Thursday, November 4, 2010

The Prattling Prince

How is it that one person can use so many words to say so little, & evade so much? Just a clip from the Prattling Prince, who used a span of 6.5 minutes NOT to answer this question (from the post-midterm press conference):

Reuters Reporter: "What do you say to the people that say 'the election outcome, at least in part, was voters saying that they see you as out of touch w/ their personal economic pain, & are you willing to make any changes in your personal leadership style?' "



Summary in 5 short points:

1) First minute-- Blame the voters, who "didn't have problem with my leadership style when I was running around Iowa..."

2) Up through 2:50-- 'You all just can't see how wonderful I am'

3) Up through 5:30-- 'I'm a Great Communicator, just like Reagan! The job is so big & important, you can't understand. When I 'get out of here' & make more speeches, I'll evolve to my Great Communicator status.' [hint: Reagan never referred to himself as a Great Communicator]

4) To the end-- ["Hmm...Maybe they'll love me in India..."]

5) From Nancy Pfotenhauer, Rep. Strategist, "This man is like a teenager resolutely not listening to their parents. I mean, he, the condescension is so rife within him, he doesn't even know he's doing it."

~~~

94 comments:

Joe said...

If, as I suspect, President BO is a clinical narcicist, then Nancy Pfotenhauer is correct...he does not know he's doing it.

Isn't the India trip interesting? 34 war vessels, billions of dollars just to see the festival of lights? Give me a break!!

Susannah said...

Joe~ First, ain't life GRAND?! I'm so pleased from Tuesday, I can hardly stand it! The road ahead is long, but this victory sure is sweet...

Now, India, millions upon millions dumped down the potty...and for what? Dodging coconuts? No. For thumbing his nose @ us -- what he can do w/ OUR $$, and nobody can stop him.

Clinical narcissist? You betcha.

WomanHonorThyself said...

great summary Susannah! have a great weekend!

Jim said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Susannah said...

WHT~ Thanks! You have a great weekend, too!

Jim~ Sorry, dude, but your comment had nothing whatsoever to do w/ the post here. You've been deleted. (Btw, you might want to turn off Rachel Maddow & back slowly away from MSNBC.)

Craig said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brooke said...

Obama is a malignant narcissist.

Perhaps he's just angry that "the enemy" won't be "riding in the back" of the bus anymore.

Craig: This is Susannah's electronic front porch, and she can have whomever she wishes on it. Her rules and all.

The only one here who sounds hateful is you; full of ad hominem and bile.

Jim said...

Susannah- Oh, dudette, so I can only respond to the original post but not to lies in comments? That's the rule?

So on your post, Craig hit the nail on the head. I listened to your clip and the supposed "5 short points" and phony time stamps bore no relationship to the speech or the tone. They are completely made up, hate-filled delusion.

As Craig alludes to, there is some psychological problem apparent when someone perceives normal, matter-of-fact speech as "condescension". I guess listening to someone using big words and moderately complex ideas causes some people headaches.

Is THAT why you miss George W. Bush?

Jim said...

"President BO is a clinical narcicist [sic]" doesn't sound hateful to you, Brooke?

"Obama is a malignant narcissist."

That's not hateful, Brooke?

By the way, what does "malignant narcissist" mean? Or did you pick "malignant" because it just sounds nasty?

cube said...

First time commenter. Found you via Brooke's blog.

Interesting discussion. I agree with Susannah's take on Obama's "You're just too stupid to get ME" speech.

And BTW, it's her blog and she edit the contents in whatever way she wants. You know, just like CBS,NBC,ABC,MSNBC,CNN,BBC and the rest of the media edit the contents of their shows leaving out the right's point of view.

Susannah said...

Craig~ Having a 'conversation' w/ 'the other side,' OK. But you've arrived on my "front porch" (thanks Brooke) to sling all manner of insults & epithets (or is it simply your bitterness from Tuesday night?) toward me & my guests...No.

Sorry, Craig, that's just really, really bad manners. Blame it on me to justify your behavior...whatever.

Shaw Kenawe said...

10 ideas & comments:
Joe said...
If, as I suspect, President BO is a clinical narcicist, then Nancy Pfotenhauer is correct...he does not know he's doing it.

Isn't the India trip interesting? 34 war vessels, billions of dollars just to see the festival of lights? Give me a break!!

Joe,

You must know by now that everything in that bolded text has been exposed as a lie.

Did you bother to fact check that disinformation before passing it along?

All reputable agencies have dismissed the false report on this trip--including the Pentagon.

And yet you felt comfortable in spreading this malignant lie here and Susannah happily agrees with it without checking its veracity.

And then I go on to read how you and the others here criticize the president while happily acting as fleshy conduits for falsehoods and rumors.

Be sure to pat yourselves heartily on the back for that hypocrisy. You deserve it.

Susannah said...

Brooke~ Yes, he is, and angry - you bet. Have you read Dinesh D'Souza's The Roots of Obama's Rage? Wow...

Jim~ "They are completely made up, hate-filled delusion." Right...like my interpretation of "the back of the bus" and "enemies" was a "based on a lie" too. Sure.

"normal, matter-of-fact speech" It WASN'T a speech! That's the point. He was SUPPOSED to be answering questions - which he DIDN'T do - but rather turned it into an opportunity to lecture people, wax eloquent about his great communicator-ness that has been misunderstood, complain about how hard his job is & how he must 'get out there' more (is there a president in our history who has been as OVER EXPOSED as this one?)...but never simply answered their questions...

He thought he could talk in circles around the press pool & they would (get headaches) let him off the hook. That very assumption was the least of his condescension. But you won't see it, you're still one of the enraptured ones.

Cube! So glad you came! I've seen you around @ a lot of other places. Thanks for stopping by. And thanks for noting my prerogative...at least I'm not claiming to be a 'journalist.' Ha!

Susannah said...

Shaw, dear~ Welcome back~ You've been a stranger! And none to rusty on the melodrama: "malignant lie."

Baby-cakes - the FACT is that the pres. IS taking a VERY, VERY expensive trip to India for who-knows-what-reason (I know, I know...international good-will, blah, blah). He IS taking a HUGE entourage of people (btwn 2,000-3,000?) with him, booking HUNDREDS of hotel rooms, and sight-seeing IS on his 'supposed' itenerary...

So, what's the 'malignant lie?' That Joe got the number of navy vessels wrong, & I didn't "check the veracity" of his calculation?

That's like continuing to search for the needle while the haystack is on fire; it misses the point. (hmmm...maybe I shouldn't have deleted Jim after all...)

'fleshy conduits of falsehoods & rumors' ooh; that's good. Sounds like a Maddow moment...

Susannah said...

But I'll get back on topic. Our criticism of the pres. here is minor, mere kid stuff.

You want criticism?? Go back to Tues. night & calculate the election returns that SWEPT the NATION. Now, my dear, THAT's criticism -- very real, very concrete & undeniable. And it blows out of the water all say WE'RE the 'deluded' ones. Ha!

Trouble is, the Pres. will not accept criticism - even when it has handed him his hat. This is his tragic flaw.

Craig said...

Baby-cakes - the FACT is that the pres. IS taking a VERY, VERY expensive trip to India for who-knows-what-reason (I know, I know...international good-will, blah, blah). He IS taking a HUGE entourage of people (btwn 2,000-3,000?) with him, booking HUNDREDS of hotel rooms, and sight-seeing IS on his 'supposed' itenerary...

So, what's the 'malignant lie?' That Joe got the number of navy vessels wrong, & I didn't "check the veracity" of his calculation?


It's a bogus story. A lie. Why can't you just admit you where lied to by Fox and Rush, again.

Jim said...

"Trouble is, the Pres. will not accept criticism - even when it has handed him his hat."

That's not what I heard. Of course I don't have an irrational hate for the man.

Shaw Kenawe said...

The amount that was reported that would be spent on the Asian trip is a lie.

ALL PRESIDENTS go on foreign trips. All presidential trips are expensive because of the security involved. Mr. Obama's expenditures are no different from past presidents. What people have forgotten is that EVERYTHING is more expensive now than it was 10 years ago.

What is different here is that the rightwingers are complaining about the expenses involved, and never complained about other presidents.

Both the dollar amount being spent AND the the number of navy vessels involved repeated by Joe and approved by you are lies.


The whole story was based on an unnamed source that was reported in an Indian newspaper, which the rightwing noise machine picked up and spread--without checking the facts.

The righwing noise machine has been exposed again as nothing but liars and rumor mongers.

And people here criticize Mr. Obama?


This is the only thing I'm speaking about and it is a subject Joe brought up and you agreed with.

It is all a lie, and everyone knows it.

"malignant lie" was used to mock the commenter here who called Obama a "malignant narcissist."

Jim said...

"like my interpretation of "the back of the bus""

See! You're using made up crap again. He NEVER said anything about the "back of the bus". That's a lie.

He was talking about driving the car and Republicans couldn't have the keys but if they wanted to come along, the could sit in the back seat but they couldn't drive.

Never EVER said back of the bus.

Made up **** (crap).

Jim said...

"He was SUPPOSED to be answering questions - which he DIDN'T do"

Well, I suppose he didn't meet your requirements by saying, "I am indeed out of touch with their personal pain. Even though I've worked in communities where people had a variety of struggles, I ignored their pain because I spent some time in a Madrassa in Indonesia and being a Muslim has blinded me to the feelings and struggles of Americans. So even though I meet with regular middle class Americans week in and week out and I read letters from Americans in all walks of life nightly, I've only been doing that for show. But I promise you I'll really, really, really listen to them now and connect with them because by telling you this, I'm admitting that I'm a phony."

Or since the question was, "How do you respond to those who say the election outcome, at least in part, was voters saying that they see you as out of touch with their personal economic pain?" he could have said, "Well, actually those who say that can suppose that that's what voters were saying, have made it up because they love to tell a story about how I'm an elitist. The fact is I come from humble beginnings and have worked with people who have struggled all their lives. So I respond to your question by saying it's premise is not only false, but so is the suggestion that I am out of touch. If believing that I can form, promote and enact political policies that I believe will make America stronger and Americans healthier and physically and financially more secure makes me an 'elitist', I gladly accept that."

As to the second part of the question about changing leadership styles, he specifically says, "I'm sure there are easier ways to learn these lessons. But I do think that this is a growth process and an evolution."

Sorry he didn't answer exactly the way you wanted, but he answered the question quite nicely. And by the way, citing examples of troubled times and how "great communicators" endured does not equate to naming one's self a great communicator.

Hope this post stays up for a few hours.

Craig and Heather said...

Well, his response to the reporter contained a lot of words.

I'm not sure I like the question, though. Is it the President's job to feel the economic pain of American citizens? It's not that I think he ought to be callous to our financial struggles, but I'm wondering whether we ought to be at all looking to govt intervention for economic recovery and job creation. Doesn't that leave us too dependent on the govt for our day-to-day well-being?

Guess I need to go think about that one a bit.

Oh, and Susannah, I've been meaning to tell you that I think Otis is darling! My BIL favors Jack Russels and has a great little short legged guy, too :)

Heather

DUTA said...

I'm afraid that even if the republicans go back to the steering wheel, they won't be able to repair the huge damage done by the election of Obama.

This election marks the downfall of the american dream, and it doesn't seem as there's a way back.

Joe said...

Jim: The observation of Narcissism is not hateful, any more than the observation of paranoid schizophrenia is hateful. It is a clinical condition that is recognized by psychiatry and is demonstrated by those affected by it. (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652)

President BO exhibits the characteristics of clinical narcissism. That's fact, not hatred.

I do not hate him. Not in the least. I absolutely despise his policies.

Susannah said...

Craig~ "It's a bogus story. A lie. Why can't you just admit you where lied to by Fox and Rush, again."

It seems that this story has some flaws in it's original telling; you're right. However, Craig, I did not hear of it on FNC or Rush, to which I haven't tuned in since Tues. night (though you surely won't believe me). As I recall, I heard it on MSNBC -- though you won't believe that either...(Thanks, btw, for at least cleaning up your manners this time.)

Jim, dear~ I believe I said this the last time we went tete a tete: "You're blind, & that's dangerous. Because you really mean what you just said, nothing (political) that you say holds any further validity with me."
So, I guess we're at an impasse, you & I.

SK~ "ALL PRESIDENTS go on foreign trips. All presidential trips are expensive because of the security involved."
Indeed they do...

"Both the dollar amount being spent AND the the number of navy vessels involved repeated by Joe and approved by you are lies."
I suggest you speak to your friends @ MSNBC, then...

Jim~ "You're using made up crap again. He NEVER said anything about the "back of the bus". That's a lie."

It is NOT a lie! I heard it with my OWN EARS on a Sunday afternoon broadcast -- BEFORE it became big "campaign news." My reaction when I first heard it (sans ANY commentary from journalists)?? "Oh @#$%, he did NOT just say what I heard him say!" I reported it to my husband, & only 2 days later did it come out as a news story. But by then, BHO had changed it to 'back seat,' or some such garbage. YES. HE DID SAY IT. I heard it, it's TRUE -- whether you like to admit your Prattling Prince is a narcissistic RACIST or not!!!!

Now. I have some shoes to buy -- for my 14 year old (size 11 1/2). I'll respond to others when I return. Thanks for your patience & Wish us luck!

Jim said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Susannah said...

Jim~ I KNOW what I heard -- and was surprised that there was NO commentary attached. I am certainly not 'deranged.' YOU are so intent on your worship & pathological protection of this man, that you refuse to hear ANY criticism of him, even when the entire country (save the NE & Leftist CA) REJECTS his agenda. Surely we're not ALL "deranged..." But probably in your estimation, we are.

In your mind, the WHOLE country - everyone who reject your Prince - is MEAN, hate-filled, racist, & deranged -- b/c we 'just won't give the Prince a break.' Well sir, he HAD his break, & WE DIDN'T WANT IT.

Who the he@# cares what kind of trip he has just embarked upon, or what-news-Channel-said-"what"-when about him...The point is we have a VERY, VERY big problem with him -- most of us. This FACT has now been borne out through living breathing VOTERS; and nobody, not you, SK or the BHO himself can deny it any longer.

And you people say we're the 'deluded' ones? How 'bout get an itsy-bitsy mirror, & examine YOURSELF for once...

You've just called me a liar. I will not stand for that. Good Bye.

Susannah said...

Heather~ "but I'm wondering whether we ought to be at all looking to govt intervention for economic recovery and job creation."
Of course NOT! I'm w/ Reagan, 'Gov't is not the solution...' And of COURSE it means our society will end up more dependent on Gov't; that's their aim...then they'll garner the favor of LARGE voting blocks of people who want gov't $$ (that would be mine & yours - "spread the wealth around," you know). Once they secure large voting blocks, then they retain power, forever.

And thanks for the words about Otis. He's curled up right beside me as I type this. Cute thing! We keep asking him how his legs got so short... ;)

DUTA! So glad you're back! I'm more optimistic than you, I supposed. Probably b/c I have to be. I believe that this election marks the beginning of a very long road to getting our country back on course. It is going to be a very difficult struggle. Hearing people like Marco Rubio

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBrO7VmB5fM)

gives me strength & encourage me that there are still people who KNOW what our country is SUPPOSED to be about. Thank GOD for Marco Rubio!

Joe~ VERY, very well stated. You are exactly correct! "President BO exhibits the characteristics of clinical narcissism. That's fact, not hatred.

I do not hate him. Not in the least. I absolutely despise his policies."

BINGO! Thanks.

Shaw Kenawe said...

JOE wrote: "President BO exhibits the characteristics of clinical narcissism. That's fact, not hatred."

Excuse me for making this observation, Joe, but I've never seen an "MD" after your name.

You are not qualified to make the statement. You can offer it as an opinion, (and we all have opinions, don't we) but as a definitive diagnosis of someone you've never spoken to or met in person, your statement that it's a "fact" that Mr. Obama exhibits signs of clinical narcissism is comical.

I don't think you'd appreciate some stranger saying that it's a "fact" that you suffer from bipolar delusions of grandeur manifested by your pompous statements on medical conditions on which you have no medical training or degree.

That would be so wrong. I have a suggestion. Why don't you speak of others as you would have others speak of you?

Susannah, I don't have friends working for MSNBC. You must have me confused with someone else.

Anonymous said...

Better save a copy of your post, Shaw. Challenge the administrator and be deleted. She can't take proof. Facts don't matter.

Jim said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Susannah said...

SK! What a grand re-entry into the conversation. You're right - Joe does not, to my knowledge, have MD behind his name. But Charles Krauthammer, brilliant Pulitzer Prize winner does. In fact, his MD is in Psychiatry. Funny that, because he has written extensively on BHO's maneuverings, his policies & their impact on our society, and he draws an inescapable conclusion in this piece - esp. the 2nd half : "Obama is not the first president with a large streak of narcissism. But the others had equally expansive feelings about their country. Obama's modesty about America would be more understandable if he treated himself with the same reserve. What is odd is to have a president so convinced of his own magnificence -- yet not of his own country's."

I'll take this - a principled, professional quasi-assessment over your myopic protectivism any time...

Susannah said...

Anon~ Challenge, I can handle - with delight, even (eh, SK?). I will not, however, be called a liar, & those who do so will certainly be deleted.

Seems to me, anyone who won't sign their name is pretty much afraid of a "challenge."

Craig and Heather said...

Joe I do not hate him. Not in the least. I absolutely despise his policies.

Isn't it interesting how some people translate "I strongly disagree with a person's ideas or behavior" to read "I have a deep seated and irrational hatred of the individual"? Why is it so difficult these days to be able to say you believe someone is wrong without it being understood to be a personal attack?




SusannahOf course NOT! I'm w/ Reagan, 'Gov't is not the solution...'

I didn't figure you to be of the more govt interference mindset. The reporter's question just struck me as a bit odd.

We keep asking him how his legs got so short... ;)

LOL! I love the little legs!

Say, you're site appears to be another cranky leftist magnet ;)

How'd the shoe-shopping go?

H

Susannah said...

Heather~ "Why is it so difficult these days to be able to say you believe someone is wrong without it being understood to be a personal attack?"

Because they want us to shut up & drink the kool-aid. They throw out "hate" or "racism" or "deranged" & we're supposed to demure & let them drape a mantle of contrived shame across us.

It's not new, but it's getting old, really , & I'm not buying it anymore. (And SK, Jim, et. al. are cranky because the Country ain't buying it anymore, either.)

Shoe shopping was a success. Yippee! In the end, it was 11.5's, but he was trying on 12's of some brands! My husband's shoe size is 10.5 - Ha!

Otis is curled up in my lap with his little legs tucked under him. He thinks it's time to go to bed, & he's right!

Craig and Heather said...

From your link
See, bloggers who’ve read any of my stuff, know my Christian world-view. I’m quite clear about it, & don’t even hint at apology (I hope).


I've noted visitors here accusing you, and others, of lying. And, I know this isn't my blog, but I do believe that if they know your position of faith and are not interested in anything other than heckling and otherwise making your blog experience a misery, the truth isn't all that important to them.


The Person of Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation of Truth. If your unfriendly commenters continue to reject Him, it won't matter what crumb of reality concerning President O they can find to defend.

Glad your hunting expedition was successful! G'night to you and Otis.

H

Anonymous said...

You know, for most of eight years I was called a Bush hater because I disagreed with his policies. I didn't hate him.

Guess it doesn't go both ways.

Z said...

I just did some GOogling on the Pres's India trip and watched a presser with Gibbs responding to questions about it.....it's so odd that he won't tell approximately how much a day it IS costing no matter how many times he's asked by both sides. They ask, he evades using mostly innuendos of how people are silly to listen to Conservative media venues. WHat kind of information is that?

By the way, who EVER believed anything could cost TWO HUNDRED MILLION A DAY? That's insane.

THe president needs to be protected and that's not cheap, we all understand that. The president's people need to just TELL THE TRUTH when confronted by facts they deny. Just CORRECT the misinformation, why can't they ever DO that? Why insult and obfuscate instead? So typical of this White House.

Re Obama, I wish he'd stop being so thin skinned...maybe he could even wake up to the fact that Republicans are about half of this country and he might want to stop calling half the country "the enemy" and "those people.." what a child.

super post, Susannah..

Craig said...

It seems that this story has some flaws in it's original telling; you're right. However, Craig, I did not hear of it on FNC or Rush, to which I haven't tuned in since Tues. night (though you surely won't believe me). As I recall, I heard it on MSNBC -- though you won't believe that either...(Thanks, btw, for at least cleaning up your manners this time.)

I apologize for my post earlier. I didn't think Jim's comment was out of line. I voiced my disgust.

If you heard it on MSNBC, I'm guessing it was debunking the story. Speaking of MSNBC, when will you be posting your outrage at the effective firing of Keith O. for doing the same thing as Joe Scar. and Larry Kudlow? It seems like the new owners, Comcast, couldn't wait to get rid of him. Too bad there isn't somebody in the mythical 'liberal media' to give him a $2M gig.

Craig said...

Heather~ "Why is it so difficult these days to be able to say you believe someone is wrong without it being understood to be a personal attack?"

Because they want us to shut up & drink the kool-aid. They throw out "hate" or "racism" or "deranged" & we're supposed to demure & let them drape a mantle of contrived shame across us.


It's gone way beyond believing someone is wrong. Obama has been accused of hating America, hating white people, being a Muslim, non-citizen, Commie, clinically narcissistic (Charles K., being an MD, should know better than to diagnose without actually examining someone. I think he may have a motive.), and on and on.

I do recall that when people were criticizing Bush, the right actually came up with a name for it. Bush Derangement Syndrome.

It's fine to criticize Obama's policies but so much of the criticism is based on lies and distortions. Remember death panels? I have plenty of beefs with the Dems and Obama. The biggest being, he was too bent on compromise with Repubs. The stimulus, health care, wall street reform, all watered down to appease Repubs and still they voted against it.

Anyway, this economic predicament has been 30 years in the making and ADHD America is angry it wasn't fixed in 20 months. Let's see how the new House handles things. My guess is more obstruction and give aways to their wealthy owners.

For those who think it's all Obamas fault, here's a nice little graph. The red bars are Bush, the blue Obama.

Whateverman said...

I've lurked here for a while, and have even posted a few times. I think I've got a hang for what's allowable and what's not, so I'm going to take a stab at the idea of people rejecting criticism of president Obama...

I tend to mistrust criticism, of any kind, when its expressed primarily via emotion. As an example, there's a difference between "narcissist" and "malignant narcissist"; the former is something that can be assessed objectively while the latter is not.

When criticism of anything is 90% unverifiable, I tend to not bother trying - for the sake of expediency. People with legitimate grievances can express them in such a way that others can look up the details and conclude "Hmm, there's something to this".

Most (not all) of the criticism of President Obama here seems (to me) unverifiable; it has the feel of hysteria rather than reason. Obviously, this is your blog, Susannah, and you're under no obligation to concede my stylistic criticism. Rant if you want, delete people who disagree with you all you want - do nothing but lie about our current president - it's your call.

(And by the way, I'm not accusing you of any of the above).

What gets me, though, is that you don't seem to be concerned with trying to convince people that your opinions are accurate. This blog seems to be more about preaching to the choir, rather than raising actual issues. And - you seem not to be aware of this.

---

I saw a president answering a question in a typically evasive manner, and trying to spin it. I don't find this unusual, nor would I see it as evidence of anything other than a politician being a politician.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"I'll take this - a principled, professional quasi-assessment over your myopic protectivism any time..."--Susannah

Yes, I know that Krauthammer made a quasi-diagnosis of Obama in his newspaper column. A highly unprofessional thing to do--especially when Krauthammer took an oath to do no harm before he received his medical degree.

Krauthammer has never personally had a psychiatric session with Mr. Obama.

By using his background as a psychiatrist to attack the president and make public claims about the president's personality traits (again without ever having had any private psychiatric consultations with him) is glaring proof of Krauthammer unprincipled and biased assertions.

A close friend of mine is a psychiatrist who also was associated with MGH, as was Krauthammer, and my friend has unequivocally stated that what Krauthammer diagnosed publicly is not only unprofessional, but shows an extreme lack of fidelity to the Hippocratic oath he swore to when he became an MD.

Here is part of that oath:

"I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God."

Mr. Obama is not Krauthammer's patient. Krauthammer bases his diagnosis of Obama's alleged narcissism only on public appearances and nothing more. Krauthammer has absolutely no personal knowledge of Mr. Obama and his private self.

Therefore Krauthammer's assessment of Mr. Obama's personality trait is meaningless as well as unprofessional.

Craig and Heather said...

It's gone way beyond believing someone is wrong.

Craig,
I'm perfectly happy to assume the President has good intentions. But I disagree strenuously with pretty much everything I've seen from him, all the way back to his not-so-well-defined campaign promises of "hope and change".

Whateverman mentions the need for mistrust to be based on evidence rather than emotion, and not only do I agree, but I also happen to believe that our elected leaders ought to be chosen and GIVEN trust in a similar manner. I'm still hearing how wonderful it is that Mr. O is THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT EVER and it's silly. For the record, I think it would be just as silly if Sarah Palin were to get elected as THE FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT EVER.

Same goes for voting in a leader on a primarily foundational principle of economic recovery. People get scared about losing jobs, homes etc and don't stop to look at what all else the "economic recovery" package offers.

"He's going to save our society" is just as emotion-driven as anything that "the right" has been criticized for, here.



......

Craig and Heather said...

For those who think it's all Obamas fault, here's a nice little graph. The red bars are Bush, the blue Obama.

Exactly. And it's been more than 30 years. Go back at least as far as FDR and his govt-backed socialistic "new deal".

So, if the financial mess/job problem isn't Obama's fault, and the problem's been festering for decades, we ought to be extremely cautious about giving him credit for anything good that happens while he is in office.

In the grand scheme, the job creation chart you cited could be a temporary lull in an overall downward trend, at best. It pays to not bee emotionally blinded and short sighted about these things.

Heather

Whateverman said...

Craig and Heather wrote this: "He's going to save our society" is just as emotion-driven as anything that "the right" has been criticized for, here.

I agree completely.

Brooke said...

HAHAHA!!! Leftists like Jim cannot have discourse without becoming hysterical when their position is threatened.

And to answer Jim from a while back, no I don't think it sounds hateful, particularly when compared to the all the nasty stuff leftists said about Bush.

(I bet that last sentence will send Craig and Jim into an apoplectic fit.)

Susannah said...

Heather~ "The Person of Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation of Truth."
Amen, sister. And, really, it doesn't matter who the pres. is or isn't. It doesn't matter what political side we're on. These issues are important, & the folks who come here to discuss/dispute are passionate -- and that's good. But ultimately none of it matters, b/c as I stated here , there really is only one Remedy.

Anon~ No, I'm sure you weren't one of these . Follow the links in this piece. They're quite informative, & BHO's status in the MSM bear little resemblance.

Get a name, would you? Or are ya still scared? (that's a joke, btw) Do though, get a name please. It's only mannerly.

Z, darling! Welcome. "he evades using mostly innuendos of how people are silly to listen to Conservative media venues."
Of course. How stupid we all are for being duped so easily...but to actually answer the question?? 'How stupid you all are for being duped so easily...but how stupid you all are...but how stupid you all are'...ad nauseum.

Craig~ As I said earlier, maybe I was too hasty in deleting Jim's comment. (I'm sorry, Jim.) As I've said to you before, you should actually start you own indiv. blog - where you can 'voice your disgust' to your heart's content. Not here. Apology accepted.

Honestly, I don't know anything about Keith O's firing. If MSNBC did fire him, my opinion is good riddance.

On 'criticism:' one person's 'criticism' is another's irrational lambasting. We disagree, Craig. And I disagree with nearly every SINGLE thing BHO stands for - save for he seems like a loving father & nice husband to his wife.

"this economic predicament has been 30 years in the making and ADHD America is angry it wasn't fixed in 20 months."
We are in agreement here, but that's not why BHO's Dems lost so many seats. Economy or not, we're not buying what he's selling.

Whatever~ "I've lurked here for a while, and have even posted a few times." Welcome, & glad you've dropped by. Interesting, neither yours nor Craig's comment(s) come up on my email notification. If you've posted before & I've not responded, it's b/c I didn't know...

"what's allowable and what's not"
Not allowable=personal insult to me, or personal 'attack' against one of my guests. Contrary to what some suggest, I do not delete for simple disagreement, or to avoid challenge. Otherwise Jim, Craig, SK & plenty of others would never be "allowed" exchanges like these . So much for that theory, hmm?

"What gets me, though, is that you don't seem to be concerned with trying to convince people that your opinions are accurate. This blog seems to be more about preaching to the choir, rather than raising actual issues. And - you seem not to be aware of this."
Sure I'm aware of it. Look. We've just come off a tense election season. If you read blogs like you say, you're fully aware that 'preaching to the choir' is a lot of what happens during elections; the nature of the beast. And sometimes I just feel like it. But that doesn't mean I delete all who disagree - how boring...

Here's a hint: I didn't start this blog to meet liberal expectations of what's supposed to happen in blog-land. And sometimes I make a whole-hearted, concerted effort to 'make a case.' Usually, those are reserved for matters of faith, where there really is only one answer.

Susannah said...

SK~ "diagnosed publicly is not only unprofessional, but shows an extreme lack of fidelity to the Hippocratic oath he swore to when he became an MD"

New member of the Medical Ethics SWAT Team, I see...

I'm not interested in debating Dr. K's ethical concerns. He's fully capable of taking care of himself in that regard, I'm sure. His opinion is brilliant; he has a background that lends itself to that about which he speaks, & I agree w/ him. No ethical breach in that.

Besides, I don't need Dr. K's opinion to tell me what I already know. Come on, now...Who, but a narcissistic personality, writes not 1, but 2 autobiographies before he's even 50ish years old? That alone is all the evidence I need.

Heather~ "'He's going to save our society' is just as emotion-driven as anything that 'the right' has been criticized for, here."
Good point. Not only that, what about the African American community - when what BHO stands for is against their interests - voting for him BECAUSE of his race, & nothing more? How's that for emotional voting?

Hold the phone, SK, Craig, et. al. You can put down the 'race card' here. I've had serious, one on one conversations w/ serious-minded conservative friends (who happen to be black), about why the Afr. Am. commun. votes the way it does. To a person, these friends have said, most (black) people won't think too hard about it - they'll vote for him b/c he's black. People are people - conservative, liberal, white, black, asian, indian, etc. People are people, & emotions drive a lot of what we do, whether we realize it or not. That's why BHO's '08 campaign was so successful, & he knows it.

"if the financial mess/job problem isn't Obama's fault...the problem's been festering for decades,"
I have never, ever said it was 'all his fault.' I've never even thought that it was.

"we ought to be extremely cautious about giving him credit for anything good that happens while he is in office."
Indeed. But the politicians, of course, won't see it that way.

Whatever~ Agreed here, too. See comment above.

Brooke~ Right. "particularly when compared to the all the nasty stuff leftists said about Bush."
Right again - as was my point above in the link.

Thanks for the interesting discussion, all.

Craig said...

As I've said to you before, you should actually start you own indiv. blog

I might just do that. If I do, promise me you'll visit.

Susannah said...

Craig~ Of course. How could I resist?

(As long as it's not like that 'Swash' place where they've got snipers manning the turrets.)

Jim said...

"You've just called me a liar. I will not stand for that. Good Bye."

I don't believe I have ever called you a liar. If I did (and I still don't think I did), it would have been for saying something that you know to be untrue. I can't recall any example of that.

On the other hand, I have called some of the things that you have posted a lie because you were, let's say, passing things on that are demonstrably untrue. So I have called the content a lie, but not the poster a liar. The India trip thing is a case in point. If you believe it, you are not a liar to post it. But it is a lie-not your post, but the story that the trip is costing $200 million a day.

Now, as to the "back of the bus" statement. I fully believe that you believe you heard the president say "back of the bus", but the fact is, there is no record-written, recorded or otherwise-of him doing so. If there was, his detractors would be able to produce it. The words "back of the bus" come from his detractors, not from him.

Saying that someone is mistaken is not the same as calling them a liar.

OK, I'm starting my stopwatch....now.

Jim said...

Wow! So far so good.

"what I already know. Come on, now...Who, but a narcissistic personality, writes not 1, but 2 autobiographies before he's even 50ish years old?"

But you don't already know that. You THINK that because you've been TOLD that. You won't be surprised to learn that I own both books, but you might be surprised to learn that The Audacity of Hope is not an autobiography.

From an Amazon.com review:

With his second book The Audacity of Hope, Obama engages themes raised in his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, shares personal views on faith and values and offers a vision of the future that involves repairing a "political process that is broken" and restoring a government that has fallen out of touch with the people. --Daphne Durham

"That alone is all the evidence I need."

Apparently.

Susannah said...

Jim~ "I don't believe I have ever called you a liar."
Close enough; I'll spare our dear friends the tedium of discussing it further.

"The words 'back of the bus' come from his detractors, not from him.
You're WRONG. I heard him say it to a crowd of college students.

Enough of the condescending 'I believe that you believe you heard...' I'll not discuss it further.

Re: the POTUS' narcissism - "But you don't already know that. You THINK that because you've been TOLD that."

Now Jim, that's one of the more arrogant things you've ever said to me. You THINK that you know what I know, & now you're telling me HOW I came to my knowledge?? What the h@##?

You don't think I can think through complex concepts & articulate them on my own . That, sir, is your problem, not mine.

Yes, I'm well aware that BHO's 'audacity' book is not technically an autobiography. One cannot deny, however, that it's all about himself. Same thing, and clearly illustrates my point, regardless.

So, I'll reiterate, "Who, but a narcissistic personality, writes not 1, but 2 autobiographies before he's even 50ish years old? That alone is all the evidence I need.

Yup.

Susannah said...

Oh, & here's the "on my own" link, in case someone out there was looking for it...

Jim said...

"One cannot deny, however, that it's all about himself."

What does that mean? It's his thoughts on government, policy, values, culture, family and more.

What are Newt Gingrich's books about? How about "Going Rogue"?

"One cannot deny, however, that it's all about himself."

One can, actually.

"clearly illustrates my point"

Not really. But, whatever.

Whateverman said...

Susannah wrote the following to Jim: So, I'll reiterate, "Who, but a narcissistic personality, writes not 1, but 2 autobiographies before he's even 50ish years old?

Someone who's lucky enough to have people clamoring for the story of his life?

Seriously, if you found out that you could make hundreds of thousands of dollars for writing a book about yourself, would you do it? You're damned right you would. You'd be laughing all the way to the bank when they asked you to do it a second time, too.

I don't think that makes Obama a narcissist. It makes him a businessman, something conservatives and republicans are supposed to approve of.

Ok, I couldn't resist that parting shot. Sorry. Seriously though, who wouldn't write two books about themselves if they'd become rich in doing so?

beamish said...

MSNBC's rules against their "impartial journalists" making political campaign contributions should not have applied to Keith Olbermann, as he's neither impartial nor a journalist.

I just find delicious irony in the fact that in the same week Obama posited that Democrats got their asses "shellacked" in the mid-term elections due to problems in communicating their message, Obama's waterbearers at MSNBC canned Olbermann.

How does a President who can't complete a sentence without a teleprompter have trouble getting his "message" out?

Steve Harkonnen said...

ALL PRESIDENTS go on foreign trips. All presidential trips are expensive because of the security involved. Mr. Obama's expenditures are no different from past presidents.

They all sure do. The story about the 34 war ships is a bit of a spin too, since those 34 warships referred to were regionally in place some time well before obama's state visit to India. Makes the small minded folk think those ships maybe all sailed out of Norfolk, just for the president's visit.

Not to cite you a liar, but check the facts again on obama's expenditures being no different from past presidents. His spending is radically different from any other president before him. Let's start with his wife's insatiable desires for lobster and seafood while his so-called "I am my brother's keeper" theory is in line with the thousands of people who were laid off during his time in office. The "let's blame Bush" excuse has become a straw man. We're into this oaf's second year as president and he has done nothing to alleviate the fast track of the jobless.

Sandy said...

FYI: I don't know how much Obama is spending on his trip to Asia, but no, I don't find it at all impossible to believe that it could be $200 million a day. Not for people who passed an "emergency" trillion dollar "stimilus" plan. If you think $200 million a day is unimaginable for a trip to Asia how can you sleep at night when all the dialogue now about federal spending and deficits is in trillions and for the love of God people ONE trillion dollars is $200 million per day for FIVE
THOUSAND DAYS! That's what the election was all about.

Craig said...

The "let's blame Bush" excuse has become a straw man. We're into this oaf's second year as president and he has done nothing to alleviate the fast track of the jobless.

The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted. Unemployment is far too high. Projected Federal spending-- if government refuses to tighten its own belt-- will also be far too high and could weaken and shorten the economic recovery now underway.

Ronald Reagan's SECOND State of the Union address. More than 2 years into his admin. And, of course Reagan never submitted a budget with any 'belt tightening'.

Craig said...

If you think $200 million a day is unimaginable for a trip to Asia how can you sleep at night when all the dialogue now about federal spending and deficits is in trillions and for the love of God people ONE trillion dollars is $200 million per day for FIVE
THOUSAND DAYS! That's what the election was all about.


Reagan, Bush one, Bush two= $9.5T in debt.

Clinton, Obama= $2.5T in debt. That will go up but G. W. Bush's last deficit was $1.4T. Obama's first budget deficit was $1.2T. He cut the deficit.

Sandy said...

Craig,

Here's how I see it. Public debt grew a total of $3.3 trillion from Jan. 20, 2001 to Jan. 20, 2009. That is atrocious and that is a big reason that Obama was elected.

But rather than change things, he came in and grew the public debt by the same amount $3.3 TRILLION in his first 20 MONTHS! And he proposed a ten year budget with average deficits of 4.2% of GDP, compared to 3.2% under Bush and 2.7% of the post WWII average. And the only reason the budgeted deficits weren't higher is that his budget called for reducing the amount of people who pay no federal income taxes to 50% vs 38% of the population, as well as punishing the people who already pay all the bills by phasing out the FICA cap, increasing the top income tax rate to 39.6% from 35% and increasing the LT capital gains tax rates to 20% from 15%.

I'm not going to defend Bush. But I don't understand how you can logically defend this from Obama. Merely saying that he isn't any worse than Bush and other republicans isn't much of a defense even if you were correct in the statistics.

What gives?

Sandy said...

Correction: increasing the number of people who pay no taxes would INCREASE the deficit not reduce it. Sorry - I was trying to cram in facts and mischaracterized that one.

Jim said...

Sandy said, "I don't find it at all impossible to believe that it could be $200 million a day."

Sandy, the war in Afghanistan costs $190 million a day. Think about that for a moment and then see if you still find it possible that the president's trip is costing more per day than the Afghan war.

Steve said, "Let's start with his wife's insatiable desires for lobster and seafood."

Really? You have a source for that "fact"?

Steve said, "The "let's blame Bush" excuse has become a straw man."

Steve, you should look up the term "straw man."

Sandy said...

Jim,

Literally, yes, $200 million a day is perhaps unbelievable. But the point is, I'm sure it is costing A LOT. Too much. So much that Gibbs can't even disclose it. What kind of transparency is that?

The kind of transparency practiced by the Democratic jerks that pissed away trillions in Obama's first two years with absolutely nothing to show for it. It was irresponsible and corrupt - much of it pure political payback. Such as paying union hacks $60 an hour to put little blue circles on the storm drains in my neigborhood that remind us not to dump in toxic chemicals. Now those guys are once again unemployed and I have a neighborhood eyesore of completely useless signs (anybody that would dump chemicals in a storm drain isn't going to stop it just because a little blue emblem asks them not to).

The whole country is full of such useless nonsense, and we have trillions in debt to show for it. What a waste. It was not that big of an emergency. They should have rolled out a well-thought out stimulus plan of infra-structure improvements that at least would have left us with something valuable. Not "mile" markers every tenth of a mile on I-85 in Charlotte. Golly geez!

Craig said...

Here's how I see it. Public debt grew a total of $3.3 trillion from Jan. 20, 2001 to Jan. 20, 2009.

Sandy, The fiscal year runs from Sept. to Oct. So, until Oct., 2001 it was Clinton's surplus. Until Oct., 2009 it was Bush's deficit. It is simply not true that Obama ran up $3T in debt in his first 20 months. Now, he may end up spending that much in 20 or 24 months, but as yet, it would have been impossible for him to do so.

Bush's budgets added almost $4.5T in debt. That averages over $600B per year. They didn't show up as budget deficits because the Repubs paid for the wars through emergency supplementals. It did show up in the debt.

And the only reason the budgeted deficits weren't higher is that his budget called for reducing the amount of people who pay no federal income taxes to 50% vs 38% of the population,

Even those who don't pay income taxes, pay payroll taxes.

as well as punishing the people who already pay all the bills by phasing out the FICA cap, increasing the top income tax rate to 39.6% from 35% and increasing the LT capital gains tax rates to 20% from 15%.

No one's phasing out the cap. The cap rises each year to match inflation. The top 5% actually increased their wealth during the recession. They are not being punished. Can anyone tell me why Bush's tax cuts didn't lead to jobs? Or why the post WWII economy rose steady with low inflation, increased jobs, increased wages, increased innovation and we became the economic power of the world with top marginal tax rates of 74%-91%?

Craig said...

The kind of transparency practiced by the Democratic jerks that pissed away trillions in Obama's first two years with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Nothing but 3.5M jobs. According to the CBO.

Your Congressman or local gov. are responsible for how fed. funds were spent. $60.00 an hour? I really doubt it. Any proof?

Maybe your Congressman or Senator is one of those Republicans who publicly trashed the stimulus while privately begging for stimulus money to 'create jobs'.

Hypocrisy here

Sandy said...

Hypocrisy my ass! If only those districts who voted for the liberals had to pay the taxes and THEN the republican districts asked for the benefits - THAT would be hypocrisy.

And I don't care when the fiscal year runs. Obama and his merry band of liberals went on an irresponsible spending tear for the first twenty months - doesn't matter to me when it will be paid for. Your comment sounds like mere obfuscation to me.

Some people who don't pay income taxes pay payroll taxes. So what? All Americans should pay taxes.

Craig said...

Hypocrisy my ass! If only those districts who voted for the liberals had to pay the taxes and THEN the republican districts asked for the benefits - THAT would be hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy is Republicans telling you the stimulus didn't create any jobs while privately writing letters asking for stimulus money for projects because it will create jobs. It's in their letters. Maybe it's technically not hypocrisy. Just old fashioned lying.

And I don't care when the fiscal year runs.

Of course not. That way you can falsely claim Obama spent $3T.

Some people who don't pay income taxes pay payroll taxes. So what? All Americans should pay taxes.

Did you know most in the top 1% pay a lower effective tax rate than the middle 79%? They take their compensation in stock options. Capital gains. 15%.

It's also an incentive to maximize profits to share holders. The most effective way to do that is cut jobs, lower wages and ship the jobs to countries that exploit workers and the environment. And, thanks to Clinton and the Repubs. we subsidize it.

I think deficits are too high as well but when the economy is on the brink of collapse, it takes capital to bail it out. Consumers don't have it and the capitalists are hiding their money Swiss bank accounts or investing in China.

It's time to clean up the criminal banking system and that means putting the regulations back in place that served us pretty well since the Great Depression. If you want a dynamic economy, you need to protect it.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Susannah wrote: "Come on, now...Who, but a narcissistic personality, writes not 1, but 2 autobiographies before he's even 50ish years old? That alone is all the evidence I need."

Well. Tell us something we don't know.

LOL!

BTW, The Audacity of Hope was NOT an autobiography.

And by your standards, ANYONE who writes a book about him/herself before 50 is a narcissist?

Paging Sarah Palin "Going Rogue!"

Oh, and one of my heros, Benvenuto Cellini started writing his autobiography at 58--oh that's 8 years older than your "50" cut-off, but still--such chutzpah!

Calling all psychiatrists! Here's a definitive red flag for diagnosing a narcissist: Write your autobiography before your 50 years old!

Oh the humanity!

Susannah said...

Whatever~ "Someone who's lucky enough to have people clamoring for the story of his life?"
Maybe now they're clamoring...but when he was merrily penning his works, he was virtually a no-name to anyone outside of IL. That's kinda the point.

"I don't think that makes Obama a narcissist."
Of course not! *sheesh*

You folks can slam Palin & Gingrich all you want, but it's apples/oranges. He & she were well-known NATIONAL figures when they wrote about their lives.(So you'll dash off to Amazon to get a detailed timeline on Newt's writings, to try & prove me wrong on details...) Only a total dolt would not get the difference betwn. BHO's writings prior to national fame/exposure, & Gingrich/Palin's writing afterward.

Brooke~ I don't think I ever responded to your comment. Thanks for stopping by & tossing in your $0.02!

Beam! So glad you came by! I KNOW, can you believe about Olbermann?? I say good riddance - they should've canned him long ago.

Steve~ Welcome! It has sure been a while! Glad you're back to blogging, & decided to stop by here.

Sandy & Craig~ You two are doing a fine job hashing this out. (Obviously, I'm w/ Sandy...) But, dear, Craig has spoken again. I think it's your turn...(his comments never show up on my email - maybe not yours? Craig, you must fix this...)

SK~ "BTW, The Audacity of Hope was NOT an autobiography."
Yes. Jim & I have already been through this. (Were you asleep for all of that?)

Oh, & Re: Palin, you can refer to the last sentence of my comment to 'Whatever.'

Craig and Heather said...

Calling all psychiatrists! Here's a definitive red flag for diagnosing a narcissist: Write your autobiography before your 50 years old!

Ok. I'm not going to jump into the "O's a narcissist" debate. But I have to ask when was a medical degree of any sort required to recognize that someone is self-absorbed?

Seems as though most grade school kids are able to tell who's stuck on themselves.

H

Sandy said...

Craig,

Perhaps you mean well, but this conversation has devolved to the point that you would rather claim to know why I care about something than continue to logically debate a point that you are bound to lose. So let me get this straight: Obama's spending during his first twenty months in office was really GEORGE BUSH's fiscal year spending? I am rolling in the floor laughing! Have you no pride? Why are you so hellbent to defend this guy that you'll make such a foolish argument? Any wonder why Susannah calls him Prince in the title of this post? Because his minions such as yourself are so worshipful.

The old fiscal calendar is so lame. Take responsibility for the guy you support. Admit to his reckless spending and tell us what good it has done. Give up the whole George Bush thing. That dog won't hunt in these woods!

Good Lord. The Dems controlled everything. If they didn't like Bush's budget, why didn't they repeal it? Because they never met a federal dollar they didn't want to spend as fast as possible! Just to be certain, I just did a little research on my numbers and the same numbers were reported by such "conservative" news outlets as oh let's see, the L.A. Times and CBS News. This is not Fox News propaganda. It is the truth plain and simple. You can stomp your feet and pound your fists and hold your breath all you want - but you are cannot change the naked truth.

Z said...

"Nothing but 3.5M jobs. According to the CBO."

I believe a lot of those were CENSUS jobs and are ALL GONE now...or they're other government jobs. They cost us a fortune and I remember the census period when we were all getting visits 3 times a day because people needed to turn in high hours to make some money....
Where's the new job formation from small business, which is the engine behind our country's economy?

gone.

beamish said...

Actually, Craig is right to focus on the start dates of the federal fiscal budget.

Where he takes the fast lane to Stupidville is in not recognizing which branch of government has the most influence upon the economy. As all seventh graders learn in civics class (or used to at least), Congress is the branch of government that controls federal spending hence the effect the government's budgeting and regulatory measures have on the economy overall.

And so, when Democrats took control of Congress in the 2006 elections, every measure they took went into effect on October 1st, 2007, the day the stock market fell from 14,000+ and has not recovered since.

We're still in the Pelosi-Reid recession. Now that the House of Congress that has the most impact on the economy than any other segemnt of government is now safely elected back into control by adults, maybe that will change. Maybe they'll make Obama look as good as Gingrich and company made Clinton look on the economy.

I don't know, though. It's going to take one helluva policy facelift to make Obama look good.

Craig said...

So let me get this straight: Obama's spending during his first twenty months in office was really GEORGE BUSH's fiscal year spending?

Bush's last budget for fiscal year 2009, was -$1.4T. You and others on the right have tried to credit that debit to Obama. That money would have been spent if McCain was Pres. It was already budgeted. Can you get that straight? Yes, The deficits are huge under Obama so far. I'm wondering if you think it would have been better to try and balance the budget when we were staring into the total collapse of the world financial system and the 2nd Great Depression. Maybe.

Or, maybe a better time would have been when the 'fiscally responsible' Repubs ruled for 6 years. Things will be different this time, right?

Obama did push through the stimulus, too small in my opinion, in 2009 off budget. It's fair to count that as adding to the debt. It it also worth pointing out that there is a difference between passing a spending bill and actual outlays. I think we're still just over half that money spent up til now.

Because his minions such as yourself are so worshipful.

Actually, I've been quite critical of Obama. For reasons different than yours, but I'm not real happy with him.

Craig said...

I believe a lot of those were CENSUS jobs and are ALL GONE now.

No. Census jobs weren't included because the census takes place with or without a stimulus.

I was a census enumerator this year. Civic pride and duty. The only reason someone would come to your house 3 times is because they didn't get their form filled out the first 2 times.

Where's the new job formation from small business, which is the engine behind our country's economy?

Good question.

gone.

I know. Driven out of business by Walmart and the other big box stores. A small manufacturer can't compete with a multi national that outsources it's labor to the third world. Naw, that's not it.

Yup, it's those evil janitors and chamber maids in the SEIU who've ruined everything.

Craig said...

As all seventh graders learn in civics class (or used to at least), Congress is the branch of government that controls federal spending hence the effect the government's budgeting and regulatory measures have on the economy overall.

Beamish, my old friend. Still klassy as ever.

Civics classes kind of went out of favor since the Reagan admin.

You do know that, by law, presidents must submit a budget to Congress. Congress can try and reshape it, cut it, whatever, but they do run the risk of not getting appropriations passed and shutting down govt. I see some of the more strident no nothings want to do just that. Good luck. It worked so well for Gingrich.

And so, when Democrats took control of Congress in the 2006 elections, every measure they took went into effect on October 1st, 2007, the day the stock market fell from 14,000+ and has not recovered since.

Huh, I thought it was the CRA, passed in 1977 that caused the meltdown. You're stepping on your talking points, beamish.

Craig and Heather said...

Where's the new job formation from small business, which is the engine behind our country's economy?

Good question.

gone.

I know. Driven out of business by Walmart and the other big box stores. A small manufacturer can't compete with a multi national that outsources it's labor to the third world. Naw, that's not it.

Our govt's "job" is not supposed to be job creation or obtaining of personal financial security, anyway. Why is that so hard for people to see?

Now, appropriate regulation of international trade is another matter...

H

Susannah said...

"...when was a medical degree of any sort required to recognize that someone is self-absorbed?...most grade school kids are able to tell who's stuck on themselves."

Heather, my dear, you have just hit the nail on its proverbial head.

Susannah said...

Sandy~ "Admit to his reckless spending and tell us what good it has done."

Ha! That will never happen! You & I can readily admit that we didn't fully support all the choices GWB made. Though you probably see more mistakes than I do...Still, we both are willing to admit that he erred, he was human, fallible as a President. He & his DEMOCRATIC Congress ran up charges that we couldn't afford, but somehow it's all GWB's fault.

And now, NOTHING BHO does could ever be wrong - except if he isn't Leftist ENOUGH! Nah, they'll never admit that the Prince has fallen on his face - and taken us with him.

Heaven help us.

Susannah said...

Z~ "or they're other government jobs."
Right. Oh, but we can't forget the new statistic that BHO pulled out of thin air - "jobs saved." Deeply manipulative, this man...

*Sheesh*

Susannah said...

Beam~ "the fast lane to Stupidville is in not recognizing which branch of government has the most influence upon the economy."
Precisely! I believe Ms. Pelosi & Senor Reid had a wee bit of a hand in the "Bush economy."

Craig~ "when the 'fiscally responsible' Repubs ruled for 6 years. Things will be different this time, right?"
Different time, different tone. The Repubs. cannot get away with those antics now. If they try it, their days are numbered (as well as Dems). LAST TUESDAY proved that very soundly.

Right, so it's all GWB's & Walmart's fault! Ha! Rich.

Heather~ "Our govt's "job" is not supposed to be job creation or obtaining of personal financial security, anyway."
THANK YOU! Gov't is, really, supposed to get out of the WAY...not make jobs, whose salaries are paid for by tax payers. That's just a stupid money circle, & a rather incestuous one, at that.

beamish said...

Craig,

Here's a cartoon for your collection.

Craig and Heather said...

Here's a cartoon for your collection.

"We misunderestimated the Tea Party"

LOL

Joe said...

SK: As usual, you pretend to know something you don't know. Try Stetson University, class of '65, Bachelor of Science in Psychology & Bachelor of Science in Sociology.

See, narcissism (NPD) is a psychological disorder, not a psychiatric one. It is most frequently diagnosed by a psychologist, not a psychiatrist.

The clinical narcissist exhibits five (or more) of the following:

1. Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

2. Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion

3. Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions)

4. Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation - or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply)

5. Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favorable priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her expectations

6. Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends

7. Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others

8. Constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her

9. Arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted.

President BO fits the profile.

Your condescention and arrogance could put you in the same category, but I'd have to know more about you to make the diagnosis.

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...

"President BO fits the profile."

"1. Feels grandiose and self-important". How do you know what he feels? You don't. FAIL

"2. Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success" How do you know what obsesses him? You don't. FAIL

"3. Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people" How do you know what he is convinced of? You don't. FAIL

"4. Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation". How do you know he requires this? You don't. FAIL

"5. Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favorable priority treatment." How do you know he feels entitled? You don't. FAIL

"6. Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends". You mean he has a chief of staff, a staff, advisors, a cabinet, and a Joint Chiefs of Staff? FAIL

"7. Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others" This is absurd and he has affirmatively disproved this. FAIL

"8. Constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her" How would you know that he is constantly envious? You don't. FAIL

"9. Arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted." Got any videos of ANY POSSIBLE evidence of this? No, you don't. FAIL

Thanks for the psychology lesson. Most of these can be used to describe Palin or McCain, but as far as Obama, you're throwing crap on the wall hoping it will stick.

Joe said...

Jim: Nope. I'm not.

Susannah said...

Beam~ Now THAT's really, really creepy...Scary, actually.

Heather~ I KNOW. Funny! At least the producer of that vid. had a sense of humor.

Joe~ Of course, Joe, we're not making an 'official' diagnosis. But as you say, "He fits the profile."

Jim! Heather put it just right when she said, "most grade school kids are able to tell who's stuck on themselves"

However, since Joe's summary was so succinct, & your response is so irresistable...Here's a swat at 5 of 9 just off the top of my head:

1. Grandiose & self-important: Greek columns, anyone?
2.
3.
4. Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention: campaign speech to excessively admiring crowd of Berliners, anyone?

6. interpersonally exploitative: The Progressive called him a vacuous opportunist long b4 he was Pres.

7. Devoid of empathy -- Haven't we talked about this already?
8.
9. Arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated: Oh, & this got it's own post a week or so ago.

See Jim, it's just too easy, b/c there's just so much material. With a wee bit more time, anybody could fill in the items that I left blank...

Is this man a hard-core, full fledged, Axis II NPD? I don't know for sure, not knowing him personally.
But if he's NOT, he sure likes to play one on TV.

Joe~ No, you're not; agreed.

Joe said...

Jim: I know little about you. I don't know what you do or what your areas of expertise are. Perhaps you are a fireman or an office clerk. Maybe you are a brain surgeon.

For the sake of discusssion, let's pretend you are a fireman.

As a fireman, would you go into an operating room and begin to instruct the surgeon about how to apply his skills?

But you seemingly have no problem instructing a psychologist how to apply his.

Explain that to me.

Would you like me to instruct you how to fight a fire (or how to do whatever it is you are highly skilled at doing)?

Jim said...

1. Greek columns? You're kidding, aren't you. It was a prop. You're going to suggest that he sat there and told the people setting up the speech, "I want Greek columns so people will think I'm a Greek god?" This is amazingly inane.

4. "Excessively admiring crowd". Really? This is proof of narcissism? He gave a speech and a lot of people showed up and cheered? This is an amazing stretch.

6. How does what somebody else calls him by any stretch of the imagination become an exhibition of a narcissistic characteristic? Amazing FAIL.

7. Wait, you're going to pull up a post from a year ago about Obama giving a speech at a Native American conference where he didn't begin with "12 soldiers were killed today" instead of ladies and gentlemen, waiting a whole 60 seconds to mention the event? And this PROVES that the president lacks empathy and is narcissistic? Really throwing crap on the wall on this one.

9. Do you know what a non-sequitur fallacy is? Reread your number 9 for an excellent example.

"it's just too easy". To throw crap on the wall? Sure, even a chimp can do it.

Susannah said...

Joe~ I don't think it's worth our efforts at this point. Of course, you may proceed along this vein w/ Jim, but I'm bowing out...

Jim~ defend, defend, defend...deny, deny, deny...defend, deny, defend, deny...(ad nauseum) At least there's a rhythm to it! But even snappy rhythms get old after a while.

Jim said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Susannah said...

Jim~ When you say stuff like that, it gets deleted. Not gonna have it.

(It's my blog, my blog, my blog.)