Obama

Im not liberal, but as long as he can fix the economy, thant i dont give a ****

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFI6nwvKX_c

 

Any eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Every soldier on foreign soil is a representative of the United States, and as such, should stick to the rules of war. There's a reason why we don't use poison gas. There's a reason why soldiers aren't supposed to indiscriminately kill civilians. It's called the Law of Armed Conflict. Please read up on the Geneva Convention sometime.

I know few if any of you will watch it, but this episode of Frontline covers the Guantanamo Bay debacle and the torture issue very well:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/view/


Also, win.
For those who are not necessarily happy that Obama won and are worried about the future, I can only offer the advice that I felt the same way 8 years ago. I'm still alive and the country hasn't been totally destroyed, so keep your heads up. We've endured the past 8 years. Weathering the next 4 (at a minimum) should be a breeze.

 

@Nikzad

the rules of war dont always apply.

In vietnam, that bull**** doesnt apply, when someone takes our your best friend and than tries to surrender? according to the 'geneva convention' we are supposed to take them prisoner, but why? they just shot one of your friends, you think you will actually not kill them?

I dont expect most of you or any of you to understand it the way i do. I been around to many veterans of wars, and many of my friends are over seas. None of you will understand the hatred and pain that goes through someone at the loss of a friend.

ANd yes, we should survive the next 4 years... We are the US after all.

 

I can't say what I would or wouldn't do in the same situation, but I would like to say that I would be strong enough not to sink to that level. I'm honestly frightened to think of the lengths to which I could be pushed if I ever served.

In order to have peace, there has to be someone who takes the initiative to put down their weapons first. Two wrongs don't make a right and I don't see how the instances of torture that we are talking about can be justified in any case.

 

I think you will find that many people do understand the pain, and it is that pain that led them to becoming Hamas recruits.

It is your choice to complete that cycle of hatred that will ensure it will continue on to the next generation, and the next, and the next, just as the ones before you have done. That is why it is so important to break from the cycle, not because you forgive the enemy for their deeds, but to ensure that your descendants will not have to undergo it again.

Back to my original jibe, look at where ignoring the geneva conventions has gotten the Palestinians and Israelis, or countless other similar pairs. They've committed tit for tat atrocities for decades, all justified with "they killed my best friend" or "they killed my brother", many times those people not even being active participants in the conflict.

 

If by win, you mean accomplish what he wants to, then yes. If by win you mean do what's best for the country instead of stupid socialism, then no, he will fail horribly.

 

FAIL

Since we have so quickly resorted to name calling. I will not try to argue any of my views but here is something that I will point out, something that so many of you so willingly accept. The fact that our President had the audacity to appoint recycled Clinton hacks is very indicative of his duplicitous nature.

Also IT IS NOT OKAY TO SPEND 150 MILLION DOLLARS!

I have been around and currently work with veterans of both Iraq Wars, Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc. etc. I think I'd know.

 

Well, I have to say that since the Clinton administration was responsible for the longest sustained period of economic growth in American history, appointing people from his administration might not be the worst idea possible.

What 150 million are you talking about? I know that it doesn't sound like a very good idea but I know that the economists that devise these plans know a lot more about this stuff than most of us, so there is some method behind the seeming madness.


I wasn't happy when President Bush spent the $559 billion surplus that the Clinton administration had achieved.

It's politics. Nothing's black and white. Just varying shades of gray.

Edit:
Also, thank you wodan46, you articulated what I was trying to get at much better than I did.

 

Clinton FTW

And i do understand the circle of hatred, but sometimes like i said before, the rules of war dont always apply.

Pale and Isra are at war becuase of some religion they got going on. (excuse my ignorance, but thats what i think is right)

ANYWAYS

back to the original thing....

Politician are Epic /PHAIL

they all dont bring what they say, although who knows, no one can really be sure, give obama a chance for progress or failure.

 

No, they fight for revenge and survival. Religion is simply another tool that they can use to justify their insane actions to themselves.

Do you actually understand anything of what Democrats actually advocate, rather than just labeling it with a term that makes is pseudo communist? For starters, the current democratic party is actually center-right politically, and Obama is at best center-left. Kucinich is one of the few major left wing members of the Democrats.

For that matter do you even know what actual socialists advocate? We advocate things such as universal healthcare and a functional system of welfare, we are not interested in say, nationalizing more general companies.

I will also ask you how well did the libertarian deregulation attitude of the last 8 years work out, for comparison. To me, it looked like an unmitigated failure that has the economy teetering on the edge of destruction, and it still might fall in unless the government goes into a 2 trillion deficit to protect it.

You seem to be the one doing the name calling, what with the labeling Clinton administration employees as "hacks". Also, I find it bizarre that you find a a president who is a Democrat picking experienced Democrats to head his organizations to be "duplicitious". Alternatively, he could have picked from the opposing party who has ruined the country over the last 8 years, or he could have picked entirely new people, whereupon he would also be yelled at. Not to mention that the Clinton Administration was competent, and that furthermore, many of the people Obama's picked are still powerful members in Congress even after the Administration ended, and if Obama wants to coordinate things with Congress so that he doesn't fail the way Clinton and Carter did, it makes sense for him to pick some of them head such positions.

On what? Tanks? Shoes? Bailouts?

 

:yes: Wodan


Last 8 years blew balls, although Bush wasnt as bad like some see him to be, he did some A+ things but other than that, the whole "weapons of Mass destruction" thing and the invasion was kinda a put down.

Now we are throwing... THROWING almost 40Mil into Iraq a day, and our economy is super ****ty atm.

With Obama, i am hoping that he will get us out this financial crisis.

For those of you who hate him, let me just say, the whole WORLD.. the WORLD was looking forward to this election... THE WORLD. No other president had that kinda impact. Could it be becuase he is the first minority to take presidency? Maybe. Is it becuase he promises things to help the US relations? Maybe. Is it becuase Bush made the world hate us that he needed to leave? maybe.

Give obama a chance, but dont expect him to keep all his words.

 

how is Obama center left?

he is between left and right at most


Politicians dont always deliver what they promise, though it isnt like they all made a giant plot to not deliver, some underestimate what they need to do, others feel the need to win and any costs and others need to make concessions against other parties

in short: they are human

 

Bull****. Thats social democracy at its best. Socialists however, want immediate socialist ownership of the major means of production, as well as banks, and collectivization of the agriculture as a start. Universal healthcare is not something socialist (not to mention it should be a basic human right anyway).

Obama centre-left? What a joke. Obama is not any different from any other candidate in terms of actual economic left. Once again, universal healthcare and welfare does not make something left, and in America's case its just pretty populism. But it's still good to have.

By the way, anyone calling the bailouts communism should be put up against the wall.

 

I think you are confusing Socialism with Communism. Nevertheless, if that is what you consider to be Socialist, then Obama is not even remotely close to it.

I would generally view Populism as you characterize it as economic left.

 

Socialism and communism are one and the same in actual meaning, both practical and scientific- socialism can be seen as ''communism 1''. Because thats not what you mean, its not socialism- the mode of production stays the same, hence, no difference. What you went about is just typical third-wayist social democracy- or just, typical liberalism.

 

Wrong and wrong.

Communism is a branch of socialism. It's far more hardcore. Socialism is a more mellow ideology, and is often viewed as an in-between of communism and capitalism.

 

Fenix...you are going to tell an anti-revisionist pro-Hoxha Marxist-Leninist what you think socialism means? Our guy came up with the stuff. I know many people use this definition, but its wrong- Socialism is a branch of communism, and there is nothing hardcore in communism compared to general socialism. ''In between communism and capitalism'' is the 'third-position' fascist propaganda trick, or social-democratic 'third way' which is almost as bad. These people mainly invented this as 'socialism' and sold it to the masses due to their complete class-collaborationist policies (the similarities between social-democracy and fascism are stunning) as well as abandoning Marxist theory (would you believe me if I told you social-democracy used to mean communism in its early days?). Really, it's just social-democracy.

 

socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

communism - a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

source: dictionary.reference.com

"Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism."

source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

Just as I said- almost the same, but going in some vague stages.

Karl Marx used communism and socialism as synonyms. Class struggle and the revolution is the transitional state, together with basic 'socialist' necessities- nationalization of banks, giving factories to workers, land to the peasants and establishing soviets, all of this under the dictatorship of the proletariat which is there to suppress the overthrown bourgois class until it no longer exists. After this, socialist mode of production comes about.

 

Why can't we just say that it's all Bush's fault and leave it at that?