The man at ease? Bush. The man who looks totally afraid? Obama.
It looks to me like he is going to have to make a lot of decisions he is not ready for. Not surprising for a man who voted “present” 130 times in the Illinois Senate.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
A Man At Ease
by
Tags:
Comments
23 responses to “A Man At Ease”
Simon
Every time I think you’ve made the most vacuous Obama post on this blog, you go raise (lower?) the bar.
You’ve got to pace yourself, man. You’ve got at least four years for this kind of thing.
DND,
No need to pace the fount of material will be inexhaustible.
M.Simon
Clearly not, as you are already resorting to projecting your psychoanalysis onto photographs.
Postures and expressions my man.
Humans are expert at recognizing them. It is a survival trait.
See, you got it all wrong, Obama! is great and Bush is a doody-head.
Jeez, where have you been?
Bush has gotten the most underserving bad rep I’ve ever seen.
He has all the class the left can only sneer at because they don’t have it.
How insane would you have to be in order to be at ease as President-elect?
M. Simon
“Postures and expressions my man.
Humans are expert at recognizing them. It is a survival trait.”
It would be fascinating to see a breakdown of your expert analysis of Obama’s posture and expression that has led you to your conclusion.
Of course, my own expertise leads me to interpret Bush’s posture and expression as indicating that he has accepted his role as a failed president and ceased to take an active role in trying to fix the dozens of problems he has created or exacerbated.
See how easy it is to project? Fun, too.
That is 130 votes out of how many thousands of votes he participated in? The percentage seems pretty low to me.
If we are going to knock him off of his political game plan, then we are going to need to use logic and reason, not hysterics.
Regards,
Dann
Veeshir
“Bush has gotten the most underserving bad rep I’ve ever seen.”
Wow, it’s rare to see one of the 25%ers out in the wild.
A collapsing economy, one ill-conceived and two mismanaged wars, wanton disregard (if not contempt) for the Constitution, and squandered international goodwill and prestige. On balance, I’d say Mssr. Bush is lucky he’s not being run out of D.C. on a rail.
>>>>wanton disregard (if not contempt) for the Constitution,
I don’t want to hear this sh*t from someone who believes judges should rule based their heart, rather than based on the law and the Constitution.
I’m with Fritz. Anyone who’s relaxed as he faces 4-8 years of the hardest job in the world would be crazy. If I were Bush, I would already be practicing my fly casting.
Roy
“I don’t want to hear this sh*t from someone who believes judges should rule based their heart, rather than based on the law and the Constitution.”
Well then it’s a good thing no one is suggesting that judges should rule based on their heart, rather than based on the law and the Constitution, isn’t it?
Roy
And, out of curiosity, what do Obama’s potential judicial appointments have to do with the Bush administration’s wanton disregard (if not contempt) for the Constitution.
Accepting for the sake of argument that Obama’s criteria for judicial appointments are unwise and/or impracticable: does that retroactively excuse the Bush administration’s actions?
Well DND,
So far we have two votes for uneasy. One says it is a good thing, one says it is not so good.
What is your analysis of the situation depicted?
Roy, did you really just respond to Dr Dynamite’s diatribe?
Are you really that bored?
M. Simon
I’ve already told you: my own expertise leads me to interpret Bush’s posture and expression as indicating that he has accepted his role as a failed president and ceased to take an active role in trying to fix the dozens of problems he has created or exacerbated.
Of course, this is all just an exercise in projection on a undeniably bland photo, so I expect people to read into the photo exactly what they want to see–which is exactly what you have done.
And I’m still waiting for you to explain your expert analysis.
Veeshir
I know–getting having poorly reasoned posts questioned isn’t as much fun as a who-hates-Obama-the-most competition, is it?
Please disregard either “getting” or “having” from the above. Reader’s choice.
Hey, troll, how about I just disregard the entire thing?
But I’m voting with Fritz and notaclue. If Obama isn’t scared, the rest of us should be. My guess is that listening in on those daily intel briefings is having a salutary effect.
Questioned? Huh, usually questions have question marks (?).
You attacked Bush in the same ignorant way he’s been attacked for years. I don’t respond to those attacks anymore, I just either ignore or point and laugh. Your post wasn’t worth even pointing and laughing as you introduced nothing new nor even alluded to whatever you “think” proves your attacks.
Poorly reasoned attacks deserve no response. Ever. Unless you’re bored or the nitwit is funny.
You last post was funny, the first one? Not so much.
Veeshir
“I don’t respond to those attacks anymore”
Listen, on an emotional level, you’ve got my sympathy. Having to defend the indefensible for these last eight years, only to have the vast majority of the populace recognize that President Bush was a nearly unmitigated disaster *has* to be disheartening.
On the other hand, the 25%ers (is it even that high any more?) that refuse to acknowledge the reality that Bush has made a monumental cock-up of the last eight years lose a bit of my sympathy when I remember it was that same denial of reality within the Bush administration that led to many of our current problems.
I will agree, however, that arguing about whether Bush was merely a disastrous president or a monumentally disastrous president isn’t all that interesting any more, given that he’ll be heading back to the “ranch” soon to get back to his true calling: clearing brush for no productive purpose.
Godspeed, W. Godspeed.
See? Now that’s funny. Bravo. When you double down on stupid I’m gonna take notice.
Since you’re, well not exactly responding, but writing back, could you explain how your first post directed at me was “questioning”?
(see that mark (?), that denotes a question)
Veeshir
Ah, semantics in a blog comment thread. If there is anything more pleasant*, I’m not aware of it.
Follow along: I responded to Roy’s 1:04pm post with to posts, one at 1:42pm and another at 1:48pm, both containing questions. You responded to Roy’s 1:04pm post to me at 2:41pm. I responded to your 2:41pm post at 2:46pm, at which point I referenced the “questioning” in my 1:42pm and 1:48pm posts.
Now, if you really want to spend your time engaging in exegesis, you might want to pick a different topic, because you’re not going to get anywhere with this one.
I know that in grade school they taught you that a “question” always had that little “?” at the end, but you may be surprised to learn that one may “question” something without that little “?” appearing. For example, if I were to write in a post directed to you “I have grave doubts about your ability to follow the logic I have just laid out for you.” I would have “questioned” something without actually using that little question mark. Crazy how that works, huh?
Generally speaking, I have been “questioning” the reasoning of several posters on this thread, whether or not that little “?” appears in each and every post.
And, for the record…I have just reread this post and somewhat regret the snotty tone, but c’mon Veeshir! Don’t bring a spoon to a spork fight!
*and by “pleasant” I mean pedantic and inane