Tuesday, September 21, 2010

PRETEND YOU'RE A SCHOOL KID. WHICH GUY WOULD YOU RELATE TO?







Which one seems most interested in himself?

Which one seems most interested in relating to the kids?

Which one needs more paraphernalia?

Which one needs less?

Which one seems more interested in his own importance?

Which one looks like he might feel comfortable putting an arm around a kid and speaking directly with him?

Which one seems aloof and separated?

Which one seems warm and friendly?

Which one seems cold and distant?

Which one do you think the kids liked best?

I worked with kids for over 40 years. I think I know the answers to all of the above questions.

ADDENDUM: Here is a photo of President BO's interaction with the students. Notice the expressions on most of the kids' faces. Booorrrrriiiinnnggg!

35 comments:

Lone Ranger said...

Which one smells of tobacco smoke?

Nameless Cynic said...

Well, yeah, but their parents are about 25% likely to smoke, if I remember right.

Nobody ever claimed that Obama seemed more likable than the dry drunk, now, did they? In fact, one of the selling points about Dubya was that this would be a guy you want to have a beer with, wasn't it?

And meanwhile, we invaded Iraq because a bunch of Saudi Arabians (plus a few outliers) hijacked a couple of planes. We removed all oversight from business, leading to the destruction of the American economy. We exported so much American business outside of the country that we might never recover.

Yeah, he might get along better with kids. Personally, I'm pretty happy that the adults are more or less in charge.

Lone Ranger said...

You certainly have the party line down pat. Too bad none of it is true.

These people will explain to you why we invaded Iraq. True, we found no WMDs, but we did find prisons filled with children, rape rooms, torture chambers and films of human rights violations. Maybe liberals can turn a blind eye to those atrocities, but good guys can't.

The only oversight we removed from business was the oversight that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank removed from Fanny and Freddie. Bush warned of the economic collapse, but was ignored.

Everything you know is wrong.

Silverfiddle said...

Nameless cynic: What "adults" are in charge. I just see a rabble of unwashed marxist redistributionists propping up a narcissistic, historically ignorant naif.

We elected Sir Hopenchange and guess what, the world still hates us!

And in barely 2 years he's spent more than Bush and Reagan combined!

Go peddle your trash back in liberal la la land where people actually believe such nonsense.

Joe said...

LR: I'll bet I know.

NC: "...their parents are about 25% likely to smoke, if I remember right."

The scary thing is, you actually think that means something.

"And meanwhile, we invaded Iraq because a bunch of Saudi Arabians (plus a few outliers) hijacked a couple of planes."

Flat out lie.

" We removed all oversight from business..."

Another one.

"I'm pretty happy that the adults are more or less in charge."

I have to admit your "more or less" phrase fits.

LR: "...prisons filled with children, rape rooms, torture chambers and films of human rights violations."

Liberals not only turn a blind eye, but would institute them if they could figure out how to get away with it.

SF: "And in barely 2 years he's spent more than Bush and Reagan combined!

But President BO's spending is Bush's fault.

And here I didn't think Bush even had a say any more.

Lisa said...

Just a couple of Hijacked planes.
Leave it to a liberal to minimize such death and destruction.
Hope-N-Change couldn't even be bothered with the worst oil spill in US history. Oh wait yes"He Can"
He closed down all drilling in gulf with a net loss of some 2000 more jobs to help add to that regions unemployment woes while he gives money to George Soros to help his company in Brazil set up drilling in the same gulf and money to Mexico to do the same.
Not only can he not relate to school kids,he can't relate to America except to show his disdain for it and it's people.

Z said...

Lone Ranger slayed me with that one !! :-)

Nameless Cynic...too much MSNBC.

Joe, I think most adults would rather be listening to anything Bush said..at least he can talk without the teleprompters, and, frankly, was always better 'off speech', did you notice?
And, I'm thinking he wouldn't leave GOD out of the Dec. of Independence, but I guess saying that might make someone think I feel someone bigger is in charge than OBAMA! (sssh, don't tell obama).
We're in debt SO much higher than under Bush, we have gov't owning car companies and banks, we're being told what to eat and drink and breathe, we have transparency only where it shouldn't be (like telling the world how we captured terrorists so the terrorists know better next time), etc etc..and that's "ADULT"? WOW I think that's SUICIDE.

Joe said...

Lisa: In the end, President BO is about, and only about, his own personal power. He cares not one whit about America, its people or its heritage. If he could have figured out a way to live through it, he, himself, would have gladly flown one of those planes...particularly the one headed for DC.

Z: President BO is an amateur, sophomoric, despot. Period.

Joe said...

NC: "Personally, I'm pretty happy that the adults are more or less in charge."

This comment would make sense if President BO had been addressing adults, but his whole POINT of being there was to inspire the kids. THAT'S WHY HE WENT THERE!!! Can't you see that? Why not? Are you that thick headed?

He went there to inspire KIDS, but utterly and completely failed by not being able to relate to them.

Leticia said...

Not even a contest. Kids aren't stupid and they know a fake when they see one.

Susannah said...

Joe~ You can just see him trying to shrink & puff up simultaneously...Shrink from his ineptness & discomfort at actually having to connect w/ another human being...Puff himself up to impress -- 4th graders??

(Anybody want to swing by & volley an answer to a new-found troll named 'Craig' @ my blog? I'd be most grateful -- terrible head cold, it's late & I just don't have the energy...)

God Bless all!

Susannah said...

Nameless~ Swash Zone...of course...

Shaw Kenawe said...

That photo is a fake.

And it was disproved a long time ago.

However, that doesn't stop people like Joe from continuing the abject lie.

It seems a preponderence of rightwing blogs engage in this deception.

If you can't win an argument on its merits, you can always lie.

Lisa said...

I wish I saved it but Snopes has been proven wrong on occasion,possibly a branch of MSNBC,aka the White House. I know the fact check authors are big liberals.

Joe said...

SK: Your assertion that the photo is a fake, is an out-and-out lie. It is not a fake.

Your own link proves it.

It is one of many photos taken at President BO's address to the school about his "Race to the Top" initiative.

What IS true is that it was not a photo of his interaction with students. That came later.

In the later photo, he still had his suit on, he was still distant and the students were disengaged.

I'll add the picture that WAS of his "interaction" with the students as an addendum.

You know, SK, you really need to ease up on the accusatory attacks in you comments. They do not make your case for you and they make you seem hateful and obnoxious...all the things you say you hate in conservatives.

Joe said...

SK: I did notice that you did not answer a single question in my post.

It is very common of you not to do so, but to go off on some diatribe that misses the point.

Do you not understand questions? Maybe you don't KNOW the answers. Perhaps your lack of answering is just a typical liberal response.

This is not the first time you've done this. Like President BO, you have established a pattern.

Nameless Cynic said...

Wow. I get busy at work and don't come back to see the response, and it's like a pack of rabid dachshunds - long on noise, but not a lot of bite.

You'll excuse me if I igore most of you - you apparently want me to answer for everything from the economy, to the lies told by Bush/Cheney to get us into war (sorry, Loan Arranger, you can't justify something after the fact - that was what the neocons fell back on after the rest of the lies collapsed. Look it up), to the Gulf Oil spill (brought on, by the way, because no safety measures were required... because of who? Come on, this stuff's easy...)

But frankly, it would take up entirely too much time, and it's beside the point. We're talking kids, and presidents.

Which brings me to you, Joe. Yeah, 25% of American adults or so smoke. Does that mean something? Well, Loany felt it was a point against Obama. Thought I'd mention that it might actually make him more comforting to be around for a percentage of the kids.

You don't think these things through well, do you?

I mean, like "Liberals not only turn a blind eye (to 'prisons filled with children, rape rooms, torture chambers and films of human rights violations')"

You're really that stubbornly ignorant? Look up Negroponte and his invovement with death squads under Bush I. Then notice that Bush II hired him back on. Hell, look up Pinochet.

Are you saying that America can afford to invade every country doing bad things to it's people? You want me to start you a list? How about we put Saudi Arabia at the top of it? Who's been filmed literally kissing Saudi princes and walking hand in hand through the flowers with them?

(Which brings us back to the FACT that 11 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia (as is Osama bin Laden) - which you claim is a lie. Like I said, stubbornly ignorant.)

Grow up, Joey.

(BTW, hey, Shaw. Fancy meeting you here.)

Now, we get to the lovely Ms Kenawe, who pointed out that your use of that photo was a lie. OK, she phrased it badly. But if you were even the slightest bit honest about things, you would admit that you were conflating a picture of Bush talking to kids, with a picture of Obama giving a prepared statement to the press.

But you won't. Because you aren't that honest.

Incidentally, you know that the teleprompter has been around for half a century, right? And that every president since Johnson have used the damned things routinely? So why are you so aghast that Obama does the exact same thing as the rest of them?

(I'll give you a hint - the answer also involves this stubborn ignorance of yours. And to an extent, your dishonesty.)

K. said...

Which one read a kids book for seven minutes while the country was under attack?

This is how you guys evaluate a president? By whether he wears a golf shirt in front of a bunch of 7-year olds? It's enough to make one question universal suffrage.

BTW, Lisa, please document the ratio of times Snopes has been wrong compared to being right. Also, please document the connection between Snopes and MSNBC. Finally, show with evidence how the politics of the Snopes fact checkers (if you even know what they are) affects their research. Otherwise, all you have is a groundless allegation, something I'll concede that conservatives are very good at.

K. said...

"And in barely 2 years he's spent more than Bush and Reagan combined!"

This is an inaccurate statement based on the false assumption that the current fiscal budget is made the same year that it is spent. In fact, the federal budgeting process begins nearly a year in advance. Thus, the revenues and expenditures of 2001 (Bush's first year in office) reflected the final Clinton budget. Similarly, the revenues and expenditures of 2009 reflect Bush's final year in office.

Joe said...

NC: That's quite a scatter gun you used. You mixed the responses of several commenters and made them all mine.

Thanks, but they can speak for themselves.

The original picture was intended to present the aloofness of President BO, which is undeniable. He is distant, uninspiring, a stumbling-bumbling speaker without his teleprompters (which I don't care whether he uses or not...and have said so many times...but how would you know that?) and a psychopathic narcissist.

Like most knee-jerk liberals, you have read into the post something that is not there. You, SK and XO are experts at that.

As for smoking, I personally hate it, but he is not the first president to engage in it and it is only related to his competence in that it demonstrates his need to be accepted by his "cool" peers.

You write: "Liberals not only turn a blind eye (to 'prisons filled with children, rape rooms, torture chambers and films of human rights violations')" as though it was attributable to me. I didn't write that...another example of liberal misdirection (lie).

As for the rest of your disjointed and unrelated comments, typical liberal blather.

Joe said...

K: And which president did you say authorizes and implements the budget? I missed that.

I always thought congress did that.

Silly me.

Glad you came by, though. You help illustrate the lock-steppedness of the liberal propoganda machine.

Susannah said...

"You know, SK, you really need to ease up on the accusatory attacks in you comments. They do not make your case for you and they make you seem hateful and obnoxious...all the things you say you hate in conservatives."

B-i-n-g-o. A few days ago, I stopped by SK's blog -(why, oh why?)- and suggested that her 'investigation' of 'fake blogs' might be giving the 'fake bloggers' too much attention, & material to laugh about...I don't know exactly why - except she doesn't like me--I'm conserv. - but she laid into me exactly as you said above. My comment was sincere, not even tongue-in-cheek. Was simply offering a different perspective.

SK, maybe the 'investigation' is your distraction from the FACT that your Dem. Congress is going down in Nov. It ain't lookin' pretty, is it? We all need things to occupy our minds & defend our sensibilities when the horizon is bleak...

(Ok, that WAS "snarky." I apologize. But really, SK, what I said @ your blog was NOT. Funny, you seem so used to projecting it onto others, you can't tell the difference.)

Susannah said...

Dear, dear NCyn~ "psychopathic narcissist:" "Defend that statement. Either word. I dare you.
You're having so much fun, aren't you? Trouble is, you're not respectful to our host, so he deleted you -- I don't blame him.

"I skimmed around your blog. It's fascinating how, when a black man is firm, intelligent and confident, you decide he's "arrogant" - funny how the same traits translate to "leadership" in a white man."
Now, see NCyn? There you go: why is it, that when people have a legitimate human reaction to BHO the narcissist as arrogant, Leftists AUTOMATICALLY play Race, "nyah, nyah, nyah"...??

Sorry. Ain't buyin'. And neither does Bruce Gregory, Ph.D. from his 1999 research piece titled The Impact of Narcissism on Leadership and Sustainability .

He says (in part; it's too long to paste, check it for yourself):

RECOGNIZING NARCISSISM IN ACTION

When the narcissistic defense is operating in an interpersonal or group setting, the grandiose part does not show its face in public.

In public it presents a front of patience, congeniality, and confident reasonableness. However, beneath the surface it is supremely smug and superior.

Did you get that? ;) Go on, keep reading...

It is confident it can deceive the "fools" or their objective...It is critical to understand that the narcissistic defense is addicted to power and control...

The person gains and holds power by dominating and controlling the flow of information, the rules, and the processes for participating in life.

Wait...do I hear MSM sycophants?? Ok, here comes the best part...

One of the best places to spot narcissism, unfortunately, is at the top of a company or a public organization...When narcissism perceives that it could lose control of a situation or process, it often feels threatened. The grandiosity's sense of omnipotence is being threatened. When this happens, narcissism's response can be one of character assassination of those who are threatening its objectives. The presence of character assassination is another way of detecting the presence of narcissism.
Hmmm...do ya THINK? ;)

There is another important way to recognize narcissism. Narcissism is often contained in language through the use of "I". If a person listens carefully to another's use of "I" one can detect the grandiosity inside...

Oh dear, oh dear. How many times have we heard him talk about HIMSELF. Funny, there are tickers that keep track of the # of times BHO uses "I" in his speeches -- ALL of them. So much it has become a joke! Hee, hee!

(NOTE: our author gives no indication whatsoever as to the ethnicity of narcissism. I think we're to assume it's an equal opportunity Personality Disorder...)

heh. Still having fun, NCyn?

Nameless Cynic said...

Oh, Susannah, (heh)

See, here's the thing. It doesn't matter what I say. I knocked down every one of Joey's points. So he deleted my response.

Think about it. You're responding to a non-existent post.

See how that works? Joey is inherently dishonest, and if you call him on his lies, he buries your response.

Feel good about yourself now, Joey? Your arguments stand up that well, huh?

Susannah said...

NCyn~ You're crooning me? I love it; but it won't get you off the hook.

No, see...Joe (let's be respectful of our elders, eh?) deleted you b/c this is HIS blog, & he gets to set the tone - not us. And it has nothing to do w/ honesty - which, btw, Joe is made of.

Interesting - I took your "dare," and buried your challenge with it. (And quoted your 'nonexistent' comment for the benefit of readers.) And THIS is how you answer the 'dare?' : by attacking the character of our host? What, am I next?

Funny, 'seems the Left takes this point of narcissism quite well from their Dear Leader...

Nameless Cynic said...

I'm sorry, Suzie. I didn't realize that I was supposed to respond to your unfounded claims. You said that "tone" is important, and I didn't feel that calling you an idiot would be in the spirit of that tone.

See, you made the most basic logical error. "My kitten is grey. Therefore, all kittens are grey."

You took a generalized (and essentially pop-psych) description of narcissism, and decided to cram the president into that. Really, you could fit anybody who tends to be well-spoken and composed, and fit them into those parameters. It would be easier (and more accurate) to fit most right-wing talk show hosts into that definition. And it still wouldn't qualify as a psychological evaluation.

You know, it's funny. You got kind of cranky when you felt that I didn't pay attention to you. I wonder what that signifies.

Susannah said...

Hee, hee Cyn! Susie is actually my Aunt. Suzanne is my Grandmother. Sus, well that's what my husband (& those who know me well) calls me. So you can call me Susannah, but any of the others have a nice ring.

See, Joe is my friend. And you weren't being very nice to my friend. I took your 'dare' in Joe's defense (not that he's incapable, au contraire, just didn't want to pass up the fun!). But me, cranky? Au contraire (like my French theme?)...just calling you on your pesky-ness w/ Joe: your "I-know-I've-got-you-now" and "you-hate-him-b/c-he's-a-black-man" schtick (which has become ever so lame in "pop" culture).

Oh, & of course, anybody can pick up the DSM IV-R & arm-chair diagnose someone w/ plenty...it's just that Dr. Gregory's work is so eerily descriptive of the current president...Call me an 'idiot' if you like, there's no denying it, which is probably why you didn't respond to it.

Now, I think it "signifies" that Joe & I are onto something you can't refute. ;)

ta-da!

Nameless Cynic said...

Since you obviously did, I'll ignore the fact that I did refute all of it. That's why Joey insists on deleting my comments, after all.

Instead, I want to go back to your phrase "eerily descriptive."

the grandiose part does not show its face in public.
Well, you're a little over the top, but I think I can see that.

In public it presents a front of patience, congeniality, and confident reasonableness.
I'd say that you show those signs.

supremely smug and superior
Oh, BIG check there.

It is confident it can deceive the "fools" or their objective
You do seem to be, yes.

It is critical to understand that the narcissistic defense is addicted to power and control...
Even in an internet debate... Kind of speaks to Joey's mindset, too. Birds of a feather, I guess.

The person gains and holds power by dominating and controlling the flow of information, the rules, and the processes for participating in life.
Well, really, that one covers Fox "News" and most of the Right Wing, but I think it's pretty apparent right on this page.

One of the best places to spot narcissism, unfortunately, is at the top of a company or a public organization
Well, you aren't there. That must be frustrating for you.

When narcissism perceives that it could lose control of a situation or process, it often feels threatened.
Ah. Like deleting comments, or supporting said action. I'm starting to see a pattern form here.

When this happens, narcissism's response can be one of character assassination of those who are threatening its objectives.
Mmm hmmm...

Narcissism is often contained in language through the use of "I".
Well, let's look at your last response. 170 words (not counting the smiley or the "ta-da"). Counting I, me, my - 16 repetitions, or 10%. And your entire first paragraph is trying to get me to call you by the right name.

Just a thought, sweetheart.

Joe said...

NC: I have not deleted a single one of your comments...period. It did not happen. If you goofed up your comment it was your doing, not mine.

The only comments I ever delete are those who personally attack my other commenters and those who are not intelligent enough to express themselves without using profanity.

BetteJo said...

On another note - one thing I liked about Dubya was his ability to care, to reach out and touch people. It was and is natural for him to hug someone, throw his arm around a soldier, and get down to the level of a child to look them in the eye. Recently I saw a picture of Obama hugging a woman from the gulf coast and he looked uncomfortable. It was the first time I had seen him do that and I couldn't help but think it was contrived. I would like someone who can lead - but also someone who can feel something.

Nameless Cynic said...

The only comments I ever delete are those who personally attack my other commenters and those who are not intelligent enough to express themselves without using profanity.

Gee, Joey, your standards seem... well, let's say "fluid."

I don't recall using profanity, nor do I recall attacking your other commenters.

However (and you might as well drop any "hypersensitive" nonsense, because they didn't bother me especially - it's what I expect from someplace like this), let me just point out:

Lone Ranger:
prisons filled with children, rape rooms, torture chambers and films of human rights violations. Maybe liberals can turn a blind eye to those atrocities, but good guys can't.
(I didn't even point out that it was the GOP who went ballistic over the release of pictures from Abu Ghraib.)

Silverfiddle:
Go peddle your trash back in liberal la la land where people actually believe such nonsense.

Lisa:
Just a couple of Hijacked planes.
Leave it to a liberal to minimize such death and destruction.


You:
Are you that thick headed?

Funny how none of those attacks got deleted. And I sincerely doubt that I said anything worse than that.

What I did say, though, was to ask why this fixation on Obama's use of the teleprompter, when every president since Johnson has relied on them. Without exception. And Bush was still inarticulate, even using one.

And I took this statement by you:
You write: "Liberals not only turn a blind eye (to 'prisons filled with children, rape rooms, torture chambers and films of human rights violations')" as though it was attributable to me. I didn't write that...another example of liberal misdirection (lie).

And I asked you to count down 5 responses from the top. Where you said exactly that. (See, that's why the second half was parenthetical. Loany said it, you endorsed and expanded on it.)

Oh, and I did suggest that you shouldn't lie about stuff when people can just scroll up the page and see the truth.

I'm awfully sorry if I'm "disrespectful" and hurting your tender, delicate feelings, though.

Susannah said...

NCyn! You called me sweetheart!! I knew we'd get on in time!! ;)

(as for your armchair 'diagnosis' based on 2dimensional blog comments -- no sweat! I'm still chuckling...)

Susannah said...

And dear Joe~ I'm sorry I fueled the fire about NCyn's missing comment. If you didn't delete it, something must've gone haywire. You're right. Interestingly, his comment was delivered to my mailbox 3 times instead of just once.

Things that make you go "hmmm?"...

Joe said...

NC: No...I did NOT say that. That's how you guys work. You twist and turn facts to make them fit what you want to be the truth. Actually, I quoted what another commenter had alread said.

I expanded on his comment. I neither endorsed nor denied them. But you didn't accuse me of expanding on them, you said that I said them. I didn't...even though I agree with them.

As a liberal, you probably don't know too much about quotation marks (that's not an attack...it's an observation...but you, no doubt, will consider it one).

BYW: You should feel honored. You rank with three liberals about whom I have actually written an entire post!

Check it Out!

Nameless Cynic said...

LR: "...prisons filled with children, rape rooms, torture chambers and films of human rights violations."

Liberals not only turn a blind eye, but would institute them if they could figure out how to get away with it.


Yup. Absolutely. You didn't endorse it at all.

Wow. No wonder you wingnuts are so good at changing positions with the wind. You can completely forget something you said just days ago.