Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 16, 2014, 10:33:37 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82464 Posts in 2249 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] Print
Author Topic: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness  (Read 173519 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5936


« Reply #1550 on: July 28, 2014, 08:33:11 AM »

Yes Obama accomplished those things and ccp has been right all along about him wanting to make as many as possible dependent on the government for cynical political purposes and flood the country with millions of new Democrats to ensure the future.  Must also point out though that he lost the House, will lose the Senate, is losing the media, lost public support, lost world peace, and is proving to history that liberalism is a failed economic idea.

He is a very strong failure.

Where is that reset button?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4066


« Reply #1551 on: July 28, 2014, 06:47:03 PM »

"Must also point out though that he lost the House, will lose the Senate"

I dunno about the last part.  Just today Dick Morris on his radio show said the Republicans are not a lock on winning the Senate.  They need six.  Four states the Senate seats appear they will shift from Dem to Rep, but two more are tossups and two are looking like they are going to stay Democrat including Landrieu AGIAN!

"losing the media, lost public support"

Doug, I don't see him losing media at all.  As for public support I don't see that either.  Push comes to shove people will vote their wallets and he is buying off plenty of "folks".  You know the little boring people he is so fond of referring to.  tongue
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5936


« Reply #1552 on: July 28, 2014, 09:22:55 PM »

"Doug, I don't see him losing media at all.  As for public support I don't see that either."

The media is still liberal, but he has let them down with his undeniable failures.  I should have said that he has lost a step with them, not lost them.  They would still vote for him.  

(http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx)
He is upside down in Gallup daily job approval by 11 points, 41% qpproval, 52% disapproval.  At his Hyde Park speech height his approval was roughly 70% compared to 20% disapproval, a 50% spread and a 61% swing, just by us getting to know him and seeing the results of his policies.

As an aside, Hillary was and is a clone of the guy (without the charisma) who was up by 50 points and is now down by 11 points with ties to him that run all the way from Hillarycare to Libya to the Russian reset button.  Who would like to be the Obama clone to run next??  

People hate Obamacare, the world is going to hell, and the economy is in decline.  Median household is down something like 35% since liberalism won over America.  Biased headlines and spin don't make that go away.

Conservatism needs to capture the disillusioned people who dabbled with liberalism and lost.   African-American voters would be a good place to start - how are liberal policies working out for you?  Who will give gays more liberty and rights, the people who brought you gay marriage or the people that would give you all your liberties including property rights and keeping the fruits of your labor?  Young voters, how is that Obama thing and all the liberalism they taught you in school working out for you?  Have you ever heard about rebelling against institutional authority?  My parents had a great basement but at some point its better out there on your own.  
« Last Edit: July 28, 2014, 09:25:26 PM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #1553 on: July 31, 2014, 03:35:48 AM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/07/30/humanitarian-interventionists-silent-on-isiss-medieval-brutality/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4066


« Reply #1554 on: July 31, 2014, 08:35:37 AM »

Why would anybody trust the US again?  We abandoned Iraqis who helped us just like we abandoned the Kurds and just like we abandoned S. Vietnamese who helped us.


Shimon Peres on CNN saying he trusts Obama and Kerry?  Oh common!   Give me a break. 

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5936


« Reply #1555 on: July 31, 2014, 10:54:31 AM »

Why would anybody trust the US again?  We abandoned Iraqis who helped us just like we abandoned the Kurds and just like we abandoned S. Vietnamese who helped us.
Shimon Peres on CNN saying he trusts Obama and Kerry?  Oh common!   Give me a break. 

Add to that Polish Foreign Minister saying alliance with US is worse than no alliance because of any false sense of security [that comes from our leader's lips moving].


The answer: Make promises carefully and keep them.  Then repeat for a half century or so until people begin to believe us.  Same goes for enforcing our borders, embracing free trade and free markets, backing up the dollar, etc.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #1556 on: August 01, 2014, 04:34:09 PM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eliot-cohen-obama-does-not-accept-war-for-what-it-is/2014/07/31/8f27346e-1830-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5936


« Reply #1557 on: August 12, 2014, 10:43:35 AM »

"Doug, I don't see him losing the media at all. "  - ccp recently

I owe you an example or two of that.  Here is Dana Milbank, a leftist caricature of a MSM columnist from my point of view, writing almost identical words to what we have saying here for years.

My post, this thread, June 19, 2014: "Keeping up with our leader while the world is engulfed in flames:  Middle East burns while Barack Obama played his 175th and 176th (18 hole) rounds of golf as president."

Dana Milbank, Washington Post, August 12, 2014:  "Obama vacations as the world burns"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-obama-vacations-as-the-world-burns/2014/08/11/58755e5e-21a5-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html
"Obama responded [to Hillary Clinton's criticisms] with not one but two rounds of golf. As the criticism became public, Obama was doggedly sticking with his plans to go on vacation — a decision that, if not in the category of stupid stuff, could fit under the heading of “tone deafness.” ...  after returning from the beach, ... He freshened up at his 8,100-square-foot vacation home...  Criticism from Clinton. War with the Islamic State. Trouble with Maliki. It’s enough to make a man hook his drive into the sand trap."


"President Barack Obama follows through on a swing while golfing at Farm Neck Golf Club as golfing partner former NFL player Ahmad Rashad, right, sits in a cart."

I played tennis with Rashad at his home during his last year with the Vikings.  Ahmad is such an amazingly nice guy in private and off-camera that Pres. Obama could very easily believe that he likes him.

Apparently Michelle is happy to have him out of the house.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4066


« Reply #1558 on: August 12, 2014, 07:21:02 PM »

Doug,

Perhaps this is also an example of what Rush was speaking about today that the MSM is starting to drop blanket support of their chosen one now that they can start supporting the next chosen one -> Hillary.

Forget about the world burning.  What about what he did to us here at home.

Again I don't see him as tone deaf.  He has accomplished much of what he wanted.  Redistribute wealth, mess up our health care, close to granting amnesty to 20 million illegals (Marc Levin points out that the official number has been 11 million now for 15 years when we all can easily see them all around us. And what about their kids - people it is far more than 11 mill), destroyed the coal industry, kept down the oil and gas as best he could, rewarded all those who bribed him, punished all the rest of us, did what he could to hurt Jews in Israel, promote Muslims even the Jihadists, increase racial divide not decrease it.   His heart goes out to the black shot in Missouri.  What about the business owners whose stores were trashed.   I suppose his son could have looked like the kid who died but not those who looted the stores.  Not a "f" peep about that. 

This is what he was and is about from day one.  Didn't we all see this coming?  No surprise.  He did what he planned to do all along.   He doesn't care about America.  Never did.  So time to play golf.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5936


« Reply #1559 on: August 15, 2014, 08:35:30 AM »

President Obama walked into a local bank in Martha's Vineyard to cash a check. He was surrounded by Secret Service agents. As he approached the cashier he said, "Good morning Ma’am, could you please cash this check for me?”

Cashier:
“It would be my pleasure sir. Could you please show me your ID?”

Obama:
“Truthfully, I did not bring my ID with me as I didn’t think there was any need to. I am President Barack Obama, the President of the United States of AMERICA!”

Cashier:
“Yes sir, I know who you are, but with all the regulations and monitoring of the banks because of 9/11, impostors, forgers, money laundering, and bad mortgage underwriting not to mention requirements of the Dodd/Frank legislation, etc., I must insist on seeing ID.”

Obama:
“Just ask anyone here at the bank who I am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I am.”

Cashier:
“I am sorry Mr. President but these are the bank rules and I must follow them.”

Obama:
“I am urging you, please, to cash this check.”

Cashier:
“Look Mr. President, here is an example of what we can do. One day, Tiger Woods came into one of our bank branches without ID. To prove he was Tiger Woods he pulled out his putter and made a beautiful shot across the bank into a coffee cup. With that shot we knew him to be Tiger Woods and cashed his check.”
“Another time, Andre Agassi came into the same place without ID. He pulled out his tennis racquet and made a fabulous shot where as the tennis ball landed in a coffee cup. With that shot we cashed his check.
So, Mr. President, what can you do to prove that it is you, and only you, as the President of the United States?”

Obama:
Obama stands there thinking, and thinking, and finally says, “Honestly, my mind is a total blank…there is nothing that comes to my mind. I can’t think of a single thing. I have absolutely no idea what to do and I don’t have a clue.”

Cashier:
“Will that be large or small bills, Mr. President?
« Last Edit: August 15, 2014, 08:37:25 AM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #1560 on: August 20, 2014, 09:59:40 AM »

Alone Again, Naturally
Maureen Dowd
AUG. 19, 2014


WASHINGTON — Affectations can be dangerous, as Gertrude Stein said.

When Barack Obama first ran for president, he theatrically cast himself as the man alone on the stage. From his address in Berlin to his acceptance speech in Chicago, he eschewed ornaments and other politicians, conveying the sense that he was above the grubby political scene, unearthly and apart.

He began “Dreams From My Father” with a description of his time living on the Upper East Side while he was a student at Columbia, savoring his lone-wolf existence. He was, he wrote, “prone to see other people as unnecessary distractions.” When neighbors began to “cross the border into familiarity, I would soon find reason to excuse myself. I had grown too comfortable in my solitude, the safest place I knew.”

His only “kindred spirit” was a silent old man who lived alone in the apartment next door. Obama carried groceries for him but never asked his name. When the old man died, Obama briefly regretted not knowing his name, then swiftly regretted his regret.

But what started as an affectation has turned into an affliction.

A front-page article in The Times by Carl Hulse, Jeremy Peters and Michael Shear chronicled how the president’s disdain for politics has alienated many of his most stalwart Democratic supporters on Capitol Hill.

His bored-bird-in-a-gilded-cage attitude, the article said, “has left him with few loyalists to effectively manage the issues erupting abroad and at home and could imperil his efforts to leave a legacy in his final stretch in office.”

Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, an early Obama backer, noted that “for him, eating his spinach is schmoozing with elected officials.”

First the president couldn’t work with Republicans because they were too obdurate. Then he tried to chase down reporters with subpoenas. Now he finds members of his own party an unnecessary distraction.

His circle keeps getting more inner. He golfs with aides and jocks, and he spent his one evening back in Washington from Martha’s Vineyard at a nearly five-hour dinner at the home of a nutritional adviser and former White House assistant chef, Sam Kass.

The president who was elected because he was a hot commodity is now a wet blanket.

The extraordinary candidate turns out to be the most ordinary of men, frittering away precious time on the links. Unlike L.B.J., who devoured problems as though he were being chased by demons, Obama’s main galvanizing impulse was to get himself elected.

Almost everything else — from an all-out push on gun control after the Newtown massacre to going to see firsthand the Hispanic children thronging at the border to using his special status to defuse racial tensions in Ferguson — just seems like too much trouble.

The 2004 speech that vaulted Obama into the White House soon after he breezed into town turned out to be wrong. He misdescribed the country he wanted to lead. There is a liberal America and a conservative America. And the red-blue divide has only gotten worse in the last six years.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story

The man whose singular qualification was as a uniter turns out to be singularly unequipped to operate in a polarized environment.

His boosters argue that we spurned his gift of healing, so healing is the one thing that must not be expected of him. We ingrates won’t let him be the redeemer he could have been.
Continue reading the main story
Recent Comments
Liberty Apples
6 minutes ago

Am I missing something? Is there a lost paragraph? Not a word about Hillary.
Charlie Ratigan
6 minutes ago

And so, the alchemist, Valerie Jarrett, sees the gold she created return to lead.
mancuroc
9 minutes ago

Slow day/month/year, Maureen?

    See All Comments
    Write a comment

As Ezra Klein wrote in Vox: “If Obama’s speeches aren’t as dramatic as they used to be, this is why: the White House believes a presidential speech on a politically charged topic is as likely to make things worse as to make things better.”

He concluded: “There probably won’t be another Race Speech because the White House doesn’t believe there can be another Race Speech. For Obama, the cost of becoming president was sacrificing the unique gift that made him president.”

So The One who got elected as the most exciting politician in American history is The One from whom we must never again expect excitement?

Do White House officials fear that Fox News could somehow get worse to them?

Sure, the president has enemies. Sure, there are racists out there. Sure, he’s going to get criticized for politicizing something. But as F.D.R. said of his moneyed foes, “I welcome their hatred.”

Why should the president neutralize himself? Why doesn’t he do something bold and thrilling? Get his hands dirty? Stop going to Beverly Hills to raise money and go to St. Louis to raise consciousness? Talk to someone besides Valerie Jarrett?

The Constitution was premised on a system full of factions and polarization. If you’re a fastidious pol who deigns to heal and deal only in a holistic, romantic, unified utopia, the Oval Office is the wrong job for you. The sad part is that this is an ugly, confusing and frightening time at home and abroad, and the country needs its president to illuminate and lead, not sink into some petulant expression of his aloofness, where he regards himself as a party of his own and a victim of petty, needy, bickering egomaniacs.

Once Obama thought his isolation was splendid. But it turned out to be unsplendid.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #1561 on: August 26, 2014, 02:50:24 PM »



http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/08/26/world-turned-upside-down-former-progressive-british-author-explains-how-obama-is-aiding-the-enemies-of-the-west/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #1562 on: August 27, 2014, 10:05:11 AM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/16/9-quotes-from-obamas-2011-remarks-on-the-end-of-the-war-in-iraq-that-show-his-total-lack-of-foresight/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #1563 on: August 29, 2014, 09:07:22 AM »



Not the most reliable of sources.  Any confirmation out there?

===================================

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/08/28/woah-obama-pushes-unilateral-policy-changes-to-let-hawaii-secede-from-union/

WOAH! Obama Pushes to Let Hawaii Secede from Union

August 28, 2014 By Greg Campbell
 
Apparently seething with authoritarian hubris, President Obama is seeking to wave his magic “pen and a phone” once more to undo legislatively-passed laws and set the stage for allowing Hawaii to secede as a state.
 
For decades, the State of Hawaii has vied for the right to return to being a sovereign kingdom. The chain of islands has a fascinating and rich history as a kingdom, but was adopted as a state in 1959. Multiple attempts by Hawaiian lawmakers to return Hawaii to a kingdom have failed and in recent years, Former Senator Daniel Inouye and Senator Daniel Akaka, Democrats senators from Hawaii, have pushed the Native Hawaiian Recognition Act- an act that would restore Hawaii to a kingdom run by ethnically native Hawaiians.
 
As one might expect, Congress has routinely defeated this legislation. A 2007 DOJ statement to the Senate highlighted the absurdity of the proposed law and noted,

“Moreover, S. 310 effectively seeks to undo the political bargain through which Hawaii secured its admission into the Union in 1959. On November 7, 1950, all citizens of the Hawaiian Territory – including native Hawaiians – voted to seek admission to the United States. See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 86-3, 73 Stat. 4. By a decisive 2-1 margin, native Hawaiians themselves voted for statehood, thus voluntarily and democratically relinquishing any residual sovereignty to the United States.”

Obama, who grew up in Hawaii (amongst many other places), appears sympathetic to this plight and his Department of the Interior has issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to overrule the will of Congress.
 
What the notice proposes is enacting a “government-to-government relationship between the United State and the Native Hawaiian community,” allowing the government of Hawaii to run as a kingdom dominated by a racial hierarchy, with native Hawaiians being in charge.
 
Obama’s crusade, however, is fraught with legal complications. Aside from the obvious fact that such decisions are not the domain of the president, but rather the legislative body, Obama’s actions would likely violate 15th Amendment protections as well as establish a precedent that states can secede in the pursuit of instituting a government centered on racial hierarchy- an obvious violation of innumerable tenets of our government and society.
 
In late May, TPNN reported:

    The policy proposal, an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, states:
     
    “The Secretary of the Interior is considering whether to propose an administrative rule that would facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community.”
     
    The document claims that the goal is “to more effectively implement the special political and trust relationship that Congress has established between that [Hawaiian] community and the United States.”
     
    What this does is essentially create a two-tier system based on race in Hawaii. It will afford separate taxes and law enforcement to one race and another set of policies will govern another race.

Since then, the Department of the Interior has endured a barrage of push-back from legislators and other assorted bureaucrats who have maintained that not only is this a terrible idea, but one that is inherently unconstitutional. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress, not the president, has the authority to recognize tribes.
 
In fact, Obama’s head of Indian Affairs at the Interior Department, Assistant Secretary Kevin K. Washburn, testified before a House subcommittee that this administration did not “have the authority to recognize Native Hawaiians.” Washburn claimed that “we would need legislation to be able to proceed down that road.”
 
Still, despite having no Constitutional authority, the Obama administration is continuing to push the policy change that could have far-reaching effects. It is unclear if even the Congress has the authority to allow such policies; it is, however, certain that the executive branch possesses no such powers.
 
While it is far from certain that Hawaii will be granted the right to secede, what such policy shifts are aimed at is creating a wider divide between races and unapologetically implementing a racial hierarchy with native Hawaiians at the top.
 
At a time when the most divisive president in history pretends to be interested in equality and egalitarian beliefs, it’s nauseating to see his administration stoke the flames of racial prejudice and seek to codify racial supremacy in law.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #1564 on: August 29, 2014, 09:45:15 AM »

Without digging into this, I recall there is something to this but not to the degree stated in the article.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5936


« Reply #1565 on: September 03, 2014, 12:57:36 PM »

"The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers..."

   - Barack Obama, September 19th, 2001, in the Hyde Park Herald

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/07/21/making-it?currentPage=all
"We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."

http://hpherald.com  (Archives)
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 01:00:33 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #1566 on: September 04, 2014, 05:14:39 AM »



http://online.wsj.com/articles/bret-stephens-obamas-curious-rage-1409610734?tesla=y

GLOBAL VIEW
Obama's Curious Rage
Calm when it comes to Putin, ISIS and Hamas, but furious with Israel.
 
By  BRET STEPHENS
Sept. 1, 2014 6:32 p.m. ET

Barack Obama "has become 'enraged' at the Israeli government, both for its actions and for its treatment of his chief diplomat, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. " So reports the Jerusalem Post, based on the testimony of Martin Indyk, until recently a special Middle East envoy for the president. The war in Gaza, Mr. Indyk adds, has had "a very negative impact" on Jerusalem's relations with Washington.

Think about this. Enraged. Not "alarmed" or "concerned" or "irritated" or even "angered." Anger is a feeling. Rage is a frenzy. Anger passes. Rage feeds on itself. Anger is specific. Rage is obsessional, neurotic.

And Mr. Obama—No Drama Obama, the president who prides himself on his cool, a man whose emotional detachment is said to explain his intellectual strength—is enraged. With Israel. Which has just been hit by several thousand unguided rockets and 30-odd terror tunnels, a 50-day war, the forced closure of its one major airport, accusations of "genocide" by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, anti-Semitic protests throughout Europe, general condemnation across the world. This is the country that is the object of the president's rage.

Think about this some more. In the summer in which Mr. Obama became "enraged" with Israel, Islamic State terrorists seized Mosul and massacred Shiite soldiers in open pits, Russian separatists shot down a civilian jetliner, Hamas executed 18 "collaborators" in broad daylight, Bashar Assad's forces in Syria came close to encircling Aleppo with the aim of starving the city into submission, a brave American journalist had his throat slit on YouTube by a British jihadist, Russian troops openly invaded Ukraine, and Chinese jets harassed U.S. surveillance planes over international waters.

Mr. Obama or his administration responded to these events with varying degrees of concern, censure and indignation. But rage?

Here, for instance, is the president in early August, talking to the New York Times's Tom Friedman about Russia and Ukraine:

"Finding an off-ramp for [ Vladimir Putin ] becomes more challenging. Having said that I think it is still possible for us, because of the effective organization that we have done with the Europeans around Ukraine, and the genuine bite that the sanctions have had on the Russian economy, for us to arrive at a fair accommodation in which Ukrainian sovereignty and independence is still recognized but there is also recognition that Ukraine does have historic ties to Russia, the majority of their trade goes to Russia, huge portions of the population are Russian speaking, and so they are not going to be severed from Russia. And if we do that a deal should be possible."
This isn't even condemnation. It's an apology. For Mr. Putin. Benjamin Netanyahu should be so lucky.

Now think about what, specifically, has enraged the president about Israel's behavior. "Its actions and its treatment of his chief diplomat."

Actions? Hamas began firing rockets at Israel in June, thereby breaking the cease-fire it had agreed to at the end of the last war, in November 2012. The latest war began in earnest on July 7 when Hamas fired some 80 rockets at Israel. "No country can accept rocket fire aimed at civilians," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the next day, "and we support Israel's right to defend itself against these vicious attacks."

On July 15 Israel accepted the terms of a cease-fire crafted by Egypt. Hamas violated it by firing 50 rockets at Israel. On July 17 Israel accepted a five-hour humanitarian cease-fire. Hamas violated it again. On July 20 Israel allowed a two-hour medical window in the neighborhood of Shujaiyeh. Hamas violated it. On July 26 Hamas announced a daylong cease-fire. It then broke its own cease-fire. On July 28 Israel agreed to a cease-fire for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr. The rocket attacks continued. On Aug. 1 Israel accepted a 72-hour cease-fire proposed by the U.S. Hamasviolated it within 90 minutes. On Aug. 5 Israel agreed to Egypt's terms for another three-day cease-fire. Hamas violated it several hours before it was set to expire, after Israel announced it would agree to an extension.

If Hamas had honored any of these cease-fires it could have saved Palestinian lives. It didn't. Mr. Obama is enraged—but not with Hamas.

As for Israel's supposed ill-treatment of Mr. Kerry, the president should read Ben Birnbaum's and Amir Tibon's account of his secretary's Mideast misadventures in the July 20 issue of the New Republic. It's a portrait of a diplomat with the skills and style, but not the success, of Inspector Clouseau. Mr. Obama might also read Haaretz columnist Ari Shavit's assessment of Mr. Kerry's diplomacy: "The Obama administration," he wrote in July, "proved once again that it is the best friend of its enemies, and the biggest enemy of its friends."

Both Haaretz and the New Republic are left-wing publications, sympathetic to Mr. Obama's intentions, if not his methods.

Still, the president is enraged. At Israel. What a guy.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #1567 on: September 04, 2014, 07:22:13 AM »

Who could have foreseen that Obama would be anti-Israel?

He wore a kippa at AIPAC, I'm told.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5936


« Reply #1568 on: September 05, 2014, 11:04:57 AM »

Imagine NATO without the US...

http://thehill.com/policy/international/216656-obama-absent-for-start-of-nato-meeting
“We call on Russia to end its illegal and self-declared annexation of Crimea,” Rasmussen said.  [NATO Secretary General Anders Rasmussen] “We call on Russia to pull back its troops from Ukraine” and stop the flow of arms to separatists.  Rasmussen said the gathering of the leaders should telegraph a "clear message" to Ukraine that NATO stands with the nation and supports its reforms.

President Obama was nowhere to be found during the beginning of a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine commission in Wales on Thursday.
Obama was "noticeably absent" from the start of the meeting, according to a White House pool report


He had more pressing matters.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #1569 on: September 07, 2014, 10:40:03 AM »

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/06/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #1570 on: September 08, 2014, 08:33:30 AM »


Epic stupid. Does this really need to be taken seriously?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #1571 on: September 08, 2014, 08:57:36 AM »

Of course not.  Duh.   cheesy cheesy cheesy
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5936


« Reply #1572 on: September 08, 2014, 09:13:21 AM »

From reversing the rising of the oceans and ending the racial divide in America to eliminating the schism between Sunni and Shia that has been fueling so much of the violence in the Middles East, this President has a very high opinion of his governing and diplomatic skills!

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/09/obama-goes-on-meet-the-press-reality-fails-to-intrude.php
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/president-barack-obamas-full-interview-nbcs-chuck-todd-n197616

Assuming he can actually do all these things, I'm thinking about supporting him for a third term.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #1573 on: September 08, 2014, 09:17:41 AM »

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/09/about-those-lightweight-team-obama-spokespersons.php
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5936


« Reply #1574 on: September 08, 2014, 11:02:52 AM »


(From the article)

about Benghazi, “Dude, this was like two years ago."


As suggested, maybe we aren't his targeted demographic.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5936


« Reply #1575 on: September 10, 2014, 12:57:41 PM »

A week ago he didn't have a clue strategy.  Tonight he has it all.  What changed?  Domestic politics driving foreign policy.

This is really a stupid question, but will he admit in any way that he was wrong?  Wrong on Iraq.  Wrong on Egypt.  Wrong to say al Qaeda is on the run.  Wrong on Syria.  Wrong on Libya and Benghazi.  Wrong on the Mexican border.  Wrong on Russia and Ukraine.  Wrong to call terrorists and beheaders JV.  If this were a serious speech and a serious change of policy, making right what was previously wrong would be the starting point.  It isn't.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #1576 on: September 11, 2014, 09:51:54 AM »

The Humbling of a President
In the war with ISIS, the U.S. needs genuine presidential leadership, not a utility infielder playing everyone else's position.
By Daniel Henninger
Sept. 10, 2014 7:12 p.m. ET

Let us note briefly the commanding irony of Barack Obama delivering—hours before 9/11—the anti-terrorism speech that history required of his predecessor after September 11, 2001. There is one thing to say: If we are lucky, President Obama will hand off to his successor a terrorist enemy as diminished as the one George Bush, David Petraeus and many others left him.

If we're lucky.

There is a story about Mr. Obama relevant to the war, battle or whatever he declared Wednesday evening against the Islamic State, aka ISIS. It is found in his former campaign manager David Plouffe's account of the 2008 election, "The Audacity to Win."

Mr. Plouffe writes that during an earlier election race, Mr. Obama had a "hard time allowing his campaign staff to take more responsibility." To which Barack Obama answered: "I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I'll hire to do it." Audacity indeed.

In a 2008 New Yorker article by Ryan Lizza, Mr. Obama is quoted telling another aide: "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors." Also, "I think I'm a better speechwriter than my speechwriters."

And here we are.

In the days before Mr. Obama's ISIS address to the nation, news accounts cataloged his now-embarrassing statements about terrorism's decline on his watch—the terrorists are JV teams, the tide of war is receding and all that.

Set aside that Mr. Obama outputted this viewpoint even as Nigeria's homicidal Boko Haram kidnapped 275 schoolgirls, an act that appalled and galvanized the world into "Bring Back Our Girls." No matter. Boko Haram slaughtered on, unabated.

Some of these gaffes came in offhand comments, but others were embedded in formal speeches from the presidential pen, such as the definitive Obama statement on terrorism last May at the National Defense University: "So that's the current threat—lethal yet less-capable al Qaeda affiliates." A year later, ISIS seized one-third of Iraq inside a week.

Worse than misstatements have been the misdecisions on policy: the erased red line in Syria, the unattainable reset with Vladimir Putin's brainwashed Russia, the nuclear deal with the ruling shadows in Iran. The first two bad calls have pitched significant regions of the world into crises of virtually unmanageable complexity.

What we now know is that Mr. Obama is not even close to being his own best Secretary of State, his own best Secretary of Defense, his own best national security adviser or his own best CIA director.

The question is: Does he know it?

Can a humbling experience of such startling proportions have sunk in? It had better. What the U.S. needs if it is to prevail in the battle Mr. Obama put forth Wednesday is the genuine article of presidential leadership. What the U.S. does not need in the Oval Office is a utility infielder playing everyone else's position. We are competing against global terrorism's heaviest hitters, who have established state seizure as a strategic goal.

If Mr. Obama still thinks he's better than Susan Rice, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and John Brennan, then he and the nation supporting his anti-ISIS effort are being poorly served. He should fire them all and bring in people who know more about fighting terrorists than he does. Barack Obama admires Abraham Lincoln. Act like him. Appoint the best people and let them win it.

Winning would also require a president willing to confront the political correctness that has undermined the U.S.'s battle against terror.

No more sophistry about whether a Benghazi qualifies as terrorism. After the videotaped beheadings of James Foley and Steven Sotloff, is anyone still lying awake at night worrying that their iPhone number is among millions of others in the National Security Agency's data mines?

Closing Gitmo goes on the backburner. "Boots on the ground"—kill that too. It has become code for boots going nowhere, as Mr. Obama's airpower-only campaign made clear Wednesday evening.

It has taken 13 years to this day, September 11, for the reality of global Islamic terrorism to finally sink in—here in the U.S. and everywhere else, including the ever-equivocal capitals of the Middle East.

In the years after 9/11 came London, Madrid, the Boston Marathon, multiple failed attempts to bomb New York City, Mumbai, Kenya, Boko Haram, the re-rocketing of Tel Aviv, Christian holy places destroyed, thousands of Arabs blown up in the act of daily life. That's the short list. ISIS is just the tip of the world's unstable iceberg. We're all living on the Titanic.

Now a reluctant progressive president goes to war without admitting it is war. It's even money at best that he or the Left will stay the course if the going gets tough beyond Iraq's borders.

A final irony. In that National Defense speech, Mr. Obama defended the drone killing in Yemen of the American-born jihadist Anwar al-Awlaki: "His citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team."

If Barack Obama would put a plaque with those words on his Oval Office desk, the world's innocents may have a shot at defeating the world's snipers. A long shot.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4066


« Reply #1577 on: September 11, 2014, 10:14:26 AM »

Yes more vocal critics on the Left as well as the Right of his foreign policy (now the damage is done), but I wouldn't rest till the case is won that his domestic policy is even MORE of a disaster, knowing full well the benefits crowd will never leave him or their beloved paymasters  -  The Democrat Party.

And by '16 we will have 20 million new voters the vast majority who are Democrats to deal with.   Texas is next on their hit list.

Did you see that 1 out of 3 public school students in California are either illegal or cannot speak English.  For God's sake there are 40 million people there.  I remember when the population of the entire US was only around 150 million.   This is nuts.  How are all these people helping the economy?  Explain that to me Fuckerberg?

All wealthy "liberals* should be taxed at a rate of 90%.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5936


« Reply #1578 on: September 11, 2014, 12:39:52 PM »

Transcript, video:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/10/statement-president-isil-1

It was a stump speech billed as a foreign policy speech.  It was a speech about Middle East war and peace and Israel was not mentioned.  Homegrown terrorism was not addressed, nor was ISIS and their sympathizers coming in across our porous southern border.  Nor was any conjugation of the verb to deter, deterrent, deterrence.  What war was won, BTW, with air power alone?  Not mentioned.  No mention of the on-the-ground surge working or anything else learned previously in this fight.  But we did get a shout-out to the Dems running for their troubled reelection about job creation and health of the auto industry!

ISIL (Islamic State) is not Islamic.  Just like the Muslim Brotherhood is secular.  Good to know!


Deeper thoughts from a previous speech:

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members...
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war.  ...
We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that - for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.  - Pres. Obama accepting Nobel Peace Prize   Dec 10, 2009


While you were dithering, they were arming, financing, recruiting, organizing, taking over cities, regions and countries, raping, enslaving and beheading, Mr. President.  Welcome belatedly to the fight.


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #1579 on: September 11, 2014, 05:28:11 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/11/question-for-the-state-department-isnt-obama-waging-preemptive-war-in-iraq-now/

Obama going into Iraq, knowing there are no weapons of mass destruction!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5936


« Reply #1580 on: September 12, 2014, 09:00:09 AM »

 Saudi Arabia has an extensive border with Syria.

This link is still up at WhiteHouse.Gov at this writing:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/10/background-conference-call-presidents-address-nation#.VBH-xrMzc7I.twitter

Background Conference Call on the President's Address to the Nation
...
ISIL has been I think a galvanizing threat around the Sunni partners in the region.  They view it as an existential threat to them.  Saudi Arabia has an extensive border with Syria. ...



Please show us that border!



http://washingtonexaminer.com/in-the-best-of-hands-senior-obama-official-makes-terrible-geography-error/article/2553262
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #1581 on: September 13, 2014, 10:24:39 PM »

'The Man From Nowhere'
What does Barack Obama believe in?

BY PEGGY NOONAN
Friday, December 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST We are getting very excited. Barack Obama is brilliant, eloquent and fresh.
He is "exciting" (David Brooks), "charming" (Bob Schieffer), "my favorite guy" (Oprah Winfrey), has "charisma" (Donna Brazile), and should run now for president (George Will). Our political and media establishments, on the rebound from bad history, are sounding like Marlene Dietrich in her little top hat. Falling in luff again, vot am I to do, vot am I to do, kont hellllllp eet.

Well, down from your tippy toes, establishment.

He is obviously planning to run. This week he was in New Hampshire--rapturous reviews, sold-out fund-raisers--and before that, Iowa.
His second book is his second best seller and the biggest-selling nonfiction title in the nation. The intro he taped for "Monday Night Football"--in an Aaron Sorkin-like setting of gleaming desk and important lighting--showed he is an actor who can absorb the script and knows by nature what a camera is.
This is a compliment. All the great presidents of the media age, FDR, JFK and Reagan, were great actors of the presidency. (The one non-great president who was their equal in this, Bill Clinton, proved that acting is not enough.)

He has obvious appeal. I asked a Young Democrat college student why he liked him. After all, I said, he has little experience. That's part of what I like, he said. "He's not an insider, he's not just a D.C. politician."

He is uncompromised by a past, it is true. He is also unburdened by a record, unworn by achievement, unwearied by long labors.

What does he believe? What does he stand for? This is, after all, the central question. When it is pointed out that he has had almost--almost--two years in the U.S. Senate, and before that was an obscure state legislator in Illinois, his supporters compare him to Lincoln. But Lincoln had become a national voice on the great issue of the day, slavery. He rose with a reason. Sen. Obama's rise is not about a stand or an issue or a question; it is about Sen. Obama. People project their hopes on him, he says.

He's exactly right. Just so we all know it's projection.

He doesn't have an issue, he has a thousand issues, which is the same as having none, in the sense that a speech about everything is a speech about nothing. And on those issues he seems not so much to be guided by philosophy as by impulses, sentiments. From "The Audacity of Hope," his latest book:
"
  • ur democracy might work a bit better if we recognized that all of us possess values that are worthy of respect." "I value good manners." When not attempting to elevate the bromidic to the profound, he lapses into the language of political consultants--"our message," "wedge issues," "moral language." Ronald Reagan had "a durable narrative." Parts of the book, the best parts, are warm, anecdotal, human. But much of it pretends to a seriousness that is not borne out. When speaking of the political past he presents false balance and faux fairness. (Reagan, again, despite his "John Wayne, Father Knows Best pose, his policy by anecdote and his gratuitous assaults on the poor" had an "appeal" Sen. Obama "understood." Ronnie would be so pleased.)





The world is difficult now, unlike those days when America enjoyed "the near unanimity forged by the Cold War, and the Soviet threat." Near unanimity?
This is rewriting the past in a way that suggests a deep innocence of history, or a slippery approach to the facts.
Sen. Obama spent his short lifetime breathing in the common liberal/leftist wisdom, which he exhales at length. This is not something new--it's something old in a new package. And it is something that wins you what he has, a series of 100% ratings from left-liberal interest groups.

He is, clearly, a warm-blooded political animal, an eager connector, a man of intelligence and a writer whose observations suggest the possibility of an independence of spirit. Also a certain unknowability. Which may account for some of his popularity.

But again, what does he believe? From reading his book, I would say he believes in his destiny. He believes in his charisma. He has the confidence of the anointed. He has faith in the magic of the man who meets his moment.

He also believes in the power of good nature, the need for compromise, and the possibility of comprehensive, multitiered, sensible solutions achieved through good-faith negotiations. But mostly it seems to be about him, his sense of destiny, and his appreciation of his own particular gifts. Which leaves me thinking Oh dear, we have been here before. It's not as if we haven't already had a few of the destiny boys. It's not as if we don't have a few more in the wings.

It seems to me that our political history has been marked the past 10 years by lurches, reactions and swerves, and I wonder if historians will see the era that started in the mid-'90s as The Long Freakout. First the Clinton era left more than half the country appalled--deeply appalled, and ashamed--by its series of political, financial and personal scandals. I doubt the Democratic Party will ever fully understand the damage done in those days.

In reaction the Republican Party lurched in its presidential decision toward a relatively untested (five years in the governor's office, before that very
little) man whom party professionals chose, essentially, because "He can win" and the base endorsed because he seemed the opposite of Bill Clinton.

The 2000 election was a national trauma, and I'm not sure Republicans fully understand what it did to half the Democrats in the country to think the election was stolen, or finagled, or arranged by unseen powers. Then 9/11.

Now we have had six years of high drama and deep division, and again a new savior seems to beckon, one who is so clearly Not Bush.

We'll see what Sen. Obama has, what he is, what he becomes. But right now he seems part of a pattern of lurches and swerves--the man from nowhere, of whom little is known, who will bring us out of the mess. His sudden rise and wild popularity seem more symptom than solution. And I wonder if historians will call this chapter in their future histories of the modern era not "A Decision Is Made" but "The Freakout Continues."
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4066


« Reply #1582 on: Today at 09:27:23 AM »

Well Charles doesn't go far enough.  Of course Obama is a narcissist.  But he also has a *narcissistic personality disorder*.    "Megalomania"  is descriptive of this guy.

*****Charles Krauthammer: Barack Obama ‘narcissist’

By LUCY MCCALMONT | 9/15/14 5:38 PM EDT
Conservative columnist — and former psychiatrist — Charles Krauthammer took time Monday for presidential couch analysis, saying the President Barack Obama is not manic, but rather a narcissist, who “talks like the emperor, Napoleon.”

“So I decided when I left psychiatry never to use my authority. But let me just say as a layman, without invoking any expertise, Obama is clearly a narcissist in the non-scientific use of the word. He is so self-involved, you see it from his rise,” Krauthammer said Monday on the Hugh Hewitt Show, according to a transcript.


Pointing to what Krauthammer called the “theater” of Obama’s 2008 campaign, he continued to slam and assess the president’s personality.

“I think he’s extremely self-involved. He sees himself in very world historical terms, which means A) because he’s an amateur, he doesn’t know very much, and B) because he’s a narcissist, he doesn’t listen,” Krauthammer said.

The conservative emphasized that he doesn’t like to use is authority on psychiatric analyses, “because you really can’t do it at a distance,” but nevertheless offered up a take on Obama.

“My specialty when I was a psychiatrist was bipolar disease. And I wrote some papers on manic disease. He’s not manic, and I don’t think he’s depressed,” Krauthammer said.

He also noted that Obama’s speeches often refer to himself, which Krauthammer suggested Obama has done more than his White House predecessors.

(Full 2014 election results)

“This is a guy, you look at every one of his speeches, even the way he introduces high officials – I’d like to introduce my secretary of state. He once referred to ‘my intelligence community’. And in one speech, I no longer remember it, ‘my military’. For God’s sake, he talks like the emperor, Napoleon,” Krauthammer said.

He continued, “He does have this sense of this all being a drama about him, and everybody else is just sort of part of the stage.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/charles-krauthammer-barack-obama-narcissist-110975.html#ixzz3DULc9g4s
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!