Obama’s Rocky First Steps
[Guest post by DRJ]
Barack Obama is off to a wobbly start as President-elect. His first press conference was marred by an awkward and erroneous remark about Nancy Reagan. His first conversations with world leaders included a disputed discussion with Polish President Lech Kaczynski over the missile defense shield. And now his Change.gov website has been scrubbed:
“Over the weekend President-elect Barack Obama scrubbed Change.gov, his transition Web site, deleting most of what had been a massive agenda copied directly from his campaign Web site.
Gone are the promises on how an Obama administration would handle 25 different agenda items – everything from Iraq and immigration to taxes and urban policy – all items laid out on his campaign Web site, www.BarackObama.com.
Instead, the official agenda on Change.gov has been boiled down to one vague paragraph proclaiming a plan “to revive the economy, to fix our health care, education, and social security systems, to define a clear path to energy independence, to end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan, and to work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, among many other domestic and foreign policy objectives.”
A spokesman announced the website is being re-tooled. Perhaps the new, improved website will provide more clarity on Obama’s policies as President but, as usual, it’s hard to tell where Obama stands on issues. At some point he will have to take clear positions on specific issues instead of indulging his passion for flowery promises.
I’m not a fan of Obama’s liberal politics but I can appreciate an efficient organization. So, on the one hand, I’m encouraged by reports that his transition team has been working for months on proposed executive orders and personnel; that his first press conference had the foresight to display a “seal of the President-elect”; that he reportedly drafted his inaugural address before the election; and that the novel Change.gov website of the President-elect was up and running within days after the election. These actions show someone was planning ahead.
On the other hand, the fact that so many of these first acts have gone awry is not impressive. First, there were the missteps regarding Nancy Reagan and the Polish President. Then the Change.gov website had to be completely re-tooled just days after it began. The pre-election drafting of an inaugural address and the repeated use of faux seals suggests arrogance rather than preparing to lead. And the first hints of Obama Administration personnel – people like Jamie Gorelick for AG – raise rather than dispel questions about the judgment of the President-elect and his staff.
Obama obviously gets to pick his Cabinet and partisan picks are to be expected. However, Jamie Gorelick is not the only Democrat who could serve as AG but she may be the most controversial. To float her name as a first pick suggests the Obama Administration has a tin ear or feels invincible, neither of which work well in government.
— DRJ
I’m missing something here.
You’re impressed by an “efficient organization” but every example of efficiency failed miserably in the execution phase.
That’s pretty much the textbook definition of “inefficient”.
I mean, like all reasonble people, I think Obama’s a swell guy, a good guy, a guy who’s fundamental decency and goodness practically oozes from his every pore – but in a non-icky way – but I’m fairly certain that every example of Obama’s transition efficiency will have its success rooted in Bush’s prior planning for a smooth transition.
BumperStickerist (54b3a3) — 11/10/2008 @ 11:37 amI said we needed to archive everything he put up on the web. I said it.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 11/10/2008 @ 11:40 am“Raise questions”?
More like “show how truly clueless this administration is likely to be.”
mojo (8096f2) — 11/10/2008 @ 11:46 amIs it possible that Obama needs to “re-tool” the site on the basis that he is not the only one who can make the change that he would like to make?
I don’t have to tell political savvy people here that what a politician promises, and what he is actually able to accomplish depends on many factors.
Perhaps this is Obama’s way of reminding us that he is not King Obama.
Oiram (983921) — 11/10/2008 @ 11:48 amI don’t have to tell political savvy people here that what a politician promises, and what he is actually able to accomplish depends on many factors.
So would that be a reasonable out for GWB’s ills?
Ooops, hyprocrisy alert.
Robert Rodriguez (54247e) — 11/10/2008 @ 11:50 amChange will come slowly. GWB didn’t dig the hole in 100 days and it will likely take longer than that to climb out of it.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 11/10/2008 @ 11:52 amWell, DRJ, I honestly feel that BO has never been ready for prime time. This is just the first hint, post election. I sure hope I am wrong.
My theory is that the original plan was a Clinton-Obama ticket. Hillary gets her two terms, BO gets his experience, then his two terms.
But for whatever reason, Hillary’s campaign collapsed. The DNC handlers rushed in to support BO’s candidacy. The MSM protected him from pretty much everything. He came to represent things about himself that were not part of himself.
I mean, honestly: a possible national holiday? The two autobiographies were bad enough.
Seriously, if a Republican candidate had BO’s background, what would have happened during this campaign? But there was too much cheerleading and not anything like equitable treatment. Again, BO represents not simply a Chicago pol….but a dislike of the last eight years, and a wish to appear “post-racial.” He sure talked the talk. But there were always cracks in the facade, and the MSM did their best to spackle them over.
Speaking of Hope and Change, I sure hope that BO can change some of his handler’s thumb-fingered choices for cabinet positions. On the other hand, folks I know and trust see some silver lining in Emmanuel’s appointment.
Anyway, so far the cost has not been steep, and perhaps BO is realizing that he has been pretty darned protected for a long time, and the world won’t do that for him much longer.
For all our sakes’, I hope so.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/10/2008 @ 11:53 amI suspect the Nancy Reagan slip-up happened because candidate Obama found that the media rarely scrutinized his every word. Now that he’s been elected, he’ll very quickly learned that every word uttered by any American president is carefully scrutinized. The media was a very good friend to candidate Obama, but the media is a very fickle friend.
As for the other stuff, I suspect that Obama spent most of the last month of the election actually focused on the campaign, and so neither he nor his very top staff had any time to review anything (like the website) which was prepared by other, lower-ranking staff in anticipation of his election. They quickly took the strongest campaign-language down from Change.gov to be replaced by mealy-mouthed hash of vagueness.
Personally, I think we expect too much, too soon from the candidates and their transition; I wish they’d slow down and be more deliberate, rather than try (and fail!) to look like experts immediately, 24 hours after the election is over.
PatHMV (653160) — 11/10/2008 @ 11:55 am“re-tool” — How appropriate that term truly is.
Icy Truth (aedb2f) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:05 pmThroughout the campaign, Candidates Obama and Biden could count on a compliant press to ignore or minimize gaffes; President- and VP-elect Obama won’t get it to the same extent, and attempts to punish MSM organizations for the lese majeste of publishing such will either happen immediately and dramatically, or they won’t happen at all. I’m guessing it’ll be the latter.
As some folks noticed during the campaign, when he’s not reading off the TelePrompter or heavily prepped, Obama isn’t particularly eloquent, and at times comes off as not nearly as intelligent or well-informed as he certainly is.
That, by itself, is not a horrible failing, but the shooting from the lip that got him to promise the Israelis and undivided Jerusalem, appear to blame the Russians and the Georgians equally for the Russian invasion, etc. before the prompt backpedal is effectively certain to be repeated.
Joel Rosenberg (5ec843) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:06 pmIt’s a Clinton Whitehouse, take 3! Hope n Change my arse! You want to see a dictitorial president just wait and see what the Obamessiah does by way of executive orders in his 1st 100 days. Liberal Fascism. We’re &*$#ed!
J. Raymond Wright (0440ef) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:09 pmAh yes, Gorelick as AG, that’ll ensure good investigations into Freddie/Fannie……..
Techie (62bc5d) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:26 pmGood thing I didn’t use all my popcorn.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:27 pmSomeone shoudl remind his advisor, Ms. Jordan, that he’s not king–she said he’ll be ready to rule (rule, not govern, lilke everyone else).
rochf (ae9c58) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:30 pmMeet the new hoss . . . same as the old hoss.
Icy Truth (aedb2f) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:30 pmIs it too soon to say “I told you so.”?
Jack (17e21c) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:34 pmrochf – I think that was Valerie Jarrett. She also said he would “take power,” another interesting construction.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:44 pmOuch. America go back to the days of late 2000? Sounds like a (note the sarcasm) nightmare!
truthnjustice (c313be) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:45 pmtruthsubstancenjustice – Glad you’re weighing in with more substantive comments today. I don’t know what this site would do without you. Since you said you were leaving, I was hoping to find out.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:48 pmthat his first press conference had the foresight to display a “seal of the President-elect”; that he reportedly drafted his inaugural address before the election; and that the novel Change.gov website of the President-elect was up and running within days after the election. These actions show someone was planning ahead.
Is this tongue in cheek?
MayBee (136bac) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:56 pmDaley doesn’t. You did? Perhaps if another neo con gets in we’ll get nuked and you can find out.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:57 pm“… another neo con gets in we’ll get nuked…”
Another straw-man argument from a troll, not substantiated either in fact, nor history.
Another Drew (d51d84) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:21 pmPerhaps if another neo con gets in we’ll get nuked and you can find out.
Wha?
Gerald A (adb85a) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:24 pmSlightly off-topic, but since daleyrocks brought up popcorn in comment 13, let me mention this: According to the Rush Limbaugh show, Max Baucus (sp?), the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, will take charge of health care reform. Hillary Clinton has been frozen out.
It will be very interesting to see how Dear Leader handles HRC and WJC as he launches his administration. I don’t have any doubt that Obama wants nothing to do with either, and probably isn’t too keen on having ex-Clintonistas in his administration, but he certainly has to fear the potential damage that HRC can do to him from her seat in the Senate. Might HRC suddenly become the voice for moderate Democrats and seek to put a brake on some of Dear Leader’s agenda?
JVW (f93297) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:32 pmthis is the man who had to apologize for his ‘joke’ just 2 days after he had been voted in as president. this from a man who is clueless for just about everything. i mean, wright was his best friend – until he became a liability; his grandmother was a hard-working, honest person – until she was a racist; rezko was a trusted bundler, campaign advisor – until he became a felon. a lot of explaining for a smart guy.
well thought out post.
ktr (2adbce) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:34 pmMaybee,
No, it wasn’t tongue-in-cheek. I give them points for thinking ahead, but I take away points for putting style over substance.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:34 pmWhy give them points for self-serving things like creating a seal and working months in advance on his Inaugural address?
That counts as thinking ahead in the same way me writing “Mrs. Sean Cassady” on my school notebook counted as planning for my future.
It’s the dreamy stuff you’d do when you really want something. It isn’t planning ahead.
It seems you are either bending over backwards to say something positive, or you are indeed damning them with faint praise.
MayBee (136bac) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:45 pmThere are no more neo cons. Those were the Republicans who switched back to being Democrats to avoid being associated with McPalin. Just as they jumped the Clinton ship back when. You all will have to find another dart board. Best thing the Republicans can do is quietly and firmly resist every debt producing gambit and activist judicial appt, then lay low as the Democrats self-destruct just as the Republicans did. Which should be more pronounced because the strident militancy of the various liberal to left splinter groups will not be easily mollified when they discover Obama cannot deliver all the toys that were on their wish lists.
The foreign central banks are itching to cut up the US maxed out credit card. China just stepped up to the plate with a bat filled with $2 trillion of reserves, and acting like the US Cavalry back in the day. Canary in the coal mine…UST long bond yield. Keep your eye on that. When that bird sings, back up the Billy Beer truck. And for all those pointing at Volcker being on board the Obama train to rein in the Fed…recall he stamped his approval on the bailout. Of course, that is really frightening on the face of it since if he knows something he’s not telling…yikes.
Regardless, the US will be looking for some adult-like leaders in due time. That’s where my allegiances lie, with adults of either party.
allan (352257) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:50 pmI don’t see any mis-steps. BHO is behaving precisely as he has all along.
The tell is the scrubbing of his change.gov site.
It is not a mis-step to say and do what you intend to say or do.
He is screwing up, for sure, as so many of us outlined he would. But there is no disconnect as to his intentions and actions thus far, imo. To paraphrase the immortal words of Coach Green: “He is what we thought he is!!!!”
Ed (04ae8e) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:51 pmMayBee,
You mean “She doesn’t sweat much for such a fat girl.” isn’t really a compliment?
I haven’t seen DRJ use damning with faint praise at all. I believe that she’s trying to be even handed although I haven’t quite worked through the “Why?” part. I think it’s a lawyer thing – I never understand those.
Rick Ballard (e3e91f) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:54 pmThe best clue that someone does not understand the meaning of the term “neo-con” is their frequency of use of it.
SPQR (72771e) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:55 pmWill one of the executive orders allow me to play poker online again?
Robert Rodriguez (54247e) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:57 pmNeo-Con: Noun, activist foreign policy beaurocrat who believes in government largesse and the responsibility of the US to save Israel at every turn regardless of what it means for the US. Frequently holds two passports and likely went to Harvard, Princeton, John Hopkins, UoP or Yale.
Robert Rodriguez (54247e) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:02 pmI’ll have you know- and this is not to steal the limelight from the very prepared Mr. Obama- but I have been practicing my Oscar acceptance speech for about 32 years.
MayBee (136bac) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:03 pmHeh. And I admire your preparation.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:04 pmMaybee,
I’m not stretching to give Obama credit. (Heck, I still won’t sign on to the theory that Obama is a good man.) I’m simply giving the Obama campaign credit for trying to think about things. I can imagine Presidential candidates who I think would have done a better job by this point, but there are others who might still be celebrating or who would have spent every moment and penny on campaigning instead of preparing to govern.
However, the fact that I give Obama credit for trying to prepare is not the same as saying it’s going well. The early indications include some missteps and awkward moments, but I think it’s too soon to decide whether this is permanent.
Finally, I don’t think Obama will be a strong President but he isn’t in office yet and it’s only been a week. I’m pointing out concerns but I’m not willing to condemn him. If that’s bending over backwards, so be it.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:14 pmDRJ,
I think I would have gone with “Apollo Creed First Steps”. As a gesture of even handedness.
BTW – I do like your approach. I think that a nice smooth start will leave a clear record of comity which can be referred to in the event that the future unfolds like the Chicago Annenberg Challenge did the last time these
Rick Ballard (e3e91f) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:19 pmcommiesfolks got together.A neo-con:
truthnjustice (d99227) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:21 pmis a political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of the social liberalism, moral relativism, and New Left counterculture of the 1960s. In the United States, neoconservatives align themselves with mainstream conservative values, such as the free market, limited welfare, and traditional cultural values. Their key distinction is in international affairs, where they prefer an interventionist approach that seeks to defend national interests.
MayBee – I’m sure you’ve got it in there to remember to thank the “little people.”
I’d love to see a conservative Oscar acceptance speech for a change! Would you please promise to moon the Academy at the end?
daleyrocks (47d048) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:21 pmRick – Who do you cast as Clubber Lang in this one?
daleyrocks (47d048) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:24 pmWhen many people use the term “neocon” currently, it means something sortakinda unsavory. And since we just went through a long tedious period where practically anything critical of a politician was termed “racist” (including being thin, as I recall), I have no problem insisting that folks using that particular term do so with great precision and care.
Since a wide variety of people actually do use the term “neocon” with more than a whiff of antisemitism. DK and DU come to mind.
Sensitivity works both ways.
Eric Blair (a723e0) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:27 pmHillary, of course. Sarah is Rocky.
Rick Ballard (e3e91f) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:28 pmRick – Ivan Drago from Rocky IV might be a better question, but I don’t want to be a racist.
daleyrocks (47d048) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:28 pmOh, c’mon, daley. Ivan Drago has the best line in the movie:
But to see Dolph Lundgren at his best, watch “Universal Soldier.”
He and Jean-Claude van Damme play dead Vietnam veterans who have been reanimated as part of a military experiment and lurch about confusedly.
Art imitating life. Method acting. Take your pick.
Eric Blair (a723e0) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:39 pmYou mean the time when the 9/11 hijackers were allowed into the country based on an assinine policy that allowed Saudi travel agents to approve visas? The time when many of the animals who later murdered 3,000+ of your fellow citizens were already in the country?
You mean the time when Iraq was doing its best to get out from under sanctions and restart its WMD programs? The time when Libya had WMD programs of its own?
The time when the Khan network was selling plans and equipment for nuclear weapons to anyone who had the cash?
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 11/10/2008 @ 2:41 pmThe first thing I thought of when I proofread this post was that the title reminded me of Stallone’s Rocky. I almost changed the title but now I’m glad I didn’t, because I would have missed the clever casting.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/10/2008 @ 3:00 pm“Oh, c’mon, daley. Ivan Drago has the best line in the movie”
Eric – Dude, Drago took out Creed in that “tragic” exhibition or traing thingee.
daleyrocks (47d048) — 11/10/2008 @ 3:01 pmBrigitte Neilsen was also kinda hot in Rocky IV, although she probably looks like Jamie Gorelick now.
daleyrocks (47d048) — 11/10/2008 @ 3:06 pmOr how about the ‘Hey, here’s what you should do about terrorists’ playbook that Richard Clarke handed off to Bush, who then threw it in the trash because the boy king decided that anything Clinton was garbage. That was a decision that a few thousand people’s families regret, eh boys? This isn’t me trying to be glib, this is me attributing to the boy king what he should have owned from the very beginning: hiw own oversight.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
truthnjustice (d99227) — 11/10/2008 @ 3:06 pmtruthnjustice,
That would be better posted on the Jamie Gorelick thread, don’t you think?
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/10/2008 @ 3:09 pmDRJ – A science fiction thread if you have one would be even better given CBS’ reputation for telling thhe truth.
daleyrocks (47d048) — 11/10/2008 @ 3:13 pmOkay, tmj.
Yes, you are trying to glib. And you do tend toward the trollish. But I would step very, very lightly on this subject. We all got our butts kicked on 9-11. Dead people are generally not good fodder for political disagreements. Especially when everyone screwed up, not that you (or I) would have done any better had we been in charge.
How about sticking with how your guy is going to keep that sort of thing from happening in the future? It’s easy to criticize the past, and I just love to look over Clinton’s record on this subject. That is what is so freaking ironic about your using the term “boy king” in this context.
I’ll leave Clinton’s mistakes out, and you pipe down trying to blame GW Bush. Instead, you tell us all how Obama’s policies are going to reduce the chances of terrorists doing their thing in the future.
Please leave out the pixie dust. You might ask the Polish President how that shiny new guy is working out as a trustworthy communicator.
Eric Blair (a723e0) — 11/10/2008 @ 3:19 pmDRJ, I participated in a threadjacking.
Mea maxima culpa. Feel free to delete my comment.
Eric Blair (a723e0) — 11/10/2008 @ 3:20 pmComment by Eric Blair — 11/10/2008 @ 3:19 pm
Many good suggestions there, all to be ignored by their intended target, who should have posted his accusation re Richard Clarke/GWB in that mythical science-fiction thread (“… A science fiction thread if you have one…”).
Another Drew (d51d84) — 11/10/2008 @ 3:43 pmOkay, Eric. I am of the belief that our involvement in Iraq helped create more terrorists than it destroyed. The detractors will say that we have caught a bunch of terrorists in Iraq and I would say ‘exactly my point’. They sure as heck were not hiding out there before we invaded. It is their new recruiting area. That is what worries me most about Iraq.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 11/10/2008 @ 3:48 pmEric,
I rarely care where comments end up. Some of the most interesting discussions happen that way. But since there is currently a Jamie Gorelick post and (in my view) Richard Clarke is a related subject, I thought there might be more interest/response on the other thread.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/10/2008 @ 3:54 pmThis article is accurate. Dr. Sam Vaknin is one of the foremost authorities in the world on the subject of narcissism. Even after all the research, I am stunned. Perhaps it is because it is more clinical than political.
Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer
By Ali Sina
I must confess, I was not impressed by Senator Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident, a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama’s speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such a quasi “religious” impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact, he is quite ignorant on most important subjects. Barack Obama is a narcissist. Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of “Malignant Self Love, ” also believes, “Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist.”
Diana Ricks (dd0693) — 11/10/2008 @ 3:57 pmVaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands it and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama’s language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, nearest and dearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People’s Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Joseph Stalin, Saddam, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong IL, and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers and followers. They created a personality cult around themselves, and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirer’s souls, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. Those men gave their followers hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, they invariably brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don’t know it until it is too late.
One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse. “Obama’s early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations,” says Vaknin. “Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. His mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a stepfather. He was raised as an only child, full of himself and no others. He never had to share the spotlight with any siblings. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995.”
One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around him and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality; his admirers become his co-dependents.
Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objectives. They are focused on one thing alone, and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and does not deserve their attention. If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The “Present” vote is a safe vote; he used the “Present” all the time as a member of the Illinois legislature. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Why should he implicate himself in issues that may become controversial when they don’t help him personally? Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.
Obama’s election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and an advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him with a fellowship and an office to work on his book. The book took him a lot longer than expected and at the end it devolved into., guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book “Dreams from My Father.”
Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself? Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama’s lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly a half billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? His brother cannot be used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.
This election is like no other election in the history of America. The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of a conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?
I hate to sound alarmist, but one must be a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are simply self-serving and selfish. [Witness Al Gore’s Income Tax; it reveals that he gave away NO MONEY to charities, not even to a church!] Obama evinces symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton, for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous. [Look up the word ‘treachery.’]
Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party [and to this great nation]. The great majority of blacks have also decided to vote for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven.
Let us call a spade a spade [No pun intended]. This is racism, pure and simple. The truth is that, while everyone carries a misconceived collective guilt towards blacks for wrongs done centuries ago by a bygone people to a bygone people, the blacks carry a collective rancor, enmity or vendetta towards non-blacks, and to this day want to “stand up” to the white man. They seem to be stuck in 19th century [encouraged by race baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others].
The downside of this is, that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama’s detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels not seen since the turbulent 1960s. Obama will set the clock back decades. America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America, and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Maoist Castroists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists, and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of “their man” in the White House. America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.
Personally, I think we expect too much, too soon from the candidates and their transition; I wish they’d slow down and be more deliberate, rather than try (and fail!) to look like experts immediately, 24 hours after the election is over.
I also think the candidates set themselves up for missteps and/or even failure by promising the moon and the stars and everything in between. Its a self-sabotaging system where, in order to win the election a candidate needs to keep upping the ante and promise the outrageous and extraordinary without having a serious clue how to go about it once they’ve won. Obama’s eyes may have been bigger than his stomach…we’ll have to see…
…but I have been practicing my Oscar acceptance speech for about 32 years.
Maybee, best of luck to you! There’s a lot to be said for tenaciousness. (Its actually a dying art).
Dana (79a78b) — 11/10/2008 @ 4:00 pmObama won the presidency as an eloquent mouthpiece for the Democratic party’s typical agenda — there will be no great vision, revolutionary ideas, or “change we need”, “change we can believe in” — Bill Clinton used the same basic theme in 1992 and it worked fantastically for him and the Dems. The GOP in 1992, 1996, and this year simply couldn’t match the “feel good” charisma of the Democratic candidate. The voting public obviously weighed style more than substance this year. The GOP won with Bush, Jr. not because of better ideas or better articulated vision, but because Gore and Kerry were seen as stiff, dull, and out of touch.
Mark Turner (9c5406) — 11/10/2008 @ 4:04 pm“Bill Clinton used the same basic theme in 1992 and it worked fantastically for him and the Dems.”
Mark – Not really. What did Clinton get, something like 43% or 45% of the vote. Ross Perot gave the White House to Clinton.
daleyrocks (47d048) — 11/10/2008 @ 4:12 pmDaleyrocks:
You are close on the percentages — Clinton never got above 50%. However, 1992 was about the theme of “change” — presumptively change from 12 years of GOP White House — which Clinton championed. It was also evident with Perot’s success that a lot of conservatives also wanted “change”. There was no viable Perot-like candidate in 2008, so those votes went to Obama. 1996 was a referendum on the “change” that Clinton brought; Perot had a much weaker showing, but still took votes away from the GOP. Dole was our disaster and resulted in the worst electoral vote defeat in modern GOP history — as well as a resounding popular vote defeat. Dole’s defeat was now about bad ideas, but rather about a grossly out-of-touch, uncharismatic campaign with no compelling alternative vision for America.
Mark Turner (a566f9) — 11/10/2008 @ 4:41 pm*The American people gave the White House to Clinton
truthnjustice (d99227) — 11/10/2008 @ 4:41 pmDRJ – I have usually found that if you want there to be something bad about a person, and if you need to find something wrong with that person, and if you have blinders on to other information, you will find something wrong about a person. Also it is very hard for conservatives and liberals to change their mind about a person because their brain is hard-wired to disregard positive information. I wonder….Are you like this? Being a debate and speech coach I have found this to be true again and again.
prohb (c997ad) — 11/10/2008 @ 4:58 pmI’m a very positive person, prohb. And since we’re swapping professional stories, let me add this: I’m a lawyer and in my career I’ve noticed that people often see what they want to see.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/10/2008 @ 5:00 pmBaby steps, DRJ, baby steps. Why isn’t anyone talking about the fact that after such a grueling campaign, Obama ought to take a one week break and get it back again. That way he will save himself from all these gaffes. And you guys should give him a break. It’s only been six days!
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 11/10/2008 @ 5:07 pmToo bad he wasn’t smart enough to think of that, love2008.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/10/2008 @ 5:18 pmMaybee,
I’ve been thinking about your comments and I believe that being a lawyer has influenced how I think about this topic.
First, I’ve seen a lot of people who say one thing and do another, so I typically put more faith in what people do than what they say. That’s why I’m not willing to say I think Obama is a good man. He may be but I need to learn more about him from his actions.
Second, my skepticism about Obama the person does not mean I’m willing to underestimate his abilities. I learned as a young lawyer that other lawyers don’t have to be great people to be formidable adversaries, and underestimating them is a good way to lose.
Thus, my goal is to evaluate Obama’s actions with as much neutrality as possible.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/10/2008 @ 5:34 pm“Obama ought to take a one week break and get it back again.”
Lovey – Don’t you think the earth will stand still out of deference if he does take a
week off?
I haven’t forgotten your lies about McCain in the other thread. Where is your apology?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 5:47 pmThus, my goal is to evaluate Obama’s actions with as much neutrality as possible.
Comment by DRJ — 11/10/2008 @ 5:34 pm
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 11/10/2008 @ 5:48 pmHmmmm……Neutrality? Haven’t seen much of that. Not recently. Except a little from Patterico. That was before he was nearly mob lynched here.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/10/2008 @ 5:47 pm
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 11/10/2008 @ 5:51 pmI never lied against anyone. Stop telling more lies than you have.
Thanks for your comment, DRJ-
Second, my skepticism about Obama the person does not mean I’m willing to underestimate his abilities. I learned as a young lawyer that other lawyers don’t have to be great people to be formidable adversaries, and underestimating them is a good way to lose.
I have no judgment about Obama as a great person, although I do believe his abilities are great.
That’s why I was amused at the listing of such things as coming up with a seal, and writing his inaugural address as admirable preparations to have made.
To me, they only speak to the eagerness of the man to take the position. He wants to be President, so he comes up with not one, but two pre-Presidential seals. He wants to make a great speech, because his legacy is in his speeches. It is, as I said, the kind of thing even a dreamer would do.
It doesn’t have anything to do with actually planning for the office, merely the trappings.
I believe he and his people have great ability to do exactly what they want to do, and take no prisoners doing it. I think making the seal is just…pattycake.
MayBee (e66885) — 11/10/2008 @ 5:58 pmWhy is it that truthnjustice is still repeating long long discredited canards?
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/10/2008 @ 6:02 pm“I never lied against anyone. Stop telling more lies than you have.”
Lovey – Great, now you’re lying about your lying. I think you and Obama are a great pair. You are both unable to tell the truth.
“Yes there were cases of illegal contributions made to the Obama campaign. Just as to McCain’s campaign. These monies have been reported and some of them returned. BTW, they make up a tiny fraction of the money he got.”
snip
“What about McCain? Is he the saint? Did he not also misrepresent Obama’s words, knowingly about sex education to kids and so forth?”
Comment by love2008 — 11/8/2008 @ 5:00 pm
Just to refresh your memory Honee.
It’s already been a couple of days since you were called on this shit. Do the right thing.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 6:03 pm“Why is it that truthnjustice is still repeating long long discredited canards?”
SPQR – Don’t all progtards do that. Their talking points don’t have sell-by dates that expire when debunked. Lovey’s doing it to with Obama’s positions on sex ed for kids and his campaign contributions.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 6:07 pmdaleyrocks, you would think that they would be embarrassed to repeat a myth – a myth in fact that Richard Clarke had to deny on oath in front of the 9/11 Commission.
But the fact that “truthnjustice” is not embarrassed to repeat such an obviously discredited canard tells us a lot.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/10/2008 @ 6:11 pmMaybee,
I didn’t use the word admirable to describe Obama but I won’t object too much because I think he has admirably managed the style aspects of his campaign. And while the recent steps have been awkward, I’m not going to claim a few missteps should discredit Obama (with his supporters) because it’s simply not the case.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/10/2008 @ 6:17 pmWhich is it Daley, mendaciousness or ignorance? Are you not aware of McCain’s misrepresentation of Obama’s position on sex ed for kids? Maybe I can actually cut and paste it for you, since you are internet challenged.
A McCain campaign ad claims Obama’s “one accomplishment” was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids. Don’t believe it.
Summary
A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama’s “one accomplishment” in the area of education was “legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergarteners.” But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes’ failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.
Obama, contrary to the ad’s insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. And the bill, which would have allowed only “age appropriate” material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.
In addition, the ad quotes unflattering assessments of the Illinois senator’s record on education but leaves out sometimes equally harsh criticism directed at McCain in the same forums.
Analysis
The ad is called “Education” and has received a good bit of free airtime, having been run repeatedly on cable news networks. It pairs pictures of kindergarten children with Obama looking confused.
A Factual Failure
McCain-Palin 2008 Ad: “Education”
Announcer: Education Week says Obama “hasn’t made a significant mark on education.” That he’s “elusive” on accountability. “A staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.” Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergarteners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family.
John McCain: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.The ad claims “Obama’s one accomplishment” in the realm of education was “legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergarteners.”
It’s true that the phrase “comprehensive sex education” appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain’s claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it “medically accurate.” It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed “comprehensive sex education” to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be “age-appropriate” for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question:
SB 99: However, no pupil shall be required to take or participate in any family life class or course on HIV AIDS or family life instruction if his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil.
The bill also called for all sex education course materials to include information that would help students recognize, among other activities, inappropriate touching, sexual assault and rape:
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 11/10/2008 @ 6:30 pmWhich part of this report do you find hard to digest?
I can’t imagine you’re going to feed that to the victim’s families… are you? Fact is that the attacks didn’t happen a few weeks or even a few months after Clinton left office.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 11/10/2008 @ 7:14 pm“It’s true that the phrase “comprehensive sex education” appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain’s claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it “medically accurate.” It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed “comprehensive sex education” to include kindergarten.”
Lovey – The above except from your cut and paste job gives the game away. It says McCain was not innaccurate. If you look at the actual curriculum suggested by the bill for kindergatners you will also see he is not innaccurate. If you listen to Obama’s words when the bill was passed, Obama himself used the words “comprehensive sex education.” You are full of shit on this one Lovey, even your cut and paste job confirms it.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 7:14 pmWhen lovie speaks, liesntyranny‘s breath smells.
Another Drew (d51d84) — 11/10/2008 @ 7:28 pmComment by daleyrocks — 11/10/2008 @ 7:14 pm
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/10/2008 @ 7:30 pmYou are a load of filth. Just like your failed party. Full of lies. Read the post well. this time, with your eyes open! McCain and his band of liars were trying to claim that Obama wanted to force children to know about sex before knowing how to read. His ad lied when it said “Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergarteners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family
What that ad does not say is that
“SB 99: However, no pupil shall be required to take or participate in any family life class or course on HIV AIDS or family life instruction if his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil.”
Why because like you, the truth is so inconvenient. That lying ad does not also include one of the major reasons for the bill. To protect your children from sexual predators. Read it here.
The bill also called for all sex education course materials to include information that would help students recognize, among other activities, inappropriate touching, sexual assault and rape:
One last question Daliar, if the ad was so effective and true, why did the McCain campaign drop it?
AD – That sex ed bill was heavily pushed by Planned Parenthood and we all know how friendly BO and Planned Parenthood are. Planned Parenthood just loves to work its sexual/cultural agenda into the schools as early as possible. I mean teaching kindergartners about intercourse, contraception and STD’s, including HIV, what could be wrong with that?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 7:33 pm“It’s true that the phrase “comprehensive sex education” appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain’s claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it “medically accurate.” It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed “comprehensive sex education” to include kindergarten.”
Just one more reason the new messiah shouldn’t be trusted with a burnt out match, much less political power.
Dave Surls (ed05e6) — 11/10/2008 @ 7:41 pmLovey – More lies from you. I didn’t claim the ad was effective so shove that up your pie hole.
“That lying ad does not also include one of the major reasons for the bill. To protect your children from sexual predators.”
-Lovey is there a requirement for an advertisement to recite all the antecedents for legislation? If there is, please provide a citation. The campaign’s explanation was stanger danger, but it doesn’t hold water when you look at the suggested curriculum. Why do five and six year olds need to know about contraception and STD’s, genius?
“McCain and his band of liars were trying to claim that Obama wanted to force children to know about sex before knowing how to read.”
-Lovey, the word “force” is not in the as, but if that were not the intent, why are the classes being held through the school, where there will indeed be pressure to attend. Don’t confuse the issue with bullshit.
You are wrong, but can’t admit it.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 7:54 pm“Obama, contrary to the ad’s insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. And the bill, which would have allowed only “age appropriate” material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.”
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 11/10/2008 @ 7:56 pmRead the above. Obama never supported “explicit sex education for kids.” It allowed only “age appropriate” material. Another reason why lying and negative campaigning failed woefully this year. Unlike in the past, people can find out the truth for themselves.
It required AIDS prevention education. How do you suppose you’d teach a five year old about AIDS prevention aside from explicit sex education? Why would you teach a five year old about AIDS prevention?
Pablo (99243e) — 11/10/2008 @ 8:04 pmLovey – The ad does not say explicit sex education. You can insinuate until the cows come home. Lefties are particularly good at it. I agree that Obama wanted age appropriate sex ed. Most parents I know don’t feel confortable having any sex ed taught to kindergartners or first graders. Your opt out argument is meaningless to the discussion. The creepy part is teaching sex ed to kindergartners – get it.
Why do five and six year old have to learn about intercourse, contraception, and STD’s, including HIV? That is in the bill and curriculum. That is creepy. That is the point. That is fact. Obama supported it and told Planned Parenthood in 2007 he was glad to do it. End of story. The ad was factual. Anything else you say are lies and weasel words. Stranger danger courses don’t need full sex ed.
I’ll await your apology.
Identifying the partisan source of your cut and paste would also be nice.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 8:13 pmComment by Pablo — 11/10/2008 @ 8:04 pm
Pablo, do you think a five year old is too young to be sexually abused? Do you think a five year old is too young to be infected with HIV? Do you also think that teaching a child enough to protect him or her from sexual predators is wrong?
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 11/10/2008 @ 8:13 pmPablo – I don’t think they actually show the kindergartners films of butt fucking for the AIDs prevention module. I think they do it with cartoons or something.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 8:15 pmTry answering the question, lovey. Teaching a child to beware/resist predators is enough. Do you really expect a child being raped to say “Excuse me, Mr. Rapist. I really need you to wear a condom when you violate me.”?
Word.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/10/2008 @ 8:19 pm“Do you think a five year old is too young to be infected with HIV?”
Lovey – You are an absolute moron. So is the school going to train the five year olds to ask the sexual predator immediately before they get anally raped to wear protection? Is that how you envision this working?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 8:21 pmCross posted with you Pablo.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 8:24 pmComment by daleyrocks — 11/10/2008 @ 8:21 pm
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 11/10/2008 @ 8:30 pmLiar! Did the bill say kids will be subjected to watch adult content? You are the moron here. A lying retarded scum! I don’t intend to continue this conversation with an idiot. I wonder who lets you get around kids with this filthy mind of yours. It’s clear why dirtbags like you will be against teaching kids about sexual predators.
That’s the lie, lovey. Which makes you the liar. And also, you’re incapable of detecting sarcasm.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/10/2008 @ 8:38 pmAre you going to answer my question, or are you just going to run with the faux outrage?
Pablo (99243e) — 11/10/2008 @ 8:38 pmDon’t waste your time against the oily, little snake which is love2008, guys.
nk (95bfab) — 11/10/2008 @ 8:44 pm“Liar! Did the bill say kids will be subjected to watch adult content?”
Lovey – You tell me, twatwaffle. I’ll bet you haven’t even looked at it.
How is your apology coming on your lies about Obama’s campaign contributions. I hope it’s further along than the one on this issue.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 9:01 pmDRJ/Patterico-
In my suggested method of dealing with rude posters, #93 would come out of moderation like this:
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/10/2008 @ 8:21 pm
You are absolutely correct. Teaching a 5 year old details about sexual abuse, STD’s, etc. is ridiculous. Though a 5 year old could tragically be infected with HIV when abused, there is no reason to burden a 5 year old with information they can not process cognitively or emotionally. I don’t think that is what Obama wanted to do, but if he did, it was wrong. Where can I find documentation to back your claims?
There are so many idiots just arguing for arguments sake, I’m glad I can find people here who actually want to debate the facts and come to an understanding about issues.
Thanks again,
“love2008” the poster previously known as “TR”
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/10/2008 @ 9:02 pmComment by nk — 11/10/2008 @ 8:44 pm
oily little snake? Better than a shithead.
Pablo.
It required AIDS prevention education. How do you suppose you’d teach a five year old about AIDS prevention aside from explicit sex education? Why would you teach a five year old about AIDS prevention?
Comment by Pablo — 11/10/2008 @ 8:04 pm
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/10/2008 @ 9:11 pmFor your information, there are many other ways people get infected with AIDS, apart from “explicit sex” And I think your illustration above is a little beneath you, Pablo. This one.
Do you really expect a child being raped to say “Excuse me, Mr. Rapist. I really need you to wear a condom when you violate me.”?
You know exactly what or who Obama wanted to protect. Being a parent, he was trying to do the right thing for his little daughters. And by extension, yours too.
Comment by MD in Philly — 11/10/2008 @ 9:02 pm
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/10/2008 @ 9:20 pmThanks MD. Maybe I should start sending my comments through you. That could work. Will you also accept that the insults aimed at me be directed to you instead? What a blog this would be if all comments would moderated by you! I would love that.
No, there aren’t many other ways. There are a couple, and we’re not talking about them, we’re talking about sex ed. My illustration is only as ridiculous as your statement that it rebutted. The difference is, my question was intentionally ridiculous, while your ridiculous statement was ostensibly in earnest.
No, I know who he wanted sex ed taught to, including STD prevention. 5 year olds. So, how about answering my question? How do you suppose you’d teach a five year old about AIDS prevention aside from explicit sex education?
Pablo (99243e) — 11/10/2008 @ 9:22 pmMD in Philly,
That’s a good comment.
Last month I toyed with the idea of playing devil’s advocate and becoming the resident liberal here, especially since aphrael can’t be here more often. (It’s so nice to debate with a bright, committed liberal who doesn’t call people names.) I’m still considering it, primarily because of incidents like this with love2008 and her proclivity for calling people liars.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/10/2008 @ 9:27 pmComment by Pablo — 11/10/2008 @ 9:22 pm
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/10/2008 @ 9:30 pmBy teaching them about sex. Don’t underestimate those little kids. You won’t believe the kind of stuff they know that early. You can teach kids about sex without trying to be erotic or corrupting their little minds. There is a training for that kind of thing. Have I answered your question?
I’m still considering it, primarily because of incidents like this with love2008 and her proclivity for calling people liars.
Comment by DRJ — 11/10/2008 @ 9:27 pm
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/10/2008 @ 9:50 pmPlease go through this thread and show me where I first called anyone a liar. Or is it an offence only when a none Republican does so?
You still haven’t apologized Lovey.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 9:53 pmLovey – By acknowledging through your comments what is being taught you have recognized that the ad was not misleading. It is now incumbent upon you to apologize. Do the right thing.
You should also apologize for your unfounded insults on this thread.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 9:59 pmlove2008 — 11/10/2008 @ 9:50 pm:
There are a lot of people calling each other liars here. Is this done by mutual consent or is there a problem?
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/10/2008 @ 10:16 pmDRJ – I am probably at fault for trying to hold Lovey’s feet to the fire for comments she made on Saturday. She has, as you noted, a habit of calling people liars. I wanted to let her know that the passage of a couple of days time doesn’t cause complete memory loss since she still had not apologized for her words Saturday.
She expects apologies to be made to her benefit but is unable to extend them to others. It’s very unladylike of her.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/10/2008 @ 10:23 pmDaley doesn’t: I have been misquoted on here on several occassions and never received an apology for that. I think apology avenue is a two-way street, wouldn’t you agree?
truthnjustice (c313be) — 11/11/2008 @ 3:14 amAre you going to apologize for the name-calling, Daley-doesn’t?
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 11/11/2008 @ 4:01 amWill you also accept that the insults aimed at me be directed to you instead? What a blog this would be if all comments would moderated by you! I would love that.
Comment by love2008 — 11/10/2008 @ 9:20 pm
love2008- Thank you for the vote of confidence*. If your comments were “moderated” by me there would be far fewer insults to deal with.
There seem to be (at least) two things going on here, one is a desire to see a matter clearly and a willingness to view differing points of view when offered in good faith; the other is to malign differing points of view and those who hold them. At times it seems that the second is the prime concern of some with others enjoying the opportunity to attempt “one-upmanship” (self included at times).
If you really think the majority of posters here don’t care about child molestation, I don’t think there is a point in having any discussion. If you’re interested in what types of educational intervention are helpful to children, then let’s talk about that with some specificity and insight. Even children who are brilliant and can process information cognitively are still children emotionally. Children who can’t abstract are left figuring things out by playing.
Years after the event, we found out that our oldest had a time of severe distress when he was about 4. While waiting in a check-out line at the grocery store he was eye to eye with a National Enquirer or some such that had an article on when the world would end, and it was a specific day close at hand. He was bright enough to know how to read, but emotionally it freaked him out, and what freaked him out even more was the observation that his parents didn’t seem to care!?! So the terrified 4 year old waited for the world to end, but it didn’t. We did not learn that from him until his mid-teens or later. If you want to make a snide comment about our parenting, go ahead, but I’ll “moderate” it.
* In the event your comment was sarcastic, I treated it in “Mary Poppins’ fashion”- “Oh dear, I guess we’ll have to do something about that, won’t we.”
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/11/2008 @ 5:14 amThen the question “How do you suppose you’d teach a five year old about AIDS prevention aside from explicit sex education?”
Just, wow.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/11/2008 @ 5:17 amThere are a lot of people calling each other liars here. Is this done by mutual consent or is there a problem?
Comment by DRJ — 11/10/2008 @ 10:16 pm
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/11/2008 @ 5:39 amThen what was the point of your first comment?
“primarily because of incidents like this with love2008 and her proclivity for calling people liars.”
Sounds more like you have made your conclusions already in that accusatory statement.
By acknowledging through your comments what is being taught you have recognized that the ad was not misleading. It is now incumbent upon you to apologize. Do the right thing.
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/11/2008 @ 5:46 amComment by daleyrocks — 11/10/2008 @ 9:59 pm
Pants on fire, Daley. The ad was misleading in that it did not say what it knew to be the real motive of the bill. Atleast McCain had enough sense and decency to pull out the ad when he saw how misleading it was. But you, you have no shame.
Are you going to apologize for the name-calling, Daley-doesn’t?
Comment by truthnjustice — 11/11/2008 @ 4:01 am
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/11/2008 @ 5:51 amDaley? Apologize? That will be a cold day in hell! I know these people. Don’t let them get away with lies and insults. Strike back. That’s the only language they understand.
It said what the substance of the bill was and it did so accurately. And the motive of supporting a bill is to implement the substance of the bill. You’re trying to argue that Obama really wanted to do just a tiny piece of what the bill does. If that’s the case, why not write a bill that just does that part?
You’ve gone from arguing that the bill doesn’t say what McCain’s ads claimed it said to acknowledging that it does say that, but it’s OK that it does. And you’re still calling the ad misleading. What’s up with that?
Pablo (99243e) — 11/11/2008 @ 5:54 amIf you want to make a snide comment about our parenting, go ahead, but I’ll “moderate” it.
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/11/2008 @ 6:01 amComment by MD in Philly — 11/11/2008 @ 5:14 am
Why would I do that? Don’t let people influence the way you see others. I am not like that. I do appreciate your position. I agree with you. Of course there are limits to what a child can be exposed to. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Stuff happens. Bad stuff happens to under aged children. Don’t you think we need to do whatever is necessary to prevent that? A little girl ought to know the difference between affection an inappropriate touching. They should also be taught to report any funny thing that happens to them. That has been my point.
And you’re still calling the ad misleading. What’s up with that?
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 11/11/2008 @ 6:18 amTell the truth Pablo, was the ad misleading or not?
If you want to make a snide comment about our parenting, go ahead, but I’ll “moderate” it.
Comment by MD in Philly — 11/11/2008 @ 5:14 am
Why would I do that?
Let’s just say I’m sure some one out there could have said, “MD, if you really had a nurturing relationship with your child he would never withhold anything from you, and that would not have been an issue”.
Bad stuff happens to under aged children. Don’t you think we need to do whatever is necessary to prevent that? A little girl [and little boy] ought to know the difference between affection an inappropriate touching. They should also be taught to report any funny thing that happens to them. That has been my point.Comment by love2008 — 11/11/2008 @ 6:01 am
Absolutely, but a child doesn’t even need to hear the word sex, and certainly nothing about STD’s or HIV to know that there parts of their bodies that only mommy or daddy get to see when they need to (along with the doctor when mommy or daddy is present). I don’t think it would work to try to teach a 5 year old what kind of touching is or is not appropriate for mommy or daddy to do.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/11/2008 @ 6:43 amDo I really need to do that again? Obviously, it was not. I thought I’d made that perfectly clear.
You agree that the ad was not false, only that it was misleading because it didn’t present what Obama says was his motive in supporting it. True or false?
Pablo (99243e) — 11/11/2008 @ 6:49 amYup. I fail to see any value whatsoever in teaching such a child how a condom works.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/11/2008 @ 6:53 amYup. I fail to see any value whatsoever in teaching such a child how a condom works.
Comment by Pablo — 11/11/2008 @ 6:53 am
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/11/2008 @ 8:14 amThere you go again, Pablo. But I am laughing.
You agree that the ad was not false, only that it was misleading because it didn’t present what Obama says was his motive in supporting it. True or false?
Comment by Pablo — 11/11/2008 @ 6:49 am
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/11/2008 @ 8:16 amTrue.
Comment by MD in Philly — 11/11/2008 @ 6:43 am
I don’t think it would work to try to teach a 5 year old what kind of touching is or is not appropriate for mommy or daddy to do.
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/11/2008 @ 8:23 amI didn’t say that. Unless of course you are trying to be sarcastic. Most abuses occur with close relatives, friends of the family and neighbors. I am limiting my discussion to normal cases of child abuse. Not STDs and condoms!
Sigh! If only Obama’s mommy or daddy had learned contraception at an early age ….
nk (95bfab) — 11/11/2008 @ 8:23 am“But I am laughing.”
Most colloquial expressions are grounded in everyday observations. “Grinning idiot” is an excellent example. Can an idiot actually be a liar? A liar must be able to separate that which is true from that which is false. Someone unable to accomplish that feat is not necessarily a liar.
Rick Ballard (e3e91f) — 11/11/2008 @ 8:26 amWe have sexualized our children way too much. Starts with TV and ends with “Sex Ed” BS in Grade School.
As MD noted, since gets don’t understand what all this info means they “play out” what they hear, see and read….. and that means bad results.
With that said, my parents would beat my ass if I got out of line so …… maybe we needs a little more old school instead of milk toast, gold star parenting I see way toooooooo much of in the ‘Burbs.
OT: “And after all my logic and my theory, I add a moutherfuckerfucker so you ignorant n*g*ers hear me!” — Lauryn Hill w/ The Fugees……….. Kind of true unfortunately in today’s world where too many ignorant and uneducated have opinions with no basis in facts or life experiences.
Robert Rodriguez (54247e) — 11/11/2008 @ 8:29 amNot to be-smirch Barack but his parents are perfect example of irresponsible loons.
I feel, his entire world view is based on finding “angles” to make them out to be fine folks — which means finding nuanced reasons why degenerates are really nice folks who would do better with gov.t help of course.
For example, “Dreams of My Father.” He was 2 when you last saw him. WTF are you writing about? You have no idea who your father was. Write “Dreams of My White Grandmother” instead.
Robert Rodriguez (54247e) — 11/11/2008 @ 8:33 amSigh! If only Obama’s mommy or daddy had learned contraception at an early age ….
Comment by nk — 11/11/2008 @ 8:23 am
nk, what if someone said that about you? How would you feel?
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/11/2008 @ 8:33 amIn my house there’s no “TV”. There’s DVD and we order my daughter’s movies. The school is across the street, her teacher has been there for twenty-five years, I see and talk to the principal every day, I am very involved and vigilant.
(And there is no punishment of any kind in our house. Although we are a loud family for a fact.)
nk (95bfab) — 11/11/2008 @ 8:37 amI will not engage you, love2008. You never even bother to straight out lie. Talking to you is like trying to weave a rope from what floats on the surface of a still pond.
nk (95bfab) — 11/11/2008 @ 8:40 amTalking to you is like trying to weave a rope from what floats on the surface of a still pond.
Comment by nk — 11/11/2008 @ 8:40 am
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/11/2008 @ 8:45 amThanks for the compliment.
Back on topic. We all learned in history class about people that the world would have been a better place had they never been born. But they showed their propensity to be “Sowers of Thunder” at an early age. Obama has shown nothing of the kind. Even if he has the intention, he does not have the talent. He will be “King Log” and not “King Stork”.
nk (95bfab) — 11/11/2008 @ 8:56 amAh, so any ad is misleading unless it puts The One’s spin on the subject.
What if someone said they wouldn’t want your mother being punished with you just because she made a mistake?
Pablo (99243e) — 11/11/2008 @ 9:05 amPablo,
If your name was Natasha or Malia you would say “Hi, Daddy!”.
Rick Ballard (e3e91f) — 11/11/2008 @ 9:15 amlove2008,
Mossberg500 (9fd170) — 11/11/2008 @ 9:27 amDo you have children?
Comment by Mossberg500 — 11/11/2008 @ 9:27 am
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/11/2008 @ 9:44 amYes.
What if someone said they wouldn’t want your mother being punished with you just because she made a mistake?
Comment by Pablo — 11/11/2008 @ 9:05 am
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/11/2008 @ 9:50 amI am guessing that comment is for nk. He is the one wishing Obama’s parents took contraceptives to prevent his conception. Not a good thing to say about your next commander-in-chief.
No, it’s a comment about Obama who said he wouldn’t want his daughters punished with his grandchildren. But please, go ahead and tell me that’s misleading because he surely meant something else.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/11/2008 @ 9:51 amComment by MD in Philly — 11/11/2008 @ 6:43 am
I don’t think it would work to try to teach a 5 year old what kind of touching is or is not appropriate for mommy or daddy to do.
I didn’t say that. Unless of course you are trying to be sarcastic. Most abuses occur with close relatives, friends of the family and neighbors. I am limiting my discussion to normal cases of child abuse. Not STDs and condoms!
Comment by love2008 — 11/11/2008 @ 8:23 am
I wasn’t being sarcastic (in this instance, though on occasion- yes), nor was I claiming that was a statement that you made, but I didn’t make my point clear, either.
I was trying to acknowledge the same reality you do, that often abuse is from a close relative or family friend, including the father. I was commenting that equipping a 5 year old child to address the abuse of his/her father is not something I expect one can do- so simply to assure the child that “those areas are private” is about all you can do, it will not be 100% effective but you can’t expect more. Hopefully in such a situation someone would become suspicious rather than in denial and come to the child’s defense. I hope I made things clear.
Back on topic. We all learned in history class about people that the world would have been a better place had they never been born. But they showed their propensity to be “Sowers of Thunder” at an early age. Obama has shown nothing of the kind. Even if he has the intention, he does not have the talent. He will be “King Log” and not “King Stork”. Comment by nk — 11/11/2008 @ 8:56 am
I don’t think we know enough to be confident of that, nk. Not to say I think Obama is such a character, but I’ve known some people for years, relatively well, without appreciating what they’ve done or what they’re capable of.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/11/2008 @ 9:58 amBut please, go ahead and tell me that’s misleading because he surely meant something else.
Comment by Pablo — 11/11/2008 @ 9:51 am
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/11/2008 @ 10:08 amNo you are not being misleading. Didn’t know what you were referring to, obviously.
From approx 8:00pm last night, to this time….
What an incredible waste of band-width!
We know what State Senator Obama did, or voted “Present” on, whether we wish to acknowledge it or not.
Why are we arguing about it?
Why not just drop it, and “move on”?
The usual suspects would argue that the sun comes up in the West if they knew it would get a response. Why should we feed them?
$.02
Another Drew (6a5b36) — 11/11/2008 @ 10:20 amlove2008 — 11/11/2008 @ 5:39 am:
I had not read the entire thread when I left my first comment about lies. After your follow-up comment, I went back and read the other comments and agreed you weren’t the only one calling someone a liar. I considered apologizing to you but I chose not to because you frequently call other people liars, often with antagonism masquerading as “love.”
Reading passive-aggressive comments like yours are my least favorite part of blogging and it’s the reason I think you are a female. Passive-aggressive attitudes are the weapon-of-choice of women while men prefer sarcasm. This thread has both and that’s why I asked if the insults were by mutual consent. Those who enjoy the banter can feel free to participate but don’t expect me to monitor it. (I typically skip the comments with insults so I also miss the points they are trying to make. I doubt I’m the only one, so keep that in mind.) However, as I did earlier with yours, I comment about the ones I notice.
I know you believe strongly in Obama and I’m glad you have confidence in him. It’s more positive and exciting to believe in something than to be against something. In my opinion you would be a much better advocate if you focused on his positives instead of attacking his detractors. You may not convince the person you debate but there are many more people who read your comments that might agree with you.
In other words, support Obama with details and determination but don’t confuse that with trying to tear down the people who oppose him.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/11/2008 @ 10:46 amFrom the bill Lovey:
Each class or course in comprehensive sex
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/11/2008 @ 10:58 am14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV AIDS.
Lovey – Here are excerpts from what the Obama campaign considers the appropriate curriculum for Kindergarten:
Here’s what’s at Level 1- for kindergartners:
•Each body part has a correct name and a specific function.
• A person’s genitals, reproductive organs, and genes determine whether the person is male or female.
• A boy/man has nipples, a penis, a scrotum, and testicles.
• A girl/woman has breasts, nipples, a vulva, a clitoris, a vagina, a uterus, and ovaries.
• Some sexual or reproductive organs, such as penises and vulvas, are external or on the outside of the body while others, such as ovaries and testicles, are internal or inside the body.
• Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched.
• Vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina – is the most common way for a sperm and egg to join.
• Human beings can love people of the same gender and people of another gender.
• Some people are heterosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of another gender.
• Some people are homosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of the same gender.
• Homosexual men and women are also known as gay men and lesbians.
• People deserve respect regardless of who they are attracted to.
• Making fun of people by calling them gay (e.g. “homo,” “fag,” “queer”) is disrespectful and hurtful.
• Many people live in lifetime committed relationships, even though they may not be legally married.
• Two people of the same gender can live in loving, lifetime committed relationships.
• Most children are curious about their bodies.
• Bodies can feel good when touched.
• Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.
• Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not.
• Masturbation should be done in a private place.
• People often kiss, hug, touch, and engage in other sexual behaviors with one another to show caring and to feel good.
• Both girls and boys may discover that their bodies feel good when touched.
• Like other body parts, the genitals need care.
• Sexually transmitted diseases are caused by germs such as bacteria and viruses.
• People who do not engage in certain behaviors do not get STDs.
• A small number of children are born with STDs that they get from their mothers during pregnancy or birth.
• The most common ways for a person to get an STD is to participate in sexual behavior or share a needle with another person who is already infected with an STD.
• Children who find needles on the ground should not touch them and should tell an adult.
• There are parts of one’s body that are considered to be private, including one’s mouth, nipples, breasts, chest, penis, scrotum, vagina, vulva, and buttocks.
• Some people may expect or demand that boys and girls behave in certain ways, but this is beginning to change.
• Both women and men can be involved and caring parents.
• Boys and girls can do the same chores at home.
• Men and women are capable of doing almost all the same jobs.
• Some men and women may be told that certain jobs and tasks are only for women or only for men, but this is beginning to change.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/11/2008 @ 11:03 amDaleyrocks–
Foxfier (db0f51) — 11/11/2008 @ 11:15 amOnce again, I get reasons to homeschool.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/11/2008 @ 11:03 am
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/11/2008 @ 11:28 amThat’s very serious, Daley. Links please?
Lovey – Why don’t you produce some contemporaneous quotes from Obama from when the bill was being debated in the Illinois Senate, 2003, to prove that this position you claim for him was not just manufactured after the fact in response to controversy. It doesn’t matter in regard to the accuracy of the ad, but he does have a habit of manufacturing positions after the fact on controversial issues.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/11/2008 @ 11:30 amComment by daleyrocks — 11/11/2008 @ 11:30 am
love2008 (1b037c) — 11/11/2008 @ 11:52 amCan we then say that your above post is misleading? (Trying not to call you a liar. It offends DRJ, whom I hate to offend.)
Oh, come now! The One wouldn’t do that! Right?
Pablo (99243e) — 11/11/2008 @ 11:55 amThank you, love2008. I appreciate your new attitude.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/11/2008 @ 12:02 pmDRJ, I placed a post on this thread and it has disappeared. It was between Pablo’s post and MD in Philly. It has flown the coop. Any idea on why that would be?
I contacted the Boss and he indicates he is not doing anything strange with my posts, but to the chagrin of both the posters here and future historians, my posts keep disappearing. Thanks for any reply.
PS Just curious, since it’s weird that the site eats my comments here, but nowhere else.
timb (1426f9) — 11/11/2008 @ 12:12 pmSee everything under “Level 1”, beginning on page 25 of this PDF. That’s the “age appropriate” curriculum. That’s what the bill, which failed, would have instituted. That’s what McCain’s ad criticized.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/11/2008 @ 12:18 pmBTW, Level 1 is intended for ages 5-8.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/11/2008 @ 12:20 pmLovey – Here’s an article from ABC about Obama telling Planned Parenthood last year that sex ed for kindergartners is the right thing to do:
Sex Ed for Kindergarteners ‘Right Thing to Do,’ Says Obama
Email
Share July 18, 2007 1:13 PM
ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is “age-appropriate,” is “the right thing to do.”
“I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me,” Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.
“‘Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,'” said Obama mimicking Keyes’ distinctive style of speech. “Which — I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter).”
“But it’s the right thing to do,” Obama continued, “to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.”
Watch the video:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3386492
Speaking to a young woman who asked a question about sex education, Obama said, “You, as a peer, can have enormous power over your age cohort but you’ve got to have some support from the schools. You certainly should not have to be fighting each and every instance by providing accurate information outside of the classroom because inside the classroom the only thing that can be talked about is abstinence.”
“Keep in mind: I honor and respect young people who choose to delay sexual activity,” Obama continued. “I’ve got two daughters, and I want them to understand that sex is not something casual. That’s something that we definitely want to communicate and should be part of any curriculum. But we also know that when the statistics tell us that nearly half of 15 to 19 year olds are engaging in sexual activity, that for us to leave them in ignorance is potentially consigning them to illness, pregnancy, poverty, and in some cases, death.”
When Obama’s campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers “age appropriate” for kindergarteners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had “moved to clarify” in his Senate campaign that he “does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois’ sex education standards with ‘medically accurate’ information . . . ‘Nobody’s suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,’ Obama said. ‘If they ask a teacher ‘where do babies come from,’ that providing information that the fact is that it’s not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that’s going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'”
In addition to local schools informing kindergarteners that babies do not come from the stork, the state legislation Obama supported in Illinois, which contained an “opt out” provision for parents, also envisioned teaching kindergarteners about “inappropriate touching,” according to Obama’s presidential campaign. Despite Obama’s support, the legislation was not enacted.
———————————————-
Cleary this is a subject you have not spent any time researching but merely regurgitate Obama’s talking points.
I’m still waiting for that apology.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/11/2008 @ 2:27 pmComment by daleyrocks — 11/11/2008 @ 2:27 pm
What do you have against the post you just dropped? Seems sensible enough. And as for the apology part, you first. You have said a lot of offensive things here.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 11/11/2008 @ 2:48 pmDRJ, when are you going to do a story on The Legacies of George Bush? That man ain’t that bad. I believe there is a lot to learn from him. Just a suggestion.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 11/11/2008 @ 3:30 pm“And as for the apology part, you first. You have said a lot of offensive things here.”
Lovey – You started this by recycling previously debunked lies about the ad. You have a habit of resurrecting previously debunked points and pretending they are valid. Don’t point at me on this. This debate is entirely your creation and went on too long because of your idiotic stubbornness and failure to do your own homework on the issue.
You apologize and then perhaps I’ll consider it. You also have an apolgy due over the lies you told about the illegal contribution, don’t forget.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/11/2008 @ 3:38 pmComment by daleyrocks — 11/11/2008 @ 3:38 pm
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 11/11/2008 @ 3:57 pmI apologize,……..for engaging you.
Comment by love2008 — 11/11/2008 @ 3:57 pm
Typical!
Another Drew (6a5b36) — 11/11/2008 @ 3:59 pmComment by love2008 — 11/11/2008 @ 3:57 pm
Thanks ever so for proving, once again, that you’re not acting in good faith.
You spread a flat out falsehood, made accusations against those who corrected you, and when faced with direct proof of what you expressly denied, first demanded the other side apologize and then acted in a manner that would be childish to a fifth grader.
Frankly, I can imagine why anyone reading this commentary would mistake you for any sort of reasonable person.
147.Comment by daleyrocks — 11/11/2008 @ 11:03 am
That’s very serious, Daley. Links please?
Comment by love2008 — 11/11/2008 @ 11:28 am
becomes:
155.Comment by daleyrocks — 11/11/2008 @ 2:27 pm
What do you have against the post you just dropped? Seems sensible enough. And as for the apology part, you first. You have said a lot of offensive things here.
Comment by love2008 — 11/11/2008 @ 2:48 pm
when Daley added in even more context– which, by the way, a reasonable person would count as evidence for Obama lying about his sex ed goals not being explicit.
Foxfier (db0f51) — 11/11/2008 @ 4:08 pmComment by Foxfier — 11/11/2008 @ 4:08 pm
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 11/11/2008 @ 4:18 pmGreat! Inspiring. Next?
Please, just ignore the dothead, everyone.
nk (95bfab) — 11/11/2008 @ 4:22 pmComment by nk — 11/11/2008 @ 4:22 pm
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 11/11/2008 @ 4:37 pmYou first, sissy.
Well, NK, since they’ve done such a nice job of making sure no reasonable person will take them seriously….sure.
Foxfier (db0f51) — 11/11/2008 @ 5:23 pmDRJ-
For some reason the posts are not coming to me for moderation, with obvious negative consequences.
DRJ, when are you going to do a story on The Legacies of George Bush? That man ain’t that bad. I believe there is a lot to learn from him. Just a suggestion. Comment by love2008 — 11/11/2008 @ 3:30 pm
I haven’t seen it confirmed, but I heard today that upon his first security briefing, president elect Obama will not rescind executive orders which allow special ops great latitude in what they can do and where in fighting terrorism. He stated that he needs to “maintain flexibility in his options”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/11/2008 @ 5:27 pmFoxfier – Thanks. Lovey is not a good faith commenter. I think she is carrying Obama’s love child or hopes to do so in the near future. It has blinded her to all sense of reality.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/11/2008 @ 5:30 pmIs love2008 injun indian or quickie-mart indian?
Robert Rodriguez (54247e) — 11/11/2008 @ 5:32 pmShe strikes me as Nigeria’s Hereditary Prince Minister of Oil Operations who wants my help to take $25 billion out of the country but first she needs my personal information and bank account number.
nk (95bfab) — 11/11/2008 @ 5:46 pmnk – For $25 billion, what could go wrong?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/11/2008 @ 5:49 pmObama will take half of it and send it to his
nk (95bfab) — 11/11/2008 @ 5:56 pmrelatives in Kenyapatrons in Chicago.And I linked the source in my #153. You’d think, by reading lovey thereafter, that I’d never done that. But if you scroll up, it’s still right there. And it still contains the material that lovey said would be “very serious”.
And yet, *crickets*
Pablo (99243e) — 11/11/2008 @ 6:15 pmref #153.
Other than being a disgusting paper used to sexualize children and steal their youth from them I LOVE THE liberal dobule speak
Middle Childhood = 5 – 8
Pre-Adolescent = 8 – 12
Errrr, I have a title for them KIDS.
Why the fuck are we teaching kids as young as 5 that touching their privates makes them feel good?
Is this really something I want some sick, perverted, low-life teacher who I don’t know, talking to my kids about?????
These “educators” are truly mentally ill humans.
Robert Rodriguez (54247e) — 11/11/2008 @ 6:27 pmPablo – She’ll be back on another thread and pretend nothing happened. Bank on it.
I can ignore it, as can others, or continue pursuing an apology for her lies about the ad.
Any suggestions?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/11/2008 @ 6:44 pmComment by Pablo — 11/11/2008 @ 6:15 pm
I thought we have come to a kind of agreement on this issue. Refer to comments 120 and 123.
You agree that the ad was not false, only that it was misleading because it didn’t present what Obama says was his motive in supporting it. True or false?
Comment by Pablo — 11/11/2008 @ 6:49 am
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 11/11/2008 @ 6:45 pmTo which I said “True”.
Lovey, we’ll come to an agreement when you admit that there was nothing misleading about it. Facts are facts, and you’ve been presented with them. Yet, by continuing to agree with bits to avoid being in disagreement, you refuse to acknowledge the larger truth of the matter.
You said that if what daleyrocks listed in #145 were accurate, it would be very serious. It is accurate, and I showed it to you. I provided you with the link you requested. So, what say you? Was Obama right to support that curriculum for 5 year olds? Was McCain right to call him out on it?
Pablo (99243e) — 11/11/2008 @ 7:19 pmYou could also state that Obama voted for it for his stated reasons, which would also mean that he is too stupid to understand what he was voting for. That would be a reasonable interpretation.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/11/2008 @ 7:24 pmI’m reminded of the Levi/DRJ debate. What I’ve done is to accurately state your position. That doesn’t mean that I agree with it, only that I understand it.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/11/2008 @ 7:26 pmBest thing the Republicans can do is quietly and firmly resist every debt producing gambit and activist judicial appt, then lay low as the Democrats self-destruct just as the Republicans did. Which should be more pronounced because the strident militancy of the various liberal to left splinter groups will not be easily mollified when they discover Obama cannot deliver all the toys that were on their wish lists.
Absolutely. Advice to GOP: Say NO to evey bailout, every spending proposal and every new regulation. Say not to ALL OF IT. The Obama economic agenda is headed over a waterfall called the US Government debt, his plans will bankrupt the treasury while providing no real growth in the economy. Within 2 years, the Obama record will be one of economic stagnation, maybe even stagflation given the low interest rates, and higher debt. Within 2 years, it is more than likely that the stock market will be below the level it was at just after Pelosi became speaker.
The GOP would be wise to NOT WALK THE PLANK AND SUPPORT ANY OF IT. Let it pass on partisan votes. Filibuster what you can. Then come back in 2 years with our very own “CHANGE …. THE CONGRESS” message.
It will be WELL DESERVED.
Travis Monitor (cfa2f1) — 11/11/2008 @ 7:51 pm