Kickstarter for WWIII

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Hm, I sure'd like to get to leave the refugee camp every once in a while. So which tier will you gals and guys be going for?

Skeleon:

Hm, I sure'd like to get to leave the refugee camp every once in a while. So which tier will you gals and guys be going for?

That was quite amusing, my biggest problem with Obama is that it seems that he can't decide what to have for breakfast yet alone what to do on the global stage.

In both recent conflicts Libya and Syria he behaved unwillingly and more importantly indecisively. And this whole Syria mess happened just because he insisted on setting some imaginary red lines that he knew are not enforceable.
Killing 2000 civilians with cluster bombs and 120MM rockets is fine, killing 1000 of them with Sarin is not?

The Syrian war created so far over 2M refugees, killed over 100,000 people with the latest NGO estimates put that number as high as 150K.

Sure there isn't a single side you would ever want to support, but for sure nothing Obama has ever attempted to do(including the so call military action threat) had any aims ever to accomplish that.

Strategically speaking keeping Assad in power is probably best for the intimidate region, if Syria falls Jordan and Lebanon might follow and as the conflict draws out something will happen that will pull Israel into this mess.

But not acting on the issue increases the influence of Iran in the region, strengthens Hezbollah and i don't even want to think what will happen in Europe after the 1000's of European mostly western converts that are fighting along side the Jihadis in Syria against Assad will come home to Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark, and every other country the came from.

What's a shadow banker? Is it like somebody who runs a bank for shadows? Or do they run a bank that stores shadows and gives out shadow loans? Why would you ever need somebody to loan you a shadow? Did you lose your's? Do you need shadows to help set up your goth fashion store? I'm so confused.

Revnak:
What's a shadow banker? Is it like somebody who runs a bank for shadows? Or do they run a bank that stores shadows and gives out shadow loans? Why would you ever need somebody to loan you a shadow? Did you lose your's? Do you need shadows to help set up your goth fashion store? I'm so confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system

Verbatim:

Revnak:
What's a shadow banker? Is it like somebody who runs a bank for shadows? Or do they run a bank that stores shadows and gives out shadow loans? Why would you ever need somebody to loan you a shadow? Did you lose your's? Do you need shadows to help set up your goth fashion store? I'm so confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system

You are the world's biggest fun killer. I bet you're the kinda guy who walks up to children and tells them Santa doesn't exist and that the Cubs will never win the World Series.

Actually, from my view Obama is being pretty savvy with this one. He knows that the US can't afford another war and he knows that the US public will never get behind it, but he knows he idiotically painted a "red line" in the sand (which I'm pretty confident he only did to stall for time) and that there are some pretty powerful private interests that want a war in Syria. I think it's pretty obvious from what happened in Libya that if Obama wanted to intervene is Syria that badly he would just do it. But he doesn't. So what does he do? Well, we all know what he did.

He turned the issue over to congress. Obama doesn't really have a stake in public opinion any more since he's out after the end of term anyways so he's given it to the people who do. And the people will never support a war in Syria. Obama will still campaign and say how we need to defend the innocent people of Syria and he'll plead with the American people to have some of that good liberal human rights loving decency that his democratic base is oh so keen on and he'll still insist to Russia and the other important actors on the world stage that he's got the mighty 12 inch cock of the American military ready to strike at any minute but really it's just dick waving. All the while his new secretary of state, a presidential candidate for 2016 gets to play the peace loving, bipartisan hero who boldly comes up with an obvious solution, diplomatically securing Syrian chemical weapons and saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars in the process.

Obama's popular reputation may be dead with most people over this whole mess, but quite frankly I'm impressed. I did not think this was a president that had that kind of Nixon-esque political schemery in him. He may have dropped a couple ranks on the "US Presidents, best to worst" list in the public's mind but he doesn't care. He's averted a war, held face with Russia, driven off the private military interests and set up a diplomatic success for an election hopeful party member. To him, this is all one big win.

Revnak:

Verbatim:

Revnak:
What's a shadow banker? Is it like somebody who runs a bank for shadows? Or do they run a bank that stores shadows and gives out shadow loans? Why would you ever need somebody to loan you a shadow? Did you lose your's? Do you need shadows to help set up your goth fashion store? I'm so confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system

You are the world's biggest fun killer. I bet you're the kinda guy who walks up to children and tells them Santa doesn't exist and that the Cubs will never win the World Series.

Yes.

Revnak:
What's a shadow banker? Is it like somebody who runs a bank for shadows? Or do they run a bank that stores shadows and gives out shadow loans? Why would you ever need somebody to loan you a shadow? Did you lose your's? Do you need shadows to help set up your goth fashion store? I'm so confused.

In a small effort to offset Verbatim fun-killerness:

OT: Interesting, if over-the-top humorous take on the matter.

What i can't stand is how, up until fairly recently, Obama was untouchable. You couldn't make fun of him, you couldn't criticize him, you couldn't lampoon him the way EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT in history has been.

I'm so, so, SO glad he's finally getting the piss taken out of him. It's about fucking time.

haha that was awesome but i sudenly have a desire to support world war 3

davidmc1158:

In a small effort to offset Verbatim fun-killerness:

No, it's a member of the opposition who is there to keep watch over/relentlessly criticise regular bankers.

MichiganMuscle77:
What i can't stand is how, up until fairly recently, Obama was untouchable. You couldn't make fun of him, you couldn't criticize him, you couldn't lampoon him the way EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT in history has been.

Er...what? People have been condemning him for things for ages.

How can you not support WWIII if it will get us a Moon War, during Obama's Presidency!!!!

JSF01:
How can you not support WWIII if it will get us a Moon War, during Obama's Presidency!!!!

Anything to get us back in space would be nice.

#Moonwar2014

crimson5pheonix:

JSF01:
How can you not support WWIII if it will get us a Moon War, during Obama's Presidency!!!!

Anything to get us back in space would be nice.

#Moonwar2014

You people are thinking too small.

#Marswar2014
#Jupiterwar2016
#Galacticwar2024
#Reaperinvasion2050

The Gentleman:

crimson5pheonix:

JSF01:
How can you not support WWIII if it will get us a Moon War, during Obama's Presidency!!!!

Anything to get us back in space would be nice.

#Moonwar2014

You people are thinking too small.

#Marswar2014
#Jupiterwar2016
#Galacticwar2024
#Reaperinvasion2050

Well of course, but nobody bothers to read NASA papers. The full scale invasions and alternates are all mapped out decades in advance. Then delayed forever before being thrown away.

#tooclosetohome

MichiganMuscle77:
What i can't stand is how, up until fairly recently, Obama was untouchable. You couldn't make fun of him, you couldn't criticize him, you couldn't lampoon him the way EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT in history has been.

I'm so, so, SO glad he's finally getting the piss taken out of him. It's about fucking time.

Only in the United States is this man so sacred.

MichiganMuscle77:
What i can't stand is how, up until fairly recently, Obama was untouchable. You couldn't make fun of him, you couldn't criticize him, you couldn't lampoon him the way EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT in history has been.

I'm so, so, SO glad he's finally getting the piss taken out of him. It's about fucking time.

I'm just glad that legitimate criticism of what Obama is doing has finally stopped being met with legions of people shouting "RACIST, YOU ONLY HATE HIM BECAUSE HE'S BLACK.". By that logic people only hated Margret Thatcher because she was a woman, no other reason.

ToastiestZombie:

MichiganMuscle77:
What i can't stand is how, up until fairly recently, Obama was untouchable. You couldn't make fun of him, you couldn't criticize him, you couldn't lampoon him the way EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT in history has been.

I'm so, so, SO glad he's finally getting the piss taken out of him. It's about fucking time.

I'm just glad that legitimate criticism of what Obama is doing has finally stopped being met with legions of people shouting "RACIST, YOU ONLY HATE HIM BECAUSE HE'S BLACK.". By that logic people only hated Margret Thatcher because she was a woman, no other reason.

I'm just glad people are coming out with legitimate criticism instead of the 'Kenyan muslim fascist communist' baloney that went on for 4 years.

ToastiestZombie:

MichiganMuscle77:
What i can't stand is how, up until fairly recently, Obama was untouchable. You couldn't make fun of him, you couldn't criticize him, you couldn't lampoon him the way EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT in history has been.

I'm so, so, SO glad he's finally getting the piss taken out of him. It's about fucking time.

I'm just glad that legitimate criticism of what Obama is doing has finally stopped being met with legions of people shouting "RACIST, YOU ONLY HATE HIM BECAUSE HE'S BLACK.". By that logic people only hated Margret Thatcher because she was a woman, no other reason.

I never saw this, I saw many complaining about this, but never actually saw any of it.

Can you link me to instances where this actually happened?

Hafrael:

I never saw this, I saw many complaining about this, but never actually saw any of it.

Can you link me to instances where this actually happened?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/politics/missouri-obama-rodeo/index.html

Is this what you mean? Those guys pulled that stunt wearing masks of a bunch of different presidents in the past, but as soon as it's an Obama mask it becomes racist.

If that's not what you meant, well, dang.

The Gentleman:

crimson5pheonix:

JSF01:
How can you not support WWIII if it will get us a Moon War, during Obama's Presidency!!!!

Anything to get us back in space would be nice.

#Moonwar2014

You people are thinking too small.

#Marswar2014
#Jupiterwar2016
#Galacticwar2024
#Reaperinvasion2050

#Firstcontactwar2036

I wanna bag me a giant bipedal grasshopper damnit!

maddawg IAJI:
I wanna bag me a giant bipedal grasshopper damnit!

What have you got against New Zealanders? The population of New Zealand is equal parts sheep, giant insects, and young people that appear in government ads.

MichiganMuscle77:
What i can't stand is how, up until fairly recently, Obama was untouchable. You couldn't make fun of him, you couldn't criticize him, you couldn't lampoon him the way EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT in history has been.

Where do you live? Because I think I actually might've preferred living in an area where President Obama couldn't be criticized as opposed to where everybody blames absoultely every single problem to spring up since 2008, no matter how big or small, on the racist Kenyan atheist muslim socialist communist marxist gun-taking baby-eating Jesus-hating dictator whose every action is an action of super duper evil Big Brotherism[1]. I've literally heard a guy blame his elderly dog dying suddenly from cancer on Obama. What's next, "The tooth fairy isn't real? Thanks Obummer!"

But hey, as long as people are actually starting to criticize him for valid reason, I'm cool. Hey, anybody remember his promise to shut down Gitmo in one year? Or how he wasn't going to expand government surveillance under the Patriot Act? Lol, yeah, those were some pretty good jokes, weren't they?

[1] God how much I want to strangle people who throw the term "Big Brother" around so loosely to the point that the term has almost lost all meaning. Its especially bad when these people have never actually read 1984. Fucking clowns. But I digress.

MarsAtlas:

MichiganMuscle77:
What i can't stand is how, up until fairly recently, Obama was untouchable. You couldn't make fun of him, you couldn't criticize him, you couldn't lampoon him the way EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT in history has been.

Where do you live? Because I think I actually might've preferred living in an area where President Obama couldn't be criticized as opposed to where everybody blames absoultely every single problem to spring up since 2008, no matter how big or small, on the Kenyan atheist muslim socialist communist gun-taking baby-eating Jesus-hating dictator whose every action is an action of super duper evil Big Brotherism[1]. I've literally heard a guy blame his elderly dog dying suddenly from cancer on Obama. What's next, "The tooth fairy isn't real? Thanks Obummer!"

What? No reference to his allegiance to the Muslim Brotherhood? You must be living in one of those liberal states...

But hey, as long as people are actually starting to criticize him for valid reason, I'm cool. Hey, anybody remember his promise to shut down Gitmo in one year? Or how he wasn't going to expand government surveillance under the Patriot Act? Lol, yeah, those were some pretty good jokes, weren't they?

Yeah, there were plenty of legitimate criticisms of President Obama since he took office, such as his unwillingness to be aggressive when congressional Republicans were clearly not going to play ball (Day 1 meetings on uniform opposition to a newly elected president certainly suggests they had no interest in working with him), or how he undercut the recovery by essentially not hiring additional government workers while slowing stimulus funds (economic stimulus is like antibiotics, when in doubt, better to overkill than underkill), or his handling of the Syria situation that nearly allowed himself to be goaded into a military campaign, or his utter unwillingness to crack down on elected officials undermining his efforts at foreign policy on trips abroad (see the recent Three Stooges outing to Egypt, McCain's clandestine trip to Syria, etc.).

But when the opposition is only screaming "socialism," "keep the government out of medicare," "he's a Kenyan," (and those are the polite ones), real criticism gets pushed out of the way for foaming-at-the-mouth hatred that crosses into the irrational.

[1] God how much I want to strangle people who throw the term "Big Brother" around so loosely to the point that the term has almost lost all meaning. Its especially bad when these people have never actually read 1984. Fucking clowns. But I digress.

The Gentleman:

crimson5pheonix:

JSF01:
How can you not support WWIII if it will get us a Moon War, during Obama's Presidency!!!!

Anything to get us back in space would be nice.

#Moonwar2014

You people are thinking too small.

#Marswar2014
#Jupiterwar2016
#Galacticwar2024
#Reaperinvasion2050

And you know what red line connects all of these kickstarters?
War..
Because War never changes.

Realitycrash:

The Gentleman:

crimson5pheonix:

Anything to get us back in space would be nice.

#Moonwar2014

You people are thinking too small.

#Marswar2014
#Jupiterwar2016
#Galacticwar2024
#Reaperinvasion2050

And you know what red line connects all of these kickstarters?
War..
Because War never changes.

Hey, you don't build massive dreadnoughts and engage in aggressive colonization efforts to hand out flowers. Some of us have to make a living on the bloodshed of others.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a meeting with a Mr. Wayland.

The Gentleman:

Yeah, there were plenty of legitimate criticisms of President Obama since he took office, such as his unwillingness to be aggressive when congressional Republicans were clearly not going to play ball (Day 1 meetings on uniform opposition to a newly elected president certainly suggests they had no interest in working with him),

When did this meeting happen? I specifically recall that up until 2011 republican assistance was unnecessary to carry out his agenda. Keep in mind that Pelosi didn't let the GOP have any input on the legislation unless they were going to agree to pass it. Also the GOP senators were voting to confirm the 44th President's cabinet appointments.

The Gentleman:

or how he undercut the recovery by essentially not hiring additional government workers while slowing stimulus funds (economic stimulus is like antibiotics, when in doubt, better to overkill than underkill),

So legitimate critiques equals he doesn't go far enough rather than he's going too far?

The Gentleman:

or his handling of the Syria situation that nearly allowed himself to be goaded into a military campaign, or his utter unwillingness to crack down on elected officials undermining his efforts at foreign policy on trips abroad (see the recent Three Stooges outing to Egypt, McCain's clandestine trip to Syria, etc.).

Grahamnesty and McStain have been virtually in lockstep with Obama's warmongering plans. When McStain wants his photos taken with known terrorists it's best to let McStain pose for the camera.

The Gentleman:

But when the opposition is only screaming "socialism," "keep the government out of medicare," "he's a Kenyan," (and those are the polite ones), real criticism gets pushed out of the way for foaming-at-the-mouth hatred that crosses into the irrational.

I was under the impression that the public affairs office for either side is to paint their opposition as absurd as possible. So you would make the person that said something like "keep the government out of medicare" the mouthpiece.

When those same people ask for cooperation later, don't be surprised with uniform opposition. How about avoiding the broad brush?

The problem I have with the video (sod it, I need to comment on this, R&P notwithstanding) is that "When you vote for someone, you sign your soul away to them for the duration of the term" line is going to fall victim to Poe.

aelreth:

The Gentleman:

Yeah, there were plenty of legitimate criticisms of President Obama since he took office, such as his unwillingness to be aggressive when congressional Republicans were clearly not going to play ball (Day 1 meetings on uniform opposition to a newly elected president certainly suggests they had no interest in working with him),

When did this meeting happen?

The evening of January 20, 2009.

I specifically recall that up until 2011 republican assistance was unnecessary to carry out his agenda.

It would be had the unprecidented use of the filibuster not raised the bar for passage in the senate from 50 to 60 effectively deadlocking the Congress.

Keep in mind that Pelosi didn't let the GOP have any input on the legislation unless they were going to agree to pass it.

*GASP* A person asked for support in exchange for including provisions? What is this, a negotiation!?!

Yeah, that's kind of how legislative negotiations work. If you want to help craft the boat, you can't turn around and try to sink it when you're done.

Also the GOP senators were voting to confirm the 44th President's cabinet appointments.

The refusal to support cabinet-level appointments is an extremely new phenomenon (like, within the last year with the new Secretary of Defense). Drawn-out fights over cabinet-level appointments (unless there was a serious reason to deny an appointment), particularly filibusters, have been regarded as almost unthinkable, as it would set the precedent for future presidencies that no party wants to start (i.e. When a Republican is in the White House, the Democrats would have the precedent to refuse to approve cabinet appointees as well). Hence why the Republicans effectively rolled after the SecDef appointment delay on executive branch employees.

So legitimate critiques equals he doesn't go far enough rather than he's going too far?

No, legitimate critiques are ones of substance (i.e. "this program doesn't produce enough [x] to justify the expense"), not rhetoric or red herring attacks ("He's a socialist!"). They are ones you can dig into the facts and reach a conclusion that justifies a legislative or policy stance as a result.

Grahamnesty and McStain have been virtually in lockstep with Obama's warmongering plans. When McStain wants his photos taken with known terrorists it's best to let McStain pose for the camera.

Setting aside your obvious disdain for these two senators, if this were true, you would have already bombed Damascus by now.

No, his actions over the last month suggest a far more restrained view of the use of the US military in foreign policy, in contrast to the hawks and tea party crazies who thought sending these three to Egypt was a good idea.

I was under the impression that the public affairs office for either side is to paint their opposition as absurd as possible. So you would make the person that said something like "keep the government out of medicare" the mouthpiece.

Death Panels certainly didn't help. And when a phrase becomes a common refrain by grassroots opposition with no attempt to correct it by their leaders, their leaders might as well be saying it themselves.

When those same people ask for cooperation later, don't be surprised with uniform opposition. How about avoiding the broad brush?

When a party takes a majority of seat in one house of the legislature, it changes the responsibilities of the party. No longer can they sit back in criticism, they must govern, and that governance must be done in light of what is currently possible. If the other party holds 2/3rds of the legislative mechanisms in your country, the other party cannot simply decide to sit on their hands and engage in complete opposition. It is their responsibility to engage the other party and work out legislation that needs to be passed in a way that makes it able to pass. No amount of "but they were mean to me" changes that responsibility, and it appears that the GOP is about to discover what happens when they refuse to accept the responsibilities of holding the majority of seats in one house of the US Congress.

Nothing particularly amazing or new in term of content, but it's good that these kind of anti-neo-liberal videos are being made as this kind of presentation will attract a interest and hopefully consideration in a way that the usual methods won't.

Overhead:
Nothing particularly amazing or new in term of content, but it's good that these kind of anti-neo-liberal videos are being made as this kind of presentation will attract a interest and hopefully consideration in a way that the usual methods won't.

Its made by The Second City Network, which make a whole bunch of comedy skits, often with a liberal political-leaning. So this is a bunch of liberal people poking fun at the "Obama can do no wrong"ers.

The Gentleman:

The evening of January 20, 2009.

A meeting of less than 2 dozen people creates consensus?

The Gentleman:

It would be had the unprecidented use of the filibuster not raised the bar for passage in the senate from 50 to 60 effectively deadlocking the Congress.

That wasn't much of an issue until Ted kicked the bucket. Besides it was just the threat of filibuster, only recently did someone actually do it.

The Gentleman:

*GASP* A person asked for support in exchange for including provisions? What is this, a negotiation!?!

Yeah, that's kind of how legislative negotiations work. If you want to help craft the boat, you can't turn around and try to sink it when you're done.

Adding a single horse trade, to 237 other horse trades, on top of something your constituents would not like is not very endearing.

The Gentleman:

The refusal to support cabinet-level appointments is an extremely new phenomenon (like, within the last year with the new Secretary of Defense). Drawn-out fights over cabinet-level appointments (unless there was a serious reason to deny an appointment), particularly filibusters, have been regarded as almost unthinkable, as it would set the precedent for future presidencies that no party wants to start (i.e. When a Republican is in the White House, the Democrats would have the precedent to refuse to approve cabinet appointees as well). Hence why the Republicans effectively rolled after the SecDef appointment delay on executive branch employees.

The 2009 confirmation hearings and the votes were little different from the votes that the democrats did for Bush 43's. Nor were they in any danger. The most recent one was during 41's time.

The Gentleman:

No, legitimate critiques are ones of substance (i.e. "this program doesn't produce enough [x] to justify the expense"), not rhetoric or red herring attacks ("He's a socialist!"). They are ones you can dig into the facts and reach a conclusion that justifies a legislative or policy stance as a result.

Then you could say that opposition to the Omnibus budget and the stimulus was the correct one. Since it didn't produce enough of a net benefit.

The Gentleman:

Setting aside your obvious disdain for these two senators, if this were true, you would have already bombed Damascus by now.

No, his actions over the last month suggest a far more restrained view of the use of the US military in foreign policy, in contrast to the hawks and tea party crazies who thought sending these three to Egypt was a good idea.

There is no "we" between myself and those 5 (I admit I forgot about the Gohmert, King and the outgoing Bachmann) I prefer to use the term "they" and "them".

I disagree, his "kinetic action" in Libya suggests otherwise. Unfortunately we are not free and clear of a Syria engagement. When the house of Saud wants the US military to go to war on their behalf, we usually do.

In recent memory, I recall a mention Ted Kennedy's correspondence with the KGB in 1984 (due to vernona paper revelations), Jesse Jackson traveling to Bosnia during Clinton's tenure, and Pelosi traveling to Syria during Bush 43's.

The Gentleman:

Death Panels certainly didn't help. And when a phrase becomes a common refrain by grassroots opposition with no attempt to correct it by their leaders, their leaders might as well be saying it themselves.

Eventually we do have a problem. That the population is getting older, health care costs are rising...there is this question of how we're going to pay for the programs. The year 2025, the year 2030, something is going to have to give.... .... We're going to need more revenue...Surely it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well.. We won't be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes... on the middle class, maybe a value added tax...And we're also going to have to make decisions about health care, doc pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits . So the snarky version...which I shouldn't even say because it will get me in trouble is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this. - Paul Krugman

Guess there is an outbreak at the New York Times.

The Gentleman:

When a party takes a majority of seat in one house of the legislature, it changes the responsibilities of the party. No longer can they sit back in criticism, they must govern, and that governance must be done in light of what is currently possible. If the other party holds 2/3rds of the legislative mechanisms in your country, the other party cannot simply decide to sit on their hands and engage in complete opposition. It is their responsibility to engage the other party and work out legislation that needs to be passed in a way that makes it able to pass. No amount of "but they were mean to me" changes that responsibility, and it appears that the GOP is about to discover what happens when they refuse to accept the responsibilities of holding the majority of seats in one house of the US Congress.

They have already survived one election on this style of governance. However should the GOP gain control of the senate, the White house would logically make compromises like Bush did with Pelosi and Reid starting in 2007.

MarsAtlas:

Overhead:
Nothing particularly amazing or new in term of content, but it's good that these kind of anti-neo-liberal videos are being made as this kind of presentation will attract a interest and hopefully consideration in a way that the usual methods won't.

Its made by The Second City Network, which make a whole bunch of comedy skits, often with a liberal political-leaning. So this is a bunch of liberal people poking fun at the "Obama can do no wrong"ers.

They are attacking Obama from the left. Liberal is not the same as neo-liberal. They are liberal, the video attacks Obama as a neo-liberal as well as hitting the general Obama hype.

Jaximus Decimus:

Hafrael:

I never saw this, I saw many complaining about this, but never actually saw any of it.

Can you link me to instances where this actually happened?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/politics/missouri-obama-rodeo/index.html

Is this what you mean? Those guys pulled that stunt wearing masks of a bunch of different presidents in the past, but as soon as it's an Obama mask it becomes racist.

If that's not what you meant, well, dang.

When did "We're going to violently murder an effigy of the president" become criticism or mocking?

Also, next time you should have used another source as I had some trouble finding any proof that they had mocked previous presidents at all, let alone the way they "mocked" Obama. Here is a much better source.

MarsAtlas:

Overhead:
Nothing particularly amazing or new in term of content, but it's good that these kind of anti-neo-liberal videos are being made as this kind of presentation will attract a interest and hopefully consideration in a way that the usual methods won't.

Its made by The Second City Network, which make a whole bunch of comedy skits, often with a liberal political-leaning. So this is a bunch of liberal people poking fun at the "Obama can do no wrong"ers.

It is so weird that that the usage of the term "liberal" has changed so much.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked