A Fulfillment of Prophecy?

[daveman]

i wouldnt say accurate...i stopped reading after a couple because i saw what was happening.

So it is safe to say you haven't read a single one of those essay in its entirety and that you only scanned over a couple of the summaries in the OP, so you don't know whether they are accurate or not but in any case whatever Obama is or does is okay because he is no different from anybody else?

Would you also agree that a refusal to read the OP, much less the essays, pretty well disqualifies you as competent to evaluate the content?

his comments on Wright,ayers and sex ed is middle of the road statements that a child could figure out. how many times do i need to repeat thew same shit? you that stupid?

She's not stupid enough to comment on something she hasn't read.

 

[Foxfyre]

So it is safe to say you haven't read a single one of those essay in its entirety and that you only scanned over a couple of the summaries in the OP, so you don't know whether they are accurate or not but in any case whatever Obama is or does is okay because he is no different from anybody else?

Would you also agree that a refusal to read the OP, much less the essays, pretty well disqualifies you as competent to evaluate the content?

his comments on Wright,ayers and sex ed is middle of the road statements that a child could figure out. how many times do i need to repeat thew same shit? you that stupid?

She's not stupid enough to comment on something she hasn't read.

And I'm sure she's not stupid enough to be incapable of putting something into context and offering a rationale for the initial cursory remark. But so far all I've gotten from her is that she agrees with the small amount she read in the OP--chose not to read any further so she doesn't know what is said--but its okay because everybody is the same and Obama is no different.

And in some worlds I suppose that actually makes sense?

 

[daveman]

his comments on Wright,ayers and sex ed is middle of the road statements that a child could figure out. how many times do i need to repeat thew same shit? you that stupid?

She's not stupid enough to comment on something she hasn't read.

And I'm sure she's not stupid enough to be incapable of putting something into context and offering a rationale for the initial cursory remark. But so far all I've gotten from her is that she agrees with the small amount she read in the OP--chose not to read any further so she doesn't know what is said--but its okay because everybody is the same and Obama is no different.

And in some worlds I suppose that actually makes sense?

If you have the correct mindset. The mindset that believes:

1. Everything Obama does is good.

2. Everyone that disagrees with Obama is bad.

 

[Foxfyre]

She's not stupid enough to comment on something she hasn't read.

And I'm sure she's not stupid enough to be incapable of putting something into context and offering a rationale for the initial cursory remark. But so far all I've gotten from her is that she agrees with the small amount she read in the OP--chose not to read any further so she doesn't know what is said--but its okay because everybody is the same and Obama is no different.

And in some worlds I suppose that actually makes sense?

If you have the correct mindset. The mindset that believes:

1. Everything Obama does is good.

2. Everyone that disagrees with Obama is bad.

No, no, this time I have to give PB props for admitting that Obama is at least everything Sowell said in the two bits of OP she did read. At least she said there is nothing to refute. (PB is a she?)

It's the part in which she seems to admit that, but also seems to be excusing it and shrugging it off as irrelevent because everybody is like that and Obama is no different that is a bit confounding. So I asked for clarification on that.

And then she admitted she only read a couple of points in the OP and apparently none of the essays. And I'm saying that pretty well disqualifies her opinion on the subject of Thomas Sowell. But as a dedicated Obama apologist, I'm quite sure she has him pegged correctly that Sowell described him accurately on that couple of points.

 

[Gracie]

predicting obama's win in 2012 was very far form being a prophecy.
For anybody savvy enough in covering the political campaigns it was absolutely obvious that Romney will lose exactly because of his boring, unappealing, very old-fashioned campaign.
Plus even the outsider knows that in order to unseat the president currently in the WH one has to have a lot more charisma than Romney did.
Plus the LSM covering every obama lie did not help at all.

It was obvious from the beginning of September that obama will win

I don't know if it was obvious, but I think most of us who were following the campaign closely knew it was at least a possibility. Principle, fiscal responsibility, honor, respect, competence, values, integrity, etc. too often pale against the allure of free stuff and faith in flat out lies. I think most of us did have hope that the American people would regain their sanity, but after the early returns started coming in, I knew.

I don't think Romney was that bad a candidate--we would certainly be far better off already if he had been elected--but you are right that he just didn't make hearts go pitter pat like a Ronald Reagan did.

But let's get back to the prophetic concepts that seem to have come true day by day since Obama was first inaugerated.

AvgJoe objects to some of Thomas Sowell's observations. Let's look at one of those.

Does anybody here believe we got the Barack Obama that campaigned for the job in 2008? Or did we get something very different than that candidate?

Question 1..........no.
Question 2..........yes

 

[daveman]

And I'm sure she's not stupid enough to be incapable of putting something into context and offering a rationale for the initial cursory remark. But so far all I've gotten from her is that she agrees with the small amount she read in the OP--chose not to read any further so she doesn't know what is said--but its okay because everybody is the same and Obama is no different.

And in some worlds I suppose that actually makes sense?

If you have the correct mindset. The mindset that believes:

1. Everything Obama does is good.

2. Everyone that disagrees with Obama is bad.

No, no, this time I have to give PB props for admitting that Obama is at least everything Sowell said in the two bits of OP she did read. At least she said there is nothing to refute. (PB is a she?)

It's the part in which she seems to admit that, but also seems to be excusing it and shrugging it off as irrelevent because everybody is like that and Obama is no different that is a bit confounding. So I asked for clarification on that.

And then she admitted she only read a couple of points in the OP and apparently none of the essays. And I'm saying that pretty well disqualifies her opinion on the subject of Thomas Sowell. But as a dedicated Obama apologist, I'm quite sure she has him pegged correctly that Sowell described him accurately on that couple of points.

PB is an alleged he.

He asked if you were stupid. I replied, "She's not stupid enough to comment on something she hasn't read" -- she being you.

 

[Plasmaball]

So it is safe to say you haven't read a single one of those essay in its entirety and that you only scanned over a couple of the summaries in the OP, so you don't know whether they are accurate or not but in any case whatever Obama is or does is okay because he is no different from anybody else?

Would you also agree that a refusal to read the OP, much less the essays, pretty well disqualifies you as competent to evaluate the content?

his comments on Wright,ayers and sex ed is middle of the road statements that a child could figure out. how many times do i need to repeat thew same shit? you that stupid?

She's not stupid enough to comment on something she hasn't read.

Ill remember that the next time you comment on something you havent read. Dont worry it will be shortly.
Regardless i did read the first few sections and knew it was a waste of time, but you ignore that so you have a point dave. You have nothing else.

 

[daveman]

his comments on Wright,ayers and sex ed is middle of the road statements that a child could figure out. how many times do i need to repeat thew same shit? you that stupid?

She's not stupid enough to comment on something she hasn't read.

Ill remember that the next time you comment on something you havent read. Dont worry it will be shortly.
Regardless i did read the first few sections and knew it was a waste of time, but you ignore that so you have a point dave. You have nothing else.

As if the hole you've dug yourself isn't deep enough...

 

[Plasmaball]

And I'm sure she's not stupid enough to be incapable of putting something into context and offering a rationale for the initial cursory remark. But so far all I've gotten from her is that she agrees with the small amount she read in the OP--chose not to read any further so she doesn't know what is said--but its okay because everybody is the same and Obama is no different.

And in some worlds I suppose that actually makes sense?

If you have the correct mindset. The mindset that believes:

1. Everything Obama does is good.

2. Everyone that disagrees with Obama is bad.

No, no, this time I have to give PB props for admitting that Obama is at least everything Sowell said in the two bits of OP she did read. At least she said there is nothing to refute. (PB is a she?)

It's the part in which she seems to admit that, but also seems to be excusing it and shrugging it off as irrelevent because everybody is like that and Obama is no different that is a bit confounding. So I asked for clarification on that.

And then she admitted she only read a couple of points in the OP and apparently none of the essays. And I'm saying that pretty well disqualifies her opinion on the subject of Thomas Sowell. But as a dedicated Obama apologist, I'm quite sure she has him pegged correctly that Sowell described him accurately on that couple of points.

ive already clarified how its nothing new. Its not my problem you dont understand the simple fact that when running for a national office like the presidency that you need to shift to a more moderate stance on issues in order to win.
Or do we need to act dumb again and ask another redundant question about how you seemingly dont understand for another 15 posts thus never advancing your Op further.
Because thats all you are doing now.

1) state op
2) ask for people to refute
3) when people do ask dumb questions that a child would ask in order to create a circular argument till the person just leaves and all you are left with is people who give you highfives.
4) end of thread.

You want to be treated like you are a smart person looking for a conversation, then stop asking child like question and try to understand things.

 

[CrazedScotsman]

There are prophets all over the place. Anyone who is a student of history can be a prophet, it's really not that hard. I'm no student of history, but I'm sure there's someone out there who can research back and find a pattern, then come up with their own prophesies.

 

[The T]

She's not stupid enough to comment on something she hasn't read.

And I'm sure she's not stupid enough to be incapable of putting something into context and offering a rationale for the initial cursory remark. But so far all I've gotten from her is that she agrees with the small amount she read in the OP--chose not to read any further so she doesn't know what is said--but its okay because everybody is the same and Obama is no different.

And in some worlds I suppose that actually makes sense?

If you have the correct mindset. The mindset that believes:

1. Everything Obama does is good.

2. Everyone that disagrees with Obama is bad.

3. Thinking for one's self becomes endangered.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you have the correct mindset. The mindset that believes:

1. Everything Obama does is good.

2. Everyone that disagrees with Obama is bad.

No, no, this time I have to give PB props for admitting that Obama is at least everything Sowell said in the two bits of OP she did read. At least she said there is nothing to refute. (PB is a she?)

It's the part in which she seems to admit that, but also seems to be excusing it and shrugging it off as irrelevent because everybody is like that and Obama is no different that is a bit confounding. So I asked for clarification on that.

And then she admitted she only read a couple of points in the OP and apparently none of the essays. And I'm saying that pretty well disqualifies her opinion on the subject of Thomas Sowell. But as a dedicated Obama apologist, I'm quite sure she has him pegged correctly that Sowell described him accurately on that couple of points.

PB is an alleged he.

He asked if you were stupid. I replied, "She's not stupid enough to comment on something she hasn't read" -- she being you.

Ohhhhh okay. I did misread your comment. But I've had some late day coffee now, so I am probably more coherent.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are prophets all over the place. Anyone who is a student of history can be a prophet, it's really not that hard. I'm no student of history, but I'm sure there's someone out there who can research back and find a pattern, then come up with their own prophesies.

In this case however, Thomas Sowell wrote his essays in 2008 with no experience whatsoever as to what the Obama presidency would actually be.

In the opinion of at least some here, Thomas Sowell has turned out to be spot on in his analysis. He advised us what we would get if we elected Barack Obama president. And he appears to have been prophetically accurate in every analyis cited in the linked essays.

 

[Sunshine]

There are prophets all over the place. Anyone who is a student of history can be a prophet, it's really not that hard. I'm no student of history, but I'm sure there's someone out there who can research back and find a pattern, then come up with their own prophesies.

In this case however, Thomas Sowell wrote his essays in 2008 with no experience whatsoever as to what the Obama presidency would actually be.

In the opinion of at least some here, Thomas Sowell has turned out to be spot on in his analysis. He advised us what we would get if we elected Barack Obama president. And he appears to have been prophetically accurate in every analyis cited in the linked essays.

Possibly it was out of the blue, but I recall a lot of articles about where and how he grew up. Based on cultural norms, his presidency has certainly lived up (or down) to his upbringing.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are prophets all over the place. Anyone who is a student of history can be a prophet, it's really not that hard. I'm no student of history, but I'm sure there's someone out there who can research back and find a pattern, then come up with their own prophesies.

In this case however, Thomas Sowell wrote his essays in 2008 with no experience whatsoever as to what the Obama presidency would actually be.

In the opinion of at least some here, Thomas Sowell has turned out to be spot on in his analysis. He advised us what we would get if we elected Barack Obama president. And he appears to have been prophetically accurate in every analyis cited in the linked essays.

Possibly it was out of the blue, but I recall a lot of articles about where and how he grew up. Based on cultural norms, his presidency has certainly lived up (or down) to his upbringing.

In yet another essay written September 12, 2012, Thomas Sowell comments on that:

After I read Barack Obama’s book Dreams from My Father, it became painfully clear to me that he has not been searching for the truth, because he assumed from an early age that he had already found the truth — and now it was just a question of filling in the details and deciding how to change things.

Obama did not simply happen to encounter a lot of people on the far-left fringe during his life. As he spells out in his book, he actively sought out such people. There is no hint of the slightest curiosity on his part about other visions of the world that might be weighed against the vision he had seized upon.

As Professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School has pointed out, Obama made no effort to take part in the marketplace of ideas with other faculty members when he was teaching a law course there. What would be the point, if he already knew the truth and knew that they were wrong?

This would be a remarkable position to take, even for a learned scholar who had already spent decades canvassing a vast amount of information and views on many subjects. But Obama was already doctrinaire at a very early age — and ill-informed or misinformed on both history and economics. . . .

Foxfyre comment: In this essay, Sowell notes a number of errors that Obama has made within his glowing rhetoric--errors that were just shrugged off, perhaps by an adoring public and media who didn't know any better than he did--and closed with this comment:​

. . . .Barack Obama is one of those people who are often wrong but never in doubt. When he burst upon the national political scene as a presidential candidate in 2008, even some conservatives were impressed by his confidence.

But confident ignorance is one of the most dangerous qualities in a leader of a nation. If he has the rhetorical skills to inspire others to have the same confidence in him, then you have the ingredients for national disaster.
The Confident Ignorance of Barack Obama | National Review Online

Confident ignorance. Haven't we witnessed that time and again by our current President? And yet so few seemed to be the least bit concerned.

Thomas Sowell closes the preface of his book Vision of the Annointed (1995) with:

"In short, few have spent their entire lives outside the vision of the annointed, and virtually no one has been unaffected by it. Understanding that vision, its current impact and its future dangers, is the purpose of this book."

 

[Plasmaball]

She's not stupid enough to comment on something she hasn't read.

Ill remember that the next time you comment on something you havent read. Dont worry it will be shortly.
Regardless i did read the first few sections and knew it was a waste of time, but you ignore that so you have a point dave. You have nothing else.

As if the hole you've dug yourself isn't deep enough...

its about as deep as your Iq

 

[Plasmaball]

There are prophets all over the place. Anyone who is a student of history can be a prophet, it's really not that hard. I'm no student of history, but I'm sure there's someone out there who can research back and find a pattern, then come up with their own prophesies.

In this case however, Thomas Sowell wrote his essays in 2008 with no experience whatsoever as to what the Obama presidency would actually be.

In the opinion of at least some here, Thomas Sowell has turned out to be spot on in his analysis. He advised us what we would get if we elected Barack Obama president. And he appears to have been prophetically accurate in every analyis cited in the linked essays.

he doesnt need experience since there is now a formula for running for president.

 

[The T]

There are prophets all over the place. Anyone who is a student of history can be a prophet, it's really not that hard. I'm no student of history, but I'm sure there's someone out there who can research back and find a pattern, then come up with their own prophesies.

In this case however, Thomas Sowell wrote his essays in 2008 with no experience whatsoever as to what the Obama presidency would actually be.

In the opinion of at least some here, Thomas Sowell has turned out to be spot on in his analysis. He advised us what we would get if we elected Barack Obama president. And he appears to have been prophetically accurate in every analyis cited in the linked essays.

he doesnt need experience since there is now a formula for running for president.

Yeah, it's called being a charismatic liar. Cult of personality...

 

[The T]

There are prophets all over the place. Anyone who is a student of history can be a prophet, it's really not that hard. I'm no student of history, but I'm sure there's someone out there who can research back and find a pattern, then come up with their own prophesies.

In this case however, Thomas Sowell wrote his essays in 2008 with no experience whatsoever as to what the Obama presidency would actually be.

In the opinion of at least some here, Thomas Sowell has turned out to be spot on in his analysis. He advised us what we would get if we elected Barack Obama president. And he appears to have been prophetically accurate in every analyis cited in the linked essays.

Dr. Sowell knew what we did.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sowell begins Chapter 1 of Vision of the Annointed with:

What is intellectually interesting about visions are their assumptions and their reasoning, but what is socially crucial is the extent to which they are reisistant to evidence. All social theories being imperfect, the harm done by their imperfections depends not only on how far they differ from reality, but also on how readily they adjust to evidence, to come back into line with the facts. . . .

And then on Page 6:

. . . .“This (liberal) vision so permeates the media and academia, and has made such major inroads into the religious community, that many grow into adulthood unaware that there is any other way of looking at things, or that evidence might be relevant to checking out the sweeping assumptions of so-called “thinking people”. Many of these “thinking people” could more accurately be characterized as articulate people, as people whose verbal nimbleness can elude both evidence and logic. This can be a fatal talent, when it supplies the crucial insulation from reality behind many historic catastrophes.”. . .

When somebody at USMB is incapable of looking at a different point of view and understanding the credibility of it - or is so dedicated or confident in his/her ideologiy that he/she can't or won't see the glaring negatives in a policy - we can accept that as a consequence of the 'vision of the annointed' and hope it is in a minority.

But when we have a President so confident in his vision and so oblivious to how flawed are the concepts that created it, and so oblivious to the damage it is causing in practice, can we say that is dangerous? And does it logically follow that those who support him and allow him to continue are also dangerous?