Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Journalist decides which president Obama most resembles. Hint: It isn't a Democrat   (globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com ) divider line 178
    More: Obvious, Obama, U.S. foreign policy, Fareed Zakaria, Boko Haram  
•       •       •

5425 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jun 2014 at 4:47 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-01 03:12:48 PM  
I'm gonna say that President Obama resembles President Obama. I'm sorry if I blew anyone's minds
 
2014-06-01 03:17:07 PM  
Hurr another "Obama=Republican President" derpitude.

Of course, anyone who attempts to work within a right-leaning political ideology is going to look like one of their "best" if he does the right things according to plan.

I'd really love to see everyone's example of a Libby McLib Socialist try to pry loose the Military Industrial Complex. Just isn't going to happen that way, it's getting tiresome hearing about it.
 
2014-06-01 03:51:57 PM  

whidbey: Hurr another "Obama=Republican President" derpitude.

Of course, anyone who attempts to work within a right-leaning political ideology is going to look like one of their "best" if he does the right things according to plan.

I'd really love to see everyone's example of a Libby McLib Socialist try to pry loose the Military Industrial Complex. Just isn't going to happen that way, it's getting tiresome hearing about it.


Oddly enough I think you just described a Ron Paul presidency.

Granted, the rest of the economy will be in shambles, but we won't have much of a military when he gets done with it.

Only goes to prove that political leanings isn't a line, it's a circle.
 
2014-06-01 04:11:50 PM  

whidbey: Hurr another "Obama=Republican President" derpitude.

Of course, anyone who attempts to work within a right-leaning political ideology is going to look like one of their "best" if he does the right things according to plan.

I'd really love to see everyone's example of a Libby McLib Socialist try to pry loose the Military Industrial Complex. Just isn't going to happen that way, it's getting tiresome hearing about it.


The piece seems positive about Obama overall.  He's comparing him to Eisenhower, so, as Republicans go, that's pretty good.  That's from before the GOP went off the rails.

FTFA:  "And that, I think - more than anything - is his guiding idea, which is be very careful. Measure twice before you cut once. And if you look at Iraq, you look at Afghanistan, you look at Syria - even in Libya, where he did intervene - these are all measured, restrained efforts."
 
2014-06-01 04:25:18 PM  
Eisenhower? That Liberal RINO?
 
2014-06-01 04:51:07 PM  

vernonFL: Eisenhower? That Liberal RINO?


Interventionist in Africa.
Interventionist in Europe.
Cooperated with Stalin and the Red Army.

Wrong for America.
 
2014-06-01 04:54:16 PM  
My first thought was journalism from CNN? Then I saw it was Zakaria.
 
2014-06-01 04:55:56 PM  

somedude210: I'm gonna say that President Obama resembles President Obama. I'm sorry if I blew anyone's minds


mylittlefacewhen.com
 
2014-06-01 04:59:12 PM  

AMonkey'sUncle: My first thought was journalism from CNN? Then I saw it was Zakaria.


Came to say the same thing only in a more awkward manner.
 
2014-06-01 04:59:17 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: whidbey: Hurr another "Obama=Republican President" derpitude.

Of course, anyone who attempts to work within a right-leaning political ideology is going to look like one of their "best" if he does the right things according to plan.

I'd really love to see everyone's example of a Libby McLib Socialist try to pry loose the Military Industrial Complex. Just isn't going to happen that way, it's getting tiresome hearing about it.

The piece seems positive about Obama overall.  He's comparing him to Eisenhower, so, as Republicans go, that's pretty good.  That's from before the GOP went off the rails.

FTFA:  "And that, I think - more than anything - is his guiding idea, which is be very careful. Measure twice before you cut once. And if you look at Iraq, you look at Afghanistan, you look at Syria - even in Libya, where he did intervene - these are all measured, restrained efforts."


Only if that means there's going to be another (better) 1960s to our present-day version of the 1950s. Because it would be about farking time.
 
2014-06-01 04:59:31 PM  

somedude210: I'm gonna say that President Obama resembles President Obama. I'm sorry if I blew anyone's minds


i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-01 05:09:16 PM  
I think Obama would probably lose a game of Risk to Eisenhower.

/community organizer v. five star general
 
2014-06-01 05:11:58 PM  

Summoner101: community organizer v. five star general


Yeah but how would Eisenhower do at The Game of Life™?
 
2014-06-01 05:13:36 PM  
Eisenhower was black?
 
2014-06-01 05:14:27 PM  

Summoner101: I think Obama would probably lose a game of Risk to Eisenhower.

/community organizer v. five star general


Yeah, but Obama could take Ike to the hole

because, you know, Ike is in one.
 
2014-06-01 05:15:03 PM  
The tea partiers of the 1950s i.e. the Birchers considered Eisenhower to be a pinko commie.

Second verse, same as the first.
 
2014-06-01 05:17:14 PM  

whidbey: TuteTibiImperes: whidbey: Hurr another "Obama=Republican President" derpitude.

Of course, anyone who attempts to work within a right-leaning political ideology is going to look like one of their "best" if he does the right things according to plan.

I'd really love to see everyone's example of a Libby McLib Socialist try to pry loose the Military Industrial Complex. Just isn't going to happen that way, it's getting tiresome hearing about it.

The piece seems positive about Obama overall.  He's comparing him to Eisenhower, so, as Republicans go, that's pretty good.  That's from before the GOP went off the rails.

FTFA:  "And that, I think - more than anything - is his guiding idea, which is be very careful. Measure twice before you cut once. And if you look at Iraq, you look at Afghanistan, you look at Syria - even in Libya, where he did intervene - these are all measured, restrained efforts."

Only if that means there's going to be another (better) 1960s to our present-day version of the 1950s. Because it would be about farking time.


lol wut? That makes no sense
 
2014-06-01 05:17:42 PM  

Summoner101: I think Obama would probably lose a game of Risk to Eisenhower.

/community organizer v. five star general


I wonder what duties a five-star General would have these days. I assume that if we ever saw another one, he'd be brought in to manage some sort of major crisis, and manage and coordinate the various elements of armed forces, with a personal focus on strategic goals and logistical means, while ensuring his subordinates maximized the efforts of their portion of the armed forces.

You know, organizing the military community.
 
2014-06-01 05:20:48 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Summoner101: I think Obama would probably lose a game of Risk to Eisenhower.

/community organizer v. five star general

I wonder what duties a five-star General would have these days. I assume that if we ever saw another one, he'd be brought in to manage some sort of major crisis, and manage and coordinate the various elements of armed forces, with a personal focus on strategic goals and logistical means, while ensuring his subordinates maximized the efforts of their portion of the armed forces.

You know, organizing the military community.


Bah! He'd be leading the troops against insurgent holdouts in the mountains of Afghanistan, just like Gen. Rumsfeld did in Tora Bora.

/in his head he is...
 
2014-06-01 05:23:14 PM  

machoprogrammer: ol wut? That makes no sense


We're totally in the 50s. Bland music, Caucasian-centric culture, wage-slave ethic, conservative dress, military-industrial complex....dude the list goes on and on. And we need another 1960s where the people become liberated both politically and socially and get active enough to change things.

Maybe you weren't so fixiated all the time on trying to pin "Gotcha" moments on people, you might be able to entertain that point of view.
 
2014-06-01 05:23:26 PM  
Mugabe?
 
2014-06-01 05:26:42 PM  
Is it St. Ronald?
 
2014-06-01 05:28:58 PM  

whidbey: machoprogrammer: ol wut? That makes no sense

We're totally in the 50s. Bland music, Caucasian-centric culture, wage-slave ethic, conservative dress, military-industrial complex....dude the list goes on and on. And we need another 1960s where the people become liberated both politically and socially and get active enough to change things.

Maybe you weren't so fixiated all the time on trying to pin "Gotcha" moments on people, you might be able to entertain that point of view.


Ok, that makes more sense and I will admit you are right. Unfortunately, people would rather just complain on social media than do anything about it.
 
2014-06-01 05:33:10 PM  

whidbey: Summoner101: community organizer v. five star general

Yeah but how would Eisenhower do at The Game of Life™?


Well that depends, how much money would VE Day net him as an accomplishment? He might not even have to play to win!
 
2014-06-01 05:35:02 PM  

whidbey: TuteTibiImperes: whidbey: Hurr another "Obama=Republican President" derpitude.

Of course, anyone who attempts to work within a right-leaning political ideology is going to look like one of their "best" if he does the right things according to plan.

I'd really love to see everyone's example of a Libby McLib Socialist try to pry loose the Military Industrial Complex. Just isn't going to happen that way, it's getting tiresome hearing about it.

The piece seems positive about Obama overall.  He's comparing him to Eisenhower, so, as Republicans go, that's pretty good.  That's from before the GOP went off the rails.

FTFA:  "And that, I think - more than anything - is his guiding idea, which is be very careful. Measure twice before you cut once. And if you look at Iraq, you look at Afghanistan, you look at Syria - even in Libya, where he did intervene - these are all measured, restrained efforts."

Only if that means there's going to be another (better) 1960s to our present-day version of the 1950s. Because it would be about farking time.


I don't think we're poised for a 1960s redux, but rather something that will last for decades. Consider that in about 10 years (2 presidential terms from now) Millennials will represent a little over 40% of the electorate and many Boomers will be in their 70s. Millennials will likely continue to lien Democratic for social issues, and Boomers aren't going to want their Social Security and Medicare cut. In fact, they'll probably want their benefits expanded. So I don't foresee a '60s-style "revolution" that ends in a few years, as much as a cultural shift away from divide-and-conquer ideology and toward an ideology of pragmatic inclusiveness. The president we elect in 2016 will be a Democrat who will have a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a stable and growing economy. The presider we elect 10 years from now may well be poised to continue work towards LBJ's progressive and pragmatic Great Society.
 
2014-06-01 05:36:32 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
He kept us out of the War!
(Well, closer match domestically)
 
2014-06-01 05:41:58 PM  

Destructor: Well, closer match domestically


Only if you're playing horse shoes. Yes, I know you want to paint all Democrats as hypocritical and working against their voters' interests.
 
2014-06-01 05:42:14 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: The tea partiers of the 1950s i.e. the Birchers considered Eisenhower to be a pinko commie.

Second verse, same as the first.


Well, even the pre-Civil Rights Democrats had enough sense not to let the Birchers into the cockpit politically.
 
2014-06-01 05:47:46 PM  
Eisenhower, one of the great RINO presidents, along with TR, Lincoln, GHWB

/undo influence
 
2014-06-01 05:49:23 PM  

whidbey: Yes, I know you want to paint all Democrats as hypocritical and working against their voters' interests.


Not at all. Democrats are voting in their best interest to make America the way they want it. Nothing wrong with that. I simply happen to have a slightly different vision... (that involves a lot of capitalism, nuclear plants and space exploration).

Anyway, Obama, IMHO, seems to fall between Wilson and FDR. I thought "those on the left" (liberal is now Officially Insufficient) would like that. (Wilson was the "intellectual" (or as conservatives would peg him, damned egg head) of the two.)
 
2014-06-01 05:53:55 PM  

pueblonative: TofuTheAlmighty: The tea partiers of the 1950s i.e. the Birchers considered Eisenhower to be a pinko commie.

Second verse, same as the first.

Well, even the pre-Civil Rights Democrats had enough sense not to let the Birchers into the cockpit politically.


As an interesting non sequitur, before bankrolling the Tea Party, the Koch brothers founded the Cato Institute, and their dad founded The John Birch Society
 
2014-06-01 05:58:15 PM  

Notabunny: The president we elect in 2016 will be a Democrat who will have a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a stable and growing economy.


Democratic Senate, maybe. Dem House, no way. The House is gerrymandered to favor the GOP, aside from the rural representation advantage that the Constitution mandates. I doubt we'll see a Democratic Speaker of the House before 2022. Unless blue states grow some balls and redistrict before the next census.
 
2014-06-01 06:03:01 PM  

Destructor: Anyway, Obama, IMHO, seems to fall between Wilson and FDR. I thought "those on the left" (liberal is now Officially Insufficient) would like that.


Except both were frankly, white elitists. Obama has gotten a lot more shiat for trying to emulate them.

I appreciate Obama, I appreciated FDR, Wilson was good for some of his ideals. But those of us "on the left" know they weren't exactly libby libs. FDR was closest.
 
2014-06-01 06:04:59 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: Notabunny: The president we elect in 2016 will be a Democrat who will have a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a stable and growing economy.

Democratic Senate, maybe. Dem House, no way. The House is gerrymandered to favor the GOP, aside from the rural representation advantage that the Constitution mandates. I doubt we'll see a Democratic Speaker of the House before 2022. Unless blue states grow some balls and redistrict before the next census.


Many "blue states" have GOP governors, too. At this point I think it would require national guidelines and/or a Constitutional amendment to address the gerrymandering problem.. which would never happen..

/though surprisingly, Iowa of all places does it right
 
2014-06-01 06:12:26 PM  

whidbey: Destructor: Anyway, Obama, IMHO, seems to fall between Wilson and FDR. I thought "those on the left" (liberal is now Officially Insufficient) would like that.

Except both were frankly, white elitists. Obama has gotten a lot more shiat for trying to emulate them.

I appreciate Obama, I appreciated FDR, Wilson was good for some of his ideals. But those of us "on the left" know they weren't exactly libby libs. FDR was closest.


True dat.  Just once for like 20 years I want to restructure the economy to be more Keynesian.  We've been trying this Trickle-Down economic theory for about 40 years and it hasn't really panned out very well.  We just go from one bubble to another, over and over again.  How about we try something different?  Let's try to make the peaks not so high, and the valleys not so low, so that we can have stable, perpetual growth.  That, and a monumental investment in Green Energy and Education would make me happy as a pig in slop.
 
2014-06-01 06:14:28 PM  

Summoner101: I think Obama would probably lose a game of Risk to Eisenhower.

/community organizer v. five star general


www.tipwiki.net

A better test.
 
2014-06-01 06:14:31 PM  

Tomahawk513: whidbey: Destructor: Anyway, Obama, IMHO, seems to fall between Wilson and FDR. I thought "those on the left" (liberal is now Officially Insufficient) would like that.

Except both were frankly, white elitists. Obama has gotten a lot more shiat for trying to emulate them.

I appreciate Obama, I appreciated FDR, Wilson was good for some of his ideals. But those of us "on the left" know they weren't exactly libby libs. FDR was closest.

True dat.  Just once for like 20 years I want to restructure the economy to be more Keynesian.  We've been trying this Trickle-Down economic theory for about 40 years and it hasn't really panned out very well.  We just go from one bubble to another, over and over again.  How about we try something different?  Let's try to make the peaks not so high, and the valleys not so low, so that we can have stable, perpetual growth.  That, and a monumental investment in Green Energy and Education would make me happy as a pig in slop.


There's a three-fold problem with that:

1. Wealth might not be so concentrated without trickle-down
2. Green energy will reduce dependency on fossil fuel moguls and
3. Education might give someone the bright idea that this oligarchy isn't working and they might try to change it
 
2014-06-01 06:19:38 PM  
Wait, you're telling me that Obama isn't the libbiest lib who ever libbed a lib?

So Republicans were lying?

DOES NOT COMPUTE

GOTO VOTEREPUBLICAN
 
2014-06-01 06:24:51 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: Notabunny: The president we elect in 2016 will be a Democrat who will have a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a stable and growing economy.

Democratic Senate, maybe. Dem House, no way. The House is gerrymandered to favor the GOP, aside from the rural representation advantage that the Constitution mandates. I doubt we'll see a Democratic Speaker of the House before 2022. Unless blue states grow some balls and redistrict before the next census.


A Democratic Senate is a sure thing. There are 23 Republican seats up for reelection in 2016, compared with 10 for the Democrats. And those Republican are Tea Party-ers who are more and more unpopular. Yes, the House districts are heavily gerrymandered. I remember a couple years ago when Democrats won about 1.5 million more votes, but lost elections. But gerrymandering can be overcome by popular vote, especially if you start with a 1.5 million vote headstart -and- have a Democratic wave on your side.
 
2014-06-01 06:29:00 PM  

whidbey: want to paint all Democrats as hypocritical and working against their voters' interests.


thats more a fact about the voters than the democrats.
 
2014-06-01 06:31:11 PM  

Destructor: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x333]
He kept us out of the War!
(Well, closer match domestically)


Yep, whichever president the article mentioned, I was going to point out that Obama is really the 2nd coming of Woody Wilson.

 I wouldn't even be surprised to see him become a university president after he leaves office.
 
2014-06-01 06:32:35 PM  

udhq: Destructor: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x333]
He kept us out of the War!
(Well, closer match domestically)

Yep, whichever president the article mentioned, I was going to point out that Obama is really the 2nd coming of Woody Wilson.

 I wouldn't even be surprised to see him become a university president after he leaves office.


Like Wilson did. Suuuure.
 
2014-06-01 06:34:31 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Summoner101: I think Obama would probably lose a game of Risk to Eisenhower.

/community organizer v. five star general

I wonder what duties a five-star General would have these days. I assume that if we ever saw another one, he'd be brought in to manage some sort of major crisis, and manage and coordinate the various elements of armed forces, with a personal focus on strategic goals and logistical means, while ensuring his subordinates maximized the efforts of their portion of the armed forces.

You know, organizing the military community.


The rank was created, iirc, because the US military did not have an equivalent rank to Field Marshall, which our allies in WW2 had. In order for American generals and admirals to be in command of allied armies, there needed to be another rank above four-star general.
 
2014-06-01 06:35:34 PM  

Destructor: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x333]
He kept us out of the War!
(Well, closer match domestically)


That woulda been my pic.

Screwed his base over with good intentions and bad theory.
The timing of history obviously didn't help.

/Of course the true leadership of a president often isn't made apparent until years after they leave.
/We still have two more years of dealing with Bush's aftermath, then we can blame our problems on the 2016 victor.
 
2014-06-01 06:37:07 PM  

whidbey: But those of us "on the left" know they weren't exactly libby libs. FDR was closest.


FDR wasn't the libbiest lib that ever libbed a lib? (seriously, I thought he was.) Who was then?
 
2014-06-01 06:38:07 PM  

way south: crewed his base over with good intentions and bad theory.
The timing of history obviously didn't help.


So how are making these criticisms of Wilson fit the Obama Presidency?
 
2014-06-01 06:39:15 PM  

El Dudereno: UNC_Samurai: Summoner101: I think Obama would probably lose a game of Risk to Eisenhower.

/community organizer v. five star general

I wonder what duties a five-star General would have these days. I assume that if we ever saw another one, he'd be brought in to manage some sort of major crisis, and manage and coordinate the various elements of armed forces, with a personal focus on strategic goals and logistical means, while ensuring his subordinates maximized the efforts of their portion of the armed forces.

You know, organizing the military community.

The rank was created, iirc, because the US military did not have an equivalent rank to Field Marshall, which our allies in WW2 had. In order for American generals and admirals to be in command of allied armies, there needed to be another rank above four-star general.


You're largely correct, but my comment was about what a commanding general did, and why Summoner's statement was a load of garbage.
 
2014-06-01 06:41:33 PM  

Destructor: whidbey: But those of us "on the left" know they weren't exactly libby libs. FDR was closest.

FDR wasn't the libbiest lib that ever libbed a lib? (seriously, I thought he was.) Who was then?


Pretty sure libs don't put innocent people into concentration camps, for one thing.

And there has never been a liberal President. The entire political structure is right-leaning. There were Presidents like Kennedy and even Johnson who tried to reform domestic policy, but the problem has and still is the socially-conservative hardliner element in our society and government.

And Presidents who try to fight the hardliners usually get smacked down. Yeah, it's a serious problem, I daresay one of the core issues of why the US gets the rap for being a militaristic imperialist empire.
 
2014-06-01 06:41:46 PM  
People complained Eisenhower played too much golf.
People complained Obama played too much golf.
They're identical. That must be what CNN is thinking.
 
2014-06-01 06:44:22 PM  
I wouldn't call Obama's military history with Pakistan a "restrained use of force."
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report