Barack Obama [Archive] - INTP Central

Xenophon

18 Dec 2006, 08:11 PM

I was just logging on to make this exact same post. I had pretty much lost all hope in the American political system, and had just decided that I wasn't going to bother voting because I didn't like any of the people who were running. And then I hear about this guy, and I did a little research, and I'm astounded. He seems so real, and honest compared to most other politicians. I downloaded his new book in audiobook form, and was listening to a little bit of it, and it was extremely refreshing. The first thing he talks about in his book is how he campaigned for his Senate seat by driving around Illinois, often by himself, talking to, but more importantly listening to as many people as he could. This sort of humility I think is the most important aspect of leadership, and it is something that has been sadly missing in the leadership of this country for decades.

I'm also concerned about Hillary Clinton running. Not that I dislike her, I am actually quite indifferent to her (though I have heard that many people have an intense hatred for her). I just don't like the nepotism that is happening in this country. If Hillary were elected, that would mean that we would have 20 years of presidents from two families.

ajblaise

18 Dec 2006, 08:16 PM

Al Gore + Obama ticket = win.

omnirook

18 Dec 2006, 08:30 PM

Carl Rove goes to bed every night praying for 2 things: that Barak Obama will run, and that Hillary Clinton will run. The best would be if they ran together. Neither has to get the Democratic nomination - they just have to send enough people who hate Bush scurrying to vote for whatever Republican gets the Republican nomination, the War, the lies, the corruption - all of it forgiven to keep "Osama bin Laden" (because that's how they're going to sling mud in Barak Obama's direction - the names are too close to resist) and Hillary "Whitewater-Monica Lewinsky-pinko-commie-blowjobs in the Oval Office-my-husband-did-too-have-sex-with-that-JEWISH-slut" out of the White House. Sorry, but that's the way that I see it. Neither should run. Either would be enough to get a Republican back into the White House, maybe even Jeb Bush.

immortalmack

19 Dec 2006, 04:38 PM

It's more political hype. He's a politician just like the rest of them.Their job is to keep the population relatively quiet.

Meliora

19 Dec 2006, 04:50 PM

I'm almost done with his book(Audcaity of Hope), and I must say that I enjoy his style and agree with most of his ideas/opinions.

Rhu

19 Dec 2006, 05:04 PM

I find statements he makes on religion curious. I was okay with this:

Religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved?that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear.

I thought, "Hey, great! A rational free will approach!"

But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.

...free will that he gave up to be religious? <_<

It seems contradictory to me. Or that he's trying to say two things at once. Or maybe Bush has made me wary of politicians who claim that they are doing the will of God.

immortalmack

19 Dec 2006, 06:46 PM

I first discovered the relationship between politics and religion in Machavelis the PRINCE.I was later confirmed in my discovery by Liv's History of Rome.

meshou

19 Dec 2006, 10:36 PM

I thinkI would cream my pants for a Obama/ Feingold ticket.

I don't believe he was in office for either voting to go into Iraq or the Patriot act. Feingold was the only senator to vote against it.

Obama most definately has a Kennedy vibe, down to the religious concern. I think he could do it.

C.J.Woolf

20 Dec 2006, 03:19 AM

Obama most definately has a Kennedy vibe...
I got the same impression. Like Kennedy, Obama is relatively new to public office and he doesn't have a real program to offer, but he inspires people. Kennedy inspired an entire generation of civil servants who are now retiring. It would be nice to recruit some replacements.

I fear that if McCain runs in 2008 (heh, if) he will beat any Democrat in spite of the fact he's as much to blame for Bush as anyone. The American people will need a catastrophe worse than Iraq or Katrina to convince them the entire Republican Party is rotten. Then it will be time for the next FDR. I hope the next FDR is up to it.

FranG

20 Dec 2006, 07:31 AM

The American people will need a catastrophe worse than Iraq or Katrina to convince them the entire Republican Party is rotten.

Not just the Republican party :)

LuridLemur

20 Dec 2006, 08:38 AM

According to this (http://bluepyramid.org/2008/), I am Barack Obama. Okay, go back to discussing.

Diffusion

17 Jan 2007, 05:24 PM

So here we go (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5h95s0OuEg), looks like things might get interesting.

Funny he chose my birthday for the decision day. :p

booyalab

17 Jan 2007, 05:38 PM

...free will that he gave up to be religious? <_<

It seems contradictory to me. Or that he's trying to say two things at once. Or maybe Bush has made me wary of politicians who claim that they are doing the will of God.

i'm not defending him, since he has yet to 'astound' me, but I do have to say the only contradiction here is the idea that anyone who has free will could "give it up".

NightCrawler

23 Mar 2007, 02:58 PM

Quick!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

sorabji_66

23 Mar 2007, 06:25 PM

Astounded by a politican, eh? Wow. That beats your brush with Amway, does it?

everyone is entitled to their first crush on the empty words of a politician.

plenty of colleagues felt John Anderson would lead us to the promised land back in the day... :banana:

demagogic_schizoid

23 Mar 2007, 07:07 PM

what are his policies? is he protectionist? how about tax and spend? what is his position on foreign policy?

meshou

23 Mar 2007, 08:01 PM

what are his policies? is he protectionist? how about tax and spend? what is his position on foreign policy?Website. (http://obama.senate.gov/issues/)

demagogic_schizoid

23 Mar 2007, 10:54 PM

Our federal tax code has become increasingly complex and unfair. Tax rates should be as low as we can afford them to be; and everyone should pay their fair share. Reform options should focus on creating a system that is simple, progressive, easy to comply with and devoid of abusive shelters. When examining reform options, Senator Obama believes that we should ensure any changes to the tax code reflect the needs and everyday worries facing ordinary Americans, while also promoting America?s competitiveness in the world economy.

Since 2002, and now, as a U.S. Senator, Senator Obama has continued to critique the Administration's mishandling of this war, and believes that while our troops have done an outstanding job in Iraq, there can be no military solution to what is inherently a political conflict between Iraq's warring factions. The only hope to end this burgeoning civil war is for Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds to come together and resolve their differences, and that's why Senator Obama agrees with the Iraq Study Group's conclusion that we must begin a phased redeployment of American troops to signal to the government and people of Iraq that ours is not an open-ended commitment.
:unsure:

I feel I know less about him after visiting the website than I did before. What does a tax system "as low as we can afford it to be" mean? Am I right in thinking that he was hinting at a more progressive tax system? In which case, how is this going to help make the US more competitive?

I'm not bowled over so far.

MasterMerk

24 Mar 2007, 12:40 AM

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/NewDirestion_500.jpg

Xenophon

24 Mar 2007, 04:32 PM

I think that it is really foolish to base ones support of a Presidential candidate based on specific policies or agendas. Why would anybody expect an incoming President who has basically no inside information about how anything works to already have his decisions made. Shouldn't he wait until he has access to all the resources available to the President before making his decision?

This reminds me of the argument against Kerry for being a flip-flopper. Basically, people were saying that they would rather have a president that doesn't change his mind when new information comes to light.

It is far more important to vote for a president who won't try to dominate policies, and will listen to the right people. Of course he isn't an expert on tax policy or foreign policy, but he seems to be someone who seems to be more concerned about doing the right thing rather than sticking to partisan agendas.

I can't explain it, but I get the same feeling of honesty from Barack Obama that I do from John McCain. It seems like they both want to run for President because they feel that they can make a difference and help people. Whereas I get a feeling from people like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton that they are running because they want the personal glory that comes with being the "Leader of the Free World".

dubbeltop

24 Mar 2007, 04:57 PM

Barack Obama

How about stopping the elections and face the fact that america is not ready for change and start a new pan-american dicatorship because americans need much more than Obama to change......

I have a few candidates i'm willing to support (financially in return for a few favors) for the new dictatorship....

quantumzero

25 Mar 2007, 06:00 PM

He had me right up until the word "grassroots" poured from his lips. Thats the word in this drinking game Ive played for years now, had a pretty steady buz since around 1996!
Bottom line...it dosent matter whats comming out of them, his lips are indeed moving.

ajblaise

25 Mar 2007, 07:54 PM

rhinosaur

5 Apr 2008, 02:30 AM

Yo, if any of you were thinking about supporting Obama, but weren't sure, here were a couple articles that convinced me:

http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/01/28/obama/
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7499

cinnamongirl

5 Apr 2008, 03:51 AM

Is it just me, or is most of the "sensation" around Obama purely created by the sensationalist mass media?

Alright, so he gave a decent keynote address at 2004 Democratic National Convention, he's bright, young, and black. Big deal.

I definitely agree with that. I like a lot of his ideas and the whole "new direction" hope he has for America, but I feel like it's all hype and no substance. I'm very doubtful that he could actually accomplish anything he promises.

He's a wonderful public speaker, however, and I think that is the main reason people like him. But in the end, words are just words. You can talk about change all you want, but if you can't do anything it doesn't matter. He doesn't seem to have many concrete, realistic plans as far as I know.

Titania

5 Apr 2008, 04:01 AM

Is it just me, or is most of the "sensation" around Obama purely created by the sensationalist mass media?Nope, that's pretty much what every Hillary supporter says.

They're wrong, though. :)
Alright, so he gave a decent keynote address at 2004 Democratic National Convention, he's bright, young, and black. Big deal.Little more than a decade's experience in government. Law Professor at the University of Chicago. Dreams From My Father is really an outstanding book, and what he expresses in it does speak to his character and good judgement.

Being well spoken requires a clarity of thought and of logic we could see more of in politics. I am personally impressed with how little he lies, with his record of getting people aboard on bills, with the sort of bills he has championed, and how he has managed to finance a campaign with no special interest group help.

He's also against everything the Democratic Leadership Committee stands for. This is a good thing.

'Course I am biased. I am a delegate for him. :)

Yozuki

5 Apr 2008, 04:40 AM

Agenda, policies, style of speaking. None of it matters. We're a Federal Republic, our government is to represent the public majority. And yet, we have systems like the electorate in place, as well as campaigning candidates for presidency. This picture has power struggle written all over it.

Obama has charisma, and he definitely comes off as the real deal. Personal experience says anyone like this has some kind of agenda he isn't telling us about. If he was just honest and wanted to do the right thing, why does he need to be president to do it? Doesn't that go against the original idea our forefathers wanted?

Admitted, our forefathers were hypocrites.

ryan_m_parr

10 Oct 2008, 10:04 AM

And yet it is entirely about religion, and religious views, as to why Barack is 'bad.' The source of campaign support is also disconcerting to xenophobic (and other phobias,) that Barack incites in some people.

Why does it always seem that people scare themselves into submission to support a fool like McCain? Which should be the lesser of two evils, from what we actually know? McCain clearly has oil interest and is nearly a carbon copy of Bush Jr. Who is more culpable to be mislead by interest groups? Better yet, who is more capable of creating peace and tranquility?

ryan_m_parr

20 Oct 2008, 09:36 PM

I decided to add to the most recently active political thread, by posting this:

Colin Powell will vote Obama

Saeculustra

20 Oct 2008, 09:54 PM

I'd be interested to see how Obama supporters respond to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE

MacGuffin

20 Oct 2008, 09:56 PM

I'd be interested to see how Obama supporters respond to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE

Ha! I don't even need to turn on the sound to know it's garbage.

pangolin

20 Oct 2008, 10:05 PM

Sorry, couldn't get past the right wing tripe at the beginning.

Saeculustra

20 Oct 2008, 10:09 PM

Ah, come now. I know it hurts to listen to things you disagree with. but I want to know if there are actually any arguments against the evidence this shows.

puzzled-observer

20 Oct 2008, 10:12 PM

I'd be interested to see how Obama supporters respond to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE

So, in sum, the main criticisms of Obama in this video are that he has a Muslim daddy, his name rhymes with Osama, and that he has a crazy pastor?

Edit: I'll give you a little more. Obama doesn't seem very religious to me. To suggest that he's both a muslim terrorist and a black Christian extremist in the same video is stretching it a bit.

MacGuffin

20 Oct 2008, 10:15 PM

Ah, come now. I know it hurts to listen to things you disagree with. but I want to know if there are actually any arguments against the evidence this shows.

No, I don't have any problem listening to those I disagree with. I have a problem with stupidity. That video looks stupid.

I've voted Republican in the past. I'm disappointed I won't get to re-elect Sen. John Warner next month.

MadamI'madaM

20 Oct 2008, 10:18 PM

Ah, come now. I know it hurts to listen to things you disagree with. but I want to know if there are actually any arguments against the evidence this shows.

If you watch Fox News for anything besides entertainment value, you, madam, are among the dumb of the dumb. An idiot's ignoramus, if you will.

and I say this with good will

purveyor of truth

20 Oct 2008, 10:18 PM

People that live in 7 houses shouldnt throw stones

tinribz

20 Oct 2008, 10:25 PM

I'd be interested to see how Obama supporters respond to this.
You'd have to be pretty shallow not to see through how desperate all that is.

Saeculustra

20 Oct 2008, 10:26 PM

No, I don't have any problem listening to those I disagree with. I have a problem with stupidity. That video looks stupid.

I've voted Republican in the past. I'm disappointed I won't get to re-elect Sen. John Warner next month.

I'm not a crazed fan of McCain, mind you. I'm not really thrilled with either choice. From your remarks it looks like you didn't get through the whole video - since some of the points it makes (like what you mentioned) aren't really the alarming ones.

If you watch Fox News for anything besides entertainment value, you, madam, are among the dumb of the dumb. An idiot's ignoramus, if you will.

and I say this with good will

I think it's stupid, personally, to rely on any one media source for information.

But if no one can answer these problems with Obama, then, I'm only more worried..

I'm mostly worried about the claims that he's not actually patriotic. His grandmother claims she was there when he was born in Kenya - so in addition to not being eligible for running for president, there's a lot of room to question his real values, having probably been raised Muslim for at least part of his life.

Seriously. It's extremely irregular for someone not to put their hand over their heart at the national anthem. Doesn't anyone think that's a little alarming?

Come on, you supposedly-levelheaded-INTPs, if you keep it up with the unsupported insults I'll begin to suspect you're just a bunch of Fs.

puzzled-observer

20 Oct 2008, 10:28 PM

Seriously. It's extremely irregular for someone not to put their hand over their heart at the national anthem. Doesn't anyone think that's a little alarming?

Actually I generally don't put my hand over my heart either. I think it's silly.

MadamI'madaM

20 Oct 2008, 10:30 PM

I'm not a crazed fan of McCain, mind you. I'm not really thrilled with either choice. From your remarks it looks like you didn't get through the whole video - since some of the points it makes (like what you mentioned) aren't really the alarming ones.

But if no one can answer these problems with Obama, then, I'm only more worried..

I'm mostly worried about the claims that he's not actually patriotic. His grandmother claims she was there when he was born in Kenya - so in addition to not being eligible for running for president, there's a lot of room to question his real values, having probably been raised Muslim for at least part of his life.
Seriously. It's extremely irregular for someone not to put their hand over their heart at the national anthem. Doesn't anyone think that's a little alarming?
Come on, you supposedly-levelheaded-INTPs, if you keep it up with the unsupported insults I'll begin to suspect you're just a bunch of Fs.

Okay, Mac, change her type to xSxJ now? Thx.

I think it's stupid, personally, to rely on any one media source for information.
I think it's stupid to rely on mainstream television for any information.

and, statistically, the stupidest people gravitate towards Fox

I'm not making it up.

purveyor of truth

20 Oct 2008, 10:30 PM

I'd be interested to see how Obama supporters respond to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE

Rightwing nutcase garbage

Saeculustra

20 Oct 2008, 10:30 PM

Actually I generally don't put my hand over my heart either. I think it's silly.

Point being that he's actually running for president and deliberately letting people know he disrespects the anthem; that is generally how it is interpreted - any politician with two brain cells knows that.

Once again, let me emphasize I'm not getting all :banana: in your faces over McCain. I'm more like :banghead: about McCain. But Obama is a different story.

Saeculustra

20 Oct 2008, 10:32 PM

Okay, Mac, change her type to xSxJ now? Thx.

Man, I get through all the stuff on the religious thread without being called a guardian..odd, you seem to be touchy about this.

I think it's stupid to rely on mainstream television for any information.

SO glad we agree.

purveyor of truth

20 Oct 2008, 10:34 PM

Point being that he's actually running for president and deliberately letting people know he disrespects the anthem;

Who cares, he could burn flags for all I care, thats symbolism. Would he make a great president, thats all that matters.

Saeculustra

20 Oct 2008, 10:36 PM

You'd be ok electing someone who burns flags, eh? No possible conflict of interest there? Not even a little bit?

purveyor of truth

20 Oct 2008, 10:38 PM

You'd be ok electing someone who burns flags, eh? No possible conflict of interest there? Not even a little bit?

Its a peice of cloth, bfd. Real actions, like starting wars and trashing our international rep I'm concerned about.

Saeculustra

20 Oct 2008, 10:39 PM

Its a peice of cloth, bfd. Real actions, like starting wars and trashing our international rep I'm concerned about.

Yes, it's a piece of cloth. Kind of like going out in the street and loudly proclaiming the deed as you burn a picture of your spouse is really just burning a piece of paper.

MadamI'madaM

20 Oct 2008, 10:40 PM

Man, I get through all the stuff on the religious thread without being called a guardian..odd, you seem to be touchy about this.
Things like a fucking hand gesture or someone's religious background or name are the non-issues amidst non-issues.

If you half-understood the system, you'd realize there's no way one man could ever infiltrate the presidency with truly unamerican intentions and get away with it longer than a week. What exactly constitutes "unamerican intentions" is subjective and up for debate, but please believe he's been picked and groomed by all the right people who really call the shots in this silly little game you people call "democracy".

SO glad we agree.

Did I just hallucinate your admission of actually watching hannity & colmes?

It's a possibility I have to acknowledge.

purveyor of truth

20 Oct 2008, 10:41 PM

Yes, it's a piece of cloth. Kind of like burning a picture of your spouse is just a piece of paper.

Doesnt matter unless it was the last picture, youve spent too much time in mass, you have mystical feelings about theoretical stuff.

Saeculustra

20 Oct 2008, 10:46 PM

Things like a fucking hand gesture or someone's religious background or name are the non-issues amidst non-issues.

If you half-understood the system, you'd realize there's no way one man could ever infiltrate the presidency with truly unamerican intentions and get away with it longer than a week. What exactly constitutes "unamerican intentions" is subjective and up for debate, but please believe he's been picked and groomed by all the right people who really call the shots in this silly little game you people call "democracy".

Sheesh. Sorry for questioning the Almighty Obama Who Canst Do No Wrong.

Wow..You really want to say that there's no possible way for corruption to enter the American democratic system...?

And that's your argument for not investigating the background of one of its presidential candidates? I'm not feeling too convinced here..

Did I just hallucinate your admission of actually watching hannity & colmes?

It's a possibility I have to acknowledge.

Read again what I quoted, calmly and carefully, and perhaps you'll see what I was referring to.

Doesnt matter unless it was the last picture, youve spent too much time in mass, you have mystical feelings about theoretical stuff.

Ok, so you're saying everyone who looks at someone burning a flag in the street (and who hasn't done anything too religious recently) ought to conclude, "oh, he's just burning a piece of cloth. He's not trying to make a statement..no."

tinribz

20 Oct 2008, 10:48 PM

Sexism, Racism, Religion, Nationalism all the same, propaganda tools, all on the way out on the path to Sociocultural evolution. Wake up.

Saeculustra

20 Oct 2008, 10:50 PM

Sexism, Racism, Religion, Nationalism all the same, propaganda tools, all on the way out on the path to Sociocultural evolution. Wake up.

So the next argument against Almighty Obama: he's inevitable anyway, and I'm struggling to employ escape tactics?

I'm telling you man..all I'm hearing are F-style picture-painting arguments. No offense, but I need some logic, some evidence here, to help me see that Barack Obama actually likes America and doesn't agree with his "mentor" pastor that we should "damn America." And also tell me why he's not socialist..although I'm sure some people here like socialism.

purveyor of truth

20 Oct 2008, 10:51 PM

someone burning a flag in the street (and who hasn't done anything too religious recently)

You just hooked religion and patriotism together... you scare me

Saeculustra

20 Oct 2008, 10:53 PM

I was mocking your comment about mass. next time i'll use: [/mock]

Come on, I thought INTPs were all about not buying a politician's b.s., and when I sit here and tell people Obama's got some b.s. I'm told his Rule is inevitable! What is this?

MadamI'madaM

20 Oct 2008, 10:53 PM

Sheesh. Sorry for questioning the Almighty Obama Who Canst Do No Wrong.
Sorry for ruining tonight's episode of Wrestlemania, but technically Vince McMahon always wins. (and Budweiser)

Wow..You really want to say that there's no possible way for corruption to enter the American democratic system...?
Not really, that's like investigating AmWay for embezzlement.

CEOofRawness

20 Oct 2008, 10:53 PM

I'd be interested to see how Obama supporters respond to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE

Wow.

- Statements taken out of context
- Emphasis on trivial things like a flagpin, his name, and not putting his hand over his heart during the national anthem
- Assumptions of his intentions behind his foreign policy
- Link to socialist agenda

The only thing that I'm a bit apprehensive about is his reverend's radical views. But if you take this into account, it doesn't mean that he agrees with everything the man says. I understand people being worried about this, but you can assume that he believes everything his reverend says.

The flagpin and national anthem bits are completely trivial. Bush wears a flagpin and I'm sure puts his hand over his heart during the national anthem; look where he's gotten us now. And anyone that refuses to vote for Obama solely for his name shouldn't have the right to vote for the leader of our nation. Period.

If we didn't agree on a particular issue, and I told you that unless you fulfill a certain number of conditions that I set I won't even sit to talk with you, I'm sure you'd tell me to fuck off. And that's precisely what these "evil" leaders have done. I'm not saying they're the good guys, but if these guys were that big of a threat then why haven't we taken over their countries instead of conquering Iraq?

Somehow, we've equated socialism with pure evil. And people never mention the socialist European countries that are doing better economically than us, I might add. Say what you want, but there's something seriously wrong when the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 95%, and there is no justification in the world that you can come up with. Most people don't even make a million dollars in their lifetime and yet we have people that have a net worth of billions of dollars. Pure capitalism is nothing more than economic despotism, and it just doesn't work. The more extreme a system we have the more extreme the consequences, whether it be a pure capitalist or pure communist system.

If you're gonna slam a politician, slam him/her on the issues. Don't come up with conspiracy theories and smear the shit out of them (the Bush approach). And for those of you that support McCain because he fought in Vietnam: 1. military service does not qualify you for presidency and 2. no one gave a shit that John Kerry fought in Vietnam, so why should we care about McCain?

As for me, I don't trust Obama 100%, and I'm not sure if he'll live up to his promises. But he's the lesser of two evils right now and his economic policy actually makes sense.

manza

20 Oct 2008, 10:56 PM

You'd be ok electing someone who burns flags, eh? No possible conflict of interest there? Not even a little bit?

I would be absolutely thrilled to vote for someone who values freedoms over the symbolism that represents them. I think anyone who wouldn't be is forgetting exactly what that flag stands for.

purveyor of truth

20 Oct 2008, 10:58 PM

I'm telling you man..all I'm hearing are F-style picture-painting arguments. No offense, but I need some logic, some evidence here, to help me see that Barack Obama actually likes America and doesn't agree with his "mentor" pastor that we should "damn America." And also tell me why he's not socialist..although I'm sure some people here like socialism.

Maybe its time we did a little America damning, we need to stop looking through the rose colored glasses. BTW, how many pair do you have anyway?

Saeculustra

20 Oct 2008, 10:59 PM

Saeculustra

20 Oct 2008, 11:01 PM

I would be absolutely thrilled to vote for someone who values freedoms over the symbolism that represents them. I think anyone who wouldn't be is forgetting exactly what that flag stands for.

Apparently, the flag doesn't stand for anything. At least Obama doesn't think so.

purveyor of truth

20 Oct 2008, 11:06 PM

In the Virtue of selfishness by Ayn Rand, she addresses the monument builders, symbolism for the stupid public. At least Obama isnt stupid.

ryan_m_parr

20 Oct 2008, 11:08 PM

I'd be interested to see how Obama supporters respond to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE

I second the responses already as it takes a definite bend to the viewpoints, and takes intentionally misleading statements out of the true context. (Similar to Email tripe (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp))

One such thing is to differentiate between the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem:

www.snopes.com - National Anthem (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp)

Though there is good reason to question how radical Obama really is, it's not good to take his roots out of context. There seems to be good reason to believe Obama is very mixed on any religion and that he isn't prone to follow the radical approach that some take upon themselves to spread viewpoints on, such as Rev. Wright (which in fact it has more to do with American denial and opposition to the context of his words, that most people can't relate to, and therefore are shocked by). Not to mention how it was reflected negatively on Rev. Wright during the talk show interview that he was very rude, when I've seen the talk show host be much more obnoxious at times not shown.

Che Guevara is a social activist, much like Malcolm X, or similar people throughout history, and evokes a symbolism of hope for people. To take him out of context and extrapolate radical extremes from Black Liberation Theology, is much like saying Pope Pious XII aided and abetted the Nazi's during WWII. Perhaps it is true, though why haven't we talked more about it? Usually it breaks down into the religious groups claiming Hitler was an Atheist, and that there really were no reasons for a Pope to support Hitler, and similarly that some presumed antithesis in regards to Democracy must be in place to take control if Obama gets elected. I will say this, that a Democracy is only good when held together with ideals shaped by a republic. Too far stretched and it's no different then a dictatorship, as no one knows how little rights they truly possess, and ultimately no one cares to notice; they are in a fixed social standing incapable of being anymore then servile to exploitation. To not be aware of servility is to miss the point of the what Che Guevara or social inequality implies, and that the context of meaning must be understood without judging everything that opposes the fragile mindset of a people incapable of questioning their own pride. Looking at the ignorance of other cultures and the aphorisms we use in our lingo, and manifestation of group identity, it seems little surprise that our society is going onto the brink of rude awakening. Our contact with the outside world (outside North America) is often besmeared with tongue-in-cheek earnestness, incapable of saying the truth to anyone, and often lying to the alleged people we claim to entrust our allegiances to.

A man might turn to God as a way to preserve his chosen identity and oppose the identity he opposes. He might have divorced someone in his life and then becomes a staunch supporter of religion and it's opposition to divorce. He might even have plenty of children to further his feeling of ecstasy in being the person people turn to, simultaneously refusing to acknowledge any authority other than his own. By having enforced his own stature, he might even claim that no women should have an abortion, because his former wife/girlfriend had one and considered the possibility of a life with this man, “one of the worst things to bring a child into." The man was only concealing himself behind a false smile and false ideals, incapable of understanding anyone else's views, other than his own.

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

I'm looking into more info still.

CEOofRawness

20 Oct 2008, 11:11 PM

Yes, it's a piece of cloth. Kind of like going out in the street and loudly proclaiming the deed as you burn a picture of your spouse is really just burning a piece of paper.

"Symbols are for the symbol-minded." - George Carlin

This discussion about flagpins and the national anthem remind me of that quote by good ol' George.

Anyway, you said you want logic. Well do you think that the FBI and the CIA haven't looked into Obama's background? I don't think that our government is completely safe from corruption, but to say that the agencies responsible for our national defense is corrupt is beyond conspiracy theory.

By the way I'm in the military and don't always place my hand over my heart (or stand at attention) when the national anthem is played. Does that make me unpatriotic? I'm also not very proud of the direction our country has been headed in the last 8 years.

Michelle Obama said she hasn't been proud of the US. Well, no shit. We've interfered way too many times with other countries, destroyed an entire nation, committed war crimes and profiteering, and catered to the rich. What is truly patriotic is the ability to see the current situation for what it is and admit when we as a nation have been wrong. But to blindly follow our nation's policies just for the sake to be "patriotic" is beyond all comprehension, and is exactly what "patriotic" Germans did during WWII.

Curtis24

20 Oct 2008, 11:12 PM

I'd be interested to see how Obama supporters respond to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE

I actually like the fact that he doesn't wear his flag pin or put his hand over his heart during the anthem. I never bought into that "America the Proud" crap; too often, people who are patriotic worship an America that existed way before I was born.

That is pretty funny though how he threw his grandmother under the bus :p

manza

20 Oct 2008, 11:13 PM

Apparently, the flag doesn't stand for anything. At least Obama doesn't think so.

The flag stands for something great. That doesn't mean it IS something great. It IS just a piece of fabric, and it's a piece used to symbolically represent a nation that allows us the liberty to do things like burn that imagery, without recourse.

Frankly, I think that burning a flag is one of the ultimate expressions of patriotism. It demonstrates the ability to deny the mindless worship of an object by exercising the rights the object stands for, in the face of those who forget what the object means.

It seems from your posts that you value the symbol over the things the symbol represents. I do not view that to be patriotism in any real sense of the word.

The "OMG OBAMA DOESN'T LOVE TEH FLAG, HE HATES AMERICA!!" bullshit doesn't fly with me. There are plenty of things to attack beside the devaluation of symbolism. Elevating the symbolism over the symbolized is effective propaganda, and no more.

puzzled-observer

20 Oct 2008, 11:15 PM

Curtis24

20 Oct 2008, 11:15 PM

So the next argument against Almighty Obama: he's inevitable anyway, and I'm struggling to employ escape tactics?

I'm telling you man..all I'm hearing are F-style picture-painting arguments. No offense, but I need some logic, some evidence here, to help me see that Barack Obama actually likes America and doesn't agree with his "mentor" pastor that we should "damn America." And also tell me why he's not socialist..although I'm sure some people here like socialism.

Obama used Wright for his connections to the black community. When Obama was first trying to get into Chicago politics he needed someone like Wright, since the pastors tend to be strong political leaders in black urban communities. And Wright had one of the largest black churches in Chicago. So no, Obama doesn't agree at all with his bullshit - attending Wright's church was a pragmatic decision, not an emotional one.

Curtis24

20 Oct 2008, 11:16 PM

The flag stands for something great. That doesn't mean it IS something great. It IS just a piece of fabric, and it's a piece used to symbolically represent a nation that allows us the liberty to do things like burn that imagery, without recourse.

Frankly, I think that burning a flag is one of the ultimate expressions of patriotism. It demonstrates the ability to deny the mindless worship of an object by exercising the rights the object stands for, in the face of those who forget what the object means.

It seems from your posts that you value the symbol over the things the symbol represents. I do not view that to be patriotism in any real sense of the word.

The "OMG OBAMA DOESN'T LOVE TEH FLAG, HE HATES AMERICA!!" bullshit doesn't fly with me. There are plenty of things to attack beside the devaluation of symbolism. Elevating the symbolism over the symbolized is effective propaganda, and no more.

What it boils down to is this: people who claim to 'love America' and wear flag pins and whatnot are loving an America that existed decades ago. I love America, just not their version. And I have a feeling Obama is the same way.

tinribz

20 Oct 2008, 11:16 PM

So the next argument against Almighty Obama: he's inevitable anyway, and I'm struggling to employ escape tactics?

I'm telling you man..all I'm hearing are F-style picture-painting arguments. No offense, but I need some logic, some evidence here, to help me see that Barack Obama actually likes America and doesn't agree with his "mentor" pastor that we should "damn America." And also tell me why he's not socialist..although I'm sure some people here like socialism.

Rational choices seem inevitable:

The Enlightenment thinkers often speculated that societies progressed through stages of increasing development and looked for the logic, order and the set of scientific truths that determined the course of human history.

Socialism is bad? Oh yeah, you are American and it means communist.

Non Sequitur, Stereotypical Thinking, Guilt by Association, Argument Ad Hominem, Petitio Principii, Shifting the Burden of Proof. These are styles of arguing and you seem to be both a master and sucker for. Is there some sort Jesus training camp for this stuff you've been to?

Saeculustra

20 Oct 2008, 11:20 PM

Well, thanks for the replies. I appreciate people's responses.

I think I'll leave it at that for now, since I actually want to have a life this evening :p

The only things I want to note: Ryan, it's an accepted fact that Che Guevara was a mass murderer, so it's not stretching it to think it's inappropriate for him to allow that picture on his wall.

Also, the connection to Crone's extreme black liberation theology was fair, because apparently Rev. Wright's brand of liberation theology rested heavily (by his own admission) on Crone's teachings.

And if others want to argue that symbols of respect for the flag and the anthem have nothing to do with actual respect or lack thereof, and actually are less patriotic than spurning these symbols, I can't even begin to argue with that. I'm satisfied just to know what the general reaction was.

Saeculustra

20 Oct 2008, 11:23 PM

Look, it's not that everyone's in love with Obama. It's that you used Fox news as your source for the argument. Fox news automatically gets dismissed, being that it's fox news. Everyone knows they distort issues and run patently false arguments. You're being dismissed very quickly largely because of that. Everyone has SOME doubt, but obviously those who support him have weighed the probability of him being a terrorist in disguise as being insufficient to warrant voting against him. It seems a bit far fetched to think that he could really do all that much more harm than any other president (especially with fox news on the job, constantly running news stories about how much of a terrorist he really is). But on the flip side, there's a decent chance that he genuinely represents at least part of what he says he does which would, in his supporters' minds, be a very good thing.

This wasn't by Fox news. It was run by illuminati pictures. From what I remember of the video, it only referenced Fox in ways that didn't actually use it as an authority. But whatever.

Everybody knows Fox lies, eh? It's too bad, since it happens to be the only conservative news media. So only the left-winged media has the truth..I guess that makes sense, eh. (not arguing. forget it. I'm not about to spend breath on that.)

purveyor of truth

20 Oct 2008, 11:24 PM

What it boils down to is this: people who claim to 'love America' and wear flag pins and whatnot are loving an America that existed decades ago.

And its the "easy button" like praying, much easier than thinking and doing. Whoever is the next president has his work cut out for him, if he plans on leading us out of this tailspin.

pangolin

20 Oct 2008, 11:25 PM

Ah, come now. I know it hurts to listen to things you disagree with. but I want to know if there are actually any arguments against the evidence this shows.

Only if you promise to refund the 13 minutes of my life.

Curtis24

20 Oct 2008, 11:26 PM

News networks care more about high ratings than they do objective reporting. And to get high ratings, they have to confirm audience expectations.

Fox just has a different audience than the other news networks, which have a mostly liberal audience. Though, Fox seems to be especially shameless in their bias; CNN et. al pretend to be objective while subtly being biased, whereas Fox doesn't bother hiding it.

Saeculustra, are you a conservative?

Saeculustra

20 Oct 2008, 11:26 PM

Rational choices seem inevitable:

Socialism is bad? Oh yeah, you are American and it means communist.

Non Sequitur, Stereotypical Thinking, Guilt by Association, Argument Ad Hominem, Petitio Principii, Shifting the Burden of Proof. These are styles of arguing and you seem to be both a master and sucker for. Is there some sort Jesus training camp for this stuff you've been to?

Oh man, you're right, I've been spewing pure gibberish this whole time - I guess that inevitably happens when people question Obama's motives. It must be all that Jesus training.

CEOofRawness

20 Oct 2008, 11:26 PM

CEO, a quick reply: thank you for actually addressing what I brought up. I disagree that just because bush does these patriotic things, that means not doing them is OK, because nothing can be worse than Bush. It's about a conflict of interest, not intelligence.

If you really want to say socialism is OK, then I'll just say the communist experiment showed that the supposed "spreading the wealth around" doesn't really work for a host of reasons ("oh yes, big brother, let me give you my wealth, I am certain you will never do anything greedy with it and one day it will alllll come back to me..") But whatever, that deserves another thread.

At least you don't trust Obama completely. That, I think, is far more reasonable than flipping out whenever someone questions his highness.

By default, I don't trust ANY politician, regardless of how moving his speeches are.

I'm not saying that Bush's idiocy makes it OK for people to disrespect these patriotic symbols, but that abiding by these symbols does not mean that you are a good candidate for presidency (hence the Bush example).

But you wanted a logical response:

If Obama really is a radical Christian or Muslim planning to ruin our country, he wouldn't openly disrespect our nation's symbols and thus raise suspicion (and especially attracting bad press) about his intentions as president. So it doesn't make sense to both sneak in a secret plot to ruin America AND cause such a raucous as raise suspicion. Rest assured that his background has been under the microscope by government agencies and that if even one of these claims were true that he would be under investigation right now. Thanks to the PATRIOT Act, Obama can't afford to hide ANYTHING.

MadamI'madaM

20 Oct 2008, 11:26 PM

Everybody knows Fox lies, eh? It's too bad, since it happens to be the only conservative news media. So only the left-winged media has the truth..I guess that makes sense, eh. (not arguing. forget it. I'm not about to spend breath on that.)

If you view the world through a lens of "conservative vs. liberal", you're dumb.

dumb, complacent, spoonfed american

Saeculustra

20 Oct 2008, 11:28 PM

Only if you promise to refund the 13 minutes of my life.

Hey, I only inflict on you what I've been forced to deal with. Unfortunately, my job right now requires me to look at both sides of this debate constantly. If you think 13 minutes is bad..well, it begins to make objectivity seem overrated.

purveyor of truth

20 Oct 2008, 11:30 PM

It must be all that Jesus training.

Actually yes, when a person forgo's reason as in christianity, it opens your mind up to all sorts of other foolishness.

pangolin

20 Oct 2008, 11:32 PM

Curtis24

20 Oct 2008, 11:34 PM

The objections Saeculustra made of Barack Obama are all reasonable. So I would focus more on rationally arguing against them, instead of just telling her she's full of shit.

puzzled-observer

20 Oct 2008, 11:34 PM

Everybody knows Fox lies, eh? It's too bad, since it happens to be the only conservative news media. So only the left-winged media has the truth..I guess that makes sense, eh. (not arguing. forget it. I'm not about to spend breath on that.)

I'm just trying to let you know the perception of it- and thus the reason for the type of response your getting. People see fox and they think "well here comes a big load of bullshit". I'm not even making an argument here, just a statement.

purveyor of truth

20 Oct 2008, 11:41 PM

People see fox and they think "well here comes a big load of bullshit".

I love Billo the clown, first class entertainment :banana:

tinribz

20 Oct 2008, 11:41 PM

Actually yes, when a person forgo's reason as in christianity, it opens your mind up to all sorts of other foolishness.It sort of beggars the chicken or the egg question about whether the indoctrination results in a way of thinking, or if just those with a leaning to it are drawn in.

Well at least Saeculustra is here and open to dialogue. There could be cracks forming.

ryan_m_parr

20 Oct 2008, 11:46 PM

The only things I want to note: Ryan, it's an accepted fact that Che Guevara was a mass murderer, so it's not stretching it to think it's inappropriate for him to allow that picture on his wall.

Also, the connection to Crone's extreme black liberation theology was fair, because apparently Rev. Wright's brand of liberation theology rested heavily (by his own admission) on Crone's teachings.

And if others want to argue that symbols of respect for the flag and the anthem have nothing to do with actual respect or lack thereof, and actually are less patriotic than spurning these symbols, I can't even begin to argue with that. I'm satisfied just to know what the general reaction was.

Che definately clashes with American viewpoints and brings a lot of unanswered questions, though I would similarly question the interest of American in having Che assassinated, and bring similar parallels to Bush's "regime."

Crone was an extremist though was from an era that took things to heart, justifiably so. For some black people (and whites) what they speak about could be similar symbolism to those opposed to flag burning. Che Guevara might only have been as unjustified to a world view that never experienced the social injustices, and perhaps realized that South America has long been influenced by exploiters in North America, keen to benefit from the helpless incipient governments.

It might seem insensitive, though consider the supposed patriotic people that have spent years in the military and don't pay federal income tax? Should that be held as unconstitutional and unpatriotic (something of a trick question)?

CEOofRawness

20 Oct 2008, 11:46 PM

Hey, I only inflict on you what I've been forced to deal with. Unfortunately, my job right now requires me to look at both sides of this debate constantly. If you think 13 minutes is bad..well, it begins to make objectivity seem overrated.

I don't think that everything you brought up about Obama is irrelevant, just most of it. And I don't know much about Che Guevara so I'll have to do research on him before even making a comment (which is sad to admit since I'm a 2nd generation Cuban).

I have no problem with taxing the excessively rich. The gap between the rich and the broke (aka the "Middle Class") is way too big to ignore. Health care, food, and shelter should be a right of every American, yet too many people live without these essentials. In a pure capitalist society these needs are ignored over profit. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and I'd personally prefer socialism over the broken system we have now (which Bush only worsened).

CEOofRawness

21 Oct 2008, 12:00 AM

Not at all. Democracy is freedom. In a free system, some people, usually wealthy, naturally dominate. Simple as that.

Just like I said earlier: economic despotism.

Before you start ignoring everything I say just because I'm an asshole, let me ask you something dead serious.

Do you notice anything INSANELY hypocritical about a democracy that mostly only gets to vote (YAY, VOTING!!1! :cheer: ) on wealthy representatives, namely a singular executive figurehead?

Which is another reason why I don't trust either candidate. They're also backed by their own respective party, which is another red flag. Any time there are "donations" involved they usually come with strings attached. The $30 million "farewell" bonus that Haliburtan gave Dick Cheney and the no-bid contracts his former employers received CANNOT POSSIBLY BE A COINCIDENCE.

Che definately clashes with American viewpoints and brings a lot of unanswered questions, though I would similarly question the interest of American in having Che assassinated, and bring similar parallels to Bush's "regime."

Crone was an extremist though was from an era that took things to heart, justifiably so. For some black people (and whites) what they speak about could be similar symbolism to those opposed to flag burning. Che Guevara might only have been as unjustified to a world view that never experienced the social injustices, and perhaps realized that South America has long been influenced by exploiters in North America, keen to benefit from the helpless incipient governments.

It might seem insensitive, though consider the supposed patriotic people that have spent years in the military and don't pay federal income tax? Should that be held as unconstitutional and unpatriotic (something of a trick question)?

What are you referring to exactly? Basic pay in the military is taxed. What isn't taxed is Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and combat pay (extra pay for being deployed in a war zone). The BAH is really just the military paying for your living expenses (rent or mortgage) and it wouldn't be fair to pay taxes on that, since lower enlisted soldiers (and some officers) live in barracks (or Bachelor Officer Quarters for some officers) and don't have to pay rent. As for combat pay... the act of taxing that bonus itself would be unpatriotic. It's the least we deserve.

The objections Saeculustra made of Barack Obama are all reasonable. So I would focus more on rationally arguing against them, instead of just telling her she's full of shit.

Agreed. Saying that Saeculustra is wrong because she's a conservative from a "Jesus camp" is no different from saying that Obama can't be president because he doesn't wear a flagpin and his father is a Muslim; both statements hold no substance.

CEOofRawness

21 Oct 2008, 12:03 AM

Maybe not a perfect system but since its the presidency, certainly one wants a successfull person in charge. Checks and balances to prevent abuse of power.

So you're saying that all the madness that Bush has accomplished while in office was his doing even with checks and balances (and the Constitution) in his way?

Imagine what he'd do to this country without that leash :sadbanana:

pangolin

21 Oct 2008, 12:05 AM

purveyor of truth

21 Oct 2008, 12:07 AM

So you're saying that all the madness that Bush has accomplished while in office was his doing even with checks and balances (and the Constitution) in his way?

Imagine what he'd do to this country without that leash :sadbanana:

If we as a country had any balls, we would have kicked his ass out, apparently the checks & balances thingy is broken.

Saeculustra

21 Oct 2008, 12:26 AM

Heh, naturally my pride prevents me from actually taking the evening off like I said I would..blah.

Actually yes, when a person forgo's reason as in christianity, it opens your mind up to all sorts of other foolishness.

I bow before your crystalline, completely non-prejudiced reasoning.

All of your objections are F-style. A T will be concerned that he acts for the well being of our country, its people, and upholds the constitution. Patriotic symbolism and religion are unrelated to this.

I'm not concerned about religion or symbolism. I don't care if he's a professed Atheist, or a Muslim, or whatever. I'm worried that purely objective evidence seems to indicate he might have conflict of interest, and sometimes symbols are able to convey evidence about that sort of thing. If this is true (and maybe it's not, what do I know? I hate politics) then electing him to office is a baaad idea - no matter how nice his policies sound.

I'm just trying to let you know the perception of it- and thus the reason for the type of response your getting. People see fox and they think "well here comes a big load of bullshit". I'm not even making an argument here, just a statement.

Fair enough. I've heard as much before.

Before you start ignoring everything I say just because I'm an asshole, let me ask you something dead serious.

Do you notice anything INSANELY hypocritical about a democracy that mostly only gets to vote (YAY, VOTING!!1! :cheer: ) on wealthy representatives, namely a singular executive figurehead?

Why would I ignore you? When people get angry about this stuff, I tend to take it as a compliment, since often people who sense defeat are the ones who get mad. Even though I suspect that's not the case with you, it still generally pleases me.

Actually, I'm sure your question will lead to something interesting, because I don't see why I wouldn't find it hypocritical, and that's why our government leaves me rather unimpressed - and why normally I don't bother discussing politics. Corrupt people always end up getting their way. It's mostly a matter of stanching the flow, IMO.

It sort of beggars the chicken or the egg question about whether the indoctrination results in a way of thinking, or if just those with a leaning to it are drawn in.

Well at least Saeculustra is here and open to dialogue. There could be cracks forming.

That's right. Convert me! Come on!

I don't think that everything you brought up about Obama is irrelevant, just most of it. And I don't know much about Che Guevara so I'll have to do research on him before even making a comment (which is sad to admit since I'm a 2nd generation Cuban).

I have no problem with taxing the excessively rich. The gap between the rich and the broke (aka the "Middle Class") is way too big to ignore. Health care, food, and shelter should be a right of every American, yet too many people live without these essentials. In a pure capitalist society these needs are ignored over profit. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and I'd personally prefer socialism over the broken system we have now (which Bush only worsened).

I agree a lot of the video was mere conjecture, and was mostly aimed toward people willing to be led along a certain train of thought (if not, a lot of the claims are instantly met with "that's not proof! that doesn't prove anything!" - naturally). I think it is a problem to tax the excessively rich, because the government gets to decide who is "excessively rich." I just don't like to leave my money, in general, in the hands of the government, even if they swear they won't take much, or will mostly bother someone else. Give them more freedom, and they will run with it, there's no reason to doubt it.

We're not a laissez-faire captialist society, fortunately; we do have gov't regulations on fairness (in theory), and I don't see why government involvement should change radically from this.

Surely people associate "socialism" with "big brother"? No?

Ultimate point being: getting hijacked by corrupt people is what the government does best. Why do we want to give the government more power (not to mention more of our paycheck)?

Che definately clashes with American viewpoints and brings a lot of unanswered questions, though I would similarly question the interest of American in having Che assassinated, and bring similar parallels to Bush's "regime."

Crone was an extremist though was from an era that took things to heart, justifiably so. For some black people (and whites) what they speak about could be similar symbolism to those opposed to flag burning. Che Guevara might only have been as unjustified to a world view that never experienced the social injustices, and perhaps realized that South America has long been influenced by exploiters in North America, keen to benefit from the helpless incipient governments.

It might seem insensitive, though consider the supposed patriotic people that have spent years in the military and don't pay federal income tax? Should that be held as unconstitutional and unpatriotic (something of a trick question)?

I dunno, man. Che killed a lot of innocent people. That kind of clashes with my viewpoint, too. But now I'm getting into territory I'm unfamiliar with.

MacGuffin

21 Oct 2008, 12:30 AM

Saeculustra

21 Oct 2008, 12:36 AM

I don't mind criticism of Obama (I welcome it), but simply posting this video is not a legitimate method of criticism. I'm finally watching/listening to this video and it is as stupid as I surmised.

There's some actual good points raised, surrounded by a bunch of propaganda. I expect to get this in an email from my father ( :banghead: ) rather than someone engaged in critical thinking. The bias of this video is obvious.

I guess you guys don't know me well enough yet to recognize that I didn't post it for its rhetorical value, and of course I recognize its bias. I was lazy and found a clump of information surrounded by supporting conjecture, and I just wanted the legitimate claims addressed.

I don't want the fluff/conjecture addressed. Really. Just the main stuff.

I guess a main objection to the video would be its length, so I apologize about that. But please don't think I can't see the bias.

pangolin

21 Oct 2008, 12:44 AM

Who makes the laws? Congress. Who elects Congress? The people. The American people could change the laws if they were smart enough, but they're not. Like I said, democracy promises only equality of opportunity, not that some handicap will be built in for the stupid and unmotivated.

There is a very slight and tenuous link between casting one out of millions of votes to elect a few out of hundreds of representatives and the laws that those legislative bodies pass.

MacGuffin

21 Oct 2008, 12:47 AM

I guess you guys don't know me well enough yet to recognize that I didn't post it for its rhetorical value, and of course I recognize its bias. I was lazy and found a clump of information surrounded by supporting conjecture, and I just wanted the legitimate claims addressed.

I don't want the fluff/conjecture addressed. Really. Just the main stuff.

I guess a main objection to the video would be its length, so I apologize about that. But please don't think I can't see the bias.

Yeah, it's hard to focus on the actual good points raised.

What points do you want addressed?

As far as socialism: you're 80 years too late. We've had socialist elements since then, and they aren't going anywhere. Obama certainly won't reverse the trend, but then again neither will McCain. Even under Bush II we've seen the expansion of social welfare programs, and they are partly nationalizing our financial system as we speak.

The reason why I like Obama compared to McCain is I think he's intelligent and capable. I put more faith in that than ideology or campaign promises. Plus, if he dies we aren't going to be stuck with some redneck bimbo as President.

!diom

21 Oct 2008, 01:28 AM

The reason why I like Obama compared to McCain is I think he's intelligent and capable.

Ditto. I'm astounded that more people don't see McCain's campaign rhetoric as pathetic. I find it admirable that Obama presents the issues with the cognizance that their complexity merits. He obviously has faith that the majority of Americans are intelligent enough to see this for themselves. McCain, on the other hand, continues to use the style of buzz speech that appeals to the mammalian and reptilian minds of lesser Americans.

Saeculustra

21 Oct 2008, 01:29 AM

Yeah, it's hard to focus on the actual good points raised.

What points do you want addressed?

As far as socialism: you're 80 years too late. We've had socialist elements since then, and they aren't going anywhere. Obama certainly won't reverse the trend, but then again neither will McCain. Even under Bush II we've seen the expansion of social welfare programs, and they are partly nationalizing our financial system as we speak.

The reason why I like Obama compared to McCain is I think he's intelligent and capable. I put more faith in that than ideology or campaign promises. Plus, if he dies we aren't going to be stuck with some redneck bimbo as President.

One thing is this: Obama has refused to disassociate himself with Rev. Wright, who he calls his mentor. Rev. Wright, in turn, is a follower of Crone's black liberation theology. I can't see any reason why Barack isn't suspected of sharing these radical beliefs.

His remarks about his grandmother seem to indicate a corresponding and very strong separation, in his mind, between the "whites" and the "blacks."

I also posit the question why he would allow an image of the mass-murderer and communist Che in his campaign office. Does he take him as an example of the proper exercise of political power?

I almost cringe to write this, since I'm sure it's been brought up somewhere else on this forum, but since you mentioned Palin I would like a (nice, polite) answer to the question:

If you think Palin is under-experienced for the presidency, why is Obama qualified? For voting "present" in the Senate? For having a more golden tongue? For being a community organizer (i.e. a Saul Alinsky-style agitator)?

He talks a lot, but what has he done? Anyone can talk, they can even promise great things. I guess the reason why I found the video pertinent is because with a guy this young, and with such a small resume, we have very little to go on (other than his talk).

So while people may object and say, "show us why his policies are bad, and cut the conspiracy crap," the problem is that there just isn't much hard evidence yet to show that he actually walks his talk. We're left with background information, since a lot of his "walking," so to speak, happens to have been outside the senate building.

To CEO: I don't think I'm prepared to get into the nitty-gritty about socialism v. the free market. I was mocked for conflating socialism and communism before, but remember that the reason why communism sucked was because it was an extreme form of socialism. It basically leaves people with no incentive to work hard or be excellent at their job, because big brother will just take their paycheck anyway and maybe give them a potato.

Now I recognize not all socialist regimes are communist. It's the principle I'm worried about: as you call it turning taxation into a tool to level the playing field. My question is: does this actually hinder corruption, or free it? Giving the government this prerogative is like .. I can't even think of a comparison. I still don't understand why we voluntarily let "big brother" get even bigger. I mean, the idea looks nice on paper (like communism does), but our taxes are bad enough as it is. Why can't they fix things now? Why are there still poor people?

Do you really think the government doesn't tax us enough, and if they taxed us more, then they would really give it away to poor people?

Curtis24

21 Oct 2008, 01:37 AM

One thing is this: Obama has refused to disassociate himself with Rev. Wright, who he calls his mentor. Rev. Wright, in turn, is a follower of Crone's black liberation theology. I can't see any reason why Barack isn't suspected of sharing these radical beliefs.

His remarks about his grandmother seem to indicate a corresponding and very strong separation, in his mind, between the "whites" and the "blacks."

I also posit the question why he would allow an image of the mass-murderer and communist Che in his campaign office. Does he take him as an example of the proper exercise of political power?

I almost cringe to write this, since I'm sure it's been brought up somewhere else on this forum, but since you mentioned Palin I would like a (nice, polite) answer to the question:

If you think Palin is under-experienced for the presidency, why is Obama qualified? For voting "present" in the Senate? For having a more golden tongue? For being a community organizer (i.e. a Saul Alinsky-style agitator)?

He talks a lot, but what has he done? Anyone can talk, they can even promise great things. I guess the reason why I found the video pertinent is because with a guy this young, and with such a small resume, we have very little to go on (other than his talk).

So while people may object and say, "show us why his policies are bad, and cut the conspiracy crap," the problem is that there just isn't much hard evidence yet to show that he actually walks his talk. We're left with background information, since a lot of his "walking," so to speak, happens to have been outside the senate building.

Obama used Wright for his connections to the black community. When Obama was first trying to get into Chicago politics he needed someone like Wright, since the pastors tend to be strong political leaders in black urban communities. And Wright had one of the largest black churches in Chicago. So no, Obama doesn't agree at all with his bullshit - attending Wright's church was a pragmatic decision, not an emotional one.

1) Obama doesn't disassociate himself from Wright because it would make him look cynical and political. Which he is. But does he share Wright's radical views? No.

2) The perception of Palin as unqualified is not based on her experience or lack thereof. Its based on her inabililty to answer simple questions about her policies, leading one to believe she does not even understand her own policies. Obama, on the other hand, explains his policies, and American policy in general, in great depth. Furthermore, Obama was head of the Harvard law review, which indicates extremely advanced analytical ability.

puzzled-observer

21 Oct 2008, 01:38 AM

Zephyrus055

21 Oct 2008, 01:41 AM

5000 years later and the common man is still building pyramids for the elite.

If anything, I think that may be the only law of humanity.

@Palin:
It's not a matter of experience, it's intelligence. Palin is an idiot and has shown that she's willing to abuse her power if it suits her. These two things are a bad combination. In fact, she's the main reason I can't ever support this republican ticket.

And the vast majority of politicians don't?

Saeculustra

21 Oct 2008, 01:42 AM

This may come across as hairsplitting to some, but I must ask:

Is what you're seeing in Palin stupidity, or lack of political savvy/knowledge?

Chunes

21 Oct 2008, 01:44 AM

5000 years later and the common man is still building pyramids for the elite.

Yup. The only difference is the whips are more sophisticated these days.

CEOofRawness

21 Oct 2008, 01:45 AM

One thing is this: Obama has refused to disassociate himself with Rev. Wright, who he calls his mentor. Rev. Wright, in turn, is a follower of Crone's black liberation theology. I can't see any reason why Barack isn't suspected of sharing these radical beliefs.

His remarks about his grandmother seem to indicate a corresponding and very strong separation, in his mind, between the "whites" and the "blacks."

I also posit the question why he would allow an image of the mass-murderer and communist Che in his campaign office. Does he take him as an example of the proper exercise of political power?

I almost cringe to write this, since I'm sure it's been brought up somewhere else on this forum, but since you mentioned Palin I would like a (nice, polite) answer to the question:

If you think Palin is under-experienced for the presidency, why is Obama qualified? For voting "present" in the Senate? For having a more golden tongue? For being a community organizer (i.e. a Saul Alinsky-style agitator)?

He talks a lot, but what has he done? Anyone can talk, they can even promise great things. I guess the reason why I found the video pertinent is because with a guy this young, and with such a small resume, we have very little to go on (other than his talk).

So while people may object and say, "show us why his policies are bad, and cut the conspiracy crap," the problem is that there just isn't much hard evidence yet to show that he actually walks his talk. We're left with background information, since a lot of his "walking," so to speak, happens to have been outside the senate building.

Just take into account that Obama is focusing on the issues. Take into account that he could have chosen Hilary Clinton and could have had a guaranteed ticket into the White House (not to mention killing the buzz over Palin), but instead chose a more experienced candidate in order to balance his faults for the sake of the country.

Now look at McCain. He uses smear tactics and emphasizes on the trivial details about Obama in order to win the support of the people, and used Palin as a political cheap shot into office. This fact absolutely clear, especially considering that he hounded Obama on his inexperience, only to turn around and pick a VP that's not only inexperienced, but only has a pretty face and a gimmick! Why do you think she hasn't made many speeches or appearances without McCain until recently? Also, McCain's campaign party is made up of lobbyists, the bottom of the barrel in the political battlefield. He wants to disassociate himself from Bush, yet he's using the same exact tactics that Bush used on John Kerry in 2004!

If you want to talk about character, just look at their campaign tactics. That alone is enough to show who's the better candidate (or perhaps the less damaging for you fellow cynics out there).

CEOofRawness

21 Oct 2008, 01:51 AM

@Palin:
It's not a matter of experience, it's intelligence. Palin is an idiot and has shown that she's willing to abuse her power if it suits her. These two things are a bad combination. In fact, she's the main reason I can't ever support this republican ticket.

I believe that gov Palin really is a good person and means well, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The decisive issue with me against Palin is that she doesn't believe that global warming is man-made (which was a fact before it became an opinion). With the way the environment is now we can't afford to have someone that can't even accept the facts. And this pales in comparison with my other dislikes about Palin: her pro-life stance, her admitting that we are doing "God's will" in Iraq, her inability to answer simple questions and reliance on her "hockey mom" gimmick to win the confidence of voters.

I know that the global warming comment is gonna stir up a lot of shit, but you cannot possibly tell me that drilling for more oil is a solution to anything right now.

!diom

21 Oct 2008, 01:55 AM

If you think Palin is under-experienced for the presidency, why is Obama qualified?

A lot of us see this as an issue of ability rather than experience. No amount of public service is going to make Palin a proper candidate for the presidency. Neither will any amount of experience make McCain a better candidate than Obama.

EDIT: I see that plenty of others have already mentioned this, so carry on.

puzzled-observer

21 Oct 2008, 01:57 AM

And the vast majority of politicians don't?
Point taken, but if she's obviously one of them, I think it's a good reason to take some points away from her.

This may come across as hairsplitting to some, but I must ask:

Is what you're seeing in Palin stupidity, or lack of political savvy/knowledge?
I would say both.

Saeculustra

21 Oct 2008, 02:02 AM

A lot of us see this as an issue of ability rather than experience. No amount of public service is going to make Palin a proper candidate for the presidency. Neither will any amount of experience make McCain a better candidate than Obama.

EDIT: I see that plenty of others have already mentioned this, so carry on.

How do can we be sure of ability unless they have tested it through experience? This goes back to my previous point, about the problem with young senators.

And of course, Palin is the only one with any executive experience, and she's the most popular governor in the U.S. That at least says something in comparison to Obama's lack of any such proof of leadership.

Puzzled-observer: if she's stupid, why? What stupid thing has she done? I think the trooper conspiracy theory has (at the very most) as much weight as the ghetto conspiracy theory launched against Obama.

It really seems to me that the Obama v. Palin thing comes down more to style: a lot of people are drawn in by Obama's style, whereas Palin's isn't as attractive to some. Not an argument, just opinion.

Curtis24

21 Oct 2008, 02:03 AM

I don't think Sarah Palin is stupid. I think she's not really a serious policy creator. She's a charismatic puppet put out for other, more nefarious and radical people to craft more nefarious and radical policies behind. This is based on the fact that she doesn't seem to understand her own policies or governorship. For instance, claiming that proximity to Russia is 'foreign experience', or not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is, or saying that she's well read but not being able to remember actual books she's read(meaning, she's not well read but didn't want to make something up for fear she'd be questioned on it). In a lot of ways, she's like Bush.

Saeculustra

21 Oct 2008, 02:15 AM

Curtis:
She never claimed proximity to Russia was foreign experience - I watched that interview myself. She made a sloppy answer to Gibson's question, but her point was that being the Alaskan governor puts her in a position to pay special attention to Russia, in a way the other states don't. I'm not even saying it was a great point, but she didn't tout it as a "foreign policy credential" per se. The way they questioned her on that later really hemmed her in. It was pathetic.

And as for the Bush Doctrine deal, all she wanted was for Gibson to be more specific. He refused, and expected her to read his mind and understand he meant Bush's pre-emptive attack policy. That is certainly not the one and only definition of Bush doctrine.

You might expect that a conservative woman who just popped up on the presidential ticket would get bullied a bit. She has. While she might not think super-quick on her feet, and seems unused to the cutthroat ways of the media and Washington, that's not what I'm looking for in a candidate. Barack Obama may have this charm and political savvy in spades, but this doesn't move me much in itself.

In science, a theory is the highest anything descriptive gets. If you said it was just a hypothesis then it would make more sense, but the problem with that is global warming has much more support than a hypothesis.

It isn't sensible because

We have a small percentage of the world's oil reserves. The Middle East is the gold mine.
Though you can argue that drilling for oil would be a short-term solution, it really isn't because it would take at least five years for it to be at full production capacity.

Ok, but I'm just saying that a lot of experts disagree that global warming even exists. It just happens not to be PC to think that.

We don't know yet how much oil we have; we haven't drilled. There are estimates, but really, we can't know for sure. I'm relatively sure that even the estimate puts us at a very comfortable amount, even if it's a relatively small percentage.

I don't think it's a short-term solution, I think it's a long-term investment in gaining independence.

puzzled-observer

21 Oct 2008, 02:40 AM

Puzzled-observer: if she's stupid, why? What stupid thing has she done? I think the trooper conspiracy theory has (at the very most) as much weight as the ghetto conspiracy theory launched against Obama.

It really seems to me that the Obama v. Palin thing comes down more to style: a lot of people are drawn in by Obama's style, whereas Palin's isn't as attractive to some. Not an argument, just opinion.

She doesn't seem to have any formulated opinions or ideas about anything. She's just spewing the lines her campaign gives her to spew. Now, granted all politicians spew lines, but you can generally garner an idea of the persons thought processes when you hear them talk in interviews , and even speeches (to an extent). She doesn't appear to me to have any of her own ideas influencing what she says. Also, perhaps a personal bias, she's a creationist (sorry all you creationists out there). She doesn't believe that science produces accurate information. This supports the idea that she doesn't critically think about the position she holds. She represents, to me, that contingent of bible-belting fundies-- In other words, Bush II (Except I think bush was smarter- and more knowledgable).

Curtis24

21 Oct 2008, 02:54 AM

Saeculustra

21 Oct 2008, 02:58 AM

Fine. You all want me to do more research on something I've never cared about, then darnit, I will!

Just for spite!..

...but I sleep first.

CEOofRawness

21 Oct 2008, 03:08 AM

Fine. You all want me to do more research on something I've never cared about, then darnit, I will!

Just for spite!..

...but I sleep first.

I liked you more when you had 420 posts.

What a magical number...

Edit: Which reminds me. Barack Obama used to be a pothead (and experimented with cocaine). How did none of this enter this thread? Personally, I hope he decriminalizes (and maybe even legalizes?) MJ. It's a prohibition that is doing far more harm than good:

- 800,000+ arrested in 2007, and 88% were for possession only
- 74% of those arrested for marijuana possession are under 30
- 1 out of 4 arrested for ganja possession are 18 or younger (the War on Youth)
- Countries with lax marijuana laws have lower usage rates than the US
- Weed is easier for kids to get than alcohol or tobacco (dealers don't care who they sell it to)
- We spend billions on the War on Drugs with no appreciable effect on usage rates
- 0 people die a year from puffing the magic dragon (50,000+ die a year for alcohol intoxication, another 50,000 for other alcohol related deaths, and 438,000 tobacco related deaths a year)
- addiction rates are lower for grass(6%) than alcohol(15%) or tobacco(32%)
- Physicians in California are able to prescribe herb medically through state law, yet are arrested by federal agents for doing what the state has allowed (and licensed) them to do
- The Lancet, a British medical journal, has stated that "marijuana, even long term, is not harmful to health" (other medical journals have come to similar conclusions)
- The current Drug Czar John Walters openly lied about marijuana arrests, saying that no one gets arrested for simple pot possession and that finding someone arrested for possession of MJ is like "finding a unicorn... they don't exist," yet the FBI website shows that over 600,000 arrests were made in 2007 for possession

There are more facts and figures but these are the ones off the top of my head. www.norml.org

Curtis24

21 Oct 2008, 03:12 AM

I liked you more when you had 420 posts.

What a magical number...

On a related note, how the hell did we all rack up such huge post numbers in such a short amount of time? o_O This place is like a giant black hole that encourages my worst manic tendencies...

EDIT: I know it says I registered back in July 07 but I didn't start really posting till this Spring.

MacGuffin

21 Oct 2008, 02:32 PM

Moved the interesting (but non-Obama) discussion here (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=31943).

Moved the global warming debate here (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=29963).

MacGuffin

21 Oct 2008, 02:52 PM

How do can we be sure of ability unless they have tested it through experience? This goes back to my previous point, about the problem with young senators.

I'm INTP, so "experience" only carries so much weight. I'm far more interested in who a person is rather than their "experience". Fact is, there is little on this planet (short of perhaps running another country) that would count as "experience" when considering the Presidency.

And of course, Palin is the only one with any executive experience, and she's the most popular governor in the U.S. That at least says something in comparison to Obama's lack of any such proof of leadership.

And that experience sure isn't it. I'm more impressed with being the mayor of D.C. than the governor of scarcely populated frontier state. If I'm supposed to be so impressed with her (scant) executive experience, why not swap her and McCain? Let her run for President.

Saeculustra

21 Oct 2008, 03:10 PM

I'm INTP, so "experience" only carries so much weight. I'm far more interested in who a person is rather than their "experience". Fact is, there is little on this planet (short of perhaps running another country) that would count as "experience" when considering the Presidency.

The idea of "experience" here pertains inasmuch as it gives hard evidence of who a person really is, as opposed to what they say they are.

It's not that I think someone inexperienced is ineligible, only that it's harder to discern what sort of person they are - so it's legitimate to look more into their personal history, if that's the only kind of history they happen to have.

And that experience sure isn't it. I'm more impressed with being the mayor of D.C. than the governor of scarcely populated frontier state. If I'm supposed to be so impressed with her (scant) executive experience, why not swap her and McCain? Let her run for President.

It's not that it's impressive in itself. This little bit of evidence of her ability just happens to be more than the zero evidence of Obama's ability.

He may be able to talk a lot better than her, and has obviously prepared himself for running for president in terms of knowledge and technique. But still there's little we actually know about the man besides his talk.

MacGuffin

21 Oct 2008, 03:27 PM

The idea of "experience" here pertains inasmuch as it gives hard evidence of who a person really is, as opposed to what they say they are.

It's not that I think someone inexperienced is ineligible, only that it's harder to discern what sort of person they are - so it's legitimate to look more into their personal history, if that's the only kind of history they happen to have.

I'd agree.

It's not that it's impressive in itself. This little bit of evidence of her ability just happens to be more than the zero evidence of Obama's ability.

He may be able to talk a lot better than her, and has obviously prepared himself for running for president in terms of knowledge and technique. But still there's little we actually know about the man besides his talk.

Why little versus zero? I know she got elected governor, but so what? I place far, far more value on being an U.S. Senator than governor of Alaska. And yes, I place more value on McCain's years of service compared to Obama's.

Look at the date of the OP on this thread: 12-17-2006.

If I had said the name "Sarah Palin" back then, how many would have any idea who I was talking about? Obama has been Senator for 4 years now and esp. after his 2004 convention speech has been in the national spotlight and under scrutiny as a possible Presidential candidate for years. I knew more about Obama back when this thread was started than I do about Palin now. All I know is she knows how to look cute and wink. I'm not impressed. She's done and said nothing that inspires confidence she's ready to be VP and (god help us) President if something were to happen to McCain.

Saeculustra

21 Oct 2008, 03:40 PM

Why little versus zero? I know she got elected governor, but so what? I place far, far more value on being an U.S. Senator than governor of Alaska. And yes, I place more value on McCain's years of service compared to Obama's.

Look at the date of the OP on this thread: 12-17-2006.

If I had said the name "Sarah Palin" back then, how many would have any idea who I was talking about? Obama has been Senator for 4 years now and esp. after his 2004 convention speech has been in the national spotlight and under scrutiny as a possible Presidential candidate for years. I knew more about Obama back when this thread was started than I do about Palin now. All I know is she knows how to look cute and wink. I'm not impressed. She's done and said nothing that inspires confidence she's ready to be VP and (god help us) President if something were to happen to McCain.

Mrr, I told myself I wouldn't do this during work!

Even though he's been in the spotlight, even looking back at the first few posts in this thread, I see something like this: "he sounds great. Hm, he seems to vote along party lines. I hope that does not really indicate what he will do in the future, because I like the ideas he speaks about."

Point being: it's a great thing to be a Senator, but the little vs. zero experience I was talking about refers specifically to leadership abilities. Has he shown leadership in the Senate? Has he broken party lines to bring what he says to bear on reality? It doesn't seem so, to me.

oxyjen

21 Oct 2008, 03:48 PM

It's not that it's impressive in itself. This little bit of evidence of her ability just happens to be more than the zero evidence of Obama's ability.

He may be able to talk a lot better than her, and has obviously prepared himself for running for president in terms of knowledge and technique. But still there's little we actually know about the man besides his talk.

Seriously?

Obama is a graduate of Harvard Law School and was a lecturer at the University of Chicago. He was the first black President of The Harvard Law Review. Palin has a BA in journalism from the University of Idaho.

Obama has been in the Illinois senate in 1997 and was later elected to U.S. Senate in 2004. Palin has been governor of Alaska for two years after previously being mayor of Wasila, Alaska.

Obama spent time in his career as a financial analyst, laywer, community organizer, and noted author. Palin oversaw the National Guard and has small business experience (Sorry, it is more difficult to find sources of Palin's previous background...).

Obama's experience will trounce Palin's any day. But that's not really the issue, as it is more expedient to compare Pres V Pres and VP v VP. (In which case, Biden would similarly trounce Palin). Your remark couldn't go unreplied by myself, however.

EDIT: Judging by your last comment, I think you and I have different standards on which to judge. Like others, "experience" is not as important as electing someone who seems intelligent, has good judgment, and is not apt to 'choke' or make decisions hastily. Obama's past diverse experience and education speaks more to me than two years in an "executive position."

NoahFence

21 Oct 2008, 03:56 PM

purveyor of truth

21 Oct 2008, 03:59 PM

Seriously?

Obama is a graduate of Harvard Law School and was a lecturer at the University of Chicago. He was the first black President of The Harvard Law Review. Palin has a BA in journalism from the University of Idaho

I grew up in Idaho, hate to dis the ol' home state but U of I was known as a party(drinking) school. I went to Washington State Univerisity briefly and many kids went over there on weekends to party and get lucky. Compared to Harvard Law School, U of I is kindergarten. There was actually a bus that went back and forth between WSU and U of I on weekends carting parties back and forth. She's a year or two older then me so I know what atmosphere she went to school in. I'm just sayin

C.J.Woolf

21 Oct 2008, 04:02 PM

Obama has an executive position in his own campaign, which is not inconsiderable. By all accounts he has managed it extremely well. He's called "No-drama Obama". Having had managers who are high-drama and low-drama, I much prefer the latter. He wants to hear the views of his staff, and he draws them out if necessary.

I think I would love to work for Barack Obama.

Obama's senior staff are likewise very competent and low-drama. First-rate managers hire first-rate people, while second-rate managers hire third-rate people. The US needs a first-rate president now, if only to clean out the third-raters that Bush appointed.

oxyjen

21 Oct 2008, 04:03 PM

I grew up in Idaho, hate to dis the ol' home state but U of I was known as a party(drinking) school. I went to Washington State Univerisity briefly and many kids went over there on weekends to party and get lucky. Compared to Harvard Law School, U of I is kindergarten

Yeah, I'm not really sure how career minded she was. University of Idaho was her sixth college, after starting out as a business and general studies student in other places before that.

From a source: "The McCain campaign did not have an immediate comment on Palin's higher-education record."

No shit.

C.J.Woolf

21 Oct 2008, 04:04 PM

NoahFence

21 Oct 2008, 04:09 PM

It really really really matters. It's been said that Obama can say "Fuck you" with a smile. I like him for that alone.

At the ACORN Al Smith "roast", he managed to switch gears from hilarious to distressful/sobering to upbeat/hopeful without missing a single stride. To lay out how crappy things are now and have it all end on a good note is quite a skill.

The US needs a first-rate president now, if only to clean out the third-raters that Bush appointed.

I don't think half of them even rated. When your qualification for a high level government post was "I bunked with him at university", third-rate is awfully generous.

purveyor of truth

21 Oct 2008, 04:12 PM

University of Idaho was her sixth college, after starting out as a business and general studies student in other places before that.

If University of Idaho was her sixth college I suggest she was an idiot working her way down the education system.

C.J.Woolf

21 Oct 2008, 04:16 PM

If University of Idaho was her sixth college I suggest she was an idiot working her way down the education system.
Maybe not an idiiot (I'm trying to be charitable), but certainly not as driven and together and smart as Obama is. Palin is more like the average Joe. But the Vice President of the United States (of which there is only one) should not be merely average.

MacGuffin

21 Oct 2008, 04:19 PM

Maybe not an idiiot (I'm trying to be charitable), but certainly not as driven and together and smart as Obama is. Palin is more like the average Joe. But the Vice President of the United States (of which there is only one) should not be merely average.

Hey, she's a MILF! Definitely not average in that department!

CEOofRawness

21 Oct 2008, 04:34 PM

How do can we be sure of ability unless they have tested it through experience? This goes back to my previous point, about the problem with young senators.

And of course, Palin is the only one with any executive experience, and she's the most popular governor in the U.S. That at least says something in comparison to Obama's lack of any such proof of leadership.

Puzzled-observer: if she's stupid, why? What stupid thing has she done? I think the trooper conspiracy theory has (at the very most) as much weight as the ghetto conspiracy theory launched against Obama.

It really seems to me that the Obama v. Palin thing comes down more to style: a lot of people are drawn in by Obama's style, whereas Palin's isn't as attractive to some. Not an argument, just opinion.

President Bush had more executive experience as the governor of Texas than John Kerry who was just a senator. So are you saying that Bush is the better candidate?

And assume they ran at the beginning of their careers at the same time, both with little experience. Would you then argue that Bush is the better choice because he had a little executive experience over the zero experience of Kerry?

According to your logic, we made the better choice in 2004.

Edit: I will give Palin credit for one thing. She used the royalties from oil and national gas production to cut $1,200 to the residents of Alaska to help them deal with the rising cost of gas and energy. It isn't much and it's very un-republican of her to be giving money to the common man, but it's a step in the right direction. Other than that, she's been used as a cheap gimmick to win over a few voters (particularly women voters). It seems like McCain cares more about getting into office and Obama cares more about running things right. You want to talk about experience; just pay close attention to what these guys are doing during the campaign and you'll see what kind of people they really are.

The most McCain can do is try to smear Obama's image and focus on his lack of experience because quite frankly, that's all he has over Obama.

NoahFence

21 Oct 2008, 04:35 PM

Hey, she's a MILF! Definitely not average in that department!

Yeah, if there was ever a way to get North Korea, Iran, Pakistan et. al. to take our demands seriously, it'd be with a lewd wink and a drawling "Donchaknow". May as well try it, nothing else seems to work.

MacGuffin

21 Oct 2008, 05:03 PM

Point being: it's a great thing to be a Senator, but the little vs. zero experience I was talking about refers specifically to leadership abilities. Has he shown leadership in the Senate? Has he broken party lines to bring what he says to bear on reality? It doesn't seem so, to me.

Don't confuse real leaders with those that are called leaders by the dint of their title.

Ferrus

21 Oct 2008, 05:26 PM

By all accounts he has managed it extremely well. He's called "No-drama Obama".
Perhaps it was a show for the media but his debate performances did suggest a high level of self-mastery and a indifferent coolness - much of it probably the result of his upbringing.

CEOofRawness

21 Oct 2008, 05:28 PM

Another thing I've yet to hear is the fact that Obama is just equally white as he is black.

So what's the big deal about another white, Christian man running for office?

rhinosaur

21 Oct 2008, 07:01 PM

Would also like to give a shout out to the necesity of "sounding better" for a US President. Some people like to call this "diplomatic". I think he can deliver our requests and demands to other world politicians much better than anyone we've had in my living memory. I know INTP's will be the first to say "that shouldn't matter," but a quick reality check reveals that it does.

This reminds me of something my friend who's in politics once told me. To paraphrase,

It's all bullshit. Every politician on the globe is an expert in selling bullshit. But the only thing that matters is who's the best at selling it. Because if they can sell it to the Russians, the Chinese, the British... well, then, they've got the support of the world. And that's all that really matters.

C.J.Woolf

21 Oct 2008, 07:32 PM

This reminds me of something my friend who's in politics once told me. To paraphrase,

It's all bullshit. Every politician on the globe is an expert in selling bullshit. But the only thing that matters is who's the best at selling it. Because if they can sell it to the Russians, the Chinese, the British... well, then, they've got the support of the world. And that's all that really matters.
So it's good to be a net exporter of bullshit, eh? Amen, brother. No one overseas bought any of Bush's bullshit, and see where that got us.

msg_v2

21 Oct 2008, 07:32 PM

Take into account that he could have chosen Hilary Clinton and could have had a guaranteed ticket into the White House (not to mention killing the buzz over Palin), but instead chose a more experienced candidate in order to balance his faults for the sake of the country.

I don't know about that. It might have been better for party unity, but it would have really mobilized the opposition against him. I saw the pick of Joe Biden as an attempt to make him more attractive to blue-collar voters and to make him seem less racially "divisive". (Remember that controversy during primary season?)

C.J.Woolf

21 Oct 2008, 07:37 PM

CEOofRawness

22 Oct 2008, 01:36 AM

I don't know about that. It might have been better for party unity, but it would have really mobilized the opposition against him. I saw the pick of Joe Biden as an attempt to make him more attractive to blue-collar voters and to make him seem less racially "divisive". (Remember that controversy during primary season?)

Do you think that the buzz around Palin would be the same if she were up against another (better known) female VP candidate?

:think:

sandwich

22 Oct 2008, 01:48 AM

http://data.tumblr.com/Uw4mpUAaHfbo1xd3tMf495vko1_500.jpg

HELLS YES WE CAN!!1

I grew up in Idaho, hate to dis the ol' home state but U of I was known as a party(drinking) school. I went to Washington State Univerisity briefly and many kids went over there on weekends to party and get lucky. Compared to Harvard Law School, U of I is kindergarten. There was actually a bus that went back and forth between WSU and U of I on weekends carting parties back and forth. She's a year or two older then me so I know what atmosphere she went to school in. I'm just sayin

I know some people going to U of I. They smoked pot through high school and now put pictures of themselves plastered all over facebook. I'm glad none of them are politically inclined.

PS: Wazzu sucks ass.

NoahFence

22 Oct 2008, 02:14 AM

http://data.tumblr.com/Uw4mpUAaHfbo1xd3tMf495vko1_500.jpg

HELLS YES WE CAN!!1

"My greatest weakness: it’s possible that I’m a little too awesome."

Saeculustra

22 Oct 2008, 02:28 AM

Don't confuse real leaders with those that are called leaders by the dint of their title.

I still don't think Obama actually showed any leadership qualities (i.e. any indication he is willing to break the line, except in his speeches).

msg_v2

22 Oct 2008, 02:56 AM

There was absolutely no way Obama was picking Hillary as his running mate. He's working to end the reign of the DLC, of which Hillary is one of its leaders, and its cult of overpaid, underperforming consultants like Mark Penn. Besides, she brings too much drama, even if Hillary herself is not dramatic.

The fact that he's not associated with the DLC goes a long way in convincing me to vote for him. I just sort of assumed whoever clinched the nomination was associated with them, because it's been that way since Bill Clinton.

I'm not convinced that he's "working to end the reign of the DLC", though. I'd like to believe that, but it just sounds more like conjecture than something based on fact.

C.J.Woolf

22 Oct 2008, 03:22 AM

The fact that he's not associated with the DLC goes a long way in convincing me to vote for him. I just sort of assumed whoever clinched the nomination was associated with them, because it's been that way since Bill Clinton.

I'm not convinced that he's "working to end the reign of the DLC", though. I'd like to believe that, but it just sounds more like conjecture than something based on fact.
I might be wrong, but Obama has implemented Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, which the DLC pooh-poohed. The organization Obama built follows him. He has a personal donor base. Organization + money = power base. He doesn't need the DLC to be the most powerful person in the Democratic Party. I hope he uses his power well, because it looks to me like the party needs Obama more than Obama needs the party right now.

CEOofRawness

22 Oct 2008, 05:12 PM

I still don't think Obama actually showed any leadership qualities (i.e. any indication he is willing to break the line, except in his speeches).

Considering your past posts, it almost seems as if you make statements just for the sake of disagreeing with everyone else.

Saeculustra

22 Oct 2008, 05:18 PM

Considering your past posts, it almost seems as if you make statements just for the sake of disagreeing with everyone else.

Sigh. The point was to provoke someone to show me some evidence of his leadership qualities in the Senate. If it's there, I just haven't seen it.

CEOofRawness

22 Oct 2008, 05:28 PM

Sigh. The point was to provoke someone to show me some evidence of his leadership qualities in the Senate. If it's there, I just haven't seen it.

What leadership has McCain shown in the Senate? How is this relevant in this election and not in the ones prior?

I'd rather have a competent president with sound policies (whether or not he keeps his promises will wait until after he's in office) than a "maverick" that surrounds himself by lobbyists and chooses a VP only to help him get a cheap shot into office.

And again, Bush had more "leadership experience" than Kerry, so the better candidate can't boil down to just that.

Saeculustra

22 Oct 2008, 05:32 PM

What leadership has McCain shown in the Senate? How is this relevant in this election and not in the ones prior?

I'd rather have a competent president with sound policies (whether or not he keeps his promises will wait until after he's in office) than a "maverick" that surrounds himself by lobbyists and chooses a VP only to help him get a cheap shot into office.

And again, Bush had more "leadership experience" than Kerry, so the better candidate can't boil down to just that.

I'm not talking about experience, though. As I said before, I don't think inexperience makes someone ineligible, I'm merely looking for any evidence in his past actions that he's really willing to break the line, and not just say it. My concern is that he's saying a lot of things that don't really match his activities as a senator.

CEOofRawness

22 Oct 2008, 05:35 PM

My concern is that he's saying a lot of things that don't really match his activities as a senator.

Isn't the same true about McCain?

And I don't consider Obama a savior by the way, just the lesser of two evils.

I'm sure they've both got a lot of dirty secrets. It's really just a matter of degree.

oxyjen

22 Oct 2008, 05:37 PM

Sigh. The point was to provoke someone to show me some evidence of his leadership qualities in the Senate. If it's there, I just haven't seen it.

This is why the electorate sucks. People choose to remain willfully ignorant and expect others to spoon-feed them. You want to know if Obama's shown leadership qualities in the Senate? I will answer you as if you actually wanted to know, and that you actually aren't throwing out some right-wing hack's talking point as legitimate criticism. Here is something I copied and pasted after spending a paltry thirty seconds on an online search:

Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act.[58] In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act.[59] Obama introduced two initiatives bearing his name: Lugarâ€“Obama, which expanded the Nunnâ€“Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons,[60] and the Coburnâ€“Obama Transparency Act, which authorized the establishment of USAspending.gov, a web search engine on federal spending.[61] On June 3, 2008, Senator Obama, along with Senators Thomas R. Carper, Tom Coburn, and John McCain, introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008.[62]

Obama sponsored legislation requiring nuclear plant owners to notify state and local authorities of radioactive leaks.[63] In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.[64] In January 2007, Obama and Senator Feingold introduced a corporate jet provision to the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which was signed into law in September 2007.[65] He introduced Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections.[66] Obama also introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007.[67]

Obama and Richard Lugar visit a Russian mobile launch missile dismantling facility.[68]Later in 2007, Obama sponsored an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act adding safeguards for personality disorder military discharges.[69] He sponsored the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act supporting divestment of state pension funds from Iran's oil and gas industry, and co-sponsored legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism.[70][71] Obama also sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children's Health Insurance Program providing one year of job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries.[72]

EDIT: I guess your definition of leadership means to "disagree with others." Though isn't it curious that John McCain's leadership entitles "Hey I'm not agreeing with those fucking Republicans! Elect me.....I'm....a...." and then he'll trail off and give that creepy smile.

purveyor of truth

22 Oct 2008, 05:42 PM

Sigh. The point was to provoke someone to show me some evidence of his leadership qualities in the Senate.

Who cares? Look at his leadership qualities now. I doubt it happened overnight. There is no reason on gods green earth for McCain to lose but he's having his ass handed to him on a platter by Obama. Anyone else see the leadership?

Ferrus

22 Oct 2008, 06:05 PM

My concern is that he's saying a lot of things that don't really match his activities as a senator.
Although, that said, running a major electoral campaign involves far more organisational and leadership effort than about any job in any legislature in the world.

garak

22 Oct 2008, 06:09 PM

Although, that said, running a major electoral campaign involves far more organisational and leadership effort than about any job in any legislature in the world.

His campaign has raised over half a billion in total so far. I'd say that anyone successfully running an organization with that much money running through it is quite an effective leader. I remember him in the past saying "watch how I run my campaign" when people questioned his leadership skills. Looks like that panned out pretty well.

Ferrus

22 Oct 2008, 07:24 PM

Yeah, if anything being a legislative voter is more about smoozing ability, clannish manoeuvring and politicking. It is actually an object lesson in toeing the line as opposed to genuinely leading. Which is why, for what it is worth, parties prefer their leaders to come from within a political elite - someone already trained, beholden to them for their success and ensconced within the political culture - it makes them more pliable and biddable.

The fact that Obama hasn't had an extensive stint in the Senate could be a very good thing, one of Bush's failings has been his tendency to rely on his political (and personal) friends - to the point where they have even dominated policy with their particular axe to grind (c.f. Iraq war). And at the same time he does have Biden's extensive contacts and alliances built up in around 40 years to massage Congress if need be.

C.J.Woolf

22 Oct 2008, 07:40 PM

And at the same time he does have Biden's extensive contacts and alliances built up in around 40 years to massage Congress if need be.
It's almost gilding the lily in Obama's case. When he came to the Senate in 2005 he hired former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle's chief of staff, one with so influence we was called the "101st Senator". Obama is very keen on building up contacts and alliances.

Leadership in a legislative body is fascinating to me because all legislators are formally equal. A legislative leader doesn't have the institutional power the President has, and yet a good leader is followed. They have to be, because they can be taken down at any time.

Ferrus

22 Oct 2008, 07:43 PM

Leadership in a legislative body is fascinating to me because all legislators are formally equal. A legislative leader doesn't have the institutional power the President has, and yet a good leader is followed. They have to be, because they can be taken down at any time.
I do wonder to what extent though they are followed out of fear. Now, Congress doesn't have the strong whipping system that Parliament has which ensures most MPs are frankly lobby fodder. Still, the intricacies of the pork-barrel system and the committees, perhaps suggest that a good deal of the leadership is based on a party boss system, with mutual favours, and the strong possibility of the loss of a senator's influence altogether should they not follow their parties' grandees.

MadamI'madaM

22 Oct 2008, 07:47 PM

I do wonder to what extent though they are followed out of fear. Now, Congress doesn't have the strong whipping system that Parliament has which ensures most MPs are frankly lobby fodder. Still, the intricacies of the pork-barrel system and the committees, perhaps suggest that a good deal of the leadership is based on a party boss system, with mutual favours, and the strong possibility of the loss of a senator's influence altogether should they not follow their parties' grandees.

Yeah, from what I understand, most congressmen you've never heard of are more or less told how to vote on everything with incentives or ostracism from both lobbies and their parties.

C.J.Woolf

22 Oct 2008, 07:50 PM

I do wonder to what extent though they are followed out of fear. Now, Congress doesn't have the strong whipping system that Parliament has which ensures most MPs are frankly lobby fodder. Still, the intricacies of the pork-barrel system and the committees, perhaps suggest that a good deal of the leadership is based on a party boss system, with mutual favours, and the strong possibility of the loss of a senator's influence altogether should they not follow their parties' grandees.
Good point. Tom "The Hammer" DeLay ruled the House by fear; the Speaker was only his tool. Still, I suppose such leaders have to take some care because if a majority of their caucus gets fed up then they're out.

Another element of control on US congresscritters is the threat of primary challenges at re-election time.

C.J.Woolf

22 Oct 2008, 07:58 PM

David Sedaris on undecided voters: (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/10/27/081027sh_shouts_sedaris)

To put [undecided voters] in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. "Can I interest you in the chicken?" she asks. "Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?"

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

iksikaksi

22 Oct 2008, 08:01 PM

So what do you think of him? A promising future for America or just a young hipster bound for entrenchment and assimilation?

The latter but so are the majority of all the dilletantes on this site. So welcome to the mass! However if you are not satisfied with the former answer all I can say is the following... If you are a socialist leaning towards communism then you are voting for the right candidate, but if you are a liberal leaning to the right and you like Obamas economic policies then that would make you a morron.

Ferrus

22 Oct 2008, 09:41 PM

Still, I suppose such leaders have to take some care because if a majority of their caucus gets fed up then they're out.
But doesn't this in itself just mean that they are frontmen for the 'tyranny of the majority (of congressmen)' rather than genuine leaders?

C.J.Woolf

22 Oct 2008, 10:18 PM

But doesn't this in itself just mean that they are frontmen for the 'tyranny of the majority (of congressmen)' rather than genuine leaders?
If the majority (of the majority) follow them, then are they not leaders? Unlike the wannabe leaders who lose the election for the leadership posts.

Ferrus

22 Oct 2008, 10:21 PM

If the majority (of the majority) follow them, then are they not leaders? Unlike the wannabe leaders who lose the election for the leadership posts.
Ah maybe I am just an arrant skeptic (not cynic - I am too young for that), but... it strikes me more often than not that leading in its definition is carrying the majority with you against their natural instinct, perhaps, whereas courting the popular view for the sake of mere power is demagougery. The truth is, the nature of mass decision making means everyone is fundamentally pushing everyone else towards conformity. Rousseau I suppose would call it the general will. I rather think it is like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, but nevermind.

Which means that perhaps my ultimate point is... at least Barrack Obama is a demagouge of a wider set of people than his own party or congressional politics. Which is what the two Roosevelts, Kennedy and Clinton were, that is the same as him. I think it's about the least worse type of leader that can emerge in a democracy.

C.J.Woolf

22 Oct 2008, 10:23 PM

Ah maybe I am just an arrant skeptic (not cynic - I am too young for that), but... it strikes me more often than not that leading in its definition is carrying the majority with you against their natural instinct, perhaps, whereas courting the popular view for the sake of mere power is demagougery.

Which means that perhaps my ultimate point is... at least Barrack Obama is a demagouge of a wider set of people than his own party. Which is what the two Roosevelts, Kennedy and Clinton all were. I think it's about the least worse type of leader that can emerge in a democracy.
Ah, gotcha. "I must follow the people! Am I not their leader?"

Ferrus

22 Oct 2008, 10:27 PM

Ah, gotcha. "I must follow the people! Am I not their leader?"
More like - if I do not follow the people, they - or rather the largest subsection of the people in numerical or power terms - won't follow me. This is why - for what it is worth - media barons have become to some extent more powerful than politicians in electoral democracies. Control people's minds, control their vote. The politicians can only do it through the auspicies OF the media. The media can present it how it likes within reason.

Although then again it is not that simple. For the media, in order to sell papers, must play on popular prejudice. So what it is, ultimately, is a circle of power. To paraphrase a philosopher again (groan) it is the panopticon of society, where everyone ensures everyone else's conformity within certain bounds. An infinite loop that can only be minutely modified by each agent within it.

NoahFence

23 Oct 2008, 02:06 AM

For the media, in order to sell papers, must play on popular prejudice.

Hmm...wonder if this is why the polls always show the race being so close...nobody would watch the ending if it was already over.

CEOofRawness

23 Oct 2008, 02:27 PM

Hmm...wonder if this is why the polls always show the race being so close...nobody would watch the ending if it was already over.

It's the ratings man, the RATINGS!

MacGuffin

29 Oct 2008, 06:13 PM

This is cool no matter how you're voting:

Daughter of slave votes for Obama (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/27/1027jones.html)

109 years old!

Ptah

29 Oct 2008, 06:20 PM

MacGuffin

29 Oct 2008, 06:21 PM

Cool? Hardly. Disturbing, more like.

How so?

Ptah

29 Oct 2008, 06:23 PM

How so?

Tell you what, explain to me how its cool, and I'll explain how its disturbing in exchange. Because we're both missing something obvious to the other, it seems.

Otherwise, carry on.

MacGuffin

29 Oct 2008, 06:33 PM

Tell you what, explain to me how its cool, and I'll explain how its disturbing in exchange. Because we're both missing something obvious to the other, it seems.

Otherwise, carry on.

The daughter of a slave, voting for a man that had he been born alongside her father would have been a slave himself?

How is her vote more disturbing than any other vote?

Ptah

29 Oct 2008, 06:42 PM

The daughter of a slave, voting for a man that had he been born alongside her father would have been a slave himself?

Who seemingly voted for a man just because he was black.

Nice. Way to make an informed, rational decision in selecting our country's next leader. Because, you know, race has everything to do with the commander-in-chief's qualifications.

And not the least bit racist either. Way to act out the very sort of thinking that motivated the slavers to begin with. Very nice.

How is her vote more disturbing than any other vote?

I didn't say its any more disturbing than any other vote. This is on the edge of a much wider topic, being that I don't consider such ignorance unique to century+ old voters; yes, voting at large is indeed disturbing.

MacGuffin

29 Oct 2008, 06:46 PM

Who seemingly voted for a man just because he was black.

Nice. Way to make an informed, rational decision in selecting our country's next leader. Because, you know, race has everything to do with the commander-in-chief's qualifications.

And not the least bit racist either. Way to act out the very sort of thinking that motivated the slavers to begin with. Very nice.

I didn't say its any more disturbing than any other vote. This is on the edge of a much wider topic, being that I don't consider such ignorance unique to century+ old voters; yes, voting at large is indeed disturbing.

Have you read much about confirmation bias?

Ptah

29 Oct 2008, 06:48 PM

Have you read much about confirmation bias?

The point of this question being?

MacGuffin

29 Oct 2008, 06:48 PM

The point of this question being?

Curiosity.

Ptah

29 Oct 2008, 06:52 PM

Curiosity.

As to satisfy curiosity: yes. I am familiar with it.

In the context at hand, the point of the question being?

MacGuffin

29 Oct 2008, 06:52 PM

As to satisfy curiosity: yes. I am familiar with it.

In the context at hand, the point of the question being?

Curious about your motivations.

Ferrus

29 Oct 2008, 07:02 PM

voting for a man that had he been born alongside her father would have been a slave himself?
Although it should be noted that Obama's background lies with the Luo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luo_(Kenya_and_Tanzania)) - who bear about as much relation to the West African ethnic groups that make up most African Americans as the Spanish do to the Polish.

MacGuffin

29 Oct 2008, 07:04 PM

Although it should be noted that Obama's background lies with the Luo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luo_(Kenya_and_Tanzania)) - who bear about as much relation to the West African ethnic groups that make up most African Americans as the Spanish do to the Polish.

Honkies are honkies!

purveyor of truth

29 Oct 2008, 07:06 PM

earwax

29 Oct 2008, 07:07 PM

I found it interesting simply for the fact that it helps remind people that slavery was not all that long ago. It is not ancient history. We're still feeling the effects from it.

Ptah

29 Oct 2008, 07:07 PM

Curious about your motivations.

My motivation was simply to indicate how I find it disturbing. If you are curious as to the motivation behind why I find it disturbing, I cite this:

That she is able, for the first time, to vote for a black presidential nominee for free fills her with joy, Jones said.

I strongly suspect this implies that the race of the candidate influenced her choice. I find that possibility disturbing. That it may have had anything whatsoever to do with the decision is disturbing, deeply so.

The article wasn't about how she carefully researched the candidates or examined their philosophical doctrines or agendas or qualifications or whatever. It was about how a descendant of civil injustices was filled with "joy" to vote for the presidential candidate that was black.

So if the voter herself is not necessarily disturbing (as admittedly, we can only guesstimate her motives, given only one line really speaks to them), the article and it's tone (for the first half, anyhow) most certainly is. Monstrously so.

Ferrus

29 Oct 2008, 07:10 PM

Honkies are honkies!
But the point should be made that not all 'honkies' were sold to slavery, only specific ethnic groups. Obama's Kenyan ancestors had no connection with the Atalanic slave trade. Although it is known on his mother's side that he has white relatives who were slave-owners.

MacGuffin

29 Oct 2008, 07:11 PM

But the point should be made that not all 'honkies' were sold to slavery, only specific ethnic groups. Obama's Kenyan ancestors had no connection with the Atalanic slave trade. Although it is known on his mother's side that he has white relatives who were slave-owners.

Honkies were slaves too?

:ph34r:

Ptah

29 Oct 2008, 07:12 PM

Ivy

29 Oct 2008, 07:17 PM

Do you suppose she wrote in Alan Keyes in 2000?

MacGuffin

29 Oct 2008, 07:18 PM

Do you suppose she wrote in Alan Keyes in 2000?

Ivy!

Quit wrecking my experiment!

starla

29 Oct 2008, 07:45 PM

My motivation was simply to indicate how I find it disturbing. If you are curious as to the motivation behind why I find it disturbing, I cite this:

I strongly suspect this implies that the race of the candidate influenced her choice. I find that possibility disturbing. That it may have had anything whatsoever to do with the decision is disturbing, deeply so.

The article wasn't about how she carefully researched the candidates or examined their philosophical doctrines or agendas or qualifications or whatever. It was about how a descendant of civil injustices was filled with "joy" to vote for the presidential candidate that was black.

So if the voter herself is not necessarily disturbing (as admittedly, we can only guesstimate her motives, given only one line really speaks to them), the article and it's tone (for the first half, anyhow) most certainly is. Monstrously so.

You chose to ignore the part (at the very beginning) about how she's been consistently voting democrat for 70 years.

Does this also imply that the 12% of black people who are voting for McCain are racists? Does it imply that the race of a candidate influenced your choice as well? Do you really think that the writer is representing...

Oh forget it. I'm not going to bother arguing with you.

Ptah

29 Oct 2008, 07:51 PM

You chose to ignore the part (at the very beginning) about how she's been consistently voting democrat for 70 years.

I didn't ignore it, I just didn't mention it. The constant democratic vote is on a separate track of "disturbing", which may or may not join tracks with the smacking-of-racism track I was speaking to before. And no, I'm not a republican and I'm not speaking anti-democratic-party here. Political parties are disturbing at large. That's another topic, and not necessarily related to the "joy" of voting for the black candidate she expressed, which is why I chose not to go into it before and won't any further now. Ok?

Does this also imply that the 12% of black people who are voting for McCain are racists? Does it imply that the race of a candidate influenced your choice as well? Do you really think that the writer is representing...

a) Why should it? b) I don't vote. c) And ... yes, I think the whole top half of the article has a disturbing upshot at work, thanks in part to the writer/editorial hand in play.

Oh forget it. I'm not going to bother arguing with you.

O-K.

C.J.Woolf

29 Oct 2008, 08:10 PM

Ptah,

That she is able, for the first time, to vote for a black presidential nominee for free fills her with joy, Jones said.
I emphasized the key phrase. I imagine she would have been just as joyous if Colin Powell had been nominated by the GOP -- and then she probably would have voted for the Democrat.

Ferrus

29 Oct 2008, 08:12 PM

Honkies were slaves too?

:ph34r:
Oh right well I apologise for not keeping up with the latest US slang.

Ptah: Frankly I feel modern society, in which anyone can state what they like and demand recognition for it has engendered a tyranny of the majority, which results in a tyranny of the stupid.

Maybe this is what Kant meant here:

But only one who ... is not afraid of shadows, and has a numerous and well-disciplined army to assure public peace, can say: "Argue as much as you will, and about what you will, only obey!" A republic could not dare say such a thing. Here is shown a strange and unexpected trend in human affairs in which almost everything, looked at in the large, is paradoxical. A greater degree of civil freedom appears advantageous to the freedom of mind of the people, and yet it places inescapable limitations upon it.

Ptah

29 Oct 2008, 08:18 PM

I imagine she would have been just as joyous if Colin Powell had been nominated by the GOP -- and then she probably would have voted for the Democrat.

Be that as it may, that "joy" is felt whatsoever simply for having a black candidate to choose from is .... disturbing. To revel in this joy because the black candidate happens to fall in line with your (disturbingly unwavering) party would be even more disturbing.

Ptah: Frankly I feel modern society, in which anyone can state what they like and demand recognition for it has engendered a tyranny of the majority, which results in a tyranny of the stupid.

Heh. Agreeable. Let's not get started on Kant, however.

MacGuffin

29 Oct 2008, 08:22 PM

Be that as it may, that "joy" is felt whatsoever simply for having a black candidate to choose from is .... disturbing.

You can't be serious.

Ptah

29 Oct 2008, 08:26 PM

You can't be serious.

I am. And why can't I be?

MacGuffin

29 Oct 2008, 08:30 PM

I am. And why can't I be?

Interesting.

Ptah

29 Oct 2008, 08:32 PM

Interesting.

Agreed. Now, why can't I be?

MadamI'madaM

29 Oct 2008, 08:33 PM

This is cool no matter how you're voting:

Daughter of slave votes for Obama (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/27/1027jones.html)

109 years old!

I'll go as far as saying it's interesting in an almost morbid kind of way that this woman lived through her entire life to finally see a black man (whatever that really means anymore) as a part of False Choice 2008.

While I agree somewhat with Ptah about superficial voting motives (and american democracy in general), I'll admit that Obama is probably the better candidate for anyone who's ever lived poor or marginalized. Even though it's a false choice, it's still a pretty obvious one. (hence, even more false?)

The most disturbing thing about this whole election was the "happy little accident" of both a woman and a nonwhite man running against eachother in the shoe-in party. This brand of sentimental, meaningless gesture is almost an insult to the reality of living in america as a black person or a woman. It really smacks of a fucked up marketing scheme.

MacGuffin

29 Oct 2008, 08:34 PM

I am. And why can't I be?

That would ruin things.

C.J.Woolf

29 Oct 2008, 08:35 PM

Be that as it may, that "joy" is felt whatsoever simply for having a black candidate to choose from is .... disturbing.
How would you feel if one of the major parties the Democrats nominated an avowed athiest? I know I'd feel good about it.

Ptah

29 Oct 2008, 08:54 PM

How would you feel if one of the major parties the Democrats nominated an avowed athiest? I know I'd feel good about it.

At least that is more necessarily related to philosophy, which in turn has political import (race? not so much, necessarily). Even so, that would be diminishing compared to the rest of the candidate's qualifications/stated political positions (along with track record, etc).

Furthermore, how I feel about the candidate has nothing to do with what I think about the candidate, in the context of their potential role and responsibility, as it comes to influencing my vote one way or another (were I to vote; put forth a candidate worth voting for, first).

INThoughtPolice

29 Oct 2008, 10:47 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAlrSRVdKZY&feature=related

INTPC exalts Obama.

We don't need another Bush in John McCain. We certainly don't need Obama.

nonperson

29 Oct 2008, 11:40 PM

INTPC exalts Obama.

Really? Not for me thank you. :ph34r:

What worries me is who the members of my faculty are going to laugh at once Bush is gone. They are dull, dull, dull, predictable bunch as it is....

CEOofRawness

30 Oct 2008, 12:37 AM

Furthermore, how I feel about the candidate has nothing to do with what I think about the candidate, in the context of their potential role and responsibility, as it comes to influencing my vote one way or another (were I to vote; put forth a candidate worth voting for, first).

In that case, never vote.

Ptah

30 Oct 2008, 12:39 AM

In that case, never vote.

Thats how it seems to be going. We digress.

Delilah

30 Oct 2008, 07:22 PM

Finally remembered to look for this:

Obama - Biden tax calculator (http://taxcut.barackobama.com/)

Ferrus

30 Oct 2008, 07:24 PM

Shame about their tax on plumbers though. The plumbing union could be important swing voters.

Delilah

30 Oct 2008, 07:25 PM

Shame about their tax on plumbers though. The plumbing union could be important swing voters.

Plumbers make pretty good money you know.

Of course I don't know how much is from work and how much is from people like me tossing change in their ass-cracks when they bend over, but.....

!diom

31 Oct 2008, 06:06 PM

All of the Obama doubters/haters should vote for Cynthia McKinney.

MacGuffin

5 Nov 2008, 06:36 PM

Here was why I thought that old woman's vote was so significant... Juan Williams says it better than I can:

Juan Williams Tears up - Comments on Obama Victory

kble

6 Nov 2008, 12:29 AM

I just saw his acceptance speech.

Yes we can = amen.

So much religious feeling and patriotism interwoven, so foreign to me.

01intp

6 Nov 2008, 01:05 AM

The presidency is nothing more then cult of personality.

Most of the people that are 'into' politics seem oblivious to this.

Limey

11 Nov 2008, 02:47 AM

I'm down with B.O.

kendoiwan

11 Nov 2008, 02:51 AM

The presidency is nothing more then cult of personality.

Most of the people that are 'into' politics seem oblivious to this.

I'm going to have to ask you to explain that statement.

A Schnitzel

11 Nov 2008, 02:56 AM

So much religious feeling and patriotism interwoven, so foreign to me.

Well it would take a foreign invasion to get belgians to care about politics.

Wait a second... that wouldn't even do it.

MadamI'madaM

11 Nov 2008, 02:59 AM

I'm going to have to ask you to explain that statement.

Nevermind the media shitstorm or the campaign paper trail.

In principle, since we're voting on people instead of issues, our votes are subject to all kinds of unconscious prejudices based on the person and we're also forced into taking a whole pre packaged set of stances on issues rather than weighing each of them out piecemeal.
Some say this is the only way, but I'd say that's yet to be proven to my satisfaction.

That, and a government "by and for the people" only actually cares about a figurehead. Kind of insane until you realize the first part is a lie.

...but I'm sure 01intp would love to put it in his own words when he gets the chance

kendoiwan

11 Nov 2008, 03:02 AM

Nevermind the media shitstorm or the campaign paper trail.

In principle, since we're voting on people instead of issues, our votes are subject to all kinds of unconscious prejudices based on the person and we're also forced into taking a whole pre packaged set of stances on issues rather than weighing each of them out piecemeal.
Some say this is the only way, but I'd say that's yet to be proven to my satisfaction.

That, and a government "by and for the people" only actually cares about a figurehead. Kind of insane until you realize the first part is a lie.

...but I'm sure 01intp would love to put it in his own words when he gets the chance

Nothing you said (how ever debatable) reduces the office of the president simply to a cult of personality. How the executive is choosen doesn't make him (eventually her) any less the executive.

MadamI'madaM

11 Nov 2008, 03:13 AM

Nothing you said (how ever debatable) reduces the office of the president simply to a cult of personality. How the executive is choosen doesn't make him (eventually her) any less the executive.

I suppose you're right about that technically, but if you accept most of my views about the process, then our vote isn't exactly acting in our interest most of the time.

If our votes aren't acting in our interest, then the presidency is largely a game decided by the whims of the people about the (pre selected) candidate's personality. (shit they said on TV that means nothing)

Who ever said cult leaders are powerless?

kendoiwan

11 Nov 2008, 03:18 AM

I suppose you're right about that technically, but if you accept most of my views about the process, then our vote isn't exactly acting in our interest most of the time.

If our votes aren't acting in our interest, then the presidency is largely a game decided by the whims of the people about the (pre selected) candidate's personality. (shit they said on TV that means nothing)

Who ever said cult leaders are powerless?

I don't know any of your views about the process to accept or reject.

What I don't accept is that the issues have nothing to do with the process. Ofcourse personality plays a role, ask Gore and Kerry...

You used the word figurehead which implies powerlessness...

MadamI'madaM

11 Nov 2008, 03:25 AM

I don't know any of your views about the process to accept or reject.

What I don't accept is that the issues have nothing to do with the process. Ofcourse personality plays a role, ask Gore and Kerry...

You used the word figurehead which implies powerlessness...

I thought figurehead could also imply irrelevence. As in, it's mostly irrelevent to the public who wins these things and it's a joke that any of the governing process is "by and for the people".

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree over something like this, although perhaps "cult of personality" and figurehead are terms of hyperbole.

kendoiwan

11 Nov 2008, 04:26 AM

I thought figurehead could also imply irrelevence. As in, it's mostly irrelevent to the public who wins these things and it's a joke that any of the governing process is "by and for the people".

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree over something like this, although perhaps "cult of personality" and figurehead are terms of hyperbole.

All I know is Obama is about to cut us all a check, and that my friend is far from irrelevant:banana:

01intp

11 Nov 2008, 08:49 PM

I'm going to have to ask you to explain that statement.

OK, let's get down to brass tacks here.

In the beginning, there were the American colonies. And things were good.
Well, once we murdered the local Injuns and got a whole bunch of black people to do the hard labor for us, things were good.

Then a bunch of guys were all like 'Dood, those Britfags are pussies, we should have our own govment lol'
So then there was a war where everyone wore really gay looking tights.
Eventually, a new order was set up based on these founding principles, which were for the most part good.
Well, as long as you were white and male, they were good.

As the country grew, so did its wealth. The problem with massive amounts of wealth and power is - well, tends to make idealistic ideas get flushed down the toilet in favor of WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET MORE WEALTH AND POWA!!!!1 :devil: :devil:

The people that rule this and most other countries, truly rule it, are not publicly well known. They operate through a series of fronts, funds, corporate entities, banks, military industrial complexs - though it all links back to money. Money is what this country was truly built on.
To consolidate their power and keep doing what they do so well, they set up systems to control the masses. The best systems, like the one in the USA - you don't even know it's there. Most people are like 'Yea America, we're free WOOHOO!' but in truth, we are all slaves of another kind.

Obama and McCain were both puppets in this game, chosen for the different style of appeal they have for different people. They give the illusion of choice to the masses, when in fact it doesn't matter who wins because one way or another, they all have the same masters.
But the important thing is to HAVE YOU BELIEVE YOUR OPINION AND WILL MATTERS! The people in charge knew that the masses wanted change, of some kind. OK - let's get a pretty boy candidate who speaks well and projects a confident image to talk about change of some kind.

Y'know when I knew Obama wasn't going to do anything much about the source of America's problems?
Remember that Rev. Wright guy, who said some crazy shit but also said something very true: America was attacked on 9/11 because of our former actions around the world.
Obama of course denied the hell out of agreeing with any of it.
But he was lying, just like the politician he is. That's what they do.
Because he isn't dumb, none of them are, they know what America does in order to maintain it's position on top of the food chain. They know about the countries we destroy economically, about the people we kill militarily and the many millions whose deaths we are responsible in part for because we sold/gave weapons/training to the folks who did the killing.

But you're black, kendoiwan, and this might be sounding quite different for you based on my experience so far talking to black friends and acquaintances about Obama.
I'm sure it's a very proud moment for a black person's ego, his/hers collective sense as a black community.
I think I would be guilty of the same sort of Ra-Ra bullshit if say, an Eastern European descended fucker got elected. It's an ego thing - it's almost like you got elected president yourself, huh? You feel this guy 'understands' you on a level others can't! Hell yeah! Ooops, he's a politician, fooling people into trusting him is how he got where he is.
Whenever I try to bring this stuff up Obama supporters respond with the same thing, usually referencing the personality cult factor the people in charge play up.
'Oh but Obama is different, he gives us hope like no other president in a long time!' 'Oh, but Obama is well educated', 'Oh, but Obama is this, Obama is that'

It's beautifuly executed, what the people behind the scenes do to the general public. They play up on your hopes, your dreams! Here's this glorious, good looking, charismatic, confident looking dude and he speaks so well and says all the right things! And look in his eyes, doesn't he seem honest? Doesn't he seem like a great leader who will take us by the hand and lead us into the glorious dawn ahead??

Yep, that's what they want you to think, and it's working. In truth, blacks as a group did not achieve anything with Obama being elected other then setting themselves up to be more easily led next time.
For example, Obama's endorsement of a future presidential candidate would pretty much pull the people wherever it would be most convenient at that point in time.

All I know is Obama is about to cut us all a check, and that my friend is far from irrelevant

Yep, very effective diversion tactic. Hey ya'll, don't worry about our overall economy tanking because it's based on a factually proven UNSUSTAINABLE mode of conduct - let's all of us buy a new TV with this check I'll send you and your family.

kendoiwan

11 Nov 2008, 08:56 PM

I know that line of thinking very well... *shrugs*

It's one of those unprovable but very possible scenarios one either believes in or doesn't. I'm agnostic about such things. I completely agree that Obama ain't about to tinker with the stat quo too much else he catch a bullet. Other than that it's all speculation...

Lets just say I see your point, and I abstain from agreeing or disagreeing until further evidence becomes available.

01intp

11 Nov 2008, 09:05 PM

All I know is Obama is about to cut us all a check, and that my friend is far from irrelevant:banana:

I know that line of thinking very well... *shrugs*

It's one of those unprovable but very possible scenarios one either believes in or doesn't. I'm agnostic about such things. I completely agree that Obama ain't about to tinker with the stat quo too much else he catch a bullet. Other than that it's all speculation...

Lets just say I see your point, and I abstain from agreeing or disagreeing until further evidence becomes available.

The evidence my friend was written in blood in the book of human history all the way from the beginning.

I suggest checking out Zinn's 'A People's History of the United States' and Chomsky's 'Hegemony or Survival'.

Don't let the ego's lust for recognition through victorious popularity contests cloud your judgement.
;)

kendoiwan

11 Nov 2008, 09:09 PM

The evidence my friend was written in blood in the book of human history all the way from the beginning.

I suggest checking out Chomsky's 'A People's History of the United States' and 'Hegemony or Survival'.

Don't let the ego's lust for recognition through victorious popularity contests cloud your judgement.
;)

Ego has nothing to do with it.

Put it like this, start a thread about the line of thinking behind your statement and see the diversity of responses you'll receive (assuming people respond) or go dig up the various threads on the matter and you'll see it's just not at black and white as you depict it. Shades of grey and all that.

01intp

11 Nov 2008, 09:15 PM

kendoiwan

11 Nov 2008, 09:26 PM

No need for more threads on this methinks, this and a few of the others I've seen sum up the general attitude pretty well.

Many people are hopeful, which I guess in some way is good, because at least it beats facepalming whenever Bush opens mouth. Now we have someone to fawn over, yay!
Eh, maybe I'm just a cynic ;)

I'm not talking about Obama any more, I'm talking about the notion of a "Shadow gov't" behind the scenes pulling the strings, New World Orders and all of the accompanying notions that come with...:ph34r:

Btw, why'd you bold my name in you original post? :huh:

chebur

11 Nov 2008, 09:33 PM

Obama is a brilliant politician. If he's half as brilliant as a leader, our country is in good hands. IF

01intp

11 Nov 2008, 09:46 PM

I'm not talking about Obama any more, I'm talking about the notion of a "Shadow gov't" behind the scenes pulling the strings, New World Orders and all of the accompanying notions that come with...:ph34r:

I don't really buy into a lot of conspiracy theory, Illuminati, new world order type stuff - though I don't discount the possibility they exist somewhat as described.
However, through the sheer nature of the capitalist society we've engineered, you can see this playing out on a smaller levels pretty much everywhere.

Marketing tactis for selling useless crap are so advanced, people get degrees in how to sell other people shit they don't need. Companies constantly try to find ways to one-up the competition, dominating their given market. Finally, in any long standing tradition, like say, a city's Police or Fire department (or local government) there are many alliances, secret dealings and various ploys to use whatever power you have as a close-knitted group to help one another out - with the catch being of course, no outsiders can know about it, otherwise the chances of crushing reprecussions would increase.
The only time we find out of course is when these people get busted - but for everytime that happens, there could be a hundred times that we have no idea about.

This is human nature at work.

Oh and I bolded your name so it would stand out in the middle of all them paragraphs. Just seemed like the thing to do *shrug*

ryan_m_parr

11 Nov 2008, 09:49 PM

I'm not talking about Obama any more, I'm talking about the notion of a "Shadow gov't" behind the scenes pulling the strings, New World Orders and all of the accompanying notions that come with...:ph34r:

Btw, why'd you bold my name in you original post? :huh:

He's out to get you. . . jk

I have wondered about Obama and CFR (Biden is a part of as well, and is considered a major part of NWO interest) given the suspicion I've read about the group.

Their was a documentary I posted in the 'What are you Watching' thread that basically inferred that during the beginning of the last century, Bernays applied Fruedian theory to marketing and politics, to make people vote or choose politicians given favoritism of interest. It basically implied that we are not truly living in a Democracy, and that if their were special favoritism given to certain individuals, that although there might be a genuine persuasion by people running for office to gain the title, as President, there might still be little difference from meritocracy. The founding father's had feared that the average citizen was incapable of putting the best interest of the country into consideration, that people should be given less favor in popular vote, and that Electoral vote might be the determined factor, more-so. Though popular vote is given interest in determining where the Electoral vote will go, it does seem much of this is put in place, determined by media and control of information.

Though there is definate mention of NWO by Obama, which seems to bring things into more interesting attention, to how free we think we are, and how popular interest might be more favored into the direction such NWO might end up at. We have been conditioned by marketing to be self-directed in interest, and less-so towards others. For a Capitalist empire to exist and exploit the rest of the world, it is undeniable that any politician taking the reign will have become a part of this mindset.

MadamI'madaM

12 Nov 2008, 12:17 AM

I'm not talking about Obama any more, I'm talking about the notion of a "Shadow gov't" behind the scenes pulling the strings, New World Orders and all of the accompanying notions that come with...:ph34r:

Why does it have to be "shadowy" or "behind" the scenes?

Couldn't it just go on right under our noses?

Why does it have to be new or world order?

Couldn't it just be the way america really works?

kendoiwan

12 Nov 2008, 12:23 AM

Why does it have to be "shadowy" or "behind" the scenes?

Couldn't it just go on right under our noses?

Why does it have to be new or world order?

Couldn't it just be the way america really works?

proof?

MadamI'madaM

12 Nov 2008, 12:27 AM

proof?

" ? (CNN tapes don't count)

This is why we have to agree to disagree.

EDIT: it's more to do with perspective and interpretation than a difference in hard facts

01intp

12 Nov 2008, 01:22 AM

proof?

Oooh oooh I got one!

Let's take something we're both fond of: the deliciously pungent flowers of the female cannabis plant.
Mostly harmless, extremely useful in industrial purposes and possibly as medicine.

I'm sure you know or know of the reason behind it becoming illegal in the first place, right?

In the 20's or 30's they basically discovered you could make better paper out of hemp then out of wood. Cost a helluva lot less, created less pollution processing the stuff, regrew faster, lasted longer, the list goes on.

However, there was a lot of money in the forest industry, and other industries hemp based products would challenge. So the big corporation that owned a huge stake in the forest resources, which also happened to run the biggest newspapers of the day, decided to team up with their high level gov'ment connects and cook up a little propoganda mixed in with a buncha racism.
Result? REEFER MADNESS! DIRTY MEXICANS HIGH ON POT RAPE HAPLESS WHITE GIRLS! AAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGG! BAN BAN BAN BAN BAAAAAN!

Then of course it was legalized again briefly for WW2 because we needed the superior hemp textiles, lol, then quickly made illegal again.

All because the powers that be work hard to keep the corporations that brought them to power, IN POWER! It's a power loop, baby. Self reinforcing and hard to break unless you have a complete and total revolution, with a lot of death.
BUT, that solution isn't any good either because
a) Some other power hungry fucks will assume control and just do the same thing
b) Americans are too comfortable and lazy to revolt against anything - but when the resources start running out...heheheheh :devil:

Oh, and if you come back at me with the popular idea being tossed around by my pot head buddies that Obama will decriminalize cannabis, well - that still fits within the framework of reason (though I doubt Obama will do it):

Just like with slavery - the reason they outlawed it finally was because it stopped being profitable for the majority of those in charge. Sure a bunch of Southerners were going to be butthurt about their loss, but they didn't matter as much. So the whole 'rights of people' thing was just a nice sounding excuse for the few that cared about such stuff back then - real reason was power consolidation. Few liked or gave a fuck about black people, as evidenced by the years of Jim Crow directly following.

With weed, it's painfully obvious to more and more people that our various legislation and war on drugs thing is failing - so the powers that be might feel it prudent to let us have this one - but only if the War on Drugs isn't making as much of a fortune as it once was, and/or they can find some other way to squeeze even more money out of the issue.

hegotgenius

12 Nov 2008, 01:52 AM

So recently I decided to check into the sensation that is Barack Obama. I must honestly say I was astounded. He instills in me a renewed faith that politicians can be reasonable and flexible, and achieve success while working within the confines of our modern "democracy". That they can work for the people and the principles of this nation instead of themselves and can unite instead of creating a chasm between them. Yes, I bought into the hype. He impressed me.

I'm not sure he could win an election this early in his career, but he'd have a good fighting chance. I've seen him convert 60 year old Catholic Republicans - the Red side's prime demographic, and we already know he has most of the young democrats and progressives kissing his ass. I'd certainly vote for him.

So what do you think of him? A promising future for America or just a young hipster bound for entrenchment and assimilation?

As long as 3/4ths of the public gets most of its information from the television set, the election will be decided by the favorable television coverage.

Kerry and Gore were criticized more than Bush in the 2004 and 2000 election cycles, respective.

Obama received 65% of the positive coverage, McCain only 31% of it (Center for Media and Public Affairs).

The rest is history.

If the media wanted to destroy Obama, they'd have lied about him like they lied on Kerry and Gore, such as when Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative"â€”politico-speak for leadershipâ€”"in creating the Internet," but the media completely misrepresented his words and claimed that he claimed that he created the Internet.

Lied, and lied, and lied, because they wanted Bush in the White House. If they didn't want Obama in the White House, they would have never went after McCain's houses, or tried to counter every attack the McCain campaign threw at Obama.

The wild card is always the television pundits.

01intp

12 Nov 2008, 05:54 AM

As long as 3/4ths of the public gets most of its information from the television set, the election will be decided by the favorable television coverage.

Kerry and Gore were criticized more than Bush in the 2004 and 2000 election cycles, respective.

Obama received 65% of the positive coverage, McCain only 31% of it (Center for Media and Public Affairs).

The rest is history.

If the media wanted to destroy Obama, they'd have lied about him like they lied on Kerry and Gore, such as when Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative"â€”politico-speak for leadershipâ€”"in creating the Internet," but the media completely misrepresented his words and claimed that he claimed that he created the Internet.

Lied, and lied, and lied, because they wanted Bush in the White House. If they didn't want Obama in the White House, they would have never went after McCain's houses, or tried to counter every attack the McCain campaign threw at Obama.

The wild card is always the television pundits.

Great observation...of course the pundits are employed by the multi-billion media conglomerates, and say what they are paid to say. The media has been a tool of control ever since there was media - newspapers at first, then radio, then TV.
Like it or not, we're influenced by the broadcasts we see and hear, which is the point.
With enough money, you can do as Hitler preached:
'If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes perceived as the truth':ph34r:

CEOofRawness

1 Dec 2008, 06:18 PM

I agree with both 01intp and kendoiwan. Yes, this country has been bought and sold a long time ago. The only good thing about a democracy is that you need to corrupt a lot of different people, although all you really need is the majority.

I think the major difference between Obama and McCain is that you can tell right away that McCain was full of shit. Both parties accepted millions of dollars in "donations" (read: IOUs), but at least Obama had enough sense not to litter his staff with lobbyists. Then McCain picks a gimmick cheerleader for VP as a political cheap shot into office. I'm sorry, but you could tell right away that this guy was full of shit. As for Obama, there's a chance that he is also; kendoiwan is correct in that Obama is a big gray area.

We had to choose between a candidate that might fuck up the country or one that definitely will. In that respect, the answer is obvious. In either case, Big Business has them in their pockets anyway. I'd say that we have a broken economic system, but it's really the fundamental human characteristic known as greed that is the culprit. Our monetary system *COULD* work if everyone played fair. But what fun would that be?

Ferrus

1 Dec 2008, 07:14 PM

Interesting that he picked Clinton. He only needs Al Gore as secretary for energy and then he has the Clinton white house reduplicated.

C.J.Woolf

1 Dec 2008, 07:33 PM

Interesting that he picked Clinton. He only needs Al Gore as secretary for energy and then he has the Clinton white house reduplicated.
One blogger observed that if you're looking for Democrats with executive branch experience, the only candidates are ex-Clinton -- or ex-Carter.

Anonymous

1 Dec 2008, 08:32 PM

Fivethirtyeight.com was saying earlier that if Obama's presidency is a good one, this will be a real feather in Clinton's hat if she wants to gun for presidency again.

g_vartan

1 Dec 2008, 11:23 PM

Interesting that he picked Clinton. He only needs Al Gore as secretary for energy and then he has the Clinton white house reduplicated.

At the end of the day, for Clinton to be truly successful, she will need to execute on Obama's agenda, not a pseudo-Clinton one. From the looks of it, she understands her role.

"Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it." It's not about changing all the players, its changing the 'playbook' and having the right 'coach' that know his/her player's strengths and is able to enable/guide them appropriately to lead his/her team to excellence. And if you ever worked DC, you need to know the 'players' and its unspoken rules (culture) to get things done - i.e., it will accelerate things if you're not a complete outsider. Just a fact of inside the beltway politics.

Call me an idealist ( ;) enfj) but I truly believe that Obama is setting forth an agenda and tone that calls for all cabinet members to truly serve the people and to look out for the best interest of the nation - a nationalist movement not seen since the times of JFK and FDR.

Nation, its time to man-up. If there is ever a time for true public servants, today is the day as we are facing some of the most challenging and complex problems our nation has ever faced.