Home >> exposing Obama >> The “Accomplishments” of Central Planners

The “Accomplishments” of Central Planners

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “The “Accomplishments” of Central Planners”.


Looking for more great news and commentary from a conservative perpective? Visit our homepage!

About JBrenneman

I'm a young guy from Ohio, and I'm driven by a concern and worry about the fallout of the arbitrary nature of our "leadership" in the government. I'm a concerned conservative, who is worried about the miserable and contrary rules that are issued from Washington. I wish more people would be far more weary of the destructive nature of government. I hope I ask questions that make you think, and get as nervous as we should be about the powers that be, in D.C.


  1. First I would like to say my phone gets bugged when I reply to a comment, so that is why I continuously add a new comment. Second, it is no problen my name is what it is.

    Now, to counter your Reagan tid bit. I invoked both Reagan and Bush’s name to point out that Rrpublicans talk so much about Obama’s flaws, which are numerous I agree, yet remain blindly devoted to the likes of Reagan and silent towards the Bush administration’s faults. I also want to apologize for overstepping my bounds in saying Reagan’s Secretary of State destroyed evidence, Oliver North did. Now you can call me a conspiracy theorist, but unlike the Truthers, I actually have history books and countless websites on my side detailing Reagan’s support of the Sandinistas, but of course there isn’t decisive information that he knew what was going on–hmmm kind of reminds me of a current president and a city in Libya, oh the hypocrisy.

    I for one do not completely blame Bush for the invasion of Iraq. However, at the time of the voting to invade Iraq, the US was attacked. I wouldn’t say these people had a choice in the matter. You’re also making it seem like I don’t blame anyone else for what happened, I do. But Bush is definitely the main culprit of what occurred, if we worry more about who else to blame as some type of escape mechanism are we admitting something awful occurred and we are ignoring it, or are we saying nothing happened at all?

  2. I know Reagan isn’t office, I mean the man is dead. What I was trying to convey in bringing him up is that Rrpublicans, I am sure you included, love to invoke his name as some type of charm. Furthermore, of course he wasn’t prosecuted, as president he has a powerful legal team. On top of that, scholars, legal experts, and historians will tell you that there was enough evidence, that his Sec. of State destroyed, to convic him. Don’t try to tell me Reagan wouldn’t have known such a large scale, international, crime could have escaped his nose.

    I am also shocked that you have the audacity to justify what the Bush administration did. We both know Bush’s biggest arguement to invade Iraq was the WMD lie, look at the speeches Rice and Powell gave. If you were to walk into a room of FP experts and try to convince them that Bush had a concrete–I know that Saddam was a treacherous Dictator–reason to invade Iraq they would laugh you out of the room. You can continue to cite UN charters all you want, it proves little to nothing.

    I also would like to add that I am not an older White Lady as you may mistake by my name. I am a 19 year old Haitian male, my Jean is French.

    • Well, first and foremost, I apologize for assuming you were a lady, sir.

      Now then, I believe it was you that invoked the myth of Ronald Reagan, not I. As far as destroyed evidence that would have surely convicted him – to me, that borders on a conspiracy theory. People were held responsible, and people lost their jobs and did time.

      I really didn’t justify what Bush did – I pointed out that he was hardly the only person who would have blood on his hands were the claims that he used false pretenses to invade Iraq true. That’s quite different from saying “he was innocent” or that he “was completely justified”.
      At best, it appears he is now a convenient scapegoat for others who supported the invasion, and are Monday-morning quarterbacking. If the U.S. Congress and United Nations had not cared so much as to continually reprimand and decry Saddam, would Bush have been able to easily, unilaterally, invade? Surely not.

  3. Well, JB, the clarity & accuracy is apparent to me & I couldn’t agree more. Each of these ‘leaders’ are saturated with the Mcaviiilan influnce & not capable of seeing past the end of their nose, nor do they care too. I understand the reason some kiss the Bishop’s ring, but Obama’s backside escapes me.

    • Haha, thank you, Jan – I appreciate your words.
      Between your comment and Lorraine’s, I don’t see how anyone could glean anything but what you have both described. It boils down to self-deluded and overly self-assured leaders being dangerous. Simple.

  4. Obama does have fanatical followers in pockets of the population, but comparing him to Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, and Castro is ridiculous. If anyone has a truly cult like following it is Reagan, the supposed man of reason and fiscal conservatism that sold drugs to terrorists, raised the debt tremendously, closed mental hospitals, and sold out the American people to big business. The man is treated by the right as the second coming of Christ. Oh, and using Truman as an example of a warmongering Democrat doesn’t contradict my arguement of your hypocrisy, it only reasserts it; you refuse to even acknowledge what I said about Reagan and Bush’s despicable crimes against humanity. I am not saying Democrats haven’t done disturbing things, Obama included, but where is the article calling for a prosecution of the former Bush administration? Exactly.

    • Another red herring, Jean. Maybe you haven’t heard, but Reagan’s been out of the Oval Office for some time now, and doesn’t wield any power anymore. As far as raising debt, I’d refer you to the Congress for that. As far as selling drugs for terror-money – when was Reagan charged with that again?
      Bush, went to war with Iraq after Saddam violated numerous U.N. resolutions (Res. 1441 being the last, and most serious of them). Bush also sought, and received, bi-partisan support to go to war in Iraq, from the U.S. Congress. So, why again should Bush be the only person held responsible for actions the Congress, and much of the world, supported? Simply because you don’t like him, is that it?
      “Despicable crimes against humanity”? Please. Such hyperbole does nothing to bolster your case.
      I’m a bit confused as to why I am a hypocrite, as I used Truman as an absurd example of your own tactics, ma’am. It wasn’t intended as any rebuttal.

  5. Oh come on George jr. brought this country to war through lies. Reagan sold drugs to fund terrorists. Obama has done unspeakable things, but is it fair to compare him to some of the worst criminals of all time without adding the names of some of the most warmongering, spineless Republican presidents?

    • I was actually comparing his personality and the way in which he uses his party and the press in a manner that would make any despot nod approvingly.
      If you’d like to investigate more red herrings, especially “warmongers”, I’d simply remind you that the only person in the world to use an atomic bomb (on civilians, no less, and he did it twice) was a democrat.

  6. So Obama is a mass murderer of tens of millions? Get real, atleast Obama didn’t start a whol war under falsified information…ooops did I bring that up? All of this tired hypocrisy over Obama’s flaws, talks of impeachment, yet not conservative news website is pushing for prosecution of Bush, Cheney, and Rice. I don’t have any idea how on Earth I remain sane reading vile like this everyday.

    • Jean – he didn’t say any of that. Can you read? Can you comprehend what you read? This was a history lesson that we are doomed to repeat if we don’t learn from it.

      • Exactly Lorraine.
        The point, that I expected readers to understand was; pomposity and a sense of infallibility in leaders, especially when lacking any critical press or party, have never built anything to brag about. Leaders who exhibit those traits, in an environment such as that, necessarily need a people to keep a very weary eye on them, and to foil those leaders’ plans whenever possible.