Politics/Elections/World News

adub2adub wrote:Most of her critics, including most here, could probably admit that her VP selection basically further guaranteed an Obama victory. Perhaps we should thank her ... :applaud:

You could look at it that way... But tearing into her is much more satisfying. :mrgreen:

adub2adub wrote:[image]

Looks like they caught a nice angle of Palin .... :naughty:

Yet, I wonder if those two guys would even be horny for Palin ... considering the matching pink shirts. :doh:

At least she doesn't have the tragic case of the major cankles... :say_yes:

adub2adub wrote:It's actually kinda funny, but not unexpected, to see all the venom thrown at Palin. Most of her critics, including most here, could probably admit that her VP selection basically further guaranteed an Obama victory. Perhaps we should thank her ... :applaud:

Ok. I guess that answers my "who found her" question. It was an Obama supporter disguised as a McCain one. :hehe:

bmwracer wrote:
To wit:

[image]

Man, these guys are famous! I wonder if they feel as stupid as they look when they see themselves being posted on random messageboards. :rofl: I have to admit that the guy with his mouth open is pretty cute though. Mr. Hat guy too. :mrgreen:

From HuffPo:

Obama's Use of Complete Sentences Stirs Controversy

Andy Borowitz
Posted November 18, 2008 | 12:47 PM (EST)

In the first two weeks since the election, President-elect Barack Obama has broken with a tradition established over the past eight years through his controversial use of complete sentences, political observers say.

Millions of Americans who watched Mr. Obama's appearance on CBS's 60 Minutes on Sunday witnessed the president-elect's unorthodox verbal tick, which had Mr. Obama employing grammatically correct sentences virtually every time he opened his mouth.

But Mr. Obama's decision to use complete sentences in his public pronouncements carries with it certain risks, since after the last eight years many Americans may find his odd speaking style jarring.

According to presidential historian Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota, some Americans might find it "alienating" to have a president who speaks English as if it were his first language.

"Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement," says Mr. Logsdon. "If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist."

The historian said that if Mr. Obama insists on using complete sentences in his speeches, the public may find itself saying, "Okay, subject, predicate, subject predicate -- we get it, stop showing off."

The president-elect's stubborn insistence on using complete sentences has already attracted a rebuke from one of his harshest critics, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

"Talking with complete sentences there and also too talking in a way that ordinary Americans like Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder can't really do there, I think needing to do that isn't tapping into what Americans are needing also," she said.

Andy Borowitz is a comedian and writer whose work appears in The New Yorker and The New York Times, and at his award-winning humor site, BorowitzReport.com.

^^^WTF?^^^ What do Americans want? President elect Obama to start freestylin and using ebonics? In no way I see him as being "elitist". Perhaps a lot of Americans have become so stupid that using complete sentences is incomprehensible.

Takoyama wrote:^^^WTF?^^^ What do Americans want? President elect Obama to start freestylin and using ebonics? In no way I see him as being "elitist". Perhaps a lot of Americans have become so stupid that using complete sentences is incomprehensible.

The guy that wrote that is a comedian. I took it more as a dig at Bush, who, took put it charitably, has "issues" with the english language. It might take us awhile after eight years of "nucular" and such to have a commander-in-chief that actually speaks coherent english. [/list:u]

gaijinmark wrote: The guy that wrote that is a comedian. I took it more as a dig at Bush, who, took put it charitably, has "issues" with the english language. It might take us awhile after eight years of "nucular" and such to have a commander-in-chief that actually speaks coherent english. [/list:u]

Yup. :victory:

It was sarcasm... Guess it didn't translate well when I cut and pasted it here. :sweat:

gaijinmark wrote:It might take us awhile after eight years of "nucular" and such to have a commander-in-chief that actually speaks coherent english.

I am the decider.

My old friend Jason wrote an angry piece about Eric Holder and has asked me to post this link where I could.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/nov/25/attornery-general-eric-holder-chiquita

Nov. 26, 2008
Bush's Last Days: The Lamest Duck

[image]

We have "only one President at a time," Barack Obama said in his debut press conference as President-elect. Normally, that would be a safe assumption — but we're learning not to assume anything as the charcoal-dreary economic winter approaches. By mid-November, with the financial crisis growing worse by the day, it had become obvious that one President was no longer enough (at least not the President we had). So, in the days before Thanksgiving, Obama began to move — if not to take charge outright, then at least to preview what things will be like when he does take over in January. He became a more public presence, taking questions from the press three days in a row. He named his economic team. He promised an enormous stimulus package that would somehow create 2.5 million new jobs, and began to maneuver the new Congress toward having the bill ready for him to sign — in a dramatic ceremony, no doubt — as soon as he assumes office.

That we have slightly more than one President for the moment is mostly a consequence of the extraordinary economic times. Even if George Washington were the incumbent, the markets would want to know what John Adams was planning to do after his Inauguration. And yet this final humiliation seems particularly appropriate for George W. Bush. At the end of a presidency of stupefying ineptitude, he has become the lamest of all possible ducks. (See TIME's best pictures of Barack Obama.)

It is in the nature of mainstream journalism to attempt to be kind to Presidents when they are coming and going but to be fiercely skeptical in between. I've been feeling sorry for Bush lately, a feeling partly induced by recent fictional depictions of the President as an amiable lunkhead in Oliver Stone's W. and in Curtis Sittenfeld's terrific novel American Wife. There was a photo in the New York Times that seemed to sum up his current circumstance: Bush in Peru, dressed in an alpaca poncho, standing alone just after the photo op at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, with various Asian leaders departing the stage, none of them making eye contact with him. Bush has that forlorn what-the-hell-happened? expression on his face, the one that has marked his presidency at difficult times. You never want to see the President of the United States looking like that.

So I've been searching for valedictory encomiums. His position on immigration was admirable and courageous; he was right about the Dubai Ports deal and about free trade in general. He spoke well, in the abstract, about the importance of freedom. He is an impeccable classicist when it comes to baseball. And that just about does it for me. I'd add the bracing moment of Bush with the bullhorn in the ruins of the World Trade Center, but that was neutered in my memory by his ridiculous, preening appearance in a flight suit on the deck of the aircraft carrier beneath the "Mission Accomplished" sign. The flight-suit image is one of the two defining moments of the Bush failure. The other is the photo of Bush staring out the window of Air Force One, helplessly viewing the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. This is a presidency that has wobbled between those two poles — overweening arrogance and paralytic incompetence.(President Bush in the Middle East.)

The latter has held sway these past few months as the economy has crumbled. It is too early to rate the performance of Bush's economic team, but we have more than enough evidence to say, definitively, that at a moment when there was a vast national need for reassurance, the President himself was a cipher. Yes, he's a lame duck with an Antarctic approval rating — but can you imagine Bill Clinton going so gently into the night? There are substantive gestures available to a President that do not involve the use of force or photo ops. For example, Bush could have boosted the public spirit — and the auto industry — by announcing that he was scrapping the entire federal automotive fleet, including the presidential limousine, and replacing it with hybrids made in Detroit. He could have jump-started — and he still could — the Obama plan by releasing funds for a green-jobs program to insulate public buildings. He could start funding the transit projects already approved by Congress.

In the end, though, it will not be the creative paralysis that defines Bush. It will be his intellectual laziness, at home and abroad. Bush never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and regulation that was necessary to make markets work. He never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and equity that was necessary to maintain the strong middle class required for both prosperity and democracy. He never considered the complexities of the cultures he was invading. He never understood that faith, unaccompanied by rigorous skepticism, is a recipe for myopia and foolishness. He is less than President now, and that is appropriate. He was never very much of one.

^Excellent.

As I posted in HuffPo: The lamest of lame ducks.

The guy is the most ineffectual, worthless President I've ever seen in my life.

bmwracer wrote:^Excellent.

As I posted in HuffPo: The lamest of lame ducks.

The guy is the most ineffectual, worthless President I've ever seen in my life.

He's more ducksh*t than duck.

Tu_triky wrote:He's more ducksh*t than duck.

Ain't it the truth.

I don't know why they have to wait until January 20 to bring in the new guy... It just gives the existing President time to do chicken shit stuff to screw the incoming President.... :shakehead:

bmwracer wrote:
Ain't it the truth.

I don't know why they have to wait until January 20 to bring in the new guy... It just gives the existing President time to do chicken shit stuff to screw the incoming President.... :shakehead:

Shoot him now.

When you look at where the country was eight years ago when Bush took over, unemployment down, the economy was in good shape, we had a SURPLUS for crying out loud!! And where the country is now, it's kind of like going on vacation and asking your neighbor to look after your house and you come home to a weed infested, windows broken, door off the hinges rat trap. Why anybody would ever want to vote for anybody claiming to be a conservative (cue up the former Miss Alaska runner-up) is beyond me.

gaijinmark wrote:When you look at where the country was eight years ago when Bush took over, unemployment down, the economy was in good shape, we had a SURPLUS for crying out loud!! And where the country is now, it's kind of like going on vacation and asking your neighbor to look after your house and you come home to a weed infested, windows broken, door off the hinges rat trap. Why anybody would ever want to vote for anybody claiming to be a conservative (cue up the former Miss Alaska runner-up) is beyond me.

Amen. Preach that sermon at the mountain top.

bmwracer wrote:^Excellent.

As I posted in HuffPo: The lamest of lame ducks.

The guy is the most ineffectual, worthless President I've ever seen in my life.

And now his goose is cooked ;)

Anime Dad wrote:And now his goose is cooked ;)

LOL, yes.

But not soon enough to save us. :grumble:

Here's the problem. We elected him. Twice.

We did. The American voter.

Ineffectual? Heck, he was successful in just about everything he -- and the suits behind him -- wanted him to do.

Profits for the oil companies soared. Profits for the defense industry soared. Most of the "protections" put into law after the stock market crash of 1929 were either wiped off the books, or made moot. The relationship between corporate America and the Government itself has been changed... probably forever.

About the only thing he wasn't able to do was to privatise Social Security.

As far as the suits who put up the money to get him elected are concerned... W's been a great success.

The only people he let down were the Middle and Lower classes... and the poor dumb religious right who actually thought he was interested in doing the stuff he told them he'd do for them. The whole anti abortion, prayer in school, no homos allowed, hugga-mugga, topped off with a constitutional ammendment saying that America is officially a Christian Nation.

Aside from those whinners... Bush has made his supporters pretty darned happy. And rich. (Richer.)

And I say again. We elected him. Twice.

So who's lame?

^ I didn't vote for the schmuck.

Either time.

Nor did roughly 40+% of the American people.