What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage


One of Andrew Sullivan's readers nailed this new neoconservative trope:

In a country founded by Washington, Adams, Paine, Hale, and Jefferson, how can we have reached a point where it has become a slur to call someone an "anti-colonialist"?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Nitpicking about a term avoids the larger arguments made.

The larger issue is that Obama is not hostile to private enterprise, his political adversaries will use any argument no matter how silly to attempt to stigmatize him, and it's perfectly obvious that "what motivates Obama" is what motivates about 50% of the country -- utter disgust at both the aims and means of the prior regime, whose burdens we will be digging out from under for generations.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The larger issue is that Obama is not hostile to private enterprise, his political adversaries will use any argument no matter how silly to attempt to stigmatize him, and it's perfectly obvious that "what motivates Obama" is what motivates about 50% of the country -- utter disgust at both the aims and means of the prior regime, whose burdens we will be digging out from under for generations.
That paragraph contains so many unsubstantiated speculations, it's hard to count them all. A very rational case can be made that he is hostile to private enterprise. I doubt that what motivates most politicians is anywhere near what motivates about 50 percent of the country. That one is not even ballpark logical. I assume you're just saying that 50 percent voted for him, so they are motivated by the same things. Realistically, people voted for him largely to protest Bush, because he's rather charismatic on the surface, and the thought of a black president excited some folks. A lot of people that voted for him really didn't know that much about him.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Did you hear about the Joe Thornton trade?

(MinnFan posted that link at #586, I responded that it was largely tinfoilhattery, and away we went.)
Been on vacation for 10 days, so I haven't read the thousands of intervening posts. My apologies.

Fact is, we know less about Obama, and the media tells us less about Obama, than any other President in recent memory. I'm not into tinfoilhattery, but I also think that Obama has done and said some real odd stuff in office, and almost no one is talking about it, except an occasional writeup like D'Souza's. Seems legit to me and a lot more thoughtful than most of the junk put out there.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage


Please. Don't event try to tell me that Krauthammer isn't an idiot. I have two decades' experience that says otherwise.

D'Souza's always been something of a dilettante. No surprise to see he's latched onto the 'Obama mystery' narrative.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Been on vacation for 10 days, so I haven't read the thousands of intervening posts. My apologies.

Fact is, we know less about Obama, and the media tells us less about Obama, than any other President in recent memory. I'm not into tinfoilhattery, but I also think that Obama has done and said some real odd stuff in office, and almost no one is talking about it, except an occasional writeup like D'Souza's. Seems legit to me and a lot more thoughtful than most of the junk put out there.

"Fact is..." Ha. That's funny. D'Souza starts off with this: "Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history." First, this claim is laughable on its face. Second, it's not supported by any evidence. It's as if he started off by asking the reader to take a side - Ronald Reagan - great President, or greatest President? Or to the claims of socialism - he levies that charge as if he were asking "when did you stop beating your wife?"

There's a point hiding in his criticism of Obama, but it's that Obama has failed to effectively communicate the narrative of his positions - what he's doing, and why. It's been incredibly frustrating to me and other liberals. But that's a communication issue moreso than a policy issue.

The larger point is that if you want analysis, read some analysis. If you want punditry, read the pundits. Just don't conflate slick rhetoric with deep thought.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Did you hear about the Joe Thornton trade?




(MinnFan posted that link at #586, I responded that it was largely tinfoilhattery, and away we went.)

This piece is a slam at an increasingly unhinged Gingrich, but it mocks the feeble minded sorts who follow the D'Souza "logic". :D

Gingrich, unhinged on Obama



By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Is Newt Gingrich just pretending to have lost his mind, or has he actually gone around the bend?

His lunacy certainly seems genuine enough. It's one thing to be a rhetorical bomb-thrower, as Gingrich has long fancied himself, and another to lob damp squibs of pure nonsense into the fray. The man's contributions to the public discourse have become increasingly unhinged.

The latest example comes in an interview with the conservative Web site National Review Online. Unsurprisingly, he was criticizing President Obama. Bizarrely, according to the Web site, he said the following: "What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?" According to Newt, this is "the most accurate, predictive model" for the president's actions, or policies or something.

What in the world is "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior" supposed to mean? That Obama is waging a secret campaign to free us from the yoke of British oppression?

In fairness to Gingrich, he wasn't being original. He was speaking in praise of a big gob of gibberish in Forbes by conservative "intellectual" Dinesh D'Souza. In the piece -- much of it strikingly lazy -- D'Souza argues that Obama somehow absorbed a fully elaborated, frozen-in-time, anti-colonial worldview from his Kenyan father. Who left the family when the future president was 2.

Well, we knew Obama was precocious. But if he was so absorbed with the study of colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism and all the other isms, when did he have time to learn to go potty?

D'Souza goes on to froth and foam like one of those conspiracy theorists who believe the CIA is controlling our brain waves. Suffice it to say that the author believes it remarkable that there has been "virtually no reporting" on an article that Obama's father -- who saw his son once more in his life, when "Barry" was 10 -- wrote in an obscure journal in 1965. I'm thinking that the Da Vinci Code might be in there somewhere, too.


Yet Gingrich finds this claptrap a "stunning insight" -- or pretends that he does.

The rational explanation is that Gingrich seized on the "programmed by his absent father" thesis as a way of furthering the "birther" narrative -- the paranoid fantasy that Obama is foreign, exotic, alien, somehow not American. So what if D'Souza's piece makes assertion after assertion that is plainly, demonstrably unsupported? Just throw it out there, and maybe a few gullible souls will believe it.

But this was just the latest offering from Gingrich that vaulted the barrier between provocative and crazy. It started last year during the confirmation hearings for Justice Sonia Sotomayor, when he said that her innocuous "wise Latina" remark proved she was a "racist." He made the same lightning-quick allegation of racism against Shirley Sherrod -- before a full hearing of her remarks showed that she was actually speaking against racism. And then Gingrich's rhetorical insanity reached a new high, or a new low, last month when he accused supporters of the Lower Manhattan mosque of "triumphalism" and compared them to the Nazis.

It has been suggested that perhaps Gingrich, who is thinking of running for president, is trying to lure attention away from a recent unflattering profile in Esquire -- the one that charts his three marriages in excruciating, and embarrassing, detail. But it hardly furthers his ambitions to pretend to be so nuts.

And there's a thread that connects his outbursts: They all fit into the idea that American democracy -- indeed, the whole Anglo-American-Judeo-Christian enterprise -- is under attack in a titanic clash of civilizations. In this view, we are threatened most acutely by the Islamic civilization. But we must also be on guard against the "Sinic" civilization of China, the "Hindu" civilization of India and assorted others. This analysis was developed by Samuel P. Huntington, a Harvard professor who died in 2008 -- and who said he never intended his work to be read as a battle plan.

Gingrich seems to believe that our culture and values are also threatened from within -- by black and brown people who demand that they, too, be given a voice in defining that culture and those values. He really needs to get out more. But, hey, it's a free country. If he wants, Gingrich can imagine himself a retired British colonel in 1963, harrumphing in his armchair about who lost Kenya. A diverse and multicultural America has long since moved on.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

In a more constructive vein, I would say that one shouldn't confuse the desire not to know about Obama with the actual inability to know.

Obama himself benefitted from this during the campaigb, when his staff was all too happy to have some view him as an empty vessel that they could fill as they wished. So it's sort of "turnabout is fair play" to see his opponents try to shift that to their advantage today.

But the thing is: it was naked political strategy then, and it is again now. If you've independently decided to oppose Obama, then go ahead and use the rhetoric. It's not my place to tell anyone otherwise. Just don't let yourself get played. That's all.

$.03
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

There's a point hiding in his criticism of Obama, but it's that Obama has failed to effectively communicate the narrative of his positions - what he's doing, and why. It's been incredibly frustrating to me and other liberals. But that's a communication issue moreso than a policy issue.

Have you ever considered that he has communicated his policies as effectively as is possible and people just don't like them?
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Have you ever considered that he has communicated his policies as effectively as is possible and people just don't like them?

No, because he hasn't communicated them effectively. Plenty of people have outlined exactly what more effective messaging would be. My assessment of his communication issues is independent of any popularity issues - which, by the way, are overrated, as Obama remains far more popular than most other individual politicians.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Please. Don't event try to tell me that Krauthammer isn't an idiot. I have two decades' experience that says otherwise.

D'Souza's always been something of a dilettante. No surprise to see he's latched onto the 'Obama mystery' narrative.

Someday perhaps it will dawn on you that just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they are an idiot. But unfortunately the mentality you display here is rampant in America.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

No, because he hasn't communicated them effectively. Plenty of people have outlined exactly what more effective messaging would be. My assessment of his communication issues is independent of any popularity issues - which, by the way, are overrated, as Obama remains far more popular than most other individual politicians.

ok, this is hilarious. You don't agree it's possible people just don't like his policies. This is far gone, even by your standards. Now, you could argue that we can't be sure whether people dislike his policies, though even that would take some heavy lifting. But to say "no" it isn't possible people don't like his policies is jump the shark stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top