Thursday, September 24, 2009
A resolution for discussion in the comments: The character of the people from whom one seeks approval is perhaps the best measure of one's own character. Background.
The "honeymoon" is over. The UN speech was tantamount to filing an application for the United States to become a third world country. We can now take our seat in the Star Wars Cantina with the other fools and criminals.
Hey...we elected the guy...perhaps we deserve it!
The Oval Office is no place for OJT. In the past week alone Obama has turned on our allies, pissed on Israel, and kneeled before scum.
I hope people are paying attention. Sure, I can understand if one just likes the guy, one forgives the incremental moves, but eventually, I hope those persons put it all together and recognize what we have in this assclown.
We're still a sovereign nation, and we have every right to put our interests before all others, even though we seldom do, at least when compared to other countries. We should not apologize for doing so.
It is better to have the right enemies than the wrong friends, I always say.
President Obama learned a lot of bad lessons in his life, perhaps from William Ayers, Rev. Wright and Hugo Chavez. He does seem to be trying to gain approval from people that hate America, and that it a terrible thing.
To answer the question first, for me not exactly. And there are maybe two different ways to respond depending on whether we are talking about leaders or those not expected to lead.
For those not expected to lead, the people from whom they seek approval or respect may be a measure of their character. It may also be a measure of their insecurities and their fantasies. I do not see it as the best measure of character. There are so many ways that character is expressed, both good and bad, that looking for one key or one tool may leave one with a tool inadequate for the job, like trying to measure a football field with a ruler.
For those expected to lead, the notion of seeking approval, on a personal level, on a level of meeting some psychological need seems out of place. I expect leaders to be a bit beyond the ordinary neuroses the rest of us are still working through. They are after all given the spot at the front of the parade because they are thought to be the most capable among us.
What leaders need is to have most people follow them and few to oppose them. For these they need to persuade. Any leader in an important position who needs approval and can't persuade has a serious problem.
The real question here is what does it say about President Obama that he bows to those who stand for values antithetical to fundamental American values and that he fails to show minimal care and respect for those who have long shared our fundamental values? Does that say something disturbing about his character?
Absolutely. It says he has a real admiration for societies with strong man rule, where the society is flattened economically. It says he has no real admiration for dynamic, capitalist democracies.
Is that something to be concerned about? No shit.
"It amazes me every single day that half the country still thinks highly of the president"
Our reward for a generation of political correctness in public education. Frankly, we have raised an entire generation that is half idiotic!
On half the country still approving of the President...
reminds me of high school. The 'cool' kids everyone liked and wanted to be around. To me the sad/scary aspect is that this urge is so deeply embedded in our culture I wonder if it isn't just an aspect of human nature.
I remain hopeful however. The truth will out; once that party is over, the curtain will fall quickly. Whereas Pres. Clinton was likeable, so his 'peccadilloes' were forgiven, Obama doesn't have that native likeability. Whatever he is, he isn't a good ole boy.
Oh, this is rich. I might actually find myself becoming a francophone! First, there is exhibit "A". That's a powerful statement right there. But even better than A is exhibit "B".
Now, that is speaking truth to empty suit! Hey Barack, try working with our allies for a change!
Victor Davis Hanson is an absolute "must read" on Obama's Iran policy.
Among other indictments of the presidents failed leadership, Hanson says Iran "quite understandably concluded that Obama not only would not support democratic dissidents in the new “reset button” era, but was increasingly desperate, as the new anti-Bush, to obtain some sort of agreement with Iran by any means necessary."
In other words, if Iran gains a nuclear attack capability it'll be Obama's fault. If thousands die when Iran "tests" their new weapon at their Tel Aviv testing grounds, those deaths will be on Obama.