**White House Insider: "Everyone Stunned At How Little Barack Obama Understands"

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


Anyone can find someone or article on the internet that agrees with them.

For every article posted as proof/support - - - there are others of opposition or a different viewpoint.

You used 2 sources for the articles you posted.

1. Newsmax - - Nielsen: Newsmax #1 Conservative Site in the Nation
2. Intellectual Conservative

Definitely "Fair and Balanced"

how little he understands - the man understands quite well both parties were going to showboat until the last possible second then force some crap deal and if he doesn't sign it blame him for there bull. Nothing changed - Harry Reid isnt standing up to take responsibility for the work he did he's blaming Obama for not driving us past the due date.

reply to post by anon72

Well, we had an actor as a president before, the difference is this latest actor never starred in one single movie ever. So this latest actor is not very good at memorizing his lines.
A Manchurian candidate of a different kind.

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by AuranVector

Obama, the smartest President? You've got to be kidding. Compared to Clinton? Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. He just had this embarrassing "zipper" problem....

Well yes, the zipper problem,and also the lying problem - and the fact that he too worked for the Illuminati.

But I agree, there's no comparison between the two in terms of intelligence.

True.

AV

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
I suppose the real problem is that humans are so easily duped into 'buying' an ideology - whether for financial gain or that it enables them to feel special and avoid facing their problems. Obama is nothing but an empty suit - a pied piper for the idiots.

I commend to you Solzhenitsyn's "Lenin In Zurich", a book I read years ago. It is fiction, yet invaluable to the understanding of the last century, and the next. I am about to share with you a secret known to few: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Deng, Pol Pot, Castro, and Solzhenitsyn himself. And me. And now you.

Socialism does not exist except in the imagination of the true believer and the useful idiot. None of the names I listed believed there was such a thing as socialism. They knew it for what it was: a means of fooling mass numbers of people into following them, and thus achieving power. Political power. Military power. Economic power. Absolute power. As you read Lenin in Zurich you understand that Lenin doesn't believe a word of the ideological nonsense he spouts. He translates his agenda, long term and immediate, into terms that are palatable to his mass following.

.....................................Lenin In Zurich presents the litany of techniques which can be copied by any tyrant.

The leader need not continue to spout socialist claptrap, except to continue to fool his flock. And they are willing fools. Given the socialist framework, the flock will fill in the blanks themselves, centralizing power in the center. All to the advantage of the boss, who doesn't give a damn about the flock.

That's why we still hear communist dupes who tell us socialism failed in the Soviet Union because it wasn't done properly. The leaders didn't quite get it right. Not so. Socialism failed in the Soviet Union because socialism does not exist.

So, what can we say about the United States today? Our leader, and those who are his helpmates, do appear to be committed socialists. That means they haven't looked behind the curtain. They don't know the magician's trick.

Who is our Lenin? Who is our Stalin? Who is our Mao? This would have to be someone who knows socialism is meaningful only to his willing fools. Someone who will capitalize when a socialist government in America is complete. My money is on George Soros, but I could be mistaken. Whoever it is, when he has achieved power, we had all better watch out.

www.americanthinker.com...

Thanks, JohhnyBGood, for that lead: Solzhenitsyn's "Lenin in Zurich" -- sounds like it's worth reading.

You may be right about Soros. Soros is a ruthless creep who seems to have tentacles everywhere in our political system..

Originally posted by cjdny
reply to post by Mookite

 

Your observations are right. But the only mistake I personally see is that he likes to campaign. It's all he can do well. He is a media creation and it was predicted to happen in 1990 in a Vanity Fair article.
www.vanityfair.com...
Here is a long but well written article from my not so favorite magazine on the guy.
www.newyorker.com...

Both articles are revealing of Obama's character, especially the July 21, 2008 "The New Yorker" article.

It's nice to have confirmed what I have suspected: Obama "thrived" in the corrupt political world of Chicago.

I found it interesting that (according to Emanuel) Rahm Emanuel, David Wilhelm and Obama were among the "top strategists" of Rod Blagojevich's gubernatorial victory.

It also confirmed another suspicion: Obama is not really an ideologue of any stripe.

Obama is really all about Obama. He's about amassing personal power & lining his pockets. I also believe Obama is a natural dictator. But Obama is no Castro, more like another Batista.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by works4dhs
by what standard was Bush dumb? his MBA from Harvard? his success in the oil business, MLB, or as Governor of Texas?

Have you done any real research on Bush "W"?

Nevermind - - I already know the answer.

So do we.

The answer is that all these posts about Bush are nothing but deflection attempts to try and get the negative focus off of obama by people who should know better by now than to keep supporting a man who no longer deserves their support.

Come on, you can admit it to yourselves now. Start by asking yourselves exactly how has obama lived up to his campaign promises - especially the ones that resonated with you enough to make you vote for the man.

OK now. Take a deep breath, let the reality sink in, and just let him go ...

Many of us had to do the same with Bush, so we know it is possible!

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by works4dhs
by what standard was Bush dumb? his MBA from Harvard? his success in the oil business, MLB, or as Governor of Texas?

Have you done any real research on Bush "W"?

Nevermind - - I already know the answer.

So do we.

The answer is that all these posts about Bush are nothing but deflection attempts to try and get the negative focus off of obama by people who should know better by now than to keep supporting a man who no longer deservers their support.

Come on, you can admit it it to yourselves now. Start by asking yourselves exactly how has obama lived up to his campaign promises - especially the ones that resonated with you enough to make you vote for the man.

OK now. Take a deep breath, let the reality sink in, and just let him go ...

Many of us had to do the same with Bush, so we know it is possible!

Yes. They attack Bush to deflect attention away from the Obama train wreck taking place
in real time.
----------
Now everyone is beginning to see that Obama simply - lied by omission - about his
intentions. His intentions all along were to throw a - wet blanket - over free market
capitalism and slowly transform America into a nation controlled by socialism.


As always with Obama ignore what he says. Just watch what he does.
Right now it involves writing more, more & more regulations that step on the neck
of capitalism.

At the same time put on small business dog & pony shows to trick Americans into
thinking he might be a capitalist.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Yes. They attack Bush to deflect attention away from the Obama train wreck taking place
in real time.

As stated before - - I was in a political forum for about 8/9 years from 1998.

I am still a registered Republican and was a Bush supporter in the beginning.

What I learned in that forum had NOTHING to do with Obama.

Originally posted by Annee


What I learned in that forum had NOTHING to do with Obama.

Just as this forum (thread) has NOTHING to do with Bush.

It's about how little obama understands about what's taking place all around him.

Just reminding everyone ...

reply to post by hawaii50th


The latest "actor" didn't star in one political arena either. Guess that's why his presidency is rather B-rated, huh?

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Annee


What I learned in that forum had NOTHING to do with Obama.

Just as this forum (thread) has NOTHING to do with Bush.

It's about how little obama understands about what's taking place all around him.

Just reminding everyone ...

NO - - it isn't really about that either.

It is about some "unknown - unnamed" - - get ready for it - - INSIDER - - making unfounded claims.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Annee


What I learned in that forum had NOTHING to do with Obama.

Just as this forum (thread) has NOTHING to do with Bush.

It's about how little obama understands about what's taking place all around him.

Just reminding everyone ...

NO - - it isn't really about that either.

It is about some "unknown - unnamed" - - get ready for it - - INSIDER - - making unfounded claims.

Thought exercise for you.

Let's say you worked in the Bush administration, but had grown disenchanted with the direction they were taking the country and so decided to "anonymously" start leaking the innermost workings of that administration.

Now here's the REAL thought exercise for you ...

How long do you suppose you'd get to stay there to keep leaking info ...

wait for it ...

IF YOU TOLD EVERYONE YOUR NAME???



No, just 3 s are not enough for not understanding this.

1,000 X is way more appropriate.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Annee


What I learned in that forum had NOTHING to do with Obama.

Just as this forum (thread) has NOTHING to do with Bush.

It's about how little obama understands about what's taking place all around him.

Just reminding everyone ...

NO - - it isn't really about that either.

It is about some "unknown - unnamed" - - get ready for it - - INSIDER - - making unfounded claims.

Thought exercise for you.

Let's say you worked in the Bush administration, but had grown disenchanted with the direction they were taking the country and so decided to "anonymously" start leaking the innermost workings of that administration.

Now here's the REAL thought exercise for you ...

How long do you suppose you'd get to stay there to keep leaking info ...

wait for it ...

IF YOU TOLD EVERYONE YOUR NAME???

True, if he was a real insider, he'd keep his identity a secret. But it's also true that anybody could claim to be an insider without any proof because of the required anonymity.

This makes anything he says into editorial satire, at best. If somebody said this about Bush, I'd be just as skeptical unless there was some sort of corroborating evidence that the person was legit.

I'm only saying this because, no matter what, neither of you can prove this person as real or fake.

Originally posted by Cuervo


I'm only saying this because, no matter what, neither of you can prove this person as real or fake.

By design?

Just maybe?

And that's kind of a pull back for you isn't it?

Going from this insider is DEFINITELY a fake to it can't be proven if they are or aren't.

At least you are making progress.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Thought exercise for you.

Let's say you worked in the Bush administration, but had grown disenchanted with the direction they were taking the country and so decided to "anonymously" start leaking the innermost workings of that administration.

And explain to me what evidence you have again that this mysterious individual is authentic? Aside from the claims of these partisan sources that he is?

We can theorize that he may very well be somebody unhappy with the administration, and for all you know, I may be Bill Clinton?

Anything is possible, I get your point, it's just highly unlikely this man is truly what he says given that there's absolutely no evidence to point to who he is, and given that he only appears on sources that tend to be anti-Obama in anycase.

I get the feeling you know this source is probably fake, but it gives you another avenue to complain about this administration. Not sure why you need to do this though, there are plenty of relevant policies to point against Obama over. You don't need to make up a source in the whitehouse to criticize the president.

yep

i can see the same conversation

back when deepthroat was around

he is real um no hes not.

um yeah its all bushs fault

Originally posted by Cuervo
. . . anybody could claim to be an insider without any proof because of the required anonymity.

If somebody said this about Bush, I'd be just as skeptical unless there was some sort of corroborating evidence that the person was legit.

I'm only saying this because, no matter what, neither of you can prove this person as real or fake.

Absolutely!!

Secret insider info - - - is stuff you believe because its what you want to believe. It is not fact.

LOL - I must admit I do love UFO/Alien insider info. Some of it must be true - it just has to be

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by centurion1211
Thought exercise for you.

Let's say you worked in the Bush administration, but had grown disenchanted with the direction they were taking the country and so decided to "anonymously" start leaking the innermost workings of that administration.

And explain to me what evidence you have again that this mysterious individual is authentic? Aside from the claims of these partisan sources that he is?

We can theorize that he may very well be somebody unhappy with the administration, and for all you know, I may be Bill Clinton?

Anything is possible, I get your point, it's just highly unlikely this man is truly what he says given that there's absolutely no evidence to point to who he is, and given that he only appears on sources that tend to be anti-Obama in anycase.

I get the feeling you know this source is probably fake, but it gives you another avenue to complain about this administration. Not sure why you need to do this though, there are plenty of relevant policies to point against Obama over. You don't need to make up a source in the whitehouse to criticize the president.

Well, as cuervo so excellently stated, there is not any way to prove authenticity one way or another.

So ...

Anyway, I will admit that it is entertaining to me to watch libs get their panties in a wad every time a story about this person shows up. Same as happens whenever Palin gets in the news, the hyperventilatingly (new word) desperate shrillness of the liberal responses are worth some chuckles.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by centurion1211
Thought exercise for you.

Let's say you worked in the Bush administration, but had grown disenchanted with the direction they were taking the country and so decided to "anonymously" start leaking the innermost workings of that administration.

And explain to me what evidence you have again that this mysterious individual is authentic? Aside from the claims of these partisan sources that he is?

How about if you explain to us first how it is that YOU can't understand why it would possibly be that we can't prove they are authentic?

Hint: they may not want anyone to know who they are ...

Do Russian spies put letters to the editor in the New York times saying, "Hi, my name is Vladimir, and I'm a Russian spy"?

Sheesh!