08
Nov
08

Obama Critics Need Back The Hell Up – For Now

With the election over, hapless McCain supporters are coming through the woodwork with their preconceived fears of an Obama administration. Already, they’re criticizing his future administrative decisions, claiming they’re “terrified” of the coming president.

I have four words for you imbeciles: Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

Let me spell it out as clearly as I can: your president has utterly ravaged this country during his tenure. Oh, you don’t think it’s all his fault? Let me give you a small reminder of his activities over the last eight years:

  • Convincing our country and neighbors to support the invasion of a sovereign country with lies and false intelligence. Severely mishandling the war for years, lying to the American people about the progress of the war and causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and handing more power to Iran than the country has enjoyed in centuries.
  • Appointing unqualified loyalists to positions that would result in the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina and subsequent deaths of a multitude of people.
  • After claiming to be called to spread democracy, attacking liberty and freedom in the U.S. by, among other things, erasing one of the foundations of democracy: habeas corpus.
  • Establishing a Justice Department that sought to subvert the law rather than uphold the Constitution, leading to the illegal politicization of the department and illegal warrantless surveillance of Americans at home and abroad.
  • Allowing the SEC to enact deregulations that would contribute to the destruction of the economy.
  • Giving tax cuts to the wealthy while the country was at war.
  • Compromising the war on terror by abandoning the military situation in Afghanistan.
  • Failing to enact necessary and obvious energy policies that would benefit future generations, refusing to abide by the Kyoto Protocol, and coddling energy companies that would discourage the development of alternative energy sources and tools, such as electric cars.
  • Supporting unConstitutional bans against gay marriage.
  • Operating with a lack of intellectual curiosity, a certitude and an isolationist arrogance that has grossly reduced U.S. credibility abroad.
  • Attempting to privatize social security – which would have decimated the program had it succeeded

George W. Bush has relentlessly damaged this country politically, economically and militarily year after year after year. He has been the most incompetent president the country has ever experienced. Ever.

And you Republicans feel you have any right to open your fat mouths and issue criticisms of a man who has yet to take the oath of office?! The gall, the stupidity, the ignorance!

I am absolutely unopposed to critiquing Obama’s efforts as president. We must certainly pay attention to the developments and decisions of our government. It is our responsibility and duty as American citizens to ensure our government operates with accountability and proficiency at all levels at all times. Feel free to raise your voices – when it is time.

But give Obama a chance to lead. Take a step back, take a breath, take responsibility for your vote for Bush and Cheney in 2004. Shut your mouths and study the actions of Obama before you unleash your predetermined accusations of a man who will undoubtedly make mistakes, but will undoubtedly perform better than the leader you delivered to us.

I don’t like to dispense with advice, but allow me – just this once, Republicans – to issue a few words you’d be well-served to heed: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Obama Critics Need Back The Hell Up – For Now”


  1. November 8, 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Obama promised to usher in an era of hope, change, and bi-partisanship. His selection of Rahm Emanuel offers none of those. That’s a perfectly valid thing to criticize. (See http://kazoolist.blogspot.com/2008/11/hope-change-and-rahm-emanuel.html)

    For years we’ve been told that the unhinged ranting at President Bush (your litany of points in this post I think qualifies, and if I had more time I’d love to debate about 90+% of them … he lacked “intellectual curiosity” puh-leeze! In 2006, he had read 60 books between January and August. Give me a break!) was justified because “dissent is patriotic.” Well, it’s now the Right’s turn to patriotically dissent.

    I agree Obama needs to be given a chance. But choosing your administration is no small act and despite it occurring before January, if President-Elect Obama continues to appoint people that represent the worst of Washington, hyper-partisans who care more about the money game than the issues, who have viciously attacked those on the other side, — well, that deserves all the criticism it receives.

  2. 2 Southerner
    November 10, 2008 at 11:03 am

    I agree with telling the Right to shut up for a while, at least until we see some actual stuff we can pick at. And I do just love the GOPpers wanting everyone to be non-partisan when we are coming off of perhaps the most partisan and divisive eight years this country has seen in a century or more. I for one hope that they fire evey Justice Department lawyer who was hired byt the Bush administration and re-hire some of the ones that Bush & Co. sent packing. Oh excuse me, I’m sorry, that wouldn’t be bipartisan!

    I do have a question, however.You say Bush supported “un-Constitutional bans against Gay marriage.” Please tell me where in the Consitution it protects homosexual mariage? I believe that the document is silent on any kind of marriage — any issues around marriage was left, thankfully, to the states to deal with. But if you have an isight into this that I am missing, I’d love to know what it is.

    Love the graphic, by the way!

  3. 3 Wasaff
    November 10, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    60 books in about 8 months huh? What were they The Cat in the Hat? How would the POTUS have time to read 60 books in 8 months, the dude doesnt even read the newspapers admittedly. Something tells me he didn’t read your claimed 60 books. Something also tells me he is no speed reader… calvin and hobbes just don’t count.

  4. November 10, 2008 at 2:38 pm

    kaz – rahm emanuel has worked plenty times across the aisle and is well respected among many, many Repubs.the chief of staff needs to be somebody who knows the ropes and can get shit done. he probably was the best pick and has known obama quite a long time. again, until rahm runs around screwing repubs over and doing his job poorly, partisans should hold back on their criticism.

    bipartisanship is good and will occur – but Obama has a massive to-do list and clean-up job ahead of him. succeeding in these tasks, rather than worrying about pleasing people and rubbing backs, has to be his top priority. remember, when you try to please everyone, you please no one.

    secondly, i’d be extremely interested to read your explanations of the list i provided of Bush’s activities. you might try to explain away each little one with far-reaching arguments, but i’m sure any defense of bush’s decisions is easily refutable. and gotta agree with Wasaff- i couldn’t care less that the man says he read 60 books. my bullshit radar is blaring. he has insisted on lying to the public – “selling the public” – at every major turn. as if he’d be truthful about his reading habits.

    i’m not against criticizing this man at all. i won’t be particularly pleased of he picks larry summers or john kerry to be in his cabinet. but i won’t spew vitriol and i would like to see republicans limit their propensity to knit-pick Obama to death in these early days.

    i had all the hopes in the world for George W. when he became president – i’m from texas and wanted our homeboy to do us proud. but with each preset agenda of his taking this country down the toilet, we had to raise our voices. give obama some time.

    Southerner – you are correct that the Constitution does not directly address gay marriage – it does not directly address many liberties specifically. Bush supported a federal ban against gay marriage – which would not leave it to the states to decide marriage on their own. however, the declaration of independence declares all men created equal and given the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. if we do not treat gay citizens as equal – and give them equal access to marriage, we are irrationally hindering the right to happiness. Furthermore, the Constitution itself prohibits state sponsorship of Religion. Arguments against gay marriage are almost all of religious origin. ask any non-theist if they would ban homosexual marriage. Also, it is an American tradition that the Constitution grant rights. To run around, assigning amendments prohibiting rights and legislating against a group of citizens is nothing short of undemocratic and unamerican.

    You cannot repeal marriage for heterosexuals and simply relegate all unions to “civil unions.” when i married, i received a “marriage license” from the state of texas.

    we must allow the issuing of marriage licenses to homosexuals and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act – which went into effect under bill clinton. and we will. baby steps – but it time, gays will have the same rights. i have no doubt.

  5. 5 Raul
    November 10, 2008 at 7:30 pm

    Marriage is not aimed at ensuring happiness, its purpose is to create a stable environment to raise children. Homosexual relations don’t produce children, there’s no need to promote stability for any family.

  6. November 10, 2008 at 7:49 pm

    Raul, your viewpoints are simply theoretical and do not address reality or real-life situations. many, many homosexual relationships do produce children. biological capabilities are not the determining factor in human interactions and we cannot legislate according to such limited opinion. things are not so black and white, so simplistic and must be considered from all angles.

    if marriage were simply a vessel through which to establish a stable environment for children, all married couples would have children (they don’t), single people would not be able to adopt or have children and parents would not be able to divorce.

    society once feared the results of a bi-racial marriage. progress and education revealed these sentiments to be erroneous. it will do so for gay marriage as well, in time.

  7. 7 Raul
    November 11, 2008 at 4:06 am

    I was refering to “state-sanctioned” marriage (there’s no way the Church is going to sanction gay marriage). The government licenses marriage and establishes certain prerequisites. To obtain a marriage license the applicants must show they are of legal age (or document exception thereto) and they must document no biological incompatibility and consaguinity is not permitted. What do you think is the purpose of these conditions to obtain a marriage license? The legal age requirement apparently is aimed at protecting minors who may be incapable of appreciating the importance of the decision to marry. The biological compatibility and consanguinity preclusion can only be directed at the issue of offspring.

    I insist homosexual relations do not produce children, its impossible. A homosexual relationship is between people of the same gender, procreation biologically requires the relationship between people of different genders. Conceivably a homosexual couple could adopt a child or raise someone else’s (though the government forbids this in most places), but its certainly not common, dubiously the circumstance of “many, many homosexual relationships”. I don’t know of any homosexuals (of either gender) who are raising children, but I’ll admit it is conceivable. Possibly the parent of a child, could subsequently discover he or she was homosexual and enter into such a relationship while retaining custody and raising their offspring. I suspect this isn’t that common as homosexuality is presumably an innate characteristic so its unlikely gays would have the requisite relationship to have children in the first place.

    Marital vows include loyalty, this means that the spouses promise each other they aren’t going to have sex with other people. Breach of this promise is grounds for a state-sanctioned divorce. Why do you think they have this loyalty oath in marriage? I suspect its to promote stability and more durable relationships. Why do you think the government wants to keep people of different genders living together in monogamous relationships, it seems to me this is aimed at promoting a suitable environment to raise their children. Though there are couples without children, they don’t usually marry with the intent not to have them. Do you know any married couples who do NOT intend to have children?

    I think the drive for gay marriages is aimed at simply assuring gays who are already in committed monogamous relationships the capacity to designate their sexual partners rights comparable to those of a spouse in a heterosexual relationship. If you think gay sexual partners ought to have the same rights over each other married heterosexual spouses have you either debase the marital commitment people aiming to raise a family are committing themselves to, or you are unecessarily elevating a relationship purely premised on the pleasure of sex.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Scarlet Letter of Atheism

a

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

Blog Stats

  • 95,315 hits
WordPress Political Blogger

Top Clicks

  • None

%d bloggers like this: