liberal types around him mistake his non-sequiturs for political profundity.
Obama is Chance Gardner without the homburg.
Posted on 06/27/2011 4:14:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
BTTT
I believe nobama is comparable to an empty sack.
Obama is not Chauncey Gardner. He’s Bill Clinton. Why doesn’t anyone suggest that? He’s the same old opportunistic, narcissistic, good-time Charlie who charmed his way into the White House, determined to milk the job for all it is worth. Unfortunately, even Clinton looks like Reagan compared to Obama.
obama has no sack and has nothing to put into one even if he did.
LLS
An empty sack? Not at all, empirical evidence indicates hims be a “blivet.”
And like a spoiled brat, everything has to go his way
Did anyone ever seriously compare Hussein Obama to Lincoln or Roosevelt?
I am a fan of neither, so it would be charming to hear those comparisons.
Chance the Gardener was not clueless. I believe that is one of the peculiar truths about his character in THE GREAT Jerzy Kosinski’s phenomenal script (which I was thrilled to discuss with he and Eric Bogosian many years ago.)
(This is one of the finest movies ever made, by the way.)
What Chance is, is honest and pure. Chance wins, and is trusted, because he is completely innocent, faithful, and devoid of subterfuge. He is truly Christ-like.
Obama is profoundly unlike Chauncy in almost every way:
Barone does not know what he’s talking about.
Obama is Chance Gardner without the homburg.
"I know sh!t's bad right now with all that starvin' bullsh!t. And the dust storms. And we runnin' out of French Fries and burrito coverings. But I got a solution. "
Like Chauncey, Hussein is a naive imbecile. The big difference between the two ‘characters’ is that Bozo read too many books about communism and how to kill capitalism.
“I like to watch TV.”
or play golf
There is no comparison between the two, as you said:
What Chance is, is honest and pure. Chance wins, and is trusted, because he is completely innocent, faithful, and devoid of subterfuge. He is truly Christ-like.
The other one is the polar opposite in each regard.
“Being There” by Jerzy Kosinski, and “Network” by Paddy Chayefsky.
“Being There” for the nothingness that is Obama.
“Network” predicted the TV and Financial world we see to day. Look at the “reality” TV and the globalization of trade.
Especially when Jenzen tells Beale about Global Trade:
“You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples.
There are no nations.
There are no peoples.
There are no Russians.
There are no Arabs.
There are no Third Worlds.
There is no West.
There is only one holistic system of systems.
One vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars.
Petrol dollars, electro dollars, multi dollars. Reichsmarks, rins, roubles,pounds and shekels.
It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet.
That is the natural order of things today.”
Later
SPEND SPEND SPEND 1934
I used to think Obama was an empty suit but now I think he has filled his pants.
I think he is more like a puppet. A George Soros puppet
He definitely is full of it, and that is not a compliment
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.