Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: How about: "We elected a no-talent rodeo clown? Twice!" 42

Journal by smittyoneeach

But it has now become equally puzzling why he has not become more sure-footed in foreign affairs. He is one of the brightest men ever to occupy the office, and yet his learning curve has been among the flattest. Talking to players on the world stage--most of whom still want him to succeed--one finds them genuinely rattled, worried about a lack of national will and operational competence.

Look: we put an ass in the oval office. I have been and will continue to play the "I flipping told you so" card more or less indefinitely. Anyone who ever supported this used car salesman can just fall off the planet.
He is not, nor has he ever been "one of the brightest men ever to occupy the office". W is far smarter. If you even want to bother arguing the point, first produce BHO's transcripts.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How about: "We elected a no-talent rodeo clown? Twice!" More

How about: "We elected a no-talent rodeo clown? Twice!"

Comments Filter:

  • If we want to make him look good, we'll just vote for one of your faves that you are convinced that are so "different". My question is, what makes you think that puppets have brains? Hell, when you look at the ledger, it is just as plausible that Hillary has been "acting president" over the last 5 years, and Obama is Max Headroom. In fact I find the idea very plausible. The man is a compilation of "advisers", kind of like your posts are a compilation of partisan pundits. And if you don't follow the money, y

    • And if you don't follow the money, you can't possibly understand what drives foreign policy.

      Certainly, money is a major input. However, I think you may be oversimplifying. If it was purely money, I don't think Obama would have let something as uncertain as Benghazi go down. Because if there is one thing capital despises, it's uncertainty.

      • I don't think Obama would have let something as uncertain as Benghazi go down

        Wait a minute, here ... you previously said that Obama personally caused Benghazi (presumably to launch his commie takeover of the world?). Now you are saying he just "let [...] Benghazi go down"? Stick to one story, please!

        Although if you are trying to creep back closer to your "clown" description of it, then passively allowing things to happen - rather than directly causing them - would help a bit.

        if there is one thing capital despises, it's uncertainty.

        I would expect then that capital must truly hate the uncertainty of your arguments, then.

        • Oh please! Benghazi was the cost of doing business, The lives are purely collateral damage. it was hardly noticeable with the amount of money they move. However the benefit of distraction it provides is enormous. You're not looking at the cost/benefit ratio. Their was no uncertainty. Your trying to mix your silly punditry with business. Well, actually you've completely ignored the money issue because it doesn't jibe with your desired narrative. Your "overton window" is barely a pinhole. I don't believe you

          • Their -> there

            Your -> you're

            Thanks in advance for your understanding

          • Remember, Smitty has been trying to claim that Obama intentionally caused Benghazi. In your argument of it being "the cost of doing business" are you saying he did it on purpose, or are you saying that it happened on its own?

            Come on, don't try to play both sides like Smitty has been doing lately. Take a stand. I don't believe that Obama caused Benghazi personally but if you have a fact-based argument for it you might be able to convince me.

            Well, actually you've completely ignored the money issue because it doesn't jibe with your desired narrative.

            Are you saying that Obama made money from Benghazi, or that hi

            • Waddya mean, "take a stand"? Obama is a spectator, a talking head, like Reagan during Iran/Contra.. The deaths weren't caused intentionally, but none of the belligerents consider them important, shit happens. Benghazi was a speed bump turned into an opportunity. It fully distracts attention away from the corruption of the system as a whole. This is strictly business. There is nothing to read into it.

        • Sorry, I thought I was posting to Mr. Smith.

      • Reply [slashdot.org]

  • You are asking someone who is defined as having no power whatsoever (a clown) to do something that requires power. That makes vastly less sense than asking your tax guy to fix the transmission on your car or asking your priest to perform open heart surgery on your cat.

  • first produce BHO's transcripts.

    You combined the scary, scary, scary, middle name (possibly the second oldest anti-Obama conspiracy theory) with the transcript nonsense.

    But really, what would his transcripts tell you? What information do you hope to glean from them? What if they were straight A's? What if they were all C's? There is no GPA requirement for the presidency - although there are GPA requirements for graduation - so why are you interested in them?

    And for that matter, that conspiracy theory had been dormant for a co

    • So you're at the point of labeling a simple, reasonable question a "conspiracy theory"?
      Lord, please help damn_registrars fall short of achieving full-on, raging loon status. Through the grace of your Holy Spirit, grant damn_registrars someone more articulate than I to explain the truth to him in a way that he cannot bury under a lie. Amen.

      • So you're at the point of labeling a simple, reasonable question a "conspiracy theory"?

        Please, tell me, where did you have a "reasonable question"? If your transcript request - which most of your conspiracy theory comrades in arms have given up on long ago as not being interesting enough to be able to lead to impeachment and hence not worthwhile to pursue any more - is relevant at this late time in his presidency, please state why that is. If one of your other requests was somehow reasonable, please tell me that instead.

        You have a list of conspiracy theories that you hope will lead to e

        • If your transcript request...

          To be clear, I also believe that if you want to be president or desire any position of authority, we have every right to know every little detail about you. If you don't like that, don't take the job. We should be putting them all under the Sword of Damocles. The failure to do so is ours alone.

          Being that Mr. Smith is totally partisan on the issue, he can be safely dismissed out of hand.

          • If your transcript request...

            To be clear, I also believe that if you want to be president or desire any position of authority, we have every right to know every little detail about you.

            That really doesn't answer what we could possibly learn from that, or why it is important now but was not important with previous presidents. If you want to argue it for all presidents from this point forward, that would be yet another matter - and of course we know that Smitty would happily exclude any president with the correct following consonant from such requirements in the future.

            If every detail should be known, does that mean transcripts all the way back to preschool? Library records and bowli

            • I'm not concerned about previous presidents, except where possible charges should be brought up for their crimes while in office. Knowing their lives will become an open book will keep the riff-raff out. We must put the highest price possible on power. Being president should not be a desirable job. We need to remind them they are there to serve and then return to their previous lives like it never happened, no lifetime secret service or other bennies. Only then do you have a chance of finding someone remote

              • We must put the highest price possible on power.

                Let's make sure that by price we mean effort, and not just dollars. We already tried the latter and that didn't really go very well.

                Being president should not be a desirable job

                That is probably true. I recall various versions of "the people who want the job are the last people who should ever hold it" from other people, which is pretty accurate.

                no lifetime secret service or other bennies.

                Personally, I support allowing the POTUS to retain lifetime secret service. Other benefits might be excessive, but there are plenty of nutjobs out there who would love to try to put an ex president on the

                • Personally, I support allowing the POTUS to retain lifetime secret service. Other benefits might be excessive, but there are plenty of nutjobs out there who would love to try to put an ex president on their mantle.

                  100% agreement here. I want this creep dying very old, full of years, awash in the knowledge that he was wrong on everything, and hanging on as Yet Another Warning against confidence in government.

                • The money issue can be rendered moot by everybody simply writing in Hugh Romney for president, just like that, on a fling at the last instant, and all the money goes up in smoke. That issue is solved, and I'm moving on. To dwell on it is a needless waste and a distraction. And if we don't put the man on such a high pedestal (remember, he's there to serve), he won't be a very high valued target. I would not provide any entitlements his receptionist doesn't get. And to hell with his "skills". We just have to

                  • And if we don't put the man on such a high pedestal (remember, he's there to serve), he won't be a very high valued target.

                    I agree that the president is there to serve the country. However we do want to elect someone who has their own ideas, don't we? Even if we elect someone who doesn't have any apparent ideas of their own, they will still represent a particular ideology to people who disagree with whatever they do. I don't see how any amount of over exposure of and POTUS could prevent people from hating them enough to make an attempt on their life; and I'm thinking specifically of domestic attempts.

                    And to hell with his "skills".

                    I'm not sure how much

                    • The de facto one-party system we have here is specifically structured to ensure we cannot end up with anything else.

                      That is just plain bullshit. The problem is you vote for the one party, nothing else.

            • That really doesn't answer what we could possibly learn from that

              Well, there is a strong hypothesis that the President is a no-talent rodeo clown who was grossly oversold by Commies, the media, and idiots. A transcript (assuming such exists) would be helpful in validating or disproving this hypothesis, at least in an academic context.

              • Well, there is a strong hypothesis that the President is a no-talent rodeo clown

                That sentence is itself unprovable as it is self-contradictory. That may be why pretty much nobody other than you has any faith in it.

                who was grossly oversold by Commies

                Nice joke, there. Are you hoping to moonlight at the laugh factory some time?

                the media

                Being as the conservatives had just as much of a death grip on the media in 2008 as they do now, your argument holds less water than a screen door there. If it weren't for the conservative dominance of the media you probably wouldn't have even heard of half of your favorite conspiracies.

                A transcript (assuming such exists)

                So is

                • http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/05/05/watching-the-obama-presidency-die/ [commentarymagazine.com]
                  It's all going to come out. While it's impossible for you to look the most colossal ass in the lot, I just want you to know that
                  (a) I'm laughing at you,
                  (b) I forgive you,
                  (c) Repenting of foolishness is always an option.
                  • You are laughing at me when I point out that you are propagating a self-contradictory philosophy? Why would you find that funny?
                    • I've actually got a consistent philosophy, and regret if I have been laughing too hard at you to articulate it clearly.

                    • I've actually got a consistent philosophy

                      Really? What circus or rodeo have you been to where the clown is directing the show, leading every event, collecting tickets, and regulating event safety?

                      Because that is just one of the glaring contradictions in your philosophy. You are trying to state that the clown - whose job it is to distract the audience from the job at hand - is somehow the one directing all the jobs. Clowns never have power, yet your clown for some reason has all the power?

          • When have I ever failed to hold anyone, of any party, to the same standard, on transcripts, or any other issue?

            • Any time before 2008, or 2009 if you prefer. You never brought up any of those issues before then. And you never challenged anything on ol' Romney, or McCain, and particularly Bush while he was in office. That only happened when you saw Obama carrying on with the old policies, then you started on the "Vichy GOP", not a hint of that before then. Do you really believe I don't see through this nonsense? Or are you just unaware?

              • "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

                Mostly, as an active duty type, I was apolitical. How far we've drifted off course the last century has been slow to sink in over the last decade. Deeply sorry that I haven't measured up to the arbitrary standards set forth by my /. betters. #SorryNotSorry

                • Aside from the Burma Shave posts I have seen nothing "apolitical" out of you. You have been full gung-ho republican/tea party (talk about your "edge" cases) all the way through the present day. And after this "slow sinking" everything just popped in 2009? Please... don't apologize for being misled, you'll understand some day.

                  • I'm sorry, that wasn't enough condescension: can you please flog me harder over the immutable past? Should I just quit doing that which I think is correct, and join you and J.C. in the cynical chorus?

                    • We, or at least I, carry no cynicism whatsoever. There is nothing cynical about nature. And it is not an insult when someone tells you that you forgot to take that turn at Albuquerque, and that you're being "pranked". However, your reaction is quite natural and very common, but also misguided.

                    • Still need more condescension, though. We've already established that anyone in power is guilty until proven innocent. Of course we're all being "pranked". Prankly, that was never in doubt. But how do you alter the course of matters, except that you go to the bridge and take the helm? That is the question which you seem impotent to answer.

                    • Sorry, I'm only pointing to the iceberg dead ahead. If you want to smash into it, that is your prerogative. I can jump anytime and move on. That will be my only option left. Your choices are up to you. You want advice? I charge by the hour.

                    • Have I been talking to a Prius all this time?

Slashdot Top Deals

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz

Close