with friends like these…

Dear Bob Grant:  You’re a fucking idiot.

McCain sure has the uninformed knee-jerk flag suckler vote in the bag.  Bob Grant got his panties all in a wad about Obama’s recent campaign apprearance in Ohio:

grant-1

Sez Bob:

But really folks, did you notice Obama is not content with just having several American flags, plain old American flags with the 50 states represented by 50 stars? He has the “O” flag. And that’s what that “O” is. That’s what that “O” is. Just like he did with the plane he was using. He had the flag painted over, and the “O” for Obama. Now, these are symptom — these things are symptomatic of a person who would like to be a potentate — a dictator. And I really see this in this man.

Trouble is…that “O” flag is the state flag of Ohio.

Oh, and regardless of how you feel about Obama’s cult of personality, I’m actually really fucking offended that Bob Grant shoots off his mouth about potentates and dictators.

When Obama refuses to recognize the authority of Congress for the first time, when he refuses to recognize his first Supreme Court ruling, when he signs his first Executive Order to circumvent the legislative process, and when he suspends his first election…then you can start opening your mouth about dictatorships and potentates.  (And when that happens, think about who put all those shiny executive tools into the toolshed at Penna Ave. since 9/11, ready to be used against you after the next change of the watch.)

Mugabe is a dictator.  Hitler was a dictator.  Stalin and Mussolini were dictators.  Idi Amin was a dictator.  To apply that term to the front runner of a major party in a pluralistic and democratic republic is an offensive act of ideological masturbation. 

(That goes both ways, for you “Bush is teh Hitlar!!1!!!One!!!” folks.  If you truly believed that we have a dictator in the White House–or about to become President–you loudmouths would be out on some rooftop with a rifle, instead of behind a keyboard or a microphone.  If you had any balls whatsoever, that is.)

25 thoughts on “with friends like these…

  1. Rusty P. Bucket says:

    Do you think dictators are made overnight Munchkin? I will tell you something too. Germany waited to long in moving against theirs and look where it got them.

    I certainly do think that piece of crap has the makings of dictator. He is just fine with himself or his cronies like Teddy Kennedy having money…but for some reason Joe Plummber having money is a sin and it should be shared around. How about you share your own wealth around, Obama?

    Also, they are setting him up as some kind of messiah. Hitler and Mussolini did the same.

    Obama may not be a dictator yet, but he sure as hell has the makings of one and that’s a fact.

  2. crankylitprof says:

    I think I’m more concerned with the aftermath of electing the cult of personality. There is an almost Messianic build up happening around Obama.

    What happens when (in all likelihood) he’s elected and shown to be just another corrupt hack politician who made a shit-tonne of promises to get elected — promises he won’t and CAN’T keep?

    Most House and Senate Dems have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Even if Obama were actually honest in his claims for wanting change, even getting the majority of his own party to play alo0ng is going to be an uphill battle.

    When the sheeple who bought in to his hokey change hype figure out he’s jammed it in and broken it off, they are going to be pissed.

    And broke, because of the higher taxes.

  3. Homer says:

    “When Obama refuses to recognize the authority of Congress for the first time,”; “when he refuses to recognize his first Supreme Court ruling”; “when he signs his first Executive Order to circumvent the legislative process”; “when he suspends his first election”;

  4. Homer says:

    “When Obama refuses to recognize the authority of Congress for the first time,”; “when he refuses to recognize his first Supreme Court ruling”; “when he signs his first Executive Order to circumvent the legislative process”; “when he suspends his first election”;

    “then you can start opening your mouth about dictatorships and potentates.”

    By “then” it will be too late.

  5. ChrisB says:

    Marko,

    I think you’re missing the point, Grant wrote “of a person WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE…a dictator”. There are a lot of common personality traits in among dictators, and Obama very much does have an extreme narcissism just like Hitler or Stalin, I mean, shit, just look how he portrays himself like a messiah.

    Obama is exactly the kind of person who wants to be the “Glorious Leader” with giant statues of himself all around. When you combine that with “let’s spread the wealth around” socialism I’d say it should at the very least give you a reason to think a little deeper about the annointed one.

  6. BlueNight says:

    Messianic or dictatorial dreams aside, I do want to say that (not ever having read Bob Grant) he did have a point. Well, before the stupidity enveloped it.

    Obama is using hypnotic triggers. Watch the way he doesn’t move his rich, thick, symmetrical eyebrows except when he smiles. Notice how there is only one circle in the Obamalogo — the inner circle is incomplete, but the mind insists on finishing the shape, spending enough time to get you to notice it, and say to yourself, “Oh, it’s the Obamalogo.” Notice how the red and white stripes match the shape of his eyebrows, specifically the ratio of length to height.

    Then notice how easily the O on the Ohio flag brings the Obamalogo to mind. It’s not a stretch to think his handlers made sure the flags were draped in exactly the right way. Notice how they are both draped in nearly identical ways.

    He has lofty ambitions, and people willing to take every step necessary to help him achieve it. THAT is what we need to watch for.

  7. Marko says:

    He has lofty ambitions, and people willing to take every step necessary to help him achieve it. THAT is what we need to watch for.

    Well, duh. He’s a politician. Name one national politcritter who doesn’t match that description.

    The point here is that it should hardly matter what he wants to be, only what the Constitution and legislature let him be…and if he has the tools to circumvent those, it’s partially the fault of the conservatives, too.

    I’ve mentioned years ago that the tendency of the Republicans to excuse and support the expansions of executive authority will come back to bite them in the ass when the next denizen of the Oval Office has a “D” after their name. Sadly, it looks like I’ll be able to say “Told you so.”

  8. crankylitprof says:

    Yeah, but I’d be pretty quiet about it, lest the hordes descend upon you screaming, “RAAAAACIST!”

  9. Tam says:

    My one consolation is that when unicorns don’t start farting rainbows and shitting hundred dollar bills on the lawns of the ignorati on Jan. 21st, the backlash may get us another Congress of ’94 or another Reagan.

  10. “…or another Reagan.”

    …in a skirt.

    jtc

  11. btw, mw: this is another in your occasional series of off-kilter posts.

    the breathless goofiness in mr. grant’s ranting aside, the money (power) of the omachine and its various co-conspirators is virtually predetermining the election of an individual whose only qualification is charisma…is that very different from “suspending his first election”?

    the (arguable) suspension of constitutional rights stemming from 9/11 are certainly frightening and subject to abuse…as are most of the powers and duties of the presidency.

    so i guess the key is for someone to occupy the office whom you trust. i don’t especially like bush, i believe he has made mistakes and squandered that “political capital” he was given four years ago, and he is quite possibly to poorest orator to have occupied the office…but i do trust him, his heart, and his motives. my country has not been attacked again, and i have not been intolerably inconvenienced by the measures undertaken in the name of national security…have you, really?

    which is not to say that i think bending the constitution is acceptable means, whatever the justified end…just that i trust the individual overwhelmingly elected as the protector of my national interests with that power.

    which begs the question: can barack obama be trusted with the “shiny tools” of the presidency? not just the tools of 9/11, but all of the tools of the most powerful individual executive position in the world? while the infringement of any of my freedoms is a matter of urgency and concern, more so is that the craftsman wielding all those presidential tools have the best interests of me and my country at heart.

    otherwise we might as well relegate the office to one of pomp and ceremony, to be bowed and deferred to, but not to be taken seriously.

    jtc

  12. Rusty P. Bucket says:

    Such is the fatal flaw of the libertarian zealot. They have to actually PROVE they are bad guys before you treat them like the threat they are. That’s fine if you are faster and meaner than they are.

    Sorry Munchkin, you can cling to your principles and if it does ya – fine. I am going to cling to my God and my guns and if that dhimmicrud moron and his enablers aren’t happy with it – I could care less. They are free to TRY to adjust my attitude up close and personal if they want to get stupid about it.

    I guess we will be hanging seperately then.

  13. E says:

    I don’t trust Bush.
    Never did.

    Read the signing statements.

    Now Obama will inherit the Pandora’s box of executive superpowers that Bush and Cheney opened and abused.

    Chickens, let me show you around this nice roost.

    [quote]so i guess the key is for someone to occupy the office whom you trust.[/quote]

    This is exactly wrong.
    You already know you can’t trust them. Any of them, unless they intentionally GIVE UP authority that they have been ceded. If YOU can trust them, then someone else can’t. The structure of our goverment is designed specifically to prevent the tyranny of the majority for just that reason.

    Bush’s PR team made him out to be Joe The Plumber’s best friend, but he never was. Look at who he IS, not what his IMAGE is. And then look at which image he (or his team, whatever) has selected for him, and you will have insight into the charade that is the national political game.

    How can people not have basic awareness of when they are being marketed-at (at least most of the time) is beyond me.

    -E

  14. e: “I don’t trust Bush. Never did.”

    jtc: “so i guess the key is for someone to occupy the office whom you trust.”

    e: “This is exactly wrong.”

    trust, good intentions and positive results are immaterial? how people can not have basic awareness of when they are jaded and paranoid beyond any usefulness as electors is beyond me.

    jtc

    jtc

  15. MarkHB says:

    *migraine salute*

    If the abuses levied against the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the last seven years are utterly invisible – or worse, not important – to the commenters on this blog, then I’m just going to be watching for you when you come. And I’ll be expecting jackboots.

    Mind the azaleas. You can call me an atheist liberal all you want, but there might be claymores in there.

  16. Rusty P. Bucket says:

    The Constitution is a figment of your imagination Mark. It always has been.

    Furthermore, it has been subverted, evaded, short circuited, bypassed and otherwise rendered worth less than the paper it is written on since the day it was penned. Do you honestly think that people truly change merely by putting ideas down on a document? The Constitution is no different than the rhetoric in the bible or the koran or anything else. It is an ideal.

    As such, it is taken up by zealots, fools, thieves, murderers – what have you. The human animal does not change regardless of what he writes.

    They’ll probably be wearing togas and turbans when they come for you, so be generous with the land mines.

  17. MarkHB says:

    I think this is the overarching problem, is that nobody in power seems to give a wet slap for what’s meant to be the defining document of the United States. Which is a bit screwed up in my arrogant opinion, frankly, as it’s one of the finest bits of documentation I’ve ever had the privilege of reading.

    I can’t believe that the human animal doesn’t change because of writing. We wouldn’t have technology if that were the case. We don’t change as fast as a lot of blue-sky social reformers think we do, but the species isn’t monolithic in it’s neolithic behaviour, either.

    And if the Constitution is an ideal, like many that require thought and effort to follow, it’s also a legal document. That at least should give it some throw weight. The fact that it doesn’t simply means that those ideals have been sidelined and neglected, at the cost of liberty to all. I think that’s pretty bad, no matter who’s doing it.

  18. theflatwhite says:

    Making fun of those who recognize the threat to our liberty and system of government Obama presents doesn’t make it go away.

  19. Marko says:

    Oh, I’m not making fun of *those*, TFW.

    I’m making fun of the people who only discovered their ability to spot executive threats to our liberty and system of government when there’s a Democrat about to take office.

  20. theflatwhite says:

    P.S.
    I’m from Ohio, and I know what our flag looks like.

    I believe the “O” flag Mr. Grant was referring to is this.

    Only once the general election was started (and after the hubub about his patriotism and Michelle not being proud of her country etc.) was the US flag put on the tail.

  21. “…people who only discovered their ability to spot threats to our liberty and system of government when there’s a Democrat about to take office.”

    what an ignorant fucking statement.

    bush has faced with unblinking dedication a perfect storm of national crises that few if any of our past presidents could have dealt with any better (okay, rr excepted)…and some certainly would have performed much poorer, with consequences we can only imagine.

    and imagining the consequences of an obama presidency has little to do with his being a democrat. although i know of nothing that party embraces or promotes that i agree with right now, i was at one time an i.a.m. union member and proud supporter of fellow southerner jimmy carter…but then reagan happened.

    dear God, how i wish he could happen again, right now. then talk about presidential tools…i’d give him every mother fucking thing he asked for, star wars and all…and why? because i trust him, he loves America, he has the strength of his convictions, his heart is pure and righteous, and…he knows that the core responsibility of the federal government is national defense and security and little else.

    now tell me again in your best smarmy, condescending way that trust and intent are irrelevant and that temporary, extraordinary wartime powers are as safe in the hands of a glib, charismatic social and domestic activist as in those of a patriot (or what’s good for the goose is good for the gander or some such shit).

    better yet, wait until we’re a year into the reign of the obama; you may have a matured and altered perspective by then.

    jtc

  22. Marko says:

    now tell me again in your best smarmy, condescending way that trust and intent are irrelevant and that temporary, extraordinary wartime powers are as safe in the hands of a glib, charismatic social and domestic activist as in those of a patriot (or what’s good for the goose is good for the gander or some such shit).

    Way to miss my point once again, jtc.

    In a system like ours, sometimes the guy from the other team wins the election. That’s why a concern like yours needs to be voiced *before* those “extraordinary wartime powers” are handed to the executive, because there’s no fucking footnote on that law stating that it may only be used by a Republican POTUS who’s pure of heart and intent.

  23. Tam says:

    TFW:

    Only once the general election was started (and after the hubub about his patriotism and Michelle not being proud of her country etc.) was the US flag put on the tail.

    I believe you didn’t even read the link you posted.

  24. “Way to miss my point once again, jtc.”

    likewise, mw.

    your posts often have multiple points, and sometimes the subterranean ones overshadow the obvious one, whether or not that is your intent…and that is the case here; your obvious point being that whatever uses and abuses are available to one oval office occupant will transfer to subsequent ones who may in our view focus on the abuse part. well, no shit.

    but the inference is that uses (those sharp tools you spoke of) must not allowed since they could be abused at some later point in time.

    huh…sounds a little like gun control…can’t have dangerous devices in the hands of ordinary folks because a few of them might shoot the fucking place up.

    my (i thought obvious) point was that we are a nation at war and while i do not agree with much of how it has been waged, i do trust the people waging it to do their best to prevent terrorism and war on my country’s soil…if that was the primary intent of bush et al then they have succeeded spectacularly, and those sharp tools may have played a part in that…the tools that you would have preemptively denied.

    the condescension comes in when you dismiss others’ concerns of an obama regime as a sudden realization of the potential misuse of the office and those tools and powers of the presidency and lump them with nutjobs like mr. grant…i know that you are not obtuse and i don’t think you are naive, so that drippy caustic attitude comes across as intentional…if not then i apologize for my oversensitivity.

    you know what i think of your writing ability and your convictions…but when i see a gap in your reasoning or maturation as a commentator, you can expect to be called out…wouldn’t be any fun otherwise.

    jtc

  25. Dave says:

    jtc:
    > huh…sounds a little like gun control…can’t have
    > dangerous devices in the hands of ordinary folks
    > because a few of them might shoot the fucking
    > place up.

    A) We draw all sorts of lines for our government that we don’t draw for individuals. The Framers fully intended to hamstring the government; if anything, I expect they’d be disappointed at how loose their restrictions have turned out to be.
    B) We do this because governments are /different/ from people. Governments, by their very nature, have a monopoly on the use of force (perhaps you’ve heard a phrase rather like that before). When we, as individuals, screw up, we’re called to task. When a government abuses people’s rights, to whom do the people appeal? Our government consents to hear such challenges, but still claims sovereign immunity in some cases; what if that claim expanded to all circumstances?

Comments are closed.