Saturday, January 23, 2010

When Fantasies Crumble, the Effect is Real (7.03.11)

Beneath all the hysteria on both sides, it's difficult to say exactly what is going on and where it will lead. It would appear that Obama has now crossed the threshold from the "cracking" to the "collapse" stage, which no one should celebrate, any more than one should celebrate when a neurotic but still functioning person undergoes a psychological breakdown. Yes, the breakdown is necessary to reintegrate at a higher level, but even the most seasoned psychotherapist would find it difficult to have more than one or two such cases in his practice.

First of all, we don't have any idea how Obama, whose privileged life as a leftist mascot has shielded him from any accurate feedback about himself, will react to the impingement of reality. With anger? Depression? Vindictiveness? There is simply no way of predicting how such an emotionally immature person will react under stress, and this should be cause for concern to us all. Suffice it to say that he will not be able to handle it with the grace and dignity that President Bush did for eight years.

And equally importantly, the President is not just the leader, but the fantasy leader, and when people feel their organizing fantasies slip away, they experience a tidal wave of irrational anxiety -- the very anxiety that had been "contained" by the strong fantasy leader. Again, despite his economically destructive and self-defeating policies, one must nevertheless give FDR credit for remaining a strong fantasy leader who kept the nation from crumbling into psychotic anxiety. Suffice it to say, Obama is not this kind of man.

In 1994, President Clinton had the good sense to bring in a "group therapist," Dick Morris, who was able to help him make sense of reality and to adjust his policies accordingly. But Obama may be too proud and too brittle -- not to mention, too ideological -- to make this adjustment. But if he fails to do so, it will only ensure further crumbling, and at some point the collective anxiety will turn to rage. Again, the rage may feel empowering to those who harbor it, but few people make good decisions when angry.

In order to understand the depth of Obama's fall, one must reexamine the absurd heights to which he was elevated. Remember, when a man falls, he only falls back to the ground. But if he was absurdly elevated through primitive fantasy, this tends to create a "snap-back" phenomenon, through which the person crashes through the ground. For example, let's say that the person is up in the rarified world of +12 fantasy (which one might think of as a "positive mind parasite"). When he crumbles, he will snap down into -12 anti-fantasy.

This is because the narcissist specifically develops his narcissistic defenses to shield himself from the unconscious belief that he is worthless. This is why the narcissist's defenses are so brittle, and why they so easily cast people under their ever-ready bus. With even a hint that you are not propping them up with idealization, under the bus you go.

Anyway, this post from last year looks at the idealization of Obama, which I said at the time was a measure of his (and the nation's) distance from reality. Will the ground hold, or will Obama crash through it?


*****

Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair.... The tens of thousands of new voters Obama brought to the polls tonight came because he wrapped them in that experience, because he let them touch politics as it could be, rather than merely as it is. --Ezra Klein

A black man with a white mother became a savior to us. A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.... This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better.... If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed. --Calypso Louis

Continuing with our analysis of the Devil Card, our Unknown Friend (UF) writes that the excesses of the left are always "owing to an intoxication of the will and imagination which engenders demons."

For example, if Marx and Engels had merely behaved as good Jews or Christians and "simply defended the interests of the industrial workers without having let themselves be carried away by their intoxicated imagination," then their ideas wouldn't have been so apocalyptically destructive. After all, every spiritually normal person wants to help the deserving poor and needy, but it is axiomatic that helping the human animal while killing the human soul renders any spiritual benefit inoperative for both parties.

Further, as Schuon commented, "Progressivism is the wish to eliminate effects without wishing to eliminate their causes..." To paraphrase him, the leftist wishes to make himself as useful as possible to a collectivity which renders the individual as useless as possible in the process. But,

"one must never lose sight of the fact that there exists no higher usefulness than that which envisages the final ends of man. By its divorce from traditional truth... society forfeits its own justification, doubtless not in a perfunctorily animal sense, but in the human sense. This human quality implies that the collectivity, as such, cannot be the aim and purpose of the individual but that, on the contrary, it is the individual who, in his 'solitary stand' before the Absolute and in the exercise of his supreme function, is the aim of purpose of collectivity. Man, whether he be conceived in the plural or the singular, or whether his function be direct or indirect, stands like 'a fragment of absoluteness' and is made for the Absolute.... In any case, one can define the social in terms of truth, but one cannot define truth in terms of the social."

Moreover, the left always couches their supposed empathy for the downtrodden in fantastically broad and sweeping generalizations of historical "and even cosmic significance, such as the statement that God does not exist, that all religion is is only the 'opium of the people,' [and] that all ideology is only a superstructure on the basis of material interests." UF wrote that in the early '60s, but it is no different today, with the intoxication that fuels and pervades the Obama campaign:

"What we hear from Obama is the eternal mantra of the socialists; America is broken, millions have no health care, families cannot afford necessities, the rich are evil, we are selfish, we are unhappy, unfulfilled, without hope, desperate, poverty stricken, morally desolate, corrupt and racist. This nihilism is the lifeblood of all the democrat candidates.... When Michelle Obama claims she is only newly proud of her country, she does not exaggerate. In her world as in Obama's, they believe we are a mess, a land filled with the ignorant and unenlightened, filled with despair" (Fairchok).

Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic. --Pope Benedict XVI

As UF writes, it is always a "matter of excess -- a going beyond the limits of competence and sober and honest knowledge," which the left never doubts, "having been carried away by the intoxicating impulse of radicalism, i.e., by a fever of the will and imagination to change everything utterly at a single stroke."

It is this fever dream of sweeping existential change that animates the left no less than the Islamists, since both deny the possibility of real spiritual change, which is an individual matter; in contrast, man's existential situation cannot be altered, only transcended.

As Lee Harris has written, a fantasy ideology such as Islamism is obviously not a rational response to the world arrived at in a logical, sober manner. Rather, it is a transformative belief, meaning that its primary purpose is to psychologically transform the person who believes the fantasy. And believing the fantasy is an end in itself -- it has no purpose other than to make the fantasy seem like reality -- like it might actually be true. Therefore, the real reason for 9-11 wasn't actually to bring down western civilization. Rather, it was for the Islamists to deepen their trance.

Likewise, anyone with a basic familiarity with economics knows that leftist ideas don't just fail, but backfire. They cause all sorts of unintended consequences that the leftist never connects to the original policy -- e.g., how the welfare state eroded the structure of the black family, how racial quotas inevitably harm blacks, how rent control causes housing shortages, how subsidizing higher education simply drives up the cost, how socialized medicine leads to rationing, and how the government forcing banks to make bad loans to unqualified people is at the epicenter of today's economic problems.

Now, UF explains that the virtue of temperence protects us from the intoxicating counter-inspiration of radical fantasies -- including religious fantasies, which are not actually religious but manmade. As such, it is foolish to blame God or religion for things that emanate from the lower vertical in man.

UF makes the subtle point that one cannot engender a positive collective mind parasite. This is related to the principle that the mind parasite is an effect of "congealed" or "coagulated" psychic energy. As a result, it always "enfolds," whereas the good radiates. The former is an inward, contracting movement, whereas the latter is an expansive, radiant movement. This may sound overly abstract, but we are all familiar with the ontologically closed world of the left, whether it is their elite university campuses or the myop-ed page of the New York Times. If you approach these things with your activated cʘʘnvision, you can literally experience them as a sort of dense, black hole of "inverse radiation."

Now, why did people respond to, say, Ronald Reagan? For the opposite reason -- the radiant positive energy of which he was a mere vehicle. This only became more apparent when placed side by side with Jimmy Carter's withered and constipated presence.

I suppose the novel thing about Obama is that he is selling the same constipation, but with a kind of cheap and meretricious radiation that one must be intoxicated to appreciate. Indeed, as Fairchok writes,

"That is his appeal; he is [ironically] an actor, a performer, a cinematic presence that stirs simple emotions, emotions that have little grounding in truth. His speeches are the inane lyrics to a popular song that endures only because it has a great beat. One must not think too deeply on what Obama says, for it turns to smoke and disappears in the light of day. Ezra Klein is correct, Obama's speeches do not inform, they pander, they propagandize, they harmonize with the mythology of despair and the chimera of entitlement. As his hagiographies proclaim, he represents a new Camelot, but one that does not hold America quite so precious, a Camelot of globalists, moral relativists and communitarians."

Now, how to drive out a demon? Easy. As UF explains, "Light drives out darkness. This simple truth is the practical key to the problem of how to combat demons. A demon perceived, i.e. on whom the light of consciousness is thrown, is already a demon rendered impotent.... A demon rendered impotent is a deflated balloon." And the most recent Rasmussen survey indicates that this balloony tune is on a flaccid trip from omnipotence to impotence in record time.

As the farcical Marx taught us, history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. But what comes after that? We're still dealing with the tragedy of the New Deal and the farce of the Great Society. No doubt Obama is a farce to be reckoned with, but I see two possibilities. If we divide history into Petey's descending stages of Gods, Kings, Men, Weasels, Beasts, and Chaos, I think FDR would be the king, LBJ the man. Clinton was the weasel. This would suggest that we are about to enter a beastly chaos, from which the only solution would be the return to a new age of gods, or, more properly, God. God or chaos. Vertical Man or horizontal beast. Sounds about right.

43 Comments:

Blogger Leslie Godwin said...

<>

One wild card is what Michelle is whispering (growling?) in Obama's ear. She strikes me as very angry, forceful, and similarly narcissistic and fragile. She may not take kindly to his being devalued or worse, discarded, by those who were the wind beneath their wings.

1/23/2010 09:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...he will not be able to handle it with the grace and dignity that President Bush did for eight years.

And equally importantly, the President is not just the leader, but the fantasy leader...


How unreflective can a person be to put those two sentences right next to each other? I am in awe.

1/23/2010 10:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Well, technically you're in a trance, but awe is one of the complications.

1/23/2010 10:47:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Leslie - good point. I think there's a reason she inspires such a visceral dislike in so many, and I don't think it's really about her looks or her fashion sense. If she had a positive character, none of that would matter. As First Lady, or in a sense as First Mother, she doesn't inspire any kind of warm comfort or affection; people either fawn over her (and it often comes across as being overly obsequious) or they notice that she's about as warm and comforting as a shark. And respond accordingly.

She may not take kindly to his being devalued or worse, discarded, by those who were the wind beneath their wings.

I'm reminded of Serial Mom, except that MO's retaliation would be symbolic. (And for the humorless leftist readers, that's what is known as exaggeration.)

1/23/2010 11:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob and Leslie: With this post you've both really hit the bottom of the barrel. For shame.

Bob, you've maligned Obama to the point of absurdity. How can you possibly know what's going on in the President's mind?

You may be a skilled psychotherapist but you've overstepped your boundaries with this one. Mister, you are way out of line. This is malpractice.

And Leslie, you don't have to ride along. In fact, your job now is to rein in your errant mate if at all possible. Do not feed his grandiose fantasies that he can predict the behavoir of the Presdent from his comfortable perch several thousand miles away.

You are Catholic; Jesus is your mentor. You've gossiped about Michelle in a public forum without getting to know her first; how Christian is that? Not freakin' much.

The Caveat here is that if the President (or first lady) DOES have a vindictive psychotic rage reaction and reaches for the football, then Bob (and/or spouse) is a Seer of the first water and I must eat crow or several crows.

We hall see. In the meantime, I pan this post with a Boo. It stinks to high heaven.

1/23/2010 11:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Bob, that's what you get for saying "there's no way of predicting how Obama will react."

1/23/2010 11:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Julie, I'm dissapointed you would add to this disgraceful discussion which amounts to a girl's locker-room hate and despise session.

I've had it up to my eyeballs with the behavoir of the raccoon leader and his synchphants. Clean it up people.

You all are the front line; you are the officers in God's army. I trust you to lead the less perceptive.

This is not leadership. This is the opposite. Get some respect for the enemy. No wonder they are beating the pants off you all.

1/23/2010 11:36:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

You're disappointed? Wonderful - I must be doing something right.

1/23/2010 11:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

He's obviously spent too much time in girl's locker-rooms.

1/23/2010 12:24:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

I'm starting to think there is a certain type of personality on the Left OR the Right who is simply addicted to anger. Reading comments at Salon.com and Lucianne.com, the politics are practically opposite but the level of virulent hatred and extreme racism (the Left against Jews, the Right against Muslims, blacks and especially Mexicans) is frankly sickening.

I am trying to learn how one can fight leftism (because every raccoon knows that the leftism as an ideology is deeply poisonous and profoundly anti-American) without ending up among the psychotic haters on "our" side. All one has to do is click on any of the mainstream "conservative" sites (what's conservative about this stuff, I haven't a clue) to see examples like the one I just saw. A headline is "Killing Muslims" and it is an article about how Al Qaeda does just that (98% of the people they've killed). Inevitably one of the commenters says that "the headline started out great, buy alas it was about soft-targeted Muslims by Al Qaeda". I would chalk this up to a bad joke, except that it is incessant and widespread. There ain't no way nobody is ever convincing me that genocide has anything whatsoever to do with Jesus Christ. It sickens me.

1/23/2010 12:33:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Increasingly I'm starting to realize that "Raccoon" has much more in common with a currently almost non-existent category: classical liberal (i.e., many of the Founders).

While I feel some affiliation with people who self-identify as conservatives, there are so many horrible people in that category that the overlap may be < 50% for all I know. As for bona fide leftists, the overlap is 0% (obviously not all Democrats are leftists!).

1/23/2010 12:39:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I think it's really a matter of self-governance being prior to any ideology, and that self-governance is rooted in the classical virtues of prudence (or wisdom), temperance (or moderation), fortitude (or courage) and justice.

But the left, since they abolish hierarchy and virtue (indeed, celebrate vice and the transgression of values), need a large state to control the people, who can no longer govern themselves.

In short, in the absence of the interior control that is inseparable from religious tradition, you will invite the external control of the state.

1/23/2010 12:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Jack said...

GB- That definition of self-governance definitely sets off some clarity bells for me. Thank you.

Even during my more lefty days I always knew I had a "conservative" streak as compared to my more committed pomo lefty friends. For one, it has always been clear to me that an fairly in-depth knowledge of the general outline of human thought was a precondition to attempting anything resembling true thought in the first place. Postmodernism is an unintended parody of thought that ironically denies the very possibility of thought.

The leftist I knew/know can often be of the "heigh ho, western civ has got to go" crowd. In that confused mindset the ability to disrupt and often destroy the hard won patterns of cultural learning is seen as the highest achievement.

Rather than seeing our climb out of animal stupor towards understanding as something to delve into, learn from, and be humanized by...and THEN perhaps adding one's (greater of lesser) attempt at deepening and clarifying.

The use of the word "original" has been taken to mean, "unlike anything that has gone before". Forgetting, if so defined, that something can be truly "original" and still be a piece of unmitigated garbage.

More helpful to me is to remember that "original" can mean "of the origin" in the sense of O, and the long cultural response of humanity to O.

With the former approach one runs into a brick wall fairly quickly as one runs out of taboos to transgress. Not that they won't keep trying. And each "success" they gain means a little less humanity to go around.

1/23/2010 01:30:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

I am not a psychologist, but I've notice that both Clinton and Obama were raised surrounded by mother love and starved of father love. The great difference between the two is that Clinton, in spite of his many faults, achieved meaningful success via his personal talents (i.e., academic, campaign and governing success). With Obama, it is not clear that he owns any personal talents but merely represents a shell that others fill with what they wish to see. I thought of this watching his reaction to the MA vote and wondering how he would react. His lack of governing experience lead me to believe he would turn to trusted and experienced others within his inner circle for guidance. But then I realized the only ones that fit that description would be the Clintons, and they were probably reading the MA results as a clarion call for their return to save the party. To complicate his situation Obama suffers from "smartest man in the room" complex. Finally, the conventional wisdom requires Obama must move to the center, but then the only center of the Dem party is a guy like Evan Bayh. Sadly, my feeling is Obama will deny his predicament, blame others, and return to what he knows (mau mauing banks and insurance companies). I don't see anyone in his circle that could help him, much less anyone that he would allow to help him. I believe we are effectively at the end of Obama's presidency. I don't see anyway he can recoup his losses and lead. He will be a token president, followed by an effective president.

1/23/2010 01:49:00 PM  
Blogger Warren said...

>> With anger? Depression? Vindictiveness?

All of the above, I predict - and probably in that order.

1/23/2010 01:54:00 PM  
Blogger Lynn said...

GB said: "Beneath all the hysteria on both sides, it's difficult to say exactly what is going on and where it will lead. It would appear that Obama has now crossed the threshold from the "cracking" to the "collapse" stage, which no one should celebrate, any more than one should celebrate when a neurotic but still functioning person undergoes a psychological breakdown. Yes, the breakdown is necessary to reintegrate at a higher level, but even the most seasoned psychotherapist would find it difficult to have more than one or two such cases in his practice. First of all, we don't have any idea how Obama, whose privileged life as a leftist mascot has shielded him from any accurate feedback about himself, will react to the impingement of reality. With anger? Depression? Vindictiveness? There is simply no way of predicting how such an emotionally immature person will react under stress, and this should be cause for concern to us all. .."

The Madness of King Barack

1/23/2010 01:57:00 PM  
Blogger Magnus Itland said...

A lasting transformation of substance is not easily achieved in the human mind. What sometimes takes its place is a phase change, like when a solid melts into a liquid and further boils into steam. Yet when the energy fades, the same substance solidifies again, likely in a new pattern but of the same nature.

1/23/2010 04:32:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

"And equally importantly, the President is not just the leader, but the fantasy leader, and when people feel their organizing fantasies slip away, they experience a tidal wave of irrational anxiety -- the very anxiety that had been "contained" by the strong fantasy leader."

Made doubly difficult by his basing his 'real' leadership duties on pure fantasy.

Interesting that that position of 'fantasy leader', for those eager to be led, or rebel, seems to be the only one they pay attention to... there are several bushitler lefties I know who just. could. not. respond. to. any factual things Bush had done, and I know several 'conservatives' who respond the same to nObama... there's such an abundance of factual foulness in what he has said and done, I just don't get the need to put him up on the fantasy firing range... but, there ya go.

aninny askes "How can you possibly know what's going on in the President's mind?"

Being that he and ye are leftists, discarding free will and praising determinism, how can you claim that he isn't completely predictable based on the turn of events? Never thought much about your own thoughts, eh?

That's ok, makes your indignation all the more enjoyable and a fun mark of success... in a fortune cookie sort of way.

1/23/2010 04:45:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

NB said "...I'm starting to realize that "Raccoon" has much more in common with a currently almost non-existent category: classical liberal (i.e., many of the Founders)... with people who self-identify as conservatives, there are so many horrible people in that category that the overlap may be < 50% for all I know"

Oh yeah, I'll second that. Lots of good people in the Tea Party movement, but there's a self rating system I let them assign themselves (until experience proves them differently), starting at the the lowest rung, republican, climbing to independent, then conservative, then up to libertarian (careful though, this rung sometimes collapses without warning), and then at the top, the sadly rare identification of classical liberal - fun when you find One though!

1/23/2010 04:54:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Gagdad said "I think it's really a matter of self-governance being prior to any ideology, and that self-governance is rooted in the classical virtues of prudence (or wisdom), temperance (or moderation), fortitude (or courage) and justice."

A big part of my next post, if I ever get to finish the darned thing. That, self governance, and those virtues, have to come first to even be able to get to the point of governing... without that, government becomes less a function of governing than corralling.

There's a reason why the first target of the Rousseau inspired proregressives targeted all things classical for expunging from the curriculum.

1/23/2010 05:02:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Talk about your rage.

1/23/2010 08:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Minister Orr said...

I was referred to you by Cat Dancing. I must say "Thanks" to Cant and "Great minds think alike" to you.

I have fallen in love with the Truth, but from a Biblical perspective. I have made it a point to live my life in such as way as to expose any lies I find completely to reveal the shining Truth of the Son underneath that hides - obscured - beneath them. I'm not so much a religious "churchy" person as much as a deeply Spiritual one. You might just call me a Truth seeker.

I am commenting because I didn't see a place to subscribe to your blog or to contact you in any other way. Please leave me a comment on my blog to let me know how to follow your posts.

Peace and blessings,

1/23/2010 08:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Erasmus said...

Bob,

I think that the fantasy-leader dynamic goes both ways - followers of a leader can be caught up in it, and that leader's enemies can as well.....we saw it with Nixon, with Clinton, and especially with Bush, who ultra leftists demonized relentlessly.....It seems to happening again with Obama. Even though he is/was a fantasy leader with his fervent followers, (vs. the better of two evils for me) the portrait you (and many on the ultra right) draw is nothing short of demonization and caricature. The same is going on in a parallel line with Michelle...If psychology is not to be used simply as a weapon in partisan political warfare (DeMause was a master at this), it must be applied across the board, with some semblance of objectivity....

1/23/2010 09:25:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

I don't see Obama changing much of anything. He'll just obfuscate and give lip service to some sort of jobs, jobs, jobs, progams like hiring you to caulk your own house, lip service to balancing the budget and bringing the deficit down. Meanwhile he'll go under the radar as much as possible to inflict his vision on the country. He's too much of an ideologue not to. Michelle will still be contemptuously saying "Barak's not going to allow you to (fill in the blank)" only more discreetly.

1/23/2010 09:40:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Minister Orr:

In order to follow my posts there is a two part process, 1) come here every day, and 2) read them.

1/23/2010 09:51:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Erasmus:

Suffice it to say, you and I are on radically different wavelengths. Besides, Obama started this feud by decaring war on the Raccoon Nation and demonizing us as bitter clingers.

1/23/2010 10:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Fantasy Leader said...

I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!

Don't they?

1/23/2010 10:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

You're gonna need a bigger fantasy. From Belmont Club, via Vanderleun:

'What if Obama simply doesn't know how to manage things? Can't win a war, can't reform intelligence, can't contain entitlements, can't fix the economy, can't do anything practical? Just like maybe he couldn't manage the Annenberg Foundation or edit the Harvard Law Review? It's no crime, but it means that he will sooner or later either become a figurehead surrounded by Democratic "wise men" or go charging around like a bull in a china shop.'

1/23/2010 10:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a suggestion Dupree old boy; why don't you tell us how you'd run the country?

Who wants Dupree to run the country? Let's see a show of hands, eveyone.

Oh, I see.

Well then, anybody care to hand the Presidency to Bob? Let's see a show of hands.

C'mon, why not? He's a real sharp therapist; I'm sure he could handle it.

Not.

1/24/2010 02:21:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

I'll vote for Bob. No prob.
He's not running.
However, Obama makes the job look easy.

1/24/2010 03:31:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

Ricky -

Gosh, if you had only had the patience to wait two lousy minutes before you hit "Publish"!

But nooooo . . . you was in a hurry to vote for Bob! And so, your chance for "historical consistency" was missed . . . .

Which reminds me -- how come the contest for Best Religious Blog never our way cameth?

1/24/2010 04:21:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

A wise man told me,
"You gotta be fast.

:-)

1/24/2010 04:42:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Two lousy minutes..
Hey! You remembered!
Btw, it still comes and goes..
:-)

1/24/2010 04:44:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Older Raccoons,
How far into the Carter admin before the deflated balloon appeared?
I get the impression we were lucky it wasn't as soon as this current one.
Was Carter's ever inflated to begin with?
We're in for it, I'm afraid.
3 years is too long.
He's going to cause a lot of damage to the dem party over that much time. Even if he goes, "Reagan".

1/24/2010 04:52:00 AM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Queeg gets profiled by the NYT. Kudos to the Times for highlighting what a certifiable paranoid lunatic this asshole is.

As I've said here before, I never liked Johnson even when he was "conservative". I used to post on LGF a lot because of the excellent company (a number of whom are here, including GB himself). I was one of the first regulars to be banned. "Chuckie" Johnson creeped me out from day one.

1/24/2010 05:52:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

They profiled him now that he fits their prefered template.

1/24/2010 05:58:00 AM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Ricky:

Right, but this is no glowing profile of a fellow leftist. Basically they savage Queeg for being an Orwellian nutjob.

1/24/2010 07:22:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

That's their template for those on the right.

1/24/2010 07:24:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

In other words, he may be a leftist, but nobody knows it but us.

1/24/2010 07:27:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

I say "may" because I only know of the guy from here and Gerard's blog.
That's plenty good enough for me, but I don't know him first hand.

1/24/2010 07:30:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

aninnymouse said "Who wants Dupree to run the country? Let's see a show of hands, eveyone."

Poor leftist's... can't help themselves. Borg that they are, they can't help seeing 'self-governance' and automatically thinking 'dictatorship'.

1/24/2010 07:33:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

The Bob/Dupree ticket reminds of that two for one deal back in 92.

1/24/2010 07:37:00 AM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Proof that being gay is totally compatible with being a decent person dedicated to fighting evil:

Hillbuzz

Gay "marriage" is an absurdity as GB has pointed out many times. I find it far harder to condemn homosexuality itself though. The gay people I've known certainly did not seem in any way to "choose" this "lifestyle".

1/24/2010 08:05:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home