• My problem with Obama.
    62 replies, posted
I took a quick look through your post, saw the swastika, and didn't bother reading.
Over reacting much?
The President doesn't really do much. It is the Congress, the Bureaucrats, those political elites that have been re-elected into congress for the past several terms. I mean seriously, who would you rather vote for? The black guy. Or pasty old white guy.
I don't like Obama as much as the next right minded republican, but ever notice how the upper middle class white kids think they are Obama's angry parents and insist on using his middle name?
I don't like Obama, but DAMN, OP, form your own opinion.
[QUOTE=reardon_e12;25406527]I don't like Obama as much as the next right minded republican, but ever notice how the upper middle class white kids think they are Obama's angry parents and insist on using his middle name?[/QUOTE] I think they do it to say he's a muslim or something like that
I don't understand people bitching about the use of his middle name. Who the fuck cares? His entire name is Arabic anyway.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25406572]I think they do it to say he's a muslim or something like that[/QUOTE] Oh I know thats why they do it.
[QUOTE=Handsome;25404386]Obama insists that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us.[/QUOTE] I'll take a shot in the dark and say that this is a joke thread.
I don't disagree with a lot of his policies, I just don't want his administration to spend money that is not ours. If it was our money being spent to solve the country's, I would barely have any bone to pick with the President. As much as some of you fear government involvement, there is not nearly as much involvement as you think there is.
I honestly couldn't be more indifferent towards Obama, but when I see stuff like this I laugh.
Argument generator.
But if Obama goes out of office who will resurrect Hitler?
[QUOTE=Doriol;25406597]I don't understand people bitching about the use of his middle name. Who the fuck cares? His entire name is Arabic anyway.[/QUOTE] It's just that a majority of them seem to use it in a negative connotation. "Barrack [i]HUSSEIN!!!!![/i] Obama."
[QUOTE=Snuffy;25406652]Argument generator.[/QUOTE] You won't hear about this in the media, but Mr. Snuffy turns his back on our most heartfelt pleas for mercy. Without going into all the gory details, let's just say that Snuffy is out to view countries and the people that live in them either as economic targets to be exploited or as military targets to be defeated. And when we play his game, we become accomplices. His latest manifesto, like all the ones that preceded it, is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad writing teeming with misquotations and inaccuracies, an odyssey of anecdotes that are occasionally entertaining but certainly not informative. Snuffy is completely nit-picky. We all are, to some extent, but he sets the curve. He has been known to say that truth is merely a social construct. That notion is so debauched, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. More often than not, it's clearly a tragedy that Snuffy's goal in life is apparently to flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet. Here, I use the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that "the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things," which I interpret as saying that I've repeatedly pointed out to Snuffy that he is a reincarnation of all human malice that has come before. That apparently didn't register with him, though. Oh, well; I guess Snuffy's tractates are huffy. They're unnecessary. They're counterproductive. Whenever I encounter them I think that Snuffy has been trying hard to protect what has become a lucrative racket for him. Unfortunately, that lucrative racket has a hard-to-overlook consequence: it will devise brusque scams to get money for nothing by the next full moon. How many of Snuffy's hired goons are anti-democratic, insolent nebbishes? I'm not comfortable throwing out an estimate that isn't backed up by specific data, but I do know that Snuffy once tried convincing me that he is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. Does he think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that there appears to be some disagreement in the community regarding the number of times that Snuffy has been seen fleecing people out of their life's savings. Some say once; some say five times; some say a dozen times or more. The point is not to quibble over numbers or anything like that but rather to clarify that Snuffy arrogates to himself the right to trample over the very freedoms and rights that he claims to support. Have you noticed that that hasn't been covered at all by the mainstream media? Maybe they're afraid that Snuffy will retaliate by providing cover for an incomprehensible, disorderly agenda. Okay, have you had enough of this letter? Good. Let's end it by reiterating that even Mr. Snuffy must concede that until we tend to the casualties of his war on sanity, he will continue to elevate his modes of thought to prominence as epistemological principles.
Okay....to much fucking reading. I'm writing a fucking book and my head went :psyboom:
My problem with Obama is that he's an elected official. I'm sure he's a pretty cool dude outside of the office, though.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;25406451]I mean seriously, who would you rather vote for? The black guy. Or pasty old white guy.[/QUOTE] Yes, because the only thing that matters is race and age. Who cares what their political positions are? [editline]15th October 2010[/editline] Also [quote]Over the past few weeks, I've learned to look past Mr. Garry Newman's crass philippics. I've learned to look past some of the rude things Garry has said. I've even learned to look past his attempts to make his précis a key dynamic in modern neopaganism by viscerally defining "uncontrovertibleness" through the experience of illogical caciquism. But I cannot stay silent about Garry's incomprehensible and unforgivable audacity regarding a specific event that recently occurred. Before I begin talking about specifics, let me just mention that I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Garry for trying to poison the relationship between teacher and student. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, we must soon make one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let Garry promote a culture of dependency and failure or, alternatively, whether we should present another paradigm in opposition to his obnoxious, distasteful offhand remarks. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that if Garry manages to parlay personal and political conspiracy theories into a multimillion-dollar financial empire, our nation will not endure as a civilization, as a geopolitical entity, or even as a society. Rather, it will exist only as a prison, a prison in which disorderly nitwits pose a threat to personal autonomy and social development. Although it requires risk, commitment, and follow-through to investigate Garry's gloomy principles, ideals, and objectives, if you think that Garry is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Garry wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance such as that the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding his confused complaints? Although the themes in his prevarications are limited, he claims that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his sentiments. Then again, Garry somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la), distortions (faddism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society), and misplaced idealism (he is a champion of liberty and individual expression). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "counterrevolutionize". There is more at play here than Garry's purely political game of entangling our peace and prosperity in the toils of the ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice of jaded schemers. There are ideologies at work, hidden agendas to shove the nation towards Bonapartism. I alluded to this earlier, but Garry insists that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors. Sorry, Garry, but, with apologies to Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so." I could go on for pages listing innumerable examples of his disrespectful campaigns and larcenous subliminal psywar campaigns. I have already written enough, surely, to convince you that most members of our quick-fix, sugar-rush, attention-deficit society are too impatient to realize the importance of freeing people from the fetters of absenteeism's poisonous embrace. I wish only that a few more people could see that this is not the first time I've wanted to reveal the constant tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces of dialogized heteroglossia resulting from Garry's put-downs. But it is the first time I realized that the really interesting thing about all this is not that I could go on in this same vein for hours. The interesting thing is that he ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably: Fact: His policies are a pastiche of hectoring factionalism and feral radicalism. Fact: His lapdogs are cut from the same mold as uppity wing nuts. Fact: He is doing more harm than good to his cause. In addition, from the perspective of those inside his Praetorian Guard, ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by despicable urban guerrillas for the purpose of population reduction. The reality, however, is that Garry's desire to cast ordinary consumption and investment decisions in the light of high religious purpose is both a cause and an effect of what we now see as a global increase in stoicism. An obvious parallel from a different context is that Garry's encomiasts are merely ciphers. Garry is the one who decides whether or not to perpetuate the nonsense known technically as the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Garry is the one who gives out the orders to play the blame game. And Garry is the one trying to conceal how statements like, "His elitism-oriented, obdurate effusions are responsible for the growth in teen pregnancy, the demise of the work ethic, the size of the federal deficit, and everything else that's wrong with our nation" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. This letter has gone on far too long in my opinion and probably yours as well. So let me end it by saying merely that people who agree with Mr. Garry Newman's communiqués are either stupid, drunk, on drugs, paid off by Garry, or are feckless humorless-types.[/quote] It's actually pretty fun. [url]http://www.pakin.org/complaint/[/url]
I don't like elected leaders because they have to base there policies on what would give them the most votes, not what is really good for there country
My problem with Obama is that he's bla[sp]tantly socialist[/sp]
[QUOTE=Handsome;25404386] [img_thumb]http://www.stop-obama.org/wp-content/uploads/obama-swastika.jpg[/img_thumb] [/QUOTE] Didn't expect to see Godwin's law to come into effect so quickly. Anyway. End of argument.
So I actually read the troll wall and found this: "In a rather infamous speech, Obama exclaimed that drug money is being used to pay for the construction of huge underground cities intended to house both [b]humans and aliens[/b] who serve a secret, transnational shadow government." :wtc:
Wow...Teabagger Youth thought they could connect with us.
[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;25408200]Yes, because the only thing that matters is race and age. Who cares what their political positions are? [editline]15th October 2010[/editline] Also It's actually pretty fun. [url]http://www.pakin.org/complaint/[/url][/QUOTE] Oh my god a 10 Paragraph complaint about coca-cola reducing the world to barbarians :psyboom: [QUOTE]My complaint about Coca-Cola As they look over the world's painful panorama of war and terror, some people conclude that it is too late, that no amount of information or activity could possibly appeal for comity between us and Coca-Cola. But those who take that pessimistic view understand neither Coca-Cola nor its current rung on the ladder to total power. As I elaborate on that concept throughout this letter I will use only simple words and language so that even a child can understand my message. Yes, even a child should know that Coca-Cola likes reducing our modern, civilized, industrialized society to a state of mindless, primitive barbarism. That's the most damnable thing about it. It's also why the longer we delay action, the harder it will be to put an end to bleeding-heart favoritism. But I digress. Without its caps-lock key or profanity thesaurus, Coca-Cola would have a difficult time expressing itself. I explained the reason for that just a moment ago. If you don't mind, though, I'll go ahead and explain it again. To begin with, it's astounding that it has found a way to work the words "teleoroentgenography" and "compartmentalization" into its smear tactics. However, you may find it even more astounding that I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to lead Coca-Cola out of a dream world and back to hard reality. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why many people are worried that Coca-Cola will prevent the real problems from being solved some day. I don't like to speculate on uncertain things, but I will say that Coca-Cola's soporific doctrines are as unpleasant as the sewage that gets belched up from a broken garbage disposal in the kitchen sink. In reaching that conclusion I have made the usual assumption that it would be wrong to imply that it is involved in some kind of conspiracy to promote academicism's traits as normative values to be embraced. It would be wrong because its stances are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but it is militant—maybe "dastardly" would be a more applicable adjective. Coca-Cola will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact because if it didn't, you might come to realize that its idea of snarky, demented materialism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of a wrongheaded blood-lust. It is, in every sense, a depraved and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to a malevolent frenzy and then prompts them to tour the country promoting obtrusive cameralism in lectures and radio talk-show interviews. While the question of who is right and who is wrong in this case is an interesting one, it is also something that I cannot and will not comment on, and not just because Coca-Cola's calumnies are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, Coca-Cola's crazy dream is starting to come true. Liberties are being killed by attrition. Snobbism is being installed by accretion. The only way that we can reverse these satanic, insidious trends is to raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding Coca-Cola's daft flimflams. To be precise, if it thinks its fusillades represent progress, Coca-Cola should rethink its definition of progress. Our battle with Coca-Cola is a battle between spiritualism and teetotalism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western civilization and its enemies. With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear that I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that whiney, shiftless kleptomaniacs with stronger voices than minds would revert to recalcitrant behavior. But if Coca-Cola honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from it. I suspect that Coca-Cola is a picayunish fugitive. How else can I characterize an organization that did all of the following and then some? Draw unsuspecting Coca-Cola clones into the orbit of pudibund, pathetic analphabetics Woo over rancorous, featherbrained disinformation artists by using tactics such as scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic solutions, demagoguery, and a conspiracy theory of history Direct social activity toward philanthropic flimflam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life I could lengthen this list, but I shall rest my case. The point is that if one dares to criticize even a single tenet of Coca-Cola's opinions, one is promptly condemned as pigheaded, crotchety, sinister, or whatever epithet Coca-Cola deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. In essence, if Coca-Cola truly believes that footling masters of deceit are easily housebroken, then maybe it should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101. Coca-Cola's mottos symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion—extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. We should maximize our individual potential for effectiveness and success in combatting Coca-Cola. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) Coca-Cola cribs a good deal of its tactics from various authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to Coca-Cola. It's precisely because Coca-Cola's disagreeable, irritating objectives disgust me that Coca-Cola justifies its diabolism-oriented offhand remarks with fallacious logical arguments based on argumentum ad baculum. In case you're unfamiliar with the term, it means that if we don't accept Coca-Cola's claim that it's inflexibly honest, thoroughly patriotic, and eminently solicitous to promote, in all proper ways, the public good then it will use our weaknesses to its advantage. Don't kid yourself: Coca-Cola preys on the rebellious and disenfranchised, tricking them into joining its gestapo. Their first assignment usually involves stretching credulity beyond the breaking point. The lesson to draw from this is that I shall be blamed by ignorant persons when I say that Coca-Cola personifies our nation's short attention span and penchant for apathy. Cruel as that maxim may appear, there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil organizations like Coca-Cola. I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I wish only that Coca-Cola had the same intellectual honesty. Coca-Cola denies that it has been bad-mouthing worthy causes. Its denials clearly contradict reports from eyewitnesses who saw it using lethal violence as a source of humor. I'd like to see Coca-Cola spin its way out of that one. It seems to me that Coca-Cola is both unsympathetic and blowsy. Now there's a dangerous combination if I've ever seen one. There's an important difference between me and Coca-Cola. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Coca-Cola, in contrast, is willing to kill for its—or, if not to kill, at least to cultivate an unhealthy sense of victimhood. I undeniably dislike Coca-Cola. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that the same poisonous spirit that infects unrealistic, brain-damaged flibbertigibbets also pollutes Coca-Cola's thinking. For the benefit of any doubting Thomases I will prove that point via an explanation of how Coca-Cola believes that it is perched atop the moral high ground. If so, then maybe it should climb down to scavenge for some facts before claiming that it is the arbiter of all things. No matter what Coca-Cola thinks, it is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in its own biases, gets into all sorts of contentious speculation, and then makes no effort to test out its speculations—and that's just the short list! The point at which you discover that this is typical of the kind of noise Coca-Cola enjoys making is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that if it would abandon its name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to move as expeditiously as possible to offer true constructive criticism—listening to the whole issue, recognizing the problems, recognizing what is being done right, and getting involved to help remedy the problem. To Hell with Coca-Cola! There's something fishy about Coca-Cola's equivocations. I think it's up to something, something high-handed and perhaps even malignant. If Coca-Cola opened its eyes, it'd realize that it has no standards of decency. An old joke tells of the optimist who falls off a 60-story building and, as he whizzes past the 35th floor, exclaims, "So far, so good!" But it is not such blind optimism that causes Coca-Cola's proxies to think that they can give rise to pugnacious cozeners. When one examines the ramifications of letting Coca-Cola batten on the credulity of the ignorant, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that it's possible that it doesn't realize this because it has been ingrained with so much of nihilism's propaganda. If that's the case, I recommend that we fix our sights on eternity. I once overheard Coca-Cola say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? Coca-Cola said that its shenanigans provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything. Can you believe that? At least its statement made me realize that it has been known to brand me as feral. That always spurs on its underlings to hamstring our efforts to snap its surrogates out of their trance. That, in turn, encourages Coca-Cola to purge the land of every non-disreputable person, gene, idea, and influence. This cycle inevitably, inexorably ratchets upwards and outwards until at last some salacious, lethargic storyteller winds up donning the mantel of isolationism and gumming up what were once great ideas. Some day, I want to allay the concerns of the many people who have been harmed by Coca-Cola. But you don't have to wait for that. What you can do now is talk to everyone you know about the things I've told you in this letter. Use every medium available to you. Use the Internet. Use your telephone. Use radio and newspapers. And whatever you do, never be afraid to speak out against the evil that is Coca-Cola. [/QUOTE]
WOAh motherfucker. You should be banned from voting.
Its as if you think we give a shit about your retarded opinions...
This is old copy-pasta. And it's a bit al dente for my taste.
This was made using the rant generator...
problem, tea party?
[QUOTE=Bllasae;25405278]Yeah, if anything it should've been a communist flag or something.[/QUOTE] You * The point * Tl;dr, you missed the point.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.