Showing posts with label Bush Derangement Syndrome. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush Derangement Syndrome. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Who needs a nail gun when you have the Anchoress?

Oh, boy. Not only does the Anchoress hit the 16 penny nail on the head with this thorough fisking of Obama fandom, she drives it in with one blow. This may become a great reference and resource for Thanksgiving arguments with lib relatives if you haven't bought Arguing with Idiots yet.

She points out that all of Bush's most criticized policies are being continued by Obama and often expanded in scope. Then she concludes with the following:

Although some seem to be tireless in their efforts to convince me that I should “hate” President Bush as much as they think I “hate” President Obama, I don’t think we should “hate” anyone, and I am not seriously suggesting that you “should” hate President Obama. I am simply wondering why two men can do very similar (sometimes exactly the same) things, and the first man’s actions can garner your life-long, cockle-warming hate, while the other man’s actions go overlooked and your cockles go agreeably cold.

“Obama might be doing all those things, but at least he’s not Bush!” You say. Right. And Bush was bad again, because…why? Oh, yeah, all those things I mentioned plus the bad economy!

Why would I ever expect consistency, that “hobgoblin of small minds” when your minds are so wide-open and huge. Stupid of me.

I know I’ve just wasted my time asking this question, that you will continue to simply hate Bush; you’ll do that because it’s the easy, mindless thing to do, because it will keep you aboard the bandwagon with all the cool kids, and never mind where the wagon is going. But please don’t expect me to take your flaming righteousness all that seriously.

Kessler on Obama Nobel Prize

Ronald Kessler quotes liberal press outlets to demonstrate the ludicrous nature of the award being given to the President.

From the liberal Huffington Post and Daily Kos to the Washington Post and the Times of London, opinion makers have denounced the decision as a joke, spotlighting the fact that to date Obama has only hot air to show for his efforts at world peace.

"Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent,” the Times of London said. “It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel Committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush administration. The prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronizing in its intentions, and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun the period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.”

...

The Washington Post editorialized, “It’s an odd Nobel Peace Prize that almost makes you embarrassed for the honoree. In blessing President Obama, the Nobel Committee intended to boost what it called his ‘extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.’ A more suitable time for the prize would have been after those efforts had borne some fruit.”

It's all interesting to me that liberals are miffed and embarrassed about this dubious choice for the peace prize. But most serious people have been laughing about the Nobel Prize since 1994 when it was awarded to Yasser Arafat. Of course, the Nobel Committee did make him share it with two Israelis which I'm sure he appreciated. I don't know if Arafat was the first homosexual to receive the peace prize or not.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Abe Greenwald Badmouths Dungeons & Dragons

Before reading this, I have to echo greenwald's warning: If you have a beverage, put it down. Here's the transcript excerpt he posts:

SIMON JENKINS: What I think is extraordinary to people abroad, is that those of us who are enthusiasts for America and American liberties cannot see why you needed to do these things. You will never persuade the outside world that you have not restricted liberty in America. You will never persuade them that you have not taken out Muslims as a particular group, and you will never, and you never persuade them that you really needed to do these things.

WILLIAM KRISTOL: What things?

SIMON JENKINS: Because-

WILLIAM KRISTOL: What have we done to Muslims in America? What has happened?

SIMON JENKINS: Arrested them.

WILLIAM KRISTOL: We’ve arrested Muslims in America? [LAUGHTER]

SIMON JENKINS: Incarcerated them without trial.

WILLIAM KRISTOL: We’ve incarcerated-

KARL ROVE: Rounded them up?

WILLIAM KRISTOL: ...Muslims in America without trial?

KARL ROVE: Rounded, rounded them up? Name one?

WILLIAM KRISTOL: Nonsense.

KARL ROVE: Name one instance.

SIMON JENKINS: The, [UNCLEAR] belabor me all day with lists of people who have vanished. Vanished.

KARL ROVE: You know-

WILLIAM KRISTOL: Well, that-

KARL ROVE: This is on the border of lunacy, with all due respect.

SIMON JENKINS: But you didn’t need to do it, you didn’t need to do it-

KARL ROVE: We didn’t do it!

Excerpt from Greenwald's comments:

Bush-vilification, like all therapeutic mythologies, depends on fantasy for survival. With their vanishing Muslims, torture chambers, and evil corporate overlords, Bush haters are better suited to the Dungeons and Dragons, sci-fi convention circuit than to the political sphere. It’s clear that the delusional expectations placed on Barack Obama by his fans are a necessary counterpart to their own delusional indictments of George W. Bush. That’s why the enthusiasm about Obama is similarly not of a fact-based nature. His acolytes seek in him fake antidotes to fake problems.


Here's the entire transcript, if you really are masochistic.