Obama: boasts and innuendos
I know that there are plenty of braggarts and liars in politics, especially among so-called “surrogates”–i.e. advisors, campaign managers, official advertisements, PAC advertisements, supporters, and the like. And vice-presidents; perhaps especially vice presidents.
But I’ve never seen—or at least cannot remember—a sitting president sinking quite as low as Obama regularly does these days while campaigning (which is what seems to occupy an enormous amount of his time and energy). And he doesn’t need surrogates; he does it himself, bragging on his exploits and lying—usually in a very subtle manner, by innuendo rather than direct accusation—about his opponents.
What’s got me going this time? The “Mitt-Romney-wouldn’t-have-killed-Bin-Laden-like-I-did” meme that the Obama campaign’s been spouting off on lately.
The first problem is that it’s hypocritical, because Obama has criticized opponents for using this sort of thing for campaign purposes:
This is the same President who once criticized Hillary Clinton for invoking bin Laden ”˜to score political points.’
This is the same President who said, after bin Laden was dead, that we shouldn’t ”˜spike the ball’ after the touchdown. And now Barack Obama is not only trying to score political points by invoking Osama bin Laden, he is doing a shameless end-zone dance to help himself get reelected.
So, what did Obama actually say yesterday? Try this on for size; it was the president’s answer to a press conference question in which a reporter specifically asked about the controversy, mentioning Romney by name:
“I’d just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and take out Bin Laden.”
“I assume that people meant what they said when they said it. That’s been at least my practice,” Obama said from the East Room of the White House, during a joint news conference with Japan’s prime minister. “I said that I’d go after Bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they’d do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.”
A particular pet peeve of mine is the use the weasel word “people” when the speaker actually means someone quite specific. In this case it’s undoubtedly Romney to whom Obama is referring, as is clear from the context. Here’s the video for that:
Obama knows that Romney will try to “go ahead and explain it,” but that most people won’t be listening to him. But here, for those who are paying attention, is what Romney said. He’s done plenty of ‘splaining already:
If you missed the origin of this controversy, it comes from an Obama campaign commercial that heaps credit on Obama for Seal Team Six’s raid on Obama’s house, and suggests that Romney wouldn’t have authorized the mission. The Romney quote is, “It’s not worth moving heaven and Earth, spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” Of course, Romney didn’t say what Obama now claims he did”“that, if we knew bin Laden’s whereabouts and were prepared to kill him, Romney would decline to authorize the mission. Within a few days after the speech from which the quoted sentence came, Romney was asked about it in a presidential debate:
Romney: Thank you. Of course we get Osama bin Laden and track him wherever he has to go, and make sure he pays for the outrage he exacted upon America.
Moderator: Can we move heaven and earth to do it?
Romney: We’ll move everything to get him. But I don’t want to buy into the Democratic pitch that this is all about one person ”” Osama bin Laden ”” because after we get him, there’s going to be another and another.
This is about Shia and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and Al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate.
They ultimately want to bring down the United States of America.
This is a global effort we’re going to have to lead to overcome this jihadist effort. It’s more than Osama bin Laden.
But he is going to pay, and he will die.
I’m not sure why this particular episode has galled me so much. It isn’t just that Obama engages in this sort of thing—which, after all, is hardly unheard-of in campaigns—but that with so many people his reputation for honesty and uprightness and integrity remains unbesmirched. How does he pull that one off?
How does he pull that off?
No 1. He is a master at seeming reasonable at almost whatever he says.
No 2. He was very effective in using techniques of mass hypnosis during his first campaign which have stalled many people from rational thought about his policies and statements.
No 3. The number of those who consider him unbesmirched is gradually growing. Consider the Jon Lovitz flap just recently.
“I’m not sure why this particular episode has galled me so much.”
It’s the smirk. Haven’t you noticed it lately?
How does he pull that one off?
——-
No one wants to be accused of being racist.
Bush = Fair game
Owebama = Protected affirmative-action man-child
RickZ: I agree that being thought racist is a factor, but I think it’s something much, much more than that. I think there is something very smooth and arrogant and above-it-all about Obama’s manner, and it does have a lulling effect for a lot of people.
It’s also his manner of speaking. He seems so calm and unemotional that what he says has a certain authoritative tone. To me, there’s always been a smirk evident behind it, but I think people either see that or they don’t.
As for the hypnotic suggestion thing that many have alluded to, I read that lengthy article explaining that theory way back in 2008 and found it a bit less than compelling, although it probably has a very minor effect.
Did you read Dana Milbank today? He says the Preezy is sleazy and it’s making him queasy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obama-campaigner-in-chief/2012/04/30/gIQATAfbsT_story.html?hpid=z2
Even Arianna Huffington is critical. There is a crack in the Won’s facade. Let’s hope Romney can drive a semi through it.
Obama’s verbal aggression and smart ass attitude brings to mind what is called “the dozens.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dozens
Seeing as he did not grow up black, I’m guessing he picked it up in Chicago.
Hypnosis has a very minor effect on rational people and you, Neo, are a very, very rational person and do not let your “filters” down. Most liberals like a whore strip down very quickly. Like the women sitting around in a circle talking where three are liberal and two are conservative and gee wouldn’t it be nice if the two conservatives were hair pullers instead of get alongers but I digress the point is the three liberal women immediately get that glazed shark eye look, roll over and hone in for a feeding.
Wasn’t it Kolnai who authored a very convincing and enjoyable article on liberals and emotional thinking. That might be worth a re-read.
That article about hypnosis (and it was pretty long) generated more interest in me and I now receive emails from the Ericksonian foundation. I’ll see if I can find a recent one. But it’s scary how much of that is going on.
Nope. No recent email from the Ericksonian folks. Did find a warning by Neo to be nice. That was a pretty long time ago.
Did find a new mail from Loretta Sanchez and a cite to a place to apply for federal grants where (get this) the word “dole” is in the cite. Oh, there’s another bad poem in there. I gairoontee you that.
The ultimate question: Obama’s mysterious “likeability.”
I find it truly bizarre, but not surprising. I’ll take a stab at a middle position between neo’s view and RickZ’s:
Initially, people heard Obama’s “reasonable” vapidities and judged them harmless at worst, inspiring at best. This was significantly aided by the race factor, a kind of internalized pressure to Manifest Racial Illumination.
Then people stopped listening to him altogether, because deep down “in the places they don’t talk about at parties” (to quote a famous military figure 🙂 they know he never says anything of substance. The whole point of the charade is to stay on the surface – the internal pressure and the authoritative, reasonable tone conspire to keep things there, nice and empty, a gilded void.
So, as of now, I think the explanation is simple: No one is listening to him. In part it’s because they don’t want to – a preemptive shutting out of what might upset the pleasant vibes on the surface. In part it’s because people don’t listen much anyway; attention will necessarily increase as the campaign heats up (I would never know Obama was spiking any football on OBL if I didn’t read blogs – this stuff just doesn’t penetrate into day-to-day life).
And in part it’s because we’re in Late Decadence and have a hard time telling the difference between malicious, malignant-narcissistic mendacity and rational, honest discourse.
Pressure to Manifest Racial Illumination + Obama’s dulcet tones + “I’m Not Listening, Na-Na-Na-Na” + Late Decadence = Mr. Likeable.
The one positive here is that the liking for the man is paper-thin, based on nothing substantive, and should things keep on sucking in ye olde economy, people will have a weighty fait accompli to appeal to in order to overcome their infatuation come November.
Obama-indulgence is a mass psychosis that ought to be of interest to all people interested in man in society. No one will ever study it, and that’s a shame.
“”How does he pull that one off?””
How about this.
1. Average people want to see themselves as liking a nice looking black President.
2. Black narcissistic President can’t resist testing the boundaries of this windfall for the personal satisfaction of manipulating people on a huge scale.
3. Average people are sure he didn’t mean what he reportedly said or did.
4. Manipulation continues.
“”No one will ever study it, and that’s a shame.””
Kolnai
Oh i think it will be studied. I even think this time period will become rather famous for its widespread masochistic psychosis.
Two thoughts.
First, I wish I understood this alleged likability of Obama, but I don’t. I have to believe that this perception is eroding, and if he keeps on as he is, it will largely disappear. There are signs that it is. When you lose the Dana Milbanks, you know you have screwed up. Milbank is one of the writers I did not read when I subscribed to the Washington Post. No need. His line was consistent, and I knew what it would be.
Second. I wish Romney would not try to explain, but would attack. I wish that at least this one time, he would call a press conference at which he would play his full statement; then tell the world that the distortion in the Obama ad is a lie. Furthermore, that any news organization that played the distorted version without including the entire statement is reporting dishonestly. Tell the nation that he will continue to flag those lies whenever they occur, along with identifying any dishonest organization that spreads them. Finally, that any organization that stoops to that kind of reporting would not be accredited to his campaign, and would not have access to his campaign, nor a seat on the press plane that follows his campaign. Would it help? Wold it backfire? Who knows? But, it would be refreshing, and I have to believe that honest Americans would respond. This slime has got to be stopped.
Oldflyer says, “I wish Romney would not try to explain, but would attack… Would it help? Wold it backfire? Who knows? But, it would be refreshing, and I have to believe that honest Americans would respond.”
That is what has to happen and I think many ‘independents’ would respond positively. Gentlemen may have disagreements and remain gentlemen. BHO is no gentleman. He’s a narcissistic punk. Romney needs to call him out on his lies and distortions in a forceful but calm and rational manner as you describe.
The main reason this particular flap galls ME so much is that he is using the actions and accomplishments of brave, skilled men who are constantly putting their lives in jeopardy for political gain.
Maybe that’s part of the reason it upsets you so much, Neo.
I didn’t find the ad to be all that galling. I did think it passing strange that the voice used was none other than Bubba Clinton, the man who could have had bin Laden three times and refused to make the call. Maybe the gist was that I, Bubba, am just a weak man and so, by my estimation, is Romney. However, anyone who has followed Obama’s decision making on military affairs knows that he is ULTRA CAUTIOUS. Thus, giving the go ahead to Seal Team 6 had to be as sure a thing as any op of that type can be.
Obama’s prosecution of the GWOT has been a combo of using drones as assassins and de-emphasizing boots on the ground. Thus far it is killing quite a number of terrorists, but is basically a slow motion surrender. Other than killing bin Laden there is little else that he can point to as an accomplishment on the war front. In many ways using bin Laden’s death as a way of embellishing his record reminds me of Kerry’s vain attempt to use his Vietnam record. (You did know he served in Vietnam? :>}) The best path may be to mock him as a boaster and a stone cold killer who delights in using drones and Seal Teams to assassinate people, while failing to come up with any strategy for winning the GWOT.
As for his cockiness, he reminds me of a couple of similar people I have known that used a posture of superiority coupled with a smooth confidence to get people to do what they desired. These sorts can be very hard to bring down as they manage to maintain their pose even in stressful circumstances. Only when they are cornered and can see that the rubes absolutely no longer buy their BS, does the mask fall.
My 2.5 cents:
Obama’s Courage? The Coward Hasn’t Got an Ounce of It
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/5minute_arguments/courage_he_hasnt_got_it.php
To me, each attack against Romney … could be turned on Obama.
For instance, at a Romney speech today, an audience member shouted: “Racist!” The proper retort: (dismissive wave of the hand) “Even a racist would be a better President than Barack Obama”.
Romney could allow this to become an unofficial campaign slogan. For instance, in response to this attack: “Romney would not have approved the mission to get Bin Laden” … the proper unofficial campaign slogan retort (after a dismissive wave of the hand) “Even a guy who did not get Bin Laden would have been a better President than Barack Obama.”
I have to say: no politician deserves to be treated this way any more than Romney, b/c Romney did this same type of political trolling during the Repub Primaries of 2008 and 2012. This is a “what goes around comes around” type of thing. Obama’s rep remains unbesmirched b/c the media does not report on his dishonesty. Romney counted on the same dynamic when he was making unfair accusations during the primaries: media like the fireworks, and will not do the homework of debunking false accusations. Media, in fact, were hoping Romney’s accusations against his Repub opponents were true; were only too happy to leave those false accusations undebunked. Same thing now: media are rooting for Obama’s accusations to be true, and are only too happy to leave them undebunked.
I am sure the SEALs hate Obama with a passion. He could not wait to take credit (ruining the intelligence they gathered) and outed Team 6 (20+ of whom were killed not long after when their copter was hit by a RPG). If the press had any integrity they would be all over him for his glaringly obvious failings.
As I see it, today, [May 1, 2012], Obama has signed a treaty, saying that he’ll remove all “combat soldiers” out of the War in Afghanistan, in 2014, and that he’ll leave only “adviser soldiers” in that war, in 2014.
And already, many Obama-is-never-wrong-Democrats are saying that: “this means that Obama will get us out of the war, in 2012.
No, it does not mean that. The United States, and the United States’ military will be OUT of the war, when every last U.S. [soldier + military person] leaves the war.
The following can happen. If the war gets worse, after January 1, 2014, Obama and/or the military can designate those advisers as “combat troops”, and then those troops will be fighting in the war.
Please, main stream news reporters, please don’t lie to us, and say the lie that: adviser troops in a war, aren’t in the war, because only the people called “combat troops” or “combat soldiers” get sent to the war”.
No. ALL MILITARY PEOPLE can get sent to war. It has happened before, and it can happen again.
“How does he pull that off?”
Obama has been programmed to pull that off. I mean programmed as in programmed.
His disordered upbringing resulted in a disordered personality making him an ideal candidate for programming the ideal candidate.
Obama’s personal information is difficult if not impossible to come by; there’s more generally known about Nessie and yetis than Barry Barack Hussein Soetero/Obama.
Obama has no known friends only known associates.
Then there’s Obama’s accumulated affirmative action degrees/positions/titles in which he’d accomplished nothing and seems not to have been expected to.
Mysteries, recent report that Obama had spent some time with the Ayers family — and mystery men, who is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour?
He has no experience or qualifications for the presidency but was nevertheless elected in an emotional wave of black pride and white comfort with ” the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy … that’s a storybook, man.” (eventual VP Biden).
Obama greatest accomplishment: giving the opaque the guise of transparent normality. He could not have done it alone.
The programmed scenario is outlandish only if you can’t see it in other than a melodramatic Hollywood movie.
There’s this also, from the Neo-neon archives:
“Ladies and gentlemen, your President is a robot. Or a wax sculpture. Maybe a cardboard cutout.”
“Obama is easily the most controlled president I’ve ever seen in terms of his personal style.”
“Even gestures that might appear to be spontaneous … are, IMHO, carefully planned to appeal…”
Throw in Richard Epstein’s remarks and how can you think other than he was a trained candidate.
How does he get away with it? I’ve been pondering this for a couple of days. I think it’s because we’ve never had a President that lied so much and so blatantly. Honest people just don’t think this way and don’t expect it. They think maybe he’s forgotten what he said before, or misunderstood what Romney said before, something, anything to make sense of it. Most of us don’t know anyone like this. Deviousness and pathological lying are foreign to simple people just trying to live their lives. That, and the media covers for him 24/7, which helps a lot.
He pulls it off because too few conservatives call him out on it. He gets the softball criticism. He gets the gentleman and lady “rebuttal”. Notice, Obama does not answer attacks. Only his opponents do.
Fight fire with fire. That’s a law of the universe. You not only descend to their level, you go lower, grab their feet, and pull them down. You don’t ever not go on the offensive. You don’t let him drive the discussion AT ALL.
You let a liar lie; he will lie. You don’t even give him a chance to catch his breath let alone lie through his teeth.
Romney wants to fight that way he will win going away. And he’d better win. The Nation and the free world are at stake.
George Pal is right. And so is Lisa, however, remember, the best liar is someone who doesn’t know he is lying. Check under the left shoulder blade, the scapula, for the implant.
Kidding.
Or am I?
gcotharn: you keep saying what Romney has done, but you never (at least, to the best of my recollection) have given an example of something Romney himself said about someone that was a lie, and then the actual quote from the other person.
What I’ve seen from Romney is exactly and precisely what every candidate has done—and it’s mostly from “surrogates” and not from Romney itself (such as, for example, PACs). I’ve followed it with Gingrich and Santorum and all of them doing very similar things (and some of it from Gingrich’s own mouth).
I wrote about the Romney vs. the other candidates thing here, at some length. I even asked a question in the last paragraph that no one’s ever answered.
He gets away with it not only because his narcissism and arrogance are what relentlessly drive him, but also because (1) the fear in the country of perceived racism is more vast and entrenched than I ever would have guessed, and (2) “the Gilded Void” (thank you kolnai) suffices for those who are happy merely to hope. It’s way easier to hope than to have to think uncomfortably.
Obama is corrupt to his core. And as blatantly obvious as it is, at some point we have to define his supporters as one and the same.
I simply can’t relate to people who aren’t offended by now at the very sight and sound of this man.
SteveH: I couldn’t disagree with you more about Obama’s supporters.
Almost everyone I know is an Obama supporter. Almost every relative and friend I have. They are all moral and decent people. Obama is not Hitler. They are not evil for supporting him. They disagree with you and me, and they don’t see what we see in Obama. That’s all
Rationality does have its drawbacks. One has to be true to one’s own lights contrary to the expessions and opinions of others. I have new respect for your Neo if what you say is true. Damn, what a situation, what a place to live in (not considering the beauty of the place and the memories) where people have been raised almost like Muslims.
But SteveH has a point and if we all believed like Obama supporters there woudn’t be enough workers, energy, and law to support the America which has provided the bulwark against tryanny and slavery.
SteveH,
I have to agree with Neo, the unwashed BHO zombies are not corrupt. To paraphrase an old adage… never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. And in fact, many of them are not stupid; they are instead accustomed to wearing blinders. The naked emperor has clothes and the man behind the curtain in plain view is a mirage.
It is easy to hate them, but I choose to pity them.
Curtis: well, I just don’t think ostracism is the answer at all. Also, remember that for the bulk of my life I was one of those liberals, too, and I probably would have voted for Obama back then. So I cannot demonize liberals at all, not in any way.
I do appreciate your respect for me, though. I have had a hard time, actually, in social terms, especially at the beginning of my change, which was a shock to me and to those around me.
But I didn’t mean to say that there aren’t any conservatives where I live, too. It’s just that my particular family and friends are almost all liberals, with just a couple of rare exeptions. For whatever reason (and I am aware of some, although not all, of those reasons) I tend to gravitate socially towards liberals rather than conservatives.
For example, some of my social life for the past two decades or more had revolved around several writers’ groups of which I was a member. I had a lot in common with these people in terms of temperament and interests, but almost everyone (with an exception or two) in the group was a liberal. My poetry group was even more extreme: only liberals, and usually rather extreme ones at that.
Many of my friends have been my friends for several decades, some of them for virtually my entire life. It would be ridiculous to break with them over politics.
Dear Neo, here is my thought about how you would be received in my circle.
We’re at an all weekend campout at the coast. It’s beautiful. Even the mosquitos are gone. The stars fire the night and the fires are banked and glowing; the boats are rocking quietly on the docks. And the children are in bed. It’s time to love and smile and find communnion. You, you would be treasured, not targeted. You would find your every need taken care of. Fire too hot? Here’s a thin blanket for your legs and everyone, I mean everyone, would move away a little bit making the circle larger, the fire less hot, the cold inviting but bold.
We would make sure your ice tea or wine would have all the ice it needed. We would make you the center and not the exception of our conversation. You would have the respect and position you deserve and in the camper or trailer in which you spent your night, there would be peace and comfort.
Neo:
What you said in your rebuff of Steve H may well be applicable to the many good Germans who were nevertheless not anti-Hitler, and there were many.
Doing nothing in the face of evil yields what? (rhetorical- we all know what)
But that these good and moral people should support Baraq with their votes makes them complicit; accessories in immorality before and after the fact.
German Protestants were almost all Lutherans. That sect was retitled the German Lutheran Church in response to external and internal Nazi pressure to mute Christian piety and disquiet with the observed order. Thus the postwar German guilt, even those who only gave it profitable lip service, like Gunther Grass.
I recommend a reading of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s biography for an understanding that is applicable to our times also.
Don carlos,
We are not (yet) in similar circumstances (Germany 1932) so IMO we on the right side of the bell curve should be vigilant while remainig calm. The ballot box is the best option. The cartridge box is the last, deperate option.
The 1920’s Germany saw a culimination of occult and anti-Christian influence. Wagner anyone?
An anti-Jewish and anti-Christian coalition has been built in America and is operating very successfully so that only Christain and Jewish religious people are estopped from their practices.
It’s not far away, that place, which saw the passing of horrible laws meant to marginalize Jewish and Christian law.
That the American populace is not near as accepting as was the German populace, is, I think, true. And shows the essential difference between the European and American style. Don’t tread on me, kiss my ass, over my dead body, second amendment rights, and etc . . . that is the difference.
But the damned socialists keep trying and it is only because of American hatred of statist power and love of individualism which keeps them at bay. They (the socialists) cannot be taken for granted or given quarter. They cannot be compromised with. They cannot be bargained with. Like James Cameron’s Terminator, there is only one solution: You’re terminated M-F-ucker!
neo,
In the blogpost you linked, I provided three Romney You Tube links in this comment:
http://neoneocon.com/2012/02/08/attacking-the-attack-ads/#comment-315598
In your comment today, May 1, 9:31 PM, you say:
I note that you cede that misleading accusations sometimes come from Romney himself.
When misleadingly constructed comments come from surrogates, such as when Romney’s people went into a post debate spin room and pushed a talking point that Rick Santorum wanted to end Social Security as we know it: why do you give Romney a pass on this? You draw a definite distinction. To me, the hits which have infuriated many Repub candidates – both in 2008 and in 2012 – were decided upon by Romney. I do not see that Romney is exonerated on account of designating that the hits come from a surrogate.
Finally, regarding misleading campaign behavior, debate behavior should count. DrewMusings was the first to identify that Romney debates like an internet troll debates in a comment section. One debate example: Santorum points out that Obamacare is based on Romneycare, and that Romney will therefore have a difficult time criticizing Obamacare during the general election campaign. This is a fair debate assertion. Romney had every chance to disagree and explain himself. Instead, Romney responded that Santorum had supported Arlen Spector in 2004, and Arlen Spector was a key vote in the passage of Obamacare. drewmusings.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/mitt-romney-internet-troll/
Barack Obama’s misleading rhetoric, re Romney and Bin Laden, is no worse of misleading behavior than Romney’s troll type tactics during debate. Thus, my point re Romney: what goes around comes around. When I read your disgust/frustration re Obama’s behavior, I could not help being reminded of my own disgust/frustration re Romney’s behavior.
I watched The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich the other night on the History Channel. Much of the content was familiar but some of the facts were new to me and it was compelling. I don’t know how any of us could watch it and not see the cult-like parallels: Hitler’s adoring subjects, their willingness to be and do whatever his vision for their country required; the speed with which Hitler assumed absolute power, once he had been made chancellor; and how much devastation had to occur in Germany before devotion to the Fé¼hrer could be shaken.
Obama is not Hitler, but we did see the same type of blind devotion during the 2008 campaign and after his election. I only hope our country won’t have to be ruined before it’s clear to everyone the extent of his lies, corruption and abuse of power. It’s hard to be optimistic about this.
Don Carlos: I knew the Hitler analogy would come up, and that’s why I specifically wrote “Obama is not Hitler.” If you cannot differentiate between Obama and Hitler, I really can’t have a discussion with you on this topic.
Jan of MN: and not all blind devotion is equal. Obama is dangerous, I believe, and he encourages cult-like behavior in his followers, but there is still a wide gap there. A closer analogy to Obama is someone like Chavez or Allende, and even then we are quite a way from that. But that’s the sort of danger I see in our future if Obama is re-elected, and if Democrats also got control of Congress.
gcotharn: I looked at those videos and discussed them previously here and elsewhere. Over and over, actually, although I haven’t got the time to dig them all up again. I don’t see the analogy to Obama because I think Romney’s charges against Gingrich actually have merit according to the record (such as, for example, the “resigned in disgrace” charge which I discuss in the linked comment).
And if you don’t see the distinction between what a PAC does (for example, the anti-Bain anti-Romney movie that Gingrich’s PAC made that was loaded with lies about Romney and Bain) and what actually comes out of a candidate’s mouth, then I can’t explain it to you.
I’ve never said that Romney’s some sort of angel about this stuff. But I fail to understand those who think he’s any worse than any of the other main Republican candidates were, such as Gingrich, who seemed to indulge in more distortion, and more of it from his own mouth. Romney’s charges against Gingrich are a matter of shading; when I do the research, I find that for the most part they seem closer to the truth than Gingrich’s about Romney.
My special objection to Obama here is a combination of things: (1) his hypocrisy; (2) his braggadocio; and (3) his high level of distortion of what Romney actually said.
I had two old lefty friends visit me this past weekend, and we kept it cordial, mostly eschewing politics (they realize I’ve left the reservation, and are, I think, both reluctant to engage me on the subject and find out how far I am apostate, and uncertain of their success in a debate). Interestingly, they started to rant about fascism — they’ve actually noticed the alliance between big government and big business.
But they have fingered the wrong culprits, mostly. F’rinstance, 75% of Wall Street’s political donations went to the DEMOCRATS in 2008. But they persist in seeing the Democrats as the allies of the Little Fellow. Me, not so much.
As far as BHO being the first truly Teflon President, I think we underestimate the power of the Leftmedia at our peril: it’s much more effective in screening off his misdeeds from the public than many realize, like the folding screens hiding the chamberpots at the court at Versailles. Only we political wonks on the right keep track of these things. The siloing of information is nearly perfect.
And most people just Don’t Want to Know about it all: it’s most unpleasant and upsetting, and well-nigh incredible, to believe that the president of our country is a pathological liar and inimically hostile to our very survival as America, the Great Experiment in Freedom. Because that means taking an uncomfortable stand, dealing with blowback and even ostracism, and siding with people they’ve been conditioned (thanks, Entertainment/Propaganda Industry!) to think of as stupid and ludicrous.
It’s going to be an uphill slog.
However, the most effective way to get a saddlebur under the Common Man’s blanket is to point out One Telling Fact about The Won that he can’t deny. That starts ’em thinking.
Pick any Telling Fact; they are Legion.
Also, make sure to use an unimpeachable (from their perspective) source, and a mildly quizzical tone. Keep it to one or two damning facts a month.
At some point, they will privately begin to wonder about Mister Wonderful.
Just because Obama isn’t Hitler doesn’t mean he isn’t evil. A very good case can be made that what he is doing is evil. And you are what you do.
“I’m not sure why this particular episode has galled me so much.”
Maybe because it exemplifies Obama’s fundamental disrespect for you (us), arrogantly thinking that we’re not smart enough to see through the brazen cons. As far as his supporters are concerned, they range from the oblivious to the obtuse; it’s a typical manifestation of mob/cult/group behaviour. The Democrats count on information overload to keep the realities obscured.
neo-neocon, you insist that Obama is not Hitler, which he obviously is not, yet you seem to ignore the many similarities between the two men:
Both consciously encouraged a quasi-religious personality cult, centered upon themselves.
Both sought to transform their countries into nations, which even most of their supporters would not have desired, had they known beforehand, what their leader intended: both lied, when stating their intentions.
Both sought to corrupt the morals of their citizens, as Obama’s attempt to force Christians to fund abortions, reveals.
Both regard mass-murder as acceptable in pursuit of their domestic political objectives, as Obama and Holder have facilitated, in Operation Fast and Furious and as Obama has sought, when he opposed the protection of live born infants, who had survived abortion attempts.
Hitler had a civilian paramilitary force and Obama seeks to create a civilian paramilitary force.
Both Hitler and Obama encouraged indoctrinating young school-children in their personality cult.
The opportunity to emulate all of Hitler’s actions, today, may not be available to Obama, or anyone like either.
The requirement to attempt to do so, in pursuit of similar objectives may also be absent.
Obama can achieve his objectives, using techniques, which are less obviously as dramatically evil as those employed by Hitler.
However, the end result of his policies will be a tyrannical regime, where the consciences of men are subordinated to the rulers of the state, private property is subject to forcible redistribution to favoured constituencies.
Those favoured constituencies are also, effectively immune from prosecution for any crimes which they commit and for which others would be severly punished.
Under Obama, violent black racism is de facto encouraged and his support for card check suggests that he is comfortable with union violence, also.
Obama, like Hitler acts as though individual rights and the rule of law are subordinate to alleged collective rights and the whim of rulers.
Instead of directing his racism towards jews, Obama and his wife direct theirs towards whites.
Obama may well be as dangerous as Hitler would have been, had he been an American, employed better public relations and been more patient.
He doesn’t seem to care much for the US constitution.
I think i have a clearer understanding now of what happened to the German citizenry in the 1930’s. It was sweet little women named Helga and their upstanding husbands named Hans who brought the whole damn catastrophie into existence. Because they cared.
Neo…I have to agree with almost everything John McLachlan said about the parallel between Hitler/Nazis and Obama/his supporters.
Obama and his supporters began to remind me of the phenomenon of the rise of Hitler shortly after his election.
I don’t have the slightest doubt that he would MUCH prefer being what he thinks would be a beneficent dictator who could do anything he wants to having to bother with Congress, the courts, or the Constitution.
I can’t get the image of those upturned glowing faces of young women with tears flowing down their cheeks at the rally the night of his election out of my mind.
…when he placed his hand on that Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution, I don’t think his heart was in it.
Obama may not be Hitler, but he absolutely believes in the power of the State, and he will do whatever it takes to convince people that every boogyman of the Right is alive and well in the Republicans, and only he can hold them back.
It is the growing power of the State that is the most frightening. Every agency in the book is stepping all over the rights of everyone. That’s why even liberals are beginning to speak of Fascism.
And Mitt handled the Osama flap well – “Even Jimmy Carter would have made that call.” Hah!
I got liberal friends too. They aren’t stupid people. And there’s no way they didn’t hear Obama say he wanted to fundamentally transform America.
I’m with Steve H.
No one should ever have supported Obama. But once is enough.
You support him twice it is not just that something is deeply wrong with you, but you are the major part of the major problem in America.
You support America you are everything wrong with America today and tomorrow.
Friendship has nothing to do with it except to regret that your friends are cheering at Nuremburg while you are not. You are waiting to ask them over tea how everything is going.
I have a close friend who voted for Obama. He liked what he saw and heard, a family man who stated what many wanted to hear: an end to conflict. I tried mightily to dissuade him and on the subject of Jeremiah Wright set forth facts I thought conclusive. Not so. I had to let it go. And the irony is my passionate presentation made me look like the lunatic fringe. I should have learned the principles of Janine Turner, instead I ended up ranting and raving.
And yet, somewhere along the line Obama lost him. My unassailable arguments did not dent the fortress. Perhaps it is the economy and he likes Mitt Romney. His news come mainly from the MSM so that explains much, but if there are debates, then I expect more turning away from Obama and to Romney.
Still, the example is this: I refused to throw away the relationship and deemed it more important than his acceptance of my superior information and conclusions. Put that way, it provides another perspective. Let Conservatives be individuals and maintain the bonds for as long as possible and whenever possible. Perhaps that shall be the defining difference, a difference not argued but lived.
The grotesqueness of Hitler was more than Obama’s perhaps due to war and the rage of the German people for bearing the blame and cost of WWI, but Obama shares the desire for revenge and power. It should be remembered that Hitler thought of himself not as a destroyer or killer but as a creator, an architect, and above all, an artist, a cultural artist defining the morals of a new age. Obama has made similar statements and considers himself, like Hitler did, indispensible. He early on made clear to his political advisors that he himself could do their job better than they. This hubris is largely unknown and will, like gravity, result in a fall.
Aren’t Obama supporters guilty of groupthink? The same as global warming supporters? It seems more important for them to be part of a group consensus than to think critically. As Ann Coulter correctly identified, the left is all about mob rule. Maybe this is why the left is so anti-religion (i.e., religion is the competition). I don’t think of myself as on the right per se, just very much anti-left. The tribal instinct is deep and seems to be intrinsically two-faced. If you are in the group, you are accepted. If you are outside the group, you are the enemy.
People who like Obama like what he’s doing, or what they think he’s doing.
That’s two separate categories.
Problem is, the first may lead to the second, and thus the people who like the first are, at most, temporarily confused. But then they go along
It helps that even educated people are ignorant.
What’s a “big corporation” and what is the problem with them? (Actually, the problem is that they like big government because it stifles competition.) Well, being a big corporation is just…wrong. Examples are endless, unfortunately.
The zerO certainly is a smarmy little shit, isn’t he??
I love that word “smarmy”.
sitting president sinking quite as low as Obama regularly does these days while campaigning
You aint seen nuttin yet…
and the reason is that to side with what he sides with, to use such terms as his moniker (Vpered and the current and viable Fourth International) so as to get those “in the know” to believe something will happen and so move things along.
if you have not noticed there is a HUGE push to get the women’s vote, and demonize with a “war against women”…
The Thirteenth World Congress, in February 1991 / Its resolutions spanned the ‘New World Order’, European integration, feminism and the crisis of the Latin American left
you can read the blueprints of the architecture IF you know where to look, and care enough to bother.
but other than that, the reason such things are happening and your seeing such is that its an end game play. there is no reason to have a long term play if winning in the short term is permanent. (even if permanence is party permanence and not individual permanence)
such a person as would do what he is doing and will do, as he told Medvedev to tell Putin, is a person without boundaries.
its one of the biggest clues as to his sociopath/narcissism that people have no idea of. without guilt and the attachments the evoke it, they have no way to know whats funny, normal, abnormal, etc. they are the person that always laughs AFTER they see others laugh, not at the same time with. they are the ones who will completely go over some social line and boundary without any knowledge of it, and be surprised at the reactions.
sadly, you can troll sites having to do with sociopaths and identifying them and getting away from them that explain easily the personality your seeing.
charming, glib, surface only, lies, no guilt for doing it. uses people, vengeful hate/love split (little gray area), no real fealty or loyalty but to what benefits them, pleasure seeking is compulsive, his good acts cant go unnoticed, he is heroic and its all about him, etc.
Kotsko, author of “Why we love Sociopaths” ties in with your previous points on coolness.
(and politics ties in as that is this particular persons focus. why would that be their focus, over something else? it affords and normalizes despotism, and the aquisition is the acme of such)
to quote the last psychiatrist:
Kotsko’s thesis is that we love sociopaths because sociopathy is opposed to social awkwardness…
and in our recent society, we have been groomed for the abattoir by having our media focus on Cool, over Substance… from Moon Launches to American Idol.
quoting again:
…he sees the world’s rules differently, which specifically means he understands that there are no “world’s rules,” that rules are decided by those with power for their own benefit.
since he has power, anything he does should be ok… ie. they have no boundaries and so from time to time (or more) shock people who DO have them. and politely they make an excuse as he is cool, is bribing them in some way (with coolness, a beer, lies, ingratiating bows, etc)
He can do it since he got away with it.
and the more power they get and can get away with, the more they do such AUDACIOUS things… to impotent academic pacifist types, he is a hero for being able to grab the ring..
and the more constricted yoru life is the more you pay attention to these people who can behave in certain ways and NOT be punished for it. heck, they can even wear their underwear outside their clothing and the masses of women will do so too… or call sluts to vote, and women will line up and be sluts to show the other side something.
the big problem is that with our weak personalities and desire to be accepted we have conceded our selves to such people.
our desire to be cool, liked and all that has us seeking membership. and these leaders basically say, if you think what we want, and do what we want, and say what we want and support us, your a member.. but no. the lakey that does that is NEVER A MEMBER, they are the dirt that supports the members
this is why feminists can support all women in contradiction, and therefor support none. if they take up every contradictory angle, they can do what they want. listening to a constituency is irrelevant!!!!!!!!!!!!
they know it, but the genius and ego boosted love bombed women starving for love and attention and belonging (so much so that they gave up that which gave them love attention and all that – families)… that they will do anything, including create a slave state to be safe… as if their new sugar daddy harem king Obama will bribe and pay them and they will take it. (see free birth control, war against women)
its why Hitler won the female vote being effeminate and treating the population, as he said, as a woman he is seducing. same with the disarming and suave sociopathic metrosexual… taking a tip from the great leading men sociopaths of our media past.
the more our lives are constricted the more we want to be like such people. to be able to act and not pay the same consequences. and thats because we no longer have moral dislike for people that break the moral code. do we?
ergo, words like ni**er are common, but with all kinds of social rules around it. As is slut, and of course illegitimate is illegitimate to use.
thats the bribe of the sociopathic male to the fearful female. the promise of enabling her. and of course protecting her from the consequences, which is what blocks her.
of course the only areas left to do that for women, children and so forth… was the areas where oppression was invented and molded. not real oppression, but social oppression of morals, ethics, and so forth. which a sociopath would find very restricting. why cant they have a victim? its only natural… why punish whats natural? (while claiming nothing is natural so they pick and control how this is applied regardless of any consistency other than advantage)
putting aside the fact that its the sociopaths in state that print money that devalues it, not wall street…
the point is confirmatory.. the more they break the social contract and succeed and not be held to task for it, the more our inner despot admires their audacity and ability and freedom (as ours shrinks)
your watching the monster in the society be awakened…
if only we can pull the airplane door and slide down, telling our bosses to go stuff it…
if only we can claim social justice and beat up the people we are told to hate that we are told are responsible for all the ills of the world… and feel better for the 30 of us dragging them out of their cars.. setting them on fire… beating them till dead..
in the African American areas, thug culture reigns. a sub society completely founded on the highest level of expressed sociopathy. to the point that the clothing is fashionable only if it confounds any rational description. tempers are hyper. one event that incensed, has to be paid back by hundreds of events even worse… (because each small group numbers in the thousands and thousands, and each will want a pound of flesh)
how about the coolness of a president who don’t have to answer to the people? isnt that what the left is presenting? mr cool don’t have to listen to you and so he will do whats right…
attribution of the get it done positive person to a sociopathic person who will act in their own self interest every time.
to read on at this point points out that everyone who fantasizes that they can have such, has already turned sociopathic. the stamford experiment is just warming up, non compliance and no outside perspective is what will create what comes next.
Point to the guy who is both “bound by guilt”– not shame, but guilt– and also wants to be Tony Soprano and I’ll show you a person who doesn’t exist.
If we feel very acutely the force of social pressure, they feel nothing. If we are bound by guilt and obligation, they are completely amoral.
so is it a matter of bravery to order the death of someone if that person giving the order is a sociopath? not at all, the opposite would have been brave for such. (neither is doing whatever benefits them)
one thing i have learned in how to spot them and keep them out of my life is that they love to pretend sacrifice, do the extra amount. but if you look carefully and dont doubt your judgment and make excuses for them, you will find that the false extra is really to cover some gain that you would not approve of. or block you from doing what is socially correct, and approach or reproach them.
so to a repressed society of victims… feminist victims of a war on women, black victims of a race war against their success, gay victims of a sexual inquisition (if true then declaring yourself is to make oneself a victim to be a part of the party)…
all these victims suffer from a life that is not what they imagine it could be. and someone like obama and others, play on this, and put forth the idea that if you break the social contract, make war with your mate, your brother, return fire… (though there is only one target group), you too the will be free.
right now no one has grasped on the point of what would have happened if Mr Obama had died on his secret journey? his actions show a huge disllke and social uncaring of others.
as i said a LONG time ago, and no one put the pieces together. sociopaths have to FEEL power, while good normal people with guilt, want to use power to do something beneficial.
these are two very different kinds of power experience. one is a burden, as it holds a lot of guilt for acting wrong, and often has self imposed punishments for failing others.
the other is not that. the other is the power to harm others so that they hurt, and cant do anything about it. this is why the despotic nation is sadistic no matter how it tries. AND why it cant leave anything alone…
think of a heroin addict… a normal person getting a small dose will throw up, and not feel well, while also feeling better (and do so on morphine). but a heroin addict has taken so much, that they left behind the sick feeling in their gut. acclimatized and inured, they can take huge doses of what would make others die…
well.. same thing with this kind of feel power. they HAVE to twiddle constantly in other peoples lives to get a fix.
and so, they act bizarrely, do things that are not socially acceptable, and so on. why? because doing so and getting away with it is a form of hurting others to feel powerful.
and the more victims of this the more we do this to each other.
so a society, said to be made by men in which people were polite and all this. had a social filter against sociopaths and their rise. ie, social oppression towards behaviors or choices that harmed the body politic. the removal of that frees them to then cause great misery in their constituencies who want to do what theya re told, be what they are told, act like they are told, and defend it, to be a part of it.
their operation is purely surface manipulation, substance when they win, and pain pain pain, whie hiding who is responsible so they can dupe the other, and continue applying pain, and have them beggint them for relief.
oh.. those evil people will not pay for our birth control.. who will be our hero, and buy our votes by saving us and robbing from the rich to pay us poor victims..
its a psychological position to give the women to behave from. and if you don’t act like that, your at war against women.
in the old days, who would be the “slut”? the normal woman who wants family and babies and people to respect her? or the sociopath who has no boundaries and doesn’t understand why?
to insure the thrall, you just pump them up for it. VALIDATE Them.. and of course this alienates their mates who would say, your not a victim, its not abuse to try to stop someone from causing familial bankruptcy, the husbands work not counted is not an indication of being a slave, etc.
given the greedyness of the consumer sex (vs the provider sex), and the permission to hurt others for gain (affirmative action, grrl power, etc)… who will they side with to their doom?
till they drive off the cliff like thelma and louise?
people in glass houses shoudnt throw stones
well, people inside something who cant get outside it to see, can never see what they are inside of.
if your inside the issue of obama and all this, your going to say what this whole post started with. but if your outside, trying to grasp the view from the outside, your going to see what it MEANS not how it makes you FEEL.
FEEL is inside, means is outside.
The Boy King, Obama, is a moral midget. The London Daily Mail had a headline piece yesterday on the objections of SEALs, current and vets, some with command experience on SEAL Team 6. Reminds one, too, of the thousands of WTFs that have rolled in from troops and vets on His Infantile Majesty’s cancelling Ted Nugent’s planned concert appearance in June at Ft.Knox. Barry has the thinnest of skins and pays No Honor to our warriors. Just a photo op & political op. Nothing more and our Men & Women in uniform know it, big time. They loved and honored President Bush, knew he returned them in triplicate and they knew that resolute leader ‘had their backs’. They know, just as strongly, that Obama does not. I wonder how General David Petraeus is digesting all this from his Chair at the CIA. Hmmmmmm… He watched Mr.Hairless Chest order the surge in Afghanistan and then significantly weaken it by withholding 30K troops. He’s watched Mr.Photo-Op announce to the world the Timetable for withdrawal from that country. The Taliban is liking its ghastly chops. No reaction from the feminists on the horrific life that will be returned to Afghan women & girls. And, our Warrior General, Petreaus, who led the Surge and massive victory in Iraq, witnessed his Cn’C sabotage Iraq and our dead men & women by abandoning that country completely and retreating from that Victory. Which, once again, leaves that region is vast danger. The ‘plan’ had been to have 30K stationed there as a steadying force to the fledgling Iraqi Republic and a Keep Out to al Qaeda & Iran. You know, Your Majesty, like S.Korea, Germany & Japan?
And, for me, a small SOP-Bammy point, but one I find loathsome and unforgivable. Never a word, much less a nod of gratitude and respect to his predecessor. He’s the polar opposite in character and behavior of that strong, resolute Wartime President. Despicable. A Moral Microbe.
Lucky us. A worth-it read at Jennifer Rubin’s WaPo Blog, ‘Right Turns’: “Bin Laden, Obama and Moral Courage”. Like her, I grind my molars at the(so far)absence of bare knuckle-fight back from Team Romney on the utter disasters of Barack Hussein’s faux Foreign Policy.
so if people are voting for such a person to lead them, then what are they and what are they admiring?
if they are admiring that, then what will be the end result for the targeted scape goats? (same targets as before)
and so.. if you were thinking i was wrong, and he is not a sociopath but a narcissistic, the reality of it is above… it all depends on how you view either of that. but in the larger scheme of things, the difference between them is the thickness of a chain fence
as i said..
Rocky Horror and shock treatment tracks the social changes (by design. remember whose ideas, whose pedagogy, who got permission to subject others to it, who normalzied being doctor mengele and handing your kids over to doctor mengele, while you work, so they can be improved for the future?)
the first movie was about the actual people who were the targets and how the movement switched the focus from others and such, to self pleasure, and not caring about others while you get it. orchestrating the whole thing was the shadows of the elite in their ties and tales and their amoral ideas of entertainment. the front man.. dr furter.. and so on.
all wrapped up in 1950s horror movie kitsch.
but its the second one that looked forward, not backwards.. though seen today it seems to look backwards.
here its about the society around them… how its changed, how media drives it. how the lines between reality and media have blurred..
all in a small town called Denton
the driving force is the media and society validating women to manipulate them to ends that if they stepped back, would NOT be what they would choose!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (not by a long shot for most – of which they are starting to write about the wave)
with brad devalued, marginalized as crazy, medicated, disenfranchised… society celebrates janet, and she is the narcisistic star of a show much like american idol, where she sings about the ME of ME..
isnt it quite narcisistic to think that society should pay for what you want because you are one sex over another?
when the patriarchy was presumed to be in control (there is no such thing, as there is no such system as capitalism as a taught behavior), the men did not get the state to pay for their cigars, their rubbers, the golf balls, and so on. (under socialism, we do, with subsidies to control the means of production)
what everyone arguing here doesnt realize is that grabbing the majority of women is enough to win on.
women are not equal to men, any more than men are equal to women, our complimentary structures are mutially exclusive so that together we can do what one type cant. big duh.
now this all follows the discovery of MASLOW who pointed out when he tried to use literature to show examples, that he could not find examples of healthy people,
ie. the characters we watch for entertainment are the problems in society. so the idea of making them cool to copy them, is the idea of inducing mental desease as a norm.
all because we have no more moral grounding from which to declare narcissists and sociopaths as bad choices. ergo, intents over results… results would have us need to punish them. but we are guilty, even when we punish the bad, they are not… do the math
Quote:
That’s what people want: the limitations of that identity: if I know who I am, I know what I am capable of, I know my strengths and my limits, I know how I’d react to unknown dangers. And I want other people to know this. If other people know who I am, I wouldn’t have to keep proving myself. Strike that: I wouldn’t have to prove myself in the first place.
in many ways obama is limited by his identity. he must act to each group the way that group wants him to act… and since he is trying to garner the largest group, and has no morals, he says different things to different groups, and half implies.. so that each person in each group that is receptive hears what they want to hear, and stops looking (so that what they find doesn’t invalidate and remove their desire)
its hard to avoid psych games…
and here is the reason why..
medical psychology is about making people well (presumably sans ideology)..
sociology is about finding out what pulls our triggers for the purpose of control (hiding under the purpose of providing tools for the above medical area. but that woudl assume that teh doctors who want to cure people are happy with tricking them into what they think are better behaviors, sans reality of it. (which sadly many do and so interventions and state gun to the head are now a every day part of it!))
what good is Skinnerian knowledge to the man who wants a real healthy person, not a person tricked into behavior that then on the surface appears healthy to the outside world?
half of it turned out to be falsely constructed to create a false reinforced realty of a world that never existed, and for people who would not check how those facts were constructed.
so Meade’s and Kinsey work tricked a society into thinking that ALL Women were sexually craved narcissistic sociopathic selfish family hating people trapped in a life and sexuality they never wanted.
its telling that Kinsey is quoted more in law than medical papers… that is, his work is more for the justification of atate action and law, than for health
but that is the point, other wise the man who liked to stick a toothbrush up his penis as a recreation, who sexual abused the babies in his charge, who used pedophiles, prostitutes and other prison denizens as his “norm” (so if your living his norm. guess whose norm your ACTUALLY living, and wondering why things are as dysfunctional as a prison yard)
what does Skinnerian and other such influential ideas have to say about TV? we already know that the powers that be deny that it influences us… ie. women decided to slut up and tart up and show their sex organs off spontaneously putting underwear on the outside… right?
well, you either accept that one sex is gullible as all freak out.. .OR you defend the delusion by denying it influences and declare that everything social is spontaneous.. (while at the same time saying your a woman because society made you that way, and if not, you would be a man… at the same time as declaring that the default sex is female. at the same time… (i can list the contradictions for a long time!))
its why the less they know the smarter they seem… each point of acceptance is put in a way that they would have to accept their own limitations and reality… (just as men do)
but how can they have limitations? who tells them every day, in every way, your it grrrl?
certainly not their reality based mates…
but the con artists
[edited for length by n-n]
Neo’s 10:51 comment about the problem of gravitating socially toward liberals: story of my life for the past 30 years. In my case it’s also a religious divide, my Catholicism vs. their quasi-religious progressivism. I find it very hard to maintain friendships across those divides, not because I don’t like the people or think they’re evil but just because of the land mines in any but the most casual conversation. All in all it leads to some degree of isolation. I like the web.:-)
Neo @ 1:02 am
I was not likening Obama to Hitler, and I think that was clear. I was pointing out that your “good and moral” friends are in fact not good and moral, based on a historical analogy to illustrate that point.
Perhaps you should go to sleep earlier. I might have written “retire”, but you would have taken that wrongly, too.
Bottom line:
Marx ultimately (and if you listen to his daughter) created a system where the end result would be this.
rather than do nothing and be a rotten man for not supporting the family and be tied to one woman, and have responsibilities that took you away from that..
that the women should work for the man. that she should go out into industry, work, and her taxes would then pay for him to sit around and do what he liked. he would not be judged as bad for not supporting family, there weren’t any. he would not watch the kids, what woman would trust an incompetent and oppressive male with kids?
so ultimately, they sit home, play Nintendo.. and so on.. and the women will work, welfare will support the men.. children will be raised by women working for women.
women as captains of industry will pay the highest taxes so that their success can be shared with the unemployed men..
given this, the women will compete, like men USED to, for the men… the men, dont have to show how much they make, and so forth any more… they just have to be cool, narcissists, and suave.. (as its bad for a woman to want a man for his money and support her (she should support him is the unfinished part of that sentence))
so cool narcissists in collusion will be the lions and the women will work like crazy to be the ones that they pick… most of what they make will go to taxes, and that will subsidize the men who have to be supported if they don’t work… right?
just remember, if they tell the ladies the truth, that they USED to live like they had a marginal trust fund, and now have to make the trust fund for the men… would they do it?
if you told them they woudl be barren as a rewoard, and have to pay for welfare men who for some reason, ratcheted up the amount of welfare when it was men paying for women, just before its women paying for men.
(if you think you wont pay for the men, just remember what young feral men with nothing to do will do in a matriarchy,where they have no purpose, no responsibility, punishment is not much different than how they live, etc)
so really..
what is the actual end game?
not what are they promising you…
in a socialist state where women work and have all the best jobs, the men dont work, watch tv, play cards cause trouble, and do it on HER dime. (like housewives used to)
no?
Marx didn’t want to work so he invented a way to get his wife to support him and not be a bad person for it. could be why rich elite wealthy men like the idea of sex on tap, no responsibility, women subsidizing them, falling all over them and their potential competition from below neutralized in poverty and leisure. just remember men, keep caling the women geniuses, and the future, and soon, they will do ALL the work. from business, to the home, to the battle field… like men USED to…
oh.. and remember, don’t be happy your home and have three squares and the welfare that was set when they thought it was for them! (remember mr mom?)
you want to pretend your punished and its bad to stay home, watch tv, do what you want and have the state pay for you not to work so women can be liberated.. if you like it too much, some woman may come along and figure out how to make you dissatisfied with your “gulag”, and trick you into doing all the work.
whatever you do, dont let them read the older works, and for secular sake, dont let them read things like tom sawyer and read how he painted the fence!!! (Samuel Clemens nearly upset the apple cart of the patriarchal plot to have women do ALL the work, and want to)
How did Tom get others to paint his fence?
(its EXACTLY how socialists are getting women to do all the work, and remove the children of the smartest ones, who might catch on!!!)
http://kidoinfo.com/ri/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/tom-sawyer-kidoinfo.pdf
all they did was tell the women that working was great… and it had to be done special.. and they do it better than the men.. .and that everyone will respect them for it.. and that they will have so much more for doing all that work.
meanwhile… lets go eat an apple..
the women will NEVER catch on…
their own ego wont let them
it would require them to admit that they have been duped and betrayed, and used.
and that wont happen…
which is why the power people latched on to the fantasy idea of marx… it was a way to remove their competition, get a slave harem of women to work for them, and not have to worry about their children not doing well…
so the most powerful men now have a bevy of women (Dominique strauss kahn), their wives look the other way (or else get thrown back in the pond).. there is a pool of smart women to select from, who if not selected, their children will not compete against yours. and they are funding the other women to have lots of babies, and pay for lobsters on EBT cards and so on. (and the fear that their children will cause will get them herded like sheep dogs do)
funny actually
but you wont see it standing inside the glass house…
Note that it is not just Neo but many many others judging from online comments to this story. He damaged himself here, just like the Nobel Committee did when they awarded a Peace Prize for nothing. Let’s hope his vanity prevents him from recognizing his “I killed bin Laden hype” as self-defeating so that he continues with it ad nauseam.
BTW I hear there is a NYT story hailing Obama as some sort of macho military genius for all drone attacks, Libya and what not. I haven’t read the article but I wonder if they’ll mention his never backed up threats to Iran or his pleading for the return of our spy drone?
Don Carlos: you were likening my friends to good Germans who ignored Hitler. Therefore you were making an analogy between the degree of evil represented by Obama and the degree of evil represented by Hitler. There is no way around that conclusion.
Otherwise, there is no “historical analogy.” My point is that it’s a false analogy. The better analogy, even in the worst case scenario, is Chavez.
I think your sense of whether people are good and moral is screwed up. I was the very same good and moral person I am now (however good and moral I might be) when I voted for liberal Democrats.
MikeM: there it is again: “cheering at Nuremberg”? That is not the correct analogy, and if you have any sense of history at all you ought to know it.
“Cheering at Caracas” perhaps. It remains to be seen whether that’s correct, either, but at least it’s potentially the correct analogy.
I may write a post about this issue.
SteveH: Oh, and when Obama said “fundamentally transform America,” this is what he said, and it sounded good to them (and I can see why, if a person believed him, and didn’t know all that much about the history of countries that have gone somewhat to the left, which is all that he seems to be suggesting—a sort of western European thing):
You make a lot of excuses for people who are no good. I bet your lib friends are big Occupy supporters. Take a look at the videos from yesterday. This is the SA or the Brownshirts 2012 model. It is every bit as scary and every bit as demonic at this point in the game.
I am sure that if this is allowed to continue, as it did then, in no time that crowd will be dressed in military garb, marching in time, and chanting slogans just like there.
That is the team your friends are on. Violence is already started. It’s escalation is straight ahead. For someone so steeped in 30’s 40’s history I see a huge blind spot about what is right in front of you.
The “good German” cheering at Nuremberg is the best analogy. Caracas? Anywhere else. – all variations on the theme.
Mike Mc.: your attitude is disgusting and ignorant, and I don’t use those terms lightly.
You are making assumptions and insulting friends of a lifetime and my closest relatives. You know nothing about what they believe or what they are. Your attitude is that of a fanatic, whether you know it or not.
Neo’ lashing out at posters who question the goodness and morality of her “friends of a lifetime, and her closest relatives” is off the mark. Those people are who they are, but if they remain Leftist and pro-Obama, they are not cloaked in goodness and morality. Thus Neo’s anger at Mike Mc. and me. It’s Denial, Neo, Denial. Get a grip.
The weird thing i notice about liberals i know who i think are decent people, is how their nievity and nuttiness doesn’t necessarily extend outside the realm of politics. They won’t accept a ride from just any shady character on a dark street. Hell they wouldn’t even let their daughters date half the people they vote for.
For some reason, when it comes to choosing political leaders and solutions, they become totally disconnected from how they judge and discern the world in their everyday lives.
Steve. Could it be that the bad stuff, presuming they see any, is going to happen to somebody else? Somebody who deserves it? But not them.
Don Carlos: you didn’t question their morality. You judged it.
And it is you who needs to get a grip. Please study the last paragraph of this post.
I know why it bothers you so much. Which obnoxious, narcissistic, haughty, manipulative, avaricious, disingenuous cartoon bully on South Park does this sound like? Exactly like?
Neo-neocon, your friends are probably mostly ordinary people, who don’t engage in gratuitous violence or any anti-social activities and mostly have similar attitudes to yourself. However, the cause which they have chosen to support, is one whose end result is re-education camps for political opponents, as in every other socialist regime. They are probably ignorant of the fact that their current leader, Barack Obama is a close associate of William Ayres, of the Weather Underground, who, according to an FBI informant, were dispassionately considering and discussing the logistics of murdering 10% of the population of the United States; those who would refuse to be re-educated. Their support for an evil cause may or may not make them evil people, but they will share responsibility for the consequences of what they, perhaps in ignorance, enable or promote.
I suspect that most of them think that a social democratic society, similar to european countries is what they want, but the role of the state always expands. Tyranny arrives more slowly, but it still arrives.
All the good intentioned democrats remind me of an elderly lady i know, who loves dogs so much she’ll take any stray in and and feed it crap until it’s obese as hell and can barely walk.
Yes indeed, Neo. In that last paragraph you refer to your judgement of posters you don’t like, yet you condemn me for judging.
Ban me if you judge it wise, necessary, and prudent. Ban me for disagreeing with you.
Don Carlos: you quite consistently misrepresent what I’ve said, either through your misunderstanding of it or through purposeful mischaracterization (don’t know which, but I prefer to think it’s the former).
Let me make it even more clear then, so there’s no misunderstanding: you certainly can make judgments all you want, whether they’re correct or not. I am free to disagree with them, which I do on this thread. I give out opinions all the time, and judgments too—I have never been one of those people who say we shouldn’t make judgments. Nor am I saying you should not make judgments, or any other commenter—blogs are all about judgments and opinions, as well as facts.
What I am condemning you for is making a judgment about the morality of my friends and family who are liberals (although one based on lack of knowledge of what my friends and family actually think, and why) and then claiming you are just “questioning” their morality. That is disingenuous of you.
Here is your quote:
And then you wrote:
And I wrote here: “you didn’t question their morality. You judged it.”
Let me repeat: I have no problem with judgments. I have a problem with judgments based on ignorance, and I especially have a problem based with judgments that a person calls questions rather than judgments.
I also have an increasing problem with your snarky tone–“get a grip” and all the rest. You are a long-time commenter here, and I have cut you a lot of slack so far, but that will not continue indefinitely if the snark continues.
It is your blog. Vaya con Dios.
Don Carlos: you have alternatives to leaving, should you choose to take them. I wouldn’t think they’d be so onerous. If you leave, it is your choice.
And by the way, if you think it’s okay to come onto a blog and insult and revile the blogger’s closest and dearest relatives, sight unseen, when you know next to nothing about them except that they are Democrats, then I think you need to reconsider that approach.
Neo: Just to be clear, I did not intend to insult and revile your closest and dearest. I intended to get across that these otherwise good people, like my brother and my son, and, yes, the Good Germans, wholly good and moral in their personal lives, become part of the problem, not the solution, when they vote. I am frustrated by that, and desite loving them do not respect their adherence to an ideological system that is unhealthy for us all. If it only affected them that would be their choice, and OK. But all us fish are swimming in the same tank.
Don Carlos: if you had said only what you just said in your most recent comment, we wouldn’t be having this argument.
But whatever your intent, you conveyed something quite different, and it wasn’t just about my closest relatives, it was about me, too, prior to my change.
I think your last comment is the closest I’ll get to an apology from you. Since you are a long-time commenter here, I have no desire to ban you. But saying to me things like “get a grip” in that snarky way isn’t such a hot idea either, when it is you who were going over the top in your comments.
The reason I’m harping on this isn’t just the “don’t insult my loved ones” part. It’s that we gain absolutely nothing by demonizing those who disagree with us. The Democrat and liberal side contains a broad spectrum of people, not just the stereotypes I’ve read about so often. Yes, there are the irrational, the uninformed, the overly emotional, the illogical, and those who lack judgment. But some of my friends and relatives who are liberals are highly informed, highly rational, highly thoughtful, and highly moral people who have simply come to different conclusions about the meaning of history and the dangers facing us, as well as their best solutions.
The right is not a bunch of saints who have all the answers, either, as I’m sure you know. And cutting off the conversation with liberals and demonizing them is the best way to sound like an irrational hothead, only one on the right. I’m sure you know that they exist, too.
Whoa! To quote Rodney, “Can’t we get along?”
Be careful when you judge and make sure you are judging each person as an individual without regard to their politics. Judge others by their actions, not their words. If you can not accept, except in extreme circumstnaces, that there are people who see the world differently than you, you are on the verge of becoming what you hate. To everything there is a season. The season of war against our brothers and sisters is not now on the horizon. It may well come down to that but until then keep your powder dry.
Parker: very well put.