Every once in a while, i'll still flip to the conservative station, just
to check in on the loonies. Over there, in their alternate reality,
three things are certain.
Barack Obama stole the election. He just did, case closed.
Global warming? Disproven. Forever. Everyone knows that.
The economy is a house of cards one minute away from total meltdown,
we're on the brink of a catastrophe so horrendous that it will make the
collapse of 2008 look like a picnic; start stockpiling rice and ammo,
people, these are the end times. That being said, if you can't find a
job, you're just a pathetic loser who hates work because you're lazy and
dumb.
Just making sure they're where we left them.
Over on some other site, people have been taking me to task and demanding why
i don't complain about liberals the same way as i complain about
conservatives, do i not realize that all partisanship is evil? Don't
you realize that we must accept all viewpoints? Don't you see that the
people for gay marriage and the people against it are totally the same,
in a cosmic sense? My response is this -- when conservatives go to far,
we get war. When liberals go to far, we get... uhh, expensive
healthcare? Too much art funding?
Also... i don't encounter any liberals these days. In Tennessee,
they're not in the streets and not on the radio. The last time i
remember being annoyed by a liberal was about 12 years ago in college,
when i was in an english class with some curly-haired douchebag who was
the most pretentious, whiny, entitled sack of crap ever. Since then,
nothing.
Conservatives these days don't even know what they believe anymore. All
it took was one president with a foreign name to change them all from
authoritarians to anarchists. I mean, the jobs report this month was
dismal, and they're gloating about it...
See! We told you Obama was going to wreck the economy! He allowed
the sequester to happen, and the sudden reduction in government spending
cost us jobs! Because what's hurting the economy is too much
government spending! The only way to bring back jobs is by radically
slashing government spending. Oh, god, the Army base over in
Crocketsville just laid off 150 contractors, and now they're unemployed,
all because Obama cut government spending! WHY?
I don't even know what to say.
Twitter.
Behance gallery.
LinkedIn.
Facebook.
CGTalk.
Pinterest.
21 comments:
No offense, but I'm pretty certain Libya counts as a war.
Maybe. The important thing is that we didn't crack the country in half and commit to paying 4 trillion to fix it.
There's always gonna be "war," baby.
Libya is to Obama what Iraq was to Bush in terms of:
Attacking a country that did not pose a threat to the United States. In fact in both Saddam and Gaddafi's cases, they were the type of people Al-Qaeda would hate. In effect, both wars did nothing but aid our enemies.
Declaring war unilaterally, in Bush's case it was the UN, in Obama's case it was Congress.
Both conflicts in the end did more harm than good. Iraq is practically going to tear itself apart in the future thanks to the Shia/Sunni/Kurd dispute, and there's a government in Libya that's pretty much in cahoots in Al-Qaeda. Hell, there were AQ fighters embedded with the rebels!
Reason for this rant: For all of Obama's pledges from his election, that he'd stop having the U.S. meddle in other countries business, and to try to fix some of the damage to the country's reputation, Obama in the end is repeating the same mistakes as his predecessor. And that's just foreign policy, how about the fact the economy is still in the tank, or the increasing destruction of citizens rights and constitutional freedom thanks to the Patriot Act Extension, (Which Obama said he'd repeal) and the NDAA which allows the government to arrest and detain citizens without a trial.
There's a reason why a lot of Obama's critics, and by that I mean anyone who isn't part of Beck and Limbaugh's circus, have called him Bush 2.0.
Keep telling yourself that. In five years, visit a veteran's hospital and chat with the folk who are missing legs and faces. See how many of them are from Iraq and Afghanistan, vs. those from Libya. Take a tally and get back to me.
I'm sure there are plenty of people in Libya today who would feel the same, including the ones affected by the Benghazi attack. Perhaps you should visit them as well?
I supposed I should ask you this, do you believe Obama was justified in attacking Libya? If so, would you feel the same if it was Bush?
Not sure. Probably?
Well, here's the thing, people and the media praised Obama for his handling of Libya, how no American soldiers got killed, and that he was overthrowing a brutal dictator who oppressed his people.
Here's the thing, if it was Bush in that scenario, everyone in the media except for FNC would be lambasting him as a warmonger, putting American pilots at risk in an unnecessary war, and intervening in another country's affairs.
If Bush did it the way Obama did it, i think people would give him his due. The thing is, he most likely would NOT do it that way -- his way would involve 250,000 troops taking over Tripoli and a 500-billion no-bid contract for Dick Cheney's cronies.
Look, i've heard this all before. People just pick on Bush because they just hate conservatives! Please. Bush had a 95% approval rating after 9-11. Everyone was on his side, even me. We were fucking united in a way we never had been. America was about to regain a sort of purpose and glory we hadn't seen in decades...
...and then the Bush regime threw it all away. Incompetence, greed, cronyism, outright evil. People turned against Bush because he gave them 10,000 good reasons to do so.
But hey, keep your inane delusions that we're all just prejudiced against Texans or whatever. I voted for Ross fucking Perot in 1996 because i just can't stand conservatives or Texans, right?
And let me guess, you believe if it was Obama or Gore as Prez after 9/11, Iraq wouldn't have happened and everything would have been hunky-dory.
Are you that ignorant? Yes. If Gore or Obama had been president in 2001, we would have almost certainly removed the Taliban from power and caught Bin Laden then instead of ten years later. And we would not have attacked Iraq. Are you completely unaware that making Iraq a target was the pet dream project of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz?
Amazing ignorance. Simply stunning.
So you don't believe Obama would attack a country just to give himself some "war hero" credentials, if you really believe that Obama's actions in Libya were "Humanitarian" and "to help the Libya", then my God, are you naive
But let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say he wouldn't have attacked Iraq. That's find and dandy. How exactly would he have captured Bin Laden sooner though considering the CIA kept thinking he was hiding in a cave in Afghanistan rather than a house in Pakistan?
What about the Patriot Act? Would Obama have said no to the same act he extended? Would he have stood up to the banks and corpies and lobbyists that both wrecked the economy and helped get him to office in the first place? Those same people he kept saying "I'm not in their pocket, I swear!"?
I agree, conservatives aren't anywhere near better, but oh God forbid, I have the absolute temerity to say "Maybe Obama isn't what he was cracked up to be, maybe he's no better than every other stooge in Washington".
And for the record, I honestly thought Obama would do a good job when he was first elected, I thought he'd actually fix some of Bush's mess instead of making it worse.
Wait... you actually want me to travel back in time and tell your operational details of CIA operations?
Look, you keep asking me to alter time and prove negatives. So i'm going to turn the tables on you.
Ready?
IF AL GORE HAD BEEN ELECTED IN 2000, WE WOULD NOW BE LIVING IN AN ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOLDEN AGE. PROVE THAT THIS IS NOT SO BY TELLING ME EXACTLY WHAT ACTIONS HE WOULD HAVE TAKEN THAT MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED THIS OUTCOME.
IF JOHN MCCAIN HAD BEEN ELECTED IN 2008, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BY RUSSIAN NUKES IN WWIII. PROVE THAT THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
IF MITT ROMNEY HAD BEEN ELECTED IN 2012, THE ECONOMY WOULD HAVE SUFFERED TOTAL COLLAPSE AND YOU WOULD NOW BE STARVING. TELL ME WHAT ROMNEY COULD HAVE DONE TO PREVENT THIS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.
See what i mean?
Get cracking with your time machine, you've got a lot to work to do if you want to disprove these certainties.
I can't tell if you're trolling or being serious, though I'll play along.
Al Gore is a hypocritical, self-serving sleazebag who doesn't even practice what he preaches. In other words, didn't matter who would have won in '00, it'd probably be pretty much the same as Bush.
McCain would have been no better or worse than Obama. If you've taken a look at his Senate record as of late, a lot of his decisions are pretty much in line with Obama.
And how exactly would Romney have wrecked the economy in less than three months? Though at the same time I do doubt he would have been any better considering he's also pretty much at the beck and call of bankers and corpies, just like Obama.
Look, what exactly are you trying to prove to me, that I'm wrong I don't think your "Messiah" is any better than 99% of Washington?
Yes, yes. Everything is bad. Every person is the same as every other. Nothing matters. You might as well put on some black eyeliner and start listening to the Cure, because there's no escaping the dismal shadow of your horrific existence.
Doom cookie.
That's not what I am, and by extension the people you say are trying to say. It's more, to paraphrase South Park "Maybe we should chose something other than the Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich".
I suppose I am curious though. Since I gave my reasons over why I don't like Obama, I'd like to hear why you like him.
Is it because you sincerely believe that he'll go down in history as a great president, or is it because you find him to be the lesser of two evils?
I'm not given to hero-worship or proclaiming presidents "great" except in rare cases like George Washingotn, Abe Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt.
There are times when Obama does some some good stuff. But ultimately, he's restrained by the limits of our systems. And mostly, he does function as a firewall between us and the rampant insanity of the Republicans. It's like having a boss at work who is, you know, a normal boss. He's not a superhero, but he does a decent job and looks tired at the end of the day. People will grumble that things COULD be better, but you don't really appreciate him until he's been replaced by an incompetent asshole who lets the place fall apart while screaming that everyone needs to find Jesus.
Look, everyone knows that Bush II was an unmitigated disaster. Do you think that Romney would have been any better? Rich boys who inherited everything from daddy don't make good leaders; they literally don't understand the value of a dollar or how people actually live.
For Romney, no I don't think he would be any better than Obama. I don't think he would be any worse either though. Both of them are not in any way "Self-made men", but products of the political establishment. Hell, the Dems and GOP are already hand-picking Hillary and Rubio for the next election. And I'd rather vote for Loki Laufeyson as compared to those two clowns. At least he'd be honest about his plans to conquer and enslave Midgard.
Oh, and the Obamas spend nearly $1.4 billion taxpayer money for their personal expenses. In contrast, the British royal family spends only $57.8 million. I don't think they empathize with us common schmucks any more than the GOP.
As I said, I don't think he's any better than Bush. But you seem to think otherwise, and you're entitled to your opinion. I just hope you understand though that people do have legitimate complaints against Obama, and its not just because of his skin color or political affiliation.
Post a Comment