The Most Arrogant Man In The World

[3rdnlng]

Short video:

 

[B-Man]

The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House

By Ed Lasky

 

Edward Klein's new book on Barack Obama, The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House, is a withering portrayal of a radical adrift, in over his head, drowning in his own incompetency -- while being weighed down by a small circle of "advisers" who are compounding the problem of the Amateur in the White House.

 

Klein's book begins with a talisman-like quote uttered by Barack Obama when his recently appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner tried to boost Obama's ego by telling him, "Your legacy is going to be preventing the second Great Depression." To which Barack Obama responded, "That's not enough for me."

 

{snip}

 

One of the motifs that runs throughout the book is Barack Obama's sheer level of incompetency. He has the fatal conceit of many politicians: an overweening ego. That may be a prerequisite for politicians and leaders, but when it is unleavened by a willingness to consider the views of others, it becomes a fatal conceit. And Obama has that trait in abundance.

 

Stories tumble out that reveal a man who believes he is all but omniscient -- unwilling to give any credence to the views of others (especially but not limited to those across the aisle). Experts in management are interviewed who point out that he lacks essential qualities of leadership. Indeed, the book gets its title from an outburst from Bill Clinton, who was trying to encourage Hillary to take on Obama in the Democratic primary of 2012:

 

Obama doesn't know how to be president. He doesn't know how the world works. He's incompetent. He's...he's...Barack Obama's an amateur.

 

 

There is a common pattern: Obama likes to campaign, but once he is elected and actually starts working, his interest flags, and he starts looking for the next "big thing" -- electorally speaking. He had few if any accomplishments or professional standing in any of his previous positions. Even when he served as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, he avoided any encounters with other faculty who enjoyed discussing the law. His reluctance to engage them is revealing in and of itself, suggesting he had a reason for his lack of confidence.

 

His disdain toward working with others is manifest. He has gained a reputation over the last few years as being cold and distant, refusing to engage, as have other presidents, in the give-and-take of politics, in the social niceties that help grease the wheels in Washington.

 

Not so Barack Obama. He complained to foreign leaders that he had to waste time talking with "congressmen from Palookaville.

 

Its too bad that we elected a President that too good to speak to congressmen.

 

.

American Thinker

Edited June 27, 2012 by B-Man

[Chef Jim]

Dumb. Especially when I was expecting a picture of me.

[3rdnlng]

Dumb. Especially when I was expecting a picture of me.

 

Not even close. You're a piker compared to Tom.

 

Its too bad that we elected a President that too good to speak to congressmen.

 

.

American Thinker

 

Addressing the article you quoted, I think Obama is like the guy who pursues the hot girl like crazy and he doesn't know what to do with her once she takes her clothes off for him. He then loses interest and pursues the next hot chick. He'll still have that ED thing to deal with though.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

obama in a depression, with a mentally ill right wing segment in congress. a few screw ups and slow recovery. ----

 

= "a withering portrayal of a radical adrift, in over his head, drowning in his own incompetency -- while being weighed down by a small circle of "advisers" who are compounding the problem of the Amateur in the White House."

 

- this has to be a joke...

 

bush takes a solid economy, deregulates, spends 5 trillion, does nothing about the 5 trillion before him, starts a stupid ass war in iraq and afghanistan and does literally nothing about health care.

 

- any rational person would say bush is the worse president outside of nixon this nation has ever seen, maybe worse because of the depression under his watch...

 

the quote in the article is so extreme and beyond any realm of rational discourse based in reality, i am left without words.

 

we would have been back to under 5-6% unemployment if congress would just act.

[/dev/null]

Not even close. You're a piker compared to Tom.

 

Considering the OP and the fact that this is PPP, before clicking the thread I had already narrowed down the options to Obama or Tom

[B-Man]

- this has to be a joke...

 

bush takes a solid economy, deregulates, spends 5 trillion, does nothing about the 5 trillion before him, starts a stupid ass war in iraq and afghanistan and does literally nothing about health care.

 

- any rational person would say bush is the worse president outside of nixon this nation has ever seen, maybe worse because of the depression under his watch...

 

the quote in the article is so extreme and beyond any realm of rational discourse based in reality, i am left without words.

 

we would have been back to under 5-6% unemployment if congress would just act.

 

 

I have a rule, that I try to resist the temptation to respond to simplistic gibberish, such as this.

 

but, I think I'll break it this morning.

 

The problem is that everything listed here is false and did not happen outside of MDP world.

 

There is no point in debating any of these alternate world "facts", so I will just note a consistent flaw in your logic (LOL)

 

You blame President Bush for all the evil mistakes that occurred during his administration, but then you say that its congress's fault for problems during Obama's

 

Not very persuasive..................................perhaps if you used a few more smilies that would help your replies ?

 

 

 

.

[Koko78]

I have a rule, that I try to resist the temptation to respond to simplistic gibberish, such as this.

 

but, I think I'll break it this morning.

 

The problem is that everything listed here is false and did not happen outside of MDP world.

 

There is no point in debating any of these alternate world "facts", so I will just note a consistent flaw in your logic (LOL)

 

You blame President Bush for all the evil mistakes that occurred during his administration, but then you say that its congress's fault for problems during Obama's

 

Not very persuasive..................................perhaps if you used a few more smilies that would help your replies ?

 

 

 

.

 

The smilies are the only things in his incoherent libtard slogan-filled rambles that actually make sense or have any form of intellectual value.

 

Although I will say that his posts do raise the interesting question of whether he is actually that stupid or just a troll playing a character.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

I have a rule, that I try to resist the temptation to respond to simplistic gibberish, such as this.

 

but, I think I'll break it this morning.

 

The problem is that everything listed here is false and did not happen outside of MDP world.

 

There is no point in debating any of these alternate world "facts", so I will just note a consistent flaw in your logic (LOL)

 

You blame President Bush for all the evil mistakes that occurred during his administration, but then you say that its congress's fault for problems during Obama's

 

Not very persuasive..................................perhaps if you used a few more smilies that would help your replies ?

 

 

 

.

 

Bush hada republican congress from -00-06... and i said obama had a few screw ups. to blame obama after the tea party nut jobs got in, is literally a joke. not to mention the monumental screw ups by bush make obama look like some bertrand russell genius...

 

again, this article is a jonah goldberg !@#$tard critique...

 

bush actually created massive problems, obama hasnt done the greatest job solving those problems.

 

again, a joke...

[DC Tom]

Considering the OP and the fact that this is PPP, before clicking the thread I had already narrowed down the options to Obama or Tom

 

I'd narrowed it down to me.

 

And I was right. 3rd is, of course, completely incorrect.

[DaveinElma]

obama in a depression, with a mentally ill right wing segment in congress. a few screw ups and slow recovery. ----

 

= "a withering portrayal of a radical adrift, in over his head, drowning in his own incompetency -- while being weighed down by a small circle of "advisers" who are compounding the problem of the Amateur in the White House."

 

- this has to be a joke...

 

bush takes a solid economy, deregulates, spends 5 trillion, does nothing about the 5 trillion before him, starts a stupid ass war in iraq and afghanistan and does literally nothing about health care.

 

- any rational person would say bush is the worse president outside of nixon this nation has ever seen, maybe worse because of the depression under his watch...

 

the quote in the article is so extreme and beyond any realm of rational discourse based in reality, i am left without words.

 

we would have been back to under 5-6% unemployment if congress would just act.

 

 

Bush bad. Low unemployment and High growth bad.

[B-Man]

Bush hada republican congress from -00-06... and i said obama had a few screw ups. to blame obama after the tea party nut jobs got in, is literally a joke. not to mention the monumental screw ups by bush make obama look like some bertrand russell genius...

 

again, this article is a jonah goldberg !@#$tard critique...

 

bush actually created massive problems, obama hasnt done the greatest job solving those problems.

again, a joke...

 

 

Last time.

 

As Tom noted, you are too obtuse to see that you are the joke.

 

Your whole response is (again) fiction, I will limit the correction to your first sentence.

 

President Bush was not sworn in, until 2001, not 2000, and the dems had control of the senate for part of 20001 and all of 2002 (Jeffords)

 

You should (at the very least) try and get your facts right, when arguing false premises.

 

 

 

 

.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

Bush bad. Low unemployment and High growth bad.

 

 

2 stupid ass wars and a !@#$ing depression? really?

 

Last time.

 

As Tom noted, you are too obtuse to see that you are the joke.

 

Your whole response is (again) fiction, I will limit the correction to your first sentence.

 

President Bush was not sworn in, until 2001, not 2000, and the dems had control of the senate for part of 20001 and all of 2002 (Jeffords)

 

You should (at the very least) try and get your facts right, when arguing false premises.

 

 

 

 

.

 

wiki-

 

In the 1996, 1998, and 2000 elections, Republicans lost Congressional seats but still retained control of the House and, more narrowly, the Senate. After the 2000 election, the Senate was divided evenly between the parties, with Republicans retaining the right to organize the Senate due to the election of Dick Cheney as Vice President and ex officio presiding officer of the Senate.

 

The Senate shifted to control by the Democrats (though they technically were the plurality party as they were one short of a majority) after GOP senator Jim Jeffords changed party registration to "Independent" in June 2001, but later returned to Republican control after the November 2002 elections. In the 2006 elections, Democrats won both the House of Representatives (233 Democrats, 202 Republicans) and the Senate (49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents caucusing with the Democrats) as well as the majority of state governorships (28-22).

 

However, in the 2010 elections, in what was very similar to the 1994 elections, Republicans won back control of the House. The Senate narrowly remained with the Democrats. Republicans also won a majority of state governorships and State Legislatures.

for all intensive purposes, repubs/conservatives had control from 00-06, especially with blue dogs. again, youre a joke

Edited June 27, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[Chef Jim]

The smilies are the only things in his incoherent libtard slogan-filled rambles that actually make sense or have any form of intellectual value.

 

Although I will say that his posts do raise the interesting question of whether he is actually that stupid or just a troll playing a character.

 

I'm not on the wall much but what ate his posts like over there?

[Jauronimo]

2 stupid ass wars and a !@#$ing depression? really?

 

 

 

wiki-

 

In the 1996, 1998, and 2000 elections, Republicans lost Congressional seats but still retained control of the House and, more narrowly, the Senate. After the 2000 election, the Senate was divided evenly between the parties, with Republicans retaining the right to organize the Senate due to the election of Dick Cheney as Vice President and ex officio presiding officer of the Senate.

 

The Senate shifted to control by the Democrats (though they technically were the plurality party as they were one short of a majority) after GOP senator Jim Jeffords changed party registration to "Independent" in June 2001, but later returned to Republican control after the November 2002 elections. In the 2006 elections, Democrats won both the House of Representatives (233 Democrats, 202 Republicans) and the Senate (49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents caucusing with the Democrats) as well as the majority of state governorships (28-22).

 

However, in the 2010 elections, in what was very similar to the 1994 elections, Republicans won back control of the House. The Senate narrowly remained with the Democrats. Republicans also won a majority of state governorships and State Legislatures.

for all intensive purposes, repubs/conservatives had control from 00-06, especially with blue dogs. again, youre a joke

Irregardless, idiot, you have to consider that the man in office isn't directly responsible for everything that occurs under his term. Like the financial crisis. To blame the housing market collapse on any one party is foolish at best as the matter is so complex that its nearly impossible to portion blame (except for 3rd whose dumped it all on the CRA). Given the views expressed above, you may as well suggest that the sun rose today because of Obama. I mean, he is in office and the sun did rise this morning. What other explanation can there be?

Edited June 27, 2012 by Jauronimo

[B-Man]

 

 

 

for all intensive purposes, repubs/conservatives had control from 00-06, especially with blue dogs. ........................................................ again, youre a joke

 

 

 

Oh my Lord, thanks for the laugh.

 

"for all intensive purposes"...........................seriously???

 

"for all intensive purposes" ?

 

Please, please........keep referring to me as a joke and then demonstrate your ignorance, its hilarious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

Oh my Lord, thanks for the laugh.

 

"for all intensive purposes"...........................seriously???

 

"for all intensive purposes" ?

 

Please, please........keep referring to me as a joke and then demonstrate your ignorance, its hilarious.

 

Yeah, you know...as opposed to the superficial purposes...

 

[3rdnlng]

Irregardless, idiot, you have to consider that the man in office isn't directly responsible for everything that occurs under his term. Like the financial crisis. To blame the housing market collapse on anyone party is foolish at best as the matter is so complex that its nearly impossible to portion blame (except for 3rd whose dumped it all on the CRA). Given the views expressed above, you may as well suggest that the sun rose today because of Obama. I mean, he is in office and the sun did rise this morning. What other explanation can there be?

 

Irregardless? Who said that? Im curious. Do you think things would have come down the way they did if not for the CRA? My contention has always been that the CRA was the root cause. Sure bad things happened after that, but they were done to cover up or switch who was going to be the loser.

[DC Tom]

Irregardless? Who said that? Im curious. Do you think things would have come down the way they did if not for the CRA? My contention has always been that the CRA was the root cause. Sure bad things happened after that, but they were done to cover up or switch who was going to be the loser.

 

Common, man. For all intensive purposes, regardless and irregardless are the same word, you moran.

[3rdnlng]

Common, man. For all intensive purposes, regardless and irregardless are the same word, you moran.

 

noone believes that.