A Fulfillment of Prophecy?

[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?

Yes. Because if there are enough of them (as we are living), they while voting away their liberty...are indeed voting away YOURS as well. (And they don't care and done in the name of partisan vindictiveness ).

That's the handwriting that I see on the wall if we do not turn it around--they will not only vote away their liberties, but mine as well.

But it all comes down to "The Vision of the Annointed" which Thomas Sowell explains in the simplest of terms as an ideal, a fuzzy concept of what a righteous and proper world will be, but with no principles or values to undergrid it.

And in those essays he dissected the terrible truth that Obama's rhetoric in no way matches Obama's upbringing, his life, the choices he has embraced, the programs he has promoted, the life he has lived.

But we keep coming back to the part where those who have been conditioned by the education system, the media, and even to some degree by left leaning religious influence, are too easily led into being gullible, to embrace the 'vision' and they too can't understand that without principle to undergird it, it will not be what their vision is.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay guys. This thread has nothing to do with religious prophecy--Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. So please take those discussions to another thread.

I did use the Biblical concept of fulfilled prophecy to begin the OP, but it was for the purposes of illustration of what theories of prophecy are and not to focus on any religious or spiritual concepts.

This thread is about Thomas Sowell--or any other who may have done the research and offered their observations--who years ago offered their perceptions of who Barack Obama was and what sort of leader he would make; what sort of President, if elected, he would become.

And in my opinion of many, those essays proved to be prophetic. A clear vision of what would be. And with conclusions that have proved to be spot on.

Yes the ACA so far has been disastrous with no hope that things are going to improve much, if at all. But Obama's vision of a world with universal healthcare was not based on principle. It was based on a fuzzy vision of what that would look like. And he didn't have a clue how to make it happen and he had no clue of the content or consequences of the legislation that others wrote for him to sign.

And he doesn't care. He doesn't care that millions are losing their jobs, their healthcare, their doctors. He doesn't care that this is an enormous drag on an already wounded economy. No amount of reality or facts will convince him that the ideal should be abandoned. That is is based on a flawed vision of reality.

"The old phrase, "a man of high ideals but no principles," is one that applies all too painfully to Barack Obama today. His words expressing lofty ideals may appeal to the gullible but his long history of having no principles makes him a danger of the first magnitude in the White House."--Thomas Sowell

And as the idealistic vision of the ACA crumbles about him, he won't abandon the ideal, but he is already seeking to salvage his legacy by turning his attention to energy, immigration, and climate change where, with only ideals and no principles to guide him, he can do every bit as much damage.

The way I see it? Obama was groomed for where he is now by elitists whom did not have this countries' interest at heart but rather it's destruction. I think Dr. Sowell and a plethora of others saw it...as did many of us here as we did the same kind of investigation, and tried to warn others of whom this cat Barack Hussein Obama really was...i.e., the soon to be self important 'emperor' never did have any clothes by his past, and even his own writings...and how cloaked much of him was evident...his history didn't meet his rhetoric... So even OUR prophecy as Dr. Sowell's has been fulfilled.

Yes, we saw it. When we warned of his muslim background we were called right wing terrorists. When we warned of his ties to foreign countries we were called racists. When we warned of his inexperience we were called intolerant bigots. When we objected to his affiliation with a pseudo Christian church where 'God damn America' is the by word we were called right wing nut job fanatics. The signs have been plenty. His reputation preceded him. There was MUCH prophecy about how this country would end up if we elected this foreign raised elitist. But there were SO MANY who could not bear to wear the labels even for the good of the country, so they voted him in and they voted him in again. There.

And this is where it gets especially dangerous. Once they control the message in most of the media, in education, in entertainment, in the churches, and in politics, their confidence grows. And they become increasingly emboldened to do almost anything to belitle, shame, marginalize, accuse, demonize, and ultimate silence any who do not share the vision.

And they do not care that there are no principles that they can define to defend it.

 

[Mustang]

Okay guys. This thread has nothing to do with religious prophecy--Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. So please take those discussions to another thread.

I did use the Biblical concept of fulfilled prophecy to begin the OP, but it was for the purposes of illustration of what theories of prophecy are and not to focus on any religious or spiritual concepts.

This thread is about Thomas Sowell--or any other who may have done the research and offered their observations--who years ago offered their perceptions of who Barack Obama was and what sort of leader he would make; what sort of President, if elected, he would become.

And in my opinion of many, those essays proved to be prophetic. A clear vision of what would be. And with conclusions that have proved to be spot on.

Yes the ACA so far has been disastrous with no hope that things are going to improve much, if at all. But Obama's vision of a world with universal healthcare was not based on principle. It was based on a fuzzy vision of what that would look like. And he didn't have a clue how to make it happen and he had no clue of the content or consequences of the legislation that others wrote for him to sign.

And he doesn't care. He doesn't care that millions are losing their jobs, their healthcare, their doctors. He doesn't care that this is an enormous drag on an already wounded economy. No amount of reality or facts will convince him that the ideal should be abandoned. That is is based on a flawed vision of reality.

"The old phrase, "a man of high ideals but no principles," is one that applies all too painfully to Barack Obama today. His words expressing lofty ideals may appeal to the gullible but his long history of having no principles makes him a danger of the first magnitude in the White House."--Thomas Sowell

And as the idealistic vision of the ACA crumbles about him, he won't abandon the ideal, but he is already seeking to salvage his legacy by turning his attention to energy, immigration, and climate change where, with only ideals and no principles to guide him, he can do every bit as much damage.

The way I see it? Obama was groomed for where he is now by elitists whom did not have this countries' interest at heart but rather it's destruction. I think Dr. Sowell and a plethora of others saw it...as did many of us here as we did the same kind of investigation, and tried to warn others of whom this cat Barack Hussein Obama really was...i.e., the soon to be self important 'emperor' never did have any clothes by his past, and even his own writings...and how cloaked much of him was evident...his history didn't meet his rhetoric... So even OUR prophecy as Dr. Sowell's has been fulfilled.

Yes, we saw it. When we warned of his muslim background we were called right wing terrorists. When we warned of his ties to foreign countries we were called racists. When we warned of his inexperience we were called intolerant bigots. When we objected to his affiliation with a pseudo Christian church where 'God damn America' is the by word we were called right wing nut job fanatics. The signs have been plenty. His reputation preceded him. There was MUCH prophecy about how this country would end up if we elected this foreign raised elitist. But there were SO MANY who could not bear to wear the labels even for the good of the country, so they voted him in and they voted him in again. There.

You saw it?

I recall a story I heard a few years ago which was personally related to me by someone (a Christian friend) who read about it and was quite moved by the story.

A photographer was outside one day after a snow storm and was taking pictures with his camera. But for some reason (please don't ask me why because I don't know), he was taking pictures of the pavement/sidewalk where the snow and ice were in various stages of thawing.

When he developed the pictures, he saw a face. But not just any face. It was the face of Jesus. Now, I'm going to skip right over the part where an average skeptic might note that nobody knows what Jesus looked like since there was no photography in those days and Jesus' likeness was never duplicated in a bust like Plato. And I'm skipping over it to ask why Jesus would appear as (and in) an image of melting snow and ice on some random sidewalk for no discernible reason?

My take on the whole thing is that people are inclined to see random collections of light and dark in familiar images, and the human face (or any face, really) is probably the most likely image that people will think they see.

Now, if ALL religions had a charismatic hero whose image was never captured on film and/or he was never drawn or painted in his lifetime, but he was believed to have long hair and a beard, the chances are pretty darn good that EVERY religions would see their own version of Jesus.

Those people saw what they wanted to see.

And so did you!

You would be much better off if you questioned your preconceived ideas instead of allowing yourself to be manipulated by others.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sigh, how does this thread have anything to do with religion? This is nothing but a diversionary tactic by disgruntled liberals with no real arguments or points to make in regards to the topic.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The way I see it? Obama was groomed for where he is now by elitists whom did not have this countries' interest at heart but rather it's destruction. I think Dr. Sowell and a plethora of others saw it...as did many of us here as we did the same kind of investigation, and tried to warn others of whom this cat Barack Hussein Obama really was...i.e., the soon to be self important 'emperor' never did have any clothes by his past, and even his own writings...and how cloaked much of him was evident...his history didn't meet his rhetoric... So even OUR prophecy as Dr. Sowell's has been fulfilled.

Yes, we saw it. When we warned of his muslim background we were called right wing terrorists. When we warned of his ties to foreign countries we were called racists. When we warned of his inexperience we were called intolerant bigots. When we objected to his affiliation with a pseudo Christian church where 'God damn America' is the by word we were called right wing nut job fanatics. The signs have been plenty. His reputation preceded him. There was MUCH prophecy about how this country would end up if we elected this foreign raised elitist. But there were SO MANY who could not bear to wear the labels even for the good of the country, so they voted him in and they voted him in again. There.

Those people saw what they wanted to see.

And so did you!

You would be much better off if you questioned your preconceived ideas instead of allowing yourself to be manipulated by others.

So, what were liberals like you doing in 2008, when you fell head over heels over this 'hope and change' Obama was offering? Were you not being manipulated then? Did it ever occur to you that you were being manipulated? Were you seeing what you wanted to see, and hearing what you wanted to hear? Perhaps it is you who needs to perform some self introspection, 64 million others could have done the same when they blindly voted Obama into office. You would be much better off not believing everything you hear, Mustang. I don't.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And speaking to that effect:

 

[The T]

Yes, we saw it. When we warned of his muslim background we were called right wing terrorists. When we warned of his ties to foreign countries we were called racists. When we warned of his inexperience we were called intolerant bigots. When we objected to his affiliation with a pseudo Christian church where 'God damn America' is the by word we were called right wing nut job fanatics. The signs have been plenty. His reputation preceded him. There was MUCH prophecy about how this country would end up if we elected this foreign raised elitist. But there were SO MANY who could not bear to wear the labels even for the good of the country, so they voted him in and they voted him in again. There.

Those people saw what they wanted to see.

And so did you!

You would be much better off if you questioned your preconceived ideas instead of allowing yourself to be manipulated by others.

So, what were liberals like you doing in 2008, when you fell head over heels over this 'hope and change' Obama was offering? Were you not being manipulated then? Did it ever occur to you that you were being manipulated? Were you seeing what you wanted to see, and hearing what you wanted to hear? Perhaps it is you who needs to perform some self introspection, 64 million others could have done the same when they blindly voted Obama into office. You would be much better off not believing everything you hear, Mustang. I don't.

Even when it comes from the mouths of those supposedly on our side, and thus separates us from people as Mustang...We seek the truth rather than suppose that what we see/hear is...as it has no agenda...

Dead on.

 

[The T]

Sigh, how does this thread have anything to do with religion? This is nothing but a diversionary tactic by disgruntled liberals with no real arguments or points to make in regards to the topic.

Indeed. Whomever said that 'PROPHECY' is religion? Prophecy is seeing events, investigating, and reporting in the relentless pursuit OF the truth...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sigh, how does this thread have anything to do with religion? This is nothing but a diversionary tactic by disgruntled liberals with no real arguments or points to make in regards to the topic.

Indeed. Whomever said that 'PROPHECY' is religion? Prophecy is seeing events, investigating, and reporting in the relentless pursuit OF the truth...

It is a black and white interpretation of 'prophecy.' They automatically attribute it to religion. There is no description for such rank stupidity. But anyhow, lets talk about Fox's thread and stop lending these liberals any more credence.

 

[The T]

Sigh, how does this thread have anything to do with religion? This is nothing but a diversionary tactic by disgruntled liberals with no real arguments or points to make in regards to the topic.

Indeed. Whomever said that 'PROPHECY' is religion? Prophecy is seeing events, investigating, and reporting in the relentless pursuit OF the truth...

It is a black and white interpretation of 'prophecy.' They automatically attribute it to religion. There is no description for such rank stupidity. But anyhow, lets talk about Fox's thread and stop lending these liberals any more credence.

Absolutely. But then in my view...the left here answering come here with targets painted upon their backs...easy pickin's...and frankly? Our comments about prophecy are quite on track with Foxy's claim that this isn't about religion...WE just bolster her argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

The way I see it? Obama was groomed for where he is now by elitists whom did not have this countries' interest at heart but rather it's destruction. I think Dr. Sowell and a plethora of others saw it...as did many of us here as we did the same kind of investigation, and tried to warn others of whom this cat Barack Hussein Obama really was...i.e., the soon to be self important 'emperor' never did have any clothes by his past, and even his own writings...and how cloaked much of him was evident...his history didn't meet his rhetoric... So even OUR prophecy as Dr. Sowell's has been fulfilled.

Yes, we saw it. When we warned of his muslim background we were called right wing terrorists. When we warned of his ties to foreign countries we were called racists. When we warned of his inexperience we were called intolerant bigots. When we objected to his affiliation with a pseudo Christian church where 'God damn America' is the by word we were called right wing nut job fanatics. The signs have been plenty. His reputation preceded him. There was MUCH prophecy about how this country would end up if we elected this foreign raised elitist. But there were SO MANY who could not bear to wear the labels even for the good of the country, so they voted him in and they voted him in again. There.

You saw it?

I recall a story I heard a few years ago which was personally related to me by someone (a Christian friend) who read about it and was quite moved by the story.

A photographer was outside one day after a snow storm and was taking pictures with his camera. But for some reason (please don't ask me why because I don't know), he was taking pictures of the pavement/sidewalk where the snow and ice were in various stages of thawing.

When he developed the pictures, he saw a face. But not just any face. It was the face of Jesus. Now, I'm going to skip right over the part where an average skeptic might note that nobody knows what Jesus looked like since there was no photography in those days and Jesus' likeness was never duplicated in a bust like Plato. And I'm skipping over it to ask why Jesus would appear as (and in) an image of melting snow and ice on some random sidewalk for no discernible reason?

My take on the whole thing is that people are inclined to see random collections of light and dark in familiar images, and the human face (or any face, really) is probably the most likely image that people will think they see.

Now, if ALL religions had a charismatic hero whose image was never captured on film and/or he was never drawn or painted in his lifetime, but he was believed to have long hair and a beard, the chances are pretty darn good that EVERY religions would see their own version of Jesus.

Those people saw what they wanted to see.

And so did you!

You would be much better off if you questioned your preconceived ideas instead of allowing yourself to be manipulated by others.

The analogy you use is appropriate actually. Some people do see what they want to see and people saw what they wanted to see back in 2008 - at least those who had embraced a particular vision.

Some people do hear what they want to hear and they heard what they wanted to hear back in 2008 - at least those who had embraced a particular vision.

Obama carefully constructed the vision and he had the skill and charisma to persuade the a lot of people--Sowell would probably infer that those people are'the gullbile'--to see the vision he put out there for them. And oh my. It was glorious.

June 3, 2008, when Obama claimed victory in the primaries and gave the infamous victory speech:

". . . .The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America."

Or his oft quoted campaign speech from February that same year:
". . . .We are the ones we have been waiting for. . . ", which was sort of plagarized but it was a short quip so nobody cared.
​

But you start looking at those speeches without the adoring throngs, the inspirational music, the color and flags and signs and banners, and look to see what he said, he didn't say anything. It was creating a glorious vision that made hearts go pitter pat, but it was devoid of substance. And devoid of principles. Even when we were promised substance, we now know that it was all a lie--an illusion created for public consumption but, if we had just looked at his history then, we would have know there would be no follow through.

Which brings us back to the thesis of Thomas Sowell's October 8, 2008, essay:
"The old phrase, "a man of high ideals but no principles," is one that applies all too painfully to Barack Obama today. His words expressing lofty ideals may appeal to the gullible but his long history of having no principles makes him a danger of the first magnitude in the White House. "

And that is why even some of the most loyal worshippers of the 'messiah', 'the annointd one'--yes those are religious terms that have nothing at all to do with religion--those loyal disciples are finally admitting disappointment. Some have too much character to continue to buy into the lie that Obama's problems stem from George Bush or Republicans or Tea Partiers or people bitter clinging to their guns and Bibles or Fox News or Talk Radio or any of the other groups that have been used as scapegoats from the truth.

Barack Obama is a man promoting a vision that is not supported by any values or principles held by the rest of us. And that is why it is beginning to come apart at the seams and prospects for any success anywhere are fading fast.

 

[mamooth]

Calling my faith a cult does nothing to lend credence to your argument,

On the contrary, it's entirely correct. Your faith _is_ a cult.

Thing is, your faith isn't Christianity. It's radical conservatism. That's your cult, your religion. Same with the others here. An attack on that cult is not an attack on Christianity, it's an attack on your political cult. Naturally, you'll pretend it's an attack on Christianity, just so you can keep claiming that precious, precious victimhood.

Anyways, the TrueBelievers here will keep quoting the prophet Sowell. Radical Muslims will keep quoting the prophet Mohammed. I don't see any difference. Blind adherence to an extremist dogma kind of all looks the same.

So, what were liberals like you doing in 2008, when you fell head over heels over this 'hope and change' Obama was offering?

But we didn't do that. We made a rational choice. You're just making crap up, since you're incapable of addressing what we actually say. You lying about us doesn't make us brainwashed; it just makes you all members of a liars' cult. There's no point in discussing anything with you if you're always going to ignore what we say and instead tell us what we really believe. That kind of behavior marks you as cultists, people who can't be reasoned with.

 

[Foxfyre]

Calling my faith a cult does nothing to lend credence to your argument,

On the contrary, it's entirely correct. Your faith _is_ a cult.

Thing is, your faith isn't Christianity. It's radical conservatism. That's your cult, your religion. Same with the others here. An attack on that cult is not an attack on Christianity, it's an attack on your political cult. Naturally, you'll pretend it's an attack on Christianity, just so you can keep claiming that precious, precious victimhood.

Anyways, the TrueBelievers here will keep quoting the prophet Sowell. Radical Muslims will keep quoting the prophet Mohammed. I don't see any difference. Blind adherence to an extremist dogma kind of all looks the same.

So, what were liberals like you doing in 2008, when you fell head over heels over this 'hope and change' Obama was offering?

But we didn't do that. We made a rational choice. You're just making crap up, since you're incapable of addressing what we actually say. You lying about us doesn't make us brainwashed; it just makes you all members of a liars' cult. There's no point in discussing anything with you if you're always going to ignore what we say and instead tell us what we really believe. That kind of behavior marks you as cultists, people who can't be reasoned with.

The differnce being that Sowell was right in his analysis.

Five years of experience following Sowell's essays have proved that he indeed was a prophet.

I keep challenging the Obama disciples to take any statement - in context please- from any of Sowell's essays linked in the OP and show how he got it wrong back then. So far not one of you have done so.

We've gotten all manner of personal insults, ad hominem, derails, red herrings, straw men, and other diversions from the topic. But not a single credible rebuttal to anything Sowell offered in those essays.

 

[Mustang]

Yes, we saw it. When we warned of his muslim background we were called right wing terrorists. When we warned of his ties to foreign countries we were called racists. When we warned of his inexperience we were called intolerant bigots. When we objected to his affiliation with a pseudo Christian church where 'God damn America' is the by word we were called right wing nut job fanatics. The signs have been plenty. His reputation preceded him. There was MUCH prophecy about how this country would end up if we elected this foreign raised elitist. But there were SO MANY who could not bear to wear the labels even for the good of the country, so they voted him in and they voted him in again. There.

Those people saw what they wanted to see.

And so did you!

You would be much better off if you questioned your preconceived ideas instead of allowing yourself to be manipulated by others.

So, what were liberals like you doing in 2008, when you fell head over heels over this 'hope and change' Obama was offering? Were you not being manipulated then? Did it ever occur to you that you were being manipulated? Were you seeing what you wanted to see, and hearing what you wanted to hear? Perhaps it is you who needs to perform some self introspection, 64 million others could have done the same when they blindly voted Obama into office. You would be much better off not believing everything you hear, Mustang. I don't.

From my experience, most middle class conservatives are naive. That's not much of a surprise to me since most middle class liberals are too. But I'll concentrate on conservatives cuz you guys shout the loudest and seem to get the most attention with all this new media mumbo jumbo masking as content.

You guys see conspiracies everywhere, often where there's nothing there to see, while very often (if not always) missing real collusion and shenanigans, especially when it's taking place on the right.

I have no love for politicians and how they pander. That's why I've never joined a political party. ALL politicians run on change, especially when it's the party that's been out of power. And in 2008, I don't believe that McCain ever gave any voters the impression that he planned on continuing the policies of Bush because Bush was so damn unpopular.

Obama won because people hoped he would be so incredibly different from Bush. Well, he is, and he isn't. One reason he isn't is because there's a LOT of powerful people in this country who don't want any change if it's going to negatively affect their gargantuan pocketbooks which they freely open to buy the policies they want from both Republicans and Democrats.

We live in a country where the top 1% have 40% of the wealthy, while the bottom 80% have about 7% of the wealth. Do you think the top 1% cares if YOU are liberal or conservative? Of course NOT!

While many of the very powerful conservatives behind the scenes are more than happy to keep people like you ginned up and traipsing through the metaphoric woods on pointless snipe hunts for imaginary scandals, they're also perfectly happy to distract attention away from how they're gaming the system while the rest of us squabble amongst ourselves. And conservative talk radio helps them in that regard because most of what passes for content is what Ross Perot euphemistically talked about when he mentioned that it was time to clean out the barn. Keep in mind that the vast majority of those radio hosts make a nice chunk of change, and they work for people who control the levers of communications power in this country. That means they know which side of the bread has the butter on it, and it's not YOUR middle class side. And the conservative powers-that-be sure don't give a damn about your economic prospects any more than they care about middle class liberals economic prospects. They just want you to vote the way that benefits them. And you know what? You usually do. Unless or until you take to the idea of joining a third party.

If you want change, you've got to stop supporting the GOP. No, I don't expect you to vote for a Democrat. But as long as the GOP knows they've got you in their pocket, you ain't goin' see no change cuz they're going to run on social issues, and then they're going to economically screw you (and the rest of us, as well) just like always after they get into power. Why you put up with it, is beyond my comprehension.

As for me, I think the Democrats are a much better bet when it comes to helping the common man get a fair shake instead of getting a shake down.

 

[daveman]

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

Still nothing to refute Sowell's arguments, huh?

You don't have to keep reminding us.

 

[daveman]

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.

Indeed.

1. Be attractive.

2. Read from a TelePrompTer.


Did I leave anything out?

 

[Foxfyre]

Those people saw what they wanted to see.

And so did you!

You would be much better off if you questioned your preconceived ideas instead of allowing yourself to be manipulated by others.

So, what were liberals like you doing in 2008, when you fell head over heels over this 'hope and change' Obama was offering? Were you not being manipulated then? Did it ever occur to you that you were being manipulated? Were you seeing what you wanted to see, and hearing what you wanted to hear? Perhaps it is you who needs to perform some self introspection, 64 million others could have done the same when they blindly voted Obama into office. You would be much better off not believing everything you hear, Mustang. I don't.

From my experience, most middle class conservatives are naive. That's not much of a surprise to me since most middle class liberals are too. But I'll concentrate on conservatives cuz you guys shout the loudest and seem to get the most attention with all this new media mumbo jumbo masking as content.

You guys see conspiracies everywhere, often where there's nothing there to see, while very often (if not always) missing real collusion and shenanigans, especially when it's taking place on the right.

I have no love for politicians and how they pander. That's why I've never joined a political party. ALL politicians run on change, especially when it's the party that's been out of power. And in 2008, I don't believe that McCain ever gave any voters the impression that he planned on continuing the policies of Bush because Bush was so damn unpopular.

Obama won because people hoped he would be so incredibly different from Bush. Well, he is, and he isn't. One reason he isn't is because there's a LOT of powerful people in this country who don't want any change if it's going to negatively affect their gargantuan pocketbooks which they freely open to buy the policies they want from both Republicans and Democrats.

We live in a country where the top 1% have 40% of the wealthy, while the bottom 80% have about 7% of the wealth. Do you think the top 1% cares if YOU are liberal or conservative? Of course NOT!

While many of the very powerful conservatives behind the scenes are more than happy to keep people like you ginned up and traipsing through the metaphoric woods on pointless snipe hunts for imaginary scandals, they're perfectly happy to distract attention away from how they're gaming the system while the rest of us squabble amongst ourselves. And conservative talk radio helps them in that regard because most of what passes for content, is what Ross Perot euphemistically talked about when he mentioned that it was time to clean out the barn. Keep in mind that the vast majority of those radio hosts make a nice chunk of change, and they work for people who control the levers of communications power in this country. That means they know which side of the bread has the butter, and it's not YOUR side. And the conservative powers-that-be sure don't give a damn about your economic prospects any more than they care about middle class liberals economic prospects. They just want you to vote the way that benefits them. And you know what? You usually do. Until or unless you take to the idea of joining a third party.

If you want change, you've got to stop supporting the GOP. No, I don't expect you to vote for a Democrat. But as long as the GOP knows they've got you in their pocket, you ain't goin' see no change cuz they're going to run on social issues, and then they're going to economically screw you (and the rest of us, as well) after they get into power. Why you put up with it, is beyond my comprehension.

As for me, I think the Democrats are a much better bet when it comes to helping the common man get a fair shake instead of getting a shake down.

So Thomas Sowell is a middle class conservative. Please take anything--in context-- from one of those essays and provide a rationale for how or why is was wrong. I know it is more comfortable bashing the GOP, but this thread is not about the GOP or Democrats or libertarians or who is screwing who or who holds the wealth in the country.

This thread focuses on one concept and one concept only.

So far not a single liberal who has posted on this thread can even say what the concept is, much less has had the ability, or at least the integrity, to address it. About 3/4th of the conservatives posting on this thread have had the ability and the integrity to address it.

Can you?

 

[daveman]

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?

 

[daveman]

Crazy muslims have discussions about prophecy, and they rave about the immorality of the infidels, and they quote all kinds of snippets to prove they're correct. It plays well with fellow cultists, but nobody else pays any attention to them. Same with the ODS cultists.

To those outside of the cults, religious fanatics all look the same. They spend their days actively seeking reasons to proclaim their victimhood (which gives them justification to act badly in return), to proclaim how only they themselves are the ChosenFew who understand the RealTruth, and to demonize those infidels who aren't part of the cult.

We've only seen this kind of insanity a thousand times before. Y'all are nothing new or special. Just another pack of boring religious cultists, preaching to the cult and claiming victory when everyone laughs at your demands to debate how many angels can dance on the head of pin.

One more entry in the "Can't rationally refute it" column.

 

[daveman]

Again, if you can't stand critique of your cult's beliefs, don't air them out in the politics folder.

The Politics forum is where criticism of the Obama cult belongs.