Most Revealing

Posted by $ BeenThere 5 years ago to Philosophy
40 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

In his address to the Coast Guard Academy, Obama said the biggest threat to our country is climate change; what does this reveal about his psycho-epistemology?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Sunjock13 5 years ago
    That he is a self serving, worthless, ego-manical, political hack who is capable of saying anything for his long term plan of disassembling the USA as we knew it. I wish he were just an idiot... but he is much more destructive... and learned well from Rube Goldberg.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by samrigel 5 years ago
    Obama appears, on many occasion, to have a bonfide mental disorder. He may also be on drugs of some sort. Whatever the case delusion is central with him. This should give everyone a clear view of those that voted for him, twice, and those that still believe in him.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Mamaemma 5 years ago
      I am convinced he's at least on cocaine, for 2 reasons. 1) how many people do you know who stayed stoned and buzzed throughout high school and college who became non users of drugs later in life?, and 2) look how skinny he is.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by samrigel 5 years ago
        Cocaine is entirely possible but so is Amphetamines. Those that I knew that were buzzed all the time, most are still buzzed all the time. Let's remember it was Bill Clinton that made a sex act not a sex act. So it is again the culture of the Progressives.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Mamaemma 5 years ago
          Very good point. My daughter just graduated from dental school; 90% of the class took Adderall to help them study, and that's amphetamine. She said some of them would have hands shaking so bad they then had to take a beta blocker to stop the shakes so they could treat patients. My point is, I agree with you, could very well be amphetamines
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by cjferraris 5 years ago
    What I find interesting is that if "climate change" is such a problem, why is the solution so one dimensional? The government trying to limit our "carbon footprint" as being the only solution is like a 500lb. person trying to lose down to 150lbs by diet alone. What about plans to repopulate the forests? You never hear of things like that. We have no problems clear-cutting massive amounts of forestry when that is nature's carbon-scrubber. And that is only ONE of the many ideas to reduce CO2 levels. How about the effect of "hot zones" (the effect of the amount of asphalt and other growth in cities) on our climate. This problem is a multifaceted problem, but most of the things that we can do help solve this problem aren't as easy for the government to extort money from and control the populace.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 5 years ago
      I have yet to be convinced that it's a problem at all. A US that's 5 or even 10 degrees warmer, if it happens, would be one where I can take my coat off more often. And I'll bet our grapes will grow better too.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years ago
    The only good thing about this is the slight likelihood that the Coast Guard cadets will be swayed by such discussion when they are called to use a spatula to get Greenpeace off an oil rig.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years ago
    When President Zero says the biggest threat to our country is climate change, and you combine that with the fact that America elected him not once but twice, the reasonable conclusions are some combination of the following: a) that a majority of Americans prefer being moochers to being producers; b) Americans have a guilt complex over racism and slavery that occurred before they were born; and c) most Americans would prefer to blank out rather than to think.

    A may equal A for us, but all three of these possible conclusions suggest that a majority of Americans are in irrational denial. Sigmund Freud would have a field day psychoanalyzing America now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
    One of his former leaders of the Protective Echelon said it was former and present military. You may recall Jackboot Janet II of Arizona. Of course that would exclude the Coast Guard. Jackboot Janet von Flamethrower Reno was the first to use military force against children and infants. Hence the well deserved name. Janet II was replaced for spilling the frijoles. (Border people will get the intentionaql double entendre.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 5 years ago
    I have read the thread of comments, and I think it is worse than that. The chain of events that Obama is postulating (according to some liberal interpretations) is that: Global Warming caused desertification. Desertification caused famine. Famine caused the increase in militant Islamic groups who promised that by Allah and killing rich people, prosperity would return to the Middle East.

    What is unfortunate is that this hits enough buttons with most people that they will support it. It is very much like the 'blank slate' the progressives were rabidly adherent to in the 1970's - the idea that a baby was nothing inherently, but was totally formed by his environment. This 'blank slate' has been disproven in biology but now it seems to have been transferred to politics in that there is nothing inherent in what a nation _is_ that matters, everything they do is the result of circumstance.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years ago
    He must evade the really significant things going on today since he is loathe to deal with them. So instead, he speaks on climate change to the newly graduated members of the Coast Guard. Among all the other things he can be called, he is also a COWARD.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonC 5 years ago
    How about, he's one of them. The goal in the middle east is to destabilized the territories then let them reorganize their own way.

    The goal on ISIS is to let them continue to grow while we go through the motions of upholding the needs of western civilization. In a generation or two Islam will be strong enough and populous enough to take over countries without a shot. Just overwhelm the vote.

    On immigration the goal is to replace, or at least rebalance to groups that make up the population. To usurp individual sovereignty to the point of a "new normal". With that accomplished, what are the chances the population would fight for American Sovereignty? We can now welcome in "One World Order", ...a more sensible way to govern.

    If you meant to fundamentally change America, if you were always ashamed of America as a democratic republic, I'd say the goals are nearly complete.

    The populace could turn things if they learned enough and became active. The big but is if we procrastinate the shear numbers of immigration and Islamic population growth begin to overtake any correction we might contemplate.

    The idea of wealth redistribution is repugnant to me. I would prefer to distribute opportunity and specialized knowledge to the population that needs "help". Give them to tools to affect their own solutions instead leveling the playing field with free groceries and spending money. Having said that, I already know I am considered a knuckle dragging Neanderthal for not caring for the poor. That's OK. I have been poor and I know the solution is a hand up rather than a hand out.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years ago
    Hit the decks a-running boys and spin those guns around!
    Sight in on those nasty global climate doubter causers--
    --and shoot the buggers down!
    (My apologies to Johnny Horton whose "Sink The Bismark) song sparked the above sarcastic outburst).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 5 years ago
    Actually, it's not climate change itself that's the biggest threat, but the so-called "solution," pushed by his ilk, that is. We'll just ignore the fact that he's never taken a course in statistics, mathematics or science, which would prove that the methods of the climate changers is ridiculously sub par, but he can't even ask the right questions, like, "if there's been cooling and warming for thousands of years, without a "carbon footprint," how can one claim that carbon is the problem?" The models that are being used are statistical models, which means that they should be accurate forecasters of the PAST, or they're poor forecasters of the future. Since, in the past there has been NO correlation between cooling and warming, and the level of "carbon," then there is no rational excuse for making that claim about the future. Therefore, the proper question is to ask what he's really up to.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by smichael9 5 years ago
    Can you imagine being the head of any country in the world watching the United States for the past 6 1/2 years? You would be scratching your head and laughing your butt off at the same time. You would wonder why the US had decided to make a 180 degree turn and relinquish its position as the supporter of freedom and liberty wherever it may flourish. You might relish the fact that the US is on target to reduce its military capacity by reductions in funding and demeaning our troops, while increasing an internal armed force (Homeland security and TSA). You might find it laughable when our administration befriends a country with open arms that openly hates us with a fervent passion and has sworn to wipe one of our allies off the map, while ignoring the cries for help from our other allies. All of this should be carefully documented and used in a future class on political insanity if we are still around to hold classes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by KCLiberty 5 years ago
      I am sorry, I must respond, I thought Gulchers were more savvy thinkers.
      "Can you imagine being the head of any country in the world watching the United States for the past 6 1/2 years?" --- Why just 6 1/2 years? I'm no Obama supporter but at least he sounds intelligent. We've been a laughing stock for a couple decades - look at our education and quality of life.

      "You would wonder why the US had decided to make a 180 degree turn and relinquish its position as the supporter of freedom and liberty" --- Support liberty like topple a secular dictator in Saddam, for no apparent reason and no threat to us, while killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and then fund and support and train ISIS to take over? Or, liberty like drone-bombing a wedding? Or, maybe supporting freedom by killing an elected leader (Bhutto) and installing a puppet while we rain bombs on civilians for 10 years after driving the people we were looking for in the first place 9 years earlier, for.....some reason. Oh.....and then there is our friend Saudi Arabia that beheads women who weren't able to stop being raped and where no other religions are allowed to be practiced under threat of death.

      "You might relish the fact that the US is on target to reduce its military capacity by reductions in funding and demeaning our troops" --- The corporate power involved would never let that happen. If you believe that is actually going to happen I have a bridge to sell you.

      "...while increasing an internal armed force" --- With you on that one. Unfortunately it is the war hawks that demand respect for the military and anyone vaguely associated with it, like police, that caused it to happen in the first place.

      "You might find it laughable when our administration befriends a country with open arms that openly hates us" --- You mean like Afghanistan? Or is it Egypt? Wait.....Yemen? I'm assuming you mean Iran, so if by "with open arms" you are talking about sanctions (an act of war) that only hurts the civilian population causing them to dislike us, and the fact that we gave nuclear weapons to Israel, Pakistan, India, etc.... but claim to have the authority over their decisions, than you have a wide definition of "open arms".

      "...and has sworn to wipe one of our allies off the map" --- Ah....and there it is, the mass media story for the sheep. That was never said, not even by Akmand....whatever his name was. No one has ever produced evidence of that. He did say he thought the ruling Likud class of radical Zionists should disappear from the Earth. Good thing we do that very anti-Atlas Shrugged thing and give Israel 10 Billion dollars every year, half of which by agreement has to be used to purchase weapons systems from US corporations.

      How can the US be viewed as anything other than a bully when we sent ISIS into Libya to topple a secular ruler who have gone on to murder Christians and massacre native Africans? Or sending ISIS, and my money used to support them, into Syria, only to leave them to behead Christians and Jews and rape entire villages.

      Here's some advice. Never, ever believe anything on any "news" station, and I do mean any - even the fake ones like MSNBC and FOX.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jdg 5 years ago
        I have to agree with smichael9. We've had not-very-smart leaders before, but Obama makes them all look like geniuses. The only past leader I can compare him to is Emperor Claudius -- and it would be a perfect case of history repeating itself if Hillary follows him as our Nero.

        Jimmy Carter is the most inept president in my lifetime before Obama, and he couldn't rescue the hostages from Tehran or stop the high inflation Nixon and Ford inflicted on the country; but at least he had the right priorities: he didn't institute huge new spending programs (unless you count splitting off the Dept. of Education), didn't snub Britain, France, or Israel, and didn't suck up to America's enemies. Obama has done all those things. What more proof do you need that he's a unique and total idiot?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by KCLiberty 5 years ago
          You are so blind....
          Obama is not running the show. The military industry, large corporations, and their drug dealer the Federal Reserve decide what the president says in public and which country we select next for genocide. Nixon didn't inflict inflation directly, he was told to take us off the gold standard by the Federal Reserve governors.(without any representation of the people, mind you). And, you realize that the hostages taken in Iran was blowback for the CIA/military intelligence fomenting and leading a violent coup and removing a democratically elected leader and installing a religious nutball, right?
          You realize we took over Afghanistan for lithium and opium for the CIA, right?
          You realize we helped ISIS take over Libya because Kadaffi wanted to stop using the petro-dollar, right?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by jdg 5 years ago
            You need to go back on your meds.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by KCLiberty 5 years ago
              Ahh....and there it is. The most basic of logical fallacies, a straw man.
              I'm sorry you are a sheep and appear to have been taught in a public school. Have you even read an Ayn Rand book? The information you have from the mass media is no different than the source of the news in "Atlas Shrugged" or "1984", which you haven't read either.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
        It isn't a 180 degree turn. Former member of a unit whose motto was De Opresso Liber I can't remember being sent to a single country whose leaders were not left wing fascist dictators. Even when the opposition were left wing socialist fascists.Did I forget socialist corporatists in that mix? It's no reversal it's straight ahead and no sign of changing. Only the dates and places and a change to a different form of same old same old.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by KCLiberty 5 years ago
          You are taking the collectivist/socialist point of view. Even if those leaders were "left wing fascist dictators" - the question is: Did they attack us or pose a real and existing threat of killing Americans on American soil?? If not, then we have no business destroying their nation and killing millions of civilians in the process.

          The term "American Interests" is code for corporate/military industry welfare. Read "War is a Racket" by General Smedley Butler, pretty enlightening. That book is not my sole resource for my point of view, but it was an awakening moment. And, Butler by the way, spoiled a fascist coup right here in the US in the 30's.

          And, you throw the term "fascist" around a lot, I don't think you know what that is. It is a financial system. But, as Rand predicted, we live in a fascist system ourselves. We haven't had capitalism in the USA for many decades, we are Mussolini's wet dream. He is the one who said in American it would best be termed "corporatist" - it is the blending of corporations and government for mutual benefit at the socialist expense of the citizenry (we used that term a lot in the Ron Paul campaigns, most people just gazed at us with innocent sheep eyes, unable to fathom a complex thing). Here, debt is socialized, profit is privatized. One only has to look at the TARP bailout to see it. Those who attempted the fascist coup in the 30's failed in the immediate sense, but they succeeded in a long, slow overtaking of the US. Or, look at the billions of public money we give to Israel and others as "foreign aid" - a large percentage of which goes back into the profits of military industry corporations. We also have private prisons which are filled by minimum sentences and the federal governments irrational drug war, mercenary armies for profit used to kill (as in Egypt and Ukraine), and federal education standards. All that points to corporatism/fascism.

          And, in the case of Saddam, Kaddafi, Assad - they are/were secular rulers, ruling peacefully with Christians and Jews, women could go to college, men could go to a pub and enjoy a glass of scotch. Since we helped ISIS take over in 2 of those 3, trying for the 3rd, Christians are beheaded and Jews massacred, girls can't go to school, and alcohol and fun are outlawed. They are now complete armpits of immoral hell and death. Nice work.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
            Fascism - Control of the population by any means and may be used by any system. I take it this some radical reasoning

            Regurgitating by redefining what I said or wrote hardly qualifies and having not been been dazzled by brilliance I am most certainly baffled by the presentation of common knowledge as ...as a global warming method of the bovine persuasion.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo