The Obama (pbuh) cult mentality

[Smilin]

[yguy]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Right. Ronald Reagan is not a symbol to the Republican Party, popular and adored, with virtual Saint-hood bestowed.

Not the way you're thinking, no.

The ex-actor hated all that attention from people.

He didn't hate it, but neither was he energized by it.

My favorite part is Obama draws large crowds and inspires= he's a cult figure.

I never said anything like that.

Do you think if he drew tepid responses and only small crowds, would that also be a Drudge talking point?

I've been to his site about 3 times in the last year, so I wouldn't be the one to ask.

[Deadlokd]

Originally Posted by yguy

Getting the idea across to an atheist is problematic, but I'll give it a go: I think Reagan was self-motivated. He would never have drunk in the adulation of the masses the way Obama (pbuh) does.

The actor who revelled in the hero worship then decried it when he became a politician. I don't fucking think so.

Rocky, you're bringing nothing to any discussion here. Go away.

[chunksmediocrites]

YouTube - OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on...

00:25 to 01:39. The cult of Reagan seems alive and well at FOXNews.

[ms_ann_thrope]

Originally Posted by yguy

Getting the idea across to an atheist is problematic, but I'll give it a go: I think Reagan was self-motivated. He would never have drunk in the adulation of the masses the way Obama (pbuh) does.

Also it's worth noting that before 1945, Russia, Germany and Japan were led by cult figures. I think it not coincidental that two of those powers were responsible for most of the atrocities during that period. I think that in the minds of their underlings, those living icons displaced their consciences, making all things acceptable which were approved by said icons.

And speaking of conscience, I guess that's the secular answer to your question.

But if all that leaves you cold, do you actually find nothing wrong with being motivated by another person?

I am somewhat confused by parts of your answer. You say that "[g]etting the idea across to an atheist is problematic." Is this because belief in a deity is a necessary component of appropriately-sourced motivation and therefore beyond an athiest's comprehension, or is it because the idea is difficult to explain except through use of non-secular terminology? Then you propose that the idea of 'conscience' is the "secular answer" to my question. So, you seem to be saying that the appropriate source for motivation is something internal or spiritual. Is this correct?

To answer your question, no, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with one person being motivated by another. If the result is that one person is inspired to improve him or herself, I see that as a good thing.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by yguy

No doubt many members of the Hitler Youth were similarly "inspired". Was that "amazing" too?

Damned if I know. Let's ask Joe Ratzinger.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by ms_ann_thrope

I am somewhat confused by parts of your answer. You say that "[g]etting the idea across to an atheist is problematic." Is this because belief in a deity is a necessary component of appropriately-sourced motivation and therefore beyond an athiest's comprehension, or is it because the idea is difficult to explain except through use of non-secular terminology?

The latter.

Then you propose that the idea of 'conscience' is the "secular answer" to my question. So, you seem to be saying that the appropriate source for motivation is something internal or spiritual. Is this correct?

Yes.

To answer your question, no, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with one person being motivated by another. If the result is that one person is inspired to improve him or herself, I see that as a good thing.

How do you allow yourself to be motivated by another person without that person being in control? Or do you not have a problem with that either?

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Damned if I know. Let's ask Joe Ratzinger.

This Joe Ratzinger?

Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth—as membership was required for all 14-year old German boys after December 1939[7]—but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings.

[ms_ann_thrope]

Originally Posted by yguy

How do you allow yourself to be motivated by another person without that person being in control?

I'd say that one accomplishes this through a life-long process of questioning, challenging, and refining one's goals or beliefs. I see no problem with another person acting as the initial motivator for such a journey, or providing motivation along the journey, so long as the motivatee keeps moving forward.

Or do you not have a problem with that either?

Of course I have a problem with anyone who ever stops thinking for him or herself... stagnancy is the enemy! But I also appreciate that some people may need an external 'kick-start' in order to recognize their own capabilities and find personal empowerment. I see nothing wrong with such motivation.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by yguy

[This Joe Ratzinger?

That's the guy! Having seen it in person, he could tell us whether your "no doubt" claim is true and, if so, whether it was considered amazing.

[ChuckF]

That really isn't fair. That was a long, long time ago that the pope was in the Hitler youth. A really long time ago. John McCain was only five years old.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by ms_ann_thrope

I'd say that one accomplishes this through a life-long process of questioning, challenging, and refining one's goals or beliefs.

Not responsive, because it fails to address the brute fact of you being under the other person's control at the moment when you allow him to motivate you.

I see no problem with another person acting as the initial motivator for such a journey, or providing motivation along the journey, so long as the motivatee keeps moving forward.

But I'm saying that allowing one's self to be externally motivated is a step backward. If that's true, why would such a person not continue in a lifelong and futile quest for for the same thing?

Of course I have a problem with anyone who ever stops thinking for him or herself... stagnancy is the enemy! But I also appreciate that some people may need an external 'kick-start' in order to recognize their own capabilities and find personal empowerment. I see nothing wrong with such motivation.

I don't know that we're on the same page WRT the definition of external motivation. Do you have an example of this "kickstarting", perhaps from the life of a public figure?

[freemonkey]

Originally Posted by yguy

Not responsive, because it fails to address the brute fact of you being under the other person's control at the moment when you allow him to motivate you.

that's a funny way to look at it.

Originally Posted by yguy;

But I'm saying that allowing one's self to be externally motivated is a step backward. If that's true, why would such a person not continue in a lifelong and futile quest for for the same thing?

I don't know that we're on the same page WRT the definition of external motivation. Do you have an example of this "kickstarting", perhaps from the life of a public figure?

yguy, just my opinion, but none of us exists in a vacuum and hopefully we are inspired by all kinds of things and all kinds of people. That the kids in this video saw that a person of color from a humble background could grow up to possibly be the president of the US inspires them to strive toward their own dreams. I just don't see the problem.

Are you saying that you don't have an inspirational figures in your life?

[seebs]

If he had inspirational figures in his life, wouldn't you expect him to have some kind of value other than contempt and hatred? A thing he likes, as opposed to merely things he does not fear or hate as much as he hates and fears the things he spends all his time talking about?

[ms_ann_thrope]

Originally Posted by yguy

I don't know that we're on the same page WRT the definition of external motivation. Do you have an example of this "kickstarting", perhaps from the life of a public figure?

I haven't read many biographies of public figures, so I'll have to do some looking around about that. Off the top of my head, how about Bill Clinton being motivated by JFK and MLK, Jr? I know, probably not someone you admire, but like I said, I don't read a lot of biographies.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by freemonkey

that's a funny way to look at it.

Because it's not true, or for some other reason?

yguy, just my opinion, but none of us exists in a vacuum and hopefully we are inspired by all kinds of things and all kinds of people.

So how do we differentiate between inspiration which is beneficial and that which is malignant?

That the kids in this video saw that a person of color from a humble background could grow up to possibly be the president of the US inspires them to strive toward their own dreams.

I don't think so. I think they're being given dreams, be they superficially noble or otherwise.

Further, why do they need to go through all this rigamarole to be inspired to better themselves, when people do it all the time without any such quasi-religious fanfare?

I just don't see the problem.

They've obviously been programmed. Did you not hear them reciting all those planks from the Anointed One's campaign platform? Even if they understand any of it, do you think any of them applied any critical thinking to any of it? Not a chance in hell.

Are you saying that you don't have an inspirational figures in your life?

Not in that sense these kids are. I might say Reagan is, but you never heard of any groups of white kids using him in that fashion, because he didn't appeal to the kind of people who would subject themselves to such obvious groupthink.

[Rocky]

Originally Posted by Deadlokd

The actor who revelled in the hero worship then decried it when he became a politician. I don't fucking think so.

Rocky, you're bringing nothing to any discussion here. Go away.

Since you put it like that....no.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by yguy

Reagan ..... didn't appeal to the kind of people who would subject themselves to such obvious groupthink.

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by Watser?

I think the appropriate smiley is:

[Adam]

Hey, that reminds me! I knew I'd seen a video somewhere of bunch of white kids getting to together to talk about the wind beneath their wings:

Lil' Johnny McCain: Ronald Reagan inspires me to cut taxes!

Lil' Mittens Romney: Ronald Reagan inspires me to win in Iraq!

Lil' Mikey Huckabee: Ronald Reagan inspires me not to second guess His SCOTUS appointments!

Lil' Johnny McCain: Ronald Reagan inspires me to be a foot solider in the Revolution!

Lil' Mittens Romney: Ronald Reagan inspires me to live in the house He built!

Lil' Mikey Huckabee: Ronald Reagan inspires me to spout Orwellian claptrap! War is peace!

Lil' Ronnie Paul (in a flyer he made alone in his bedroom with his construction paper and crayons, since the cool kids wouldn't let him be in their video): Ronald Reagan inspires me to fight for Barry Goldwater's principles!

[yguy]

Originally Posted by ms_ann_thrope

I haven't read many biographies of public figures, so I'll have to do some looking around about that. Off the top of my head, how about Bill Clinton being motivated by JFK and MLK, Jr? I know, probably not someone you admire, but like I said, I don't read a lot of biographies.

My impressions of JFK and MLK lead me to think of them as more like Reagan. Clinton, OTOH, is more like Obama in his ability to make anybody believe anything. He was inspired not by what was good in those men, but by their ability to command public attention. He is just as externally motivated as the very people he motivates, because he needs them to need him. If enough people need you, and thus do not dare to see anything wrong with you, you can get to a point where you feel like you can do no wrong. I think this explains why Clinton was so cavalier about treating women like dirt, among other things.

So yeah, I think Clinton supports my contention rather than yours.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Adam

Lil' Mittens Romney: Ronald Reagan inspires me to win in Iraq!

Why? Because he got himself bombed out of Lebanon?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by yguy

My impressions of JFK and MLK lead me to think of them as more like Reagan.

Ah, yes, ol' Ronnie Reagan, who opposed the Civil Rights acts of the 1960s even as MLK was literally giving up his life for them; Ronnie Reagan, the washed-up movie actor who began his 1980 presidential campaign in a southern town where during the 60s civil rights workers had been murdered, talking in that location of "state's rights," which everyone down there knew was code for "keep the darkies out of the voting booth and in their place."

Ha, ha, ha!

[ms_ann_thrope]

Originally Posted by yguy

My impressions of JFK and MLK lead me to think of them as more like Reagan. Clinton, OTOH, is more like Obama in his ability to make anybody believe anything. He was inspired not by what was good in those men, but by their ability to command public attention. He is just as externally motivated as the very people he motivates, because he needs them to need him. If enough people need you, and thus do not dare to see anything wrong with you, you can get to a point where you feel like you can do no wrong. I think this explains why Clinton was so cavalier about treating women like dirt, among other things.

So yeah, I think Clinton supports my contention rather than yours.

You contend that allowing yourself to be motivated by another person places you under their control. Can you point out to me where the "brute fact of you being under the other person's control at the moment when you allow him to motivate you" occurred for Clinton? Because I don't see it.

I agree that what you contend can and does occur in some instances (the Manson "family" comes to mind), but I disagree with the notion that finding motivation in a person inherently equates to subjugation by that person, which is what you have claimed.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by ms_ann_thrope

You contend that allowing yourself to be motivated by another person places you under their control. Can you point out to me where the "brute fact of you being under the other person's control at the moment when you allow him to motivate you" occurred for Clinton? Because I don't see it.

I don't know the details of his childhood, but I think it can be reasonably surmised from his response to the Lewinsky revelation, which was that of a petulant adolescent, that he was spoiled by his mother, and thus made an addict to external affirmations of self worth.

I agree that what you contend can and does occur in some instances (the Manson "family" comes to mind), but I disagree with the notion that finding motivation in a person inherently equates to subjugation by that person, which is what you have claimed.

But isn't the Manson family just one of the more egregious examples?

Look at these ministers who implant this idea in their parishioners that they're going to Heaven, and prevail upon them to hand over a goodly part of their substance so they can get a weekly "recharge", even though they continue to smoke, philander, drink to excess and so on. Are they really in control of their actions? I'd say no. If they were, they wouldn't pay those ministers to keep them asleep.