९ डिसेंबर, २०१३
The desperation would be laughable, but it's not funny to write "How Adam Lanza Wrecked Obama's Second Term."
20 children were murdered, and 6 adults. Leave it alone. Conduct your pathetic search for someone or something to blame somewhere else, Alex Seitz-Wald. Have some decency. Find another grave upon which to dance the Dance of Obama Exculpation.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३३ टिप्पण्या:
This sounds like a job for the AUTISTIC REPORTER!!!!
http://www.theonion.com/video/autistic-reporter-train-thankfully-unharmed-in-cra,20098/
There is a kernal of truth there. It was the begining of the Obama's downward trend.
The National Journal article paints the president as a passive victim of events- as though he had no ability or opportunity to change the course of history by leading the American people through these troubled times. The article is correct, in my view. America is truly blessed that this man of the left, elected twice, is so ineffectual.
And it will always be true that the best remedy to a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.
Liberal dogma will never countenance that simple fact.
So even, just for argument sake, granting the awful premiss of that shameful article, we have an occurrence made easier by liberal policy (gun free zones) interfering with other equally ridiculous liberal policy.
Sounds like a feature, not a bug.
When you start to run out of excuses, you grasp at any possible one.
Everything is about Obama. Next up:
Lack of cancer cure impacts First Family
I'm pretty sure that Obama can screw-the-pooch all by himself.
Further prrof that liberal brains are not wired correctly.
Obama didn't have to jump into gun control as a result of Sandy Hook, it was a choice based on all the usual political influences. It was a mistake. His mistake, probably Jarrett's actually.
Agree with West Texas Crude: Obama's supposed to make the decisions on priorities. If he felt immigration was #1 then he could have made it #1 with gun control taking a secondary path at the same time. Obama failed (big surprise) to lead the members of his own party when the time, according to the author, was right.
Poor, confused, mentally disturbed - now dead - Adam Lanza has more impact on the legislative agenda than the president. Makes you think, doesn't it?
And how do you like that Nelson Mandela - dying and reminding everyone what a great leader is.
When the leader hates what - and whom - he is leading, how can he succeed?
Immigration reform is a low priority for the majority of Americans. Obama did not run for re-election on it because it is not a priority for him. It would not have happened. Almost no American wants to hear that but for some deranged 20 year old immigration reform would have passed. Not only isn't that true, it is insulting to use a tragedy to argue for some trivial issue.
The article does not really blame Adam Lanza:
"Even in hindsight, it's almost impossible to imagine the president choosing a different path; the clamor of the victorious Left for gun-law reform was just too strong. But the ripple effect has disrupted Obama's entire year."
Alex Seitz-Wald hints at the truth: Obama was victorious in 2012, the Left was not. He is not going to come right out and say the President Obama let himself get hijacked, but that is what he is saying.
In hindsight, one might even have to admit that "Wayne LaPierre's bizarre press conference" may actually have been brilliant.
I had no idea that Adam Lanza was point man on the healhcare.gov website project.
I know those autistic kids can sometimes be computer prodigies, but, I mean, wow!
Basically, the column says Obama and the left awakened a sleeping giant with the gun control hysteria.
What's with the recent wave of male writers with hyphenated names writing tendentiously liberal articles?
What a bunch of pussies!
Be a man!
"The Connecticut massacre set in motion a cascade of events that led the White House to burn through its only real window to accomplish its goals."
What does that even mean?
"Even in hindsight, it's almost impossible to imagine the president choosing a different path; the clamor of the victorious Left for gun-law reform was just too strong. But the ripple effect has disrupted Obama's entire year."
Translation: Even President Obama's supporters don't expect him to actually lead.
Geez, what an asshole. Hey, alex, what a fucking despicable cur you are. Barry's problem isn't adam lanza or sandy hook. Barry's problem is that he's an incompetent jackass, a skid mark on American society and foul shits like you defend him; deflect blame, or attempt to, and blame people who have exactly nothing to do with barry's inability to accomplish anything, to understand anyone. He's a narcissistic air wasting sack and idiots, mindless boobs like you are surprised that working, productive, responsible America refuses to venerate him. Fuck you, fuck you and drop dead, shits like you aren't even viable as fertilizer.
One thing this article makes plain is that the liberals now feel that something is terribly wrong with the Presidency. But they can't articulate that insight directly so an article which blames a pathetic teenage loser for the policy direction taken by Barack Obama, the President of the United States, is written for and published in a liberal journal.
And something is wrong. Obamacare is an incredible disaster and the Democrats are delaying dealing with it. They are behaving like Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression. Hoover kept saying "Prosperity is just around the corner" till he dragged the Republicans under for twenty years. When they came back they were a different party. Similarly Obama is saying "A working version of Obamacare is just around the corner" as he drags big government under in America - probably forever. The longer the Dems lie, the stronger the reaction will be against them because the more people that get hurt by ClusterfuckCare the more bitter will be the reaction against the perpetrators.
If the death of these children broke the back of this presidency, then they all died well and deserve statues.
Poor Obama. Why must these things always happen to him?
I thought Bush Derangement Syndrome was bad, but it is nothing compared to Pro Obama Derangement Syndrome. When I see articles like this and read about the Chris Mathews interview degenerating into a discussion of the president's feeling, I think there is more than a little homoeroticism at play.
I now there was heteroeroticism because they published some of the fantasies in the New York Times back in 2009. And all the while accusing any one who voted Republican of wanting to sleep with Sarah Palin.
I think the Obama base believes they have a relationship with their main squeeze, but it's an abusive one. And the worse thing is that as I was always told you don't just marry the person you marry the entire family. That's the rest of us, our fellow citizens are in this relationship and we are collateral damage.
Everything you say is true, but in retrospect it certainly does seem like the beginning (or continuation) of a bad pattern in Obama's second term. Obama took his reelection as an opportunity to move hard to the left, and the country did not follow him. Not even a little.
Considering that it happened right around his second inauguration, it was surprising to see how little traction he could get on 1) A major issue, 2) With a major news item highlighting the issue, and 3) With a large and pre-built constituency favoring his preferred course of action. Despite all of those factors in his favor and a major investment of presidential time, energy, and prestige, Obama came away with nothing. That might set a record for how quickly it's possible for a presidential administration to go sour.
The real lesson of Obama's gun control debacle is that an administration has to keep its irons in the fire if it's going to act quickly to take advantage of events. Obama wasn't able to take advantage of the gun issue because he hadn't taken a firm position on gun control before the shooting (I think we can safely say that he's personally a doctrinaire liberal on this issue as on all issues, but he didn't have a strong anti-gun policy in his first term). So his election wasn't a mandate on gun control, his administration didn't have any anti-gun measures working their way through Congress, and he wasn't on the record making a bunch of anti-gun arguments that he could point to in the aftermath of the shooting.
By the time he could get an anti gun bill in front of Congress, the iron had gone cool.
It's like the quote from Julius Caesar:
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
How many people have died in Syria? Can we talk about that?
Gun control had zero chance of passing from the beginning. The only reason some people were surprised by the outcome is because they are bad at math and don't understand elections. Just because a lot of talking heads on TV agree doesn't mean that the Senate will vote the way they want.
How Obama wrecked Obama's second term.
Don't underestimate Obama, madAsHell (3:26pm). Our omnitalented president can screw two pooches at once. Keep an eye out for the day he adds a third to his White House harem.
Godfather,
"What does that even mean? "
Seriously?
"Argle bargle argle bargle."
Happy to oblige! :-)
Fuck you, fuck you and drop dead, shits like you aren't even viable as fertilizer.
Not a bad rant, I must say I've done worse, but isn't the main characteristic of fertilizer a profound lack of viability?
Why, oh why, do these terrible things keep happening to Obama?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा