Friday, June 19, 2009

Pride Of The Fleet

In this country, some of our presidents have Naval destroyers named after them. It's to commemorate their leadership and honor what they stood for. For example, here we have the USS Ronald Reagan. Gliding through the water, ready to protect us. Don't mess with her or her crew. And here we have the USS George H.W. Bush. Impressive looking. I bet she packs a punch. And here we have the concept design of the future USS Barack Obama. Just look at those lines. And it's loaded with the latest in weaponry. A fitting ship for our president.

6 comments:

R said...

Weak - the joke, not the boat.

Let me see if I got this right (I'm sure I'll be told I've 'got it Left' regardless of what I say...)
The idea of hi-tech weaponry is to ensure the safety and peace of the US people, correct?

...but how long has it been since the US saw a sustained period when not fighting someone somewhere? (I have more friends from lands hit be US ordinance than not, that's not a rare thing for a AngloAustralian in a major city).

The thing with fighting everyone is the only way to 'win' is the kill/force everyone to submit ...but is that peace or safety?

Everyone knows america is armed to the teeth, but many of us are confused 'when weapons intended to deter, be used as the second option'

You people have been at war so long that an attempt a peace (misguided or not) is simply seen as something to ridicule.

It constantly amazes me how two countries that shared so much in common at one time: America and France... look at the founding statements of both nations - for f#'s sake, 'the statue of liberty' was a French gift.

Yet I'm sure that if folks here (at RWRM) could deport Obama to the nation most suitable, it would have to be France, and intended as an insult to both!

As regulars here will know, I'm just an aussie with a big mouth, so forgive me if you think I've misunderstood america, but I suspect that Obama has much in common with your sacred 'founders' than any of you would care to admit, but the real issue is the current course of the US is a choice - what do you people want?
Peace or War?
If anyone is thinking 'peace through war' (apart from it sounding like from '1984'), how seriously is that to be achieved? How many people do you have to kill, do you think, before you have peace?

Should the USS obama be jam-packed with nukes? one for every 'M.F.' that looks at you funny, or is it time someone tried something different?

From here, get some world leaders 'from the BAD COUNTRIES' on Chris's USS Obama, doing some fishing (let Kim Jong-il keep any Carp caught, they taste like mud anyway), some talking, and settle any differences with 'Paper, Scissors, Rock'.

I know that sounds like one of the most ridiculous and naive ideas any of you have ever heard, but for me it's second only in stupidity to thinking that using the USS Reagan and Bush to 'solve a problem' will work, unless that problem is we don't have enough war.

Peace.

Indian Chris said...

Not sure about "getting if Left", what ever that means, but you do have it totally wrong. This has nothing to with war and peace. It's a crappy boat for a crappy president. That's all. I could have went with Mt. Rushmore and Obama's face on a Cheeto, but my Photoshopping skills aren't that good.

R said...

"Not sure about "getting if Left"
typo should read 'getting it Left' - pun on 'getting it Right (or wrong, ergo, 'getting it Left') in response to you constantly labelling me 'liberal'(+ var.)

"This has nothing to with war and peace. It's a crappy boat for a crappy president"
Sure, I believe you (millions wouldn't) as I'm pretty sure if hit with 'pop quiz', you'd need cue-cards (or Obama's teleprompter) to answer what it is about Obama that you don't like beyond 'he's lib, he talks to the bad guys, etc.(these and all criticism we've all heard of him from you - they are all 'closed statements', dogmatic, echoes of the same old anti-liberal mantras - no 'original content'.

You are perfectly correct "nothing to with war and peace. It's a crappy boat for a crappy president"
you conveyed this one opinion last year before election, everything since is same simple message rephased/repacked.
I felt as strongly as you try to convey, I'd be synthesising solid arguments against the guy, rather than simple cheap shots
(I'd link to examples, but I learnt the hard way about keeping parts of my life separate - I'm 30 different people in 30 different places - there's nothing like writing 3000 words on a topic then getting spammed to hell by 'anon' dropping the 'c-bomb')

In all honesty quality of content on your posts on decline - it's all crystal clear that you don't like Obama, and will link to anything anti-liberal, but I don't see any glimmer of a value system or belief. All I see is manifestations of hate, without reasoning or anything beyond dogmatic justification behind them.

Example: on another thread SSGE was willing to speak about values and belief. I don't doubt that he/she and I would disagree about 9 out of 10 things, but I can respect and talk with someone who knows what they believe.

Protip: it's your blog Chris, I'd fully understand if I wasn't welcome here (although it might send the message of being closed minded), but for as long as I'm able to participate here I'll respond to two-dimensional dogmatic 'Obama + libtards bad/Conservatives good' with restrained vitriol.

Go for quality not quantity and empty cheap shots.

...or two quotes that might convey it all.

George Lucas: 'Luke, don't give-in to Hate'

Shakespeare: (Othello - Iago re: Cassius) 'mere prattle without practice'

Indian Chris said...

Once again, you jump to the wrong conclusion. I don't think Obama's a crappy president because he's lib or talks to bad guys. If we can get NoKo and Iran to halt their attempts to get nuclear weapons through peaceful talks, then I'm all for it. But I don't hold out any great hope because the leadership of NoKo, whether it's Kim Jong Il or his son, and the Mullahs of Iran don't strike me as the type. I could be wrong, and I hope I am.

No, I think Obama's a crappy president because of the stimulus bill he shoved down our throats that's done nothing but cost money, the $1 trillion+ health care plan he's trying to shove down our throats that we can't afford, the fact that he'd rather make fun of protesters than talk with them, his firing of inspector generals because they're investigating his friends, his taking over of private business. And yes, before you can go into it, Bush started that and it was one of his major screw us. And his closing of GITMO when that's exactly where these people need to be. Just to name a few.

R said...

"Once again, you jump to the wrong conclusion."
No conclusions, only observations - that until now you've not given anything to draw conclusion from.

Example: two warships, emblematic of US force, which become suggestive of presidential styles when compared to USS Obama. I got the joke, but then tied to talk as about as whether it tied-in to national security (they were warships)? I even give you an easy 'free kick' (to use Aus. vernacular), but all you've got is
"It's a crappy boat for a crappy president. That's all."

No conclusion, just observation, that perhaps if you are going to say something, you could actually 'say something', beyond the superficial and repetitive refrain of "a crappy president".

Well, your answer is a positive move, but the English have an expression 'One swallow does not make a summer' (a 'swallow' being a migratory bird - not obscure pr0n ref.).

"taking over of private business"
supposed to be short-term? ...but more than that, like SSGE_ said in another thread of 'Reagan inheriting a nation in turmoil', isn't that america today?
Whether Obama's actions are the answer I don't know, but when you're up to eyeballs in the crap because the same old things aren't working, I'd be glad of 'change' (could resist using 'the C word') For the record, at the moment the 'changes' that scares me the most is a David Bowie song!

For better or worse (and outside the RWRM bubble some folks are optimistic) despite how much crap america is in, isn't someone trying something different a good thing? To make a plan of consistent action rather 'will just do more of the same and hope the trouble goes away', which would you rather?

'Reaganomics' upset and scared a few people - it was 'change'. It's not like Obama can do worse than Bush. Regardless of whether Obama is in a coma or instigating 'change' he, by default, can't do worse than Bush
...what are you so scared of, that he might be 'the right guy at the right time'?

SSG_E said...

Dude, it was a joke about a boat calm down. BTW Obama inherited a mess caused by his idealological brethren. He is making the same mistakes Bush did regarding the economic crisis only accelerating them and supersizing them.