[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve read a few biographies of George Washington and was watching a History Channel bio of him the other night. While doing so I thought of the huge contrast between GW and BO. On the one hand you have a stud of the ages and on the other you have one of the thinnest skinned pussies of all time.
I’m serious. I don’t hate the guy but he’s easy to despise. He’s such a weenie. A Chicago-ized version of Jimmah Carter.[/quote]
Man, don’t you just, like, hate that guy! Man!
[quote]Makavali wrote:
IMO the racism is there. It’s not nearly as widespread as some people would have you believe, but it’s there.
The major cause is sour grapes. Boohoo the Republicans lost after 8 years, boohoo change.[/quote]
Or it could be the army of Mao/Commie fans in his admin, the outright lies about the stimulus, the proking of America, and the endless broken promises…
Ya, you’re right…
[quote]Makavali wrote:
IMO the racism is there. It’s not nearly as widespread as some people would have you believe, but it’s there.
The major cause is sour grapes. Boohoo the Republicans lost after 8 years, boohoo change.[/quote]
Or it could be the army of Mao/Commie fans in his admin, the outright lies about the stimulus, the proking of America, and the endless broken promises…
Ya, you’re right…
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Man, don’t you just, like, hate that guy! Man![/quote]
Looks like Kindercare just let out.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Man, don’t you just, like, hate that guy! Man!
Looks like Kindercare just let out.[/quote]
Tell me about it. Luckily you’re here to remind us he’s a pussy who should be despised.
Man, He’s like, Nixon, or like… a pussy Carter… yeah that’s it. Hate that guy…
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Man, don’t you just, like, hate that guy! Man!
Looks like Kindercare just let out.
Tell me about it. Luckily you’re here to remind us he’s a pussy who should be despised.
Man, He’s like, Nixon, or like… a pussy Carter… yeah that’s it. Hate that guy…
Hey there simple simon…tell me how many Presidents OTHER THAN NIXON went after the press and others who disagreed with him the way obuma does.
[/quote]
Well, of the top of my head there is Lincoln and FDR and Wilson.
Only that they were faaaar worse.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I’m serious. I don’t hate the guy but he’s easy to despise. He’s such a weenie. A Chicago-ized version of Jimmah Carter.
This is an interesting observation. I don’t hate him either, but we are learning - as we all thought we would - about his personality and his governing style once the harsh glare was put on him. And what we see is not encouraging.
Forget Right and Left. Forget liberal and conservative. Some of Obama’s worst traits that are turning folks off have nothing to do with a particular political point of view.
He is peevish and petty. While he campaigned as an “above it all” statesman interested in serious engagement on issues, he wastes more time on tit-for-tat childishness than any president in recent memory (hence all the comparisons to Nixon).
He has a shockingly obvious Glass Jaw - he is easily bruised and does not weather criticism at all. This fuels so much of his energy spent trying to use the office of the presidency to smite his enemies, real or perceived (see Fox News).[/quote]
Quite so. I have to admit, I didn’t really see this aspect of the man coming though in retrospect it shouldn’t have been too difficult to spot. There were a couple tell tale signs during the campaign wherein the glue loosened up a bit, especially in response to Sarah Palin.
Whatever one thinks of ol GWB, for him, the cacophonous media barrage had the overall effect of BB’s on the rock of Gibraltar.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Tell me about it. Luckily you’re here to remind us he’s a pussy who should be despised. [/quote]
Do you ever have anything wortwhile or interesting to say? If you have nothing but sarcasm, at least make it funny or clever sarcasm - you aren’t even good at that.
He is like Nixon - Nixon was increasingly waging petty wars against any and all critics, and his insistence on devaluing the office of the presidency in order to do so was constantly keeping his administration from focusing on its job…and, ultimately, led to the Watergate scandal.
We see it already causing problems in Obama’s administration and his loss of support among independents. That this reality - recognized by opponents, supporters, and former supporters - doesn’t comport with your fanboyism is your problem to fix, not everyone else’s.
Learn history and do something - anything - other than your brain-dead anklebiting.
I thought Obama was fairly metrosexual all along, which could have been a predictor of this behavior.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Do you ever have anything wortwhile or interesting to say? [/quote]
Let’s see if I write something YOU would find interesting or worthwhile:
-Obama is horrible because of X, Y, and X.
-Obama is , , and .
TB style history? How does this sound:
I’ve read a few biographies of and was watching a History Channel bio of him the other night. While doing so I thought of the huge contrast between and BO. On the one hand you have a stud of the ages and on the other you have one of the thinnest skinned pussies of all time.
How’d I do?
So Gambit, why don’t you give us some substantive discussion.
Explain for us the positives of a President of the United States acting as Obama has with regard to Fox News, and of an Administration taking the actions this one has tried to take in this matter. Let us know how this speaks well of him.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee thinks he’s hipper than a bottle of designer Perrier… kinda.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
-Obama is horrible because of X, Y, and X.
-Obama is , , and .[/quote]
Poor baby. I have the audacity to criticize your love object. I can remember when “dissent was patriotic” among left-leaning types. Now, suddenly, even measured criticism like mine - supported by anyone paying attention, including Obama supporters who think his petty battle against Fox is a very, very bad idea - has you in a hissy.
We used to have good, left-leaning standard-bearers around here who could provide substantive points of view. You are not one. Run along.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So Gambit, why don’t you give us some substantive discussion.
Explain for us the positives of a President of the United States acting as Obama has with regard to Fox News, and of an Administration taking the actions this one has tried to take in this matter. Let us know how this speaks well of him.[/quote]
Exactly. What is the upside? Fox News isn’t going anywhere, and it will now double down on researching stories that are not favorable to the administration (i.e., Van Jones). Obama’s war on Fox has created a line in the sand, and if other news organizations not named Fox get the “Obama seal of approval”, they will become a laughingstock (well, more of one). And, a president who campaigned on “there are no red states, there are no blue states” is effectively buttoning himself into a pure partisan politician, and that is alienating the many independents who were once in his camp.
It is a bad move and demonstrates very bad judgment. There is nothing to be gained from it.
If anyone is going to provide a substantive discussion, though, it won’t be Gambit Lost - the poster of Obama on his wall (next to the Backstreet Boys, no doubt) stares over his shoulders as he types with its watchful eye, and Gambit Lost cannot endure the shame of being reasonable.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So Gambit, why don’t you give us some substantive discussion.
[/quote]
He never has and never will.
I mostly just read over the posts here anymore, and that is even much less often than it used to be. This is mainly because I am busy but also because discussion here can be pretty much spoiled when guys like him chime in with worthless juvenile commentary.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So Gambit, why don’t you give us some substantive discussion.
Explain for us the positives of a President of the United States acting as Obama has with regard to Fox News, and of an Administration taking the actions this one has tried to take in this matter. Let us know how this speaks well of him.
Exactly. What is the upside? Fox News isn’t going anywhere, and it will now double down on researching stories that are not favorable to the administration (i.e., Van Jones). Obama’s war on Fox has created a line in the sand, and if other news organizations not named Fox get the “Obama seal of approval”, they will become a laughingstock (well, more of one). And, a president who campaigned on “there are no red states, there are no blue states” is effectively buttoning himself into a pure partisan politician, and that is alienating the many independents who were once in his camp.
It is a bad move and demonstrates very bad judgment. There is nothing to be gained from it.
If anyone is going to provide a substantive discussion, though, it won’t be Gambit Lost - the poster of Obama on his wall (next to the Backstreet Boys, no doubt) stares over his shoulders as he types with its watchful eye, and Gambit Lost cannot endure the shame of being reasonable.
[/quote]
It doesn’t help that FOX is far and away the biggest television news outfit there is either. It might not be viewed as quite so sophomoric if the subject wasn’t also the current ratings eater.
Here’s a brilliant idea. Let’s take the one news outlet that doesn’t have it’s face buried in our ass crack and which also has the largest and most diverse viewership, declare it essentially an unprofessional non news propaganda network and warn the other networks not to follow it’s stories.
Number 1, tens of millions of people will instantly know about it.
Number2, Many millions more who may have never watched FOX will now tune in to see what all the fuss is about (which has happened)
Number 3, those tens of millions of people, many of whom are the very “moderates” we really need support from have just been called media dupes. Something sure to ingratiate ourselves to them.
Number 4, those same tens of millions of people watch the damn channel and know that what’s being said about it is simply untrue which makes us not only intellectually condescending, but liars as well.
Number 5, it makes us look cowardly and intimidated by an organization we’ve just been declaring a joke.
Number 6, OH SHIT, we forgot about Nixon.
But with the Mao-praisers in his Administration – two of his Czars have recently cited their agreement with Mao, and yet a third is an out-and-out Communist – as well as his self-described fascination with Marxism and student
Communist groups when he was younger, and the complete lack of disagreement of Obama policies with any of the planks of the Communist manifesto, why wouldn’t Obama promptly seek to muzzle critical media?
Well aside from having good judgment and recognizing that the particular effort in question would fail at this time.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
-Obama is horrible because of X, Y, and X.
-Obama is , , and .
Poor baby. I have the audacity to criticize your love object. I can remember when “dissent was patriotic” among left-leaning types. Now, suddenly, even measured criticism like mine - supported by anyone paying attention, including Obama supporters who think his petty battle against Fox is a very, very bad idea - has you in a hissy.[/quote]
This is a “hissy” huh? BTW, does this have anything to do with my point?
And I can’t imagine where they all ran off to with quality responses like yours here, or quality threads about how much we hate hate hate Obama.