Creative euphemisms for “Obama is a liar”
Few people had any difficulty leveling charges of “liar” at George Bush during his administration. We’ll skip the arguments on the merits right now, since it’s all been discussed before ad nauseam; suffice to say the accusations came trippingly off the tongue.
Obama—now, that’s another story. Joe Wilson couldn’t help blurting out “You lie!” during Obama’s September 2009 address on health care, when the president asserted that Congress’s health care bill du jour would not provide free coverage for illegal immigrants. But it was primarily Wilson who got excoriated for it, not Obama.
So people became more creative in their accusations. Last month, during Obama’s SOTU address, Justice Alito merely shook his head and voicelessly mouthed “not true” when former-law-instructor Obama misstated and blasted the majority SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United. This left open the possibility that he was accusing Obama of simply making an error rather than lying. But that didn’t save Alito from the usual criticism.
Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, a member of Obama’s own party, was more delicate and convoluted in his syntax in mid-February of this year, but the message was the same. After pointing out disparities in Obama’s promises on coal, Rockefeller added, “he’s beginning to not be believable to me.”
Beginning? Anyone paying attention—and not hopelessly partisan—would have noticed Obama’s disingenuousness way back in June of 2008, when he broke his campaign financing pledge. Or how about Obama claims during the campaign about having sat in Reverend Wright’s church and listened—or rather, not sat and not listened—to all those hateful sermons over the course of twenty years?
For Rockefeller to now claim that he’s just beginning to “not believe” Obama seems (how shall I put it?) unlikely to be the truth. Perhaps what Rockefeller really meant was that, until now, he believed that Obama would not lie to him.
The latest manifestation of clever and circumspect circumlocutions around the “lie”-word is the following, by Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, which shows a light touch: he called Obama “very insincere” for first praising Ryan’s budget proposals as serious and then almost simultaneously attacking them.
It should not be news that Obama is a con artist. And no matter what you call it, that’s the single most important factor for the decline in his public support.
Well, in The Won’s defense, that was probably Michelle’s church of choice, and he spent most of his time trying to not nod off during a sermon.
Maybe…
Speaking of DWV Rockefeller:
http://www.cleanskies.com/articles/rockefeller-leads-dems-push-against-epa-regs
Notice NYS on the wrong side IMO.
No one looking at Obama’s words and behavior, with an open mind, can have failed to conclude that Obama is a con artist.
It is now a foregone conclusion that many Americans, most especially independents are concluding that they were lied to and conned.
The question, I find of most interest is what percentage of those who now recognize that they were conned will ponder how they were able to be conned?
Either they were gullible and/or the MSM obfuscated the truth, enabling Obama’s con job to succeed. Embarrassment and/or outrage are the only two emotions appropriate to such a conclusion.
Sadly, I suspect that it will be a very small percentage who shall think deeply or self-reflectively upon the matter, if at all.
Is it still a lie if everybody knows the guy’s lying bef0ore he says a word?
Is it still a lie if everybody expects a lie?
Is it still a lie if half the citizenry want him to lie?
Obama as con artist…
At first I assumed Obama was a more or less typical Democrat who happened to be black and had some speaking chops.
But once I learned about Rev. Wright, Black Liberation Theology, Bill Ayers, and Obama’s immersion in Chicago machine politics, and compared that background with how Obama presented himself while campaigning for president, my internal meter needles pegged on con artist and sociopath.
I’m not attempting to make a rational argument here. I’m saying that at a gut level I experienced a deep distrust of Obama which has only grown since.
A very interesting point, huxley, and one I’ve pondered long and hard. My gut said the same thing quite early on about Obama, especially when the campaign financing pledge was broken. I wish I knew why some people perceived this about Obama and some did not. I certainly did not perceive it initially, but campaign financing was a huge turning point for me. After that I considered him untrustworthy.
The best I can do to explain it is that some people wrote it off as the usual lies politicians tell. To me Obama’s lies seemed deeper, more basic, and more obvious (and therefore bolder). That was part of why they so alarmed me. But I think to many people, they made no distinction until (like with Jay Rockefeller) they themselves were betrayed by the lie.
I had the same experience as huxley and Neo of realizing that Obama was no truth-teller long before Election Day. As to why some saw this and some didn’t, I don’t know the reason, but I see a connection between the blindness of some of his adherents and that signal characteristic Obama had during his campaign of being a blank slate onto whom others projected their dreams. Maybe those who needed most to do this were the ones most able to blind themselves to what was clearly visible on that slate; of course, it wasn’t blank at all, unless you wanted it to be. For some reason, some people did not want to know the truth (In my head, I hear Jack Nicholson: “You can’t handle the truth!”) Some of them still don’t.
Think about accusing someone with downs syndrome of lying and how inappropriate that might seem. I’ll suggest something along those same lines is at work in the liberal mind when it comes to Obama.
We’re supposed to offer wiggle room for him in light of his society imposed handicap as an affirmative action crutch baby. While simultaneously being offended at what it might do to race relations if someone dare suggest we’re doing anything of the sort.
Well…So much for that color blind society ever coming out of the liberal mind.
Oops, Neo, speaking of editing funkshuns nad speling and prufreeding and sutch (well, we were in the other thread) — I just noticed that your headline for this post says “eupemism” rather than “euphemism.”
Did you really think that avoiding totalitarianism in a free country would be as easy as avoiding the column marked totalitarian in the voting booth? That you would know it was coming, and find it easy to avoid?
we couldn’t avoid it, as we cant accept the facts. and so, we listened to the lies of obama, since we had previously learned that the truth is the lie you like most when you hear it. after a year, we still cant get the reasonable ones to actually make a choice with no leader dialoging them to consensus and telling them which right answer is right to say.
Most of it all is lies of omission, not commission. so, someone would have to tell you ALL the information that they were leaving out that you would learn from and would have learned from, but due to its ommission, you dont even know its missing. the fact that editing out reality to make a more tasty lie that is entertaining and what one desires more… fails to make one wonder that perhaps asking to be lied to and wanting shorter posts reflecting that abridged reality, might be the way that one protects those omissions and one doesn’t have to conclude that rather than be smart, knowledgeable and on it. one has been conned, is now a ignorant fool, and under their will.
its interesting to note that the deepest parts of hell are cold, and burn without consuiming as dante pointed out.. and its deepest parts are reserved for the betrayers of trusts. but really, is anyone who follows the ideas of a man who follows the ideas of Satan, to really be known for honesty, truth, fidelity, fealty and such?
after all, Satan was able to make his kingdom by convincing angels in the presence and Knowing of god that heaven wasn’t good enough!!!!!!!!!!!! imagine what similar can do to people who love the way that ignorance makes their ideas equal to all others, including history and empiricism
when socialists and left liberals say that religions are the source of evil, i point out Epictetus!!!
Liars are the cause of all the sins and crimes in the world.-Epictetus
“Figures won’t lie but liars will figure”
Clever liars give details, but the cleverest don’t
“Liars need good memories” french proverb
and artfldgrs completion/correction: Liars need good memories, and victims with poor ones.
and of course the one that is nearest and dearest to the subject as it stands with me.
Henry Louise Mencken
yup, i am familiar with that.
“Great liars are also great magicians” Adolph Hitler
[and Magicians are the only honest con men]
“He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers”Charles Peguy
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” –Thomas Jefferson
if the following is true…then what is ones reason if its shot full of omitted facts and full of false premise?
“Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808.
“I am… against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799.
“Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth; and I am sure…we both value too much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by our Constitution, not to cherish its exercise even where in opposition to ourselves.” –Thomas Jefferson to P. H.
Wendover, 1815.
i guess he was wrong in the general though probably right given the specifics of those involved…
“The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor
under its jurisdiction.” –Thomas Jefferson: Statute of Religious
Freedom, 1779.
“I have learned to be less confident in the conclusions of human reason, and give more credit to the honesty of contrary opinions.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1824.
“An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.” –Thomas Jefferson
to John Taylor, 1798.
it was all laid out at the founding… but those things as well as much of what i put forth have been omitted.
“Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties:
1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.
2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests.
In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves.” –Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824.
[edited for length by n-n]
By the way… realizing slowly more and more obama is not what he presented himself to be, is still AFTER the fall. got that? your over a year too late… which was my point!!! that it didnt matter whether or not you realized it, that would happen eventually if they didnt deviate from their goals. but that, not knowing those goals, not knowing the list of things, not knowing the system, rules, methods, and all that. you would vassilate till the action you could take was abhorrent to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i TRIED to explain that the game is more subtle than you want to believe, but alas. nothing would do except a level in a voting booth that said communist totalitarians, vote here!!! you refused to lower your expectations from hollyweird reality to REALITY as it really works. i explained that the game is to get the material (materialism) to move to a point where you need it on the board, and it doesnt matter what that thing thinks.
soooooo did you explore that. did you try to find a methodology to it? did you try at all? or did you say i am too smart to be tricked, lets be reasonable, and keep slowly coming to terms. well we are past a year into the term… drawing such conclusions would have been nice 6 months PRIOR to election and to see that mccain was offering the same thing just a lighter version. but no… you are waiting for communism and fascism to come here, rather than know that it started here in its modern form, and that it only has to get up out of bed, not treck across the ocean. in a game of lose if your tricked once…we lost the minute it took too long for you and others to figure it out. it was in the open!!!!!!!!!!!
all you had to do was accept realities facts from promoted lies to cover them.
[edited for length by n-n]
Ask yourselves why Obama’s approval ratings remain as high as they are in spite of his repeated, easily documented lies and broken campaign promises.
I submit a fairly large segment of the population just aren’t aware. Take a look at the abysmal results of this Pew Poll about VERY BASIC current events. I’d be willing to bet most people reading this blog will get at least 10 of the 12 questions right.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1478/
So, my theory is alot of people just tune out to politics. I think some people put more thought and effort into who they vote for on American Idol than they do in their elected officials. So my theory is his approval ratings are still so high because alot of the people who voted for him haven’t tracked his performance and remain hypnotized by the hope and change speeches they remember shortly before the elections.
I wish I knew why some people perceived this about Obama and some did not.
what was omitted from the news, history, education, common discourse… was omitted as it would have informed you.. like a penguin in front of a tiger you didn’t know enojugh to run! the dissonance of your hunches, were normalized so you wouldnt react.
no harder than pavlov to understand… no harder than, you cant react to knowlege you dont have. whats hard to understand is how one defends such a negative survival trait in light of potential correction!
you can see such things written really alrge in stuff like grizzley man… what knowlege and beliefs were omitted from him, and so created a false view? that bears and animals are really dangerous and that there was no peaceful utopian natural time for us and them. that man is not food
etc. you construct a model of the world you live in, and you move in that model and you use that model to make choices… and then move your material self in the real world to test that out. if your internal universal model is screwed up, mising information, and so forth. then your conclusions are not right by anything other than luck and manipulation. yet you will defend them as whole and good because you are missing the information that would allow you to test your own theories. you CAN get that info… but it usually requires you read and know the inforamtion that one side is hiding.
so its as simple as reading what they wont, what isnt in their libraries. its as simple as reading what they hide… and do so with so much energy… but that simple cure is too complicated for those who would rather think that what they are and their thoughts are, is whole. but they have been omitting key facts and things to control opinion for more years than any of us here has been alive. sans knowing that, and what they did, there is no way to get back to a point where you can judge real validity of ideas and positions.
after all, if planned parentnhood really isnt about exterminating the negro population, then why hide that history of when it was called the negro project? why hide that its creator was the woman who started the US eugenics programs (wich continued till the 1980s while people say it cant come here!). why hide that hitlers people wrote to her people clarance gamgle and paul popenoe and credit the success of their version of the final soluition to them? and on and on all those facts from then, and even up to today exist.
of course we dont want to think of the ameican leftists progressives as communists and fascists, but to those like me in the know, what else to you think o fthem as they try to separate heideckker from his naziness?
[edited for length]
∅bama is a creative genius !
We have an expression in the South for people like Obama. We say he is the kind of guy who would climb a tree to tell a lie when he could stand on the ground and tell the truth.
It is quite likely that Obama thinks lying to white folks is not unethical.
Scott, I got 11 correct. Forgot Sotomayor..grrrr.
But i know full well your point. I got intelligent friends who wouldn’t get more than 4 right. They just aren’t interested in the politics that defines the very type of society we all live in.
> Is it still a lie …
Richard, in all your cases, it is, indeed, still a lie.
In all your cases, however, it’s also a damned shame.
Mr. Rockefeller Hoped Obama would Change.
Mrs Whatsit: thanks. Spellcheck doesn’t catch typos in the titles, alas.
Granted, I have a certain bias against Presidential candidates of the Democratic Party persuasion, not having voted for one after the Bicentennial, but ∅bama turned me off very quickly. His “bring us together…bipartisan..” spiel did not mesh with what I knew of the Chicago style of politics. Reading what he did to Alice Palmer confirmed my suspicion. He presented himself as a frisbee player when he played hardball, even beanball.
The NYT article on his time in law school confirmed my suspicion that “hopey changey” was just a line that anyone could project their own hopes onto. I saw ∅bama as Julius Wintergreen in Gershwin’s “Of Thee I Sing,” who ran on a platform onLOVE. Life imitates art. (Carroll O’Connor played Julius on TV in 1972. A much better singing voice than one would have expected from Archie.)
As others have pointed out, a substantial proportion -or most – of our population doesn’t pay a lot of attention to politics, so is not aware of President HopeyChangey’s diverse statements on a given issue.
Obama was a non-choice for me right out of the chute in part because of the Dear Leader marketing program and the glassy-eyed rapture of his acolytes. Never mind his politics, or his having spent most of his life in Witness Protection; I saw too many leftist initiatives in Berkeley not to recognize another one when I saw it. (Global warming fell into the same category.) The adulation of the cult’s heroes, the demonization of those who express even mild skepticism, the messianic fervor, the childlike belief that all problems will magically disappear if only people could see the truth and enact the new era…all these things are utterly diagnostic. Jonestown, writ large.
There are also a fair number of people like our occasional contributor, Mitsu, who are bright and follow politics closely but are still riding strong for Obama.
I don’t fully understand it. Some of it is a liberal worldview with all the assumptions and filters that entails. Some of it is keying off the academic elite signals that Obama provides.
For some Americans, Obama is like Adlai Stevenson come back to life as a thin hip black dude.
Neo, it occurs to me that typos are a good illustration of one of the problems under discussion — that is, the human tendency to see what we want to see rather than what’s there to be seen. I write for a living and am all too familiar with this phenomenon. Before I saw this particular typo, I must have read, or at least skimmed over, the headline four or five times, without noticing any problem at all.
> but if modern, then such will have to be shorter than the years that it took to place such falsehoods in your heads…
This is not even vaguely unobtainable as a goal.
The problem of foolishness is not the structure of wrong ideas, but the unwillingness to grasp that they are wrong — “There are none so blind as those who Will Not See.”
Once you knock one leg of support from under them, they fall to the ground like a house of cards, and open up the terrain for a functional structure (though, sadly, they also open up the terrain for yet another house of cards, and all too many will happily go with the much easier house).
The alarming thing about Obama’s reversal on campaign finance was not that he did it — that didn’t surprise me at all — but rather that he was so short-sighted as not to anticipate the possibility that agreeing to public finance might not be in his interests later. Much like the Skip Gates and KSM fiascoes, he obviously hadn’t thought this through and painted himself into a corner, and that I found disturbing. Forget 3-D chess; he obviously could be beaten at tic-tac-toe.
One of the few things that keeps me optimistic these days is remembering how many people Jimmy Carter turned conservative.
Think it may happen again?
We have many options to choose from.
Main Entry: liar
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: person who tells falsehood
Synonyms: cheat, con artist, deceiver, deluder, dissimulator, equivocator, fabler, fabricator, fabulist, false witness, falsifier, fibber, maligner, misleader, perjurer, phony, prevaricator, promoter, storyteller, trickster
Great blog, found you though a comments link on Hillbuzz.
Placed you on my blogroll. Looking forward to many happy returns. Love the excellent writing quality.
A good liar has to mix it up a bit and sometimes tell the truth. Otherwise, all you have to do is take the opposite of what he says and that will be the truth. That’s the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republican’s will on occasion tell the truth to keep you guessing. They only engage on the ‘normal level of lying for politicians.
“It is now a foregone conclusion that many Americans, most especially independents are concluding that they were lied to and conned.”
Perhaps they wanted to be told lies because the lies gave them some temporary comfort. The man’s character was absolutely obvious from the beginning – there is no excuse for not seeing this. If you couldn’t see it after a few months of his campaign then this is not blindness but a refusal to see. The only possible honest and intelligent reason might have been that they felt the other fellow was worse.
The thing is there is no way to have an ideology such as Obama’s for very long and have any respect for the truth. Socialism is by its nature anthetical to human nature. There is no way to believe in this without either lying to yourself or refusing to consider even the most basic evidence from the world around us. People who believe this have to be either dishonest, stupid, apathetic or extremely naé¯ve – and for an honest, intelligent person naivety can only last for so long.
“But once I learned about Rev. Wright, Black Liberation Theology, Bill Ayers, and Obama’s immersion in Chicago machine politics, and compared that background with how Obama presented himself while campaigning for president, my internal meter needles pegged on con artist and sociopath.”
Sure, I expect only one of those would have convinced you. I would add that anyone with at least average intelligence and the slightest interest in politics should have been able to figure that out well before the election.
And saying that you are not interested in politics is not an excuse anymore than ignoring a fire alarm because you are not interested and dying in the ensuing blaze.
It’s a sad sad day when someone like Obama can get any more than one vote for president. (well ok 2 if his wife votes for him but what does that say about her character?)
“Forget 3-D chess; he obviously could be beaten at tic-tac-toe.”
And yet. . . and yet. . . .
He’s not beaten yet, and he ain’t playin’ no tic-tac-toe.
Many, many people thought he was beaten and health care was dead. Obituaries were being written and read aloud by pundits almost daily. Some, even here, said that he’d been defeated at nearly every big thing he’s tried over the last year.
Scott Brown cast his first vote as a Republican U.S. Senator today, incidentally. For the Democrats’ alleged jobs bill. Stay tuned.
And keep the powder dry. Buy stock in rope. And Tar. And feathers. And rails.
Just sayin’.
As Steve D noted, something was wrong with the electorate that could not see Obmessiah was full of it. It is truly frightening: as one person noted that the leader who can convince you of nonsense can lead you to commit atrocities. I can’t help wondering if we had our own little 1933 Germany right here in the US.
Sad thought, suppose the next messiah learns to serve the poison in small doses?
Very good post, neocon. I’ve always wondered why Obama’s proclivity toward fibbing has never been compared with the last Democrat who held the Oval Office. Is it that Obama’s lies are more calculated and less easily disputed? I’m sure many people viewed as plausible his claims that Bill Ayers was just a guy in the neighborhood and that he didn’t pay much attention to what Rev. Wright was saying while nodding off in the pews. I’m not sure I can see him offering up a Bill Clinton-style “I did not have sex with that woman” categorical whopper. (The closest I can think of, which should have gotten him laughed off the campaign trail, was Obama’s pledge to lower sea levels by three feet.)
It’s a mystery to me why some conservatives find it mysterious that liberals voted for and continue to support Obama. However “flexible” Obama may be on his campaign promises, I can only judge his performance first and foremost against what I would have expected McCain to do and, then, against what previous presidents have actually done. And on that score, I still prefer Obama.
My expectations are low for what Obama can achieve in his first term and, so far, he has underperformed on some, and outperformed on others. I don’t think presidents can do all that much when it comes to the economy and social policy. All they can really do is steer us into more wars or steer us out of them or into less of them. And even there, they’re not dictators, they have to get people to go along with them.
Voting for a politician because you think he’s honest is like buying a McDonalds hamburger because you think it tastes better than one you’d make at home. We all know what honest means, and we all know what a good burger tastes like. Trouble is, democracy, like McDonalds caters to the lowest common denominator. That’s not some conspiracy, it’s essential nature of the system.
Do you really think Hillary or Edwards or McCain would be any less sparing with the truth than Obama is? And where’s the evidence that Obama’s less honest than Bush or Clinton or any other previous president you’d like to choose? All have been caught lying.
“”If you couldn’t see it after a few months of his campaign then this is not blindness but a refusal to see.””
Steve D
Maybe the fact is for most progressives that dishonesty and slight of hand is not only fair play but required in politics. They really do see the world though a moral (imoral?) lense thats easily tweaked depending on circumstances.
Is it that Obama’s lies are more calculated and less easily disputed?
Nope. Quite the contrary, in fact. It’s because the MSM doesn’t want to call a black man a liar.
All they can really do is steer us into more wars or steer us out of them or into less of them.
Or take credit for ones that turned out successfully, in spite of their best efforts.
Do you really think Hillary or Edwards or McCain would be any less sparing with the truth than Obama is?
Edwards, no, hell no. Hillary, no. McCain, yes. That’s not to say he would never dissemble, but that I think that McCain – in contradistinction to Edwards and Obama – is basically an honorable man. Hillary is a straight-up opportunist, who may yet have a flicker of honor in her.
Put it this way: which of the above could you even imagine sacrificing his self-interest for the good of the nation? McCain? Clearly. Hillary? Maybe. Obama or (spit) Edwards? Please.
“for most progressives that dishonesty and slight of hand is not only fair play but required in politics.”
The lowest common denominator voter is indeed looking for a way to escape from the truth. That’s why we elect politicians — from both sides — who are willing to lie.
But there are definitely honest progressives and, even, honest conservatives as well.
Well, I’m one conservative who does not, and never will, find it mysterious that liberals/leftists voted for, and continue to support, Obama. I can’t imagine why other conservatives would, either. The Left is of a piece–a single stripe, if you will. We have never been puzzled by it, or them.
Back in the Clinton years, when it became clear what kind of fraud he was (in the event, a pretty pedestrian albeit gifted one), it was said in liberal/leftist circles that “they all do it, and everybody lies about sex.” But the truth is, they don’t all do it, and people lie about anything–the lies are not exclusive to matters of sex. People lie about money, or about power, or about influence, or about anything else that tempts them and to which they succumb. The list is long.
I’ve yet to see any compelling evidence that George W. Bush lied about anything. He was perhaps mistaken in some things, maybe even in many things. But I’ve never been persuaded that he actually lied. Some people differ about that conclusion–as they are, in a free society, free to do. We can certainly discuss particulars if anyone wishes. But I, myself, think that, while G.W. Bush may not have been the man for the task at the given moment, he was–and is–an honest and decent man. He never did, and does not now, castigate his opponents, even when some of us think he should. Few men in public life have been subjected to the relentless abuse he has been subjected to, and remained silent in its face. Much as I wish he would do otherwise, there is a certain fine dignity in his silence, and he is enhanced by it. There is a measure of character in this that many can only aspire to.
Edwards, of course, has been shown to be more than a tad-bit sparing with the truth–much good may it do him.
Neo is correct in noting that conservatives are unjustly assaulted for calling Obama, and other liberal/leftists before him, liars. The faux outrage the left expresses at having their lies named as lies is actually fairly astonishing. Alito did nothing untoward at the SOTU speech, and liberal/leftists who castigate him for his very modest reaction to Obama’s brazen slander should think shame to themselves.
“Moderate Islamist”?
Artfldgr: Regarding your comment at 4:18 PM—
My comment, “I wish I knew why some people perceived this about Obama and some did not” referred to one thing only: the fact that Obama was/is a liar. It did not refer to his politics, only his lies (the subject of this post, as well).
When, very early on in the campaign, I perceived Obama to be a liar, I had not yet gotten to the point of thinking he was a socialist. And yet, on a gut level, I knew he was untrustworthy. But for anyone to have perceived this at that point would have required no special knowledge of history, just a minimum amount of paying attention to Obama’s own promises and statements and then his breaking those promises and going back on those statements. I think more people should have perceived that he was a liar, by the evidence of their own eyes and ears. That is what my question was referring to.
So I’m not sure what your comment was about, nor am I sure who that “you” you’re addressing is. It seems you’re talking about why people did not realize early on that Obama was/is a very far leftist, and probably a socialist. On this blog, for example, many people did see and/or believe this early on, and of course some did not. Even before the election, I had reluctantly come to that conclusion myself (see this, for example, and this and this and this).
But there are definitely honest progressives
Name one.
That video interview that emerged during the campaign that was made before Obama was the official Canidate where he said he “would bankrupt the coal industry” by regulating it to death and spoke of sending “price signals” to consumers to change their behaviour should have told you all you needed to know. Anyone that would deliberately bankrupt a major industry with a side attack without having the honesty to just say “we will outlaw it” is liar. The people who really pay attention would know what is happening, but the people who barely do would not understand what the regs were really designed to the industry. This is the same thing they want to do with the private insuruancy industry. They will not outlaw it, but they will regulate it to death. News junkies like ourselves will know what is happening, but many of our neighbors have no idea.
I certainly don’t wonder why so many liberals or leftists voted for Obama. It’s the vast numbers of Independents, and even some Republicans, who voted for him that are the mystery. Why were they taken in by his rhetoric and his pose of being a moderate? It was the Independents that made the difference in the election.
“Why were they taken in by his rhetoric and his pose of being a moderate? It was the Independents that made the difference in the election.’
Cause they got their news from the MSM.
jon baker: even if you got your news from the MSM you wouldn’t have missed the broken promise about campaign financing, or the statement to Joe the Plumber.
It’s a mystery to me why some conservatives find it mysterious that liberals voted for and continue to support Obama.
I believe I wrote the comment to which Moderate Islamist was responding.
And I was responding to Scott’s 4:16 “I submit a fairly large segment of the population just aren’t aware.”
I was saying that there are bright, knowledgeable Americans like Mitsu who are still “riding strong for Obama.”
It’s the “strong” part that mystifies me. I still am a registered Democrat and I understand that die-hard Democrats for the most part are not going to flip over and favor Republicans.
But I had assumed that the smarter, more knowledgeable Democrats would be having second thoughts by now, and some are, but not all.
I thought they would notice that Obama not only misrepresents and lies, he’s also not very competent and few of his policies have borne fruit even with massive popularity and Congressional majorities.
Neo, maybe, but I dont think the average person pays as much attention to news as you or your readers do- so the meta narrative “democrats care”, “republicans are barely more than Nazis” sinks in to them. Plus some people are just hardheaded.
Coming from the other direction, it took me while to realize many of the Republicans were not really conservatives. It was not until after my last trip overseas for Uncle Sam in 2006, that I really started keeping up with the news on a daily basis in any detail. Sites like Newsbusters.org and Michele Malkin among others that my eyes began to open as to just how bad things had become in both major political parties.
jon baker, you make an excellent point re: “the narrative.” However, we see the Tea Party movement. It goes a fair way towards showing that Americans are more attentive to, and subtly aware of, threats to their freedom than many acknowledge, or even sense.
So: Huxley is still a registered Democrat! Well, no surprise, that–but still, I wonder what he is thinking (even though he purports to tell us, time and again, precisely that). Hux, you remind me of Susan Estrich or Pat Caddell. These people are Americans first, and Democrats second (at least). The current national Democrat party is Left/Liberal first, and global-transnationalist along into the bargain, and Americans somewhere well down the line. I take it that this is not what you favor. I think that the largest part of your problem is that you see where the leaders of your party are headed, and you don’t like it, but you can’t quite bring yourself to kick them aside–not just yet, anyway. There’s a fair bit of party loyalty operating, there.
This is getting very interesting.
betsybounds: I haven’t voted Democrat since 9-11 except in primaries.
At this point I’m basically an independent. I haven’t had enough motivation to do anything about my registration. Perhaps that will change.
However, I was happy to vote for Hillary over Obama in 2008.
I don’t have many illusions about Hillary, but she’s not a stone-cold ideologue, a mystery candidate who strikes me as psychologically dangerous, or some nightmare combination of a radical populist and a machine politician.
I do worry about Obama in a way I’ve never worried about an American president. I just don’t worry as much as you and others here do.
Huxley,
Well of course we are all free to worry as much as we will–or not. I don’t share your sanguine sense about Hillary–I think she is just as much a committed Leftist ideologue as is Obama, with perhaps a better political sense. But if she were in his position, I don’t think her goals would be significantly different from his. In fact, she is in the position she is in, and I don’t think her goals are significantly different from his. There might be some variable matters on the foreign affairs front, but I think that what she intends for this country is pretty much the same as what he intends. So–the strategy is the same, but the favored tactics differ somewhat.
I think these facts go a ways towards accounting for your comfort level with what’s going on now and your notion that the electorate will put on a brake, slow things down, but not at all turn the motor off. You merely want to see the leftward lurch slowed down to a drift. I don’t know, of course, but it would account for a lot.
Michelle Malkin links to Scott Brown’s facebook page where the comments are
ANGRYLIVID at his vote on the jobs billhttp://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=325681096282&id=178795233167
How long until his facebook page is off the Internet? I’m guessing 24 hours.
Moderate Islamist: all politicians lie sometimes about this or that. So of course, all those people you mention have lied.
But not all lies are created equal; not even close. There has been no American politician in my lifetime (and probably much earlier than that) who has lied (a) as often; (b) about as many things; (c) as blatantly and obviously with a callous disregard for truth; (d) has been abetted in his lies by the media, which has almost always covered for him; (e) has lied by so many omissions as well (not disclosing many salient facts of his past); and (f) has lied profoundly about his essential nature and agenda.
I submit that no major politician in America has ever done anything remotely similar, or remotely as serious in terms of lies. He differs in both quantity and quality of lies.
Just BTW, I’ve read (I’m sure we’ve all read) enough about Bill Clinton to glean the notion that what he wants is to be loved. If we’ve watched him enough, we’ve seen that his actions support this conclusion. But Hillary is another matter. I’ve read (I’m sure we’ve all read) enough about Hillary, with the stories about how she had fired from the White House anyone who looked into her eyes, to grasp that she is one of those people who prefers to be feared rather than loved. That alone should tell us something.
And what it tells us should be unsettling. I do not think she would be a good alternative to Obama.
I will miss Alexander Haig. Sorry off topic.
Occam’s Beard: How about Bernie Sanders for an honest progressive?
I just don’t worry as much as you and others here do.
I work in the defense industry; I’m in the National Guard; I own, and need, a pick-up truck; I’ve got a family with two young kids; I’ve got good private family health insurance.
I’ve got a helluva lot to lose. I’m in the crosshairs of this administration: of course this guy worries me a lot!
By scholarship, military service and making good choices, I’ve clawed my way into the middle class and I mean to keep it.
Moderate Islamist makes his tu quoque charge with such grace that you hardly notice that this is the Leftist’s favorite fallacy, along with argumentum ad hominem. Whether some other unnamed politicians lie as much as Obama shouldn’t distract us from how much Obama lies. Occam’s Beard’s challenge is the right one. Our hostess gives him more time than he deserves.
But on the other hand…could it be? Is that you, Mr. President, writing from behind a pseudonym that we would never suspect? The laugh is on us, isn’t it?
It’s one thing to worry that Obama is damaging the country; it’s another to worry that he will flip the country into a socialist tyranny of some sort.
And a big high-five on neo’s 12:06 response.
Yes, all presidents spin and even lie on occasion, but I’ve got a reasonable memory of presidents back to JFK and I’ve been studying since, and I don’t know any president that compares with Obama’s constant strawman attacks, well-poisonings, historical misrepresentations, and evasive emotional appeals, not to mention his limitless self-referencing and self-regard, and constant blaming of George Bush and anyone who gets in his way.
One could write an entire critical thinking text illustrating major and minor logical fallacies using Obama’s speeches and remarks.
Huxley,
Of course, there are those two worries, and the one is rather different from the other. But upon what evidence do you embrace the first and rule the second out?
The game on health care is not yet up, so I don’t think we can yet call him defeated on that front, just for starters.
But huxley, what would convince you that you were wrong? What level of tyranny would it take to convince you that you have been too sanguine? The betting around here is not on people in leather coats and jackboots, but a sort of Nurse Ratched nanny state IngSoc, lurching from one self-induced crisis to the next, and announcing ever greater regulation and taxation as the cure for what ails us.
it’s another to worry that he will flip the country into a socialist tyranny of some sort.
Call it what ever you want. I’m profoundly worried that the Obama administration and the dem congress will take away much of what I have worked for, and harm my family, with their socialist plans.
The plan to redistribute any small wealth and comfort I have earned is undoubtedly socialist. Confiscating my small wealth in taxes and regulations, and sending my family to sicken in some filthy government clinic is oppressive.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny
1: Oppressive power esp. exerted by government
Socialist Tyranny.
But upon what evidence do you embrace the first and rule the second out?
betsybounds: As I’ve said, I consider Obama lacking the competence and ruthlessness to have a shot at tyranny and I consider the US, given its constitution, its history, its prosperity and its people to be extremely resilient and well-fortified against tyranny.
Which isn’t to say that it’s impossible, but we would have to be in a far more weakened state for tyranny to take root, and I don’t see it happening in a few years with a poseur like Obama leading the charge.
The betting around here is not on people in leather coats and jackboots, but a sort of Nurse Ratched nanny state IngSoc.
Janet Nippletano?
She wants to swab my hands in the airport and see me stripped naked. Shhhhhh! Quiet! Shhhhh! Big Nurse is coming!
I don’t see it happening in a few years with a poseur like Obama leading the charge.
So they are too incompetent and ill-motivated to screw me as bad as they really want to?
You find that comforting?
My real feeling? America does have a good enough and great enough system to check and balance the great inequities and injuries, but the wheels of justice grind slowly. Times could be really bad for a while.
I’m worried I won’t economically survive the screwing, or God forbid an ill family member, until our System rights itself. America can, and will, survive this Socialist Prince poseur, I don’t know if I and my family will.
It’s very worrisome.
But huxley, what would convince you that you were wrong? What level of tyranny would it take to convince you that you have been too sanguine? The betting around here is not on people in leather coats and jackboots, but a sort of Nurse Ratched nanny state IngSoc, lurching from one self-induced crisis to the next, and announcing ever greater regulation and taxation as the cure for what ails us.
Oblio: Actually the betting around here has covered a lot of ground — including talk of gulags, canceled elections, martial law, civil war, and the rise of dictators like Lenin, Hitler and Chavez plus Artfldgr’s extensive writings about how everything is going down the socialist drain like Romania.
Now if participants are really talking about a nanny state and paying taxes like they do in Europe, well that’s a much more realistic concern, which I share, but it’s not what I’ve been arguing against.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny
1: Oppressive power esp. exerted by government
Gray: However, you left out the second definition:
This is the tyranny I have been arguing against.
If tyranny is just oppressive power, that’s unpleasant, but it is a matter of degree, and by that standard one could argue we’ve been living with tyranny since FDR or earlier.
including talk of gulags, canceled elections, martial law, civil war, and the rise of dictators like Lenin, Hitler and Chavez plus Artfldgr’s extensive writings about how everything is going down the socialist drain like Romania.
But Obama’s advisors and cabinet members have openly praised Mao, Cuba and Venzuela where there are gulags, dictators and cancelled elections. His medical-ethics advisors and environmental czars openly call for a kind of Soft Pogrom to save “the world” from humans.
It is truly worrisome….
If tyranny is just oppressive power, that’s unpleasant, but it is a matter of degree, and by that standard one could argue we’ve been living with tyranny since FDR or earlier.
Of course it is always a matter of degree.
Now it’s going too far into oppression. It’s getting too unpleasant: innocent people are getting punished economically and, perhaps later, by witholding medical treatments in the name of Greater Good. Enforcing the Greater Good through government oppression in individual’s lives is tyranny.
Funny it should mention Greek city-states with those speeches Obama gave in front of Greek columns!
They certainly don’t shy away from the symbols and trappings of tyranny…. Scary.
It won’t be Socialist Tyranny for you until they switch off your respirator to provide a bed and a respirator to someone younger who could recover more quickly and provide more tax dollars to feed the Beast. Then your realization will be too late. You won’t get the operation, you’ll “take the blue pill” as Obama says to reserve money and resources for a least a couple of abortions.
That’s not hyperbole. That is their plan for you. They just just use more beaureaucratic obfuscation, but the result is as I have written.
First, it’s an insult to black people (someday, someone will have to explain to me why “people of color” is so much better a term than the “colored people” with which I grew up) in America to call Barry a black man. Other than the “one drop rule,” he’s no more black than Paris Hilton.
Were his ancestors slaves? Did they live through Jim Crow? The Civil Rights Movement? Did he grow up in a black family? Did he live in a black neighborhood? Did he go to predominantly black schools? Did he go to a historic black college? So, his entire life, until he decided to become a politician, sometime at Occidental College, he never had anything to do with black people. And now he’s the “first black President?” My eye!
Second, he is not a liar — as he defines the term. In the leftiverse, “truth” means “that which is politically expedient.” Therefore, when he promises something without the slightest intention of fulfilling it, he is not “lying,” he is, in his own mind, telling the “truth.”
Not only that, since Barry sincerely believes — at the moment he says it — every word he utters, he is not a con man. Besides which, he is righteous, so how can he be a con man? He is leading us into that bright future which we knuckle-dragging dopes with our guns and our God simply can’t understand. What he says may not correspond with our reality, but it corresponds with his reality, or it’s necessary to get to his reality, therefore, it is the Truth. Get it?
Poor Richard
Consider that the act of not lying is in itself a lie to a progressive. Which explains why GWB, probably a man who sought the high road in public discourse to a fault, got labeled by the left as the poster child of lying.
They don’t like the judgement it places on their reflexive methods of discourse. They don’t like the piety in the suggestion that humans can possibly volunteer to negotiate high stakes issues without the tool of doublespeak deceptions and language obfuscation.
In other words, to not lie, is to expose your adherence to the backwardness of the self disciplined life in the Judeo/Christian tradition. Which is really what got GWB hated so much by the left.
You’ll be living under the booted foot of the lifeguard state!
— Big Wednesday
I surfed as a teenager and Big Wednesday is a movie I’ve always loved — by all means see it if you have any curiosity about surfing. It’s a coming of age story about three surfer friends, who are mentored by one of the original California surfers.
Now the older surfer has been living a pure surfer life, lodging on an ocean pier where he builds surfboards and sells bait, then one day he learns that the state is going to tear down the pier.
Catastrophe! He will have to move inland, live in a regular house, and get a regular job. In his despair he cries to one of the surfer friends:
You’ll be living under the booted foot of the lifeguard state!
If the US were to mutate into a country like France or Denmark, it would be a loss, it would be oppressive, it would be worth fighting politically, but I wouldn’t call it tyranny.
“I misspoke” That’s what Hillary said after she told the big whopper (more than once I believe) about getting off a plane and running for cover from sniper fire.
I believe it was de Tocqueville who postulated that dictatorship in the US would not be formal but rather just a continual requirement to get permission because of regulations; a dictatorship of the bureaucrat, like they have in west Europe.
Clearly, for those who care to see, this is the ideal of the Obama’s minions, power in the hands of an self-anointed elite who do not soil their hands with making their own money.
Occam’s hit on the reason for the lack of Obama criticism: race. He was a black who fit the white elite mold, yet allowed the elites to keep most blacks in the victim category where they are so useful for feeding the do-gooder ego.
As to the lying, Obama’s first lie is to himself about who he is. As Poor Richard says, he is not black in the American black sense. He has constructed himself out of non-fitting parts, and no one noticed. So he continues to construct societies and worlds, one ragged statement at a time. And the masses led by pundits and spin will continue to praise the artistic beauty of each little ragged fragment because they love art and have elevated aesthetic sensibilities. They are so bedazzled and confused. like kids who have just smashed a pinata full of glittering baubles, they don’t care about seeing whether the parts fit together. But they don’t fit together and someday the pinata party will be over.
huxley,
In one way you are right about American spirit and that a gradual move toward more government control would mean a change in but not the end of America. The problem is that we are not Denmark or France with their relative homogeneity. We have created our own America from disparate parts.
The very people who want a control state are also aiming to drive us apart. NRO has two pieces up today on the Hawaii bill. We have segregated college dorms, Zinn’s history, Jeremiah Wright. We can’t go quietly to where Denmark is. Parts of America need to be destroyed first, and they will be the best parts of our can-do spirit.
Yesterday Fox began airing a tape that recently surfaced that reveals Obama boasting about his long-standing relationship with Acorn. He goes into great detail about his ties to Acorn in the tape, which was made during the campaign, I believe:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4028980/new-obama-acorn-tape-surfaces/
When this tape is juxtaposed with Obama’s statements during the Acorn scandal (paraphrasing…he hasn’t paid much attention to Acorn…didn’t know they got much federal money, etc. etc.) the blatant lies are really quite striking.
My theory is that most people truly don’t pay close enough attention to politics to note the multiple red flags, inconsistencies, etc. Those of us who frequent blogs like this one are in the minority.
I think more and more people are, however, becoming uncomfortable with the pattern of events over the past year (the soaring debt, persistent unemployment, the rushing through of the health care bill, etc.) but there are still many folks who are still not closely tuned in, and are still hesitant to criticize Obama because of his race (and often attribute harsh criticism of Obama to racism as well). Within the past month I have heard three different women, all female Dems who are close to me–including my Mom!–say that many people are disenchanted with Obama REALLY have a problem with his race, whether they admit it or not.
And of course for many of these folks, the NYT is their bible and any news they get is from the MSM, NPR, etc.
I don’t think Hillary would have been better for liberty. She can lie with the best of ’em. I think she knows the system better and wouldn’t have got as stalled as Obama has at this point. If you know the history of the Clintons I’m not sure how you could think she is “a nice gal”. She is ruthless and has a lot of connections. Far more of a threat in my mind. I think we dodged a bullet. I really do.
I held my nose and voted for RINO McCain but just barely. Many of my conservitive friends were of the same attitude. Many of us thought RINO McCain would cave to dem. pressure. Concession would be his name. I know some friend that voted Obama just because of his speaking style in the campain. How shallow we have become?
I was pretty certain the dems. would win the election. MANY people were pissed at the whole system. Dems. mis-read this from the election. People wanted a different “hope and change” from the feds.
Obama’s win was a vote against Hillary and McCain as much as anything else. Dems. mis-read that. Big time. They are getting it now. Nov. is going to be interesting.
I think we got lucky we got Obie instead of Hillary. It would be the same agenda but with better execution with Hillary. It’s speculation now, but that’s how I see it.
My link up top is Dems. fighting the EPA. Priceless. Dem. house is devided.
In one way you are right about American spirit and that a gradual move toward more government control would mean a change in but not the end of America.
expat: Since FDR, what other story does America have — at least according to most conservatives — than “a gradual move towards more government control”?
Whatever Obama’s ultimate designs may be, nationalized health care has been a holy grail for Democrats since 1941 when FDR enumerated the Four Freedoms including:
Furtherore, FDR considered a world based on the Four Freedoms:
Dang.
FDR said, “That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.”
The following lines were mine.
huxley,
Sweden is probably the role model for a socialist state, but if you look at what happened there when the finances went down the tube, you see that even they could do some rollbacks to adapt. I don’t know whether an America consisting of different victim groups wouldn’t be in far worse shape than the Swedes when change is required. The lefties are making sacrifice for the good of the country impossible. How many people have the time to think through the implications of Akaka?
I agree with expat that the relative homogeneity of countries like Denmark and France is one reason that they accept more government control more readily than we do. But I think there’s another reason, and it’s something that almost everybody in America has in common, no matter where we came from. Most of us are the descendants of people who LEFT Denmark and France and a lot of other places. The people of today’s Denmark and France are the descendants of those who chose to stay. Unlike them, almost everyone here — with important exceptions, such as Native Americans or the descendants of slaves — descends from somebody, or several somebodies, who cared enough about individual freedom to get up and walk away forever from everything familiar, somebody who believed enough in his or her own resources and capacities to imagine starting over from scratch — and then did it. Even when these unimaginably brave folks are many generations back, I think they continue to influence not just how America is governed, but who we are. Part of the reason that we care more about individual freedom and are more resistant to community control is written in our genes.
If state control is so wonderful for the collective then why don’t we incarcerate the good folks in prisons and punish criminals by forcing them a life on the outside relying on their own merit? Hmmmm
Since FDR, what other story does America have – at least according to most conservatives – than “a gradual move towards more government control”?
That’s a bizarre statement: who could possibly dispute that we’ve moved towards more government control?
The only difference is the democrats like it.
When, very early on in the campaign, I perceived Obama to be a liar, I had not yet gotten to the point of thinking he was a socialist. And yet, on a gut level, I knew he was untrustworthy.
i went the other way..
knowing socialism so intimately, i know its a doctrine of lies and falsehoods and games of power by other means.
in essence there is no such thing as a truthful socialist!!!
truth is antithetical to socialism
ergo, anyone and everyone practicing it is lying, even if only to themselves.
of course such old absolute knowlege of systems and doctrines is not what progressives want you to think. they want you to be fair to the unfair, reasonable to the unreasonable, measured against extreme…
however since americans cant even realize that communism, socialism, fascism, progressivism are pretty much all variations on a theme, they are, and you were (?) holding out for an honest socialist.
you do not know or believe that the problems that come from it are SYSTEMIC And part of the system. mostly bcause you have realied on second hand descriptions of what it all is about (which those who want you to follow them, tend ot leave your extermination out of it! circumstances orchestrated can kill BETTER than overt methods)
if you follow an ideology which foundation is lies, and you trust it other than what it is, then its easy to get screwed.
all i have to do is convince you that tigers are soft cuddly and nice… and the tiger gets a meal.
the fact we cant even see that that is an option of behavior on the table expecially because we believe otherwise, is to end up like most people when such regimes take power.
in case you havent noticed, like the nazi symbol, obama symbols are spreading out.
have you seen the new missile defense symbols?
but of course, symbols mean nothing..
they are telling their followers who are acting on such symbols, hints, missice snad such.
meanwhile, their victims cant even tell their victims.
[even after millions murdered, the victims still said, if only stalin knew! ]
The antithesis to a system of merit, a mertiocracy would be what? what would be the inversion (The antithesis)? a system of lies.
and a system of lies insures that the liars define the terms, the field, and the outcomes… i this way, a system of lies can beat a system of merit, if that system of merit loses its absolute measure and becomes relative. so those who know the system intimately, and its works, and literature, knwo what its really about. and you then see the two camps clearly… those who promote it at the top tend to be the sleaziest people with the nicest patinas you ever saw!
and those that oppose it tend to be earthy people that despite seeing the way to power, like washington, do not wish such for them or the people that they like and love. hasnt any one notced that the top people in all forms of socialisms are really sleazy people whose sleaze is ignored or celebrated? (like a awards committe for the successfully sociopathic)
Sanger was a progressive… she wanted to exterminate the blacks and others to make a suprior race of men. A MAJOR tenet of progressivism, fascism, socialism, and stems from the prophet marx.
how did they get us to beleive that something that started ot as the negro project whith the idea of secretly exterminating the black race by visiting bad circumstances of welfare and law, and other things so that the smartest ones self genocide? they lied.
how are they going to get us to sign on to health care? they lie
what did stalin say to his people about the starvations and deprivations? he lied.
what did hitler do to get the population angry at jews? he lied
what the feminists do to make every man bad in the eyes of the collective woman in the US and West? they lied
how did mao and others get our state to make sure he beat his opponent? they lied
when they promote socialism as better than capitalism, despite 100% refution… how do they get to keep seling it? they lie
when you read saul alinsky, yuo read him say that he dedicated this to lucifer.. who is also called the lord of lies!! and what does he show you ow to do? to negate merit and lie to power. heck.. how did lucifer create his own kingdom foundd in lies? by lying to the other angels that there was something better than heaven.
how did the teachers union take control of the schools and foment ignorance which foments their power? they lied so that they can make us too stupid to catch lies…
the whole thing is a foudnation of lies…in a system of lies which is successful in turning meritocracies into totalitarianisms, as they default to truth
and do not look for lies.
in fact we accept everything as truth!!!! how many times are thye going to say we failed and need more money to succeed, and we will see it for the lie it is?
does russia tell the truth as to anything? pravda the magazine called truth, was all about lying.
when they say they dont like the news reporting against them, are they complaining about merit, or the lack of lies? of course there isnt enough evidence. and i am going to hear from those not in it, never lived it, telling me that its not what it is…. *(despite them having learned what it is from the liars).
expat et al.: My point is that there are other ways to understand the Democratic agenda besides a straight greased chute to socialist tyranny and it is incorrect to assume that that is what Democrats really want.
Democrats have been at this a long time and they don’t see it as tyranny. The prime mover in this is not Marx, Lenin, or Gramsci, but FDR — aided and abetted by sincere Americans like Norman Rockwell.
At what point are you going to realize that if Marxism is the opposite of capitalism
And if capitalism is a system of truth, openness, and freedom, and mutual benefit exchange, built on property rights.
Then what would be its antithesis as far as hegel and marx and those idiots are concerned?
and that such a system could not be sold to the public truthfully (as was discovered in the 30s when they were open about it).
i said these are all inversions.
i said you have to read what they read..
nope.. fantasy based half on the lies accepted as truth from a system whose deepest secret is that its hegellain antithetical position to everything else.
now, apply this same hegelian view to what they say. and you find that they have been lying to you.
why would they do that?
because truth is merit, and they are antithetical to the old system.
WAKE UP and smell the coffee.
The problem for Democrats is that they don’t see the unintended consequences of all their Big Rock Candy Mountain planning.
expat et al.: My point is that there are other ways to understand the Democratic agenda besides a straight greased chute to socialist tyranny and it is incorrect to assume that that is what Democrats really want.
why is it incorrect to assume in this case?
who taught you that it was unreasonable to assume that after decades of lies and games even with foreign states, that its now not ok to assume that what they are working towards is waht they want?
at what point WILL you assume it?
when you cant do anything about it and its a final done fixed deal? otherwise, there is always a tiny chance that it wont..
guess what?
thats a way to guarantee it will!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
why?
because all other things have opposition.
Occam’s Beard: How about Bernie Sanders for an honest progressive?
OK. Kucinich probably also. Anyone on that side of the aisle who owns up publicly to wanting socialism could be termed an honest progressive.
But note that neither Sanders nor Kucinich actually amount to anything; they’re flakes, eccentrics. All the other “progressives” are in fact Marxist Lite types who aren’t honest enough to admit it. Note that the term “progressive” was long used in Soviet propaganda to describe the Soviets and their fellow travelers (“progressive forces”). It was only adopted by putative Americans when the term “liberal” had too much stink attaching to it.
Artfldgr: I have no idea why, based on anything I’ve said in this post or comments, or elsewhere, you claim I was relying on an honest socialist.
I decided Obama was dishonest first. I wasn’t sure whether he was a socialist until somewhat later. But I had decided he was almost certainly both prior to the election. I saw—and see—no disparity or contradiction between socialism and dishonesty. In fact, I was—and am—well aware that if a socialist were to run in this country, in order to win he would almost certainly have to dissemble about his true aims (except on a very local level in a very special place, like Bernie Sanders).
The rest of your comment of 12:18 contains similar assertions that have nothing to do with what I’ve said or what I think. I am well aware that the history of socialism and communism contains a great deal of lying, for example, and that lying (and the rewriting of history) is part and parcel of it. I read Orwell as a youngster. I assimilated the information there. I lived through the height of the Cold War. Etc., etc….
I am not sure why you continue to believe that people disagree with you even on points on which they agree. Your later comments on this thread are very similar. You are arguing as though people are here are in some general disagreement with you about Communism and lies, but they are not.
Occam’s Beard: I agree that they are marginal. But you said to name one, and I did.
So if we have two poles–free enterprise and socialism–what do we call government activities that are supposed to protect us, like food and drug laws, water quality laws, air pollution laws, etc.?
I’m afraid this discussion is getting too extreme. Surely we need some laws to protect us from capitalists run wild.
Promethea,
Sure, we need laws and regulations to protect us from things that no single person could monitor as an individual. The problem comes in defining the line between needed state responsibility and individual responsibility. The trend of many leftists is to create people who are no longer capable of taking responsibilty. Instead of teaching science, have the kids draw pictures of polar bears and take part in protest marches.
huxley’s last comment nails it: they don’t see the consequences of their well-meaning reforms. Even worse, when unwanted consequences become apparent, they are too ideologically wedded to their programs to change them. This is why I hate the division into victim groups: people loose the ability to assess needs of the larger society and weigh every proposed correction as an attack on their group.
I can’t find anything in FDR’s four freedoms that resemble ideas of a modern liberal. Freedom of speech? We’re talking people who marched through institutions to make sure only one political idea got heard. Freedom of religion? No, they want freedom FROM religion and have nothing but contempt for its adherents. Freedom from want? Maybe freedom from their uncontrolable want to have what their neighbor has. Plus how would they buy votes without want? Freedom from fear? Ummm then whats all the made up apocalypse about the earth burning up to end civilisation?
Maybe they have distant ties to FDR. But mostly i see only a pinch of FDR idealism but heaping doses of narcissistic entitlement minded adolescence.
Occam’s Beard: I agree that they are marginal. But you said to name one, and I did.
Yep. I was basically confronting our friend of the trollish persuasion re his drive-by snark, but you’re right. Significantly, he didn’t come up with any.
SteveH: Needless to say, Democrats and liberals have gotten caught up in any number of contradictions — see Unintended Consequences, Law of.
However, if you want to understand how typical Democrats, even some in Congress, think and why they consider themselves in firm position of the moral high ground, revisit FDR and The Four Freedoms, which also directly inform the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
One of the hallmarks of a self-aware person is recognition of the Law of Unintended Consequences. I don’t really care what the typical Democrat feels about his position. Look at the consequences.
WRT to the UN, LOL.
Mrs Whatsit Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:32 am :
Excellent point. Most of us are descended from the ornery part of the European gene pool. Them that were content, stayed in Europe.The difference also is reflected in attitudes towards religion.
Europe and the US have been self-selected regarding those who considered religion important. A substantial proportion of Europeans for whom religion was important but who did not agree with the state religions, left for the US. While many Europeans who were indifferent to religion, who had no problem with going through the motions of the state religions, immigrated to the US, such indifferent people constituted a smaller proportion of those immigrating to America compared to their proportion in Europe. Over the years, as religious dissidents immigrated to America, the proportion of those to whom religion was important lessened in Europe.
While I do not belong to a church, I do not share the abhorrence towards religion- organized or otherwise- that many secular Europeans have. One of my “Dutch” ancestors who came to the US in the 1600s was the descendant of Germans who had fled Germany in the 1500s for religious reasons. It is of note that one such descendant of the German dissidents who fled to Holland played a role in the Abolition movement. The ornery gene was passed on.
My old student of the catastrophes, follies and Vast Horrors of 20th Century Communism Brain still can’t wrap itself around there being ANY questions or interest, much less beliefs, after ALL that was proved. It just flabbergasts me. Let’s see, Comrades, 100-million(+)bodies in the ground for the greater good of The People and some lunatics STILL think its ‘intentions’ or ‘aims’ were somehow noble? Insanity.
I don’t really care what the typical Democrat feels about his position. Look at the consequences.
That’s OK with me. I’m not trying to justify them.
However, on the off-chance you want to understand blue Americans, I suggest spending a little time with FDR and the Four Freedoms. It might be useful.
our later comments on this thread are very similar. You are arguing as though people are here are in some general disagreement with you about Communism and lies, but they are not.
sorry… what i am picking up on is this…
they don’t see the consequences of their well-meaning reforms. Even worse, when unwanted consequences become apparent, they are too ideologically wedded to their programs to change them.
that says that they dont get it…
so i keep trying to hammer that THEY KNOW THE BAD THEY DO…
not to you neo, but to the others who want to think that way…
they have yet to grasp that if you want to cause maximal damage, and dont want good people to kill you for doing so, then pretend to have the SAME intentions as they do… and convince them to agree with a bad action as a good one…
all that is needed is the willingness to maximize harm to the system you profess is the antithesis of all you care about and the epitome of evil to you, and lie so as not to be punished for it.
which criminals take the most money?
the ones that walk up to you at night iwth a weapon?
or the ones, like ponzi, and maddoff, who pretend to help you and because they seem to be trying to do their best for you, you let them clean you out?
if they grasped the difference between an ideology that requires lies for fulfillment, and an ideology that requires lies as a funciton of its ideology…
then they would not think that ivy league people didnt know the outcomes of their policies.
i submit that the public doesnt know what the policies end function is, and that they cant conclude and prevent them!!!
its not they who are stupid, its us who are stupid believing that the antithesis of a system built on truth (as best as we can) would be another system of truth.
the reason the soviet union and its children are so incompetent and inable to function is that a system built on lies cant function. its a GREAT way to grab power from a meritocracy when the people are not to bright (and believe they are all genius).
but as George Kenan said, they have no program to govern..
they are what they claim thje other side to be.. (as they think everyone is like them, but some are slicker than they are).
the only way to BETRAY people is to falsely gain their trust, and when you falsely gain their trust, and do harm, they let you go and let you do it again and again.
now… tell me if that isnt the natural way that sociopaths go through life causing mayhem around them and suffering, and remain subclinical…
all you ahve to do is imagine what kind of utopia a sociopath would make.. knowing that so many of them are fakes and posers in life, and not full of merit…
after all:
In a meritocracy where do incompetent, manipulative, dissimulating, collusive, plotting people who love to make misery, trick others, and prey on them find a place to be themselves?
then i guess they are opressed and leading the pack to liberation… (ergo what they want us to normalize, including sadism of the weak)…
so i get that you may get that lying is necessary, but i dont know if you know that even when they had total power, lying was complete and full to the point that economy and society couldnt function. figures on plans were lies… so factories and places couldnt function… road maps were lies, fearing invasion and the enemies use of their maps… (you should see how some of thes states and ex states are making a stink as to google). social education was lies of policies, which resulted in not much culture left… rampant alcoholism, no hope to change the future, women using prostitution to get an edge..
and we are doing much the same here… they say what he place is, we fear it being that way, so we work hard, and make it into the place they said it was.
its funny that someone would quote the “know your enemies” thing, and that’s the one who doesn’t know the enemies intimately. Thinks they are different than they are, and refuses to learn how they really are, which is different than the books that liberal publishers have let be published in many many decades.
life is funny that way
by the time those people figure it out
its too late, as they want to taste the future before they commit.
how did merlin put it?
oh yeah..
the future is like that cake arthur… you dont know whats in it till you taste it, but then its too late.
however, one can guess what the future will taste like if one pays attention to the ingredients they are putting in.
given that they ahve tried completely unconstitutional socialist/communist ideas as fixes in an antithetical state… i surmise that they will keep trying…
till they get what they want..
and they have NEVER changed on what they wanted.
change was for everything else BUT their religious prophets maxims..
when dealing with a system of lies, you have to remove the liars and hte system. one CANT function with them. THATS what everyone doesnt get…
we all to fast go back to our normal idea of functioning in a meritocracy, which the minute they play their games and we dont call them out on it, is dead… as meritocracy is a state of behavior, and actions, like capitalism… and not an ideology… which can impose itself by force and tricks..
Maybe they have distant ties to FDR. But mostly i see only a pinch of FDR idealism but heaping doses of narcissistic entitlement minded adolescence.
i posted from flynns book and the ideals as laid out by chase… of course if you dont go to unrevised sources wich promote a reinterpreting of history, you are going to miss what ties them together.
here i try again..
The Road Ahead: Americas Creeping Revolution
by JOHN T. FLYNN
and i will post ONE example to show that if you just look to chase, the man who wrote up FDRs stuff, you will see almost an exact copy of the same goals they are closing the deal on now.
A somewhat more detailed list has been set up by Mr. Stuart Chase.2 Mr. Chase, who is always the honest disputant, gives an outline of the things which would either have to be established or considered
The powers of the President would have to be enlarged at the expense of the Congress and the courts.
does that sound like todays progressive liberals?
how about this with cap and trade?
Control of natural energy sources such as hydroelectric power, coal and gas, transportation and agricultural production.
(they didnt have nuclear at that time)
here is number 6 on the list of 10
The government would have to insure to all “food, housing and medical care.”
sound familiar?
and the idea of not stopping spending, and raising taxes and keep going..
There would have to be support of these operations with government funds obtained by borrowing if necessary.
A managed currency
The government would have to control banking, credit and security exchanges.
when i put this up before someone screamed that they didnt take over them etc.
but the words say CONTROL… not own..
ford said
i want to own nothing and control everything
he realized that it wasnt the man who earned the money and held on to it in name that had power, but the wife who controlled the money..
(which is why you convince them they have no power, then pretend to give them back the power you said they didnt have. its a process that can be abstractly applied to anything. gender, race, etc… but the peoplle who invest their lives at all in it then become protectors of it).
the soviet politburo doesnt have to own anything if it can control everthing.
this is what so many dont get..
its not OWN the means of production
its CONTROL the means of production
and you can control with laws, regulations, licenses, dispensations and all that stuff you now commonly think of as part of capitalism, but is really fascism, and socialism.
[what part of free dont we get?]
chase and his crew wrote the book on what the progressives were to work for.
most dont even know who he is..
“I wish I knew why some people perceived this about Obama and some did not.”
Some people just do not want to see the truth. They become deluded by what they want to see.
They want their cozy little welfare programs but also less goverment and not understanding these are contradictions their politics flails widely between these two but gradually moving toward complete goverment control.
But you can’t eat your cake and have it too.
The battle can’t be won until most of the people including the independents realize this contradiction and realize they have to grow up and start taking care of themselves.
I wish I knew why some people perceived this about Obama and some did not.
To play pyschologist here a bit, sociopaths and psychopaths — if that is what Obama is or is close to what he is — are often extraordinarily charming individuals. They can slip through people’s defenses.
n-n…Uuuummmm…Scalpel anywhere ? 🙂
huxley:
The Four Freedoms:
Freedom of speech and expression
Freedom of religion
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear
The first two are part of the Constitution, but the last two aren’t, by any definition. They are a pipe dream at best, and outright fraud at worst. How could a government possibly ensure those “rights”? By having a social worker and a policeman sitting by your side 24/7?
Over the last 4.6 billion years, which of Earth’s creatures has ever had a “right” to “freedom from want” or “freedom from fear”?
Rickl:
I think you forgot:
Freedom from reality. This is more fundamental than your last two Freedoms but includes both of them.
FDR was just an earlier version of today’s liberal fascists. In those days you actually had to state some real freedoms to smuggle in the false ones.
rickl: I’d agree that calling FDR’s third and fourth freedoms “rights” is a kind of category error.
Nonetheless, providing practical, not perfect, but practical solutions to the third and fourth “freedoms” is the primary mission of all human societies.
So it’s somewhat understandable that FDR might construe those responsibilities as freedoms.
However, without those “freedoms” America has paradoxically managed to become the most successful society in history in satisfying those “freedoms.”
I tend to think of it like the part of the first line of the Declaration of Independence: “All men are entitled to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
We have rights to life and liberty, but not to happiness itself. We only have the right to pursue happinesss and perhaps achieve it.
Steve D
With regard to the sheeple being naive enough to vote for Obama. At least some of his support was due to the perception that certain standards of behavior in a leader can be taken for granted, so why not vote for the more dramatic candidate.
Of course now they are all claiming to have voted for McCain, the clever candidate who reassured his supporters during a rally that did they did not have to fear an Obama administration. How could anyone not trust a candidate who would say something like that?
Anyway, since the Massachusetts election Obama is a mere placeholder, with a fraction of potential for dramatic action as Millard Fillmore or Harding, an embarrassment who would be humorous if his incompetence did not make him dangerous.
My wife still maintains that his ego will drive him to resign while blaming others for not allowing him to change things. He makes an interesting psychological study though for those interested in psychopathology.
Bob from Virginia . . .
Excellent point regarding assumiing certain standards of behavior. I’m sure that’s why my family voted for Obama. They did not think they were picking an incompetent revolutionary. They thought they were picking a liberal leader who would fix whatever needed fixing.
If things turn south, they will never understand why because they don’t have enough background to understand Obama’s incompetence. They’ll just blame “politicians.”
“providing practical, not perfect, but practical solutions to the third and fourth “freedoms” is the primary mission of all human societies”
Actually, I thought that was my primary mission for my family. I would say the primary mission of all human societies would be to facillitate the ability of indiviudals to do this on his own. It’s called empowerment.
“They thought they were picking a liberal leader who would fix whatever needed fixing.”
Naivety, stupidity, apathy, dishonesty. I’ll pick the first one since it is the only one which is a partially positive trait.
“incompetent revolutionary”
That actually sounds like a good thing to me.
“some of his support was due to the perception that certain standards of behavior in a leader can be taken for granted, so why not vote for the more dramatic candidate”
Hmm. I wonder how many other great leaders (Alexander, Hitler) benefited from this.
Talk about lying. Take a look at this Palestinian newspaper article in which the questions is mulled over, “Is Obama a Muslim or a Muslim apostate?” (http://www.jihadwatch.org/)