He bit! Obama took the bait!


Recommended Posts

Adam, I think it's just meant to present the image of a beefy bird on steroids..

Umm JT don't you think I know that.

I'm just being as programmed and shallow about almost every political issue as she is.

She has a good mathematical mind.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you look at the facts, there never was, and there likely never will be, any serious impeachment case brought up against Obama. That there is, is just wishful thinking. Really what he's doing is [macho posturing and sticking his tongue out at his critics]...

This is the standard mainstream storyline and serves those who buy into the propaganda dichotomy.

Ra ra ra! Zis boom ba!

We're Number One! We're Number One! We're Number One! We're Number One! We're Number One!

Let's see if your story holds.

But like I said, I'm looking at something else, something that controls the dichotomy.

I think Obama screwed up on that level and runs the risk of losing control of the narrative, to use his kind of language. What happens after that can go several ways (impeachment being one), but, unless he starts re-focusing on the correct persuasion elements real fast, it will not be under his control anymore.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record, the following might surprise folks. (I know for a fact it does not fit the worldview of Naomi. :smile: )

I am not rooting for Obama to be impeached, nor have I ever done so. Well... maybe I have daydreamed a little... :smile: But on a serious note, I am not in favor. The next 2 years under him are going to suck big-time, but an impeachment would not be good for the country. (Besides, what in hell would we do with Biden? :) )

I think a lot in terms of core storylines, archetypes, and so on that operate as mental grooves in the mainstream consciousness. On that level, the very fact they we elected--then reelected--a black president shifted the mental grooves on the black issue in the right direction. If Obama gets impeached, I believe that shift will become undone.

I know just as an historical thing, I would hate the idea that, after all the blacks suffered here in the USA, the first black president got impeached.

America is strong enough to withstand his awful policies and governing style. Also, unless the Republicans manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, there will be time and willingness to undo most of the mess (presuming there will be a growing libertarian influence).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well demmit next time elect someone like Thomas Sowell!

Jules,

Herman Cain, Allen West, Tim Scott, hell, I even like Mia Love.

Any one of those would have done a better job of administering the American federal government than Obama.

And I'm probably missing some very good people if the criteria is black, constitutional and Objectivism/libertarian-friendly.

Just because I don't support impeaching Obama doesn't mean I deny there's a case to be made for impeachment. There are some very serious legal minds going after him with correct legal arguments and I expect this chorus to grow if (probably when) the Republicans take the Senate. That could become a real danger for Obama at the start of next year when everybody gets sworn in. The issue for me is not the legality, though, it's the core story of the country.

In a funny way, I'm not thinking like I normally do, which is to keep things to the individual. I'm thinking more collectively (gasp! :smile: ) here by acknowledging what Obama symbolizes for the black issue.

Also, even though practical should not enter into thinking about legal infringements of this magnitude, I believe the impeachment of the first black president would be far more trouble with far worse political fallout for freedom than it would be worth.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well demmit next time elect someone like Thomas Sowell!

Jules,

Herman Cain, Allen West, Tim Scott, hell, I even like Mia Love.

Any one of those would have done a better job of administering the American federal government than Obama.

And I'm probably missing some very good people if the criteria is black, constitutional and Objectivism/libertarian-friendly.

Just because I don't support impeaching Obama doesn't mean I deny there's a case to be made for impeachment. There are some very serious legal minds going after him with correct legal arguments and I expect this chorus to grow if (probably when) the Republicans take the Senate. That could become a real danger for Obama at the start of next year when everybody gets sworn in. The issue for me is not the legality, though, it's the core story of the country.

In a funny way, I'm not thinking like I normally do, which is to keep things to the individual. I'm thinking more collectively (gasp! :smile: ) here by acknowledging what Obama symbolizes for the black issue.

Also, even though practical should not enter into thinking about legal infringements of this magnitude, I believe the impeachment of the first black president would be far more trouble with far worse political fallout for freedom than it would be worth.

Michael

Most likely the Republican will hold off on trying to remove our elected God-King from office and the ground that blow back and turnabout can happen. By next year Lord Obama is such a lame duck one might as well leave him to decompose in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a story line ... Lois "the liar" Lerner facing the rest of her miserable life in a regular Federal prison, cuts a deal.

The prosecutor goes to key elements in the Democratic Party and they meet with O'bama, like Goldwater, Baker and the boys did with Nixon.

O'bama, after getting a commitment from "Banky Moon" that he will make O'bama the head of the UN.

Biden, as O'bama announces that he is leaving immediately to take the UN job, has a heart attack as O'bama leaves for Zurich.

Guess who becomes President...lol

The drunk!

A perfect climax to statism...

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She may face prosecution after the Obama Administration is out of office. This Department of Justice rots from the head.

--Brant

Representative Gowdy wants Congress to appoint a Special Prosecutor.

Would not need the Justice Department...

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/23/rep-gowdy-congress-must-appoint-special-prosecutor-investigate-irs-scandal

Seems like Ed Rogers agrees with you. In a May 2013 column.

This administration’s management of the Obama Internal Revenue Service scandal so far consists of a slow-walking, rolling disclosure of facts; equal parts equivocation, amnesia and indignation from IRS witnesses; deer-in-the-headlights non-responses by the White House press secretary; parsed, lawyerly statements from the president himself; and now one of the central key players is taking the Fifth. And all this comes from what the president claimed would be the “most transparent administration ever…”

If we give the president the benefit of the doubt and assume he knows the truth is going to come out, the question remains: Does the administration appoint the special prosecutor sooner or later? The calculus inside the White House is how to best protect the president’s political interests. They have two options. They could delay the appointment and let more of the story develop, weather the ugly piecemeal disclosures, give the players time to get their stories straight and lawyer-up and hope Republicans continue their overreach, giving the whole affair a nutty partisan patina. Or, they could accelerate the appointment of a special prosecutor, thereby slowing the congressional inquiries and giving Jay Carney some relief from his daily embarrassing routine by supplying him with the escape hatch of not being allowed to comment on matters associated with the special prosecutor’s ongoing investigation. Not to mention, the White House all the while could blast the appointed counsel as a partisan ideologue à la the hatchet job that was done on Ken Starr.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/05/22/the-insiders-a-special-prosecutor-in-the-irs-matter-is-inevitable/

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will be no removal of Obama from office for the same reason Clinton remained in power and for the same reason there has not been a rollback in government size in modern times. The state is a monopoly on force, the two-party system is a monopoly on choice, and the role of elected officials is to keep tax loot, federal contracts, and special privileges flowing in a steady stream to the elite or--for those who are shocked by that word--we'll use Rand's phrase, "pressure groups."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will be no removal of Obama from office for the same reason Clinton remained in power and for the same reason there has not been a rollback in government size in modern times. The state is a monopoly on force, the two-party system is a monopoly on choice, and the role of elected officials is to keep tax loot, federal contracts, and special privileges flowing in a steady stream to the elite or--for those who are shocked by that word--we'll use Rand's phrase, "pressure groups."

Wow you could form your own secular doomsday cult on that one babes!

And your suggestion to correct this is....:

1)____________________

2)____________________

3)____________________

Let's just start with three (3), shall we?

Go...

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He bit!

Holy shit! He bit!

By responding personally and taunting his critics, Obama has shown vulnerability to the unconscious mind of normal people. He screwed up.

So long as he did not mention impeachment, being sued, etc., and let his people take care of it, this was an affair of the fringe in the mainstream mind. Politics as usual. People who don't like Obama want to get rid of him. What else is new?

Now that he has spoken about it, though, he bestowed upon it mainstream legitimacy.

That's a good point, Michael.

What we call "news" is all about directed attention. Even just an acknowledgment of existence by a person in the public eye automatically directs attention to that which they had acknowledged.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will be no removal of Obama from office for the same reason Clinton remained in power and for the same reason there has not been a rollback in government size in modern times. The state is a monopoly on force, the two-party system is a monopoly on choice, and the role of elected officials is to keep tax loot, federal contracts, and special privileges flowing in a steady stream to the elite or--for those who are shocked by that word--we'll use Rand's phrase, "pressure groups."

Wow you could form your own secular doomsday cult on that one babes!

And your suggestion to correct this is....:

1)____________________

2)____________________

3)____________________

Let's just start with three (3), shall we?

Go...

A...

Two hundred years of compromises, betrayals, and surrenders are not corrected 1, 2, 3. But if a stand-on-one-foot explanation is what you want, a fundamental reversal in the American political structure will come only after a philosophical revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it'll be an evolution, not revolution. Or, evolution to the revolution. We can posit the revolution started with Ayn Rand, but the philosophy needs to seriously evolve some more. Right now it's half dressed and not ready to party. Libertarians do a pre-Rand on all this, but they've got the same problem from where they are and even fewer clothes on. Brains but little gravitas. Conservatives have the gravitas, but no brains. Progressives don't give a shit for their philosophy is in place and rules. Conservatives don't power lust enough to effectively compete, so their elected representatives tend to whoredome or dividing up the spoils with the progressives, each group specializing in fucking over the other and the citizenry generally. Wax the freedom on. Wax the freedom off. Over time there's less and less wax and less need to wax.

--Brant

the economy booms!--in the Washington metro area

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two hundred years of compromises, betrayals, and surrenders are not corrected 1, 2, 3. But if a stand-on-one-foot explanation is what you want, a fundamental reversal in the American political structure will come only after a philosophical revolution.

Got it.

You choose to stand stage right and be a critic with no solutions.

Understood.

I have rarely met a critic who "built a bridge."

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two hundred years of compromises, betrayals, and surrenders are not corrected 1, 2, 3. But if a stand-on-one-foot explanation is what you want, a fundamental reversal in the American political structure will come only after a philosophical revolution.

Got it.

You choose to stand stage right and be a critic with no solutions.

Understood.

I have rarely met a critic who "built a bridge."

A...

About a year ago I went into the gym and overheard an interesting exchange between my trainer and a new customer, one of the Yuppies who now appear to be overrunning the neighborhood. Yuppie told the trainer he wanted a Chris Hemsworth physique. Trainer said he might be able to do in in three months with a rigorous daily routine and a strict diet. Yuppie said he needed the look for a vacation he was taking in three weeks and had only one or two evenings each week to work out.

Immediate gratification is what sells nowadays.

I don't doubt that it's possible to get a Reagan or a Rand Paul elected every so often: someone with a nice smile who hits all the libertarian bullet points in his speeches. But nothing changes fundamentally. Despite the rhetoric, debt, taxes, federal power, and authority of bureaucrats get ever bigger. All the while, the leftist pundits wring their hands and whine about the social costs of shrinking government, and the conservative pundits obtusely declare victory.

Nothing fundamental will change until we reach the day when the average American, even if he's hungry, prefers standing fast for the principle of not initiating force over grabbing goodies from the federal trough.

Impeaching Obama, even it were likely, would not move us one step closer to a free society. It's completely superficial to the real change that needs to take place.

But to point this out, and to invest my time and money in educating young people in the virtues of individualism, hard work, and the free market is to be a critic, not a bridge builder. So be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a simple message to explain that the entire paradigm of "base-line budgeting needs to be repealed in a simple piece of legislation.

Be is resolved that, as of July 1st, 2014, the practice of "base-line budgeting shall be repealed and replaced by a zero-increase budget.

Be it further resolved that, as of July 1st, 2014, any increase for any department shall:

1) originate in the House;

2) specify in separate bills each increase in each budget line which shall be voted upon in the regular order of business;

3) all such legislation shall be posted for the public in it's entirely for thirty (30) days prior to a vote; and

4) any such increase in budget for any agency shall have a one (1) year sunset position which would require a separate re-authorization, subject to the same provisions of the underlying legislation, or, lacking that separate authorization, will cease to be law on July 2nd of that year.

That's it. Simple and clear and able to be explained to any citizen.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holder just bit, too.

From USA Today:

Holder blasts Palin over Obama impeachment call

There's a there there.

These folks don't talk about this stuff otherwise.

They let their minions do it and, more often than not, they spin it out of recognition.

But not now.

Their message about the impeachment issue is simple and clear. Plain language with no technicalities. It is targeted. And these are the top folks talking about it.

Why shouldn't people talk about impeachment if Obama and Holder are doing it?

Hmmmmmm?...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point to add to this: the denials on the Republican side.

Too many top dogs are coming out talking about this. Oooohhh... not me. Nope. I ain't talking impeachment.

Blah blah blah...

I learned from years of living in Brazil that when people in power all start denying something at the same time in the mainstream news, the opposite is usually in the works.

I'm not sure that would have been true a decade ago here in the States. There were other problems I observed, but I didn't notice that one.

But it's been happening recently, which is why I think it might be the case here.

Every day that passes, the USA is looking more and more like the Brazil I lived through.

Time to rev up the bribery muscles. It's starting. Pretty soon if you want to get something productive done, you're going to have to bribe someone so the government won't come after you.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can posit the revolution started with Ayn Rand...

She definitely started an individual revolution. That's where the real freedom is.

...but the philosophy needs to seriously evolve some more.

It's silly to wait around for a "more evolved philosophy" when anyone can already enjoy their God given liberty right now.

"It's up to each man to write his own Emancipation Proclamation."

--(paraphrased... and don't know who said it)

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a simple message to explain that the entire paradigm of "base-line budgeting needs to be repealed in a simple piece of legislation.

Be is resolved that, as of July 1st, 2014, the practice of "base-line budgeting shall be repealed and replaced by a zero-increase budget.

Be it further resolved that, as of July 1st, 2014, any increase for any department shall:

1) originate in the House;

2) specify in separate bills each increase in each budget line which shall be voted upon in the regular order of business;

3) all such legislation shall be posted for the public in it's entirely for thirty (30) days prior to a vote; and

4) any such increase in budget for any agency shall have a one (1) year sunset position which would require a separate re-authorization, subject to the same provisions of the underlying legislation, or, lacking that separate authorization, will cease to be law on July 2nd of that year.

That's it. Simple and clear and able to be explained to any citizen.

A...

That would not have stopped the suspending of habeas corpus in the Civil War, adopting the income tax in 1913, nationalizing railroads in World War I, the military draft, Prohibition, federal farm supports, the Federal Reserve, antitrust, Nixon's wage and price controls, or the Patriot Act.

As long as the public is supine or indifferent, there is no limit to the level of federal power Congress and the President can order--regardless of legislative or Constitutional "limitations."

Just ask yourself how well the Second Amendment is working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point to add to this: the denials on the Republican side.

Too many top dogs are coming out talking about this. Oooohhh... not me. Nope. I ain't talking impeachment.

Blah blah blah...

I learned from years of living in Brazil that when people in power all start denying something at the same time in the mainstream news, the opposite is usually in the works.

I'm not sure that would have been true a decade ago here in the States. There were other problems I observed, but I didn't notice that one.

But it's been happening recently, which is why I think it might be the case here.

Every day that passes, the USA is looking more and more like the Brazil I lived through.

Time to rev up the bribery muscles. It's starting. Pretty soon if you want to get something productive done, you're going to have to bribe someone so the government won't come after you.

Michael

"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft & by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded & honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed.”-Ayn Rand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She also said free speech was the key--that as long as there was free speech there was a chance for that society.

--Brant

Yes she did.

I would also add the right to bear arms as a deterrent to the omnipotent government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now