June 23, 2012

“Is President Obama A Pathological Liar?”

I’m assuming that’s a rhetorical question.

Funny thing is, there was a time when suggesting that “Barack Obama” and Barack Obama were perhaps quite different people — and that the differences mattered and the distinction was a potentially crucial one, given that it was the former we were being sold as a candidate for higher office — was laughed at as a kind of kooky fringe conspiracy theory I was using to reinforce my own already “unsavory” opinions of Obama.  Or, you know:  “racist!”

Guess I get the last laugh.

It’s hard out there for a pimp.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:54am
49 comments | Trackback

Comments (49)

  1. Obama is a Good Man™. I used to hear that all the time from the pragmatists on the right, so it must be true.

    So he isn’t a liar as much as a storyteller. They’re like parables from our modern savior. He came to stop the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. He would have succeeded if the bitterclingers hadn’t stopped him.

  2. Sometimes I think we really are speaking two different languages in this country. I don’t doubt Obama was told any number of “facts” about his family that just weren’t true, same as Liz Warren. The problem arises, not in whether he/she believed them or not, but whether the narrative fits the sentiment, which, in both of their cases, of course it does! So the narrative must be true, because it feels right. Some of us are scratching our heads over that, because we don’t care about feelings, we just want to know the facts.

    We’re not speaking the same language.

  3. Bitterclingers are like leeches, though only feeding on the soul of the GREAT LEADER, rather than on his blood, yes? They must be awfully undernourished, those bitterclingers. Serves ‘em right.

  4. So he isn’t a liar as much as a storyteller

    Actually, I’m enamored of the term “fabulist” when it concerns Barry’s every word.

  5. So, SEK hates smokin hot babes!

    I knew there was something wrong with that boy when he was posting here.

  6. “The problem arises, not in whether he/she believed them or not, but whether the narrative fits the sentiment, which, in both of their cases, of course it does! So the narrative must be true, because it feels right”

    That’s what alleged funny man Steven Cobert describes as “Truthiness”. Sadly he only knows how to see red state truthiness. The blue state truthiness sneaks up behind him and easily dangles him like a puppet when er’ it has a mind ‘ta.

  7. I blame Bill Ayers. He never anticipated that the narratives, composites and fabrications he stitched together would ever be vetted… after all Bill thrives in a leftist bubble and probably could not conceive the thought that anyone would ever question his work.
    Maybe Bill will drop a “that ratfucker lied to me….” diatribe in Caracas outside Hugo Chavez’ palace.

    That’d actually be a good ambush question for Ayers…. do you feel like Barack Obama misled you about his history when you were ghostwriting his book?

  8. I am always puzzled by the polls claiming that people “like Obama personally.” How can this be? Are they pals with him? Do they meet up at the corner bar for beers after a hard days work? Play a few rounds of golf? Share some guy talk about what a great ass one of the pages has?

    I don’t get it.

  9. It could be it’s simply a function of the purpose of sociology, i.e., making the impossible appear to be at hand.

  10. Kind of like when you (“you” generically) wrote to say, Sky King and got back an autographed picture signed, Your pal?

  11. Well, mine (would have, had I written) had a picture of the plane on it, which in itself is a sort of concretion. So. But yeah, neither the actor nor the character was really my pal (Billy, who in fact lived next door and ate butter-soaked steamed clams of Friday night with the rest of his enormous family — no red meat, you see).

  12. “I am always puzzled by the polls claiming…”

    Simple Leigh,

    People are being dishonest (consciously or subconsciously) to avoid being though of as racist.

  13. though= thought

  14. So when I was 8 and met Darth Vader at that outdoor mall and he stold me to stay in school THAT WAS A LIE?

    Was Chewbacca’s WWRRAAANNGGGHHHH a lie too ? Does that sound even have enough content to be dishonest? (and man that was one SAD looking Chewbacca let me tell you. The $#@$ing Burger King was more believable doing his hanky and coin tricks)

  15. stold -> told

    Faux Vader did not abduct me and then spell it wrong.

  16. But THAT would have been a story!

  17. Ah, so he should have abducted me and spelled it wrong !

    When I write my memoirs I shall make it true, just like Obama did (via proxy)!

    When I was a child, Darth Vader stole me so he could stay in school and it’s a good thing he did because he learned how to spell and how to choke insolent military officers with his mind. I was later sold to Mr. Spock and left on the moon to die by an angry Martin Landau.

    I sure hope that my future ghost writer is paying attention to all of this! It might be hard to google later.

  18. You can just tell the ghostwriter to wing it if he has any questions: just make it sound heroic.

  19. Sek is an utter douchebag. If his move to LGM wasn’t enough of a clue, this latest episode clinches it.

  20. Lie No. 5: Obama claimed he and a black high school friend named “Ray” were ostracized in Honolulu, when in fact the friend, Keith Kakugawa, was half-Japanese, and neither of them experienced discrimination.

    They were both, however, regularly Osterized.

  21. I am always puzzled by the polls claiming that people “like Obama personally.” How can this be? Are they pals with him? Do they meet up at the corner bar for beers after a hard days work? Play a few rounds of golf? Share some guy talk about what a great ass one of the pages has?
    I don’t get it.

    Simple Leigh,
    People are being dishonest (consciously or subconsciously) to avoid being though[t] of as racist.

    You also have to recall that the last time the personal approval (in contradistinction to the job approval) number was trotted out, Bill Clinton was President.

    Thinking about that may not explain why people answer the way they do, but it does explain why the pollsters ask what they ask.

  22. Sometimes I think we really are speaking two different languages in this country. I don’t doubt Obama was told any number of “facts” about his family that just weren’t true, same as Liz Warren. The problem arises, not in whether he/she believed them or not, but whether the narrative fits the sentiment, which, in both of their cases, of course it does! So the narrative must be true, because it feels right. Some of us are scratching our heads over that, because we don’t care about feelings, we just want to know the facts.
    We’re not speaking the same language.

    That’s because they’re speaking PoMo, and your a prisonor of the logo-centric phallo-centric patriarchical hegemonic discourse Burt.

  23. Jack Cashill is still on the case, though he’s moved on to checking Maraniss now.

  24. Jack Cashill is another one of those guys who’s a slave of the Enlightenment paradigm, and thus a counterrevolutionary, by definition.

  25. Ernst, help me out with counterrevolutionary (not so much with regard to Cashill, I mean, but with regard to the position itself in the context of the so-called Enlightenment thinkers themselves) by walking my ignorant self through the steps as you see them, would ya? What’s the revolution against which the ‘counter’ stands? And what’s the revolution itself against, that is the former status quo ante which the revolution is conceived to have ‘over-turned’, as to your understanding of the deal?

  26. The Revolution against which counterrevolutionaries are counter, is the one of the Proletariat against the Bourgeoisie. It helps to refer to them as if they are proper rather than common nouns, though a judiciously placed “™” or “®” might also help.

  27. It was the 19th century’s Game of Thrones.

  28. That’s a decent run at the question Cashill can stand for in our contemporary context I suppose, but the Enlightenment thinkers as such were pre-Marxist thinkers (even though Marx’s ‘Bourgeoisie’ was derivative from them) — pre-Hegelian, even. My guesses run in another direction I think. But that’s part of how come I need the help (because only guessing).

  29. Looking at the context, I don’t think Ernst is referring to the American revolution secession from the British Empire.

  30. To over-simplify my deductive guess (exposing my pimply-ignorant ass the while), putting the matter in chronological order:

    Plato, Aristotle, Bible > Aquinas/Schoolmen [status quo ante lasting only on the order of 2,000 years] > Galileo/Hobbes/Bacon/Descartes [revolution!] > Rousseau, Kant/Enlightenment [counterrevolution!] >

    then other stuff happened.

  31. In the context I’m seeing, Cashill is counterRevolution®ary because he supports the Enlightenment-era ideas on which the American nation was based. Now, he might not be counter- the American revo-secessio-lution, but he’s counter- the one the Enlightenment-haters favor.

  32. A counterrevolution is usually about moving things backward, not forward to a new, though derivative, paradigm. Indeed, when, how and why was the concept of counterrevolution even coined?

  33. Of course, I’m on record as holding that the Marxists were themselves counterrevolutionaries, the revolution in their case being the Industrial. Marx had some oddly positive things to say for feudalism. But since Communism was a lie to conceal the Party’s real goals, they got away with calling the supporters of economic liberty the counterrevs.

  34. Or, to face up to the idea of Cashill as slave to an enlightenment paradigm, maybe:

    Cashill demands evidence (fracking empiricist!) > looks to the evidence and sees something other than the story the revolution would tell > revolts on scientific grounds. (?)

  35. Marx eliminates nature. In nature’s stead he places: Marx.

  36. Ernst, you want to chime in here or are you having too much fun watching us?

  37. Marx eliminates nature. In nature’s stead he places: Marx.

    Yep — wearing the sash and tiara of History®, which Hegel was no longer using, he having become it himself by then, I believe.

  38. “Indeed, when, how and why was the concept of counterrevolution even coined?”

    I’ve no idea as to the fact. Which is why etc.

  39. Tonight I roots for counterrevolutionary R.A. Dickey and his darting butterflies. Slay them Yankees Mr. Dickey, slay ‘em dead.

  40. “A counterrevolution is usually about moving things backward, not forward to a new, though derivative, paradigm.”

    On the other hand, Edmund Burke was revolted by the revolution, but doesn’t rouse himself to lead a counterrevolution, seeking instead to preserve what was still intact for his fellow countrymen. He does recommend we look to the past though.

  41. Burke was presented as the Archetypal Conservative in my political thought classes, but his not being a counterrevolutionary suggests that he recognized the inevitability of change while preferring that it stick to refinement of the time-tested as opposed to throwing out all those babies with the bath.

  42. Cashill demands evidence (fracking empiricist!) > looks to the evidence and sees something other than the story the revolution would tell > revolts on scientific grounds. (?)

    Ernst will (should) say whether this is on the mark as to what he intended, but it sure looks that way to me.

  43. Well this is interesting.

    counterrevolution also counter-revolution, 1791, from counter- + revolution. First recorded in U.S. with ref. to American Revolution.

  44. So do ya reckon it was attached to the Whiskey Rebellion?

  45. That makes more sense than anything I can find online so far.

    That quote above is re-quoted every time its etymology is brought up but no one says what it referred to so as to ground out the word in some real thing.

  46. I suspect a Marxist conspiracy to hide the true origin because they always have denounced the US as counter-revolutionary.

  47. </sarc

  48. Apologies to all for throwing that out there and then running. Unfortunately those bathroom walls weren’t going to paint themselves (and God knows, I did my best to let them).

    The revolution in this instance is post-modernism’s revolution against logic, reason, truth, coherence etc. Or in otherwords, against all those things that make up that foundation Jeff likes to remind us is under threat from anti-foundationalists. Thus, when Cashill (or somebody else) says something like “he’s making that up!” the very utterance reveals him as counter-revolutionary.

  49. Ah, good. And thanks for the clarification Ernst. I inappropriately attributed the definition to Enlightenment as such (being the thing overthrown as you see it, rather than the thing overthrowing as I supposed).

Leave a Reply