Barack Obama is not right in the head. From the Daily Mail:
President Barack Obama provoked fury in the U.S. on Thursday by casually devoting less than a minute to the deaths of 295 people aboard a Malaysian airliner, as he began an often jokey 16-minute speech about the need to expand America’s transportation infrastructure.
There are no confirmed American dead and the White House issued a statement on Thursday evening which said they were still seeking any ‘information to determine whether there were any American citizens on board’.
An earlier Reuters report claimed that it was feared that as many as 23 U.S. citizens had perished.
Obama declared in Wilmington, Delaware that ‘it looks like it may be a terrible tragedy,’ but not before enthusiastically declaring that ‘it is wonderful to be back in Delaware.’
‘Before I begin, obviously the world is watching reports of a downed passenger jet near the Russia-Ukraine border. And it looks like it may be a terrible tragedy. Right now we’re working to determine whether there were American citizens on board. That is our first priority.’
‘And I’ve directed my national security team to stay in close contact with the Ukrainian governemnt. The United States will offer any assistance we can to help determine what happened and why. And as a country, our thoughts and prayers are with all the families and passengers, wherever they call home.
Obama then jarringly quickly returned to his prepared remarks.
‘I want to thank Jeremie for that introduction’ he said. ‘Give Jeremie a big round of applause.’
‘It is great to be in the state that gave us Joe Biden. We’ve got actually some better-looking Bidens with us here today. We’ve got Beau and his wife, Hallie, are here. Give them a big round of applause. We love them.’
From Boston Globe reporters Matt Viser
Ronald Reagan reacted far differently to the downing of a passenger jet:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERn80uZRCJg[/youtube]
Yesterday’s morning’s email from Jim Geraghty included more thoughts about Obama’s bizarre reaction to this latest disaster.
As I noted, this is part of a pattern, going back to the Underwear Bomber, Fort Hood and the Benghazi attacks. Something dramatic, sudden, and terrible happens, and the president sticks to the previously established schedule — continue the Hawaiian vacation, make the shout-out at an event with supporters, go to Las Vegas for the campaign rally. All of that looks like petty political silliness when life-and-death issues are going on elsewhere. (I remember Obama doing his ESPN March Madness brackets as the Japanese were desperately trying to avoid a devastating meltdown at the Fukushima reactor. I realize there wasn’t a ton that the president could do about a nuclear crisis on the other side of the world, but it just seemed . . . out-of-touch, solipsistic, unserious, and un-presidential. Had Japan experienced the worst-case scenario, how would historians look upon the American president goofing around with sportscasters at that moment?)
Gabe Malor via Geraghty:
The problem isn’t that Obama didn’t ‘react instantly.’ Part of the problem is that he didn’t act decisively previously. But another big part of the problem is that Obama and his team refuse to cancel a photo-op in response to events.
Ace, also via Geraghty:
Look, I’m just going to say directly what Peggy Noonan sort of implied and what people are kind of worrying about, silently:
People are beginning to become alarmed that the president may not be mentally well.
This is [really] weird. There are people who don’t give a [hoot] at all about social conventions or expected modes of behavior or conforming to anyone else’s expectations of what one is supposed to do at one’s job during a time of crisis.
We call these people crazy.
When someone shows up for work wearing nothing but a bathrobe and cowboy hat, we don’t tweet #TheBearIsLoose; we ask Human Resources to have a check ’round.
Even Obama’s traditional allies noticed that this was a little odd. Piers Morgan, no firebreathing right-winger he, tweeted that the president “massively dropped the ball just now. 23 Americans killed and he says ‘it looks like a terrible tragedy’ then back to jokes?” Matt Viser, White House correspondent for the Boston Globe summed up Obama’s reaction thus: “A plane crashed. It may be tragic. We’re trying to see if US citizens were on board. Hey, great to be in Delaware!” Singer Josh Groban — a staunch progressive and vicious critic of the Right — concurred. His verdict: “Bad prep. I was shocked.”
The criticism here is not that Obama did not immediately spring into action, flying as Superman into the air, safety to escort the air traffic to its final destination. Nor is it that Obama was insufficiently bellicose. Instead, the president’s aristarchs were troubled that a major international incident was treated as a mild irritation — as little more than a brief and unwanted overture to the usual fractious stump speech.
I agree. Barack Obama is not right in the head and I said so three years ago.
In other words, it’s all about him. And if it’s not about him, he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about it. He is a sociopath.
Here are a few of the characteristics of a sociopath:
* Glibness/Superficial Charm
* Manipulative and Conning
* Grandiose Sense of Self
* Pathological Lying
* Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
* Shallow Emotions
* Incapacity for Love
* Need for Stimulation
* Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Together they spell Barack Obama. There’s more here, here and here.
He’s not right in the head.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Obama is not right in the head?
Whats he got? Piles?
Damn. That describes him to a ‘T’.
Only the teleprompter has kept him from the guys in the white coats.
Encyclopedia Britannica:
Just think of poor Valarie Jarrett trying to keep up with changing obies depends after each new obama blunder.
Trying switched from Fox news and get the truth about Obama’s response.
@Randy: This goes into more detail. He easily fits the definition. You can even think of specific examples of at least half of them.
@Greg: Yes, we know the source of your Bush Derangement Syndrome: childish projection. You project everything onto George Bush, even justifying Obama’s failures by pretending that others are projecting…
…while you’re projecting.
Had to break open the Encyclopedia in lieu of an actual rebuttal? Getting hard to defend this guy, isn’t it.
I can’t wait for you to tell us why Elizabeth Warren is better than Bush.
The Bookworm wonders:
Is Obama’s constant, inappropriate laughter a sign that he is suffering from a mental disorder?
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2014/07/17/is-obamas-constant-inappropriate-laughter-a-sign-that-he-is-suffering-from-a-mental-disorder/
What with all Obama’s great health check-ups we can omit all of the illnesses.
So, what’s left?
Drug intoxication
Substance abuse
Alcohol intoxication
Not a pretty picture, considering this president is painting the USA into a weak corner where we don’t even have military might or economic strength.
He is thus chipping away. more of our options with Russia, Iran, Israel, our border, etc.
Back in 2008 I recognized that barry is a narcissist – always needing adulation, always needing to be told he is loved, always believing he is the smartest person in the room and knowing the dark side from this ‘affliction’. How? I was once married to one. A narcissist gets dangerous when their world changes and this is what is happening. In addition his continued drug use – purple lips indicate cocaine use. ( no I have never done this but a curious mind wanted to know so I did the research)
@Disenchanted:
Seems as if you’ve listed some real possible reasons why.
@This one:
and where do you recommend?
@Disenchanted:
Narcissism is very common in sociopaths. As is megalomania. I believe I came to the same conclusion many months ago regarding president Obama. Sadly, I don’t think Biden is firing on all cylinders either. The Loony far-left took over the Democratic party, expunged the party of all their conservatives and moderates, and elected leaders even loonier than themselves.
@Redteam:
He’s say John Stewart and Saturday Night Live.
He’s clueless.
I certainly hope our form of government can withstand a dysfunctional commander-in-chief. But what the world is going to devolve into with a dysfunctional US is happening before our eyes. I can’t see anyone impeaching the first black president. God help us.
What is apparent is that Obama did not seek the Presidency to accomplish some great goal. While the Obama campaign made much of accusing Romney of simply wanting to conclude a “bucket list” by winning the Presidency, as Obama avoids crisis after crisis when they interfere with his “personal life”, we can see that his primary goal was to enjoy the perks of having all the resources of the entire nation at his disposal for recreation. Tooling around on AF1, “date nights” where neighborhoods are shut down for his convenience, Hawaiian vacations which he never bothered to take before we paid for it are all indicative of the lust after the perks rather than doing a job.
I would posit that anyone who finds intellectual consistency in an ideology that claims a right to forcibly take wealth from one person to be handed out to others who have not earned it – and classifies such behavior as “fair” or as “social justice” – is mentally and/or morally deficient. True charity is a wonderful and admirable thing, but government sanctioned theft for the sole purpose of placating a mob to buy votes is not only not charitable, it is subtle corruption of the moral fiber of individuals and a society.
People who ascribe to leftist ideology, with all the vacuous PC fetishistic obsession with the warped conception of “fairness” are doomed to failure, as is seen with the complete disaster of Obama’s presidency. Though just like the stereotypical spoiled child, Obama and his minions will vehemently chant that “It’s not my fault! You MADE me do it!” We all know the left will never accept any blame for the horrid results of their childish, unworkable and pathetic policies, because to them all that matters is that they (mistakenly believed they) MEANT to do good – and so they should only be judged on their intentions, rather than their performance.
Historical or scientific facts do not have any actual definitive, immutable meaning for leftists, except how they may be manipulated to bamboozle as many members of the mob as necessary to impose the fascist will of the left upon the rest of us. Alas, the Gramscian blueprint has been quite successful in laying our society low. The once herculean Samson-like figure of the US has over decades been slowly seduced by the honeyed lies of leftist ideology until we have grown drunk and weak enough for the leftists to shore away Samson’s locks, and blind our eyes.
We have islamic forces threatening -as the koran tells them to do – to kill Christians in Mosul who will not convert or pay the jizya tax. We have Russian-backed separatists shooting down a civilian airliner and deliberately contaminating evidence. We have huge waves of people illegally invading our country, and a political party supporting it in order to swell their illegal voter fraud rolls. We have mealy mouthed politicians calling for “economic patriotism” – code words for demanding that business owners simply give up more and more of their earned income to pay for more leftwing political vote buying scams, rather than exporting their corporate headquarters to less tax thieving countries.
God is not mocked. He has blessed our nation so very much over the brief 230+ years we have existed. Yet now we have people afraid to speak out against things that are clearly wrong for fear of being called names and being persecuted over the internet, or being fired from their jobs – all for expressing opinions that are protected under the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights. We do nothing while militant members of the satanic death cult of islam are literally murdering Christians and Jews – though why should we expect anything from a culture that so blithely executes the unborn for the mere convenience of those who already escaped the womb?
The complete hypocrisy of a leftist shrieking for the government to force corporations to “stay out of people’s bedrooms” – while concurrently demanding that government FORCE corporations to pay for someone’s birth control in violation of their religious rights – shows the level of cognitive dysfunction inherent in leftist thinking. Similarly with the left’s convoluted thinking regarding a baker or photographer being FORCED to provide service in a manner that violates their religious rights.
Reaping of what has been sown over the last hundred years since progressives got their first big bite of control under the contemptible Wilson is occuring. How long this continues is up to God. I would suggest fervent prayer for those being persecuted (real persecution, not the phony leftist PC victim-of-the-week) in Israel and Iraq and around the world, and especially for our country that we will elect another devout American like Reagan to stauch the hemorrhaging of our national lifeblood.
Leave it to Fox News to compare apples to oranges and completely overlook Obama’s quick response. Took RR four days.. What did he do? Not what he said. He did very little. He ordered no USSR planes can land in the USA. He ordered that GPS be provided to civilian airlines. He went to the UN and got a resolution against the USSR. Thats about it. Reagan demanded an apology to the world and continued a number of sanctions — but he decided not to end grain sales to the USSR or to suspend arms control talks. Then he started an illegal war in South America.
@Pete, #17:
What don’t you understand about the simple logic and fundamental moral justice of a handicapping system that levels the playing field?
Why such a mechanism is needed is obvious: Money buys power; persons and corporate entities that accumulate enormous quantities of money use it to buy even more power, which they then use to tilt the playing field in their own favor. That allows them to gain even more money and even more influence. The inevitable outcome is plutocracy. Those lacking money are reduced to a state of total powerlessness and irrelevance, while the well-being of the majority remains relevant only to the extent that it benefits the wealthy minority who rule.
Take away all of the programs and redistributive mechanisms that the far right condemn as Marxist or socialist, and this is what you eventually get. On the other hand, reality clearly demonstrates that rational social programs and progressive tax schedules don’t prevent people from becoming wealthy. With our current system, which many like to characterize as Marxist or socialist, we have more wealthy people and more enormously wealthy people than ever before in history.
Greg:
“more enormously wealthy people…”
Under which president?
We must have a plutocracy right now under your reasoning.
Under which president?
“…rational social programs…” Rational? Some perhaps, but many are wastes of time, money, and do not work.
And lose the “money is power” cliché. Individuals, families, many faiths, communities, and even nations empower themselves outside the counting-room.
And where is the “moral justice” in penalizing the productive to reward the non-productive.
@Greg: Greg, am I understanding you to say that if you had a neighbor that refused to work because he knew the government would give him everything he needed, that you would be content to give him half of everything you have?
who wrote the rules that say playing fields have to be level? If Derek Jeter would give me half his ability to play ball, we both might make above average players, but neither likely would be major league caliber. So you’re saying they should make the rules of ‘games’, such as major league baseball be such that I can make as much money at it as Jeter does? If not, why would the rules only apply to ‘other jobs’ and not professional sports, etc? Should they make the rules to be a lawyer such that everyone can be a lawyer? If not, why not? Why should someone be allowed to practice law just because he goes to school a few extra years? Why shouldn’t he be required to credit some of his school years to someone too lazy to go for themselves? Just because you have people that go out when they’re young, like Obama, and blow pot and get dumber and lazier is no reason for those that choose to not do those things, to have to give up what they earned to make the playing field ‘level’. God put some people on earth with ambition and ability, others didn’t come out too well, but it’s not the place of the ones ‘with ambition’ to use that ambition to provide for those too lazy to provide for themselves. Yep, this ‘level playing field’ is a novel idea. You think Bill Gates should give away all he has, except for maybe 20,000 per year, just so the playing field will be level. Nope, I see the ‘level’ playing field as just a Dimocrat/socialist idea for the rich to take away from the middle class to give to the poor class so that the poor class will continue to vote for the rich class.
@MAKAYA, #19:
Do you believe that degree of wealth correlates directly with degree of productivity? That the possession of large sums of money is an indicator of merit and moral goodness?
It’s not a cliché. It’s an observation concerning the nature of the world we live in. The reason it’s so often repeated is because it’s accurate.
@Redteam, #20:
No, I’m not. Nor is giving money to people who refuse to work what social programs are all about. That’s simply how some on the right like to characterize various programs that they disapprove of. It seems to appeal to a lot of people who want to blame either the government or the poor for their own position in the economic hierarchy, and therefore has become a useful political sales pitch.
@Greg:
not nearly as closely as the degree of poverty correlates with the degree of productivity. If it were not for welfare/handouts, zero productivity would result in death from starvation.
@Greg:
I very well understand the leftist mantra “You can’t succeed in life unless government hacks can steal from successful, hardworking people and then addict those who do not want to earn their way through life to government handouts.” I had nothing when I left home after high school, but I have managed to work my way into the top 5% of income earners in the US without relying on some leftist hack to pay for anything, or some rich, connected relative to smooth the way. I did not cheat, I simply worked hard. The leftist idea that rich people have not worked to earn their way is nothing but envious marxist ideology, built on nothing but economic jealousy. It is a childish, spoiled mentality that one is owed financial support no matter that it is taken by force of law from someone else who has actually earned it. We have had welfare for over 60 years, with no improvement in the poverty numbers since Johnson’s term. We have 50 million people on foodstamps in a country with a little over 300 million people, and a government with 17 trillion in debt with no end in sight. Human nature, being what it is, has repeatedly shown that capitalism lifts more people out of poverty than any other system yet devised, while collectivism results in economic stagnation and the decline of society. 45 years ago we put a man on the moon, while today we have no capacity for independent manned space flight and are dependent on a national enemy to put astronauts into space.
Collectivism is a disease that dehumanizes the individual and dampens individual achievement.
It is not charity when money is taken against one’s will.
@Greg:
So what is ‘giving money to people who refuse to work’ all about? I might see giving help to those down on their luck, but not to those that ‘refuse to work’.
@Pete: Very good Pete. I was born on a tobacco farm in 1940 to parents that didn’t own one single thing. The farm and everything on it, belonged to his parents. They moved from the farm during the war to work in a shipyard building Liberty ships. I went in the Navy the day after I turned 17. I didn’t graduate from High school, but I did graduate with Honors from an excellent engineering school. Partially paid for by a scholarship that I ‘earned’, not one that was given to me for ‘being alive’ or being ‘black’ such as Clarence Thomas got to go to Yale. I too, earned in the top 5% and have retired in the top 10%. That didn’t happen through government handouts or neighborhood handouts. It happened through working my whole life. Jokers such as Obama got what he has through dishonesty and being black. He’s never had a job his entire life, never been successful at anything except living off others. I’m not proud of the fact that a failure such as he has acheived the power he has. He will continue to live off others the remainder of his life, never having accomplished anything.
@Pete, #24:
Yeah, but I never said that either, and haven’t heard many thoughtful people on the left saying it. It’s no more accurate than asserting that most poor people are parasites by nature.
@Greg:
Is that something lefties are pushing? I’ve never heard that from the right side. If you have, tell us from where.
@Greg:
Yeah, nice strawman argument. I never claimed you said what I wrote. But I have been in plenty of debates with leftists who make a point of saying that “rich people don’t earn their wealth, so it is only fair that they have to give up more or what they have” Do you not remember Obama’s statement to Joe the Plumber about “spreading the wealth around”? What about Obama’s “you didn’t build that” claim?
How many jobs have you ever known a poor person to create? How exactly is it fair to punish someone who works hard by taking a larger percentage of what they have produced and giving it to someone who didn’t earn it?
How is it fair to take 40% of what Bill Gates – a man responsible for employing hundreds of thousands of people – earns to then give unearned handouts to people who do not work, and employ no one else? How does such a skewed concept of fairness encourage people to become a productive member of society?
Who do you think you’re kidding? Social programs have, in fact, been doing just that for many decades. These various social programs give section 8 housing, EBT (food stamp) cards, low or no cost energy, child daycare, and many other public assistance benefits to millions of able bodied adults who have rarely, if ever, worked a legitimate income taxpaying job in their lives.
The fact is that we unfortunately live around and see such people on a daily and yearly basis.
These are the people who often stay up all night loudly partying (while keeping the rest of us from getting any sleep).
These are the people who have numerous “visitors” on and around the 1st and the 15th of every month. These visitors are, of course, collecting public assistance benefits from addresses that they do no live at normally (which is illegal btw).
These are the people we see at the grocery stores who load up their carts with very expensive foods and drinks while not even bothering to look at the prices (those of us who aren’t on public assistance carefully check the prices on most every food item we purchase).
These are the people we see using EBT cards while dressed in very expensive casual non-work “logo” clothing and ridiculous basketball shoes while using expensive to own and operate smart phones (these people often drive ultra costly gas guzzling SUVs with $5K rims and tires).
These are the people who often sport tattoos, body piercings, and/or looney hair styles that indicate that they never plan on working or even looking for work.
These are the people who keep their (section 8) residences at 78 degrees during the winter and 68 in the summer (they can do this because they pay little or nothing for the energy they use).
These are the people we see while watching any of the “reality” L.E. (cop) TV programs that all too often show extremely numerous able bodied adults standing about their neighborhood while gawking at the latest crime scene investigation.
These are the people who never have to worry about silly things such as health care or H.C. insurance costs (thanks to the public assistance that’s given to them).
But then again, these are the people who also cheat vote early and often for pro-big government Democrat candidates (which is why the likes of you defend them with lies and propaganda).
@This one: This isn’t the Fox News website; you’re projecting.
Go there and troll instead. You’re savior is finally getting the same BS treatment that Bush got, and you can’t take it.
Greg and This one lashing-out… because their artificial worlds are crashing-down around their tiny, pea-sized “intellects.”
And, all they have is “B-but, Bush!!” and “F-f-f-faux N-n-n-news!”
Wipe the spittle off of your monitors, you stuttering gargoyles.
@Nathan Blue: How true!! Of all people who are deranged Greggie tops the list. He can find a way to Blame Bush for anything and everything. He can ‘t even admit 0-blama lied about health insurance and/or doctor “period”!! He accuses and proves NOTHING!!
Greg #22
You are indeed confused. What makes you think that I said anything like “large sums of money is an indicator of merit and moral goodness?”
That seems to be your hobgoblin.
And as to the money is power cliché; I was merely reacting to your fractured analysis of historicity in #19.
There are no iron laws of history. Class struggle does not define or control events. And as to dialectical materialism and “scientific” socialism: the socialist model that everything is controlled by moneyed plutocrats and the only thing that prevents peasants, laborers, and intellectuals from taking to the streets to overthrow the ruling class are benefits bestowed upon them by an all-wise and benevolent government is hogwash.
I fear, Greg, you are supping with the devil with a very short spoon,.
@Pete, #30:
Very few people build wealth by working outside the context of the larger economic system and infrastructure that others share. Success requires the utilization of natural resources that ultimately belong to everyone, and the utilization of a complex supportive infrastructure that exists only by virtue of the fact that it’s been created and and maintained by the efforts of society as a whole. The more wealth one has built, the more one has depended upon and utilized those things.
It’s entirely reasonable and entirely just to expect those who have benefited the most from the system to pay more to maintain it. A life of wealth and privilege at the top of the economic pyramid requires the payment of higher dues, even though you’ve made the climb yourself. A heavier obligation to help maintain the entire structure goes with the elevated station. It’s as simple as that. It’s part of the deal.
It’s necessary, if we don’t want Bill Gates to become King of the World. He’s done quite well, despite taxes. Good for him. I like Bill Gates. (In spite of Vista and Windows 8.)
Again, I dispute any suggestion that the entire point of the exercise is to raise money for Caesar so that he can pass out bread to the rabble to maintain his popularity.
@MAKAYA, #35:
You didn’t say such things. That’s why I posed the questions about them. Philosophic positions regarding economic systems have various items of baggage associated with them, whether they’ve been noticed by the people who take those positions or not.
For example, if we were to eliminate unemployment compensation and food stamps for the sake of a philosophic principle, many of the working poor would be unable to provide adequate food and shelter for their families during the low points of recurring economic downturns. If we were to eliminate Social Security retirement insurance, a certain percentage of people who have worked all of their lives would face severe poverty in their final years.
There’s nothing wrong with having large sums of money. Sometimes there is something wrong with the priorities of people who are totally focused on the acquisition of large sums of money, however. A lot of harm can be done in the efforts to get it, if no one is keeping an eye on things with the intention of keeping that from happening.
@This one:
Indeed. Comparing Obama to a LEADER like Reagan is most certainly comparing apples to oranges… or more specifically, a community organizer to a strong, determined leader.
Obama will never be anything more than a community organizer… he has shown he cannot and will not be a leader.
What Reagan said and did was part of a larger policy to isolate and eliminate the Soviet Union. What you fail to see (or, probably haven’t the guts to admit) is that Reagan’s actions were not any sort of a break from the norm; he denunciation of the Soviet action was the policy. For Obama, “this could be a tragedy” is his norm. Gutless, measured, calculated.
No, all Reagan did was orchestrate the total collapse of the Soviet Union. All Obama, the perpetual community organizer, has done is bungle and apologize. Apples to oranges.
@Greg:
You seem entirely comfortable with the idea of punishing those who make the effort to produce things while absolutely ignoring the fact that they are already providing something in the good or service produced that is available for others to purchase. You seem to think from your post that the money they make is completely separate from the act of providing a good or service for others, and that you have a right to simply take more than what is already “paid” by the person who produces. We aren’t talking about taxes to pay for roads, police and fire departments, or the military. Taxes taken from a worker/producer for the purpose of giving unearned money in the form of foodstamps, medical care, and housing assistance are the wasteful leftist graft used to buy the votes of the lazy and uneducated. What the left has done, which you have codified, is institutional envy, masquerading as “fairness”.
@Pete, #39:
They don’t all produce things out of thin air by virtue of their special magical powers. The most successful organize other people and utilize their creativity, organizational skills, and physical and mental labor to produce goods and services. All of which is done within and is totally dependent upon an infrastructure that is the product of generations of collective effort.
The purpose of society is not just to reward the highest achievers of the world. Their goals and values are not the only goals and values. All that matters cannot be measured in dollars and cents.
@Greg:
Did you grow up in the Soviet Union? Everyone has equal access to that ‘infrastructure’ that the ‘collective’ provided. “Collective’ is a Soviet term, right? I would suggest that most of the time, the person that is doing the leading and creating is the one that is responsible for working people to have a job to build that ‘infrastructure’.
Greg, would you rate Obama’s job performance for me?
1. Outstanding
2. above average
3. average
4 below average
5. totally incapable.
Just so you won’t have to wonder. I’d give him a 5 minus.
@Redteam, #41:
“Collective” is a perfectly good word that occurs in the English language, which can be and usually is used without any political connotations. For example: Creating the Constitution of the United States was a collective effort; the creation of the majority of all of Microsoft’s products have been collective endeavors; most of the great accomplishments of mankind have been the result of collective efforts.
Given the very serious problems that were already waiting to be dealt with at the time of his inauguration and the degree of resistance that his every effort has been met with, I would rate Obama’s performance as above average.
There’s little that he could have done that would have satisfied those who were virulently opposed to him from the outset. Some people quite simply hate him.
No, they don’t “all produce things out of thin air by virtue of their special magical powers,” Greg.
There is a lot of hard work, brain power involved.
There is a lot of risk involved, too.
Successful inventors ”organize other people and utilize their creativity, organizational skills, and physical and mental labor to produce goods and services,” at great peril to their own financial future security.
An ”infrastructure that is the product of generations of collective effort,” exists in EVERY culture, not just the USA, Greg.
It just so happens to be a better infrastructure here.
Maybe the very best.
No one ”reward[s] the highest achievers of the world,” simply because they tried.
Many high achievers try but fail.
But successful inventors do get rewarded.
And, no, it is not just in money.
They get adulation, emulation, and more.
The highest achievers “goals and values are not the only goals and values,” no, that is true.
When you buy your computer or music system you need not share the goals or values with the inventor of such.
But many people stand in lines to buy that next new thing, be it a phone, a small computer or something else.
Even THEY don’t necessarily agree with the inventor’s goals or values.
But they (and you) pay their money for the new product.
You conclude that, ”All that matters cannot be measured in dollars and cents.”
True.
But in a commercial world where your own ideas are constantly being molded by propagandists in media, what matters to YOU and to ME can and should be allowed to be very different.
The thing your calculus misses is that a return for risk must be worthwhile or risk stops being taken.
IF risk is no longer worthwhile society stagnates.
We saw this in China before the commies started to allow some private businesses.
We saw it in the old USSR when it was anti-privatization.
We saw it under Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro in their respective commie countries.
And it can happen here, too.
Greg #37
Your measured, if facile, response is welcome. But it does seem to be at variance with your Marxism 101 analysis in #19.
People on the right often seem to be far more concerned with Marxist theories than the average person on the left. I’ve never bothered to make a study of it and don’t really care to do so. I think it’s sufficient to observe conditions and events in the world and draw common sense conclusions informed by empathy, compassion, and one’s best understanding of human nature. Political theory reduces everything to abstractions. Political science is an oxymoron. There’s little genuinely scientific about it.
@Greg:
And you think that the people who work for business owners are not compensated for their efforts? Does the person who owns a business use the roads and infrastructure you on the left keep using as justification for your institutionalized theft more than those who do not work -.without paying for such use? No conservative is arguing against paying a fair share – defined as an equal.percentage of.income – for legitimate societal infrastructure. It is the use of an inherently unfair progressive income tax that takes a larger percentage from hardworking people to pay living expenses for those who choose not to work that is the sticking point.
You leftists act as if their is some bottomless pit of money from which the state can keep taking income from those who produce. How caring or charitable is it to deny the fact that at some point the fed cannot print money with which to continue buying off the masses? What happens to the millions of people who have become addicted to government handouts when the government can no longer steal enough money to fund all the foodstamps, social security, free housing and such? Businesses have already been transferring headquarters to less omnivorous taxing countries in response to polticians’ greed. Manufacturing has hemorrhaged overseas due to excessive taxes, overregulation and insane union thuggery. Politicians have started – on the left – using ominous terms such as “economic patriotism” as they try to craft laws to prevent companies from moving overseas, when common sense says all they have to do is lower the tax rates and reign in overregulation…instead leftists want MORE regulation over a problem tbeir policies have created.
It seems, as has been stated frequently, that leftist economic policies are based primarily on childish envy, rather than anything worthwhile.
@Greg:
Social Security is not a handout or a charity. I paid into SS all my working life and I am entitled to it because I paid for it. No one is ‘giving’ it to me.
@Greg:
Actually, some of us do. We are the writers, the actors, the singers, the artists, the dreamers and the thinkers. Spare us You and Obama’s socialist propaganda, “You didn’t build that” crap as that is nothing but utter hogwash. Creativity comes from the mind not from minor tools such as the pen or paper. Place any of man’s tools down, wait, and see what they create on their own. You can watch until the end of time and those tools will never create anything.
Place a resourceful man or woman on an island alone, and they will build their own infrastructure and prosper without society. “Infrastructure” is naught but convenience. Simply a method to save effort by delegating particular tasks to those individuals most appropriate to each task. The form of social-political alignment of a society is usually not relevant to what the individual minds of real people can create. The exception to this rule is socialism which stifles creativity and invention because it discourages original thought and action.
Society has no purpose other than as a means of organization. Society is not an entity and does not reward the highest achievers nor the lowest worthless unarchived and does not punish the wicked. It is individuals who do that either on their own or on behalf of fellow humans. Reward and punishment is an extension of the people not the society.
A gratuitous oxymoron statement if I ever heard one.
Another gratuitous statement that too adds nothing to your argument. “Not all who wander are lost.” There’s one for you. It has as much relevance as your last two.
@Redteam, #47:
I agree with you. There are those who condemn Social Security as a socialist scheme for the redistribution of income. I’m not one of them.
@Greg:
Social security is a ponzi scheme that if tried by anyone other than the government, would be illegal, precisely because the scheme fails when you do not have enough lower rung people paying in to cover the payout to those on the top rung. The money taken in the form of social security taxes is not invested or grown in any way – it is doomed to fail.