I thought it was funny. It would be in bad taste immediately following an actual bombing, but as simply a play on words off my hypothetical scenario (which wasn't even serious or terribly likely itself), I don't see the big deal.
I tend to like dark humor, but this barely qualifies as dark since there's no actual bombing it's referencing and there's plenty of distance timewise from actual events like 9/11.
Do you not have a sense of humor?
Yes, when I press my eyeballs.
It appears that no one has yet gotten my obtuse joke here
. In making a play on words, I was conceding that from a certain point of view, the play on brevity was funny. And yet, since my joke was actually not that funny [albiet I hope groan worthy], I was hoping also to make the point that, no, the brevity pun was really not that funny, when considered in the grand scheme of things. However, I did go along and answer joke for joke, in hopes that you all would get it that I wasn't trying to be a total jerk about it.
As for the temporal distance, I'm waiting for the musical
Springtime for Operation Iraqi Freedom to open on Broadway before I start to laugh openly over terrorist jokes, as I'm still too disturbed by the way in which our nation turned into a torch-led pitchfork-wielding lynch mob in direct response to 9/11.
With that, I can officially get back on topic. Gazing into my crystal ball, I predict that Hell will come into existence, and then freeze over, before there is a viable candidate running for president in 2012 who is not a Democrat and for whom I'd vote. Reason enough for this position may be found in the ultimate clause of the previous paragraph. And yet reasons just keep getting piled on top of reasons when considers fiscal and regulatory policies.
I have no objection to the Democratic Party nominating President Obama again. The minimally adequate, and therefore sufficient, pragmatic standard in favor of this position is that the Democratic Party will nominate the candidate they collectively consider to be the most viable. At this point in American history, viable opposition to the Republican Party is critical. Furthermore, I intend to vote in both the primary and the general election. Whether I vote for President Obama in the
primary depends upon who is running against him for the nomination. I don't know who that will be yet. Right now, it does not seem likely that a viable alternative will emerge.
Additionally, there is the question implicit in the OP about grading President Obama for his performance. The worst grade he's likely to get from me is a C-; the best is a B. The jury is still out, so it's impossible to be more precise. Even the very worst I could reasonably expect is way better than the F- the previous president gets from me. If President Obama would grow some balls and stand up to the hypocrites on the right over something noteworthy, even if it didn't pass, I'd give him a higher grade. I believe that the repeated pattern I'm seeing, of capitulation to the right, which is being spun as compromise, is doing our country no favors. Compromise is good, but that means two or more sides with differing interests, each putting some differences aside, in order to cooperate. I see no spirit of cooperation coming from the right. The President needs to remind conservatives of their civic duty to cooperate in a constructive manner, and actually contribute reasonable counter-proposals, instead of being little more than spoiled, hypocritical, and destructive obstructionists that they have been in the past several years. To do this, he must show everyone in no uncertain terms what he stands for, even if he has to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Otherwise, it leaves me wondering whether he really stands for anything.
It makes me sad that people don't know a joke when they see it, but then, some people thought my anti-Obama profile was serious.
