Thursday, August 27, 2009

The annoying Obama Logo

Will the folks in DC kindly stop ripping off the intellectual property of Pepsi. The Obama logo is a clear rip off of the Pepsi logo. Maybe McCain would have won if his folks plagiarized Tony the Tiger.
The campaign is over and that symbol needs to go. A more cynical type would wonder who is cross promoting whom.

19 comments:

CM said...

I'd give Obama permission to stand in front of the Comanche Nation Logo, it has almost the same colors, the design is the same, almost! We are very Patriotic. Just how much more angry could the American Elder White People get? Just think... a Black man supporting the Native American!ha

I happen to like Obama and Ted Kennedy, and the Kennedy Family. They are Good People, caring People. Ted Kennedy made a few mistakes he devoted the rest of his life trying to make up for them just serving his country, he didn't need the money nor the notoriety, he just did it and stayed the course.

CM

beamish said...

I think the logo fits Obama perfectly. A sun setting over an American flag laying on the ground.

Always On Watch said...

A sun or a moon?

The Pagan Temple said...

"They are Good People, caring People"

The Kennedy's were taught by the original Kennedy patriarch, Joseph, that public service was the path to power. They have followed that formula since then. It does not prove they are good people, merely self-serving people who think they are entitled to rule.

Why else would Joseph Kennedy have put so much importance on one of his sons being the first Catholic President of the United States? Why else would he teach his sons that it was not merely acceptable, but advisable for "great men" and leaders to have extra-marital affairs in order to relieve the stress of the responsibilities of great political power, but because they deserved this as a perk, as though he viewed political leaders, including democratically elected ones, as akin to Egyptian Pharoahs, human gods in the flesh.

No, the Kennedy's, at least in general, are nothing more or less than wealthy white trash. Take a bunch of poor white trash, hand them hundreds of millions of dollars and set them up in a Beverly Hills mansion, and you don't get the Beverly Hillbillies. You get the fucking Kennedy's.

I'll concede that maybe, just maybe, Ted may have tried to turn his life around right about the time he got married to his second wife, and I also concede that his sister Eunice might have been an exception to the general rule that Kennedy equals scumbag.

But that doesn't change the fact that Kennedy, like his brothers before him, were merely wealthy nouveau rich elitist hacks who cared mainly for power. Of course they did some good things. John Kennedy deserves great credit for the space program. He also founded the Navy Seals. Outside of those two things, it would be much too kind to call him a mediocrity.

Robert was a corrupt little bastard who spent his time in the justice department helping the New England Mafia eliminate their rivals and for relaxation carrying out assassinations and attempted assassinations of world leaders. Teddy was-well, Teddy.

CM said...

Joseph K. wanted the best for his children just as we all do, only they could pay for it.

They may have been "the good ole boys" of their day, but they also worked toward a better tomorrow for others! I don't see any of their clan selfish, not the women nor the men, I saw them inspire many, they were rich and powerful and a Political family that was their life. John, Robert and Ted... American was their life. American is a bette place because of people like them.

American is going down hill becaue of racism!

They fought for equal rights, somehow even being filthy rich and white they understood a simple thing like equal rights! that should matter..............

CM

beakerkin said...

CM

Don't buy the myth. More Republicans voted for Civil Rights legislation than Democrats.Nixon did more to advance Civil Rights than JFK.

Equal rights for whom !!!! Lets see the Kennedy's buy their way into Ivy's get jobs via nepotism and leave a few breadcrumbs for Blacks as a token. They are an example of making laws that apply
to others but not themselves.

The_Editrix said...

CM, read this.

Joe Kennedy had his daughter Rosemary lobotomised without her consent in 1941 — at the age of 23 and without the knowledge of her mother. Joseph Kennedy made this decision because he feared that his mildly (if at all) mentally retarded daughter might embarrass the family and jeopardize the political ambitions he had for his oldest son, Joseph P. Kennedy Jr., who died later in World War II and his ambitions for his daughter Kathleen to marry the Marquess of Hartington, heir to the Duke of Devonshire. [Notabene that it was okay to marry a Protestant if it fitted the ambitions of the relentless social climber Joe!] There were no pain killers given and Rosemary was fully awake as they cut away at her mind. It reduced her to a vegetable who was unable to care for herself. She spent the rest of her life in institutions.

In Rosemary's own diaries before the lobotomy she chronicled a life of tea dances, dress fittings, trips to Europe and a visit to the Roosevelt White House… while they revealed no great secrets, the three diaries -- written between 1936 and 1938 -- described people she met and concerts and operas she attended and that she was hardly a case of mental retardation.

So did nothing but unrulyness seal her fate? Rosemary Kennedy's letters show she was deeply saddened by the lack of acceptance she felt from her father. Her mother was looking for a way to cure Rosemary of her over-eating, her tantrums and her disobedient way of sneaking out of her convent, to drink and meet the opposite sex, no more and no less like many other privileged but unruly young women.

It seems that Joe was worried that his daughter would not permit him to have veto power over her relationships with men. She apparently thought it wasn't her duty to dedicate her life to pushing brother Joe Jr. into the White House. Her father did not take kindly to insolence, so he had her fixed."


There are rumours that Joe had an incestuous relationship with his daughter Rosemary. I have left that out of my blog entry because there is no proof of it, but it would explain why he chose to destroy her brain. The other reasons are somehow not convincing enough, even for a Joe Kennedy.

Joe was a mobster wo made even Mafia killers shudder, a Nazi sympathizer who bragged openly in front of his wife and his children about his sexual conquests. If one HAS to say a nice thing about Ted Kennedy: It's a miracle that poor Ted, who wasn't very bright, didn't turn out much worse. If you look at the story of that hailed family, there is a trail of killed, crippled and raped women covering their way.

You are wasting your good thoughts and intentions on somebody very evil, CM.

Always On Watch said...

Editrix,
The lobotomy of Rosemary was a despicable machination on the part of Old Man Joe.

I do wonder if Teddy worried that the old man might lobotomize him too. The old man often railed at Teddy about his stupidity. The old man didn't much like his youngest son.

The_Editrix said...

Well, Ted may have been not very bright, but at least he wasn't in danger of being raped by his father because old Joe was heterosexual. If a markedly below average intelligence had been the reason for the lobotomy in Rosemary's case, surely Edward would have qualified as a candidate for the procedure as well. All that speaks for the fact that Rosemary was deliberately shut up and not lobotomized because of a mental condition.

This German blog has some pictures of Rosemary. She looks attractive and not a bit retarded.

CM said...

Editrix,

I have read most of what you printed, except for the labotomy.

Cruel man Joe was, but like I said he was rich and wanted the best for his family(except for Rosemary...I guess!!!!)

Rich men are noted for the sexual conquests, but there is no excuse for any man to molest his own daughter, if thats true.

Who in Politics don't use the poor and the Blacks to get ahead?
Democrats or Republican, it doesn't matter they still use!

I still say the boys John, Robert and Ted loved America. Its a better place in many ways because of them...especially Ted! I believed he made amends with His Lord, and he will rest in Peace. Thats all I have to say.

CM

The Pagan Temple said...

I think you're all really jumping to a lot of unfounded conclusions here. I don't like Joe Kennedy either, in fact I despise the bastard. But no matter how despicable he was, there's no reason to accuse him of raping his daughter without proof. If he wanted to "shut her up" over something like that, with his mob connections he could have easily had her snuffed, especially since she was a little on the wild side anyway and could have easily been lured into a situation where that would have looked believable. And I ain't buying for one minute the idea that he was a "good Catholic" and so would not have committed murder.

What you have to remember is this type of operation was an experimental procedure in those days, and he was actually led to believe that it would "cure" her of her wilder tendencies. He considered her unstable, and he probably really did think he was acting in her own best interests, the schmuck.

Mainly, though, he was afraid that she would act in such a way that would create some kind of scandal that would interfere with the political aspirations he held for his children.

It was a different world back then. In those days, you didn't speak the word "pregnant". It was too sexually suggestive. The socially correct term in those days was "with child".

If a woman smoked a cigarette, she was a "floozy". Most "decent" bars or nightclubs did not allow women to patronize them. The ones that did were dives, where a man could go to find a whore. Any woman seen in one was fair game.

Some women were even discouraged from referring to their husbands publicly by their given names. They were to refer to them as "Mr. Smith", "Mr. Kennedy", etc.

In some areas if you posed for a photograph, you were discouraged from smiling in them. This was as true of men as it was women. It was considered that the act of smiling for a photograph might make you seem to your descendants that you were a foolish person. Thus, a person posing for a photograph, especially family photographs, should strive to look deadly serious.

Many of the words and phrases now that we utter without giving any thought to them would result in a social stigma that could last for years. Can you imagine being a woman in the time in question and saying to a group of people "Damn I really need to get laid", or "I bet John Jones over there has got a big dick?"

It would be fucking over. That's just the times. Even as late as 1969, you have a two-bit political hack putting off reporting an accident because he was more concerned about how the fact he was out with her to begin with would affect him politically.

I know there are people who adore the Kennedy's and to whom they can do no wrong. That's no reason to go to the other extreme.

Always On Watch said...

Editrix,
he probably really did think he was acting in her own best interests

I'm not so sure about that.

Old Joe seemed determined to create a dynasty and was probably more interested in that than in anything else. Well, he did show interest in his mistresses. Did he actually bring Gloria Swanson to the dinner table and humiliate Rosemary in that fashion?

The Pagan Temple said...

To his way of thinking, Rosemary should have felt proud that he was able to bring somebody like Gloria Swanson to the dinner table. The idea that he was having a fling with her was accepted. Probably unspoken but accepted. If she knew about it, he probably expected her to be even more proud of that.

The_Editrix said...

TPT, nobody "accuses" old Joe of having had an incestuous relationship with his daughter. I even deliberately left it out of my blog entries about the Kennedys for reasons of intellectual integrity. However, I do not think that it is forbidden by any standard to discuss the possibility, which is not the same as "accusing" him of it, within the comment section of a blog. I will say why I think that there is a strong probability that he had one indeed. One reason is the Kennedy "Take everything you can get" rule. I am sure many fathers find their daughters sexually attractive, which is only natural. But a decent father will suppress that urge. The fact that most men do that is one of the pillars of our society and culture. From Joe's track record there is little that would make me believe that he would suppress ANY urge of nature for ethical reasons or the greater good.

Now the lobotomy. Let's assume for argument's sake that it was a state-of-the-art method at that time. We could ask now why Joe hadn't Edward, who wasn't very bright and kind of unruly himself, fixed in the same manner. We can, too, safely assume that Joe hired the best to perform that operation on his daughter, so why did it go so pathetically wrong?

Then you say why he hadn't her simply killed? Well, maybe even Joe had that one last compunction towards his spawn, so he had her brain killed instead.

All that are, I think, pretty good arguments.

But the most important thing is the following: You say that the fact that there are people who adore the Kennedy's and to whom they can do no wrong is no reason to go to the other extreme. No it isn't. The reason to judge the Kennedys like I and others do is simply because they deserve being seen that way. Judging the heritage of a person or a group of people is not a mathematical equation or a matter of "fairness", just of truth. And the simple truth, without even mentioning any unproven rumours, without even mentioning the lobotomy, is reason enough to see them that way. It's called truth, not "going to the other extreme".

Doing Fine in '09 said...

Conservatives for equal rights??? Who are you kidding?! The venerable bastion of conservatism- the (newly) glorified former President Reagan- voted AGAINST the Equal Rights Amendment in 1981. Get your facts straight.

And let's not even talk ethics! Conservatives balked, hemmed, and fussed about Clinton and his lying under oath to hide his sexual misconducts, and consistently spout off about family values, and yet I can name at least five in the past 2-3 years that have been found with young boys, young women, or as is the case with Governor Mark Sanford, NOT found with a young woman, but instead disappeared with a middle-aged Argentinian. Conservatives pushed for Clinton's impeachment for lying under oath about SEX, but turned a blind eye to Reagan's lying (under oath, mind you) to selling guns for cash to Iran and then giving a portion of the money to Nicaraguan Sandinistas.

Conservatism smells of hypocrisy recently. You talk the talk (family values, fiscal responsibility), but then don't walk the walk with your high profiles sexual escapades and oh yeah...the "Let's Get the Country in the Red" strategy Bush employed for the past 8 years.

If you're going to talk the talk, BACK IT UP. Otherwise, shut up! I think that's why people rallied so much behind Obama. His message was "Change we can believe in." No one can seem to believe a word that comes from the mouths of a Conservative recently.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq..." Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, WE'RE BROKE.

beakerkin said...

Doing fine

Obama is sinking like a rock in the polls. Even in the Governor's race in NJ the Democrats are running away from Obama. The Tea Parties have more people in the street than the Communist so called Peace Protests. The economy is a train wreck and Obama does nothing except promote himself.

As for the weapons of mass the destruction rhetoric. Every major intelligence service had the same estimate. FYI Saddam did harbor terrorists hence Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were based there. There is ample evidence, Laurie Mylroie Clinton Official, that Saddam was involved in the first WTC attack.

As for cliches, the Iran Contra deal was entirely about the latter.
The Communist Supporting Dems Gomer Kerry, Tom Harkn, Chris Dodd
and some other clowns passed an illegal Boland Amendment in support of a regime that was exterminating Indians. Rather than
leave rebels wthout aid Reagan did
the right thing. Little surprise that Hugo the Crack smoking Communist is a huge Obama fan.

Doing Fine in '09 said...

It's just a bunch of scaredy cats afraid of change, so afraid, they'd rather keep the (short term) status quo than make a (long term) change for the better, so afraid, they'd rather call out the words "communist" or "socialist" as words to spur further resistance to change rather than meet it head on.

Socialist, shomialist- Conservatives love to toss this word around as if it's some evil word and then send their kids to public schools, funded by the government and every home-owning tax payer REGARDLESS if all those tax payers have children attending public school or not. They're the first to call that "free" education their right as citizens, but can't seem to justify health care??

On the most fundamental of levels, a country should provide security, education, and health care, the three basic tenets to ensure long term viability. Government should keeps its people safe, educated, and healthy. The fact that we haven't achieved the latter to date is a testament to the real infancy of this country.

I'm not sure where you live, but the tea party is DC was a joke, especially in comparison to the million + who braved the cold in support of obama. Don't believe the media hype.

Yhat being said, Obama will be fine. NO ONE's poll numbers could ever be worse than the abomination of a leader that was in office prior.

Oh yeah...and not to sound banal, but, "duh." Everyone knew Sadaam was involved in the first WTC attack, and yes he most likely harbored terrorists, but my leader lied to me and told me and the rest of the country that we were entering a war for WEAPONS. no weapons = a lie. furthermore, he never fully focused on capturing the man responsible for the second, and most massive attack, on the WTC. that man IS FREE AND STILL LIVES!! Talk about an affront to our national security!

And as for reagan? You can support his lying under oath, which according to our judicial system is punishable and grounds for impeachment- much like GWB's lie- and yet it was somehow not okay to impeach either one of them, but instead spend tax payer money on a witch hunt at the hands of a conservative congress to impeach a president that lied about getting a little sumpthin' sumpthin' from an intern?? Talk about a total waste of money!

This country's finances didn't go downhill overnight. Eight years of GWB, a hefty war bill, which continues to increase each day in support of a war that's made minimal headway, along with a mortgage meltdown is what killed our economy. GWB's advisors warned him of an impending crash and yet he did nothing, but wait, which (let's face it) is the conservative strategy for economic correction.

We were in the black before he came to office and in the red after. Period. All the stats support this claim. He did not inherit a recession. Baloney.

After 8 years of a hot mess (aka. GWB) in office that you elected, this is what you get!

Obama's been in office less than a year and has been able to stop the bleeding for the largest financial meltdown you and I will probably ever see, as well as bring the dire need for health care reform to the doors of Congress. After eight years of abject failure and mediocrity, I call this a success.

beakerkin said...

Doing Fine

Obama is sinking fast.

The economy is getting worse and the middle class is starting to get sticker shock. In NJ Corzine is running away from Obama.

Change for the sake of change does not infer better. Ask people who live in a border region if they see
Canadians at doctors offices. In St
Albans VT we saw plenty of Canadians at local Drs. It seems some people do not care to wait for certain procedures. Maybe you should listen to Montreal talk radio and listen to Canadians talk about taxes. Even some of the unions are balking.

Health care s not a right. It is something families have historically paid for. The rise in costs is attributable to lack of competition. Of course trial attorneys malpractice lotto drives up premiums and forces Drs into defensive medicine. How much medicaid and medicare fraud do we have now, expect it to triple. Where competition is fierce prices do stay under control. I-693 immigration medical exams costs around 300 in Chinatown and double elsewhere.

As for Saddam he was harboring and funding terrorists. The WMD assessment was shared by every intelligence agency including the French and the Russians. Iraq is a better place without Saddam.

Onto the Cold war and your naivete. Reagan is popular with Eastern Europeans and those who lived under communism. The Sandanistas were a brutal regime that were intent on subverting their neighboring countries. They were brutalizing Indians so badly that even radical leftists like Mental Ward Churchill and Russel Means took up arms.

You once again ignore that the Boland Amendment was an illegal act passed by Democratic Senators who were intent on aiding a brutal
communist regime.

Speaking of law breaking, leftist Churches knowingly brought in criminal aliens in protest of the Reagan policies. The Reagan Administration should have forced these Churches into foreclosure.
Instead we have deaths of Americans by DWI, street crime and welfare courtesy of the American Baptist Church.

History proved Reagan correct and that is a fact. The crowds that turned out for his funeral and watched on TV are also facts.

The Tea Parties are a growing phenomenon. Obama has not been helped by the Peace Prize scam. The hostility is growing as the economy sinks. As the economy sinks Obama runs around promoting
himself. People are out of work and Obama is not even discussing job creation.

As the economy burns Obama smiles to the camera, promotes himself, spits on our allies and courts our enemies.

Doing Fine in '09 said...

you're right, we do need more competition to reduce costs. i'm glad to see you're in favor of the public option!