Korn frontman Jonathan Davis thinks that is just one example of how President Barack Obama is using Cyrus, and other celebrities, to become a dictator.
Davis explained the meaning behind the band's new song and video, Spike in my Veins, to TMZ. The singer says:
"I think that our government uses those people to distract from what's really going on...the thing with Miley Cyrus at the VMAs, when that went down, I think Barack Obama passed a law that he is basically a dictator, he can imprison whoever he wants, he doesn't have to charge them, he can hold them as long as he wants."
I love how people keep blaming the government for the fact that Americans have collectively devolved into being interested in the stupidest shit possible. I'm sure he misses the irony that he was giving an interview to TMZ.
ReplyDeleteWhat survivor isn't real???
DeleteLOL, saw it for 15 minutes went back to reading my book.
Exactly. Although, some would probably chide my interest in hockey at this time of year.
DeleteI find this stuff hysterically funny. I can't remember ever having a President who was continuously attacked with this kind of ridiculous nonsense. And yet, we have seen 4 or 5 posts here in the past few weeks which are total mindless drivel. I am not a great Obama fan, but he is the POTUS and as such merits our respect. What are these people thinking? Is promoting your political agenda really worth demeaning yourself to this extent?
ReplyDeleteLike the military, you respect the office, not necessarily the man.
DeleteThe office demands respect, the person has to earn it.
That was one of my favorite scenes in Band of Brothers when Major Winters tells Capt. Sobel that they salute the rank and not the man. I'll admit, Bush endured a lot as well as did Clinton before him. I feel like I've seen an increasing spitefulness in it though. It's not longer just enough to disagree, there has to be a dissertation about how one person is single handedly destroying the country and as such they must be denounced and blamed for everything wrong.
DeleteHey, it's hard to criticize the POTUS. But, this guy makes Jimmy Carter look like George Washington.
DeleteWilliam you and Louman have no trouble criticizing this president when he is really no worse then many others before him.
DeleteSeems you were equally critical of Bush during his years, why were you so critical and remain so?
DeleteI voted for Bush (twice) and I feel that he was sincere and well intentioned. Of course we all know which road is paved with that stuff. I feel the same way about Obama. Those who claim that he is a socialist setting out to destroy America are way off base, in fact, out of the ball park. Such rhetoric is not helpful to anyone. Those who claimed that Bush was a monster set to turn America over to the wealthy are of the same ilk. The U.S. has lots of problems but raging against the President will not solve them. We need to adopt a stance favoring constructive criticism not destructive whining.
DeleteVery well put Mick. I don't believe anybody runs for POTUS with the intention of screwing one half of American while generously rewarding the other. I don't remotely believe that the entirety of what was done under Bush was something he envisioned when he ran. For people like Cheney, however, I do not feel so generous. Your last sentence is perfect.
Delete"...Those who claim that he is a socialist setting out to destroy America are way off base..."
ReplyDeleteWhich part is off base, Mick? That Obama is a socialist or that he is setting out to destroy America?
Exhibit A: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008
“We are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.” — Michelle Obama, May 14, 2008
Exhibit B: Obamacare.
If is smells like a duck...
Jimbo, Obama is no Socialist, if anything he is a President who disappointed the leftist voters who elected him. He obviously isn't trying to destroy anything, especially America. Right now, as a lame duck, he is trying to establish a legacy for himself, and not doing very well. As for Obamacare, this is not a healthcare law, in fact it has nothing to do with healthcare, despite what both sides say. It is about as far from Socialism as you can get. It is a law which gives a giant old ripe plum to the insurance industry, that's it. It doesn't effect diagnosis, treatment, or any other aspect of healthcare. To hear the spin, it is either the greatest thing since Medicare, or the worst thing since Medicare. Time will tell, just like time will dictate the passage of Obama and the election of another President who will face the same gridlock and the same frustrations.
DeleteOh, I thought Obamacare was a system by which people of limited means could get insurance, and care, for nearly free after being subsidized by the people on the rolls who actually pay?
DeleteI thought it was a system where both 58 year old women and men of all ages had to be covered for the same way a 26 year old woman was so the latter could be subsidized for her "reproductive health" rights.
I guess the issue stems from what the definition of socialism is. Maybe in your mind it can only exist if the government is the sole arbiter. Give it time.
Bingo. Obamacare is indeed a system where people of modest means can get health insurance because it is subsidized by those other insured who would prefer to opt out, if they could. Who benefits most by such a system? Why the insurance industry, of course. The people being covered may also benefit, but that is secondary. Socialism is a system of governance. Socialists are individuals who espouse Socialism. As such, Socialists exist independent of government. If the government took over the insurance industry, that would be Socialism, but that is not happening, instead government is subsidizing a private industry which is still controlled by private interests, stockholders or, in the case of mutual companies, the policyholders themselves.
DeleteInsurance companies have become utilities regulated by thousands if not hundreds of thousand of pages of promulgation. Is this good for the companies, perhaps. Is this good for the shareholders, perhaps. Is this good for policyholders, perhaps.
DeleteThere is one group that no doubt benefits from this takeover, politically connected lawyers inside and outside of congress. All of these de facto middlemen will drive costs inexorably higher and higher inevitability into collapse.
Want to guarantee failure of policy in a free society? Let lawyers spend eighty years pining for the opportunity, and then let them pass wholly partisan legislation.
Obamacare won't survive the decade.
"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
DeleteMichelle Obama 2008
I’m sorry, nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize the President of the United States to demand anyone shed their cynicism. And I’m all for people pushing themselves to be better, but I don’t think the President demanding it is the way to go about it. As it turns out, he was just kidding about the work thing.
And what if we kind of like our lives as usual? What about Americans’ freedom to be uninvolved and uninformed?
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008
I think pledging to end “life as usual” ought to be sending up red flags. Barring us from going back to our “lives as usual” is not in the job description, and shouldn’t be.
And here we are 5.5 years later, changes continue by executive mandate. Laws not enforced, laws changes by mandate not congress and people continue to sleep through the changes until one day they will wake and say, I didn't see that coming.
Not to mention:
DeleteThe veterans scandal
The I R S scandal
The Obama care disaster
The second worst economy after the great depression
Welfare explosion
Food stamp explosion
Doubling of the national debt
What a guy. A guy with a dream to fundamentally transform the previously most successful country on the face of the earth.
What a guy
Mick, government is mandating. Insurance companies are the vehicle. It's socialism. However it is that the government makes me pay more than the fair market value of something so that another gets it for free is inconsequential.
ReplyDeleteThe Government requires you to pay income tax. A portion of that tax goes to the Interstate highway trust fund. Poor people don't pay income tax, yet they use the same highways as you. Ergo, interstate highways are socialism. In fact, by that logic, isn't every government program is socialism? It's similar to the old saw about a tree falling in the forest, the answer depends on how you define the word "sound". So our interpretation of government programs depends on how we define the word "socialism".
ReplyDeleteCorrect. So someone who introduces new programs where resources are taken from and given to is moving the slider to the left. Your argument is that Obama is not a socialist, but clearly he is.
Delete3rd definition of socialism from Webster is exactly what Obama is.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Mick the interstate system had bipartisan support. Not one republican voted for Obamacare. Besides enhancing commerce the road system allowed movement of troops to coordinate the constitutional function of defense.
DeleteSocial security
Social studies
Social welfare
Social relief programs
There were 79 means tested social programs as of 2011
Of course we are not socialists.
Everybody here understands the difference between Socialism and social programs, right?
DeletePfunky, I think an individual's own perspective will dictate how he views society. "Socialism" is not a definitive ideal. It's a relative term. I mean, is there such a thing as 100% socialism? Not according to Marx. Socialism is just transitional. So anyone who moves the slider left is a socialist. And the main way they move that slider is with those things they call social programs.
DeleteHey pfunks,,it takes a village dude.
Delete