|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 8, 2008 20:20:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Nov 9, 2008 16:09:59 GMT -5
Must everything be Obamacized???
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Nov 9, 2008 18:40:46 GMT -5
Must everything be Obamacized??? Agreed. With all due and great respect to Steve, this isn't really a legit news item but more an artist conception than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 9, 2008 19:36:16 GMT -5
Must everything be Obamacized??? You gotta give the artist credit for an idea that's probably generating him a nice bit of cash right now.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 9, 2008 23:10:49 GMT -5
The guy is wasting his time as Obama doesn't even like The Beatles. Obama is the first U.S. President of the post-Beatles' generation so why should he give a damn about them. I love old Macca trying to look hip and relevant(once again) by name-checking Obama at a British MTV event. Hey Paul, Obama probably doesn't even know or care who you are, you old git!
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Nov 10, 2008 21:30:31 GMT -5
The guy is wasting his time as Obama doesn't even like The Beatles. Obama is the first U.S. President of the post-Beatles' generation so why should he give a damn about them. I love old Macca trying to look hip and relevant(once again) by name-checking Obama at a British MTV event. Hey Paul, Obama probably doesn't even know or care who you are, you old git! ...and now Sir Paul wants to serenade them as well?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 10, 2008 21:50:53 GMT -5
. . . Obama is the first U.S. President of the post-Beatles' generation so why should he give a damn about them . . . Hey Paul, Obama probably doesn't even know or care who you are, you old git! John, is that really fair? Obama did chose the Stones over the Beatles, but that doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't like them. And, Obama is only 2 years younger than I am, so I'm sure he is up with Paul.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 11, 2008 0:03:04 GMT -5
. . . Obama is the first U.S. President of the post-Beatles' generation so why should he give a damn about them . . . Hey Paul, Obama probably doesn't even know or care who you are, you old git! John, is that really fair? Obama did chose the Stones over the Beatles, but that doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't like them. And, Obama is only 2 years younger than I am, so I'm sure he is up with Paul. Wait a minute, President-elect Obama was born on August 4, 1961 making him 47. Your bio, sayne, says that you were born in 1940! Are you the "Forever 49 Guy?" The video I saw of Paul makes him look pandering and besides, Paul is clearly drunk off his ass so the sincerity of his remarks are dubious. Not everyone is always in awe of Paul. Steve gives a link to a video where the band The Stills totally mock Paul(We'll need to find something for him to do next time.") in relating a story where they said no to him on joining them on stage or in the studio(it is not totally clear). The Stills is an indie Montreal band that opened for Paul at Quebec www.uncensoredinterview.com/vlogs/9773-The-Stills-Shutting-Down-Paul-McCartney
|
|
|
Post by rockstar2866 on Nov 11, 2008 1:03:22 GMT -5
John, to be fair...as a pretty big fan of the Stills...I'm pretty certain they're fucking around. You can tell by the looks they're giving as they say that.
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Nov 11, 2008 6:01:12 GMT -5
Paul's recent trip to the Middle East re-established that, when it comes to politics, he's a mile wide and and an inch deep. I suspect he was trying to fit in at the MTV awards with his shout-out to Obama voters--what a love-in for the new PEOTUS that was. As I said on another thread, Paul seemed really out of place there. And he was behaving a little oddly, come to think of it. Well, more oddly than usual. Evidently he came out on stage before he was supposed to. Drunk is a distinct possibility. He was in Liverpool, after all. I wish the Brits would shut up about our election. Wasn't it just a decade ago they were ga-ga over their own fresh young face on the political scene, and didn't that work out well? We've got more than enough homegrown fawning going on. Some groups are already pushing for a national holiday honoring Obama--this before he has served (excuse me, according to his transition team co-chair, "ruled") for even a single day. Time Magazine says he is a "prince born of imagination, history and hope." So-called "free" tickets for the inauguration are reportedly going for $40,000 on e-Bay. Babies are being named Barack--and Michelle. And on and on and on. Since Tuesday night I've had the uneasy feeling that this must be what it is like to live in the nascent days of a dictatorship, where everything is said, written, created or reworked to pay homage to the charismatic but duplicitous new leader--including the arts. ESPECIALLY the arts. You may find the Pepper/Obama art cute, Steve, but I find it creepy. It's nice that you admire the artist's capitalistic spirit, particularly since capitalism is on its last legs in this country (see: still another bailout, "auto industry"). But may I ask, in the interest of fairness, will you be hawking any "cute" anti-Obama merchandise?
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Nov 11, 2008 6:08:19 GMT -5
John, is that really fair? Obama did chose the Stones over the Beatles, but that doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't like them. And, Obama is only 2 years younger than I am, so I'm sure he is up with Paul. Wait a minute, President-elect Obama was born on August 4, 1961 making him 47. Your bio, sayne, says that you were born in 1940! Are you the "Forever 49 Guy?" I spit out my orange juice when I saw that too, John.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 11, 2008 9:38:03 GMT -5
But may I ask, in the interest of fairness, will you be hawking any "cute" anti-Obama merchandise? sadie: I'm not hawking this poster, nor any other Obama merchandise. I'm not getting a cut of his sales. I wish.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 11, 2008 11:01:13 GMT -5
Wait a minute, President-elect Obama was born on August 4, 1961 making him 47. Actually, that is not true. He was born in 1942, he's a Muslim, he was not born in the United States, he's going to take guns away from everyone, he's going to mandate abortions, he's going to change the national anthem to "Who's Got the Funk", he will appoint William Ayers as his ambassador to Pakistan, he will have Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan right next to him when he is sworn in as President, and I am 68. Believe it!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 11, 2008 21:25:11 GMT -5
John, to be fair...as a pretty big fan of the Stills...I'm pretty certain they're fucking around. You can tell by the looks they're giving as they say that. Perhaps you're right but even if they are, I love that irreverent tone! They are not speaking in hushed tones about Macca.
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Nov 13, 2008 6:05:08 GMT -5
Steve, I never thought that you were getting a cut of this guy's poster, and certainly didn't mean to imply anything of the sort. But you are advertising it for him by posting the link, both here and on your news site, which probably will result in sales he otherwise wouldn't have. To me, it's a perversion of Beatles "art," their seminal album cover, every detail of which was important to them. I hate to see this guy making money from reworking those details as a tribute to Obama, and your possibly helping to enrich him. And I have always felt this way about any "cutesy" rip-off treatments of Pepper, although I must admit the Obama worship is really getting to me. Contrary to popular belief, he isn't the Second Coming.
Paul sees Obama as a younger, hipper version of Bill Clinton--who was a friend, a big Beatles fan, and was no doubt appropriately deferential to him. But Paul should remember that he and Bill are members of the same generation. Obama doesn't relate to the Beatles. He's a Jay-Z guy--"I've got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one." (Nice campaign song, Barry, you misogynistic jerk.) Not exactly "Here, There and Everywhere," is it? The Obamas would cringe at Paul's "special rendition of Michelle." I doubt an invitation to perform at the WH will be forthcoming, no matter how much he grovels. Quit embarrassing yourself, Macca. Obama doesn't want to be seen hanging out with you. He'd rather hang with Kanye, who derisively describes you as one of those "artists in black and white photos." Ouch. I think he's calliing you old. And speaking of embarrassing...Paul pinched the backside of the young blonde wife of another British musician at the MTV awards, so I sincerely hope he was drunk--the alternative is just too repulsive to contemplate. Not that being drunk is any excuse. Keep your hands to yourself, gramps.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 13, 2008 12:40:34 GMT -5
Steve, I never thought that you were getting a cut of this guy's poster, and certainly didn't mean to imply anything of the sort. But you are advertising it for him by posting the link, both here and on your news site, which probably will result in sales he otherwise wouldn't have. To me, it's a perversion of Beatles "art," their seminal album cover, every detail of which was important to them. I hate to see this guy making money from reworking those details as a tribute to Obama, and your possibly helping to enrich him. And I have always felt this way about any "cutesy" rip-off treatments of Pepper, although I must admit the Obama worship is really getting to me. Contrary to popular belief, he isn't the Second Coming. Paul sees Obama as a younger, hipper version of Bill Clinton--who was a friend, a big Beatles fan, and was no doubt appropriately deferential to him. But Paul should remember that he and Bill are members of the same generation. Obama doesn't relate to the Beatles. He's a Jay-Z guy--"I've got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one." (Nice campaign song, Barry, you misogynistic jerk.) Not exactly "Here, There and Everywhere," is it? The Obamas would cringe at Paul's "special rendition of Michelle." I doubt an invitation to perform at the WH will be forthcoming, no matter how much he grovels. Quit embarrassing yourself, Macca. Obama doesn't want to be seen hanging out with you. He'd rather hang with Kanye, who derisively describes you as one of those "artists in black and white photos." Ouch. I think he's calliing you old. And speaking of embarrassing...Paul pinched the backside of the young blonde wife of another British musician at the MTV awards, so I sincerely hope he was drunk--the alternative is just too repulsive to contemplate. Not that being drunk is any excuse. Keep your hands to yourself, gramps. sadie: The comment about my getting a cut wasn't prompted by what you said. No offense taken at all. But I didn't find out about this on my own. It came through an alert I got. I wasn't the only one who mentioned it. How much my mention helped him out, I don't know. I haven't been in touch with him since. As for Paul, poor Nancy.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Nov 13, 2008 15:25:54 GMT -5
Steve, I never thought that you were getting a cut of this guy's poster, and certainly didn't mean to imply anything of the sort. But you are advertising it for him by posting the link, both here and on your news site, which probably will result in sales he otherwise wouldn't have. To me, it's a perversion of Beatles "art," their seminal album cover, every detail of which was important to them. I hate to see this guy making money from reworking those details as a tribute to Obama, and your possibly helping to enrich him. And I have always felt this way about any "cutesy" rip-off treatments of Pepper, although I must admit the Obama worship is really getting to me. Contrary to popular belief, he isn't the Second Coming. Paul sees Obama as a younger, hipper version of Bill Clinton--who was a friend, a big Beatles fan, and was no doubt appropriately deferential to him. But Paul should remember that he and Bill are members of the same generation. Obama doesn't relate to the Beatles. He's a Jay-Z guy--"I've got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one." (Nice campaign song, Barry, you misogynistic jerk.) Not exactly "Here, There and Everywhere," is it? The Obamas would cringe at Paul's "special rendition of Michelle." I doubt an invitation to perform at the WH will be forthcoming, no matter how much he grovels. Quit embarrassing yourself, Macca. Obama doesn't want to be seen hanging out with you. He'd rather hang with Kanye, who derisively describes you as one of those "artists in black and white photos." Ouch. I think he's calliing you old. And speaking of embarrassing...Paul pinched the backside of the young blonde wife of another British musician at the MTV awards, so I sincerely hope he was drunk--the alternative is just too repulsive to contemplate. Not that being drunk is any excuse. Keep your hands to yourself, gramps. I went to Obama's rally when Joe Biden was introduced as the VP. I heard a lot of music. No Jay Z -- although there's nothing wrong with that in general. U2 (Beautiful Day), Springsteen (The Rising), etc. It seems to me that only the bitter keep talking about Obama as the Second Coming, or the Messiah, or a dictator. I pity your bitterness, your fear. I'm excited. "In Winter, 1963 It felt like the world would freeze With John F Kennedy and the Beatles..." from "Life in a Northern Town" by Dream Academy I think I've lived almost my entire life in a world that has been frozen by these two subjects and the fallout from each. Obama's election IS change. When I saw a note the other day that we had tentative plans to talk to Cuba, I realized that the world is shifting. Then I heard the above song. It's time to be unfrozen. If it means the Beatles are REALLY dead, dead as Kennedy, then OK.
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Nov 15, 2008 4:53:00 GMT -5
Do you personally remember JFK? Beatlemania? I suspect not, or you wouldn't be basing your opinion on some song lyrics. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041803282.htmlwww.nypost.com/seven/01142008/gossip/pagesix/hillary__barack_rap__rock_142152.htm I'll take a Beatles fan over a rap fan any day. Paul has frequently said that he takes pride in the Beatles' positive message. "All You Need is Love." Nothing wrong with freezing THAT in time. Most rap is nasty, misogynistic ranting. It certainly isn't about love. And it isn't music, either. Say what you will about Clinton, but things were pretty good in this country, especially economically, during his presidency. Bill has many failings, but at least he has good musical taste. Bush, on the other hand, liked the Beatles until "they became weird." Pepper, I guess--no, "Tomorrow Never Knows" surely put him over the edge. That doesn't make him much of a fan. He's leaving office with the country in the dumpster. A coincidence? I think not. If you believe the "Obama as Messiah" narrative is the province of the bitter, you aren't paying attention. It's ubiquitous, rampant in the media, and Obama himself has shamelessly been its biggest promoter. He wrapped his winning the Democratic nomination in grandiose phrases like "the oceans stopped rising" and the "planet began to heal." He arrogantly represented himself as the "new politics of hope and change." (Thus far, three-quarters of his appointments are holdovers from the Clinton years. That's change?) I don't know one person who made the effort to find out the truth about Obama who decided to vote for him. Even a worshipful Tom Brokaw admitted that no one knows who this guy really is, or what he will do as POTUS. We do know that he's an opportunist, having made a calculated choice to use the most corrupt political machine in the country to engineer his frighteningly rapid rise through the ranks. He's engineered himself right into the WH by playing on people's emotions and gullibility, bedazzling them with empty rhetoric and bottomless charisma, and in some cases, by outright lying to them. The crew at Newsweek, which basically functioned as a arm of the Obama campaign throughout the election, now describes him as a "deeply manipulative man" surrounded by a "creepy cult of personality." You really believe everything is going to change because of Obama? The economy is falling apart, this country is beset with serious problems, and he is basically starting his first job. He's unknown and untested, with entire chunks of his life conveniently missing. Don't act like people are stupid to be afraid. I lived through the Kennedy years, and I remember the nuclear fallout drills. I remember going to school the day everyone was crying about "war with Cuba at one o'clock," and possibly having to crawl under our desks for protection. My husband and my daughter pass through Grand Central Station every day, a prime terrorist target. Our enemies around the world think Obama is a wuss, and are itching to challenge him. Damn straight I'm afraid. And I'm a Democrat. If you did your homework and had intelligent reasons for voting for The One, I don't begrudge you your euphoria. Enjoy it while you can. But don't go throwing around that "change" nonsense. I worry that the reality of the next four years will be a huge disappointment not only for you, but also for those of us who recognized that Barack Obama is the biggest role of the dice EVER.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 15, 2008 9:59:59 GMT -5
. . . If you believe the "Obama as Messiah" narrative is the province of the bitter, you aren't paying attention . . . The only comment I have to this is give him a chance. Be fair. Don't nit pick his presidency. If it is acknowledged that he is taking over the helm of a sinking ship, he is going to need EVERYONE'S help. I don't know if he will be successful, but I do know that if he fails it won't be because he didn't work. It won't be because he did not seek advice from a broad range of people. (And, as for bringing in establishment people, that seems like a smart thing since he is such a newbie. How many times has a new coach of a team kept the assistant coaches of the old coach. Then, when they get their sea legs, new people are transitioned in. Carter's failed presidency failed from the get-go by not having a good balance of outsiders and insiders. He fucked over Tip O'Neill, and that was it for the next four year. Politics is a game. Obama knows that, but unlike Bush, he knows that the goal is not winning - it's doing.) So, if the United States is in such bad shape, the question for everyone is, "What are YOU going to do to help?" If it is bitch, bitch, bitch; judge, judge, judge; pettiness, pettiness, pettiness; then you will be part of the failure if Obama fails. We've got fires blazing again here in Los Angeles. I wouldn't think of doing or saying anything that would in anyway make it hard for them to do their job or to appear unsupportive. I think that in these times, we owe Obama the same. If he gets a 9/11 or Katrina-type event and fails through in-action, then, go for it. Gripe away. But, if you see him doing all he can to "put out the fire", then give him his space and let him do his job. Just remember, be fair. Judgement should be in 4 years, not day to day or month to month. The problems are too big.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 15, 2008 10:45:00 GMT -5
Do you personally remember JFK? Beatlemania? I suspect not, or you wouldn't be basing your opinion on some song lyrics. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041803282.htmlwww.nypost.com/seven/01142008/gossip/pagesix/hillary__barack_rap__rock_142152.htm I'll take a Beatles fan over a rap fan any day. Paul has frequently said that he takes pride in the Beatles' positive message. "All You Need is Love." Nothing wrong with freezing THAT in time. Most rap is nasty, misogynistic ranting. It certainly isn't about love. And it isn't music, either. Say what you will about Clinton, but things were pretty good in this country, especially economically, during his presidency. Bill has many failings, but at least he has good musical taste. Bush, on the other hand, liked the Beatles until "they became weird." Pepper, I guess--no, "Tomorrow Never Knows" surely put him over the edge. That doesn't make him much of a fan. He's leaving office with the country in the dumpster. A coincidence? I think not. If you believe the "Obama as Messiah" narrative is the province of the bitter, you aren't paying attention. It's ubiquitous, rampant in the media, and Obama himself has shamelessly been its biggest promoter. He wrapped his winning the Democratic nomination in grandiose phrases like "the oceans stopped rising" and the "planet began to heal." He arrogantly represented himself as the "new politics of hope and change." (Thus far, three-quarters of his appointments are holdovers from the Clinton years. That's change?) I don't know one person who made the effort to find out the truth about Obama who decided to vote for him. Even a worshipful Tom Brokaw admitted that no one knows who this guy really is, or what he will do as POTUS. We do know that he's an opportunist, having made a calculated choice to use the most corrupt political machine in the country to engineer his frighteningly rapid rise through the ranks. He's engineered himself right into the WH by playing on people's emotions and gullibility, bedazzling them with empty rhetoric and bottomless charisma, and in some cases, by outright lying to them. The crew at Newsweek, which basically functioned as a arm of the Obama campaign throughout the election, now describes him as a "deeply manipulative man" surrounded by a "creepy cult of personality." You really believe everything is going to change because of Obama? The economy is falling apart, this country is beset with serious problems, and he is basically starting his first job. He's unknown and untested, with entire chunks of his life conveniently missing. Don't act like people are stupid to be afraid. I lived through the Kennedy years, and I remember the nuclear fallout drills. I remember going to school the day everyone was crying about "war with Cuba at one o'clock," and possibly having to crawl under our desks for protection. My husband and my daughter pass through Grand Central Station every day, a prime terrorist target. Our enemies around the world think Obama is a wuss, and are itching to challenge him. Damn straight I'm afraid. And I'm a Democrat. If you did your homework and had intelligent reasons for voting for The One, I don't begrudge you your euphoria. Enjoy it while you can. But don't go throwing around that "change" nonsense. I worry that the reality of the next four years will be a huge disappointment not only for you, but also for those of us who recognized that Barack Obama is the biggest role of the dice EVER. sadie: Put aside all of what you say for a sec. Look at what the alternatives were. There weren't many from my standpoint. Obama may be new and untested, but he's not the first president to come straight out of the Senate. JFK was another. Would people have still gone for McCain had things not gone like they have? I doubt it. Palin was too much of a liability. The one thing that Obama showed me is that he's intelligent and not afraid to consider something else. After what we had the last eight years, we didn't need someone who was more or less predictable. McCain was that. I think Obama will be innovative or at least hold his options open. Bush never did. McCain likely wouldn't have. And if Palin had become president? God help us.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Nov 15, 2008 13:40:22 GMT -5
Do you personally remember JFK? Beatlemania? I suspect not, or you wouldn't be basing your opinion on some song lyrics. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041803282.htmlwww.nypost.com/seven/01142008/gossip/pagesix/hillary__barack_rap__rock_142152.htm I'll take a Beatles fan over a rap fan any day. Paul has frequently said that he takes pride in the Beatles' positive message. "All You Need is Love." Nothing wrong with freezing THAT in time. Most rap is nasty, misogynistic ranting. It certainly isn't about love. And it isn't music, either. Say what you will about Clinton, but things were pretty good in this country, especially economically, during his presidency. Bill has many failings, but at least he has good musical taste. Bush, on the other hand, liked the Beatles until "they became weird." Pepper, I guess--no, "Tomorrow Never Knows" surely put him over the edge. That doesn't make him much of a fan. He's leaving office with the country in the dumpster. A coincidence? I think not. If you believe the "Obama as Messiah" narrative is the province of the bitter, you aren't paying attention. It's ubiquitous, rampant in the media, and Obama himself has shamelessly been its biggest promoter. He wrapped his winning the Democratic nomination in grandiose phrases like "the oceans stopped rising" and the "planet began to heal." He arrogantly represented himself as the "new politics of hope and change." (Thus far, three-quarters of his appointments are holdovers from the Clinton years. That's change?) I don't know one person who made the effort to find out the truth about Obama who decided to vote for him. Even a worshipful Tom Brokaw admitted that no one knows who this guy really is, or what he will do as POTUS. We do know that he's an opportunist, having made a calculated choice to use the most corrupt political machine in the country to engineer his frighteningly rapid rise through the ranks. He's engineered himself right into the WH by playing on people's emotions and gullibility, bedazzling them with empty rhetoric and bottomless charisma, and in some cases, by outright lying to them. The crew at Newsweek, which basically functioned as a arm of the Obama campaign throughout the election, now describes him as a "deeply manipulative man" surrounded by a "creepy cult of personality." You really believe everything is going to change because of Obama? The economy is falling apart, this country is beset with serious problems, and he is basically starting his first job. He's unknown and untested, with entire chunks of his life conveniently missing. Don't act like people are stupid to be afraid. I lived through the Kennedy years, and I remember the nuclear fallout drills. I remember going to school the day everyone was crying about "war with Cuba at one o'clock," and possibly having to crawl under our desks for protection. My husband and my daughter pass through Grand Central Station every day, a prime terrorist target. Our enemies around the world think Obama is a wuss, and are itching to challenge him. Damn straight I'm afraid. And I'm a Democrat. If you did your homework and had intelligent reasons for voting for The One, I don't begrudge you your euphoria. Enjoy it while you can. But don't go throwing around that "change" nonsense. I worry that the reality of the next four years will be a huge disappointment not only for you, but also for those of us who recognized that Barack Obama is the biggest role of the dice EVER. I don't personally remember 1963. I was a year and a half old. My point is, I have lived in the frozen fallout from both events SINCE then. I remain a fan of both Clintons. I didn't mention rap in my post. It's funny that laser-beamed immediately to that as a reaction. One of the links you posted (both of which I have trouble seeing as relevant to my post) mentions Stevie Wonder and Earth, Wind, and Fire as Obama favorites. But you're drawn like a magnet to the rap. It is a shame you're so bitter.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 15, 2008 13:55:36 GMT -5
It is a shame you're so bitter. But bitter was in vogue in 2000 and 2004. I must say that it is refreshing to hear so many people who supported the winner say that we should put our differences aside and work together. I haven't heard that from them in over 8 years. I love bitter: pale ale that is.
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Nov 26, 2008 6:59:11 GMT -5
Yes, sayne, judgment should be measured. So why did Time Magazine have Obama pictured on its cover as the new FDR, and why is Newsweek portraying him as the reincarnation of Lincoln? Why is a Long Island school being renamed for Obama? Before he has served one single day. A whackjob at the NY Times wants Bush to resign immediately so Obama can save the world by Christmas. Rushing to judgment is a two-way street, you know. The way the media has advocated and covered for this guy is not only nauseating, it's dangerous to the future of our democracy. What has happened to the watchdog Fourth Estate? Remember Watergate? So who IS going to keep the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate in check? Only 20% of the country describes itself as liberal, and an even smaller number believes in the redistribution of wealth. There are predictions that the government will eventually own the entire financial sector. AND the Big Three, and possibly the homebuilding industry. It's bailout heaven--everyone is lining up at the government ATM. Capitalism, RIP. And we have a "newbie" at the helm, who, when the going gets tough, votes "present." If you really felt comfortable voting for Obama under these circumstances, well, good for you. But please, no sanctimonious lectures designed to silence criticism, or accusations that the failures to come will somehow be my fault for not supporting YOUR choice. And how exactly am I supposed to do that, anyway? By becoming another unquestioning true believer? Swearing undying fealty to our new leader? Sorry, that is the stuff of dictatorships, not a free society. To follow up on JSD's observation, I wonder--did you beg people to give Bush a chance, or are you only a model citizen when your guy wins? I took the time, lots of it, to read up on "your guy." He's a real operator, arrogant, thin-skinned, scarily ambitious. He ran dirty campaigns in 1996 and 2004, and during this campaign tried to prevent two of his most ardent critics from airing their views on radio. He has shown little in the way of leadership, refusing time and again to stand up to the corrupt Chicago political machine. He has a disturbing propensity to throw dodgy friends and even dodgier mentors under the bus when it is to his benefit to do so. And he has a rather elastic relationship with the truth. In short, he is lacking in core principles and integrity. He has such Machiavellian zeal to put himself on Mt. Rushmore than I don't trust him to put country above self--particularly because he will be keeping Rove's WH political office, meaning every decision will be made with one eye on the next election. So if you want to talk about alternatives, Steve, I had none. Other than to stay home, which is no alternative at all. What's so disheartening is that in a country of over 300 milliion people, these two were the best candidates we could come up with. John Kennedy served three terms in the House and a full term in the Senate. He commanded a PT boat and was a war hero. Obama barely had time to find the men's room at the Capitol before he began running for POTUS. Don't try to compare him to JFK--whose presidency was actually far from the runaway success people like to think it was. Obama is such a neophyte that he has no choice but to bring in people with experience, who are overwhelmingly Clintonistas. Fine. But he's tied to, and in some case has hired, many of the very people responsible for the current financial mess. And knowing he'd have to rely on the same old government insiders, it was blatantlly dishonest of him to promise "fundamental change" in Washington. He has set expectations so high he cannot possibly meet them. So I ask, what good will it do the country to feel let down and misled at such a precarious time? When President Hope fails to deliver, there will be not only disappointment, but resentment. I don't see how that will move the country in a positive direction--people who feel betrayed don't rally behind their Judas. The transition team, specifically Robert Reich and Daley crony David Axelrod, is desperately trying to tamp down expectations. "President-elect Barack Obama and his inner circle fear that some voters expect him to turn around the economy, wind down the war in Iraq and, perhaps, cure cancer -- all by the Fourth of July." Gee, ya think? Where in the world could they have gotten THAT idea? Sure, now that the election is won, time to let the voters know they were sold a bill of goods. Saps. Jimc, fifty-seven million of us are getting awfully tired of being called bitter, stupid and racist, merely because we weren't mesmerized by the cool guy with the gift of gab. I could just as easily accuse you of being ill-informed and ignorant (you suggested there was no rap, specifically Jay-Z, at Obama rallies, and I posted links to inform you otherwise--and that's not relevant?). Obamamaniacs--and if you would have "crawled through broken glass" to vote for this lightweight, that's what you are--act like they possess superior intellects, but you should check out the video in which Obama voters perform their "stupid human tricks." It's hard not to be disgusted by the knowledge that people who had no idea who and what they were voting for determined this election. Obama, the blank slate, the fantasy, in whom everyone saw what he or she wanted to see. I'd rather be informed and angry than stupid and self-satisfied. You're pretty full of yourself for someone enthralled with a man who is all hat and no cattle. Are you concerned that Putin's puppet is cosying up to Chavez and the Castro brothers? Warship maneuvers and such? You should be. Tell you what--get back to me this time next year and we'll talk about buyer's remorse. All presidents are ridiculed and criticized; whether you like Bush 43 or not, you have to acknowledge that he has been treated despicably. As were the Clintons--hell, they were even accused of murder. Having worked in a state legislature for over ten years, I can assure you that no one is less deserving of deification than a politician, especially preening newcomers who think they are going to change everything. I'll quit nitpicking at Obama's mistakes, flip-flops, hypocrisy and machinations when those of us who opposed him are no longer stereotyped as unenlightened backwoods hicks, and no longer treated with a mixture of condescension, pity and thinly-veiled contempt. I'll quit bitching when Obama gets held to the same standards as Bush, Clinton and every other mere mortal who has ever been elected POTUS. I'll quit griping about Obama when his adoring masses, especially the media, take off the rose-colored glasses and stop the constant gloating and gushing about him, his every decision, and his oh-so-perfect family. I won't be holding my breath. There is currently an article on one of the online magazines extolling the virtues of the new First Lady's ample backside. You really can't make this shit up. One more thing. As someone who lived through Beatlemania, I take exception to the pundits who are trying to equate it with Obamamania. The insinuation is that we fans were somehow duped into mass hysteria by an unaccomplished musical group. Well, we may have only been silly adolescents, but we sensed that the Beatles were the real deal. Malcolm Gladwell argues in his new book that immensely successful people aren't flukes, but products of thousands of hours of hard work and practice--the "10,000 hour rule." He cites the Beatles' Hamburg experience, and how they had done over 1200 performances by the time they achieved worldwide acclaim. So, tell me, where are Obama's thousands of hours of practice to be a "transformational leader?" Always leave 'em laughing... iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/11/obama-names-bill-clinton-to-president-post.html
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Nov 26, 2008 7:15:07 GMT -5
Well said, Sadie. For now, we all are just going to have to take a wait and see approach to what's going to happen after January, but I sadly have concerns for this country as well.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Nov 26, 2008 13:35:48 GMT -5
You know, sadie, not all of us who voted for Obama drank the Kool-Aid. And enough of your sanctimonious lectures telling everybody they're stupid if they don't agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 26, 2008 16:31:59 GMT -5
Very interesting post, Sadie.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 26, 2008 17:01:47 GMT -5
. . . Malcolm Gladwell argues in his new book that immensely successful people aren't flukes, but products of thousands of hours of hard work and practice--the "10,000 hour rule." He cites the Beatles' Hamburg experience, and how they had done over 1200 performances by the time they achieved worldwide acclaim. So, tell me, where are Obama's thousands of hours of practice to be a "transformational leader?" Yes, I read that and agree with it whole-heartedly. But, hardwork will only get one so far. Luck is involved, contacts, attractiveness, intellegence, vision, and other "lining up of the planets and stars" factors. Since very few people can have all of these, one needs to figure out a way to make up for any deficiencies. If I want to play in the NBA and I am not over 6 feet tall, I better figure out what my assets are and exploit them. No fault in that. If I'm a pretty good actor, but not great looking, I think I need to figure out what roles are best for me, even if it means being a character actor instead of a lead actor. And, if I become President of the United States and I do not have the 10, 000 hours, then I better be sure that I get people who have put in the hours to advise me. No harm or fault in that. Be assured. I do not think Obama is a savior. I, too, understand that to get to where he has gotten he needed to be a consummate politician - and that's no compliment, in my book. I'm pretty much like you in my views of politicians, which is why I rarely vote major party. I did this year because of practicality. I felt that the person who becomes president this year is going to have to have the skills, endurance, and intelligence to try to get things on track. McCain? Experienced, yes. But, would he have worked tirelessly? I didn't think so. Would he have understood complex issues. I didn't think so. Would he have been a coalition builder? I didn't think so. Would he have "thought outside the box"? I doubted it. Will Obama? I don't know. I guess the whole point of my post is that all elections are based on faith. Since most politicians have their flaws (and most of the flaws are major), to go on about this politician did this and that politician did that seems like wasted rhetoric. "Politician X did _______" . No duh. So, if most politicians leave a lot to be desired, and we agree on that, why let that get in the way of supporting one over the other. The discussion should be on their ideas, not their flaws. If people truly voted based on character, no one would get elected. That's why I think being critical of Obama right now is a bit premature. He won (good or bad), but it's the reality of what we have. Give the guy a chance. Bush was given a chance. In fact, he had the world in his corner and he sqandered it. The 8 years of criticism was due to his ineptitude, not his dubious elections or even his gaffs. Obama hasn't even had a chance to fuck up and people are already on him. Now, that's not fair.
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Dec 6, 2008 7:45:15 GMT -5
That was my point, sayne. No one should be making judgments yet, one way or the other. But I'm hard pressed to find anyone claiming that Obama has "fucked up." Quite the contrary. Oh, the lefty progressives are having a fit, thinking they have been suckered. Maybe they have--only time will tell. But far too many people, especially in the MSM, have prematurely decided that Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Inundating an Iowa bakery with orders not for bread, but for Obama's favorite cookie. Naming schools and holidays for him. Buying up ornaments, commemorative coins and "kind eyes" limited-edition plates (unlike Barack Obama himself, they come with a Certificate of Authenticity), anything glorifying the yet-to-serve-one-day president-elect. And let's not forget the poster of a reworked iconic album cover! I have never seen anything like this, not even with the Kennedys. It's disconcerting, even alarming, because I don't think it bodes well for the future of the country. At a time when we seriously need some perspective and balance, there is unmitigated hero worship, resulting in unrealistic expectations. C'mon, I dare you to watch without laughing. He's not a hero. He's just a politician. And that same message also goes out to the small group of delusionals who think he is the anti-Christ. Just a politician. Every cabinet choice is not brilliant, inspired, pure genius. Obama has not, as Barbara Walters gushed, "redeemed the American promise and created a new world." Actually, he's now backtracking on many of his campaign promises--for example, he isn't going to put a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, and he isn't going to be pulling the plug on Iraq. THE defining issue of his campaign, the one thing he used to sanctimoniously position himself as a better choice than Hillary and the rest of his opposition, and he's now doing a big "nevermind." Just a politician. Sorry, no new world, Babs. We'll be lucky to hold the old one together. As for giving Bush a chance, half the country hated him after the contested election of 2000. The MSM certainly wasn't drooling over him, nor do I remember seeing a commercial for a freakin' coin or plate every time I turned on the TV. As I recall, there was much grumbling about Bush's inaugural celebrations four years ago, because there was a WAR going on. There still is--plus now the economy is toast. But is anyone expressing reservations about the over-the-top coronation festivities soon to occur in DC? Of course not. Because, as Oprah says, he is The One. He's historic. He is hope and change. Even his fitness routine is to die for. That "jackass" Bush--as Jon Stewart called the man who is, like it or not, still POTUS--always jogging, chopping wood, riding his mountain bike. What a loser. Obama, on the other hand, is so buff. Lifts three days a week, walks on water the other four. Sigh.... And remember all the media ridicule about Bush's "I'm the decider" comment? When challenged on his appointment of a slew of Clinton retreads, Obama shot back that "the change comes from me." Aha--so he is "the changer." Anyone laughing about that? Of course not. No merriment is allowed at his expense. It might be considered r-a-c-i-s-t. I fear any kind of criticism over the next four years will be branded as such. Henceforth, will anyone know true racism when he or she sees it? I'm not a Bush fan. I'm solidly in the three-quarters of the country who thinks he's been a failure as POTUS. I'm merely trying to point out the horrific double standard. The media decided to elect itself a president, and now that it has, it can't stop gloating. It has lavished Obama with undeserved praise at every turn. All I was looking for the entire campaign was some unbiased reporting by the MSM. There was precious little. And there still isn't.
Scousette, I don't know or care whether you are a Kool-Aid drinker. You've added nothing to the discussion on which to base a judgment. From what has been posted here, I certainly don't see either Steve or sayne that way. Please don't accuse me of "sanctimoniously" acting like every Obama voter was lacking in reason. It IS clear that many of his supporters were uninformed and unduly influenced by a one-sided media, so don't try to suggest otherwise--anyone who thinks every state has 50 senators, or that Roe was about school desegregation, or that the Republicans have been in charge of Congress for the past two years "because Bush is a Republican," is neither smart nor informed. I'd really like to know how many Obama voters realize that he "won" his first election by getting all of his opponents thrown off the ballot. In fact, when a sampling was asked which of the four candidates had done that, whom do you think they chose? Palin. Imagine my surprise. Obama raised obscene amounts of money, and essentially bought himself the WH. But not through the donations of legions of average voters, as the media would have everyone believe. He used big-money contributors to win, as has alway been done in politics, and always wil be done, especially now that he has singlehandedly killed public financing. Last I read, he's still begging his loyal supporters for money. Fifteen bucks, and get an Obama mug. Nothing says "just a politician" more than that.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Dec 6, 2008 9:07:33 GMT -5
It's a laugh to watch SexySadie perform. He's like the guy who chases a dog onto the neighbor's property, then tries to swat the hound for leaving his own yard.
He doesn't like the results of this election, pure and simple. That's fine, but he cherry picks the worst examples of voter ignorance, etc. to make a point. Most of his ramblings verge on the hysterical.
Then there's this howler: the mainstream media didn't treat Bush fairly? Actually, the media's failure to perform its role in the first term led to many of the abuses we've seen in the last eight years. I'm all for an aggressive media that questions all decisions. Obama is no saviour. He will make mistakes. I hope the media plays its proper role.
I stand by my comment about rap. I've been to an Obama rally. I heard Springsteen, U2, etc. I don't recall any JayZ. Maybe it was played, who knows. The point is, usually when one targets rap, especially when its part of a variety of music in a particular situation, that is code for "scary black guys."
Yesterday I had to discipline, quietly, a student of mine who told me a racist joke having do with a quarter, Obama's image on it, and lips. That is the kind of garbage too many kids are raised with and leave home thinking its proper and funny. And by the way, what about all the nut jobs who are stocking up on guns around the country? I'd say the bitter and the psychotic offer a lot more to worry about than someone selling plates and coins on TV.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 6, 2008 10:38:29 GMT -5
. . . But I'm hard pressed to find anyone claiming that Obama has "fucked up." Quite the contrary. Oh, the lefty progressives are having a fit, thinking they have been suckered I guess it really didn't take you so long to find anyone afterall . . . Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Inundating an Iowa bakery with orders not for bread, but for Obama's favorite cookie. Naming schools and holidays for him. Buying up ornaments, commemorative coins and "kind eyes" limited-edition plates (unlike Barack Obama himself, they come with a Certificate of Authenticity), anything glorifying the yet-to-serve-one-day president-elect. And let's not forget the poster of a reworked iconic album cover! I have never seen anything like this, not even with the Kennedys. That's because Americans are just "simple folk" at their core. Didn't PT Barnum allude to that? Capitalism and commercialism thrive on this. Obama, just like the Beatles, is a product to be sold. It's the American way to try to make money directly or indirectly from anything. George Carlin once said you could nail two things together that have never been nailed together and some schmuck will buy it. Been to a swap meet? EBay? People didn't make money selling Bush plates or commemorative coins, but they sure made money off his war and fear-mongering. . . . I'd really like to know how many Obama voters realize that he "won" his first election by getting all of his opponents thrown off the ballot . . . "Chicago, Chicago that toddling town. . . " As I said, Obama IS a politician.
|
|