Saw these photos on the Internet about the correlation between a person's mind and his desk...(William F. Buckley)
(Nat Hentoff)
(Albert Einstein)
(Community Organizer)
Linked by: Instapundit, thanks! (what does the InstaDesk say about Dr. Reynolds?)
16 comments:
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/100831/GAL-10Aug31-5588/media/PHO-10Aug31-248481.jpg
Oh look. Reagan at an empty desk, about to speak on live television
Just like the shot of Obama.
HOW INTERESTING.
Touchy, touchy.
I don't know what's funnier. Obama's desk or his rabid supporter taking the painstaking time to research and link the obvious reason why his hero's desk is empty.
If a cluttered desk means a cluttered mind, what does an empty desk mean?
Reagan was supposed to be stupid, the Messiah is supposed to be this great intellect of all time.
aAnonymous (the touchy one):
Obama's desk is entirely empty, devoid of all signs.
President Reagan is holding papers, so we know that he can read...
I'm incredibly amused at the buffoonery of Anonymous @ 1:28am. Probably the first time he ever saw a looked at Reagan without praying to Gaia for the latest hoax to finally prove him right.
Besides, Reagan's desk has a work folio with papers, a pen holder, a note pad, and the American eagle. That's as similar to empty as Obama is to being competent.
Don't tell Ann Althouse.
It looks like WFB is wearing shorts.
(Not to mention her desk is usually pretty orderly.)
Wow!
Anonymous @ 1:28 AM provides data that refutes the original hypothesis, and he's attacked for being "rabid," an Obama idolizer, a buffoon, and a Gaiaist -- even though nothing in his comments indicates any of those things.
This is evidence that conservatives are no better than Al Gore's global warming brownshirts, nor even Keith Olberman.
And the whole cluttered/clean desk meme is so old, the intended joke is incredibly lame, no matter how much one doesn't like 0bama. Perhaps Dr. Helen can explain what it means that her husband thought that something so unoriginal and unfunny was worth linking to.
"...to research and link the obvious reason why his hero's desk is empty."
What "research" did I do as to the reasoning behind an empty desk?
If by "research" you mean "used my eyes" then yes, I did a LOT.
It's quite plainly visible that he's being lit for television.
Note the light...on him. And, you know, the light stand.
Besides, "Cleanliness is next to Godliness!" and we all know that Barack Obama = Jesus.
This is a humorous type email or whatever. Just make sure you realize however your gods or idols who ever they may be are not able to feed, cloth, or shelter you in calamity. I do not understand why the Obama supporters/voters take such personal offense as if their first born innocent, infant has been abused. There is equal jesting, joking and cartoons on either side. Just let me go, it isn't a personal attack on you or your family. Don't read political cartoons from the party your are against (no matter who is running for or who is in office from the party you are against you will not like them. Both sides! you vote demo/repub/other because your parents, heritage, or professors did ...)So only read and comments on the cartoons, jokes, etc. you agree with... then we can enjoy the blogs .. while you enjoy yours. Reading some of these remarks is like having playground duty the comments or so juvenile.
Translation: "You read YOUR blogs and we'll stick to OUR RIDICULOUS ASSERTIONS ON OUR BLOGS without ANYONE CONFRONTING US OVER HOW RIDICULOUS THEY ARE. THANKS."
Photo-ops of the White House desk are... well, not quite the same thing as a real working desk (especially in 2011, when we have these "computer" things - and especially for someone who's an executive rather than a creator like Buckley or a pure thinker like Einstein).
A simple Google images search for "white house desk" shows many Presidents, with a remarkably non-messy desk.
I'm not an Obama fan, but this tells us nothing about him.
Anonymous @ 2:37 PM said…"Just make sure you realize however your gods or idols who ever they may be are not able to feed, cloth, or shelter you in calamity. I do not understand why the Obama supporters/voters take such personal offense as if their first born innocent, infant has been abused."
Me thinks thou doth project.
There is nothing in the comment by Anonymous@1:28 AM to indicate that he is an 0bama supporter.
It is the conservatives here who, behaving like the offspring of an unholy union between Michael Moore and Rachel Maddow, have taken offense by Anonymous@1:28AM's observation that Ronald Reagan had a neat desk.
For his terrible thoughtcrime, he has been subject to ad hominem attacks and amateur psychoanalysis by conservatives who have descended to the levels of insanity and hypocrisy normally associated with left-wing moonbattery.
Instead of examining the data and concluding that the OP's hypothesis is wrong, the Reaganites here have taken "such personal offense as if their first born innocent, infant has been abused", and like the "scientists" who "study" global warming, attack anyone who provides data that invalidates their pet theories.
If this is what passes for serious conservative thought today, then the future really is a choice between dumber and dumberer.
And linking to this lame blog post may possibly be the moment that InstaPundit.com jumped the shark.
Anonymous @ 2:37 PM said…"Just make sure you realize however your gods or idols who ever they may be are not able to feed, cloth, or shelter you in calamity. I do not understand why the Obama supporters/voters take such personal offense as if their first born innocent, infant has been abused."
Me thinks thou doth project.
There is nothing in the comment by Anonymous@1:28 AM to indicate that he is an 0bama supporter.
It is the conservatives here who, behaving like the offspring of an unholy union between Michael Moore and Rachel Maddow, have taken offense by Anonymous@1:28AM's observation that Ronald Reagan had a neat desk.
For his terrible thoughtcrime, he has been subject to ad hominem attacks and amateur psychoanalysis by conservatives who have descended to the levels of insanity and hypocrisy normally associated with left-wing moonbattery.
Instead of examining the data and concluding that the OP's hypothesis is wrong, the Reaganites here have taken "such personal offense as if their first born innocent, infant has been abused", and like the "scientists" who "study" global warming, attack anyone who presents data that invalidates their pet theories.
If this is what passes for serious conservative thought today, then the future really is a choice between dumber and dumberer.
And linking to this lame blog post may possibly be the moment that InstaPundit.com jumped the shark.
Post a Comment