Ego-Centric To The Very End

I would say that Jan. 20th can’t come soon enough but knowing the ginormous opinion Obama has of himself (hence the constant barrage of revisionist history lessons he keeps giving us, no graceful riding into the sunset for him) I suspect he will be unable to go one week without yelling to anyone with a microphone or camera ,”Look over here, I’m still awesome”.

And boy has he been busy of late; emptying out our prisons with a flourish (and not just drug offenders, many gun and violence offenders as well), releasing more terrorists from Gitmo (and not even getting a deserter in return), passing last minute regulations up the wazzoo in order to cripple the fossil fuel industry, and unleashing the EPA on the economy;

Gina McCarthy, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, didn’t conceal her eagerness in a staff memo sent after the election. “As I’ve mentioned to you before, we’re running—not walking—through the finish line of President Obama’s presidency,” McCarthy wrote.

The sooner she is outa here, the better.

Fortunately the House expected nothing less from the president, so they will be ready to undo everything he does.

But while he still wields some power, why not stack up on the medals;

Obama grotesquely had himself awarded a Defense Dept. medal yesterday

President Obama has another ironic award for his trophy shelf, to accompany his Nobel Peace Prize and all those participation trophies he got at Punahou for his basketball skills. His appointee and subordinate Ash Carter yesterday pinned a military medal — the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service — on his boss

Channeling Sally Fields, “You love me, you really love me”.

When I think Obama’s delusions of grandeur, Kim Jong-il comes immediately to mind, 11 holes in one at golf, 3 perfect bowling scores in a row, wrote operas, books, designed bridges, there was nothing known to man beyond his abilities. When you are this awesome, why hide your light under a bushel?

Trump has many of these superlative delusions himself, I suspect he will be ridiculing his pomposity in measure, and it will be with as much enthusiasm, believe me.

Comments are closed.

  1. AlexInCT

    Can you imagine if a republican leaving the WH had engaged in the shit that either the Clintons or now Obama had how fucking bent out of shape the DNC operatives with bylines would have been about that? What it that thing about democrats and standards that I always mention?

    You can not parody the stupidity or the lows these people will stoop to, but we keep getting told they are the only ones qualified to lead because they have the right credentials and beliefs.

    I owe Obama a box of cigars for making me look like a genius when I predicted how pathetic and bad he would be. Even I couldn’t dream this douchebag would be this fucking bad and this petty.

    When the left starts howling because Trump and congress get rid of all the shit this asshole has done, I will be laughing at them and hoping they cry more sweet prog tears. Nothing is as pleasing as watching these people relegated to irrelevance.

    Thumb up 0

  2. louctiel

    If you read the Snopes article you find that Obama did award himself the medal.  Bush and Clinton did the same thing.

    That does not make it any less reprehensible.

    Unlike Bush, Obama hated the military and showed disdain for them – a disdain that was mostly reciprocated.  Obama tried to change the military from a fighting force to a social force.  That’s not “distinguished service.”

    At least Bush could say that he served in the military – a claim that neither Clinton nor Obama can make.

    The award is wrong.  That’s all there is to it.

    Thumb up 0

  3. richtaylor365 *

    Meanwhile, nothing to see here, please move along…..

    I was hoping one of your new years resolutions would be a real effort to be more honest (OK, maybe just a little bit honest, baby steps) in your comments, good job. You are right, there is nothing to see here, presidents get to decide who serves as ambassadors, including selling those plum positions to big donors.

    Thumb up 0

  4. AlexInCT

    You just deprived him of the opportunity to come social signal how bad Trump is when he does something like this,  dude.. Not nice.

    Thumb up 0

  5. CM

    Way to miss the point of the piece (timing). Only a week or two ago you (I believe) linked to a story showing how Obama was Hitler over a similar (timing) issue in DC. Where is your consistency?

    Nice touch about honesty, my first laugh for the day. My post wasn’t even remotely suggesting that Trump is rewarding donors whereas Obama didn’t.

    I hoped you’d have a resolution about where you got your news in 2017.

    Thumb up 0

  6. CM

    From Snopes:

    “Although the Department of Defense (DoD) is part of the executive branch, the President himself does not play a part in the nomination or approval process for recipients of the DoD’s Medal for Distinguished Public Service.”

    Thumb up 0

  7. richtaylor365 *

     Only a week or two ago you (I believe) linked to a story showing how Obama was Hitler over a similar (timing) issue in DC

    Sorry, I never called anyone “Hitler”, that is a leftest tactic, I suppose you think I am Hitler now for even bringing it up.

    My post wasn’t even remotely suggesting that Trump is rewarding donors whereas Obama didn’t.

    Way to be your usual thick dense self, I didn’t even remotely suggest that your post remotely suggested that it did.

    See, this is why I rarely even respond ( or even read) to your comments, it is so time consuming having to explain things to you, things obvious to everyone else, it is all about time management.

     

    Thumb up 0

  8. louctiel

    CM,

    Perhaps you should look up for whom the Secretary of Defense works and is accountable to.

    That’s the part that you missed.

    Thumb up 0

  9. CM

    Sorry, I never called anyone “Hitler”, that is a leftest tactic, I suppose you think I am Hitler now for even bringing it up.

    Abused him then. Whatever. The point is, why the blatant hypocrisy?

    Way to be your usual thick dense self, I didn’t even remotely suggest that your post remotely suggested that it did.

    You:

    You are right, there is nothing to see here, presidents get to decide who serves as ambassadors, including selling those plum positions to big donors.

    That did not even remotely relate to the actual issue. But you can choose not to address it and try to distract, that’s entirely your decision.

    Perhaps you should look up for whom the Secretary of Defense works and is accountable to.

    Is there evidence that this is how it works? I mean do you know for sure, or is this an assumption which is treated as fact because Obama. I’m entirely open to having missed something. Nothing in the Snopes piece suggests Obama, nor the other two Presidents, simply told the SoD to award them the medal.

    Thumb up 0

  10. richtaylor365 *

     I’m entirely open to having missed something. 

    The story of your life, boiled down to just a few words.

    You- That damn Trump, he is firing all the overseas ambassadors.

    Me- Presidents get to do that, INCLUDING firing ambassadors and replacing them with big time donors.

    You- I never said anything about Trump rewarding big time donors with ambassadorships.

    See the disconnect? Walking CM by the hand, so tedious, nothing ever changes with you, does it?

    Thumb up 0

  11. stogy

    You- That damn Trump, he is firing all the overseas ambassadors.

    Sorry, I am not keeping up with this thread, but isn’t the issue that he asked the Obama-appointed ambassadors to all to leave their posts on the day of the inauguration, rather than who the new lot will be?

    This could result in a foreign policy vacuum for months until the new appointees are confirmed.

    This was fairly unprecedented, according to what I read.

    Thumb up 0

  12. richtaylor365 *

    This was fairly unprecedented, according to what I read.

    I agree, if its true and if it remains unchanged, seems rather hamfisted and short sighted to me.

    But that was not the issue;

    CM- Trump is going to fire all the ambassadors.

    Me- He can do that, he will be president. He can even replace those guys with big time donors as a reward.

    CM- I didn’t say Trump was hiring big time donors, you are putting words in my mouth.

    Nobody can get it wrong so often on purpose.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  13. richtaylor365 *

    Oh, look, Obama did the same damn thing;

    However, Obama’s transition team sent out similar guidance — eight years ago — telling ambassadors appointed by President George W. Bush they had to leave their posts by Inauguration Day.

    The Washington Post reported in December 2008 that ambassadors would not be permitted to stay on and that “the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush’s ambassadorial appointees.”

     

    Thumb up 0

  14. AlexInCT

    Funny how some people seem unable to recall simple things. Obama did far worse when it came to kicking people out of posts he wanted to staff with cronies than Boosh, and I doubt Trump can even give him a run for his money, but we are going to have a bunch of pants shitting leftists trying their best to convince people that it is unprecedented and just outright wrong from someone that plays for the team they hate to do it.

    Double standards or none.

    Thumb up 0

  15. CM

    Exactly stogy, I even gave a subtle clue that the issue was about timing when I wrote the word “timing”. Yikes. Rich does somewhat redeem having misdirected himself and subsequent unfortunate gloating by finding that Obama seems to have done the same thing. Good find Rich.

    Thumb up 0

  16. AlexInCT

    Yeah sure, move the goal post and pretend the problem isn’t you. Sure, your buddy Stogy will act like you are cool shit, but the rest of us know you are a doucehbag that is only tolling and can’t engage in any serious debate. If you had that capacity you would have already realized how idiotic your beliefs are, at a minimum quit pretending you are actually trying to have a real discussion about the actual topic at hand, or quit this site.

    Thumb up 0

  17. richtaylor365 *

    Yikes is right. If the president decides who he wants as ambassadors, does he not get to decide when those folks are hired and when the replacements are fired? Again, spelling out the obvious to you, those decisions include “timing” as well. But when I explain this to you, you come back with;

    My post wasn’t even remotely suggesting that Trump is rewarding donors whereas Obama didn’t.

    There is only 2 plausible explanations for this disconnect, either you can’t read or you are fundamentally dishonest. History clearly points in one direction.

    Thumb up 0

  18. CM

    Lol nice try. The whole point was about the timing, not the replacing. Your little summaries were nonsense as they ignored the whole point. So which of the 2 plausible explanations is it Rich? Perhaps there is a third – laziness.

    Thumb up 0

  19. richtaylor365 *

    The whole point was about the timing, not the replacing.

    Nice try, but no. When I countered your point with the fact that presidents get to do any damn thing they want re: ambassadors (Hint, any damn thing even includes timing, you keep missing that part) you counter that with this;

    My post wasn’t even remotely suggesting that Trump is rewarding donors whereas Obama didn’t.

    I even mentioned (twice) that I wasn’t suggesting you were suggesting Trump was rewarding donors, just figured CM being CM again, same old same.

    Can never argue honestly, too bad.

     

    Thumb up 0

  20. AlexInCT

    The whole point was about the timing, not the replacing.

    Lie.

    My post wasn’t even remotely suggesting that Trump is rewarding donors whereas Obama didn’t.

    The only one that erected that strawman, likely so you could as usual knock it down and claim victory in the discussion, was you CM.

    Thumb up 0

  21. CM

    Rich you even acknowledged the point of the article and my reason for linked to it:

    I agree, if its true and if it remains unchanged, seems rather hamfisted and short sighted to me.

    Right before bizarrely going back to denying that this was the point. You know, of the article I linked to, which was even titled “In Break With Precedent, Obama Envoys Are Denied Extensions Past Inauguration Day”.

    You guys are awe-inspiring. Again it’s little wonder that you’re part of Team Trump.

    Lie.

    See title of piece I linked to.

    The only one that erected that strawman, likely so you could as usual knock it down and claim victory in the discussion, was you CM.

    Nope, Rich brought that up all by himself. Wasn’t the point of the article (and therefore not the point I was making). But you keep on Trumpin’ away as long as you like.

    Thumb up 0

  22. CM

    Rich, your graph above is interesting. Looks like about 58% disapprove and about 15% approve. Which is a bit different to what it shows in the link below – it shows 36.4% favourable (somewhat or very) and low 50s for unfavourable.

    http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/obama-legacy-military

    As for Trump (while we’re at it)…

    “…among active-duty troops, one in four service members worries he may issue orders that violate military rules or traditions”
    “More than 27 percent said that having Trump as commander in chief will negatively affect their military job or mission. Among officers, 39 percent expressed those concerns. Among women, 55 percent worry their jobs will be adversely affected.”
    “One in five service members surveyed in the Military Times/IVMF poll….said they are unlikely to re-enlist with Trump as commander in chief.”

    http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/military-times-poll-donald-trump-military-national-security

    We could look again in a year and see what has changed.

    Thumb up 0

  23. AlexInCT

    We could look again in a year and see what has changed.

    Why wait? There are plenty of changes going on right now. Suddenly being obstructionists in congress is back in high fashion. The media has discovered the US is involved in all these wars, and even tried to blame Trump for bombings Obama ordered. Of al things the very people that could not be bothered that their presidential candidate violated security laws and should have gone to jail for that suddenly not only care about cyber security, but are worried about a red scare! The Russians, whom were of no concern back when and constantly were defended by the left back in the good old days of the USSR, suddenly are a major threat to the US! And so on..

    Well, at least there is some good news as my new post about the economic expectations of  small business owners seems to have skyrocketed. That stock market Krugabe told us was about to crash is also flying high as hell for some reason. And congress is discussing what should be done to improve the economic climate in the US instead of how big of a threat AGW is to the world. I can’t wait for the changes to the DOJ and then the DOJ throwing some crooks deserving of time behind bars into the can. Plenty of change for the better IMO…

     

    Thumb up 0