The Briefing Room
Briefing Room Polls (Guests Welcome!) => The Briefingroom Polls => Topic started by: LateForLunch on December 16, 2016, 08:23:27 pm
-
For me it's not even close - Barack Hussein Obama is by far the most annoying person of 2016. This verminous swine succeeded in annoying me virtually every time he smirked and swaggered his way in front of a microphone (perpetually, invariably late). Sure, there were other annoying 'Crats to be sure. But none of them could possibly compare to the Olympic-class bitch-tones, proctoring self-important, corrosive, mendacious blathering of the Eightball Obama.
My recurring fantasy virtually every time I heard him speak for more than thirty seconds was to see grievous physical harm come to him as quickly as possible. Not that I would ever lift a finger in that regard (LFL: looks anxiously to SS agents giving him "the eye") but I cannot lie and say that I would not have loved to read about it in the papers:
BREAKING NEWS: "Barack Obama kidnapped by terrorists pretending to be refugees, bludgeoned with Plumber's Helper on You Tube Video!"
I know that for many (even people who voted for him) one of the most annoying people of 2016 will be Donald John Trump and I cannot disagree. Even though I voted for him, Trump was in my top ten for sure - just because his style of campaigning included the use of words as munitions, not primarily as tools of communication. I don't think he should have done anything else (obviously it worked, and as Niccolo Machiavelli and Saul Alinsky have both accurately pointed out, uneaten pudding has no taste at all!)
Sadly we have entered the era of Soft Warfare, and left behind the Age of Statesmanship. How words were used in past political campaigns has given way to what Hunter Thompson might have called a "newer, cheaper strategy".
Gee dad! I guess we're ALL devo!
I welcome other suggestions but I have a fairly strong sense that there are really no other big contenders for the top spot, though if we were doing a top 100, there would really be only a handful of anyone except 'Crat politicians or celebrities on the list.
Those include Mitch McConnell (God, please just retire)
John Boehner (Paul Ryan still can't escape from the odor of bourbon and tobacco in his office, even though it's been torn out and scrubbed right down to the raw wood).
Speaking of Paul Ryan, it would be nice for him to figure out that he doesn't always have to say something. He can choose to just nod and keep walking if he wants to. It's a free country Paul. Exercise your right to remain silent.
The list of top ten most annoying Democrats or leftists is easy.
Nancy (Always Surprised) Pelosi
"Dingy" Harry Reed
Madonna (though my loathing is almost balanced by pity)
Elizabeth Warren (it's the haircut, to be honest- combined with the crazy, myopic stare)
Tim Kaine (if they made a punching bag with his face on it I'd buy it)
John F-Ing Kerry (who served in Viet Nam)
Hill-O-Lies Clinton (although again pity is almost a more-fitting reaction)
Slick Willie Clinton (although he nearly redeemed himself when he went after the Eightball on national T.V. twice)
Loretta Lynch (somehow a vile cacogen who is obviously a sociopath in a position of USAG grates on my sensibilities).
Note that Colonel Sanders did not make the top ten, because to be honest, every time I heard him speak, I felt hope. I sensed that he was damaging to the 'Crats in almost every way that counted (and eventually he validated my intuition in that regard, because of how he lured Hill-O-Lies and the 'Crat leadership into a Watergate moment when the DNC railroaded him).
-
Trump, by unfathomable light-years
-
Me
-
Me
:pondering:
-
Me
Not so. I don't believe this.
-
@Cripplecreek
(http://cdn2.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/3065561-3058390-negan.jpg)
-
Me
It's always Marcia Marcia Marcia...
-
Trump, by unfathomable light-years
Absolutely.
The only answer to the question.
(And he will be for the next four as well).
-
Absolutely.
The only answer to the question.
(And he will be for the next four as well).
You will be eating your words when he turns out to be a great President. Nearly all his cabinet picks are well received.
-
You will be eating your words when he turns out to be a great President. Nearly all his cabinet picks are well received.
I sure hope you're right. I would love to be wrong on this one.
-
For the tenth year in a row, it is still........Justin Bieber.
(http://img.suggest.com/filter:scale/vb/190b6447/cd6c2ad7d7ca71dbd38c839cb57645c03c806275.jpg?mw=650)
-
You will be eating your words when he turns out to be a great President. Nearly all his cabinet picks are well received.
I'll never eat these words, because no matter what he does, even if he happens to make some good decisions by accident, his personality, his arrogance, his ignorance and his amorality, will always annoy me.
It's not what he does, but who he IS that offends.
-
:
I'll never eat these words, because no matter what he does, even if he happens to make some good decisions by accident, his personality, his arrogance, his ignorance and his amorality, will always annoy me.
It's not what he does, but who he IS that offends.
:thumbsup:
-
You will be eating your words when he turns out to be a great President. Nearly all his cabinet picks are well received.
/snicker
Here comes another acolyte of the Trump Cult of Personality. He'll be average; basically another version of Bill Clinton.
-
/snicker
Here comes another acolyte of the Trump Cult of Personality. He'll be average; basically another version of Bill Clinton.
As long as he's better than Obama, I'm ok with it.
-
/snicker
Here comes another acolyte of the Trump Cult of Personality. He'll be average; basically another version of Bill Clinton.
Pretty much a carbon copy of Bill Clinton.
-
As long as he's better than Obama, I'm ok with it.
@mrpotatohead
That bar is so low you have to dig to China to find it. We need to have higher standards than that, don't you think?
-
/snicker
Here comes another acolyte of the Trump Cult of Personality. He'll be average; basically another version of Bill Clinton.
Well, being an acolyte is better than a lot of other things. It's a good idea to refrain from behaving like pom-pom shakers in regard to Trump's administration. Mark Levin is clearly one of the big standard bearers in that regard. His stalwart vigilance will be a good measuring device for the performance of this president. President Trump may indeed behave like a populist and follow the Machiavellian/Alinskyite doctrine of triangulation to achieve his agenda. This strategery (sic) consists of using the input from the Executive Branch (policy advisors), the Legislative Branch (Congress) and the People (general opinion polling) to determine policy.
As I understand the concept, triangulation is just a strategy for administrating dominion in a free representative political system and has no moral or ideological dimension aside from one given to it by the user. It may be employed to either good, bad or neutral purposes. This means that even though Slick Willie used triangulation effectively to achieve his political ends, using that same method does not mean that triangulation is inherently a leftist modus. Alinsky referred to it in "Rules for Radicals" of course, but so did Machiavelli peripherally in "The Prince" and somewhat similarly in the Discourses on Livy (his exploration of Roman Republicanism).
-
Tie between Hannity and Limbaugh.
-
:
:thumbsup:
I hear you. It used to rankle me to no end to hear Trump use words so...freely. Then I considered Buckminster Fuller's description of Soft Warfare in which words become munitions and mass media a strategic weapon. Words have two basic functions, (1) tools of communication, (2) things which create by their application, a purposeful result - an effect.
An example of how words can become something other than primarily tools of communication was how they were applied to the Vietnam War by the Communists. Just as words can have effects apart from their popular context (as in how diplomats use words to give hints and say things that cannot be expressed overtly because of "delicate" situations) so they can even have almost no significance except as munitions (we have all heard the term "fire for effect" in regard to artillery).
Leftists have been using words primarily as munitions for most of the last decade while the GOP played catch-up. The ineptness of GOP politicians in this regard may have helped to cost them two presidential elections in 2008 and 2012.
The 'Crats have wholly disposed of statesmanship altogether, along with the notion that words should primarily be tools of communication for the exchange of information, opinions and thoughts. Trump beat them at their own game. He used words primarily as munitions not to communicate. He essentially beat the 'Crats at their own game.
That Trump employed this strategery (sic) is a departure from tradition for conservatism, because we tend to feel badly about using words in this manner. We like to be straightforward, honest, courteous and upfront. So when a candidate uses words with a careless, almost offhanded malice, cruelty, viciousness and reckless disinterest in nuance or content, it is very disorienting for conservatives. It feels wrong.
But the fact is that Machiavelli would likely have approved and if the Roman Republic's great humanitarians were operating in the post-modern era of soft warfare and mass media, they would have in all likelihood done exactly the same thing. Times change - sometimes for the worse.
So in the case of the regression of words to being little more than the same thing as bullets, bombs and nerve gas.
-
I hear you. It used to rankle me to no end to hear Trump use words so...freely. Then I considered Buckminster Fuller's description of Soft Warfare in which words become munitions and mass media a strategic weapon. Words have two basic functions, (1) tools of communication, (2) things which create by their application, a purposeful result - an effect.
An example of how words can become something other than primarily tools of communication was how they were applied to the Vietnam War by the Communists. Just as words can have effects apart from their popular context (as in how diplomats use words to give hints and say things that cannot be expressed overtly because of "delicate" situations) so they can even have almost no significance except as munitions (we have all heard the term "fire for effect" in regard to artillery).
Leftists have been using words primarily as munitions for most of the last decade while the GOP played catch-up. The ineptness of GOP politicians in this regard may have helped to cost them two presidential elections in 2008 and 2012.
The 'Crats have wholly disposed of statesmanship altogether, along with the notion that words should primarily be tools of communication for the exchange of information, opinions and thoughts. Trump beat them at their own game. He used words primarily as munitions not to communicate. He essentially beat the 'Crats at their own game.
That Trump employed this strategery (sic) is a departure from tradition for conservatism, because we tend to feel badly about using words in this manner. We like to be straightforward, honest, courteous and upfront. So when a candidate uses words with a careless, almost offhanded malice, cruelty, viciousness and reckless disinterest in nuance or content, it is very disorienting for conservatives. It feels wrong.
But the fact is that Machiavelli would likely have approved and if the Roman Republic's great humanitarians were operating in the post-modern era of soft warfare and mass media, they would have in all likelihood done exactly the same thing. Times change - sometimes for the worse.
So in the case of the regression of words to being little more than the same thing as bullets, bombs and nerve gas.
Excellent points.
I'd not read that Bucky F quote before. Great one.
I was reminded of the evil doer's malicious, merciless and tyrannical mangling of and use of words by this summary of NWO stuff I posted here:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,239487.0.html
Words have become bullets in the mind control/propaganda strategies of the PTB.
They have sought to obliterate all historical meaning and values and have succeeded to an outrageous degree.
It almost makes one ready to return to the KJV edition of the Bible to support words that used to mean something relatively clear.
I think Americans are . . . thoroughly ignorant . . . of the proper place of fitting words spoken in due season in a wise way. Propaganda has mangled so many words with so much historic meaning into such a foggy milk-sop of useless, empty goo . . . it's a wonder they can communicate a decent order at McDonalds well.
Though, on the other side but sometimes with similar mangled emptiness--and with lots of sharp, stabby meanness . . . family members--particularly attachment disordered spouses . . . hurl deadly words at one another deliberately slicing the person-hood of the other to shreds.
Creation was effected by God's spoken Word . . . if I understand it right. Certainly HE treats His Words as supremely high priorities--even above His Name.
And, He declares that the words we speak have a kind of spiritual power--for good or bad--and that's in the spiritual realm.
Certainly it is true in the emotional, psychological and sociological realms, as well.
Words shape our thoughts and our values--for ill or good.
We'd be wise to be careful about the words we read and hear as well as the words we speak and write.
-
Hands down without a doubt Hillary Rodham Clinton!!
-
Hands down without a doubt Hillary Rodham Clinton!!
It's a sad life after you lose an election...
(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/b2d8ebc/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F88%2F6c%2Fb79bc57e4eef9b53126e8b4a7f30%2F161231-hillary-clinton.jpg)
-
It's a sad life after you lose an election...
Awww...she will have a cellmate to keep her company.
-
Awww...she will have a cellmate to keep her company.
If it's Barack, the planets will have aligned perfectly!
-
It's a sad life after you lose an election...
(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/b2d8ebc/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F88%2F6c%2Fb79bc57e4eef9b53126e8b4a7f30%2F161231-hillary-clinton.jpg)
Well, she does have Bill to keep her warm at night....so she has that going for her..........
-
Well, she does have Bill to keep her warm at night....so she has that going for her..........
Dance, go rush the speaker that booms
I'm killing your brain like a poisonous mushroom
Deadly, when I play a dope melody
Anything less than the best is a felony
Love it or leave it, you better gain way
You better hit bull's eye, the kid don't play
If there was a problem, yo, I'll solve it
Check out the hook while my DJ revolves it
Ice Ice Baby Vanilla, Ice Ice Baby Vanilla
Ice Ice Baby Vanilla, Ice Ice Baby Vanilla
-
Well, she does have Bill to keep her warm at night....so she has that going for her..........
@Wingnut
Lol, I'll bet Bill hasn't kept her warm (gag) since...how old is Chelsea again?
-
@Wingnut
Lol, I'll bet Bill hasn't kept her warm (gag) since...how old is Chelsea again?
:pondering:
Well...maybe He does a good dutch oven then?
-
:pondering:
Well...maybe He does a good dutch oven then?
@Wingnut
Excuse me while I go lose dinner!
-
@Wingnut
Excuse me while I go lose dinner!
I am truly sorry for that.
-
I hear you. It used to rankle me to no end to hear Trump use words so...freely. Then I considered Buckminster Fuller's description of Soft Warfare in which words become munitions and mass media a strategic weapon. Words have two basic functions, (1) tools of communication, (2) things which create by their application, a purposeful result - an effect.
An example of how words can become something other than primarily tools of communication was how they were applied to the Vietnam War by the Communists. Just as words can have effects apart from their popular context (as in how diplomats use words to give hints and say things that cannot be expressed overtly because of "delicate" situations) so they can even have almost no significance except as munitions (we have all heard the term "fire for effect" in regard to artillery).
Leftists have been using words primarily as munitions for most of the last decade while the GOP played catch-up. The ineptness of GOP politicians in this regard may have helped to cost them two presidential elections in 2008 and 2012.
The 'Crats have wholly disposed of statesmanship altogether, along with the notion that words should primarily be tools of communication for the exchange of information, opinions and thoughts. Trump beat them at their own game. He used words primarily as munitions not to communicate. He essentially beat the 'Crats at their own game.
That Trump employed this strategery (sic) is a departure from tradition for conservatism, because we tend to feel badly about using words in this manner. We like to be straightforward, honest, courteous and upfront. So when a candidate uses words with a careless, almost offhanded malice, cruelty, viciousness and reckless disinterest in nuance or content, it is very disorienting for conservatives. It feels wrong.
But the fact is that Machiavelli would likely have approved and if the Roman Republic's great humanitarians were operating in the post-modern era of soft warfare and mass media, they would have in all likelihood done exactly the same thing. Times change - sometimes for the worse.
So in the case of the regression of words to being little more than the same thing as bullets, bombs and nerve gas.
Face it.. They're anti-semantic.
-
It's a sad life after you lose an election...
(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/b2d8ebc/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F88%2F6c%2Fb79bc57e4eef9b53126e8b4a7f30%2F161231-hillary-clinton.jpg)
We don't have to listen to her awful very annoying shrieking!
-
Face it.. They're anti-semantic.
:thumbsup:
-
We don't have to listen to her awful very annoying shrieking!
Now if only we could get rid of Nancy Pelousy and her very annoying shrieking.
-
Now if only we could get rid of Nancy Pelousy and her very annoying shrieking.
Maybe she would melt if someone hit her with some water?