Change we can believe in

Status
Not open for further replies.

bigbadwolf

Registered
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
1,210
Likes
189
Yesterday I expressed some apprehensions regarding Obama's appointments. These apprehensions have been laid to rest by endorsements from the likes of Mitch McConnell, James Baker, Henry Kissinger, Max Boot, Joe Lieberman, and Karl Rove, which can be read here. We're in safe hands.
 

pikto99

Registered
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
141
Likes
8
Folks,
My theory is that anyone who has feedline from Rothschild and K, will dance appropriately to prescribed figures.
Look behind the scene and you'll see who's choreographer. Look on surroundings, key-figures of the Cabinet, Congress, Department of State.

So truly right guy for the change seems to be Ralf Nader. Dr.Ron Paul is constitutionist, officially republican and in my humble opinion they should be joining forces for good.

But Mr. Nader will never make in President's chair just bc his programs are clearly harmful for the "big dogs".

He clearly understand "uniqueness" of the Federal Reserve, LLC., war crimes, corruption, lobbying, protectionism, etc. The only point of their campaign survey I would not take under consideration is "Israel-Palestine issue". This is not American soil and should be never supported.
Israelies pumped enough money from the US, so it is time to let them deal with they own problems.
But now Mr. Obama all these characters to work on "changes" (???)

Are we going to change this http://www.lovearth.net/therealcostofussupportforisrael.htm#cost or will continue?

Read this "...But what I've never seen, and don't recall ever hearing about, is the spectacle of a spy for a foreign country being hired by any organization that hopes to influence U.S. foreign policy. Well, here's one for the record books: the Middle East Forum has hired Steve Rosen, once the head of policy development for the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Rosen is accused of stealing highly classified information from the U.S. government and passing it on to Israeli government officials...." (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13819)

And who's dealing at the table?
Look at every important and not so key department and I bet your treasured ... thing there is one just like him.
No, I am not started racial war in here, I just scrolling thrue the facts.
Look where they took the country with all their "bright individuals" like Greenspan or similar ilk. (http://home.att.net/~mwhodges/debt.htm)

Who took the country into 16th Amendment? (http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp)

And with all this in mind I evenly suspect that Mr. Nader is also set for his position by the same group, as a "steam pressure valve". But, hey, it may be a clinical paranoia.

Yes, he has not much tv time for his announcements and campaign but they show him on C-SPAN, MSNBC a few times. So the same about Dr. Ron Paul. How many times we need to observe in order to get a "picture"?

Personally I feel that more buzz around an "official candidate" - more speculations and suspicion it raise. Plus, freedom of the Internet, books, radio. Everyone should have pretty clear picture of "major party candidates" before make cross-marks on ballot.

Yes, there are some technics widely used by SMI to brainfeed a public but I personally respect myself and have no memory slot available for official BS.
So shall everyone.
 

bigbadwolf

Registered
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
1,210
Likes
189
pikto99 said:
Folks,
My theory is that anyone who has feedline from Rothschild and K, will dance appropriately to prescribed figures.
Look behind the scene and you'll see who's choreographer. Look on surroundings, key-figures of the Cabinet, Congress, Department of State.

And with all this in mind I evenly suspect that Mr. Nader is also set for his position by the same group, as a "steam pressure valve". But, hey, it may be a clinical paranoia.

Yes, he has not much tv time for his announcements and campaign but they show him on C-SPAN, MSNBC a few times. So the same about Dr. Ron Paul. How many times we need to observe in order to get a "picture"?

Personally I feel that more buzz around an "official candidate" - more speculations and suspicion it raise. Plus, freedom of the Internet, books, radio. Everyone should have pretty clear picture of "major party candidates" before make cross-marks on ballot.

I think it has been said somewhere that there is more chance of a camel passing through the eye of a needle than the US being capable of internal reform. Each four years there is this media hoopla, this media frenzy, about two (and it's always two) identical candidates -- and after one of these clowns gets elected (usually with not more than half of a bored and apathetic population bothering to vote at all), it's business as usual. John Pilger describes the process well here , here, here, and here. Note that most of these pieces were written before Uncle Tom became president.

With regard to Ron Paul, his libertarian stance borders on childish naivete. It ignores the realities of great power militarism and economics. The charge of a similar ignorance (or rather glossing over) of venal realities and motivations can be made with regard to Nader: the US will not change because of some noble-hearted crusader. The root problem with both is lack of a contesting ideology to contend with the ruling one. The ruling ideology maintains itself by not being advertised at all, by the pretence there is no ideology. In reality, candidates are careful never to step outside the bounds of this unwritten ideology. And so there are campaigns built around "hope," "change," and "empowering the people."
 

bigbadwolf

Registered
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
1,210
Likes
189
I apologise profusely for trying to resuscitate a moribund thread with some more cut-and paste, but the following was too good to pass up:

Like the carefully orchestrated spat between the identical blonde “frenemies” of The Hills, the presumed enmity between Team Obama and Team Bush (and even Team Clinton) was merely a plot device to enhance the selling points of deodorant and hybrid cars during a profitable election cycle.

By the time he officially enters the White House with his revived cabinet of Clinton appointees, President Obama will have calmed the angry public backlash at the executive responsible for tampering with an established brand of “soft” Imperialism and exposing it as a crude, corpse strewn land grab. Like the subsequently re-branded “Coke Classic,” Brand Obama has never been about “change” but merely reversion to an executive branch that pretends to “feel your pain” while continuing to inflict it even more brutally on vulnerable and impoverished populations overseas.

Still weeks away from officially taking office, and already President-Elect Obama’s early supporters — those insignificant and ultimately embarrassing hordes of anti-war “progressives” who dug into near empty pockets to launch his grassroots campaign — are feeling the sting of betrayal with each passing news cycle announcing his cabinet picks.

What pundits describe as the “seamless” White House transition currently underway should give us more reason to despair than hope. This smooth and apparently amicable transfer of power that the pundits insist is proof that civility and pragmatism are being restored to the nation’s highest office merely confirms that “change” and “hope” are, and always have been, euphemistic terms for “Business and Empire as Usual.”

The essay deserves to be read in toto since I've been selective in my pasting (appearances notwithstanding).
 

FloridaJim

Registered
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
7
Likes
0
I arrived here in BsAs in the early morning of November 1st. Someone informed me that I could view the American election returns at what turned out to be a bar that should have been condemned years ago. You probably know its name. I have erased it from my memory bank.

What amazed me was the plethora of rich, white American 20ish females who cheered every time CNN ( Clinton News Network ) declared Obama a winner in each particular state. Their glee was almost unanimous. What could they possibly in common have with Obama? Oh, I gtt it. He has been spoiled since childhood like them, never having to actually work for a living.

Only one girl ( a Chilean ) fully grasped the fact that America was electing a trainee for the biggest job in our government. She also understood that it was the financial unravelling that started in mid October that sealed the deal for Obama. Not one American I met understood any of that. They were totally sold out on Obama and Hillary Clinton as Messiah and Evita.
America is about to implode. I tried reasoning with one of Obama's acolytes, but it was useless. Feelings trumped reason for her.

I came here looking for a new country to call my own. After just five weeks of reading the Buenos Aires Herald it would seem Peronism rivals in corruption that of Cook County ( Obama's home field ) and Tammany Hall ( Hillary's most recent bastion ) all rolled into one on a national scale.

Uruguay is stable and sound. Going to Chile early next week for six days. They are equally stable, I'm told. So, why do so many Argentines persist in voting for Peronists?

I will be returning home to the States the end of December.

Buena Suerte!
 

bigbadwolf

Registered
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
1,210
Likes
189
FloridaJim said:
What amazed me was the plethora of rich, white American 20ish females who cheered every time CNN ( Clinton News Network ) declared Obama a winner in each particular state. Their glee was almost unanimous. What could they possibly in common have with Obama? Oh, I get it. He has been spoiled since childhood like them, never having to actually work for a living.

Limousine liberals and champagne socialists. Meanwhile more good cheer from Alexander Cockburn in Counterpunch:

[SIZE=-1]
A month after he won the White House Barack Obama is drawing a chorus of approval from conservatives who spent most of this year denouncing him as a man of the extreme left.

[/SIZE]
But on the liberal-left end of the spectrum, where Obama kindled extraordinary levels of enthusiasm throughout his campaign, the mood is swiftly swinging to dismay and bitterness.

One striking feature of these complaints is that if many of the complainers had their suspicions about Obama during the campaign, they kept their mouths firmly shut. Across eight presidential campaigns, since Jimmy Carter’s successful run in 1976, I’ve never seen such collective determination by the liberal left to think only positive thoughts about a Democratic candidate. Indeed, some of the present fury may stem from a certain embarrassment at their own political naivety. In fairness to Obama, beyond the vaguely radical afflatus of his campaign rhetoric about “change”, Obama never concealed his true political stance, which is of the center-right. In every sense of the phrase, he can say to his left critics, “I told you so.” And indeed he did.

But it would be foolishly premature to conjure up the possibility of serious left resistance emerging in any form that would be bothersome to Obama. All it will take for now will be a bone tossed out of the limo, in the form of one or two halfways decent appointments on the enviro side. Nixon launched his green crusade (Earth Day, EPA, etc) in an effort to split the left and Obama could do the same.
 

sergio

Registered
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
3,478
Likes
1,875
An article worth reading appears in the Thursday, December 4 New York Times (buried on page 35). Written by Times Pentagon correspondent Thom Shankar, the piece is entitled "Campaign promises on ending the war in Iraq now muted by reality." The article explains how Obama has ditched the rhetorical promises of his campaign, promises that got him the nomination in the first place.

While Obama "electrified and motivated his liberal base by vowing to ‘end the war' in Iraq," the Times states, as the transition advances he is now singing a very different tune. The president-elect is "making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months."

As the article makes clear, "combat troops" is a term of art, or in the case of the Obama campaign, of deception. Only 15 out of 50 brigade-strength units now deployed in the occupied country are formally classified as "combat" troops. The rest are considered "support" units, though large sections of them are armed and participate in combat operations.

Moreover, as the article makes clear, the semantic difference between combat and non-combat units offers Obama an even easier way to formally fulfill his campaign pledge while continuing the war and occupation that millions of those who voted for him believed he would end.

The article is all the more interesting as it appears in the New York Times, a paper that passionately supported Obama as President.

Obama – change you can believe in!
 

bigbadwolf

Registered
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
1,210
Likes
189
sergio said:
As the article makes clear, "combat troops" is a term of art, or in the case of the Obama campaign, of deception. Only 15 out of 50 brigade-strength units now deployed in the occupied country are formally classified as "combat" troops. The rest are considered "support" units, though large sections of them are armed and participate in combat operations.

Moreover, as the article makes clear, the semantic difference between combat and non-combat units offers Obama an even easier way to formally fulfill his campaign pledge while continuing the war and occupation that millions of those who voted for him believed he would end.

I'm gratified to hear that Obama has picked up some skill at semantic hair-splitting from Slick Willy ("I did not have sex with that woman"; "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is").
 

RWS

Registered
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
792
Likes
67
Call me cynical, but I doubt that many intelligent men or women ever believed much of what Obama said. At least in this state (I write from southern New England), voting for him was the point in itself: showing oneself to be benignly racist ("gotta hav a black pres'dent!"), anti-Republican and anti-Bush ("McCain's just an older Bush!"), while allowing the charade of the corrupt and corrupting social-welfare state to continue another eight years.
 

Moxon

Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
322
Likes
111
That's a great piece bigbadwolf, the new coke analogy is both humourous and illuminating, a great metaphor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top