Psychotic Individualism

[GURPS (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JoeRider

Yea, he was sending me unsolicited messages too. Sounds like he likes harassing a lot of people. Sounds like his meds are messed up.

I usually start a thread in chit chat, and post the PM's putting sun shine on his lunacy and accusations

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

It's been fascinating seeing the co-opting of Lincoln as a path to justifying Obama because even the most cursory study of either one shows, rapidly, how different they are. Lincolns humble beginnings, working for a living, failures in early adult life, his relationship with his practical step mom, all core things that are totally different from Obama and his elite upbringing, his radical mom, his lack of work and his rapid rise in public service.

All of those things lead to who someone is as an adult and there the divergence is even greater. Lincoln enjoyed being around people smarter than he, he sought this. He relied on this to help form his own thoughts. Obama is totally different; he prefers to be, must be, the smartest guy in the room. He doesn't have any of the intellectual confidence of a Lincoln to deal with, let alone respect and learn from, those smarter or more experienced or thoughtful than he.

Obama is a malignant narcissist. A cult. Lincoln was humble and a very benign figure. Where Obama would start a day wondering, enthusiastically, what part of the Constitution he could get around today, much like Bush, Lincoln was pained and deliberate about doing things like that.

It is stunning that anyone would even begin to try and compare the two.

What I think is ironic is their disparate views on what makes us free. He knew government was the reason blacks were in chains, and he knew government would be the reason they would be freed; not because government granted it to them, but because he knew government had no right to keep it from them.

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free - honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless." – Abe Lincoln

Obama seems to believe the opposite. Our freedoms are granted to us by someone else; the government. And even worse he’d not only put all of us in those chains, but turn back 150 years of efforts that set black people free. Obama even went as far as misquoting Lincoln to lamely draw a parallel between him and Lincoln. Obama said:

I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: "That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more." That’s why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and States. That’s why we’re getting rid of regulations that don’t work. That’s why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a Government program.

What Lincoln actually said:

The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities.

There is no lie, abuse of history, or end to which Obama will try to convince Americans government is the answer to all of our problems rather than the problem. And Americans are believing it.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by GURPS

I usually start a thread in chit chat, and post the PM's putting sun shine on his lunacy and accusations

If you ignore him he will go away.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

What I think is ironic is their disparate views on what makes us free. He knew government was the reason blacks were in chains, and he knew government would be the reason they would be freed; not because government granted it to them, but because he knew government had no right to keep it from them. .

That's total crap. Lincoln could not have been clearer;

If saving the Union meant freeing them all, he would do that.
If saving the Union meant freeing none of them, he would do that.
If saving the Union meant freeing some and leaving others in bondage he would do that.

He also said that if he wanted to end slavery, he could not and if he could, he would not. He felt very, very much it a state issue.

We would all do better to know history as it was.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

That's total crap. Lincoln could not have been clearer;

If saving the Union meant freeing them all, he would do that.
If saving the Union meant freeing none of them, he would do that.
If saving the Union meant freeing some and leaving others in bondage he would do that.

He also said that if he wanted to end slavery, he could not and if he could, he would not. He felt very, very much it a state issue.

We would all do better to know history as it was.

How about just partial crap.

I am aware of Lincoln's letter to Greeley. I’m aware that the maintaining the union was his foremost goal. The Emancipation Proclamation was not a states issue. It was issued by Lincoln as an executive order and ordered martial law in succession territories. It was issued only months into the Civil War; before the outcome of the union. The 13th was ratified before the war ended; before the status of the union. Although Lincoln's words might have the union foremost in his intentions, and sacrificing the abolishment of slavery for the sake of the union; in his actions ending slavery was something he appeared to not want to wait for the state of the union. Ending slavery was utmost on Lincoln's mind; I would argue nearly equal to maintaining the union. In fact in his letter to Greeley he made it clear that ending slavery was integral to maintaining the union:

What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union...

And if you note the date of that letter is just one month before initial proclamation.

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

If you take the entire interview in context you’ll hear two themes:

How much Obama is like Lincoln.

The immense importance government is in our lives.

Kushner clings to the belief that government isn’t the enemy, when nearly everything they’ve done (at least) in the past 30 years has been little steps aimed at destroying our rights and the constitution. He claims that government is ‘the better angels of our nature’.

In this, he makes it clear that we are not individuals. He tried to tie Obama and Lincoln into this belief that they rejected individualism that would lead to such evil as individual success and achievement. And because this individualism exists outside of an intrusive government he called it ‘psychotic individualism’. We should not achieve and succeed without involvement and control of the government.

Things we’ll never hear from the mouth of Obama:

Obama is nothing like Lincoln.

Are you willing to give Lincoln credit for his rhetoric even though his actions weren't faithful to it? Whether we think it was justified by a larger moral imperative, no president did more violence to the Constitution than Lincoln did. The transgressions of the Constitution that were to come later were made easier, for some of them perhaps even made possible, by his castration of the fundamental premise on which the Constitution - and the Union itself - was built.

Maybe an existential greater good can justify such an utter disregard for our Constitution as Lincoln demonstrated. If you or others believe that to be the case, fair enough. But let's not pretend that his actions followed his rhetoric when it comes to abiding the Constitution, the notional conception of the United States, and the inherent right of people to shake off government that they believe has gone off its rails. Whatever the reasons, as being sufficient justification or not, he pissed on all those ideals.

If your suggestion is that President Obama doesn't feel bound by our Constitution, and that he doesn't respect the people's right to stand up to and escape from government that's overreached its mandate, then it would seem to me that makes him more like Lincoln not less. Perhaps President Obama is like President Lincoln in some, but not all, important ways; but perhaps that's a bad thing rather than a good one as Mr. Kushner apparently suggests.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

Are you willing to give Lincoln credit for his rhetoric even though his actions weren't faithful to it? Whether we think it was justified by a larger moral imperative, no president did more violence to the Constitution than Lincoln did. The transgressions of the Constitution that were to come later were made easier, for some of them perhaps even made possible, by his castration of the fundamental premise on which the Constitution - and the Union itself - was built.

Maybe an existential greater good can justify such an utter disregard for our Constitution as Lincoln demonstrated. If you or others believe that to be the case, fair enough. But let's not pretend that his actions followed his rhetoric when it comes to abiding the Constitution, the notional conception of the United States, and the inherent right of people to shake off government that they believe has gone off its rails. Whatever the reasons, as being sufficient justification or not, he pissed on all those ideals.

If your suggestion is that President Obama doesn't feel bound by our Constitution, and that he doesn't respect the people's right to stand up to and escape from government that's overreached its mandate, then it would seem to me that makes him more like Lincoln not less. Perhaps President Obama is like President Lincoln in some, but not all, important ways; but perhaps that's a bad thing rather than a good one as Mr. Kushner apparently suggests.

The one thing I can’t even begin to comprehend, on a logical level, is the great people that founded this country thought slavery was remotely a good idea. This is the immense dilemma Lincoln seemed to face in abiding by a constitution that he disagreed with; a constitution that condoned the most brutal policy this country ever engaged in: slavery. And then having to violate that same constitution in order to rectify what was dreadfully wrong with it. Certainly you wouldn’t argue that the 13th amendment was a bad idea. I’m not promoting the idea that Lincoln felt a need to take the drastic measures he took: executive order of the EP, not recognizing state’s rights to secede, going to war over all of this. But, can any rational American today argue that legalized slavery in our constitution shouldn’t have been addressed? I struggle with what I might have done. How do you honor the constitution that sanctions a most horrific practice.

And I’m not sure how this would compare to someone like Obama who has quarterbacked the largest accumulation of power to the federal government since the New Deal (Obamacare). Who aims to destroy ‘liberty’s teeth’ (guns). I can only say that I am living in these times and know what I'd like to see from this current government. I see what Lincoln did as – perhaps – contrary to our constitution, but not contrary to our values. I do not see Lincoln as a power-hungry, overly-ambitious, narcissistic, egomaniac. Obama? He is all of those things; and I don’t see that he holds our traditional values and our best interest, or the constitution at heart.

But I will say that I believe Obama believes that what he aims to accomplish, in his mind, is equivalent to what Lincoln faced. I think he believes that the tough times we face now are comparable and he was brought in to rectify it, as Lincoln rectified slavery. He is going to level that playing field. God put him on this earth to do this. I know he has a good understanding of history and our constitution and sees himself and Lincoln as one-in-the-same. The one thing missing from Obama’s purpose is it is devoid of a moral standing. There is not even a remote moral equivalency between the two.

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

The one thing I can’t even begin to comprehend, on a logical level, is the great people that founded this country thought slavery was remotely a good idea. This is the immense dilemma Lincoln seemed to face in abiding by a constitution that he disagreed with; a constitution that condoned the most brutal policy this country ever engaged in: slavery. And then having to violate that same constitution in order to rectify what was dreadfully wrong with it. Certainly you wouldn’t argue that the 13th amendment was a bad idea. I’m not promoting the idea that Lincoln felt a need to take the drastic measures he took: executive order of the EP, not recognizing state’s rights to secede, going to war over all of this. But, can any rational American today argue that legalized slavery in our constitution shouldn’t have been addressed? I struggle with what I might have done. How do you honor the constitution that sanctions a most horrific practice.

And I’m not sure how this would compare to someone like Obama who has quarterbacked the largest accumulation of power to the federal government since the New Deal (Obamacare). Who aims to destroy ‘liberty’s teeth’ (guns). I can only say that I am living in these times and know what I'd like to see from this current government. I see what Lincoln did as – perhaps – contrary to our constitution, but not contrary to our values. I do not see Lincoln as a power-hungry, overly-ambitious, narcissistic, egomaniac. Obama? He is all of those things; and I don’t see that he holds our traditional values and our best interest, or the constitution at heart.

But I will say that I believe Obama believes that what he aims to accomplish, in his mind, is equivalent to what Lincoln faced. I think he believes that the tough times we face now are comparable and he was brought in to rectify it, as Lincoln rectified slavery. He is going to level that playing field. God put him on this earth to do this. I know he has a good understanding of history and our constitution and sees himself and Lincoln as one-in-the-same. The one thing missing from Obama’s purpose is it is devoid of a moral standing. There is not even a remote moral equivalency between the two.

Before too much time passes, I want to say PsyOps that I agree with much of what you're saying here - I get your point and I think it's an important one and worthy of discussion. I hope to respond to it at greater length as I think you give Lincoln more credit than I do with regard to his motivations, and in particular I think we have different ideas regarding the purpose (from Lincoln's point of view) of the Emancipation Proclamation. That said, he surely faced an enormously difficult situation for which there was no entirely right response, and I don't ignore that reality when I judge the reasonableness of his actions.