Obama is an awful President. He’s also a hypocrite. From his heavy vacationing and lavish spending at the same time he’s telling the rest of us to tighten our belts, to his wife's diet-tribes, to his tax cheat cabinet, to his exempting his friends from his own policies, to his strange disparate handling of issues in the Middle East, he’s a hypocrite.Hypocrisy One: Vacation-O-bamarama
You may recall the late unpleasantness, i.e. the recession that cost millions of Americans their jobs or significant pay cuts. Unemployment hit a level not seen since the inept Jimmy Carter. Tax revenues are down too. So both individuals and governments from Spain to China to Wisconsin to California have been forced to tighten their belts. Obama even spoke some words of sympathy to us, assuring us he felt our pain. Only, he didn’t. Obama never stopped taking luxury vacations. This week, Michelle Obama is in Vail, enjoying a wonderful skiing holiday with her fabulous friends, as they gorge on ribs.
But never fear all of the “personal expenses” were paid by the Obamas. Ok, what about the rest of it? The plane, the staff, the security and their room and board? We're paying for that.
At least she didn’t bring O’Biden, he’s in the Florida Keys for a well (un)deserved vacation.
And don’t get me started on the food hypocrisy.Hypocrisy Two: Do As I Say Taxpayer. . .
You should have known something was wrong the moment Obama started advocating tax increases “for the rich” at the same time he tried to pack his cabinet with tax evaders. Seriously, how is it that so many of his people felt they didn’t have to pay the same taxes we do? Then came ObamaCare. Did you notice how hard Team Obama worked to make sure the healthcare plans belonging to his union buddies would not be subject to the Cadillac tax? Somehow, the taxes were good for everyone else, but not Obama’s friends. And everyone in Congress and the White House were exempted from ObamaCare. Why? Then we learned that hundreds of friends of Obama were submitting waiver requests so ObamaCare wouldn’t apply to them, and GE got a waiver from EPA rules it had been lobbying for.
Do as I say, not as I do, indeed.Hypocrisy Three: Some Oppressors Are Worse Than Others
Remember how Obama didn’t care at all about terrorism until it hit an African country? In fact, he couldn’t even bring himself to say the word. . . “man-made disaster” my shiny butt.
Then we had a true moment of inspiration on the international front, as a people, tired of their brutally oppressive government, rose up and tried to bring down their insane dictator. I’m talking, of course, about Iran. As the protestors took to the streets in Iran, Obama said.... nothing. As the army beat the protestors, tear gassed them and shot them, Obama said.... nothing. A few days later, he went on television to proclaim his fondest hopes that both sides would play nicely. As if the protestors were the bad guys!
Obama had another chance when crowds rose up against the thuggish leader of Tunisia. He said nothing.
Then came Egypt. After an initial period where he, O’Biden and Shillary Clinton sent the mixiest of mixed signals, Obama finally got his foreign policy legs and came down firmly on the side of freedom against this not especially repressive regime, who happened to be a long term American ally. So we finally have the new Obama Doctrine, right? Obama would now side with the people?
Well, no. He hasn’t said jack about Libya. As Gaddafi’s army guns down protestors by the hundreds, Obama spent his time fretting about a dispute between Democrats and Republicans in Wisconsin. There is no legitimate foreign policy distinction to be made here. If anything, he should have be more vocal against people who aren’t our allies, like Iran and Libya, and people who are gunning down their own citizens. Yet he doesn't. Why?
Because the man is a bully. He throws his weight around against people who won’t fight back, and he remains noticeably silent as evil dictators mow down their own citizens. At the same time, let me remind you that Obama used to rail against Bush for supporting dictators throughout the world. . . the same dictators he now coddles or whose atrocities he turns a blind eye to in places like Libya, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Venezuela, etc.
Unless I'm missing something here, the man is a hypocrite. Is that how you see it?
Monday, February 21, 2011
Hypocrite: (noun) Obama.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
75 comments:
I think you nailed it, the man's a hypocrite. There really is no justification for not speaking out on Libya at least as strongly as he spoke out on Honduras or Egypt.
Also on the vacation thing, talk about having a tin ear for politics. There was a reason people made the Marie Antoinette comparisons. Let them eat unemployment.
Also, as an update on Wisconsin, it sounds like the governor there has found a way to win this thing. Apparently, they can put the union thing into a non-spending bill and pass it with just a majority vote. So they can do that without the Democrats! Ha ha!
Good for him. What a rising star!
Yes he Is! Let us not also forget he is the "civility president (not) It is patriotic to protest if you are a union thug, but disruptive if you protested against healthcare reform.
He's not only just a hypocrite, but he revealing himself as an untrustworthy hypocrite to our allies AND our opponents. He's not even trustworthy to his once ardent followers. He's a moving target of policy and alliances. The worst kind of hypocrite - an blinding example of an Orwellian hypocrite. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
We know that politicians can be hypocrites. We're all hypocrites on something, but most of us are consistent in our hypocrisy. I, for one can't stand to see animals suffer, but I am a devoted carnivore. As long as I don't have to see an animal suffer, it's okay by me. I would probably be a vegetarian if I had to kill my own food. Hypocrite.
Obama is something different entirely...
Oh, I forgot about the "conversation about race" we were all supposed to have "one of these days." I feel like he probably gave out "my mom and dad got to have a conversation about race, but all I got was a beer summit" teeshirts.
Ed, I'm honestly a lot shocked that he hasn't spoken out more. One things liberals have whined about since the first Gulf War was "if we were in power, we would stand up to dictators and we would never coddle them." So the first, second, third and fifth chances he gets, he coddles them?
Not to mention that he kowtows to the Chinese. He's all but ignored problems in Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. etc. He's totally abandoned everything the left said they would do.
As for the skiing trip. At least she didn't take the girls to Switzerland or Austria. Vail is a step in the right direction for our own little Marie Antoinette...
Jed, Very true. It was highly patriotic to stand up to power when someone else had it, but it's trying to bring back slavery when people stand up to him. He really is despicable.
Bev, Good point. I think to a degree we are all hypocrites because we all aspire to be "better" than we are -- like your vegetarian example. I think that's eminently forgivable.
I also don't have problems with things like Presidents having to take more complicated vacations or whatever because of security concerns, i.e. he can't just head down to the park and hang out.
BUT, as you note, his hypocrisy goes WAY beyond that. He is actively distinguishing between people he likes and people he doesn't and he's applying different standard to each -- the "some animals are more equal than others approach." I honestly, don't recall any prior President who's acted this way. There have been things that I disagreed with or which I thought were bad policies with prior Presidents, but I've NEVER seen a prior President apply their policies only to people they don't like. That's stunning!
And you're absolutely right that this is ruining our foreign relations. Who can possibly trust this man, knowing they may get thrown under the bus whenever he decides to change his mind?
Bev, As an aside, this even affects his domestic agenda. If I was a liberal, I would be furious at all of the needless sell outs he's engaged in!
And as a double aside, I pretty much share your view on vegetarianism, philosophically I think it's probably the right thing, but I like the taste of steak too much. Hmm.
Jed, Another good example. He's supposed to move beyond race and we're supposed to be honest about race.... except we're all supposed to share his opinions or we're evil.
And so much of what he's said, particularly to black audiences, has been loaded with code words to tell them that groups like the Tea Party want to enslave them. It's truly despicable.
Bev, She didn't take them to Austria because she doesn't speak Austrian.... (snicker snicker). Seriously though, she could have gone to any number of ski resorts besides the most expensive, most celebrity-laden in the US.
But in truth, I don't care where she goes. What stuns me is how often she goes. I think the Obama's have had more vacations in any one of their years in the White House than I've had in my entire life. And the timing is very bad. A better politician would understand how badly this looks and would try to do something quiet, out of sight, and more budget-conscious.
I also wonder why the left doesn't seem upset by this? I guess they're fine with high-living royalty?
Ed, I saw that. Add him to the list indeed. The Republican list of future contenders is suddenly growing a lot larger.
I saw too that Christie is exploring possibly running. I figured he would eventually.
Ed, I saw that too. I don't know what I think about him yet. I like what I've heard from him and what I've seen in New Jersey, but I haven't seen anywhere near the whole picture yet, just the things that have made the news.
Also (sorry to be off topic), the University of Wisconsin is going to investigate the doctors who are giving out the fake sick notes. Here's the link:
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/02/21/university-of-wisconsin-medical-school-launches-investigation-of-doctors-fake-sick-notes/
It's about time.
That's ok Ed. And I agree, it is about time. Doctors handing out fake sick notes strikes me as fraud since they know those are being used to obtain money from the government. That's a False Claims Act violation if it's federal and I'm sure they have a state equivalent -- everyone does.
Here's your link: LINK
I understand the distinction, hypocrite is a nice way of saying Barry’s a liar, a liar of monumental proportions. In fact he lies when the truth would be just as easy, some might even call him a sociopath- - someone who lies to get their way. Without question anything Barry say’s should be instantly suspect, do not believe a word he says…he lies.
One other thing, he had his Homeland Security Chief warn people of right wing extremism. Basically designating Veterens, Tea Partiers, and Right Wing Talk show hosts as being capable of terrorist acts.
Then declares the border secured against terrorists.
Neither of which is true, but.... he thinks of United States legal citizens as terrorists. Whereas actual terrorists are just misguided boys.
The sooner this man is out of office the better it will be for all of us.
Stan, I'm starting to think you're not a fan of his? LOL!
I like that phrase -- "a liar of monumental proportions."
What's interesting is that Obama doesn't even seem to lie strategically, i.e. to win things for his side. He seems to lie whenever it's convenient, and he lies to his friends as much as his enemies. That's not a recipe for success.
To jump into about Chris Christie, he is a RINO. No mistake about it. Yes, he is going to fix his budget, but he has some very disturbing ideas.
Google: Chris Christie Rino
You will find many articles. Mostly about him liking Mike Castle. Christie at least is anti-gun.
Joel, That's a good point, and a very offensive thing he did. To label a wide swath of average Americans potential terrorists just because they disagreed with him is obscene.
Even more annoying, these people did nothing more than exercise their rights of free assemble and free speech, and they did so in a VERY responsible manner. Yet, somehow, they are potential terrorists.... but leftist hacks and union thugs beating people up, trashing parks, using "hate speech" etc. are somehow patriotic citizens?
You're right about the border too. That thing is about as sealed at the Titanic, and yet we're supposed to be persuaded that this no longer an issue?
And adding to the hypocrisy list, look at Arizona. He calls them all kinds of nasty names and sues them to stop them from enforcing the same law he's supposedly enforcing?????
Joel, That's my concern about falling in love with a politician I know little about. Christie has done some exciting things. But then, so did Giuliani and Scott Brown and others who turned out not to be so great. I keep meaning to look into Christie and check out his whole record.
I'll look him up and write something about him.
Thanks for the heads up!
Andrew, the Libya thing has me totally confused (on every level, but that's for later). Okay, let's assume the worst, which is that Obama is motivated by an anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist grudge against the West and therefore refuses to get involved with the Middle East if it looks like the U.S. might benefit from it. Okay. But take us out of the equation: Gaddafi has murdered hundreds of his own people in the past few days, half of his government and most of the army (well, those members of it who are actually Libyan citizens) has defected in outrage at his barbarity, and now there's word of a pending all-out air strike against the city of Benghazi. If--and I stress if--Obama feels some kind of solidarity with "his African brethren," shouldn't he be helping them overthrow the despot oppressing them, or at the very least, publicly encouraging them? Or is he really that aloof, and by "aloof," I mean "detached from reality"? I don't get it.
I think the Obamas should make a grand state visit to his ancestral lands in Kenya. They could travel about the country in a gold-gilt hippo crate. That was what you were talking about, wasn't it?
In case I hadn't mentioned it, I hate Obama. His hypocrisy is high on my list of why I hate him.
T_Rav, It is highly confusing and I honestly don't have an answer that I can say, "this is why." I can guess, but I'm not 100% certain.
My guess is that Obama is the classic bully. He will push around those who can be pushed and he will avoid those who will not be pushed or might fight back because he doesn't want to expose himself as powerless.
If he tells Gaddafi, you must do this, Gaddafi is just as likely to say "F... you." Then Obama looks bad because he has no plan B. So I'm thinking he thinks it's better to avoid commenting than it is to expose himself as powerless. But when it's someone who relies on us (Egypt or Honduras), then he happily throws his weight around -- of course, when they flip him the bird (as Honduras did), then he basically quits too.
That's the only reason I can see for him not being out there at least leading the charge of demanding that they stop killing their own people and respect human rights and all the usual platitudes.
But frankly, even that theory makes little sense. He has nothing to lose by being out ahead there condemning, etc. etc. on this. It's not like he needs to send in troops to back up those words. So I really don't know why he hasn't been more vocal?
Any ideas?
Also, what's got you confused on every level?
Lawhawk, Of course, you mean "Hawaii" (not Kenya)! ;-) He could still do the gold crate thing! LOL!
The problems with hypocrisy as I see it are twofold. First, it wipes out any moral power he may have, i.e. the power of persuasion. And have the job of President is persuasion. Secondly, it causes you to lose the people's trust, even your supporters. So he's turning off the very people he needs and squandering the very power he needs. Bad idea.
In terms of hating him, yes, I think you may have mentioned that. LOL!
Is it wrong to say I can't stand Obama? Everything he does makes me unhappy. I really don't think he cares at all about anything except himself!
Andrew, there's actually a good deal of discussion online about whether or not the U.S. and/or NATO should go beyond words and resort to military intervention. In my opinion, that would be a bad idea for anything beyond air policing and it'll almost certainly never happen anyway, but there is a lot of loose talk to that effect.
What has me confused? Frankly, I think there are too many revolutions or potential revolutions right now for me to keep track of. I'd need both hands and a foot to count all the countries experiencing instability, no one knows where Gaddafi is, and equally important, I don't have a clue how this is going to work out for us in the long run. Every account of Libya I've been reading the past day or two agrees that the country, unlike Egypt, has basically no civil society of any kind; in fact it's hardly a "country" at all, being held together mainly by the whacko-in-chief. If he goes, it'll probably dissolve into its constituent tribes and provinces, at least for a while, leaving it open to outside influence and probably disrupting oil production enough to send prices through the roof...maybe not. I'm very confused. And it's not because I don't know about the situation; I figure I know about as much as the next man. There's just too much spinning around.
DUQ, There's nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, I suspect that many Americans share that view. ;-)
T_Rav, Many of these countries aren't really countries. They are a collection of tribes and ethnic groups that have been held together by a strongman or foreign government -- typically the Ottoman Empire or later Britain. If the central government vanishes in any of these places, then they will fall apart.
But I would suggest that's not a bad thing. For one thing, there's no natural reason why these places should be these large countries. Think of it this way. If Mississippi was joined with California (and everything in between was just desert), why should we worry about keeping that as one country ruled from Sacramento? It's the same thing here. The world would probably be better off breaking these countries into lots of little countries that are more ethnically homogenous.
Why? Because:
1. That ends the problem of different minority groups all struggling to dominate each other through the central government. That means less oppression, less bloodshed, and far less chance of groups like al Qaeda gaining a foothold, because they thrive in environments where governments repress minority groups. Take that away and there is no reason for people to need them anymore.
2. Making these countries smaller would reduce their economic importance and that would lessen the damage from future conflicts.
3. There isn't a lot of reason for future conflicts when there's nothing to be gained because the other guy is a 100% different ethnic group. The problems of ethnic wars always occur where the groups are intermixed and there is a chance of suppressing the other guy. That is much less likely to happen when you are looking at simply taking over an ethnically different neighbor.
(continued)
(continued)
In terms of NATO joining in, that's a horrible idea. First, NATO sucks as a military power. That's sad, but true. Outside of the US, NATO couldn't stand up to five hillbillies with shotguns. Their rules of engagement are atrocious, they are incapable of transporting troops or resupplying. Put simply, they are a joke. Seriously, Germany... a country of 80 million people struggles to come up with and supply 1500 soldiers? Colorado Springs could field more than that.
So when you say NATO, what you really mean is "American military" with a fake veneer of European participation.
Secondly, no one in the West is willing to do what it would take to make this turn out well. Read my article on Afghanistan and you'll see what I'm talking about.
These are people with a culture that is based on violence, hate and suppression. Everything from the fairy tales they tell to their television to their religion promotes this. Unless we are willing to go in and force them to change their ways, all we would be doing is shifting power form one group of thugs to another. No one in the West is willing to do that. Instead, we just pick the most Western looking strongman, demand that he make noises about supporting minority right and then pat ourselves on the back that we solve the problem, when we've really done nothing.
That's not worth a single American life.
It's a shame about Libya. Apparently they have the only known cure for cancer and now we'll never know...
Bev, Did I miss something? Did Gaddafi cure cancer?
Andrew: Remember, the Brits freed the Lockerbie bomber because he had terminal cancer and only weeks to live. Being the humanitarians the Brits are, they let him go home to die. He was greeted as a hero back in Tripoli and was miraculously cured in only a few weeks. I wonder why Michael Moore hasn't done a documentary on the healthcare in Libya!
Oooohh! Great point Bev! I completely forgot about that. I guess they did cure cancer!
I'll bet the cure has to do with camel dung enemas. I think Micheal Moore should try a 1000 of those and see what happens! ;-)
Actually, Andrew, I think I heard that the Libyan's cure for cancer was some kind of petroleum-based transfusions but strangely not into the patient. Maybe we can fund a study. ;-)
Bev, That or sand! Could you imagine a sand infusion? Ouch!
Exzcellent post Andrew!
Obama epitomizes hypocrisy and lies as easily as most people breathe.
He even lies when he knows his lie will be easily exposed. I reckon he depends on the MSM to cover for him and they have done a remarkable job (with a few notable exceptions).
He obviously thinks that most folks either won't go to the trouble to find out what the truth is or they don't care because they love him so much.
I'm also certain he has pilfered yet another deck of race cards to use in the event that he is called to answer for the mountain of lies, deceit, hypocrisy, race-baiting, corruption, abuse of powers, extraordinarily bad math, ally-schmucking, enemy-schmoozing, etc., idiocy his administration (and legacy) is built on.
On a...lighter note, you said:
"Remember how Obama didn’t care at all about terrorism until it hit an African country? In fact, he couldn’t even bring himself to say the word. . . “man-made disaster” my shiny butt."
Um...TMI man, TMI! NTTAWWT (shiny butts that is).
Why, some of my best friends may have shiny butts (I could ask, butt surely you can see that in this regard, the road less travelled is less travelled for a reason...particularly this road (not even a road...more like a trail, really).
Butt now the...um...cracks are outta the bag so to speak, and you have piqued my curiosity (in that train-wreck horror kinda way).
So without further adoo, I reluctantly ask these burning questions that normally wouldn't see the light of day, butt really, you have left me no choice in the matter.
How shiny is it, on a scale of
1-10?
Is the "shine" something you were born with (natural) or is it cosmetic?
Have you considered making a calendar (for the ladies of course) with all proceeds going towards researching the treatment and eventual cure of radioactive butts?
Now, I haven't seen your butt...but of this I am certain...it surely can't be dull.
Butt I had no idea it was shiney.
Now that it's too late to unknow what I now know, I must commend you for coming out and putting your butt on the line, Andrew.
Come to think of it, it's about time we all put our butts on the line; shiney butts n' sparkly butts, big butts n' little butts, fat butts n' skinny butts...even butts with chicken pox!
Why? Because this is America that's why! She's worth fightin' for! And we ain't gonna take all this Obamapocrisy lying down (or...you know where)!
I nominate Andrew to guide us...to shine a path in the darkness...butt first if need be.
To be that shining butt on the hill...
In the elegant words of Pink Floyd: Shine On You Crazy Diamond.
:^)
I dream of the day when all butts are judged not by their shinyness butt by their character.
Thanks Ben! You may be right that Obama is relying on the media to cover for him and that the public just won't look into his lies enough to realize they've been lied to. In truth, that's probably not as stupid as it sounds for Democrats. For one thing, the MSM will always cover for them, except in the few instances where they betray liberalism. Secondly, most people (and I'm betting it's close to 60-80%) really do just accept what they've been told. I find that shocking, but I meet those people all the time.... if someone in authority says something, they assume it must be true because that person is in authority.
"TMI! NTTAWWT" ? I hate to admit it, but I don't follow you?
On you're questions, LOL! The reference to a shiny butt actually comes from Futurama -- it's something Bender the robot always says, "kiss my shiny metal ass."
Radioactive butts sound pretty painful! Plus, imagine the horror of having that part of your body glowing at night? At least it could light your way at night... if you walk backwards!
Not dull, but I would think matte finish? That seems to be the standard coating on human... unless you use wax or butt polish? ;-)
"I dream of the day when all butts are judged not by their shinyness butt by their character."
LOL!! That's great!
P.S. I'm a huge Pink Floyd fan!
Oh, but didn't you hear this morning? The ribs Michelle ate were lean and only 500 calories!! And after a full day of a hard workout like skiing! NOT like the rest of you gluttonous Americans who eat fatty ribs after watching Oprah and eating bonbons all day.
Sheesh. You really can't get with the program 'round here, can you? ;)
Crispy, Last I heard they were 1,500 calories! Besides, it isn't just these ribs that are "the beef." The real beef is that she's constantly being spotted eating very unhealthy food at the same time she demands that we start eating bread and water. It's truly Marie Antoinettish!
Andrew, I see your point. I just really wish we could send a few F-15s over there and settle things. Not only could we put Gaddafi out of his misery, we'd also spare the Libyans from further death and oppression (at least at his hands).
Sorry for the delay, incidentally, I got hit pretty hard by spyware yesterday and was on the phone with AT&T about it all this morning.
T-Rav, No problem. Sorry to hear about the spyware. I actually lost my last computer about nine months ago to a spyware attack. It damaged my system and basically killed everything. We had to wipe out everything and rebuild the computer. By that point it was easier just to buy a new one because I didn't have any of the discs they used to load the operating software -- I just had the recovery software they include when you buy it. But that doesn't work when your whole computer gets wiped out. Grrr.
I agree with you that it would be nice if we could solve these problems (and I wouldn't mind seeing US troops blow Gaddafi into the afterlife). But the problem is that this becomes a tar baby. Unless we're willing to remake their society, then it really doesn't do much except get Americans killed. And frankly, I value a single American life more than I do whole countries of people over there -- especially Americans who have volunteered to defend our country.
That's why I thought what Bush did originally was really smart in Afghanistan. He used locals to do the fighting with the support of very few American troops. It wasn't until later, when we decided to get into the national building phase that things went wrong -- as we made ourselves targets.
Andrew, I guess it's ultimately a moot point. Maybe not under Bush, but with our current doofus-in-chief there's a greater chance of me getting hit by lightning while playing polo while riding a unicorn than of him taking military action against Libya. (Or pretty much anyone else, for that matter.)
T_Rav, Riding a unicorn? Nice!
Let's hope no liberals read that though, they might complain that it's animal cruelty to ride a unicorn or to use something with a point. . . as the existence of most liberals tends to be pointless! ;-)
Seriously though, I can't see Obama using genuine force if Florida was invaded, so I don't see him doing much about Libya or any of the other dozen countries in the middle of their uprisings.
Andrew-
IRT public perception of Obama: It seems like Obama is counting on that. However, the Tea Party has been instrumental in changing that for the better if these last elections and the polls are any indication.
Obama may be his best when he's in campaign mode (which is pretty much all he knows) but after seeing the results of his hopium and change I doubt the general voting public is willing to forgive n' forget.
Of course, the GOP can't afford to be complacent, and we still gotta run someone smarter than Joe Biden and with more charisma than Dennis Kucinich.
Like everyone else here I think we got a bumper crop of outstanding candidates...and most will be ready in 2016 (although I would vote for any republican over Obama in 2012 it's crucial we don't pick another big government President or a President who is afraid to bring at least fiscal sanity to Washington).
Thanks, I thought I had heard that phrase before.
TMI is 'puter shorthand for: too much information and NTTAWWT = not that there's anything wrong with that.
Thanks for answering my questions...except for part of the calendar one (the part about would you actually consider making one). I'm sure you would give the FDNY guys a run for their money!).
Does your silence on the matter indicate you ain't interested in spreading your shiny love to the masses?
Sorry ladies, I tried to do you a solid. :^)
Perhaps we could get Lawhawk to volunteer as the pin up model?
Better yet, we could do a reality show in the vain of American Idol.
The judges would be Larry the Cable Guy, Steven Wright and Dennis Miller.
I suggest we call it
American Eye Doh! the shiny butt edition.
All we need is some wealthy producer(s) who'll listen to the spiel I jest gave you guys and we'll be rollin' in the moolah! Ha ha ha ha!
Ahem, prospective producers: feel free to contact me. This plan is so crazy it just. Might. Work.
Frankly, it sounds more interesting than any other "reality" tv show out there.
Ben, You just killed my best plan -- I was going to create a Biden/Kucinich clone and run them! ;-)
I think you're right about Obama and the Tea Party. The days of the MSM being able to cover up for Democrats are all but over. Huge chunks of people no longer believe anything they see in the MSM and a great many have plugged into blogs and e-mail services and Tea Party newsletters. That's where the real news is being passed around these days. I guess Obama doesn't realize that and still thinks he can control the message?
I agree that we need to avoid picking another big government Republican in 2012. That would be our biggest mistake.
Ah, I didn't get the acronym. I'm kind of slow today.
On the calendar, sadly I must decline. LOL! Butt I'm sure we could get other Commentarama users to contribute!
You know, in the world of Reality TV, that might actually work. Did you ever see the film Idiocracy? In it, they go to see the film Ass -- which isn't far off from a lot of television these days! Oh boy.
USSBen: Well, the "ugliest dog" calendar is very popular. Why not the "ugliest conservative butts" calendar? I'm referring to Andrew, of course.
Hey, watch it with the ugliest butt crack.... (nyuk nyuk nyuk)
Lawhawk-
LOL! Aye. Ugly butt clean and articulate...and not as ugly as the common liberal metrosexual butt. :^)
Liberals can try butt they can't rebutt that argument.
Andrew-
Whoa! I don't wanna be the cause of any (hem)roid rage here!
I'm pretty sure Lawhawk was speaking as a guy.
No doubt the ladies would disagree...although, sadly, we will never know.
No doubt the ladies would disagree about your butt being ugly that is, not whether Lawhawk is speaking as a guy.
Don't wanna leave the wrong impression. :^)
Andrew:
Other useful acronym if you read Stacy McCain:
IYKWIMAITYD which equals “If you know what I mean and I think you do.”
That aside, great post. I’ve always thought that Obama could never be a hypocrite because being a leftist liberal means 1) you can lie about anything to whomever you want in the pursuit of what you think is right, and 2) whatever you want is automatically right because you’re a leftist liberal, even if it conflicts with leftist liberal ideals. Ideals, which they are allowed to lie about for the greater good of Obama.
It all makes perfect sense, if you bash your head against the wall enough while huffing paint fumes.
Ben, A "common liberal metrosexual butt"... not that is not a pretty though. In fact, it makes me shudder.
Wasatchmo, Thanks! I'm glad you liked it.
It is hard to square Obama being a hypocrite with his being a liberal. That's kind of like "the definitive hypocritical article" meets "the cannot be hypocritical beast." I guess the definitive article won this time.
Wait, I just slammed my head against the wall a dozen times and now it makes sense! LOL!
Seriously though, this guy is a major hypocrite, stunningly so in fact. And if the left can't see that, then they are dumber than I thought (which would be pretty darn dumb) and they deserve to be sold out by this guy over and over and over. He really is a total failure as a President.
Thanks for the new acronym!
Ben, That's a lot of puns you're tossing around there! LOL!
Hemroid rage huh? Boy does that sound like a pain in the you know what! ;-p
Andrew, "Idiocracy" is a great film, you should review it.
Ben/Andrew, That's a lot of butt jokes! Who knew Commentarama is like a standup routine?
"Idiocracy" is a good film. I'm not surprised they never promoted it because it really blows a hole in so much liberalism. I'm surprised the film was ever made, quite frankly.
(Don't mean to step on your toes if you're planning to review it.)
DUQ, That would be an interesting one, though it will need to wait for a while. I've got several others to tackle first.
DUQ, We aim to please. :-)
Ed, I never heard of it until I ran across it late, late one night. I get the feeling they buried it, but I haven't looked into the marketing question.
As I mention above, I could definitely review it, but it will take some time to get to.
In terms of stepping on toes, don't worry about it.
Ed and DUQ, Here's why I never heard of the film before it ended up on late night television -- they only released it in 135 theaters and they refused to screen it for critics.
Interestingly, it's got an 74% favorable rating at Rotten Tomatoes. I'm surprised by that.
Just gotta add -- I love that film! :D But it scares me to death, too, LOL!
Oh, did you see that Zogby says the public favors the Republicans in Wisconsin? Very cool!
Crispy, I know what you mean. On the one hand, it's a fun movie. On the other hand, it doesn't seem that far beyond the bounds of reality. Yikes!
Crispy, I saw that. That was good stuff, and Zogby isn't a right winger either -- he's clearly on the left. So for him to conclude that 53% of Americans say the government should be allowed to take away collective bargaining rights, that's a big thing!
135 theaters? I'm amazed they would ever release a film in that few theaters unless it was an art film.
Ed, Yeah, that's not what you call a "wide release." It only made about $500k and it cost $2.4 million to make, so it did very poorly. But I suspect the lack of marketing and distribution probably was the cause.
Do you know how much they made on television rights?
No, I just know the gross figures from the initial release. I don't know how much they made on DVD sales either.
Do you know why I. . .
split this comment. . .
No, but I'm sure you'll tell me! LOL!
Post a Comment