Will Obamites please stop trying to brainwash and abuse our children?

[Chico]

....there's this tacit nudging towards violence...
-Janeane Garofalo


...well, I'll just say that at this point I cannot put it into a post in a public forum. But the contempt, the anger, is building so fast, it is ready to explode.
-Theo

 

[iamnicola]

And God bless Lady Gaga and the gays!

 

[bored]

Chico is a hardcore Obamite who thought Obama's election would be the greatest thing to ever happen to America. He's obviously feeling dumb now that Obama is already the worst president we've ever seen and is actually making people miss George W. Bush (shocking!). There'll be Hell to pay in November of 2010, Chico. We're gonna take this country back.

This is so not true.

As SNL accurately pointed out, Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for simply not being George W. Bush.

I wouldn't say Obama is doing anything good but to call him worse than Bush is really hard to fathom.

Bush should have been impeached but Pelosi refused to do that because the Dems are a bunch of pussies (except for Kucinich who wanted to him and Cheney out of the White House).

 

[Luxo]

I wonder sometimes, is Theo for real? He just seems like an over-the-top stereotype of a right-wing American, and he's just doing it for the laugh, because it certainly is funny to laugh at these lunatics.

 

[Worm]

As SNL accurately pointed out, Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for simply not being George W. Bush.

Right: ABB. Anybody But Bush.

I understand this line of thinking (and SNL was funny on that point). I also think Obama needs to be held accountable for what he actually does, not just what he isn't.

But I think there's a danger in forgetting how disastrous Bush really was. It matters a hell of a lot that Obama has at least stopped America's terrifying free-fall. Do you realize how astonishing it is that the country is up in arms over health care? Regardless of how it turns out, this to me is a miracle turnaround. Instead of watching helplessly as Bush and Cheney warmed up the bombers for Iran, isolated America with their pugnacious arrogance, gave tax cuts to the wealthy while pissing on the poor, introduced crackpot Christian fundamentalism to the White House, and reduced our national politics to a joke, here we are talking about legislation in the House and Senate, teasing our President for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, and complaining because Obama has ended some, but not enough, of Bush's torture and rendition policies. Put it this way: what do you think we'd be talking about right now if McCain were President? Whether to nuke North Korea and Iran, or just Iran?

We will know soon enough if Obama is a good President or not, but he has done a lot more than nothing, and his political, moral, and intellectual distance from Bush is much more than cosmetic. I think Obama deserves a lot of criticism and if nothing else he deserves some of the mockery he's getting from various quarters. Every time I see the tea baggers, though, I'm reminded of what we're up against now, and what we left behind last January. Every time I read a piece blasting Obama for being too conciliatory or bi-partisan or not gay-friendly enough in a speech, it's next to another harrowing report of CIA abuses under Bush. It's important to keep everything in perspective.

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

I keep wondering when would be the best time to bring up the Obama trading cards that are on the market. They're not a joke, they're real.

 

[Worm]

I keep wondering when would be the best time to bring up the Obama trading cards that are on the market. They're not a joke, they're real.

Of course, this only covers his record up to 2003. They didn't know about his commitment to torturing people yet.

 

[Dave]

Every time I read a piece blasting Obama for being too conciliatory or bi-partisan or not gay-friendly enough in a speech, it's next to another harrowing report of CIA abuses under Bush. It's important to keep everything in perspective.

Spin. I don't see articles saying he is too conciliatory or bi-partisan, and I don't think his choice of Rick Warren could be called "not gay-friendly enough", except maybe by Bill O'Reilly. I guess sending more troops to Afghanistan is too conciliatory, and signing orders to continue operating secret prisons in other countries is too bi-partisan.

 

[Theo]

Have you heard Rush Limbaugh's new battle hymn?

He first presented it on his show here:

[YouTube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I3mWes14bWw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I3mWes14bWw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YouTube]

Rush Hudson Limbaugh
Mmm, mmm, mmm
Rush Hudson Limbaugh
Mmm, mmm, mmm
(Battle Hymn of the Republic)
My ears have heard Rush Limbaugh on my parents' radio
He tells me that the left is wrong and stuff I need to know
We turn it off when he is done 'cause there's no other show
Rush, keep broadcasting on.
Glory, glory hallelujah
Gore and Clinton couldn't fool ya
Barack Obama can't ignore ya
Rush, keep broadcasting on
In 1951 he was born in Missouri
Now he's on the radio conducting EIB
On the air to set us free from sea to shining sea
He keeps broadcasting on
Glory, glory hallelujah
Gore and Clinton couldn't fool ya
Barack Obama can't ignore ya
Rush, keep broadcasting on
Rush, keep broadcasting on!

I happen to have seen MSNBC's morning show that day, where a ditz from BBC America was all, "I don't wanna hear that clip again, because there's something insidious going on with the way he says Obama's middle name 'Hussein'" (paraphrase). The clip was of Limbaugh mocking Obama's disastrous trip to Copenhagen to get the Olympics for Chicago. Limbaugh was all, "Barack Hussein Obama MMM MMM MMM!!" Typical of BBC leftists, the journalist was both ignorant and humorless.

Well, here was the clip the BBC journalist found troubling:

[YouTube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7c-W7IUkKDY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7c-W7IUkKDY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YouTube]

We have noticed that the Obama shills in the media are quite uptight about anyone mocking Obama. Did you know that CNN actually did a whole fact-checking segment because they were deeply concerned about an Obama spoof on Saturday Night Live? I don't recall CNN ever feeling the need to fact-check SNL sketches before, and they sure as f*** don't fact-check Obama's speeches.....

Yes, they're quite protective of their Boy Wonder.

 

[Theo]

BTW, let's look back on that hilarious Friday, October the 2nd (LOLOL).

[YouTube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EuE60mq0r1Q&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EuE60mq0r1Q&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YouTube]

[YouTube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yA9Z8KEsNyo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yA9Z8KEsNyo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YouTube]

Libertarian blogger InstaPundit was a bit disappointed, though: "I was kinda looking forward to seeing President Palin speak at the opening ceremonies."

 

[Chico]

Spin. I don't see articles saying he is too conciliatory or bi-partisan, and I don't think his choice of Rick Warren could be called "not gay-friendly enough", except maybe by Bill O'Reilly. I guess sending more troops to Afghanistan is too conciliatory, and signing orders to continue operating secret prisons in other countries is too bi-partisan.

Please. Dave, you have said in the past that you don't really follow politics. And it's apparent that you really don't.

Obama (and this is a criticism of Dems in general) being too conciliatory or too quickly willing to extend a compromise to the right has been a leading theme of criticism of the administration so far. Just because - on your way to Solo, you haven't glimpsed a news headline alluding to the issue, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The idea is that in their dealings with the right when trying to get something done, Obama and the Dems have a tendency to already start at the position of compromise, leaving no wiggle room for proper negotiation and in turn, a poor outcome is achieved. The better way to do it being to start at the most favorable position and negotiate toward the center from there.

Where Obama and the Dems fail is that they present to the Republicans a bi-partisan solution as a gesture of good faith. The mistake the Democrats make is presuming that the Republicans actually want to deal in good faith. The gesture toward good faith and bi-partisanship turns out to be weak and naive strategy that the Republicans exploit and use to ruin any good legislation and prevent anything from progressing.

Then, the kicker is, the Republicans will have the balls to say that the Democrats accomplished nothing while in office and attempt to get another George W. Bush clone in, and the American people will probably be dumb enough to go along with it.

 

[Dave]

Please. Dave, you have said in the past that you don't really follow politics. And it's apparent that you really don't.

Obama (and this is a criticism of Dems in general) being too conciliatory or too quickly willing to extend a compromise to the right has been a leading theme of criticism of the administration so far. Just because - on your way to Solo, you haven't glimpsed a news headling alluding to the issue, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The idea is that in their dealings with the right when trying to get something done, Obama and the Dems have a tendency to already start at the position of compromise, leaving no wiggle room for proper negotiation and in turn, a poor outcome is achieved. The better way to do it being to start at the most favorable position and negotiate toward the center from there.

Where Obama and the Dems fail is that they present to the Republicans a bi-partisan solution as a gesture of good faith. The mistake the Democrats make is presuming that the Republicans actually want to deal in good faith. The gesture toward good faith and bi-partisanship turns out to be weak and naive strategy that the Republicans exploit and use to ruin any good legislation and prevent anything from progressing.

Then, the kicker is, the Republicans will say that the Democrats accomplished nothing while in office and attempt to get another George W. Bush clone in office and the American people will probably be dumb enough to go along with it.

what is a news headling?

 

[Chico]

what is a news headling?

=

Dave has no idea how to respond so he goes for the gutshot! A typo! Oh noe!

 

[Dave]

=

Dave has no idea how to respond so he goes for the gutshot! A typo! Oh noe!

Actually, I think you're a moron so I responded at your level. The "oh noe!" you came back with proves I was on the right track. I don't have time to discuss the way someone else chose to make their point with you. There are different ways to say the same thing, and that was my point, but I don't have time to waste discussing it with you.

 

[Chico]

Actually, I think you're a moron so I responded at your level. The "oh noe!" you came back with proves I was on the right track. I don't have time to discuss the way someone else chose to make their point with you. There are different ways to say the same thing, and that was my point, but I don't have time to waste discussing it with you.

Dave, you're so angry. If you were Native American, your name would be Dave-So-Angry.

Or maybe Types-with-Rage.

 

[Dave]

Dave, you're so angry. If you were Native American, your name would be Dave-So-Angry.

Or maybe Types-with-Rage.

Anyway, I could have written that a different way but I was in a hurry. What I meant to say was that I just don't feel it would be productive to discuss another person's choice of words with you, particularly when that person is very capable of understanding the subtleties of language.

 

[penfoldsfive]

i wanted to stay out of this dipshitted convo but i have to say that obama did noty create this it has been in place for ages leave him the f*** alone you racist f***s>

 

[Dave]

i wanted to stay out of this dipshitted convo but i have to say that obama did noty create this it has been in place for ages leave him the f*** alone you racist f***s>

 

[iamnicola]

i wanted to stay out of this dipshitted convo but i have to say that obama did noty create this it has been in place for ages leave him the f*** alone you racist f***s>

Would you like a Nilla Wafer?

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

Getting back to American politics, this situation in New York is really fascinating. Although, Hoffman lost, he did surprisingly well. What I find amazing is how stalwart republicans, longtime dyed-in-the-wool party members absolutely turned on one of their own in a rare act of political cannibalism. As a result of the huge losses in the last election there has been a split, a fault line between the radicals, and the few more moderate republicans. The few moderates say they need to steer clear of the Glen Beck's, the Ann Coulter's, the Rush Limbaugh's, that this kind of inflammatory, over-the-top rhetoric is counterproductive and alienates people. The radicals say the problem is the party isn't radical enough and want to take a collective hard swing to the far right. This faction appears to be winning. Scozzafava, a longtime republican was sacrificed to the gods of ideological purity, she wasn't a militant pro lifer, she wasn't extreme enough in her social policies, she didn't follow the script word for word, so they actually discarded their own candidate in favor of a third party. If they keep this up more defeats will surely follow. Still, it's really fascinating. The party of Will Buckley has become the party of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. I think if he were alive he'd be horrified.