It's like demanding to fuck Angelina Jolie, and being told you'd hafta fuck Scarlett Johannsson for now while they worked on getting you up in Angelina's guts, and instead of fucking Scarlett's sweet tang you say “forget it, asshole!” and instead opt for being ass-raped by that monster Kardashian girl. - XMASTIME
Today Sully nails it re: giving up on Obama cuz he hasnt delivered puppies and rainbows:
And if your purism demands staying home next year, do not complain when a global religious war breaks out. They've told us quite plainly that's what they want. Like a cold, sparkling drink on a hot summer day. War as a cocktail.
7 comments:
Ha ha ha ha,
"VOTE FOR OBAMA OR THERE WILL BE GLOBAL RELIGIOUS WAR"
You'd be hilarious if you could decouple your politics from your eye. You see the funny. You just don't know that it is funny.
Yea. "Sully" nails it alright.
the chicken little hysteria is fun, but if you remove that its really quite simple:
You thought A was atrocious. So when the time came you chose B.
B turned out to be disappointing to you. "Disappointing" is still a lot better than "atrocious," so you should therein do all you can to ensure B remains chosen.
But if you don't, then I don't wanna hear your boo-hooing when A 2.0 slides back in and returns things to "atrocious".
Your theory is decent. That starry-eyed libs and progressives thought Obama was sent from Jehovah to cure poverty, hunger and genital warts, and when he proved to be less adept, their rejection of him is akin to a self-defeating temper tantrum.
That said, it is an argument that presumes a certain homogeneity of his support, as if everyone who supported him is like you in their fervor, and thus, their rejection of him is every bit as crazy as if you did it. For you, I agree - to reject Obama after you have slavishly lapped his nuts (and after you have warred against his enemies so tirelessly) because he did not meet all your ideological wants is self-defeating.
But everyone is regrettably not you.
Also, the Sullivan quote was moronic and I never boo hoo (I expect 2.0 to have two terms, the second with a GOP House and Senate).
this is what happens when instead of actually reading things, you lazily subscribe to your old, tired Marlyisms that I'm curled up in my room crying and pulling my hair out "HOW COULD ANYONE VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN???! I JUST DONT UNDERSTAND IT"
for the 134,000th and last time until I hafta say it again tomorrow:
1) Im very aware there are many, MANY people who dont think like me.
2) I understand that doesnt make them "wrong."
3) I understand there are plenty of people who voted for Obama and simply dont like the job he's done, not just the voodoo-fooled hippy college kids who thought he'd deliver puppies & rainbows. Through their own reasoning things havent added up and they wanna see someone or something else.
4) I am talking about a VERY SMALL SEGMENT of the population who voted for him. Not you, not me, not most people. A small segment. Not "EVERYBODY!!!!!!!! OHMYGOD!!!!! WE'RE GONNA DIE!!!!"
"4) I am talking about a VERY SMALL SEGMENT of the population who voted for him. Not you, not me, not most people. A small segment. Not "EVERYBODY!!!!!!!! OHMYGOD!!!!! WE'RE GONNA DIE!!!!"
Oh. Okay.
That said, the use of the retarded Sully quote was egregious. After using "people of color," you're flirting with a ban.
It is over the top, although in his defense the target audience for it are fickle, emotional people who may not be interested in reading about Obama's slow, incremental change vs their vague HOPE/CHANGE RIGHT NOW!!! demands. People who emotionally argue Diamond Dave vs Sammy w/o realizing Van Halen sucks no matter what, in other words ;)
"People who emotionally argue Diamond Dave vs Sammy w/o realizing Van Halen sucks no matter what, in other words"
Now, you're talking clearly and with authority.
Post a Comment