Dec 06 2012

Fucke You, Obama

Categories:

Can somebody explain to me why President Obama should install an America-hating motherfucken republican slimebagge piece of shitte asshole as SECDEF? I sure as fucken fucke didn’t vote for Obama in order for him to put despicable republican shittewaddes in positions of power; I voted for him to kick these heinous blights on humanity in the fucken dicke.

This post has no tag

31 comments

Skip to comment form ↓

1

Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort

December 6, 2012 at 8:40 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

Hagel is probably more in line with Obama’s policies than with the Republicans at this point. Hagel is among the ones kicked to the curb for being too Liberal to be part of the new Tea Party Republicans.
2

Comradde PhysioProffe

December 6, 2012 at 8:43 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

I don’t give a fuckeing fucke about any of that. Hire a goddamn motherfucken Democrat.
3

Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort

December 6, 2012 at 8:51 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

They also worked together on nuclear disarmament sort of stuff. He was against the invasion of Iraq. He was very critical of George W. Bush and his administration.

And actually I was wrong, he decided not to seek re-election because he was frustrated with the direction the Republicans were going. He would probably have gone Independent rather than continue to consider himself a Republican – and likely would have been ousted by a Tea Partier if he had run in 2010.
4

Comradde PhysioProffe

December 6, 2012 at 8:53 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

Who cares? There are plenty of qualified Democrats. Would a Republican president ever in a kajlillion bajillion fucketillion years ever hire a Democrat as SECDEF?

This kind of shitte just reinforces the right-wing lie that only Republicans are “serious” about national defense, when really they are cowardly chickenhawks.
5

Jonathan

December 6, 2012 at 9:10 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

1) He’s only been short-listed, it doesn’t mean he’ll get the job.

2) I’m not American, so perhaps my grasp of the issues isn’t all it could be. But isn’t one of the problems in American politics the fact that there is a deep partisan divide between the parties? If appointing him could help create cooperation between the two sides, why not do it? Shouldn’t it be about appointing a qualified individual, regardless of political beliefs?

Whether or not the Republicans would appoint a Democrat is irrelevant. If they wouldn’t, then why sink to their level by refusing to appoint one of them?

Judging by what Katherine had written, he doesn’t seem a “typical” Republican. Why tar them all with the same brush? It’s not a very sceptical or rational way to do things.
6

Comradde PhysioProffe

December 6, 2012 at 10:44 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

But isn’t one of the problems in American politics the fact that there is a deep partisan divide between the parties? If appointing him could help create cooperation between the two sides, why not do it? Shouldn’t it be about appointing a qualified individual, regardless of political beliefs?

This is complete bullshitte. “Deep partisan divide” is not the problem. The problem is that one of the political parties is deranged and indecent. Nothing that enhances that party’s credibility and/or power should ever be done.
7

recent Ph.D.

December 6, 2012 at 11:49 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

In theory, a move like this would enhance Democrat not Refucklican credibility by making Obama appear civil and magnanimous. In reality, it could fail ridiculously, but such moves are trendy these days.
8

Jonathan

December 6, 2012 at 12:59 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

This is complete bullshitte. “Deep partisan divide” is not the problem. The problem is that one of the political parties is deranged and indecent. Nothing that enhances that party’s credibility and/or power should ever be done.

Is it bullshit?

Why do you think that a Republican-controlled congress did everything it could to prevent Obama’s bills passing? Is it because they’re deranged and indecent, or because they had the same attitude as you, that cooperating with the Democrats would enhance the power of the latter, and should never be done?

A question: have you read what Katherine said about this man’s decisions? Does that honestly sound like someone “deranged and indecent”? Is making sweeping generalisations a rational thing to do?
9

iariese

December 6, 2012 at 3:06 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

’cause no really good (or even “GREAT” )President would appoint a member of the other party, or even a political rival, to their Cabinet….”Team of Rivals”. /snark
10

fuckesatonne

December 6, 2012 at 3:07 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

How about if Hagel decides to officially become a Democrat? Would that satisfy you, CPP? Sheesh. What’s the big fucking deal? A name is just a name.

Another reason to nominate a rethuglican is that the front-running alternative democrat is someone like Senator John Kerry. And if there’s an election for his seat, a republifucke might winne. Whiche is badde for everyeone.
11

Markita Lynda—threadrupt

December 6, 2012 at 3:27 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

Because he’s really a Reagan Republican in spirit.
12

Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort

December 6, 2012 at 4:20 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

@Markita:

For that matter, so is Obama.
13

david

December 6, 2012 at 4:29 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

It’s brilliant. One of Obama’s biggest tasks over the next year is reducing the pentagon budget. A republican SoD might be able to pull it off.
14

jenny6833a

December 6, 2012 at 4:58 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

I have no problem in principle with appointing a republican to any cabinet post. However, I wouldn’t appoint Chuck Hagel as dog catcher.

We desperately need to bring the US military into the 21st century. Hagel would be a very poor choice as Secretary of Defense. For some illumination, see

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/chuck_hagel.htm
15

Comradde PhysioProffe

December 6, 2012 at 5:01 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

Is making sweeping generalisations a rational thing to do?

It is completely rational for me to make sweeping generalisations on this blogge.
16

Trebuchet

December 6, 2012 at 5:52 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

@fuckesatonne:

Another reason to nominate a rethuglican is that the front-running alternative democrat is someone like Senator John Kerry. And if there’s an election for his seat, a republifucke might winne. Whiche is badde for everyeone.

Unless I’m mistaken, Kerry is up for Sec. of State, not Defense. The possibility that a Rethuglican might win his open seat is probably the main reason for the insane persecution of Susan Rice.

I’ve got no problem with nominating a competent Republican for Sec. of Defense. Bob Gates did a pretty good job.
17

Someone jumped the shark

December 6, 2012 at 8:27 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

I’m not familiar with this blog, but it seems strange to me that Thunderf00t was criticised for (and kicked off FTB) for “poor writing” amongst other things, but TF’s writing never approached the extremely juvenile levels of this particular blog post.

Freethoughtblogs, sinking lower and lower.
18

Chebag

December 6, 2012 at 8:59 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

Maybe if you ask Ed he’ll kick this ridiculous excuse for a blog off the site, Sjts. Get on that, would ya?
19

Someone jumped the shark

December 6, 2012 at 9:34 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

@ Chebag: No, I’m not interested in bloggers getting kicked off or being shut down, it was the hypocrisy of PZ Myers and others that I was alluding to.
20

Jonathan

December 7, 2012 at 2:51 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

It is completely rational for me to make sweeping generalisations on this blogge.

You can make sweeping generalisations wherever you like. But they’re not rational unless they’re backed up with evidence, and so far you haven’t provided anything to support your view beyond insults against all Republicans.

I’ve asked you twice now about what Katherine said regarding this particular person, and each time you haven’t responded to it. So I’ll ask again: given what she has said about this specific person and his actions, does he sound like a “typical” Republican? Yes or no?
21

blindrobin

December 7, 2012 at 5:23 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

meh…
22

Comradde PhysioProffe

December 7, 2012 at 6:01 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

You can make sweeping generalisations wherever you like. But they’re not rational unless they’re backed up with evidence, and so far you haven’t provided anything to support your view beyond insults against all Republicans.

You are a very confused little high-school debate-team CHAMPEEN, aren’t you?
23

Jonathan

December 7, 2012 at 6:14 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

You are a very confused little high-school debate-team CHAMPEEN, aren’t you?

My school didn’t have a debate team. More of an American thing, I think.

You still haven’t answered my question.
24

Comradde PhysioProffe

December 7, 2012 at 6:28 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

Of course I still haven’t answered your derailing question. And I never will, because it is based on a delusional premise and the answer is wholly irrelevant to the substantive content of this post.
25

Jonathan

December 7, 2012 at 6:40 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

Of course I still haven’t answered your derailing question. And I never will, because it is based on a delusional premise and the answer is wholly irrelevant to the substantive content of this post.

How is it irrelevant? The whole point of your post is that this guy should not be appointed because he is a Republican. I have asked you, based on the information supplied by Katherine, if this guy actually seems like a typical Republican. There’s nothing derailing about that. It’s completely on topic.
26

Tabby Lavalamp

December 7, 2012 at 8:40 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

I sure as fucken fucke didn’t vote for Obama in order for him to put despicable republican shittewaddes in positions of power; I voted for him to kick these heinous blights on humanity in the fucken dicke.

The problem here is that if is the case, you didn’t pay attention to Obama’s first term. He’s appointed Republicans to important positions before so why would his second term be any different? Despite all the accusations of Marxism the wingnuts throw at him, he leans quite to the right on a lot of issues and there were times during his first term it seemed like he was almost fetishizing bipartisanship.

But isn’t one of the problems in American politics the fact that there is a deep partisan divide between the parties? If appointing him could help create cooperation between the two sides, why not do it?

If that was Obama’s goal the first time around, it failed miserably. If that is his goal and he’s trying it again, then he’s just ridiculous.
27

nakarti

December 7, 2012 at 10:56 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

Comradde, you are guilty of the same ultra-partisan showboating that the Rethuglicans started a decade ago and the Democraps readily joined in.

Stop it.
28

fuckesatonne

December 7, 2012 at 11:09 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

The Comradde’s worldview can be summarized by the good old line from Animal Farm: “Four legs good, two legs bad.” Just substitute Repub and Dem. Come on, it’s not as if a professor’s job requires any kind of subtlety, especially when writing on blogges instead of writing academically. He’s just a poor olde sodde blowing his pathetick stacke. Yawne.
29

lylebot

December 8, 2012 at 4:40 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

This isn’t about not appointing a rival. There are plenty of rival schools of thought within the Democratic party. This is about *not* appointing someone from a whole other party that hasn’t earned it and doesn’t deserve it, solely in the name of cooperation, which by the way that same party has scoffed at every previous attempt by this president.

The “deep partisan divide” is something that can only be cured by the complete obliteration of the Republican party. And again, there’s plenty of rival ideas within the Democratic party to ensure healthy arguments and compromise even if there’s only one party running the show.
30

canadian

December 8, 2012 at 10:01 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

Very well said. Too much time and effort lost in seeking cooperation. And, what is worse, too many people and a whole country left behind in pain seeking the impossible.
31

Pitchguest

December 9, 2012 at 6:51 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

Just out of interest, Physioprof: what’s with the adding “e”‘s to words? Inside joke?