Watching President Obama's speech last night I was overwhelmed with a sense of pity for the republicans. Not so much because they had to sit politely while being forced to listen to truth instead of being able to listen to comforting lies from Glen Beck. But because these jokers were lost without their one of their masters, Dick Cheney up front signaling with one of his many menacing stares when to applaud and when to remain silent.
These poor republican saps kept looking at each other while President Obama talked of the tax cuts that went to small business and 95% of Americans. The mindless sheep were obviously waiting for their orders when the electronics screwed up or one of their other signals failed them.
Of course, their failure to applaud may have been the one honest thing these republican sheep displayed this year. Perhaps they didn't applaud because they're really only in favor of tax cuts, bailouts and government largess for the rich and big business. But I doubt that honesty entered into their not applauding tax cuts.
When it comes to republicans, it's best to err on the side of deceit.
38 comments:
I don't mean to change the subject, but what is the movie art or DVD box from? I have a growing interest in Asian cinema.
can we start to refer to them as "DICKIES"
(New Edit)
Poor Republicans. They're Dickless.
Well, they still have Dick Armey. That ol' Dick is hanging somewhere near Congress.
But they don't have the old leader of their Dick Army. And they sure do miss his shiny head.
Phuck, I hate it when I leave out a word and it ruins a sentence.
I don't know Dmarks. It was just a reference to the loyalty at all costs devotion to their masters of the Samurai.
Look at how many righties have committed "suck up to Rush Hari Kiri" for daring speak the truth about him.
If the Dickless weren't sitting on their hands then they were laughing at the presidents speech. They are DICKLESS irrelevant scum. I'll be shocked and sickened if the people put more of them in "The Peoples" seats in November!
You'd think their infantile posture of obstruction would be overcome by some hint of shame.
-SJ
If we quit feeding congress will they stop reproducing?
Love President Obama... he hit it outa the park last night!
Republicans show the behavior of a tobacco addict who just had their last pack of smokes stolen from them. Surprise, irritability, irrationality, and that blank stare. They will need time to grasp reality again, but for God's sake, don't give them anymore tobacco!
If Cheney's old boss had been named George W. Ball, the 2010 Republicans would be both Dickless and Ball-less.
Sorry, I couldn't resist that.
Truth said: "Look at how many righties have committed "suck up to Rush Hari Kiri" for daring speak the truth about him."
Now, that brings a sumo wrestling movie to mind!
Holte: "If Cheney's old boss had been named George W. Ball, the 2010 Republicans would be both Dickless and Ball-less."
When I was in university, I remember a candidate running for the state legislature going from door to door knocking as part of his campaign. His last name was Ballass.
I thoroughly enjoyed their discomfort. They looked like the fools they are...
it sure is nice to know that you know the minds of Republicans so well, truth, that you can make so many unsubstantiated assumptions about them.
have to say i wish i had that kind of powers also.
The Republicans are lost even WITH Dick Cheney, and I have no sympathy for them at all. They have built and are now trapped within a mobius strip of failure revolving around tax cuts for the rich and deregulation of businesses that NEED regulation!
What you must understand Griper is that republicans may be able to fool the weak minded and bigoted, BUT THEY MOST CERTAINLY CANNOT FOOL THE ORACLE!
Oops. That was my previous internet persona.
They still can't fool me though.
truth,
""republicans may be able to fool the weak minded and bigoted...,"
aand who might these persons be?
@Griper,
take your party back.
You deserve more than Eric Cantor, John Boehner and Dick Cheney.
-just as Democrats deserve more than Ben Nelson, Max Baucus and Harry Reid.
Sure we're gloating and generalizing. Why? Because most of the of the Republicans occupying that room couldn't carry Chuck Hagel's, John McCain's or Lincoln Chaffee's balls with steel ladles.
When the GOP stops being led by the religious right, the corporations and the Super Rich, WHICH is not impossible, I'll take them seriously.
-SJ
I should add Griper that I’d love to see a GOP that wasn’t defined by deregulation of industry, or social conservatism (which is just an intrusive waste of everybody’s time), and still kept the ideals of fiscal Conservatism at its core (not while spending us into disaster like Reagan and George W. Bush.)
It’s a valuable perspective that Republicans theoretically represent in American politics, -the idea that Government should intrude as little as possible in the lives of its citizenry. Today too many elected Republicans act as if they understand that to mean that Government should do nothing for anyone without money and power. Two of the greatest Presidents of the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower understood that was not the case.
But I’ll give you an example of where I’m coming from:
As a Liberal and as a Progressive, I disagreed profoundly with President George HW Bush on most issues, but he raised taxes when he had to in the late 1980s, and saved the economy at the time. -For that extremely painful and sober capitulation to reality he gets pilloried by idiots like Anne Coulter who don’t know what being a Conservative is. Bush 41 knew it was political suicide to raise taxes, but he did it anyway because it was the logical thing to do, it was the thing that needed to be done as much as he hated it. If we weren’t so full shit as a country, I wouldn’t be attacked by other Liberals and oddly enough also by Right wing supporters and Republicans for simply telling the facts about his record.
Nobody’s going anywhere.
We’re one country and we need to work it out.
We need Republicans, -real ones: not Establishment-protecting hacks like Mitch McConnell.
But the minority party won’t move an inch in any direction but their own.
It’s reckless and inexcusable.
When John Boehner says with a straight face that he doesn’t believe that banks should either pay what they owe with interest or be specifically taxed for the peril they put the country in just a little over a year ago (the banks owe the tax payers who lent them money their very existence today) he doesn’t deserve to be called a Republican, he deserved to be called exactly what he is, a lobbyist.
-SJ
SJ,
don't be so presumptuous in your claims about people.
I declare myself as an individualist and make no other claims in regards to politics affiliation not even as an independent.
as for who deserves to be called a republican or democrat, i make no claims there either. i allow them to claim what they are.
so, that makes your whole argument as irrelevant.
but i will ask one question of you though.
if thee republican party is "led" by the religious right, big corporations, and the super rich as you claim then who are the groups that lead the democratic party?
"Perhaps they didn't applaud because they're really only in favor of tax cuts, bailouts and government largess for the rich and big business."
Perhaps? PERHAPS?
Perhaps the Pope wears a dress. Perhaps bears poop in the woods.
From what I've seen of President Obama's new approach to dealing with the obstructionist republicans Griper, it looks like progressive bloggers like myself, who demand the obstructionist republicans be left behind until they have to come to the table, are in charge. At least our words being heeded anyway.
The leaders? Too bad Howard Dean isn't still one of them.
Other than that, clever reply to Dmarks Griper. I give you a bipartisan "well done" for it.
And the icing on the cake - he lambasted them AGAIN on national tv today - twice in one week, they were hostage spectators. HUZZAH!!! Even GOP aides were saying today that today's meeting with the GOP "leaders" (LOL) shouldn't have been televised. Fox even stopped airing it halfway through.
truth,
and what remarks of mine are you referring to when you say i was addressing dmarks?
@Griper,
So you're not a Republican?
My mistake.
You're right, it was presumptuous of me to assume so based solely upon what you've written here.
I might add it's no crime to be one, -as I said we need them in America.
However:
"as for who deserves to be called a republican or democrat, i make no claims there either. i allow them to claim what they are.
so, that makes your whole argument as irrelevant.
I don't agree at all.
What people call themselves and what schools of thought they claim to uphold and support is how politicians get our votes and it's one of the many ways we hold them accountable as articulators of our will.
If it's irrelevant then why bother disassociating yourself from every possible party affiliation, why bother identifying yourself as an "individualist?"
As for your question, I'd be glad to oblige with an obvious answer we both already know because I think it may show we agree on something here, -or maybe not...
The Democratic party is also sponsored and influenced by many, many wealthy and powerful elites. By way of a specific and current example: the beneficiaries of the biggest campaign support from the Health care industry in the last presidential election/fiscal '08 were Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and John Mccain. Yet, Obama and Clinton turned around and supported the Public Option, which by the Health care industry's own repeated admission was the biggest threat to their stranglehold on the market. I would have thought Republicans, who pioneered much of Anti-trust law last century would have had some amongst their ranks who would have turned their backs on the Health care lobby on this issue.
That's a big difference to me between the offered leadership from these two parties right now. It matters what politicians call themselves, and whether they "deserve" the names they call themselves because the Right and Left have long track records in America, it's no idle thing to call declare yourself something.
(By the way this is my third time posting this, I keep getting blanked by the Google servers.)
-SJ
SG's remarks. My oopsie Griper.
The Japanese film poster is for Dai-tatsumaki, translated as "Whirlwind".
It's set against the destruction of the once-great Toyotomi clan during the siege of Osaka in 1615, which was part of the beginning of a new era and one of the golden ages of pre-modern Japan.
Perhaps Truth chose aptly...
SJ,
"If it's irrelevant then why bother disassociating yourself from every possible party affiliation, why bother identifying yourself as an "individualist?"
the reason be simple. as an individualist i am not bound by anyone else's principles and philosophy other than my own.
as an individualist i am not required to defend any one else's words other than my own.
as an individualist a person cannot presume that they know me based upon their perception of others as you and so many others attempt to do.
as an indidualist I know my limitation in regards to authority and power thus cannot "demand" anything of anyone else not under my direct authority as some think they can.
I can go on forever as to the reason i call myself an individualist and disassociate myself from groups but it can be summed up in one sentence.
i am an individualist because only as an individualist do i understand the need of liberty to fully express my will willingly and freely.
oops, apologize for the double entry above.
@Griper,
well said/written by you and respected by me. I hear you, -but sorry I don't presume to know you or I wouldn't bother with this exchange. I just made a mistaken presumption about a party affiliation and have admitted as much. If you still need to lump me in with "so many others," feel free.
I don't ask anyone to defend someone else's philosophy, politics, actions either. -But philosophical and ethical accountability is my issue with today's parties, they claim to stand for something, they have been acting against the principles they have historically campaigned on for many long years. This affects everyone who votes and expects something in the country. Regardless of party affiliation or no party affiliation at all, it's a betrayal whenever it happens.
As I said it's no small or idle thing to declare oneself something, as you just have. It matters. Even if said declaration is as "individual" as calling oneself an individualist.
-SJ
Sj,
"-But philosophical and ethical accountability is my issue with today's parties, they claim to stand for something, they have been acting against the principles they have historically campaigned on for many long years."
Every political party has three recognized positions, those in the center, and those to the right and left of that center. they each have their own philosophy of governance. the position taken by that political party depend upon which of those three groups are in power at any given time.
so, inreasality while we say that we have a two party political system, in reality, there are seven political parties vieing for power. that includes the independents now too.
so, as an individualist i really do not associate anyone with any party. when i evaluate a politician in office i do so based upon his own promises to me. that way i do not demean or degrade others within that party by the words or actions of a few.
at least that is my goal. i fail at it at times when i become too emotionally involved in an issue.
@Griper,
those are excellent points. I certainly agree that it's principally important to focus on each candidate's particular agenda and promises on a case by case basis.
I still believe that the tensions between the two parties' cores postures is very important to legislation and our future. There are many important perspectives on the Right that need to be upheld but that are falling by the wayside; those perspectives are all the more important at times like these when the opposition in in power, because Liberals (of which I am one) will certainly not uphold them. It's an important dynamic to me, including the seven degrees you mentioned. My frustration is not with politicians occasionally meeting on an issue or cooperation, or compromise necessarily -which I don't see as hypocrisy, but when they run on a party platform and then drop core concerns (such as people on the Left abandoning media ownership concerns during the Clinton era, or those on the Right not being fiscally conservative during the Georgw W. Bush era) once in office.
I suppose I should say feel it amounts to false advertising, but the product they're all selling... is our lives.
-SJ
SJ,
as an individualist i know i can only directly vote for one representative and one senator. and my vote is only one of many that will help determine the election. and there are times that the person i voted for will win and there are times he will not win.
those are the only two positions in government i have any direct influence on. and as implied in a previous comment that influence is limited.
i must also accept that people in other districts and other states will do the same and that is what democracy is all about. your concerns only exemplifies the weakness of a democratic state of governing.
one thing about governing that i am always amused by. we all prefer a democratic form of government but we each would prefer that government abide by our particular principles of governing, which, of course is a dictatorship. lol
so, we end up being hypocritical in regards to what we actually want in government.
the possession of power or the perception of that possession can be very addictive and we all fall prey to it. and it doesn't matter how little or how much power anyone actually possesses.
obama took full advantage of his shot -=- and it worked, but the truth is the supporters of people (rather assholes) like Pence dont care - their hate of OBama and democrats is too deep to even bothering to listen to their own "leaders" fall and tumble
besides fox news cut out early - so they didnt get to see it all
i hope obama continues to call these people out - and the rest of the Dem leaders
i am sure CHris matthews is having a hissy fit aabout this in private since this is so "un AMerican" as he tells Alan Grayson
Matthews is a royal ass.
@Griper,
Yes very true. They problem is they get to the Senate and in the end regardless of their region, states etc. end up making national policy for us all, not just their own regions. They are all our "representatives" in that sense at the end of the day, but we don't make them act that way nearly enough.
-SJ
SJ,
"They are all our "representatives" in that sense at the end of the day, but we don't make them act that way nearly enough."
that is not the role of the Senate. The role of the Senate is to be the representatives of their States as a singular unit of a soveriegn state. and in doing so, gives their approval or disapproval of any law up to be enacted as if their own state would do so if it up up to that particular state. that was why the founding fathers had the governments of the states choose them to represent the states and not the people.
Post a Comment