http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8)
Hmmm...
I won't make the mistake of playing into this trap but, didn't it sound like they were being interviewed by
Steve Carell?
Quote from: Kristen on November 18, 2008, 11:17:41 PM
Hmmm...
I won't make the mistake of playing into this trap but, didn't it sound like they were being interviewed by
Steve Carell?
Oh my.
I'm sure it would have been the same if they had interviewed McCain supporters. Most voters aren't really informed no matter if they're democrat, republican or otherwise. I'm not surprised.
Quote from: SarahR on November 18, 2008, 11:34:04 PM
I'm sure it would have been the same if they had interviewed McCain supporters. Most voters aren't really informed no matter if they're democrat, republican or otherwise. I'm not surprised.
Yuppers.
Then again, that's a redeemable quality for republican supporters. The whole,
blind faith thing seems to get them a lot of ground and respect. ::)
Quote from: Annwyn on November 18, 2008, 11:39:15 PM
Quote from: SarahR on November 18, 2008, 11:34:04 PM
I'm sure it would have been the same if they had interviewed McCain supporters. Most voters aren't really informed no matter if they're democrat, republican or otherwise. I'm not surprised.
Yuppers.
Then again, that's a redeemable quality for republican supporters. The whole, blind faith thing seems to get them a lot of ground and respect. ::)
Haha, and they seem to be heading more and more down that road with each passing day.
Quote from: SarahR on November 18, 2008, 11:41:24 PM
Haha, and they seem to be heading more and more down that road with each passing day.
Both parties actually. At least republicans admit to conservative religion being one of their primary influences in decision making. They invest blind faith in those who represent their faith, not just anyone who CNN supports.
Hmm interesting. I suppose ignorance and bias actually worked for the good guys this time.
On a completely separate note: WAKE UP AMERICA, LEARN AND TAKE AN INTEREST!! Geez I live on the other side of the planet and I knew the answer to most of those questions.
The same type of ignorance in the video could easily allow Sarah Palin to win in 2012, and if you don't like her the Republicans could dig up George W's brother Jeb. Yes Jeb Bush, a nasty piece of work who was governor of Florida during the 2000 election debacle. It wasn't just the hanging chads and the pregnant chads that were the problem, Blacks and Latinos were being turned away from the polling stations, they were told they weren't allowed to vote.
Any one see "An Inconvenient Truth"? That guy, Al Gore, could have been president for the last eight years, just imagine it!!
I know I'm a foreigner and you'll think it's none of my business but when Palin or one of the Bushes become president you're not just screwing up your own country, your screwing up the whole word - the USA is that powerful.
Sorry about the rant but you can't take an Obama win in 2012 for granted - please be informed and inform others.
Another statement of the incompetence of voters:
http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3 (http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3)
Posted on: November 19, 2008, 12:35:49 pm
Quote from: Goldy on November 19, 2008, 10:11:22 AM
Sorry about the rant but you can't take an Obama win in 2012 for granted
Already planning for his re-election and he has'not even stepped into office yet. Speaking of blind faith.....
Daisy
Very good point dailybelle, there are betting agencies that won't pay out on him becoming president until he's sworn in at noon January 20.
I'll amend my remark to, "... you can't take an Obama/Biden/Pelosi/Clinton win in 2012 for granted."
But hopfully the unthinkable won't happen.
Of course it could just be - all other factors being even, which of course they were not - that Obama and his people ran one of the best and most disciplined campaigns anyone has ever seen, while the Repubs ran a campaign so horrible that its almost hard to imagine that anyone ever did it before or got paid for it.
Ignorance of the American voter and ignorance in many of their elected reps isn't at all unusual or even news. I did find the fifty-seven states thing being associated with Palin certainly indicated that Sarah made an impression. :)
The truth of the matter would be that anyone who gets elected in the USA gets elected with about as little knowledge of the electorate as those folks showed. The excitement rises for the three weeks prior to an election and then the mass sink right back into entertainment.
I mean, just look at the context of that video posted on YouTube. It's posted with a lot of vids that seem to believe that Megyn Kelly is a political sharpie because she has nice breasts and a pretty face and can overtalk someone who is never on television.
I'd say ignorance and political know-nothingism is still very much alive and well in USA. :)
Nichole
Quote from: Emme on November 20, 2008, 07:07:27 AM
P.S. Sarah Palin scares the bejeezus out of me.
And Obama scares the blank out of many Americans too. On more than one occasion he has slipped up in her comments like "57 seven states", and "my Muslim faith".
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.snopes.com%2Fpolitics%2Fgraphics%2Flapelpin.jpg&hash=be8f7385620aa475e6ef886f5a850b79fc88781e)
And to remove the onslaught of remarks, I understand campaigning is tough. So is the presidency, and I hope he does not slip in some way that endangers or besmirches the Great country this is, or the office he is going to be in.
I pray this country will be able to move forward.
Daisy
I hope he does not slip in some way that endangers or besmirches the Great country this is, or the office he is going to be in.
Well if he talks in complete sentences and does not get hummmers from his interns then he's already way ahead of the last two. It's not exactly like the bar has been set all that high.
Quote from: tekla on November 21, 2008, 11:28:08 AMWell if he talks in complete sentences and does not get hummmers from his interns then he's already way ahead of the last two. It's not exactly like the bar has been set all that high.
;D
How Obama Won: He campaigned better than any of his rivals. He embraced new technologies, reached out to individuals and minority groups, and in so doing made it not only his campaign but their campaign as well. By focussing on small donations from the public he created the idea that he was different, that he was not a "bought man", in the same way that other politicians are. He put his ideas across eloquently and forcefully, and he didn't let the opposition get to him, no matter how hard they tried.
It remains to be seen if he will deliver what he promised, but he won cause he played the game brilliantly.
~Simone.
Yeah, winning the election is going to prove to be the easy part of this.
Quote from: lady amarant on November 21, 2008, 12:06:08 PM
... he won cause he played the game brilliantly.
Surely not, Simone! O, hush, you!!
Why, according to this video and the push-poll it's abstracted from and tied to that was done by Zogby and paid for by the Repugnant-cons he won because his supporters don't have the answers to a number of questions probably almost no one who's responded to date on this thread would have been able to answer "correctly" prior to viewing the vid.
But, the ones on tape are the ones considered "ill-informed."
O, ya mean the undermining has already begun while Dubya still has 2 months left in office?
Yeah, when the Repugnant-cons over here state they "want to give him time to show us what he can do" they mean to say. "OK, time's up, now we're gonna start running all over again." :)
Their usual idea of "a chance" is that if the child wasn't supporting Repug causes by the time they were 12, then they have missed their "chance." :laugh:
Nichole
I find your use of "Repugnant" highly suspect. Maybe we should attach "baby-killers" as the Democrat.
Also the same person who paid for this poll, mentioned above, to be performed by a reputable poll organization wants to pay to have the same poll done for McCain supporters, but Zogby has refused..... Why? Afraid the poll would show more informed voting from the right versus the left....
And then this citizenship issue is not going to die:
QuoteSupremes to review citizenship arguments
Case challenging candidacy set for 'conference' of justices
Posted: November 20, 2008 1:10 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh -- © 2008 WorldNetDaily
A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a "conference" at the U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81484 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81484)
You have used the words the prior "elections were stolen", well it is is proved the dem's may actually have successfully defrauded the American electorate. And do not worry.... if Obama is not president, It will just be handed to Biden. So the dem's still win...... but just by damaging the electoral process.
And for me the scariest part of this is :
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122714181668742739.html?mod=googlenews_wsj (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122714181668742739.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
Hmm : "
Businesses that didn't cover their employees would pay a tax on some portion of their payroll." Gee that sounds like the price for minimum wage just got higher..... wonder how that will impact our wallet
Daisy
Not that the Weekly World News, or WorldNetDaily (I get them confused, I imagine most people would) are exactly your bona fide prime news source, but I bet the Supremes find nothing. Overturning an election is not in their pay grade as they say (unless it's Bush), and formenting civil rebelion is not their style. They would need a huge amount of evidence, and its not there. I just don't think that all those millions would have been put into the Obama race without that being vetted.
It's easy on the minimum wage deal, its going to affect your pocktetbook by a few cents per transaction so that people who work at least are not in total poverty. Seem's fair. SF has the highest minimum wage in the nation, and mandated health care coverage, somehow business muddled on.
Quote from: daisybelle on November 20, 2008, 10:30:27 AM
Quote from: Emme on November 20, 2008, 07:07:27 AM
P.S. Sarah Palin scares the bejeezus out of me.
And Obama scares the blank out of many Americans too. On more than one occasion he has slipped up in her comments like "57 seven states", and "my Muslim faith".
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.snopes.com%2Fpolitics%2Fgraphics%2Flapelpin.jpg&hash=be8f7385620aa475e6ef886f5a850b79fc88781e)
And to remove the onslaught of remarks, I understand campaigning is tough. So is the presidency, and I hope he does not slip in some way that endangers or besmirches the Great country this is, or the office he is going to be in.
I pray this country will be able to move forward.
Daisy
What really scares me is that why, in the land where the trappings of the past would be left behind and people have rights, "a lot of americans" are afraid of Obama being a Muslim. He is not, but what if he was? It's not a crime, you know. Is a Red Scare-type scenario what "a lot of americans" honestly want or think is wise? Saying suicide bombers and Al Qaeda equal Islam is like saying Torquemada equals Christianity. Or Pat Robertson for that matter. Or being American equals Joseph McCarthy, Richard Nixon and the toppling of foreign governments.
By the way, I could also find a scenario where I could say "my Muslim faith" without being a Muslim. Like: "Commenting on my Muslim faith is a pointless exercise since I profess no love for churches whatsoever"
Why don't we educate our children to think critically instead of teaching them to fear and point the finger?
QuoteBob Unruh
LOL ::) If that is your evidence you should look up his credentials.
Quote from: soldierjane on November 24, 2008, 11:34:09 AM
Quote from: daisybelle on November 20, 2008, 10:30:27 AM
and "my Muslim faith".
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.snopes.com%2Fpolitics%2Fgraphics%2Flapelpin.jpg&hash=be8f7385620aa475e6ef886f5a850b79fc88781e)
What really scares me is that why, in the land where the trappings of the past would be left behind and people have rights, "a lot of americans" are afraid of Obama being a Muslim. He is not, but what if he was? It's not a crime, you know.
It is the truth , no more no less. If it is the truth, why not be proud of who you are. Instead it does a disservice to himself and his faith.
Quote from: lisagurl on November 24, 2008, 12:06:32 PM
QuoteBob Unruh
LOL ::) If that is your evidence you should look up his credentials.
Are you questioning whether or not the Supreme Court will discuss this?
Quote from: daisybelle on November 24, 2008, 01:20:35 PM
Quote from: soldierjane on November 24, 2008, 11:34:09 AM
Quote from: daisybelle on November 20, 2008, 10:30:27 AM
and "my Muslim faith".
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.snopes.com%2Fpolitics%2Fgraphics%2Flapelpin.jpg&hash=be8f7385620aa475e6ef886f5a850b79fc88781e)
What really scares me is that why, in the land where the trappings of the past would be left behind and people have rights, "a lot of americans" are afraid of Obama being a Muslim. He is not, but what if he was? It's not a crime, you know.
It is the truth , no more no less. If it is the truth, why not be proud of who you are. Instead it does a disservice to himself and his faith.
Um.. he has attended a Christian church for years. What do you base this assertion on? Where's the record?
Quote from: daisybelle on November 24, 2008, 01:26:34 PM
Quote from: lisagurl on November 24, 2008, 12:06:32 PM
QuoteBob Unruh
LOL ::) If that is your evidence you should look up his credentials.
Are you questioning whether or not the Supreme Court will discuss this?
He has a legal Hawaiian birth certificate. Members of the court are free to talk about any subject in their leisure. I would suppose if someone made a formal complaint they would read it. That does not begin to suppose any wrong doing, just a nut making a complaint.
Quote from: lisagurl on November 24, 2008, 03:29:17 PM
Quote from: daisybelle on November 24, 2008, 01:26:34 PM
Quote from: lisagurl on November 24, 2008, 12:06:32 PM
QuoteBob Unruh
LOL ::) If that is your evidence you should look up his credentials.
Are you questioning whether or not the Supreme Court will discuss this?
He has a legal Hawaiian birth certificate. Members of the court are free to talk about any subject in their leisure. I would suppose if someone made a formal complaint they would read it. That does not begin to suppose any wrong doing, just a nut making a complaint.
Guess Al Gore was the nut in 2000 and Philip Berg is a nut who just happens to be a Democrat.
Before you call anyone a nut. Find out all the facts. There are several arguments Berg has put forth that have the potential to disqualify Obama from office. I do not know how you would feel , but I am sure this would upset you. And Biden would then get a walkon as the President for the next four years..... if that happens I believe the uproar will be outrageous. Maybe the Dems would have been better to consider Hillary then.
Just a thought.....
And finally if all this is debunked --- then the Dems lose nothing, and you can say I told you so. However if they are found to be true of defrauding the electorate --- I sincerely pray for this land. Being a rational person I truly do not want Anarchy....
Daisy
We have already seen an electorate defrauded. What happened? Nothing. Zip. Zero, zilch, nada. So I wouldn't hold my breath. The court 'heard' the arguments, but it takes more votes then they got to get it to a cert, so it's not going to be heard.
Of course, coming from the Republicans, after the last 8 years, you best be sure that the rest of us are laughing our ass off over your sudden discovery of the Constitution. Gee whiz, finally found a sentence in there you like and don't want to just ignore must be the one part Bush et. all. still left in there, pretty much did away with the rest of it.
Where were you when Bush picked Cheney, while both listed their residence as Texas, in violation of said Constitution? How about when they suspended Habus Corpus (a right going back to like, oh, Runnymede on 15 June, 1215, that Magna Carta deal, 'member?). Or doing away with the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments pretty much on a whim? Or thinking they were either A) the ONLY branch of government that mattered or, B) a branch of government not exactly covered in the Constitution and hence, not subject to any laws? (Both positions were advocated at one time or another). Or wholesale violation of the Hatch Act, or overturning (without a law in place) the Posse Comitatus Act.
So, none of that bothered you, but now, this guy needs a birth record that you approve of? Something beyond what the Secretary of State for Hawaii has already said is valid?
I'm surprised anyone is still taking some of this stuff seriously, it's been thoroughly debunked, and I see no reason to believe John McCain wouldn't have used anything with a smidge of truth behind it against Obama during the election. He certainly spread around plenty of other questionable "facts" about him during that time.
There is way, way way too much power and money at stake for anyone not to take it seriously.
Despite all evidence to the contrary?
The more evidence you have, the greater the proof of an even bigger conspiracy. It's just that easy. Because not only would McCain have used it, but I really doubt that all the people who gave huge money to get him elected didn't check that out first. No way.
Quote from: daisybelle on November 24, 2008, 10:31:25 AM
I find your use of "Repugnant" highly suspect. Maybe we should attach "baby-killers" as the Democrat.
Also the same person who paid for this poll, mentioned above, to be performed by a reputable poll organization wants to pay to have the same poll done for McCain supporters, but Zogby has refused..... Why? Afraid the poll would show more informed voting from the right versus the left....
And then this citizenship issue is not going to die:
QuoteSupremes to review citizenship arguments
Case challenging candidacy set for 'conference' of justices
Posted: November 20, 2008 1:10 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh -- © 2008 WorldNetDaily
A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a "conference" at the U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81484 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81484)
You have used the words the prior "elections were stolen", well it is is proved the dem's may actually have successfully defrauded the American electorate. And do not worry.... if Obama is not president, It will just be handed to Biden. So the dem's still win...... but just by damaging the electoral process.
And for me the scariest part of this is :
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122714181668742739.html?mod=googlenews_wsj (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122714181668742739.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
Hmm : "Businesses that didn't cover their employees would pay a tax on some portion of their payroll." Gee that sounds like the price for minimum wage just got higher..... wonder how that will impact our wallet
Daisy
It seems to me that "Repugnant" pretty well sums up the party in question. As for why the Zogby folk wouldn't do the same thing with McCain supporters? Well, since the Zogs are rightists, then I imagine they refused because they knew what they'd find: that right-wingers are just as vacuous as the people in the vid.
The bs over the Obama BC is simply that. And, truth to tell, the right is going to try to manage to find any and everything to distract the new administration.
Watch, "investigations" into all sorts of lame items just to try and get something to stcik in what passes for their supporters' minds. -- Bob Unruh as a source? -- why not use GOD as a source, or St. Paul?
Perhaps some truth wouldn't be amiss here, Daisy.
You're upset Obama was elected. You have no intention of ever supporting him no matter the circumstances and the people you cite are exactly the same.
Political opinions are simply that, opinions. So, if the Repugs wanna have a S. Carolinian, Katon Dawson, as Chair-person, then more power to them. The "southern strategy" gets weaker and weaker. Another election cycle will prolly see Georgia join the blue-states and some of the western states -- Arizona, Montana -- join those states as well. Keep this up and "Republic of Texas" is going to be all alone.
Avtually, that doesn't sound all that bad to me.
The only current "hope" is to make some attempt to declare Obama a "Muslim" -- although why not simply have the Clintons or Biden declared "Muslim" as well? Maybe we could have Noam Chomsky admit he's a Muslim and Geithner and Rubin could be declared such themselves. Besides, what does it matter? I somehow, though, don't think his Christian background is just gonna up and be changed to make him a Muslim. Not at his age especially.
If any of this were based on any shred of evidence you and I both know there would already be huge investigations on-going. Instead there's smoke and no perceived fire at all.
As for the guy in PA being a "democrat." You've no idea, do you? In PA affiliation can be changed or made by a declaration of the person registering to vote. You are able with nothing more than a form at the registrar's office to make yourself Repug, Democrat or Independent at will.
Hon, the horse you're flogging has already died. If even Drudge and O'Reilly and Limp-bow haven't decided to flog it it's d-e-a-d. Best find another to ride. As always, everyone has a choice.
O, something may eventually churn-up from the bottom and Obama will have to answer about it; but his birth and citizenship, his religious affiliation, and the Bill Ayers stuff are dead. Period.
Nichole
Quote from: daisybelle link=topic=49439.msg310590#msg310590
However if they are found to be true of defrauding the electorate --- I sincerely pray for this land. Being a rational person I truly do not want Anarchy....
Um... lol? Anarchy? In the U.S. of A.? I mean,
even if such an off-the-wall conspiracy were true, does it affect that the man has good ideas and great leadership qualities at all? You know,
ad hominem attacks are usually the last resort of lousy debaters. Why don't you mount a defense of conservative policies, for example, something we can actually discuss and not shadowy conspiracy theories?
Sorry if this seems a bit confrontational but this kind of silliness exasperates me.
In its own, very unique, and (just ask anyone else in the world this, they will agree) very weird way I think the USA is about the last place to ever suffer anarchy. Order and system in the US are really more of a ground up, rather than a top down deal, so it gets preserved so long as they are groups.
Hey. Everybody stop dissing anarchy. Anarchy is a good thing which the US was at one point quite close to ( bottom-up egalitarian organisation et al ;D ).
What we want to avoid is chaos. ;)
~Simone,
Friendly neighbourhood anarchist.
"You say 'anarchy' like it's a bad thing"
All I hear is Johnny Rotten screaming "I am an anarchist!" over and over.
Quote from: tekla on November 28, 2008, 11:12:08 AM
"You say 'anarchy' like it's a bad thing"
All I hear is Johnny Rotten screaming "I am an anarchist!" over and over.
Johnny Rotten was a rotten anarchist. :eusa_doh:
~Simone,
All the comedic skill of a bus.
Quote from: lady amarant on November 28, 2008, 11:45:39 AM
Quote from: tekla on November 28, 2008, 11:12:08 AM
"You say 'anarchy' like it's a bad thing"
All I hear is Johnny Rotten screaming "I am an anarchist!" over and over.
Johnny Rotten was a rotten anarchist. :eusa_doh:
~Simone,
All the comedic skill of a bus.
Huh? There are degrees of skill as an anarchist? Doesn't that more or less mean there's "archy" in anarchism? *puzzling*
Nikki :)
Plain and simple Obama won because we won we the people got involved from the beginning and we never gave up. We worked hard and traveled to as many states as we could and we gave every penny we had like there was no tomorrow.
I am Barack Obama
you are Barck Obama
we are Barack Obama
be like Barack Obama
working for Obama since feb 11th 2007 10 to 12 hours a day
hugs D
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eons.com%2Fimages%2Fmembers%2F2008%2F11%2F13%2F8%2F9%2F89609562219117541829_100w.jpeg&hash=fb5583785f99910637c3ea359eceff1d030b2055)
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eons.com%2Fimages%2Fmembers%2F2008%2F11%2F13%2F4%2F7%2F47019562215413541829_100w.jpeg&hash=1a2f32d7d227ccc9556b6a3a7a1d84f173dfc3b5)
And we are still working to make changes because we care so now the real question is to ask yourself what are you doing to make the change you want to see ??
Quote from: Nichole on November 28, 2008, 11:50:38 AM
Quote from: lady amarant on November 28, 2008, 11:45:39 AM
Quote from: tekla on November 28, 2008, 11:12:08 AM
"You say 'anarchy' like it's a bad thing"
All I hear is Johnny Rotten screaming "I am an anarchist!" over and over.
Johnny Rotten was a rotten anarchist. :eusa_doh:
~Simone,
All the comedic skill of a bus.
Huh? There are degrees of skill as an anarchist? Doesn't that more or less mean there's "archy" in anarchism? *puzzling*
Nikki :)
Giggle. Anarchism is not just about dismantling hierarchy, it's about establishing functional systems of direct self-government. Punk was angry and political and stuff, and raised valid issues, but unless anarchism offers alternatives, it's really quite useless. ;)
Besides, anarchism isn't against specialisation, just against government structures that concentrate power in the hands of a minority.
~Simone.
Quote from: lady amarant on November 28, 2008, 12:09:53 PM
Quote from: Nichole on November 28, 2008, 11:50:38 AM
Quote from: lady amarant on November 28, 2008, 11:45:39 AM
Quote from: tekla on November 28, 2008, 11:12:08 AM
"You say 'anarchy' like it's a bad thing"
All I hear is Johnny Rotten screaming "I am an anarchist!" over and over.
Johnny Rotten was a rotten anarchist. :eusa_doh:
~Simone,
All the comedic skill of a bus.
Huh? There are degrees of skill as an anarchist? Doesn't that more or less mean there's "archy" in anarchism? *puzzling*
Nikki :)
Giggle. Anarchism is not just about dismantling hierarchy, it's about establishing functional systems of direct self-government. Punk was angry and political and stuff, and raised valid issues, but unless anarchism offers alternatives, it's really quite useless. ;)
~Simone.
So Anarchism is a transitive state?
Quote from: Nichole on November 28, 2008, 11:50:38 AM
Quote from: lady amarant on November 28, 2008, 11:45:39 AM
Quote from: tekla on November 28, 2008, 11:12:08 AM
"You say 'anarchy' like it's a bad thing"
All I hear is Johnny Rotten screaming "I am an anarchist!" over and over.
Johnny Rotten was a rotten anarchist. :eusa_doh:
~Simone,
All the comedic skill of a bus.
Huh? There are degrees of skill as an anarchist? Doesn't that more or less mean there's "archy" in anarchism? *puzzling*
Nikki :)
Emma Goldman was more my style of anarchist than Johnny Rotten
Z
Quote from: soldierjane on November 28, 2008, 12:11:32 PMSo Anarchism is a transitive state?
Anarchies have served as transitional states in the past - the anarchist community collectives after the economic and government collapse in Argentina in 1992, for example, but the true goal of Anarchism is to permanently replace hierarchical states with flat structures. Keep in mind that anarchism does not preclude leadership or specialisation, but it does absolutely oppose the concentration of power in those individuals. There have been a number of functional anarchies in the past, such as the Spanish who opposed Franco, for example. The best example though must be the US itself.
The US was very anarchist early on in its history - the right to bear arms, for example, is a result of this, included to prevent a state monopoly on violence, so that US citizens would always be in a position to overthrow their government if such became necessary. In early America, land-owners collectively made the decisions that would affect the town they lived in, and everybody was pretty autonamous and self-empowered. (except the slaves. And the women. And the poor - they were semi-anarchists and strongy capitalist, not too enlightened though. ;) ) This is what Republicans tend to get all misty eyed over - Ayn Rand's Objectivism is basically capitalist anarchism. Of course, the economic meltdown, amongst other greed-induced disasters, has shown rather pointedly that capitalism's excesses must be regulated by a state, but that's a separate discussion.
The nature of America changed at some point around WWII though, and as the age of the bogeymen started with the cold war, Americans lost or gave up more and more individual power, replacing true freedom with 'consumer freedom'. They abdicated responsibility and replaced learning and civic involvement with entertainment, and 70-odd years on, think in soundbites and brands instead of concepts and philosophies.
Of course, the rest of the West, South Africa included, isn't far behind. An anarchist government couldn't work at the moment - one needs an educated, empowered populace for that.
~Simone.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzUzY2RkNGM3OTU3NjgzOWY0MTUzNTQwNzc1NTkyZTU= (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzUzY2RkNGM3OTU3NjgzOWY0MTUzNTQwNzc1NTkyZTU=)
How smart are voters?
Emma Goldman was more my style of anarchist than Johnny Rotten
Me too, but her songs just don't rock.
"Anarchism, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government." from old Emma there
Quote from: tekla on November 29, 2008, 02:21:49 PM
Emma Goldman was more my style of anarchist than Johnny Rotten
Me too, but her songs just don't rock.
LOL, you do have a good point there ;D
This talk of anarchy is putting me in the mood to dig out my old Billy Bragg CDs.
Z
Quote from: Nichole on November 28, 2008, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: daisybelle on November 24, 2008, 10:31:25 AM
I find your use of "Repugnant" highly suspect. Maybe we should attach "baby-killers" as the Democrat.
It seems to me that "Repugnant" pretty well sums up the party in question.
As for why the Zogby folk wouldn't do the same thing with McCain supporters? Well, since the Zogs are rightists, then I imagine they refused because they knew what they'd find: that right-wingers are just as vacuous as the people in the vid.
Dimwits or Baby-killers it is --- I find it "Repugnant" to have some who supports the slaughter of unborn children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zogby_International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zogby_International)
QuoteIn November of 2008, Zogby conducted a 'push poll' at the request of John Ziegler. The poll targeted Obama supporters and asked leading questions with a bias against the candidate they supported, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. According to Ziegler himself, the poll was intended to show that Obama supporters were inept. After an uproar in the press suggested that Zogby had displayed a degree of bias discrediting the company's presumed impartiality, Zogby refused to conduct another push poll also commissioned by Ziegler aimed at McCain supporters.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/zogby-engages-in-apparent-push-polling.html (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/zogby-engages-in-apparent-push-polling.html)
Looks to me Zogby did not want to perform the poll because it damaged his credibility the first time. It seems to me if his credibility was at stake the best thing he could do was do the right-sided poll.
But you see it your way -- I see it mine.
Interesting thread on BC Issue... http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/216858-obama-citizenship-question-goes-to-u.s.-supreme-court (http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/216858-obama-citizenship-question-goes-to-u.s.-supreme-court)
Lastly --- I believe that the RNC, Rush, and McCain do not want to be associated with the potential takedown of our President Elect. If that were to occur the "Dimwits" would point the finger at the right as --- ( well you fill in you own adjestives). It is like the crowd betting on the underdog "Dover" in the movie "My Fair Lady". Everyone is to prim and proper to cheer n "Dover" , well that is except for Miss Eliza... who shouts in her best cockneyed (i think) accent "Come on Dover !! Move your bloomin ass!!" I think most of the right is in this boat but won't step forward for fear of the left labelling them. Gee can you think of any other talk show hosts that lost their job over their comments?
It seems to be you have a set of blinders and earmuffs and are not open to hear anything contrary to your opinion.
Daisy
No, but I do know how to count, and the latest counts have Obama winning by over 9 million votes spread about in such a way that it give him the electoral victory.
Gee can you think of any other talk show hosts that lost their job over their comments?
Bill Maher, Politically Incorrect, for the remark about the 9-11 terrorists, where he was agreeing with a conservative commentator: "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."
QuoteDimwits or Baby-killers it is
I guess fetus termination does not have the poetic ring.
Quote from: tekla on December 01, 2008, 11:37:20 AM
No, but I do know how to count, and the latest counts have Obama winning by over 9 million votes spread about in such a way that it give him the electoral victory.
Not questioning the vote
Quote from: tekla on December 01, 2008, 11:37:20 AM
Gee can you think of any other talk show hosts that lost their job over their comments?
Bill Maher, Politically Incorrect, for the remark about the 9-11 terrorists, where he was agreeing with a conservative commentator: "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."
Imus too... I think everyone sees the masses as a quagmire of political correctness guano and at this point they would rather not step into it.
Daisy
Quote from: lisagurl on December 01, 2008, 11:45:17 AM
QuoteDimwits or Baby-killers it is
I guess fetus termination does not have the poetic ring.
Fetus / Embryo / Baby / Potential
Killer / Termination / Slaughter / Massacre / Murder
Mix and match as you see fit....
Daisy
Always thought that was a 'red meat' issue anyway. Trotted out every campaign by a bunch of people who NEVER HAD ANY INTENTION OF CHANGING THE LAW ONCE THEY GOT INTO POWER. (I wanted that point to be well understood, I think they were lying, also about prayer in school) Why? Well because abortion and prayer in school have nothing to do with money and power and that's why these people are in politics in the first place. They are not issues that affect the people who really support them (as opposed to those who merely vote for them).
Given the Repub assent since Regan, through the control of the house, and its 5-4 balance on the Court, how come in all that time, 3 Repub presidents, a Repub majority in the House and Senate, this was never brought up - but NAFTA, GATT and Deregulation were? Changing the bankruptcy laws to make it easier for banks to collect? Done deal. But prayer in school or abortion, never proposed. Given all those years could Renquist, Thomas, Scallia, Roberts et. all. could not have found ONE case to hear? Guess not.
The fact of the matter was the religious right got played by the Repubs for decades and decades making them something more akin to 'marks' than 'voters.'
The best understanding of this notion is found in a very easy to understand book called What's the Matter with Kansas, by Thomas Frank. Its a good read, and pretty smart reasoning.
QuoteFetus / Embryo / Baby / Potential
Killer / Termination / Slaughter / Massacre / Murder
Mix and match as you see fit....
Daisy
Would you like a dictionary for Christmas?
Quote from: daisybelle on December 01, 2008, 11:25:21 AM
Dimwits or Baby-killers it is --- I find it "Repugnant" to have some who supports the slaughter of unborn children.
It seems to be you have a set of blinders and earmuffs and are not open to hear anything contrary to your opinion.
Daisy
Strictly open to hearing it. I'm always hearing it. Agreeing with it and finding it persuasive? No.
I suppose if I were willing to be totally obtuse I could say the same about your opinions, but they are what they are. I don't have any hope of changing them.
I do find it odd that the religious right can get all lathered up about embryonic and fetal tissue and turn a blind eye to the oppressions, murders and innumerable sorrows visited on born human beings by their (right's) policies and desires.
I know all of those words you used quite well, Daisy. But I would imagine there are more than enough things to get lathered about when they are applied to human beings who are already alive. I don't nptice as much outrage from that lot when say an Angie Zapata or Gwen Araujo or Duanna Johnson are murdered as they manage to summon for 150 cells harvested from the ovaries of a woman to be used for stem-cell research.
Perspective is an odd thing. We all have 'em and they tend not to be the same ones.
Nichole
Quote from: lisagurl on December 01, 2008, 11:45:17 AM
QuoteDimwits or Baby-killers it is
I guess fetus termination does not have the poetic ring.
It's like being "pro-life". Who is "pro-death" anyway?
Quote from: daisybelle on December 01, 2008, 12:04:13 PM
Quote from: lisagurl on December 01, 2008, 11:45:17 AM
QuoteDimwits or Baby-killers it is
I guess fetus termination does not have the poetic ring.
Fetus / Embryo / Baby / Potential
Killer / Termination / Slaughter / Massacre / Murder
Mix and match as you see fit....
Daisy
Murder potential: A much-needed quantifier on people one meets
Massacre Baby: A sexy young woman fights her way up from illegal pit-fights to the bloodlords who killed her parents.
Killer Fetus: A pregnant woman goes on a murderous rampage... only it's not
HER doing the killing.
Termination Embryo: The art film about the day-to-day realities of being a rail depot worker's son.
Murder Massacre!: or, Wizard of Gore 5K
Potential Fetus: What to do and how to get over the blues of being a failed conception. See our ad on Dr. Phil magazine!
That is thoroughly debunked propoganda.
And today in the Chicago Times:
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/01/obama-birth-certificate-rears-its-ugly-head-again/?icid=200100397x1213691203x1200912886 (http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/01/obama-birth-certificate-rears-its-ugly-head-again/?icid=200100397x1213691203x1200912886)
From the ad:
Compelling evidence supports the claim that you are barred from holding
the Office of President by the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S.
Constitution. For instance:
• You have posted on the Internet an unsigned, forged and thoroughly
discredited, computer-generated birth form created in 2007, a form
that lacks vital information found on any original, hand signed
Certificate of Live Birth, such as hospital address, signature of
attending physician and age of mother.
• Hawaii Dept of Health will not confirm your assertion that you were born
in Hawaii.
• Legal affidavits state you were born in Kenya.
• Your grandmother is recorded on tape saying she attended your birth
in Kenya.
• U.S. Law in effect in 1961 denied U.S. citizenship to any child born
in Kenya if the father was Kenyan and the mother was not yet 19
years of age.
• In 1965, your mother legally relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S.
citizenship she and you had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming
a naturalized Indonesian citizen.
Sit back it is going to be a bumpy ride...
Daisy
An ad from some libertarian-ish group.
How is that compelling?
This topic has been thoroughly debunked also, it's just absurd people are still latching on it.
From Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp):
A number of self-proclaimed experts immediately seized the opportunity to pronounce the certificate a forgery (even though none of them had actually seen the original, just a scanned image of it), picking on such specious details as minor variations from other Hawaii-issued certificates and the lack of an embossed seal and signature. (Some forgery claimants even maintained that the certificate was actually an altered version of one issued to Barack Obama's half-sister, Maya.) Aside from the inherent absurdity of such claims (i.e., that a major party presidential nominee would risk his entire candidacy on a fraud that could be uncovered simply by a check of state health records), the supposedly incriminating details don't pan out: the certificate is consistent with others issued in the same time and place, and the embossed seal and signature don't show through very well on the scanned front image made available on the Internet because they were applied to the back of the original document, not the front. Those who have actually touched and examined the original certificate have verified and documented that it bears all the elements of a valid certificate of live birth.
A birth announcement for Barack Obama Jr. was also published in the Honolulu Advertiser on 13 August 1961, reporting a 4 August 1961 birth date for the child of Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama:
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsgboard.snopes.com%2Fpolitics%2Fgraphics%2Fbirthann.jpg&hash=9d0e360e6586e155565f70be39603d8488f014d9)
In August 2008, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg included claims of a forged certificate (among other rumors) as the basis for a suit in U.S. District Court challenging Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency on the grounds that Obama was actually born in Kenya (not Hawaii) and/or subsequently gave up his U.S. citizenship and thus does not qualify as a native-born citizen of the U.S. In October 2008 a federal judge dismissed the complaint:
QuoteIn a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg's allegations of harm were "too vague and too attenuated" to confer standing on him or any other voters.
Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."
The judge also said the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable."
(Contrary to various e-mails, Barack Obama has not "been ordered to produce his birth certificate by December 1"; that is simply the response date set for one of the several related filings still working its way through the U.S. court system.)
Also in October 2008, Hawaiian officials reported that they had personally verified the existence of Barack Obama's original birth certificate.
State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Sources:
Hinkelman, Michael. "Judge Rejects Montco Lawyer's Bid to Have Obama Removed from Ballot."
Philadelphia Daily News. 25 October 2008.
Nakaso, Dan. "Obama's Certificate of Birth OK, State Says."
Honolulu Advertiser. 1 November 2008.
Associated Press. "State Department of Health Declares Obama Birth Certificate Legal."
Honolulu Star-Bulletin. 31 October 2008.
Why there are McCain supporters on SUSAN'S is beyond me lol. What do you think McCain is gonna do for us?
There are too many facts to play with to start sharing conspiracy theories this late in the game.
And the vid was bollocks. People -gasp- have lives away from politics. The average voter is going to be ill-informed - that's what makes them average. They exist in both parties, not just Obama's party. At least they aren't the ones going "Treason! Hang him! Terrorist!" As cheesy as it sounds, Obama is a terrorist. Anyone who is afraid of anything disrupting the status quo is going to be terrified.
QuoteWe The People Foundation
::) LOL
The election is over done -- the Dem's win.
However I will not drink the Koolaid.
I would presume Biden would step up should Obama be outed. The fact is not whether I am a McCain supporter or not, the fact is that I do not want a person in the White House, whose first act is to shred the Constitutional guidelines for governing this land. Also I have not voted Republican. I have cast votes for Democrats in National races, as well as other parties.... And I cast my vote for Hillary in the primaries.
You blindly accept the notion that everything he states is true while evidence may be to the contrary. If he was born in Hawaii, then offer up the Certificate of live birth, the Hospital, and the Doctor signature. The forms would exist and the question woud be resolved. I just want these questions answered before he takes office.
Daisy
I do not want a person in the White House, whose first act is to shred the Constitutional guidelines for governing this land.
I take it then that you did not support Bush II taking office on the back of in re Bush v. Gore then.
Quote from: daisybelle on December 02, 2008, 09:01:30 AMIf he was born in Hawaii, then offer up the Certificate of live birth, the Hospital, and the Doctor signature. The forms would exist and the question woud be resolved.
They have.
This entire ploy reminds me of something -- O yes, the supposed "Whitewater" scandal that was investigated for eight years and never managed to convict any Clinton of anything at all, but made very good "entertainment bait" for those who had no interest in discovering anything at all except a way to try to discredit an elected-president prior to him taking office. And then was "kept alive" for eight years and even today comes up with righties when they need to point to some example of "criminality" of Clinton that didn't involve a girl beneath a desk on her knees. *sigh*
Have to hand it to these folks. They will do whatever it takes. No wonder Charlie Colson is such a popular "evangelist" among them! :laugh:
For all some of those people decry the 'activist courts' they sure lawyer up in a hurry and hit the courthouse steps, PR flack at their side.
Quote from: tekla on December 02, 2008, 10:25:41 AM
For all some of those people decry the 'activist courts' they sure lawyer up in a hurry and hit the courthouse steps, PR flack at their side.
"Activist judges" are OK if they are active for conservative causes, then they are held as not activist at all.
Yeah, they sure hate that whole 'original intent' when I talk about the 2nd Amendment,.
Quote from: tekla on December 02, 2008, 09:46:18 AM
I do not want a person in the White House, whose first act is to shred the Constitutional guidelines for governing this land.
I take it then that you did not support Bush II taking office on the back of in re Bush v. Gore then.
QuoteLooking at the recounts at this time that were done post-election Wikidepia shows:
In the aftermath of the election, the first independent recount was conducted by The Miami Herald and USA Today. Counting only "undervotes" (when the vote is not detected by machine), and not considering "overvotes" (when a ballot ends up with more than one indication of a vote, for example both a punch-out and hand-written name, even if both indicating the same candidate)[42] Bush would have won in all legally requested recount scenarios. If overvotes where the intent of the voter was clear were counted, using any consistent standard for 'clear intent of the voter', Gore would have won. This was not requested by either side at the time; the independent recount therefore led to a greater awareness of the issue of 'overvotes'.
Under the recount rules initially requested by Gore, Bush would have won, and under the rules requested by Bush, Gore would have won.
The matter went before the Supreme Court then, as it should now.
Look I am not contesting that the election of 2008 be thrown out (The last thing I would want to see is a run-off of potential candidates again).... we will have to live with a Dem in the White House for the next four years I expect. Just who is the question?
Daisy
QuoteJust who is the question?
There is no question except among those who can not accept facts.
Quote from: soldierjane on December 02, 2008, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: tekla on December 02, 2008, 10:25:41 AM
For all some of those people decry the 'activist courts' they sure lawyer up in a hurry and hit the courthouse steps, PR flack at their side.
"Activist judges" are OK if they are active for conservative causes, then they are held as not activist at all.
QuoteAs a general usage, "activist judge" is used to describe a judge who actively and knowingly subverts, misuses, grossly misinterprets, ignores, or otherwise flouts the law and/or legal precedence due to personal opinion, be that opinion ideological, religious, philosophical, or other.
So the only way to change the law is to have it legislated, while judges make the decision on their own.
An example, The English Nanny in the Boston area was found guilty a couple of years ago. However the judge overturned the sentence and she went home with time served. The judge circumvented the Jury, the System, and ruled based on his own decision. Probably considered activism....
Daisy
Quote from: lisagurl on December 02, 2008, 02:19:42 PM
QuoteJust who is the question?
There is no question except among those who can not accept facts.
Quoted for truth