Obama Maniacs

So the deed is finally done. Barack Obama is now officially our president. While I can sympathize with how wonderful a thing it must be for him, what I can't stomach is the incessant need of the media and liberals in general to fawn over the guy so much. He's a person last time I checked. You know, one of those human beings? Instead, the media has become enthralled by Obama. To the point of reaching a fever pitch. Yes, I dare say a new religious movement has begun in earnest. Obama Maniacs have risen.

Seriously, it all started out as a small bunch of loyal but obsessive supporters. They got him into the primaries. They fawned over his every word and eventually managed to win the nomination. Soon it got to the point where every word uttered by the man was treated as Gospel. He could do no wrong. Then the election in November came around, and his cult followers went to the polls in droves. No, it wasn't normal every day Americans who elected this man, it was religious zealots enthralled by their new Obamassiah. They pushed aside those of us with common sense who attempted to warn of what the man's policies would do. How destructive they'd be. Like the Spanish Inquisition, we were branded as heretics and called all sorts of foul names. Sure, there was no bodily torture, but that's only because that would have landed them all in jail.

Granted that yesterday was Inauguration Day and all, but for God sake. You couldn't turn on a single channel without running into Obama this or Obama that or Obama is the new hope. Change we can believe in. A new direction. All the horseshit that's been shoved down our throats by the liberal lefties for the last 18 months as though it's just normal. Obama can't sneeze without someone drooling over getting a hold of the snot filled handkerchief. He can't fart without someone wanting to capture the gas and sell canned Obama farts like people once did with canned smog. Every major station ran nothing but their sniveling drivel all day long. All of the radio stations have been talking about nothing else for two whole weeks. It's like they all collectively rammed their heads up the guy's ass and think it smells like roses in there. I can assure you, Obama's ass would smell as nasty as any other ass and one day these gibbering slobber brained worshiper will realize it and wonder how the hell this all happened. The real topper was the chanting. Yes, entire crowds chanting "O-BA-MA" in some kind of sick and twisted mantra like tone. It was utterly disgusting.

When the shine wears off in a few months, people will begin to wake up to the reality of what's happened. They'll suddenly realize that Obama is just a man. Instead of a great man like Lincoln they'll soon realize he's just a black Arab Jimmy Carter and wish they could go back in time to correct a terrible mistake. Such is the fate of cult worshipers. The President Obama Cult is no different.
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

       
« Tax Refund Theft
The Witcher »

Posted on Jan 21, 2009 1:01 am by Samson in: | 80 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
While I certainly can't/won't disagree with most of your sentiment, it often amazes me just how strongly you're willing to post some of these blogs. In my own blog I always hesitate to post anything I really feel that strongly about because I worry who's going to eventually see it and how they'd react to it. What can I say, I don't like losing friends and, even more importantly, I worry over possibilities of our nation's governmental reach, especially in times like these when the Homeland Gestapo (particularly the branch known as TSA - does that stand for Terrorist Strike America, or are they really just that zealous in their belief that we can't be subject to terrorism if they terrorize us first?) has more or less free reign endorsed by our entire government. Anyway, I'm still not at home (in fact, things are getting pretty crazy around here now that the wedding is only a few more days away on Saturday) but I did manage to take a few minutes out during some driving between errands yesterday morning to listen to Obama's inaugural address. Mostly it sounded like the same rhetoric he'd been spouting since his campaign began to me, though I was mildly pleased to hear him thank Bush and offer what sounded like a very vague but thinly veiled threat toward those other governments who might stand against us. I suspect foreign government specialists will be analyzing that speech for the next few weeks pretty thoroughly. Otherwise, it all remains to be seen if his actions in office can speak nearly as loudly as his words, let alone in even half as positive a manner.

       
For far too long in my younger years I kept silent and failed to tell people how I really felt about a great many things. I think that ended up costing me greatly along the way. To this day I still tend to hold far too much back in person than is probably good for me. So when it comes to blowing off steam and letting everyone know exactly how I feel, the one place that seems to work best is right here. The Homeland Gestapo can kiss my ass.

And with Obama now in charge, they will truly be a Homeland Gestapo. Bush meant well in forming the Department of Homeland Security, but as with all government waste pits eventually it will be perverted into something it was not meant for. There were far too many hints along the campaign trail in many of his speeches. The media has done an excellent job of covering it all up. But you and I and anyone who read things here back then knows exactly what I'm talking about.

As for anyone else who stumbles by and reads this, well, there you go. If you had no idea what I thought about Obama before, you can't claim ignorance now :)

       
I hear you man, I guess I just worry too much, but it can't really be all bad to do so. *shrug*

I definitely agree with you about Obama's apparent intentions though, and I think Bush was thinking only good thoughts when he created Homeland Security, but I was already seeing signs of eminent corruption within its domicile long before he left office, TSA is just the most easily visible arm of the beast.

If anyone else is reading this and still unclear about the stance of anyone here, just check some of the older blogs and the discussions that ensued from them. ;)

       
The_Fury [Anon] said:
Comment #4 Jan 22, 2009 10:46 pm
LOL Samson, in Australia we take the "Tall Poppy Syndrome" (where you knock down whomever is on top) pretty seriously, but man you take it to a whole new level. ;)

I guess, that if the other team won, you would not be lamenting how enduring it is to have to sit through 127 stations all playing the same inauguration footage, you would be singing the praises of how great your team is and how wonderful your president is.

As someone who is a swing voter and non aligned to any political persuasion or movement, i don't really understand the one eyedness of party politics. It made no difference to me, if one or the other won, as they would have both been a change of direction for the better.

For me, if i was to vote, it would have been for Obama, because to me, he represented the greatest change from the politics of Bush, with whom i had no affinity for and whose policies i mostly disagreed with and also because Obama is a much more inspirational speaker when compared to McCain. Palin on the other hand, seems like she might possess that natural gift of being able to reach out and relate to people, and Biden, well he is as boring as dish soap.

I just hope that the media stops trying to portray Obama as the Black Jesus, the Saviour of Mankind. So that he can be judged on merit and not on the expectations that are slowly being heaped on him.

Peace all, came to your mud Conner to say hi, but your away, enjoy man.

The Fury

       
I guess, that if the other team won, you would not be lamenting how enduring it is to have to sit through 127 stations all playing the same inauguration footage


Yep, quite right, because if McCain had won the liberal press here wouldn't have been enthralled by him. They wouldn't have spent the last 3 months building media temples and placing him on pedestals and cloaking him in an aura of godliness. Nope. Quite sure that they'd instead have cast the poor man as the second coming of Satan and been doing everything they could to make his life as miserable as they could and I'd probably have been here posting something to the affect of "just leave the guy alone already".

McCain was not Bush. Just because the great Obamassiah says otherwise doesn't make it true. No matter how the liberal media wants to doctor the news up today, or back then.

If anyone needs proof that Obama is indeed a fallible human being and not an all perfect deity, one need only look as far as his VP choice. Joe Biden? I mean, seriously, why not partner with Barney Fife? That would have been less of a disaster.

This whole "change" thing. Change we can believe in. It's change alright. Your pocket change. My pocket change. Dwip's pocket change. Conner's pocket change. Yes, I do in fact believe in that kind of change too. I believe it needs to remain in my pocket and be spent how I see fit. Not spent on Obama's grand second coming of The New Deal. That said, I have a feeling in a few short months people are going to wake up and realize there's nothing new or different about Obama. Not after he's stacked his entire cabinet with Clinton cronies from the mid-90s. Everything bad that the Clintonistas did will soon come back to haunt him.

       
The_Fury [Anon] said:
Comment #6 Jan 23, 2009 2:58 am

Yep, quite right, because if McCain had won the liberal press here wouldn't have been enthralled by him. They wouldn't have spent the last 3 months building media temples and placing him on pedestals and cloaking him in an aura of godliness.


Your most likely right, McCain just does not have the mass appeal that Obama does, however, they might have been cooking up a storm over the first woman VP, which in itself would have been something astounding. Sure its not as big as the first black man as president, but it is a pretty good second.

Do you think that Hillary (assuming she got the primary) would have had enough mussel to defeat McCain in the election. Or would people have gone, Oh no, we had a 2nd Bush and look where that got us, we are not having a second Clinton? Personally, i think it would have been a lot closer, maybe more like 1 or 2 states deciding what could have gone either way.

       
Superman [Anon] said:
Comment #7 Jan 23, 2009 7:57 pm
As far as I'm concerned both the Democrats and Republicans are total failures. McCain ranks even lower than Obama to me, I don't trust either of them.

The two party system has the nation divided by voting groups that whine for ice cream like a bunch of spoiled kids. The Democrats flirt with the Mexicans by hinting at amnesty, the Republicans flirt with the religious nuts about the right to own a coat hanger, and so the list goes on. It's disgusting, and only strengthens my believe that democracy is an instable system that will eventually self destruct. The current political parties don't care about doing what is right, they just want to remain in power.

       
He isn't Jesus?

Oh.



Yeah, I agree with you about the media, Samson. I think, though, that the problem is really in the colleges where the hippies superliberals have embedded themselves.

Actually.. I really don't think Obama will be that bad. Not quite as bad as some of the right-wingers make him out to be.

Particularly this surprised me:

Regarding terrorist targets in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, Obama told The Associated Press Thursday: "I think it would be a
profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance." He then added: "Involving civilians."

Seeming to think twice about his response, Obama then said, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

Clinton, asked about his remarks Thursday afternoon, took issue with them.


"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said. "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."

On Wednesday, Obama delivered a major anti-terrorism speech in which he essentially threatened the government of Pakistan that as president he would attack al Qaeda targets in the country with or without the permission of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will," Obama said.


( ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3441342&page=1
Random Blog:http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/obama_and_nuclear_weapons.php )


He's not a weak-minded fool. And by no means does he misunderstand the need for a powerful military.


/opinion

       
Do you think that Hillary (assuming she got the primary) would have had enough mussel to defeat McCain in the election. Or would people have gone, Oh no, we had a 2nd Bush and look where that got us, we are not having a second Clinton?


It would have been much closer and I think in the end McCain would have won out on that contest, though by a hair.

The Democrats flirt with the Mexicans by hinting at amnesty, the Republicans flirt with the religious nuts about the right to own a coat hanger, and so the list goes on.


This statement belies your own bias in favor of the Democrats. You phrase it in such a way as to suggest that the Republicans are out to take away the rights of the people when the opposite is demonstrably true. Just look at California and all its restrictive laws that have been passed by the state legislative bodies. A good many get vetoed, some get overridden, but some end up getting signed. Usually by spineless left leaning Rinos like Arnold.

He's not a weak-minded fool. And by no means does he misunderstand the need for a powerful military.


I remain unconvinced. His talk of invading Pakistan whether the Pakistanis like it or not is simply crazy. His talk of cutting defense spending to free up more money for things "we need at home" belies his true intent. A welfare state cannot field a powerful military. The irony here is that Bush himself proved this. Though he fielded one larger than Clinton, he did so while also spending like a drunken sailor here at home and as a result helped to push the economy over the edge when the housing market collapsed. Had he stuck to conservative values the housing crisis would not have had enough power behind it to destroy the rest of the economy along with it.

       
Superman [Anon] said:
Comment #10 Jan 23, 2009 11:30 pm
This statement belies your own bias in favor of the Democrats. You phrase it in such a way as to suggest that the Republicans are out to take away the rights of the people when the opposite is demonstrably true. Just look at California and all its restrictive laws that have been passed by the state legislative bodies. A good many get vetoed, some get overridden, but some end up getting signed. Usually by spineless left leaning Rinos like Arnold.

Far from, a general pardon for illegal immigrants would be disastrous. Arnold is a republican, so I don't quite understand your argument. The Democrats probably win in the 'taking away the rights of the people' department, but I hate to have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

       
Rino: Republican In Name Only. It's a term we conservatives coined to describe liberal Republicans who hide behind the party name thinking they're fooling us with an (R) next to their names in the news. Arnold is a Rino. He's not a true conservative, never has been, never will be, but as you say, he was the lesser of two evils when the Gray Davis recall was mounted. It was either him, or Cruz Bustamante. Bustamante is one of those Mexican Reconquista types who thinks California should be retaken by invasion. People like him run rampant through our government here and it shows in all of the policies we have in this state that grant benefits to the illegals and in most cases preferential treatment in getting them.

So sometimes a choice between the lesser of two evils has to be made. We made it with GWB in 2000 vs Al "global warming" Gore. We made it again in 2004 with John "I voted for the 80 billion before I voted against it" Kerry. And sadly I think we just made it again this time in 2008, only folks unfortunately chose the greater of two evils. Maybe that's the change people were looking for? :)

       
The_Fury [Anon] said:
Comment #12 Jan 24, 2009 6:06 am

So sometimes a choice between the lesser of two evils has to be made. We made it with GWB in 2000 vs Al "global warming" Gore. We made it again in 2004 with John "I voted for the 80 billion before I voted against it" Kerry. And sadly I think we just made it again this time in 2008, only folks unfortunately chose the greater of two evils. Maybe that's the change people were looking for? :)


Funny you should mention those election battles. As a science student and someone who is concerned about scientific issues and specifically environmental issues, i would have loved to have seen Gore in office, as he was someone who was going to put environmental issues on the world stage. Kyoto would possibly not have ended up as a joke, greater efficiencies would have been made in energy uses and real investment would have been made into renewalbles.

Earlier you talked about how Obama has stacked his staff with Clinton cronies. I cannot speak for many areas, but one area of the Obama team that does not have this problem is his science team. When it comes to science he has picked some of the brightest minds on this planet, people who will put science above politics. This alone is something that should be commended.

In just the few days he has been in office, changes have been made in stem cell research and abortion laws, so far in areas that matter to me, Obama has made true on his election promises as well as show he is a man who stands by his convictions, one of which is strong science.

       
The_Fury [Anon] said:
Comment #13 Jan 24, 2009 6:11 am
Here in Australia, i voted last election for Rudd, purely on science issues alone, Rudd is someone who cares for the environment and environmental issues, ratifying Kyoto was a bonus as was the apology to The Stolen Generations, which was a huge local issue.

These sorts of things are what set him apart from Howard, in much the same way as similar things set Obama apart from McCain.

Sorry for the double post, just decided to add in these extra points.

The Fury.

       
Man made global warming is junk science, so if that's where Obama is heading he's proving himself to be a colossal dumbass, just like many of us expected he would. His stance on abortion and stem cell research has also proven he's as far over on the left as we figured and that he values human life about as much as a tennis ball.

       
The_Fury [Anon] said:
Comment #15 Jan 24, 2009 6:52 pm

Man made global warming is junk science,


I guess on that we will have to agree to disagree, the evidence is there and the science is sound, that global warming is a real issue, that water management and air quality are real issues, that environmental degradation, habitat and species loss as well as loss of diversity are real issues, the over exploitation and collapse of fisheries are real issues, extreme weather, drought, cyclone and hurricanes are real issues, soil degradation and salinity are real issues. All of these problems are either man made or made worse by the actions of man. Weather global warming is or is not man made is ultimately totally irrelevant to the debate, managing the impacts of humans on the planet, however is of extreme importance, as it effects us all as well as our kids futures.

       
Global warming is a real issue. I never disputed that. What I am disputing, and what hundreds of reputable scientists also dispute, is that we caused it. The global climate is a force entirely beyond our control to affect. We simply don't have the ability, regardless of what Al Gore and his carbon offset cronies have told you.

In fact, man as a species has global warming to thank for its existence at all. Were it not for global warming, the last ice age would never have ended and we'd all either have frozen to death or still be stone age nomads.

I'd also like you to answer how we caused the current global warming that's going on on Mars. If you can answer me that, then I'll be far more likely to agree that we could have done the same right here on Earth.

       
The_Fury [Anon] said:
Comment #17 Jan 25, 2009 1:08 am

I'd also like you to answer how we caused the current global warming that's going on on Mars. If you can answer me that, then I'll be far more likely to agree that we could have done the same right here on Earth.


Quite obviously, any fluctuations in temperature on Mars are not being caused by humans. Something that first year science students are taught is that the earth is a closed system, where only energy may enter and leave, and that the effects of a flux on 2 separate systems does not mean that both systems will experience the same effects caused by the flux.

The effect of an increase in solar luminescence on mars is going to be minimal when compared to earth as mars as little to no atmosphere to trap and retain the energy flux input. Where as earth does have an atmosphere that is able to retain the energy.

Venus also has experiences the same amount of solar luminescence, but due to the nature of its atmosphere, it retains much more of the energy that it receives. It should also be noted, that there has been no reported increase of average temperature reported happening there.

If there was an actual link between temperature fluctuations on mars and earth due to solar luminescence, then we would also see a corresponding rise on Venus also, this is not occurring, so i think that the link is unfounded. Aslo, comparing the effects of a flux on 3 separate and isolated systems is fraut with danger, we just do not know enough about how the systems work to be able to make those comparisons.

In many ways it would be like comparing the effects of beer on you, me and the guy next door, 4 beers each would have every different effects on each of us, to some 4 beers is a lot, like me, and 4 beers to the guy next door is nothing, because he drinks 10 every day.

In the same way, the effects of solar luminescence on the 3 planets will be vastly different even tho they are receiving the same amount of input, Venus is extremely hot, not because of it proximity to the sun and not because it gets more solar energy, but because it has a different type of atmosphere, Mars is cold and frozen, not because it does not get enough solar energy, but because it has no atmosphere to retain what energy it receives.

Another thing, the suns luminescence has been on the decline since the early 90's and will reach its peak low somewhere about 2040. How do you explain the rise in average temperature on earth over the last 15 years and the shrinking of frozen Co2 on Mars? Something that is happening despite a decline in solar radiation.

For mars, its shrinking Co2 caps can be easily explained by a natural shift in its orbit and tilt, as well as natural occurring planetary wobble. Earths current temperature rise cannot be explained away with the same.

On fluxes sinks and equilibrium, the Earth is pretty good are keeping things at a relative state of equilibrium. It has numerous interlocked systems that work together to keep the planet livable. Putting Co2 into the atmosphere changes the balance of equilibrium, deforestation further changes it by removing on of the biggest sinks of Co2. Now you don't have to be a brainiac to see what the effects of this are, its going to push the equilibrium equasion to the right and put things out of balance. This is not to say that this is the only cause of the current rise in global tempretures, but is is certainly playing a roll in it, and its one that we have direct control over.

As for Mr Abdussamatov's theory linking temperature rise on earth and mars with solar luminescence, it has been debunked by plenty of highly qualified people.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Peace, The_Fury.

       
I think, in your overly elaborate way, you answered the question just fine. We didn't cause global warming. And therefore since we did not cause it, we also cannot fix it.

Somewhere in there I think you lost sight of exactly what I was getting at. In that man has had insufficient influence over the climate to cause a rise in temperature that's not supported by any sort of valid hard science whatsoever. And before you trot out the tidal gauge study, know that it's been refuted as having a data flaw for being dependent on a single gauge which is situated on geologically unsound land.

Venus' average temperature is not rising because it is already well above what solar input alone would bring it to. Venus also has at present an atmosphere that is many times thicker than our own. Mostly due to intense volcanic activity. Which, incidentally, is identified as a primary cause for climate alteration right here on Earth too.

Also, given that man had no influence over Venus and its runaway global warming and that we have no influence over the current warming on Mars, I think I'm more than safe in saying my case was rested before it ever began.

       
The_Fury [Anon] said:
Comment #19 Jan 25, 2009 3:05 am

I think, in your overly elaborate way, you answered the question just fine. We didn't cause global warming. And therefore since we did not cause it, we also cannot fix it.


No, thats not what i said, what i have said was, that we most defiantly have played a roll in the current warming trend, but the jury is still out on weather we are the primary cause. And even if we are not the primary cause, we can still mitigate the roll that we have played.


Venus' average temperature is not rising because it is already well above what solar input alone would bring it to.


The point with Venus is that different systems react differently to the same inputs. So that you cannot link Earths climate change, with Mars's climate change and say that they are caused by the same thing, 2 vastly different and isolated systems will react in 2 totally different ways.

From an climate perspective, Earth and Venus operate in similar ways in how they respond to inputs and the feedbacks they contain. Mars has next to no atmosphere that can retain energy, and an atmosphere is needed to have solar radiation as the sole cause of the melting of the Co2 caps.


Also, given that man had no influence over Venus and its runaway global warming and that we have no influence over the current warming on Mars, I think I'm more than safe in saying my case was rested before it ever began.


LOL thats some crazy logic you have there, and i wish you well and will leave you with it. Im just thankful that real scientists do not think the same way and look at the evidence with an open mind, not preconceived notions of reality.

Peace out,

The Fury.

       
The_Fury [Anon] said:
Comment #20 Jan 25, 2009 3:21 am
Oh and one last thing, your basing your opinion on the ideas of 1 person, Mr Abdusamatov a Russian whose idea has not been published in a peer review journal, and has not had its claim tested by other scientists to see weather the results are repeatable. These are his thoughts and thoughts alone, they are not a theory, just pure conjecture, maybe from a few too many nights on the vodka.

If you don't wish to believe what main stream science thinks on the subject, at least pick a competing theory that has been published and whose science has been put under scrutiny, tested and has been held up.

This one, unfortunately is up their with astrology, auras and any other crack pot sudo-scientific idea that has not stood up to testing.

       
No. I'm basing my opinions on plenty of other peoples' ideas. Not just some random Russian I don't even know. The number of reputable peer reviewed scientists who say that global warming is caused by increased solar output during the solar cycles is far higher than you're obviously willing to accept. Bringing up Venus and Mars as examples were simply to show the complete stupidity of those who say man had anything at all to do with it.

I haven't even gone into the whole bit about how there are times in recorded history where it's been much hotter than it is now, and how data from 2008 shows we've been in some of the coldest temperatures on record since reliable records of that sort of thing began in the late 1800s.

Mainstream science is far from any sort of universal agreement. The "mainstream" scientists you talk about come to the conclusions that will keep their grant money flowing because the government won't fund someone who is a "crackpot global warming denier". Even if they have solid evidence that we had nothing to do with causing it.

       
Wow, you guys sure were busy here over the last couple of days..

The_Fury said:

came to your mud Conner to say hi, but your away, enjoy man.

Saw that the other day (in my channel history), sorry that I'd missed you, things have been pretty crazy the last week or so but the wedding was yesterday (well, this past Saturday anyway) and now Dragona is my wife in real life too finally. :)

       
Superman [Anon] said:
Comment #23 Jan 26, 2009 9:21 am
Gratzies to the two of you. :)

       
Thanks Superman! :)

       
The_Fury [Anon] said:
Comment #25 Jan 26, 2009 3:57 pm
Grats you guys, thats awesome. My partner is also on my back to divorce my ex-wife so we can get married also. Have only been separated for odd 7 years, i think i should spend come more money on the bitch and pay for the divorce.

       
<< prev 1, 2, 3, 4 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31