Patterico's Pontifications

5/25/2014

Clarifying Who Is To Blame

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:05 am

[guest post by Dana]

Over at the Washington Post, the president’s latest fundraising speech is quoted at length in a post titled, “Obama Slams ‘False Equivalence’ Media”. It’s a great example of how liberals view the world, and especially, Republicans. It’s also troubling to see the lengths our president will go to in order to assign blame and to justify his party’s actions (or inaction).

Here is what President Obama had to say:

“You’ll hear if you watch the nightly news or you read the newspapers that, well, there’s gridlock, Congress is broken, approval ratings for Congress are terrible. And there’s a tendency to say, a plague on both your houses. But the truth of the matter is that the problem in Congress is very specific. We have a group of folks in the Republican Party who have taken over who are so ideologically rigid, who are so committed to an economic theory that says if folks at the top do very well then everybody else is somehow going to do well; who deny the science of climate change; who don’t think making investments in early childhood education makes sense; who have repeatedly blocked raising a minimum wage so if you work full-time in this country you’re not living in poverty; who scoff at the notion that we might have a problem with women not getting paid for doing the same work that men are doing.

“They, so far, at least, have refused to budge on bipartisan legislation to fix our immigration system, despite the fact that every economist who’s looked at it says it’s going to improve our economy, cut our deficits, help spawn entrepreneurship, and alleviate great pain from millions of families all across the country.

“So the problem…is not that the Democrats are overly ideological — because the truth of the matter is, is that the Democrats in Congress have consistently been willing to compromise and reach out to the other side. There are no radical proposals coming out from the left. When we talk about climate change, we talk about how do we incentivize through the market greater investment in clean energy. When we talk about immigration reform there’s no wild-eyed romanticism. We say we’re going to be tough on the borders, but let’s also make sure that the system works to allow families to stay together…

“When we talk about taxes we don’t say we’re going to have rates in the 70 percent or 90 percent when it comes to income like existed here 50, 60 years ago. We say let’s just make sure that those of us who have been incredibly blessed by this country are giving back to kids so that they’re getting a good start in life, so that they get early childhood education…Health care — we didn’t suddenly impose some wild, crazy system. All we said was let’s make sure everybody has insurance. And this made the other side go nuts — the simple idea that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, nobody should go bankrupt because somebody in their family gets sick, working within a private system.

“So when you hear a false equivalence that somehow, well, Congress is just broken, it’s not true. What’s broken right now is a Republican Party that repeatedly says no to proven, time-tested strategies to grow the economy, create more jobs, ensure fairness, open up opportunity to all people.”

Basically, everything that is wrong in our nation is the fault of the Republicans and why can’t they just die already.

There is so much wrong with this and so much to unpack. Thankfully, over at NRO, Ramesh Ponuru starts the ball rolling by linking to several good pieces that refute and challenge the president’s claims. And like all of us, Ponuru knows better.

This president is not interested in these arguments; he would prefer it if reporters did not acknowledge their existence. Many of them will oblige without much prompting, because they see things exactly the same way.

–Dana

153 Responses to “Clarifying Who Is To Blame”

  1. i can’t even read his idiocy…

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  2. Obama believes everybody is stupid, well at least enough people to get him elected twice.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  3. Many Democrats are now acknowledging Obama’s “flatfootedness” and his incompetence. What else can this woefully inadequate “leader” do but try to pin the blame on the opposition? The bucks tops way over there.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  4. Stops

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  5. A pyromaniac in a field of gasoline soaked strawmen.

    JD (67cbaf)

  6. Like most public figures these days President Obama does not author his own speeches or his own editorial page commentary that is sometimes submitted for publication. I’m not sure he even reviews or approves in advance what “he’s” going to say. Based on his reactions to the scandals of his administration and how he claims to find out about them, I doubt if he even knows much of what’s being said in his name until he actually reads it on his teleprompter or reads his “commentary” in the Washington Post.

    But he clearly does not care a whit. This man is not engaged in his presidency and apparently considers his oath of office a joke.

    elissa (b7fb30)

  7. “Basically, everything that is wrong in our nation is the fault of the Republicans and why can’t they just die already. ”

    When one side sees compromise as being like “dying”…. you know where the problem is.

    carba (b0bffa)

  8. @ elissa,

    Based on his reactions to the scandals of his administration and how he claims to find out about them, I doubt if he even knows much of what’s being said in his name until he actually reads it on his teleprompter or reads his “commentary” in the Washington Post.

    If this is true, especially with regard to the various scandals involving his administration, then surely it confirms he is negligent derelict in his duties and is willfully deaf, dumb and blind to all that goes on around him.

    Here is the full speech from which the post is excerpted from.

    Dana (9a8f57)

  9. and apparently considers his oath of office a joke.
    Comment by elissa (b7fb30) — 5/25/2014 @ 10:43 am

    I said long ago and repeatedly, and not necessarily originally, that since he disagreed with the Constitution he took an oath to uphold, he was not fit to take that oath or serve in the office.

    The unending question, how much do they really believe this and are simply some where on the spectrum of wrong to deluded, or how much they are willfully lying to win power.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  10. What Obama said is pretty close to the truth, except the republicans don’t make a big issue out of some of these things.

    What he’s doing, though, is trying to make the Republicans sound like they’re wrong.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  11. 1) If folks at the top do very well then, maybe not everybody else, but most people are going to do better. As long as they don’t get better by making things worse for other people. And more to point, making things worse for them doesn’t help anybody.

    Where the Republican position goes wrong is that they think that if people at the bottom do well, (especially if they are not American citizens) people in the middle class do worse. Or if people in China do better, Americans must necessarily be doing worse. That last is actually more of a Democratic position.

    2) Yes, of course, they deny the “science” of climate change, and especially the stupid remedies for it.

    3) Yes, they don’t think making investments in early childhood education makes sense, and if any Republicans do think so, they are justifably called RINOs. Because it doesn’t make sense.

    Something like Montessori might, or even less, if persistently followed up, but that’s not what is being proposed. Enrolling students in “Head Start” and then throwing thjem back into the sea, produces…no change.

    4) They have repeatedly blocked raising a minimum wage, but it’s a bad idea, and few people work full time as their only means of support.

    5) They scoff at the notion that we might have a problem with women not getting paid for doing the same work that men are doing, and they should, because that’s illegal and non-existent.

    Yes, sometimes people with different job titles in different companies, are doing practically the same thing, but if the better paid job has primarily men and the worse paid one has women in it, it’s because men and women gravitate into different these jobs. Men avoid low paying jobs much more than women.

    6) True, that “so far, at least, they have refused to budge on bipartisan legislation to fix our immigration system, despite the fact that every economist who’s looked at it says it’s going to improve our economy, cut our deficits, help spawn entrepreneurship, and alleviate great pain from millions of families all across the country.”

    This is all true, and a great fault with the Republican Party.

    But is he actually trying to convince the Republicans, and the public, or is he trying to make political hay against them?

    Because he could actually start quoting these economists and economic studies. (albeit this is one of those things that works in practice, but it’s a more difficult question whether it can work in theory.)

    The Republicans are also stuck on the idea of nobody benefiting from having violated the law, at least in the future, and are trying to figure out a way they can say that won’t happen, which of course, is impossible.

    President Obama doesn’t care about that, but he’s not making an argument against this notion, which is what is holding up all bills.

    Instead, atually, he and the other Democrats, pretend to agree with that concept of nobody benfitting from having violated the law.

    7) Obama says “We don’t say we’re going to have rates in the 70 percent or 90 percent when it comes to income like existed here 50, 60 years ago.

    This is true. But they constantly propose increasing the rates up to somewhere around 50%, and this destroys any prospect of tax reform.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  12. ==If this is true, especially with regard to the various scandals involving his administration, then surely it confirms he is negligent derelict in his duties and is willfully deaf, dumb and blind to all that goes on around him.==

    No argument there, Dana. I think it’s obvious he’s been play acting the character/role of a president–not actually being the president. As Col Haiku pointed out @3 and as is currently featured in a Weekly Standard article via Hot Air, many Dems know it too.

    elissa (b7fb30)

  13. Obama: “to proven, time-tested strategies to grow the economy, create more jobs, ensure fairness, open up opportunity to all people.”

    Absolutely not true. If anything has been proven, it is that all of his proposals would not work.

    And it is the Democrats who are partisan.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  14. When alternatives to the ACA and the stimulus were proposed, he said ‘I Won’ when he was rebuffed, he said ‘they treated him like a dog’ he focuses on a non issue, climate change, while ignoring the Saudi and Doha directed islamists, offering hollow bluffs to Volodya, hasn’t any net jobs to show for his six years in office,

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/democrats-privately-calling-obama-detached-flat-footed-incompetent_793544.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  15. And he still hasn’t found Kony.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  16. I recall the time when Gavin Newsome as Lieutenant Governor came to Texas to converse with Kalifornians who left in order to start a business in the greatest state in the US.

    The conversation went about like the great national conversation on race usually goes. Freed kali prisoners explained why they escaped, and the progressive said, “Naw, that can’t be it.”

    We couldn’t possibly have left Kali because of the progressive policies. Nobody could possibly object to the obvious goodness of Democrats and everything they do.

    We bitter clingers are too stupid to know the reasons why we do what we do.

    Barack Obama helpfully explains the evil intent behind our actions.

    Can we just face facts. When we are dealing with democrats, we are dealing with malignant idiots.

    Steve57 (4e729f)

  17. The contempt the Democrat Party has for the bourgeoisie has now become policy, and Obama is ripped that the bourgeoisie won’t go along.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  18. Nobody could possibly object to the obvious goodness of Democrats

    There is no end to their goodness, and we should be grateful they came upon us.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  19. Obama needs to be reminded that he had 60% in each house — something no president has had since Johnson — and he squandered the power by focusing on the health care issue letting Pelosi run with the bit between her teeth, accomplishing nothing. LBJ would be the first to heap scorn.

    Now, given that voters saw the incompetence and took back the power they had granted, he’s blaming them. If he really wanted this country to get moving again he’d resign. Even Biden could do better; he at least knows Congress.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  20. He gave the speech at a fundraiser? People paid to be there, to sit through the lies? That’s amazing.

    Gusto Smooth (941ba0)

  21. “Nobody could possibly object to the obvious goodness of Democrats and everything they do.”

    Steve57 – I just wish they’d stop being so good to us.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  22. 21. Comment by Gusto Smooth (941ba0) — 5/25/2014 @ 1:04 pm

    He gave the speech at a fundraiser? People paid to be there, to sit through the lies? That’s amazing.

    He had to tell them something and that they made the riight decision.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  23. food stamp talks too much

    blah blah blah

    nobody cares, loser now go play golf like the good little bought and paid for soroswhore you are

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  24. 22. “Nobody could possibly object to the obvious goodness of Democrats and everything they do.”

    Steve57 – I just wish they’d stop being so good to us.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/25/2014 @ 1:18 pm

    I know. They keep giving me gifts.

    Shackles.

    And I won’t wear them. This hurts their feelings. They spent a lot of time and money gifting me with those shackles.

    Clearly the only reasons I won’t wear what are so obviously high quality shackles is teh racisms and the sexisms and the homophobias and the Islamophobias.

    And probably a few isms and phobias I’m forgetting about.

    I am a bad person, to be such an ingrate.

    Steve57 (4e729f)

  25. notwithstanding “Mark” and his sociological theories, if m’chelle hadn’t finally put out for this dorkwad he’d be in santa barbara or somesuch golf course-adjacent place right now plotting his revenge on womens

    thank you m’chelle

    i guess

    to be honest i don’t really have a horse in this race

    horses are very high-maintenance

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  26. What a shameless skunk, and to think such a duplicitous little man could con his way into such a high office. The words out of Obama’s mouth betray a complete lack of intellectual integrity and reveal an astonishing lack of character.

    He’s a double talking, two-faced, low-down, belly crawlin’ yellow dog, and an embarrassment to the nation.

    ropelight (5dcfc2)

  27. his mama was kinda trashy and low Mr. ropelight

    obama is a lot of things but he’s not a non sequitur

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  28. Amerikkka’s Affirmative Action Mascot always introduces his effluent spew with words like “But the truth of the matter is..”

    Brazen, arrogant, lawless, indolent, insufferable, pompous, POS lying liar.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  29. “But the truth of the matter is..”

    This is one of the phrases where we get to take a shot of Glenfidich. We had to eliminate the “me, my, I” because several contestants had to be rushed to the emergency room.

    felipe (098e97)

  30. I do find one fitting shared attribute among the Obamas, slackjawed sloth. Worthless from sunup to sundown.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  31. oh for the love of “pete” there’s lots of other phrases too

    in food stamp’s failmerica you don’t need an excuse to get drunk

    you just have to be enough of a winner to score some hooch without using food stamps

    pro-tip: go to college

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  32. the short fat obama hoochie might amount to something Mr. gulrud

    the tall one is touched in the head

    she got a case of the stupids what makes chelsea clinton’s journalism career look almost ronan farrow-esque

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  33. And here I thought the President as played by Peter Sellers was too far-fetched to believe.

    felipe (098e97)

  34. 35. I’m not afraid to be proven wrong. But I’d want to see the PCR proof.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  35. i had to read that as part of a “zen pop lit” course in college Mr. felipe

    snow leopards were involved

    and also lonely long-distance runners

    the professor, I’m pretty sure he out-scored your average santa barbara city college bmw-driving scion of assistant directors of major hollywood franchise epics

    and he didn’t even drive a bmw

    life can be so unfair

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  36. 27. …horses are very high-maintenance

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/25/2014 @ 5:06 pm

    And don’t I know it! And how do I know it? Because celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker who supported Obama told me.

    Only eevil rich people like Anne Romney can afford horses, said the Manhattan socialite shortly before a tens of thousands of dollars fundraiser to be held at her pad.

    Co-hosted by Cruella de Ville, publisher of Vogue.

    For Man-of-the-People, Barack Obama.

    Who will shortly be conducting his annual invasion of Martha’s Vineyard.

    Steve57 (4e729f)

  37. Obama doesn’t know how to talk to opponents. He isn’t a smart enough man to persuade anyone. He’s glib enough, can read a speech, but he is not one given to the art of argument.

    Obama attacks. He always has. “They bring a knife, you bring a gun.” He adamantly insists his opponents are not only wrong but immoral, and considers it an affront that they dare to question his ideas.

    The only people who believe Obama is some sort of incredibly brilliant thinker are those who are rather dull on their own.

    What’s broken right now is a Republican Party that repeatedly says no to proven, time-tested strategies

    Except that his “strategies” have NEVER worked to achieve any of those stated goals, and in many cases make things worse. They are “proven” and “time tested” but not with the results he asserts.

    Estragon (ada867)

  38. There were a few little “mishaps” related to the president’s Memorial Day photo op adventure to Afghanistan. Hard to blame the GOP for this one!

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-mistakenly-identifies-cia-chief-in-afghanistan/2014/05/25/ac8e80cc-e444-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html

    elissa (b7fb30)

  39. Incontinent SCOAMF.

    nk (dbc370)

  40. #42-43, Yeah, and the WaPo couldn’t let an opportunity pass to dust off and trot out a infamous False Equivalence of their own, one they’ve been pushing since Scooter Libby was hounded out of Dick Cheney’s office and into prison for the imaginary crime of outing Valerie Plame, when the truth is that Aldrich Ames outed Plame 10 years earlier (a fact the WaPo never mentions).

    The disclosure marked a rare instance in which a CIA officer working overseas had his cover — the secrecy meant to protect his actual identity — pierced by his own government. The only other recent case came under significantly different circumstances, when former CIA operative Valerie Plame was exposed as officials of the George W. Bush administration sought to discredit her husband, a former ambassador and fierce critic of the decision to invade Iraq.

    The WaPo doesn’t mention that once the agency learned Ames had revealed Plame’s identity to his Soviet paymasters she could no longer work as a CIA covert operative. Plame had been assigned to a 9 to 5 desk job. The only danger she faced was DC rush hour traffic.

    Nor does the WaPo mention that Plame’s husband, Joe Wilson, changed his story after George W Bush relied on Wilson’s conclusions and publicly revealed Saddam had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium in Africa. Suddenly and without warning Wilson did a complete about-face and denied the veracity of his own report.

    In the media frenzy to deny weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq and paint GWB as a war monger who had knowingly fabricated the basis for attacking Saddam, the establishment media never exposed Wilson’s duplicity, never questioned his integrity, never looked behind the mask, and never revealed the Big Lie.

    Since then, Plame and Wilson have dropped the pretense and come out of the closet, Plame plays the victim while she cashes in on her husband’s treachery, she writes spy thrillers about exceptionally brave and stunningly attractive female CIA agents, and the lucky power couple have prominently signed onto Hillary’s political campaigns. They front for her at fundraisers, they endorsed her candidacy in 2008, and have already come out for her in 2016.

    ropelight (79161d)

  41. Whereas the one that actually gave names to the enemy, got a cushy plea bargain, and whines all the time;

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/05/cia-whistleblower-john-kiriakou-describes-life-in-prison/

    narciso (3fec35)

  42. Libby wasn’t convicted of outing Plame.

    carba (b0bffa)

  43. Scooter took one for the team. He kept Armitage out of the investigation until the election was over. You can say that he threw himself on a media grenade. On the other hand, I hope Karl Rove took Armitage to the basement of the White House and worked him over with brass knuckles.

    nk (dbc370)

  44. Actually no, Comey where is he now, knew about Armitage before hand, told Fitz who kept in on the down low,

    narciso (3fec35)

  45. 41. Comment by Estragon (ada867) — 5/25/2014 @ 9:36 pm

    Obama doesn’t know how to talk to opponents. He isn’t a smart enough man to persuade anyone.

    He doesn’t try. Because, first of all, most of his ideas aren’t really his. A lot of them, I don’t think he even is intellectually convinced of, it’s just that he has to sign on to them.

    When he does try to come up with arguments, or develop them some further, he usually falls flat on his face in doing so, because the principle argument is faulty, and when the idea or argument is expanaded on, it tends to highlight its divergence from reality.

    He adopts an argument if it is being lobbied for by the right persons and it sort of sounds plausible to him. He’s not skeptical or curious -they just have to sound plausible. Sometimes he may even be right, but noot because he’s thought about it.

    All his argumentatin is aimed at third parties, at people who are new to the subject matter. And usually is charaacterized by trying to get people to dismiss any people arguing the other side.

    He’s glib enough, can read a speech, but he is not one given to the art of argument.

    He’s not given to the art of thinking about something and evaluating whether it is true or not.

    He never had to do that earlier in his political career and it would have been dangerous to his career to do that and come to a conclusion other than the one prescribed for him.

    A partial exception is some military things since he’s been president, but when he does his own thinking, he’s very slow and painstaking and wants to be certain, and seeks the perfect answer, or at least certainly thatt it is the best option.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  46. His only original idea is that that he should be careful not to make things personal when the argument is about policy. (it can be personal when the argument is about who should be elected or appointed)

    He will say everyone should get along, and, as you see here too, will allow that Republicans are kind of reasonable – just “rigid” or “committed to an economic theory”.

    He adamantly insists his opponents are not only wrong but immoral,

    Not exactly immoral. Being “rigid” or “committed to an economic theory” isn’t being immoral. Same thing would be if he said they were afraid of the Tea Party. He ascribes to them semi-reasonable motives. Never corruption. Harry reid may do that, but not Obama.

    Republicans, by him, aren’t immoral, just wrong and stubborn and deluded, rejecting obviously good ideas.

    Democratic ideas are always the most sensible things to do, and he and other Democrats are not ideological, but always willing to listen, he constantly says, to Republican ideas, and he’ll even tell or hint to the Republicans what ideas they should have, like means testing Social Security!!

    and considers it an affront that they dare to question his ideas.

    He never says the ideas are his and he never criticizes Republicans for not going along with ideas that come from the Democratic Party, although he may admit there are some.

    What he critizes is failure to go along with “proven, time-tested strategies.” They are declared obvious. To dispute them is to have some kind of a character flaw. Not necessarily a very evil flaw.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  47. Thank you, Sammy for entering the mind of Barack Obama to offer a psychological profile of him and to inform us what he really thinks.

    elissa (d3e439)

  48. when former CIA operative Valerie Plame was exposed as officials of the George W. Bush administration sought to discredit her husband, a former ambassador and fierce critic of the decision to invade Iraq.

    This has got about five or six separate, distinct, distortions of the truth.

    1. Valerie Plame was not exposed.

    2. The fact that she was a CIA official was circulated within the government by the CIA – as an explanation as to why they sent Joe Wilson to Niger, because otherwise it was very suspicious.

    3. It became public through Bob Novak, who did not get his information from Scooter Libby.

    4. Telling him that was not for the purposes of discrediting Joe Wilson.

    5. Joe Wilson was not a critic of the Irawq invasion. After it was over, he claimed that he reported that one of the things the Bush Administration had said, was wrong, before he said it. This was NOT true. He had not so reported.

    5. Cheney had been interested in verifying the CIA story that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium ore (yellowcake) from Niger.

    Instead of responding, the CIA sent Joe Wilson to “investigate” and he came back with a report that Niger couldn’t have actually done it without being detected. That, however, was not the claim. The claim was that Saddam Hussein had attempted to, or wanted to.

    Joe Wilson also never filed a written report. But he later claimed that Cheney must have known what he said, and he claimed he had reported theer was no basis for the claim Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium ore (yellowcake) from Africa (there were separate reorts like this) when he had NOT so reported.

    6. The CIA did not retract the claim, and if it had Bush would never have used it.

    7. What evidentally happened after that was that Scooter Libby told Judith Miller of the New York Times about this very peculiar episode, and she requested that he find out who picked Joe Wilson, and why. The CIA then told people inside the government that he was picked because his wife worked at the CIA and she suggested him which was a lie which would have meant that there was nothing nefarious about his selection.

    When in fact there was something nefarious, conspiratorial and planned about his selection.

    The CIA had had its claim challenged, and the CIA avoided confirming or retracting it. They knew it was wrong. They wanted not to have to take it back, and not to have to reaffirm it.

    The original information came from obviously forged documents in Italy, and was disinformation because Saddam Hussein reasoned, if he was trying to buy uranium ore, and failing at that too, it would mean that his nuclear prograam had been set back to Square One, and he didn’t even still have the enriched uranium uranium he had earlier, and wasn’t mining any uranium in Iraq itself. That does not mean that it wasn’t suggested he try this.

    I think the Saudis wanted the U.S. to invade Iraq, so that American military force would be used up, and they’d be safe and the crusade for democracy would never extend to them, so they told their moles in the CIA to support the invasion until it happened.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  49. 52. Comment by elissa (d3e439) — 5/26/2014 @ 7:51 am

    Thank you, Sammy for entering the mind of Barack Obama to offer a psychological profile of him and to inform us what he really thinks.

    eerybody else does, don’t they?

    Daleyrocks @2: Obama believes everybody is stupid, well at least enough people to get him elected twice.

    Colonel Haiku @3: What else can this woefully inadequate “leader” do but try to pin the blame on the opposition?

    Elissa @6: He clearly does not care a whit. This man is not engaged in his presidency and apparently considers his oath of office a joke.

    @12: he’s been play acting the character/role of a president–not actually being the president.

    Dana @8: [He is] willfully deaf, dumb and blind to all that goes on around him.

    MD @9 is more doubtful. The unending question, how much do they really believe this and are simply some where on the spectrum of wrong to deluded, or how much they are willfully lying to win power

    Steve57 @17: we are dealing with malignant idiots

    ropelight @28: The words out of Obama’s mouth betray a complete lack of intellectual integrity and reveal an astonishing lack of character.

    I have no argument with that, except that his lack of character is not astonishing, and not all that rare, either, in politicians. That’s been obvious with him since 2008. His convention speech in 2004 really, because he knew better.

    Gary Gulrud @33: slackjawed sloth

    Estragon @41: [Obama] considers it an affront that they dare to question his ideas

    I think I explain things better and more accurately.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  50. C’mon, elissa. Teh Sammeh™ always, always knows best. About everything.

    That’s how he rolls. Just ask him.

    Simon Jester (fecb62)

  51. OK Sammy–I think that most (although admittedly not all) of the comments you quote above are referencing the outward manifestations of Obama’s personality and approach– and the negative effects thereof on America and the world. They are not dissecting his inner thoughts and motives which frankly are unknowable. But write about what makes you happy and fulfills you.

    elissa (d3e439)

  52. Simon–I’ve come to realize that the problem I have with Sammy’s analysis on so many issues–like this one and especially Benghazi– is that he seems to focus in on what the principals “might” have been thinking, or were “trying to accomplish”, or “maybe did not know” instead of zeroing in on what they actually said, or did, or did not do.

    elissa (d3e439)

  53. today’s remembrance
    of heroes and what they gave
    strengthens our resolve

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  54. WE stand on shoulders
    of giants who understood
    how blessed we all are

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  55. we all need to see
    “Obama at graveside” pic
    he leads from behind

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  56. President Armslength Detachment

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  57. I know, elissa. Teh Sammeh™ isn’t actively rude, at least. But he has, um, a somewhat introspective view of issues.

    Simon Jester (fecb62)

  58. And it could be much, much worse.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAd80eK2QNk

    Simon Jester (fecb62)

  59. 34. …pro-tip: go to college

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/25/2014 @ 6:18 pm

    Why? So you can go so deeply into debt you’ll be paying off your college loans until you’ll fifty and upon graduation have to move back in with mom and dad while you wait for a position to open up at Seattle’s Best Coffee? I mean, forget Starbucks; not a chance.

    No. pro tip: learn to weld, move to North Dakota, make six figures in the oil fields.

    Steve57 (4e729f)

  60. 1) If folks at the top do very well then, maybe not everybody else, but most people are going to do better. As long as they don’t get better by making things worse for other people. And more to point, making things worse for them doesn’t help anybody.

    7) Obama says “We don’t say we’re going to have rates in the 70 percent or 90 percent when it comes to income like existed here 50, 60 years ago.

    This is true. But they constantly propose increasing the rates up to somewhere around 50%, and this destroys any prospect of tax reform.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90) — 5/25/2014 @ 11:23 am

    Why is Obama bringing up taxes with respect to alleged Republican ideological rigidity? The top tax rate has been restored to the “correct” Clinton era pre-Bush level, except that the income break point was somewhat higher than what Obama wanted. That was in fact a compromise, which Obama claims to be open to. With respect to the tax rates on the “rich”, everything’s now exactly what it should be according to the standard Democrat rhetoric we’ve been hearing ever since Bush cut them a little. So what’s Obama complaining about?

    Gerald A (21bbc2)

  61. This was back in the 70s, so the numbers have changed. A lady I knew was working in an office in Chicago. It was February. She looked out the window and saw a steelworker out in the cold, building a neighboring high rise. She wrote a sign that said “It’s 70 degrees in here.”

    He wrote a sign. It said, “It’s $22 an hour out here.”

    According to the BLS calculator that’d be something north of $120 an hour today.

    I don’t believe there’s a time of year in North Dakota when if you’re working outside you can touch your tools with your bare hands. You’ll either freeze or get burned. But for $120 an hour, I’ll wear gloves.

    Steve57 (4e729f)

  62. I think she sent in that story to Reader’s Digest.

    Steve57 (4e729f)

  63. I received a life insurance coverage proposal from AAA… $20K… “Benefit amount will never go down”… “excludes suicide during the first two years of coverage (during the first year in North Dakota)”
    ??? what, do they figure if you can stand living a year in North Dakota, you’ll never contemplate suicide again?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  64. I think I read somewhere that there’s a dearth of suitable wimmins in and around the South Dakota oil fields.

    elissa (d3e439)

  65. elissa – Maybe transpeople can find acceptance in South Dakota as well as Dancing With The Stars? :)

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  66. Comment by Steve57 (4e729f) — 5/26/2014 @ 10:21 am [139 in the "lesson" of the shootings thread]

    Yet he’s never been intellectually challenged? There’s a reason for this. It’s called laziness. He’s never been challenged because he’s deliberately avoided things that are difficult.

    What about picking NCAA brackets, or do you think he doesn’t work at that?

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2003614-ncaa-brackets-2014-updates-on-president-obama-jay-bilas-and-experts-brackets#articles/2003614-ncaa-brackets-2014-updates-on-president-obama-jay-bilas-and-experts-brackets

    While President Obama’s brackets have tended to be chalk-heavy in the few years he’s been filling them out with ESPN’s Andy Katz, the risks he does take tend to work out. … That said, he does have one up on most of us: All of his Final Four teams are still intact. Leaning chalk normally pays dividends as the tournament goes along, as the glass slippers of Cinderellas get smashed into a door and the giants finally take over

    Not so bad, maybe. It probably wasn’t just luck also, that got him elected president. Dishonesty, yes. But lack of attention to detail? If you think that was not also an intellectual challenge, consider Rick Perry.

    It could be more that it’s a lack of interest in most things, or sense of duty. He doesn’t have curiosity. Or care to get things right.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  67. 69. I think I read somewhere that there’s a dearth of suitable wimmins in and around the South Dakota oil fields.

    Comment by elissa (d3e439) — 5/26/2014 @ 10:48 am

    Suitable. Unsuitable. All in short supply.

    Which is why my advice for certain wimmins (especially those trying to work their way through college by making porn or as an escort) is, “Look hon, skip school, become a stripper, head to the Dakotas, make a fortune, pocket the tuition money.”

    Steve57 (4e729f)

  68. Comment by Gerald A (21bbc2) — 5/26/2014 @ 10:31 am

    Why is Obama bringing up taxes with respect to alleged Republican ideological rigidity? The top tax rate has been restored to the “correct” Clinton era pre-Bush level, except that the income break point was somewhat higher than what Obama wanted. That was in fact a compromise, which Obama claims to be open to. With respect to the tax rates on the “rich”, everything’s now exactly what it should be according to the standard Democrat rhetoric we’ve been hearing ever since Bush cut them a little. So what’s
    Obama complaining about?

    Well, they are satisfied with the rates.

    The Democrats are constantly proposing little tax increases, to “pay for” things that might have some trouble getting through Congress. (really popular, or “necessary” things, like extending unemployment benefits, they try to avoid wasting a revenue increase or spending cut on!)

    By the way, this always goes according to CBO scoring, not reality.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  69. Here is a tax increase or budget gimmick the New York Times didn’t like today:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/26/opinion/mr-schumer-backs-a-bad-old-idea.html?_r=0

    But Mr. Schumer, who has included the private collection provision in a larger tax bill pending before the Senate, says it will raise revenue. To make that claim, he and other senators who back the measure are relying on a government estimate that does not factor in administrative costs. Nevertheless, they intend to use the hypothetical (and unlikely to materialize) new revenue to offset the cost of expanding an expired research-and-development tax credit for businesses.

    Private tax-debt collection would be wrong even if it raised money. Collecting taxes is an inherent government function. Good governance requires that the power to tax be balanced by taxpayer rights — to privacy, high standards of service and relief when needed. It’s hard enough to maintain a taxpayer-centered culture at the I.R.S. It would be infinitely harder at private collection agencies, the most complained-about industry in the financial sector.

    In recent testimony, the commissioner of the I.R.S., John Koskinen, urged Congress to reject private tax-debt collection. The I.R.S. national taxpayer advocate, Nina Olson, whose job is to identify and correct failures in tax administration, sent a long letter to lawmakers on problems with the plan, one of which is that lower-income Americans would be disproportionately targeted. Legal and consumer advocates also have opposed the plan. Private tax-debt collection is terrible policy. The Schumer provision should be struck from the tax bill.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  70. I tried to read through the guy’s lunacy as he explains what’s wrong in DC.

    And it is lunatic. How lunatic? This lunatic:

    Powerline: The IRS lays down the law of Obamacare

    New York Times health care reporter Robert Pear brings the latest new of Obamacare, courtesy of the IRS. Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010, yet four years later this comes as something of a surprise:

    Many employers had thought they could shift health costs to the government by sending their employees to a health insurance exchange with a tax-free contribution of cash to help pay premiums, but the Obama administration has squelched the idea in a new ruling. Such arrangements do not satisfy the health care law, the administration said, and employers may be subject to a tax penalty of $100 a day — or $36,500 a year — for each employee who goes into the individual marketplace.

    …Under a central provision of the health care law, larger employers are required to offer health coverage to full-time workers, or else the employers may be subject to penalties.

    You look at what this Preezy says, such as in the lengthy quote in the post at the top of this thread, and you can only conclude that the man is a psychopath. I used to say sociopath, but I’ve sort of ramped up my estimation of his level of derangement.

    Either he has no grasp on reality, or he thinks he is such a slick liar he can say things that are 180 degrees out from the facts, and we’ll believe him and not our own lying eyes.

    In both cases, the guy is deranged.

    He talks about his insane ideas as if they’re basic common sense, and thinks the only reason conservatives aren’t helping him bring them to fruition is ideology.

    Or racism.

    He’s declared Obamacare a success because his website has advanced from catastrophe to merely a dangerous joke. And Obamacare hasn’t even been implemented yet. When it is, so many grenades like the one above are going to go off people are going to be horrified.

    Obama knows some of this. He clearly doesn’t grasp the enormity of the disaster he’s bragging about. Just like he still doesn’t know how bad his website is. He’s not bright enough to understand.

    Don’t get me wrong. I believe he’s malicious. I have no doubts about his ill intentions. But the more I watch the guy in action the more I’m convinced he also really doesn’t have a clue.

    He’s like the evil fourth stooge.

    Steve57 (4e729f)

  71. I’m amazed at what a dim bulb this guy is. Let’s break it down:

    …so ideologically rigid, who are so committed to an economic theory that says if folks at the top do very well then everybody else is somehow going to do well;

    I have listened to this guy talk about how he thinks economies work. And the best way to describe it is that he doesn’t just think free markets are a bad idea. He can’t even grasp the concept of a free market. He thinks governments are the command and control centers of economies. And he wants to have government “reward” and “punish” certain categories of people. And it would be bad if conservatives were in charge because then we’d use government to command and control the economy to “reward” and “punish” the wrong people.

    He literally can not conceive of a market that rewards wealth creation. You rise to the top by inventing and producing goods and services that enrich people’s lives. They will in turn give you love notes that say, “Thank you for making my life better.” Those love notes are also known as money.

    President “You didn’t build that” has no idea how that could possibly work. He thinks that the government needs to micromanage everything. So the only important decision is who is in charge of the micromanagement. Naturally it’s the decent, common-sense, non-ideological Democrats.

    See my earlier comment about the impending disasters of Obamacare as it’s being implemented by President Mean Girl’s IRS to get a feel for how that’s shaping up.

    …who deny the science of climate change;

    Only a scientific illiterate would talk this way. And as many people have explained only scientific illiterates could fall for the idea that science has anything to do with the hysteria known variously as global warming, anthropogenic global warming, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever disguise it’s wearing at the moment.

    Powerline: Why Global Warming Alarmism Isn’t Science

    Science is not a set of dogmas, and it is not a pronouncement by a committee. It is a method. Richard Feynman, perhaps the world’s most eminent physicist, put it this way:

    …It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.

    As an aside, it occurred to me that to liberals the only things that matter to them are how smart you think you are, who made the guess, the name of the authority who made the guess, and did he go to Ivy League school? If they are suitably credentialed they don’t care if the guess is wrong, and they don’t care how much evidence you have to prove it. Racist!

    You don’t have to be an eminent physicist to know that the dire predictions by the global warming hysterics are simply not possible, even based on their own dubious evidence. They fly in the face of history, observable phenomena, laboratory experiments, basic geometry, math and science in general, everything.

    For instance, the National Climate Assessment that scientific and mathematic illerate King Putt puts so much faith in asserts that we’ll see a 3-5 degree Fahrenheit rise in temps under a low emissions scenario, and as much as 5 to 10 degrees under a high emissions scenario. The NCA then goes on to assert that will result in a sea rise from just over half a foot to as much as 6.6 feet by the end of the century.

    Based upon the NCA’s predicted temperatures, 6.6 feet is impossible. As noted at the link, the last ice age ended abruptly as temperatures rose by 20dgF a century. And the ice melt raised the sea levels by 4 feet a century.

    So at worst we’re going to see temps rise half as much as the temperature rise that ended the last ice age, and the seas will rise more then they did when the ice age ended? Not physically possible.

    There’s a second reason it’s not physically possible. Since the last ice age ended, all the realistic sources of water to raise the sea level are already in the ocean. We don’t have great ice sheets two miles thick covering the land. Because, when ice ages end the ice, umm, melts. And the water goes into the ocean.

    The latest scare is that the West Antarctic ice sheet is melting at the rate of 159 billion metric tons per year. That’s 159000000000 metric tons. Look at all those zeros. Everybody panic!

    Sounds like a lot. Until you compute the entire volume of salt water on earth in metric tons. And you come up with (there are a lot of variables that effect this) about 1377974508000000000 tons at the low end and 1391484062000000000 tons at the high end. Look at all them zeros. 159 billion metric tons per year is a rounding error. It can’t raise the sea levels by any appreciable amount. And it would have to melt at a rate much greater to meet even the mildest of the hysterics predictions of impending doom.

    But of course it can’t, because the average high temperature in Antarctica is -49 dg F. It’s going to take a temperature swing of almost 100 dg to make that happen, and the hysterics are only predicting a 3-10 dg rise. How much more rapidly does ice melt at -39 dg as opposed to -49 dg? Don’t know. And neither do you. Our freezers don’t get that cold. And they still make ice.

    You have to get the kind of freezers they sell to research labs to find out. But I can make a pretty good guess, since my major concern with freezer which won’t even go below 0 is defrosting it. Not that I’ll have catastrophic flooding.

    Then there’s the inconvenient detail that while the Antarctic may be losing ice in some areas, it’s gaining it in others. In fact, as a whole the ice sheet is growing.

    Then there’s the fact that making policy is not a science, so there are no experts to defer to. And there’s the fact that the liberals’ proposed solutions to stop global warming are economic insanity because you can look at the IPCCs own numbers (yes, they include predictions by economists such as Prof. Richard Tol although he refuses to let them use his name since they jumped the shark) and prove that it is 85% more expensive to try and stop global warming then to simply deal with the effects if and when they happen. It’s the equivalent of taking out homeowner’s insurance with an annual premium of $1.5M to cover a $250k house. You’d have to crazy to think it’s a good idea.

    But then we are talking about Barack Obama. As we’ve seen he doesn’t do math, science, or economics. He does do crazy.

    …who don’t think making investments in early childhood education makes sense;

    Because all the evidence says it doesn’t make sense. The children aren’t better off. Some studies show absolutely no improvement in performance between children who receive early childhood education and those who don’t. At best, if we are to be generous, you might be able to construe the results to say there might be a slight benefit when children start elementary school but whatever benefit there may be rapidly wears off as everyone else catches up.

    So it makes no sense if you’re going to talk about it as an investment. There’s no appreciable ROI.

    of course, here we’re talking about something that Obama can grasp. He just doesn’t care because this is about indoctrinating your kids, not educating them. And paying off the unions. So this one is different then the other two since, unlike those, this subject isn’t entirely over his head.

    Steve57 (4e729f)

  72. Just finished re-reading THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH by William Shirer — by the end I was feeling sick because I’m afraid I was comparing the descent into madness by Hitler (while his staff stood silently by) to Barack Obama’s (pace Steve57) psychopathology. Unnerving to say the least … Now I’ll just throw this out — I encountered this particular Psalm (36) when Bill Clinton was perjuring himself “Transgression speaks to the wicked deep in his heart; there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flatters hmself in his own eyes that his iniquity cannot be found out and hated. The words of his mouth are mischief and deceit; he has cesed to act wisely and do good. He plots mischief while on his bed; he sets himself in a way that is not good; he spurns not evil.”

    Karen Ferris (b95fcc)

  73. Oops …”ceased”

    Karen Ferris (d0d2da)

  74. —-Thank you, Sammy for entering the mind of Barack Obama to offer a psychological profile of him and to inform us what he really thinks.

    It resembles an intellectual food desert.

    red (ac28a9)

  75. Good comment, Karen.

    For he flatters hmself in his own eyes that his iniquity cannot be found out and hated.

    This looks to change.

    It also makes this bit of news even more interesting.

    Steve57 (4e729f)

  76. Regarding Obama’s pathologies, I don’t pretend to be an expert on them.

    But I’m convinced he is some sort of psychopath. If I were a Senate or Congressional Republican I’d be hiring psychiatric experts to study him. Clearly Putin has; I’d be surprised if he hadn’t. It is practically de rigueur for governments to prepare dossiers to that have the personal histories and psychological profiles of important political and military leaders from other countries.

    I bet the one the old KGB agent has on Obama is one amazing read. And Putin’s past actions indicate he has let Obama know he’s got Prom Queen’s number.

    That has to be unnerving for Obama. Obama is used to being the manipulator, not being manipulated.

    Which is exactly why Putin would do it; to unnerve him.

    If I were in the GOP I’d do the same thing. For the good of the country. Obama needs to be exposed for what he is. Sort of like Captain Queeg in The Caine Mutiny.

    As far as his staff, they not only won’t do anything but as far as I know they may be just as bad as Obama.

    Keith Koffler at White House Dossier is reporting on behavior that is, well, we’ll let Senator Bob Corker describe it:

    Corker: White House Foreign Policy Meeting “Bizarre”

    I’ve never heard a of a U.S. senator meeting with senior White House officials and then afterward calling the session “bizarre.”

    …“I know we both attended sort of a discussion last night that I found to be one of the most bizarre I’ve attended on Foreign Relations on foreign policy in our country,” Corker said, referring to himself and Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the committee’s chairman.

    …First of all, the President Obama didn’t even drop by. You have the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee in the West Wing for what was, I’m sure, a very rare trip to the White House, and he doesn’t even see the president.

    …According to the AP:

    Another senator who attended the meeting said Obama’s advisers refused to provide lawmakers with answers about whether the president plans to keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan after the war formally concludes later this year or about the Pentagon’s efforts to find nearly 300 kidnapped Nigerian school girls.

    I’m sure they just sat there in disbelief as Rice and McDonough refused to tell them anything, and then started wondering what they were doing there.

    Eventually, senators just started leaving, EVEN BEFORE THE MEETING WAS OVER.

    I’ve never heard of that either…

    As Koffler points out, the WH considers this some sort of outreach that will improve relations with Congress. But instead they are inviting these lawmakers over only to insult them.

    You’d think if it were only President Justin Bieber who was unhinged somebody on his staff would pick up on this. But no one does! Apparently they’re all nasty pieces of work. But then, why not? Obama did choose them.

    It’s no wonder that increasingly Congressional Democrats are calling Obama and his staff uninvolved, flat footed, and incompetent. I mean, let’s face it; there has to be something wrong with you to be Jay Carney. And I’m sure he thinks he’s doing great. I’m sure that’s what the rest of the Obama administration is telling hime. Including TOTUS himself.

    I think it’s no accident that the Democrats have noticed the wheels coming off the bus not just in the wake of the VA scandal, but also in the wake of this amateurish, incompetent, counter-productive, insulting, and incredibly weird attempt at fence mending with congresscritters of both parties. This isn’t reassuring anyone or building bridges. It’s scaring the snot out of people.

    But those in the WH think they’re doing a great job. I’m sure that’s what they keep telling themselves.

    Steve57 (4e729f)

  77. 81. Comment by Steve57 (4e729f) — 5/26/2014 @ 6:17 pm

    Regarding Obama’s pathologies, I don’t pretend to be an expert on them.

    But I’m convinced he is some sort of psychopath

    Not a sociopath even, but a psychopath?

    If I were a Senate or Congressional Republican I’d be hiring psychiatric experts to study him. Clearly Putin has;

    I don’t think psychiatric experts. Putin may have some psychiatrosts on call to lock people up, although that’s mostly gone out of fashion. He does other things.

    He studies Obama, but from other angles.

    Hard to tell what’s going on with Putin – right now he sees to be sort of backing down, so maybe Obama’s finally figured it out. He’s not taking these telephone calls now, any more now, anyway, it seems.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  78. I was thinking maybe the absence of Obama had to do with the secret trip to Afghanistan, but that meeting was Tuesday, May 20. He’s just not that into meeting with members of Congress.

    Regarding Afghanistan, Obama probably knows that they won’t like the answer. Or it may be a simple calculation: he’s hoping to sign a status of forces agreement – his speech in afghanistan seemed to imply maybe some troops would be theer for another deployment – but he’s not dealing with Karzai on this.

    He doesn’t want to ruin the chances of anything, so he’s not saying anything. He hopes to negotiate something with his successor.

    With regard to Nigeria, the big secret is that Obama now is limiting this just to intelligence – the Nigerian government is supposed to do any rescuing – that idea is simply a non-starter.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/world/africa/nigerias-army-holding-up-hunt-for-taken-girls.html

    The problem, many involved in the rescue effort say, is the failings of the Nigerian military….That the hopes of many across the globe rests on such a weak reed as the Nigerian military has left diplomats here in something of a quandary about the way forward. The Nigerian armed forces must be helped, they say, but are those forces so enfeebled that any assistance can only be of limited value? “Now it’s a situation where the emperor has no clothes, and everybody is scratching their heads,” another diplomat here said.

    Obama may not willing to quite have U.S. policy recognize that. Maybe he thinks there’s no need to right now.

    The Nigerian military is too corrupt and incompetent. The lower ranking soldiers have even attacked higher ranking ones because they believe they were/are being sent into death traps.

    You could give them some kind of official lead role, like the Free French undr de Gaulle in France in 1944. but they can’t command any kind of rescue effort.

    Maybe over a period of a year to a year and half you could train a special unit, but they still wouldn’t be as good as any of the countries that have some experience in doing this, and the best are the Israelis, who are the only ones, I think, to have done this without getting any of the hostages killed. And even so, this needs to be rehearsed on a accurate model.

    And what’s the news now?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/world/africa/nigeria-military-claims-to-know-location-of-missing-girls.html?_r=0

    That ois, they know where the video was shot. Probably because the United States told them, because this kind of thing might be figured out from the angle of the sun, cobined maybe with a known geographical feature, and so on like that.

    They probably were not supposed to let Boko Haram know that.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  79. I don’t think the President is a psycho- or sociopath.

    I just think he, and his staff, do not know what they are doing. He’s in over his head and he doesn’t know why. Everyone around him is intent on the next election, not what concerns governance.

    Honest to goodness, it is like people elected me President because I’m a good guy who can make a good speech. I would do no better.

    History is littered with such. He ceased being President last year. Now he’s just a burden to endure.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  80. Well yes, he’s Alinsky’s Sorcerer’s Apprentice, but his reaction to everyday challenges, evince a certain amorality that goes with his far left wing politics,

    narciso (3fec35)

  81. Steve57: Either he has no grasp on reality, or he thinks he is such a slick liar he can say things that are 180 degrees out from the facts, and we’ll believe him and not our own lying eyes.

    Most people reporters, or Republicans in Congress, probably feel they don’t know enough to be able to confidently safely contradict him on the spot, or the first time they hear it, so it’ll fly. It’s also kind of vague.

    It’s not that nobody will know it’s not true, it’s that nobody will feel confident enough to tell somebody else that’s it’s not true when they get the chance.

    People may have doubts, but they have to check it out. Which is problematic. It;s difficult to do, and takes time.

    It’s all details. It won’t get into a newspaper story; it’s won’t be the central feature of a speech by a Republican. So long as there are no soundbites on TV, he’s OK.

    Even the Weekly Standard or National Review or the blogs don’t really go after him for this kind of stuff. Nobody feels he knows enough.

    Maybe the blogosphere, and Rush Limbaugh goes viral over one or two little points and sometimes even they get that wrong. It’s not the right rebuttal; it’s not the right thing to rebut. They focus on “you didn’t build that” and get his meaning wrong.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  82. 76. Comment by Steve57 (4e729f) — 5/26/2014 @ 2:29 pm

    He just doesn’t care because this is about indoctrinating your kids, not educating them. And paying off the unions.

    I think it’s mostly, or only, the latter.

    Indoctrination about things like global warming comes at a later age than 5. The curriculum
    is riddled with it, but it comes in later grades.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  83. He has gotten 70% of everything he wanted, he didn’t get card check, which eliminates the secret ballot in union elections, he doesn’t fully have cap and trade, although the EPA is doing as much as possible, he doesn’t have amnesty yet, all three of these agenda items will set us back even further, and of course the press will still say well give him another chance,

    narciso (3fec35)

  84. So this one is different then the other two since, unlike those, this subject isn’t entirely over his head.

    I think it is also impossible for Obama not to have heard what is wrong with some of his other assertions.

    It’s the people who come up with these other claims, who count on innumeracy. Obama may not be able to figure things out for himself when something is wrong with something he says, but it is impossible it never came to his attention if it is repeated too many times.

    He doesn’t care.

    It’s for partisan purposes.

    It’s a lie.

    It’s a piece of propaganda.

    He lies about the issues.

    He knows there are problems with his claims. He knows he is not getting things from an impartial source. He justifies most things with false heuristics. (shortcuts in thinking that he gives people.)

    Few people know these subjects inside out, so it flies, especially when he is careful where he says it.

    If contradicted, there are some quick defenses.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  85. Pretty much the whole story.

    http://www.theburningplatform.com/2014/05/25/retail-death-rattle-grows-louder/

    The price of beef just jumped 20% overnight. Farmers in my neck of the woods are about to throw in the towel for 2014. God bless.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  86. Gary– I just finished reading the article (and the comments) you linked @ 90. It is an excellent if sobering read and seems to be well documented. Although it doesn’t contain a whole lot in the way of new concepts, the urgency and the way its presented is compelling. It is long. But people should read it.

    elissa (550033)

  87. 90. 91. This is an argument that retail sales, especially per square foot sales, have to go down for long term demographic reasons *, and it tries to relate that to declines in the first quarter of this year, but this argument is undermined by the fact that credit card debt is in fact, still going up, even if it eventually cannot.

    The decline in same store retail sales over last year therefore, is probably because of the cold weather, although it could also be obamacare premiums.

    * aging of the population, fewere people retiring with savings, fewer people working.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  88. Yes, it quite sobering. even as prosperous as Austin (and Texas in general) is, we have huge abandoned building that used to house businesses like Costco, circuit city and a home depot that is surrounded by a chain-link fence on the corner of I35 and St. Johns. Empty now, for several years.

    felipe (098e97)

  89. I have no argument with that, except that his lack of character is not astonishing, and not all that rare, either, in politicians. That’s been obvious with him since 2008. His convention speech in 2004 really, because he knew better.

    Rationalizing, rationalizing, with a heaping handful of moral equivalency to boot.

    Sammy, the very fact you haven’t been able to gauge (or been willing to admit) just how innately leftwing Barry is — which should be apparent to even Helen Keller — and, at the same time, you’ve done just the opposite of that excuse-making by claiming conservative commentator Pat Buchanan loves (in your words) blood and violence, is all I need to know just how poor your skills are in assessing the character and traits of people.

    As for Gary’s link to the article on the “death rattle” in the retail industry — which points to quite an unnerving bit of decline going on in one major facet of the US’s economy — there is the irony of news out of the Disney Co. a few days ago of their jacking up the attendance prices to their theme parks in Southern California. The clincher is that’s a purposeful attempt on their part to discourage attendance growth rates. Apparently the level of crowding has been swamping the capacity of their parks in Orange County. However, what’s most telling about this is that the type of people the current price structure attracts isn’t spending as much once they get through the front gates. Hard to understand that when entrance costs almost (ta-da!) $100.00 per person.

    Nonetheless, bread and circuses, people. Bread and circuses—with America’s own Nero (and if one squints and stretches just a bit, perhaps Caligula too) fiddling while the US burns.

    Mark (99b8fd)

  90. Comment by Mark (99b8fd) — 5/26/2014 @ 10:26 pm

    Sammy, the very fact you haven’t been able to gauge (or been willing to admit) just how innately leftwing Barry is — which should be apparent to even Helen Keller —

    I don’t think Obama is innately extremely left-wing. It’s mostly what is politically advantageous to him, plus it is establishment opinion to him, and the default.

    I think he actually has a tendency to temper it. Even where he is really left wing – on social issues – he never pushes things if he thinks there can be any backlash.

    Also, sometimes what appears to be left-wing is actually doing somethig to benefit a special interest group.

    Helen Keller was very left wing. If she’d have indicated Obama was near perfect, would that have made him left-wing? Why not a fraud?

    and, at the same time, you’ve done just the opposite of that excuse-making by claiming conservative commentator Pat Buchanan loves (in your words) blood and violence,

    There he was again on the McLaughlin report this weekend, abandoning his isolationism and in favor of U.S. action to rescue those girls in Nigeria (mostly because it wuld enhance the (military) reputation of the United States, if I got him right.

    How is that anyway, the “opposite” of what I say about Obama? I say both are not sincere.

    You are the one, too, who attributes sincerity to Obama. I do too, to some degree, in certain places, but it is not that he is left-wing. It shows up mostly when he is not being left-wing.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  91. I don’t think Obama is innately extremely left-wing.

    So you think he’s innately rightwing? Innately centrist?

    At best, you can argue about the degree of his leftist impulses, which based on his history and comments throughout his life indicate he’s fairly damn liberal, if not ultra-liberal. But to say that his orientation in general does not lean left is ridiculous.

    And if Pat Buchanan loves, as you say, “blood and violence,” he presumably should therefore love seeing the US ratcheting up the military machine and aiming it at anyone, anywhere at anytime for any reason.

    Mark (99b8fd)

  92. Re: #90… a dose of reality is a hard way to begin the work week. What a sobering kick in the stones…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  93. Obama masquerades as left-wing, but innately he’s an arrogant and committed totalitarian, a would-be dictator in the traditional mold of Stalin and Mao, he’ll follow from behind in the well trod footsteps of Hugo Chavez and similar tyrants who came before and grinning broadly declare himself President-for-Life after he’s manufactured a plausible pretext to take control and suspend elections – a pretext like an economic collapse would certainly do the trick.

    Notice how top heavy our financial system has become, enormous profits on Wall Street at the very top and food stamps, despair, and chronic unemployment at the base, while the middle is increasingly being squeezed into bankruptcy. It’s only a matter of time before such an inherently unstable structure crumbles under it’s own weight, or until the right amount of pressure is applied to it’s exposed and vulnerable flanks at the appointed time.

    The stage is set, the players are rehearsed and ready, and as soon as the docile and biding audience is seated the lights will go out as the curtain rises to reveal the new Emperor, same as the old Emperor only this time he’s releasing 4 Horsemen upon the childless land.

    ropelight (dfc178)

  94. 91. Thanx for the critique.

    Obamanation is the progeny of Franklin Marshall Davis, his only certain parent, Communist editor of papers in Chicago and Atlanta.

    He is the one common connection between Dog and the Chicago Mob, Jarrett, Axlerod, Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, etc.

    Donald Young, Larry Bland and Nate Spencer, members of the Trinity United Down-Low congregation with ibn Dunham were all three murdered in the space of two weeks to cover the Gay Crack Whore’s soft bottom.

    Any one who thinks Obama is not bent on Amerikkka’s destruction is an idiot, incompetence as POTUS is merely a means to that end.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  95. 92.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/gono/Sequential%20Consumer%20Credit%20October.jpg

    Credit cards are maxed out, indeed, but to pay for gas and groceries.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  96. There can be no denying that both Barack and Michelle are committed socialists of the limousine category.

    When socialism went virtually underground in this country during the 1970s, deeming the word and ideology too unpopular to gain widespread support, socialists and communists worked on longer-term plans to rebrand their activities to gain power without revealing their ultimate goals.

    Organizations with which Obama ultimately became affiliated or individuals attached to such organizations were formed during the 1970s such as the Midwest Academy and the Democratic Socialists of America. Obama attended Socialist Scholars conferences in New York and when he moved to Chicago became involve in community organizing, which socialists had determined was method by which they would restructure the country and rise to power.

    Initially community organizers eschewed electoral politics, but as they grew in power and influence they adopted electoral politics as a vital tool. Just a cursory review of the groups and individuals Obama associated with in Chicago, Uno, Public Allies, ACORN, Gamaliel, Developing Communities, the New Party, and others, are all socialist front groups. Lying is what they do, but there can be no doubt about their underlying ideology.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  97. Obama was affiliated with some people who might call themselves Socialists and with some Socialist organziations, like the “New Party” but all this was just networking, nothing more, and indicated nothing about what he really thought, but just about who could help his political career.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  98. Sammy, there is a preponderance of evidence out there that leads rational people to a conclusion, and that is Barack Obama is a Socialist firmly committed to “social justice” and redistribution of wealth.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  99. “Obama was affiliated with some people who might call themselves Socialists and with some Socialist organziations, like the “New Party” but all this was just networking, nothing more, and indicated nothing about what he really thought, but just about who could help his political career.”

    Sammy – I listed six organizations in #101, five of which Obama was involved with before he began his political career and several of which he continued his involvement with after his political career. I could easily list more such socialist organizations. The senior people involved with those socialist front groups in the 1980s and 1990s continue to be active in Obama’s circle of associates today. It is not coincidence. It is common goals.

    I have not no problem if you have a different opinion formed from no evidence.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  100. 90. …I think it is also impossible for Obama not to have heard what is wrong with some of his other assertions.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90) — 5/26/2014 @ 7:24 pm

    So what if he’s heard what’s wrong with his other assertions? He thinks he’s smarter than his critics.

    I’ve heard numerous people comment over the years that you can’t tell Barack Obama anything. People Barack Obama ought to be listening to. People you’d think Barack Obama would be willing to listen to since they’re meeting with Obama at Obama’s invitation. But they say it’s like talking to a wall.

    For instance I don’t recall the name of the CEO, or his company, but he recalled a WH meeting with Obama and other business leaders in which he tried to warn him that Obamacare as written would force companies to declare huge losses to their shareholders.

    Obama accused him of lying. That’s how Obama talks to his supporters.

    Sure enough Obamacare passed and companies such as Caterpillar and AT&T declared billion dollar losses. Because the SEC requires these companies to declare these losses to shareholders in the quarter that they learn of them.

    As in so many things, Obama thought he understood the situation better than anyone else. He didn’t even have a grade school understanding of it. But he never learns from it. He can always find some way to blame someone or something for obstructing or sabotaging his flawless plans.

    But that’s what I mean by saying he really has no clue. Because he thinks he sounds sooper brilliant when he blames everything from the economy to healthcare.gov on gridlock in Congress, Republican governors, Japanese tsunamis, instability in the ME, heavy snowstorms, tropical storm Sandy, ATMs, speculators, economic “headwinds,” blah, blah, blah. But if your plans can only work if the stars line up exactly right and if there is no political opposition, then they aren’t very good because they can’t work in the real world. Any competent human being would be embarrassed to say what he says. Obama is too clueless to be aware of this.

    Steve57 (3cdbc3)

  101. Barack Obama has been marinating in socialism since early childhood. To Obama socialism is the “common sense” default position. To deny Obama is a committed socialist, a collectivist, and a Cook County corruptocrat is to deny reality.

    Steve57 (3cdbc3)

  102. Just throwing this out there for accuracy, Steve57:

    Among all the other stuff he doesn’t know, you should never assume that President Obama knows much about Cook County political workings either. He was always kind of an outsider, kind of an observer, kind of an around the edges type guy there, too. He was never one of the guys who are movers and shakers and deal makers. He was never anybody’s “go to” person to, ahem, get things done in Cook County. He never had much clout in Chicago (which is its political currency even more than money) and frankly he still doesn’t. If he were an insider I guarantee you he’d never have called it Kominsky Field. Axelrod’s the one who gave him Chicago flair and Chicago cred. And as you recall, Axe was clever enough to leave the WH quite a while ago.

    elissa (550033)

  103. Sammy,

    I’ve never known anyone who claims to “know” precisely what motivates people as much as you do. Only God knows what is inside someone’s heart. As humans, we can only judge people by their actions and expressed beliefs.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  104. Noted, elissa. It was always my impression, though, that his political benefactors were grooming him more for local politics. Which is why as daley notes he maintained his connections to socialist front organizations even after he launched his career in Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn’s living room.

    Those connections would have been a positive or at worst neutral thing in Chicago politics, I’m told (as they would be in many other cities, unfortunately). Then when his handlers realized they might be able to prop him up for bigger things, his old identity went into the witness protection program and they invented a new one.

    But I will concede that Obama wouldn’t know much about Cook County political workings, and I’d concede that even if he had been an insider, based upon his performance as Preezy.

    I’ll bet he’s convinced he’s a “playa” in Chicago politics, though.

    Steve57 (3cdbc3)

  105. ‘removing all doubt(h/t Taranto)

    “Barack Obama is a historic figure and his election as president was hailed worldwide as a famous victory. But what awaited him was the worst set of national conditions since Herbert Hoover took the oath on the eve of the Great Depression some 80 years ago. Obama, as we all knew even as he took office in 2009, was inheriting the Great Recession. What we didn’t know was that he was about to inherit something even more unmanageable: a set of global problems demanding leadership that a weary America was no longer eager or easily able to provide, and a changing world no longer willing to accept U.S. leadership without question.”–John Farmer, Star-Ledger (Newark, N.J.), May 25

    narciso (3fec35)

  106. oh narciso! The poor baby.

    elissa (550033)

  107. ES, sometimes we can also learn about people not so much by expressed beliefs but by what they attempt to conceal. Often people have a “good reason” for doing something which they’ll openly profess. And a “real reason” which they intend to keep to themselves.

    But usually they’ll provide clues, like a poker player with a tell.

    Barack Obama used to speak openly about true objectives such as “redistributive justice,” for instance. He’s got a track record from the mid-90s into the early 2000s, before someone told him to shut up about it if he wanted to get elected to a statewide or national office.

    He doesn’t now. But even if he won’t reveal his true objectives he just can’t stop talking like a socialist.

    “The debate is over” — a core progressive tenet

    Hegel maintained that history unfolds through a “dialectical” process, in which each stage is the product of the contradictions inherent in the ideas that defined the preceding one. Within these tensions and contradictions, Hegel believed, the philosopher can discern a comprehensive, evolving, rational unity. He called that unity “the absolute idea.”

    History consists of an inevitable and progressive march to that idea. The modern State is the final fruit of that progressive march.

    …The Hegelian spirit of the modern American left — manifest in pronouncements about the Living Constitution and the end of debate — is everywhere to be found. Notice, for example, how quickly Team Obama declares that those who do or say things it doesn’t like are “on the wrong side of history” or relying on 19th century methods.

    That this seems to be just about the strongest condemnation Team Obama can muster (e.g., against Putin) seems laughable to conservatives. But for Hegelians the charge is pure damnation.

    Hegel’s historicism is, at root, authoritarian, if not totalitarian. When you are on the wrong side of history you aren’t just mistaken, you’re the enemy of “the rational unity” — “the absolute idea…”

    I’m sure Barack Obama isn’t aware of how he talks. He may not even be aware of the intellectual roots of the ideas he conveys. It’s just the “way people talk,” and is as unnoticeable to him as water it to a fish. He may not want to openly express his true beliefs, such as how he had to pretend he was against gay marriage for a few years so he could move onto higher office before reverting back to his real position, but how he talks about everything is very revealing and has a very specific ideological pedigree.

    Steve57 (3cdbc3)

  108. 109. Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 5/27/2014 @ 3:32 pm

    I’ve never known anyone who claims to “know” precisely what motivates people as much as you do.

    Only where there are signs.

    We have brains. We should use them.

    Only God knows what is inside someone’s heart. As humans, we can only judge people by their actions and expressed beliefs.

    That’s what I’m doing!! I’m judging people’s motives 1) by their actions and 2) their expressed beliefs. Except I’m also applying logic to it.

    You have to ask yourself: Could that be true?

    You have to ask yourself: What is the most logical, and most probable, motive that this person has?

    Does the hypothesis that this person believes this, fit the totality of the evidence?

    What would make the most sense?

    What doesn’t make sense is to propose, like Steve57 @106 that Obama “thinks he’s smarter than his critics.” Obama cannot possibly think so. You need a better hypothesis than that.

    He may think his adviisers are smarter than his critics, but that’s only with some things. He may sometimes think some people are not being honest with him. But I don’t think he can think he’s smarter than his critics. Sometimes he’s just pushing things.

    If I get enough examples, I think I can pin it down what’s going on. And it may be several different things. I don’t buy that Obama thinks he’s that smart.

    That Obama doesn’t knows much about Cook County political workings – that makes a lot of sense. And elissa @108 gives evidence for it. Is she reading his mind? No, it’s based on “if that were true, other things would be true, and they are not true.”

    If P then Q
    Not Q
    Therefore not P.

    Very powerful logic.

    Of course it goes wrong if one of the assumptions is wrong, and.or if there is something significant you are ignorant of.

    But sometimes the same thing can be “proven” by several separate chains of logic.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  109. Elephant Stone @ 109:

    As humans, we can only judge people by their actions and expressed beliefs.

    Those are the raw materials.

    BTW: It is extremely dangerous to take someone’s expressed beliefs at face value.

    If we are obliged to take peoples’ expressed beliefs at face value, then the attack in Benghazi really was motivated by a video – because that’s what the attackers said!!

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  110. Yeah, this will end well:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-27/here-mystery-and-completely-indiscriminate-buyer-stocks-first-quarter

    Who cares about tomorrow? Let’s just make to the lunch hour.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  111. You have to ask yourself: What is the most logical, and most probable, motive that this person has?

    Does the hypothesis that this person believes this, fit the totality of the evidence?

    What would make the most sense?

    Sammy – Over the course of 20 years did Barack Obama surround himself with socialists, serve on the Board of socialist front organizations, push the causes of socialist front organizations, train organizers for socialist front organizations, parrot the dogma of socialist front organizations, and accept the support of socialist front organizations because he is a centrist democrat with the most liberal voting record in the Senate or because he is a closeted socialist?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  112. I made the mistake of reading Elliot Rodger’s “Manifesto”. Afterwards, it dawned on me that it was eerily familiar, but couldn’t quite place it. Then, an epiphany….President Obama.

    No track record of accomplishment; no taking responsibility; always something getting in the way of his “rightful” destiny

    Angelo (0cb7bb)

  113. 102, 106, 108. Good comments all.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  114. 117. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/27/2014 @ 7:00 pm

    Over the course of 20 years did Barack Obama surround himself with socialists, serve on the Board of socialist front organization…because he is a centrist democrat with the most liberal voting record in the Senate or because he is a closeted socialist

    Neither. It was because left wing groups are very good at organization = campaigning, getting petitions signed to get on the ballot and getting out the vote.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  115. “Neither. It was because left wing groups are very good at organization = campaigning, getting petitions signed to get on the ballot and getting out the vote.”

    Sammy – A good guess, but it really doesn’t explain why his campaign went to such great lengths to scrub his background of so many of his associations or why if you understood what some of the organizations I mentioned were about, your comment makes no sense. Like you said, we have brains and should use them to look at what makes the most sense.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  116. Sammy, that comment of yours @120 is pure baloney because it does not even remotely address daley’s question and observations about Barack Obama’s associations.

    elissa (550033)

  117. elissa – Pretzel logic is what makes the most sense in Sammy World.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  118. Sammy, do you think you’re smarter than, or have superior brain power and capabilities than everybody else? It often comes across that way. Maybe you should just lay your cards on the table.

    elissa (550033)

  119. Sammy puts in the time, I tell you what.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  120. you know who’s super-smart is MayBee plus she made the blog comment of the day according to Mr. Instapundit

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/189374/

    not bad work for a post-holiday Tuesday in late spring

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  121. I heart MayBee.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  122. MayBee does not come around here much (or ever) anymore. I miss her. And Dana makes pretty and thoughtful guest posts but doesn’t join us here in the comment sections much anymore, either. I miss her, too.

    elissa (550033)

  123. elissa,

    It’s so kind of you to mention me. Thanks for that. I miss the comments section, too. Between work and writing posts, I’m pooped. By the time I actually have time to consider responding to a comment and think it through, the thread is dead or dying out… Day late, dollar short. And frankly, I often don’t have anything substantive to add to the conversation. However, the comments here always give me a lot to think about.

    Dana (9f8700)

  124. 122. Comment by elissa (550033) — 5/27/2014 @ 7:58 pm

    Sammy, that comment of yours @120 is pure baloney because it does not even remotely address daley’s question and observations about Barack Obama’s associations.

    He asked was it because he is a centrist democrat with the most liberal voting record in the Senate or because he is a closeted socialist? I said it was neither.

    His associations with them didn’t have anything to do with intellectually, honestly, agreeing with them.

    Although, because of his associations, he may not have realized how far outside the mainstream some of what they were saying was.

    It was always apparent to people closely familiar with him that he never truly agreed with people he associated with. That’s why he was elected editor (or president) of the Harvard Law Review in 1990.

    On the upteenth ballot. With Barack Obama as the nominee, the anti-radicals were able to siphon off a few votes. And they sized him correctly. He did not destroy the Harvard Law Review.

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Hussein_Obama

    In the winter of 1988 Barack Obama decided to attend Harvard Law School, and left Chicago for Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his 2nd year a power struggle broke out among the dominant white liberals over control of the Harvard Law Review. Obama was elected its first black president as a compromise candidate largely with help of conservatives following a “marathon voting session” in which he finally won on the 19th ballot.[30]

    Footnote 30 is:

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/03/obama200803

    It quotes a Nancy McCullough as saying he was

    “someone who wanted the group decisions to reflect the group’s intent, not Barack’s intent. One of the reasons people were comfortable putting him in the presidency was because he was going to listen closely enough that, whatever decisions had been made, people would know that he had [listened]. He was masterful in how he facilitated people’s talking.

    “I actually would have been happier for him to say sometimes, ‘This is how we’re doing this, and shut up!’ ”

    So there, it looks like, he was playing things very safe.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  125. “It was always apparent to people closely familiar with him that he never truly agreed with people he associated with.”

    Sammy – The people most closely familiar with Barack are the socialists he associated with for years and years.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  126. “Neither. It was because left wing groups are very good at organization = campaigning, getting petitions signed to get on the ballot and getting out the vote.”

    121. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/27/2014 @ 7:55 pm

    Sammy – A good guess, but it really doesn’t explain why his campaign went to such great lengths to scrub his background of so many of his associations

    Because he knew it wouldn’t play very well in Peoria, or even in Philadelphia.

    Or even in an Illinois Senate race.

    He didn’t just scrub his own background. He scrubbed the backkground of the people he asssociated with.

    or why if you understood what some of the organizations I mentioned were about, your comment makes no sense. Like you said, we have brains and should use them to look at what makes the most sense.

    Maybe not al of them would help him get out the vote, but they’d help in some way. Bill Ayres was helping him raise money!

    What doesn’t fit?

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  127. 130. …Footnote 30 is:

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/03/obama200803

    It quotes a Nancy McCullough as saying he was

    “someone who wanted the group decisions to reflect the group’s intent, not Barack’s intent. One of the reasons people were comfortable putting him in the presidency was because he was going to listen closely enough that, whatever decisions had been made, people would know that he had [listened]. He was masterful in how he facilitated people’s talking.

    “I actually would have been happier for him to say sometimes, ‘This is how we’re doing this, and shut up!’ ”

    So there, it looks like, he was playing things very safe.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90) — 5/27/2014 @ 8:54 pm

    Except for the fact that he doesn’t listen. He accuses people that belongs to “groups” such as business leaders or the military of lying when they disagree with him. Or similar bad faith.

    See my comment #106.

    The only people who think Obama listens to all points of view are the people who come from the point of view on the subject at hand that Barack Obama already agrees with.

    So the people who are members of Obama’s mutual masturbation society think he’s a great listener.

    Those who aren’t members, can sit down, shut up, and ride in the back of the car. Because “I won.”

    Give it up, Sammy. The notion that Prom Queen is some sort of deep delibarator depends on whether or not you’re a Harvard professor who’s in President “I don’t know all the facts” but “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” Kardashian’s inner circle, or a Cambridge police officer who isn’t.

    I’m sure that this is one reason Obama picked John Kerry to be his SecState. If he lives up to the pattern he established in his “Winter Soldier” days, Kerry will drone on about listening to “both sides” in the Arab-Israeli conflict. But by “both sides” he’ll mean Al Fatah and Hamas.

    This is Barack Obama’s kind of guy, where “both sides” means you either already want everything he wants or are willing to back down and give him everything he wants. There are no other sides. He’s got a track record.

    Steve57 (3cdbc3)

  128. rhetorical question
    A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point. The question, a rhetorical device, is posed not to elicit a specific answer, but rather to encourage the listener (or reader) to consider a message or viewpoint.

    Sammy, reread daley’s comment #117 as a rhetorical question. Then perhaps you will understand why your “answers” are so exasperating. Daley was not asking you to explain, or to provide information that he did not himself know. Rather, he was asking you to use that “rhetorical question” to examine and clarify your own thinking.

    elissa (550033)

  129. 134. Comment by elissa (550033) — 5/27/2014 @ 9:48 pm

    A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point. The question, a rhetorical device, is posed not to elicit a specific answer,

    No, I think it was asked to elicit a specific answer – that Barack Obama is a closeted socialist
    - because the first proposed answer – that he is a centrist democrat – is absurd – and to hammer in the point that it is absurd he adds that he had the most liberal voting record in the Senate.
    (more than Russ Feingold, or Bernie sanders, who served together with him in 2007-2008?)

    But I say not just the intended one, but both of the explanations are wrong.

    His associations are not there because of genuine conviction.

    If he’s a closeted anything, he’s a closeted centrist, because of what he didn’t do, or the distinctions he makes. He came up with a kind of like special reason to oppose the Iraq war.

    I also think he lacks intellectual curiosity, so may not realize how off the mainstream (or how wrong) some ideas are.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  130. Comment by Steve57 (3cdbc3) — 5/27/2014 @ 9:45 pm

    Except for the fact that he doesn’t listen. He accuses people that belongs to “groups” such as business leaders or the military of lying when they disagree with him. Or similar bad faith.

    He didn’t need to listen to them.

    I said, there, at the Harvard LAw Review, he ws playing things very safe. When a person does that, he listens.

    So the people who are members of Obama’s mutual masturbation society think he’s a great listener.

    He might have been more careful at the Harvard Law Review.

    Give it up, Sammy. The notion that Prom Queen is some sort of deep delibarator depends on whether or not you’re a Harvard professor who’s in President “I don’t know all the facts” </i.

    This was political. And careful. Note also he did not commit himself in the George Zimmerman case, saying only that if he had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin. (what about a son-in-law? I guess there might be some pushback then in his family.)

    In the Middle East, tthe problem is that one side isn't being honest, and isn't in charge of their side.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  131. “What doesn’t fit?”

    Sammy – Educate yourself a little more about Obama’s background and then we can have a discussion. It’s not worth my time talking to somebody with no knowledge of the subject matter who pretends they have knowledge.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  132. His professors at Harvard law, where Derrick Bell, the founder of Critical race studies, De Unger,
    critical legal studies (another marxist analysis)
    Tribe, who is unspecified idiot, and Ogletree,
    another left winger,

    narciso (3fec35)

  133. If it looks like a duck, flies in formation with ducks, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it is obviously a giraffe.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  134. If it looks like a duck, flies in formation with ducks, but doesn’t act like a duck, AND WAS CORRECTLY PREDICTED in 1989, by some astute conservatives, NOT TO ACT LIKE A DUCK…it’s not a duck.

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  135. ==I also think he lacks intellectual curiosity, so may not realize how off the mainstream (or how wrong) some ideas are.==

    Obviously, Sammy sees and can admit that the man holding the rather important office of the President of the United States, (who is also generally considered the leader of the free world) “lacks intellectual curiosity”. For me, this makes it all the more creepy how tolerant and forgiving Sammy often seems to be of his, and his administration’s bad ideas, execution messes, policy failures, and miscalculations. But then, when this presidency is really always and only about control and amassing power, intellectual curiosity could be a bit of a burden I suppose.

    elissa (550033)

  136. Sammy @140 – What are you talking about, the Mayan calendar?

    The duck I’m talking about is acting like a duck as described in the evolution of socialist thought in America through the 1970s and 1980s. That is completely supportable with public information not azzpulls.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  137. Sammy @140 – Don’t keep us in suspense. What did these astute conservative correctly predict in 1989?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  138. Daleyrocks @143.

    Sammy @140 – Don’t keep us in suspense. What did these astute conservative correctly predict in 1989?

    Sorry. Actually it was 1990. I “corrected” it yesterday from 1990 when I read it was in his second year in law school..

    Q. What did these astute conservative correctly predict in 1989 1990?

    A. That Barack Obama would not be a radical like all the other radicals and would not destroy and/or politicize the Harvard Law Review.

    He was chosen on the 19th ballot.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html

    First Black Elected to Head Harvard’s Law Review

    By FOX BUTTERFIELD, Special to The New York Times
    Published: February 6, 1990

    Correction Appended

    BOSTON, Feb. 5…..

    Mr. Obama was elected after a meeting of the review’s 80 editors that convened Sunday [Feb. 4] and lasted until early this morning, a participant said….

    An all-night session.

    There are some more links I put @130. I found them yesterday.

    Until yesterday, I didn’t know what number ballot it was at which Barack Obama was elected president of the Harvard LAw Review

    These days we don’t have multiple ballots at national politial conventions, so you don’t get these moments in current day political careers.

    But there was one hotly contested fight in Barack Obama’s political career that went to multiple ballots.

    It would make a great story, if anybody would tell it. But Obama kept the whole thing very quiet.

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  139. Originally, there were no elections for this post. The 1990 New York Times article says:

    “Until the 1970′s the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank.”

    But then it was replaced by a system in which half the editors were chosen for their grades, and half by a special writing competition (and the editor in chief or president apparently was elected at a special meeting.)

    By 1990, Harvard Law School had dropped student ranking altogether.

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  140. Well daley, you asked!

    elissa (550033)

  141. Sammy – Thanks. Obviously those people were closely familiar with Obama and conservative.

    Check out this piece by Stanley Kurtz who has studied Obama:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/386abhgm.asp#

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  142. elissa – At least I have not resorted to bold all caps to splain myself more better!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  143. 147. That tells you what Obama thought would e politically advantegous to himself, and most of it is economic rent seeking.

    How come he stopped doing that when he came into more important offices if that was his true belief.

    And you notice something else?

    He considers it pro-black, and pro-poor I guess, for casinos to be located in their neighborhoods.

    Whose side was he really on?

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  144. “How come he stopped doing that when he came into more important offices if that was his true belief.”

    Sammy – What has he stopped doing since attaining national office? His agenda is largely a repeat of his state agenda. You really need to think a little before commenting.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  145. “Obama was affiliated with some people who might call themselves Socialists and with some Socialist organizations, like the “New Party” but all this was just networking, nothing more, and indicated nothing about what he really thought, but just about who could help his political career.”

    Sammy – From your #103 above is just facile pablum which one could say about virtually any politician. The problem with your analysis is you don’t look for consistency over time in how he has acted, what he has written, associations he has tried to hide and why. All of those things point to my conclusion, not some wishy washy, he left wing on some things not as left on others speculation. If you have an actual argument to make, please proceed and show your work.

    Citing Harvard Law Review elections by people who knew him only briefly if at all as a precursor of future is a risible attempt at explaining behavior.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  146. Daleyrocks @ 150 Sammy – What has he stopped doing since attaining national office? His agenda is largely a repeat of his state agenda. You really need to think a little before commenting.

    All those things you cite – they are not from the time he was President. You cite things from his state career to prove how radical he always is.

    If it is always, you should be able to cite things from when he became president.

    Now what you will see since he became president, is doing some things and not other things, and mostof the things he does are quoite minimal.

    Now, why are all the thing , or most of them, on the left?

    A politician cannot just easily switch sides, goes from pro abortion to pro life.

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  147. “If it is always, you should be able to cite things from when he became president.”

    Sammy – Use my words, not yours. I said largely, always is your word. Please explain what portions of his prior agenda he stopped promoting after he became president.

    Your comments explain nothing of his views.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5303 secs.