April 26, 2012

Why is it that Obama can't just enjoy his slow jam with Jimmy Fallon?

We were talking about Obama's effort at comedy on the Jimmy Fallon show. I had said, in the post, "Doesn't he have a job?" In the comments, Rabel said:
From the AP, April 25, 2012....
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — NATO says that two service members have been killed in separate attacks in southern Afghanistan, while two others have died of non-battle injuries.

The coalition said in statements that one service member was killed by an improvised explosive device Wednesday and another by a similar weapon on Tuesday....

So far this month, 31 coalition members have died in Afghanistan, bringing the year's toll to 122."
Barack Obama was their Commander-in-Chief.

Fuck him.
 And then Rabel came right back and said:
That's his job right there.

Fuck him and fuck his Goddamn comedy act.
Now, that's a very harsh way to talk about Obama, but it's the way people talked about George Bush all the time. Remember how Bush was savaged for displaying a capacity for enjoying himself when Americans were fighting and dying?



That much criticized performance occurred in 2002. A year later, after he received news of war deaths while golfing, Bush gave up golf:
“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf... I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong message."
Does a slow jam with Jimmy Fallon send the wrong message? Or do we not think about the mom whose son may have recently died anymore? (Obama has no Cindy Sheehan dogging hounding him bothering him... at least not that we see in the news.)

Why is Obama immune from the criticism that normally befalls a President? Back in 2008, running for President, Obama pushed back the press one time with "Why is it that I can't just enjoy my waffle?"

It's like that was a really hard question — why is it that he can't just enjoy his waffle... and his multiple vacations and his golf and his rock concerts in the White House and his slow jam with Jimmy Fallon?

The answer is: Because you have a job. You applied for it. We hired you. Make us believe you're doing it.

You know, a couple days ago, Rush Limbaugh said something that sounded outlandish to me at the time:
There's a lot of mythology out there still today about Obama and his strengths and how there hasn't been any fallout from the dismal record that he has amassed.  None of this is true.  They're in trouble.  They're in deep trouble.  You basically have David Plouffe, who's the president, you got Axelrod who's the chief of staff and Obama's out playing golf.  Obama... Not quite.  Obama's out doing the fundraising, but David Plouffe is the acting president, Axelrod's chief adviser, and Obama's out playing golf.  Obama basically has a nine a.m. to four p.m. day.  It's these other guys that are formulating policy, doing all this other stuff.  He knows what's going on, don't misunderstand, and he's guiding and influencing it.

I'm not saying Obama's disengaged, doesn't know what's going on and he's a puppet.  Don't misunderstand.  Not saying that at all.  But he's not known as a hard worker. He's not known as somebody who gets in there early and stays late....

While David Plouffe is the president, Axelrod's the chief of staff, Obama's out raising money. After his campaign stop in North Carolina today, he's going on his comedy tour.  He'll be appearing on the Jimmy Fallon show and then with Jimmy Kimmel before being roasted at the White House Correspondents Dinner this weekend....
Plouffe is the acting President?! That sounded outlandish. But look around. Obama performs 5 minutes of a musically sexualized speech about students and... it's wearing down my sense of the outlandish.

248 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 248 of 248
chickelit said...

@Fiend: I didn't write this with you in mind, but I might as well have: Tweaking Socrates

Executive Summary: You constantly roll stones uphill and can't figure out why you can't change anyone's opinion.

Anonymous said...

Synova said...

“Other than Libya carefully and completely giving up it's nuke program in direct response to our invasion of Iraq? Not a darn thing.”

Yes, but how did the situation in Libya contribute to our decision to invade Iraq?

“Other than the hilarious fact that you think we have "national interests" in Libya and don't have them in Iraq.”

You’re still not getting it. What conditions changed in Iraq after 9/11 that were not there prior to 9/11 to warrant an invasion?

Synova said...

"It’s Petraeus according to Petraeus.

I think the man has more credibility on the issue of torture and its adverse effects than you. Just saying.
"

The most amazing thing is, is if Petraeus was on the other end of a blog pseudonym, he'd actually engage in a discussion. True authorities almost always do. Particularly scholars like Petraeus. I'm always impressed with how little condescension actual authorities display compared to people who know very little but attempt to ride on the coat-tails of others.

Anonymous said...

chickenlittle said...

“ Oh geez Fiend. I'm not a stalker but let's just say you really impressed me with your stupidity a few months ago. You're almost insane in that Einsteinian definition.”

That’s not an answer about my supposed religious bigotry.

But spare the response, I’m not planning to pivot off.

Synova said...

"You’re still not getting it. What conditions changed in Iraq after 9/11 that were not there prior to 9/11 to warrant an invasion?"

At what point is a change in conditions an accepted and authoritative requirement for action?

Perhaps ask, rather, if the continuing and untenable situation in Iraq would have eventually blown-up had 9-11 never happened.

Anonymous said...

edutcher said...

“Try again. As I said, waterboarding was not regarded as torture in this country until the Lefties needed a stick to beat Dubya.”

Please read up on the history of waterboarding and what constitutes torture.

B said...

The Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture are supreme laws of the land in accordance with Constitution.

You do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

Anonymous said...

chickenlittle said...

“Executive Summary: You constantly roll stones uphill and can't figure out why you can't change anyone's opinion.”

I’m not trying to change anyone’s opinion.

As I have repeated stated, I’m still waiting for an answer to my initial question to Rabel.

Does he/she think Bush belittled his office and caused harm to the country and those who served when he joked about the search for WMDs in Iraq during the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner in 2004 while our troops were fighting and dying in Iraq?

And if not, why the inconsistency?

Anonymous said...

Synova said...

“The most amazing thing is, is if Petraeus was on the other end of a blog pseudonym, he'd actually engage in a discussion. True authorities almost always do. Particularly scholars like Petraeus. I'm always impressed with how little condescension actual authorities display compared to people who know very little but attempt to ride on the coat-tails of others.”

What’s your point in regards to Petraeus’ expertise on the issue of torture?

Anonymous said...

Synova said...

“At what point is a change in conditions an accepted and authoritative requirement for action?

Perhaps ask, rather, if the continuing and untenable situation in Iraq would have eventually blown-up had 9-11 never happened.”

I’ll ask again, what conditions changed in Iraq after 9/11 that were not there prior to 9/11 to warrant an invasion?"

Anonymous said...

B said...

"You do not know what the fuck you are talking about."

Educate me B.

Synova said...

Asking again doesn't make the question any more relevant than when you asked it the first time.

I'm only asking you to examine and explain your base assumptions. Why do you think that "what changed in Iraq after 9-11" is a pivotal element to the discussion?

Anonymous said...

Synova said...

“Asking again doesn't make the question any more relevant than when you asked it the first time.

I'm only asking you to examine and explain your base assumptions. Why do you think that "what changed in Iraq after 9-11" is a pivotal element to the discussion?”

I’m asking again because you’re not responding.

What changed after 9/11 to warrant our invasion of Iraq?

Synova said...

"What’s your point in regards to Petraeus’ expertise on the issue of torture?"

Plainly? That the man has an opinion that is informed but is also constrained by politics.

Active military officers may not speak freely.

Nor does rank automatically make anyone correct in his or her opinions. Nor does being respected, well educated, and highly intelligent, make one immune to error.

B said...

Educate me B.

Why?

Synova said...

I'm not your bitch.

If I chose to ask for an examination of basis for the question before answering the question, and that's not okay with you?

Bite me.

edutcher said...

36fsfiend said...

Try again. As I said, waterboarding was not regarded as torture in this country until the Lefties needed a stick to beat Dubya.

Please read up on the history of waterboarding and what constitutes torture.


Please read up on my comment - quoted above.

Simply because the Left wants to object to something because it's convenient for them doesn't make it so.

As I say, fiend has no words of condemnation for Pelosi Galore and the rest of the Democrats in Congress.

Hypocrisy.

It's what's for dinner.

Anonymous said...

Synova said...

“Active military officers may not speak freely.”

So do they lie about defense requirements, as Ryan has suggested?

Why don’t you read up about torture?

Anonymous said...

B said...

"Why?"

Why not? I'd be interested to read your take on torture and how it's authorize by our Constitution.

Anonymous said...

Synova said...

"I'm not your bitch.

If I chose to ask for an examination of basis for the question before answering the question, and that's not okay with you?

Bite me."

Bless you.

Anonymous said...

Edutcher,

You keep making the assumption I’m a Democrat.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Are you going to question the guy in the shorts?

He's Jewish as Tevye I hope you know.

As far as I can see, the score is dipshits-with-nine-toed-women zero, the man in shorts one (minus Donnie).

leslyn said...

Synova said,

"Nor does rank automatically make anyone correct in his or her opinions. Nor does being respected, well educated, and highly intelligent, make one immune to error."

Why Synova! That sounds like you!

Synova said...

"Since we're going to violate the Constitution anyway, what I don't underdstand is why we use torture. It's notoriously unreliable."

Torture is notoriously unreliable for getting truthful confessions. But at no time was our military (who don't and didn't and never have tortured people) interested in getting confessions from prisoners. Information, on the other hand, can be gotten and then confirmed.

Point... fellow was acting suspicious and a soldier saw him, guy ran, got chased down, tackled and I *think* that was the case where the tackler discharged or put a pistol to his head (but I don't think it's the case Alan West got separated for). After a little yelling and fear for his life (this a really *lame* definition of torture, but there it is) the guy said he'd put an explosive on an air conditioner.

Truth.

They found and disposed of the explosive.

So the statement that this *never works* is simply and profoundly a lie.

But torture has been used often, historically, judicially, to get confessions. Clearly this gets lots of confessions, but very little truth.

Synova said...

"Why Synova! That sounds like you!"

I don't have a problem with that. ;)

B said...

Why not? I'd be interested to read your take on torture and how it's authorize by our Constitution.

It was your ignorant and indefensible statement, not mine. Why would I then answer to your asinine deflection?

BTW: Your interests don't interest me. I figured you out the other day.

Anonymous said...

B said...

“It was your ignorant and indefensible statement, not mine. Why would I then answer to your asinine deflection?”

You mean my quote of Article VI, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution was ignorant?

Synova said...

I'm not particularly interested in the "official" definitions of torture because being made to believe that you are going to die or telling lies are included in those definitions of torture.

It's ridiculous.

edutcher said...

36fsfiend said...

You keep making the assumption I’m a Democrat.

If so, I'm being charitable.

Anonymous said...

edutcher said...

“If so, I'm being charitable.”

OK. You know, I’m pretty sure John McCain considers waterboarding torture.

Do you think he knows what he's talking about in regards to torture?

Is he a lefty?

B said...

You mean my quote of Article VI, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution was ignorant?

No.

Do you not understand that when someone tells you that you do not know what the fuck you are talking about and includes the relevant quote it means that the two are related?

Or is that you do not understand what I meant by deflection?

Anonymous said...

B,

Please explain to me how treaties are supposed to be put into effect in accordance with our Constitution since you seem to have a command of the subject?

B said...

Please explain to me how treaties are supposed to be put into effect in accordance with our Constitution since you seem to have a command of the subject?

No? Did you not understand what I meant when I said that your interests do not interest me in return?

You assume that my making the observation that you do not know what the fuck you are talking about indicates that I would return any interest in having a conversation with you? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume the opposite?

Please explain to me the definition of a blivey since you seem to closely identify with the concept?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

B,

Your first comment to me was that I didn’t I know what I was talking about regarding the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture being supreme laws of the land in accordance with the Constitution.

Please explain what I don’t know.

Either put up or shut up about it.

B said...

Your first comment to me was that I didn’t I know what I was talking about regarding the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture being supreme laws of the land in accordance with the Constitution.

Perhaps you don't realize that saying you don't know what the fuck you are talking about is a great deal more emphatic than just saying you don't know what you are talking about and should be quoted correctly?

Or do you think that your inability to maintain any linear coherency in your own comments excuses inaccuracy in quoting mine?

Please explain what I don’t know.

No?

Am I your teacher that I should have any interest in correcting you when you make an asinine statement? Didn't they teach you at ACSC that it is your responsibility to defend your own statements? Positions? Or did they encourage you to constantly demand that other people defend the counterpoint to your every statement? And in only the terms that you set? Does any of this seem at odds with developing command skills?

Either put up or shut up about.

Was it my statement? Wasn't it you that made it? Are you incapable of supporting it? Or are you attempting to set up a deflection? Again?

When you were on active duty, did you take bliveys seriously? Were you taken seriously when you debated using the tools you've used in this thread? Why should I?

I've been dismissing sophomoric contrarian lightweights like you as a waste of time since before you were born, jackass. The constant theme expressed by other commenters throughout this thread - people who can spot a blivey a mile away - does not flatter you either. You either haven't the wit to recognize their disdain for your logical fallacies and inanities or are to full of yourself, or full of shit, for it to register.

Anonymous said...

B,

Wow, for someone who stated that he wasn’t interested in having a conversation with me you have quite a lot to say.

However, you really didn’t communicate any useful information in that diatribe of yours.

Once again I’ll ask, please explain to me how treaties are supposed to be put into effect in accordance with our Constitution?

And once again I'll state, either put up or shut up about it.

B said...

Did you think that was having a conversation with you?

What is it about dismissing the idea of a productive discussion with you, or conversation if you prefer, out of hand as a waste of time that you don't understand?

Anonymous said...

B,

You are obviously either unwilling or unable to answer the question on how treaties are supposed to be put into effect in accordance with our Constitution.

You simply seem to be an ankle biter. Nothing more.

Hence, I see no point in continuing this useless dialog.

Regards.

Yr. Fthfl. Svnt. said...

By "outlandish" I presume you mean "honest."

Joe Schmoe said...

Wow. This thread went down the shithole quickly.

Trying to read this thread is torture. Where's the UN? I want my fucking human rights!

B said...


You are obviously either unwilling or unable to answer the question...


Or after reading several dozen disingenuous comments of yours before I commented it was immediately obvious to the most casual reader that you offer nothing - you do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

yet you continue to believe that if you keep demanding I do, I'll buy into the farce that you're an honest conversationalist.

In closing, I do not think the term ankle-biter means what you think it means. Look up the term contrarian. In blog comment sections, the two terms more often than not describe the same sort.

leslyn said...

@Synova,

Maybe this will help you feel a little better about the appropriateness of holding the traditional White House Correspondents' Dinner. (P.S., there was only one comedic "roast"; it and the WHCD are the same.)

Best of the White House Correspondents' Dinners

leslyn said...

Synova said...

"Why Synova! That sounds like you!" I don't have a problem with that. ;) 4/26/12 9:10 P.M.

I thought you wouldn't. And if I remember correctly, "rank" was related too. :)

Anonymous said...

Joseph Schmoe said...

"Trying to read this thread is torture. Where's the UN? I want my fucking human rights!"

Joe,

Speaking about torture:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/enhanced-interrogation-techniques-senate-probe_n_1457968.html

Synova said...

"And if I remember correctly, "rank" was related too. :)"

The highest rank I ever held was E4, so its more like non-rank. On the other hand it was in the Air Force and failing to be impressed or intimidated by officers is an institutional fetish.

MikeR said...

My goodness - James Taranto just called Ann a "blogress".
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304723304577370050555075714.html
That is a scary term, reminds me of "ogre" somehow.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 248 of 248   Newer› Newest»