[quote name='neocisco']You were wrong to assume because I did laugh, you just didn't know it. Your bloviating post attempting to justify your assumption is saturated with fail.[/QUOTE]
The image used a comedic device of overstating the situation. Everyone knows Obama did not take 3 years to release his long form birth certificate because he was too busy trying to kill Osama. Furthermore everyone knows Obama did not personally kill Osama and likely only authorized the missions that resulted in Osama's death. The act of killing Osama is seemingly of much greater importance than releasing Obama's long form birth certificate. Therefore Obama could use it as a trump card (no pun intended) over the lingering questions of why it took him so long to release that long form birth certificate, which would effectively silence those who called for the release of his long form birth certificate. People laugh, in part, because it is satisfying to see birthers get a small degree of comeuppance, even if it is just in a joke. People laugh in part because the overstatement of Obama perhaps personally killing Osama is humorous.
Yet you still felt the need to reply directly to the image and say "Only problem is, aside from giving the order to go into Pakistan, he really had nothing to do with the actual execution of the operation." To which I said above, and to which I essentially said before: No shit. If your intent was to just say, generally speaking to this entire situation, that Obama is taking too much credit for Osama's death, then that would be something different. But your direct reply to the joke and commentary on the joke's punchline indicates that is not the case. You went as far as to say there was a problem with the joke's punchline.
If someone made a joke about a show on NBC - a network with notoriously low ratings at the moment - and the punchline was "...For all 5 of you tuned into NBC right now" and I replied to the joke stating "Only problem is, NBC actually has millions of viewers tuned in right now rather than 5, they just have millions of viewers less than the other networks they are directly competing with," that statement attempts to diminish the full effect of the joke while I seemingly miss or ignore the point that the understatement that was used for comedic effect. Such a reply is clearly indicative of a poor sense of humor.
Saying there is a problem with the funny Obama image because the punch line was overstated rather than factually correct is an indication you have a poor sense of humor. Apparently my prior use of "no sense of humor" was too strong, because you claim to have laughed at something in the image. I highly doubt you laughed at the punchline because you were bothered by it enough that you had to reply and point out its factually imprecise and overstated nature. Call this reply bloviating if you want, but I've now admitted I was wrong to say you had "no" sense of humor instead of a "poor" sense of humor. Meanwhile, your initial reply to the image trying to take the air out of the joke's punch line still stands as rather lame and indicative of a poor sense of humor, regardless of what part of the image and joke you actually got a laugh out of.
ed up world.
#
