Saturday, June 5, 2010

Obama's just not emotional, that's all

WAIT FOR IT: Z predicts that the next Obama speech will include how he doesn't show his emotions but that doesn't mean he doesn't care........he's pushing up his sleeves, he's picking up oil balls on the sand, he's announced he's 'frustrated', he's eating shrimp with the natives. He's "cool and cautious", according to THIS ARTICLE.
Just wait and hear some kind of version of this: "I don't show my feelings much, but...er....uh......that doesn't mean I'm not there for you...I'm standing by the Gulf.....The families of those killed on the oil rigs will...uhhh...... be at the White House next week, and I know that if we all....uh.... pull together, we'll get through this."
The White House Press Office will then be reminding us that EMOTIONS don't solve problems and the president has been so saddened by these problems, and cares so much that we just can't see it but we must not judge him for that.
Ya think?
z

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is what happens when government becomes our nanny. The one at the helm has to take the slings and arrows.

The more the government takes on, the more the president is perceived to be accountable.

They want the power, they have to pay for it politically. They asked for it, they've got it, in spades.

Here's a newsflash for politicians, be careful what you ask for. You bought it, you fix it!

You want a helpless, dependent electorate? This is the cost, it's your responsibility Mr. President whether it's fair or not. Life just isn't fair and no one is an exception.

As for emotion, I think President Obama is as cold as ice. I'm not sure he can even fake it. If emotion is genuine you can see it in the eyes, the set of the mouth. It's either there or it's not.

Clinton bit his lip, but it was an affectation. At least he tried. We could see through it, but many chose not to.

An iffy business, politics is. It's only a matter of time, and unexpected consequences or events, that determine who or what a politician really is as a person.

Pris

Deborah on the Bayside said...

Obama is very careful and calculating with a reputation for being cool and distant. The pity is that it matters at all. While it's better to have a sociable personality in exchanges with foreign leaders, as Pris pointed out so well we've created this cult of personality and "position" to our detriment.

She reminds me that in our Declaration of Independence we listed "King George" multiple times as the one at the fulcrum of responsibility. Looks like things are coming full circle.

Craig and Heather said...

This is what happens when government becomes our nanny

But Americans have been demanding the govt fix stuff like this for decades. Hoover was cautious with govt intervention during the Great Depression, so Roosevelt's socialistic New Deal looked like the answer...And when it proved to not provide the salvation that was expected, liberals insisted more aggressive redistribution of wealth was needed even as conservatives became alarmed at the increasing control the fed was gaining over agriculture, business etc.

Citizens who demand "security" and "strong govt leadership" need to be aware that individual freedom is the price. Interestingly enough, it's exactly what God warned the Israelites would happen when they demanded a human king.

H

Z said...

Deborah, I agree with Pris entirely and you too, but I think this is beyond "Cult personality" and that presidents should have empathy and care about their citizens. All he cares about are minorities who aren't getting enough from the upper middle class or rich 'donor Americans' (Ha, I should refer to those who're willing to work DONOR AMERICANS, not bad, eh!?! if I do say so myself!)

And, with this BP thing, if not accountable, the president should at least appear like somebody's overseeing the BP situation better than he has..going to Chicago for the wknd, entertaining McCartney and shaking hands with sports people just doesn't look good. And, we dissed Australia and Indonesia AGAIN at the very last minute because the Conservatives finally made him realize he'd better at least stay IN COUNTRY!

Apparently, the board he's created is full of experts who don't get along with each other, so this should be interesting!!

debo said...

I agree with you Z. He shouldn't be in the office if he doesn't have a sense of universal association, shall we say, with the whole country. Bush sure did. Miss that.

I still remember Carol Platt Liebau's comment - when she was on the Harvard law Review with Obama - how he would constantly scan a room of people looking for a more important important person to get to. He would drop you flat when he spotted one to trot over there. Everyone's seen these kind of social climbers. But he was noticeable enough to be rude and disconcerting to be with. She said you were always aware of his eyes scanning the room - instead of looking at the person he was talking to. Probably hides it better now, but it speaks volumes for what he's looking out for - number 1.

FrogBurger said...

I dont' care if he has emotions or not. I personally don't think he wants to show them if he does b/c of his crappy childhood. But I believe he is also a very cynical man like most of politicians but even more so.

All I care about is his competence. I don't think he has the skills to do the job.

Everything he does is to satisfy his ego he never got boosted by his natural parents.

Opus #6 said...

Z, don't write this stuff. You're giving Obama's handlers ideas. He might just come up with something other than Blame Booosh next time, and it will be all your fault! ;-0

Z said...

debo, is that you at 'bayside'?!!
Good comment.
I have trouble listening to Carol but I did hear her talk about that..or maybe it was someone else, meaning two people know this.

FrogBurger, his parental life was a mess..the man has problems and we're paying for them.

Opus, that made me laugh out loud! thanx

The foot I sprained Wed. night might now have a hairline crack...please pray it heals quick and well! thanx!

Ducky's here said...

Yeah, I've been accused of being too restrained.
I can comiserate.

Craig and Heather said...

Ducky,

I'm still hoping for a Liberal vs Leftist lesson.

You're the only one I've ever encountered who's claimed to be "leftist", so I'd love to receive an education on this topic.

Any chance you're willing to articulate the difference for me?

Heather

Ducky's here said...

Rather than just ragging on The Black Bush we should remember that government is broken and we've had a series of mediocrities.
Somehow America lost it's desire for comptent political leadership.

Palindrome in 2012.

Ducky's here said...

Hmmm, the difference between a liberal and a leftist, in twenty five words or less.

Well, a liberal is nothing more than a republican who throws in a little touchy feely on identity politics issues. They both fully support the state as the enforcement arm of monopoly capitalism. So as lost as the right winger is, you have to give them credit for at least being honest.
The liberal is a NIMBY hypocrite.

A leftist? Well, I believe in the need for the state that stretches well beyond getting all misty about bombing up some other country for no good reason. I believe in state ownership of certain resources, state funding of community infrastructure, state provided education but in a nutshell the need to more equitably distribute wealth.
Capitalism does not do that well and if the wealth disparity becomes too large in a nation you are in for trouble.

We'll have various Randoids check in and say I want everyone to be poor, which is a moronic assertion. What I do want is a sustainable economy and a nation that is sufficiently adult to realize it is going to have to cut its consumption and make some changes. The big problem is that will not be done willingly. I don't know how to solve the problem of excessive state power. Not that the current monopoly capitalism doesn't have enormous power. It's a tough nut.

I consider myself biblical which means my focus is on the Gospels since those are the words and deeds of Christ. I grew up in the Catholic worker movement and I do not apologize to evangelicals for being a radical Catholic.

frogBurger said...

Glad you're admitting "the big problem is that will not be done willingly.:

Which means you're in favor of a dictatorship.

What if I don't agree with your system? Do I get sent to the camps or killed? Which option do your recommend, fascist?

At least the capitalist society still gives you the choice to disagree and find an option. What's the option in your system?

frogBurger said...

"I consider myself biblical which means my focus is on the Gospels since those are the words and deeds of Christ. "

So is the Gospel of Jesus to send people to the camps if they don't want to participate? Or get killed?

Hmmm. There's some lack of logic here unless I've missed something during my catechize classes in Catholic school.

Mona said...

Frankly I don't care if he sucks his thumb and cries himself to sleep. It doesn't matter what he says or how he acts, what matters is action. Governing against the majority,because he "feels" he knows what is best for us is all I care about.
He is the most DANGEROUS man to ever live in the White House.

Craig and Heather said...

Ducky,

Thank you very much!

That helps me to better see where your coming from. Actually, although I'm not Catholic, I can even agree with quite a bit of your explanation.

It is true that "capitalism" is not the ultimate answer to our mess, as people are naturally greedy and there have been a lot of abuses occur when there is little accountability.

Don't quite see how a strong central govt would help realize your goal, though. But I suppose that is rooted in a difference between the Catholic understanding of human nature and my protestant "radical depravity" view. For me, the issue is not the "socialism" so much as it is the handing over of large amounts of power to God-hating people.
Honestly, if godless men are given unchecked control,the problems will multiply.

I don't expect you to apologize to me or any other evangelical, although I would have been more encouraged to see that you are a radically Christ-centered as opposed to radically Catholic.

Because we are a democratically inclined republic, the garbage we're getting in our govt is, in many ways, simply a reflection of what we are as a society. Real social change needs to come from the bottom up--through changed souls rather than shoved down people's throats from the top down.

Interesting you should mention Christ and His standards as a basis for your perspective. I actually considered socialism in this light a while back.
My corresponding post was a little long, but if you've got nothing better to do, you might be interested.

http://onmysoapbox2.wordpress.com/category/socialism/page/2/

At any rate, I appreciate you taking the time to help me out. Can't say I'd be interested in becoming a leftist myself, but I think in many ways, you may have some ideas worth considering.

Heather

Craig and Heather said...

Frogburger,

I don't want to presume to speak for Ducky, but I did not see that his view advocates fascism.

He's right about many of our problems, even if his idea of a solution is flawed.

H

Z said...

Heather...as you know, the left has painted the right as fascist but if you do a dictionary check one sees where that really applies.
Stick around, you'll see it coming out..and it won't be us.
Ducky does make sense from time to time, but I WON"T ADMIT IT :-)

Elmers Brother said...

Heather,

you should also know that duhkkky thinks the rest of the Bible doesn't apply. He can't quite get past the Sermon on the Mount and if you mention it to him...

he'll start the psychobabble about gangs of Calvinists running around trying to take over the world (you know how literal they can be)

Elmers Brother said...

as far as his Catholicism...he only uses it to justify his collective mindset while ignoring most of the tenets

Opus #6 said...

Ducky, tell me this then. Which country in the world comes the closest to your Utopian "sustainable" wealth re-distribution dream?

Anonymous said...

We'll always have problems. We're human beings. To me the question is, will we be free, and have problems? Or will we be oppressed with a different, and IMO, worse set of problems?

Americans used to figure it was up to them to deal with their own problems, and somewhere along the way, they began to look to the government to solve them.

The government can't solve them. They can make it seem like they can, and become more powerful over us in talking a good game, but problems persist don't they?

There is no perfection, there is only doing the best we can do. If that's not enough for some people, they'll be miserable looking for an illusory paradise which cannot exist. At least not on this earthly plane. To me, that's a fool's game.

We have had the good fortune to live in the greatest country on earth, and still, for some, it's not good enough. It has been taken for granted, unappreciated.

I fear that one day looking back and only then, will those people realize what they let slip from their fingers, and in doing so will have failed our children.

Pris

Craig and Heather said...

Z and Elmer's Brother,

Thanks for the heads-up.

you should also know that duhkkky thinks the rest of the Bible doesn't apply. He can't quite get past the Sermon on the Mount and if you mention it to him...
he'll start the psychobabble about gangs of Calvinists running around trying to take over the world (you know how literal they can be)


Sermon on the Mount is heavy-duty stuff. I'm 24 posts into it and still haven't cleared the beatitudes.

Interesting thing, though, is how tightly it fits with the rest of scripture. Particularly the Law and Psalms.

Unfortunately,it seems most people read it as a "how-to" manual for attaining eternal life and miss how much is directly about Jesus and the righteousness He is.

Definitely a mistake to amputate Christ's Sermon from all of the rest of Scripture which He happened to declare was all about Him .

as far as his Catholicism...he only uses it to justify his collective mindset while ignoring most of the tenets

I'm not big on Catholicism myself. Even it's focus on protecting traditional marriage and fighting abortion/poverty misses the point that believers are to be primarily concerned about these things because they are physical pictures of what Christ has done spiritually for us beggars.

However, I still appreciate Ducky's willingness to make a statement about where he stands. He has said some things which are true and I don't mind agreeing on some level with him.
At the very least, I now have something to which I can refer should he make future statements which contradict.

:D

Hope you guys have a blessed Sunday!

H

Craig and Heather said...

Pris,

I understand what you're saying and, for the most part, agree.

Jesus Himself said we'd always have the poor with us. Personally, I believe this is a reality partly because it gives those who have claimed His name a chance to practice selfless concern for others. But I don't see anywhere in the Bible that states we can expect to eradicate poverty if we just work hard enough at it.


In some ways, though, I do feel Americans have fallen on our faces while using our material blessings and freedoms for mainly selfish pursuits. I've often wondered if each of us (I think primarily of myself) was looking out for ways to be Jesus' hands and feet to those around us, whether there would be nearly the demand for government-as-god to step in and take care of everyone.

H

FrogBurger said...

Heather, I wish I was that nice with Ducky. But he defends what he calls democratic socialism and one has to ask him or herself what countries embraced democratic socialism and how they did it.

Not very Christian at all if you look at history.

So I think Ducky is either a phony or lacks logical connections between Christian tenets and his political agenda.

Or maybe he's reflective of a part of the Catholic church. The part that supported national socialism or communism.

In which case there's nothing related to the Gospel and quite the opposite. If I was someone who truly thought in terms of Devil vs God, I'd say this would the Devil disguised as God.

I like the version of God of the Founding Fathers a lot better. God gives us freedom. Period. Then we have overarching principles to discipline this freedom. But the goal still is freedom. Not an authoritarian utopia that Ducky advocates for any circumstance whether it's global warming or what he deems over-consumption.

This pseudo-morality usually led by elites as Nietzsche points out very well, and which the Church has done so violently when it was the State, deprives us from what we are supposed to be as human beings and animals: freedom.

That is why I utterly despise Ducky's thought process.

MK said...

Don't care about your emotions zero, quit yer flappin an just fix it. It's what the left would have demanded of Bush or any Conservative, so step up chump, or admit you're not up to the task like you demonstrate every day and go home.

Joe said...

According to President BO, emotions don't solve problems...words do.

Elmers Brother said...

In some ways, though, I do feel Americans have fallen on our faces while using our material blessings and freedoms for mainly selfish pursuits.

interesting in that Z had a post not too long ago in which we discused Chritianity and Capitaism

most are eager to point out that Capitalism is best served when Christian principles are applied

but Christianity should not be conflated with Capitalism. Ironically duhkkky seems the one who seems to conflate the two when he bashes the US. I pointed out to him that America (based on a book by Albert Brooks) is the most generous country on earth both in time and money, in large part attributed to our religious values. No socialist country even comes close, some by a factor of 7 and higher.

So if duhkkky wants to redistribute the wealth because we consume too much, he'll have to figure out a way to make up for that lost charity.

He also supported a guy who made pedophilic remarks about my children, a troll named John Brown.

Elmers Brother said...

Heather,

I never meant to come across like I was downplaying the importance of the Sermon on the Mount so I don't want you to misunderstand me but it's the only scripture duhkkky seems to know.

Craig and Heather said...

FrogBurger,

How you treat Ducky is between you and him and the Lord. I don't want to appear to be defensive of Ducky's position if he truly believes the way you all have portrayed him as believing. I just didn't see how the statement he made here automatically translated to fascism.

For the record, I agree that there is nothing biblical about the govt. forcibly removing goods and money from some citizens and redistributing it at it's discretion. The generosity and "communal living" that is described in the NT is a result of people being changed by the Gospel--not of the Roman govt snapping up personal possessions and re-distributing them.

If I was someone who truly thought in terms of Devil vs God, I'd say this would the Devil disguised as God.

The devil's been aping and distorting God's truth from the beginning. Socialism/communism is simply a demonically inspired attempt of God-hating man to create a counterfeit of Christ's Kingdom. And, it's tempting for many to jump on the bandwagon because they have no eternal perspective. Of course, there's nothing but death and destruction in such systems.

It is impossible to plagiarize God's goodness and get away with it. Societies that try to kick God out pay a hefty price. History solidly testifies to this fact.

Elmers Brother,

I think I'm following you.

You're right about Christianity and capitalism. And yes, America has a history of being generous when it comes to sharing with those who are less fortunate. I'd be the last person to suggest that we ought to be switching to full-blown communism in order to be more efficient about that.


I'd definitely prefer to be allowed to freely choose when, where and how to share the things God has entrusted to my care.

So if duhkkky wants to redistribute the wealth because we consume too much, he'll have to figure out a way to make up for that lost charity.

Well, Jesus stated that when one desires to remove a speck from someone else's eye, he needs to be sure there's no log in his own before offering to helping solve "the other guy's" problem.


My advice to those who insist Jesus was about social justice and who try to use His words to demand that we redistribute material wealth and shut off electricity and oil drilling and stop all "consumption":
Set the example as an individual. "Sell all you have and give the money to the poor".
Of course, Jesus was not giving this instruction as a means by which to eradicate poverty--but hey! if one has no qualms about twisting the message scripture in one area, I guess they won't mind distorting it somewhere else.




He also supported a guy who made pedophilic remarks about my children, a troll named John Brown.
That definitely increases his "ick" factor, doesn't it? :(

I never meant to come across like I was downplaying the importance of the Sermon on the Mount...

I gotcha. No offense taken.

As a new reader, I'm just trying to get a feel for the dynamic here. Not interested in blindly supporting a godless, pervert-supporting fascist agitator, if this is truly Ducky's color.

Rotten eggs generally expose themselves eventually.



Heather

Ducky's here said...

One thing you may wish to reread, Froggy, is my concern about how to control authoritative government.

It's a problem and also a problem that is largely independent of the economic system.

Craig and Heather said...

It's a problem and also a problem that is largely independent of the economic system.

It's a problem that's rooted solidly in fallen man's inherent state of depravity.

H

frogBurger said...

"One thing you may wish to reread, Froggy, is my concern about how to control authoritative government.

It's a problem and also a problem that is largely independent of the economic system."

I'd love to re-read but you provide no specifics whatsoever. Again I really suggest you open your own blog to give me all the details on such a beautifully architected, balanced, human, full of freedom system.

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

HERE is what is going on with regard to Mr Obama and the oil spill:

You cannot tell me that Mr Obama is not well educated and unintelligent. In terms of his personal philosophies.

Therefore, acceding that, I believe his lack of federal response is PURPOSEFUL. He's willing to take the hit, to a degree, in ORDER to help push the ability to remove all domestic drilling, which he has already put in progress.

At the same time his ongoing drumbeat -- on the order of the Master of Propaganda himself, Josef Goebbels -- is BP BP BP BP BP BP BP.

Though he KNOWS he could have, WEEKS ago, ordered Jindal's permit requests to be signed, amongst a HORDE of other things the federal government could have done on behalf of those southern coastal states.

Mr Obama wants drilling STOPPED. He wants higher TAXES. He wants CONTROL of business, particularly those involving energy. He wants to ENABLE CapNTax.

To say that Mr Obama is merely "stupid" is puerile and continues to let him fulfill his plan of power.

Look for the STRATEGY and the TACTICS, people. THINK like Alinsky! Go READ about the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

BZ

Craig and Heather said...

I really suggest you open your own blog to give me all the details on such a beautifully architected, balanced, human, full of freedom system.

That would be great! It was really disappointing to stop by Ducky's site and see he had "no blog".

h

FrogBurger said...

Indeed, Heather. And Ducky needs to elaborate on this statement, which seems totally illogical to me.

"It's a problem and also a problem that is largely independent of the economic system."

Separating the sociological from the political from the economical is such a lala-land statement that I need more explanation from Ducky.

We'll see if his intellect is up to the challenge. Or if he'll ditch the specifics as he always does.

Anonymous said...

"One thing you may wish to reread, Froggy, is my concern about how to control authoritative government."

This is the achilles heel in the misled leftist who thinks socialism can exist without authoritative government.

It's not possible for a government to hold sway over the economy, and resditribute wealth, without authoritative government.

If it's the goal to force social and economic equality among the citizenry, that requires total control, which is authoritative governance.

It's called tyranny!

Pris

Ducky's here said...

Suck it down Gasol.