Comparing Obama’s Performance in Office with that of a Sack of Hammers
Leadership
Many people consider leadership to be important to a presidency, and a sack of hammers would have absolutely no interest in this role. It would never consider rousing the American people to action or trying to enact social change; instead it would just sit out of the way and let everyone do their own thing.
Barack Obama has at least tried to be a leader. He’s given numerous speeches — something a sack of hammers would never do — and attempted to inspire people at times. The end results haven’t been great, and mainly people are just annoyed when he interrupts their TV shows, but at least he’s trying.
JUDGMENT: Obama does somewhat better than a sack of hammers at being a leader.
Foreign Relations
Obama has tried to improve relations with other nations with mixed results. Some of our closest allies, such as the British, have felt snubbed at times, and despite Obama’s outreach to Muslims, America’s popularity in the Middle East has dropped. Also, Obama has done odd things like bow to foreign sovereigns, which has undermined America’s image of authority.
A sack of hammers would be extremely aloof toward foreign leaders. This might seem negative at times, but one of the best ways to assert dominance is to ignore others. In this way, many foreign leaders would probably come to respect — and perhaps slightly fear — the sack of hammers and its mysterious, unreadable attitude.
It seems unlikely that a sack of hammers would receive a Nobel Peace Prize like Obama, but who in the world knows how those people think?
JUDGMENT: Obama is slightly worse than a sack of hammers in the area foreign relations.
The Debt
The debt has been a huge problem for the country for some time. In fact, to even consider balancing the budget we will need drastic cuts to many entitlements. Obviously, a sack of hammers is averse to doing anything labeled “drastic” and would have just left spending at its current level. This seems bad, but it’s much better than President Obama, who has only added to the annual deficit while in charge. With a sack of hammers, it is unlikely that by now spending would have increased to the level that caused our credit downgrade with S&P.
Also, long term, the sack of hammers’ strategy would have forced a balanced budget, as it would never considering raising the debt ceiling. This would have forced many budget cuts before the debt limit was ever reached.
JUDGMENT: Obama does immensely worse than a sack of hammers in the area of the national debt.
Overall
Taking all these areas into consideration, it’s pretty easy to see that a sack of hammers would be a much better president than Obama. This isn’t to say that Obama is dumber than a sack of hammers — a ridiculous assertion — it’s just to say that he’s much worse at being a president than one.
Of course, this is all hypothetical, as you’ll never find a sack of hammers with the fire in the belly necessary to both run for president and win. Perhaps that’s a problem in our system of democracy that someone like a sack of hammers, who would be an above average to great president, could never be elected.
Interestingly, the place where a sack of hammers would excel the most would be the post presidency. If you’re Habitat for Humanity and want to build a bunch of houses, which would be more useful to you: another Jimmy Carter or a sack full of hammers?
You should be ashamed of yourslef draging a Sack of Hammers down to the level of Obama.
When you are a hammer everything looks like a nail.
When you are a bananna everything looks like a monkey.
When you are a dollar everything looks like Obama.
No wonder businesses wont spend money.
I disagree with your premise that he has “tried a number of things to help the country domestically and in the area of foreign affairs.” At best he has done a number of things to try to help Obama. At worst he has tried to do a number of things to destroy this country.
A sack of hammers would rack up far less in transportation costs too. You can ship a sack of hammers from DC to Martha’s Vinyeard for $10 or $15 bucks, and the Mrs Sack-of-Hammers won’t insist on taking a separate flight.
But really, instead of a sack of hammers, shouldn’t we be comparing Obama to a bag of golf clubs? Though I suppose that could get confusing. I’m not sure a 9-iron would have a better anti-terrorism policy than Barack Obama, but it would certainly be a better anti-terrorism policy.
A sack of hammers would never had nominated Kagan or the “Wise Latina” to the Supreme Court. Advantage hammers.
A sack of hammers would never had signed the Dodd-Frank bill . Advantage hammers.
A sack of hammers would never bankrupt the coal industry or make energy costs necessarily skyrocket. Advantage hammers.
A sack of hammers would never attend Harvard Law School. Advantage hammers.
you said it Dave M. and so very true. I spent a couple of tours in South Korea. love the people,
Wrong . Sack of hammers may have been admitted to Haaarvard Law on affirmative action programe . Problem sack of hammers cannot use a Teleprompter . Why , is Obama the only president who refuses to have his undergraduate grades released ? Aback of hammer would not have negated that .
Wrong . Sack of hammers may have been admitted to Haaarvard Law on affirmative action program. Problem though, sack of hammers cannot read off a Teleprompter . Why is Obama ( our most”intellent / genius”president ever)the only president who refuses to have his undergraduate grades released ? A sack of hammers would not have negated that . A sack of hammers would take less vacations and be worse in university basketball point spread deliberations .
The comparison is patently unfair.
It could be remedied by filling the sack with hammers…and sickles.
The sack of hammers and sickles would never, ever….ever…go on an apology tour, essentially slandering the entire history of the nation.
The sack of hammers and sickles would not treat terrorist attacks as “merely police matters, to be absorbed”, and/or worry about the rights of sworn enemies engaged in guerrilla warfare against the nation.
The sack of hammers and sickles wouldn’t tell a nation of self-governing patriot that they have to purchase goods and services, whether they want to or not…and that they have to find out what this means by passing legislation before they find out what’s in it.
The sack of hammers and sickles wouldn’t put the Workers’ Party ahead of the line of creditors in the auto industry takeover, would they?
The sack of hammers and sickles wouldn’t start a war,….er, please pardon the slip…a kinetic trigger finger spasm, without Congressional approval, would it?
The sack of hammers and sickles wouldn’t turn its back on every key ally, it wouldn’t have any allies…only axis powers waiting to be wielded.
A sack of hammers, a new analogy to me, is as silly and as good as any other, I suppose, in setting up comparisons a la Frank Capra’s It’s A Wonderful Life – what would the difference had been if Obama had never been born (the wish of millions of Americans) The comparison should have been projected to his departure and the cost of fumigating the White House for the new president.
Or even if he had never been born in the manner supposedly recorded in the “official” records of Hawaii!
“President Barack Obama is an Ivy League-educated man of considerable intelligence and ambition who has surrounded himself with numerous experts to help in his decision-making. With these advantages, he has tried a number of things to help the country domestically and in the area of foreign affairs.”
Actually, I am forced to take issue with the premise, here.
First of all, President Obama may have attended Harvard, but I see no evidence he actually learned anything there. If he did, it casts grave doubt on what has passed for education at Harvard for the last half-century.
Second, he shows little evidence of actual intelligence. An adherence to dogma in spite of all evidence to the contrary is generally considered just the opposite.
On the third point, ambition, we are in full agreement. I have rarely seen anyone, even a politician, with ambitions to be a deity.
Fourth, he has surrounded himself not with experts, but with sycophants who to a man (and woman) think exactly as he does. The result is groupthink on a level rarely seen in the Western world; you generally have to go to Third World countries to see a “Maximum Leader” with this sort of Greek chorus being passed off as “expert help”.
Fifth, exactly none of these things are advantageous to a leader. Anyone who believes they are (as Obama apparently does) is manifestly unqualified to “lead” anything. In fact, I’d say the individual in question would require a map, compass, GPS, six satellite fixes, and a platoon of Boy Scouts all with the Orienteering merit badge to find his own backside with both hands.
Sixth, I see no evidence that Obama ever intended to “help” this country, either domestically or overseas. His intent has always been to first punish us for our “sins”, and then remake us into something more to his own liking. This is “help” only in the sense that the Holy Inquisition “helped” people to become Catholic- or else.
We do, however, agree on one thing. A bag of hammers would be a more effective and useful leader than Obama. But then, as my mother used to say, so would a hobo off the railroad track.
clear ether
eon
eon you said it so right. I am in total agreement with you. I can’t see harvard bragging about obama being a graduate,
hi,
I was going to write a much more lengthy post – but as a scrolled down to the bottom of the page it seems that eon stole my thunder. He pretty much nailed my point. Allow me to restate it clearly and concisely state it one more – to borrow this core analogy – to hit the nail once more on the head.
Extracted from the original article:
“President Barack Obama is a(n)… man of considerable intelligence and…
Upon what do we base that premise? Really. I ask this in all humility and in all seriousness. Upon what do we base the assumption that Obama has a greater than room temperature IQ – other than the fact that he tells us he does? We have absolutely zero academic records. No college or academic writings (his rather sophomoric books are very arguably ghost written) – no test results(IQ, SAT, GRE, LSAT etc). No fellow students have come forward to discuss their experience with Obama as a peer – on one can recall having Obama as an instructor. There are no measureable achievements from any position he has held (the most we have from Obama is a list of reasons why OTHERS prevented him from being successful). We are told his greatest gift is that of an orator – but he has the demonstrated complete lack of ability to speak extemporaneously. Absent the TPOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) he is more uncomfortable than a 1st year freshman speech student.
I am asking this in all seriousness. THis really escapes me completely. What has this guy demonstrated, done or said that would lead any reasonable person to assume he has more than an average IQ?
I’ve asked that same question, what makes anyone think Obama is intelligent. The question is usually answered, “Oh, he’s obviously intelligent,” which is really a non-answer.
I don’t blame him for being nervous without his ‘prompter; after all, he has been wedded to it for a very long time (I wish we had better video of him speaking to ACORN, pre-politics–was he using it then?). But obviously his words could have been written by anyone. Literally anyone.
This situation speaks well for ending affirmative action. Without affirmative action we could assume that he had earned his way, grade-wise, and deserved all that he accomplished. As it is, we have no evidence that it was anything other than affirmative action, along with a bit of white guilt, that brought him to such heights.
Shame, isn’t it.
I tend to believe that the presumption of intelligence on The One’s part was mainly a knee-jerk reaction on the part of the media and academia. He was a progressive (in fact, from all accounts a hardcore Alinskyite socialist), had all the proper liberal credentials (Harvard, etc.), and on top of it he was of an “acceptable ethnicity”. And oh yes, as an academic, the “enlightened elite’” in journalism and the faculty lounge regarded him as “one of our own”.
With all of the above, they had to automatically assume that he was not merely intelligent, but a genius and/or possibly even divinely inspired. (I.e., the whole “Lightworker” meme’, which was taken in toto from the UFO contactee movement.) If they were to question his brilliance, not only would it be “racist” (due to his ethnicity), but they would also have been compelled to question their own brilliance. Which simply was not going to happen, and I seriously doubt ever will.
Also, another knee-jerk reaction was probably in play. The one that states that whenever a (liberal, Democratic) U.S. Senator announces he is running for President, he automatically is anointed “The Smartest Man In The Senate” by the news media. In the past, this benediction has been bestowed on everybody from Ted Kennedy to Eugene McCarthy- to John Kerry. (Aka “Ted Kennedy’s Sock Puppet”- has anyone else noticed that Kerry has been conspicuously silent since Ted’s no longer around to tell him what to think?)
The theory is, again, anyone with all the right credentials cannot be anything less than perfect in every way.
The fact that such “enlightened thought leaders” tend to fail very badly in the real world never seems to register with our best and brightest. After all, in their mental universe, as long as they are “one of their own” and have all the right opinions, even an utter incompetent is better than those (assumed to stupid, bigoted, and dangerously insane) “reactionaries” in the GOP and Flyover Country.
It’s all a matter of the assumptions they begin with. And refuse to let themselves be swayed from by reality.
cheers
eon
Well said.
The disturbing and alarming thing to me is the education level/mental state of all of those who voted for him on the basis of….only….”charisma”?
What have we come to?…..electing someone like Obama?
Stephanopolis of ABC was in the same law class the same year as nObama,
He , Stephanopolis,said on TV, he never Saw ,heard or read about the community liar the years he spend in his class. We really know NOTHING about this impostor.
Obama knows an awful lot, unfortunately what he knows is usually wrong. Obama speaks very well, unfortunately what he says is usually nonsense.
Actually, Obama speaks very poorly. He makes many noun/verb, noun/pronoun errors and he also mispronounces many words. Without his teleprompter, his language is a mess.
I do agree, however, that “what he knows is usually wrong”!
That Obama is a man of “considerable intelligence” has been supported by nothing except the claims of the left and their lapdogs in media.
There is one common thread to almost every Obama argument or speech that is evidence of a weak mind: The Straw Man Argument.
It is a rare day when Obama discusses an issue with insight, and almost every interview, speech or statement that comes from his mouth is limited to his position versus the Straw Man’s position.
“In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis — the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems…”
Who has ever said that tax cuts alone will solve all problems? The Straw Man.
“What I reject is when some folks, all they’ve got to say is, let’s go back and do the things that we were doing that got us into this mess in the first place.”
Who are “some folks” who want to do that? I have not heard anybody say such a thing…unless it was The Straw Man.
“There are some in Washington who want us to go down the path that we’ve already traveled for the last decade or so — a path where we just throw up our hands and say, oh, this is too hard, too tough, we can’t do it.”
Well… Yes, I think I have heard somebody say let’s just throw up our hands because it is too tough. The Straw Man said it.
The Straw Man is used by the intellectually lazy and dishonest. It is popular with them because to actually have to examine the other side of the argument takes effort. Yet, we have probably hundreds of Straw Man arguments from the person the leftists claim is the smartest President ever. Over and over, the Straw Man is quoted by our President, instead of a factual point-by-point account of why the other side is wrong.
Given that Obama uses the teleprompter for most everything (even when speaking to school children), we are left to wonder why his speech writers can’t put something other than Straw Man arguments on the teleprompter.
Maybe we would have a better understanding of the matter if Obama were to show us his school transcripts.
I DO recall one occasion when someone said it was too complicated to fix something that was quite obviously broken. It was when the Dodd-Frank legislation was passed , containing NO effort to rein in or reorganize Fannie and Freddie. It was too difficult, they said; we’ll address that “later.” But I don’t think it was Obama’s opponents who said it.
And as I understand it, Fannie and Freddie are operating in the same ol’ way and full speed ahead.
… and the reference to “numerous experts” is about as sarcastic as you can get (intentional or not!)
A Sack of Hammers would not bang on with fatuous slogans and seriously lower the US in the world’s eyes and become known as ‘President Downgrade’.
It is impossible to take seriously any article which includes the words
“President Barack Obama is an Ivy League-educated man of considerable intelligence …” I mean, one immediately assumes that one is reading another talking point from Bill O’Reilly. I kept reading only to see what great questions you proposed to the hammer.
Fleming lost me on the first sentence with that nonsense. There is a sort of reverse racism here, in which we can call an obviously stupid white man (such as Joe Biden) stupid, but we are not allowed to call an obviously stupid nonwhite man (such as Barack Hussein Obama) stupid.
He’s stupid, and that’s that. The dude can’t even call his DOG without a teleprompter.
And what’s with the huge scar on Obama’s head? Brain damage?
Do you suppose we could call his white half “stupid”?
Err. Are you ‘tards for serious?
‘Frank J. Fleming’ writes farce here. That’s his shtick.
If you think he was being serious about BoBo being even half-way ‘intelligent’ by proxy of his Affirmative Action education…ya’ll done missed the humor! har-har-har!
Well, this “‘tard” knows that he needs to work on his communication sklls if he wants to communicate to more than his three or four hardcore followers. Farce that has to be explained to the audience is like a balloon with no air. It goes nowhere.
The act of communicating requires more than just putting words on paper and laughing at one’s own cleverness. If the message is not received, the communication attempt has failed.
Briefly glancing through the comments, I see there are three or four who are staunchly defending the writer’s attempt. I suppose we have found most of his fans.
The act of communicating requires more than just putting words on paper and laughing at one’s own cleverness. If the message is not received, the communication attempt has failed.
One should consider the effectiveness of the receptor when determining the effectiveness of the projector. Perhaps Mr. Fleming’s subtle humor would have been better appreciated if it was accompanied by a blow from one of the hammers in the sack.
See, we just exposed a third Fleming-ite (one who possesses qualified receptors for the subtle Fleming humor)!
To be just a tad serious, though, does it not give you pause that most of the commenters “mis-understood” what you say was the author’s intent?
I think the article is good. However, I have a major issue with the opening sentence: “President Barack Obama is an Ivy League-educated man of considerable intelligence…”
What metric is being used to support this statement? I have read far too many people who buy into this narrative without referencing any sources for obama’s alleged intelligence.
Can someone please document how people can actually support this conclusion? I have found absolutely no indicators of above-average, let alone superior intelligence.
Exactly. Also, I’m tired of hearing that he’s a great orator. He is not. Listen carefully the next time he is reading off the teleprompter. As he switches from left to right and back again, he puts unnatural breaks in what he’s reading, until his brain takes in the words he’s supposed to say next. So, he’s not even a good reader.
He is a terrible extemporaneous speaker. He hims and haws with no natural flow to his speech and has trouble finding his next words.
Ronald Reagan was a great orator, good at thinking on his feet and coming back with zingers off the cuff. Reagan had no teleprompter.
The Gramsci-inspired academics have done a pretty good job of making leftist and intelligent into synonyms. Read anything the left writes; if you don’t agree with them it is because you are stupid.
“Perhaps that’s a problem in our system of democracy that someone like a sack of hammers, who would be an above average to great president, could never be elected.”
It’s not a problem. As long as the sack of hammers was born in the U.S.A, I would donate to, campaign and vote for a sack of hammers over this President.
Obama does somewhat better than a sack of hammers at being a leader.
Wrong again. A sack of hammers, by definition, has to lead – hammers are the first thing(s) to strike the nails. Otherwise, the nails would never be driven. Obama would never be the first to strike the nails – first he would try to sit down and talk with the nails, to see if he could get the nails to drive themselves. If that didn’t work, he’d sign an executive order appropriating billions of dollars for liberal college professors to study why the nails won’t drive themselves. Then, he’d send even more billions to the nails so they could build the proper infrastructure to create an environment in which nails feel good about driving themselves. All of that failing, after billions of dollars spent and failed negotiations, he’d send in Seal Team 6, then claim credit for the nails being stricken and driven on his watch.
AMEN and sooo very true Rock,
Hilarious! Thanks for the laughs!
he’d send in Seal Team 6, then claim credit for the nails being stricken and driven on his watch.
RTT, you are a wise man. Here is how I know:
When a meal is finished, a wise man understands that the cutting board absorbed the blows and the pot absorbed the flames….but the fool compliments the empty platter.
Oh Please. Hammers don’t drive nails. People do.
Jesus Agrees!
What? Too soon?
Hilarious. You should be writing for PJTV!
RockThisTown;
I think the end result would be intervention by the United Nailers. (U.N.)
“It’s not a problem. As long as the sack of hammers was born in the U.S.A, I would donate to, campaign and vote for a sack of hammers over this President.”
Ah, another Romney supporter.
Not necessarily – just an “anyone but Obama” supporter. But thanks for playing, and thanks to everyone else for the good words.
Mr. Fleming, is this a trial balloon, are the hammers going to primary Barack Obama? And the campaign slogan is “it’s hammer time!”, right? Oh this is coming together nicely.
Soon we’ll have President Thinskin and AxeMan engaging in the elevated talk they have made so famous…can’t wait to see the dueling youTube videos about who the bigger tool is. Hope & Change vs. getting things done. It’s a nice contrast. And before I forget, buying a sack of hammers generated more jobs than Obama has, are you available to serve in the hammer administration? Your country needs you.
Thanks, Frank, for your Sunday funny. Great to start the day with an essay like this.
First, though, I must disagree with your opening line:
“Barack Obama is an Ivy League-educated man of considerable intelligence and ambition….”
Obama has been (and continues to be) a “tool” for many “Intelligent” people. Therefore he has equality with a sack of hammers. But, oddly enough, I’ve never seen a sack of hammers give vacuous speeches.
Secondly, Obama hardly ever hits the nail on the head. This takes an artisan with direct knowledge of how a hammer works; Harvard doesn’t teach this, and Obama has no innate skills of expertise. Advantage; Hammers.
Third; Obama “flies off the handle” like a poorly constructed, or worn out hammer. When this happens, things get damaged and feelings get hurt requiring repairs. It’s a draw in this respect.
And last. I’ve had ball peen and claw hammers in my tool box forever, and never once was there any animosity of one toward the other. Even though they have clearly very different abilities, and one is discolored by rust while the other is chrome plated, they still get along. I’ve never had the experience of having to break up a fight between a ball peen and a sledge that came from different neighborhoods, and couldn’t understand each other. And I’ve never had a hammer refuse to work. Clear advantage to all hammers in this respect. And I thank them for that loyalty and dependability.
For next Sunday morning, could you do an essay on comparing Biden to a box of rocks?
Well a hammer can either be a force for good or evil. It can hammer the nail, or nail a skull. Obama’s success depends upon what the definition of success is. If its to bury the U.S. in debt and to take over healthcare and the financial industries, he has been wildly successful. But, the operative question is, will we be able to undo all the damage?
I don’t think the Constitution specifies that the president has to be human. I would definitely vote for the hammers if it gets the Republican nomination. Or maybe my 8-pound Oreck. It can suck all day but it still doesn’t suck as much as you-know-who.
Let’s see. A sack of hammers sees every problem as a bag of nails. The president sees every problem as an opportunity to treat a crisis, “bitter clingers”, opponents and the economy as if they were bags of nails. Virtual tie.
I have a Hammer Slammer – a nice solid body electric guitar -perhaps it could be President –
and it could appoint a Hammer Czar to play it – perhaps the president of Gibson Guitars – a Rosewood and Ebony Gibson guitar could be VP – and go on to be President in the next term –
Cabinet heads all from successful private small business
what a wonderful world that would be — – –
Erm, isn’t Gibson being shut down by the DoJ for allegedly endangering hardwood forests in India by importing wood unfinished in India by Indian workers? Would a sack of hammers attempt the same or just let other tools do what they do best?
yes, that was my point – was trying to be humerus
nobody ever laughs at my jokes – even on a humor thread – it’s frustrating
Credit where it is due: Obama is better at throwing parties — and golfing — than a sack of hammers.
Uh, sorry, these two don’t count. They’re beneficial to America only to the extent that planning/attending parties or playing golf may keep Obama from issuing orders to his czars, to the Dem half of Congress, or to any of his hand-picked regulators. I’m afraid that is not enough “time away from the office” to accomplish the effect that most Americans desire or from which they might benefit.
Four out of five sacks of hammers surveyed said the Japanese earthquake and tsunami were not to blame for the USA’s economic troubles.
Okay, your analysis looks good, but how does he stack up against a box of rocks?
Either a box of rocks or a bag of hammers would make a better president than Obama. Now, as to how the Box of Rocks compares to the Bag of Hammers… wait, how did we get to talking about the GOP primaries?
“Box of rocks vs bag of hammers”? Nah, I think Newt will be gone soon. The “bag of squirrels” might still be around by primary time though.
I agree with many of the commenters here. The narrative that he is an intelligent man is way overblown. Plus a sack of hammers would be far more useful in helping to build stuff.
This guy’s mindset is redistribution, not creation of wealth. I can take a hammer, build something, and create wealth.
Great article.
How come Perry’s grades have been released and we see nothing of obama’s?
I agree with those above. I see nothing that tells me he is so smart. He can’t even give a commencement address without his potus. The people he surrounds himself with are the same kind of people who have influenced him all his life – wright, ayers, rozco, farrakhan, davis etc. Why did anyone ever think that with these people who were his mentors and buddies that he wouldn’t be the disaster he has been?
The answer to your question lies in another question: Why have Perry’s grades been leaked and Bachmann’s have not?
Those who leak such things from academia are Leftists.
BTW, I bet Bachmann could give herself quite a boost by releasing her grades. I’d sure like to see Romney’s grades, too. And Cain’s and Paul’s. It would be a rather interesting discussion.
Hammers are sturdy usefull tools that have been revered for ages as a means of accomplishing numerous tasks for mankind. Even a favorable comparison of hammers with the obimination in the White House insults the hammers. A better example would be a sack of common dirt.
Even a favorable comparison of hammers with the obimination in the White House insults the hammers. A better example would be a sack of common dirt. ==> Don’t you mean dog dirt? i.e. canine feces?
Frank, in stating that “President Barack Obama is an Ivy League-educated man of considerable intelligence…”, is using the rhetorical technique generally known by the Latin phrase diripiendam mallei by recognizing that his column is not about Obama’s intelligence or education, but simply about whether a sack of hammers would make a better President.
SACK OF HAMMERS 2012!
Because if you’re going to have a tool as president, you might as well have a REAL tool!
Well, yea; Obama could be compared to a DEMOLITION HAMMER.
Dohbama is more akin to a sack of sh*t. But, sadly, even a sack of caca is more useful because it can be used as fertilizer to help a garden grow.
Doh is more like sludge that gums up the gears of an otherwise perfectly working instrument.
LOL several times!
Delia; I like your extravagant description.
My dad always said, “You can’t burnish a turd”.
well turds can be used to as fertilizer and make usefull food. and “Mythbusters” showed that poop can be burnished to a high gloss finish under the correct conditions
Tom;
You must be eating those new high tech Japanese steaks. Good luck with that!
Glad I could give you a n’yuck! Sadly, I’d take a brass turd over Doh-boyyyyy any ol’ day, CG!
This reminds me of a the definition of a Liberal:
One who believes he can pick up a turd by the clean end.
The Obama 2012 campaign is akin to ‘putting mustard in a turd’.
The Obama 2012 campaign is akin to ‘putting mustard on a turd’.
“Must-Turd” 2012! lmao
If the only tool you have is a hammer, then you tend to see every problem as a nail.
Obama’s hammer for every problem is more government.
Ergo: tie.
Mr. Fleming;
Looks like you’re getting “hammered” for the “Obama’s intelligent” line.
Constitutionally both the sack and the hammers have to be made in USA and at least 35 years old.
These quibbles remain: how many hammers to be put in the sack? Are they Republican or Democratic hammers? Is the sack Republican or Deomcratic? Are the lot bipartisan?
“President Barack Obama is an Ivy League-educated man of considerable intelligence”
-this is where I get off, Frank.
Not so fast. Let’s analyze the sentence:
“President Barack Obama is an Ivy League-educated man of considerable intelligence”
President Barack Obama: Indeed, the current President goes by the name Barack Obama. Whether that is in fact his name, or where he was actually born is occasionally in doubt, but for now “President Barack Obama” is plausibly accurate.
is: granted, this is a problematic word when dealing with Dem Presidents. We can’t be sure what the meaning of is is.
an Ivy League-educated: As with the birth records, there’s a potential issue here with a lack of documentation, but it is reasonable to claim that Obama received an “education” from an Ivy League school. Of course, one needs to use the modern definition of “education” as practiced by the type of folks who run Ivy League institutions these days, by which they really mean “indoctrination” but the meanings of words do change over time. After all, at one point in our nation’s history, a “gay liberal” would’ve meant a happy person opposed to government tyranny.
man: Doesn’t act much like one, but the idea of a woman as ugly as that gives me the creeps so I’ll assume this one is true.
of considerable intelligence: This is the sticker. Usually the idiom “considerable intelligence” implies greater than average, but if we use a literally reading, it simply means his intelligence is worth considering, and at this point, polls seem to indicate there are a whole bunch of people who voted from him that are wishing they’d considered his intelligence more carefully before casting that ballot.
So, aside from being usure of the meaning of “is” I think the statement is plausable. Of course, so is “Barry Sotelo is a socialist indoctrinated jerk of questionable character” but I think Frank was trying to keep it from being a total walk-over for the sack of hammers
Exactly, JMH.
My cat has enough ‘considerable intelligence’ to know how to use a cat-box.
Give a two-year-old a hammer and everything starts to look like a nail.
I can see the bumper stickers now.
““President Barack Obama is an Ivy League-educated man of considerable intelligence”
–
On lawyer shows, the usual response to such assertions is “Objection Your Honour! Assuming facts not in evidence!”
“The obvious first problem President Obama had to deal with when taking office was the failing economy.”
But, review of the actual economic data shows that the recession began about the same time as the Null announced & the economy really tanked after he got the Dhimmicrat nomination.
.
Also — with a sack of hammers, you would only need 1 plane to fly on vacation. The theoretical Mrs. Sack would fit in the same plane (and would also not fly to Spain & The Sack of Hammer’s home country on her own). Also the sack of hammer’s dog wouldn’t need its own plane when it went on vacation.
Quibbles: Leadership: Obama is not a better leader than the Hammers, he is better at parroting TOTUS.
Debt: The Hammers would not need to raise the debt ceiling, they would never rake up another trillion or so debts, that according to Obama, would be unpatriotic. We know our Hammers are patriotic.
Based upon all the comments, I would say Obama is MT Hammer
A sack of hammers as president? But it couldn’t sign a budget bill every year!
Oh wait … Obama has never signed a budget either.
OOOOH! BURN!
Added bonus, Sack of Hammers would sign ZERO Laws. So it’d take 2/3′s veto overrule to get anything passed.
Sadly, no it doesn’t work that way. Unless Congress is not in session (pocket veto), the president not signing a bill is not a veto – the law takes effect after 10 days. Since the sack of hammers’ likely response to receiving a bill is fairly predictable, Congress can insure a pocket veto will not occur, so no net change there. Indeed, given that Obama’s general position on major legislation was “give me something I can sign”, I suspect a sack of hammers would have had about the same impact on the stimulus and health care legislation as Obama (i.e. none).
Excellent commentary, Frank!
Though the phrase ‘a sack of hammers’ has kind of a diminutive, clingy, rustic, American Gothic’ tone to it. Wouldn’t a more modern, nay ‘Hip’ and ‘Simpson’s'-ish phrase be more relevant; perhaps, an inanimate carbon rod?
I beg to differ with those who think that Harvard is not proud of Obama. I hear
they are planning a statue in his honor. The pigeons demand it.
Can you please correct “false bravado” to “bravado” or “false bravery.” Either one. But the term as you use it is an error introduced in the lyrics of the 70s hit “Baby Come Back” by Player and should be avoided.
Part of the meaning of “bravado” is that the sentiment is not genuine. It doesn’t require a negative, and to add one would mean that subject is pretending to exhibit a feigned bravery. TV detective Columbo exhibited false bewilderment, which means not that he was extra bewildered, but that his bewilderment was an act.
Frank writes farce. He’s not ‘supposed’ to be specific or logical.
Where in the hell is your funny bone?
BTW, if you call Barry ‘stupid’…that’s already a double-negative since people have recently been calling anyone who makes a huge mistake [or disaster] an “0bama”, as in, “Oh sh*t, Larry! You totally ’0bama’d’ that job to hell!”
*pinches your funny-bone*
Mr President, I served with a sack of hammers. I know sacks of hammers. A sack of hammers is a friend of mine. President Obama, you’re NO sack of hammers.
I’ve also worked with bright bulbs.
Barrack, you are NO bright bulb!
I’ve also worked with full six packs.
Barack, you are short 3 beers of a six pack!
I’ve also worked with trained zombies.
Barack, you are UNtrained!
Nice shot, Buck!
Frank, don’t give the Norwegian Nobel Committee any ideas or soon they will be awarding a “sack of hammers” the Nobel peace prize. ;p
A sack of hammers would never need a teleprompter. Advantage sack of hammers.
Did anyone see the dig at Obama in the latest episode of Futurama, entitled Cold Warriors?
In a flashback scene set in New York in 1988, Fry and his family are having their Thanksgiving dinner at a pizza parlour and Fry’s father tells him that he has no chance of winning the science fair. He says “Son, someone with your limited brain power would be lucky to get a job as a pizza delivery boy!”. Just then, the proprietor of the pizza joint yells “Hey, Barack, pizza goin’ out. Come on!”. An adult-looking black man, presumably Barack Obama, enters the scene, grabs the pizza and leaves, declaring “Man, I’ve got to go back to law school.” Fry, overhearing this, turns to his brother and points at Obama, snorting “Man, I’m not going to wind up a loser like that guy!”. His brother responds “Sure you will.”
I’m going to write in for the Oklahoma standard, “a sack of door knobs.” Door knobs perhaps have less utility than hammers but the brass ones can be shined up and some have pretty glass bits. Thus the press will be more likely to support the sack of door knobs more so than they would the sack of hammers. So many in the press do not know what a hammer is. Quite a few of them have recently had doorknobs impact their behinds so they know what a door knob is.
I must disagree vehemently with your assessment on the Gulf Oil spill. A sack of hammers would never have made the energy sector job killing decision to ban deep-water drilling. Sack of hammers FTW!
A sack of hammers could not throw a party at the white house like Obama
But at the party a sack of hammers could dance better than Obama.
There’s a very serious point here, which is that in a country as complex and interconnected as the US is, the damage that is possible from any presidential action is enormous. Witness the last 33 months in the US.
If you agree, one might logically conclude that any and every action would be taken only after careful study, particularly of history, since other than the AGW climate modelors and the odd unexpected economist, nobody really knows what will happen.
And to be prudent, one wouldn’t take any sweeping actions, either. The smart approach would be to try something on a small scale, for example, in a state, and after observing the results, like say in Massachusetts for Gubamint Health Care, or California for unfettered spending, proceed based on the results in the more limited case.
This alone, inho, is enough to impeach Obama.
Sack of Hammers ! He”s dumber than a box of Rocks!
But more entertaining!
a better comparison would be to a bag of drek.
The sack of hammers is clever, but not apt. “Swamp Thing” and “cfbleachers pretty much nailed the truth.
Like bullets, hammers have no motive.
However, Obama is a highly intelligent, highly educated, highly communist-leaning American hater whose motive is to destroy this country financially, politically militarily, culturally; really in every way possible. All the socialists Obama’s gathered around him, like Hitler’s brown shirts in the 1930′s are on Obama’s bandwagon.
Obama wants to see this country lose its exceptional status, its reputation for being the land of the free and the home of the brave. Its ability to save the world from those who would enslave it.
A little Obama history might be necessary.
Third week in office, Obama had Holder state to the world that white American males are cowards when it comes to race. Why would they say this? Was this the start of trying to make Americans seeing themselves not as patriots who believe in freedom, but as racist snakes crawling in the grass?
In a larger sense since then, Holder’s every Obama-directed-step was and is to damage this country, from not securing our borders, to reneging on the promise to make us energy independent, to not enforcing our election laws, to lying about their approval of operation “Fast and Furious, to damaging our national psyche, to being a slave to Soros and the social communists running America’s Labor Unions.
Instead of filling this page with Holder/Obama misfeasance after misfeasance, though; (the one that irks me the most is letting states avoid the law that says soldiers fighting a war must be given time to vote), I prefer to use my words to hammer home a slightly different point.
To amplify on Obama’s scienter. Intent.
In my view, Obama’s every move since lying through his pearly whites during the oath of office has been directed at weakening America. At that, he’s done a bang up job.
The most dangerous step Obama plans to take may leave anyone who thinks I’m on the right track about Obama’s desire to see this country die a painful, bankrupt death, doubting my ability to think critically. I’ll risk your derision.
Maybe this is something that’s even too scary for most readers of PJM to contemplate, but I feel everything is building up to this. It’ll probably happen about 2 months before election day.
In some form, it will involve a nuclear attack, maybe a pulse bomb attack on New York.
I know how a hammer would react, and I know how Obama would react. The same way. Obama’s incapable of grabbing the football and launching a nuclear response no matter how cock sure the evidence was regarding from whence an attack came.
My larger point is that until we get a non-mole in the white house, we live under no nuclear deterrent. I know Russia finds it hard to believe. I know that no terrorist believes it completely. But a nuclear attack on America from one dirty bomb planted on Madison Ave. and 43rd street in NYC, to a full scale nuclear attack on Nebraska, Colorado, NY, Chicago and Los Angeles would get no retaliatory response from America because Obama would love to see this country destroyed in all matter shape and form.
Ten years ago, Obama wrote and spoke about destroying the country from within. Well, folks, now he’s realizing and other countries and terrorists are realizing the same thing. With one difference. The U.S. with Obama in command is vulnerable as a babe in the woods to attack from without. If America were attacked by a thousand Muslims armed with hammers or a hundred ICBM’s, Obama would have the same response to retaliation.
Nothing. Local police might respond. But, folks, that’s about it.
For many, this is the unthinkable. But from naming Rick Perry as the Republican front runner two years ago, from predicting Holder’s response to the Black Panther election day voter intimidation attack on America; folks, from one prediction to another I’ve been dead on. Read six years of Rachel Peepers’ writings all over the internet, and you’ll see I’m not just whistling Dixie. I know about what I speak. Michael Connelly, lawyer, teacher, author; a former soldier with a Marine officer son who led the fight in Afghanistan would be the closest to my view of the world. If you want, check out his website, google: “Michael Connelly, texas lawyer”.
With plausible deniability, President Bush, said he had no knowledge how Michael and I worked with an internet team which had the support of Roy Hoffmann, admiral of the Swifties. And proceeded to expose John Kerry for the hero he never was; for the liar he’s always been; for his ploy to get an early personal out from Vietnam, fulfilling his short stay in Vietnam so Kerry could later use it as a political claim of being a war hero.
It’s all there if anybody digs deep to see check on my veracity although Michael and I have left our tracks pretty well covered at the request of the Bush team, but to a good tracker, their findable.
What I’ve found out about the intent of Barack Obama to destroy this country I know some of you will disagree with. Hannity, O’reilly, Hewitt, Fran Porretto, Michelle Malkin are five leading conservatives who dance around it, but either aren’t sure of Obama’s true intent or don’t think the American public is ready to hear it. The irony is that Rachel Peepers has been shouting it from the rooftops.
Who are you kidding? Obama as intelligent as Hitler? Thank God he’s not.
It’s always the same with you, isn’t it? I don’t think you even CARE about Obama. You’re just obsessed with trying to prove your self-proclaimed ability to predict.
And like all charlatans, you refuse to describe how you do it. It seems that you want us to believe that you are doing some kind of brilliant detective work – as opposed to being psychic – but you make up a vague explanation of why you don’t dare share your techniques. I suppose that is your attempt to create a mystique about yourself.
Personally, I’m not buying it and I don’t think I’m alone in this assessment. Please stick to expressing your opinions and drop the omniscient act. I’m sure you put your pants on one leg at a time, just like the rest of us. Don’t give yourself airs.
rachel, dear;
You need to read Frank Flemings essay on “Tips for Not Appearing Crazy on the Internet”.
Aww. Go easy on Rachael. She has always been super sweet and supportive to me here. Ya’ll just got to let her get her rants out.
Mr. Fleming;
It must really be discouraging to see so many with the degree of humor impairment as shown here.
Is this a result of the Obama administration too?
Have I missed some new legislation where it’s politically incorrect to laugh? Not that I care or will comply, just for information.
It’s hard to find good satire these days, and I consider yours to be some of the best. I guess that’s why you write here at PJM.
Thanks for the comic relief. And please, write more.
I think people are so stressed out they don’t know when to let out a good “Guffaw” sadly.
I’m glad you’ve kept your sense o’ humor, CG. It’s always nice to have a fellow ‘class clown’ so to speak. he-he!
Now if you had compared the Obama 2.8 yrs. with that of Lenin or Stalin say around 1921 or Castro from ’60 to ’65, or perhaps Mugabe in Zimbabwe from his inception, that would have made more sense. After all, a sack of hammers might equal legit free enterprise work. Not so with our Socialist in Chief.
It’s just possible that I have proof that Obama was intellectually engaged for at least one brief moment of his life a little over 30 years ago. I don’t put a lot of stock in this but there is a moment in one of the Free to Choose episodes from 1980 where you get a brief look at an audience member who has a definite resemblance to Barack Obama.
As you probably know, Milton Friedman did a 10 part series called Free to Choose for PBS in 1980 (and a followup series of 5 episodes in 1990). Episode 3 of the 1980 series has a moment near the end where the camera moves to show you a bit of the audience. One young man who rather resembles Obama is sitting close to the discussion, leaning forward eagerly – but with a strange vacant glaze in his eyes – at about 46 minutes and 39 seconds into the episode. You get quite a clear look at him from fairly close up but it’s a rather brief look so you may not be able to make up your mind.
I’m probably mistaken and it’s just some other African-American student but there’s just a chance it is him. I’m not sure when the lecture that forms the last half of the episode was filmed but it was probably 1979 or 1980 and it was definitely at the University of Chicago. I don’t know where Obama was living then but, even if he wasn’t living in Chicago yet, he could have been in town visiting and dropped in for the lecture. Or not. Anyway, if you get a chance, have a look for yourself and post your opinion here. I’d be very interested in hearing your opinion about whether this is Obama. The glimpse happens while Peter Jay, the British ambassador to the US, is answering a question about whether a Great Depression could ever happen again.
Of course, even if this is Obama, it proves very little about his intelligence. For all we know, he only went because he lost a bet, not because he was interested in anything Friedman had to say. But in the absence of any academic records, it may be the only proof we have that he ever had an “intellectual moment” in any of the years he spent during his formal education.
Well, you’ve got the finger at exactly 46:39
That’s a smoking gun imho.
And he always had plenty of money to travel around like a prince. Africa, Pakistan, Europe; all apparently on the dough he earned at Baskins and Robbins one summer (if you can even believe that part), so Chicago doesn’t seem like much of a problem to explain away. And it might have been filmed at another location anyway.
Those were the years when he was in full-blown indoctrination mode. Learning about the enemy would have had to be a part of his training.
Now that Hurricane Irene is largely past, we do have to give some credit to Obama. Thanks to Obama and his economic policies, many storefronts were saved from damage because they have been boarded up for months.
Sparky, you’re probably not just clueless; you’re probably also toothless.
LMAO!
All I can write today; reading all the posts, is that, yes, Obama is the sack of hammers and we are the nails.
“President Barack Obama is an Ivy League-educated man of considerable intelligence…”
Prove it.
I have a sack of hammers AND an 18 year old grandson, either of which is more useful, more intelligent, more effective, more dependable, more honest, more American and more enjoyable by a long shot than BO is.
And unless you have extensive personal experience with useless hammers, you have absolutely no business dragging them into the discussion at all, as though there were any possibility that he was a better deal than they. Hmmmmph.
A Sack of Hammer vs the Sad Sack.
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-sad-sack-1
Sack of Hammers in 2012! Because America has been hammered enough by amateurs!
It seems that critics of Obama fall into one of two categories: A: Obama is an incompetent, plain and simple and has no idea how to run a country. B: Obama is sly, cunning and deceitful and is using his charms to consciously ruin this country. It appears that most critical articles fall into only one of the two categories. Of course, there is a third choice, all of the above. It’s quite possible that Obama is BOTH incompetent as a leader AND has bad intentions for the country. The longer I experience this administration, the more I agree with the third choice. And the sadder I am knowing that Americans actually put this pile of crap into the most powerful office on the planet. How sad for our country.
This analogy is priceless. Only in America…
Let’s return to to campaign days when media folks noted he had a higher IQ than other presidents (though never enumerated), had an impressive crease in his pants, and sent tingles up a grown man’s leg. Sack of hammers never had a chance.
And even if the sack could somehow pound a message out via some kind of code, it would get unmercifully hammered for stating something like:
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
Barack Obama videotaped San Francisco Chronicle interview, January 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4
Of course, Frank stacks the deck against Obama by eliminating the questions where he would do really well.
For instance, if the President fell on your foot, Barak Obama would be unlikely to break any of your toes (being the lightweight that he is). But the sack of hammers would probably have you in a cast for a few weeks, and a walking boot for a while after that.
President falling on your foot: Advantage Barack Obama by a wide margin.
Hey there Barry, is that a sack of hammers in your pocket, or are you just glad to see the economy suck?
Obama’s done a pretty good job considering the animosity from the Republicans, and lies told about him by the Tea Party. Be nice if they would put their hatreds aside while they did the country’s business.
Some things, like getting us out of Afghanistan & Iraq aren’t happening fast enough. (The wars Bush got us into)
The bailouts and stimulus (which Bush did as well) weren’t enough to prevent what’s happening, but it did slow it down and preventing a compete collapse.
The economy isn’t Obama’s fault, but he certainly seems powerless or out of ideas to fix it.
You have to remember – Obama is president only because people wanted no more of Bush and the GOP. So its hard to believe the GOP is no the answer to our problems.
I only hope the Republicans nominate someone sane to vote for, and not some nut job like Palin, Perry, or Bachmann. Don’t force me to vote for Obama.
Tell you what compdoc, how about you just write in “Sack of Hammers” on your ballot next year, then you won’t have to worry about who the GOP nominates.
If you’re finding salvation in your ignorance, go for it.
About the same as his performance against a box of rocks. Box of rocks would not have signed the health care bill – even a box of rocks isn’t THAT dumb.
However, we could replace Pajamas Media with Hamster dance and the country would be no worse off.
Disagree on the tie over the gulf oil spill. A sack of hammers would not have:
(a) prevented states from defending their coastlines from oil because to do so would violate EPA rules, and because barges did not have the prerequisite number of life preservers, and
(b) reacted by banning all offshore oil drilling, ignoring a court order not to do that, and decimating the industry, putting tens of thousands of workers out of work and making us more dependent on foreign oil.
(Not to mention that a sack of hammers would not have gone and encouraged deep-water drilling in another country at the same time as banning it in his own country!)
Sack of hammers beats Obama on the oil spill hands down!!
Most hammers are “of color” and that makes this racist.
He’s a sack of something. I’d rather have the hammers.