Bush Mask Good, Obama Mask Bad
If the left weren't so blatant and unapologetic with their hypocrisy, it wouldn't be so much fun to point it out.
Let's set this up.
Liberals hated the Bush Administration, so they would hear none of the show-respect-for-the-office nonsense. They publicly mocked him, often using vulgar sexual innuendo (commonly referring to a Bush and a Dick), profanity, and/or worse. Nothing was out of bounds when denigrating President Bush.
But let you show the slightest unintentional disrespect towards their president and all hell breaks loose, complete with a clarion call for sensitivity and a newfound respect for the office.
With that, you can imagine my insensitivity when hearing about an incident in Portland, Oregon…
A mask similar to one President Barack Obama himself wore in a "Saturday Night Live" skit prompted a Portland school principal to ban a boy from performing while wearing it at his elementary school talent show after deciding the rubber likeness of the 44th president was "inappropriate and potentially offensive."
After Thursday's performance, the "crowd went wild," Dru Lechert-Kelly, 11, a fifth-grader at Llewellyn Elementary School in Southeast Portland said. But so did some of the adults in the audience.
"I talked to the parents who are coordinating the talent show, and they feel it's inappropriate and potentially offensive," Llewellyn Principal Steve Powell said.
When asked what was offensive about Dru's skit, Powell refused to discuss it.
"I won't say why it's inappropriate," he said. "I'm not saying anything to The Oregonian. Why? Because I don't want to."
There's a mature response from an authority figure.
So, you have it, folks.
Eight years of Bush parody and insults were considered okay and "free speech" by liberals. But a kid in school wearing a mask of the current White House occupant is considered "offensive" and "inappropriate" although no one will say why.
Let me take a stab at it.
Progressives [liberals] are way too full of themselves and their sense of self-importance.
They can mock their opponents all day, and they'll feel better about themselves. However, when you mock them, they lose their minds. They're too important to be made fun of, whether it be an over-the-top presentation, or with the use of logic-based retorts (with that spice of sarcasm) that send them storming off to their room, claiming that a response is beneath them.
What this really shows is just how feeble their arguments are once scrutinized and how thin their skins are once confronted.
A pitiful combination, to be sure.
SUNDAY FUN WITH AL-NOT-SO-SHARP!
-
Dudes and dudettes…thought I’d toss this in the mix for a little humor
today. SNL opened their show last night featuring good ol’ Al Sharpton…the
impersona...
1 hour ago
5 Opinion(s):
Forget about petty high school politics for a minute.
When Obama protested at huge bonus payments to execs at failed insurance company AIG and condemned them for sheer recklessness on Monday he was laughed at, because there is nothing he can do about these bonus agreements as they were already written in stone in April last year. The company has benefited from more than $170 billion in a federal rescue funded by taxpayers, of which no less than $165 million is being paid to executives who caused the mess in the first place.
When Ben Bernanke expressed the same outrage, he wasn't laughed at, and let's also bear in mind that Bernanke did nothing about tightening regulations governing the financial services industry as chairman of the Federal Reserve even though the warning signs were already there in 2007. Now that's what I call hypocrisy.
What Obama can and will do is tighten regulations so that executives who act recklessly in future will get fired instead of being rewarded for incompetence. But Obama can't change the past.
Give him a chance. Unlike George Bush who really stuffed things up, Obama became president at a really shit time. If you want to compare Obama unfavourably with GW Bush right from the word go, then perhaps you might just be a racist and a total idiot. Bush must surely rate as the worst president America ever had even though he was born lily white to a highly privileged family.
"Unlike George Bush who really stuffed things up"
Ha Ha Ha, good one, BUT I don't believe there's a person (with a brain) alive who doesn't know that it was Clinton (with "his" sub-prime) who actually "stuffed things up"!
Even the lower 6th form students I lectured last week are fully aware of this, and they've been brainwashed by "new labour" to try to get them to understand it differently... but yes, even kids can see through the shit!
Tell me anon 1:24, who was it that RELAXED lending restrictions on Fannie May and Freddie Mac so that they could give loans to low-income people that simply could not afford mortgages? I'll give you a clue. It involved a left-leaning party to which the current POTUS belongs and was at the insistence of street agitators like Acorn for which the POTUS worked? Oh wait, my bad, you've already called me a "racist" so that means you've lost the argument.
Why is you liberals can never argue without name calling? Is it that small dick mentality? Too much blow up your nose? What? Tell me facts. Stop listening and reading the liberal mags and newspapers. Open you mind to the real world. Did you even know there were dozens of "Tea Protests" against Obama's bailouts around the US this week? No? That's because almost NONE of the left, liberal media covered any of it. Why?
Before, whenever two or more "anti-war" or "anti-Bush" protestors got together, it was splashed across the front pages of the NY Times etc etc. Hypocrites, the lot of you!!
But everyone is catching on to your game and for the first time in a long time beginning to fight back.
@Doberman: I did not call you a racist. You didn't write the original article anyway. I just commented that going for Obama from all sides when he just started as president under lousy circumstances is unfair. I just commented, "Give him a chance."
Alan Greenspan lowered interest rates to ridiculous levels to (a) soften interest on bank loans used to fight the war in Iraq, which was a necessary war but a very costly one, but which was of course also good for the banks and (b) sustain consumer spending in the US at unsustainable highs. You can't simultaneously wage expensive wars AND spend on consumer goods like there's no tomorrow. The same Alan Greenspan mumbled about "turbulent times" and got a HUGE advance on his book on the subject six months before it was released. Alan Greenspan was a shrewd spin operator.
It doesn't make me anti-semitic to say Alan Greenspan was a shlenterer of note. You should read what Bill Bonner has to say about who caused the economic crisis. I agree with him 100%. Go and look him up.
Just because I don't judge Obama negatively (yet) doesn't make me a bleeding heart liberal. I can understand that a half white, half black US president can make people nervous - it makes me a bit nervous myself - but that doesn't mean I should slate the guy immediately. Do you think Obama is really the driving force behind the bail outs? I don't agree with the bail outs because they will cause long, drawn out pain for a couple of future generations. Massive inflation caused by printing trillions of paper money will wipe out the savings of millions of Americans close to or on retirement, with the younger generation carrying the can for a long, long time to come. I am more inclined to say, "Screw bail outs. Let the banks and car manufacturers go bust. Let the chips fall where they may, and let's start all over again from scratch."
But that would be immensely painful in the short term, and I can't think of any American president who would have the balls to go that route. He would be kicked out before he knew what hit him.
Anon 19 March 2009 01:24
@ anon 1:24, excellent. You got through a comment without labelling me a racist or anything else. Good. Now, funnily enough I agree with you about Greenspan. He was one of the architects of this debacle. And Bernanke is an even worse plonker.
I tend to think that you should let industries or banks go bust - or partly - or break them up. It is grossly unfair to shift this burden to two generations yet to be born. It is the capitalist way and what made America the powerhouse that it is. When something fails, it gives someone else a chance to pick up the pieces and do a better job. Again, that is the capitalist way, and the American way. This bailout thing is a bad idea. From Bush or Obama. Check out Japan's experience. They've spent umpteen trillions in 10 years to achieve 6% growth IN TOTAL which is 0,6% growth per year. Crap numbers and no end in sight. I'm afraid that's where you are headed if the politicians keep doing what they are doing. Let the free market sort out the bad rubbish. There will be pain yes, but it will be short term versus the decades you are looking at now.
Post a Comment