Is Papa Obama's Narcissism good or bad for America? -It's about Obama not Healthcare

[jeffrockit]

There's nothing better than the armchair psychologists who think they can diagnose politicians by seeing them speak on television.

Seriously, stop being retarded. There are plenty of legitimate things to attack Obama on. Pretending to be a shrink isn't one.

Well, it is an article

But again, it obvious at this point that the real debate is about him and not healthcare.

The debate is about him, yes.
But not because he's making it about him - because pundits and talking heads and Op-Ed authors like the OP are making it about him.

So none of them are basing their debate on Obama because of his policies? Why is it so hard for the left to understand that we the people have well thought, informative disagreements with Obama's policy decisions.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Well, it is an article

But again, it obvious at this point that the real debate is about him and not healthcare.

The debate is about him, yes.
But not because he's making it about him - because pundits and talking heads and Op-Ed authors like the OP are making it about him.

So none of them are basing their debate on Obama because of his policies? Why is it so hard for the left to understand that we the people have well thought, informative disagreements with Obama's policy decisions.

Some do. But there's still a whole lot of Birthers and "He's a muslim"ers, etc etc.

If my post doesn't refer to you, by all means ignore it. But don't try to deny that those people don't exist.

 

[jeffrockit]

The debate is about him, yes.
But not because he's making it about him - because pundits and talking heads and Op-Ed authors like the OP are making it about him.

So none of them are basing their debate on Obama because of his policies? Why is it so hard for the left to understand that we the people have well thought, informative disagreements with Obama's policy decisions.

Some do. But there's still a whole lot of Birthers and "He's a muslim"ers, etc etc.

If my post doesn't refer to you, by all means ignore it. But don't try to deny that those people don't exist.

I have many times stated that there are fringe elements on both the left and right, but they do not represent the majority. They actually represent very small amounts. Where we go wrong is to give them the press they want. When these broad brush statements are made, it only feeds into them more as they like the attention.
We (no matter your stance) should focus on the core and ignore these nuts. When they are marginalized, we should be left with those that want intelligent debate and get down to putting this country back together.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I think you're a little confused as to what my point is.

I don't care about Obama's approval rating. I don't care if "the majority" of Americans don't support him. He's president, and will be at least until Jan 20, 2012.

I'm also not defending his healthcare bill.
Nor am I defending him at all.

My point is based entirely on the fact that you "misspoke". Which, by the way, you have yet to admit to.

Why should I admit to something I do not agree?
Again, we can agree to disagree

I feel your "interpretation" is flawed; I do not expect you to agree with that...

why that would be very narcissistic of me

Wait, so you didn't say this?

Perhaps I voted for him and now, like the majority, have come to regret it

But, as I pointed out, the "majority" of people who voted for him still support him.

I don't agree with your flawed interpretation that I lied

Of course, your statement that the "majority that voted for him still support him" is insignificant because
the "global" majority are not in support of him. While your statement may provide comfort to his supporters, it avoids the reality of the situation.
This is all that really matters; I'm sure the majority that voted for McCain still support him. We see how much good that has done him

 

[Neotrotsky]

So none of them are basing their debate on Obama because of his policies? Why is it so hard for the left to understand that we the people have well thought, informative disagreements with Obama's policy decisions.

Some do. But there's still a whole lot of Birthers and "He's a muslim"ers, etc etc.

If my post doesn't refer to you, by all means ignore it. But don't try to deny that those people don't exist.

I have many times stated that there are fringe elements on both the left and right, but they do not represent the majority. They actually represent very small amounts. Where we go wrong is to give them the press they want. When these broad brush statements are made, it only feeds into them more as they like the attention.
We (no matter your stance) should focus on the core and ignore these nuts. When they are marginalized, we should be left with those that want intelligent debate and get down to putting this country back together.

Perhaps, one could argue that is the core that is the "fringe"

Thus, this is the problem; Papa Obama has lost the middle

 

[FA_Q2]

Obama is a narcissist and megalomaniac. We know this because he is the president. Who in the hell would want that terrible job unless they had aforementioned qualities. It only matters to the R’s here because we are in the minority and he has no use of us. If it were a R in that seat with those majorities then the same things would be happening. Politicians only “reach across the aisle” if they need to and here there is very little reason for D’s to do so. This is one of the many reasons why they should all be FIRED. Hell, it would be great if we could trash the parties and make everyone run as an independent so people would stop focusing on the little letter near their name and focus just a little on ACTUAL ISSUES!

 

[Claudette]

Why you busting on Barry? Didn't he run his campaign on fundamentally changing America? Come hell or high water he will keep that promise . . . or die trying. (oh chill, it's an expression. ) Do you think it's just his ideals behind it all? Why do you think he invoked FDR and Lincoln and others? Just cause it sounded good? No, Barry wants to go down in the history books as the one who lit the match, he wants to read all about himself when this part is over, he wants to be one of them. His narcissism is beyond the norm and serves it's purpose well in his transformational agenda.

Ditto.

OL'BO fixated on his agenda. I don't really thinks he cares what it will cost the taxpayers. I think he just wants to be a bigger part of history. He will be the first African American President and the dude who will bring another huge entitlement to the doorstep of the taxpayer. Just another cog in the wheel to a bigger and bigger Govt.

This is what he campaigned on and golly gee its coming to pass. In fact. He's spent the whole first year of his presidency taking care of his agenda. His place in history when he should have been working on the economy and jobs. Shows what his priorities are.

Sure hope the taxpayers of America can afford being part of his bit of history.

 

[hboats]

I don't even remember making a point.

Majority don't regret it. His approval ratings are still nowhere near as low as Bush's was when he left. Those who voted for him and regret it do so because they're aggravated that he's not getting things done.

Actually, that is one point of view, but there are others. And I'm sure a lot of the people who are aggravated are so because he made a bunch of promises and has not kept very many of them, actually he's kept very few.

Of course, republican blocking maneuvers are a big part of that but his constant pandering to them is not helping either.

Once again, must I point out that the Democrats had a SUPER MAJORITY for a year? The Republicans couldn't block SHIT. Oh, and having meetings behind closed doors without inviting Republicans to the table is "pandering to them?" In what universe?

Me personally? I'd still say "approve" if polled, but if I did say "Disapprove" it would not be for the reasons this man in your article is suggesting. I'd say disapprove because he ain't liberal enough. I didn't vote for bipartisanship, I voted to get this mess the republicans left undone, and get this country back on the right track.

This is opinion and you're entitled to it.

This guy thinks it will hurt the party if the bill passes? The bill not passing would be the devastating route for Obama and the dems. He campaigned on healthcare reform. You kidding me? Is that what people think around here, that he's unpopular because he is trying to pass healthcare? Incidentally he's still at 48/46 and rising.

It's not just his "trying to pass healthcare," it's the way that he's going about doing it that has so many people aggravated. Bribes to get votes? Under the table deals to get votes? Giving away jobs to family members to get votes? Think about all the hoops that have been jumped through to get this bill passed. Even his own party isn't sold on it, but they're so insistent on passing any old piece of crap just to be able to say "Hey, we got health care reform." Why not take the time to get it right and then pass a bill that the majority of the country can get behind?

Rick

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

"Obama IS our national crisis."

In the immortal words of Linus to Charlie Brown: We're Doomed.

I might just quote you for my signature line

Obama IS our national crisis -boedicca

 

[beowolfe]

Is Papa Obama's Narcissism good or bad for America? - It's about Obama not Healthcare

Obama's Malignant Narcissism

Lots of people preen and strut on life's stage without losing their sense of proportion. But I think Obama just turned all his grandiose talk into irrevocable action. I don't think we've had this extreme and radical a president ever before in American history. Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR took radical actions, but only at a time of huge national crises. We don't have a national crisis today. Obama is our national crisis.

Obama is going for the "nuclear option" to force very bad and very toxic medicine down our throats. He is willing to sacrifice his congressional majorities to get the biggest, most budget-busting entitlement ever imagined into the permanent fabric of American national life. The main beneficiaries of Obamacare will be Obama's ego and the Permanent Left. This is his chance to be FDR, and he can't control his need for that glorified image. He is therefore crossing the Rubicon -- making an irreversible decision that will define his presidency forever, win or lose. This is not just another grandiose gesture. Obama now stands revealed for what he is.

By choosing the "nuclear option," Obama is demonstrating do-or-die fanaticism. This makes for great TV football, but it's very dangerous for the man in the biggest power seat in the world. We are seeing Obama the Radical taking over from Obama the Pragmatist -- if that one ever really existed. From what we know about his fanatical associates like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, sacrificing the Democratic Party majority in Congress would be only a small price to pay.

The question is what real damage Obama may do to the country. This man has been entrusted with the greatest power in the world. He will have that power for the next three years at least.

But he may not be able to emotionally tolerate any real limits on his need for self-aggrandizement and power. And still he can't be allowed to beat the country into submission.

Good luck to all of us.

It would help if you guys could at least get the terms correct. Obama, nor any other democrat, has proposed the nuclear option. The nuclear option as proposed by Dick Cheney would be the Senate getting rid of its members right to filibuster.

Wingnuts just make it up as they go along with no regard to what has gone before.

 

[Dr Gregg]

more blind obama bashing, what else is new

 

[Neotrotsky]

I think you're a little confused as to what my point is.

I don't care about Obama's approval rating. I don't care if "the majority" of Americans don't support him. He's president, and will be at least until Jan 20, 2012.

I'm also not defending his healthcare bill.
Nor am I defending him at all.

My point is based entirely on the fact that you "misspoke". Which, by the way, you have yet to admit to.

Why should I admit to something I do not agree?
Again, we can agree to disagree

I feel your "interpretation" is flawed; I do not expect you to agree with that...

why that would be very narcissistic of me

Wait, so you didn't say this?

Perhaps I voted for him and now, like the majority, have come to regret it

But, as I pointed out, the "majority" of people who voted for him still support him.

Yes that is my statement and it is correct and true
Your trying to debate which majority is frivolous and argumentative

It is safe bet that most readers would view the majority in that statement as global.
As such my statement is not a lie.

And I pointed out the majority you speak of, is insignificant to point at hand

Using your approach, Bush even at his low numbers had the "majority" of people who voted for him still supporting him- I sure that makes Papa Obama feel all better

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why should I admit to something I do not agree?
Again, we can agree to disagree

I feel your "interpretation" is flawed; I do not expect you to agree with that...

why that would be very narcissistic of me

Wait, so you didn't say this?

Perhaps I voted for him and now, like the majority, have come to regret it

But, as I pointed out, the "majority" of people who voted for him still support him.

Yes that is my statement and it is correct and true
Your trying to debate which majority is frivolous and argumentative

It is safe bet that most readers would view the majority in that statement as global.
As such my statement is not a lie.

And I pointed out the majority you speak of, is insignificant to point at hand

Using your approach, Bush even at his low numbers had the "majority" of people who voted for him still supporting him- I sure that makes Papa Obama feel all better

Why the fuck would I care how anything makes Obama "feel"?

Your partisan blindness has prevented you from realizing that I don't give a shit about Obama.

Just because I called you on your lies doesn't mean I'm as much of a partisan hack as you.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Wait, so you didn't say this?

But, as I pointed out, the "majority" of people who voted for him still support him.

Yes that is my statement and it is correct and true
Your trying to debate which majority is frivolous and argumentative

It is safe bet that most readers would view the majority in that statement as global.
As such my statement is not a lie.

And I pointed out the majority you speak of, is insignificant to point at hand

Using your approach, Bush even at his low numbers had the "majority" of people who voted for him still supporting him- I sure that makes Papa Obama feel all better

Why the fuck would I care how anything makes Obama "feel"?

Your partisan blindness has prevented you from realizing that I don't give a shit about Obama.

Just because I called you on your lies doesn't mean I'm as much of a partisan hack as you.

Who said it was about you?

The point is to illustrate that your argument is weak on substance
Again, We can agree to disagree

You called me, in my opinion on nothing

Perhaps you are too blind to see that or in your case:

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."