June 29, 2009
HONDURAS: OBAMA FAIL
I am just completely flabbergasted by the events in Honduras.
A president decides he wants to be president longer than the law allows. His country does everything possible to get him to follow the law, but the president keeps abusing his power and acting like a lunatic. The country respects its constitution and decides to legally and justifiably oust him.
And Obama is siding with
him?
I must be missing something, because this is insane.
Remember when all the loony lefties swore that George Bush was going to stage a coup and stay in office a third term? They went berserk predicting this. If it had actually happened, you can bet your sweet bippy that they would've used every channel possible to toss him out. And rightly so: the leader has to respect the law of the land or the citizens get rid of him.
But now a president in another country has actually just done what the nuts swore Bush was going to do, and Pres Obama is backing the would-be dictator.
Oh, and also
Castro, Chavez, and Ortega side with Obama too.
Have I gone completely mad? This is sick.
Posted by: Sarah at
06:01 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.
1
".....you can bet your sweet bippy?"
Has Flip Wilson taken over TTG?
(I agree with you on the madness of it all,by the way)
Posted by: MaryIndiana at June 29, 2009 06:16 PM (SaSZV)
2
my favorite part of the original statement was the respecting the 'democratic norms'
Where do these fall in order of importance:
vote for bills you did not read
accuse and portray your opponents as terrorists
tell public companies how to run themselves and pick and choose which contracts they should follow and which they should disregard
Posted by: wifeunit at June 29, 2009 06:58 PM (t5K2U)
3
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html
This editorial was really good. And, from googling the writer, she has been covering the gov't in Honduras for awhile.
Posted by: Guard Wife at June 29, 2009 08:39 PM (43JOF)
4
Oh, and P.S. -- Let me get this straight:
Hack your unarmed people to death with axes in the streets & we'll call it a spirited debate and not get involved.
Violate your country's constitution and ignore the democratic principles your people desire & we'll do our best to return you to power.
WTF?
Posted by: Guard Wife at June 29, 2009 08:41 PM (43JOF)
5
I think Obama thinks in generalities and keywords rather than through
detailed logic. "Military coup" is a bad thing in his mind: forget the
context and nuance.
I wonder if Oster, Beck, Stauffenberg, etc had been successful in their
planned coup against the Hitler regime--and Obama had been around at
the time--his reaction would have been the same.
Posted by: david foster at June 29, 2009 09:26 PM (uWlpq)
6
It seems to me to be a recurring pattern with Obama. His initial response on pretty much everything is exactly the opposite of what any decent human would instinctively say. Time and again, going back over the past year or two into the campaign he has come out with a public statement on -pick random crisis-.
Within a day or two after receiving criticism from all corners his lackeys start to 'redifine' what he orginally meant. This is usually followed within a week by a direct statement from Obama himself taking the exact opposite position he originally stated, while claiming that his new position is exactly the same as his original.
This is going to blow up in his face at some point. His instincts are just completely wrong from the get-go and needs a week or two for his spin meisters to clean up his bad judgements. One of these days he won't have a week to retool his thoughts, and when that happens I hope it isn't something bad enough to cause real trouble.
Posted by: John at June 29, 2009 09:46 PM (crTpS)
7
I will have to admit I hadn't heard and it
is terribly shocking!
Posted by: Darla at June 29, 2009 11:48 PM (LP4DK)
8
I am very concerned (read that frightened) with his attitude, I think of all the things he and others were saying GWB would do, mainly declare martial law and keep on being president, and then have done the same thing they were against while GWB was president.
Posted by: Ruth H at June 30, 2009 02:05 PM (Y4oAO)
9
david,
It only takes one word to trigger the prOper response from the One: "military". The M-word disturbs Him so much that He didn't use it to describe his "civilian security force".
I was initially surprised that Europpressive Hillary was on the side of the gOOd persyns since she is not a wise Latina womyn, but she and Obama probably learned everything they know about Honduras from the very same MSM that defies reality and deifies Him. Other viewpoints from nonpersyns like O'Grady simply do not matter.
Ruth H,
Anything Bushaitan did or was supposedly going to do was eeeevil by definition. Obama can do the same things as Bushaitan but the results will be infinitely better because He is a superiOr being. Iraq was the greatest crime of all time, but security operations (must not use the M-word!) in Afghanistan will attain new heights of nobility.
Posted by: kevin at June 30, 2009 06:22 PM (xHfeS)
10
God, please let us over out the Democrat majorities in the Congress in 2010 and Obama in 2012. Amen...
Posted by: Miss Ladybug at July 01, 2009 12:15 AM (paOhf)
Posted by: tim at July 01, 2009 01:36 PM (nno0f)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 23, 2009
GOLF MEANS YOU'RE SMART...UNLESS YOU'RE BUSH
Media Cheer Obama's Golf Outings; Criticized Republicans' Trips to Course contrasts the press' fawning over Obama's golf hobby to Bush's.
Gag.
The original article quoted, "Just the sport for a leader most driven," is sickeningly praiseworthy. Bush is a golfer too, but I don't remember him ever being praised with these compliments:
Posted by: Sarah at
01:59 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Everything Obama dOes is of cOsmic significance. When Bushaitan golfed, he was just a brute with a club. But when the One gOlfs ... ah, he is the cOmmander of the cOurse, the Titan of the Tee, the Paragon of Putting.
According to
The Washington Post,Obama's predecessor said he quit golfing just as the Iraqi insurgency
began to escalate in August 2003. "I don't want some mom whose son may
have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf," George
W. Bush told interviewers in 2008. "I think, you know, playing golf
during a war just sends the wrong signal."Whereas Obama, the cOOlest man on Earth, doesn't let a mere war shake up his rOutine:
He's hit the course five times since late April -- rushing out to the
links on Sunday afternoon just 90 minutes after returning to the White
House from his overseas trip.Such firmness of spirit is unknown to Bushaitan. Be like Barack!
Posted by: kevin at June 23, 2009 05:27 PM (2eQQr)
2
My favorite quote from the
Post story at standard.net:
Says sportswriting legend Dan Jenkins, who's seen a lot of golf in his
time: "I certainly don't want my president to be a good golfer. It
takes too much time and practice to be any good -- it's a very hard
game to play consistently well. I think there are better things he
could be doing."What would Bunker say?
(PS: Is anyone else bugged by the little SNL icon at standard.net? It makes me think of
Saturday Night Live, though there's nothing funny about this story or the site.)
Posted by: Amritas at June 23, 2009 05:34 PM (2eQQr)
3
I'm not really into O-bashing because I think it makes us seem as bad as the other side. But....here is what I found really disturbing about the article:
"Obama golfed on May 25 after he spoke and placed a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington Cemetery on Memorial Day. Presidential aides told the media that Obama observed a moment of silence at 3 p.m. while on the links."
If I were one of the POTUS advisers I would have made damn sure that there was an all day schedule of events including military members and their families on Memorial Day. If he has to play golf then he should have included some soldiers in his outing.
Not saying he doesn't have a right to play a nice game every once in a while, but it seems like he does it an awful lot. I've played, 18 holes take a long time. He is fiddling while Rome burns.
Posted by: Mare at June 24, 2009 07:46 AM (HUa8I)
4
Mare, I really don't care if Obama golfs or not. He's human; he needs diversions. What bugs me is how the prOpaganda machine spins it. When Bush stopped golfing, it was obviously a baaaad thing:
"That's his idea of sacrifice, to give up golf?"(It may not have been "his idea". He may have given up in response to public demands. Perhaps the same public offended by Bush golfing doesn't mind Obama golfing.)
Posted by: Amritas at June 24, 2009 03:56 PM (2eQQr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 19, 2009
NOT THE CHANGE WE COULD BELIEVE IN
Here's another
toldyaso for Bush's breakfast table, this time from
Andrew Sullivan:
We need to start confronting the president at his events. We need civil
disobedience. We need to tell him we do not want another fricking
speech where he tells us he is a fierce advocate for our rights, when
that is quite plainly at this point not true. [...] I worked my ass off to get this man to power.
Now don't get me wrong, I am happy that Democrats are pointing out Obama's flaws. I
did the same with Bush. (Oh, and that link is hilarious: Andrew Sullivan was a different man five years ago.) I encourage Democrats to speak out when their guy is not representing them. I want them to see Pres Obama for who he really is, not some blank slate they project onto.
But I find the "this isn't the change we could believe in" remorse to be amusing.
Posted by: Sarah at
06:57 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.
1
They simply weren't paying attention if they are now surprised by what he is doing. Shame on them.
Posted by: tim at June 19, 2009 03:40 PM (nno0f)
2
Whenever I see Toldyaso on your blog I think of this episode of Will and Grace where Debbie Reynolds is singing and doing a little dance.
I find it amusing too, but also a little frightening that so much of the country had their collective heads up their rears in the first place.
Posted by: Mare at June 20, 2009 10:48 AM (HUa8I)
3
"We need to start confronting the president at his events."
Sullivan should also be saying,
"We need to start asking ourselves, what were we thinking?
Were we thinking?"
I have not read Sullivan in years. This piece makes him sound like a one-issue guy (which he isn't). It embodies identity politics. It's all about my X-ness, and I'm gonna be unhappy until
others affirm
my rights as an X.
But when you hear Democrats criticize Obama, keep in mind that the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. Many readers of this site might think Obama goes too far, but some of Obama's Democrat critics think he doesn't go far
enough.
Posted by: Amritas at June 20, 2009 09:05 PM (x4B1D)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 17, 2009
TOLDYASO
You know what I really hope is happening? I really hope over breakfast, George Bush points out stories in the paper to Laura and smugly snickers, "Dude, I told you this would happen. I told you once he got in office, he'd start to grok the enormity of the job."
Via CaliValleyGirl:
The Obama administration is declining to release documents that would identify visitors to the White House, embracing a legal position taken by the Bush administration, according to a watchdog group that filed a federal lawsuit over access to the records.
The group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed its lawsuit after being denied access to Secret Service records, including White House entry and exit logs, that would identify coal and energy industry visitors.
The government's refusal to release the records contrasts with President Barack Obama's pledge of transparency.
I also got a chuckle out of Roseanne Barr's rant that everyone has gotten snowed by Obama because he's not really doing anything different. And the Bill Maher rant was excellent. Choice bit:
I mean, selling the personal part to stay popular, I'm all for it, but you got us already. We like you, we really like you! You're skinny and in a hurry and in love with a nice lady. But so's Lindsay Lohan. And like Lohan, we see your name in the paper a lot, but we're kind of wondering when you're actually going to do something.
And this:
Obama needs to start putting it on the line in fights against the banks, the energy companies and the healthcare industry. I never thought I'd say this, but he needs to be more like George W. Bush. Bush was all about, "You're with us or against us."
Obama's more like, "You're either with us, or you obviously need to see another picture of this adorable puppy!"
I hope George Bush is enjoying his toldyaso. And listening to the song "Won't Get Fooled Again" often.
Posted by: Sarah at
12:46 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Wow, I never imagined you'd be siding with Roseanne Barr and Bill Maher - at least for a moment! (But I should have figured Barr is a Chomskyan.)
Of course, when Maher says he's wondering when Obama is "actually going to do something", he means he's wondering when Obama is finally going to go all-out Leftist.
I'd rather have Obama Lite than Hardcore Obama.
Posted by: Amritas at June 17, 2009 01:52 PM (x4B1D)
2
For the record, I don't mean to say I think you agree 100% with Barr and Maher's rants - just that you agree with their main point that Obama isn't the capital-C Change they were waiting for. And I'm glad he's not!
Posted by: Amritas at June 17, 2009 01:56 PM (/IwHi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 12, 2009
I MUST BE HIGH BECAUSE I DO NOT GET THIS
My brother just told me about some legalization of marijuana stuff that he was commending Pres Obama for. I decided to look it up, and I am more confused than ever.
I used to get so annoyed when people would blame anything bad that happened on Pres Bush. Didn't find the WMDs after giving Saddam months of advance notice that we were invading? Bush's fault. Economic troubles that started under the Clinton administration? Bush's fault. Hurricane hits New Orleans? Bush's fault.
Similarly, I will be quite annoyed if a trend starts where everything good that happens is
attributed to Pres Obama,
even if he opposes it and has nothing to do with it.
After four decades of mindless prohibition and draconian prison sentences for addicts and casual users, the first four months of the Obama era have seen a rapid turn toward rationality.
So far so good in paragraph one. Let's see what Obama has been doing in the realm of weed, because I simply haven't been following it. So then I get to paragraph three:
But while states like California and New York are challenging the fundamentals of prohibition and punishment that have governed America's drug policy since the Nixon era, the Obama administration is largely staying the course. The president, who has blasted the drug war as an "utter failure," has nonetheless delegated oversight of drug policy to one of the chief architects of that failure: Vice President Joe Biden, who coined the term "drug czar" and steered the passage of the nation's harsh drug sentences as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Far from scaling back funding for drug interdiction and law enforcement, the administration's 2010 budget increases the levels established under George W. Bush. And despite the growing bipartisan discussion among state leaders about decriminalizing marijuana, Kerlikowske tells Rolling Stone that legalization is not up for debate "under any circumstances." [emphasis mine]
So, pray tell, why does "the Obama era" get the credit for any of this? Obama doesn't seem to have done squat; the rest of the article gives most of the credit to Schwarzenegger and Webb.
Political pressure to end the War on Drugs is building in surprising quarters. In recent months, three distinct rationales have converged to convince a growing number of politicians — including many on the center-right — to seriously consider the benefits of legalizing marijuana.
Huh? Center-right Republicans are becoming more open to the idea of legalization, and somehow
Obama gets all the credit in the opening paragraph?
And then there's this:
366-day sentence for pot dispensary ownerI
have followed that story, and that man should not be in jail, period. Get your federal laws off him; this should be a states issue. But let's see what credit Obama gets here:
A federal judge sentenced the owner of a Central California medical marijuana dispensary to a year and a day in prison Thursday, spurning the Obama administration's push to give the defendant five years imprisonment in a test case of new federal policies toward state pot laws. [emphasis again mine]
Oh wait, the Obama administration pushed for a
longer sentence. All hail the Obama era!
Obama hasn't done anything to help legalize marijuana or let people off who were clearly in the right under state laws.
Rolling Stone needs to stop attributing anything to "the Obama era." And to think that McCain was called McSame during the campaign...
Wouldn't it be awesome if the
intrastate commerce clause folks who are working on
gun rights in Montana teamed up with the
intrastate medicinal marijuana folks in California and turned the 10th Amendment inside out? Guns and weed, teaming up together for Change We Can Believe In!
****
For the record, I don't smoke pot, have never smoked pot, and am about the biggest anti-pot person you can meet, for the reasons
South Park lays out:
Well, Stan, the truth is marijuana probably isn't gonna make you kill people, and it most likely isn't gonna fund terrorism, but...well son, pot makes you feel fine with being bored and it's when you're bored that you should be learning some new skill or discovering some new science or being creative. If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out that you aren't good at anything.
But just because I think it's lame doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.
Posted by: Sarah at
01:23 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 736 words, total size 6 kb.
1
That last line is classic! Perhaps all that is lame should be legal, but anything that endangers the rights of others should be illegal.
The blame-Bush bless-Barack pattern may be a throwback to our caveman days, when government was simpler, when it was just the tribal chief. One guy. Easy to understand. Our institutions have grown faster than our ability to comprehend them. So if we hate the man who personifies the government, everything is his fault. And if we love him, he gets the credit.
This isn't just a problem with perceiving government. Look at how Bill Gates is equated with Microsoft. Or Steve Jobs with Apple.
Why do ads feature celebrities? Why do informercials have hosts, even ones you never heard of? Because we are a social species. We want faces associated with our products, our organizations, everything.
But behind the One Face representing a government or business is a complex network of faceless people behind the scenes. We can't see what's going on, we may not even be able to understand it, so we credit it all to the One Face.
The power-hungry want that face to be theirs. They want to be the focus of a cult of personality. For them, "it's all about meeee!" But it never is.
Posted by: Amritas at June 15, 2009 01:45 AM (b3Ptv)
2
Example of lame and legal: Phil Collins (at least in your opinion, Sarah!).
We're not just a social species. We're a storytelling species. We want life to make sense (and it does - just not in a way we can understand or accept). We attempt to shove it into simplistic narratives with heroes and villains who can save or destroy the world with their actions. Bush and Obama fit the bill for these nonexistent superbeings.
Real life doesn't work like those stories. The spotlight is not perpetually on the protagonist. Key events occur off-camera. They seem to be Black Swans to us only because we focus too much on our favorite central plotlines. We try to fit those twists and turns into our predetermined storylines, but we're only fooling ourselves.
Posted by: Amritas at June 15, 2009 04:59 AM (usSRx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 02, 2009
ZERO CHANCE
I have a friend who voted for McCain and loved Palin...but who now is thrilled with Obama and would vote for him in 2012. And this friend wants me to be open-minded about considering voting for him too.
I'd love to dismiss this as the passing fancy of a politically unserious person, but I just can't seem to stop thinking about it. Every time I am confronted with
the badness of Pres Obama, I have this urge to point it out to my friend as one more reason why things are far worse than I can stomach. Such as this graph from
Cass' post:
I can't seem to let it go that this friend doesn't see the badness of Obama. CaliValleyGirl pointed out to me that now she understands how people felt about Pres Bush. How it feels to think your president is a buffoon who has no idea what he's gotten himself into.
In contrast to the Bush haters though, I don't think Pres Obama is evil. I just think he wants to live in a USA that looks nothing like the USA I want to live in. But he has the power now to get his way and I don't. I feel impotent as so many enormous changes are altering my country forever. I am aghast, and I am even more aghast that there are people who are
not aghast.
And as much as I feel like bombarding my friend with email after email of all the horrifying things Pres Obama is doing, I don't. As Lawrence Auster
said, "the badness of what Obama is doing, and the amount of it, and
the complexity of it, is overwhelming and I frankly find it hard to
take it in and form a view of it."
All I can do is politely tell my friend that, no, there is zero chance of me voting for Obama in 2012.
Posted by: Sarah at
10:01 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.
1
If the Pravda article doesn't give pause to think on the way he is taking the country, nothing will. I sent it to my liberal son and his wife. I've heard from them but that hasn't been mentioned. I sent it on Memorial Day.
Posted by: Ruth H at June 02, 2009 11:13 AM (Y4oAO)
2
Ruth -- I was going to link to
the Pravda article here but didn't really find a place where it flowed. You're right: if flippin' PRAVDA can see what a mess we're in, then geez...
Posted by: Sarah at June 02, 2009 12:18 PM (TWet1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
74kb generated in CPU 0.0223, elapsed 0.0947 seconds.
52 queries taking 0.0802 seconds, 175 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
