Obama 'Most Powerful Writer Since Julius Caesar,' Says NEA Chief

[mrt144]

You have even less of an argument considering how influential and well known Obama as a person is right now in the world.



American Civil War, à la Scarlett O'Hara is the latest I'll do. As I said to someone who suggested I play "Hearts of Iron" before, I DON'T DO MODERN. Save it!

So basically you just melt for whatever charismatic figure (even if dubiously charismatic in your twisted world where Queen Victoria is the high water mark for the Brits) strikes your fancy. Why must you reinforce stereotypes that women are nothing but fawning anti-intellectual twits?

 

[Patroklos]

I already quoted frenchcivfan, holycannoli, and I then quoted you.

Please provide the post # where I say "Dur, Earthling is wrong."

You're obviously not this incompetent, right? Just because you use a "synonym" or "typo" a word, doesn't mean you can later say you never meant it. You said my quote was "MORE stupid." You said I "lost credibility." Any other reasonable poster could read that first page, and it was clear you quoted me to say I was wrong. If that isn't what you meant, it's your problem for not communicating it, but that's what was actually said

1.) Please point out the post number where I use a synonym for the word "wrong" or make a typo that can in anyway be reformulated into the word "wrong" easily.

2.) I said your quote was "more stupid" to be sure, but as is always the case when you quote someone else you are, well, quoting someone else. So when I say this or that quote is stupid, I am refering to the quote. In this case it was Landsmann's. Do you normally equate any critisism of Landsmann with yourself? I didn't realize you two were so close.

3.) I never said you lost credibility, I said that anyone liberal who does not refute what Landsmann said (what he actually said, that you quoted/linked too) would lose credibilty. You in fact did say (in a halfassed way but whatever) that Landsmann was wrong, so that obviously doesn't apply to you.

You completely fail to realize how important that is? You're ok with a journalist making up anything and putting words in someone's mouth, if they said some other "stupid thing?"

1.) FCF is not a journalist, he is a random internet poster on a game forum. While I can see why you want to call him out on it what I find odd is that in calling him out you simple transfered stupid to stupid. What Landsmann really said was stupid, so whats the point?

I mean, say a politician makes a stupid gaffe on something silly, happens all the time, and it's then ok for an article to say "X politician supports child rape?" Then it's ok because "Well they said a weird thing anyway?"

Yeah, FCF is not a politician or an article. The article quoted Landsmann absolutely correctly, I suggest you read it. Its posted in the OP for your convinience.

 

[Earthling]

I don't see how this is justified. Bast has made far more intelligent arguments than many here, even in this thread.

Please provide the post # where I say "Dur, Earthling is wrong."

#18.

So when I say this or that quote is stupid, I am refering to the quote. In this case it was Landsmann's

Seems to me it's likely you didn't even read Landsmann's speech at that time. You didn't quote Landsmann's quote, you quoted me, and in fact removed the link to Landsmann's quote, to say I was "more stupid." Again, if you just want to apologize for a terrible post that comes across as a vague attack and flaming, I'll accept.

Yeah, FCF is not a politician or an article. The article quoted Landsmann absolutely correctly, I suggest you read it. Its posted in the OP for your convinience.

The article says "maybe President Obama will win a Noble Prize for Literature." It also debates what other American presidents were "great authors." Clearly, it is not referring only to "political" power.

Also, the article obviously did not quote Landsmann entirely correctly - it cut out parts of a whole paragraph.

 

[mrt144]

I don't see how this is justified. Bast has made far more intelligent arguments than many here, even in this thread.

Cause she does it all the time.

"I SIMPLY ADOOOOOOOOOOORE HIM"

 

[Mise]

Except regardless of the conclusion made, the one you are imagining all people will see and the one that the article clearly explains, both ARE foolishy lavishing praise on Obama. I don't think anyone really makes the Julius Caesar connection you mention. When I first saw Julius Caesar my first thought was why the hell Landsmann decided to use that person to bookend with.

That's a much different argument than the one you originally engaged me with.

 

[otago]

Winston Churchill was certainly a peer of the US President at the time more powerful and influential in his time than Obama is right now. Hell, Obama makes it a point to purposely abdicate power and influence.

But hey, if you really want to stand up for this quote go right ahead.

More powerful than FDR, no he was not, for example Churchill believed the Dominions were still colonies during WW2 until he was put right on that score by MacKenzie-King, Freyberg, and Blamey.
Remember Churchill was not head of state and could not become head of state.

 

[otago]

The problem with your analysis is that it relies entirely on an examination of British power, not American.

Your analysis also fails because a leader's power is not based solely on the nation they head, but also the person himself. While it is true America surplanted Britain in power in every metric by the end of WWII (but not until the end), Churchill himself had a crushing stranglehold on the affairs of the alliance far out of proportion to the actual British contrabutions to the war effort. There is no person who could seriously suppor the idea that either FDR or Stalin were more forceful personalities within the alliance than Churchill.

Your analysis fails furhter because power begets power, or more accuratle the successful use of the power you have leads to the accumulation of more power. For instance, the various Prime Ministers of Britain during the French Revolution exerted control over events around the world that were totally disproportionate to the physical power of Britain at the time. I would consider any of them more powerful men that most of the presidents since WWII.

If you are saying that Churchill was the author of a lot of cockups you are right, from Gallipoli to the Greece program in 41,
to Diepe in 42, Italy in 43, one glance at a map would have shown that Italy was not the soft underbelly of Europe.
Remember without the Dominions the British army was very weak, take away the kiwis,Aussies, Canucks and the British army was well down in power.
Churchill all powerful, you forget that the Sovereign has reserve powers, with one of his more idiotic ideas he was told by the generals, we will have to see the King about that, PM.

Churchill did not want the landings in Normandy to take place, he did not win that nor did he win having Montgomery as supreme commander.
If you are saying Churchill meddled too much you are right, the idiotic idea of having brigades fighting German divisions was one of his.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

One hell of a character though.

 

[El_Machinae]

Moderator Action: Earthling: Do not modify a quotation that you're attributing to another forum poster. This can be trolling if it's done improperly.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Valka D'Ur]

All the more reason to completely ignore such absurd reactionary opinions, Amadeus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Arts

...

I dont know about you, but I think I can afford my share of their budget without whining about it too much. After all, it amounts to approximately 50 cents for every citizen in the US.

Thank you, but you should know that our current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is a cultural moron. During the last federal election, he angered the entire professional arts community in the country by saying that (paraphrased) only the elite, wealthy people enjoyed, or attended such events as operas or ballets. So, he reasoned, why should the arts be funded when most of the citizens are below the income level that supports such things?

The backlash was incredible. Harper would probably have lost the election if he hadn't backtracked and included arts funding in his platform. Not only did he anger those involved with opera, ballet, and symphony, but also teachers who constantly have to scramble to get basic supplies for art classes in school - we're talking about stuff like construction paper, glue, and paint! So many music programs have folded in schools because students can't afford to buy or rent instruments, and the school board has the myopic view that funding the football team is of much greater importance - even though most of the players/spectators will never go on to a career in football.

From my own perspective: I took private music lessons for many years, and in Grade Nine, I assisted the school's music teacher in putting on the Christmas concert. That year we did the rock opera It's Cool In the Furnace (a musical version of the story of Daniel). I played the organ in that particular concert, as well as helping to organize the students playing the other non-piano instruments. My point is that this happened over 30 years ago, when schools still had healthy music and art programs. Would that school have such an event now? I doubt it.


Regarding the OP: I did read the article, and to me it is saying that of all the male writers since Julius Caesar, Obama has (had) the largest army/military and the most devastating weapons arsenal at his disposal. It isn't saying that Obama is a skilled writer.

Other leaders between Julius Caesar and Obama have written books. Many of the Roman Emperors (other than Marcus Aurelius) have written books - Augustus was a writer - whether of truth or propaganda depends on the reader's point of view; also, Claudius was a writer of biographies, histories, and satires.

Even Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were published authors - I doubt anybody would disagree that both of them had military might at their disposal.

So it boils down to that of all the male heads of state since Julius Caesar (who have been published), Obama has the most toy soldiers.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Why do some people treat Obama like he is the greatest human being to walk this Earth? I am probably exaggerating a bit lol, but come on. I don't read books much really, and I don't know how good of a writer Julius Caesar was

Cause Bush lowered the bar so much by butchering every second word that come out of hes mouth ? And Obamas english seems God like after eight years of daily humilation ?