Comment was. Trying to make sense of Emperor Barry Husseinovich. Is there a pattern with the birth certificate nonsense: an instinct for presenting a confusing public face so when a political opponent goes for the Chicago ad hominem, he won't know which grinning face is the real one? Given the way the Democratic Party Pravda jumped on Mr. Trump (and his little dead woodchuck that lives on top of his head too!), it seems that taking a swing at the wrong image can be mocked endlessly.
Or is the pattern with the incident during the election campaign where BH told a pro-Israel group that he was firmly committed (let him be perfectly clear, make no mistake about it) to a strong Israel with secure borders---and literally within hours told an anti-Israel group pretty much exactly the opposite? In the second case, both groups remembered the statement that they wanted to hear and for some reason ignored the other one.
Smart people (in their own opinion) seem to be able to make sense of this. I am obviously not smart enough to do so.
By the way, what do y'all make of yesterday's performance at Ground Zero in New York? I heard that George Bush had um, other... uh, commitments that day. But then that Bill Clinton also declined the invitation. That pair of snubs is up there with not inviting the Obamas to the reelection campaign rally in London (and by the way there was some wedding or something going on, good background for the Presidential Grin).
Lack of desire to have to tug the forelock for scraps of spotlight? Clinton fleeing a sinking ship? The Clinton who shaves twice a day making her own political plans for 2012?
It says much for the "esteem" in which The One is held by the majority of Americans that a bottom-feeder like The Donald is actually considered a serious challenger.
And now, Ron Paul. God help us; the Crazy Uncle himself. He might actually appeal to The One's base on the left, in that he is consistent in his opinion of Israel. (I.E., roughly similar to Hamas' and Fatah's yearnings re the same.)
As for the dead woodchuck, as Scott Adams once said in Dilbert, somebody should tell Donny Boy that, "the Seventies called- they want their hair back".
My guess is that GWB really already had something on his plate. Also, he abides by the traditional "gentlemens' agreement" that former Presidents don't criticize sitting ones in public. At Ground Zero, he would have had to say something about the bin Laden takedown, and that is increasingly looking like a Charlie Fox at the CIC level.
As for Bill, he still does whatever Hillary tells him to in public. In return, she doesn't b***h about his intern intake level. As Jerry Hall said about her role' as Alicia, the Joker's (Jack Nicholson) girlfriend in the original "Batman" feature (1989), "It's a sick relationship, but it works".
My guess is that Hillary is seriously considering bailing on His Self-Exaltedness and challenging him for the nomination. This level of disloyalty to Himself, personally, will probably drive Him to do something stupid. (Like the Clintons, the only loyalty The One recognizes as legitimate is to Himself, not the country.)
Look for an ugly brawl over this. And not just on the convention floor.
I don't think Bush is smart enough to say something nice sounding while really delivering a devastating condemnation. On the other hand, I think that (unlike other men who have held (or are holding) the office) he's enough of a gentleman to make some general comments if he has nothing good to say. But he did not show up at all, and this is interesting.
Dr. Paul and Israel... if you actually care about the situation, you will vote for or against the antisemite, as appropriate. But I think that for the lefties, the Arafat scarf is just a fashionable piece of opinion. These people are so passionate, you know, and so authentically non-Western (and non-civilized, but hey, no big deal!). I don't think that Crazy Uncle will appeal to the Birkenstocks crowd.
Slavic Optimism take: that The Donald seems any kind of contender also indicates the opposition's lack of depth. Best case, the Rs know how Democratic Pravda can make a candidate look like an idiot, and are holding someone back. Less time to dig up dirt. But I'm not sure they're clever enough to do this. Bottom feeder though he is, last I heard, Comrade Trump was not planning on running under a Dead Woodchuck Party, because he did not want to split the anti-Hussein vote. If this is the case, and remains so, this is something in his favor. I'm not getting out the popcorn. Last time I did, anticipating an amusing fight between 44 and SecState, I ended up with a floppy-eared jackass as a President.
Eon and Sergej: I am assuming and hoping you are both in the U.S., and that you both vote. If you were like Democrats, you could also each get a few hundred of your closest dead friends to vote too. But vote we must, and we must make sure we and all our living friends know if we want a future that does not feature tyranny against ourselves and our children there must be no Obama or Obama-lite leading us to hope that is a hoax and change that leads to chains. (Poor prose but golly I fear for our nation and our way of life.) Most people have come to the U.S. to escape the tyranny and oppression of their homelands. Much more of what we're getting and people will start leaving the U.S., as - to merely survive - many businesses have. But where will we go? And will we, as a country, make it to the next election? BHO has some pretty nasty plans up his empty sleeve...
Wesley: I am in the US (legally, even), and have the privilege of voting. Why, last election, when I was in Minnesota, I think I ended up voting for Husseinovich about five times, and the clown Franken twice that, once the recounting was done.
But this place survived the Gilded Age, and it survived the 1970s, when the generation of perpetual teenagers started coming into power, and the Vietnam thing came to a bad conclusion, and Carter (just, "Carter"). This place even survived the 1860s and the decades before that, when that situation was brewing, though not without lasting scars. It is the American way to find ways around or through difficulties, and even if we end up with another term's worth of Barry Husseinovich lecturing us from behind his teleprompters every time we turn on the television, I expect we'll pull through.
Eon - If you're weird, it's a shame more people aren't. This whole BHO "experience" makes me wonder if we're in the Matrix and the Mainframe is glitching continuously. ("It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth", the movie sage correctly announced.) Unreality aside, we see where the wonderful NEA and AFT and other such have gotten us with their oh-so-enlightening Indoctrinate-the-Youth pogrom - er, programs. We get 30-year-old children who think a community agitproper equals salvation. Oh, let's give credit to the lamestream media, too. But enough spouting and sputtering in helpless consternation.
Sergej, I admire your humor and sense of perspective. We all need to roll up our collective sleeves and get to work so liberty, not tyranny, triumphs. We humans have a long dismal association with tyranny. It's not "progressive", it's old and stale and outmoded. For a couple of centuries we proved that, albeit imperfectly. We need to re-kindle the shining city on a hill. We know that when liberty is practiced it's a lot more attractive to people everywhere than the ancient, dismal failure of "collective salvation", redistribution of wealth, legalized theft, punishing the achievers, etc.
Golly, I'm wordy. If you've hung around this long, thanks!
10 comments:
I'm still trying to figure out exactly what our Self-Exalted Dear Leader and his minions are. I've narrowed the choices to;
1. Clueless
2. Feckless
3. Brain Dead
4. So Fanatically Dogmatic They Can't Even Say Anything Which Conflicts With Their Dogma
5. The Monster Raving Loony Party
Worst of all, it could be
6. All Of The Above
I'm increasingly trending toward (6).
cheers
eon
Stupid thing ate my comment, so I repost.
Comment was. Trying to make sense of Emperor Barry Husseinovich. Is there a pattern with the birth certificate nonsense: an instinct for presenting a confusing public face so when a political opponent goes for the Chicago ad hominem, he won't know which grinning face is the real one? Given the way the Democratic Party Pravda jumped on Mr. Trump (and his little dead woodchuck that lives on top of his head too!), it seems that taking a swing at the wrong image can be mocked endlessly.
Or is the pattern with the incident during the election campaign where BH told a pro-Israel group that he was firmly committed (let him be perfectly clear, make no mistake about it) to a strong Israel with secure borders---and literally within hours told an anti-Israel group pretty much exactly the opposite? In the second case, both groups remembered the statement that they wanted to hear and for some reason ignored the other one.
Smart people (in their own opinion) seem to be able to make sense of this. I am obviously not smart enough to do so.
Monster Raving Loony Party. Maybe.
By the way, what do y'all make of yesterday's performance at Ground Zero in New York? I heard that George Bush had um, other... uh, commitments that day. But then that Bill Clinton also declined the invitation. That pair of snubs is up there with not inviting the Obamas to the reelection campaign rally in London (and by the way there was some wedding or something going on, good background for the Presidential Grin).
Lack of desire to have to tug the forelock for scraps of spotlight? Clinton fleeing a sinking ship? The Clinton who shaves twice a day making her own political plans for 2012?
Sergej;
It says much for the "esteem" in which The One is held by the majority of Americans that a bottom-feeder like The Donald is actually considered a serious challenger.
And now, Ron Paul. God help us; the Crazy Uncle himself. He might actually appeal to The One's base on the left, in that he is consistent in his opinion of Israel. (I.E., roughly similar to Hamas' and Fatah's yearnings re the same.)
As for the dead woodchuck, as Scott Adams once said in Dilbert, somebody should tell Donny Boy that, "the Seventies called- they want their hair back".
cheers
eon
Sergej;
Re Ground Zero;
My guess is that GWB really already had something on his plate. Also, he abides by the traditional "gentlemens' agreement" that former Presidents don't criticize sitting ones in public. At Ground Zero, he would have had to say something about the bin Laden takedown, and that is increasingly looking like a Charlie Fox at the CIC level.
As for Bill, he still does whatever Hillary tells him to in public. In return, she doesn't b***h about his intern intake level. As Jerry Hall said about her role' as Alicia, the Joker's (Jack Nicholson) girlfriend in the original "Batman" feature (1989), "It's a sick relationship, but it works".
My guess is that Hillary is seriously considering bailing on His Self-Exaltedness and challenging him for the nomination. This level of disloyalty to Himself, personally, will probably drive Him to do something stupid. (Like the Clintons, the only loyalty The One recognizes as legitimate is to Himself, not the country.)
Look for an ugly brawl over this. And not just on the convention floor.
cheers
eon
I don't think Bush is smart enough to say something nice sounding while really delivering a devastating condemnation. On the other hand, I think that (unlike other men who have held (or are holding) the office) he's enough of a gentleman to make some general comments if he has nothing good to say. But he did not show up at all, and this is interesting.
Dr. Paul and Israel... if you actually care about the situation, you will vote for or against the antisemite, as appropriate. But I think that for the lefties, the Arafat scarf is just a fashionable piece of opinion. These people are so passionate, you know, and so authentically non-Western (and non-civilized, but hey, no big deal!). I don't think that Crazy Uncle will appeal to the Birkenstocks crowd.
Slavic Optimism take: that The Donald seems any kind of contender also indicates the opposition's lack of depth. Best case, the Rs know how Democratic Pravda can make a candidate look like an idiot, and are holding someone back. Less time to dig up dirt. But I'm not sure they're clever enough to do this. Bottom feeder though he is, last I heard, Comrade Trump was not planning on running under a Dead Woodchuck Party, because he did not want to split the anti-Hussein vote. If this is the case, and remains so, this is something in his favor. I'm not getting out the popcorn. Last time I did, anticipating an amusing fight between 44 and SecState, I ended up with a floppy-eared jackass as a President.
Back to work now.
Eon and Sergej: I am assuming and hoping you are both in the U.S., and that you both vote. If you were like Democrats, you could also each get a few hundred of your closest dead friends to vote too. But vote we must, and we must make sure we and all our living friends know if we want a future that does not feature tyranny against ourselves and our children there must be no Obama or Obama-lite leading us to hope that is a hoax and change that leads to chains. (Poor prose but golly I fear for our nation and our way of life.) Most people have come to the U.S. to escape the tyranny and oppression of their homelands. Much more of what we're getting and people will start leaving the U.S., as - to merely survive - many businesses have. But where will we go? And will we, as a country, make it to the next election? BHO has some pretty nasty plans up his empty sleeve...
Wesley;
I'm in Ohio, and I have voted in every GOP primary and every general election since 1976.
So, far, I've avoided voting for any Democrat for anything. For the same reason I registered as a Republican in the bicentennial year.
It's because my mother taught me never to get mixed up with anybody weirder than I am. ;-)
cheers
eon
Wesley: I am in the US (legally, even), and have the privilege of voting. Why, last election, when I was in Minnesota, I think I ended up voting for Husseinovich about five times, and the clown Franken twice that, once the recounting was done.
But this place survived the Gilded Age, and it survived the 1970s, when the generation of perpetual teenagers started coming into power, and the Vietnam thing came to a bad conclusion, and Carter (just, "Carter"). This place even survived the 1860s and the decades before that, when that situation was brewing, though not without lasting scars. It is the American way to find ways around or through difficulties, and even if we end up with another term's worth of Barry Husseinovich lecturing us from behind his teleprompters every time we turn on the television, I expect we'll pull through.
Eon - If you're weird, it's a shame more people aren't. This whole BHO "experience" makes me wonder if we're in the Matrix and the Mainframe is glitching continuously. ("It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth", the movie sage correctly announced.) Unreality aside, we see where the wonderful NEA and AFT and other such have gotten us with their oh-so-enlightening Indoctrinate-the-Youth pogrom - er, programs. We get 30-year-old children who think a community agitproper equals salvation. Oh, let's give credit to the lamestream media, too. But enough spouting and sputtering in helpless consternation.
Sergej, I admire your humor and sense of perspective. We all need to roll up our collective sleeves and get to work so liberty, not tyranny, triumphs. We humans have a long dismal association with tyranny. It's not "progressive", it's old and stale and outmoded. For a couple of centuries we proved that, albeit imperfectly. We need to re-kindle the shining city on a hill. We know that when liberty is practiced it's a lot more attractive to people everywhere than the ancient, dismal failure of "collective salvation", redistribution of wealth, legalized theft, punishing the achievers, etc.
Golly, I'm wordy. If you've hung around this long, thanks!
Post a Comment