This is not satire.  This is humor for the mentally challenged.

I thought this column was very funny and right on target. That really does seem to be the objective of many of the people posting on this site - to make sure Democrats lose the election and Republicans win again. They violate the most obvious dictates of common sense to push their ridiculously unrealistic agendas.
I just got this in my email and thought people would enjoy it. It’s a symposium of well known people giving their thoughts on an age-old question. 

WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?

BARACK OBAMA: The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a change! The chicken wanted change!
JOHN MC CAIN: My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.

HILLARY CLINTON: When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to ensure - right from Day One! - that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn’t about me.

GEORGE W. BUSH: We don’t really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.

DICK CHENEY: Where’s my gun?

COLIN POWELL: Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road.

BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken. It depends on what your definition of “chicken” is.

JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken’s intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.

AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white? We need some black chickens

DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won’t realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he’s acting by not taking on his current problems before adding new problems.

NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he’s guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.

PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.

DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I’ve not been told.

ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.

JERRY FALWELL: Because the chicken was gay! Can’t you people see the plain truth? That’s why they call it the ‘other side.’ Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And if you eat that chicken, you will become gay, too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like ‘the other side.’ That chicken should not be crossing the road. It’s as plain and as simple as that.

GRANDPA: In my day we didn’t ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.

BARBARA WALTERS: Isn’t that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the r oad.

ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.

JOHN LENNON: Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.

ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?

COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one???

This attempt at “satire” wasn’t all that funny. In fact, it seemed kind of stupid to me. The whole notion that Obama is the “savior” who will undo all the mess caused by BushCo, is extremely naive. Obama is just another sleazeball politician, amongst 100’s of other sleazeball politicians that we call our ‘leaders’. Face it people, there is no hope in either the Democratic or Republican parties. Your ONLY salvation is to forgo the status quo and vote for independent and 3rd party candidates.

By troublesum, July 14 at 2:04 pm #

Give it a rest cyrena.  I was never a Hillary supporter and am not now.

~~~~~~~

This is funny troublsum. There are more than 40 posts from you, indicating that you were VERY MUCH a Hillary Supporter and an OBAMA HATER, as far back as January, if not sooner.

So, maybe you have a case of Alzheimer’s, which means that I apologize for having accused you of being a drunk in the past. (because that’s exactly how disingenuous your posts have been.)

Don’t ever try to commit any crimes. You’d never get away with it.

In my opinion, the Democratic party will be better off if they do lose this election. Obama’s incredibly weak plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq over 16 months without actually ending the fighting and killing, his willingness to take over Bush’s “War On Terror,” and his plans to escalate the war in Afghanistan are mind numbingly wrong for our country, will result in a one term presidency, and damage the Democratic party beyond repair. I’m a life long Democrat and I hope he loses….

Issywise,

Well of course it is the voters’ faults, we’re the morons who keep voting Democrats and Republicans into office.  We’re the fools who keep going to the ballot box and pulling the lever for “the lesser of two evils”.  We’re the ones who figure that if you don’t like McCain you have to vote for Obama, or vice versa.

It is not the responsibility of politicians to educate the voter, that responsibility belongs to the voter.  If you expect a politician (in our current system) to educate you, you’re expecting to get taken for a ride.  It is not in a politician’s best interest to educate you; it is in his/her best interest to spin/misinform you.  And they can get away with it because we don’t hold them responsible.

But your logic regarding primaries is faulty, terribly faulty.  Moreover, your understanding of the word “disenfranchisement” is also faulty.  For the record, as a non-partisan voter, i deeply resent that my state tax money is used to fund the party selection process.  My state (MI, see, i am one of the disenfranchised that you feel so strongly for) has open primaries.  But it could easily have closed primaries, which would force me to either register with one of the parties or not be allowed to vote.  Of course, nobody cries “disenfranchisement” in those situations.

No one was prevented from casting a vote that counted towards the election of a candidate in Florida or Michigan.  Obviously, voting in a primary isn’t a right or closed caucuses/primaries would have already been declared unconstitutional.  In the case of my state, the state politicians were warned repeatedly of the consequences of their actions (wholly unnecessary actions), yet they took them anyhow. 

So what else can be done, allow anyone to break the rules?  Accept the results of a poll where not everyone is on the ballot?  A re-vote was not possible because it would have required “disenfranchising” everyone who voted in the Republican Primary instead, or allowing people to vote twice.  Furthermore, the MI Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to go through the voter rolls to disqualify voters from the first, $10M sham primary.

The problem did not reside with the DNC, the problem resided with my state politicians who had much more important things to worry about when they decided to fool with the primary schedule.  And don’t you worry yourself, those politicians and i will be dealing with our issues here shortly.

But, no, this primary issue is no big deal in the grand scheme of things.  It’s only a big deal if one figures their civic responsibility to be nothing more than voting for President every four years.

Finally, to use any of the founders in an argument about party politics is bunk.  First, there were no political parties at the time.  Second, most of those men thought political parties most stupid and foul.

Aside, where you petitioning the DNC to count MI and FL fully before there was a result you didn’t like?  Were you marching in the streets to defend my “rights” when it mattered, or just once it mattered to you?  As one of the “disenfranchised” i’ve been pissed off about this issue since before it was an issue for you.  None of the candidates thought it was wrong until one of them didn’t get her way, and then it became a big deal…i don’t have any g-rated language for that.  (And i’m not an Obama supporter so that ain’t the issue.)

If you want to fix our political system, quit voting for Democrats and/or Republicans.  The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Issy:  I wasn’t commenting on the disenfranchisement of voters.  Of course they were. And there will be more of the same this election since nothing has been “fixed” to assure that it will not happen.  And let’s not forget the black boxes that malfunction or do the ole switcheroo of votes. 

I wasn’t attacking you. I thought jack’s comment was a twist on the usual bs that Nader cost Gore the election. Gore WON and I voted for Gore not Nader just for the record. The election was stolen from Gore by the bush crime family not Nader voters.  That point has always been a sticking point with me so yea, Jack’s remark made me laugh.  But it had nothing to do with your post since I happen to agree with it.

Troublesum…here we go again….(Sorry this is a bit off-topic but you said it, I didn’t.)

Obama changed his “position on Iraq now that the surge is working.”

THE PURPOSE OF THE SURGE WAS NOT TO REDUCE U.S. CASUALTIES IN IRAQ. IT WAS TO PROVIDE THE SECURITY NECESSARY FOR IRAQ TO TAKE CHARGE OF ITS DESTINY AND BUILD ITS DEMOCRACY.

Over a year into the surge and Iraq is no closer to “democracy” than it was before the surge. Our casualties have dropped because we’re no longer engaging insurgents as before. If we were to begin troop withdrawals today and completely exit the country in say, two years, Iraq would fail.

The surge IS NOT working. You’re translating fewer casualties as more “democracy” and it just ain’t so.

Care to discuss our ongoing successes in Afghanistan?

Issy: I am not “self blinded”. I have seen what Obama has to offer and sorry I’m not buying it.  He has twice stepped all over our civil liberties by voting to re-authorize the patriot act and voting for the fisa bill. That is enough to lose my vote.  To say nothing of his hawk like rhetoric towards Iran because he promised aipac he’d take care of them in the most pandering I’ve seen done in a speech in a long time.

And Iraq?  Sounds like he’s keeping troops there for a long time as well.  That is, the ones he’s not sending to Afghanistan.  You know the tens of thousands he will have once he institutes the draft?

Hey, if I’m self blinded, what do you call the obama supporters who can’t see that he sounds an awful lot like bush and mccain and that change has nothing to do with his agenda?

DuncanIdaho (July 15 at 3:54 am)

Interesting post.

Left’s beliefs to blank slate of Obama: Were you referring to blank in Afrikaans meaning WHITE?

My ‘former left’ Goldwater moments:

First:
How many ‘left’ support – and I mean really did, or do support – the individuals who put their lives on the line for the South African anti-apartheid movement in America: from Marilyn Buck, to Tom Manning, Jaan Laaman, etc.? Without their ‘terrorist’ pressure on the US corporate structure, there would NEVER have been the sanctions that were imposed on the National Party, which finally pushed it to ‘reconciliation’ with the ANC. Hollywood Stars could have ranted till they were blue in the face, corporations would have just smiled, and continued to support and invest in the Nationalist Government.
If the Anti-Apartheid sanctions had not been imposed, I seriously doubt the Afrikaner govt., would have capitulated. At that time R1.00 was worth $2.00; now $1.00 is worth R7.00.
How did Mandela and the ANC, thank their PRIMARY American ‘left’ anti-apartheid supporters? Not even with a letter of ‘Thank You’, let alone a bill or request of support, to the US Government, requesting their Amnesty. My letter to Mandela, requesting the ANC’s support for their US anti-apartheid political supporters Amnesty, in approximately 1997, is still rotting in his, and the ANC’s memory-hole.
If the ‘left’ truly supported the alleged ideals, they profess to hold so dear – what could they be saying to Mandela and the ANC?

Secondly:
When I was in prison in the ‘New South African Government’: Virtually every black or coloured in that prison – of which I was one of the very few whites – hated me. That I was in prison, to support the disclosure, about the origins of AIDS, which approximately half of them, if not more, were dying from, was irrelevant. I was called an ‘AWB’ – Afrikaaner Weerstands Beweging – supporter. They preferred the prisons then, under apartheid, i.e. segregated. (Under apartheid, prisoners who wanted to work, could be hired to work, by farmers needing a few extra labourers, or corporations. They were fed and paid, less than standard wages, but still something. The money was put into a prison bank account, for the date of their release.)
Irrespective thereof, most current black and coloured prisoners consider themselves to have been better off under apartheid, where their job prospects were better. Unemployment under apartheid, even for blacks, was nowhere near what it is now, particularly since the end of apartheid, the new government does pretty much nothing about the millions of undocumented African ‘immigrants’. These black prisoners thought that the Apartheid government had been more honest with them, than the current ANC government. Most of them – being unemployed, thanks to the South African Goverments current immigration policy for every thief and drug dealer from Nigeria, and elsewhere in Africa – actually commit crimes, in order to go to prison; particularly when they fall pregnant. The irony – in the last election, the ANC offered any black who voted for them – a free roast chicken. They voted for their—free roast chicken—ANC in their millions). In prison, they get maternity medical care, they don’t have to work, get free food, a warm bed, and free television. The violence occurring in black and coloured townships is now worse than it was ever under apartheid – then conducted primarily by BOSS and the South African Police. Now the violence against blacks and coloureds is criminal violence by their own fellow blacks and coloureds, and African immigrants ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’.
A recent Capetown newspaper headline, stated “Africans don’t like Africans’. It could have added, because they don’t like themselves. Read OUT OF AMERICA: A BLACK MAN CONFRONTS AFRICA, by Keith B. Richburg. I came to the uncomfortable conclusion that Verwoerd’s separate development (apartheid) policy had been a good idea, the problem being that it could have been better implemented, with a little less fanatical attachment to ‘white superiority’. Simplistically, even under apartheid, where all the African tribes had their own ‘bantustan’ areas – ruled by their respective tribal black leaders, there had been so much corruption, and ‘breeding’, that many of those blacks chose NOT to live under their own leaders, but to find work, by leaving their relevant tribal homelands. Now the entire country is their tribal homeland, and their leaders are treating them with the proverbial liberal ‘speak with forked tongue’ SubPrime Farmer Godfather Robert, hammer. They have no more ‘white homeland’ to go to, where they could at least get a decent job, unless they are one of the current black elite.

Thirdly:
How many of the liberal left are aware of the numerous ‘far right’ compounds, sometimes called ‘reservations’, scattered across mostly the mid west. These ‘far-right’ reservations are ruled by the people who live there, who have pooled their resources, and created sustainable communities, with their own militia defences. You don’t get in, unless you know someone there, or are invited. Many of their inhabitants, are former military, and their families. Not even the FBI goes there. They do their own thing, don’t bother anyone, and created their own intentional ecological self sufficient sustainable communities. According to Michael Martin, many of these ‘far-right’ reservations adopted Native American views in terms of how they are to ecologically live.

And the usual gang of suiciders humorlessly denounces the only man who is in a position to reverse the criminal excesses of the last 7 1/2 years…..

Yeah. Let’s snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

I grew up during the anti-Viet Nam War years.  I saw how “Dump The Hump” put Nixon in the White House—the most criminal President prior to President Willie Sutton. 

I saw how the Democrats let the VIABLE candidates in 1972 be destroyed so Nixon could run against a decorated WWII hero, and STILL say “Amnesty, Acid and Abortion”.

I saw Carter in 1976 be the last Democrat to win a majority in the Electoral College AND the popular vote—-that’s 32 years, folks.  And lose in 1980 to Reagan’s glib tongue and “Voo-doo Economics” (see EJ Dione on its final de-frocking).

The losses in 1980, 1982, 1984, 1988, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004 all make me want to puke.

1996? You say? But Clinton won.  Did he? Did he really?  He blew an ENORMOUS lead to win a plurality in the popular vote. He failed to take back a single seat in the Senate or House.  His coat-tails which should have been huge were non-existent.  He and his war-team made a conscious decision to cut his ties to the Senatorial and Congressional AND Gubernatorial candidates and concentrate on just barely squeaking by.  How refreshing is the 50 State Strategy!

American Democracy has been receiving body blows for 40 years with little landed in return.  It’s still standing, but it needs a respite. 

We need to stop allowing the Willie Suttons to run the banks.

Eh-y-up.

Conservatives most definitely do not understand humor

Obama does what they tell him to: get out of that church; change your position on Iraq now that the surge is working, etc.

Give it a rest cyrena.  I was never a Hillary supporter and am not now.  I only thought that since the msm was telling her to get out, she ought to stay in.  I don’t like the assumption on their part that they should decide what’s good for the country.
Anyone who does the opposite of what the pundits say they should has a good case, I think.

jackpine:  Bravo! 

“You’re probably one of those Gore voters who caused Nader to lose the 2000 election, aren’t you? “

That is the best line I’ve seen on here yet. Made me laugh out loud.

Issywise,

Let’s get one thing straight first: i am one of those votes that “didn’t get counted”.  But i do not feel like going through this whole argument again (not after the bert roundabouts) that there was zero disenfranchisement because they were primaries.  In some states i wouldn’t be allowed to vote in the primary anyhow, because i’m not a registered member of a political party.  In any case, save your little standing up for the unheard voices schtick for someone who A. cares B. is stupid enough to believe your lack of facts and knowledge.

Second, Obama did not silence those voices.  In Michigan it was the Senate and the Supreme Court that made a revote impossible.  And it was a bunch of hack Democrats who made the mess in the first place.

I do expect more from my politicians than we get, Issywise, which is why i don’t vote for Democrats or Republicans.  It is you who need to realize that supporting either or these parties is what leads us to this mess in the first place.  A politician’s loyalty is to his/her source of power/money; hence they are loyal to their party and its money source…not their constituents.

What i find truly laughable is that anyone still believes that electing a Democrat will be any better than electing a Republican…or electing no one at all.

You’re probably one of those Gore voters who caused Nader to lose the 2000 election, aren’t you?

Sue Cook & jackpine savage:

I do not find it “laughable” that any politician or group of politicians feel free to cancel or half void millions of American votes—-and you two are examples of why I see no humor in it.

We don’t need some knight in shining honor to finally respect our role in the political process. All politicians play within boundaries established by the expectations of the voting public. It is better for us to expect more of our politicians than to smile with smug superiority when our cynicisms are validated.  Here is a clue for you-all: your cynicism is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I don’t think it is any better to sit back and glorify in further proof of your “sophistication” in the form of political abuses you expect and accept than it is to actually promulgate those abuses.

I find it hard to distinguish your attitude from Obama’s.  Sure he’s a self-serving slickster who’d sell his Granny’s dentures to get ahead, but you just sit by and watch and say, “I told you so—ain’t I superior?”

O please simplistic nonsense.If winning means behaving like George Bush what have you won.He can win this time and stand for something.When you stand for change and do what exactly what has been done before what do y0ou stand for.Lie in the primaires to win that and then lie in the general to win that.I guess it comes as a surprise to people that you end up with a liar.So I guess the updated version of Obama’s book should be “Audacity Of Lying”.

jackpine savage,

Good post!, my sentements exactly!

Concerned that the vote suppression practices that took place at the last election had not been dealt with by Justice thus were likely to be repeated this year, Senator Leahy asked the Attorney General if he intended to prevent them from happening again.

The Attorney General’s answer was of course unadulterated claptrap. So we can again expect letters being sent to immigrant American citizens informing them that they’re not allowed to vote, potential voters forced to spend five plus hours in line waiting to vote, precincts closing their doors preventing waiting voters from voting, precincts ‘running’ out of ballots…

Those affected will be Obama voters so even though he’s campaigning to win, his supporters will be prevented from making it possible.

As I recall, Kerry’s big advantage was supposed to be that he was “electable”—a Vietnam vet who was also an antiwar activist, and was both for and against the current set of wars.  He had something for everyone!

But I have to agree that the Democrats don’t seem to want to win.  They don’t appear to stand for anything at all, in fact.

Meanwhile back at Hillary’s closed campaign headquarters, Will Comment, temporary non-campaign director issued the following statement:

“We refuse to accept that Barack Obama actually may win, which is why we are re-grouping to launch a divide and conquer contest in the up-coming convention.”

When asked if he believed Hillary could capture the nomination, Comment responded, “Well of course, that’s where the conquer comes in. Taking the nomination away from Mr. Obama is our clear goal, that is our intention. That is the only way we can be absolutely certain there will not be a Democrat winner in November.”

He then invited the press to join him and have some spiked punch and laced cookies.

The people who feel betrayed by Obama are laughable.  What, you didn’t think that he was a politician?  You think that anyone besides Kucinich wouldn’t be doing the same thing? (Ok, Clinton wouldn’t have moved right, she was already there…just like her husband.)

But all of this misses the important point.  Electing Democrats isn’t going “change” anything.  The Democratic Party gets its money and its marching orders from the same people that the Republicans do…and those people ain’t us.

The entirety of the Democratic Party is already a satire.

Imagine if you will, Obama—the first viable African-American presidential candidate, standing at the courthouse door telling other Americans that their votes cannot count because of “rules” and the “need to maintain order.” Imagine now that it is 1950 and the man blocking the door is Bull Connor, segregationist sheriff, wearing the same outfit as Obama.

Imagine further that both men are acting for the same purpose—because they want to hold power.

Hey, all of that did happen!  This year, Obama told millions of his fellow Democrats that they couldn’t count and if they did count it would only be as half persons and he used the same rationales that Jim Crow segregationist used when they disenfranchised other Americans a half century ago.

Hey, that’s not funny at all! Who is that guy? What does he really believe? What won’t he do to get elected?

So, troublesum works with those half-dozen other liberal bloggers at lose.on.org.

Not gonna work trouble…give it up. Your girl lost.

Bottom line is, people who are supporting Obama obviously don’t give a shit about the corporate media, because only old foggy DNC’ers like YOU do. Ya know the kind that support the neoliberalism of the Clintons. The crowd that pushed NAFTA down everybody’s throat, without a flippin’ care in the world for the ‘common person’.

So, you just keep fooling yourself, or sign up with PUMA, but you’re not kidding anyone else that your a closet Repug and anxious to for ANYTHING that would cause Obama to lose, EVEN IF IT MEANS A MCCAIN and another RADICAL RIGHT WING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE!

That’s exactly how demented you are. McCain gets in, and you and Hillary will both be running for your lives.

Lies and deception are what it takes to win because 50% of the electorate doesn’t bother to vote.  The country as a whole is to the left of center according to polls on the major issues like the war, health care and the economy, but any candidate who bases his/her candidacy on what the people want is destroyed by the corporate media.  A president must be made in the image of his corporate owners.  God forbid that we have a president who believes he owes anything to the common man.  Elections are about preserving the system not changing it.  The “change” Obama campaigned on is the kind corporate America believes in which is none at all.  Obama is the best thing that could have happened this year to those who don’t want change.  And people thought Bush/Cheney were masters of Orwellian language.