A Different Kind of Blog

news and things sacred and irreverent put together by opinionated people.

Hail to The Chief (remember when america was patriotic?)

Posted by dorian on September 8, 2009

For those who are still patriotic and respect the office of President of the United States, here are the lyrics to the song. For the others – the birthers, the deathers and all those suffering from Obamaphobia in this country, substitute the word “Fail” for “Hail”.

Hail to the Chief we have chosen for the nation,
Hail to the Chief! We salute him, one and all.
Hail to the Chief, as we pledge cooperation
In proud fulfillment of a great, noble call.
Yours is the aim to make this grand country grander,
This you will do, that’s our strong, firm belief.
Hail to the one we selected as commander,
Hail to the President! Hail to the Chief! *

they played this song for Bush. when Bush was slandered, those people were called unpatriotic or anti-american. the current president has been called every slanderous name in the book and then some. these people are calling themselves patriotic and american. there is something very wrong with this picture. let me be the first to call these people unpatriotic and anti-american.


*Lyrics by Albert Gamse

Verses from Sir Walter Scott‘s The Lady of the Lake, including “Hail to the Chief who in triumph advances!” were set to music around 1821 by the songwriter James Sanderson (c. 1769- c. 1841. Lyrics that were written by Albert Gamse are set to James Sanderson’s music.


13 Responses to “Hail to The Chief (remember when america was patriotic?)”

  1. dorian said

    kay, since you’re believing the birther claims you have a share in this – the birther and kill granny part. you’re right in saying those people making a lot of noise out there with their hand-made posters are stupid. you’re not one of them. you’re just kay, conservative voice of adkob. with a big bat. XO, d9


  2. obama the antichrist said

    almost anyone would say they hate bush glenn beck disdains bush…so lets stop using the bush argument he was a mistake. i say bush was a horrid president and made so many mistakes! the hatred of bush reaches every member of the political spectrum.


  3. obama the antichrist said

    patriotic is the love of ones country. people have different views of what this country is about (ie there are liberals and conservatives) so fighting against this healthcare reform is patriotic to me is unpatriotic to you.

    healthcare is all about the affording healthcare for you dorain right? so why dont we remove the law that prevents us from buying out of state insurance this provides more competition between insurances and could possibly go down. thats business. plus if one company offers coverage for unpredictable diseases such as cancer that they would cover still cover them then more people would drop their current plan to go to that one then those dropped companies would wise up and create the same coverage. its all business. that is a simple way that would have to be refined but you can toss out the 1018 page bill that few have read. make it about insurance only not about doctors.

    now on to my next point. wouldnt you agree the highest paid doctors are the most sought after? therefore making them the best. so quantity in the medical field is quality. now lets let the doctors be. now if you think doctors are making too much money then we should look at this actors are making just as much money but with less school and training. doctors have earned their money actors got a lucky break. lets punish paris hilton and lindsey lohan not the actual hard working people.


  4. Hors Service said

    OTA, it doesn’t work well. State-run protection does, in multiple countries. Not perfect, but still better. I think it’s a reasonable idea to imitate whats works abroad instead of going deeper into something that doesn’t work.

    To goes on your reasoning: one has the cancer. Cancer costs a lot of money. Therefore, if an insurance company ban those who have cancer, it will earn more money. The insurance companies that goes on covering cancer will have to increase the prime, to account for the new cancer comers. Therefore, the poor won’t be protected against cancer.
    More, some parts of the population won’t be protected against cancer, because they’re stupid and didn’t thought they could have cancer.
    Besides, the insurance companies that cover cancer are put in danger of disappearing.

    The idea of health care is that the healthy people should pay for those who are ill. Basic solidarity, basic intelligence also: everybody can have an illness, so this way everyone is protected.
    But it works only if everyone is mandated to subscribe to this health care, the healthy people as well as the ill people.
    Because if an insurance can propose lower prices, it’s always at the detriment of something: the coverage, the payments… And people will buy into that because we people are dumb and we don’t know all the subtilties of a contract.
    Companies will always be tempted to reduce costs by cutting protection, not the state.

    I think it’s a basic need of the population, therefore it should be the privilege of the state.
    Of course the system has flaws, so I think it’s good to mix a bit of boths.

    And we don’t need actors, we are free to buy their stuff or not. Doctors are essential.


  5. obama the antichrist said

    But actors are still paid millions no matter what? do they need it? that answer is a no! they make great movies but they shouldnt be paid millions for it. they barely did anything.

    Now why should the healthy pay for the ill. just like why should the rich pay for the poor. Its not the govts responsibility to force people to give money they earned. Now i am all for charity. if you want to give then by all means give give give. but if you dont want to you shouldnt have to.

    About the company thing. People would want extra protection. they would choose the best possible insurance company. its basic business if business A offers something amazing business B then more people will got to business A. The CEO of business B would be a good one and offer the same thing but at a lower price. its competition.


  6. Princessxxx said

    obama the antichrist, you seem more concerned about the welfare of the rich than anyone else.


  7. Hors Service said

    OTA, you know it doesn’t works like that, for a simple reason: the consumer is not ideally and maximally informed.
    People make mistakes.
    The people are basically, dumb. (And I include myself in the people.) We can’t be all specialists in everything.

    That’s why we will always need the State, as an union of people who agreed to designate people they believe are the more competent to lead the group.

    I’m perfectly against paying actors so much, but see, nobody is forced to watch their movies.
    It’s like soccer players.
    But if I’m ill, I must see a doctor.

    The healthy should pay for the ill because the healthy can fall ill. Same thing for the wealthy.
    But they’re human, so they tend to forget it. Charity is nice but it’s hypocrital. One shouldn’t be disadvantaged because one gives money.
    The work of the state is to make people remember it, for The Greater Good.

    Example of The Greater Good: Take a genius. He’s absolutely amazing, could invent technology marvels, makes other people rich and comfortable. But you see, he is born physically disabled and can’t afford to pay an insurance.
    What’s the result? A loss for the society.
    Other examples: Fundamental research. Not usefull today, not usefull tomorrow. Usefull only in 60 years, and nobody can know why. And no company wants to funds it. It’s the job of the State.
    There’s a lot of this examples.

    Individualism… I thought that was what you were fighting against.

    OF COURSE, the influence of the state should be limitated. That’s why there’s an optimum to be found.


  8. Enkill_Eridos said

    Oh but lets look at some incidents that happened during the Bush Administration.

    Dixie Chicks called him a f*cking moron. The next day Wal-Mart pulls Dixie Chick records off the shelves and they are called unpatriotic around the country.

    Jennifer Anniston said something similar and got death threats for being unpatriotic and a lover of “terrorists.”

    So actions these same citizens did during the Bush Administration are perfect examples to the hipocracy that is happening now. Its okay if they express thier thoughts if they are republican. But If I went to the same people and giving factual information about how well this administration is doing. I get attacked. But when they were getting attacked about thier views on the current president it was unpatriotic.

    So can you say “unpatriotic” things only as a Republican?
    Please explain this concept. Also what you’re proposing will not help the health care system. This is because you assume everyone can afford private healthcare which is only cheap if you have no preexisting conditions in many americans cases though private healthcare is about as much as a monthly mortgage payment. And if you dont have a sizable nest egg to fall back on with this economy, then its a choice between, healthcare or being able to get to work this month. So a more efficent government run system is not a bad idea. When you look at it from that perspective. This program benefits everyone. The health care bill will increase the VA medical systems abilities, as well as making the ceiling on medicare higher. This way those without mandatory employer run healthcare (which believe it or not is rare even in big companies.)


  9. kay~ms said

    I somehow missed this post… Dorian, I never said those people who are making a lot of noise and carrying signs are stupid. I was talking about the ones who purposefully disrupt town hall meetings by not letting anyone talk. Basically acting with a mob mentality. The people carrying signs are fine. And that they are speaking up is also not only fine but GOOD.

    You said: “Bush was slandered, those people were called unpatriotic or anti-american. the current president has been called every slanderous name in the book and then some. these people are calling themselves patriotic and american. there is something very wrong with this picture. let me be the first to call these people unpatriotic and anti-american.”

    Obama has been slandered and those people are called unpatriotic and anti-american. Bush has ALSO been called every slanderous name in the book and then some. As a matter of fact, I’m sure that these statements are true for EVERY president America’s ever had.

    Really, what is going on here? I don’t think it’s a case of people disagreeing with Obama because he’s black… it’s a case of he’s black so let’s pull out the race card whenever anyone disagrees with him. When you think about it.. who’s actually being racist here??

    Has there ever been a president who didn’t have dissenters? NO. It’s just that this is the first time that proponents can play a card so to speak. If Hilary had won..I’m sure her proponents would be playing the “woman” card.

    It’s not fair to Obama for people to make these accusations. His proponents are the ones who are handicapping him this way. You are the ones who need to respect him as THE president and not a racial figure. You are not even giving him a chance to present himself as a president who will get critisisms as well as praise along with every preceding president. Instead you are setting him up as some “king” who should never be critisized. You are the ones who are treating him differently because of the color of his skin.


  10. dorian said

    kay, i agree, every president is target for criticism. bush was criticized for his lack of intelligence. the mob is treating obama differently because of the color of his skin. maybe it’s the changing times but this one really doesn’t get the respect a president should get. i defended bush when drunk englishmen would slander him because he was still my president. i think ex president carter sums it up pretty well. will post his statement.


  11. kay~ms said

    Dorian, Obama could also (and is) critisized for his lack of intellegence. I’ve witnessed examples already.

    Obama is not the first president to not get the respect a president should get. The more you single out Obama for the color of his skin, the more power you are giving to this issue. Democrats are hindering Obama by making these claims. Let him be critisized JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT. Liberals need to address the ACTUAL critisisms of his policies, czars, bills etc. instead of the color of his skin. Can’t you see how ridiculous this is?

    And Carter is wrong for what he is saying. It’s just down right ignorant to make these claims! He is not giving any legitimacy to the real concerns of Obama’s critics. He probably wishes he could have used the same excuse for the messes he had when he was president.

    And again, I’m not saying that there are not people who do think as Carter described but it’s not the majority. He’s doing a great disservice to the American people for making these claims. Anyone who makes these claims is in effect saying that there are no valid concerns for Obama’s policies. It’s ridiculous, ignorant and just another one of those liberal low down dirty tactics.


  12. dorian said

    oh kay do tell the mob and the republicans just what you said! i’ll just replace the ‘liberals’ with ‘conservatives’ – but somehow ‘conservative’ doesn’t sound derogatory. maybe it’s because it’s not used in a derogatory manner just like ‘liberal’ is nowadays.

    “… Liberals need to address the ACTUAL critisisms of his policies, czars, bills etc. instead of the color of his skin. Can’t you see how ridiculous this is?”

    much time and passion spent on things like disputing his place of birth and religion and conjuring non-existent items in the healthcare reform bill , e.g. ‘kill granny’, etc..etc..instead of intelligent discussion on policy, etc..


  13. Excellent article! We will be linking to this particularly great post on our website.
    Keep up the great writing.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: