• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

Barack Obama or John McCain?

ca82686

Active Member
Newcomer
Joined
Nov 25, 2005
Messages
35
Trophies
0
XP
271
Country
United States
yup, because your blind faith and patriotism prevent you from obtaining anything more that could be offered for the good of humanity from doing things such as stem cells. But i do respect that you served our country and what it used to stand for, and the freedoms we used to have, back when we actually had things like that.
 

aslacker55

I like pie
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
631
Trophies
0
Location
So Cal
Website
Visit site
XP
238
Country
United States
ca82686 said:
yup, because your blind faith and patriotism prevent you from obtaining anything more that could be offered for the good of humanity from doing things such as stem cells. But i do respect that you served our country and what it used to stand for, and the freedoms we used to have, back when we actually had things like that.

I'm proud of my country and if they need me, I would be there. Also, I work as a Registered Nurse for City of Hope (Cancer Research Hospital). Stem Cell research are mostly for people that have brain or spinal cord injuries or disease. At the hospital, we hardly talk about stem cells research. It's not that big of deal, outside of politics.
 

ca82686

Active Member
Newcomer
Joined
Nov 25, 2005
Messages
35
Trophies
0
XP
271
Country
United States
Yeah, this is one of the best places in the world to be if not the best, because of people who fought for it like you. Stem cells aren't that big a deal because the president wont even let funding be done for them, it has the potential to be the cure all end all of medicine, but without funding and testing we will never know.
 

aslacker55

I like pie
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
631
Trophies
0
Location
So Cal
Website
Visit site
XP
238
Country
United States
ca82686 said:
Yeah, this is one of the best places in the world to be if not the best, because of people who fought for it like you. Stem cells aren't that big a deal because the president wont even let funding be done for them, it has the potential to be the cure all end all of medicine, but without funding and testing we will never know.

There are actually research being done on mature stem cells. The problem with stem cell research funding, is the fetal stem cells. The fetal stem cells are the one's that can differentiate to any type of cells, mature stem cells are limited in what they can be turned into. The only way to get fetal stem cells are from unborn fetuses, mostly from aborted babies. Republican are mostly anti-abortionist, they will never fund something that promotes abortions. That's what they believe in, I do hope that they find a way to get fetal stem cells without the need of dead fetuses.
 

ca82686

Active Member
Newcomer
Joined
Nov 25, 2005
Messages
35
Trophies
0
XP
271
Country
United States
yes, those are the stem cells i was talking about, the embryonic ones, and there are frozen embryos that are going to be tossed out and/or destroyed anyways, so toss them into the garbage, or potentially cure every disease known to man, tough choice =P
 

XeonZ

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
247
Trophies
0
Age
34
Location
Stato del sole
Website
Visit site
XP
112
Country
United States
QUOTE said:
And I support McCain. He may not be the best candidate and I certainly would've rather seen a different Republican, but I just can't see Obama doing a good job as president. Raising taxes at this stage of the game would completely destroy the US economy. It's doing bad now but wait until taxes are raised... And the war in Iraq, no matter if you agree with it or not, has to be finished right. If we pulled out now, the situation would fall apart and violence would shoot right back up. What would the last 5 years mean if that were to happen? Again, McCain is surely not the best candidate for president but he's the best we got right now.

Obama actually intends to give working class families tax cuts, not raise their taxes. The only class he'll tax more is the upper class of people, which I'm not in agreement that even that should be done as I don't think they deserve it.

QUOTEMight as well tackle Bush. He hasn't been the greatest president, nor has he really been a good one. He's been an average to below average president. And he's not responsible for much else besides the war in Iraq. The gas prices, economy, and housing crisis are all out of his control. I don't know what you people think he can do about that. He seems like an idiot, but I still think that's just an act. And he's definitely not the worst president ever. There have been much worse. Buchanan anybody? Seven seceded states and no action? Look it up sometime.

Yeah I'd call him a mediocre president myself. Though the way the government, Bush included, is deficit spending is a little unsettling. Though the economy isn't his fault I don't think he's tried hard to improve it either.
 

abaddon41_80

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
295
Trophies
0
Age
35
Location
Jacksonville, Fl
XP
248
Country
United States
Apex said:
abaddon41_80 said:
I am a Bush supporter but he is not a "great" president. He is a decent president and the media makes him out to be much worse than he really is

So you know him personally?

The media works with what it's given.


The media completely exaggerates his faults, blames him for things that are outside of his control, and never bother to air the many good speeches he has.

QUOTE(solange82200 @ Aug 3 2008, 02:51 AM)
Vampire Hunter, McCain himself isnt stupid enough to play the race/muslim card, but have you heard any of the Republican talk show hosts or tv show hosts? They make a point of referring to him as Barrack HUSSEIN Obama, meanwhile never using any other candidate's middle name, they talk nonstop about the fact that he must be like Jeremiah Wright, insinuating that he hates white people. They more or less call Michelle Obama a militant, all because of the "For the first time in my adult life I'm really proud of my country" comment, which even LAURA BUSH took her side on, saying that it didn't come out the way it was intended to. All the people that Republicans look up to (Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc.) ALL do the exact same things that Obama is saying they do. They take everything he says or does and miscontrues it, meanwhile giving McCain a free pass. They love to talk about Michelle Obama's verbal slip, but you never hear them mention how Cindy McCain was a drug addict who stole from her own charity. So seriously, I dont see how you can say that Obama is lying when he says that "they" do those things. It's a fact

Obama and his wife brought those things down upon themselves. If Obama really didn't want people thinking he hated white people maybe he shouldn't have stayed at a church where the pastor seemed racist for 20 years. Maybe his wife shouldn't have openly said that she will try and help black people more than white people. All people are doing is bringing those things up for people to be educated. That is not nearly as bad as the hundreds and hundreds of television shows and publications making fun of every republican every chance they get

BTW, some of you are stereotyping republicans. I am an atheist, pro-choice, stem-cell research supporting, and pretty peaceful republican. I don't mind homosexual marriage and I am certainly not racist. If you ever meant me you would probably think I was a democrat.
 

nIxx

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
1,544
Trophies
0
Location
Germany
Website
Visit site
XP
337
Country
Gambia, The
Hi i´m from germany and i like Obama
smile.gif
and after what McCain said the last weeks i think McCain "could" be the next Bush and Bush really failed with lot of things not only the war in iraq and afghanistan (in my opinion). And to the taxes without the taxes the mountain of debts will rise and rise
wink.gif
.

But a really good thing is that before this election i never saw so many teenagers interested in politics but now with Obama much more teenager concerned with political matters.
 

VmprHntrD

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
2,626
Trophies
0
Age
47
Location
Louisville, KY
XP
517
Country
United States
Solange Yes I'm quite aware with the retarded crap that comes out of the mouths of conservative talk radio show hosts and since they by far get the most air time since liberal talk keeps taking the tank I can see how it would seem one sided, but they pull the same lies and slander too on their targets. Thing is, talk show hosts don't run the nation. While they do spout off some crap they do at least bring up some concerns as well. I don't fall into that crap completely, but even if they harp on it I think there is some level of a valid concern if you're going to have a guy representing a country who went to church with and followed the sermons as gospel from a guy who spouts off some crazy stuff, and I'm not fool enough to think the only times ever were those on tape. I think picking on his wife is a bit extreme, and perhaps her views have changes, but that thesis she did for college was fairly disgusting and a real warped version of reality in part. Yes those people like Hannity will give McCain a pass while tearing into Obama, but on the flip side you have the 3 national broadcast networks and 2 cable news channels who blast McCain much harder than Obama and tear into every little thing too, mind you due to tv in a typically more presentable fashion outside the opinion hour shows like Olbermann has so it's really a fair game or at best left leaning favored as more to tv and newspapers than talk radio.

I really can't argue with our admin buddy there Heran either. More or less the base of the Republican party still exists, but that base is now a minority crowded out by 'new' republicans which I'd dare say lean more away from moderate into slightly left in how they want to handle things. I think they've learned that moderates and democrats (or just hte D party alone) have a higher body count so instead of sticking to principle they're pandering. I agree that Obama at this hour would improve our standing in the eyes of the world on a social level and for appearances, but in practice he's got a lot of plans that'll do more damage than good with the way things are right now. Heran is right, you need a real by the original 20yo book Republican and McCain while he's not that he at least has some brains to know on some policies and things he'd have to be so that least that's something. McCain is your moderate and at some points liberal republican, weird combo, but he on other points is very classic republican conservative too so he's an unpredictable mixed bag. The sick thing right now is it's 1 on 1, and they'll say whatever to get a vote, but track record and standing voting record is where you need to look, and comparing the two you'll see McCain would be better right now for fixing things up a bit.

Xeon he would like you to think that way but you need to realize his talk is very self centered and doesn't take reality into the bigger picture. Obama as it stands wants to keep the Bush tax cuts except for those making over $200K a year which on the surface seems great. But, he's got quirks. Are you aware he wants to up the Capital Gains tax from 15% to 20-28%? While this appears like it would hosing the rich the most, we're now living in the land of e-trade.com and the land of 401ks based on corporate stock. Now who perhaps uses e-trade and 401ks the most? Those under the 200K level, many people who bank 50K a year in their home (mine combined pre-tax is 60k) buy stocks as investments and their 401ks are nestled in it. His tax plan makes NO previsions for that type of person, it basically punishes anyone dealing with stock. Would it be fair to harm someone who retires making 50K a year by taking away 28% of their 401 retirement fun when the stock is cashed out, or to 'care for the non-rich' to hit them with 28%? Also another factor all said and done, the rich...they employ you, they run the businesses that create jobs, and as such set prices. Do you really think if we raise their taxes to pre-Bush tax cuts (which Obama wants) and combined with the Capital Gains tax hike they won't pass that shit off onto YOU? They'll want to keep making their same profits, so they'll raise the costs on food, goods, services, utilities, fuel, oil, etc. In essence YOU will be paying the tax increase without supposedly getting one. They can't legally stop them from raises costs, so you'll get jacked.

Oh and I dunno if I ever covered it on McCain, but in relation to the wars going on he's no Bush and I hate the tv/print media shovel that crap and take sentences as bylines out of paragraphs to do so. He's no fan of Iraq, he wants the gov't there to get their shit together and take over. He's no fan of a timetable, any sane person shouldn't be. After this long if you just say June 09 we're home, it'll just keep the enemy in waiting to deal with it later and who loses but us in lives and billions making it all pointless. McCain knows like Obama the fight is in Afghanistan, he just won't cut n' run until it's fixed and I can't blame him for that. Bush though isn't that way, he'd stay there for as long as it takes or until removed with force by the locals. Bush wants to keep a hold on the land there as a breaking point into other troublemakers back yard, to protect oil, and to see if we can get a cut of that action (mind you I think perhaps those iraqis should be paying us in oil or something with what they're raking in now with it around $4/gallon.)
 

Prophet

Resident Black Militant
Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2002
Messages
635
Trophies
0
Age
36
Website
Visit site
XP
330
Country
United States
Valkrys said:
Oh, and on communism. It just doesn't work. It kinda seems good on paper, but name me one time when it has truly succeeded. There's always political corruption, and there's always a group of people doing better than the common people. The only way for communism to have a hope of working is if the leaders can be equal to the subjects, and it is against human nature to do that. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Honestly, it would take a George Washington, and people just aren't like that anymore. In communism, EVERYONE has to be equal, and that is why it will always fail - people, for all they say, like to be better than others.

I agree with you completely; men are corrupt and they will inevitably create systems that are corrupt. But this is not reason enough not to pursue true socialism, untwisted and skewed as communism. There was a time when people laid similar claims at the feet of democracy and to a degree they were right. We don't shoulder the burden of democracy well either, just look at the amount of people who don't even vote. All I'm saying is this: every step we take toward socialism is a step taken toward mankind's logical betterment. I am not saying tomorrow we revamp the system, or destroy and rebuild. But we can transform the system over time. Our children's children could inherit a world of equality. The system is not perfect, but in slowly adopting it we can vow to pursue it's perfection. Just as we have done with amendments, just as we have done with civil rights; we must suffer the discomfort of change so that tomorrow might be brighter than today.

Are you truley content, to freeze america? As a system, would you be content to see it stay as it is right at this moment?
 

Wolfsclaw

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2003
Messages
411
Trophies
0
Age
116
Location
Germany
Website
Visit site
XP
250
Country
Gambia, The
@Prophet: But how is that going to happen with your two-party "democratic" system and all the neo-conservatism in your country? I'd hope for a stronger Green and a stronger Democratic Socialism party but these have always been minor parties and it doesn't seem like they will be gaining strength soon, does it?

"Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."
-- Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin

@Valkrys:
"It kinda seems good on paper, but name me one time when it has truly succeeded."

Cuba. Of course it has its flaws - namely unfair dealing with oppositional people, one-party system, partly unfair payment, human rights abuses, censorship, no real freedom of speech etc. - but in my opinion food and water for everyone on the island (compare it to its neighbours like Haiti or Jamaica!), 0% illiteracy rate, very high standard in education and the world's best health care system is something that is worth it. Yes, the people are in western standards poor, but they are all equally poor and they still have enough for living a long and mostly healthy and happy life. I don't think that's guaranteed when you live in the USA which is the richest country in the world.

Also, not every theory of communism had been put in practice as of today. There had been no Trotskyist state (that is: a trotskyist ruling party) as far as i know. There had been no only-Marxist state which would have required a revolution from the workers themselves, not from a party and not centralistic (like Marxism-Leninism). Things like Stalinism or heavy suppression by state destroyed what could have been done too many times. Plus, some states name themself communist, when they are actually not. Examples are China, Libya, North Korea, Vietnam or Bangladesh.


Also, just by the way, like communism (or better: socialism), anarchism also seems to be something that is not taken seriously in many people's eyes.
Everyone who sees it like that - i recommend this nice wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution
QUOTE said:
George Orwell describes a scene in Aragon during this time period in his book Homage to Catalonia. [1]

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."

Who knows, maybe in a hundred or in a thousand years, anarchism will be considered more worthy for the world than a republic. We're always part of a progress.
 

saxamo

Spaaaaace!
Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
776
Trophies
1
Location
NYC
XP
429
Country
United States
By January 2009, when the next president takes office, it will be obvious that we are in a Greater Depression. Millions of Americans will be angry, desperate and uncomfortably awakened and confused. People (have already, and) will be losing their homes, their incomes, their ability to buy food and fuel and health care. And giant predators, from banks and corporations to foreign property owners to Blackwater, will be trying to exploit the crisis for selfish gain.

Now let's say that you are part of some organized movement that's technically against the law. Maybe a few hundred people have occupied an abandoned suburb and you are tearing down houses and making gardens. Or some farmers are refusing to leave land that the banks claim to own. Or the people in one poor neighborhood have run out of food, and they march to the Whole Foods in a rich neighborhood and take what they need. Or half a million people march to protest the Iraq war, and because they don't have jobs or health insurance to lose, they don't go home, but occupy the center of a major city for days.

Now, what would President McCain do? He would send in the fucking military and smoke your ass, and if you weren't killed, you would be shipped to a "detention facility," and never heard from again.

What would President Obama do? I could be wrong, but I think he would go in person and listen to you, ask you what you needed and how he could help. Then he would go back to the big money people, and explain your position to them, and ask them what they needed. Then he would work out a compromise, and he would go on TV and explain the whole situation and how he resolved it and why. Nobody would be completely happy, but we would avoid a big disaster and gain in understanding.

Barack Obama's candidacy is the kind of opportunity that only comes along once or twice a century. He has honesty, courage, intelligence, charisma, and great political instincts, but most important, he shows a willingness and ability to channel bottom-up energy, to challenge the people to act, and to serve as a focus for public passion, where McCain would go in the back room and flush it down the toilet. When you look on the level of human spirit, Obama represents our only chance to renew America without passing through really horrific violence.

However, we can't just sit back and expect him to take care of us. That's the kind of thinking that ruined America in the first place. We're going to have to organize boycotts and strikes and local currencies and secession movements and illegal mutual aid networks and mass physical actions that are tactical and not merely symbolic. We'll have one, or four, or maybe eight years with Obama in office, and we should think of him not as a leader but as a weapon, a lever big enough to move the country. In the last hours before the French Revolution, the lawmakers relented and passed a bunch of huge reforms, but by the time anyone found out, it was too late, they were already burning the palaces.
 

Prophet

Resident Black Militant
Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2002
Messages
635
Trophies
0
Age
36
Website
Visit site
XP
330
Country
United States
Wolfsclaw said:
@Prophet: But how is that going to happen with your two-party "democratic" system and all the neo-conservatism in your country? I'd hope for a stronger Green and a stronger Democratic Socialism party but these have always been minor parties and it doesn't seem like they will be gaining strength soon, does it?

"Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."
-- Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin

@Valkrys:
"It kinda seems good on paper, but name me one time when it has truly succeeded."

Cuba. Of course it has its flaws - namely unfair dealing with oppositional people, one-party system, partly unfair payment, human rights abuses, censorship, no real freedom of speech etc. - but in my opinion food and water for everyone on the island (compare it to its neighbours like Haiti or Jamaica!), 0% illiteracy rate, very high standard in education and the world's best health care system is something that is worth it. Yes, the people are in western standards poor, but they are all equally poor and they still have enough for living a long and mostly healthy and happy life. I don't think that's guaranteed when you live in the USA which is the richest country in the world.

Also, not every theory of communism had been put in practice as of today. There had been no Trotskyist state (that is: a trotskyist ruling party) as far as i know. There had been no only-Marxist state which would have required a revolution from the workers themselves, not from a party and not centralistic (like Marxism-Leninism). Things like Stalinism or heavy suppression by state destroyed what could have been done too many times. Plus, some states name themself communist, when they are actually not. Examples are China, Libya, North Korea, Vietnam or Bangladesh.


Also, just by the way, like communism (or better: socialism), anarchism also seems to be something that is not taken seriously in many people's eyes.
Everyone who sees it like that - i recommend this nice wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution
QUOTE said:
George Orwell describes a scene in Aragon during this time period in his book Homage to Catalonia. [1]

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."

Who knows, maybe in a hundred or in a thousand years, anarchism will be considered more worthy for the world than a republic. We're always part of a progress.

Great post. To be perfectly honest, I doubt that socialism or anarchism for that matter, will be reached without first seeing the world in ruin. But I maintain that universal health care would be a step (no matter how tiny) in the right direction of transforming our own system into something more socialistic. It's sad but it will probably take a war of measures the world has never seen to usher in any significant change in ruling methodology. And even then old habits die hard. Men much like history, often repeat themselves. None the less, it is still important that we aspire to be better as men and neighbors. Because I believe the fruition of man's collective and purest aspirations would be something very similar to socialism.
 

Wolfsclaw

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2003
Messages
411
Trophies
0
Age
116
Location
Germany
Website
Visit site
XP
250
Country
Gambia, The
saxamo said:
By January 2009, when the next president takes office, it will be obvious that we are in a Greater Depression. Millions of Americans will be angry, desperate and uncomfortably awakened and confused. People (have already, and) will be losing their homes, their incomes, their ability to buy food and fuel and health care. And giant predators, from banks and corporations to foreign property owners to Blackwater, will be trying to exploit the crisis for selfish gain.

How angry are the people now? I thought the economical depression was already happening and - correct me if i'm wrong - i haven't heard much of direct action being taken against it. That probably is because i'm watching from overseas and i don't have a first person perspective. But as of now it seems to me most people deal with it one way or another. I doubt that the reactions will actually worsen that much by January 2009.

"Now let's say that you are part of some organized movement that's technically against the law. Maybe a few hundred people have occupied an abandoned suburb and you are tearing down houses and making gardens. Or some farmers are refusing to leave land that the banks claim to own. Or the people in one poor neighborhood have run out of food, and they march to the Whole Foods in a rich neighborhood and take what they need. Or half a million people march to protest the Iraq war, and because they don't have jobs or health insurance to lose, they don't go home, but occupy the center of a major city for days."

That sounds quite like an uprising - I'd seriously be surprised to see that happening. I know there had been alot of riots and organized movements against problems in the us-american society (most notoriously against racism: martin luther king, malcolm x, black panther party, watts 1965, LA 1992 etc.) but uprisings as you describe almost seem to be revolutionary, which probably won't happen because of the strong presence of patriotism, the media which is able to control your outrages, and the ever-so-strong conservatism. Then again, I could be wrong. But I would not expect something like that as early as 2009.

"Now, what would President McCain do? He would send in the fucking military and smoke your ass, and if you weren't killed, you would be shipped to a "detention facility," and never heard from again."

He would most definitely send in military after some waiting time, but they would hesitate to use live ammunition. At most times, teargas and the like would be enough. Shooting your people would mean extreme and harsh criticism as regarding in foreign as well as in domestic policy (I dont know if thats the right word; english is not my mother tongue). It would be the most stupid thing to do, and McCain is not that stupid.

"What would President Obama do? I could be wrong, but I think he would go in person and listen to you, ask you what you needed and how he could help. Then he would go back to the big money people, and explain your position to them, and ask them what they needed. Then he would work out a compromise, and he would go on TV and explain the whole situation and how he resolved it and why. Nobody would be completely happy, but we would avoid a big disaster and gain in understanding."

That sounds really romanticized. In Germany we got the word "Obamania" for that (dunno if you say that, too). I don't think we should be too quick about labeling him as the messias, just because he is a charismatic and sympathic person.

QUOTE said:
Barack Obama's candidacy is the kind of opportunity that only comes along once or twice a century. He has honesty, courage, intelligence, charisma, and great political instincts, but most important, he shows a willingness and ability to channel bottom-up energy, to challenge the people to act, and to serve as a focus for public passion, where McCain would go in the back room and flush it down the toilet. When you look on the level of human spirit, Obama represents our only chance to renew America without passing through really horrific violence.

As already said, I would be more careful about that. For example, what is Obama planning to do against global warming? I heard that on the one hand he would step up renewable energy sources (thats what he's saying in his speeches so he gets cheered on) but just yesterdy i read that he is following george bush's path of accelerating the drill for oil before the us coast, which will not only do nothing against the high oil price, but also will accelerate global warming even more. As far as i like Obama so far, I'm still sceptical.
QUOTE said:
However, we can't just sit back and expect him to take care of us. That's the kind of thinking that ruined America in the first place. We're going to have to organize boycotts and strikes and local currencies and secession movements and illegal mutual aid networks and mass physical actions that are tactical and not merely symbolic. We'll have one, or four, or maybe eight years with Obama in office, and we should think of him not as a leader but as a weapon, a lever big enough to move the country.
Doesnt sound bad, but will it really happen? When "Obamania" has gripped you, it's hard for people to go demonstrating against his politics. That's what I kinda fear - that Obama will not face much opposition or critical voices, and that's dangerous.

QUOTE
In the last hours before the French Revolution, the lawmakers relented and passed a bunch of huge reforms, but by the time anyone found out, it was too late, they were already burning the palaces.

I don't mean to bitch, but Louis XVI was active until he was taken prisoner in 1792 =P which means that from 1789-1793 france was a constitutional monarchy. But that's just on a sidenote
tongue.gif
Oh and no palaces were burning.... okay, I'm stopping it.
tongue.gif


Oh, and sorry for the long post. Plus i was using too many quotes so I had to put some into " marks. I hope it don't matter.
 

VmprHntrD

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
2,626
Trophies
0
Age
47
Location
Louisville, KY
XP
517
Country
United States
Saxamo it saddens me Americans like you think such ways about both the candidates as you're well off the mark, but if that's what you were fed or somehow by some rational thought came to on your own I'd ask you to go back and search for some facts as your opinion on both candidates would shift some. McCain considering his bad time back in the war would be the least likely to stick people within some detention/torture camp if people didn't agree with him. And Obama may act like he is a listener, but he's a bit hard of hearing and not that big of a compromiser as he's laid out what he wants to do and how he'll do it, and telling 'rich people' what others want and then hearing their side and meeting half way ain't going to happen.

Both of them are fairly set in their ways, compromise to a point is possible, but it gets really tiring hearing such uninformed crap get spewed about both of them from blind fanboy fanatics from both camps trying to scare people into joining theirs instead of the other. Let the FACTS set you free.


...and kirby if mccain = bush, then obama = castro (without the suppression and violence.) Get your head out of the sand man.
 

Devante

Crescent fresh at best.
Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2002
Messages
1,221
Trophies
2
XP
772
Country
United States
Do any of you really think it matters who the president is?

It's not the president that makes any difference.
It's the people that make the president and make the congress and make the etc. who they are.

Why is this thread 3 pages long? It doesn't matter who the president is. ha.

Zombies.

Don't worry, me too.
 

VmprHntrD

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
2,626
Trophies
0
Age
47
Location
Louisville, KY
XP
517
Country
United States
Actually the President does make a difference if the congress is of the same train of thought and party as they'll shovel any kind of crap damning the consequences through short of having a judicial bitchslapping by the supreme court. The best run government is a mix of ideas (one party in executive and the other in the legislative) because if you want anything done you have to work togther, and if you piss away your 2-6 years doing crap the people will see your ass to the door. All that stuff right now Obama is preaching whether good or obtusely bad considering the congress will get drafted and likely with little meddling or considering the consequences will get passed.
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
    SylverReZ @ SylverReZ: @salazarcosplay, Morning