Poor baby.
What the critics don't see is that Obama's loss on the Olympics is America's loss. Any red-blooded American who loves to see the American flag raised and the national anthem played when one of our own wins a gold medal should blast the Republicans' giddiness over the loss.First off, Republicans are "giddy" over the fact that 0bama - for all the media hype - was unable to swing the Olympics for his beloved adopted hometown of Chicago. Claiming that this is some sort of anti-American gloat is disingenuous at best and downright insulting at worst. Ask residents of Atlanta or Montreal what an "honor" it was hosting the Olympics - they're likely to tell Chicago to thank their lucky stars to not be chosen.
Secondly, this might be more realistic had the media not spent the past eight years celebrating every downturn in the economy, every military setback in Iraq and Afghanistan, every layoff. We were treated to long-winded treatises on how America was disdained around the world; how our idiotic cowboy of a president was destroying the image of America; etc. They've spent the past eight years positively wallowing in hatred of their country and fellow countrymen.
And now they don't like it when the rolls are reversed.
Tough luck, guys. Your guy failed. It happens. You're the ones who built him up to be some mythical superman, the "Black Jesus" who was going to rehabilitate America's image on the world scale. 0bama's ascension to the presidency was going to signal our alienated friends and our enemies alike that the United States of America was the symbol of hope and change now that the monkey cowboy was finally out of office.
And yeah, there's a certain amount of smug satisfaction that Chicago - the city legendary for corruption and graft, run by a crime family second only to the Gambinos - didn't even make the second round of voting. All of 0bama's star power, all that alleged goodwill around the world that Bush squandered and 0bama was going to win back, all was for naught. It brought up the horrifying specter that maybe, just maybe, it wasn't about Bush after all.
And maybe, just maybe, 0bama isn't the infallible demi-god you'd like him to be...
That is all.
48 comments:
But ... but ... I can feel my soul healing!
Jay,
You're just clingy and mean-spirited. Stop that.
I think the point is that it is the Republicans who are quick to charge their opponents with failing to be patriotic. It is the right that most often uses patriotism as a political weapon.
And now, many of them (including you, it seems) are committing the very actions that so many Republicans have decried.
Let's say that your assertions are correct: that "the media" (whoever that is) have "celebrated" American defeats.
Were these actions offensive to you? Yet you just joined the club of those you criticize. Hypocrisy?
That's what the column you cited was about: that when push comes to shove, some Republicans fail to live up to their own standards. They complain about the actions and opinions differing from the blind support of a Republican administration and then when the Democrats take power, the same critics perform EXACTLY the same actions they previously decried.
The rolls are indeed reversed. But it's the Republicans who routinely make the hay about not blindly supporting America, right or wrong. And now their true colors appear to be on full display. Along with their lack of principled integrity.
Sooo ... Is he saying that it's only good when American Olympians win on American soil because of a "Home field" Advantage???
...or that American's aren't capable of following what happens at the Olympics if it's in some foriegn country??
I'm not following his tortured logic. But then I remembered. It's not about logic, it's about the feeeeelings.
"Anon sez: I think the point is that it is the Republicans who are quick to charge their opponents with failing to be patriotic. It is the right that most often uses patriotism as a political weapon."
Please list three examples and we'll discuss.
-smasher
I'll agree with anon, actually, in that the Right tends to play the "unpatriotic" card more often:
Flag-burning.
Pledge of allegiance.
Disagreeing with the president about war/foreign policy.
Both sides are hypocritical. That's all I intended to point out. It's not just one party; it's both of 'em, and a pox on them both.
Sadly, we don't have much in the way of options...
So Jay, which Republican or conservative officials or pundits have actualyl used the term "unpatriotic" when describing teh actions of specific dems or libs?
The flag-burning thing is a court case, not a political instance, and I daresay that burning the flag IS unpatriotic, but neither Obama nor Kennedy nor Kerry nor Durbin, etc., ever burned any flags anyway. :)
The bottom line, to me, is that conservatives are "giddy" (if indeed any are) about OtheOne Spendobi's failure with the Olympics precisely because it's safe to be so. It's not a major issue - it's not the economy, jobs, Nat'l security, immigration, or anything important. It's a silly show contest and he put all his money on the wrong horse and it doesn't matter a whit, and he failed utterly and in public and by his own arrogant choice becuase he inserted himself into something he needn't and shouldn't have.
It's an unforced error by a guy many of us dislike, mistrust, and probably couldn't find three topics on which to agree at dinner, but it's an unforced error in the middle innings of a June game against a non-division team.
So yeah, I'll point and laugh all the live-long day.
Atom doesn't see hypocrisy? Seriously?
Obama is called unpatriotic when he didn't wear a flag pin.
Hillary Clinton is called unpatriotic when she can't sing the national anthem well.
Just about any intelligent critique of the Iraq War effort? Unpatriotic and not supporting the troops.
Renaming the World Trade Center from "Freedom Tower" to "One World Trade Center"? Unpatriotic.
“Why don’t you liberals just admit it? You don’t like the military. It’s all phony when you say you support the troops,” Mark Levin, 11/2/06
“The left has a disdain for the military… They’re dangerous… trying to undermine the will of the American people.” Tom DeLay, 10/31/06
“It’s clear that the Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry wing of the Democratic Party has a visceral loathing for the American military and for, frankly, America as a country in the world. Their whole approach is to blame us for what, in fact, our enemies do… I think it tells you how deep the sickness is in the left wing of the Democratic Party.” Newt Gingrich, 11/1/06
“That’s your Party [Democrats] that undermines our troop morale and emboldens our enemies,” Sean Hannity, 2/1/08.
“When you have Democrats saying it’s time to get out, artificial timetables and saying that the Commander-in-Chief lied, distorted, hyped and misled the troops. Is that the thing to do during a time of war?” Sean Hannity, 12/2/05
[Obama] "attack[ed] our troops as murderers." - Sean Hannity, 8/3/2007
"But this hate stuff, this rooting for the administration to fail in Iraq and other areas is un-American, unbecoming, and unacceptable. Like him or not, Mr. Bush is the elected leader of this country..." - Bill O'Reilly, 3/29/2007
If you watched much conservative media in the past 10 years, I find it difficult to believe you haven't heard criticism of Bush policies, decision-making, etc. as "unpatriotic." By many of the same people gloating that our country lost the Olympic bid.
The "I don't remember" game Hannity and others play play is disingenuous. Their words are on tape.
I don't know Atom well enough to know if he's being disingenuous or is simply uninformed.
Some may be giddy that Chicago did not 'win' the Olympics, but millions of Chicagoans are overjoyed that Chicago was not picked, and millions of fiscal conservatives are overjoyed that they will not have to bail out Daley and his henchmen. Now, no overruns as Vancouver BC is experiencing ($5B+ and rising), Calgary ($1B+), and London's untold billions in overruns. However, it must be Bush's fault, according to that most experienced statesman, Senator Burris. Is there anyway to make this a racial issue?
A good friend of mine, a Democrat once told me that Republicans think they are smarter than everyone else. I told him it might be true, but that Democrats think they are morally superior to everyone else.
All of this thrashing around we do reminds me a drowning persons last moves. We had all better figure out something that will work before we go down for the last time.
The "defeat" was for Obama, not for America. He foolishly staked his personal reputation on getting the Olympics for Chicago, not for the United States.
His staff, through their arrogance, failed to lay the ground work so that his appearance would be ceremonial, not crucial.
It tells an awful lot about how this administration works, and what it tells us isn't very encouraging for anyone.
To think that this rebuke was merely about the Olympics is incredibly naive. This is just one of a series of statements meant to put Obama and the US in it's place. He has shown himself to be a weak President and the world is letting him know that they know.
This country will never be united thanks to the idiots on the right & left who let themselves be divided by politics.
Translator on:
TOTWTYTR said...
The "defeat" was for Bush, not for America. He foolishly staked his personal reputation on getting Iraq for Halliburton, not for the United States.
His staff, through their arrogance, failed to lay the ground work so that his appearance would be ceremonial, not crucial.
It tells an awful lot about how this administration works, and what it tells us isn't very encouraging for anyone.
To think that this rebuke was merely about the Iraq is incredibly naive. This is just one of a series of statements meant to put Bush and the US in it's place. He has shown himself to be a weak President and the world is letting him know that they know.
Why shouldn't I celebrate that Americans learned that Michelle Obama thought it was a "sacrifice" to fly at our expense to Denmark to pitch for the Olympics?
That typifies the arrogance and egotist that the people are seeing from the Obama's. Why shouldn't I celebrate the fact the cult of personality got knocked down a peg?
Why shouldn't I celebrate that a city that denies basic human freedoms, like the right to effective self defense, didn't get the Olympics?
Why shouldn't I celebrate that a city full of corruption, cronyism and charming school kids like the ones that killed Derrion Albert didn't get the Olympics?
Why shouldn't I celebrate that a city that will not hire more cops or even sign a contract with the existing cops didn't get the Olympics?
Two more remix:
TOTWTYTR said...
The "defeat" was for Bush, not for America. He foolishly staked his personal reputation on getting the New Orleans ready for a disaster, not for the United States.
His staff, through their arrogance, failed to lay the ground work so that his appearance would be ceremonial, not crucial.
It tells an awful lot about how this administration works, and what it tells us isn't very encouraging for anyone.
To think that this rebuke was merely about New Orleans is incredibly naive. This is just one of a series of statements meant to put Bush and the US in it's place. He has shown himself to be a weak President and the world is letting him know that they know.
------
TOTWTYTR said...
The "defeat" was for Bush, not for America. He foolishly staked his personal reputation on "trickle-down" economics, not the good of the United States.
His staff, through their arrogance, failed to lay the ground work so that his appearance would be ceremonial, not crucial.
It tells an awful lot about how this administration works, and what it tells us isn't very encouraging for anyone.
To think that this rebuke was merely about Wall Street is incredibly naive. This is just one of a series of statements meant to put Bush and the US in it's place. He has shown himself to be a weak President and the world is letting him know that they know.
-------
Does any of this sound familiar? Sounds like the criticism coming from the left towards the end of the Bush presidency. Conservatives complained about it, and rightfully so.
Now many of those same Republicans are doing EXACTLY what they criticized: taking shots at the President they don't like while the American people get caught in the crossfire.
Just saying, go after him. You're the same as the people you criticize. We all lose when the argument becomes about the person and when we don't support our government and when we don't allow our elected officials to do their jobs.
Bob S.,
Why shouldn't you celebrate when egotistical NBA players lose to foreign nations in the Olympics?
Why shouldn't you cheer when rude jerks in military uniform get shot by foreign nationals?
Why shouldn't you throw a party when the Dixie Chicks publicly disown a president they find reprehensible in front of a foreign crowd?
You shouldn't celebrate the above we're Americans first. When one of ours stumbles, is killed, or slandered, we shouldn't be happy about it.
And when we are, it's hard to argue that an "unpatriotic" critique is unwarranted.
Anon,
There is a difference between celebrating the lose of egotistical jerks and the lose of a team that tried it's best. The first I might do, the second never.
Why shouldn't you cheer when rude jerks in military uniform get shot by foreign nationals?
So, do you support people killing our military? I don't.
I don't cheer any needless killing. Isn't amazing how much projection can be seen in comments like yours?
You seem to think it is okay for "foreign nationals" to kill because someone is rude. Is that the way I read it?
First, the "foreign nationals" are usual criminals, mostly likely terrorists who have killed and continue to kill not for national security, or safety but to cause mayhem and violence for the sake of violence and mayhem.
Are you declaring your support for terrorist who are committed to destroying our country?
Why shouldn't you throw a party when the Dixie Chicks publicly disown a president they find reprehensible in front of a foreign crowd?
I don't throw a party for them Sparky because I don't agree with them. I support their right to say it, but I also will work to show my displeasure by not buying their music, working to get them off the air at radio stations. They can say what they want...so can I.
How is that unpatriotic?
You shouldn't celebrate the above we're Americans first.
Nice strawman argument there Sparky.
I don't celebrate any of the above...again with the psychological projection?
When one of ours stumbles, is killed, or slandered, we shouldn't be happy about it.
Again with the straw man. No one was slandered, no one stumbled. Chicago made an effort and didn't win.
I stated my reason why I should celebrate and I'll stand by them.
And when we are, it's hard to argue that an "unpatriotic" critique is unwarranted.
Isn't it remarkable how times change?
I wonder if you were one that celebrated reversals in Iraq or Afghanistan. I wonder if you chastised those that did.
Well said... :-)
why dont you ask atlanta if they are better off having hosted the olympics? why dont you come here and explain that to us? the olympics changed atlanta and made this city better by thrusting it into the international spotlight.
Exchanges like these show why discourse in this country is so broken.
I think it's fairly easy to see from my earlier comments that I support neither America's loss of the Olympics nor any of the other examples.
And yet, you, the only one between us celebrating (celebrating!) a black eye on our country, are trying to transfer those positions onto me?
And go back and learn some logic. You offered the initial proposition. My examples were not "straw men," for I was disagreeing with your original premise, not reforming it into one of my own.
But, that did answer some questions for me. Nor did I seriously suggest that you held those positions. If you thought the conflation of examples was unfair or illogical, state why. But there's no "straw man" here.
So, keep on playing the hypocrite. Because the very justification you presented in your first response precisely justifies the MoveOn discourse criticizing President Bush's political shortcomings. You can't have it both ways.
And that was my original point.
Perspective, please.
Chicago not getting hosting rights for the 2016 Olympics is NOT a "black eye for America".
Get a grip. It's a fucking game.
Which is why I have no trouble laughing like a tickled hermit at 0bama's FAIL.
... and why so many on the left cackle at Bush's "FAILS."
Both sides think what they "celebrate" or "cackle" at are benign, while the other side finds it somewhat offensive.
But as long as both sides keep tearing down our presidents and cackling at their stumbles, we will continue to sink into the mire.
I just thought the right, after almost a decade of self-indignant reactions to criticism would at least be consistent enough not to do the same.
Looks like a lack of integrity on both sides.
If you're looking for an argument from me on that point, then you haven't been reading me much...
As an Illinois taxpayer from downstate (for Chitown folks that's anywhere outside the Chicago Metro area) I am relieved that Chicago didn't get the Olympics. The State of Illinois and Chicago are in too bad a financial condition to even consider trying to finance the projects that would be necessary to host an Olympics.
"Euphoria spread all across the nation, not only because we beat the mighty Russians, but also because it took place on American soil."
This is the quote that bugged me. Euphoria would have spread no matter where this game was played. It took place during the Cold War. It was the greatest upset in all of American sports history, regardless of where it was.
So, I guess Bush is to blame for Tokyo not getting the Olympics, eitehr?
The issue is NOT that Chicago didn't win. Statistically, it probably WASN'T.
HOwever, President Obama said he couldn't go to plead teh case of Chicago becuase "health care" was too important.
Then suddenly, his schedule magically cleared. "Health care" (whcih is STILL enjoying declining poll numbers) is suddenly OK. So he can go.
No other issues of importance on his schedule that rank up there with a health care proposal he though was so critical, he did NOTHING in terms of providing a detailed example of what HE wanted to see accomplished.
Nio issues like Iran unilaterally announcing ANOTHER previously unknown uranium enrichment facility.
Nothing liek a theater commander he hadn't spoken too nor was apparantly willing to support in his requests in "the war of necessity".
Nope, teh MOST important thing for teh President to do was try and win teh Olympics, not for AMERICA, but for one city in American -- his home town.
And his supporters all went gushy about how his personal support would clinch the deal. . . because, by not being Bush (and remember we were told ALL THROUGH THE CAMPAIGN, how beloved Obama is overseas and how his election would instantly make everyone love us again), he would make them see the wisdom, and reward Chicago.
So the Administration and his political supporters all put the prestige of the Oval Office on the line for a friggin' SPORTING EVENT that is primarily a benefit to a small group of scam artists and contractors in ONE TOWN.
And they LOST.
This is why you DO NOT send the President out on an otherwise meaningless PR BS event, UNLESS you have already ensured a win.
Chicago not winning the Olympics didn't hurt the US a bit.
OBAMA not winning the 2016 Olympics for Chicago didn't hurt THE US a bit. Certainly not if you believe the leftist meme that everyone hates us becuase of GWB.
But it DID hurt Obama's personal political capital.
An avoidable punch to his political nuts, that could have been avoided by some basic staff work. Typical of this Administration, they arrogantly skipped the staff work, counting on Obama's personal charisma to carry the day.
It's a lesson most of us learned in high school, college, or our first real job. Personality will only get you so far -- but for this President, personality is all he has EVER brought to the table since he entered politics.
Anonymous,
1) I don't need your remix of my statements. They stand on their own.
2) Bush, unfortunately, didn't use trickle down economics. He spent like a Democrat and enabled Congress to do so as well. That and other Democrat directed initiatives are why the economy is so bad.
The truth is that Obama has weakened, not strengthened the US position in the world. Our enemies, and more importantly, our allies, can see that and are readjusting their policies accordingly.
I think that those on the left are going to be disappointed in 2010 and 2012.
Anon sez "Atom doesn't see hypocrisy? Seriously?"
Every single one of your quotes lacked a key word. That word was "patriotism".
-smasher
Conservative right wing wackos, tea baggers are mean spirited losers that rejoice when ever bad things happen to America. Their hatred of President Obama is overwhelming to say the least...wait...I just described the present day GOP. Sore Losers.
Right. And this counters the past eight years of listening to the left wing wackos denigrate President Bush at every opportunity, claiming that his leadership was harming the image of the US on the international scale (among many other things).
It's bullshit when one side does it, it's bullshit when the other side does it. And quite frankly, coming out against the vitriol from political opponents rings just a little fucking hollow after eight years of "BUSHHITLER" and "George Bush hates black people" and "9/11 was an inside job".
Neither side has clean hands in this issue; pretending otherwise paints you as a hyperpartisan best left on "ignore".
Jay G is right.
But some of us criticized the left for personalizing the critique against Bush and are now offering criticism against the right for personalizing the critique against Obama.
The only thing I was pointing out is that when someone on the right responds to critiques of their "celebration" by pointing to the MoveOn critiques, it is actually that person on the right who is the hypocrite.
If you thought the criticism of Bush was unpatriotic, you shouldn't be criticizing Obama now, or cheering when he "fails."
The point is that most of us are caught in the middle between the left-wing wackos and the right-wing wackos.
And some of us critique both. And both accuse those who critique them of being a wackos from the "other side," making that person a hypocrite. Which is often not true.
But the person who IS expressing joy at Obama's "fail" but critical of the left's criticism of Bush is, by definition, a hypocrite.
TOTWTYTR,
Bush DID implement Reaganomics. Geez, history people!
When Reagan came into office, the national debt was at $2 trillion (it had taken us almost 50 years to pay it down from the more that $3 trillion we accrued during WW2). It quickly ballooned to $4 trillion, and Reagan canceled his own policies in his third year because he couldn't balance the budget. He RAISED TAXES.
The budget balanced, the economy improved, and he won a landslide. He then implemented some tax cuts, raised more taxes, and hobbled into a recession that began right before George HW Bush took office.
What the second Bush administration did was implement Reaganomics (tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and increases to defense spending) without pause or correction, which is why instead of merely doubling the national debt, the administration nearly tripled it.
Cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans while stimulating corporate growth through military expenditures and government contracts IS Reaganism.
Reagan just didn't have the stomach to run the economy completely into the ditch (he was a political pragmatist, after all). Nor did he have the intense convictions about his political philosophies that George W. Bush seemed to.
Nor did he spend as much on the military, nor as quickly, as the Bush administration did.
(BTW, the "black book" deficit from the "off book" projects was recently estimated to be around $30 trillion, in addition to the "public" $10 trillion debt we owe. Most of this was accrued in the last 10 years.)
The administration of George W. Bush implement Reaganism perfectly, they just took it further, and failed to correct when the market turned against them, than the Gipper did.
hey guess what he will be elected again. you may not have read the news paper lately but we all are monkeys
Strong words coming from someone who won't even ID themselves.
Sickle,
I'll back Anon on this...it doesn't matter who he is if his words are right.
I disagree with most of his words, but not his right to say them as anonymous.
I find Chicago's loss hilarious. Why?
Because the media made such a big fucking deal that Obama was pitching it and supporting it, that Obama OMG FLEW OVER THERE to voice his support for it.
Most of all, however, it was because the idiots in the media made it sound as if Chicago was a done deal simply BECAUSE Obama was throwing his weight behind it, which is ridiculous; maybe it's the cynic in me, but I find it very hard to believe that ONE person can make up for the highly publicized failures of Chicago as a whole, from the beatings of kids walking home from school to the intensely corrupt politicians.
I mean, if you see the pictures of the reactions of people in Chicago, they were all geared up and ready to celebrate Chicago hosting it. It's that same kind of naivete that makes people attack others who DARE to criticize anything Obama does - the kind of thing that makes them assume that everything he does will make all of our problems go away, regardless of his agenda or the simple fact that he's human and not this godly messiah some people keep painting him as.
ID oneself by giving oneself an arbitrary and nondescript handle like "Sickle"? Hilarious!
What does adding a made-up name to one's post add?
Off topic here, but.....
When did the Olympics STOP flying the flag of the gold medal winners OR stop playing their national anthem?
What I find amusing here is the "fall from grace" that is happening. This is not me being divisive, this is not me being a childish "Nelson Muntz" and pointing and saying ,"HAHA", ......
This is me amused by the absolute hypocrisy of the entire thing. How much money was spent for our community-organizer-in-chief to push this?
This is me being amused as the rejection of the most corrupt and violent city on American soil is somehow being blamed on Bu$h and the actions of the racist wingnuts on the right.
This is me laughing at the absolute idiocy of the whole fuxxing thing.
And for the occasional Anonamous supporters/commenters, it might be considered key to know that there aren't too many big R republicans 'round here. Just because you dont fall lockstep with 0's rhetoric or faint when he wipes sweat from his brow and throw you the towel, this does not automatically place you to the right of Dick Cheney.
I think "not falling in lockstep" and celebrating when our president stumbles are not quite the same position.
If you're referring to some of the comments above, I think it's rather clear that they were directed to ANY cheering of ANY presidential failure. I don't see a lot of specific claims that this is only a Republican problem.
The right does appear more prone to hypocrisy in such examples, but the left appears to be engaging in the same behavior.
Criticize neither, fine. Criticize both, well ... at least you're consistent.
But when one criticizes one president and the justifies it by complaining that others criticized the other ... that's just hypocrisy, plain and simple. And you can be Republican, Democrat or a member of just about any other political faction (or none at all) and it still makes you a hypocrite.
No assumptions required.
I'm late to the party, but a few items:
Anon, no one complained when the left "criticized one president". Criticizing government is what the right does, after all. The problem was when it became over the top (too many examples to delve into, but I can if needed) & when the media jumped on board. No, most of the left weren't rooting for our defeat in Iraq or rooting for the worldwide devastation of the office of the Presidency, but let's just say that it's awfully peculiar that Cindy Sheehan & the nightly updates on soldier deaths suddenly stopped when they no longer were politically expedient. Y'see, you go find commentators for your items of outrageous rhetoric (Hannity, Levin), we can point to Democratic politicians (Dick Durbin, John Murtha), Democrats in general (Howard Dean, Jimmuh Carter) and the media (sorry for the redundancy).
This game of "oh, you're criticizing Obama....well, you can't do that if you said something about the complaints of Bush" won't fly. Most of us criticized Bush, after all. We didn't go 'round pimping Abu Graib, claiming that America tortures, claiming that America is engaged in "warrantless wiretaps" of citizens or that "we don't hate America, we just hate what they've done to America". Oh, yeah, "war for oil". Can't forget that one. Nice try, though.
Secondly:
There was no recession when Reagan left office. The recession began later in Bush's term, not long after he RAISED TAXES. Reagan spent on the military & we won the cold war because of it. Your welcome. Bush spent on the military (still a work in progress) but also on Ted Kennedy's (may he burn in hell) education bill, the atrocious prescription drug plan and a host of other items. I have excel spreadsheets with departmental spending & we can start with the education department and go forward. The "tax cuts for the wealthiest americans" thing is a red flag: if you didn't get a tax cut, dude, then you didn't pay income taxes (simple math). Huge red flag, btw. It's not our fault that you're such a failure that you couldn't make enough money to even pay income taxes, nor is it Bush's, but it IS your fault that you don't know that every person who paid income taxes got a tax cut (btw, they worked, inlays boomed). Methinks, btw, you're conflating Republicans with conservatives.
Once more, nice try.
Lastly:
If you don't want people laughing at someone's come-uppance, don't have him labeled and accepted as the figurative black Jesus who came to save us all. (go ahead, deny that this happened...it's not as though I have umpteen examples on the ready for any "but that never happened" retorts. Yeah, I'm daring someone...please, challenge that one).
Obama is my President. But, Obama is no longer "cool" and the shine is off the paint job, so to speak. Start getting used to it, gents & ladies. You over-praise someone & their fall is going to look all the more harsh. Now, it is quaint to see the online left get all verklempt about political rhetoric (history, truly, began yesterday, didn't it?), though. In a "Roman Polanski says older guys watching reruns of "Saved by the Bell" are kinda creepy" sorty way, of course.
I was actually speaking about words in this very discussion, not something said years ago. Look above.
But thanks for all the vague assertions and innuendo.
In THIS discussion, posters justified their cheering at losing the Olympics because of the words of a few on the left they disapproved of. Hence the hypocrisy.
You can conflate the words of Democratic politicians or even "the media" with my words, but I belong to neither group. Nor was I "on their side" during the Bush years.
You seem to be performing the very error by which you're judging my words. Except I don't seem to be saying what you're complaining about.
So go find Dick Durbin or someone from "the media" (whoever that is) and take it up with him/them.
BTW, *I* complained, and often and in public when George W. Bush was called Hitler, a Nazi, etc.
So consider that when you make your wild assertions. I'm making the same, consistent critique about the jeers at Obama that I made about the jeers at Bush.
If you didn't hear people objecting to Bush's treatment, I suggest you widen your media diet, because there was a lot of concern expressed about it.
In THIS discussion, posters justified their cheering at losing the Olympics because of the words of a few on the left they disapproved of.
Sure. The words "I'm not a fan of some forms of music" and "rap sucks" can both mean the same thing but have different levels of intent & connotation. Disapproving of the Iraq war is one thing, cheerleading the NYT for publishing some of our secrets because it could come back to hurt Bush, because they hate him, is another.
In THIS discussion,
In THIS discussion, the labels, epithets, smearing and besmirching of Bush was put forth. Playing the "but I didn't say that!" card is all well and good, but since no one said you did, it's a non sequitor.
But thanks for all the vague assertions and innuendo.
I hinted at nothing & stated everything up front. Any assertion I've put forth is based on history. The context is that of what was thrown out over 8 years.
You can conflate the words of Democratic politicians or even "the media" with my words, but I belong to neither group.
What you typed is of no matter to me, I'm pointing to the Democratic pols & the media as they are the foundation for much of the shaudenfraude put forth here and elsewhere. No one reacted to the ouster of Chicago from the Olympics because of something you stated or typed.
??
You seem to be performing the very error by which you're judging my words
I'm performing no error (not that I'm above such things). Methinks you're reading something into the text which is non-existent. I reacted to your "if you complained about rhetoric versus Bush then you can't complain about rhetoric versus Obama" game that you're playing & stating how it doesn't fly. Obama was punked on a worldwide stage & some folks, while still loving Chicago & athletes, are getting a kick outta seeing him dropped down a few pegs (him, not the office of the presidency). Kinda like when Bush was in China & tried to go out a locked door; sorta funny.
I'm glad Chicago lost and think it may help the American taxpayers. It could bring Obama's ego down to the level, he might actually listen to the American taxpayers. Even though I supported Obama in 2008, he is on his OWN AGENDA....not the agenda of the majority of the taxpayers. Obama should be addressing the uninsured, the 20% fraud in Medicare, etc. Instead of impacting the 80% who are happy with their Health Care. Obama is pushing ONE agenda.....HIS!
Hmmn.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/06/cindy-sheehan-arrested-at-white-house-anti-war-protest-2/#more-71899
I guess Sheehan IS still in the news.
But how could CNN be reporting on anti-war protesters if they're in bed with Obama?
Sorry to comment after so long, but I was wondering - what if PrezBarry was actually trying to lose the Olympic Games? I mean, Michelle's "speach" about sitting on Dad's lap in 1984 wasn't really for real, was it? And they're FROM Chicago, right? Why would they actually WANT the games there?
Oh, and the 'W' vs. 'O' debate in my mind is kinda dumb, because they're both young, Harvard-edumacated liars with a lack of both history knowledge and hard-nosed wheeling & dealing experience, so any screw-ups as president are to be expected.
I can't be the only one who voted against Bush and Obama every chance I got, can I?? Oh, yeah, the IOC did too...
Post a Comment