You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘dictatorship’ category.
I thought this was a headline that needed highlighted here
The complete quote from a speech 2 days ago – explaining why purchasing City Hall was a better deal that White House would be
“I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world. I have my own State Department, much to Foggy Bottom’s annoyance. We have the United Nations in New York, and so we have an entree into the diplomatic world that Washington does not have,” Mayor Bloomberg said.
Mind you, we already knew his personal wealth surpasses the national budget of many nations and he has his own media – bearing his name too. Many of us knew but he now brazenly confirmed that he thinks of New York as his personal kingdom and of the public employees (NYPD) as his personal army. Of course, there’s another implication to this: he openly wages war on the rest of us. Pretenses are over.
B0botland is getting new rules to better protect and help Obama turn a corner, all name calling is verbotten.
The New rules, coming on the heels of Teh Speech being universally panned, are meant to eradicate
persistent undercurrent of negativity and conflict here, which has been exacerbated by the lack of a common villain in the form of George W. Bush.
Oh, noes! Hillary has abdicated her responsibility then.
But what about Palin? Can’t she be the common villain?
And why does a political forum need a common villain anyway? Why make it all so personal?
Of course, the lack of a common villain, might make some take a clear look at Obama. This is – of course, verbotten.
Here is the entire humongous section on this
Inappropriate attacks against Democrats
- Insults against prominent Democrats, such as “Fuck Obama.”
- Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama “Barry” or some other name.
- Repeating Republican partisan attacks against Democrats.
- Broadly suggesting that there is no difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. (Arguing that specific policies are the same would be permitted.)
- Suggesting that President Obama has perpetrated a “con job” or “fraud,” or similarly over-the-top assertions of bad faith.
- Advocating voting against Democrats, or in favor of third-party or GOP candidates.
- Broad-brush smears against Democrats generally. Broad expressions of contempt toward Democrats generally.
So, now that we know what is verbotten, let’s see what is missing,
. Here it is in its entirety the answer to these questions
Broad-brush or Extreme Group Attack – When discussing groups of DU members, the following are considered broad-brush group attacks:
- Suggesting that a particular point of view is required in order to be a Democrat, liberal, or progressive.
So, there are no longer Democratic principles, ideals, defining beliefs for a liberal in the era of Obama.
You want to stay a B0bot, check any principles at the door.
Any statement to the opposite is a “broad brush or extreme group attack”
They don’t know who they are, not are they allowed to explore. No principles, no beliefs.
No look through those principles at what THEIR candidate is doing is allowed.
Now that’s postPartisan!
Only one problem:
4. I think he’s figured out who’s a** to kick.
He should take the press into receivership.
Clio the Leo (1000+ posts)
15. lol ….. he should FIRE the press! …. replace them all with the Coast Guard
Anyway, the definition of a B0bot just became clearer for us.
Also, the esponse to the new rules is nearly unanimously positive.
.It seems that the candidate that was so cool, he was texting his VP to his adoring fans is not turning against technology which he doesn’t even know how to use
.That was the NY Post headline. Two things did strike me from that commencement address Obama gave. First that he told students
“With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation,”
NY Post notices the contradiction too
Obama — whose election was credited, in part, to his skillful use of modern media, from smart phones to Twitter to Flickr – yesterday told college graduates that high-tech gizmos and apps are straining American democracy.
“With so many voices clamoring for attention on blogs, on cable, on talk radio, it can be difficult, at times, to sift through it all; to know what to believe; to figure out who’s telling the truth and who’s not,” Obama said.
“Let’s face it — even some of the craziest claims can quickly gain traction. I’ve had some experience with that myself. Fortunately, you’ll be well positioned to navigate this terrain.”
Translation: information is only good when I control it. Every other source is bad for you. Too many voices – bad for democracy. There should be only one – mine!
And while NY Post for some reason zooms on IPad in its headline – I wonder – what will those words to young people do for the sales of I-Pad and all the other new fangled gizmos Obama can’t even use?
Here’s a hint:
A South Park episode had a Japanese animation craze mesmerize the children
All methods to snap them out of it were tried, but finally it was the parents joining in and saying they were cool that turned the kids off instantly.
In aspiring to become Big Brother, Obama just made himself into a fuddy duddy, and this kid is heading to the Mac store today!
I must admit, I couldn’t come with a better headline than Pharyngula which follows the quote from Obama’s proclamation with a hearty
Get stuffed, you pandering, unprincipled hack.
It’s almost impossible to top that.
Maybe recalling the less hypocritical Bush the Smarter proclamation that atheists are not citizens
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
It’s really not all that different from Obama’s “call” upon the US citizens to pray. Those who don’t are excluded just as they wore in Poppy’s times.
The Confluence entry on this underlines how even religious tenets call for prayer to be private rather than ‘in your face and gives the perspective of how those of us excluded on this day feel
I have to admit to being one person that feels extremely uncomfortable when some one stands up in a crowd and suggests we offer up a prayer to his/her deity (whatever it is.) Being surrounded by people obediently reciting things gives me the same kind of creepy, uneasy feeling I get when watching “1984″ or those ‘we love fearless leader ceremonies’ they do in North Korea. I feel surrounded by aliens that might turn on me or shriek and point like those pod people did to Donald Sutherland.
As a Christian minister, I can’t understand why some clergy ever thought the National Day of Prayer was a good idea. It’s my job to advise people on spiritual matters; the state has no business usurping that role. My fellow members of the clergy and I don’t pass legislation or fill potholes, so maybe the government should just get off our turf.
Furthermore, the National Day of Prayer has always been soaked in the kind of offensive “God and country” rhetoric that many of us find nauseating. It was first proposed in the 1950s to show those godless commies a thing or two.
National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional because it calls on citizens to take part in religious activity.
Ah, but we now have a constitutional scholar in the White House so he can tear apart both separations: of powers and church and state.
Just like when we had an MBA, the economy went kablouie. It never fails.
In conclusion I will rally to the Pharyngula blog call of
Get stuffed, you pandering, unprincipled hack...
Page one of Washington Times wears this headline
Judge: Prayer day violates U.S. law
Obama to recognize national tradition
Ironically, the lawsuit leading to this decision was brought by the Freedom from Religion Foundation against Dubya. But this is a perfect case of Jr.jr
The lawsuit originally targeted then-President George W. Bush and members of his administration, but Mr. Obama is now listed as the defendant because the president enforces the statute in question by issuing a proclamation each year declaring National Day of Prayer.
Because proclamations for National Day of Prayer are released through the White House press office, Mr. Bush’s former press secretary, Dana Perino, was originally listed as a defendant, but has since been replaced as a defendant by Robert Gibbs, Mr. Obama’s press secretary.
The judge had decided yesterday
that the country’s National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional because it calls on citizens to take part in religious activity. Senior U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb said the statute that created the National Day of Prayer violates the Constitution’s prohibition against the government establishment of religion
A determination that the government may not endorse a religious message is not a determination that the message itself is harmful, unimportant or undeserving of dissemination. Rather, it is part of the effort ‘to carry out the Founders’ plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possibly in a pluralistic society.’”
Of course, out constitutional scholar/Messiah doesn’t believe in separation of powers nor separation of church and state as he had his flunkies declare
The ruling will not stop President Obama from recognizing, as he did last year, a national day of prayer, said White House spokesman Ben LaBolt. Judge Crabb delayed the imposition of her ruling pending an appeal.
“We have reviewed the court’s decision, and it does not prevent the president from issuing a proclamation,”
This is the funniest part of the news
“President Obama is a constitutional scholar, and knows the issues at stake,” said the foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor.
Well, Annie, you should have paid more attention:
It was not the B0bots, but six million fundies staying home Election Day who elected Obama. Their pastors didn’t tell them to vote for a number of reasons – they were paid off before and after the election:
Obama declared – repeatedly that abortion is not an issue of women’s freedom, but a moral choice.
During his campaign he pledged to extend Bush’s faith based programs, including allowing those federally funded groups to hire and fire based on faith.
When congress was writing the stimulus, Obama personally asked House members to dump contraceptives funding from the bill
and also it restores funding for abstinence only programs education (i.e religious groups)
and culminating nicely with the Jane Crow Executive Order allowing religious hospitals/practitioners to discriminate against women, but protecting THEM from being discriminated against ( additional provisions to Hyde too)
and these were just a few I searched in my own blog.
Where were you, Foundation for Freedom from Religion when all these things happened?
Me? I learn to read the incoming threats from the way a candidate sells himself.
Bush sold himself as the first busines school graduate – he wrecked the economy.
Obama, the first Constitutional scholar…. see how it works?