What a strange thing to spout. Since all of the communist sympathizers in this country find themselves on the other side of the aisle. Either literally or figuratively (i.e. when they vote).
One could argue that the Neo-Cons are a bunch of commies.
One could argue that you’re a moron. It would take pretty much zero effort.
It takes more than a mutual lack of respect for Obama to be welcomed by Republicans. You won’t see Republicans working with Putin against America’s interests like a Ted Kennedy.
Just because Obama’s fellow travelers like China and Russia don’t have any respect for Obama doesn’t mean they have any affinity for a Republican or conservative political ideology.
This Putin Obama business is Red on Red.
China likes the Republicans. The Republicans invested a lot
in developing China as a superpower.
Ok, name an example of this. I’m curious where you’re going with this.
When faced with facts and reality – which blows apart the cotton-candy leftist fantasies – people like Jim have nothing left other than strange things to spout. It would destroy them to admit they were utterly wrong about Obama. But to defend Obama against the ever-increasing pile of evidence that he’s a pathetic moronic fantasist, requires ever increasing strangeness on the part of people like Jim.
Tis no matter really….sensible people know to laugh at the maunderings of a kool-aid drinker and continue on.
Yet Putin marvels at the glory days of the USSR. What does USSR stand for, Jim? Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics.
You lefties always want to pin fascism on the right, but history shows it comes from the left.
Who put “anti-Americans” in camps? Wilson and Roosevelt.
What does Nazi stand for? National Socialist Workers Party.
North Korea is a Stalinist regime.
To equate Putin with republicans only displays your ignorance.
North Korea is not a Stalinist regime. It is a autocratic monarchy. If you haven’t realized that by now you need to think about it more. Stalin never propped up his own family to succeed him into power.
Both of you can be right if you are arguing different points. If you can get past your point about the monarchical element of NORK then there are numerous similarities, with perhaps the biggest exception being rapid industrialization.
OMG, it’s an autocratic monarchy. It doesn’t behave like a Stalinist regime at all.
The UK has a monarch, it’s not a democracy at all.
Jim, that’s preposterous.
If all it took to be “right at home in the House GOP” was zero respect for Obama, the house GOP would have more supports, about 7 billion of them.
Now an undeniable fact: The one Ukraine argument you should ignore comes from bob-1.
Obama has always been, let’s say disingenuous but his credibility eradicated until Syria and then reinforced by the Obamacare debacle. These two events showed more than any other how hallow and empty Obama’s rhetoric is. Whether or not Obama’s lack of credibility or his horrendous foreign policy was the cause of the invasion of Ukraine are totally separate from whether or not those things actually exist. I personally think Putin will and has acted in what he thought was in the best interest of his country regardless of Obama.
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.
Ok will do.
Vladimir Putin only invaded Crimea because he knew President Obama wouldn’t back up his threats with action.
Have not heard that one before considering the invasion of Ukraine caught Obama totally by surprise. What is in question are Obama’s statements after the invasion.
I could go on but for anyone who doesn’t want to waste a few minutes clicking on your link the gist is, “Of course Obama has no credibility but it doesn’t matter.” That whole Evidence! Logic! lead off is utter crap. The link was devoid of either.
I think we’re talking past each other.
The realclearworld article links to here: http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/127/january14/forum_1024.php
Try reading the second paragraph. – it will take less than 30 seconds. If you find the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph intriguing, you can scroll down to read a discussion of the examples.
“I think we’re talking past each other.”
You have to say something first. Your first post didn’t give us much to go on. Do you think Obama is or isn’t credible and does it matter?
Your second link says Obama isn’t credible and that it may not matter that he has backed down in the past. He could still back up his threats with force. I agree to some extent. What would push Obama over the edge? IMO, his ego. Obama already has a score to settle with Putin over Syria but Obama is limited by the practicalities of actually doing anything militarily. In this instance, Obama’s credibility doesn’t matter because he can’t do anything.
But in the broader picture, aside from threats of force, it matters a lot. Will we help out Taiwan or Australia based on Obama’s assurances? Should Israel trust Obama’s promises during negotiations? Will Iraq find the USA or Iran a better partner? Should Americans believe that no one will be affected by the employer mandate or that there was no White House involvement in IRS targeting?
I guess Putin didn’t respect GWB, either, when Russia invaded Georgia. In fact I think Bush’s options were limited and the situation called for a prudent response, and the situation now is very similar. But I’m going to hazard a guess that there wasn’t any outrage back then among the readers here.
I guess Putin didn’t respect GWB, either, when Russia invaded Georgia.
He shouldn’t have. He knew Bush was a patsy when he made that stupid comment about being able to see into Putin’s soul.
“I guess Putin didn’t respect GWB”
Probably not.
“In fact I think Bush’s options were limited and the situation called for a prudent response, and the situation now is very similar.”
Yes, there are some very practical limitations on what can be done about what is going on in Ukraine just as there were in Georgia. Also, the invasion of Georgia happened at a very sensitive time for Americans. It was excellent timing on Putin’s part.
“But I’m going to hazard a guess that there wasn’t any outrage back then among the readers here.”
I am pretty sure everyone was outraged about the invasion of Georgia. It doesn’t reflect well on Obama, Hillary, and Kerry that they didn’t take the invasion of Georgia into account when trying to buddy up with Russia after the election. It is like for Obama nothing existed before he was elected and he has had to re-learn hard taught lessons.
Everyone, really? No offense, Rand — and I haven’t gone back to check — but I’m guessing that you and none of your readers were outraged whatsoever back then. And it doesn’t reflect well on GWB that he peered into Putin’s soul and saw a man he could trust — as he characterized it. It’s like Russian history didn’t exist before he was elected, either!
But none of that is my point. My point is that world leaders like GWB and Obama make decisions based on a lot of real world calculations about our national interest vs the cost of escalating tensions. And in both of those cases I agree with their decisions.
Everyone, really? No offense, Rand — and I haven’t gone back to check
No doubt you didn’t, since you failed to see who exactly you were responding. Wodun made the comment, not Rand. Your comment not only proves your ignorance but also your willingness to comment despite your knowledge of your own ignorance. Frankly, it causes me to discredit anything else you have to say.
I don’t think you know at all how GWB or Obama made their decisions, and so your happiness in their decisions is likely based on the same ignorance you have shown in this thread. Your agreement with them is about as exciting and informative as seeing a seal applaud before its owner serves it a fish.
Putin got what he wanted out of the Georgian conflict. He will get what he wants in terms of control of Crimea. Sevastopol will become the Klaliningrad of the south. About all GWB or Obama accomplished is legitimizing the land grab by suggesting they managed to get Putin to back down after he already got what he wanted. South Ossentia is already a puppet nation. And soon Crimea will complete its transformation with recognition of its “democratic choice” to secede from Ukraine while literally under the guns of Russian Troops. And the happy seals will all applaud that war was averted.
Wait, are we supposed to be outraged that Putin did it or the response from our government? Two different things. But as you pointed out there wasn’t much that could be done.
You are right that it doesn’t reflect well on Bush that he looked into Putin’s soul and saw a man he could trust. Well, you can trust Putin to be Putin but you also have to have a good understanding of who he is. Bush was ridiculed for this and Obama deserves even more ridicule from failing to learn from what happened to Georgia and the ridiculous things he said during the last campaign about Russia no longer being a threat to us or anyone else. Right?
I don’t think Obama should have gone to war over Crimea but his handling of the situation has been poor. His rhetoric is all over the place just as his foreign policy is aimless in general, lurching from one issue to the next with no demonstrated understanding of the issues and no clear policies.
Actually, the Russian/Georgian war didn’t start until August of 2008, when it was obvious that Obama would be elected, having defeated Hillary for the nomination two months earlier.
Oh, okay, so Obama as a candidate was responsible for the Bush administration’s reaction to the situation. That’s quite a novel interpretation.
Did anyone say Obama was President when it happened?
It did happen rather close to the election. How did Obama respond after taking office? He started kissing up to Putin offering concession after concession, sometimes even making concessions the Russians didn’t ask for. And how did that work out for Obama?
I guess Putin didn’t respect GWB, either, when Russia invaded Georgia. In fact I think Bush’s options were limited and the situation called for a prudent response, and the situation now is very similar. But I’m going to hazard a guess that there wasn’t any outrage back then among the readers here.
If Boosh did it, it must be ok, amirite?
No, just asking if Kurt Hallowell was howling about Bush’s limp response to a very analogous situation. I’m going to guess you weren’t.
It’s only analogous in the fever swamp that is your mind. Spend a few minutes reading up on South Ossetia. That was precipitated by an 80 tank 10,000 troop invasion by Georgia under Mikheil Saakashvili, a man that everyone at State or Defense has described as a cartoon in one form or another, many on record (Rice and Gates in their memoirs).
I’d like to hear just one person on this blog explain why the Warsaw Pact intervention in Hungary in 1956 is not analogous with respect to the US President.. Did Khrushchev and the other Soviet leaders not respect Eisenhower? Did they doubt Eisenhower’s red lines? Did Eisenhower’s actions somehow lead to the Soviet intervention? Was it Eisenhower’s fault? No, right? Why is Ukraine somehow Obama’s fault but Hungary is not Eisenhower’s fault? What is fundamentally different?
“Why is Ukraine somehow Obama’s fault”
People pointing out how bad of a job Obama is doing is not the same as saying he is at fault. Without a doubt. Obama’s no-nothing no-strategy foreign policy was a contributing factor but Putin was the one who invaded Crimea.
Funny thing is that ordinarily Obama wouldn’t care if Russia invades someone. He might give a speech but he wouldn’t do anything. Obama wants to do something and would even get Republican support. Obama wants to take some action as revenge for losing face on Syria but there isn’t much he can do.
One reason he cant do much is that he pulled a lot of our troops out of Europe and cancelled missile defense programs in the region. You have to keep in mind that even if those things are not used, they are leverage. Obama’s strategy has been to reduce the tool that give us leverage. That is why he is gutting the military and cutting their medical benefits.
Think about Syria and how much more effective red line statements would have been if we had 20k troops in Iraq.
I don’t see how Obama’s foreign policy was even a contributing factor. A different Russian leader might have been someone who Obama could have worked with, but I don’t see how any US president could have worked with (or threatened, or otherwise influenced) Putin.
I don’t see how US forces in Europe are leverage, in this case. Again, consider Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, etc. Europe was brimming with American troops, and we had no leverage over the Soviet’s choices for Eastern Europe.
“I guess Putin didn’t respect GWB, either, when Russia invaded Georgia.”
No he did not. Putin knew that given the general circumstances he could get away with it.
This is a good starting move:
” The Pentagon also announced, in response to what officials said were requests from Eastern European NATO members over the past week, that it would more than double the number of aircraft it has based in Lithuania as part of a regular alliance air-defense patrol.
The patrols over the Baltic nations were initiated a decade ago and are rotated quarterly among NATO members that have the appropriate aircraft. The United States, by coincidence, is in charge of the patrols this quarter and is sending six F-15 fighter jets and a KC-135 tanker to add to the four F-15s already deployed at Lithuania’s Siauliai Air Base.”
I get so damned tired of the Obama apologists. They know they can’t defend their retarded Messiah’s actual job performance. He has accomplished nothing but failure since he blew his lines taking the oath of office. His Presidency has been an unmitigated disaster for America and the world.
They know there’s no way to defend that. No rational person could possibly say that Obama has done a better job than any random homeless person picked off a steam grate and installed in the Oval Office could do.
So what do they do? They make the most pointless, useless, idiotic attack imaginable. “You’re all hypocrites because Bush made mistakes, too!”
Think about that: they’ve spent the better part of two decades talking about how incredibly superior Obama is to the benighted Bush. But when we actually point out how much of a calamitous fuckup Obama is, suddenly his ass-kissers insist that Bush’s missteps somehow justify Obama’s constant incompetence.
It’s illogical, it’s stupid, and it’s dishonest. These mindless partisans have invested so much of their personal identity in being “Obama supporters” that the simple truth of his idiocy and corruption strikes at their flimsy sense of self-worth. They have no personal accomplishments or virtues of their own, they have done nothing of value to anyone, but they can believe they are good and smart people because they voted for Obama. Pointing out that Obama is, in fact, evil and foolish destroys that crutch. It forces these repulsive little shits to confront the fact that their lives and souls are barren and empty.
Rather than accept the truth and try to change, they lash out, taking up whatever poor excuse for an argument that comes to hand. They quote slogans from MSNBC without quite understanding what they mean. They resort to bizarre equivalencies and excuse-making. Above all, they try to change the subject, to distract us (and themselves) from the agonizing truth.
I won’t be distracted. This is the truth: Obama is a fool, a fraud, and a villain. And the people who voted for him and continue to defend him are stupid, corrupt, and hollow. Nothing they say, no matter how much they shriek and howl, will change those facts. Let them burn into your shriveled souls, lefties: you are idiots who voted for an idiot, and now you are lying to defend a liar. You are despicable and you always will be.
True and false, right and wrong, these are side issues for the Left. It’s all about power. They actually believe that when socialism triumphs, that they will be the ruling class, rather than the first ones lined up against the wall.
Indeed, Ed. Although a society in which people with the intelligence level of, say, dn-guy, would quickly disappear into chaos, mass starvation. etc.
He’d be right at home in the House GOP.
Putin has bigger guns then Boehner.
http://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads//2011/09/putin6.jpg
What a strange thing to spout. Since all of the communist sympathizers in this country find themselves on the other side of the aisle. Either literally or figuratively (i.e. when they vote).
One could argue that the Neo-Cons are a bunch of commies.
One could argue that you’re a moron. It would take pretty much zero effort.
It takes more than a mutual lack of respect for Obama to be welcomed by Republicans. You won’t see Republicans working with Putin against America’s interests like a Ted Kennedy.
Just because Obama’s fellow travelers like China and Russia don’t have any respect for Obama doesn’t mean they have any affinity for a Republican or conservative political ideology.
This Putin Obama business is Red on Red.
China likes the Republicans. The Republicans invested a lot
in developing China as a superpower.
Ok, name an example of this. I’m curious where you’re going with this.
When faced with facts and reality – which blows apart the cotton-candy leftist fantasies – people like Jim have nothing left other than strange things to spout. It would destroy them to admit they were utterly wrong about Obama. But to defend Obama against the ever-increasing pile of evidence that he’s a pathetic moronic fantasist, requires ever increasing strangeness on the part of people like Jim.
Tis no matter really….sensible people know to laugh at the maunderings of a kool-aid drinker and continue on.
Yet Putin marvels at the glory days of the USSR. What does USSR stand for, Jim? Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics.
You lefties always want to pin fascism on the right, but history shows it comes from the left.
Who put “anti-Americans” in camps? Wilson and Roosevelt.
What does Nazi stand for? National Socialist Workers Party.
North Korea is a Stalinist regime.
To equate Putin with republicans only displays your ignorance.
North Korea is not a Stalinist regime. It is a autocratic monarchy. If you haven’t realized that by now you need to think about it more. Stalin never propped up his own family to succeed him into power.
Both of you can be right if you are arguing different points. If you can get past your point about the monarchical element of NORK then there are numerous similarities, with perhaps the biggest exception being rapid industrialization.
OMG, it’s an autocratic monarchy. It doesn’t behave like a Stalinist regime at all.
The UK has a monarch, it’s not a democracy at all.
Jim, that’s preposterous.
If all it took to be “right at home in the House GOP” was zero respect for Obama, the house GOP would have more supports, about 7 billion of them.
Don’t quit your day job.
“Well, who does, really? He’s a shlub.”
The fantasists of the world.
I found this an interesting look at the subject:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/putin_doesnt_threaten_our_national_security_obama_does.html
Evidence! Logic!
http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2014/03/the_one_ukraine_argument_you_should_ignore_110344.html
Now an undeniable fact: The one Ukraine argument you should ignore comes from bob-1.
Obama has always been, let’s say disingenuous but his credibility eradicated until Syria and then reinforced by the Obamacare debacle. These two events showed more than any other how hallow and empty Obama’s rhetoric is. Whether or not Obama’s lack of credibility or his horrendous foreign policy was the cause of the invasion of Ukraine are totally separate from whether or not those things actually exist. I personally think Putin will and has acted in what he thought was in the best interest of his country regardless of Obama.
Ok will do.
Have not heard that one before considering the invasion of Ukraine caught Obama totally by surprise. What is in question are Obama’s statements after the invasion.
I could go on but for anyone who doesn’t want to waste a few minutes clicking on your link the gist is, “Of course Obama has no credibility but it doesn’t matter.” That whole Evidence! Logic! lead off is utter crap. The link was devoid of either.
I think we’re talking past each other.
The realclearworld article links to here:
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/127/january14/forum_1024.php
Try reading the second paragraph. – it will take less than 30 seconds. If you find the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph intriguing, you can scroll down to read a discussion of the examples.
“I think we’re talking past each other.”
You have to say something first. Your first post didn’t give us much to go on. Do you think Obama is or isn’t credible and does it matter?
Your second link says Obama isn’t credible and that it may not matter that he has backed down in the past. He could still back up his threats with force. I agree to some extent. What would push Obama over the edge? IMO, his ego. Obama already has a score to settle with Putin over Syria but Obama is limited by the practicalities of actually doing anything militarily. In this instance, Obama’s credibility doesn’t matter because he can’t do anything.
But in the broader picture, aside from threats of force, it matters a lot. Will we help out Taiwan or Australia based on Obama’s assurances? Should Israel trust Obama’s promises during negotiations? Will Iraq find the USA or Iran a better partner? Should Americans believe that no one will be affected by the employer mandate or that there was no White House involvement in IRS targeting?
I guess Putin didn’t respect GWB, either, when Russia invaded Georgia. In fact I think Bush’s options were limited and the situation called for a prudent response, and the situation now is very similar. But I’m going to hazard a guess that there wasn’t any outrage back then among the readers here.
I guess Putin didn’t respect GWB, either, when Russia invaded Georgia.
He shouldn’t have. He knew Bush was a patsy when he made that stupid comment about being able to see into Putin’s soul.
“I guess Putin didn’t respect GWB”
Probably not.
“In fact I think Bush’s options were limited and the situation called for a prudent response, and the situation now is very similar.”
Yes, there are some very practical limitations on what can be done about what is going on in Ukraine just as there were in Georgia. Also, the invasion of Georgia happened at a very sensitive time for Americans. It was excellent timing on Putin’s part.
“But I’m going to hazard a guess that there wasn’t any outrage back then among the readers here.”
I am pretty sure everyone was outraged about the invasion of Georgia. It doesn’t reflect well on Obama, Hillary, and Kerry that they didn’t take the invasion of Georgia into account when trying to buddy up with Russia after the election. It is like for Obama nothing existed before he was elected and he has had to re-learn hard taught lessons.
Everyone, really? No offense, Rand — and I haven’t gone back to check — but I’m guessing that you and none of your readers were outraged whatsoever back then. And it doesn’t reflect well on GWB that he peered into Putin’s soul and saw a man he could trust — as he characterized it. It’s like Russian history didn’t exist before he was elected, either!
But none of that is my point. My point is that world leaders like GWB and Obama make decisions based on a lot of real world calculations about our national interest vs the cost of escalating tensions. And in both of those cases I agree with their decisions.
Everyone, really? No offense, Rand — and I haven’t gone back to check
No doubt you didn’t, since you failed to see who exactly you were responding. Wodun made the comment, not Rand. Your comment not only proves your ignorance but also your willingness to comment despite your knowledge of your own ignorance. Frankly, it causes me to discredit anything else you have to say.
I don’t think you know at all how GWB or Obama made their decisions, and so your happiness in their decisions is likely based on the same ignorance you have shown in this thread. Your agreement with them is about as exciting and informative as seeing a seal applaud before its owner serves it a fish.
Putin got what he wanted out of the Georgian conflict. He will get what he wants in terms of control of Crimea. Sevastopol will become the Klaliningrad of the south. About all GWB or Obama accomplished is legitimizing the land grab by suggesting they managed to get Putin to back down after he already got what he wanted. South Ossentia is already a puppet nation. And soon Crimea will complete its transformation with recognition of its “democratic choice” to secede from Ukraine while literally under the guns of Russian Troops. And the happy seals will all applaud that war was averted.
Wait, are we supposed to be outraged that Putin did it or the response from our government? Two different things. But as you pointed out there wasn’t much that could be done.
You are right that it doesn’t reflect well on Bush that he looked into Putin’s soul and saw a man he could trust. Well, you can trust Putin to be Putin but you also have to have a good understanding of who he is. Bush was ridiculed for this and Obama deserves even more ridicule from failing to learn from what happened to Georgia and the ridiculous things he said during the last campaign about Russia no longer being a threat to us or anyone else. Right?
I don’t think Obama should have gone to war over Crimea but his handling of the situation has been poor. His rhetoric is all over the place just as his foreign policy is aimless in general, lurching from one issue to the next with no demonstrated understanding of the issues and no clear policies.
Actually, the Russian/Georgian war didn’t start until August of 2008, when it was obvious that Obama would be elected, having defeated Hillary for the nomination two months earlier.
Oh, okay, so Obama as a candidate was responsible for the Bush administration’s reaction to the situation. That’s quite a novel interpretation.
Did anyone say Obama was President when it happened?
It did happen rather close to the election. How did Obama respond after taking office? He started kissing up to Putin offering concession after concession, sometimes even making concessions the Russians didn’t ask for. And how did that work out for Obama?
I guess Putin didn’t respect GWB, either, when Russia invaded Georgia. In fact I think Bush’s options were limited and the situation called for a prudent response, and the situation now is very similar. But I’m going to hazard a guess that there wasn’t any outrage back then among the readers here.
If Boosh did it, it must be ok, amirite?
No, just asking if Kurt Hallowell was howling about Bush’s limp response to a very analogous situation. I’m going to guess you weren’t.
It’s only analogous in the fever swamp that is your mind. Spend a few minutes reading up on South Ossetia. That was precipitated by an 80 tank 10,000 troop invasion by Georgia under Mikheil Saakashvili, a man that everyone at State or Defense has described as a cartoon in one form or another, many on record (Rice and Gates in their memoirs).
I’d like to hear just one person on this blog explain why the Warsaw Pact intervention in Hungary in 1956 is not analogous with respect to the US President.. Did Khrushchev and the other Soviet leaders not respect Eisenhower? Did they doubt Eisenhower’s red lines? Did Eisenhower’s actions somehow lead to the Soviet intervention? Was it Eisenhower’s fault? No, right? Why is Ukraine somehow Obama’s fault but Hungary is not Eisenhower’s fault? What is fundamentally different?
“Why is Ukraine somehow Obama’s fault”
People pointing out how bad of a job Obama is doing is not the same as saying he is at fault. Without a doubt. Obama’s no-nothing no-strategy foreign policy was a contributing factor but Putin was the one who invaded Crimea.
Funny thing is that ordinarily Obama wouldn’t care if Russia invades someone. He might give a speech but he wouldn’t do anything. Obama wants to do something and would even get Republican support. Obama wants to take some action as revenge for losing face on Syria but there isn’t much he can do.
One reason he cant do much is that he pulled a lot of our troops out of Europe and cancelled missile defense programs in the region. You have to keep in mind that even if those things are not used, they are leverage. Obama’s strategy has been to reduce the tool that give us leverage. That is why he is gutting the military and cutting their medical benefits.
Think about Syria and how much more effective red line statements would have been if we had 20k troops in Iraq.
I don’t see how Obama’s foreign policy was even a contributing factor. A different Russian leader might have been someone who Obama could have worked with, but I don’t see how any US president could have worked with (or threatened, or otherwise influenced) Putin.
I don’t see how US forces in Europe are leverage, in this case. Again, consider Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, etc. Europe was brimming with American troops, and we had no leverage over the Soviet’s choices for Eastern Europe.
“I guess Putin didn’t respect GWB, either, when Russia invaded Georgia.”
No he did not. Putin knew that given the general circumstances he could get away with it.
This is a good starting move:
” The Pentagon also announced, in response to what officials said were requests from Eastern European NATO members over the past week, that it would more than double the number of aircraft it has based in Lithuania as part of a regular alliance air-defense patrol.
The patrols over the Baltic nations were initiated a decade ago and are rotated quarterly among NATO members that have the appropriate aircraft. The United States, by coincidence, is in charge of the patrols this quarter and is sending six F-15 fighter jets and a KC-135 tanker to add to the four F-15s already deployed at Lithuania’s Siauliai Air Base.”
I get so damned tired of the Obama apologists. They know they can’t defend their retarded Messiah’s actual job performance. He has accomplished nothing but failure since he blew his lines taking the oath of office. His Presidency has been an unmitigated disaster for America and the world.
They know there’s no way to defend that. No rational person could possibly say that Obama has done a better job than any random homeless person picked off a steam grate and installed in the Oval Office could do.
So what do they do? They make the most pointless, useless, idiotic attack imaginable. “You’re all hypocrites because Bush made mistakes, too!”
Think about that: they’ve spent the better part of two decades talking about how incredibly superior Obama is to the benighted Bush. But when we actually point out how much of a calamitous fuckup Obama is, suddenly his ass-kissers insist that Bush’s missteps somehow justify Obama’s constant incompetence.
It’s illogical, it’s stupid, and it’s dishonest. These mindless partisans have invested so much of their personal identity in being “Obama supporters” that the simple truth of his idiocy and corruption strikes at their flimsy sense of self-worth. They have no personal accomplishments or virtues of their own, they have done nothing of value to anyone, but they can believe they are good and smart people because they voted for Obama. Pointing out that Obama is, in fact, evil and foolish destroys that crutch. It forces these repulsive little shits to confront the fact that their lives and souls are barren and empty.
Rather than accept the truth and try to change, they lash out, taking up whatever poor excuse for an argument that comes to hand. They quote slogans from MSNBC without quite understanding what they mean. They resort to bizarre equivalencies and excuse-making. Above all, they try to change the subject, to distract us (and themselves) from the agonizing truth.
I won’t be distracted. This is the truth: Obama is a fool, a fraud, and a villain. And the people who voted for him and continue to defend him are stupid, corrupt, and hollow. Nothing they say, no matter how much they shriek and howl, will change those facts. Let them burn into your shriveled souls, lefties: you are idiots who voted for an idiot, and now you are lying to defend a liar. You are despicable and you always will be.
True and false, right and wrong, these are side issues for the Left. It’s all about power. They actually believe that when socialism triumphs, that they will be the ruling class, rather than the first ones lined up against the wall.
Indeed, Ed. Although a society in which people with the intelligence level of, say, dn-guy, would quickly disappear into chaos, mass starvation. etc.