EPTOn October 28 2008 07:02 HnR)hT wrote:
Actually, the population is becoming less intelligent. But don't let facts get in the way!
Actually, the population is becoming less intelligent. But don't let facts get in the way!
You're proof enough for me.
2008 US Presidential Election - Page 57
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
yoshtodd
United States418 Posts
You're proof enough for me. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On October 28 2008 09:08 HnR)hT wrote: An interesting view says that Obama's cult followers are secretly, perhaps subconsciously, wishing for him to be taken out before he has a chance to become another shitty president and disappoint their mythomaniac fantasies.  wow dude wow I always thought you were batshit fucking insane and you just removed all doubt | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On October 28 2008 09:15 Jibba wrote: How did you guys listen to the .ram file? I dled Real Alternative but it's not working with MPC and I refuse to install Realplayer. :/ I tried to use vlc I gave up and dled realplayer -.- I'll have to uninstall it after I listen to the second half | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32059 Posts
On October 28 2008 09:14 fusionsdf wrote: wow dude wow I always thought you were batshit fucking insane and you just removed all doubt it's nothing new. he's tl's resident dumbshit racist. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 28 2008 08:27 HnR)hT wrote: I am still baffled as to how McCain could have possibly won the nomination, even taking into account the media bigotry against Romney and the sheer stupidity of many prominent conservative pundits. If there are enough registered Republicans voting for McCain in the primaries for him to get the nomination, even though, on top of being the least conservative candidate on the list, he has the disadvantage of being a too-old senator of mediocre intellectual ability and no clear redeeming qualities, the inescapable conclusion would seem to be that conservatism is a minority position even within the Republican party. It's a given that any Republican, no matter how moderate or left-leaning his actual views, will be portrayed as a right-wing reactionary by the Democrats and their allies in the press. But now it appears that, among the Republican rank-and-file itself, in order to be approved as a "conservative" all it takes is to be a warmonger and anti-abortion. For real conservatives, this was *the* alarming revelation of the year. define "real conservatism" | ||
|
CTStalker
Canada9720 Posts
| ||
|
yoshtodd
United States418 Posts
On October 28 2008 09:15 Jibba wrote: How did you guys listen to the .ram file? I dled Real Alternative but it's not working with MPC and I refuse to install Realplayer. :/ I didn't actually... but really enjoyed the article about him as a teacher (was linked as Read This I think). Do you have the codec for MPC called realalternative or whatever? | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
In 2001, Chicago Public Radio interviewed then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama about civil rights. Over the weekend, someone posted excerpts of the interview, edited to misrepresent Obama's statements. The item is now catching national attention. Click here for Obama's full interviews. The clips are taken from an interview that aired in January of 2001. Then State Senator Obama is one of three legal scholars interviewed for a show about civil rights. Over the weekend, someone pulled excerpts of the show and posted them to You Tube—and today, the posting caught fire on political blogs, the Drudge Report, and Fox News. The 4 minute spliced collection of clips portrays Obama as advocate a redistribution of wealth through the power of the Supreme Court. That folds in with some allegations by the McCain Palin campaign. The twist here is that, when heard in the context of the whole show, Obama’s position is distinctly misrepresented by the You Tube posting. Taken in context, Obama is evaluating the historical successes and failures of the Civil Rights movement—and, ironically, he says the Supreme Court was a failure in cases that it took on a role of redistributing resources. The McCain campaign told ABC News it plans to use the material to bolster its criticism of Obama. I’m Ben Calhoun, Chicago Public Radio. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Sick, they posted the whole thing and a bunch of other interviews from 2001. I can't believe I'm excited over public radio. >.> | ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
| ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14895 Posts
i love politics =( | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
I'm sorry, but if you don't want to people to look at 7 year old interviews on what your intentions truly are, maybe you should be a little more clear. There's no doubt in my mind that he sees people working 8 hours a day, "honest hard working Americans" as he likes to call them, and he believes they should be able to support a family and live comfortably. Unfortunately, not all jobs pay well enough to support a family, so some factor X needs to be introduced. What 'X' is isn't quite clear at the moment, and I don't think it will be clear until after he is sworn in. That's the 'fear and uncertainty' the McCain campaign is going after at the moment. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
honestly, just try to interpret this as obama claiming we should redistribute wealth: "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay." "But," Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted." | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On October 28 2008 13:25 BlackJack wrote: I wish Obama was more clear on the matter. Basically his stance is this: "We have people working 2 or even 3 jobs and they're not making ends meet. That's not right, and we're going to change it!" I'm sorry, but if you don't want to people to look at 7 year old interviews on what your intentions truly are, maybe you should be a little more clear. There's no doubt in my mind that he sees people working 8 hours a day, "honest hard working Americans" as he likes to call them, and he believes they should be able to support a family and live comfortably. Unfortunately, not all jobs pay well enough to support a family, so some factor X needs to be introduced. What 'X' is isn't quite clear at the moment, and I don't think it will be clear until after he is sworn in. That's the 'fear and uncertainty' the McCain campaign is going after at the moment. This is all irrelevant to the discussion he had. It was about historical law the steps the Supreme Court took to end segregation. This is akin to labeling an IR professor a communist because he described the Soviet and Chinese models for socialism to his class. It's not only politically fraudulent, but it's intellectually fraudulent as well, because they're damning Obama for comments that were 100% historically accurate. "America lost the Vietnam war." "ANTI-AMERICAN!" | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
| ||
|
SonofGaia
8 Posts
Its the same down here, a polotician promises something, then turns around after the election and backpedals. if the people who make our Laws on our behalf don't have to keep thier word, then how can the Law be said to represent the people???? | ||
|
wswordsmen
United States987 Posts
On October 28 2008 13:54 SonofGaia wrote: Policy dosen't mean Shit after the election, not until Backpedaling on policy results in Auto-Impeachment. Its the same down here, a polotician promises something, then turns around after the election and backpedals. if the people who make our Laws on our behalf don't have to keep thier word, then how can the Law be said to represent the people???? In all seriousness because it makes good publicity. And besides what is right is rarely what is popular so we may be better off for it anyway. | ||
|
SonofGaia
8 Posts
On October 28 2008 14:09 wswordsmen wrote: In all seriousness because it makes good publicity. And besides what is right is rarely what is popular so we may be better off for it anyway. True, but still its unjust. If i paint a fake painting based on a peice by a master, and sell it claiming it to be an original The FBI will be up in my face. now i could say its the buyers fault for being to stupid to know the difference But the fact that i lied makes me fraudulent and thus a criminal. I don't see why they should be treated any different. Moreover i don't see how they can prosecute anyone else on behalf of the people. If the problem is idiots, they should address that problem with education and the removement of Cultural feedback loops at occur when idea's and culture are marketed. | ||
| ||
