And speaking of Cheney, notice how (besides a few TV interviews here and there) he also has virually dropped off into the night, like a slimy worm burrowing its way into the dark muck? Seeing as how HIS approval ratings are at THIRTEEN per cent, I'm not surprised.
Slimey.
War mongering.
Your dispassionate skills of criticism are showing again.
C-...just admit, you hate him. Don't pretend that you are an honest critic of his presidency. You are a joke.
Since you rely on opinion polls to justify your beliefs...what are you trying to push: that he was a bad president because many people don't like him/approve...or, that he was a bad president because he is a right wing zealot...or, that he was a bad president because you disagree with him?
or, is it what I believe: You hate him. And that that tightly bound bitter little ball must be rationalized because straight-forward admission of hatred of a man you do not know admits to no intellect, no critical thought and is simple bigotry.
Wow, can Bush really have been an ignorant redneck and an elitist at the same time? Can he have been an evil mastermind and a puppet at the same time? If he was an elitist puppet, wouldn't the war-mongers be the elitist puppeteers? Can you even be one of the elite and a puppet at the same time? This name-calling is ridiculous.
Bush made some really bad decisions, but he was human. If nothing else, his presidency confirms that good public speaking skills should be a skill of the president.
Well according to some, Bush is intelligent. Afterall, its not easy to organize a 9/11 conspiracy in 9 months, and keep it hidden for over 7 years. He must be a fucking evil genius! But he's at least apparantly an elitist, something surely that ignorant rednecks are not allowed to be. I mean, don't you have to be sort of elite to be considered an elitist?
Yes, you got me there. "I'm done." I'm so fucking humiliated, I will now go home and shoot myself... You sure showed me, and thoroughly dispelled any claims of media bias in one brilliant stroke.
Hokay -- the cost of the Obama party has blossomed in the right wing news media from 100 to 120 to 140 to 160 million. The sad part is, this isn't the party -- it's the cost of police and security, which is excluded from the Bush shindig. Either way, it's just a right wing militant rumour that got spread by Fox; there's not information nor support for it, apart from an application by the local government to cover increased policing and transit...
Personally, a smaller party might have been more fiscally responsible, but it looks like the Obama *party* is going to be pretty cheap, while the security to protect the millions who turn out to watch it will be pretty costly -- I doubt Obama can really ask them all to go home to live more cheaply rather than celebrate something they all clearly wanted so badly.
Yassas
While what you say may be true, one cannot decry the lack of evidence on the part of the purported "right wing militant" media(?) while supplying none of your own.
Further, if the icreased cost can be accounted for in increased security, then a "rumour" of increased cost is no longer a rumour. Which do you ascribe: A rumour perpetrated by Fox and the right wing or, a real increase in cost that may rise to the $120M but is, in fact, justified by increased security?
Thanks Streamy, I can only strive to spank C as well as you.
And I didn't realize you were also a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy? I guess I should have known, but being a conspiracy, the membership roster is secret of course.
What defense?
This is funny stuff. There are volumes of political misspeak averywhere.
The fact that you see something bigger in this belies your biases.
Well burning a whole bush at once would be wasteful. Streamy, regardless of your personal religious beliefs, (which apparantly are fair game for ridicule here) this is only their lame-assed attempt to discredit you, since they can't discredit your points with facts. Simple smear tactics are Canucks only defense, and he quickly loses the battle with facts and intelligence alone.
funny the other day I saw some lady in a cafe who said something to the effect of... Obama is stepping on Bush's toes because he's getting to work early and being on the scene... blah blah blah it's disrespectful of Bush to do that.
I didn't kill her on the spot but I know I should have.
Hey! Canuck feels a part of something! He feels...connected. Who needs to think for themselves or develop an opinion? Just be one of the herd.
First, you complain about the mindless herds who are believers in Jesus.
Then, you trumpet your membership in an opinion poll's majority.
Man...I wanna be on that bandwagon.
(Wipe the tear from your eye, C-. I know you just listened to the inauguration.)
Yes, that would be sooo appropriate. Those celebrating the innauguration of the nation's first black president, could spend the remainder of the afternoon lynching white people!
From this day forth, any and all problems are officially entirely Obama's fault.
I don't see what I need to back-peddle on. You're the one suggesting the very same people celebrating the improved opportunities for blacks in this nation today, should be running around "lynching" people, the vigilante mob crime so often used to oppress blacks in this nations past.
I'm only guilty of assuming Streamo might be white. But hey, he's already ignorant, racist, redneck, and uneducated in your opinion, so maybe I can make an occasional assumption of my own.
Either that, or you were suggesting that the black people should be lynched? Maybe you could expand on why you feel some people in this nation deserve to be lynched?
I thought back-peddling would be your responsibility, Mr. "I own what I say"? I mean who was suggesting that people should lynch Streamo, in the very midst of their celebration of how far black American opportunities have come?
HellDiver...
STOP. He has had enough.
I know that he begs for it, with his witty reparte and dickensian charm, but really. Give the poor guy a break. You know, call him a phallically derived name...make fun of his sexual choices...a mother joke...anything but the careful use of reason and logic.
Gee. Stream-O......you sound like you need a trip down memory lane! Okay. Well, I'm sure you and millions of others watched Obamas inauguration yesterday, right? Millions of people.....enthusiasm abounded......lots of cheering....lots of waving....not a single episode of misbehaviour....all-round optimism and good-natured celebrating......right? You get all that? Good.
Now......let's take a look back at Georgie-Boys inauguration day EXACTLY 8 years ago, shall we?:
My-my-my......quite the contrast...wouldn't you say?
I can't say I've seen one example of hostility (or shoe!) thrown at Obama (I'm leaving out the part with the eggs being thrown at this SOB's limo, of course). Nope. No-siree. Not-a-one.
But THIS idiot?
He was marked right from Day One. Now why on earth was THAT, I wonder? Now golly.....I sho' nuff can't rightly figuh thet one out, ah reckon.
Maybe folks just.....misunderestimated...him, ya think?
C-
This is what we call evidence.
I swear, honey...give you just a little rope and you put the noose around your neck.
Your side of the political spectrum is not known for class, dignity or decorum. In fact, your side is known for teat-fits and foot-stamping when their way is not gotten; cries of cheating, stolen elections and the like.
My side, with all its faults, is known for dignified behavior in the face of a loss; sportsmanship, as it were. No tales of mayhem in the White House on the eve of BHO's inauguration.
I don't remember the media cautioning the American left to hope and pray for GWB's success as a President.
You throw that video up there and it is evidence that your side of political spectrum is populated, to some degree, by spoiled little children who cannot fathom anything beyond their own zippers, mouths and backsides.
Thank you, though, for continuing to make this one of the easiest commentaries ever.
It does NOT surprise me AT ALL.....that when it comes to even something like administering an oath, this Republi-goon, Bush-appointed fucking hack, can't even get THIS right.
I thought it was even classy the way Obama gently corrected him, and the sorry sack-of-shit "Chief Justice" back on track.
That's okay.
Another idiot who'll be out of a job soon, anyways.
Two points to ponder, C-:
Number 1- Who flubbed first? The brilliant and eloquent Obama? (Who needs not a teleprompter here. Why, he had someone feeding him his lines.) Or, the dufus Chief Justice who seemed to misstep AFTER BHO prematurely interjected.
Number 2- After you "quoted" the Constitution some time ago, I thought for sure you would keep your distance from these matters. Alas, you once again peep your head out of your butt just long enough to put your foot in your mouth. (Thank you, Cousin Diver, for edumacating the obviously smarter fella.)
Well, seeing as how Georgie-Boy and Cheney-Crotch just finished spending 8 consecutive years crapping all over the Constitution with outright impunity AND set the precedent for it.....I'd say the Chief Justice can just shut his pie-hole and have seat in the back-forty.
I am sure you have expertise in the nutless monkey category.
Please describe Bush's Constitution trouncing again?
(This is my favorite part: C- looks up the Constitution online, then quotes it. And then, tries to show how the Pres disobeyed it. But sometimes, hehe, it's not the Constitution he's quoting...he just thinks it is.)
Now, as a vehement defender of the Constitution you must be opposed to all those federal agencies, etc that are not allowed for or mandated. You must also be opposed to the money spent on all those things that are rightly delegated to the states, according to the 10th Amendment.
Glad to know you are on our side, C-.
By the way, thanks for another phallic allusion. Don't want this do disintegrate into an exchange of ideas.
And as for the Constitution, I've already schooled you enough on it. If you don't get it by this point, then it's up to you to get to a remedial history class.
Pretty sad when you have to seek out the advice of a "foreigner" on such matters.
Also (in yet another broadside here), I never could figure out why the frig ANY candidate needs a book of fables to swear his oath on----seeing as how, it's NOT required by the Constitution. JUst raise their right hand, take the damn oath and toss the book of fairy tales in the dumpster. End of story.
Plus...The Man been busy on his FIRST DAY: an executive order signed to close Gitmo within the year; another exec. order for a mandatory (if not symbolic) salary freeze for all White House employees making over 100K a year; another executive order basically telling lobbyists (who flourished at the WH under Georgie-Boy) to pack their bags; a meeting with his military brass to implement a responsible and orderly withdrawl from Eye-Rak.......
and all on DAY ONE.
PRAISE JAYZUS!!!
(looks like he meant everything he said.....and he is NOT screwing around)
C-
Nice evasion on the Constitution thing.
Dude...I am giving you opportunity to bring up your ideas and intellect for a newer group of people, the approval of whom you deeply need. Just giving you a helping hand.
As to your broadside, (not talking about your donut induced girth here)...what good is an oath, C-? By what standard will it be judged? It should make no difference to you whether it is held on a Bible or stack of Denny's menu's. I would think, since you are one of impeccable mral credentials, that you would want the oath sworn by the Pres to be taken over something that he feels holds him to a higher standard. Maybe not, though. For you, the highest standard is the one you make up.
As to your first day EO's: We'll have to see what is done, when it is done. He gave himself a lot of wiggle room, C-. A lot.
Already softened his Gitmo stance, from the campaign to the election. Much, much softer.
I HAVE gone 'round-and-'round with YOU on the whole Constitution issue, even going so far as to post actual excerpts from it. You, on the other hand, offered not a SINGLE example of where I'm wrong on it, beyond your usual "liar liar pants on fire" arguments. Anyone that cares to look back that far, can easily go on this site and see it for themselves. It's all there. So as for me....no way. No more. Not gonna waste my time. You wanna spend your life perverting and twisting the meaning of your own Constitution because you interpret it through an asinine religious haze, that's your affair. Not my job to set you straight. On the other note, re: your rebuttal on the book of fairy tales being used to administer the oath, you said ".....you would want the oath sworn by the Pres to be taken over something that he feels holds him to a higher standard"......well, if THAT'S the case, then supposing President Obama was a devout muslim, okay? Then seeing as how the 'bible' is NOT required by the Constitution and let's say he chose to take his oath upon the Koran.....then that would be fine with YOU......right? Yeah...I thought so. And whos "higher standard" are you exactly referring to? Yours? Meaning YOU and YOUR....ummm...errrr....flock?
And once again...you missed the point about what I said about those exec. orders: he did this all in ONE DAY. ONE EFFING DAY. Just in one day, he's done more good than the dolt who held the office before him did in EIGHT YEARS.
You DO know where that phrase comes from....don't you? Or did you stop caring about that long ago, and chose instead to put more credence in talking snakes that make women eat fruit from a tree?
C-student...
There was a thread, about a year ago, where you went on and on and on about what our Constitution says, etc. You even pulled a "quote" from it. You then loudly proclaimed Bush's abuse of said constitutional powers. You made the emphatic point that you were quoting, since you cut and pasted, our Constitution. There was one big, bloated problem: It wasn't our Constitution. You made it up. I have a copy right here and I had it then. I googled your reference and found it to be a part of some commentary that had been circulating around the web. I actually found it on Salon. So, it showed me that you were willing to fabricate in order to bolster a point; you were lazy; and, that, when left impotent, were not willing to take responsibility for the silliness you were trying to sell.
Now, as then, the spankings regarding our Constitution will continue. You willingly disregard history, culture, context in order to salvage your small worldview.
Should you wish to engage, and I am sure you won't, about the constitutional aspects of Pres authority, I am here. Until then, you remain bigoted in your opinions and bitter in your hatred.
Your hypothetical about BHO is ludicrous. Were we in a country founded upon Islamic principles, then the Koran would be the chosen book by which to give an oath. But, we are not. Typically, Islamic leadership is not sworn in by voluntary oath to defend something like a nation. Further, in these times, a devout Muslim would not likely be elected to the presidency in the USA. Your hypothetical to expose my prejudices is, as always, dead on arrival.
"Higher Standard". C-, I keep asking this question: If there is no absolute author, arbitor or creator of morality, one cannot plead to a higher standard since we all would have our own; rendering "higher standard" a non sequitur. But, you often deal in those, so what diff does it make, right?
No one missed the point, C-. Those OE's are pointless until action is taken. Day one or day twenty...who cares. Until the action is taken, they are empty.
I invite any and all to go back and look. Scared, Stream-O? You should be. Besides, YOU of ALL people here should know that I do NOT claim only one source of information in my posts; it could be CNN, Salon, Faux News, NBC, ABC, AP, Reuters, CBS, Bloomberg, Politico, Al-Jazeera, Haartz...whatever. YOU....have offered...what? "Newsmax", as well as your own blabbing about having your own "copy of the Constitution"....and "The Bible"....and....that's it, pretty well. Like I said...waste of time.
As for your other moronic argument......why won't you answer my question? According whos "higher standard" should the President take his oath? According to WHOM? WHOM? Answer....the goddamn...question. For once.
Ignored my other question (again):
Seeing as how the Constitution does NOT require a "bible" of ANY kind, and IF PRESIDENT Obama WAS a devout muslin and that was HIS "higher standard"....then WHY could he not swear his oath on the Koran IF that was the case? Repeat: the Constitution does NOT require a holy book of ANY kind, for a President to be sworn in. Therefore, WHY could it not be an individuals PERSONAL choice? Answer....the goddamn....question.
This is your last frakkin' chance to give me a straight answer to these two very basic questions. LAST CHANCE.
If you side-step them again.....we'll go back to my usual responses to you.
C-...
Really. Let me make short work of your banalities.
MSN article 1: I know your point in posting it gives credence, in your own mind, that Obama is doing something and that it puts a big exclamation point on the things you believe he believes.
It doesn't.
What in the world would you expect a Pres from the opposing party to do? Run things just like the previous admin? Keep GWB's policies in place? (Actually, it looks like my last two questions might be affirmatives.) That article simply spells out what he "intends" to do. Time will tell.
Article numero dos: I couldn't help but read that his staff and possibly himself are too reliant on their Facebooks, Dingleberries and iPods. "Wandering the halls?" Not looking too good for the annointed one.
(Little FYI...the previous 250 years have not hung on the technological prowess of the Pres. They make phone calls, meet with people, etc.
Facebook?! Is that a good thing?)
Article trois: Really wanna go there? I read the liners of each question and some of them are out and out falshoods.
BTW...which of the liners are you agreeing with? Which ones are not on the BHO chopping block?
Should be fun.
C-
I also invite one and all.
You are busted as a liar. I can leave it at that.
By the way, why would I consult all those sources on a question of constitutionality when I can pick up my copy (free with a membership to the Cato Institute) and read it first? This points to one of my earliest assertions about you: You do not think for yourself. You rely on what others tell you, from all sorts of like-minded sources. Your point is simply to show that your own judgment is weak and feeble. Why not lie? Why not cite all sorts of gobbledigook? Just because 15 different people say the same thing does not make it so. Or, have you forgotten the old saw, "Repeat a lie long enough..."
Let's try this again, logically. (I am typing very slow for you.)
You claim there is no author/creator. I claim otherwise. So, you are left with the logically indefensible position of appealing to a higher standard, when one cannot exist.
In the good ol' USA, we believe in the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible as part/source of those things that our country was founded. Not everyone believes in that God, just most. (So, on that little bit of majoritarian thought, you are in the minority.)
Biggest point: I never said that the Bible was necessary for the oath. You assumed what I might believe. You asked why and I told you. Still can't read, my friend, still can't read.
EO's aren't action, dunder. When they are carried out, then they are action.
The door is OPEN for Gitmo, wiretapping and waterboarding. The language of the EO's and his political speak says so.
You do make stuff up as fact. Claiming things to be fact that aren't...you know, like the Constitutional quoting you do.
Side-stepped the same two goddamn questions again.
You just couldn't fuckin' do it....could you? COULD YOU? That's ALL you had to do. But noooooooo......you had to (as usual) go on yet another long-winded rant, by cloaking yourself in a lot of stupid myths, fantasies and hackneyed observations through a nutty religious lens.
hi , Sanchez may be right about Obama. Some say he is not what he appears to be . Some say he is a communist. Some say he was born not in the US . I don't know I hope he is a stand up person and will make changes .
Being a Canadian we are still effected by the US .
We are the tail of the elephant . Near the shit ,but you know what they say if you are constipated it can kill you look at John Wayne he died of constipation.
Is the moral of the tale ,don't be full of shit . Cm
i have big doubts about obama for one very good reason. canuck likes him!
now, bush was a spastic and easy to hate, so canuck hated him. doohh....
but instinct tells me that if the mad canadian security guard likes someone, eventually they'll turn out to be a crock of shit. just look what happened to miter after canuck starting sucking his ass.
And I've disagreed with him wildly on the whole gun-thingy issue (and on other issues with Mako, Bugster, Pods, Gymyg, Chaz, Goldie, Arseface, Skids, Surferbum, et al)........and lemme see.....I've gotten nasty with them how many times?
kinda.
But since I referenced something in the past that I wrote, I can't imagine that you understood it then nor would have improved in your reading skills enough to understand it now.
Wipe your chin, honey. The drool is hitting the keyboard.
I believe man's greed will win, and that is found in both parties.
The annoying point about liberal thinking, and i say this being rather liberal (well i thought i was), is that liberal ideology is usually promoted by liberals, from a conservative back ground. You never seem to get liberal thinking from people on the breadline. This is something that has started to annoy.
The spin off of a welfare system = un-motivated people
It is survival of the fittest, that will keep man alive, or will liberal thinking drag man down to the common denominator.
Check This Out!! Watch my sexy videos.. Also i have my own sex videos!!For free!! 100% Guaranteed Satisfaction!! Just Simply Click This Link To Access My Videos!! --------->>>http://budurl.com/mcvt
Comments (100)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.