Barak Obama-just another politician.

NOCODE#1

El_Kabong wrote:

there's been plenty said

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=234406

also, i saw on cnn tonight that when he was in alabama talking to white ppl he had a normal accent, then later in the day when he was talking to a black church he suddenly had a southern drawl and spoke differently...seems like pandering

Your "normal accent" comment gives you away. Your post indicates that the way segments of afro americans talk isn't normal. It is normal.....it's just not white. Language mutates throughout history.

Abuskedti

Commy wrote:

In an interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune published September 26, Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said he would favor the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington’s demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program. Obama also said that, in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation’s nuclear arsenal.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/obam-f13.shtml

In his defense - he is subject to the same media as the rest of us...

I guess with all the lies we hear everyday - we are forced to choose our own reality.

Once in office - The president of the united states can have anything clarified that he chooses..

Tough to judge someones foreign policy - when nobody is entitled to honest objective facts - we are left to judge charactor in other ways.

Commy

Abuskedti wrote:

In his defense - he is subject to the same media as the rest of us...

I guess with all the lies we hear everyday - we are forced to choose our own reality.

Once in office - The president of the united states can have anything clarified that he chooses..

Tough to judge someones foreign policy - when nobody is entitled to honest objective facts - we are left to judge charactor in other ways.

That's very true, nobody is entitled to honest objectives facts, least all of the president, seriously.

Its funny, not really, the media in the United States. The more important the recipient of the information the more controlled it is. I can't imagine what the president hears from his sources. We can be sure its the most indoctrinating, propaganized information there is. Same with Senators and Congressmen...their opinions are more important to control than the general population.

mattosborne

I don't know how clear I can be about this but, I'm not sure what dream you people are living but, NOBODY, not even Kucinich could bring the troops home immediatley, it would still take months, just because your president, you can't snap your fingers and over night have troops home....It doesn't work that way.

Abookamongstthemany

mattosborne wrote:

I don't know how clear I can be about this but, I'm not sure what dream you people are living but, NOBODY, not even Kucinich could bring the troops home immediatley, it would still take months, just because your president, you can't snap your fingers and over night have troops home....It doesn't work that way.

But it sure helps if you're serious about an actual withdrawl and not an occupation with no real time frame.

El_Kabong

NOCODE#1 wrote:

Your "normal accent" comment gives you away. Your post indicates that the way segments of afro americans talk isn't normal. It is normal.....it's just not white. Language mutates throughout history.

:rolleyes:

of course, normal as in the way he normally, usually, talks <most of the time>, you get the idea? not as in 'normal' as in a set way everyone must talk, how you came to that conclusion is beyond me as cultures are pretty plenty and varied.

if i went to work tomorrow and started talking in a jamacian accent would that be normal? not for me it wouldn't be

and look, this is just a small point, just that it shows them putting on an act, not being themselves...i prefer ppl who act real, be authentic, true to themselves...

Trau

What is wrong, exactly, with what was quoted about Obama in the initial post of this thead?

El_Kabong

Trau wrote:

What is wrong, exactly, with what was quoted about Obama in the initial post of this thead?

that maybe some ppl don't want to pre emptively attack another country again

Trau

Preemptive invasions, maybe not. But why not preemptive strikes?

musicismylife78

someone on the music forum posted a clip of Uncle Bruce on Conan performing "bring em home".

Why cant we have a politician like that!!!

These people like Ed, bruce, uncle neil, dylan, tool all say what they mean. They arent lying. They tell the truth.

When Bruce says "bring em home" we need to bring them home indeed.

I am so sick of democrats refusing to stand up for their prinicples. 3,000 plus youngsters are dead partly because the democrats were wimpy enough not to challenge bush in the aftermath of 9/11 for fear of being called antiamerican.

This has got to stop, and where is our generations McGovern, RFK, and Mccarthy?

Where are the politicians who speak for the youth? Where are the politicians who feel the pain of the families who have lost more than is imaginable in the loss of a child in iraq? Where are the politicians who say "not one more child"? Where are the politicians who say to us "you were lied to, and I will not lie to you. This war is unwinnable, and the only way out is to bring em home"

BRING EM HOME!!!

El_Kabong

Trau wrote:

Preemptive invasions, maybe not. But why not preemptive strikes?

b/c innocent ppl will still die. are we here to be the world's bully? telling everyone what they can and can not do? why do we get to waive these rules against ourselves and friends?

Gotchaa

What a dissapointment Obama is turning out to be. He captures our attention, enters the race and then pedals his international political views which end up being as short sighted as any of the candidates in 2008.

We need someone who understands world affairs and how America is perceived, has a plan to champion efforts to bring about change...Obama is not the person for the job, more of same B.S. posturing to win doaners and votes.

The day we have election reforms, where each candidate gets an equal amount to spend on campainging and required to debate the issues we care about is the day we will get real candidates. Until then we are stuck with the same old crap, there is no significant difference between these candidates.

Obama was a good speech at the DNC "."

Trau

El_Kabong wrote:

b/c innocent ppl will still die.

And that isn't a major risk if Iran develops nuclear weapons?

are we here to be the world's bully?

Would we really be a bully to keep Iran from having nuclear weapons?

telling everyone what they can and can not do? why do we get to waive these rules against ourselves and friends?

What rules are you talking about?

El_Kabong

Trau wrote:

And that isn't a major risk if Iran develops nuclear weapons?

premptively attacking someone will not stop anyone from building them if they want them. if anything it will convince them they need to defend themselves from our aggression, even more than before.

Trau wrote:

Would we really be a bully to keep Iran from having nuclear weapons?

if you're saying it's ok for us, israel, pakistan.... to have them

Trau wrote:

What rules are you talking about?

we're talking about action if iran violates the npt and the iaea...yet we've broken the npt, we refuse to allow any inspections from the iaea...israel violated the npt <and according to us law it's illegal to sell weapons to or do business w/ any country who creates nukes secretly, as they did>, they don't allow the iaea to monior or inspect anything...pretty much the same thing w/ pakistan...bush tells them they can pretty much do what they want....pakistan...the country whose top nuke scientist sold secrets to pretty much anyone, the country whose head of their version of the cia wired mohammed atta money shortly before 9/11....

Trau

El_Kabong wrote:

premptively attacking someone will not stop anyone from building them if they want them. if anything it will convince them they need to defend themselves from our aggression, even more than before.

They build more, we bomb more. What other choice is there if they refuse to stop building?

if you're saying it's ok for us, israel, pakistan.... to have them

There is no moral equivalency between the US, Israel with Iran. No, Pakistan should not have them, but they already do.

we're talking about action if iran violates the npt and the iaea...yet we've broken the npt, we refuse to allow any inspections from the iaea...israel violated the npt <and according to us law it's illegal to sell weapons to or do business w/ any country who creates nukes secretly, as they did>, they don't allow the iaea to monior or inspect anything...pretty much the same thing w/ pakistan...bush tells them they can pretty much do what they want....pakistan...the country whose top nuke scientist sold secrets to pretty much anyone, the country whose head of their version of the cia wired mohammed atta money shortly before 9/11....

If you can't differentiate between the US, Israel, and Iran, then I am very sorry for you.

Commy

Trau wrote:

They build more, we bomb more. What other choice is there if they refuse to stop building?





There is no moral equivalency between the US, Israel with Iran. No, Pakistan should not have them, but they already do.




If you can't differentiate between the US, Israel, and Iran, then I am very sorry for you.

waht's makes the US and Israel so special? Israel kills more civilians than all the terror groups in the region combined. The US has done more to disrupt world peace than the next 10 countries combined.

If the US can invade beased on the "preventive war" philospophy, saying a country might develop WMD's, its a criteria every country on the planet fits. Dangerous ground...a policy that is encouraging nations to pursue these WMD's, to defend themselves from US aggression.

Trau

Commy wrote:

waht's makes the US and Israel so special? Israel kills more civilians than all the terror groups in the region combined. The US has done more to disrupt world peace than the next 10 countries combined.

Sure, you can say the US and Israel are as dangerous as any rogue state or terrorist organization, but you do so without nuance, context, or sophistication.

El_Kabong

Trau wrote:

Sure, you can say the US and Israel are as dangerous as any rogue state or terrorist organization, but you do so without nuance, context, or sophistication.

sure he does, he says it w/ israel killing 5 palestinian children for every 1 israeli child killed....the number for civillian adults is slightly lower but like the kids, israel kills more

El_Kabong

Trau wrote:

They build more, we bomb more. What other choice is there if they refuse to stop building?

and what gives us the right to decide that israel and pakistan can have them? why is this 'you build more, we bomb you more' line not used on them?

Trau wrote:

There is no moral equivalency between the US, Israel with Iran. No, Pakistan should not have them, but they already do.

and we told them they don't need to listen to the iaea and can build more...more...but what happened to 'if you build more, we bomb you more'???

Trau wrote:

If you can't differentiate between the US, Israel, and Iran, then I am very sorry for you.

yes, the US and israel have killed far more civillians than iran ever has and we're allowed to have them

SweetHarmonics

yet another whine-fest to hammer home the stereotype, good work

these microscopes are gonna be worn out soon