Candace de Russy forwarded Dan Friedman's link to this video on Viddler.com of the Hon. James David Manning, Ph.D. discussing Barack Obama's sociopathic lying. Dr. Manning argues that Obama's fractured family and his disturbed relationships with his mother and absentee father are at the root of his lying and extremist hate. In his own words that differ from mine in style but not substance, Dr. Manning makes the same argument I make about Senator Obama's being a sociopath here, here and here. The Manning video is located here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Doesn't this guy (the Pastor), I mean, seem a bit odd to you. Don't get me wrong in US terms I fall neither within the bracket of left or right. I consider the problems way too systemic to be solved by candidates from either side of the 'divide' but given that this guy doesn't really attack Obama on policy but settles for what really amounts to an Ad Hominem attack based on supposition it hardly seems worth posting if one really wishes to make Obama look bad. Having an opponent of this low calibre really rather makes Obama look good. There are some very well written articles that examine what the problems of an Obama presidency might be like based on research and an understanding of policy (Walter Benn Michaels in the New Left Review article was a recent one) or you could take any number of post-Chicago school free marketers who would take him apart based on their belief in so-called free markets and his apparent belief in 'socialism' but this guy. Whereas you have a PhD from a well-regarded school, I suspect this guy has a Billy-Graham equivalent doctorate. It's just my opinion but if you really don't like Obama (and I would say I'm indifferent to him) don't post morons like this railing against him - it makes him look good!
Ordinarily I would agree with you but the propagandists at NBC, the Times and elsewhere have failed to raise ethical and personal questions that are normally applied to vet candidates. For example, no questions have been asked about when, why and the circumstances under which Senator Obama converted to Christianity. Many Americans are unaware of well-documented details about Obama's education in Indonesia. The propagandists' failure to ask questions about glaring biographical details opens the door to Rev. Manning's legitimate questions concerning Obama's character. I have no qualms about supporting Dr. Manning. He is far more ethical and competent than the frauds and cranks at the New York Times. I would add that Obama has been caught in repeated lying, and his glib responses suggest serious character issues that Rev. Manning properly raises and in turn raise serious questions not only about the media's incompetence but the American electorate's as well. One of many examples is his decades-long association with bigot Jeremiah Wright. Obama's first response was to lie, then to minimize, then to disassociate himself from his pastor of two decades. This kind of manipulative deception ought to be the subject of considerable public review. However, you seem to think it's more important that questions about subjects like this ought not to be asked. You once again raise in my mind the familiar question that I have kept asking myself through this election--whether Americans are intellectually and morally capable of functioning in a direct democracy. I do not doubt that you are a moral person, but you are susceptible to the repeated lying and brainwashing by the propagandists. Adams and the other founding fathers thought that Americans are not capable of direct democracy, and I now agree with them. Your suggestion that I avoid asking questions has helped convince me.
Munnki--I would go further than Professor Langbert. "Ad hominem" attacks on a political candidate are entirely appropriate. Politics is not an intellective game that is or ought to be delimited by courteous rules of academic discourse. Rather, a politician is a decision maker who can make real world decisions that help or harm the nation. Abstract argumentation is an inappropriate vehicle for political debate, and I am stunned that you would think that it is.
As well, you oddly believe that because a writer comes from an academically prestigious background they ought to be given more credence than if they do not. The school that Dr. Manning (or Dr. Langbert, for that matter) attended ought not to influence Professor Langbert's assessments of his arguments. Your back-door elitism is probably why Professor Langbert concludes that you evince reasons for the failure of democracy. You have been brainwashed into thinking taht affiliationg with a famous university means anything more than, well, Jack Shitt.
Progressive elites, having convinced the public to eliminate institutional safeguards against tyranny of the majority and mob rule, proceeded to manipulate the mob via control of universities, the media and political institutions. Such control facilitates spurious claims of legitimacy and enables elites to control public opinion. Whether a writer is from the University of Chicago or the School of Hard Knocks has little to say about the content of what they are saying.
In sum, your mode of thinking reflects the assumptions that you have been handed and unthinkingly accepted that certain categories of thought, e.g., questioning Barack Obama's character, are inappropriate. In other words, you parrot the values of political correctness that is fundamental to Progressive power.
Most political debate beginning with that between Hamilton and Jefferson was characterized by raising questions about character and personal attacks.
In closing, I disagree with your claim that the video makes Obama look good. You seem to have already accepted the assumption that no questions about Obama's background or character can be asked, and you resent any attempts to ask such questions. You are not, Munnki, interested in what anyone would have to say about this, and I doubt that you are aware of any of the facts behind this video.
Post a Comment