CNBC: Obama’s a bully

Oh, an epiphany just struck me, ain’t it the lefty bleeding hearts that are constantly crying and pontificating over bullying of every stripe—cyber bullying, text bullying even bullying to the point of the victims committing suicide as has happened a few times in the past with teenage girls?

Well, is Obama now of that same stripe—the bully, the strong armer, twisting arms and imposing his will on We the People, the victims….yet, no lefty tears are shed for us….*sniff* *sniff*…

ted c on April 28, 2010 at 11:09 AM

At least Nixon was intelligent. This guy is dumb as a rock

georgealbert on April 28, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Please, I really like some rocks../

ted c on April 28, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Evidence suggests that bullying is “intergenerational” and that a bully at school is a victim at home (Floyd, 1985; Greenbaum, 1988). Bullies come from homes where parents: (a) prefer physical means of discipline (authoritarian); (b) are sometimes hostile and rejecting; (c) are described as both hostile and permissive (inconsistent parenting/little supervision); (d) have poor problem-solving skills; and (e) teach their children to strike back at the least provocation (Floyd, 1985; Greenbaum, 1988; Loeber & Dishion, 1984). Olweus (1991a) reports that bullies are often characterized by impulsivity, a strong need to dominate others, and have little empathy with victims. However, he found no indications that bullies are anxious, insecure, or lack self-esteem. Perhaps this is the case because bullies report that they “like” being a bully and perceive their actions as justified (Greenbaum,1988). They are reinforced for their actions through both positive reinforcement (goal attainment) and negative reinforcement (removal of threat) paradigms. Bullying is all about control. When they are in control bullies feel more secure and less anxious. Unfortunately, that security is at the expense of their victims. In general, bullies can be described as having aggressive behavior profiles combined with physical strength (Olweus, 1991b). Aggressive boys are confident of achieving success through their aggression, are unaffected by the possibility of inflicting pain and suffering, and process information about victims in a rigid and automatic fashion (Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988). Bullies believe that they pick on their victim because they are provoked or because they do not like the victim. When asked how they feel when they bullied other children, the most common responses were that they felt good/happy or that they felt mad or angry (Boulton & Underwood, 1992).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=effects+of+bullying&as_sdt=80000000000001&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

ted c on April 28, 2010 at 11:22 AM

oh Ted, he’s not anymore a DSM case than most American CEO’s. LOL*

They are all a bunch of sociopaths, frankly.

It’s a wonder murder isn’t a regular “tool” of the trade.

AnninCA on April 28, 2010 at 11:30 AM

wha? he’s not been advised to cut back on alcohol, smoking, and now been accused of bullying, he hits back at his enemies… C’mon Ann, it’s okay to ignore the evidence, but this is getting old…./

ted c on April 28, 2010 at 11:36 AM

I still don’t go along with the other conspiracy thinking stuff.

AnninCA on April 28, 2010 at 11:41 AM

clinical observations are not conspiracy. You have a theory (he’s a bully), you have evidence (research about what bullies do), and you jive it with his behavior (substance usage, “striking back”, bullying SCOTUS) and the theory is upheld somewhat in some regards. He is a workplace bully–the press, the American people, his strawmen are lying scattered on the floor, Republicans, TEa Partiers, Rush Limbaugh, need I continue….?

ted c on April 28, 2010 at 11:54 AM