Thursday, December 29, 2011

Quote of the Day

This entire article:

The Huffington Post: "Vote Against Obama in Iowa" by Cenk Uygur/12.29.11

I wanted to pick just one part of it, but I couldn't -- the whole thing is so deliciously, laugh-out-loud stupid.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Cenk Uygur. At least now we finally know for sure that the reason he talks like he has marbles in his mouth is that he's fucking retarded.


Steven D Skelton said...

I guess Cenk was hoping for the mandatory gay marriages.

JohnF said...

Do I even have to tell you you're going to get in trouble for using the "R-word?"

Chez said...


Nicole said...

"fucking retarded" indeed. Don't care if it's politically incorrect.

Actually, any person calling himself a liberal/democrat/progressive who champions the likes of the racist, homophobic, anti-semitic Ron Paul, is an utterly ignorant, retarded asshole.

Chez said...

It's that balls-out dumb "let's teach him a lesson" meme that roughly translates into "we're petulant fucking children so let's smash all our toys because we didn't get what we wanted."

Anonymouse said...

Fuck Yeah!!! Its about time that liberals got on board with the NDAA. I am so sick of looking like I am soft on terrorism by being a democrat. Civil liberties are fucking overrated. Now if we could just get SOPA passed, we wouldn't even have to have the conversations with each other as this website would be made illegal for linking to copyrighted material.

Whatever...this is so fucking old. I get it Chez...anyone who points out anything you disagree with about the President is "fucking retarded". Now cue the response where you basically tell me to fuck off for having an opinion different than yours.

I'd rather have a racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic as president who is pretty open about how fucking crazy he is, than Obama. Neither one of them can achieve anything close to what they promise their supporters but I will tell you this, Ron Paul will sure as shit be a lot more entertaining.

Riles said...

And if anyone is an overgrown child, it's Cenk. I can just picture the big retarded baby in a Jonathan Winters-sized diaper pounding his fists until he gets his perfect binky.

Chez said...

I don't think you're retarded, Anonymouse, and I'm not going to tell you to fuck off. I think you're wrong about this, but we've been down this road before and neither of us is going to change the other's mind.

I will say that if there's something I write about -- free of charge to you, incidentally -- that pisses you off to the point of needing to be a sarcastic jackass about it, you can feel free to just skip over it or not read at all. Debate is one thing, even making the claim that you don't like Obama and have issues with him is absolutely worth talking about, but Cenk's unrestrained, pissy, misguided and laughably short-sighted extended rant is, well, all of the above. Please keep in mind that when somebody actually advises that we sabotage the whole country to teach Obama a lesson that the irate liberal masses aren't going to be ignooored, Dan, then I'm gonna call that person a fucking idiot.

I'll do it as often as I see fit. Got an issue with it? See above.

Nicole said...

Chez response to anonymouse........sweet. Fucking awesome.

Steven D Skelton said...

Although not one myself, I can't see how a reasonable liberal could be anything less than happy with President Obama. Obviously, Cenk is absolutely delusional in what his expectations should be.

No president from the Democratic party could ever govern as Cenk sees proper. His own party would buck would turn their backs on him. There would be a primary challenge from his right and it would win in a landslide.

That said.

Chez, a liberal uprising that sends "uncommitted" to the top of the caucus in no way harms Obama. If anything it helps him with moderates by demonstrating Obama is not one of those far lefties.

If liberals agree with Cenk and are that pissed off, I say vote uncommitted. It's a much more dignified form of protest than most we've seen lately.

Anonymouse said... I know you're trolling me. The entire point of media today is to piss off a segment of your target audience (for example, Skip Bayless). You do it yourself with your lame attempts at shock humor involving Tim Tebow. And passively aggressively telling me to fuck off is still the same as telling me to fuck off.

Did you even read Cenk's article? He doesn't want Obama voted out of one with a rational thought in their head does. What he wants is the administration to stop just giving lip service to its base. Seriously don't have major concerns about Section 1021 of the NDAA or the Stop Online Piracy Act? SOPA will make your website illegal, as the bill is currently written. We are taking the internet controls used by China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia and applying it to the US. We are now allowing for the indefinite detention of US citizens who are not charged with ANYTHING.

I honestly have to ask...what is your break point. What does the Obama Administration have to do or fail to do for you to voice concerns?

Anonymous said...

I read this article before I saw it posted here and I'm delighted that you decided to blog about it. I was completely disgusted reading Cenk's article. He wants us to do to President Obama what the GOTP has tried to do to American citizens for NOT putting a Republican in the White House: teach the offender(s) a lesson.

Personally I'm amazed that President Obama has gotten anything accomplished given the nay-say Congress he has to work with. Being an optimist, 2012, I believe, will change that and so much more good will happen.

Chez said...

No, Anonymouse -- trust me, I'm not trying to troll you. If anything I'd be much happier if you'd stop making dumb comments that don't add anything at all to the conversation. I don't like the defense bill, nor do I like SOPA -- and I've said as much over and over again, mostly on the podcast. But again, I understand that A) there are nuances to NDAA that may, may allow the executive branch to promote civilian trials for terror suspects while working within the strict framework those dolts in Congress want to see, and B) Obama hasn't touched SOPA yet. You're naturally assuming that he'll 100% get behind it as is because you're fucking Chicken Little.

Look, seriously, I love healthy debate -- but if I'm "lame" and I irritate you to the point of losing your shit every few days, please just go away. And yes, that's a nice way of telling you to fuck off.

Anonymouse said...

Chicken Little...maybe. Except when you consider his actions in regards to the PATRIOT ACT. Call me crazy, but I have little faith in the man considering that, Gitmo, etc (oops here I go down THAT road again...)

And I never lost my shit. I suspect that because I am naturally a sarcastic bastard, it comes off in that manner and I apologize.

But again, I am confused as to what you find about Cenk's article so objectionable. He is simply advocating that just in the Iowa primary, his base supporters voice their concerns by voting uncommitted. This is just for Iowa. How the heck does this cost Obama the election?

Michael J. West said...

I have little faith in the man considering that, Gitmo, etc (oops here I go down THAT road again...)

Is THAT road the one to You-Don't-Know-What-The-Fuck-You're-Talking-About Junction? Because you are quite there already.

Anonymouse said...

Help a brother out Michael...Is Gitmo closed right now or did the President invent a fucking time machine, went back and eliminated the campaign promises he made in regards to closing the facility?

Oh wait, this is one of those, "lets vote him back in office and hopes he follows through this time" things?

I am going to vote for the guy, but why is it not kosher to voice our complaints about him? How is this behavior no different than GOP members trying to silence anyone not voting for Oven Mitts?

Michael J. West said...

I'll be all too happy to help you out, Anonymouse. You see, the President issued an executive order on his second day in office closing Gitmo. Subsequently, the United States Congress voted unanimously -- five times between that day and this one -- to deny the president any funds to either (a) close the facility, (b) transfer its pirsoners anywhere else, or (c) pay for civilian trials.

And when I say "unanimously," I mean that such hardcore conservatives as Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich voted to prevent Gitmo's closure.

So perhaps now you can help me out. Given that Obama attempted to close the facility and was actively prevented from doing so by Congress -- and that no, in fact, he does not have a time machine -- what exactly do you suggest he should have done? Circumvented the Congress and done whatever he wanted to anyway, regardless of the rule of law? Simply declared the facility closed, removing all personnel and supplies from the premises and leaving behind the prisoners that he had no way to remove?

Since you seem to believe that Congress' repeatedly blocking Obama from closing Guantanamo by denying him both funds and their constitutionally mandated approval to do so, shouldn't have stopped him from closing it anyway, I look forward to your explaining exactly how he should have done so.

Anonymouse said...

What he should have done is never made a campaign promise that he knew was never going to be followed through with. I never expected him to close Gitmo, and honestly, when he made the claim he would, I decided then and there to no longer believe in the hype machine. Granted, I was in the military at the time and maybe I had a better understanding of the utter legalistic hell hole that Bush created, but Obama made that promise. Whether or not its his fault he cannot follow through, he gets blamed for it. Not by just conservatives, but also his supporters. If Obama ends up losing the election, it won't be because of whoever wins the primary for the GOP.

But this also leads into the general perception of the Obama White House. In much the same vein, he ran on a platform against the PATRIOT ACT and did the opposite. Similarly, he claims he has reservations about the NDAA, but he has signed it anyway. (Just to be clear, my major issue with this is not what Obama may do in regards to Section 1021, but those that follow him in the office). His image among a lot of people is of a person that says one thing and does another. Whether or not that is true, this is the image of him that has been formed among a lot of people that voted for him and its going to kill him in this next election.

I have an extremely hard time believing that everyone would be defending a republican president doing and saying the same damn thing that President Obama is doing.