Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm sorry, but none of that business about Obama, Black Nationalism, the Panthers, or Ayers sounds credible at all. The latter at least I know is discredited junk. The rest sounds no more plausible.

Could you provide some documentation? Maybe some links or videos?

It doesn't help Obamas credibility to be friends and associates with known anti-Americans.


President Obama: Living A Lie With A Little Help From His Friends
http://www.pjtv.com/v/2281

Nowadays Ayers is a respected educator who won the Chicago Citizen of the Year Award in 1997 for his work with the Annenberg Challenge Project. And Obama's barely associated with him. They're certainly not friends or anything.

Wright is a bit of a nutjub. I'm not a fan, and Obama should have walked away from him earlier. That said, virtually anyone associated with the Republican party has equally big religious nutjobs associated with them.

Silverthorne wrote:I have no idea why McCain picked her, it was such a daft move.

Originally McCain wanted to go with the Independent Joe Lieberman as his VP pick, but switched to the then unknown Sarah Palin on the advice of Carl Rove after Hillary Clinton was defeated in the primaries. And initially she did take the entire election by storm, unfortunately for the Republicans as time dragged on it became woefully apparent she was in way over her head. (and is not considered the only VP candidate to have actually hurt a presidential campaign)

As for the rest of your drivel about black nationalism...some sources please?

------------

So fateweaver your best source is called 'Left Exposed' and its previous 5 videos are:

-The West coast protests Obamacare
-Get the Race Card: A free pass on anything
-Box Office Poison: Hollywood hates America
-Schoolhouse Barack: Sonja's mom teaches prez to cut down on 'Me Time'
-Rogue Warriors: Sarah Palin's power is with the people

and you expect to be taken seriously?

Really?

I think Rice would have been a good move. Would have leveled the "race" playing field and she was a lot more popular than Palin and let's face it, the Presidential race is just a popularity contest.

You're almost funny.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Hawkins wrote:

Albatross wrote:/vomit.

your gonna have to be more specific. theres more than one target here ya know.....

I've got enough vomit for more than one poster here, don't worry, you'll get some too.

Vietnam was not about 'freedom' - it was about American Imperialism.

I think you need to read up on what the word imperialism means, the war wasn't about spreading freedom, and spreading democracy may have been a happy benefit, but it wasn't the focus. Despite those two things it was not about American imperialism. It was at best, an attempt at avoiding the creation of a hegemonic communist alliance, but to be imperialistic about a war you actually have to gain some sort of benefit beyond proactive national security.

Split hairs all you like, but projecting military power in south-east asia in order to safeguard a pro-american government smacks of imperialism to me. Since when has 'pro-active national security' not been a priority for the USA? You say I need to read up on the meaning of the word 'imperialism'? I would say you need to read up on American history.

If you wanna take this up via PM Shuma, fair enough - but we have drifted off-topic a bit here!

Albatross wrote:Since when has 'pro-active national security' not been a priority for the USA?

What does that have to do with anything?

Fateweaver wrote:I think Rice would have been a good move. Would have leveled the "race" playing field and she was a lot more popular than Palin and let's face it, the Presidential race is just a popularity contest.

All elections are popularity contests. Popularity is important, no matter what your high school counselor told you.

Also, Condi Rice would never have carried the Republican ticket. She's barely a Republican in the area which she is considered an expert (foreign policy). That should tell you something about their position on, well, anything.

Split hairs all you like, but projecting military power in south-east asia in order to safeguard a pro-american government smacks of imperialism to me.

I know, thats why I said you need to bust out that dictionary and read up on what imperialism means.

–noun
1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
2. advocacy of imperial interests.
3. an imperial system of government.
4. imperial government.
5. British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.

Considering how little control we flex over vietnam in modern (and really even post war) times if it was an attempt at flexing imperial control we failed pretty badly. By that broad of a sense though virtually any form of international action, either military, diplomatic, or economic, is imperialism. If you want to accept such a broad definition then I can't really stop you, and the primary meaning of the word is fairly open, but then, much like the term "terrorist" it only has meaning insofar as it has a meaning. Once you rob it of one it simply becomes a buzzword of the european anti war left (as it has been for quite some time).

It was an imperialistic war in the same sense that Obamas healthcare package is socialist. That being in a dogmatic and hyperbolic sense only.

If you wanna take this up via PM Shuma, fair enough - but we have drifted off-topic a bit here!

Since this is my topic and none of you have been on topic from the start anyway I'm happy to have it here. I don't maintain the energy for debates in PM, without an audience I just don't care as you saw last time.

MGS- these pale in comparion to the very real role Black Nationalism has in the Obama administration. Holder dismissed a case where the Black Panthers patrolled a polling sight w/ nightsticks, asking people their vote. Obama's campaign was started by a Weatherman convicted of a string a bombings targeted against white officers. The entire Van Jones and Rev. Wright debacles. To compare these to a few hicks in the sticks and you get to see the differences in scale here.

Do you want to bring up Swiftboat and that couple the Clintons killed too? Or would you like to actually stop discrediting any opinion that you put fourth with ludicrous and discredited hyperconservative election campaign mudsling-talkingpoints. You gonna say Obama is a muslim next? You'd have the hat trick.

ShumaGorath wrote:
It was an imperialistic war in the same sense that Obamas healthcare package is socialist. That being in a dogmatic and hyperbolic sense only.

I don't know that it was dogmatic, or hyperbolic. Vietnam was imperialistic (Containment was used to justify it), and Obama's healthcare package is socialist. The question we must ask ourselves does not relate to the nature of such things, but whether or not they're good or bad. Of course, people who seek moral clarity will never be able to answer.

Shuma wrote:Since this is my topic and none of you have been on topic from the start anyway I'm happy to have it here. I don't maintain the energy for debates in PM, without an audience I just don't care as you saw last time.

Oh, I just thought you lost momentum because you had no position other than 'Britiain is just like 'V for Vendetta'' - and here's me thinking you'd realised you were being a bit hysterical! Thank heavens! If you ever did THAT, your posts wouldn't be anywhere near as amusing.

Shuma wrote:
Considering how little control we flex over vietnam in modern (and really even post war) times if it was an attempt at flexing imperial control we failed pretty badly. By that broad of a sense though virtually any form of international action, either military, diplomatic, or economic, is imperialism. If you want to accept such a broad definition then I can't really stop you, and the primary meaning of the word is fairly open, but then, much like the term "terrorist" it only has meaning insofar as it has a meaning. Once you rob it of one it simply becomes a buzzword of the european anti war left (as it has been for quite some time).

It was an imperialistic war in the same sense that Obamas healthcare package is socialist. That being in a dogmatic and hyperbolic sense only.

Ideological imperialism is still imperialism - calling it 'spreading american values' or 'protecting against communist hegemony' doesn't change that.
see:

2. advocacy of imperial interests.

Wait a minute, Britain is like V for vendetta? haha! Who said that?!



Why does my Californian girlfriend like it here so much then?

California is also like V for Vendetta. Though the V in question has a metallic skeleton, and can travel through time.

Man, I wish I had a metallic skeleton. I already have the 'travelling through time' thing nailed though, Dogma. I don't wanna give too much away, so I'll just say 'look both ways when crossing the road, mate' and 'beware cycle-couriers'....

I travel through time when I drink a handle of Jameson.

All the more reason to be careful when crossing the road in September of 2037....oh, dammit.

Sorry.

Ah well, at least I've got a deadline now.

Oh, I just thought you lost momentum because you had no position other than 'Britiain is just like 'V for Vendetta'' - and here's me thinking you'd realised you were being a bit hysterical! Thank heavens! If you ever did THAT, your posts wouldn't be anywhere near as amusing.

Hardly. You said you didn't mind it being a surveillance state, and wanted me to tell you about your own lolicon laws when I mentioned that you had draconian social laws. I didn't have the sheer force of will required to teach you about your own country, as you so willingly thought you could do for me (considering I had conversed about the patriot act with you previously it's stunning you felt the need to mention that it exists as if I didn't know).

When you don't care that it's a governmental surveillance state (one of the lynchpins of both the comic and movie) and when you somehow wanted me to inform you of the very same laws I had mentioned in the thread that spawned the PM conversation I begin to get the feeling that you're stunning levels of cognitive dissonance are coming to the fore and that it's a rabbit hole that I don't want to walk down when dogma or sebster can't make snide comments and take the reigns away from me when I'm tired (not that they would, and the entire point of the conversation was basically to character assassinate england because I think its fun).

2. advocacy of imperial interests.

I like the semantics game, there can be no winner because the english language is a piece of crap and nothing is universally defined.

im⋅pe⋅ri⋅al1  [im-peer-ee-uhl] Show IPA
Use imperial in a Sentence
–adjective
1. of, like, or pertaining to an empire.
2. of, like, or pertaining to an emperor or empress.
3. characterizing the rule or authority of a sovereign state over its dependencies.
4. of the nature or rank of an emperor or supreme ruler.

All hail Emperor Obama and the new colonies of vietnam and Iraq.

I see you've met Chalmers Johnson.

Character assassinating England is fun?

Someone needs a nintendo wii.....

ShumaGorath wrote:Hardly. You said you didn't mind it being a surveillance state, and wanted me to tell you about your own lolicon laws when I mentioned that you had draconian social laws.

Its important to note that a lot of people lived in the England presented in V for Vendetta without any problem at all. It took a crazy, anarchist extremist to rouse the populace from comfort.

As always, things look worse from the bottom...or the nearly-burned-alive-former-government-experiment zone.

dogma wrote:I see you've met Chalmers Johnson.

I ghost wrote his books or him.

Character assassinating England is fun?

Someone needs a nintendo wii.....

I want one, but thats 250$ I can't afford right now. I'm happy with my 360 at the moment anyway.

Its important to note that a lot of people lived in the England presented in V for Vendetta without any problem at all. It took a crazy, anarchist extremist to rouse the populace from comfort.

As always, things look worse from the bottom...or the nearly-burned-alive-former-government-experiment zone

Of course, to mock and deride with some level of thin factual basis is to polarize the opposition and either create cognitive dissonance (which can be exploited or pointed out) or subdue and convert. England isn't the totalitarian state that builds supersoldiers and uses genetic weapons on it's own population as presented in the movie. However in mocking it as such it's more general similarities (apathy and working class racism in the populace, overt surveillance and governmental puppeteering of the labor party in the government) can be brought to the fore where it previously would have sat in the background.

I could very easily use the same logic and for the most part the same arguments against the U.S., but since the topic and comment that birthed the conversation was albatrosses national persecution complex I thought it right to continue the comparison I had made in threads previous (he was actually talking about me in the thread, though I don't believe he realized it, since usually I argue from a leftist position in national policy politics).

Which is tacit to manipulation of the populace. Stop looking at that abyss.

dogma wrote:Which is tacit to manipulation of the populace. Stop looking at that abyss.

Remember where I said earlier that I'm a transhumanist that doesn't think populism or democracy really works any more? If I have to manipulate people into being smarter then I'll do it. I'm not corrupt, I know that I do it for a good cause.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Remember where I said earlier that I'm a transhumanist that doesn't think populism or democracy really works any more? If I have to manipulate people into being smarter then I'll do it. I'm not corrupt, I know that I do it for a good cause.

Then why are you criticizing others for being manipulative? It doesn't seem wise to draw the mind to an idea which you are utilizing. It just makes it that much easier to see through the ruse.

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Remember where I said earlier that I'm a transhumanist that doesn't think populism or democracy really works any more? If I have to manipulate people into being smarter then I'll do it. I'm not corrupt, I know that I do it for a good cause.

Then why are you criticizing others for being manipulative? It doesn't seem wise to draw the mind to an idea which you are utilizing. It just makes it that much easier to see through the ruse.

The real question is why am I admitting to it, since I'm not being manipulative (merely caustic and trollish) until I admit to what I'm doing. The answer to that probably lies even deeper in the rabbit hole of manipulation, or I'm just being flippant and arrogant.

Someone asked for sources

Ignoring Black Power efforts to intimidate voters

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/protecting-black-panthers/

Van Jones- Don't know if I mentioned this one, but it is another example

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m7d17-Van-Jones-Green-Jobs-Czar-a-selfdescribed-communist-arrested-during-Rodney-King-riots

As for Bill Ayers, his conviction for planning to murder American officers and their wives at Fort Dix is a matter of the public record, and not open for debate. A respected educator who wanted to murder the wives of soldiers. Right. Obama's campaign for president started during a conversation with Ayers when they worked together at the Woods Foundation, a connection that Obama admits in his books. This is what got him his community organizing connections that launched his career. If you need a source for that, I hope the DOJ conviction records, and Obamas own book will cover your need.

And how is this related to Swiftboating? And how is swiftboating not legit? I think if every officer you served alongside indicts you for being a liar and a coward, and the Navy doctor who signed your forms comes forward says that he though the Purple Heart application was a joke, than it is a legitimate point. I haven't ever heard of the Clintons killing anyone, just that Laura Bush ran over some guy. People tried to do the same with McCain-- but the other pilots just said he was a womanizer with a temper. Not exactly damning testimony against a Naval Aviator.

I'm kind of annoyed that you are trying to lump me into the 'he's a Muslim' group or the birther crowd. It is a pretty inelegant strawman attack. Everything I have said is well propagated, not like those fly by night claims

EDIT--- That's funny I'm a transhumanist also

That's funny I'm a transhumanist also

You sure do seem to lack the transparent worldview required.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The real question is why am I admitting to it, since I'm not being manipulative (merely caustic and trollish) until I admit to what I'm doing. The answer to that probably lies even deeper in the rabbit hole of manipulation, or I'm just being flippant and arrogant.

Caustic behavior can have a manipulative affect. Manipulation is simply a conscientious regard for purpose.

But yeah, the latter. Very few people are that calculating.