My Obama Rant # 1

So here I am taking time out of my busy schedule to let you and maybe a few other people know that Obama's associates are a bunch of misguided individuals parroting one another and unwittingly serving ends they would never intentionally promote. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and give Obama a rhadamanthine warning not to feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations. I recently informed him that his subordinates cause one-sided campaigns of malice and malignity to be entered into historical fact. Obama said he'd "look further into the matter"—well, not too much further. After all, he is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks.

If I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less wretched than Obama. He once heard a sanctimonious junky say, "Obama never engages in empty-headed, uncompanionable, or meretricious politics." What's amazing is that Obama was then able to use that single quotation plus some anecdotal evidence to convince his epigones that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities, which definitely makes me wonder, "Why can't he value a diversity of approaches without needing to rank them as better and worse?" The answer is too well-known to bear repeating, but I should comment that if Obama opened his eyes, he'd realize that mainstream opinion holds that I cannot believe that he would consider indelicate drongos as belligerent hermits. Call me crazy, but I'm beginning to think that we ought to punish those who lie or connive at half-truths. That'll make Obama think once—I would have said "twice", but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter—before damaging the self-esteem and physical health of millions of young men and women. To say otherwise would be cacodemonic. He unequivocally believes that his threats can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. Unfortunately for him, that's all in his imagination. Obama needs to get out of that fictional world and get back to reality, where people can see that I have difficulty relating to those who think that human life is expendable. Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: Bonapartism is dangerous. His hideous version of it is doubly so. Let me end this letter by challenging my readers to warn the public against those crabby, inimical prima donnas whose positive accomplishments are always practically nil but whose conceit can scarcely be excelled. Are you with me, or with the forces of parasitism and oppression?

What a first post..

"#1"?

Meaning, we can expect more of this crap?

ChesterCat said:

So here I am taking time out of my busy schedule to let you and maybe a few other people know that Obama's associates are a bunch of misguided individuals parroting one another and unwittingly serving ends they would never intentionally promote. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and give Obama a rhadamanthine warning not to feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations. I recently informed him that his subordinates cause one-sided campaigns of malice and malignity to be entered into historical fact. Obama said he'd "look further into the matter"—well, not too much further. After all, he is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks.

If I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less wretched than Obama. He once heard a sanctimonious junky say, "Obama never engages in empty-headed, uncompanionable, or meretricious politics." What's amazing is that Obama was then able to use that single quotation plus some anecdotal evidence to convince his epigones that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities, which definitely makes me wonder, "Why can't he value a diversity of approaches without needing to rank them as better and worse?" The answer is too well-known to bear repeating, but I should comment that if Obama opened his eyes, he'd realize that mainstream opinion holds that I cannot believe that he would consider indelicate drongos as belligerent hermits. Call me crazy, but I'm beginning to think that we ought to punish those who lie or connive at half-truths. That'll make Obama think once—I would have said "twice", but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter—before damaging the self-esteem and physical health of millions of young men and women. To say otherwise would be cacodemonic. He unequivocally believes that his threats can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. Unfortunately for him, that's all in his imagination. Obama needs to get out of that fictional world and get back to reality, where people can see that I have difficulty relating to those who think that human life is expendable. Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: Bonapartism is dangerous. His hideous version of it is doubly so. Let me end this letter by challenging my readers to warn the public against those crabby, inimical prima donnas whose positive accomplishments are always practically nil but whose conceit can scarcely be excelled. Are you with me, or with the forces of parasitism and oppression?

Click to expand...

Are you trying to sound smart by using unusual words that you learned from the SAT list, in a post where they aren't necessary? If so, I'm sorry to say that it didn't work very well. Hint: Using pretentious words when common words will suffice makes you sound silly, not intelligent. Especially when you don't even use some of them correctly.

In summary, tl;dr.

RadicalModerate said:

"#1"?

Meaning, we can expect more of this crap?

Click to expand...

That would be correct

Kandahar said:

Are you trying to sound smart by using unusual words that you learned from the SAT list, in a post where they aren't necessary? If so, I'm sorry to say that it didn't work very well. Hint: Using pretentious words when common words will suffice makes you sound silly, not intelligent. Especially when you don't even use some of them correctly.

In summary, tl;dr.

Click to expand...

Maybe he borrowed Obama's teleprompter?

ChesterCat said:

That would be correct

Click to expand...

Wonderful. :roll:

ChesterCat said:

Are you with me, or with the forces of parasitism and oppression?

Click to expand...

forces of parasitism and oppression ftw in this false dichotomy.

ChesterCat said:

So here I am taking time out of my busy schedule to let you and maybe a few other people know that Obama's associates are a bunch of misguided individuals parroting one another and unwittingly serving ends they would never intentionally promote. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and give Obama a rhadamanthine warning not to feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations. I recently informed him that his subordinates cause one-sided campaigns of malice and malignity to be entered into historical fact. Obama said he'd "look further into the matter"—well, not too much further. After all, he is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks.

If I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less wretched than Obama. He once heard a sanctimonious junky say, "Obama never engages in empty-headed, uncompanionable, or meretricious politics." What's amazing is that Obama was then able to use that single quotation plus some anecdotal evidence to convince his epigones that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities, which definitely makes me wonder, "Why can't he value a diversity of approaches without needing to rank them as better and worse?" The answer is too well-known to bear repeating, but I should comment that if Obama opened his eyes, he'd realize that mainstream opinion holds that I cannot believe that he would consider indelicate drongos as belligerent hermits. Call me crazy, but I'm beginning to think that we ought to punish those who lie or connive at half-truths. That'll make Obama think once—I would have said "twice", but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter—before damaging the self-esteem and physical health of millions of young men and women. To say otherwise would be cacodemonic. He unequivocally believes that his threats can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. Unfortunately for him, that's all in his imagination. Obama needs to get out of that fictional world and get back to reality, where people can see that I have difficulty relating to those who think that human life is expendable. Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: Bonapartism is dangerous. His hideous version of it is doubly so. Let me end this letter by challenging my readers to warn the public against those crabby, inimical prima donnas whose positive accomplishments are always practically nil but whose conceit can scarcely be excelled. Are you with me, or with the forces of parasitism and oppression?

Click to expand...

Okay, hi "Crazy". :2wave:

ChesterCat said:

rhadamanthine

Click to expand...

Man, I had a bad case of this, a few years ago. Itched like hell.

Velvet Elvis said:

Man, I had a bad case of this, a few years ago. Itched like hell.

Click to expand...

If you pee on it the burn goes away.

I recall using cacodemonic the other day.

ChesterCat said:

So here I am taking time out of my busy schedule to let you and maybe a few other people know that Obama's associates are a bunch of misguided individuals parroting one another and unwittingly serving ends they would never intentionally promote. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and give Obama a rhadamanthine warning not to feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations. I recently informed him that his subordinates cause one-sided campaigns of malice and malignity to be entered into historical fact. Obama said he'd "look further into the matter"—well, not too much further. After all, he is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks.

If I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less wretched than Obama. He once heard a sanctimonious junky say, "Obama never engages in empty-headed, uncompanionable, or meretricious politics." What's amazing is that Obama was then able to use that single quotation plus some anecdotal evidence to convince his epigones that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities, which definitely makes me wonder, "Why can't he value a diversity of approaches without needing to rank them as better and worse?" The answer is too well-known to bear repeating, but I should comment that if Obama opened his eyes, he'd realize that mainstream opinion holds that I cannot believe that he would consider indelicate drongos as belligerent hermits. Call me crazy, but I'm beginning to think that we ought to punish those who lie or connive at half-truths. That'll make Obama think once—I would have said "twice", but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter—before damaging the self-esteem and physical health of millions of young men and women. To say otherwise would be cacodemonic. He unequivocally believes that his threats can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. Unfortunately for him, that's all in his imagination. Obama needs to get out of that fictional world and get back to reality, where people can see that I have difficulty relating to those who think that human life is expendable. Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: Bonapartism is dangerous. His hideous version of it is doubly so. Let me end this letter by challenging my readers to warn the public against those crabby, inimical prima donnas whose positive accomplishments are always practically nil but whose conceit can scarcely be excelled. Are you with me, or with the forces of parasitism and oppression?

Click to expand...

Fun to read, I think. You know, one can bitch all day, but what are you gunna do about your concerns?
Put action to your words and maybe then you will have a complete idea, expression, or assertion.

I wrote a few things on a forum - did my part. Yay!

Sherman123 said:

I recall using cacodemonic the other day.

Click to expand...

How'd that work out for you? I've been meaning to try it in my coffee, but is sounds awfully spicy.

Incidentally..."epigones" makes for a nice pick-me-up in the early afternoon.

Sherman123 said:

I recall using cacodemonic the other day.

Click to expand...

Ain't thesaurasus' great?

ChesterCat said:

So here I am taking time out of my busy schedule to let you and maybe a few other people know that Obama's associates are a bunch of misguided individuals parroting one another and unwittingly serving ends they would never intentionally promote. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and give Obama a rhadamanthine warning not to feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations. I recently informed him that his subordinates cause one-sided campaigns of malice and malignity to be entered into historical fact. Obama said he'd "look further into the matter"—well, not too much further. After all, he is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks.

If I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less wretched than Obama. He once heard a sanctimonious junky say, "Obama never engages in empty-headed, uncompanionable, or meretricious politics." What's amazing is that Obama was then able to use that single quotation plus some anecdotal evidence to convince his epigones that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities, which definitely makes me wonder, "Why can't he value a diversity of approaches without needing to rank them as better and worse?" The answer is too well-known to bear repeating, but I should comment that if Obama opened his eyes, he'd realize that mainstream opinion holds that I cannot believe that he would consider indelicate drongos as belligerent hermits. Call me crazy, but I'm beginning to think that we ought to punish those who lie or connive at half-truths. That'll make Obama think once—I would have said "twice", but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter—before damaging the self-esteem and physical health of millions of young men and women. To say otherwise would be cacodemonic. He unequivocally believes that his threats can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. Unfortunately for him, that's all in his imagination. Obama needs to get out of that fictional world and get back to reality, where people can see that I have difficulty relating to those who think that human life is expendable. Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: Bonapartism is dangerous. His hideous version of it is doubly so. Let me end this letter by challenging my readers to warn the public against those crabby, inimical prima donnas whose positive accomplishments are always practically nil but whose conceit can scarcely be excelled. Are you with me, or with the forces of parasitism and oppression?

Click to expand...

Watch this, in one sentence I will make a better case than this quote above for why Obama sucks:

Tim Geithner is Obama's Treasury Secretary, and he makes Mitt Romney look like a regular guy, with the average American's interest at heart!

First let me begin by saying that I do not believe Obama is an evil dictator with world domination first on his agenda. Though, Mitt Romney may be closer to that description, I still do not believe obama is fit to be president of the united states. Mitt Romney, though not truly an evil dictator, has a more than somewhat questionable agenda, but The Republicans follow the money, because they want to win. I dont need any big words to explain why the best funded campaigns have better chances, and Romney has the best chance to match Obamas money and his lobbyists, fundraisers and supporters will provide. Being a libertarian, I naturally spent my time volunteering for Ron Paul's grass-roots campaigns and I still have my Ron Paul blog, but I have been giving Gary Johnson's campaign it's due diligence and I voted for him in my primary in California. I wanted Congressman Paul to win the GOP nomination for President and millions of other voters want him still, but neither the Republicans nor the Democrats would ever let that happen. So I have put my faith in the fact that I know that if the public was properly educated on the facts, they would realize that we desperately need a third party power.

Whether you consider yourself liberal or conservative, the question is progress and neither parties have a progressive agenda. Obama hyped the country up on hope and change,but when it came down to the wire, he did not have the fortitude to take a stand. He has let countless groups assassinate his character, he has failed to bring our troops home, he is creating future economic troubles with his current economic "solutions." Granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants will lose jobs for citizens and taxpayers will foot the bill for Obamacare, whether it is called a tax or not is semantics. The greatest Presidents have brought progress to the country, but both Democrats and Republicans seem hell bent on regression.

For instance, if we audit the federal reserve bank, it would better inform Americans about where we stand with the national debt and the treasury. It will give everyone a better idea of the condition of the economy of our country, so why have Democrats opposed the bill? The Democratic majority leader in the senate, Harry Reid, vowed to kill the bill once it passed the House. These people dont want the public well-informed and there is an element of tyrrany that comes along with that. It is oppression of new ideas and oppression of the mind and it lets Acts get passed like the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which strips American citizens of their civil liberties just by using the vague language they use when describing an act of terrorism. It allows for the water to be muddied on who is and is not a terrorist. This has fear spreading about who can and cant be trusted inside our own country and spreading fear is the goal of terrorism in the first place. It is comparable to Communist witch hunts of J. Edgar Hoover and Mccarthyism and similar to when leaders of The Civil Rights Movement were said to threaten America, just because they wanted equal rights for black people and now those same people, said to be a threat, are national heroes.

The problem is that the mainstream opinion is easily swayed and people are fooled all of the time. They have now been fooled into thinking that only two political parties matter and that those two parties hold all of the power, but the power is in the mind of the American voter. There have been other major political parties in American history with just as much power, but the power is still with the people. I think that to truly have a progressive political agenda, one must be open to third party candidates and a third party with power. The current political dissent in this country stems from money and money is power in the United States. The government allowed the current economic crisis to take place to keep the little guy down and maintain the power. People have been being mislead and misrepresented for years, but when a candidate comes along who is truly trying to change things, he is only recognized if he is a Democrat or Republican and Ron Paul is a perfect example as he ran for President in 1988 as a Libertarian and nobody hardly seems to remember. He gained national recognition because of the people of America. In the end his ability to capture a national audience was his undoing, because the cards have been stacked against him in his own party in order to further the agenda of the rich in the private sector. By participating, President Obama has been a part of the problem for four years whether purposely or accidentally. Playing the game of politics does not bring hope and change, but instead brings complacency and ignorance. 50 years ago we had a President who convinced us we could walk on the moon and we did. Even before that a great President told the country we could rise above a great economic depression and he took the actions necessary to do so. What is Obama by comparison? And who are we, as American citizen, to let the government steam roll us and the constitution over and over again? Why have we let them kill idealism?

The Democrats and Republicans have backed us into a corner many times in history. George W. Bush versus John Kerry, George Bush versus Michael Dukakis, Carter versus Ford and the list of incompetents goes on. The answer is not anarchy and it is not to be mad at Barack Obama. The answer is to vote for someone other than Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. If the people could get the facts, I'm confident they would rally behind a third party candidate and that it would be in the best interest of America and citizens of America. It is time for a change, which does not mean topple the current government, but educate oneself and make the system work for you. It was written and designed to work for the people of this country and that includes all of us who live here. There are solutions to the current issues facing this country, but we need someone who will represent those solutions in an honest way and not in the way that best maintains his own political power or the size of his wallet. We need to pass the microphone to someone who has a new perspective on a the very old and stubborn way of doing things, which has become politics in the US. A vote for a third party candidate need not be a waste of a vote and perhaps most importantly, a progressive thinker could make all the difference for our country.