That And A Submissive Bow To A Saudi King

I thought it was called 'man caused disasters' now.

Um... didn't GWB hold the friggin' Saudi King's hand? I'm just sayin...

In addition to closing Guantanamo, Obama may consider closing all US military bases in Europe.

That way, he would free more troops for his invasion of the lawless lands in Pakistan.

And, as a secondary benefit, it would force Europe to defend themselves, rather than relying on the US presence.

That is what he was trying to say, was it not?

"That way, he would free more troops for his invasion of the lawless lands in Pakistan"

For a minute there, i thought you where going to say the invasion of Ron Paul supporters.

Whether he likes it or not, Barack now owns the
Afghan situation, totally.

More Youtube videos showing the taliban beating women or stoning to them death in the town square will be his best ally.

And forget the Europ's, they are chicken shit cowards.

There's an interesting and dangerous overtone to Obama's behaviour in Europe.

What I see, and I may be very wrong, but he does not 'feel American'. He has no loyalty or commitment to America. He is very clear that he, Obama, is NOT America. He represents only himself. He's made this clear by his repeated refusal to defend America and America's interests in this trip. Instead, his rhetoric has been to blame America for its behaviour. By so doing, he clearly sets himself up as different from, as separate from, America.

I suggest that this mindset is a basic characteristic of Obama - he probably doesn't even realize it. Certainly, the fact that he attended, for over 20 years, Wright's vicious anti-American 'sermons' has some relevance; and Michelle Obama has made her hostility to America very clear.

So, what we have is a serious gap in both representation of and duty to America's interests in the world. The result? Obama and his wife are personally feted and treated as film stars, which is what, essentially, there are. Nothing else. Both are Performers. Of themselves. And the adulation received - for themselves - is exactly what a pathological narcissist, Obama, seeks.

But America? Where is it in this Grand Performance? It isn't.
Result?

Europe laughs and ignores the requests for more Afghanistan troops. N. Korea laughs and launches its rockets. Russia laughs and expands its imperial hand. Saudi Arabia...others...all realize now that Obama's agenda is to dismantle the US as an economic and democratic power, and set himself up as a kind of EverReady Beacon of Adulation. Empty adulation.

Well said ET.

Better said than either Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck on Fox.

Obama has been tested and found wanting. He is not a leader but a cartoon character looking for Disneyland Paris.

Has it occured to any one that the Dem's took a lesson from their own book.
Do you rember Dan Quail? Do you remember the "if anything happens to the President shoot Quail."
Could it be the reason for Bidden. He has to be the ultimate protection for the O. There just isn't anyone wants to see Bidden as President.

Joe Biden?

Set you free. Are you really, really sure?

Posted by: set you free at April 4, 2009 11:23 AM

"That is what he was trying to say, was it not?"

Any, ANY, interpretation of anything Obama has said is in the probability range of 95% of being wrong, misleading, or incoherent. There IS the possibility that any given statement by him can have all of those attributes coexisting in perfect harmony.

This 'arrogant, everything-is-our-fault, we-apologize' American says: This TOTUS POS does not speak for US.

"And forget the Europ's, they are chicken shit cowards."

They're not *really* cowards. They just wait for North America to come in and clean up for them and afterwards bitch about it. You know, those crude, uncultured, unsophisticated brutes that have yanked their asses out of the fire twice in the past century. It's easy to be effete, standoffish and smug when you have an 800 pound gorilla backing you up.

Funny how the only peacefull period in European history is when those yankee brutes from the colonies play policeman over there.
Left to themselves the Europeans have a nasty habit of quickly starting major wars that kill tens of millions of people.

Why is it they feel so superior?

Grod... Didn't you KISS barack obama's @SS... Just saying.

What I see, and I may be very wrong, but he does not 'feel American'. He has no loyalty or commitment to America. He is very clear that he, Obama, is NOT America. He represents only himself.

Hear! Hear! ET, with a minor quibble, well a major quibble really. He represents something MUCH MUCH BIGGER than himself. A new world order, a post-sovereign US, post-dollar, post-nationalist, transnational form of global governance and regulation, the EU writ even larger. Abbreviated: global neo-communism.

While I still feel that your characterization of him as a puppet (which lacks moral agency) is inadequate, I must certainly concede that Soros is the MAN. From something I read the other day, it became clear that this extremely evil socialist billionaire looks like a new Lenin. He has stated that his life's crowning project was the destruction of the Bush Doctrine, which really means the destruction of American sovereignty and American capitalism (such as it was).
And now I go totally paranoid: I can't shake the feeling that the "man who nearly broke the Bank of England" had some kind of hand in that most convenient financial meltdown just exactly at the point when McCain/Palin were pulling ahead.

I do feel that you overdo, somewhat, the narcissit angle, as real as it is, in your attempt to deny him a strong radical ideology.

Though he looks like some cross between Alfred E Newman, Chauncey Gardener and Zelig, I still feel, even more strongly, that he is a revolutionary marxist; more like a junior partner/salesman to Soros than a puppet.

And I tell ya, he's having a ball! Migawd, in that pic with the Queen and G-20 mischief-makers, he was grinning ear-to-ear like the lead in a minstrel show (bring on the trolls!).

And The Performance continues. (Washington Times report).

In France, Obama had a 'Town Hall' meeting with a French audience to take their questions. Heh. Remember, Obama is not an analyst, he is not a thinker, he is a Performer of the Lines Written by Someone Else. Without his lines, he can't answer questions.

So, just like his Town Halls in the US, this was also prescripted and prepared. In one hour, he first gave his teleprompter speech..which lasted and lasted. And then, he took just five questions. Oh, and they were ALL from Americans. Heh. What are the odds of that in a random selection?

He first gave his usual lengthy speech. From a teleprompter. And then, the questions. Hmm. What were they about?

What kind of dog he is choosing.
Does he regret having run for the presidency.
Another - who told him that his name in Hungarian means 'peach'.
Five questions. Innocuous and adoring.

That's Obama.

I must agree here with both ET and Me No Dhimmi, since they are pretty well stating the same from different angles.

Bush was bashed for saying there should be more troops in Afghanistan.

But Barry doesn't get bashed for saying the same.

Big Media/"Progressive" Bias... Big time.

Whatever happened to all those antiwar protests against Iraq/Afghan/Pakistan wars? Whatever happened to the brainless unwashed useful idiot youth marching in the streets equating the President to Hitler and so on and so forth?

Perhaps those protestors are therefore not for real, are just used for propaganda purposes by the Hard Left, who uses community organizers to rouse the rabble with prejudicial slogans against so and so and send them to scream insanities. Of course the Big Media will cover it on the news, though they wouldn't cover genuine protests by real concerned people who know what they're shouting about...

More troops to Afghanistan?

It depends. The Afghanis as a culture are apparently wedded to barbarism. Witness the latest legislative acts justifying the situations when rape and pedophilia are acceptable. This may not be the majority view of Afghanis, but it is the position of the “elites” – those who shape and promulgate the historical expression of what it means to be Afghani.

We have two stark choices: either impose civilization upon them through occupation and pacification…or pull out entirely - troops and all forms of aid. We have not the wherewithal of empire, so a pull-out is the only option. We should do so with as much evidence of disgust as possible, and impose a collective formal ostracism on Afghanistan: bar all Afghani citizens from entering Canada, reject all trade…even refuse all refugees – let them fight to make their own country livable.

Is this position unconscionable? That is the wrong question. If we do not take this position, we then must either acknowledge the moral legitimacy of the foundations upon which the Afghan power structure is based, or oppose them. Back to the stark choices. The whole concept of national sovereignty was based on the reality that such a question must be operationally invalid for any peaceful coexistence of nations to be possible.

Some will say: we must stay to validate the lost lives of our troops. What, in this economy, we still don’t understand the concept of good money after bad? We made a noble attempt. Let us now be content with having gotten a battle-hardened and experienced military out of the deal.

The irony of his not paying respects to the Queen, whose ancestors put an end to the slave trade in their time, while bowing is subservience to an Arab King, whose ancestors started the slave trade and to this day still trade in black African slaves, seems to be completely lost on the MSM.

Grod: " ... didn't GWB hold the friggin' Saudi King's hand?"

Yeah, well, he also treated the Queen of England with the utmost respect, as did Laura Bush who refrained from hugging her because, as everyone knows, only Prince Philip, her family, and her closest friends get to do that.

Michelle Obama shrugged: "protocol be damned; I'll please Barry's and my leftard socialist friends and backers by touching the Queen, knowing full well that this is a no-no. Yes! Yes! That's what I'll do, and no one can do a darned thing about it. I'll spit in the Queen of England's eye in front of the whole world ... Oh, what a good girl am I."

PiperPaul: "It's easy to be effete, standoffish and smug when you have an 800 pound gorilla backing you up."

'Sounds like a description of Canada under the Librano$.

ET, like I said yesterday, Obama's schtick is being a Performance Artist. Every move is calculated, except when it's not! And then the guy's free floating -- but, hey!, he doesn't really care, because he's got the MSM safety net just waiting to catch him if he falls.

'Nice work if you can get.

I'm just wondering when the jig's going to be up ... when Barry bankrupts the U.S. and loses every friend and ally the Americans ever had, while selling them down the river to the lowest bidder, all of whom are no friends of America and its democratic freedoms?

'Right up there with a Shakespearean tragedy.

I still think that there is a substantial gap between my and me no dhimmi's view of Obama. We both certainly agree that he is a narcissist and a socialist. The difference is in the weight that these two modes of behaviour play in his actions.

I say that Obama is a socialist but not because he has analyzed the theory and concluded that this structure is The Best for You and all other people; the best for your well-being, the best for your prosperity and happiness. No.

He is a socialist because, as a narcissist - and that's the basic First Cause of his behaviour - as a narcissist, he cannot handle a societal structure where You are Equal to Him. As a narcissist, he must control how you act with him. So, he cannot handle individual freedom, the power of government resting in the people, free will, etc.

Socialism sets Obama up in the Elite Class of Rulers, and you, in the Peasant Class of the Ruled.

Me no dhimmi, if I understand him correctly, thinks that Obama is a socialist because he believes in the perspective of socialism. I say that Obama is a socialist because ..of his narcissism..and socialism is the only way he can control you and your behaviour.

Do I think Soros is behind the Agenda? Possibly. Since I maintain that Obama, himself, is not a socialist by virtue of reasoning about its infrastructure, then, Obama can't be the one to plan the socialist infrastructure of the US. Someone else has to do the planning for him. Obama can't plan or think through or develop anything. Nothing.

All he can do is Present Himself and Perform for your adoration. Notice that this is a Personal Interaction. Not a state interaction; not an economic interaction. It is strictly personal.

Actually, I'd say that Obama DID pay his grudging respects to the Queen, with that brief-as-it-was head bow. His ipod 'gift' was his usual trivia. And, as a narcissist, I think we'll see more and more of this type of snub-gift in his dealings with others. He cannot acknowlege another person as having any worth. The only person with worth - is himself.
As for that bow to the Saudi Arabian King - and comparing it to the 'neck-nod' to the Queen, I can't fathom his intention. It was so ridiculous, so Grade Four...I can't fathom or explain it.

And as others have noted, Obama is having the Grade Four time-of-his life, grinning from ear to ear as he is feted and cheered..as Obama. Not as America. He's made it very clear that he and America are two different realities, and when he hears you cheering, it's for HIM. And only HIM.

Now, are the people of America going to take back America from him? I think they will, but it will be a fight. A pathological narcissist will flip and turn vicious and the BackRoom Boys have no intention of giving up their power.

Pakistan is going through a very difficult period and is a victim of terrorism.
If a patient is sick, there is a need to help it recover by medication and not by killing it.
Pakistan needs your help and understanding in this hour of need as we are suffering and want to be the frond of West not enemy.

http://real-politique.blogspot.com

By Sikander Hayat

ET, I suspect you are right that Obama is not a socialist based on an intellectual understanding. However I must agree with Me No Dhimmi concerning the evil works of Soros. I see him as the puppet master, hiding behind the scenes, while using his wealth to pull the strings for the destruction of the USA (values and everything for which it stands). During the American election campaign I referred to Obama as an empty suit, but your description of him says the same much better.

Obama is not genuine in his beliefs. He uses them as tools to enhance personal power and pride.

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!"

Have I properly condensed your thoughts, ET?

I totally agree with ET, 2:51 PM. I see Obama the same way and also refer to Soros as a "puppetmaster" of Obama.

Even scarier than Obama (astutely analysed by posters here) is the capitulation of reason that we see in the mindless adulation of the masses. Where I see two, me-me-me, spoiled brats with bad manners—Mr. and Mrs. Obama, playing dress up—the brain dead celebrity seekers see a black version of Brad and Angelina.

(Personally, I found all the hand on the back and hand holding of “the first couple” both juvenile and totally unbecoming: they weren’t out on a date, for heaven’s sake! IMO, the two of them personify nouveau riche hicks.)

Well, no, Tenebris. The problem with condensing beliefs is that they are then open to misinterpretation. This can emerge in your succinct equation of Obama with Lucifer where misinterpretation could emerge in the many, many meanings, some contradictory, of 'Lucifer'.

Re my earlier “nouveau rich hick” Obama reference: almost every time I hear him or read one of his utterances, I notice errors in basic grammar.

E.g., In these two excerpts from his French town hall appearance (@ Power Line): “. . . there have been times WHERE America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive . . . there have been times WHERE Europeans choose to blame America for much of what is bad.” (emphasis mine)

Excuse me, sir. The correct usage is, “There have been times WHEN . . .”

What’s wrong with this guy and, more to the point, what’s wrong with all the sycophants and toadies who keep praising him for his eloquence? (Obama would probably have said “. . . all the sycophants and toadies THAT . . .” He’s made that mistake more than once.)

This guy’s a no class pretender from top to bottom.

Tony W: it doesn't stop with Biden either. You have to go several steps down the line of succession to find someone palatable:

Joe Biden (aka Bozo the Veep)
Nancy Pelosi (maybe the only one further left than Obama himself)
Robert Byrd (82 years old)
Hillary Clinton (welcome back Bubba!)
Tim Geithner (incompetent hack bought & paid for by Wall Street)
Robert Gates (finally someone who knows what he's doing)

Gah. What a list.

ET - Brevity and allusion are skills to be mastered. I'm still practising. Let me try again, this time defaulting to point-form prose.

*narcissism = pride
*pride goeth before a fall
*Obama go bam

OK - I'll concede that you actually did not make any of these points in particular, but your prose brought them to mind. Is that not the essence of communication?

tenebris - ahh, now I've got it. Nice simile. Let's hope it happens..the fall not the Lucifer style of it.

You don't need troops to kiss arse.

re: ET:"What I see, and I may be very wrong, but he does not 'feel American'. He has no loyalty or commitment to America."

I see that, too, but, apparently, McCain didn't & it's evil & RACISSST to even suggest such a thing.

"I suggest that this mindset is a basic characteristic of Obama - he probably doesn't even realize it."

Hmmm...I suspect that he does realize it.

ET

"What I see, and I may be very wrong, but he does not 'feel American'."

How can he? He's on the wrong side of the political spectrum vis-a-vis those who are on the 'feel American' side. After all America is divided between those who 'feel American' and those who don't. We all sit and wonder about why they allow the latter to vote at all. Especially when who feels American is arbitrarily decided by a right wing hack. Logic and Reason be damned. Ideology trumps all. And Obama cannot possibly feel American.

"He is very clear that he, Obama, is NOT America."

Yes, indeed. That explains the following quote:

"I'm the president of the United States. I'm not the president of China; I'm not the president of Japan; I'm not the president of the other participants here. And so I have a direct responsibility to my constituents to make their lives better. That's -- that's why they put me in there. That accounts for some of the questions here about how concretely does me being here help them find a job, pay for their home, send their kids to college, live what we call the American dream. And I will be judged by my effectiveness in meeting their needs and concerns."

Well, we have established that he is not the president of China and Japan. He does, however, seem to be under the impression that he is the President of the United States, and representative of his constituents. The latter leaves me in doubt about the veracity of your statement claiming that he is not America (one would assume that being representative of the people of America would make him 'America').

"He's made this clear by his repeated refusal to defend America and America's interests in this trip."

I don't know what you would qualify the following as. I tend to see it as a defence against criticism.

"in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad."

That aside, which American 'interests' has he refused to defend? Evidence please - conjecture is fun but pointless. The use of the term interest is very similar to the whole patriotic/unpatriotic bit. And then theres the little matter of conjecture. You say he hasn't defended America's interests. We are to take it at face value?

You will, no doubt, tell me to do my own research to find the evidence that backs you. And leave me with the onerous task of disproving a negative - if it doesnt exist, how do I prove it doesn't exist. Think of the teapot in space.

"Instead, his rhetoric has been to blame America for its behaviour."

I am sure you have some choice quotes to back this up. And then theres the factual angle - where did this little financial crisis start? In Papua New Guinea? Are we seriously going to blame foreigners for what has transpired in America? Is that what one is supposed to do if he 'feel American'? Either you lack clarity or I lack brains. In case of the latter, I urge you to humor me. We are not all as smart as the average commentator on this site.

"Wright's vicious anti-American 'sermons' has some relevance; and Michelle Obama has made her hostility to America very clear."

This just in - George W Bush is anti-semitic by virtue of his admiration for Jerry Falwell. And his handholding with the Saudi King. Guilty by association, and all that.

"Both are Performers. Of themselves. And the adulation received - for themselves - is exactly what a pathological narcissist, Obama, seeks."

You're a shrink now, eh? Pathological narcissist? You must be brilliant. It is very difficult to diagnose someone without actually meeting them. I am impressed. Your evidence no doubt consists of half a dozen quotes and claims that he does not 'feel American' ergo he must be in love with himself.

"Europe laughs and ignores the requests for more Afghanistan troops."

Wierd, because I just saw NATO say they were going to send in 3000 more troops.

"N. Korea laughs and launches its rockets."

North Korea would have done that regardless of who was in power. They re known for their unpredictability.

"Obama's agenda is to dismantle the US as an economic and democratic power"

This statement is nonsense. Or maybe you are correct, in which case the majority of the American population are idiots for voting him in. Democracy is a strange thing. You get the government you deserve. If the majority of the American population is, in fact, idiotic enough to be duped like this, then I think its fair to say that this same majority would have dismantled American anyway - with or without Obama. At the most, he is accelerating the process.

Either which way - America is to blame for electing Obama. Or are we to blame Obama for duping them when others have been doing it all along.

Actually I like the Lucifer analogy since Lucifer means "Light Bearer". After all Lucifer Obama has been dazzling people with his brilliant reading of a teleprompter for some time now. How soon and how fast shall be his fall?

No I don't think that Obama is the devil. After all in the New Testament Jesus is referred to as the "Light Bearer". I do think Obama is a man deeply and hopelessly out of his league but because of the influence of the office he now holds we shall all be the poorer.

I get the impression that Obama dislikes the British on priciple, probably based on faulty, biased ideology about colonial history. Fine, okay, whatever. As the President, his personal, petulant whims should have no bearing on his ceremonial behaviour as POTUS - by which I mean his presumably deliberate rudeness towards the Prime Minister and the Queen. If I'm reading him right (Michelle too), this is petty at a kindergarten level, and it bears out ET's point about his narcissism.

Everyday this guy sells out America. God help em .

sylvain (a new code name for whom?) - I disagree with your points which I consider superficial.

First, I see no validity in your claim that America is divided into those who feel American and those who don't..And I've no idea what you mean by a 'right wing hack'.

Second, the fact that Obama says he is president of the US points to his narcissism, not his identification with Being American. Obama is constantly, constantly informing everyone that he is The President. That's a reference to his putting himself on a pedestal not to his identification with American values.

Third, you provided an example of his 'blame America' quotes yourself. His statement about 'American arrogance'; his statement that America is 'derisive' towards Europe. I'll include his 'Blame Bush' which is a frequent strategy both here and abroad. As for his not defending America's interests, this is his failure to remind Europe of America's commitment to democracy over the past century in Europe, his denigration of America. He can criticize America when he's in the US, but when he's abroad, he has only one role - to promote and defend its interests.

Pathological narcissist? Yes, he is, and I'm hardly the only one to say that. See Charles Krauthammer (who is a psychiatrist besides being a political analyst)..and Dr. S. Vaknin's analaysis. Obama is not a mild case of narcissism, but pathological.

No, NATO's troops aren't going there as front-line troops but as 'far-from-the-front' police and educators and etc.

The fact that N. Korea would launch the missile isn't the point; it's the result - and Obama says nothing about sanctions or results.

I don't agree that 'you get the government you deserve'; that puts the blame for being duped on a population who can be manipulated - and we can be manipulated. Obama uses three basic strategies: misinformation..where he openly lies or hides facts; manipulation of the population by fear and hope; and accusations that you are biased if you dissent from him. And to say that Americans were stupid enough to elect him, therefore, they'll have to bear the result, is the height of arrogance on your part.

After all, we elected Trudeau, who practically destroyed our country; that doesn't mean that we should put up with it and not try to dismantle what he did.

And no, Obama is not simply 'accelerating the process' carried out by others; it would be impossible without him and his manipulation.

Will it last? I don't think so; the backlash against him is starting to grow and more and more people are becoming aware both of his socialism, his lack of integrity, his narcissism.

ET

"I see no validity in your claim that America is divided into those who feel American and those who don't"

Lets see. You said Obama does not 'feel American'. Obama was voted in by a marginal majority of Americans. Democracy is based on representation. It stands to reason that those who voted Obama do not feel American either. And those are the natural implications of your words, not mine.

"Obama is constantly, constantly informing everyone that he is The President. That's a reference to his putting himself on a pedestal not to his identification with American values."

Read the quote. He says it in the context of his responsibility to the people of America versus his responsibility to other nations. It wasn't an offhand remark meant to put him on a pedestal. If the POTUS does not call himself the POTUS, what is he supposed to call himself. He IS the POTUS. The next time the President of a nation makes it clear where his responsibilities lie, or better yet, introduces himself through the title of his office, I assume you will declare him narcissistic and accuse him of trying to put himself on a pedestal? An incredibly strange and dareisay it, defensive approach to take on your part.

"his statement that America is 'derisive' towards Europe."

I am glad you picked up on that. I was hoping you would. Do you remember the "Old Europe" remarks by Rumsfeld? Were they not derisive or arrogant? Is Obama doing the wrong thing by acknowledging that they were? We do know that Europe is an American ally, and we do know that these remarks caused them considerable offence. Is there really something anti-American about Obama acknowledging it as a mistake? Its probably not in the American interest to admit being wrong, but that aside, you know as well as I do that in order to reinvigorate an alliance, you need to at least acknowledge the impact your remarks could have had? Or should he just sweep it under the carpet and act like nothing happened, and effectively make no progress either. Pragmatism trumps blind nationalism at times, eh ET. And a right wing hack can be defined as someone who doesn't realize that. Am I blaming Bush? I don't think so. Those words were, for better or worse, the words of one of his cabinet members. I don't see how a reference to them or an admission that they caused offence can be considered anti-American. What do you want him to go and say: Lets improve relations. BTW, Rumsfeld was right about Old Europe and I am going to defend him because he was American and I am American, regardless of the impact this has on our present and future relationship. Are you fro real?

Or, presumably, he made the mistake of saying, to the leaders of proud sovereign coutnries:

"One year later, exactly 60 years ago tomorrow, we ensured our shared security when 12 of our nations signed a treaty in Washington that spelled out a simple agreement: An attack on one would be viewed as an attack on all. Without firing a single shot, this Alliance would prevent the Iron Curtain from descending on the free nations of Western Europe. It would lead eventually to the crumbling of a wall in Berlin and the end of the Communist threat."

What he should have said is "We saved you". Because that is what diplomacy is about.

As I recall, he made some very straightforward comments at the G20 summit that tell more of a tale than your accusations about tangential denigration:

"1926 Obama says US remains largest economy by a considerable margin and most powerful military in the world; he says America can still lead in the world."

For every Krauthammer and Vaknin, there is a lefty psychiatrist willing to give you insight on Bush. You can take it as seriously as you want. I don't think you will achieve much.

On the NATO troops you're getting into technicalities, but okay, I ll concede the point to you.

North Korea - theres not much you can do with them, Obama or not. He's warned of unspecified steps. I don't know what that means, but it certainly doesnt rule out sanctions etc.

"And to say that Americans were stupid enough to elect him, therefore, they'll have to bear the result, is the height of arrogance on your part."

Whats the point of democracy if populations can be manipulated so easily? Underlying it all is the assumption that the masses will be able to identify what is best for them. Why, then, are they so susceptible to the kind of manipulation that not only makes it impossible to figure out what is best for them, but also results in the election of someone who is antithetical (or so you claim) to their interests? Either the system is in a mess or the American population has been duped, which makes them stupid, because this certainly isnt the first time they've been duped (think Carter).

"Obama uses three basic strategies: misinformation..where he openly lies or hides facts; manipulation of the population by fear and hope; and accusations that you are biased if you dissent from him."

ET, I have enough respect for you to know that you know as well as I do that these three basic strategies are used by every politician in the book. You could have taken it out of Rove's rulebook from the 2000 Republican primaries. Come on - that the population cannot see through it is their own fault.

"After all, we elected Trudeau, who practically destroyed our country; that doesn't mean that we should put up with it and not try to dismantle what he did."

Destroyed? We're still here. Our overprotected economy has survived the economic crisis because of his socialism (not that I endorse it). Besides, what would Canada without Trudeau look like? Economically, about the same. Socially, mildly less fractured. Ethnic ghettoes would still exist and colored immigrants would still show up - the immigration laws changed before he got into power. And perhaps a little less French in the Federal Government and Quebec independent?

"And no, Obama is not simply 'accelerating the process' carried out by others; it would be impossible without him and his manipulation."

If a population is stupid enough not to realise what is good for it, nothing in the world can save it. Example - Italy.

"I don't think so; the backlash against him is starting to grow and more and more people are becoming aware both of his socialism, his lack of integrity, his narcissism."

Where? On rightwing boards or in general? His socialism was never in doubt. The problem with these economic crises is that they give socialists the upper hand more often than not. Lack of integrity? I am assuming you will explain how so. Narcissism - well I know Krauthammer has a large following but I don't think he sways the opinions of the entire planet. One or two shrinks thrown into the mix dont make him a narcissist either. Lefty shrinks had worse to say about Bush. I am sure you were paying attention to them.

Well there is no doubt that Europe sees the completely inexperienced President Obama as a weak link in the world power pecking order now.
Laughing behind his back - tsk tsk.

Why else would Fwance, of all countries, suddenly decide to rejoin NATO, unless they figured they could become regain their rightful place in history as leader of the free world?

Sarkozy sees a chance to revive the glory of the Fwench Empire and they are going to try and take advantage of it.

What a surprize.

sylvain - your comments are illogical and filled with 'informal fallacies'.

First, to say that because Obama does not feel American, then, everyone who voted for him does not feel American is illogical. That would be setting up a situation where If the candidate likes dogs then everyone who voted for him likes dogs, or if the candidate dislikes France then everyone who voted for him dislikes France. And your claim that such a relation is a 'natural implication' of my words is nonsense.

There is no need for Obama to keep reminding everyone that he is the President. That's a sign of his narcissism. And it's quite unique to him; no leader of another country keeps telling others that he's the PM or the President, etc. Your claim that he is saying this because it's factual ignores that there is no reason for him to state it.

Yes, I am 'for real'. I suggest that Obama should have said nothing about Rumsfeld or his words. Nothing. Obama should stop blaming Bush, stop trying to present himself as The Messiah coming after The Plague. And that's exactly what his words were about (arrogance, dismissive, derisive) - a clear agenda of setting up his 'regime' in an adulatory perspective.

Instead, he should just deal with the current issues that face Europe and America as they are; make no apologies, no attempt to set his regime up as Pure and the past as Dirt. That's his narcissist agenda.

And leave it up to others - to the Europeans, to Americans, to decide for themselves whether the Obama Era is better, is not arrogant, is not derisory. He should have the class, the grace, the maturity, to say nothing; just act; and leave the analysis of the 'new Obama era'..up to others. Instead, he is deliberately manipulating people; he is doing their thinking for them, and prompting them to conclude that His Era is Pure.

As for his reference to NATO - what's your point? This has nothing to do with the issues I brought up.

No, Obama's three strategies are NOT used by every politician. Other politicians do tell the truth, they do not deliberately misinform, and they do not manipulate the public via emotions of hope and fear. That is all that Obama does. His campaign provided no clear outline of policies - just hope. His stimulus package was rammed through congress on the basis of catastrophic fear unless it was done. Your attempt to excuse Obama with this fallacious generalization is invalid.

And no, I don't blame the people; I blame Obama for his arrogance and manipulation of the people. What you are utterly ignoring is that Obama has lied, has emotionally manipulated people - and your only response is, not to chastize him for doing so...but saying that anyone who believes him is stupid. You are providing a perfect example of 'blame the victim'. It's not the robber's fault..no, it's the fault of the person who is robbed.

Your dismissal of some very astute and knowledgeable analysis of Obama as a pathological narcissist - by saying that 'there is a left psychiatrist' vs Bush is illogical. First, this 'tu quoque' argument is invalid, and you are thereby trying, without evidence, to invalidate what seems to me to be correct conclusions about Obama. Oh - and What's Bush's syndrome?

Your semantic fallacy of switching my meaning of Trudeau's destruction of Canada to our material existence is yet another fallacy. We are not the same country we were before; Trudeau's bilingualism has handed over our civil service to a mandarin group of less than 20% of the population; his multiculturalism has set Canada up as a hotel for isolate groups; his decimation of the military, his NEP which almost destroyed the West, etc, etc...all harmed and changed Canada.

I certainly do not agree that our economy has survived because of his socialism. There's not a shred of evidence for such a claim on your part.

I think that your are trivializing the effect of Trudeau's massive changes...which centralized rather than decentralized Canada, took power away from the provinces, put power in the hands of that bilingual mandarin class (not a 'little less French') and deprived over 80% of Canadians of political power, and set up Quebec as the lynchpin of governmental power.

Your 'argumentative' tactic seems to be to reject an opinion, not on its content, but you set up a 'tu quoque' argument. You do this all the time.

I'll say that Obama is recognized as a narcissist, and you attempt to deny this, not by any data about narcissism and Obama's behaviour as not fitting into this psychological make-up..but by the fallacy of saying 'oh, psychiatrists said ..what?..about Bush'.

I'll say that Obama is a manipulator..and rather than pointing out how Obama does NOT manipulate, you 'tu quoque'..say that all politicians are manipulators. But that doesn't validate Obama!

As noted, tu quoque arguments are invalid.

ET

So much to chew on. So little time. Lets get to it, then.

"the candidate dislikes France then everyone who voted for him dislikes France"

A clever play on words. There is, however, a HUGE difference between liking dogs and having a vision of America that you get voted into office on. The implication of your statement is that Obama's vision of America was that of one who doesn't 'feel American'. You then cover your back by saying the voting population was duped into not realizing this. For what its worth, a lot of people who voted for Palin did so on the basis of intangible 'small town values'. Would I be wrong to presume that they like small town values?

"Your claim that he is saying this because it's factual ignores that there is no reason for him to state it."

Read the quote again. In this context (about who he is answerable to) I maintain he is justified in saying it . If you are correct, then I can only imagine he goes around repeating it everywhere. Problem is, apart from this one quote, I cant find him declaring he is the POTUS in any of the transcripts. I am sure you will find a dozen or so quotes - since doing so is natural to him. Or not. A clever gimmick on a blog, but its just a sly manipulation on your part. Care to provide a few quotes in this context? Or will you tell me to disprove a negative?

"I suggest that Obama should have said nothing about Rumsfeld or his words. Nothing."

I think it is fair to say that under Bush , Europe US relations hit a nadir? Is that fair? Or were they fine and dandy? Now, assuming that you have to deal with the leaders of (perhaps unjustifiably) proud nations, and assuming that you want to improve relations with them, what do you do? Do you ignore the offence you caused in the past? Or do you address it? This is the recent past we are talking about. Not sixty years ago, but five years ago. Sweep it under the carpet. Ignore the elephant in the room? You think the Europeans don't know whats going on. Bush went and made similar noises when he visited India - that previous administrations had made mistakes in dealing with India. Forget an outcry from you - I heard nothing. The impact that had was a warming of relations between the two countries. Good or bad? In the interests of America or not?

"Instead, he should just deal with the current issues that face Europe and America as they are; make no apologies"

Very realist of you. It doesn't matter if distrust exists - the urgency of the issues will force the Europeans to be cooperative regardless. They face the issues too ergo they will fix it. If you try to remove the distrust, you are a narissist.

"prompting them to conclude that His Era is Pure."

Must be a messiah then, because it seems that all individuals are malleable in the hands of Obama. Except you, me, Kate, and others on this board. And the entire Republican Party. Heres the problem with your logic - he will be judged on what he achieves regardless of what he says. To go about something by making positive gestures and statements does not make one narcissist. He is prompting a change of attitude from them too, which could lead to them being more cooperative than in the past. Or do you prefer distrust. Because America is ALWAYS right. I think you are blindfolded by the American flag.

"No, Obama's three strategies are NOT used by every politician.

The most explicit example in history is provided by Karl Rove and his war on one John McCain in the 2000 primaries.

"Other politicians do tell the truth"

John McCain fathered a child out of wedlock. He now tries to pass off this child as an adopted Child. (I think they were talking about the Bangladeshi girl). Part of the 'truth' put forth by George W. Bush's campaign team. McCain had plenty to say about it - you can still find the clips on youtube.

"they do not deliberately misinform"

The fag candidate? I wonder who they called that.

"and they do not manipulate the public via emotions of hope and fear."

This one is too rich for words. The fag candidate term itself was meant to create fear about an impending attack on American cultural values. Bush would save them. Then there were questions about McCain's sanity after being tortured in Vietnam. Nope that does not induce fear.

Give me a break. What next. You will tell me that the Bush campaign didn't do these things at all? McCain will disagree, but then what does he know? The list of examples from this past election are plenty, but I will wait four years so that I dont characterize any impending truths as fallacies.

"Your dismissal of some very astute and knowledgeable analysis of Obama as a pathological narcissist "

Is the same as my dismissal of equally inane analyses of Bush back in the day. The simple fact is that most of these guys haven't even met Obama. Methodological problems come to mind.

Several of your points about Trudeau are contestable, but I will let them pass for lack of time and space. They don't have much bearing on this topic either.

"I certainly do not agree that our economy has survived because of his socialism. There's not a shred of evidence for such a claim on your part."

That overregulated joke of a banking system that claims that it has weathered out this storm is a fine example of socialist leaning banking. The products they offer consumers are only cosmetically different. Foreign competitors are kept out with a vengeance - the few that are allowed have all kinds of restrictions put on them (number of ATMs they are allowed to have). Am I a fan of it? No. But they are protected and heavily regulated - vestiges of Socialism. On the bright side, they are mired in mediocrity in both good times and bad.

"I'll say that Obama is recognized as a narcissist"

I don't know if he is a narcissist or not because I have never studied him. I simply reject the opinions of these 'scholars' on the very simple, and logical, basis of political bias coloring over objectivity. I have merely pointed out over and over again that you can't take everything you see and read seriously since objectivity tends to give way to ideology. That aside, how do I prove that Obama is not a narcissist. Once again, I am being asked to disprove a negative.

"I'll say that Obama is a manipulator..and rather than pointing out how Obama does NOT manipulate, you 'tu quoque'..say that all politicians are manipulators. But that doesn't validate Obama!"

It doesn't make Obama correct. But to crucify him for a crime that all politicians are prone to committing is absurd to the extreme, especially when these tactics are used by everyone across the spectrum. Its very simple - others have shown these tactics work. Why should he eschew them when none of the others do? Why should he disadvantage himself when others dont see the need to?

tu quoquo arguments may be invalid, but so are arguments that are made wihtout the provision of any real substance or evidence. Some psychiatrist doesnt like Obama and writes an article about him (without meeting him) that calls him a narcissist. Can you blame me for being wary?

no, sylvain - again, your arguments are invalid.

Because I say that Obama does not seem to feel 'American' does not mean that people who voted for him feel the same OR that this defect appeared during his campaign. So, your attempt to declare that Obama was fully transparent during his campaign and people knew what he was like is invalid. Palin, on the other hand, was very clear and open on her values. All Obama talked about was the ambiguous emotions of 'hope and change'. Again, your 'tu quoque' argument is invalid.

I stand by my claim that Obama should not have denigrated America and that the only reason he did so was for his own narcissism; he clearly wants them to think of him as So Much Better. That thought is not for him to manipulate into their minds but for Europeans to think up entirely on their own, based on his actions not his words. Obama has no right to tell them what to think - a tactic which prepares them to view his actions in a particular way.

You give every evidence of being malleable by Obama; your every word excuses him, not a word of critique, not a word of analysis.

Again, because Obama's three tactics, and these are the only tactics he uses since he is not open and honest - are used by others does not mean that all politicians use them. Stop generalizing. Your examples are irrelevant. Again, yet again, you are into the 'tu quoque' invalid tactic!

Furthermore, all your 'he said it too' inserts, such as 'fag candidate' and 'McCain's sanity' are unreferenced to political candidates. I'm sure you realize that what the MSM says is not the issue here.

Obama's frequent references to himself as president is well-known. Check it out for yourself.

Again, the 'tu quoque' argument in your dismissal of Obama's narcissism. Furthermore, you provide no analysis of why you don't accept this conclusion, you instead state, without data, that their conclusions are based on 'political bias' or 'doesn't like Obama [why not?]! Prove it. And no, stating your reasons for not accepting that Obama is a narcissist is not 'disproving a negative'. It is disproving a positive (narcissism).

Again, your arguments are empty. The chief one you use is the fallacious 'tu quoque' which is informationally empty. To say that 'others lie' doesn't validate Obama! Your unswerving and yet unfounded support of Obama is quite something to read!

ET,

Empty rhetorical devices and the occassional use of technical terms notwithstanding, your arguments are as empty as mine.

I am not declaring the Obama was fully open in his campaign. I am no fan of Obama. At the same time, I find it laughable to suggest that Palin was completely honest in her campaign - particularly in light of the post-election revelation that her daughter is not getting married. Was that a cheap political gimmick? Yes. Did Obama employ plenty of these gimmicks? Yes. Their tactics are the standard modus operandi in the current political system. Why demonize him for using it when everybody does? Call it tu quoquo or whatever you want, it is a legitimate question to ask.

I particulalry enjoy the way you insist the Europeans and the rest of the world are waiting to be moulded by Obama. We are, after all, mere putty in his hands. He can tell anybody and everybody what to think. Whether it has any impact is a whole different issue. At the end of the day he will be judged on what he achieves -and he has even acknowledged that. It is hard to believe that a narcissist would be willing to accept that his legacy is open to interpretation by others. At the end of the day, your arguments about Obama's narcissism are as valid or invalid as claims about Bush's dumbness. This isn't a matter of tu quoquo - it is merely a matter of pointing out that partisan hacks produce all kinds of literature, all of which should be taken with a grain of salt. Or a fistful, on occassion. Ideology does trump objectivity on occasion; indeed, this appears to be the case with you.

"Obama's frequent references to himself as president is well-known. Check it out for yourself."

Here we go - now I have to prove that Obama does not do that, which will see me try to disprove a negative. You might as well tell me to prove that there are no teapots in space. Please do feel free to provide such quotes since you appear to be stumbling upon them with alarming frequency.

"You give every evidence of being malleable by Obama; your every word excuses him, not a word of critique, not a word of analysis."

I don't care for him one bit. But then again, I also think you need more than three months to figure out what a President is all about. It is not my "excuses" regarding him that bother you, it is my willingness to identify your blatant bias and lack of objectivity (both of which you deem to be below you in other posts on this board - for instance on issues such as Israel), that annoys you. You are attacking me for being reasonable and rational because you know that it lends a direct contrast to your open bias against Obama. It must be difficult finding yourself lumped with the deranged Bush-haters you so enjoy mocking. You are now their equivalent, albeit with the name Obama replacing Bush. And I understand how that can hurt your pride.

That said, Obama is not a narcissist just because you say so. Give him time (more than three months anyway) and see what he achieves. I will happily apologize for my stance if he turns out to be what you say he is. However, I somehow feel confident that if you are incorrect - if Obama does become a successful, and dareisay humble,leader, you will swear to the day you die that he was a) not successful, and b) a narcissist. That, fellow thinker, is the difference between reason and ideology.

"Furthermore, all your 'he said it too' inserts, such as 'fag candidate' and 'McCain's sanity' are unreferenced to political candidates. I'm sure you realize that what the MSM says is not the issue here."

The "he said it"/"did it too" approach that I am using is not meant to denigrate both or either politician. It is merely to point out that all those things you accuse Obama of, are accepted methods within the rules of the game. Blame the rules if you must. To accuse one candidate of being worse than the others simply because he uses the same rules used by them is a bit, how should I put it, biased? Reason and logic be damned, eh?

I won't bother with the MSM jibe. Theres a wonderful atricle on the National Review by Jonah Goldberg titled "When Conservatives Goof". He is hardly a left wing hack. The simple point I am making is that these are methods adhered to by ONE AND ALL, and Obama is no better or worse than any of them for using these methods. Its that simple. tu quoquo or some equally inane french/latin term notwithstanding.

"Furthermore, you provide no analysis of why you don't accept this conclusion"

You expect me to go around analysing and disproving every ideologically tainted claim hacks on either side of the spectrum make? Given the sheer multitude, I am afraid I don't have the time. Besides, why start with narcissism when I can go straight for his questionable country of origin (was he born in the US or not)? I hope you realise that this claim of narcissism is just another claim in a multitude of claims. Besides, even if I were to show that Obama is humble, perhaps through charitable work or somesuch, you would instantly claim that he is doing it to gain the adulation of the poor, and the rich. Everything he does, no matter how simple or extravagant is, for you, a sign of his narcissism. Tell me honestly, what can he possibly do for you to consider him not narcissistic? An example would be great. It is very easy to rhetorically manipulate any action to make it look like a person is doing it for self-gain.

"And no, stating your reasons for not accepting that Obama is a narcissist is not 'disproving a negative'. It is disproving a positive (narcissism)."

Clever. A play on words. Perhaps you will give me an idea of how to go about this by proving that you yourself are not a narcissist? I don't think you are, for what its worth, but I would thoroughly enjoy watching you prove it. I am not smart enough to know where to start.

"To say that 'others lie' doesn't validate Obama!"

Unswerving support of Obama? Hardly. I am merely offering objective and rational explanations for the very behaviour you summarily present as the result of narcissism. Read my posts. I haven't praised Obama for anything. I have merely offered an alternate rational and logical explanation to your "because he is a narcissist" explanations. How does that count as "unswerving support"?

It is true - lying because others lie does not make it correct or right. At the same time, hanging one for committing a crime while conveniently ignoring similar crimes perpetrated by others is not exactly "right" either. It only has the virtue of revealing political bias on your part. Obama is a terrible person/leader for lying. Agreed. So are all the others. Why single him out? Make it a broadside against them all, perhaps? But you won't, because that doesn't help your "he's a narcissist" argument. Apparenly Obama is the only liar out there. I disagree.

sylvain - this is a useless exchange. Your constant invalid 'tu quoque' tactics aren't a valid form of debate.

To say that Obama's lack of openness about his policies is comparable to Palin's daughter's marriage or non-marriage is nonsense.

The people analyzing Obama as a narcissist aren't 'partisan hacks'.

Obama's self-references to himself as President aren't 'disproving or proving a negative'; it's a fact.

No, to assert that Obama is manipulating people does not mean that they are waiting to be manipulated. Again - a fallacious argument.

The fact that SOME other politicians also manipulate does not validate manipulation by ANY politician. Again, sigh, that tu quoque fallacy.

No, I don't think you are reasonable and rational or objective. My posts about you claim the opposite; I repeately say you are neither and that your comments are illogical. The fact that you self-assert yourself as rational and logical etc, is your personal opinion.

No, the claim of narcissism is not 'just one in a multitude of claims' nor is it 'ideologically tainted'- now you are into the fallacy of diversion by generalization and ad hominem.

No, my pointing out to you that disproving Obama's narcissism is not 'disproving a negative' is NOT a 'clever play on words'. It's factual.

'Being humble' is not indicative of not being in the psychological state of narcissism. I suggest you look up the term - in a psychological text.

And that's where we'll end it. Your arguments are empty and 'tu quoque' goes nowhere. I suggest you look up the term.

Ruffled your feathers, did I?

Not one response of substance.

What we do know is that you are a partisan hack who is prone to blaming everything Obama does on his narcissism.

It is you, not I, who asserts that Obama is telling people what to think, without thinking through the implications of your statement. If his telling people what to think has no impact on anyone, it is a non-issue. You insist on making it one.

The people analyzing Obama are not narcissist hacks. The all-knowing ET knows what their political views are and how they voted. Give me a break. Like all good partisan hacks, you can't even identify yourself as one. You are simply and objective messenger of the truth. Sure.

I don't really care what you think of me. What is genuinely upsetting you is that you, ET, the lone sentinel of rationality and objectivity has been exposed as a partisan hack. Your views are not backed by evidence, they are merely tainted with bais.

You accuse me of unswerving support for Obama. When I challenge you to identify it in my posts, you ignore it because you cannot. I offer an explanation that differs from your "because he is a narcissist explanation" and it is automatically seen as pro-Obama. Wonderful bias you have.

The gem of it all -"Its factual". Methodology be damned. Political bais be damned. Personal opinions be damned. Two or three guys have said he is narcissistic. You believe them. Therefore Obama is a narcissist.

I may not be reasonable or rational or objective, but at least I don't believe everything that is thrown at me. I am willing to question things. That may not suit you, but it is a heck of a lot better than simply deciding you are right, which, incidentally, is precisely what you have done. Did you question the motives of those who call Obama narcissistic? Did you check their methodology? Or did you simply enjoy what you were reading because it validated your own views (which doesn't neccessarily make them factually correct views)

The armor's come undone, ET. How seriously would you take someone who insists that Bush is stupid and cites it by pulling up all sorts of inane articles and analyses? Not very, I suspect. Welcome to their ranks. You are as objective as every partisan hack out there. Anybody who dares disagree with you must be wrong. Its a pity I insist on questioning every aspect of what you say.

Sylvain,

Sheesh. Alright already, so Obama maybe is or is not a narcissist (pending further 'proof'). How be we just end this excrutiating exchange by all agreeing he's an asshole.

There you go. End of debate.