ATL Contrarian

What if Obama appeared at a fundraiser w/ Charlie Sheen?

Or, God forbid, Hilary Rosen!

Donald Trump, who appeared tonight w/ Romneytron 3000 at a Vegas fundraiser, and Sheen have much in common. Both are “job creators,” intolerable egomaniacs and unrepentant douchebags. Both star in cheesy TV shows, were roasted on  Comedy Central, count Playboy centerfolds among their ex-wives and peddle pernicious conspiracy theories.

And therein lies the difference. One’s a truther, the other’s a birther.

The Anchorman puts it in perspective: “I need to get 50.1 percent or more and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”

atlmalcontent

, ,
, , ,

7 responses to “What if Obama appeared at a fundraiser w/ Charlie Sheen?”

  1. Jack Straw

    How could it hurt Obama? He is callow, dishonest, and narcissistic. No one can make him look worse than he is, except maybe Bashir Assad. This week, anyway.

  2. atlmalcontent

    “Maybe” Bashir Assad?

  3. Jack Straw

    Obama ultimately will harm many more people than Assad because his reach is longer. Ask the Poles, for instance.

  4. atlmalcontent

    You’re comparing a slip of the tongue to a mass murderer. Conservative hyperbole knows no bounds.

  5. Jack Straw

    I am not referring to the “Polish death camps” comment. I am referring to Obama caving in to Putin on the missile defense system without getting anything in return, AND not bothering to inform our Polish or Czech allies. WTF? Whose interest does this decision serve?

    Want another example? Obama gives his famous Cairo speech. The people of Iran then rise up against one of the most murderous regimes on the planet, and Obama does…nothing. How many Iranian civilians died in 2009? How many Eastern European civilians are now on the chopping block?

    Hyperbolic? Maybe. But if you take the long view, maybe not.

  6. Heinrich

    So you suggesting Obama should have attacked Iran which probably cost more peoples lives. By the way, Obama attacked Iran without any cost of US lives – it is called Stuxnet and killed a lot of nuclear power plant computers (and centrifuges) – saving actually lives. A direct attack of Iran would have resulted in strengthening the regime and not support the uprising people. See Iraq. Same people still in power (w/o Saddam), the people do not like the US troops and democracy is not existent.

    And who needs a missile defense system when the enemies are terrorists. Russia is not an enemy anymore…wait, I forgot, conservatives live in the 50’s.

  7. Jack Straw

    Heinrich, I live in 2012. By your level of discourse, I could opine that you live in Neverland.
    How long has Putin ruled Russia? Why is he so opposed to the missile defense shield? You may not see him as a threat, but our friends in Poland and the Czech Republic do.
    A direct attack on Iran was not necessary. What WAS necessary was for Obama to let the protesters in Iran know that we stand with them. He could denounce Mubarak on a moment’s notice, but nothing for the Ayatollah or Ahmadinejad?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: