Which goes right along with his non-apology that he is “sorry” that his team couldn’t make the website work …
During his own interview on the Hugh Hewitt show Friday with guest host Carol Platt Liebau, Todd said, “You know, he does not believe he lied on this, and that’s the sense I get.” Here is Todd’s entire quote:
You know, he does not believe he lied on this, and that’s the sense I get. I mean, I think that that’s, he’s taken issue with that before with folks off the record, and I got it’s a sensitive issue, felt like he did not sit there and say he intentionally lied. He said that he wanted to, he thought he was going to be able to keep this promise. I thought what was revealing in that answer, when I asked him that direct question about this, was this a political lie that you started to believe it, was he talked about well, you know, it turns out we had trouble in crafting the law.
If Obama has convinced himself he didn’t lie, that borders on pathological.
Can we stop using “pathological” where it concerns Leftwing fanatics like Obama? He is not ‘mentally ill’. He does things like lying deliberately and rationally. Obama has been quite clear about his dedication to fundamentally transform America into a collectivist state.
No one, absolutely no one should be surprised at the lengths Obama goes to in order to fulfill his stated agenda. Lying is just another rational tool to be used to get to the point where enough people are so dependent on Big Nanny Government that the current Nannies in D.C. will never be voted out.
(b) Beyond mendacity, there is liberal paternalism, of which these forced cancellations are a classic case. We canceled your plan, explained Jay Carney, because it was substandard. We have a better idea.
Translation: Sure, you freely chose the policy, paid for the policy, renewed the policy, liked the policy. But you’re too primitive to know what you need. We do. Your policy is hereby canceled. […]
(c) As for subterfuge, these required bells and whistles aren’t just there to festoon the health care Christmas tree with voter-pleasing freebies. The planners knew all along that if you force insurance buyers to overpay for stuff they don’t need, that money can subsidize other people.
Obamacare is the largest transfer of wealth in recent American history. But you can’t say that openly lest you lose elections. So you do it by subterfuge: hidden taxes, penalties, mandates and coverage requirements that yield a surplus of overpayments.
So that your president can promise to cover 30 million uninsured without costing the government a dime. Which from the beginning was the biggest falsehood of them all. And yet the free lunch is the essence of modern liberalism. Free mammograms, free preventative care, free contraceptives for Sandra Fluke. Come and get it.
So let’s stop insisting that collectivists are “insane” even as we recoil from their anti-Liberty dogma.
Reason is a tool, it imparts no moral principle. Let’s call the collectivist principles for what they are: Evil
“Reason is a tool” is in turn a lowly phrase, good for little save perhaps stirring up troubles. But then, it could be Pope Benedict had no idea what he was talking about in his Regensburg address, and that therefore there is no distinction possible between bloody Islam on the one hand, and blessed Roman Catholicism on the other.
Sdferr
I want clarity. When we label anti-Liberty people as “insane” we do us a great disservice. We need to understand that these people are fully sane and no amount of trying to “cure” them of their principles by ever explaining ourselves is going to work.
They need to be defeated. No truer words were spoken (and extensively mocked) than Reagan’s calling the USSR an “evil empire.”
It is not a coincidence that Obama/Kerry are selling out Israel and making Iran’s nuke program viable at this time.
Agreed. Reason is a tool that can be used for good or evil. After all, one may be reasoned into nearly anything given a compelling, charismatic leader or the blinders of love/ agape.
No, Obama doesn’t think he lied nor that he did anything wrong. I was a couple of days ahead of Krauthammer and Prager’s observations, but nobody cared.
I too want clarity. I don’t think I find it with Mr. Prager. Heck, he can’t be bothered to distinguish Sparta from Athens. So I find him of little worth, save, as I said, for stirring up troubles, troubles which might be avoided simply by being clear to begin with.
so sdferr, what is it about Obama rationally lying to achieve his ends – as opposed to being ‘pathological’ – that you disagree with?
Lying disrespects truth and so is fundamentally irrational. And since moral agents must be rational and act rationally, lying is inimical to morality (which is to say it is immoral). Furthermore, to lie is to disrespect others by undermining their interest in the truth.
Why do you introduce a presumed opposition (on my part) to a refusal to characterize the ClownDisaster as ‘pathological’, when I’ve made no such case? I’m content to say that the Pambasileias is perfectly wrong when he claims to know the good to come, and to refuse with you to say he is insane, or crazy, or mad, or what-have-you, though the time may come, for all we know, that he proves himself to be quite mad (this is where we recall the delusional Hitler in his bunker). That doesn’t mean that I must agree with Prager’s idiosyncratic (and narrow, to my way of thinking) view of reason and religion.
Lying disrespects truth and so is fundamentally irrational
Only if you value “truth” over achieving a “fundamentally transformed” America.
Then truth is to yield to the higher cause.
Corruption is a way of life in other societies and no one really does anything about it, even preach against it as wrong. Even pointing out that such corruption is a huge player in why those societies fail is a non-starter.
As Heinlein would say, it is just “bad luck” those societies are poor.
sdferr
I assume we are going to have to agree to disagree. What I find most valuable about Prager is his consistent voice to say the things that delve to the foundation of our principles that too many moderns deem embarrassing or old-fashioned.
Darleen, you’re a little all over the place here. So far, you have quoted Prager, Krauthammer and now Heinlein. As much as they think themselves sages, they aren’t and they aren’t very good philosophers, either.
The search for truth and the basis of lies and their utility have consumed the writings of greats such as Kant and Hume.
Seat of the pants philosopher kings like Obama are a dime a dozen.
One or the other of us may prove open to suasion, is the way I look at it (hence we may not have to agree to disagree). If Prager can persuade someone of the usefulness or worth of his teachings (which if human all too human, may also be modern all too modern), then is he not also capable of being persuaded in turn, or are his teachings simply beyond reproach or question? Maybe that’s just the difference between the two sources of our heritage though, which is to say, Jerusalem and Athens?
Leigh
There is a full-on push to denigrate and dismiss Judeo-Christian principles. How do we defend them if we are embarrassed by them and concede the argument that religion has little to no place in our “modern” era?
Like it or not, the much giggled-at Protestant Work Ethic is widely responsible for America’s success.
then is he not also capable of being persuaded in turn
yes, he can. He has changed his mind on subjects and talked about such on his show. He takes people he disagrees with as first callers and guests.
He is unfailingly polite to everyone in discussion. Which is why, I believe, some famous people refuse to go on air with him … they cannot later dismiss him as a raving maniac.
obama not fuckin crazy he just a bitch
I’m not sure where you are going with your last, Darleen.
Are you speaking of the virtues and their anti-theses (lying, in this instance), religious practices or one’s work ethic?
What does this have to do with whether or not Obama knew that he was lying?
Leigh
I don’t think there is any question Obama knew he was lying. Even Chuck Todd acknowledges that.
But people are quick to leap to the conclusion that something must be psychologically wrong with him to do that.
What I am saying is that he is perfectly sane and rational. He just is Not.A.Good.Man.
Jeff G. was excoriated for pointing that out 5 years ago. When are we going to finally accept that?
“Perfectly” [sane and rational] is an adverb too far, I think. “Ordinarily” or “commonly” perhaps would come closer for our purposes. His superlative characteristics, such as they are, seem to fall in other categories — like, ambitious, or self-regarding, and so on.
Prager has revealed himself an establishment tool. Even gone so far to imply (being too wonderful himself to actually come out and say it plainly of course) that there is a strong likelihood Ted Cruz is acting as he has for his own self-aggrandisement .
Also, his interview with the establishment tool Ann Coulter was down right creepy in their meeting of minds on the subject of stupid purists and their election robbing purity.
I can hardly listen to him anymore, He pisses me off so consistently. Probably because I used to like him, kinda like Coulter.
These times are really revealing.
As for Obama’s sanity, I’m in agreement with dicentra in that he’s a certified narcissist. Of course in a society of self-esteem pumped narcissist lite’s, he’s damn near normal.
He just is Not.A.Good.Man.
No, he isn’t a good man. A lot of men are not good men, women are likewise oft times not good women.
I don’t think he’s anymore of a narcissist than anyone else who would be or wish to be president. Indeed, I think he is supremely insecure about himself, his manhood and his intellect.
In short, he’s nothing special.
To me it’such like homosexual behavior. Why try to assign it one single possible cause. Some people probably do lie because they are sick. Some people probably do choose homosexuality for whatever reason rather than tracing to some disorder or trauma or congental condition, like the genes or prenatal condition.
I don’t see grounds for defaulting one way or the other. We just don’t know enough to say what causes certain people to lie frequently and if they now in the moment they are lying. Are they careless? Master manipulators exploiting a weakness of people in crowds? Are they zealots trying to piously shape the world by not seeing disruptive elements in the moment? Are they trying to fit in with a crowd? Do they even belive in a stable objective truth? Do they see the entire world as a fluid and subject to collaboration and consensus? Are their reasoning faculties totally disorganized and centered on emotional stimuli like threat or satisfaction? Are they Legion?
I have no way of knowing ang no good basis for assumption.
I know they lie about non trivial matters. Whether they beleive their lie or what compelled them to lie is beyond my ken for the moment.
http://patdollard.com/2013/11/obama-high-school-friend-barry-portrayed-himself-as-a-foreigner-crack-smoking-homosexual/
Now that’s some horrible racism right there.
I like Neo Neocon’s take on Obama’s lies: he is a con man. He lies to get what he wants and feels no remorse. Nothing insane about being a skilled b.s. artist.
“The con artist works by gaining the victim’s confidence and trust. The successful con artist is so very likeable, in fact, that he seems especially credible, and people who might otherwise be wary and cynical drop their guard around him. They don’t examine him too closely, so great is their desire to believe.
Contradictions are waved away. Acts that would arouse suspicion if they were committed by someone else are excused. Important omissions go unnoticed. Inconsistencies are rationalized. Shady company is defended or ignored. Sound familiar?
The con artist is able to gain trust by using the right vocal inflections to fit the mark (or, in Obama’s case, the audience), changing accents and speech patterns to match. In addition, a con doesn’t usually stay in one place very long (it has been remarked how often Obama changed jobs)….
Both the con and Obama offer something the mark fiercely desires and show characteristics s/he desperately wants to see. For many wordsmiths (even Republicans such as Peggy Noonan and Christopher Buckley) that would be their perception of Obama as an intelligent, articulate, and especially a literary spokesman. For others — especially the young — the hook is Obama’s perceived coolness. For others it might be his race and his promise of healing the racial divide (in fact, he embodies this quite literally in his very own bi-racial person). For some, it was and is enough that he be the antithesis of whatever it was they’d hated about Bush.”
Can we stop using “pathological” where it concerns Leftwing fanatics like Obama?
He IS pathological: he’s a malignant narcissist with a Savior overlay whose narcissism folds very neatly into the Progressive conceit that the elite ought to be in charge, and that they are entitled to use whatever means possible to achieve those ends.
Narcissism isn’t the result of brain damage or a biochemical imbalance — it’s a psychological defense mechanism gone horribly wrong, but we don’t know the degree to which the narcissist can control the ultimate configuration of his narcissism. As you all know, my father was a narcissist, but he was NOT inclined to dominate the masses nor was he a lawbreaker or a sociopath nor was he sympathetic in the least to the Progressive agenda. His father (also a narcissist) was a John Birch sympathizer and my dad would have been comfortable listening to Mark Levin or Dennis Prager or Glenn Beck. (I don’t think he listened to talk radio, though.)
The term “pathological” referring to liars doesn’t mean they’re not accountable for their lying — it means that their consciences are dulled to the point where they don’t feel the internal dissonance that normally accompanies deceit.
THEY PURSUED THAT INSENSIBILITY ON PURPOSE, because their lust for domination was more important to them than living an integral life. (You don’t have to be a narcissist to get to that point, but it helps.) Having a nagging conscience is an impediment; ignore the nagging long enough and your consciences goes dormant.
“Pathological” doesn’t mean “not responsible for one’s actions.” It does not rule out plain old evil desires.
Most narcissists are not a threat to society — they’re just a pain in the anatomy for those who have to endure their immediate proximity. Other narcissists such as Obama and most of the Beltway crowd are a menace because they have the social skills, the tenacity, and the craftiness to acquire the levers of power, thus to attempt to sate their insatiable desire to dominate others.
Also, Obama doesn’t care whether he lied; he cares only that the lie be effective.
A pathological liar has deliberately lost the ability to care about the difference between lies and the truth. Ask a pathological liar what he had for breakfast and he’ll tell you what he wants you to believe, not what is true.
They have deliberately seared their consciences so that they are past feeling, and that’s pathological, as in sick, as in dangerous, as in they might need to be put down (or locked up) like rabid dogs.
We need neither. We’re at the point where words and philosophies will mean little and matter less, and won’t save this Republic. We need a General Washington, or, better, a General Patton.
I think it is endemic to thinking of oneself as a Progressive. The ends justifying the means. Bill Clinton is a ne plus ultra example of the consummate liar and Obama is a piker compared to Clinton. Bill has rehabilitated himself and has the mantle of Elder Statesman now. Never mind that pesky impeachment business or his myriad character flaws.
Sadly, there are a seemingly endless supply of these kinds of people (they are on the Right, as well). As dicentra says, most of them are just a PITA (bosses, relatives, sometimes spouses) but some manage to climb the ladders of power and proceed to ruin lives with merry abandon.
We need neither.
I disagree, serr8d. We need both and, yes we need generals. It’s funny you mention Patton since I was just saying a few days ago that Patton needed to get himself reincarnated again tout de suite.
l’etat, c’est moi news
Obama Warns GOP: “A Price to Pay” for Defying “the American People”
Patton wanted nothing more than to root out the Communists at their source, to take Moscow, because he knew they would swarm Europe. If he’d known they would eventually take America, the 3rd Army might well have taken a little jaunt, Eisenhower be dammed.
“We need a General Washington, or, better, a General Patton.”
I was musing the other day if we didn’t take the terrible turn when Truman fired MacArthur instead of nuking China like he suggested.
Obama does a fine job portraying himself as ‘the American People’, when in fact he represents only the stupids he bought and his far-Left fellow travelers. He’s given ‘Community Organizing’ a brighter light than anyone’s seen since the mid-20th century.
Andrew McCarthy: Obama’s Massive Fraud
Roger Kimball: Obama’s Republic of Lies
Kimball is cribbing from you again, sdferr.
train wreck news
White House seeks quick fix to health policy cancellations
The problem that existing insurance policies will be canceled threatens Democratic support for Obama’s healthcare law. But officials don’t yet have a plan to solve it.
As per a link sdferr posted in another thread, Obama speaks ” effectual truth.”
Perhaps his staff should let him know that deeds must follow words.
leigh, in Obamaland, words = deeds.
nr, scanned the article you link and Boehner does question the legality of Obama trying to make whole people who lost their insurance.
Therein lies the dilemma for the GOP: Does the GOP allow Obama to once again overstep his authority and allow Obama to rewrite Obamacare again or, does the GOP tell Obama “no” and risk the political fallout? The obvious and best option is repealing Obamacare, but, again, the GOP doesn’t have the nerve to face the political consequences.
Blake, does this work for everyone? I can just say I paid my taxes, therefore I did. Awesome!
leigh, well, there are a bunch of federal employees that owe millions in back taxes, so, I’d say it does work, providing you’re one of the anointed.
https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1395138_616589501734516_1094570254_n.jpg
Liberal Logic 101
Ha! I saw that today and thought it was apropos.
Saw this thing on bookwormroom.com.
For most of the piece, the author talks about how Obama “engages in a perfect storm of ever-spiraling affirmative defenses, with the common denominator always being that it’s everyone’s fault but Obama’s”.
(e.g., with regard to Ayers and Dohrn: “I don’t know them. Okay, I know them but not well. Okay, I know them well, but we’re just good friends, not political fellow travelers. Okay, we served on a Leftist board and I sought political advice from him.” With each of those statements separated by however many news cycles is necessary for the previous lie to become obvious.)
Anyway, I dug the update:
It’s the original lie — the enormous fraud committed against America — that should outrage every citizen.
Can’t disagree with that much, save in the identification of “the original lie” about which the Americans’ ought to be outraged — and this (the disagreement) only because the proper identification is so crucial to understanding the Americans’ error.
The original lie was here. This is not news to anyone paying attention.
Angelo Codevilla: Lies Corrupt Democracy
Another take.
Oh, look, another moron: “Once we see the product of that work, then we can all make a judgment. But right now I’m not briefed well enough.”
How’s about this as a “product of that work”?
To Intifada3, and beyond!