Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

C'mon lefties, it's time to admit . . .

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • C'mon lefties, it's time to admit . . .

    That President Obama is the lamest president ever.

  • #2
    You're a racist!










    Where da white women at?
    Last edited by BillyFromTheHills; 5 March 2014, 11:19 AM.
    Yay!...(Drool)


    Comment


    • #3
      Why the superlatives? I'll quickly call him lame for a variety of reasons. But lamest? Really? Other Dems. and certainly GWB and other Reps. have a stronger claim to that title.

      Comment


      • #4
        In a lot of ways Ulysses S. Grant was pretty lame, too. Perhaps the lamest.....
        Yay!...(Drool)


        Comment


        • #5
          Heh. Someone convince me that Reagan wasn't über-lame.
          backcountry in northern New Mexico

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by televisionary View Post
            Heh. Someone convince me that Reagan wasn't über-lame.
            His role as a mob boss in The Killers (1964)?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by televisionary View Post
              Heh. Someone convince me that Reagan wasn't über-lame.
              What did you object to? The respect we gained abroad? The restoration of national pride and purpose we achieved at home? The vastly improved US economy? One of the longest bull runs in the DOW's history? The increased tax revenues? The ultimate fall of the Soviet Union? Or maybe it was his pragmatic bipartisanism or the generally non-chaotic and productive legislative period his presidency coincided with? Do tell.

              Look, the right has to wean itself off the delusion that everything that happened thirty years ago can happen again today and for all the same reasons. The Left has to get over the fact that Reagan kicked their sorry asses and lame, defeatist message to the curb and ultimately gave us Bill Clinton, the Democratic Leadership Council and a Democrat party that was relevant somewhere other than Massachusetts and the East Village.

              Oh, and don't forget to go **** yourself.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by dschane View Post
                His role as a mob boss in The Killers (1964)?
                Counterpoint: Bedtime for Bonzo, and (por supuesto) his political career.
                backcountry in northern New Mexico

                Comment


                • #9
                  He would be better if he was more liberal IMO, but I wouldn't go with lamest.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by freeheelwilly View Post
                    What did you object to? The respect we gained abroad? The restoration of national pride and purpose we achieved at home? The vastly improved US economy? One of the longest bull runs in the DOW's history? The increased tax revenues? The ultimate fall of the Soviet Union? Or maybe it was his pragmatic bipartisanism or the generally non-chaotic and productive legislative period his presidency coincided with? Do tell.

                    Look, the right has to wean itself off the delusion that everything that happened thirty years ago can happen again today and for all the same reasons. The Left has to get over the fact that Reagan kicked their sorry asses and lame, defeatist message to the curb and ultimately gave us Bill Clinton, the Democratic Leadership Council and a Democrat party that was relevant somewhere other than Massachusetts and the East Village.

                    Oh, and don't forget to go **** yourself.
                    Aww, a Gipper fanboi. Seems we hit a sore spot. If you can let go of your hero-worship for a moment, let's review your bull****.

                    We were ridiculed abroad for falling for Reagan's crap except by other destructive ideologues like Margaret Thatcher and her sycophants, and the "restoration of national pride" was more a demonstration of national gullibility and delusion.

                    If you call skyrocketing national debt and an economy dependent on a single industry like defense "vastly improved" then i guess maybe you're more of a fan of presidents like Bill Clinton than I would have guessed. He put down the USSR by out spending them on defense.

                    Hey, remember the Star Wars stuff? That wasn't lame, right? And AIDS denial, "trickle-down", his environmental denial? The guy was a clueless puppet/idealogue.
                    backcountry in northern New Mexico

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by MattB View Post
                      He would be better if he was more liberal IMO, but I wouldn't go with lamest.
                      Well let's see, he's a dove. He wants to increase taxes on the wealthy and has said as much. What more is the guy supposed to do to make irrelevant little worms like you feel happy and loved? The majority of the country hates little latter-day hippies like you; at least his revulsion for your ilk isn't palatable.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by televisionary View Post
                        Aww, a Gipper fanboi. Seems we hit a sore spot. If you can let go of your hero-worship for a moment, let's review your bull****.

                        We were ridiculed abroad for falling for Reagan's crap except by other destructive ideologues like Margaret Thatcher and her sycophants, and the "restoration of national pride" was more a demonstration of national gullibility and delusion.

                        If you call skyrocketing national debt and an economy dependent on a single industry like defense "vastly improved" then i guess maybe you're more of a fan of presidents like Bill Clinton than I would have guessed. He put down the USSR by out spending them on defense.

                        Hey, remember the Star Wars stuff? That wasn't lame, right? And AIDS denial, "trickle-down", his environmental denial? The guy was a clueless puppet/idealogue.
                        Get over it you piece of ****ing filth. I'll leave now so you can continue to preach to your dirty little choir of aging and increasingly ignored group of backcountry dirtbags.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by freeheelwilly View Post
                          Get over it you piece of ****ing filth. I'll leave now so you can continue to preach to your dirty little choir of aging and increasingly ignored group of backcountry dirtbags.
                          That legendary FHW wit seems to have failed you, fanboi. While I'm not surprised at your blind Reagan worship and resultant bristling outrage, I'm a little disappointed that you caved so quickly. Though I suppose that, realistically, you pretty much shot your wad with "**** yourself."
                          backcountry in northern New Mexico

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Well I can't speak for all the worms but a few issues off the top of my head:

                            Caved on single payer (although that might have been what got it passed, I would have liked to see him push a little harder)
                            Keystone XL and other alternative energy issues
                            Towing the traditional line on federal pot legalization/decriminalization (more or less)
                            Corporate welfare via tax loopholes

                            I still think he was the better choice of candidates, but he could have been better.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Reagan lacked the intellectual capacity to be a very good president, but I don't know if I'd call him lame. It's hard to call any Hollywood actor "lame." This convo might be more interesting by defining the obviously negative intent behind the adjective "lame" as used by the OP. Those with difficulties walking with a normal gait do take offense to "lame" being used as an insult although I don't go quite that PC. Personally, I think of "lame" as the opposite of "hip" although I could buy it as an antonym to "effective" as well. I wouldn't describe Reagan as either un-hip nor ineffective; Obama is hip enough but hasn't been very effective.

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	3243_680.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	24.4 KB
ID:	81290


                              Neither Reagan nor Obama would be top 10 "lame" to me personally.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X