The official Obama collapsing thread

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

Answer the questions found here. Take the test for yourself.

Then, if you can be objective, answer the questions as if you were Obama. It should not be too difficult, just think about the way he's presented himself and responded to situations in the last 5 to 6 years. If you're honest, even with a moderate degree of giving him the benefit of the doubt, Obama's score is very high and definitely has narcissistic traits.

For those wanting to cut to the bottom line, same web site, here's their discussion of the traits: http://psychcentral.com/disorders/na...rder-symptoms/

I scored a one. I'm not sure this is a really definitive test. On many of the questions the truth lie somewhere between the two choices.

[classhandicapper]

I disagree with about 90% of everything Obama wants to do or has done (which is not necessarily a comment on my politics because I was probably at 85% for Bush), but I think we are at the stage where no politician could possibly be popular.

We've been running close to a trillion dollars a year in annual deficits and financing it with a printing press and inflows from foreigners (all unsustainable), yet despite that the economy is anemic, real incomes are falling, standards of living for millions are falling etc...

But it's not all one president's fault.

1. We chose to gut our manufacturing base in the short term with some of these international free trade agreements.

2. We choose to keep increasing the growth of spending at a faster rate than the economy is growing.

3. We chose to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries and fight other people's wars at great economic and other costs

4. We chose to have an unsound monetary and banking system and to bail out Wall St every time the market sneezes

5. We chose to run deficits to prop up the economy in the short term

6. We chose to enforce the borders and practically encouraged illegal immigration of uneducated and unskilled labor

7. We put ourselves on a path of moral relativism over traditions that have served mankind well for thousands of years.

If I spent the next few days trying to come up with a plan for destroying the US, 1-7 would be pretty good start. There's no way to get from where we are now (which took decades) to where we should want to be without a lot of sacrifice and unpopular choices. So there's no way any president will be popular (most likely in our lifetimes). Just mentioning the right things to do will be unpopular (assuming we have a president that actually understands what the right things are)

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by dartman51

Judging by your signature line, and the fact that you always THINK you know what someone meant, even when they say something entirely different, you would qualify.

My signature is tongue in cheek and if I think someone means something when they say something entirely different, maybe they are not writing clearly.

Is posting a at the end of your own post a sign of narcissism?

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by mostpost

I? Do you even know the clinical definition of narcissism?

Yeah, I do, "He-is"....

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by RunForTheRoses

I never did like that speech, really the country should just stay out of your business and enforce laws, contracts, etc.

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/20...on-jfks-innaug

On the 50th Anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s innaugural address, I couldn’t help but think of Milton Friedman’s take on the speech’s most famous line, which served as the opening of Friedman’s 1962 classic Capitalism and Freedom:

“In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic “what your country can do for you” implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man’s belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, “what you can do for your ‘country”implies the government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary.
To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.

The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather “What can I and my compatriots do through government” to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom? And he will accompany this question with another: How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect?

I am, at the present time, reading Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom." I am about one tenth of the way through and already have the strong opinion that Friedman does not know what he is talking about and is not very good at talking about it.

To begin with, Friedman does not seem to know the difference between country and government. Country is all of us together. Government is the instrument we choose to administer that country. Country is permanent. Government is transitory.

Kennedy did not say "Ask what you can do for your government."

As for Friedman's talk about the "Free man this and the free man that," you can get a better idea of what Friedman is talking about by substituting the word "selfish" each time he uses the word "free."

[BlueShoe]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

How typical.. a lib posts a fact, and a con counters with fantasy

Danny Lad, you have that exactly backwards. Would you like me to FTFY?

[dartman51]

Originally Posted by mostpost

My signature is tongue in cheek and if I think someone means something when they say something entirely different, maybe they are not writing clearly.

Is posting a at the end of your own post a sign of narcissism?

No, the , simply means, "I approve this message."

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Tom

hcap....bookmark this thread.
You heard it here first.

2016 - Repubs take WH, Senate and House.

If they do not take all three, Big Mac will not post here ever again!

http://www.nationaljournal.com/colum...-fear-20130912

Charlie Cook thinks the Dems have reason to fear...........

I think that Charlie Cook is normally full of shit........ but it ties to your comments Tom

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by mostpost

I'm not sure this is a really definitive test. On many of the questions the truth lie somewhere between the two choices.

Oh, it is a definitive test. It is a subset of questions from the full test. And, yes, the truth does lie between the two choices. That is how those test are design.

I'm still waiting for some one to give me a score of Obama.

[Tom]

I am pretty sure you guys will have BM working as an official repug pollster in '016. That is if Fox doesn't hire him first.

FOX is not hiring for the rest of the year.
They just exhausted their budget on Putin's new show.

[so.cal.fan]

I took the test....scored 0.
I doubt any politician could get that kind of score. In fact I would be shocked if any did.

[JustRalph]

Hey? I thought Obama was going to smooth over everything all over the world.

98 lb weakling.........? Nice..........



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/comme...ticle14315072/

"Mr. Obama’s Middle East policy is in ruins. He looks like he’s way over his head. Now he’s let himself get rolled by the biggest bully on the block. In the immortal words of Mr. Kerry, he looks “unbelievably small.” And that’s not good."

[PaceAdvantage]

The Globe and Mail owned by Murdoch? Or Koch brothers? Or any other right-wing bogeyman I might be forgetting?

Just want to get those out of the way early as typical left-wing responses to articles unflattering to our CIC...

[JustRalph]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/op...nter.html?_r=0


"The man formerly hailed as a messiah was having a bad day."

This drumbeat will intensify as time goes on......

Checking those oceans...........tick tock.......

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

I am, at the present time, reading Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom." I am about one tenth of the way through and already have the strong opinion that Friedman does not know what he is talking about and is not very good at talking about it.

After reading one tenth of one book written by a Nobel laureate, you can determine that he does not know what he is talking about. And that he cannot communicate it well.

In addition to professional acknowledgement of his contributions to economic theory, Friedman is widely praised for his ability to communicate his ideas in a plain language manner to non-economists. And his work is well respected by experts in the field who do not always agree with his conclusion

From the Amazon page for that book:

"Milton Friedman is one of the nation's outstanding economists, distinguished for remarkable analytical powers and technical virtuosity. He is unfailingly enlightening, independent, courageous, penetrating, and above all, stimulating." - Henry Hazlitt, Newsweek

Selected by the Times Literary Supplement as one of the "hundred most influential books since the war"

I must leap to a conclusion that perchance you are not reading Friedman with an open mind.