Tuesday, January 25, 2011

State of the Obvious



Tonight, Barack Obama's teleprompter will expound on the "State of the Union," which Democrats will react to with the same screaming, yelling, applauding enthusiasm usually reserved for World Wrestling Federation events (which are equally scripted, but far more believable).

Early reports say that the alleged president's speech will focus primarily on three topics: unity between the parties, a big pro-business pro-competition agenda, and "good Obama's" successful defeat of his evil twin "bad Obama" who fought tooth and nail against unity and business for two years. In fact, the previous guy even had "Bad Obama" legally listed as the name on his birth certificate, which is why he wouldn't let anyone see it. It's already been confirmed on Snopes.com.

Anyway, looking at the text for last year's State of the Union, we're impressed by how much of it can be warmed up and served again this year. In fact, even without being warmed, much of it is steaming.

For instance, in that speech Obama created his Deficit Reduction Commission which would give specific instructions by a specific date. Not only did this not happen, but the Democrats used the existence of the Commission as their excuse to not limit their spending in any way, nor create an actual budget for the year.

Mr. Obama also promised to make jobs his "number one priority in 2010," although he apparently meant that it would be "number one after I've jammed through takeover of healthcare, done more to make the military gay-friendly, and taken 17 more vacations."

Mr. Obama swore to the American people that his healthcare plan would let them keep their insurance policies and their doctors, while reducing costs for millions of families and businesses. None of whom have yet been located.

Mr. Obama then promised that he would "go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work." Which, in fairness, he might have done if the Democrats didn't skip creating a budget for him to look at line by line and page by page.

Also in the speech was Mr. Obama's concession that "Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game," and renewed his promise to "change the tone" of the rhetoric in Washington. After which the Democrats spent the rest of the year accusing Republicans of being Nazis, and accusing Sarah Palin of mass murder.

Still, we don't want to be too skeptical about the upcoming speech. After all, from time to time, words of great truth and importance are spoken before a joint session of congress. Words that not only perfectly sum up a time and place, but illuminate and inspire with their crystalline accuracy and rhetorical power. Words that will ring through the corridors of history.

Most recently those words were, "You lie!"

--

32 comments:

drjim said...

Gee...the SOTU was Monday night??
I must have been doing something important, like taking out the trash.
Loved your comment about it being "steamy"!

DeanO said...

This was a great one

John the Econ said...

Don't you all understand? We must spend ourselves into bankruptcy to avoid bankruptcy. Spending more money now means not spending more money later. Why don't you all get it?

Meanwhile, how has the President's mandate that all Federal agencies do cost-benefit analysis on all regulations worked out? Well, basically, it was a mandate to spend more money! This is probably because the mandate included the requirement that agencies consider "values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts." That sounds more like a mandate to spend more money on liberal feel-goodism than a requirement to spend frugally.

An aside: Kudos to the mainstream media yesterday for not blaming yesterday's suicide bombing in Moscow on Sarah Palin or Tea Partiers, although the jury is still out as to who is really responsible.

Pete(Detroit) said...

WWF - AWESOME!!!
I suppose tonight we get a peek at the super fertilizer that they've been using on the 1st lady's garden?

Gawd, would it not be awesome to see / hear the R's 'coughing' {bull chips}, like in Animal House?

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

I'm counting on you to watch Duh Won tonight, Stilton, and let us know the salient points, if any, of his speech. You will have to do this for me because I cannot look at or listen to that rattling bag of bones without heaving up dinners I had two weeks ago and writhing on the floor in anger-induced spasms. Hate is a terrible thing and I reserve it for only the most hateful of creatures; the Loughners, the Gosnells and the Obamas of the world. Thanks, Stilton, for this sacrifice. You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

Suzy said...

I'm with Hoosier....I can't watch, either. His egotistical, hypocritical mug makes me sick to my stomach. Hope to get the damage report here and on Fox. haha. I'm interested to find out who all feels the same way...so far I'm hearing a justice or two may feel this way too.

Anonymous said...

I will be hoping that the "Words that will ring through the corridors of history" will be " I resign from the Presidency of the United States"!!

Anonymous said...

Glad to see the upside down flag in the background of today's cartoon. Isn't that a sign of being in distress?

Pete(Detroit) said...

Anon - NICE catch! yes, it is...
Hosier, Suzy I won't be watching either. I have prior commitment to attend a beer tasting.
Useful use of my time..
Cask Ales - mmMMMMMmmm!

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Readers- Yes, the inverted flag (a distress sign) was deliberate. As far as the folks saying I should watch the State of the Union so they don't have to, it reminds me of someone thrusting a carton of milk under your nose and saying "smell this. Has it gone bad?"

I'll watch the speech...but not in real time. If I can't at least fast forward through the applause breaks, I'll have an aneurysm.

Earl said...

I'll tape it, but only in hopes of catching some off-prompter moments. I agree with most everybody that it's hard to watch someone who is essentially a sanctimonious liar. I WILL watch Paul Ryan's response and did I just hear on radio that Michelle Bachman may do a "tea party" response? At some point I'll READ what Obama says so I don't have to look at his face and can avoid the inevitable cheering and clapping. Seems like we're leaving the heavy lifting to Stilton. Sorry.

Spurlee said...

"Tonight, Barack Obama's teleprompter will expound on the "State of the Union," which Democrats will react to with the same screaming, yelling, applauding enthusiasm usually reserved for World Wrestling Federation events (which are equally scripted, but far more believable)." ... or memorial services.

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

Stilton:
I didn't suggest that you "should" watch it so I don't have to. I just know that, because you will watch it for no other reason than to glean tomorrow's strip, I can count on your reasoned and humorous analysis of Duh Won's great moment and spare many of us the paroxysms of pain that we are not so well constituted to endure.
BTW, I did not notice the upside down flag. Great catch, anonymous.

koko said...

Perhaps he'll announce an extended leave of absence to go to Hawaii (or Kenya) to help Gov. Abercrombie find his missing ... you know ... documents? While he's there, he can visit the grave of his father ... er, "grandfather's friend" Frank. But I digress.

I agree with all that can't stomache watching him lie. I'll see/read all the salient points on various blogs & news sites anyway. It's unavoidable. I'd avoid it if I could.

Sherrill said...

Why watch anyway? Except to know you're hearing more lies and to know that what he says is NOT what he wants done.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Sherrill- Good point, but I've sworn an oath to provide timely and topical commentary here. Okay, it wasn't an oath exactly...but I do swear a lot while watching the news.

Rick said...

I bet NetFlix and RedBox do their greatest numbers tonight. As we say around here when nothing good is on TV - "It's a RedBox night!"

Jim Hlavac said...

Um, what on earth does making the military "gay friendly" have to do with fiscal policy? There are gay people in the military -- are we to waste the already estimated $190 Million on training them, only to be shocked, shocked, that they can do the jobs and be gay at the same time? -- and then chuck them? Or ask if we're gay first, to ban us outright because some can't handle the truth? -- and we'll lie (we're good at it, for our own safety, trust me) and you'll find out later?

What do gay people have to do with the takeover of the healthcare industry? Other than gay men with HIV might well be quick up for death panel review? Boy, talk about a way to pick up a few million votes! But no, chase the gays away, always good for society or something.

In fact, the mere according of decency and respect to the gay people in the nation is cause for much teeth gnashing. Why, Republican presidential candidates and congressional folks are lining up to join the Family Research Council's "pro-family" moves right now -- joining a group which states it wants to criminalize gay people (good for fiscal sanity, building prisons for 20,000,000 gay folks; eliminate our taxpaying, too!) Or export us! (I'd be glad to provide the link to the money quote) -- and nothing says Christian civility than exporting those you don't like. Perhaps our gay wealth will be seized before we're imprisoned or chased out of the nation to pay for it all or something. Disliking gay people does not add to fiscal sanity, however.

You were going good, there Stilton, then the, sorry to say, weird shot at gay folks. This president would be an utter disaster regardless of whether he was a pro-gay socialist or anti-gay socialist. For gay people have nothing to do with any of it. We're just trying to be accepted as more than 3/5s persons -- in every nation on earth. It's the economy, the socialism, the taxes, the growing government -- not the gay folks. Or will be blamed for this mess, too? But that's the implication I get from putting us in your post today.

My Dog Brewski said...

Jim Hlavac:
I believe Stilton tossed that in there just to trip your one-note trigger. It worked.

koko said...

Jim Hlavac: "Um, what on earth does making the military "gay friendly" have to do with fiscal policy?" EXACTLY Stilton's point, I think (I'm sure Stilton will correct me if I'm wrong as he speaks quite well for himself).

The rest of your rant, Jim, was unnecessary and off-topic. Stilton expressed no opinion on gays at all that I can tell; it was all your imagination. I'm beginning to see how the left's collective mind works. Fascinating ... and frightening.

Rick said...

Hay Jim Hlavac:or is that pronounced Hellsback.

Homosexuality is already a criminal act in most states from the days when people had morals and saw sexual perversion as wrong. 25 year ago a openly homosexual person was seen as almost as bad as a pedophile. I bet in 25 more years pedophiles, Necrophiles and Zoophiles will claim they were born that way and liberals will be lining up to defend their rights while demonizing the Bible, Christianity and anyone with morals and a brain. I really don't give a crap what two people do in their bedroom but when you try and make a sex addiction the norm that is where I say NO! If you want to have sex with your dog, fine by me as long as I don't know about it. But the second you put it on a tee shirt, want to marry your dog or teach kids to sex up their poodles in school then I say get back in your hole sicko!

Colby_Muenster said...

Jim H.,

Easy there, dude. I think Stilton was saying exactly what you just said; "What on earth does making the military "gay friendly" have to do with fiscal policy?"

That is the point, it has nothing to do with fiscal policy, so we are left to wonder why it became such a priority to BO when the economy is going over the cliff faster than you can say, "Thelma and Louise."

The alleged president seems to have a compulsion to address ANY issue other than the pressing ones, like $14 trillion debt and the fact that we are basically owned by China. Not that gay rights isn't an important issue. I just think it's time our so-called leaders quit ignoring the brontosaur in the room and stop pointing out the mouse.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Readers- Wow, I walk away from the blog for a little while, and suddenly people are forgetting to use words that heal instead of wound! Maybe we should all sit down together while watching the State of the Union or have a beer summit or something.

Jim I wasn't slamming gays, nor would I. As others have pointed out, I was actually making the same point that you were: gays have nothing to do with fiscal policy. Therefore when the president promises that jobs will be his "number one priority" but then pursues other issues first, it means he wasn't being truthful about his dedication to jobs. That's all.

Obviously there is an (ahem) diversity of views on homosexuality among readers of Hope n' Change (and in pretty much any other large group of people). All I can say is that in my cartoons and commentary, there are never slights aimed at someone for being homosexual. And that I hope the dialogue here, even when people disagree, can always be kept civil.

Necron99 said...

Wow!!! The knee-jerk Libtard Haters really blew a fuse today... Jim H must have been Googleing the word 'gay' in search of an outlet for his vitriol after his usual tour of HuffPo, DailyKOS, & the fledgling OprahNetwork and then stumbled upon Hope n' Change...

While I bear no animosity toward homosexuals of any gender, I do believe it is little more than a sexual kink (like BD/SM, dressing up in costumes, fetishism, etc. etc.) and is a private matter between the individual and their consenting partner(s)...

But as others have voiced in the forum, once you take your kink out into the street and parade it around in the attempt to use it as a reason for special treatment under the guise of "Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!!! I'm different because I was born this way and that makes me special, so I deserve special treatment!!!"...

Well, at that point you have made yourself into the same type of divisive slug that uses race, religion, or any other excuse for the purpose of setting yourself apart from THE REST OF HUMANITY.

While we're on the subject, could a libtard answer these two questions for me?

1. "Why is the media so outspoken about sex abusers being priests, but avoids calling them homosexual pedophiles and who are they afraid to offend?"

2. "If marriage is old-fashioned, “just a piece of paper” and a form of slavery in which one partner oppresses the other, then why do you want it for gay people?"

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Necron99- Jim wasn't actually just looking to pick a fight on this site; he's a gay conservative who has previously expressed the idea that gay or straight, the most important battle right now is conservatives versus liberals - and I strongly agree with that.

I'll additionally say that in my opinion (because who the hell really knows?) homosexuality is probably genetic and not a matter of choice. I know a lot of gay folks who are tremendously good people who have told me that, and I'm inclined to believe them.

All of that being said, I'm not in favor of "special rights" for anyone (but yes, equal rights for everyone), and I have no patience whatsoever for some of the gay sex-on-the-street orgies that pass for "celebrations" in San Francisco and other places (Google only if you dare).

BUT...it isn't the homosexuality that offends me, it is the promiscuity. It is the willingness (even eagerness) to be appalling and offensive. I would be absolutely as offended by straight people conducting themselves that way. And they do, and I am. Jersey Shore, anyone? Skins? Friends with benefits? Sheesh...

I'm not trying to lecture anyone (I have no right or desire to do so), but since this site is about my honest opinions, I felt I should share. I don't expect everyone to agree with me but, as always, it will mean a lot if everyone can express themselves agreeably.

Necron99 said...

Apologies Dr. Jarlsberg... I should have labeled that first paragraph as sarcasm as we are urged to do in other forums and blogs... [Sarc]

I've read Jim H's post and am aware of his political/ethical orientation, which made his comments seem odd and out of character with what he has said in the past. That alone prompted my sarcastic opening rant.

And genetic or not, it is still a kink in my opinion... Hell, I'm a kinky SOB myself, but I don't sashay down the street dressed like the Biker from 'The Village People' advertising it! Nor do I make it my political agenda... I keep it at home... where it belongs.

No foul was intended.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Necron99- Thanks for the clarification; I missed the sarcasm and so felt I needed to run a little defense for Jim. That being said, I think you make an excellent point saying "kinky belongs at home," and I think I'm going to have that embroidered for my wall.

No harm, no foul.

Rick said...

Stilton Jarlsberg

No sexuality is genetic, Homosexuality or Normal. All is a choice and has nothing to do with DNA. That is why Some can choose to go years or even decades without having sex. The so-called Gay Gene is a myth perpetuated by Homosexuals and has not one shred of evidence at all except a flawed study paid for and done by Homosexuals that was disproved 10 years ago. Fact is, Straights can become Homosexuals anytime as is proved in every jail in the country and every Homosexual can become straight when they choose to as is proved all the time on every college campus. The real crime is telling a teen who hates himself that he MUST be gay and has no choice so get used to it. No wonder Homosexuals kill themselves at such a high rate - they have no hope but to live in self-hate. Fact is Gay in men is a sickness created by Molestations and/or having a Alcoholic father and a over domineering mother. In women it as simple as having scumbag men in their lives who abuse them.

Why do I say all this - because as a Conservative, you are to be all about the TRUTH not mindlessly vomiting up Politically Correct lies of the Loony liberal Left. That is just "I'm a good person so I'll pat myself on the back" mentality.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Rick- Like I said, I don't have answers, just an opinion. Can homosexual activity be a choice? Absolutely. But is it always? I have my doubts, and I think the scientific jury is still out.

But trust me, my opinions are based solely on my own personal experience with real individuals... and I don't give a rat's ass about political correctness (as I hope regular visits to Hope n' Change clearly demonstrates to everyone).

Bobo said...

Rick - Thanks for making that crystal clear for all of us who have been sitting on the fence not knowing what the cause was.

moronpolitics said...

Heterosexual sex and heterosexual marriage is and and has been the basis of human society since long before written historical records. These are the basis for and primary institution of it, by which humans pass along their culture for all that time --- about 35 to 50 thousand years as best we can tell. Before that, we undoubtedly lived in family based packs similar to baboons and chimps. Although homosexuality is not unknown in these groups it is not the basis of them and said groups can function and thrive without it. The same cannot be said about heterosexuality. Without IT there IS no continuing group identity.

Homosexuality is primarily about pleasure, sexual pleasure, as a bonding agent between two or a small group of people. Since it doesn't produce another genea ration imprinted with the genes and birth scents and memories of the previous generation. That being so, there isn't the same continuity and the two simply cannot -- by any rational person -- be compared in importance. Heterosexual bonding with marriage and children included is sometimes not even all that pleasurable. Ask around. :>)

That "importance" is why society provides monetary and legal preferences for the one but not for the other. This is a historical, logical and biological reasoning for the preferences for hetero rather than homo sexuality. "I happen to have a gay son" or "My sister is gay" are NOT logical arguments.

I hope this doesn't double post. I'm having computer problems....

jonathan said...

Necron99 said...
"but I don't sashay down the street dressed like the Biker from 'The Village People' advertising it!" Watch the biker comments Necron