POZ Community Forums
Off Topic Forums => Off Topic Forum => Topic started by: pozniceguy on September 28, 2013, 07:56:54 pm
-
Finally, Matt Patterson and Newsweek speak out about Obama.
This is timely and tough. As many of you know, Newsweek has a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the protective wall built around him by the liberal media....
______________________________________________________________
I Too Have Become Disillusioned
By Matt Patterson (Newsweek Columnist Opinion Writer)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of
Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the
witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential
ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unmarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, less often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature
legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of is
troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing
preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor;"
a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and
political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at
it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an
outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant
terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because
Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal
Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American
injustices, even if they were 'a bit' extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standar- because of the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and
(as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him
a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby
to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the
Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense,
of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all
affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed
primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat
themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities
to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no
responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these
minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting
from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist.
Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama
himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements,
but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was
told he was good enough for Columbia despite
undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he
was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre
record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be
president despite no record at all in the Senate.
All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was
good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence
to the contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism
on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who
agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless
raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool
character. Those people conservatives included -
ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichs, and
that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when
the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all.
Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -
it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed
over and over again for 100 years. (An example is his
2012 campaign speeches which are almost word for
word his 2008 speeches)
And what about his character? Obama is constantly
blaming anything and everything else for his troubles.
Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess.
Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task.
It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to
advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable
with his own incompetence. (The other day he actually
came out and said no one could have done anything to
get our economy and country back on track). But really,
what were we to expect? The man has never been
responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to
act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small-minded man, with
neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle
his job. When you understand that, and only when
you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty
and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone
otherwise with such an impostor in the Oval Office.
is this tough love from his "liberal " friends
or just finally playing the record as it is
Nick
sorry for the screwed up format it didn"t copy as pritnted
-
Are you serious Nick? This sounds like a bad, i.e. typical, political ad. And -- BTW -- I don't find Newsweek to be all that "liberal". It is clearly a bit more to the right than, say, Time.
I find the article to, mainly, rehashed rubbish.
Mike
edited to add: While I would have preferred Hillary back in 2008 -- she certainly had more experience -- I find this article, upon a second read, to be even more of a "sore loser", "I can't believe "they" got someone in the WH" sort of screech.
-
You can't be serious that this is a liberal writer. This reads like something right out of the Heritage Foundation or Faux News. A whole lot of sour grapes, with nothing constructive to add to anything.
I could not help notice the "code-speak", using "affirmative action", as opposed to just saying he is also black and that's the REAL reason why he should not be president.
Joe
-
I am convinced history will be kind to President Obama and rightfully so . Our President has accomplished wonderful things for the middleclass and working poor .
-
I am convinced history will be kind to President Obama and rightfully so . Our President has accomplished wonderful things for the middleclass and working poor .
Damn right they will, considering all he has done, including the ACA, which I believe will become as important as Social Security and Medicare. Not to mention what he has done for minorities, like some of us.
Personally, I think this article is in extremely bad taste and has no business being on this site. Just because some people want to propagate the hate, doesn't mean we have to support it.
Joe
-
I wish people would go back and read what the sentiment was when social security was being introduced to America . That history reads just about word for word as the fear mongering going on today .
-
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/Matt-Patterson-Post.htm#.Ukd41BC2Zjk
Ray
-
I thought Sean Hannity wrote this article..lol. What experience did Bush have? Texas governors don't have much power, compared to others. He failed at every business. I just don't even get the criticism.
Obama will be viewed as one of the best presidents in history. Yes, I am biased, but his accomplishments speak for themselves. He, with a great team, brought the economy back for the verge of another depression. Add in financial reforms. We needed more, but we get what we get I guess. Student loan reform. Bin Laden dead. Speaking to the Iranian prez for first time in 3 decades. So many gay rights reforms. The list goes on and on. No REAL scandal thus far.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/affirmative.asp
-
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/Matt-Patterson-Post.htm#.Ukd41BC2Zjk
Ray
Thanks Ray.
How about some "information literacy" folks.
This editorial was published on the conversative website "The American Thinker" over two years ago in 2011...
NOT IN NEWSWEEK. NOT IN THE WASHINGTON POST.
By the way, Newsweek barely exists, Tina Brown got a tidy sum to care for this dying legend on life-support. As is her way, she continued her narcissistic self-promotion and fumbled completely in her task.
-
Rubbish
-
I think this article is in extremely bad taste and has no business being on this site.
Joe
Yes! can we please start the censoring of anything that goes against the King ::)
-
Yes! can we please start the censoring of anything that goes against the King ::)
Um, it's "dear leader"
-
this article was sent to me by a very conservative friend... one of the first wave of cuban refugees..... this is the sort of.. "information" that is widely circulated in the local hispanic community..... "free speech" can be pretty harsh
and this opinion is pretty harsh dont have to believe it .. can not listen to it..can even condemn it two ways from sunday .. cant stop people from doing it should at least know who and why they are saying these things
BTW minimizing /dismissing the source wont help either.... once it gets legs there will always be support for far reach article/blogs/papers/ facebook rants
Nick
-
We didn't dismiss the source. We named it!
It is not a "Newsweek Article". The editors of newsweek NEVER PUBLISHED IT, despite what you said.
And this thread title is misleading, too.
Secondly, it was published over two years ago.
Third, you mention the "latest Newsweek" as having another editorial, I guess, but provide no link to it.
Yeah, that aside, people everywhere on the political spectrum from far right to far left have plenty of opportunity on the Internet to spread their gospel. So what. What's new?
-
this article was sent to me by a very conservative friend... one of the first wave of cuban refugees..... this is the sort of.. "information" that is widely circulated in the local hispanic community..... "free speech" can be pretty harsh
and this opinion is pretty harsh dont have to believe it .. can not listen to it..can even condemn it two ways from sunday .. cant stop people from doing it should at least know who and why they are saying these things
BTW minimizing /dismissing the source wont help either.... once it gets legs there will always be support for far reach article/blogs/papers/ facebook rants
Nick
Nick --
My concern was the way YOU introduced it -- seemingly as gospel. Now we see that you were simply passing something on without verifying it -- which, I suppose, supports your point about things "having legs".
However -- there is really nothing new here -- there are no "new legs" at all. people have been saying this shit about Obama since he announced back in 2006/7. You say it is "widely circulated in the Hispanic community", yet that block of voters went overwhelmingly for Obama -- TWICE. Much like Bush II -- Obama won, twice, and folks just need to get over it.
Now -- as you know, I am not as far left as most on this site, but, while there are a number of things I think he did poorly -- I do think Obama has a number of things for which history will reward him. I am not on the "best president ever" bandwagon, but I can think of a number much worse, in my lifetime alone.
So -- I will denounce this for what it is -- RACIST BILE. I'm not for banning it from this site, but I'm disappointed that someone I respect would present it here as the unvarnished truth -- AND as something NEW.
Mike
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Nicks introduction a copy paste as well , for some reason it doesn't look like he composed it . It may well be his views for all I know but I didn't think he wrote the introduction . Am I right or wrong Mr. Nick ? .
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Nicks introduction a copy paste as well , for some reason it doesn't look like he composed it . It may well be his views for all I know but I didn't think he wrote the introduction . Am I right or wrong Mr. Nick ? .
I was confused too but after reading all of the links I do believe it was a copy and paste. Can't remember which one of the links I read his opening from. sorry.
too tired to look tonight.
-
Good catch Jeff / Mitch
Sorry for jumping to a wrong conclusion Nick!
What was your motivation for posting though?
Mike
-
Yes! can we please start the censoring of anything that goes against the King ::)
... Personally, I think this article is in extremely bad taste and has no business being on this site. Just because some people want to propagate the hate, doesn't mean we have to support it.
Joe
Will,
I never mentioned censoring anything and I don't appreciate you trying to put words in my mouth.
Joe
-
My intent was sort of "Devils Advocate" virtually all of it was cut and paste .I guess a little more background would have helped... I have several very good friends about my age who were from the first wave of Cubans to come here in the early 60s... most of them very Middle of the road about Politics...they are very disturbed by the type of "information" that is routinely pushed in the local spanish community...newspapers....many of the community are "undocumented" or second generation spanish speakers... the older Cuban refugees see this type of information as the sort of thing that started the "revolution" in Cuba .... promising reforms/services/ and other advantages if you just get rid of the current regime.... thought that History was relevant "revolution" in Cuba didnt work so hot for those left behind ...the tone and "facts" in the article are appealing to those not versed in American politics
have no idea why the "polls" show Hispanics seem to vote for Dems around here they seem to not vote
Nick;;
The results illustrate the difficulty in getting those who are young, unregistered and disconnected from the political process to the polls,” Gromer Jeffers, Jr. writes in an analysis for the Dallas Morning News.
It’s a problem reflected nationally.
A record 23.7 million Latinos were eligible to vote last year, according to the Pew Hispanic Center -- a 22 percent increase over the 2008 election.
But voter turnout continued to disappoint. Only 48 percent of eligible Latinos voters cast ballots in 2012, according to figures released last month by the Census Bureau -- well behind blacks (66.2 percent) and non-Hispanic whites (64.1 percent).
Texas feels the problem of low voter turnout more acutely than most. Latinos account for 38 percent of Texas’ population, but don’t routinely show up to the polls in high numbers
-
I think its fair to say there may be a revolution one day when people get sick and realize all of their hopes , dreams and aspirations for their family's have been Hijacked and sold wholesale to the top wealthy 1 % .
We are on the fast track to being a society that works below a living wage where we cant afford to send kids to college or provide health care and basic needs .
Conservatives have the gall to point to health care reform as the reason peoples hours are getting cut back to 29 working hours a week when what we really need is regulation so that profitable company's are not allowed to employ part time work just to evade paying part of an insurance policy or a living wage .
I think capitalist and conservatives are simply scared of a workers bill of rights being passed one day and having to move to the top 10 % instead of the 1 % they enjoy now .
-
Yep, in a nutshell.
-
well said Jeff. it's too bad that the people we elect can't get that simple message across.
-
As the Oracle says to Neo: Ohh, what's really going to bake your noodle later on is.....
That the most competitive economies have full social safety nets and advanced standards of living. With the exception of the US.
Its a crock o shit that the US economy can't afford health care, welfare (in such forms as food stamps, pre-school, etc.), living wages, secure retirement, modern infrastructures and so on and so on.
Its a challenge for the culture more than its a challenge for the economy... It's a culture war.
-
As the Oracle says to Neo: Ohh, what's really going to bake your noodle later on is.....
That the most competitive economies have full social safety nets and advanced standards of living. With the exception of the US.
Its a crock o shit that the US economy can't afford health care, welfare (in such forms as food stamps, pre-school, etc.), living wages, secure retirement, modern infrastructures and so on and so on.
Its a challenge for the culture more than its a challenge for the economy... It's a culture war.
Show me ONE with a stronger economy than the US? It is this crock thinking plus the opposite end from the Tea Party that is destroying this country. Yes, we can afford a safety net -- one better than we have, but we need to look at where we are spending and make SMARTER choices. Getting more revenue alone isn't going to solve it.
Here is a REAL example of how taxes work here:
I redid our taxes for 2012, to file jointly. Here is what I saw when I had our number side by side. I make ~4x (maybe a little more) what Sid makes, but even after taking all my itemized deductions, I paid over 16x more federal tax.
Now, I'm not saying that taxes don't need to rise at the upper end, I think they do -- but YOU CAN'T FOCUS ONLY ON REVENUE. Just like the Teabaggers CAN'T FOCUS ONLY ON SPENDING. We need to be smart -- because if we aren't then even reasonable, moderate, middle of the roaders, are not going to allow taxes to rise or spending to be cut.
-
Broken record here .... Many of the people that are in need of the safety net are people who are the working poor , if employers were regulated properly then we would not have so many people in need of assistance . If employers were to pay a living wage many of these issues would vanish overnight .
If you haven't noticed regulation is a dirty word that politicians cant say because corporate interest is what pays for political campaigns .
Its frustrating to me when people refuse to realize that the people we labor for are better suited to solve these social problems than government if only they did the right thing and spread the mega profits they are making into the work force before huge CEO bonuses and shareholders get a bite out of it .
-
Broken record here .... Many of the people that are in need of the safety net are people who are the working poor , if employers were regulated properly then we would not have so many people in need of assistance . If employers were to pay a living wage many of these issues would vanish overnight .
I agree, in part, with this. Wages have, at best, stagnated and probably, for many, reversed. However simply mandating a "living wage" is too simple a solution. First -- who decides what that is? What should a "living wage" provide for -- necessities like housing, food, healthcare? many might say, college, a few "luxuries" like cable, cell phones, etc....?? "Living wage" is nebulous.
Second -- what has always happened when wages have risen (anyone remember those times)?? Inflation -- so people make more and then companies start charging more for things (supply & demand), so the living wage must go up, which sends inflation higher, etc, etc.
So -- while I agree that this must be addressed, I don't see it as simply regulating business to pay more. I don't have an answer - hopefully smarter folks than I could help solve it however. Certainly not the current crop of "leaders" in Washington though.
If you haven't noticed regulation is a dirty word that politicians cant say because corporate interest is what pays for political campaigns .
Oh come now -- politicians are very happy to regulate things -- who we can marry, where/when/if one can terminate a pregnancy, which prayers are "good" prayers........ Don't you read the papers??
Mike
-
Its frustrating to me when people refuse to realize that the people we labor for are better suited to solve these social problems than government if only they did the right thing and spread the mega profits they are making into the work force before huge CEO bonuses and shareholders get a bite out of it .
Words of wisdom.
-
thnx for the your comments guys...I didn't intend to start some kind of "whats good for the country" match....but was concerned that a group of very well "integrated Hispanics" ( the Cubans here in Dallas...mostly professionals) see this "say anything you want to get elected process "as alarming . Free speech like all privilege can be easily abused. ...most of the "undocumented" come from places where government is not trusted or assumed to be so corrupt that there is an underground "government" that speaks the "truth to common people" my friends believe this is what is being exploited ... I tend to agree..hard to find data but plenty of examples on the news everyday
like Mike said we can have lots of the things we want if we are smart and clear thinking about what we commit to support
to give a few hot button examples "abortion rules".. spend nothing to protect mothers who cant afford or want children.. let them grow up in foster homes or live off social programs . spend hundreds of thousands to treat those who " cannot benefit from further treatment" ( the approved diagnosis used in Hospitals/clinics for patients who do not respond to treatment)
Nick
-
(http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv22/tedunk/20130927_214723_zpsf12839aa.jpg)
-
Finally, Matt Patterson and Newsweek speak out about Obama.
This is timely and tough. As many of you know, Newsweek has a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the protective wall built around him by the liberal media....
Man, you are tough to understand. Is this YOUR paragraph and YOUR reason for creating this thread, and posting this tirade, or not?
Now you seem to be backtracking completely, and you posted it to show the current thinking in the Cuban community??? And not your own political viewpoint. WTF?
How about some clarity of intention, not to mention clear attribution of who is saying what, and for what purpose....
-
(http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv22/tedunk/20130927_214723_zpsf12839aa.jpg)
So -- what is your point??
A. It is from "varied sources" -- clearly suspect just from that little diddy -- let's piece together whatever we want to tell our story.
B. Apparently these "median males" don't need to eat, but are paying some annual "college" for something?? is that savings for kids? Loans? Night classes?
c. A huge, unaccounted for, difference between 1970 and 2010 is the change from, mainly, single income households to double income households (hence the need for daycare in 2010)
I could go on, but my point is -- yes, wages have stagnated, the cost of living has increased (sometimes of our own accord -- compare the median house size between 1970 and 2010), but I have no idea what you think this is showing. The only thing that stands out, to me, is the increase in healthcare costs -- but again, given the "varied sources" used to build a graph -- I am not feeling comfortable even taking those numbers as accurate (though, I don't doubt that they are directionally so......).
M
-
That chart from the 70's cant be real because it didn't list Quaalude's as an expense .
-
So -- what is your point??
A. It is from "varied sources" -- clearly suspect just from that little diddy -- let's piece together whatever we want to tell our story.
B. Apparently these "median males" don't need to eat, but are paying some annual "college" for something?? is that savings for kids? Loans? Night classes?
c. A huge, unaccounted for, difference between 1970 and 2010 is the change from, mainly, single income households to double income households (hence the need for daycare in 2010)
I could go on, but my point is -- yes, wages have stagnated, the cost of living has increased (sometimes of our own accord -- compare the median house size between 1970 and 2010), but I have no idea what you think this is showing. The only thing that stands out, to me, is the increase in healthcare costs -- but again, given the "varied sources" used to build a graph -- I am not feeling comfortable even taking those numbers as accurate (though, I don't doubt that they are directionally so......).
M
Are you questioning the great Stephen Colbert? Lol. It says minus household expenses, which would include food. It shows exactly what we already knew. Men use to be able to take care of an entire family. Now, many wives not only want to work; they have to work. I've mentioned this before-- my mom made $10 an hour at G.E. in 1980. Other family members made $16 an hour at that same time at Cummins Engine. Now, both of those companies start workers out at $10-$12 an hour.
I have family members who said they had back surgery, gallbladder surgery, and even stomach stapling, and they said they all paid for it out of pocket. That seemed so foreign to me. You could not do that today. My back surgery was $20k plus. College costs are out of control. When I started I.U., I think it was about $4k a year. That's not the case today. And, that was 1994. You're right, wages are stagnant and haven't moved much since 1980. But, everything else has skyrocketed. At $10 an hour, our rent was like $170 a month. Here in Louisville now, you would pay $500 for an apt in a bad neighborhood. Gas was 68 cents a gallon, or something like that. People still wanted nice things back then, with 2 cars. But, a new car was under $5,000, no? And, family sizes were bigger then. Today, many delay having kids and don't have as many. Then, most started families at 18-25. Without looking at the figures, i would suspect thats moved to 22-30. Look at the minimum wage. When I started my real first job in 1992 at D.Q., it was $3.35 an hour. It has only been a few years that it was raised above $7. From what I read, it should be at least $11, with others saying closer to $15 to $20.
I am curious about the college expenses. Are they talking per semester? What families pay out on top of loans? So, you're right. I would like to have more data on these figures.
-
Having bedded every South American, Central American and Caribbean nationality, if you are basing your views of "Hispanics" on first wave Cuban immigrants then you are undoubtedly out to lunch.