PDA

View Full Version : Obama Cult of Personality


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


dps
09-24-2009, 08:45 AM
This is reminiscent of the "cults of personality" that Stalin and Chairman Mao established in their countries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU

This was filmed around June 19, 2009 at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ.

Lyrics
========
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand [?]
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
Yes
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

segue to

Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all [do? doth??] say "hooray!"
Hooray Mr. President! You're number one!
The first Black American to lead this great na-TION!
Hooray, Mr. President something-something-some
A-something-something-something-some economy is number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And the same for all Americans [in?] the great Red White and Blue!
So something Mr. President we all just something-some,
So here's a hearty hip-hooray a-something-something-some!
Hip, hip hooray! (3x)

The Liberals would have went ballistic if this had happened with George Bush.

David

Marc Abrams
09-24-2009, 09:58 AM
David:

You got to be kidding me with this trash post! Actually, the liberals would have been labeled "anti-American" and accused of supporting the terrorists. If you compare the policies of Stalin and Chairman Mao, you see that they had more in common with the Bush administration than with the Obama administration. I am speaking directly about the violation of our civil rights, which I would assume you hold dear to you. Still, the comparison to the Bush administration and the Obama administration is unfair and so absurd that it boggles the mind.

I am neither a liberal or conservative. The facts speak for themselves. The Bush administration left this country in a FAR WORSE position than when they can into power. The Obama administration has been accused of everything under the sun and they have not even been in power for one year! Why don't you just be patient and support this administration for a change! Let us see if they can actually improve things. If they can improve things, I just wonder if you will acknowledge it?

Marc Abrams

Rabih Shanshiry
09-24-2009, 09:59 AM
Let's not get all wild-eyed and crazy here. Bit of difference between Obama and Mao/Stalin/Hitler.

While I don't think school children should be singing songs about any living president (or former president), I'm also willing to bet that some school somewhere did the same for President Bush...and President Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before him.

C. David Henderson
09-24-2009, 10:05 AM
At least liberals warranted a capital "L."

Basia Halliop
09-24-2009, 10:11 AM
Well, I'm not American, and as such I found the Republicans horrible and frightening and had hoped and prayed for Obama to win. I support him about 5 million percent over the previous administration...

BUT... I completely agree about the cult of personality.

I don't follow American politics enough to see who's driving it (is it actually the presidents office? democrats in general? some of it seemed to have started with parts of the black community?), but from here it seems excessive and unhealthy and also like it will hurt him in the long run (expectations are just too high -- there's little chance a mortal human can live up to them).

On the other hand, I've always, since I was a child looked at the American attitude to their elected representatives with some confusion -- presidents always seemed to me to be treated and spoken of more like a medieval king (i.e., almost reverantly when people speak of them, with an almost unimaginable to me amount of pomp and circumstance and power and religious-seeming awe ) than like anything I associated with a democracy... I have heard things I found pretty much equally weird and creepy as this about each president in my lifetime, so I don't actually know if this is actually all that different than usual or just one of those 'crazy American things that I'll never really understand because I didn't grow up there'...

But I do find the whole Obamamania thing pretty weird and over the top, even while I like and support the guy. I don't think noticing that there's a huge cult of personality requires you to be particularly right wing or particularly paranoid.

dps
09-24-2009, 02:07 PM
Let's not get all wild-eyed and crazy here. Bit of difference between Obama and Mao/Stalin/Hitler.

While I don't think school children should be singing songs about any living president (or former president), I'm also willing to bet that some school somewhere did the same for President Bush...and President Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before him.

I not talking about policy or ideology, I am talking about developing a cult of personality and the similarities used by Stalin and Mao. I did not mention Hitler.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54tjbgJmLFg&feature=related
http://media.nationalreview.com
Lyrics: WE’RE GONNA CHANGE THE WORLD
Music and lyrics by Lily Campbell (age 9)

We’re gonna spread happiness
We’re gonna spread freedom
Obama’s gonna change it
Obama’s gonna lead ‘em

We’re gonna change it
And rearrange it
We’re gonna change the world.

SING FOR CHANGE
Music and lyrics by Kathy Sawada

Now’s the moment, lift each voice to sing
Sing with all your heart!
For our children, for our families,
Nations all joined as one.
Sing for joy and sing abundant peace,
Courage, justice, hope!
Sing together, hold each precious hand,
Lifting each other up;
Sing for vision, sing for unity,
Lifting our hearts to Sing!

YES WE CAN
Music and lyrics by Kathy Sawada

Yes we can
Lift each other up
In peace, in love, in hope
Change! Change!

/post/?q=NzIxMTBmM2ExZWFhMmExZmExYjM5MmI0ZmNkZTg0NGM

David

Basia Halliop
09-24-2009, 02:55 PM
Although I'm really getting the impression that no matter how much the campaign and president's office etc might be happy that their guy is being spoken of this way, and perhaps happy enough to capitalize on it, it's not primarily a matter of some kind of magical or big-brother-like propaganda campaign.

If you want to point the finger at someone for the kids singing thing, what I've read makes it more of a teachers and principals leaping on the opportunity of a young black well-educated good-looking powerful role model for their kids, especially their young black kids, and these teachers (and to some extent parents) delighted to have a 'celebrity' they can point their kids to other than basketball players and athletes.

Marc Abrams
09-24-2009, 03:25 PM
I not talking about policy or ideology, I am talking about developing a cult of personality and the similarities used by Stalin and Mao. I did not mention Hitler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54tjbgJmLFg&feature=related
http://media.nationalreview.com
Lyrics: WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THE WORLD
Music and lyrics by Lily Campbell (age 9)

We're gonna spread happiness
We're gonna spread freedom
Obama's gonna change it
Obama's gonna lead ‘em

We're gonna change it
And rearrange it
We're gonna change the world.

SING FOR CHANGE
Music and lyrics by Kathy Sawada

Now's the moment, lift each voice to sing
Sing with all your heart!
For our children, for our families,
Nations all joined as one.
Sing for joy and sing abundant peace,
Courage, justice, hope!
Sing together, hold each precious hand,
Lifting each other up;
Sing for vision, sing for unity,
Lifting our hearts to Sing!

YES WE CAN
Music and lyrics by Kathy Sawada

Yes we can
Lift each other up
In peace, in love, in hope
Change! Change!

/post/?q=NzIxMTBmM2ExZWFhMmExZmExYjM5MmI0ZmNkZTg0NGM

David

David:

I would be surprised if you did not realize that both Mao and Stalin developed a "cult of personality" as part of their plans in ruling in an authoritarian manner. The "cult of personality" of Mao and Stalin was part of the policy and ideology. Would you like to proffer any proof that the Obama administration is intentionally doing the same thing? In absence of that, it is profoundly disingenuous to try and compare Mao & Stalin regimes with the Obama administration.

Trying to make references to Hitler is as just an disingenuous as the initial post. How about giving this kind of nonsense a rest? Instead of this nonsense, how about sharing with all of us what you are personally doing to help get our country out of the hole that it is in. Maybe, just maybe we can create a thread drift that is truly positive in nature.

Marc Abrams

dps
09-24-2009, 03:44 PM
If you want to point the finger at someone for the kids singing thing, what I've read makes it more of a teachers and principals leaping on the opportunity of a young black well-educated good-looking powerful role model for their kids, especially their young black kids, and these teachers (and to some extent parents) delighted to have a 'celebrity' they can point their kids to other than basketball players and athletes.

I agree that Obama is a role model for young black children just as Justice Clarence Thomas and Condolence Rice are. This goes way beyond being a role model or celebrity.

The first video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU) was posted by Charisse Carney-Nunes a Harvard shoolmate of Obama and senior vice president of The Jamestown Project. In the left hand side of the video on an easel is her book "I Am Barack Obama".
This was an official school function presented by Charisse Carney-Nunes .http://exurbanleague.com/2009/09/24/confirmed-kids-praising-obama-an-official-public-school-activity.aspx.

Why she named her book "I Am Barack Obama".
"The most important thing I think, and the reason the book is called I Am Barack Obama, is because I like when children say I am Barack Obama," Carney-Nunes said. "They understand that there is a little bit of Barack Obama in all of us." Charisse Carney-Nunes

And she urges kids to " keep looking for that inner-Obama."

David

Sources;
http://michellemalkin.com/
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/24/whats-the-jamestown-project-plus-finding-your-inner-obama/
http://exurbanleague.com/2009/09/24/confirmed-kids-praising-obama-an-official-public-school-activity.aspx

dps
09-24-2009, 03:48 PM
David:
Trying to make references to Hitler is as just an disingenuous as the initial post.

I made no reference to Hitler, Basia Halliop did. I was correcting him.

David

dps
09-24-2009, 03:50 PM
... how about sharing with all of us what you are personally doing to help get our country out of the hole that it is in.

Okay, in part this thread.

David

Marc Abrams
09-24-2009, 03:51 PM
I made no reference to Hitler, Basia Halliop did. I was correcting him.

David

David:

I stand corrected and I apologize. I still stand behind everything else. There is a BIG difference between the exuberance of people and an enacted, political agenda.

Marc Abrams

dps
09-24-2009, 05:02 PM
David:

I stand corrected and I apologize. I still stand behind everything else. There is a BIG difference between the exuberance of people and an enacted, political agenda.

Marc Abrams

If it was just the exuberance of a few there would be no problem but it isn't. Just as the ACORN scandal is not a few "part time idiots" in one location this is not a few exuberant teachers in one location. As my post about Charisse Carney-Nunes shows there are organized people with some connection to Obama using official school functions.

Here are excerpts from a speech (World Economic Forum in Caracas, Venezuela. in 2006 ) by Bill Ayers who along with Obama served on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge;

"I began teaching when I was 20 years old in a small freedom school affiliated with the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. The year was 1965, and I'd been arrested in a demonstration. Jailed for ten days, I met several activists who were finding ways to link teaching and education with deep and fundamental social change. They were following Dewey and DuBois, King and Helen Keller who wrote: "We can't have education without revolution. We have tried peace education for 1,900 years and it has failed. Let us try revolution and see what it will do now."

and

"As students and teachers begin to see themselves as linked to one another, as tied to history and capable of collective action, the fundamental message of teaching shifts slightly, and becomes broader, more generous: we must change ourselves as we come together to change the world. Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion!"

Here is another example;

http://www.newrochelletalk.com/node/368

David

Marc Abrams
09-24-2009, 05:15 PM
If it was just the exuberance of a few there would be no problem but it isn't. Just as the ACORN scandal is not a few "part time idiots" in one location this is not a few exuberant teachers in one location. As my post about Charisse Carney-Nunes shows there are organized people with some connection to Obama using official school functions.

Here are excerpts from a speech (World Economic Forum in Caracas, Venezuela. in 2006 ) by Bill Ayers who along with Obama served on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge;

"I began teaching when I was 20 years old in a small freedom school affiliated with the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. The year was 1965, and I'd been arrested in a demonstration. Jailed for ten days, I met several activists who were finding ways to link teaching and education with deep and fundamental social change. They were following Dewey and DuBois, King and Helen Keller who wrote: "We can't have education without revolution. We have tried peace education for 1,900 years and it has failed. Let us try revolution and see what it will do now."

and

"As students and teachers begin to see themselves as linked to one another, as tied to history and capable of collective action, the fundamental message of teaching shifts slightly, and becomes broader, more generous: we must change ourselves as we come together to change the world. Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion!"

Here is another example;

http://www.newrochelletalk.com/node/368

David

David:

Using the word "revolution" in a speech is so far off the mark of a policy agenda, that I am amazed that even you buy this nonsense. If I say that I have revolutionized the peeling of a potato, will I be developing a cult of personality in the field of spuds akin to a communist and/or socialist government?

You can dislike President Obama until the moon turns into blue cheese for all that I care. President Obama was elected as president by a MAJORITY of the citizens of the US (unlike other presidents). This man had a huge "ground swell" of support with the notion of "real change", which I believe is nonsense (both political parties are irreparably corrected as far as I am concerned). The only thing that I am concerned about is his trying to fix real problems in this country. If he does so, GREAT and give him four more years, if not, send in the next person from one of the corrupted parties to try and do better. You are still stuck on a failed notion. Once again, what are you doing to help fix the problems in this country? Maybe we can come up with some constructive ideas, rather than get boggled down in trivial, useless nitpicking of nonsense.

Marc Abrams

Mike Sigman
09-24-2009, 07:17 PM
Once again, what are you doing to help fix the problems in this country? Maybe we can come up with some constructive ideas, rather than get boggled down in trivial, useless nitpicking of nonsense.
Hmmmm.... why not debate David's premise instead of turning the argument into a defense of David? What you're doing is called an ad hominem response, Marc.

To note some of the other posts, let's be clear that Mao, Stalin, and Hitler used the idea that the common working man was their cause, even though they used that idea simply to usurp power. The Nazis, the Fascists, and the Communists all had massive labor-union support (as does Obama), going in. The idea that "fascists" were somehow "conservatives is a simple example of how history has been distorted in the telling. The "Fascist" symbol of a wheat sheaf was a symbol of labor-union power. At the time of their takeovers, Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini were popular, the mainstream medias supported them, progressives supported them, and many in the U.S. (where socialism was the trendy thing to do and what many school/college professors favored) supported Hitler, "Uncle Joe" Stalin, and Mussolini. One of the cute parts about the Obama campaign (IMO) was the prevalence of Obama portraits on campaign posters that were eerily reminiscent of Stalin and Mao posters (easy to research on Google).

BTW, immediately upon coming into office, Obama began to do the unions' bidding. On his second day in office, Obama signed an executive order to rescind one that required unions to post notices that union-members did not have to let their dues be used for political purposes. Here's a commentary on other things Obama has done for unions. Pretend it was Bush or some conservative... in no case would I allow any president of the U.S. to engage in this kind of behaviour; I'd be screaming. Notice the silence from the MSM and Obama supporters:

http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/24/solis-moves-to-shutdown-disclosure-of-big-labor-acorn-connections/

So David's comparison of school-children being taught to extol Obama is not really far off the mark. Probably you can find a way to acknowledge his point and then argue it without having to bring David personally into the argument?

Best.

Mike Sigman

Marc Abrams
09-24-2009, 08:12 PM
Hmmmm.... why not debate David's premise instead of turning the argument into a defense of David? What you're doing is called an ad hominem response, Marc.

To note some of the other posts, let's be clear that Mao, Stalin, and Hitler used the idea that the common working man was their cause, even though they used that idea simply to usurp power. The Nazis, the Fascists, and the Communists all had massive labor-union support (as does Obama), going in. The idea that "fascists" were somehow "conservatives is a simple example of how history has been distorted in the telling. The "Fascist" symbol of a wheat sheaf was a symbol of labor-union power. At the time of their takeovers, Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini were popular, the mainstream medias supported them, progressives supported them, and many in the U.S. (where socialism was the trendy thing to do and what many school/college professors favored) supported Hitler, "Uncle Joe" Stalin, and Mussolini. One of the cute parts about the Obama campaign (IMO) was the prevalence of Obama portraits on campaign posters that were eerily reminiscent of Stalin and Mao posters (easy to research on Google).

BTW, immediately upon coming into office, Obama began to do the unions' bidding. On his second day in office, Obama signed an executive order to rescind one that required unions to post notices that union-members did not have to let their dues be used for political purposes. Here's a commentary on other things Obama has done for unions. Pretend it was Bush or some conservative... in no case would I allow any president of the U.S. to engage in this kind of behaviour; I'd be screaming. Notice the silence from the MSM and Obama supporters:

http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/24/solis-moves-to-shutdown-disclosure-of-big-labor-acorn-connections/

So David's comparison of school-children being taught to extol Obama is not really far off the mark. Probably you can find a way to acknowledge his point and then argue it without having to bring David personally into the argument?

Best.

Mike Sigman

Mike:

I figured that you could not keep yourself out of this thread for very long :D . Once again, the comparison is pathetic at best. The well orchestrated propaganda machines that Stalin and Mao ran were part of their government and how it functioned. I find it sad that the same people advocating this nonsense do not extend that ridiculous comparison to the previous administration. We could do this by pointing out the the calling of dissent as being against the country. Advocating a fear of certain foreigners, religions....I could easily lower myself to that level, but those comparisons are also nonsense. What is happening now with the idealization of the current president is very similar to what happened when President Reagan was in office.
I seem to remember that when I was in school, a current president was always extolled in the classrooms. This went along with the pledge of allegiance, the national anthem and other things that are not as common as today. Some schools want to extol the current president, while others would like to "protect" their students from having the president address them. SO WHAT! The only thing that this points out is how polarized our country has become for all of the wrong reasons. No wonder our country has so many problems. Our citizens have become fixated on the nonsense that the politicians and news media force feeds them.

Why don't we focus on real issues rather than spinning threads from smoke.

Marc Abrams

Mike Sigman
09-24-2009, 08:31 PM
I figured that you could not keep yourself out of this thread for very long :D . Once again, the comparison is pathetic at best. The well orchestrated propaganda machines that Stalin and Mao ran were part of their government and how it functioned. Sure, once the regimes were established the government forced those kinds of measures. However, in the case of Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler there was a lot of support from the progressive and union-supporting populace. You may not understand it, but at the time it was very trendy to be progressive, liberal, and socialist in Europe; American "intelligentsia" openly supported those causes. Only when the real effects came to light did everyone deny that they'd ever supported socialist and communist-related causes. There was a good book out on how many Germans supported Hitler (he was a union supporter and a socialist) and yet how many declared after the war that they'd never been taken in and it was all a mistake to think they'd gone along with it.
I find it sad that the same people advocating this nonsense do not extend that ridiculous comparison to the previous administration. Bush had his education department setting up lesson plans where it was suggested that children discuss Bush's past quotes? We just saw that happen with Obama, Marc. So tell me where Bush did something like that... I'm more than happy to extend the comparison about school-children, as suggested by the O.P. We could do this by pointing out the the calling of dissent as being against the country. Advocating a fear of certain foreigners, religions....I could easily lower myself to that level, but those comparisons are also nonsense. Aren't they also complete deviations from the topic? Perhaps worthy of some thread other than about the "cult of personality"? C'mon... if you're going to debate an issue, you can't drag in extraneous issues, trivialize other posters, etc. No fair! ;) Why don't we focus on real issues rather than spinning threads from smoke.
Good point. Can you point me to your posts on the same pettinesses during the Bush administration? ;) Trust me, I was not a Bush lover. I thought at best he was middle-manager material who would at least attempt to surround himself with various experts in domestic and foreign policy. However, when it came to the soft-white Gore, raised in a suite at the Ritz-Carlton out near the beltway, or the Kerry guy who even Ted Kennedy called a phoney, I guess Bush was the lesser of two evils. With Obama, I think the Left has made a worse bet than they did with Carter and it will cost them even more or it will cause a civil war with the sophomoric 1970's college-campus idealism/socialism. I'm sorta bemusedly waiting to see what happens.

Notice not once did I make a reference to you or your personal beliefs or say "pathetic", etc. I don't debate like that.

Best.

Mike

C. David Henderson
09-24-2009, 10:31 PM
Marc,

Thanks for being a voice of sanity. Notice how some people ;) continue to predict civil uprising and civil war because the right no longer has a strangle hold on the nation, despite the lack of a shred of credible evidence ;) that anything like that is even remotely on the horizon? ;) Notice how they don't call you pathetic,;) but just insult your understanding of history because you haven't sampled the revisionist koolaid from the National Review? ;) Notice how superior they assure you they are in comparison to yourself because they don't put people down? ;) Notice how, they throw around assertions no respectable historian would tolerate in order to make outlandish comparisons ;) based on scraps of news supported by no more than cites to right-wing ideological sites?;)

All of that might concern you; but don't worry they're only interested in the truth.;) And they do it all with a smile and a wink.

:rolleyes:

Mike Sigman
09-24-2009, 10:52 PM
Marc,

Thanks for being a voice of sanity. Notice how some people ;) continue to predict civil uprising and civil war because the right no longer has a strangle hold on the nation, despite the lack of a shred of credible evidence ;) that anything like that is even remotely on the horizon? ;) Notice how they don't call you pathetic,;) but just insult your understanding of history because you haven't sampled the revisionist koolaid from the National Review? ;) Notice how superior they assure you they are in comparison to yourself because they don't put people down? ;) Notice how, they throw around assertions no respectable historian would tolerate in order to make outlandish comparisons ;) based on scraps of news supported by no more than cites to right-wing ideological sites?;)

All of that might concern you; but don't worry they're only interested in the truth.;) And they do it all with a smile and a wink.

:rolleyes:Lessee.... "revisionist koolaid... superior... insult... assertions no respectable historian... outlandish...". Why not add "child molester", procrastinator, and a host of other terms if all you're going to do is smear by innuendo, David? If you simply want to avoid any discussion of the topic and smear me personally, why not just start another thread?

Mike Sigman

C. David Henderson
09-24-2009, 11:20 PM
Well, you did reply pretty promptly, so procrastination is pretty much outlandish. I have no reason to believe you have any criminal background. Starting a thread to smear would be, of course, against forum rules. And I think I've stated pretty clearly I think your theory is unsupported and insupportable, which is pretty much on topic.

Why don't you establish that your assertions are based on something valid? They are your assertions, after all, and a great deal of what you say about history appears pretty controversial -- so it's fair to put the burden of persuasion on you.

So, without posting cites to right-wing ideological sites, why not just prove your case.

hapkidoike
09-25-2009, 12:52 AM
Just because it is a rocking song, it is relevant, and Vernon Reed is just a badass:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5SVDYBNrY

I'll tell you one and one makes three.

I have been suggesting the personality cult around Obama is scary, and I am liberal (well a classical liberal).

This is a good video which has some relevance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdtqtfXdR-c&feature=fvst

Hogan
09-25-2009, 07:44 AM
I think everyone here should be appalled at what that school is teaching the kids. Not only appalled, but afraid. To sing songs glorifying the leader smacks of schools in North Korea or any other communist country. This should piss you off whether it is singing about Obama or Bush.

Marc Abrams
09-25-2009, 08:28 AM
Sure, once the regimes were established the government forced those kinds of measures. However, in the case of Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler there was a lot of support from the progressive and union-supporting populace. You may not understand it, but at the time it was very trendy to be progressive, liberal, and socialist in Europe; American "intelligentsia" openly supported those causes. Only when the real effects came to light did everyone deny that they'd ever supported socialist and communist-related causes. There was a good book out on how many Germans supported Hitler (he was a union supporter and a socialist) and yet how many declared after the war that they'd never been taken in and it was all a mistake to think they'd gone along with it.

As those regimes established themselves, they began an insidious process of cloaking the workings of the government while eroding the rights of it's citizens. Once again Mike, This comparison is closer to the Bush administration than it is to the Obama administration. Once again Mike, this comparison is simply nonsense for many reasons.

Bush had his education department setting up lesson plans where it was suggested that children discuss Bush's past quotes? We just saw that happen with Obama, Marc. So tell me where Bush did something like that... I'm more than happy to extend the comparison about school-children, as suggested by the O.P.

Let me see, President Bush. He was the guy who fought the legislative branch in Texas as it worked on improving educational standards. When he found that his veto would be over-ridden, he signed the measure and then took credit for it. This was the same president that intentionally underfunded the "No Child Left Behind" initiative. I have yet to see any official doctrine or policy issued by the US department of education where it is advising/mandating the setting up of lesson plans that extol the current president. In absence of that, you are still trying to weave a hammock out of smoke.

Aren't they also complete deviations from the topic? Perhaps worthy of some thread other than about the "cult of personality"? C'mon... if you're going to debate an issue, you can't drag in extraneous issues, trivialize other posters, etc. No fair! ;) Good point. Can you point me to your posts on the same pettinesses during the Bush administration? ;) Trust me, I was not a Bush lover. I thought at best he was middle-manager material who would at least attempt to surround himself with various experts in domestic and foreign policy. However, when it came to the soft-white Gore, raised in a suite at the Ritz-Carlton out near the beltway, or the Kerry guy who even Ted Kennedy called a phoney, I guess Bush was the lesser of two evils. With Obama, I think the Left has made a worse bet than they did with Carter and it will cost them even more or it will cause a civil war with the sophomoric 1970's college-campus idealism/socialism. I'm sorta bemusedly waiting to see what happens.

Notice not once did I make a reference to you or your personal beliefs or say "pathetic", etc. I don't debate like that.

Best.

Mike

Thank you for your history lessons, simply a passive-aggressive attack on your part. You want me try and debate about a topic that is ludicrous at best?

I think that my accountant put it best when he said that he was voting for Bush because Gore was an A-Hole and thought that he knew everything. Bush was an idiot who realized that he was an idiot and surrounded himself by smart people. Interesting summary. Kerry and Bush were BOTH silver-spoon children. At least Kerry served in Nam rather than hiding in the south abusing drugs. At least Kerry was intelligent. Bush associated himself with two people who to me, seem to represent the highest levels of sociopathy and evil-> Cheney and Rove.

In my own opinion, the Obama aura has more to do with him being the first African-American President. I take a much more benign view of this process than you do. I frankly never thought that this would happen in my lifetime and I am happy that it did happen. He is a sterling role model for a set of communities that deserve better role models that genuinely give back to their communities.

I am taking a wait-and-see approach for this administration. So far, much better than President Carter and that is not saying much at all. Compare that to an eight year presidency that may very well be the WORST in modern history (Bush Administration by the way). Destroying the economy, military, politicizing government to unheard of levels, undermining civil rights, selling out it's citizens to big business.... The list went on and on.

I wrote posts about what I considered to be wrong-doings and illegal activities during the Bush administration. You can be sure that if the current administration starts to reach the levels of the past administration, I will be writing about that too. I have clearly stated on many occasions that I consider both political parties to be irreparably corrupted. President Obama is part of one of those corrupted "machines." I just happen to think that he is a better thinker than President Bush and Senator McCain are. His ideas have been corrupted by the "machine" like presidents before him and after him.

The main reason that I typically support Democrats is that the difference that I see between the parties has to do with how they view the "weakest link in the chain." I would rather see us strengthen the weakest links (typically democrats) rather than strengthen the strongest links (typically republicans). This whole issue revolves around the redistribution of wealth. When it flows upwards, the "right" does not seem to care. When it flows downwards, the "right" suddenly seems to care and calls it socialism.

From my perspective, I would prefer that we start with a clean slate based upon the following two conditions: 1) Government funds any and all political campaigns equally. No forms of contributions outside of the government should be allowed. 2) All forms of political contributions and lobbying will be considered to be what they really are- bribery and influence peddling. If it occurs, both sides go to prison. Just imagine what our country would be like if the politicians were actually beholden to the citizens and not the big businesses, organizations (big labor included)...... Unfortunately, I do not hold out much hope. This is particularly the case where the Supreme Court (of jesters?), particularly those who advocate for a strict adherence to the founding documents, some how find non-citizen entities (corporations, pacs....) entitled to the right to influence peddling/bribery-> oh sorry, Free Speech!

Regards,

Marc Abrams

Marc Abrams
09-25-2009, 08:36 AM
I think everyone here should be appalled at what that school is teaching the kids. Not only appalled, but afraid. To sing songs glorifying the leader smacks of schools in North Korea or any other communist country. This should piss you off whether it is singing about Obama or Bush.

John:

At the present time, I am neither appalled or afraid. If this were to become part of a school districts stated plans or the US department of education's stated plans, then I will be genuinely upset.

What I am upset with are the school districts in this country, that were supported both overtly and covertly by the last administration, in instituting "Creationism" into the schools as some kind of competing scientific theory to evolutionism. Spending money on soundly dis-proven religious beliefs being taught to our typically poorly educated youth is beyond the pale of reason.

I would rather deal with genuine issues that effect the education of our children, rather than the enthusiasm of some that ends up as extolling the current president.

Marc Abrams

Mike Sigman
09-25-2009, 09:02 AM
Well, you did reply pretty promptly, so procrastination is pretty much outlandish. I have no reason to believe you have any criminal background. Starting a thread to smear would be, of course, against forum rules. And I think I've stated pretty clearly I think your theory is unsupported and insupportable, which is pretty much on topic.

Why don't you establish that your assertions are based on something valid? They are your assertions, after all, and a great deal of what you say about history appears pretty controversial -- so it's fair to put the burden of persuasion on you.

So, without posting cites to right-wing ideological sites, why not just prove your case.Sorry, David, but you've crossed a line that I don't tolerate.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
09-25-2009, 09:04 AM
Once again Mike, This comparison is closer to the Bush administration than it is to the Obama administration. I'm not sure a good defense in a debate is to say, "But so-and-so was worse". That's sometimes known as the "But Mom... Billy did it too" argument. ;)

Best.

Mike

C. David Henderson
09-25-2009, 09:35 AM
Deleted first post; too many lines already crossed.

Marc, I do tend to agree with what you're saying.

Best,

cdh

mathewjgano
09-25-2009, 10:35 AM
I'm guessing the Obama staff didn't write that song...I'm hoping not anyway. I get the point in the comparison to people like Stalin. Of course that's not to say Obama is not a sociopath like Stalin, but it does lend a certain bitter flavor to the characterization of Obama too. I don't think he has any more of a cult of personality than say, Jim Morrison. Both are very aware of their public image (The Lizard King is still alive and kickin' it in Encinada:D ) and both set controls to affect how people see them. People do this every day of their lives, but some are more aware of it than others. People who depend on popularity to make a living are acutely aware of how people see them and they'll go to extraordinary lengths to protect their image/livelyhood.
That said, I think Obama has the unfortunate task of being the first African American president. His stature was loaded before he even got to it and I think you have to account for the momentum that will have all on its own. Add the almost equally potent fact that to so many Americans, the last administration (the other of the two apparently diametrically opposed teams, I might add) represents the highest levels of government subversion (subversion against the people) and I'm a little surprized there isn't an even greater swoon over him.
Personally I can't stand either side of the aisle. They're more interested in competing with each other than they are in most of us...and never mind the fact that positions of power tend to attract people who simply enjoy wielding power. I think anyone who runs for office instantly appears suspicious.

Marc Abrams
09-25-2009, 10:54 AM
I'm not sure a good defense in a debate is to say, "But so-and-so was worse". That's sometimes known as the "But Mom... Billy did it too" argument. ;)

Best.

Mike

And my next sentence was.... Here let me help you "Once again Mike, this comparison is simply nonsense for many reasons."

So you see it did not engage in the "Billy did it too argument." I was merely using that line of reasoning to demonstrate a parallel line to what was being done. Both lines of reasoning were nonsense :D .

Regards,

Marc Abrams

Basia Halliop
09-25-2009, 11:25 AM
I made no reference to Hitler, Basia Halliop did. I was correcting him.

No I didn't. And I'm a her (although I don't see why you'd know that, so never mind).

For what it's worth, I don't think the Obama thing seems much like Stalin or whoever (carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign presaging and end to democracy and a crack-down on any kind of dissent), it seems much more like a more random public figure or celebrity, fueled by a combination of 'first black president, bunch of people kind of high on the joy of that', and 'about half of americans REALLY REALLY REALLY hated Bush and his bunch and are kind of high on the joy of having him replaced' and some 'Americans really tend to glorify and celebritise their presidents (and flag and etc) in general'.

Although, I think part of the thing with comparisons is that you can compare two things that aren't the same -- in fact it's usually a much more interesting comparison if there are certain things similar and certain things different.

dps
09-25-2009, 12:10 PM
No I didn't. And I'm a her (although I don't see why you'd know that, so never mind).

My apologies Basia on both counts. It was Rabih Shanshiry that mentioned Hitler along with Stalin and Mao.

David

dps
09-25-2009, 12:12 PM
(carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign presaging and end to democracy and a crack-down on any kind of dissent),

And that is not what I said.

David

dps
09-25-2009, 12:30 PM
David:I would be surprised if you did not realize that both Mao and Stalin developed a "cult of personality" as part of their plans in ruling in an authoritarian manner. The "cult of personality" of Mao and Stalin was part of the policy and ideology. Would you like to proffer any proof that the Obama administration is intentionally doing the same thing? In absence of that, it is profoundly disingenuous to try and compare Mao & Stalin regimes with the Obama administration.

Yes the cult of personality of Mao and Stalin was a part of their policy and ideology and that Obama's cult of personality is a part of his policy and ideology. I did not say that their policy and ideaology was the same as his policy and ideaology.

In absence of that, it is profoundly disingenuous to try and compare Mao & Stalin regimes with the Obama administration.

I wasn't comparing thier regimes with his administration.

This is reminiscent of the "cults of personality" that Stalin and Chairman Mao established in their countries.


It is disingenuous to redefine what I said.

David

Hogan
09-25-2009, 12:43 PM
John:

At the present time, I am neither appalled or afraid. If this were to become part of a school districts stated plans or the US department of education's stated plans, then I will be genuinely upset.
...

Why upset only if it were part of stated plans of the district or government? Unofficial brainwashing is OK, but not official?? I don't follow your line of thinking AT ALL.

Using your logic, it would be OK if a district taught creationism as you complained but not if it was a government policy, as you claim it was under Bush.

dps
09-25-2009, 01:50 PM
Just because it is a rocking song, it is relevant, and Vernon Reed is just a badass:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5SVDYBNrY

I'll tell you one and one makes three.

I have been suggesting the personality cult around Obama is scary, and I am liberal (well a classical liberal).

This is a good video which has some relevance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdtqtfXdR-c&feature=fvst

A primary rule of any marketing campaign is to keep your product in front of the consumers as much as possible and branding is one way of doing this.
Self promotion and continuous advertisement is another.
In his U.N. speech he referred to himself once every 13 seconds.
He is seen on tv more than any other president has. He is the subject of more news stories ( tv, radio, print,) than any other president and possibly any other person.

Consumers won't buy the product if they don't know about it and to ensure product longevity you target potential consumers to start buying your product as young as possible to get them hooked ( addicted ?) to your product. The tobacco companies certainly knew this.

And ridicule of competitors is not ruled out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDEAYgm0Dv8&feature=player_embedded#t=149

David

Marc Abrams
09-25-2009, 02:46 PM
Yes the cult of personality of Mao and Stalin was a part of their policy and ideology and that Obama's cult of personality is a part of his policy and ideology. I did not say that their policy and ideaology was the same as his policy and ideaology.

I wasn't comparing thier regimes with his administration.

It is disingenuous to redefine what I said.

David

David:

You have yet to prove that the "cult of personality" is part of President Obama's policy and ideology. Feel free to provide some real proof, as opposed to what you have put forth so far. By the way, if you were not comparing those regimes to the Obama administration, then why did you cite them?

Marc Abrams

Marc Abrams
09-25-2009, 02:53 PM
Why upset only if it were part of stated plans of the district or government? Unofficial brainwashing is OK, but not official?? I don't follow your line of thinking AT ALL.

Using your logic, it would be OK if a district taught creationism as you complained but not if it was a government policy, as you claim it was under Bush.

John:

:confused: ?

Let me assist you if I may. If a school district implements some teaching curriculum, it is done so as official policy of a school district. Approving curriculum is part of what a school district is responsible for. Teachers who go far afield from the curriculum are typically called to task by an administrator for doing so. By the way, are you disputing that the Bush administration did not support the teaching of creationism in schools?

Now it's brainwashing? You seem to be using this term quite loosely. By "unofficial brainwashing" , do you have some interesting conspiracy theory that you would like to get off you chest?

Have you and David considered starting an Obama Fan Club?

Marc Abrams

Basia Halliop
09-25-2009, 03:27 PM
I said:
(carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign presaging and end to democracy and a crack-down on any kind of dissent),

And that is not what I said.

David

No, it's what _I_ said, about Stalin. I believe you said that aspects of the cult of personality that you see around Obama (e.g. children singing songs about him in school) reminded you of aspects of the cult of personality around Mao and Stalin (I'm paraphrasing, but that is what I understood). I just said it only reminded me of them in some ways (which I agreed it did, in my first post), but not in others. I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything, just continuing the conversation by expanding on the comparison and pointing out what I saw as crucial differences.

As I had said, I don't think the fact that two things have massive and fundamental differences makes it pointless to draw any comparisons at all.

mathewjgano
09-25-2009, 03:43 PM
...that's not to say Obama is not a sociopath like Stalin,
Meant to say "that's not to say Obama is a sociopath like Stalin."

dps
09-25-2009, 04:56 PM
David:You have yet to prove that the "cult of personality" is part of President Obama's policy and ideology. Feel free to provide some real proof, as opposed to what you have put forth so far.

You know a person not by what they say but what they do, especially politicians. In this case it is not just Obama but what his administration, political allies, supporters and friends ( all those who have and will benefit politically and monetarily) have done and are doing.
It would be amazing if Obama and company would come out and say they are building a cult of personality around Obama and naive to think that they would.

What to you is real proof?

By the way, if you were not comparing those regimes to the Obama administration, then why did you cite them?

I have read more about Stalin and Mao and they are the first examples that came to mind.

From Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

During the peak of their regimes, these leaders were presented as god-like and infallible. Their portraits were hung in homes and public buildings, with artists and poets legally required to produce only works that glorified the leader.... ."

David

Trish Greene
09-25-2009, 05:00 PM
My problem with this is the way that Obama is treated like a deity in these songs. I really do find it offensive. I have no problem with people wanting to praise and support the President, but the president is just a man and prone to so many mistakes and errors. You put someone up on a pedestal like that and when he falls ( because by nature he will ), it will be devastating to these kids that won't understand it.

dps
09-25-2009, 05:22 PM
David:
You have yet to prove that the "cult of personality" is part of President Obama's policy and ideology. Feel free to provide some real proof, as opposed to what you have put forth so far. By the way, if you were not comparing those regimes to the Obama administration, then why did you cite them?

Marc Abrams

Marc would like proof that the " cult of personality" is part of President Obama's policy and ideology.

David

dps
09-25-2009, 05:25 PM
David:

You have yet to prove that the "cult of personality" is part of President Obama's policy and ideology. Feel free to provide some real proof, as opposed to what you have put forth so far. By the way, if you were not comparing those regimes to the Obama administration, then why did you cite them?

Marc Abrams

Since Obama's policy and ideology is not the topic of this thread I have started another thread for that topic.

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16882

David

Hogan
09-25-2009, 08:28 PM
John:

:confused: ?

Let me assist you if I may. If a school district implements some teaching curriculum, it is done so as official policy of a school district. Approving curriculum is part of what a school district is responsible for. Teachers who go far afield from the curriculum are typically called to task by an administrator for doing so. By the way, are you disputing that the Bush administration did not support the teaching of creationism in schools?

Now it's brainwashing? You seem to be using this term quite loosely. By "unofficial brainwashing" , do you have some interesting conspiracy theory that you would like to get off you chest?

Have you and David considered starting an Obama Fan Club?

Marc Abrams

I will attempt to clarify for you:

This is what you said:
At the present time, I am neither appalled or afraid. If this were to become part of a school districts stated plans or the US department of education's stated plans, then I will be genuinely upset....

This means to me that if this singing of Obama praises (which I call BRAINWASHING be it from the school principal or whomever) were part of the district plans or the US dept of ed's stated plans, you WOULD be concerned. But since it wasn't, since it was 'unofficial' (my term - meaning not part of an official policy), you are not concerned. As another example, you said that:

...What I am upset with are the school districts in this country, that were supported both overtly and covertly by the last administration, in instituting "Creationism" into the schools as some kind of competing scientific theory to evolutionism. Spending money on soundly dis-proven religious beliefs being taught to our typically poorly educated youth is beyond the pale of reason.

This means to me that this policy (again, I will use BRAINWASHING) of the Bush admin you were against, because it was official policy of the US dept of ed & was instituted countrywide.

Clear so far?

So, naturally, that means that 'unofficial' brainwashing is OK (meaning you are not concerned) since it is not official policy, but 'official' brainwashing is not OK (meaning you are concerned). Again, 'unofficial' brainwashing is policy by school not sanctioned by feds, & 'official' brainwashing is policy trying to be implemented by US guv.

Clear still?

Now, that logic means that, if an 'unofficial' policy of a district is to teach creationism, that would be OK if it was NOT sanctioned by the US fed guv. Remember, you were not concerned about 'unofficial' but are concerned about 'official'.

Follow that logic? This is why I said:
Why upset only if it were part of stated plans of the district or government? Unofficial brainwashing is OK, but not official?? I don't follow your line of thinking AT ALL.

Using your logic, it would be OK if a district taught creationism as you complained but not if it was a government policy, as you claim it was under Bush.

You didn't get that, so you provided a primer on how school policy is made. Um, thanks....
..If a school district implements some teaching curriculum, it is done so as official policy of a school district. Approving curriculum is part of what a school district is responsible for. Teachers who go far afield from the curriculum are typically called to task by an administrator for doing so.

This means it is 'official.' policy, no? So, my question to you is, if this singing of Obama's praises [BRAINWASHING] WAS official policy, would you be concerned? Before you answer that, note that the principal of the school said today that she saw nothing wrong with it & would do it again if she could. Note also that it has been reported that she has posted all over her office & school Obama pics & quotes.

Now, I noted in your post you wished to assist me in your answer. You haven't, since you didn't answer my question. But since you indicated you were confused by what I wrote, I hope this post clears it up for you. Let me know if you need further assistance.

OH, BY THE WAY, one of the two songs the kids were taught quotes directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children". Jesus' name was replaced with Obama's. I wonder if that song was leftover from their teaching of creationism when Bush was Prez?

dps
09-25-2009, 08:53 PM
. . Teachers who go far afield from the curriculum are typically called to task by an administrator for doing so.

Unless the administrator and fellow teachers give tacit approval of it. I know of one such example locally where the grade school teacher wore Obama campaign buttons, had Obama posters and pictures in her class room. She openly talked about how Obama was good and McCain was bad.

By the time these grade school children are old enough to vote they will not be able to vote for Obama so why the campaigning in the grade school classrooms and schools?

David

Mike Sigman
09-25-2009, 09:03 PM
I did a quick Google to see if I could find more about the circumstances in the school and this article was the most explicative one I could find:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/25/principal-nj-school-long-obama-supporter/

I then searched to see if I could find an in-depth article from a liberal news source. There's not a one that I can find. There was almost no coverage on Obama's background, nothing on John Edwards' mistress and baby, nothing on Van Jones, nothing on ACORN until the story couldn't be smothered, etc., on the liberal news networks. The corrupt media is not the one that reports the news, it's the media that doesn't report the news that they don't want the public to hear. Very "progressive", filtering the 'bad' news.

Notice that the principal put up Obama literature and pictures throughout the school. That's certainly cult-like adoration. Pretending it's not is simply playing to fellow believers.

I think what gets me is that I (and most people) wouldn't tolerate this sort of behavior from a president of either party... and anyone who tolerates and dismisses this stuff, the NEA stuff, ACORN illegalities of decades, etc., while calling names to deflect the argument has got some sort of self-perception issue. Let's just face it -- there are more irregularities going on than there should be.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Hogan
09-26-2009, 08:26 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/23/dan-gainor-obama-speeches-ego/

dps
09-26-2009, 10:44 PM
On January 18, 2009, Obama set up an organization to help pass his policy agenda.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfGNgacysHg)

It is a community organizing project of the Democratic National Committee ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizing_for_America ) called "Organizing for America" and is the made up of of his campaign workers who help him get elected.

The Mission of Organize for America,
From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizing_for_America

"Mission

The mission as stated is to help the President pursue his agenda. Thus, many[who?] view the organization as primarily a political organization and not a social movement.

However, given the unparalleled roots the organization has in human resources- literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of volunteer activists- many experts[who?] maintain that it can't be viewed as a mere political organization, rather somewhat of an omnibus organization - a huge mass of citizens fighting for further power of a political individual, in the hopes that this individual, with expanded power, can bring the change they want."

and

From The Los Angeles Times, http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/18/nation/na-obama-network18

"But sources familiar with the planning say the new group will employ a full-time staff of hundreds of professional organizers, possibly numbering an average of between one and two workers per congressional district in certain politically important states. One source said that Obama aides have discussed an annual budget of $75 million -- an unprecedented standing political army that will await orders from a president."

Bold type is mine.

David

Mike Sigman
09-26-2009, 10:58 PM
More and more basically liberal sources have been forced to comment on the pretty obvious narcissism of Obama. His view of himself is almost staggering sometimes. Most of us would be a little nonplussed if, say, a newly-elected leader of France, UK or Germany was childish enough to spend speech time dwelling on how bad his percieved predecessor had been and how he was much better. Unfortunately for Obama, the childish "bash my predecessor" speeches are the norm and are getting uncomfortable for all but the enthralled. Most of America is now sort of watching this stuff in disbelief. The whole strategy seems to be based around the idea that Obama can schmooze the rest of the world in the same way he schmoozed the media, the Left, and some of the independents who bought into long enough for O to win the election.

Look at the Obama idea that he can bring about nuclear disarmament by scmoozing the rest of the world and shrugging off the "trust but verify" approach. It's going to be fun to watch... and to wait for the other very big shoe to drop.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/all_about_obama.html

I can recall no other major American speech in which the narcissism of a leader has been quite so pronounced. It might be compared to Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s “I shall return” -- which made it sound like MacArthur intended to reconquer the Philippines single-handedly. But MacArthur, at least, imagined himself as embodying his country, not transcending it. He did not assert that while the Japanese invasion was certainly excessive, America had been guilty of provocations of its own -- and now, in the MacArthur era, things would be finally different.

Read the whole WaPo commentary.

Mike

dps
09-27-2009, 12:56 AM
Another example of recruiting kids for Obama's cult of personality.

Obama urging kids to campaign for him. Here is the web site and some quotations from it.http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/kidshome

"Welcome to Kids for Obama

In the words of Senator Barack Obama, the "Obama for America Campaign is a different type of campaign". For the first time in campaign history, children ages 12 and under, have a place to go and actually vote—through their voice. What a great way to be introduced to politics and to express your support for Senator Obama."

"Take an adult (voting age) to the polls on Election Day and encourage them to vote for you, by voting for Senator Obama. "

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/kidskit

Check out the Kids for Obama
Starter Kit!

"Do you feel like you want to get involved in the political process but you don't know how? Do you feel like there's something important coming up in the Presidential elections? Get involved in KIDS FOR OBAMA! Studies have shown that kids can affect their parents and their siblings' opinions and even change the opinions of older family members . . . including those of voting age. Are you still with me? Great, Let's get started!"

Lets not forget the "Kids for Obama Blog " , http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/KidsHQBlog

David

lbb
09-27-2009, 07:24 AM
I missed the part where the Open Discussions forum was declared the David Skaggs Right-Wing Axe-Grinding Forum. While it's fine to have an open forum (because off-topic crap is going to get posted, and by having an open forum you at least have somewhere to point to when people post their off-topic crap), I think it's taking it a little far when it's turned into a soapbox for posting diatribes and politically-minded sniping. You can argue that that's "open" as all get-out, but it sure as hell is not a "discussion".

Maarten De Queecker
09-27-2009, 08:01 AM
Ah American politics.. there's really nothing more strange (and funny) to Europeans.

salim
09-27-2009, 06:38 PM
This is reminiscent of the "cults of personality" that Stalin and Chairman Mao established in their countries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU

This was filmed around June 19, 2009 at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ.

Lyrics
========
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand [?]
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
Yes
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

segue to

Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all [do? doth??] say "hooray!"
Hooray Mr. President! You're number one!
The first Black American to lead this great na-TION!
Hooray, Mr. President something-something-some
A-something-something-something-some economy is number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And the same for all Americans [in?] the great Red White and Blue!
So something Mr. President we all just something-some,
So here's a hearty hip-hooray a-something-something-some!
Hip, hip hooray! (3x)

The Liberals would have went ballistic if this had happened with George Bush.

David

If you don't like America of today. THEN SIMPLY LEAVE. Just leave, it's that simple.

Mike Sigman
09-27-2009, 07:16 PM
Ah American politics.. there's really nothing more strange (and funny) to Europeans.Ah, but the Belgium military and its many successes is funny to us, as long as we're making insults.

Actually, the last 3 posts seem to have deviated into insulting issues. It would have been nice if the topic could be debated.... obviously, the descent to off-topic innuendo seems to be the trendy rebuttal when facts are short.

Mike Sigman

hapkidoike
09-28-2009, 12:46 AM
As long as people are being jerkish:

I missed the part where the Open Discussions forum was declared the David Skaggs Right-Wing Axe-Grinding Forum. While it's fine to have an open forum (because off-topic crap is going to get posted, and by having an open forum you at least have somewhere to point to when people post their off-topic crap), I think it's taking it a little far when it's turned into a soapbox for posting diatribes and politically-minded sniping. You can argue that that's "open" as all get-out, but it sure as hell is not a "discussion".

I missed the part where you were required to read all the posts in the Open Discussion forum.
Just sayin.

If you don't like America of today. THEN SIMPLY LEAVE. Just leave, it's that simple.

While I support the RIGHT of people to 'vote with their feet', the idea that "It's America, Love IT or Leave IT" is as stupid and ridiculous today as it was when the conservatives started saying it. If you truly think that such is an attitude is 'American' in any sense, you ought to go back to Civics class. This coming from a guy who left it a long time ago.

This is old, but truly funny and on point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3_95F5e-Ac&feature=fvw

Peace
betti$

Maarten De Queecker
09-28-2009, 02:51 AM
Ah, but the Belgium military and its many successes is funny to us, as long as we're making insults.

Actually, the last 3 posts seem to have deviated into insulting issues. It would have been nice if the topic could be debated.... obviously, the descent to off-topic innuendo seems to be the trendy rebuttal when facts are short.

Mike Sigman
Didn't exactly mean as an insult, but ok. By the way, the Belgian military is a joke even to Belgian folks. I read a few months ago that more than 50% of the Belgian army is overweight :D

jss
09-28-2009, 04:21 AM
Ah American politics.. there's really nothing more strange (and funny) to Europeans.Ah, but the Belgium military and its many successes is funny to us, as long as we're making insults.
Fact is that most Europeans that think they understand American politics actually don't. It's almost like it's on a different continent or something. ;)

To illustrate: most people in Holland were in favor of Obama, but had little knowledge of his ideas about gay marriage, euthanasia, social security, etc. They just kind of assumed he subscribed to the ideas of the average Dutchman...

jss
09-28-2009, 06:01 AM
Fact is that most Europeans that think they understand American politics actually don't.
Maarten: I just realized the above may seem to imply that you do not understand American politics. That is not my intention.
Rather, I agree with you that American politics is strange to us Europeans, because it looks a lot like European politics, but in fact it isn't:
- No European country is as powerful as the USA. The EU would qualify, if it weren't that divided.
- In the USA nobody wants to be called a 'socialist'. Most European countries have a 'Socialist Party' and those are not extremist.
- Most (if not all) European countries have embraced the concept of a social welfare state. In the USA they have the American Dream.
- etc.

I just know enough of American politics to know I really don't have a clue. :)

Mark Freeman
09-28-2009, 06:48 AM
Didn't exactly mean as an insult, but ok. By the way, the Belgian military is a joke even to Belgian folks. I read a few months ago that more than 50% of the Belgian army is overweight :D

So little to do, so much time, so many lovely Waffles to eat :cool:

Mark Freeman
09-28-2009, 07:06 AM
Maarten: I just realized the above may seem to imply that you do not understand American politics. That is not my intention.
Rather, I agree with you that American politics is strange to us Europeans, because it looks a lot like European politics, but in fact it isn't:
- No European country is as powerful as the USA. The EU would qualify, if it weren't that divided.
- In the USA nobody wants to be called a 'socialist'. Most European countries have a 'Socialist Party' and those are not extremist.
- Most (if not all) European countries have embraced the concept of a social welfare state. In the USA they have the American Dream.
- etc.

I just know enough of American politics to know I really don't have a clue. :)

The UK used to have a socialist party known as Labour, after it was branded New Labour it distanced itself from the old idealist positions of the left of its party, embracing the Thatcherite policies of the right established in the eighties. We now have 2/3 main parties fighting over the centre ground, none of them wanting to be seen as left or right in extreme. What we are left with is an incoherent babble about 'my party' being 'better managers' than the others.

I agree Joep, US politics is confusing to us europeans, but our own politics is confusing to us too!;)

regards,

Mark
p.s I can't imagine anything worse than a cult of personality of say Brown, Sarkozy or Merkel :yuck:

lbb
09-28-2009, 07:19 AM
I missed the part where you were required to read all the posts in the Open Discussion forum.
Just sayin.


I missed the part where I was forbidden to comment on the degeneration of a forum into a few individuals' personal soapbox. JUST SAYIN.

As I said earlier, you can argue that that's "open" as all get-out, but it sure as hell is not a "discussion". While we're being "jerkish".

Maarten De Queecker
09-28-2009, 07:19 AM
So little to do, so much time, so much delicious beer to drink :cool:
Corrected ;-)

lbb
09-28-2009, 07:21 AM
To illustrate: most people in Holland were in favor of Obama, but had little knowledge of his ideas about gay marriage, euthanasia, social security, etc. .

Um, what ideas about euthanasia?

Hogan
09-28-2009, 07:32 AM
Um, what ideas about euthanasia?

I think this is in reference to the supposed 'death panels' in health care reform, & the idea it is more cost effective to let the elderly die rather than waste money to treat them for a short time.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-11/obamas-euthanasia-mistake/

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-endorses-government-mandated.html

Mark Gibbons
09-28-2009, 07:48 AM
Did a quick check of my kid's school.

Pictures of Obama in my kid's classroom? - No
Singing songs in praise of the great leader? - No

These things probably happen in a couple places. I doubt the practice is pervasive, certainly not to the Mao/Stalin level. The fear and angst seems excessive.

Mark

jss
09-28-2009, 07:54 AM
I think this is in reference to the supposed 'death panels' in health care reform, & the idea it is more cost effective to let the elderly die rather than waste money to treat them for a short time.
Euthanasia is not letting someone die because that's cheaper than treatment. Euthanasia is allowing people to choose to end their life, because they suffer from a terminal illness and see no point in prolonging their suffering.

dps
09-28-2009, 08:01 AM
Did a quick check of my kid's school.

Pictures of Obama in my kid's classroom? - No
Singing songs in praise of the great leader? - No

Keeping tabs on what your kids are being taught is one of the main reasons for posting about the schools and school related organizations that do post pictures and sing praises of political figures.

David

Keith Larman
09-28-2009, 08:15 AM
When my daughter started school they had a president of George Bush up on the wall. Because he was the president.

There is a photo of Barack Obama on the wall now. Because he is the president.

In a few years (or maybe a few years plus four) the picture on the wall will change. Because there will be a new president. Who knows, maybe it will be Glen Beck. Or Al Franken. Then in either case the wringing of hands will be audible from space...

There will always be those who are more enthusiastic and go overboard in admiration or dislike of the president. Obama seems to bring out more of the extremes.

But some comparisons are more like the SNL vid where they lampooned Glenn Beck's logic. Grabbing individual incidents and drawing comparisons to state-mandated central governmental institutionally controlled policies of Soviet Russia or Maoist China is simply absurd. I had the bad timing to spend way too much time in college studying the incredibly complex Soviet political system (only to watch it fall later). And making this sort of comparison is much like pointing to a couple piles of dirt in a backyard in the flatlands and saying "hey, look, it's higher right there than ground level -- there is a new mountain range in Iowa!"

FWIW on a related note my daughter listened to the President's speech to kids. I asked her about the message (work hard, study, stay in school, try to help) and she said "You think? Isn't that what we're supposed to do anyway?" (You have to have a daughter into Hannah Montana to get the "you think?" reference.)

Hogan
09-28-2009, 08:29 AM
Euthanasia is not letting someone die because that's cheaper than treatment. Euthanasia is allowing people to choose to end their life, because they suffer from a terminal illness and see no point in prolonging their suffering.

Yes, I know. But if you read the stories provided in the links, the term 'Euthanasia' is used.

sisley
09-28-2009, 09:53 AM
This morning, a person driving a huge SUV with a Palin bumper sticker, ran a red light right in front of me. It crashed right into a Prius that had just started out into the intersection because the light was green. The SUV fled the scene without waiting for the cops to show up.

Obviously, since the driver is a supporter of Palin, Palin herself must be a poor driver. Moreover, Palin must also encourage people to disregard responsibility in such situations.

Sound familiar?

Of course, you would probably want to tell me that the driver's actions are not the responsibility of Palin and that they cannot reflect either negatively or positively on Palin. I would agree with you.

So how can it be that Obama is suddenly responsible for the actions of a teacher in an elementary school? Simply put, they can't. We cannot hold Obama responsible for the actions of every teacher throughout the US. To try to do so would be insane.

That's not to say that the actions of that teacher and to some extent even the school ought not to be scrutinized. No, indeed they should. However, we should be sure to see the whole picture before we go too deeply.

Fact: The event occurred during National Black History Month. The election of our nation's first African-American President obviously would warrant attention during such a week. It was a tremendous achievement.

Fact: Children in grade school do sing songs about presidents. My son in second grade did a whole class performance on our nation's presidents. Regardless of the perceived success/failure of his time in office, Obama's name will forever be linked with Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and the other great presidents, simply because of what he represents by being the first black president.

Now this doesn't mean that we should not criticize him. No, we must. We must find fault with his actions and his decisions whenever we can. However, trying to hold him to task because of this song is childish. In short, it just isn't logical.

--jimbo

mathewjgano
09-28-2009, 11:17 AM
With regards to what Jimbo said:

HEAR HEAR!

dps
09-28-2009, 11:41 AM
So how can it be that Obama is suddenly responsible for the actions of a teacher in an elementary school? Simply put, they can't. We cannot hold Obama responsible for the actions of every teacher throughout the US. To try to do so would be insane.

That's not to say that the actions of that teacher and to some extent even the school ought not to be scrutinized. No, indeed they should. However, we should be sure to see the whole picture before we go too deeply.

(snip)

Now this doesn't mean that we should not criticize him. No, we must. We must find fault with his actions and his decisions whenever we can. However, trying to hold him to task because of this song is childish. In short, it just isn't logical.



I agree with these two parts of your post. If it was only one silly song from the teacher at that school then no problem, discipline the teacher and move on.

It is not one teacher in one school.

David

Hogan
09-28-2009, 11:50 AM
This morning, a person driving a huge SUV with a Palin bumper sticker, ran a red light right in front of me. It crashed right into a Prius that had just started out into the intersection because the light was green. The SUV fled the scene without waiting for the cops to show up.

Obviously, since the driver is a supporter of Palin, Palin herself must be a poor driver. Moreover, Palin must also encourage people to disregard responsibility in such situations.

Sound familiar?

Of course, you would probably want to tell me that the driver's actions are not the responsibility of Palin and that they cannot reflect either negatively or positively on Palin. I would agree with you.

So how can it be that Obama is suddenly responsible for the actions of a teacher in an elementary school? Simply put, they can't. We cannot hold Obama responsible for the actions of every teacher throughout the US. To try to do so would be insane.

That's not to say that the actions of that teacher and to some extent even the school ought not to be scrutinized. No, indeed they should. However, we should be sure to see the whole picture before we go too deeply.

Fact: The event occurred during National Black History Month. The election of our nation's first African-American President obviously would warrant attention during such a week. It was a tremendous achievement.

Fact: Children in grade school do sing songs about presidents. My son in second grade did a whole class performance on our nation's presidents. Regardless of the perceived success/failure of his time in office, Obama's name will forever be linked with Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and the other great presidents, simply because of what he represents by being the first black president.

Now this doesn't mean that we should not criticize him. No, we must. We must find fault with his actions and his decisions whenever we can. However, trying to hold him to task because of this song is childish. In short, it just isn't logical.

--jimbo

Actually, your example isn't logical. And for me the issue isn't holding Obama 'to task', but the teacher & her school, & all those that find this behavior acceptable. Would the teacher of acted this way if Obama would have not existed, no of course not because she directly refers to Obama & has Obama posters all over the place - so in that respect Obama is responsible, but the person leaving the scene of an accident would STILL behave that way, whether Palin existed or not.

sisley
09-28-2009, 01:57 PM
I agree with these two parts of your post. If it was only one silly song from the teacher at that school then no problem, discipline the teacher and move on.

It is not one teacher in one school.

David

Really? How many? 5 schools? 10? A hundred?

Still, wouldn't that be like a drop in the bucket compared to the number of schools in the entire US? Making any sort of a conclusion based upon so few cases is, at least, a hasty generalization from which you suggest a slippery slope with your fears of the US becoming like some dictator run regimes.

--jimbo

sisley
09-28-2009, 02:01 PM
Actually, your example isn't logical. And for me the issue isn't holding Obama 'to task', but the teacher & her school, & all those that find this behavior acceptable. Would the teacher of acted this way if Obama would have not existed, no of course not because she directly refers to Obama & has Obama posters all over the place - so in that respect Obama is responsible, but the person leaving the scene of an accident would STILL behave that way, whether Palin existed or not.

I accept your criticism of my example. You are correct, but my point was simply to ask how Obama is expected to be held accountable for the actions of a school teacher he has probably never met or even heard of. In that way, my example fits perfectly.

And, of course, you leave out the fact that she refers to Obama (who does exist) not simply because he is the leader of our country, but that he is the FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN leader of our country. This is a rather important fact, I think. After all, it was National Black History month.

--jimbo

Hogan
09-28-2009, 02:50 PM
I accept your criticism of my example. You are correct, but my point was simply to ask how Obama is expected to be held accountable for the actions of a school teacher he has probably never met or even heard of. In that way, my example fits perfectly.

And, of course, you leave out the fact that she refers to Obama (who does exist) not simply because he is the leader of our country, but that he is the FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN leader of our country. This is a rather important fact, I think. After all, it was National Black History month.

--jimbo

As has been mentioned, it is not holding Obama accountable for the schools actions - it's holding the teacher & school. Obama has come into the picture because of his cult like love by his supporters that give rise to this type of behavior, much like any other well liked/worshiped leader. But for this particular incident, the teacher & not Obama is being held accountable as is indicated by the district's investigations & parent response to this school & teacher. The criticism I have seen from the parents on the news has ALL been about the inappropriateness with respect to introducing politics & songs of worship of a politician (who happens to be Obama). Not because it is Obama, but because it is for a politician. There is a difference.

(Now, the fact that the song deals with Obama, why that is just icing on the cake for us Obama haters... :))

sisley
09-28-2009, 03:25 PM
Then we are in agreement that in no way should this incident reflect upon Mr. Obama. We have agreed that the school itself should be the target of all criticism. Good.

Now as I see it, the question that remains in front of us is whether a song praising the accomplishments of a man who is the president of our country ought to be taught in class or not. Can you agree with that?

I agree that if such a song were made about Bill Clinton in the 90s or George Bush in the early part of this century, then we should perhaps investigate and reprimand the teacher for bringing in political issues to such young children.

But this song was made about the nation's first African-American president, during a week celebrating the achievements of African-Americans in this country. Granted, your case would be much stronger if the teacher had simply taught the song during April or some other time of the year. But within context, the song, I think, has a purpose greater than politics, just as the landing on the moon in the 60s was a thing all Americans, Democrats or Republicans, could be proud of.

You may disagree with his politics and you may dislike him as a person, but as an American, you should be proud that your country rose above petty racism to select him as your leader. For the first time, we can truly say that America is truly a place where ANY man can be what he wants to be, regardless of race or creed.

By the way, a quick Google search will list many songs used by teachers praising Presidents. Should they not be allowed to use these in the classroom? Most center around President's Day. Is it OK then to be used within the context of that holiday? Or is context completely irrelevant?

--jimbo

Hogan
09-28-2009, 04:46 PM
Then we are in agreement that in no way should this incident reflect upon Mr. Obama. We have agreed that the school itself should be the target of all criticism. Good. Now as I see it, the question that remains in front of us is whether a song praising the accomplishments of a man who is the president of our country ought to be taught in class or not. Can you agree with that?

Yes.

...I agree that if such a song were made about Bill Clinton in the 90s or George Bush in the early part of this century, then we should perhaps investigate and reprimand the teacher for bringing in political issues to such young children.

Okay, agreed.

...But this song was made about the nation's first African-American president, during a week celebrating the achievements of African-Americans in this country. Granted, your case would be much stronger if the teacher had simply taught the song during April or some other time of the year. But within context, the song, I think, has a purpose greater than politics, just as the landing on the moon in the 60s was a thing all Americans, Democrats or Republicans, could be proud of.

Well, no. It is clear that the principal/teacher were HUGE (or UGE depending if you are a supporter of Trump) Obama supporters & this sing-a-long to a religious song that praises his POLICIES makes it different. They may have used Black History Month as an excuse, but I think they would have done it anyway because of the evidence of their spreading of his policies throughout the school. Someone mentioned that Bush made it policy to teach creationism in school - well, what if we, at some southern school that happens to be a conservative district, used a religious song & substituted Bush's name for Jesus (like they did with Obama) to sing his praises & to sing about how evil abortion is (just like his policies said), during Christmas time? If you explain away song about Obama's POLICIES during Black History Month, then a song about Bush's POLICIES during Christmas would be OK?

When I grew up. we had pics of presidents in our social studies or history or government classes - but that is to teach civic responsibility & government (3 branches, etc). But this was above & beyond. If you want to say, well, it's to celebrate 1st black (or really, 1st half-black, half-white) Prez, but then why not create a song celebrating Clinton being the 1st Prez born in Arkansas? Or Bush being the 1st MBA Prez?

You may ... dislike him as a person

I dislike him as a Pres & as a politician.

...but as an American, you should be proud that your country rose above petty racism to select him as your leader

I actually am disappointed that someone would vote for him because of the color of his skin. Just as I would be disappointed if someone voted for McCain because he is white. You should vote for a Prez because of his policies, not skin color.

...For the first time, we can truly say that America is truly a place where ANY man can be what he wants to be, regardless of race or creed.

Well, I have always thought that & didn't need Obama's election to prove it (are you Michelle Obama by any chance? ;))

...By the way, a quick Google search will list many songs used by teachers praising Presidents. Should they not be allowed to use these in the classroom? Most center around President's Day. Is it OK then to be used within the context of that holiday? Or is context completely irrelevant?

Songs created in the political campaign should be taught - that is part of political campaign history, but to kids old enough, not children. A song created by a supported of a President to introduce children to politics with no knowledge of the parents that replaces 'Jesus' with the prez's name should not. And I have yet to see a parent at that school come out in support of it.

sisley
09-28-2009, 05:10 PM
Yes.

Okay, agreed.

Well, no. It is clear that the principal/teacher were HUGE (or UGE depending if you are a supporter of Trump) Obama supporters & this sing-a-long to a religious song that praises his POLICIES makes it different. They may have used Black History Month as an excuse, but I think they would have done it anyway because of the evidence of their spreading of his policies throughout the school. Someone mentioned that Bush made it policy to teach creationism in school - well, what if we, at some southern school that happens to be a conservative district, used a religious song & substituted Bush's name for Jesus (like they did with Obama) to sing his praises & to sing about how evil abortion is (just like his policies said), during Christmas time? If you explain away song about Obama's POLICIES during Black History Month, then a song about Bush's POLICIES during Christmas would be OK?

When I grew up. we had pics of presidents in our social studies or history or government classes - but that is to teach civic responsibility & government (3 branches, etc). But this was above & beyond. If you want to say, well, it's to celebrate 1st black (or really, 1st half-black, half-white) Prez, but then why not create a song celebrating Clinton being the 1st Prez born in Arkansas? Or Bush being the 1st MBA Prez?

I dislike him as a Pres & as a politician.

I actually am disappointed that someone would vote for him because of the color of his skin. Just as I would be disappointed if someone voted for McCain because he is white. You should vote for a Prez because of his policies, not skin color.

Well, I have always thought that & didn't need Obama's election to prove it (are you Michelle Obama by any chance? ;))

Songs created in the political campaign should be taught - that is part of political campaign history, but to kids old enough, not children. A song created by a supported of a President to introduce children to politics with no knowledge of the parents that replaces 'Jesus' with the prez's name should not. And I have yet to see a parent at that school come out in support of it.

Now we are finally getting somewhere! Whew! See, that wasn't so hard!

First of all, I think you can understand why the first Arkansan elected president may not be celebrated much outside of the state of Arkansas. Perhaps you can name the first Arkansan pro baseball player? No, I doubt it, but you probably know who was the first African-American.

When other races which have been historically discriminated against, are given equal opportunity as the dominating race, it's a thing for all peoples to be proud of. A thing to celebrate.

I am sure there are those who voted for him because of the color of his skin, just as there were those who most assuredly did not vote for him for the same reason. It's part of life.

As for me, I don't see much in the song that could be called POLICY. Rhetoric, yes. Things that probably many or most presidential candidates have said at one time or another, yes. But POLICY? nah.

--jimbo

Keith Larman
09-28-2009, 06:23 PM
Do some of you seriously think the Obama presidency truly resembles this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/cult.html

Clearly we have very different ideas as to what a cult of personality is in the context of political systems.

Hogan
09-28-2009, 07:27 PM
...
As for me, I don't see much in the song that could be called POLICY. Rhetoric, yes. Things that probably many or most presidential candidates have said at one time or another, yes. But POLICY? nah...

Rhetoric or policy, not acceptable.

I have bolded the "policy" references:

Song One:
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

Song 2:
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say “hooray!”

Hooray, Mr. President! You’re number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!

Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country’s economy number one again!

Hooray Mr. President, we’re really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!

So continue—- Mr. President we know you’ll do the trick
So here’s a hearty hip-hooray —-

Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!

And can we put this thread to bed? As an aikidoist, you shouldn't be talking so much... :)

dps
09-28-2009, 08:13 PM
I have bolded the obvious "religious" reference:

Song One:
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

From this website, http://www.kididdles.com/lyrics/j007.html

Jesus loves the little children
Written By: Unknown, Copyright Unknown
Play Song

Jesus loves the little children
All the children of the world
Black and yellow, red and white
They're all precious in His sight
Jesus loves the little children of the world

Whether you're rich or whether you're poor
It matters not to Him
He remembers where you're going
Not where you've been

Jesus loves the little children
All the children of the world
Black and yellow, red and white
They're all precious in His sight
Jesus loves the little children of the world

If your heart is troubled
Don't worry, don't you fret
He knows that you have heard His call
And he won't forget

Jesus loves the little children
All the children of the world
Black and yellow, red and white
They're all precious in His sight
Jesus loves the little children of the world

All around the world tonight
His children rest assured
That He will watch and He will keep us
Safe and secure

Jesus loves the little children
All the children of the world
Black and yellow, red and white
They're all precious in His sight
Jesus loves the little children of the world

sisley
09-28-2009, 10:22 PM
Excellent! Now we have a point to begin!

Let me quickly recapitulate. We understand that there's no problem with Obama per se in this incident, but with the school and more explicitly the teacher.

Further, we can see that the context of Black History Month perhaps had some influence in the decision to do the song, though the teacher probably should have toned it down a bit.

We know that other historical presidents are glorified in songs and stories to teach American history to young children in an interesting manner. While Obama will necessarily be a president to be remembered, perhaps a teacher would be wiser to wait until after his term before glorifying him in song.

Upon close examination of the lyrics of the song, we can see that the teacher who wrote them views Obama's policies as:

1. That Americans must pull together to make this union strong again.

2. That person A and person B ought to receive equal wages for performing equal work, regardless of race, creed, or gender.

3. That Americans should look out for one another and help each other.

(I'm omitting the parts you've bolded about "honoring Obama's plan" and that he should "continue" because I don't really think those are policy type decisions, do you? Certainly, a candidate couldn't really build a platform around them.)

4. And David has added the reference to religion which is alluded to.

OK. That's where we're at in plain language. You guys really want to take a swing at some of the "policies"? By taking such a strong stance are you both arguing for:

1. American must not remain united;
2. Businesses should be able to discriminate in wages;
3. Americans shouldn't help each other out?

Now the alleged religious part. Is it distasteful to you because you would like Obama to not look upon all races equally? You would prefer, perhaps, that he favors the African-Americans? Or is it distasteful to you because it perhaps unintentionally creates a comparison between Obama and Jesus? If that's your stance, then I'd say you have a legitimate argument.

--jimbo

dps
09-28-2009, 10:31 PM
. You guys really want to take a swing at some of the "policies"?

As it has been stated before this thread is not about policies.
It is about a cult of personality. Don't try to redefine what the discussion is about.


David

dps
09-28-2009, 10:45 PM
Now the alleged religious part. Is it distasteful to you because you would like Obama to not look upon all races equally? You would prefer, perhaps, that he favors the African-Americans? Or is it distasteful to you because it perhaps unintentionally creates a comparison between Obama and Jesus? If that's your stance, then I'd say you have a legitimate argument.

It is distasteful because it deliberately tries to convince grade school kids that Obama is the same as Jesus by linking the song about Obama to a song about Jesus. I would feel the same way if there was an attempt to link Obama as the same as Buddha, Mohammed, Lao tzu, the Dalai Lama, Sister Theresa or the Pope.

David

sisley
09-28-2009, 11:12 PM
As it has been stated before this thread is not about policies.
It is about a cult of personality. Don't try to redefine what the discussion is about.

David

We've already determined that to assume a "cult of personality" exists based upon a single incident which Obama himself had no knowledge of stinks of about three different logical fallacies. The biggest, of course, is the fallacy "Slippery Slope" in which an argument is based upon few instances of X and it is argued that these instances will lead to Z while skipping at least one or more steps.

If you wish to talk about Obama's perceived cult of personality, I would recommend that you first define exactly what you mean by that term. Then find several examples of how Obama is cultivating this cult of personality that you accuse him of.

Good luck with that.

--jimbo

sisley
09-28-2009, 11:17 PM
It is distasteful because it deliberately tries to convince grade school kids that Obama is the same as Jesus by linking the song about Obama to a song about Jesus. I would feel the same way if there was an attempt to link Obama as the same as Buddha, Mohammed, Lao tzu, the Dalai Lama, Sister Theresa or the Pope.

David

Awesome! Now you have a case!

Now if the teacher had put the words to a different song, say, "The Star Spangled Banner" or "America, The Beautiful" perhaps we wouldn't be having this discussion right now! Ill-chosen song, that was. I agree!

But notice that the message of the song isn't nearly as offensive as the allusion to Jesus that is implied by using the religious song as a model for the Obama song.

--jimbo

dps
09-28-2009, 11:45 PM
Awesome! Now you have a case!

Now if the teacher had put the words to a different song, say, "The Star Spangled Banner" or "America, The Beautiful" perhaps we wouldn't be having this discussion right now! Ill-chosen song, that was. I agree!

No I did not say it was an ill-chosen song I said it was deliberate, so therefore we do not agree. Do not redefine what I said by posting something I did not say.

But notice that the message of the song isn't nearly as offensive as the allusion to Jesus that is implied by using the religious song as a model for the Obama song.

As far as this thread goes the message of the song is not the issue. It is about Obama's cult of personality. The linkage of Obama to Jesus to grade school kids is an attempt at this.

David

sisley
09-29-2009, 08:41 AM
No I did not say it was an ill-chosen song I said it was deliberate, so therefore we do not agree. Do not redefine what I said by posting something I did not say.

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but I am trying to refrain from baseless accusations. What evidence could you possibly have that would indicate that the teacher's main goal for the lesson in question was to link Obama to Jesus in the minds of his/her kids by deliberately choosing a religious song?

As far as this thread goes the message of the song is not the issue. It is about Obama's cult of personality. The linkage of Obama to Jesus to grade school kids is an attempt at this.

I have asked you before to define the term: cult of personality. What is it? How is it created? Who needs to be involved in the creation? Please consider doing so. And I think it would be a good exercise for you to do so in your own words, rather than to cut and paste from Wikipedia because, in the end, it's what you believe that matters here, not Wikipedia.

While you are doing this, I would like to ask you think deeply about how one incident at one school can be considered a sign of anything, much less a sign that we are heading toward a fascist state. Earlier in the thread you stated that there are more schools doing this, and I asked you to clarify, but you haven't yet.

--jimbo

dps
09-29-2009, 10:57 PM
What evidence could you possibly have that would indicate that the teacher's main goal for the lesson in question was to link Obama to Jesus in the minds of his/her kids by deliberately choosing a religious song?,

Based on the similarities of the two songs.
What evidence do you have that is wasn't her main goal?

I have asked you before to define the term: cult of personality. What is it? How is it created? Who needs to be involved in the creation? Please consider doing so. And I think it would be a good exercise for you to do so in your own words, rather than to cut and paste from Wikipedia because, in the end, it's what you believe that matters here, not Wikipedia.

In a rational discussion the topic needs to be clearly defined for all sides to work from. The definition from Wikipedia is one that I decided to use.

"A cult of personality arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise."

In Obama's case it is his friends, supporters, political allies, the people who have something to gain politically and monetarily.

What reference material would like to use for a definition of "cult of personality "?

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth,
While you are doing this, I would like to ask you think deeply about how one incident at one school can be considered a sign of anything, much less a sign that we are heading toward a fascist state.

There you go again slipping in words that aren't mine.

Earlier in the thread you stated that there are more schools doing this, and I asked you to clarify, but you haven't yet.

More examples;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfhHHCXxVe4&feature=player_embeddedu

http://realdebatewisconsin.blogspot.com/2008/10/racine-schools-hand-out-textbook-with.html

A mom complaining about a textbook from her eight grade son's school.

"My 8th grade son is in an advanced English class at a public middle school here in Racine, Wisconsin. I just found out that my son's new (copyright 2008) Wisconsin - McDougal Littell Literature book has 15 pages covering Barack Obama.

I was shocked - No John McCain, no Hillary Clinton, no George Bush - Just Barack Obama."

In part of a reply by a spokeswoman for the Racine, Wis., Unified School District.

The book
"... "probably is one of the most popular textbooks" in the country..."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77957

David

sisley
09-30-2009, 08:16 AM
Based on the similarities of the two songs.
What evidence do you have that is wasn't her main goal?


I don't have this evidence. And neither do you, which is exactly my point. How can you go around and make an accusation without proof? Aren't we still innocent in this country until we proven guilty? Intention is key in Aikido, just as it is here. Can you honestly say that you understood her intention? [Note that we have slipped into using the pronoun she and its references based upon the general idea that a lot of elementary school teachers are female. The actual identity and gender of the teacher in question is unknown by the public, I believe.]


In a rational discussion the topic needs to be clearly defined for all sides to work from. The definition from Wikipedia is one that I decided to use.

"A cult of personality arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise."

In Obama's case it is his friends, supporters, political allies, the people who have something to gain politically and monetarily.

What reference material would like to use for a definition of "cult of personality "?

This works for me. Essential to the definition, I believe, is that the country's leader uses mass media to create this image. Staying specific to this case only, in what way was Obama involved in the incident? Did he somehow force or act to have the school teacher make the children sing songs about him? Perhaps he wrote the lyrics himself?

I believe that it's essential if you want to argue this case, that you show direct involvement on Obama's part. Otherwise, what we have are cases of individuals acting as individuals, nothing else.



More examples;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfhHHCXxVe4&feature=player_embeddedu

http://realdebatewisconsin.blogspot.com/2008/10/racine-schools-hand-out-textbook-with.html

A mom complaining about a textbook from her eight grade son's school.

"My 8th grade son is in an advanced English class at a public middle school here in Racine, Wisconsin. I just found out that my son's new (copyright 2008) Wisconsin - McDougal Littell Literature book has 15 pages covering Barack Obama.

I was shocked - No John McCain, no Hillary Clinton, no George Bush - Just Barack Obama."

In part of a reply by a spokeswoman for the Racine, Wis., Unified School District.

The book
"... "probably is one of the most popular textbooks" in the country..."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77957

David

So if a guy goes into an Aikido school and watches the practice, and he comes to the decision that at that (based upon his observation of that school) Aikido isn't an effective martial art. So he travels to another school, watches practice and concludes with the same. So he hits a third dojo, and ends up with the same result, so he says: Aikido isn't an effective art at all.

Perhaps you would disagree with his conclusion. Why?

Well, he used inductive reasoning to move from specific cases to a general conclusion. This, in itself, is not a bad thing, but he may have used too few samples to reach his conclusion. Is there a possibility that there is still a dojo out there where Aikido is indeed martial? Sure. Of the thousands, he sampled three.

Now perhaps you can see what's faulty with your argument, except that there are more than a few thousand kindergartens in the US. A sample size of two just doesn't add up to anything except individual acting as individuals do. No conspiracy here.

Your third example was at a high school and didn't give a lot of specific information about what the textbook says and we certainly don't know how the teacher used that in his/her lesson. Perhaps it was to trigger a debate about this very topic. Who knows? Controversial material can be a useful tool in education to get students to think! And we certainly need more thinking Americans!

--jimbo

Marc Abrams
09-30-2009, 08:37 AM
Jimbo:

I truly applaud your efforts :D ! There is a famous quote: "The heart has reasons of which the mind knows not of." It should be modified to "Political rhetoric has reasons to which a reasoned mind knows not of."

You are trying to engage in a reasonable and logical discussion with people who are simply locked within their political and personal mindsets. This is akin to farting into a gale wind and waiting for the aroma. That is why I simply stopped trying to respond to the nonsense.

Best of Luck!

Marc Abrams

sisley
09-30-2009, 10:12 AM
Jimbo:

I truly applaud your efforts :D ! There is a famous quote: "The heart has reasons of which the mind knows not of." It should be modified to "Political rhetoric has reasons to which a reasoned mind knows not of."

You are trying to engage in a reasonable and logical discussion with people who are simply locked within their political and personal mindsets. This is akin to farting into a gale wind and waiting for the aroma. That is why I simply stopped trying to respond to the nonsense.

Best of Luck!

Marc Abrams

Hi Marc,

Thanks!

Without reason, perhaps the loudest voice (or most frequent poster) wins the argument. By introducing logic and reasoning into this argument, I hope to expose the claim as unjustifiable, if not to David himself, then to others who peruse the board. At least, they can decide for themselves if the argument is worthy.

For me, then, this is just an exercise--a way to practice the logic and reasoning skills I've learned. But it's funny how many principles of Aikido have come into play here: calmness, dispassion, balance, staying centered, etc.

I, for one, have truly enjoyed this exchange! Unfortunately, I have to admit that it has been an entirely selfish act: I've only continued the dialogue because I thought that I had something to learn. I hope I will stop before I get to the point where I'm not learning anything, just preaching something.

Thanks again!

--jimbo

David Orange
09-30-2009, 10:48 AM
Did a quick check of my kid's school.

Pictures of Obama in my kid's classroom? - No
Singing songs in praise of the great leader? - No

These things probably happen in a couple places. I doubt the practice is pervasive, certainly not to the Mao/Stalin level. The fear and angst seems excessive.

Mark

That's cause you're not a wing-nut, Mark.

You need to spend a lot of time watching Glen Beck and O'Reilly and Limbaugh. When you're really nutty, to the point of drooling, you'll understand the fear and angst.

:p

David

David Orange
09-30-2009, 10:51 AM
I think this is in reference to the supposed 'death panels' in health care reform, & the idea it is more cost effective to let the elderly die rather than waste money to treat them for a short time.

Right...I should have added Palin to that list.

Anyway, those are both Republican "ideas".

David

David Orange
09-30-2009, 10:57 AM
Would the teacher of acted this way if Obama would have not existed.....

....yeesh.

...but the person leaving the scene of an accident would STILL behave that way, whether Palin existed or not.

That's rather questionable. The whole gas-sucking SUV phenomenon...the Palin bumper sticker...hitting a Prius...and leaving the scene....

Sounds like Palin fleeing her corruption charges as gov of Alaska.

It's a typical right-wing act.

David

David Orange
09-30-2009, 11:06 AM
Clearly we have very different ideas as to what a cult of personality is in the context of political systems.

Of course. You say "consultation on care," they say "DEATH PANELS. You say "Liberty and justice for all," they say "SOCIALISM."

You say, "Congratulations, Mr. President," and they say, "WORSHIPPING A MAN!!!!"

But you know, you can still see "W...the President" stickers on cars, even now? And "W...still the President." And "W...still the worst President."

It's just crazy.

David

David Orange
09-30-2009, 11:23 AM
But notice that the message of the song isn't nearly as offensive as the allusion to Jesus that is implied by using the religious song as a model for the Obama song.


I had a religious re-awakening in 1978, just when I graduated from college and over the next couple of years I read the complete Bible a couple of times, tithed to my church, attended regularly, visited other churches and contributed, and listened to "Christian" radio exclusively.

And then I began to notice something: many of the "Christian" messages were being weighed heavily to the political sphere. In particular, there was a guy named Jerry Falwell who was adding more and more specifically Republican content to his messages and as 1980 slouched toward History, the vast majority of that station's content became an almost unmasked cheer for Ronald Reagan. The "Christians" of the US voted out a Baptist minister in favor of a Hollywood actor who talked about Christianity but was really a big believer in astrology. And he was divorced and remarried--a thing that, in that day, was still highly frowned on by "good Americans". So the Christians chose that over an actual preacher and in fact, Republicans have been hijacking Christianity ever since to elect Presidents that are closer to bin Laden and Ahmadinejad than they are to Jesus, but they have consistently linked their candidates with Jesus and have tried unflaggingly to paint any democrat as a registered Satan-worshipper.

I find the substitution of Obama's name for Jesus' in the song to be in very bad judgment and taste and I would not do it, nor would I let it pass if someone I knew did it. Just as I have always called Republicans on hijacking religion to convince poor people to let the super-wealthy take their money, send their children to war and terminate their health coverage as soon as they desperately need it. What it really takes is low education to support that kind of thing, but it worked really well until Bush finally drove the economy lower than the Titanic.

Best to you.

David

thisisnotreal
09-30-2009, 11:24 AM
If someone (think: james bond super-villan) wanted to divide America; I do not think they could have defined a better program than what we now see unfolding..
I find it sad.

David Orange
09-30-2009, 11:32 AM
Without reason, perhaps the loudest voice (or most frequent poster) wins the argument.

There's no winning, unfortunately, and even getting the last word in is not worth much.

By introducing logic and reasoning into this argument, I hope to expose the claim as unjustifiable, if not to David himself, then to others who peruse the board. At least, they can decide for themselves if the argument is worthy.

To the wing-nuts, you will never prove anything and they will take the wispiest, most demented ravings as absolute proof of ideas that would embarrass the really insane. Anyone with any sense just looks for the little "two cents" icon and knows it's a screwball argument.

For me, then, this is just an exercise--a way to practice the logic and reasoning skills I've learned. But it's funny how many principles of Aikido have come into play here: calmness, dispassion, balance, staying centered, etc.

You're doing great, Jimbo.

David

dps
09-30-2009, 11:38 AM
We will have to wait and see if just like the ACORN scandal, it is just a few "part time idiots" or reaches further.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557461,00.html?test=latestnews

David

dps
09-30-2009, 12:36 PM
Without reason, perhaps the loudest voice (or most frequent poster) wins the argument.

And after posting six times out of the last seven posts,
To the wing-nuts, you will never prove anything and they will take the wispiest, most demented ravings as absolute proof of ideas that would embarrass the really insane. Anyone with any sense just looks for the little "two cents" icon and knows it's a screwball argument.

David

sisley
09-30-2009, 01:06 PM
We will have to wait and see if just like the ACORN scandal, it is just a few "part time idiots" or reaches further.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557461,00.html?test=latestnews

David

David,

Thanks for going along with my little argument up to this point. I take it, by your post that I'm quoting above, that discussion about the song is over, and you'd prefer to talk about ACORN. So be it.

Thanks for the opportunity to use some of the skills that I have learned. I certainly learned from this experience, and I hope, like in ukemi, you could pick up something as well.

Have a great day!

--jimbo

Hogan
09-30-2009, 01:29 PM
Right...I should have added Palin to that list.

Anyway, those are both Republican "ideas".

David

What are? Letting old people die to save money & not waste medical resources on? That's actually the result of having nationalized health care, not an idea of the Republicans. Good try, though.

dps
09-30-2009, 01:34 PM
David,

Thanks for going along with my little argument up to this point. I take it, by your post that I'm quoting above, that discussion about the song is over, and you'd prefer to talk about ACORN.

Nope, the thread was never about " the song. " The title of the thread is " Obama Cult of Personality ".

No, I do not want to talk about ACORN in this thread. My reference was about giving the subject of "Obama Cult of Personality" some time to see if anything developes that would be relevant to the discussion of "Obama Cult of Personality" like what happened in the ACORN thread.

David

sisley
09-30-2009, 02:09 PM
Nope, the thread was never about " the song. " The title of the thread is " Obama Cult of Personality ".

No, I do not want to talk about ACORN in this thread. My reference was about giving the subject of "Obama Cult of Personality" some time to see if anything developes that would be relevant to the discussion of "Obama Cult of Personality" like what happened in the ACORN thread.

David

OK. I understand your contention to what I've written. Sorry about that.

Let me ask you then to clarify your concept of "Cult of Personality" while we wait for you to connect the incidents you've brought up to Mr. Obama, himself. Namely, what is the difference, in your mind, to being popular and charismatic, such as Mr. Kennedy was, and having a "cult of personality"?

For me, and let me just throw this out there for you to dispute if you wish, a "cult of personality" is directed by the leader himself to propagandize himself to his subjects. I suppose Kim Jong Il would be a fair representation of this. While being charismatic is common of major politicians, entertainers, and the like.

Would you agree?

--jimbo

dps
09-30-2009, 02:21 PM
OK. I understand your contention to what I've written. Sorry about that.

Let me ask you then to clarify your concept of "Cult of Personality" while we wait for you to connect the incidents you've brought up to Mr. Obama, himself. Namely, what is the difference, in your mind, to being popular and charismatic, such as Mr. Kennedy was, and having a "cult of personality"?



No, I wish not to continue with you as long as you misrepresent what this thread is about or what I have posted.

I suggest to you that you start from the beginning and read the title of the thread and all the posts up to this point. Try very hard to understand what the thread is about.

David

Keith Larman
09-30-2009, 02:26 PM
David,

I must say I cannot take what you say even remotely seriously because you don't seem to have a clue what a "cult of personality" is. I tried earlier to point it out, Jim has pointed it out yet again. And what is truly difficult to understand is why you seem to be willingly adopting a totally incorrect position. Even if you take every event you've posted about completely seriously it doesn't even remotely resemble a "cult of personality" in political theory. I'm sorry, but you can't just assume some "personal" meaning to the phrase simply because you don't like the guy or the behavior of others. "Cult of Personality" has a *well-defined* meaning in political theory. Your ignorance and unwillingness to even consider this is stunning.

I am not a major fan of Obama. I like some things, don't like others. I can deal with people making naive statements. I can deal with people making statements reflecting their emotions. But you are simply wrong due to an apparent lack of understanding of what the phrase means.

I agree that some go way overboard in their adulation of the man. But that does a Cult of Personality make. It has a specific meaning, David, and isn't something you can make applicable by simply saying it over and over again (contrary to what some talking heads on both ends of the spectrum seem to think).

Good god, man, take 10 minutes, look it up and try to follow it.

Then show me a concerted, top down controlled concerted attempt by the system itself to install hero worship at virtually every level of the political and social landscape. That would indicate an attempt at a cult of personality.

It's a top down thing, not bottom up. And certainly not bottom up by a few isolated incidents of over-the-top adulation. Or even if there were hundreds of them. It is an institutional thing, an installed, concerted, organized effort by the governmental bodies themselves to install this sort of mindset as a pervasive and all-encompassing thing. Quite frankly you would be *way* better off asserting there is a Cult of Personality surrounding O-sensei than Obama...

dps
09-30-2009, 02:40 PM
"Cult of Personality" has a *well-defined* meaning in political theory. Your ignorance and unwillingness to even consider this is stunning.

Good god, man, take 10 minutes, look it up and try to follow it.

Okay, where should I look it up?

David

David Orange
09-30-2009, 02:46 PM
We will have to wait and see if just like the ACORN scandal, it is just a few "part time idiots" or reaches further.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557461,00.html?test=latestnews


You want to know if it's "idiots" and you post a link to Fox News?

Hmm. Seems we know now where the real idiots are.

Anyway, the guy who interviewed the pimp and prostitute did go to law enforcement about their visit, so that shows at least that he was oriented to the right side. And the pimp and prostitute are now being sued for breaking MA law by filming people without their consent. But wing nuts believe any means is okay for the achievement of their desired ends.

On the other hand, what does that have to do with a cult of personality? Just more irrelevant distraction from the truth.

David

David Orange
09-30-2009, 02:51 PM
What are? Letting old people die to save money & not waste medical resources on? That's actually the result of having nationalized health care, not an idea of the Republicans. Good try, though.

Baloney. Good try, though.

There are no "death panels" in the nationalized health care plans. That is a republican fantasy.

There is no "letting old people die" in England, France, Canada, Japan, or anywhere else with a national health system. We have a lower mortality age than any of those countries because republicans back letting the insurance companies cut off people's insurance when they get really sick. It's the republicans and their love for corporations and their disgust with living people that has allowed insurance companies to deny treatments and terminate coverage for people who have never missed a payment in years.

Did I say good try? No. It was pretty lame, as I've come to expect.

Thanks for the illustration.

David

David Orange
09-30-2009, 02:52 PM
....My reference was about giving the subject of "Obama Cult of Personality" some time to see if anything developes that would be relevant to the discussion of "Obama Cult of Personality" like what happened in the ACORN thread....

Relevant?

You'll be very old before this nutter topic becomes relevant to anything but a white jacket and a padded room.

David

David Orange
09-30-2009, 02:55 PM
I suggest to you that you start from the beginning and read the title of the thread and all the posts up to this point. Try very hard to understand what the thread is about.

Much quicker: just cue the theme music from "The Twilight Zone" and your topic is put in complete perspective.

David

Keith Larman
09-30-2009, 03:44 PM
Okay, where should I look it up?

David

I posted earlier in this very thread. I posted links to the wikipedia page on it. Yes, Wikipedia. It is short, simplistic, but decent in this case. I also posted a short discussion about it in context of the soviet system.

Try encyclopedias at your local library. Look up the soviet system again. Stalin is probably the best example, but Russia had a history of it pre-stalin basically culminating with Stalin. China under Mao. Romania under Nicolae Ceaucescu (sp?), Germany under Hitler, etc.

If you want more current examples read up on North Korea's political system. The current fruitcake and his father have installed a tremendous cult of personality as a means of controlling the population. As a matter of fact many (not all) totalitarian states and dictatorships have utilized a cult of personality as a means of keeping the population under control.

It is harder and harder to establish these things nowadays with information technology so robust and widespread. So it tends to be limited in this day and age to relatively poor and isolated countries. It is simply not possible to construct the elaborate BS stories when people can just look it up in a few seconds...

Another interesting point is that some believe that Karl Marx was the first to discuss the phenomena (and in a negative light, by the way).

I'll even attach a painting from North Korea. Notice how most art from these countries suffering under "cults of personality" is essentially propaganda but also shows the "great leader" in scenes that border on ludicrous. The "great leader" was basically despised by every other nation as his son is today. You're not likely to see a room full of world leaders giving Kim Jong Il a standing ovation... Let alone his similarly insane father.

sisley
09-30-2009, 04:00 PM
No, I wish not to continue with you as long as you misrepresent what this thread is about or what I have posted.

I suggest to you that you start from the beginning and read the title of the thread and all the posts up to this point. Try very hard to understand what the thread is about.

David

I take offense at what you have written here, David. I have treated you with the utmost of respect and enjoyed the conversation until this point. For shame, man!

Please remember that a title of a thread does not make an argument. Your conclusion that Obama is somehow manufacturing a cult of personality lies solely upon the couple of examples that you have provided.

I have methodically gone through the first example of the kids singing in school in Philadelphia, and I have shown that this has no evidence of Obama's fingerprint at all. This, according to the definition that you supplied, clearly shows that it cannot be used to support a conclusion that Obama is cultivating a cult of personality.

If you want this thread to be a dumping ground for anything that you think appropriate to malign the character of our President, then clearly rational thinking and argumentation are not welcome. Devolve into name-calling and shouting and may the loudest and meanest man win.

As for me, I would ask you to remember your training as you post. There is still a relationship between posters in a thread like this that I think is important to explore. Elements of a good attack in the dojo can also be seen in a good reply here: don't be too wild, don't be drawn out of your center, don't miss the target, etc.

Train more!

Back to your shouting....

--jimbo

thisisnotreal
09-30-2009, 04:19 PM
<posted pic of Kim Jong >

..besides the big dose of crazy that comes thru in that pic; also is the possibility that Kim Jong was training the internals. His center is thick and the tanden region well developed. His posture: impeccable.

carry on.

Keith Larman
09-30-2009, 05:06 PM
His center is thick and the tanden region well developed.

Well, some books in North Korea now state that Kim Il Song gave birth to the world... So there you go... I guess he could have...

dps
09-30-2009, 10:42 PM
I posted earlier in this very thread. I posted links to the wikipedia page on it. Yes, Wikipedia. It is short, simplistic, but decent in this case. I also posted a short discussion about it in context of the soviet system.

( snip)

I'll even attach a painting from North Korea. Notice how most art from these countries suffering under "cults of personality" is essentially propaganda but also shows the "great leader" in scenes that border on ludicrous. The "great leader" was basically despised by every other nation as his son is today. You're not likely to see a room full of world leaders giving Kim Jong Il a standing ovation... Let alone his similarly insane father.

I'm working on it.

In the mean time:
From the Gamaliel Foundation,

"Hear Our Cry Obama"
"Deliver Us Obama"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMJgwPenhpY&feature=player_embedded

David

Keith Larman
10-01-2009, 09:19 AM
Oh, good lord. Stop it, David. Clearly peoples' behavior bothers you. Fine. Got it. Get over it. It ain't a "cult of personality".

My last post. Because otherwise I give up on you, David.

You might as well post this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc and then say there is a cult of personality involved around Britney Spears. There's not. Just a random idiot. You might think he's behaving like a brainwashed idiot -- okay, I'm with ya there. You might call all those other events you've posted about as instances of brainwashed idiots. Okay, I get ya there too.

But it isn't a Cult of Personality.

One last time. A Cult of Personality is an intentional, institutional, pervasive, governmentally controlled/constructed thing. Continuing to post random videos of private people/groups who adore the current president is simply not a "cult of personality". Apples and oranges isn't sufficient -- try apples and asteroids. There were groups who felt George W. Bush spoke to God and his mission was heaven-sent. Delusional. But that isn't a Cult of Personality either.

You may think these people are silly, deluded or even dangerous. Fine. You may think these things are a "really bad sign". Fine. But until governmental programs start mandating photos of El Presidente in every living room along with mandatory songs in *every* school and textbooks saying Obama gave birth to George Washington and all that is good by squeezing his butt-cheeks together it just ain't the same thing. Notice the difference. Government programs and legal requirements. Institutionally supported and disseminated creation and /or hero myths (what about George W Bush in the flight suit -- is that trying to establish a cult of personality too?). You may think we're on a some gigantic slippery slope and you may quiver in your undies that that's what's coming, but without it all being a top down, pervasive, officially mandated phenomena it just isn't the same thing. So it isn't a Cult of Personality.

I'll check back into thread in a few years if we become the "United States of Obama" and apologize, but until then, this is just flat out absurd, paranoid, and most importantly... Simply ignorant of what Cult of Personality means in political theory. I come from an academic and research background. I love to discuss things. Oh, man, I thought much of my expensive liberal arts education was wasted after the soviet system fell apart. And now one of my favorite topics is back. Cult of Personality. But being tossed around in a way that is just insulting to all those who have suffered and died under repressive totalitarian regimes that actually *did* establish Cults of Personality. It's no different than every moron who takes whoever is president that day and calling him a Nazi. That in my mind is not only idiotic, but it ignores the real horror of what the Nazi's actually did in favor of trying to draw some facile, borderline insane comparison. There's lots of crazy involved here.

But this isn't even discussion anymore -- you have to at least try to adopt consistent meaning in your terms. Cult of Personality *has* a meaning. A real one. And since it has very powerful connotations of extremely negative things it is easy to use it as a powerful label. So it becomes even more important that the phrase is used correctly and appropriately and not just as a means to blindly label someone as something they aren't.

By using a loaded label like this totally out of appropriate context you are doing exactly the same thing as the very people you are so upset about, just on the other side of the spectrum.

Mark Freeman
10-01-2009, 09:42 AM
Nice try Keith, well put, not sure it is going to work though!;)

sisley
10-01-2009, 11:01 AM
I agree: well put Keith. But this thread has simply become a sort of repository for Mark's bookmarks that show Obama in a negative light. He appears to be more interested in accusations and smearing than any sort of discussion; all headline, no story.

--jimbo

Hogan
10-01-2009, 01:31 PM
...One last time. A Cult of Personality is an intentional, institutional, pervasive, governmentally controlled/constructed thing. ...

Why do you think it has to be intentional & controlled by the government? You don't think it can grow without government control? Only a tightly controlled society, for example, a COMMUNIST country, can have a policy that is "intentional, institutional, pervasive, governmentally controlled/constructed thing" for it to work. Does this mean you can think of no examples of a cult of personality other than a government controlled one?? Really??

And by the way, this charge of a cult of personality of Obama did not come from David or just the republicans. Heck even the Clinton's said it:

http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/02/obama-cult-of-personality.html
"...Some folks have suggested Clinton operatives are pushing "Obama as cult" around the press."

dps
10-01-2009, 01:33 PM
I agree: well put Keith. But this thread has simply become a sort of repository for Mark's bookmarks that show Obama in a negative light. , no story. :confused:

David

Keith Larman
10-01-2009, 03:08 PM
Why do you think it has to be intentional & controlled by the government? You don't think it can grow without government control? Only a tightly controlled society, for example, a COMMUNIST country, can have a policy that is "intentional, institutional, pervasive, governmentally controlled/constructed thing" for it to work. Does this mean you can think of no examples of a cult of personality other than a government controlled one?? Really??

That is the point -- Cult of Personality is a well defined thing in political theory and it gets misused all the time including by pundits and journalists. And when people use the phrase to denigrate a leader they are usually using a sort of "by association" logic to hope that people see it as the same thing. Which it usually isn't because the classic cases of Cult of Personality are all based on dictatorships, totalitarian regimes, and even monarchies where they have the level of control in order to install policies to forward the "official line".

And by the way, this charge of a cult of personality of Obama did not come from David or just the republicans. Heck even the Clinton's said it:

http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/02/obama-cult-of-personality.html
"...Some folks have suggested Clinton operatives are pushing "Obama as cult" around the press."

People liking Obama with cult-like enthusiasm is a worthy discussion in and of itself, but it is quite different from a political cult of personality. They are *not* the same. Saying someone has a "cult-like" following is dramatically different from asserting a "Cult of Personality". And it isn't a small step from one to the other. It is tremendous leap.

The same following issue happens with most people who get into high office, celebrities, religious leaders, rock-stars, athletes, etc. -- there are always those who view them almost as saviors. and people who have that sort of cult-like adoration are quite nuts IMHO as well. They see only what they want to see and are totally blinded by their ideological assumptions. These people can also be those within a persons' inner circle (they tend to be believers in the person and their message otherwise they wouldn't be there...). And whether someone deserves that degree of adulation is itself a topic of value, having people with that devotion is not a cult of personality. If you want to say some people love Obama in a cult-like way I'd agree with you completely. Of course some do. There was and still is a very large group of people who idolize Ronald Reagan. Or John Kennedy. The evaluation of the justification for their adoration is an interesting topic of discussion.

The question is whether the people at the top have so thoroughly taken over a system that they are able to enforce and impose a hero like or savior style story about the "great leader". It is much like an attempt at large-scale brainwashing done from the highest levels down. It is not enthusiastic believers who take up the flag of their hero. It is the "hero" trying to convince the country to believe some BS creation myth and doing so through the government itself. This literally becomes the law of the land, with mandatory displays of the "great leader" on every corner. Heck, Saddam did a moderately good job of trying to install the same thing himself. And did so through his own power and the power of his political party.

Uncle.

I give up.

Sorry, I must be the ivory tower idiot here. Back to my dark cave...

Hogan
10-01-2009, 03:30 PM
That is the point -- Cult of Personality is a well defined thing in political theory and it gets misused all the time including by pundits and journalists. And when people use the phrase to denigrate a leader they are usually using a sort of "by association" logic to hope that people see it as the same thing. Which it usually isn't because the classic cases of Cult of Personality are all based on dictatorships, totalitarian regimes, and even monarchies where they have the level of control in order to install policies to forward the "official line". ...

So, the Cult of Personality will never happen in the U.S., then, right? Is that what you believe?? Because the classic cases have been in "dictatorships, totalitarian regimes, and even monarchies"? Let me suggest that those regimes would not have been created had there been people like some of the people here & on the TV & radio that warned of it coming. Follow? Let me suggest that a 'cult of personality' allowed those "dictatorships, totalitarian regimes" to come into being. Follow?? From those seeds, come "dictatorships, totalitarian regimes".

Keith Larman
10-01-2009, 03:41 PM
So, the Cult of Personality will never happen in the U.S., then, right? Is that what you believe?? Because the classic cases have been in "dictatorships, totalitarian regimes, and even monarchies"? Let me suggest that those regimes would not have been created had there been people like some of the people here & on the TV & radio that warned of it coming. Follow? Let me suggest that a 'cult of personality' allowed those "dictatorships, totalitarian regimes" to come into being. Follow?? From those seeds, come "dictatorships, totalitarian regimes".

That is absolutely not what I said.

Hitler road a huge groundswell of fear and discontent into office and used that support to install many things that were classic Cult of Personality features.

But it was still the shift from bottom up to top down that moved it from popular and rather "enthusiastic" support to the appearance of a Cult of Personality. And that transition wasn't due to individuals or school teachers decided to teach songs about Hitler, it was a rewriting of history from the top down and imposed upon the country.

Reagan was hugely popular, especially among certain conservative groups. To the point of almost religious adoration. Cult-ish devotion even among some of those. But it was not a Cult of Personality nor did it turn into one.

By all means, be on your guard. Always vigilant. Always watching. But calling it a "cult of personality" to me is no different from those who called GW Bush a Nazi. Neither was even close. And the moment somebody starts that sort of shrill rhetoric the possibility of remotely intelligent, measured and insightful discussion is gone.

Just like in this thread it appears.

dps
10-02-2009, 02:12 PM
An example of a cult of personality that does not fit the definition exactly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

Cult of personality

Examples from other forms of government

'Juan Perón, elected three times as President of Argentina, and his second wife, Eva Duarte de Perón, were immensely popular among many of the Argentine people, and to this day they are still considered icons by the Peronist Party. The Peróns' followers praised their efforts to eliminate poverty and to dignify labor, while their detractors considered them demagogues and dictators. To achieve their political goals, the Peronists had to unite around the head of state. As a result, a personality cult developed around both Perón and his wife."

David

Keith Larman
10-02-2009, 03:53 PM
There are many who would argue that the Peron years in Argentina were not in fact a good example of a cult of personality. Many followers were quite adamant and like today in the US there seems to be a number of people who are either irrationally in love with their leaders, or irrationally afraid of them. Most political scientists will hedge on this example and say it was kinda like one, but not really because it was lacking so many aspects you would expect to see.

But if you look hard enough you can find those who argue that a cult of personality was formed in the US around a mostly fictitious account of George Washington. So there you go. Ignore that most would consider that really to be something else entirely, but hey, who cares about being precise, let's just let the phrase mean most anything. The good thing about that is that it will ultimately end up meaning... Nothing. Destroyed by casual, uninformed colloquial usage.

So go ahead back to the wringing of hands and posting. It is truly horrible that some people really like the president, isn't it? Especially when the people who like him happen to people who have different views than you have. Yup, school teacher has the kids sing a song about their president during Black History Month in a program that also had songs about other presidents. Yup, clearly the next step is that Obama is going to rip off his mask and show that he's really Satan...

Now that all that's out of the way... Was there an issue to discuss? Anything? Anything at all?

The sad thing is that if you had just said there are some really crazy people out there who seem to elevate Barak Obama to god-like status I would have agreed with you. If you had said that some of those people made some really poor decisions in how they showed that devotion, heck, I'd be right behind you holding the sign. But when you take a gigantic leap and start using loaded phrases (what seems to be par for the course now in political discourse on-line and in the media), well, I start backing away saying "Um, well, yeah, but hold on a sec..."

It is like watching Glenn Beck. A small grain of truth gets selectively grown with a small bit of crazy and a lot of scary sounding words and suddenly we've proven that Unicorns are taking over the government! AAAIIIIEEEE, run! Save yourselves from their glistening horns of terror!

I should have done what I said way back when and walked away in disgust.

Mark Freeman
10-02-2009, 04:04 PM
suddenly we've proven that Unicorns are taking over the government!

Now that really would be worthy of a Cult of Personality! Where can I get a picture to hang on my wall?:D

I should have done what I said way back when and walked away in disgust.

Perhaps ;)

regards,

Mark
p.s. I've enjoyed your level headed approach Keith.

sisley
10-02-2009, 07:32 PM
:confused:

David

Whoops. Typo. Mea culpa.
I think you know who I mean....

--jimbo

dps
10-02-2009, 10:28 PM
Whoops. Typo. Mea culpa.
I think you know who I mean....

--jimbo

Since the only means of communication posting on a forum is the typed word ( and emoticons ), without visual cues and tonal inflection it is best to clear up any possible misunderstanding.

David

sisley
10-02-2009, 11:16 PM
Since the only means of communication posting on a forum is the typed word ( and emoticons ), without visual cues and tonal inflection it is best to clear up any possible misunderstanding.

David

You would be right if this thread had any semblance of life left in it.

I simply replaced your name with that of my colleague who was on my mind at the time. These things happen. You have identified my mistake and I've apologized.

--jimbo

David Orange
10-05-2009, 01:32 PM
So, the Cult of Personality will never happen in the U.S., then, right? Is that what you believe??

No one who's ever heard of Ronald Reagan could make that claim.

Reagan and W. Bush both had huge cults of personality, in the context of your claims about Obama. He has nothing on them.

Hogan
10-05-2009, 03:19 PM
No one who's ever heard of Ronald Reagan could make that claim.

Reagan and W. Bush both had huge cults of personality, in the context of your claims about Obama. He has nothing on them.

Well, no they didn't. Remember, Keith said that the Cult of Personality only exists in a tightly controlled (i.e., communistic) government, so the Cult of Personality is impossible in the U.S.

Didn't you read what Keith said? He said, "...Reagan was hugely popular, especially among certain conservative groups. To the point of almost religious adoration. Cult-ish devotion even among some of those. But it was not a Cult of Personality nor did it turn into one."

David Orange
10-05-2009, 03:48 PM
...it was not a Cult of Personality nor did it turn into one."

And Keith is correct. My statement is that what dupes are criticizing in Obama is stuff that both Reagan and Bush had from their followers. Certainly no worse. So get over it.

Keith Larman
10-05-2009, 04:14 PM
Well, no they didn't. Remember, Keith said that the Cult of Personality only exists in a tightly controlled (i.e., communistic) government, so the Cult of Personality is impossible in the U.S.

Please do not put words in my mouth. It would be highly unlikely simply due to the structure of our government. However, given the dramatic change in the assertion of independent power by the executive branch in the last 10 years it isn't necessarily impossible.

That said, I think it is highly unlikely given the horribly polarized and divisive environment within which we live today. Heck, we can't even have an intelligent discussion about health policy without people screaming "socialists!".

Rights we still have such as the ability to have this discussion freely and openly are pretty much proof a cult of personality in a strict doesn't exist here. Saying the very things you've said in this thread in North Korea (as an example) would leave you open to prosecution... That's one thing that is somewhat surreal about a thread like this. Asserting something like that exists here and now would be horrendously dangerous if it were true.

dps
10-05-2009, 09:56 PM
There is a cult of personality because Queen Oprah anointed him as "The One".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO-JdvD9qig&feature=related

And some think he will do great things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR6IMbHmfTE&feature=player_embedded

David

dps
10-05-2009, 10:20 PM
There is hope.

http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/New/rushbattlehymn.asx

David

Keith Larman
10-05-2009, 11:58 PM
There is a cult of personality because Queen Oprah anointed him as "The One".


Plonk.

Hogan
10-06-2009, 07:35 AM
.... So get over it.

Get over what?

David Orange
10-06-2009, 10:38 AM
Get over what?

Whatever's bugging you silly about Obama.

You guys had total control of the country for six years until the people squashed you in 2006 and again in 2008.

Meantime, your boys screwed up two wars and destroyed our economy.

Now Obama has to straighten out the debacles of two wars and a ruined economy and folks like you and skaggs are determined to drag him down.

Don't forget it was your thinking that led us to the unbelievable mess George Bush left for the future. Rather than trying to blame and drag Obama down, you need to turn to some serious self-reflection and figure out how you made such egregious errors in judgment that you supported GW Bush. And while you're at it, see if you can figure out why you now want to destroy the person who is charged with correcting those tragic errors you endorsed.

Hogan
10-06-2009, 03:15 PM
Whatever's bugging you silly about Obama.
Nothing is. What gave you an idea that there is something bothering me about Obama? I was having a discussion about the Cult of Personality with Keith & whether it can happen here.

..You guys had total control of the country for six years until the people squashed you in 2006 and again in 2008.
You certainly are militaristic, aren't you?? "Total control". "Squashed". Man...

Meantime, your boys screwed up two wars
Really??

..and destroyed our economy.
I think people signing for mortgages who couldn't afford them & got fancy mortgage products are the ones that screwed us. Not my 'boys'.

Now Obama has to straighten out the debacles of two wars and a ruined economy
What flavor is the cool aid you are drinking?

..and folks like you
?? I am just like you...

..and skaggs ..
You want to throw in 'rascist', too??

...are determined to drag him down.
Unlike the Bush Haters, huh?

Don't forget it was your thinking that led us to the unbelievable mess George Bush left for the future.
HAHAH!! Man, you should relax & take a drink from the warm glass of reality...

Rather than trying to blame and drag Obama down, you need to turn to some serious self-reflection and figure out how you made such egregious errors in judgment that you supported GW Bush.....
Wow, thanks, doc. I'll get right on that.

If you need someone to talk to, I can refer you, or you can send me a PM. Bad day??

akiy
10-06-2009, 03:47 PM
Watch your tone, folks.

-- Jun

David Orange
10-06-2009, 10:00 PM
What gave you an idea that there is something bothering me about Obama?

If you were a manga character, they would draw you with blood shooting out your nose.

You certainly are militaristic, aren't you??

Sure. After eight years of "all hat and no cattle" W., killing men, women and children for his own glory, I guess I do seem a bit militant.

"Total control".

What George Bush and the neo-con Congress exercised over the country for six years. Remember that? Total control.

"Squashed".

Right. What the American people did to the Republican party in 2006 and again in 2008 because of the total waste and ruin they brought this great country.

Man...

Exactly.

David Orange wrote:
"Meantime, your boys screwed up two wars"


Really??

Yes. Really. You're quite flip about it, but we haven't begun to count the cost of what Bush/Cheney/Haliburton have done to our country with their mismanagement of two wars. We had won in Afghanistan eight years ago, but Bush turned his back on that and now look at it. The Taliban we decimated have regrown into a force to be reckoned with, all under George Bush's eyes. And as soon as we leave Iraq, it's going to be a haven for international jihad. All thanks to George.

But the debt we owe Afghanis now is not for what W. Bush did to them. We still owe them for what GHW Bush did, abandoning them to warlords after using them to destroy the Soviet empire. I couldn't believe they trusted us again in 2001, but now another Bush has seriously betrayed them and it's up to Obama to set that right and do truly right by those folks.

I think people signing for mortgages who couldn't afford them & got fancy mortgage products are the ones that screwed us. Not my 'boys'.

Yes, it was your boys who screwed the economy by giving outlandish tax breaks to the super wealthy while prosecuting TWO wars. No one has ever given a tax break while we were fighting even ONE war, but Bush did it with TWO wars. That and the deregulation of the banking thieves (Bush's big pals) and the creation of CDOs are the two main factors in destroying our economy: YOUR boys. The "conservatives." No wonder most people just call them "cons".

David Orange wrote:
"Now Obama has to straighten out the debacles of two wars and a ruined economy
"

What flavor is the cool aid you are drinking?

A great retort, John, for someone who's never had an original idea or understanding that didn't come from a right wing talk show. Who else does it fall to, if no the President? Everyone reading can plainly see who's sucking up the Kool Aid.

You want to throw in 'rascist', too??

Hey, with you here, there's no need. You cover that quite well all on your own.

David Orange wrote:
"and people like you and skaggs trying to drag (Obama) down...."

Unlike the Bush Haters, huh?

Right. It's the same thing, isn't it?

Except that we were warning that Bush was driving the country into the ground and you said we were "bush haters' and "drinking Kool Aid" up until the very day when McCain and Sarah Palin had to admit that the economy was going over a cliff. We didn't hate Bush--just his evil humanity-hating manipulations of American power and prestige for his own glory. We warned you and you didn't listen until the economy was shattered at our feet, the result of Bush's tax policies and two fraudulently-managed wars.

David Orange wrote:
"Don't forget it was your thinking that led us to the unbelievable mess George Bush left for the future."

HAHAH!! Man, you should relax & take a drink from the warm glass of reality...

Reality is cold, John. If you're drinking something warm, I think I know what it is. And "reality" it's not.

David Orange wrote:
"Rather than trying to blame and drag Obama down, you need to turn to some serious self-reflection and figure out how you made such egregious errors in judgment that you supported GW Bush....."

Wow, thanks, doc. I'll get right on that.

You'll just keep on losing until you do, pal.

If you need someone to talk to, I can refer you, or you can send me a PM.

No thanks. If I want to see Glenn Beck or hear Rush Limbauh, I can find them. You need to give them a rest.

Bad day??

For you, maybe. My candidate is President, now, and YOUR candidate is supporting him. And your other candidate is the laughing stock of the country. And your candidate before that is finally where he should have been the past eight years--twiddling his thumbs and looking stupid.

My candidate is in control of the country and the fascists are out. So I'm having a pretty good day, thanks.

David

Hogan
10-07-2009, 08:41 AM
...
My candidate is in control of the country ...

Is that 'total' control?? David - you really should get some help. Or at least hug a puppy. You hurt inside & lash out at the slightest things. I will pray for you.

David Orange
10-07-2009, 11:11 AM
Is that 'total' control??

No, it just means "in control," as "now there is someone actually driving the car, unlike when Bush was asleep at the wheel."

Of course, Bush was only asleep for the important things--like leading up to 9/11. And the economy.

On everything else, he and your right-wing zealots had an SS-like control. Your voting bloc was so unbreakable they could and did do anything they wanted. They kept iron control of the things they were interested in and let everything else go down the tubes.

Now, finally, we have someone really capable of taking care of things.

Actually, the Democrats have the ability to exercise "total" control but you're lucky Obama is so bipartisan. If it were I, and the thoroughly discredited Republicans who have managed to hang on to their offices, handed me a sissified "No" to every option, I would use that solid majority to crush them. I would do them as they did everyone else for the past eight years (and as much as they could during Clinton's term). I would hammer them on every point of their well-earned weakness and the country that had elected me with such a powerful majority would cheer because the republicans deserve long and serious punishment for what they have done.

So you're very lucky Obama will even take Repug concerns into his consideration. He ought to crush you and your party and give you no voice at all except what you earn.

But even in the face of such even-handed treatment, you right-wing fanatics attack him. And it costs him politically because the vast majority of Americans wanted serious action against the repubs.

See, that's how a really great President handles the country and you guys can't understand how good a deal you're getting. You should get bread and water and a blanket on the floor.

David - you really should get some help.

Don't worry about me, John. I haven't been taking guns to town hall meetings. Things are going very nicely for me, thanks.

You hurt inside & lash out at the slightest things. I will pray for you.

Limbaugh won't hear your prayer unless you send him cash. Don't forget that.

David

Hogan
10-07-2009, 11:51 AM
http://cutepuppiespictures.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/there-so-cute-i-wish-i-could-just-hug-them-i-love-there-big-eyes.jpg

For you David - hug 'em! HUG 'EM!

dps
10-12-2009, 08:08 AM
Worldwide Cult of Personality

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. He was nominated two weeks into his presidency.

What did he do to further peace in the world when he was a senator?
Nothing.

What did he do as president to further peace in the world?
Nothing.

So why was he awarded a Nobel Peace Prize?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaBYLSujaZg

Everybody sing along;

Over and over
I tried to prove my love to you
Over and over
What more can I do
Over and over
My friends say I´m a fool
But over and over
I´ll be a fool for you

'Cause you got personality,
Walk, personality
Talk, Personality
Smile, Personality
Charm, personality
Love, personality
And of Cause you´ve got
A great big heart

So over and over
Oh, I´ll be a fool to you
Now over and over
What more can I do ?

Over and over
I said that I loved you
Over and over, honey
Now it´s the truth
Over and over

They still say I´m a fool
But Over and over
I´ll be a fool for you
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David

David Orange
10-12-2009, 12:54 PM
Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. He was nominated two weeks into his presidency.

What did he do to further peace in the world when he was a senator?
Nothing.

What did he do as president to further peace in the world?
Nothing.

Gee...it seems odd to me that someone who has done so much "nothing" has had such a world-shaking impact in such a few short years.

Let's contrast that with YOU doing "nothing" and see what impact you have had on the world....

crickets chirping....

You should read "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" and figure out that "you" are doing "nothing" while Obama, very obviously, is doing quite a lot.

You and John Hogan should just 1) grow up; and 2) get over it; and 3) do something, yourselves, instead of whining about Obama. He's not listening to you, anyway. He's too busy moving the world by "doing nothing."

But if we let your attitude grow to its ultimate extent, maybe you could start a new Aryan Nations, or something. That's certainly the direction you're headed.

David

Ron Tisdale
10-12-2009, 01:15 PM
geez louise...do people LIKE making Jun shut down threads!!!

Cut it out. Hyperbole using racist terms just makes legitimate claims sour in the mouths of people who might otherwise support valid causes.

John and David, you both have my appologies, and I hope you understand that not everyone on the left or who happens to be black feels the things that were just expressed.

Best,
Ron

dps
10-12-2009, 01:48 PM
geez louise...do people LIKE making Jun shut down threads!!!

Cut it out. Hyperbole using racist terms just makes legitimate claims sour in the mouths of people who might otherwise support valid causes.

John and David, you both have my appologies, and I hope you understand that not everyone on the left or who happens to be black feels the things that were just expressed.

Best,
Ron

No need for an apology from you, but thank you just the same.

David

Ron Tisdale
10-12-2009, 01:51 PM
I do think (as Mike Sigman has often noted) that people need to start speaking up about these behaviors. If we won't tolerate that kind of hyperbole on the right, we shouldn't tolerate it on the left either.

Best,
Ron

dps
10-12-2009, 01:52 PM
Gee...it seems odd to me that someone who has done so much "nothing" has had such a world-shaking impact in such a few short years.

Again you have your facts wrong, Obama has been president for less than a year. Be that as it may, what has he done to justify a Nobel Peace Prize. At least with Jimmy Carter and Al Gore they were awarded their prizes after they were out of office.

David

Keith Larman
10-12-2009, 02:03 PM
geez louise...do people LIKE making Jun shut down threads!!!

Cut it out. Hyperbole using racist terms just makes legitimate claims sour in the mouths of people who might otherwise support valid causes.

John and David, you both have my appologies, and I hope you understand that not everyone on the left or who happens to be black feels the things that were just expressed.

Best,
Ron

Hey, Ron (waving in the distance)...

Come on over here, far away from the thread. Rational, reasoned debate has long been dead... I've got a cold martini waitin' for ya over here!

Years ago I jokingly told two friends who were furiously screaming at each other about something political (topic long ago forgotten) and I suggested a solution to the argument -- Kill all extremists! They both said "Yeah!" Pause... "Um, no, wait..."

Of course the solution itself was rather extreme, so... Hmmm, nevermind... Sip. Ah, Sapphire martini, two olives, ice cold and dry... Back to playing soccer with the kid. :D

And Gads, the ignore list is liberating!

Ron Tisdale
10-12-2009, 02:38 PM
That's it...I need a mojito...BADLY!

B,
R (sorry, bad day, one fool thinks its a holiday...yet has done one piece of work that I know of in a year. and then I read this. :eek: Duh! [slaps head] I should have known better)

David Orange
10-12-2009, 03:00 PM
Again you have your facts wrong, Obama has been president for less than a year. Be that as it may, what has he done to justify a Nobel Peace Prize. At least with Jimmy Carter and Al Gore they were awarded their prizes after they were out of office.

You, yourself, included his time as a Senator. That's at least three years....

At least try to understand your own statements.

David Orange
10-12-2009, 03:01 PM
At least with Jimmy Carter and Al Gore they were awarded their prizes after they were out of office.


I wonder why you have never won a Nobel or been asked to select a winner?

You might as well cry because someone is better looking than you. Get over it.

David

dps
10-12-2009, 03:39 PM
You, yourself, included his time as a Senator. That's at least three years....

Okay, in three years + 8 1/2 months. What has he done to receive a Nobel Peace Prize?

Americans who have won Nobel Peace Prizes in the past. (http://nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html)

1919

THOMAS WOODROW WILSON, President of the United States of America. Founder of the Société des Nations (League of Nations)

CHARLES GATES DAWES Vice-President of the United States of America. Chairman of the Allied Reparation Commission. Originator of the Dawes Plan

1929

FRANK BILLINGS KELLOGG Former Secretary of State, Negotiated the Briand-Kellogg Pact

1945

CORDELL HULL Former Secretary of State. One of the initiators of the United Nations.

1953

GEORGE CATLETT MARSHALL , General, President American Red Cross, ex-Secretary of State and of Defense, Delegate to the U.N., Originator of the Marshall Plan

1964

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. , leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, campaigner for civil rights.

The prize was awarded jointly to:

HENRY A. KISSINGER , Secretary of State, State Department, Washington.
for jointly negotiating the Vietnam peace accord in 1973.

1986

ELIE WIESEL , U.S.A., Chairman of 'The President's Commission on the Holocaust'. Author, humanitarian.

David

David Orange
10-12-2009, 03:45 PM
Okay, in three years + 8 1/2 months. What has he done to receive a Nobel Peace Prize as compared to these past winners;

He has reversed our nation's course from yahoo cowboy shoot-em-up tough stand-alone talk and returned us to a rational course of diplomacy among the nations.

In case you haven't gotten it yet, the award is really for all of US who voted for Obama. It's kudos to the American people for putting our foot on the heads of the racists and haters like Limbaugh and Beck and the rude public for which they stand, and lifting up a man who will work through intelligence and mutual respect among the nations of the world.

What has he done? He impressed the committee enough to give it to him.

But you should really tone it down because otherwise, you won't have a leg to stand on when they award one to Sarah Palin. I suggest you hold your breath until they do.

David

dps
10-12-2009, 04:01 PM
What has he done? He impressed the committee enough to give it to him.


They gave him a Nobel Peace Price because he impressed them i.e. his personality.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personality?o=

per⋅son⋅al⋅i⋅ty
  1. the visible aspect of one's character as it impresses others: He has a pleasing personality.

David

David Orange
10-12-2009, 04:02 PM
geez louise...do people LIKE making Jun shut down threads!!!

Cut it out. Hyperbole using racist terms just makes legitimate claims sour in the mouths of people who might otherwise support valid causes.

Ron, I do hate giving you heartburn but I'm afraid it may happen from time to time.

I grew up in the time of Whites Only signs all over Birmingham and the days of the police dogs and firehoses turned on little kids in their Sunday best. My father was the last person ever to arrest Martin Luther King and he also investigated some of the most heinous murders of the civil rights era. I grew up among the deputies working those cases. I have a realistic attitude about racism coming from both white and black sides. It's not a pleasant topic, but this thread was never meant to be pleasant. Like a lot of other threads lately, it's presented from the perspective that Obama must be defeated for this country to "get back" to where it is supposed to be--which is Limbaugh's dream land of "The Way Things Ought to Be". Which is, a white supremacist dream land.

You may not know that when the firehoses and police dogs came out in 1963, it was not even the legitimate government of Birmingham that did it. We had had an election to oust the old City Commission and replace it with a Mayor/Council government but when the change was supposed to take place, the legally ousted Commission, including Public Safety Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor, simply refused to leave office and the legitimate Mayor and City Council had to take up offices on the other end of the hall from them. For awhile, we literally had two governments running the city and the police and fire departments remained loyal to the ousted commission.

Now we have something like that on a national scale. The old, government has been voted out and a new government has been fairly voted in. But a certain segment of the population refuses to accept any legitimacy in the fairly elected President. It's not that they don't like him: they're trying to destroy him and since he became a front runner, the primary opposition has been that he is black. The attitudes we see are exactly those of an angry white populace that declares that their children will not go to school with black children (not what they call them) and that they, themselves will not ride on a transit bus with black people (again...not what they call them).

When I lived in Shizuoka, the part of town I was in had semi-open sewage ditches running beside the streets and you could often smell a quite distinctive odor in the area. No one had to ask what it was, but in these current diatribes against the fairly elected President, I know what the smell is because I grew up with it in Birmingham. We have covered sewers in the US, for the most part, but the scent of a racist rises through.

I just have to call 'em like they are. Otherwise, they'll convince themselves that no one can tell what they're about.

David

David Orange
10-12-2009, 04:05 PM
They gave him a Nobel Peace Price because he impressed them i.e. his personality.

It's a shame this eats at you so badly. They gave it to him because he took a much more AMERICAN course than we have followed for the past eight years. They gave it to him because he gave back to the world the America they all used to admire.

Maybe if you'd get off this hate obsession, you could do something worthy enough to get a prize for. It's about time for County Fairs to start, isn't it? Maybe you could start with the Ring Toss or throwing baseballs at milk bottles....

David

lbb
10-13-2009, 07:40 AM
Can we create a forum called Endless Repetitive Battle of the Davids and maybe leave some room in this forum for others?

Ron Tisdale
10-13-2009, 07:49 AM
Do you have any evidence that either John Hogan or David Skaggs support the bad things that happened then? If not, drop the racist appellation please. Just because some portion of the country / right wing / psudo conservative group opposes Obama because of his race, it does NOT mean that anyone who supports what they label as conservative causes is racist. People can disagree about policies and the man himself, without being racist. Equating what happened in 1963 with *everyone* who is conservative is obnoxious, rude, and uncalled for. It weakens legitimate complaints. It destroys civil communication. And it further polarizes Americans.

Best,
Ron (are you trying to give me a civil rights lesson? Might as well try to teach your grandma to suck eggs)

Ron, I do hate giving you heartburn but I'm afraid it may happen from time to time.

I grew up in the time of Whites Only signs all over Birmingham and the days of the police dogs and firehoses turned on little kids in their Sunday best. My father was the last person ever to arrest Martin Luther King and he also investigated some of the most heinous murders of the civil rights era. I grew up among the deputies working those cases. I have a realistic attitude about racism coming from both white and black sides. It's not a pleasant topic, but this thread was never meant to be pleasant. Like a lot of other threads lately, it's presented from the perspective that Obama must be defeated for this country to "get back" to where it is supposed to be--which is Limbaugh's dream land of "The Way Things Ought to Be". Which is, a white supremacist dream land.

You may not know that when the firehoses and police dogs came out in 1963, it was not even the legitimate government of Birmingham that did it. We had had an election to oust the old City Commission and replace it with a Mayor/Council government but when the change was supposed to take place, the legally ousted Commission, including Public Safety Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor, simply refused to leave office and the legitimate Mayor and City Council had to take up offices on the other end of the hall from them. For awhile, we literally had two governments running the city and the police and fire departments remained loyal to the ousted commission.

Now we have something like that on a national scale. The old, government has been voted out and a new government has been fairly voted in. But a certain segment of the population refuses to accept any legitimacy in the fairly elected President. It's not that they don't like him: they're trying to destroy him and since he became a front runner, the primary opposition has been that he is black. The attitudes we see are exactly those of an angry white populace that declares that their children will not go to school with black children (not what they call them) and that they, themselves will not ride on a transit bus with black people (again...not what they call them).

When I lived in Shizuoka, the part of town I was in had semi-open sewage ditches running beside the streets and you could often smell a quite distinctive odor in the area. No one had to ask what it was, but in these current diatribes against the fairly elected President, I know what the smell is because I grew up with it in Birmingham. We have covered sewers in the US, for the most part, but the scent of a racist rises through.

I just have to call 'em like they are. Otherwise, they'll convince themselves that no one can tell what they're about.

David

David Orange
10-13-2009, 10:42 AM
Do you have any evidence that either John Hogan or David Skaggs support the bad things that happened then?

Ron, I only got back on this thread because you responded.

No, I don't have "evidence" that David and John support what happened in '63. Except that the wagon they're riding on is built on that very chassis. Like someone else said on another thread -- the one about Ron Paul--"If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas."

I have a good friend who supports Ron Paul and assures me that he is not racist, but when you look behind him, why is there such a big crowd of racists supporting him? And why the many reports of Paul himself making various racist statements such as (paraph) "I have no doubt that 90 to 95 percent of black men in DC are criminals."?

The cons are so fond of saying, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...." even as they eat the fruit of an Aryan Nations plant.

So the lesson for me is that "the bad things that happened then (1963)" didn't stop happening in 1963. That whole movement just took on protective coloring to blend into the background of a more civil United States. They took on coded language and went underground until Rush Limbaugh made it "okay" again to come out and air those racist attitudes, albeit in "coded" language.

The Limbaughs and Becks are the chassis makers for the wagon David Skaggs is riding on this one. The "tea bag" movement, likewise, is stirred up by the most serious right-wingers, and at its most extreme end, the right wing is deadly seriously racist.

So not everyone who supports these things is motivated by Obama's race, but they are responding to and getting riled up about the agitation that comes from a very small racist group. My big point is for people to recognize that and take responsibility for supporting it.

Just because some portion of the country / right wing / psudo conservative group opposes Obama because of his race, it does NOT mean that anyone who supports what they label as conservative causes is racist.

True...but when you buy flowers from a guy at a freeway interchange, you're likely supporting Reverend Moon. And when you get on the Tea Party bandwagon, you're really supporting the underlying motivations and giving power to the fundamentally racist people and groups that want nothing more than to destroy Obama.

Of course, they did pretty much exactly the same thing to Clinton when he got in office.

It's really sad, too, that with so much for the President to deal with after the eight disastrous years we just endured, these yahoos are determined to saddle him with as much public unrest as they can generate. Isn't that called sedition? It certainly amounts to it. And so I protest those who try to foment that dissatisfaction. Like jihadis who are happy to see any country plunge into civil war because they can deal better with chaos than with a stable society, these racists and severe right-wingers would rather see Obama fail.

Did I say they would "rather" see him fail?

For them, there is no positive alternative: for them, Obama must fail and if the country plunges into civil war because of it, they are okay with it because they are armed heavily and have just been waiting for an excuse to start shooting people.

People can disagree about policies and the man himself, without being racist.

I certainly agree. I just don't think we've seen it. Or seldom. Marc Abrams shows a level-headed approach. Of course, Obama isn't perfect. Of course, it would be crazy to "worship" him. But it's crazier to try to bring down your own President when your own job and home and the safety of your family literally depends on his success.

Of course, people like Limbaugh don't really have families....

Equating what happened in 1963 with *everyone* who is conservative is obnoxious, rude, and uncalled for.

And, of course, I haven't done that. But a lot of the protest (I'd say the bulk of it) is literally the same as the visceral disgust with which so many white people viewed the prospect of having black people sit down beside them at the Woolworth's lunch counter and eat a meal. The idea that they would be eating from a plate and using a fork that a black person might have used a little earlier just drove them mad. And it was the same when they thought of letting their children attend school with black children.

And now that the President is black...well, those people are figuratively puking their guts out and that's what's at the base of the bulk of the protests and snarky internet posts.

It weakens legitimate complaints. It destroys civil communication.

Yeah...but when the communication starts out as an uncivil and unfair and blatantly racist attack, you're not going to be able to elevate it with reason or niceties. You just have to label it as what it is. You have to treat it like an infection and apply the poison that will kill the infection. Not pleasant, but often necessary for the survival of the society.

And it further polarizes Americans.

I just don't think that can be done, Ron. We've had about three years of hysterical and hypocritical attacks on Obama and those attackers have constantly modified and disguised their form and stated rationale. They're seriously dug in and seriously working to weaken the one person elected to clear up the rubble remaining from the tragic Bush years. I just think that whenever that stuff rears its head, it's necessary to smack it with a bokken.

(are you trying to give me a civil rights lesson? ...)

Let's leave Granny out of it, okay?

What I'm trying to give is not a lesson on civil rights but a lesson on Birmingham.

The citizens of Birmingham (majority white at the time) voted to oust the racist City Commission primarily because they understood that the racism was seriously hurting the city. And the worst damage to our reputation came when the ousted government refused to admit that they had lost and accept the will of the people to go in a new direction.

Just so in 2009, the ousted group refuses to accept that it was the American people who ousted them. They refuse to accept the legitimacy of the vote and of the man and they are rousing the rabble and the lowest of IQs to support them. It's vital that we not allow them to do what the ousted Birmingham City Commission did in 1963 and stir the kind of hate and unrest that led to dogs and firehoses turned on little kids in their church clothes. It's vital that we not let them confuse the facts and not let them get away with misrepresenting the truth. And we must not let them support a racist agenda simply because they haven't thought about it deeply enough to recognize that it is a racist wagon and jump the heck off.

Thanks for your efforts.

David

mathewjgano
10-13-2009, 02:40 PM
As soon as I heard Obama was given the Peace Prize the first thing that came to mind was how much of a fire storm this would cause among the talk-radio fans. I don't know the exact reasoning behind it, but it seems like much of the criterion is about being in the right place at the right time anyway: there are many people who work just as hard, if not harder, than many of the people who have received the Prize in the past. I mean, what did Kissinger do that was so great regarding the Vietnam war? What was there for him to negotiate? "If we leave will you promise to stop shooting at us?" Perhaps I'm missing some crucial piece of that puzzle, but I'm really curious how that negotiation could be described as very profound. If anything it seems quite like Obama's situation: at the end of an incredibly unpopular period of time a guy comes into the spotlight and is part of the change. In this sense they're both more emblematic of peaceful change than the actual instruments themselves...aren't they? Nothing against either man intended, but it does seem a little more like they got their nominations based on hopes for the future than for the realities of the present.
At any rate, again, as regards personality, my opinion is that Bush "Dubyah" was only elected because of his personality (indeed all president's pretty much are and have been for years). I was talking to my friends about this same kind of thing before Bush bacame so unpopular. Anyone who liked Bush because he was a "reg'ler" guy who was tough on "terr'r" and might now be complaining about Obama's "cult of personality" seems blindly partisan to me. More and more I come to the strong opinion that the two party system should be outlawed. It sets the stage for polemic vitriol before anyone even steps into the spotlight.
Is Obama popular for arbitrary reasons? In many cases, yes. He's the first African American president, he can at least speak well, and he comes on the heels of a man who many consider to be the worst president in history. Those aren't reasons to elect someone. Irrational to put so much hope in one man? Definately...particularly given our two-party system where more energy is spent hating the other guy than in logical application of the mind. Who's to blame? I suppose it's too many people to effectively worry about blame at all. What's left to do after we forget about casting more aspersions into the giant hay stack? Start digging for that damned needle...and we're going to have to work together to do it. It's one helluva big pile, and like many hay stacks left unchecked, all it takes is a little spark to ignite that exothermic reaction found in the center of that rotting pile that is our political system.
Rereading that I'm struck by how dramatic it all sounds...maybe I should go into politics...or talk radio.
...and not to be entirely negative I'd just like to go off-topic and add that my son is fricken awesome.
...not sure what this post is worth, but there it is.
My best wishes to you all.
Over and out.

C. David Henderson
10-13-2009, 03:30 PM
Can we create a forum called Endless Repetitive Battle of the Davids and maybe leave some room in this forum for others?

But I don' wanna.

The premise of this thread appears to be the classic political approach -- attack the guy's strength and make it a liability.

FWIW

dps
10-13-2009, 06:42 PM
But I don' wanna.

The premise of this thread appears to be the classic political approach -- attack the guy's strength and make it a liability.

FWIW

A serious question.
What is his strength?

David

lbb
10-13-2009, 07:43 PM
Both of you go to perdition and take David Orange with you. You're stinkin' up the joint.

dps
10-13-2009, 11:12 PM
I mean, what did Kissinger do that was so great regarding the Vietnam war? What was there for him to negotiate? "If we leave will you promise to stop shooting at us?" Perhaps I'm missing some crucial piece of that puzzle, but I'm really curious how that negotiation could be described as very profound.

A brief history lesson;

We first got involved in Vietnam in 1950 under President Harry Truman. At the time the French were fighting in Indochina (Vietnam ) to keep it as a colony. President Truman sent military advisers and equipment to help the French.

In 1956 the French had completely withdrawn from Vietnam and President Eisenhower increased the amount of equipment and military advisers to aid the South Vietnamese government.

President Kennedy increased the number of military advisers after 1960.

In 1965 President Johnson sent over combat troops to fight. The number of troops escalated under President Johnson to a peak of 540,000 in December 1968.

Under President Nixon the number of American soldiers fighting in Vietnam were reduced until a cease fire was negotiated in 1973.

Henry Kissinger was the person who negotiated the cease fires with North Vietnam in January of 1973. All American troops were withdrawn by March 1973.

In December of 1973 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the cease fires.

There were 3 to 4 million Vietnamese from both sides, 1.5 to 2 million Laotians and Cambodians who died during the war.

There were 58,228 American soldiers and civilians who died in Vietnam, 303,635 wounded, and 1,740 missing in action.

His negotiating an end to the war was profound.

David

Reference was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search

Marc Abrams
10-14-2009, 08:08 AM
A brief history lesson;

We first got involved in Vietnam in 1950 under President Harry Truman. At the time the French were fighting in Indochina (Vietnam ) to keep it as a colony. President Truman sent military advisers and equipment to help the French.

In 1956 the French had completely withdrawn from Vietnam and President Eisenhower increased the amount of equipment and military advisers to aid the South Vietnamese government.

President Kennedy increased the number of military advisers after 1960.

In 1965 President Johnson sent over combat troops to fight. The number of troops escalated under President Johnson to a peak of 540,000 in December 1968.

Under President Nixon the number of American soldiers fighting in Vietnam were reduced until a cease fire was negotiated in 1973.

Henry Kissinger was the person who negotiated the cease fires with North Vietnam in January of 1973. All American troops were withdrawn by March 1973.

In December of 1973 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the cease fires.

There were 3 to 4 million Vietnamese from both sides, 1.5 to 2 million Laotians and Cambodians who died during the war.

There were 58,228 American soldiers and civilians who died in Vietnam, 303,635 wounded, and 1,740 missing in action.

His negotiating an end to the war was profound.

David

Reference was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search

David:

You missed some VERY IMPORTANT history.

During WWII, we promised Ho Chi Minh that if he fought against the Japanese, we would support Vietnam's independence from France. We supported, helped and trained his fighters. Obviously, we did not honor our promise at the end of WWII. France played upon our fears of Communism so that they could hold onto their collapsing "empire." They used that fear to sucker us in to help them out, as we betrayed the people of Vietnam. They used that fear to leave us there, while they conveniently returned to the "Continent."

It was our failure to honor our promises, followed-up by our trust of France, compounded by our fear of Communism that created that quagmire that sucked so many lives to useless deaths. We were very fortunate that Henry Kissinger was able to be realistic enough to finally get us out of there! He truly deserved the Nobel Peace Prize for those efforts.

Marc Abrams

dps
10-14-2009, 08:54 AM
Alfred Nobel intended the Peace Prize for the person who:

" during the preceding year [...] shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_peace_prize

If it wasn't his personality, what did Obama do the preceding year prior to his nomination for the Peace Prize to even be nominated let alone win.

David

C. David Henderson
10-14-2009, 09:34 AM
Dear Mary,

It appears I offended you; I'm not sure why, but I apologize.

Dear David (Skaggs),

Your serious question led me to think more about what I wanted to say; thanks.

After meeting President Roosevelt for the first time, O.W. Holmes reportedly adjudged he had "a second class intellect, but a first-class temperament."

I believe it was David Brooks who suggested, before Obama's inauguration, that he might have both a first-class intellect and temperament. I think its too soon to tell whether that's apt, but it's the public image of Obama as a person who impresses and, yes, as the first African-American President, inspires that is one of his political strengths.

It's that public image and that quality which Michael Steele was reframing when he chided the Nobel committee for being swayed by the President's "star power." Irrespective of whether Steele has a valid point in saying Obama hasn't accomplished enough to deserve the award, a point on which the President may largely agree, this rhetorical flourish was not simply an off-hand comment. It looks like a variant of the "celebrity" ad campaign during the election, and it illustrates one of the methods by which politics is practiced in this Country.

In my opinion, similarly, the "cult of personality" meme provides a clever way of subverting or inverting Obama's public image as an inspirational and would-be transformational figure:

It attacks the same underlying political strength; it frames the issue in a way that puts Obama's supporters on defense; and it articulates with other emergent right-wing themes, including Obama the outsider and Obama the radical. Nor does it have to be utterly convincing to be politically useful.

Whether a reframing like this ultimately will stick, in my view, depends largely on events that have not yet occurred. For example, but for subsequent events, President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" moment would not have morphed into an ironic icon of the Left's subversion of his image from the "CEO president" into one of incompetence.

YMMV

Respectfully,

cdh

mathewjgano
10-15-2009, 01:25 AM
A brief history lesson;


I'm pretty familiar with the basic chronology you provided and it says almost nothing about what Kissinger negotiated. Also, let's not forget the fact that by the time peace was negotiated with the US of A, the Vietnam war was incredibly unpopular.
Also from wikipedia:
Along with North Vietnamese Politburo Member Le Duc Tho, Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, 1973, for their work in negotiating the ceasefires contained in the Paris Peace Accords on "Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam," signed the January previous.[10] Tho rejected the award, telling Kissinger that peace had not been really restored in South Vietnam.[14] Kissinger wrote to the Nobel Committee that he accepted the award "with humility." [15][16] The conflict continued until an invasion of the South by the North Vietnamese Army resulted in a North Vietnamese victory in 1975 and the subsequent progression of the Pathet Lao in Laos towards figurehead status, and the rise of the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Kissinger then returned the money portion of the Nobel Prize, although the Nobel committee returned it back to him.
Considering he was also attributed as having a role in the indescriminant bombings of Cambodia (assuming I read it correctly), I have to wonder a little about the guy. Still, I'll do some more reading now that the subject has come up.
For what it's worth, I've been to Cambodia and seen some of the lasting results from operation menu...even have a picture with me standing next to a 500lbs bomb marked USA. So here's a guy who it seems both supported the muder (my opinion of course) of random people and fought for peace at the same time and he's a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Add to that the omission of the Mahatma and I think the Prize takes on less austere tones.
...Although again, I am admittedly ignorant of quite a lot concerning these things.
FWIW.
Take care,
Matt

Mike Sigman
10-15-2009, 06:21 PM
I think even Obama doesn't really understand how ultimately embarrassing this gratuitous liberal accolade is, but some people do. In fact, a number of liberal media outlets curtailed their coverage of the "honour" because it too obviously shows the thinness of the self-absorption veneer of Obama and fawning Children's Crusaders. But try this comment via the Telegraph:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100013494/barack-obama-oh-did-i-mention-i-won-the-nobel-prize/

Mike Sigman
10-15-2009, 06:28 PM
It attacks the same underlying political strength; it frames the issue in a way that puts Obama's supporters on defense; ... Oh stoppit.... an embarrassing moment like the awarding of a "Nobel Peace Prize" to an empty vessel speaks nothing bad about "the other side". Let's face it... the award was a joke.

Go back an look at the history of the Nobel Peace Prize and remember that the "Nobel Prize" in literature, physics, mathematics, etc., is a serious prize and is done by the Swedes. The "Nobel Peace Prize" is something a few idiots in Norway do, not the Swedes. Historically, the Norwegians gave the Nobel Peace Prize even to the Nazis in order to do the liberal "let's have peace and love in the world" thing. Note that there was about a 3-year hiatus in the Nobel Peace Prize during the early 1940's.... that's because the Nazis occupied Norway at that time. You'd think the Norwegians would be embarrassed by what clowns they are, but they're not. May they be occupied again; the first time didn't take... it didn't affect the foolish awarding of Alfred Nobel's money.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Voitokas
10-15-2009, 07:11 PM
You'd think the Norwegians would be embarrassed by what clowns they are, but they're not. May they be occupied again; the first time didn't take...:straightf

C. David Henderson
10-15-2009, 11:19 PM
Hi Mike.

That seemed taken out of context, but it's ultimately just a difference of opinion, yes?

Take care.

David Orange
10-16-2009, 08:26 PM
...it's ultimately just a difference of opinion, yes?

Maybe...but I just find it oddd....or maybe a little something more than just odd...when so many people are so vehement that Obama has done nothing...yet the same people want to convince everyone that....he's....ruining....the country????

You say you can't have it both ways....but some people seem more than able to have it any way that suits their agenda.

Of course, the big game is to foist off the tragic failures, and far worse, the malevolent manipulations of the past eight years as now being all the fault of Obama...who, they tell us, has done nothing.

Hate the democrats, hate the Republicans all you want, but Obama is a person and he's bending over backward to be fair to all sides--including those whose only side is "NO" and hate and tin-hat howling. We have to at least give him a chance. The fate of the nation is at stake, after all.

Sad, really.

David

MM
10-22-2009, 07:46 AM
Maybe...but I just find it oddd....or maybe a little something more than just odd...when so many people are so vehement that Obama has done nothing...yet the same people want to convince everyone that....he's....ruining....the country????

You say you can't have it both ways....but some people seem more than able to have it any way that suits their agenda.

Of course, the big game is to foist off the tragic failures, and far worse, the malevolent manipulations of the past eight years as now being all the fault of Obama...who, they tell us, has done nothing.

Hate the democrats, hate the Republicans all you want, but Obama is a person and he's bending over backward to be fair to all sides--including those whose only side is "NO" and hate and tin-hat howling. We have to at least give him a chance. The fate of the nation is at stake, after all.

Sad, really.

David

I think we're in a period of time when a lot of people have stopped liking either party. Look at this trend for Obama. I only use him because it's the latest news feed. Congress has the exact same problem.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

That's a nasty downward spiral. The downward trend started with Congress when Bush was in office.

Throw in all this spending of money. Yeah, the first one started at the end of Bush's time, but Obama has kept the trend going and added even more spending.

According to here, that spending hasn't helped us.
http://www.republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=150826

I don't even care to research the numbers. The Republicans under Bush at the end were just as bad. It's the reason a good bit of their own party didn't vote for them.

I don't trust either party anymore. And a lot of people I know and talk to feel the same way.

David Orange
10-22-2009, 11:41 AM
I think we're in a period of time when a lot of people have stopped liking either party. Look at this trend for Obama. I only use him because it's the latest news feed. Congress has the exact same problem.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

That's a nasty downward spiral. The downward trend started with Congress when Bush was in office.

I understand your feelings on this Mark, but Obama is what we have now. He has the tremendous job of cleaning up an unbelievable mess--a tragic mess that ended up with millions of Americans seriously believing that Sarah Palin was fit to govern this entire country!!!:crazy:

I've been saying for years that the two parties are like sock puppets with the super rich having one hand in each of them and putting on a show for the rest of us.

HOWEVER, don't we have to do something? Someone has to run the government and right now i't's Obama's job. So why is everyone trying to ride his back and drag him down while he's trying to recusitate the economy that Bush et al ruined, trying to get our men out of a pointless war that Bush started and got us mired in, trying to win a war that George Bush started and then turned his back on, just as GHW Bush did after the Soviets left. Does anyone think all that piling on will help him do a better job?

Limbaugh out and out said "I hope he fails," and that's the kind of nutso attitude that has been destroying this country since Nixon was forced out of office for his crimes.

Ever since then, the Republicans have been seeking revenge and have shown a sharp willingness to shut down and swamp the nation to achieve that end.

Oh, that and a lot of smoke screen to cover the getaway of GW Bush, Cheney and their cronies from the scene of their crimes and incompetence, leaving the country virtually destroyed.

The fact is, Obama must do whatever is to be done. No one else may. It's his job. And there's no question he's doing 1000 times better than GW.

The alternative?

Civil war? Secession? Assassination?

There simply isn't an alternative for intelligent people. Hang together of hang separately. The best thing we could do to start is put Limbaugh in prison and let Glen Beck be his roomie. Shut down their sedition and get on with repairing the wreck that Bush caused. The eight years behind us were disastrous. It's going to take tremendous work to make the next four years productive and no amount of carping will help that.

Best to you.

David

Mike Sigman
10-22-2009, 01:54 PM
So why is everyone trying to ride his back and drag him down while he's trying to recusitate the economy that Bush et al ruined,Bush didn't create the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. That was done by Democrats who used a manipulation of parliamentary rules to block oversight and regulation of FannieMae and FreddyMac. Even some Dems have admitted that publicly, David, including one of your own Alabama representatives.

To say "well, since the Dems pulled that unethical stunt while Bush was president, it's Bush's fault" is simply dishonest. And that's the way I look at your statement. "Subprime mortgages" are mortgages given to people who really don't qualify for mortgages. The Dems put in rules saying that if Banks did NOT make such high-risk loans, the Dems would block them from doing business in other places. Let's be fair about this. At least give some lip-service to the idea that the "subprime mortgage meltdown" was caused by subprime mortgages, not Bush.

I also find it sort of duplicitous for Dems like Obama to talk about the "deficit" without mentioning that Obama voted yes on every costly item that led to the deficit. Of course, you may think it's appropriate to play silly games with honesty, but I don't.

Don't get me wrong.... I didn't support Bush. But at least with him the rumours about him being a crook are far different than listening to reasons why Obama's documented lies, changes in campaign promises, etc., are different matters and a little crookedness is for the good of the country. Why, for instance, did Obama not fund the office that oversees union administrators/officials' expenses so that they could escape scrutiny? Tell me one honest reason.

Mike

David Orange
10-22-2009, 02:16 PM
Bush didn't create the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. That was done by Democrats who used a manipulation of parliamentary rules to block oversight and regulation of FannieMae and FreddyMac.

No. It was caused by making CDOs out of the millions of subprime mortgages sold by brokers and selling those CDOs into the investment and retirement funds of the whole country--in other words, by the big banks and investment houses: the super wealthy who got all the tax cuts of 2000.

The subprime mess, further, was only a fraction of the whole meltdown and Bush tax policies and war waste were at the heart of it.

To say "well, since the Dems pulled that unethical stunt while Bush was president, it's Bush's fault" is simply dishonest.

Who said it? I didn't.

At least give some lip-service to the idea that the "subprime mortgage meltdown" was caused by subprime mortgages, not Bush.

The subprime mortgages were just one tool used by the super rich to suck more money out of the middle class. It was neither the Dems nor those nefarious poor people trying to buy a house who caused it.

I also find it sort of duplicitous for Dems like Obama to talk about the "deficit" without mentioning that Obama voted yes on every costly item that led to the deficit.

Yeah...first, I don't hear dems talking about the deficit. It's the republicans who pumped up all manner of invisible spending under Bush (back in the days when I was shouting about "the burden of debt on our children") and who now are screaming like teenaged girls while Obama tries to drag the economy out of the bonfire Bush built for his weinie roast.

Of course, you may think it's appropriate to play silly games with honesty, but I don't.

Is that right?

Why don't you get Jun to run a poll of readers and ask whether Mike Sigman plays silly games with honesty?

Maybe you could learn something from the response.

David

David Orange
10-22-2009, 02:20 PM
Bush didn't create the sub-prime mortgage meltdown.

Regardless of who you think caused it, it is Obama's job to fix it. Unless you guys are able to foment an actual revolution in this country, it's going to remain his responsibility and no one else's.

And he has to clean up the ungodly mess of two wars that Bush has allowed to deteriorate into chaos: one by sheer incompetence and waste paid to cronies, the other by sheer neglect, allowing the enemy to rebuild and entrench.

If America is going to come out of this stupid situation on top, it has to be with Obama in charge. So why are you riding his back and trying to make it impossible for him to achieve it?

David

Mike Sigman
10-22-2009, 02:27 PM
Why don't you get Jun to run a poll of readers and ask whether Mike Sigman plays silly games with honesty?

Maybe you could learn something from the response.
Tsk. Such a hater, David.:rolleyes:

David Orange
10-22-2009, 02:35 PM
Tsk. Such a hater, David.:rolleyes:

Why would it be "hate" for you to find out?

Don't you find it odd that your assumption is that if you find out what people think about you, it amounts to hate?

Why do you have that feeling?

David

akiy
10-22-2009, 02:45 PM
Thread closed.

-- Jun