PDA

View Full Version : SHRINK: Dinesh D'Souza was right about Obama.



LWW
10-14-2011, 03:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The abandonment by his father when he was an infant and by his stepfather at age 10 has left President Obama with a "father hunger" that influences everything from why he distances himself from pushy supporters, to his strong desire to compromise and bring people together, to his aggressive campaign to kill Osama bin Laden, says a psychoanalytic book out next week. In Obama on the Couch, George Washington University professor Justin Frank also reveals that Obama has spent much of his life seeking out father figures, but most, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Vice President Biden, have disappointed him. "Obama searched for a father, for someone to relate to who could help him—a strong man who knew what to do," Frank writes.

[Check out photos of Obama behind the scenes.]

This is Frank's second psychoanalytical book about a president. While a sympathetic look at Obama, it follows Bush on the Couch, a sharply critical analysis that suggested then President George W. Bush was disturbed. In that book, he predicted that someone like Obama—"completely different," "someone not ... white"—would succeed Bush. What the nation ended up with, however, is "an almost tragic figure," Frank writes.

The general theme is that Obama has been affected both by being biracial and by the abandonment of his two dads during his childhood. The result is that he is overly protective of his own nuclear family, desires greatly to see national unity, and yet harbors anger that he took out on bin Laden. [Vote now: Will Obama be a one-term president?]

Take for example Obama's earlier willingness to compromise with Republicans, upsetting his liberal base. Here Frank cites the negative influence of his parents, especially his mom, who often pressed him to do better in school. "He hates being pushed by supporters who want him to make good on his promises of universal healthcare and care for the poor, something that represents his mother and how she pushed him to study harder," Frank writes. And when he ignores his base, he is emulating his father, expressing annoyance but not worried they will desert him.

As for bin Laden, Frank writes that Obama's inner anger emerged: "He was able to pursue his action against bin Laden in part because bin Laden offered a displacement figure for Obama's rage toward his own parents." [See a slide show of 10 issues driving Obama's re-election campaign.]

Frank also calls Obama scared of the type of radical change he advocated in 2008. "He wants to be the father who makes change safe, the person he has waited for his entire life." </div></div>

YEP! (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/10/14/shrink-obama-suffers-father-hunger)

Soflasnapper
10-14-2011, 05:24 PM
Psychoanalysis is likely a fraudulent practice. My understanding is that it yields no better results than chance or placebo or no treatment at all-- that is, it is ineffective as a therapy, and probably because of false theories going back to the delusions of the coke head Freud.

Regardless if that's true or not, psychoanalysis of someone not ones patient, with whom you've had no interviews, discussions, or therapy, is crap squared. I think the profession even realizes that, making such analysis still more flawed than it is already.

Even if ALL the above is wrong, what Frank writes is not what D'Souza said at all. He claimed Obama was in the thrall of anti-colonialism learned from his father (per imposible), not that he had issues with abandonment or other father-son issues.

cushioncrawler
10-14-2011, 05:30 PM
Krappynomicysts.
Lieticians.
Psychoanalcysts.
Biblists.
All full of bullshit.

It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The t'ings dat yo' li'ble
To read in de Bible,
It ain't necessarily so.

Li'l David was small, but oh my !
Li'l David was small, but oh my !
He fought Big Goliath
Who lay down an' dieth !
Li'l David was small, but oh my !

Wadoo, zim bam boddle-oo,
Hoodle ah da wa da,
Scatty wah !
Oh yeah !...

Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale,
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale,
Fo' he made his home in
Dat fish's abdomen.
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale.

Li'l Moses was found in a stream.
Li'l Moses was found in a stream.
He floated on water
Till Ol' Pharaoh's daughter,
She fished him, she said, from dat stream.

Wadoo ...

Well, it ain't necessarily so
Well, it ain't necessarily so
Dey tells all you chillun
De debble's a villun,
But it ain't necessarily so !

To get into Hebben
Don' snap for a sebben !
Live clean ! Don' have no fault !
Oh, I takes dat gospel
Whenever it's pos'ble,
But wid a grain of salt.

Methus'lah lived nine hundred years,
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years,
But who calls dat livin'
When no gal will give in
To no man what's nine hundred years ?

I'm preachin' dis sermon to show,
It ain't nece-ain't nece
Ain't nece-ain't nece
Ain't necessarily ... so !

LWW
10-15-2011, 07:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Psychoanalysis is likely a fraudulent practice. My understanding is that it yields no better results than chance or placebo or no treatment at all-- that is, it is ineffective as a therapy, and probably because of false theories going back to the delusions of the coke head Freud.

Regardless if that's true or not, psychoanalysis of someone not ones patient, with whom you've had no interviews, discussions, or therapy, is crap squared. I think the profession even realizes that, making such analysis still more flawed than it is already.

Even if ALL the above is wrong, what Frank writes is not what D'Souza said at all. He claimed Obama was in the thrall of anti-colonialism learned from his father (per imposible), not that he had issues with abandonment or other father-son issues.





</div></div>

Be honest, you haven't read DiSouza's book ... if you had, you would never have said that without deceit as your intent.

Let me give you a taste:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Our President is trapped in his father's time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father's dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost."</div></div>

Also, you obviously haven't read "DREAMS FROM MY FATHER" in which Obama confesses to everything the shrink claims ... and that DiSouza claims.

Soflasnapper
10-15-2011, 07:33 PM
I read before, and today re-read the D'Souza ARTICLE in FORTUNE MAGAZINE, based on the work he was doing for the book, and published prior to the book.

He doesn't make a psychoanalytic claim, but a POLITICAL claim. He doesn't say Obama does these things out of abandonment complex, but from adopting what he supposedly thought was the anti-colonial worldview of his father (although he must have gotten it from someone other THAN his father, considering their extremely brief contact when O was a very young person).

That is NOT what Frank is claiming in HIS piece.

Frank would say Obama's rage is from abandonment, not from a political analysis that the US is a worse state than N. Korea (as D'Souza claims, among other things).

There are two non-overlapping explanations.

LWW
10-16-2011, 04:14 AM
So your only first hand knowledge of the book is what has been prefiltered for your spoon fed consumption?

Imagine that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I always and on all occasions 'slavishly defend dear leader,'</div></div>

Soflasnapper
10-16-2011, 12:10 PM
'Pre-filtered' by the same author, as a distillation of the argument he makes redundantly a greater length in the book?

Are you saying D'Souza himself misleads about his points, or forgot to put in the meat of what he really was saying in the book, in the article in which he lays out the book's thesis at article length?