Is the president a punk?

Discussion in 'The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr' started by satellite66, Oct 5, 2009.

  1. satellite66

    satellite66 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,066
    Location:
    Central NJ
    October 05, 2009
    Did We Elect a Beta Male As President?
    By Greg Lewis
    We're all somewhat familiar with the body language dogs display when they greet each other. The dominant alpha male approaches directly, asserting his authority, while the beta male genuflects, crouches, tucks his tail, and may even end up on his back, exposing his neck in acquiescence, making sure the alpha male knows he has no intention of challenging him. With his "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist" opening to the world's dictators, the President is exhibiting classic beta male behavior, in essence rolling over on his back and exposing his throat to them to make sure they know he has no intention of challenging their authority.

    Of course, the problem is that he's not simply exposing his throat, he's exposing America's collective throat, sending the message that he's a typical beta male intent on submitting to all the alpha male leaders around the world, and damn the consequences. His response to the discovery of Iran's newest, and heretofore "secret," nuclear facility was, as Daniel Henninger (Wall Street Journal, October 1, 2009) points out, to have our State Department offer to start a direct dialogue with the tyrannical Burmese regime.

    The Obama administration has also offered conciliatory gestures to the genocidal Sudanese leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir, and it has dispatched none other than John Kerry to meet with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. This, of course, is not to mention his somewhat more visible overtures to the world's alpha male thugs: Obama has consorted jovially with Hugo Chavez and his counterpart Daniel Ortega, he's bowed down to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, he's agreed to halt plans to install a missile defense system in eastern Europe to placate Vladimir Putin, and he's offered the aforementioned hand to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, despite the latter's expressed unwillingness to even agree to acknowledge the truly important issue of Iran's nuclear weapons in our talks, all quintessential beta male behaviors.

    While we've all been seeking a political rationale for the president's actions, his behavior goes beyond the political to something deeper and more personal: like all beta males, Barack Obama simply does not have the temperament to confront tyrannical alpha males around the globe. In this light, even his inability to work with American allies Gordon Brown and Nikolas Sarkozy is a function of his being incapable of facing down the world's tyrants: to cooperate with our allies would require Obama to display alpha male behaviors, including demonstrating courage, something he's simply not capable of doing. The president's beta-male proclivities are arguably putting the safety of his constituents, the citizens of our country, in serious jeopardy.

    Another cue to this unfortunate character trait of the president's can be found in the lack of assertiveness of his oratorical style. While many people insist that Barack Obama is a wonderful speaker, in fact, he exhibits less emotional range when he addresses a crowd than his predecessor, George W. Bush, did. He may have better speechwriters than W, but his delivery is monotonic and his cadences clipped, both signs of a beta male, unsure of himself, putting his words out there more for the purpose of seeking approval than of providing leadership.

    The president's characteristic head tilt when he's speaking to an audience or having to deal with a tough question when he's being interviewed (although there are certainly very few instances of his having to do this) is another sign of submissive behavior. It crops up less than a minute in during an interview with Fox News's Bill O'Reilly (YouTube - Barack Obama Interview With Bill O'Reilly Sept 4, 2008 - FNC ) in answer to O'Reilly's question, "Do you believe we're in a war on terror?" After an initial "Absolutely," the Candidate begins to hedge, his head tilts as he explains the difficulty in sorting out the good guys from the bad guys in the Middle East. Like beta males everywhere, Obama is not about to commit to words that he might have to back up with assertive action.

    Being a beta male is all about developing strategies for deflecting aggression, and for this reason, beta males do have an important place in society. Within the confines of a social unit, beta-male behavior can help to defuse aggression and maintain domestic peace. But in a world where other nations' alpha-male leaders are constantly probing for even the smallest signs of weakness, having a beta male president has thrown into stark relief the dangers to which this president's unfortunate character trait is exposing his country.

    To return to the canine metaphor: It's the height of folly to think that other nations won't be doing everything they can to make President Obama their bitch.


    Link
  2. kingchip

    kingchip New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Messages:
    541
    Location:
    Marble Falls, Texas
    Well stated. Kinda makes me want to sing kumbaya so everybody likes us.
  3. satellite66

    satellite66 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,066
    Location:
    Central NJ
  4. 45nut

    45nut Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,467
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Now THAT was a funny cartoon.

    Uh....yeah, he is certainly not an Alpha male, unless of course he is thinking about us Right Wing Domestic Terrorists.
  5. oldogy

    oldogy New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    East TN
    We can see hobama for what he is. I am certain the world leaders see him for what he is, as they rejoice. Too bad the voters could not see him for what he is.
    oldogy, who fears for America
  6. Terry_P

    Terry_P New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,513
    Location:
    NH
    Charles Krauthammer's editorial in this past Sundays paper:

    "President Obama, I support the Americans' outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing."

    - French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sept.24

    When France chides you for appeasement, you know you're scraping bottom. Just how low we've sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration's satisfaction when Russia's president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the U.N., that "sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable."

    You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as The Washington Post inconveniently pointed out, President Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions.

    Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority - and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.

    Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran's nuclear program - whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.
    Don't take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama's naivete. On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

    Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

    Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports Le Monde, Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later - in Pittsburgh. I've got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber, it is not.

    Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports The New York Times citing "White House officials," did not want to "dilute" his disarmament resolution "by diverting to Iran."

    Diversion? It's the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?

    Yes. And from Obama's star turn as planetary visionary: "The administration told the French," reports The Wall Street Journal, "that it didn't want to `spoil the image of success' for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N."

    Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself. At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that "we live in a real world, not a virtual world."

    He explained: "President Obama has even said, `I dream of a world without (nuclear weapons).' Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite."

    Sarkozy's unspoken words? "And yet, sacre bleu, he's sitting on Qom!"

    At the time, we had no idea what Sarkozy was fuming about. Now we do. Although he could hardly have been surprised by Obama's fecklessness. After all, just a day earlier in addressing the General Assembly, Obama actually said, "No one nation can dominate another nation." That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that "alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War" in fact "make no sense in an interconnected world." NATO, our alliances with Japan and South Korea, our umbrella over Taiwan, are senseless? What do our allies think when they hear such nonsense?

    Bismarck is said to have said: "There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America." Bismarck never saw Obama at the U.N. Sarkozy did.
  7. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    It's like I told my mother when I first heard what Sarkozy said about Barry at the UN. It's pretty bad when the FRENCH have more balls than we do:eek::eek:
  8. oldogy

    oldogy New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    East TN
    Rush read it Monday, 5th on his show at 13:45 hours. True.
    oldogy
  9. Hardballer

    Hardballer New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    471
    Location:
    Smack dab in da middle
    Was that a rhetorical question?
  10. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,719
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    When I see the word "punk" I think of someone that shoots off his mouth but can't back it up. I'd say Afghanistan is a pretty good example of Obozo shooting off his mouth.

    Remember during the campaign how after his endless hammering of George Bush about Iraq he said that he felt all along that the place we should have been was Afghanistan. That was a war he could believe in. He pretty much made a promise to the American people that "he" would get Bin Laden.

    So what does he do when his top commander asks for more troops? "Well gee, i don't know, we have to think this over and decide if we really wanna be there". BINGO.. There ya go..that's being a PUNK.
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2009
  11. GunHugger

    GunHugger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,472
    Location:
    SW PA
    YES...he's a punk and a communist too.

    [​IMG]
  12. Terry_P

    Terry_P New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,513
    Location:
    NH
    I suspect McChrystal will resign if he doesn't get the 30,000 additional troops he requested. By going public he puts BO between a rock and a hard place and either way BO turns will be a groin kick to him.
  13. Teejay9

    Teejay9 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,257
    Location:
    Southwest Corner of the US, "Where no stinking fen
    A real pushover. Biden said he'd be tested, and he was right. I don't think B-rock has the slightest idea about foreign policy except to apologize for being American. The only positive foreign policy he has accomplished so far is to let the Navy sharpshooters kill the Somali "pirates." Where he found the cajones to do even that is beyond me. Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad don't seem too worried. They should sent for the big ugly mean one, Michelle. I bet she could kick some butt. TJ
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2009
  14. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    He's a punk, a douchebag, a liar, a racist, a race baiter, a crook, a scumbag, a facist, a socialist, a marxist, a communist, a radical, a narcisist, an egotist, a megalomaniacal wannabe dictator, a statist, a globalist, and a puppet of shadowy George Soros-types. Did I miss any?
  15. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    Yep!

    #1

    He's a wimp.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr The president and first lady celebrate 9-11... Monday at 2:20 PM
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr THIS Is Our President ..... ? Aug 17, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Worst President since WWII Jul 2, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr NAACP President Supports Banning Employers from Asking About Criminal Backgrounds May 18, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: For the 'First Time Our History We Have a President Who Is an Outright Coward May 2, 2014

Share This Page