Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Joint Analysis

This post is essentially my reaction as I listen to President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress (Or that address to Congress where you wish you were smoking a joint). So it will be disjointed at times as I react to the bullshit that I hear coming out of his mouth. I will also try to limit the number of times I use the term "bullshit" to specific references to the Bullshit! package.

Okay, I'll pick this up after the "substance" (and I use this term loosely) of the speech begins:

Oops, we're not even begun and Obama almost jumped the gun and took away Nancy Pelosi's moment (as per protocol). I knew that was going to happen.

Okay, so the idea is we run an unholy debt because this will create long-term growth? And this is what you said got us into this (besides the last 8 years)?

So you're going to clean up the credit crisis? By getting more money lent out there? By getting into the credit business? Oh, and nationalize those banks (de facto, of course).

You were angry after the Dastardly Bastardly Bailout went bad? I just laughed. Because I knew that throwing an assload of money out there was going to result in it getting wasted.

Side question: How many of you reading this are able to get credit? I'm pretty sure I could if I had any in the first place.

Reform out outdated regulatory system? Sounds good. I think I wrote something like that in the last week. Why do I suspect we'd have a disagreement on what is common sense?

Okay, here comes the boondoggle list (I mean the list of things he's going to throw money at): energy, health care, and education.

He's bitching because the battery for the hybrid is made in Korea? Isolationism?

So to solve the "energy crisis" we need cap and trade and subsidized energy? And "American made" cars?

Wait, did he just reference Teddy Roosevelt saying something about health care in the last 25 years? I'm assuming he's talking Ted Kennedy, but it's still a laugh.

As for health care, I'm just going to bang my head against the wall. Same with education. Both of them seem to involve more government control. And more subsidizing.

While I was writing that last paragraph, Shaw was dropping comments on my blog. I figgered she'd be in front of the TV in worship, thanking Darwin for giving her Obama.

Package without earmarks?!?!?! BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!!!!! (I know, but when it's that blatantly false....)

Oooh, the check is in the mail (in reference to his "tax cut" welfare). I'll file that under famous lies right next to "I won't come in your mouth" an "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Yeha, responsibly end the war in Iraq. Done. All we have to do is withdraw. To keep up the crude sexual references, it's like saying you'll pull out after you've already shot your wad (it will happen anyway, followed by a need to get a drink).

*clapping* (in reference to his Pok-e-ston policy (no complaints there))

Swift and certain justice for GITMO terrorists? Does that mean you're just going to shoot the bastards? Not cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks? (bonus point: Name the movie)

He's gone into the Clinton method of personal stories of Americans now. Gave up a little and started pounding out some bass lines. I did note some of his examples (mainly the girl with the shitty school) seem to indicate the problem is solved. not in the local community but in Washington.

And that's it.

And now the numbers (because numbers are a great way to fill space):

65 applause interrupts (from Fox News)
5 references to crisis
4 references to Bush screwing us (inherited)
2 times I blasted John McCain when I saw him on the screen (more than any other asshat I saw)
9 number of things that got me to loudly yell bullshit (which made me glad I put the kids to bed)

Okay, time to post this piece of shit and listen to analysis and Bobby Jindal. And play bass. And maybe PS2. And maybe, just maybe catch up on the blogs.


Arthurstone said...

Buck up Patrick.

Jindal's going to exorcise the Republican's demons.

Patrick M said...

Arthur: You were spamming the same thing (except in the past tense) before Jindal spoke (or should I say intoned monotonously).

But thanks for reminding me that rank moonbattery is alive and unwell.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Jindal spoke to the American people as though we were 4 year olds--The Misterogers of the GOP. If that's all the Repubs have then I have to say this:


You can't choose your new leaders just because they're people of color and hope the American people notice you've caught up with the the Democratic Party.

Jindal was a downer after President Obama's incredibly good speech.

The GOP should have passed out Viagra after Jindal spoke.

Patrick M said...

Shaw: I zoned out on the Jindal speech. If that is his best speaking (and I suspect it's not) then he's not ready for prime time.

I can agree on the passing out of the Viagra. Of course, I'd be need to download some new vids to go with it.

Arthurstone said...

Heh. Heh.

A friendly poke at Jindal for my TWO favorite reactionaries is, gasp, spam?


Careful spending much time at Mikes. You might sink to his level.

You're a little testy of late Patrick. A steady diet of screaming at the TV followed by PS2 does no one any good.


Read a book.

There's an entire non-wired world to enjoy.

Anonymous said...

OMG Patrick.....I can always count on you to tell it like it is.

I agree with Shaw regarding her comment on Jindal...but then again, you can't elect a guy that makes pretty speeches and happened to be the right color for the democratic party and expect him to do anything that resembles a solution to the problem. How ironic that people can criticize Bush for that stupid ass bailout (which he deserved)and then applaud Obama for stuffing that (to use your excellent description) bullshit down our throats. Hypocrisy abounds!

I swear I almost spit out my tea when I read your sexual references! Always a treat coming here.

Patrick M said...

Arthur: I see two comments from you that are substantially the same on two blogs (and one was jumping the gun) and what am I supposed to assume.

Besides, when did I become a reactionary?

And I read all the time. I don't have any electronics in the crapper, where I often spend fine amounts of non-masturbatory time taking in the words on the page (and the aroma in the air).

Jenn: You have to have humor when you watch this crap.

And you would have spit your tea out had you seen some of the gestures.

dmarks said...

As for comment above about Jindahl being a colored person, my response is "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"

I think that the exorcism comments are fair game, but not bashing Jindahl for his race or skin color.

James Manning said...

personally, i think jindal came off as creepy. on my blog, we now refer to him as "stranger danger jindal". the gop has some real issues going forward.

Shaw Kenawe said...


No one's criticizing Jindal for the color of his skin or deliberately calling attention to it. I'm only pointing out that the GOP became awfully interested in people of color since Mr. Obama won the presidency by winning in traditionally "red" states.

Jindal and Steele have been in the GOP for a number of years. Why didn't the GOP trot them out as "representatives" of the party, say, even 2 years ago?

TAO said...

I have decided that everything in Washington DC is some alternate reality and everyone in Washington are alien life forms....

To aspire a position in Washington involves becoming an alien....

Not real sure what country they are running but it isn't the one I live in...

Anonymous said...

I so cheated, but damn Patrick I love those bonus points!!

Patton.....awesome quote by the way!

TRUTH101 said...

You know folks: even if Obama goes Caligula or something, if the best the Republicans have to go against him are Jindal and Palin, I see smooth sailing for us Dems. Looking forward to your angry rants through 2016 Patrick.

Great speech Mr. President!

Patrick M said...

Shaw: This is what happens when a party that doesn't play race and sex games (unlike the Democrats) tries to do so. It looks lame.

Tao: It would probably be better if we just fired them all and replaced them every 2 years.

Jenn: Watching the opening speech of Patton is a requirement. It's great even by today's standard.

101: Why do all you liberals insist I am going to be doing nothing but angry rants?

Half the time I'm laughing when I write what I write. And is it just because I find problems with almost everything Obama is doing?

If the definition of angry rant is now "doesn't agree and lick the balls of Obama" then I'm guilty. And proud of it.

As for the best the GOP has to offer, if you think Jindal and Palin are it, then you're not paying attention. There are a few others that look promising. And the next two years will shake out the pikers.

dmarks said...

Shaw: You are making an issue of Jindahl being a "colored" person. I remember people doing similar things about Obama (he was only chosen because he was black, etc). I opposed that too. Time to keep the race cards off the table.

Creepy? Condescending? Exorcism? Fair game. Race-baiting, even through layers of deniability, not.

TRUTH101 said...

"truth101: Why do all you liberals insist I am going to be doing nothing but angry rants?'

Hey man. Don't get angry Bro. Just think of the new Republican Platform I gave you guys.
Glad to help out.

Patrick M said...

You mean: "Good sex. A nice pair of shoes. And a warm place to go to the bathroom."

Well, let me continue the copying of my response to that:

Well, two out of three ain't bad.

Maybe I'd have been transported [in reference to your post about the speech] by Obama's speech (which seemed to elicit the term bullshit more that you've used it in the last week) if I were getting the good sex.

Probably not.

BB-Idaho said...

"As for the best the GOP has to offer, if you think Jindal and Palin are it, then you're not paying attention." Er...Joe The Plumber?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Shaw: This is what happens when a party that doesn't play race and sex games (unlike the Democrats) tries to do so. It looks lame.

Please. I can't count the number of conservative men who went ga-ga over Palin because they thought she was "hawt." And Gordon couldn't keep his eyes off of the dominitrix black boots, thinking as many impure thoughts as he could manage. Sex card? Really Patrick? You yourself were having certain kinds of dreams over her.

Believe me, if Palin looked like this but had the same qualifications, you never would have given her a nanosecond of a thought.

And no race games? Really? I've lost count over the number of Republican officials, local and national, across this country who have made disgusting racial jokes about Obama and passed them along in emails. The lastest is the jerk from California who emailed a picture of the White House with watermelons growing on the front lawn. And the person running for RNC chairman passing around "Barack the Magic Negro?" and many, many others I've documented on my blog.

First thing out of one self-identified Republican guy's mouth, IIRC, when Obama got the nomination was his wondering if Obama won, if we could still call it the "White House."

The self-identified Republican guy in where? Georgia? selling "Curious George" monkey tee-shirts with Obama's face on the monkey?

Republicans have not been shy about making fun of Obama's race--it is documented all over the internet.

Where the heck have you been? Sticking you head up, I mean in the sand?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Oh. I forgot to include the link to the photo, re: If Palin had all the same qualifications she has but looked like this:


None of the Republican men would have drooled over her.

Sexists? No one can beat you guys in that category.

TRUTH101 said...

From one blogger to another Patrick. You can give yourself a do over on the race and sex game comment. You're a busy man. We understand how you may in your zeal post something foolish like that.

dmarks said...

Still doesn't make it OK to make the comments about Jindahl being a "colored" person.

Arthurstone said...


What's the problem having an honest discussion which involves race? Before you go all MLK on us you are the one who used phrase colored person. Persons of color is the more accepted as it refers to all non-whites.

NAACP notwithstanding 'colored' is old fashioned & out of date.

dmarks said...

Arthur: people of color = colored people. I was not the first.

"....colored person. Persons of color is the more accepted..."

They mean the same thing.

dmarks said...

(and no, I don't use either unless I am quoting someone else or referring to what someone said. The term is kind of silly, since I have never known of a person who was did not have a color).

Patrick M said...

BB: Correction, Joe the Plumber was the best that the McCain camp had to offer.

Shaw: You miss the point. An intelligent woman is an intelligent person. And we need more of them in government.

However, when you're talking about yummilicious babes, then I plead guilty to ogling. I have a dick.

But I don't let my trouser snake dictate whether I like a person's political views. It's one thing that keeps me watching Fox News. They've got some really smart hotties arguing both points. An example would be Kirsten Powers. She's liberal, I hardly agree with her, and if she were spouting her liberal insanity in a wet t-shirt, I'd be inclined to rub one out while disagreeing.

As for the race thing, Obama has certainly brought out the racists, as well as those with bad taste. It's not representative of the party as a whole and I won't defend a damn bit of that shit.

As for the song, we've been over this. It mocks a column from the LA times, Al Sharpton, and all the others obsessed with Barack's blackness and whether he's black enough, or acceptable to whites. And it's sung by an imitation of Al Sharpton to make that point.

And if I look back, who was it in this post that started on the race shit AGAIN? I'm not the one obsessing on it, or even giving a shit until it gets brought up. That's my point.

101: Let me clarify. The GOP hasn't obsessed on race and sex nearly as much as the Democrats.

Dmarks: ...I have never known of a person who was did not have a color.

You've never someone who's ass-white?!?!?!?

Anonymous said...

Americans are very angry.
But so many of us are afraid to tell it like it is. Maybe Eric Holder is right?
Maybe we ARE a nation of cowards
We have an “affirmative action” AG and an “affirmative action” President. Does anyone really believe Obama would have been elected in spite of his non-existent experience and his disgusting associations if he was white?
We ARE a nation of cowards regarding race. We’re afraid to tell the truth.
I read somewhere on the other blog that we are expected to support Obama!
Why? Because he's the president. But we disagree with him on 90 percent of what he says and does. So why support him?
we don’t need a Jackson/Sharpton-style lecture on race. Barack Obama’s election was supposed to get us past that, wasn't he!
I don't blame people that ate angry. I know that I am as well.
Being critical of Holder is not enough - not nearly enough. The only reasonable response to that insane, nasty, stupid speech that Holder gave as Attorney General is to come to the conclusion that he is not fit for that job, exhibits some very scary and chilling attitudes about what task of the AG is and Justice, in general and must be taken out of the position. You can bet your life that if he were white and a republican there would be hell to be paid and he would have been asked to step down by now.
And another thing, Bobby Jindal was a disaster the other night. If we are going to win the white house back in 2010 with him, either Bobby Jindal better shape up or we better start thinking of someone else. because they will distroy him.

Arthurstone said...

Jeff Jots typed:

'We have an “affirmative action” AG and an “affirmative action” President. Does anyone really believe Obama would have been elected in spite of his non-existent experience and his disgusting associations if he was white?'

Not content to leave well enough alone he added:

'We ARE a nation of cowards regarding race. We’re afraid to tell the truth.'

The truth is we still have a sizable number of bigots in this country.

And you're one of them.

dmarks said...

Jeff: "Does anyone really believe Obama would have been elected in spite of his non-existent experience and his disgusting associations if he was white?"

Well, yes. The King quote applies here, and I dislike this as much as when Shaw played the colored-person race card on Jindahl.

As for Holder, the last thing I care about with him is his skin color. There are plenty of valid criticisms to be made of him without bashing him for being African-American.

dmarks said...

Arthur: Well stated.

Arthurstone said...

Thanks dmarks.

Ditto back at you.

Satyavati devi dasi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Satyavati devi dasi said...

Why do all you liberals

Back the truck up there, Cletus.

Don't be making these blanket generalizations about liberals.

I go to great pains to emphasize that not ALL conservatives/Republicans (regardless of the distinctions they hasten to make within their own ranks, the words mean the same to me) are bigoted,anti-environment, homophobic, Protestant, upper-class racists who believe that the rest of society is put there, Metropolis-esque, to provide for their every whim and so-called need at the expense of their own happiness, standard of living and general quality of life.

There's a lot of them, all right, but certainly not ALL of them.

And I would like to make that point and keep it perfectly clear.

Don't be making some kind of blanket accusations that by their very generality are patently untrue.

At least put in a disclaimer.

TRUTH101 said...

Thanks for the clarification Patrick. You run a fun and exciting blog. I appreciate your allowing me to post here.
Now if I could either get Jeff to clarify or delete his foolish rant Lent would be off to a good start.

Patrick M said...

Jeffs: I'd add to what Dmarks and Arthur said (as I rarely find them in agreeement), but I think they both nailed it.

Arthur and Dmarks: What you said.

Saty: Consider it disclaimed. I lose track once in a while.

101: There's a difference between rational discussion (peppered with copious dick and fart jokes) and "insane, deluded, and foolish" blather. Only the ignorant see me as the latter.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Well, yes. The King quote applies here, and I dislike this as much as when Shaw played the colored-person race card on Jindahl.

dmarks, no matter how often you repeat that nonsense, it still won't make you right. I did not "play the race card" on Jindal.

Here is what I typed:

You can't choose your new leaders just because they're people of color and hope the American people notice you've caught up with the the Democratic Party.

I merely pointed out the fact that the GOP has now promoted two peopole WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE GOP FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS,and I'm asking why are they promoting them NOW, AFTER Barack Obama was elected president? Why weren't they given leadership positions, say, two years ago? I'm implying that the GOP saw that promoting people of color is now acceptable, so they're playing catch-up.

That is what I said. You keep misquoting and misrepresenting me.

Please stop.

dmarks said...

I wasn't the only one who noticed that you were the first one to bring Jindahl's race (as a colored person) into the comments.

It isn't as bad as the other guy who chimed in with the thing about Obama and Holder only being chosen for their race, but it is along the same line.

There is plenty to say about Jindahl without bashing him for his race hidden behind levels of deniability.

Arthurstone said...


dmarks said...

If you call hot biscuits "biscuits of heat", you are still calling them hot biscuits.

Arthurstone said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Arthurstone said...

Biscuits aren't people dmarks.

This is another in an endless series of episodes surrounding power and privilege.

'Colored people' is, to a very great many. Insulting.
Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

It's considered demeaning and to watch a middle-class white guy insist it shouldn't is pretty funny. I anm always mystified why good manners is dismissed by a great many as 'political correctness'.

Language and attitudes evolve. For example we don't use 'oriental' so much anymore. Likewise I remember how put out a lot of Americans were when an anglicized, colonial era Peking became Beijing. Or Bombay, Mumbai. Usually it's a marked improvement as well. Had you rather visit Leghorn or Livorno (nee Legorno)?

Same with 'colored people'. Folks everywhere have earned the right to define their own stories.

dmarks said...

Arthur: "Biscuits aren't people dmarks."

But languge is language, so your point is meaningless. I can, if you want, use another analogy: "Indonesian people means the same as People of Indonesia". There goes the objection, as Indonesians are people. People of color means the same thing as colored people. I disdain both terms equally. But I was not the one here to start bashing Jindal for being colored, of color, or whatever.

"'Colored people' is, to a very great many. Insulting.
Why is that so hard for you to grasp?"

It's not hard to grasp. But they are being idiots if they are offended by "colored people" and not "people of color". It's the same thing. Like getting bent out of shape at calling "people of Indonesia" "Indonesian people". It's really stupid.