Friday, April 1, 2016

Obama flashes peace sign at nuclear security summit

So says Daily Mail.  He does no such thing. They don't know standard signaling. It could be a V as in victory, it could be peace, yes, but this time it means "two." Two more people are needed for a complete photograph, or two more seconds of this and let's go. Cameron's look of consternation is about something else. You don't need to be expert to know this. It's right there in the video. A commenter at Daily Mail notices too.

I didn't know until now Trudeau has such a pronounced underbite. Is he jutting his jaw out or what?  That's the moment it can be broken with one powerful side hit. He's a goofball too. The photographs show him acting silly, but awkwardly and self-consciously, exactly the way of someone  I've known for decades. He flies to Montreal all the time and he speaks French so finally I asked another friend just recently if he is from there. Answer, No, you idiot, he's from Illinois.

Oops. I stand corrected again. On the video Obama says, "Peace out, then something unintelligible on my laptop, sounds like: more people are supposed to be wait'n on. There went my theory and for him meaning "two." This happens all the time, alway getting it wrong.

It's one of those things where elected official are together and they want to record the blessed moment and the historic event for everyone involved.

And I'm jealous of everyone's camera. They have the best. Everyone has a better camera than me. They don't click anymore, they go brrrrrrrraaaaaaaap. brrrrrrrraaaaaaaap brrrrrrrraaaaaaaap brrrrrrrraaaaaaaap brrrrrrrraaaaaaaap like everyone is shooting 50 frames in streams.

Peace out.

21 comments:

edutcher said...

He doesn't know anything about America, even Commie America.

PS Check that link, Chip. Not sure it's the right one.

ndspinelli said...

We have a narcissist prez and almost certainly one to follow.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

thanks for bringing that to our attention Ed. I sent him an email.

Chip Ahoy said...

Link changed. Thanks, Lem.

I see that peace sign and it could be a lot of things. If it shook I'd think I missed the beginning and end of the word pizza.

"Did he just say pizza?" No, he shook a peace sign. You always guess wrong.

rcommal said...

Oh, take a deep breath, Chip Ahoy. He's on his way out, that demonstration of both pieces of flotsam and pieces of jetsam. He's in the rear-view mirror. Man up, stand up, and answer the following question: What is it that you prefer be on its way *in*, in the wake of that? Focus on that question, that conundrum, that whatever-you-wanna-call-it.

State plain.

rcommal said...

I mean, Good Lord, and so much of all that jazz, if there's one fact that EVERYONE can be united in, in terms of reality, it is this: Barack Obama will no longer be POTUS a year from now, this very day. In fact, he won't be POTUS anymore as of January 21, 2017 (his term expires the day before, at noon).

It's time to stand up, Chip Ahoy. The past is quickly becoming the firm past. What say you, when it comes right down to it, no ducking time left, about the future?

Choose. State plain. Isn't that what you expect of everyone else?

rcommal said...

Here's another option, Chip Ahoy: "I don't want to state it plain. Therefore, I don't expect anyone else to state it plain, either. I am not a man of blatant double-standards. I am clear about that."

rcommal said...

If you're not willing to state plain what you're looking for, or to state plain that at present you don't want to state that plain, I'm not sure why anyone should be paying attention to your opinions in this political season. I mean, I get that some *are*, but I don't get why. That some are: does that make you proud?

I'm Full of Soup said...

Reader:

I'll take a shot at that.

First, I'd like a president who shuts the fuck up unless it is absolutely he speaks up. I don't want to hear inane, political propaganda radio addresses every Saturday; I don't want to see him clearing brush on his Texas ranch; I don't want to see his NCAA brackets or what is on his Super Bowl party menu.

I'd like to see him invite people picked out of the phone book to all of the White House shindigs. So no more celebrity and media packed group suckfests. It is the people's house right?

I'd like to see our laws enforced including our border. Or repeal laws he does not like or change the constitution when he disagrees with it. And no more exec orders.

I want a big, bad military and I want a big, bad wall on our southern border. I want an infallible E-verify so illegals can't work here.

I want him to slowly and carefully try to reduce the number of laws and regulations we have and eliminate at least 2-3 entire Cabinets. I want the Fed Govt to get out of education, health care, school food policy, medicaid, housing policy, HUD, college loans, etc.

Lastly, I want Cabinet Secretaries to post monthly reports on the internet that tell the taxpayers WTF they do, how many people they employ and what their Top Ten priorities are and their Top Ten problems.

Sound good to you?

Chip Ahoy said...

Sounds good to me.

I'd like to have political parties that represent their base, in some way, at least try, a little teeny bit, at least hear them. And if not that then have the ones in place discredited, discouraged, destroyed. replaced.

I want a representative government, not a ruling class of so-called elites who exist by taxpayer money. They're not elite. They're slugs.

Now something else.

I must admit some of them really are elite in many different ways. In many ways Washington really does attract the best. The best in certain things, if they stay there and exist on it, then they become slugs. Blumenthal for example. In the news for his ties with Libyan companies and Hillary secret emails. He was giving a discussion on American history and now I must admit his knowledge is quite broad and deep, he's engaging, enthusiastic, and interesting. Credit where it is due. That stands apart from him being a disgusting political corrupted slug living on, by and through his powerhouse Washington connections.

Trooper York said...

Rcommal is one of the funniest people who post here. Thank you for the belly laugh this morning. I needed it.

rcommal said...

A.J.:

Yes.

Chip Ahoy:

Yes.

And, also, Blumenthal is a complete piece of scum, very much representative of his type, class, sort & etc. One of my favorite things that Christopher Hitchens ever did was call out that turd publicly, years ago (not that it mattered, in the short, medium or long run: see the Clintons' continued fondness for Blumenthal unto this day, from what I can tell; still, I appreciated it).

Troop:

You are so welcome! Everyone needs a laugh, after all. ; )

DBQ:

I continue to find you among the most interesting and compelling commenters whom I regularly read on line. < I kid you not, in saying that.

rcommal said...

Or repeal laws he does not like or change the constitution when he disagrees with it.

A.J.: Note: I do assume that you meant "work to get laws he doesn't like repealed" and "propose amendments to the constitution for clarification" when the president doesn't like how the constitution is being interpreted (or mangled/shredded). If I were to assume that you meant that a POTUS, any POTUS, should just be able to repeal laws or change the constitution as part of the power of POTUS, then of course I would have profound issues with your comment, as opposed to minor ones, and then I couldn't have said, "Yes," in response, which of course I did.

rcommal said...

Keep in mind that I spotted Clinton for what he was likely to be way back in '88, and that I spotted Obama for what he was in the early aughts. For that reason, I never voted for either, voted for others who opposed them even though there was a cost and I thought it stank having to do that, and consistently opposed both. Both of those things I think I've made pretty damn clear for ever. Just for the record.

rcommal said...

Also, shall I repeat all the ways in which we, while not wealthy, have not been subsidized by others as opposed to all the ways in which we have been subsidizing others? And continue to do so. And will likely be continuing to do so.

Yeah, I get that you guys got the great big balls, and so you say fuck everyone else.

The thing is, I also get that we're paying the bills, and so I say ... ain't you luckier and smarter than we? Sure enough! There's no doubt about that; it's why you all look down at the likes of me and mine.

---

How old are you people, anyway?

rcommal said...

Under 30ish? Over 62ish?

Sweet smush. Wotta mess.

rcommal said...

Still, bless your hearts, and also worry not: the money will still be coming your way, no matter who gets to win this election. Mark my words.

Seriously, do mark them, those words.

rcommal said...

Because, honestly, in what universe do millennials, youngest Gen-Xers, middish-boomers, and the luckiest-remnants of those born just after the Greatest Generation (who got to slide by on their coattails) but before the boomers get to decide everything for everyone, from now not just until, but also unto, eternity?

Nary the majority of any 'em do honesty. Most are happy to suck up resources while also happily spitting on those who *actually* do the supporting.

rcommal said...

How do I know this, first and foremost? On account of a profound, deliberate rewriting of history re: social security, for starters, not to mention medicare and even the pharma benefit granted during the Bush II era, both of which are cousins to social security, not just at least but also at best.

---

Well. Hey. I'm finally going to say the following, because this sort of thing has been going on for a long time and a very long while (hat tip = Fen's Law: "The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about"):

**True** conservatives don't actually believe what they've been lecturing the rest of us about. Real **libertarians*" don't actually believe what they've been lecturing the rest of us about. Actual **evangelicals/conservative Catholics** don't actually believe what they've been lecturing the rest of us about. **Tea-partiers** have become the new "squishes" and they also don't actually believe what they've started to lecture the rest of us about. In fact, pretty much everyone has been doing the very same thing to everyone else that those same "every-ones" have been complaining about.

I'm right with'em, near enough, truth be told. I don't believe any of you, either.

Onward ho!

rcommal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcommal said...

Like, wow, man, let's just go all anarchic 'n' all. Revolution, baby! AND: At the end of the day, better Hobbes than the alternatives. Isn't that what you're actually advocating?