A Fulfillment of Prophecy?

[daveman]

Those people saw what they wanted to see.

And so did you!

And so did you, when the media first presented Obama to you.

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

Sound advice. Pity progressives don't believe it applies to them.

 

[daveman]

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

Except you don't really want people to think for themselves. You want them to immediately and unquestioningly accept and endorse the progressive agenda.

 

[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?

That's sort of where Sowell is coming from in The Vision of the Annointed, and I am intrigued how that book published more than a decade before the national advent of Barack Obama outlined, even predicted, that there would be a Barack Obama. And those 2008 essays (and several others I didn't include in the OP) is almost a fulfillment of the 'prophecy' from the book.
]
And the five years of history we now have with a President Barack Obama confirms that Sowell was on the right track.

And yes, the 'anointed' with a vision of the world that bears so semblance to practical use or reality or inescapable consequences--that which Barack Obama holds--does not leave room for other points of view or any other understanding that doesn't fit with the vision. Indeed they can see no other point of view other than what they consider the stupid ramblings of the 'selfish', 'cruel', 'heartless', and 'evil'.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

And still you throw the labels around. You cannot have a rational discussion of this topic. All you have in your bag arrows is labels that you can fling around. Just as I described in my post that you and those like you have been doing from day one.

Yes, we saw what he was. And I have been on forums since 2004. Nothing I have said about him has changed from the first day I saw him until now. He does not share any true American vision of America. He has been vowed and determined to promote a socialist agenda from the first day. He has stirred up racial tension, and he has cost us allies we have had as allies for generations. America will not recover from Obama. He has wounded the nation too badly for it to ever recover.

I was in Cairo at Cairo University 4 days before Obama. So, naturally, I was VERY interested what he had to say when he 'reached out' to the muslim world. He orchestrated Arab spring in that speech. Anyone who could listen to that speech and NOT see tremendous unrest coming to that area is deaf and blind.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

They were in the 'Anybody but Bush' mode. This is what it got us.

 

[daveman]

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.

Are you looking in a mirror?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Well, that's nothing more than a contradiction, but carry on.

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 fail to see how insulting conservatives serves as a valid point, Mustang. You do realize that liberals said that exact same thing when conservatives warned of Obamacare and it's consequences, right? "Oh it's nothing but a conspiracy" you said. "They don't want poor people to have insurance" you said. Now, what part of 4.2 million people losing their insurance is a conspiracy now, Mustang?

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.

In other words, you voted for another politician, which is essentially what Obama is. He pandered to the poor, the homosexuals, the union members, the environmentalists, the pro-choicers and et cetera. Please, don't distort the truth.

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.

Obama won because people wanted hope and change, none of which came, as you can clearly see. Like you, they were manipulated into voting for a nonexistent prospect. How naive. People voted on their emotions, not on facts. Just as Thomas Sowell predicted they would.

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!

Uh yeah? Why did they help fund Obama's campaign as well as Romney's? Why must you have such a one sided perspective of things? This class warfare argument is irrelevant, as it was just another talking point meant to play on the emotions of others; not based on honesty.

To break down your little tidbit, if you knew anything of rudimentary mathematics you wouldn't be lying. If indeed the top 1% held 40% (which they do) and the bottom 80% held 7% of the wealth (which is hard to believe), where is the other 19% of the population? Hmm? Where's the other 53% of the wealth, Mustang?

Let's work on honesty a bit, shall we?

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.

Imaginary scandals huh? You can ask Angela Merkel just how much of a scandal the NSA spying program was. You can ask the entire American population the same thing. You can ask James Rosen as well. You can ask countless Tea Party 501 (c)(3) groups how they didn't get targeted by the IRS during the past two election cycles. There are scandals that have verifiable facts behind them Mustang. You are sitting there shielding Obama and Democrats from them, naturally.

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.

Ross Perot was a libertarian/independent, and shared nothing in common with Republicans.

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 liberals 'gave a damn' about my economic prospects, why are they spending us into a hole? Why did they pass Obamacare? On a side note, I am a member of a third party. I am a registered libertarian.

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.

I will support whomever I wish, that is not for you or anyone else to decide. Liberals and Obama won through tactics such as this, "stop supporting republicans or else!" Do you hear yourself right now? Do you realize that Democrats have YOU in their pocket? You aren't willing to think outside of the box, or for yourself. Somehow you think you and the Democratic party can think for me. I will have none of the sort, thank you very much.

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.

Basically all your argument came down to was "the Republicans hate the poor, are weak on social issues and want to screw you over." How childish. Too bad that's not what I vote on, Mustang. I don't need to be coddled by the likes of you to understand there are more important things that affect us. I don't vote based on my social life, I vote for the success of my country as a whole, not on some selfish political agenda.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

True, and it has happened on this very thread!

 

[daveman]

Sowell begins Chapter 1 of Vision of the Annointed with:



And then on Page 6:



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?

That's sort of where Sowell is coming from in The Vision of the Annointed, and I am intrigued how that book published more than a decade before the national advent of Barack Obama outlined, even predicted, that there would be a Barack Obama. And those 2008 essays (and several others I didn't include in the OP) is almost a fulfillment of the 'prophecy' from the book.
]
And the five years of history we now have with a President Barack Obama confirms that Sowell was on the right track.

And yes, the 'anointed' with a vision of the world that bears so semblance to practical use or reality or inescapable consequences--that which Barack Obama holds--does not leave room for other points of view or any other understanding that doesn't fit with the vision. Indeed they can see no other point of view other than what they consider the stupid ramblings of the 'selfish', 'cruel', 'heartless', and 'evil'.

That's progressives' stock in trade.

If you can't get people to voluntarily agree with you, first attempt to shame them into agreeing, or at least silence ("Racist!!"). If that doesn't work, try to bribe them (Obamaphones and "free" health care).

Next is legislating against certain beliefs. We're not quite there yet.

Finally -- and history shows this again and again -- mass graves.

 

[Sunshine]

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...

And extrapolating from previous patterns of behavior. Just like Mustang calls names over and over and over and over and he has nothing to add to this discussion but name calling. Ad infinitum. That is his pattern. That is the prophecy of how he will behave. And he does.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

They were in the 'Anybody but Bush' mode. This is what it got us.

Yeah, they had a repulsion to facts. Or 'anything but facts' mode. In addition to that, this is what got us as well.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

And yet a poll of USMB posters revealed that most of the conservatives on here have advanced degrees and most liberals on here do not. Education does not equal naïveté. Education = being able to work and support yourself and your family, to use critical thinking skills in discerning truth from fiction. Education = not falling for the Democrat pie in the ski promises because we know there isn't any. Education = not having to live off other people because we have empowered ourselves to take care of our own. Education does NOT equal naïveté. Believing that someone like Obama has all the answers to the problems of this country equals naïveté. Not realizing his lack of experience rendered him unable to function as the leader of the FREE world is naïveté. Naïveté is Obama saying 'the previous administration' for 6 solid years when his lack of substance revealed that he did NOT have a plan. But the conservatives do not suffer from naïveté like the uneducated left. We KNEW he didn't have a plan.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

Oh you know, it was all the fault of 'the previous administration.' LOL

 

[Sunshine]

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?

He started out dying his hair so he could look like the stress of the job he isn't doing has aged him. You left that out. LOL

 

[Sunshine]

Sowell begins Chapter 1 of Vision of the Annointed with:



And then on Page 6:



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?

That's sort of where Sowell is coming from in The Vision of the Annointed, and I am intrigued how that book published more than a decade before the national advent of Barack Obama outlined, even predicted, that there would be a Barack Obama. And those 2008 essays (and several others I didn't include in the OP) is almost a fulfillment of the 'prophecy' from the book.
]
And the five years of history we now have with a President Barack Obama confirms that Sowell was on the right track.

And yes, the 'anointed' with a vision of the world that bears so semblance to practical use or reality or inescapable consequences--that which Barack Obama holds--does not leave room for other points of view or any other understanding that doesn't fit with the vision. Indeed they can see no other point of view other than what they consider the stupid ramblings of the 'selfish', 'cruel', 'heartless', and 'evil'.

This was the first time I had ever heard of him. This speech was in 2004. Listen to it. It will give you chills. Seriously. It is everything you have described. He even had republicans eating out of his hand with that speech. Too soon, they learned. And so did I. That is why I changed my registration to republican.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWynt87PaJ0]C-SPAN: Barack Obama Speech at 2004 DNC Convention - YouTube[/ame]

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

And yet a poll of USMB posters revealed that most of the conservatives on here have advanced degrees and most liberals on here do not. Education does not equal naïveté. Education = being able to work and support yourself and your family, to use critical thinking skills in discerning truth from fiction. Education = not falling for the Democrat pie in the ski promises because we know there isn't any. Education = not having to live off other people because we have empowered ourselves to take care of our own. Education does NOT equal naïveté. Believing that someone like Obama has all the answers to the problems of this country equals naïveté. Not realizing his lack of experience rendered him unable to function as the leader of the FREE world is naïveté. Naïveté is Obama saying 'the previous administration' for 6 solid years when his lack of substance revealed that he did NOT have a plan. But the conservatives do not suffer from naïveté like the uneducated left. We KNEW he didn't have a plan.

Education = looking for facts, not making them up. As liberals more often than not do.

Hence the adage "You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts."

 

[daveman]

its about as deep as your Iq

Still nothing to refute Sowell's arguments, huh?

You don't have to keep reminding us.

Oh you know, it was all the fault of 'the previous administration.' LOL

And it STILL is.

 

[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...

And extrapolating from previous patterns of behavior. Just like Mustang calls names over and over and over and over and he has nothing to add to this discussion but name calling. Ad infinitum. That is his pattern. That is the prophecy of how he will behave. And he does.

*TRUTH* and well stated.

 

[Sunshine]

Still nothing to refute Sowell's arguments, huh?

You don't have to keep reminding us.

Oh you know, it was all the fault of 'the previous administration.' LOL

And it STILL is.

Which is sad because EVERY president inherits problems. The ones before Obama have turned in to fix them in the way they saw fit. I can't say I always agreed with their fixes, but they didn't spend 6 years whining that it was someone else's fault and pretending to know nothing about what is going on in the country. No one. I have never heard a single president in 65 years do that until Obama. He knew there was a mess. He claimed he had all the answers. But he didn't even understand the questions, let alone have the answers.

 

[The T]

That's sort of where Sowell is coming from in The Vision of the Annointed, and I am intrigued how that book published more than a decade before the national advent of Barack Obama outlined, even predicted, that there would be a Barack Obama. And those 2008 essays (and several others I didn't include in the OP) is almost a fulfillment of the 'prophecy' from the book.
]
And the five years of history we now have with a President Barack Obama confirms that Sowell was on the right track.

And yes, the 'anointed' with a vision of the world that bears so semblance to practical use or reality or inescapable consequences--that which Barack Obama holds--does not leave room for other points of view or any other understanding that doesn't fit with the vision. Indeed they can see no other point of view other than what they consider the stupid ramblings of the 'selfish', 'cruel', 'heartless', and 'evil'.

That's progressives' stock in trade.

If you can't get people to voluntarily agree with you, first attempt to shame them into agreeing, or at least silence ("Racist!!"). If that doesn't work, try to bribe them (Obamaphones and "free" health care).

Next is legislating against certain beliefs. We're not quite there yet.

Finally -- and history shows this again and again -- mass graves.

And the latter sadly is history, prophecy...if allowed to happen.