The Glade 4.0

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60496


President Obama’s friends call him the smartest man ever to occupy the White House (a dubious claim in light of the fact that John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson all had better intellectual credentials or were far superior writers, or both).

According to his supporters, his command of the English language is supposedly unparalleled (when using a teleprompter, presumably).

There’s only one problem: Obama is addicted to utilizing language that he has carefully tailored or perverted to obfuscate the truth. In other words, he uses double talk on a routine basis.

In order to understand what Obama truly tells us when he speaks to us, it is necessary to grab our Little Orphan Annie Decoder Ring and decipher precisely what he means when he uses his pet phrases. This, then, is a list of his favorite linguistic flourishes—and just what he means when he uses them:

“Hope and change”: Socialism at home, surrender abroad. Obama uses this talismanic formula when he wants to activate his base, which responds to it like a jukebox when you drop in a nickel.

“False choice”: A very real choice Obama wants to pretend doesn’t exist. He uses this when he puts on his “pragmatic administrator” mask. Instead of facing up to the reality that we sometimes have to choose between scientific advances and morality, or between civil liberties and national security, or between environmental regulations and economic development, Obama pretends he can solve these conflicts through some sort of Hegelian synthesis only he is wise enough to comprehend.

“Deficit reduction”: Deficit increases. Obama suggests that he will cut the rate at which the deficit is growing—something he has never actually achieved—and acts as though this is actual deficit reduction. It’s the equivalent of a woman spending $2,000 on her credit card, then informing her credit card company that though she won’t pay off her debt, she’ll only spend $1,500 next month.

“Let me be clear”: Let me lie to you.

“Make no mistake”: See “let me be clear.”

“Unprecedented”: When he’s doing something beneficial for the American people, Obama claims he is the first to ever think of it; when he’s doing something harmful, he seems to always find a precedent for it in FDR or LBJ.

“This isn’t about me”: This is completely about me.

“Hitting the reset button”: Refusing to learn from the mistakes of the past and acting as though a fresh start requires utter naivete.

“Reaching out to the other side of the aisle”: Totally rejecting all ideas from anyone outside the Obama-approved bubble. Then suggesting that subsequent political impasses are their fault, and that they ought to bend down and grab their ankles to establish a new tone in Washington.

“Failed policies of the past”: Don’t blame me! Blame Bush!

“Teachable moment”: I screwed something up, now I’ll brag about it.

“Tax cut”: Redistribution of money from those who pay a disproportionate amount of taxes to those who pay none.

“Transparency”: Deliberate opaqueness, hiding crucial facts from the American public.

“Accountability”: Don’t worry, I’ll fire someone.

“Stimulus”: Payoffs to friends.

“Shovel-ready jobs”: Jobs that no one wants and that last for two months.

“Green jobs”: Imaginary jobs.

“Saved or created”: Old Obama language used to futz the numbers on jobs.

“Recovery”: Continued economic stagnation.

“Jobs funded”: Jobs Obama will take credit for, even though he has done nothing to either save or create.

“It won’t happen overnight”: It will never happen.

“Progress”: Redistribution.

“Cynics”: Anyone who doesn’t believe in the Obama radical agenda. Obama uses this word to disparage his critics as angry and lacking in basic qualities of human kindness.

Watch for these phrases while marveling at Obama’s supposed rhetorical brilliance. They shouldn’t be taken at face value, because Obama isn’t a master of pure artistry of the English language—he’s a master at manipulation above all.

---

Heh

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I'm not saying I disagree with what's said in this post, and I'm not saying it's not true, but I just wonder what the response would be if Monte posted this but just reversed the poles, posted cherry-picked Bush or Reagan quotes and then merely stated the opposite assuming all lies, even under the guise of a joke. I'm just sayin'....and of course my question is rhetorical, I know exactly what the response would be...but more importantly I know exactly what the response to this post will be.

No, cause Bush wasn't smart enough to obfuscate and lie like Dear Leader is.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

See what I mean?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

This thread is nonsense.

I don't see any productive discussion coming out of this.. with the possible exception of that cat picture.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That picture is weird. Someone took serious cat and photoshopped it.

And it's not like he invented many of those phrases.

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?

A Moderate's view:

Much is being said about the various failings of the current administration.

I feel that Obama has some very good, progressive ideas. There are some institutions in this country that are need of reform (like medicare), and he seems to be at least willing to address them. Keep in mind as well, Obama walked in to our current problems, he did not create them. But that still does not keep people from painting him as the villain.

All that said, I think his true failing so far is that he is so concerned about hurrying up and getting his reforms pushed through, that he is in fact only hurting himself.

He needs to slow down, take a step back, and work more with the American people to find the balance between his ideals and those of Joe/Jane Average's.

In short, Obama needs to learn to walk before he can run.

Now, this is a two-way street. In return for the President working with the US people, the US people need to in turn meet him halfway. They see his "socialistic" ways as a threat to Mom, Baseball, and Apple Pie, but I think there are some aspects of America that need to be redefined.

There's no easy answer. If there was, the US would be problem-free. The liberal minded and the conservatives have to find a middle-ground. There needs to be a common denominator that says "America should not throw away all that it was built on, but we should show ourselves and the world that we are not afraid to embrace change for self-betterment."

He hasn't presented anything that would reform Medicare, nor Social Security, the two biggest dangers to the long-term financial health of the United States.



Every president "walked into" the "current" problems of their time. Are you implying that 1) the problems of today are worse or that 2) he isn't capable of the job?



No, no they really don't. Even ignoring the originalist view that the President really shouldn't have anything to do with the common people, he does represent "the people" in modern times. As such, they should not bend for him. He is not an elected king.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Meant health care, not Medicare, sorry.

No, the problems of today are no worse. And every person in his position has the potential to be capable of tackling these problems. Whether they live up to the potential cannot be determined until well after one year in office (especially when others work against him).

To say that Americans should not work with their president to better their own country IS bending to a king -- by sitting back and "watching what the new guy does" you are in essence accepting servitude. Why should the President have nothing to do with the average person (who put him there in the first place)? That is ridiculous.

This country was founded on the premise of power to the citizens that inhabit it. If your leader extends his/her hand asking for help to make your country a better place, and you do not accept it, then YOU are to blame, not the person in charge.

No you're not. You're not under any obligation to agree with what the elected leader, or do what he proposes; saying "his ideas suck and I don't support them" certainly doesn't make it your fault.

Hence the problems here. His ideas are "progressive" and that's the problem. "Progressive" is just a term to make a certain political bent sound better than it is. Most "progressive" ideas suck.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's fine, my statement in that regard stands.



Why not? That's a full 25% of their service life. Can your job performance be judged in, say, 90 days? That's a quarter of a year, an equal percentage.

What about a contractor. If they're 25% into their contract, can one not judge whether they are performing the job?



Not at all. Servitude is bending to the will of people I don't agree with merely because they have "authority" over me.



Are we talking about theory or practicality? In theory, the president only represents the states to one another and to foreign parties, and was not elected by the people; he has nothing to do with the day-to-day affairs of the citizenry.

In practicality, the office of the president has grown beyond that theoretical one of original intent, and the electoral college has been wholly undermined.



This is based upon the false presumption that the things he wants would make this country a "better place." If the moral belief of individuals or, as you refer to them, citizens, is that his goals would not make the country a better place then it would not only unethical for them to help, but it could be considered their "fault" that things get worse.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

If I might add:
"Progressive" is just a term to make a certain political bent sound better than it is, to those ignorant of the history of "Progressives".

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

It sounds to me like you guys have decided Liberal is something to be ashamed of. Good to understand the standards here as they pertain to respect for other political ideologies. I shall resume using teabagger and rethuglicans.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I don't see this going anywhere good, either.


OP aside, all that's happened in this thread is that some people have criticized a political school which describes itself as Progressivism. They've said, in so many words, "We don't like Progressivism, and we don't think that it's actually progressive." Your response to this is to start calling people names.

Had they been calling people "Fiberals" or somesuch, your response might at least be even-handed, if not mature. But as things are, your response is neither.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

No, people have implied that liberalism is somehow something to be ashamed of, and that Progressive is a term used as a fig leaf.

It's no less respectful an idea than calling conservatives something unsavory like Tea Bagger.

Show respect, get respect. I've been very thoughtful about abandoning those kinds of things lately in the hopes that people would show more respect for liberalism in general. Clearly, people here still feel Liberalism is something to be ashamed of.

The reality is that Progressive refers to a specific political ideology that can trace it's roots to Wisconsin. Modern American liberalism is often lumped in with Progressiveness (ism?), but there are some differences.

Ignorance still leads to hate, it would seem.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

This point really sucks, because I thought Rodahn and I were having a good conversation that's now, as you point out, in the **** toilet.

If only my ethics didn't prevent me from being an authoritarian....




Ha. Just.... ha.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Your bias is showing again, DFK. How can anyone expect to have a rational conversation with people that, as a base level assumption, believe that perfectly legitimate political ideology shared by a wide swath of Americans is somehow unsavory by it's nature?

You can't. You just can't. Show some **** respect, or receive none in turn. It's not hard. I can respect conservative ideas of individual responsibility, of making one's own way in the world, of independence and liberty of speech and thought. There's all kind of common ground between conservatives and liberals or progressives.

But the second you (and by that I mean, the general you, and not anyone in specific)start saying that liberalism is inherently tainted, or somehow shameful, then **** you. And the horse you came in on. Because if you can't show basic levels of respect, then I will go out of my way to be disrespectful.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Dude...run a search on "liberal" in this thread. The only person who has conflated "Liberal" with "Progressive" is you.

But even that doesn't really matter. The fact remains that you're intentionally and unashamedly escalating conflict simply because you don't believe people are being "respectful" of your ideology, whatever the hell that means.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Point to where I decried "progressivism" or "liberalism" in this thread, or retract your statements.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

No, Vindi did it. He very clearly sees Progressive as a fig leaf term to hide that shameful Liberalism. And so did DE. They talked around the issue, a little bit like how someone might say "You know honey, people like that (read: Black) ain't too good for your reputation". They don't come out and say it, but that's what they mean.

I'm confronting their hateful ignorance directly.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Yes, you're confronting them directly by starting your statement with my name.

Retract your statement.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I wasn't talking about you save for the first sentence, so kindly back off? I was referring to DE and Vindi. I thought we weren't supposed to be telling each other what to post?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show