patrick.net

Right on. Its time to flush the White House.

The only good thing about Obama is that he pisses off the bat-shit crazy right wingers. The bad thing about Obama is that he is a bat-shit crazy right winger in all but color and party affiliation.

Makes sense. Nothing makes a conservative shit faster than the sight of a black man in the White House.

Thank you, but I can't take credit for that joke. I stole it from Abraham Lincoln. Yes, that Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln told a story of Ethan Allen, an American Revolution war hero who went to Britain after the war. (And who oddly enough has a furniture company named after him.) After he arrived, the British, still upset about having lost the war, put their measly Brit minds together and came up with a plot to try to embarrass Allen by putting a large portrait of George Washington in the only outhouse where he might encounter it. They had hoped Allen would be upset about the indignity of George Washington being in an outhouse. That night, after dinner and conversation, Allen made his way out, candle in hand, and did his business. He came back in as high of spirits as ever.

“Didn’t you see George Washington in there?!” they said.

“Oh yes,” said Allen. “Perfectly appropriate place for him”

“What do you mean?” They said.

“Well,” he said, “there is nothing to make an Englishman shit faster than the sight of George Washington.

Time to put the Federal Reserve where it belongs. More like it. I don't care if Howdies Doodie wins. One more time for the fucking deaf. If the entire "Government" is in debt. If the supposition that the Borrower is the Slave to the lender. A bible term. If they furnish you with Army toys and you owe on those Army toys. Which we gottem' you have to fucking admit that. Then how do you pay for those fucking weapons? You can't make the payments get it?

Dan8267 says

Nothing makes a conservative shit faster than the sight of a BLACK man in the White House.

1) I'm a swing-voting independent, as either side of the aisle always has a tendancy to take their ideology off the deep end - and for this reason I'm reluctant to commit to a label. Further, it will be swing-voters & independents who will call this election....

2) I find it interesting that alhough I made NO reference whatsoever to Obama's race/ethnicity at the top of this post, it is always those on the LEFT to bring up the issue of race FIRST (and besides, I thought Obama was half white). This tells me who on the ideological divide is really obsessed with identity politics....

3) Legitimate politics should be about policies concerning resources and how they are managed throughout a society, not about who came from where, what color someone is, who's heritage is what, who sucks this, or who licks that....

Travis Bickle says

I'm a swing-voting independent

Ditto, but every year the right moves further into la-la land and is less likely to be on the correct side of an issue. But most of the time, I find myself disguised with both sides. It's just that the right is scarier because their misdeeds involve killing, torture, and sexual humiliation.

Travis Bickle says

I find it interesting that alhough I made NO reference whatsoever to Obama's race/ethnicity at the top of this post, it is always those on the LEFT to bring up the issue of race FIRST

I will always go for the humor when available. Don't take the joke too seriously.

However, you are incorrect that the left always brings up race first. There is race baiting, however, there is also a lot of racism since Obama was elected. The right just uses code for racism, and not exactly sophisticated, subtle code. Kenya and witch doctor are code for "black". Elitist is code for "uppity". It's not hard to figure out what they are saying when they call Obama an "elitist Kenyan".

The right's codes are as lame as the lefts. Like the cops don't know what "meet you at 4:20 means".

Travis Bickle says

Legitimate politics should be about policies concerning resources

On that we actually agree. Too bad most Americans and the media aren't interested in debating the actual issues. For example, Obama's policies are pretty much identical to Bush's. As such, I can understand how a person could like or hate both those politicians, but to like one and hate the other smacks of hypocrisy regardless of which one you like.

ArtimusMaxtor says

Then how do you pay for those fucking weapons? You can't make the payments get it?

Easy solution: don't. We don't need more weapons. We need to modernize our infrastructure and convert our economy from a declining 20th century economy to a prosperous 21st century economy. Every year we wait, BRICS gets more and more ahead of us.

Make no mistake. The superpowers of the next century will be based on economic might, not military might. Technology diminishes the effectiveness of brute force and exponentially increases the importance of economic productivity in the military arena.

For example, if China were to start a war on the U.S. today, it could win without firing a single shot. All China would have to do is dump all of its treasuries. All other nations would be forced to follow. The dollar would collapse, Wall Street would collapse, unemployment would skyrocket, and the whole economic engine that drives our military would seize up. American's economic interests are her national security interests.

There really isn't much difference between Obama and Romney, except on tax issues. Obama is ok with raising top tax rates back up to the "socialist" levels seen under the socialist Ronald Reagan. Romney wants to keep top tax rates low so that the wealthy can create new slave-labor jobs in China.

It's great events that make leaders 'great.'

Bigsby says

It's great events that make leaders 'great.'

I'd consider a president to be great if he just
1. Kept the peace.
2. Reformed the government so it ran well and didn't violate rights.
3. Reformed the economy so that all people who want to be productive can and get to keep most of the wealth they create instead of losing it to "owners".
4. Reformed law to protect the environment.

I don't care how boring these transitions are. Hell, the more boring, the better. No great events are needed in my opinion. ...just great engineering.

The list of why Romney is superior to Obama for the job is huge, but if you haven't noticed what a fool Obama has been, then it won't help to list them.
There is ONE thing that Obama wanted but his own cabinet was against that I totally approved of.
I wish he had the guts to stand up to them on this particular issue.
I will allow the dear readers to guess what I am talking about.

Dan8267 says

I'd consider a president to be great if he just
1. Kept the peace.
2. Reformed the government so it ran well and didn't violate rights.
3. Reformed the economy so that all people who want to be productive can and get to keep most of the wealth they create instead of losing it to "owners".
4. Reformed law to protect the environment.

I don't care how boring these transitions are. Hell, the more boring, the better. No great events are needed in my opinion. ...just great engineering.

Hence the quotation marks.

Dan8267 says

I don't care how boring these transitions are. Hell, the more boring, the better. No great events are needed in my opinion. ...just great engineering.

That doesn't SELL on TV ad spots. Particularly GOP is not at all interested in the "grownup" candidate they want the one who can wear Reagan's cape and spew disproven nonsense.

John Hunstman really inspired the GOP primary delegates didn't he?

I think I've made my point.

Vicente says

Seems to me the man is OK with military force as long as it's small conflicts that are winnable, anything not involving prolonged ground action.

That was the original plan in Iraq, remember?

wthrfrk80 says

Will Romney start a new war? Or is he just pandering to rural rednecks who want to shoot "A-Rabs" (even though Iran is Persian, not Arab)?

Romney pander? Shocking, never happened.

Obama hasn't REALLY made it yet.

Printing up novelty toilet paper is easy.

Anyone commissioned one of these?

Ah yes, the Western Journalism Center. You get your unbiased 'facts' from the WJC, do you? That right there says everything you need to know about Travis and Cloud.

Did Patrick let this thread run to show how gullible Americans are in the so-called Information Age? If you seriously believe that Obama went on "multiple global 'apology tours' ", for example, you've swallowed some phony bait-- hook, line, and sinker.

It's some consolation that most of the people on this forum reacted with skepticism. Go to a "true believer" website (like the one that ran the 'First President' list originally), and the comments section will be crammed with hate-filled, illiterate nonsense from people who just lap up all the right-wing talking points.

Travis, great list. We've heard of most of these over the past few years, however its really powerful to see them all one after the other - on a list. Its got a lot of visual impact.

BTW, you missed one: First President who admitted EATING A DOG.

Hey now, this is America. Free speech is the freedom to repeat lies often enough until they become the truth. Lies are what America was founded upon.

Cloud says

Bigsby, you don't get do you?

All news and news outlets are biased. Get out of kindergarten. The reason they make those desks so small is so adults can't fit in them.

I know I know your favorite response "Fox News." Never watch it. But I would be the first to agree they are biased. So what?

If the media was a football match the Right would have 2 guys on the field to the Lefts 11 guys. You and your friends still own the game. Sooooo what?

Back in the earlier part of our century newspapers didn't pretend to be objective. You had the Republican Star and the Democrat Examiner.

Grow up.

You need to grow up if you think you can compare the 'journalism' in WJC with the likes of say the BBC etc. If you want to get as accurate a take on the news as possible, you go to the LEAST biased sources you can find, not a bloody site that is openly, flagrantly biased. Get it?

This source doesn't seem to cover negative and positive aspects of every subject they cover. I appreciate the criticism of Romney as evidence they will criticize both major parties in the U.S., but this "journalism" seems to carry the same bias as other sources of journalism in the U.S. I prefer sources like NPR because I at least sometimes hear positive coverage of conservative viewpoints and interviews with conservatives. This sometimes happens on Fox News too. Does this happen at this Western Journalism source? It looks scant at best. That suggests real problems of following an agenda rather than the skill of observation for using it as a reference.

Is there criticism of the Bush presidencies covered by these journalists? I would think that would be a minimum qualification to consider them observers. I didn't take the time just now to find archives that go back more.

Founded in 1991 by Joseph Farah (the brains behind WND.com news website) and James H. Smith (former publisher of the Sacramento Union), the Western Center for Journalism has been sponsoring and training investigative journalists for over two decades.
The WCJ first made its mark following the suspicious death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster during the Clinton presidency.