Obama and Europe - two of the silliest things ever

So Obama was supposed to be the President who made everyone in the world love us, who was super intelligent, who was charismatic, and would usher in a new age of diplomacy, where all of our longtime alliances would be strengthened, and we would make new ones elsewhere.
When I see videos like this one, I cannot help but to laugh at that idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erYpXzE9Pxs

This guy is frankly embarrassing.
Pictures of world leaders laughing at his pathetic antics don't help either.
https://img252.imageshack.us/img252/...eceofshame.jpg
https://img337.imageshack.us/img337/...ceofshame2.jpg

What must the world think of a country that elects that as President? We must be the laughing stock for voting that guy into office! A Harvard educated man who is not creative or intelligent enough to think of more than two different speeches to deliver to all our allies, a middle-aged married man who cannot take his eyes off of some 16 year old's butt, a great orator who can stutter more in one speech than Dubya and Clinton put together in their entire lives, and the bleeding genius who believes that there are 57 states in the US! If it wasn't so sad, it may be funny (say for instance if this France, or some other Third-World country's President).

So Euro-weiners, what do you think of our beloved President now? How do you think he views Europe?

A Negro with a higher education than me? Quick, make fun of his intelligence!!! Obviously a result of affirmative action laws!!!

As for my opinion on Obama, it remains the same as when he was elected; he is the lesser evil. I can never support a conservative like Obama, yet he is a hell of a lot better than the alternative(Palin).

I love it, that was a really funny video and the pictures are great!

I'm so happy that this is all people have to worry about regarding Obama, could be worse like him starting wars or something. :2thumbsup:

@Vuk: nothing we didn't think about y'all before. ;)
You're welcome,

-Smug self-satisfied Euro-dept.

/sarcasm

No seriously? Who cares? Outside of the minds of the elderly the cold war is over and so is any reason to pay terribly much attention to either USA or Russia. China has better food, anyway. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

A Negro with a higher education than me? Quick, make fun of his intelligence!!! Obviously a result of affirmative action laws!!!

As for my opinion on Obama, it remains the same as when he was elected; he is the lesser evil. I can never support a conservative like Obama, yet he is a hell of a lot better than the alternative(Palin).

---

Of course HoreTore, Liberal Guide To Avoiding Questions and Discrediting Your Opponents, Chapter 1: "Call them racist".
So when I was disgusted with Clinton, that was just because of his views and my opinion of his character and intelligence, but when I am disgusted with Obama, it is, of course, because of his race. You guys are sooo unoriginal. Seriously, you need to mix it up once in a while.
And since when is Obama a 'Negro', as you say. He is more 'white' than he is 'black', if you are going to judge his race by his skin colour. In fact, when he has a tan, my younger brother is darker than Obama. Hermann Cain was black, Obama creamy at best. I guess creamy doesn't fit into your nice, neat, black and white European racial classification though. Or do you simply believe in the one-drop rule?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

No seriously? Who cares? Outside of the minds of the elderly the cold war is over and so is any reason to pay terribly much attention to either USA or Russia. China has better food, anyway. ~;)

---

Come off it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I love it, that was a really funny video and the pictures are great!

I'm so happy that this is all people have to worry about regarding Obama, could be worse like him starting wars or something. :2thumbsup:

---

Who said there were not more important things to think about? That does not make this less important though. Seriously Husar, you know that if that was Dubya, you and all the other Euros would be jumping all over him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

A man who looks at a pretty woman's bum while president!? Shocker. Kind of par for the course as a Democrat to love the ladies.

I've got problems with Obama, but this is a little ad hominem.

---

It is one thing if you are some redneck who doesn't care what people think about you, but it is different when you are the President of the United States. First of all, anyone with a professional job in a professional environment should be quite grown-up enough to not be staring at women's nether-regions. You are supposed to get past that in your early teen years. As President, he represents an entire Country, and as such, should be on his best behavior. Also, one of the 'women', was an underage girl.

Forget Obama, look at Sarko. While Obama has that "I appreciate female beauty" look, Sarko is all out with his "I wanna a piece of that now"...In Europe, you get points for being a red-blooded male.

Contrary to those two, Berlusconi and Medvedev look asleep and get no points. Ok, granted, Berlusconi probably thinks "Were two of her younger sisters at my manor last Saturday?" but Medvedev's lines of thoughts probably include "What would Vladimir do in this situation?".

Sarmatian wins the Backroom!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Come off it.

---

No really, we're sort of used to the fact that the US president is struggling to find words to "praise" the muppet-of-the-day that we send to the White House whilst the prez is secretly trying to remember a map with the country on it and not altogether sure that the country does in fact exist.

US presidents not having a clue, stumbling over their lines? Happens all the time. I recall Dubya didn't even know who our former Prime Minister was when he went to visit. So could be worse.:shrug:

As for him looking, well uhm Sarko and Mr. Bunga-Bunga... Fine company... or so I hear.

This was the alternative...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7266/7...c6261aa702.jpg

vuk has so clearly never had any sort of interaction with a woman.

men look at womens butts. end. of. story.

married men look at womens butts.

grow up god your like a five year old

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

vuk has so clearly never had any sort of interaction with a woman.

men look at womens butts. end. of. story.

married men look at womens butts.

grow up god your like a five year old

---

Vuk has had plenty of interaction with women, but Vuk is also used to keeping respectable company that doesn't constantly stare at other people's happy bits. Vuk is used to being in a professional environment where stuff like that gets people complaining. Vuk is also perfectly capable of seeing something without staring at it, and affords people the respect of not creeping them out like a drooling pervert.
So if by being five years old, you mean I actually have enough respect for people not to constantly stare at the tits and ass, and that I expect the same from our President, then yeah, I guess you are right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Vuk has had plenty of interaction with women, but Vuk is also used to keeping respectable company that doesn't constantly stare at other people's happy bits. Vuk is used to being in a professional environment where stuff like that gets people complaining. Vuk is also perfectly capable of seeing something without staring at it, and affords people the respect of not creeping them out like a drooling pervert.
So if by being five years old, you mean I actually have enough respect for people not to constantly stare at the tits and ass, and that I expect the same from our President, then yeah, I guess you are right.

---

Then Vuk either has no sex drive or is lying.

Sorry, I just don't believe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Vuk has had plenty of interaction with women, but Vuk is also used to keeping respectable company that doesn't constantly stare at other people's happy bits. Vuk is used to being in a professional environment where stuff like that gets people complaining. Vuk is also perfectly capable of seeing something without staring at it, and affords people the respect of not creeping them out like a drooling pervert.
So if by being five years old, you mean I actually have enough respect for people not to constantly stare at the tits and ass, and that I expect the same from our President, then yeah, I guess you are right.

---

Baring you being homosexual I would say it's a lie that you don't stare at a woman's jiggly bits Vuk.

I fully admit to being in awe of some of the beauties I meet in my daily life, and why wouldn't I stare sure I'm not dead yet.

When I get caught I have enough blather in me anyway to smooth the situation by the application of a joke or amusing turn of phrase.

We stare at women and women shock horror they know and use it too, as long as your not sitting outside bedroom windows sans pantaloons it's all quite innocent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Then Vuk either has no sex drive or is lying.

Sorry, I just don't believe it.

---

Seriously, how old are you guys? You sound like a bunch of 15 year olds!
Is it really that hard for you to keep your eyes to yourself? People like you give men a bad name. Men aren't a bunch of animals driven only by a desire to have sex, who at the first site of a woman lose all control, but that is the way you make us out to be. Either that, or you just have no respect for your own reputation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Baring you being homosexual I would say it's a lie that you don't stare at a woman's jiggly bits Vuk.

I fully admit to being in awe of some of the beauties I meet in my daily life, and why wouldn't I stare sure I'm not dead yet.

When I get caught I have enough blather in me anyway to smooth the situation by the application of a joke or amusing turn of phrase.

We stare at women and women shock horror they know and use it too, as long as your not sitting outside bedroom windows sans pantaloons it's all quite innocent.

---

Haven't you ever heard of seeing without looking?

For freaks sake guys, are you really saying that either a guy is gay, he has no sex drive, or he has to stare at people's private parts in public?
Sure, there is nothing wrong with taking a second look at a girl walking down the street, but there is a time and a place for everything. In certain places (such as your work environment) and at certain times (such as when you are acting as the representative of your country...not to mention are married), it is just not appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Seriously, how old are you guys? You sound like a bunch of 15 year olds!
Is it really that hard for you to keep your eyes to yourself? People like you give men a bad name. Men aren't a bunch of animals driven only by a desire to have sex, who at the first site of a woman lose all control, but that is the way you make us out to be. Either that, or you just have no respect for your own reputation.



Haven't you ever heard of seeing without looking?

For freaks sake guys, are you really saying that either a guy is gay, he has no sex drive, or he has to stare at people's private parts in public?
Sure, there is nothing wrong with taking a second look at a girl walking down the street, but there is a time and a place for everything. In certain places (such as your work environment) and at certain times (such as when you are acting as the representative of your country...not to mention are married), it is just not appropriate.

---

Catch yourself on young fella or life will pass you by and quite quickly too I can assure that, life is not meant to be taken seriously at all at all.

So is this the result of a google search for "most trivial and banal criticisms of Obama"?

You say constantly staring is rude - sure, but a photograph doesn't prove staring, it only shows where someone was looking at that exact moment. I do not care in the slightest if a man, even if he's the president, glances at a woman.

Quote:

---

What must the world think of a country that elects that as President? We must be the laughing stock for voting that guy into office!

---

:inquisitive:

You can't be serious. George W was a laughing stock in Europe. Obama is not. Completely trivial attacks on Obama will not change that, because no one gives a crap about this stuff.

CR

To be fair, Vuk could be telling the truth about not "gorping" at women in public. Doesn't stop him (for example) from loading up his PC in his off-hours for a good stare. There is the arguments such as asexuality/demisexual which don't experience primarily attraction in the same way, and pretty much experience secondary attraction.

But back in the case at point, compare Obama to this person:
https://i.imgur.com/rMvAv.png


I think the last respectable president since Obama was Clinton, and but even then he went for a quickie in the Oval office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Seriously, how old are you guys? You sound like a bunch of 15 year olds!
Is it really that hard for you to keep your eyes to yourself? People like you give men a bad name. Men aren't a bunch of animals driven only by a desire to have sex, who at the first site of a woman lose all control, but that is the way you make us out to be. Either that, or you just have no respect for your own reputation.

---

What I'm saying is, I look. I try to stop myself from looking, but it's usually after the fact. I'm sorry, but give me the most beautiful woman in the world and I'm sure my gaze will still slip south once or twice, as it did yesterday. I can tell you that that particular woman had the most gorgeous hazel eyes, a mix of deep green and amber, almost gold, with flecks of something ddarker. I can also tell you that she was wearing what appeared to be a man's check shirt with the first three buttons undone.

He's a guy, he looked, his eyes tracked down, he felt guilty. The whole process probably took about a second.

What else did he do that day?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

To be fair, Vuk could be telling the truth about not "gorping" at women in public. Doesn't stop him (for example) from loading up his PC in his off-hours for a good stare. There is the arguments such as asexuality/demisexual which don't experience primarily attraction in the same way, and pretty much experience secondary attraction.

---

And I thought I was being catty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

You can't be serious. George W was a laughing stock in Europe. Obama is not. Completely trivial attacks on Obama will not change that, because no one gives a crap about this stuff.

CR

---

That is very true. He's your president, you guys decide if he's doing good enough job to remain that, but as far as his image abroad is concerned, he's much better than Bush and even Clinton. He certainly repaired a lot the damage that was done to American image worldwide by Bush.

I don't really blame him for not knowing what to say to the resident muppet-of-the-day as Tellos put it, but someone of his assistants or most probably a PR guy should have notified him that he's overusing the phrase. Just like smaller countries like to mentioned in a "punch above their weight" category, they can be especially touchy if it's insincere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Sarmatian wins the Backroom!!

---

Seventh season in a row. :bounce:

Should I retire now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

That is very true. He's your president, you guys decide if he's doing good enough job to remain that, but as far as his image abroad is concerned, he's much better than Bush and even Clinton. He certainly repaired a lot the damage that was done to American image worldwide by Bush.

I don't really blame him for not knowing what to say to the resident muppet-of-the-day as Tellos put it, but someone of his assistants or most probably a PR guy should have notified him that he's overusing the phrase. Just like smaller countries like to mentioned in a "punch above their weight" category, they can be especially touchy if it's insincere.

---

While I'm sure he would never do it and it probably would be a bad idea, I'd love it if he actually did tell countries if they were punching below their weight or if they were average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

While I'm sure he would never do it and it probably would be a bad idea, I'd love it if he actually did tell countries if they were punching below their weight or if they were average.

---

He does, but that's done behind closed doors. Publicly, it has to be hugs and kisses with (potential) allies.

You are completely right Vuk. These are the most pressing issues about Obama. You have really gotten to the heart of the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

a photograph doesn't prove staring, it only shows where someone was looking at that exact moment.

---

Yes. Photographs can be very misleading. Funny video, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

This was the alternative...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7266/7...c6261aa702.jpg

---

Perspective (visual and mental) can suggest things that aren't there. This and the two Obama pictures in the OP are perfect examples. The first OP picture interpretation is so far off it isn't even funny. How can Obama be staring at the butt of someone facing him and in front of him? He's looking at what she dropped. In the second picture he is side by side with her (he's going down the steps and she's going up) and I'd hazard to guess he is looking at whatever it is she is holding...but that is my perspective on the picture.

Looking at a selected instant of a moving world can get you results you want. Want to make Bush look stupid? Snap enough pictures of his face and you'll get the dumb expression you want. Want to make him look drugged up? Keep snapping those pictures. I hear photographers like to follow our presidents around, so there is plenty of opportunity to get the picture you want.

Some people just aren't meant to be critical thinkers

And the OP is a shining example

You should continue to pet the rabbit

Strike, you are the only person on earth who actually takes anything you say seriously, so rather than wasting bandwidth posting here, maybe you should just stand in front of your cracked mirror and have 1-liner-sation with yourself. It will save everyone a lot of bother.

In fairness to Strike, your OP consisted of:

1. Obama is so stoopid
2. Obama stares at ladies' butts

There's not a lot of room to respond to that sort of thing seriously. IMHO, Strike is giving like he's getting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Strike, you are the only person on earth who actually takes anything you say seriously, so rather than wasting bandwidth posting here, maybe you should just stand in front of your cracked mirror and have 1-liner-sation with yourself. It will save everyone a lot of bother.

---

What you said about him - is how we feel about you right now.

Unless, of course, you want to claim I have been Strike's Alt all this time?

Gregoshi and Strike have the right of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Want to make Bush look stupid? Snap enough pictures of his face and you'll get the dumb expression you want.

---

I am feeling the referencing there, Gregoshi!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Strike, you are the only person on earth who actually takes anything you say seriously, so rather than wasting bandwidth posting here, maybe you should just stand in front of your cracked mirror and have 1-liner-sation with yourself. It will save everyone a lot of bother.

---

False, I rarely take anything I say seriously. One only needs to look at the grammar and spelling of my posts to come to the conclusion that I am mentailly impared or starved for attention.

Personally I feel somewhere between those two poles is a happy medium.

I'll be honest VUK Im still fairly convinced you're a troll but if your not I shudder in fear to think these are your actual opinions. I can listen to conservatives, libreals and all the rest but its members like you who trully leave me at a loss. I think I am most blown away by the fact that you think these opinions are valid and your reached them by using critical thinking skills.

Then I realize your vote counts the same as everyone elses, But before you go off on a rant on I think I am better than you, read this. Guys like Saski and PJ (among others) are smart guys one only needs to look at how they saved the pornography thread from you. I talk to you for the sport of.

I come here becuase it is a bully pulpit, Very ralery do I use anything othen than conjecture becuase sometimes it's fun to be a sanctimonious, self richoues prick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

In fairness to Strike, your OP consisted of:

1. Obama is so stoopid
2. Obama stares at ladies' butts

There's not a lot of room to respond to that sort of thing seriously. IMHO, Strike is giving like he's getting.

---

*Secert "prefered member" ORG handshake*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

What you said about him - is how we feel about you right now.

Unless, of course, you want to claim I have been Strike's Alt all this time?

---

Paint me like one of your French girls

Vuk steals my job of dumbing the conversation down half the time and does it in a much more enthusiastic and efficient manner.

Therefor I ask the moderators to deport Vuk from the backroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Vuk steals my job of dumbing the conversation down half the time and does it in a much more enthusiastic and efficient manner.

Therefor I ask the moderators to deport Vuk from the backroom.

---

Wrong thread.

The Obamamania here was emberassing to the least, with the height of hilarity giving him the Nobel peace-prize just he's Obama. Leader-cultus isn't gone at all in Loonieleftistan. They were so certain of it but wrong as usual, there isn't any change... they can believe in. He isn't.... him

The non-demigod Obama aka human is an ok president I guess

Vuk, you're going to have to do better than that...

https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/...e-bush-ass.jpg

https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/...er-massage.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The Obamamania here was emberassing to the least, with the height of hilarity giving him the Nobel peace-prize just he's Obama. Leader-cultus isn't gone at all in Loonieleftistan. They were so certain of it but wrong as usual, there isn't any change... they can believe in. He isn't.... him

The non-demigod Obama aka human is an ok president I guess

---

agreed that giving him the Nobel was a really silly move on the Nobel institution side... I think he is a fine president but that was really for...nothing really.

as for people that are asking for Vuk's removal from the backroom.
as one of the older members in this forum (10 years and counting) I must remind you that we are in a forum that managed to handle much worse (who was ultra-christian that interpreted everything on the bible literally? Navarros? something like that?) - Vuk is almost reasonable by comparison.
let us not be so thin skinned, you darn kids....back in my day we had it much harder...ohhh yes, I remember having to walk 10 miles to and from school every day, in the rain and snow....and it was uphill... both ways!!!

Yeah, speaking as someone who has caused his fair share of trouble—and as the only mod to don the green robes while still holding an active warning point or two—I don't think it's reasonable to demand that Vuk be yanked from the BR. Was this a silly thread? Yes. Do we need to get our corsets in a bunch over it? No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

(who was ultra-christian that interpreted everything on the bible literally? Navarros? something like that?)!

---

Navaros. Isn't your member title a parody of his? I recall his title being "standing up for morality". I miss him...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I must remind you that we are in a forum that managed to handle much worse (who was ultra-christian that interpreted everything on the bible literally? Navarros? something like that?)

---

I thought Navaros was a troll account used by Tribesman?

And didn't he convert to Islam or something ridiculous like that?

No, I'm pretty sure Navaros was the real deal. On another forum I used to visit years ago there was also a member called Navaros which had the same...opinions and posting style. Eventually got himself banned, too. I got the distinct impression that the .org version was the same person, allthough that's obviously open to doubt.

Navaros was legit. There was no way that someone could argue as much or as passionately as he did without being real.

Wow, I don't believe it. Someone disagrees with your views, so you want them banned. After all, that is the liberal way: crush all opposing views and hide them from sight (or site in this case). Honestly, that is kinda pathetic.
I mean, you are not up in arms over PJ being a holocaust semi-denier and a Nazi sympathizer, but because someone said something you didn't like about Obama, you wanna ban them. You sure got your priorities straight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Someone disagrees with your views, so you want them banned. After all, that is the liberal way: crush all opposing views and hide them from sight (or site in this case).

---

Don't overstate your case. One user asked that you be banned (possibly in jest), and two stood up for you right away. Please put away your victim card, sir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I mean, you are not up in arms over PJ being a holocaust semi-denier and a Nazi sympathizer.

---

When (?) PJ held those views, didn't he get banned multiple times and put on several user's ignore list?

Don't remember it myself but I remember it being mentioned.

I may well be wrong so if so ignore this.

That's correct, PJ paid a price for holding and expressing some extreme views, although I do not believe he ever came down as a Holocaust denier. Furthermore, my understanding is that a lot of his WWII posts are a reaction against NAZIS BAD ALLIES GOOD reductionism, which is a tricky but fair line to walk. Not all Wehrmacht were monsters; not all Allies were saints. That's legit. (Although, given the scale and publicity of evil that happened under the 3rd Reich, it's a difficult point to make, and leaves the arguer open to accusations of Nazi sympathizing and/or historical revisionism. Both of which have been hurled at PJ in quantity and quality. And in fairness to PJ, he has taken the criticisms as they came.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

When (?) PJ held those views, didn't he get banned multiple times and put on several user's ignore list?

Don't remember it myself but I remember it being mentioned.

I may well be wrong so if so ignore this.

---

I am not saying we should ban PJ for being a Nazi sympathizer. I personally find those views reprehensible, but I also think he has the right to them. It was the hypocrisy from members I was commenting on.
The fact that one member should actually suggest that someone be banned because he disagrees with them, and then other members, rather decrying the practice of banning someone who does not agree with you, they 'stick up for me' by basically saying that I do not disagree with them significantly enough to be banned.
I just think that entire attitude is a little absurd.

PJ was a lot more fun back in his nazi days. He gave the backroom some of the much needed flavor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

That's correct, PJ paid a price for holding and expressing some extreme views, although I do not believe he ever came down as a Holocaust denier. Furthermore, my understanding is that a lot of his WWII posts are a reaction against NAZIS BAD ALLIES GOOD reductionism, which is a tricky but fair line to walk. Not all Wehrmacht were monsters; not all Allies were saints. That's legit.

---

If I remember correctly though, we did not have individual members calling for him to be banned though, it was the mods. (which, particularly, I think is absurd, as it should be his right to hold whatever views he wants, regardless of how incredibly stupid they are. When his arguments are cut down, it will be educational to the rest of the board to see how they don't make sense.)
The attitude is the same that people have with Rush: that if they don't like what someone says, the authorities should censor them. That is a good way to have a world of stagnating, never changing views, and removing all room for intellectual advancements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

other members, rather decrying the practice of banning someone who does not agree with you, they 'stick up for me' by basically saying that I do not disagree with them significantly enough to be banned.

---

Both Ronin and I jumped in immediately and declared that you should not be banned for expressing an unpopular view. I'm terribly sorry we didn't do so in a way that meets with your approval.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Both Ronin and I jumped in immediately and declared that you should not be banned for expressing an unpopular view. I'm terribly sorry we didn't do so in a way that meets with your approval.

---

That is not what I meant Lemur. Don't get me wrong, I am appreciative that you did. I just was a little surprised that neither you, nor Ronin openly condemned the idea of censoring someone who did not agree with you. While I appreciate you sticking up for me, it just seems to me that you did it for all the wrong reasons. (or at least, that is how it came across)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

it just seems to me that you did it for all the wrong reasons. (or at least, that is how it came across)

---

I think the distinction is this: If an Orgah genuinely holds and unpopular view, no way in hell should he or she be banned. But trolls do happen, and there have been occasions when someone stops by just to stir up trouble. As I took it, ACIN was suggesting you were a troll, and therefore banworthy. Ronin and I were saying no, not troll, no banstick. So yeah, as long as you're arguing in good faith, it's all legit.

-edit-

And as for the Limbaugh comparison, that doesn't hold water. Nobody has suggested he be censored; they are trying to undermine his financial base. That's not opposing free speech, rather, that's opposing paid speech. Big difference. I'm free to say what I like, but getting cash moneys for it is a privilege.

-edit of the edit-

Last point: I do not believe PJ ever got in trouble with the mods for his Wehrmacht posts. Rather, it was when he would say something that appeared to bash entire races, ethnicities, religions and/or nations that he would get the enforced timeout. And that sort of thing is clearly out-of-bounds by Org rules.

Vuk, your posts are hard to read for someone who isn't frothing at the mouth in support of your political viewpoint.

Those pictures you posted are actually famous for being shot by a live, moving picture camera. It's a still from a rolling film. The film shows that Obama was not even remotely close to looking at a girl's butt. The angle is wrong, the timing is wrong, there is precisely one frame which looks incriminating taken out of context. I would google the stupid thing and post the video, but something tells me watching the tape yourself wouldn't cause you to back down one iota from your main point, which is that Obama is a dumb skirt-chaser, essentially.

Then when folks point out stuff like, facts... which contradict your views, you seem to get all bent out of shape and defensive.

You really need to relax man. It's ok to make friends with liberals and it's also okay to get off the partisan war machine for five minutes.

See this, right here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

It is one thing if you are some redneck who doesn't care what people think about you, but it is different when you are the President of the United States. First of all, anyone with a professional job in a professional environment should be quite grown-up enough to not be staring at women's nether-regions. You are supposed to get past that in your early teen years. As President, he represents an entire Country, and as such, should be on his best behavior. Also, one of the 'women', was an underage girl.

---

This is the righteous indignation of a person who doesn't have the slightest clue what is being referenced by those pictures, which as funny as they are, are absolutely, without a single doubt, 100% misleading stills of live video which prove your point is actually completely false.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKaJzL3Y19Q

That took literally 2 seconds to find. Jebus tap-dancing Santa Claus in a halter top. When the video actually was shot in 2009, it was immediately debunked. The still portion of it anyway. What in the blue hades compels people to dig this up again and trot it around as if it had any meaning in the slightest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I think the distinction is this: If an Orgah genuinely holds and unpopular view, no way in hell should he or she be banned. But trolls do happen, and there have been occasions when someone stops by just to stir up trouble. As I took it, ACIN was suggesting you were a troll, and therefore banworthy. Ronin and I were saying no, not troll, no banstick. So yeah, as long as you're arguing in good faith, it's all legit.

---

Looking at ACIN's post I doubt that it was intended seriously.

That said, some people apparently enjoy being permanently outraged. Who are we to deny them these simple pleasures?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Vuk, your posts are hard to read for someone who isn't frothing at the mouth in support of your political viewpoint.

---

Frothing at the mouth? Because I criticized Obama. Yeah, totally frothing at the mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKaJzL3Y19Q

That took literally 2 seconds to find. Jebus tap-dancing Santa Claus in a halter top. When the video actually was shot in 2009, it was immediately debunked. The still portion of it anyway. What in the blue hades compels people to dig this up again and trot it around as if it had any meaning in the slightest?

---

I just saw the video AtPG, and it sure looks to me like he is checking her out. I think you are doing too much listening to the commentary and not enough watching the video. Him and the Frenchy both look like they are checking her out.
A comment on the video cracked me up:

REMOVED

Really though, he has a point. The video obviously shows Barrack Hussein Obama checking out an underage girl, but obviously not to someone who cannot see past partisan lines and must rush to the defense of their hero.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Navaros. Isn't your member title a parody of his? I recall his title being "standing up for morality". I miss him...

---

yup..that's where my title came from

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Vuk steals my job of dumbing the conversation down half the time and does it in a much more enthusiastic and efficient manner.

Therefor I ask the moderators to deport Vuk from the backroom.

---

I think you're being a bit oversensitive here, Vuk. ACIN's post, while certainly not flattering to you, seems very clearly to me to be a joke. His rationale for a ban is not that he disagrees with your opinions, but that you're stealing his trolling job (or at least making it redundant). It's basically a 'darned immigrants' type of claim. So you have one person make a joke requesting you be banned, no one else suggests any such thing, and multiple posters step in to make it clear that difference of opinion is no basis for a ban. Of course it's not, and you can go on saying stuff that's as crazy as you like until judgment day. If you do ever end up banned, it will not be for having offensive opinions. If you still want to assert your victimhood, stick to the solid ground of people making fun of you or your ideas, because there is plenty of that here (though I have to say it seems rather justified).

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Wow, I don't believe it. Someone disagrees with your views, so you want them banned. After all, that is the liberal way: crush all opposing views and hide them from sight (or site in this case). Honestly, that is kinda pathetic.
I mean, you are not up in arms over PJ being a holocaust semi-denier and a Nazi sympathizer, but because someone said something you didn't like about Obama, you wanna ban them. You sure got your priorities straight.

---

There is no method for dealing with (extremely mild) criticism as courageous as pointing to the guy next to you and saying 'but he's worse!'

I do not appreciate being dragged into your back and forth, but I suppose some clarification is in order.

I have never denied that the Holocaust happened. I do believe that it happened, and I think that there is plenty of evidence to support that belief. I have, however, questioned many of the common notions surrounding the event including its uniqueness in the historical record as compared to the actions of other nations, the German public's knowledge of it, the German military's knowledge and complicity in it, its size and scope in relation to other German priorities, and what I see as a Holocaust industry that perpetuates those myths.

In regard to the Nazis, 'sympathizer' has taken on a meaning that belies the word's definition. I sympathize with the German public in the 1920's and 30's and I understand why Nazism held the appeal that it did. I sympathize with the members of German military, including the SS, as I believe the vast majority were well intentioned professionals motivated by the same nationalism and desire to protect their families and their nation that drove Allied soldiers to enlist. I even sympathize with a great number of political Nazis. Their willingness to embrace empire-building militarism was no different than that which built the British, French, Russian, and American empires. I can even understand the twisted utilitarianism embraced by Hitler to justify many of his excesses. None of that means that I support Nazism or its policies.

In general, yes I do see the Second World War in shades of grey and I regard the idea that it was some kind of 'good war' as largely propaganda and a 'written by the victors' historical bias. I see the rise of the Nazis not as a singular event but as the culmination of century-long power struggle between established empires and aspiring ones. And yes, I see the way the Allied nations dealt with peoples they considered subhuman, sometimes only decades before the war, and wonder why the Germans are regarded as uniquely reprehensible. I believe that a lot of people content themselves in the superficial belief that Nazi Germany was some kind of uniquely evil 'other' because a deeper exploration of the state and the people that comprised it would reveal just how similar they were those of the Allies.

I stand by every position I've taken in regard to Germany during the Second World War over the years. I understand that such opinions are not popular, and I have taken plenty of criticism for expressing them. I have never been punished for them as I always source my claims appropriately. I do acknowledge that I come to such discussions with a unique perspective, but your above hack job does not accurately represent that perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

There is no method for dealing with (extremely mild) criticism as courageous as pointing to the guy next to you and saying 'but he's worse!'

I do not appreciate being dragged into your back and forth, but I suppose some clarification is in order.

---

I did not bring you into the conversation for that reason PJ, and nor did I seek to misrepresent your views. You may deny that you are a Nazi sympathizer, but, no offense intended, that is what I consider you. I brought you into the conversation to show the hypocrisy of AtPG. Even though I disagree with a lot of views strongly, I did not make any judgment of them. I simply said that even though you hold a view vastly more controversial than mine, it is not you, but me who AtPG is calling to be banned. I don't think you should be banned, and I don't think that AtPG should say you should. I was simply pointing out AtPG's hypocrisy.

Um, Vuk....

AtPG?

Are you even reading the names of the folks you're complaining about? I did no such thing.

You're so excited about the idea of having a political enemy that you can't even tell us apart anymore. Nothing would help you more than a serious vacation from the realm of politics. It's not healthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I was simply pointing out AtPG's hypocrisy.

---

First of all, ACIN, not AtPG. Second, to definitively show hypocrisy on ACIN's part, you'd need to demonstrate that he considered PJ to be a threat to his status as backroom troll, but failed to issue a tongue-in-cheek call for a ban as a result. Finally, I'm not sure anyone expects that level of consistency in a joke, and condemns its absence as hypocrisy.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Um, Vuk....

AtPG?

---

Sorry, I meant ACIN. I always confuse you guys names for some reason.

The main problem I see with the democratic process is that monied or otherwise politically powerful interests with an already overwhelming stranglehold influence on our Congress now own and operate 24-hour a day "infomercial" stations masquerading as news or legitimate political commentary. They provide the viewing audience, already an ill-informed bunch too lazy to do any research, with a steady and constant stream of two things: You're totally awesome and smart, and THEY are horrendous, corrupt, and dumb on every level.

It's not even about policy differences, because that would require articulating a viewpoint and debating things, which is not interesting to folks who want to only hear about one side and how great it is. It's more about saying that red is good and blue is bad, or blue is bad and red is good. I've watched these networks. I've seen their websites and blogs. I've listened to their talk radio programs for hours at a time, for years. I know exactly what goes on, and why people need to change the station if they're in any way serious about having an adult conversation about politics.

24 hours a day of constant, never-ending campaigning and news-like commentary. There is no break from campaign mode; there is no stopping the smearing of political opponents, no break in the partisan process where people can actually come together and discuss the issues like colleagues, like they have to in order to actually affect change. Instead, from the moment a person gets elected until the day they leave politics forever, they are the enemy that must be slain, or your very close friend and isn't it awful what the other side says about them.

Obama is a pathetically mild center-right candidate in a country that has gone off the deep end regarding right-wing politics. His idea of "socialism" is giving more money to big corporations to help them become greedy, well-funded fat cats again, and forcing poor people to buy for-profit insurance which they couldn't afford in the first place. He's been a disappointment to liberals on many, many levels, since taking office. But if you look anywhere that the media giants with a political bent can reach, which is everywhere, you'll see Obama the socialist partisan liberal extremist. A "too professorial" out-of-touch guy who is also too dumb and too concerned about the poor, at the same time. You'll see a guy who is anti-religion, while also having a dubiously extreme former pastor. He's a Muslim foreigner, whose birth documents are obvious forgeries even to people who can't bother to look at them. He's relentlessly anti-American and weak on defense, while waging wars and ordering raids and even going further than Bush did with regards to hunting terrorists and suspending certain protections that American citizens are supposed to have from overzealous law enforcement. He's simultaneously a communist and a fascist corporatist with fat-cat friends. A weak-willed, spineless, apologist, who is also so radical and dedicated to destroying America that we know with absolute certainty that he will begin tearing America apart and displaying his true political positions, right after he gets re-elected.

He's able to be contradictory things. Fantastic things. Things you'd be sure were utterly :daisy: lies, but Sean Hannity said it and he's wearing a tie, so it must be true. Obama, the completely milquetoast extremist Muslim Christian anti-capitalist fatcat inexperienced insider foreigner from Hawaii, who strongly craves the flesh of little girls. He's basically a child rapist, right?

You know about Soccer riots, where people get in such an emotional frenzy regarding their team or the sport in general, that they start behaving like mindless maniacs and end up putting dozens of people in the hospital or worse? That's what is happening with our politics. It's just a game, red versus blue, and the world will come to an end if our team loses. Those across the political aisle are evil and they're coming in the dark of the night to take your jobs and rape your babies, and if we don't start holding more rallies with our firearms proudly displayed, America will be destroyed forever.

You see this video where Obama is helping a young woman down a flight of steps? When he turns and offers the young woman his hand, as he's looking down at the actual steps to keep his footing, another woman walks up the steps. And in a brief moment, it sorta looks like he's checking her out, but he's not.

Now we know for sure that Obama is a lecherous womanizer who wants to have sex with your children. That's not even in dispute, that's on camera, on the public record, for folks who can look at something and see something entirely different and report what they've seen to everyone else with not an excessive amount of completely legitimate moral outrage, with a straight face.

You're drinking the Kool-Aid, Vuk. They put poison in it, man. I'm just asking you to switch to water for a while, for your own good.

Because I do not think you're bad, or evil, or dumb, or anything. I think you're a perfectly fine, normal person, who has gotten caught up in a game you cannot win because it hurts you before it even begins to hurt your opponents.

We really need an "eating popcorn" smilie.
Also, hey pizza. Backroom's been boring without you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

We really need an "eating popcorn" smilie.

---

:laugh4:

Was thinking exactly the same.

It would go well with: :coffeenews: :smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

We really need an "eating popcorn" smilie.

---

:pop2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

:pop2:

---

Perfect!
:pop2:

Do PJ's views sometimes make me uncomfortable?

Yes.

Do I occasionally have to make sure I didn't accidentally go to stormfront?

Yes.

But he's just so damn eloquent. I will literally find him in real life and hire him as my speech writer if I ever run for office. Plus I agree with him on essentially everything besides.... the controversial bits people take exception to.

The Backroom has a a very high ceiling when it comes to controversial stuff.

The problem is that the OP here does not consist of arguments. THAT is what ticks people off, not the level of controversy in the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The problem is that the OP here does not consist of arguments.

---

DING DING DING DING

Vuk can stay, I just hope at some point he sees the error of his ways.

PJ is still a dirty little fascist. I would love nothing more than to tie him up and pour hot wax all over is hairless Aryan body

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

... (say for instance if this France, or some other Third-World country's President).

So Euro-weiners, what do you think of our beloved President now? How do you think he views Europe?

---

I find it hilarious that you say that France is a Third-World country.

Granted Obama isn't living up to the steep expectations but this is reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peasant Phill

Granted Obama isn't living up to the steep expectations but this is reality.

---

Reality is also that these high-expectations were really there, it was pathetic how what Vuk calls euroweenies acted as if the Messias had returned. Not Vuk's fault they now look like the idiots they really are. A little bit of disrespect for Europe we should be able to just deal with no, as if us euroweenies are all nuance when it comes to the US

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

So Obama was supposed to be the President who made everyone in the world love us, who was super intelligent, who was charismatic, and would usher in a new age of diplomacy, where all of our longtime alliances would be strengthened, and we would make new ones elsewhere.
When I see videos like this one, I cannot help but to laugh at that idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erYpXzE9Pxs

This guy is frankly embarrassing.
Pictures of world leaders laughing at his pathetic antics don't help either.
https://img252.imageshack.us/img252/...eceofshame.jpg
https://img337.imageshack.us/img337/...ceofshame2.jpg

What must the world think of a country that elects that as President? We must be the laughing stock for voting that guy into office! A Harvard educated man who is not creative or intelligent enough to think of more than two different speeches to deliver to all our allies, a middle-aged married man who cannot take his eyes off of some 16 year old's butt, a great orator who can stutter more in one speech than Dubya and Clinton put together in their entire lives, and the bleeding genius who believes that there are 57 states in the US! If it wasn't so sad, it may be funny (say for instance if this France, or some other Third-World country's President).

So Euro-weiners, what do you think of our beloved President now? How do you think he views Europe?

---

You should also do a bit more research. I've seen the video clip that your third photo was pulled from. He was actually turning around to offer his hand to the woman coming down the steps behind him. The reason he is looking down is he is in the middle of cautioning her against how high the step is. It's quite obvious when you see the video that he is not doing anything creepy.

Why does this thread even have four pages? Are you taking his political views so seriously that you're willing to spend a good portion of your spare time discussing them?

Quote:

---

I simply said that even though you hold a view vastly more controversial than mine

---

Heh. You should look up the thread where I called 300 a racist film. I was personally attacked and suspected of sympathising with al-Qa'ida. Speaking of impopular or controversial views.

To derail this thread completely:

300 is a ridiculous film, and has it all backwards. In order for freedom(tm) to win, the persians had to win. Spartas victory ensured the continuation of their hellish totalitarian system.

All of you are wrong. Vuk is completely right about my intentions and I will state them loud and clear right now.

Vuk, I am a liberal. And Thus, I want you out of this backroom because I disagree utterly with everything you write and due to my liberal brain, I cannot comprehend nor tolerate your rational brain anymore.

I want PJ banned as well for understanding the mind of a 1940s German citizen. Because my liberal sensitivities are hurting right now at the thought that anyone can sympathize with someone who may have kind of liked Hitler.

Also, I am very dissapointed in you AtPG. You should know better than to be mean to people and be hypocritical at that.