« "Black Dog" Obama | Main | Gulf Arab states push U.S. to intervene in Syria »

February 23, 2012

Comments

That's not Auster but one of his regular commenters.

The quote is actually from one of Larry's regular commenters, Sage McLaughlin.

I've never understood the notion of Obama being dumb, either. I don't believe he's the smartest man in the room, but that's unnecessary. He's probably 2+ stdv above the mean, verbally.

Just on affirmative action, Steve Hsu has an opinion piece in the New York Times. Comments are open.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/02/22/beyond-race-in-affirmative-action/merit-not-race-in-college-admissions

Good points by Auster. He actually does use language to promote the exact opposite of what it superficially sounds like. This confirms an earlier impression I had that Obama is not interested in engaging in debate at all – rather he simply wants to "get by" or "get around" traditional white Americans. He sees them as a group of people not to be engaged with as equals, but almost as inferiors to be hornswoggled in a condescending manner.

Maybe he has very high emotional intelligence, such that he is more capable than others at picking speechwriters to put the right words in his mouth.

I think Obama is basically a moderate Republican, but I am apparently wrong because he is in actuality a raving socialist. Auster's examples of what he thinks Obama actually means are totally unpersuasive. Because Auster hates the federal government, he projects the opposite of that on his opponents so he can hate them too.

It is usually to take one to know one. Only smart people are able to appreciate other smart people. You should not expect some low IQ readers to figure out who is smart.

Auster's view is the result of two ideological trends: Republicans are getting more conservative, and Democrats are not. Yet, according to the best measure available in political science (DW-NOMINATE scores), Obama is the most moderate Democratic president since the end of WWII.

Here is a graph from Keith Poole:

http://www.voteview.com/blog/?p=317

If Obama's so smart, how come went to law school? Everyone knows that MDs pull the hottest women, make obscene $$$, and sit atop PRESTIGE MOUNTAIN, while lawyers are chained to their desks until 11 at night, every night, eating crappy Chinese food ordered off SeamlessWeb.

[HS: Obama's amazon wife can beat up any MD's wife.]

Most people don't realize that the president is a puppet post and his actions/behaviors are all bought and paid for by Super PACs and special interest groups through campaign contribution, private sector investment/employment and lobbying.

Even if Obama was intellectually competent, he will be unable to implement his personal agenda.

USA is a constitutional republic aka oligarchy by the intellectual class.

Eric, there's no way to be a "moderate" when you instruct your attorney general not to prosecute black on white crime, or black vote fraud. The best you can say about Obama is that somehow, all the hard spade (sorry) work to undermine democracy has already been done at the state and local levels, and he's doing no more than riding the wave.

@Matt in RTP

I know you're being facetious, but lawyers from T14 schools >>> most doctors.

Do law schools--other than Harvard--add honors awards (Magna Cum Laude) to their graduate degrees? I though such was strictly an undergraduate phenomena.

You don't have to be fooled by Obama to vote for him. After all, today's figures showed that 49.5% of the American public pay NO, that is NO federal income tax. The figure is actually based on last year's data, as I understand it so over 50% is more like it.

I'm a retired public school teacher, single. I pay lots of fed. income tax. People who make 70K (which I never reached when I retired almost 6 years ago) pay no fed. income tax with this break and that break. I have quite modest home that has a modest balance left on it. They live in a houses much nicer than mine with a great deal of a balance and they pay no fed. income tax.

Why would they consider voting for anyone other than Obama when they get the federal government not just on the cheap, but free?

"USA is a constitutional republic aka oligarchy by the intellectual class."

Not really.

g -

You're being contradictory. You say you paid a lot of federal income tax on a salary less than what your higher-earning peers now pay. How does that work? Either you yourself don't understand the tax code, or you're completely fabricating out of resentment and ignorance for what others pay.

"He is able to couch self-evidently socialist ideas in language that most people identify as fuzzily conservative."

oh please...can't he provide at least one concrete example? how is it even possible to do this? I can't even think of a hypothetical sentence that expresses an obviously socialist idea in 'conservative language.'

sure, Siggie, Obama has a high verbal IQ--LOL. Read this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/early_obama_letter_confirms_inability_to_write.html

"Because Auster hates the federal government, he projects the opposite of that on his opponents so he can hate them too."

Oh please. It is NOT Auster's personal delusion that everything Obama does and says is the opposite of hating the Federal government. That's who Obama is, that's what he does!

@One "Percenter" Or 1%er

"Not really."

Do you care to elaborate? Perhaps forming a well formulated rebuttal or is that past your capability? If so, it is better to keep your mouth shut than publicly advertising your imbecility within this decorum.

You probably think the USA is a democracy. Why don't you go look up the Latin origin and the definition of the term (Hint: Its a two part word: DEMO - CRACY) and compare it to a constitutional republic.

People here are just jealous that a black man child surpassed them in every life metric.

Eric S, his rankings of the GOP presidents are about right, but he's way off on the Democrats. JFK was the least liberal WWII president, and Clinton was the second least liberal. I'd rank Carter as the most liberal, with Obama next followed by LBJ.

OT. have you seen this liberal complaining about his daughter losing her job because she was white?

"The one thing my daughter had no control over – the color of her skin – determined that no matter what she had done or what she could do in the future, she would not be re-hired.

Did I mention that she is Caucasian? The school calls it diversity. I would call it racism. I do not make that charge lightly. I am a liberal; I understand that affirmative action was a reasonable remedy for past wrongs. But it was necessarily a temporary remedy, because it punishes new generations for the sins of those who came before. It institutionalizes racism, and “group guilt.”

http://networkedblogs.com/ugFvv

[HS: How do you know he's a liberal?]

This Lawrence Auster column is an example of what has gone wrong with the American conservative movement.

They were so freaked out by the election of a moderate African American President, that they have spent the last three years chanting to themselves that Obama is not a real American, Obama is a Socialist, Obama is a Marxist, and other such nonsense. Fox News and other conservative wing-nut media repeat these phases over and over. Repetition, however, does not make any of it true.

People like Lawrence Auster are reduced to claiming that the words and phrases Obama uses actually mean something completely different than the plain meaning of the words. Something consistent with the alternate reality they have created in their own minds with the help of conservative media.

Obama is not a Socialist. It is really sad to see conservatives minds wasting their time trying to reconcile events in the real world with their own fantasies.

I agree with mikeca. Conservatives were simply wrong about Obama being a radical leftist, at least compared to other American politicians. The truth is Obama isn't that different from Romney. On all the policies that Auster sees destroying America - immigration, gay marriage, affirmative action, Obamacare (aka Romneycare) I just don't see much of a difference.

@mikeca

How is socialized medicine not socialist?

[HS: How do you know he's a liberal?]

He says he is one in his post. I suspect that a number of the liberals would also change their tune on affirmative action/diversity type programs if their children were affected like this guy.

MIkeA,

The only thing that makes Obama moderate is his failures. Where Obama has succeeded is very much of the left. Look at how the federal government is now telling health insurance companies what they can do and how they can do it.

Look at how the Obama Administration decide to ignore the War Powers Act and everyone on the left went along with them.

Look at how the Obama Administration has decide that the U.S., as a country, is not competent enough to build a pipeline, a drilling platform, a power plant, a waste repository.

Look at what the Obama Administration would want to do if they could such as card-check, cap-and-trade, or hate-speech.

"Obama is not a Socialist."

Oh please. Every other word out of the guy's mouth is about "fairness" and the need to spread the wealth around. The only deluded fantasists are those who think he is a moderate.

"The truth is Obama isn't that different from Romney."

To the degree that is true, it proves Romney is a liberal, not that Obama is a moderate or conservative.

"Obama is not a Socialist. It is really sad to see conservatives minds wasting their time trying to reconcile events in the real world with their own fantasies. "


How do you suppose Obama would govern if we elected him dictator for life and he has his druthers?

GW Bush probably would have been 25% more conservative.

Obama would talk himself into Nationalizing the oil companies with in two years to fund all of his programs.

In 10 years most economists would probably define the economy as at least partially socialist.

"To the degree that is true, it proves Romney is a liberal, not that Obama is a moderate or conservative."

Fair enough, but that just means the country as a whole has become very liberal, especially the elites. Pretending Obama is a "secret Marxist" is conspiracy thinking. Obama isn't misleading anyone, to the extent he is at all popular it means most of the population shares his misguided ideas, not that Obama is fooling anyone, which is the way Auster and other conservatives like to portray it. A moderate is someone who believes in mainstream values - for better or worse Obama fits that description. Obama is a "moderate", it's the mainstream values that have become radical from a thinking conservative's point of view.

To the extent that Romney's record resembles Obama's record, it's because:

Romney was the governor of one of the most brain-dead unreconstructed liberal states in the Union
Obama coasted on his blackness his entire career and never really took any strong official stands

When you look beyond the actual voting and policy records to see what these people were doing with their lives, you see this:

Romney was a management consultant who turned around failing businesses to make them profitable
Obama was a race hustling "community organizer" who agitated for more gubmint intervention for blacks

Obama's a moderate in the sense that he's too lazy and inept to really implement his infantile liberal ideals. His greatest "moderate" success as president was fecklessly nodding along the assassination of Bin Laden. I've met the type before - really, the Empty Black Suit - who has learned how to nod along and "lead from behind" as the impotent black figurehead.

Obama is a socialist, but he's not an aggressive politically informed socialist. He's your average campus naif who "fit in" better at the leftist parties because they celebrated him for being black. He's just adopted the socialist pose for so long that he's started to believe his own bullshit. But he still doesn't really care about The Cause the way real socialists do, which is why they're so mad at him.

His father is Frank Marshall Davis, not Barack Obama from Kenya

"On all the policies that Auster sees destroying America - immigration, gay marriage, affirmative action, Obamacare (aka Romneycare) I just don't see much of a difference."

apparently, you haven't been watching TV. Democrats are saying Romney is very "right-wing" on immigration. Romney is for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. he'd appeal Obamacare his first day in office.

moron.

i'd argue that anyone who subscribes to the delusional bitterness of websites like american thinker is in fact the person most likely to be intellectually surpassed by a fifth grader. in the absence of any ability to construct a cogent argument, just make shit up, right?

"You probably think the USA is a democracy. Why don't you go look up the Latin origin and the definition of the term (Hint: Its a two part word: DEMO - CRACY) and compare it to a constitutional republic."

The United States of America have been for one century and a half, and currently are, a universal democracy.

Every given number of years, an election is organized, where every law-abiding citizen over age 18 can vote, independent of his sex or race.

Despite the noise made about electronic machines, there is compelling factual and academic evidence which shows that the counting of votes is not rigged.

The fact that some people on the fringe, for ex. libertarians, communists, anarchists, white nationalists, atheists are not satisfied with the choice of their fellow citizens does not mean that the system is not a universal democracy.

It may simply mean that universal democracy is a bad system, either on a relative point of view or an objective point of view.

"Conservatives were simply wrong about Obama being a radical leftist, at least compared to other American politicians. The truth is Obama isn't that different from Romney."

Please reconsider Obama's choices for the Supreme Court/Judiciary, then tell us if you still think that Obama isn't out to instill radical change.

Keep in mind that he's also very chummy with other overt legal radicals like Cass Sunstein and Godwin Liu.

Matt,

Obama was apparently not interested in landing a hot wife.

"How is socialized medicine not socialist?"

Obviously you have no idea what "socialized medicine" means.

England has socialized medicine where doctors are employees of the government.

Canada has a single payer system where the government acts as a health insurance company for all citizens. Doctors are employed by hospitals and practice privately.

Medicare in the USA is a government run single payer system where the government acts as an insurance company for citizens over 65. Doctors are employed by hospitals and practice privately.

So called “ObamaCare” creates pools that individuals can join to get health insurance, if they cannot get it through an employer. Private insurance companies compete to provide coverage to people in the pool.

As I have explained before, a person’s health is not an insurable risk. If a person becomes seriously ill, an insurance company can look at his/her health record and see it will cost at least $200,000 next year to cover this person. How can they renew that policy for less than $200,000?

Now there may be state regulations (government interference in the private market) that prevent an insurance company from dropping coverage or raising premiums that high when someone becomes seriously ill. That does not stop the insurance company from giving poor service (rejecting claims for no reason), and with a pre-existing condition there is no way you could ever switch to another insurance company.

The US health insurance system works because people don’t buy private health insurance. Their employers buy health insurance for all the companies employees and families. There will be a few seriously ill people in that “pool”, but insurance companies can cover that pool at a reasonable cost.

Basically, Obama Care (and Romney Care) creates a new way of forming pools. States will create pools for people who cannot get insurance through there employers. Private insurance companies will offer policies to those pools. Low-income people will be able to get subsidies to help pay for this insurance.

If you want rave about socialized medicine, move to England.

[How do you suppose Obama would govern if we elected him dictator for life and he has his druthers?

GW Bush probably would have been 25% more conservative.

Obama would talk himself into Nationalizing the oil companies with in two years to fund all of his programs.

In 10 years most economists would probably define the economy as at least partially socialist.]

This is an great example of the circular reasoning that passes for conservative thinking.

Shorter version: Obama is a socialist because in my fantasies he’s a socialist.

It is time for conservatives to stop talking about their fantasies and confront the real problems this country facing.

Half -
I think you should start a new thread to discuss the topic brought up at Larry Auster's site

Cracks in male/female relationships began when men and women started interacting outside of marriage. As many of the commentators have noted, anonymous urban living, contraceptives, the breakdown of social shaming, etc., has allowed women to pursue men in bars and clubs without the worry of rumors and unwanted pregnancies spoiling reputations. This brought in the first problem threatening men: the system of like marries like breaks down. Just like men, women cannot marry above their station. Unlike men, however, women can easily date and sleep with men above their station. This means that a woman who is a 5 or 6 can sleep with a man who is a 7, 8 or a 9. Consequently, the vast bulk of men face the problem that their female equivalents do not want them, simply because the women can do better. In a sense, the women are right...up to the point of marriage. That is why women are racking up such huge body counts.

"It is time for conservatives to stop talking about their fantasies and confront the real problems this country facing."

Problems which are largely caused by the economic and social effects of those socialistic policies that you think are a "fantasy".

"Problems which are largely caused by the economic and social effects of those socialistic policies that you think are a "fantasy"." - JP


Like what? Mass immigration? Reagan passed amnesty in the 80's establishing the precedent and Bush aggressively pushed for it again. Nearly everything you believe to be bad has lots of support from the mainstream right. Remember Bush's ownership society or Rick Perry's heartless comment? America is a far left country whether you admit it or not. Obama is very mainstream.

America is far left in a cultural Marxist sense not proletarian Marxism. The perverts, pansies, and plutocrats run the USA.

[Problems which are largely caused by the economic and social effects of those socialistic policies that you think are a "fantasy".]

Are you suggesting that the Bush administration from 2001-2008 pursued socialist economic policies?

What socialist policies do you think are responsible for the current problems?

If you are alluding to the right wing fantasy that the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow responsible for the house bubble, in the real world this theory has been completely debunked. Only a small percentage of risky loans were originated under CRA. About 50% of subprime loans were originated by mortgage companies not covered by the CRA. Another 25% to 30% were originated by bank subsidiaries that are only partially covered by the CRA.

The housing bubble originated from Wall Street executives and bond rating companies convincing themselves that packaging lots of risky mortgages in derived investments instruments could somehow make risky investments safe. Since the derived markets were mostly unregulated, they were allowed to sell these investments at huge profits. This created a demand for more and more risky mortgages. The mortgage companies kept lowing their standards to meet the demand for risky mortgages to be packaged and resold. This created the first ever nation house bubble and that lead to a national housing collapse.

Socialists had nothing to do with it.

Jack,

If you sincerely believe that Willard Romney cares at all about immigration or gay marriage, or would ever go out on a limb to repeal Romneycare, you have no standing to call anyone a moron. Do a little research into the man's life.

Patrick, I don't have the write-offs.

"Are you suggesting that the Bush administration from 2001-2008 pursued socialist economic policies?"

Yes! One of the greatest delusions of the Left (and to a lesser degree, the Right) is that Bush was a "conservative".

If the Far Left is "mainstream" that does not make Far Leftist policies, or anyone who espouses them, "moderate".

@John and @Not A Hacker:

There are surely several ways to estimate a politician's ideology.

Poole's approach uses votes. If a politician votes with liberals more, he or she gets a more liberal score, and so on (and these scores span time because every Congress has repeat members). This means that, if your assessment does not chime with Poole's, then you are at least out of step with how that particular president's voting record.

The comments to this entry are closed.