Further proof Obama isn't anything other than a politician
Posted on: January 25, 2010 - 6:33pm
Offline
Further proof Obama isn't anything other than a politician
as if we needed anymore but, he's backing Ben bernanke for another term as fed chair
for all the claims of being for the middle class this once again proves that Obama is nothing more than a govt guy, a politician plain and simple
hope and change my ass, everyone that voted for Obama on these grounds is a sucker, you got sold a bill of goods that have turned out to be worthless
ok im done ranting
- Login to post comments
This just in!
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND FORMER SENATOR IS A POLITICIAN!!!
whatever happened to the end of politics as usual? whatever happened to transforming govt?
the fact is the guy made a ton of promises and has yet to keep just about any of them
people voted for him because they saw him as not just another politician, and you know for a fact thats the truth
so your attempt at humor belies the facts and this is just another piece of evidence in my favor
Let me be the first to unnecessarily inject race into the discussion and say that guy is an uncle tom.
Uncle Tom
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
no, he's just a half-truth telling politician like most people in govt, dont give a shit about anything other than their own power and staying in office
has nothing to do with race and everything to do with how he handles himself
Look, there are a million bad things you can say about the guy and they're all more or less true. It's probably the biggest sham in history. I've never seen so many fools duped at one time. All I'm saying is that in addition to that he's also an uncle tom. What's wrong with that?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
cause it doesn't make any sense
I was waiting to see if you were going to write more than that. I guess that was your full rebuttal. No, I think in the pejorative sense that the term is commonly used it's appropriate here.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
so he's a race traitor and beholden to whitey?
yep.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
guess im just confused on how you came to that conclusion
just as a note, are you african american?
Am I only allowed to call someone an uncle tom if I'm african american? I'm not even an american citizen.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
didn't say that, was just interested thats all
i still dont know how you came to your conclusion, this has nothing to do with race and everything to do with philosophy as far as i can see it
Well, I like to keep my finger on the pulse of minority communities. That might sound like joke but it's not. I find that members of "outgroups" often display a level of objectivity that others sometimes lack. Though his poll numbers remain high in African American communities (which I think is understandable) it's also from these groups that he's receiving some of his strongest criticism. Of course being a fraud and a whore Obama is going to let bankers fuck the entire country dry and race doesn't really play a part in that. Everyone is being fucked. But marginal communities will be hurt first and most and many of the people who live in those communities are black and they expected to receive some relief of help from a black president that they will not receive. Do you understand now?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
well i think its superficial and non-sensical
its group mentality, collectivism
assumes that all black people need and want the same things
i dont think he's "acting white" (what does something like that even mean? again more collectivism), he's acting like any other politician, white black or purple who's only objective is to get in power than stay in power
the one thing obama didnt really campaign on was "black issues" (again more collectivism), the man rarely talked about race at all
No one in government can do anything because the battle between democrats and republicans has completely locked down congress. Their stupid battle has made it impossible for anything to get done! It's time for people to take back our power. People should organize, and during the upcoming senate elections vote in as many non-republican non-democrats as possible. We need to show the politicians that we are the ones they are working for. They need to stop trying to stay in line with their parties, and start trying to stay in line with us!
Ok, I'm done ranting now.
most of the battles were between dems, though your point is well taken
im not worried about labels, im just worried about voting for the best guys who actually have principles
thats why i support peter schiff in connecticut and rand paul in kentucky
It's nice that you've evolved beyond race and class and I'm sure you live in the future where everyone is hairless and robots wipe your ass after you shit, but in the present some people still have to deal with such issues. So when your hover car breaks down and you reach the planet's surface talk to some of them.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
ill come talk to you and set you straight after my shift at spaceley's space sprokets is over
People in office have a tendency to show loyalty to the people who got them there. I suppose this is because most politicians want to be reelected and they will likely need those peoples support again. What I'm saying is that politicians need some kind of reminder that it's the people who ultimately decide who gets into office, and it’s the people who they should be showing their loyalty toward. Not there parties, and not the people who gave them money. The people need to take back some of the power. To do that we need to sent the people in power some kind of message. If in the next election 50 percent of the people voted in were neither republicans or democrats I thing that would send the message very clearly.
Please explain how the president is an uncle tom.
I'm not buying your idea that the president has an obligation to one ethnicity over others.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
titular heads who rule by committee - in this case congress. Getting decisions out of a committee is a nightmare. What comes out of a committee decision process will be radically different from what goes in. The chances Obama is going to get much useful done in the current climate are slim. It's a bloody shame he has to contend with an America under economic siege. I wonder how he would have handled Bush's 2 terms? Would the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq? Possibly not.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
well obama would have handled the economy the same as bush since he's doing the bush economic agenda, except larger
i dunno if obama would have gotten us into iraq but he hasnt done shit about getting us out
well obama did it again last night
totally misrepresenting (or just flat out lying) about the supreme courts ruling
and he's supposed to be some sort of constitutional scholar or something
christ
It would be nice if you could provide either a more in-depth explanation or a link to the source of this information, because I have no fucking clue what you are talking about. What I do know, however, is that the SCOTUS recently granted corporatate entities the same civil rights and liberties as the Bill of Rights are granting persons; which, in practical terms, translates into an assault - by ridicule - on the principle of free speech.
Your critique of Obama also seems a little juvenile. The POTUS is not a dictator. He's stuck with the full glory of the cutthroat political culture on Capitol Hill, something I suspect he wasn't quite prepared for. His hands are tied by the democratic procedure which makes it difficult to get things done. I don't think it is fair to call him a liar. Maybe you can accuse him of being weak, with some justification, but I think the real problem lies in his inexperience with the corrupted DC way of doing things.
Thinking that Ron Paul would have fared any better is just naive.
I will also add that even though you may not think this important, Obama has done a fine job of restoring the respect for America abroad.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
http://libertymaven.com/2010/01/29/judge-napolitano-on-justice-alitos-not-true-moment/8816/
ron paul def would have faired better, he would have vetoed every bailout and anything that wasnt constitutional
i second that, which actually is one of the duties of a president. as an expat living in slovakia, i no longer have to hang my head in shame.
what most people should know is that when a presidential candidate makes promises regarding anything legislative, what he's really promising is what he'll suggest and what he'll sign into law. he doesn't have much initiative himself. too many times the president has to deal with the rancor of the nation because he's the face of the government, when really it's the legislature's fault. but it's much easier to be pissed off at one man, of whom it's very easy to form a mental picture, than at the vague idea of the legislature.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
WAHHHH I don't have Ron Paul. As powerful as Ron Paul is, even he can't veto the Supreme Court dude.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Actually no it doesn't. However you've just given a lesson in constructing a poor argument. How about posting some data (maybe even some of your own words) of why you don't like this move. Maybe post some of the problems you have with Bernanke?
And for the record, Obama being a government employeee who chose politics as a career was proof he was a "govt guy." That happened a long time ago.
No I didn't. Just yesterday I saw "change" I had never seen in my life. I see it with Obama almost weekly.
Here it is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/29/president-holds-open-discussion-across-aisle/?e=29
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
didnt say he would have vetoed the supreme court but he wouldnt have made a totally incorrect statement about the ruling either
well i thought the problems with bernanke were pretty clear, dude is working on beating alan greenspan as the worst fed chairman ever
sustained artificially low interest rates are only going to make the problems much worse, the dude is printing money like its going out of style which is only going to lead to massive price increases and will wipe out the middle class and cause a currency crisis, which will make the problems we've been through seem like a walk in the park, inflation is a problem now, not in the future
if you really cared about the middle class you would be absolutely be against the inflationary policies of the fed and the massive debts the govt are running, the inflation tax is the most regressive tax there is, it disproportionately hurts the middle and lower classes while enriching the well conected, the bankers, the govt, and the military industrial complex
thats why we have so many goddamn billionaires
the fact is we dont have any money, we are broke, we've spent and borrowed too much, instead of trying to fight the recession we should embrace it, its the economy trying to fix the imbalances in our economy, the problem is the boom, the recession is the fix
its painful yes but anything the govt does to fight it off will only make things worse, we need to take our medicine, as bad as it tastes, if we had just let the recession work things would have gotten worse but we'd probably be growing out of it by now
honestly, if you are interested in learning about the problems the Fed wreaks on the economy id highly suggest you read dr. paul's book, End the Fed, no joke its a great book and a fantastic read, it'll change you mind
"Rarely has a single book not only challenged, but decisively changed my mind." - Arlo Guthrie
I think the point is that an assembly of citizens has the same rights as a solitary citizen. Defending freedom of speech isn't an attack on freedom of speech.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Hold on a second. While I am aware that it is favorable in some social circles to scream WAH! The FED! The Billionaires! It is simply not the case that the Fed favors rich people at the expense of regular people. If you want to see where the real wealth in society is, then look in the mirror.
As an exercise, google a list of the richest people in America today. Add up all of their billions of dollars and divide by the current population. The answer that you get will be somewhere around what most people spend at places like Walmart in a single year.
We are not done yet. Look at who has those billions of dollars. Half of the top 12 fortunes are in the hands of the Walton family. So kiss your $69.99 Sharp microwave ovens goodbye. Say hello to buying a Krupps microwave oven from Macy's for $300.00. Yah, that helps nobody at all.
=
Wow, you guys just figuring out that Obama is another full of shit politician. What gave it away? His entire campaign was run on a few witty slogans. "Change" "Hope". For some reason all the Obama voters thought this was something original. I think every presidential candidate that won ran on the whole "change" thing. Unfortunately the typical american gets bored when they are forced to listen to an actual solution to a problem. Instead they want the candidate with the best slogans. I didn't even vote. I was going to vote for Ron Paul, but he dropped out and wouldn't have stood a chance anyways. And the guy is not even all black. I am really sick of hearing him called the first black president.
"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4
Are all corporate shareholders citizens of the Unied States?
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
No, but I think that it is only by coincidence that foreign corporations and foreign holders of corporate shares benefit from this. The point is (as I understand it) that you can't say "corporations and PACs don't get free speech like the rest of us do" because a US corporation or PAC is just an "assembly of citizens." I think that we are supposed to imagine "assembly of citizens" being said every time someone says "corporation" in this context. So: "assemblies of citizens shouldn't be allowed to spend more than $X on commercial air time or print advertisements for causes that they support." If you think of it that way (which many people don't, but 5 out of 9 SCOTUS Judges do), then this seems like an unconstitutional limit on free speech. And, by pure coincidence, foreign corporations get freedom of speech in the US also. Maybe we could write a law restricting their freedom of speech. I wouldn't want to, but we probably could to see if it passes constitutional muster.
But this all hinges on some kind of corporation=group of citizens relationship. If that doesn't float your boat, then you'll probably be against this.
By funny coincidence, on the same day, I received an email from the People for the American Way decrying this as a terrible ruling and an email from the NRA celebrating this ruling. It seemed funny to me that two PACs devoted to increasing the freedoms of Americans took exactly the opposite views on this. But then, the NRA and the People for the American Way probably don't see eye to eye on too many issues.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Then why give groups of non-U.S. citizens more of a say in U.S. elections than many U.S. citizens have?
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
Ouch, this is going to leave a mark...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Truer words are rarely spoken....
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Whereas I certainly wouldn't go to the paranoid lengths of calling this a conspiracy, I think it is a bit of a denial-like position to call it coincidence as well. It fits well with a common pattern of political sycophancy (which by no means is indigenous to the US alone) that is about facilitating a corporate takeover of pragmatic decision-making processes with respects to the long term political strategies of nations.
Or, in other words, a slow but certain transfer of political power from the elected governments to the ever-so-slightly less elected corporate boardrooms, leaving the politicians as little but string puppets in the service of corporate interests (that basically boil down to a singular motive of making a profit, by any means available to them).
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com