once again, the Obama foreign policy is successful !!
- Thread starter cruztbone
- Start date
SilverTrain
Legendary Member
Oh look! Troll bait!
Because you couldn't possibly be that much of an ignorant partisan.
I suppose, if you say so...
btw, I didn't vote for BHO, so, you're correct, I am not an ignorant partisan.
But, I'm sure, in you're eyes, that is what makes me an ignorant partisan.
You would be mistaken to discount me as a troll sir, for if you were to open your eyes you would see me as an (albeit irritating) voice of reason.
Declaring that Barack Obama is against patriots of this country discounts not only the President as patriotic but also that the people who support him aren't patriotic. That smacks of wildly partisan rhetoric, the likes of which sustains Glen Beck and has no real place in a rational discussion.
You can disagree with the President, you can mock his supporters, you can harangue everything the man attempts legislatively but to declare him unpatriotic and thus to say all of his supporters are unpatriotic is not only a ridiculously subjective claim but one that cannot be qualified in any meaningful way. That, like it or not, is the act of a troll. It doesn't necessarily make you one but it certainly doesn't help.
I don't agree with the Tea Party, with Congressional Republicans, or with the evangelical conservative element in this country. In fact they make my skin crawl. I, however, maintain a modicum of respect in that the vitriol they spout, I believe, truly comes from a want to do what they feel is best for the country. I expect the same consideration from the loyal opposition but feel less inclined to receive it.
If we've learned anything over the last decade or so it's that there is no ultimate right and there is no ultimate wrong. Two paths to the same place does not necessarily invalidate one or other.
JSZ
Fine, me. What I have learned is that there isn't one political avenue in the United States of America that leads to salvation and one that leads to damnation. They're on a path to "better the country" and their vision for the end result is where they differ. That, however, does not mean that D = Always good and R = always bad or vise versa.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
JSZ
Rikter8
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2005
- Posts
- 4,353
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 130
- Points
- 283
- Location
- Ann Arbor (Michigan, United States)
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
The fact that you keep drudging up his middle name tends to flag out a bit of racism I would say.
I'm inclined to agree... regardless of whether it's intentional or not, I think the underlying message is pretty plain. Of course it's defensible since that is his middle name, the connotations and the people who make perpetual reference to the fact are decidedly of one side of the political divide and has an obviously divisive purpose, regardless of it being racially charged or not (When Rush Limbaugh says his middle name there can be no question.)
I mean nobody says Ronald Wilson Regan or Richard Milhous Nixon in casual conversation.
JSZ
Bbucko
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Posts
- 7,232
- Media
- 8
- Likes
- 326
- Points
- 208
- Location
- Sunny SoFla
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I'm still a (qualified) Obama supporter and I agree with you completely on this, MF, however...
...he used a jumbo font but not all caps.
They sure are, but they'll have no reasonable alternative in 2012; can you really count on blue-staters electing a President Perry? That's simply ludicrous.
Smearing the patriotism of those with whom you disagree is indeed trolling. Where the fuck is the loyal opposition in this country any more? I know you enjoy getting under people's skin in the quest to push the debate forward into rancor, but that's a low bit, even for you. And, FWIW, that happens to be the very definition of trolling. If the shoe fits and all that...
Just trying to keep everything on the up and up 'round here, folks.
UBb
(Who never thought he'd be a voice of reason :tongue
yeah the word "racist" seems to be back nowadays. i think BHO is racist for helping out the mega rich keep their oil supply going under the guise of trying to help the erased middle class.
Klingsor
Worshipped Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Posts
- 10,888
- Media
- 4
- Likes
- 11,643
- Points
- 293
- Location
- Champaign (Illinois, United States)
- Sexuality
- 80% Straight, 20% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Well . . . *some* Siths deal in absolutes.
And it's not *only* Siths who deal in absolutes.
I mean, c'mon . . . let's not be too absolute about it. :awink:
Let's set aside for a second that a.) that isn't accurate, that b.) historically speaking President Obama isn't the President in recent history who helped out the mega rich by keeping their oil supply going (what that is even in reference to I cannot say for sure) and c.) that the middle class exists under duress is not the fault of this administration...
how would that make the word racist apply? The post you've quoted makes reference to the fact that conservatives have campaigned for sometime now against Muslims. Full stop. They've played to the irrational fears of their base in order to win elections. Stop Sharia Law and stop the construction of Mosques, etc. It's worked quite well. To perpetuate the agitation they make continual reference to Barack Hussein Obama for a singular and obvious purpose... and it continues to work. They're using bigotry in a not-so-subtle way to mollify support from their base. Race, in the instance you quote, was a relevant thing to make mention of-
In terms of what you said? If we set aside everything else that was wrong with it and for a moment pretended it was all true, that would make the President an elitist at worst... and a racist in a parallel universe where that word meant something entirely else.
Look at what happened to the last guy who defied Yoda. 'S all I'm sayin'.
JSZ
Now you confuse me. star wars was an exciting adventure when I was a lad...or does that also simply mean that history repeats itself.
I guess you got my point. You may have been paying attention over the last 10 years, but I dont know who else was. Funny way to learn about american politics by following this website but seems I have. I cant say whether the US has learnt anything in the last 10 years, but if it has then it must have been truly awful 10 years ago. Rather I think debate here about Reagan and contrasting him with obama shows the US has become significantly more right wing and rabid in the last 10 years. Maybe the more you fight a pointless war, the more you feel obliged to insist it stands for something. The US has the same belief in a divine right to rule that Great Britain once had. Or at least, its politicians do.
I think the whole of England shared the belief it was the greatest country in the world and volunteered to fight and die on that basis when WW1 came around. There were too many volunteers to be able to do anything with them. The country was at risk of collapse because so many people left jobs to become soldiers. The navy was crying out for people to go work in dockyards to build ships, likewise armaments, coal mines. Meanwhile the white feather people were going round denouncing any males still on the streets, so much so the government had to introduce a special medal to give to men to wear who were doing officially sanctioned work at home. By the time it was over public opinion had soured somewhat. What finished off the british empire was a national loss of belief in the whole concept. So where do the US people stand on this now?
Democrat and republican are just words to me. They both seem pretty right wing and dictatorial. I dont get the impression americans like them much either. How many US citizens actually vote? In the Uk a good result would be about 2/3 of registered voters, but Im not sure how many people simply arent registered to vote. A uk government typically gets actual votes of about 1/4-1/3 the population and claims on that basis an absolute right to implement even its wildest policies. Despite this, the two main parties tend to agree quite closely what to do when they get a turn in power, but I digress.
Both the US and the UK seem to be on courses where the rich become increasingly richer and less subject to government control. Not because this is inevitable, or because there is any good spinoff benefit, but by a mix of accident and design. Design, because it is this class of people which tends to be providing the members of the government, even in the supposedly more socialist governing party.
Well, I think Jews are recognised as a race not because they all look the same - they have spread round the world and some now look very different to the people they came from - but because they all follow one religion. The defining chracteristic is not their appearance or geographical location, but what they do. Thus, by extension, the rich are also a race, defined by what they do and do not do.
The Star Wars quote was just being playful. Don't... read too much into it.
That's... a wild leap at best, sheer unbridled lunacy at worst. I doubt very much that's what he meant but if it is I invite him to say so as lampooning such a brick stupid notion would not only be easy but something of a public service.
JSZ
That's... a wild leap at best, sheer unbridled lunacy at worst. I doubt very much that's what he meant but if it is I invite him to say so as lampooning such a brick stupid notion would not only be easy but something of a public service.
JSZ
Klingsor
Worshipped Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Posts
- 10,888
- Media
- 4
- Likes
- 11,643
- Points
- 293
- Location
- Champaign (Illinois, United States)
- Sexuality
- 80% Straight, 20% Gay
- Gender
- Male
There are differing views on this. A Jewish friend of mine has told me, "we're not a religion, we're a people." For him, Judaism is an inheritance passed down through the generations, and in that sense all Jews are family, part of a common tribe.
Of course, for that reason my friend is one of those Jews who doesn't take converts like Madonna or Sammy Davis Jr. at all seriously. :smile:
I think that is exactly what he meant. I guess some irony was intended, in that Obama is supposedly a representative of the left poor race yet is helping the right rich race. If you dont like calling them a race, what would you call them?
Like inheriting money then?
Last edited:
A socioeconomic class. That's the term for it. Rich people aren't a race and poor people aren't a race any more than people who live on the Upper East End of Manhattan are a race or all of the people who work at Taco Bell are a race. Race isn't defined by what a group of people engage or do not engage in otherwise that term could be applied to literally any body of people participating in any one activity, collectively. How little or how much financial wealth an individual has determines their socioeconomic status or class in this country, not their race.
And that's just for starters. If I really need to elaborate further, I can.
JSZ