“National Review’s readers have been exposed to the argument that President Obama is allied with our Islamist enemy in a “Grand Jihad” against America; in Forbes, Dinesh D’Souza set forth the thesis that Obama’s every action is explained by a Kenyan anti-colonial ideology that overwhelms all else. I mention those magazines not because they’re worthless, but because both publish good stuff, and employ a lot of talented people who are more than smart enough to see through this nonsense. An ideological movement that prided itself on openness to all ideas could be forgiven for the most laughable that made it onto the pages of marquee magazines, but on the right, this madness gets published in venues where David Frum is deemed beyond the pale.”
I missed this the other day. Good post. Both the Grand Jihad nonsense and D’Souza’s “Obama’s Rage” whining are disgusting–not because of what they are or the arguments made in support of them, but because they are infecting the pages of otherwise reputable news outlets.
Its to the point where I see sensible people begin sentences with: well, as an anti-cololialist, Obama wants…
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I missed this the other day. Good post. Both the Grand Jihad nonsense and D’Souza’s “Obama’s Rage” whining are disgusting–not because of what they are or the arguments made in support of them, but because they are infecting the pages of otherwise reputable news outlets.
Its to the point where I see sensible people begin sentences with: well, as an anti-cololialist, Obama wants…[/quote]
everythign I’ve seen out of the atlantic, it should just call itself “the obama”.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I missed this the other day. Good post. Both the Grand Jihad nonsense and D’Souza’s “Obama’s Rage” whining are disgusting–not because of what they are or the arguments made in support of them, but because they are infecting the pages of otherwise reputable news outlets.
Its to the point where I see sensible people begin sentences with: well, as an anti-cololialist, Obama wants…[/quote]
everythign I’ve seen out of the atlantic, it should just call itself “the obama”.
D’Souza makes some good points as well.[/quote]
It certainly leans left, no argument there. I don’t bother reading it most of the time. But that one article I did like.
And Beans, please tell me you don’t buy this anti-Colonialist thing? Not entirely anyway?
And Beans, please tell me you don’t buy this anti-Colonialist thing? Not entirely anyway?[/quote]
Not a matter of buying it really, but just a matter of perspective. His upbringing, who he spent his time with and what he says pretty much paints a good picture of his perspective. (His being Obama’s here.)
It is fairly obvious obama isn’t a huge fan of a lot of America’s history, he came out and vocally shit all over the Constitution plain as day.
So, do I buy he is trying to “destroy” America from the inside? No. But I thank the good lord for congressional grid lock. Because his idea of change and forward, isn’t a path we as a nation were intended to go down.
I didn’t need a movie or articles to come to this opinion, but What’s-His-Face does make some good points, even though I think he adds drama and some fear mongering to his conclusions to sell his stuff.
But, in short, I do certainly feel obama ideologically is not what I would call “traditional” American, and he has no place in governance of my country. Not that I’m afraid of change, but the change has to be appropriate. It is quite clear obama doesn’t love his country.
It is fairly obvious obama isn’t a huge fan of a lot of America’s history[/quote]
There is a lot not to be a huge fan of, in my opinion.
As far as D’Souza goes, I don’t follow him closely and I think you’re a smart guy so I will probably look into it further. I have read that he is intellectually honest, i.e. his facts are solid even if his interpretations are not.
I will say this though: the idea that the guiding principle of Obama’s presidency has been some vengeful, deep disdain for colonial history is pure nonsense.
I read that multiple times. I can’t find a single, substantive argument in the entire thing. The title of his book used the word “from” rather than “of”? His grandma thinks he’s a lot like his dad? (what grandmother doesn’t have something like that to say?) He wants to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000/year by three percentage points? His father wrote a hard-left article in 1965, and he (Obama jr.) has never mentioned it (I wonder why)? He routinely castigates investment banks and large corporations? (tell that to GM and Chrysler and the investment behemoths that were “too big to fail.” If the president really wanted to put the imperial capitalists in their place, the financial crisis would have gone very differently).
Obama is a politician. His upbringing was different from the typical American power-player, but it would be extremely stupid to think that his guiding motivation is any different from any other president’s: egoism and a desire to earn himself a place in history.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
He routinely castigates investment banks and large corporations? (tell that to GM and Chrysler and the investment behemoths that were “too big to fail.” If the president really wanted to put the imperial capitalists in their place, the financial crisis would have gone very differently).
[/quote]
How so? He’s virtually nationalised them hasn’t he?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
He routinely castigates investment banks and large corporations? (tell that to GM and Chrysler and the investment behemoths that were “too big to fail.” If the president really wanted to put the imperial capitalists in their place, the financial crisis would have gone very differently).
[/quote]
How so? He’s virtually nationalised them hasn’t he?[/quote]
In what way has he nationalized them?
I would assume that someone bent on lowering America’s status in the world would have wanted the banks to fail.
I said ‘virtually nationalised.’ He did so by pumping billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money into them and thereby gaining more leverage over their operations - more government control.
[quote]
I would assume that someone bent on lowering America’s status in the world would have wanted the banks to fail.[/quote]
Then you would be wrong. For example, fiscal conservatives wanted GM and Chrysler to fail because they knew that:
The UAW had made them completely uncompetitive
and
If they had failed and filed for bankruptcy they would’ve gone into receivership, their assets liquidated and taken over by more competitive owners.
Obama is a statist. He wants government control over EVERYTHING - lightbulbs, toilets, banks whathaveyou.
It is fairly obvious obama isn’t a huge fan of a lot of America’s history[/quote]
There is a lot not to be a huge fan of, in my opinion.[/quote]
Well, there isn’t a civilization that has existed that doesn’t have skeletons in its closet. I would expect a president to be more focused on the positive things their nation brought to the world.
Well, just try and keep in mind he is trying to sell books and movie tickets. Of course he is going to push the proverbial envelope.
I think D’Souza lays out some good points, but embellishes on his interpretation. The biggest things I got out of that movie: 1) How important it is to be a dad 2) Obama’s brother’s opinion on the advancement of his nation 3) who Obama was attracted to hang out with ie: communists. You don’t hang out with commies because you are a hard line capitalist looking to learn.
No I think it is a fundamental change towards a state dictated wealth management system and securing votes for his party (which is flying off the handle towards an European style ‘socialist’ type government).
I don’t know man. I think his idea of place in history and what you think his idea of place in history are different.
I said ‘virtually nationalised.’ He did so by pumping billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money into them and thereby gaining more leverage over their operations - more government control.
[quote]
I would assume that someone bent on lowering America’s status in the world would have wanted the banks to fail.[/quote]
Then you would be wrong. For example, fiscal conservatives wanted GM and Chrysler to fail because they knew that:
The UAW had made them completely uncompetitive
and
If they had failed and filed for bankruptcy they would’ve gone into receivership, their assets liquidated and taken over by more competitive owners.
Obama is a statist. He wants government control over EVERYTHING - lightbulbs, toilets, banks whathaveyou.[/quote]
“Virtually nationalized” doesn’t really mean much to me, and I have no idea what it means to you, so it’s hard to argue with that. But before I address specifics: are you referring here to the auto bailout or the bank bailout or both?
By the way, the original point I was making had nothing to do with Obama being s Statist. It was in refutation of D’Souza’s “anti-colonialist” drivel. Someone bent on punishing the imperial capitalists of America does not save its economy from destruction (this is the overwhelming majority of reputable economists believe happened with the bailouts). He does not order an escalation of a controversial, remote drone war with high collateral damage and arguably imperial/certainly aggressive undertones.
“Virtually nationalized” doesn’t really mean much to me, and I have no idea what it means to you, so it’s hard to argue with that. But before I address specifics: are you referring here to the auto bailout or the bank bailout or both?
[/quote]
I was talking specifically about the auto bailout but the bank bailout applies too.
It’s not “drivel,” it’s a major component of Obama’s worldview and ideology by his own admission. Read the book the movie is based on and check the notes. Obama’s mother is on record as wanting Obama to move back to Hawaii because his Indonesian Muslim stepfather was too pro-capitalism and pro-America. Her parents were hard left kooks who were friends with Frank Marshall Davis. I’ve been through this ad nauseum.
[quote]
Someone bent on punishing the imperial capitalists of America does not save its economy from destruction (this is the overwhelming majority of reputable economists believe happened with the bailouts). He does not order an escalation of a controversial, remote drone war with high collateral damage and arguably imperial/certainly aggressive undertones.[/quote]
“Imperial undertones?” That’s crackpotism. He’s dismantling the military as fast as he can.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Nationalization of GM and Chrysler:
I’ll address your other points tomorrow, but for now:
This is what I meant when I mentioned “fringe blogs” or “conspiracy websites” or whatever I said. I don’t mean to insult you with this, as I think you’re a well-read and sharp guy, but there’s no way I’m going to spend time reading anything from this website. Here’s why:
There, this Dart character shows himself to be a birther and then suggests that Andrew Breitbart was probably assassinated by Barack Obama. That’s where I stop reading, and I’d suggest you do too.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Nationalization of GM and Chrysler:
I’ll address your other points tomorrow, but for now:
This is what I meant when I mentioned “fringe blogs” or “conspiracy websites” or whatever I said. I don’t mean to insult you with this, as I think you’re a well-read and sharp guy, but there’s no way I’m going to spend time reading anything from this website. Here’s why:
There, this Dart character shows himself to be a birther and then suggests that Andrew Breitbart was probably assassinated by Barack Obama. That’s where I stop reading, and I’d suggest you do too.[/quote]
It’s a page of links relating to the auto bailout: The Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, The New York Post etc. The fact that the guy who assembled the links is(you say) a nutjob is neither here nor there because I’m not providing him as my source. My source is the The Washington Times, Wall Street Journal etc. Links are on the kook’s page> The Nationalization of General Motors and Chrysler
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Nationalization of GM and Chrysler:
I’ll address your other points tomorrow, but for now:
This is what I meant when I mentioned “fringe blogs” or “conspiracy websites” or whatever I said. I don’t mean to insult you with this, as I think you’re a well-read and sharp guy, but there’s no way I’m going to spend time reading anything from this website. Here’s why:
There, this Dart character shows himself to be a birther and then suggests that Andrew Breitbart was probably assassinated by Barack Obama. That’s where I stop reading, and I’d suggest you do too.[/quote]
It’s a page of links relating to the auto bailout: The Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, The New York Post etc. The fact that the guy who assembled the links is(you say) a nutjob is neither here nor there because I’m not providing him as my source. My source is the The Washington Times, Wall Street Journal etc. Links are on the kook’s page> A K Dart dot com - 404 Error
My bad. I thought they were links to his wrintings. I’ll take a look then.