L'oiseau said...

I wasn't using "tactics" and I didn't label you as "anti-environment". I did say that you used those talking points in your post though, and I'll stand by that.

Even if you don't accept global warming, you can'y deny that lessening the amount of carbon emissions into the air is good for the environment. Why would you not be in support of different methods of transportation and heating and cooling that are more environment-friendly?

Obama was not condoning "forbidding" SUV's, food, and air conditioning? Other cars can preserve energy much better than SUV-gas-guzzling monsters, so America should embrace those technologies, not discard them to make MONEY! if they want to be leaders in the world when it comes to the environment.

"Bring freedom and capitalism to the rest of the world so they can raise their prosperity". Oh. Kind of like we've done in Iraq? Nobody says "you go girl" there anymore. Under Sadaam, women had jobs, they could wear jeans, go in public places alone and even have their heads uncovered! Now that we have set it up as a religious Muslim state "Honor Killings" are happening with gross frequency, and women are in Burkas and can't go out without two male family members with them, and forget about working. That's just some of the "progress" we've given them with our capitalism.

Our economy is in a recession. The more we invest in green technology, the more jobs that will create, along with cleaner air, and that will help boost our economy.

Giving away American sovereignty? Embracing Marxism? Proof?

Brent said...

Marxist? Please. Just another right-winger throwing around terms without really understanding what they're saying. Like this site's Obama/Hitler comparison, or this clown's "appeasement" talking point: http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=sMMklhX74_w

jazzycat said...

l'oiseau,
Even if you don't accept global warming, you can'y deny that lessening the amount of carbon emissions into the air is good for the environment.

The earth warms and cools in cycles. The Vikings were run out of Greenland during the little ice age because they could no longer grow enough food. The earth has been in a warming trend since coming out of that little ice age. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Plant life takes carbon dioxide and releases oxygen while animal life takes oxygen and releases carbon dioxide. It seems to me that having a longer growing season and being able to farm Greenland again may help grow more food, which in turn would use more carbon dioxide and release more oxygen. It would be like a whole new source of carbon credits for Al Gore and guilty feeling liberals.

Why would you not be in support of different methods of transportation and heating and cooling that are more environment-friendly?

I am all for the free market coming up with new methods, but am against government mandates because of a hyped exaggerated global warming hysteria.

Obama was not condoning "forbidding" SUV's, food, and air conditioning?

You can spin his quote anyway you want but it says what it says.

Other cars can preserve energy much better than SUV-gas-guzzling monsters, so America should embrace those technologies, not discard them to make MONEY! if they want to be leaders in the world when it comes to the environment.

America is already head and shoulders the leader in the world on environmental issues. The goal of companies in a free enterprise system is to make money. If there is a demand for these other cars, then by all means let companies make and sell them for the express purpose of making money for their stockholders.

"Bring freedom and capitalism to the rest of the world so they can raise their prosperity". Oh. Kind of like we've done in Iraq?

Obama was suggesting that we have an obligation to please the rest of the world by cutting back our standard of living, and my point was to tell them that economic freedom through capitalism was their answer rather than expecting us to scale back to their poverty levels. What in the world does Iraq have to do with that? Get focused.

Our economy is in a recession.

No, it is not in a recession.

The more we invest in green technology, the more jobs that will create, along with cleaner air, and that will help boost our economy.

Cleaner air! The air in America has been cleaned up for twenty or thirty years. Natural causes like volcano eruptions and places like China are the problem with unclean air. Let me say again that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Giving away American sovereignty? Embracing Marxism? Proof?

I take it that you do not embrace Marxists solutions and do not see Marxism in Obama’s policy suggestions. What do you think the black liberation theology that Obama endorses is all about? It is the social gospel implemented with a Marxist solution. This is the direction of the left in America and Obama is as left as you can find in the US Senate.

jazzycat said...

Dennis,
Thank you. I am Jazzycat's humble human servant, Wayne. While Jazzy is female, I am not. I just use her photo as she is much better looking than me.
wayne

L'oiseau said...

You: It seems to me that having a longer growing season and being able to farm Greenland again may help grow more food, which in turn would use more carbon dioxide and release more oxygen.

Me: Or, we could stop many natural disasters that would assuredly occur with the rise of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ahead of time, instead of attempting to squelch the problem by farming later on. Do you not think that both reach the same end?

You: If there is a demand for these other cars, then by all means let companies make and sell them for the express purpose of making money for their stockholders.

Me: People who are only interested in their foreign oil fortunes or their perpetual disregarding of the facts of global warming are directly involved in the inability of the free market to do so.

My mistake about Iraq, I thought you meant invade countries and force them into Democracy like many in your party would do/have done. As for your solution to suggest capitalism to other countries, I thought Republicans didn't believe in diplomacy?

You: No, it is not in a recession.

Me: Yep, it surely is. Denial is the first step, you'll be on to anger soon.

Me: The more we invest in green technology, the more jobs that will create, along with cleaner air, and that will help boost our economy.

I'd like to rephrase my statement and have you address the point that actually matters.

The more we invest in green technology, the more jobs that will create, and that will help boost our fledgling economy.

I know exactly what Black Liberation Theology is about, and can you point to a specific quote where Obama endorsed it?

You: It is the social gospel implemented with a Marxist solution.

Are you referring to the Marxist solution of helping the poor, because I believe Jesus actually had the edge on that one. And if so, what exactly are your views on that? If not, then please be more specific.

jazzycat said...

l'oiseau
Are you referring to the Marxist solution of helping the poor, because I believe Jesus actually had the edge on that one. And if so, what exactly are your views on that? If not, then please be more specific.

The social gospel as I understand it basically refers to Christian discipleship and sanctification. It is not the main focus of the work of Jesus Christ, but is a part of his teachings. Jesus taught that Christians are to be kind and minister to the needs of others not only for their spiritual well-being, but also for their physical temporal needs while here on planet earth. His teachings were for Christian disciples and in no way were for a governmental solution to helping the poor. He certainly did not propose a Marxist solution, which would run counter to Christian and Biblical principles since Marxism involves legalized governmental theft. In John 18:36 Jesus stated that his kingdom was not of this world.

Jesus primary purpose for entering human history is revealed in Matthew 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. Jesus purpose and focus was on the eternal. Liberation theology has a focus on worldly concerns with a Marxist solution. I suggest that you do a little google search work and you can discover this for yourself. It (liberation theology) is a false gospel that is being preached by false teachers.

L'oiseau said...

You: He certainly did not propose a Marxist solution, which would run counter to Christian and Biblical principles since Marxism involves legalized governmental theft.

I don't mean to be rude, but this is highly laughable. As Christians, we should be giving to the poor, would you agree? (Whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me, and whatnot). Jesus also said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's". Therefore, the assumption would be that if the government decides to tax us to help the "least of these" in our country, Jesus would firmly condone such policies and tell us to "give to Caesar".
We should be delighted to live in a country that would use our tax money for such an end.
Instead, many Christians scornfully speak of "their money" and robbery. Frankly, it is despicable.

I am certainly not a Liberation Theology believer, but I do know what it is, thanks for your google search suggestions, I know how the internet works.

While, I do not agree with Liberation Theology, I do not feel that the Presidency would be affected by it negatively, nor should my vote be hindered because of someone's religion. This is a very diverse country, and not everyone is going to be a Christian or agree with you. What is important are the policies that the candidates put forward.

Now, if you disagree with his policies, then we can either have that discussion or agree to disagree, however, at this point, I feel that most of the things said on this blog are simply to slander Obama and his wife either personally, spiritually, or emotionally, and that bothers me.

jazzycat said...

l'oiseau,
I don't mean to be rude, but this is highly laughable. As Christians, we should be giving to the poor, would you agree? (Whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me, and whatnot).

Did you even read my last comment where I explained in great detail that Christians are to help and aid the poor and disadvantaged?

Therefore, the assumption would be that if the government decides to tax us to help the "least of these" in our country, Jesus would firmly condone such policies and tell us to "give to Caesar".
We should be delighted to live in a country that would use our tax money for such an end.
Instead, many Christians scornfully speak of "their money" and robbery. Frankly, it is despicable.


Yes, we are to be law abiding and pay our taxes so that the needy who are physically and mentally handicapped as well as the old and children can be taken care through government aid. This is best done through our capitalistic free enterprise system that has allowed the prosperity that we enjoy. What is despicable is when liberal political leaders want to blame the hard working people and companies that have produced this wealth for every ill in America.

I feel that most of the things said on this blog are simply to slander Obama and his wife either personally, spiritually, or emotionally, and that bothers me.

I think this is a very respectful blog that only deals with issues. Have you been to many left wing blogs to see how respectul they are of George Bush?

L'oiseau said...

I never said that you did not agree that Jesus said to help the poor because I did read your post, I was just re-stating for emphasis. (The would you agree? was supposed to be rhetorical, because obviously, you do, sorry for the confusion).

You: What is despicable is when liberal political leaders want to blame the hard working people and companies that have produced this wealth for every ill in America.

Me: I don't hear many liberal politicians blaming hard working companies that produce profit for anything...just taxing them according to their wealth.

So, apparently to you flag pins and videos of insane pastors that are not related to Obama in any way shape or form are top priority issues for the election.

I am not talking about left wing blogs, I am talking about this CHRISTIAN blog.

I can respect that you and I differ on certain political ideas (capitalism, etc.) however, I am not running around slandering McCain with non-policy related issues (which would be very easy). In fact, if I have brought anything non-policy related up, it has only been in response to unfounded attacks on Obama which McCain has equal "guilt" on. I have never slandered George Bush on this blog, or any other one for that matter.

jazzycat said...

l'oiseau,
I don't hear many liberal politicians blaming hard working companies that produce profit for anything...

Hmmm! Let's see we hear about big oil, big insurance, big pharmaceutical, big tobacco, big this and big that being robbers and bandits. However, we never hear about big government or big trial lawyers do we?

So, apparently to you flag pins and videos of insane pastors that are not related to Obama in any way shape or form are top priority issues for the election.

It is hard to believe you are serious! Character and world-view matters a great deal in our leaders and for Obama to be a member of the church where Wright spewed anti-american and racist hate to the wild cheers of his (Obama's) "church family" tells me a lot about Obama. You know good and well that a conservative Republican with a 20 year history in a white racist church would be dead in the water. Conservatives get raked over the coals for speaking at conservative locations such as Bob Jones University. Really!!!!!!!!!!

My former senator was stripped of his leadership position for making a comment at a birthday party. The liberal media always want to play the double standard game and they are very much covering for Obama's character and world-view flaws. If you expect those who are scared to death of his political views to not point them out, then you are going to be badly disappointed.

L'oiseau said...

Oh, ok well, now that you are being more specific, yep, it's pretty obvious that big oil companies are jacking up the price of YOUR gasoline and big insurance companies are jacking up the price of YOUR health insurance and so on and so forth. If you don't care about that, fine, but others do.

Of course character and world-view matter. It is simply a difference of opinion that we have that wearing or not wearing a flag pin counts as a character issue. Also, the video I am talking about that is a few posts down on this blog is NOT of Rev. Wright. I don't know who that guy is, but he has nothing to do with Obama.

Also, Obama's church is not a racist church.

To be honest, while I've semi-enjoyed this exchange:), I feel that this is the moment we are hitting the brick wall and resorting to, "Yes he is" "No, he isn't". So, I hope you have a great week and thanks for the conversation!

Dennis said...

jazzycat,

Excellent points, but especially about your senator. I'm assuming that you are talking about Senator Trent Lott who, at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond, said,

"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either."

Senator Lott may have been referring to Strom Thurmond's political or economic policies but the Left assumed he was talking about Thurmond's past racism. Although Senator Lott vigouously protested that he was NOT referring to or agreeing with Thurmond's past racism, it didn't matter to the Left. Like sharks sensing blood in the water they went into a feeding frenzy!

Although Democrats had a former KKK member in Congress they forced Sen. Lott out of the Senate!

But now we have Obama who attends a blatantly racist and anti-American church for 20 years and the Democrats practically worship Obama like some Greek god!!!

The double-standard on the Left is so think you couldn't cut it with a chain saw!

Dennis said...

l'oiseau,

Under the "about us" section of Obama's church it says,

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people...We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

Let's read it again, this time substituting "White" everytime it says black, and European for African:

"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an European people...We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community."

That could be the description of a KKK or white supremacist church and everyone (except racists like the KKK or white supremacists) would recognize it as pure racism.

If it is racist when it uses the word "white", why is it not racist when it uses the word "black?"

L'oiseau said...

I respectfully disagree. There is nothing anti-white (which would be the racist part) in that description. There would be nothing anti-black in the reverse of it. KKK is not comparable to Rev. Wright's church which is greatly known for helping the poor in its community, not writing slander on garage doors and burning crosses. How can you compare the two? That is disgraceful.

Dennis said...

l'oiseau is certainly correct that you can't completely compare the KKK and Wright's church. There is NOTHING Christian about the KKK and Wright's church is not violent.

Nevertheless, the racist ideology is similar and I think it warrants comparrison.

I think the Left's double-standard is exemplified by l'oiseau. If a white church described themselves in exactly the same wording as Wright's church has described itself--with the only exception of changing the word black to white, I don't think there is a Leftist in America who would deny it was racist to the core.

In fact, if McCain had belonged to a church which described themselves the way Wright's church does (with the exception of changing the words "black" to "white") there is no doubt that the Democrats' venomous rage would know no bounds.

But because Barack Obama's church does it, somehow that makes it not racist and the fact that l'oiseau would even try to defend such racism is what is truly disgraceful.

L'oiseau said...

It's not because it is Barack Obama's church, it is because it's not racist. But you are entitled to your opinion.

As for the mirror image you are trying to reflect, I guess we'll never know. On to policy issues!

Brent said...

On to policy issues!

L'oiseau, you must be one of the most optimistic people around. :-)

Brent said...

And here's why the right doesn't want to discuss policy issues: "American voters now trust the Democrats on all ten key electoral issues tracked regularly by Rasmussen Reports." No wonder all they want to talk about is flag pins.

(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
public_content/politics/mood_of_
america/trust_on_issues/
trust_on_issues)

L'oiseau said...

Thanks, Brent! Actually, when I saw there were more comments on this blog, I said to myself, "Please let it be Brent" Lol. I needed a break I guess:)

L'oiseau said...

Thanks, Brent! Actually, when I saw there were more comments on this thread, I said to myself, "Please let it be Brent" Lol. I needed a break I guess:)

L'oiseau said...

Whoops. Tried to correct myself, and posted twice. Meh.

Brent said...

I know the feeling, and I've got your back. :-)

L'oiseau said...

Same here, man. It's a hard knock life ;)

jazzycat said...

Actually, I may try the Obama diet of sweating and starving so I can fit into a Yugo.

He also mentioned in that speech how America is using too much of the world's resources, which I hear socialists and liberals complain about this all the time. So I have a question. Are we stealing the worlds resources or are we paying fot them and thus benefiting the countries we are buying them from?

Dennis said...

Jazzycat,

Good question. If the West had not been buying Middle Eastern oil, wouldn't the Iraqis, Saudis, Kawaitis, Yemeni's and Syrians still be riding camels and living in tents?

I find it amazing, however, that some on the Left seems to think we are stealing the world's resources, yet they absolutly refuse to let Conservative use our own resources.

The Left apparently doesn't mind if we pose a danger to Middle East environments by buying their oil, but the Left raises the roof if Conservatives propose off-shore drilling, or drilling in Alaska!

The Left doesn't want us to build more dams because they may damage some fish's ecosystem.

The Left doesn't want us to convert to coal (which we have a LOT of) because it will supposedly damage the environment.

The Left doesn't want us to build nuclear power plants because of the real or imagined dangers.

And yet, the Left thinks the trouble in the Middle East is our fault! Amazing!

da HOOK said...

Why a 57-star flag? If you consider the exact quote (a click or two from the link in this post) context, Obama said
"...I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."

So if we merge Alaska and Hawai'i into one state, that would give 58; otherwise, it looks like at least 59.