David just needs some time alone to sort things out.
“I’m a sap, a specific kind of sap. I’m an Obama Sap.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/opinion/brooks-obama-rejects-obamaism.html?_r=1
Man, just when you thought you hit the bottom of human stupidity. These people were seriously delusional.
Sounds like infatuation.
Loving what you THINK the other person is and not what the person really is.
Oh, Man Up, David. (IF that’s possible, LOL!) Ask any woman - we’ve all been taken in at one time or another by a sweet-talking empty suit, LOL!
No tears from me. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off and get on with it!
Sorry David, he’s just not that in to you any more.
The cold, hard reality is finally hitting these fawning acolytes and they're a laughing stock to anyone with any sense.
“A neighborhood is a moral ecosystem”
Maybe that’s just the reason husseins plans didn’t work out. When the neighborhoods backing you have the moral equivilancy of a sewer, then you commit yourself to swimming with turds.
That right there tells you the guy is a sap. The sort of academic gibberish picked up by a pseudo-student who never finished a legitimate advanced degree.
I’ll bet that Brooks has a poster of Obama on his bedroom wall which he uses as, well, “inspiration” for his bedtime
pleasures.
Mr. Brooks has a problem of writing and voting with the wrong head. What a mental case.
If you read his column carefully, what’s really griping Brooks is that Obama isn’t socking the elderly enough and instead is raising Brooks’ taxes. And here Brooks thought Obama was a moderate. Drat. Fooled by the crease in Obama’s pants.
Yesterday evening I was interviewing Barack Obama and we were talking about effective foreign aid programs in Africa. His voice was measured and fatigued, and he was taking those little pauses candidates take when they’re afraid of saying something that might hurt them later on.
Out of the blue I asked, “Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr?”
Obama’s tone changed. “I love him. He’s one of my favorite philosophers.”
So I asked, What do you take away from him?
“I take away,” Obama answered in a rush of words, “the compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away ... the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism.”
My first impression was that for a guy who’s spent the last few months fund-raising, and who was walking off the Senate floor as he spoke, that’s a pretty good off-the-cuff summary of Niebuhr’s “The Irony of American History.” My second impression is that his campaign is an attempt to thread the Niebuhrian needle, and it’s really interesting to watch.
....
Obama impressed Brooks because he knew who Reinhold Niebuhr was and could summarize his thinking more or less accurately in a few sentences.
Time was, you'd expect someone with a teaching job in a major law school would be able to do that handily, since Neibuhr was an important intellectual figure a few generations back, but Brooks was completely blown away.
Or maybe not entirely blown away. The column ends:
Finally, more than any other major candidate, he has a tendency to see the world in post-national terms. Whereas President Bush sees the war against radical Islam as the organizing conflict of our time, Obama sees radical extremism as one problem on a checklist of many others: global poverty, nuclear proliferation, global warming. When I asked him to articulate the central doctrine of his foreign policy, he said, “The single objective of keeping America safe is best served when people in other nations are secure and feel invested.”
That’s either profound or vacuous, depending on your point of view.
Either profound or vacuous. I guess Brooks couldn't help feeling there was some profundity there in spite of himself, and maybe now he'd be more secure about labeling it vacuous.
What is it with Obama and legs? One sycophant gets a tingle up his and another admires his crease.
So are the ones who gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. How did that work out? Not! Those with a man-crush on Obama follow their heart, not their brains. Idiots, all.
Where is the evidence for this statement with the exception of his "perfectly creased pants"? I have never seen Obama debate and discuss Constitutional law, the process of jurisprudence in this nation as practiced verses constitutional law, nor have I ever even once heard Obama say he is the steward of our Constitution or even anything resembling that.
Obama may be an intellect of astounding heights and insight and knowledge. He has demonstrated nothing in public that can confirm such intellect. In public he has demonstrated repeatedly the corruption of Chicago politics and he plays it well and viciously. He may be the intellect that Brooks attributes to him, he has only demonstrated Chicago political thuggery.
I evaluate a man on his actions and not his image written by sycophants of the left. The only actions he has demonstrated to me is Chicago thuggery and political and fiscal corruption that is the "Chicago Way."