Prepare for the hypocrisy parade in which the red state oklahoma repubs start asking for federal assistance. Probably paid for by cuts to food stamps.

Do it congress. Cut food for the poorest people while fighting for tax cuts for the richest. I triple-dog-dare you.

Ahh the GOP - fighting for the right of every single fetus to be born into inescapable poverty and suffering.

We love you til you're out of the womb, then you're on your own.

Christ Almighty, some people have no clue. No idea when someone is being sarcastic. Speaksoftly, Mustang, and Sniper are recent examples.

#42 | Posted by mOntecOre

You see, for us to perceive sarcasm, the poster should be saying something so outrageous that there's no way it could be true. But for the past 5 years, right wingers have been freaking out over every little thing obama has done, so why should this register as sarcasm?

In a sane world, yes any controversy over the umbrella would be purely comical and sarcastic. But sadly with today's loony bin republicans, issues like this are treated with serious fury.

Iowa isn't the only state that produces corn products. Move the first round of primaries to California and we'll still see this crap in most of our food - it's cheap and tubby Americans love it.

#23 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

True monsanto's reach is nationwide. But saying americans should eat less corn syrup and we should stop subsidizing corn means you can't become president because of the iowa primary.

I don't believe the vast majority of our health problems are due to toxins; they are due to being fat f[...]ing f[...]s who eat tons of vegetable oil and corn syrup.

#21 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Except that sugars ARE toxins. New dangers from sugar in any form - corn syrup included - are being discovered every day. Cancer being one of the most prevalent.

But hey - the primaries are in corn country and industries fund elections. Therefore we have to keep subsidizing poison I guess, or wise-up and do public election financing.

The food itself is the problem, massive amounts of carbohydrates coupled with unhealthy fats in large portions will do plenty to kill you with or without chemicals.

#18 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Other countries eat lots of carbs and fat but aren't as unhealthy as we are.

We allow more toxins and science experiments in our food than healthier countries - think that might be related?

You know...thanks so much...I never thought this was about a white guy holding a umbrella for a (half) black guy. And being that those of us non-libs hate all black people (Well, except for Condi Rice, Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, JC Watts, Col. West....millions of other political, sports and media figures), you have helped me to finally understand this entire controversy. My apologies for assuming this had anything to do with anything other than we hate black people. I sincerely hope I did not offend you in the process.

#32 | Posted by justanoversight

Ok let's play a game.

Look, is this a scandal? No. Please. Is this situation part of a pattern of behavior where the President seems arrogant and holier-than-thou? Yep.

#27 | Posted by justanoversight

Look, is this a scandal? No. Please. Is this situation part of a pattern of behavior where the right gets upset over nothing and tries to use it as evidence in one of their paranoid fantasies? Yep.

Jesus mother effing christ...I have never seen an administration of the most powerful nation in the world, the media, and their supporters so frigging sensitive. I mean...my god...hypocritical much? I swear the average lefty is behaving like they have borderline personality disorder (Borderline personality disorder (BPD)

#22 | Posted by justanoversight

Wait. So it's the LEFTIES who created a controversy out of this non-story?

What color is the sky on your planet?

Righties are the ones who flipped out when they saw a white guy holding an umbrella for a black guy. The left would be foolish to not take this opportunity to show how insane the repubs are.

Things are rough for dems in the short term with all this talk of scandals, but the repub's problem is long term, and much larger.

How can you expect to win, when your base hates non-whites, but non-whites are the key to the future, electorally?

How can you depend on the support of your gay-haters, when the future generation of americans sees gay-hating as wrong?

The repub party has to evolve or die. And since stubbornness and resisting change is a source of pride for them, it's gonna be fun to watch.

Re-read Beach's post and think in terms of sarcasm or parody.

He was mocking those who are making a big deal about this stupid umbrella issue.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ

It doesn't come off as sarcasm when there are plenty of people on that site who would try to make that argument without any sarcasm at all.

WTF is wrong with this Kenyan, unqualified "Presi-didn't"? Can't he hold his own damn umbrella? He must be f[...]ing clueless not to know that Marines are not allowed to even TOUCH a f[...]ing umbrella. And then he forces that poor man to stand there, a[...]hole clinched, wondering if his wife will even accept him in to his own home after she sees him holding an umbrella? The god d[...] f[...]ing NERVE of that man really sets my balls on fire...it brings a whole new meaning to the term "fire crotch"!

IMPEACH! It's the only way this poor Marine will ever see any justice! IMPEACH the Kenyan Socialist Marxist (KSM)!

#2 | Posted by rstybeach11

Dude. People like you are the reason no one cares when the president actually does something wrong. You lose your mind over something as small as an umbrella, so why should we listen to people like you on anything?

It's called soy and corn.

#1 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake

Well it's actually called PRIVATE ELECTION FINANCING - or selling legislators to the highest corporate bidder. Subsidies for toxic foods are simply another result of that.

Another problem that would be fixed by public election financing.

How many piles like this are found around the world, but only the name Koch draws attention.
Issa! Koch! Palin!
Jump, Pavlov's dogs!

#13 | Posted by Diablo

Yeah. Funny how people get more angry about oil companies who do everything they can to FIGHT against green energy than they do regular oil companies.

Oil is a dirty necessity right now that we are trying to ween ourselves off of in order to save the environment. The Kochs do everything in their power to stop society from turning to green sources of energy. Oil profiteering is one thing, but actively trying to keep us from using cleaner energy deserves a special place in hell.

Um, speaksoftly, marijuana laws are dictated by the state, not Nixon.

I'm glad to help.

#8 | Posted by goatman

I do believe that the reason that the libs are so pro drugs is that they know a 'high' constituency is a complacent constituency.

#2 | Posted by MSgt

Or maybe because they're pro-justice and anti-hypocracy.

Why should alcohol be legal when a less dangerous drug (that our presidents admit to doing) is outlawed?

The real reason is because nixon saw hippies like weed, and since he couldn't outlaw being a hippie, he made the punishment for weed as harsh as possible.

Man what does it say about the repubs that obama beat them twice?

I guess thirty years of giveaways to the rich, boning the poor, rejection of science, theocratic sermons, racism, xenophobia, and homophobia has consequences huh?

At least it's slightly comforting to know americans can still choose the lesser of two evils.

What was obama's victory margin 50%-48?? That was considered by the LSM to be a landslide.

#18 | Posted by DavetheWave

LSM?

Let me help you out there bud. If you're trying to sound like you know what you're talking about, you ought to avoid using sarah palin's trademarked catch-phrases. Otherwise people might think that you are impressed by idiots.

Just a friendly tip.

Public support for Obama's reelection was even lower.

#7 | Posted by Huguenot

But still higher than public interest in handing power back to a republican.

Obama is a worse enemy to America than Bush ever was.
I knew it, but now you do too.

#126 | Posted by RonPaul

Until obama lets his handlers talk him into a 3 trillion dollar war with a nonaggressive country, ruining america's standing in the world, W will be the champ.

Benghazi is a sneeze next to that.

Think you hit the nail on the head at the last point there, GP. TV only aims at the largest demographic. Which unfortunately, is abysmally retarded.

#4 | Posted by zeropointnrg

As someone who has worked in TV let me tell you, it's the network execs that are the problem. We would send shows to them that had some intellectual value to them, and the network would keep on revising it and dumbing it down until it was on the level of an 8 year old child.

And they're just worried about ratings, which means they think americans will change the channel if something challenges them mentally in the slightest way.

I had a HISTORY channel exec ask us to change historical events to be more exciting as well. That was depressing.

TV sucks for the same reason many industries suck. Lemmings afraid of losing their jobs trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator in society.

Just because the Repubs didn't say anything when their guy did it, does not mean they are hypocrits

#16 | Posted by Marty

That's actually the DEFINITION of hypocrites.

Holding someone else to a standard that you don't hold yourself to.

If the Republicans agree with these kind of actions, they wouldn't complain under Bush. If Obama comes out and says these things are bad to do, and then does them anyway (hypocrisy), the republicans would not be hypocrites to call him out for his hypocrisy.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for you. (Well I do, you are probably an Obama supporter who feels disenfranchised because he turned out to be such a gigantic hypocrite showing himself to be worse than Bush by not only doing what Bush did, but pretending he wasn't doing it.)

#11 | Posted by HeuristicGratis

Problem is, the republicans will say they disagree with something obama does, but didn't disagree when a repub did the same thing.

Remember the whole socialist-fascist individual mandate in obamacare - the part that repubs say is an attack on democracy and freedom? That was a republican plan from the 90s. But then obama says we should do it, and suddenly its a crime against humanity.

They're not just upset that he's doing things he said he disapproved of. They're attacking him for doing things they used to support. THAT is hypocrisy.

#1 Do you not understand the concept of hypocrisy? An individual that agrees with some action can still call out another individual for taking that action if the individual being called out has claimed to be against the action they are taking.

#2 | Posted by HeuristicGratis

Oh you mean like when you're silent when a republican administration doing something, then you complain when a democratic administration does it? Yeah that IS pretty hypocritical.

Truth is, obama has been like bush in many so many ways, that only the people who were bitching about bush have any right to bitch about obama and NOT be called hypocrites.