Post #58558
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1013
Total Words: 206,587
Average words per post: 203.94
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2009-01-20 12:13
Politics: I hate everyone
Country: United States
So, how long until Obama disappoints everyone?
Currently 2.00/4
Post Rating: 2.0/4 (3 votes cast)
From what I see in the newspapers, internet, and on the 24 hours Obama channel, this new Obama guy seems pretty important.
I dunno where everybody on these boards lay, but either Obama will end the United States forever, or he'll be the next face on mount Rushmore and save freedom for everyone. And suddenly there's a senator's face on my t-shirt.
So how long until people realize that he's pretty average, and boring, and not going to change the world much? How long until everyone moves on and worships someone else? _________________ Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.
- - -
I'm proud to be a glutton and I don't have time for sloth
I'm greedy and I'm angry and I don't care who I cross
- - -
Hope is itself a species of happiness, and, perhaps, the chief happiness which this world affords.
Post #58559
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2009-01-20 12:47
Politics: Tree-Hugging Hippie
Country: United States
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
I'm already disappointed. Word on the newsvines (MSNBC, Al Jazeera, CNN, etc, although MSNBC and CNN to a small degree because they're not covering this much) is he's planning to continue the war in Afghanistan, even into an expanded focus by sending more troops, as opposed to his statements he'd try to get out. Sure, circumstances change... but Afghanistan has been pretty chaotic for years, and there's nothing special right now except a re-emerging Taliban. In any case, that really made me disappointed.
Not to mention his absolute silence on Israeli aggression and war crimes in Gaza (i.e. the use of white phosphorus on civilian population centers, the same white phosporus that can pretty much burn your skin off; Israeli bombing of UN headquarter buildings sheltering civilians which Israel was informed of, indiscriminate bombings and killings, etc).
To be fair, he conducted, for even world politics, an extremely civil campaign, but that doesn't justify reneging on promises and remaining silent while people in Gaza suffer.
It reminds me a lot of Pelosi, and how she gained power in Congress, as well as Democrats, on a general platform of trying to end the war in Iraq, things like that, and then completely turn on those promises.
Problem is, Republicans are just as bad, and in my opinion, generally worse, and this is why I don't vote. Why should I vote if politicians simply lie, don't carry out their promises, and actually, vote-wise and policy-wise, retain most policies and government decisions their predecessors made? Nothing changes, just the names of the people who are in government. And that's why I don't bother to vote, because nothing changes, and people who could possibly do something new, radical (in the sense of something that can make a difference and isn't some half-baked idea), like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, will never have a chance because they're decent human beings. That's the irony of American politics. _________________
Post #58560
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1142
Total Words: 133,166
Average words per post: 116.61
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2009-01-20 14:48
Politics: Nihilism
Country: American Empire
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
Mephistopheles wrote:
Al Jazeera
Mephistopheles wrote:
Israeli aggression
lol. No mention of course of the bullshit that started all this in the first place. The approximately 4,048 rockets and 4,040 mortars fired into Israel since 2000 and still counting. And you're calling the Israelis the aggressors? Heh.
...the same white phosporus that can pretty much burn your skin off
Wah, wah. The U.S. used white phosphorus against enemies in Iraq and barely anyone said anything. Yet when Israel uses it, suddenly it's a warcrime. Do I sense a double-standard? _________________ ಠ_ಠ
Post #58561
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2009-01-20 15:06
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Re: So, how long until Bush disappoints Republicans?
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
James wrote:
From what I see in the newspapers, internet, and on the 24 hours Obama channel, this new Obama guy seems pretty important.
I dunno where everybody on these boards lay, but either Obama will end the United States forever, or he'll be the next face on mount Rushmore and save freedom for everyone
. And suddenly there's a senator's face on my t-shirt.
So how long until people realize that he's pretty average, and boring, and not going to change the world much*? How long until everyone moves on and worships someone else**?
I think you got the wrong idea about not getting Republican Presidential Dynasties elected and utterly fucking up the USA and the World Economy.
Already giving up? Do you think we are dealing with that Bushian scum, silly pessimist.
Do you know information we don't around here.....
*Consider Hollywood jetset for presidential entertainment tours around USA -happy now? Does it relieve your cynical trait?
** Whatever gave you the idea it was worship cult huh!? Sensible people are relieved in seeing the last of George Bush and henchmen sons of bitches' war against America and World. _________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Post #58562
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2009-01-20 15:09
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
Al Jazeera
Mephistopheles wrote:
Israeli aggression
lol. No mention of course of the bullshit that started all this in the first place. The approximately 4,048 rockets and 4,040 mortars fired into Israel since 2000 and still counting. And you're calling the Israelis the aggressors? Heh.
...the same white phosporus that can pretty much burn your skin off
Wah, wah. The U.S. used white phosphorus against enemies in Iraq and barely anyone said anything. Yet when Israel uses it, suddenly it's a warcrime. Do I sense a double-standard?
In other words....... business as usual -boring. _________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Post #58563
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2009-01-20 15:10
Politics: Tree-Hugging Hippie
Country: United States
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
Al Jazeera
Mephistopheles wrote:
Israeli aggression
lol. No mention of course of the bullshit that started all this in the first place. The approximately 4,048 rockets and 4,040 mortars fired into Israel since 2000 and still counting. And you're calling the Israelis the aggressors? Heh.
If you took the time to read Al Jazeera, which I do on a regular, daily basis, despite the fact it is Arab-language foremost, and stories in the Arab world are focused more (just as stories in America are focused most on a network like CNN or Fox or MSNBC, regardless of ideology), it is virtually unbiased. The articles written on Al Jazeera are objective, and I've not noticed stories which lack that objectivity on there, and even when they report on Arab-Israeli conflicts, they go out of their way to provide both sides of the story. So, if "lol" is your way of saying one of the three examples I listed (three networks is hardly the limit of where I get my news) is somehow wrong in the sense the network is biased, your plan backfired.
Moving on, I'm well aware of rockets being fired into Israel. In threads I've written here concerning Israel-Palestine, I believe I have mentioned both sides are not doing much to preserve or create the peace (depending on the cease fire/treaty arrangements at any given moment). My sympathies and my concerns in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for over 60 years running now lay solely with the civilians in Israel and Palestine, first and foremost, and their suffering. The Palestinians are suffering. Hamas and Israel cannot get along because Israel sees Hamas as a terrorist organization, while Hamas doesn't want to tolerate Israel whatsoever. Both sides have valid concerns. The Arab world attacked Israel first, and then in 1967 was almost clearly (can't exactly be proven, but it seems obvious to me) planning another attack on Israel. Israel, however, targets civilians indiscriminately, uses chemical weapons on civilians, overreacts on a scale of epic proportions to the most minor incidents, engages in a policy of colonization to steal land from Palestinians, and then engages in creating humanitarian crises such as the blockade of Gaza which put pressure on Hamas (it's no wonder they launched rockets which have caused virtually no fatalities or destruction in Israel as a measure of desperation and defiance), as well as the added policy during the blockade of restricting medical aid, food, fuel, and cutting electricity and disrupting the supply of running water. You can't create a ghetto out of Gaza and then expect the Gazans to simply take it. Hamas is popular in Gaza not only because of their social infrastructure and programs, but because of this recent war. I'll also mention Israeli rocket attacks on Gaza, helicopter attacks, assassinations, etc.
It's clear to me the problem in Israel-Palestine lays with the leadership policies of both factions (I'm not counting West Bank for now since they're, and I say this as objectively as possible, puppets of Israel, and I don't believe you don't notice it to a degree, too), not with the people. I don't think the average citizen of Gaza Strip or of Israel wants to keep fighting so pointlessly because of some vague notion that Muslims and Jews need to keep fighting. It's been going on for over 60 years, and it needs to stop.
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
...the same white phosporus that can pretty much burn your skin off
Wah, wah. The U.S. used white phosphorus against enemies in Iraq and barely anyone said anything. Yet when Israel uses it, suddenly it's a warcrime. Do I sense a double-standard?
I've never supported the war in Iraq, and I would never support chemical warfare, so if you sense a double standard, please point it out, because you're making no sense. If you are referring to other people who are biased against Israel, I don't see why you're bringing it up, as we're talking about our opinions, not the opinions of any random person you can think of. Please stay on topic, because if your only response to the use of chemical weapons is to begin to imply anti-Israeli sentiments, you've virtually lost your whole argument, as you'd be engaging in accusing people (apparently not me, but nameless, random, anonymous people who aren't relevant to my post at all) of discrimination in order to distract from the actual discussion.
Post #58564
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2009-01-20 15:13
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
Mephistopheles wrote:
I'm already disappointed. Word on the newsvines (MSNBC, Al Jazeera, CNN, etc, although MSNBC and CNN to a small degree because they're not covering this much) is he's planning to continue the war in Afghanistan, even into an expanded focus by sending more troops, as opposed to his statements he'd try to get out. Sure, circumstances change... but Afghanistan has been pretty chaotic for years, and there's nothing special right now except a re-emerging Taliban. In any case, that really made me disappointed.
Not to mention his absolute silence on Israeli aggression and war crimes in Gaza (i.e. the use of white phosphorus on civilian population centers, the same white phosporus that can pretty much burn your skin off; Israeli bombing of UN headquarter buildings sheltering civilians which Israel was informed of, indiscriminate bombings and killings, etc).
To be fair, he conducted, for even world politics, an extremely civil campaign, but that doesn't justify reneging on promises and remaining silent while people in Gaza suffer.
It reminds me a lot of Pelosi, and how she gained power in Congress, as well as Democrats, on a general platform of trying to end the war in Iraq, things like that, and then completely turn on those promises.
Problem is, Republicans are just as bad, and in my opinion, generally worse, and this is why I don't vote. Why should I vote if politicians simply lie, don't carry out their promises, and actually, vote-wise and policy-wise, retain most policies and government decisions their predecessors made? Nothing changes, just the names of the people who are in government. And that's why I don't bother to vote, because nothing changes, and people who could possibly do something new, radical (in the sense of something that can make a difference and isn't some half-baked idea), like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, will never have a chance because they're decent human beings. That's the irony of American politics.
A predictable bleeding heart rant by the Trendy-leftie , I didn't hear complaints against Hamas when it was firing their rockets against Israel and got an outrage out of it from the usual trendy-lefties kneejerkers. Perhaps they need more propaganda about Israeli casualties like in the Gaza Strip to feed the media cycle. _________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Post #58566
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2009-01-20 17:12
Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative)
back to single party control
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
James wrote:
From what I see in the newspapers, internet, and on the 24 hours Obama channel, this new Obama guy seems pretty important.
I dunno where everybody on these boards lay, but either Obama will end the United States forever, or he'll be the next face on mount Rushmore and save freedom for everyone. And suddenly there's a senator's face on my t-shirt.
So how long until people realize that he's pretty average, and boring, and not going to change the world much?
Obama's election is a big win for black people, but I got over his race a long time ago. I do not think his election signals the end of the West quite as dramatically as, say, the departure of the Elves, but as an opponent of his ideas I do see trouble ahead. I'm sure many of you would agree with me that it is best for the government to be in a deadlock, unable to pass much of import at any time. Bush and his allied congress had two major policies that I like, being the war and tax cuts, but a wide swath of issues that I hated, such as protective tariffs, NCLB, prescription drug entitlements, and a glaring LACK of spending cuts. You guys probably hated all of it. This is the signature of single party control.
Democrats have not held both Congress and the executive branch since the Johnson administration. In the same way that Bush's overspending is going to harm future decades, the policies made during the Johnson Administration are still sapping away this country's strength. Welfare has completely destroyed black families and ensconced their sense of victimhood. The other extensions of the Great Society have lowered peoples' confidence in the federal government, extended the federal government's power and crushed the states, not reduced poverty in the slightest in 40 years of operation, made education demonstrably worse, and played a role in the more recent rise of health care costs. The Obama Administration, together with an allied congress, is at license to be at least as destructive as LBJ.
James wrote:
How long until everyone moves on and worships someone else?
The Onion ran a special television report, in which they raise this very issue towards the end of the segment. LINK
Post #58570
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1142
Total Words: 133,166
Average words per post: 116.61
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2009-01-20 23:31
Politics: Nihilism
Country: American Empire
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
Mephistopheles wrote:
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
Al Jazeera
Mephistopheles wrote:
Israeli aggression
lol. No mention of course of the bullshit that started all this in the first place. The approximately 4,048 rockets and 4,040 mortars fired into Israel since 2000 and still counting. And you're calling the Israelis the aggressors? Heh.
If you took the time to read Al Jazeera, which I do on a regular, daily basis, despite the fact it is Arab-language foremost, and stories in the Arab world are focused more (just as stories in America are focused most on a network like CNN or Fox or MSNBC, regardless of ideology), it is virtually unbiased. The articles written on Al Jazeera are objective, and I've not noticed stories which lack that objectivity on there, and even when they report on Arab-Israeli conflicts, they go out of their way to provide both sides of the story. So, if "lol" is your way of saying one of the three examples I listed (three networks is hardly the limit of where I get my news) is somehow wrong in the sense the network is biased, your plan backfired.
I took your advice, especially since I saw John Stewart interview the head of Al-Jazeera, who seemed like a level-headed person. Then I saw what they named their Gaza section.
"War on Gaza"
Gee, that's funny. Israel itself declared that its beef was with Hamas and not Gaza. Front page and I already see bias.
Unperturbed, I clicked on the link. Here are some of the articles I found. The so-called "Israeli" sides of the story.
"Israel's 'colonial tactics' decried"
First paragraph in the article:
Azmi Bishara, an Arab-Israeli analyst and former member of the Israeli parliament, has lashed out at the Israeli media campaign being run alongside its war on Gaza that criminalises the victims and victimises the coloniser.
"Israel's failure to learn"
First two paragraphs in the article:
When George Bush, the US president, first entered the White House as the commander-in-chief in 2001, Palestinians were being killed in the al-Aqsa intifada.
Eight years later, as Bush prepares to leave office, Israel is carrying out one of the largest massacres in its 60-year occupation of Palestine.
There was a caveat, though. An article called "Israelis reflect on 'all-out war'". Though I would imagine that such articles like that are a rarity.
Mephistopheles wrote:
...Israel, however, targets civilians indiscriminately, uses chemical weapons on civilians, overreacts on a scale of epic proportions to the most minor incidents, engages in a policy of colonization to steal land from Palestinians, and then engages in creating humanitarian crises such as the blockade of Gaza which put pressure on Hamas (it's no wonder they launched rockets which have caused virtually no fatalities or destruction in Israel as a measure of desperation and defiance), as well as the added policy during the blockade of restricting medical aid, food, fuel, and cutting electricity and disrupting the supply of running water. You can't create a ghetto out of Gaza and then expect the Gazans to simply take it. Hamas is popular in Gaza not only because of their social infrastructure and programs, but because of this recent war. I'll also mention Israeli rocket attacks on Gaza, helicopter attacks, assassinations, etc.
Most Israelis are disillusioned with the peace process. They pulled all the settlements in Gaza and what was their reward? A Gaza run by Hamas that fires rockets (whether that individual rocket hurts anybody or not is irrelevant) into mainland Israel. You see, Israelis do not view Hamas as a fly in their ointment. They view Hamas as the current incarnation of the Arabs who for 60+ years have sought almost nothing but their destruction.
I see this whole conflict differently than those who view this as a conflict between right and wrong. I view this as a battle between existentialism (Israel) and nihilism (The Palestinians) The Israelis fight because they have something live for. The Palestinians fight because they have nothing to live for. For Israel, the battle is divided into two halfs, the battle for survival, and the battle for a higher moral standard. Currently, it seems like Israel has a firm grip on the first half, but its grip on the second half is slipping. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have no standards, which makes the whole conflict much simpler for them.
"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us" -Golda Meir
Mephistopheles wrote:
It's clear to me the problem in Israel-Palestine lays with the leadership policies of both factions (I'm not counting West Bank for now since they're, and I say this as objectively as possible, puppets of Israel, and I don't believe you don't notice it to a degree, too), not with the people.
No, just because they don't want to drive the Israelis into the sea doesn't mean they're puppets. Mahmoud Abbas is a pragmatist, and I had great hopes for him when he first reached his office. Unfortunately, Hamas made him a lame duck.
Mephistopheles wrote:
I don't think the average citizen of Gaza Strip or of Israel wants to keep fighting so pointlessly because of some vague notion that Muslims and Jews need to keep fighting. It's been going on for over 60 years, and it needs to stop.
The Jews would accept peace with Hamas in a heartbeat. It's up to Hamas to sacrifice its hardline position. Al-Jazeera's bullshit claim that Hamas actually recognizes Israel notwithstanding.
Mephistopheles wrote:
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
...the same white phosporus that can pretty much burn your skin off
Wah, wah. The U.S. used white phosphorus against enemies in Iraq and barely anyone said anything. Yet when Israel uses it, suddenly it's a warcrime. Do I sense a double-standard?
I've never supported the war in Iraq, and I would never support chemical warfare, so if you sense a double standard, please point it out, because you're making no sense. If you are referring to other people who are biased against Israel, I don't see why you're bringing it up, as we're talking about our opinions, not the opinions of any random person you can think of. Please stay on topic, because if your only response to the use of chemical weapons is to begin to imply anti-Israeli sentiments, you've virtually lost your whole argument, as you'd be engaging in accusing people (apparently not me, but nameless, random, anonymous people who aren't relevant to my post at all) of discrimination in order to distract from the actual discussion.
Just because you do not support a war does not mean you automatically disapprove of the way the war was fought or think its criminal, which brings me to my next point. Calling the use of white phosphorus chemical warfare is like calling flamethrowers chemical warfare. They both burn things. White phosporus just does it better, due to the use of different chemicals. I mean, picture that you are a soldier in Iraq. You are all out of frag grenades and you have to make a split-second decision to use a WP grenade. Turns out it works pretty well, and as a result might have saved the lives of your comrades had they had to clear a trench or building without the use of grenades. Of course you're going to keep on using it that way in the future if nobody tells you differently. _________________ ಠ_ಠ
Post #58575
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1013
Total Words: 206,587
Average words per post: 203.94
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2009-01-21 10:07
Politics: I hate everyone
Country: United States
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
Whoa whoa whoa, we're getting off track here. The Israel v. Palestine thing will be going for eons, but we've only got 4 to 8 years to wait for people to get bored of Obama and start acting out in disappointment.
Now for the record, I don't really mind Obama. He'd have to try hard to be worse than Bush, and he's probably better than McCain, but really... Is he really the next Lincoln or FDR? Does his presidency really warrant stylized portraits of himself with words like Hope and Change underscoring them? He's been president for about 13 hours now, they've been acting like he's the messiah for months now, and what the hell does "change" even mean?
I see at least two or three Obama t-shirts every day; since when to Americans wear government officials' faces on their clothes? And how long did it take everyone to think of Big Brother when they first saw the Obama portraits splashed everywhere?
I'm not going to demand to see his birth certificate, I'm not going to scream every time he doesn't salute the flag, and I probably won't call him B. Hussein Osama for at least several weeks into his first term, but is he really that big a deal?
Yeah, a really whitewashed, half-black guy got elected to be the national scapegoat. Morgan Freeman did it in the movies years ago. I don't see how he'll be any less mediocre or clueless than our last 30 or 40 presidents. _________________ Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.
- - -
I'm proud to be a glutton and I don't have time for sloth
I'm greedy and I'm angry and I don't care who I cross
- - -
Hope is itself a species of happiness, and, perhaps, the chief happiness which this world affords.
Post #58586
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 588
Total Words: 151,590
Average words per post: 257.81
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2009-01-22 23:33
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Country: United States
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
oddly enough I completely agree with Tristan on this, America is in danger of becoming a one party state, the republican parties image has been fractured, possibly beyond repair, the continual influx of immigrants who almost always vote democrat will further damage their image. The traditional base of the republicans, middle aged white males and the wealthy are becoming fewer and fewer, this is because there are fewer and fewer very wealthy people (because of recession and increasingly unequal income distribution) and fewer and fewer middle aged whites.
The republican party's base is aging and this election was a plain demonstration of that, the fact that John McCain won the nomination so overwhelmingly is further evidence that the traditional republican values and image are increasingly being thought of as outdated.
Whether or not you agree with him, Barack Obama is inheriting what is essentially an imperial presidency, despite being an incredibly unpopular president Bush took a lot of federal power away from Congress and the courts. Think about it any new law Obama wants will be passed instantly, any war or military action will be instantly approved. Any amount of money will also be approved with little argument.
but back to the purpose of this thread
the hero worship around Obama is beginning to scare me, it is quite like a cult of personality. No one ever asks any meaningful questions about Obama's decisions, no where is this more apparent than in the national media. I have heard people call in with legitimate concerns only to be told by reporters that "I'm sure he did mean this", the only "debate" is about how proud we should be of ourselves never is the possibility even considered that we might have made a mistake. Hero worship of great people while I don't like it, is understandable in some circumstances, but for someone who has not actually done anything great its worrisome
so I'm more afraid of Obama and the cult that has developed around him than anything else. _________________ "that doesn't make it right, just makes a whole lot of people wrong"-BSG
"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2 = 4 if that is granted, all else follows"-Orwell
Right and wrong are not concrete, rather they are relative to one's nature and nurture and fluctuate between each person.
"If you let him... he will broke your arm"-coach borris.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal." -older draft of constitution
I believe in reality..... if you believe in reality please put this in your signature
Post #58590
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2009-01-23 02:45
Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist
Country: American Empire
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
Al Jazeera
Mephistopheles wrote:
Israeli aggression
lol. No mention of course of the bullshit that started all this in the first place. The approximately 4,048 rockets and 4,040 mortars fired into Israel since 2000 and still counting. And you're calling the Israelis the aggressors? Heh.
1948. Could have had Madagascar, but instead they plopped themselves down right in the middle of wackyland. Bad move.
But here's an even better idea..... There's only 14 million of 'em. Assimilate, for god's sake.
James wrote:
Whoa whoa whoa, we're getting off track here. The Israel v. Palestine thing will be going for eons, but we've only got 4 to 8 years to wait for people to get bored of Obama and start acting out in disappointment.
How right you are.
When it comes to Obama, I am fully expecting to be disappointed. But I hope I'm wrong. _________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
Post #58592
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2009-01-23 03:08
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Afraid of a Negro President in a White Nation of America?
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (1 vote cast)
Azazel wrote:
oddly WW enough I completelyWW agree with Tristan on this, America is in danger of becoming a one party state FUD, the republican parties image has been fractured, possibly beyond repair, the continual influx of immigrants who almost always vote democrat will further damage their image.
The traditional base of the republicans, middle aged white males and the wealthy are becoming fewer and fewer,
this is because there are fewer and fewer very wealthy people (because of recession and increasingly unequal income distribution) and fewer and fewer middle aged whites.
The republican party's base is aging and this election was a plain demonstration of that, the fact that John McCain won the nomination so overwhelmingly WW is further evidence that the traditional republican values and image are increasingly WW being thought of as outdated+.
Whether or not you agree with him, Barack Obama is inheriting what is essentially WW an imperial presidency, despite being an incredibly WW unpopular president Bush took a lot of federal power away from Congress and the courts.
Think about it any new law Obama wants will be passed instantly CB,
any war or military action will be instantly approved. Any amount of money will also be approved with little argument.
but back to the purpose of this thread%
the hero worship around Obama* is beginning to scare me&, it is quite like a cult of personality.
No one ever asks any meaningful questions about Obama's decisions+,
no where is this more apparent than in the national media. I have heard people call in with legitimate concerns only to be told by reporters that "I'm sure he did mean this",
the only "debate" is about how proud we should be of ourselves never is the possibility WW even considered that we might have made a mistake @
Hero worship of great people while I don't like it, is understandable in some circumstances, but for someone who has not actually WW done anything great its worrisome
so I'm more afraid of Obama and the cult that has developed around him than anything else****.
I can't help but to be amused by you Appeal to Fear post, given you can't pinch any holes into Obama's image, you resorted to attack Obama for being Too Popular, now that's out of the way, let's return to the original intent of my post reply.
Hero Worship, certain he's won many wars like Bush or MCcain to build up this PR image, more like an effective speaker, I get you are uncomfortable with a funky Negro as President president over the White WASP Majority Get this fact silly sausage, White America got screwed by White Men too.
+ Nah just the stupid white men screwed up beyond the point of no return, need another crisis to prove it to you? No thanks here.
+ Fucking first day as President and you are complaining already!
How about eight years of Bush's disaster presidential terms well?
**** Hahaha cult of personality buddy get the fuck out! He's just way more popular than WASP old White Man President -JEALOUS?
& may be you're plain yellow chicken meat, gets scared and fearful of a negro man being so popular
FUD only the Libertarian/Tristan ignoramus would confuse the politics and economics of Republicans and Democrats and call it "One Party State" in its rhetoric, but then Libertarians are larded into Republican ranks just the same Mr Populist Azazel.
WW never quit the weasel words eh or just trying to paint an "academic veneer" to the post for extra respectability in its Appeal to Fear due to too much Popularity.
% Throwing muck is fun.
CB Gotta crystal ball you're so certain, may it is because he's a more effective speaker than Bush in convincing Congress, the person needed to get things moving to manage the crisis out.
@ Windbag rhetoric, also known as Wooden language or perhaps speech impediment, I know Azazel you can't help yourself -too hard to do it right, now Azazel do another attack on Obama's popularity by comparing it to Adolph Hitler, Lenin, Stalin or Mao...I know what you're doing you dope. _________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Post #58593
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2009-01-23 03:48
Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative)
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
Azazel wrote:
oddly enough I completely agree with Tristan on this, America is in danger of becoming a one party state, the republican parties image has been fractured, possibly beyond repair, the continual influx of immigrants who almost always vote democrat will further damage their image. The traditional base of the republicans, middle aged white males and the wealthy are becoming fewer and fewer, this is because there are fewer and fewer very wealthy people (because of recession and increasingly unequal income distribution) and fewer and fewer middle aged whites.
The republican party's base is aging and this election was a plain demonstration of that, the fact that John McCain won the nomination so overwhelmingly is further evidence that the traditional republican values and image are increasingly being thought of as outdated.
Well thank you, but I was not actually saying that we were headed towards permanent one-party rule. I was only bemoaning the problem with one-party rule. If one party controls the government, it enables the government to get things done, which is bad; I would prefer the government be shut down by infighting, filibusters, vetoes, and deadlock-- unable to act decisively except under dire pressures. Hardly anything the government "gets done" is good. In fact, I wish the government was small, impotent, and unconcerned with banal goings-on. Also, I'm not sure what this aging situation is which you describe. Turnout in 2008 was 56.8%, and turnout in 2004 was 55.6%, which are very similar figures when compared side-by-side with the very different election results. Four years could not have seen such a precipitous "dying out" of aged and white voters. This factor fails to account for the differences between the two elections. It is barely significant. I'm certain the contenders--not the voter demographics-- explain these election results. Each election was a referendum on the stronger character- 2004 was a referendum on Bush (not Kerry), and 2008 was a referendum on Obama (not McCain). Relatively few voters were interested in the weak characters. Democrats in 04 were not casting votes for Kerry so much as against Bush, and the same is true for Republicans voting against Obama--not for McCain--in 08. The nature of the nominees is so much more important than the demographics. Trying to divine US population demographics based on elections is distorted by the contenders.
edit...
Big Brother wrote:
1948. Could have had Madagascar, but instead they plopped themselves down right in the middle of wackyland. Bad move.
But here's an even better idea..... There's only 14 million of 'em. Assimilate, for god's sake.
For some odd reason, Jews in 1948 were showing a certain reluctance to trust their home countries.
Post #58594
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2009-01-23 06:42
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Big Brother wrote:
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
Al Jazeera
Mephistopheles wrote:
Israeli aggression$
lol. No mention of course of the bullshit that started all this in the first place. The approximately 4,048 rockets and 4,040 mortars fired into Israel since 2000 and still counting. And you're calling the Israelis the aggressors? Heh.
1948. Could have had Madagascar, but instead they plopped themselves down right in the middle of wackyland. Bad move.
But here's an even better idea..... There's only 14 million of 'em. Assimilate, for god's sake.
James wrote:
Whoa whoa whoa, we're getting off track here. The Israel v. Palestine thing will be going for eons, but we've only got 4 to 8 years to wait for people to get bored of Obama and start acting out in disappointment.
How right you are.
When it comes to Obama, I am fullyWW expecting to be disappointed. But I hope I'm wrong[/b]*.
$ Meph is doing banal moral posturing again....
The jaded Palestinian-v-Israeli Diaspora and discourse, all very boring, 5,000 years and counting, one million dollars the thing will keep going long after we've turned to dust.
Yes I know Obama has proven Homus Whiteus is not superior in Politics, yes, very disappointing, shame for Whitey Dixiecrat Ron Paul and Obama hasn't done anything yet on his second day as President..... mourn the day Obama got elected on and on ad lib lamentations....bwahahah.
_________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Post #58617
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2009-01-28 04:29
Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative)
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
Azazel wrote:
the hero worship around Obama is beginning to scare me, it is quite like a cult of personality. No one ever asks any meaningful questions about Obama's decisions, no where is this more apparent than in the national media. I have heard people call in with legitimate concerns only to be told by reporters that "I'm sure he did mean this", the only "debate" is about how proud we should be of ourselves never is the possibility even considered that we might have made a mistake. Hero worship of great people while I don't like it, is understandable in some circumstances, but for someone who has not actually done anything great its worrisome
so I'm more afraid of Obama and the cult that has developed around him than anything else.
I was watching MSNBC earlier today, and it struck me that some of the adoration must simply derive from a gush of relief. This is the first time in eight long, difficult years that the media likes the man in the White House. I would not be surprised if for the next four years, the economy is a little better and the ozone is a little thicker simply from journalists' sheer delight in having Barack Obama for a president. Clearly, it is easier to write an optimistic story about current trends if you like the leadership. Jim Cramer, a freelance stock guru, wrote an interesting opinion about this phenomenon in his book Mad Money: The stock goes down when the news media hates it and pumps out negative opinions about it; companies which receive bad media attention are usually a sell (temporarily) even if their fundamentals are really really strong, since the media drives the herd before it and forms their consensus. There's often a period of time in following a stock in which there's simply no point in fighting the herd, even if you disagree with it, and you should not start your opposing bids until the herd loses momentum.
The same thing may be happening now with the President: journalists are so glad to be writing about President Obama rather than President Bush, that even if he's actually nothing special, the media makes it so. Suddenly he is special, and suddenly whole herd, the economy at large, gets a real bounce because the media makes it so. Nothing wrong here really, I'm happy from any bounce in the economy even if it is whimsical.
Post #58618
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2009-01-28 10:51
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Black Man in The White House:Jealous Republicans
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (1 vote cast)
Tristan wrote:
Azazel wrote:
the hero worship around Obama is beginning to scare me, it is quite like a cult of personality. No one ever asks any meaningful questions about Obama's decisions, no where is this more apparent than in the national media. I have heard people call in with legitimate concerns only to be told by reporters that "I'm sure he did mean this", the only "debate" is about how proud we should be of ourselves never is the possibility even considered that we might have made a mistake. Hero worship of great people while I don't like it, is understandable in some circumstances, but for someone who has not actually done anything great its worrisome
so I'm more afraid of Obama and the cult that has developed around him than anything else.
I was watching MSNBC earlier today, and it struck me that some of the adoration must simply derive from a gush of relief.
This is the first time in eight long, difficult years that the media likes the man in the White House &.
I would not be surprised if for the next four years, the economy is a little better and the ozone is a little thicker simply from journalists' sheer delight in having Barack Obama for a president. BITCH
Clearly, it is easier to write an optimistic story about current trends if you like the leadership.
Jim Cramer $$$ a freelance stock guru, wrote an interesting opinion about this phenomenon in his book Mad Money: The stock goes down when the news media hates it and pumps out negative opinions about it; companies which receive bad media attention are usually a sell (temporarily) even if their fundamentals are really really strong,
since the media drives the herd before it and forms their consensus**.
There's often a period of time in following a stock in which there's simply no point in fighting the herd, even if you disagree with it, and you should not start your opposing bids until the herd loses momentum*.
The same thing may be happening now with the President: journalists are so glad to be writing about President Obama rather than President Bush, that even if he's actually nothing special, the media makes it so.
Suddenly WW he is special, and suddenlyWW whole herd, the economy at large, gets a real bounce because the media makes it soCD .
Nothing wrong here really, I'm happy from any bounce in the economy even if it is whimsical.
The honest question is how is Obama gonna fix the damaged made by Bush and his Republican Sons of Bitches, can you reply to that Tristan?
Dear Tristan, I see nonsense all the time from you on Obama but I don't hear about the actual damage Republicans and George Bush have caused the US and the World Economy plus two wars under false pretenses, lying to Congress and the untold misery to the war vets.
Could you try being decent post for a change instead of being such a POLITICAL WANKER!, I know you're spinning negative dis on this Forum, gotta earn the cash right.
*Is that your attack strategy little Tristan, not very nice and not very honest either
CD: that's called Business and Consumer Confidence, you implying that Bush and Republicans were a dead-hand on the economy and dragging it into an implosion -answer with a post if you got a comeback fuckwit.
& Tell me of any reasons why the media or anyone could find any popularity with Bush and the Republicans after what they've done to America, you stupid or simply post-spinning muck?
BITCH never quit bitching about a popular Democrat President, what's the matter jealous little Republican? Same goes for you Azazel.
$$$ Quoting out of context, that's stock manipulation, you doing the same thing here against Obama.
** Always check the fundamentals bastard, hence market research.
WW note the use of this classic weasel word "suddenly", shame it was too worn out by meph over the years though. _________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Post #58628
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2009-02-05 17:30
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Pessimistss don't vote because it is 'useless'.
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (1 vote cast)
yitzchak wrote:
Disappointed from day one...
Pessimists are always disappointed even before the action begins, did you ask your parents to abort you before giving a chance to live a full life of potential?
You have such a loser thinking process eg: don't attempt exams because you'll lose any way. _________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Post #58787
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 4
Total Words: 481
Average words per post: 120.25
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2009-03-28 03:44
Politics: World Revolution
Country: United States of Oppression
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (5 votes cast)
view doubleplusungood memoryhole crimethink
you ask me, Mr Obama is pretty smart. He knows how to use big boy words to make the average person believe the crap that comes out of his mouth... the statement that won his election was, "I do not believe in a dumb war." Immediately people (mainly left, but right included) voted for him because he was supposed to bring all the troops home!!! NO!!! he is continuing the war in Afghanistan. Not doing much for the economy-aka spend spend spend on programmes that don't make any sense. He's not doing anything for the states in trouble...a federal stimulus wont save California as an article from the LA Times states.... HE'S TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS ummm... Unconstitutional He is just a regular leftwinger...hiking up taxes, taking away more rights....awesome... CANADA REFUGE STATUS IS UPON ME until I can get off this continent... _________________ They say no... so I do it anyway
Post #58791
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2009-03-28 05:30
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Who gives a shit for gun right lunacy
Currently 3.25/4
Post Rating: 3.3/4 (4 votes cast)
thought_criminal_NO_27 wrote:
you ask me, Mr Obama is pretty smart. He knows how to use big boy words to make the average person believe the crap that comes out of his mouth... the statement that won his election was, "I do not believe in a dumb war."
Immediately people (mainly left, but right included) voted for him because he was supposed to bring all the troops home!!! NO!!! he is continuing the war in Afghanistan.
Not doing much for the economy-aka spend spend spend on programmes that don't make any sense. He's not doing anything for the states in trouble...a federal stimulus wont save California as an article from the LA Times states....
HE'S TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS ummm... Unconstitutional He is just a regular leftwinger...hiking up taxes, taking away more rights....awesome... CANADA REFUGE STATUS IS UPON ME until I can get off this continent...
Big yawn this is pure Republican Libertarian Militia claptrap, get this Bush our dear gun-totting freak damaged the US Economy so much even Obama with the best of intentions is having trouble shoring it up, perhaps international news don't far across the wheat and corn fields in America's boondock South, the crisis is worldwide.
News break on Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Islamic Militant attacks have made the government there very unstable, could be toppled, which could go the way of the militants without aid, hence the whole country can become a training camp for Islamic Terrorism, the threat on this is very real. _________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Post #58795
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2009-03-28 13:11
Politics: Pirate Party
Country: United States
Currently 1.50/4
Post Rating: 1.5/4 (6 votes cast)
view doubleplusungood memoryhole crimethink
Sorry about not responding to you for so long. I typically don't spend much time here, and must've forgotten our conversation.
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
I took your advice, especially since I saw John Stewart interview the head of Al-Jazeera, who seemed like a level-headed person. Then I saw what they named their Gaza section.
"War on Gaza"
Gee, that's funny. Israel itself declared that its beef was with Hamas and not Gaza. Front page and I already see bias.
I can see your beef with Al-J's seeming lack of objectivity. To point out something obvious, there is no news agency on the planet I know of that is entirely objective. There's no such thing. Al-J is Arabcentric, considering they're Arab-based and focus on Arab issues, just as Israeli media focuses on Israeli issues. As far as I know, Israeli media supports the Israeli position that the wars in Gaza and around Israel are due to terrorism or Arab aggression, or defending Israel, so you should be aware that Israeli media is not objective either compared to Al-J: they both focus on the issues of their main target audience: Israelis and Arabs, respectively. American media, even MSNBC.MSN.com which is as objective as I've seen in any American news agency, doesn't suggest America is warmongering or promoting terrorism through terrorist acts upon civilians in warzones.
Additionally, the position of a foreign government does not change how journalism sees a war. If Israeli is bombing and invading Gaza, it would not be biased to call it a "War on Gaza" news section.
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Unperturbed, I clicked on the link. Here are some of the articles I found. The so-called "Israeli" sides of the story.
"Israel's 'colonial tactics' decried"
First paragraph in the article:
Azmi Bishara, an Arab-Israeli analyst and former member of the Israeli parliament, has lashed out at the Israeli media campaign being run alongside its war on Gaza that criminalises the victims and victimises the coloniser.
Israel does engage in colonialism. That's a well-known fact. Even today, illegal settlements are expanding into Palestinian lands, with the Israeli government unwilling to do anything about it.
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
"Israel's failure to learn"
First two paragraphs in the article:
When George Bush, the US president, first entered the White House as the commander-in-chief in 2001, Palestinians were being killed in the al-Aqsa intifada.
Eight years later, as Bush prepares to leave office, Israel is carrying out one of the largest massacres in its 60-year occupation of Palestine.
There was a caveat, though. An article called "Israelis reflect on 'all-out war'". Though I would imagine that such articles like that are a rarity.
That is hard reporting but it's accurate considering it was one of the largest massacres in the occupation history of Palestine.
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Most Israelis are disillusioned with the peace process. They pulled all the settlements in Gaza and what was their reward? A Gaza run by Hamas that fires rockets (whether that individual rocket hurts anybody or not is irrelevant) into mainland Israel. You see, Israelis do not view Hamas as a fly in their ointment. They view Hamas as the current incarnation of the Arabs who for 60+ years have sought almost nothing but their destruction.
Israel engages in colonization, imposes blockades of civilian population centers, shutting down power to millions of civilians, and creating an humanitarian crisis. I've never believed Hamas' behavior was particularly justified, but Israel has no moral ground to stand on considering the previous facts. Israel can pull out settlements it has no business maintaining in the first place in Gaza, but when it then expands settlements in the West Bank, Israel has no right to complain as far as I see it. You can't stop colonizing Gaza illegally if you're just going to colonize the West Bank even more, and then complain and whine about Palestinians not being good little Palestinians willing to be evicted from their homes and land and not fight back.
The conflict goes way, way beyond 1948 (or 1949 when Israel became a nation and the Arab nations went to war immediately). It begins over a thousand years ago, and hasn't stopped since. The war the Arabs imposed upon Israel in 1948/9 was incredibly cold-blooded, but today, the ones causing instability on a mass scale are the Israelis. While the Arabs fire a bunch of rockets that overwhelmingly don't even hit anything living or constructed, the Israelis colonize and kill by the hundreds. So are you saying it's a matter of "they started it first a long time ago!"? That's a pretty stupid justification for more death and suffering. Simply put, the Arabs AND the Israelis need to get their act together and create a lasting peace. Neither side is particularly willing to do that at the moment, and with a hard-line government forming in Israel, we'll not see peace during Netanyahu's administration at the very least.
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
No, just because they don't want to drive the Israelis into the sea doesn't mean they're puppets. Mahmoud Abbas is a pragmatist, and I had great hopes for him when he first reached his office. Unfortunately, Hamas made him a lame duck.
You completely misunderstand. West Bank has no power, it has no authority. It can't stop Israel from taking more and more land, and colonizing more and more. It can't do anything, and that's why I said they're puppets.
Abbas seems like an OK politician, but he has no real power, kindof like the Dalai Lama. He can talk all he wants, but no one really listens or does anything about it.
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
The Jews would accept peace with Hamas in a heartbeat. It's up to Hamas to sacrifice its hardline position. Al-Jazeera's bullshit claim that Hamas actually recognizes Israel notwithstanding.
No, it's not up to anyone in particular. It's up to everyone. Both the Jews and the Arabs need to just fucking stop already. The Arabs need to stop fucking up the peace process by firing rockets which just invite military responses, by suicide bombing civilians, by kidnapping Israeli soldiers which invite MORE military responses on a massive level, by terrorizing their own populace into supporting their extremist agendas, and terrorizing Israeli citizens into being fearful of their own existence; while the Jews also need to stop fucking up the peace process by creating humanitarian crises, by colonizing, etc etc. Both sides need to just stop it already, because I probably speak for a lot of Americans who have no real stake in either side of the Jewish-Arab conflict when I say 'enough is enough'.
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
which brings me to my next point. Calling the use of white phosphorus chemical warfare is like calling flamethrowers chemical warfare. They both burn things. White phosporus just does it better, due to the use of different chemicals. I mean, picture that you are a soldier in Iraq. You are all out of frag grenades and you have to make a split-second decision to use a WP grenade. Turns out it works pretty well, and as a result might have saved the lives of your comrades had they had to clear a trench or building without the use of grenades. Of course you're going to keep on using it that way in the future if nobody tells you differently.
Using white phosporus in civilian zones is a war crime considering the difference between something like a flamethrower which is close-quarters, and a cloud of white phosporus dropped, or shelled, which injures and kills a lot of people in a decently-sized area.
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Just because you do not support a war does not mean you automatically disapprove of the way the war was fought or think its criminal
What's that supposed to mean? It's like if I said you enjoy people shitting into your mouth, it makes no sense and it's entirely ridiculous. Don't use random ad homs, please. That's the second time you used accusations, even after I asked you to stop. _________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker.
Last edited by Mephistopheles on Sat 2009-03-28 23:36; edited 1 time in total
Post #58798
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2009-03-28 13:38
Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative)
Currently 1.50/4
Post Rating: 1.5/4 (6 votes cast)
view doubleplusungood memoryhole crimethink
Mephistopheles wrote:
I see this whole conflict differently than those who view this as a conflict between right and wrong. I view this as a battle between existentialism (Israel) and nihilism (The Palestinians) The Israelis fight because they have something live for. The Palestinians fight because they have nothing to live for. For Israel, the battle is divided into two halfs, the battle for survival, and the battle for a higher moral standard. Currently, it seems like Israel has a firm grip on the first half, but its grip on the second half is slipping. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have no standards, which makes the whole conflict much simpler for them.
Post #58805
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2009-03-28 21:42
Politics: Pirate Party
Country: United States
Currently 1.50/4
Post Rating: 1.5/4 (6 votes cast)
view doubleplusungood memoryhole crimethink
Tristan wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
I see this whole conflict differently than those who view this as a conflict between right and wrong. I view this as a battle between existentialism (Israel) and nihilism (The Palestinians) The Israelis fight because they have something live for. The Palestinians fight because they have nothing to live for. For Israel, the battle is divided into two halfs, the battle for survival, and the battle for a higher moral standard. Currently, it seems like Israel has a firm grip on the first half, but its grip on the second half is slipping. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have no standards, which makes the whole conflict much simpler for them.
Post #58894
Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 78
Total Words: 11,587
Average words per post: 148.55
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2009-04-08 00:38
Politics: Silly Party
Country: Scotland
Back on Topic
Currently 2.00/4
Post Rating: 2.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Barrack Obama's presidency can, but shouldn't be judged yet.
Few reasons
1. To quote a lyric "Nothing's ever different/ 'cause all governments the same/ they can call it freedom/ but slavery is the game". Massively cynical but element of truth.
2. Who knows? Despite massive cynicism promoted by his speechs about 'hope' and 'change', what if he does actually do a good job? Not only better than George Bush, but better than any president ever.
3. Judge him later. I mean he's less than a tenth into his presidential career, we can't possibly decide yet. Perhaps he'll invest more troops in Afghanistan, they'll stabilise the region, he can bring them all home by Christmas (highly unlikely reference to British propaganda during the First World War). They aren't out halfway through his term, judge him harshly as possible.
4. It is not a One-Party system, however they do share similar viewpoints unless the other party agrees. This may be confusing, but say the Republicans suggested free healthcare, a Democratic policy would you not agree?, the Democrats would disagree for the simple reason that they are by nature against Republicans.
Post #58895
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2009-04-08 06:23
Politics: Pirate Party
Country: United States
Re: Back on Topic
Currently 2.00/4
Post Rating: 2.0/4 (3 votes cast)
slymonkeyinc20 wrote:
Barrack Obama's presidency can, but shouldn't be judged yet.
Overall, a general judgment would be extremely premature. However, judgments of his actions so far, his policies, his blind eye towards major issues, inaction, and poor judgment of economic and political handling, are things which must already be taken into hand considering they've happened, and merit discussion, condemnation, criticism, praise, etc.
My problems with him:
-Poor handling of the bail-outs (I've discussed it at length in Escapism's introduction thread in Guestbook)
-Lack of interest with Gaza
-Support of Bush policies that qualified as fascist (continued detention without charge, Bush-style secrecy, etc)
There's a few others, but those three main ones overshadow everything else. There's a number of actions in the works or already implemented that I like, such as requiring employers to enroll their employees in 401k retirement plans, and his policy of allowing stem-cell research which can go a long way to easing and eradicating genetic diseases.
However, those good things he is doing are heavily overshadowed by his complete indifference to the suffering of others and poor management of the bail-out fiasco, and then there's the military policies of Bush that apparently aren't going to be changed under Obama.
slymonkeyinc20 wrote:
Few reasons
1. To quote a lyric "Nothing's ever different/ 'cause all governments the same/ they can call it freedom/ but slavery is the game". Massively cynical but element of truth.
Cynical, but the everyday life for us Americans doesn't change. On any given day, we're usually at war with a country most Americans can't find on the map, the news talks about corporate excess and abuse, school shootings, drugs, murder, and there's plenty of advertisements bombarding us with encouragements to buy, buy, buy, throw away, buy.
slymonkeyinc20 wrote:
2. Who knows? Despite massive cynicism promoted by his speechs about 'hope' and 'change', what if he does actually do a good job? Not only better than George Bush, but better than any president ever.
Better than FDR? Hardly. Within 100 days FDR already had the economy massively reorganized, and the rest of his New Deal in the works. All I've seen so far from Mr Obama is the government tossing free money to corrupt corporations who just... abuse it! What a fucking surprise!
slymonkeyinc20 wrote:
3. Judge him later. I mean he's less than a tenth into his presidential career, we can't possibly decide yet. Perhaps he'll invest more troops in Afghanistan, they'll stabilise the region, he can bring them all home by Christmas (highly unlikely reference to British propaganda during the First World War). They aren't out halfway through his term, judge him harshly as possible.
Sure we can judge him. He sucks. But the issue is will his presidency overall suck? That's truly a future issue. For now, the judgment sticks: he sucks.
slymonkeyinc20 wrote:
4. It is not a One-Party system, however they do share similar viewpoints unless the other party agrees. This may be confusing, but say the Republicans suggested free healthcare, a Democratic policy would you not agree?, the Democrats would disagree for the simple reason that they are by nature against Republicans.
You don't understand American politics. Republicans would NEVER support free healthcare because it would just supplement the expenses of the scum poor and the niggers blacks, while Democrats never implement free healthcare (even though they rant and rave about how important free healthcare is) because it would alienate Liebermanites moderate and anti-semitic conservative Democratic voters.
That's how petty it actually is, and that's really how it is. It's a two-party system, but both parties don't do a fucking thing, and they are virtually identical in practice, but in what they promise and say, they seem different. However, looks in this case are deceiving. _________________
Post #58897
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2009-04-08 09:33
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
disappointed in not getting Ubermann Praesident
Currently 3.25/4
Post Rating: 3.3/4 (4 votes cast)
yitzchak wrote:
Disappointed from day one...
Oh so indeed, I suppose McCain is better, that statement is pure idiocy, yeah shame he ain't white enough to lift you off your 'disappointment', now for your details (?), I bet it is the worn out libertarian/populist weasel sentences, which will hint, wink, circle and zig-zag and nod but not provide specifics...typical wankery. _________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Post #58898
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2009-04-08 14:41
Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative)
Re: Back on Topic
Currently 1.60/4
Post Rating: 1.6/4 (5 votes cast)
Mephistopheles wrote:
slymonkeyinc20 wrote:
2. Who knows? Despite massive cynicism promoted by his speechs about 'hope' and 'change', what if he does actually do a good job? Not only better than George Bush, but better than any president ever.
Better than FDR? Hardly. Within 100 days FDR already had the economy massively reorganized, and the rest of his New Deal in the works. All I've seen so far from Mr Obama is the government tossing free money to corrupt corporations who just... abuse it! What a fucking surprise!
slymonkeyinc20 wrote:
3. Judge him later. I mean he's less than a tenth into his presidential career, we can't possibly decide yet. Perhaps he'll invest more troops in Afghanistan, they'll stabilise the region, he can bring them all home by Christmas (highly unlikely reference to British propaganda during the First World War). They aren't out halfway through his term, judge him harshly as possible.
Sure we can judge him. He sucks. But the issue is will his presidency overall suck? That's truly a future issue. For now, the judgment sticks: he sucks.
I wonder if he sucks, or the cast and stage are simply set already. This all happened before, with FDR. The "Anybody but Hoover" mentality is part of what got FDR elected, just as now Obama collected votes and superficial approval boosts from the "Anybody but Bush" mentality. Hoover was unpopular, and by signing the Smoot-Hawley tariff against his own will he showed himself weak. Then as now, the cross-party response was to oppose Smoot-Hawley while at the same time brewing replacement legislation which precisely duplicated its isolationism, trade barriers, and short-term focus. Funny how we even have modern incarnations of Smoot and Hawley themselves in the form of Congressmen Frank and Dodd.
Although the New Deal was designed stimulate the economy in the short run by generating work and pensions, the depression persisted. It lasted all the way up to World War II, and the war ended it. We cannot know whether or not the thirties would have been even worse without the New Deal, there being no control group, but this fact we know: New Deal or not, World War II ended the Great Depression.
Post #58899
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2009-04-09 14:52
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Back on Topic, moronic pessimists get a self-fulfilling pfcy
Currently 3.25/4
Post Rating: 3.3/4 (4 votes cast)
Tristan wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
slymonkeyinc20 wrote:
2. Who knows? Despite massive cynicism promoted by his speechs about 'hope' and 'change', what if he does actually do a good job? Not only better than George Bush, but better than any president ever.
Better than FDR? Hardly. Within 100 days FDR already had the economy massively reorganized, and the rest of his New Deal in the works. All I've seen so far from Mr Obama is the government tossing free money to corrupt corporations who just... abuse it! What a fucking surprise!
slymonkeyinc20 wrote:
3. Judge him later.
I mean he's less than a tenth into his presidential career, we can't possibly decide yet. Perhaps he'll invest more troops in Afghanistan, they'll stabilise the region, he can bring them all home by Christmas (highly unlikely reference to British propaganda during the First World War). They aren't out halfway through his term, judge him harshly as possible.
Sure we can judge him. He sucks.
But the issue is will his presidency overall suck? That's truly a future issue. For now, the judgment sticks: he sucks.
I wonder if he sucks, or the cast and stage are simply set already. This all happened before, with FDR.
The "Anybody but Hoover" mentality is part of what got FDR elected, just as now Obama collected votes and superficial approval boosts from the "Anybody but Bush" mentality. Hoover was unpopular, and by signing the Smoot-Hawley tariff against his own will he showed himself weak.
Then as now, the cross-party response was to oppose Smoot-Hawley while at the same time brewing replacement legislation which precisely duplicated its isolationism, trade barriers, and short-term focus.
Funny how we even have modern incarnations of Smoot and Hawley themselves in the form of Congressmen Frank and Dodd.
Although the New Deal was designed stimulate the economy in the short run by generating work and pensions, the depression persisted. It lasted all the way up to World War II, and the war ended it.
We cannot know whether or not the thirties would have been even worse without the New Deal, there being no control group, but this fact we know: New Deal or not, World War II ended the Great Depression.
You know I grow weak at the knees when I hear a republican troller; FDR was curtailed from spending further under the New Deal by the new Republican Majority. However spending was authorized to go ahead once full war mobilization (a form of Military Keynesianism hence the clientelism relationship among the Republicans, army contractors and the imperial war ideology) was declared, in this instance during the Great Depression the unemployment fluctuated between 20%-30%, I take that Obama won't allow such situation to develop out of control due to Republican/'Hoover ideological idiocy and lack of action. The situation in the early stages is containable if the effective and rapid measures are applied of course unless you talk to a Republican ideological imbecile who believes his ideology like a religion zealot despite Reality's brutality and have prosperous never-never Land. _________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Post #58900
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 176
Total Words: 12,792
Average words per post: 72.68
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2009-04-11 21:27
Politics: Minarchist
Country: Canada
Currently 1.71/4
Post Rating: 1.7/4 (7 votes cast)
Hey Carl, why don't you get your head out of your ass and realize Ron Paul, or anyone for that matter who is remotely critical of Obama are not "Dixiecrats", you dolt? I'm not sure why you are so paranoid that Ron Paul and company are some kind of white supremacists/confederates/fundies that are such a HUGE threat in the grand scheme of US politics as opposed to the same corporate cunts that have been elected year after year, but it is getting tired. I think you just love to speak in cryptic tongues, use silly meaningless political labels and spout rhetoric that makes it more or less impossible for anyone to properly reply to. Your NEWSPEAK doesn't fool me or anyone else.
Post #58904
Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 59
Total Words: 21,461
Average words per post: 363.75
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2009-04-18 14:50
Currently 2.50/4
Post Rating: 2.5/4 (6 votes cast)
i was disappointed in Obama long before election day.
There's no need to give Obama the time to prove himself. The very policies he has explicitly voiced are in themselves disappointing, if not maddening. His speech in Israel which announed the US's relationship with Israel as 'sacrosanct', his policies on health care, on corporate crime, on the military budget, on the military commissions and patriot acts - all of which were stated even before he came to office - are DISAPPOINTING, and no different from Bush's 2nd term.
But then again, I don't expect much more from the pseudo-democracy that is totalitarian america, where candidate A and B refuse to debate the rest of candidates. Ralph Nader would've made Obama look like an amateur... pfft... great speaker.... his empty rhetoric shits me to no end - (and no, just because he comes after after Bush, i don't agree that he's a farking homeric orator). if one talks much but says nothing, he does not possess great oratory skills; those are acting and entertainment skills.
beware of the obama act... it's all a massive performance. The last election was an ideological coup d'etat.
Post #58906
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2009-04-18 15:49
Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative)
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (5 votes cast)
view doubleplusungood memoryhole crimethink
TheBiggerTheLie wrote:
i was disappointed in Obama long before election day.
There's no need to give Obama the time to prove himself. The very policies he has explicitly voiced are in themselves disappointing, if not maddening. His speech in Israel which announed the US's relationship with Israel as 'sacrosanct', his policies on health care, on corporate crime, on the military budget, on the military commissions and patriot acts - all of which were stated even before he came to office - are DISAPPOINTING, and no different from Bush's 2nd term.
But then again, I don't expect much more from the pseudo-democracy that is totalitarian america, where candidate A and B refuse to debate the rest of candidates. Ralph Nader would've made Obama look like an amateur... pfft... great speaker.... his empty rhetoric shits me to no end - (and no, just because he comes after after Bush, i don't agree that he's a farking homeric orator). if one talks much but says nothing, he does not possess great oratory skills; those are acting and entertainment skills.
beware of the obama act... it's all a massive performance. The last election was an ideological coup d'etat.
EXACTLY... Bush sucked at reading the teleprompter, and Obama is awesome at reading the teleprompter. Big fucking deal. The bots should be worshiping David Axelrod instead.
Post #58908
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2009-04-19 03:09
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
TheBiggerTheLie wrote:
i was disappointed in Obama long before election day.
There's no need to give Obama the time to prove himself. The very policies he has explicitly voiced are in themselves disappointing, if not maddening. His speech in Israel which announed the US's relationship with Israel as 'sacrosanct', his policies on health care, on corporate crime, on the military budget, on the military commissions and patriot acts - all of which were stated even before he came to office - are DISAPPOINTING, and no different from Bush's 2nd term.
But then again, I don't expect much more from the pseudo-democracy that is totalitarian america, where candidate A and B refuse to debate the rest of candidates*.
Ralph Nader would've made Obama look like an amateur... pfft... great speaker.... his empty rhetoric shits me to no end - (and no, just because he comes after after Bush, i don't agree that he's a farking homeric orator). if one talks much but says nothing, he does not possess great oratory skills; those are acting and entertainment skills.
beware of the obama act... it's all a massive performance. The last election was an ideological coup d'etat.
Always the natural pessimist? Only the Populist would have an issue with a landslide election win.
To change policies overnight is an idiotic over-simplification of the issues involved which YOU need to come to terms.
* The rest of the candidates didn't make it to the finishing line in the first place, so hey it is an empty hall, so who cares. _________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Post #58909
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2009-04-19 03:11
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Change the topic to shoot mud at Obama
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Tristan wrote:
TheBiggerTheLie wrote:
i was disappointed in Obama long before election day.
There's no need to give Obama the time to prove himself. The very policies he has explicitly voiced are in themselves disappointing, if not maddening. His speech in Israel which announed the US's relationship with Israel as 'sacrosanct', his policies on health care, on corporate crime, on the military budget, on the military commissions and patriot acts - all of which were stated even before he came to office - are DISAPPOINTING, and no different from Bush's 2nd term.
But then again, I don't expect much more from the pseudo-democracy that is totalitarian america, where candidate A and B refuse to debate the rest of candidates.
Ralph Nader would've made Obama look like an amateur... pfft... great speaker.... his empty rhetoric shits me to no end - (and no, just because he comes after after Bush, i don't agree that he's a farking homeric orator). if one talks much but says nothing, he does not possess great oratory skills; those are acting and entertainment skills.
beware of the obama act... it's all a massive performance. The last election was an ideological coup d'etat.
EXACTLY... Bush sucked at reading the teleprompter, and Obama is awesome at reading the teleprompter. Big fucking deal. The bots should be worshiping David Axelrod instead.
Weasel and cynical statement as expected from you Tristan, probing for populist discontent? However the Neo-con, dumb ideological free market policies and perpetual warmongering inherent to the Republican War Party are the real reasons for Bush et al electoral defeat.
At least the Economic Crisis is stabilizing now in April 2009. _________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Post #58913
Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 59
Total Words: 21,461
Average words per post: 363.75
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2009-04-21 09:18
Politics: Alien Worship
Country: Antarctica
I thought Obama WAS the topic
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
'Populist', 'Pessimist'- what do you mean by these vague labels you pin on people?
A landlside election doesn't mean that much to me when Option 1 of 2 consists of senile 'maverick' who can barely contain his war lust and quasi-retarded illiterate bimbo that would make Dubya look like an intellectual. Obama should be given little credit for the landslide; McCain was the main reason he won. And the second reason was the fact that his campaign was the most expensive marketing exercise ever (it even beat Apple and Nintendo for the title of best marketing campaign of the year - Advertising Age). They sold his image rather than his message; and managed to avoid any debate with those who would truly have highlighted Obama's shortcomings. Priceless. How? Because they made sure that the consumer did not know what the competition was offering. How? control of the media, information. This is why the internet has become (and will increasingly become) so vitally important.
Empty hall; finishing line? WTF are you talking about? Ralph Nader was on the ballot together with McCain and Obama and Cinthia McKinney and Bob Barr and others. A MAJOR reason why they failed to receive more votes was because they had been handicapped by exclusion from the televised debates.
If you 'don't care' who gets to take part in the debates you obviously don't have much regard or support for the right of the individual to take part in the political process of democracy. Is that Populist? Ironic, since Obama is supposed to be an example of how 'anyone can become President of the US'.
As for "To change policies overnight is an idiotic over-simplification of the issues involved which YOU need to come to terms." ...
Once again, putting words in people's mouths... But since you mention it: Obama campaigned under the banner of "CHANGE" ... Overnight, he became the first African-American president of the US. Yet few would've said he's an idiot oversimplifying the issues involved.
Let me guess.. you take about 10 seconds to think through your replies before hitting Submit?
Quote:
At least the Economic Crisis is stabilizing now in April 2009.
Post #58914
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2009-04-21 11:18
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Re: I thought Obama WAS the topic
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
TheBiggerTheLie wrote:
'Populist', 'Pessimist'- what do you mean by these vague labels you pin on people? xx
A landlside election doesn't mean that much to me when Option 1 of 2 consists of senile 'maverick' who can barely contain his war lust and quasi-retarded illiterate bimbo that would make Dubya look like an intellectual. $$
Obama should be given little credit for the landslide; McCain was the main reason he won.@
And the second reason was the fact that his campaign was the most expensive marketing exercise ever (it even beat Apple and Nintendo for the title of best marketing campaign of the year - Advertising Age). #
They sold his image rather than his message; and managed to avoid any debate with those who would truly have highlighted Obama's shortcomings.
Priceless. How? Because they made sure that the consumer did not know what the competition was offering. &
How? control of the media, information. This is why the internet has become (and will increasingly become) so vitally important.
Empty hall; finishing line? WTF are you talking about? Ralph Nader was on the ballot together with McCain and Obama and Cinthia McKinney and Bob Barr and others. %%%
A MAJOR reason why they failed to receive more votes was because they had been handicapped by exclusion from the televised debates.
If you 'don't care' who gets to take part in the debates you obviously don't have much regard or support for the right of the individual to take part in the political process of democracy.**
Is that Populist? Ironic, since Obama is supposed to be an example of how 'anyone can become President of the US'.
As for "To change policies overnight is an idiotic over-simplification of the issues involved which YOU need to come to terms."+ ...
Once again, putting words in people's mouths... But since you mention it: Obama campaigned under the banner of "CHANGE" ... Overnight, he became the first African-American president of the US.
Yet few would've said he's an idiot oversimplifying the issues involved.
Let me guess.. you take about 10 seconds to think through your replies before hitting Submit?
Quote:
At least the Economic Crisis is stabilizing now in April 2009.
lol just wait
$$ Republican cream of the crop, wanna blame who here?
xx I am not college teacher, do the work yourself lazy bum.
@ this is academic and who cares on splitting hairs.
# so what, bills have to be paid, the presidential candidate has to be promoted, what do you expect government charity and free space from the networks?
%%% split the Democrat vote and Republicans win by default, great more of the same!
& nobody stoppedn the presidential drop-outs from running, simply run out of funds due to lack of support.
I think I had heard the same populist rhetorical claptrap from Azazel so I won't repeat myself, I am too busy and tired from work and college, so I am not spoon-feeding the cynical populist malcontent.
** 'debates' is an over-rated word for cheap bitching and moaning.
+ care to elaborate on the issues?
PS: since when is a successful election campaign an 'issue'? _________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Post #58920
Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 59
Total Words: 21,461
Average words per post: 363.75
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2009-04-28 12:04
Re: I thought Obama WAS the topic
Currently 2.00/4
Post Rating: 2.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Quote:
'Populist', 'Pessimist'- what do you mean by these vague labels you pin on people? xx
xx I am not college teacher, do the work yourself lazy bum.
phew! for the sake of students everywhere, I am heartened to hear you're no college teacher just yet. you misconstrue... i understand what those words mean. what i asked was, what do you mean by them? what im trying to point out to you (but i dont know why i bother) is that you hide behind terms which are entirely of a relative and derivative nature as if their verbal pronunciation were authority enough itself to settle all arguments (If that were the case, most debates would be concluded in instants). Thinking people actually try to move beyond that point... There's no substance to what you say. hot air.
Quote:
[Obama's] campaign was the most expensive marketing exercise ever (it even beat Apple and Nintendo for the title of best marketing campaign of the year - Advertising Age). They sold his image rather than his message; and managed to avoid any debate with those who would truly have highlighted Obama's shortcomings.#
# so what, bills have to be paid, the presidential candidate has to be promoted, what do you expect government charity and free space from the networks?
lol... *scratches head*.... the point (which you dont even dispute) was that Obama was advertised and sold on the basis of image & rhetoric (as opposed to substance & fact). The netwhoreks can spend as much money as they like promoting their propaganda; it's up to the individual to make sure they make their choice based on quality of the message rather than how many times it is broadcast on prime-time tv. Ultimately the power (and thus responsibility) lies not with the politician and the mind-control techniques, but with the gullible voter. YOU, along with hundreds of millions of others have obviously swallowed hook, line and sinker and cannot even recognise the fact.
Quote:
%%% split the Democrat vote and Republicans win by default, great more of the same!
Wake up doofus, it's going to be MORE OF THE SAME IN ANY CASE (cf. Bush's 2nd term). Secondly, the fear of splitting the Democrat vote is what you're supposed to believe. It's the classic anti third-party propaganda line, designed to inject the FEAR drug into the heads of any who might be contemplating voting for a third party candidate and thereby threaten the monopoly of the current one-party regime. It is the one sure way of assuring that there will be more of the same
Quote:
As for "To change policies overnight is an idiotic over-simplification of the issues involved which YOU need to come to terms."+ ...
+ care to elaborate on the issues?
i refer you to my other post... it's not about changing anything overnight... but about restoring the sovereignty of the Constitution.. that is the key issue. If it had been seen to, Bush and Cheney would be in put on trial and more than likely imprisoned (due to illegal war in Iraq, illegal spying and illegal use of torture, and perhaps more), the candidates' debates would be open to all, not just Reps and Dems, and the Fed cartel would be shut down.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
Get this fact silly sausage,
Immediately people (mainly left, but right included) voted for him because he was supposed to bring all the troops home!!! NO!!! he is continuing the war in Afghanistan. Not doing much for the economy-aka spend spend spend on programmes that don't make any sense. He's not doing anything for the states in trouble...a federal stimulus wont save California as an article from the LA Times states.... HE'S TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS 
