Lunch Break: Are you nanny enough?
by LauraLoo
Great photoshopped parody!
President Obama’s most influential celebrity nanny, George Clooney, financially props him up big ”TIME.” George hosted a fundraising dinner last weekend which netted the Prez a reported $15M….
In turn, this so captures the heart and mindset of our prez who wants all citizens to be breastfed/bottlefed/spoonfed by the U.S. Government – to ultimately turn us into a socialist nation.
[HT: 89 WLS Chicago]
May.16, 2012 12:00 pm |
Video of the day |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
ewwww!
Attachment government?
It’s PERFECT.
That just made my day.
While the MESSAGE is true….
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little over the photo! :P
it took me a while to comment – I had to go vomit first
I agree, that one is funny.
An effective visual representation of a ‘co-dependent mutually parasitic relationship’.
In the case of the ‘first gay president’ I would have expected the ‘obamateur’ to have been ‘latched on’ to a different body part.
That would make the look of contentment on Clooney’s face more believable.
This ties in nicely with the studies which inconclusive cites in an attempt to bolster her fatuous assertion that homosexual couples make superior parents.
Obama will still raise much less than that billion dollars they were bragging about. It turns out they may need every penny. Despite the “War On Women” meme Romney appears to be doing better with women, according to the latest CBS / N.Y. Times poll, no less!
If even the charms of George Clooney can’t pull along the prez, this will be a good November.
I’m either psychic or snuck a look at a later post. Take you pick. :)
Hans, I’m going to go with psychic on that one. It sounds more plausible. :)
The George Clooney fundraiser this pic is referencing was a $40,000-per-plate affair packed with all the Beautiful People Hollywood could muster and attended by Obama himself. Hyped out the wazoo beforehand. Big, black tie, Old Hollywood style party. And, like the post says, all these rich, famous, pampered elite managed to raise…
$15 million dollars.
That’s not gonna cut it. I mean, yes, I’d be happy with that much money, but for a presidential run, that’s chump change, and everyone knows it. And this is the result of Obama’s wealthiest fundraisers all getting together (well, plus those two chicks who pledged three whole dollars each and won tickets). If the libs want their boy to win, they’re going to need to start coughing up some real money real quick.
I don’t know if I laughed harder after seeing the pic or reading Ken’s comments!
Alice, if President Obama loses this election, it will not be because of lack of funds. $15 million is a huge amount for one event.
According to the New York Times, filmmaker Jeffrey Katzenberg, the DreamWorks Animation chief who Clooney credited as the organizer, said the event raised almost $15 million, making it the most lucrative presidential fundraiser in history
Considering Hollywood as the source, $15 million doesn’t sound that great.
Janetforlife, if the biggest fundraiser in history “doesn’t sound that great,” I’m not sure what more can be said.
$15 million is a huge amount for one event, yes. But you’re missing the point. The people attending the event are, most of them, each worth a considerably greater amount than $15 million. Some of them get more than that to be in just one film. Clooney himself has an estimated net worth upwards of $160 million dollars, and was paid $15 million for Ocean’s Thirteen, a just-okay sequel of a sequel. Most of the people there could have afforded to give $15 million dollars each. And these are Obama’s richest donors. These are the power players. So while certainly that’s a lot of money for a single fundraiser, based on the attendees I would have expected to see a considerably higher total if there was real enthusiasm about the guy and about seriously funding his campaign. Maybe money won’t be an issue, but if this event is an indicator I think we can say that it’s a definite concern.
Money and government…Citizen’s United has pretty much guaranteed that anybody running for office is going to need to do more fundraising than debates or meeting people. Pretty sad.
Churches struggle for money – aid organizations cut staff – yet this Presidential election will set records all over the place.
And for what? To run negative commercials.
God bless the USA!
Janetforlife, if the biggest fundraiser in history “doesn’t sound that great,” I’m not sure what more can be said.
Hal, One could say that the president is good at spending other people’s money.
Has anyone seen an itemized list of donations? That would be slightly interesting.
Alice,
Exactly!
Ex-GOP,
We agree! Pretty sad, indeed.
I’m not a fan of either of those two characters, but that picture is more than a little tacky. And very disrespectful of the president.
And did I say I’m not a fan of the prez in any way, shape, or form?
Ex-GOP, you’re fooling yourself if you think one lawsuit opened the floodgates. The President spend hundreds of millions last year before the case was ever decided. Besides, what’s more quintessentially American than people and candidates having the ability to speak out on political issues without government rules or reprisals? Negative campaigning works, don’t blame it on the candidates, blame it on the voters who don’t give a rip to formulate their own opinions, unlike you or I.
Churches struggle for money – aid organizations cut staff – yet this Presidential election will set records all over the place.
My union is going to spend MILLIONS supporting Obama, all of which come from my union dues. I don’t like my money being spend this way, but there’s not much I can do about it.
phillymiss,
How about starting a petition? :)
Phillymiss:
http://unionrefund.org/faq.asp
Chris – but now we’ll get all the fun Superpac spending as well – just for fun, after watching one, try to find out where the money came from? It’s an interesting game I try playing, and never get very far.
I agree with you fundamentally – I’m just saying that you can’t blame Obama for having big fund raisers – that is the name of the game these days. A guy who goes out and meets the people is going to finish in second place…
Phillymiss -
AGREED! My company is taking bottom line profits that would go into bonuses/salary and spending it on lobbying and political spending. It’s crap. Whether you are in a union or big business, your money so easily gets wrapped up into spending for candidates instead of in your pocket.
phillymiss: If I may analogize.
I’m a tech geek, professionally. This means I always face situations with friends and acquaintances where I just have to tell ’em some hard facts about their decisions.
So for example, when someone in a young household tells me they just signed for Internet service, I quickly tell ’em “don’t use the e-mail address the ISP assigned you.” Consistently, the response is puzzlement.
Consumers tend to think that what producers give them is requisite. But this isn’t true. You don’t actually need the installation CD for that router. You don’t actually need to use the e-mail address an ISP gives you, and so forth.
In the case of the e-mail address, ISP’s love it when you dive right in and start using it. The reason is simple. Over time you establish that address as your own. You use it with every web site, every utility, every friend, every business contact — everywhere. And when the day comes that some other ISP starts looking less expensive and you start thinking about changing, you’re going to be given pause: “Ooooh. That’s right. If I switch, I’ll need to contact everyone I know and tell ’em I have a new e-mail address. DANG! I don’t even know how to be sure I’ve informed everyone, since a lot of that was submitted in web site forms, not stored in my contacts list. Aaargh! Guess I’ll stay with my current ISP. It’s not worth it to change.”
Obviously, I tell ’em to just get a gmail addy, so they can be nimble with ISPs. Such independence fosters more competition, too.
Now that’s a long-winded explanation of the example, but here’s the application: Why are you stuck in the union? It’s a bit of a rhetorical question. I suspect you’re stuck in the union because it’s the only game in town (analogous to an ISP with a true monopoly) or the price of dropping out is prohibitive (analogous to the pain of having to let everyone know your new e-mail address).
To my thinking, when a part of society has that kind of a lock on people, it’s a fragile society where you’re capable of being used and controlled by the people who have a lock on you — where your assets can be leveraged for others’ purposes. The colloquial vulgarity is, I believe, that “they have you by the balls.”
A good society, I think, would be less like this.
Ex-RINO,
That’s why, under my new system when I am elected Queen Of The Universe, anyone seeking public office will be limited to 1 hour of free talk time (broadcast simultaneously on every major network, cable channels will either carry this content also or temporarily interrupt broadcasting) to present a summation of their positions and plans for the future. complete with any needed graphs or charts via PowerPoint presentation. They will make this address from behind black curtains, and their names and faces will not be revealed. There will be no party affiliation. Candidates will be listed as either “Candidate 1”, “Candidate 2”, “Candidate 3”, etc., or “Candidate A”, “Candidate B”, “Candidate C”, etc.
An hour-long debate will be arranged in a similar manner (black screens and all), but all statements/rebuttals must be made with citations, and an independent fact-checking service will have a presentation after the debate to insure accuracy. Liars will be outed and disqualified.
All major newspapers will print issues consisting of only the summation of every candidate’s platform (sans pictures) the day after the initial hour introduction of that candidate. Every major newspaper will print issues the day after the debate/fact check consisting of nothing but a transcription of the debate/fact-check. These resources will also be available online at a government website 24/7.
All campaign advertising will be restricted to only these activities. No fundraising. No speeches. No stumping. No personality cults. No shallow voters. No party loyalty or bias. No marketing strategies to sell politicians to the people. No commercials for politicians.
After a candidate is elected, they can and must reveal their identity to the nation. All bank statements (redacted account numbers of course) of every held bank account must be released to the public on at least a quarterly basis. All property holdings must also be disclosed. Every meeting must be webcast live (unless it is an issue of National Security). Anyone holding office is not allowed to accept money or gifts for anything but holding that office. Once the (strictly-enforced) term limit is reached, their ability to run for any other office is based on their job performance for the last office held.
SO LET IT BE WRITTEN, SO LET IT BE DONE!
Eek. I hope I’m no longer on this earth when X is elected queen of the universe. All the candidate has to do is lie through his/her teeth for one hour about their positions and since no one knows who they really are they can’t check their history and see what is true. Buy off the “independent” fact checking service and voila! Corruption run rampant. And who’s to know? The press has been censored and voices of dissent effectively stifled. No thanks.
P.S. If the independent fact checkers are held to the same standard the candidates are, what’s the problem? They should be just as open to scrutiny. They would have to support their positions with actual references during the debate, so no, they wouldn’t be able to get away with lying.
Nowhere did I say the press wouldn’t be able to discuss a candidate’s plans/positions. But, that’s rather irrelevant, imo. It’s not as though the old media/mainstream press isn’t showing a great example of what it’s like to be corrupt in their current state, is it? 9_9
No where did I say voices of dissent would be quashed. What WOULD happen is, people would be talking about the actual issues instead of how tall Obama is, what Romney did in High School, and how crazy Ron Paul is…and how much money all of them are earning or not earning for their campaigns.
Who is scrutinizing the candidates if we don’t know who they are? All we could scrutinize is what they say. What about what they do? And have done for all the years leading up to the election? It’s not difficult to support a position that isn’t your own with true facts. Heck, high school debate team members do it all the time.
Unless things like employment numbers were up and debt amounts were down, they wouldn’t be eligible to run again, anyway.
I think that the only thing that should be scrutinized (until they’re elected and have actually done something) is what is said. And I think that the only thing that should be able to be said is definitive plans backed up with facts and research. Not all this “hope and change” b.s.
The fact that someone like Obama could get elected on “Hope, Change, and dayum, ain’t I pretty?” shows our current system is flawed beyond repair. Your fear of the unknown is clouding your judgement, Lrning. Sometimes the devil you don’t know IS better than the one you do. SUBMIT TO THE UNIVERSE QUEEN!
Your fear of the unknown is clouding your judgement, Lrning.
Nope, it’s my control issues and lack of trust. Your scenario relies on me putting all my trust in independent fact checkers. No thanks. I could be voting my pedophile neighbor into office without even knowing it. But he’s intelligent and talks a good game, so I guess that’s all that matters. :-/
If he knows how to fix the budget and lower unemployment, your pedophile neighbor is welcome to run the country until he is arrested and sentenced for pedophilia. Innocent until proven guilty.
AMERICA!
“The fact that someone like Obama could get elected on “Hope, Change, and dayum, ain’t I pretty?” shows our current system is flawed beyond repair.”
What do you mean, “Someone like Obama?” He’s doing a fantastic job. I’m not just trolling here. You might have someone you prefer, but don’t try to paint our President as incompetent or radical. He’s pretty mainstream, pretty solid, and very non-controversial. I’m guessing over 50% of your fellow citizens will ask him to serve another four years.
He’s doing a fantastic job. I’m not just trolling here.
Too bad you’re not just being sarcastic.
xalisae, I guess I’m getting tired of the polarization and demonetization so popular these days. Sure, Obama has some polices you don’t like. That doesn’t make him an anti-Christ or the “worst president ever.” So, go ahead and vote against him and criticize anything you don’t like about him, but saying things like this only claim on the office is “Hope, Change, and dayum, ain’t I pretty.” shows a profound misunderstanding of why people voted for him last time and might just again this time. Obama supporters are not stupid or shallow. (At least no more so than the country as a whole.)
Ok, peeps. I think I’ve shown remarkable restraint here. But it’s Friday afternoon and I’m feeling lucky!
He’s pretty mainstream, pretty solid, and very non-controversial.
Sticking scissors in the back of a partially born baby’s skull isn’t controversial? Making the Catholic Church subsidize abortifacients isn’t controversial? Sinking a half a billion dollars into ineptly made solar panels even when your advisors are telling you to SLOW DOWN, CRAZY, SLOW DOWN is solid? Telling the Israelis to accept the 1967 borders is mainstream? I could go on and on here.
The guy is a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER who brought up to hate America. In the words of my friend, Bonquiqui; “SA-curity! Got to go. GOT TO GO.”
PS. Hal–I am not convinced he ISN’T the Antichrist. Tru dat.
Courtney, he said the 1967 boarders should be THE STARTING POINT of any negotiations, not the ending point Same position the State of Israel has taken since, oh, about 1967. You can make a list (and many do) of things every president does that the other party thinks is outrageous. This guy isn’t any worse. He’s just the one targeted right now.
your pedophile neighbor is welcome to run the country until he is arrested and sentenced for pedophilia.
Done and done. He got probation. So who does the background checks on the secret candidates in your scenario?
“Very non-controversial” is mutually exclusive with a 47% disapproval rating. Unexceptional as far as presidents go, maybe, but you still have to admit he’s a very divisive figure.
Wow. He got probation for pedophilia? Not with me as Queen Of The Universe. I’m afraid in this alternate dimension, your neighbor was unable to run for office, since he had a lawful infraction in the past, and also was sentenced to being catapult into the sun.
There would be an eligibility board. Aren’t there people who are in charge of determining eligibility for candidates now?
Sure, Obama has some polices you don’t like. That doesn’t make him…the “worst president ever.”
Actually, when there are a sufficient amount of policies I don’t like, and those policies are enacted, that does make him the “worst president ever” from my POV. And, when enough people agree with my view, that would make him, by national consensus, the “worst president ever.” That is, in fact, how best and worst presidents are defined: by their policies, the results of said policies, and the satisfaction of the nation with such policies.
So…yes, actually, it does.
Hal,
The topic of this post was, “Are you nanny enough?”, not “Are you ninny enough?”
Sorry. Couldn’t resist. :)
“Unexceptional as far as presidents go, maybe, but you still have to admit he’s a very divisive figure.”
Oh, no, I do NOT have to admit that. The fake Obama the right has imagined (socialist, tax and spender, etc,) is the divisive figure. The real President is much less polarizing.
Hal said from across the Great Divide.
I sure feel the great divide when I visit here. The rest of my life is spent with fellow travelers. Maybe that’s my role, to remind you guys not to get too comfortable in your echo chamber.
What did you say? I can’t hear - hear - hear - hear you! :)
No, Hal, your role is to serve as a reminder of how right I am.
Get back to me on that sticking the scissors in the back of the neck, thing, would ya?
I could just as well say that the fake Obama the left has imagined (revolutionary, Martin Luther King Jr. reincarnation, etc.) is the fantastic figure. The real president is much less wonderful.
Overall, a very divisive figure.
Wow. He got probation for pedophilia? Not with me as Queen Of The Universe.
Yep. It’s a sick world we live in. Your universe is sounding better. ;-p
Yeah, let’s talk about the real vs. imagined Obama. Because the real one is less polarizing: he’d be roundedly rejected by everyone. We are talking about a man who will say anything in the desperate scramble to be all things to all people. A man who has deliberately claimed different birthplaces at different times to boost his credibility with different people (he still has an American mom, wherever he was born; don’t get too excited, anybody).
The Obama you know, Hal, is a fake. And so is the Obama everyone else knows. And that’s the problem.
Obama supporters are not stupid or shallow. (At least no more so than the country as a whole.)
Hal, Let’s prove it shall we? We could get the grades of the entire country before we ever see Obama’s school records. He’s hiding them so they must not be good. No way around that assumption.
Pretty sure he graduated magna cum laude. Based on grades. Pretty sure he was president of the Harvard Law Review, and an instructor of Constitutional Law at University of Chicago.
I don’t assume he got poor grades I assume he got very high grades, but I wouldn’t really care if he didn’t. He’s clearly very bright and capable.
Lrning,
I knew you’d come around. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=l-HqHSkYG-Y
Just cuz I’m feelin’ frisky.
Yeah, but he can sing two lines from an Al Green song. That’s plenty enough for half the country.
Obama? Intelligent?
We’re told that birthers are the stupidest of the morons among us.
OK, so what kind of moron hires a literary publicist who’s a birther?
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Actually, I’m here to piss on Hal’s parade yet again. The literary agent actually required authors to write THEIR OWN bios. lol!
http://www.therightscoop.com/uh-oh-obamas-literary-agent-required-clients-to-write-their-own-bios/
So I guess Obama is a birther. Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!
LOL
Hey, you were in Chicago? And I missed it? Argh. Woulda been a good coffee.