Replies

That is correct. The problem with listening to Obama is that he does not speak plain English, he speaks lawyer-ese - 24/7 - and he specifically does it for the same reason many lawyers speak it, to deceive without actually stating affirmative lies. Basically, lawyerese plays off of the normal human conversational technique of giving your speaker the benefit of the doubt in order to carry the conversation forward constructively. That means, in many instances, that the audience interpolates the real, substantive meaning of what the speaker is saying, rather than simply insisting on the strictly literal meaning of the words employed. Thus, when someone says, in ordinary human conversation, something like: "go ahead, I'm listening," there is a whole oceanliner's worth of connotation and implication that the listener interpolates into the literal words, so that the statement is taken as meaning something like: "state your case, persuade us what the facts are based on the evidence available to both of us, give us your arguments, apply your arguments to the facts you've found, and I will make a good-faith effort to digest what you have to say, and to accept your arguments if they make sense and fit the facts" - in other words, the speaker has implicitly agreed to be bound by the audience's arguments if they make sense.

Now, look at that same statement through the jaundiced eyes of a lawyer, who will insist on being bound only by the literal, enforceable, meaning of the words s/he employs.

Here's the statement again:

Go ahead, I'm listening.

Now, what is the literal meaning of that statement?

First, the phrase "Go ahead" is almost nonsensical in a strictly literal sense, and basically just means something like "I'm giving you permission to do as you please, and am stating that I will not stop you from doing whatever it is you are going to do." That could be anything from standing on your head, gargling with jell-o, or stating your case.

Second, the key phrase "I'm listening" essentially commits the speaker to nothing more than simply sitting there and giving no more attention than is necessary to take notes, or to be able to regurgitate what was said. It certainly does not commit the speaker to take seriously anything that the audience might subsequently say.

In particular, it also puts no commitment on the speaker to give even the slightest bit of credence or effect to anything the audience might have to say. When Galileo was questioned by the Inquisition regarding his statements on the heliocentric nature of the universe, the inquisitor questioning him could have said the same thing and felt not the slightest compunction about still finding him guilty of heresy, regardless of how sound or logical Galileo's arguments were.

That is how Obama treated the Republicans at the start of 2009 when we gamely tried to get involved in the discussions on whether or not to blow almost a trillion dollars on a mis-named "stimulus" bill that was little more than disguised payola to the union masters to whom Obama and the Democrats owe their only real fealty.

Obama assured us that we "would have a place at the table" and that he would listen to us, which he did; he and the Democrats then simply contemptuously ignored us and went on doing what they had already decided they were going to do - blow almost a trillion dollars on payola to their union masters - without giving even a second's consideration to anything the republicans had said.

That is the game Obama is trying to pull again now. He and the Democrats are going to say a lot of things that are going to sound very much like they are agreeing to listen carefully to what the American people have to say, and furthermore that they will be good stewards and will make every good-faith attempt to implement what the American people say they want. But do not be fooled for a minute, please. If you pay attention - if you are vigilant - and accept only the literal meaning of anything Obama or any Democrat says, you will hear ... nothing ... that is, nothing of substance, no promises to do anything even one iota differently than they've been doing all along.

That is how they intend to try and lull us back to sleep, the sleep we negligently let ourselves fall into after 1994 - the last time we thought that the dragon of American socialism/communism had finally been vanquished - and how they intend to try and seduce us with the soft-sell into letting them do precisely the same bullshit they just spent all of 2009 trying to ram down our throats at the metaphorical point of a gun, a la Chairman Mao.

Please, my friends, do not let yourselves be fooled again. There is an old adage which applies in this situation: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. The Democrats have brought shame on themselves, a shame that the election of Senator Scott Brown has disclosed to the world; let us not now shame ourselves by letting them fool us a second time.

God Bless, and Godspeed in the fight to save this, our Nation, from the devouring maw of socialism/communism.