Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Liberator on April 18, 2009, 02:28:30 pm
-
Kara, the definition of redneck is "a glorious lack of sophistication".
Around here, it describes people who spend most of they're time getting drunk and causing trouble for the police. If you feel like doing some digging, try and find video of someone from Alabama or Tennessee describing a tornado, the national media gets off on showing how ignorant and backward people from the South are.
The South is pretty much as illustrated in this pic, tho I don't include Virginia or West Virginia as part of The South. Until you have travelled here and seen the area(s) you don't realize how different The South is from the USA that you see broadcast on your local CNN/BBC/insertwist
(http://www.ibiblio.org/doug_m/pics/southmap.gif)
-
you don't consider the Confederate capital, Richmond Virginia, to be part of the south?
-
North Carolina voted Obama
it's still the south though.
-
you don't consider the Confederate capital, Richmond Virginia, to be part of the south?
Well, TBH, Montgomery was the capital for most of the war. It wasn't until the Union's burning of Atlanta that the capital was moved.
I like this map
(http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/H/N/countymap_purple_2008.png)
The individual counties are shaded red and blue based on the percentage that the dems and repubs got in 2008.
Most of the country is red fading to blue except the areas in large cities and where there are easily manipulated, uneducated minority population.
-
I like this one, because it doesn't give a 4000 sqare mile county ocupied by a single republican more impact than a two acre county with 2 million democrats.
(http://politicalmaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/7-2007-shaded-by-county-cartogram.png)
the country is a bunch of blue and purple cities, with a hand full of red people living between them. funny thing is there really isn't a very significant north south divide.
-
Yeah, I gotta say, Liberator, your map isn't very good. Land area doesn't have politics.
-
/me is distracted by the following image from Uncyclopedia:
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/e/ea/Stereotypes.png)
-
My point was to point out how unevenly distributed the support for leftist/liberal/socialist policies are, and how unevenly they get reported since the major news outlets are all located in major cities and get most of they're talent from those areas.
I also wanted to remind everyone that while 53% of the people that voted, did so for President Obama, there are 46% of that same group who did not. And because of the nature of his job, he is just as beholden to listen to that 46% as he is the 53%.
-
Funny how you never made the same claim about President Bush when he was in charge though.
-
My point was to point out how unevenly distributed the support for leftist/liberal/socialist policies are, and how unevenly they get reported since the major news outlets are all located in major cities and get most of they're talent from those areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartlinearlarge.png
I also wanted to remind everyone that while 53% of the people that voted, did so for President Obama, there are 46% of that same group who did not. And because of the nature of his job, he is just as beholden to listen to that 46% as he is the 53%.
IT'S A CLEAR MANDATE!
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT IN THE TIME OF WAR IS PARAMOUNT TO TREASON!
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!
-
Seems like this thread has taken a turn for the worse.
-
I also wanted to remind everyone that while 53% of the people that voted, did so for President Obama, there are 46% of that same group who did not. And because of the nature of his job, he is just as beholden to listen to that 46% as he is the 53%.
Listen, yes. Follow, no. Just like GWB wasn't required to follow the advice of his political opponents.
-
IT'S A CLEAR MANDATE!
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT IN THE TIME OF WAR IS PARAMOUNT TO TREASON!
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!
oh lol
:lol:
-
IT'S A CLEAR MANDATE!
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT IN THE TIME OF WAR IS PARAMOUNT TO TREASON!
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!
oh lol
:lol:
seriously, it's just too easy nowadays
-
the only thing i see from Liberator's map is that the rednecks, farmers, and poorly educated are the ones who vote republican.
they also receive the most benefit from the 'socialist' policies, getting back more tax dollars out of the government than they put in. go figure.
-
It's pretty funny how quickly the same people who were telling everyone not to criticise the president turned around and started doing just that the second that they didn't have a president from their party in power.
Bunch of hypocrites.
-
Well, TBH, Montgomery was the capital for most of the war. It wasn't until the Union's burning of Atlanta that the capital was moved.
:wtf:
Montgomery was the capital for all of a month and a half at the very beginning of the war. Richmond was the capital from May 1861 to April 1865, until just about a week before the war ended.
-
Being critical of Obama's policies is not the same as the viscous personal attacks that were leveled against Bush. I haven't seen many so called "hypocrites" treating Obama as the focus of evil in the modern world. I'll be in crowd yelling 'FOWL!" when he announces some new, proto-socialist policy or spending bill, the same way as I would be cheering if he were to do something I liked. The problem is he hasn't done anything I've like yet.
He and his cronies wail and moan about compromise and cooperation and a "new tone" in Washington, yet when they're opponents make good faith offers or alternative suggestions that are "not quite" as radical as what they want, they just smile the same smile you give to your dog when taking him to the vet for a flea bath. This is in contrast to most Republican programs under Bush where they went out of they're way to try and get the Dems on board. This leads me to the conclusion that the Dems definition of "cooperation" is actually "my way or the highway".
-
Being critical of Obama's policies is not the same as the viscous personal attacks that were leveled against Bush
True, because there has been no criticism of Obama's policies, but only personal attacks.
HE'S A DIRTY SOCIALIST! (yeah, because SOCIALISM GIVES BIRTH TO EVIL DIRTY COMMUNISM doesn't it? oh hi you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK) and you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden) and you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) you're not communists yet oops)
HE POW WOWS WITH TERRORISTS! (oh wait they served on a few commissions together back on the education board in Illinois and hardly know each other otherwise BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT!)
HE'S NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN SO HE CAN'T BE PRESIDENT! (oh wait he was born in Hawaii two years after Hawaii became a state and is thus legally a citizen)
HE'S A DIRTY MUSLIM WHO SYMPATHIZES WITH THE TERRORISTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST! (oh wait he was raised Baptist and his allegedly Muslim father was an atheist anyway)
HE'S AN IDIOT WHO HAS NO EXPERIENCE AND WILL THEREFORE LEAD OUR COUNTRY TO RUIN! (well except that he hasn't and his economic policy might actually help BUT WE'D LOOK LIKE IDIOTS IF THAT HAPPENED SO WE'RE JUST GONNA PRETEND IT'S NOT HAPPENING (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/steele-laughs-off-recession-the-malls-are-just-as-packed-no-they-arent.php?ref=fp2))
HE'S GOING TO TAKE AWAY ALL OUR LIBERTIES! FREEDOM IS IN JEOPARDY! (oh wait isn't that what this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Poplawski) was all on about? oh and we did this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_wiretapping) and a little bit of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#War_on_Terror) too BUT WE DID SO IT'S OK!)
Where's the constructive criticism? I see personal attacks.
I'll be in crowd yelling 'FOWL!" when he announces some new, proto-socialist policy or spending bill, the same way as I would be cheering if he were to do something I liked. The problem is he hasn't done anything I've like yet.
Given some of the things I've heard you say you believe in, I'm not surprised.
He and his cronies wail and moan about compromise and cooperation and a "new tone" in Washington, yet when they're opponents make good faith offers or alternative suggestions that are "not quite" as radical as what they want, they just smile the same smile you give to your dog when taking him to the vet for a flea bath. This is in contrast to most Republican programs under Bush where they went out of they're way to try and get the Dems on board. This leads me to the conclusion that the Dems definition of "cooperation" is actually "my way or the highway".
Oh for the love of...
Obama has gone out of his way to reach across the aisle since he started his presidency. It's not his fault the Republican Party is comprised of the remaining extreme neocons and the relics of the disastrous 1994 election that weren't voted out in the last two elections. That or moderate Republican Congressmen who are so terrified of the RNC or the Republican National Senatorial Committee pulling their support (http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2009/02/24/bunning-i-would-have-a-suit-if-republicans-recruit-an-opponent/) if they, God forbid, support the stimulus package (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/stimulus-package/michael-steele-threatens-to-withhold-rnc-funds-from-gop-senators-who-backed-stimulus/). The Republicans have done nothing but oppose any bipartisan advance (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/27/gop-leaders-urge-colleagues-to-vote-no-on-stimulus/) made by Obama and then cheered about it: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012904329.html?wpisrc=newsletter)
The bill passed easily despite the opposition of all 177 Republican House members, but party leaders delighted in what they considered a victory after two straight electoral drubbings and much soul-searching about what the party stands for.
...
"House Republicans said we would stand up for American taxpayers at this time of economic hardship for our nation. And last night, standing together, that's exactly what we did," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) wrote yesterday in a memo to his colleagues that was released to reporters. "I am proud of our team."
It's not Obama's fault the Republican Party is run not by the RNC, its constituents, or even its Congressmen, but by fat loud bigoted and obnoxious radio and TV personalities from FOX News and EIB, who even the RNC Chairman feels he needs to apologize to (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19517.html) after calling them for what they are (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/02/gop.steele.limbaugh/). It's not Obama's fault the most promising GOP candidates for President in 2012 are an obnoxious uneducated MILF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin) or an uncharismatic patronizing governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal#Republican_response_to_President_Obama.27s_address_to_Congress) that makes up stories.
It's not Obama's fault the Republican Party is in complete shambles after fourteen years of a disastrous political policies under neoconservatism and has chosen this moment of economic disaster and toil to "reinvent themselves" and engage in partisan hackery rather than form a healthy relationship with possibly the most popular newly-elected President since JFK (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/obama-highest-initial-approval-for.html) and work towards stabilizing the country. No! It's all Obama's fault for not getting the bipartisan support in Washington he promised, even if the other side REFUSES TO PARTICIPATE WHEN REACHED OUT TO!
As long as we're on the topic, which "good faith offers" or "alternative suggestions" are you mentioning? Their empty, or rather, practically nonexistent alternative for economic stimulus? (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/27/1868077.aspx)
Let’s be honest: Yesterday’s House Republican budget rollout was a P.R. disaster for the GOP. “Here it is, Mr. President” was the title of the GOP Leader blog touting that they had answered Obama’s dare to produce a budget. The problem -- their budget rollout didn’t contain any hard budget numbers or deficit projections. They say those hard numbers will come out next week. But now we learn that Reps. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan objected to unveiling yesterday’s “blueprint,” but were overruled by Reps. John Boehner and Mike Pence. But bigger than any internal disagreements or any criticism about a lack of details is the fact that yesterday’s GOP non-announcement moved the attention away from the Obama-vs.-congressional Democrat storyline to the GOP’s lack of a budget. In fact, after yesterday, the White House and congressional Democrats can agree on one thing: The GOP -- at least until next week -- is the “Party of No.” What's more, it puts more pressure on Ryan to truly put out a comprehensive budget alternative; Also, this episode could end up creating a rift in the GOP over how to combat the Obama White House. After all, Senate Republicans wanted nothing to do with an alternative, and now Mitch McConnell, et al are either laughing at their House GOP colleagues, furious at them, or both.
-
Being critical of Obama's policies is not the same as the viscous personal attacks that were leveled against Bush. I haven't seen many so called "hypocrites" treating Obama as the focus of evil in the modern world. I'll be in crowd yelling 'FOWL!" when he announces some new, proto-socialist policy or spending bill, the same way as I would be cheering if he were to do something I liked. The problem is he hasn't done anything I've like yet.
He and his cronies wail and moan about compromise and cooperation and a "new tone" in Washington, yet when they're opponents make good faith offers or alternative suggestions that are "not quite" as radical as what they want, they just smile the same smile you give to your dog when taking him to the vet for a flea bath. This is in contrast to most Republican programs under Bush where they went out of they're way to try and get the Dems on board. This leads me to the conclusion that the Dems definition of "cooperation" is actually "my way or the highway".
This entire post is... unbeliavable.
You miss the astroturfed protests. You miss the right-wing narrative for the last 6 months. You do not read this http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/, you ignore the damn political history of the country you seemingly hail from. You essentially say that calling obama an illegal alien kenyan closet muslim and feeding militant feelings is not as bad as trying to stop a war.
You cannot blame other people for your own calculated ignorance and lies. Yet you do. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about yet you continue to do this in how many, three? threads simultaneously. You have never had any original thought whatsoever and there you are, smugly saying that "I haven't heard of something so it must not happen".
Oh and by the way, Obama does not do anything you like because he was not elected to enact some kind of cryptosexist laissez-faire theocracy with values from 1951.
-
Yeah, again, gotta say that Liberator seems to be turning a blind eye to a lot of the vicious personal attacks on Obama. The 'Muslim socialist terrorist' line gets used a lot.
-
Before Liberator responds, I should point out that the issue is NOT the attacks on Obama's character so much as the fact that they are carried out by the exact same people who claimed that attacking Bush's character was treasonous because he was president during a time of war.
The second Obama was in power they kept suddenly decided it wasn't quite so treasonous at all and was in fact a valid expression of their 1st amendment rights.
-
I like pointing out that a good chunk of the ones who criticize socialism don't even know what socialism really is, and are just having cold war flashback emotional responses.
-
Before Liberator responds, I should point out that the issue is NOT the attacks on Obama's character so much as the fact that they are carried out by the exact same people who claimed that attacking Bush's character was treasonous because he was president during a time of war.
The second Obama was in power they kept suddenly decided it wasn't quite so treasonous at all and was in fact a valid expression of their 1st amendment rights.
"HERE AM I PROTECTING MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH"
(http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk448/ElPerkele/descent.jpg)
-
The main difference, from my point of view is this:
Bush was attacked for conducting said war in a way that would lead to victory. The left/liberals/whatever wailed that he was inhuman and a murderer and so forth.
Obama is being attacked because he is trying to fundamentally change the way the US operates internally, never mind what people in Europe think of the situation, I don't like it.
Bush did many things wrong, I won't deny it, but he didn't try and change the country in a way contrary to her founding.
-
hooooooooooooo hoo hoo hoo
Boy, I dunno. Between an attempt at a broad revision of the Constitution's limits on executive power, an attitude of 'exceptionalism' that allowed the President to do whatever he wanted -- including holding people without trial -- and a drive towards a complete overhaul of US foreign policy in the name of creating a new Pax Americana, I'd say Bush did a lot more of that than Obama has.
Liberator, you are shockingly partisan. Whatever education and information you have received is obviously totally one-sided. And this is coming from someone who considers himself a moderate.
In other news, I was just informed that the primary member of the Blue Planet voice acting effort has decided to leave the forum.
-
The main difference, from my point of view is this:
Bush was attacked for conducting said war in a way that would lead to victory. The left/liberals/whatever wailed that he was inhuman and a murderer and so forth.
And how was he going to "lead to victory"? With 4000 dead American troops, a country in shambles, and every single civil or political right erased or under fire in the homeland?
Obama is being attacked because he is trying to fundamentally change the way the US operates internally, never mind what people in Europe think of the situation, I don't like it.
Well, you know, maybe it's time to change. Maybe it's time for the US to get on board with what the rest of the developed world discovered fifty years ago. Unfortunately, we have people still so afflicted with Cold War paranoia and out for blood McCarthy style that we're going to remain the most backwards developed nation for a long long long time.
Bush did many things wrong, I won't deny it, but he didn't try and change the country in a way contrary to her founding.
Which was over 200 years ago. Blacks were slaves. Women couldn't vote. America was a tiny secluded country of thirteen states and not even three million people, most of them WASPs or black slaves. Now it's the sole remaining superpower in the world whose borders stretch from coast to coast with fifty states and well over 300 million people from all different ethnicities and religions. Oh, and nevermind the technological advances.
Despite what most ultraconservatives think, we can't keep living in 1783.
-
Speaking of black slaves.
Did you know that the slave owning colonies wanted they're slaves to count for a whole person for purposes of census, as opposed to the 3/5 that they ended up counting.
-
Speaking of black slaves.
Did you know that the slave owning colonies wanted they're slaves to count for a whole person for purposes of census, as opposed to the 3/5 that they ended up counting.
of course they did! it would have given the slaveowners a whole lot more say in determining policy, or did you really think that the slaves would make informed decisions and vote for the candidate that had their best interests at heart?
-
Speaking of black slaves.
Did you know that the slave owning colonies wanted they're slaves to count for a whole person for purposes of census, as opposed to the 3/5 that they ended up counting.
And you STILL haven't answered the question I asked you:
And how was he going to "lead to victory"?
If you're going to make statements you've got to back them up.
-
Bush was attacked for conducting said war in a way that would lead to victory. The left/liberals/whatever wailed that he was inhuman and a murderer and so forth.
And all that stuff before and during 2006 was what, again?
I'm currently reading Bob Woodward's The War Within, so I know just how ludcrious this statement is. Before the surge, the war was being lost. While I am of the view that declaring it is currently being won is horribly premature (ask me again in thirty-six years, and if Iraq has a stable, prosperous democracy then I will regard the war as won), it is incontrovertible fact that at this time, three years ago, sectarian violence was getting worse, attacks on US and Iraqi forces were getting worse, and the Iraqi government was a nonentity. This did not change until mid-late 2007.
-
You have to stop throwing out points and then running away when you get destroyed in the cross-examination.
Stick with an argument instead of tossing out spurious fuel for the flames.
-
I've seen this a few times in this thread and a few times in others, so I'll just comment here about it:
If people are being critical about Obama's policies and you don't like that, it's fine and dandy if you want to correct them. But for some odd reason, I've seen people occasionally point out things that Bush did that weren't too cool.
I don't know why they're bringing that up. If they're trying to show how Obama's policies are actually good, then they're supporting that idea fallaciously. Bush has nothing to do with Obama's policies (in the context that I've seen him brought up).
-
/
-
If people are being critical about Obama's policies and you don't like that, it's fine and dandy if you want to correct them. But for some odd reason, I've seen people occasionally point out things that Bush did that weren't too cool.
I don't know why they're bringing that up. If they're trying to show how Obama's policies are actually good, then they're supporting that idea fallaciously. Bush has nothing to do with Obama's policies (in the context that I've seen him brought up).
I hope that you're not referring to me. Cause there is a world of difference between bring up Bush's stupid policies in order to defend Obama's and pointing out that the same people who attack Obama now considered it treasonous to attack Bush in the same way back then.
-
Bush was attacked for conducting said war in a way that would lead to victory. The left/liberals/whatever wailed that he was inhuman and a murderer and so forth.
Obama is being attacked because he is trying to fundamentally change the way the US operates internally, never mind what people in Europe think of the situation, I don't like it.
Bush did many things wrong, I won't deny it, but he didn't try and change the country in a way contrary to her founding.
:wtf:
What evidence do you have to support the claim that Obama is attempting to change the US contrary to it's founding? If there was ever a president who did that, it was Bush. He effectively nullified all but two of the Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights: The right to bear arms and the right to not have soldiers quartered in your house against your will.
Speaking of black slaves.
Did you know that the slave owning colonies wanted they're slaves to count for a whole person for purposes of census, as opposed to the 3/5 that they ended up counting.
That may seem fine and dandy as stated, but it leaves out the fact that by being counted in censuses only, the slaves still did not have the power to vote, thus giving the slave owners more representation in congress despite having only a fraction of the southern population actually voting. The reason it was desirable for slaves not to be counted at all was so that the plantation owner's power would be equivalent to how many of the owners there actually were, and not allow them to establish misrepresentation in our system. It checked an attempt at establishing a southern oligarchy. The 3/5ths compromise was arrived at to coax them into the Union, because the South really wanted to be represented more than it justly should have been.
-
Despite what most ultraconservatives think, we can't keep living in 1783.
Who would want to do that? No electricity. Bad plumbing. No proper dentistry. Unshaven women. :p
Seriously though, I don't understand on a basic level this unhinged desire to have the government do every thing for you except take a dump.
-
Seriously though, I don't understand on a basic level this unhinged desire to have the government do every thing for you except take a dump.
What on Earth has Obama done or proposed that would fit that bill in regards to me? :wtf:
-
roads, schools, and basic healthcare should all be a part of basic infrastructure, available to every person.
-
What happened to 8 years of "trust your president" in the last 90 days?
If this president is so powerful, that in 91 days he has destroyed the social and economic fabric of the country, hell, I'll go vote for him again...
That kind of power can't be stopped.
The conservative politicos should be ashamed of themselves.
-
He's an empty suit and yet a massive force that can completely ruin our nation in less time than it takes to get a rebate check back.
-
What happened to 8 years of "trust your president" in the last 90 days?
If this president is so powerful, that in 91 days he has destroyed the social and economic fabric of the country, hell, I'll go vote for him again...
That kind of power can't be stopped.
The conservative politicos should be ashamed of themselves.
The New York City lay in ruins. The flames of damnation burned Housten, demolished San Francisco - Los Angeles, Chicago. I have been hearing reports of Obama. He tore down the Kremlin with his bare hands. No one can resist him. When he talks, people convert to his forces. Trees and electric cars rain down from the skies. The Palestinians and Jews were all turned into nuclear ash in mere seconds after challenging him.
Our brave forces tried to face him in the fields of Sudan. His Kenyan shock troopers... they killed everyone and the survivors were impaled on flagpoles. I hear his words when I sleep. Sometimes I try to open the Holy Bible, but there are no words there. A chaos of pictures fills my mind. Obama, standing on the final shore. The seas are pink, the sky is black. The mankind has met its end. He leans down and with one gesture of his hand turns babies into solar power plants.
The constitution self-destructed when he was elected. A wind came down from the sky and now what remains of the Washington are his footsteps. Gay tigers are scraping at this door - the door of the last church in the world. Polar caps have melted and what little remains of mankind is having an orgy right outside my window.
I am lonely and I can see how the clouds twist eerily into his name.
Obama.
-
That second bit was quite clever. And from a certain perspective quite possible. I just have this nagging feeling somethings not right. I don't care what's he's done or doing, how does a man who only got 53% of the actual voter turn-out turn around and have a 70% popular support rating? Things are going to well or they're being reported wrong, I mean the national media(NBC, CBS, ABC, NY Times, ect) seems to have orgasms any time he speaks...
-
You do realise that people can think that Obama is doing a good job even if they thought that McCain would have done a better one, right?
It's not hard for someone to have much higher approval rating than percentage of votes.
-
What happened to 8 years of "trust your president" in the last 90 days?
If this president is so powerful, that in 91 days he has destroyed the social and economic fabric of the country, hell, I'll go vote for him again...
That kind of power can't be stopped.
The conservative politicos should be ashamed of themselves.
The New York City lay in ruins. The flames of damnation burned Housten, demolished San Francisco - Los Angeles, Chicago. I have been hearing reports of Obama. He tore down the Kremlin with his bare hands. No one can resist him. When he talks, people convert to his forces. Trees and electric cars rain down from the skies. The Palestinians and Jews were all turned into nuclear ash in mere seconds after challenging him.
Our brave forces tried to face him in the fields of Sudan. His Kenyan shock troopers... they killed everyone and the survivors were impaled on flagpoles. I hear his words when I sleep. Sometimes I try to open the Holy Bible, but there are no words there. A chaos of pictures fills my mind. Obama, standing on the final shore. The seas are pink, the sky is black. The mankind has met its end. He leans down and with one gesture of his hand turns babies into solar power plants.
The constitution self-destructed when he was elected. A wind came down from the sky and now what remains of the Washington are his footsteps. Gay tigers are scraping at this door - the door of the last church in the world. Polar caps have melted and what little remains of mankind is having an orgy right outside my window.
I am lonely and I can see how the clouds twist eerily into his name.
Obama.
omg I definitely lol'd. Along the lines of the Reagan comic book series.
-
That second bit was quite clever. And from a certain perspective quite possible. I just have this nagging feeling somethings not right. I don't care what's he's done or doing, how does a man who only got 53% of the actual voter turn-out turn around and have a 70% popular support rating? Things are going to well or they're being reported wrong, I mean the national media(NBC, CBS, ABC, NY Times, ect) seems to have orgasms any time he speaks...
You do know that whole part was satire right? Well, if you didn't, and you seriously thought Obama was capable of any of that...then that would explain a lot of things.
Plus, for reasons karajorma stated, your voter turn out = popular support matchup doesn't work.
-
You do realise that people can think that Obama is doing a good job even if they thought that McCain would have done a better one, right?
While that is true, it means exactly dick unless they get they're asses out and vote.
-
You do realise that people can think that Obama is doing a good job even if they thought that McCain would have done a better one, right?
While that is true, it means exactly dick unless they get they're asses out and vote.
:wtf: What exactly is this supposed to mean, exactly?
It could be that people who voted for McCain are supporting Obama for various reasons.
Or people who didn't vote during the election are included in the poll.
Basically, there are several different reasons for the discrepancy, and you possibly picked the one that makes the least correlation or sense.
-
You do realise that people can think that Obama is doing a good job even if they thought that McCain would have done a better one, right?
While that is true, it means exactly dick unless they get they're asses out and vote.
Nuclear1's comments notwithstanding (and he makes good points), why should I give a damn about Republicans who were too lazy to go vote for McCain and now don't mind Obama being in charge?
-
Nuclear1's comments notwithstanding (and he makes good points), why should I give a damn about Republicans who were too lazy to go vote for McCain and now don't mind Obama being in charge?
You're British, right? Why do you even care about whether they vote? (I can't think of a more polite manner to put this question across, sorry) :nervous:
EDIT: Umm, can somebody change the title a little, just for clarification?
-
You're British, right? Why do you even care about whether they vote? (I can't think of a more polite manner to put this question across, sorry) :nervous:
I'm quite happy for McCain's supporters to have sat at home on election day so that Obama could win. That was my point. Why should I care that they sat at home and did nothing? Turned out well for me. And if those figures are correct, turned out well for them too.
If you're asking me why I care who is president of the USA, well surely you aren't naive enough to believe that the person in change of the USA has no effect on my own country?
-
If you're asking me why I care who is president of the USA, well surely you aren't naive enough to believe that the person in change of the USA has no effect on my own country?
Right, right ... I'm still trying to get that fact into my head. :blah:
-
Well, I'm gonna be lazy here a minute and ask a loaded question...
How many of the people who voted for Obama thought like the woman in this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1FCmfo2Ft4
Just saying... :blah:
-
That was not why I voted for him.
-
I didn't vote for him because I'm not in teh US
-
Shall we go into the stupid reasons people voted for Bush too?
Democracy always results in votes for all parties being cast by idiots.
-
Well, I'm gonna be lazy here a minute and ask a loaded question...
How many of the people who voted for Obama thought like the woman in this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1FCmfo2Ft4
Just saying... :blah:
I voted for him because he had new ideas, and we clearly needed new ideas, rather than another four years of the Republican Party practicing the old ideas.
However in a lot of ways I also voted against McCain rather than for Obama. Or rather, against Palin.
-
Yeah, and the republicans still think Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a secret muslim (with a racist pastor) who is also not really American.
-
How can you think Reverend Wright is NOT a racist...
The better question is why is yelling stuff like that from the pulpit, as a reverend, that's not his job...at least it's not supposed to be...
Maybe I'm spoiled with having a real Man of God for my pastor instead of some dude who's in love with the sound of his voice...
-
I was just pointing out the sillyness of the whole "He's a secret muslim!" crowd also complaining about how he went to a church they don't like.
Honestly, I don't like when they talk about religion at all. Makes me have less respect for the candidates when I remember what they claim to believe in.
-
The better question is why is yelling stuff like that from the pulpit, as a reverend, that's not his job...at least it's not supposed to be...
The same people who complained about the racist pastor likely go to churches with homophobic pastors.
-
Democracy always results in votes for all parties being cast by idiots.
Democracy is fundamentally about swaying the most idiots to your side. =)
The only way to ensure votes in a democracy are cast intelligently is to limit who is allowed to vote - which is totally undemocratic :P Hence why our political leaders tend to be the people who manage to entice the most idiots to the polls.
Really, it really explains the otherwise-unfathomable fact that Bush got elected not once, but twice.
[If anyone can't tell, this post is 1/3 tongue-in-cheek humour and 2/3 cynicism.]
-
The better question is why is yelling stuff like that from the pulpit, as a reverend, that's not his job...at least it's not supposed to be...
But it is his job. It's not being done very well, but it's his job. A good pastor/reverand/mullah/whatever realizes that there is, in fact, nothing outside his purview. As Karl Barth put it, using a hell of a lot more words, "Try to remember this is God we're talking about here." If you believe in your religion, then it, by necessity, should impact everything you do and all of your opinions. Most people who believe do not live up to this. Apparently, you're one of them.
-
It amazes me how much alike both groups are.
Republics yell out how gunhating racist liberals will ruin it all.
Democrates yell out how rednecked racist consevatives will ruin it all.
Really, we just need to wipe it all clean and start all over.
I'd be a bit more clear had I not worked 38 out of 48 hours, but just re-read everyone's posts from "outside the box". Each group's basically just tossing labels at each other. Really is rather amusing.
Now ...just to had fuel to the bonfire,....how'd everyone feel about several democrates labeling those at the "tea parties" on the 15th as either all racist rednecks that where angry over a black president or minorities with Stockholme's ? :lol: Hell that alone sets up a red flag to me. Regardless of right or wrong, a peaceful assembly shouldn't ever have to hear elected officals referring to them like that. Here in Va we had a protest about a recent man slaughter conviction where a black teen was shot but one of a group of three white teens. Because there was a single black jurer, and they didn't get maximum, the family of the victim protested. Perfectly within their right. Had someone in office spouted off about them being just racist *N's* ....they'd have been out of office in a week. Yet tossing redneck out right and left is ok?
Firefighter test in Conn. The top ...what 20% where to be promoted. But oops only a few whites and hispanics passed? Oh well that test must be baised against blacks....no promotions for you guys ....our bad.
We're all too busy labeling everyone and everydamn thing to look at the big freaking picture and get our collective heads out of our asses and get our act together.
I honestly think if we just ditched both parties and reelected every single offical, we might have a better chance.
Ok sleep deprived rant over ;)
-
Firefighter test in Conn. The top ...what 20% where to be promoted. But oops only a few whites and hispanics passed? Oh well that test must be baised against blacks....no promotions for you guys ....our bad.
*Scotty intensely dislike Affirmative Action
If a higher percentage of blacks passed, that means that more blacks knew what they were doing than whites. Simple. How the hell do you bias a test like that anyway?
-
Firefighter test in Conn. The top ...what 20% where to be promoted. But oops only a few whites and hispanics passed? Oh well that test must be baised against blacks....no promotions for you guys ....our bad.
*Scotty intensely dislike Affirmative Action
If a higher percentage of blacks passed, that means that more blacks knew what they were doing than whites. Simple. How the hell do you bias a test like that anyway?
I will quote a great man in reference to firefighter affirmative action:
...It's hard to have respect for a woman like Brenda Berkman, who went to court in 1982 to force the FDNY, the Fire Department of New York City, to place her as a member of that department even though she had failed the physical test. This goes right to the brunt spine of the argument. You want to be a firefighter, you have to pass the physical test. Everyone does...Race, color, creed, and sexual equipment have nothing to do with it. It's the same as saying you want to play professional football--you want Lawrence Taylor's job, strap on a sports bra and a pair of shoulder pads and a helmet and get out there to kick some ass. Only difference between football and firefighting is this: A) fire B) life C) death.
The fire test, among many other feats, requires that you run up seven flights of stairs while wearing and carrying over one hundred pounds of equipment, pick up a one hundred-fifty pound human dummy, and carry it all the way back down within a certain number of seconds, just like you would in a real fire. Brenda couldn't do it. She had to drag the dummy down by the feet for the last five flights. So her lawyer, the noted feminist Gloria Allred, argued that Brenda, by dragging the dummy, had actually helped saved the dummy's life, because smoke rises and therefore keeping the head on the stairs the whole way down and below the smoke level was better. No mention of the fact that, five flights of headbanging might lead to a hundred-fifty pound quadriplegic, or the fact that even back then the only fire victim you're going to find who weighs less than two hundred pounds is either an infant, an anorexic, or a crackhead...This is America, most people you're going to rescue in a fire have THIGHS that weigh a hundred-fifty pounds.
Doesn't matter. Brenda won the case, and was then thoroughly dismayed at the lack of respect she received from the guys on the job.
-
Hey guys, pretty heated discussion, I see. Wanted to add my two cents.
I think Obama could have been decent, but sadly he's lied about pretty much everything he promised about. The wars continue, the spending continue, Bush isn't impeached, and so forth.
What I think the major problem in the USA now is that we're divided by this false left/right paradigm. I think for sake of discussion, information and educating ourselves, we should try to set that out of our minds. Same goes for the race card.
There are some very powerful people in the world that derive their power from deceit and lies, and sadly the past Presidents from both the Republican and Democrat side have been bought and paid for by them. Groups like the Council of Foreign Relations come to mind (Google it ^^), as well as banking institutions, most notably the Federal Reserve, as well as the oil, war and pharmaceutical industries are the major financeers and lobbyists within the administrations.
Critisism of the Obama administration has nothing to do with race or left/right, but rather honesty, integrity and good government. Sadly, the way things go, the way rules are made up, the good Unites States are slowly sinking off and becoming like a fascist state, through incrementalism. What I mean is a scientific dictatorship, not those that happened overnight with loud thunder and roars and explosions.
There are a lot of reasons why this is happening, and there are quite a few things that can be done to avoid that. However that subject is for another continuing thread.
I found that people like Rep. Congressman Ron Paul said a lot of good things that are worth listening to and considering, and there are many good alternative media sources that could give a different, better perspective than most of the normal TV media. That is because the TV media can't really be fully independant, and gives only one side of the stories.
In order to learn more together instead of staying in a never ending debate about left/ride, white/black, and so forth, I think it's good to try to investigate people on the contents of their character and their deeds, and trying to identify if said people wish the best for the American peoples, or just wish to support their own desire for riches and power.
I hope my two cents will help the discussion.
- JC
-
I think Obama could have been decent, but sadly he's lied about pretty much everything he promised about. The wars continue, the spending continue, Bush isn't impeached, and so forth.
Were you paying attention during the last two years? I don't remember "impeach Bush" as a campaign promise, and I am pretty sure he (sadly) never promised to end Afghanistan immediately.
That said, we finally have something resembling a timetable for Iraq withdrawal, there is something resembling a plan and action on that plan to do something about the economy (whether you agree with the plan or not, he promised to do something, he's doing something), Guantanamo is closing, we are getting many of the programs he promised (health care expansions, green energy programs) and I suspect the Torture memo release is the first step in holding at least some of the previous administration accountable.
My math tells me he actually is doing many of the things he promised. I WISH he had promised to prosecute Bush/Cheney, or end the war in Afghanistan.
-
I think Obama could have been decent, but sadly he's lied about pretty much everything he promised about. The wars continue, the spending continue, Bush isn't impeached, and so forth.
Were you paying attention during the last two years? I don't remember "impeach Bush" as a campaign promise, and I am pretty sure he (sadly) never promised to end Afghanistan immediately.
That said, we finally have something resembling a timetable for Iraq withdrawal, there is something resembling a plan and action on that plan to do something about the economy (whether you agree with the plan or not, he promised to do something, he's doing something), Guantanamo is closing, we are getting many of the programs he promised (health care expansions, green energy programs) and I suspect the Torture memo release is the first step in holding at least some of the previous administration accountable.
My math tells me he actually is doing many of the things he promised. I WISH he had promised to prosecute Bush/Cheney, or end the war in Afghanistan.
Ah, you're right; my choice of words was wrong. There was the promise of 'looking into possible crimes committed' by the Bush administration. Here's a source i found after looking after it; seems it's disappeared from other sites.
http://impeachforpeace.org/impeach_bush_blog/?p=5159
I remember when Bush kept delaying, and time tables kept coming up.
At first in 2005 he mentioned they'd stay until they 'won', while earlier already declaring 'Mission Accomplished' in begin May 2003.
(Sources: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/30/us.iraq/ and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/01/iraq/main4060963.shtml?source=mostpop_story )
In 2006, the pull out would be 'speeded up' (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/may/23/usa.military). And so it kept going.
Obama at first was stating they would pull out of Iraq 'Immediately'. (Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC3q8H0JIbE) and now, we have the 23 month time table; and as we know of the 'surge', that could go on and on and on.
In the meantime, Obama mentions that they need to get more troops to Afghanistan. I can only assume that the troops that do get to pull out of Iraq will have to continue in Afghanistan. (Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11893.html , http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123862771655080295.html (which mentions 70.000 more troops).
About Guantanamo, it's only the prison itself that will close; the detainees and the torture will continue elsewhere. Even on the prison itself, he promises, and delays. (Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Obama-warns-about-Guantanamo-closure/story.aspx?guid={2ED84E17-3790-4878-B24F-4D3D1DD48961})
Interestingly, he mentions that they 'don't torture', and 'will not torture' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111702920.html). But this blog post hits the nail on the head, describing proxies, places outside of the USA, where they will continue to torture people, including the detainees of Guantanamo. (http://www.allannairn.com/2009/01/torture-ban-that-doesnt-ban-torture.html). His blog post should have links to more sources.
Obama's health care plan is not without holes; and especially for a country running into massive debt and a fiat economy (definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency), "there is no such thing as free lunch". The idea is nice, but it has to be paid by someone. There is a lot of worry from various groups of people that it actually helps illegal immigrants, and makes it harder on people with low incomes, by a inevitable higher tax rate. (Sources: http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Congress-and-Obama-Extend-Healthcare-to-Illegal-Immigrants.html , http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/04/05/obamas-health-care-fraud/)
Bloomberg reports what i mentioned, as well. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=alGo5teZDSaI&refer=home).
The health care plan likely ends up to be only for the big rich pharmaceutical industry, which can be very risky. I can't go in detail about the troubles that have been caused by this industry, but the health care plan is far from what we would all like it to be. More info in source. (http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/18947/Obama%27s+Healthcare+Plan+Is+Big+Bark,+Small+Bite).
I hope to have given you an idea of the troubles with these plans; things are not as simple as what is promised.
For more info, i suppose the documentary i'm linking down below has a lot of good information to help. I hope you'll check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
I hope this helped.
- JC
-
I disagree with your premise that anything in government can happen quickly and efficiently. He's only been in office a few months, and the president isn't a particularly powerful executive.
-
I disagree with your premise that anything in government can happen quickly and efficiently. He's only been in office a few months, and the president isn't a particularly powerful executive.
True, i fully agree with what you say. Still, that could be used as an excuse to wait and wait, buying time like Bush did, basically. Point stays that the things he promised should at least have started, instead of delayed and distant promises, of course.
Shame only is that all i've seen so far is nice promises, and no deliverance.
I think Obama means well, actually, but even if he was a saint, i don't think all the nice and positive things he said will help much if the change that is promises won't be delivered, but stays 'more of the same'.
-
I disagree with your premise that anything in government can happen quickly and efficiently. He's only been in office a few months, and the president isn't a particularly powerful executive.
True, i fully agree with what you say. Still, that could be used as an excuse to wait and wait, buying time like Bush did, basically. Point stays that the things he promised should at least have started, instead of delayed and distant promises, of course.
Shame only is that all i've seen so far is nice promises, and no deliverance.
I think Obama means well, actually, but even if he was a saint, i don't think all the nice and positive things he said will help much if the change that is promises won't be delivered, but stays 'more of the same'.
oh come on you make this too easy:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
Promise kept 26
Promise broken 6
Compromise 7
Stalled 3
-
I disagree with your premise that anything in government can happen quickly and efficiently. He's only been in office a few months, and the president isn't a particularly powerful executive.
True, i fully agree with what you say. Still, that could be used as an excuse to wait and wait, buying time like Bush did, basically. Point stays that the things he promised should at least have started, instead of delayed and distant promises, of course.
Shame only is that all i've seen so far is nice promises, and no deliverance.
I think Obama means well, actually, but even if he was a saint, i don't think all the nice and positive things he said will help much if the change that is promises won't be delivered, but stays 'more of the same'.
oh come on you make this too easy:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
Promise kept 26
Promise broken 6
Compromise 7
Stalled 3
I'm curious about the 411 other promises that he seemingly ignored. Not sure what that's about. Also, like any good politician, some things he's mentioned, like a social security corps, are rather scary ideas. I think it's important to keep researching it.
Of course, i know it's more than just Obama, since a president doesnt really have much power (although Bush did give the Presidential seat lots of authority about spying, arrest and torture, among others), it's the people behind him, which, like Robert Gates and Clinton, are just a continuation of power from at the least Bush Senior, likely even further back. It's important to break through that, and look through things that keep us from uniting instead of keep fighting with eachother. Discussions like these are good, i think, to get through that.
- JC
-
I'm curious about the 411 other promises that he seemingly ignored.
Give him time. Expecting the president to fill 500 or so campaign promises in 4 months is pretty silly.
-
I disagree with your premise that anything in government can happen quickly and efficiently. He's only been in office a few months, and the president isn't a particularly powerful executive.
True, i fully agree with what you say. Still, that could be used as an excuse to wait and wait, buying time like Bush did, basically. Point stays that the things he promised should at least have started, instead of delayed and distant promises, of course.
Shame only is that all i've seen so far is nice promises, and no deliverance.
I think Obama means well, actually, but even if he was a saint, i don't think all the nice and positive things he said will help much if the change that is promises won't be delivered, but stays 'more of the same'.
oh come on you make this too easy:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
Promise kept 26
Promise broken 6
Compromise 7
Stalled 3
I'm curious about the 411 other promises that he seemingly ignored. Not sure what that's about.
time argh
It's absurd to demand action on ~600 promises, many of which are very long-term goals. Like this: No. 60: Phase in requirements for health information technology.
Also, like any good politician, some things he's mentioned, like a social security corps, are rather scary ideas. I think it's important to keep researching it.
Tell me more about his social security corps. You probably mean something else, or some other kind of wording?
Of course, i know it's more than just Obama, since a president doesnt really have much power (although Bush did give the Presidential seat lots of authority about spying, arrest and torture, among others), it's the people behind him, which, like Robert Gates and Clinton,are just a continuation of power from at the least Bush Senior, likely even further back.
During Bush Sr. years Robert Gates was the director of CIA. He was nominated as a Secretary in 2006. Not so impressive. Clintons were certainly influential and powerful back then.
It's important to break through that, and look through things that keep us from uniting instead of keep fighting with eachother. Discussions like these are good, i think, to get through that.
Seriously though, I follow American politics for entertainment and for the *****fights.
- JC
[/quote]
-
I'll stir this up a little.
Despite everything else that I've said, the last truly democratically elected president that didn't **** the country up was Kennedy. Every candidate, excepting probably Reagan, was handed up on a platter for the electorate. With the other side, which ever it was being painted just a little bit worse than the guy you voted for, in a slow push toward fascism.
-
I'll stir this up a little.
Despite everything else that I've said, the last truly democratically elected president that didn't **** the country up was Kennedy. Every candidate, excepting probably Reagan, was handed up on a platter for the electorate. With the other side, which ever it was being painted just a little bit worse than the guy you voted for, in a slow push toward fascism.
Breathtakingly inane.
-
I'll stir this up a little.
Despite everything else that I've said, the last truly democratically elected president that didn't **** the country up was Kennedy. Every candidate, excepting probably Reagan, was handed up on a platter for the electorate. With the other side, which ever it was being painted just a little bit worse than the guy you voted for, in a slow push toward fascism.
lol bill clinton was a fascist
-
This country seems far less fascist than it started out.
-
lawl just lawl
-
People love throwing that word around...
-
lawl just lawl
:wtf:
-
lawl just lawl
rolling with the punches
-
heh, Liberator's one of those Reagan-worshippers
it's like being on Digg again.
-
He's an empty suit and yet a massive force that can completely ruin our nation in less time than it takes to get a rebate check back.
Should have worried about that 8 years ago, now it's too late bro.
And i am not talking about the war in irac or the loss of civil liberties... i am talking about the highest debt in the nations history, the permission of federal reserve policy that heated up the market way past common sense and well into the riskiest kinds of fraid... and a resulting economic crisis that may well end up changing the way we look at capitalism in general. That is... after the ugly years are over, which may not be until after national bankruptcy.
It doesn't really matter who is president right now sadly. The damage has already been done... and the acrued debt and future obligations won't simply go away anytime soon short of an US default.
Who cares about who's on the wheel, when the car is long over the cliff ? ;) Even in the best scenario you are looking at years, possibly decades of economic turmoil, with a a potential currency default always looming.
-
I did worry about that 8 years ago. That's why I didn't vote for Bush either time :wtf:
Did you not get the sarcasm there?
-
I did worry about that 8 years ago. That's why I didn't vote for Bush either time :wtf:
Did you not get the sarcasm there?
Not enough context in the specific post i'm afraid, propably should have looked at your others first; my bad ;)
-
i am talking about the highest debt in the nations history
You can mark that every single day.
-
Urgh. Presumably if we'd elected Gore after Clinton he would've kept us in the black.
-
:shaking:
But then where would our global warming, internet-inventing scion be?
-
I did worry about that 8 years ago. That's why I didn't vote for Bush either time :wtf:
Did you not get the sarcasm there?
Not enough context in the specific post i'm afraid, propably should have looked at your others first; my bad ;)
He obviously can't be both. That was the point. He can't be weak and spineless and yet somehow super powerful. He seems to fill whichever bogeyman spot they need for the day.
-
BL: You say all the things I don't have time to say. I love you man.
Oh, and I am glad I am armed, you crazy ****ers who think Obama is a fascist are the best reason I have seen for me to defend my second amendment rights. I'll need my guns to keep you bastards off my lawn. I am only sorta kidding.
How is that for bringing the split post back home?