Political Ramblings of a Voop: Obama's "Greatest Defeat"...
10 posts
• Page 1 of 1
by NikkyVix » Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:20 am
"To the last, I will grapple with thee...
For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee..."
-- Khan Noonian Singh
US President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle take a chance at landing the 2016 Olympic games in Chicago, Il by traveling to Copenhagen, Denmark, in order to plead the case for hosting the games in America at Chicago. Today, the vote went instead to Rio de Janero to host the 2016s, with Chicago being the first eliminated.
People of all political affiliations in the streets of Chicago, shocked and crestfallen, hug each other out of sympathy at the significant loss of the costly yet poignant and hopeful chance to host international games for their country.
Outside Chicago, the extreme conservative rags, websites and shows across the country from Fox News to Drudge Report re-enact the Ewok celebration scene from the end of Return of the Jedi. In their words, concerning the President's loss: The Ego has landed.
And now those selfsame personalities are touting this as a great 'win' for their side, the True Americans, and are hoping that it poisons the President's attempts to reform our draconic hypercapitalist Health Care system which lags behind the rest of the developed world. Crowing with glee and calling it 'so sweet', a 'wonderful thing', a 'blow for the right', they assert that it's proof that Obama is a hack, a failure, and is destined to lose so that the real people who'll steer America in the right direction can reassert themselves at the helm.
...Is this really what it's come down to in my country? In a time where much of America is attempting to repair its good standing with the world--of which hosting the Olympics could play a major part--we still have cynical, angry people cheering the loss of an historic attempt at hosting the one national practice that works best at bringing people together. And it's because they hate a President and fear what he represents to their cozy little world? So what if the Olympics are costly...the mere fact that we'd have to prepare for them would create jobs in Chicago, and help boost the city's notoriety, tourism, and overall income from the moment the announcement is made on through the 2016 show itself. And people are not only willing, but proud, to stab this possibility at advancement in the throat just to be able to deal some manner of a blow to the President? It's getting worse, I think. Something sickening is happening.
There are times when I feel sufficiently jaded towards the depths of selfishness and wrongful, greedy priorities that humans (not just Americans, humankind) themselves are capable of. And then there are times when even I am still shocked when another floor is opened to those depths.
I'm of the live and let live persuasion, but...we need to shed these fuckers, the echoes of a dark and nasty side to the human psyche and American culture, like dead skin.
For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee..."
-- Khan Noonian Singh
US President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle take a chance at landing the 2016 Olympic games in Chicago, Il by traveling to Copenhagen, Denmark, in order to plead the case for hosting the games in America at Chicago. Today, the vote went instead to Rio de Janero to host the 2016s, with Chicago being the first eliminated.
People of all political affiliations in the streets of Chicago, shocked and crestfallen, hug each other out of sympathy at the significant loss of the costly yet poignant and hopeful chance to host international games for their country.
Outside Chicago, the extreme conservative rags, websites and shows across the country from Fox News to Drudge Report re-enact the Ewok celebration scene from the end of Return of the Jedi. In their words, concerning the President's loss: The Ego has landed.
And now those selfsame personalities are touting this as a great 'win' for their side, the True Americans, and are hoping that it poisons the President's attempts to reform our draconic hypercapitalist Health Care system which lags behind the rest of the developed world. Crowing with glee and calling it 'so sweet', a 'wonderful thing', a 'blow for the right', they assert that it's proof that Obama is a hack, a failure, and is destined to lose so that the real people who'll steer America in the right direction can reassert themselves at the helm.
...Is this really what it's come down to in my country? In a time where much of America is attempting to repair its good standing with the world--of which hosting the Olympics could play a major part--we still have cynical, angry people cheering the loss of an historic attempt at hosting the one national practice that works best at bringing people together. And it's because they hate a President and fear what he represents to their cozy little world? So what if the Olympics are costly...the mere fact that we'd have to prepare for them would create jobs in Chicago, and help boost the city's notoriety, tourism, and overall income from the moment the announcement is made on through the 2016 show itself. And people are not only willing, but proud, to stab this possibility at advancement in the throat just to be able to deal some manner of a blow to the President? It's getting worse, I think. Something sickening is happening.
There are times when I feel sufficiently jaded towards the depths of selfishness and wrongful, greedy priorities that humans (not just Americans, humankind) themselves are capable of. And then there are times when even I am still shocked when another floor is opened to those depths.
I'm of the live and let live persuasion, but...we need to shed these fuckers, the echoes of a dark and nasty side to the human psyche and American culture, like dead skin.
-
NikkyVix - Site Admin
- Posts: 1296
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:14 pm
- Location: Behind a doorway. Setting traps.
by Kyle » Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:59 am
Well, I hadn't really been paying attention to this 2016 Olympics bid until today, and I still really don't know much about it. Judging from how you feel, though, I think this would make a much more fitting opening quote:
We are saints made of plaster, our laughter is canned;
We are demons that hide in the mirror.
But the blood on our hands paints a picture exceedingly clear.
We are brimming with cumbersome, murderous greed,
And malevolence deep and profound.
We do unspeakable deeds, does our wickedness know any bounds?
Something's gone terribly wrong with everyone;
All the World is Mad. (Thrice)
We are saints made of plaster, our laughter is canned;
We are demons that hide in the mirror.
But the blood on our hands paints a picture exceedingly clear.
We are brimming with cumbersome, murderous greed,
And malevolence deep and profound.
We do unspeakable deeds, does our wickedness know any bounds?
Something's gone terribly wrong with everyone;
All the World is Mad. (Thrice)
-
Kyle - Posts: 60
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:05 am
by Helios » Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:48 am
I find it kind of humorous how people claim that this was a big ol "Fuck You" to Obama, when it wasn't anything of the sort. Rio won the vote because it was the better city.
I mean, yes it's likely that Obama did have political gain in mind when making the pitch for Chicago, but that's just politics 101, nothing wrong there. People from my side cry fowl, but I do not as I know that a Repub pres would have prob. done the same, and even though I'm happy Rio won, I'm kinda disappointed I have to wait until at least 2020 before I get to see the Olympics without leaving the US of A. (2010 Winter is in Vancouver though, which is close enough
).
Now I know that because I align myself with the party that many people in the fandom, and the internet as a whole see as the enemy, I'm sure my statement on this is next to nil, but here goes:
I am pleased that Rio won the bid. I did not want Chicago to win. I did not want Chicago to win not because it would embarrass Obama, I did not want Chicago to win because I didn't think it was a good city to host the Olympics =/.
Better response here: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/974544/
I mean, yes it's likely that Obama did have political gain in mind when making the pitch for Chicago, but that's just politics 101, nothing wrong there. People from my side cry fowl, but I do not as I know that a Repub pres would have prob. done the same, and even though I'm happy Rio won, I'm kinda disappointed I have to wait until at least 2020 before I get to see the Olympics without leaving the US of A. (2010 Winter is in Vancouver though, which is close enough
).Now I know that because I align myself with the party that many people in the fandom, and the internet as a whole see as the enemy, I'm sure my statement on this is next to nil, but here goes:
I am pleased that Rio won the bid. I did not want Chicago to win. I did not want Chicago to win not because it would embarrass Obama, I did not want Chicago to win because I didn't think it was a good city to host the Olympics =/.
Better response here: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/974544/
I do not pray for an easy life. I pray to be a stronger bird.
-
Helios - Posts: 526
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:41 pm
- Location: Space Station 5
by NikkyVix » Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:22 am
Thank you for representing a voice of the sensible on the Republican side of the discussion, Lunch--err, Helios. That particular voice is strangely muted these days, and I hate generalizations that state all Republicans are the enemy. There's quite a few of those Democrats which don't know their assholes from a doughnut hole, after all. It's the extremists of both sides that are the problem. Anyway..
For what it's worth, I can certainly agree on Rio being the better city. It's...well....it's likely far more of a tourist draw than Chicago. Rio has its crime problems, but it's still a more versatile place to have the Olympics. If I were trying to find the most suitable place to hold the Olympics, Rio would be more palatable than Chi Town. Chicago could have made it work, especially with government aid, but it would have been tough. The trade-off for tourism, jobs and advertisement revenue would have been toughly bought for such a poor city. I look forward to seeing more of Rio in 2016.
It sickens me to hear people saying that Chicago's elimination in the first round was an intentional snub at Obama and proof that even the Olympics planning board believes he's a failure. It just serves to color the mental focus of the people who're mud-slinging, showing you what wavelength they're on, what matters to them, and how they view the way the world works through their eyes. President Obama will see it as a disappointment, but certainly nothing that damages his political capital, because it was important yet not crucial. If anything, it just shows that he's a man...not some nubian emperor that can order things as he will, as many seem to try to make him out to be in praise and scorn.
For what it's worth, I can certainly agree on Rio being the better city. It's...well....it's likely far more of a tourist draw than Chicago. Rio has its crime problems, but it's still a more versatile place to have the Olympics. If I were trying to find the most suitable place to hold the Olympics, Rio would be more palatable than Chi Town. Chicago could have made it work, especially with government aid, but it would have been tough. The trade-off for tourism, jobs and advertisement revenue would have been toughly bought for such a poor city. I look forward to seeing more of Rio in 2016.
It sickens me to hear people saying that Chicago's elimination in the first round was an intentional snub at Obama and proof that even the Olympics planning board believes he's a failure. It just serves to color the mental focus of the people who're mud-slinging, showing you what wavelength they're on, what matters to them, and how they view the way the world works through their eyes. President Obama will see it as a disappointment, but certainly nothing that damages his political capital, because it was important yet not crucial. If anything, it just shows that he's a man...not some nubian emperor that can order things as he will, as many seem to try to make him out to be in praise and scorn.
-
NikkyVix - Site Admin
- Posts: 1296
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:14 pm
- Location: Behind a doorway. Setting traps.
by Stormcaller3801 » Sat Oct 03, 2009 12:39 pm
Honestly, I wasn't surprised. Rio had a solid case, Chicago didn't; Rio would be the first South American city to host the games, it's a rising economic power, there's a tremendous enthusiasm for getting the Olympics into the city, and while my ability remember names means I can't recall the President's name, when he hit the G20 even Obama referred to him as a big star. Comparatively Chicago's got about 50% polling they don't want the games, there's a lot of monetary questions and they have a record of being unable to complete projects under budget or within the time constraints.
As for the Republican response, it's nuts. But it's not unusual. Something like that has existed for a very long time; there's newspaper clippings from the 1800's where people are worrying about this sort of behavior. It's a percentage of America that isn't going to go away, and it isn't going to change its behavior. That doesn't somehow make it more rational. The big difference (which may only exist in my mind) is that with the 2006 and 2008 elections, there's a fight on for determining how the Republican party will be presented. The 'Big Tent' mentality basically got shot to hell when it was decided it was no longer necessary- when it became assumed that Bush won by mobilizing only his base, and when the Republicans controlled two of the three branches of federal government. Since then it's been a matter of catering to that base, and thinking all the moderates need the party more than the party needs them. Not that this mindset is unique to the Republicans, mind- the by Dems, against Dems political adverts are good evidence of that.
Now the party's out of power, and there's an identity crisis going on. Or more specifically a debate about how to regain power. Power is gained by number of votes- and thus the main means for arguing this is by number of followers to a given style. One of them, a more quiet one, focuses on policy and dropping the extreme edge of the party. Another, louder one, caters to the extreme edge of the party. It's hard to say which group's winning out simply because of that volume disparity, but the loud ones are certainly attracting a lot more attention. And a number of people in the Republican party are catering to them just in case.
What all that translates into is a vicious, hate-fueled mantra that turns Obama into some sort of major villain and turns every single fight into the last one, the big one, the final boss battle that will turn the tide and justify the hate by proving they were right all along.
In as much as I hate to offer it up because it has the potential to be highly inflammatory, this cycle within the party is not terribly unlike the rise of Wahhabist Islam. After various Arab countries got together and fought Israel and ultimately lost, one of the big questions was how God could have allowed them to lose such a fight. One of the answers that came up and quickly grew in power (and violence) was that Islam as a faith had strayed, and that they needed to stay closer to the teachings of Mohammad. Which basically meant a more extreme, more cruel, more strict version of the faith. And it's something that's continued- you lose, it's because you weren't faithful enough.
Not very different at all from the cries that the Republican party has strayed and needs to divest itself of those people who aren't 'real' Republicans.
As for the Republican response, it's nuts. But it's not unusual. Something like that has existed for a very long time; there's newspaper clippings from the 1800's where people are worrying about this sort of behavior. It's a percentage of America that isn't going to go away, and it isn't going to change its behavior. That doesn't somehow make it more rational. The big difference (which may only exist in my mind) is that with the 2006 and 2008 elections, there's a fight on for determining how the Republican party will be presented. The 'Big Tent' mentality basically got shot to hell when it was decided it was no longer necessary- when it became assumed that Bush won by mobilizing only his base, and when the Republicans controlled two of the three branches of federal government. Since then it's been a matter of catering to that base, and thinking all the moderates need the party more than the party needs them. Not that this mindset is unique to the Republicans, mind- the by Dems, against Dems political adverts are good evidence of that.
Now the party's out of power, and there's an identity crisis going on. Or more specifically a debate about how to regain power. Power is gained by number of votes- and thus the main means for arguing this is by number of followers to a given style. One of them, a more quiet one, focuses on policy and dropping the extreme edge of the party. Another, louder one, caters to the extreme edge of the party. It's hard to say which group's winning out simply because of that volume disparity, but the loud ones are certainly attracting a lot more attention. And a number of people in the Republican party are catering to them just in case.
What all that translates into is a vicious, hate-fueled mantra that turns Obama into some sort of major villain and turns every single fight into the last one, the big one, the final boss battle that will turn the tide and justify the hate by proving they were right all along.
In as much as I hate to offer it up because it has the potential to be highly inflammatory, this cycle within the party is not terribly unlike the rise of Wahhabist Islam. After various Arab countries got together and fought Israel and ultimately lost, one of the big questions was how God could have allowed them to lose such a fight. One of the answers that came up and quickly grew in power (and violence) was that Islam as a faith had strayed, and that they needed to stay closer to the teachings of Mohammad. Which basically meant a more extreme, more cruel, more strict version of the faith. And it's something that's continued- you lose, it's because you weren't faithful enough.
Not very different at all from the cries that the Republican party has strayed and needs to divest itself of those people who aren't 'real' Republicans.
- Stormcaller3801
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:38 am
by Buffalo Bill » Sat Oct 03, 2009 11:25 pm
Good on Rio, sucks for Chicago.
As for the way the right-wing looks at it:
Solely because he's black. No doubt about it. Blacks don't have the same chances as whites get, and they will use any excuse to slam him. Had he not gone, they would've said they lost because he didn't show enough support and how he isn't a true american and blablabla.
The entirety of America's politics sickens me. Actually, scratch that. Not just America's politics. The whole shebang about it. The vocal group which is a lot larger than just a minority. Racism is still prevalent, albeit a lot less high-profile. Backasswards health care system. A childish hate against socialism, using the word as an insult. Still feeling that need to act like the fucking policeman of the world, poking their nose into shit that doesn't concern them. The over-the-top patriottism. The hypocrisy. Oh god don't get me started on that. Example: Massive violence and gore is alright, but even a hint of bare ass has the country in an uproar.
Yeah perhaps I'm generalising or stereotyping, but even if I do that there's something seriously wrong. Get your shit sorted America, cause right now you're being viewed as war-mongering, racist, backwards fucks.
As for the way the right-wing looks at it:
Solely because he's black. No doubt about it. Blacks don't have the same chances as whites get, and they will use any excuse to slam him. Had he not gone, they would've said they lost because he didn't show enough support and how he isn't a true american and blablabla.
The entirety of America's politics sickens me. Actually, scratch that. Not just America's politics. The whole shebang about it. The vocal group which is a lot larger than just a minority. Racism is still prevalent, albeit a lot less high-profile. Backasswards health care system. A childish hate against socialism, using the word as an insult. Still feeling that need to act like the fucking policeman of the world, poking their nose into shit that doesn't concern them. The over-the-top patriottism. The hypocrisy. Oh god don't get me started on that. Example: Massive violence and gore is alright, but even a hint of bare ass has the country in an uproar.
Yeah perhaps I'm generalising or stereotyping, but even if I do that there's something seriously wrong. Get your shit sorted America, cause right now you're being viewed as war-mongering, racist, backwards fucks.
- Buffalo Bill
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:31 pm
by Helios » Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:02 am
A tad off topic here:
Rumors say that the mascot for the 2016 Olympics will be "full breasted with many feathers"
...again, I LOVE Rio!
Rumors say that the mascot for the 2016 Olympics will be "full breasted with many feathers"
...again, I LOVE Rio!
I do not pray for an easy life. I pray to be a stronger bird.
-
Helios - Posts: 526
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:41 pm
- Location: Space Station 5
10 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests