Childish behavior by Obama?
This picture is taken from the Drudge Report website and the links are there. If Obama used this finger expression regularly, it would be possible to explain his behavior, but the claim is that this is an extremely rare gesture that he has only made on a couple of occasions. If so (and I haven't watched the hours and hours of tapes that some media watchers have), why does he do it when he is congratulating his opponents? Does he really hate his opponents so much and has so little self-control? When he did this when he congratulated Hillary Clinton, I assumed that it was by accident. But now that he has done this also when he congratulates John McCain. This is very strange to say the least.
Labels: Obama
posted by John Lott at 4:50 PM
10 Comments:
Okay it's official. The Right has run out of any substantive criticism of Obama.
Clark - interesting post you have.
Two things come to mind:
1) That clearly the Republicans have had some substantive criticisms for which the MSM ignored as your comment points out that we are now lacking, which presumes that we did and still do
2) That you approve of BO's obvious behavior toward his competition which reflects nothing more than some Chicago thug of which you apparently then would not have issue if McCain had done this same behavior
Thanks for revealing, your self.
Perhaps you and your liberal friends can find the plethora of other instances where BO used this hand gesture so as to eliminate any confusion that he intended instead a disrespectful gesture.
Post all the links so that we can rightly be corrected. We’ll be waiting.
Far reaching decisions will be made tomorrow of which Republicans will end up cleaning up the mess should your "guy" get voted in.
We can only hope that the American people ignore the fringe left who refuse to grow up and act like adults and instead vote overwhelmingly for McCain and put the final nail in the coffin of liberal insane ideology.
Clark,
If "The Enlightened One" wins, he'll give plenty better grounds for criticism than that.
there's nothing ruins a good plan the same way actual events do, and I don't think the big O's plan is particularly good to start with
Brent
Little people do little things, but who knows what Bama thinks.
For the amount of studied evasion during much of his life to conceal who he is, it is hard not to write something onto this "blank slate".
His fellow travelers are the only constant, so guess who he is under the "present" label?
Or may be passive-aggressive? He doesn't strike me as the type of guy that has the guts to go toe to toe.
You guys are hilarious! Especially scooteraz... You're actually asking me to search the web for pictures of Barack Obama giving people the finger? And if I can't find any, that somehow means you've made a profound point? Can you take a step back and think about how completely absurd that is? With all of the serious issues that face this country, you are going off the deep end over a picture that supposedly shows Obama "secretly" flipping off McCain? Please. I'm sure you have more important things to think about. I'm sure we all do.
And do you realize how completely you prove my point? I mean first Lott links to it, which is hardly surprising. Then he provides his own little commentary on how "strange" this is-- and that's a pretty significant thing it self... because except for linking to his own op-ed pieces, he usually just links to someone else's work and throws in a sentence or two of "analysis." Compared to many of his other blog entries, Lott must think that this was a really serious issue.
But to see you get so worked up, and for Lott to post not only your comments, but my comment, and for him to make the original entry while he repeatedly refuses to post, respond to, or deal with comments that demonstrate the factually erroneous and logically fallacious basis of much of his "analysis" shows that Lott's priorities are in taking cheap shots, fomenting resentment, and spreading disinformation in the service of some personal agenda.
Scooteraz, more power to you... keep posting... But don't worry, I can take the criticism.
Obviously Lott can't.
Clark, let me help you out.
A person who exhibits a behavior has a propensity to exhibit that behavior again and again.
In order to objectively review such behavior as an anomaly or as a habit, you'd have to see if the behavior has occurred over time or just the 2 times in question, since it is unlikely that the individual would admit to such a transgression of flipping off his opponents.
Science is understood through observation. Collect the data and then see if the hypothesis is correct.
Of course, typically, emotional people don't even understand the difference between hypothesis and theory, let alone the scientific method for discovery and data collection.
It might do you well before you start popping off, to understand some logistics about behavior.
You respond as if you think you know something when in fact you reveal you know very little.
I love it, scooteraz... Keep posting... Please share with us your expertise and we can see if your going off the deep end is an anomaly or a habit!
Clark,
You seem to think that your arrogance, lofty rhetoric, and straw man arguments are proving something. When you bring some facts or evidence to the table, you might just win us over.
Matt,
"Straw man rhetoric"? Please give me some examples where I have used straw man rhetoric. In case you don't understand the term, it's a rhetorical strategy where one mischaracterizes and/or grossly distorts his opponents' point of view so that he can construct an easy counter-argument. It's a way of making cheap points in a debate and he basis for a fraudulent argument.
I think scooteraz's comments on this post are excellent examples, and obviously Lott is a master at it, but I'd like you to point out where I have used straw man arguments.
And arrogance and lofty rhetoric? Look again at some of the posts on this page, particularly scooteraz's where he presumes to "teach" me about science and observation.
Frankly, Matt, it isn't arrogance when you are laughing at fools.
Post a Comment
<< Home