Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

McCain & Obama character analysis.

Folks may like to read this insightful and interesting psychological character analysis of both the Presidential candidates, based upon their relationship with their fathers and dealing with the issue of ambivalence in their personalities and in the American electorate.  
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

Truthout is a site which claims to be objective and neutral.  But so does Fox news on the other side of the spectrum.  One should not be deluded into thinking that this "analysis" is really objective.   It's no more objective than Rush Limbaugh's "analysis" of the candidates would be.

 

For just one example,this post yesterday is by a writer for the Huffington Post, one of the most liberal blogs on the net.  But, gosh gee golly, I don't see any posts by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.  And it's clearly an attempt to deflect the attention from the misdeeds of Acorn and Obama's close ties with that organization (including giving them a sizeable donation from his campaign treasury).

 

It would be nice if we would stick to mainstream sourcing here and not clutter up the last weeks of this election by posting competing biases, particularly by those who aren't eligible to be voters in the election and have no stake in the outcome.  But I suppose that's too much to ask.  

 

 


Choisya wrote:
Folks may like to read this insightful and interesting psychological character analysis of both the Presidential candidates, based upon their relationship with their fathers and dealing with the issue of ambivalence in their personalities and in the American electorate.  

 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

[ Edited ]

Why don't we stick to actually addressing the article itself?  If you have an analysis written by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity you'd be more than welcome to post it here.

 

 

Message Edited by Jon_B on 10-21-2008 11:05 AM
________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

Thanks Jon - I just thought the analysis was interesting from a psychological pov.  I would 

be equally interested in an analysis by Limbaugh or Hannity.   

 

The whole world has an interest in the outcome of this election. Just as more recently it had an interest in the outcome of your 'bailout'.  

 

 

 


Jon_B wrote:

Why don't we stick to actually addressing the article itself?  If you have an analysis written by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity you'd be more than welcome to post it here.

 

 

Message Edited by Jon_B on 10-21-2008 11:05 AM

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
KathyS
Posts: 6,898
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

I live here, in the US, and after I read that analysis, I found it just the opposite of what you claim as presuming it being biased.  I found it very objective.  In no way is this "cluttering up" anything.  We're not talking extreme left, or right politics, were just looking at these personalities.  These are very exact physiological evaluations.  I do understand these evaluations.  And please don't ask me for my credentials.

 

I found this article unbiased, because I've read what they've written, and I've actually seen these traits in these two men, from interviews, and from what they've said in their individual speeches.  It doesn't take a lot of insight to see how different their personalities are. I'm not saying that one is good, and the other is bad.  I just see truth to these comments in that article.

 

Neither man, nor you or I, can escape childhood influences.  It's a given.  It just shapes that personality.  But what I do look at is, just how much a person can (if they can) change their insights.   Can they weigh all sides, at any given moment?  That's the real issue, at least for me.


Everyman wrote:

Throughout is a site which claims to be objective and neutral.  But so does Fox news on the other side of the spectrum.  One should not be deluded into thinking that this "analysis" is really objective.   It's no more objective than Rush Limbaugh's "analysis" of the candidates would be.

 

For just one example,this post yesterday is by a writer for the Huffington Post, one of the most liberal blogs on the net.  But, gosh gee golly, I don't see any posts by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.  And it's clearly an attempt to deflect the attention from the misdeeds of Acorn and Obama's close ties with that organization (including giving them a sizeable donation from his campaign treasury).

 

It would be nice if we would stick to mainstream sourcing here and not clutter up the last weeks of this election by posting competing biases, particularly by those who aren't eligible to be voters in the election and have no stake in the outcome.  But I suppose that's too much to ask.  


Choisya wrote:
Folks may like to read this insightful and interesting psychological character analysis of both the Presidential candidates, based upon their relationship with their fathers and dealing with the issue of ambivalence in their personalities and in the American electorate.  

 

 

 

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

Why don't we stick to actually addressing the article itself?

 

Because I think it should be obvious that any inherent biases of the author of an article are an inherent aspect of the article.  

 


Choisya wrote:

Thanks Jon - I just thought the analysis was interesting from a psychological pov.  I would 

be equally interested in an analysis by Limbaugh or Hannity.   

 

The whole world has an interest in the outcome of this election. Just as more recently it had an interest in the outcome of your 'bailout'.  

 

 

 


Jon_B wrote:

Why don't we stick to actually addressing the article itself?  If you have an analysis written by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity you'd be more than welcome to post it here.

 

 

Message Edited by Jon_B on 10-21-2008 11:05 AM

 


 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

Thanks KathyS - glad you found it of interest.  I thought it was pretty even handed and dealt with the effects on both men of their childhood experiences vis a vis their fathers. As you say, we are all influenced by such things, for better or worse.  I actually found both analyses quite sad and could feel for these men as children.

 

 


KathyS wrote:

I live here, in the US, and after I read that analysis, I found it just the opposite of what you claim as presuming it being biased.  I found it very objective.  In no way is this "cluttering up" anything.  We're not talking extreme left, or right politics, were just looking at these personalities.  These are very exact physiological evaluations.  I do understand these evaluations.  And please don't ask me for my credentials.

 

I found this article unbiased, because I've read what they've written, and I've actually seen these traits in these two men, from interviews, and from what they've said in their individual speeches.  It doesn't take a lot of insight to see how different their personalities are. I'm not saying that one is good, and the other is bad.  I just see truth to these comments in that article.

 

Neither man, nor you or I, can escape childhood influences.  It's a given.  It just shapes that personality.  But what I do look at is, just how much a person can (if they can) change their insights.   Can they weigh all sides, at any given moment?  That's the real issue, at least for me.

 

Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

[ Edited ]

I found both of the links that were posted to be very interesting, although, they were biased for the benefit of one candidate, addressing issues that made one look better than the other by showing that one "worked" through his problems while the other became "oppositional". I am not going to look for a posting that does the opposite because I think it would serve no purpose.

I have a question that I know will infuriate some people, and I don't want it to but I really want to ask this question and see if anyone has an answer. The links made me think of it.

Adolph Hitler had a dysfunctional childhood. Has anyone ever looked into how his childhood effected his behavior as an adult and influenced his policies? Was it that he never worked through his problems? He was very eloquent, his IQ was high and he had the capacity to mesmerize audiences. That, however, did not make him a good or worthy leader of good character. So obviously, you need more than those qualities to be successful.

I don't mean to liken Obama to him, although it may seem that way; my aim was not to say he was like him in character but just to say that they both have some of the same amazing skills. Is it simplistic to say that one "worked through" his problems while the other did not? Perhaps the positive qualities can overshadow the negative effects of a dysfunctional childhood if they are more dominant. Obama overcome many of the issues of his early life and reversed its negative course by becoming a successful lawyer, becoming a model citizen having hearth, home and family and now, of course, running for president.
Are the shortcomings that are perceived in Mc Cain, although he is an American hero who sacrificed himself for his country, simply a result of problems in his past that he has not worked through? 
he has run a poor campaign which seems designed for failure and seems a bit addle brained lately. Maybe it is all too much for him. Sometimes he reminds me of the way Reagan was towards the end of his Presidency and that scares me. I just find Obama a bit too far left for my comfort right now. I still have two weeks to decide.

I have looked up everything I could find and I sincerely believe that if Obama was not an upstanding citizen, there would be something in his background to discredit him and since nothing has been found that sticks, one would have to conclude he is basically a man of honor and substance. 
I don't know if this post comes under the discussion of ad hominen arguments but boy, if it does, it would be interesting to have someone explain that to me too. Am I guilty of saying something incorrectly? If so, how can I say it better?
i know this may sound simplistic to some but i am a layman in all these subjects, simply expressing my curiousity.

 twj

Message Edited by thewanderingjew on 10-21-2008 03:06 PM
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

I think your arguement was ad hominem free:smileyhappy:

I wonder how Adolf Hitler would have been if he had lived in a different time period, not post WWI Germany. I can't say i really think he'd be different b/c of the heinousness of his actions and crimes seems to me to be indicitive of an inherent tendency of evil, but you never know.


thewanderingjew wrote:

I found both of the links that were posted to be very interesting, although, they were biased for the benefit of one candidate, addressing issues that made one look better than the other. I am not going to look for a posting that does the opposite because I think it would serve no purpose.

I have a question that I know will infuriate some people, and I don't want it to but I really want to ask this question and see if anyone has an answer. The links made me think of it.

Adolph Hitler had a dysfunctional childhood. Has anyone ever looked into how his childhood effected his behavior as an adult and influenced his policies? He was very eloquent, his IQ was high and he had the capacity to mesmerize audiences. That, however, did not make him a good or worthy leader of good character.

That said, I am not comparing or even likening Obama to him, although many surrogates of Obama have tried to do that to Mc Cain. I do think that Mc Cain has run a poor campaign and seems a bit addle brained lately. Maybe it is all too much for him. Sometimes he reminds me of the way Reagan was towards the end of his Presidency and that scares me. I just find Obama a bit too far left for my comfort right now. I still have two weeks to decide.

I have looked up everything I could find and I sincerely believe that if Obama was not an upstanding citizen, there would be something in his background to discredit him and since nothing has been found that sticks, one would have to conclude he is basically a man of honor and substance. 
I don't know if this post comes under the discussion of ad hominen arguments but boy, if it does, it would be interesting to have someone explain that to me too. Am I guilty of saying something incorrectly? If so, how can I say it better?

 twj


 

A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.


Everyman wrote:

Why don't we stick to actually addressing the article itself?

 

Because I think it should be obvious that any inherent biases of the author of an article are an inherent aspect of the article.  


 
Sure and to clarify - if you want to talk about the bias of the actual author of the article that's fine as it is relevant - my problem is with the idea of limiting what gets posted here and with dismissing things out of hand based on the source they come from.  If someone wants to post articles from a left-leaning source or a right-leaning source they are welcome to do so - we haven't even filled up one page of this board yet and we've still only got a handfull of posters here so I don't think we're in much danger of clutter.  Those who aren't interested in reading the article can easily skip it!
 
 
________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

[ Edited ]

Oddly WJ, I did not perceive any bias and did not intend any.  I didn't think either one of the guys came out 'better' from the analysis, just different.  I read it as psychology, not politics but that is perhaps because I am removed from the fray:smileyhappy:.  As I have said, I thought there was sadness in both their backgrounds and that made more of an impression on me.   

 

There have been quite a few psychological analyses done on Hitler vis a vis his childhood.  Here is one from the web and a review of a book about his character which is well sourced.  However, I don't see that you can compare any untried leader to him - maybe 5 years down the line you might be able to, but I sincerely hope not!!  I don't find it helpful to make any such comparisons - Hitler was a horrid person and I hope to goodness there is no political figure in either your political system or mine that comes anywhere near to matching his profile:smileysad:

 


thewanderingjew wrote:

I found both of the links that were posted to be very interesting, although, they were biased for the benefit of one candidate, addressing issues that made one look better than the other by showing that one "worked" through his problems while the other became "oppositional". I am not going to look for a posting that does the opposite because I think it would serve no purpose.

I have a question that I know will infuriate some people, and I don't want it to but I really want to ask this question and see if anyone has an answer. The links made me think of it.

Adolph Hitler had a dysfunctional childhood. Has anyone ever looked into how his childhood effected his behavior as an adult and influenced his policies? Was it that he never worked through his problems? He was very eloquent, his IQ was high and he had the capacity to mesmerize audiences. That, however, did not make him a good or worthy leader of good character. So obviously, you need more than those qualities to be successful.

I don't mean to liken Obama to him, although it may seem that way; my aim was not to say he was like him in character but just to say that they both have some of the same amazing skills. Is it simplistic to say that one "worked through" his problems while the other did not? Perhaps the positive qualities can overshadow the negative effects of a dysfunctional childhood if they are more dominant. Obama overcome many of the issues of his early life and reversed its negative course by becoming a successful lawyer, becoming a model citizen having hearth, home and family and now, of course, running for president.
Are the shortcomings that are perceived in Mc Cain, although he is an American hero who sacrificed himself for his country, simply a result of problems in his past that he has not worked through? 
he has run a poor campaign which seems designed for failure and seems a bit addle brained lately. Maybe it is all too much for him. Sometimes he reminds me of the way Reagan was towards the end of his Presidency and that scares me. I just find Obama a bit too far left for my comfort right now. I still have two weeks to decide.

I have looked up everything I could find and I sincerely believe that if Obama was not an upstanding citizen, there would be something in his background to discredit him and since nothing has been found that sticks, one would have to conclude he is basically a man of honor and substance. 
I don't know if this post comes under the discussion of ad hominen arguments but boy, if it does, it would be interesting to have someone explain that to me too. Am I guilty of saying something incorrectly? If so, how can I say it better?
i know this may sound simplistic to some but i am a layman in all these subjects, simply expressing my curiousity.

 twj

Message Edited by thewanderingjew on 10-21-2008 03:06 PM

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-21-2008 04:03 PM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

[ Edited ]

LOL Deb - I think so too:smileyvery-happy:

 

I am not sure I believe in inherent tendencies to evil.  I like to think that all babies are born with great capacity for good but are shaped by their backgrounds.  I'm more nurture than nature:smileyhappy:

 

I actually didn't mean for my analysis post to cause political argument about the candidates.  I was much more interested in it from the pov of the psychology and how our backgrounds can affect us, a point that KathyS picked up on.  It would have been equally interesting if it had been about another two political candidates, or anyone else for that matter, you or me.  Both men had 'problems' with their fathers/father image and it might be interesting to look at other leaders who had such issues with their Dads but I don't know of any at present.  I certainly know that I was very influenced by my father and that my attitude towards politics was shaped by him.  And of course Freud would have something to say about a girl being influenced by her father or, like our candidates, boys by their fathers. 

 

I was also interested in the point the article makes about ambivalence in the candidates and in the electorate.  This struck a chord with me because I have just been looking at ambivalence in Macbeth.  Has anyone any view on this aspect of the article?   

 

Any psychologists out there?:smileysurprised:      

 


debbook wrote:

I think your arguement was ad hominem free:smileyhappy:

I wonder how Adolf Hitler would have been if he had lived in a different time period, not post WWI Germany. I can't say i really think he'd be different b/c of the heinousness of his actions and crimes seems to me to be indicitive of an inherent tendency of evil, but you never know.


thewanderingjew wrote:

I found both of the links that were posted to be very interesting, although, they were biased for the benefit of one candidate, addressing issues that made one look better than the other. I am not going to look for a posting that does the opposite because I think it would serve no purpose.

I have a question that I know will infuriate some people, and I don't want it to but I really want to ask this question and see if anyone has an answer. The links made me think of it.

Adolph Hitler had a dysfunctional childhood. Has anyone ever looked into how his childhood effected his behavior as an adult and influenced his policies? He was very eloquent, his IQ was high and he had the capacity to mesmerize audiences. That, however, did not make him a good or worthy leader of good character.

That said, I am not comparing or even likening Obama to him, although many surrogates of Obama have tried to do that to Mc Cain. I do think that Mc Cain has run a poor campaign and seems a bit addle brained lately. Maybe it is all too much for him. Sometimes he reminds me of the way Reagan was towards the end of his Presidency and that scares me. I just find Obama a bit too far left for my comfort right now. I still have two weeks to decide.

I have looked up everything I could find and I sincerely believe that if Obama was not an upstanding citizen, there would be something in his background to discredit him and since nothing has been found that sticks, one would have to conclude he is basically a man of honor and substance. 
I don't know if this post comes under the discussion of ad hominen arguments but boy, if it does, it would be interesting to have someone explain that to me too. Am I guilty of saying something incorrectly? If so, how can I say it better?

 twj


 


 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-21-2008 03:50 PM
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.


KathyS wrote:

I live here, in the US, and after I read that analysis, I found it just the opposite of what you claim as presuming it being biased.  I found it very objective.  In no way is this "cluttering up" anything.  We're not talking extreme left, or right politics, were just looking at these personalities.  These are very exact physiological evaluations.  I do understand these evaluations.  And please don't ask me for my credentials.

 

I found this article unbiased, because I've read what they've written, and I've actually seen these traits in these two men, from interviews, and from what they've said in their individual speeches.  It doesn't take a lot of insight to see how different their personalities are. I'm not saying that one is good, and the other is bad.  I just see truth to these comments in that article.

 

Neither man, nor you or I, can escape childhood influences.  It's a given.  It just shapes that personality.  But what I do look at is, just how much a person can (if they can) change their insights.   Can they weigh all sides, at any given moment?  That's the real issue, at least for me.


I couldn't agree more Kathy. Part of being a great leader is to be able to make decisions based on a variety of information, looking at all options. One of the things that has really bothered me about Bush is that he does not seem to do that. Nor do I think he listens to his advisors. A great leader surrounds himself with intelligent people to get as much information as possible to make the best decision. A bad leader surrounds himself with people that tell him what he wants to hear. Different personalities are suited towards different things. Some are more suited to being a leader, some are not.
A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

I find it interesting that the article and in fact both of the candidates books focus on their relationship, or lack of, to their fathers. What about their mothers?

 

Choisya, Bill Clinton had issues with his father.


Choisya wrote:

LOL Deb - I think so too:smileyvery-happy:

 

I am not sure I believe in inherent tendencies to evil.  I like to think that all babies are born with great capacity for good but are shaped by their backgrounds.  I'm more nurture than nature:smileyhappy:

 

I actually didn't mean for my analysis post to cause political argument about the candidates.  I was much more interested in it from the pov of the psychology and how our backgrounds can affect us, a point that KathyS picked up on.  It would have been equally interesting if it had been about another two political candidates, or anyone else for that matter, you or me.  Both men had 'problems' with their fathers/father image and it might be interesting to look at other leaders who had such issues with their Dads but I don't know of any at present.  I certainly know that I was very influenced by my father and that my attitude towards politics was shaped by him.  And of course Freud would have something to say about a girl being influenced by her father or, like our candidates, boys by their fathers. 

 

I was also interested in the point the article makes about ambivalence in the candidates and in the electorate.  This struck a chord with me because I have just been looking at ambivalence in Macbeth.  Has anyone any view on this aspect of the article?   

 

Any psychologists out there?:smileysurprised:      

 


debbook wrote:

I think your arguement was ad hominem free:smileyhappy:

I wonder how Adolf Hitler would have been if he had lived in a different time period, not post WWI Germany. I can't say i really think he'd be different b/c of the heinousness of his actions and crimes seems to me to be indicitive of an inherent tendency of evil, but you never know.


thewanderingjew wrote:

I found both of the links that were posted to be very interesting, although, they were biased for the benefit of one candidate, addressing issues that made one look better than the other. I am not going to look for a posting that does the opposite because I think it would serve no purpose.

I have a question that I know will infuriate some people, and I don't want it to but I really want to ask this question and see if anyone has an answer. The links made me think of it.

Adolph Hitler had a dysfunctional childhood. Has anyone ever looked into how his childhood effected his behavior as an adult and influenced his policies? He was very eloquent, his IQ was high and he had the capacity to mesmerize audiences. That, however, did not make him a good or worthy leader of good character.

That said, I am not comparing or even likening Obama to him, although many surrogates of Obama have tried to do that to Mc Cain. I do think that Mc Cain has run a poor campaign and seems a bit addle brained lately. Maybe it is all too much for him. Sometimes he reminds me of the way Reagan was towards the end of his Presidency and that scares me. I just find Obama a bit too far left for my comfort right now. I still have two weeks to decide.

I have looked up everything I could find and I sincerely believe that if Obama was not an upstanding citizen, there would be something in his background to discredit him and since nothing has been found that sticks, one would have to conclude he is basically a man of honor and substance. 
I don't know if this post comes under the discussion of ad hominen arguments but boy, if it does, it would be interesting to have someone explain that to me too. Am I guilty of saying something incorrectly? If so, how can I say it better?

 twj


 


 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-21-2008 03:50 PM

 

 

A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

Hi Choisya,

I read the posts you suggested. The comments after the post on the first link, were very unpleasant. I don't think it was a good choice for me. I have a feeling from the tone of some of the comments that many may have been Nazi sympathizers.
I queried Google about how Hitler was able to get so many followers and this is a partial quote of one of the answers: (not my words, this is from what I think must be an interactive wikipedia website. I actually made some  grammatical/spelling corrections.)
"I read some of Mein Kampf, and plan to read the rest of it, and I'm quite convinced that Hitler was just the kind of social genius (I'm sorry, that's what he was) it took to take that already powerful hatred and temper it into his plans. He was a freakishly amazing public speaker. I watched a movie of one of his speeches, and, to be honest, I felt the not so subtle pull of his words.. it was rather frightening.. so he used that amazing speech capability of his and the promise to get Germany out of the economic slum it had become and became fairly powerful. Then, Hindenburg, in a (rather vain) attempt to outmaneuver the Nazi party, gave Hitler just the power he needed to put his plan into action. He directed the building of the Autobahn and many other projects (such as the Volkswagen Beatle) and became an economic hero. people LOVED him. so, using that love of himself and the enthusiasm set in motion by his inspiring speeches, Hitler used the next 7-8 years to brainwash his people. The Hitler Jugend became the most effective school for discipline and unquestioning obedience to authority, supplying his armies with younger generation soldiers EAGER TO DO EVERYTHING THEY WERE TOLD WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT IT, good people or not. the older generation were simply caught up in the momentum and propaganda, and conformed."

"Hitler's tactics in attracting the youth- starred Review. Bartoletti (Kids on Strike!) offers a unique and riveting perspective on WWII by focusing on the young people who followed Hitler from 1933–1945. The narrative primarily focuses on members of the Hitler Youth, but also profiles some of the group's dissidents and its Jewish targets. Hitler began his quest for dominance with young people, recognizing them as "a powerful political force" and claiming, "With them I can make a new world." Bartoletti describes how the propaganda of the Hitler Youth attracted children: "The overnight camping trips, campfires, and parades sounded like a great deal of fun," said one 12-year-old..."

Is it realistic to think one can explain the behavior of a maniac? What creates such a maniac is an impossible question, I think. Could his rise to power have been so simple and unopposed? I don't think so. It took him years to attain the power he finally used to unleash the Holocaust. Perhaps it was just a perfect storm, the confluence of events like the Versailles Treaty and its ensuing loss of nationalism and pride,  coupled with a disastrous economy and his megalomania that gave him his opportunity to rise to power.
I am sure someone can give a more intellectual response but for me this is a subject that actually causes such negative physical sensations that I find it hard even to research it without experiencing the emotional pain of the horror of that awful period of history. The suffering of all its victims is hard to contemplate.

twj


Choisya wrote:smileysad:edited by twj)
There have been quite a few psychological analyses done on Hitler vis a vis his childhood.  Here is one from the web and a review of a book about his character which is well sourced.  However, I don't see that you can compare any untried leader to him - maybe 5 years down the line you might be able to, but I sincerely hope not!!  I don't find it helpful to make any such comparisons - Hitler was a horrid person and I hope to goodness there is no political figure in either your political system or mine that comes anywhere near to matching his profile:...
twj writes...and I say to that amen.

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

my problem is with the idea of limiting what gets posted here

 

Gracious.  I certainly didn't object to the posting of the article.  I post enough controversial articles that I would never suggest that others be limited in what they can post.  [Ironically, your post seems to itself have been suggesting a limit on what gets posted here.]

 

I simply commented that in my opinion the source it came from was not an objective source on that issue, and gave reasons for my opinion.  Is that a forbidden thing to say?

 

my problem is [also] with dismissing things out of hand based on the source they come from

 

I think people should be free to say whether or not they are interested in certain web sites referred to here and to say why.  Do you disagree with that?

 

If, for example, somebody wants to post the link to one of Ahmadinejad's speeches about Israel and Palestine relations, that's fine by me, but I believe I should be free to say that I'm not going to bother reading his speech because I don't consider him an objective observer of the Middle East.  Maybe I would be missing something valuable, but if so, that's my loss.  

 

If someone wants to post articles from a left-leaning source or a right-leaning source they are welcome to do so 

 

Absolutely.  And if somebody else wants to point out that in their opinion the source is indeed left-leaning or right-leaning, shouldn't they be allowed to say so?  

 

Are suggesting that nobody should ever be allowed to say that they are not interested in a given link because of some specific reason they also give?  Is that to be a forbidden thing to post?  It sounds as though that is what you're suggesting, but it seems unlike you, so I don't want to assume that without your agreeing that it was your intent.   

 

But if that wasn't your intent, I'm not sure what your intent was.   Perhaps you could be clearer as to why you objected to my identifying the source as in my opinion a non-objective source, particularly when I backed that opinion up with two specific points, one the fact that the author was a writer for the Huffington Post, which makes no bones about being a left-wing blog source, and the other another article from the same website which appeared to me to demonstrate bias.  After all, you agreed with me that "I think it should be obvious that any inherent biases of the author of an article are an inherent aspect of the article."  Therefore, identifying biases of the author or source are an inherent element of the discussion of the article.  

 

So I'm quite confused about what you found wrong with what I posted, and what I said that you think I shouldn't have said.   Would you please clarify, either here of by PM?

 


Jon_B wrote:

Everyman wrote:

Why don't we stick to actually addressing the article itself?

 

Because I think it should be obvious that any inherent biases of the author of an article are an inherent aspect of the article.  


 
Sure and to clarify - if you want to talk about the bias of the actual author of the article that's fine as it is relevant - my problem is with the idea of limiting what gets posted here and with dismissing things out of hand based on the source they come from.  If someone wants to post articles from a left-leaning source or a right-leaning source they are welcome to do so - we haven't even filled up one page of this board yet and we've still only got a handfull of posters here so I don't think we're in much danger of clutter.  Those who aren't interested in reading the article can easily skip it!
 
 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Linda10
Posts: 81
Registered: ‎10-02-2007
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

I have just finished reading all 15 posts on this thread.  It made me think of a true story told to me by someone I knew personally, not someone printing an article in some magazine or newspaper, and thought it would be appropriate to post here.

 

This gentleman just passed away, sadly, this year, as a matter of fact; but I think I will always remember this story.  My friend had fought in World War II over in Europe.  While in battle, he was injured and spent some time in a hospital in Germany, recuperating from his wounds.  Also in this hospital were other American soldiers as well as German soldiers.  Apparently one day one of the American soldiers said to one of the German soldiers something to the effect of, "Hitler is a bad, bad man."  To which the German soldier replied, in so many words, "Well, you know, our economy was really bad.  Then Hitler came along and made everything better for us."

 

I was told this story years before the current election.  This economic crisis has been fermenting for years.  I find it very "convenient" that an economic collapse occurred one month before a presidential election.  Interesting.

 

Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

[ Edited ]

Everyman wrote:

Are suggesting that nobody should ever be allowed to say that they are not interested in a given link because of some specific reason they also give?  Is that to be a forbidden thing to post?  It sounds as though that is what you're suggesting, but it seems unlike you, so I don't want to assume that without your agreeing that it was your intent.   


 

Sorry - I wasn't very clear.  My objection is not to your mentioning of the bias but to this:

 

"It would be nice if we would stick to mainstream sourcing here and not clutter up the last weeks of this election by posting competing biases, particularly by those who aren't eligible to be voters in the election and have no stake in the outcome.  But I suppose that's too much to ask.  "

 

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you - and if so I apologize - but your suggestion that we "not clutter up the last weeks of this election" strikes me as a your suggestion that articles like this one (or from sites like the one this comes from) should not be posted - and your mentioning of "those who aren't eligible to be voters" strikes me as a suggested limitation on who ought to be posting such articles.  If you want to point out that a source is biased, of course thats fine, but I think the notion that we should "stick to mainstream sourcing" is indeed too much to ask.  I don't think its a good idea to place such restictions on the sources that are posted here.  And I certainly don't think anyone's eligibility to vote in the US is at all relevent to what they can or should post.

 


Message Edited by Jon_B on 10-21-2008 06:40 PM
________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

[ Edited ]

Linda10 wrote:

I have just finished reading all 15 posts on this thread.  It made me think of a true story told to me by someone I knew personally, not someone printing an article in some magazine or newspaper, and thought it would be appropriate to post here.

 

This gentleman just passed away, sadly, this year, as a matter of fact; but I think I will always remember this story.  My friend had fought in World War II over in Europe.  While in battle, he was injured and spent some time in a hospital in Germany, recuperating from his wounds.  Also in this hospital were other American soldiers as well as German soldiers.  Apparently one day one of the American soldiers said to one of the German soldiers something to the effect of, "Hitler is a bad, bad man."  To which the German soldier replied, in so many words, "Well, you know, our economy was really bad.  Then Hitler came along and made everything better for us."

 

I was told this story years before the current election.  This economic crisis has been fermenting for years.  I find it very "convenient" that an economic collapse occurred one month before a presidential election.  Interesting.

 


I'm not sure what exactly you mean. Do you think the economic crisis was manufactured to collapse so that someone would benefit politically? Or do you think Hitler was responsible for the bad economy in Germany so that he could control the country and kill Jews? Are you comparing Hitler to someone? i believe Hitler was brought up earlier as part of a discussion on childhood issues relating to adult personalities, not being compared to one of the candidates. If this is what you are doing, do you have any reasons to compare either of these well-respected senators to one of history's most heinous leaders? If so, please share.

Message Edited by debbook on 10-21-2008 09:36 PM
A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

Ah.  Thanks for clarifying.  I had forgotten that I had said that.  You're right, I shouldn't have suggested the limits on points of view.  I was just suffering momentary overload from the vitrolic nonsense and hatred on both sides which has made me want to hide out from any more political activity before I just scream and get hauled off to the funny farm.  

 

I wish the time between now and the election would pass as quickly as summer seems to.  Zip, gone.  

 


Jon_B wrote:

Everyman wrote:

Are suggesting that nobody should ever be allowed to say that they are not interested in a given link because of some specific reason they also give?  Is that to be a forbidden thing to post?  It sounds as though that is what you're suggesting, but it seems unlike you, so I don't want to assume that without your agreeing that it was your intent.   


 

Sorry - I wasn't very clear.  My objection is not to your mentioning of the bias but to this:

 

"It would be nice if we would stick to mainstream sourcing here and not clutter up the last weeks of this election by posting competing biases, particularly by those who aren't eligible to be voters in the election and have no stake in the outcome.  But I suppose that's too much to ask.  "

 

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you - and if so I apologize - but your suggestion that we "not clutter up the last weeks of this election" strikes me as a your suggestion that articles like this one (or from sites like the one this comes from) should not be posted - and your mentioning of "those who aren't eligible to be voters" strikes me as a suggested limitation on who ought to be posting such articles.  If you want to point out that a source is biased, of course thats fine, but I think the notion that we should "stick to mainstream sourcing" is indeed too much to ask.  I don't think its a good idea to place such restictions on the sources that are posted here.  And I certainly don't think anyone's eligibility to vote in the US is at all relevent to what they can or should post.

 


Message Edited by Jon_B on 10-21-2008 06:40 PM

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.