August 29, 2009
Leftists Go All "Meh" Yet Again Over Obama's Policies
Almost on cue, in reaction to this story from yesterday about Obama being given the right to shut down the Internet in "an emergency", Media Matters comes in and erects the wall of silence with this piece of arrogant snark.
Seriously, fuck you with yesterday's rancid bean dip. This is just another attempt of you and your side to blow off an Obama overreach or policy stance with a "meh" attitude. At least try to spin or defend it, you fucking cowards.
From 2001-1-20-09, this article would have been greeted with cries of "creeping fascism" from Chimpymcbushitlerhaliburton. Now, you give it a "meh".
Good to know.
Kinda like the "meh" you gave when Obama ate ice cream while the Baiji were killing pro-freedom people in Iran, contrasted to the "now watch this drive" quip of W you looped for five years straight.
Kinda like the "meh" you gave when Obama is trying to prop up a Marxist thug in Honduras, contrasted to the "Oh Noes! Cowboy Diplomacy!" from 2001-1-20-09.
I could go on, but you get the point. You fucksticks are a disgrace. Are you that afraid to be on record defending a policy stance by your side, that you would rather blow it off and hope it goes away? If so, that is really fucking sad.
Seriously, fuck you with yesterday's rancid bean dip. This is just another attempt of you and your side to blow off an Obama overreach or policy stance with a "meh" attitude. At least try to spin or defend it, you fucking cowards.
From 2001-1-20-09, this article would have been greeted with cries of "creeping fascism" from Chimpymcbushitlerhaliburton. Now, you give it a "meh".
Good to know.
Kinda like the "meh" you gave when Obama ate ice cream while the Baiji were killing pro-freedom people in Iran, contrasted to the "now watch this drive" quip of W you looped for five years straight.
Kinda like the "meh" you gave when Obama is trying to prop up a Marxist thug in Honduras, contrasted to the "Oh Noes! Cowboy Diplomacy!" from 2001-1-20-09.
I could go on, but you get the point. You fucksticks are a disgrace. Are you that afraid to be on record defending a policy stance by your side, that you would rather blow it off and hope it goes away? If so, that is really fucking sad.
Posted by: eddiebear at
11:31 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.
1
maybe they're just worn out from their nancy-girl panty-wetting hysterics during the fascistic eeevil Booshitler regime?
Posted by: Frank G at August 29, 2009 01:09 PM (I+To0)
2
Maybe. But I bet a lot of it is the fact they believe that the less they say about something, the better.
Posted by: eddiebear at August 29, 2009 02:41 PM (H/e6K)
3
No, it's just that invasion of privacy, suppression of speech, giving the ruler draconian powers, or telling everyone else how to live their lives is OK, provided it's them doing it.
Posted by: Old Grouch at August 29, 2009 02:58 PM (3y3+0)
4
Exactly Old Grouch.
And that's why they're despicable.
If you corner one of them on it, they'll get a smug grin about how cool it is they're side is doing.
They weren't so much angry that Bush was going fascist (in their fevered imaginations), they were angry that it wasn't their side.
And that's why they're despicable.
If you corner one of them on it, they'll get a smug grin about how cool it is they're side is doing.
They weren't so much angry that Bush was going fascist (in their fevered imaginations), they were angry that it wasn't their side.
Posted by: Veeshir at August 29, 2009 03:04 PM (/KOcg)
19kb generated in 0.1929 seconds; 68 queries returned 163 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
