By Donovan, November 25, 2009 at 9:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
As an Obama voter, I’ve been ranting about this theme for awhile now. In doing so, I’ve been treated like I squatted over the punch bowl after telling my Democratic friends that, in a way, I think it would be better to have John McCain in office right now. That way, if he was pussy-footing around Wall Street reform, people would be like “Oh no, another old white guy who’s too cozy with Wall Street. Time to protest.”
But with Obama, they’re like: “He’s cool. He’s not an old white guy. He plays basketball. He’s got it under control. Now, me the remote and cheese puffs.”
Virginia777 - The rest of the world doesn’t give a damn
about what Obama or Bush does for Americans. The only
thing that matters is foreign policy. On that count
Bush and Obama are the same. The president is not the
issue. America is the problem. It is more dangerous if
the world likes Obama and, therefore, lets its guard
down against America. http://theunpeople.blogspot.com/
As the silhouettes signify, there is no real face to put a blame but after a new
president comes in and does NOT undo what the previous president has done,
then he becomes the one responsible and he becomes the most dangerous and
from what I have seen from o, he has still yet to convince me he is really trying to
get this country back on its feet and hold those responsible for their action
accountable in court.
But it all smacks of the agendas that came from all those neocon think tanks that
cranked up during nixon’s terms and still continue to subvert everything to that
good ole white boy club of crooks, thieves and criminals. And we, the people,
STILL keep them in office with joe lieberwoman as the official poster wad on this.
But there is also a lot more that “liking” Obama going on, the left is (finally) mobilizing, and this mobilized left will ensure that THEIR (and not the right’s) policies are enacted.
Russian Paul - you are talking about a president who literally ran the country into the ground (George Bush). He is a man without ethics, a war-monger, a right-wing lunatic. A puppet of super-corrupt, yes “white” power, which has now ensconced itself as a Oligarchy.
To say that Obama, who has conducted many initiatives to break this abhorrent cycle of certain death for our country, often with great bravery (in the face of considerable opposition from considerable power) is “more” dangerous, is ridiculous.
You are focusing on the war in Afghanistan, neglecting the ruin of social programs (and even our society) in our own country.
If corporate America is in control, that is a legacy of the Bush administration, which I disagree that Obama is not challenging, he is!
Obama is not a right-wing lunatic like George Bush.
Virginia, Obama is clearly more dangerous. His foreign policies are exactly the
same, but because so many people like yourself like the man, it stifles opposition
and protest. The corporations run this country and under Obama, business runs
more smoothly for them.
By Greg, November 23, 2009 at 10:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
How is it that after Bush starts two wars, Obama is helping “war-monger[ers]”? I would think that peaceful negotiation has proven its value throughout history. (As both a religious value and a politcal strength) Until Obama actually does something bad for America, and rebuilding our relationships with our allies is not, and will never be bad for America. It allows us to work together on peaceful solutions, rather than fighting and destroying other nations.
By Miko, November 23, 2009 at 10:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Nice, but it’d be both more accurate and more effective if we changed both instances of “incapable of redirecting” to “unwilling to redirect.” Changing this policy is most certainly not something either was incapable of doing. It’s just that our election system is set up in such a way that anyone who can get his/her name on the ballot is bound to be someone who’s unwilling to do that.
This one certainly sums it up. I have often thought the
Democrats are more dangerous than the Republicans
because they kill just as many but they just do it with
a prettier face. With Bush, the whole world knew what
America was up to, but with Clinton or Obama people in
other countries tend to let their guard down and
actually seem to think that America is a decent
country. http://theunpeople.blogspot.com/
By Donovan, November 25, 2009 at 9:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
As an Obama voter, I’ve been ranting about this theme for awhile now. In doing so, I’ve been treated like I squatted over the punch bowl after telling my Democratic friends that, in a way, I think it would be better to have John McCain in office right now. That way, if he was pussy-footing around Wall Street reform, people would be like “Oh no, another old white guy who’s too cozy with Wall Street. Time to protest.”
But with Obama, they’re like: “He’s cool. He’s not an old white guy. He plays basketball. He’s got it under control. Now, me the remote and cheese puffs.”
Good one, Mr. Fish
Report thisBy EJH, November 24, 2009 at 3:54 pm Link to this comment
Virginia777 - The rest of the world doesn’t give a damn
Report thisabout what Obama or Bush does for Americans. The only
thing that matters is foreign policy. On that count
Bush and Obama are the same. The president is not the
issue. America is the problem. It is more dangerous if
the world likes Obama and, therefore, lets its guard
down against America. http://theunpeople.blogspot.com/
By samosamo, November 24, 2009 at 3:03 pm Link to this comment
As the silhouettes signify, there is no real face to put a blame but after a new
president comes in and does NOT undo what the previous president has done,
then he becomes the one responsible and he becomes the most dangerous and
from what I have seen from o, he has still yet to convince me he is really trying to
get this country back on its feet and hold those responsible for their action
accountable in court.
But it all smacks of the agendas that came from all those neocon think tanks that
Report thiscranked up during nixon’s terms and still continue to subvert everything to that
good ole white boy club of crooks, thieves and criminals. And we, the people,
STILL keep them in office with joe lieberwoman as the official poster wad on this.
By Virginia777, November 24, 2009 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment
and “everybody” does not like Obama, far from it.
But there is also a lot more that “liking” Obama going on, the left is (finally) mobilizing, and this mobilized left will ensure that THEIR (and not the right’s) policies are enacted.
Report thisBy Virginia777, November 24, 2009 at 1:37 pm Link to this comment
Russian Paul - you are talking about a president who literally ran the country into the ground (George Bush). He is a man without ethics, a war-monger, a right-wing lunatic. A puppet of super-corrupt, yes “white” power, which has now ensconced itself as a Oligarchy.
To say that Obama, who has conducted many initiatives to break this abhorrent cycle of certain death for our country, often with great bravery (in the face of considerable opposition from considerable power) is “more” dangerous, is ridiculous.
You are focusing on the war in Afghanistan, neglecting the ruin of social programs (and even our society) in our own country.
If corporate America is in control, that is a legacy of the Bush administration, which I disagree that Obama is not challenging, he is!
Obama is not a right-wing lunatic like George Bush.
Report thisBy Russian Paul, November 24, 2009 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment
Virginia, Obama is clearly more dangerous. His foreign policies are exactly the
Report thissame, but because so many people like yourself like the man, it stifles opposition
and protest. The corporations run this country and under Obama, business runs
more smoothly for them.
By Virginia777, November 24, 2009 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment
this is yet another outrageous Obama-bashing cartoon from Mr. Fish.
Who is more dangerous, Bush or Obama?? its beneath the dignity of anyone familiar with the truth, to even answer this question.
Report thisBy GW=MCHammered, November 23, 2009 at 10:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Bush chouse-shotguns us for 8 years.
Report thisObama works the ranks for nearly 1.
Some déjà vu chicane.
Time to pull the RPG Mr. Prez.
By NYCartist, November 23, 2009 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment
Miko, good point.
Report thisBy Greg, November 23, 2009 at 10:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
How is it that after Bush starts two wars, Obama is helping “war-monger[ers]”? I would think that peaceful negotiation has proven its value throughout history. (As both a religious value and a politcal strength) Until Obama actually does something bad for America, and rebuilding our relationships with our allies is not, and will never be bad for America. It allows us to work together on peaceful solutions, rather than fighting and destroying other nations.
Report thisBy Miko, November 23, 2009 at 10:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Nice, but it’d be both more accurate and more effective if we changed both instances of “incapable of redirecting” to “unwilling to redirect.” Changing this policy is most certainly not something either was incapable of doing. It’s just that our election system is set up in such a way that anyone who can get his/her name on the ballot is bound to be someone who’s unwilling to do that.
Report thisBy EJH, November 23, 2009 at 5:32 am Link to this comment
This one certainly sums it up. I have often thought the
Report thisDemocrats are more dangerous than the Republicans
because they kill just as many but they just do it with
a prettier face. With Bush, the whole world knew what
America was up to, but with Clinton or Obama people in
other countries tend to let their guard down and
actually seem to think that America is a decent
country. http://theunpeople.blogspot.com/