NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
Congratulations Mr. President. You have popped your proverbial homicidal cherry this weekend.
Mr. President I know you don't have the Gubernatorial background of signing 147 death warrants like Mr. Bush. 22 deaths on the fourth day in office. I guess you have the advantage of having two wars handed down to you. This shows what a gangsta you are, you didn't even start with a country that congress has approved the Executives use order of force.
Way To Get the ball or should I say the bodies rolling Mr. President!
In case any of you haven't heard your hero President ordered a unmanned Predator prone into Pakistan
The drone shot mussels into a village and killed at least 22 people.
Mr. President I know you don't have the Gubernatorial background of signing 147 death warrants like Mr. Bush. 22 deaths on the fourth day in office. I guess you have the advantage of having two wars handed down to you. This shows what a gangsta you are, you didn't even start with a country that congress has approved the Executives use order of force.
Way To Get the ball or should I say the bodies rolling Mr. President!
No I wanted someone who wouldn't bomb and kill other people.
The Presidential election was not an either or situation. There was other people running for that office. Palin was the VP on the ticket, you must have meant to type in McCain.
shut up you hippies, pakistan harbors terrorist. dont fuck with a black man from the south side of chicago. obama is a badass, i bet he wanted to go kill the terrorist personally, metrix style, but the secret service didnt let him.
If former president Musharraf couldn't handle tracking down and taking out terrorist cells in Pakistan then who will? Let's not get into the discussion if Obama's executive order is Just or not.
"16-22 innocent people dead for national security" kinda discussions are tricky and vary in opinion. This does not mean that Obama = Bush. Shit, it has been a week that he's been President and such accusations require time for proper scrutiny. To assume that "collateral damage" will not occur when priority targets are attempted to be eliminated is extremely naive. Let's just hope the intelligence given to Obama has proven to be accurate; if not, THEN we begin to parallel Obama = Bush.
"A day without blood would be a day without sunshine."
the idea is that killing people without due process breeds hatred and violence. the idea is that one is assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
in my mind These type of strikes are designed to provoke a "terrorist" response and it does hurt deeply to see this happen on Obama's watch.
what can we do? I suggest that everyone who feels passionate about any issue hit up Obama's website. seriously, the more people make their voice heard one hopes that it could swing the tide or at least make the administration stop and re-think the marketing of it's policies.
IS OBAMA GOING TO GO ALONG WITH THE NAU? NORTH AMERICAN UNION TREATY THAT BUSH SIGNED WITHOUT APROVAL OF CONGRESS? THIS TAKES AFFECT 2010.
WILL WE LOSE SOME MORE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?
WILL NATO TROOPS BE HERE, IN CASE MARTIAL LAW IS NEEDED TO BE IMPLEMENTED? CAN WE TRUST A GUY WHO PUT A FORMER HEAD OF NY FEDERAL RESERVE IN CHARGE OF OUR MONEY SUPPLY ? THE FOX IS WATCHING THE HEN HOUSE.
The subject appears to be having difficulty controlling the volume of his voice. He may also be experiencing an episode of paranoia brought on by spending too much time on the internet and/or listening to late night AM radio.
q. why am I so wound up? A. People getting killed.......this seems to be a reason to call out injustice and murder.
Done by the guy that most of his supporter thought that he would be different then the last President. Domestically, sure it a little nicer with his first days executive orders. Let see what his all star cabinet give us in the way of screwing the common people the same as always. In foreign policy, only difference is Obama almost makes it sound ok to be immoral imperialist thugs.
As for Palin, sure it would have been good 'fantasy aid' for PC.
Why is Obama so hot to be in Afganistan/Pakistan ?
The British were there early on and left in defeat.
The Russians tried but got there asses kicked to.
Are we there for a foot hold on the worlds oil supplies?
Is the fringe benefit being in control of the Opium supplies?
Does anybody remember Iran/contra scandel in the 80s?
Are we really in danger of being attacted by terrorist living in caves
half way around the world?
The ones that put him in charge want us there.
Do you really think that was a real election?
The canadates that spoke the truth were censored.
Ron Paul was my choice. He wanted to stop the war in Iraq and also the war on drugs. He wanted to kill the federal reserve and the income tax. Wanted to RESTORE the Constitution and not kill it with forming a the North American Union. Kill the Patriot Act, which Obama supports. And also limit the Government. To bad the majority of people in America are sleeping =/ I agree with SEXy though.... Obama=Bush. Obama the CFR member.
america harbors terrorists, canada harbors terrorist, mexico harbors terrorist. is that justification to start bombing those countries?
its little comments like "black man from south side chicago" or "free chicken at the white house" type shit, that really bugs me. obama will get away with so much more shit than W just because he's a well spoken black man. nobody will be able to criticize obama the way they criticized W because W was obviously a retard puppet.
if you believe we should be nationalist because we elected a half black president, the gov't has you exactly where they want you.
when was the last time a terrorist came and fucked shit up on american soil?
its profitable to live in fear, regardless of whoever is in charge.
if you seriously think ron paul would singlehandedly halt the war on drugs or whatever else then you need you fucking head examined.
and the last time the U.S. was isolationist was.... never... "From the Halls of Montezuma To the shores of Tripoli We fight our country's battles. In the air on land and sea. " a line from the oldest military song of the Marine Corps tells of US involvement abroad going back almost to the birth of the nation.
BE CAREFUL
Posting on this thread might elevate you from the Blue list
to the Red list.
Red.: Those who speak out
Blue: Those who listen
Yellow: Apathetical
People on the Red list will be picked up first.
Blue second.
Yellow will be unaware.
Keep an eye out for color marks in front of you residence.
these will be used as markers for NATO troops.
A reprint of a document found in a IBM copier bought at a surplus sale. In short this document is a blue print for controlling a population. Some have claimed that it's a fake. If it's a fake then someone went to great lengths to draft such a insightful document - but why?
2) SECRET SOCIETIES AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER
A good introduction to secret societies like the Freemasons, Jason Group, Trilateral Commission, CFR, and the Illuminati. On page 72 he accurately predicted that the Galileo spacecraft was going to crash into Jupiter in an attempt to ignite its atmosphere! (Anyone out there remember 2010 and what happened to Jupiter in that movie?)
3) OATH OF INITIATION OF AN UNIDENTIFIED SECRET ORDER
You'll have to decide for yourself if you want to believe this oath.
4) SECRET TREATY OF VERONA
A sample of how Monarchs use treaties to regain their crowns.
5) GOOD-BY USA, HELLO NEW WORLD ORDER
Plans for the suspension of the Constitution and the role of Mt. Weather in bringing it about.
6) H.R. 7049 & FEMA
After reading this chapter you won't doubt the real purpose of FEMA.
7) ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT OF 1988
An excellent example of how congress (which is the opposite of progress!) passes legislation which on the surface seems to be reasonable, but under the surface it's really an attempt to suspend due proses, trail by jury, and bring about a police state!
8) ARE THE SHEEP READY TO SHEER?
It covers an Oklahoma law that requires residents of that state to declare to the tax collector every piece of property that they own! A good way for the government to know what you own - especially guns!
9) ANATOMY OF AN ALLIANCE
A discussion about population control and various attempts to decrease the world's population. On page 168 he reveals the origins of AIDS (H.B. 15090) and how it was spread by vaccine. How international wars are created for population control.
10) LESSONS FROM LITHUANIA
A short (two page) but excellent article by Neal Knox on gun control.
11) COUP DE GRACE
A transcript of a conversation between Bill and Randall Terpstra, who was a radioman and crypto operator in the U.S. Navy. They discuss how Nixon was forced to resign by the U.S. military, U.F.O.'s, "Operation Majority," and so on.
12) THE SECRET GOVERNMENT
He discusses a lot about aliens and U.F.O.'s in this chapter. On page 215 he reveals the truth about the assassination of J.F.K. How Prozac is used along with hypnosis and mind control techniques to motivate people to commit mass shootings in order to disarm the public.
13) TREASON IN HIGH PLACES
An article on how treaties can be used to erode the sovereignty of the U.S.A.
14) A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL MODEL FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA
A reprint of a proposed socialist constitution by the Center for Democratic Studies. It's hard to believe that $25,000,000 was spent on this trash.
15) PROTOCOLS OF THE WISE MEN OF ZION
Is this document really the protocols of the Illuminati? Read it and decide for yourself.
16) THE STORY OF JONATHAN MAY
A 26 page story about what happens when someone challenged the Fed money system.
17) DOCUMENTATION: U.S. ARMY INTELLIGENCE CONNECTION WITH SATANIC CHURCH
"The drone shot mussels into a village and killed at least 22 people. "
This part is especially offensive to people who do not eat shell fish.
seriously though, that is a stupid joke, but so is the idea that Bush=Obama.
Lets judge Obama's leadership by the totality of what his administration does. Praise him when he do good. And hold him accountable when he do bad.
I am sure his is really hated by many for:
- revoking the global gag rule on abortion
- lifting the ban on Cali's Strict Co2 emissions standards
- reinstating the FOIA
- start the closing GITMO
- start the closing secret prisons
- starting a withdrawl from iraq
- calling for a repeal of the anti-gay defense of marriage act
- calling for an end to US torture
- limiting the influence of lobbyists
all this is in the first week.
Yes, lets keep an eye on him and hold him to account.
But lets not let 1 foreign policy decision that we may not fully understand get in the way of the big picture.
he is not a super hero
he is just a person
smarter than most
but he will fuck up and make mistakes
as we all do.
obama has the authority to repeal the patriot act, military commission act, and all those nutty bush signing statements. he has the authority to flip a bitch on the bush and clinton admins insane foreign policy. he could restore the the bill of rights with the stroke of a pen. he could have done this on his first day in office and earned the confidence of millions of people who assumed correctly that little would change after this election.
obama != bush ..but he's giving us nothing but lip service and window dressing while our military terrorizes innocent people and wall street loots the treasury.
Obama could make a magical rainbow flag that he carries on his unicorn and wave it to the people who would become happy and peaceful and hard working. He could travel the world over on said unicorn. With his trusty pen in hand he could cross out all bad laws too.
By Michael Hawthorne | Chicago Tribune reporter
January 27, 2009
A swig of soda or a bite of a candy bar might be sweet, but a new study suggests that food made with corn syrup also could be delivering tiny doses of toxic mercury.
For the first time, researchers say they have detected traces of the silvery metal in samples of high-fructose corn syrup, a widely used sweetener that has replaced sugar in many processed foods. The study was published Monday in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health.
Eating high-mercury fish is the chief source of exposure for most people. The new study raises concerns about a previously unknown dietary source of mercury, which has been linked to learning disabilities in children and heart disease in adults.
The source of the metal appears to be caustic soda and hydrochloric acid, which manufacturers of corn syrup use to help convert corn kernels into the food additive.
Related links
Tainted seafood
The mercury menace
A handful of plants across the nation still make the soda and acid by mixing a briny solution in electrified vats of mercury. Some of the toxic metal ends up in the final product, according to industry documents cited in the study.
Corn syrup manufacturers insisted their products are mercury-free. But the study said at least one maker of caustic soda that has used the mercury-based technology listed the corn syrup industry as a client.
"This seems like an avoidable source of mercury that we didn't know was out there," said David Wallinga, one of the study's co-authors and a researcher at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a Minnesota-based advocacy group.
The researchers cautioned that their study was limited. Only 20 samples were analyzed; mercury was detected in nine.
Still, the impact of the findings could be significant. High-fructose corn syrup has become such a staple in processed foods that the average American consumes 12 teaspoons of it daily, according to federal estimates. Teenagers and children tend to eat more of it than adults.
There is no established safe dose for elemental mercury, the type discovered in corn syrup. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says an average-sized woman should limit her exposure to 5.5 micrograms a day of methylmercury, the kind found in fish. If that same woman regularly ate corn syrup contaminated at the highest level detected in the study—0.57 micrograms per gram—the researchers estimated that she could end up consuming an amount of mercury that is five times higher than the EPA's safe dose.
A former EPA scientist who reviewed the paper said more study is needed to establish the risk, if any, posed by contaminated corn syrup. She urged the Food and Drug Administration to conduct a review of food made with the sweetener.
"For the most part, previous studies haven't found mercury in foods other than fish," said Kathryn Mahaffey, who co-wrote a landmark report to Congress on the perils of mercury contamination. "Is this an outlier or something we didn't know about before?"
Most chlorine plants already have switched to mercury-free technology. In response to a 2005 Tribune series about mercury hazards, Barack Obama, then a U.S. senator, introduced legislation that would force others to phase out its use or shut down. A plant in Wisconsin later vowed to switch by this year, leaving four others—in Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia—that still use the older technology.
The new study's lead author, Renee Dufault, began her research while investigating the Wisconsin plant for the FDA in the mid-2000s. But her results weren't published until now, a year after she retired from the agency.
An FDA spokesman said he still was waiting for a response to the study. Industry representatives, meanwhile, said the study was outdated.
"It is important that Americans are provided accurate, science-based information," Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, said in a statement. "They should know that high fructose corn syrup is safe."
In another statement, the Chlorine Institute, a chemical industry trade group, said, "It is conceivable that measurable mercury content can be found in high-fructose corn syrup regardless of how it is processed."
ditto to nathan I really wish people would drop the "diabolical" movie scripted fantastical conspiracy theories about the illuminati, aliens, the masons... all these stories get floated out there and really serve to get people off topic and discredit themselves.
Obama giving the go ahead to bomb a village in pakistan... can you sense all the pressure from the pentagon to do so? you have "top ranking military commanders" telling you that they have a target on the ground... that's a lot of pressure if you can appreciate that....
bush pushed the limits of presidential power via signing statements and the dept. of justice; obama now has that same power. he could defer it until congress repeals or supreme court overturns based on it's constitutionally. he could demand that congress repeal it and threaten the veto everything that crosses his desk. the point is that he doesn't even discuss it; his silence on the issue says it all.
signing statement happen at the time of "signing" a bill
obama (without the assistance of a time machine) can not go back in time to unsign and un-statement bills that have already been passsed.
Obama has spoken out about executive over-reach the way to un-do overreach in not to re-do overreach.
It has been just under 2 weeks.
He is trying to undo the worst parts of an 8 year legacy not to mention all the fucked up stuff that happened under clinton in 8 years (like DOMA) and the 12 years before that.
yes he could throw a fit his first week in office and piss away all chances of fixing the economy, environment, infrastructure, and foreign policy.
Or he could be smart, tactical, patient, disciplined and make a few compromises for what he sees at the greater good.
Its how he got in to office and its how he intends to fix things.
A little hope and a little cynicism and a lot of hard work.
there are 300,000,000 people in this country who by and large get their distorted view of the world from commercial media.... gonna have to compromise with the ignorant masses lest ye be assassinated right quick. how quickly that would happen if he crossed any of the powers that be badly enough.
as it is, the US/Israel aliance appears to be on a mission to isolate Iran going on 3 decades since Iran was able to break free of the CIA imposed dictatorship... if you look at a map Iran is surrounded by Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan
It's going to be a long four years. But what can you do? You sank all of your hopes into this guy. Just shut off your critical thinking facilities and...
I'm still happy to see Obama in there and I do believe. but again, there is a big picture.... the effect of the obama presidency already has people thinking and being more involved in government thats a good thing in itself.
socialism is practiced not only by the US - except here we shovel money at wall street bankers instead of social services like education and healthcare - it is practiced across the world.
essentially, a government is a legal contract between people. Why wouldnt you want that contract to protect you, educate you and keep you healthy? whats the point of having a contract at all then?
Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, France are among the many successful socialist nations. Visit them and see the culture, the life style.... 2 months vacation a year? fuck yes. because life isnt just one long string of 51 week work years... it should include not just a little, but a LOT of leisure time with family and friends. yeah, I dont want to work. I want to bang on me drums a little and enjoy myself in this, my only life.
Get a job in TV / motion pictures,
Then you will have plenty of time off, and be able to collect unemployment five months of the year. Great if you dont need to work full time. Bennys too! just like socialism , Union proud.
This is the best place in the world.
It just needs a little work.
Don't pat yourself on the back too hard, Hair. You're coming at this from an even kookier perspective. Obama wants high school kids to do community service for school credit? Man the concrete bunkers, Stalinism has arrived!
Thanks sexy for trying to wake people up from their trance - drinking too much of that Obama koolaid I think.
Anyone who was paying attention knew that Obama was very similar (almost idential) to Bush on foreign policy well before he was elected. Sure, he's made promises to get Troops out of Iraq, but only to put more troops into Afghanistan to maintain a military presence in a region which contains the largest remaining oil reserves.
With that said, Obama is not the problem, just a part of (or perhaps symptom of) the problem. The problem is the whole system which serves big money. In this system with the level of apathy or ignorance that exists (which is also created by the big money controlled media), the only president we could possibly elect is one that represents the same big money interests.
But, that doesn't mean it must continue this way. What happens in the future is up to us. We can not do it alone, but there is a moral imperative for us to drive out our government and replace it with a system that works for the common good of humanity.
Socialism is comfy but is full of waste and ineffciency. In germany the government gives homeless people money for food and necessities... which is fine, butThey also give them more money for every animal they own and must support (dogs usually). The result is hordes of well subsidized homeless people hanging around the town square with five dogs each... all of them skinny and poorly cared for... all the money squandered on cheap beer.
Assuming that's not a (sub)urban legend, I'll still take socialism for the poor over the kind we've got here. Shiftless squatters with dogs may be annoying, but you don't often see them pumping up the prices of basic human needs through speculative asset price hyperinflation, running multi-billion dollar lending institutions into the ground, and then giving themselves six-figure bonuses with TARP money. You (stilline) seem to have at least a basic understanding of moral hazard, but considering what's going on right now, you sure picked an odd example.
Fuck you sissy commies!
Money for homeless?
Do like America and criminalize being poor and being an addict.
Throw those fuckers in jail 40k a year to lock of a crackhead is a bargain compared to paying some hippy to take care of tray dogs.
We're #1
Thats right
We got more people in jail per capita than any country in the world
more than commie china
more than war torn iraq
more than drug ridden netherlands
more than commie cuba
more than all the oppressive regimes that GWB had cued up for regime change.
We're #1
We're #1
We're #1
"P.S. Moral Hazard will be opening for Toxic Mortgage Products and Negative Amortization when the debt metal tour happens. I'll keep you guys updated."
This morning however, Obama urged the energy officials to increase efficiency standards. He signed a presidential memorandum requesting them to increase...
This thread kind of came full circle for me today with Amy Goodman interviewing P.W. Singer on Democracy Now! about his book Wired for War a critical examination of the use of robots and drones for war, "security", and surveillance.
Turns out that Singer was also one of Obama's Defense policy advisers during the campaign.
Biden: US Will Continue Bush Missile Program, But Open to Compromise
Vice President Joe Biden has announced the US will pursue the Bush administration’s controversial missile defense shield in eastern Europe. Speaking in Germany this weekend, Biden said the US would continue to develop missile defenses to counter what he called “a growing Iranian capability.” But he left open the possibility of a compromise with Russia, saying US-Russian ties should be repaired.
Vice President Joe Biden: “The last few years have seen a dangerous drift in relations between Russia and the members of our alliance. It’s time—to paraphrase President Obama, it’s time to press the reset button."
The missile program has been widely derided as bellicose, expensive and useless to its stated goals of protecting national security. Poland would host ten ballistic missiles along with a radar site in the Czech Republic. The Bush administration claimed the missile system would protect Europe from Iranian missiles, but it’s widely seen as a first-strike weapon.
In other economic news, questions are growing around President Obama’s crackdown on executive pay at taxpayer-rescued firms. Last week, Obama announced a $500,000 salary cap at firms receiving future government bailouts. The move followed outcry over news Wall Street firms paid out more than $18 billion in bonuses last year. But the Wall Street Journal reports the curbs have several loopholes that could negate its impact. Firms could still pay out higher salaries by changing executives’ titles, restructuring pay packages, or simply putting it to a shareholder vote. Executives and managers could also get more money, because the plan doesn’t limit awards of restricted stock. Critics have called on Obama to impose the plan retroactively so that it also applies to firms that have already received bailout money.
The war against us all
This war in Iraq isn't the end; it's the beginning of Wars to come
all around the world at the whim of the Neo-Cons in the White House
This is the Bush Doctrine come to life; War, war and more war!
War brought to you by the big corporate-masters who run the show
This isn't just a War on Iraqis or Afghanis or Arabs, or even Muslims
It is ultimately a War on us all!
That's because the billions and billions that are being spent on this War
the cost of tanks, rocketry, bullets and yes even salaries
for the 125,000 plus troops, is money that will never be spent on;
education, on healthcare, on the reconstruction of crumbling public housing
or to train and place the millions of workers
who have lost manufacturing jobs in the past three years alone
The War in Iraq is in reality; a war against the nations' workers and the poor
who are getting less and less
while the big Defense industries and making a killing – literally!
What's next Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela?
We've already seen the corporate media
play megaphone to the White House, to build and promote a War based on lies
War is utilized by the imperialists first and foremost, to crush internal enemies
We're seeing the truth of its insight
when we see the sad state of American education
the rush of seniors to buy affordable medications from the Canadians
because American drugs are just too expensive
the threat of privatization of Social Security
and the wave of repression that comes with an increasing Militarized Police;
this is a War on all of us
And the struggle against War is really a struggle for a better life
for the millions of folks who are in need here in this country!
The fight against the War is really to fight for your own interest
not the false interests of the Defense Industry
or the corporate media or the White House
Down with the Wars for empire!
A big ole BOO to Obama for boycotting the UN summit on racism. Even though the western establishment media is slamming and actively trying to discredit the conference left and right, it is still an important summit and its important to address and criticize ALL forms of racism even if it means criticizing friends and allies.
I don't think the US has any room to criticize other countries for their racism.
I was hoping for a whole host of impeachments when guy took office. By not prosecuting war crimes Obama is setting dangerous precedent for the way future wars are conducted by all countries. This is not good.
Chavez gave Obama a book about imperialism in south america. Can you imagine, both of these guys, as heads of state affect millions and billions of people respectively... there is basically no way that any leader of millions could not end up with blood on their hands from some policy decision or military manuever... I like that Obama shook dudes hand and accepted the book. Chavez isn't as bad as the establishment media (including in his own country) would have people think.
there is basically no way that any leader of millions could not end up with blood on their hands from some policy decision or military manuever...
depends on the person and what they are doing? I don't think Paul, Nader, or McKinney would have the blood on their hands that Obama had decided to have on his, by continuing this countrie's imperial conquest
Well for starters why don't you give me a run down of how they would pull out the troops? Pulling them out too fast = more civilian deaths pulling them out too slow = combo of soldier and civilian death. So what was their plan for pulling out?
Also, given the political reality of the US, could you see these candidates you speak of, resisting the request of a high ranking military advisor to strike a "terrorist" target?
Kuchinch and Nader both had plans to pull out all troops in Iraq within six months. Going to the UN and to neighboring Arab countries to be part of International peace keeping force and help work out with the locals in the country to that government and country going on it is own. When you go in as the US has in Iraq and destroy a country, murder and mane over a million of its population, knock down doors, kidnap people in the middle of the night, hold and torture those people, you have no creditability nor are you welcomed to stay (unless your the few getting wealthy from the occupation.) in that country to help repair it.
What is a terrorist target? Those three folks I spoke of have a different understanding of what a actual terrorist is. They realize that our policy in those regions have been the inspiration for people to strike back against the US. With any of those people in office of Presidency you would have a radical shift in policies that would not create more animosity toward the United States. Especially once you are no longer invading there territory.
Biggest terrorist actions going on in the world right now is the United States Drone attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Those things are also being used to monitor the US/Mexico boarder of New Mexico and Arizona. Very scary. If you haven't seen Sleep Dealer I would strongly suggest it be viewed. The drone attacks in those movies are just one of the horrific aspects shown about our future polices. I understand the US is now spending 2billion per day on developing and producing more of these terrorist weapons.
President Obama made exactly the right decision in boycotting the U.N. Durban II conference this week. The U.S. government has no business lending its legitimacy to a conference that sees no problem with giving a holocaust denier a forum to call for the extermination of the worlds Jews.
I don't agree with much of what the President has done, and its nice to see him do the right thing on this one.
Ahmadinejad was one of MANY representatives from nations around the world speaking. so just because one offensive person is speaking, the US has to run and hide? what are they scared of? Why not confront the issues head on rather than running away like OJ... only 8 or 9 nations in the world boycotted I wonder what they have to hide as well. The rest of the world decided to participate. If the US was really all about eradicating racism they could have easily taken a leadership role in the conference and defended Israel and shown that it is not a racist state.
actually if you look at the document that was produced for the summit, it's very hopeful and reason-able. honestly I think the Ahmadinejad rebuke was an easy excuse not to participate because the US would have to take a long hard look at it's own racist policies.
go to the source itself and find out the issues rather than get all lathered up by the spin of the establishment media:
It's hard for me to see how I am "all lathered up" about this. My comment didn't use any CAPS and didn't unfairly characterize the opposing position (the U.S. running and hiding like OJ). It was a short, simple statement advancing only one point - that the U.S. should not lend its prestige to this kind of circus. Methinks, perhaps, that with regard as to which of us is lathered up about this, the cleat is on the wrong pedal here.
On the substance of the issue, what can possibly be gained from listening to someone like Ahmadinejad, when they espouse racial genocide? Negotiation (at least rational negotiation) presupposes that there is a range of acceptable outcomes between the positions of the parties. Suppose you want to sell me a bike for $400, but you will take $350 (but not any lower, because you have another offer for that much). I want to buy it for $300, but I have $375. If we are able to make a deal, it will be somewhere in the range between what you will accept and what I can give you. It can't be below $350, or you will go to the other buyer. It can't be over $375, because I don't have that much. It makes no sense for me to insist that you sell to me for $200, because you have a better alternative. It doesn't make sense for you to hold out for $390 if I offer you $375, because that's all I've got.
What is the acceptable negotiated outcome when the issue is genocide? I think it is pretty clear that there isn't one - I assume you wouldn't agree to let Ahmadinejad exterminate, for example, 14% of the population of Israel just for the sake of getting a deal cut.
I also don't think there is much value to merely hearing Ahmadinejad out on this one. Do we really need to open our minds to more hateful anti-semitism? Can someone who wants to kill everyone of a certain religion really teach us anything useful? And, if the organizers of the conference invite him to speak, how serious are they about combatting racism?
It seems that President Obama recognizes that there is no upside to U.S. participation in a conference like this. He took a courageous and morally serious position here. Good for him.
why don't you criticize that document and tell me why it's not valid rather than dis the entire summit based on one offensive speaker who at the end of the day represents one point of view among the nations of the world.
Seriously.
its a negotiation over human rights not a price comparison.
In this excerpt of Mahmoud's address, I don't hear anything that he said that is not true
"After World War II, under the pretext of Jewish suffering and by taking advantage of the Holocaust, they used aggression and military force to turn an entire nation into refugees. And they transplanted people from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world into their land, establishing a thoroughly racist government in occupied Palestine.”
As offensive as Ahmadenijad is, can you point me to the actual recorded speech spoken by him in Farsi where Ahmadinejad calls for genocide against Jews? that's pretty fuckin alarming and the guy should be ousted if it's true.
If you are referring to the media translated statement that he made that "Israel should be wiped off the map" you have to understand that does NOT equate to saying "exterminate Jews." Maybe you didn't realize but there are 30+ nations (Iran included) representing about a billion people that as of today do not recognize the state of Israel at all. In fact there are even deeply religious Jews who oppose the state of Israel completely. Does that mean that these billion or so people advocate for genocide against Jews? No. It just means that they don't recognize Israel as a legitimate government in what they see as (the formerly secular state of) Palestine.
When "the powers that were" declared an independent Jewish state in Palestine in 1948 they did so at the peril of millions of people both non-Jewish and Jewish... especially in a region so diverse and important to the world's three major religions as Palestine is / was. it is painful to say this, but step back and take an honest assessment of the situation, think about it... it is tantamount to the UN raising the Mormon flag over Los Angeles and Mormons declaring a Mormon state by force. obviously the majority of non-mormons would fight against mormon rule (duh). and that is really really really the crux of the conflict in the middle east. it's why we see the wisdom of the founding fathers in advocating for separation of church and state. The world has now been witness to the aftermath of the declaration of a religious state - the seemingly infinite uprisings from indigenous non Jewish people who do not wish to be ruled by an explicitly Jewish government.
I voted for Ron Paul because I'm a libertarian. Both parties seem the same to me. They both support a bigger Government that is quickly bankrupting us and trying to run an empire.
The contents of the document they adopted today is completely irrelevant to whether they should have invited Ahmadinejad to speak. Ahmadinejad was the only head of state to address the conference - what does that say to you?
The fact that they adopted the document at the beginning of the conference tells me what a farce it is - they never intended to have any debate or honest discussion about the contents of the document before adopting it. Its like a Stalinist trial - verdict first, then maybe some deliberations, if we still have time left over after a rousing chorus of "Throw the Jew down the well."
If they are going to adopt the final document before discussing it, what is the point of going to the conference? I assume that Ahmadinejad wants to be on TV behind that nice pale blue seal so that when people see him they think 'kinda like UNICEF' rather than 'country that outlaws !@#$?sexuality'. The morally correct thing to do here is to deny him that podium.
Our President did the right thing here by refusing to legitimize Ahmadinejad by sharing the stage with him.
p.s. - I assume you are yanking my chain on this one - maybe you bet somebody twenty bucks you couldn't get me to defend President Obama like this. Frankly, I am impressed that he showed as much backbone on this as he did.
@NixonTwin
I'm def not yanking your chain my friend. I am dead serious.... in fact Obama and western nations really did a disservice by drawing attention to the Iranian president and giving him so much media power.
but why digress, so lets just agree for the sake of argument, that Ahmadenijad is just the worst most despicable child molesting rapist genocidal maniac on the planet... ok now that we've got that issue taken care of, lets look at a link...
FYI it's a DRAFT document not the final. you are incorrect in stating that the final doc was agreed to before the conference began. this has been a work in progess for some time now.... please. have a look and see if there is anything you can criticize about it.
are these documents worth anything in your opinion? should the work of all the world's nations be thrown away now because of one man? It's hard not to see this for what it really is: The US running away from a very real very open discussion about racism on the world stage to which everyone was invited to the table with an equal voice... and not just the "friendly" people - everyone. if the US can't face that, then it's time to ask why we are so weak-minded. personally I think the US cowered away (using Ahmadenijad as a convenient excuse) because it would have to face up to it's own racist policies around the globe.
I'm digging that Kucinich evacuation plan... why hasnt this been hyped in the media like the tea parties were? hmmmmmmmm?
The plan was there and talked about, as I remember you where just over impressed with Obama when this and other issues of the Presidential campaign was being discussed. Ending the war is not in the interest of the powers that control this country. Electing Obama and making everybody believe he was some grass roots answer to all that was done wrong by the Bush administration, was in the interest of the power elite of this country.
I told you about the tea parties already, but to update you from what I heard from the right wing radio I listen to......................................
Main stream media such as FOX and CNN hi jacked these protest/educational gathering to further the "LEFT vs. RIGHT" false dichotomy. The news media got Republicans supporters out to the Tea Parties to blame Obama and the so called left for the problems of the country, drowning out what the original message of the Tea parties was . FOX and CNN have been so good in this instance they have everybody believing that they are the ones who started this movement. Those that plan the Tea party where Liberatarian/ Patriot - Liberty movement/ Ron Paul supporters/ end the fed/ activist. The original tea party organizers are the same people that consider the those major media outlets to be liers and no friend to themselves or what the truth is. Yes, they aren't supporters of Obama's polices nor where they supporters of Bush. The silver lining to those who started the Tea Party movement is that they feel it will be a possible arena to educate the Fox News watching republicans to the issue of liberty that they are active about. I know you won't understand or grasp what I'm talking about, because it seem you been duped into thinking this is Republican- Fox News phenomena. Plus I don't think you have much of a back ground into what the Patriot / Liberty movement is about . If you did, you would know FOX News and CNN labeled people from these movements as "terrorist wackos" who should be placed in concentration camps.
End to U.S. imperial wars, end war on drugs, end govt privacy violation, support separation of church and state (even those most have Christian beliefs), keeping a production based economy in the the United States. Things like that you probably support.
Other things you might not support, like the right to own fire arms, home schooling, sovereignty (state rights - no UN treaties) , and against illegal taxation (which you might actually be in favor of if you understood the issue).
As always each person has different views. Ugly side is there is some that feel undocumented immigration is a issue of concern. That is split down the middle from what I have seen with those that feel the boarders should be open and people be free to move and travel without government interference.
And sexy you'll have to Forgive me for not seeing all the coverage of kucinich's pullout plan. I've never had cable. The only news I get is about dancing with the stars.
I was about to write "this country is fucked" but you know what, every cynical old man I ever met said that.
All those things sounds good in theory.... even gun ownership - the people need to bear arms if only to defend against a tyrannical government or police force.
But what about real nuts and bolts stuff. Where does the money come from to pay for education? Where does the money come from for fire services and police?
how would a liberty/ patriot government handle a compant microsoft when they were aggressively stomping out competition and innovation?
No UN treaties huh? So how would a liberty patriot react if lets say canada and mexico form a treaty to blockade the borders against all state of california goods?
all those are great point. I'm not going to attempt to write a magazine full of words to answer them. I have an understanding of that movements position of all of those issues. I have understudied that movement since 1992 so I know the realm of their thinking.
The taxation they are against in Federal Income tax which from all tax laws written and not written, is voluntary . It doesn't pay for all the things and services you talk about, but pays interest to the Federal Reverse bank for loaning the country federal reserve notes and currency for our money supply.
There is so much taxation that you do not realize before you pay sells tax on an item. That help provide government budgets.
I'm not against taxation for public services. Most Libertarian think the best way to provide services is through the free market. I don't necessarily feel that way. Those that know what they are talking about make some compelling arguments that will make you think. As for Microsoft they feel a competitor could/would replace them after people became aware of there faulty product and dominating marketing practices. Most of these folks use Linxus for many various reasons, including what you spoke of.
Trade treaties are not done through the UN but through private business of the industry playing representative of the governments involved. WTO, NAFTA and GATT had nothing to do with the UN. Unfortunately trade treaties are never done by the people of the countries to serve the peoples interest, but to serve those industries interest to make the most profits, and lower production costs. Also for rich countries to control poorer countries.(that whole another book)
To answer your question, I don't know how someone would react to that question. There would need to be more of a back round of "why create a blockade" for anybody to answer that question.
The desire to not be part of the UN is to preserve one sovereignty and not have someone in more centralized placed and far from where you live decide what your laws and policies should be.
It is a fight for a more decentralized government so that the people have more control of how things function for themselves
FYI Kuchinich's plan was never on TV. His coverage, just like other candidate who didn't poll high or had major funds was limited and marginalized. That was something that one had to look and find for themselves. Did you ever stop to think why they slammed Hillary and Obama down our throats? I don't think most Republicans even liked McCain. Pretty odd that he got the nomination.
I don't expect any one to agree with another position, including those that organzied the tea parties. I wanted to share that what they are about was not truthfully covered in the mainstream / tv news media. I wanted to share that they have been usurped by the main stream media and there message is not as it appears.
They may have something you can learn and might want to be part of fighting for, or you may think that what they are about makes no sense to you. As of now if you saw the TV reports and that all you seen you been given a false picture of what they are about.
Sounds like either you don't know much about what these parties are all about or the parties themselves haven't thought everything through. I mean it was bad enough that microsoft outright crushed competition but that people to this day don't know means that leaving it up to some etheral "market forces" to correct microsoft would have been ridiculous. And that's just using an example such as microsoft. If companies and people are left to run wild with little or no government over sight we'd be back in the dark ages.
Sounds like either you don't know much about what these parties are all about or the parties themselves haven't thought everything through
your right, I don't know, nor does people themselves know what they are talking about. For any further info refer to FOX news or any other TV channel. The TV will tell you how a group of people all feel about a specific issue.
Well if you are saying you are an understudy since 1992 you would think that explaining something so basic as policy dealing with monopolies and unfair competition would be something you could explain at least to some degree. Its pretty important.... or maybe libertarions patriots and liberty party people don't care if companies form a monopoly and corner markets....?
I mean I suppose in a free market if a monopoly develops so be it right? Its up to the market to correct that monopoly rather than having referees (a government) regulate competition. Kind of sounds like communism, in which there are monopolies but they are run by the state. but rather than the profits going to the state in libertarian government it goes to the owners of the monopoly....
I mean I suppose in a free market if a monopoly develops so be it right? Its up to the market to correct that monopoly rather than having referees (a government) regulate competition
That exactly the mindset of a Libertarian. People will realize it is a monopoly and chose to take it down by not supporting it. You may agree or disagree. As I said, I'm not a Libertarian. I'm not the person to argue the merits of a how well such a course of actions with a monopoly will work out. Many scenarios could be played out.
It is also a libertarian mindset that one has to be responsible for their own actions, that includes not letting a monopoly take over a industry.
I mentioned already the answer to a Microsoft monopoly. I may be wrong since I don't know how to use it. It is my understanding that you can get whatever software you need to complete a task that Microsoft base software can supply by using freeware/shareware from Linxus.
FYI the liberty patriot movement is more concern with correcting government abuses then they even give thought to what to do in certain economic predicaments. It is a young movement. A kin to the youth of the Green movement. It focus's in on certain issues, but not all issues. Depending on the people that on involve you would have different mindset with each person on what to do in an financial/economic/supply and demand situation. Just like an issue of guns in the green movements, I have seen that move in different ways since 1992 depending on who is involved. It is not as important to the Green movement as say environmental pollution is. Trying to find answer to all these subjects is a struggle to each movement to find it self, just as we as individuals struggle to figure out which is proper direction to go on an issue. We are influenced by the stories we know and experiences we have with each issue to come to our conclusion. Some things we are decide on and it is set in stone some we still making our way through. These movements our no different.
PC, they do and it makes cents to them. As I said you may not agree with it, but some people do find this to be their truth
your right, I don't know, nor does people themselves know what they are talking about. For any further info refer to FOX news or any other TV channel. The TV will tell you how a group of people all feel about a specific issue.
Just out of curiosity, Sexy, do you really believe that anybody who is skeptical about, or applies any kind of critical thinking to, this movement is being told what to believe by mainstream corporate news? Or do you just have no actual counterargument?
Fuck politics.
Its all about MONEY.
Our county's gnp or gross national products are, in this order, Agriculture
Weaponry
Alcohol
Tobacco.
Tobacco and alcohol are facing serious tax issues, and losing revenue.
Our country has also been in a drought for 4 years, leading to the decline of agriculture production and revenue.
Do the math. Whats left for us to capitolize on?
america's motto,
WAR=MONEY
Welcome to the board ONEpedalDEATHkick 818.
What a long sign in you have. Your absolutely right, it is all about money. Govt usually controls the most wealth in the nation, that why it is such a big expensive race for most office positions.
What is the amount of GDP is Agriculture? Never thought about it much because it seems so benign. There is corn syrup and the Farm Bill subsides, ADM and unfair rights to water. It isn't that benign now that I think about it.
PC, Love your tolerance, but you can stop now. LaDuderina is already impressed with you. If you over do it she might stop being so woowed by you. There is a delicate balance you need to start walking here. You'll get it right, just don't come on to strong all the time. Chicks like a little sensitive side along with a overaggressive manly intellect.
what political party would you most identify with?this should be in the rotw thread, but I'll let slide since your the webmaster.
My political views like most people who take politics serious are too widespread to be identified with one party. I am registered Green. I usually vote along party lines for office holders, sometimes I go with the Libertarian candidate and on rare occasion vote DEM or REP candidate and I voted for the Green candidate 3 of the 4 last presidential elections. Over half the time I don't agree with the Green parties endorsement of ballot measures. But that doesn't have anything to do with the question does it.
@PC resist throwing up insults. No matter how left handed.
Quit whining, Sexy. I just asked you a question. Do you honestly believe that everybody who criticizes this movement is letting corporate news tell them what to believe, or is that just what you say when you don't have a rebuttal?
And as Roadblock pointed out, "some people find this to be their truth" is worse than useless as a defense. Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences. We just spent eight years under the sway of neoconservatives who thought that they could make up reality as they went along. Remember that ride we did to Arlington West a couple of years ago? It might help to remind yourself that each of those crosses in the sand represents a person who died because the real-world geopolitical and military facts in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't match some fuckhead's "truth."
Interesting that you mentioned tolerance, by the way. Let me just state unabashedly for the record that I have no tolerance for bad ideas. I think that bad political ideas should be rounded up, lined up in front of ditches, and shot--chiefly because they so often result in (among other things) people being rounded up, lined up in front of ditches, and shot. Speaking of which, doesn't it bother you just a little bit that in order to defend this "Liberty/Patriot movement,"* you have to downplay the very strong strain of racism and xenophobia that runs through it?
You're right about one thing: left and right are a false dichotomy. And if there's one thing that plainly demonstrates this, it's that the extreme "left" and the extreme "right" are both so riddled with fools who think that ideology can trump human nature and make history irrelevant. The market knows best! No need for social services, private charity will take care of the sick and poor! If we just murder enough peasants, people will someday be born instinctively knowing the benefits of centrally planned agriculture!
*Really, DB, how can you type that without smirking?
The document you referred to as a DRAFT actually was adopted by the convention on April 21 (that is, on day 2 of a 5 day conference). The media largely buried it, but you can see it for yourself at the UN website: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sgsm12197.doc.htm. This probably was news to you since nobody on the progressive side has any interest in letting the average joe see what a circus this conference was - facts like that undermine the cause. Mainstream reporters have no incentive to make their sources look like knaves and fools, so they aren't going to highlight it even if they do report it buried in paragraph 23 of a 28 paragraph story - just another of the difficulties of speaking truth to power.
Thus, my point about the conference being a farce where they make the decisions before the deliberations is valid. You can say that this type of process doesn't bother you, or that combatting racism and religious hatred is so important to you that you don't mind cutting a few corners here and there, but the fact remains that they rushed the adoption of final document from Friday to Tuesday to prevent deliberation on the final document.
As to the merits of the document, a couple of serious flaws are apparent on even a cursory inspection. The most obvious one is in paragraph 13 which states that
"any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law".
This prohibition is squarely at odds with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Do you really want it to be a criminal offense for someone to say "I hate mormons"? If so, you might want to consider scrubbing the archives from the Prop 8 threads before this becomes the law of the land. The U.N. document is purposefully vague, but its not hard to imagine that an aggressive prosecutor would interpret that provision to include any publication of prohibited ideas, and might come after both the writer of the statement "I hate mormons" and the operator of a website that permits someone to post such hateful content.
There are plenty of other nits to pick with this document, but the bottom line is that there is no way the U.S. could ever sign on to this (remember that the President takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, so he can't faithfully discharge his oath and sign on to this document), no way the Senate would ever ratify it if it came up as a treaty, and the process was a complete joke - the final document adopted before the conference deliberated on it.
Fighting racism (and religious hatred) is a noble and important goal. This conference does not meaningfully advance that goal. The President was right not to allow U.S. participation.
p.s. - CAPS are not your friend when you are WRONG :)
we don't have unrestricted free speech in the US my friend.
incitement to discrimination is tantamount to the "You can't yell fire in a theater" argument. you cant incite people in the US to actually harm people. in the US you can say anything right up until the point where you are inciting or enabling people to act in a discriminatory way. inciting a race riot for example.
so in other words under the "statement incitement to discrimination", you can sit there all day and say I hate mormons for example, but if you hold a position of authority to where you can "actually" restrict people's rights or cause physical harm to other people through your inciteful words or actions then you are culpable to the law. and that is why the US is BS'ing. the US already has laws on the books called hate crime laws that also deal with this kind of topic.
and it's a blurry line too, one that would require negotiation... so the US is just being a bitch and not participating because it would have to own up to it's racist policies around the globe.
you'd be surprised what speech is protected RB ---you can incite discrimination (take the KKK for example) you just can't incite violence
I read a case where the leader of the Jewish Defense League made a statement on TV or radio that basically told people to go out and kill Nazi leaders and the court ruled the speech was protected.
In 1978 Irv Rubin offered a $500 bounty to anyone who would wound or kill a member of the American Nazi Party. Indicted on solicitation of murder charges, he was acquitted in 1981. - wikipedia
I can't remember the court's reasoning, but I think it had to do with Rubin wasn't seriously advocated it was just a political maneuver or something...will have to go back through my notes. If someone acted on it, that person would be charged with murder, but Rubin would have no fault.
yelling fire in a theater is not free speech because....I know this...I know this.....I know this...there is no purpose behind it but to upset people I suppose...courts use tests to figure out whether the speech is protected or not, which I haven't studied since undergrad and have forgot. I will get back to you next year when I take con law, unless any actual lawyers (or constitutionally inclined laymen) want to step in here.
You need to read the whole sentence to see how dangerous it is: The prohibition is not of "incitement to discrimination" but also to"hostility" or "violence". Think hard about why they wrote it that way - if you outlaw incitement to discrimination and violence, you are pretty close to "tangible outcome not speech". Why then outlaw incitement to "hostility", too? The answer is obvious - to outlaw speech and not just tangible outcomes.
the legal definition of "hostility" is also of a tangible outcome not free speech. and you dont think the US could have removed that word with some negotiation? NEXT
On second thought, it isn't that obvious. They sugar coat it and put hostility in between the other terms so that it sounds harmless to reasonable people of goodwill (such as you). It isn't.
the point though my friend is that it's such a flimsy reason to give ahmadinijad all that media attention and make the US look weak by running away. only the western media dismisses the conference the other 5.5 billion people on the planet were represented.
dead serious. I'm at cafe tropical. I 've been here all day. I ate two veggie sandwiches - one for breakfast and one for lunch. and my dick stinks. isnt that enough reason to kill me? I'm right by the window. someone do a bike by shooting PLEASE
My point about the farce in the conference adopting the final document before deliberations is that we can negotiate all we want, but if the document has already been adopted, the language won't change.
As to the geneva convention, its pretty obvious when you read the whole final document that they are using "hostility" in a very different sense than the way "hostilities" is defined under the various Geneva Conventions. The point of including "hostility" in what is prohibited is to get to speech, not results.
Actually, they didn't do such a great job of hiding it. From later in paragraph 13:
"all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts shall be declared offence punishable by
law"
It seems you haven't read the final document if you think it doesn't seek to regulate speech and the dissemination of ideas.
are you a lawyer? just curious since you said you were in the law biz.... (obviously I'm not a lawyer)
c'mon dude look at the big picture... the arguing back and forth about these nit picky words and definitions we're missing the glaring point of it all...
that the big mighty US ran away from this conference when they could have made a HUGE difference in the lives of literally billions of people by simply growing a pair and working with the rest of the world... the entire world minus like 8 nations are working together on this... and the US just bails all over a couple words? and not only that they RAN from it so scared that they had to smear it hardcore in the media just to silence any criticism that might have eeped out.
My friend I dont believe the excuses told to me by the western media or the Obama administration. I mean are we in orwellian times here or what.
obviously you missed the whole point of what I was trying to share.
I was asked by somebody what the Tea Parties are about? I witnessed (heard, read about) the preparations, who was involved and what they where suppose to be about. I watched Main stream right wing media take the actions into a whole different direction and dilute what the original idea of the protest where about. I was trying to share that the info of the take over with people who had no idea what the protest where about until they heard about them from main stream media and it was taken to whole another meaning. So if you only heard what it was about from the corporate media you have no way of knowing what the original intent of the Tea Parties where suppose to be about. What other response to Sounds like either you don't know much about what these parties are all about or the parties themselves haven't thought everything through. could I have?
Just out of curiosity, Sexy, do you really believe that anybody who is skeptical about, or applies any kind of critical thinking to, this movement is being told what to believe by mainstream corporate news? Or do you just have no actual counterargument?
The point is that most people haven't really heard about this movement in any kind of depth to know anything about until they heard about from mainstream corp news and that is the only exposure to it that they had. So yes, you can only make a analysis from what you know about something. The person I was directing this to posed to me a question that appeared to me, that he hadn't heard about them before.
the Heaven's Gate followers also thought their beliefs made sense. they sure did and it was there right to live or end their life in the way that they saw fit. You can exchange heaven gates with Christian, Jews, Muslins, Buddhist, Santa Conners, Easter hoppers or who whatever religious group that others don't believe in. That is religion. What I'm talking about is political ideas.
"some people find this to be their truth" is worse than useless as a defense. Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences
How can you honestly say that one idea another person think is good but you think is bad is actually bad and not good! Is your rational of thinking the supreme and all knowing! How can you really understand an idea completely and fully unless you look at the opposing view in take those views into consideration, try to understand where the opposition is coming from and challenge that to what you believe to be a good idea. After you done that you still really don't know for sure if your idea is truly the best way of going about something, because you don't know if there is other aspects or consequences from that idea that hasn't even been thought up. Unless you know it all or already? I don’t know it all and try to keep my mind open to all opinions, even if they ended up being harmful suggestion. I feel if we had an open discussion and critical thinking in this society we could not only come to better conclusion through more info, but that the bad ideas would be so self evident that they would end up by the ways side.
I don’t agree with everything that is discussed taken up as an issue in these meetings. Just like I don’t agree with everything or most things on this board. But if you have asked me if I identified with Midnight Ridazz ? I would as most people on this board and on the rides would say yes.
I don’t even agree with the edicts of riding that most people on here agree is the safest way to ride. From the various meetings of widespread political opinions I have attended, I have learned plenty and gotten different prospective that have really helped me to have a richer understanding of various political issues. I have seen people dedicated to figuring out politics and what is going on in the world have a revelation when they find out a piece of information that is common place knowledge of people with different political stripes. II have seen this with both the extreme left and the extreme right. I don’t fear either the extreme political left or the extreme political left. I actually Identify myself with both. I have found more truth and knowledge in both movements that have helped me understand the world around and me then the center ever could offer me. The more I understand a problem the better understanding of a solution I can find to that problem.
Take for example â€the War on Drugs’ Some people think this is a good idea. I think not, do you think the people that see it is a good idea know any of the arguments to why it is so bad, probably not. Peoples life have been irrevocably ruined from the drug war but to mention decriminalization or legalization of DEA schedule 3 drugs that are sold in high quantities in the US inspires the reaction that the messenger of this idea should be shot.
How about Universal Health Care. Do you know the number one reason and biggest fear of the grass roots that is against it is? For those folks that had made it there #1 issue to fight UHC at every turn. There is one thing that they will fight for to the death in regards to this issue from not happening. It is so simple and anybody who supports universal health care knew what this one issue was they would be in agreement with and work to make sure that this one concern would never happen. If those that where supporters of universal health care knew this, they could lessen the opposition to it by addressing this one concern. What’s the point? The more a person takes the time to listen and understand all ideas and why somebody feels so strongly about them, they can understand where another person is coming from. Opening ones selves up to a different mindset or reality, either challenge their own conclusions, or strengthens their opposition to a certain issue
Speaking of which, doesn't it bother you just a little bit that in order to defend this "Liberty/Patriot movement,"* you have to downplay the very strong strain of racism and xenophobia that runs through it?
It does have racism and xenophobia in it, but not necessarily as strong as your statement or the Southern Poverty Law Center would like to portray it does. This whole society in which he live in has ingrained in its DNA racism and xenophobia. Not only the USA but the whole planet is rife with this disease. It is no different then what this society has in it.
The minority in this movement that does have the disease of racism and xenophobia uses the poor old argument of the financial strain and drain it has on this country. Being that this movement is a free speech open to all idea, most people in these meetings or get together listen to the two minutes of hate, roll their eyes and move on to the next topic of conversation.
Can try to keep this thread to posting of why Obama = Bush!
"Squandering international good will"? This is a photo of a crowd that wanted to hear him speak in Berlin. These folks definitely don't like Obama. Lol (pun intended)
I'm surprised you didn't see this all coming. He doing everything he said would. I'm just glad your all recognizing it now.
here is a little bit of Obama history that you may or may not know already. Its about the women created sub-prime mortgages and took a lawyer who was helping people stay in their homes that was being foreclosed. Took the lawyer from the streets to the State house of Illinois , to the US Senate to the US Presidency. Her name is Penny Pritzker the 135th richest person in the world. Made some of her fortune of the backs of you me (aka US govt).
Type her name and obama's in a search engine and see what you find.
a big ole BOOOO to Obama for continuing BUSH's military tribunals on guantanamo prisoners.
another big ole BOOOOO to Obama for not moving to prosecute the war criminals in the CIA and Bush Admin. If every president decides to "move on" rather than prosecute the crimes of the last then WHEN WILL IT END?
and another BOOOO for reneging on his promise to get a shelter dog for the White House. might seem trivial but it would have made a huge difference in the public eye towards reducing puppy mills.
a lot of the liberal talk show hosts say that Obama is playing chess while we are all playing checkers. I think that things don't work the way we expect them to, and progress is slow. I think we won't see much of anything right now, but maybe a few years after he's out of office...
also, Obama could just be protecting himself politically by not chasing after war crimes...but he has never told Congress or the Judiciary they cannot prosecute (at least not that I know of) and he HAS said that if the evidence is there, he will hold people accountable.....and those committees are currently gathering the evidence. So they are doing the dirty work without making him look vindictive or like he's chasing after somthing that is not there. I think Obama is a political genius.
I'm keeping the faith. Reluctantly and skeptically...but I'm keeping it.
he's amazing!!! super intelligent man. you should listen to his radio show. Every day he starts off with a conservative caller. And every day he makes that caller look like a moron using logic, reason and a calm voice.
You'd never see a conservative talk show host do that.
Hooray! The stock market is back up! Wall Street is stabilized! Thank god, for a while there I thought all the rich people/corporations were going to lose all of their money. We wouldn't want that now, would we? fucker.
I haven't read this thread in it's entirety. But, I'll chiime in by saying that we're not at war with any other countries besides the ones we were when Obama first took office. There's still food in my refrigiratior. There are still jobs available to people. There is still a structure in place that protects me from harm (although sometimes it's fucked). I can still go to college. I can still say what I want, mostly when I want. This country ain't the greatest, but it's a helluva lot better under Obama, I think, than it would have been under Bush if he were still in office.
Plant closed last day Aug 6th. I figured I'd have a nice stretch on Unemployment, maybe a fwe months off, go hang with my kids in the bay area go out to slab city, go to Death Valley and do some random roaming out in the desert.
NO
I started a new job Friday. Didn't even get ONE day off.
Thanks allot Mr. President.
Fuck all this stimulus.
Sometimes the economy needs to pull back and just chil for a year or two.
Like that chick that wrote Harry Potter while she was on unemployment.
my school isn't accepting any new students right now, they also raised tuition twice 10% followed by 20% and they cut teachers and course offerings.
bush didn't start any new wars in his second term and honestly, iraq had already been started by his daddy. obama IS stepping up the fight in afganistan.
New jobs available !
Check out the National Guard website.
Internment / relocation camp guard !
Yes you can get a job at the new FEMA internment camps
Camps are for those of you who refuse to get your H1N1 swine flu shot.
and other anti gov. disidents.
It seems anytime someone criticizes the current president people are quick to just invoke others to "leave the country" as if that's what the original poster was intended to do with his original crit.
The day you realize that presidents aren't chosen into power by the people, and haven't been since the Kennedy assassination, will we start seeing real progressive thinking and living.
Our growth is being stunted on every level possible.
really? that was almost a decade before 9/11 and you're defending Bush going into Iraq under completely false and manufactured and coerced evidence? i'm not a big fan of all of Obama's foreign policy, particularly supporting just about every flawed bush administration argument for gitmo detention and the lame-ass "states secret" argument, but Obama said he would step it up in Aphghanistan-he basically ran on that. recently the top taliban man was taken out. yes, drones have killed many innocents people and this is horrible. but obama is a pragmatist and i'm sure he's done the math that turning it up now, and therefore inflicting collateral damage, is best way to get us out faster.
i contributed and voted for him but if anybody thought that obama wouldn't start his own body count on day one they are sadly mistaken. how could he not? 2 wars are already in progress it was inevitable. the job of the president is UGLY and war is even uglier. he's already pulled all combat troops out of Iraq (and yes there's a lot more that need to go) but that is progress.
Obama spoke at an antiwar rally on 04 (i think) and he made the unpopular statement that he wasn't against war (*this country was born of the revolutionary war) but that he was against dumb wars.
just because there was a poster that made obama look like a revolutionary doesn't make him one. he's plodding, pragmatic and resolute. he'll get us there but it will be very deliberate, not erratic. that's why i voted for him.
120spaced responding to a comment by snowcone
08.9.09 - 12:56 pm
think for a moment before you speak...I am not saying that Iraq was at all linked to 9/11 in any way, but that is what the BUSH administration used as their excuse to go into Iraq. that should have been abundantly clear from the rest of my post, but it's clear reading and comprehension isn't your forte. you probably just saw 9/11 and started typing h's and a's. strong work.
The original purpose of this thread was for people to post the similarity or same policy that the Bush administration had as the Obama administration continued or escalated.
I created a different thread to compare the actual changes for the better that the Obama administration has made., called
you have a funny way of not arguing, but i agree there isn't an argument to be had.
Q: was the United States at war with Iraq starting with Bush I, through the Clinton administration, and into Bush II?
A: hell no.
saying the Iraq war was not 'lil Bush's fault, by contending he didn't start it, is a defending him. did daddy Bush have a beef with Saddam and Iraq? yes. but that's a far cry from being at war with a country.
my apologies to Sexy for hijacking the thread, but the idea that W's administration didn't start the Iraq war is absolutely ludicrous.
haha, i hate to have to keep this going, sorry! :D
your question was flawed. i talked about the START. your question does not mention the start. this article might explain why i consider the war to have been started by ghw bush:
Nobel peace prize?! What a sham. I love Obama and I know it's not his fault he received an errant nobel peace prize. And I know he only has so much power and influence (lest he be assassinated for truly affecting the status quo) But the man is sitting there while our troops and allies bomb refugees and people in dirt huts. He's done nothing to create peace in the Israel Palestine conflict and in fact ignored a rash of absolutely heinous war crimes committed in the gaza invasion. he has expanded the "war on terr" into Pakistan using robot drones to bomb people. He should have refused the prize outright or put it on hold until he does something significant. This is embarrassing.
I "THINK" it has more to do with pushing the agenda toward peace.
I think they awarded him the prize for his efforts towards creating an atmosphere of peace...
The argument is: what atmosphere would that be? Continued bombing? Call that peace?
No... but I think the award is an attempt to encourage the approach toward resolving many of the difficult issues. I think/ assume the persons who nominated Obama, are hoping the award will push the "peace" agenda, which is honestly a completely different rhetoric than the previous prez. But all in all--its just rhetoric (mostly).
You might want to give them the benefit of the doubt, that maybe they saw it as their part to use Obama "status" and his talk about peace, as a chance to create more peace--which is their goal at the end of the day (utilitarian? maybe--but whats an award to someone deserving if it the award doesn't do anything really?). I think the award "might" do more this time around.
[by the way, the president doesnt have enough power, at least not enough for why the blame of so many ills]
md2 responding to a comment by Roadblock
10.9.09 - 9:43 am
I hate to sound flippant but what you are saying md2 is that this man is actually setting the tone to bring about any change (remember that one) in regards to working for peace. Zbigniew Brzezinski said it best when he said "It doesn't matter who is president, American Foreign Policy is continuous" What you are saying sounds like you are hopeful that Obama will bring about a climate of peace. The man is now considering sending 45,000 more troops to Afghanistan, yes he doesn't have all the power (AIPAC holds great control over our Congress) but he has enough power to increase or decrease how much fighting the US/Nato will bring upon the world.
If Obama really wanted to move those in Guantanamo out of camp X-Ray, he could have been creative with some black budget or other budget monies. That legislation gave him an "out" to keep the status quo in that situation.
I will chalk this Nobel Peace Prize to being akin to Henry Kissinger receiving it in 1973. At least Le Duc Tho had the respect to decline the jointly awarded prize stating there was still no peace in his country. I love that armament dealer {named in his obituary Le marchand de la mort est mort ("The merchant of death is dead")} who invented dynamite has a annual peace prize with money being awarded from his original profits of finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before. The whole things is as much of a joke as saying Obama was the peace candidate.
sexy responding to a comment by md2
10.9.09 - 10:30 am
like i said... its mostly rhetoric. Its looks like more of an attempt to highlight...or push... a "kind" of rhetoric.
The only difference with giving it to Obama...(outside of adding to his other worldliness)... is that I THINK... they want to pressure him (or corner), so to speak,... into keeping his word. The award has more longevity in the media, rather than a news cycle for someone else. That why Al Gore received it... it wasnt that he was most deserving... but rather it furthered something more important...
Im guessing...thats the case here (note it happened before he increased troop levels)...
Nothing new under the sun.
md2 responding to a comment by sexy
10.9.09 - 10:55 am
Despite weather or not he really deserves this or not, I think it was a clever decision made by the committee to award him this prize.
The Nobel Prize is a very significant award.
Obama will now be recognized for many lifetimes of being a holder of this.
Therefore, I believe that Obama, at the brink of increasing troops to Afghanistan and pressure of by the Military Industrial Complex to continue to wage wars, he will be inspired to possibly make better decisions that will lend toward fulfilling the prophecy that this award is holding in his name. It is a significant added pressure to ensure that he will hold up to this award's promise. Otherwise he will become a joke in the eyes of the world if he doesn't end up standing up to this award.
I have read his books, and I think that he is a compassionate and intelligent person. I am hoping that this move by the Nobel prize committee will actually propel the U.S. into a brighter view by the rest of the world. Perhaps we may see some actual change in the next decade to come. Or, maybe I am hoping for too much.
Time will tell for us now. Also, the continuing voice of the citizens support to reduce waging war and increasing diplomacy will be finally effective vs. the anti war stance that we have had that has not been of any benefit to our cause. That's what I foresee.
1. War President
2. Semi-War President
3. No War President
4. Kind of, Sort of War President
5. Dont like War, but if I must President
These kinds of threads, where people assume because they did something so simple as "not vote for x", somehow washes the blood off their hands--is retarded. I can post pics too... but if Obama ends of solving all the ills of the world.... I dont think my vote for him is much of anything... as was your vote against him (i presume).
What did you vote against Obama do? Give you a platform to speak on? Credibility? I dont get it.
md2 responding to a comment by sexy
10.9.09 - 12:23 pm
The conservative lament over Barack Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is quickly becoming a site to behold. On his radio show just now, Rush Limbaugh went so far as to trumpet the fact that he is basically in agreement with the Taliban and Iran in thinking that the president was a "worldwide" joke.
"I think that everybody is laughing," Limbaugh said, in a segment picked up by Media Matters. "Our president is a worldwide joke. Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award. Now that's hilarious, that I'm on the same side of something that the Taliban, and that we all are on the same side as the Taliban."
For many years... I recalled this Nobel Prize speech... and maybe Obama should echo the same sentiments in his:
"Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only one question: When will I be blown up?"
--William Faulkner
md2 responding to a comment by Joe Borfo
10.9.09 - 12:43 pm
The framing of your question creates the assumption that a vote will actually change something.
As for Obama solving the ills of the world, there is no way somebody of Obama's back round (just look at his voting record during the campaign, not his great writing or awesome speeches) or of those of put him into office will do nothing but make things worse for the people of this country and of the world (unless your somebody who exploits resources, people and money).
I was trying to inform people of who Obama is and what and who he stands for, before the election and today, to foil the myth created by his empty words of hope and change. Why do this? Many people have come to concluded that any change from those of the ilk of Bush would be better on any level. The reality is that any major candidate put to the top of their ticket will result in more of the same policies (they are paid for by the same money interest). By talking about this more and more people are realizing that our US govt policies are the same and/or a continuance from administration to administration (minus social issues such as abortion). When people realize this they make a fundamental change in the realization that voting for a major party candidate will give us the same policies.
My goal is that at the very least in regards to electoral politics, the next time they vote, that they may take a closer look at the candidate and vote for someone that truly reflects there own stance on the issues. I don't know too many people that are supportive of policies that resulted in what is shown in those pictures I posted. That why I posted them to create a connection between their vote, the person they elected into office and the results of the elected persons action, the Peace Prize winner.
sexy responding to a comment by md2
10.9.09 - 1:35 pm
"That why I posted them to create a connection between their vote, the person they elected into office and the results of the elected persons action, the Peace Prize winner."
--thats my point... thats a weak, and easy way to suggest a connection. It's as if you think, voting for Obama was the flipside to be one these persons:
"I don't know too many people that are supportive of policies that resulted in what is shown in those pictures I posted."
--I think people voted for Obama because he articulated something different than Bush... but your contention is: no, no, no, its the same. Ok... well, I think there is enough "difference" to most, that they understand essentially why he was awarded the peace prize (whether they agree or not).
Imagine if they gave it to Bush... in all fairness, you and I both know it would not happen because....
And the point still is... Obama is different enough... and for arguments sake: enough being, whether by fancy speeches or solid abs... he is unlike Bush (enough),
I agree, from my mere citizen status, the award is silly. Its a good, smart move... but like almost all awards...it doesnt reflect the current deserving recipient.
A good analogy to counter my point would be:
So lets suppose Hitler and his regime is removed, and some new German leader steps up, and tries to rectify the ills not only of his/her country, but of some other global issues (all of which Hitler did not do). Moreover, this German leader only speaks of and makes efforts to negotiate along these spoken terms, but many of the policies under Hitler (which he/she inherited), were kept in tact.
Okay...
1. If Bush had Hitler-esk policies, then it would be the same
2. If Obama continued such policies, the award would not make sense.
But the general jist of the objection, I believe is sound:
Why are we granting an award to someone who is merely taking a different stance verbally, but not in in action? Are we awarding based on a change in climate (pun intended)?
I think the answer is "yes".
Obama is verbally (at least) setting a standard for which to judge his decisions. That is commendable at least. Is it worthy of a nobel peace award? NO...
But if that award help keep Obama on a course to keeping his word, and holding him to it--is the award worth giving? Yes... thats why I mentioned the utilitarian aspect of the prize.
so be it.... only time will tell. Its his legacy and ours (including yours) on the line
md2 responding to a comment by sexy
10.9.09 - 1:56 pm
OBAMA WILL USHER US IN TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER. I HEAR THE DOLLAR IS ABOUT TO BE A RELIC OF THE PAST IN THE MIDDLE EAST? EVERYTHING SOUTH OF OUR BORDER IS USING OUR DOLLAR - THE SAME DOLLAR THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE HOLDING UP AS IT ONCED USED TO, WHICH BY THE WAY, IS GETTING HARDER AND HARDER TO COME BY (UNEMPLOYMENT IS AT WHAT PERCENT NOW?) THIS RECESSION IS ABOUT TO GET A LITTLE DEEPER SO BRACE YOURSELVES.
HE'S A PUPPET... AND SO ARE YOU IF YOU BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS (OH, AND WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A PRESIDENT WROTE HIS OWN SPEECH? I MEAN, DON'T THEY HAVE PEOPLE TO WRITE THEM OR AM I SEMI-DELUSIONAL?)
-Dexter- responding to a comment by profoscurity
10.9.09 - 2:55 pm
My goal is that at the very least in regards to electoral politics, the next time they vote, that they may take a closer look at the candidate and vote for someone that truly reflects there own stance on the issues.
that will never work until we get proportional representation. unfortunately, most americans have no idea what those words even mean, and if they did would be too terrified to change the system.
Me, my soul and my conscience, we argue night and day
about all these problems around us,
But when my conscience says yes, my soul says no,
So argue, yes, but what for?
Because me, I'm fed up,
My me says to me that he's fed up,
My me, he says that he's fed up,
For me life is a nightmare!
If you all had read my post on this thread this morning, you would have seen that I said that I thought that the Oslo Committee was very clever in the TIMING of choosing this award for OBAMA.
Weather he really deserves it or not, I believe that this may make a great impact on his future decisions as a wartime president. I'm not saying I am pro Obama or anything, but he sure is a step in a better direction than what we had. There is a difference.
The whole SWINE FLU / Y2K Vaccine bullshit is coming out soon too. I think the whole thing is really fishy, and i do not trust the CDC and what they say about H1N1 virus. I think it's a hoax designed to benefit the drug companies.
Perhaps there is some NWO being set up, but we don't have enough evidence to be convinced of this theory.
I'm not sure why I brought that up, but I feel as if this is a pivotal moment coming up for the United States. This may be our last opportunity to remain a stable nation. It really is in Obama's hands as to what direction he leads the country in.
I would like to make a prediction:
I say that when he gives his formal speech in acceptance of his Nobel Prize Award, he is going to announce the pulling of troops from Iraq AND Afghanistan as a symbol that he is willing to try to stand up to what this award represents. That's fine if you don't believe me, but I have a hunch. You can give me shit about it AFTERWARD.
I guess I am an optimist. Which isn't inherently good or bad. However, my point is that the folks that picked Obama as the Nobel Prize recipient have put some good thought into their decision. I think that reasoning is to INFLUENCE Obama's decision making. If that is true, then I think it is brilliant. Let's see how this plays out... Yeah, I know - Too long, didn't read. whatever, go ride your bike. blah blah blah.
Rush Lies again.... Iran did congratulate Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize:
It's not easy to find this news chunk but it's out there. but Ahmadinejad congratulates Obama
"Iran: win should push Obama to help end world injustice
The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Obama Friday should prompt him to start working towards ending injustice in the world, an aide to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said.
"We hope that this gives him the incentive to walk in the path of bringing justice to the world order," said Ali Akbar Javanfekr, Ahmadinejad's media aide.
"We are not upset and we hope that by receiving this prize he will start taking practical steps to remove injustice in the world."
In particular, Javanfekr outlined two areas where he said Obama must act to prove he is worthy of the prize.
"If he removes the veto from the United Nations Security Council, then it shows the prize was given correctly to him," Javanfekr said.
Javanfekr also said Obama "has to say what he has done to narrow the gap between the haves and have nots in the United States and in the nations under US influence.
He must also show "that the United States has decided not to throw away its wheat surpluses but give them to African nations.""
Roadblock responding to a comment by Joe Borfo
10.9.09 - 6:28 pm
ahhh Joe, your post is awesome. I really hope you are right. I love predictions like this....
Obama is not in control..... the powers that be want the Iraq and Afganistan wars to continue for as long as possible. low level wars that keep Iran surrounded and Iraq weak with unrest. thats the plan for the next 20 years. the US may never truly leave these countries. the embassy in Iraq being as huge and fortified as it is, proves this theory.
Roadblock responding to a comment by Joe Borfo
10.9.09 - 6:49 pm
They won't ever leave. The plan is to OWN Iran. to OWN the whole fucken thing. The middle east, I mean. They want the OIL, instead of finding ways to be oil independent, they'd rather kill people to get more. the united states is worse than a meth addict when it comes to oil. don't they know that the first country independent of oil will be the most powerful of all?
Obama is just a ploy. He was put there by the people in charge to quiet the liberals down. they are still doing what they want. and by they I mean the real people running shit, the CEOs of the most powerful corporations.
I can't even pay attention to what goes on anymore. I get anxiety attacks.
Here's what ol' Barrie had to say about his..."prize"...
Lindsay --
This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.
So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.
think of it more like a mafia King pin. They aren't the addicts they are the controllers. The US gets most of it's oil from its neighbors, Canada and Mexico. They want to control the Energy in that area. Look at a map; Europe to the west, China to the east, and India to the south. This is the worlds biggest population area(China and India). Also the biggest area of productions. Also the reason capital flight and means of production purposely left the US in the 1990's and sent to China and India. To create more wealth for the oligarchs.
Why is NATO so involved with the Caucasus to the North. To try to overcome Russia and control any gas shipments out of Russia to Europe or India.
Control this area and you control the world. Now...can they do it before bankrupting the US dollar????
sexy responding to a comment by la duderina
10.10.09 - 11:26 pm
Idea ? what about a prime time TV canadate show ?
Instead of American Idol americans can phone in votes for who they want
as a canadate for president.
Each contestant would go through a screening process to make sure of eligibility.
eliminating the chance of electing someone who has no birth certificate.
Then they would be given a one minute spot to voice there agenda.
Each week those left would be allowed to update there ideas.
A big old boo to Obama for doing anything less then demanding a new electIonin Afghanistan. Instead he backs Karzai and in doing so angered millions of afghanis and gave cause for them to prolong their resistance. Weeks before the election in fact US troops "secured" the southern areas of afghanistan basically bombing areas that would have come out strong for the opposition. Backing karzai will ensure that this
war will last another 5 years and it's completely hypocritical to criticize Iran for their election and then back a completely obviously corrupt and violently oppressed election in US occupied Afghanistan.
Anybody have any comments on the upcoming Copenhagen treaty ?
Is this really the end of our sovereignty and constitution ?
Looks like Obama will sign it.
Climate change, pollution and human rights are a global issue. The US should sign on to the ICC and become a signatory to any treaty that reduces waste and pollution.
Roadblock responding to a comment by Dedicated818
11.4.09 - 7:34 pm
Seems your ignorant to the ramifications of signing this treaty
This puts the US under UN control and bypasses our constitution
The USA is the only free and armed society on the planet.
Once we are under the control of the UN the globalist bankers will truly rule us.
We are a pen stroke away from having a govt similar to communist China.
To bad most people don't get it, only after they have lost there rights
will they will understand what happened.
Good. The US NEEDS to be under UN control. This is no longer an earth full of sovereign nations. No nation can act aloneon this technology linked world. The bankers have been running shit since money was invented.
And hey, we should be so lucky to have what communist china has. They've pulled all 1 billion of themselves into position to take over as the world's next super power. Except they have strong unions, cradle to grave health care and layers of employees of state industry. China is on the rise. Their system is working to bring themselves out of poverty as a nation, while our country erodes into selfish greed. Commerce means more than human happiness. China has committed to leading environmental reforms and is exporting it's industry to other countries and making more money meanwhile our country is producing mcWorkers and McConsumers.
What rights are we losing under the UN system? We would be gaining rights. The UN is a world body. We need to be part of the world community or lose out.
Roadblock responding to a comment by Dedicated818
11.4.09 - 11:38 pm
China ? honestly
They have expanded at the expense of the worker.
China is a slave state, that exploits human rights.
If you are deemed a enemy of the state or criminal, your taken to a slave labor
camp with out trial. It is also a fact that some of these prisoners become
organ donors. Torture is common and accepted.
Lost rights ?
1st amendment, freedom of speech and assembly. This was demonstrated at
the recent G20 summit.
MR exist because of the 1st amendment
2nd amendment, right to keep and bear arms. This protects the 1st amendment.
The 2nd amendment is also in place so the people can protect themselves from
a tyranical govt. like we have now.
The UN is the enemy to our freedoms.
The plan is to bring the USA down to a 3rd world level
The corporate globalist bankers have already taken steps in this order,
such as exporting jobs and industry overseas.
Thus the Mcworker
Our country is at the zero hour, your freedoms and future are in jeopardy
"China ? honestly
They have expanded at the expense of the worker.
China is a slave state, that exploits human rights.
If you are deemed a enemy of the state or criminal, your taken to a slave labor
camp with out trial. It is also a fact that some of these prisoners become
organ donors. Torture is common and accepted."
LOL well, not that I tried to portray China's human rights record as any better than the US.... but if you must, the example you are using up top will do. here is your statement but I substituted truths about the US. see if it sounds exaggerated and basically the same as what you said about china...
The United States ? honestly
They have expanded at the expense of the worker.
workers rights in the US is on the decline. labor laws hardly enforced. unions are to be crushed... workers typically get no vacation time and sometimes a week of time after a year of working....those are some harsh conditions for legal workers.... imagine the harsh treatment illegal workers get in the United States.
The United State is a slave state, that exploits human rights.
If you are deemed a enemy of the state or criminal, your taken to a densely populated prison camp with a quick trial - if you have money you can usually get off - if you are middle eastern you go to guantanamo bay. Torture is common and accepted.
"Lost rights ?
1st amendment, freedom of speech and assembly. This was demonstrated at
the recent G20 summit."
and at the RNC and DNC but I digress
"MR exist because of the 1st amendment
2nd amendment, right to keep and bear arms. This protects the 1st amendment.
The 2nd amendment is also in place so the people can protect themselves from
a tyranical govt.........zero hour, your freedoms and future are in jeopardy"
do you really believe it's not already over? I mean do you still believe in the idea of nation states? cause, none of the ruling class think about it like that anymore... people are becoming more worldly man. It's a smaller and smaller world, and of course there is always going to be changes.... this nation, best I can tell, began deteriorating when the military became a paid job and the draft was abolished. That lack of attachment to our foreign policy is doing a number on this country. it's not a sovereign nation. it belongs to energy companies and bankers....
the good news is that the current wealthy powerful people are growing old and passing on so that the next crowd of wealthy people can twist the world in another direction. you'll never have total freedom in any system... might as well start going global. it's the future.
Roadblock responding to a comment by Dedicated818
11.5.09 - 3:45 pm
You have to realize how International law works. It will not invalidate our Constitution...the United States is a dualist country...meaning we treat our domestic law as supreme unless Congress specifically enacts legislation that makes the treaty the law of the land.
furthermore, countries are allowed to submit reservations, meaning that they opt out of certain aspects of the treaty. the US is known for always submitting large amounts of reservations and it has never before agreed to anything that conflicts with what our own Constitution says, or just agrees to it but reserves the fact that it will be interpreted in lieu of our constitution.
It probably won't be as bad as you are making it out to be, Dedicated. I mean, it's already bad...but it's not this treaty that will make us a third world country...it's our leaders and CEOs of major corporations that are hell-bent on running the entire globe. That is your New World Order, CEOs running the planet for a profit.
The treaty you're talking about hasn't even been negotiated yet, let alone signed or ratified, but here you go, spouting off half-baked conspiracy theories about how Copenhagen is the end, the of all our freedoms.
Look, I understand that there's been some hyperventilating discussion on talk radio and the interwubz about some draft provisions on payments to developing nations (amounting to a whopping 0.5% of US GDP, if I remember correctly - scary!), but if you're taking any of that at face value, you're a stooge. Whatever strong language exists in early drafts will be immediately watered down once the actual meeting starts. In order to get the US and China onboard, there will need to be so many concessions and exemptions included that the agreement will end up basically having no teeth.
I suspect that in the end, Copenhagen will be just as ineffective as Kyoto when it comes to actually avoiding climate change. It will set utterly inadequate emissions reductions targets and leave it up to the signatory nations to design and implement policies that will achieve those targets. And the signatory nations will drag their feet and twiddle their thumbs until the current treaty expires and they have to design a new one. But I'm probably just being cynical here. The point is, whatever you have read in early drafts of the treaty (or simply read about the treaty in some online masturbatorium for wingnuts), the US is not going to sign, let alone ratify, something that condemns it to third world status.
What it sounds like (and feel free to correct me here) is that, all evidence aside, you have convinced yourself that this simply must be part of some huge conspiracy. I'm sure this idea fits neatly into the narrative you've built about a NWO that, like some villain in an Ayn Rand novel, must suck the liberty out of every living thing because... well, just because. But your going to look very foolish (or, rather, even more foolish) when the actual treaty emerges and does basically nothing at all.
I say that when he gives his formal speech in acceptance of his Nobel Prize Award, he is going to announce the pulling of troops from Iraq AND Afghanistan as a symbol that he is willing to try to stand up to what this award represents. That's fine if you don't believe me, but I have a hunch. You can give me shit about it AFTERWARD.
I guess I am an optimist. Which isn't inherently good or bad. However, my point is that the folks that picked Obama as the Nobel Prize recipient have put some good thought into their decision. I think that reasoning is to INFLUENCE Obama's decision making. If that is true, then I think it is brilliant. Let's see how this plays out... Yeah, I know - Too long, didn't read. whatever, go ride your bike. blah blah blah.
I just finished reading "Going Rogue", so I been under the impression everything is fine tuned like a mill worker cranking the ol' V8 double Hemi engineered by the workmanship of the American spirit that flies like a patriotic eagle on the wings of freedom toward the conservative justice of fiscal capital real time editing on the cutting room floor of economic agility, better known as Alaskan dog sled realism.
either way, La Duderina got a mountain bike.
md2 responding to a comment by sexy
12.4.09 - 7:24 pm
finally an appropriate time to say "I told you so"
Why do you think I was so sure he was going to win? We was everything wall street, big oil, media, military/intelligence industrial complex, globilization proponents, education privatizers, big agribusiness wanted and more. The sad part of it is, was that he was telling us this and acting the part during the election and hardly anybody took notice.
To answer your question "NO", but I will give the $300 to Elliot Spitzer in your name if he tries to challenge Obama for the Democratic Nomination in 2012
If you had a ranking of modern presidents over-all, taking in to consideration their (domestic and foreign policy, economic policy, protection of freedoms, and whatever else you would consider to be important)
are they all equals or do you appreciate the accomplishments of any over any other?
here they are in chronological order if you have no opinion about a particular president you can put N/A
Truman
Eisenhower
Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush 1
Clinton
Bush 2
Obama
The R-complex is named for the most advanced part of the brain higher mammals share with reptiles. It is responsible for rage and basic survival fight-or-flight responses.[1][dubious – discuss][not in citation given] Often, the R-Complex can override the more rational function of the brain and result in unpredictable, primitive behavior in even the most sentient of creatures, humans included. A well developed and healthy neo-cortex can monitor R-Complex activity in sentient beings. The Reptilian complex is the most ancient part of a very successful brain scheme, evolutionarily speaking
Maybe we're all reptilian illuminati varmint and we just choose to not believe it (again, our reptilian mind overriding our more rational function of the brain)
What? Now the government is making it easier to find Maya, Inca and Aztec people all over the continent for what? To make it easier to kill these ancestors to some of the most technologically advanced people? I smell more conspiracy theories.
Regardless that a majority of the American people do not want THIS Health Care bill
to pass, It has been stated by your President that it's going to happen no matter what !
Hum ? does he work for us or the Corporate NWO ?
Is this one more step towards government control of your life ?
COMRADS MANDITORY HEALTH CARE FOR ALL !
A change of heart? Weren't you one of his initial backers?
@ everyone: quite fooling yourselves. This man, is just that... a man. And a man can be bought (and used to be sold as well) so this really should not come as a shock to anyone.
Wake up.
Bikekowski responding to a comment by shotgunBOOMBOOM
06.13.10 - 8:48 pm
bam bam is a more sophisticated puppet. damn republicans are glad the heavy load is off them, knowing the next person on the job wouldn't do much, causing folks to shit on him/her/political party. then they're try to sweep the next time elections come in. unless, this fool proves us wrong.
Fucking idiots. Obama is just another in a long list of puppets that you thought would bring change.
He hasn't done much, if anything at all. Stop being deluded into believing that this man will bring about a change this whole country will see and stand behind.
You simpletons make me sick. I see why Dedicated818 has so much contempt for you.
After reading through this whole thread, I can appreciate when someone realizes what's really going on. Good for you shotgunboomboom. Now do something about it.
[No. It just means that they don't recognize Israel as a legitimate government in what they see as (the formerly secular state of) Palestine.]
There has never been a 'state' of Palestine, secular or otherwise. Prior to Israel's independence, Palestine was part of the British Mandate. Prior to that it was part of the Turkish Empire.
[ The world has now been witness to the aftermath of the declaration of a religious state]
Israel has never been a religious state. Israel is the homeland of the Jewish People, however what the state defines as Jewish is completely different from the far more restrictive definition used by the Jewish religion. The vast majority of Jews in Israel are completely secular and often know almost nothing about their religion and despise their orthodox neighbors.
[When "the powers that were" declared an independent Jewish state in Palestine in 1948 they did so at the peril of millions of people both non-Jewish and Jewish]
Prior to the Declaration of Independence, UNSCOP (UN Special Committee on Palestine) recommended a partition of the land. The Arab League and the Arab world in general completely rejected the partition plan. Israeli independence was only declared on the portion of Palestine originally recommended for the Jewis in the partition plan. The next day, the combined armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq invaded Israel. The rest is history.
This last week of negation between Obama and The Democrats and The Republican bring clear definition to the title of this thread. They have allowed the 1% super-rich of this country who owns 50% of the wealth to keep their tax breaks.
The Republicans who won the majority of house seats on the strength of the Tea Party movement agreed with the Democrats to deficit fund The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. The whole strength of The GOP election wins
was based on repealing parts if not all of the act. They didn't even go after the IRS 1099a provision for purchases over $600. This provision was the rallying cry on real right wing media (not what you think is right wing media such as Fox News) as one of the most small business suppressive part of the bill.
Beside the Health Care Bill The Democrats won 13 months of unemployment benefits for the out of work poor.
As our countries deficit gets larger the dollar gets weaker. Those check will buy less and less.
They didn't leave out the lowest earners of the working poor, they actually got a tax increase, by the the removal of The Making Work Pay Tax Credit.
The top earners of this country make up 1% of us and they own owns 50% of the countries wealth. The next 19% of the people down the ladder owns 49% of the wealth.
Next, the majority of us (80%) owns 1% of the wealth.
Only if you are the 1% who owns 50 percent the wealth or the 19% who owns the
other 49% does it makes sense to me to support or identify yourself with either of these political organizations. They don't care about the 80% of us who own next to nothing, they just want you to vote for them.
the tax giveaway includes a $120 billion reduction in Social Security – reducing the FICA wage withholding from 6.2 per cent to 4.2 per cent. The plan to dovetail neatly into his Bowles-Simpson commission pressing to reduce Social Security as a step toward its ultimate privatization.
Obama Drug War > Bush's Drug War >>>> then Regan's Drug
"the overall drug control budget continues to grow, the ratio between treatment and prevention (36 percent) and interdiction and enforcement (64 percent) remains the same as that found in the Bush administration budget in fiscal year 2009. Expenditures for "lock 'em up" approaches continue to climb."
. John Carnevale, former director of planning and budget at the ONDCP, testified before a Congressional subcommittee charged with reviewing the 2011 drug control budget in April that "with the arrival of the Obama administration came the hope that a new budget would emerge that would redress the failures of the past"; but instead the new budget looks much like the old one. To make matters worse, Carnevale explained, the 2011 budget does not represent a comprehensive accounting of federal drug control expenditures. Many spending categories that have been counted as "prevention" or "treatment" are actually funding law enforcement or non-drug-related programs—calling into question the claim that treatment funding is on the rise. In Carnevale's words, "The last time this nation saw such a large emphasis on supply reduction was the Reagan administration."
Amazing! A long list of complaints and OMG! Obama is doing that and OMG! Obama is not doing this and wah and whine all being typed comfortably on a computer while probably sipping on your morning brewed coffee. Lame!
From the streets, to the biking community, to the job you work, to the white house, politics are the same.
Now please allow the politicians that were voted into office the opportunity to continue destroying as much as they can or get off your arse and go be the change you want to see.
Well, as the deficits deepen and the gap between the rich and the rest of America widens, you can look back and see how you stood on the issue. I'm not predicting it, but I sincerely hope this country does not slip into another great depression.
Joe Borfo responding to a comment by ridetime
12.15.10 - 3:28 pm
My stance is simple, support the lesser of the evil. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Rethuglicans stand for nothing except excess for the rich. They buzzed up the word socialism and got dumb folks all over America scared..Omg! Socialism. Helllooooo! What the hell do they think Wall street is, Insurance, hell pick a program and tell me which one is not a socialist program for the rich. let me know when you come up with something, I'll be riding my bike until then.
ridetime responding to a comment by Joe Borfo
12.15.10 - 7:07 pm
I feel like the steps it would take to genuinely repair this system are so simple.
Yet we are kept distracted by everything but.
If we switched to instant runoff / aka ranked voting it would start to disintegrate the impenetrable grasp that the two parties have on our entire system, from gerrymandered districts to the shutting out third parties in 99% of all elections.
If we reformed our election process so corporations and the mega-wealthy didn't have such an disproportionate voice in who gets elected, we would start seeing candidates who actually have the ability to promise and deliver on the things that real people care about. Instead of a bunch of automatons who almost always protect the interests of the mega-wealthy first and foremost.
They are really simple solutions, and super easy to effect.
I think thats why we see so much bickering about bullshit, its perfect to distract us and keep us squabbling over symptoms rather than dealing with the real problems that plague our system: corruption, undue influence, and lack of choices.
That said, anybody who can't detect LOTS of sharp distinctions between Obama and Bush either doesn't pay attention, is self deluded, or is a complete moron.
The Obama = Bush argument is Ludicrous. Many people pay close attention and me personally I see 2 different people. You're reference has no merit because Obama inherited. The only thing Obama is guilty of is the following: Black man, cleaning up the white house for the next politician to take over. That's what i'm pissed off at him about. Why the hell did you have to be the first Black man in office cleaning up all the bullshit some white guy left behind. You don't need a Harvard degree to realize how stupid that is.
Anyone who thought Obama was going to be elected, get into office, call his generals and say Okay we're done in Iraq and Afghanistan, pull out. You're delusional.
Anyone who thought he was going to take office and then in 1 year, close a prison that houses terrorist criminals with no place to relocate them. You're delusional.
Anyone who thought he was going to take office and in 2 years, right a ship that's been sinking for 8 years, you're delusional.
Welcome to the real world where it takes time, money, and a whole lot of ass kissing to make shit happen.
One other thing, replace every politician with an all new group of do gooders and in 10 years, we'll be right back where we started. I offer the politics of the many groups here on Midnight Ridazz as a classic example of "My shit, is better than you're shit".
But then I could just be a complete moron.
ridetime responding to a comment by trickmilla
12.15.10 - 8:46 pm
I should have probably clarified in the beginning my intentions to creating this thread. I think I did in the thread "props to Obama".
Myself like most people who voted for Obama (which I can say I didn’t)
are of the liberal bent. I feel the US shouldn’t be invading other countries, we should have a sympathetic policy towards immigrants, should make it easier for students to get educated, help the less fortunate in our society, support a progressive tax base, have less government intrusion into our personal lives,
shouldn’t be punishing people for medical problem(habits, recreation)/drug
use, have single payer health care, etc.
I think most people saw Bush was a warmonger, supportive of the haves and have mores forget everybody else - taxs breaks for the rich everybody else pays, taking away privacy and rights in the name of fighting terrorism, free market for everybody else, socialism for the rich, feeling that if you can’t afford health care - education - retirement a national disaster it your fault, and the list goes on and on.
The commercial of candidate Obama portrayed himself as someone of that liberal bent. Someone who was the opposite of Bush. If you looked close enough (not just listen to his speeches) his policy was almost the same as Bush as Clinton before him. I felt people got "had" with brand Obama, actually thinking they where going to get something different. I tried to share that with people then, and try to show people that by listing different action President Obama is taking and implementing that it is the same policies as Bush’s and Clintons before him. It is a continues seamless policy for the last 32 years in The Office of the President.
Those who are of the right/conservative bent will vilify The sitting President who is suppose to have a so called liberal agenda (Democrat) and the same goes to for the left bent people vilifying the Republican Presidents.
The thing about the Democratic presidents is that they can get away with more harmful policies, without too much resistance then Republican President can get away with. I don’t remember anybody getting to upset when the US started bombing Yugoslavia, I was one of ten people at a local emergency protest the day the bombing started. It wasn’t even talked about.
Nobody showed too much anger about all the bombing that happened on Iraq when Clinton was president, or the sanctions that nearly killed a generation of Iraqis. Bush in his second term could have never passed NAFTA and GATT it wasn’t too hard for Clinton to pass it and he still got support from labor unions. Obama becomes president escalates military actions and the anti-war movement goes home.
Now nobody is blaming Obama about the scanners at the airports, the wars of aggression that he is the leading and expanding. Nobody is crying about the continuation of the policy that the President and the Secretary of Defense (who was Bush Secretary of Defense too) ability to take away your citizenship and have you held indefinitely without due process, or to have you as US citizen murdered in a foreign country if they say so. This is all legally. People would put Bush’s name to all of these policy and blame Bush. With Obama it is the scanners and the groping, he doesn’t even get mentioned, this is his administration. It like he is void of responsibility of all of these negative unpopular policies.
I felt it was important to point out to my friends in this community (who mostly supported Obama) what his Presidential policies are from the start of his administration toward reelection time. To show that his policy don’t necessarily agree with their own. That they are the same as Bush’s if not worse. If you do agree with his these actions and policies, then this thread isn’t really meant for you.
I slacked off on this for a while, but I will continue to point these facts out for those who care.
If you are against all of those things that you cried about Bush doing, and when Obama does the same thing and you shout down the messenger when those facts are presented to you, you might want to take a closer look at your politics and what you actually stand for.
Yes they are two different people but the policies that work against the majority of the US and the world is the same, actually worse in my lefty liberal opinion under Obama.
Obama has increased the power of the NSA, broaded the scope of warrantless wiretapping of Americans and done nothing to scale back the many abuses of the Patriot Act.
Obama administration went even further than Bush, offering the claim that the government “is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.”
“Guantanamo was the Bush administration’s effort to do an end run around the Constitution, and the Obama administration is now essentially using Bagram as a way to do an end run around Guantanamo and the constitutional right of habeas corpus found to apply there,”
I'm not that familar with Truman but didn't he take us to Korea and get my Dad body shot up, his mind a little twisted amongst other suffering and hardships?
I would put Kennedy at the top,
then Ike second,
Nixon 3rd (that is mainly because of the tone of the time - his policy where terrible but he was forced to sign some progressive legislation.
Then the first two years of Carter.
Although I'm not that familar with Ford I don't remember him doing too much bad nor good?
Then it is Carter 2nd two years taking us to the pre-neoliberal movement
A tie between all of the nonsense Regan did and Johnson taking us into Vietnam
then it just get worse as time goes on. It's the same policy they just take it further and further down the line. I'll actually put Bush 1 before Regan and Clinton. He wasn't as insane as the rest of them
I'll put Truman as the worse. It's personal. I curse him for the hell he put my Dad through!
Kennedy
Eisenhower
Nixon
Carter year 1 and 2
Ford
Carter year 3 and 4
Bush 1
Regan/Johnson
Clinton
Bush 2
Obama
Truman
I could switch this order around all day, there are so many variable as to what good and bad they did. Except for Kennedy I really didn't like any of them. CAMELOT!
sexy responding to a comment by trickmilla
12.17.10 - 3:57 am
What I don't understand is how even after ALL the bullshit Obama's pulled, conservative idiots are still carrying on about how he's a socialist and a communist. The dude is barely even a liberal.
I'm not going to argue the Obama = Bush point cause clearly it's mute, but I will say "Oh brotha" to the fact that just because a presidents agenda falls in line with another president, doesn't necessarily mean he's just like. 1st off, people blame president's for way too much. For Example, Reagan was an actor reading a script when he was president, yet people blame him for the last 30 years. Wake up people and stop drinking the blame the president kool-aid. The agendas being forced down america's throats are being written in a back room full of guys with deep bank accounts.
If you want to blame someone, blame the american people for giving credence to all the Journalistic misinformation and misdirection thrown at us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
You can equally blame our Work, buy, eat, sleep, mentality as well because who wants to give that up to overthrow a government. "give up my Iphone, made in china, imported to america, no way dude"
What about our elected Congress? I don't see anyone blaming them for keeping the agendas of other presidents going, can we say Bush tax cuts. Are they now the Obama tax cuts? He didn't want them, he had to settle for them. People wanna call Obama weak well let's disect it. Let's say he were to let the tax cuts expire, OMG! Obama doesn't care about this country, can you believe that? So he works out a deal to get something, a little something for the people and it's OMG! Obama's a wimp. it's a no win situation.
This whole thread is full of Variables that on the surface make Obama look like he's right in Line with Bush. Fact is every president is in line with each other and Congress is really to blame for keeping certain agendas that should be flushed down a toilet, alive.
1 No U.S. President can go to war on his word alone. <<<<<<---- Something to think about.
2 No U.S. President can end a war on his word alone. <<<<<<---- something to think about.
It is congress, not Bush that gave the go ahead for the war in IRAQ. It is also Congress that gave Bush a blank check to conduct the war in Iraq but nobody ever talks about that. Equally, it is Congress that agreed to extend the war in Iraq. Oh but don't take my word for it.
If you're wondering why presidential agendas all seem to fall in line with one another, deconstruct the political foundation and maybe then people will see what's really going on.
Sadly "There are no more Martin Luther Kings in the world"
You can equally blame our Work, buy, eat, sleep, mentality as well because who wants to give that up to overthrow a government. "give up my Iphone, made in china, imported to america, no way dude"
Thats it, I'm not working, buying, eating nor sleeping anymore. That's right, I'm becoming a junky, because apparently only they can overthrow this government.
md2 responding to a comment by ridetime
12.17.10 - 5:02 pm
It's a play on words...basically meaning "Stop changing the language/meaning of my words"
MD2 Regurgitating the "Omg, only drug addicts can save us" is just dumb.
Kinda like Sarah Palins most recent idiotic claim that the Government & Michelle Obama want to stop people from eating Dessert.
My comment, Work, buy, eat and sleep is merely saying We sleep, we get up, we eat, we go to work, and then we get paid and buy things and that we will never have a revolution in this country because people are reluctant to break from that cycle or put better, there comfortable way of life.
people complain, omg, the country this and the country that, then Steve Jobs gets on TV and says, the new iphone and ipad will be available on X date. Then on X date, you watch the news and the lines are 8 blocks long and yet no one stops to think...Damn, this phone was made in china. Not that that's a bad thing, except one small minor "AEMERICA IS EXPORTING JOBS" fact.
I know i'm preaching to the choir because in reality, no one really cares. Just gimme my damn Iphone and my new Ipad and leave me alone, now where's the nearest Wal Mart.
My basic draw to this forum is that Obama does not equal Bush but resemblance of one congress to another sure does look familiar.
ridetime responding to a comment by monovsstereo
12.21.10 - 1:24 am
So by the same measure of dumb unvetted stories. Bush Jr., Sr., Cheney and Osama Bin Laden plotted 9/11 and Osama was given a new identity and is Really Obama. Osama and Obama rhyme so it must be him, plus, I saw a write up on the Fox website that hinted of Osama possibly being Obama in disguise.
Now, if you believe the CIA story, you can't discredit the above being a possibility. Don't forget to put out some milk and cookies for Santa Clauses visit to your house on Saturday.
ridetime responding to a comment by Dedicated818
12.21.10 - 12:47 pm
you make some great points about who finances politicians and about how our government doesn't just work in the executive office alone. It is ultimately the commander and chief who decides which way things such as war will go when they get the funds approved to actually spend it on the said funded actions. The CEO or Executive In Chief or as we call The President of these Untied States has a cabinet of 15 different executives which control those different aspects of our the day to day operations and policies run. Yes it needs the approval of funding from congress and laws passed by them to make those actions happen, but it is the CEO who oversees and decides which way those operations happen.
The executive has to request those things such as defense spending to carry on the war. Homeland security funding to continue warrantless searches, they may be legal but it doesn't necessarily make them right or reflexive of what the people of our country would like our government to govern. Just because congress funded all of these drone planes, doesn't mean the President has to fly them over Pakistan and kill the people that live there.
It is congress, not Bush that gave the go ahead for the war in IRAQ. It is also Congress that gave Bush a blank check to conduct the war in Iraq but nobody ever talks about that. Equally, it is Congress that agreed to extend the war in Iraq. Oh but don't take my word for it. But is it not the executive offices of both Bush who lobbied for the funding and authorization of use of force for the war and Obama's who ask for more funding not only to continue the Wars but escalate force in Afghanistan and into Pakistan which there is actually no act of congress allowing such war actions.
It is true that it is just not the one person who is to give complete credit for everything that happens in their office, but they are the figure head, the one who is said to make the decision, the one we can say "yeah" or "nay" to. So the overall policies and how they governor is how one compare or judge if the person is doing well or not.
There are people behind the leader who fund and call shots. Are the decisions they make, decision that you actually approve of? Do you continue to support the person that is controlled by other to do things in your name in ways that don't benefit you or may harm you or others, just because thats the way it is? You actually support someone who is controlled by something or a group of other people?
That might be something to think about.
Sadly "There are no more Martin Luther Kings in the world" There are plenty of people who do great activist work. Many who actually have improved on King's work and in many different areas. They are just not recognized in main stream media. King Jr. was catapulted as the head to a movement that was alive and involved many people already. He read speeches well and had some great speech writers behind him. It sad that his memory only involves the now accepted civil rights movement. He is never remembered for his strong anti-war stance or his plans to do a "poor people encampment" in Washington D.C.. That would have been some powerful work. If we was to have lived and been able to go through with the poor peoples encampment, I don't think his worked and memory would be as glorified as it is today.
sexy responding to a comment by ridetime
12.21.10 - 6:33 pm
sexy I think your understanding of the power of the executive branch is very simplistic.
Imagine if Obama unilaterally stopped all drone strikes. for instance.
On paper I'm all for it.
But realistically,
Imagine 1 dude on the strike list, goes out and blow some shit up.
The entire narrative of the next election cycle would be that Obama weakened America and people died because of it.
Nevermind, that continuing to use drone strikes sets a precedent for other countries to do robotic assassinations here or elsewhere. That obviously doesn't fit on headline or in a sound bite.
Obama has received more resistance than any president in american history, and as you point out his actually policies have not at all be "extreme" "socialist" or whatever other label faux news wants to get worked up about.
Obama has to be more careful and more tactical than any of his predecessors.
Look how much shit Obama got for not repealing don't ask, don't tell the second he got into office.
Many progressives wanted him to just make an executive order, but instead he moved very deliberately and strategically to see that this campaign promise would be kept in a way that that did not jeprodize his presidency or the long term viability of the policy.
The US is a big fucking Juggernaut, and if one person tried to make it look the way I think it should look or the way you think it should look over night, they would be ousted in a coup, run out of office in a rigged election, or assassinated.
Oh ... kind of like one of your top favorites JFK.
right now we have a 2 party system.
it is fucked up, but thats what we've got.
so next time around you can vote for obama or barbour or palin or douche romney.
or nobody ... but having GW in office for 8 years reminded me of the real consequences of holding on to the lazy idea that the 2 parties are exactly the same.
Imagine if Obama unilaterally stopped all drone strikes. for instance.
On paper I'm all for it.
But realistically,
Imagine 1 dude on the strike list, goes out and blow some shit up.
The entire narrative of the next election cycle would be that Obama weakened America and people died because of it.
So your justifying killing people including kids and children and people who have nothing to do with said future crime {illegally(in Pakistan)}, for a possibility that someone may commit a crime on American soil and then the Democratic President gets blamed for it?
right now we have a 2 party system.
it is fucked up, but thats what we've got.
so next time around you can vote for obama or barbour or palin or douche romney.
or nobody ... but having GW in office for 8 years reminded me of the real consequences of holding on to the lazy idea that the 2 parties are exactly the same.
As long as people only vote and support the two candidates from basically the same party then that what we will continue getting.
There are always plenty candidates worth voting for every election season, more then the people you mentioned. Candidates that have platforms that I feel would be better for our country. Those are people that I voted for and will most likely continue voting for.
I really don't see how much would have been different under Gore then Bush. The US would have gone into both Iraq and Afghanistan. Renditions, torture, illegal wiretaps would have all happened. Charter schools would have still been pushed. Privatization of Government services was an Al Gore program called "Reinventing Government" Israel would have still been given money to do whatever it wanted to the Palestinians. We might have had new wall street scam of making money off of now charging fees to buy and sale credits for industries to pollute, but the pollution would have been the same. Katrina, maybe different, I don't know, maybe more lip service and window dressing? (We have seen how the Democrates handled the oil spill in the gulf. Give control of the clean up of the people who caused the spill, while they pollute the area with more toxians to wide the original mess. Then sue the company to limit its liabilities) There might have been some funding for abortions that might not have happened, not that note worthy of a mention in the grand scale of things. Maybe just maybe you wouldn't of had the huge tax cut for the rich, but that a big maybe, I still think it would have happened. Maybe you forgot about the debates between Gore and Bush where they practically fall over each other agreeing with one another. All of that is assuming that people such as myself liked the policy of Al Gore. I didn't!
The whole point of this thread is demonstrate how the so called two parties are the same. Although it doesn't show it, I put a lot of effort to demonstrate that. Maybe you should show some examples and evidence to show me why they are not the same. Something that might change my mind.
Here you go I'll start it for you.
sexy responding to a comment by trickmilla
12.22.10 - 6:04 pm
I don't even know what to say anymore. On the one hand, I do like the fact that you can maintain the narrative you speak of. On the other hand, it saddens me to think that you, like so many others think you can vote a president into office, watch him get sworn in on January 20th and then expect that on January 21st, the president that got voted into office is going to break out some magical book and a pen and start checking off his to do list like he's shopping at costco. If this is how the people in this country think then America is in Deeper shit than some of us could have ever imagined.
12 years, that's how long it took for Cheney, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. to implement operation IRAQ, AFGHAN and fuck the poor and middle class of America with that trumped up trickle down bullshit. Talking shit about a guy who's been in office for less than 2 years is a joke. I think you phrased it incorrectly. Nobody is = to Bush. Bush is in a class all by his lonesome. If anything your thread should be called Obama cleans up after Bush.
But I will say this one last thing. yes, CEO's are responsible for making that final decision, CEO's are also responsible for firing managers that were hired by the previous CEO as well. Isn't it amazing that for 2 years the republicans wouldn't allow there new CEO to do just that?
On the one hand, I do like the fact that you can maintain the narrative you speak of. Thanks, I'll take that as a complement.
We are talking about the President who campaigned on the slogan "CHANGE" "Change you can believe in".
The people I vote for would actually work to the implement the agenda that they campaigned on. As for Obama, he is doing just what he actually campaigned on, (if you read the fine print of his positions). I didn't see him doing anything then what he is doing now, continuing on with the same policies, just as he said he would minus the "Change" commercial.
CEO's are also responsible for firing managers that were hired by the previous CEO as well. Isn't it amazing that for 2 years the republicans wouldn't allow there new CEO to do just that? I don't think it was Republicans who choose Obama's cabinet. You remember Obama had Democratic majority congress for the first two years so you can't blame them Republicans for his appointments.
You can see just by Obama's appointment for Defense Secretary that he had no motivation to change the Pentagon operations. Who did Obama appoint, he didn't he just left Bush's Defense Secretary in the job. Gates is the only Defense Secretary that I know of to serve under both a Republican and Democratic President.
Who did Obama appoint to head the Federal Reserve, he didn't he just kept Bush's appointment, Ben Bernake.
If anything your thread should be called Obama cleans up after Bush Thats not the motivation for this thread. If you see that Obama is cleaning something up after Bush, please feel free to start a thread and show examples. I would be curious to see what exactly he is cleaning up. As far as I'm concern I see Obama continuing to make a way bigger mess of the country.
sexy responding to a comment by ridetime
12.28.10 - 8:16 pm
Obama Administration increase number of names on Terrorist Watch List so that only a single-source tip can lead to name being placed on list.
The Washington Post is reporting the U.S. government is expanding the number of names on its terrorist watch list by altering its criteria so that a single-source tip can lead to a name being placed on the list. Currently, there are 440,000 people on the list, an increase of about five percent since last year. Civil liberties groups have argued that the government’s new criteria have made it even more likely that individuals who pose no threat will be swept up in the nation’s security apparatus. Chris Calabrese of the American Civil Liberties Union said, "They are secret lists with no way for people to petition to get off or even to know if they’re on."
I don't think anyone here expected Obama to magically fix the country on 1/20/09 but some of us expected him to not pull a bunch of stupid shit like:
continued and expanded use of drone strikes
calling for the assassination of American citizens
removing the public option from the HCR
continued and expanded use of extraordinary rendition, habeas corpus-free detention etc
the horseshit with the Bush tax cut extensions
and so on.
There is not a doubt in my mind that we are better off now than we would have been with OldMan/Moron, but that doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate grievances with Obama's presidency.
In previous post you would viciously attack anyone who did not agree with his agenda. Childish use of profanity and name calling was your defence against
those who could see the truth. Did your brainwashing wear off ?
I still believe that Obama knows whats up but really can't act much differently than Bush in terms of foreign policy. our foreign policy is on a whole different agenda that what we are led to believe. it's a decades old agenda.
Roadblock responding to a comment by monovsstereo
01.25.11 - 1:01 pm
again, the fault of the money interests in our country searching for a way to make more money for less. So, decades in the making, the US has slowly extinguished manufacturing jobs and exported them to china... we after all should focus more on buying cheaper crap and more of it rather than protecting american labor and jobs.
haha the irony is that now the communists are saving us by throwing a few billskis at us to create jobs here at home. Hilarious. Communists saving capitalists.... and then.... the fall.....
Roadblock responding to a comment by Dedicated818
01.25.11 - 2:13 pm
Reagan set up the Chinese trade in the 80's. Corporate lobbyist keep the american dream alive, for the top 2% - 10%. Damn near everything we buy is made in china. There's no way anyone can blame Obama for that.
ridetime responding to a comment by Dedicated818
01.25.11 - 2:46 pm
Obama like all Presidents prior to him for the past 34 years is "Pro-Centralization"
People label the economic situation we are in right now as a recession or depression.
I have come to the conclusion that we are in neither right now, we are in a huge fundamental economic shift to larger Centralized economic model. A big part of that model is moving wealth from aging countries like our own to more youthful countries like that in China, Indonesia, Brazil etc. (think age of the population, not the chronological age of the country). Of course, wages are much cheaper in those countries because they have social-political-economic ruling system
that easily suppresses worker. Wages is not the only reason, these countries have larger populations which now have the means to buy the products they produce,
which means selling more quantities of products, even if it is at a cheaper price means more profits, because more volume is sold.
The only saving move that people who have been left behind in this economic shift is to move to a De-Centralized model in their own life. They can no longer work for the Pro-Centralization model, because the Pro-Centralization industries has no employment for them. They have moved their jobs out. Only by withdrawing from the Pro-Centralized model will they gain economic viability, which will lead to economic freedom and wealth creation for themselves and their communities. This is done by withdrawing means to not spend there money with the Pro-Centralization businesses. Think shopping at Target, Wal-Mart, groceries stores that are own by big corporations, buying food that was grown and process by the big Agr-business companies (that food is very unhealthy on a physical body, mental body and economic body). Buying there big Oil fuel, buying and listening to the Pro Centralization stories (music, tv, movie, entertainment, news, media, etc.). Even my Microsoft and Apple is part of the Pro-Centralization team (yes some of there stuff is great).
Think of where you spend your dollar. If you didn't spend it with the Pro-Centralization team, them you would have to spend it on a solution that is spawned from your community. (locally grown food, locally owned food outlets, local entertainment and media, you already ride your bike, when are we going to start producing locally
made bikes not just local bike stores? When you spend your money this way you fund those who are actually creating wealth in your community not with a company that takes your wealth out of the community. This is where those who no longer can find gainful employment can create wealth by providing these goods and services.
As silly as this sounds, ebay has created local wealth by being a distribution network for small entrepreneurs. For those that have automobiles, you can save a sizable percentage of cost for parts and keep some money out of the pro-centralization model,
by buying parts from individuals instead of big corporate stores like Pep-Boys and Auto Zone.
Not only by shifting our energy and money out of the pro centralization model will we bring wealth back to our communities and country. We must also withdrawal our votes from politicians who support the pro-centralization model like Obama, and most
Democrats and Republicans. These politicians create policy and laws which not only shift money out of the local communities and the country, they makes it harder for local communities to keep money in house and create local wealth. They are bought and paid for by the Pro-Centralization team. They work for them, not for you.
how is somebody who invest in precious metals during a commodity bull market, that traditionally does well during times of economic inflation and having an emergency back-up provisions at ones disposal make them a sucker?
sexy responding to a comment by trickmilla
01.27.11 - 10:35 pm
This is what happens when dumb people watch and Read fox-Faux news. They get false reports (the report in that video has already been debunked). You must be from Indiana or Iowa because your are the most gullible 818'er to ever post.
Tell you what, next time you ride a bike, make sure you sport your white sheet and white hoodie, and don't forget to ride an all white bike. Dumbest shit I've ever heard.
Reagan was worse than Obama and he's white, What a joke this thread has become.
ridetime responding to a comment by Dedicated818
01.28.11 - 2:50 pm
So let me get this straight....First the complaint is "OMG, Obama's a Socialist because he's giving America away", now his cabinet shut's down illegal pirating, otherwise known as "Theft" and you're still complaining?
Oh wait, I just notice you finished with "don't you have to be convicted to be guilty of a crime before you are guilty". Once again, your thread is a joke. I'm only posting here, to remind you of how much laughter your thread must generate on a day to day basis.
Obama = Bush = Stupidity you can believe in. Can't wait to read your next smoking gun revelation.
"Here's this Iikeable, sincere guy in the White house.
He is as imprisoned as we all are.
He's a prisoner of government, he's a prisoner of politics, he's a prisoner of economics, he's a prisoner of the federal reserve bank in New York, He's a prisoner of the Federal Reserve, he's a prisoner of a governmental system that's archaic and not quickly responsive.
So we should not make the success or failure of human civilization rest on his shoulders." -Micheal Ruppert
It's called, choosing the lesser of the evil. Translation: 2% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Defending Obama is easy, but how anyone can defend Palin, Boehner, Republicans, Fox news, Bachman, that is the real joke here.
Rethuglikkklans have been preaching for decades that trickle down economics is the way to go. Yeah, right!!! Rethuglikkklans have created some of the biggest socialist programs ever created but only the top 2% benefit from those programs so I guess it's okay.
Obama hasn't done anything out of the ordinary, strange or outlandish compared to what the Rethuglikkklans have done to this country. Corporate america is robbing us all blind with the help of our U.S. Congress and the argument is Obama = Bush. That's the Joke of this thread. It's comical. So while you naysayers turn on your ipods and Ipads and shop at wal-mart for the latest made in China products. keep the narrative about Obama while the White collar crime guys pick your pockets clean.
And when someone posts' something, don't get upset when someone debunks your lame right wing told story. We all know how the right side hate's the truth. That's why they have Palin. Who cares what she say's she's hot. 2 words...Dumb, Dumber.
ridetime responding to a comment by coldcut
01.29.11 - 8:41 pm
It should have been titled "Obama all the things you despised about Bush and more"
All you have to do is look at this guys daily record to want to throw up some more.
But on to issues...... secret negotiations to hand over the United States to every corporation that does things most people don't approve of. Its called the TPP
Kennedy was the last great American president who paid with his life for what he believed was right. I suggest a Kennedy Ride. We rally up and post up in different places blasting his speeches at maximum volume. That motherfucker talked about things that are still relevant today. I was at a friends house spinning records and drinking beer, having a good old time. My homie had a record of Kennedy speeches and he put it on. The rest of the night we sat there listening to this brilliant man talk about things that blew our minds. What an awesome man. There is no wonder why a bullet ended his presidency. When Obama became president, I really thought that he was going to get assassinated. He sure did talk a good game and he promised change. And the only way to get that change was for him to fight the power and pay with his life. That didn't and won't happen. He is a disgrace and a vile human being. I wretched into my mouth any time I see an Obama T-shirt on a black man or woman as they moronically walk about.
I was on my roof a few months ago and I look up and see two drones flying low in formation, one in front of the other. I gave them the finger and wished death upon their operators. Fuck Obama and fuck this police state, fuck this giant clusterfuck of a mess. The day people boycott voting and start to seriously and peacefully practice civil disobedience is the day things start to turn around. We have the fucking internet! With this awesome tool, we can have true democracy. We can be informed and vote instantly on whatever needs change... not every four fucking years like now.
The US fucking over innocent civilians is old news. Remember that for every luxury we have, a raping of resources across the globe must occur... a family must starve for your family to get fat and stupid.
"It's called, choosing the lesser of the evil. Translation: 2% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Defending Obama is easy, but how anyone can defend Palin, Boehner, Republicans, Fox news, Bachman, that is the real joke here."
"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same" - Buckminster Fuller
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
Congratulations Mr. President. You have popped your proverbial homicidal cherry this weekend.
The subject appears to be having difficulty controlling the volume of his voice. He may also be experiencing an episode of paranoia brought on by spending too much time on the internet and/or listening to late night AM radio.
Meet the new boss!
INTRODUCTION
Just consult your pineal gland![](http://www.pheistyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/obama-unicorn.jpg")
oh and it never hurts to have a magical unicorn in your stable
nice shirt; it really brings out the red in your neck.
"Squandering international good will"? This is a photo of a crowd that wanted to hear him speak in Berlin. These folks definitely don't like Obama. Lol (pun intended)
I hate to sound flippant but what you are saying md2 is that this man is actually setting the tone to bring about any change (remember that one) in regards to working for peace. Zbigniew Brzezinski said it best when he said "It doesn't matter who is president, American Foreign Policy is continuous" What you are saying sounds like you are hopeful that Obama will bring about a climate of peace. The man is now considering sending 45,000 more troops to Afghanistan, yes he doesn't have all the power (AIPAC holds great control over our Congress) but he has enough power to increase or decrease how much fighting the US/Nato will bring upon the world.
The conservative lament over Barack Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is quickly becoming a site to behold. On his radio show just now, Rush Limbaugh went so far as to trumpet the fact that he is basically in agreement with the Taliban and Iran in thinking that the president was a "worldwide" joke.
My Final Thoughts For Today
think of it more like a mafia King pin. They aren't the addicts they are the controllers. The 
I guess this is as good a time as any to bump this thread, yeah?