Boehner Gets Spanking, Cries About It - Page 2

It's just a goofy mantra I came up with.

I drew my inspiration from a classic piece of American pop music:




That's right, the Ninja Turtle Rap.

Growing up, TMNT2:TSOTO was one of the few VHS tapes my family owned, so I became very familiar with Mr Ice's ode to terrapins. I've always thought it was a hilarious song, and it's catchy. So rather than go with the standard "YES WE CAN!" when showing my Obama support, I like to change it up and bring a little something extra of my own: Turtle Power!

Every time you do this sort of thing... Obama dies a little inside.

Oh, I'm familiar with the turtle rap. It's just your blind love of the President that's scary.

If you've read my comments on previous political/President Obama related thread, or my blog party, you'd know that my love of the President is *not* blind. It's just that Barack Obama happens to be America's Last Best Hope(tm), and I'm going to give him every ounce of support I can until I'm given a reason to support someone else.

I have criticized the President in the past, but when it's Barack V. Boehner, I am definitely going to be there cheering when The POTUS slaps the table and tells Senator Bronzer to STFU

When I look at the snickering know nothing republican racists and back water teaparty thugs allied against our President, I know I couldn't look at myself in the mirror if I didn't stand up for him.


PS: Spell check... WTF? He's been President for a year and my spell check still insists that the correct spelling of Obama is "ALABAMA".

*Seriously*

Alright, fair enough. I can't argue with that I suppose.

Get over yourself.

The fact that people liked him and were hoping he would be successful does not amount to "mindless adulation", especially since at the time he hadn't really done anything to either elevate him or bring him down to earth. The left-wing reaction to Obama has been, in my opinion, quite reasonably linked to his actual performance, as opposed to the right-wing reaction to Bush, which for long time seemed vaguely cultish and completely unattached to anything he did. Never mind progressive complaints about his policies, the guy's implementation of the war on terror (and preventing a terrorist attack in the first place) was a dismal failure, his response to Katrina was a joke, and he scotched the economy. Yet it wasn't until that last thing, which happened conveniently close to the end of his term, that conservatives seemed willing to criticize the guy--and by then the narrative was that Bush "wasn't a real conservative". Even though a few years before that conservative commentators were calling him "A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius" and so on.

Now I agree that blaming Republicans for things like health care is hyperbolic, and bringing up Bush all the time is unconstructive (though his role in the economic crash is undeniable). The problem at the legislative level is that the Democrats aren't unified, which means that it's still conservatives who are the problem--conservative Democrats. Well, and Democrats who are in the pocket of big business, but it seems to amount to the same thing.

Nevertheless, the overall tone is definitely being juked by Republicans, and I think Boener's reaction is a prime example of this. I don't believe you're supposed to revere the President and bow your head to him like a king, but when you have to work with him and he's effectively your boss, you show a little goddamn respect instead of whining and belittling him to the media every time you get chewed out. Especially when he's been more than courteous to the Republicans in a way that he absolutely didn't have to be.

There's been a tone of snide condescension and disrespect attendant on Obama coming from the right that I can't recall seeing for any other C-in-C. Even with Clinton it was more a sense of "he's a power-mad Roman emperor who's abusing his position to engage in depravity!" With Obama it seems to be more like "He shouldn't be president." As embodied by the "I don't recognize our country anymore!" screeching of the teabaggers. I don't think the right-wingers in the government actually have so little respect for Obama, but they know that there's political hay to be made by acting this way. It's shameless and cynical of them.

Pah LEZE.

How many times have liberals said "He's not my president!" when it came to Bush? They called him a LIAR! Hell, elected officials called him a liar! Liberals created a whole new level of disrespect when it came to the office of the President.

My problem with the folks who supported Obama is the complete lack of honesty they have. Look in this thread even, you're not "worshiping" him but you certainly aren't giving him a fair assessment given the level of distain for Bush.

Terrorism \ Privacy - This guy supports RENDITION! he hasn't abolished the patriot act! In fact, he SUPPORTS IT! and all along those of you on the left felt he would just 'let it expire' well it was pushed off expiring at the end of last year and the Democrats are still trying to pass it without raising alarms!! Not ot mention, as far as this White House is concerned we have NO "REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY"! (this article is for cell phones but there are many other articles out there showing this administration wanting to erode more of our privacy, such as the naked x-ray's, or what's on your computer!) Let's also not forget about the Christmas bomber and how the US screwed up and almost let a plane get bombed

Budget \ Deficits \ Health Care - discussed ad nauseum. Obama is the most fiscally reckless President EVER. (statistically proven) It was announced before he was even elected he would be a huge spender and his supporters rational: "Bush ran up deficits for his war, so let Obama run them up for Health Care!" Well, he's run them up and you don't have health care (or jobs) and now you want to try and ram health care through with the absolutely laughable guise that it will DECREASE spending!

If a you hated Bush for anything other then he was an R then you should hate Obama equally or more so and if you did hate Bush and don't hate Obama.. you're simply partisan it really is that simple.

Yeah, all this talk about liberals supposedly regarding Obama as The Messiah or somesuch is kinda weird, when people back then actually declared that Bush was sent by God Almighty* to save America. Even Bush himself did. God regularly gave him instructions dontchaknow!

Silly.

Would you stop with this silly garbage? All it takes is a very quick, cursory glance at a history book to lay this dumbass remark low. Partisanship (the battle between "factional interests" to use Madison's term) has been arrayed in any innumerable attempts to degrade, disrespect or demolish whoever happens to be in the Presidential office.

Really, it's fucking stupid and acutely ignorant. It pisses me off. If you want to talk about 'disrespecting' the President, how about the campaign the John Birch Society waged against Kennedy, including distributing this two days before he came to Dallas and was assassinated



a campaign that was abetted by the Dallas Morning News running this on November 22nd, the same day Oswald took matters into his own hands



So please, sir, shut the fuck up about deficits and Obama being "the most fiscally reckless president ever" if you are going to be so goddamned reckless with the facts yourself.

You mean the repeal of this act by Bill Clinton, The Republican congress and senate and the house DEMOCRATS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

As for the others that said Palin is the front runner just this weekend Ron Paul won. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/...ion=cnn_latest

Congressman Paul on Obama the great's proposal to freeze discretionary spending. http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-on-...ending-freeze/

Johnny Daywalker, please read the "Oops the economy" thread before trying to zing me with your mastery of Wiki. Thx.

To be fair, it's hard to find whatever you're looking for in that thread.

For a record, I blame you for always arguing with me.

Actually, I wasn't reckless if you had read what I wrote or had been alive for the last 8 years, afterall I didn't say it was created under the Bush Presidency but that it was brought to a whole new level. I could flood this thread with over 100 pages of anti Bush images, clips comments and rhetoric. I believe the person you wanted to point that particular comment to was The Prankster.

Also if you don't like the fact that Obama is the most fiscally reckless President ever, maybe you shouldn't have voted for him. Just sayin!

Except that he's not. But Rush Limbaugh says he is, and you are just a mouth piece for Wingnut talking points, so oh well.

Firstly. I don't listen to Rush or watch Fox News (except when at a Friends house who loves Fox and has it on while we play games)

Secondly.
Please, show proof.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...lt_100150.html

So you point to a right wing propaganda site with made up BS numbers as proof.

Excellent work sir.

Quite clearly directed at you. As in, this statement, made by you, is stupid. Liberals did not 'create a whole new level of disrespect' when the right was calling Kennedy a traitor quite loudly in the city that killed him. (of course, the history of such noxious behavior goes back to the time of President Adams, but it's sort of hard to argue that making fun of Bush's dyslexia, repugnant as that is, is a 'whole new level' removed from accusing President Kennedy of adopting the 'Soviet Doctrine', you fuckin putz.)

Made up BS Numbers?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

OK, go in here and find different numbers, since those numbers in that article have been in every other article I've found, including the New York Times, Washington Post, the CBO etc... but like I said, find me different numbers and we'll talk. As it stands now, everyone (who reads) is in agreement with me that he's the most fiscally wreckless President ever but.. who knows, maybe you'll start a new trend!

Wait, so now you think he should wreck the... fiscals? Or something? You're confusing me man!

Someone pulled out the "miss me yet?" card!

Oh my god, they called the president a liar!.

Ya, they called the president before that one a murder.

So fuck you!

It wasn't new highs in low, and it was for good reason. I seem to remember accusations that Clinton was a drug dealer, rapist, and murderer, leveled at him because he was a Democrat. That was my first experience with how Republicans do business, in fact. On the other hand, Bush the Lesser got shoes thrown at him because of things he actually did. He was a disgrace to his office, both in terms of policy and demeanor. I can't see Obama grabbing the German Chancellor by the neck.

And Bush is a liar, and he isn't my president. Never was.

I'm not even sure what disrespecting the office means, really. The secret service has to respect the office, they don't get to decide to protect the President or not depending on how they feel about his policy. The pilot of Air Force One has to respect the office in the same way. And, as a visiting US President, I believe Bush should have been treated to the same ceremony and such as any other visiting president would. No, I don't know what personally disrespecting the office means.

But I know what having absolutely no respect for the person means, and I"m so fucking there.

Loth though I am to dignify Snaieke's asshattery, it seems to be somewhat unclear, so: of course there has always been disrespect for the president among various segments of the populace, regards of who was actually in power. Fucking DUH.

My point is that I've never seen this level of condescension towards the president from all different levels, up to and including the people who work with him on a regular basis. It's not simply trying to destroy him politically, which is par for the course (again, fucking DUH). It's the narrative being pushed by the right that the guy somehow is illegitimate as president, that he doesn't actually wield any power, and that if we complain about him enough he'll go away.

It's seemingly a warped reflection of how liberals treated Bush, but that was happening at a populist level. You didn't get left-wing politicians walking out of meetings with Bush and whining "who does this guy think he is?" the way Boehner did here. If they had, the answer would have been obvious: "He's the leader of the free world, you fucking moron." He may have been a terrible, terrible president, and anyone who tried to push back against him would have been within their rights, but if they'd been legitimately surprised to find themselves facing heat from the top after disrespecting him, they would have been disingenuous at best, deeply stupid at worst. So it is with Boehner. It's like he's amazed that the president has the temerity to chastise him.

So to sum up: I fully expect Boehner to stand against Obama politically. That's to be expected and is nothing new. But for him to publicly get the vapours because the most powerful man alive took him to task for things he said is just outright insulting.

Just wanted to say anyone who actually believes this sentiment should gets cancer and die in a fire.

Maybe it just thinks your spelling is Obamanible.

Yeah. Actually, does it seem to anyone else that a lot of the extreme right-wing reaction to Obama is just a bizarre, superficial attempt to copy the left-wing reaction to Bush? "Hey, people got emotional and took to the streets and shit, we should get in on that action!" I'm reminded of Bill Hicks' routine about how an advertiser would say he's "going for the angry dollar". It's so fucking cynical and detached from any honest reaction.

ALL-OBAMA... my repeated utterance of this has NEVER failed to get a rise out of all the Jethro's down here in "Sweet Home."

You gotta enjoy the little things.

We haven't had a real President since Kennedy, since then they have all been puppets of the Feudal banks or Wall Street or what ever you wish to call the powers that be. This the problem with the US the corporations now own the government. The new boss is the same as the old boss. Unless both liberals and conservatives start Voting third parties it will stay they same as it been.

Liberals didn't really start to outright hate Bush until 2003-2004. There was obviously some residual anger over the elections, where (it is alledged) massive electoral fraud may have been committed in Florida, but for the most part, things were relatively civil. Hell, Democrats were even onboard for Afghanistan! And then Bush started the war drums for Iraq. Look, even though Saddam was a horrible person, Iraq was one of the more stable governments in the region. It was like smashing a hornet's nest. You, and everyone else in the area are going to get stung. So it was strategically retarded. Compounded by the fact that there was no clear occupation plan. And that Iraq posed no real danger to anyone other than its own citizens. But if the US was really interested in human rights, I can think of even worse monsters that needed deposing.
And the Katrina response was only the tip of the iceberg in terms of mismanaged government departments. From a performance standpoint, Bush was just incompetent in general at the very job of being president. So, he kind of earned the hate, in a way I don't think Obama has yet. Plus, there's no logical way you can argue the economic crisis is Obama's fault, though there are a myriad of irrational arguments!
And for all that criticism of Obama's economic intiatives, John McCain would have governed like Herbert Hoover. Obama is not the worst man for the job, nor is he doing a fantastic job. But he's prevented an even worse collapse than the one we're currently enduring. What's the conservative solution? Do nothing?

Wolf Blitzer was on CNN just now complaining that it's been too long since Obama held a "formal" press conference in prime time. Nevermind the fact that Obama takes questions everywhere he goes.

Bush never took any questions by the end of his presidency. They're comparing the length of time that Bush and Obama went without a prime time press conference and pretending their is a false equivalence in terms of media accessibility



The administration is not doing prime time news conferences because the Networks revolted and refused to carry them in prime time! Fox didn't show them and ABC threatened to do the same. They claimed Obama was stealing their ad dollars with too many news conferences.

So the Obama Administration had to manage their precious resource of Prime time coverage and use it only when they most needed it. The health care speech, for example.


This is offensive. They whine he is using up Prime time and costing them money


Now they say he is not using enough of their prime time

Obama replied to this charge by factually stating he's held more interviews than any president by this point in their Presidency

Not good enough for Wolf Blitzer

Why?

He didn't put himself in a "formal setting in prime time" and "hold himself accountable before the American people"

Wolf Blitzer probably doesn't give two shits about the networks and their shows. He's a news host on cable television. He's not a network executive.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/fe...sts/index.html

Yeah, I wonder why those guys were upset by the Constitutional usurpation that was Bush v Gore? Nothing to see here!

In spite of Bush vs. Gore, I don't think the left was as actively angry at Bush at that point as they later became; they just, correctly in my view, were disturbed by the method by which he took office. They didn't like his politics, but he hadn't actually *done* anything at that point--it was the system that was messed up. It's the equivalent, I guess, of the birthers (putting aside for the moment that that's a paranoid fantasy). People who believe Obama wasn't born in America aren't, supposedly, criticizing him as a leader, they're just saying there's been a mistake. Of course, the analogy breaks down when you consider that the only reason people believe that crap is because they're paranoid racists and automatically dislike Obama. And I doubt any of the people protesting Bush v. Gore voted for Bush (which is a shame--people ought to argue for justice even when injustice favors them--but it's human nature).

But still, during Bush v. Gore people were simply worried about the guy. They didn't get angry and despairing until 9/11.

Is that a fucking joke? Yea, imagine people getting upset by the circumstances surrounding Bush winning the 2000 election. Crazy!

Why are all the Chud Republicans retards? Can we at least get some semi-coherent libertarian types?

Speaking of retards, you are aware of the fact that Pomp was simply pointing out that some folks hated Bush prior to 2003-2004, right?

There's a world of difference between coming to hate a man and everything he stands for and calling bullshit on his election as President because of what seemed to be a clear case of election fraud.

As I recall, the ire wasn't even directed at Bush himself so much as at the Supreme Court itself, especially as that particular decision has been derided by so many notable legal scholars from both sides of the aisle.

You see ... here's the problem. It wasn't election fraud, he won in every count and it wasn't his fault that the Gore team decided to only recount certain (Democrat) districts and when they lost recount after recount. However those that view it as election fraud (instead of a horrible mishandling of our election system on every level) could arguably be the same people that we're talking about that disrespected the office of the President and their rational was that he didn't WIN the election so he wasn't their President ah... logical fallacies, gotta love them.

For the record, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt until June of 2003. I put my faith in him, and trusted that he would not lie about reasons for war. I am probably the only girl in the world who was an Oliver Stone super fan at age 12, so why I believed him I do not know

My only explanation?

I was in highschool and young and not really reading the news as much as I should have

I still beat myself up over my early Bush support.

I even angrily demanded that people in my 10th grade World History class show him respect and refer to him as the President and not "George" as one student was fond of doing.

Anyway, I knew right away that if Sadam didn't use the weapons to save his skin when we invaded, he didn't have them.

By June I'd begun to realize I'd been deliberately misled. I saw Howard Dead on Larry King at like 3 am one night, and he was talking about all this. I said to myself, "You know what? He's right". I donated money to Dean the next day, and even went to canvass for him in NH


He was not speaking off the cuff. He was reading from a prepared script that was characterizing Obama's lack of prime time press conferences that way.

My point is that there are powerful interests that want to see Obama fail, and the clearly include the people who put words in Wolfie's mouth. What Blitzer said was utterly preposterous to anyone who reads the news, and presumably the people who write words for him read the news. Therefore it was a hack job to make Obama look bad to people who watch CNN and don't know any better

see the mishandling comment, the one at every level that applied to them as well.

Why yes, my retarded friend, I am.

Are you aware that there is a difference between the level of hatred we see aimed at Obama from the "Tea Party Activists", and legitimate concerns about the Supreme Court's ruling on Bush V. Gore? It was an absurd, or shall I say, retarded comparison for him to make.

Reading The Closer's comment again- what a fucking stupid thing to say. How does a sane person compare misgivings about a clearly partisan Supreme Court decision, a decision that will decide the next leader of the free world, to say, something like this-

http://www.nochaserblog.com/wp-conte...tTeabagger.jpg

Maybe I dont read too good, but this is the exact quote Pomp was replying to:

His argument was that a lot of liberals hated Bush prior to 2003-2004.

Was he commenting on the Supreme Court fiasco? No.

Was he questioning the reasoning behind the hatred? No.

Was he suggesting in any way, shape, or form that perhaps the level hatred that occurred following the 2000 election was anywhere close to what Obama and Co are experiencing today? No.

What's also funny (and kind of fucking stupidly retarded, to use your words) is that with all of the responses to Pomp's post...including yours...you're pretty much proving his one and only point; that there was a lot of hatred directed towards Bush prior to 2003.

Are people *seriously* making the case that Bush faced this kind of retarded shitstorm in his first year in office?