Why do you even talk about Amercan politics? You are Canadian! Leave our Messiah alone.
You're right. If I can't vote in the US, then I have no business deciphering the inner workings of international politics.
What was I thinking?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
If these boards are any indication, Obama's harshest critics will not be on the right but on the left. For some reason, guys like MrBrian and Roland, no offense to them of course, seem to believe that Obama, at some point during his campaign, operated and "sold himself" as a far-left candidate a long ways away from what is considered the typical American center. Therefore, due to his policies in Afghanistan, pro-security, seemingly pro-Israel, etc. he is somehow 'selling out.' If so, they're operating under some strange delusion, since Obama never claimed to be a far-left candidate. They're speaking about Obama as if he has moved away from his Nader/Kucinich-esque primary and general election campaign with policies that are, you know....moderate. The problem with that is that Obama never was Nader or Kucinich to begin with, and if voters voted for him under the assumption that his policies would bring the policies of those two candidates to pass, they misjudged the man and his campaign.
As far as I understand it, the change Obama offered are a new spirit of bipartisanship in Washington, and several first steps in policy improvements, primarily a bold new energy initiative. When has he ever claimed to be against NATO? When has he ever been against going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? When has been against properly funding troops in Iraq? You're going to accuse Obama of selling out on principles he never had in the first place? And now, as we see in Roland's post two above this one, if someone defends Obama on the basis of him being a moderate, he will be accused of delivering 'excuses' for a lack of change (a charge we're sure to hear countless times in the next few years). Roland, I'm sorry, but if you considered Obama to be something other than a moderate liberal, the mistake is with you, and not with the campaign. They didn't sell themselves to be something like the tenets you seem to hold against them, and it's bizarre to claim otherwise. The other part of this is that since Obama is relatively a moderate (at least in comparison to the spectrum Roland and others are using), the majority of the country, and the majority of those that voted for him, DO agree with him on the issues you disagree with him on. They do approve of NATO. They do believe we need to properly fund and equip the soldiers in Afghanistan. They do endorse funding the troops in Iraq. So I think it's also a little hard to believe that the hundreds of millions that voted for Obama, the majority of whom are moderates, are going to feel 'betrayed' when he acts upon these principles.
If these boards are any indication, Obama's harshest critics will not be on the right but on the left. For some reason, guys like MrBrian and Roland, no offense to them of course, seem to believe that Obama, at some point during his campaign, operated and "sold himself" as a far-left candidate a long ways away from what is considered the typical American center. Therefore, due to his policies in Afghanistan, pro-security, seemingly pro-Israel, etc. he is somehow 'selling out.' If so, they're operating under some strange delusion, since Obama never claimed to be a far-left candidate. They're speaking about Obama as if he has moved away from his Nader/Kucinich-esque primary and general election campaign with policies that are, you know....moderate. The problem with that is that Obama never was Nader or Kucinich to begin with, and if voters voted for him under the assumption that his policies would bring the policies of those two candidates to pass, they misjudged the man and his campaign.
As far as I understand it, the change Obama offered are a new spirit of bipartisanship in Washington, and several first steps in policy improvements, primarily a bold new energy initiative. When has he ever claimed to be against NATO? When has he ever been against going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? When has been against properly funding troops in Iraq? You're going to accuse Obama of selling out on principles he never had in the first place? And now, as we see in Roland's post two above this one, if someone defends Obama on the basis of him being a moderate, he will be accused of delivering 'excuses' for a lack of change (a charge we're sure to hear countless times in the next few years). Roland, I'm sorry, but if you considered Obama to be something other than a moderate liberal, the mistake is with you, and not with the campaign. They didn't sell themselves to be something like the tenets you seem to hold against them, and it's bizarre to claim otherwise. The other part of this is that since Obama is relatively a moderate (at least in comparison to the spectrum Roland and others are using), the majority of the country, and the majority of those that voted for him, DO agree with him on the issues you disagree with him on. They do approve of NATO. They do believe we need to properly fund and equip the soldiers in Afghanistan. They do endorse funding the troops in Iraq. So I think it's also a little hard to believe that the hundreds of millions that voted for Obama, the majority of whom are moderates, are going to feel 'betrayed' when he acts upon these principles.
First steps towards change, or the same steps as before?
I think it's a fine line once the precedence has been set. As the present turns into the past, kept laws and ongoing practices become regarded as normal policy, and are much harder to turn around to where normal used to be.
Maybe his critics could spread out their scrutiny into much longer time frames like months and years, instead of days and weeks by automatically assuming hundreds of mini baby steps and mistakes are to be required (and expected) in the upcoming years.
Sorta kick back and go for the ride.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
First steps towards change, or the same steps as before?
I think it's a fine line once the precedence has been set. As the present turns into the past, kept laws and ongoing practices become regarded as normal policy, and are much harder to turn around to where normal used to be.
Maybe his critics could spread out their scrutiny into much longer time frames like months and years, instead of days and weeks by automatically assuming hundreds of mini baby steps and mistakes are to be required (and expected) in the upcoming years.
Sorta kick back and go for the ride.
My problem isn't with the criticism of Obama, per se. If people think he's the same as the rest, then people think he's the same as the rest. I'm questioning this expectation of him being a politician that espouses some of the views you wrote about earlier in this thread, when it's obvious he never held any such positions. How could he have 'fooled' the public that voted for him when he was this moderate Democrat to begin with? I feel that's why those charges of extreme 'liberalism' lobbed towards him during the general election campaign fell flat.
So the criticism isn't this issue. I'm wondering where this expectation came from that he was going to be far more leftist and radical than he ever claimed to be.
· Backed Georgia's attack (gave them a billion dollars)
· Voted to fund the Iraq war (gave up hundreds of billions)
· Voted to keep the Patriot Act and FISA
· Will keep bases and troops in Iraq
· Threaten Iran, Syria, and Pakistan
· Will keep spending trillions (no plan to pay the debt)
· Will keep the FED, IMF, Dept of HS, and World Bank
· Will keep the Bush pre-emptive attack ideology as policy.
· Surrounds himself with radical neo-con advisers and mentors that are far worse than Bush and Cheney
have you even read or listened to anything that he's actally said without outright twisting things or taking a sentence here or there out of context based upon the conspriaces that you allow yourself to be deluded into believing in? because what you have are merely your opinions not based on anything to do with logical reason or what his positions really are on these issues.
but then again it's only to be expected for you to spout off beyond the exceptionally absurd. i must keep in mind that your tin-foil hat has cut off your circulation and only directs your blood to your hard-on for your "Obama is everything that is wrong and evil and I Roland still live for making shit up and twisting things around to prove it" obsession. your conspiraces therories are just more of the same ole crap
but just go ahead and waste your time posting more bashing and negative nonsense....
*yawn*
i myself will go back to ignoring you or caring about what you say(as i'm sure many and most ppl do on this board) being as we're fond of logic and reason
How could he have 'fooled' the public that voted for him when he was this moderate Democrat to begin with?
a. because many people don't think rationale, and therefore erroneously interpret deliberately designed buzzwords and promise-all campaign speeches as truth.
b. Obama came on very strong anti-war very early in this campaign.
I think most of those you are saying have been misled by their own naivete were in fact mislead by Obama's false anti-war rhetoric in to somehow thinking this meant he indeed represented some sort of demonstrable and more ubiquitous "change".
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
a. because many people don't think rationale, and therefore erroneously interpret deliberately designed buzzwords and promise-all campaign speeches as truth.
b. Obama came on very strong anti-war very early in this campaign.
I think most of those you are saying have been misled by their own naivete were in fact mislead by Obama's false anti-war rhetoric in to somehow thinking this meant he indeed represented some sort of demonstrable and more ubiquitous "change".
He said he will end the war responsibly. He hasn't had a chance to do that yet, nor do we really know how that will happen. Obviously, we cannot just pull out without a plan and strategy.
I think a better example of people not thinking rationally would be the presidential election 4 years ago. That was people being fooled by fear tactics. At least this time they (we) voted for hope instead of more of the same crap. Obama represents a whole ass load of change more than McCain did.
a. because many people don't think rationale, and therefore erroneously interpret deliberately designed buzzwords and promise-all campaign speeches as truth.
b. Obama came on very strong anti-war very early in this campaign.
I think most of those you are saying have been misled by their own naivete were in fact mislead by Obama's false anti-war rhetoric in to somehow thinking this meant he indeed represented some sort of demonstrable and more ubiquitous "change".
I'll take the first point last. Obama has always been against the war in Iraq, believing that we "took our eye off the ball" when trying to apprehend or kill Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan when we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. You can go back as far with this as you want, back to before the campaign. He supported Afghanistan and opposed Iraq both as far back as 2002. So I'm not sure where you're getting that information from.
Again, the majority of the country is moderate, which I'd define as broadly when it comes to the wars we are fighting, opposed to the war in Iraq and supportive of the war in Afghanistan and more specifically the hunt to capture Osama bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda. The majority of the American populace, at least as of 2008, fit into this broad definition. The majority of the people who voted for him fit into this definition. I still don't see, therefore, how Obama fooled anyone. You haven't offered any answer to that, especially since the country does not lean quite that left. Criticize him all you want, and Obama may deserve it but I still haven't seen any good proof that the majority of people who voted for Obama under false pretenses or misled expectations. The majority of American voters do not expect (or want) both Iraq and Afghanistan to end immediately (certainly, moreso the latter than the former, and if we have not ended our obligations in Iraq by the end of Obama's first term, that's a mark against him). The country leans further to the right than that on these matters.
I took it as a change from the partisan GOP agenda we have been living with for almost 8 years.
I guess I was right.
Right.
Change to the Partisan Democratic Agenda.
People tend to think of the political system in America as looking something like a ruler with dems on the left and repubs on the right.
Instead, it might be appropriate to view that ruler bent in half, with a little cloister of assholes up top using both ends as legs to march their radically unconstitutional plans on to global glory.
Both parties are simply opposing appendages ... tools used by the real elite to control their own precious establishment.
Of COURSE we didn't think he represented REAL change.
Looks like you didn't really think so either.
:(
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Of COURSE we didn't think he represented REAL change.
Looks like you didn't really think so either.
:(
The problem with this viewpoint is that Obama's illegitimacy as a candidate would only be applicable if the the majority of the nation shared your opinion on these matters. From what I gather of your posts, your opinion tend to be further to the left in the minority. I don't think this is a bad thing; for all we know it is the correct minority. Nevertheless, how is it that hundreds of millions of voters were shortchanged for a possibility of change when it's clear that the majority of voters don't stand where you stand, and measure change in different ways then you?
the republicans didnt succeed in making abortion illegal. so i guess Obama has only succeeded in stopping change, if that counts.
i'm not sure if you didn't read the article, my post, or both. i'll try to use the mouthbreather tactic of all caps in order to make it easier for you: GLOBAL GAG RULE.
although actually it should probably look like this: GLOBUL GAG ROOL!!!!1111!!!!!1111
and that's only the specific point, one example, that both were addressing. it must be nice to be what i presume is a white man, or at the very least, a man. you get to make your own medical decisions. the government doesn't legislate your body. maybe you've been too preoccupied with your own dick to notice what the bush admin has done with women's health both here and abroad. well, here's a hint: it's not just about making abortion illegal across the US. oh and if you weren't completely ignorant on what Obama has done, you would know he's a whole lot more than "stopping change."
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
have you even read or listened to anything that he's actally said without outright twisting things or taking a sentence here or there out of context based upon the conspriaces that you allow yourself to be deluded into believing in? because what you have are merely your opinions not based on anything to do with logical reason or what his positions really are on these issues.
Are you on mixed medication? Which ones aren't true?
√ · Pro Afghan war (wants to send more troops)
√ · Pro NATO (will increase members)
√ · Backed Georgia's attack (gave them a billion dollars)
√ · Voted to fund the Iraq war (gave up hundreds of billions)
√ · Voted to keep the Patriot Act and FISA
√ · Will keep bases and troops in Iraq
√ · Threaten Iran, Syria, and Pakistan
√ · Will keep spending trillions (no plan to pay the debt)
√ · Will keep the FED, IMF, Dept of HS, and World Bank
√ · Will keep the Bush pre-emptive attack ideology as policy.
√ · Surrounds himself with radical neo-con advisers and mentors that are far worse than Bush and Cheney
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The problem with this viewpoint is that Obama's illegitimacy as a candidate would only be applicable if the the majority of the nation shared your opinion on these matters. From what I gather of your posts, your opinion tend to be further to the left in the minority. I don't think this is a bad thing; for all we know it is the correct minority. Nevertheless, how is it that hundreds of millions of voters were shortchanged for a possibility of change when it's clear that the majority of voters don't stand where you stand, and measure change in different ways then you?
I don't even think the majority of American's understand what THEY expect for "change".
It is a stupid buzzword that the campaign latched on to in a stroke of evil brilliance.
It was not MY proposition that America is not getting the change it voted for.
I believe that was YOUR second hand extrapolation of what you THOUGHT "our" (people like Roland and I, and others) opinions were.
I gave you one possible answer to the question you posed.
I said i believed a lot of people latched on to Obama's ant-war stance (which he admittedly had for quite some time) as though it represented some DEEPER change ...
they may not have known what he represented, they didn't even necessarily know what THEY wanted, they just knew Obama said "end the war" and to their relatively small spheres of thought that notion grew to represent some unnamed and unprecedented change in policy.
That being said,
i think most americans got EXACTLY what they wanted.
Someone they can BELIEVE in.
Someone they can go to bed at night thinking, "goddamn. its fucking great to have the democrats back in office. NOW I DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE GREAT UNPLEASANTRIES OF LIFE. Obama and the democrats will DO IT FOR ME."
In short, all they wanted was to make a quick pick on their scratch off card once in this four year cycle, and then they wanted TO BE LEFT ALONE.
And now they can go back to their hum-drum little lives, living in a false bubble where everything is okay, and Lord Obama has rid the world of the evil W.
PS - And for the love of christ, why does everyone insist on labeling me "FAR LEFT" ...
please iterate for me ANY of my positions that castigate me to the category of "far left" !??!?!?!!?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
jesus christ, i say one little thing about this not really being any great change, more like a reversion to Clinton days, and suddenly i'm the most hateful, anti-Obama son of a bitch ever. i think i've been one of the Obama apologists on here thanks to the crazy nader nuts around here, but still...
ah fuck it, i'm staying the hell out of this thread!
jesus christ, i say one little thing about this not really being any great change, more like a reversion to Clinton days, and suddenly i'm the most hateful, anti-Obama son of a bitch ever. i think i've been one of the Obama apologists on here thanks to the crazy nader nuts around here, but still...
ah fuck it, i'm staying the hell out of this thread!
Good idea. You and Roland should get a room and just uhm do stuff? Make that lil echo you two seem to have going even louder... C'mon, you know you want to.
Good idea. You and Roland should get a room and just uhm do stuff? Make that lil echo you two seem to have going even louder... C'mon, you know you want to.
and i love the last comment. Yeah right
did you just put me in the same sentence as Roland? thats offensive. i'm very offended.
did you just put me in the same sentence as Roland? thats offensive. i'm very offended.
You're offended?!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Are you on mixed medication? Which ones aren't true?
√ · Pro Afghan war (wants to send more troops)
√ · Pro NATO (will increase members)
√ · Backed Georgia's attack (gave them a billion dollars)
√ · Voted to fund the Iraq war (gave up hundreds of billions)
√ · Voted to keep the Patriot Act and FISA
√ · Will keep bases and troops in Iraq
√ · Threaten Iran, Syria, and Pakistan
√ · Will keep spending trillions (no plan to pay the debt)
√ · Will keep the FED, IMF, Dept of HS, and World Bank
√ · Will keep the Bush pre-emptive attack ideology as policy.
√ · Surrounds himself with radical neo-con advisers and mentors that are far worse than Bush and Cheney
as for the afghanistan. yes he wants to go after bin laden and the actual INCREASE of the taliban that has happened recently because of the troops being diverted to iraq. if you think that Taliban should be able to seize control of the country again then stfu and put on your Burka, Roland
so he's okay with more countries to be able to join NATO. it's not like he can say if they do or don't.
he voted to keeping funding the troops in Iraq. he wants them out of there in 16 months time. are they (the troops) supposed to not get paid or fed and do without in the mean while?
he is opposed to keeping bases and troops in Iraq: Obama and Biden believe any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval—yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress. The Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress or allow the next administration to negotiate an agreement that has bipartisan support here at home and makes absolutely clear that the U.S. will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
now wanting to talk with and use diplomatic measures with Iran, Syria and Pakistan governments means threatening them? okay....maybe that's how things work in Rolandworld
get rid of the FED, IMF, Dept of HS, and World Bank? even if he could you seem to think it could be done without causing total economic collapses...well good luck then, Roland
he has never stated that he would keep the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes as policy.
as his for his advisers and mentors being far worse than Bush-Cheneys....that is based strickly upon your personal bias and opinion. he's not even in office yet you can't resist bashing what doesn't fit into Roland's p.o.v.
besides the orginal post was about some things that he can accomplish by reversing or implimenting executive orders when he is the acting president
i'm done. but whatever Roland...keep twisting and making shit up....only you get off it
My problem isn't with the criticism of Obama, per se. If people think he's the same as the rest, then people think he's the same as the rest. I'm questioning this expectation of him being a politician that espouses some of the views you wrote about earlier in this thread, when it's obvious he never held any such positions. How could he have 'fooled' the public that voted for him when he was this moderate Democrat to begin with? I feel that's why those charges of extreme 'liberalism' lobbed towards him during the general election campaign fell flat.
So the criticism isn't this issue. I'm wondering where this expectation came from that he was going to be far more leftist and radical than he ever claimed to be.
agreed.
really well-stated, both posts of yours that i've read thus far in this thread.
also why i asked earlier her today what wexpectations people have of the word *change*....b/c i think even if obama keeps his word, follows thru, it won't be the change some want, but that does not mean he hasn't kept his word.
between the OP of this thread, and i've started reading that loooonnnngggg newsweek 7 part series article, along with all else before the election....the happier i am. it's great to feel hopeful once more.
as for the afghanistan. yes he wants to go after bin laden and the actual INCREASE of the taliban that has happened recently because of the troops being diverted to iraq. if you think that Taliban should be able to seize control of the country again then stfu and put on your Burka, Roland
he voted to keeping funding the troops in Iraq. he wants them out of there in 16 months time. are they (the troops) supposed to not get paid or fed and do without in the mean while?
Yes he voted for the continuance of the Iraq war, that's what I said.
as per the above link:
"Reality: Obama Has Consistently Said He Would Support A Patriot Act That Would Strengthen Civil Liberties Without Sacrificing The Tools That Law Enforcement Needs To Keep Us Safe"
he is opposed to keeping bases and troops in Iraq: Obama and Biden believe any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval—yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress. The Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress or allow the next administration to negotiate an agreement that has bipartisan support here at home and makes absolutely clear that the U.S. will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
source pls, and has he ever said that withdrawal from Iraq will include dismantling existing bases?
now wanting to talk with and use diplomatic measures with Iran, Syria and Pakistan governments means threatening them? okay....maybe that's how things work in Rolandworld
He openly said that he's open to strikes on Pakistan like a while ago, and his rhetoric is protect Israel and defeat terrorism no matter what, and wherever it happens to be hiding.
which is essentially futile without first curbing war spending and getting rid of the immediate debt incurred on every dollar by using the privately owned cartel called the FED.
get rid of the FED, IMF, Dept of HS, and World Bank? even if he could you seem to think it could be done without causing total economic collapses...well good luck then, Roland
See: Ron Paul...watch ...listen....learn. Investigate.
as his for his advisers and mentors being far worse than Bush-Cheneys....that is based strickly upon your personal bias and opinion. he's not even in office yet you can't resist bashing what doesn't fit into Roland's p.o.v.
Nope. So far it's all pretty clear who his mentors have been, and are. To the point it shows in spades in him choosing Rahm. It is what it is so far....sorry.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I never said he supported Russia. I said the opposite.
Yes he voted for the continuance of the Iraq war, that's what I said.
as per the above link:
"Reality: Obama Has Consistently Said He Would Support A Patriot Act That Would Strengthen Civil Liberties Without Sacrificing The Tools That Law Enforcement Needs To Keep Us Safe"
What did I miss?
source pls, and has he ever said that withdrawal from Iraq will include dismantling existing bases?
He openly said that he's open to strikes on Pakistan like a while ago, and his rhetoric is protect Israel and defeat terrorism no matter what, and wherever it happens to be hiding.
which is essentially futile without first curbing war spending and getting rid of the immediate debt incurred on every dollar by using the privately owned cartel called the FED.
See: Ron Paul...watch ...listen....learn. Investigate.
Hello...It's built in by default, have you looked at the policy and the task, and at Israel or AIPAC for that matter?
Nope. So far it's all pretty clear who his mentors have been, and are. To the point it shows in spades in him choosing Rahm. It is what it is so far....sorry.
my source for all of that is barackobama.com.
Ron Paul is a total nutjob and it's no wonder he's such a big hit with you the tinfoil hat wearing crowd that engage in constant circle jerks in his honor
once again you are taking things out of context and twisting what is really there to suit your personal opinions and bias. but then you must do these things in order to get in the last word when you've been shown what's real and you can't deal with it....
now go back to your regularly schduled circle jerk
Ron Paul is a total nutjob and it's no wonder he's such a big hit with you the tinfoil hat wearing crowd that engage in constant circle jerks in his honor
once again you are taking things out of context and twisting what is really there to suit your personal opinions and bias. but then you must do these things in order to get in the last word when you've been shown what's real and you can't deal with it....
now go back to your regularly schduled circle jerk
I'm not sure who can't deal with what here exactly, but after referring Ron Paul as you just did despite him dead on with his economic forecast for the past 30 years, I know it definitely isn't me.
I'm not taking anything out of context, just looking at the what is transpiring before my very eyes.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
stem cell and climate change is what BO ran on and it was what the people voted him in on. he will deal with corporate crooks and the war later (much later) afterall he cant do everything in one day or term for that matter.
Ron Paul is a total nutjob and it's no wonder he's such a big hit with you the tinfoil hat wearing crowd that engage in constant circle jerks in his honor
once again you are taking things out of context and twisting what is really there to suit your personal opinions and bias. but then you must do these things in order to get in the last word when you've been shown what's real and you can't deal with it....
now go back to your regularly schduled circle jerk
the same guy who had "really good arguments" a few posts back (at least according to someone here) just stooped to the "tin foil hat", "nutjob" and "circle jerk" insults.
Way to go with that, Mr. Brilliant.
The fact you think Ron Paul is a total nutjob is proof positive enough for me to realize you really have zero fucking clue what you are talking about.
The fact that you coud actually think Obama's rhetoric regarding our activity in the middle east means DICK given the FACT that we are building THE LARGEST GODDAMN EMBASSY ON THE PLANET right in the center of fucking baghdad is enough for me to second tha notion.
Have fun in your interracial liberal orgy.
Make sure to wipe your face off after the cumshot.
(yeah, i went there. why not.)
:rolleyes:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Comments
You're right. If I can't vote in the US, then I have no business deciphering the inner workings of international politics.
What was I thinking?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
As far as I understand it, the change Obama offered are a new spirit of bipartisanship in Washington, and several first steps in policy improvements, primarily a bold new energy initiative. When has he ever claimed to be against NATO? When has he ever been against going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? When has been against properly funding troops in Iraq? You're going to accuse Obama of selling out on principles he never had in the first place? And now, as we see in Roland's post two above this one, if someone defends Obama on the basis of him being a moderate, he will be accused of delivering 'excuses' for a lack of change (a charge we're sure to hear countless times in the next few years). Roland, I'm sorry, but if you considered Obama to be something other than a moderate liberal, the mistake is with you, and not with the campaign. They didn't sell themselves to be something like the tenets you seem to hold against them, and it's bizarre to claim otherwise. The other part of this is that since Obama is relatively a moderate (at least in comparison to the spectrum Roland and others are using), the majority of the country, and the majority of those that voted for him, DO agree with him on the issues you disagree with him on. They do approve of NATO. They do believe we need to properly fund and equip the soldiers in Afghanistan. They do endorse funding the troops in Iraq. So I think it's also a little hard to believe that the hundreds of millions that voted for Obama, the majority of whom are moderates, are going to feel 'betrayed' when he acts upon these principles.
Or was he planning on needing that one still on the books?
You know, in case he is "tested".
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
First steps towards change, or the same steps as before?
I think it's a fine line once the precedence has been set. As the present turns into the past, kept laws and ongoing practices become regarded as normal policy, and are much harder to turn around to where normal used to be.
Maybe his critics could spread out their scrutiny into much longer time frames like months and years, instead of days and weeks by automatically assuming hundreds of mini baby steps and mistakes are to be required (and expected) in the upcoming years.
Sorta kick back and go for the ride.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
My problem isn't with the criticism of Obama, per se. If people think he's the same as the rest, then people think he's the same as the rest. I'm questioning this expectation of him being a politician that espouses some of the views you wrote about earlier in this thread, when it's obvious he never held any such positions. How could he have 'fooled' the public that voted for him when he was this moderate Democrat to begin with? I feel that's why those charges of extreme 'liberalism' lobbed towards him during the general election campaign fell flat.
So the criticism isn't this issue. I'm wondering where this expectation came from that he was going to be far more leftist and radical than he ever claimed to be.
have you even read or listened to anything that he's actally said without outright twisting things or taking a sentence here or there out of context based upon the conspriaces that you allow yourself to be deluded into believing in? because what you have are merely your opinions not based on anything to do with logical reason or what his positions really are on these issues.
but then again it's only to be expected for you to spout off beyond the exceptionally absurd. i must keep in mind that your tin-foil hat has cut off your circulation and only directs your blood to your hard-on for your "Obama is everything that is wrong and evil and I Roland still live for making shit up and twisting things around to prove it" obsession. your conspiraces therories are just more of the same ole crap
but just go ahead and waste your time posting more bashing and negative nonsense....
*yawn*
i myself will go back to ignoring you or caring about what you say(as i'm sure many and most ppl do on this board) being as we're fond of logic and reason
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
a. because many people don't think rationale, and therefore erroneously interpret deliberately designed buzzwords and promise-all campaign speeches as truth.
b. Obama came on very strong anti-war very early in this campaign.
I think most of those you are saying have been misled by their own naivete were in fact mislead by Obama's false anti-war rhetoric in to somehow thinking this meant he indeed represented some sort of demonstrable and more ubiquitous "change".
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I think a better example of people not thinking rationally would be the presidential election 4 years ago. That was people being fooled by fear tactics. At least this time they (we) voted for hope instead of more of the same crap. Obama represents a whole ass load of change more than McCain did.
I took it as a change from the partisan GOP agenda we have been living with for almost 8 years.
I guess I was right.
I'll take the first point last. Obama has always been against the war in Iraq, believing that we "took our eye off the ball" when trying to apprehend or kill Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan when we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. You can go back as far with this as you want, back to before the campaign. He supported Afghanistan and opposed Iraq both as far back as 2002. So I'm not sure where you're getting that information from.
Again, the majority of the country is moderate, which I'd define as broadly when it comes to the wars we are fighting, opposed to the war in Iraq and supportive of the war in Afghanistan and more specifically the hunt to capture Osama bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda. The majority of the American populace, at least as of 2008, fit into this broad definition. The majority of the people who voted for him fit into this definition. I still don't see, therefore, how Obama fooled anyone. You haven't offered any answer to that, especially since the country does not lean quite that left. Criticize him all you want, and Obama may deserve it but I still haven't seen any good proof that the majority of people who voted for Obama under false pretenses or misled expectations. The majority of American voters do not expect (or want) both Iraq and Afghanistan to end immediately (certainly, moreso the latter than the former, and if we have not ended our obligations in Iraq by the end of Obama's first term, that's a mark against him). The country leans further to the right than that on these matters.
Right.
Change to the Partisan Democratic Agenda.
People tend to think of the political system in America as looking something like a ruler with dems on the left and repubs on the right.
Instead, it might be appropriate to view that ruler bent in half, with a little cloister of assholes up top using both ends as legs to march their radically unconstitutional plans on to global glory.
Both parties are simply opposing appendages ... tools used by the real elite to control their own precious establishment.
Of COURSE we didn't think he represented REAL change.
Looks like you didn't really think so either.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The problem with this viewpoint is that Obama's illegitimacy as a candidate would only be applicable if the the majority of the nation shared your opinion on these matters. From what I gather of your posts, your opinion tend to be further to the left in the minority. I don't think this is a bad thing; for all we know it is the correct minority. Nevertheless, how is it that hundreds of millions of voters were shortchanged for a possibility of change when it's clear that the majority of voters don't stand where you stand, and measure change in different ways then you?
i'm not sure if you didn't read the article, my post, or both. i'll try to use the mouthbreather tactic of all caps in order to make it easier for you: GLOBAL GAG RULE.
although actually it should probably look like this: GLOBUL GAG ROOL!!!!1111!!!!!1111
and that's only the specific point, one example, that both were addressing. it must be nice to be what i presume is a white man, or at the very least, a man. you get to make your own medical decisions. the government doesn't legislate your body. maybe you've been too preoccupied with your own dick to notice what the bush admin has done with women's health both here and abroad. well, here's a hint: it's not just about making abortion illegal across the US. oh and if you weren't completely ignorant on what Obama has done, you would know he's a whole lot more than "stopping change."
cross the river to the eastside
Are you on mixed medication? Which ones aren't true?
√ · Pro Afghan war (wants to send more troops)
√ · Pro NATO (will increase members)
√ · Backed Georgia's attack (gave them a billion dollars)
√ · Voted to fund the Iraq war (gave up hundreds of billions)
√ · Voted to keep the Patriot Act and FISA
√ · Will keep bases and troops in Iraq
√ · Threaten Iran, Syria, and Pakistan
√ · Will keep spending trillions (no plan to pay the debt)
√ · Will keep the FED, IMF, Dept of HS, and World Bank
√ · Will keep the Bush pre-emptive attack ideology as policy.
√ · Surrounds himself with radical neo-con advisers and mentors that are far worse than Bush and Cheney
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I don't even think the majority of American's understand what THEY expect for "change".
It is a stupid buzzword that the campaign latched on to in a stroke of evil brilliance.
It was not MY proposition that America is not getting the change it voted for.
I believe that was YOUR second hand extrapolation of what you THOUGHT "our" (people like Roland and I, and others) opinions were.
I gave you one possible answer to the question you posed.
I said i believed a lot of people latched on to Obama's ant-war stance (which he admittedly had for quite some time) as though it represented some DEEPER change ...
they may not have known what he represented, they didn't even necessarily know what THEY wanted, they just knew Obama said "end the war" and to their relatively small spheres of thought that notion grew to represent some unnamed and unprecedented change in policy.
That being said,
i think most americans got EXACTLY what they wanted.
Someone they can BELIEVE in.
Someone they can go to bed at night thinking, "goddamn. its fucking great to have the democrats back in office. NOW I DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE GREAT UNPLEASANTRIES OF LIFE. Obama and the democrats will DO IT FOR ME."
In short, all they wanted was to make a quick pick on their scratch off card once in this four year cycle, and then they wanted TO BE LEFT ALONE.
And now they can go back to their hum-drum little lives, living in a false bubble where everything is okay, and Lord Obama has rid the world of the evil W.
PS - And for the love of christ, why does everyone insist on labeling me "FAR LEFT" ...
please iterate for me ANY of my positions that castigate me to the category of "far left" !??!?!?!!?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
ah fuck it, i'm staying the hell out of this thread!
and i love the last comment. Yeah right
You're offended?!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
as for the afghanistan. yes he wants to go after bin laden and the actual INCREASE of the taliban that has happened recently because of the troops being diverted to iraq. if you think that Taliban should be able to seize control of the country again then stfu and put on your Burka, Roland
so he's okay with more countries to be able to join NATO. it's not like he can say if they do or don't.
he didn't back Russia's attack of Georgia, quite the opposite. he proposed giving Georgia 1 billion in humanitarian assistance http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/russiaandgeorgia/
he voted to keeping funding the troops in Iraq. he wants them out of there in 16 months time. are they (the troops) supposed to not get paid or fed and do without in the mean while?
he didn't vote to keep the patriot act as it was http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obamas_consistent_p_1.php
he is opposed to keeping bases and troops in Iraq: Obama and Biden believe any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval—yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress. The Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress or allow the next administration to negotiate an agreement that has bipartisan support here at home and makes absolutely clear that the U.S. will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
now wanting to talk with and use diplomatic measures with Iran, Syria and Pakistan governments means threatening them? okay....maybe that's how things work in Rolandworld
he does indeed have plans to pay down the debt http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/
get rid of the FED, IMF, Dept of HS, and World Bank? even if he could you seem to think it could be done without causing total economic collapses...well good luck then, Roland
he has never stated that he would keep the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes as policy.
as his for his advisers and mentors being far worse than Bush-Cheneys....that is based strickly upon your personal bias and opinion. he's not even in office yet you can't resist bashing what doesn't fit into Roland's p.o.v.
besides the orginal post was about some things that he can accomplish by reversing or implimenting executive orders when he is the acting president
i'm done. but whatever Roland...keep twisting and making shit up....only you get off it
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
prism!!!
agreed.
really well-stated, both posts of yours that i've read thus far in this thread.
also why i asked earlier her today what wexpectations people have of the word *change*....b/c i think even if obama keeps his word, follows thru, it won't be the change some want, but that does not mean he hasn't kept his word.
between the OP of this thread, and i've started reading that loooonnnngggg newsweek 7 part series article, along with all else before the election....the happier i am.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
thank you
*bows*
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I never said he supported Russia. I said the opposite.
Yes he voted for the continuance of the Iraq war, that's what I said.
as per the above link:
"Reality: Obama Has Consistently Said He Would Support A Patriot Act That Would Strengthen Civil Liberties Without Sacrificing The Tools That Law Enforcement Needs To Keep Us Safe"
What did I miss?
source pls, and has he ever said that withdrawal from Iraq will include dismantling existing bases?
He openly said that he's open to strikes on Pakistan like a while ago, and his rhetoric is protect Israel and defeat terrorism no matter what, and wherever it happens to be hiding.
which is essentially futile without first curbing war spending and getting rid of the immediate debt incurred on every dollar by using the privately owned cartel called the FED.
See: Ron Paul...watch ...listen....learn. Investigate.
Hello...It's built in by default, have you looked at the policy and the task, and at Israel or AIPAC for that matter?
Nope. So far it's all pretty clear who his mentors have been, and are. To the point it shows in spades in him choosing Rahm. It is what it is so far....sorry.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
my source for all of that is barackobama.com.
Ron Paul is a total nutjob and it's no wonder he's such a big hit with you the tinfoil hat wearing crowd that engage in constant circle jerks in his honor
once again you are taking things out of context and twisting what is really there to suit your personal opinions and bias. but then you must do these things in order to get in the last word when you've been shown what's real and you can't deal with it....
now go back to your regularly schduled circle jerk
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I'm not sure who can't deal with what here exactly, but after referring Ron Paul as you just did despite him dead on with his economic forecast for the past 30 years, I know it definitely isn't me.
I'm not taking anything out of context, just looking at the what is transpiring before my very eyes.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
the same guy who had "really good arguments" a few posts back (at least according to someone here) just stooped to the "tin foil hat", "nutjob" and "circle jerk" insults.
Way to go with that, Mr. Brilliant.
The fact you think Ron Paul is a total nutjob is proof positive enough for me to realize you really have zero fucking clue what you are talking about.
The fact that you coud actually think Obama's rhetoric regarding our activity in the middle east means DICK given the FACT that we are building THE LARGEST GODDAMN EMBASSY ON THE PLANET right in the center of fucking baghdad is enough for me to second tha notion.
Have fun in your interracial liberal orgy.
Make sure to wipe your face off after the cumshot.
(yeah, i went there. why not.)
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?