Whatever happened to the Obama sycophants?
- Thread starter steveinbsas
- Start date
SaraSara said:
Sara thanks for the nit picking but i'd rather you weigh in on more important issues such as why do you blindly support obama and the crooks running the US?
why do i need to work on my thinking? because i don't believe the same way that you do? you'll have to come up with something better than that.
hit me with issues.
explain to me how the US economy is going to grow its way out of trillions of dollars in debt.
tell me how allowing the govt. to control 1/6 of the economy can be a good thing.
explain to me about how we are going to avoid the demise of the dollar and the best ways to protect our purchasing power.
talk to me about how the US creates fake wars on terror in order to justify invading foreign countries so that the CIA can control the heroin and oil trade.
i'll let you pick on what to weigh in on.
or are you simply going to fall back on your usual mode of controlled thought such as that tea party members are racists and that you fear for obama's safety.
meredithonthebeach said:I leave the U.S. to get away from this crap!! Can't you people ever just be happy. You are living in Buenos Aires!!
with all due respect meredith, nobody is forcing you to read this thread.
oh and i can assure you that we are happy.
JoeBlow said:
you know i think one of the major problems is that many are seeing obama as simply "less bad". anybody has to be better than bush right? this is exactly the kind of false paradigm, left vs right thinking that has kept us in the dark and the real agenda going for so long.
what we fail to see however is that there is no difference between bush or obama. why? because they both work for the same team. the agenda of the global elite never changes. it appears as though the US has a 2 party system. what we fail to see however is that it's all really one party at the higher levels because of the marriage of govt. and industry.
when we get tired of the right we vote left. when we get sick of the left we vote right.......and on and on it goes. the agenda however never changes because the real power base is NOT elected. the real power base will never show you its face and you will never see their names on a ballot or ticket.
so again, obama is not better than bush. the wars abroad and the massive spending have continued - all right on schedule.
redrum said:
Well, you are right, they both work for the same team. If Obama didn't want to work for the same team (read: US society and big business) he wouldn't have been elected. He is not a revoultionary. A revolutionary couldn't get elected. However, he is a far cry fom our last "president", if only for the obvious reasons.
Now, as you'll recall they had a mini-revolution here in Argentina in December of 2001. Did it do any good? Not a lot. Society (here and everywhere else for that matter) is as greedy as ever. So, while we all might want a completely different society —NOW!— it is not going to happen without tremndous bloodshed or a tremendous amount of re-EDUCATION (and I don't mean the school type).
[Tangent: even with a lot of bloodshed there is no guarantee society will come out of it and want peace and equality; although the results of WWII, for example, do seem to indicate that most Europeans dont't want to kill each other anymore.]
JoeBlow said:
And I meant the opposite. So what's less destructive with Obama? Did he not expand the wars instead of bringing the troops home as he promised?
JoeBlow said:
You're totally missing the point. He doesn't have to be a revolutionary. He simply has to bring the troops home and close Guantanamo. Hardly something revolutionary. And by doing so he would drastically cut down government spending.
So why isn't he doing it? Because he is just a puppet. He doesn't work for the US society, he works for the elite who stand to gain from an economic crisis and an increase in military spending.
Seriously, how can you defend Obama? It's just beyond me.
orwellian said:
Well, I should not speak as if I knew what the general populace thinks and wants. I was speaking out my ass, although I do tend to think pretty low of the general population (i.e. that it doesn't want peace).
What I was saddened and most disturbed by was the blustering the last "president" did, even after destroying two countries AND while using lies as pretext to do so. My naive thinking is that this wouldn't have gone down in completely the same way had somebody else, like Obama, been in office in 2001. I know, probably foolish.
Changing topics and at the risk of sounding red white and blue, I'll ask what you think should be done to protect the US from the enemies it created once guantánamo is closed and the teenagers are back home.
Thanks for your humble reply JoeBlow. I guess we both hate Bush as much as anybody. And I have to agree with you that if you think Obama is any different, you are a bit naive. I myself wanted to believe in his talk of 'change', but I quickly realized that he was just full of 'BS'.
Changing the subject I think that most, if not all, people incarcerated in Guantanamo are innocent. They are not terrorists but either Afghan fighters or innocent people who were ratted out by others for financial gain. Surely if there was evidence to convict them for terrorist offenses they would have been prosecuted by now. Besides that, Guantanamo is a direct violation of the Geneva convention. So regardless of the efficacy of it (which hasn't been proven), it is clearly illegal.
So to answer your question; the people in Guantanamo is not in any risk to the safety of your country. And according to international law they should have been set free a long time ago (not to mention not being tortured).
Changing the subject I think that most, if not all, people incarcerated in Guantanamo are innocent. They are not terrorists but either Afghan fighters or innocent people who were ratted out by others for financial gain. Surely if there was evidence to convict them for terrorist offenses they would have been prosecuted by now. Besides that, Guantanamo is a direct violation of the Geneva convention. So regardless of the efficacy of it (which hasn't been proven), it is clearly illegal.
So to answer your question; the people in Guantanamo is not in any risk to the safety of your country. And according to international law they should have been set free a long time ago (not to mention not being tortured).
You're welcome.
And you're right; as much as I try not to hate, it is very near impossible not to hate the last president of the US.
----
While I can't simply take your word that people detained in Guantánamo do not pose a threat to the US (etc), I won't beg that question. But I will ask the second half of my question again which was "what [do] you think should be done to protect the US from the enemies it created once ... the teenagers [soldiers] are back home"?
Good night.
And you're right; as much as I try not to hate, it is very near impossible not to hate the last president of the US.
----
While I can't simply take your word that people detained in Guantánamo do not pose a threat to the US (etc), I won't beg that question. But I will ask the second half of my question again which was "what [do] you think should be done to protect the US from the enemies it created once ... the teenagers [soldiers] are back home"?
Good night.