Friday, July 25, 2008

An Enjoyable Article About Obama

Finally one I enjoyed reading. I was laughing out loud just before 2 AM.

H/T Hot Air

Of course those who believe he is a messianic leader will be offended. Let em be offended.

13 Comments:

Blogger Mark said...

Obama's popularity is funny, in a scary kind of way. I just can't get over how many idjits are slobbering all over this dumbass.
that was a great bit.

3:45 AM  
Blogger dons_mind said...

good find! enjoyed reading that also....

10:15 AM  
Blogger Gayle said...

The writer of that article is brilliant! Thanks, Shoprat. LOL!

12:02 PM  
Anonymous Americaneocon said...

"... with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow ... "

That is funny!!

11:06 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

That is a brilliant satire!

I hope that the Obamamaniacs ARE offended. They deserve to be humiliated, actually.

11:59 AM  
Blogger Tim said...

"I just can't get over how many idjits are slobbering all over this dumbass."

Like the idjits who re-elected the villiage idjit now occupying the Oval Office?

"... with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow ... "

I seem to recall that W has partaken of the forbidden fruits himself, but as long as he's a Republican, I guess you'll let bygones be bygones...

I thought the editorial was funny, too. I don't think Barrack is the new Messiah, but it's obvious that he is way more charismatic and skilled at motivating and inspiring large numbers of people than either McCain or Bush.

After 8 years, two wars, Katrina, the Housing crisis, the energy crisis, Enron, etc., I do think that the people are looking for someone who can set things right. I agree with you that Barrack is not some Christlike figure, but maybe, just maybe, he might be another Kennedy. Someone who can reunite the country and end the war in Iraq.

1:23 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Once again tim you draw an interesting analogy, If charisma is so f--cking important to you, Hitler would have been your choice for your leader a few decades ago, hell Ahmadinejad might be your choice now. Bush is in office for the very poor reason of voting for the lesser of two fools. it seems this country is in a rut of nominating the two biggest boneheads as their ccandidates, it seems we need some more parties here, we just might be able to get someone with an IQ greater than their shoe size past the primaries if we did, by accident if nothing else.
I'm sure you're impressed by a fool who as a candidate, no less, goes forth to the world to apologize for how stupid us Americans are. In Germany no less, yeah, Germany sure has suffered for our arrogance in WW2, huh tim? many of us are somewhat unimpressed by this arrogant, stupid, fool.

7:51 AM  
Blogger shoprat said...

You hit the nail on the head Mark. In the last two elections Bush was the lesser of two evils and I still believe that. That Bush was a less than stellar president is no excuse to bring an idiot like Obama into the White House. You think Bush botched the presidency? If Obama wins he will make Bush look like a genius and a saint. When you have to take either a head cold or Ebola, only a fool takes Ebola, so I will vote for McCain.

9:24 AM  
Blogger Tim said...

Obviously, we disagree and there can be no compromise on who we think will be the better candidate. Apologizing and mending fences to other countries is a start to regaining the respect abroad that was squandered by Bush.
No, I don't think that Hitler would have gotten my vote. He was too rightwing for me. You, I'm sure would have happily given your vote to him as you agree with singling out a group of helpless people (illegal immigrants) as a scapegoat to all of the problems we face as a nation. He also told the rest of the world to go to hell, which is another message from the Neo-cons. Actually, Hitler is the ideal Republican candidate judging by the haters running that party.
Obama is not Ebola or a Cold. He is a shot of Vitamin B! I also voted for the lesser of two evils last time. My candidate lost.
I remember the 1990's well, and things were a lot better than they are now, and there is only one party to blame for how we got to this point now. Remember:until two years ago they ran the whole show.

11:59 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Hitler was a socialist, Obama is a socialist. jeez, you don't even know your right from your left tim, and yet you vote. scary.

8:38 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

Just because the Nazis called themselves "National Socialists" does not mean that they were socialists. If you look at how the major industrialists of Germany at the time collaborated with the Nazi's to make money (with slave labor provided by the Nazi's)it is obvious that the economy of Germany at the time was a fascist system where the few at the top benfitted at the expense of the many. In fact, the militarization of the country for the purpose of invading the countries surrounding them and stealing anything that they deemed to have value, again, so that the top end of society gets almost all of the benefits.

"National Socialism had some of the key ideological elements of fascism which originally developed in Italy under Benito Mussolini; however. Both ideologies involved the political use of militarism, nationalism, anti-communism and paramilitary forces, and both intended to create a dictatorial state. The Nazis, however, were far more racially-oriented than the fascists in Italy, Portugal, and Spain. The Nazis were also intent on creating a completely totalitarian state."

"Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, and promoting unity, strength and purity."

Socialism has no racial motivation.

"Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services."

So how does Nazism, with its "Fuhrer Prinzip" (the leader has complete and total control and must be implicitly obeyed on pain of death) gel with the concept that all goods and means of production are to be controlled equally by the people? If anything Nazism sounds more like absolute Monachy, wouldn't you say?

So I hope that now that I have explained it to you, you know your right from your left. I am not affraid that you vote, Mark. I must say, though, that unless you are a rich business man, you will be voting against your own best interests.

I think both parties look out for corporate interests (after all, who do you think pays to put them in office?) at least with the Dem's they throw the little guys a few of the crumbs.

8:56 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

yeah, so Hitler murdering millions because they were Jews is bad, Uncle Joe, Mao, Pol Pot killing millions because they were undesirable peasants is good. Hitler's government control of industry bad, Uncle Joe's, Mao's, Castro's control of industry good. Hitler's party hijack of the German government bad, Uncle Joe's Politburo, which the DNC's "superdelagate" system is designed after, in which, control is usurped from the people and given to a select few, is good.
Government is noble, upright, kind, caring. business, and all involved in commerce, are evil, wicked, bad, and nasty....right...

3:56 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

So you do not believe in government?
"Anarchism-
is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support the elimination of all compulsory government(including but not limited to the state), and is often described as opposition to all forms of authority.Anarchism is defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics as "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state"
"There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing ideology."

So, really, you are a radical left winger?

I also noticed that the "Bad People" that you mention (Stalin, Mao (whose book on fighting a guerilla war I have read and found to be quite good, I might add), and Castro) Are Communists, not Social Democrats (the very German government that you said it was bad that Hitler overthrew them).
Communism is an extreme radical leftwing offshoot of Socialism. If I called a moderate Republican a Nazi I would be commiting the same error that your current remark does by comparing apples to oranges. It's funny, but as much as right wingers like yourself rail against political correctness, I find that it is the politicians and media personalities on the right that have co-opted the language and twisted the meanings of certain terms and definitions of certain words to control the conversation and thought life of their constituency.
Socialism, as in the "social welfare state" model of government is practiced by both republicans and democrats and has been since the beginning of the 20th century. What horrible "socialist" programs do you want axed first? "Social" Security? The public school system. What about the Postal service? How about the GI Bill after WW2? What a crazy socialist scheme that was!

Personally Mark, I like to think that we are all in this thing called "America" together. And if we don't all hang together, rest assured that we will all hang separately.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Notice that they mention promoting the general welfare. OMG! the founders were talking about the general welfare. Imagine that.

I actually DO take the time to delve into the issues and political stances of both candidates. I am not saying that I have made up my mind yet on Obama. I have said before that I like McCain, but I think that he is too old and not as mentally sharp as he was when I voted for him in the 2000 Republican primary. I have just been so disgusted with the last eight years (and most people out there are like me) that I just can't see voting for the same people that got us to where we are today. I am keeping an open mind, but right now I am leaning democratic, because yes, there are times when a bit of socialism is a good thing.

5:12 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home