Obama's Ambition

1st, "lincolnian inauguration"? Whassat? It wasn't a "Bushian inauguration," since he was cheered, well received, and didn't get his auto egged or have to cancel the final walk.

As for "partisan cabinet appointment and 'leftist' executive order," let's get a few things straight. First, the organization behind this publication is ona' them 'limited government' conservative think tanks. So let's assume they're genuinely "conservative," and not Republican. ANYTHING a federal politician does that doesn't cut taxes or spending (unless they dare cut military/prison spending) is "leftist" to them. Conservatives have the philosophically simplistic life. If it doesn't satisfy "make it smaller" or "reduce it/eliminate it," then it isn't, by definition, conservative. Pretty easy criteria to live by. So, with that in mind, they're probably still washing the thousands of soiled Brooks Brothers suits from the people at this institution, given the size of government growth and spending growth over the past 8 years. They made Reagan's annual deficits look positively frugal. So, enough on that. Of course Obama's not going to satisfy the "conservatives." As I challenge conservatives to point out, who was the last politician of any stripe to satisfy the "small federal powers" crowd? Was the measly Bush tax cuts enough to sate the expansion in federal powers, stomping to death of habeas corpus, knowledge of the government, without probable cause, wiretapping and watching its citizens, spying on reporters, torture of captives, and waging of war with no regard to cost?

You can't be so easily satisfied, can you? Is a tax cut all it takes, and anything else is fair game?

(Now, of course, let's overlook the things Obama has done to stifle spending, even if small - such as freezing wages on white house employees. How socialist of him!)

Second, predicting that, before he came into office, that he would make "partisan cabinet appointments and leftist executive orders" is the laziest of predictions. If we're going to pat ourselves on the back for such clairvoyance, allow me to demonstrate that I, too, can see into the future and tell you what's going to happen in the coming year: I predict that the New York Yankees will play baseball in 2009.

Wait for it. It will happen. That's my prediction.

Lastly, Obama's been in office for 7 days. Is it time to really start layin' down the performance evaluations? He may not be doing things you like, fine, but give the man at least...I don't know...a reasonable period of time before labeling his entire presidency. It hasn't even been a full week since Bush has been out of office and already you're laying down the labels. You're the perfect example of a conclusion just waiting, and waiting, and waiting for evidence to support the claims that you had well before Obama even *won* the election. Ah, the conclusion waiting for its support after the fact. The most common, lazy, and obnoxious of logical fallacies.
 
read the intro and the end, skimmed the middle... i think i like obama a little more after reading that. was that the intention?
 
I think its too early to tell what type of President he will be. However, after seeing Obama's first interview with Al Arabiya, I like what he is doing to try and mend our relationship with the foreign nations (especially in the middle east).
 
whoa, hold on a second mykivermin, I don't know why you're always jumping to conclusions around here.

I have never read Obama's books; I do not fully understand the man including his past agreement with Rev. Wright, and his current disagreement with the man. I have also not followed his career close enough to see how he has been trying to identify himself with Lincoln in almost every possible way. The aforementioned article provides a lot of information about the man and his ambition without noticeable slant. It talks about old cynicism vs. new hope and how he views the founding fathers in different lights. It shows some of the meaning behind many of Obama's equivocal statements. Many, including Ramstoria, might like Obama even more after reading parts of it, while other's will find more reason to dislike him personally. I got value in reading it as it provides a little more background on a man that was a nobody a few years ago and sums up what he thinks he is. I know debates do nothing and political discussion is futile- I don't want to do that anymore. Maybe my initial introduction was misinterpreted and scared away a few readers - I guarantee that was not my intention - but I posted it here to give you all the opportunity to better know the man behind the written speeches, the prescripted interviews, and the multicultural superiority; this was to decrypt the political jargon and look at his personality, ideology, ambition, etc.
 
There's no doubt Obama thinks very highly of himself. I know, what president hasn't thought highly of himself, but sometimes Obama takes it to another level. Wasn't there some study recently pointing out that politicians tend to be narcissists...no shit!
 
My friend and I were just talking about that today while watching some news about Blago.

It's kind of funny how you have to be, at best an egomaniac and at worst a narcissist to get anywhere in politics; which is why we have so much damn corruption. Yet, we enthusiastically pick our favorite megalomaniacs, rally behind them, and whip ourselves into a frenzy.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']My friend and I were just talking about that today while watching some news about Blago.

It's kind of funny how you have to be, at best an egomaniac and at worst a narcissist to get anywhere in politics; which is why we have so much damn corruption. Yet, we enthusiastically pick our favorite megalomaniacs, rally behind them, and whip ourselves into a frenzy.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it's funny but also tragic.
 
Of course you have to have an ego to be president. You have to be able to look in the mirror and say "I'm the best person to be president of the United States--the most powerful position in the world."

It requires an ego for that, to think you're the best person for that job, that you know what is best for the country and the world etc.
 
[quote name='tivo']whoa, hold on a second mykivermin, I don't know why you're always jumping to conclusions around here.

I have never read Obama's books; I do not fully understand the man including his past agreement with Rev. Wright, and his current disagreement with the man. I have also not followed his career close enough to see how he has been trying to identify himself with Lincoln in almost every possible way. The aforementioned article provides a lot of information about the man and his ambition without noticeable slant. It talks about old cynicism vs. new hope and how he views the founding fathers in different lights. It shows some of the meaning behind many of Obama's equivocal statements. Many, including Ramstoria, might like Obama even more after reading parts of it, while other's will find more reason to dislike him personally. I got value in reading it as it provides a little more background on a man that was a nobody a few years ago and sums up what he thinks he is. I know debates do nothing and political discussion is futile- I don't want to do that anymore. Maybe my initial introduction was misinterpreted and scared away a few readers - I guarantee that was not my intention - but I posted it here to give you all the opportunity to better know the man behind the written speeches, the prescripted interviews, and the multicultural superiority; this was to decrypt the political jargon and look at his personality, ideology, ambition, etc.[/QUOTE]

Now, stand behind what you said. You said the article "predicts some of Obama's actions." My counterargument to that claim was that (1) based on the labeling in political identification, any action is necessarily "leftist" or "liberal" for this group, and (2) the predictions they were making still wouldn't be very dangerous given what Obama's campaign promises and political history were.

In short, they went out on a limb only as far as someone who would say "hey, I bet you $100 that my television will still work tomorrow!" would be going. I'm simply not impressed. Weather forecasters take greater chances.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Now, stand behind what you said. You said the article "predicts some of Obama's actions." My counterargument to that claim was that (1) based on the labeling in political identification, any action is necessarily "leftist" or "liberal" for this group, and (2) the predictions they were making still wouldn't be very dangerous given what Obama's campaign promises and political history were.
[/QUOTE]

you're right, my initial introduction to the article was terrible (and could probably still be redefined) but I removed a few words after your first post and then followed up with another post that hopefully clarified the topic. The article didn't really "predict" the lincolian inauguration, but provided insight into Obama's character that can be applicable in his current actions, thus a sign of its accuracy. I think if you read the article you'd see some of my intentions for the post, but then again, you might already know Obama's childhood, relationships, etc. to fully understand his catch phrases and ideology. To me, I see some parallels between Obama and Adrian Vedit/Ozymandias from the Watchmen. It's a funny comparison but their personalities are similar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top