Propaganda

The New Presidential Propaganda

Imagery of the chief executive is more tightly controlled and carefully considered than ever.

|

There is a photograph of Barack Obama, taken by the official White House photographer, only minutes before his first inauguration. Obama stands before a mirror. His reflected expression is intense, but ambiguous. Depending on your interpretation, the former Illinois senator looks dignified and confident-or paralyzed with fear. At that very moment, millions of Americans were waiting to see their new president address the nation for the first time. What sort of a person were they going to see?

Even after an exhausting presidential campaign, it was an open question. For months, rumors circulated about Obama's place of birth. Pew Research polls showed a growing minority of Americans believed he was Muslim. Public figures like Donald Trump and Sean Hannity were openly asking: Who is this guy?

The ferocity of the personal attacks demanded a forceful response. Fortunately for the president, social media was just then exploding into mainstream popularity. The administration began to use sites like Facebook, Instagram, and Flickr to reshape public perceptions with a compelling counter-narrative.

"The White House has effectively become a broadcast company," says Michael Shaw, publisher of BagNews Notes, a blog dedicated to the analysis of news images. "The White House, they went to create an identity for the president. And they did that in very interesting ways. One would be to associate him much more with popular culture."

The first year of the Obama presidency generated a stream of photo ops that pushed a clear editorial line. Images of the president hobnobbing with George Clooney, Bruce Springsteen, Robert De Niro, Bono, and Beyonce began appearing on White House Flickr and Instagram pages. Photographers on the presidential payroll depicted Obama as a larger-than-life figure, respected by leaders abroad and BFFs with celebrities at home.

As the White House gained more control over the creation and distribution of its own images, the less inclined it was to allow the independent press to photograph the president. Photojournalists have been prohibited from covering the president's meetings with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, the Dalai Lama, and Hillary Clinton, among other events of undisputed public interest.

All the while, Pete Souza, Obama's official photographer, has enjoyed unfettered access to the president. To commemorate the 58th anniversary of Rosa Parks' act of civil disobedience, Souza had Obama reenact a famous photograph of Parks inside the original city bus. During the shoot, independent photojournalists were kept at a distance, unable to view the scene from their position behind a rope-line.

But after six years of gradually being excluded from White House events, the press is fighting back. Santiago Lyon, the Associated Press director of photography, wrote last year in The New York Times that the Obama administration has "systematically tried to bypass the media by releasing a sanitized visual record of his activities through official photographs and videos, at the expense of independent journalistic access."

Thirty-eight news organizations have signed a letter of protest to the White House, stating, "As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist's camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the Executive Branch of government."

But there's little else the independent media can do. "Because [the president] can distribute directly through all these different channels," says Shaw, "there's really not much downside to it, there's not much accountability."

All over the world, leaders are producing idealized versions of their own identities on social media. Politicians are increasingly free to project their own self-image directly to the public, with less accountability than ever from an independent press. From the White House on YouTube to 10 Downing Street on Flickr and even Bashar al-Assad's Instagram page, we may never see our politicians in the same way again.

NEXT: The Hard-Won Beauty of Entrepreneurship

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OT: I was listening this morning (on the radio) to a black woman explain how black people should all vote Democrat, and how the ones that didn’t were race traitors.

    Is there a low they will not stoop to?

    1. How about accusing your opponent of being responsible for trayvon getting shot?

    2. No.

      That is explicitly laid out in the The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic, the go to guide for Obumbles and his acolytes.

      1. I had to look up if that was a real thing.

      2. Statists got morals?

    3. Does that implicitly mean that white people who do vote democrat are race-traitors?

  2. I view pretty much all politicians as dangerous, duplicitous pieces of shit.

    Them trying to “control their images” just furthers that.

    So, yeah, I guess I will never view them the same again. They all look worse and worse.

    1. It’s a sad fact that my inclinations anymore are to automatically believe any negative story that comes out about a politician.

      If Reason put out an artice telling me that Obama or GW ate the flesh of mexican children and fucked goats while doing drugs, I’d sigh and accept it as true.

      1. They didn’t?

        1. No, they didn’t do any drugs.

        2. Not in the past week.

          So, no.

  3. Public figures like Donald Trump and Sean Hannity were openly asking: Who is this guy?

    So were public figures like Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose, but no. By all means, let’s only invoke right-wing kooks.

    1. Are you going to be the reverse Bo?

      1. Sean Hannity is famously anti-Democrat. Donald Trump isn’t exactly Team Red, but he seems to identify with them more often than not.

        Point is, who cares if Team Red has questions about Team Blue? When the questions come from more sympathetic questioners, that’s more interesting.

        How that makes me anything like Bo Cara escapes me.

        1. Bo really seems to love pointing out when an article or a commenter is digging on Team Blue when a similar dig could be made about Team Red. It’s his Modus Operandi.

          By all means, let’s only invoke right-wing kooks.

          Does this sound like reverse Bo? Yes, yes it does. And even though I was just poking fun, you seem to have taken it personally.

          1. Being called Bo Cara can be a traumatic experience.

            1. There, their, they’re…

          2. No, that analogy doesn’t fit. FSJ is saying that left-leaners made the same dig as right-leaners.

            1. Who the fuck ARE you and what is your smelly ass doing in our comment section?

              Fuck off.

      2. Them’s fightin’ words

    2. Shelby Steele had an interesting take on as Obama as the blank canvas. His prediction was that O wouldn’t win the presidency because his success relied on people NOT knowing or understand him. Steele was wrong because he underestimated the desire and power of establishments sympathetic to O’s as a class signaler and their willingness to shield him.

      Steele’s book A Bound Man is interesting even today.

      1. He also underestimated the Utopian stupidity of a large portion of the electorate.

        A lot of people actually do view the president as essentially all powerful, largely because our system has broken down and there actually is no longer anything limited the president beyond periodic Supreme Court decisions. Since there are no longer very many human institutions limiting the president’s power, the only limiting agent is reality.

        Now, if you’re a prog who thinks reality can be bent to your will through the construction of some bureaucracy or other, you’ll vote for any president who promises to magically make everyone rich, single handedly solve all environmental problems while somehow not damaging industry in the process, and pass a bill or two to end all racism forever.

        1. And sometimes I’m quite glad we’ve had the twin experiences of Obama after Bush. We couldn’t have had clearer examples of the failures of the two types of the establishment. I keep thinking now, now, NOW people will get why things are so f’ed up, but I’m overly optimistic. We’ll just continue to swerve from one failed “new man” to the next like a banana republic.

          1. We’ll just continue to swerve from one failed “new man” to the next like a banana republic.

            This is the patriarchy talking. Why a “new man” instead of a WOMAN!

            /readyforHillary

            1. What difference, at this point, does it make?

              1. This will be my Bartleby like response to all things Hillary. I have a huge hatred for all things Hillary and I don’t know if it’s because of her grotesque ambition or tremendous cankles.

                1. How ’bout her transparent cynicism?

                  1. That too.

                  2. It’s sort of difficult for me to not like someone because of cynicism, since I can at times be very cynical myself. The difference is that I’m honest while Hillary is a lying scumbag. I also don’t have any problem finding a few dozen other reasons to detest that witch.

                    1. Do you mean to tell me that she wasn’t really named after Sir Edmund Hillary? That she wasn’t really shot at in a war zone?

                      Universe: shattered.

                2. I assume this has made the rounds already?

            2. This is the patriarchy talking

              Guns are Good!

              The Penis is Evil!

            3. A part of me kinda wants Hillary to win. Get the whole first female president thing out of the way. She’ll fuck everything up and show us women are just as bad at it as men (I would’ve hoped Jiang Qing would be enough proof but I guess not), and maybe afterward we can actually start moving toward voting meritocratically…

              Oh wait, but we still need our first transsexual president. Or does Hillary cover that too?

              1. I thought we got the whole female president bit covered already with Obama.

          2. We’ll just continue to swerve from one failed “new man” to the next like a banana republic.

            Personally I don’t think America will even exist at its current boundaries long enough to become a banana republic.

            There was a book put out by MIT press called The Size of Nations in which the authors argued that, because of America’s heterogeneity and the vastly different cultures existing within our borders, the United States would have broken up decades ago if we’d tried to govern ourselves in the same way as the Europeans. This is because European countries tend to be more homogeneous, so you don’t end up with as many outraged cultural groups as central planning would cause in a more diverse country.

            I personally agree. Any attempt at central planning will piss off so many different cultural groups in this country that the nation won’t survive. I think there’s going to be a secession crisis in very short order.

            1. The outcome may hinge on the ability of groups within groups to disentangle from the feds. As long as the federal government is perceived as incompetent, as is currently the case, then states and groups taking independent action (like NY and NJ deciding to quarantine and CO and WA legalizing pot) seems rational. I fear the resurgence of the perception of federal competency, though.

              And that’s a pretty sad attitude to need to adopt.

            2. The USA will break up into several territories after the economic collapse and breakdown of law. I don’t see any other possible outcome.

              At least 50% of the population are functional retards and nearly 100% of people in positions of authority are criminals who are above the law. That’s a really bad combination.

              1. It’s a bleak outlook, but I’m of the opinion that some of the takers need to starve before the point comes across.

                1. The takers will never ‘starve’ because they don’t actually need government aid to survive.

                  That’s one of the great leftist myths, that without food stamps, welfare, etc. poor folk will be starving in the street.

                  It has never been true. There has been no starvation in America for over a century. People didn’t starve during the Great Depression. Go read Orwell’s books about poverty in Great Britain and France. You’ll notice that Orwell, despite being a leftist with no reason to sugar coat things, never mentions starvation. It’s because starvation had already been eliminated entirely in civilized European nations, just as it had been eliminated in America.

                  1. Whether or not people will starve is irrelevant because it won’t be “starvation”; It’ll be the WOO (War on Obesity).

                    1. Speaking of which, does Obamacare cover rascals?

                  2. “You’ll notice that Orwell, despite being a leftist with no reason to sugar coat things, never mentions starvation.”

                    Does he mention rationing?

              2. The USA will break up into several territories after the economic collapse and breakdown of law. I don’t see any other possible outcome.

                Unless it goes violent. Then it could go either way.

              3. “That’s a really bad combination.”

                But the breakup of the USA is a positive outcome.

                1. But the breakup of the USA is a positive outcome.

                  No, it isn’t. It would be an economic disaster.

                  1. “an economic disaster”

                    Granted, the end of the trillion dollar gravy train of endless war that the USA has in store for us will be inconvenient for some. The rest of us will adapt and manage, I suspect.

                    1. I assume FDA was referring to the loss of the gigantic national market free of tariffs and controlled borders.

            3. This is because European countries tend to be more homogeneous

              Except for the UK, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Spain, of course.

            4. Except US cultural and ethnic diversity is mostly not regional at this point in time, so there’s no easy way to alleviate those stresses by dividing the country up. You’re not going to be able to break up the US into a Hispanic country and a black country and a white country, or even into a liberal country and a conservative country.

  4. Meet the Press brings a Republican Senator (Portman) on who says, “People want the government to stop bickering and solve the Big Problems. Vote Republican!”

    Tell me again what distinguishes the two parties.

    1. Even when I read the word “Republican!” it still went across my brain as “Democrat!”

      I had to read your comment twice to get it right. No, there’s nothing that distinguishes them.

    2. Tell me again what distinguishes the two parties.

      Ooooh, oooooh, I got this one.

      One is red and one is blue?

      1. Red and blue. Are the Libertarians white, then?

          1. That’s just Reason. Libertarianism is Gold. Anarcho-capitalism is black and gold.

  5. Oh, no! Big Money is destroying America!

    At least they Mention Steyer by name. But KOCHBUX are the problem, and don’t you forger it.

    1. I don’t know how you can watch that tripe any more. I used to be a political JUNKY. Watched all the shows, read voraciously….literally stopped watching the news, all these political programs, stopped all my subscriptions. I have no faith, not trust, no belief any more. None. Zero. Gave up. Just trying not to get fucked in the ass too hard before I die.

      Reason’s about as close as I come to politics…and I’m just in it for the pictures articles commenters. Well, and the Mexican pot ass sex.

      Good luck, and I hope those shows don’t inflict any damage!!

      1. What he said.

        I actually look forward to reading TLPB’s posts about the Sunday morning shows I used to watch. I think the person I detested the most was that screaming shrew on the McLaughlin Group.

      2. I was flipping between the football game and Roger Federer winning another title.

        God Atlanta suck.

      3. I used to go to Real Clear Politics twice a day.

        Never again.

      4. I was the same way. Now I can’t watch 10 minutes of FOX or MSNBC before clicking it off.

        1. Same with me and NPR. I go from conservative talk radio to NPR and back again, only staying for a few minutes at a time because my rage builds to the point of nuclear detonation.

  6. Thirty-eight news organizations have signed a letter of protest to the White House, stating, “As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the Executive Branch of government.”

    But there’s little else the independent media can do. “Because [the president] can distribute directly through all these different channels,” says Shaw, “there’s really not much downside to it, there’s not much accountability.”

    I have mixed feelings on this. I despise most “journalists” because they are less interested in unbiased reporting of fact than they are in self-aggrandizement and propagandizing their political views.

    On the slapping hand, there is a great danger in government, in particular, the Imperial Presidency, possessing as much information and power as he does with no one looking over his shoulder. For the past six years, the only way we’ve gotten anything remotely critical of Obama and his policies hasn’t originated in the lapdog corporate media, but some government functionary suffering from a sudden case of conscience and putting the information out.

    I don’t see a clear solution.

    1. I see one, but it’s very messy.

  7. Awesome. Airbag-gate. Martha Radish asks, “Is the NHTSA just TOO SMALL?”

    Nobody asks, “Was it really such a great idea for the federal government to force automakers to put an explosive charge in the steering wheel and passenger side dashboard of every car they make?”

    1. That was my first thought, too.

    2. Consider the idea that with many modern cars, the government has the ability to just set off your airbags by remote, the same way they can shut it down or control your speed.

      Just because they haven’t doesn’t mean they won’t.

      1. What makes you think that they haven’t?

  8. Reason’s about as close as I come to politics…and I’m just in it for the pictures articles commenters.

    The culture war hatefest is wearing me down.

    As for the Sunday news shows, it’s just my attempt to keep track of what America is panicking about. Other than scanning the headlines via teh Goggle, I never read the papers. I’m sure as fuck not going to read Salon. My dad signed me up for The Economist, and I have hardly even opened any of them.

    1. The Economist does have the greatest covers of any political magazine.

      Exhibit A

      Exhibit B

      1. They started to really suck a few years ago. I didn’t cancel my subscription, but I didn’t renew it either.

    2. The Economist used to be reliable in the sense that its biases were consistently pro-market as opposed to pro-business. At least for the most part. They didn’t like monopolies mostly, government regulation a little bit less mostly. Its bias was at least consistent enough that by reading it every week, you could allow for the bias and get a much better view of world affairs than without it.

      But I gave up some years ago. They had been gradually smelling the Bush-Obama big government fix more than before, I was reading it less and less, and the Newton spree killings was the last straw. Why a market-oriented publication would suddenly splash anti-gun articles out every week was beyond me. I don’t know if editors changed, backers changed, or what, but I stopped reading it and let my sub lapse.

      1. The Economist also had a retarded article about minimum wage in which they argued we should just have a cabal of bureaucrats whose job it was to look at information and decide the optimum minimum wage.

        No way that could be abused by the Top Men who would be appointed to such a position.

        1. “The Economist also had a retarded article about minimum wage in which they argued we should just have a cabal of bureaucrats whose job it was to look at information and decide the optimum minimum wage.”

          If I hadn’t quit reading it by then, that would’a done it.

          1. The Economist is a bit like The Washington Post. They occasionally stumble ass-backwards into an interesting insight or give a real journalist page space, but they’ll realize their error soon and self-correct and then overcompensate with progressive idiocy.

            1. WaPo has actually gotten vastly better since Bezos took over. No more Klein, jobs for Volokh and Balko, and they recently broke a story on wide spread illegal voting.

              1. And amazon’s stock took a dive last week. Coincidence? I kid.

                1. I know you’re kidding, but it was Bezos who bought them, not Amazon.

                  1. I’m sure Bezos still has a lot of Amazon stock.

        2. I’m glad I either missed that or had stopped reading by then.

      2. Why a market-oriented publication would suddenly splash anti-gun articles out every week was beyond me.

        Umm, because they’re Brits?

        1. It was out of character at the time, a change of direction, and prolonged. Like I said they were a pro-market publication, and pretty much kept to that even for book reviews.

        2. Umm, because they’re Brits?

          Without guns, we’d still be part of the empire. That pisses em’ off.

          1. Guns are for the nobility. The peasants can sod off.

          2. I believe British subjects had the same gun rights as there were in the colonies in 1776…

            1. Have you checked the regulations recently?

    3. As for the Sunday news shows, it’s just my attempt to keep track of what America is panicking about.

      That’s what local news is for. And at least you get a weather forecast, too.

  9. If Reason put out an artice telling me that Obama or GW ate the flesh of mexican children and fucked goats while doing drugs, I’d sigh and accept it as true.

    It’s a trick. They’re just trying to distract you from the REAL crimes.

  10. I was a hard core faithful reader/subscriber of The Economist for years (back when they wrote about economic topics), but they went into the tank so hard and so fast for Obama, I just couldn’t read it any more.

  11. IRS seizes the life savings of a cash only restaurant despite the fact that she has been accused of no crime through the use of asset forfeiture.

    “How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”

    The federal government does.

    Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up.

    1. Goddammit.

    2. So depositing money in excess of $10K is a crime, and now depositing money in amounts less than $10K is a crime?

      1. They claim that depositing it in less than $10K at a time is an attempt to get around reporting requirements.

        Of course, the problem is with the reporting requirements in the first place.

      2. The article doesn’t go into details, but I assume it was a case of depositing, for example, $5000 every day of the week. Now, that could be a mafia boss trying to hide a $25000 deposit, or a legitimate cash business that happens to take in $5000 a day in revenue. It would be nice if the IRS investigated a bit to determine the difference before seizing funds.

        1. “It would be nice if the IRS investigated a bit to determine the difference before seizing funds.”

          It would be better if the IRS crashed and burned.

    3. Theft under color of law.

      God bless America.

    4. “How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview.

      Because fuck you, that’s why.

    5. So. . .the government ruined her.

      New Libertarian?

      1. More likely someone who thinks that we just need to get the “right people” in charge.

      2. So. . .the government ruined her.

        Someday, when I feel like typing a book, I’ll tell ya the story of what the government did to my buddy’s business.

        Very long story short…

        Fuck you, we are intentionally breaking our contract…come sue us. Oh, you need money to cover your loans? Too bad, so sad.

        1. Starve before you do business with the government.

        2. *I am altering the deal, pray I don’t alter it any further!*

    6. “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;…”

      How is there not a lawsuit here?

      I am not clear….under what statute are they allowed to do this? I know they have been doing it for decades…but how and why has no one sued their balls off?

      1. I agree with you, but it has been explained to me by some very important people here (lawyers) that there is due process. That process is, they take your shit for any reason they want and then you can sue them to get it back.

        See, due process. Despite the lack of presumption of innocence.

        The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.- BS

        1. I have heard all that also.

          Here is the catch: If you really could sue them and get your money back plus punitive damages then lawyers would be lined up to the north pole to take your case in return for a slice of the punitive damages.

          That they are not tells me you have a snowball’s chance of winning any such suit. They take your shit, you are fucked. That is not due process.

      2. The money is prosecuted, not the person, and is punished by being confiscated. Money has no 5th amendment rights.

        Sound crazy? Yes, but it’s part of the beloved common law that libertarians blow smoke up the ass of at all times. The docket in this case will read United States of America v. $33,000 in cash.

        1. “The money is prosecuted”

          I am not sure what the meaning of the word ‘prosecuted’ here is.

          I was raised on a farm so I know horse shit when I run across it.

          1. Reason did a story explaining it early in the 1990s. It’s a common law principle called deodand. The guilty object belongs to God, so is forfeited to the sovereign, the representative of God.

        2. United States of America v. $33,000 in cash

          Wasn’t sure if serious. You are. That should only be an Onion headline or a Stossel bit.

          1. It’s called a libel, a legal action against a thing.

  12. OT (But is it really?): Hey everyone! A-TACS new “Law Enforcement” camouflage pattern is out. Now your neighborhood SWAT team can kit up like they were fighting the Bugs and Skinnies on Klendathu!

    COME ON YOU APES, DON’T YOU WANT TO COME HOME SAFELY?

    1. Well, they do look like awesome Power Rangers or Starship Troopers. Or something very, very, very awesome. So, cool!

      1. Well, if they want to be like Starship Troopers, then they need to act like it. Remember what happened (in the book) to the guy who murdered the little girl?

        1. Now, now. Let’s not hold our boy’s in blue(camo) up to some unrealistic and idealistic standard. THEY’RE HEROS FOR JUST PUTTING ON THE UNIFORM!!

          1. Our boy’s what in blue? 😉

            1. I admire your ability to really focus on the important things, Ted.

              1. You do know that grammar is a weapon of the cosmotarians, right?

                1. Apostrophe abuse is worse than what Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson did!

                  (Seriously, run of the mill spelling mistakes I might just try to make a joke response to, especially if it’s the auto-correct stuff. But, for whatever reason, apostrophe misuse drives me up a wall.)

                  1. Loose/lose is my pet peeve.

                    1. Loose the uppity attitude and cut lose with grammar!

                  2. Im’ sor’ry ‘you’ f’eel ‘t’h’a’t’ way ”’

                    1. This had me grinding my teeth.

                      You should be punished.

      1. I’m looking forward to Counter Terrorists Win!! The Broadway Musical Sorta like Klinghoffer

    2. That is some very creepy shit right there.

  13. OT:

    Eight-year-old Elijah Burrell had just intercepted a pass late in the game and did what came naturally.

    The kid in the #2 jersey tucked in the pigskin and headed for the end zone. Touchdown! Elijah’s first one ever.

    Except there was one big ? and expensive ? problem with the otherwise happy moment.

    His undefeated Lawrenceville Black Knights were ahead 32-0 in the fourth quarter ? and Elijah’s interception return for a touchdown eclipsed the peewee league’s 33-point mercy rule, WGCL-TV in Atlanta reported.

    The penalty? A $500 fine. But not only that: The Knights’ coach earned a weeklong suspension.

    1. Uh…if you have a mercy rule, then why don’t you just end the game once that score gets passed?

      All you have to do is say ‘Okay, this team is ahead by more than 33. Game over.’

      1. Now how am I supposed to make an easy $500 if I do that?

        1. Also, since the coach is suspended, it means more double-pack Gatorade for me.

      2. Because then the kids don’t get to play a full game. Sorry Herm Edwards, in PW league you play just to play.

        It would make more sense for them to say any points you score beyond a lead of 33 don’t count.

    2. I don’t understand. Because the rule was exactly 33 points, they were supposed to just drain the clock for the rest of the game?

      If you’re going to have a mercy rule, once the 33-point margin has been matched or exceeded, for me that’s the game. In a game where the lowest scoring offensive play is six points, fixing the margin at exactly 33 is bullshit.

      1. It’s because of the Freemasons. “33” is a sacred number, or so I’ve heard.

      2. Something tells me the story isn’t exactly true.

        1. Life is a lot more interesting when I listen to the voices in my head.

          1. When you talk to yourself, you’re guaranteed to have an intelligent conversation.

        2. League responds to 8-year-old’s $500 touchdown

          The Gwinnett Football League president said that’s not the truth.

          Erik Richards said the team made a mockery of the game by laying on the ground, running off the field and mocking the other players. Richards said in essence, they showed unsportsmanlike conduct.

          […]

          Richards said the fine for violating the mercy rule is $100. In some cases, Richards said the fine will be waived if it is a defensive play, similar to the play that was scored. Richards said he is glad that the media covered what happened because he wants it to be an example for other teams who he said show unsportsmanlike conduct, that they will be fined.

      3. fixing the margin at exactly 33 is bullshit.

        Actually, what’s bullshit, is having such a ridiculous fucking rule to begin with. You can’t run up the score because you might hurt the fragile little snowflake’s feelings? And this is important enough to levy a $500 fine over?

        What a bunch of pussies people have become. What this country needs is a men’s liberation movement. No more apologies for having a cock and testosterone.

        1. Oh, I agree – I’d prefer prefer no mercy rule. I’m just saying, if there is a mercy rule in place, it should be 33 points or more, not exactly 33.

    3. If it’s a rule that TPTB want taken seriously, why not just say that if you overshoot the limit, the other team automatically wins?

    4. Mercy is for the weak. Sweep the leg.

      1. Stike First, Strike Hard

        Kreese: Fear does not exist in this dojo, does it?
        Karate Class: NO, SENSEI!
        Kreese: Pain does not exist in this dojo, does it?
        Karate Class: NO, SENSEI!
        Kreese: Defeat does not exist in this dojo, does it?
        Karate Class: NO, SENSEI!

          1. NO! HERE

            The Unabridged Story of Johnny Lawrence

    5. So, the team that was behind, all they had to do was give up a safety and some TOP MEN get $500. Sounds like a nice little racket for the “losing” team.

  14. Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent.

    This can easily be rectified by putting the right people in charge.

    1. Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash,

      The law was only putatively designed for this. The real intention was always to track everybody.

      1. The “Drug War” is a way to get conservative-types to embrace a police state.

  15. My roomate’s aunt makes $71 /hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her income was $12021 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    You can try this out. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  16. Of course it’s more tightly controlled than ever! When web sites like this one reflexively attack his every action, what do you expect?

    1. ‘It’s okay for the president to engage in a ceaseless propaganda campaign while denying access to the media because some people might be mean to him. If no one ever criticized the president, he wouldn’t have to propagandize and hide from reporters.’

      Serious question: Do you blame beaten wives because those shrews should have known to stop nagging their husbands? Because that’s essentially the argument you’re making right now.

      It also isn’t ‘reflexively attacking’ his every action when he actually is as bad as Reason says he is. When everything someone does is moronic, calling him moronic is not a reflexive attack.

      1. Might have been sarcasm.

        1. The problem with progressives is that it’s now impossible to tell when people are sarcastically mocking them.

        2. Around here, it is sometimes hard to tell.

          You did it to me upthread. 🙂

          1. I have my brain switch in the “they’re being sarcastic” position. The only problem is when people tell me something for realz, and I laugh.

      2. Alternatively, I heard very few demands to end the attacks when people were rightly criticizing the shit out of Bush (there was a lot of stupid ‘you’re with us or against us’ nonsense but also a lot of ‘dissent is the highest form of patriotism’). But when Obama engages in the exact same actions and continues to institutionalize them it’s just people being mean when they criticize him.

        1. Racist!

  17. + 1 this post if you intercepted Geno Smith today.

    1. +1 Choom Gang

    2. I’m pretty sure I saw one of his passes go by my window.

    1. *pukes in disbelief*

      1. next time read link

        “The cast of “Saturday Night Live” mocked President Obama’s response to the Ebola cases diagnosed in the U.S. during Saturday’s cold open.

        At the beginning of the skit, Obama explains that the Ebola response wasn’t that bad, relatively speaking.

        “Some people want to criticize the way our administration has handled this crisis, and it’s true we made a few mistakes early on. But I assure you, that was nowhere near as bad as how we handled the ISIS situation, our varied Secret Service mishaps, or the scandals of the IRS and the NSA,” he said. “And I don’t know if you guys remember, but the Obamacare website had some pretty serious problems too.

        He said that considering the rest of the second term, “this whole Ebola thing is probably one of my greatest accomplishments.”

        Obama then introduces Ebola Czar Ron Klain who takes questions on his lack of medical background and travel bans.”

        1. OMG

          The real humor is in the TPM comments…

          ..where there is NONE.

          They are convinced that SNL has gone full ‘right wing’ for daring to mock Dear Leader.

          WE FAIL TO FIND ANYTHING FUNNY ABOUT THIS

          “None of those things mentioned constitute an actual scandal at all. This is just an extension of the narrative the GOP has built on the backs of a complacent media–that anything bad is Obama’s fault, though no one seems capable of articulating his administration’s missteps. It’s fitting that the writers call it “this whole ebola thing,” as opposed to attempting to explain how the Ebola crisis qualifies as a scandal at all. It’s analogous to critics of Obama’s foreign policy never having the guts or the knowledge to actually state what they think he should do differently. As a result, we get polls showing Americans giving Obama terrible foreign policy approval ratings, even though he is by and large taking actions most Americans agree with when polled on the individual issues.”

          1. So, magical_panda is Shrike?

          2. The reply is even better:

            Every time Republicans proudly cut funding and bad things happen as a result, they call it another Obama scandal and the headline writers and news readers fall in line.

            1. Because the Federal government’s problems are “Lack of Funding

          3. *cleans puke*

            *hangs head in shame*

          4. WE FAIL TO FIND ANYTHING FUNNY

            Fixed it for them.

  18. Doctor Returning from West Africa is Quarantined = Claims Her Human Rights are Being Violated

    She wouldn’t have this problem were it not for the fact that some *other* doctor failed to comply with the MSF/DWB protocols, and ‘Went Bowling’ while symptomatic.

    IOW = If the #@*(&@$ admin had anything like anyone “in charge” of the stituation, they’d have provided for something for returning-physicians less degrading than living in a tent in Newark.

    instead, you get Obama, which is more concerned with following public opinion than anything to do with practical reality, so = Tent Life it is for you, Dear.

    1. How can we afford something nicer than a tent? We have to pay a man with zero qualifications $245,000 a year to lie about Ebola! THAT IS MORE IMPORTANT AND YOU ARE A RACIST TEABAGGING KOCHTHUGLICAN IF YOU SAY DIFFERENTLY!

      1. “RACIST TEABAGGING KOCHTHUGLICAN”

        Is there somewhere to buy a T-Shirt that advertises ones support for the KOCHTHUGLICAN 2016 CONSPIRACY?

        FYI, i just googled that word, and the only place it exists on the internet (aside from here) is (shocked face), “Democratic Underground

        1. But aren’t the Kochs libertarian? KOCHTHUGLICAN seems to imply that they are Republicans. I don’t get it.

    2. didnt te rightwingnuts WANT a quarantine? oh wait its the obama administration so whatever it is is wrong by default right? how much moret ransparantly oppositional do you plan o getting at this point. if he came out as a freemakret 1percenter giving you everything you wanted would you become marxists just so you dont have to give a black guy crdit for doing something good/

      1. e e cummings’ buttplug

      2. I don’t think any ‘rightwing nuts’ wanted anything in particular, but were quite happy to note the clear fumbling by the current admin on how to address the issue.

        there were no guidelines provided to people on *what* exactly to do, so when a case popped up in the biggest, densest city in America, States – lacking direction from the Tsar/Czar/kommissar on what was “right/wrong” – went ahead into full-panic mode.

        If from Day 1 of the Duncan case arriving onshore there were clear dictum provided to states and medical directors on how to deal with cases, and how to deal with people traveling to/from the ‘hot zone’, none of this clusterfuck would be happening.

        You want to ‘give someone credit for doing something good’? Please to share what this thing is so we can respectfully applaud.

      3. Flaming Ballsack|10.26.14 @ 4:42PM|#
        …”oh wait”…

        Oh, look! Lefty dolt tries humor to hide lies and stupidity, fails.
        Fuck off, slaver.

  19. “Tomorrow I’m going to camp out in the dairy section and ask each shopper, ‘Why did you just put all your eggs in one basket?'”

    ~Robert Murphy, on Facebook

  20. Goebbels rolls over and smiles.

  21. But there’s little else the independent media can do.

    Well, no, there’s little else the independent media is willing to do.ifthey really wanted to they could decide to refuse the administration coverage. I can pretty much guarantee that, after a week or so of being treated as political non-entities, the administration would loosen its control

  22. my co-worker’s mother makes $71 /hr on the laptop . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her payment was $17334 just working on the laptop for a few hours. published here

    —————-http://shorx.com/onlineatm

  23. My buddy’s sister-in-law makes $83 /hour on the computer . She has been without work for 8 months but last month her pay was $17994 just working on the computer for a few hours.
    For information check this site. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  24. Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee more what is for you there to increase your pocket money??.

    http://shorx.com/clickforsurvey

  25. Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee more what is for you there to increase your pocket money??.

    http://shorx.com/clickforsurvey

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.