Project Wonderful Banner

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Those damned weenies

What's Mallard raving about today?

President Obama, Rush Limbaugh, Republicans.

Man, sucks to be Republican. They lost the vast middle of America over the last 8 years. Now they are losing the dead-enders from their own party.

Not that it's not deserved, of course. It's hard to be wrong about everything for years without alienating a few people.

12 comments:

GeoX said...

As a liberal, I hoped that w would fail in his agenda of invading a random Middle Eastern country for no easily discernible reason. However, that doesn't mean I didn't hope like fuck that IF he did this, it would somehow turn out that my entire worldview was dead wrong and democracy would flourish, terror would end, etc--even though a child could see that this was never going to happen.

Whereas Republicans want Obama not only to fail to get his plans implemented, but for his plans to fail if enacted, so that they can grab more power. They're pure political nihilists. It's all a fucking game to them.

exanonymous said...

Oooo, Mallard used the dirty 'S' word.

Weenies or socialists... heaven forbid we as a country wouldn't want to play "your mama" with foreign countries and try care of our own people. They forget that power is more than just saying you have power, and that a country's standing is based on the wealth and health of the people as a whole.

Nick said...

Interesting that Tinsley is trying to rewrite what Rush said, which was not that "Obama 'fails' to implement his agenda," but that his plans -- once implemented -- fail to help the country:

"Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the U.S. government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, ‘Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.’ (interruption) What are you laughing at?

"See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, ‘Oh, you can’t do that.’ Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the drive-by story is. I would be honored if the drive-by media headlined me all day long: ‘Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.’ Somebody’s gotta say it."


Tinsley would never get his facts solely from the "drive-by media," so we can safely assume that he knew exactly what Rush said. So why is Tinsley trying to soften the meaning? Could he think it was too "harsh"? And wouldn't that make Tinsley a "weenie"?

WV: subtes: What you wear under your t-shirts, when you wear your t-shirts as outer shirts.

NLC said...

Ah yes, the good old days.... labeling ones opponents as "socialist".

How quaint.

MToje said...

Really? A true socialist in the next election? Because Workers' control of the means of production (and not mere regulation on how business can and cannot conduct itself for its own profit-seeking), a re-organization of the US into small-scale communes, and the return of the true consciousness of the worker to his or her product through the redistribution of labor added value all sound pretty good to me.

Oh wait, Tinsley means a Democrat and Keynesian capitalism versus a Republican and casino capitalism.

12xuser said...

After thirty years of elections between the fascists and the weenies, this sounds like a great trade to me.

Madpuppy said...

Conservatives want Obama to fail.

Liberals wanted Bush to stop failing.

dlauthor said...

And Madpuppy wins the comment thread for today.

dragoknight14 said...

The really obnoxious part about this is that if the Republicans were offering viable alternatives then this wouldn't seem quite so odious. But no, they just want to keep firing tax cuts at the problem, and in a situation like this tax cuts are fundamentally a double kick to the jimmies for anyone that isn't in the 200k+ crowd since not only is their money going to the heads of AIG and the like but NOW their tax money, much of which could and should be used to rebuild infrastructure or to create public work projects or any number of useful social programs, would again be used to line the pockets of the already prosperous.

I dislike socialism in this nation only because I know that it would end up putting more money in the hands of those who already have wealth and influence.

rewinn said...

Oi, Madpuppy, you gotta put that on a t-shirt.

I tried it in another forum (http://seattle.craigslist.org/forums/?act=Q&ID=119810600) and got 6 recs in 1 minute ... (http://seattle.craigslist.org/forums/?forumID=20 ) ... a record!

Well done sir, madam, or puppy!

Jazzbumpa said...

Blallard today illustrates one of the 4 pillars of conservative thought*: false choice.

Anyone who isn't a Repugninut is a Socialist. Actually, not a bad paraphrase of Russell Kirk.

_____________________
* if one may use this word in that context

Michael said...

Anyone who isn't a Repugninut is a Socialist.

A socialist is someone who increases the tax on the wealthy from 36% to 39%. Every president besides Bush II was a socialist, by the way.