« John Kerry Writes about Ted Kennedy | Main | Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners »

The American Thinker: Obama as Leninoid

If you read only one piece today, make it this American Thinker article by James Lewis. In it Mr. Lewis discusses the similarities between Barack Obama and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. He, of course, notes that Obama and Lenin are not the same as they lived in different times and ruled under different circumstances, but there are enough similarities that they must be examined and understood. We must know what Obama and his leftist minions think if we are to protect ourselves from him and successfully vote him out of office in 2012. There is so much in the article that is educational and informative that it's almost impossible to quote only some of it, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

This the aspect of Obama's Leninoidism that is probably the most obvious to everyone who is paying attention. Those who think Obama is following Saul Alinsky's playbook may not realize that the Alinksy model, really, is nothing more than the Lenin model:

Demonizing the opposition

Obama constantly demonizes. He has demonized auto companies, and fired the president of GM. He has demonized the insurance companies, and doctors who supposedly do tonsillectomies even when that isn't needed, just to make money. Or they amputate limbs for diabetics rather than treat them with drugs. Those are lies, and they are lies designed to make the scapegoats look evil. They are malevolent lies.

Lenin was a first-rate demagogue. That is how he was able to make the transition between community organizer and Glorious Leader of a vast country with tens of millions of people. Lenin raised the art of demagogy to a national and international level, using the international media and the educational systems as instruments of wall-to-wall propaganda.

Anti-Obama protesters have now been described as an "unruly mob" by the media, which are in total hock to Obama. Radical guru Saul Alinsky simply called the American middle class "the enemy." (That would be you and me.).

It's weird for an American president to consider most of the American population "the enemy." This is not like Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil getting together for drinks after a hard day of political infighting in Washington. This Rahm Emanuel's politics as Kill! Kill! Kill! Alinsky gave radicals the recipe for mob scapegoating, and admitted that yes, it was destructive and cruel, but tough noogies. Alinsky admired tough treatment of enemies, which is why he stayed friends with Frank Nitti, Chicago mobster and therefore a professional killer, drug runner, and career criminal.

Obama has openly said words approaching the famous line from The Untouchables: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." Alinsky and Capone would have toasted that one. So would Lenin. It strikes me as weird for an American president to think of domestic politics as all-out war -- especially given the reality of real enemies in the world who openly wish us ill.

Take the time to read every word of James Lewis' article. He also discusses the Obama/Lenin concepts of cult of personality, revolution comes from above, scapegoating the rich, exploiting ethnic hatreds, controlling the media, and others. Lewis' article gives us important insight into Obama's actions and beliefs and puts them into a context that we can better understand. If we are going to defend our nation, our freedoms, and our liberties by pushing back against Obama's machinations, we need to know exactly who he is and what motivates him.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/36635.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The American Thinker: Obama as Leninoid:

» Weekend Pundit linked with Thoughts On A Sunday

Comments (53)

Old news, but at least the ... (Below threshold)
JustRuss:

Old news, but at least the article doesn't read like a conspiracy nut. Too bad nobody is listening except those who already know.

Well the tracking polls wou... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Well the tracking polls would appear to indicate that some of that 52% are wising up. Barry's now at a -10. 32% Strongly approve, 42% strongly disapprove.

The AT article failed to me... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

The AT article failed to mention one thing, Barry; just like Teddy, is still trying to get approval from a father who ignored him.

Well whomever Obami is and ... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Well whomever Obami is and whatever he trying to do...it is not working...he has only been in office 8 months and his support is collapsing.

How could it be any differe... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

How could it be any different when the majority of the electorate sticks their collective head up their collective ass and elects to the presidency a man who palls around with terrorists? And for what -- undefined hope and change. The real hope is that enough voters learn their lesson and vote to repeal Obama's version of change in 2012.

Priestap > how about provid... (Below threshold)
Kenneth E. Tucker:

Priestap > how about providing links to when/where, Alinsky (who dies in '72 when Obama was 10, btw) called the middle class quote: "the enemey".

His 1971 book Rules for Radicals the "rules" derive from many successful campaigns where he helped poor people fighting power and privilege.
http://vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html

Furthermore, as this wiki link points out, the prologue of the book, 'Rules for Radicals" makes it clear that the middle class is not only NOT the enemy, but a necessary partner in confronting corporations/wealth/power:

In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky outlines his strategy in organizing, writing in the prologue; "There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so future-less in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

So, please, before you mindlessly rush to repeat some vitriolic jibber jabber spewed by some equally mindless, and non-attributing 'author' of trash like the quotes that follow, remember, we BOTH know you aren't as 'bright' as you'd like folks to think, and, though many do NOT 'think' as SOP, as a counter-balance, there are 10 MILLION more Obama voters and 192 Electoral votes more than that lame-ass losing McSame-Barbie ticket, and, we want to remind you: "Elections have consequences...".

"Radical guru Saul Alinsky simply called the American middle class "the enemy." (That would be you and me.)."

"It's weird for an American president to consider most of the American population "the enemy."

A VOL Viet Vet than KNOWS BS when he sees it

"Organization for action... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center upon America's white middle class. That is where the power is. ... Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority."

Kenneth you must see a lot of BS where you are because you are the source. Above is what Alinsky said about the middle class. If that doesn't make a clear statement that the middle class of America is the enemy then you are without reason.

Elections do have consequen... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Elections do have consequences, but Obama is sadly mistaken if he really thinks that what American wants is a wholesale conversion of our country into a socialist distopia. Unfortunately, he is acting as if that is exactly what he wants and intends to do.

Oh, and Kenneth, for your information 'Rules for Radical' is still under copywrite. You cannot find the contents posted on the web. I know that from your post you clearly do not believe in private property, but until such a time as Obama decides to rid the country of private property you will have to crack open your own copy as you will only find brief quotations on line. You ask for links either in ignorance of this fact or knowing that no one can comply with your demand. I am sure when others cannot comply you will cast aspersions on their integrity as you did above.

Mr Tucker,I believe ... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Mr Tucker,
I believe you do have some valid points. In RFR Alinsky does indeed disparage communism. However, just because Barry was 10 when the book was published does not preclude him from following the Alinsky philosophy. In RFR Alinsky talks about the 'Haves', the 'Have Nots' and the (I think I have this right) 'Have Some but Want More', the last describing the middle class. In fact Alinsky says in his book that many great men and women have come from the middle class. I think I agree with you in Kim's post that is probably not reasonable to bring Alinsky into this, because of my first comment. However, I think the analogy with Lenin is valid. Obama is a big time demagogue. In fact, I think he is no longer a strict disciple of Alinsky because he is forming a coalition of the 'Haves' to increase his power. This includes his control of banks, large corporations (too big too fail), labor unions, etc.

I don't believe that the av... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

I don't believe that the average voter voted for too much change in either 2006 or 2008. Yes, they were tired of the Republicans and voted for Democrats, but if you look at most of the "change" in congress, moderate to conservative Republicans were replaced in large part by Blue Dogs. Did the voters want to give the other guys a shot at things? I believe they did. Did they want to fundamentally change the way America operates? No.

Alinsky appears to have dis... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Alinsky appears to have disparaged communism due to his disappointment with The communists willingness to compromise their ideology by making a pact with the Nazis.

The difference between Alinsky and the communists has been put this way: Communists seek to acquire power through social revolution and then re-shape man. Alinsky seeks to acquire power and use it to re-shape man through social revolution.

The differences in method may be different, but he result is the same. Both desire to consolidate power unto themselves and then manipulate and micro-manage the lives of the people they control.

Both are Utopian ideologies and both lead only to a corrupt totalitarian regime. Whenever you are focused on the acquisition of power to control others there is no other end result.

K.E.T. Considering t... (Below threshold)

K.E.T.
Considering this is your first post at Wizbang,
your insulting manner towards the site and the
editor shows you got lots of gall.
Rudeness towards Wizbang or its editors will
earn you an early shovel.

Communists seek to... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Communists seek to acquire power through social revolution and then re-shape man. Alinsky seeks to acquire power and use it to re-shape man through social revolution.

Both strategies are doomed to ultimate failure because human nature cannot be changed by human will.

"A VOL Viet Vet than KNOWS ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"A VOL Viet Vet than KNOWS BS when he sees it."

So am I bucko, and that fact doesn't confer infallible insight into another's soul. Just consider, John Kerry also 'served' in Vietnam. Odd that both of you need to wear it on your sleeve.

One (And a Bunch of Others)... (Below threshold)
Still An Unrepentant Democrat:

One (And a Bunch of Others) Flew Over The Cuckoo Nest would aptly describe this one. Every time I think you folks can't outdo your past insanity you surprise me with something even crazier.

Comrade SAUD

Kenneth,Go reread ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Kenneth,

Go reread your Dostoevsky. In The Brothers Karamazov Dostoevsky casts the character representing socialism and communism as a 13 year old boy. The characterization is deliberate to illustrate the childishness and ignorance of such ideologies.

That Alinsky uses Dostoevsky to make a point shows his own inability to see beyond his own naval gazing.

SAUD - The point of the art... (Below threshold)
jim m:

SAUD - The point of the article was a comparison and contrast between two leaders. It's not black helicopter stuff.

The comparison of the two as demagogues is particularly apt. Being an 'unrepentant democrat' I doubt that you would recognize a demagogue if you were hit over the head with one. Clearly you didn't when you voted for him. ;-)

"Every time I think you fol... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Every time I think you folks can't outdo your past insanity you surprise me with something even crazier."

Good ol' SAUD. Always has something intelligent to say. Always persuasive in his arguements, well thought out and constructed and never engages in deprecitive meaningless comments.

Garandfan, surely you jest.... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Garandfan, surely you jest. SAud is a leftist, not a democrat. He calls himself a democrat as much as Hugo Chavez is a democrat. There was a time when to be a democrat meant you were for the little guy, no longer. Look at the list of people who claim they are democrats. Do you mean to tell me these people believe in politics against their own self interests?

"There was a time when to b... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"There was a time when to be a democrat meant you were for the little guy, no longer."

Yeah, forgot about those long lists of donors from those BIG EVIL corporations they're always demonizing. Although I have noted that they NEVER demonize lawyers. Must be something in that.

Although I have noted th... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Although I have noted that they NEVER demonize lawyers. Must be something in that.

Nothing to see here. Move along...

I have to say that I have b... (Below threshold)
MPR:

I have to say that I have been surprised by Obamalala. I looked at his background during the campaign and could see what he was and that if he was honest with America he would never have been elected. His deceit went beyond the normal politician running from his record he lied unashamedly as is demonstrated in all the sound bites and video from his campaign. I thought he would be smarter by trying to cover his contempt for America and use a more gradual implementation strategy. Maybe he was surprised by how the media was so willing to give him a pass on so much of his background he thought he had a total mandate once elected. His unprecedented apology tours right after the election. Snubbing our allies and reaching out to our enemies. Demonizing our industrial base and capitalist economy. I can see him sitting at his desk in the Oval office and looking out across America saying to himself, "Paybacks are bitch America".

Obama's deceit was differen... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Obama's deceit was different than most politicians to start with. Obama ran telling the American public that he was something that he was not. He ran completely contrary to his record as a US Senator, Illinois Senator and private citizen. Obama ran denying everything he has previously stated publicly that he believed in.

There was nothing to suggest that he would subsequently be a different president than he was a senator. There was no event or epiphany that would explain how his radical political philosophy changed and became the more moderate platform that he ran on. I live in Illinois. I knew he was lying to the public.

I hoped rather than believed that he would try to change things slowly. But it was apparent as early as his "I won" statement that he had no intention of doing anything slowly.

Obama has the certainty of the fanatic. He never doubts his ideology, he thinks he is always right. He sees that he has the power to create the socialist society that he desires and since he is always right he sees no reason to hold back.

My take is that as he sees his congressional support wavering he will only push harder to achieve his aims and he will not pause to think that maybe he is wrong. He has grown up around and surrounded himself his whole adult life with leftist ideologues. If he honestly thinks of himself as a moderate it is only in comparison to leftists he has befriended who thought he best way to create change was to kill people (Ayers). Obama will not be stopped by the law or the constitution. He does not believe in them.

Fixed for you:"Dem... (Below threshold)
jim:

Fixed for you:

"Demonizing the opposition

*Bush* constantly demonizes. He has demonized *anyone who doesn't want to invade Iraq*, and *outed a CIA agent because her husband was right*. He has demonized *those who wear T-shirts he doesn't like at his rallies*, and *lawyers* who supposedly *sue companies* even when that isn't needed, just to make money. Or they *defend the accused* rather than treat them with *executions*. Those are lies, and they are lies designed to make the scapegoats look evil. They are malevolent lies.

...Anti-Bush protesters have now been described as an "*unpatriotic* mob" by the media, which are in total hock to *Bush*. Radical guru *Rush Limbaugh* simply called the American *unions* "the enemy." (*since unions defend the middle class,* that would be you and me.).

It's weird for an American president to consider most of the American population "the enemy." This is not like Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil getting together for drinks after a hard day of political infighting in Washington. This Karl Rove's politics as Kill! Kill! Kill! **Limbaugh** gave radicals the recipe for mob scapegoating, and admitted that yes, it was destructive and cruel, but tough noogies. *Limbaugh admires* tough treatment of enemies, which is why he stayed friends with *G. Gordon Liddy*, D.C. mobster and a *self-confessed attempted murderer*, killer, drug runner, and career criminal.

Bush has openly said words approaching the famous line from The Untouchables: "You're either with us or against us." Alinsky and Capone would have toasted that one. So would Lenin. It strikes me as weird for an American president to think of domestic politics as all-out war -- especially given the reality of real enemies in the world who openly wish us ill. "

And that's how it is in the real world, folks.

Everything - LITERALLY EVERYTHING - you are not liking about Obama was done earlier, and FAR worse, by the Bush administration to *it's* perceived political opponents.

Would that justify it if Obama did it? Of course not.

But you are truly blinding yourself to think that this means Obama is Lenin, if that also means Bush is not.

Come back to reality. It misses you.

Jim get a clue and grow up.... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Jim get a clue and grow up.

"Come back to reality. It m... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Come back to reality. It misses you."

Off our meds this evening, jim?

Shorter Michael # 25 and Ga... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Shorter Michael # 25 and Garandfan # 26:

"You're wrong, Jim. Because you just ARE! Because shut up, that's why!"

Jim - Perhaps you could act... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Jim - Perhaps you could actually follow the news instead of the Dem talking point.

1) show explicitly where Bush demonized anyone for what shirts they wore. Show me where Cindy Sheehan was demonized by Bush when she was protesting in Crawford? he ignored her more than anything else. Show me where he demonized the loons who called for his assassination.

2)Richard Armitage 'outed' Valerie Plame, and not under orders from Bush. Plame's husband went on a political mission to screw the president and he was subsequently show to be a fraud. BTW Wilson was shown to be wrong if you follow the intelligence reports from nearly EVERY European nation.

3) show me where any of the following portrayed anti-Bush protesters as unpatriotic: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, LAT, WaPo. Even Fox didn't go that far. You're delusional if you think otherwise. Show me just one. You can't.

4) Bush's "for us or against us" comment was explicitly about fighting against the terrorists who committed he 9/11 attacks and in particular about foreign entities. You're an ass to suggest that he meant it in any other way. In contrast Obama has made all his statements directly about domestic dissenters.

And that's how it is in the real world, folks.

The post was one of the most dishonest and delusional posts I have ever seen here on Wizbang.

Did Bush call for people to snitch on their neighbors? Did bush call out unions to beat up his opposition?

I don't recall Bush telling the Dems to "shut up and get out of the way". I don't recall Bush telling Dems that he didn't have to work with them because "I won".

I do recall him taking up Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind bill in the first 6 months of his presidency. Name one piece of significant legislation from a Republican that Obama is supporting.

Republicans considered changing the filibuster rule in the Senate, but declined to go that far. In contrast the Dems can beat the filibuster, but feel that it might be necessary to eliminate ALL debate on important legislation by passing it through reconciliation. The GOP would have at least allowed debate. The Dems apparently don't believe that debate should be allowed.

"Everything - LITERALLY EVERYTHING - you are not liking about Obama was done earlier, and FAR worse, by the Bush administration to *it's* perceived political opponents."

Prove it. Cite specific examples please. Everyone else tries to give specifics. You give a load of charges with exactly zero justification.

Jim,Though I disli... (Below threshold)
JustRuss:

Jim,

Though I dislike the way you attempted to turn that argument around and believe you were reaching at some points just to make it fit your ideas; I am no longer a Bush fan.

But not for the reasons you listed.

I am not a Bush fan because he abandoned conservative ideals and disregarded his base. Afganastan was justified, Iraq not so much though I am still glad Hussein is gone and Iraqis are tasting freedom.

However most of the "evils" that the left accuses Bush of would not turn this country into a socialist paradise. Bush did things we don't like and pushed the limits of the law but did not break them.

Obama however has not filled critical positions instead choosing to appoint only people who follow him blindly and agree with him. If congress is truly on his side he should have no problem vetting his people before them and putting them in positions they could be held accountable for holding.

The only questionable law Bush ran through congress was the Patriot Act. Obama on the other hand has proposed his ideas that will effectively give control of every major aspect of American life to the government. If Bush were pushing for this kind of control the left would be outraged as well. Neither party, nay, no government should have control of the country the way Obama wants. This country belongs to the people not the government but lazy people don't want to take control of their own lives. They want the govt to give them a check, free health care, and be fat dumb and happy without having to work for it. They don't want to have to think about how they are going to put food on the table or how to pay for health care for their children.

That is why we call them Obamabots.

Obama wants control of Energy, Healthcare, Business, Education...every major segment of our lives and the economy, because of course he/they know better than any of us. We don't know how to take care of ourselves, lets let govt do it.

Bruce, Jim is wrong becaus... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Bruce, Jim is wrong because the facts actually demonstrate so. He cannot substantiate anything of what he alleges. Bush and his administration did not demonize people. There were plenty of Dems whining about their patriotism being impugned, but it never was.

The notion that the media was EVER "in hoc" to Bush is laughable. We need go no further than the reminder this week that Mary Mapes knew that her entire story about Bush's TANG record was a complete fraud and yet she ran with it anyway in an attempt to destroy his election hopes. CBS's investigation concluded this, but you don't hear it being said much in the media because they are ashamed. More ashamed at being caught than actually having had one of their members commit such a fraud.

Jim refers to only two specific issues: The Plame fiasco and Bush's for us/against us comment. The first he misrepresents and the second he takes out of context. If you don't like my interpretation of the Plame issue then please answer why Richard Armitage was never prosecuted. He wasn't because he never committed a crime.

Can one of the so called "t... (Below threshold)
JustRuss:

Can one of the so called "trolls" please state exactly where you think this country is headed? Can you please say what YOU think the left wants from Healthcare and Cap-n-Trade?

What does the typical lefty want from the government?

Everyone else ignore this post, I already know what most of you will say and I agree with most of it being center right. We really need to know what they are thinking. If they too believe that government can run everything in this country better than the people.

Well,look who's back -... (Below threshold)
apb:

Well,look who's back -

Li'l Jimmy, our favorite pro-abortion Catholic.

Hey L'il Jimmy, your train of thought derailed at "outed a CIA agent;" 'fixing' things is obviously not your strong suit.

The truth of the matter is that you and your 'hopey changey' ilk brought us this despot. You practically dislocated your shoulders from patting yourselves on the back for bringing Light to our neanderthal world in the form of The Won.

Now you're reduced to attempts to rationalize your poor choice by Bush comparisons...truly pathetic.

Thanks, pal!

Not going to speak to your ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Not going to speak to your entire post, jim m, but only your point #4. jim (the other one) didn't misunderstand Bush's statement. Rather, he understands that it's an unbelievably stupid thing to say. What about all of the countries that were neither with the United States in its ill-defined war on an abstract concept, nor an enemy of it? Most of the countries in the world did not lend material support to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan but that doesn't meant they collaborated with terrorists. I think it was a government official from Iran who put it best: "We are neither with you, nor with the terrorists." He could have simply said "Morons trade in false dichotomies," but then he would have put Condoleeza Rice in the awkward position of having to explain the statement with smaller words.

It's a perfect example of why people all over the world despised Bush. The hatred has simmered to something more along the lines of scornful pity.

And jim was right to mention G. Gordon Liddy as a career criminal, who has enjoyed far more influence in his lifetime than Frank Nitti. Oliver North would be another good example. They are responsible for more death, drug trafficking, and general misery than a gangster from Chicago. As if it matters! Do you really think that politicians should be expected to live their entire lives without coming into contact with unsavory characters?

Hyper - We'll agree to disa... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Hyper - We'll agree to disagree. Bush's statement wasn't necessarily foolish. You may not like the posturing, but it sent the message he wanted. It does not matter that most of he world's nations didn't send any support to Afghanistan or Iraq. Many would be able to do anything of the sort. It doesn't mean that they were deemed against us.

G Gordon Liddy is not a career criminal. Yes he did commit crimes and he served his sentence for them. You libs are always in favor of giving people a second chance after they 'pay their debt to society'. Too bad you're so hypocritical about it. Nor do I recall his being involved in Drug trafficking. Your hyperbole about him and North is just that and you should consider yourself unworthy of it.

The world did not despise Bush. The leftist world would have despised him regardless. The French have always acted against our interests and if you avail yourself of history going back to our revolution you would know that. The Germans elected a conservative Chancellor, the French a conservative President, The Brits re-elected Blair through it all. The former Warsaw Pact was solidly behind us. Stop listening to the spin from the MSM and actually listen to what foreign nations say and do.

If you think Obama is doing any better the only foreign nations that he has improved relations with are Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. He has damaged them with Britain, France, Russia, Germany and China. Don't go telling me that he has improved relations when foreign politicians refuse to acknowledge his presence much less shake his hand.

GarandWhen one is ... (Below threshold)
Still An Unrepentant Democrat:

Garand

When one is in the audience of the "theater of the absurd" there are no comments to be made. Simply sit back and enjoy the show with an occasional round of applause when the the theater troupe outdoes it's last act of the absurd.

SAUD,I don't belie... (Below threshold)
JustRuss:

SAUD,

I don't believe most people who read comments ignore your posts, I didn't, until now. If you aren't going to contribute then you will be disregarded.

I enjoy debating you, but if you rather than debate wish to make useless remarks then you will get no respect from me. Figuratively you are on auto ignore for the time being.

Rss

Saud,Whe... (Below threshold)

Saud,

When one is in the audience of the "theater of the absurd" there are no comments to be made. Simply sit back and enjoy the show with an occasional round of applause when the the theater troupe outdoes it's last act of the absurd.

In other words you have no argument.
I hope you're not a defense lawyer. ;)

SAUD"Simply sit ba... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

SAUD

"Simply sit back and enjoy the show with an occasional round of applause when the the theater troupe outdoes it's last act of the absurd."

I do that every day as I watch your Lord and Master and His "best and brightest Administration ever" fuck up everything they touch. Oh, and SAUD, can you name ONE economic prognostication they've made that has been CORRECT? Hell, even CLOSE?

Ken, Einstein, JFK,... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Ken,
Einstein, JFK, MLK, Darwin, Jefferson and Washington all died before I was ten.

Does that mean I cannot follow their examples or try to apply their wisdom to my life?

Note: not one troll has lis... (Below threshold)
klrtz1:

Note: not one troll has listed the ways in which Obama is not like Lenin. So I will.

1. Lenin earned his power. Obama got power from affirmative action, basically a gift from the new racists.

2. Lenin worked hard at revolution. Obama drifts through his life leaving all the hard work to others.

3. Lenin was a smart man. If Obama isn't reading from a teleprompter he talks in baby talk ("wee weed").

I could go on but I believe I've made my point. See trolls, it's not so hard to defend Obama against the truth.

to all:I will happ... (Below threshold)
jim:

to all:

I will happily provide the exact same amount of backing for my charges against Bush, as you all have against Obama.

I would like you to notice this double standard.

"1) show explicitly where Bush demonized anyone for what shirts they wore. "

Do you mean Bush, or the Bush administration? If you mean Bush himself AND NO ONE ELSE WORKING FOR HIM, then show explicity where Obama AND NO ONE ELSE WORKING FOR HIM demonized auto companies or doctors.

If by Obama you mean "anyone in the Obama administration", then I still ask that you show how anyone in the Obama administration called auto companies or doctors evil.

Clear?

"Show me where Cindy Sheehan was demonized by Bush when she was protesting in Crawford?"

She was not.

Now show me where Obama demonized **ANYONE** who has protested against him.

Clear?

"Show me where he demonized the loons who called for his assassination."

1. Show me how many liberals called for Bush's assassination, and compare that number to the loons now calling for the murder of Obama. Show me the numbers are ANYWHERE similar.

Hint: The Secret Service has already stated they are dealing with 3 times the number of threats against Obama, than they were against Bush - and Bush was elected both times with a far narrower spread.

Why is that? I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

Because most liberals were calling for Bush and Cheney's PROSECUTION.

"2)Richard Armitage 'outed' Valerie Plame, and not under orders from Bush."

Oh - so orders have to be proven to come from Bush directly, and not occur from his administration? Is that the standard we're following?

If so, then apply that same standard to Obama. Show me what Obama himself AND NO ONE WHO WORKS FOR HIM has done. Show me proof of that.

That's fair right? Same standard for both. Yes or no?

"BTW Wilson was shown to be wrong if you follow the intelligence reports from nearly EVERY European nation."

Interesting - because every source I've read AND subsequent facts show that Saddam was proven to have NO possibility of getting Uranium from Niger, and that all intelligence reports backed this up.

You remember, that's what made that forged intelligence report the Italians found be doubted by everyone else?

Have a link for this revolutionary theory you're proposing?

"3) show me where any of the following portrayed anti-Bush protesters as unpatriotic: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, LAT, WaPo... Show me just one. You can't."

OK, here you go.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200507050003

I expect you will own up to this, since i proved you wrong exactly as you challenged.

"4) Bush's "for us or against us" comment was explicitly about fighting against the terrorists who committed he 9/11 attacks and in particular about foreign entities."

I don't see or recall it that way. I considered it a quite clear strike against any IN THIS COUNTRY who disagreed with Bush.

Bush, who also said "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

Now please, seriously, just step back for a minute.

Imagine Obama had said exactly those words. How would you react? Would you feel any different than if Bush had said them?

Please think about that difference. Because if you're really concerned about statism and not merely party ideology, **it should be just as bad no matter who says it**.

Can you see what I'm saying?

And imagine that Obama was following a policy of arresting people for wearing T-SHIRTS that oppose him.

Now imagine that liberals were BRINGING GUNS outside engagments that BUSH was speaking at. How understanding would you be, I wonder?

"Did Bush call for people to snitch on their neighbors?"

No. Did Obama? NO!

"Did bush call out unions to beat up his opposition?"

No. AND NEITHER DID OBAMA.

Please prove me wrong, and show me where Obama said - "Hey unions. Go beat up people who oppose me!"

I mean, seriously. Do you really, honestly believe Obama said that? You can't. It simply didn't happen.

"I don't recall Bush telling the Dems to "shut up and get out of the way".

Oh? Interesting.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bush_lashes_out_at_Democrats_over_w_02152008.html

Bush: "By blocking this piece of legislation our country is more in danger of an attack,"

So do you think that is respectful of the opinions of Democrats? Do you think that is a statement of understanding that Democrats are trying to make America safer too, even if they disagree with Bush?

Short answer: No.

' I don't recall Bush telling Dems that he didn't have to work with them because "I won". '

Oh? Then what do you think "Political capital" was in reference to?

"I do recall him taking up Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind bill in the first 6 months of his presidency. "

Right - before 9/11, after which he and the GOP decided they didn't have to do a single thing with the Democrats. And which they then attemped to do for the next 7 years - including back-door recess appointments, signing statements, and any other way the GOP could try and get what they wanted.

Which is politics. But to call it wrong when the **other side** does it, and just fine when **your side** does it - that's hypocrisy at it's most direct level.

"Name one piece of significant legislation from a Republican that Obama is supporting."

How about the original bank bailout, which was bipartisan and begun in the previous Bush administration?

Now name one significant piece of legislation from a Republican that actually offers a solution to something.

And I'm being serious about this. Proposing an alternative to the Democratic budget plan - a plan with 4 pages and no numbers?? What is that? That's a joke.

"Republicans considered changing the filibuster rule in the Senate, but declined to go that far."

Because the Democrats screamed and forced them not to.

"In contrast the Dems can beat the filibuster, but feel that it might be necessary to eliminate ALL debate on important legislation by passing it through reconciliation."

Has the Democratic party changed the filibuster? No. Metaphor fail.

"The GOP would have at least allowed debate."

Wrong again. The GOP used budget reconciliation too. Look these GOP bills up:

- The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01]
- The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 2, 3/23/03]
- Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 [HR 4297, 5/11/06]
- The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [H. Con Res. 95, 12/21/05]

And there you have it. POint by point.

So in your response, please admit where you were wrong, and where you think I'm wrong please show your facts.

Because I've shown mine, and proven you wrong on every single point.

"Li'l Jimmy, our favorite p... (Below threshold)
jim:

"Li'l Jimmy, our favorite pro-abortion Catholic."

I'm not a Catholic, but whatever.

"Hey L'il Jimmy, your train of thought derailed at "outed a CIA agent;"

So I guess you're saying Valerie Plame did not exist, or was not a CIA agent, or wasn't revealed? Help me out with your thought process here.

"The truth of the matter is that you and your 'hopey changey' ilk brought us this despot."

Right - and you and your "compassionate conservative" ilk brought us the Bush despot.

Your point being?

"Now you're reduced to attempts to rationalize your poor choice by Bush comparisons...truly pathetic."

Um, no. If you actually read what I'm saying, I said, and I quote from above:

"Would that justify it if Obama did it? Of course not.

But you are truly blinding yourself to think that this means Obama is Lenin, if that also means Bush is not."

What I'm saying is, if you're not applying the same standards to both you're being a hypocrite.

Are you applying the same standards to both? If so, show me how you are.

Thank you for playing. Next time, try reading.

Klrtz, I thought your post ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Klrtz, I thought your post was a fine idea, so I used it as a template for my own.

That's fine right? We can apply the same standard to both sides, because we're not hypocrites, right?

* * *

Note: not one supporter has listed the ways in which Bush is not like Lenin. So I will.

1. Lenin earned his power. Obama got power from his father's name, basically a gift from the old racists. Without his status as a legacy, by his own admission Bush would never have gotten into Yale.

2. Lenin worked hard at revolution. Bush drifts through his life leaving all the hard work to others.

3. Lenin was a smart man. *EVEN WHEN Bush is reading from a teleprompter he talks in baby talk ("misunderestimating", "food on their families," etc. etc).

I could go on but I believe I've made my point. See trolls, it's actually quite hard to defend Bush against the truth.

Hm, preview is my friend. A... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hm, preview is my friend. Above point # 1 should of course read: "Bush got power from his father's name, basically a gift from the old racists."

So the response to jim thus... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

So the response to jim thus far is basically "Fizzle-pop-thppppppt... NEGATIVE VOTE FOR STUPID HEAD!"

Quelle surprise.

The denizens of the theater... (Below threshold)
SAUD (happily):

The denizens of the theater of the absurd just don't like it when someone from the theater of reality comes a visiting.

You should be embarrassed, ... (Below threshold)
klrtz1:

You should be embarrassed, jim. As a defense of President Barack Obama, a.k.a. President wee wee, that was just pathetic.

You missed my point entirely. I guess I overestimated the trolls on this site.

Well klrtz1, I think your a... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well klrtz1, I think your attack on Obama and defense of Bush is pathetic. Nyah nyah nyah.

Now that we're done name-calling, got any facts that prove your thesis? Love to hear 'em.

That's all you got out of m... (Below threshold)
klrtz1:

That's all you got out of my comments, childish name calling? Nothing else? Really?

I suppose it would have been childish calling Obama President wee wee if he hadn't used that exact baby talk in a speech recently. He was, of course, off the teleprompter at the time. Have you ever wondered, jim, why Obama, head of the most transparent administration in history, has never allowed any of his college transcripts to be released to the public? Why are you so incurious about the man you voted for?

"That's all you got out of ... (Below threshold)
jim:

"That's all you got out of my comments, childish name calling? Nothing else? Really?"

Well Klrtz1, please show me what other facts you presented in that post.

As for Obama's not releasing his college transcripts - that proves Obama is a Leninoid how? And it proves Bush is **not** a Leninoid how?

Please enlighten me.

Alright then. I have refute... (Below threshold)
jim:

Alright then. I have refuted every single one of your arguments, and no one has refuted any one of mine. Therefore I win.

Thanks everyone. : )

"Therefore I win."... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"Therefore I win."

And that gets you... what? A clue? Two 'reality' points? The Magic Socks of Cleanliness?

You won precisely... nothing.

You people really are nuts.... (Below threshold)
Jason Messer:

You people really are nuts. Whining because you lost an election, fearmongering,"Obama is going to do away with private property". What century are you in? He isn't a king, even if he would try no one would allow it. You are just mad that the democrats started using your own tricks against you. Niether side can see the big picture because the instant you put a letter in front of somones name the other side instantly thinks everything they say and do is a conspiracy. You people need to quit being about the party, and be about America! By the people ,for the people, but do too much for the people and your a commie is bs.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy