Has an American president ever expressed such implicit hostility toward his own nation's pre-eminence in world affairs? Or so relished in recalling its failings, or so readily elevated himself and his own virtues over those of his country?...
"For those who question the character and cause of my nation," Obama said, "I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." In other words, he's the redeemer of a nation....Ugh. Sigh. And I thought Gaddafy was the clown. But that was yesterday, as I watched TV with the sound off, under the influence of post-toe-op drugs.
I'm torn. I was just thinking that Obama would have been so much better if he had made foreign policy the centerpiece of his presidency instead of perversely investing his reputation in complicated health care puzzles. Now, I'm thinking perhaps we're better off that he's gotten hopelessly distracted by insoluable insurance problems.
***
You know, Lowry's description made me think of Mr. Van Driessen on "Beavis and Butt-Head." I was going to embed some apt video clip of the hippie teacher — maybe something with him lecturing the boys about world peace — but all I could find was this and my inner Nancy Pelosi scolded me about this balance between freedom and safety.
Posts
226 comments:
1 – 200 of 226 Newer› Newest»Contrast Obama's speech with Netanyahu's.
It is to weep.
Obama's reputation as a birdbrain is not for nothing.
Lowry is a jackass.
Once again, Obama has disgraced this Great Nation of ours and demeaned the Office Of Te President. . .
. . . or something. . .
On the other hand we're spared McCain's doing random unpredictable things for reasons of an unmoored sense of honor.
Don't let the media pick the candidates next time.
I remember Rich Lowry from last year, for his impression of a menopausal male with a crush on The Sarah. Let us savor his remarks from The Corner:
I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.
I wonder if Rich is still a-tingle.
"Obama's reputation as a birdbrain is not for nothing."
True. . . Obama is the stupidest, most ill-informed and uncurious presidnet since. . .
. . .since. . .
Why, i can't think of anyone who was even HALF as bad!
Can anyone else?
insoluable insurance problems.
hmmm... except its a problem that has been solved by the rest of the developed world.
"I can't refute the facts, but I can call names."
Rich Lowry:
Poverty in America is primarily a cultural phenomenon, driven by a shattered work ethic and sexual irresponsibility. Child poverty would be nearly obliterated if every household had one adult working full time and married parents.
Hat tip to the esteemable Sadly No! Way to nail the pretty-haired Lowry.
The frightening thing is that when Presidents fail domesticly, they get more aggressive in searching for foreign policy successes to burnish their "Legacy". (See Carter, Clinton, Bush)
Given Obama's ideology, that is fairly scary.
Using Andrea Mitchell's bubbling Obama gushing words, "Obama is reaching out to our new friends and old adversaries"
I'd be happier if he was hugging our "Old Friends", like the Brit's, Pole's, Israeli's, Columbian's, Honduran's hell even the Iraqi's and the French
Yeah, FLS, I thought Lowry's public wanking over Sarah Palin's wink was embarrassingly obscene.
It was my job once to sit through all these speeches and take notes. Bush was president. When he spoke, he got lukewarm, almost impolite applause. When the Secretary General spoke (the previous one), he got a standing o' for lambasting the United States and generally supporting radically leftist programs. The best speech was from some really small country. The speaker charged that there was this crazy conspiratorial coup that was like the plot of a Tom Clancy novel.
Anyway, these speeches are pablum. They're crazy short. Obama didn't need to say anything of substance. The fact that he did and managed to make news about it shows an almost uncanny ability to hurt himself politically. Where will it stop? When will he realize that it is his talking and lack of doing that is at the root of his problems?
"The frightening thing is that when Presidents fail domesticly, they get more aggressive in searching for foreign policy successes to burnish their "Legacy"."
In what way is this "frightening"? Og right, because he's a Stalinist.
Unending wars for "democracy" are ust fine and dandy. But Obama, evil socialist that he is, will wage the wrong kind of unending war.
Rich Lowry peddles propaganda for corrupt Bush Admin.
"Anyone better?" Ha ha!
"The fact that he did and managed to make news about it shows an almost uncanny ability to hurt himself politically. Where will it stop? "
I'm assuming that it will stop with a triumphant return to power for the GOP next year.
Because obviously we have a man here who Disgraces The Presidency every time he opens his mouth.
For a nation that “saved the world” in the 1940’s and again from Soviet domination a short 40 years later; Obama speaks as one who seems to regret those achievements.
Every little thing Obama talks about pales in comparison.
Obama lies.
Well, Seven Machos, to hear some of the people here tell it, the problem is not Obama, the problem is Lowry, who practically got a trill running up his leg as he listened to a politician.
I was just thinking that Obama would have been so much better if he had made foreign policy the centerpiece of his presidency instead of perversely investing his reputation in complicated health care puzzles.
Nobody who cares a whit about foreign policy could possibly think such a thing. I'm not sure there's any subject in which Obama's narcissism and inexperience wouldn't be the dominant factors.
7 Wimpos:
The fact that he did and managed to make news about it shows an almost uncanny ability to hurt himself politically. .
Uh, when a conservative attacks Obama that's not exactly "news."
"Ugh. Sigh."
You said it all in two short words.
wv = weborsue
How would you characterize this thing that Obama did that you are talking about, Alpha?
I can only imagine what Obama would say if Genghis khan had been from Kansas.
Jumping Josafat!
For those who question the character and cause of my nation," Obama said, "I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months."
Someone is a wee bit impressed with himself. It's cringworthy, truly.
Phos -- When was the last time a presidential speech at the beginning of a UN General Assembly was a topic for discussion?
Obama did not have to make waves here. The fact that he did evinces an almost pitiable amateurishness.
When will liberals stop defending Prez Obama? Libs should pray Obama will get some humility and he could maybe try to learn from his mistakes.
Clinton did that right?
Instead of Mr. Van Dreisson, I picture 'Bruce the Performance Artist' from 'Family Guy.'
Netanyahu praising Obama's speech to the UN (from Haaretz):
I think that the speech was a good speech, a positive one, one that expressed our determination to reach peace, and he also said something that we have asked for over the course of the last half-a-year, and that is the need to meet and to begin the diplomatic process without preconditions."
"Secondly, he spoke very clearly and sharply about the right of Israel [to exist] as a state of the Jewish people. And I believe that the refusal to accept this is the root of the conflict [with the Arabs]. So this clear statement which was made on a global stage is important vis-à-vis the Arab world and especially the Palestinians."
"Thirdly, he praised the efforts we have made to ease the roadblocks, advance the Palestinian economy. All of these things advance a diplomatic process that is responsible and measured. The things he said regarding the occupation are not new. He said the same things in Cairo, and in fact this is the formulation that was adopted in the road map, and it does not mean that we have to retreat to the '67 lines."
"For those who question the character and cause of my nation," Obama said, "I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." In other words, he's the redeemer of a nation....
If he really wants to redeem America, shouldn't he offer himself up to be crucified for our sins? Now that would be worth watching.
President Obama yesterday did his best impression of a high-school sophomore participating in his first Model UN meeting, retailing pious clichés he learned from his pony-tailed social studies teacher."
How dare Lowry insult high school sophomores by comparing them to Obama's ineptitude! I'm still waiting for any of Obama's buttboys to show actual evidence to his supposed genius.
"Poverty in America is primarily a cultural phenomenon, driven by a shattered work ethic and sexual irresponsibility. Child poverty would be nearly obliterated if every household had one adult working full time and married parents."
That is a standard conservative view.
Poor women having multiple babies as teenagers/young adults and no husband around leads to poor children. Most children in DC, for example, are born to unwed mothers. Most of those mothers are not lobbyists on K Street, but poor or lower middle class.
It happens in Appalachia too amomg poor whites.
Not all poverty is caused by this but quite a bit. Perhaps "nearly" all.
"Phos -- When was the last time a presidential speech at the beginning of a UN General Assembly was a topic for discussion?"
NEVER!!!
That is the very ROOT of our righteous outrage, no?
Obama's clownishness is of UNPRECEDENTED dimensions!!
NEVER BEFORE. . . and I say this without actually checking because Obama's inadequacy is so manifest that it doesn't need to bechecked. . . has a presidential speech at the beginning of a UN General Assembly been a topic for something as low and unseemly as. . . discussion!"
Had I any tears left from Obama's last outrage, I would weep for my country.
hey, man, maybe high school sophomores SHOULD be running the country. Maybe all a president ever needs to know he learned in sophomore year. Maybe YOU all are the ones who are the stupid ones, fighting all those wars and buying all that meaningless crap!! YOU SUCK!
Obama's clownishness is of UNPRECEDENTED dimensions
I wouldn't call it clownishness. It's amateurishness.
Otherwise, yes, I would agree with you. Even among hardcore political wonks, the speeches given at the outset of the UN General Assembly are not newsworthy. Much like the performance of a toilet. they can only be newsworthy if there's something wrong with them.
the problem is not Obama, the problem is Lowry,
The problem is that we are invited to credit the assertion that Obama made a fool of himself in public, made by a man who actually did make a fool of himself in public.
Does the "it takes one to know one" rule apply here?
Uh, oh. . . I think we need a huddle here.
On the one hand, Obama is accused of spouting "pious cliches". . . and the sheer clownishness of it attracted the attention of the inestimable Althouse.
But now Steve Machos identifies the problem thusly:
"Obama didn't need to say anything of substance. The fact that he did. . ."
I recommend, Mr. Machos, that you try to play along: it is Obama's REFUSAL to be substantive that is the object of our present ire.
There is a "Too Substantive" hissyfit planned for the middle of next week.
Did you not get the memo?
Narcissism being Obama's dominant personality trait, besmirching our nation or any person or group in order to make himself look good is standard procedure. Narcissist don't care about the harm they do, just promoting their own beauty.
Why one soldier or marine should die in Afghanistan for this commander in chief while he implements his impossible to win that war liberal rules of engagement is beyond me.
But of course many will die. Can you imagine your son's life sacrificed for this walking vomit?
Revolution. Soon.
"I wouldn't call it clownishness. It's amateurishness."
Ahhh. . . but the venerable Ms. Althouse would call it clownishness.
But amateurishness will do fine. . . the point is that NEVER before has the Office of The President been so cruelly debased!
From Obama's speech : ...viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967...
Netanyahu : ...and it does not mean that we have to retreat to the '67 lines.
I'd say that Netanyahu is saying nice things about Obama's speech in order to make sure he gets his spin on that ambigious nod to 1967.
Obama is not a bird brain. Nor is he amateurish.
He is very good at what he is trying to do. He is trying to implement a marxist state here in the US.
If you really had such an evil objective, how would you go about it?
Well, you'd probably insult all our non-marxist allies, such as by giving DVD's as gifts.
You'd probably do your best to disarm the nation unilaterally, such as by halting anti-missile systems being deployed to our friends, and by threatening to do away with our own nuclear weapons.
You'd make friends with up and coming marxist states such as Venezuela, and you'd punish states that narrowly avert a marxist takeover, such as Honduras.
How much clearer does this need to get before people open their eyes.
I didn't imagine he would be half as bad as he has been, but he telegraphed his intent very clearly to anyone, besides Ann, who was paying attention.
I suppose we will have to follow the money to figure out the Amazing Mr Obama. He is taking the attitude that it's not his fault that the USA protected everybody in the Free World for 60 years, so the wealthy Arabs need to forgive our mistakes that we made when giving protection to those Genocidal Rascist Sabras occupying Jerusalem and environs. With the world's mandatory replacement currency coming out next month Obama wants full support from those Arab Oil producers. What could go wrong with that? Well Israel could stop that by taking out Iran's Nukes before Obama can decide to take out the Israeli Airforce. Remember all you children of Obama that drilling for oil in Alaska and offshore is DIRTY, but murdering another six million Jews for blood money is PURE and wise.
This all goes back to Obama's childhood. Obama is still that little kid in the back of the classroom in Indonesia who doesn't really fit in because he's American and just wants everyone to like him.
Obama still seems embarrassed to be an American and over-eager for foreign approval and acceptance.
I guess now that Chavez, Gaddafi and Castro all approve of our president, everything will be cool from now on. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
Phos:
You don't get it. Whenever Obama speaks, he promises a huge change to something.
Seven is saying that sometimes, all a president has to do is just make an appearance. Plus I bet Obama's speechwriters could use a a day off!
I don't have to agree with Rich Lowry to believe the speech was terrible.
The fact that leftists believe that conservatives act in some mental lockstep -- or wish to -- is humorous.
However, that's not half as funny as the belief that Althouse is a conservative.
"Phos:
You don't get it. Whenever Obama speaks, he promises a huge change to something.
Seven is saying that sometimes, all a president has to do is just make an appearance. Plus I bet Obama's speechwriters could use a a day off!"
Yes, Steve is saying that. . . and also that Obama's insistence on speaking substanrtively is a disgrace to the Office of The President. Because of course, no one can so muc as remember when an introductory addres the the UN Generral assembly was ever. . . talked about!!!!
It is simply more proog. . . as if more proof were needed. . . that Obama is a Disgrace To The Office of The President!
Is Obama trying to bore us into submission?
It's working...zzzzzzz....
VW: recat - Obama's next persona as the WH spinmeisters "recat" the cool Dude.
Alas, Ann didn't marry a democrat or a liberal and now that marriage is taking hold she appears to be morphing and loosing her mind.
Phos -- Get a grip. Your poor spelling and over-the-top charges evince a mind that is out of control.
I have nowhere said that Obama has disgraced the presidency. Nor do I believe that.
I am saying that he is a rank amateur who is in way over his head. He is making bad news left and right. He is making unforced errors. He is on a course for failure.
I don't have to agree with Rich Lowry to believe the speech was terrible.
But you could write a persuasive justification for your belief. Lowry's mostly preaching to the converted.
not half as funny as the belief that Althouse is a conservative.
You'd think a moderate or liberal would criticize conservatives once in a while. Demolish an argument or two. Their emperors go around buck naked once in a while, correct?
I actually don't mind spelling errors. I make them all the time. However, I do have one rule: people who cannot spell lose correctly are not serious people.
You got nude pictures of top Republicans, FLS? That's awesome.
I'd like all the Palins.
You can keep the Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson ones, though.
Skyler, for the win:
"Obama is not a bird brain. Nor is he amateurish.
He is very good at what he is trying to do. He is trying to implement a marxist state here in the US.
If you really had such an evil objective, how would you go about it? "
You might win the thread with this one.
To clinch it, you might want to add something to the effect of "I'm not saying he's the worst president ever, I just think he is an evil man who wants to kill us all."
That would totally put it over the top.
Rich Lowry talks about Barack Obama's U.N. speech.
Has an American president ever expressed such implicit hostility toward his own nation's pre-eminence in world affairs? Or so relished in recalling its failings, or so readily elevated himself and his own virtues over those of his country?...
Lowry has some points, but his neocon-fueled delusions about America as the Lone Hyperpower, preeminent in the world, able to do unlimited "adventures" to order the world properly with our unlimited treasure and military capacity? That is on a par with a classic British imperialist, in grip of similar delusion, talking in 1952 about how best to keep the Mighty British Empire as the preeminent force in the world, drawing on it's vast financial resources to "solve" at least a dozen major global crises.
The neocons echo that sort of delusion, but add in neocon candy to the masses in the form of promising more tax cuts for the wealthy, no Draft needed simultaneously with their advocacy of 8-10 more nation-building wars on behalf of ourselves or our special friend Israel....and that the US needs no allies to do all that because all our allies are weak or worthless..save Our Special Friend.
Somewhere along the way, many think when Nixon fell and the Trilateralists/Globalists/Present Ruling Elite of both Parties emerged...America transitioned from an industrial superpower and creditor nation justly ordering the World Bank and everyone knowing the dollar was unquestioned and our military power dominant over all but the Soviets...to what we are now.
The world's greatest debtor nation ever.
The dollar poised to be abandoned as the global reserve currency.
A trillion plus trade deficit, with a deficit run with every nation but Cuba and a few small Pacific Islands..
An overstretched military, burned out, growingly demoralized in futile war..
I don't like Obama's hyperinflated opinion about himself. He is the classic "know it all", "golden boy" Private or 2nd Lieutenant who had his butt schmootched all his life by others who finds himself in over his head..propelled up only by his massive ego to take breaths now and then while confidently asserting he isn't drowning.
I dislike his classic Leftist inclination to blame America for problems not really of our doing, his moral equivalency.
But in one key, critical area he is right, while Lowry and the neocons and Reagan triumphalists and supply siders are dangerously wrong.
**America does have limits. We cannot go it alone. We can't fix everything and magically fund it all with debt and still dole out tax cuts to Party backers.***
Obama of course is continuing the fiscal recklessness of Bush and the Republicans..but a lot of that is driven by Bush and Wall Street blunders, the need to address that our healthcare system is twice as costly as comparable care in other nations. Paying somehow for Bush's "free" 13 trillion dollar prescription drug benefit.
But none of the 8-10 new wars of military nation-building the necon crazies want, policies that favor the top 1% while screwing the other 99% of Americans.
The pendulum has swung. Away from the right wing, military triumphalist, New American Empire crazies and the nutty supply siders that wanted "Government out of overseeing Wall Street and our financiers". Swung too far Left, though, under The One..
But the days of saying "Isn't it great our corporate leaders who fly in the lear jets and are out grouse-shooting in Scotland take such good care of us lowly working types and investors the governement should leave them alone..." -- are over. Same with suply side theory.
And the same with those saying that two ugly wars aren't enough..for starters - lets also have one with Iran, and get troops into Darfur, Georgia, and Burma as well fighting for "noble freedom loving people!! like or Iraqi, Israeli, and Afghan Freedom Loving!! friends?? That's over, too.
BJM,
"Is Obama trying to bore us into submission?
It's working...zzzzzzz...."
Hmmm. . . either you did not read Skyler's comment, or else Althousiana is much more jaded than I thought!
To be bored by pure calculating evil. . . clownish evil at that!
Will no one weep for the nation?
Steve Machos,
"I am saying that he is a rank amateur who is in way over his head. He is making bad news left and right. He is making unforced errors. He is on a course for failure."
So you don't think his being more clownish than Gaddafy is a disgrace to the presidency?
How odd.
And just to be clear: they are typing errors, not spelling errors.
Important difference, if you are using it as evidence of an out of control mind.
Oh. Because Rich Lowry wrote a silly Palin piece, everything he writes from now on is silly?
Grow up. Or apply that same standard to all political journalists. Lowry nails it here. Unless you agree that the U.S. should grovel to the rest of the world and only just now (thanks to The One) are we doing good things to "redeem" ourselves somehow to the rest of the world.
Ugh.
Lowry nails it here.
Just as thoroughly as Jeremy ever has here.
Willie Pete wrote: To clinch it, you might want to add something to the effect of "I'm not saying he's the worst president ever, I just think he is an evil man who wants to kill us all.
No, he doesn't want to kill us all. He wants to control us all. Just like with Chavez, he wants to overthrow our democratic nation while we smile and nod and wonder what he's up to until it's too late.
The man announced in his own books that his philosophical influences were marxists. Why would anyone not believe him?
I dunno. What is the UN for, if not these kind of speeches? I think Obama should give more of them.
It will be especially effective in befuddling our opponents as our foreign policy establishment lurches forward in disregard for whatever it is that Obama is saying.
"I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months."
Let's look:
-Rescinded offer to build missile defense shield for Eastern Europe on 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion.
-Kept Guantanamo Bay open.
-Kept use of torture as an option.
-Dissed Gordon Brown (pre-Libya).
-Backed the leader of Honduras when he tried to overturn his county's constitution.
-Allowed Afghanistan to hold fake elections.
So, what is Obama crowing about?
Lowry is a jackass.
Is that a new euphemism for accuracy?
I remember Rich Lowry from last year, for his impression of a menopausal male with a crush on The Sarah.
As opposed to alleged hetero Chris Matthews' mancrush?
I'm just glad that we have a President willing to tell the world that he ALONE managed to completely change his country in 9 months.
Doesn't sound even remotely arrogant.
I didn't see/hear the speech, but why form your opinion of it based on someone else's interpretation? That's lazy. Or maybe you did listen to it, and Lowry echoes your views. Hard to tell.
I need old-growth TP for my bunghole!
"No, he doesn't want to kill us all. He wants to control us all. Just like with Chavez, he wants to overthrow our democratic nation while we smile and nod and wonder what he's up to until it's too late."
Ahh, yes. . . one O to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them!
I also hear that he wants to make it so that it's always winter. . . and never Christmas!!!
I'm just glad that we have a President willing to tell the world that he ALONE managed to completely change his country in 9 months.
Obama's saying that things got a little out of hand there for a while, but we're getting back to normal now. If you felt we bullshitted you on Iraq, don't assume we'll be bullshitting you the next time we ask for your help.
If you conservatives are nostalgic for the Guys Gone Wild days, where we single-handedly reinterpreted international law, and burned up all the goodwill we got after 9/11,that's your privilege.
". . . he wants to overthrow our democratic nation while we smile and nod and wonder what he's up to until it's too late."
But, still, you're not saying he's the worst president ever, right?
You're just saying. . .
You got nude pictures of top Republicans, FLS? That's awesome.
I'd like all the Palins.
Just Todd for me please.
Thanks
Are you threatening me? I am Cornholio. I need T.P. for my Nicaragua.
Here's Beavis & Butthead's The Great Cornholio episode.
Starting @2:05, notice the "Capitalism-Human Rights Triangle" diagram Mr. Van Driessen eventually draws on the blackboard.
I think Obama is commanding about as much attention as is Mr. Van Driessen is from Beavis.
Note Phos's tactic:
1. Choose the most radically conservative poster available who is saying the most radical thing.
2. Argue with that person.
My guess, which I cannot prove...
3. Go tell leftist friends what all the nutty conservatives are saying at Althouse.
I once went to a lecture given by Jimmy Carter's ambassador to the USSR, a surprisingly keen-minded man.
He proposed that the U.S. should never sign human rights treaties with the Soviets or similar countries, because such countries agree to whatever it is they think we want to hear, then go about doing whatever they want to do anyway.
Now it's time for some payback.
Obama has spent the last two years completely confusing most of America by telling us -- in lofty generalities -- what we think we want to hear.
Now it's our turn to loose him on the world.
* * *
I'm not being entirely cynical. I think we underestimate how much good diplomacy can be done under the aegis of pleasing, but nonbinding banalities.
To clinch it, you might want to add something to the effect of "I'm not saying he's the worst president ever, I just think he is an evil man who wants to kill us all.
Well, that's just silly. Of course he doesn't want to kill us all. Who would be the serfs, pull the plows, pay the taxes. You can't be the king of the heap if you get rid of the heap.
Silly boy.
Henry -- If that's true, great. The inability to be an affable suck up when necessary was one of W's greatest failures.
I'm not a "conservative," whatever that might mean.
I'm an anti-communist. I'm an objectivist. I am not a conservative.
And you can mock all you want, but the evidence is there. Why is pointing out what he does and says himself considered extreme?
Don't address the argument, mock the person making the argument. That this tactic works doesn't make it intellectually acceptable.
Notice that phosphoria and Alpha Lineral don't defend the content of the speech; they merely attack the President's critics.
That's because AL and phosphorius agree with it.
Anyway, it's a funny definition of 'unilateral' we're using these days.
Bush fights two wars alongside the British-unilateral.
Obama blows them off five times whne they want bilateral talks--multilateral.
wv:squinutb - the fruit of a mesalliance between a squib and a nut.
Look, you folks here in Amerika don't like me much. I have no choice but to go overseas for buddies. Is that so hard to understand?
I'm an objectivist.
Well, that pretty much says it all.
I agree with you, Skyler, in a lot of ways. Obama's basic premises are made up of the basic premises of Marxism.
However, you and your ilk tend to go off the rails. There is no conspiracy to overthrow free enterprise and seize the means of production. Even when I use those terms, and I do, I am using them as a rhetorical device.
I would classify myself as a conservative libertarian, and I think you do a disservice to the goals we both have when you say, just for example, that "giving DVD's as gifts" to "all our non-marxist allies" is part of some fiendish plot.
How does the old saw go? Never assign to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity. Something like that.
Obama isn't Lenin. He's Carter.
"Notice that phosphoria and Alpha Lineral don't defend the content of the speech; they merely attack the President's critics."
The content of his speech? You mean the substance of his remarks? Which was at the same time boringly trite, ridiculously clownish, and plain evidence of a sinister and effective mind bent on the destruction of western values?
That content?
Two out of three ain't bad.
Phos -- Is it really that vital to you that the people you disagree with coalesce on one theme? Are you that simple?
In fact, if three people can find three different reasons to criticize the speech, it merely means that it sucked by a factor of at three more times than necessary.
This from Rich Lowry;
Even Woodrow Wilson might have blanched at the mushy-headed exhortations to world peace and collective action better suited to a college dorm-room bull session or a holiday-season Coca-Cola commercial.
I've been thinking about Obama's foreign policy and somehow a candy bar commercial like slogan co9mes to mind-
Obama -Now With More Nuts
[wv-muddles-I merde you not.]
@phosphoroius:
Once again, you attack the critics, rather than discuss the content of the speech.
Why don't you tell us what YOU think about the speech, what you agree with or don't, instead of what you think other people think about the speech?
Why don't you discuss something instead of snarking?
Anybody with two neurons to rub together can snark.
Steve Machos,
"1. Choose the most radically conservative poster available who is saying the most radical thing.
2. Argue with that person."
You're the most radically conservative poster available here?
Most of my comments have been directed at you, no?
With a slight detour to take some shots at Sktlay, because, c'mon. . . objectivist. . . fish in a barrel. . .
Also, i have just realized I have been calling you "Steven Machos". . . when your name is "Seven Machos".
I apologize.
Obama's saying that things got a little out of hand there for a while, but we're getting back to normal now. If you felt we bullshitted you on Iraq, don't assume we'll be bullshitting you the next time we ask for your help.
...and if you're in E Europe and trusted us, or are a small country to our South that isn't a major exporter of oil, then, well, we don't see much need to help you.
...and ignore how much I personally voted for all of these proposals you hate and am, in fact, continuing to this day. Nothing to see there, kids.
Enough about me and my awesome arguing. Why not tell us about the speech, Phos?
I mean, a guy like you, there's no way you'd just automatically defend Obama without reading it...
Right?
rhhardin said...
On the other hand we're spared McCain's doing random unpredictable things for reasons of an unmoored sense of honor.
That was great. I'd just add "random, stupid, backstabbing, unpredictable things".
At least the Democrats had their conviction Algore would have avoiding getting environmentally unhinged after his loss and actually been a good President.
Republicans, who saw the McCain-Palin meltdown, are under no such illusions.
At least we were spared the sight of McCain emerging clasping hands with Pelosi, Reid every few weeks from behind closed doors to announce the Bipartisan:
1. 1 Trillion stimulus plan for CEOs AND unions.
2. Closing Gitmo.
3. The McCain-Waxman "Cap&Trade" Compromise.
4. McCain's Amnesty Program for all illegals, announced by Special Immigration Czar Hernadez, the former advisor to the Mexican Gov't and one of McCains "dear friends". With every Dem leader lined up behind him praising his "Courage and honor".
5. Work on the 882 billion Kennedy Heathcare Plan, which Pelosi and McCain agreed to name in honor of their deceased "Dear Friend" proceeds. McCain announces that he has found and Pelosi has agreed to cut 108 million in "bad earmarks" out of the package. "We need fiscal sanity!" McCain beams to fawning camera crews..
6. No word on any change in the one area of breakdown..McCains ultimatum that he will soon bomb Iran, Sudan, Syria, and N Korea unless they "Embrace Freedom!"
7. Meanwhile, VP Palin is crisscrossing the country with a plane full of fashion reporters trailing, trying to rally support for McCain from Fundies upset with with his other Deals w/Democrats. She says bombing Iran would make all that unimportant because saving Israel was all about Souls. "We bomb Iran, we save Israel! Yah juss never 2nd guess what Israel says we should do, never. Yah just don't 2nd guess Netanyahu!"
7. Gold reaches 2,000 an ounce, oil price soars on the prospects of McCains War with Iran and his feeding military retirees into Iraq and Afghanistan for his "Freedom Lovers!!" salvation.
8. A public hungry for good news absolutely loves Cindy McCain. And the "2nd Dude" is equally popular after he publicly bitch-slapped Letterman when he insulted his family yet again on his show. And pronounced Letterman looked "especially ironic" when he was done.
@phosphorious:
"Ironic" and "intelligent" are not synonyms.
You could try saying something substantive about what you agreed with, or disagreed with, in the speech.
Or you could continue to argue like a teenager whose internet activities aren't properly supervised.
my inner Nancy Pelosi...
Ha! And ghees it was a circus complete with tents.
You know I think Bolten and Bush might have had too much respect for the remnants of the UN when they tried to save it from itself.
Hell let the world see-what kinds of leaders have recently acquired UN seats on the Security Council.
That's about the only method to the madness-just let these guys fly their freak-might just be a gambit.
Gabriel Hanna,
"Why don't you tell us what YOU think about the speech, what you agree with or don't, instead of what you think other people think about the speech?"
Because the Fantbulous Ms Althouse didn't really discuss the content either, but simply dismissed it as clownish. . . more clownish actually than Gaddafy. And the Usual Althouistic Suspects piled on, as they always, always do.
But, since you asked. . . his speech is part of a broader dismantling of American exceptionalism, which is a damn good thing.
Bravo to him.
a broader dismantling of American exceptionalism
That's going to go over so well among the clingers.
As I said, another wholly unforced error.
Seven Machos,
So you think American exceptionalism is a good thing?
Why?
@Pho...never read much Lewis Carroll, eh?
Take care Libs, or you may meet the Young Oyster's fate.
It doesn't matter who Lowry is, the whole world saw it. Our president is out of his depth, and we look silly for it. We looked naive, weak and useless yesterday.
If you looked to the U.S. for protection and leadership yesterday, where do you look now?
"Enough about me and my awesome arguing. Why not tell us about the speech, Phos?"
You claimed I only argued with the most extreme poster here.
Do you now retract that?
@phosphorious:
his speech is part of a broader dismantling of American exceptionalism, which is a damn good thing.
Bravo to him.
Res ipsa loquitor.
bagoh20,
"
If you looked to the U.S. for protection and leadership yesterday, where do you look now?"
Umm. . . to themselves, right?
They will stop looking to the US as the policeman of the world. They will solve thewir own problems.
And freedom will reign.
Right?
Netanyahu has a different responsibility than a blog commenter with an alias, so his comments about the speech are not entirely spontaneous.
I was listening to the speech while packing up a hotel room. Some of it seemed okay. But when he got to the line about "if anyone doubts...look at how far we've come in the last nine months," I was just stunned. That's as far back as the goodness of the USA extends, in Obama's mind?
Obama is like Penelope from SNL! http://tinyurl.com/8b2694 He is immersed in the glory of me. When is he going to propose to declare that 2009 is now Year Zero?
wv: gimil. "Of all the gimils in all the towns, in all the world. she walks into mine"
Phos -- You think American exceptionalism is a bad thing. I don't care why.
I do know, however, that such a sentiment is terrible domestic politics. I don't even need to get to the level of good and bad because saying American exceptionalism is bad is a bad thing to say.
Gabriel Hanna,
Because if I don't buy American exceptionalism. . . I must be an evil/commie/nazi/racist/anti-American hippy.
Is that your claim?
"They will stop looking to the US as the policeman of the world. They will solve thewir own problems."
We know where they will look. So I assume you agree, they will not look to us or our values, what's left of them.
Phos looks to me like a classic last word freak.
Boring.
@phosphorious:
Because if I don't buy American exceptionalism. . . I must be an evil/commie/nazi/racist/anti-American hippy.
Is that your claim?
I never claimed anything. I just gave you the opportunity to act like a jackass, which you promptly took.
Res ipsa loquitor.
If it's as easy as fish in a barrel, why are you not offering any arguments and only providing silly mockery
Because if I don't buy American exceptionalism. . . I must be an evil/commie/nazi/racist/anti-American hippy.
Yeah, that's pretty silly. There are so many better reasons to think of phos as an evil commie anti-American hippie. :)
Gabriel Hanna,
"I never claimed anything. I just gave you the opportunity to act like a jackass, which you promptly took.
Res ipsa loquitor."
So not believing in American exceptionalism is to be a jackass?
Stodder:
Do you think Obama or his speechwriters are responsible for the self-worship?
phosphorious, you do it every time.
You avoid saying what YOU think, and prefer instead to caricature what you think OTHER people think.
That's not argument. That's hipster doofusry. That's what college kids do, except they would preface your statement with "Dur dur".
Doesn't it bother you to be so predictable?
a broader dismantling of American exceptionalism
If by American exceptionalism is meant high ideals, a shining city on a hill, a light unto the nations, uncompromising standards, such as freedom to follow your dreams, accepting immigrants, etc., I hope we are restoring American exceptionalism.
If by American exceptionalism is meant the rules apply to everyone but us, then I hope we are dismantling American exceptionalism.
See, phosphorious, I haven't said one word about what I think about American exceptionalism, or about people who reject it.
You just project opinions on me, on no other basis than that I disagree with you about SOMETHING.
THAT is what makes you a jackass. Not what you think of American exceptionalism-of which you've said little but that you're agin it.
It takes no effort whatever to bait you into saying something stupid. It's like you're on hair-trigger.
Do you want to convince people of your opinions, or do you want to snark at them? If so, you push them away from your opinions.
Gabriel Hanna,
"phosphorious, you do it every time.
You avoid saying what YOU think, and prefer instead to caricature what you think OTHER people think."
I said that American exceptionalism is not sucha good thing.
You said that my saying so showed I was a jackass, and even used a fancy latin phrase suggesting that no more needed to be said.
How did I misrepresent you?
@fls:
If by American exceptionalism is meant high ideals, a shining city on a hill, a light unto the nations, uncompromising standards, such as freedom to follow your dreams, accepting immigrants, etc., I hope we are restoring American exceptionalism.
If by American exceptionalism is meant the rules apply to everyone but us, then I hope we are dismantling American exceptionalism.
Classic "if by whiskey--", I applaud you, sir.
No coincidence that Richie Starbursts and his fellow Corner Travelers are moaning over the fact the president didn't beat his chest and make threats to other countries on the world stage, because, that's what works on them. Ahmadinejad or Chavez makes a threat thousands of miles away and that scares the living shit out of them. I didn't hear any hissy fits about Palin trashing the president on foreign soil. And remember, whatever is coming out of Sarah Palins mouth is what she figures is just smart enough to fool Todd.
@phosphorious
You said that my saying so showed I was a jackass
My "jackass" remark was about you projecting opinions on me. Not about your opinions on exceptionalism. Learn to read, it will serve you well in later life.
even used a fancy latin phrase suggesting that no more needed to be said.
"The thing speaks for itself". Not the same. Learn to read.
How did I misrepresent you?
By reading, not what I wrote, but what you think I must have meant, based on a crude stereotype; and responding to that and not what I did in fact say.
By repeatedly doing so, and not figuring out that was what you were doing, you have fully earned the ears of a jackass.
moaning over the fact the president didn't beat his chest and make threats
Speaking of which, did Netanyahu's speech consist of anything besides saber-rattling?
"Speak softly and carry a big stick' -- some famous Republican said that once.
Gabriel -- QED!
Hilarious.
@garage mahal:
I didn't hear any hissy fits about Palin trashing the president on foreign soil.
Let me quote one Kathryn Jean Lopez on that very subject:
"I agree. I just cringe when Americans go abroad and criticize an American president. Though I guess if he's presiding over the world (United Nations) today, perhaps it was an appropriate forum."
As for the rest of what you said, you sure showed those straw men what's what.
Gabriel Hanna,
Read carefully, this is EXACTLY what you said at 5:14 pm. You quoted me and then responded (You're in bold):
his speech is part of a broader dismantling of American exceptionalism, which is a damn good thing.
Bravo to him.
Res ipsa loquitor.
You later said, in reference to this remark:
I never claimed anything. I just gave you the opportunity to act like a jackass, which you promptly took.
Res ipsa loquitor.
Even going so far as to repeat the cute latin phrase. Good for you.
But to summarize: I said that a dismantling of American Exceptionalism is a good thing. You said that shows I'm a jackass.
You then tried to claim that I misrepresented you.
That's a lie.
@phosphorious:
Read carefully, this is EXACTLY what you said at 5:14 pm. You quoted me and then responded...
True.
I said that a dismantling of American Exceptionalism is a good thing. You said that shows I'm a jackass.
NO, JACKASS. LEARN TO READ.
EVERYBODY ELSE on this thread read my words and can see that you are incapable of parsing them. There is no point in telling me I said something different from what everyone can SEE I said. Seven Machos got it. Why can't you?
This woman can help you:
http://www.readingtlc.com/
Gabriel Hanna,
Ok then, cut the crap: i think American exceptionalism is bad, and Obama's speech suggests that he does to.
I say "good".
What do you say?
Speak clearly, so that there is no danger of me misunderstanding you. And remember, I'm a jackass who doesn't read well.
Go.
@phosphorious:
I just gave you the opportunity to act like a jackass, which you promptly took.
This is what you said that was "acting like a jackass", jackass:
Because if I don't buy American exceptionalism. . . I must be an evil/commie/nazi/racist/anti-American hippy.
Is that your claim?
But do continue to make yourself look stupider by repeatedly showing your inability to comprehend written English and your willingness to attribute to people things they didn't say.
It doesn't bother me and it amuses the rest of us.
@phosphorious:
Speak clearly, so that there is no danger of me misunderstanding you. And remember, I'm a jackass who doesn't read well.
No problems there.
I'm with fls on American exceptionalism, since he takes both sides!
When America is right, I'm on America's side, regardless of what "world opinion" says. When America's wrong, I'm not. Who judges when America's right and wrong? I do; everyone must judge for themselves.
Clear enough?
@phosphorious: I'll give you a concrete example:
When America refused to intervene in Rwanda, despite our legal obligations to do so under the UN charter, that was wrong, and I was not on America's side in that question.
The fact that the UN also refused to do anything substantive about Rwanda has no bearing on whether it was right or wrong for America to do so.
So I don't approve of Obama's speech, as to me it seems he cedes a moral authority to the UN which in my opinion it does not deserve.
He is our elected President and has the legitimate right to say those kinds of the UN. But as a free citizen I am not obligated to agree, and I have the right to criticize him, as those citizens did who disagreed with Bush.
@garage, have a look at a map Pal, Venezuela is a 3-4 day drive to our southern border.
First rule of holes, Phosphor, is to stop digging when in one.
You've been pointed out as adding nothing to the discussion.
You added "I think the death of AEx is good."
So OK, you have an opinion of value. But you do not back it up; instead, you ask US to back up the opposite.
Would you mind terribly if I don't take up your kind offer?
You seem to be unable to back up your opinions & instead rely upon mere ridicule.
However, I admire your bravery in continuing to show off your inability to discuss an argument.
Gabriel Hanna,
"When America is right, I'm on America's side, regardless of what "world opinion" says. When America's wrong, I'm not. Who judges when America's right and wrong? I do; everyone must judge for themselves.
Clear enough?"
Clear enough, I suppose. . . but I can't imagine why you simply didn't say that you are against American exceptionalism, since that is what the position you outline above amounts to, no?
miller ,
Look: the unparalleled Ms. Althouse suggested that Obama's speech was awful, and that Obama himself, by making it was more clownish than Gaddafy.
That strikes me as a stupid thing to say, and yet the Althousiasts were united in their agreement that this was yet another Terrible Obama Mistake.
There was very little talk of the substance of the speech, and indeed some disagreement as to whetehr the speech had any substance: some said it was cliche and fluff, other believe it was substantial when what was wanted was fluff, and there was at least one who declared it evil.
I ridiculed the stupidity and mocked the hysterics.
When it finally came doen to a discussion of the content, I claimed that it was a rejection of American exceptionalism.
There would be two ways of disagreeing with me: one, claim that American exceptionalism is good, or two, claim that his speech was not about that at all.
Neither option was used, and instead Althouslandia were content to dismiss me as boring, immature, irrlevant or whatever.
Good job all around.
@phosphorious:
but I can't imagine why you simply didn't say that you are against American exceptionalism, since that is what the position you outline above amounts to, no?
Because, as FLS so ably pointed out, "American exceptionalism" means different things to different people. So that's exactly why I WOULDN'T say that.
I would find out what my interlocutor MEANS by it, and then argue with what HE SAYS. Not argue with what I ASSUME HE MEANS.
Seven Machos and I are probably on the same wavelength about 90% of the time.
I get the impression there are several mentally challenged people here who believe that Obama's speech was primarily for the purpose of local consumption.
I mean, what's the point of living in the world if everyone in it, if everyone from every single country, doesn't see things the same way every red-blooded, gun-lusting Americun does?
We have two choices, fellow pomocons. Either destroy the rest of the world or brainwash them to think they're us!
But there is no excuse, in the meantime, for Obama to commit the colossal blunder of believing that he should ever, ever have to give a speech to un-Americuns. I mean, non-Americans.
The One-Reality of Glenn Beck-ism will be invoked without stop until it is followed by all the world over. Until then, other people in the world just don't exist. Capisce?
Seven Machos and I are probably on the same wavelength about 90% of the time.
Is that wavelength secure from infiltration by the evil spirits or are tinfoil hats required?
@phosphorious:
Neither option was used, and instead Althouslandia were content to dismiss me as boring, immature, irrlevant or whatever.
You did it to yourself, by choosing to be a snarky jerk.
@montana urban legend: Another terrible slaughter of straw men.
It's not that Obama spoke before the UN. It's what he said when he did.
It's not that Obama is trying to make nice with the rest of the world. It's that he will fail. As Socrates noted, and phosphorious so ably demonstrates you can't convince people who won't listen.
Please back up your assertion that Althousians were united in their assessment.
You may quote from appropriate sources in this or other threads.
Thank you.
Tough defending yourself without resorting to opinion, isn't it?
For those who care about American Exceptionalism, or who want to learn why this nation is exceptional.
Here is a 15 min video explanation, clear, concise and... exceptional.
http://www.pjtv.com/v/2378
Gabriel Hanna,
"Because, as FLS so ably pointed out, "American exceptionalism" means different things to different people. So that's exactly why I WOULDN'T say that."
No it doesn't: American exceptionalism means that America should be excepted from the same rules that govern other nations.
FLS definition was no definition at all. . . but that doesn't mean the word is undefined.
To use a concrete example: is American use of torture any different than say, Saudi Arabia's use of torture? Is it okay when we do it, bad when they do it?
If you answer yes, you're an exceptionalist; you think we don't have to follow the rules everyone else does.
Is that your position? I couldn't tell.
@montana urban legend:
Is that wavelength secure from infiltration by the evil spirits or are tinfoil hats required?
Funny you mention that. Some guys at MIT found that aluminum foil actually has excellent transmission--in the frequencies reserved for the cell phone companies.
Now what does THAT tell you?
http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/
However, I admire your bravery in continuing to show off your inability to discuss an argument.
I guess people see in others what they would admire in themselves.
MUL, please point out how phos has actually argued for points on a thread versus merely snarking.
You are, of course, making a point & not just being equally snarky, no?
It's not that Obama spoke before the UN. It's what he said when he did.
Yeah. Precisely. And what he said touched on what makes America great in the eyes of the rest of the world, even if it's not the same stuff that makes America great in your eyes.
It's not that Obama is trying to make nice with the rest of the world. It's that he will fail. As Socrates noted, and phosphorious so ably demonstrates you can't convince people who won't listen.
What constantly amazes me, is this knee-jerking impulse to call out what differentiates us from other nations and leader by how supposedly evil and craven they all are, while failing to understand that they might be different from us in their appreciation of America for different reasons than those which make you or other Americans appreciate America.
The inability to comprehend that is an example of completely insulated, isolated, and (when it comes to foreign policy) dangerous thinking.
@phosphorious:
No it doesn't: American exceptionalism means that America should be excepted from the same rules that govern other nations.
That's what it means TO YOU.
Just like "socialism" means one thing to Communists and another thing to Swedes and a third thing to Republicans.
To me, and those who think like me, "American exceptionalism" means that America is on the right side of things more often than not.
America would forfeit its 'exceptionalism' by doing the wrong thing more often than not.
As for your torture example, it's a bad one, because "torture" is another word that means different things to different people, and you have to LISTEN to what people said.
"Torture", like "lies", are opposed by everyone. To label a thing as "torture" or "lie" or "fascist" is to condemn it. If you don't know what someone means when they use a word, but impose your definitions on them, then you won't get anywhere arguing with them.
@montana urban legend:
What constantly amazes me, is this knee-jerking impulse to call out what differentiates us from other nations and leader by how supposedly evil and craven they all are, while failing to understand that they might be different from us in their appreciation of America for different reasons than those which make you or other Americans appreciate America.
I see that all the prizes for reading comprehension have not yet been awarded. Phosphorious has a rival.
To me, and those who think like me, "American exceptionalism" means that America is on the right side of things more often than not.
Regardless of who leads us and how intelligently they do (or don't do) that job, right?
Which should make any criticism you might have of Obama as the president completely not worth listening to.
@montana urban legend:
Regardless of who leads us and how intelligently they do (or don't do) that job, right?
Obviously not, jackass, and I EXPLICITLY SAID SO NUMEROUS TIMES.
Which should make any criticism you might have of Obama as the president completely not worth listening to.
At least I'm not functionally illiterate, like you.
Well, if you have trouble comprehending that your insistence on differentiating other nations and their leaders from us on a moral level - while failing to differentiate them from us in terms of what ideas might resonate with them and make them (or us) appreciate America - then you have a bigger problem than reading comprehension. You have a problem with thinking generally.
Psychologists call the ability to understand that all people, based on differing perceptions, might not share the same understanding of things, a "theory of mind", and the capacity for it is thought to be crucial. It typically develops in childhood.
wv: tardies
Montana is here saying nothing again, in long, flowery prose which he no doubt believes makes him look intelligent.
At least he hasn't called you a racist. Yet.
Numbnuts/Flower Child. How many words must a sentence have before your ADHD makes you lose attention?
Millions of people no doubt liked Obama's speech and millions were greatly disappointed.
Among those who liked it are our most dangerous enemies. Also I suppose a lot of comfortable people with concerns about global warming, sinking landscape, eliminating nuclear weapons, unicorn extinction, etc. Other than Palestinians, I doubt anyone truly in need found it comforting.
Among those disappointed are desperate people who through no fault of their own are being oppressed by thugs, totalitarianism and dictators. People who know that no other nation will take the risks or endure the cost to help them.
You may care strongly about those people who's homes my sink under rising seas or will have no unicorns to milk, but there are really desperate oppressed people now. This nation has usually been the only ones the truly desperate had any hope would help them.
I can feel the dread they must face for at least 3 more years.
mul writes like unexceptional college sophomores write when theyre trying to bullshit their way through a paper. im thinking that there was a new thesaurus in juniors back to college gift basket.
Good writing is writing that is easily understood.
Montana, I would give you an F with regard to your turgid prose, but that suggests that your work is somehow subject to interpretation.
Obama's speech will be judged harshly by Americans. On the plus side, at least it's understandable.
I haven't followed the thread Gabriel and have no idea where you're coming from in terms of what argument you wish to make regarding "American Exceptionalism".
But my point, based on what I infer from hearing that term invoked in the context of Obama's comments, is that those who harp on Obama's statements regarding American Exceptionalism don't seem to understand that it does an American president no good to hawk that idea to foreign audiences.
Some people (in America) might get off on hearing the noises that result from having their country's dick jerked off. Others around the world, not so much.
I haven't followed the thread Gabriel and have no idea where you're coming from in terms of what argument you wish to make regarding "American Exceptionalism"....yet I feel free to comment on it and call you names in my own sluggish way. I will now make an attempt at joking about masturbation, because it's something I know very well.
Sounds like Teh One™ has run fast and furious away from Reagan's "a city on a shining hill" concept.
Now we are just gray and ordinary, like all other nations.
@montana urban legend
I haven't followed the thread Gabriel and have no idea where you're coming from in terms of what argument you wish to make regarding "American Exceptionalism".
Ah. So you admit that you criticized me without even bothering to find out if I'd said the thing you were critical of. Instead, you assumed what my opinions were based on which commentors I was disagreeing with.
Your candor is refreshing, enjoy your jackass ears.
wv:unreasin. What montana urban legend substitutes for argument.
Good writing is writing that is easily understood.
Vague statement coming from someone commenting on a thread that completely ignores the fact that the effect of Obama's speech depends entirely on the audience in question.
If my audience is at an eighth-grade reading level, as the U.S. government (and I) assume
you are, then no, you won't understand what I say.
"Montana, I would give you an F with regard to your turgid prose, but that suggests that your work is somehow subject to interpretation."
I think anyone who doesn't understand the difference between writing for its own sake and the quality of the ideas expressed, might stand to benefit from clinical interpretation.
"Obama's speech will be judged harshly by Americans. On the plus side, at least it's understandable."
By people who are able to understand who the audience was for Obama's speech, it won't be judged harshly. But on the plus side, this statement shows that you didn't get that - thus revealing how stupid you are.
Want some flowers to go with that?
By the way, try some more interesting words than "florid" and "turgid". Just because you understand what critics do, doesn't mean you understand what's being criticized. But that's because you're a poseur. And an idiot, of course.
American exceptionalism is a confidence booster, but that is all. On the other hand, American leadership of the free world and free trade economy financed thru Wall Street (the World Trade Center targeted firms) has been a real fact that Obama has set his hand to destroying. Why? The answer he gave yesterday was to make room for the New Leader and his New World currency not dependent upon American military might and not dependent upon Wall Street firms, that's why. He is a fifth columnist force for the ending of American power and influence. At least he has been loyal to George Soros.
American Exceptionalism has a specific meaning and there is indisputable evidence of it. Seriously, if you want to know why people like me subscribe to it watch the video I linked to above at 6:47pm. Agree or not, you should understand this concept well before you discuss American foreign policy. It is the most important principle involved.
American exceptionalism is a confidence booster, but that is all. On the other hand, American leadership of the free world and free trade economy financed thru Wall Street (the World Trade Center targeted firms) has been a real fact that Obama has set his hand to destroying. Why? The answer he gave yesterday was to make room for the New Leader and his New World currency not dependent upon American military might and not dependent upon Wall Street firms, that's why. He is a fifth columnist force for the ending of American power and influence. At least he has been loyal to George Soros.
Where are the Illuminati and the Freemasons and the reverse vampires?
I'd offer you a tinfoil hat, but if you've been keeping up, you'll see it's only because I'm one of THEM.
Ah. So you admit that you criticized me without even bothering to find out if I'd said the thing you were critical of. Instead, you assumed what my opinions were based on which commentors I was disagreeing with.
Your candor is refreshing, enjoy your jackass ears.
wv:unreasin. What montana urban legend substitutes for argument.
See, there's where you're wrong. I didn't criticize you. I criticized a recently popularized habit of invoking "American Exceptionalism" as some sort of litmus test for Obama's creds. And I gave you ample opportunity to clarify your reasons for referring to it. The fact that you rejected that opportunity says more about which one of us is willing to argue in good faith than I think you know.
"reasin" looks more like "resin" than "reason". Or maybe "raisin".
Listen, if you're one of the rare commenters here who actually has ideas that go beyond over-simplified, dualistic thinking, then by all means, indulge me. Explain the significance of this term to this thread or to the event of the day. Or insult me for asking. But don't be hypocritical and do what you're accusing me of doing.
...insult me for asking
You are a hack with no original ideas, no writing ability whatsoever, and no desire to find common ground. Please find something else to do with your time. Alternatively, please edit your bloated prose by at least 70 percent.
American Exceptionalism has a specific meaning and there is indisputable evidence of it. Seriously, if you want to know why people like me subscribe to it watch the video I linked to above at 6:47pm. Agree or not, you should understand this concept well before you discuss American foreign policy. It is the most important principle involved.
I'm pretty sure I've seen that video. And yet, I have no idea what place it has in any statement Obama or any other president in this day and age gives to a foreign audience.
Seriously, what purpose does it serve for the leader of a country to tell foreign audiences that he's a big believer in his country's innate exceptionalism? Other than to prove that he needs a patriotic, but ideological crutch in order to boost his confidence in his own skills as a leader of that country?
I'm sure it wouldn't make the foreign audience very confidence in that leader's abilities. Or his wisdom.
@montana urban legend:
"reasin" looks more like "resin" than "reason". Or maybe "raisin".
In Shakespeare "reason" rhymes with "raisin". Take your pick.
Listen, if you're one of the rare commenters here who actually has ideas that go beyond over-simplified, dualistic thinking, then by all means, indulge me. Explain the significance of this term to this thread or to the event of the day. Or insult me for asking.
I already explained what I meant by the word and why I disapproved of Obama's speech. If you had bothered to follow the conversation you'd know that, as well as why the subject came up; if you're too lazy to scroll up, that's your problem. You've no right to demand explanations of what you could easily learn for yourself like a little child who wanders into the middle of a movie, to quote Walter Sobchak.
If the answers I've already given don't satisfy you, we'll learn to live with it.
You see I fulfill all three of your requests--in one post!
MUL,
I don't really care how you write, but you might want actually say something sooner or later. Well, there are those burning insults, I guess, but maybe a little something more meaty please.
Dear Gabriel -
Feel free to chase after the chimera.
Just don't call his prose "turgid" when it's merely florid.
You are a hack with no original ideas, no writing ability whatsoever, and no desire to find common ground. Please find something else to do with your time. Alternatively, please edit your bloated prose by at least 70 percent.
I notice that Nachos at least has the presence of mind to not attempt to mock my intelligence. He knows he's too dumb to say something that would openly reveal him to be that stupid.
And given how stupid he is, I don't think he's in a position to declare what my motives are, either (cf: "no desire to find common ground").
I also think that someone who posts an avatar of himself wearing a mask that reminds one of "the gimp" in Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction is not in a good position to tell others what to do with their time, or to make comments about the purported sexual habits of others.
You really are a masochist, aren't you? And, oh yeah. You're a hack, too.
Floridly turgid? Like a mummy.
@miller:
Dear Gabriel -
Feel free to chase after the chimera.
Just don't call his prose "turgid" when it's merely florid.
Actually I find it lubricious and tumescent.
Oh, wait, I just found out those words don't mean what I think they mean.
if you're too lazy to scroll up
I'm not lazy. I've just read enough of what's posted here to have a good idea of what to expect.
It's called "efficient" in certain crowds. ;-)
But your unwillingness to offer a simple clarification in the same post - despite hitting on the familiar themes of Obama's alleged failure and American Exceptionalism in the same breath - doesn't do much to counter my original suspicion of what you meant.
You could have stopped with "I notice Machos," because the rest is simply an illustration.
@montana urban legend:
I also think that someone who posts an avatar of himself wearing a mask that reminds one of "the gimp" in Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction is not in a good position to tell others what to do with their time, or to make comments about the purported sexual habits of others.
The Gimp's hat was leather and the eyes and mouth zipped up.
Seven Machos has a ski mask.
I am uniquely qualified to judge the distinction.
I found the gimp to be sympathetic character, almost heroic in his stoicism.
@montana urban legend:
I'm not lazy. I've just read enough of what's posted here to have a good idea of what to expect.
In other words, you invented opinions for me.
But your unwillingness to offer a simple clarification in the same post - despite hitting on the familiar themes of Obama's alleged failure and American Exceptionalism in the same breath - doesn't do much to counter my original suspicion of what you meant.
And you consider yourself to have a license to keep doing it.
You just make yourself look worse and worse.
How hard is it to scroll up?
You don't even have to do that! I'll give you a tip I learned from Ric Romero himself: Crtl-F and then type in Gabriel Hanna.
Oh, how can I stay mad at you? Your prose makes me so lubricious and tumescent.
@montana urban legend:
Here, I'll cut and paste my previous posts. But I'm only doing it because I like your prose.
When America is right, I'm on America's side, regardless of what "world opinion" says. When America's wrong, I'm not. Who judges when America's right and wrong? I do; everyone must judge for themselves.
When America refused to intervene in Rwanda, despite our legal obligations to do so under the UN charter, that was wrong, and I was not on America's side in that question.
The fact that the UN also refused to do anything substantive about Rwanda has no bearing on whether it was right or wrong for America to do so.
So I don't approve of Obama's speech, as to me it seems he cedes a moral authority to the UN which in my opinion it does not deserve.
He is our elected President and has the legitimate right to say those kinds of the UN. But as a free citizen I am not obligated to agree, and I have the right to criticize him, as those citizens did who disagreed with Bush.
An owl is clearly superior? Wise hunter of mice. I see your point.
In honor of MUL, I've changed my avatar to be something that explains my positions a little more clearly.
It's actually more fun not scrolling up now!
Oh, how can I stay mad at you? Your prose makes me so lubricious and tumescent.
Even moreso than American exceptionalism does?
The Gimp's hat was leather and the eyes and mouth zipped up.
Seven Machos has a ski mask.
I am uniquely qualified to judge the distinction.
Yes. That's good to know. But can't ski masks also be worn by sociopaths -- burglars and the like? I think the point is one of concealing one's face. But I'm glad you're making the distinctions here. Because my less charitable stance toward someone as stupid and insignificant as Machos would lead to my lumping in the motivation behind his avatar as being similar to the motivation that would lead one to wear either that, the gimp mask, or just a pair of pantyhose over one's face. In a certain setting, all of those are intended to give the same impression.
An owl is clearly superior? Wise hunter of mice. I see your point.
Hey! At least I get to eat. And hunt for myself. That's got to count for something in your book, H2O.
@montana urban legend:
But can't ski masks also be worn by sociopaths -- burglars and the like?...
...the motivation behind his avatar as being similar to the motivation that would lead one to wear either that, the gimp mask, or just a pair of pantyhose over one's face.
The Gimp is a masochist, not a sociopath. Do defer to my unique qualifications here.
Even moreso than American exceptionalism does?
We don't agree on what that label represents, so American exceptionalism doesn't make me tumescent or lubricious.
@montana urban legend:
It's actually more fun not scrolling up now!
And I reposted it for your benefit.
If it's fun you are interested, as well as masks, maybe we ought to communicate privately....
except that I'm too afraid of my wife.
We've been over my little image before, when Montana fell over himself in turgid prose, exposing himself as someone who has never heard of La Lucha.
What a boneheaded tool.
Thanks for the simple explanation and for posting the quote, Gabriel.
But I got a different impression from the excerpts I read of Obama's speech. In them I didn't find any references to the U.S. "ceding" moral authority to the U.N. He seemed to pushing the same ideas Bush did about whether the U.N. wanted to remain relevant and a voice for moral authority period (and not, more morally authoritative than the U.S., but morally authoritative at all). And when it comes to that, I think he made his
point much more effectively.
But Seven "Masked Avenger" Nachos thinks he's in a good position to judge the words and writings of others, so what do I know? I mean, it's not like Obama and his staff asked for a review of what they were going to say by "Seven Machos" before going in front of the GA. I think that's what Seven's really got his panties in a bunch about.
In it I didn't find any references to the U.S. "ceding" moral authority to the U.N.
No, he didn't explicitly say that, and I didn't say he did. Reasonable people can disagree with me. Unreasonable people will also, and I will waste time trying to make them feel ashamed.
Notice I used Rwanda as an example of when I thought America was in the wrong. Based on that example and the other things I posted, phosphorious concluded that I was against what HE meant by "American exceptionalism".
But if I had chosen to talk about my support of the Iraq war, he would have concluded that I was FOR what HE meant by "American exceptionalism".
Even though it's the same set of principles in either case (for me, and no, I don't feel like opening up that argument right now). The confusion comes because I reject one of his premises--what HE means by "American exceptionalism".
People spend too much time talking past one another.
I know that your interest in Mexican wrestling makes you an astute, intelligent young man, Machos. With opinions that are just oh so brilliant and articulate!
You dazzle the masses with the way you turn conventional wisdom and the entire foreign policy establishment on its head!
But do try to refrain from phrases like "boneheaded tool". It's unbecoming of someone of your caliber of thought. What would the other wrestlers think? It's not your physical fighting skills they admire, after all!
What's said is how little energy the so-called supporters of the President are expending defending him. Instead, they spend their times simply snarking down the opposition.
The President bombed at the UN, and made it sound like before him there was only a fascist state that tortured people and put them in illegal prisons. But now, in just 9 short months, he's stopped that torturing and imprisonment - except he hasn't.
So maybe what the President was really saying was not that America is no longer exceptional, but that HE is not exceptional.
The fact that leftists believe that conservatives act in some mental lockstep -- or wish to -- is humorous.
Lefties have a hard time with flexible thinking.
And some people wonder why I would make assumptions about what will be said in these sections...
What's said is how little energy the so-called supporters of the President are expending defending him. Instead, they spend their times simply snarking down the opposition.
That's because there's not much to defend other than the sanity that prevents people from coming to the same simple-minded conclusions regarding Obama's every action that opposition comes up with.
The President bombed at the UN, and made it sound like before him there was only a fascist state that tortured people and put them in illegal prisons.
INCOHERENT.
If this is your interpretation of the perception Obama pushed of America, then that says it all.
So maybe what the President was really saying was not that America is no longer exceptional, but that HE is not exceptional.
Thoughts like these would become more widespread if Jay Leno had been in the habit of writing speeches for presidents to give at the U.N. over the last 20 years.
perfectly coherent.
FAIL
"
An owl is clearly superior? Wise hunter of mice. I see your point.
"
owls actually arent very smart as far as birds go. and its awful being forced to dissect their puke pellets. as it is here with our owl and his pellets.
The President spoke at the UN on and on about what HE's been doing and what HE thinks and what HE believes.
He's the freakin' President of the United States and he treats the UN like it's the judge's panel at the Miss USA contest.
I'm surprised he didn't flutter his hands afterwards and express how truly surprised he was with weepy eyes.
"In just 41 speeches so far this year, not including this week's big speech at the United Nations, Obama has talked about himself nearly 1,200 times – 1,198 to be exact. (That breaks down to 1,121 “I”s and just 77 “me”s.)"
perfectly coherent.
FAIL
Oh. Ok, teacher. Let me explain why your statement is incoherent.
First, it assumes that the world didn't have a bad perception of the "security state" "fortress America" built by Bush. But since you seem unaware of that fact, or find it unimportant, you think it doesn't matter that Obama shows the world that his country is now more like the one they used to admire, before it resorted to unilateralism and militarism as the solutions of first resort.
So I apologize. You weren't incoherent. Just ignorant.
But it is incoherent for someone to assume that the opinion of one's audience doesn't matter, as the U.N. was Obama's audience when he spoke. AND THAT'S THE MOST EASILY UNDERSTOOD POINT THAT YOU CONSISTENTLY FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WITH EVERY COMMENT YOU POST!
Fail.
I'm worried for Montana. I think he's going off the deep end.
owls actually arent very smart as far as birds go. and its awful being forced to dissect their puke pellets. as it is here with our owl and his pellets.
Translation: I have nothing substantive to add to the conversation, so I will just go ahead and relate disgusting stories of boring things that I have done or heard about so as to insult those of you who do. And I am also too stupid to acknowledge that owls are an ancient symbol of wisdom - a virtue of which my interlocutor is an exemplary representative.
"...retailing pious cliches he learned from his pony-tailed social studies teacher?"
Charles Johnson?
I'm worried for Montana. I think he's going off the deep end.
I know you prefer shallow waters, Machos. But have no fear. My strapping Mexican wrestler would catch me if I were in any danger!
Ok. Me and Gabriel have clarified. And it looks like Machos is plum out of insults and snipes. Miller's been decisively outwitted. And anyone else is cut off at the pass. No one else has anything to say and must now nod in agreement with the fact that The God of The World, President Obama, has once again put the right wing to shame while inevitably restoring American greatness in the eyes of the world. Thread's done. Good night.
Over and out.
wv: punts
That guy is a loon.
Awwww.... I just had to come back to review/scroll through the thread, and LOOK! Little Machos is back. I think the guy needs a noogie. You know, when you put your arm around his neck and vigorously rub his head with your fist. That's what Machos needs! Come on, Machos. Admit your need to be simultaneously embraced while you're being put in place by your superiors! The leaders of the pack will still accept lowly little you.
Just be glad that no mounting displays will be made. I know you relate to others on a very primitive level, but I'm not that crude. Just noogies for you, Machos! No mounting.
So stop panting.
BTW, it's a cop-out to construct one's own, personal definition of American Exceptionalism. The idea describes an enduring quality of America of a country, and not an evaluative criterion that changes minute to minute based on the whims that dictate the approval or disapproval of this policy or that, this president or that. We are talking about a lasting feature of America as a country, not an ad hoc judgment on any single action.
I think this is a useful point. Many people here confuse criticism of America or of certain presidents or parties with a devaluation of America. But in doing so, they fail to note the difference between judging the actions of one's country and judging one's country itself. The resemblance to certain psychological themes is striking. And noted.
Post a Comment