Selling these.
LOL!
I found this over at the Huffington Post by Jason Linkins:
"These stickers were apparently inspired by those aforementioned "Impeach Bush" stickers, or the "Impeach Laura Roslin" stickers, or the "Impeach Doctor Zaius" stickers, or the "I Brake For Joe The Plumber" stickers. One of those. Obviously, these Obama versions have some original touches of their own. For instance, did you know that "Osama" and "Obama" sort of rhyme? That's what all the "off the hook" kids grooving on Michael Steele's new urban-suburban dis track tell me, anyway! Plus, the word "lying" is depicted as "lyin'" which is a shout-out to Sarah Palin.
You can probably purchase this stickers in person if you come to CPAC, a convention of conservative Furries and Mitt Romney fetishists, next week. Or buy them here. Consider it a bailout!"
Here's the ad for the stickers:
IN STOCK FEBRUARY 19th - PRE-ORDER TODAY!
During the Bush Administration, "IMPEACH BUSH" stickers circulated around the country.
We've had several requests from Patriot Depot customers to create an "IMPEACH OBAMA" sticker. Popular radio talk show host Michael Savage has called for the nation to start displaying these stickers as well. So, due to popular demand, here they are!
While we are waiting for impeachment charges, keep in mind that our nation was bamboozled into electing a man who is hell-bent on taking away your freedom, raising your taxes, and ushering in a Socialist State not much different than the old USSR.
And don't forget that his campaign was launched in the living room of a terrorist. If 2012 seems too far away, Impeachment is the only answer!
US Residents get FREE SHIPPING!
The poor benighted lunkheads who thought this piece of theater up believe that they will incite enough "GOPmentum" to persuade all 20% of the Americans who support them to riot in the streets and call for the overthrow of the month old Obama presidency.
You have to love these clowns--they are good for a rolicking belly laugh.
Every country needs a political party it can routinely ridicule. Thank you, GOP, for fulfilling that need.
25 comments:
Impeach on what grounds???? Such idiots. I can't stand it.
I posted this only to show everyone their mentality.
Maybe the Klan rallies, but they're mostly Democrats there.
The south is solidly Republican. The Klan is mostly in the south.
I would guess the Klan has more Republicans in their membership than say, they have in San Francisco.
Nice try, Patrick, but weak, weak, weak, and desperate. LOL!
Shaw: You haven't heard of the Southern Democrats?
Democrats have been oppressing the black man since Andrew Johnson! :)
Anonymous: We've already had 8 years of entirely groundless calls for impeachement. So based on that, this is not surprising.
Impeach Obama stickers have been for sale he won the election, if not before.
Groundless?
Nah. Gutless Democrats.
Plenty of high crimes and misdemeanors but no courage to give those criminals their due.
No surprising.
Groundless. Or else Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would have run with it. Instead, the whole idea is a joke, and few other than Kucinich had the courage to tell this joke on Capitol Hill.
Patrick,
You're too cute by half.
Democrats and Republicans of that era are not what they are today.
The south of the KKK era was solidly POLITICALLY CONSERVATIVE AND RELIGIOUSLY FUNDAMENTALIST.
The northern Dems were liberal in politics and religion--for example, the southerner Christians were almost solidly anti-evolution, whereas the northern Christians were not.
Just remember this: As soon as a DEMOCRATIC president, Lyndon Johnson, passed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, the WHITE southerners left the Democratic Party.
The make-up of the parties and completely different, and the labels Republican/Democrat are meaningless compared with what the parties represent today.
It is more accurate to label them Conservative/Liberal.
The south has always been Conservative vs. the Liberal north and/coastal areas of the country.
There's no question that I would have belonged to the Party of Lincoln in Lincoln's era, and not the pro-slavery, anti-evolution, fundamentalist "Democratic" Party.
The Democratic Party cannot in any way be likened to what it was in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Not groundless dmarks.
Spineless. As in spineless Democrats.
Plenty of 'misdemeanors' to choose from on the domestic spying front. Illegal intelligence gathering. Torture. War crimes against the Iraq people. Lying to congress. Etc. A host of misdeeds far in excess of a Presidential blow job & subsequent lying about a completely personal matter. But then the American people can always get more worked up over an individual f***ing than an entire country getting f***ed.
My guess is certain Democrats (Pelosi for certain) would be implicated in any impeachment action and that keeps leadership from going forward.
Except for the torture one (as tied to approval of waterboarding, your list is groundless to the point where no-one other than the farthest fringe nutters try to make a case.
"a completely personal matter."
Clinton's sexual harassment of an employee (which he admitted in settling out of court) is not a private matter. Such workplace matters aren't. There's nothing "personal" when a boss engages in sexual harassment of employees. Such matters are not longer considered OK, you know.
"My guess is certain Democrats (Pelosi for certain) would be implicated"
This vast conspiracy must include President Obama, because even he refuses and refused to go after Bush on these bogus charges.
Shaw: I know I'm cute.
Plus, if I didn't give you a little crap for painting with a mighty broad brush (by doing so myself), I wouldn't be doing what I do best.
You are correct dmnarks.
Sexual harassment is not OK. My bad. It's interesting how once again progressive politics, as evidenced by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act have become such a part of the American landscape. Of course in 1964 such legislation was opposed by any conservative American worth his/her salt. Kind of like today with the end of America as we know it due to the recently passed stimulus package.
Go figure.
The other correct point is Americans are much more excitified by a single sexual act than they are war crimes. Look at the ongoing collective amnesia surrounding Vietnam. Same with our empire building in Iraq. When you're the biggest kid on the block you get away with murder.
Far from groundless, the suggestion that the Bush administration is guilty of war crimes in Iraq and crimes against our own nation aren't pursued for the reason I named. Torture is likely off the table because top Democrats probably knew about the goings on at Gitmo.
Spinelessness on the part of the Democrats.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/brecher_smith
There is no empire building in Iraq. You can't have amnesia about a situation that does not exist.
"Far from groundless..."
Your list is as well-grounded as those of the nutters who think that Obama should be impeached.
"http://www.thenation.com...."
And to back that up, you have an article from a fringe magazine. There is nothing mainstream about either impeachment effort.
You're funny dmark.
The Nation has published weekly since 1865. Some of the best and certainly the brightest writers ever providing commentary and coverage on culture, the arts and politics. Mencken. Gore Vidal. Einstein. Sartre. JK Galbraith. Barbara Tuchman. Hunter S Thompson. James Agee. Clement Greenburg. All contributors.
'Fringe'? Probably. We've been discussing concentration of media ownership which provides endless amounts of lowest common denominator 'content' which does indeed push this journal of intelligent analysis to the 'fringe'.
Fringe? It has nothing to do with so-called concentration of media ownership. Actually, "The Nation" is one of a majority of publications that have nothing to do with the the 5 companies that supposedly control anything. A majority... which shows that the concentration really does not exist in the print media at all. "The Nation" proves the concentration idea false.
It did have its glory days, because it is old. But that does not justify its "ideology, not reality" slant of the modern era. It is antisemitic too: the current online issue has a rather non-factual antisemitic article on the front page. "Saturday Evening Post" is another very old publication that in recent years has been very different from its history.
Anyway, if the fake case for having impeached Bush has any substance, than so does the current fake case for impeaching Obama.
Fringe has everything to do with a far-left view removed from reality. There are many journals like this on both the left and the right. It is in the same league with a publication called "The New American".
Heh. Heh.
Nice dodge to 'print'. Now that we agree a handful of large (and getting larger) corporations control radio & television a cursory glance should tell us the same phenomenon exists in print. The folks at the Columbia Journalism Review and Advertising Age have already done most of the work.
And it seems we agree 'fringe' and 'leftist' and intelligent synonyms 8)
Stands to reason though. Where McDonalds is the cuisine du jour, Budweiser the preferred tipple and sports fans by the millions tune into an autosport with American sedans making four left turns at 200mph hour after hour then television would be the noggin stuffer of choice.
And The Nation would indeed be part of a literate, cultured fringe.
"Stands to reason though. Where McDonalds is the cuisine du jour..."
Bleeeechhh! Who eats there?
"Budweiser the preferred tipple..." --Arthurstone
Donkey piss. Actually, that's a slur on donkey piss to compare it with Budweiser--I call it yellow sugar water.
"and sports fans by the millions tune into an autosport with American sedans making four left turns at 200mph hour after hour"-- Arthurstone
Ooooh, how unAmerican of you. Remember how Ann Coulter said that NASCAR fans are the "real" Americans, or some such drivel, and complained that the elite NYTimes failed to report the death of Dale Ernhardt(sp?) when it was on the front page the day after he was killed?
These people are so insecure about themselves, always playing the victim, and most of the time filled with misinformation, via the Hindenburg of Gasbags, Pretty Boy Hannity, and Bill-O.
"Now that we agree a handful of large (and getting larger) corporations control radio & television"
Not sure we do. I have checked several markets so far, and none have the 5 national companies controlling most of the market. Are any of the larger companies such as Clear Channel and Sinclair even on that list of 5 that control most of everything?
Clear Channel is the largest radio station owner in the country, and it has less than 10% of radio stations.
"The folks at the Columbia Journalism Review and Advertising Age have already done most of the work."
Yet, the facts out on the field are not yet supporting the summary given here. I'm open to real world examples of where/how 5 companies own 92% of TV and radio stations. And "print" is not a "dodge": at least by me. You were the one who brought up the media concentration issue in discussion of "The Nation", which is most famous as a magazine.
"And The Nation would indeed be part of a literate, cultured fringe."
The readers and backers of "National Review" consider themselves to be this also.
dmarks typed:
'Yet, the facts out on the field are not yet supporting the summary given here. I'm open to real world examples of where/how 5 companies own 92% of TV and radio stations'
Of course you don't agree. Still, Advertising Age reports the top six media companies account for 92% of 'net media revenue'.
Follow the money.
He added:
'The readers and backers of "National Review" consider themselves to be this also.'
As well they might dmarks. The thing is the world has changed since the late 19th century but you wouldn't know it from reading the NR.
" 'net media revenue' has nothing to do with concentration. Revenue has everything to do with the popularity or unpopularity of media voices (ability to get advertisers) and nothing to do with concentration of ownership of the voices out there.
So, it is really not a case of concentration at all, rather of popularity. Do we really need to alter policy or legislate to take care of the "problem" of something being too popular?
The "problem" of "net media revenue" is like having a bookshelf with 20 books on it. 2 of these books sell more copies than all the others combined.
I just don't see this as a problem.
Post a Comment