The days of knuckledraggers running America seem a lifetime ago.
It’s things like presenting the Queen with an iPod loaded with his own speeches that puts the “staggering incompetence” side a few more points up on the “sinister plot” faction.
Sinister, manipulative plotters excel at presenting exquisitely personalized and appropriate gifts. Your cousin from Carrot River who likes jumping ditch-to-ditch on his Arctic Cat – not so much.
I live in Vegas, and I see people by the side of the road with cardboard signs who seem like they might have tried that spending their way out of debt thing. Or maybe they tried the all too intuitive “crack will make me feel healthy again” thing. I don’t know.
Meanwhile, the MoveOn.org wing of the administration is targeting budget-wary members of their own party in ads.
That’s the sort of thing that always ends well.
“Anybody seen the movie “300”?…The muslim king reminds me of Obama to the tee.”
TOTUS reminds me of the Emperor in Star Wars:
“I am the Senate” – Darth Sidious SWIII
BO = Darth InSidious
ET: “The Democrat Party …. They are using him as the Poster Boy, carefully scripted and managed, while they do the Backroom Deals to socialism.”
Maybe so. But to say that “the Democratic Party” is doing this — handling him as a puppet, as you put it earlier — isn’t very enlightening. There are, after all, elected members of the Democratic Party who voted against the stimulus bill and the budget, and are unhappy with the prospect of further “stimulus” spending.
Don’t we need names to attach to this backroom work and socialist agenda? If it’s a behind-the-scenes job, as you argue, some people must be involved. Are you thinking of Emmanuel? Clinton(s)? Holder? Pelosi and Reid? Others?
Simply to say that “the Democratic Party” is pulling Obama’s strings doesn’t get us very far.
Posted by: ET at April 2, 2009 2:17 PM
“… pathological narcissist.”
There is nothing else but that. Nothing.
Everything he has done, everything he is doing, and everything he will do, is driven by that.
The actual power brokers in the Democratic Party, and the string pullers behind the curtain, fully recognize what he is, and will use that to the fullest extent possible.
MJ – yes, I agree; just saying ‘the Democratic Party’ is too ambiguous. I’m not sure exactly who is in The Group.
Certainly, the entire Stimulus Package was written by Pelosi and Reid. Obama obviously didn’t read it before signing it. Neither did anyone in the House or Senate. They voted on party lines.
As for his budget, I’d suspect that Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Geithner..and…? How involved is Soros? I don’t really know who is in the Back Room, but most certainly, Obama isn’t there with them. He’s only in the front room, vacuous and empty-headed, blithering on about ‘well, spending equals stimulus’ – one of the more ignorant statements I’ve heard anywhere…and his usual ‘hope and change’. Oh..and fear and outrage.
What about the disastrous way he dealt with AIG bonuses?? They were legal; he ought to have known that. And to try to take them back would have been both illegal and unconstitutional. Instead of, as the President, telling the public this, he instead actually went on national TV and helped set up mob lynch hysteria.
He told the public how ‘outraged’ he was. And ‘we’ll get it back’..and then, allowed talk of ‘90% tax’ on those bonuses. All of this was illegal, all of it was unconstitutional. Yes he said it; he promoted it.
And the result of his ‘anger’? Lynch mob hysteria resulting in death threats, in Obama’s buddy ACORN sending busloads of protesters out to AIG executive’s homes, in threats against the children of AIG executives. And he thinks he’s the President? Promoting illegal and unconstitutional actions?
He’s not capable of any analysis of cause and effect, not capable of understanding banks, finance, economics..and not capable of understanding foreign realities. Not once in his entire career has he shown any evidence of analytic capacity. Not once.
And – he hasn’t shown any loyalty to America. he seems, in a strange way, detached from any attachment to his country, to its history, its constitution, its views. His focus is only on himself and his actions of controlling people.
ET: “As for his budget, I’d suspect that Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Geithner..and…? How involved is Soros?”
I don’t think Geithner is any kind of ideologue, and certainly no puppet-master. The possibility that Pelosi, Reid and Frank are the “brains” behind Obama? This gives them far too much credit; I think it’s completely implausible.
Soros is an interesting suggestion, but I don’t think there’s any evidence for it. Speculation, suspicion, maybe, but no evidence. I don’t give that idea any chance.
Is Obama himself the ideologue? He’s the one treating America as a giant community to be organized. Really, his ideas don’t have to be well-formed or very sophisticated for him to deserve that characterization. This seems to me the simpler explanation, rather than positing unnamed (and apparently un-nameable) wizards behind curtains.
Maybe Obama’s comment to Joe the Plumber that “spreading the wealth” is a good thing is all we need to know about his world-view. You can’t spread the wealth unless you’re holding the cash, even if it’s the next generation’s cash.
“Obama bows down to Saudi King”.
Saudi King said:
“”It also leads to bowing, which is a violation of God’s law. The faithful bow to no one but God.”
…-
Flashback:
“Saudi King Bans Kissing of His Hand
September 12, 2005
The new Saudi king has ordered citizens not to kiss his hand, saying the traditional gesture of respect is degrading and violates Islam.
“Kissing hands is alien to our values and morals, and is not accepted by free and noble souls,” Abdullah told a delegation from Baha, in southwest Saudi Arabia, which came to the royal palace to offer congratulations on his accession. “It also leads to bowing, which is a violation of God’s law. The faithful bow to no one but God.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/sep/12/world/fg-briefs12
MJ – no, I don’t see Obama as the ideologue. He has never given any indication of being such a person, i.e., someone who works according to analyzed ideas.
He operates only within a personal emotional pychological template that sets him up as the Controller of how you act towards him and that puts you in his control. Period.
He moves with the socialist political group because such an ideology enables him to Control, because it sets him up in the Elite Controller Class… so idle comments like ‘spreading the wealth’ are indicative only of his socialist membership, not his analysis of that societal structure.
Pelosi and Reid are the authors of the Stimulus Package; Geithner and others of the Budget. But Obama, in my view, is not driving either agenda, other than approving the socialist big government approach…because it puts him in power.
Since this leaves, effectively, a gap in the theoretical leadership in Washington – with my claim that Obama is not capable of leadership since he doesn’t think analytically but only emotionally – then..who is the analyst?
Are the agendas of the current White House government ONLY driven by the leftist agendas of the Democratic Party? Is there no long term plan?
If there is a long term plan, then, who is its author? Again – it can’t be Obama. His long term plan doesn’t move beyond everyone cheering him.
If it is short-term and idealogical..i.e., the normal leftist Democratic agenda of Big Government, Big Spending and etc..then..it’s the hard core socialists in the party.
That’s as far as I’ve gotten in my musings. I reject Obama as the driving force. Either it’s a long term plan – and who is its author. Or, it’s contextual and normal leftism in the Congress.
Don’t be so stupid, ET (or disingenuous)
My reference to the Obamas’ Harvard education was based on Shaidle’s attempt to attack them from a class perspective. I merely pointed out that their history is a little more impressive than her…well, less than impressive history.
As for your defence of Shaidle’s and McMillan’s racism in their attacks on Obama, well, I’m afraid that reveals a little more about you than you intend to…
And as to the rest of your intemperate rant? Gee, the Obama presidency is really taking a toll on you, huh? Relax – lie down. Drink some herbal tea or something. You’re getting scary…
ET: I don’t think your analysis of Obama’s motives is provable or can go beyond the level of speculation.
More to the point, I think that you expect too much from ideologues. They don’t all have well and thoroughly developed belief-systems. In fact, I think that most of them don’t.
That’s why they’re ideologues. Ideology is a substitute for thinking, and especially for the constant confrontation of one’s beliefs and opinions against new problems and changing circumstances. It’s characteristic of ideologues that they hold fast to their opinions and conclusions even when new facts show them that they’re wrong.
That may be a good description of Obama, who clings to the script on his teleprompter. I’m sure we’ll know soon enough.
MJ – I think that you and I have a very different understanding of the term ‘ideology’.
Using the Merriam Webster, the term means;
1. visionary theorizing
2. a systematic body of concepts, usually about human life or culture; and ‘a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group or culture; and ‘the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program’.
In my use, the term ideology fits in with any of the above definitions and is most definitely NOT a substitute for thinking but is the result of thinking. That is, one arrives at certain ideas about ‘how should a robust industrial global society operate’..as the result of thought. These ideas..form one’s ideology.
Your interpretation of the term is that it provides ‘ideas’ ..I’m not sure where from but certainly not from oone’s own analysis and thought..and that one accepts these ideas without thought. My term for such behaviour is ‘dogma’ and such behaviour is ‘dogmatic’. But I’ve seen this use of the term ‘ideology’ (ideas that one has without having thought of them)..elsewhere in the press etc.
So, in my view, ideology is not a substitute for thinking but represents the result of thought. Dogma is a substitute for thinking. These differences in our use of the terms may be minor – but, they are hindering our discussion.
Anyone see Richard Loncraine’s 1995 movie of Richard III?
ET: you wrote that “Obama moves within the socialist political group because such an ideology enables him to control.” I think you’re right. But — and this is key — history teaches us that the connection between the level of control he desires and the particular ideology you refer to cannot be separated. His personal/psychological motives don’t obviate either the primacy or efficacy, under his watch, of his ideology; quite the contrary. You’re probably right that doesn’t have a “plan” in the usual sense of a highly detailed, step-by-step series of carefully plotted executions, but if one has in mind a crude strategy, as charted by Alinsky and his bastard-children, to overload the capitalist system by placing impossible demands on it, it’s not necessarily critical to carefully institute any particular action; all you need, when you’re in power, are people “cheering (you) on” — abetting you — while productive (to the cause) actions are undertaken.
You’re right, IMO, about what motivates him — his own power — but, again, to say that Obama “is not capable of leadership since he doesn’t think analytically but only emotionally,” is to not sufficiently take into account that his personal attributes — including his lack of grasp of consequences — are not only in service of, but stem from an ideology of the great leader which characterizes communist-type thinking. If one’s plan is intendedly destructive in the short term, and undertaken in the interests of a reconfiguration of a system at the end of it, one needn’t have a “plan,” not in the way that someone looking to improve a current situation, within the current framework, would need it.
As MJ put it, “you expect too much from ideologues” — in this case, a detailed plan, as opposed to an end result. To whatever extent an end goal is destructive (crippling of a system), a careful, minding-the-books plan isn’t necessary, and the lack of a detailed, step-by-step plan isn’t necessarily a disadvantage.
Are we feeding the bleet troll?
Ok, here’s my tidbit, bleety. Anybody who gives the Queen of England a frickin’ ipod with HIS speeches on it, for a state visit no less, has shown us all we need to know about his class, his intellect, and his upbringing.
I have no inherent objection to a black president in so far as my Canadian opinion is of any moment. But I could wish they’d have picked one with a functional brain. Jesse Jackson, race hustling deadbeat scumbag that he is, would have been a better choice.
That’s a very interesting analysis, EBD.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that yes, Obama doesn’t have a plan, in the sense of a detailed, step by step plan, but he DOES have an agenda or end result goal – the destruction of the current capitalist system and the introduction of a socialist system.
Whereas, I’m still saying that he not only doesn’t have a plan ( step by step) – and I assure you, I never meant having such a detailed outline – but he doesn’t have an agenda, i.e., a socioeconomic or political agenda.
Obama, in my view, only operates psychologically. His interactions are to ensure that he controls other people. Period. He ‘exists’ and I mean exists only superficially, within the socialist ideology because it is a controlling ideology. He himself, as a narcissist, couldn’t care less about any ideas, political theories or whatever. His focus is only on himself. He’s ‘above’ ideologies.
The actual agenda, and that can include a step by step plan, of changing the US socioeconomic infrastructure into a socialist system, doesn’t lie with Obama, in my view. But with some hardcore Democrats..and others..I still maintain that there is a ‘BackRoom Set’ that is behind this massive restructuring of the US.
It isn’t Obama. He’s the upfront Performance Guy who is being used to hie the real agenda, misrepresenting it as ‘it’s good medicine for you’…I frankly doubt that he has a clue about the results…and his only interest is in the adulation and subservience of people.
ET, to whatever extent Obama’s psychological makeup is defined as the overarching matter at hand in a discussion, his ideology vanishes– is non-existent and not a threat — within that context. I suggest, though, that 1) Obama’s personal motivations (and I agree with your assessment of them) don’t, in my opinion, obviate that he has an ideology; 2) regardless of how inchoate this ideology is, or how secondary it is in his own mind to his own narcissistic pleasure, it still fully exists, inasmuch as he’s obviously not going to oppose others within his team who set out to implement policies consistent with that ideology; 3) If you look back on the last century, Obama’s personal attributes — taking here your description at face value — make his ideology not less dangerous, or less of a factor, but more.
I don’t think his ideology, in other words, is off the table, or irrelevant, or a non-factor, because of his particular psychological attributes. Mussolini was a narcissist of the highest order; so is Kim Jong Il.
You mentioned the “back-room set,” as being the engine-room of the massive restructuring, and yet none of them (as far as I’m aware) are as connected to the Alinsky-type strategies (Acorn, etc) as Obama is. What I find a bit unsettling, in a niggling way, is that IF one were to assume that Obama’s (and others, of course) plan was to overload and cripple the financial system, in order to bring the well-being of the people into the arms of the — ahem — strong leader, then the (nascent) actions undertaken so far would be consistent with that goal.
I don’t disagree in the slightest with your assessment of Obama, in terms of what moves him personally, it just seems to me that the great collectivist leaders in the last century also existed within their respective ideologies because they were “controlling ideologies,” as you put it, which provided a place for these individuals to put their mark on others. The psychological attributes of those leaders weren’t created by the ideology, as you allude to in your analysis of Obama; rather, the ideology was a home for certain sorts of men. But those men ended up having a devastating effect that they couldn’t have had without the force of the ideology, even if the details of the given ideology was incidental to the pleasures of the great leader.
Socialism, as you’ve noted many times, is about enormous power in the hands of the few.
I’ll grant you that the notion that Obama isn’t thinking it through in strictly ideological terms, is almost certainly true. But again, in the early stages of collectivist “great societies” the “ideas” behind the plan or strategy were similarly pompous, blunt tools, and ultimately self-serving for those looking to lead. When put in motion in the, ahh, corporeal realm, though, those ideas were endlessly forceful, even if the motives of those who promoted and enforced the ideas were entirely grounded in their own psychological makeup.
In short, I largely agree with you about Obama’s mindset; I just think that his ideology is a lot more significant in effect — more manifest — than you do, and that his psychological attributes don’t reduce it’s significance, but rather magnifies it.
Momar at 11:41AM –
Lucy, is that you?
A very good discussion, EBD and ET. I find myself agreeing whoeheartedly with EBD on the matter of his ideology, and have said so here on several occassions. He’s a marxist, plain and simple and ugly. And he is a cold blooded hard-core America-hater too, make no mistake about that. Jackie Mason had me laughing with his remark about much he seems to be enjoying himself: “the worse it gets the happier he seems”. Bingo. I said to a friend a while back, “this cat is having a ball”.
Remember his breezy remarks about seeking out all the marxist profs and structural feminists. I also suspect too that IF he’s “the smartest guy in town”, the reason all his university records are sealed might be due to some hard left radical writing.
The key point EBD makes is the direct link to Alinksy through a protege. Obama is a brilliant Alinskyite. EBD is absolutely right: when you understand his objectives, this man is highly competent, hugely so. And there’s no doubt he’s using the Cloward-Piven (sp?) strategy.
This man has big backing (Soros, and others) but is NO PUPPET. His hard left radical history has too long a pedigree for that. He’s a marxist revolutionary adapting the methods to the institutional realities of the US of A.
The DEM party is the puppet.
me no dhimmi – no, I don’t agree with you about your analysis of Obama as first, driven by ideology. I don’t agree that Obama is a Marxist or anything. I think he’s embedded with the socialist ideology because it’s the only place where he feels comfortable – because it enables him to control others. He himself may think he believes in it but he ‘believes’ in it because it enables him to, psychologically, exist.
I agree with EBD’s point about the importance of the ideology. In fact, I think that EBD and I are really saying similar things. I don’t think that socialism as an ideology is irrelevant to Obama – he requires it as his base. But it is irrelevant to him ‘in itself’. It is only relevant as it empowers him.
I do agree with EBD that this, as i see it, alienation makes him more dangerous. And his pushing through this ideology is more dangerous because he doesn’t think through or care about, its effects.
I don’t see the Alinsky tactics as an ideology but as a methodology – and Obama uses them to great effect. Competent? No, I don’t think so. He showed no competence in his community activist years or in the Senate. He’s shown no competence in foreign affairs; he’s shown no competence in dealing with AIG.
He’s enabled by a fawning uncritical MSM and by a population tired of war and tired of being hated. That’s what has set up the ‘phase of Obama’ and as the critical analysis widens and deepens, I think that this view of him as ‘competent’ will disappear.
Excellent discussion from all, and thought provoking.
One thought that keeps bugging me though. What if Obama never thought he was actually going to win? He may have just started the campaign as an ego trip, on other people’s money.
Then he won.
What if he is actually, fundamentally, much more inept than we even realize?
He may just be flailing away in a general, ideological direction, hoping something, anything, works. Note the near aimless wandering from pillar to post while tripping over the obvious.
Just a thought.
Obama is funny and our monkey is a joke.
sarge here damn desperate times at SDA sarge thinks more than herbal tea they cry out for benzodiazepine sedation
“Obama is funny and our monkey is a joke.” — ok4ua
“like the Special Olympics” — Tonight Show with Jay Leno, March, 2009.
“… our monkey is a joke.” Which is why we re-elected him. Dobry vechir, ok4u.
On another thread, two minutes earlier:
“Don’t you wish we had a leader as smart as Obama. It takes more brains to be funny than to be an ***hole.”
Smart. Like:
“10,000 people were killed in a tornado” — Campaign rally, August, 2007.
“57 states” — June-July, 2008
Giving PM Brown 20 DVDs in NTSC format, not PAL. Real smart.
—————-
“they cry out for benzodiazepine sedation” — sarge
Tell that to the guy in the mirror, sarge.
Posted by: ural at April 2, 2009 12:12 PM
Alinksy was one of D’ohbama’s mentors. As was a terrorist, a convicted felon, a half-insane, racist, mouthbreathing, america-hating “preacher”, a likewise america-hating priest, and who knows how many more?
Rule #12 of Alinksy’s “Rules For Radicals” was used by the whitehouse to go after Limbaugh:
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Oops – apparently that tactic backfired.
ET, your overtures to bleet are simply throwing pearls before swine. He/she/it refuses to let go of the feel-good crush on obama, and it blinds them to the catastrophe that’s unravelling:
– Trillions of private wealth eliminated with the stroke of a pen
– complete ineptness and incompetency of the country’s SecState, who is being visibly scored by the russians and iranians
– obama’s incitement of class warfare on the home front between the producers and the takers
– systematic dismantling of the American Experiment by the government: nationalizing of industries, setting of private salaries by the government
– the continual attack on the importance and rights of the individual versus those of the collective
This is probably the most ill-experienced and dangerous person to ever inhabit the White House. Period. If this slide is not checked, America as it was known for the past 233 years may cease to exist.
Conservatives and Republicans don’t see race as an issue in these disastrous policies, but bleet does: any criticism of obama is “racist”, or recognition of the plain truth that the left used obama’s race to shoehorn him into POTUS is “racist”. Obama’s race only matters to bleet and his ilk; anyone with half a brain recognizes that anyone in the White House with these same policies – man, woman, black, white, asian, etc. – would be equally damaging to the US. Skin colour matters more to the left; ideas are of more importance to the right.
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
gosh, you’re dumb, MHB
Why else would you misrepresent what I said on the same thread where your lies can be so easily disproven?
I didn’t say any criticism of Obama is “racist” at all. By all means, go to it! Judging by your imtemperate rant it seems that you, like ET, feel you have lots to criticize about him. Go for it!
I do object to SDA’s statement that Obama is an “affirmative action president”. That’s bringing race into it when it has no place. I object to Shaidle’s reference to “poor/black” perspectives on testing. That also brings in race where it has no place.
Both instances, plainly put, are racism – and they’re intended to be.
If you guys have enough to criticize him on the job he’s doing as president you wouldn’t need to bring up the racial aspect continually. I consider it telling that you – SDA as a whole – do.
In the year 2009 I don’t see the kind of repulsive racism at large that I see on the threads here, by posters like cal2. How do you feel about this type of conduct by your ideological brethren?
bleet, are you able to breathe unassisted?
You’re about as dense a poster as I’ve seen on this blog, and considering the leftards that lurk here, that says something.
Read any of my posts on obama where – just once – I criticize his performance because of the colour of his skin. Or anybody else on this thread, for that matter. The man is totally incompetent; completely unsuited and inept for the job, as we’re seeing more proof of same, every day.
As I noted above, I’d call out anyone no matter of skin colour for pulling the blunders obama has done. I will say this once, for you, bleet, and once only, using little words so even you will get it:
obama is incompetent and dangerous because he IS, and this is not a skin colour issue.
If you had half the brain you like to think you do, you’d note the “race-based” comments you wrongly allude to aren’t directed at obama, but at the left and the MSM, who collectively decided that race trumped gender in the democrat race and railroaded hillary clinton from the ticket. The democrats worried obama wasn’t “black enough”, not the Republicans. They – as well as all conservatives – concentrate on his moronic policies and unsuitability for office. It’s those on the left like you, bleet, who compartmentalize people by demographics: african-american, asian-canadian, etc.
And as for racism, who’s to say whether or not obama isn’t the racism-free saint made out by the left? He spent 20 years in the pews of that hate-filled racist “Reverend Wright”: what were obama’s views when wright declared America invented AIDS to keep the black man down, and chortled over 911 (“america’s chickens are coming home to ro-o-o-o-o-ost!!”)?
If you can’t see the derision on this site is focused on the moronic left who fell in love with the idea of electing a black man POTUS, regardless of his lack of qualifications, rather than at the race of the man himself, then that’s your issue, bleet. You’re either to be pitied, or perhaps studied, I’m not sure which.
mhb
MHB
You said:
“Conservatives and Republicans don’t see race as an issue in these disastrous policies, but bleet does: any criticism of obama is “racist””
I showed that I did not say that ‘any criticism of Obama is ‘racist”, as you claim I did.
I also have not claimed that you have criticized Obama based on the colour of his skin – as you infer here.
In both these cases, you are lying – why, I don’t know, since your lies are readily refuted on this very thread.
The criticisms I have cited here are most certainly racist – seeking to denigrate Obama based on racist stereotypes. Just like the frequent posting of racist cartoons here under the title ‘Frankly My Dear…’, they are designed to appeal to the racists who frequent this site for communion with those who share their beliefs.
I should think that you, who have an apparent laundry list of non-racial criticisms of Obama, would shrink from associating with them.
Glad to hear that the Cobourg farm is planning to produce power for 4000 homes–and not 400. I was surprised, because all our radio media (I live near the area) said 400. That’s what people were talking about around the water coolers.
Anyone think it actually will work?