World Politics

Page 183 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Oncearunner8 said:
Ok well that was clear.

I do not think he was a criminal NO.

I think he made some poor decisions and I am not sure who or what guided them. I was not the President so it is very hard for me to make the same decisions based on the information he had.

What you are posting that President Bush should go on trial or thrown in jail shows how much you’re willing to debate on any subject in my opinion. Sure you’re willing to debate and break down posts when you just want to tear it apart but I think you have never changed your mind about any subject that you’re debating.

You have a basic respect for the office of President in my opinion. You are not unlike the Tea baggers that you complain about.

There is no middle or common ground for you. That is why some of these guys resorted to calling you names or something. Seriously I think you probably have some good ideas about governments role in regulations of corporations etc. But It is hard to read them when you come out with some whack statement about putting a President on trial.

Hey, appreciate the response and I'm getting out of here because it's not productive generally.

Anyway regarding your last paragraph, I don't think you're familiar with the checks and balances of our government or its function or your role in it. Not meant as an insult.

I guess you're in your 40's so you realize that even a POTUS has to comply with the laws and that they recognize, like Nixon did, that they may have to protest that, "I am not a crook." In fact Nixon was a crook. GWB was far worse.

You do realize the Clinton was subject to a trial presided over by Rehnquist?

I don't think you have the historical basis to argue on these points frankly.

With regard to the illegal invasion of Iraq, you realize that there were proven fabrications that go all the way up to Cheney about Atta's connection to Iraq?

This is fact. Framing a case for war, and there were many instances of it, is just about as serious a crime as there can be.

Hey, I realize I went too far with Scott and the insults, so I'm out for a while. I'd like to address everything you've written but I have to go. Later.

Oh, TFF, I apologize for the insults. Bye.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,962
1,388
20,680
ChrisE said:
"Those scientists said they were also regularly pressured by agency officials to change the findings of their internal studies if they predicted that an accident was likely to occur or if wildlife might be harmed."

Straight from the Cheney/CIA/Iraq playbook.

In all seriousness, this whole government needs to be purged. I am not so sure people are so much "anti-govt" as opposed to anti non-working govt. Obama is just an empty suit sporting triangulation and "bi-partisanship", like Clinton before him.

Recall under Clinton's watch the media was deregulated allowing more corporate ownership and his Justice Dept. ok'd the merger of all the large oil companies for example. This is an easy playbook to follow if you have half a brain. There is a long term goal of monopolizing industry in this country and deregulating oversight, but how they are doing it is subtle and clever; play to the ignorance of the public while this goes on behind the curtain. This is how companies become "too big to fail" and thus the govt (people) bail them out. Oh look, over there! Somebody is trying to take my guns away! Those homos are hurting the children! :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, $ rules the roost in the US and without serious campaign finance or lobbying reform this same shyt will go on. It is going on in all facets of the "govt oversight" agencies right now, in all industries.

The supreme court just declared corporations as people. Corporations own the media outlets, and stupid people keep voting based upon their bigotry and insecurities fueled by this by-design shallow corporate owned media, further enabling this to go on.

Unfortunately I agree more with this post than any other single post in this thread, but we have what we have built. Obama may not be great, might even be bad but he is an awful lot better than the guy who came before. That the governments control (?) over the oil industry has not suddenly turned 180 degrees is not suprising to me. Any pres. who came in and tried to wrest that kind of power and money away from a gang that strong and ensconced would be very likely to wind up assassinated by a "lone gunman acting alone". If Obama is serious about making real change it will take time, lots of time, if he is not, he is still better than the last guy.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
"Another biologist who left the agency in 2005 after more than five years said that agency officials went out of their way to accommodate the oil and gas industry."

From the article YOU posted. Um, contextual clues will tell you a couple of things.
1. The environment there was not set by the Obama administration seeing that those people who had jobs there didn't lose them when Dubya left office. I don't know if you know this, but during that 8 years, that agency was populated more and more by people friendly to the policies of the president at that time, who was...let me check her......yep DUBYA.
2. It takes awhile to turn around a massive ship like that.
3. If you actually read the article, and think about it (I know it is easier to have Rush think for you), then you would realize that the culture there that caused the lack oversight (and if you read the article, this is not a new thing there) was created in the years prior to the Obama administration. There are also rigs already completed that were shown the same lack of oversight. I know wingnuts love to blame every thing on Obama up to and including every traffic death, but really, is it that hard to actually think about something?

I guessing if you dig deep enough you will likely find many of those people were carryovers from before W. I honestly don't know and am too lazy to look but it would not surprise me.

In posting the article my point was not that it's all Obama's fault, but that his administration is as clueless as his predecessor. In fact, imagine if this spill had happened while Bush was Prez.... I'm guessing the rhetoric from the left would be quite different.

"It takes awhile to turn around a massive ship like that."

I realize there are a lot of moving parts in this govt. Perhaps a very good argument for a smaller beaurocracy?


"If you actually read the article, and think about it (I know it is easier to have Rush think for you), then you would realize that the culture there that caused the lack oversight."

The Rush comment is beneath you. The rest I acknowlege and agree with. Which is why I'm amused at the 'bigger govt is better because govt knows best and is the arbiter of all things good and has our best interest at heart' crowd.

I exaggerated the last sentence (a little).
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Unfortunately I agree more with this post than any other single post in this thread, but we have what we have built. Obama may not be great, might even be bad but he is an awful lot better than the guy who came before. That the governments control (?) over the oil industry has not suddenly turned 180 degrees is not suprising to me. Any pres. who came in and tried to wrest that kind of power and money away from a gang that strong and ensconced would be very likely to wind up assassinated by a "lone gunman acting alone". If Obama is serious about making real change it will take time, lots of time, if he is not, he is still better than the last guy.

And here I am just the guy that started shyt with you and TFF when I first joined the forum. :D

There are alot of good thoughts in here on both sides. I just think that the whole discussion is polarized by partisanship, and that partisanship is based upon things that really don't effect our every day lives. In reality, we all want the same things; freedom to be the way we are and for the govt to protect society while promoting it's economic welfare.

Obama is not serious because the entrenched entities that fuel both parties is in place. Change we can believe in lol.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

Note Landreu a DEM senator spouting inane shyt at the bottom of this link.

Only a third party can change this, but that is an uphill battle due to $, which goes back to my other point. This oil spill may have been the tipping point for me because it is so close personally on many levels, in terms of voting for candidates of either major party ever again. I don't think I will waste my vote again by voting for either major party. It may still be a waste but that is how movements start. Hopefully more will feel the way I do and change will really happen within our lifetimes. Or, a bunch of catastrophes will happen and we can put a happy face on "real" reform until we all get complacent again.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oncearunner8 said:
I agree with you Scott regarding the amount of days President Bush had in office. I think his polices had more to do with the culture than your recognizing.

It is also true that President Obama had every opportunity to change this and so far has not done anything. That makes him a failure.

Take a look back at President Carter and President Reagan’s first year in office they immediately took control and put their stamps on government polices. Regardless if you agree with either one of those presidents it is clear they had a much better idea of how they wanted to run the country.


We're pretty close on a lot of viewpoints, especially when you've been drinking.:D
 
Mar 10, 2009
182
0
0
Buying Brand Obama

"Barack Obama is a brand. And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, our elected officials continue to have their palms greased by armies of corporate lobbyists, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East. Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, we are being duped into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest." MORE...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
Unfortunately I agree more with this post than any other single post in this thread, but we have what we have built. Obama may not be great, might even be bad but he is an awful lot better than the guy who came before. That the governments control (?) over the oil industry has not suddenly turned 180 degrees is not suprising to me. Any pres. who came in and tried to wrest that kind of power and money away from a gang that strong and ensconced would be very likely to wind up assassinated by a "lone gunman acting alone". If Obama is serious about making real change it will take time, lots of time, if he is not, he is still better than the last guy.

Geebus, HJ, gotta disagree. I think, in many ways, W was wrong to the point of incompetence, which is bad. But there is a difference between making bad decisions and willfully hurting this country, even if the decisions ultimately get us to the same place. I think the entitlement/redistributionist ideology that Obama believes will, in time, cause considerably more damage to this country than the incompetence of GWB.

"US faces same problems as Greece, says Bank of England."

"Every country around the world is in a similar position, even the United States; the world’s largest economy has a very large fiscal deficit. And one of the concerns in financial markets is clearly – how will this enormous stock of public debt be reduced over the next few years?"


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100005657/us-faces-same-problems-as-greece-says-bank-of-england/


The USA ran a deficit of over $40bn in April, 2010. That's normally the best month of the year for the treasury as the bulk of outstanding taxes are collected in April. The deficit was 4X higher than April of 2009.



As Buckwheat would say, this is a catastrophe that is predictable and forseeable as was the (similar) European situation;

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/FLASHBACK-National-Intelligence-Council-report-warned-of-demise-of-EU-unless-welfare-states-are-downsized-93785124.html


I don't think history will be kind to Obama, but I really hope I'm wrong.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
I guessing if you dig deep enough you will likely find many of those people were carryovers from before W. I honestly don't know and am too lazy to look but it would not surprise me.

In posting the article my point was not that it's all Obama's fault, but that his administration is as clueless as his predecessor. In fact, imagine if this spill had happened while Bush was Prez.... I'm guessing the rhetoric from the left would be quite different.

"It takes awhile to turn around a massive ship like that."

I realize there are a lot of moving parts in this govt. Perhaps a very good argument for a smaller beaurocracy?


"If you actually read the article, and think about it (I know it is easier to have Rush think for you), then you would realize that the culture there that caused the lack oversight."

The Rush comment is beneath you. The rest I acknowlege and agree with. Which is why I'm amused at the 'bigger govt is better because govt knows best and is the arbiter of all things good and has our best interest at heart' crowd.

I exaggerated the last sentence (a little).

You are correct, it was a cheap shot. Sorry about that.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Unfortunately I agree more with this post than any other single post in this thread, but we have what we have built. Obama may not be great, might even be bad but he is an awful lot better than the guy who came before. That the governments control (?) over the oil industry has not suddenly turned 180 degrees is not suprising to me. Any pres. who came in and tried to wrest that kind of power and money away from a gang that strong and ensconced would be very likely to wind up assassinated by a "lone gunman acting alone". If Obama is serious about making real change it will take time, lots of time, if he is not, he is still better than the last guy.

You don't believe that Oswald acted alone?

You do realize if there was in fact a conspiracy in the murder of President Kennedy this means either one of two things.

1) The Warren Commission was duped by the conspirators behind the murder. This seems highly unlikely as the Warren Report was 888 pages and relied on 26 volumes of supporting documents. There were 53 pieces of direct evidence linking Oswald to the crime. This amount of evidence is generally unheard of. It was a very simple case.

2)There was a second conspiracy to cover up the murder and the commission members were involved in that coverup. On its face, this is ludicrous. The commision members were basically all lawyers and included Earl Warren and Gerald Ford. If they covered up the assassination they knew they would be accesories after the fact and in a capital case they would be facing the death penalty if found out. The idea that Earl Warren would find it necessary to secure rights for black kids to attend school in Little Rock, and Mexican Americans to be apprised of their rights by police when arrested in Arizona, but to cover up the murder of a POTUS is absurd. Do you think he was afraid? He was 72 years old at the time of the murder.

He's going to cover up the murder of a POTUS after a distinguished career as a prosecutor, DA, Attorney General, Governor of California, and then Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court?

You really need to think this over.. JFK while a good movie, was a work of pure fiction btw.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,644
81
22,580
buckwheat said:
You don't believe that Oswald acted alone?

You do realize if there was in fact a conspiracy in the murder of President Kennedy this means either one of two things.

1) The Warren Commission was duped by the conspirators behind the murder. This seems highly unlikely as the Warren Report was 888 pages and relied on 26 volumes of supporting documents. There were 53 pieces of direct evidence linking Oswald to the crime. This amount of evidence is generally unheard of. It was a very simple case.

2)There was a second conspiracy to cover up the murder and the commission members were involved in that coverup. On its face, this is ludicrous. The commision members were basically all lawyers and included Earl Warren and Gerald Ford. If they covered up the assassination they knew they would be accesories after the fact and in a capital case they would be facing the death penalty if found out. Why Earl Warren would find it necessary to secure rights for black kids to attend school in Little Rock, and Mexican Americans to be apprised of their rights by police when arrested in Arizona, but to cover up the murder of a POTUS is absurd. Do you think he was afraid? He was 72 years old at the time of the murder.

He's going to cover up the murder of a POTUS after a distinguished career as a prosecutor, DA, Attorney General, Governor of California, and then Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court?

You really need to think this over.. JFK while a good movie, was a work of pure fiction btw.

You forgot about the third conspiracy that covered up the second consipracy that covered up the original conspiracy. I hear "they" are already recruiting people for the fourth conspriacy. Pay and benefits are supposed to be competitive.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Actually, Niomi Klein has alot of interesting crits of Obama...and she is full on left...I don't have any links but the new intro to No Logo pretty much has them...google Klein on Obama and you find a few things...Obama as a brand selling vacuous ideas with a serious economic undertow...a weird slate to project your desires on...the jist of it is that he always goes for the big symbology rather than the reality...closing down one torture prison while opening another in bagram...humping the stump on main street vs wall street while taking more money than any candidate in history from wallstreet and then doing the job no republican could ever entirely pull off via a trickle UP theory and the class system scam...anyhow, check out Klein...and of course the best crits and the most real will come from the left, not right wing nuts talking about birth certificates...personally, I am totally disapointed by Obama as a leftist...not that it matters, but from day one I thought the guy was a complete corporatist from day one and indeed this is how he has been running the show...then again, I have no idea any longer WHO in the democratic party might have been a better president...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
Geebus, HJ, gotta disagree. I think, in many ways, W was wrong to the point of incompetence, which is bad. But there is a difference between making bad decisions and willfully hurting this country, even if the decisions ultimately get us to the same place. I think the entitlement/redistributionist ideology that Obama believes will, in time, cause considerably more damage to this country than the incompetence of GWB.

"US faces same problems as Greece, says Bank of England."

"Every country around the world is in a similar position, even the United States; the world’s largest economy has a very large fiscal deficit. And one of the concerns in financial markets is clearly – how will this enormous stock of public debt be reduced over the next few years?"


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100005657/us-faces-same-problems-as-greece-says-bank-of-england/


The USA ran a deficit of over $40bn in April, 2010. That's normally the best month of the year for the treasury as the bulk of outstanding taxes are collected in April. The deficit was 4X higher than April of 2009.



As Buckwheat would say, this is a catastrophe that is predictable and forseeable as was the (similar) European situation;

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/FLASHBACK-National-Intelligence-Council-report-warned-of-demise-of-EU-unless-welfare-states-are-downsized-93785124.html


I don't think history will be kind to Obama, but I really hope I'm wrong.

Actually, the whole idea that Bush was an idiot was so off...he was perfect in one thing...privatizing government...the entire Iraq war was a giant experiment in that...they contracted out EVERYTHING...the idea that government is hollow....a form, that private companies then do the job...he did an incredible job on this and actually it was the main point of his being in office...de-regulate the financial systems, neuter government via all sorts of things (homeland security was the biggest fiasco...c.f New Orleans)...in that sense he was a genius...give him some credit...
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,962
1,388
20,680
buckwheat said:
You don't believe that Oswald acted alone?

You do realize if there was in fact a conspiracy in the murder of President Kennedy this means either one of two things.

1) The Warren Commission was duped by the conspirators behind the murder. This seems highly unlikely as the Warren Report was 888 pages and relied on 26 volumes of supporting documents. There were 53 pieces of direct evidence linking Oswald to the crime. This amount of evidence is generally unheard of. It was a very simple case.

2)There was a second conspiracy to cover up the murder and the commission members were involved in that coverup. On its face, this is ludicrous. The commision members were basically all lawyers and included Earl Warren and Gerald Ford. If they covered up the assassination they knew they would be accesories after the fact and in a capital case they would be facing the death penalty if found out. Why Earl Warren would find it necessary to secure rights for black kids to attend school in Little Rock, and Mexican Americans to be apprised of their rights by police when arrested in Arizona, but to cover up the murder of a POTUS is absurd. Do you think he was afraid? He was 72 years old at the time of the murder.

He's going to cover up the murder of a POTUS after a distinguished career as a prosecutor, DA, Attorney General, Governor of California, and then Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court?

You really need to think this over.. JFK while a good movie, was a work of pure fiction btw.

OK maybe I was exaggerating a tad just to make my point. So sue me.:D
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,962
1,388
20,680
Scott SoCal said:
Geebus, HJ, gotta disagree. I think, in many ways, W was wrong to the point of incompetence, which is bad. But there is a difference between making bad decisions and willfully hurting this country, even if the decisions ultimately get us to the same place. I think the entitlement/redistributionist ideology that Obama believes will, in time, cause considerably more damage to this country than the incompetence of GWB.

"US faces same problems as Greece, says Bank of England."

"Every country around the world is in a similar position, even the United States; the world’s largest economy has a very large fiscal deficit. And one of the concerns in financial markets is clearly – how will this enormous stock of public debt be reduced over the next few years?"


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100005657/us-faces-same-problems-as-greece-says-bank-of-england/


The USA ran a deficit of over $40bn in April, 2010. That's normally the best month of the year for the treasury as the bulk of outstanding taxes are collected in April. The deficit was 4X higher than April of 2009.



As Buckwheat would say, this is a catastrophe that is predictable and forseeable as was the (similar) European situation;

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/FLASHBACK-National-Intelligence-Council-report-warned-of-demise-of-EU-unless-welfare-states-are-downsized-93785124.html


I don't think history will be kind to Obama, but I really hope I'm wrong.

I think the right wing theory of entitlement/ redistribution is far more damaging that anything else, it is what has got us to the position we are in today. The thinking that the rich are entitled to make unlimited profits off of their money and that there is nothing wrong with an ever shrinking percentage of Americans having and controlling all of the wealth is what has returned us from the land of the free to the same kind of class system that we were originally opposed to as a new country.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
I think the right wing theory of entitlement/ redistribution is far more damaging that anything else, it is what has got us to the position we are in today. The thinking that the rich are entitled to make unlimited profits off of their money and that there is nothing wrong with an ever shrinking percentage of Americans having and controlling all of the wealth is what has returned us from the land of the free to the same kind of class system that we were originally opposed to as a new country.

the Bush family has been involved in fascism for quite a long time...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar


concrns the bush granddad...prescott...hugh suporter of the nazi's and corporate *****...it's almost like Darwin were right.
 
slide_6791_90771_large.jpg
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Moose McKnuckles said:

the interesting thing is when the left wing folks just shut up and have no diea...or do the mickey mouse club and support...either way via Obama, nice to see some real thoughts...
 
I believe I have previously argued the point that if we live in a chaotic world today it is due to the economy ruling every facet of our lives, which explains the criminal behavior of those in power at the time of the mad rush to invade Iraq, which was basically a war for oil, and the present inadequacy of government in regards to effectively dealing with the gulf disaster and the lack of major oil industry reforms. That's because the politicians are pupets who lack verve, and everything is so corrupt in a economic state where there is an intimate raport between democracy, corruption and economic development, the triangulation of these three factors explains much in regards to the fiancial doings of Wall Street of late, its fiscal bailout with public funds by Washington and the insane abstraction of the State during the Katerina affair (read Dave Eggers, Zeitoun), and now the Gulf oil diaster. Though we can't hope for a brighter future given that today's American youth have been bred on the basest superficiality. I am always struck by the superficiality of today's American twenty-year-olds, by their lack of interest in anything but their insensate craving for amusement. And it is impossible to have a proper conversation with these young American citizens. I cannot remember having a conversation, or even an amusing exchange of words, with any of them. When they are not drinking are druged on Facebook, they just stand around, stolid and humorless, visibly tormented by a deadly boredom that will afflict them all their lives because they had done nothing about it while there was still time. It's too late, I've thought, for any of these young people to escape this deadly lifelong boredom; by now they're almost completely taken up with their fancies, thier jobs, their boys and their girls, totally absorbed in their perversely superficial concerns while the world around them is going strait into the gutter. Talking to them, one finds that they have nothing in their heads but this ghastly superficiality and think only about their future finances and their cars. When I talk to one of them, I've thought, I'm not talking to a human being but to an utterly unimaginative, single-minded show-off. Whereas the American 40-year-olds are no better as I have come to discover in my dealings with them, both back in the homeland and abroad, especially among those I once knew and thought of as dear friends. American 40-year-olds are by-in-large vulgar and stupid, I've thought, and they deserve the country and the world they in which live. We are pleased to see someone we have known virtually all our lives and shake hands with him, but in no time we find that he has meanwhile become an idiot, I've thought. And the young people are even more stupid than their elders, in whose stupidity there is at least a modicum of the grotesque. We always imagine, mistakenly, that others will have developed, in one direction or another, as we have. But we are wrong: most of them have stayed put and not developed in any direction, becoming neither better nor worse, but merely old and totally uninteresting. We expect to be surprised to find how somebody we have not seen for ages has developed, but the real surprise is to discover that he has not developed at all, that he is simply twenty years older, that he is no longer slim but has a paunch, and that he wears big tasteless rings on fat fingers that were once attractive. We expect to have much to talk about with this or that old friend, only to find that we have nothing to say to each other. We ask oursleves why, and the only answer that occurs to us is that the weather has changed and that there is a national crisis, that capitalism has now shown its true colors, and so forth. Having imagined that our friend of long ago is still our friend, we discover in no time that this is a cruel error. With this man we imagine that we can talk about painting, with that woman world events, or so you think, but you are wrong: all they can talk about is cooking--how this soup is made the best way--or what a pair of shoes costs in Manhatan and a similar pair in Philadelphia. What good conversations you were once able to have with a certain person about history, you think, or with another about architecture, but it turns out that the historical interests of the one and the architectural interests of the other got bogged down twenty years ago in the morass of growing up. You can no longer find any purchase, anything to hold on to, and they are put out by this, without knowing why. Suddenly you are someone who annoys them. It will be a more or less ludicrous wedding, I had thought before leaving Rome for Philadelphia, and afterward it struck me as far more ludicrous than I had dared to imagine. But the only comment I had heard from others was that it was a magnifient wedding, a wedding to end all weddings, as they say. I'll take care to not no to express my opinion because theirs is the one that counts, I thought. The wedding service itself, however, was thoroughly entertaning, exquisitely comic. The chapel was of course packed to capacity. Having a sharp ear, I was able to hear everything the priest said. As he was slightly drunk, there was something improvised about his conduct at the service, which was therefore not at all boring, as is usual on such occasions, but amused everyone. Only my mother must have been sweating blood, as they say. In his address to the bridal couple the priest interwove fact and fiction and concluded with the general proposition that all life was life in the Lord until the end and nothing else. But at the climax of the ceremony, when he had to ask the bride and groom whether they would take one another as their lawful wedded husband and wife, he forgot the bride's name and, after a noticable pause, had to call for help and ask someone to tell him her name. He had forgotten the bridgroom's name too. This caused even louder peals of laughter than the first instance of priestly amnesia. I was tempted to shout out wine cork manufacturer over the heads of the congregation but just managed to restrian myself. So this bit of meanness on my part remained a secret, I thought. It is always ridiculous when the bride says I will, but even more ridiculous when the bridegroom says it. The marital vows inaugurate a marrital yoke. Nothing else. And their is nothing people long for more than than to say I will and thereby surrender themeselves to their own annihilation, I thought. It seemed to me that I had witnessed a little self-contianed comedy or farce, such as our electoral campaigns, and I felt a great desire to applaud when the priest had delivered his last line and disappeared with the altar boys. But again I controlled myself. The little centuries-old nuptual drama, I thought, culminates in the words I will. Like some political rhetorical catch-phrase, and I immediately thought of the Obama electoral campaign: Change, Yes We Can, which has proven to be a farce too, though not because of the president's ideological intentions, but due to the fact that the economic forces that really govern the country won't allow the change the nation absolutely needs, especially after the disastrous policies of the two-term Bush administration, to come about. We hope to develop not into the sort of person who automatically becomes a cog in America's financial and economic mill, like everyone else at the wedding, but into one who could properly be called a free agent. To do this we had to leave the country and take up residence in Rome. Americans suffer from an addiction to this financial and economic mill, while the only thing that buoies its national dept and therefore pays for its military aparatus, which it uses to beat and cower the rest of the world into submitance to its financial and economic mill, is China. Since its foundation America has had this craving for its economic and financial mill and its blind faith in progress, so that now a natural life their is no longer possible. The oil filth being spewed into the gulf has merely become the latest environmental metaphor for the befouling of the country's citizens' natural lives.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
OK maybe I was exaggerating a tad just to make my point. So sue me.:D

Although I agree with your general sentiments regarding Obama in comparison to Bush, using an example that doesn't exist in reality hardly bolsters your argument.

I guess it's marginally better than using an example that proves the exact argument you're trying to rebut.

The words we use do have meaning or apparently they previously did in a time rhubroma alluded to.

I better shut up because by pointing this out I'm crazy according to my adversaries and embarrassing to my allies.

What can I say? We have people on here who think it's crazy to hold a POTUS accountable and that by virtue of being POTUS the law doesn't apply to them. To further gild the lilly, the person holding these views is part of the mainstream.

I thought in theory, the POTUS and all elected officials were supposed to derive their powers from the people they govern?

Some here say they dislike government because it's corrupt. They have no understanding at all that they are the government.

Alice in Wonderland world we live in.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,498
0
0
buckwheat said:
Although I agree with your general sentiments regarding Obama in comparison to Bush, using an example that doesn't exist in reality hardly bolsters your argument.

I guess it's marginally better than using an example that proves the exact argument you're trying to rebut.

The words we use do have meaning or apparently they previously did in a time rhubroma alluded to.

I better shut up because by pointing this out I'm crazy according to my adversaries and embarrassing to my allies.

What can I say? We have people on here who think it's crazy to hold a POTUS accountable and that by virtue of being POTUS the law doesn't apply to them. To further gild the lilly, the person holding these views is part of the mainstream.

I thought in theory, the POTUS and all elected officials were supposed to derive their powers from the people they govern?

Some here say they dislike government because it's corrupt. They have no understanding at all that they are the government.

Alice in Wonderland world we live in.

The good news is there is free school for all kids in India.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rhubroma said:
I believe I have previously argued the point that if we live in a chaotic world today it is due to the economy ruling every facet of our lives, which explains the criminal behavior of those in power at the time of the mad rush to invade Iraq, which was basically a war for oil, and the present inadequacy of government in regards to effectively dealing with the gulf disaster and the lack of major oil industry reforms. That's because the politicians are pupets who lack verve, and everything is so corrupt in a economic state where there is an intimate raport between democracy, corruption and economic development, the triangulation of these three factors explains much in regards to the fiancial doings of Wall Street of late, its fiscal bailout with public funds by Washington and the insane abstraction of the State during the Katerina affair (read Dave Eggers, Zeitoun), and now the Gulf oil diaster. Though we can't hope for a brighter future given that today's American youth have been bred on the basest superficiality. I am always struck by the superficiality of today's American twenty-year-olds, by their lack of interest in anything but their insensate craving for amusement. And it is impossible to have a proper conversation with these young American citizens. I cannot remember having a conversation, or even an amusing exchange of words, with any of them. When they are not drinking are druged on Facebook, they just stand around, stolid and humorless, visibly tormented by a deadly boredom that will afflict them all their lives because they had done nothing about it while there was still time. It's too late, I've thought, for any of these young people to escape this deadly lifelong boredom; by now they're almost completely taken up with their fancies, thier jobs, their boys and their girls, totally absorbed in their perversely superficial concerns while the world around them is going strait into the gutter. Talking to them, one finds that they have nothing in their heads but this ghastly superficiality and think only about their future finances and their cars. When I talk to one of them, I've thought, I'm not talking to a human being but to an utterly unimaginative, single-minded show-off. Whereas the American 40-year-olds are no better as I have come to discover in my dealings with them, both back in the homeland and abroad, especially among those I once knew and thought of as dear friends. American 40-year-olds are by-in-large vulgar and stupid, I've thought, and they deserve the country and the world they in which live. We are pleased to see someone we have known virtually all our lives and shake hands with him, but in no time we find that he has meanwhile become an idiot, I've thought. And the young people are even more stupid than their elders, in whose stupidity there is at least a modicum of the grotesque. We always imagine, mistakenly, that others will have developed, in one direction or another, as we have. But we are wrong: most of them have stayed put and not developed in any direction, becoming neither better nor worse, but merely old and totally uninteresting. We expect to be surprised to find how somebody we have not seen for ages has developed, but the real surprise is to discover that he has not developed at all, that he is simply twenty years older, that he is no longer slim but has a paunch, and that he wears big tasteless rings on fat fingers that were once attractive. We expect to have much to talk about with this or that old friend, only to find that we have nothing to say to each other. We ask oursleves why, and the only answer that occurs to us is that the weather has changed and that there is a national crisis, that capitalism has now shown its true colors, and so forth. Having imagined that our friend of long ago is still our friend, we discover in no time that this is a cruel error. With this man we imagine that we can talk about painting, with that woman world events, or so you think, but you are wrong: all they can talk about is cooking--how this soup is made the best way--or what a pair of shoes costs in Manhatan and a similar pair in Philadelphia. What good conversations you were once able to have with a certain person about history, you think, or with another about architecture, but it turns out that the historical interests of the one and the architectural interests of the other got bogged down twenty years ago in the morass of growing up. You can no longer find any purchase, anything to hold on to, and they are put out by this, without knowing why. Suddenly you are someone who annoys them. It will be a more or less ludicrous wedding, I had thought before leaving Rome for Philadelphia, and afterward it struck me as far more ludicrous than I had dared to imagine. But the only comment I had heard from others was that it was a magnifient wedding, a wedding to end all weddings, as they say. I'll take care to not no to express my opinion because theirs is the one that counts, I thought. The wedding service itself, however, was thoroughly entertaning, exquisitely comic. The chapel was of course packed to capacity. Having a sharp ear, I was able to hear everything the priest said. As he was slightly drunk, there was something improvised about his conduct at the service, which was therefore not at all boring, as is usual on such occasions, but amused everyone. Only my mother must have been sweating blood, as they say. In his address to the bridal couple the priest interwove fact and fiction and concluded with the general proposition that all life was life in the Lord until the end and nothing else. But at the climax of the ceremony, when he had to ask the bride and groom whether they would take one another as their lawful wedded husband and wife, he forgot the bride's name and, after a noticable pause, had to call for help and ask someone to tell him her name. He had forgotten the bridgroom's name too. This caused even louder peals of laughter than the first instance of priestly amnesia. I was tempted to shout out wine cork manufacturer over the heads of the congregation but just managed to restrian myself. So this bit of meanness on my part remained a secret, I thought. It is always ridiculous when the bride says I will, but even more ridiculous when the bridegroom says it. The marital vows inaugurate a marrital yoke. Nothing else. And their is nothing people long for more than than to say I will and thereby surrender themeselves to their own annihilation, I thought. It seemed to me that I had witnessed a little self-contianed comedy or farce, such as our electoral campaigns, and I felt a great desire to applaud when the priest had delivered his last line and disappeared with the altar boys. But again I controlled myself. The little centuries-old nuptual drama, I thought, culminates in the words I will. Like some political rhetorical catch-phrase, and I immediately thought of the Obama electoral campaign: Change, Yes We Can, which has proven to be a farce too, though not because of the president's ideological intentions, but due to the fact that the economic forces that really govern the country won't allow the change the nation absolutely needs, especially after the disastrous policies of the two-term Bush administration, to come about. We hope to develop not into the sort of person who automatically becomes a cog in America's financial and economic mill, like everyone else at the wedding, but into one who could properly be called a free agent. To do this we had to leave the country and take up residence in Rome. Americans suffer from an addiction to this financial and economic mill, while the only thing that buoies its national dept and therefore pays for its military aparatus, which it uses to beat and cower the rest of the world into submitance to its financial and economic mill, is China. Since its foundation America has had this craving for its economic and financial mill and its blind faith in progress, so that now a natural life their is no longer possible. The oil filth being spewed into the gulf has merely become the latest environmental metaphor for the befouling of the country's citizens' natural lives.

You need to take a hard look in the mirror.

Your use of broad generalizations is very much what you describe the American 40-year olds to be. The self-loathing apparent in some of your posts is impressive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.