DescentBB

Many have called him the Messiah. maybe he's starting to believe it himself

A messiah complex (also known as the Christ complex or savior complex) is a state of mind in which an individual holds a belief they are, or are destined to become, a savior.

It was reported yesterday that the White House has “amended” the biography of nearly every U.S. president of the past century, adding a “Did you know?” section at the end where they tied former presidents’ accomplishments to those of president Obama.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rewriti ... phy-pages/

http://katzporch.com/2012/05/15/obama-r ... y-ht-harp/

Obama had casually dropped his own name into Ronald Reagan’s official biography on http://www.whitehouse.gov, claiming credit for taking up the mantle of Reagan’s tax reform advocacy with his “Buffett Rule” gimmick. My first thought was, he must be joking. But he wasn’t—it turns out Obama has added bullet points bragging about his own accomplishments to the biographical sketches of every single U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge (except, for some reason, Gerald Ford).

just some snippets

Did you know?

On Feb. 22, 1924 Calvin Coolidge became the first president to make a public radio address to the American people. President Coolidge later helped create the Federal Radio Commission, which has now evolved to become the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). President Obama became the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls using Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, etc.

The Presidential biographies on WhiteHouse.gov are from “The Presidents of the United States of America,” by Michael Beschloss and Hugh Sidey. Copyright 2009 by the White House Historical Association.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/preside ... berthoover

Did you know?

President Herbert Hoover signed the bill founding the Department of Veterans Affairs July 21, 1930. President Obama is committed to making sure that the VA, the second-largest cabinet department, serves the needs of all veterans and provides a seamless transition from active duty to civilian life, and has directed his Administration to modernize the way health care is delivered and benefits are administered for our nation’s veterans. First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden launched Joining Forces to mobilize all sectors of society to give our service members and their families the opportunities and support they have earned.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/preside ... droosevelt

Did you know?

On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama Administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/harrystruman

Did you know?

In a 1946 letter to the National Urban League, President Truman wrote that the government has “an obligation to see that the civil rights of every citizen are fully and equally protected.” He ended racial segregation in civil service and the armed forces in 1948. Today the Obama Administration continues to strive toward upholding the civil rights of its citizens,repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, allowing people of all sexual orientations to serve openly in our armed forces. Source: Harry S. Truman Library and Museum

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/preside ... eisenhower

Did you know?

President Dwight Eisenhower established the President’s Council on Youth Fitness on July 16, 1956 (now known as The President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports) after learning from a study that American youth were less fit than European youth. Today the Council is still going strong—with Olympians and professional athletes on board—working in conjunction with the First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move initiativeto help promote healthier lifestyles.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/johnfkennedy

Did you know?

President John F. Kennedy famously suggested the American people: “Ask what you can do for your country.” In 1961, the Peace Corps was created, facilitating service among citizens working toward peace in developing countries. In 2011, President Obama celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps with a Presidential Proclamation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/preside ... onbjohnson

Did you know?

President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare signed into law in 1965—providing millions of elderly healthcare stability. President Obama’s historic health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, strengthens Medicare, offers eligible seniors a range of preventive services with no cost-sharing, and provides discounts on drugs when in the coverage gap known as the “donut hole.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/richardnixon

Did you know?

In 1973, Richard Nixon created The President’s Export Council, which was expanded and reconstituted under President Jimmy Carter in 1979. Today the PEC continues to work towards reaching President Obama’s goal of doubling the nation’s exports by 2014’s end.

I was going to make a post on this but you beat me to it. Amazing what a narcissist and ego centric person Obama is. What your post shows is complemented by Obama stating that the troops in Afghanistan are fighting for him. I guess he forgot the troops are fighting for their country and will do so long after he is gone.

I just have this sinking feeling that he's going to put together another brilliant campaign (I wish he could be so brilliant in his actual presidential duties) and we'll have him for another 4 years... maybe more if he manages to get really super brilliant and convinces the sheeple to repeal the two term limit.

snoopy wrote:I just have this sinking feeling that he's going to put together another brilliant campaign (I wish he could be so brilliant in his actual presidential duties) and we'll have him for another 4 years... maybe more if he manages to get really super brilliant and convinces the sheeple to repeal the two term limit.

The only brilliance Obama displayed was during his first run where a willing press hid his lack of experience and played up a racist card where criticizing him meant you were anti-black. Now the people that voted for him because he was black, have that out of their system and can see what no experience got us. Obama and friends can try their tricks but most people now can see the man for what he really is...incompetent.

Oh great, we have a choice between a guy with a Messiah complex or a Plastic Android man who's a heartless corporate raider with absolutely no principles or scruples (you don't know for sure what he's going to do or even really stands for from his past record) who also wants to take away most of the rights women fought for and won years ago. What a choice.

Ummmm TC, where do you get the idea Romney is against womens rights? From the leftinisto's and team Obama's class warfare ploy?

woodchip wrote:

snoopy wrote:I just have this sinking feeling that he's going to put together another brilliant campaign (I wish he could be so brilliant in his actual presidential duties) and we'll have him for another 4 years... maybe more if he manages to get really super brilliant and convinces the sheeple to repeal the two term limit.

The only brilliance Obama displayed was during his first run where a willing press hid his lack of experience and played up a racist card where criticizing him meant you were anti-black. Now the people that voted for him because he was black, have that out of their system and can see what no experience got us. Obama and friends can try their tricks but most people now can see the man for what he really is...incompetent.

Zip up your fly, your hate-on is showing.

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:

snoopy wrote:I just have this sinking feeling that he's going to put together another brilliant campaign (I wish he could be so brilliant in his actual presidential duties) and we'll have him for another 4 years... maybe more if he manages to get really super brilliant and convinces the sheeple to repeal the two term limit.

The only brilliance Obama displayed was during his first run where a willing press hid his lack of experience and played up a racist card where criticizing him meant you were anti-black. Now the people that voted for him because he was black, have that out of their system and can see what no experience got us. Obama and friends can try their tricks but most people now can see the man for what he really is...incompetent.

Zip up your fly, your hate-on is showing.

Once again a typical TG reply of no substance. Perhaps you should be the one zipping up your fly.

How many years has it been since you've made any sort of commentary on here that goes beyond small-minded blatant partisanship? You're pretty much a laughingstock at this point, Woody, and I honestly don't feel it worth the effort required to do more than quip at you, because I know it'll be wasted. Unfortunately you're not the only person I could say this of, whichi is probably why most legitimate discussion around here has long since disappeared.

woodchip wrote:Ummmm TC, where do you get the idea Romney is against womens rights? From the leftinisto's and team Obama's class warfare ploy?

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/romney-is-go ... od-pledge/

WND wrote:In an interview with Huckabee, Romney was asked, “Would you have supported the constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?”

Romney replied, “Absolutely.”

Well, since he flip-flops on the issue so much and hasn't signed the pledge, YET, I, in all honesty, don't know what he's going to do if elected. But just breathing those words, even if only to secure the love of right-wing Christians, is enough to keep me miles away from voting for him.

So because a person believes life begins at conception makes them anti_women? What does that say about women who believe the same thing?

Top Gun wrote:How many years has it been since you've made any sort of commentary on here that goes beyond small-minded blatant partisanship? You're pretty much a laughingstock at this point, Woody, and I honestly don't feel it worth the effort required to do more than quip at you, because I know it'll be wasted. Unfortunately you're not the only person I could say this of, whichi is probably why most legitimate discussion around here has long since disappeared.

The problem is TG, your perceptions of posters who do not see the world as you see it get labeled as "small minded" and thus not worthy of more than a disparaging one line zinger. Perhaps if you took the time to point out the errors of our post you might help all of us to see the world differently. TC, while a die hard liberal , at least will give well reasoned replies and thus expand our knowledge. In the arena of political discussion, do you expect something other than partisanship and values that the poster believes in?

I expect said values and partisanship to have rational, well-reasoned explanations to back them up, yes. There are many people in this world whose politics I disagree with yet can have worthwhile discussions with, but I don't count most of you here among them. Those days have long since passed.

Lol.

Top Gun wrote:I expect said values and partisanship to have rational, well-reasoned explanations to back them up, yes. There are many people in this world whose politics I disagree with yet can have worthwhile discussions with, but I don't count most of you here among them. Those days have long since passed.

i agree.
it's really really horrible here.

the level of discussion is just... urgh.
anyway, just wanted to come in and signal boost what you said.

Top Gun wrote:I expect said values and partisanship to have rational, well-reasoned explanations to back them up, yes. There are many people in this world whose politics I disagree with yet can have worthwhile discussions with, but I don't count most of you here among them. Those days have long since passed.

roid wrote: i agree.
it's really really horrible here.

the level of discussion is just... urgh.
anyway, just wanted to come in and signal boost what you said.

I'll chime in with further agreement. I've been lurking in E&C for a couple of months, having returned for the rather cynical purpose of seeing what the lunatic fringe (and those were the exact words that ran through my head at the time) had to say about the GOP primary. Part of me was hoping that after many years, E&C would have evolved into or returned to a place for vigorous, thoughtful debate, but that was my hope, not my expectation. Aside from the topic so rarely touching on the election season, up to this point, my expectations were pretty well borne out: E&C has, for years, been an intellectually bankrupt echo chamber whose few voices of dissent fail to make any impact, as they use the same methods as the forum's majority.

Honestly, the only reasons I've stuck around as long as I have, this time out, are Roid's unexpected return and both his and Top Gun's dogged (though clearly waning) persistence in trying to inject some substance into the debate. It's been my hope that they might affect a change in the tone of discussion around E&C that could in turn invite new (and returning!) voices and viewpoints to the discussion, but here again, hopes versus expectations. I expect, and it's kind of bearing out in the very posts that I've quoted, that they're going to get frustrated and tired of the sensation of talking to a wall and bugger off for a few months or years, assuming that they return at all.

If that's the course that Roid and/or Top Gun choose, I won't in the least bit blame them. It might be sad to see the status quo in E&C get that much more firmly entrenched, but that status quo is already dug in so deeply that it's hardly worth the time or herculean effort to turn this subforum into a place of worthwhile discussion or debate.

A wise an would notice the tone on both sides and if you were honest about it you would admit it's the same, either side will flame the other in a heartbeat
If you want civil discussion then give civil discussion. too bad it's always the others guys fault and not your own. we are all for change as long as it's the other guy that does it.. I guess that's what America has become, a country that lacks taking responsibility for their own actions

The only problem with the debate on this forum is, one side considers itself intellectually superior.

Spidey wrote:The only problem with the debate on this forum is, one side considers itself intellectually superior.

Agreed

Which Side

Spidey wrote:The only problem with the debate on this forum is, one side considers itself intellectually superior.

One side has pretty much irrevocably demonstrated that it is intellectually superior, so at this point the ball's in your court to either step up your game or pack it in.

CUDA wrote:If you want civil discussion then give civil discussion. too bad it's always the others guys fault and not your own. we are all for change as long as it's the other guy that does it.

Cuda, the issue isn't civility. Nowhere did Roid, Top Gun, or myself say that E&C lacks civility. Where Roid and Top Gun, and now myself, have taken on an uncivil tone, it has been to drive home a point that doesn't seem to get through, when it's presented in a civil manner. The point I was been driving at, in my previous post, which I imagine is pretty close to the one that Roid and Top Gun have been making, is that E&C is intellectually bankrupt and an echo chamber. (You'll notice I used those exact phrases in my last post, mentioning nothing whatsoever about civility.)

There's about half a dozen people who regularly post here, with very similar opinions on most issues. They post fluff pieces and op-eds and very occasionally skewed and un-peer-reviewed material pumped out by partisan think-tanks, because it supports their position. They don't vet their sources, and if someone else tries to do that for them, the counter-argument is dismissed because it's directed at the invalidity of the source, instead of the so-called information presented in it. If a source of contradictory information with more merit is posted, it's dismissed for no reason beyond being contradictory. The posters think that because they have a link to a piece on the internet, written by someone they feel agrees with them, their position is unassailable.

There's one or two regular voices of dissent, and do you know what they do? They post fluff pieces and op-eds and very occasionally skewed and un-peer-reviewed material pumped out by partisan think-tanks, because it supports their position. They don't vet their sources, and if someone else tries to do that for them, the counter-argument is dismissed because it's directed at the invalidity of the source, instead of the so-called information presented in it. If a source of contradictory information with more merit is posted, it's dismissed for no reason beyond being contradictory. They think that because they have a link to a piece on the internet, written by someone they feel agrees with them, their position is unassailable.

Oh, and god help you if you actually have any degree of education and expertise in the topic being discussed. There's an atmosphere of anti-intellectualism that's so strong here, that the more knowledge you have to offer on a subject, the more likely you are to be dismissed as "ignorant" and "naive". If you post peer-reviewed scientific content in support of an argument, it will be dismissed for being produced by the academic community. Somehow, in E&C, op-ed pieces are supposed to be the pinnacle of source material, and any education you have beyond middle school reduces rather than increases your credibility in your field of study.

E&C is a farce. Whether or not it's civil has no bearing on the fact that it's a farce. Worse still, since I started lurking again, the two people who put genuine effort into elevating the discussion here above that of a farce have been consistently dismissed or ignored.

[addition]

CUDA wrote:

Spidey wrote:The only problem with the debate on this forum is, one side considers itself intellectually superior.

Agreed

Which Side

CUDA wrote:A wise [m]an would notice the tone on both sides and if you were honest about it you would admit it's the same.

What was that you were saying about the problem always resting with the other side; nobody wanting to affect a change starting with themselves, and an absense of civility? It feels like it was so long ago.

Roid and Top Gun joined a number of discussions, offering well-vetted sources, and demonstrated a measure of education and expertise to back up their positions. The people they were addressing responded by changing the topic, making up "facts" with no grounding in reality, and quoting from glorified sources of propaganda. When Roid and Top Gun pointed out the lack of veracity in the material arrayed against them, they were, again, dismissed and ignored. It's difficult to blame them for becoming frustrated.
[/addition]

I'll chime in with further agreement. I've been lurking in E&C for a couple of months, having returned for the rather cynical purpose of seeing what the lunatic fringe (and those were the exact words that ran through my head at the time) had to say about the GOP primary. Part of me was hoping that after many years, E&C would have evolved into or returned to a place for vigorous, thoughtful debate, but that was my hope, not my expectation. Aside from the topic so rarely touching on the election season, up to this point, my expectations were pretty well borne out: E&C has, for years, been an intellectually bankrupt echo chamber whose few voices of dissent fail to make any impact, as they use the same methods as the forum's majority.

this. this is the reason why i'm a sarcastic ass in here.

there is no rational opinion, no balanced thought. only junk. It's passed the point of me wanting to make a serious post because.. why ★■◆●ing bother?


you want us to engage you properly, without us poking you all the time? well it's quite simple really. quit with the op-eds, quit with the hyperbole, quit with the anti-intellectualism and quit with the disgusting partisanship.. and then you'll get something out of us. Until then, we'll just keep doing what we do.

I wish I knew what topics were being talked about exactly.So far all I see is a blanket indictment. I state my opinion based on my observations and thoughts and move on. I don't throw my hands up in despair and surrender. You cal call me a stupid red-neck, I'm only gonna get about 7-8 hours sleep over it. I mean most debates are gonna come down to 2 sides of the same coin. Just because one claims evidence and a consensus doesn't mean much when they have vowed to totally disregard one side of the coin. It seems education has tried to denigrate human beings down strictly to biology and disregard those things that make us unique, and THAT is completely dishonest, and therein lies the gray. I can take that very same evidence and make a compelling argument for intelligent design just as they can for chance and happenstance. I find you people interesting and altogether fucked-up, I'm not trying to change anybody, but I do have strong thought-out arguments based in my own philisophical beliefs.

Top Gun wrote:

Spidey wrote:The only problem with the debate on this forum is, one side considers itself intellectually superior.

One side has pretty much irrevocably demonstrated that it is intellectually superior, so at this point the ball's in your court to either step up your game or pack it in.

Well, when I offered a very educated* opinion in the “fat” thread, both you and vision called me stupid.

*unless you call many years of studying and practicing the affects of diet and exercise on the human body un-educated.

So what’s the point…an educated reply gets the same response as an ad hoc one…

I’m pretty sure there is something else going on here, that a little respect could cure.

Your reply in there had nothing to do with the original point I was making, and you know it.

But yeah, I'm pretty much in full agreement with BlueFlames here. The anti-intellectualism in particular is what drives me insane...if someone actually has some background in what they're discussing, they get mobbed, simply because the facts don't mesh with the other side's personal beliefs. That is such a shitty way to approach debating. For anyone else who happens to also frequent Hard Light Productions, as bad as GenDisc ever got over there in its darkest days, it couldn't hold a candle to this place.

I called your point an excuse, because you omitted the fact that evolution also gives humans the potential to be many things, other than fat.

Cool, you're misrepresenting my point in here too! Let's just re-do the whole thread!

No, better yet…why don’t you go and argue with the easy targets.

Lol, I think we need to define intellectualism

Well for one, it takes more than being educated…it also involves some style and grace.

Blue Flames wrote:Oh, and god help you if you actually have any degree of education and expertise in the topic being discussed. There's an atmosphere of anti-intellectualism that's so strong here, that the more knowledge you have to offer on a subject, the more likely you are to be dismissed as "ignorant" and "naive". If you post peer-reviewed scientific content in support of an argument, it will be dismissed for being produced by the academic community. Somehow, in E&C, op-ed pieces are supposed to be the pinnacle of source material, and any education you have beyond middle school reduces rather than increases your credibility in your field of study.

E&C is a farce. Whether or not it's civil has no bearing on the fact that it's a farce. Worse still, since I started lurking again, the two people who put genuine effort into elevating the discussion here above that of a farce have been consistently dismissed or ignored.

Hey BlueFlames. It's been a while since I've seen you about. In response to the above, I will admit that often-times the E&C discussions consist of people muddling about with the level of understanding they have on any particular topic. This isn't Expert Village, it's a game BB with people from all walks of life. Having said that, when you start talking about education and expertise you're giving your brothers in arms too much credit, and what that may say about you remains to be seen. I've been involved in the E&C for a long time, and one thing I know is that it's pretty easy to tell when you're dealing with someone who really does have expertise or experience on any given subject. The only thing Top Gun and Roid have been "dogging" through on this board lately, is vain attempts at inventing new ways to beat their opponents over the head with the expertise of others, having crowned themselves intellectually superior. While they may have a point to win here and there, it's still a mess. They make the same BB errors everyone else makes, they exhibit the same character flaws while discussing, yet they consider their purpose to be loftier.

In closing, you internet intellectuals need to quit badmouthing the community here. I don't agree with 80% of the stuff posted, and you don't see me stooping to that ★■◆●. The way I see it you all have some maturing to do, or maybe go form your own BB where you are IT.

Edit: To be totally fair I feel my remarks are deserved less by Roid. Mistaken impression or not, I just wanted to throw that in there.

Top Gun wrote:

Spidey wrote:The only problem with the debate on this forum is, one side considers itself intellectually superior.

One side has pretty much irrevocably demonstrated that it is intellectually superior, so at this point the ball's in your court to either step up your game or pack it in.

Agreed

Which. Side

Dont think for a second. That both. Sides. Dont act intellectually. Superior

woodchip wrote:So because a person believes life begins at conception makes them anti_women? What does that say about women who believe the same thing?

Yep. Essentially, Romney is telling women they can't use any hormonal birth control because it could destroy a human life, potentially, even if the hormone use was for other medical reasons. The very fact he's telling women they can't make decisions concerning their own bodies because the state has mandates against using certain medial procedures or drugs based solely on gender, is a step back in time, plain and simple. Being male, you wouldn't understand that.

ya know TC. much as I don't agree with woody on a lot of things, but that 'you're male, you wouldn't understand' crack is just a kick in the nuts. would you like someone pulling a personal shot at you?

Ferno wrote:ya know TC. much as I don't agree with woody on a lot of things, but that 'you're male, you wouldn't understand' crack is just a kick in the nuts. would you like someone pulling a personal shot at you?

Ferno, I stand by my statement and it's not personal against woodchip. It's just biology and the differences between genders. Just as I, a female, can't relate to male privilege, dominance and aggression, neither can males relate to what women go through dealing with that male privilege, dominance and aggression put towards US. A person in a position of power telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body is against a female's rights. Women are from Venus, men are from Mars.

CUDA, one question for you. Which political philosophy is actively fights against and is underfunding colleges and universities because they believe those institutions are nothing but bastions of liberal ideas that should be eliminated?

Either way, no particular philosophy, nor any ideologue that ascribes to one, can be labeled with the moniker of more or less intelligent or educated.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/17/in-searc ... in-america

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:So because a person believes life begins at conception makes them anti_women? What does that say about women who believe the same thing?

Yep. Essentially, Romney is telling women they can't use any hormonal birth control because it could destroy a human life,

Mind linking somewhere he said that?

Top Gun wrote:Your reply in there had nothing to do with the original point I was making, and you know it.

But yeah, I'm pretty much in full agreement with BlueFlames here. The anti-intellectualism in particular is what drives me insane...if someone actually has some background in what they're discussing, they get mobbed, simply because the facts don't mesh with the other side's personal beliefs. That is such a **** way to approach debating. For anyone else who happens to also frequent Hard Light Productions, as bad as GenDisc ever got over there in its darkest days, it couldn't hold a candle to this place.

First off, I think the whole bunch of you are being too dismissive of others over largely style points, not substance. Second, if you all feel that this place is some sort of intellectual sewer, feel free to PM me and I'll give you the addys for one or two spots that make this forum look like a Mensa convention.(CUDA, ya feel me on this point?)

ThunderBunny wrote:

now, THIS is simply ignorant, not to mention completely irrelevant to the discussion. Why bother, TB? Nothing says it like a good, solid lie?

And how would you feel if you got grouped in with that person, just because you happen to agree on some subjects?