The best thing you have seen on the internet today?
Be afraid. Be VERY afraid!!!!
A Wall Street Journal article about the leader of the free world:
http://wallandbroad.net/2012/01/the-wall-street-journal-sums-up-barack-obama/
A pretty poor opinion piece in my opinion.
Really? It’s competently composed, so the writing itself can’t legitimately be referred to as “poor”. It’s factual, so the research/reportage can’t legitimately be referred to as “poor”. The conclusions it draws are pretty much spot on, so the author’s insight certainly isn’t “poor”. However, I can definitely see how many Americans would be highly offended by a piece such as this, as it doesn’t hold back in exposing their monumental gullibility in choosing charisma over competence and spin over substance when voting for their President. Nobody likes finding out they’ve been conned, and ‘shooting the messenger’ often occurs as a result. Still, the piece can hardly be called “poor”, simply because some readers are forced to confront realities they’ve previously preferred to ignore. Come to think of it, I can also see how some Australians may choose to denigrate articles such as this, as the “charisma over competence and spin over substance” scenario somewhat mirrors voting patterns in the last couple of federal elections.
can you show me the references that prove its factual?
Awesome!!!!!
Skip put this one in the video section!!!!!
can you show me the references that prove its factual?
Which parts? As far as I can see, all the facts cited as such are matters of public record, are they not (I’m fine with being shown otherwise)? A few examples:
The writer cites Obama’s voting record as evidence for his point - and all that stuff is documented for anyone who could be bothered looking it up. According to people who are far more informed than me on the subject, the records show he stategically voted “present” on controversial topics, so he’d have few positions to defend.
It’s common knowledge that central to Obama’s campaign was a promise to close Guantanamo Bay.
It’s on public record that Obama slandered that Boston cop before he knew the actual facts of the matter, and conversely, he did indeed insist that people shouldn’t jump to conclusions regarding jihad or terrorism about a guy who shouted “Allahu Akbar” while killing a crowd of unarmed “infidels”.
And it’d be tricky to find anyone who’d argue that the McCain / Palin ticket was a bit of a joke that was doomed from the start to fail.
There are some untruths in that link, however. For example, the author’s real name isn’t ‘Eddie Sessions’, it’s Alan Caruba.
While walking down the street one day, a senator is tragically hit by a truck and killed. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
“Welcome to Heaven,” says St. Peter. “Before you settle in, it seems
there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts,
you see, so we’re not sure what to do with you.”
“No problem, just let me in,” says the senator.
“Well, I’d like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we’ll do is
to have you spend one day in Hell and one in Heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.”
“There’s no need! I want to be in Heaven,” says the senator.
“I’m sorry but we have our rules.”
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator, and he goes down,down, down into Hell. The doors open, and he finds himself in the middle of a beautiful green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse, and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in formal dress. They run to greet him, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster and caviar.
Also present is the Devil, who is a very friendly guy who has a good
time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that,
before the senator realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a
big hug and waves while the elevator rises. The elevator goes up, up,
up, and the door reopens on Heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
“Now it’s time to visit Heaven,” St. Peter advises the senator.
So 24 hours pass, with the senator joining a group of contented souls
moving from cloud to cloud, playing their harps and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by, and St. Peter returns.
“Well, you’ve spent a day in Hell and another in Heaven. Now, you must
choose where you want to spend eternity.”
The senator reflects for a minute, then answers: “Well, I would never
have thought I would say this: I mean Heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better satisfied in Hell.”
So Saint Peter escorts him to the elevator, and down, down, down he goes into Hell. Now, the doors of the elevator open, and he is in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags. And it’s hot, hot, hot and the odor is just horrible. Sweltering hot. Hot and miserable. The Devil comes over to him and smoothly lays his arm around the senator’s shoulder.
“I-I-I don’t understand,” stammers the senator. “The day before
yesterday I was here, and there was a beautiful golf course and
clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, and danced and had a great
time. Now all there is is a wasteland full of garbage, and my friends
look miserable.”
The Devil looks at the senator, smiles, and says, “Yesterday we were
campaigning. Today you voted for us.”
Skip put this one in the video section!!!!!
Yeah, LOVE that! A mate of mine left for Steamboat last Tuesday. Has there been any more snow there since that big fall?
. . . The Devil looks at the senator, smiles, and says, “Yesterday we were
campaigning. Today you voted for us.”
So true!!!
Be afraid. Be VERY afraid!!!!
A Wall Street Journal article about the leader of the free world:
http://wallandbroad.net/2012/01/the-wall-street-journal-sums-up-barack-obama/
A pretty poor opinion piece in my opinion.Really? It’s competently composed, so the writing itself can’t legitimately be referred to as “poor”. It’s factual, so the research/reportage can’t legitimately be referred to as “poor”. The conclusions it draws are pretty much spot on, so the author’s insight certainly isn’t “poor”. However, I can definitely see how many Americans would be highly offended by a piece such as this, as it doesn’t hold back in exposing their monumental gullibility in choosing charisma over competence and spin over substance when voting for their President. Nobody likes finding out they’ve been conned, and ‘shooting the messenger’ often occurs as a result. Still, the piece can hardly be called “poor”, simply because some readers are forced to confront realities they’ve previously preferred to ignore. Come to think of it, I can also see how some Australians may choose to denigrate articles such as this, as the “charisma over competence and spin over substance” scenario somewhat mirrors voting patterns in the last couple of federal elections.
I have to say I disagree. Yes its competently composed. Yes it has some ‘fact’s.
The very first line says ‘I have this theory’ so its clearly not all factual (however illegitimate that is). I haven’t been conned as I didn’t vote for him. So I can hardly be construed to have shot the messenger or even be particularly biased. In my opinion it is clearly an opinion piece. Incidentally I am very much not afraid. The whole article is a string of what the author considers to be Obamas flaws or mistakes mixed with a few apparently rhetorical questions. Although I can see how some Americans would actually take this article as fact, he is preaching to the converted and merely stoking the easily stoked flames of anger in the American right.
Notice how he mentions communism as early as possible? I can also see how ‘some’ Australians might not understand the intricacies behind doing that. Its a nice cheap trick often used by the right in the US to stir up the somewhat irrational fear that the yanks still have of reds under the bed. Obama could hardly be called a commie…left leaning maybe but about as close to a communist as John Howard was to being a nazi. Yet he attempts to paint him with that brush without a hint of justification. Poor form and lazy.
Half the article concentrates on saying that he had an easy ride and was groomed as a politician - Yawn. That’s hardly unusual.
The article is erratic. It starts out saying that he never makes decisions on big things yet either fails to mention the times he has (like healthcare) or like the two points below if he disagrees with them, doesn’t consider them as big decisions.
Fact- He wanted to close Guantanamo - well he did say that before he was elected and was voted in on that platform.
Opinion - that closing it is a bad idea.
Fact- He wanted civil trials.
Opinion- That that is a bad idea.
“Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only
as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have manoeuvred
and manufactured this pathetic individual’s life”....I couldn’t find a reference for this fact either.
I could go on but I don’t think I need more examples to show that it is an opinion piece. Whether his opinions are correct is a whole new argument.
Most American presidents in my life time have come across to some extent as crack pots however I don’t really see any reason to be more afraid of Obama then say Bush Jnr.
Not really to keen on going over this more as we clearly disagree but if so we should take it to a new thread so we don’t put the others to sleep.
Skip put this one in the video section!!!!!
Wow. Imagine falling in that. You would be there for so long trying to get out! I don’t even know If I could ride that very well, I don’t have the right gear for starters.
Be afraid. Be VERY afraid!!!!
A Wall Street Journal article about the leader of the free world:
http://wallandbroad.net/2012/01/the-wall-street-journal-sums-up-barack-obama/
A pretty poor opinion piece in my opinion.Really? It’s competently composed, so the writing itself can’t legitimately be referred to as “poor”. It’s factual, so the research/reportage can’t legitimately be referred to as “poor”. The conclusions it draws are pretty much spot on, so the author’s insight certainly isn’t “poor”. However, I can definitely see how many Americans would be highly offended by a piece such as this, as it doesn’t hold back in exposing their monumental gullibility in choosing charisma over competence and spin over substance when voting for their President. Nobody likes finding out they’ve been conned, and ‘shooting the messenger’ often occurs as a result. Still, the piece can hardly be called “poor”, simply because some readers are forced to confront realities they’ve previously preferred to ignore. Come to think of it, I can also see how some Australians may choose to denigrate articles such as this, as the “charisma over competence and spin over substance” scenario somewhat mirrors voting patterns in the last couple of federal elections.
I have to say I disagree. Yes its competently composed. Yes it has some ‘fact’s.
The very first line says ‘I have this theory’ so its clearly not all factual (however illegitimate that is). I haven’t been conned as I didn’t vote for him. So I can hardly be construed to have shot the messenger or even be particularly biased. In my opinion it is clearly an opinion piece. Incidentally I am very much not afraid. The whole article is a string of what the author considers to be Obamas flaws or mistakes mixed with a few apparently rhetorical questions. Although I can see how some Americans would actually take this article as fact, he is preaching to the converted and merely stoking the easily stoked flames of anger in the American right.
Notice how he mentions communism as early as possible? I can also see how ‘some’ Australians might not understand the intricacies behind doing that. Its a nice cheap trick often used by the right in the US to stir up the somewhat irrational fear that the yanks still have of reds under the bed. Obama could hardly be called a commie…left leaning maybe but about as close to a communist as John Howard was to being a nazi. Yet he attempts to paint him with that brush without a hint of justification. Poor form and lazy.Half the article concentrates on saying that he had an easy ride and was groomed as a politician - Yawn. That’s hardly unusual.
The article is erratic. It starts out saying that he never makes decisions on big things yet either fails to mention the times he has (like healthcare) or like the two points below if he disagrees with them, doesn’t consider them as big decisions.
Fact- He wanted to close Guantanamo - well he did say that before he was elected and was voted in on that platform.
Opinion - that closing it is a bad idea.Fact- He wanted civil trials.
Opinion- That that is a bad idea.“Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only
as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have manoeuvred
and manufactured this pathetic individual’s life”....I couldn’t find a reference for this fact either.I could go on but I don’t think I need more examples to show that it is an opinion piece. Whether his opinions are correct is a whole new argument.
Most American presidents in my life time have come across to some extent as crack pots however I don’t really see any reason to be more afraid of Obama then say Bush Jnr.Not really to keen on going over this more as we clearly disagree but if so we should take it to a new thread so we don’t put the others to sleep.
Not even close, but for the sake of harmony on here, I’ll leave it alone. Sigh.
Huh????? 
Ohhh!!!!!