Obama's narcissistic personality disorder

[Merc14]

Recently Obama went on Reverend Al's radio show saying the following:

"Well, look, here's the bottom line," said Obama, "We've got a tough map. A lot of the states that are contested this time are states that I didn't win. And so some of the candidates there, you know, it is difficult for them to have me in the state because the Republicans will use that to try to fan Republican turn-out. The bottom line is, though, these are all folks who vote with me. They have supported my agenda in Congress. They are on the right side of minimum wage. They are on the right side of fair pay. They are on the right side of rebuilding our infrastructure. They're on the right side of early childhood education.

Oww. Now I know the man isn't the smartest guy around but he had to know that this was exactly what democrats do NOT want to hear coming from his mouth. This had to be out of spite, frustration, anger at being spurned etc. all turned up to scalding by what I consider is a raging narcissistic personality disorder.

Narcissistic personality disorder is defined by the Mayo Clinic as:

Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

Narcissistic personality disorder is one of several types of personality disorders. Personality disorders are conditions in which people have traits that cause them to feel and behave in socially distressing ways, limiting their ability to function in relationships and in other areas of their life, such as work or school.

Its symptoms include:

Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by dramatic, emotional behavior, which is in the same category as antisocial and borderline personality disorders.

Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:

• 
  
  Believing that you're better than others
  
  
• 
  
  Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
  
  
• 
  
  Exaggerating your achievements or talents
  
  
• 
  
  Expecting constant praise and admiration
  
  
• 
  
  Believing that you're special and acting accordingly
  
  
• 
  
  Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings
  
  
• 
  
  Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
  
  
• 
  
  Taking advantage of others
  
  
• 
  
  Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
  
  
• 
  
  Being jealous of others
  
  
• 
  
  Believing that others are jealous of you
  
  
• 
  
  Trouble keeping healthy relationships
  
  
• 
  
  Setting unrealistic goals
  
  
• 
  
  Being easily hurt and rejected
  
  
• 
  
  Having a fragile self-esteem
  
  
• 
  
  Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional
  
  

Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence or strong self-esteem, it's not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence and self-esteem into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal. In contrast, people who have healthy confidence and self-esteem don't value themselves more than they value others.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/definition/CON-20025568

From Blood Feud by Ed klein, Clinton has this to say about Obama:

“Recently, I’ve been hearing a different scenario from state committeemen,” Clinton said. “They say he’s looking for a candidate who’s just like him. Someone relatively unknown. Someone with a fresh face.

“He’s convinced himself he’s been a brilliant president, and wants to clone himself — to find his Mini-Me.

Democrats complain that Obama is out of touch and too aloof. In 2006 Obama put his biggest fan, Maureen Dowd of the NY Times, on notice to not talk about his ears anymore and was quite angry about it. Dowd was taken aback and said we just want to toughen you up. She found it very strange for a candidate to be so sensitive about such an obvious thing but still supported him.

There are a lot more examples

[Taun]

Personally I think there has to be something wrong with a person to even want the danged job... The best you can ever hope for is to be hated by merely half the population...

That being said, I believe that this article is correct...

Edited October 22, 2014 by Taun

[Merc14]

Personally I think there has to be something wrong with a person to even want the danged job... The best you can ever hope for is to be hated by merely half the population...

That being said, I believe that this article is correct...

To be honest it isn't an article, it is just me ruminating after hearing audio of his statement yesterday. I was amazed and it seemed so obvious that he is very p***ed off about being shoved aside by his party and was striking back like a petulant child. Of course, it could've been a gaffe, one of many this guy makes when speaking off the cuff but I don't think so.

[Jeremiah65]

Well, there is no doubt in my mind there is definitely an ego issue....I think he truly believed he was going to change the world...he has def done some changes...but they have not been so great!

I admit, I agree with the infra-structure topic and I always have. To my mind's eye, this is why we have a GOV to begin with...to do the things we need to get done. We need our bridges fixed, we need our roads improved/expanded, we need better water management and delivery systems...etc...etc...etc.

The stimulus package was a huge failure..."shovel ready jobs" my @ss. They only thing that was ready for a shovel was all the bullsh!t they were piling up. The "cronies" gobbled up giant amounts of money to re-blacktop roads...oh yeah...that went really well for a couple folks but everyone else got shafted...

There is little this administration has done that I agree with and yet it feels everyone should be falling to their knees in thanks and praise....

Edited October 22, 2014 by Jeremiah65

[DanteHoratio]

yeah, I think your right. I can see that he is narcissistic. Which does worry me alittle.

[Merc14]

Well, there is no doubt in my mind there is definitely an ego issue....I think he truly believed he was going to change the world...he has def done some changes...but they have not been so great!

I admit, I agree with the infra-structure topic and I always have. To my mind's eye, this is why we have a GOV to begin with...to do the things we need to get done. We need our bridges fixed, we need our roads improved/expanded, we need better water management and delivery systems...etc...etc...etc.

The stimulus package was a huge failure..."shovel ready jobs" my @ss. They only thing that was ready for a shovel was all the bullsh!t they were piling up. The "cronies" gobbled up giant amounts of money to re-blacktop roads...oh yeah...that went really well for a couple folks but everyone else got shafted...

There is little this administration has done that I agree with and yet it feels everyone should be falling to their knees in thanks and praise....

Bridges, roadways and underground infrastructuire should've been addressed with that money. We should've also addressed our way out of date ellectrical grid. Instead of thatthey bailed the unions out which is akin to flushing it down teh toilet and our now pumping borrowed money into teh economy to hold off the coming recession. With all the bad news, however, Obama still, bizarrely, clais to be one of the best presidents ever. http://news.yahoo.com/60-minutes-edits-obama-claim-fourth-best-president-133404689.html

[Yamato]

Can we get a professional diagnosis here or are we just gonna wing it with the brilliant partisan political analysis as usual? Nevermind, don't answer that. Stupid question.

After all, he's not an American, he's an African, he's a Muslim, he doesn't have a birth certificate, his wife is a man, he didn't put his hand on his heart, he cut funding to Medicare.

He's not blowing up another war in Iraq against our new fashioned enemy in the region ISIS.

And 50+% of the real problem here, just look at him!

[Yamato]

Bridges, roadways and underground infrastructuire should've been addressed with that money. We should've also addressed our way out of date ellectrical grid. Instead of thatthey bailed the unions out which is akin to flushing it down teh toilet and our now pumping borrowed money into teh economy to hold off the coming recession. With all the bad news, however, Obama still, bizarrely, clais to be one of the best presidents ever. http://news.yahoo.co...-133404689.html

I'll do a lot better than that. Take that money, beat it out of your politicians hands too, with a purse or a club or a rifle butt, and give it back to the taxpayers, and stop listening to people like you tell people like us what to do with our own money.

[Jeremiah65]

I'll do a lot better than that. Take that money, beat it out of your politicians hands too, with a purse or a club or a rifle butt, and give it back to the taxpayers, and stop listening to people like you tell people like us what to do with our own money.

Yeah!....f@%k roads and bridges! Lets go back to paths through the forest that a billy goat can't traverse....that'll really help with moving products and services...

Infrastructure and defense is the ONLY thing I expect from gov...so...yeah...I'll take it...if you don't want to pay for it...stop using it.

[Yamato]

Yeah!....f@%k roads and bridges! Lets go back to paths through the forest that a billy goat can't traverse....that'll really help with moving products and services...

Infrastructure and defense is the ONLY thing I expect from gov...so...yeah...I'll take it...if you don't want to pay for it...stop using it.

Need a bridge? Why do you need Washington DC to build it for you? The same question applies to everything else we can discuss that you also may want here too, btw. As soon as we identify something we'd like to have, what's inherently excusable about infrastructure?

Democrats and health care. Hell we all need health care. It's the exact same lame as republicans and their talking-about-bridges and building oil pipelines instead.

"Defense". Love that word. What a joke. Like bridges, what kind of "defense" do you expect from the fedgov, exactly? You want to go defend Iraq? You want to defend some random religious sect of Islam as soon as the music stops and they all sit down again so we know which puppet is in what seat? We going to defend someone else's nation again instead of our own? We going to mire our nation down in politics so we're on the hook for our "friends" problems? Is that the "defense" you're looking for? After 30+ years of shat foreign policy, using the word "defense" in a vacuum can mean anything. So I have to ask.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Yamato

[Yamato]

Is it like Fess's idea of "defense"? A military budget 3x bigger than any other nation's, and why? To defend us from "anything that could happen".

And then he proceeds to lecture me about small govt. Sorry but someone who wants to defend me from anything that could happen isn't "defending" anything.

[Jeremiah65]

I didn't say DC needs to be behind it...I said the GOV. Years ago we decided to pool our money together (taxes) to get things done we need to get done...I put roads, bridges and infrastructure on that list as we all benefit from it.

Defense...as in national defense...border protection from invasion...that's basically it. I understand the diplomatic ideology behind some of what we do, but I don't necessarily agree with it. Sometimes...you stand on your own two feet or you get knocked over...it gets really complicated and I understand that...

I would prefer a more isolationist position...not completely removed but not necessarily the main driver either. I wouldn't really want to stand back and let someone bulldoze Europe...but I think we often get way-way to involved in things that should be none of our business...aka...the Syrian Civil war.

We got pulled into that crap even though the average citizen here said "hell no!"...but they figured out a way to get us involved anyway...allow me to introduce "ISIS"...the new middle east boogeyman that must be destroyed. Yep, they are ugly and do ugly things and they drug us right into it...so there you have it.

I am not totally against a lot of things...I would prefer to see some moderation and temperance. I hate to see waste and abuse...but that is just my rantings for the day.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Jeremiah65

[F3SS]

Whoa! That came from left field. I don't lecture anyone thank you. Simply applying my proposed military budget would in itself be a cut in government. Eliminating waste, fraud, abuse and all of the unconstitutional meddling is a perfectly logical vision of small government. Just who is it that is supposed to maintain the bridges on interstate highways? I know I know, the feds shouldn't own any highways but how do you propose twenty states efficiently cooperate on building them in the first place? What if one state doesn't want the responsibility of the highway? The problem then shifts to the state above or below to keep the road contiguous and that's not fair to shift the burden on that state. Nor would it be efficient. That is why having one entity oversee such a matter is necessary. Surely you don't propose privatized roads. That would be a mess on so many fronts. I thought of it once and thought it was a good idea so I looked into it. I became convinced that it was an awful idea.

You get worse over time. You are borderline anarchist. There is not one single thing that you find acceptable about the existence of government. Not one. You're so bad anymore that you actually have me, Merc and Jerimiah speaking of the merits of government! WTF?!

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Honestly, with the exception of "defence" everything you talk about could be handled by state governments.

It's in the state's best interest that roads are maintained to a certain standard.

It's in the state's best interest that the population is healthy and educated.

And so on and so forth.

Australia needs a Federal government because we're too diffuse a population. America OTOH where there are CITIES with more people then the population of Australia doesn't need an over-arching government keeping everything together, the fact that you're neighbours and you need each other will do that for you.

[F3SS]

Best interest is subjective. Perhaps 90% of traffic using an interstate highway is only using it to pass through. That's probably great for the destination states but leaves little incentive for the pass through state to give a hoot wether the road is in good condition. If they're only getting 10% of the commerce then why would they care to maintain 100% of the road? Right? Right.

[F3SS]

The interstates are a national interest and therefore a federal responsibility IMO. All other roads are state and local interests and therefore are state and local responsibilities.

What I mean is that nobody is asking DC to maintain my cities roads as you eluded to.

Edited October 22, 2014 by F3SS

[Yamato]

I didn't say DC needs to be behind it...I said the GOV. Years ago we decided to pool our money together (taxes) to get things done we need to get done...I put roads, bridges and infrastructure on that list as we all benefit from it.

Defense...as in national defense...border protection from invasion...that's basically it. I understand the diplomatic ideology behind some of what we do, but I don't necessarily agree with it. Sometimes...you stand on your own two feet or you get knocked over...it gets really complicated and I understand that...

I would prefer a more isolationist position...not completely removed but not necessarily the main driver either. I wouldn't really want to stand back and let someone bulldoze Europe...but I think we often get way-way to involved in things that should be none of our business...aka...the Syrian Civil war.

We got pulled into that crap even though the average citizen here said "hell no!"...but they figured out a way to get us involved anyway...allow me to introduce "ISIS"...the new middle east boogeyman that must be destroyed. Yep, they are ugly and do ugly things and they drug us right into it...so there you have it.

I am not totally against a lot of things...I would prefer to see some moderation and temperance. I hate to see waste and abuse...but that is just my rantings for the day.

I suppose if the government must do something it might as well build roads. And yet, color me crazy but I think that the free market can make infrastructure a lot cheaper by the ton. Not that governments shouldn't-ever finance infrastructure but shouldn't that be a spending program more local than Washington DC?

[Bama13]

The interstates are a national interest and therefore a federal responsibility IMO. All other roads are state and local interests and therefore are state and local responsibilities.

What I mean is that nobody is asking DC to maintain my cities roads as you eluded to.

What about US highways like US 231 and US Route 66?

[F3SS]

What about US highways like US 231 and US Route 66?

What about them? I don't know what you're asking.

[F3SS]

I wouldn't argue that the free market couldn't do roads cheaper and more efficiently, at first, but there's a lot of what if's.

What if a singular person owned an important road or a bunch of roads or any road for that matter as most roads are important to somebody. Now what if that person dies, goes to jail or just doesn't care anymore or goes broke? What if their family doesn't care either or they have no family or the family is forbidden from owning the roads? There's a million complications there. The big complication after those what if's is who maintains the road? Not just anybody can or will be able to aquire ownership of those roads which brings up the prelude problem to privatized roads... Tolls. Every road would have a toll. How else does the private entity who owns the road afford the maintnence? Is that something you'd want. What other incentive is there to owning a road in the first place? You think there's problems with profiteering now!? Private roads aren't looking to good. Let's not forget about discrimination. While I'm the first to point out that discrimination is overhyped I'm not dumb enough to believe it doesn't exist. No blacks, no whites, no gays admitted on this road says the bigot who owns it. Discrimination laws be damned, that'll happen.

Let's just assume private roads become a thing. After all of the what if's and the problems they lead to become an issue who do you think people are going to look to to fix the problem? Governments. Local, state and federal according to the circumstance. Honestly, I wouldn't know who else to turn to. Ultimately, the government will by force and by necessity end up acquiring so many private roads by eminent domain, or whatever term fits more properly, that things will end up right back to how it is today.

Can anyone dispute this?

Edited October 24, 2014 by F3SS

[Yamato]

We got pulled into that crap even though the average citizen here said "hell no!"...but they figured out a way to get us involved anyway...allow me to introduce "ISIS"...the new middle east boogeyman that must be destroyed. Yep, they are ugly and do ugly things and they drug us right into it...so there you have it.

So there I have it, "Defense".

[Yamato]

I wouldn't argue that the free market couldn't do roads cheaper and more efficiently, at first, but there's a lot of what if's.

What if a singular person owned an important road or a bunch of roads or any road for that matter as most roads are important to somebody. Now what if that person dies, goes to jail or just doesn't care anymore or goes broke? What if their family doesn't care either or they have no family or the family is forbidden from owning the roads? There's a million complications there. The big complication after those what if's is who maintains the road? Not just anybody can or will be able to aquire ownership of those roads which brings up the prelude problem to privatized roads... Tolls. Every road would have a toll. How else does the private entity who owns the road afford the maintnence? Is that something you'd want. What other incentive is there to owning a road in the first place? You think there's problems with profiteering now!? Private roads aren't looking to good. Let's not forget about discrimination. While I'm the first to point out that discrimination is overhyped I'm not dumb enough to believe it doesn't exist. No blacks, no whites, no gays admitted on this road says the bigot who owns it. Discrimination laws be damned, that'll happen.

Let's just assume private roads become a thing. After all of the what if's and the problems they lead to become an issue who do you think people are going to look to to fix the problem? Governments. Local, state and federal according to the circumstance. Honestly, I wouldn't know who else to turn to. Ultimately, the government will by force and by necessity end up acquiring so many private roads by eminent domain, or whatever term fits more properly, that things will end up right back to how it is today.

Can anyone dispute this?

That's a good anti-privatization essay here. A lot of this rationalization is what people use to defend other things government involves itself in that we all use (such as health care). Like health care or any other singular thing, I don't see why roads are exceptions to the principle either. How can we afford it if the government doesn't do it? Seriously, Fess? You've gone to the dark side.

[F3SS]

That's a good anti-privatization essay here. A lot of this rationalization is what people use to defend other things government involves itself in that we all use (such as health care). Like health care or any other singular thing, I don't see why roads are exceptions to the principle either. How can we afford it if the government doesn't do it? Seriously, Fess? You've gone to the dark side.

Not really. I'd like anything but the government involved in whatever if the private industry can do it better. This is just the sense I'm making and the conclusions I'm coming to on this particular issue. In any case, all I'm asking for is for you or anyone to dispute my points. Believe me, I'd love for you to change my mind. C'mon, prove me wrong.

Edit: And don't forget to consider the other posts I made too. Not just that long one.

Edited October 24, 2014 by F3SS

[Frank Merton]

Private enterprise has corruption and greed; government enterprise has those too plus bureaucracy (not that private enterprises can't be bureaucratic as Hell too).

[F3SS]

I was just thinking the potential for lawsuits. Frivolous or justified, either way every time it rains or snows the lawyers will be lining up to to help sue the crap out of road owners. Also, as far as I know, I'm pretty sure traffic laws don't apply to private property and a private road could only be private property.