What would the world look like if the Right had their way?
23 April 2009
by
lolife
Filed under
Politics
JUST LIKE IT DID FOR THE LAST 8 FUCKING YEARS UNDER THE WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
It is fucking ridiculous that the goddamn Right Wing thinks we are going to forget the last 8 fucking years. If you disagree with the approach Obama is taking — GOOD! That means we might be on the right track. Your credibility has been obliterated by your steadfast support of the most ineffective retard ever to hold the office of the President. So how about you shut the fuck up for at least a year or two and see what happens when honest, educated, intelligent , well-informed and yes, imperfect people run things for a while.
And, by the way, the fact that 70% of the US and 100% of the world thought Bush was a complete failure does not mean that you get to be just as mean to Obama as we were to Bush. We were mean for a reason. The molehills that the Right is trying to turn into mountains right now don’t count.
And let me also add that I am not giving Obama a free pass. He will succeed or fail and I’ll call ‘em like I see ‘em. But right now he is just starting to get his agenda going and it is intellectually dishonest as well as stupid to claim the goddamn sky is falling when we are still in the first 100 days.
26 April 2009 @ 8:54 am
This might be about the most myopic post I’ve ever read. The rights concerns about Obama are “molehills” but your complaints with Bush were for a good reason. Your arrogance is really stunning. You guys like to say how closed-minded the right is and claim that the left is so open-minded and thoughtful. Your post lays waste to that notion. You are open minded as long as the opinion in question falls within the boundaries of left-leaning hegemony. If it is outside of those boundaries it is dismissed out of hand.
Nationalizing the banking industry (Yes, Bush started it, shame on him) and not letting banks pay back TARP funds = molehill?
Taking over GM = molehill?
Promising to end earmarks and then signing a bill with millions of dollars in earmarks = molehill?
Appointing tax cheeks to run the Treasury (among other appointments) = molehill?
Desiring to prosecute attorneys for forming legal opiniions = molehill?
Apologizing for every action the USA has ever taken and abdicating all responsibility for it because it happened “before he was born” (way to be a leader) = molehill?
Sitting through a 50 minute diatribe by a dictator spouting lie after lie about the US = molehill?
Bowing down to the King of Saudi Arabia = molehill?
Appointing a DHS head who thinks the 9/11 terrorists entered the USA through Canada = molehill?
The point is Michael, you don’t get to characterize the other sides issues as molehills. What seems minor to you may be hugely important to others, maybe for reason you don’t comprehend. Just because you don’t agree with it’s importance, does not mean it is not.
On top pf that, you guys pounded Bush with all of the most vile filth for the past 7 years but we’re not allowed to say anything negative against Obama? Even that we don’t agree with his policies? Give me a break, you can dish it out but you can’t take it. It doesn’t take 1 or 2 years to get an idea of the direction he is leading this country in. We see the direction and it leads to disaster. Obama may be smart, and civil, and charming but he is woefully ignorant of history and economics.
So, get off your high horse and gain a little perspective.
26 April 2009 @ 10:06 am
One more thing… “most ineffective retard ever to hold the office of the President” has had the class and the good grace to step out of the way, STFU, and not criticize the current resident of the White House at all. I predict that George Bush will never utter one word of criticism about Obama because that’s the kind of man that he is. This is a courtesy that the classless former Presidents Clinton and Carter (the actual worst President ever) did not have the good sense to do.
Oh, but I’m sure they “had a reason” so it’s OK.
Wow.
26 April 2009 @ 10:08 am
Yup, just take a molehill and add a good amount of Right Wing idiocy, paranoia and double-standards. See above. If you’re not happy, we’re probably doing the right thing.
None of the Right’s approaches to any of the things you mention were successful. Bowing? How about torture. Which is worse? Listening to other people? Seriously, that made your list? Is smiling at people going to make your list, too?
You characterized the piracy incident as a failure of the Obama administration. Your BFF Rush Limbaugh criticized Obama and the US military for how they saved that captain’s life. Your opinion literally means nothing to me.
Obama is making his differences with Bush obvious to the American people and the world. I fully expected that to bother you and I am happy it does. We are going to be WAY better off after 8 years of Obama, especially compared to the disastrous Bush era.
That is my point: if we do better than your party did, you will still claim we are wrong. You’re not interested in the truth, you just want your turn at the punching bag.
Have fun.
19 May 2009 @ 4:22 pm
Intellectual honesty is the key concept here. The far right simply does not engage in intellectual honesty. Instead they cater to the fears and prejudices of their base. (Obama is a Muslim, not born in the USA, he’s a socialist, he’ll take your guns etc…) All of these falsehoods have been presented on right wign web sites and the base eats this shit up. The problem is the right wing is inclusive of the same types of people that think the world is 64,000 years old. I know this is a subset….but it speaks to the membership of the far right and its willingness to toe the party line in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary (see evloution and gloabl warming is a left wing myth etc…). Not exactly the most intellectually curious bunch.
And by the way, check your propaganda Micadelic, we have not nationalized the banking system in this country. The US government (including the Bush administration)….on the advice of the best economic minds available has provided huge cash infusions to the financial sector (banks) in an attempt to shore up their over-leveraged positions and free up capital (resulting from a lack of regulation in the securitized credit market). The TARP money was doled out under the Bush administration’s plan in exchange for a stake in the institutions that received the funds. Now, the banks that received the funds are afraid of more regulation (which is obviously needed) and want to pay the money back. The plan required that the government would maintain a stake in banks it invested in until 2012, unless the bank could swap it out with private capital. Banks may soon not have to deal with this requirement though. The stimulus bill that passed the House in early February 2009 included language that instructs Treasury to let banks repay TARP investments without raising fresh capital.
Check your facts before you spout the party line!
I don’t have time to pick the rest of the bullshit apart but if you put your best foot forward on that one, you stepped in it.