A Fulfillment of Prophecy?

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, TK, I agree that the hypocrisy is glaring at times. And that speaks to the summary statement in the second 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 yet his adoring throng continues to defend and support and excuse and rationalize everything about him as is glaringly obvious in this and many other threads.

At the beginning--before the Preface--of Sowell's amazing book A Vision of the Annointed, (1995), he offered two quotations that, given our experience of the last decade or so, give us a profound insight into how things look through Sowell's eyes:

"At most only a tiny set of policies have been studied with even moderate care." -- George J. Stigler, Nobel Laureate in Economics

"In the flaring parks, in the taverns, in the hushed academies, your murmur will applaud the wisdom of a thousand quacks. For theirs is the kingdom." -- Kenneth Fearing, poet​

Those quotations make so much more sense to me now.

So how much quackery is involved in the defense of Obamacare? How much did Barack Obama study the very policies that are being forced upon all of us now? No, I do not wish to discuss Obamacare as there are numerous other active threads to do that.

I wish to look at a Barack Obama who is pushing the greatest power grab we have ever seen from government upon us - and who based on his own sales pitch over the last four years is clueless about what that power grab will do to people. Or he doesn't care. Or it is on purpose. Take your pick.

Is THAT the Barack Obama who campaigned in 2008?

I'm afraid you won't get a liberal to admit that freely, but if I had to take a guess... Deep inside they know that the Obama now isn't the Obama they elected in 2008. Not by a long shot. I'm thinking they are a bit let down by what he has become lately. However, they remain undeterred; their intense hatred of the other side will compel them to vote for like minded people in the future, setting us up for more government and less freedom--and for them more disappointment or a sort of electoral masochism, if you will.

Interesting analogy. Do you really think so? Do those on the left who still defend Obama really think they got the guy who campaigned in 2008? They adored him then and they honestly adore him now?

I wouldn't be surprised if they still did. I doubt the reality has hit them yet that he isn't the man they voted for.

 

[daveman]

uh yes...we have a secular government. You want a religious government? go move to the middleeast or something.

No, you moron, I don't want a religious government. Stop lying.

But it would be nice if you could acknowledge the reality that Judeo-Christian thought is the basis for our civilization.

But you won't.

yes you do, and no its not. Then again it is you trying to argue this so who cares really.

I have never said anything that would give the impression that I want a religious government. So you can stop that now.

 

[daveman]

I'm afraid you won't get a liberal to admit that freely, but if I had to take a guess... Deep inside they know that the Obama now isn't the Obama they elected in 2008. Not by a long shot. I'm thinking they are a bit let down by what he has become lately. However, they remain undeterred; their intense hatred of the other side will compel them to vote for like minded people in the future, setting us up for more government and less freedom--and for them more disappointment or a sort of electoral masochism, if you will.

Interesting analogy. Do you really think so? Do those on the left who still defend Obama really think they got the guy who campaigned in 2008? They adored him then and they honestly adore him now?

All depends on the effect of Obamacare on their life! LOL

Not for all of them. Some will gladly fall on their swords for The One.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thomas Sowell's essays have nothing to do with religion so any concept of a 'religious government' pro or con is completely non sequitur here and I think we should move past that immediately.

Something can be prophetic without having anything to do with Bible prophecy or anything religious. The only reason I referenced Bible prophecy at all in the O.P. was to set the stage for how people think or understand. Or don't think or understand as the case may be.

Obviously the leftists among us--leftists rarely are able to focus on a concept apart from partisanship or hatred or contempt for a particular person or group--have totally missed the point of the OP. Or they are intentionally trying to derail any discussion about it.

The concept for those who are still able to think independently and critically, however, is the question of how accurate Thomas Sowell was in his analysis of Barack Obama now that we have five years' experience with him.

Several thoughtful folks here have at least commented on that.

Not a single Leftist on this thread seems to even understand the question, much less has attempted to respond to it.

 

[Plasmaball]

No, you moron, I don't want a religious government. Stop lying.

But it would be nice if you could acknowledge the reality that Judeo-Christian thought is the basis for our civilization.

But you won't.

yes you do, and no its not. Then again it is you trying to argue this so who cares really.

I have never said anything that would give the impression that I want a religious government. So you can stop that now.

stop daving dave....we get it, you love religion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

yes you do, and no its not. Then again it is you trying to argue this so who cares really.

I have never said anything that would give the impression that I want a religious government. So you can stop that now.

stop daving dave....we get it, you love religion.

And you love being ignorant and stupid. Buzz off and stop polluting the thread.

Dave, don't acknowledge him. He isn't worth your time.

 

[Foxfyre]

Everybody, please focus on the OP. I or others will report the inappropriate posts as necessary. But if we all focus on the OP I have high hopes for a good discussion.

Again, can none of the leftists take ANYTHING from the OP and offer a rebuttal of any kind of how it is incorrect or where Sowell's observations were wrong?

Since it just came up on another thread, let's look at the October 21 essay "Believers". Sowell focused on Candidate Barack Obama promise to clean up the housing mess if he was elected to office. Even as he was one of the voices proclaiming that Freddie and Fannie were just fine when President Bush was urging Congress to act. Even as he was was using Fannie Mae's CEO, Franklin Raines, as one of his key advisors.

How accurate do you think Sowell was in his assessment of Barack Obama on that issue?

 

[Plasmaball]

I have never said anything that would give the impression that I want a religious government. So you can stop that now.

stop daving dave....we get it, you love religion.

And you love being ignorant and stupid. Buzz off and stop polluting the thread.

Dave, don't acknowledge him. He isn't worth your time.

yawn...dave can speak for himself.

you on the other hand should not speak of ignorance when you admit you dont read posts.

 

[Foxfyre]

So Plasmaball, since you apparentlyinadvertently missed my request to drop the food fight and focus on the OP . . . .

Please choose any comment Thomas Sowell made in the highlighted portions of the OP or in any of the linked essays and show us how Sowell got it wrong. Or right if you are so convinced.

 

[Plasmaball]

Your Op offers nothing but safe predictions that most people running for office go through.
Take the sex education. Obama may support it but its not a smart thing to run on the national stage, so the idea he didnt speak about sex education for young kids ( which we all know is hogwash anyways) is rather typical and safe to assume. Candidates tend to run towards the middle when seeking a national office like the Presidents seat. Therefore it looks like said person is a liar.

These are very simple routine things that you are trying to treat as some major discovery, and should be praised for decades over.

Like i said you are an amateur trying to be a professional.

 

[Sunshine]

Thomas Sowell's essays have nothing to do with religion so any concept of a 'religious government' pro or con is completely non sequitur here and I think we should move past that immediately.

Something can be prophetic without having anything to do with Bible prophecy or anything religious. The only reason I referenced Bible prophecy at all in the O.P. was to set the stage for how people think or understand. Or don't think or understand as the case may be.

Obviously the leftists among us--leftists rarely are able to focus on a concept apart from partisanship or hatred or contempt for a particular person or group--have totally missed the point of the OP. Or they are intentionally trying to derail any discussion about it.

The concept for those who are still able to think independently and critically, however, is the question of how accurate Thomas Sowell was in his analysis of Barack Obama now that we have five years' experience with him.

Several thoughtful folks here have at least commented on that.

Not a single Leftist on this thread seems to even understand the question, much less has attempted to respond to it.

Yes, that is true and I gave two examples: Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce

 

[TemplarKormac]

Thomas Sowell pretty much nailed it when he described Obama supporters,

"They have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by the facts, they resent being told the facts ... it is especially [sic] painful to think that there are people living in the safety and comfort of civilian life who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about candidates before voting to put the fate of this nation, and of generations yet to come, in the hands of someone chosen because they like his words or style."

Believers in Obama - Thomas Sowell - Page full

So, when he turns out to be nothing like the man they hoped him to be, they'll ask why. I will tell them "you should have looked behind the mask."

 

[Foxfyre]

Thomas Sowell's essays have nothing to do with religion so any concept of a 'religious government' pro or con is completely non sequitur here and I think we should move past that immediately.

Something can be prophetic without having anything to do with Bible prophecy or anything religious. The only reason I referenced Bible prophecy at all in the O.P. was to set the stage for how people think or understand. Or don't think or understand as the case may be.

Obviously the leftists among us--leftists rarely are able to focus on a concept apart from partisanship or hatred or contempt for a particular person or group--have totally missed the point of the OP. Or they are intentionally trying to derail any discussion about it.

The concept for those who are still able to think independently and critically, however, is the question of how accurate Thomas Sowell was in his analysis of Barack Obama now that we have five years' experience with him.

Several thoughtful folks here have at least commented on that.

Not a single Leftist on this thread seems to even understand the question, much less has attempted to respond to it.

Yes, that is true and I gave two examples: Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce

It is too easy to get caught up in a word or phrases used as illustration or example and run with that while missing the actual point being made or the question being asked.

Sometimes I think I should just phrase my arguments in a way that a First Grader can understand and avoid that particular syndrome, especially from those incapable of focusing on a specific concept. But I have high hopes that most USMBers have the education and intelligence to participate in a more sophisticated discussion.

For instamce the sex education for kindergarteners issue. Obama not only supported that in 2003, long before he was elected to the U.S. Senate and long before he campaigned for the Presidency, but he supported it again in 2008.

He maintained that the sex education program would not be about biological sex but rather would be age appropriate for that age group.

CNS subsequently reports:

To further clarify Obama’s position on sex ed for kindergartner’s, Obama’s campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, pointed MSNBC to the “curriculum for those in kindergarten” produced by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). This curriculum suggested discussing same-sex relationships—in non-graphic terms--with kindergartners. - See more at: Obama: Sex Ed for Kindergartners ?Is the Right Thing to Do? | CNS News

Thomas Sowell made the observation on October 8:
"What is called "sex education," whether for kindergartners or older children, is not education about biology but indoctrination in values that go against the traditional values that children learn in their families and in their communities." And his point is that is what we would be getting with a Barack Obama presidency.

Other observations includes the widely touted and publicized Candidate Obama Saddleback interview with Rick Warren in which Obama said adamently that while he supported rights for gay people, he considered marriage to be between one man and one woman. That is not what we got with a President Obama though is it?

And frankly, over the last five years, I haven't seen ANY presidential initiatives that promote or support traditional values, but there has been a whole lot of support for and defense of alternative lifestyles.

 

[candycorn]

Yes, I encourage all to search the scriptures for how Our Lord would want us to live our lives.

No, the ACA is not crumbling before anyone's eyes: to suggest such is hyperbolic demagoguery.

I admire you in so many ways, but I am very careful when you start talking religion and American narrative, Foxfyre.

So you will not rail on about derailing your thread, I will leave it at this.

Think, folks.

The earth is made of what, 6 Billion people....Isn't it obvious to you that God only favors the 300 million living on this land mass?

How dare you think otherwise.

 

[Foxfyre]

The thread is not about 6 billion people or who God favors. Thanks for understanding.

So CandyCorn, could you please choose a statement Thomas Sowell made that is highlighted in the OP or included in any of those essays and comment on why you think he was spot on accurate or as wrong as white shoes in winter?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I have this quote which will mesh quite well with the subject matter here:

"The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and repeated."

-President John F. Kennedy

This pretty much sums up how Obama misled his people into believing him and voting for him. This is how he persuaded millions that they could keep their healthcare insurance and their doctors. He convinced them solely on rhetoric alone that he was going to change America and be the source of their hope. He propelled himself to imagined and mythical heights, all based on lies and broken promises.

People aren't getting what they voted for, hands down.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have this quote which will mesh quite well with the subject matter here:

"The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and repeated."

-President John F. Kennedy

This pretty much sums up how Obama misled his people into believing him and voting for him. And how he persuaded millions that they could keep their healthcare insurance and their doctors. He convinced them solely on rhetoric alone that he was going to change America and be the source of their hope. He propelled himself to imagined and mythical heights, all based on lies and broken promises.

People aren't getting what they voted for, hands down.

Which is what Sowell meant when he wrote on Ocrtober 10, 2013:

". . . . In the world of rhetoric — the world in which Obama is supreme — he is a moderate, reasonable man, reaching out to unite people and parties, dedicated to reform, opposed to special interests and a healer of the racial divide.

It is only in the real world of action that Barack Obama is the direct opposite."​

It was the myth that Barack Obama himself created and prompted --I know I am going to be crucified for saying this--what some pundits referred to as the 'Magic Negro" syndrome--a beautiful, charismatic, charming, articulate black man rising from obscurity to save us from ourselves. So desperate were some to believe this--so enthralled were they with the whole idea--is that they refused to consider that he was anything other than the messianic savior as he was quickly portrayed.

Sowell vetted Obama in no uncertain terms. But the media did not. And as a result many were ignorant when they voted or they just pushed any doubts aside as they clung to the promise of "hope and change."

And before ya'll jump all over me for the "Magic Negro" thing, I was not the one to coin the phrase. It came right out of Wikipedia and was immortalized in the LA Times, nobody's idea of a rightwing publication:

AS EVERY CARBON-BASED life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters — musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House.

But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the "Magic Negro."

The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist," reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro .

He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.

As might be expected, this figure is chiefly cinematic — embodied by such noted performers as Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, Scatman Crothers, Michael Clarke Duncan, Will Smith and, most recently, Don Cheadle. And that's not to mention a certain basketball player whose very nickname is "Magic."

Poitier really poured on the "magic" in "Lilies of the Field" (for which he won a best actor Oscar) and "To Sir, With Love" (which, along with "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," made him a No. 1 box-office attraction). In these films, Poitier triumphs through yeoman service to his white benefactors. "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is particularly striking in this regard, as it posits miscegenation without evoking sex. (Talk about magic!)

The same can't quite be said of Freeman in "Driving Miss Daisy," "Seven" and the seemingly endless series of films in which he plays ersatz paterfamilias to a white woman bedeviled by a serial killer. But at least he survives, unlike Crothers in "The Shining," in which psychic premonitions inspire him to rescue a white family he barely knows and get killed for his trouble. This heart-tug trope is parodied in Gus Van Sant's "Elephant." The film's sole black student at a Columbine-like high school arrives in the midst of a slaughter, helps a girl escape and is immediately gunned down. See what helping the white man gets you?
More here. . .
Obama the 'Magic Negro' - latimes.com

Add James Earl Jones in "Field of Dreams" and "Bagger Vance" to the cast of characters up there.

 

[Plasmaball]

Your Op offers nothing but safe predictions that most people running for office go through.
Take the sex education. Obama may support it but its not a smart thing to run on the national stage, so the idea he didnt speak about sex education for young kids ( which we all know is hogwash anyways) is rather typical and safe to assume. Candidates tend to run towards the middle when seeking a national office like the Presidents seat. Therefore it looks like said person is a liar.

These are very simple routine things that you are trying to treat as some major discovery, and should be praised for decades over.

Like i said you are an amateur trying to be a professional.

ah the op isn't looking for debate at all, she is looking for people to pat her on the back and say good job. Sowell offered safe predictions that work for child like minds. I see why the Op is all about them.

you people are a joke

 

[daveman]

Your Op offers nothing but safe predictions that most people running for office go through.
Take the sex education. Obama may support it but its not a smart thing to run on the national stage, so the idea he didnt speak about sex education for young kids ( which we all know is hogwash anyways) is rather typical and safe to assume. Candidates tend to run towards the middle when seeking a national office like the Presidents seat. Therefore it looks like said person is a liar.

These are very simple routine things that you are trying to treat as some major discovery, and should be praised for decades over.

Like i said you are an amateur trying to be a professional.

ah the op isn't looking for debate at all, she is looking for people to pat her on the back and say good job. Sowell offered safe predictions that work for child like minds. I see why the Op is all about them.

you people are a joke

Okay, you're on record as being unable to refute them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your Op offers nothing but safe predictions that most people running for office go through.
Take the sex education. Obama may support it but its not a smart thing to run on the national stage, so the idea he didnt speak about sex education for young kids ( which we all know is hogwash anyways) is rather typical and safe to assume. Candidates tend to run towards the middle when seeking a national office like the Presidents seat. Therefore it looks like said person is a liar.

These are very simple routine things that you are trying to treat as some major discovery, and should be praised for decades over.

Like i said you are an amateur trying to be a professional.

ah the op isn't looking for debate at all, she is looking for people to pat her on the back and say good job. Sowell offered safe predictions that work for child like minds. I see why the Op is all about them.

you people are a joke

Okay, you're on record as being unable to refute them.

Yup. When they atack me and Sowell, it pretty well means they've got nothing.

But surely in all those essays, Sowell got it wrong about something. I wonder if anybody will find anything at all and point that out?