Obama the Messiah of Generation Narcissism

[Tigermike 3,054]

February 22, 2008

Obama the Messiah of Generation Narcissism

By Kathleen Parker

WASHINGTON -- Much has been made of the religious tenor of Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

Reports of women weeping and swooning -- even of an audience applauding when The One cleared his proboscis (blew his nose for you mortals) -- have become frequent events in the heavenly realm of Obi-Wan Obama.

His rhetoric, meanwhile, drips with hints of resurrection, redemption and second comings. "We are the ones we've been waiting for," he said on Super Tuesday night. And his people were glad.

Actually, they were hysterical, the word that best describes what surrounds this young savior and that may be more apt than we imagine. The word is derived from the Greek hystera, or womb. The ancient Greeks considered hysteria a psychoneurosis peculiar to women caused by disturbances of the uterus.

Well, you don't see any men fainting in Obi's presence.

Barack Obama has many appealing qualities, not least his own reluctance to be swaddled in purple. Nothing quite says, "I'm only human" like whipping out a hankie and blowing one's nose in front of 17,000 admirers. The audience's applause was reportedly awkward, as if the crowd was both approving of anything their savior did, but a little disappointed at this rather ungodly behavior.

So what is the source of this infatuation with Obama? How to explain the hysteria? The religious fervor? The devotion? The weeping and fainting and utter euphoria surrounding a candidate who had the audacity to run for leader of the free world on a platform of mere hope?

If anthropologists made predictions the way meteorologists do, they might have anticipated Obama's astronomical rise to supernova status in 2008 of the Common Era. Consider the cultural coordinates, and Obama's intersection with history becomes almost inevitable.

To play weatherman for a moment, he is a perfect storm of the culture of narcissism, the cult of celebrity, and a secular society in which fathers (both the holy and the secular) have been increasingly marginalized from the lives of a generation of young Americans.

All of these trends have been gaining momentum the past few decades. Social critic Christopher Lasch named the culture of narcissism a generation ago and cited addiction to celebrity as one of the disease's symptoms -- all tied to the decline of the family.

That culture has merely become more exaggerated as spiritual alienation and fatherlessness have collided with technology (YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, etc.) that enables the self-absorption of the narcissistic personality.

Grown-ups with decades under their double chins may have a variety of reasons for supporting Obama, but the youth who pack convention halls and stadiums as if for a rock concert constitute a tipping point of another order.

One of Obama's TV ads, set to rock 'n' roll, has a Woodstock feel to it. Text alternating with crowd scenes reads: "We Can Change The World" and "We Can Save The Planet."

Those are some kind of campaign promises. The kind no mortal could possibly keep, but never mind. Obi-Wan Obama is about hope -- and hope, he'll tell you, knows no limits.

It is thus no surprise that the young are enamored of Obama. He's a rock star. A telegenic, ultra-bright redeemer fluent in the planetary language of a cosmic generation. The force is with him.

But underpinning that popularity is something that transcends mere policy or politics. It is hunger, and that hunger is clearly spiritual. Human beings seem to have a yearning for the transcendent -- hence thousands of years of religion -- but we have lately shied away from traditional approaches and old gods.

Thus, in post-Judeo-Christian America, the sports club is the new church. Global warming is the new religion. Vegetarianism is the new sacrament. Hooking up, the new prayer. Talk therapy, the new witnessing. Tattooing and piercing, the new sacred symbols and rituals.

And apparently, Barack Obama is the new messiah.

Here's how a 20-year-old woman in Seattle described that Obama feeling: "When he was talking about hope, it actually almost made me cry. Like it really made sense, like, for the first, like, whoa ... "

This New Age glossolalia may be more sonorous than the guttural emanations from the revival tent, but the emotion is the same. It's all religion by any other name.

Whatever the Church of Obama promises, we should not mistake this movement for a renaissance of reason. It is more like, well, like whoa.

kparker@kparker.com

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/..._generatio.html

[DKW 86 7,441]

For whatever Obama really is or turns out to be, his followers are looking more and more like kooks everyday.

[jw 4 au 526]

I'll admit it; I watched part of the Democratic debate last night in Texas. So, what I noticed I was wondering if anyone else noticed. When Clinton answered a question, she stayed on point and received moderate to good applause. When Obama answered a question, he started on point, always drifted off point, made a popular statement that had nothing to do with the original question, and received roaring applause. I did happen on almost every question. It was incredible.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Obama supporters on this board are very intelligent people for the most part simply with different political opinions than me, but the outright blind support and belief in empty retoric and promises is incredible to me. I know, point me to his web page for the filling, but that is not how he speaks or debates. I found it a poor showing of the Democrats that support Obama, similar to the article above. And I am not certain that all the Hillary folks will just mosey on over and vote for Obama come Election Day.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

When his followers start putting stickers on their cars that say:

O

The President

Then I'll know there's a problem.

[bojack34 2]

When his followers start putting stickers on their cars that say:

O

The President

Then I'll know there's a problem.

How dare you blaspheme the bama nation and Saint Nick.

[jw 4 au 526]

When his followers start putting stickers on their cars that say:

O

The President

Then I'll know there's a problem.

ZERO, the President...that's a good one. I can't believe you thought of it as a "follower", but it fits well.

Also funny is that you are referring to yourself and others as his "followers" and all, as if he was Jim Jones or something.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

When his followers start putting stickers on their cars that say:

O

The President

Then I'll know there's a problem.

ZERO, the President...that's a good one. I can't believe you thought of it as a "follower", but it fits well.

Also funny is that you are referring to yourself and others as his "followers" and all, as if he was Jim Jones or something.

David used the word "followers" above. I'm actually tweaking the whole concept from the Right that Obama is some kind of pied piper with mindless, blind-faith followers when up until recently so many Republicans fawned over Dubya like he was something really special. The

W

The President

stickers, have always encapsulated that for me.

I'm a skeptical guy, pretty rational and have no illusions that Obama will sprinkle magic dust on anything, but look at the choices we have. Hillary? the 2008 version of McCain? The 2000 version, maybe, but that guy is gone if he ever existed at all.

And BTW, I don't know what debate you were watching, but your own obvious biases clearly shaped your view of it.

[jw 4 au 526]

And BTW, I don't know what debate you were watching, but your own obvious biases clearly shaped your view of it.

I could say the same about you. You should be giving me credit for even watching the debate. I have noticed on this board you (probably more some others than actually you) are always accusing Tigermike or AURaptor or others of being closed minded and too far to the right, however you (again, probably more some others than actually you) are the SAME EXACT WAY. Done in a different manner with from a different direction, the same none the less.

Regarding the debate, an example was when asked about spanish be a co-principal language for America (probably worded differently), in all honestly Hillary answered no, but thought it was good to have the ability to understand a second language, mostly spanish. Obama never actually said no, but commented on the need to learn a second language (similar answer to Hillary) AND THEN made a statement about how NCLB is not good for the education system. He got mild applause until the NCLB comment, then an uproar. That is a fact, and it hapened on more than one occasion. It had nothing to do with the original question, not even close. He mastered this thoughout the debate, doing it on more than one occasion. It worked for him and his "followers". Not for me.

[GalensGhost 0]

With Rudy -- the only candidate of any gravitas and legitimacy -- out of the race due to misjudging the idiocy of the American people (he didn't understand that we are sheep, easily swayed by the latest media poll and desperate to embrace a "winner" even if that is in perception only), I have been looking for a candidate to support. I am neither Republican nor Democrat so I am willing to listen to any position.

I've watched several of Obama's televised appearances to see whether I could support him. The answer is NO. And not just no, but HELL F**KING NO. Anyone who does is, in my opinion, incapable of making a distinction between rhetoric and substance.

The litmus test for me is that I ask three questions of every campaign promise.

1. Does the candidate have the power to actually affect the problem he is addressing.

2. If he does, how will he implement the solution he suggests.

3. Who will pay for this promise.

In Obama's case the answers were invariably as follows:

1. No, in most cases he is talking about things that sound good in theory but are beyond his scope and authority to enact.

2. The few things he might actually be able to accomplish, he has offered no realistic implementation plan or possibilities.

3. In every case, the person most likely to pay for all his ideas is me -- I make over $50K a year, own my own business and pay taxes coming and going. Should any of Obama's "plans" see the light of day, people who do not contribute to society will reap the benefits of more money extracted from my wallet.

Obama and his cult can all leap off a cliff so far as I am concerned. Obama's empty rhetoric would be funny were it not so dangerous. He is a socialist. In fact, his ideas are almost communist "From all according to ability to all according to need" fits very well with his agenda. And we all know how well communism works out.

Hell with Obama. HELL with him.

So he's out. Next....

[TexasTiger 13,028]

And BTW, I don't know what debate you were watching, but your own obvious biases clearly shaped your view of it.

I could say the same about you. You should be giving me credit for even watching the debate. I have noticed on this board you (probably more some others than actually you) are always accusing Tigermike or AURaptor or others of being closed minded and too far to the right, however you (again, probably more some others than actually you) are the SAME EXACT WAY. Done in a different manner with from a different direction, the same none the less.

Regarding the debate, an example was when asked about spanish be a co-principal language for America (probably worded differently), in all honestly Hillary answered no, but thought it was good to have the ability to understand a second language, mostly spanish. Obama never actually said no, but commented on the need to learn a second language (similar answer to Hillary) AND THEN made a statement about how NCLB is not good for the education system. He got mild applause until the NCLB comment, then an uproar. That is a fact, and it hapened on more than one occasion. It had nothing to do with the original question, not even close. He mastered this thoughout the debate, doing it on more than one occasion. It worked for him and his "followers". Not for me.

Well, you want "credit" for watching the debate. Good for you. You watched it. You also saw what you wanted to see.

RAMOS: (SPEAKING SPANISH) Right now, there are more than 30 million people in this country who speak Spanish. (APPLAUSE) Many of them are right here. By the year 2050, there will be 120 million Hispanics in the United States. Now, is there any downside, Senator Clinton, to the United States becoming (SPEAKING SPANISH) becoming a bilingual nation? Is there a limit?

CLINTON: Well, I think it’s important for as many Americans as possible to do what I have never been able to do, and that is learn another language and try to be bilingual because that connects us to the rest of the world. I think it is important, though, that English remain our common unifying language because that brings our country together in a way that we have seen generations of immigrants coming to our shores be able to be part of the American experience and pursue the American dream.

You know, I have been adamantly against the efforts by some to make English the official language. That I do not believe is appropriate, and I have voted against it and spoken against it.

I represent New York. We have 170 languages in New York City alone. And I do not think that we should be, in any way, discriminating against people who do not speak English, who use facilities like hospitals or have to go to court to enforce their rights. But I do think that English does remain an important part of the American experience. So I encourage people to become bilingual. But I also want to see English remain the common, unifying language of our country. (APPLAUSE)

RAMOS: Senator Obama, is there any down side to the United States becoming a bilingual nation?

OBAMA: Well, I think it is important that everyone learns English and that we have that process of binding ourselves together as a country. I think that’s very important. I also think that every student should be learning a second language, because… (APPLAUSE) … you know, so, when you start getting into a debate about bilingual education, for example, now, I want to make sure that children who are coming out of Spanish-speaking households had the opportunity to learn and are not falling behind.

If bilingual education helps them do that, I want to give them the opportunity. But I also want to make sure that English-speaking children are getting foreign languages because this world is becoming more interdependent and part of the process of America’s continued leadership in the world is going to be our capacity to communicate across boundaries, across borders, and that’s something frankly where we’ve fallen behind.

One of the failures of No Child Left Behind, a law that I think a lot of local and state officials have been troubled by, is that it is so narrowly focused on standardized tests that it has pushed out a lot of important learning that needs to take place. (APPLAUSE) And foreign languages is one of those areas that I think has been neglected. I want to put more resources into it.

I think he answered the question, which was phrased pretty vaguely, i.e. Ramos didn't say have both languages being "official", but rather pointed to the fact that we have more Spanish speaking people, and Obama's reference to NCLB was relevant to his point.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

With Rudy -- the only candidate of any gravitas and legitimacy -- out of the race due to misjudging the idiocy of the American people (he didn't understand that we are sheep, easily swayed by the latest media poll and desperate to embrace a "winner" even if that is in perception only), I have been looking for a candidate to support. I am neither Republican nor Democrat so I am willing to listen to any position.

I've watched several of Obama's televised appearances to see whether I could support him. The answer is NO. And not just no, but HELL F**KING NO. Anyone who does is, in my opinion, incapable of making a distinction between rhetoric and substance.

The litmus test for me is that I ask three questions of every campaign promise.

1. Does the candidate have the power to actually affect the problem he is addressing.

2. If he does, how will he implement the solution he suggests.

3. Who will pay for this promise.

In Obama's case the answers were invariably as follows:

1. No, in most cases he is talking about things that sound good in theory but are beyond his scope and authority to enact.

2. The few things he might actually be able to accomplish, he has offered no realistic implementation plan or possibilities.

3. In every case, the person most likely to pay for all his ideas is me -- I make over $50K a year, own my own business and pay taxes coming and going. Should any of Obama's "plans" see the light of day, people who do not contribute to society will reap the benefits of more money extracted from my wallet.

Obama and his cult can all leap off a cliff so far as I am concerned. Obama's empty rhetoric would be funny were it not so dangerous. He is a socialist. In fact, his ideas are almost communist "From all according to ability to all according to need" fits very well with his agenda. And we all know how well communism works out.

Hell with Obama. HELL with him.

So he's out. Next....

Hearing a Rudy-phile talking about another candidate having empty rhetoric is rich. Rudy had less substance than probably ANY candidate on either side.

BTW, Galen, no offense intended, when I think of someone with engaging rhetoric, but little substance, you honestly come to mind.

[Tigermike 3,054]

When his followers start putting stickers on their cars that say:

O

The President

Then I'll know there's a problem.

You are thinking of the big Orgasm Obama-phile's apparently have being in his presence or just hearing his name aren't you?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

When his followers start putting stickers on their cars that say:

O

The President

Then I'll know there's a problem.

You are thinking of the big Orgasm Obama-phile's apparently have being in his presence or just hearing his name aren't you?

Well, if we see the sticker, let's ask those who display it.

[Tigermike 3,054]

When his followers start putting stickers on their cars that say:

O

The President

Then I'll know there's a problem.

You are thinking of the big Orgasm Obama-phile's apparently have being in his presence or just hearing his name aren't you?

Well, if we see the sticker, let's ask those who display it.

I would never interrupt someone in that state of "bliss".

[GalensGhost 0]

BTW, Galen, no offense intended, when I think of someone with engaging rhetoric, but little substance, you honestly come to mind.

Rudy has history, he has a verifiable record of achievement. When he spoke, his was the voice of experience. He's done it and knows what it takes. Obama? Bah. Empty-suit fool, just as I suspected from the start.

And for the record, I'd be a better presidential candidate than Obama. I've got more substance than him and CERTAINLY more than anyone who supports him.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

BTW, Galen, no offense intended, when I think of someone with engaging rhetoric, but little substance, you honestly come to mind.

Rudy has history, he has a verifiable record of achievement. When he spoke, his was the voice of experience. He's done it and knows what it takes. Obama? Bah. Empty-suit fool, just as I suspected from the start.

And for the record, I'd be a better presidential candidate than Obama. I've got more substance than him and CERTAINLY more than anyone who supports him.

Rudy: "Blah, blah, blah, 9/11...blah, blah, 9/11.."

Rudy's most memorable accomplishment will now be that he spent more to get only one delegate than any candidate in history. The management of his campaign was stunning in its gross incompetence.

Throw your hat in the ring, buddy! Be a doer, not just a talker!

[GalensGhost 0]

BTW, Galen, no offense intended, when I think of someone with engaging rhetoric, but little substance, you honestly come to mind.

Rudy has history, he has a verifiable record of achievement. When he spoke, his was the voice of experience. He's done it and knows what it takes. Obama? Bah. Empty-suit fool, just as I suspected from the start.

And for the record, I'd be a better presidential candidate than Obama. I've got more substance than him and CERTAINLY more than anyone who supports him.

Rudy: "Blah, blah, blah, 9/11...blah, blah, 9/11.."

Rudy's most memorable accomplishment will now be that he spent more to get only one delegate than any candidate in history. The management of his campaign was stunning in its gross incompetence.

Throw your hat in the ring, buddy! Be a doer, not just a talker!

What Rudy did for New York City is nothing short of amazing. His remarkable leadership during the 9/11 crisis should have been one of the cornerstones of his campaign. It showed his ability to galvanize people and be a source of strength in near-impossible times. He had every right to point to it as one of his crowning achievements. No problem there. His mistake was in believing people were smart enough to differentiate between empty babble and legitimate achievement. He erred in thinking that people would ignore the results of early polls and he would be able to kickstart his campaign in Florida. He simply gave people too much credit. He assumed they would show some modicum of intelligence. Pity for him -- and for us -- that Americans are, for the most part, dumb. They don't think rationally, they merely leap on whatever bandwagon happens to be passing at the time.

But Rudy isn't the issue here. He made his mistake. He is paying for it, as are we, as his candidacy ended short of the goal. The issue here is the cult of Obama. The herd mentality that follows this empty puff of nothing as he spews rhetorical fantasy.

Please, if you will, list the reasons this idiot is qualified to lead the country. Hillary Clinton is the anti-Christ, but she is a far more legitimate candidate than King Nothing. What, exactly, has Obama done?

Do you deny that he is a socialist riding the cusp of communistic thought? His "platform" is basically f**king Robin Hood. "Let's take from the evil rich and give to the suffering poor." Like most socialists he believes that GOVERNMENT should be responsible for individual success. He removes personal accountability. Like most empty-headed politicians who don't understand the first thing about life in the real world, Obama thinks he can legislate equal outcomes as opposed to equal opportunity. What balderdash. Obama is a fool. Those who support him are unable to separate rhetorical babble from reality. They are generally immature and make decisions based on emotion rather than reason. He's a half-decent speaker. He's not even a great orator. But he peels off enough platitudes to pacify the collective idiocy of the American people. As I said before, if he weren't so dangerous it would just be sadly amusing.

Please, defend this loser if you possibly can. As I know you cannot, I expect more attacks on Rudy or on me. Typical diversion of the baaaaing sheep that blindy follow this sycophant.

[jw 4 au 526]

And BTW, I don't know what debate you were watching, but your own obvious biases clearly shaped your view of it.

I could say the same about you. You should be giving me credit for even watching the debate. I have noticed on this board you (probably more some others than actually you) are always accusing Tigermike or AURaptor or others of being closed minded and too far to the right, however you (again, probably more some others than actually you) are the SAME EXACT WAY. Done in a different manner with from a different direction, the same none the less.

Regarding the debate, an example was when asked about spanish be a co-principal language for America (probably worded differently), in all honestly Hillary answered no, but thought it was good to have the ability to understand a second language, mostly spanish. Obama never actually said no, but commented on the need to learn a second language (similar answer to Hillary) AND THEN made a statement about how NCLB is not good for the education system. He got mild applause until the NCLB comment, then an uproar. That is a fact, and it hapened on more than one occasion. It had nothing to do with the original question, not even close. He mastered this thoughout the debate, doing it on more than one occasion. It worked for him and his "followers". Not for me.

Well, you want "credit" for watching the debate. Good for you. You watched it. You also saw what you wanted to see.

RAMOS: (SPEAKING SPANISH) Right now, there are more than 30 million people in this country who speak Spanish. (APPLAUSE) Many of them are right here. By the year 2050, there will be 120 million Hispanics in the United States. Now, is there any downside, Senator Clinton, to the United States becoming (SPEAKING SPANISH) becoming a bilingual nation? Is there a limit?

CLINTON: Well, I think it’s important for as many Americans as possible to do what I have never been able to do, and that is learn another language and try to be bilingual because that connects us to the rest of the world. I think it is important, though, that English remain our common unifying language because that brings our country together in a way that we have seen generations of immigrants coming to our shores be able to be part of the American experience and pursue the American dream.

You know, I have been adamantly against the efforts by some to make English the official language. That I do not believe is appropriate, and I have voted against it and spoken against it.

I represent New York. We have 170 languages in New York City alone. And I do not think that we should be, in any way, discriminating against people who do not speak English, who use facilities like hospitals or have to go to court to enforce their rights. But I do think that English does remain an important part of the American experience. So I encourage people to become bilingual. But I also want to see English remain the common, unifying language of our country. (APPLAUSE)

RAMOS: Senator Obama, is there any down side to the United States becoming a bilingual nation?

OBAMA: Well, I think it is important that everyone learns English and that we have that process of binding ourselves together as a country. I think that’s very important. I also think that every student should be learning a second language, because… (APPLAUSE) … you know, so, when you start getting into a debate about bilingual education, for example, now, I want to make sure that children who are coming out of Spanish-speaking households had the opportunity to learn and are not falling behind.

If bilingual education helps them do that, I want to give them the opportunity. But I also want to make sure that English-speaking children are getting foreign languages because this world is becoming more interdependent and part of the process of America’s continued leadership in the world is going to be our capacity to communicate across boundaries, across borders, and that’s something frankly where we’ve fallen behind.

One of the failures of No Child Left Behind, a law that I think a lot of local and state officials have been troubled by, is that it is so narrowly focused on standardized tests that it has pushed out a lot of important learning that needs to take place. (APPLAUSE) And foreign languages is one of those areas that I think has been neglected. I want to put more resources into it.

I think he answered the question, which was phrased pretty vaguely, i.e. Ramos didn't say have both languages being "official", but rather pointed to the fact that we have more Spanish speaking people, and Obama's reference to NCLB was relevant to his point.

Swoosh...right over your head. Your eyes and ears are foggy with the "dust" sprinkled by Obama. Thanks for proving my point. The quotes pointed it out exactly. You don't even see for yourself how blindly you are seeing what you want in what he says. Nothing about NCLB has anything to do with the question, unless you spin it. It was a good segway on his part, which I pointed out. I agree although less abrasively with GG on the Obama point.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

BTW, Galen, no offense intended, when I think of someone with engaging rhetoric, but little substance, you honestly come to mind.

Rudy has history, he has a verifiable record of achievement. When he spoke, his was the voice of experience. He's done it and knows what it takes. Obama? Bah. Empty-suit fool, just as I suspected from the start.

And for the record, I'd be a better presidential candidate than Obama. I've got more substance than him and CERTAINLY more than anyone who supports him.

Rudy: "Blah, blah, blah, 9/11...blah, blah, 9/11.."

Rudy's most memorable accomplishment will now be that he spent more to get only one delegate than any candidate in history. The management of his campaign was stunning in its gross incompetence.

Throw your hat in the ring, buddy! Be a doer, not just a talker!

What Rudy did for New York City is nothing short of amazing. His remarkable leadership during the 9/11 crisis should have been one of the cornerstones of his campaign. It showed his ability to galvanize people and be a source of strength in near-impossible times. He had every right to point to it as one of his crowning achievements. No problem there. His mistake was in believing people were smart enough to differentiate between empty babble and legitimate achievement. He erred in thinking that people would ignore the results of early polls and he would be able to kickstart his campaign in Florida. He simply gave people too much credit. He assumed they would show some modicum of intelligence. Pity for him -- and for us -- that Americans are, for the most part, dumb. They don't think rationally, they merely leap on whatever bandwagon happens to be passing at the time.

But Rudy isn't the issue here. He made his mistake. He is paying for it, as are we, as his candidacy ended short of the goal. The issue here is the cult of Obama. The herd mentality that follows this empty puff of nothing as he spews rhetorical fantasy.

Please, if you will, list the reasons this idiot is qualified to lead the country. Hillary Clinton is the anti-Christ, but she is a far more legitimate candidate than King Nothing. What, exactly, has Obama done?

Do you deny that he is a socialist riding the cusp of communistic thought? His "platform" is basically f**king Robin Hood. "Let's take from the evil rich and give to the suffering poor." Like most socialists he believes that GOVERNMENT should be responsible for individual success. He removes personal accountability. Like most empty-headed politicians who don't understand the first thing about life in the real world, Obama thinks he can legislate equal outcomes as opposed to equal opportunity. What balderdash. Obama is a fool. Those who support him are unable to separate rhetorical babble from reality. They are generally immature and make decisions based on emotion rather than reason. He's a half-decent speaker. He's not even a great orator. But he peels off enough platitudes to pacify the collective idiocy of the American people. As I said before, if he weren't so dangerous it would just be sadly amusing.

Please, defende this loser if you possibly can. As I know you cannot, I expect more attacks on Rudy or on me. Typical diversion of the baaaaing sheep that blindy follow this sycophant.

You make it clear that it would be a waste of my time and then ask me to waste it. You grossly misstate his positions in an above post. You make it exceedingly clear that you have zero interest in really knowing anything about the guy. You make the pathological assessment that HRC is the anti-Christ. Nothing personal, Galen, it is just clear to me that you've repeatedly demonstrated that you can't or won't be reasoned with, so I won't waste much time trying. Your opinion is your opinion and I can't change that. That's fine with me.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

And BTW, I don't know what debate you were watching, but your own obvious biases clearly shaped your view of it.

I could say the same about you. You should be giving me credit for even watching the debate. I have noticed on this board you (probably more some others than actually you) are always accusing Tigermike or AURaptor or others of being closed minded and too far to the right, however you (again, probably more some others than actually you) are the SAME EXACT WAY. Done in a different manner with from a different direction, the same none the less.

Regarding the debate, an example was when asked about spanish be a co-principal language for America (probably worded differently), in all honestly Hillary answered no, but thought it was good to have the ability to understand a second language, mostly spanish. Obama never actually said no, but commented on the need to learn a second language (similar answer to Hillary) AND THEN made a statement about how NCLB is not good for the education system. He got mild applause until the NCLB comment, then an uproar. That is a fact, and it hapened on more than one occasion. It had nothing to do with the original question, not even close. He mastered this thoughout the debate, doing it on more than one occasion. It worked for him and his "followers". Not for me.

Well, you want "credit" for watching the debate. Good for you. You watched it. You also saw what you wanted to see.

RAMOS: (SPEAKING SPANISH) Right now, there are more than 30 million people in this country who speak Spanish. (APPLAUSE) Many of them are right here. By the year 2050, there will be 120 million Hispanics in the United States. Now, is there any downside, Senator Clinton, to the United States becoming (SPEAKING SPANISH) becoming a bilingual nation? Is there a limit?

CLINTON: Well, I think it’s important for as many Americans as possible to do what I have never been able to do, and that is learn another language and try to be bilingual because that connects us to the rest of the world. I think it is important, though, that English remain our common unifying language because that brings our country together in a way that we have seen generations of immigrants coming to our shores be able to be part of the American experience and pursue the American dream.

You know, I have been adamantly against the efforts by some to make English the official language. That I do not believe is appropriate, and I have voted against it and spoken against it.

I represent New York. We have 170 languages in New York City alone. And I do not think that we should be, in any way, discriminating against people who do not speak English, who use facilities like hospitals or have to go to court to enforce their rights. But I do think that English does remain an important part of the American experience. So I encourage people to become bilingual. But I also want to see English remain the common, unifying language of our country. (APPLAUSE)

RAMOS: Senator Obama, is there any down side to the United States becoming a bilingual nation?

OBAMA: Well, I think it is important that everyone learns English and that we have that process of binding ourselves together as a country. I think that’s very important. I also think that every student should be learning a second language, because… (APPLAUSE) … you know, so, when you start getting into a debate about bilingual education, for example, now, I want to make sure that children who are coming out of Spanish-speaking households had the opportunity to learn and are not falling behind.

If bilingual education helps them do that, I want to give them the opportunity. But I also want to make sure that English-speaking children are getting foreign languages because this world is becoming more interdependent and part of the process of America’s continued leadership in the world is going to be our capacity to communicate across boundaries, across borders, and that’s something frankly where we’ve fallen behind.

One of the failures of No Child Left Behind, a law that I think a lot of local and state officials have been troubled by, is that it is so narrowly focused on standardized tests that it has pushed out a lot of important learning that needs to take place. (APPLAUSE) And foreign languages is one of those areas that I think has been neglected. I want to put more resources into it.

I think he answered the question, which was phrased pretty vaguely, i.e. Ramos didn't say have both languages being "official", but rather pointed to the fact that we have more Spanish speaking people, and Obama's reference to NCLB was relevant to his point.

Swoosh...right over your head. Your eyes and ears are foggy with the "dust" sprinkled by Obama. Thanks for proving my point. The quotes pointed it out exactly. You don't even see for yourself how blindly you are seeing what you want in what he says. Nothing about NCLB has anything to do with the question, unless you spin it. It was a good segway on his part, which I pointed out. I agree although less abrasively with GG on the Obama point.

And your eyes are crusted shut from Repug BS.

Answer this: Did you vote for Dubya in 2000 and 2004?

[jw 4 au 526]

Answer this: Did you vote for Dubya in 2000 and 2004?

Honest to God answer, yes. But Clinton the two elections before that. I am not a registered Republican. I vote for the best candidate I think is available at the time. It's called independant thinking. Gore didn't do it for me and Kerry was just an idiot.

Bet you never swayed in the past. Do you vote 100% Dem across the board on all tickets? If not, that's how you come off o this board.

[GalensGhost 0]

BTW, Galen, no offense intended, when I think of someone with engaging rhetoric, but little substance, you honestly come to mind.

Rudy has history, he has a verifiable record of achievement. When he spoke, his was the voice of experience. He's done it and knows what it takes. Obama? Bah. Empty-suit fool, just as I suspected from the start.

And for the record, I'd be a better presidential candidate than Obama. I've got more substance than him and CERTAINLY more than anyone who supports him.

Rudy: "Blah, blah, blah, 9/11...blah, blah, 9/11.."

Rudy's most memorable accomplishment will now be that he spent more to get only one delegate than any candidate in history. The management of his campaign was stunning in its gross incompetence.

Throw your hat in the ring, buddy! Be a doer, not just a talker!

What Rudy did for New York City is nothing short of amazing. His remarkable leadership during the 9/11 crisis should have been one of the cornerstones of his campaign. It showed his ability to galvanize people and be a source of strength in near-impossible times. He had every right to point to it as one of his crowning achievements. No problem there. His mistake was in believing people were smart enough to differentiate between empty babble and legitimate achievement. He erred in thinking that people would ignore the results of early polls and he would be able to kickstart his campaign in Florida. He simply gave people too much credit. He assumed they would show some modicum of intelligence. Pity for him -- and for us -- that Americans are, for the most part, dumb. They don't think rationally, they merely leap on whatever bandwagon happens to be passing at the time.

But Rudy isn't the issue here. He made his mistake. He is paying for it, as are we, as his candidacy ended short of the goal. The issue here is the cult of Obama. The herd mentality that follows this empty puff of nothing as he spews rhetorical fantasy.

Please, if you will, list the reasons this idiot is qualified to lead the country. Hillary Clinton is the anti-Christ, but she is a far more legitimate candidate than King Nothing. What, exactly, has Obama done?

Do you deny that he is a socialist riding the cusp of communistic thought? His "platform" is basically f**king Robin Hood. "Let's take from the evil rich and give to the suffering poor." Like most socialists he believes that GOVERNMENT should be responsible for individual success. He removes personal accountability. Like most empty-headed politicians who don't understand the first thing about life in the real world, Obama thinks he can legislate equal outcomes as opposed to equal opportunity. What balderdash. Obama is a fool. Those who support him are unable to separate rhetorical babble from reality. They are generally immature and make decisions based on emotion rather than reason. He's a half-decent speaker. He's not even a great orator. But he peels off enough platitudes to pacify the collective idiocy of the American people. As I said before, if he weren't so dangerous it would just be sadly amusing.

Please, defende this loser if you possibly can. As I know you cannot, I expect more attacks on Rudy or on me. Typical diversion of the baaaaing sheep that blindy follow this sycophant.

You make it clear that it would be a waste of my time and then ask me to waste it. You grossly misstate his positions in an above post. You make it exceedingly clear that you have zero interest in really knowing anything about the guy. You make the pathological assessment that HRC is the anti-Christ. Nothing personal, Galen, it is just clear to me that you've repeatedly demonstrated that you can't or won't be reasoned with, so I won't waste much time trying. Your opinion is your opinion and I can't change that. That's fine with me.

I don't have a candidate to support. I would never vote for Hillary because I have no respect for her or her husband. If she were the only candidate running I would write in a vote for PCChamp before I would vote for her.

That leaves Obama, McCain and Huckabee. I have problems with all of them.

McCain I simply don't like. Huckabee denies evolution and considers dinosaurs to be "Jesus horses." I can't, in good conscience, support someone who is that backward, even though I agree wholeheartedly with his position on taxes. So I looked to Obama with an open mind. And what I saw frightened me.

I'd be willing to support him if I thought he had even the slightest grasp on reality. But I do not believe he does. If you think he does, I'd like to hear how and why. I certainly haven't "misstated" any of his positions in any way, shape or form. I listened to his speeches. I made notes. When I reviewed them, it was clear to me that I was looking at a closet communist. I'm open to having that perception changed.

What has he ever done that was of any consequence? Can you answer that?

Which of his grandiose, generic "proposals" does he actually have any power or authority over?

Who is going to pay for his fantastical schemes? He stated on more than one occasion that "anyone making over $50k a year" should shoulder more of the burden. I'm currently being taxed at about 30% of my salary. ONE THIRD. How much more should I be required to give? Obama thinks that isn't enough and says so. He's pandering to people who want a handout in my opinion. Can you deny that on his behalf? Can you show me how my already unbearable tax burden will be relieved under his leadership?

Can you give me any SPECIFIC examples of what he plans to accomplish? "Making sure every child gets a quality education" is an admirable goal, but has zero resonance unless there is come actionable plan to accomplish it. What are his plans? What is he going to DO? I can promise to give every member of AUN a platinum football, but unless I have some method to accomplish this what good is that promise? And if I have to take $10,000 from each of the top 40 posters on the board to achieve the stated goal, of what value is it?

The biggest issue here, Tex, is that you CAN'T answer any of these questions. None of the Obama supporters can. I've yet to see anyone defend him with anything other than the generalized "he offers hope." Hope for what? And how? Since you are (quite obviously) unable to defend him and have followed the typical Obama-supporter script of diversion followed by the "you don't want to know anyway" dodge, I have to wonder how in the screaming blue hell you justify supporting this wisp of gas to yourself.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Answer this: Did you vote for Dubya in 2000 and 2004?

Honest to God answer, yes. But Clinton the two elections before that. I am not a registered Republican. I vote for the best candidate I think is available at the time. It's called independant thinking. Gore didn't do it for me and Kerry was just an idiot.

Bet you never swayed in the past. Do you vote 100% Dem across the board on all tickets? If not, that's how you come off o this board.

I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary and would have probably voted for him in general. The first vote I ever cast for President was for GHW Bush in 1980. I voted for Anderson in the general.

In recent years, the Republican party has become extreme and irrational, however. There are few left that I would consider voting for. Hagel is one of the best, if you truly like independent thinkers. Most Republicans don't, however, which is why Hagel and McCain have been so scorned by their own party.

[Tigermike 3,054]

In recent years, the Republican party has become extreme and irrational, however.

So you are a dem because they are not extreme or irrational?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

In recent years, the Republican party has become extreme and irrational, however.

So you are a dem because they are not extreme or irrational?

There are extreme and irrational folks of all stripes. With the Republicans, however, the problem extends more deeply and broadly into the ones that are actually elected. Watching the Republicans try to out-extreme each other during their debates was pretty disturbing.