what is best in life

Behold President Barack Hussein Obama. A good man. A nice man.

A man of compromise, who believes in the Middle Path – that by making concessions, seeking the humanity in enemies, and working toward common ground one can get opponents to meet you halfway.

Behold a man who loses.

A first-year poly-sci student with a C+ average could’ve told him that the mere presence of a young black liberal in the White House was going to cause legions of rural/white/Christian-nutcase folk to lose their shit and treat him like an “extremist” no matter what he did. Doubtless, some of his advisors must’ve told him the same thing (hey, did professional ass-kicker Rahm Emmanuel just up and quit? Hmm…) but he didn’t listen.

To be “nice” he didn’t simply tell the Pentagon to go fuck itself and rip down DADT when he had the power (re: both houses) to do so. To not seem “extreme” he compromised Healthcare into a toothless near-nothing. What was the response? The Teabaggers – a whole army of organized-idiocy who regarded anything he did as “extremist” and mobilized accordingly. His prize? Gridlock – two years (and counting) of legislative stalling tactics. That’s what comes of playing “nice.” That’s what comes of bringing an olive branch to a knife fight.

The president has been noted to be, amusingly, a fan of Robert E. Howard’s “Conan,” at least as a comic book. Too bad, it would appear, that he never saw the movie…

Lesson over.

31 thoughts on “what is best in life

  1. soldierhawk says:

    Sigh, I know. I'm stuck somewhere between admiring his optimism and faith in people (a faith I shared when he was put in officer) and being frustrated as hell that his naivete is preventing him from getting anything fucking DONE. Absolutely maddening.


  2. Arman says:

    Someone sounds upset. I on the other hand, am ecstatic. Minus the fact that my home state is now in the complete clutches of the Democrats (seriously, California is going to fall into the sea. Jump ship while you can), my side now owns the house.

    This calls for a victory dance.

    *victory dance*


  3. Elessar says:

    Ah the Republicans have the House and the Democrats have the senate.

    As I believe I've said, this is a blueprint for nothing happening for the next 2 years. Obama and the Democrats won't vote on anything insane (for more information on insane things, please see the Republicans) and the Republicans have already demonstrated that if Obama and the Democrats showed up with the cure for cancer the Republicans would call it Socialist and vote it down.

    At least the upper class tax cuts will expire.


  4. QDragon says:

    Hey Bob,

    I follow you regularly, don't necessarily agree with you about everything, but you are an intelligent, only mildly biased voice in the deafening roar of idiocy. So please, tell me what in this is wrong?


    It seems there are long-term and short-term views at play here, and in relation to the longer span of time, it seems like more and more of a foolish choice to bet on anything short-term.


  5. RarestRX says:


    Sorry to burst your “Obama was just so gosh darn nice to those evil Rethuglicans” bubble with facts, but here ya go:

    How long did it take for Obama to meet with Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell?

    18 months.

    Kinda hard for Obama to be middle of the road when he doesn't talk to Senate Republicans for over a year and a half.

    What did Obama say to Congressional Republicans when they tried to add some input into the Stimulus in the first few days of his Administration?

    “I Won.”

    Obama never reached out to Republicans. Pelosi physically locked them out of negotiations.

    Your anger is misplaced. With the majorities enjoyed by the Democrats, they didn't need the Republicans. They couldn't pass the legislation through their own caucus.

    The only reason to get Republicans involved was for political cover so if the measures failed, the blame could be spread. The Republicans knew this so they wisely said, “No Thanks.”

    So try and get your facts straight. Oh, it's cute that you try and inject race into the discussion.

    I hate to tell you this, but growing the government 30% in 18 months and tripling the deficit isn't racist…it's just the truth.

    Sorry you can't handle it.

    Oh, and lastly, since you insist on using the puerile “Teabagger” slur…I have one thing to say to you:

    Open Wide



  6. Nicholas says:

    Now admittedly there's no way to say this without being the hypocritical douche-bag non-voter, which I'll accept on account I wasn't a registered voter until four days before the election despite being twenty years old. But it seems I lucked out anyway considering my congresswoman is still Capps, my state Senator is still Boxer and I now have Brown as a governor…so there's that.

    Anyway, I'll never understand especially in the context of the recent decade on how the Republican party has become the face of small, centralized, fiscally responsible government; for when they were in power they started two wars, expanded the powers of security and social control within a government, and spent trillions of dollars appeasing private corporations…

    But I guess that's easy to pull off when the opposing powers are incompetent when not outrageously disorganized. Now admittedly that's a bit of a generic statement, but this is a party that when they had a numerical majority in both houses of congress they did everything in their power to appease and for all purposes empower the opposition.

    However in the end there is a bit out a sense of optimism and that is when Eisenhower and Clinton lost seats on the legislative branches of government both were re-elected come the fallowing presidential. So if it makes anyone feel any better there's that.


  7. Will says:

    I wouldn't say Obama is down the middle of the road. He is pretty far left but he isn't an asshole about being far left. We generally imagine any far-side person as angry and raging who will stop at nothing to get what they want. Obama isn't raging or an asshole and that's why I like him and I agree with what your saying. He introduced ideas and pushed them foreword with sincerity yet his opposition reacted like he'd just grown a Hitler-mustache and started praising France as the holy land.

    Your right, he is a nice guy who went in with great ideas. A problem, however, is how much he stripped away from his health care (which he plans on stripping it even more).

    He was young, liberal, bright, nice, and full of idea. Then he got into the white house and had to face the nation that reacted as predictably as the chances of it raining in Seattle. He was easily bent and intimidated.

    I'm not happy that Obama is in office. I wish he had more experience and stronger willpower before he went into the white house. There is a great president in him, it just wasn't ready and needed more time. He'll go down as a great one regardless. I just wish he was going in the history books for the right reasons, not because of his skin color alone.


  8. Adam says:

    I wholeheartedly say that in these political times both parties are pretty lame. Bush will be remembered (deservedly so) as a poor president by history as his party claims small government when his policies were anything but. But the answer to that was not continued big government of a different flavor.

    I don't hate Obama. He seems like an ok guy who'd be interesting to sit down with a beer and shoot the breeze, but his rocket ship rise to the political top was not something he was really ready for.

    But can we please stop blaming so much of this on racism? Even John Stewart in his Rally to Restore Sanity said that most Tea Partiers aren't racists. If the only response you have for someone who disagrees with his policies is that they're racist then you've lost the argument.


  9. Q says:


    You're right, Obama never did reach out to the Republicans. He instead reached out to Republican and conservative ideologies mistaking them as one and the same.

    Lesson learned: Republicans stand for nothing but themselves.


  10. Terthna says:

    I find it sad that a man of your intelligence, still believes the propaganda that Obama wants only the best for the American people. Even the most paltry of research would reveal the man as a puppet of big business and bankers, who has willfully broken nearly every political promise he has made. Did you not notice that he made no effort to oppose –and indeed supported– the renewal the Patriot Act, the greatest violation of our rights to come out of the Bush administration? Obama is not naive, nor is he a victim of his own attempts at compromise. Much of what has gone on in his administration meets his full approval, he only says otherwise in order to make people like you continue to support him, even as he works against you.

    And another thing; why does anyone think that the Republicans taking the house will change anything? The Democrats did the same thing during the Bush administration, and it did nothing to stop the government from steamrolling over our rights. People have to learn that there is no such thing as Republicans and Democrats, there is only the government. The two-party system is just the politicians playing good cop, bad cop; both of them want the same thing, and they switch-up the roles every few years to keep us confused.


  11. Q says:


    I'm surprised that a man so literate can copy/paste the swivel propaganda that is plastered on every right wing and no-nothing liberal-anarchist site.

    Do you have a point? Yeah, Obama could repeal the Patriot Act. But then like always the right wing news media will begin to spin (Oh, he repealed the Patriot Act, he must hate Patriots!). Obama's naivete stems directly from his inability to life up to his high standard during the time of national fucking crisis.

    That's simply politics. It's the way people react to every decision you make. It's not a conspiracy; it's peer pressure. You don't think so? Run for office then come back here two years later and tell us all about. We'll love to hear it.


  12. beyrob says:

    I like how yesterday harry ried said, “Oh let's stop name calling and work together.” Yeah dude you tried that. It didn't work. You;ve spent the past two years getting punched in the mouth and your mouth begging to work together compromiseing to the point of weakness and loseing anyway. Sometimes YOU gotta punch THEM in the mouth. Got it?


  13. Mike Ralls says:

    Quick question for everybody: Out of the 50 states, in how many of them do people who self-identify as conservative outnumber people who self-identify as liberal?

    Think about it for a minute. Write down your answer, and then scroll down.

    Out of the 50 states in the Union, people who self-identify as Conservatives outnumber people who self-identify as Liberal in 50 states.

    You read that right. All 50 of them.


    Anyone who doesn't recognize the essentially conservative nature of America (in comparison to Europe or even First World Asia like Japan or South Korea) and pushes hard for a liberal agenda is going to get punished eventually for it come election day.

    The economic crisis in 2008 caused a short shift in public opinion, but there was no reason to think that would be a permanent shift save wishful thinking.

    Conservatives are simply in a better position than Liberals are in America in terms of power. The reason the Democrats lost is that they are (as a whole) significantly to the left of the voting population, far more so than the Republicans are to the right of the voting center.

    If you're Liberal this thought may cause distress but that doesn't mean it's not true. The best way to be an effective opposition is to have a realistic view of your strength vs your opponent.


  14. white templar says:

    Your anger is irrelevant and misplaced. American Presidents have very little power to make any systemic change, except wage Wars when the Complex wants him to.

    The Real power lies with the Federal Reserve. Its a private bank cartel looting the American economy, while keeping govt at bay by providing them with money to spend. That same money makes its way to electing Presidents, including Obama. Its not a coincidence that Wall St firms contributed millions towards both Obama and McCain's campaigns.

    Your naivete is not only saddening, its frankly disturbing. Your brushed an entire portion of your country, concerned enough to come on the streets, with a racist agenda. Wake up Bob. Such blinders dont suit you.


  15. Blue Tecken says:

    The rantings of conspiracy nuts notwithstanding, the problem with the Democrats and Obama isn’t that he is to far left, or to centrist. Nor is it the he is the puppet of Illuminati, or lizard overlords. It is that Republicans are really good at the politics of politics, and Democrats aren’t. Democrats tend to play nicer than Republicans. They have this notion of fairness in war. Hell, I take my hat off to the Republicans; they came up with a plan in early 2009 to win the 2010 midterms elections, and executed it nearly flawlessly. I would say the Tea Party, as much as that zeal was helpful, got out of hand and removed from the board seats they otherwise would have probably won (Mike Castle would have been a shoe-in for Delaware, and even after Sharon Angle won the primary in Nevada, republicans regretted nominating her.)

    Republicans decided to gridlock the Senate as much as possible to prevent progress. It wasn’t a question of republicans wanting to avoid blame; that’s just asinine. The Republicans were actively trying to prevent victory; victory for Democrats. It’s politics, you work within your party and oppose the other party, you strategize to win more in the future that’s fine, that is how it is supposed to work. Except, the Republicans decided to facefuck the country in order to win the 2010 elections. Sure they think they are better candidates, I don’t begrudge them that, but America is in a tough situation right now and Republicans decided to say, (fuck you, were going let America rot for two years, and watch you get blamed). Again, I understand the calculation, though it seems pretty shitty.

    Too far to the left; too centrist; too insert-wacko-theory-here? For who? For the country as a whole? Not really. He is a little bit left of center, by no means unreasonably so. Most Republican politicians are right-of-center. States tend to elect people closer to their own demographic (A Leahy out of Vermont as opposed to a Mitch McConnel out of Kentucky) and overall politicians tend to be closer to their extremes than the country as a whole, because the radicals near the extremes are more motivated.

    Obama is nowhere near Kucinich or Sanders. If you are an anarcho-capitalist, yea, he is pretty far to the left. If you are a socialist (a real socialist, not when has been passing for “socialism” for the last two years) then yea, he is too centrist, and certainly too far to the right. Healthcare reform isn’t single-payer and has no public option. Medicare, Tricare, Social Security, Public Libraries, that is more in the relm of Socialism. Healthcare reform-not so much. What with Birthers, and calls of socialism et-all, Democrats were outmaneuvered. Republicans won the war of words, and handily.

    I thought Elessar’s point was well made (the cancer joke), but the thing about the Republican Party proper is that that was strategy. They don’t actually think he is a Socialist-Marxist-Atheist-Muslim-Communist-Kenyan-Flying-Purple-People-Eater, but it is a strong narrative, and it worked well.

    Now, I’m admittedly biased toward Democrats and Liberals, and I doubt someone of the Republican/Conservative persuasion will buy my line up there about “Democrats play nicer.” That is fine, but it doesn’t really matter to the larger point I’m making, which is that this election had a lot less to do with policy than it had to do with politics. In the political battle between each side for supremacy, the Republicans curb-stomped the Democrats.



  16. Sean says:

    Wow. It's… really eye opening to see the comments here.

    First off: To everyone calling Obama far left? Please. Obama wasn't even the most leftist candidate at the last presidential election. (That'd probably be Kucinich.) He wasn't even the most leftist of those who got serious primary votes. (That'd have been Edwards.) And none of the above would, on the world stage, be seen as anything other than a moderate-right winger.

    Which, honestly, is what Obama is. A moderate right-wing politician. And if anything, that's what may have cost him the election.

    I … more or less agree with your analysis, Bob, but I think you've got the right idea, but missed half the equation. And (probably deliberately, since you're looking at only one thing here) didn't factor in the second issue here.

    The thing is this. Imagine Obama HAD used his presidential power to rip out DADT. Let's go further. How about he also put people into the DoJ who'd have investigated Bush for war crimes; reversed most of the Bush-era executive authority decisions; and gone to the mat over net neutrality. There's more I'd have liked him to do, but that'd have been enough to qualify him as genuinely left.

    Would under-25 liberals; the group who formed such an effective campaign group for him in the 2008 elections, probably have been more energised? You betcha. Instead, they stayed home in droves.

    Obama's problem isn't that he's nice. He could have been an asshole about being a centre-right politician, too. And it'd have had the same effect.

    The problem is that there's no longer any centre-right. The Republican party was far right. The Tea-Party is extreme right. The people who might vote for the Democrats are, in reaction, moving ever further left.

    Now, second point here is: Hey, Blue Dog Democrats who got booted today? You know how you guys basically dragged on the health care debate for ages, forcing the Democrats to look insanely weak and giving the Republicans ever more time to demonise it? When at the time you had 60 Senate Seats, AND control of the House, AND coulda rammed it through in a heartbeat?

    Yeah, that looks smart now, doesn't it?


  17. RarestRX says:


    That's all well and good if the Republicans could have stopped anything in the Senate.

    They couldn't.

    The Dems had a Super Majority of 60.

    People label the Republicans as “Obstructionist” when it was mathematically impossible for them to be.

    The issue lies with the Democrats and Blue Dog Dems. The Dems couldn't scrounge up enough votes in their own caucus.

    That ain't the Republicans fault.


  18. Blue Tecken says:

    The larger question of a supermajority doesn’t even need to be addressed. Nor the Blue Dogs, as the house passed a more “liberal” version of health care reform than the Senate, even with the Blue Dogs. Was it all a factor? No doubt, but Democratic infighting doesn’t mean Republicans weren’t being obstructionist.

    When Republicans are filibustering bills that subsequently pass the senate with 60, 70, 80, 90+ votes; that is obstructionist. Obama and the Democrats did work with Republicans (Many Republican ideas were in the PPACA). That is why they didn’t shove something through in the 7 months they had 60 votes save till the very end, literally on Christmas Eve. After Scott Brown won in MA, the Democrats collectively said, we should slow down, this is meaningful. Irrespective of that being true or not, Republicans would not have slowed down. That is the thing I was talking about earlier with Democrats playing nice.

    Obama was conciliatory, encouraging Democrats to give things up Republicans didn’t like in a bid to create a bipartisanship bill (The long process to get Olympia Snowe, and even before that the Democrats were working with Chuck Grassley). Republicans whipped there members and no Republicans would play ball. “Start over, start over, start over,” was the monolithic talking point. Health care reform easily could have been a bipartisan bill, and a more centrist one than it ended up, but Republicans weren’t interested in a good bill with their ideas, they were interested in hurting the Democrats. Being obstructionist isn’t simply about filibustering, that is a part of it though. It is about a willingness to join in versus doing everything possible to stop it, which includes inaction, not simply opposing action. Democrats, but more so Obama, wanted Republicans to join in to make a better bill. It was also for the political victory of a bipartisan bill, no doubt. Obama ran on trying to making Washington more bipartisan. Republicans saw to it that the climate of Washington didn't improve, and stalled health care legislation, and everything, until Democrats decided to just pass the bill they had.


  19. Bob says:


    The reason Republicans are able to say, straight-faced, that they're for “small government” is that almost NO ONE is actually “for” big or small government – they're for the government being “just big enough” to take care of what THEY consider to be “essentials;” and everything else is waste that can be cut.

    In the Republican's case, their constituency is basically ONE group: White men, nominally-Christian and financially-secure. That group largely sees defense, cops and trains/buses running on time as “essential,” and stuff like healthcare, welfare, etc. that “others” rely on to be non-essentials. So Republicans call those “non-essentials” “BIG GOVERNMENT” and run against them.


  20. Matt says:

    You know, I hate to have to wade into this, but here's a slight reality check for you all.

    Politicians, be they left wing, right wing, Tea party, what the hell who care, at the end of the day, there Politicians, and WE KNOW IT!

    You wanna know what cause the midterms to go like they did.

    It's really simply. Bob gives a great example of it.

    Demonizing an highly energized group of people.

    Look at fox news. Highest rated cable new network, beating both cnn and Msnbc COMBINED!

    Why? Cause those two have completely alienated anyone save the far left.

    Watch that Olberman guy and tell me he isn't just as bad as Beck or Hannity. if you do, your an idiot.

    When Jon stewart flat out calls you an it, you are no longer a journalist, your a pundit, and Olberman has gone that far, as has Maddow, as has most of there so called anchors.

    Obama chose to walk his own line, which I would admire in someone who wasn't an elected offical, but He's an ELECTED offical.

    When 70 percent of america tells you that Suing Arizona for SB 1070 is WRONG, your ARE WRONG!

    When almost 70 percent say your health bill has to GO, it HAS TO GO!

    Obama pushed TO far, the spending, overreach over government, all of it was a contributing factor, the Mandate in the heatlh care bill was the LAST straw.

    Now the dems have lost the super majority in the senate and got Creamed in the house.

    This is Obamas fault, and even his own party knew it, it's why so many ran against there own President.

    Obama wants to talk compromise now?

    To late.

    It's over, the next 2 years are just gonna be nothing but fighting and bickering between both sides as the media hype machines build up for 2012.

    And if he loses, he can blame no one, but himself in the end.

    Next time, try listening to the people, not your pundits, not your lobbies, not Nancy pelosi of all people. The people kept telling you STOP!, you didn't listen. Now, they stopped you in an election, and your trying to play the blame game.

    Here's hoping the Reps don't let palin run in 2012, I shutter to think I should ever hear the words “President elect Palin” be spoken.


  21. Bob says:


    The inherent problem in that is that, occasionally (frequently, in this particular country), “the people” are WRONG – even about what's “best” for them. If pointing that out makes me “elitist,” fine, I'm an elitist, but it's the hard truth. How many pro-lifers, flat-earthers and creationists are there in this nation again? Answer: TOO MANY for anyone with a brain to feel comfortable leaving things up to “the people.”

    Basically every great piece of social legislation ever undertaken, be it freeing the slaves, intergrating the military, social security, whatever would've FAILED if put to popular vote. Incidentally, this is something most of the Founding Fathers understood – hence why we have a REPUBLIC with a representative democracy rather than a “pure” democracy of mob rule that just does whatever the mass-majority wants.


  22. Sean says:

    @ Matt;

    “Look at fox news. Highest rated cable new network, beating both cnn and Msnbc COMBINED!

    Why? Cause those two have completely alienated anyone save the far left.”

    If CNN is 'far left', then I don't know what will save any voice of moderation in the US. CNN's take on the news is largely center-right, yet again. MSNBC is a little more left-leaning (See Olbermann and Maddow) but even they have more conservative sides (See Chris Matthews). And as an aside? I don't like Olbermann. I count him as a demagogue. That said? No, he's not as bad as Beck and Hannity, etc. (And I do like Maddow, who is a bona fide journalist, and one of the best interviewers out there.)

    But yeah. If CNN and MSNBC are considered 'far left' now, then I don't even know what to say.


  23. Benfea says:

    I knew this was inevitable the moment he surrounded himself with Clintonian DLC goobers. They played the same “gee, if we compromise with conservatives on everything, they will be nice to us and work with us!”

    You saw the result that strategy had during the Clinton administration, right? No matter what Clinton did, he was going to be labeled an extremist. No matter what Clinton did, he was going to be impeached.

    Unsurprisingly, none of the DLC morons who served under Clinton ever figured out what a monumental failure their strategy of conservative appeasement (excuse me, I meant to say “third way” or whatever they called it) was. So of course they used the same loser strategy with Obama, and of course got the same result.

    Only this time, the stakes were much higher. Because of their constant conservative appeasement, they failed to pull the nation out of this recession/depression, so of course because the economy still sucks, the idiot sheeple voted back in the very people who drove the country into this ditch in the first place.

    About the only good thing you can say about the Obama administration is that they proved slightly less bad than a McCain administration would have been, which is about all you can ever expect from the Republican Lite crowd.

    Hillary would have been no better. 😦


  24. Matt says:

    @bob and Sean

    Bob, your not wrong in your concept, in fact, I agree with you in most things, but this is not one of them.

    If only 30 or 40 percent opposed the president on Sb 1070, I'd think he had a point.

    77 percent of America thinks Sb1070 is justified. That means large numbers of independants and DEMOCRATS agree with it.

    Thats not fringe, thats 2/3 of the country BOB.

    As I said, the health care bill probably would have never been an issue had certain items been removed, notably the mandate.

    The assumption is that Government knows whats best, something I feel is absolute BULL shit.

    Government never solves issues in most cases, they often create more problems then they solve, They are elected to Serve, THE PEOPLE, BOB.


    And if they don't listen to the people, they get punished, like they did on Tuesday.


    Are you insanse?

    Have you watched Olberman in the past 6 months?

    He's 1 step shy of a psychotic hate monger. Maddow is a raving nut job whose so lost in her ideology that she attacks ANYONE with a different opinion.

    Matthews? He's 1 step shy of a completely gone conspriacy therost.

    Fox has Better balanced election coverage then MSNBC, including a number of demcrats being brought in for commentary.

    MSNBC? 5 liberals, No conservitives.

    Reality check time, the election wasn't just about 1 issue or another, it was about the current administration treating the american people with nothing short of disdain and nearly outright hatred.

    Well, now they got punished for it.

    Hopefully this will make them remember that they SERVE the PEOPLE!

    Otherwise, in 2012, I wouldn't be shocked if the republicans took back all three branchs of government.


  25. Laserkid says:

    Bob, I want you to know first and foremost I find you entertaining and very inciteful, even when I heavily disagree with you, and this is no different, and I hope you take no ill will from this, but you're dead wrong.

    Obama didn't lose because he was nice, and not because he was black, nor did he lose due to some conspiracy to show him as far left.

    Whether he IS or is NOT far left is ultimately immaterial – his decisions were perceived as wrong by a vast majority of people.

    You pointed out earlier we live in a democratic republic because what is right is not always popular; and you're damn right when you say that.

    That said, the idea that things like cap and trade, the healthcare bill, and the stimulus bills, three of the MOST unpopular decisions he has made are hardly moral imperatives on the same level as the cited civil rights bill. You can argue the merrits or wrongs of these ideas but none of these are on that level at all.

    If you disagree and think they are, then if you want to keep power AND pass these through at the same time? Then you need to make a better case then “you're an idiot/racist/teabagger” as a response to your opposition; but since that was more or less the brunt of the response to those opposed, and the legislation was rammed through against the will of the voting public, the voting public took their right on the democratic republic.

    As you said, its not a straight democracy, but its also not a straight republic either. The representatives need to represent their people or they'll get a shilacking like we saw.

    Honestly though, I hope he stays in office for a second term – this government does its best when it HAS to compromise; and at its pinnacle when thats a demcorat president and republican congress (see also the Clinton Administration).

    I don't like Obama's policies, but I also don't like a fully republican controlled government – they need a fire on their ass or they just turn into people claiming conservativism and not actually doing it.

    Ultimately, this is the result of the american people's will – you'll note the republicans did not take the senate. This isn't everyone loves the republicans, hell most people hate them, myself begrudgingly included (I want to like them but don't because they so often fail to do what they call for).

    The american people want a center right government – not a far right, not a far left one. This is why both Bush and Obama have had such a hard time getting political acceptance.


  26. a.m.bernal says:

    Let's see. as usual this will fall to deaf ears, and I actually hope so.

    I didn't read all the comments but the way the paragraphs (of the rest I skipped) seemed to pile up together… OK, some of you will get the analogy.

    NO, you don't get to have a good president, you morons don't deserve it, so yes Obama will 'burn', of course. How could it be any other way?

    I'm an outsider, I have 2 (actually 3) nationalities. I'm not particularly bright, although I give lessons in those subjects most people avoid for being too hard or boring. Meh… who cares right?

    But the idiocy that I encounter when when I see or read Huffington, Maher, Stewart, Beck, O'Reilly, Lieberman, W. (yes, W., gotta love a guy THAT stupid; btw, try and guess why I bunched up both sides)just baffles the hell out of me.

    It's not just the majority of republicans (can I say ESPECIALLY those tea-baggers :D). A percentage above 50% of opinionated Americans are just as stupid and pathologically so.

    Bob, why is that? The Germans, French, Czech, Dutch (and so on) people I know don't have a clue. So of course nor do I.

    Pity. I was brain-washed into liking Americans by the (translated) entertainment media and into disliking them by adults around me at the time. But I chose to estimate the American public as being likable, nothing more, nothing less. So I mourn your inability to perceive progress (“Obama = socialist commy”… *sigh).

    Bob, you just seem Canadian to me (a Boston-thing perhaps?), so jump ship man and embrace the 'maple leaf' or something. Simple economics will suggest you do so.

    Anyway, I'm glad it's an out-dated post, so no-one will notice: I don't live in the U.S. so my opinion is even more biased, but even Colombian rats can sense a sinking ship 😉


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s