Home » Non-news of the day

Comments

Non-news of the day — 13 Comments

  1. So, Neo, you have answered the question that you have asked several times in this blog. Obama is both a fool (“a leftist ideologue”) and a knave (“a preening, nasty, aggressive narcissist”).

  2. “Obama, however, is a leftist ideologue and a preening, nasty, aggressive narcissist.”

    This pretty much sums it up.

  3. Democrats beware: Obama is a jealous god, and will require you to be sacrificed for his sake.

  4. Obama, however, is a leftist ideologue and a preening, nasty, aggressive narcissist.

    This is fine little snapshot of King Barack’s personality, but doesn’t go nearly far enough.
    Lately I’ve been pondering just how extraordinary this guy’s case-hardened, blast-resistant narcissism is. We’ve all seen some first-rate narcissists (esp among politicians), but King Barack sets a new standard, IMHO. His narcissism is so astounding, so spectacularly breathtaking, so anomalous and aberrant, it would be really interesting if it weren’t so damned destructive.
    ———-

    Don’t tell me marijuana is no good. Just imagine how much better off we’d all be if King Barack had continued his Choom Gang ways and become just an ordinary pothead–instead of America’s first monarch.

  5. It wasn’t all pep rally. That rah-rah Politico piece linked to doesn’t get into the pushback Obama got from Sen. Menendez re Iran at that meeting, but the Washington Post does:

    Meeting in Baltimore at a downtown Hilton Hotel across from Camden Yards, Obama defended his decision to use his executive powers to change the nation’s immigration laws and reestablish diplomatic ties with Cuba, according to several people in attendance. He also said he would veto a bill to impose stiffer sanctions on the Iranian regime, reiterating similar statements he and administration officials have made publicly.

    Obama’s decision to reiterate the threat face-to-face is notable because the proposal enjoys significant support from Democrats, especially one of its lead authors, Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.).

    According to people who attended the meeting, Obama addressed the issue during a question-and-answer period and was clearly prepared to deal with the inquiry. The question came from Menendez and prompted a brief exchange between them as they both expressed disagreement with one another.

    Obama “was very firm and so was Menendez but it was not heated or contentious,” said one attendee, granted anonymity to discuss a meeting that Democrats agreed wouldn’t be discussed publicly.

    “He was fairly unequivocal,” said another attendee.

    Members of both parties agree that Iran should suffer stronger sanctions for its continued work to develop its nuclear program and see passage of the sanctions bill as an early opportunity for both parties to demonstrate bipartisan cooperation in the new Congress.

    But Obama has resisted the bill as talks continue between his administration and Iranian officials on the country’s nuclear ambitions. Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry recently announced plans to extend the talks for a few more months.

    The disagreement also exposes a growing difference of opinion between the White House and Menendez — technically the caucus’s leading voice in foreign affairs because he is ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Menendez, who is Cuban American, has also denounced Obama’s decision to reopen ties to Cuba and is expected to join Republicans in blocking funding for a new Havana embassy and the nomination of a new U.S. ambassador to the country.

  6. Obama’s “narcissism is so astounding, so spectacularly breathtaking, so anomalous and aberrant, it would be really interesting if it weren’t so damned destructive.” Gary

    I suspect sociopathic is the term implied.

    Ymarsakar at 4:15 pm,

    Yes, you can’t much more simple than “kill them all, let god sort them out!”

    parker,
    Yes, the ‘messiah’ does indeed want another nuclear armed terror sponsoring state. The question is to what purpose? It’s a given that hate for America is a primary motivation but IMO, foolish to not ponder how that eventuality might be seen by him as useful in advancing his agenda of fundamentally transforming America…

  7. GB,

    The mannish boy does not want to “fundamentally transform America”. He wants to destroy America and Western Civilization in general…. dreams of his father fulfilled.

  8. Cute, is he not?? He’s going on the offense against Republicans for the next 2-years, but NOT against the Dark Age Butchers of Radical Islam.

  9. parker,

    Yes, fundamental transformation is a politically correct euphemism for his actual purpose. His is the deepest of racial animosities. We all have assumed that the ‘Rev.’ Wright unduly influenced a still impressionable Obama but I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t the reverse or at the least, an alliance of equally diseased racists.

  10. Yes, you can’t much more simple than “kill them all, let god sort them out!”

    The Left and Islamic Jihad actually will all of you and let their gods sort it out.

    But which god were you actually referring to? Your god?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>