[iamzack]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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   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.]

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Warlock]

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 ?  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

[Scotty]

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?

[Nuclear1]

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.

[JCDNWarrior]

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

[Inquisitor]

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.

[JCDNWarrior]

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

[General Battuta]

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.

[JCDNWarrior]

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'.

[Janos]

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

[JCDNWarrior]

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

[karajorma]

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.

[Janos]

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]

[Liberator]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Nuclear1]

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

[General Battuta]

This country seems far less fascist than it started out.

[Liberator]

lawl  just lawl