What Obama's 17-Minute Response Reveals

Rate this post

Who is the real Obama?

By now, you must have heard or read about Obama’s very odd 17-minute rambling incoherent response to a woman’s innocent question about taxes. 
Last Friday, April 2, 2010, toward the end of a question-and-answer session with workers in Charlotte, NC, a woman named Doris stood to ask Obama whether it was a “wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care” package. “We are over-taxed as it is,” Doris said bluntly.
Here’s the first 6 minutes of the Punk’s 17-minute 2,500-word response:

If the secretive background and disastrous policies of the Punk have not rung alarm bells for you thus far, his inappropriately long response should.
Even the adoring liberal media cannot conceal their disdain for The One. This is how the Washington Post’s Anne Kornblut described what happened in Charlotte:

[Obama] then spent the next 17 minutes and 12 seconds lulling the crowd into a daze. His discursive answer — more than 2,500 words long — wandered from topic to topic…. Halfway through, an audience member on the riser yawned. But Obama wasn’t finished. He had a “final point,” before starting again with another list — of three points…. It was not evident that he changed any minds at Friday’s event. The audience sat politely, but people in the back of the room began to wander off.

So what does the Punk’s 17-minute soliloquy tell us about him?
HE’S A PATHOLOGICAL NARCISSIST. Do you remember him telling the American people to shut up about ObamaCare, declaring that “the talk is over”? Well, he meant your and our talk is over, not him. No, not the Punk. Since he entered the White House, he has not stopped talking, and talking, and talking, and talking. You see, he sets the rules and the rules don’t apply to him. That’s typical of a narcissist.
But the problems with pathological narcissism goes beyond the narcissist’s excessive self-love because it entails a cognitive dimension— the narcissist’s distorted self-image signals that he/she has a distorted view of reality itself. When the narcissist is the President of the United States, we have real problems.
There is yet a still deeper and more disturbing aspect to pathological narcissism. Simpy put, a narcissist is someone who has a grandiose and false view of himself. His entire self-conception is unreal. Psychologists say the narcissist’s grandiose false self was concocted in early childhood. All of which raises the profoundly troubling question: Who then is the real self? If the false self began in childhood, is there even a real self? Who is the real Obama? [Read about the Narcissistic Personality Disorder HERE.]
Without identifying the problem as that of pathological narcissism, Pajamas Media founder Roger Simon agrees. Simon writes that he finds Obama’s 17-minute response “to be deeply disturbing”:

“I am now convinced of what I have long suspected — the United States has a president with a serious personality disorder. 
Now I admit I am not a professional psychiatrist or psychologist, nor do I see myself even remotely as a paragon of mental health, but I have made a decent living for over thirty years as a fiction writer whose stock in trade is perforce studying people and this is one strange dude. He makes Richard Nixon seem almost normal. 
Therapists often speak of “inappropriate affect” — laughing at sad news, etc. — as an indicator of psychological disturbance. That is not far from what Obama displayed at the question-and-answer session in Charlotte….
I know some conservatives think Obama is a socialist or a closet Alinskyite or whatever, but I think the problem is yet more complicated. No matter his ideology, this man is not fit to rule psychologically. Or, more properly, govern — but you know what I mean. He doesn’t have the temperament. He was elected with people knowing almost nothing about him. Despite that the facts are still masked, his history still obscure, we may now know too much, have seen too much. These things just leak out around the edges. They do for all of us, like it or not. And yet, he will be with us until 2012 at least. Good luck to us.”

David Limbaugh, too, thinks that something is very wrong:

“…I read the transcript of President Barack Obama’s rambling, incoherent 2,600-word answer to a simple question from “Doris” at an appearance in Charlotte, N.C…. I seriously almost have to question his competence.
I didn’t watch the video, but the unscripted answer…sounds as if it was delivered by a drunk on an ideological mission. His answer was a veritable clinic in narcissistic circumlocution, a mishmash of barely related talking points about his health care plan — not about taxes, as Doris had requested.
Where are all these liberal elitists, including those masquerading as conservative intellectuals, who told us they voted for him largely based on his intellectual acuity? …It’s obvious how disorganized his thinking is when you read his answer. I encourage you to follow this link and see for yourself. (web site).
But his answer didn’t just lack meaningful structure. It wasn’t a case of his making a lot of sense on various points but just failing to tie them together. Some of the answers themselves were embarrassingly silly — the height of unsophisticated thinking. Some were reckless, especially from the president of the United States.
We’ve seen this before from him — way too often. I’m not talking about his “57 states” gaffe or something similar that could be written off as a slip of the tongue…. No, these were much worse.
…how about his suggestion that if a kid comes to a doctor with a sore throat, “the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out'”? Or how about his equally malicious statement that a doctor might choose to amputate a diabetic’s foot to make “$30,000, $40,000, $50,000” instead of working with the patient to help him lose weight and otherwise control his disease?
…His implication that your family care practitioner is corrupt enough to routinely engage in such evil acts as unnecessary tonsillectomies and foot amputations reveals a sinister cynicism…the president of the United States used his position to defame an entire profession.
Now, back to his 2,600-word soliloquy, in which he continued in this pattern. At one point, he said something a high schooler would be embarrassed to have uttered in public. In explaining some of his health care reforms — which had nothing to do with Doris’ question about over-taxation, by the way — he said, “We’re going to start encouraging paying doctors not based on how many tests they take, but based on the quality of the outcome — does somebody end up healthy.” Who’s the “we”? I thought the government wasn’t going to control care. Right.
…This was not “Saturday Night Live.” This was our president — our new socialized medicine czar. Read the transcript and freak.”

You can read the Punk’s 2,500-word non-response to Doris yourself HERE.

Please follow and like us:

10 responses to “What Obama's 17-Minute Response Reveals

  1. Look at the faces in the crowd. They not only look bored but a bit angry too. Obama might be losing his adoring followers. As a mental health professional for over 20 years, I am concerned how our mailignant narcissist in chief will react in the coming months. We have a pretty bumpy ride ahead America.
    What amazes me is he didn’t even answer the question. But I guess instead of saying “your taxes won’t go up” (lying) he just avoided the question completely.

    • Thank you, Deborah, for your astute observation. Coming from you, a mental health professional, your observation is compelling.
      Thanks, also, for characterizing Obama as a malignant narcissist — someone who not only has a grandiose false view of himself, but his behaviors hurt other people, thus “malignant.” His rambling 17-minute soliloquy most certainly evinces malevolence because he slandered and demonized entire groups of healthcare professionals.

      • Eowyn– Barry has continued to demonize and slander the medical profession when, in actuality, he knows NOTHING about what they do! The price that he gave for removing someone’s legs is absurd. Nobody makes that kind of money. He is hurting and demeaning the very doc’s that he must have for this atrocious health boondoggle to proceed.

  2. That went off target and was just rambling about how important healthcare is for everyone… I don’t kknow of any doctors (even if they’re the dudes on Nip/Tuck) who’d amputate someone’s leg for the sake of money or that a few individual tests to keep from getting sued are worthy doubling our taxes (even for folk who couldn’t afford healthcare coverage in the first place) and wrecking quality of care for everyone are worth it.

    • The Angry White Woman

      “…a doctor might choose to amputate a diabetic’s foot to make $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 instead of working with the patient to help him lose weight and otherwise control his disease”.
      This is absurd logic(?) as eventually there will be nothing left to hack off and then gone is the “money train”. And has he completely forgotten about the gazillion dollar medical weight loss industry?
      What a dumb fuck! Sorry Eowyn, Steve, et al. But if his thinking(again,?) is that doctors perform unnecessary amputations just for the duckets then I must repeat; what a DUMB FUCK!

      • No need to apologize, AWW. I’m with you 100%!
        I just don’t know how much more of this sh*t we can take….

        • There are Waaaay too many unecessary tests performed because docs are scared shitless of being sued. Thank the Lord we have never been sued, but some fools have threatened when they didn’t want to pay you. Medicaid patients are the ones you have to worry about the most!!

  3. Isn’t there some way to have this punk committed due to his mental state?

  4. “I just don’t know how much more of this sh*t we can take….”
    I’d say not too much f’ing more.
    It’s time to impeach this Kenyan commie, preferably before his wanton destruction of our America is irreversible.
    Not real sure it is now.

  5. Actually, be up late last night…
    The plan seems to have been copied from the AARP “guaranteed life” insurance and applied to medical coverage… can’t be turned down, premium will never increase, coverage for life, just select the level of coverage you want, etc. (Which works as AARP is a dues-paying organization, has a group policy for this, only pays off on death and people are living longer now, AARP probably isn’t running it as a profit-making enterprise, and it’s probably supplementary and not that great as a primary deal.) As far as other things seen on late night TV… Time-Life Top-40 ’60s Hits and PowerChair didn’t seem to have such applicability.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.