It's May 07, 2024, 10:44:24 PM
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 withQuote from: virtuoso on February 04, 2009, 04:05:56 PMQuote from: Kill on February 04, 2009, 03:20:24 PMI 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 sayHow 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 Quotebut 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"
Quote from: Kill on February 04, 2009, 03:20:24 PMI 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 sayHow 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.
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
Quote from: Mr. Javii on February 04, 2009, 07:13:15 PMQuote from: virtuoso on February 04, 2009, 04:40:09 PMQuote from: Mr. Javii on February 04, 2009, 04:30:41 PMBush 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.
Quote from: virtuoso on February 04, 2009, 04:40:09 PMQuote from: Mr. Javii on February 04, 2009, 04:30:41 PMBush 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.
Quote from: Mr. Javii on February 04, 2009, 04:30:41 PMBush 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.
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.
Quote from: Kill on February 05, 2009, 12:05:48 PMwell 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 withQuote from: virtuoso on February 04, 2009, 04:05:56 PMQuote from: Kill on February 04, 2009, 03:20:24 PMI 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 sayHow 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"
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 withQuote from: virtuoso on February 04, 2009, 04:05:56 PMQuote from: Kill on February 04, 2009, 03:20:24 PMI 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 sayHow 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
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.