Obama Casts His Spell

[Selene]

Pointing out an error of reasoning is an insult to you?

Then I apologize.

Feel better now?

Adam

[sjw]

Shayne,

I am against actions without value and that impact other values destructively, regardless of the reason.

Michael

Claiming that the emperor has no clothes isn't valuable when you have an emperor who will squash you and a bunch of subjects who will lie to themselves and help him do it. So perhaps you're right.

Shayne

[sjw]

You just love to set up "straw men" and then attack your fantasy.

Very poor thinking skills young man.

...

Pointing out an error of reasoning is an insult to you?

Is it wrong for me to name what Selene is doing here because it also happens to be an insult? Is it wrong for me to have the gall to actually attach the relevant word for the species of stupidity that is flung my way? Should I be an altruist and let these weaker beings have their idiotic say? Sound like political correctness to me.

Shayne

[sjw]

But then again, Ron Paul is in Congress and ran for President, and you are on a small discussion forum not your own. Who has made a bigger difference in spreading ideas? Do you think it is possible to run for President and bring the public's attention to the founding principles of our country doing what you do? Or doing what Ron Paul does (even while being a Republican to boot)?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I see.

Ron Paul must have called the guy a hypocrite, evader, pathetic, liar, brainless and so forth, except for some reason I didn't hear it.

I only heard him say the overweight guy was overweight, so the government should put him on a diet. I understand that he was implicitly adopting the standard of the guy for the sake of argument, so the phrase actually needs to be qualified to be cited correctly: "If your standard of government is adopted, the government should put you on a diet because you are overweight and would fall outside the limits it would decree for optimal weight."

Otherwise, it would sound like Ron Paul was saying that he, Ron Paul, thinks the government should have to power to put the guy on a diet. We all know that is wrong. Thus he cut the guy's arguments down with the guy's own standards (that he used for other matters).

I don't see that kind of rhetorical competence with your insults. You call people names as personal opinions without reference to anything other than your own personal context. It is as if you were talking to yourself. In fact, that is what it ends up being in the long run.

Apropos, this was a one-minute-and-something video out of a very long and acrimonious campaign where he was smeared from top to bottom. I don't see Ron Paul's debating behavior resembling yours in any fundamental respect and I cannot imagine you dealing with what he did without a meltdown. The man is a class act. That is one of the skills he so competently performs that makes his persuasion so powerful, whereas your method presents the same basic ideas and does not convince anyone.

Michael

[sjw]

Michael, if I had pointed to a guy's fatness and saying he needed a diet you'd have lectured at me. Just as you just now lectured at me in spite of Selene's initiating the insults. Again, the conclusion I draw is not that you dislike insults, it's that you dislike competent insults directed at the incompetent. Perhaps it's ungentlemanly of me to not ignore their flailing hopelessly about, but my stance is that if someone attacks their betters they deserve to be taken a few notches down.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Should I start speculating about you now?

Enough bullshit.

Michael

[sjw]

Here is an example of why Obama is beating Hillary:

http://www.digg.com/politics/Barack_Obama_Just_Words

[Selene]

Now there is an excellent example of a devasting rhetorical attack of the Manchurian candidates "newest" message. I had a conference call with my tactical poliitcal team about that exact sections of that speech last night.

In addition, his rhetorical execution is flawless.

Nice call.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What a beautiful strawman!

Obama presented the matter as Hillary does not approve of words in general (rather than Hillary does not believe in his words), then blasted that strawman to Kingdom Come.

He's good. He's very good.

Michael

[Selene]

What a beautiful strawman!

Obama presented the matter as Hillary does not approve of words in general (rather than Hillary does not believe in his words), then blasted that strawman to Kingdom Come.

He's good. He's very good.

Michael

The sad part is that 85-90% of the electorate[the ones that actually turnout or as we refer to the the "prime voters"] decide who based on these types of presentations.

One of of O'Bamam's main speech writers is 26 years old. There was a speech last week after more victories where an "ivory soap" white middle american farm girl face was just off his left shoulder in the "drop back" that is choreographed, where she went through an almost euphoric transformation ending up in tears and being comforted by another acolyte.

There is a u-tube video of about 5 or 6 speaking engagements where people have fainted - gotten the vapors.

This is becoming like an "electronic chautauqa tent" type of campaign like back in the William Jennings Bryant days.

Nice pick up on the straw man! lol

Adam B)

[Aggrad02]

What a beautiful strawman!

Obama presented the matter as Hillary does not approve of words in general (rather than Hillary does not believe in his words), then blasted that strawman to Kingdom Come.

He's good. He's very good.

Michael

Not only is he good, He is intellectually dishonest. That speech was taken from a '06 speech by Deval Patrick:

Digg Link

You would figure with today's technology + the internet that politicians would be a little more careful.

--Dustan

[sjw]

Ron Paul needs to run as an independent. Every single remaining candidate has serious flaws. And if/when the bottom falls out from under the economy, people might just listen.

Shayne

[Kevin Haggerty]

Not only is he good, He is intellectually dishonest. That speech was taken from a '06 speech by Deval Patrick:

Digg Link

You would figure with today's technology + the internet that politicians would be a little more careful.

--Dustan

Dustan, it was Patrick's idea for Obama to use his tactic in the first place, Patrick thought it would be a good way to respond to Hilary. So there is no "vs." here. Intellectually dishonest... It's just people looking for dirt where there is none.

Kevin

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dustan,

Heh.

"Insist upon yourself. Be original." (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Just words...

"You've gotta be original, because if you're like someone else, what do they need you for?" (Bernadette Peters)

Just words...

“The principal mark of genius is not perfection, but originality.” (Anon.)

Just words...

“It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.” (Herman Melville)

Just words...

"Independent thinking does not submit to bureaucratic edicts, originality does not follow 'public policies,' integrity does not petition for a license, heroism is not fostered by fear, creative genius is not summoned forth at the point of a gun." (Ayn Rand)

Just words...

DON'T TELL ME THAT... THAT... THAT... (er)...

I forgot the rest. Oh well, it was only just words...

Michael

[Aggrad02]

Not only is he good, He is intellectually dishonest. That speech was taken from a '06 speech by Deval Patrick:

Digg Link

You would figure with today's technology + the internet that politicians would be a little more careful.

--Dustan

Dustan, it was Patrick's idea for Obama to use his tactic in the first place, Patrick thought it would be a good way to respond to Hilary. So there is no "vs." here. Intellectually dishonest... It's just people looking for dirt where there is none.

Kevin

Kevin,

It is still dishonest to take a speech directly from someone else (regardless of friendliness) and present it as your own without crediting it. Having a speech writer is different than taking a speech that has already been presented to the public by someone else. Which "words" are Obama's and which are someone else's that he happens to find convenient to use? He already has a problem with a perceived lack of substance, and when the Clintons attack him for a this lack of substance by claiming that he (Obama) is "just words", not only does he dodge the criticism by making a straw man argument, as pointed out by MSK (look it is not hard to give credit where it is due, Obama should try it), but "the words" that Obama uses are not even his own. Obama fought the criticism of a lack of substance with a plagiarized speech, he proves the Clintons' point. Obama comes from academia I am surprised that he was not more careful.

--Dustan

[Selene]

What a beautiful strawman!

Obama presented the matter as Hillary does not approve of words in general (rather than Hillary does not believe in his words), then blasted that strawman to Kingdom Come.

He's good. He's very good.

Michael

Not only is he good, He is intellectually dishonest. That speech was taken from a '06 speech by Deval Patrick:

Digg Link

You would figure with today's technology + the internet that politicians would be a little more careful.

--Dustan

Dustan, just for the record, they are very good friends and use common themes. Additionally, the have the same consultant's Axelerod, Ploufgh [sp ?] and the same speechwriters, one of whom is 26 and really bright.

"He is intellectually dishonest. That speech was taken from a '06 speech by Deval Patrick:..."

It is another example, of the SOP of the Clintons. Release a negatve 24-48 hours before the vote when the other side has to either waste resouces to respond or let the effect be what it is. In this case, with the future first husband's [convicted of perjury] outbursts this weekend, it will most likely fail.

I have said in many speeches and classes and articles that, Extremism in the defence of justice is not a vice and maderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue" and other phrases from that great speech and I do not take the time to source it.

Stump speaking has flow. It is not a PHD thesis, lol.

Adam

[Chris Grieb]

The Clintons are just being silly. OL members should have better things to do then repeating the Clinton's talking points.

[Kevin Haggerty]

Kevin,

It is still dishonest to take a speech directly from someone else (regardless of friendliness) and present it as your own without crediting it.

Y'know, you might have a point here if it was a whole speech. If he copied a speech. But it's not and he didn't. It's a blurb, it's a sound-bite. It's a 30 second quip. What it really is is a come-back. Hilary says he's "all words" and this is his retorts. All his friend had to say was, "All words, eh? Just bring up all the great words of America's great orators, like 'I have a dream' and 'we hold these truths to be self-evident,' etc." It's a list is all. The reason his "speech" is a copy of Patrick's "speech" is because they both list the same chestnuts of American rhetoric.

He already has a problem with a perceived lack of substance...

Not if you look at the primary and caucus results! I think his detractors have a problem with it, a serious problem.

And while we're at it, I'm not sure what strawman Michael was referring to, actually. Obama didn't dodge her attack, he engulfed it. Clinton makes a pretty broad swipe, pretty general--certainly no specifics on her part--and he dismisses it with a flourish. The same flourish his friend used two years ago.

If you're looking for intellectual dishonesty look no further than Ms. Clinton. She knows perfectly well Obama has positions, they've debated umpteen million times on 'em. He's got his li'l 5 year plan, just like she does. She's attacking his style. Isn't this obvious? She, who, let's face it, is not much of an orator, is attacking him for being a pretty damn good one. And he threw it back in her face.

I get from the tone of your post that you don't like Obama to begin with. Me, I appreciate good oratory from a political candidate for once in my life. Do you, honestly, give a crap about this particular Clinton/Obama spat? Do you honestly believe that Obama cribbing a retort from a friend of his in part of a speech will have any major bearing on his ability to perform the duties of President of the United States?

Kevin

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kevin,

Come on. Be fair. Whoever said Hillary had to be right for Obama to be wrong? Can't they both be wrong?

Michael

[Kevin Haggerty]

Kevin,

Come on. Be fair. Whoever said Hillary had to be right for Obama to be wrong? Can't they both be wrong?

Michael

Absolutely, they can both be wrong. And how! But they gotta be wrong about what they're wrong about, don't they? I don't see intellectual dishonesty in using your friend's tactics in a war of words, particularly when it's your friend's idea to use 'em in the first place. In these parts, calling a man "intellectually dishonest" is about as black a mark against his character you can find and it makes me a little bit crazy how ready some people are to go there.

I do see Hillary trying to bring Barrak down as a person and I think it's a bad move--she goes for the ad hominem like a pigeon goes for bread crumbs. But Hillary's got no game, while Obam' the Phenom' is walking away with the nomination at this rate. I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em! (It's good to see you, Michael, how's the book coming?)

Kevin

[Barbara Branden]

Shayne, I recommend that you read the entire article and think about it before presumimg to make empty-headed statements about Krauthammer and his audience.

Barbara

OK I read it. It should have been about how Americans are hungry for a politician with a single moral fiber in his body. Who has a passion for truth and what is right. That this is a deep need of all humans, and that when there is a moral vacuum, then any charlatan can come fill it up. Something along these lines.

Instead, Krauthammer doesn't merely ignore this, he as an amoral power-hungry neoconservative is completely oblivious to it. So he's left with the banal, to call Obama the equivalent of a false prophet who's casting a spell on sheep. Krauthammer would say exactly the same thing if Ron Paul were "mesmerizing" the masses with the ideas of individual rights and the spirit of the Founders. He is opposed to moral passion as such.

So I stand by my initial assessment. People like Krauthammer are in fact the *reason* for the moral vacuum in the first place, they've created this hole that Obama is now filling. He and his fellow neoconservatives are even more guilty than Obama.

Shayne

Shayne, your post consists, like Obama's speeches, of a string of empty assertions with not even the pretense of a scintilla of evidence given for any one of them. Are we really supposed to take them seriously? You have yet to give a single reaon for your view of Krauthammer. Insults are not reasons. They soon become merely ridiculous. All one can reasonably respond is: Sez you!

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In these parts, calling a man "intellectually dishonest" is about as black a mark against his character you can find and it makes me a little bit crazy how ready some people are to go there.

Kevin,

Clearly you are not a political animal. ALL politicians are intellectually dishonest. That is inherent. It is a species/genus thing. For instance, a human being is a rational (species) animal (genus). In like manner, a politician is a political (species) intellectually dishonest human being (genus).

Also, think about this. If things develop in a really weird direction and Hillary gets a sudden boost, I would not be surprised to see Obama accepting to be Vice if the backstage boys decide this would be the best way to beat McCain. But given the Democratic/Republican voter turnout for the primaries (about 2 to 1 in favor of the Democrats), that would be the reason something like Obama Vice would not happen, not because one called the other by his/her genus. Hell, that's just politics. (I don't see Hillary accepting to be Vice because of a prestige issue with her hubby, but I do not discard the prospect completely, either.)

Haven't you ever seen lawyers at each others throats in the courtroom, and upon leaving, they make sure to remind one another of their handball game and lunch scheduled for the next day? Lawyers are cut from the same cloth as politicians. (Dayaamm! Ain't I the collectivist? )

btw - It is great to see you again, too. Interestingly, my personal growth over the last two years has spun my book in a very different direction than when I started it. I will keep you posted (and involved).

Michael

[sjw]

Shayne, I recommend that you read the entire article and think about it before presumimg to make empty-headed statements about Krauthammer and his audience.

Barbara

OK I read it. It should have been about how Americans are hungry for a politician with a single moral fiber in his body. Who has a passion for truth and what is right. That this is a deep need of all humans, and that when there is a moral vacuum, then any charlatan can come fill it up. Something along these lines.

Instead, Krauthammer doesn't merely ignore this, he as an amoral power-hungry neoconservative is completely oblivious to it. So he's left with the banal, to call Obama the equivalent of a false prophet who's casting a spell on sheep. Krauthammer would say exactly the same thing if Ron Paul were "mesmerizing" the masses with the ideas of individual rights and the spirit of the Founders. He is opposed to moral passion as such.

So I stand by my initial assessment. People like Krauthammer are in fact the *reason* for the moral vacuum in the first place, they've created this hole that Obama is now filling. He and his fellow neoconservatives are even more guilty than Obama.

Shayne

Shayne, your post consists, like Obama's speeches, of a string of empty assertions with not even the pretense of a scintilla of evidence given for any one of them. Are we really supposed to take them seriously? You have yet to give a single reaon for your view of Krauthammer. Insults are not reasons. They soon become merely ridiculous. All one can reasonably respond is: Sez you!

Barbara

I thought the "just words" speech was a great argument against the idea that "words don't matter" myself. I wonder what you find "empty" about it. I also wonder at your disagreement with my first paragraph and why you think I should need to add more evidence, since in Objectivist circles I'd rather take that one for granted, I'd expect that all I have to do is point out the human need an Objectivists would recognize what I was talking about.

And I would point out that you've just insulted and attacked me, not only without a scintilla of evidence, but without even a vague connection to anything I ever said.

Shayne

[sjw]

Here's another pundit expressing his concern about Obama's power over people:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/6130

"He has got something about him that is -- I mean, people are crying when he walks out on stage. Is that a presidential candidate or is that a presidential candidate that should chill you to the bone?"

Obama is simply caching in on the intellectual bankruptcy in both parties. There is nothing *inherently* chilling about a presidential candidate that would, in these times, be so emotionally moving. There is so much that's wrong with the world, and so little honesty in dealing with it. Ron Paul isn't a mesmerizing speaker, but as I understand it, there are some people who cry when they hear what he has to say. He doesn't say it in the slick way Obama does, and he still moves people.

That is not to say this isn't dangerous. We have a basically anti-reality candidate who is also moving people to fervor. The result may not be pretty. But the danger started much, much earlier, in the public schools. If Obama uses this fervor to commit atrocities, I can't predict what kind it would be. As an atheist, I would be very afraid of a George Bush who was this inspiring. But Obama is openly tolerant of atheism, religion, and non-religion. Obama will certainly soak the rich. Perhaps CEO's should be afraid, maybe he'll throw more of them in jail for even more vague "crimes".

Shayne