For all you Obama groupies...

[LooN3y]

well virtuoso, i will not lie about the fact that some of the stuff mentioned by you is unknown to me (flatulence tax and whatnot) and don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that obama's every single word deserves lavish praise. nevertheless, you said some things that i can't quite agree with

I love the title "changefest"...and some people are just not able to handle satire. stewart's point was to show how similar presidential rhethorics are when they come from different people with approaches that are actually different. this wasn't about showing obama is similar to bush, which, frankly and no matter how much you like obama or not, is a rather dumb thing to say

How is it dumb? and again there is this refusal to see a distinction it's not about liking or disliking an individual it's about what they stand for. Me and others have pointed out hundreds of times why nothing is changing, at least not changing for the better anyway but here is a quick run down.

this is slightly contradictive. it could change for the worse and ruin the world and still the point would be that it changed

but why would we want bad change? i mean of course obama supporters didnt vote for him for that. its not like he can use that as an excuse "welll this r worse off than before, o well i kept my promise and brought change though"

[virtuoso]

My point was that "change" creates a perception of something different, something better, whereas this, if you can call it change is just a change of direction away from where the roots of where america was prided as being a free country. There is absolutely no need to be in Afghanistan or Iraq, if you thought the Taliban were a piece of shit, well, the Northern Alliance are arguably worse, you only need look at the raping and murderous rampages across Kabul. Again to point out that the hawks of Obamas administration are now just echoing the line of the Bush administration when it comes to Iraq also, a slow withdrawal but it will never be a total withdrawal because the think tank Project For The New American Century have already stated their goals. to stay in Iraq and use it as a staging post for further wars. So since you brought up contradictive statements or ideas, there is not a cat in hells chance that Obama is anti war because the think tanks produce the policies. The media are just playing the game, they know that most people will not dare question Obama right now and so they happily fall into the role of the cheer leader.

I really have no idea what source indicated to you that Obama had not renewed extraordinary rendition orders, but here it is http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story he gives a flying fuck for human rights. You also mention the bank bail outs, the reason why the bail outs were even on the agenda was essentially because banks have been creating 50 times the money they actually hold in capital out of thin air via derivatives. This has led to a situation in which the banks have created a situation in which derivative contracts are almost ten times greater than the total world economy. So sure they were running out of money, but a) it was a criminal ponzi scheme anyway and secondly, it was obvious what would happen when the bank bail outs were approved, the same people engaging in colossal criminality were not going to stop. It was not hard to predict what was going to happen either, despite all of this future tax payers money being handed to them to once again reignite the debt based economy they have instead been using it to lavish their top people with bonuses, to use it in bank acquisitions and furthermore to create new financial bubbles. So the people have been paying almost 8 trillion to the bankers as a means of getting the credit flowing again and yet only a fraction of that is being used for that purpose, man this is looting on a scale which makes my head spin.

By the way, you are seeing carbon tax through tinted glasses, it's been designed to be abused, it's been designed to tax every facet of your life and thus create a giant bureaucracy to dwarf what is currently there. What are they doing in rwandan seas? dumping toxic chemicals into the sea, how many hundreds of thousands of tonnes of depleted uranium have been used against Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia? I shudder to think and I know the media likes to downplay this to such an extent that it appears the notion of "conspiracy theorists" but in fact when you research it, the devastation of depleted uranium is accepted that is to say beyond the general public denial line. In fact politicians in the English parliament (back benchers) want answers, but they never get them. This is seen as being one of the taboo subjects, if they gave a shit about the environment this would cease, but of course it doesn't. There is no interest in stopping it, because it's battering ram of epic proportions when it comes to being a deadly weapon.

The honey bees are dying out, gm crops are spreading like wildfire. diseases are rocketing through the roof, there is a correlation here. Do you see them panicking about the honey bees? mentioned a few times in passing, any suggestion that the gm crops are wiping out the honey is  dismissed, but of course it would be, Monsanto is reaching the point where they have an almost total monopoly on the food supply. The best thing people can do is start growing their own food, and stick their fingers up to these politicians who comprise largely of self serving greedy bastards, or sadistic megalomaniacs. You can not and do get in a position of power without the approval of the major players who control this world, economically and so they control the geopolitical landscape with it.

[M Dogg™]

Bush or any Repbulican would never want a Federal program to weatherize your home.  That's in the works with Obama as President, something that Bush-led Congress would never approve of.  And there's plenty of little important things like that shows the difference between the two.  Now this whole fantasy you guys have about eliminating the Federal Reserve, etc....it's just not going to happen anytime soon.  The fact is that Obama didn't campaign on getting rid of it or anything like it. 

You mean to control the temperature in your home? and if so, you call that a good thing, a government having the power to decide your thermostat. Also the Federal Reserve was only one element, if that was all, well it could be grudgingly accepted but it sure isn't, that's only the tip of the iceberg.

Home Weatherization isn't just controlling the temperature in your home.  The government deciding the power of your thermostat?  Are you kidding me?!  You're overreacting, all we're talking about is a way of saving energy.  Something that should have been done a long ass time ago.  Why should we use energy excessively when there are ways we can reduce it, to help each and every one of us.

You are talking to someone who voted for Ron Paul, who wasn't even on the ballot... you are talking to someone with a real grip of reality.

[Kill]

well virtuoso, i will not lie about the fact that some of the stuff mentioned by you is unknown to me (flatulence tax and whatnot) and don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that obama's every single word deserves lavish praise. nevertheless, you said some things that i can't quite agree with

I love the title "changefest"...and some people are just not able to handle satire. stewart's point was to show how similar presidential rhethorics are when they come from different people with approaches that are actually different. this wasn't about showing obama is similar to bush, which, frankly and no matter how much you like obama or not, is a rather dumb thing to say

How is it dumb? and again there is this refusal to see a distinction it's not about liking or disliking an individual it's about what they stand for. Me and others have pointed out hundreds of times why nothing is changing, at least not changing for the better anyway but here is a quick run down.

this is slightly contradictive. it could change for the worse and ruin the world and still the point would be that it changed

but why would we want bad change? i mean of course obama supporters didnt vote for him for that. its not like he can use that as an excuse "welll this r worse off than before, o well i kept my promise and brought change though"

obviously. if obama actually manages to run US government into the ground even more than bush did, he's a complete failure. i was merely drawing that logical conclusion cause what we're doing in this country is comparing obama to bush. and if you say they're akin to each other in political terms, then their policies have to be similar. in other words, bad change is still change, but of course that wouldn't defend obama at all.

Now virtuoso, you do your research and you seem to do it well, yet the conclusions you draw seem a bit rash to me at points, or the information you extract seems to be slightly selective in my opinion. don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to say you don't have a point. but look...

My point was that "change" creates a perception of something different, something better, whereas this, if you can call it change is just a change of direction away from where the roots of where america was prided as being a free country. There is absolutely no need to be in Afghanistan or Iraq, if you thought the Taliban were a piece of shit, well, the Northern Alliance are arguably worse, you only need look at the raping and murderous rampages across Kabul. Again to point out that the hawks of Obamas administration are now just echoing the line of the Bush administration when it comes to Iraq also, a slow withdrawal but it will never be a total withdrawal because the think tank Project For The New American Century have already stated their goals. to stay in Iraq and use it as a staging post for further wars. So since you brought up contradictive statements or ideas, there is not a cat in hells chance that Obama is anti war because the think tanks produce the policies. The media are just playing the game, they know that most people will not dare question Obama right now and so they happily fall into the role of the cheer leader.

You might not be completely off, but you're not being fair. first off, the PNAC doesn't even exist anymore and the goals stated by their megalomaniac neocon asses did affect the Bush administration policies, but I'm wondering why obama should be so keen on sucking up to them. of course these guys keep operating, but that organization is not a good example.

anyways, my general problem with your statements is that you seem to leave out one thing: obama is one man who's been given the world's most powerful single job, but not any more than that. you keep emphasizing yourself that lobbyists and think tanks wield great power, so what on earth do you expect from a new administration? obama has to initiate a slow process of fundamental restructuring and i don't think you're naive enough to believe that this can be done by popping up in the oval office and saying "hey guys, let's do a 180 on everything bush did". this is what i mean by saying you're not being fair. there's a huge mess to clean up and obama doesn't have a magic wand to do it with. he needs to start at the very point the bush administration got america to and that is a point so low that he can't possibly begin with something purely exciting.

and where i think you're wrong is your conclusion that this means that he's "echoing" bush. bush originally wanted to do a quick invasion, install a puppet government à la Pahlavi and, in Reagan's words, pave the country, put parking stripes on it and be home for christmas. with obama in office, this wouldn't have happened and obama is intelligent enough to know he can't just run now. he knows he needs to look what the best option under these circumstances is. as for afghanistan, the northern alliance (well, what is left of it) is a bunch of criminals, yes, and that is actually a good reason for a troop surge: the us started this thing and now it would be irresponsible to leave the country to a bunch of pillaging rogues. of course this is not the only reason why obama would want to stay in there, but the fact that this country can't handle its own business and is still in the aftermath of a us invasion is not insignificant.

I really have no idea what source indicated to you that Obama had not renewed extraordinary rendition orders, but here it is http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story

swiss newspaper, usually a reliable one though. but i think they just said he's not planning to renew at a certain point.

he gives a flying fuck for human rights. You also mention the bank bail outs, the reason why the bail outs were even on the agenda was essentially because banks have been creating 50 times the money they actually hold in capital out of thin air via derivatives. This has led to a situation in which the banks have created a situation in which derivative contracts are almost ten times greater than the total world economy. So sure they were running out of money, but a) it was a criminal ponzi scheme anyway and secondly, it was obvious what would happen when the bank bail outs were approved, the same people engaging in colossal criminality were not going to stop. It was not hard to predict what was going to happen either, despite all of this future tax payers money being handed to them to once again reignite the debt based economy they have instead been using it to lavish their top people with bonuses, to use it in bank acquisitions and furthermore to create new financial bubbles. So the people have been paying almost 8 trillion to the bankers as a means of getting the credit flowing again and yet only a fraction of that is being used for that purpose, man this is looting on a scale which makes my head spin.

there might have been mistakes in terms of regulations imposed by the bail-outs, yes. it's obvious what the reaganite idea of a free economy ended up being, i fully agree with you on that. mind you, this thing was still passed under the bush administration and in the background there were a lot of things going on that neither you nor i can quite see through. but as you might have noticed, obama has critisized this whole bonus lunacy in a way that bush would never have and there is legislation being worked on to further regulate and restrict these cynical spending frenzies. again, obama has a lot of resistance coming from the conservative department and he needs to find a way to get things done. man, he's been president for two weeks now, so you'll have to wait and see how this unfolds.

By the way, you are seeing carbon tax through tinted glasses, it's been designed to be abused, it's been designed to tax every facet of your life and thus create a giant bureaucracy to dwarf what is currently there. What are they doing in rwandan seas? dumping toxic chemicals into the sea, how many hundreds of thousands of tonnes of depleted uranium have been used against Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia? I shudder to think and I know the media likes to downplay this to such an extent that it appears the notion of "conspiracy theorists" but in fact when you research it, the devastation of depleted uranium is accepted that is to say beyond the general public denial line. In fact politicians in the English parliament (back benchers) want answers, but they never get them. This is seen as being one of the taboo subjects, if they gave a shit about the environment this would cease, but of course it doesn't. There is no interest in stopping it, because it's battering ram of epic proportions when it comes to being a deadly weapon.

i'm not seeing it through tinted glasses, i did say it could be abused, but it is also my belief that, if rightly done, it could be a good first step towards doing what has been long overdue. environmental protection has ceased to be a matter of political attitude, it's a mere matter of sanity and rational thinking at the point we have now reached. i don't mean to be preaching, but something has to be done. the other facts you're mentioning are sad truths, but not directly related to carbon tax. what is directly related to it is where that money goes.

The honey bees are dying out, gm crops are spreading like wildfire. diseases are rocketing through the roof, there is a correlation here. Do you see them panicking about the honey bees? mentioned a few times in passing, any suggestion that the gm crops are wiping out the honey is  dismissed, but of course it would be, Monsanto is reaching the point where they have an almost total monopoly on the food supply. The best thing people can do is start growing their own food, and stick their fingers up to these politicians who comprise largely of self serving greedy bastards, or sadistic megalomaniacs. You can not and do get in a position of power without the approval of the major players who control this world, economically and so they control the geopolitical landscape with it.

i'll answer this by raising the simple question i've been wanting to ask you with regards to most of what you said. what would you want obama to do?

[Kill]

http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=208249.0

 

[RealHipHopForever]

I love how everyone here thinks they know what Obama is going to do. There is simply no way to know and there is no use debating what he will do. What should be debated is what should be done.

I also love how some people think that there are masterminds behind an enormous plot who decide what happens in the world. There is no table that these masterminds sit at and plan world domination and power. That shit is just comic book thinking. It is the combined motives of hundreds of business and social interests.

[virtuoso]

"Having said that, if we capture a high-value prisoner, I believe we have the right to hold that individual temporarily, to debrief that individual and to make sure that individual is properly incarcerated so we can maintain control over that individual," he said.

You are looking into a headline, i just used that above to illustrate the doublespeak.

No it's not comic book thinking, that statement is based from a misunderstanding and a naivety and and an ignorance just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean you should dismiss it because it is outside of your current paradigm of thought. David rothkopf brags about how 10,000 elite individuals control the world and indeed it is they who should control the world. Global bodies have ceded so much power from the sovereign states and furthermore unashamedly do it. Look at the power of the european union, look at the trilateral commission, look at the rockefeller foundation, but you see these are just names to you.

However I do agree with you on something, if Obama does try acting too much like a president instead of a stooge, he will be popped, that is why no one should ever trust anyone in power. This is the problem, a long time ago, many americans switched off and started trusting government and that has been exploited. That is not an attack on americans, if anything the english, the europeans have been too blindly seduced but americans have been in previous eras more vigilant.