I’m not the only one who finds Obama boring
Bookworm on May 23 2009 at 8:39 am | Filed under: Barack Obama
A familiar trope amongst conservatives is to concede that Obama is a brilliant speaker, an oratorical genius, whose only problem is substance. It’s actually not stupid to take this position, because it helps in any argument with a liberal if you can open by saying, “I thought his speech was incredible to listen to BUT…” followed by a polite phrased litany of factual problems within the speech. If you don’t have that first clause in their, your liberal friend will tune out, and it will all be over. However, if you do homage before the altar of the O’s silver tongue, you will have established your bona fides as someone who “gets it,” and then can begin the delicate art of deconstruction.
What’s finally happening, though, is that people are realizing that you cannot be a brilliant orator if you’re not actually saying anything. Oratory is a package deal: compelling presentation and persuasive substance. If your substance boils down to a powerful voice in the subway station reminding everyone to “please, avoid the gap,” you’re no orator.
An excellent example of this reality seepage comes from James Delingpole, who blogs for the British paper, The Telegraph. Now, before I go any further, I have to tell you that I’m charmed right off the bat by someone who easily refers to Milton’s Paradise Lost in considering Obama’s speeches:
Watching Obama lose his screen on screen duel with Dick Cheney yesterday I was reminded of some lines from Paradise Lost.
“Thus Belial with words clothed in reason’s garb
Counselled ignoble ease and peaceful sloth, not peace.”
But while the silver-tongued minor devil Belial would no doubt have approved the President’s new surrender-monkey “realist” approach to the war on terror, I doubt he would have been so impressed with his oratorical skills. Never mind the bizarre reputation Obama has acquired as a great public speaker: his speeches are fast beginning to sound almost as excruciating as anything in his predecessor’s “enhanced interrogation program.”
[snip]
One of his favourite techniques is the false opposition, as here:
“On one side of the spectrum are those who make little allowance for the the unique challenges posed by terrorism and would almost never put national security over transparency. And on the other end of the spectrum are those who can embrace a view that can be summarised in two words: anything goes. Both sides may be sincere in their views. But neither is right.”
Except nobody in the world cleaves to either of these positions. They have been conjured from thin air by Obama – and his trusty teleprompter – in order to make out that anyone who disagrees with his woolly centrist position must perforce be some kind of whacko extremist nut job.
You can read the rest of the post — a post about someone awakening to the boring, uninspiring reality of O talk — here.
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
44 Responses to “I’m not the only one who finds Obama boring”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Someone remarked that he drove them to distraction with his look left, look right, look left, look. . . as he read from the twin teleprompters. He tried to solve that problem during the press conferences by putting the single 50″ screen directly in front, but behind the press. So, his delivery was–stare straight ahead.
I am glad to know that all of those critics who preface their remarks by praising his oratory before discussing the content, do actually have a strategy. I had begun to think that they were just looney; or else I was, for missing something so many people agree on.
It is well that some folks really do consider content.
One has to believe that his act is going to become very stale fairly soon.
Obama is an excellent salesman. Consider, for example, his speech on high-speed passenger rail, in which he observed that it would be nice to travel from city to city without taking one’s shoes off. This is excellent!..it’s the kind of direct, sensory appeal that good salesmen do instinctively…like, “imagine yourself at the big window, enjoying the sunset over the mountains.”
But Obama-as-salesman has a couple of vulnerabilities–
A very good salesman I knew was fond of the phrase “in sales as in medicine, prescription without diagnosis is malpractice.” Obama is not very interested in the diagnosis; rather, he has a pocketful of prescriptions that he got somewhere and is eager to apply. (The “strategic plan” release by the WH on H/S passenger rail is not deserving of the name–it is an extended sales document and analysis of funding mechanisms, not a true strat plan.) This lack of interest in fitting the solution to the problem will, hopefully, become evident before it does too much destruction.
Also, it’s well known that there are many excellent salesmen who make lousy sales managers…not to mention even lousier managers of non-sales functions. Not always..there are many great salesmen who are also great managers..but enough so that most people now understand it’s not a good idea to unthinkingly promote your star salesman to sales manager. (Not to mention promoting him directly to CEO of the company..)
Obama is sonorous. His delivery is the same declaiming on matters both profound and trivial. He is going to get very old very fast.
He looks good in a suit and reads from the teleprompter in a baritone voice. Period.
What an excellent post…follow the link to the Telegraph article and read the comments. VinceP1974 has an excellent link to a retort written by Mark Twain to an American Expat in Paris about those that “feel ashamed of America” overseas…see at this link: http://home.comcast.net/~vincep312/marktwain.html
Plus ca change….!
I’ve stopped listening to Obama, unimpressed with his speeches. I regret that given his age, even if voted out of office in 2012, he’ll be around for the rest of my lifetime giving empty speeches and being kissed up to by the media.
And — having written two books about himself w/o having really accomplished all that much, serving 4 or 8 years as President will no doubt inspire prodigious literary output.
I’m not sure it’s the same person, but I think vincep has a very extensive page on some of the islamic problems as well. If it _is_ the same person, he used to comment regularly on Betsyspage until he was baited beyond his ability to respond coolly, got suspended, then removed himself from commenting.
I’m not sure that vincep312 is the same person as vincep, though.
Yup. That’s vincep. I’ve seen him around and about in other places as well. Good guy.
Jimmy Carter has been alive and doing damage to America’s image for a good long time now. Reagan got taken out by Alzheimer’s. But Carter? He’s still pissing on our flag.
Well, at least I’m learning effective means to control the masses. Mass delusion is very hard to study and learn when you don’t have very accessible examples. And the ones that you do, happened in the past, thus you have no real contact with the actors involved or the factors involved, all you can see is what your personal bias sees or what the bias of the sources see of the “delusion”.
Now, however, it’s in Our Face. I couldn’t ignore it if I wanted to. It’s been going on for a year, if you include the campaign trail. It makes very good “on site” study on an anthropological sense.
Unfortunately, the lesson is lost on many, Helen included. All she sees is the historical deconstruction of what she calls “white culture”, which made America great, and she wants it replaced by blackness, or black culture, which will destroy America, as it has already destroyed Zimbabwe and South Africa. This is those people’s idea of racial harmony and equal preference. It ain’t going to be going, except in so far as the violence, once inflamed by the revolutionary antics of the ideological, will touch upon any and all, one way or another.
It ain’t going to be going
Going to be equal, that is.
Linka
I highly recommend that those interested in the mass hypnosis and delusion we call the Obamanation give some consideration to the research and analysis Shrink has conducted here.
It is important to understand the psychology of one’s foes, if only to better understand their strengths and their weaknesses as juxtaposed against relevant factual and evidential events.
he used to comment regularly on Betsyspage until he was baited beyond his ability to respond coolly
Which is a good example of 1. inability to focus one’s own emotions into offensive weapons to crush one’s opposition and 2. inability to understand the strategy and tactics of the enemy in order to misdirect or armor one’s own particular points of weaknesses so as to mislead and re-direct the offensive might of the enemy elsewhere.
You got to scrunch up the rage, at whatever you are angry about, into a tight little ball, put it in a compartment, and then pressurize it, then jam it into a bullet, and take aim at the real target. If you are not strong enough to control your own emotions, then you are not worthy of manipulating the emotions of others nor are you worthy of being the shield for your allies or loved ones. Strength, in the end, is the solution to “the world isn’t fair”. Enough power can make the world fair, for a time although it doesn’t apply to everyone. What more evidence do you need for this than to look upon the might, security, prosperity, and liberty of America vs the Third World Crapholes where they have no individual power nor national power compared to our own?
This is too good to pass up people. Courtesy of a commenter at Neo-Neocon, Arf I believe. http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcqp-052009-busattackvideo2,0,185132.story
I so wanted to be there. I missed out. It would have been good.
Look at the civilized conduct of the guards. Their intent to prevent harm, both to the attacker and the one attacked. They still have their societal standards. They have not become sociopaths. The attacker has not become a sociopath, because you can see he is restraining himself or allowing others to restrain himself.
I wonder. I wonder how fast I can drop into the sociopath monster mode in such a situation, if I was motivated purely by anger and not by fear for my own life. What kind of a situation would provide more motivation for me to adopt the mantle of the sadist and the serial killer, the ones who enjoy hurting people? A threat to my own life or a threat to the innocent?
I would like to learn the answer, eventually. It can potentially be a scary answer, of course, something most people would wish to overlook or delay or ignore. But I don’t doubt my own control any longer, and thus I no longer fear. It is curiously… liberating. Certainly more liberating than what you see on the video. What do you see if not restraint, if not delay, if not people holding on to each other, “delaying” things? Anger, certainly. Fear, certainly, of a sort. But not sociopathic intent and will. If the black man’s attack was a surprise, how much of a surprise would be the attack from a serial killer?
From watching the video, I know a few things just off the top.
1. the attacker is without discipline, inner and outer. He strikes as his emotions command, rather than the other way around. His desire to hurt others is not his weapon, it is his master, his slave master. He does not control that desire, it controls him. That is pathetic in my view. If you want to hurt people, at least, you know, learn to control that desire and intention.
2. the attacker is fundamentally a trail rider, a free rider. Someone who attacks the weak, because they are not strong enough to control themselves nor gear up to attack those stronger than they. He holds onto the bus like a baby, not wanting to be rejected. And he is just as helpless as a babe. Just as helpless as the girl who Samir Kuntar slammed against the rocks.
Btw, look at those feckless school children standing in the back. Youthful recklessness, gotta love it. In reality, it is not the youth that defend society, it is their more mature and self-confident superiors. Which is why the youths voted Obama. In Sparta, such an act of cowardice would have been crippling societally and psychologically, if not fatal.
I am, of course, reassured that my fellow Americans still have the personal courage and initiative to personally put a stop to what they see as their personal responsibility to society and to others. This has been lost on other nations and cultures, like Britain or France, where nobody gets up to help those on the subway. I am reassured that my fellow Americans will show more compassion and consideration for the safety of the guilty than I or those like me ever would in a million life times.
I think it fair to say that Obama is far more a rhetorician than an orator. I spent some time recently trying to pin down Obama’s oft used rhetorical devices. My observation:
“Obama on the stump always claims the moral high ground with liquid grace. He is a master rhetorician. He frames his arguments with vague references to unspecified values, moral precepts and the Constitution. He invariably characterizes these generalized concepts as being responsible for all that is good in America and then places himself in the center of their inchoate frame. From there, he is the arbiter, labeling all who disagree with him as immoral, unethical or anti-American. It is both transparent and effective in equal measure. To those inclined to uncritically accept Obama’s disingenuous rhetoric, I am sure it had an effect.”
That said, as the gulf between word and deed grows ever larger, the device is exposed for what it is – a sophisticated tool of argument that is not coextensive with reality.
>>You got to scrunch up the rage, at whatever you are angry about, into a tight little ball, put it in a compartment, and then pressurize it, then jam it into a bullet, and take aim at the real target.>>
What I observed was this:
Betsy is a full time teacher, and blogs as a pastime or outlet. She does not participate in discussions except on very rare occasions. She does not want to monitor the comment section. She does have the usual “be nice or I’ll ban you” rules for trolls, and would use them if necessary, but didn’t really want to take the time to treat monitoring as an ongoing chore.
Vincep was a regular commenter, and was being baited by a regular troll. He eventually elicited the desired response and complained to Betsy, who then necessarily reprimanded Vincep who had in fact violated the blog rules.
It was kind of funny – I saw this exact sort of transaction between my oldest and second son. Baiting, response, responder gets the shaft. I’d warn my second son, even during the initial teasing, but he’d eventually step over the line and then he’d be the one who was punished. “Don’t get sucked in” I’d tell him. But he always would.* The only difference is that my oldest knew what action I’d take, and never “told”, whereas the troll on Betsyspage would complain to Betsy to “demand” that she take action.
It seems to me that this is common to the libs – they always want to “run to teacher” and tattle, certain that teacher will protect them. They want the courts, they want the UN, and what are they going to want when the UN proves ineffective? I guess World Government is next. They always want the next guy up to protect them – they never want to do the dirty work themselves – war is nasty, doncha know.
* Nowadays, my eldest calls on number Two for advice. There’s been an odd turnaround of their relationship. I suspect that the conditioning by his older brother has resulted in a much stronger individual, but it wasn’t much fun going through it. Eldest has paid his price as well, but is still learning.
>>they always want to “run to teacher” and tattle, certain that teacher will protect them.>>
I now recognize this as an Alinsky tactic..”make them live up to their own rules”
They don’t have any rules they respect, so turn about isn’t really possible.
RE: “Unfortunately, the lesson is lost on many, Helen included. All she sees is the historical deconstruction of what she calls “white culture”, which made America great, and she wants it replaced by blackness, or black culture, which will destroy America, as it has already destroyed Zimbabwe and South Africa.”
Y., You’re even more racist than I thought you were, and obviously don’t understand that we should take the best of both cultures, while allowing each to retain its identity. We don’t replace “white culture” with “black culture”; we evaluate the values of each and pick the best values we see. Anyone who sees no good in “white culture” isn’t looking very hard. And anyone who sees no good in “black culture” isn’t looking very hard either.
And as for being bored by Obama , how does his repitition differ from the hatred of Carter and glorification of Reagungungun that I read about on this blog.
Helen, what is the best of “white” culture and what is the best of “black” culture?
Your answer will tell us everything we’ve ever needed to know about you.
As I dip my toe briefly back into the networld, I ran across this from an interview with Obama:
So we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don’t reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can’t get control of the deficit.
So, one option is just to do nothing. We say, well, it’s too expensive for us to make some short-term investments in health care. We can’t afford it. We’ve got this big deficit. Let’s just keep the health care system that we’ve got now.
It’s classic Obama, and for those who find him boring or a terrible speaker (including Book), I’d point you to Wolf Howling’s comment above, and this snippet. We’re immune to his charms, but so so many people aren’t immune. They’ve got no bs filter, and this crap just goes right in. Obama *is* a skilled rhetorician.
In those two very short paragraphs I excerpted, he does his usual straw-man argument. Obama *always* begins this by saying, “Suppose we do nothing. Everything gets worse.” His conclusion: Therefore, we have to follow *my* plan, he says. Open and shut. And people buy it! The mind boggles.
My response would be: “President Obama, suppose we try a market-based solution, instead of doing nothing.”
Obama: “Ah, let’s not even bother going there. I’m not interested. My Statist solution is the only alternative to doing nothing.”
And this works on the majority of the public, over and over again. Many commenters here say that the public will eventually catch on, but is there any proof of that? I think they will not catch on on their own.
The other item to point out in my excerpt above is the use of the word “investment” again. As I’ve said so many times that I can’t count anymore, in the Oxford Obama English Dictionary, the definition is given as follows:
Investment: The taxing and controlling wealth for the purpose of redistribution to favored political constituencies who are somehow more moral than the rest of us
Those who perform classic investing (you know, the kind where you put up your own money at risk), and follow the rules, are told by Obama: We ignore the rules, and you’re just an evil, greedy speculator. So you thought you could invest – no strike that use of the word invest – “evilly speculate” by putting your money into “secured bonds”, which legally are more protected than unsecured? Well, we will ignore all legal precedent and treat you the same as unsecured. Or we’ll treat you worse. Because you’re an evil exploiter.
No one will bother with secured investing any more, because law means nothing anymore. It’s the Cult Of Personality, the Great Obama, who does whatever he wants when he wants, and the law be damned. The end result, of course, is an even shakier investment – strike that word! – “evil speculatory system”, in which people will no longer put risky money where they think it best. And the depression grows worse as activity continues to grind, slowly and slowly, to a halt.
And we all look around, including the Obama-lovers, at the deepening malaise, plaintively asking, “What is wrong? What is wrong? Why is everything darker and gloomier year by year?” Never understanding that we’re the cause – the aggregate American US – because we keep buying into schemes that are guaranteed to fail, the very schemes causing the slowly deepening misery.
And our Congresscritters? “Say no evil, speak no evil, do no evil.” All they want to do is to be reelected to “serve their constituencies”. What a bunch of unprincipled whores. They will stand for nothing and speak no truths. Today I am sick of all of them.
Even the New York Times is on to O’s penchant for straw men.
Danny,
Thanks for the Twain link. Where is the Twain of our generation?
Mike,
I wouldn’t be quite so respectful in countering the straw man. I would like to try this:
Mr. President, you attended an elite boarding school, you have two Ivy League degrees, you worked as a community organizer and served in a state leislature, and you associate regularly with academics in your home town of Chicago. With all your study and experience, can you really offer only these two worn-out alternatives to this problem. My colleagues (fill in the blanks) have been studying this question for several years and have come up with a program that avoids some of the dreadful consequences of your preferred path. Why will you not even debate the matter with them? Afraid?
RE: Helen, what is the best of “white” culture and what is the best of “black” culture?”
Charles, in what area? That’s not question that has one answer.
Helen, I was paraphrasing you in asking the question. I don’t think I’m wrong in assuming that you already have some opinions as to what are the best values in each culture. If not, then you at least have some criteria for evaluating those values, and it is your bases for evaluation that I’m curious about.
Y., You’re even more racist than I thought you were,
I doubt I could ever be as racist as you, dear Helen. But I try. One must know one’s enemy and walk a mile in their steps, before the ultimate confrontation can end in overwhelming and crushing victory: for us that is.
Anyone who sees no good in “white culture” isn’t looking very hard.
By your highlights, Obama’s corrupt acceptance of favors from everybody, not just for family members, is that “best part of white culture”. His indoctrination under Leftist and Alinsky guide to radicals, also another “white man” aspect of white man culture.
Of course, that’s a white man, that’s not the American culture. And it is not the “white” culture you seek to dissect and deconstruct. In fact, you use Alinsky to deconstruct non-Alinsky. When I say white, I mean all white, good and bad. When you mean white, you mean the white you wanna mean. The racist ideology of the Left cannot justify to their slaves how come they are using white man tactics to destroy the white man, so they separate out the “white culture” into good (Alinsky) and bad (Washington, Jefferson, etc.) Thus you have a nice little slaughter prepared, a nice little race war, where the blacks are owned by the whites and used to kill other whites. This, I deem, is entertainment and joyful to your allies, Helen. They like such things, like a fight to the death between two dogs.
Now, of course, when the Left means “black culture” they don’t mean the good parts of black culture. They mean the parts of black culture that can be subsumed by Alinsky and his white man slavery ring to better serve the white man slavery ring of white men like Alinsky, Kennedy, Robert KKK Byrd, and so forth. When the Left says “black culture” they mean everything destructive about black culture, everything that can be used from black culture to destroy the enemies of Alinsky and everything from black culture that can be used to weaken blacks. Black families and their bond of loyalty between family members? That has to go, and we got the Perfect Planned Parenthood eugenics solution to eliminating black babies for it. The Left spend decades on this solution, people. They’re not going to throw it away cause it is a “white man’s” cultural artifact. But what about the black family’s need to protect their own via nepotism and corruption, which they only see as just and what not? Well, just expand that to the whites and then you have a great combination of white corruption and black corruption styles. Isn’t that better for your Utopia, Helen.
And as for being bored by Obama , how does his repitition differ from the hatred of Carter and glorification of Reagungungun that I read about on this blog.
If you had studied Alinsky and the true mass murderers of the Left, you would already know the answer to that. Need I remind you, dear Helen, that this is a war, not an intellectual debate. And in war, my side is my side, my allies my allies, and they are also inevitably your enemies, because they are my allies and because your side has declared war on mine.
Remember Saul Alinsky, for he knew it before most others of the modern Left did. Just as I knew it and was frustrated by this worry the more I saw Republicans and conservatives try to “reason” with those that have declared Total Ideological Warfare and jihad on those self same conservatives. They were getting battered, just as BUsh was getting battered in 2005. They were being de-legitimatized as uncaring freaks, warmongers, and capitalist pigs just as Bush was being demonized as Bushhitler. And my potential allies did not fight back. They did not realize war had been declared on them. They still thought it was an intellectual debate, that there were rules, that both sides were following the same game plan on facts or the recognition of facts.
As suek here learned, that is a full barrel of bs.
How does it feel, Helen, to know that your side aggressively and preemptively declared war on those that simply wanted to live their lives under their own ideology?
Helen, I’ve noticed you tend to deal in generalities, platitudes and wishful thinking, but are lacking in specifics.
Is that why you find President Obama so compelling?
As to “black” culture, I assume you’re referring to some subset of African culture, since African-American culture was diluted by “white” culture.
So which subset of African culture would you like to use to replace “white” culture? Are you thinking tribalism?
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_failure_of_democracy_in_africa/
Personally, I think we should replace some “white” culture with some “yellow” culture. The Asians, specifically the Chinese, are cleaning our clocks.
Brian
If anything, in many countries, Africans enjoyed greater personal freedom and prosperity under colonial rule, than they do today under independent governments.
Poor Helen’s brain just underwent the conscience redactor at this point, Brian. She won’t be conscious and self-aware for quite a bit of time, until the memory re-processor has finished its memory erasure and replacement.
Helen is referring to “black culture” as victim culture. You can’t have the resistance necessary for the “Change” (read that as “revolution”) without a victim group.
It seems obvious to me that in spite of my having thought that blacks were equal to whites, I was mistaken. It has become apparent – and Helen makes it even clearer – that blacks are incapable of achieving anything close to the success achieved by the caucasian European races. Otherwise, they wouldn’t still be “oppressed”. They can’t even revolt against their oppressors unless – as Ymar states – they are supported and guided by their caucasian leaders. Pretty sad.
U.S. President Jimmy Carter and British Prime Minister James Callaghan, demanded new elections that would include the participation of terrorist leaders who did not believe in the democratic process.
Well, of course. Jimmy Carter wants to promote the mass murder of millions, if not billions. He was limited simply by his lack of vision and lack of capability, not by his lack of malicious glee at the suffering of others nor was he limited by the lack of the power of the United States, for he was the President of the USA.
Obama, of course, has more advantages and even more ambition and vision. He will, or perhaps already has, exceed Carter.
Another Leftist slave wannabe owning white man sticking it to the little guy, Helen. Of course, you will gladly ignore such crimes against humanity in favor of a more comfortable narrative, one in which you pay no price for strangers you can ignore as they are wiped from existence. This is a comfortable existence for you, Helen, but it is not sustainable by the laws of the universe. There is such a thing as causality in this universe, Helen, which is not under the fealty and control of your Utopia.
Instead of condemning Mugabe, corrupt African politicians view Mugabe as some sort of hero, for his defiance of the West.
Tribes value family bonds, and what ensures family bonds are the land that the family holds. Mugabe doesn’t need to redistribute land, he is the family patriarch and thus he owns the land, as is rightly so considered by many black tribalists, including those with Masters in Physics here in America.
In the British Sunday Times newspaper of September 23, 2007, Judith Todd, a left-liberal human rights activist who was one of Smith’s most outspoken opponents in the 1970s, now admits that “Mugabe was rotten from the start”.
Useful cannon fodder which I would not blink an eye at expending in a worthwhile cause.
The Left accuses us of taking out governments and instituting dictators for Cold War purposes and “national security” which they have labeled as Haliburton inspired exploitation of the natural resources, oil, of other nations.
Of course, in truth, the Left have profited mightily from inordinate cruelty and exploitation of those nations and individuals weaker than the Left, when the Left had the power of America behind them.
My very liberal friend Becky asked me a few years ago why I had left the Democratic Party. I explained my dismay at the party’s stance on abortion, its adulation of cowards like Teddy Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, its sickening preoccupation with assaults on the family and the glorification of deviant sex, and finally, its racism.
Becky understood everything but that last one. How, she asked, could the greatest defender of African Americans in U.S. history be racist?
I pointed out that, thanks to the Great Society and its Democratic-enabled successor programs, the formerly stable black family had been smacked to smithereens: a 70 percent rate of out-of-wedlock births; an abortion rate of 35 percent; a high crime generated by fatherless young men (fatherless because welfare rewarded single mothers and penalized married women); an astoundingly low rate of literacy and education despite hundreds of billions of dollars being poured into educational sh**holes like the Los Angeles and Washington, DC public school districts.
I have always wondered why Helen has never challenged what her side of the political spectrum has done to African Americans—the seemingly deliberate destruction of their families and morals in the name of liberation. What does her side have to offer them except more heroin in the form of welfare, victimology courses and the demeaning bigotry of “Well, the poor dears can’t help themselves”?
Her side offers power. And it is the lot of slaves to give their power to their masters, so that their white masters will decide to what worthy cause that power shall be applied to.
90% of blacks are Democrats. 90% of black suffering, crime, and low economic and educational standards are caused by Democrats. 90% of blacks are owned by Democrats. 90% of slavery has been perpetrated by Democrats.
This is what blacks voting Democrat means, Helen.
And if everyone was angry and impolite enough to smack their friends in the face with this at their social parties, the Republican party would have a much stronger and better image in the eyes of America. And so would conservatives in that party.
But no, we are polite, we are restrained, we do not identity ourselves with our politics. So sayeth the pacifist to the warmonger.
http://bad.eserver.org/editors/1999/1999-6-1.html
Those observations are interesting, if you know the war the Left has waged on America.
Link
That is a good study of the kind of mind manufactured from the exploitive ideology of the Left, their so called “class warfare”.
Here’s an article I was looking for.
Link
Read more and keep in the mind the “Sharecropper” author from South Africa. That sharecropper constantly mentions his lack of intelligence or education. He does not quite have a grasp of things, and knows he doesn’t. Perfect propaganda raw material for those with the skills to mold it.
Writing letters to the press, manning stands at county fairs, hosting fund-raising dinners, attending rallies, setting up conferences, writing your Congressman – that is what you know, and what you are comfortable with. Those are the political methods you’ve created for yourselves to keep your country on track and to ensure political accountability.
But woe to you if – or more likely, when – the rules change. White Americans may soon find themselves unable or unwilling to stand up to challenge the new political methods that will be the inevitable result of the ethnic metamorphosis now taking place in America. Unable to cope with the new rules of the game – violence, mob riots, intimidation through accusations of racism, demands for proportionality based on racial numbers, and all the other social and political weapons used by the have-nots to bludgeon treasure and power from the haves – Americans, like others before them, will no doubt cave in. They will compromise away their independence and ultimately their way of life.
An equally important point, but not the whole article, which I do strongly recommend you read in its entirety, off my blog post “South America”.
I have noted before that Americans, most notably conservatives or pro-Iraqi advocates, were acting like their contest with the Left over Iraq or torture was an “intellectual debate”. It is not an intellectual debate; facts do not matter. It is a war, and in war victory and winning is the only thing that matters. Do not be deceived by the Left’s attempt to defeat us in Iraq, they clearly knew the benefits to us and to the Iraqis of us winning. Just as they knew the benefits of Democrats winning, by making us lose in Iraq. Do not be deluded into believing the Leftist mantra that “victory” does not matter. It surely does, but it must be victory for the right side. Their side, never ours.
If you thought the Left was about tolerance and cosmopolitan “understanding” of other people’s views, then you need to re-educate yourself. Or else the Left, and Obama, will do it for you.
I believe Suek has mentioned before concerning her “awareness” of taqiyah and how it directly contradicted her belief that honesty was a universally accepted virtue. It is not. Do not be deceived by Leftist agitators claiming “racial equality” when all they want is more power for their businesses, unions, and corrupt plutocrats like Ted Kennedy.
Remember the Rules for Radicals, for sensible radicals. For we have become the radical Republican party, the same party that advocated that the Democrat controlled political, social, and economic stranglehold of the South should change. First with the liberation of slaves, second with laws attempting to give security and prosperity to those self-same slaves, now freed. Laws that were undermined, eradicated, and destroyed by veto from a Democrat sympathizer. It took generations for the whites of the South to get away from such a stranglehold.
They would have us and our children believe that it was the Republican party that destroyed and hurt blacks. They have primarily succeeded in brainwashing the recent generations on this score. Black folks that I know, actually believe Lincoln was a Democrat. They are surprised when I tell them that it ain’t so. And why are they surprised? You already know the answer to that.
The cost of abandoning your allies is not just a moral one. It does not just weigh on your soul as an evil and inconsiderate act. In actuality, abandoning your allies means that when your arse is on the line, like now, they ain’t around to help you. Rhodesia is no more, courtesy of Carter and Mugabe. We will see no help from them. Even if their help or just international solidarity would be enough to tip our chances. It doesn’t matter, cause they no longer exist. Just as Vietnam no longer exists in the non-communist form. The Left destroyed Vietnam, and when we needed the expertise of the Vietnamese in fighting cruel and sadistic terrorists? The Vietnamese were not there to help us, to advise us on how to save American lives in Iraq. Why? Cause we killed the Vietnamese, we killed them by abandoning them when they were invaded by the Soviet tanks, and we let our Congress cut the ammunition and logistics support. They ran out of ammunition before they surrendered. And these are the people the Left called “corrupt” and “weak” and “not worthy of their own country” cause they lost in a “fair fight”? A hundred broken fingers for every Leftist of such mentality would not be enough to avenge the fallen. A million broken bones is not enough to equal even one life snuffed out on the orders of Ted Kennedy and the other Democrats in power who ordered the fall of Saigon.
Doesn’t anyone see that when you keep on paraphrasing and explaining what I think and mean that you have made me the stereotypical liberal idiot who doesn’t think anything through? I could explain all day and one of would wipe it all out with one silly generalization. So, ….
Doesn’t anyone see that when you keep on paraphrasing and explaining what I think
I have accurately predicted, analyzed, and translated your views at least 10 times more often than you yourself have mine own or anyone else’s here.
This makes me an authority, you may say. An authority as valid as your own scholarly degree and instructors.
But of course, you may not value results, and results and accuracy are the only things I provide as my legitimacy. If you value Leftist academa and intellectual “purity” as legitimacy, then surely you will not accept my authority on these matters.
And of course, the fact that you resort to this silly complaint whenever you have a complete absence of arguments, attacks, or defenses to bolster your own claims, really does not make your positions less foolish, Helen. Really.
have made me the stereotypical liberal idiot who doesn’t think anything through
You cannot address actual arguments. Given that, does it really matter what you are thinking or not thinking? If the sun is gong nova, does it really matter whether you are on the moon or the Earth?
Quantitatively, if the person you call a racist destroys your argument for why that is, why then does it become an Obama Silly Generalization? Is it only silly when you lose, just like it is only “extreme” if it is not sanctified by Pope Obama?
Of course I would wipe out such pathetic and feeble attempts by you to claim moral superiority on issues you are simply a puppet for powers and elements more dangerous and more aware than you yourself.
You do not need to explain anything, dear Helen. I will make it very clear and accessible in your stead.
Up against the suffering of Millions, caused by your ideology and your friends and your allies, in Africa, what is your response? Guilt? Regret? Introspection? Honest attempt at knowledge or wisdom?
No, your immediate reaction is to talk about yourself and how it is ‘unfair’. The Lives of Others only matter to the Left insomuch as it affects the comfort levels of the white masters and the black slaves of the Left.
Btw, I’m still waiting on Oz to show up somewhere on the web and start claiming Obama stole the elections. Since she is all “bipartisan” and what not about claiming political parties and McCain and so forth are all the “same”.
Surely after peddling her material making the case that Bush stole 2000 and 2008, that she as her “bipartisan” self will appear, somewhere if not here, and make the case against the Obama loyalists that ACORN helped steal the election because businesses were in league and wanted to be “bailed out” and given help like Bush gave them.
I’m waiting, but in reality I expect Ozzie to peddle her usual partisan and ideologically cult like theme that ACORN is “not a problem”.
People in Cults never believe that it is a problem. They don’t believe, until they are forced to kill themselves or others. Then they will believe. I’m going to wait for that and it’s going to be something to celebrate as I watch those like Ozzie help burn America down.
I have to agree with Helen. CharlesM asked Helen a very pointed question in #20. I would very much like to read her response.
I wish people here complete luck in acquiring that response.
>>…you have made me the stereotypical liberal idiot who doesn’t think anything through?>>
Heh.
Helen, all stereotypes have some actual basis. Of course, the stereotype is usually a composite of the characteristics of many different individuals, all of which characteristics are rarely if ever found in an actual single individual, but nevertheless, it doesn’t make the characteristics themselves false.
Why do you think the white man has succeeded in oppressing the black man in spite of his legal freedom?