So many precedents have been set by the opposition party in the past year... Here's a list of things that Republicans can never again do, if we hold them to the stuff they have been saying since Obama's election:
1. The only candidates that the GOP can run in 2012 are George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter. They are the only two people on earth who have experience comparable to Obama and are eligible to be president. In 2008, "experience" was the viagra of the GOP. In 2012, Obama will have more experience being president than anyone, sans Carter and Bush.
2. Females in the GOP must never again show their upper arms.
3. Republicans can never reduce the size of Medicare. That kills old people.
4. Republicans can never expand the size of Medicare. That's a steady march to socialism.
5. Republicans can never push for an amendment. Ever. Not flag burning, not homo-hating, not anti-abortion. The founders, inspired by Jesus Christ, got it spot-on perfect the first time.
6. Republicans can never reduce troop numbers in a warzone. That equals surrender.
7. Republicans can never appoint anyone to a position that may be referred to as a "czar." George Bush's 46 czarist appointees are the last appointed by a Republican president.
8. Republicans must never again admit to being wrong. Not that they were all that good at it before, but just in case they had been practicing, they must never do it in the future.
9. Republican presidents may never lobby for the olympics to be held in America. There is always something more productive that the president can be doing during those 18 hours.
10. Republican presidents must never campaign in Chicago, mention Chicago, go to Chicago, or otherwise acknowledge that Chicago exists. If they must acknowledge Chicago, it must be referred to as "that murderous shit hole of a town, Chicago."
11. You are not allowed to be a Republican if you went to a college that everyone has heard of. Harvard? Elitist. Yale? Liberal bastion. East Texas Institute of Animal Husbandry? Ok, that will work.
12. Republicans may never again speak to children. Not even their own.
Feel free to add more of your own. Sphere: Related Content
32 comments:
Elliptiturd and Cylenthinskin…just when you thought it was safe to say rabidly drain bamaged things on these posts…I have reemerged from my day job...that job that will pay for your herpes treatment under Obamacare. The problem is that you are like a left wing cliché and it’s difficult to take you seriously with one notable exception: Cylenjunier’s geek posts are excellent.
You are right that a lot of precedents have been set. For one thing, this president has failed horribly like none before him. BO and Michelle’s strategy could not possibly succeed in Copenhagen. In their academic arrogance, they thought they could sell a product they clearly do not believe in (the United States) and moreover, they could do so by stressing the benefits to the seller (Chicago) and not the buyer (the IOC). And to top it off, they committed the faux pas of talking too much about the sales force (themselves) and not about the product or the buyer. Gee, what could possibly go wrong?
They were so apparently lost in an attempt to actually have to make a sale to an audience not cowed by Chicago-style clout, inoculated by our own fawning Jurassic media, nor remotely interested in their life stories. Perhaps that is how and why they botched it so badly.
The sales pitch was awful by any definition. Of course. How can our President, who has made his political fortune at the expense of the reputation of the country, sell our country to the IOC with a straight face? The answer is he could not.
They did not even pretend to be proud of us. They went on an unseemly, surreal begging campaign that mixed in uncomfortable bits and pieces of their personal histories with platitudes about what the Olympic Games could do for the children of Chicago. Oh, BTW, the Obama family would personally find it kind of a cool thing for the neighborhood. By that time the IOC was vomiting.
In 2012, Obama will have more experience being a failed president than anyone else in history, even that anti Semite Carter. I would be happy if Democrat first ladies would never again show their big fat asses. Remember that Bush went to Harvard? I went to Harvard.
Wesley and Bush having gone to Harvard only shows that great educational opportunities are wasted on some folks.
Even if President Obama fucks up everything he tries by 2012, GWB will still have 4 additional years' experience as a failed president.
Are you trying to be foolish, or is it genetic?
Were the other heads of state who also went to Copenhagen "lost" without "Chicago-style clout?"
When a city in your country is in the running to host the Olympics, you go to make the pitch. Someone had to "win," and therefore, everyone else had to "lose," necessarily.
I wonder if their were Spaniards soaking their panties over Madrid losing the bid... I wonder if people in Tokyo cheered when they announced Rio as the winner...
Amph, your comment dislodged this from my head:
What's worse? To achieve nothing positive or to achieve a lot of negative?
For example... let's say that Obama never gets a health care bill passed... let's say he doesn't get rid of DADT, doesn't close gitmo, doesn't make any marked progress in Afghanistan, and doesn't really do anything notable on energy policy...
How does that compare to actively seeking a disastrous war in Iraq, purposefully giving away a budget surplus, or gleefully signing no child left behind?
E, you forgot that Republicans can never have more than two months after being elected to accomplish every thing they said they would accomplish in their entire term in office plus a lot of things they didn't say they would accomplish. If you cannot solve every problem in the world in your first two months in office, you are the greatest failure of a President this nation has ever seen, bar none.
You kept spelling "hours" wrong in your last comment... you spelled it "months"...
You might want to diagnose your spellcheck...
Wow!! I'm just fascinated by how Wesley dedicated four paragraphs to how Obama is a failure as a President and will never amount to anything bc Chicago didn't get the Olympics!?
And I totally agree with Amphy, E and Cy...Now Dazes will say that I can't think for myself just bc I didn't get around to reading this post til now and your comments expressed exactly what I was thinking! Lol
Carter was a Democrat.
Wesley is just upset that he can't use what you guys talk about. He likes the geek posts because he can repeat them to his friends and pretend to be smarter than he is. He can't repeat the rest of what you say in his circle. He tried that once and got beat up.
"Carter was a Democrat."
Carter IS a Democrat... kinda limits the options, huh? :-)
This is like whack-a-mole or popping bubble wrap. So many bubble heads to pop, I don’t know who to schwack first.
Scott, you don’t need to go to Harvard to know that being an epic failure for four years does not qualify you to do anything but fail consistently. His incompetence, narcissism and danger to the interests of the United States and its allies in Europe are scaring the crap out of people. In other countries with a parliamentary system there is a distinction between the head of state and the head of the government. Of the world's major democracies only the US merges both functions into the office of President. It appears that BO views himself as the head of state only. As such he cannot be bothered with the day to day responsibility of governance. He is, in his narcissistic world, above all that; thus he delegates the writing of the Stimulus, health care and other major bills to Princess Pelosi, puts off any decisions on Iran and Afghanistan, appoints czars with power to spend and set policy and prefers to spend his time on TV speaking to the fans. His responsibilities as the head of government have been assigned to others, who in many cases are not answerable to American citizens. This has created a shit storm in Congress and dread among the citizens. Yet BO appears not to care, as his interests lie elsewhere.
Tom, I guess you were asking me if I was trying to be foolish? Change the subject and attack. Good idea since you have no intellectual counter.
Ellipses, why do I care how any other country reacted to not winning their Olympic bids? BO lost it in the first round with a measly 18 votes. He squandered his Presidential power and prestige on this and you don’t normally see a President go into a situation like this without knowing it is in the bag already. I don’t care if Mayor Daley had pictures of him with farm animals he should have said no if it was not in the bag. The bottom line is this: this was an Obama epic fail period. They were the sales force, they were the focus of the sales presentation and they were the product. The Obamas were there to sell the Obamas with the Obamas. All Obama all the time. And the world said no thanks.
Elliptiroditus, you need to check your current events. Iraq is not a disastrous war…except for maybe liberals who kept saying we had failed and the surge would not work. I am sure it’s a disaster for them. No argument on squandering the surplus…we agree on that. And I am no fan of No Child’s Behind Left Alone. To answer your question though…if he can’t achieve any positive I would rather he not achieve anything. I would never hope for a pile of negative achievements. This is not little league baseball where everyone gets a trophy even the losers.
Tom, I guess you were asking me if I was trying to be foolish? Change the subject and attack. Good idea since you have no intellectual counter. Ondinita I did not mean to leave you out but it is clear you are a BO sycophant and are not able to criticize even when it is due because you are emotionally invested in this president. You don’t want to be bothered with the facts. Albert Einstein said "He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice."
Gerssy, I will repeat Cy’s Geek tips to my friends and attribute to Cy with great pride. I think it was more like a rape than getting beat up. Says a lot about the kind of person you are when you recall it with such glee. Voltaire said "Madness is to hold an erroneous perception and argue perfectly from it."
"Ellipses, why do I care how any other country reacted to not winning their Olympic bids? BO lost it in the first round with a measly 18 votes. He squandered his Presidential power and prestige on this and you don’t normally see a President go into a situation like this without knowing it is in the bag already. I don’t care if Mayor Daley had pictures of him with farm animals he should have said no if it was not in the bag. The bottom line is this: this was an Obama epic fail period. They were the sales force, they were the focus of the sales presentation and they were the product. The Obamas were there to sell the Obamas with the Obamas. All Obama all the time. And the world said no thanks."
So, only the country with it "in the bag" should attend the voting? Perhaps only the candidate with it "in the bag" should actually campaign for office, too?
And would you be so kind as to argue that if he DIDN'T attend... if he were the ONLY head of state of a country in the running to NOT be there... that he wouldn't be CRUCIFIED for not going to fight for Amurka? Please... I'd bet there'd be t-shirts with Olympic-ring handcuffs clamped on two black wrists if he didn't go...
I'm surprised he went... after all, Kenya wasn't even nominated, were they?
The President of the United States infrequently appears before the IOC and he cannot show up in a minor role. His involvement is always that of the leader of the free world. When the President is there, the head of state of the United States is there, the richest and most powerful nation in the world is there, and is not to be screwed with. Indeed, the United States should never put itself in a position to be boinked.
Frankly, it was the job of all of those well connected Chicago White House insiders to let their colleagues know whether a multi-million dollar trip to Copenhagen was worth it. If the United States was running neck and neck with Brazil, there is little doubt the BO should have been there. If they were running a close third, then the trip is still probably in the nation’s best interests. But fourth place? The Olympics themselves don’t honor fourth place. Either the White House knew where they stood and arrogantly thought the President could change minds, or they didn’t know, meaning the White House had little or no ability to use dozens of high-profile insiders to gage the temperature of less than 100 IOC voters. Both scenarios are unacceptable.
Similarly, no serious leader would even consider exposing himself and his country to such an easily avoidable affront, especially by such a whiny bunch of rubes, and still expect to command respect in the world. Anybody who folds to BO from now on has less stones than the sniveling IOC.
The sad truth is that BO does not have the connections, force of will, rhetoric or naked power to make the IOC knuckle under, nor the intell to uncover its intentions. World leaders now know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that BO is satisfied to conduct ad hoc affairs of state. He is looking only to wallow in glory, for which he is willing to expose the prestige of the United States to laughing ridicule. It’s a telegraphed weakness that no foreign ministries missed. Now he has to face the Iranians and North Koreans, and the Grand Pasha, Putin, without getting his lunch money ripped off. This is why this was a major league fuck up.
That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard... It wasn't, at first... but then when I saw that you double posted it, it "became."
It was so good I wanted to post it twice. Also, wanted to make it harder for Cyjr to delete. Serpentine serpentine. Since all you can say is that it's the stupidest thing you ever heard I will take that as a victory. Seriously, I did not intentionally post it twice. Does not change the truth of it.
Wesley, I knew that'd be exactly the kind of response I'd get from you. That's the standard answer for right wingers when they can't think of anything else: "You're just brainwashed"...You think anyone that doesn't agree with you is dumb. Yet according to conservatives, liberals are elitist!!! You actually seem way more emotional about Obama than me. I like the guy, but you're so passionate about him and invest so much time and energy thinking about him!!!
If not criticizing Obama means that I'm a brainwashed liberal, wouldn't criticizing EVERYTHING he does mean that you're a brainwashed right wing nut?
One last thing...I actually had some criticism for Obama this morning. I was saying that he needs to stop playing nice, trying to please the GOP and start doing what we elected him to do!!!
I almost forgot....Wesley, please be a dear and enlighten us with the FACTS and your views on Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize? All of us lefties already agreed that it was premature. But I'm almost positive that you're making so much more of it. We need you to tell us how this is another epic failure for Obama and all the future ramifications of this horrible incident!!!! Please be sure to point out how this is irrefutable proof that his Presidency is doomed and ramble on and on about it, just like you did about the Olympics!!!!
ONDI,WHY THE FUCK DONT YOU TELL US WHAT OSAMA HAS DONE?AND YOU TALK ABOUT BRAINWASHED,I TOLD EVERYBODY WHO YOU WOULD AGREE WITH,AND YOU HAVE..DONT TALK OF ONE WITHOUT SENSE TO THINK FOR THEIR SELFS,LOOK IN THE MIRROR.OBAMA IS A ONE TERM PRESIDENT WHO WILL DO GREAT HARM TO THIS COUNTRY,AND ITS YOU FUCKS THAT VOTED FOR HIM TO MAKE HISTORY,,LETS VOTE FOR THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT,FUCK WHAT HE HAS DONE IN LIFE,FUCK HIS VIEWS,NO LETS MAKE HISTORY.YOU IDIOTS TALK OF BUSH,S CZARS,BUT LEAVE THE FACT OUT THAT IT WAS OVER HIS 4 YEAR TERM.NO THIS FUCKING LOSER NEEDS THESE CZARS BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE A FUCKING CLUE OF WHAT HE IS DOING!!JUST LIKE YOU FUCKING DUMB ASSES WHO VOTED JUST TO MAKE HISTORY..BLACKBALLED
I voted for him to put through a public option health care plan and to be a raging liberal president... the fact that it "made history" never figured into it...
Keep projecting, though... it makes you look sorta kinda ridiculous...
BB...You're a know-nothing that never has anything interesting, constructive or even rational to add to the conversations. Your comments are just offensive, incoherent and mostly unrelated to any topic being discussed. I've seen a few of them that later had to be deleted by a moderator. It seems that now you have a personal vendetta against me. Perhaps you're angry bc you tried to recruit me for your "team" and now you feel rejected. You must be mentally unstable to be so upset that I don't agree with your views. Should I be worried about you? I told you in my email that I was most likely going to agree with E & Cy. So of course you knew...So what? You keep bringing it up like it was something that I was trying to hide! It's not a secret that I lean to the left.
We've already discussed on the forum what Obama has & hasn't done. This post has nothing to do with that. E already answered to your rant, so I'm not going to waste any more time on you.
First-time poster here, long-time admirer.
I'd like to add that Republicans can never again criticize Barack Obama, as he's a "war President," and criticism was tantamount to treason when WhistleAss was in office.
I'd also like to observe that you must be doing something right, seeing that you have your very own Harvard-educated troll - and such a prolific one he is too! If he's not playing Polly Parrot to RW talking points, he's bragging about his edumacation or how much money he makes.
Funny, because in all my years online (reaching back to the dark days before the World Wide Web existed), I've never encountered a plutocrat who spent any appreciable amount of time playing internet troll; a truly successful capitalista would have his mind on his money and his money on his mind. They believe arguing with the hoi polloi is an utter waste of time and far below their appointed station in life.
On the other hand, I HAVE encountered quite a few trolls who have been revealed as phony-baloney poseurs (they never portray themselves as ordinary wage slaves like the rest of us). I would be happy to do a little research to determine the veracity of this person's repetitive claims of a Harvard education and ginormous salary. More likely: he's posting from Ma's basement - Cheeto-stained fingers busily tippy-tapping his feverish fantasies. I can shine the truth and set him free if you like.
As he's so fond of cute little names for everyone, may I suggest one for him: WEASELLY. He obviously wants to keep discussions at the middle-school, insult-driven level, so let the insanity begin!
Anon...We actually found out a while ago who Wesley is. He's not lying about his education, etc...But he does have personal reasons for spending so much time commenting on here. I like your nickname idea...WEASELLY!!! Hehe
Yeah, Wes's education is legit. I can vouch for it since I was living with him at the time he earned it (he's my pops, see an older post). Its perhaps slightly misleading as he went for a Master's as part of a career program he was participating in; not easy but not as hard as going undergrad with grades/money I would assume. Nevertheless a legit and hard-earned degree from Harvard. Can't fault him for bringing it up; I'd do the same.
Holy shit! Good...I have brought the conversation up to middle school. Please forget the Harvard gig...it has nothing to do with this conversation and I respect good thinkers like Cylensier and Ellipses. They fight and rationalize very well. Someone has to keep them on their toes. I am just here to stop them from running with scissors.
Be careful Anonynuts, they probably already have checked your IP address.
Odninita, I like your passion but...you proved my point with your emotional response. I actually admire BO for being a brilliant orator (albeit he has a smart teleprompter) and it's been very tough for me to criticize him because I get swept up in the coolness of this guy. I am proud of my country for electing this beautiful black man who is so cool and does not sound like an idiot at the microphone like W did. I cringed everytime he spoke. But, BO ran as post-racial president and therefore I criticize him on his politics alone which frankly scare the hell out of me. I am VERY EMPOTIONAL about the politics because it's brazen Socialism and I DO NOT WANT A SOCIALIST Government...period...dot.
Troll chaser...I am very much interested in the Plutocrat party. Pluto could do a better job than the current bunch. But it's good that you posted and volunteered to be the hall monitor. Although you sound you should be kept away children.
Odinita, I think the Nobel Speech Prize speaks for itself and it really does not help BO. But, on a related note they are going to go ahead and award the Super Bowl Trophy to the Rams next week because they promise to play really well the rest of the season.
"I am VERY EMPOTIONAL about the politics because it's brazen Socialism and I DO NOT WANT A SOCIALIST Government...period...dot."
Out of curiosity... why?
Wesley...You admire Obama, but you're emotional in your opposition to his politics, I also admire Obama, but what I'm really passionate about is his politics, not the man...
Ondy...I can respect your beliefs so we can agree to disagree.
E-man…at first blush, socialism has an appeal as in why can’t we all join hands and sing kumbayah. It’s an inspiring ideal but historically it always ends up the same. Let’s break it down.
Socialism has built-in incentives to shirk responsibility. There is no reason to work harder than anyone else because the rewards are shared and therefore minimal for hard-workers. So I think the worst part of Socialism is that it robs people of their quest to be the best they can be. The incentive is to work less than others because the immediate loss is shared and therefore minimal to the slacker.
Under capitalism, the incentive is to work harder because each producer will receive the total value of his production--the rewards are not shared. Simply put: socialism rewards freeloaders and penalizes hard workers while capitalism rewards hard workers and penalizes slackers.
I will be the first one to admit that I don’t want to live in a country, and I don’t think a country can call itself “great” if it allows people who can’t take care of themselves either temporarily or permanently to fall through the cracks. Think of the absurdity of taking the no taxes position to the extreme. I think that would encourage a kind of evil of it’s own.
I hate to disappoint you but I am not a far right winger like everyone here thinks. I think I am a moderate. The problem is that the socialism train has long left the moderate center with this current administration. BO is not bashful about what he believes in and while people like your crowd on this blog are in the throes of Obamagasms the country you were born into is being dismantled.
"There is no reason to work harder than anyone else because the rewards are shared and therefore minimal for hard-workers. So I think the worst part of Socialism is that it robs people of their quest to be the best they can be."
There is nothing wrong with LESS work. There is no reason that supporting a family should require two people to work 50 hours a week. Or living on credit cards. In Americaa, that is often the case. And our mental health is suffering.
"Under capitalism, the incentive is to work harder because each producer will receive the total value of his production--the rewards are not shared."
Not exactly. Under capitalism workers are convinced to work work work so that their employers can receive the total value of his production. You must work hard so that the company can get rich. And your mental health takes another hit.
First, you are working under the assumption that people are either 100% capitalist or 100% socialist. This is almost never the case. Capitalism works just fine for a whole range of issues while socialism works just fine for an entirely other range of issues.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that the initial predisposition of people is to be socialist in conception, and capitalist in execution. Who hasn't looked at a situation and thought of cost or contribution spread evenly among a population?
"at first blush, socialism has an appeal as in why can’t we all join hands and sing kumbayah. "
It has never occurred to me that "socialism" is Utopian... It is simply the largest possible denominator when figuring a universal cost.
"It’s an inspiring ideal but historically it always ends up the same."
Using what data set? I could argue that every nation that has people in it has eventually failed. Meanwhile, there are plenty of places around that are more socialist that we are and are by no means at the brink of collapse. Similarly, there are plenty of places around that have much less government intervention than we do, yet are entirely unstable. Neither the stability nor the instability, in my opinion, is directly attributable to the level at which their economies are socialized.
"no reason to work harder than anyone else because the rewards are shared and therefore minimal for hard-workers."
Only if it is 100% socialized. We are talking about health insurance, here... not some goofy-assed system where everyone gets the same number of fishes and loaves regardless of what they contribute. Just health insurance.
"So I think the worst part of Socialism is that it robs people of their quest to be the best they can be. "
Health insurance doesn't inspire me to be the best I can be any more than car insurance or my electric bill does. I want to occupy my work life with a task that I enjoy and hopefully make as much money as possible doing it. If anything, the burden of insuring against illness prevents me from doing that. Let's say that my dream was to be an onion farmer and that I had a zest and passion for farming onions... but I have a job cleaning shit houses that has great health insurance benefits for me and my family... I'm not going to go farm onions because of the risk that I would be putting myself and my family in.
If people were freer to seek employment based only on their passion and their ability to convert their labor into dollars, without the burden of paying for the world's most expensive health insurance, we might see different employment trends, not to mention Gert's point about mental health... Imagine if you were given the option of driving a hyundai to a job that you hate, but where you could afford the hyundai... or have to drive a bentley to a job that you love, but can't afford the B-machine, that's the truth about employment and health insurance today.
"Under capitalism, the incentive is to work harder because each producer will receive the total value of his production--the rewards are not shared."
Again... 100% capitalism where everyone is self-employed and the market is completely free and unregulated... in the real world, you can probably work 10% harder or 10% less and still get paid the same because you are a cog in a machine.
"The problem is that the socialism train has long left the moderate center with this current administration."
This administration is hardly "far-left." In fact, even those in this country who I would consider "far-left" are hardly far-left in relation to histories true revolutionaries. The political spectrum is artificially narrow and both far-right and far-left are just on the fringes of the universal center. If a true far-left or far-right candidate ever actually came to power, most people's assholes and eyeballs would melt out of their bodies a la raiders of the lost arc. America is full of soft, pink pig-pussies who wouldn't have the stomach for an actual liberal or a real libertarian conservative.
"BO is not bashful about what he believes in and while people like your crowd on this blog are in the throes of Obamagasms the country you were born into is being dismantled."
I would guess that Cy, Gert, and myself were all born into Reagan's america (or the tail-end of Carter)... if so, dismantle, dismantle, dismantle...
On a side note... I have homeowners insurance which is super cheap and will take care of me if my house burns down... When I go to work in the morning, I am not motivated by the couple of dollars a month that my fire insurance costs... in fact, it hadn't entered my mind until I read your comment last night... It's just there, providing some semblance of piece of mind. Even if it were provided by the government, I would still go to work every day... I wouldn't start leaving candles lit while I'm out of the house... or sleeping with the stove on... I wouldn't stop cleaning the lint trap on the dryer... even if I had the safety net of fire insurance without the burden of buying it, I would still try to NOT burn my house down. How would my mindset be different regarding health insurance if we had a completely socialized single payer system?
Post a Comment