THE OFFICIAL BARRACK OBAMA THREAD

I'll just use this thread to lol at the stimulus.

I'm glad I'm living during the Death of the Republic. Makes me feel important.

i blame american idol, that show taught idiots how to vote for who they like more not who is best. good job

No, I think the nature of politicians is to blame. It always seems to be the lesser of two evils.

I do however blame American Idol for perpetuating the idea that Simon Cowell has any relevance and/or talent.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19663.html

President Barack Obama doesn’t go anywhere without his TelePrompter.

The textbook-sized panes of glass holding the president’s prepared remarks follow him wherever he speaks.
...
Just how much of a crutch the teleprompter has become for Obama was on sharp display during his latest commerce secretary announcement. The president spoke from a teleprompter in the ornate Indian Treaty Room for a few minutes. Then Gov. Gary Locke stepped to the podium and pulled out a piece of paper for reference.

The president’s teleprompter also elicited some uncomfortable laughter after he announced Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as his choice for Health and Human Services secretary. “Kathy,” Obama said, turning the podium over to Sebelius, who waited at the microphone for an awkward few seconds while the teleprompters were lowered to the floor and the television cameras rolled.

Obama has relied on a teleprompter through even the shortest announcements and when repeating the same lines on his economic stimulus plan that he's been saying for months — whereas past presidents have mostly worked off of notes on the podium except during major speeches, such as the State of the Union.

What an embarrassment this moran is. We have to put up with eight years of the world laughing at us.

He's also a bad gift-giver while kicking out the Churchill bust from the White House:

He had put clearly great thought into giving the U.S. President lavish gifts to signify Britain's 'special relationship' with the U.S.

During his historic trip to Washington, Gordon Brown gave Barack Obama an ornamental pen holder made from the timbers of the Victorian anti-slave ship HMS Gannet - once called HMS President.

...

The Prime Minister went to the trouble of hunting down the perfect gift after becoming the first European leader invited to the White House by the new Commander In Chief.

So it would be perfectly understandable if Mr Brown felt a little underwhelmed at the official gift he received in return.

For despite being leader of the world's most bountiful nation, President Obama handed over nothing more thought-provoking than 25 classic American films on DVD.
...
Mr Brown and his wife also showered gifts on the Obama children giving Sasha and Malia an outfit each from Topshop and six children's books by British authors which are shortly to be published in America.

In return, the Obamas gave the Browns two models of the presidential helicopter, Marine One, to take home to sons Fraser and John.

I can't wait until we're Stronger at Home and Respected in the World again.

We have to put up with eight years of the world laughing at us.

Aren't you used to it by now?

Well, we were laughing with them these past 8 years.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD96OMB301

With a media gaggle looking on, Clinton handed Lavrov a green box tied with a green bow. He opened it to reveal a "reset button," a reminder of Vice President Joe Biden's recent remark that the Obama administration hopes to reset U.S. relations with Moscow.

Trouble was, the Russian-language label the Americans put on the button had the wrong word. Before she realized the mistake, Clinton assured Lavrov, "We worked hard to get it right."

"You got it wrong," Lavrov responded with a smile. He said the word the Americans chose — "peregruzka" — meant "overloaded" or "overcharged" rather than "reset."

I think the AP's assumption that Hillary Clinton understands Russian (and thus be able to realize the mistake) is funnier than the State Department's failure.

This is what you get when you take people from Congress and put them in the executive branch.

So, what is it now, the British, Canada, Russia, Eastern Europe? I think we can get a majority of countries offended by May. Then we should have the "crow eating" parties for all the lunatics who voted in the last election.

Edit: When I saw it on TV I didn't even think about it. But someone mentioned something on another website, and they're right. The button isn't even in Cyrillic.

And on that picture you can see it was clearly printed out on a label maker.

benji's racist hate crime and anti-American hate speech continues...

The President and Vice President's Top Ten Gaffes:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnd ... joe_biden_
Strongerathomerespectedintheworld. Changewecanbelievein.

You're just jealous of Obama because he's a better baller than you benji.
Boomshakalaka for number 23!!!

http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com ... thing.html

Ben, i understand if you disagree with his politics or whatever, but the way you're going after Obama is no different to how everyone went after George Bush, and you often condemned them for doing it, so why contradict yourself?

To contradict yourself is a joke now? Awesome.

You know, sometimes people say things that aren't serious. I still remember the day I found out.

That's a convenient excuse, "I wasn't serious". It's like saying "there was a miscommunication"

I think you're full of BS though. I think you're just as lame as all those idiots who looked for those imperfections with George Bush.


Or maybe, "sometimes [I] say things that aren't serious"

It's fun to be vague.

I think you're full of BS though. I think you're just as lame as all those idiots who looked for those imperfections with George Bush.

I'm fine with that. Especially since it's impossible for me to prove it's satire since you'll always claim I'm lying. But I thought we weren't supposed to assume what other people think or mean? (And your love of contradictions should realize the satire is based entirely in this, the media and many obsessing over Bush doing what Obama gets a pass on and even praised for if it isn't ignored. Especially since the phrases are exactly the ones uttered about Bush. Also, see the first post in this thread for a clear example.)

And just because Bush was right on the now over war doesn't mean he wasn't a terrible President who shouldn't have been impeached.

It's what I think. I never said I was right, I know I'm more then susceptible to being wrong.

I thought it was wrong the way George Bush was hammered the same way you're hammering Obama over the same junk. If you want to go after his policies or whatever, then feel free. I just think it's pathetic, regardless of if its Bush, Obama or Dr Zoidberg.

And I'm well aware the media and alot of others have a double standard with Bush and Obama. But, so do you. You can call it satire or whatever you like to try and justify it. I think you're just looking for something to hide being your own double standard.

Of course though, I could be wrong and you could be telling the truth, but I really don't care. I'm not the one with the double standard here .

Neither am I.

Not my fault or your fault you're wrong about me.

Actually, if you don't care, why are you spending so much time harping about it?

Regardless of your intentions, it's still a double standard.

What is? And how is it a double standard?

Think about it for a second.

You criticise (up until the point that you've called the media sub human) the media for their bashing of Bush's human mistakes but they ignore Obama's.

You do the opposite. Then you say yours is satire.

Now you don't know what each member of the media's intention was behind going after Bush. Some could say it was satire for how members on the right went after Clinton.

It's one set of rules for you, one for them. You can't justify what you're doing and then blast them for doing the same thing without calling it a double standard.

I call the media sub-human because they are sub-human not because they criticized Bush. There's a reason Journalism is the lowest form of English. They aren't even born with souls for darkosake.

I think there is fundamental misunderstanding of the point of my comments even though you'll just assume I'm lying. It has nothing to do with Obama or Bush, it is a criticism of Democrats and eventually everyone not for mocking Bush but for holding the double standard. It like all my shtick is about counter narratives. Bush was relentlessly mocked by not just the media, but everyone for eight years as "stupid" and "embarrassing" because he wasn't the most eloquent speaker. (And it was a circular proof, Bush was stupid because he was stupid and the proof that he's stupid is how stupid he is.) Obama does it and nobody cares, he still gets praised as "brilliant" and "the greatest speaker in history." The target is not Obama, it is the double standards of the fans of his. Everything negative about Bush brought comments like "what a fucking moron" and was the basis of every comment, it was the first narrative with his "lack of gravitas" in 2000. These comments about Obama aren't flooding everything like they did for the last eight years, you have to go to specific channels for it. (And it's not like it doesn't extend to his policies. For eight years deficit spending was terrible, now we need more of it or we'll all die. Congress being a "rubber stamp" for a President of the same party was terrible, now it's government working as it's supposed to. Attacking political opposition was a crime, now it's awesome. Shutting out the opposing party was traitorous, now it's vital. The politics of fear is dangerous, now it's essential. But I doubt 75% of the people who threw out the "Bush is stupid" meme even cared about these.)

It's like if you take an argument or criticism that say a fanatical LeBron fan who say draws himself like the Hulk makes against Wade or Kobe or someone else, and turn it around on LeBron to point out their own double standard or hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with LeBron itself, and you don't actually agree with it because you think the argument is stupid in the first place. Like if this say, anime fan, said something like "LeBron missed a game and the Cavs lost, there's your proof!" or "The Celtics have lost, they're unraveling!" And then when the Cavs lost three straight you mockingly said "They're unraveling!" You aren't mocking the Cavs, you aren't being a hypocrite, you're mocking the persons original silly statement.

The key is in replicating the exact statements. "More of the same", "four more years of the same failed policies", "I'm so embarrassed", "this moron can't even speak", "the world is laughing at us", etc. This one would think clearly identifies it as satire.

Now, it's entirely possible that calling Bush retard was satire of criticism for Clinton's affairs and scandals. But I don't know how that works logically. Clinton's terms were scandal filled, so Bush is...retarded?

No, I'm considering other statements to place these in context, it seems less like satire and more like plain ad hominem. They don't think people who don't agree with them are wrong, misguided or haven't yet acquired enough understanding, they think they're stupid. Their arguments are to be instantly dismissed, not even considered. Look at Obama claiming there's only his plans or "doing nothing" he doesn't even consider other positions valid. Look at Harry Reid's comments on Clarence Thomas, he simply claimed his opinions were poorly written and that he was an embarrassment instead of ever saying why he wasn't a good Justice. Look at the frenzied assaults on Rush Limbaugh and Jim Cramer. These aren't the fringe, these are the leaders. And I could go on and on with direct quote examples but I'll spare you. The bulk of the political philosophy they operate on is based on the idea that people aren't smart enough to know what to do, so they should decide it for you. (And for the record, Republicans do this too, but we already know from other threads that they too are just Leftists with different policy focuses.)

The refusal to consider debate is a common sign of elitism believing other views are inherently wrong and not worth the time. Instantly dismissing any opposition because it's stupid, and it's stupid because it's opposed to you and anyone who advocates it is therefore also stupid, because only stupid people would disagree with you. And if they're not considering opposition stupid, well then the opposition must be lying or a tool under the influence of some interest. If they aren't stupid, they must have malicious motives. See Reid's comments about Bush and Republicans trying to destroy or ruin the country. Or any aspect of energy policy/climate change where someone on the other side must be in the pocket of BIG OIL.

It's ad hominem. If you can discredit your opponent in peoples minds even though it has nothing to do with the truth of their claim, you don't have to debate or make arguments. It's not debating, it's avoiding debate usually because you don't have a counter position that can be supported. If Bush is stupid, then anything he advocates must be also stupid. Ipso facto, that's a "Bush policy" instantly discredits it.

I don't play this way except sarcastically. I want opposing views. I want to be challenged and poke holes in arguments and narratives producing counterarguments and counter narratives because it is the only way to improve my own positions. Both sides benefit. But everyone on here whines about actually debating anything or says "I don't want to get in an argument about this so I'll shut up" so I'm left with boring sarcasm on silly irrelevant stories for minor chuckles.

I don't care if Obama can't speak without a teleprompter, I don't care if his team continues to be a comedy of errors, I don't even care if he's a Manchurian Candidate. As I said, we're in the farce stage now, so it's even more irrelevant. It's just something to laugh at/with. Like Bush opening the wrong door, or "now, watch this drive." It's nothing to gnash about, just something to chuckle at. As the President likes to say, it's just a "distraction."

You don't have to believe me, and I can't prove it anyway and we both know that, so I don't know why I even bothered trying to. You'll believe what you believe. But if you actually do want to debate policies (like has been done in the stimulus thread) then let's do it. If you want to keep talking about me, it's flattering but I don't think anyone else wants that.

Now, get to pouring over this looking for signs of hypocrisy. Some people might still be out there thinking I'm flawless.

Don't think for a second this is a smear campaign I'm running against you. While I'm completely indifferent to you, and everyone else on this message board (only because I don't know you in person), we do share very similar points of view in politics and videogames (but not the importance of statistics in basketball, but that's a whole different kettle of fish).

This might sound itself like a contradiction because I was saying you have a double standard in this thread. Everyone has double standards. I know I do and I do try to work on them. I'm not saying you're sub human or whatever. I'm just pointing it out to you, because there are many people here that follow you around kissing your arse.

Sometimes criticism is more valuable then blind praise.

Now I'm aware that the majority of people, especially our age, hate George Bush for no worthy reason. And they also love Obama for no worthy reason too. I'm well aware of their double standards.

But do you think for one minute that they'll catch onto your satire and go "hold on, what Ben is saying, I am doing but in vica versa"? If they could think that deeply, most of them would realise there is no difference between Bush and Obama. They're both corrupt politicians that aren't interested in anything apart from money, power and serving their own ego.

That being said I would much prefer sitting down and having a beer with George Bush then Obama, but that's just me.

That's getting off topic too. Despite how legitimate your reasoning is behind your actions, it's still a double standard.

I hate using abstract analogies, but its like someone cutting someone off to get in a lane. The person he cut off honks his horn and cusses him. Then later on, that driver who cussed and honked had to make a right turn (or a left turn for you bloody americans ), so he had to cut someone off to get in the right lane. If asked, the driver says "I had to get into that lane". Whilst being legitimate, its a double standard.

Don't lower yourself to those prima donas that you described.

I do not think you actually fully understand my position on statistics, generally because I did the big debate on here while you were gone for a bit, and was just tired of it when you came back and probably too antagonistic and not explanative. There's a thread Indy made previewing the season to be a year or two back where I think I explained it as well as I could in an argument with Shannon. In short, it's not about being an "definitive answer" it's simply about information and the nature of argument.

I had a line in my post about how living up to standards and how I more than anyone don't even live up to my own. I thought it was meandering and cut it. But basically, I don't think hypocrisy is a crime, nor double standards. I think pointing them out is purposed to force a definitive argument. If someone whines about Bush exaggerating claims/being wrong or Saddam not being a threat, but seems to be fine with Clinton's doing the same with Kosovo even with the no approval from Congress, I wouldn't use this contradiction as an indictment of them, but would pursue to attempt to force a clarification of the actual position. Even if that's simple as "I trust Clinton more." Then it's not repeating talking points, or conventional wisdom, it's honesty.

I don't care if people catch onto my satire, I write humor for myself not others. And since nobody responds to serious things, it was another vain attempt to get someone to respond in anyway. Or trolling.

I don't believe Bush or Obama is interested in simply those things, I think they think they believe they are trying to do right.

And it's not just people our age. The most rational intellectuals are usually the worst at ad hominems against those who disagree and being offended that someone dare. Most people don't take the time to think things through or investigate, they just trust sources who seem to have "authority." Part of the reason there is so much desire to discredit the source, or shoot the messenger. A cynic might suggest authorties work actively to cultivate this mindset so as to maintain power.

If you think there are people who follow me around kissing my ass, then you're sorely mistaken. I wish there were people who enjoyed me enough. There are people who agree with me on some subjects, but that doesn't mean they are "goons." It'd be like taking our common criticism of Andrew and believing we were ass kissers or in cahoots. For everyone who may view me positively there's ten who either just tolerate me or despise me.

And lulz at thinking I get blind praise. I don't even get that from myself, just endless criticism. It's touching that you care so much to perfect me, but there's no criticism you can make, or flaw you can point out I haven't already thoroughly covered enough. There's a reason I edit my posts so much both before and after they are posted.

I'm not lowering myself, I can't go lower so it's no skin off my back.

the obama deception...