Rooting against America: Beck, other conservatives cheer elimination of Chicago's Olympic bid
Conservative media figures have celebrated the International Olympic Committee's elimination of Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics and used the event to bash President Obama, who flew to Copenhagen to lobby IOC members on behalf of Chicago's bid. For instance, Glenn Beck called the news that Chicago's bid had failed "so sweet," Rush Limbaugh declared himself "happy" and "gleeful" with the results, and Matt Drudge proclaimed: "World rejects Obama."
Conservative media celebrate Chicago's elimination, bash Obama
Beck: "Oh, it's so sweet" that Chicago's bid failed; "savor this moment." On his radio program, Beck said: "Do not go anywhere. Don't -- do not look at the screen. Don't -- don't go to any other radio stations. Nothing. You don't want to hear this news -- I mean, please, please let me break this news to you. Oh, it's so sweet." After a commercial break, Beck's producer stated that "the first round of voting is up for the Olympic games, and the first city" -- at which point Beck interrupted, saying, "Wait! Wait for it! Wait for it. Enjoy this -- savor this moment." The producer continued, "And the first city to be eliminated is Chicago." Beck later asked his producer if Chicago's elimination was proof that Obama had "failed." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Show, 10/2/09]
Lou Dobbs: "On today's broadcast, the IOC just says 'no' to Chicago! As the Drudge Report says 'The Ego Has Landed.' " From the "Today on the Radio" section of LouDobbs.com:
Breitbart website: "It is kind of like the world community saying to President Obama, 'Not only no, but Hell No.' " From a post by Publius -- the pseudonym of the "Editorial Panel" of the Andrew Breitbart-published website BigGovernment.com -- headlined, "Chicago Drops From 'Second City' to Fourth City":
So, not only did Chicago lose out in its bid for the Olympics, it lost in the FIRST ROUND. It is kind of like the world community saying to President Obama, "Not only no, but Hell No."
Limbaugh: For those "upset that I sound gleeful -- I am. I don't deny it. I'm happy." On his radio program, Limbaugh stated: "Folks, the ego has landed. The world has rejected Obama. Chicago, the least number of votes, first elimination in the round of voting for the Olympics in 2016. ... When you stop to think about it, folks, doesn't it make sense? Our president, Barack Hussein Obama -- mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama mmm, mmm, mmm -- had been running around the world for nine months telling everybody how much our country sucks. He's been running around the world apologizing for the United States of America. Why would anybody award the Olympics to such a crappy place as the United States of America?" Later in the program, after reading a series of headlines about Chicago's elimination, Limbaugh explained why he is "gleeful" and "happy" about the failure of its Olympic bid:
LIMBAUGH: For those of you on the other side of the aisle listening in who are upset that I sound gleeful -- I am. I don't deny it. I'm happy. Anything that gets in the way of Barack Obama accomplishing his domestic agenda is fine with me. I stand by -- I don't want Obamacare to succeed. I want national health care, socialized medicine, to fail. I want cap and trade -- a national carbon tax emissions policy based on a hoax -- I want that to fail. I do not want the government owning car companies. I don't want the government running banks. I don't want the government in charge of loans. I don't want any of it. I want all of that to fail.
And for those things to fail, I'm sorry to say, our president must fail, because they're his ideas. It is the ideas I want to fail, but the architect of those ideals must, by the same sense of logic, also fail at the same time the ideas do. So anything that weakens and helps people to see the real Obama is a step forward. Gotta say it.
Drudge: "The ego has landed. World rejects Obama: Chicago out in first round." From the Drudge Report:
RedState.com's Erickson: "World rejects Barack Obama. ... Hahahahaha." From RedState.com managing editor Erick Erickson's post, headlined, "BREAKING: World Rejects Barack Obama. No Chicago Olympics; Hey Rush, apparently the rest of the world wants Obama to fail too":
Hahahahaha.
I thought the world would love us more now that Bush was gone.
I thought if we whored ourselves out to our enemies, great things would happen.
Apparently not.
So Obama's pimped us to every two bit thug and dictator in the world, made promises to half the Olympic committee, and they did not even kiss him.
Weekly Standard blog post reportedly said "[c]heers erupt[ed] at" magazine in response to Chicago losing bid. Think Progress' Matt Corley reported that a post by Weekly Standard blogger John McCormack originally stated that when the news came that Chicago's bid had been eliminated, "[c]heers erupt[ed] at WEEKLY STANDARD world headquarters." From Corley's blog post:
Soon after news broke that the International Olympic Committee had rejected Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Olympics, which President Obama had personally lobbied for, Weekly Standard blogger John McCormack published a celebratory post on the magazine's blog, titled "Chicago Loses! Chicago Loses!." McCormack wrote that "Cheers erupt at WEEKLY STANDARD world headquarters":
But the post has now been changed. The reference to cheers have been removed and the title has been shortened to a non-exclamatory "Chicago Loses." The current post neither acknowledges nor explains the changes that were made.
HotAir's Allahpundit to Obama: "You're a bigger sucker than I thought, champ." Blogger Allahpundit stated on HotAir.com: "It's only right that I eat crap here for having insisted that this was a done deal and that The One wouldn't dare risk his political capital on a completely needless humiliation. You're a bigger sucker than I thought, champ."
Malkin: "Goodbye, 'Yes We Can.' Hello, 'No, You Can't.' " Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin wrote: "Goodbye, 'Yes We Can.' Hello, 'No, You Can't.' Like Icarus, President Obama's giddy ego flight has ended with melted wax and fallen wings. This is a big win and a massive relief for taxpayers. But Chicago cronies are not going to take this well. Gird your loins."
Has Illinois ever been anything but locked down for the Dem's
I'm amazed that the GOP has been able to fool their faithful for decades with these "principles" that they never observe, but talk about constantly.
We have a democratic then republican then democratic, ect. mayor thing. back and forth.
The way I see it, people from Illinois are going to vote for a Democratic President who tries to help their state, not conservatives who try to attack Chicago's bid to host the Olympics.
Fail.
Guess you just don't like black people going overseas and pulling for America. Nice.
The world didn't reject Obama. He did his job and tried to get the games here for us and they went in a different direction. It happens.
Did George W Bush secure the Olympics for us? I can't recall. Must have somehow slipped past Fox.
You, however, maintain that nothing right wing media does matters - that you're shtick.
You insist that Obama had nothing to do with the outcome and you insist that America's media coverage had nothing to do with it. I disagree with you. I think that past week mattered.
You demand from me proof and evidence of what I think yet you refuse to provide evidence of your contentions.
You manufacture some pie-in-the-sky ridiculous conspiracy theory to discredit someone you hate and put it out there with no evidence or support to back it up, then demand someone who asks you for proof by turning it back at them and asking them to prove a negative.
That is what Limbaugh and his ilk do every day and you sit here and rail against it. Yet you think you are morally superior when you stoop to the same sinking level. The only difference, as I said, is they are more dangerous because they have media exposure. Thankfully, I doubt you do.
In truth, I wouldn't put our right wing media's week-long campaign against America getting the Olympics in a top ten list of why Chicago was not picked.
Idiot.
More like, they are only for "god's law" and thats all, real law is for suckers to them because it's not "god's law" so they can violate real law willy nilly. And if you don't get caught, it's not a crime right?
Not saying all conservatives do this but seriously... the list is amazingly large. Not saying democrats are any more innocent, but at least for the majority... Democrats aren't directing their hate and prejudice toward minority groups/the other wing.
Key Words: "Demorats" "Libtards" How many conservative name calling do you hear frequently? I can't think of any...
~Celeste~
Just ruminating is all.
If that's true, we just got screwed by bush - again!
As for Pakistan in particular, pick up a newspaper and read about the recent terrorist plot hatched from that freak-show country, and maybe you'll appreciate why immigration officials should be especially vigilant in examining the credentials of individuals coming from pakistan.
and that is exactly what Mr. Ali was talking about. I love it when people disprove their own point just by speaking
I think he's referring to visitors - not immigrants.
And "freak-show" country? Very nice.
They were probably of some homegrown American terrorists ruining their event...
----------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word
Thanks Republicans, I'll remember your kindness during future elections.
There was NO hatred of the troops from the left. Only the right showed hatred when it came to paying for their continued health needs. They never insisted on paying for the war with a repeal of the tax cuts on the rich.
The right was the ones cheer leading the troops to their deaths on a phony war. That's what happens when the Supreme Court decides a real man shouldn't be in the White House , We need a cheerleader.
You need new glasses. That statement is totally false. I heard NO ONE denigrate the troops.
Then again, the soldiers who are DEAD really won't be bothered by those so-called lies, will they?
You see, your opinion doesn't matter here. You're just a self-righteous putz who spends more time than he should on the internet. Ask the soldiers who Murtha smeared about Haditha, and see whether they agree with you. The investigation proved that they were lies, and I defy you to prove otherwise.
Those soldiers were put through hell because of looney left-wing propaganda, from scumbags such as yourself who would've thrown anybody under the bus just to discredit the bush administration. The likes of you are pathetic, and the soldiers whom I know would not want your pompous a$$ speaking for them
You see, your opinion doesn't matter here. You're just a self-righteous putz who spends more time than he should on the internet. Ask the soldiers who Murtha smeared about Haditha, and see whether they agree with you. The investigation proved that they were lies, and I defy you to prove otherwise.
Those soldiers were put through hell because of looney left-wing propaganda, from scumbags such as yourself who would've thrown anybody under the bus just to discredit the bush administration. The likes of you are pathetic, and the soldiers whom I know would not want your pompous a$$ speaking for them
Don't you see Foghorn? The democrats put the troops through hell with their non-existent attacks on them. George W. Bush starting, and then royally f#$!ing up two wars, one of which based on completely false pretenses had nothing to do with it!(end snark)
The only "putz" here is yourself, pongnot. Murtha, who had been briefed on Haditha, was immediately attacked for his statements about it by right wing media figures who knew nothing of the situation. And of course sheep such as yourself believed every word. In true authoritarian fashion, you apparantly believe that the truth should not be faced when there is clear evidence of war crimes. People like you don't really care about the troops, you only care about preserving your image of them as heroic GI joe action figures. Btw, Murtha volunteered in Vietnam, and recieved countless awards for bravery, can you say the same yourself?
Your post is yet further proof that the only kind of morality the right wing understands is "never let the team down".
Conervatives are such phonies....
Without knowing all the facts, and when the investigation had barely commenced, big mouth Murtha went on television and accused a specific group of soldiers of committing war crimes. Unsurprisingly, all the leftwing sheep (you, very likely included), gleefully used Murtha's unwarranted smear to discredit the war and Bush in general. As I said, the pathetic likes of you, foghorn (and other lemmings) would have thrown anybody under the bus just to gain a partisan victory, nevermind the fact that you were ruining the lives of innocent soldiers.
Liberals are such phonies . ..
You'd think Murtha, having served in combat, would've gave the soldiers the benefit of the doubt and awaited the completion of the investigation. But no, his allegiance to the lemmings, coupled with his bush derangement syndrome, took over, and he falsely announced to the public that a slew of innocent people were guilty of war crimes.
For the record, I'm in the reserves now, but had never seen a second of combat. I'm neither ashamed nor proud of that fact, and it is entirely irrelevant to this conversation. I make no bones about it that the only reason I enlisted was for college money. My brother used to be a JAG attorney. So I don't have any delusions about the true character of soldiers. Generally speaking, they're just like everybody else.
American troops did kill innocent men, women, children in Haditha and then tried to cover it by saying the civilians were killed by a some fictitious bomb. The charges were dropped I think for all of them except for one because of the conflicting testimony from everyone involved and the investigators couldn't get to the truth of what actually happened. Murtha's went on air and placed the blame with the Bush administration over the incident because of all the stress they were placing on the troops with the illegal war.
Your whole premise is false. Murtha was late to the game. The war was discredited in my mind (and I'm sure in the mind of others) before it was even started. Iraq didn't attack us; never threatened to attack us; and they didn't have the means to attack us. The Bush administration and other Neocons used lies and fear-mongered to start the illegal war in Iraq which has killed or maimed tens of thousands of Americans and they should be held to account for it.
We don't know what exactly took place there because everyone came up with a different story on how those civilians were killed. And there is no doubt in the mind that the Bush administration is guilty of war crimes because of the illegal invasion of Iraq. Everything that has happened there is because of his reckless decision.
Again, without trial, much less a complete investigation of the facts, big mouth Murtha said "they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Dragging the troops through the political mud, and disregarding the veracity of his accusations, Murtha and left wingnuts jumped on the incident to support their anti-war stance.
No, no, don't give the soldiers the benefit of the doubt, not when there's political points to score. As the saying goes, tell the acquitted soldiers where they go to get their reputations back, after having been already convicted in the court of public opinion because of that pig's hasty and erroneous slurs . . .
The point Murtha was making is that you and your fellow Neocons were putting the troops through hell by your constant support of this illegal, illogical and misbegotten war. The troops should have never been placed in a position where stuff like Haditha could happen.
When first asked about the situation the troops lied and said the civilians were blown up by a bomb when they were actually killed by gunfire.
Saying you're not going to prosecute doesn't mean anything didn't occur. The prosecutor had to deal with conflicting testimony and as a result he could not conclude definitively what actually took place and that's why the charges were dropped against most of the participants.
So you concede that Murtha slurred the soldiers with accusations of war crimes to support his broader position that the war was misbegotten. The point is, Murtha shouldn't have blithely denigrated those guys by spouting off to the public that they were guilty of murder in cold blood, without knowing the facts and without at least giving the matter a full investigation. I live in Philly, am familiar with Murtha's positions, and can tell you that I became disillusioned with the war long before Murtha. In this situation, calling me or other critics neocons is irrelevant. What he did was wrong, opportunistic, and slimey, but that's par for the course for Johnny.
The fact the prosecutors had insufficient evidence to move forward on any of the charges against all but one of the victims of Murtha's slander, including the alleged cover up, simply redounds to how utterly reckless Murtha was in leveling his accusations at the political press conference . . .
The misbegotten, illegal and the illogical parts were well established before the war started; it didn't suddenly appear with Haditha. Murtha was using the incident to stress what Bush and the Neocons' actions were doing to the soldiers.
That four unarmed men were shot execution style in their homes is disputed by noone. It is not disputed that children as young as 3 were shot in their homes, even as the marines were not under fire at the time. It is not disputed that unarmed women were shot. The taxi in which four men were shot was found to contain no weapons. All of this is established by the marine reports. I believe all of the about 14 marines who may have been involved each deserve a fair trial. However, a massacre most certainly took place here.
The facts of this case are clear and damning. And the likes of Michelle Malkin viciously attacked John Murtha and others for bravely shedding light on this issue, dispite it being a politically problemattic stance.
And in typical repuke fashion, they accused others of being willing to attack anyone to score political points, while doing just that.
Right wingers can put this sanctimonious pose on all they like, but that won't make their craven attempts to silence those who try to expose potential war crimes any less despicable.
Source, please.
No, I was only pointing out that the sarcastic comment about the IOC being racist was already said by Dennis Miller. That was actually your comment, which Tx took seriously. You,Texas, and Dennis Miller are all resorting to the same dopey strawman- pretending that anybody is saying that all criticism of Obama is racist.
And start using articles in your posts. Who are you, Khrushchev?
We got it. You defend the teabaggers with their racist signs - they are just protesting taxes so the African witch doctor signs were appropriate "because they do not agree with the direction that this country is going". But Obama and Sotomayor are the issue. They are the racists or race-baiters that we must worry about because they "fan the flame". We got it. You have perfectly illustrated the race-baiting that I have been trying to explain to rightOn for weeks. I appreciate it.
But, the much more prevalent cases of race-baiting are the code words and stereotypes that are constantly played to by those on the right who know exactly the audience (apparently joeklein) that they are trying to reach by using these words or phrases. They know better, but they also know they can drum up a certain base (see joeklein) by playing to the worst demons in some of us.
There is a long held tradition of a superiority complex in white people in this country that, while it has lost some of its steam over the last two generations, is still very much alive. It is the caricature of the black man as lazy and infantile, yet also violent and frightening. He must be saved by the white man from his own ignorance - "Black children beating up other black children for getting good grades" - while also being controlled because, inherent in him is the instinct to be violent - "Black children beating up other black children for talking like whites and dressing not like gang member". It is still very much alive in certain areas of this country. And this is who these code words and phrases play to and they do it exceedingly well.
They have even recently attempted to co-opt the word racist into some kind of term that is only acceptable when applied to people with black or brown skin. It is no longer acceptable to call any white person on the right racist, but it is absolutely acceptable to refer to Gates, Sotomayor, Jeremiah Wright, or Obama as racist with very little or no evidence at all.
why you are trying to twist and spin what I said or did not say. How do you know what is in a man's heart or mind. My post speaks for itself, if you have a counter point please post, it may be spark a great conversation.
More false outrage. ACORN has received $53 million over 15 years. War profiteers receive that much EVERY DAY and they are killing people and importing actual, real, live, underage sex slaves.
Where's the outrage over that?
And redistribution of wealth? I'm all for that. After all, the gap between the rich and poor of this country is the highest since the robber baron days. That era ended after we had a decade-long thing called the GREAT DEPRESSION.
In case you missed it, we narrowly averted another recession. And you want to continue economic policies that lead to depressions? Quite un-American.
Wrong is Worng no matter who is doing it, if you have any evidence please go public,let stop this injustise.
If you are for redistribution, please tell us how we go about it, is force necessary?
Until you explain what the hell you're talking about, I'll assume you are.
You hide your bigotry behind statistics you feel show that somehow it's black peoples state of mind and race merchants that is holding us back,while this may contain a kernal of truth it is a distortion and lie to elevate that kernal as the reason why when America gets a cold black people and other minorities get pneumonia, or why as the axiom goes "we're the last hired and first fired. Those reasons have alot to do with institutionalized racism and the class system of capitalism. Welfare was started not as an appeasment to black people(most people on welfare are not black)but as a recognition by society that poverty is endemic of the system itself. The gap between rich and poor is widenening and the "middle class" is fast disappearing. The last several decades have seen a redistribution upward,until today we see the top 1% of the country making more than the combined wealth of the bottom 50%. CEO's making 400x's more than their employees. 400x's!?! That is outrageous and unstainable for any humane society.
The unprecedented spending and Robin Hood in reverse policies of the last 8 yrs is not merely an accusation but a fact. During the last 8 yrs. poverty has increased,as has all the socio-economic problems resulting from that increase in poverty. The stats you give(don't know if their accurate)while disturbing is not just reflective of the black community but all of society. It ain't like Bristol Palin was black(imagine if that was Barack Obama's daughter). You have swallowed the lie of the underserving black and poor people as causes for the problems of society,what a dupe you and the tea-partiers are. Glenn Greenwald correctly explains this:
"...This is the paradox of the tea-party movement and other right-wing protests fueled by genuine citizen anger and fear. It is true that the federal government embraces redistributive policies and that middle-class income is seized in order that "someone else benefits." But so obviously, that "someone else" who is benefiting is not the poor and lower classes -- who continue to get poorer as the numbers living below the poverty line expand and the rich-poor gap grows in the U.S. to unprecedented proportions. The "someone else" that is benefiting from Washington policies are -- as usual -- the super-rich, the tiny number of huge corporations which literally own and control the Government. The premise of these citizen protests is not wrong: Washington politicians are in thrall to special interests and are, in essence, corruptly stealing the country's economic security in order to provide increasing benefits to a small and undeserving minority. But the "minority" here isn't what Fox News means by that term, but is the tiny sliver of corporate power which literally writes our laws and, in every case, ends up benefiting..."
And heres the kicker Jk and what's is so puzzeling about your attacks on ACORN:
"...The people who win whenever the federal government expands its power are the ones who, through their massive resources and lobbyists armies, control what the government does: the richest and most powerful corporations. And yet -- in an extreme paradox -- those are the people who are venerated by the Right: they simultaneously spew rage at what's happening in Washington while revering and defending the interests of the oligarchs who are most responsible..."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/14/resentment/index.html
You should read the article and educate yourself. You are correct but not only black children but all children need good role models. Role models like a Barack Obama who was raised in a single parent family, worked his way through school, law school(Harvard)and finished at the head of his class becoming a professor of constitutional law a US Senator and now President of the USA. What a great American success story, what a story for all children that despite the most dire circumstances if YOU try hard and work for it you can reach the stars . No where in his story will you find this conservatiive myth of black victim hood. Sonia Sotomyor(sp)another story of rising from the ashes of poverty. Growing up in the South Bronx(my old neighborhood)one of the poorest congressional districts in the country,living in the projects having to teach herself how to read english and yet graduating at the top of her class from Ivy league university and becoming the first Latina on the Supreme Court. Everything in society told these fine examples "NO YOU CAN'T, but "YES THEY DID." Imagine what young people are learning from the attacks they are seeing from bigots like you.
Barack Obama inherited an economy that was on the brink of collaspe by the greed and corruption of Wall St. and corporations aided by conservative polices that opened up the public coffeurs to them and funneled your tax-dollars not to the black and poor but to the rich and powerful. That is not whining that is fact. Unemployment is not the result of the spending by Obama but the reckless Robin Hood in reverse policies of 8 yrs. of conservatism. We need to spend and spend more for those families and individuals affected by the greed of the last 8 yrs., after we recover then we can talk about the deficit. You cons had no problem with the placing of two wars on the public credit card while taxes were cut for the rich under George Bush. Despite that 95% of people(those making less than $250,000 -$200,000)will see a tax-cut not increase,and the top 2-5% will see a return to the top tax-rate of 39% from 36%,under Obama, hardly a redistribution. It is the working poeple of this country of all colors who create the wealth in society but receive the cold shoulder when any policy is tried to eleviate their pain and suffering. Bigots like you allow for the perpetuation of this robbery of the working man as you fall prey to the corporatist propaganda that it is the poor and minorities who are unfairly receiving undeserved benefits and bringing down society while just the opposite is true.
You were convinced because the IOC sent you a fax, right?
Does anybody understand this rambling nonsense? This is the kind of crap I hear from right-wingers today. Incoherent, jumbled nonsense. 'People in unions are thugs, Michelle Obama hates America, Barack Obama has too much of an ego, Europeans are all socialists AND anarchists (special kind of stupid to lump those together), Obama is having a lovefest in Europe while terrorists have AK47s, Obama sucks because he couldn't get the Olympics, I'm glad Europe told Obama no, but, but, but'.....GET A MESSAGE. This is all you got? It's total nonsense. Where are the conservatives in the right-wing with a sound mind? Are there no legitimate reasons for debate left on your side? This is what you have left? Then your political ideology is dead. Time to scrap the Republican party and start over from scratch. Enjoy the wilderness and take Beck, Limbaugh, etc. with you. Start a new party and call it the Batsh1t Party. You can win some local elections in small town in the South and Midwest and let the adults make the real decisions in this country.
------------------------------------------------------------
If these people ever tried THINKING, they'd need an asprin.
GET A MESSAGE. This is all you got? It's total nonsense. Where are the conservatives in the right-wing with a sound mind? Are there no legitimate reasons for debate left on your side? This is what you have left? Then your political ideology is dead. Time to scrap the Republican party and start over from scratch. Enjoy the wilderness and take Beck, Limbaugh, etc. with you. Start a new party and call it the Batsh1t Party. You can win some local elections in small towns in the South and Midwest and let the adults make the real decisions in this country.
Do yourself a favor and try not to act as if you give a damn!
You trying to distance yourself from your own ideology is as pathetic as it is hilarious... "Either way these idiots pounce on anything they can get their grimy microphones on."
As for Glenn Beck... in this audio clip, toward the end of it he asked the question about whether any other foreign leader had shown up to make the case for their country had ever failed in doing so...
It would seem that the president's of China and Spain are in the same boat as Obama under that notion.
Which makes this anti-American glee from these insignificant humans, yet influential insects of the right-wing so sickening!
I wouldn't be too sure of that. It seems to be the American Way to root against the President. I mean, first democrats root against Bush, and now republicans root against Obama. Great to see the nation is treating both sides equally, isn't it?
The right is beating up on Obama for being an overexposed egotist who doesn't spend enough time on television, who is a Muslim who went to a Christian Church for twenty years with a pastor who hated America after he got out of the Marines serving his country. They get on Obama for being a Socialist, Fascist, Marxist Anarchist who wants all the corporations in America to fail so the Government, which fails at everything, can take them over. Except that Government, which fails at everything, would do such a good job selling insurance that the insurance companies would all go out of business because of a little competition.
Criticism of Bush was for things that are tangible. The current criticism of Obama is delusional at best.
Obama Derangement Syndrome is much more virulent than Clinton Derangement Syndrome ever was.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you even have the balls to just call out blatant scumbaggery when you see it?!
Who cares about the Olympics anyway? It's a eugenics ritual dug up from an evil and rightfully ruined ancient culture and embraced by Hitler himself (who popularized such Olympics icons as the "ring" logo and the torch).
this article is an excellent analysis of why.
So Glenn, you said: "Oh, it's so sweet."
Really?
Glenn, I'm trying hard to think of an adjective or a noun to describe you that won't denigrate that word.
Words like "moron", "schidt-for-brains", etc., just impugn all morons, schidt, brains, etc.
Ooo! Ooo! I got it!
"Bigot!"
When it comes down to it I rather have a President so call "fail" at bringing the games to Chicago than a President who fails at national security by allowing jet liners crash into our skyscrapers
Make us proud Chicago, go for it for 2020.
(boggling at stupidity)
Ok, I'll bite. What is not Midwestern about Chicago?
Apparently, only what they are spoonfed by entertainers disguised as political leaders or statemen. It is truly hurting our national discourse and therefore our country as a whole.
There'd be no midwest without the population centers.
Then they could just work hard, not pay any taxes, get their farm subsidies and massive immigration projects, sell their corn to each other, and all be rich.
And you can't grow the crayons they'll need to make signs bitching about the guy in the White House with no birf certificate or small pox vaccination.
As for the rest of those things they'll need, all I can say is "Duh!". The Free Market and Capitalism will step in and provide them.
Have you learned nothing from the wingnuts who take the time to come here and share their wisdom?
Share their wisdom? Ha!
I spent yesterday cleaning up all of the wisdom my dog shares with me in my yard.
I didn't need The Free Market and Capitalism to provide what I stepped in.
Wow. You have said many stupid things on this site, hi, but that may be the best of the lot. Truly remarkable.
It should be noted that the right-wing craziness which lets entertainers masquerading as political leaders run their agenda have officially taken another step towards the ultimate fringe. They now openly root against their own country so long as it also means their political opponents lose. It has not taken very long for you crazies to openly, without hesitation, root against your own country.
And now, you feel the need to actually attack one of your own cities. Utterly amazing. I would suggest you read the article that bintx has posted for a more thorough understanding of the fundamentalist beliefs that are motivating these ideas, hi.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Or STUPID about what you just posted.
I was not an Obama supporter, but so far, the only things I have a problem with him about are his lack of bringing the criminals from the last administration to justice and his failure to correct the assaults made on the fourth amendment by the last administration. Obama was left with a HUGE mess created by GWB . . . I can point to every single one of GWB's screw-ups with government documents to back me up. What do you have?
The stimulus was necessary and the full effects haven't been felt yet but there is no doubt that unemployment and job losses would have been even greater if we followed the continued path of Mcsame/Palin of tax-cuts for the rich-- it was those policies that got us here. He has passed tax-cuts for 95% of Americans which will take place next year. He has proceeded on the agreed path to get our troops out of Iraq the STFA which layed out an 18 month not 10 month withdrawal. We are honestly talking about steps to take in Afghanistan after the last administration dropped the ball there by stretching our military thin in a needless war in Iraq. Another example of human and economic resources wasted that has brought us to our knees. He has reaffirmed our pledge to follow law national and international not to torture(which GB and his administration violated),he is on track in trying to close GITMO although Repugnicans are placing road blocks. He is attempting rectify the shame on our country of having 43,000 Americans die each year due to lack of health insurance,14,000 p/day who loose insurance, and the countless others who face forcloser and bankruptcy doe to healthcare cost and lack of insurance by providing for a public option. I could go on but your partisan attacks really don't won't answers you want to ridicule. No where not out of the woods yet but there is no doubt that if we had followed you cons we'd be in much worse shape. Texas ranks last in almost everything including common sense.
By this time in Bush's administration we had a stolen election, some dead Japanese kids killed by Bush Campaign donors, Bush caving in to the Chinese over the airplane incident, Bush giving the Afghans aid after they blew up buddist statues, 9-11, and his first recession.
And lemme guess, you're one of those people who thought Bush was awesome?
Who's next? How far will this go?
Chicago overcame one of its biggest hurdles when the city council approved all financial guarantees for the games, clearing the way for Mayor Richard M. Daley to sign the host city contract if Chicago wins. That was a major step for a U.S. bid city, which — unlike rival candidates — can't rely on federal government financial backing.
Does everyone understand the IOC voting process? In the first round of voting, none of the cities had more than 50% of the votes, so the city with the lowest votes was eliminated. Correct me if I'm wrong ... Chicago could have been eliminated with as much as 24% of the vote, the other cities having 25%, 25%, and 26%.
Also consider strategy. This type of voting is not straightforward. That Chicago was eliminated first does not necessarily indicate that it was the least favorite of all or even the majority of IOC voters.
We can't draw any conclusions until the votes are fully disclosed and/or IOC members explain their votes.
I'm celebrating, but not because this makes Obama look stupid.
I live in Chicago too and I'm not stupid. I wanted Chicago to host the games. I hope we try again. This was Rio's 3rd attempt. I think Rio was a good choice, the games have never been in South America.
Remember, the IOC thought highly enough of Chicago to include it in the top 4. We are hardly losers.
Thank you for shedding light on the real reasons.
In truth, I wouldn't put our right wing media's week-long campaign against America getting the Olympics in a top ten list of why Chicago was not picked.
Does right ON moonlight for Fox?
It is interesting to see right-wingers pretend to actually respect the opinions of anybody outside the US. Historically, they have worn any rejection by the international community as a badge of pride.
I think one could make a strong argument that a big reason that the American bid failed was international disrespect for the US, which blossomed during the Bush years to unprecedented heights.
I don't quite see how Obama's involvement could reasonably be described as "costly". He took a trip to Denmark. Is that considered an unreasonable expense? Only if the President is a Democrat.
It would have been a grand celebration in Chicago today, but alas, it didn't happen that way.
I wanted Chicago to get the games (I'm in Chicago), but I'm happy that Rio got them.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Measley, cowardly, traitourous little pipsqueak!
OK, fine: ANDRE DAWSON. Happy?
Or Ryne Sandberg, Dennis Eckersley, Scottie Pippen, Jim McMahon, Mike Singeltary, Carlton Fisk, Paul Konerko, Lee Smith, Dick Butkis, Mike Ditka... take your pick.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say Mitch Williams, but that idiot's probably a Republican.
You dig?
---------------------------------------------------------------
It posted friday night.
What do you think?
And when they were making the movie "Death of a President" showing Bush being assasinated where was your righteous indignation then? I didn't hear anyone on the left or right for that matter saying," If any harm comes to Bush it would be the left's fault.How many signs were carried calling for the death of Bush? If you google it, almost 350,000 pictures come up showing him as a Nazi, monkey, hanging, burning and the like. MMFA your hypocrisy is staggering.
And to you LOONZ, I supported OUR SOLDIERS!!!!
Also, I might add that the movie "Death of a President" was made in Great Britain by a British director. Film distributors in the US refused to pick up the film. LOTS of folks objected to the movie.
You are aware that just because you get 350,000 hits on Google, that doesn't mean what you are looking at is real, right? You really need to learn to look at legitimate, reputable websites.
Again, look it up, your incorrect nonsense here just shows how uninformed you are.
Really prove it all the Marines were absolved of ANY wrong doing
I pray to god that if im captured the worst thing that happens to me is being barked at by dogs and taking embarrassing pictures.
Torture my ass
Please show me the proof that Bush knew there were no WMD’s in IRAQ. There is a difference between being wrong and lying.
yes, and pat tillman died after being killed by the taliban and jessica lynch was rescued by the brave special forces in a daring raid on an iraqi hospital.
I pray to god that if im captured the worst thing that happens to me is being barked at by dogs and taking embarrassing pictures.
Torture my ass
so your saying that the soldiers who went to jail did so because they let a dog bark at prisoners and took but photos?
my god, please tell me your not that simple minded.
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/#
False Pretenses
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith
January 23, 2008
President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war..."
In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).
The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.
Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:
On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.
In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."
On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."
On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."
The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion."
As far as the other drivel about Abu-Gharib and marines being absovled I point you to the cover-up of the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman research his story of a true patriot. Innocent civilians were gunned down women and children in Haditha and the military is covering it up just like they tried to do with Patriot Tillman, but you'll allow them to do it because it fits your politics. You denigrate his name and the deaths and injuries of all our soldiers and Iraqis by trying to brush aside the atrocities that took place as only barking dogs and embarassing pictures,at ABU-Gharib. As you probably do with GITMO! The number of enemies we've created and the number of deaths of our troops will never be known because of these "barking" dogs and pictures as you say caused by these actions. You are woefully uninformed and incurious as seems par for the course for you cons. Release all the photos then if all it was, was a happy fizzies party. Your post is as ignorant and insightful into the mind of a con as your statement Chicago is not in the midwest. Truly astonishing.
But Bush had no other legit reason to go to war with Iraq except for WMD's, so he couldn't wait for the UN Weapons Inspectors to produce a public report that said no WMD's, so he went ahead and invaded. He knew there were no WMD's. That's clearly why he invaded when he did, after Saddam had begun cooperating and the sanctions were still working.
The only reason to invade under those circumstances was because he knew that there were no WMD's.
There isn't a hell of a "difference" to the over 4,500 DEAD American soldiers!
Yeah... and you've proven that difference is stupidity.
------------------------------------------------------------
Not even worth refuting.
Hiliter, there's a film called Taxi to the Darkside. I believe it won an Oscar in the documentary category. It may be too strong a dose of reality for today's "conservative" to digest in one sitting, but I highly recommend it.
Do yourself a favor, and watch it before you post anything as dimwitted as this.
Unless that's the heading for your personal ad, and you accidentally logged onto the wrong site, in which case, never mind.
And name me one movie that made pur soldiers look like monsters? Zombie movies don't count.
Oh and the soldiers you're talking about were not exonerated. Unless exoneration means not executed. I know how your righties like to change meanings of words.
And Death of a President had nothing to do with Bush. It had to deal with the death of a president and since Bush was president at the time, Guess what? If the movie was made in 1998 it would have been Clinton if it was made now it would be Obama. And THERE WAS PLENTY OF OUTRAGE from all corners. Of course your brain probably couldn't perceive that.
But it's Britain you have a grievance with anyway. They made the movie.
Not one sign in the US called for the death of Bush but plenty calling for the death of Obama, heck it was a question of the day on Facebook.
It was disgraceful to compare Bush to Hitler, because Hitler actually won an election legitimately.
If you support the war in Iraq, you supported our soldiers to die.
Protesting an illegal and unnecessary invasion of a country which had not attacked us, threatened to do so or even had the MEANS to do so is not "anti-American" nor is it "anti-troops." Supporting that illegal and unnecessary invasion is anti-American and most definitely ANTI-TROOP!
I have stated my complete and utter disgust at the republicans as well. I have called for Gov. Warner to slink away into the night like the pig that he is. I have railed against Flush Limbaugh too many times to count and during the election I railed against Mclame. A crook is a crook to me even if it was my own mother, can the same be said for the posters here?
I didn't see you mention Murtha in your original post. Why is he being brought up now?
It just seems odd that you hate both parties "equally", yet you either make up stuff, or are very easily led into believing lies that favor the conservative cause, while that behavior has yet to be seen favoring the left. It makes the claim of "equally" pretty damn suspect, honestly.
You've stated today that you have railed against Republicans but like your post that are filled with misquotes and half-truths I think you're just saying that because you've been called on it.
It was worse than the previuous terrorist attack on US soil when an American citizen, a righty, a war veteran no less bombed a building in Oklahoma.
So I guess America being the land of the free is abominable to you?
We are in agreement, to a degree. I don't care for either party, either. I find political "clubs" counter-productive to our country's welfare.
I'm not sure where you got out of my post that I am not an American, but I most assuredly am and can trace my lineage on both sides to the Revolutionary War. I'm completely supportive of the troops which is why I opposed Mr. Bush sending them where they didn't belong.
You really need to be better informed before you start posting nonsense.
Plenty of Democrats, liberals, progressives and Media Matters posters have.
Calling people names? You mean like "maggot"?
Misquoting things which were said by Reid, Durbin and Kerry doesn't bolster your case, it just makes you look stupid.
When did you become a "soldier"? I thought it was your BIL and some other relative.
BTW, objecting to the unnecessary and illegal invasion of Iraq was being SUPPORTIVE of the troops. The troops, the real ones, not the ones who just like to play troops on blogs, were sent by their superiors into Iraq under false pretenses.
And have you never watched a Vietnam movie? EVERYONE knows that what Kerry said was TRUE. My dad did two tours in Vietnam and he's a Republican... He admitted that everything Kerry said happened over there he could personally vouch for. Then he voted for Bush anyway. lol!
That is truly puzzeling to me. Bush lied placing you and others in harms way with the equipment we had not with what we needed(Rumsfeld) and you instead blame those who point out the lie and attempt to make sure we never ask another of our countrymen to risk their lives in a bogus war again. I've heard of blind patriotism but what you preach is not patriotism it's just blind and stupid.
Kerry's question:
Question. According to The New York Times July 20, 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld personally approved over 50 US airstrikes in Iraq which were expected to kill up to 50 innocent Iraqi civilians each. According to Pentagon policy at the time, any strikes expected to result in 50 or more civilian deaths as unavoidable collateral damage were to be approved personally by the Secretary. The media was informed of this policy in July 2003 when the chief US commander disclosed the sign-off policy. Does that policy continue today in Afghanistan, and, if so, in what form? Do White House or Pentagon officials sign off on bombing runs where civilian casualties are expected to be higher than 50? Which officials?
The Pentagon's response was evasive.
Kerry's comment was about how dumb Bush was. The context made that quite clear.
If soldiers don't want to be compared to those treating prisoners inhumanely, then they shouldn't treat prisoners inhumanely.
But I like how you excuse the criminal actions of some of the soldiers. The war was lost because Bush effed it up. He had no strategy and definitely had no legitimate reason for being in Iraq. The soldiers did purposely bomb villages. If you're okay with it fine. But you can't deny the facts of war.
And believe you me, there was enough outrage over the things your panties have been soiled by, otherwise you wouldn't know it happened. Regardless that most of the crap you're outraged by is false.
Oh, and now that Rush wants us to lose the war that Bush didn't finish are you going after him about the phony soldiers?
The GOP, on the other hand, voted down body armor for the troops more than once, voted against adequate vehicle armor for the troop carriers, and medical funding for returning veterans, to name just three times they voted against the troops while we were at war.
see...
WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!
I'm more shocked that Oprah didn't just buy the Olympics and start calling it the "O"lympics with her picture in each of the rings.
Interestingly, less than a year after their own administration left America with perhaps the greatest level of disrespect by the rest of the world we have ever seen, they blame this latest rejection on Obama. I'd say it will take the world, and America's reputation, awhile to recover from another disastrous Republican administration.
Similarly, in the case of the economy, Republicans are blaming Obama for the continued job losses. This is akin to the Republicans pushing a car (the economy) down a hill, then blaming the guy who jumps in to stop it (Obama) for the fact that it is rolling down the hill. The last thing they want is for Obama, and therefore, America, to succeed.
Expecting Republicans to put America first is like asking them to adhere to those Ten Commandments they want to stick everywhere. It ain't gonna happen.
Secondly, I just listened to what Rush had to say & tell me where he is wrong? Pres. Obama has flown all over the world apologizing for America & talking us down. Why would the OIC choose Chicago?
Lastly, it's the arrogance this President portrays that upsets so many of us. He is by no means a humble man. He went over there thinking he was going to charm the pants off the international community again & get his way. It didn't work. Also look into what his cronies would have gotten if this deal went through. (I mean we are talking Chicago-it's not exactly like "people" wouldn't be getting a substantial kick back out of the real estate deal)
He has been continued to campaign for the past 9 months. It's time this man quit trying to be everybody's buddy or People Magazine top 100 celebs & start doing his job for the citizens of this country. He can't find the time to talk with his own general in charge of the war but he has time to talk to Letterman or fly to Denmark? Crawford ain't looking so bad anymore!
I didn't even vote for Obama, but I do live in Chicago and I wanted the Olympics to be here, as did 72% of Chicagoans and 82% of people nationwide.
If the IOC didn't like Chicago, why did it include it in the top 4?
Obama should have never involved himself in it & that was my point! If he had too much on his plate to know what is going on at ACORN he shouldn't have the time to fly to Coppenhagen to plug for his city to get this deal. Act like the preseident of this so- called "crisis" of a country & let Mayor Daly take care of Chicago! But no way, Mr Smooth thought he had it in the bag.
Apparently $1.2 mil was the cost of the fuel alone! He wants everyone to tighten up for the "greater good" yet he spends tax money like as the proverbial drunken sailor. What was the size of this carbon footprint? It doesn't matter when it such a crucial matter is it? It's his arrogance that is breath taking and everyone loves when the arrogant gets slapped in the face!
The poll I referenced is from Sep 29, the latest poll available as far as I know, and it was done by Zogby.
Are you ignoring the Zobgy poll results simply because they contradict your viewpoint?
Do you live in Chicago? Apparently not or you would know how to spell the Mayor's last name.
A poll released this month by the Chicago Tribune showed residents almost evenly split, with 47 percent in favor of the bid and 45 percent against; that's a drop from the 2-1 support the newspaper found in a February poll.
The 2016 bid committee said its own poll last week shows support from 72 percent of Chicagoans. But even that segment has concerns-Chicago Tribune 9/30/2009
You're right I'm not from Chicago- I only have family there. Big deal I mispelled the mayor's name; I really don't think that was the biggest point of my posting.
It's apparent when some people have nothing substantial to say they go on the defensive and start trying to attack the person rather than debating the issue. Playground tactics.
The narcissist:
* Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates accomplishments, talents, skills, contacts, and personality traits to the point of lying, demands to be recognised as superior without commensurate achievements);
* Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion;
* Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions);
* Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation – or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (Narcissistic Supply);
* Feels entitled. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her unreasonable expectations for special and favourable priority treatment;
* Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends;
* Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with, acknowledge, or accept the feelings, needs, preferences, priorities, and choices of others;
* Constantly envious of others and seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of his or her frustration. Suffers from persecutory (paranoid) delusions as he or she believes that they feel the same about him or her and are likely to act similarly;
* Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, "above the law", and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he or she considers inferior to him or her and unworthy
There simply isn't enough room to specifically point out the example of each characteristic.
Dr. Vaknin States "I must confess I was impressed by Sen.Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident - a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects."
Barack Obama is a narcissist.
Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love believes "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist." Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves
My legs are pretty sturdy thank you and again thanks for the personal attacks, really. You know sometimes common sense works in trying to figure people out too you know. Was I making a clinical diagnosis or stating a comment-you decide. But if you are intersted I will get to my ICD-9 book on Monday & get back with ya!
So he admits that he's not qualified to make the judgment of Obama that he does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTpSWLQAXWw&NR=1
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=8381.0
He got his degrees from diploma mills - he doesn't really have a PhD at all!
And my point still stands, that no remote diagnosis is possible, so this is all nonsense and an unfounded personal attack on Obama, and signs of a serious lack of mental acuity on the part of NoNannyNeeded. How anyone can think that it's appropriate to remotely diagnose someone with a mental disorder, or that it'd even be someone one could accomplish, strains credulity.
That makes NNN either a troll, trying to derail a thread, or an imbecile.
You don't have a leg to stand on when you try to build your case upon the remote diagnosis of someone else by some other person!
But yeah, you were trying to assert that Obama has a personality disorder, which requires, ta da, a DIAGNOSIS! Without that diagnosis, your posting of the traits of a narcisistic personality disorder is out of line and unprofessional and totally without basis.
It doesn't matter if this guy you are referencing is an expert on narcissism. He's not, by the way, but even if he was, he could not even begin to make a suggestion that someone had one personality disorder or another without a personal exam and evaluation.
You can try to squirm and wiggle and make all kinds of excuses, but it doesn't change reality.
Reality is that there is NO basis, not any AT ALL, to declare that anyone that hasn't been personally examined and evaluated has any kind of personality disorder or mental illness.
This is not only common sense, but a professional requirement and an absolute necessity. I get that it totally blows your asssertion out of the water. Too bad, so sad, dumbo.
And people who try to claim without any basis in reality that Obama has a personality disorder doesn't get to whine and cry about imagined or real personal attacks.
But you clearly are an imbecile. If that bugs you, then, again, too bad, so sad, but if the shoe fits.....
* Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, "above the law", and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he or she considers inferior to him or her and unworthy
I mean it ain't like george bush invaded a nation based on lies his administration arrogantly defining any disagreement with their policies as not supporting the troops and/or unpatriotic. I mean george Bush never said that God wanted him to be president no feeling of ominpotence there! I could go on but YOUR getting boring and I've been here today too long and i'am going to do my other enjoyment play some music. Good night .
Bush at least held a reverence for the office he held. He speeches weren't full of "I". He never presented himself as savior of the nation and of the world. He respected the ovall office & what it represented so much he never went in without a jacket & tie. Obama wears what he wants. Bush supported and acknowledged our troops while Obama doesn't have time he needs to go talk to "Dave". The man is a narcisus. Bush did some things wrong you & I will likely not agree to what those were but I do not side with a preson, I side with a principle.
The quote was I think "God wants me to run for president". There's a difference. As a Christian I would expect him to pray about such a decision. As far as him winning-God always has a plan and that plan includes us to have free choice. We make our destiny but God already knows what it is. Bush was he meant to be president and I would say the same for Obama. Things happen for a reason. We get the governement we deserve.
-The people attending those teabag rallies are nuts and frankly no one should be listening to them accept their fellow nut cases.
-Liberals respect the Constitution; it's conservatives who trash it. Only a few conservatives were complaining with us when Bush was basically tearing up the Bill of Rights.
-If Europe has a better model than us on some things, we should imitate it. Stop accepting the status quo.
- Afghanistan troop levels is a very intricate issue. He could possibly be sending a whole lot of men and women to their deaths. It's not something you can decide overnight.
-Gitmo will take a little longer to close than the January deadline. It could have been closed a long time ago if municipalities in the US were willing to place the detainees in their prisons.
-The tea parties. How many were arrested? Any voilence, assults, looting, trash? Wow crazy radicals. Have you been to one or seen any other coverage that isn't slanted? Now the G20 protesters? ELF? They just must be "concerned citizens".
-Liberals view the Constitution as a living breathing document to change with the whims of the people. Conservatives see it as etched in stone to rules to guide the leaders & citizens of the country. If you truly respect the constitution then lets repeal Roe vs. Wade, drop the public option healthcare bill, keep gov't our of tv & radio, stop the bailouts and allow citizens to keep there guns. Oh ya, and allow a school sports team to pray before a game.
-Eurpoe is NOT a better model. Simple as that. Status Quo is asking the people of this country to stop standing up & speaking out about the corruption that is going on.
-Now the was is an intricate issue? Obama has never served a day in his life yet McChrystal has the experience and has waited a 1 1/2 months and still hasn't made a decision?
-Fine if he closes Gitmo take then in your neighborhood not mine!
-Conservatives tend to donate to religious institutions; Liberals don't. More people in this country identify themselves as conservative than liberal so conservative could possibly have the edge in donations; Liberals are willing to pay more in taxes to make sure those who have fallen through the cracks in our society have resources available to them; conservatives are not willing to pay taxes to help out their fellow Americans.
-There are no laws against being a nut case.
-Roe v. Wade falls under the Fourteenth amendment; the public option falls under Congress' duties to levy taxes and the General Welfare clause; the airwaves are publicly owned so we have a say in how it should be run; they bailouts are keeping us from going into a depression and they're basically loans; The Second amendment is qualified with "A well-regulated militia" which to me means if you want a gun go join the military; sport teams can pray on their own without the help of public officials organizing and endorsing it.
-The have better models on health care; labor rights; women's rights, etc. We should try to imitate those policies.
-What part of "the Afghanistan issue involves life and death so he must make a careful and cautious decision" that you don't understand? And McChrystal won't get the blame when the body bags start coming back.
-There's a couple prisons not to far from me. I'm sure we can hold them there.
Latest winner of the MMFA Ignorance Award of the Day. Congrats!!!
Hey Nanny, you can't have it both ways. Either god interjects itself into our lives or it doesn't. Which way is it? Make a decision and then stick to it. Thank you.
Talk about mysterious ways.
What a douche.
</pedantic mode>
Maybe it wouldn't be so obvious to you that Jesus in the answer if you hadn't been cramming it down your own throat for so long. Please don't angry when others have the nerve not to believe your self-comforting fairy tales, however much it may bother you.
There is not one study that shows that Christianity automatically makes you a better person. Study after study shows Christians are equally likely to steal, commit adultury, commit homosexual acts and commit violence when given the opportunity. White evangelical Christian are more likely than their neighbors to have negative views toward African Americans. However, I do notice that in some Christians, their beliefs make them more self-righteous and callous.
So please, can the bigoted attacks on on our moral superiors, the athiests, it tends to confirm what many of them say about religion.
Well, they were full of something...
"I believe that God wants me to be president."
--According to Richard Land, as quoted in ""Understanding the President and his God"
So now that we've cleared that up can we apply what you erroneously said about Barack Obama to what was correctly quoted about George Bush? You cons have a mysterious mind, you see and believe what you like regardless of reality. Are you realy complaing about jackets and suits...Pathetic.
By the way, why do you feel it's necessary to try to personally attack a person with child-like sarcasm instead of sticking to the issue? Do you reaaly feel like it somehow makes your point more relevant?
Are you saying that God was the reason for the election of Bush and/or Obama how ridiculous and insane. Things happen for a reason but that doesn't imply the hand of God at work. Tell me how do you distingush? You draw these conclusions as if their fact like President Obama is a narcisisis,as opposed to Geroge Bush who you obviously don't think is, but whose life has resembled the traits of one more than President Obama. But I'am no psychologist or psychiatrist are you,or Did you prey to God and he told you? Do you have some other proof other than your partisan conservative belief? We certainly have free will and in your case you should have exercised it to keep your mouth shut because YOU KNOW NOT OF WHAT YOU SPEAK!
What a douche.
Bush may have upset some other other countries but many of them are still out allies and many of the people in other countries love this country. If Pres Obama is concerned with us being likable why doesn't he show our allies the proper respect rather than chasing down dicatators? Why didn't he make the speech about Iran's nuclear materials sooner? Was he too concerned about he himself not having the "moment" with all nations watching. Yet he leaves our allies furious. snubs Prime Minister Brown, leaves Poland and the Czech Republic out to dry. Where has he ever mentioned how great our country is and what goodness we have brought to the world. There is a difference between truly loving you country and loving the country you want it to be.
As far a the "God thing". I'm sure other Christian people who have run for office felt god lead them in that direcrtion but they didn't win. Does that mean they were wrong? No. We don't always see the bigger picture but He does. For instance Sarah Palin ran as Vice Pres but didn't win. But she has touched many other people including bringing awareness to the children with special needs. She is also someone who dealt with a lot of prsssure including a teenage mother & she may have been an example to someone out there & may have changed their ife. Just becuase you don't win doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Failure can be very educational.
AlosWe do have more of a history the Bush adminstration.
He listens to the generals more than Bush did and is humble enough to let them speak their minds.
Yet another brilliant two-pronged self-contradicting wingnut thesis.
I hate those arrogant people who go around apologizing soooo much !! The absolute lack of humility in admitting imperfections makes me crazy!
In their myopic attempt to bring down the President, the Republicans just bashed the majority of Americans. Good job, Republicans.
Olympic fascism is *not* progress. Please educate yourself on the history and agenda of the IOC.
In Singapore at the 2005 vote, Tony Blair made a speech in support of London's 2012 bid. London won. In Guatemala at the 2007 vote, Putin made a speech in support of Sochi's 2014 bid. Sochi won.
Can you think of any reasons why Rio should have won? I can.
Maybe Rio won because the Plympics have never been held any farther south than Mexico City? Maybe it's because it appears to have a rich culture? Maybe it's because the peolple are so beautiful there, I don't know & frankly don't care.
But YOU claim that Obama "couldn't get it done". Apparently YOU expect him to be some sort of miracle worker and YOU think that his mere presence and appeal should have won over the IOC despite several valid reasons supporting Rio as the choice. And YOU think Obama is a failure because he couldn't secure the Olympics in Chicago. That's YOUR problem.
But you say "And yet Obama couldn't get it done", like that's some clever insight. The point was that it's not unreasonable for a leader of a nation to go nowadays, and people have complained that Obama went.
Now, that's a case of projection AND denial right there.
Yet, we were lambasted by the mainstream for being against Iraq and called traitors and worse for so much less. The democrats were persona non grata to the mainstream and our moderates were portrayed as radical, anarchists and lunatic fringe.
The rightwings fringe is seen as just average americans being a little upset. And no one is calling them out for inciting, treason and so much worse.
DeMint traveled to Honduras to tell S. America to reject this country. A sitting senator telling another country to disrespect his own country. And they still hold Fonda over our head.
So Drudge thinks Obama uses jingoistic rhetoric and is undermining our relationships with our allies?
What relationships we have with our allies are a direct result of our electing President Obama. Many of our relationships were strained before he took the oath of office. Now our allies seem more willing to work with us.
And "jingoistic"? I'm afraid that we have another case of the right not understanding a word they recently found. Funny, they never saw anything jingoistic during the last three Republican President's administrations.
Our economy is what needs to be worked on right now. I didn't hear any stories about the expense of the Obamas taking their separate jets and of course all the other support jets, vehicles and support crews that go along with each, they couldn't ride together? Talk about carbon footprint!
I'm glad Rio got them!
Blatant! Is it clear,now? Are the shadows of doubt bleached pristine? Are the excuses, stories, and lies justification, or political banter?
The Chicago political machine is the opposition, to the conservative juggernaut, and good guys finish last. If father knows best, why is he beating mother? You the man, that is why. The salt on the wound is dressed with mockery.
Jobs do not matter in political battles, when the objective is oligarchy. We are all Americans, or so I thought. The cancer of racism, cheers malignantly, denying the masses opportunity. What else is new?
It be it,
Ronin Kannushi.
The Olympics is not a celebration of sport, but of tyranny. Many of the comments to this article betray a total ignorance of what the IOC is and does, and I am disappointed Media Matters can't manage to do their research sufficiently to see through the fascism.
For a more incisive evaluation of the implications of the Olympics, please see:
Bush going to Denmark might not have been considered a big deal, as the economy wasn't in dire straights like it is now. That was an argument from the right this time, as they saw Obama going to argue in Chicago's favor as inconvenient to the budget and expensive to tax payers in the future.
In fact, I think liberals would have applauded it. Bush going to argue the case for Olympic expansion would have meant more jobs for the South. I would have been all for it.
Then you have been deceived. There is no historical precedence indicating the Olympics have longterm benefits to local or national economies.
For further reading, see "Obama's True Colours" or No2010.
Bush going to Denmark might not have been considered a big deal, as the economy wasn't in dire straights like it is now. That was an argument from the right this time, as they saw Obama going to argue in Chicago's favor as inconvenient to the budget and expensive to tax payers in the future.
In fact, I think liberals would have applauded it. Bush going to argue the case for Olympic expansion would have meant more jobs for the South. I would have been all for it.
Right away he flipped flopped on climate change and basically told the world to forget about working together on "nuclar" issues. It went downhill from there.
Most of the anger towards Bush, therefore, was focused on policy decision, not cosmetic stuff or personal issues.
Have conservatives simply lost their minds? Or is their hate mongering really starting to show it's true colors? It's like watching little children praise that their brother/sister didn't get something that they had. Spoiled, Selfish, Illogical, Hateful... I can write a longer more detailed list, but seriously... Who has time to analyze this lunacy?
So two things I get from this video... 1. Either they hate Obama, or 2. They hate foreigners... I'm going to bet BOTH, because of Bush's anti foreigner Visa policies.
Your text to link here...
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/02/olympic-committee-me.html
"Did you konw Jessy Jackson gave $400,000 to his mistress to buy her silence, please tell me what kind of 8-5 job he has to come to such a great wealth, except defrauding the poor."
My 1st thought:
Cash payout to mistress and her family.
It's 11 minutes long but well worth the watch.