Ya Know, I Wasn’t Aware Of Obama Being In Europe To Worship Apollo

How ’bout you?

Paean: a hymn of invocation or thanksgiving to Apollo or some other ancient Greek deity.

Oh, wait, Politico probably meant the other definition, any song of praise, joy, or triumph, which was probably meant to say Europeans were praising NMP Obama.

In the actual story page, vs the front page screen capture, the title is Will Pre******** Obama’s European Spring Fling last? (I refuse to call him president anymore)

It could be called a spring fling.

For six days, President Barack Obama hopscotched through Europe, greeted by rapturous crowds that remain obsessed with all things Obama, from the bulletproof Cadillac that whisks him around to the kitten heels on the first lady’s feet.

And for six days, Obama returned the affection of a continent that has often felt overlooked by his administration — reviving a European crush. But will it last?

So, I’m guess we are going with the second definition. Carrie Budoff Brown probably had a few orgasms writing the story.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Ya Know, I Wasn’t Aware Of Obama Being In Europe To Worship Apollo”

  1. proof says:

    I think he was in Europe peein’ on our allies.

  2. (I refuse to call him president anymore)

    So you’ve decided that you can personally negate legitimate elections? You hold yourself above 69,456,897 Americans? (I assume your vote is counted among the 59,934,814 McCain votes.)

    Or perhaps you’d prefer to pretend that 365-174 electoral vote edge was meaningless, as well, when “refused” by the grate (sic) William Teach.

    What an American “patriot” you are, sir.

    If your last name isn’t the biggest oxymoron in the English language, I’m the Easter bunny.

    (What color would you like your eggs?)

    Seriously. Try to get a grip and revisit “reality” sometime when it’s not too traumatic for you. I suppose you think yourself a great “wit” but, alas, you’re only half successful.

  3. airbrushist says:

    God the very nerve of that man actually attempting to strengthen European relations after Bushy completely destroyed them – setting us back decades with an entire continent. The pure gall of him believing it’s important to show the European’s that not all American’s are asshats. The pure stupidity of assuming that meeting with foreign delegates and European nationals in a friendly, peaceful setting will have any effect on our global relations. It’s just pure tom-foolery to believe that he could have possibly had America’s interests in mind by going over there in the first place. It’s obviously just a vacation, what with him meeting constantly with them foreigners and all. Lord knows the only way I can have a vacation is by attending meeting after meeting and event after event in an attempt to make the world stop hating our country. I mean, if you ain’t policing the world, what’s the point in showing up at all? And to think he was greeted by ‘rapturous’ crowds. It was way better when people would literally riot in the streets at the very mention of our president visiting them. I agree. I should probably stop calling him president too. I miss the old days when the world justifiably hated us. Bring back the old pres so we can get back to increasing our debt by assuming that constant military spending doesn’t need to be paid for and disintegrating any chance that the world would ever take us seriously ever again. I really miss how effective and patriotic our old boss was. Just look at how well he managed to decrease our deficit… wait, he what? Ok, look at how he initiated some sort of health care reform… no? Darn it. Well he was certainly well spoken. He wasn’t? He said what now? Well, that’s actually pretty funny… OH! I got one! He initiated budgetary reform and lowered taxes! You mean that by frivolously spending every cent we didn’t have we had to borrow from other countries and raise taxes to prevent our country from shutting down? Guess that doesn’t work. Remember that time he read to some grade school children? Man I sure miss that guy. That was a real president.

  4. gitarcarver says:

    Dear Hart Williams and airbrush,

    We who regularly comment and discuss things here would like to thank you for displaying your complete and total ignorance of history, current events, and life in general. It would be easy to fisk your comments and show how totally wrong you are on so many points, but you either would not read any follow up post, or not have the intellectual honesty to consider any other points other than your rantings.

    Have a nice day.

  5. proof says:

    I think errbullsh*t has a serious case of BDS.

  6. airbrushist says:

    Did president Bush not increase our national debt more than any president before him (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_162-4486228-500803.html)? Did his administration not send our country into an incredibly drawn out war based on the testimony of one man (http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20110314024331.aspx)? Was President Bush not met with riotous violence when he visited Latin America (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1126425,00.html)? Does visiting foreign nationals not help strengthen relations overseas? Obama certainly isn’t the first president to do so (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1888528,00.html). Do we not have a national debt that obviously has to be paid for (http://www.usdebtclock.org/)? Are we to assume that the only way we can combat that debt is by cutting programs? Did president Bush not have a detrimental impact on the economy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/11/AR2009011102301.html). I mean, I’ll understand the confusion since these words are not coming out of Bill O’Reilly or Glenn Beck’s mouth. I was under the assumption that BDS was some sort of made up disorder focusing on an emotional paranoia and dislike for Bush that isn’t based on facts. So much for that theory in this case. Now, I’ll admit there was a heavy amount of sarcasm in my original post but at no point did I call anyone names,and for the sake of joining an actual conversation, I’ll drop the sarcasm. Also, I can promise you that I’m not happy with our current presidents decisions on many matters, but I am amazed at how much he is getting blamed for things he isn’t responsible for. The idea that our former president could do no wrong is rather ignorant in and of itself but yet the faith still remains. The idea that our current president can do no right is just as absurd. Our current president could do the exact same things that the previous one had and be bashed for them because he’s a democrat. That right there speaks to a higher level of ignorance than anything I could ever post here. As someone who refuses to pigeon hole myself into the role of democrat or republican, I can assure you I have plenty of intellectual honesty. The question then is: can you put your political dichotomy down long enough to look at both sides, or is that only required of those with opposing views?

  7. proof says:

    Did president Bush not increase our national debt more than any president before him

    And did not Obama leave Bush in the dust in regards to the national debt?

    I was under the assumption that BDS was some sort of made up disorder focusing on an emotional paranoia and dislike for Bush that isn’t based on facts.

    No. Bush was president. That is a fact. The looney left still obsesses over him. That too is fact.

    Remember what they say about “assumptions”.

    The idea that our current president can do no right is just as absurd.

    Straw man argument. No one is saying that our current president can do no right. Your statement is absurd.

    I can assure you I have plenty of intellectual honesty.

    Good. Let’s see that next time, instead of tripe like:

    “(Obama) actually attempting to strengthen European relations after Bushy completely destroyed them”

    Tell Britain and Poland how Bush “destroyed” our relations with them and Obama is strengthening them. Then tell us what color the sky is on your planet.

  8. gitarcarver says:

    Did president Bush not increase our national debt more than any president before him

    And in 3 years, has not Obama passed that dollar amount of debt? Do you really want to hang your hat on the idea that Bush, in 8 years, increased the debt less than Obama has in three years?

    Did his administration not send our country into an incredibly drawn out war based on the testimony of one man

    No. There was not a intelligence service the US was cooperating with that did not agree with the assessment that Iraq had WMD’s. Not a one. Even the UN concluded that Iraq had WMD’s. And if you look at the “Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq,” you would find that the war with Iraq was deeper and more complex than just “WMD’s.” Lastly, did you now know that WMD’s were found in Iraq? That proscribed weapons systems were found in Iraq?

    Does visiting foreign nationals not help strengthen relations overseas? Obama certainly isn’t the first president to do so

    If you are visiting a country as an equal, yes. However, Obama has managed to apologize for everything – good or bad – the US has ever done. The leaders of Poland, Germany, France and England think of him as a lightweight and in someways, dangerous. This is far different from the perception of Bush which was “don’t piss him off.”

    If, as you postulate, visiting foreign countries increases relations, then why is Obama despised by leaders of other historical allies? Bush was disliked for his policies. Obama is disliked for his policies and who he is.

    Did president Bush not have a detrimental impact on the economy

    Do you even bother to read your own source article? It says that Bush presided over a weak growth period. Is that the same as having a “detrimental impact on the economy?” Is this the type of “honesty” you later refer to?

    As someone who refuses to pigeon hole myself into the role of democrat or republican, I can assure you I have plenty of intellectual honesty.

    All evidence to the contrary.

    The question then is: can you put your political dichotomy down long enough to look at both sides, or is that only required of those with opposing views?

    When Bush was president he received plenty of justified criticism from the right. He also received more than his fair share of unjustified criticism from the left and the media. This is the same media that gave Obama a pass on anything in his run up to the presidency. This is the same media that holds Bush to a different standard than Obama.

    In fact, we recently saw that hypocrisy play out in the bin Laden incident. The policies that got the intel on bin Laden were Bush’s policies. They were policies that were demonized by candidate Obama and the left. Then, despite waiting since August to go after bin Laden, and then waiting a further 16 hours once the operation was definitely feasible, Obama is seen as a leader for making a “quick and gutsy decision.”

    Compare that with Bush, who after 19 UN resolutions, attacks on US military personnel, and 10 years, was seen as a “wild cannon cowboy.”

    Get back to us when your own sources back your conclusions. Get back to us when you are willing to hold Obama to the same standard you held and are holding Bush.

    Get back to us when you understand the meaning of the word “honesty.”

  9. Hilarious. Just ad hominem. Kind of like all them GOOP dropouts saying they COULD have beaten Obama.

    It’s so much easier to snark than think, isn’t it?

Bad Behavior has blocked 5535 access attempts in the last 7 days.