PDA

View Full Version : Should Obama be president?



Gen. Sandworm
11-07-2008, 02:02 AM
I had to start a new thread.

He is a very nice person. I have the utmost respect for him. In the future things might not be as I would have run them. But yet you can expect they will run true.

Gen. Sandworm
11-07-2008, 02:04 AM
Yes or No?

32Bravo
11-08-2008, 11:39 AM
Perhaps I've got it wrong, but I thought the citizens of the U.S. had already answered that question?

I seem to recall reading an interview with Frank Yarby, in some magazine or other, about thirty-five years, or so, ago. He stated that Richard Nixon was the best president America had ever had, because he taught Americans not to trust their president. He also stated that they should be wary of charismatic leaders. Always thought that the latter part of his statement applied to any people of any democratic nation.

mike M.
11-08-2008, 03:46 PM
Yes..The people voted and he should be. Does he deserve it?? I dont think so but I wish the best for him and hope he does a good job...but we will see.

Laconia
11-08-2008, 08:29 PM
Hell no! This guy is too inexperienced. My country will be in dire straights with this guy. He's too slick. He sat in a Churh for 25 years and didn't know his minister was a racist and anti-american? Come on! Plus, I believe he has little respect for the U.S. Constitution. God help us.

Major Walter Schmidt
11-08-2008, 09:34 PM
....And as If McCain, Palin or Bush was/is any better...

Churchill
11-08-2008, 09:46 PM
I second you all the way Major.

RifleMan20
11-09-2008, 01:05 PM
We needed change, I don't want bush's policy in sight anymore! Our country was falling apart because of bush and if we voted McCain, another Republican who thinks that the government needs to give money to the small percentage of upper class citizens who are only gonna use that money to go to Hawaii and the Bahamas while the 95% of America that works for America, who is America, and won't receive anything, thats just hypocritical, People keep on telling me that "Obama used too much money on his ads" that money was donated to him to try to tell America about himself, what you think is more of an offense, someone who receives your money and does nothing with it or a person who takes that money and actually uses it, uses it for good. McCain would of been a horrible choice, were just gonna have another 4 years of bull crap from the government, were lucky to have Obama and you will see what he will do ,and if he does do bad then you can yell at me as much as you want, I don't care.

colonel hogan
01-29-2009, 02:50 PM
i dont know im only 15 but he seems good.

mike M.
01-29-2009, 06:09 PM
Lets see..Obama picks a guy for our new Treasury Secretary who failed to pay his own taxes for 8 years.. Now he is in charge of our Treasury???? Is this the Change we were told about...Bad move.

Nickdfresh
01-29-2009, 07:01 PM
Lets see..Obama picks a guy for our new Treasury Secretary who failed to pay his own taxes for 8 years...


I thought that's the reason why Republicans like him. :D

Schuultz
01-29-2009, 07:44 PM
Only time will tell if the American people made a decent choice with him. One thing is for sure, though: He's going to have a hard time being worse than Bush.

I almost feel sorry for Obama. He's going to have to try to lift the U.S. out of a huge pile of shit...

tankgeezer
01-30-2009, 12:25 AM
There is no such thing as "so bad it cant get worse" so Obama has the ability to make America a real Hell hole. He may just do an okay job, there is no way to tell yet. I think he does not yet understand what it means to be President. No snapping fingers, or clicking one's heels 3 times to get things done. Just because he is not Bush, does not mean he is an automatic improvement. Time will tell.

Rising Sun*
01-30-2009, 04:36 AM
I think he does not yet understand what it means to be President. No snapping fingers, or clicking one's heels 3 times to get things done. Just because he is not Bush, does not mean he is an automatic improvement. Time will tell.

Reminds me of a line from a recent satirical series here about our federal politicians. A bureaucrat or maybe some sort of adviser is displeased with some proposal or action of the new prime minister (= President in the US). As he heads off angrily to a meeting with the new PM he says, as near as I can recall:

"As soon as they get to be Prime Minister they think they can do what they ****ing well like. Well, it's time for a reality check."

Which leads us to the reality that political leaders are a bit like supertanker captains, standing on the bridge of a behemoth, being the public service, with massive momentum which doesn't respond quickly to the helm.

I once made the mistake of going from a senior position in a commercial corporation to a more senior position in a public utility, which recruited me and others with commercial backgrounds to reform the organisation. I didn't last six months. The public servants there could have taught revolutionaries a thing or two about guerrilla warfare and undermining people and programs that threaten to upset their little fiefdoms.

32Bravo
01-30-2009, 07:55 AM
It seems to me, with all the euphoria around his inauguration, that he is being hailed as some new messiah.

All men have their limitations, including Presidents of the USA, for whom expectation levels are somewhat higher than for the rest of us.

Whether there is any substance behind the charisma, remains to be seen, but my own instincts tell me that there is.

Rising Sun*
01-30-2009, 08:07 AM
Whether there is any substance behind the charisma, remains to be seen, but my own instincts tell me that there is.

Me too.

'Leadership' is a quality which is impossible to define but, certainly in large doses, easy to recognise.

I think Obama has it, in the same way that JFK and Churchill did, despite them and other great leaders presiding over their share of spectacular cock ups.

My greatest fear for Obama, from the moment he became a real contender, is whether he's going to be assassinated or at least an attempt made. On the American presidential assassination cycle he's long, long overdue for it, while there are other factors which would energise the crazies and make him just about certain to be a target.

Nickdfresh
01-30-2009, 08:55 AM
Me too.

'Leadership' is a quality which is impossible to define but, certainly in large doses, easy to recognise.

I think Obama has it, in the same way that JFK and Churchill did, despite them and other great leaders presiding over their share of spectacular cock ups.

My greatest fear for Obama, from the moment he became a real contender, is whether he's going to be assassinated or at least an attempt made. On the American presidential assassination cycle he's long, long overdue for it, while there are other factors which would energise the crazies and make him just about certain to be a target.

Nonsense! No one is crazy enough to make Joe Biden President! :D

In any case, while I do think there is something to the whole assassination cycle theme, security is so much tighter now whereas it was often an afterthought in yesteryear...

Rising Sun*
01-30-2009, 09:06 AM
Nonsense! No one is crazy enough to make Joe Biden President! :D

My God!

I hadn't thought it through that far.

I hope that potential assassins think it through, to stop whoever it is who is the VP from replacing the P.

Scary! :o

But not as scary as Spiro Agnew being Pres if Nixon got knocked. And well do I remember that era, when a crooked VP and a crooked President were forced out of office.

Not something we're likely to see again. :(

32Bravo
01-30-2009, 09:10 AM
The irony is, that the three people whose names Obama is being most associated with, in one way or another (being: Lincoln, Kennedy and King) were all assassinated.

Perhaps there is an underlying, and long established, power for whom change is just not an option, and can influence the lunatic fringe to carry out their dirty work?

Nickdfresh
01-30-2009, 09:18 AM
My God!

I hadn't thought it through that far.

I hope that potential assassins think it through, to stop whoever it is who is the VP from replacing the P.

Scary! :o

But not as scary as Spiro Agnew being Pres if Nixon got knocked. And well do I remember that era, when a crooked VP and a crooked President were forced out of office.

Not something we're likely to see again. :(


There was a comment/joke made in the early 90s I think. I forget who or which politician said it, but it was about the first Bush, George Herbert Walker. It went something to the affect that if "Bush was assassinated, the (US) Secret Service had orders to shoot Dan Quayle!" :D

P.S.: upon further review, and Googling, it was Senator John Kerry (D, MA)....

Tony Starcer
01-30-2009, 01:23 PM
another Republican who thinks that the government needs to give money to the small percentage of upper class citizens who are only gonna use that money to go to Hawaii and the Bahamas while the 95% of America that works for America, who is America, and won't receive anything,

You must realize that those at the top that make the most money, also pay the most tax. And tax breaks are always fair... it's just that a 1% tax cut on a million dollar salary = $10,000 and a trip to Hawaii, while a 1% cut on someone who makes $30k a year = $300 and a trip to Best Buy.

And those are tax cuts, it's not like the government is just handing out free money. Instead of paying $390,000 on that million dollar salary, he only has to pay $380,000. A trip to Hawaii doesn't look so hot then does it?

The Top 5% (makes over $150K per year) pays 60% of our taxes. And they pay the highest percentage of their own salary, 39%

The Top 50% (over $30K per year) pays 97% of the tax. They pay at least 25% of their own money towards tax, and of course it is higher if they make more (28% above $80K)

The Bottom 50% (under $30K per year) pay only 3%. They only pay 10%, and 15% above $8K.

32Bravo
01-31-2009, 02:54 AM
And those are tax cuts, it's not like the government is just handing out free money. Instead of paying $390,000 on that million dollar salary, he only has to pay $380,000. A trip to Hawaii doesn't look so hot then does it?


I think it would be my preference.

boyne_water
01-31-2009, 03:47 AM
The very fact someone wants to be a politician should mean they are barred from holding any public office.Dont vote for them it only encourages them.

32Bravo
01-31-2009, 04:56 AM
The very fact someone wants to be a politician should mean they are barred from holding any public office.Dont vote for them it only encourages them.

Don't tell me you're bottling and selling the water from that lovely river? :lol:

boyne_water
01-31-2009, 05:15 AM
Never been there unfortunatly.Its in the south.

Rising Sun*
01-31-2009, 05:41 AM
The very fact someone wants to be a politician should mean they are barred from holding any public office.

This is the problem, isn't it?

The people who want to do the job are such a bunch of self-seeking, power hungry, unprincipled arseholes that they're the worst people to lead us.

Yet better people wouldn't stoop to do the job that better people want from politicians.

Digger
01-31-2009, 06:22 AM
Obama tried to sell a message in his innaugiration apeech about the state of the nation and economy and that the AMERICAN people were needed to fight and lift the country out of the mess. I think a lot of people have missed the hidden message-the government cannot solve the crisis on it's own. The new administration needs the aid of everyone from the largest corporations to the lowly paid workers to WORK the way out of the crisis.

Whether the American people are capable of this, I don't know.

And here lies the problem, the Messiah complex of Obama. He is just the messenger. Sure he has ideas and will set in place many of these, but he is also trying to point the way. Instead he has been labelled for a long time as being in the class of a Lincoln, a Luther King, a Kennedy, a Churchill, a Roosevelt, which places a great and perhaps unfair expectation on the man.

Time will tell if he has been capable of selling his message.

digger

Drake
01-31-2009, 06:26 AM
The US are screwed, no matter what anyone in the administration does, so Obama was actually a bad thing to happen now. Disappointed expectations combined with the hardships ahead are a bad combination for you over there.

Rising Sun*
01-31-2009, 06:30 AM
The US are screwed, no matter what anyone in the administration does, so Obama was actually a bad thing to happen now. Disappointed expectations combined with the hardships ahead are a bad combination for you over there.

Sure, times may be bad, but that's all the more reason to have a positive leader like Obama than a zombie like Dubya at the helm.

Drake
01-31-2009, 06:34 AM
It would be if he actually had a chance. Well, he doesn't. And if you think times are bad now, you don't want to see tomorrow. What lies ahead is more than just some economic pain, it's the dissolution of an empire (US), the end of a civilization based on abundance of ressources (entire western world, including us germans and australians).
It's probably not "the end" just the end of life as we knew it and the transition will be painful beyond anything mankind has experienced yet.

Rising Sun*
01-31-2009, 06:37 AM
It would be if he actually had a chance. Well, he doesn't. And if you think times are bad now, you don't want to see tomorrow.

What would you suggest as a better option?

Drake
01-31-2009, 06:40 AM
There is no such thing as a better option, that's the point. For good or bad, the president of the US is an irrelevant figure now.

Digger
01-31-2009, 06:42 AM
There is no such thing as a better option, that's the point. For good or bad, the president of the US is an irrelevant figure now.

Look at RS's quote. There is the answer. Everything is in the hands of the people, everywhere.

digger

Rising Sun*
01-31-2009, 06:44 AM
There is no such thing as a better option, that's the point. For good or bad, the president of the US is an irrelevant figure now.

So you don't think that he, whatever stance he takes, can influence whatever is going to happen?

Under the influence of the biggest national economy in the world, which he happens to have some degree of influence over?

Drake
01-31-2009, 06:45 AM
That's the greatest illusion of all. The forces that have started unwinding now are beyond our control, even though they are our own creation.

Drake
01-31-2009, 06:46 AM
So you don't think that he, whatever stance he takes, can influence whatever is going to happen?

Under the influence of the biggest national economy in the world, which he happens to have some degree of influence over?

Exactly.

32Bravo
01-31-2009, 06:49 AM
It would be if he actually had a chance. Well, he doesn't. And if you think times are bad now, you don't want to see tomorrow. What lies ahead is more than just some economic pain, it's the dissolution of an empire (US), the end of a civilization based on abundance of ressources (entire western world, including us germans and australians).
It's probably not "the end" just the end of life as we knew it and the transition will be painful beyond anything mankind has experienced yet.

...and now for the bad news! :lol:

Drake
01-31-2009, 06:51 AM
Actually, this was the good news ;) The bad news would be a global thirty years war, now with modern weapons (tm), over ever scarcer ressources

32Bravo
01-31-2009, 07:02 AM
Actually, this was the good news ;)


Everything passes with time.



The bad news would be a global thirty years war, now with modern weapons (tm), over ever scarcer ressources


You are such a chirpy chap...life of the party.

Nickdfresh
01-31-2009, 08:16 AM
It would be if he actually had a chance. Well, he doesn't. And if you think times are bad now, you don't want to see tomorrow. What lies ahead is more than just some economic pain, it's the dissolution of an empire (US), the end of a civilization based on abundance of ressources (entire western world, including us germans and australians).
It's probably not "the end" just the end of life as we knew it and the transition will be painful beyond anything mankind has experienced yet.


This seemed to be the train of thought here for a while. Now it's transitioning back to "We're America, here us roar! When our economy sucks, so does yours. So eat that China!" There are some that think the recession, or if we're honest --not-so-great-depression-- might be a positive net thing because the US will no longer live on credit and borrowing as much as it does now and there is no longer a question of the US becoming irrelevant to the world economy anytime soon...

Schuultz
01-31-2009, 09:05 AM
Actually, this was the good news ;) The bad news would be a global thirty years war, now with modern weapons (tm), over ever scarcer ressources

A 30 Years War with modern weapons won't ever happen. That's the 'beauty' of modern weaponry.
Highly effective weaponry being on either side of the conflict does not cancel each other out. It just means that the war will be over quicker, because of faster means of transportation, more deadly weapons and shorter average lifespans of soldiers than either side could even dreamed of 1618 - 1648.

Also, the conduct of war has changed. Part of the reason why the 30-years war lasted 30 years was because the conduct of war during that time was based on outmaneuvering and sieges, with a priority on avoiding actual battles and rather starving enemy armies by cutting their supply lines.

As for "A World Order" coming to its end, I don't think that is the fact. We're running towards a war that will be fought to affirm our current World order, and I am positive that our modern political Culture will end soon and be replaced by a new culture, but the economical and political dominance of the West won't end so quickly...

World politics will be less about "Making/keeping everyone semi-happy through compromises" and more about "We need this, we'll take it, if necessary by force". Sadly this will probably lead to the UN becoming less dominant whereas the NATO becomes more so.

Even us Europeans will then realize that our post-colonial "Be nice to everybody and stay extremely politically correct" attitude might not be the best for the times...

Drake
01-31-2009, 09:05 AM
This seemed to be the train of thought here for a while. Now it's transitioning back to "We're America, here us roar! When our economy sucks, so does yours. So eat that China!" There are some that think the recession, or if we're honest --not-so-great-depression-- might be a positive net thing because the US will no longer live on credit and borrowing as much as it does now and there is no longer a question of the US becoming irrelevant to the world economy anytime soon...


That's a viable train of thought only if you still think business as usual possible in the future, which I don't and for good reasons.
A major paradigm shift has happened, there will never ever be economic expansion beyond what we had maybe a year ago, globally speaking. Not many people might already be aware of it, but reality has the nasty habit to force its way into everyones line of sight one way or another.
The question is not whether the US is becoming completely irrelevant, which it won't. The economic system itself is in question. It was a marvellous system in an environment of abundance. I doubt it'll work if we have to distribute a shrinking ressource base to maintain critical systems. It just doesn't work that way since scarcity produces wild swings in prices which are devastating the actually producing parts of what is called economy. What the anglosaxons called service industries are , if you really look at it, just a redistributing function of surplus value attained otherwise, so adding this up to GDP is a worthless measurement.
Unfortunatly, as far a the system is concerned, we have no viable alternative, which is the really scary part. Any attemp made as of yet to control an economy were awfully inefficient which is something we will not be able to afford anymore in the future.
So however you look at it, we're screwed, and not just the US if you thought that was my point.

Drake
01-31-2009, 09:07 AM
A 30 Years War with modern weapons won't ever happen. That's the 'beauty' of modern weaponry.
Highly effective weaponry being on either side of the conflict does not cancel each other out. It just means that the war will be over quicker, because of faster means of transportation, more deadly weapons and shorter average lifespans of soldiers than either side could even dreamed of 1618 - 1648.

I guess we'll see.

Schuultz
01-31-2009, 09:15 AM
I guess we'll see.

We hopefully never will, but I'm pretty sure that even a war between superpowers like China, US and Russia won't last longer than 5 - 10 years max.


PS: I updated my earlier post, hope you saw that;)

tankgeezer
02-02-2009, 09:42 PM
I for one hope so for the sake of the Grand Republic 32, traits such as "earnest", "well spoken", and "charismatic" are also found in many of the worlds most heinous despots, and cult leaders. the man will have his try, so we'll see what he is actually made of.

Schuultz
02-03-2009, 06:34 AM
True, but many good people had these traits, too. I'd say they are the traits of a skilled politician and leader - without any relation to what they end up using their skills for...

tankgeezer
02-03-2009, 01:44 PM
True, but many good people had these traits, too. I'd say they are the traits of a skilled politician and leader - without any relation to what they end up using their skills for...
I believe I made that clear.

Parsifal
02-04-2009, 03:16 AM
The question of his Constitutional qualifications asa Natural Born Citizen still has not been satisfactorily put to rest because he still refuses to produce the original BC or to release information.

Nickdfresh
02-04-2009, 06:26 AM
The question of his Constitutional qualifications asa Natural Born Citizen still has not been satisfactorily put to rest because he still refuses to produce the original BC or to release information.

Um, actually it has been since the state of Hawaii posted his frigging birth certificate...

I think he have enough issues to deal with --so we don't need made up ones...

Rising Sun*
02-04-2009, 06:31 AM
Um, actually it has been since the state of Hawaii posted his frigging birth certificate...


He doesn't look Hawaiian to me. Too thin, for a start. ;) :D

Schuultz
02-04-2009, 06:54 AM
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if there were several states fighting for the right to be the 'official' birthplace of his. :D

tankgeezer
02-04-2009, 12:14 PM
He doesn't look Hawaiian to me. Too thin, for a start. ;) :D
If he is Hawaiian, he should honor his roots by getting a full Moko. Now that would be most Presidential.

Schuultz
02-04-2009, 01:41 PM
presidentail and badass!

Nickdfresh
02-04-2009, 01:44 PM
He doesn't look Hawaiian to me. Too thin, for a start. ;) :D

That's because he's a stealth-Hawaiian. ;)

Drake
02-15-2009, 11:16 AM
Now he's starting to show his true colors, supporting the planning stage of the so called "World Conference Against Racism". Durban II, as it's called, will be the same joke that the first conference was, a long charade of antisemtic ranting. In a few years time Obama will make Chamberlain look as solid as a rock.
In the words of the knight from Indiana Jones and the last crusade
You have chosen ....

poorly.

But then, I think you never even had any good choice, just between pestilence and cholera as we say here.

Schuultz
02-15-2009, 12:10 PM
Drake, don't be too negative. It's obvious that he would support actions against racism - but that doesn't taint his entire presidency. He's barely even in office for a month and you already judge him as a loser?

Hab Geduld!

Drake
02-15-2009, 02:35 PM
If this was an actual conference against racism I wouldn't have said anything, but it isn't. Durban I was a disgrace of international politics if there ever was one.

Nickdfresh
02-15-2009, 03:06 PM
Now he's starting to show his true colors, supporting the planning stage of the so called "World Conference Against Racism". Durban II, as it's called, will be the same joke that the first conference was, a long charade of antisemtic ranting. In a few years time Obama will make Chamberlain look as solid as a rock.
In the words of the knight from Indiana Jones and the last crusade
You have chosen ....

poorly.

But then, I think you never even had any good choice, just between pestilence and cholera as we say here.

Um Drake, no disrespect intended, but not living in this country perhaps cloud your perception a bit...

The truth is that even diehard Republican congressmen where fluttering all over Obama at a recent cocktail party hosted at the White House. And my perception is quite contrary to yours as Obama has shown more actual leadership even before he took office than I'm used to seeing coming from the Oval Office...


And who is he going to "appease?" There's already talk that the Iranian gov't is FAR MORE afraid of him than they ever were of of Bush, because people in Iran are clamoring for their own Obama and "change" (which is a cliche I know). But Obama can be roughly translated to mean "with us" in Farsi, and some in the Iranian religious establishment are actually very wary of this model of youthful charisma in a democratic leader. This contrasts with Bush whose constant short-sighted sabre rattling actually got a rabid jerk in Ahmadinejad elected and served to increase power of the religious establishment in Iran.

And I must say Drake, you must be in the 1% of Europeans that hate Obama, because all of your leaders can't seem to fly here fast enough...:D

Drake
02-15-2009, 04:01 PM
Don't get me wrong, Bush was the worst president since at least Woodrow Wilson, Obama is possibly orders of magnitude better, but it's nevertheless a sign of at least bad political judgement to give the first conference credibility ex post by his action now.
The reason why I am in that 1% might be anyway that my personal opinion about humans in general and politicians in particular could best discribed as hmmm a bit low, but my instinct rings alarm bells with Obama, I can't even tell you why.
If you put all politicians in a bag and hit that bag with a stick you wouldn't hit the wrong person as they say here :mrgreen:

Schuultz
02-15-2009, 04:32 PM
Well, I guess we shouldn't judge his presidency until 2012...

Until then, I keep my hopes up for him. Maybe he can actually manage to get America back on track, no matter how crappy the condition America is in after 8 years of Bush...

I love how most Republicans even abhor from ever mentioning his name anymore. Just the other day they were all talking about how tax cuts work with fixing the economy, and after mentioning a couple of presidents under whom it works, they rather said 'After 9/11' instead of 'under Bush'... That's just one sign how low the name 'Bush' has sunk...

herman2
02-16-2009, 08:03 AM
Um Drake, no disrespect intended, but not living in this country perhaps cloud your perception a bit...

The truth is that even diehard Republican congressmen where fluttering all over Obama at a recent cocktail party hosted at the White House. And my perception is quite contrary to yours as Obama has shown more actual leadership even before he took office than I'm used to seeing coming from the Oval Office...


And who is he going to "appease?" There's already talk that the Iranian gov't is FAR MORE afraid of him than they ever were of of Bush, because people in Iran are clamoring for their own Obama and "change" (which is a cliche I know). But Obama can be roughly translated to mean "with us" in Farsi, and some in the Iranian religious establishment are actually very wary of this model of youthful charisma in a democratic leader. This contrasts with Bush whose constant short-sighted sabre rattling actually got a rabid jerk in Ahmadinejad elected and served to increase power of the religious establishment in Iran.

And I must say Drake, you must be in the 1% of Europeans that hate Obama, because all of your leaders can't seem to fly here fast enough...:D


Ya, and all the Canadians I speak too, love Obama and kow him better than our own boring Prime Minister!. Many at my work still have the Obama Screen Savers on their computers. Canadians are obama crazy:)

Schuultz
02-16-2009, 08:40 AM
This would be the perfect time for them to annex us :D.

I wouldn't be surprised if most people wouldn't even notice - as you said, herman, there's a lot more interest and talk about Obama than Harper... :mrgreen:

herman2
02-16-2009, 09:06 AM
Personally, I wouldn't mind if the States Annexed us. I mean, think of all the Pluses: No long lineups to shop at Buffalo and dam good wings a hop skip away in Cheetagwaga, buying liquor at a normal American store instead of the current dam Ontario government store which are far and sparse to find in Toronto (and close early on Sunday), better tv stations, stonger currency, buying stuff in Imperial instead of the stupid Metric system, and last but not least, a government that people finally give a dam about that can introduce real change!

Schuultz
02-16-2009, 09:23 AM
Well, I agree with some of your points. But talking about the metric system - it's the superior system, if anything the US should get rid of their stupid Imperial system (whoever invented it must've been an idiot, though I'm sure he had his reasons...) and use the system that actually makes sense. It's much easier to learn and apply.
Also, keeping public health care would be nice...

herman2
02-16-2009, 09:24 AM
I found this article in the Toronto Star today which I think is true of American impression on us Canadians and perhaps why the Americans will never Annex us....!!

A big ol' howdy and bonjour Canada! How are you?
We know, we know, it's been a while. Sorry about that.
We have been, per usual, rather self-absorbed lately, what with our historic elections and our economy in freefall. But, hey, good news. Did you hear? We're coming to visit.
We'll be in Ottawa on the 19th. Hope you can make it. We hear mid-February is a lovely time of year there.
Look, Canada, before you get your hopes up about this trip, there's something we need to tell you. We're not sure how to put this so we will be brutally direct, as is our way. We're just not that into you.
There, we said it. We feel better already.
You've always been there for us, Canada: after the Sept. 11 attacks and now in Afghanistan. We appreciate that, really we do. But still, we're just not that into you.
It's not personal, really. It's geopolitical. You're just too ... nice. Nice doesn't get our attention. Threatening gets our attention, and you, Canada, are anything but threatening, except on the hockey rink, of course, but we don't take hockey all that seriously.
If you really wanted us to notice, you should have gotten all gussied up in that Taepodong outfit (it worked for North Korea) or maybe flashed some weapons of mass destruction – real or imagined, it's all the same to us.
Let's face it. We've been bickering a lot lately – over Afghanistan and NAFTA and that silly softwood dispute. Plus you think we hog all the water, which we probably do.
We admit we've been avoiding you lately. But can you blame us? Your loonie is loony. Up one day, down the next, then up again. We've got plenty of that yo-yo action right here on Wall Street. We don't need to go north for it.
Also, many of us Americans – especially those in their 20s and 30s – tell surveyors they find Canada a "boring" place to visit.
I know, I know, how can a country with both Cirque du Soleil and Don Cherry possibly be described as boring? What can I say, Canada? Our amusement threshold is very high.
So is our capacity for selfishness. Our pending "Buy American" campaign hurts you. We feel your pain, Canada, really we do, but we've got to look out for Number 1. And we all know who Number 1 is.
Perhaps what we have here is a classic failure to communicate. The fact is, we don't know you Canada. And no wonder: American newspapers no longer maintain bureaus in Canada.
Not that we paid much attention when they did. Most of us couldn't name your prime minister or, for that matter, your capital city. Is this kind of ignorance any basis for a relationship?
If we know you Canada (and we've already determined we don't) you're probably blaming yourself. You always do. Unlike us, you're so modest and self-effacing. It's endearing.
Remember that joke you like to tell us? How do you get 50 Canadians to leave a swimming pool? By making an announcement: Will all the Canadians please leave the pool. See, you find that funny. We don't get it. That's why, Canada, it's best we go our separate ways.
I know what you're thinking: You can change, America. You've elected a new president, one who is all about change and re-engagement with the world.
Don't believe it, Canada. Nations, like people, don't change easily. We're been around for more than 200 years. We're a bit stuck in our ways.
No, Canada, we're just not that into you and probably never will be. Don't fret, though. You're better off without us. We were very much into Iraq (still are) and look how that turned out.
Besides, Canada, you're too good for us anyway.
The truth is we envy you, though of course we never admit that to anyone, not even ourselves. We envy your health-care system. We envy your prudent, sober banks. We envy your restraint on the international stage. We envy your very happiness. We envy everything about you. Except your weather, of course. Nobody envies that.
So, chin up. We can still be friends. After all, you are so close; we're practically neighbours.
Yes, we're still friends – and best trading partners for life too! And you will continue to send us your best comedians, won't you?

Schuultz
02-16-2009, 09:31 AM
Haha, so very true. Though I'll have to say that they really wanted Canada back in 1812 ;)

Give me a second and I'll look up John Cleese' announcement to the USA.

Schuultz
02-16-2009, 09:33 AM
Got it. I know it's a long one, but it's really worth it. Keep in mind it dates back to 2004 (IIRC):

:mrgreen:


To the citizens of the United States of America, in the light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up revocation in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up aluminium. Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour', skipping the letter 'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters. You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z' (pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix ize will be replaced by the suffix ise. You will learn that the suffix 'burgh' is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to respell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation.

Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up vocabulary. Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up interspersed. There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary then you won't have to use bad language as often.

2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize.

3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to cockney,upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier). You will also have to learn how to understand regional accents - Scottish dramas such as Taggart will no longer be broadcast with subtitles. While we're talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is Devon. If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become shires e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire.

4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will be required to cast English actors to play English characters. British sit-coms such as Men Behaving Badly or Red Dwarf will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who can't cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness.

5. You should relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.

6. You should stop playing American football. There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American football is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays American football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US Rugby sevens side by 2005. You should stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders,your error is understandable. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a girls' game called rounders, which is baseball without fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs.

7. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 2nd will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called Indecisive Day.

9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time,you will go metric with immediate effect and conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips. Fries aren't even French, they are Belgian though 97.85% of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be served warm and flat. Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.

11. As a sign of penance 5 grams of sea salt per cup will be added to all tea made within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this quantity to be doubled for tea made within the city of Boston itself.

12. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all, it is lager. From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer,and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. The substances formerly known as American Beer will henceforth be referred to as Near-Frozen Knat's Urine,with the exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product will be referred to as Weak Near-Frozen Knat's Urine. This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in Pilsen,Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.

13. From November 10th the UK will harmonise petrol (or Gasoline, as you will be permitted to keep calling it until April 1st 2005) prices with the former USA. The UK will harmonise its prices to those of the former USA and the Former USA will, in return, adopt UK petrol prices (roughly $6/US gallon- get used to it).

14. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

15. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.

16. Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your co-operation and have a great day.

John Cleese

Dixie Devil
02-17-2009, 02:46 PM
Let's Recap:

We had a Secretary of Commerce that withdrew his nomination due to corruption charges (Bill Richardson)

We have a tax cheat for Secretary of the Treasury who files his own taxes (Timothy Geithner-but he meant to pay)

We had a tax cheat nominee for Chief Performance Officer who withdrew under charges (Nancy Killefer)

We had a nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services who withdrew under charges of cheating on his taxes (Tom Daschle)

We have a CIA boss with absolutely no experience (Leon Panetta)

I am just brimming with confidence up to this point

Schuultz
02-17-2009, 03:59 PM
Well, at least the Criminals in the Obama Cabinet are disguised and discarded before they get into power. Didn't work that well under Bush...

Dixie Devil
02-17-2009, 04:27 PM
They are all criminals, they are politicians ;) no matter which party they belong to.

It is a bad start because no president in history has made such bad inital choices for cabinet members. I hope it is just a fluke.

Dixie Devil
02-18-2009, 09:28 AM
1. You should look up revocation in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up aluminium. Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour', skipping the letter 'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters. You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z' (pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix ize will be replaced by the suffix ise. You will learn that the suffix 'burgh' is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to respell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation.


We will challenge you to prove how your pronunciation is in the correct form when English as a language is just centuries of mutilation of the German language not to mention that present day English in the UK is vastly different from Old English. We are just the next step in the evolutionary process, don’t be jealous. This also applies to the spellings with extra letters that serve no purpose. :lol:


7. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.


Last time Great Britain tried to take our guns you got run into the Atlantic Ocean. Want to try that again, really? ;)


9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time,you will go metric with immediate effect and conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.


Anyone who must import cars from other countries has no room to talk about our domestic vehicles. Furthermore don’t try to claim there is any logical reason for driving on the wrong side of the road. We have support from around the world on this.


10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips. Fries aren't even French, they are Belgian though 97.85% of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat.


To this day it still isn’t clear if French Fries originated in France or Belgium but it is rather clear they weren’t from the country of Chip. At least we have a logical reason for our name for them.


12. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all, it is lager. From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer,and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. The substances formerly known as American Beer will henceforth be referred to as Near-Frozen Knat's Urine,with the exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product will be referred to as Weak Near-Frozen Knat's Urine.


American “beer” deserves more credit, they use horse piss thank you very much. However, until the Germans or the Czech teach you how to make beer you have no room to criticize. Unless you would prefer to learn from the Irish. :lol:



16. Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).


The Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will promptly be receiving a history lesson from 1940 to 1945 thereafter they shall return to the UK to collect taxes for the USA saving the UK after we had to fight for our own independence from the very nation we saved. :army:

Nickdfresh
02-18-2009, 09:38 AM
Let's Recap:

We had a Secretary of Commerce that withdrew his nomination due to corruption charges (Bill Richardson)

We have a tax cheat for Secretary of the Treasury who files his own taxes (Timothy Geithner-but he meant to pay)

We had a tax cheat nominee for Chief Performance Officer who withdrew under charges (Nancy Killefer)

We had a nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services who withdrew under charges of cheating on his taxes (Tom Daschle)

We have a CIA boss with absolutely no experience (Leon Panetta)

I am just brimming with confidence up to this point

As opposed to what? An administration that was composed almost exclusively of ex-oil executives that then used a national tragedy to invade the country --brimming with oil of course and in the Middle East where the vice president's ex-company was specifically geared to gov't contracting during a time of crisis or war-- that had nothing to do with said terrorist attack?

Dixie Devil
02-18-2009, 10:08 AM
As opposed to what? An administration that was composed almost exclusively of ex-oil executives that then used a national tragedy to invade the country --brimming with oil of course and in the Middle East where the vice president's ex-company was specifically geared to gov't contracting during a time of crisis or war-- that had nothing to do with said terrorist attack?

Well first off I’ll say I am not trying to drum up support for Bush or anything merely pointing out that the beginning of this new administration of "change" certainly isn't instilling much confidence. No president in history has made such bad choices for cabinet member and we have had some bad ones in the past. If those bad presidents made better cabinet choices (at least on paper) and still had such bad terms this just scares the hell out of me.

Bush may or may not have gone into Iraq for the right reason but I still believe it was the right thing to do for no other reason that if the United Nation imposes sanctions on a country and that country can just ignore them with no consequences what is the purpose of sanctions in the first place? Also people should take a note from history here. There is a dictator in history that disobeyed international sanctions after his country was defeated in war, built up his military, had ambitions on conquering surrounding countries, and was fond of executing anyone that got in his way. The problem was England and France appeased that dictator until he had built up enough strength to conquer most of Europe and start a World War.

Nickdfresh
02-18-2009, 11:20 AM
Well first off I’ll say I am not trying to drum up support for Bush or anything merely pointing out that the beginning of this new administration of "change" certainly isn't instilling much confidence. No president in history has made such bad choices for cabinet member and we have had some bad ones in the past. If those bad presidents made better cabinet choices (at least on paper) and still had such bad terms this just scares the hell out of me.

You can argue that Obama's transition suffered due to the economic crisis and the selection of Timothy Geithner would not have been made if he weren't considered a genius and the only one competent enough to tackle the economic crisis. And you can't judge his cabinet until they've been in action for while. I would say that Bush's choices, while made in a far more seamless manner, turned out to be flailing incompetents such as Donald Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc...


Bush may or may not have gone into Iraq for the right reason but I still believe it was the right thing to do for no other reason that if the United Nation imposes sanctions on a country and that country can just ignore them with no consequences what is the purpose of sanctions in the first place?

Um, they weren't ignoring sanctions. Iraq was suffering a great deal from them. And it's pretty suspicious that the only country "ignoring sanctions" is one with one of the largest untapped oil fields...


Also people should take a note from history here. There is a dictator in history that disobeyed international sanctions after his country was defeated in war, built up his military, had ambitions on conquering surrounding countries, and was fond of executing anyone that got in his way. The problem was England and France appeased that dictator until he had built up enough strength to conquer most of Europe and start a World War.

Um, he did what? Saddam didn't build up his military, it was a crumbling shell. All Bush has done is make Iran much stronger by removing their mortal enemies. And the gov't we have in place was run by a militia that didn't seem to have much problem murdering and torturing their enemies for crimes like being a Sunni and living in the wrong area...

England and France "appeased" a dictator? Right! I guess the US corporations that made more money than they did during "oil-for-food" were just trying to stop the 500,000 or so Iraqi children that died as a result of sanctions...

BTW, why did we get rid of Saddam, then allow a notorious terrorist (who murdered over 300 people on Pan Am 103) Qaddafi stay in power? Because the US has supported plenty of dictators as long as they "play ball."

Dixie Devil
02-18-2009, 12:41 PM
You can argue that Obama's transition suffered due to the economic crisis and the selection of Timothy Geithner would not have been made if he weren't considered a genius and the only one competent enough to tackle the economic crisis. And you can't judge his cabinet until they've been in action for while. I would say that Bush's choices, while made in a far more seamless manner, turned out to be flailing incompetents such as Donald Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc....

That certainly would be a plausible reason but there are also a few holes in it. If Geithner was a genius why couldn’t he pay his taxes? Also he is only one of the ones that were listed. You certainly can’t judge the cabinet until it has been tested but looking at previous cabinets that turned out to be a bust or were good; they all had nearly every member approved off the bat (not just Bush but Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Cater etc.) it still doesn’t inspire confidence. Like I previously said I hope this is just a fluke.


Um, they weren't ignoring sanctions. Iraq was suffering a great deal from them. And it's pretty suspicious that the only country "ignoring sanctions" is one with one of the largest untapped oil fields...

They were ignoring plenty of sanctions. Not letting UN inspectors do their job, flying in and shooting at aircraft in the no fly zone, maintaining the illusion of weapons of mass destruction. (Saddam Hussein admitted in his trial that while he didn’t have any he went out of his way to create the illusion that he did in an effort to deter Iran)


Um, he did what? Saddam didn't build up his military, it was a crumbling shell. All Bush has done is make Iran much stronger by removing their mortal enemies. And the gov't we have in place was run by a militia that didn't seem to have much problem murdering and torturing their enemies for crimes like being a Sunni and living in the wrong area...

Yes Saddam was rebuilding his military. His army and air force were decimated in ’91 but they weren’t quite an empty shell. The International Institute for Strategic Studies had the standing Iraqi Army at 250,000 in 1997, by 2003 it was up to 375,000. Not the million man army of 1991 but increasing none the less.



England and France "appeased" a dictator? Right! I guess the US corporations that made more money than they did during "oil-for-food" were just trying to stop the 500,000 or so Iraqi children that died as a result of sanctions...

Oil for Food wasn't appeasement, it was greed. People made money and Iraq got food – win/win situation. The big corporations didn’t do it out of the kindness of their heart but they sure love it when they can make money and do some people some good.


BTW, why did we get rid of Saddam, then allow a notorious terrorist (who murdered over 300 people on Pan Am 103) Qaddafi stay in power? Because the US has supported plenty of dictators as long as they "play ball."

300 is less than 20,000 but remember we tried to kill Qaddafi, F-111s leveled quite a few of his palaces and killed his son. After that he kind of kept quiet for a long time and is just now starting to be heard from again.

We have a good topic going here but if we are going to continue we may want to move it, it is getting slightly off topic for this thread.

Drake
02-18-2009, 05:20 PM
Ah, just read the US are now among the elaborate group of nations that destroy books as an act of national policy, using health hazards as the meagre excuse.

Schuultz
02-18-2009, 06:15 PM
Haven't heard of that yet. Can you post a link?

Drake
02-19-2009, 08:07 AM
This is just an example of stupidity of bureaucracy, not Obamaspecific.

http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/cpsia.HTML

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act is written in such a way, that basically every childrens book published before 1985 is now to be destroyed cause it doesn't meet the safety standards. It is illegal to trade them or even give them away. Jeez, I wonder how I managed to grow up reading all the books while I was young.

herman2
02-27-2009, 09:40 AM
There are those that might not want Obama for President as per this news article.SHOCKING!!!

TheStar.com | Canada | Russian bomber intercepted on eve of Obama visit

Russian bomber intercepted on eve of Obama visit


Two CF-18 fighter jets sit on the runway at the Canadian Air Force base in Bagotville, Que., in this file photo. Email story
Print
CF-18s turn back aircraft as it approached Canadian airspace

OTTAWA–Canadian fighter jets were scrambled to intercept a Russian bomber discovered on the perimeter of Canadian airspace just hours before U.S. President Barack Obama visited Ottawa last week.

Defence Minister Peter Mackay said it is difficult to say whether Russia was up to "mischief" or whether it was pure coincidence, adding the entire world would have known Canadian security efforts were centred on the capital in the days leading up to Feb. 19.

"It was a strong coincidence," Mackay said.

MacKay is holding a news conference this morning with the chief of the defence staff and the commander of Norad to announce the news.

CF-18s took off from Cold Lake, Alta., on Feb. 16 after Norad detected the bomber headed for Canadian airspace.

The Russian planes were turned back before entering Canada's airspace by fighter jets using "internationally recognized signals."

Mackay said Russian planes have been encroaching on Canadian sovereignty on an "upward scale" in the past several years.

Canada has asked Moscow for advance warning when such trips are scheduled, MacKay said.

"To date we have not been given notice."

Russian aircraft regularly probed into North American airspace during the Cold War and Canadian and American fighters routinely tracked the snoopers and escorted them back into international air space.

Such flights were suspended for years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but resumed in recent years as Russia pushed its claim on the Arctic and oil wealth allowed the country to spend more on its military.

Last summer, then-foreign affairs minister David Emerson said Russian intrusions into Canadian air space had greatly increased.

With files from The Canadian Press

Drake
02-27-2009, 12:11 PM
Mwahaha, the first awakenings appear in the blogosphere.
http://ashizashiz.blogspot.com/2009/02/bullshit-express-whistle-stop-tour.html
The next couple of years will be pretty funny for me since I love to say: told you so.

Nickdfresh
02-27-2009, 12:18 PM
Ah, just read the US are now among the elaborate group of nations that destroy books as an act of national policy, using health hazards as the meagre excuse.

What if those books have lead in them? Or toxins in the glue?

I'm not familiar with this, but obviously there is a method to the madness since this is a non-issue that has survived any scrutiny by either the Democratic left or the Republican right...

The reasoning for all this is the influx of ****ing cheap Chinese shit such as toys containing high amounts of lead and toothpaste with automotive anti-freeze/coolant chemicals in it. Me thinks doth thou protest too much out of context!

Nickdfresh
02-27-2009, 12:24 PM
There are those that might not want Obama for President as per this news article.SHOCKING!!!

TheStar.com | Canada | Russian bomber intercepted on eve of Obama visit

Russian bomber intercepted on eve of Obama visit


Two CF-18 fighter jets sit on the runway at the Canadian Air Force base in Bagotville, Que., in this file photo. Email story
Print
CF-18s turn back aircraft as it approached Canadian airspace

OTTAWA–Canadian fighter jets were scrambled to intercept a Russian bomber discovered on the perimeter of Canadian airspace just hours before U.S. President Barack Obama visited Ottawa last week.

Defence Minister Peter Mackay said it is difficult to say whether Russia was up to "mischief" or whether it was pure coincidence, adding the entire world would have known Canadian security efforts were centred on the capital in the days leading up to Feb. 19.

"It was a strong coincidence," Mackay said.

MacKay is holding a news conference this morning with the chief of the defence staff and the commander of Norad to announce the news.

CF-18s took off from Cold Lake, Alta., on Feb. 16 after Norad detected the bomber headed for Canadian airspace.

The Russian planes were turned back before entering Canada's airspace by fighter jets using "internationally recognized signals."

Mackay said Russian planes have been encroaching on Canadian sovereignty on an "upward scale" in the past several years.

Canada has asked Moscow for advance warning when such trips are scheduled, MacKay said.

"To date we have not been given notice."

Russian aircraft regularly probed into North American airspace during the Cold War and Canadian and American fighters routinely tracked the snoopers and escorted them back into international air space.

Such flights were suspended for years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but resumed in recent years as Russia pushed its claim on the Arctic and oil wealth allowed the country to spend more on its military.

Last summer, then-foreign affairs minister David Emerson said Russian intrusions into Canadian air space had greatly increased.

With files from The Canadian Press

So how would Obama be at fault for this? The Russkies have been "testing" US and Canadian NORAD air defenses for the last several years after a long, post-Cold War lapse...

Schuultz
02-27-2009, 01:02 PM
Mwahaha, the first awakenings appear in the blogosphere.
http://ashizashiz.blogspot.com/2009/02/bullshit-express-whistle-stop-tour.html
The next couple of years will be pretty funny for me since I love to say: told you so.

Well, we'll see. Obviously Obama is trying to calm people down. Hysteria won't help.

Drake
02-27-2009, 04:15 PM
Well, we'll see. Obviously Obama is trying to calm people down. Hysteria won't help.

Anything he will do won't help either, but hey, maybe we can get stimulus checks from the US, after all, the nation that invented the car cannot walk away from it :mrgreen:

Drake
02-27-2009, 04:17 PM
What if those books have lead in them? Or toxins in the glue?

I'm not familiar with this, but obviously there is a method to the madness since this is a non-issue that has survived any scrutiny by either the Democratic left or the Republican right...

The reasoning for all this is the influx of ****ing cheap Chinese shit such as toys containing high amounts of lead and toothpaste with automotive anti-freeze/coolant chemicals in it. Me thinks doth thou protest too much out of context!

How many books printed prior to 1985 came from china? And how the hell did we all survive?

Schuultz
02-27-2009, 05:04 PM
Well, it's obviously not going to kill us, but it's also not healthy.

Drake
03-01-2009, 04:30 PM
Ah, since I criticized their attitude towards Durban II I now have to acknowledge that the Obama administration has found its spine and now boycotts that muslim farce. Seems he has not totally lost his mind over the messiah hype after all.

Schuultz
03-01-2009, 05:34 PM
What do you mean with Muslim farce? That they were going to consider Israels Zionist policies racist? Explain to me how they are NOT racist!

They want a Jewish state and claim it THEIR homeland/lebensraum (sound familiar?). They treat Arabs in general with disrespect, and don't accept a joined solution because they want a Jewish nation. Does it get any more racist than that?

Dixie Devil
03-02-2009, 07:15 AM
What do you mean with Muslim farce? That they were going to consider Israels Zionist policies racist? Explain to me how they are NOT racist!

They want a Jewish state and claim it THEIR homeland/lebensraum (sound familiar?). They treat Arabs in general with disrespect, and don't accept a joined solution because they want a Jewish nation. Does it get any more racist than that?

Not to try and defend any type of racism but if anyone has a reason to be racist it would be the Israelis. They have had their Arab neighbors trying to wipe them out for 60 some odd years so I find it hard to fault them for being distrustful of the very same people.

Rising Sun*
03-02-2009, 07:44 AM
Not to try and defend any type of racism but if anyone has a reason to be racist it would be the Israelis. They have had their Arab neighbors trying to wipe them out for 60 some odd years so I find it hard to fault them for being distrustful of the very same people.

While their Arab neighbours have understandably been trying to wipe them out as brutal terrorist invaders for that period, the Zionists / Israelis have actually succeeded in expelling most of the Arabs from Israel during the same period, frequently violently and almost always by abusing the human rights of the Arabs which human rights the Israelis demand for themselves as victims of the Holocaust and as the Chosen People etc etc whinge whinge whinge moan moan moan while shitting on everyone around them and refusing every peace initiative which fails to enlarge Israel in some fashion.

Which ain't bad for a bunch of European and other Zionists / Jews who muscled into Palestine in force about 60 years ago and subsequently, although the thin end of the wedge went in long before WWII thanks to the circumstances which gave rise to the Balfour Declaration.

All this without any legimate claim to occupyng Israel apart from biblical bullshit and nobody wanting them in their country, which is becoming quite understandable in view of their conduct over the past 60 years once they got a country of their own.

I'm with Schuultz:


They want a Jewish state and claim it THEIR homeland/lebensraum (sound familiar?). They treat Arabs in general with disrespect, and don't accept a joined solution because they want a Jewish nation. Does it get any more racist than that?

And, just for the record, I'm not anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish per se, but I am anti-Zionist, as are many Jews in and out of Israel who are appalled by the evils done by the Zionists and ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel.

Similarly, I am as opposed to Jews in my country who support Zionism as I am to Muslims who support Islamo-fascism. There is no difference between these rabid elements apart from their preferred brand of religious idiocy and the violence it permits.

And, no, I don't see any difference with the Christians either, except that they seem to control the major Western powers which enables those powers to embark on their own forms of religiously inspired idiocy and violence, except that they can't see it as such.

Schuultz
03-02-2009, 08:42 AM
Dixie, the thing is that they are not only anti-Muslim. (Which could be somewhat understandable, though still not acceptable.)

They are against anything non-Jewish. If Christians suddenly decided they wanted to move there in huge masses, 40 or 50 thousand a year, without converting to Judaism, they'd not allow it. Same goes for Hindus, Buddhists or whatever.

The whole idea of a Jewish homeland is racist in its nature, and speaks against anything Western nations try to stand for with their modern anti-racist ideologies.

The only reason I can see why they are tolerated is because they're pretty much one huge military outpost for the Americans.

(Not to mention the huge influence of wealthy Jews in America, who on the one side sponsor racist Israel, and at the same time support American campaigns aimed at teaching everybody that we are all the same)

Germany and Austria had been fighting the Ottoman Empire for almost 800 years, with each side trying to wipe the other out and/or assimilate the people. Yet, nobody would allow either of these countries to create a 'No-Turks' policy, as it would be extremely racist and simply ethically wrong.

Dixie Devil
03-02-2009, 09:06 AM
Actually wouldn’t we western powers be at fault for ‘giving’ them Israel without regard for the people living there at the time? Also being that the Jews inhabited the region before the introduction of Islam or Christianity as religions I do think they have more than just a biblical claim, but who the land belongs to is that age old question that is still causing conflicts around the world.

Personally when I support a country I try to base it on their current actions, not past. Sure Israel doesn’t have a clean past but what nation can claim one? Every country has dark pages in their history but I truly believe that if left alone the Israelis wouldn’t bother anyone. Certainly my beliefs may be wrong but I also know the vast majority of Israelis have no desire to wipe other nations off the face of the earth but the same can not be said of many of their opponents. Of course my views are partially shaped by a dislike of radical Islamic groups and the knowledge that much of the fault for the current situation lies with western powers but that is just my view on it.

Dixie Devil
03-02-2009, 09:16 AM
Schuultz I am not so sure the majority of Israelis are anti everyone except Jews. I knew an Israeli family that wasn’t Jewish and they never claimed to have any problems in their native country (by the same token I used to hunt with a Greek Orthodox Palestinian who bore no malice towards Israel). Almost certainly there are select groups that are against anyone that isn’t Jewish but I doubt this is the majority. Just as you can find groups in the U.S. that are anti Semitic but that isn’t the case with everyone. Just as in your example of the Germans and Austrians not having an ‘Anti Turkish’ policy but there were groups that felt there should be.

Schuultz
03-02-2009, 10:39 AM
Sorry if I didn't make it clear: I don't want to claim that every Israeli citizen is racist. When I talk about the Israelis, I'm talking about the government policies.

And you have a completely correct point: The French and British are to blame for the creation of Israel. They gave them the country, they forced the Palestinians to leave those areas. A major problem, however, is the fact that Israel annexed additional territories afterward, be it through war or slow annexations. They are even in the process right now!
They continuously claim smaller portions of Palestinian territories as building land for Jewish settlers. Once the settlements are completed, the entire area gets annexed into Israel.
Through this tactic, the Israelis have annexed huge portions of land that, according to the UN, are supposed to belong to the Palestinians. And that obviously pisses them off...
Jerusalem, for example, was never supposed to belong to the Israelis. But after a war, they just captured and annexed parts of it, and they are busy implementing more and more parts of it through the same tactic I discussed earlier.

As for who the land belongs to:

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

So if we wanted to give it to the original recorded owners, we'd have to hand it to the Egyptians...

Schuultz
03-02-2009, 10:42 AM
Just as in your example of the Germans and Austrians not having an ‘Anti Turkish’ policy but there were groups that felt there should be.

Of course there were, and there still are. But the difference is that they aren't in power, the same way KKK isn't leading the US

Drake
03-02-2009, 11:39 AM
What do you mean with Muslim farce?

Everything where the OIC even opens its mouth is a muslim farce. Muslims are the definition of double standards.

Drake
03-02-2009, 11:41 AM
Of course there were, and there still are. But the difference is that they aren't in power, the same way KKK isn't leading the US

Give it another ten years and you will have no muslim policies in every country in europe.

Dixie Devil
03-02-2009, 11:51 AM
It is also of note that when neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel they returned captured territories. Not to say they would do the same with the same with the land in question now but looking at past situations it is a possibility. Many of the captured territories were also captured in wars the neighboring countries started in Israel’s quest for more strategic depth, maybe not justifiable to everyone but they were offered the pretext for taking them and gave up the areas when the pretext was removed.

Nice little site on the ownership of the land. It is a good example of my point that there is really no way any one group can say it belongs to them. The Kingdom of Israel predated everyone but the Egyptians so they do have some type of claim aside from the biblical claim to it though.

Drake I hope that isn’t the case for you all on that side of the pond, we kind of like have Allies over there even if we don’t always get along….;)

Joel109
03-27-2009, 04:52 AM
No!!! He and his administration is the biggest cluster of brain dead morons I have ever seen.

Rising Sun*
03-27-2009, 05:03 AM
No!!! He and his administration is the biggest cluster of brain dead morons I have ever seen.

And what are your solutions to the Global Financial Crisis; the Middle East problem; the American health system; Iraq; Afghanistan; Russia; North Korea; China; collapsing home prices in America; corporate executives' salary and bonus excesses, with particular reference to AIG; and all the other problems, large and small, which Obama and his cluster of brain dead morons have to deal with?

Nickdfresh
03-27-2009, 07:06 AM
And what are your solutions to the Global Financial Crisis; the Middle East problem; the American health system; Iraq; Afghanistan; Russia; North Korea; China; collapsing home prices in America; corporate executives' salary and bonus excesses, with particular reference to AIG; and all the other problems, large and small, which Obama and his cluster of brain dead morons have to deal with?


Stop! You're confusing Joel with actual issues...

Rising Sun*
03-27-2009, 07:28 AM
Stop! You're confusing Joel with actual issues...

Sorry. ;)

Rising Sun*
03-27-2009, 07:49 AM
Actually wouldn’t we western powers be at fault for ‘giving’ them Israel without regard for the people living there at the time?

Rather less so than the Zionist terrorists who by relentless violence (including extra-territorial acts of the type which are nowadays condemned when committed by Islamic crews, such as bombing the British embassy in Rome in 1946) persuaded the Western nations trying to maintain order in Palestine to give up and get out so that the Zionist terrorists could convert it into Israel, a bastard child of terrorism which is opposed to all forms of terrorism and crimes against humanity except those which it commited in its past and commits in its present.

Israel's denials of its past and maintenance of the bad aspects of it as national policy makes Japan's rightist elements look almost respectable. At least Japan hasn't engaged in its deplorable actions since 1945, while Israel has been at it almost constantly during the same period so far as expelling and oppressing the Palestinians is concerned.

Rising Sun*
03-27-2009, 09:08 AM
As for who the land belongs to:

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

So if we wanted to give it to the original recorded owners, we'd have to hand it to the Egyptians...

And this is where ancient, and not so ancient, historical claims become absurd.

Never mind about the Egyptians, why not give Israel back to the Turks? After all, they held it rather longer, and much more recently, than the Jews.

But if we're going back to original occupation (which is not the same thing as nationality or ownership), Israel probably belongs to some Neanderthal or semi-ape intermediate step between apes and man. Which, on careful observation, consideration and allowing for the land bridges which disappeared tens of thousands of years ago, could mean that it belongs to someone in Australia of the species boganum rosacea Australopithecus of which one of the many surviving examples here looks like:


http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/306/bogan.jpg (http://img91.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bogan.jpg)



More seriously, to the extent that anyone can take ancient claims based on the bible or anything else seriously, if everyone has to go back to the original owners then the British, French and Germans are going to seriously pissed off going back to control from Rome.

Although there's a bit of a problem there as the Romans now aren't the successors to the original Romans who conquered Britain, Gaul and Germania, not least because Attila the Hun suppressed Rome.

However, Attila the Hun wasn't actually a Hun. Huns are commonly regarded nowadays as ancestors of the Germans, but the Huns were more probably from what is now Turkey or the Ukraine or even Iran or somewhere well outside what is now Germany (but which the people from those parts have for some years been busily reclaiming by invading Germany as guest workers etc).

Attila was more probably a Scythian, which was probably a Russian or Slav in today's terms.

So, when Attila the German Hun suppressed the truly Roman Rome he was probably really a Russian Hun, which could mean that Russia nowadays should still control Italy (as if anyone could) and exercise dominion over Britain, France and Germany via Italy.

Which means that Mr Putin can counter America / NATO’s missile placement in Poland by putting his missiles in Britain, France and Germany by exercising Russia’s ancient rights to those lands through Attila the (Not Really a Proper German) Hun’s claim through the Romans who conquered and occupied those lands.

Unless, of course, the French object to missiles being placed in England due to their ancient claim to England since conquering it in 1066. Although that was just the Normans who weren’t French as France hadn’t been invented at that stage.

Meanwhile the Danes who were visiting Britain in their Viking boats long before the Normans to collect Danegeld, and later occupying parts of Britain, have a much better claim than the “Johnny come lately “ French.

So it looks like the Danes can tell Putin to shove his missiles up his Scythian arsehole if he tries to put them in England.

Although I suspect Mr Putin ain’t going to take a lot of notice of that.

Any more than anyone else does, or should, of claims based on ancient rights.

Because, for example, the Scythians who spawned Attila the Hun might well have originated in what is now Iran and expanded to what is now eastern Europe and then westwards.

If they really came from Iran, then Iran has a claim by ancient right to most of Europe, which I somehow don’t expect America or any European nation to uphold with anything remotely like the enthusiasm they show for the ancient claims to Israel upon which the Zionists rely from a much earlier period. Not to mention the minor problem of the Jews being expelled from their homeland long before the Scythians started their expansion.

I really don’t understand why anyone bothers with ancient historical claims, because they invariably present them in such a narrow and unhistorical fashion that they are utter bullshit and make sense only to those who want to use those arguments to support what they want to and, although it is difficult to believe that anyone could achieve it, make considerably less sense than the rational bullshit I have presented.

Uyraell
05-09-2009, 12:44 PM
[Schuultz]:World politics will be less about "Making/keeping everyone semi-happy through compromises" and more about "We need this, we'll take it, if necessary by force". Sadly this will probably lead to the UN becoming less dominant whereas the NATO becomes more so.

Unfortunately, perhaps, I have never regarded the UN as relevant at all.
It is perhaps one of the biggest failures, and biggest frauds, ever perpetrated upon the unsuspecting populace of the planet Earth.

The UN grew out of the League of Nations, itself an exercise in abject futility, which it's severely bastardised offspring, today's UN, has as its' only success.

The UN is just about the planet's most expensive exercise in futility in all recorded history.

The UN has never yet achieved any goal beyond the ever-deepening entrenchment of yet another unneeded layer of bureaucrats and self-serving political castes that achieves nothing more significant than platinum-lining its' own ever-expanding caste-pockets.

With the exception of the Marshall Plan,
I struggle to recall any UN "effort" that actually resulted in any positive thing for the UN member Nations, let alone the populations those nations represent.
Most Western populations contribute some funding to the UN, from which the economic return is precisely nil.

In short, much Like the European Parliament (yet another LoN bastard-stepchild, in effect), the UN is a hideously expensive hot-air factory doing nothing more than assuring its' own continuing yet worthless existence.

In Economic terms, if there has been a paradigm shift (though I do not believe there has) the UN and EuroParliament should be the very first things killed off:
after all, Embassies and ambassadors can and do perform the same functions with far more success and efficiency. The vast amounts of money thus saved by the various governments world-wide might then be useful to all of humanity.

Can Obama do the job? I don't see why not, though I don't believe him to have the same unifying effect as JFK did.
What Obama faces from the Oval Office includes the following, like it or not:

If a war on an international scale does arise it will likely be that there are effectively only two major contenders (broadly: Communist China vs Capitalist USA), with broad allegiances split between both sides. Once that happens, Isaac Asimov's late 1970's prediction of a Co-Dominium will be the only near-sane outcome, in preference to the annihilation of vast swathes of planetary populations. In effect, that is when a new modus of government will come into being, since some form of co-operation will be necessary for survival whereas currently it is seen as merely useful at times.
Like you, I cannot see any such war extending beyond about 5 years, and even then, I'm guessing at no deployment or usage of nuclear weapons.

NATO will find itself in a strangely schismatic yet pragmatic dual role: both of attempting to keep the peace/limit the war, and of laying the foundations of a societal government, rather than the maintenance of a collection of national governments.

As for political correctness: that was a stillborn the day it was invented, and which, against most known laws of nature survived, zombie-fashion, to haunt us all. However: it is also the Frankenstein that took-over the laboratory, against plain common-sense.

Respectful Regards, Uyraell.

tankgeezer
05-09-2009, 08:44 PM
Who is the Red Bearded fellow?

nkkie123
05-26-2009, 01:45 AM
yes ofcourse. he deserves to be our president. I know there are other issues regarding Obama but I would focus on the positive platform he is fighting. And i believe everything he does is for the good out His Countrymen.http://storeyourpicture.com/images/signature_imageHost.jpg

herman2
05-26-2009, 09:02 AM
QUOTE=nkkie123;157156]yes ofcourse. he deserves to be our president. I know there are other issues regarding Obama but I would focus on the positive platform he is fighting. And i believe everything he does is for the good out His Countrymen.http://storeyourpicture.com/images/signature_imageHost.jpg[/QUOTE]

DITTO!!!....I feel Obama is a very Great man and he also deserves to be the Canadian President as well. If I had the option I would vote for him too!...Abolish the monarchy in Canada and let Obama unite us with the Strong , The Proud, the America! Go Obama Go Obama!!!:lol:

navyson
05-26-2009, 10:13 AM
I'm not for or against President Obama. What's starting to worry me is talk about "nationalisation" of automotive industry, healthcare, banking industry, and so on. If our government were to come out and say: "We are turning Socialist", there would be an uproar. It's worrisome that it's looking like a back door attempt at it. Excuse me if you think that I'm "ill-informed", but as a common "ill-informed" citizen, that's what it's beginning to look like. So, I'm going to start attempting to become better informed.

Rising Sun*
05-26-2009, 10:21 AM
I'm not for or against President Obama. What's starting to worry me is talk about "nationalisation" of automotive industry, healthcare, banking industry, and so on.

If your nation, being the taxpayers, bails out the auto and banking industries by putting your money into them, shouldn't you have control of that investment through your government, which put your money into them?

Or would you rather just give your money, with no strings attached, to bail out the morons who caused this problem in the first place and who have demonstrated that they can't manage their own businesses successfully?

navyson
05-26-2009, 10:33 AM
If your nation, being the taxpayers, bails out the auto and banking industries by putting your money into them, shouldn't you have control of that investment through your government, which put your money into them?

Or would you rather just give your money, with no strings attached, to bail out the morons who caused this problem in the first place and who have demonstrated that they can't manage their own businesses successfully?
Sure, there should be oversight on the money loaned to these businesses, but I don't think the government should own the businesses. I suppose someone should be appointed to run the companies until the loans are paid back (if ever:rolleyes:), then if these companies are viable, let them go their way. Hopefully things will be much more stringent in the future and messes like this won't happen.:rolleyes:

Schuultz
05-26-2009, 10:37 AM
The big problem is that the US government has managed to half-*** both capitalism and socialism.

When things were going well, the Industries yelled 'Capitalism', kept the profits for themselves and did everything to further increase them, such as outsourcing and 'streamlining' aka firing, in the process completely ignoring the needs of the American people.

Now that the Industry is going down, they're yelling 'We're American, we're a part of you guys', and want the people who they had previously fired without flinching to pay their debts.

The issue here is that the Government had to decide what to do. Plead 'Capitalism' and let them drown, in the hopes that even though these Companies died, the free market would lead to new companies rising to fill the void in the consumer's needs,
or
Answer the pleads of the industries and bail them out, spending trillions of tax-payers money to save the people that don't give a **** about the tax payers, but hopefully saving the companies and the jobs in the process.

Now let's be realistic here: Neither Republicans nor Democrats were ever going to let these Industry Juggernauts die, no matter how free market they claim to be.
The only difference is that the Democrats attached plenty of regulations and governmental authority to the money they give the companies, essentially 'taking them over'. This way, they have control over the companies and can influence their recovery. I highly doubt that the Obama administration has any plans for long term ownership of either of them.
The Republicans on the other hand would have most likely bailed them out as well, though less directly and, through that, with less influence. The risk of CEOs abusing the cash and giving themselves even more outrageous salaries would have been even higher, and because they wouldn't have to be as transparent as now, they would have potentially even gotten away with it.

All in all, I think Obama is going the only way he realistically can, and the criticism and claims that FOX and the Republicans are doing right now are mainly them discovering how much fun it is to criticize - as opposed to defend - the government for a change.

Rising Sun*
05-26-2009, 10:37 AM
Hopefully things will be much more stringent in the future and messes like this won't happen.:rolleyes:

When we come out of this hole the world will be safe for about another 15 to 20 years until the next crop of financial wonder kids who have no memory of this event, because the oldest of them are still are in their teens, are in positions to create the next disaster with their next set of brilliant financial products and strategies.

That's the way it has gone for ages.

32Bravo
07-05-2009, 07:04 AM
He should be President for this, if for no other reason. :lol: Always loved the Etta James version, but Beyonce is a class act:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-pzlZPRvx8

Egorka
07-21-2009, 02:59 AM
Show must go on!
http://mediamatters.org/research/200907170039

Nickdfresh
07-22-2009, 07:23 AM
Dobbs has become a total pandering nutter. The whole birth certificate thing is silly conspiratorial nonsense and a way to avoid actual issues...

tankgeezer
07-22-2009, 02:03 PM
This issue will not go away, it will hang on, and on, I do say that it is odd that the complete documentation is withheld, as that would finally settle the issue. It would be a small act for Obama to disclose these things to bring the controversy to an end, whichever end it might be. All of this should be in public records.
Most Americans will not totally dismiss the possibility of conspiracy if there are documents reportedly extant, yet remain undisclosed to public record.

mike M.
07-24-2009, 06:04 PM
From the look's of these videos looks like some of the world leaders dont think so..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1C_NWMRs8Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoVWw-MCMHw&NR=1

Nickdfresh
07-24-2009, 06:42 PM
This issue will not go away, it will hang on, and on, I do say that it is odd that the complete documentation is withheld, as that would finally settle the issue. It would be a small act for Obama to disclose these things to bring the controversy to an end, whichever end it might be. All of this should be in public records.
Most Americans will not totally dismiss the possibility of conspiracy if there are documents reportedly extant, yet remain undisclosed to public record.

Just like the "inside job" 9/11 Conspiracy theories based completely on shit...

But Obama was born in Hawaii and his birth certificate has been on his campaign site and Bush didn't bring down the Twin Towers with robot planes. It's what people choose to believe...

tankgeezer
07-25-2009, 08:56 AM
Who can account for the popular belief ? No one, but in absence of a genuine document being shown on the nightly news, some will continue to have doubts. Foolish, I agree that anyone would risk such a thing, the penalty would be horrific. My doubts of the man are confined to his plans for America.

Schuultz
07-25-2009, 09:12 AM
So what would be the punishment if he was indeed not American-born? Wouldn't he have diplomatic immunity? ^^

tankgeezer
07-25-2009, 11:19 AM
So what would be the punishment if he was indeed not American-born? Wouldn't he have diplomatic immunity? ^^
No, Diplomatic Immunity is for people in foreign service jobs, and some others to prevent their being unjustly arrested/imprisoned in other countries for political leverage.This would include the President only if on foreign soil.
This would be very different, I dont know the particulars of this offense, or its penalties, but they would be severe indeed. I'll look it up online to see if there is anything available. I think it would involve a very deep hole,and a very long time.

Schuultz
07-25-2009, 11:47 AM
I wonder if there has ever been a precedent for that :/

tankgeezer
07-25-2009, 01:37 PM
I would hope there is no precedent in America, I know that if a President were found to be in office afoul of these rules, any action he may have taken of any kind be it treaties, policies, or pardoning the White House Turkey,would be upon his discovery, and conviction, nullified.My 2 cents worth of opinion is that he meets the requirements of the office, but for the sake of settling the issue once and for all, it would be prudent for the Administration to make public any ,and all documents including those that some say disqualify him, so that it can all be made plain before the public, and the World.

Nickdfresh
07-25-2009, 07:16 PM
So what would be the punishment if he was indeed not American-born? Wouldn't he have diplomatic immunity? ^^

He would probably be impeached. Just like Bush would have been if he had orchestrated 9/11...

And BTW:

http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/obama-birth-certificate1.jpg

tankgeezer
07-29-2009, 12:32 AM
That is a birth certificate, but I dont see any endorsement by the Registrar, or the delivering physician. This is what folks get riled about.

Nickdfresh
07-29-2009, 06:06 AM
That is a birth certificate, but I dont see any endorsement by the Registrar, or the delivering physician. This is what folks get riled about.

The registrar filed it in 1963. Why would the physician endorse it?

tankgeezer
07-29-2009, 07:30 AM
It is common practice for the delivering physician to sign the document indicating that in fact a live birth has taken place, indicating time and hospital.
Registrars also generally sign, or impress a seal, or stamp on the document to show its authenticity, and its being filed in the proper manner. This basically exemplifies the signature and information provided by the Doctor. This may not be the process required in Hawaii, These being absent from the document shown in the minds of some Americans means it could have been done up on photo shop.
I think its not the controversy of this document that is as troubling as the realization that the American people harbor such great distrust of their officials, and why they have come to feel this way.

Nickdfresh
07-29-2009, 10:36 AM
It is common practice for the delivering physician to sign the document indicating that in fact a live birth has taken place, indicating time and hospital.
Registrars also generally sign, or impress a seal, or stamp on the document to show its authenticity, and its being filed in the proper manner. This basically exemplifies the signature and information provided by the Doctor. This may not be the process required in Hawaii, These being absent from the document shown in the minds of some Americans means it could have been done up on photo shop.
I think its not the controversy of this document that is as troubling as the realization that the American people harbor such great distrust of their officials, and why they have come to feel this way.


Well, it's not on this one either:

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/7032/206n9di.gif

Nickdfresh
07-29-2009, 10:39 AM
But it was announced in the local newspaper back in 1963...

http://buzznewsroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser.jpg

http://buzznewsroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/obamalarge.jpg

It's a nothing story being recirculated by the base...and I am skeptical when it comes to our fearless leaders, but I try to focus on real issues...

2nd of foot
07-29-2009, 11:29 AM
Well if they had stayed loyal to the rightful ruler all this would never have happened, so it is Jefferson’s fault. But we all know it is part of a grand conspiracy going back to 1778 and part of our revenge and control.

We have carefully contrived this by providing a father who could not be directly linked to the UK and could be seen as having a grudge against the UK as additional cover. His time in jail was to prepare him as part of the plot to take over the US 50 years latter. He was carefully selected so as to provide a male son ( a black girl president would have been a bit hard to take for the right wing) who could be groomed to take over the country and hand it back to its rightful ruler.

It’s so obvious I am surprised no one has found out yet.

Interestingly our birth certificates are mostly by hand not typed and then entered into a book as opposed to being on a form. The certificate is hand written and handed out even my copy made 40 years after the original is hand written.

Lilly Von Blitz
07-30-2009, 01:23 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32180625/ns/politics-white_house/

By this web link here/Obama is an natural-born citizen,by saying this Obama has the right to be American President.
Do I think Obama should be the US president? Yes! The past cocasian presidents for the last past 50 years were bad examples of an US president,just maybe an non-cocasians-man can represent America in a better matter.

Rising Sun*
07-30-2009, 07:21 AM
It is common practice for the delivering physician to sign the document indicating that in fact a live birth has taken place, indicating time and hospital.

That assumes that a physician attended the birth, and that the birth was in a hospital. Most likely in the early 1960s, but not necessarily guaranteed.


Registrars also generally sign, or impress a seal, or stamp on the document to show its authenticity, and its being filed in the proper manner. This basically exemplifies the signature and information provided by the Doctor. This may not be the process required in Hawaii, These being absent from the document shown in the minds of some Americans means it could have been done up on photo shop.
I think its not the controversy of this document that is as troubling as the realization that the American people harbor such great distrust of their officials, and why they have come to feel this way.

From what I can see the problem appears to be that those challenging the authenticity of the certificate are unaware that Hawaii doesn't provide a copy or facsimile of the original birth registration documents but only an extract from its records in the form shown above. This is because local law prohibits access to and issuing copies of original documents http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm so all that issues are certificates verifying information in the original documents http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0014_0003.htm

redcoat
07-31-2009, 12:50 PM
From what I can see the problem appears to be that those challenging the authenticity of the certificate are unaware that Hawaii doesn't provide a copy or facsimile of the original birth registration documents but only an extract from its records in the form shown above. This is because local law prohibits access to and issuing copies of original documents
Let's be honest, the people challenging these documents aren't really interested in the truth, they are merely seeking to undermine the authority of the President Obama.

Nickdfresh
08-05-2009, 09:49 AM
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/96833/original.jpg

08-05-2009, 02:43 PM
Heya, y'all!

Interesting topic... and definately one that can get some peoples passion flowing!

I, honestly, am not impressed with the Obama administration. But, I don't really think that it would be terribly different if John McCain had won. My feeling is it was a election with two BAD choices: a charismatic bullshitter or a non-charasmatic bullshitter! John McCain is a true American Hero (read his about his military service), but as a politician (a bad word in my eyes) didn't actually do half of what he talked and espoused. This guy we elected (by a 2 or 3% margin! Hardly a mandate!) struck me as an empty suit with ZERO experience governing / leading. He is turning out to be something vastly worse!

As for the "American born or not" argument, it's the stuff of fantasy and X-Files. The people that put this guy up would not have made such a stupid mistake as to promote someone that would be constitutionally ineligible for the presidency. I understand that Hawaii issues both birth certificates (baby is certifibly born under Hawaiian juridiction) and certificates of live birth (is baby is born), so that is probably basis for much confusion. The "concerns" could easily be settled, but there is disbelief from one side and a lack of "openness and transparency" on the other. Extreme right wing nuts just pitch a tent thinking BHO is an Africa born muslim but it's "opputune" for the administration to be able to point to those kooks and convince the center leaning populace that they represent ALL conservative thinking. Raum Emmanual is quoted as saying "don't waste an oppurtunity", so it works to make ALL conservatives look like inbred, Bible thumpin', UFO fans.

As to the financial crises, I am only TOO aware of its implications. But before everyone goes blaming the previous White House occupant for this mess, remember, we have pretty much EXACTLY the same congress as existed during the last two years of that administration. The Republicans share just as much blame for this craphole we're in as the Democrats, but where the Repubs will admit to fault only under torture / threat of dismemberment, the Dems will NEVER admit to fault or wrong doing.

Best thing that can happen to the United States today is for Washington DC to crack off, float into the middle of the Atlantic, and sink. It would be an immense ecological disaster (all those shitbags sinking under the waves) and a great lose of historical architecture, but otherwise a good thing. Then we can get somewhere who cares about AMERICA and not party affiliation.

Russ
Proud son of Rose and Wes

Rising Sun*
08-06-2009, 09:00 AM
Best thing that can happen to the United States today is for Washington DC to crack off, float into the middle of the Atlantic, and sink. It would be an immense ecological disaster (all those shitbags sinking under the waves) and a great lose of historical architecture, but otherwise a good thing. Then we can get somewhere who cares about AMERICA and not party affiliation.

Maybe, but then you'd be left at the mercy of the idiots who brought us the sub-prime mortgages and sundry other obviously doomed financial clever **** ideas, these idiots being the descendants of the last generation of financial clever ****s who brought you (not us, as that one didn't affect the rest of the world like the current disaster) the savings and loan disaster.

For all their many faults (almost all of which flow from them being run by politicians who are turds by nature and the rest from being administered by bureaucrats who are turds by profession) the Western governments did a fair job of minimising the effects of the financial disaster brought on by insufficiently regulated financial clever ****s. Imagine what damage the clever ****s could have, and would have, wrought without government regulation and subsequent corrective action.

Much as I share your contempt for politicians, and much as it pains me to say this, we'd all be a lot worse off if we divested ourselves of our parliaments and left our countries to be exploited by grasping people with no morals rather than the grasping moral cripples who populate our major political parties and parliaments.

pdf27
08-06-2009, 12:29 PM
Interestingly, it appears that in several major areas (I'm pretty sure on Iraq, and have strong suspicions on healthcare) Obama appears to be rapidly adopting McCain's policies.

08-06-2009, 02:34 PM
Maybe, but then you'd be left at the mercy of the idiots who brought us the sub-prime mortgages and sundry other obviously doomed financial clever **** ideas, these idiots being the descendants of the last generation of financial clever ****s who brought you (not us, as that one didn't affect the rest of the world like the current disaster) the savings and loan disaster.

Heya, Rising Sun!

But we ARE left to the mercy of the idiots that caused everything to go to crap. Here, the financial meltdown is attributed to the collapse of the housing market / loan industry failure. That was caused by two things: idiot politicians who wanted to show the world how enlightened they are by changing the laws that regulated lending requirements and by unscrupulous bloodsuckers that jumped at the oppurtunity to cash in.

Politicians went on and on about opening up the "American Dream" to everybody, in this case the dream being home ownership. Very noble, but totally unrealistic. Some fat welfare momma sitting on the couch collecting on her 10 children shouldn't be able to afford a $750000 house. But it was encouraged. Driving to work I used to see the same signs posted on the local corner saying: "Bad Credit? No Problem! $700000 house for only $149 down!" People were getting $20 from each of their "baby daddys" and getting into a half million dollar house like that.

Bloodsuckers cashed in because the idiot politicians had relaxed or removed the rules that required them to make due diligence and confirm that someone that was getting a $750000 home loan could afford the monthly payment of that loan, had a job, didn't have other outstanding debt, etc. I know bankers are worthless bloodsuckers, and understand that if you hop into a pool full of piranha, you should expect to get biten!

Truly the best thing that could happen to the U.S. would be Congress AND their bloodsucking banker cronies to sink in the ocean!

I think it should be natural to distrust a person who wants to get into politics. It's not about serving your fellow citizens, making a better town / state / country, but cashing in on the perks and graft. Think about law enforcement: the man (or woman) who wants to wear that "shield" and be cock-of-the-block or the one that wants to serve their community? I think it's much the same in volunteer military service: there are a lot of nice incentives (GI Bill, training, prestige) but ultimately you are putting your *** on the line for very little pay to proudly serve your country.

Thats one of two things I'm most proud about from my time in the Army: serving my country as did my father before me and serving with and knowing some of the finest men I've ever met.

As to governing the country... we could hardly do worse if we just picked some individuals for a period of governing. That fat welfare momma would have a more realistic world view than the shitbags we've been getting. Support them with a civil service (ours is *mostly* good and hard working, but bloated), ban any sort of lobbying and political advertising, and use true democracy, one vote from each citizen, and you'd have something pretty good. Of course, the downside being, you would have to have a more engaged and responsible populace than we have today.

Russ
Proud son of Rose and Wes

08-06-2009, 02:52 PM
Interestingly, it appears that in several major areas (I'm pretty sure on Iraq, and have strong suspicions on healthcare) Obama appears to be rapidly adopting McCain's policies.

Heya, PDF27!

I'm not so surprised, BHO struck me as an empty suit, devoid of ideas that weren't put there by his "friends", but the bad side being, like I said earlier, McCain may be a real American Hero but he is no conservative. I don't mean bible thumping, gay-bashing Southern conservatism like the media portrays, and unfortunately was promoted by our last administration, but genuine small government, personal responsibility sort of thinking.

BHO is turning out to be a surprisingly devout radical thinker. The caliber of people he surrounds himself with and takes council from would really alarm people if there was any honest media reporting on it. There is a sworn Communist (can we say the RED MENACE); a guy that believes in eugenics; another that advocates introduction of contraceptive chemicals into drinking water supplies; and another that thinks children under the age of two, older, infirm people, and the mentally challenged should be available for "end of life preparedness" because they don't "participate in community". Didn't the combined militaries of freedom loving countries conquer a group that thought like this 65 years ago?

Russ
Proud son of Rose and Wes

Rising Sun*
08-08-2009, 08:07 AM
Politicians went on and on about opening up the "American Dream" to everybody, in this case the dream being home ownership. Very noble, but totally unrealistic. Some fat welfare momma sitting on the couch collecting on her 10 children shouldn't be able to afford a $750000 house. But it was encouraged. Driving to work I used to see the same signs posted on the local corner saying: "Bad Credit? No Problem! $700000 house for only $149 down!" People were getting $20 from each of their "baby daddys" and getting into a half million dollar house like that.

Please tell me that it's a typo with a misplaced extra zero that says that $149 down gets you into a $700,000 house. :( That works out at about one week's interest around 1%, but with no or such negligible payments of principal that the buyer can never own it. Which assumes that 1% was the going rate.

Then again, it's probably not a typo. I know someone who travelled in America well after the sub-prime crash but who saw current ads still offering the same sort of impossible deals.


Bloodsuckers cashed in because the idiot politicians had relaxed or removed the rules that required them to make due diligence and confirm that someone that was getting a $750000 home loan could afford the monthly payment of that loan, had a job, didn't have other outstanding debt, etc. I know bankers are worthless bloodsuckers, and understand that if you hop into a pool full of piranha, you should expect to get biten!

What I don't understand is why people who lost (possibly overpriced) houses don't buy them now when they're dirt cheap.

I can't recall exact figures, but I saw a TV program here maybe 8 to 12 months ago where an Australian interviewer spoke with a US real estate agent in a depressed area (can't recall where) who had numerous houses for sale around $1,500 to $2,000 which he said would probably end up selling for half or less than half of that price. These houses had been bought for - I can't recall but I think it might have been - around $50,000 with sub-prime finance.

The area was going to seed but if everyone who had bailed out bought now they'd be able to bring it back.

I'm assuming that what I've heard is correct, which is that in America if you default on a mortgage loan you can just walk away with no further liability as the loan is attached to the real estate. Here, you carry the loan wherever you go if it exceeds the mortgagee's sale proceeds on the house.


I think it should be natural to distrust a person who wants to get into politics. It's not about serving your fellow citizens, making a better town / state / country, but cashing in on the perks and graft.

I've known a lot of people who became politicians, and lot who didn't but who were asked (including me), and I'd say that those who became politicians through a party youth machine are invariably dishonest, manipulative, worthless shits and those who come in older aren't much better, but that those who came through community and non-party sources mightn't have started out that way but usually end up that way, because politics is a shit game and you have to be a shit to play it properly.

And if they don't end up that way they have no influence, but at least they retain their integrity. I can think of only two politicians out of the hundreds I've seen federally here who fit that bill, and none of the many more hundreds in my or any other state, largely because state politics is more able to conceal corruption and relies more on corruption than federal politics.

08-08-2009, 04:47 PM
Heya, Rising Sun!

Wasn't a typo... $149 down for a $700000 house. I used to shake my head in disgust seeing these signs all over, now I kinda wish I had grabbed one as a memento of the "Great Depression of 2008 - ?"!

I live in Westchester, one of the many suburbs of Los Angeles. Fairly middle class, mostly renters, fairly common racial mix: whites, hispanics, blacks, a few asians. Lots of big, expensive houses to the west and north of me. My neighborhood is pretty much all duplexes (single house with two addresses) built during World War II, pretty much owned and rented out by the same realty company. Due east from me is Inglewood, an indepedant city surrounded by L.A., that is primarily lower class, primarily minorities. The type of people that these "American Dream" programs targeted.

True, there is a "housing crises" supposedly going on, but things are a bit different here in the "Sunshine State". Home prices, withen a 8 mile radius of me, run from highs of $800000 / $2000000 (Manhattan Beach), to $400000 / $800000 (Hawthorne), to $280000 / $400000 (Inglewood). So the cheapest you can find a house for is still almost $300k! And thats a run down, in need of repair house in what most people would consider a "bad" area (crime, rundown, etc). High unemployment / lack of jobs has not caused a corresponding drop in property prices. Evidently, people want to live in California, despite high tax burdens, high cost of living, crime, traffic, etc. Couple that with the fact the banks (who actually "own" most of the property) don't want to let stuff go for less than what they got it for. Also, any losses they "might" suffer, the federal gov't is only to willing to fix, using taxpayer money.

As for politicians... thats what has GOT to change. Too many get into it as an alternative to Hollywood: big egos, connections made, and graft and monetary corruption like nothing else. Its become the career choice of shitbags, men that will take bribes and kickbacks from lobbyists / contractors, diddle male prostitutes and female aides while standing next to their wives and tearfully talking about morality. The man of integrity and honesty going bad should be rarity, not shitbags and scums occasionly doing the right thing.

Politics in the US has devolved into two political parties: thew Democratic party, which is center with a small minority of ultra radical leftists (communists, social experimentors, black nationists, brown power, etc); and the Republican party (GOP: Grand Old Party), which is made up of center with a very small minority of ultra rightists (white racists, bible thumpers, etc). The parties fundamentally say the same things, propose the same plans, etc. Unfortunately, both tend to allow themselves to be eagerly co-opted by the extremist factions of their parties. Last administration was a little too rightwinger rich, now the rebound brings us a ultra-radically left group.

Not a happy situation for 60% of the country.

Russ
Proud son of Rose and Wes

Nickdfresh
08-10-2009, 09:05 PM
Heya, PDF27!

I'm not so surprised, BHO struck me as an empty suit, devoid of ideas that weren't put there by his "friends", but the bad side being, like I said earlier,

You can call him a lot of things, but an "empty suit" would pretty much put you on your own island as he's a self-made lawyer that came up from the middle class and went on to excel at Harvard without the benefit of being a "legacy"...


McCain may be a real American Hero but he is no conservative. I don't mean bible thumping, gay-bashing Southern conservatism like the media portrays, and unfortunately was promoted by our last administration, but genuine small government, personal responsibility sort of thinking.

And who is a real conservative? And its not the medias fault that the Republican party panders to the evangelical vote...


BHO is turning out to be a surprisingly devout radical thinker. The caliber of people he surrounds himself with and takes council from would really alarm people if there was any honest media reporting on it. There is a sworn Communist (can we say the RED MENACE); a guy that believes in eugenics; another that advocates introduction of contraceptive chemicals into drinking water supplies; and another that thinks children under the age of two, older, infirm people, and the mentally challenged should be available for "end of life preparedness" because they don't "participate in community". Didn't the combined militaries of freedom loving countries conquer a group that thought like this 65 years ago?

Russ
Proud son of Rose and Wes

Do you have any evidence at all for the above rubbish?

herman2
08-11-2009, 02:09 PM
I agree with Nick.It's rubbish! I read it twice and I don't agree to what was said. If Nick agrees with me, then it must be Rubbish-Simple as that, Straight up!

Keystone28
08-11-2009, 05:42 PM
My feeling is it was a election with two BAD choices: a charismatic bullshitter or a non-charasmatic bullshitter!

I like what Lewis Black had to say about it; It's not so much the choice between good and evil as it is two warm bowls of shit. the only choice is, which one smells better.

Personally, I think this poll is pointless, as we are stuck with him until the next election, but if I had to pick? I'd pick Bobby Jindall.

32Bravo
08-12-2009, 01:23 PM
Do you mean this chap?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWYcyN0lFfA&feature=related

I prefer this, it has more class!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-pzlZPRvx8

Keystone28
08-12-2009, 08:40 PM
You know what? When they asked him to run in the last election for President, he turned them down because he said there was more work to be done for the people of Louisiana. You ask anyone in Louisiana, and the overwhelming majority will tell you Bobby Jindall is the best thing to ever happen to the state. Where Blanco, Brown and Bush failed, he has persevered.

32Bravo
08-13-2009, 04:31 AM
You ask anyone in Louisiana, and the overwhelming majority will tell you Bobby Jindall is the best thing to ever happen to the state. Where Blanco, Brown and Bush failed, he has persevered.

I don't need to ask anyone - I believe you!

32Bravo
08-13-2009, 05:10 AM
I was recently chatting with an old, Army chum of mine who has taken U.S. citizenship and lives in Brick N.J. He suggested that it would be some time before there would be another African-American President with the whole package (perhaps it would be interesting to examine that package?), as Obama has raised the hurdle so high.

I would liken his suggestion to finding another earth-like planet in another solar system. If I were a U.S. citizen, I think that I would be concerned as to where another President, of any ethnic identity, who possesses the whole package, can be found.

Of course, as an outside observer, the priorities of internal U.S. social politics hold little interest to me and I am looking at the situation from a foreign policy standpoint and the influence the U.S. has on world affairs, the world economy in particular, and how the U.S. President presents himself on the world stage (is that last piece Shakespearean? :)).

namvet
08-17-2009, 09:12 PM
the warnings

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM


the denial and cover up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahtuNt3AKCg


Maxine Waters - a slip of the lip???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU6GSl2yu_o&NR=1

should he be prez??? well lets see what his voters thought

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8


and now the healthcare bill. or deathcare as protesters call it, who now flame dems at townhall meetings nationwide - just a sample

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obS_I7ZUHMg

backlash??? Obama calls them thugs. says its organized. Pelosi calls them Nazi's. Reid un American. hmmm. right. just for speaking their minds ???? this country is spinning out of control.

Nickdfresh
08-17-2009, 10:08 PM
Dear Jesus, make it stop...

http://ashackledtraveller.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/conspiracy6.jpg

08-18-2009, 02:22 AM
"'Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.'"

“Rules for Radicals”, Saul Alinsky, 1971

Nickdfresh
08-18-2009, 07:54 AM
"'Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.'"

“Rules for Radicals”, Saul Alinsky, 1971


And your point is? Making shit up and throwing it on the internet somehow contributes to democracy?

32Bravo
08-19-2009, 02:56 AM
Dear Jesus, make it stop...

http://ashackledtraveller.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/conspiracy6.jpg

BRILLIANT!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Nick, I have to ask, why do you have a picture of a couple of Tommies, having a pint, as your signature?

Nickdfresh
08-20-2009, 10:36 AM
BRILLIANT!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Nick, I have to ask, why do you have a picture of a couple of Tommies, having a pint, as your signature?

Tommies?! They are Canucks actually, enjoying presumably the spoils of war (Dutch beer) after hard fighting around the Scheldt Estuary in 1944.

I don't know exactly why, but I love the picture and I think it says so much about War...

Rising Sun*
08-20-2009, 10:48 AM
And your point is? Making shit up and throwing it on the internet somehow contributes to democracy?

Isn't that the essence of a supposedly democratic electoral and parliamentary / congressional system?

If everyone was confined to facts and logical argument, where would that leave a supposedly democratic political system?

For a start, it would be discriminatory by excluding morons, who have as much right as anyone else to vote, particularly for candidates who are morons espousing moronic policies.

tankgeezer
08-20-2009, 12:52 PM
R.S. you have pegged the U.S. system. It all comes down to marketing these days,,whether it be fast food, adult beverages, transportation, on,and on, its all about getting the public to commit to whatever is being sold. If slick promotions dont work, then fear is usually the fallback,and all too successful position.

Nickdfresh
08-20-2009, 12:56 PM
Isn't that the essence of a supposedly democratic electoral and parliamentary / congressional system?

If everyone was confined to facts and logical argument, where would that leave a supposedly democratic political system?

For a start, it would be discriminatory by excluding morons, who have as much right as anyone else to vote, particularly for candidates who are morons espousing moronic policies.

It keeps coming down to Schultz's sig!

"The fundamental problem of Democracy is that the majority of voters are idiots fueled by uninformed rage - and the Politicians do everything to cater to them."

This pretty much applies to a town hall meeting going on anywhere today. We should also contribute to that the paid, bullshitting lackeys of the insurance industry pretending to be "citizens"...

Schuultz
08-20-2009, 02:03 PM
It keeps coming down to Schultz's sig!


:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

I feel incredibly smart right now. :lol:

herman2
08-20-2009, 02:21 PM
:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

I feel incredibly smart right now. :lol:

Well you are Canadian!...It does go without saying!
We Salute you Smarty Pants Schuultz:)

Schuultz
08-20-2009, 02:48 PM
Well you are Canadian!..

Not quite, herman. Still only a Permanent Resident. :D

Nickdfresh
11-06-2012, 07:56 PM
Well, updates will be coming...

tankgeezer
11-06-2012, 08:37 PM
It'll be a squeaker,

Nickdfresh
11-07-2012, 12:14 AM
Well, not so much...

leccy
11-07-2012, 05:56 AM
Looks like he did it from over here.

Nickdfresh
11-07-2012, 07:46 AM
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

Chevan
11-07-2012, 09:21 AM
Hoooooorey , comrades!!!!
Ours have won!!:D

tankgeezer
11-07-2012, 10:06 AM
Not as squeaky as I thought it would be, nor the outcome I expected. Now to see what comes of this. Good thing I have a fresh roll of tinfoil..

Nickdfresh
11-08-2012, 08:49 AM
I think the media made it seem a bit closer than it was for ratings, and polls suck...

tankgeezer
11-08-2012, 10:00 AM
Polls are just more marketing, no real accuracy, just another thing to say when they really don't know anything at all. And as you say, something to sell for ratings & advertising revenue.

downwithpeace
11-08-2012, 03:34 PM
Good to see Obama win but shocked to see the elections could reach the $6 Billion mark.

Nickdfresh
11-09-2012, 09:50 AM
http://i.imgur.com/BQMtF.png

This 18 year old Republican girl is gaining notoriety because she 'Tweeted' that she wanted to move to Australia, because they have a Christian male President. She has since been disabused of that notion rudely and has deleted her account. Australia is actually led by a female Atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Gillard) who is unmarried and lives with another women... :)

*She does reportedly have a long term boyfriend though...

pdf27
11-09-2012, 01:45 PM
This 18 year old Republican girl is gaining notoriety because she 'Tweeted' that she wanted to move to Australia, because they have a Christian male President. She has since been disabused of that notion rudely and has deleted her account. Australia is actually led by a female Atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Gillard) who is unmarried and lives with another women... :)*She does reportedly have a long term boyfriend though...Nonsense! The Australian equivalent to President is a Christian. In fact she's got her very own church!

downwithpeace
11-10-2012, 05:42 PM
Nonsense! The Australian equivalent to President is a Christian. In fact she's got her very own church!

And she's not Australian, let the guessing being ;)
(Then again, the Prime Minster wasn't born there either)

Chevan
11-11-2012, 10:49 PM
The US presidents are a very true christians in some sense. The Bible Christians ,i mean. FInally, all their external policy turns around the lands , depicted in Bible (http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism_arab/cartoon-compilation-2012.asp) as ADL informs:)
Just joke...:D

JR*
11-12-2012, 08:41 AM
Er ... as far as I know, Australia does not have a President. The Head of State is HM Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom etc., represented by a Governor General. Ms Julia Gillard is Federal Prime Minister - effectively the boss in the federal sphere at least. I think she may have been born in Wales. As to her marital status, or religious or sexual preferences, I have no knowledge. As regards Obama as President of the USA - he won it fair and square on the basis of the rules for election currently in place, in turn based on the Constitution of the United States of America. Perhaps somebody Over There would care to change the Constitution to avoid such mishaps ? No - didn't think so ... Best regards, JR.

Nickdfresh
11-12-2012, 08:48 AM
Pres. Obama won both the Electoral College (what actually decides who wins elections--as much as it's despised as archaic and fundamentally anti-participatory democracy) and the popular vote...

JR*
11-12-2012, 08:54 AM
Quite right, Nick - he won fair and square, on any estimate, and great credit is due to his campaign organisation, which really did the business, Florida included. As regards the archaic quality of the electoral college system - one could say (and, no doubt, I am sticking my neck very far out on this) the US Constitution is a document drafted by East Coast intellectuals of the early 19th century, suitable to those times, at least up to a point. The compromise made then - between Jeffersonians and Federalists - has never really been fully satisfactory. Hence the American Civil War and the legislative sclerosis characteristic of the US system today. As - I hope - a friend of America, I would say that this archaic document should not be regarded as sacred (as it seems to be) and calls out for substantial reform. Will it happen ? Can't see it ... Yours from the Law Library, JR.

pdf27
11-15-2012, 01:01 PM
Er ... as far as I know, Australia does not have a President. The Head of State is HM Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom etc.,The relevant part of the etc. is "Defender of the Faith" ;)

namvet
11-15-2012, 01:53 PM
and once again we are plagued with voter fraud

http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/black-panthers-philly-e1352208506394.jpeg

well. look who's back

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-7rkSmdDIIU

now you see it now you uh.....don't

http://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Politics/philly_mural2.jpg


a voting judge in Chicago. what's the logo on the hat???

http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/obamahat.preview.jpg

so much for the power of the vote. its long gone

Nickdfresh
11-15-2012, 04:11 PM
Um voter fraud?

tankgeezer
11-15-2012, 04:44 PM
Its not fraud per-se, but it is frowned upon. This may vary between the States, but in the ones I have lived in, it is illegal to wear anything of a(political campaign) promotional nature at the Polls on polling day.The laws even exclude those running for office from entering the polling places except to cast their own votes. This man with the Obama hat (tho its not easy to make out in the pic) was in violation if he was in the polling place. As for the other fellow, last time I looked, it wasn't illegal for a man to dress up funny, and stand in front of a building. (maybe foolish, juvenile, and silly, but not illegal)

namvet
11-15-2012, 05:38 PM
the "funny man" was weaing the uniform of the white racists hating black panthers. remember ???


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

namvet
11-15-2012, 05:44 PM
real nice guys


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

namvet
11-15-2012, 06:01 PM
http://oi48.tinypic.com/axxuet.jpg

registering the dead is an old liberal trick. and they were hard at it again this year. the voting machines. punch in Romney you just voted for Obama. the system IS rigged

tankgeezer
11-15-2012, 06:24 PM
An idiot in a silly outfit is allowed to stand where he likes as long as he violates no laws while doing so. Although it may displease me to see this display of intimidation, there isn't much of anything to be done about it unless the police can be convinced that a law has been broken.

namvet
11-15-2012, 06:56 PM
http://www.moonbattery.com/new_black_panther_party_barack_obama.jpg

http://www.wnd.com/images/2011/10/111003obamashabazz.jpg

Nickdfresh
11-15-2012, 07:02 PM
http://oi48.tinypic.com/axxuet.jpg

registering the dead is an old liberal trick. and they were hard at it again this year. the voting machines. punch in Romney you just voted for Obama. the system IS rigged

"Liberal trick?" Most of the electronic voting machine companies such as Diebold are far more linked to the Republican party than they are the "liberals." So basically, Romney didn't lose because he was an awful candidate that managed to alienate a good portion of the electorate with incredibly stupid statements and completely inopportune times despite having a very vulnerable incumbent. And while idiots are standing outside polling places, do you really think that cost Romney votes?

And really?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpGd74DrBM

namvet
11-15-2012, 08:03 PM
"Liberal trick?" Most of the electronic voting machine companies such as Diebold are far more linked to the Republican party than they are the "liberals." So basically, Romney didn't lose because he was an awful candidate that managed to alienate a good portion of the electorate with incredibly stupid statements and completely inopportune times despite having a very vulnerable incumbent. And while idiots are standing outside polling places, do you really think that cost Romney votes?

And really?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpGd74DrBM


no way am i gonna vote for this agnostic missing link that says we have 57 states and never heard of the word budget. democraps don't solve problems. they throw money at like the idiots they are. so drop your pants and bend over for the biggest tax increase in history.

namvet
11-15-2012, 08:05 PM
and really??


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmNQy6EFm7M&feature=player_embedded

namvet
11-15-2012, 08:21 PM
http://oi48.tinypic.com/30sj0q8.jpg

Nickdfresh
11-15-2012, 09:15 PM
Complain about Democrats if you want, but nobody is seriously charging any significant voter fraud in this one. Not even ardently delusional Republican believers like Karl Rove, not even Romney. So you don't like Obama or Democrats, fine. But no one stole this election and everything pretty much went as polling indicated and it was an Electoral blowout. You really think voter fraud in Philadelphia really altered the election? Most there voted for Obama anyways and the state of Pennsylvania pretty much went blue across the board...

JR*
11-19-2012, 05:00 AM
Voter fraud "a liberal trick"? I would have thought that it is a trick pulled by unscrupulous politicians in circumstances where they think they can get away with it. Ballot box stuffing is rife in many pseudo-democratic jurisdictions to this day, but I would have thought it is rare enough in most developed democracies now, what with computerised registers, electronic voting and other controls. Here in Ireland, we do not believe that there is any significant problem of this sort, but that may not always have been the case. In the past, multiple voting and the "graveyard vote" were said to be present as a result of the backward procedures of the time. Here, it has been associated with Republicans - no, not Mit's lot, but the likes of Sinn Féin, the political wing of the IRA, and similar parties. In Border areas in particular, there was talk of getting out the mortuary vote, and cracks like "vote early, vote often", associated with such political tendencies. And, however one might describe the Grizzlies, "liberal" is not a term I would ever have used.

As regards the man in the silly Obama hat - I would have thought that this was illegal, and I am surprised that nobody challenged it. I assume that he was a voter scrutineer, there himself to challenge dodgy would-be voters on behalf of the Obama campaign; do you have that system in the US ? Best regards, JR.

danielkroner
11-21-2012, 11:37 AM
As some of the others have been saying. This question was already answered with one of the biggest polls of all time, the election.

Yes.

royal744
08-28-2013, 10:15 PM
no way am i gonna vote for this agnostic missing link that says we have 57 states and never heard of the word budget. democraps don't solve problems. they throw money at like the idiots they are. so drop your pants and bend over for the biggest tax increase in history.

How funny. I guess Bush's deficits - equal to ALL the previous deficits of all US administrations combined - is a good example of the Republican approach to budgeting. Listen up: the budget deficit is shrinking; employment is way up from Bush; the stock market is now double what it was under Bush; the housing market is well on its way to turning around; the TARP funds have been paid back with interest. I have a low tolerance for moronic comments by the haters who can't tell a fact from navel lint. Poor Romney - he drank his own KoolAid and didn't know it was spiked.

Not only did the best man win, the smartest man in the room won.

steben
08-29-2013, 08:44 AM
You partisan guys could start a Civil war though, go ahead! I don't live there, but the world of terrorists and Russian and Chinese push on the UN would be very greatful!!!

Rising Sun*
08-29-2013, 08:59 AM
You partisan guys could start a Civil war though, go ahead!

They had one about one and half centuries ago, which led to the election of a black President now.

I doubt that another Civil War could advance matters much beyond that. ;) :D

steben
08-29-2013, 09:40 AM
They had one about one and half centuries ago, which led to the election of a black President now.

I doubt that another Civil War could advance matters much beyond that. ;) :D

good point!

royal744
08-29-2013, 11:29 AM
good point!

I guess we'll have to wait a while for the first black Belgian prime minister, or for the Walloons and the Flemish to become non-partisan, LOL!

steben
08-29-2013, 01:54 PM
I guess we'll have to wait a while for the first black Belgian prime minister,

Of course, there aren't that many black fellow civilians over here to fill that gap, we missed the slavery era. Or our "colonial landmark" (appreciate the irony) Leopold II just kept them far away.
What we do have is a growing staff of politicians with Turkish and Moroccan roots.
And in case you missed it, our Prime Minister at the moment in in fact the son of Italian immigrants. There you go!
And we have marriage for homosexuals of course.
That will not happen shortly accross the Atlantic. Quite predictable :)
Texas I see... will definitely be the last Mohican I guess. :)


or for the Walloons and the Flemish to become non-partisan, LOL!

yeah, bull's eye! ;) but don't get confused. It is - despite the small country we are - much more complicated. We have our fair share of partisans, but it is not that 1 on 1 battle as it is in the US. It's more like 10 pitbulls in a pit. :lol: And in one way or another, the "spread" of pitbulls makes it damn soft living over here. Power of democracy works well. Even in Flanders alone, every envy politician keeps an eye on the other in such a egocentric way it becomes almost a beauty.

royal744
08-29-2013, 02:59 PM
Of course, there aren't that many black fellow civilians over here to fill that gap, we missed the slavery era. Or our "colonial landmark" (appreciate the irony) Leopold II just kept them far away.
What we do have is a growing staff of politicians with Turkish and Moroccan roots.
And in case you missed it, our Prime Minister at the moment in in fact the son of Italian immigrants. There you go!
And we have marriage for homosexuals of course.
That will not happen shortly accross the Atlantic. Quite predictable :)
Texas I see... will definitely be the last Mohican I guess. :)



yeah, bull's eye! ;) but don't get confused. It is - despite the small country we are - much more complicated. We have our fair share of partisans, but it is not that 1 on 1 battle as it is in the US. It's more like 10 pitbulls in a pit. :lol: And in one way or another, the "spread" of pitbulls makes it damn soft living over here. Power of democracy works well. Even in Flanders alone, every envy politician keeps an eye on the other in such a egocentric way it becomes almost a beauty.

It has become rather vicious over here, Steben, ever since the conservatives woke up to fact that there is a fundamental generational and demographic shift taking place in this country and that there is literally nothing - read "very frustrating" - they can do about it short of facing reality. I must tell you, that I have a brother who lives in Belgium. When his Belgian wife gave birth to their first child, the mayor of the city made it a point to call attention to the fact that "another Flaamse kind" was added to the population. He could have just said "another child", but no, instead it had to be a Flemish one, LOL.

We have not yet had an Italian-American president, but there has been at least one Italian-American candidate. On the other hand, we have had three Dutch presidents that I can recall and a number of Irish-Americans, including Barack Obama) and may very well soon add our first woman president (knock on wood). On the other hand, there have been a large number of idiots and morons who have contended for the office. You may guess as to who they are.

"Mohicans" were a tribe made-up by James Fenimore Cooper and they were thousands of miles from Texas in the northeast, except the tribe didn't exist. Texas was Comanche country, along with Tejas and Caddo and a sprinkling of other tribes, including Apache. The Comanche (and some Apache) were fierce warriors and only the Germans in the Texas Hill Country north of San Antonio managed to conclude an actual peace treaty with them. The Comanche weren't a threat to anyone until the Spanish brought horses to the new world. After that they were a threat to everyone, like the Sioux on the Great Plains.

There is a growing number of places - states - that allow homosexual marriage already over here and that number will continue to grow as the verkrampte generation of conservative old white guys disappear into the sunset. Their day is coming and there's nothing they can do about it. It may get ugly in the meantime, but c'est la vie.

Incidentally, the general who led the Texicans to independence from the Mexicans - General Sam Houston - at San Jacinto was an honorary member of the Cherokee Nation. He became governor of the state. When the War Between the States began, he opposed Texas's Secession from the Union and resigned the governorship. He made a speech shortly after in Galveston predicting that the South would be crushed by the North. This made him no friends, but he was spot on.