Obama “the iceman” melteth: but Politico’s Ben Smith hasn’t been paying attention
Ben Smith of Politico seems to think Obama’s getting rattled, and that this has caused a change in the persona he’s showing to the country and the world.
But everything the article describes as new behavior was already in evidence during the campaign—that is, to those paying attention to the details. Obama has always had a tendency to get nasty and emotional, or haughty and dismissive, when pressed—but during the campaign he was rarely ever pressed. As for the trash talk, didn’t Politico see Obama give Hillary the finger, or flick the dirt off his shoulder? Or how about getting acquainted with the ancient history of how Obama got his start against Alice Palmer? Not to mention the fact that Obama’s lack of reaching across the aisle for Republican input began nearly at the start of his presidency, not just now.
This in particular struck me as disingenuous on the part of Obama’s spokesman, as well:
White House Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer dismissed the suggestion that Obama should be expected to succeed effortlessly ”“ or that he’s on a path toward failure on any of these varied fronts.
“Obama and his team have been down this road dozens of times and been declared dead many times and always succeeded,” he said. “No one gets rich betting against Barack Obama.”
Now that I think of it, perhaps it’s not disingenuous after all; perhaps it just shows ignorance (or denial) of the fact that Obama has never had to succeed at anything political before except for getting elected, and then ingratiating himself with the leader of the Illinois Senate who allowed him to take credit for the work of other people on legislative bills. After that, all Obama really had to do was give speeches and run a campaign.
Granted, he was very good indeed at that. But a campaign and a presidency are different. I am beginning to think that one of the problems with Obama and his advisers is that they actually believe an administration is merely the continuation of a campaign. After all, Obama has never had to face that hard truth before—each office of his has been useful only as a springboard for the next one. The idea that he is now in office for at least four years, with no higher office in sight, and that people may actually for the first time in his life expect him to produce some actual results in addition to lofty words, is very slow to dawn on Obama and the people around him.
They probably think if he bobs and weaves and spins enough, his chickens will never come home to roost. And perhaps they are correct; perhaps the press will stay in his pocket, partly to avoid admitting its own failure to evaluate and vet Obama properly. But there are signs—and the Politico article is one of them—that even the press cannot deny that this man is not what he appeared (to them) to be.
Is this a warning or an observation? I wonder. Still, I’ve got a feeling that betting against Obama is about to pay off. Sarah Palin will be the big winner even though her bet was foisted upon her.
One thing missed, is that a person’s real character comes out in times of stress and trial. So if Obama is changing, we are seeing who he really is.
neo: Good points!
I took the Politico article as a sign that, whereas before we only caught glimpses, we are now going to see a sustained, unmistakable display of Obama and his team in high dudgeon.
As I believe Occam pointed out earlier, Obama doesn’t do hot well and it will rebound against him.
I am reminded of Gore’s rather comically scripted “rolling-up-the-sleeves” moment during the 2000 campaign. Though I suspect with Obama and it is going to be more like looking into a blast furnace whose doors before only opened a crack.
Plus he is going up against the reality of the budget, deficit, unemployment numbers, and projected healthcare costs. Obama’s solution? Delay the release of the budget update until after the recess of Congress.
It’s getting to the point that I don’t trust this guy…
His advisor is completely 100% correct – no one gets rich from betting against him. Through his life *everything* he has wanted he has achieved and through nothing more than being Obama.
Indeed, he has achieved what is arguably the highest most powerful position *in the world* by being nothing more than Obama. Why would he think things would be any different now? Why *not* flip people off and be condescending – have any of us achieved what he has just by being and that we are not falling over being Obama just shows how out of place we truly are and how much we ignore what has happened in his life.
Of course, as we are saying too the economy, health care, terrorist, and something other than just getting to the next highest position (what he wanted) isn’t going to be fixed simply by being Obama. It will get fixed no more or less than his publication tract did at Harvard Law Review (that is – a miserable failure as it requires something other than actually being someone or a popularity contest). As said with no higher position to get too he suddenly has to publish and can’t.
I think it will still take some more time to figure that out on his and many others parts – after all it has been decades of this working every single time. I also expect the crash to be a real meltdown – after all it was decades in the making, took him to the highest position in the land, and is going to occur in front of the world.
This may be a “teachable moment” in American history, where Obama and New Left Dem politics acquire a stench that will take decades to dissipate, if ever.
“Obama and his team have been down this road dozens of times and been declared dead many times and always succeeded.”
WTF is he talking about? Are there two Obamas, perhaps?
The Nubian Narcissist hasn’t been down any roads even once, and has never been declared dead.
It was a rousing riposte, but it bears no relation whatever to reality.
Obama’s lack of reaching across the aisle for Republican input began nearly at the start of his presidency
As I recall, the meeting with the House where he told the Republicans that I won took place before 20 January 2009.
He can roll sleeves and work; or say:
Would you treat a white President this way?
Hedgehog
How Obama lost me
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-obama-lost-me.html
By Ann Althouse
Why do I get so nauseated reading this from Ann? I’ve read her stuff and was incredibly mystified at what happened with her prior to the election. It’s as if she turned her brain off.
Been declared dead many times
And always succeeded
Hussein means adversity
Obama’s SOP has been to stand around looking pretty while other people did the work. The problem here is that other people are the Democratic congress. Pork and patronage are what congress does, the executive’s role is to design and lead, looking pretty isn’t going to do the trick.
Althouse is moderately smart
Which is sooo much smarter
As she will immoderately inform
Feelin prickly
Like an irritated hedgehog
Under moderate assault
Baklava: Althouse’s piece didn’t work for me either.
Sure she had dissatisfactions with McCain. Didn’t we all?
Is that any excuse to vote for a fast-talking smoothie playing the race card who had no experience and given no indication that he would be any better, combined with lots of red flags that he could be much worse?
Well, we’ve got much worse. Thank you, Ann.
huxley, Even before ∅bama’s bankrupting the coal industry comments and the spread the wealth comments….
….∅bama showed an extremely huge lack of understanding about economics (which Ann has bolded).
When I said ∅bama was a Marxist at the lunchroom table, I backed it up with quotes about the oil industry where he just wanted to TAKE the profits. He said this stuff during the campaign trail on EVERY stump speech. I defined what Marxism was about so people could see how it was similar.
∅bama’s lack of understanding was LACED in every thing he said. Woven into every concept of his…. There was NOTHING to hang onto to see ANY hope.
Althouse:
“The sense in which I
am a liberal or a conservative
is complicated”
There was a faith healer from Deal
Who said, “Although pain is unreal,
“When I sit on a pin
“And puncture my skin
“I dislike what I fancy I feel.”
If, after discouraging new investment, job creation, international trade, distorting the banking and manufacturing sectors, and building an unsustainable debt the United States finds itself in a very bad spot it won’t matter if Obama was the darling of the press or how cool it was that he answered the same question a different way each time it was asked. Nor that what we got wasn’t what we voted for, that all we really wanted was to feel good (Hope) and for things to be all rosy and wonderful and for us to be loved (Change.)
It’s unfair, because that should count for something, shouldn’t it?
Baklava: “There was NOTHING to hang onto to see ANY hope.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
what Got him was Noth
e. e. cummings
poem #30 from 95 poems. 1958
what Got him was Noth
ing & nothing’s exAct
ly what any one Living
(or some
body
Dead like even a Poet)could
hardly express what
i Mean is
what knocked him over Wasn’t
(for instance)the Knowing your
whole(yes god
damned)life is a Flop or even
to
Feel how
Everything(dreamed
& hoped &
prayed for
months & weeks & days & years
& nights &
forever)is Less Than
Nothing(which would have been
Something)what got him was nothing
huxley, Baklava,
Some people have defective BS detectors. Althouse appears to be one of those.
I have a friend who is a New Agey massage therapist in Marin who reads The Nation and The New Yorker and tends to despise Republicans, but even she was alarmed by Obama’s lack of experience and mystified by all the come-to-Jesus enthusiasm among her friends for Obama.
I found, in her comments, where Althouse gave her reasons. I want to say it is to Althouse’ credit that she explained herself – although, if you are blogging, aren’t you blogging out of a natural inclination to explain yourself, as opposed to being coy?
expat is correct: Althouse appears to have a defective bs detector, as well as a blind spot
I can go straight down that list and disagree with almost everything:
Smart? Not. To me, IQ does not equate to smart. Further, Barack’s IQ would probably be an average IQ amongst visitors to this comment thread. So, he is IQ smart, but not amazingly so.
Educated in Reason Not. Even. Close.
Educated in Rhetoric Off teleprompter LOL. Educated like a Weatherman (!): we HOPE for a CHANGE in this weather.
Stable In mediocrity.
Hardworking At hiding himself. Althouse, the coy blogger, might appreciate this.
I think he will try to understand problems and solve them This is perhaps the most offensive part. Her implication, here, imo, is that Barack will be a change from that doofus GWB who did not even try to understand problems, much less solve them. Perhaps Althouse was not smart enough to understand GWB’s approach to various problems. Seriously. Actually, I think Althouse shrewd in many areas. However, how well does Althouse understand economics? Foreign policy? Much of her expertise is in moderation and oh-so-smartism.
Pingback:Red Green Show - Luxury Car
Bang-on, haikumenter!
I love her Obama accolade: “stable and hardworking.”
Is this how we pick presidents? That doesn’t sound any more convincing than “good reading comprehension.”
It’s kind of like yet another demonstration of the Peter Principle, isn’t it?
I keep trying to leave this thread, as I have work to do, yet I keep thinking of reasons to come back.
Smart
Smart is a lot of things wrapped together: IQ, wisdom, courage, discipline, common sense, people smarts, and lots more.
Barack is dense.
You know who is smart?
Sarah Effing Palin is smart. THAT is who is smart. She gets stuff DONE. And she thinks both strategically and audaciously. She’s a combination of your grandmother, your mother, and George S. Patton.
Don’t be too hard on Anne, she is an academic. Academics are institutionalized so they can pursue esoteric studies without hurting themselves. But such a life isn’t any sort of preparation for the grubby realities of the world.
Yeah, I remember several ‘inartful’ [sic] displays. We were calling him glass jaw.
Top of the hour news has Michael Steele calling ∅bama’s health plan “socialism”.
Duh !
It’s government choosing who gets what resources. Thus the rationing fears… government consultants approaching you at end of life to talk to you about a hospice….
Capitalism is the people choosing who gets what resources…
Where will the British and Canadians go when our government chooses no health for them?
Bad Haikumenter, I read your fisking of Althouse’s various absurd explanations. What I got from her absurd explanation is simply an unfounded preference for the manner of an academic, a little shot of narcissism — “Oh, he must be better because he reminds me of me!” I haven’t read her blog since. Reynolds keeps linking to her, and frankly I’d have more respect for him if he stopped. My somewhat-cognitively impaired mother voted for Obama, and called me to apologize eleven days after the inauguration. She looks smarter than Althouse to me.
Baklava, I think that if ObamaCare goes through, America’s best doctors will head south as fast as they can to set up specialized clinics and surgical hospitals (with hotels and private armies attached) just south of the Rio Grande. No one will be able to get within a quarter-mile without private escort and a guarantee charged against one’s credit card. The patient will receive the best American health care used to offer, and the doctors who pioneer these clinics will be household names around the world. Dunno how they’ll smack down the druglords, possibly by buying them off. Overhead will be high, and so will profits.
Good point, Oh, bother. I hadn’t thought of that.
few people believe their dog bites till it bites them.
OH Bother: as a doc, I strongly doubt your scenario.
Most docs are grunts. They slog through from day to day just like the rest. Their task may be more noble, more satisfying than developing a new tranche. But they own homes, raise kids, etc., just like the hoi-polloi. They won’t just hustle down south of the Rio. Primary care docs earn no more than your basic public school superintendent.
Most docs have terrible financial judgement. Most docs don’t understand money matters well. The heavier earners are in debt as much as the rest of us. They need cash flow to stay afloat.
What proportion of President Obama’s election victory can be attributed to push and what to pull? Or maybe door number three?
Were the majority exhausted with Bush’s policies or repulsed by their misrepresentation in the MSM? Bush seemed to think just doing his duty was sufficient and failed to rally the public (just what was the Bush Doctrine?), motivate the Republican base (what conservative principle did he champion consistently throughout his presidency?) or lay groundwork for a Republican successor (gee, thanks for the bailouts just before the election, George). Of course McCain was a bad campaigner and his credentials were based more on a career of grandstanding in the Senate than anything to do championing principles popular with voters. Did Obama win because Republicans drove away voters?
Or did he win because he was attractive? I never understood the raves about his speeches. At best he said nothing very well. And annoying is the metronomic regularity with which his head shifts from side to side as he alternates teleprompters. He looks like he is watching a tennis match. Were people attracted to the blank screen and inoffensive, if dull messenger who the MSM vaunted as brilliant?
Or was there some kind of putsch orchestrated by big-time, semi-clandestine leftists who make the agenda, pull Obama’s string and let him front the plan and delude himself into believing he contributes to its direction rather than just parroting all the anti-American leftist dogma he has soaked up from his radical parents, teachers, fellow agitators, etc.?
I have encountered convincing arguments for each of the above and wonder what constitutes an objective description of Obama’s win and momentum.
Man: (admiring dog) “Does your dog bite?”
“No.”
(Dog bites questioner)
“I thought you said your dog didn’t bite!”
“It’s not my dog.”
–The Pink Panther Strikes Again
Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/obama_and_the_cpusa.html
the final statement is
The really striking thing about all this, though, is that the CPUSA can openly align itself with the President of the US, right under our noses, and it will have zero effect on public sentiment because the lapdog media studious averts its gaze.
Power don’t come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big and gettin’ the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you’ve got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain’t true, you’ve got ’em by the balls.
Matthew M, I’d have to say that as between pull and putsch (sorry), I’d presently have to plump for putsch, for several reasons.
First, and foremost, is Obama’s life trajectory, which seems preternaturally smooth, effortless, and meteoric. He’s basically had every door fly open for him before he even had to knock. Real life doesn’t happen like that, not for anybody. It’s more consistent with someone running interference for him as he came up through a leftist farm system.
That, coupled with his long list of unsavory leftist associates, makes putsch the better bet, I think.
Furthermore, he’s not much of a leader. He looks like a walking bloodless mannequin who just stepped off the pages of GQ. He’s a natural-born news reader. Kick out Katie Couric (please), and imagine some announcer intoning, “This is the CBS News, with Barack Obama.” It works, doesn’t it?
So I suspect he’s the spokesmodel for a network of semi-clandestine hard-core leftists. They give him the script to read – notice how reluctant he is to give up the teleprompter binky – cheap shot his rivals, bury his skeletons (birth certificate, college transcripts), and control the MSM’s agenda.
It’s tin foil hat territory, but it’s consistent with the facts, all of which it handily explains, and with parsimony of postulates. (What else would you expect from someone with my screen name? /g).
Here’s the good Dr. Hanson on the new, improved, feisty Obama, The Gloves Come Off?:
I think the new combativeness coming out of the White House will only increase – given growing unhappiness over increased joblessness, the omnipresence of old Clinton-era attack dogs, new public doubts that vast new government programs are really the answer to what was in part a government Freddie- and Fannie-inspired crisis, and, especially, the sheer novelty of anyone questioning the messianic Barack Obama.
Occam’s Beard: It’s clear to me that Obama has had an uncanny number of winds at his back since he was a teenager. You’re right, real life does not work that way. There are hidden benefactors behind the scenes here.
Still I wouldn’t call it a putsch. Obama was legally elected. It took a perfect storm, as many have put it, of BDS, an unpopular war, the end of a two-term presidency, and most of all a terrifying economic meltdown. In most any other election year, a candidate like Obama would have lost.
Huxley, I think it’s a matter of the definition of “putsch.” The legal niceties of election were in fact observed, but arguably the circumstances make out all the elements of fraud.
If, for example, Obama is not legally qualified to be President (not to sound like a nirther, but clearly there’s something up with his birth certificate), and his handlers knew that, but suppressed the information to get him elected to advance their interests to the detriment of America’s, I would call that a putsch.
Note that last June the Iraq War was pretty much off the table as a campaign issue, and the meltdown wasn’t yet on the table as an issue, and Obama was still holding his own – despite Wright, Ayers, and the clinging/guns gaffe. His race, liberal guilt (of all the things they should feel guilty over, they choose this one!), the fawning sycophancy of the MSM, massive untraceable campaign contributions probably would have made him formidable in any election year.
Beard: What’s a nirther?
Tom, a ”nirther” refers to those who believe the Obama is not legally an American citizen.
ref “nirther”.
Some conservative bloggers absolutely savage those who ask the question. Sneer, obscene insults, character questions.
From conservatives, this is odd. Mostly they pride themselves on facts, whichever way they go.
But here, it seems as if they’ve throwin in with the dems trying to shut down and discredit even the question.
Odd.
From which I deduce the conservatives have their suspicions that there may be something wrong on the eligibility question and fear the consequences (civil war at worst). So getting past zero without anything happening means shutting down the question.
Otherwise, they’d be taking a different approach toward those who question.
In addition, you see a huge number of supposed libs begging, supposedly, the conservatives to keep the question going, since it makes them look bizarre. It may, because so many claim that it’s bizarre. IOW, a way to cause nirthers to think about shutting up. Same as they beg conservatives to run Palin. “If they want us to run her, they must be absolutely confident they can beat her by a mile so maybe we shouldn’t run her.”
“If libs want us to keep questioning the birth cert, maybe we should shut up.”
huxley “This may be a “teachable moment” in American history, where Obama and New Left Dem politics acquire a stench that will take decades to dissipate, if ever.”
I’ve been thinking that too. This could be what sends the Dems to the woodshed for a long time. Silver lining maybe? We have to live through the pain to get there, though.
Matthew M “And annoying is the metronomic regularity with which his head shifts from side to side as he alternates teleprompters.”
Once you start noticing this, it is all you can see. It kind of drowns out everything else to the point where you can’t focus on what he is saying.
I no longer listen to his speeches because of this. If it is an important speech I’ll get the transcript off the Internet the next day and read it.
I don’t think Obama’s birth certificate is an issue. I do think it is strange that he has paid so much money to keep it secret. It’s like he is playing games with people just for the fun of it.
The stranger thing for me is why he won’t release his college transcripts. That would seem to be an easy thing to do that would not cause any political problems for him. So, why not?
I should point out that that wasn’t an economic meltdown last fall. That was a warning.
The real meltdown hasn’t happened yet.
Centrist Democrat have halted Obama’s advance … I wonder what the in-fighting will be like there. I’ll soon see on my other blog-reads.
This is what he gets for abandoning gay supporters which I don’t like, and NOT abandoning the war on global terrorism which I’m pleased with, and demagogic measures on the economy which destroys any support he had with fiscal conservatives, and … well .. much much more.
nyomythus,
I have to disagree on the gays. There were few things Obama was clear about during the campaign. One of them he was crystal clear on was his stance towards gay marriage. I don’t think he abandoned them. I think they believed something that wasn’t there.
.
Unless the release will cause him acute embarrassment, say perhaps Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. is not listed on his birth certificate as his father.
.
.
Unless perhaps his grades are so bad they reveal that Obama could not have gotten into Harvard without the lobbying of an influential advocate and/or affirmative action.
Now you are wetting my appetite. Makes me want to see them even more. Stop teasing me.
.
I agree. Obama’s view of gays seems inclined toward those of the Black American communityin general and those of Islam. Gays have nowhere to go. All Obama has to do is throw them some little treat on occasion.
etymology of “nirther”, anyone?
As to Obonga’s secrecy, there can be only one reason why:he does not want birth/Haavaad records known.
I am becoming a nirther!
nyo, you don’t really believe that it is gays who are causing the decline, do you? They haven’t given up on him. They are just kvetching to stay in practice.
MikeLL Says:
“I don’t think Obama’s birth certificate is an issue. I do think it is strange that he has paid so much money to keep it secret. It’s like he is playing games with people just for the fun of it.”
Also, if you ask questions about his time outside the US (like what passport he traveled on) the lefties try to spin that into birtherism.
I don’t care where he was born, but I think people might be curious about where he grew up and what identity he was raised with. It’s the kind of things that would have been asked about a normal candidate by a normal media.
I was initially sceptical regarding the birth certificate business, but seeing the lengths to which Obama & Co. have gone to prevent its release makes it hard to believe there isn’t something toxic in it.
It may be as innocuous as Obama’s being born before his parents’ marriage, and now having to maintain the original, trivial fib. It may be less innocuous, such as a fathership issue. Possibly his mother, by all accounts an anti-American whackadoo, didn’t bother even to register his birth as the sort of silly symbolic statement that liberals so love to make.
But clearly something is up. No one spends $1 MM just to jerk people around for laughs.
The college transcripts present similar issues. Possibilities: appalling grades, toxic courses (“Reintroduction to Islam for apostate Muslims” /g), indication of status as a foreign student, or for Columbia, a clear indication that he lied when he said he didn’t know Ayers there (e.g., Ayers as a TA or instructor).
But once again, as with Kerry’s military records, there is clearly something embarrassing or worse in the record.
Tom, the etymology of “nirther” is elucidated a bit in the link I provided above.
OB, did you ever find your Hawaiian birth certificate? Does it have an entry for “religion?” I only have the re-issued short form that looks like Obama’s.
Yes MikeLL,
Just imagine. Barack Obama Jr. made his entry into the national political scene with an ode to his Kenyan father: Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance . Now recall that Obama’s sister doesn’t even know what hospital Barry was born in. Imagine that two or three years ago some campaign staffer stumbles upon Barry’s original birth certificate which lists the father as “unknown”.
Can you say laughing stock?
Oblio, I lived in Hawaii for a while, but wasn’t born there, but on the mainland. FWIW, my birth certificate (available this week only for a discounted price, $999,999.95) doesn’t include religion. It does, however, list the names of my mother and father, and my place of birth – within the US – so I am qualified to be President.
Imagine that two or three years ago some campaign staffer stumbles upon Barry’s original birth certificate which lists the father as “unknown”.
Can you say laughing stock?
Yes, absolutely. I call it the “Roots effect.” Some marvelled that Alex Haley was able to trace his lineage all the way back to Africa. Then again, some believe in the Easter bunny. What were the odds that Haley would spend years on his quest, only to hit a dead end? Zero, I’d say. Slave genealogy was unlikely to be all that well-documented (put it this way: how would a genealogist like to work in Harlem today?).
In the circumstances, the “Roots effect” means that any black of uncertain patrilneage has a wild card to choose whomever he wishes as his antecedents.
Hello Occam’s Beard…
.
.
Obama said the he was acquanited with pro-Palestinian activist and harsh critic of Israel (and PLO terror supporter) professor Rashid Khalidi from his recent days in the University of Chicago and the Lab School in Chicago.
.
Professor Rashid Khalidi also taught at Columbia in NYC during the time that Obama was a student there. What if Obama took multiple courses on the Middle East and Palestine that were taught by Rashid Khalidi?
.
What Israeli politician would trust Obama if professor Rashid Khalidi was his mentor. And maybe even Professor Khalidi used his influence to get an under preforming Obama into Harvard, onto the Harvard Law Review and then into a position as an instructor in the University of Chicago?
As far as the birth certificate goes, why the hell wasn’t he properly certified as a natural born U.S. citizen before he was even allowed to run for President?
I don’t know who was supposed to be in charge of that, but it looks like yet another case where the Constitution is paid lip service and not taken seriously.
Several months ago I ordered a rifle from the Civilian Marksmanship Program. One of the requirements was that I had to send a copy of my birth certificate. So I did. No problem.
So how in the holy hell can someone run for President of the United Freaking States and NOT have to prove citizenship???
It’s yet another example that the elites believe that there is one set of laws for them and a very different set for the “masses”.
I hate to say it, but we now have a rogue government. They do not consider themselves answerable to the American people at all. They have contempt for us, and regard us as serfs or slaves.
The time has come to hit the reset button and start stringing up the tyrants. Not to put too fine a point on it.
Wow. I just caught the tail end of the Maddow show. At the break there were two commercials in a row on Pro Health Care Reform. “If we don’t do it, costs will increase 70%. If we don’t do it, employers will have to reduce benefits.” Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Dems are doing a full court press. Feeling pressure?
It is in fact a stunning breach of ordinary prudence, Rickl … but we’ve got special rules for affirmative action hires …
Occam “”Reintroduction to Islam for apostate Muslims /g”
Hillarious.
In my comment above I meant the Dems are feeling pressure.
Rickl, agree on the meltdown, BTW, they still selling Garands?
I figure the best we can do is get the word out, I have been buying domain names and designing catchy bumper stickers etc, any one current in web design want to partner up? not looking for profit in this endeavor, I can do it but I am rusty and with my travel schedule I am behind on my launch. Could make it a neoneocon community outreach program, with Neos’ permission of course.
On topic, I hope the mask keeps falling for more and more moderates, I am classifying moderates as people who believed something totally different than what we are getting, not included in that are the wackjobs who think he isn’t going far enough in our socialization. There is what I call a marketable demographic.
I expect the tea party anti obama care movement to grow, I believe it has them shaken, normally conservatives and independent don’t do that, curios to the leftists. If you need to wash out your eyes, watch this, you wont be sorry, watch the whole thing if you haven’t seen it;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9306gUTzUOc
Mass National hysteria can happen just look at Germany in the 1930’s with Hitler . The similarities between Hitler’s rise and Obambi’s are frightening and we all know where Hitler took Germany.
Don’t get you hopes up that the Americans will wake up the Germans did not really come out of Hitler’s spell until long after the war was lost and don’t get swayed by the notion put out about by deluded ‘Libtards’ that the attempts on Hitler’s life were because they were disgusted by Nazi actions and so that they could make peace. No the Germans who wanted to kill Hitler wanted rid of him because he was losing the war and they thought THEY could do a better job of winning it thats all.
Take a look at this in depth comparison between the Mohammedan LIAR Messiah and BOGUS POTUS Barrack HUSSEIN Obambi and Hitler.
http://fredshelm.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/barack-the-black-hitler/
Darrell just watched the video and it was a poignant reminder to me that America is maybe not dead yet and that somehow they will reject the ‘libtard’ apologies for what you are that drip from the Obaminations mouth continuously. Anyone who witnessed that tragic homecoming and themselves voted for the Obamination should feel real shame for what they have done to America and to the memories of such patriots.
Sorry, OB, I misunderstood. I will have to go hunting around for my original birth certificate.
> Hussein means adversity
Odd, my dictionary says right here: “Dipshit” (i.e., Saddam … , Barrack … Obama)
> But once again, as with Kerry’s military records, there is clearly something embarrassing or worse in the record.
Never grasped why all this stuff did not become public knowledge upon endorsement for candidate of PotUS. “Invasion of privacy?”
Fine.
Easy Solution: Don’t Run.
Perception is reality.
The perception of Obama by His faithful was that He was a smart man, internationally knowledgeable, empathetic, and eminently more qualified than the hated and reviled Bush for the Oval Office.
They saw what they wanted to see in Him.
The perception by those of us who were not enthralled by this con artist was that he was seriously underqualified to be president.
As it looks more and more like we in the opposition are being proven correct in our estimation of Obonga, those whose perceptions were distorted during the election cycle are now having to deal with reality not matching their preconceived perceptions.
This would be funny to watch if they hadn’t dragged the rest of us kicking and screaming down the same dead end path….
Regarding the above references to Obama’s birth certificate – or lack thereof – serious thought should be given by all parties as to what the proper course of action should be if it were proven that Obonga were NOT an American citizen qualified to hold the office of president.
Would every law he ever signed require a do-over?
After all, if he were not qualified in the first place, he could not put a legitimate signature on any law that crossed the president’s desk.
Would congress have to pass a law – with a subsequent president signing it – basically stating that every act passed under this administration will be considered legitimate regardless of Obama’s legal status at the time?
What if it were a president from the opposing party who held office at the time?
Would the opposition party go along with it simply to keep the peace? Would a president from the opposing party go along to keep the peace?
Would the people who knowingly supported Obama be considered traitors?
Would the people who knowingly hid his illegitimate status be guilty of any crimes?
What are the real chances of civil unrest occurring should it be found out during his administration that he was not legitimate?
What are the chances of civil unrest after he’s left office and it is later found out he was illegitimate?
Why the hell does the opposition not drag this issue out front and center and get it over with once and for all, McCain be damned in the process since he refused to raise it as a legitimate issue during the campaign and even attacked anyone who did?
$1,000,000 plus is a lot of money to spend to hide, for instance, that he was conceived prior to wedlock.
There’s way more damaging information in those records than something as simple as that.
perception is not reality…
they did not actually percieve, they filled i the clever blanks.
empirical reality is reality and its not defined by direct perception but in testing our preconditions and ideas against reality and then refining them based on what we discovered.
perception that is not mostly in line with reality is delusion. though at what point does the misinformaiton grant the equivalent of a thought process disorcer is beyond me to suggest. but at some point the false ideas and concepts of how things work and applying them is operationally equivalent to thought process disorders that make people take wrong actions also.
Pingback:House of Eratosthenes
Artfldgr,
I’m referring to a well known phrase regarding the fact that our perception is the reality we operate within, and our perceptions inform our decision making processes.
It doesn’t mean reality changes to fit our perceptions – at least anywhere except in our own minds. It also doesn’t mean perception is based upon actual facts that everyone can agree on.
Obama voters had a perception of the man – which was clearly way off base and lacked any foundation in facts.
I believe there is a certain cognitive dissonance regarding this *new reality* as they adjust to the idea that their messiah is a deeply flawed individual where national leadership, political sensibilities, economic policies, international experience, business management expertise, etc. are concerned.
I’m rather enjoying it, at least as much as anyone can during these economic times….
“The Road to Serfdom” book sales are UP
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/07/20/soaring-sales-for-road-to-serfdom/
Looking from the outside it is somewhat comical to see SOME Americans at least wake up from their hysterical, gullible , emotional stupor that got the BOGUS POTUS Mohammedan elected maybe there is some hope. Unfortunately it looks like he and his Democratic facilitators will have the next election tied up with ACORN and all the other vote riggers working even now to make it so with the ample funds Obambi has awarded them in the Porkulus.
Scottie, do understand that many people actually feel that way. all one has to do is attend a gay pride parade to realize that they are attempting to define their own reality separate and apart from empirical reality.
i guess what i was trying to get into was whether their realities include that there is a absolute common reality we all share outside their minds.
in many ways, the difference is critical, and part of it is caused by city dwelling where one can separate oneself from many of the effects of reality.
while those in more rural areas are more grounded because every day they taste a part of it. the differnce between a gentlman farmer like bundt and a financier is worlds appart unless the financier takes time to get dirty in empiricism.
in a funky way, they sahre a common delusion as to what reality is because they cant get out of their homes and meet it easily. they can ignore wide swaths of it and deny it even exists.
for instance a good example would be feminists conflating legal concepts of right and wrong with practical concepts of living within such a world where such legal concepts are necessary given peoples action.
of course its not her fault if she is drunk and walking through a alley way half naked and having too much fun showing off…
but in the real world, what should be done is often done bacuse the legal concept is not practicable outside the perview of the legal establishment.
that is, outside of its reality there are no rules till you return back to that reality, a constructed one we agree to tacitly.
mass hysteria or poor choices is easier in a urban reality.
i have been trying to be shorter, but lack of clarity is showing 🙂
one last thing… what i am referring to is more than one level of persception. most people and the slower mentally live in one level of reality. they aer in the pool and that is it. but many others live in multiple levels where they regard the level they experience as one level and can think about its limits and ranges in a recursive way that leads to meta thought on thought. so even if a persons reality is completely experiential, he can know more than that reality through other means.
What are you on ‘Artfidgr’ your postings are like stream of consciousness completely incoherent.
Unfortunately it looks like he and his Democratic facilitators will have the next election tied up with ACORN and all the other vote riggers working even now to make it so with the ample funds Obambi has awarded them in the Porkulus.
Pragmatist: It seems far more likely that Obama will have exhausted his credibility by 2012 and all the philosopher-king’s acorns and all the philosopher-king’s men will not be able to put Humpty-Obama together again.
Republicans are already dead-set against Obama, while independents and swing voters are starting to peel away. Six months into his term, Obama’s honeymoon is over, he has only one major win — the initial stimulus package which is now an albatross hung on his neck. Nothing else domestic or in foreign policy. Just speeches, speeches, more speeches and an appearance on the Letterman show.
Obama’s poll numbers have descended from 68% on his inauguration, the highest since JFK, to below Bush’s numbers six months later — even though Bush was hardly as charismatic a leader and had the disputed 2000 election pressing his numbers down.
Looking from the outside it is somewhat comical to see SOME Americans at least wake up from their hysterical, gullible , emotional stupor…
Tell me that Europeans were any less gullible about Obama. Had they voted in the election — as some Europeans argued should have been their right — I imagine they would have gone for Obama at San Francisco/New York City levels.
Scottie, I’ll tackle the questions you posed above re the aftermath of proof that Obama was not legally (as opposed to experientially, where we already know the answer) qualified to be President.
I suspect that Congress — regardless of party composition — would immediately pass legislation legitimizing all of Obama’s actions. (At least, I would hope that they would.) They would almost have to, in the interests of order and stability, and to meet the public policy goal of predictability.
Those who knew about Obama and hid the truth should be prosecuted at least for electoral fraud. They should not be considered traitors legally (too strong, and too difficult to prove under the Constitution), but probably would be so considered by the American public. Liberals, on the other hand, led by communist cheerleaders, would probably continue to defend Obama’s case (a la Hiss and the Rosenbergs) regardless of whatever proof was proferred, and would view as martyrs those prosecuted in the matter, i.e., in the same light that they now view those blacklisted in Hollywood.
The degree of civil unrest would depend on the quality of proof re Obama. In any case, blacks would doubtless riot (time to pick up that big screen TV) unless Obama was removed in the winter, but outside of inner cities civil unrest would be unlikely if the evidence against Obama was indisputable. The nightmare scenario would be evidence that was strongly suggestive but not unequivocal. That could lead to civil war.
If the truth were found out only after he’d left office there would be hell to pay, I’m afraid, regardless of how compelling the evidence was, because by then the liberal agenda would be a fait accompli. Americans would be furious at liberals for having inflicted this on the country, and would want to undo everything Obama & Co. had done. Liberals would default to “fake but accurate” and want to retain everything Obama had done. Civil war would be distinct possibility.
The intriguing scenario would be to consider the position of someone who comes into possession of evidence of Obama’s lack of qualification. A liberal would of course bury it in any case, but a loyal American would face a dilemma: which would harm the country less, to disclose the evidence, or to bury it? Resolution of that dilemma would turn exquisitely on the precise facts of the situation and the nature of the evidence.
A few other questions: What would be the implications for …
…the Democrat Party? Would they go the way of the Whigs? Would they be investigated under the RICO statutes? (Hell, that probably should be done right now. /g)
…race relations in this country? Inner city blacks rioting after Obama’s removal might get a nasty shock indeed, since the PC cult of deference to blacks would be considered partly responsible for inflicting Obama on us.
…the MSM, who would (rightly) be considered complicit in the fraud?
Artfldgr,
People cannot live under a false perception when strong outside forces undermine that false perception.
They either have to revise their perception to suit the new facts, or they display some form of denial or I would guess mental illness if it were extreme enough.
I don’t think the majority is under such strong delusions as that, and as evidenced by Obama’s poll numbers he’s losing a fairly large percentage of his support very early in his administration.
I expect this loss of support to level off eventually (I’d bet around 30-40%), but in the meantime we still have a lot of his voters who are looking for some fig leaf to rationalize voting for this clown.
At the rate Obama’s going, Carter will be forgotten as the worst president of the past century.
Prag: I get Artfldgr. Why don’t you just try a little harder, and qwitcherbitchin ?
At the rate Obama’s going, Carter will be forgotten as the worst president of the past century.
Scottie: I suspect so. I don’t see how Obama is not on a collision course with that fate.
Whatever strengths he has are overwhelmed by his dogmatic attachment to leftist ideology. Rousing populist appeals make for great speeches but he’s already run into hard reality — his speeches can’t cause unemployment or debt or healthcare costs to recede.
I think Obama and his team took it for granted that the US economy would recover, as it always does, and in the meantime they could run hog wild, then take credit for the recovery. They didn’t understand that their actions were scaring the bejeebus out of businessmen and our creditors thereby preventing recovery.
Obama’s solution now is more debt, more taxes, more government control, and more crazy programs to spend trillions of dollars that won’t help.
Americans can get lost in discussions about waterboarding and who knew what when, but this stuff goes straight to their pocketbooks.
If the American who finds irrefutable evidence that zero is not eligible tries to figure out which course would be less damaging, he or she might want to think of whether it would set a precedent to allow an ineligible POTUS to complete his term.
ACORN, rigged census, MSM complicity and who knows but that Chavez might get elected.
There is something strange about the Obama’s birth certificate. Then again, there was something strange about Single Bullet Theory in the JFK assassination.
IMO interest in both are hopes for a magical bullet to take out the legitimacy of the opposing political side.
If Obama hasn’t been forced to release his BC yet, he’s not going to, and you can count on it staying some place very safe at least until he’s out of office.
The only way I can imagine to get the BC would be for Congress to launch an investigation and threaten to impeach Obama unless he provides the document.
Who controls Congress?
Huxley, I’m sure that if Obama’s original birth certificate ever existed, and contained something toxic, it’s long gone.
The question is whether the Bureau of Vital Statistics in Hawaii has a record of it, and if not, why not? And if so, why hasn’t it leaked? Sure, it would cost someone his job, but one phone call to the tabloids would fix his finances in perpetuity. Who would bother with Son of Sam law confiscation if he blew up Obama’s Presidency?
Occam’s Beard,
I tend to agree with your answers to my own questions, where we differ I think is in degree.
The first order of business would be for Congress to pass an act stating reaffirming and legitimizing all actions taken under his administration, and I think it would be done for the very stability reasons you noted.
However, to do so would be to poke a finger in the eye of the 48% that did not vote for Obama in the first place, disagreed with what he stood for and implemented, and objected/protested/resisted his actions while in office to the full legal extent available.
To then turn around and simply declare these very actions as legitimate would be to pour gasoline on the fire.
That’s 48% of the population that will be very pi$$ed off.
Regarding his enablers who KNEW he was illegitimate, I agree that the legal charge of treason would be a high bar to overcome.
Did they give aid or comfort to our enemies?
Did they levy war against the US?
Not openly at any rate, so the charge of treason itself would be difficult to make stick, though they would still be considered traitors.
One can be a traitor, and engage in traitorous activities, without crossing the line into treason as so narrowly defined under our constitution.
However, I’m just as certain that with the public wanting SOMEBODY’S head for such a travesty, a smart prosecutor could find something by which to put these people away for a long time and a sympathetic public would give any such prosecutor wide latitude in going after these people.
I think the most extreme Hollywood types would defend Obama and his circle to the last breath, but a lot of the rest of Hollywood would tend to get very quiet on the matter and simply make distracting entertainment – responding only when pushed as to their previous enabling activity.
At a guess, I’d say probably 2/3 to 3/4 of Hollywood would simply move on as if nothing happened, neither defending nor supporting Obama as he is chased from the country.
Liberals tend to be brave only when they are operating within their own circles and expect an amen choir if they say anything.
So, within Hollywood parties you’d still have his supporters, but outside of those parties they would get very quiet.
Regarding “strongly suggestive” evidence rather than absolute proof – I agree it would be the worst of both worlds.
Enough fig leaf to rationalize his enablers while at the same time enough evidence to incite his opponents. Such a split very well could lead to civil war.
I am going to have to go out on a limb here and disagree with you just a little bit on the liberal vs conservative finding the information that cinches his illegitimacy.
A patriotic liberal – yes, I hear they do exist (somewhere, riding unicorns and playing with fairies) would possibly be as disposed to make the information public as a patriotic conservative.
An internationalist socialist liberal, however, will bury it as deep as he can.
I think a conservative may be torn between simply publicizing the information and/or offering Obama the option of resigning for the good of the nation.
If it were the former, again it could be a civil war type scenario as die-hard supporters refuse to believe any information sourced to a “conservative”.
If the latter, you would have a president resign under questionable circumstances but the nation would be able to move forward with some semblence of unity, but the left would still have some level of legitimacy as their traitorous actions are kept hidden from the general public.
Of course whether he resigns or is “outed”, then you are back to the original point regarding how to address his actions while in office.
Regarding your own questions:
– The democrat party would be finished. At best they would appear to be fools, at worst – knowing enablers of a massive fraud. Neither image is conducive to holding onto power.
– Race relations – this could go several ways. Minorities would be far less enabled to push quotas, set-asides, and preferential treatment, but they would also be stigmatized by association if the president they have made such a conscious effort to support and identify with turned out to be a huge fraud.
There would also be considerable backlash against minorities, as I think frustrations would be taken out against minorities as a means of venting by millions of individuals over the whole illegitimacy matter.
Not saying it’s right, just saying it’s a probability.
At any rate, race relations would be set back decades.
– The MSM? They would be zombies. They would be walking and talking for years to come, but would have no influence anymore.
You’d still have your small town papers, and even your large city news organizations, but their influence would be diminished to simply being another source – but not THE source – of news and information, and I think the internet would finally supplant the MSM as the primary source of news.
huxley,
There would have to be documentation of his birth in the first place before there could be any document to literally hide from the public.
My feeling is his birth documentation is extremely tenuous, such as is the case with his sister who was born outside of the US yet still managed to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate.
I have a feeling there are NO records of any US doctor in any US hospital ever delivering him from the womb of his mother within the confines of the state of Hawaii or anywhere else within the US.
Hawaii would be facing a disaster as it had to defend the citizenship of anyone with a Hawaiian birth certificate.
Can you just imagine the implications regarding the census count, public officials holding office, federally funded public assistance, etc.?
It’s in the interests of that state to keep toeing the party line that he’s legitimate.
Scottie, I agree with your take. Re legislation legitimizing Obama’s actions retrospectively, the way forward might be to pass such legislation, and then further legislation repealing those actions.
That would undo the damage, and yet preserve (as much as possible, anyway) the predictability function. Congressional legislation would still guide public policy; it’s just that that legislation would change.
The alternative, simply negating legislation signed by Obama, would forever thereafter undermine the legitimacy of all legislation. Each law would in effect then be signed in pencil, it’s validity dependent on that President’s day-to-day fortunes.
Repeal by Congress is another beast entirely; one could look to the political temperament of the nation, and to the composition of the Congress, and assess the likelihood of Congress repealing any law. Quite a different matter from opening up the newspaper each morning to see if the law’s writ still runs.
Neo, the “Obama give Hillary the finger” link is bad. Replace “neoneocon.com/e.com” with “youtube.com” and it works.
cheers,
DiB
Occam’s Beard,
“Quite a different matter from opening up the newspaper each morning to see if the law’s writ still runs.”
You mean like contract law?
LOL…sorry, couldn’t resist….
But yes, your point is well made that there has to be a certain continuity and predictability within the realm of law.
The problem here is that those very laws in question are themselves then considered illegitimate and defense attorneys would have a field day demanding new trials for their clients on that basis alone.
That path which is less painful is not always that path which is best.
Consider this: If Obama were proven to be holding office illegitimately, and his every action were rescinded as an illegitimate exercise of presidential authority, then what do we really lose?
TARP spending?
Health Care overhaul?
International relations?
On any of a number of areas I would have no problem with rolling back the clock to a pre-Obama era, and frankly I don’t see blood spilling in the streets to maintain these policies.
Oh, and don’t forget the probability of these acts being brought as a case before the USSC to determine the legitimacy of an illegitimate president’s actions being enforced upon an unwilling population.
And what kind of fallout would the political structure endure?
At a minimum, they’d be far more stringent on who they allowed to carry their party banner into elections….
Scottie, I think that probably his every action would legitimated in blanket legislation, and then bits repealed on a piecemeal basis.
Good point re criminal prosecutions under any Federal laws signed by Obama; defense attorneys would think that all of their Christmases (Ramadans?) had come at once.
FWIW, Snopes pooh-poohs the birth certificate issue, and I generally give Snopes a lot of credence, so there is that.
OTOH, the piece concludes with a teacher at Punahou recalling in January 2009 discussing with an obstetrician Obama’s birth 47 years before. You know, the way you remember idle conversations about total strangers half a century later. (I have trouble remembering what I had for lunch yesterday.) She even remembers the mother’s name (admittedly distinctive) and even the baby’s (because it was so musical). This last is obviously rubbish; Obama’s name doesn’t even budge the “musicality meter” compared to most Hawaiian names. So this last seems more than a little contrived and a bit too convenient.
Moreover, she makes no mention of substantiating details: no star in the East, no wise men, no frankincense, no myrrh. Sheesh.
Occam’s Beard,
How is snopes.com any more knowledgeable regarding Obama’s birth certificate than anybody else?
My understanding is that Obama continues to peddle an online copy of *his* generic birth certificate, yet likewise continues to legally fight any release of his real birth documents to the public.
So, if the original documentation has not been made available for inspection/validation, then how can snopes or anybody else simply declare the birth certificate valid and any questions regarding it a dead issue, especially in light of his aunt describing his birth at a Kenyan hospital?
If they are relying upon Hawaiian officials, we’ve already established that there is a great deal of incentive to cover up anything that would be unfortunate.
On what basis can snopes proclaim Obama to be a natural born citizen if they have no more information than the rest of us do?
As for remembering details, I can likewise remember vividly things that happened many years ago – it all depends on what stimulated a person to pay attention at the time.
For example, at a family gathering I was describing something I remembered from my own childhood – and described it vividly even down to the clothing certain people were wearing.
My mother looked at me really odd, only afterwards informing me that the event I remembered occurred exactly as described when i was about 18 months old. I likewise remember certain other events just as vividly from when I was 3 years old.
I’ll be turning 45 next month, so in my personal experience it definitely can happen that certain events are remembered vividly many years later.
It is an extraordinary claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen – but it is also an extraordinary position he was elected to and as such demands sometimes extraordinary measures to validate.
Scottie, you raise good points re Snopes.
Certainly people remember extraordinary events in great detail (e.g., Kennedy assassinatin, Challenger disaster), and sometimes the odd mundane one, too (especially for small children, whose minds are not yet cluttered with batting averages, tax regulations, and such).
Still, I find it hard to believe that this woman could recall idle chitchat (by her own admission, she was merely making conversation) in such minute detail half a century later.
Most people would have forgotten most of the story within a month, and only been able to recall (because it was her father’s name) that the mother’s name was Stanley, and the kid had an unusual name (although exotic names are commonplace in Hawaii), but not been quite able to dredge it up.
Yet half a century on, she remembers everything; the restaurant, who was there, what was said. Uh uh. No sale.
Occam’s Beard,
I’ll grant you that the circumstances can be questioned for a woman remembering this a half century later. Not saying they are invalid memories being related here, only that questioning them is valid.
I tend to find them plausible for the reasons already given, but don’t discount someone making something up.
While “Hawaiian names” may be exotic, Barack Hussein may not sound exactly like your average Hawaiian name and may have therefore been more memorable to her – I’ve no personal experience on that count.
There’s already enough smoke around Obama’s birth that whether the woman is telling the truth or lying doesn’t really add or detract from the issue that there very well may be a fire under all that smoke somewhere.
Would you agree it’s just as valid that Obama’s aunt (now deceased) stated that she remembered his birth clearly….in a Kenyan hospital?
Then of course there are the inconsistencies in Obama’s sister’s story, wherein she referred to two different Hawaiian hospitals as the location where he was born?
Generally speaking, when telling the truth it’s a lot easier to keep a story straight.
These are just a few of the issues surrounding his birth, and then you have him spending serious cash to keep a lid on his records – which just makes it look more like he’s hiding something.
While “Hawaiian names” may be exotic, Barack Hussein may not sound exactly like your average Hawaiian name and may have therefore been more memorable to her – I’ve no personal experience on that count.
Maybe, but she specifically said the name was “musical,” which it isn’t, certainly compared to the names of virtually anyone with a native Hawaiian name (e.g., Leilani Kailikea), most of which roll off the tongue. By comparison “Barack Hussein Obama” sounds positively Teutonic.
Would you agree it’s just as valid that Obama’s aunt (now deceased) stated that she remembered his birth clearly….in a Kenyan hospital?
I rather doubt this, too. I think in both cases it’s a matter of “lying like an eyewitness,” i.e., people thinking – in all good faith – that they saw or remember something that is not in fact the case. And, of course, his aunt could have been completely whacked for all I know.
Then of course there are the inconsistencies in Obama’s sister’s story, wherein she referred to two different Hawaiian hospitals as the location where he was born?
Generally speaking, when telling the truth it’s a lot easier to keep a story straight.
That’s true, but paradoxically, I interpret that sort of minor inconsistency as consistent with veracity. First, that was a long time ago, and memories dim (except for that remarkable teacher). But in addition, if something this important were made up, presumably everyone would get the memo and have the story down pat, because doing so would loom so large in each conspirator’s consciousness. That she would be fuzzy on this (assuming the person involved isn’t simple) suggests that she didn’t consider it especially noteworthy, which in turn suggests that there’s nothing nefarious associated with it.
Having said all that, Obama’s spending serious cash to withhold his personal information certainly invites suspicion regarding what that information includes. So, on balance, I’m not sure what I think, but lean toward the existence of something embarrassing, but perhaps not fatal, in one or more of the records.
‘Tom’ quite clearly then you and ‘Art’ live on the same ‘planatoid’ far from reality.
Pragmatist
it is not we that live on a planetoid it you. you are the ignorant one that thinks their opinion trumps experience and history.
rather than start the negative insults again. how about explaining in a meaningful empirical way why we are wrong.
this is somethig you cant do, since we are not wrong.
what is your experience with these systems. have you lived under them? if so, how many? has your family come from them?
have you actually read their theory papers and other things, or have you just sat around absorbing the rigth stuff through social osmosis?
if you want to debate the issue fine. but do not be so stupid not to realize that in germany, it was people like you that stopped people from stopping hitler in the early days!!!!
your fervent disbelief of whats in front of you does nt change reality. most leftists are out of touch with reality (wrong history, wrong facts, no empiricism, etc), so they believe reality is in their heads. and so they believe that if they do not believe what they see, then it isnt real.
but Tom and I have either known or learned differently over our lives.
why dont you tell us about your families experience with living in such regimes. i can tell you and i can link you to what is a common story that ended up a variation on a single theme for more than 150 million people.
my family was loaded into cattle cars like the germans loaded the jews. we that lived it know that they are all following the same ideas.
here is a public story, you wouldnt believe my families stories anyway.
http://www.latvians.com/en/Reading/TheseNamesAccuse/ThNA-00-OurFamilies.php
As we’ve mentioned elsewhere, his wife, Erna, saw him from the the train, being led away elsewhere. “There’s your father!”–Erna’s words–are the only memory their daughter Vija had of him.
you think these stories are propaganda, they are false. and they appear more false the more the grandparents, parents and children grow up and die and try to live their lives as if it never happened.
Luckily, Peters’ mother had been told not to go home that day, and so escaped her family’s fate. Peters’ parents were were “rescheduled” on a later deportation order.
Peters’ grandparents perished early on. They lie buried in unmarked graves under an old (oak, I think it was) tree–perhaps it is still standing there, somewhere outside Krasnoyarsk. Even so, the family was lucky. They had been deported to more of a kolhoz/village, not a prison camp.
they had to pack in 15 minutes.
tell me. if you had 15 minutes to grab what you wanted, what would you do?
do not tell me you would talk back, argue, ask questions etc. the first one to do that is shot on spot before they even finish asking. the rest dont ask questions.
its interesting to go and look and to find your families names listed. or to find out that your family had a different name, and you look.
some were conscripted… thats why the latvian corps was given special war crimes dispensation despite the fact that they were waffen ss…
rather than accept yoru ignorant and do not have the knowlege, you pretend you know better. you pretend that what we talk about is crazy.
but the bottom line is:
without experience and knowlege your only pretending
and lashing out at Tom and me is your way of getting others to reinforce the pretend world you have imagined and want to preserve.
Tom and I would love it if the world were like that, but for me personal experience of family and such makes it impossible to entertain falsehoods that just make the pretenders feel better.
[edited for length by neo-neocon]