Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Palin is a Religious nut-job, plain and simple!

I'm not going to hide behind any careful wording here, because it's not really neccesary. The title says exactly what any reasonable person will conclude after they see the evidence I present.

But first, let's go back a few months and see what happened in the press when someone commented about Barack Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As you will remember, Wright made a few statements that can be considered highly charged and inflamatory rhetoric. Wright said things that a lot of people think, and which he presented as opinions, as opposed to what God was telling him to say. In fact, he pretty much never claimed to be God's mouthpiece when making these statements. For example:

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people... God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

In it's context, there really isn't anything insane about this rhetoric. He's merely stating a political opinion, and using facts and opinions. This is not something that we can really point out as evidence of insanity on Wright's part, or Obama's part, for attending his church. The plight of Americans of african heritage is pretty well documented and lived by millions of people. Wright, and many other Americans of African ancestry are pretty well justified in their anger, and are entitled to these opinions.

As we remember, the media took this story and essentially condemned Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright, to the extent that Obama had to publicly denounce him. Well, let's hope the media is fair to Obama, and takes an honest look at Sarah Palin, because old video of her at her church reveals something that should be considered far more contraversial, and perhaps reveals that her beliefs are quite insane. The videos come from the official Wasilla Assembly Of God Church website, and when they showed up on You Tube, the church took them down. A direct link to their online video library is here.

You can watch some of the video of Palin addressing her church over at the Huffington Post. I mean, she literally tells these people that getting an oil pipeline built is God's will, and that the Alaskan government can only do good when the people are "right with God". Okay, maybe that's not too contraversial. Lots of reasonable people in America talk that way. Hold on, there's more.

Her church holds weekly prophecy sessions, and in this video, Palin learns that we're living in the final days, before the end times, and that the Iraq war is God's will. Scary stuff. Lots of fundamentalist nut-jobs believe this stuff. Do we really want to have this person one heartbeat away from the presidency? I mean, we just spent 8 years having George W. Bush, who believes many of the same idiotic things, ruin this nation's economy, world alliances, and cheapen the constitution.

Oh, so you don't think that's so bad? OKay, watch this video of Palin's church, as these people act like lunatics running amock in an insane asylum.

Think Palin has normal beliefs now? Think this church, which she is still a proud member of, is a normal church, full of normal average folks? Want to see a future vice president or potentially a president roll around on the floor, mumbling gibberish, and foaming at the mouth? Better yet -- think foreign diplomats would be amused by it if she did it for them while they were visiting her in the White House?

Let's get real, folks. Palin is a fundamentalist whack-tard, as are all people whose churches teach this end-days prophecy shit, and who do the Jesus-boogie on the floor while speaking in tongues. It is insane behavior, period. No sane individuals do this kind of stuff, or believe that kind of prophecy crap. The press needs to air these videos, to be fair to Obama, because of the lynching he got for what Rev. Wright said. Rev. Wright may have pissed off some white people when he made his remarks, but at least he didn't jiggle around on the floor like someone getting holy shock-treatments from the lord. Be fair. Show Palin's church to the world so everyone can be fully informed about McCain's Vice Presidential pick.

36 comments:

dekerivers said...

There is reason to believe that GOP Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has a series of religious beliefs that might be central to her view of government and policy making, and as a result voters have a need….no, a right…to better understand those views. We know exteme religious conservatives have long held positions that differ from the constitutional framework that makes our nation a rich and diverse country. Unless Ms. Palin can denounce these harsh beliefs that constitute much of the Assemblies Of God beliefs than we might have to judge her not able to govern if elected.

David W. Irish said...

You said it. I mean, I've been among these people on many occaisions -- Assemblies of God Charismatics, who are prone to speaking in tongues and going into trances -- and I consider them to be completely insane, albeit FUNCTIONALLY insane. They can hold down a job and behave normal most of the time, but when you put them with 100 or so others fo the same faith, they talk like crazy people in an insane asylum -- conspiracy theories, tongues, and individuals who tell you that you receive direct messages from God himself while in the midst of a bowel movement or morning breakfast.

These are people who are usually dominionist by nature, believing that it is their job as Christians to take over the world, if not the nation, for the glory of God, because they cannot allow unbeleivers and sinners to spiritually corrupt their grace.

One minute, they're talking about football scores and "So you think you can dance", like normal people, but the next minute, they're talking about how Satan controls Washington, how Obama is a seret Muslim out to blow up America, and muttering gibber-jabber nonsense tonguespeak.

Loonies like that have no place in government, especially in the most important office. We've had 8 years of an insane person in the white house -- and Palin makes dubya look sane by comparison!

GamingAsshole said...

I doubt very much Barack Obama or Sarah Pallin are Christians. If George W. Bushs cabinet contains the most atheist any cabinet has contained, I am pretty much these people, who are just carbon copies of those said politicians are atheist or at least non-religious. That and Obama had a very agnostic mother who raised him the same. Lying about religion, so good...

David W. Irish said...

Well, if you actually watched rthe videos, Palin is very much a nut-job Fundy retard Christian. Obama at least goes to church on Sunday, and has been active in his church for years, and I don't think that you can easily say it's just a put-on.

LIke it or not -- what the choice will be in November is this: You will choose for preseident, either (a) a person who is well-educated, and who is known for carefully considering options and seeking the advice of his peers before making descisions, and who is well known for his bipartisan methods of mediating between different groups in Congress, or (b) a person who has a history of making bad decisions, and making impulsive decisions, and who made a significant sacrifice in his principles to pander to a president who tried to swift-boat him in the last election.

Given such a choice, I'd go with (a) every time. Obama is (a). Better to have a thinking man who already knows how to get bipartisan support and who already has a spotless reputation as a public servant than a guy like McCain, who was one of the Keating 5, back in the 80's, and whose plan for "change" involves apparently just keeping up what dubya has already been doing.

GamingAsshole said...

[Palin is very much a nut-job Fundy retard Christian]

Well, she plays one on tv. Who cares?

GamingAsshole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GamingAsshole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GamingAsshole said...

[LIke it or not -- what the choice will be in November is this: You will choose for preseident, either (a) a person who is well-educated, and who is known for carefully considering options and seeking the advice of his peers before making descisions]

..which one is that again?

[s, and who is well known for his bipartisan methods]

How is bipartisanship agreement necessarily in and out of itself, a good thing?
I dont want political parties to agree with each other for the sake of agreeing with each other, because no change and no progress is made if they are just carbon copies. In a real democracy, there is real discussion and arguments, no emphasis on agreeing with each other on everything. Bipartisanship in America is used to fuck over citizens.

[(b) a person who has a history of making bad decisions,]

You mean both?

[and making impulsive decisions,]

Oh, you mean the two shills!

[and who made a significant sacrifice in his principles to pander to a president who tried to swift-boat him in the last election.]

Swift-boating? Pandering? They both do that. I mean, monkey man does that more than old tumor.

[Obama is (a).]

(A)n idiot?

[Better to have a thinking man who already knows how to get bipartisan support ]

Who knows how to get everyone to agree with him? Awesome.

[and who already has a spotless reputation as a public servant than a guy like McCain,]

Yeah, he sure was a public servant in Illinois! He sure is being a good public servant by supporting the Patriot Act and FISA! He is being a public servant by supporting measures that fuck with the image of the US abroad and little by little take away our individual rights and screw us in favor of corporations. Yep!

[who was one of the Keating 5, back in the 80's, and whose plan for "change" involves apparently just keeping up what dubya has already been doing.]

Obama=McCain McCain does not equal Bush, neither does Obama. But they are pretty much the same.

GamingAsshole said...

Hey, you mentioned Mr. Wright, the pastor who said AIDS was created by the US government. Yeah, that is crazy.

David W. Irish said...

Sorry, I don't buy that there is no difference betrween Obama and McCain. There is a huge difference, and it is in ethics.

McCain has a serious lack of ethics, and he lowered his principles by shoving his ass firmly up George Bush's ass for the last 4 years, and basically being George's little cheerleader. He calls himself a Maverick, when that was the pre-Bush McCain. Once Bush tried to swift-boat him, literally claiming that McCain colluded with the Viet Cong while he was a POW, (Bush didn't personally say it, but several "swift boaters" who worked with John O'Neil invented the rumors about McCain, and were paid by Republican party, along with O'Neil)

McCain thinks nothing about telling blatant lies about Obama in order to paint a false image of his policies.

Obama is about 110% more ethical than McCain. He's worked with rival republicans on ethics reform bills, which both democrats and republicans largely opposed. He's actually legitimately worked to craft legislation that would prevent and punish ethical lapses on the part of elected officials, as well as efforts to stop questionable lobbying practices. he has also sponsored or written parts of many different reform bills which attempt to make government more transparent.

If you don't know anything about the Keating 5, then look it up on Wikipedia. The Savings and Loan scandal of the 80's was to Reagan what the mortgage crisis is to Bush -- It was a serious lapse of the administration to crack down on illegal banking activities, even when the problem became serious. Both involve loans, bribes, and lazy appointed officials.

Back in the 1980s, McCain was right in the middle of that scandal (So wasn't John Glenn, but Glenn isn't running for Pres).

Obama has not had to resort to lying or misleading the public. His history is pretty impeccable, and I challenge you to find anything about him that smacks of impropriety.

By comparison, McCain has had a history of taking bribes from bankers to push for their demands, then working on ethics reforms, only to stop in order to put aside ethics to kiss George Bush's ass. He's two-faced, and seriously makes a lot of impulsive decisions that bite him in the ass. Obama has not has any lapses of ethics, and has actually been pretty consistant.

Your political knowledge appears to me, after reading many of your posts, to be seriously uninformed, and a bit ideological. At the very least, you admit when you're not familiar with some of the histories I mention, but I think that too much of your comments are just plain ignorant of the facts.

GamingAsshole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GamingAsshole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GamingAsshole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GamingAsshole said...

Well, someone who will remain unnamed deleted my last post, but I do not feel like rewriting it, or going through and answering everything you say. Sure, I could argue about the merits of John McCain and Barack Obama, but as I have observed of you before, you pretty much live in a simple dualistic fantasy world in which one side is a shining light of heroes and the other side is a demonic force for bad. You once called the Democrats do-gooders (and then in a seeming contradiction said they were ¨the lesser of two evils. Which one are they then?) and they they always fight for the common man, that one just need vote for them, and things will get better. These comments are pretty much in direct opposition to reality, but that is what I got from you, you do not seem to like reality, and just delude yourself that ¨your vote counts¨ and that someone is out there in high places looking out for you. Whatever, if that makes you feel good, then fine.

However, I did rather find it funny you called Obama ¨impeccable¨ and ¨challenge you to find anything about him that smacks of impropriety. ¨

I do not think you know what impeccable means, since it is defined as:

1 : not capable of sinning or liable to sin

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeccable

Venerating a politician? And you call me ideological? You venerate someone simply because he is in some group you like.

Sin? So you believe in sin now? Or do you just follow the second definition, which states free from fault or blame. Fault or blame of what? This is not very descriptive.

But wait, that sort of sounds like making someone a Romanesque God. I kind of remember you denouncing venerating politicians as godlike saint figures, especially the former U.S. president Ronald Reagan. But at least they venerate a man after he left office, you venerate a man who is not even certain to have the job he is running for.

As for impropriety, what to you is improper? Is voting for laws that empower corporations to spy, poke, and fuck around with average citizens improper? Is for being for health care plans that will not give proper medical access to poor and middle class families proper? Is including within foreign policy plans the attempts to agitate wars in the Middle East and Africa proper?

Or do you think he has been one hundred percent consistent on everything he has said he stands for and will do ever since his presidential campaign began? And is that all you care about? Do you agree with everything he says and think his positions are the best any candidate has offered since the campaigns began and that he is so good he needs to be venerated?

But then again, you are the guy who defended interment camps because erm...the people locked up in there were coerced into joining the military to leave...., yeah okay, um...well, I do not think I can ever get to you. To you, there is some bizarre war between Christian theocratic minions (represented by Republican Neo conservatives, probably the least Christian you can get) and good, wholesome, all american, friendly democrats (mostly represented by corporate shills and even a few christian conservatives..wait..) and if you want to keep living in that fantasy, I will not object to it.

David W. Irish said...

Gaming Asshole wrote:

Well, someone who will remain unnamed deleted my last post, but I do not feel like rewriting it, or going through and answering everything you say.

The "deleted" posts say that they were "deleted by the author", meaning THE PERSON WHO WROTE THEM deleted them. I don't delete posts. There are many reasons why your post would not make it -- if your HTML codes have mistakes in them, such as missing a closing bracket (using the B without a /B, for example), it will not post. Usually, you can catch it before you navigate away. Be careful to read the screen after posting, for error messages!

Gaming Asshole wrote:

Sure, I could argue about the merits of John McCain and Barack Obama, but as I have observed of you before, you pretty much live in a simple dualistic fantasy world in which one side is a shining light of heroes and the other side is a demonic force for bad. You once called the Democrats do-gooders (and then in a seeming contradiction said they were ¨the lesser of two evils. Which one are they then?) and they they always fight for the common man,

Maybe you should argue the merits of them, or at least make an honest comparison. Then I might have some idea of why you think that Obama = Mcain. There is no comparison at all, in my book.

Gaming Asshole wrote:

that one just need vote for them, and things will get better.

I never said or implied that. I simply said that the Republican party caters to the super-rich, big corporations, and religious nuts, and doesn't care if they have to lie, cheat, and swindle to get their people in office. Since the 1980s, the Republican party has been purging it's membership of moderate-minded people and decided that money is the only thing that matters, and that it's okay for government to operate in secret, and for the president to break laws. There simply is no comparing the Democratic party to them. Sure -- you can find individual democrats who got caught screwing around with their power, and taking bribes from corporations, but the vast majority of corrupt politicians are Republicans, and the party that has been trying to soften the constitution the most is the Republicans. It is not a huge leap in logic to see what went on during the Savings and Loan crisis of the 80's, what happened with the economy, and what is happening now. The Republicans want to deregulate all industry, and turn a blind eye to existing regulations until it hits a crisis point.
The Republicans deregulated the airline industry -- the result, there are many times more plane crashes than there were during regulation. The republicans deregulated the mortgage industry. The result -- home buyers were cheated and lied to without legal reprocussions, and the mortgage industry is in crisis. By far, when democrats have been in the white house and controlled the house and senate, this kind of stuff goes down quite a bit.

Gaming Asshole said:


These comments are pretty much in direct opposition to reality, but that is what I got from you, you do not seem to like reality, and just delude yourself that ¨your vote counts¨ and that someone is out there in high places looking out for you. Whatever, if that makes you feel good, then fine.


Care to define and explain what part of what I have written (and please use my own writings, and don't just go from memory, as you seem to conflate all the people you argue with into one) which contradicts reality? If anything, all you've done thus far is list a few vague generalities, some of which do not describe what I have said at all, and criticize them -- in short, you're making a straw-man argument.

Gaming asshole wrote:

However, I did rather find it funny you called Obama ¨impeccable¨ and ¨challenge you to find anything about him that smacks of impropriety. ¨

I do not think you know what impeccable means, since it is defined as:

1 : not capable of sinning or liable to sin

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeccable

Venerating a politician? And you call me ideological? You venerate someone simply because he is in some group you like.

What about the other defintion from the same page?
2: Free from fault or blame : Flawless

Then there's the Webster's unabridged dictionary:

Im*pec"ca*ble\, a. [L. impeccabilis; pref. im- not + peccare to err, to sin: cf. F. impeccable.] Not liable to sin; exempt from the possibility of doing wrong. -- n. One who is impeccable; esp., one of a sect of Gnostic heretics who asserted their sinlessness.

You're splitting hairs here, and it's pathetic.

Gaming asshole wrote:

Sin? So you believe in sin now? Or do you just follow the second definition, which states free from fault or blame. Fault or blame of what? This is not very descriptive.


I don't think you're so dumb that you don't know what people mean when they use the word "impeccable" -- they use it to mean "free of fault", "extremely consistant", "trustworthy", "extremely well", as in "he spoke impeccable French". Obama's record is extremely consistant, trustworthy, and beyond reproach. Heck, even the republicans had a tough time making fun of him. It was hilarious to watch them try to make fun of him at the convention. Giuliani goes "Obama started out as a community organizer... (chuckles)... what the heck is that supposed to mean?" as though being a community organizer or activist was akin to frying burgers at McDonalds or something.

Seriously, if you want to compare Obama to Mcain, please do so. You haven't really been specific yet. I won't argue generalities. I need specifics.

Gaming Asshole wrote:

But wait, that sort of sounds like making someone a Romanesque God. I kind of remember you denouncing venerating politicians as godlike saint figures, especially the former U.S. president Ronald Reagan. But at least they venerate a man after he left office, you venerate a man who is not even certain to have the job he is running for.

As for impropriety, what to you is improper? Is voting for laws that empower corporations to spy, poke, and fuck around with average citizens improper? Is for being for health care plans that will not give proper medical access to poor and middle class families proper? Is including within foreign policy plans the attempts to agitate wars in the Middle East and Africa proper?

Okay, if he did those things, then be specific. In the "real world" there are different sides to every story. MCCain was quick to claim that Obama didn't vote for a bill that protected the troops in Iraq. The fact was that Obama approved the bill early on, but just before the final vote, the Republicans added a bunch of pork to the bill, and a bunch of other stuff that that Obama didn't agree with, so he voted against it. There are other bills that have similar stories attached to them. If Obama voted in favor of a bill that provided better medical care for the troops, some anti-Obama people would argue that he voted in favor of spending more on the war.

Gaming Asshole wrote:

Or do you think he has been one hundred percent consistent on everything he has said he stands for and will do ever since his presidential campaign began? And is that all you care about? Do you agree with everything he says and think his positions are the best any candidate has offered since the campaigns began and that he is so good he needs to be venerated?

I have never agreed 100% with EVERYTHING that EVERY candidate I've ever voted for said, did, or believed. The Republican party has been CRIMINAL since the Nixon administration, and has been fighting to keep more of what government does secret from the public ever since.

Gaming Asshole said:

But then again, you are the guy who defended interment camps because erm...the people locked up in there were coerced into joining the military to leave...., yeah okay, um...well, I do not think I can ever get to you.

That is a distortion of what I wrote. I defended FDR, and you claimed that he was closer to being a nazi because he locked Japanese Americans up in camps during the war. I made the point that it wasn't his idea, that unlike Jews in Germany, their stay was temporary, and they were not killed, and that there was a way out by joining the military. I did not defend internment camps. I simply said that FDR, and indeed the whole nation, faced a difficult time, and made some difficult decisions, some of which were wrong. However, overall, FDR was a great president who did far more good for the nation than anyone after him, and modern day conservative attempts at revising history to turn him into a power-mongering psycho, are pathetic revisionism made by people who can't cope with the fact that every Republican in office since WW2 has been an asshole.

To you, there is some bizarre war between Christian theocratic minions (represented by Republican Neo conservatives, probably the least Christian you can get) and good, wholesome, all american, friendly democrats (mostly represented by corporate shills and even a few christian conservatives..wait..) and if you want to keep living in that fantasy, I will not object to it.

Another straw man. There are people in this country who really promote the idea that they are warriors for JEE-ZUS, and that anything smacking of liberality is the enemy. These peopel advertize this message of theirs every Sunday morning on their mass-broadcasted television programs, and on the religious TV networks (you should watch them to see that I'm not making that shit up).

Even Sarah Palin is on one of the videos I found literally talking that way (saying that we are a nation of Christians at war with the left). It's not a fantasy -- it's documented rather well. Heck, Pat Buchanan, William Bennett, Ben Stein, Cal Thomas, and many other right-wing pundits have gone on the record proclaiming that there is a culture war going on between Christians and the "liberal, homosexual, Feminist, atheist, socialists".

Not all Republicans are overtly zealous Christians -- but there is certainly a movement afoot in the party to try to purge these people if they step outside of the official line.

There are plenty of shills in both parties who do it just for money, and just for the corporations that pay them bribe money. All I'm saying is that there are about 10 times MORE of those types in the republican party, and that overall, the party is corrupted. The democratic party has not net crossed the line into being the kind of criminal anti-constitution party that the Republican party has. They are actually comprised of far more MODERATE voices. In recent years, the Republican party has become shifted to the far right, and as such, anyone who is MODERATE is considered a liberal, and not to be trusted.

If you're going to argue against what I'm saying, at least get it STRAIGHT, first, instead of making up straw men. You're arguing like the average dumbass conservative when you argue straw-men. I expect that your next response will involve making fun of my use of the term "Straw men", because that's what most of the retards I've argued with do when you name the fallacies they make in their arguments. They either put you down as an egg-head for using latin terminology, compare you to a broken record for using terms like "fallacy" and "straw man" frequently, or they downplay logic altogether.

I hope you do not devolve into such crap.

GamingAsshole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David W. Irish said...

Well, that's a kick in the ass!

I read Gaming Asshole's reply this morning, and was going to answer it when I had more time, as it was getting pretty long, and it's been deleted allegedly by the un-named person that Gaming asshole alluded to.

So Gaming Asshole, is this person someone you know? Can you kick their ass? Or is this all about you not logging off a computer in a public area?

GamingAsshole said...

Hey, some things have come up. I will respond later today or tommorow.

GamingAsshole said...

[So Gaming Asshole, is this person someone you know? Can you kick their ass?]

The person is someone I know, but I deleted the post. It was wordy and had no substance, and all we have been doing is arguing ideas and opinions. Let us just discuss facts shall we? Let us have a friendly debate, and not get all angry and attack each other.

And yes, I guess I should kick that guys ass...just it is very fat.

Let us start anew with just some questions, so I can better understand your love for the Monkey Man (that is Obama). (Friendly debate but calling him Monkey Man?)

These are not really attacks against Obama, they are really just questions. Some of the links I will link to are "ideological" but I really at this point just want to know what you think and not attack or oppose, at least without knowing those.

First off, how do you honestly feel about his health care plan, and I am not talking about in comparison to McCains health care plan (which in a strange sort of irony, is better since it will do no further harm as opposed to the harm Obamas will do)? Well, maybe you do not think Obamas will cause harm. Okay, fine, but let me ask you this: Do you think Obama is doing good by opposing Single-payer health care, the only sane method of health care we could have at the moment in America, and do you think he is doing good by opposing HR 676, the bill which would bring America that? His plan will make it so that you must find affordable insurance, and if you can not, well, tough luck for you.

More on this: http://www.alternet.org/election08/97160/if_we_want_good_health_care_from_obama,_we_better_push_him_to_change_his_plan/?page=1

How about Obamas general corporate ties and the influence they have on him? His support for the FISA bill and reauthorizing of the PATRIOT act, which ultimately serve the corporations and businesses that get a free ride to spy and harass people because of them. What about his support for NAFTA, something I am sure you are well aware with is just a neoliberal globalizationist tool to fuck over people (mostly Mexican mind you, but still :)).

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Amendments_Act_of_2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#FISA_exclusivity_provision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#Civil_liberties

What do you think of his religious pandering? What do you think of his support for faith based initiative and his constant shifting of views when it comes to religion (religious pluralism is of course promoted by him) and secularism? By the way, what are your general views on faith-based initiative anyhow? Just curious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#Faith_based_programs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Kh-xzerjE ----> A short commentary: "No longer a Christian nation? When were we that? However, surprisingly he does have a little critique of religion in the speech, mind you from a liberal religiously pluralisitic perspective, but still. Anyway...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080714/blumenthal


Well, of course I would like to ask you about Obamas foreign policy, because I find your opinion on it very valuable, since you are well versed in the subject, at least from an american perspective. How do you generally feel about Obamas foreign policy? Two things in particular I would like to ask about is: Do you think his defense of trying to leave a "residual" force in Iraq, and his talk of intervening in Sudanese affairs, mostly just to protect our interest there. That in particular I have strong feelings about, since even though the governments (since there are two of them) in Sudan are awful, mostly religiously motivated, violent groups, there is some myth going on that the north side is committing genocide against the south side, when it is just some civil war, at the expense of attention and recognition of actual genocide going on in Africa. How do you feel about these?

http://www.alternet.org/election08/78161/?page=entire

http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5065

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=110664&d=7&m=6&y=2008

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/09/iran.usa

http://politicalmpressions.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/money-not-surge/

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Statement_from_Barack_Obama_on_Darfur,_Sudan

"This should be a swift and clear-cut decision. It is not only an issue of saving lives in the Sudan. It is necessary to support our interests in the region. And, our action and leadership will show who we are as a nation and as a people."

I got much more to ask and say, but I want to start off here, gain a more accurate understanding of what you stand for, so we can work from here and have a real dialogue.

Here is some links that reflect some of what I think on the situation, so I guess you could better understand me:

http://prorev.com/obama2.htm

http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20080302081644114

http://citizen.typepad.com/watchdog_blog/2008/06/campaign-financ.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/27/barackobama.usa

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1212871846/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates,_2008

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm (General views on Abortion, a topic not very important to me, but I know a lot of american liberals find it important)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/obam-a05.shtml

I hope we get into a real dialogue about this issue now. Anyway, on to your FDR thing. I admit, I was very nasty and mean about that, as I have generally been for a long time. This is not a good way to go about in a debate or discussion however, and now I will potray my feelings on FDR.

FDR pretty much embodies benevolent fascism to me, as Utah embodies benevolent national socialism. Fascism is not a dirty word to me, as no word is dirty to me, but what I mean to say is I do not think automatically of mass killings and rape and torture when I think of fascism. I usually think of present american society when I think fascism. We pretty much have lived in a fascist society for over 60 years.

Fascism was simply a reaction to power industrial capital and revolutionary marxist socialism. It was a rejection of both of them and the attempt to find a middle ground, that was successful. Fascism is an attempt to correct the flaws in capitalism without going down the route of socialism, anarchy or communism, which rejects the free-market or regulatory view of capitalism, and while (most of them at least) view capitalism as an integral part of human progress, generally believe in replacing it with a socially equal society. The New Deal was just as much about deterring socialist as it was about feeding and empowering average americans.

He even had certain traits of the european fascist leaders, but as at much smaller level. He had a cult of personality, had the atmosphere of power and authority, and a generally anti-leftist attitude and purpose in his ideas and his positions. For a more general look and understanding into all of this, I recommend this article, which puts this issue into a much more easier and well, americanized way of writing:

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/rise_of_american_fascism.htm

Now, let us see where it goes from here :)

David W. Irish said...

Sheesh! And you said the post you deleted was long!

I'll have to get to this in stages. Got stuff to do, but I'll tackle the first wave of Obama questions by the end of today. Seriously -- the monkey comment was unneccesary, and racist. Are you a racist or do you have white-power or white supremacist views? The only "white preference" I have involves a fascination with red-headed caucasian women, but that doesn't enter into political questions.

GamingAsshole said...

[eriously -- the monkey comment was unneccesary, and racist. Are you a racist or do you have white-power or white supremacist views?]

This assumes that I am white, and that the comment had to do with his colour. It doe snot. It simply has to do with his big ears and big mouth. Why did you think race played into it?

David W. Irish said...

Gaming Asshole wrote:

(1) Obama's Health Care Plan...

After reading a few articles, I realized that this is a moot issue. The problem with coming up with health care plans is that the only way to get them passed is to make them as unthreatening to employers as possible. The Obama healthcare plan is one of many attempts to set up a healthcare plan that is based on the one that federal employees get. Big business and conservatives would never accept a single-payer plan, and to write one up would result in it simply being rejected.

Obama's plan is likely to be discussed, and will be modified heavily before it is either voted on or dies in comittee. I naturally would prefer a national healthcare plan based on the ones in European nations, but that may take a while. It's going to take generations for Americans to learn the truth that our European allies are actually a lot more educated, politically stable, and that they are not dependant on us for their existence.

(2) Obama and the Patriot act...

The Wikipedia article you linked said this:

"Obama voted in favor of the 2006 version of the USA PATRIOT Act.[238] He voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006[239] and later voted to restore habeas corpus to those detained by the U.S. (which had been stripped by the Military Commissions Act).[238] He has advocated closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but has not supported two specific bills that would have done so.[240] Obama still opposes the use of torture[241] and used to oppose warrantless domestic wiretaps by the U.S.[242] He voted against the Flag Desecration Amendment in 2006, arguing that flag burning didn't justify a constitutional amendment, but said that he would support a law banning flag burning on federal property.[243] As of August 8, 2008, the ACLU has given Obama a score of 80% on civil liberty issues for the 110th Congress U.S. Senate.[244]

USA PATRIOT Act
As noted above, Obama voted to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act, which extended the Act, but with some amendments. Such amendments would clarify the rights of an individual who has received FISA orders to challenge nondisclosure requirements and to refuse disclosure of the name of their attorney.

He voted against extending the USA PATRIOT Act’s Wiretap Provision on March 1, 2006. This bill would give the FBI the authority to conduct “roving wiretaps” and access to business records. Voting against this bill would prolong the debate, keeping the USA PATRIOT Act provisional whereas voting for this bill would extend the USA PATRIOT Act as permanent.[245]"


Sounds good to me. I researched the two bills that Obama voted against that were going to "shut down Guantanamo Bay". One would simply have moved it to an overcrowded prison in Kansas, and the other would not have guaranteed Habeas Corpus to the detainees. In the real world, a single line-item in a bill can ruin the whole point of the bill. Senators often vote against bills that sound good on the surface, because a few sneaky line-items got amended to them which either cater to a special interest, or render the bill impotent.

(3) Obama's Religious Pandering...

I disagree with it. Anyone with a brain knows that the Faith Based INitiatives have been nothing but a shill to funnel money to Evangelical neo-fascist friends of GW. Obama obviousyl sees the few successes as a reason to continue them, and probably has plans to put congresional oversight into the plan -- but even if there was congressional oversight, I'm against it. This one issue, however, is forgivable. I'm not looking for a perfect candidate. I'm looking for someone who sucks a lot less than the current dildos.

(4) On Dafur, Sudan -- I agree that we should do something about it. Otherwise, we are letting the Sudanese government conduct genocide. Though it is true that many groups are using the events in Dafur to gain political strength (Such as Islamic militants, communists, and other agitators), the fact is that the government there is participating in mass murder. This is not something for the USA to do -- it should be taken care of by the United nations. To that, Obama should at the very least, have our reps in the UN make inqueries and try to stop it, in a global effort.

(5) ON Iraq -- All experts agree that we cannot simply pull out 100% of our forces from Iraq. Leaving behind a residual force to assit the Iraqi army, until it can hold it's own, makes sense.

"This should be a swift and clear-cut decision. It is not only an issue of saving lives in the Sudan. It is necessary to support our interests in the region. And, our action and leadership will show who we are as a nation and as a people."

I got much more to ask and say, but I want to start off here, gain a more accurate understanding of what you stand for, so we can work from here and have a real dialogue.

Here is some links that reflect some of what I think on the situation, so I guess you could better understand me:

(6) On Nafta -- Obama support re-negotiating it, which means he favors changing it to be more fair. He wants to add more regualtion into it.

David W. Irish said...

I disagree with you on Fascism, Gaming asshole.

I agree that for the last 60 years, we have been living with fascism, but not under it. What has happened is what President Eisenhower warned us about -- the Military-Industrial Complex.

As you know, The Military-Industrial Complex is a collection of policy relationships between governments, national armed forces, and industrial support they obtain from the commercial sector in political approval for research, development, production, use, and support for military training, weapons, equipment, and facilities within the national defense and security policy. It is a type of iron triangle.

He warned us not to let it happen to us -- and he was right. Unfortunately, we've been dancing with it ever since. It differes from fascism in that it's not an ideologically rigid society that it created, where loyalty of citizens is constantly emphasized and questioned.

We have been DANCING with Fascism, democracy, and anarchy, since the turn of the last century, and sometimes, fascists lead, sometimes democratic reformers lead. It's a delicate dance, and rather complex. It seems to me that whenever republicans are in the white house, we start seeing more fascism, particularly in the media, as various pundits pound their fists and drum up fear. I saw it during Nixon. I saw it during Reagan-Bush, and I see it now -- and our current incarnation of conservative media attacks dogs is worse than what I experienced before.

Back in the 1970's, there was scarcely any large difference between republicans and democrats. The convention of 1978, was a turning point. It was the convention that threw out good moderate voices like Goldwater and said that "we're now the party of Family, Jesus, and the Flag." That convention essentially was a fascist turning point for the republicans, and essentially made it the religious nut-job and corporate-run party. The Democrats never purged themselves of moderates. As a result, they always seemed to be more clear headed, and fair. Of course, the only way republicans can appeal to people is frame the debate as a debate between their extremism and a straw-man extremism that hey construct about democrats. They construct this lie about the democrats like this:

The democrats are atheists.
The democrats represent hippie-tree-huggers.
The Democrats support gays and pediophiles.
The Democrats are BIG SPENDERS.
The democrats just Tax and Spend.
The Democrats Hate American Values (tm).
The democrats are unAmerican.

Of course, all of these things that right wingers claim is absolutely false, and any tiny bit of research into any of these claims will reveal that the opposite is usually true -- That republicans are bigger spenders, raise more taxes that affect more people, and certainly do not really represent American traditional values, because they are the party that has been trying to change the constitution, in which most of our "American" values are based.

Anyway -- I disagree that our current system is a fascist one, but as I said -- the republicans would love to push it over the edge into one if given the chance. When that happens, it's a Guy Fawkes mask for me!

GamingAsshole said...

And now for some big response on this. I'll first focus on the fascism part:

[I disagree with you on Fascism, Gaming asshole.
I agree that for the last 60 years, we have been living with fascism, but not under it.]

Fair enough. At least this has not degenerating into, "Fuck you, no fuck you, no fuck you."

[
He warned us not to let it happen to us -- and he was right. Unfortunately, we've been dancing with it ever since. It differes from fascism in that it's not an ideologically rigid society that it created, where loyalty of citizens is constantly emphasized and questioned.]

This is where I am in disagreement with you. Fascism, to me, does not automatically mean a rightist strong armed dictatorship like the Nazis or Kuomintang. Fascism itself can be a purely economic movement and ideal, and I would say, for more or less, American economics have been fascist. Military-Industrial complex is fascism.
Also, I would say our society is exactly what you just said, where "loyalty of citizens is constantly emphasized and questioned."

[We have been DANCING with Fascism, democracy, and anarchy]

..what? Which one exactly have we been dancing with? All three of those are, for more or less, against each other.

[. It's a delicate dance, and rather complex. It seems to me that whenever republicans are in the white house, we start seeing more fascism, particularly in the media, as various pundits pound their fists and drum up fear. I saw it during Nixon. I saw it during Reagan-Bush, and I see it now -- and our current incarnation of conservative media attacks dogs is worse than what I experienced before.]

I think I can see fascism more, and with better example, in just the lives of average americans in their relations to those in power. Average people have very little control of their own lives even in America.

[Back in the 1970's, there was scarcely any large difference between republicans and democrats.]

Of course that is an awful thing, but I would argue that is pretty much the same situation now.

[It was the convention that threw out good moderate voices like Goldwater]

In my personal opinion, I do not find Goldwater and moderates very good, but anyway...

[That convention essentially was a fascist turning point for the republicans, and essentially made it the religious nut-job and corporate-run party.]

Well, it was already corporate-run, but it just began alligning itself with religious groups, (already alligned with corporations) because they were becoming a more powerful voting base.

[The Democrats never purged themselves of moderates.]

Exactly, so they more emphasize the corporations than the Christianity.

[As a result, they always seemed to be more clear headed, and fair. ]

Well, not to people like me, but I guess I can see what you mean, from your perspective at least.

[They construct this lie about the democrats like this:

The democrats are atheists.]

Yeah, I admit, that is funny.

[The democrats represent hippie-tree-huggers. ]

Now that would be funny, but no. Hippie tree-huggers are now just CEOS of those fruitcake corporations down in Arizona now.

[The Democrats support gays and pediophiles. ]

I wish they supported gays but pedophiles? You mean like those 9000 penises Oprah mentioned?

[
The Democrats are BIG SPENDERS. The democrats just Tax and Spend. ]

Well, no they are not, but it really does not matter at this point.

[The Democrats Hate American Values (tm).
The democrats are unAmerican. ]

I wish...

[When that happens, it's a Guy Fawkes mask for me!]

GamingAsshole said...

Guy Fawkes thing:

Huh?

You see, the problem with what you say in regards to his health care plan is that single payer health care does not hurt employeers, it in fact HELPS them. We have been working on the assumption that employeers should provide health care, which has been a horrible mindset, and only hurts employeers in the long run (and gives them incentive to discriminate against sick employees), and the fact that many American's (and the majority of physicans) already want single payer health care. I think now is a perfect opportunity to pass HR 676, I seriously doubt the democrats in congress would oppose it at this point, especially given they want a democrat in the executive branch pretty badly. It is a matter of insurance companies vs. single payer health care, not employers vs. single payer health care.

Well, you didn't even bring up his vote for FISA, so I am going to just guess you didn't disagree with anything I had to say on that?

I didn't even bring up his guantanamo bay bills, so that is kind of a moot point yourself.

The problem with Obama and his "admendments" is they hardly ever get attached to the bills he votes onto, after all, it's not like he gets to choose everything that gets into the bills. The problem is, you can not have a "patriot act" and have it respect civil liberties, because frankly, the purpose of the patriot act is to suspend civil liberties for the sake of "security". He's just being misleading right there.

By the way, do not try to be patronizing to me. I mean, it can easily go the other way.

[I disagree with it. Anyone with a brain knows that the Faith Based INitiatives have been nothing but a shill to funnel money to Evangelical neo-fascist friends of GW.]

Okay, you say nothing but a shill to funnel money, then you say: "Obama obviousyl sees the few successes." I do not understand. If it is just a scam to get money, then where are the successes, and in what context?

[and probably has plans to put congresional oversight into the plan ]

Uh...what indicates that?

[- but even if there was congressional oversight, I'm against it. This one issue, however, is forgivable.]

Why? It seems a pretty blanant attempt to circumvent our secularism to give money to politically-motivated groups.

[I'm not looking for a perfect candidate. I'm looking for someone who sucks a lot less than the current dildos]

I never look for perfection, but I do not think he sucks a lot less. I am just looking for decent.

[(4) On Dafur, Sudan -- I agree that we should do something about it. ]

In what context?

[. Otherwise, we are letting the Sudanese government conduct genocide. ]

They are not conducting genocide however. It is civil war. It is just called genocide because oil was discovered there.

[Though it is true that many groups are using the events in Dafur to gain political strength (Such as Islamic militants, communists, and other agitators)]

There you go again pairing groups again that have nothing in common. You know who is using the vents to gain strengh and to push agendas? Western governments.

[the fact is that the government there is participating in mass murder.]

What war is not mass murder?

[This is not something for the USA to do -- it should be taken care of by the United nations.]

Oh, yeah, you mean those UN peacekeepers always caught trading child sex slaves and raping people? The UN peacekeeping groups are a joke.

[To that, Obama should at the very least, have our reps in the UN make inqueries and try to stop it, in a global effort. ]

Okay, but you are ignoring his speech when he said to protect US interest.

By the way, this is all at the expense of recognition of real genocide going on in the DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo).

http://www.genocidewatch.org/GenocideEmergencyIturi.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/congojournal/

[
(5) ON Iraq -- All experts agree that we cannot simply pull out 100% of our forces from Iraq. Leaving behind a residual force to assit the Iraqi army, until it can hold it's own, makes sense.]

This is ignoring the fact that the Iraqi government wants us out. They have made a declaration that they want us out by 2011, residual forces included.

[
(6) On Nafta -- Obama support re-negotiating it, which means he favors changing it to be more fair. He wants to add more regualtion into it.]

What indicates that? And that does not change the fact that he used to oppose it.

David W. Irish said...

(1) Single Payer Health Care...

I agree -- single Payer, TAX-FUNDED healthcare is a great idea, especially for a rich nation like ours. It would cost employers NOTHING, and in effect, would give everyone in the country access to healthcare. Unfortunately, to get to that point, we have to end the cash-cow for a bunch of insurance companies and private for-profit health care corporations, who would cease to exist if we did it (or if they were unable to adapt). On the one hand, the brave capitalists can say "Tough cookies, insurance companies and for-profits -- if you cannot adapt your business to make money doing something else, then your failure is your own fault". I doubt that they would loow that to happen without a fight -- especially since many of the elected officials who would have to vote on it are either part of those companies, or take lots of bribes from them. We cannot just do it, without serious and costly ramifications. It would take years of lobbying, and the government getting sued -- and there are too many STUPID PEOPLE in America who would be easily fooled into siding with the corporations on this (just as do whenever the right-wing media pundits tell them to).

In short, the Obama plan is a compromise, but like I said, it will not pass, and get forgotten among all the other proposals for healthcare reform that fly through Washington during election season.

About FISA...

You say I didn't mention it, but I did. This is what the Wiki article you posted said:

"As noted above, Obama voted to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act, which extended the Act, but with some amendments. Such amendments would clarify the rights of an individual who has received FISA orders to challenge nondisclosure requirements and to refuse disclosure of the name of their attorney."

In short, he voted for it, but only after he got some amendments added to it -- GIVING THE ACCUSED THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THEIR DETENTION. That essentially takes the balls out of it, making it useless, because the original act was all about locking people up without supervision or recourse, and just forgetting about them. With the Amendments tacked onto it, the Patriot act now has oversight, and that means that it's no use to the fascists.

About Dafur...

You're obviously using completely different (possibly FRINGE) sources for your info. I do not believe that Obama, McCain, or indeed anyone in Washington, uses your sources, and in fact, most likely will use the USUAL news sources, as well as listen to what is being talked about in the UN. According to the BBC, this is what the UN says about the conflict:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3496731.stm

"The president is alleged to have "masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy in substantial part the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups, on account of their ethnicity. His motives were largely political. His alibi was a 'counterinsurgency.' His intent was genocide."

About Faith Based Initiatives...

I said that I disagree with them, and disagree with obama for supporting them. I am not going to defend them or waste time on them.

You said: "I never look for perfection, but I do not think he sucks a lot less. I am just looking for decent."

So who are you for? Ralph Nader? Ron Paul? Or Lyndon "Scam-artist" Larouche? Or perhaps someone that nobody has ever heard of who will just be forgotten about, like the socialist party or Communist party candidate? Or are you one fo those people who doesn't vote because you believe that your vote never matters?

On Iraq...

I believe that is what Obama's plan is -- pulling out by 2011, slowly, as the Iraqi armed forces gain strength and can take over everything we were doing. Heck, he talked to the Iraqi government about it at one point.

On Nafta...

Obama support re-negotiating it, which means he favors changing it to be more fair. He wants to add more regualtion into it. I get this impression, BECAUSE HE SAID SO:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061815

"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.

Obama says he believes in "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people."

Obama initially opposed it, because the information coming back was largely negative. However, the actual numbers show that it had a positive effect on the economies of the USA and Mexico. Unfortunately, when people see the income disparity between the USA and Mexico, they barf, even though Nafta actually helped to increase wages and benefits for a lot of Mexicans -- just not an increase that is proportional to the USA. So from his comments above, it reads like he acknowledges that there is still a problem, and that he wants to make it work FOR ALL PEOPLE (his words), and not just some.

Now you don't believe him, of course, but that's your perogative.

So who or what do you support?

GamingAsshole said...

Well, this post is loaded with insults and shortcomings, and all kinds of misguided and uneducated observations. However, I shall still respond:

[I agree -- single Payer, TAX-FUNDED healthcare is a great idea, especially for a rich nation like ours. It would cost employers NOTHING, and in effect, blah blah blah...]

The problem is, HR 676 already has 92 co sponsors and was submitted by John Conyers (prominent in the house) himself. It is growing support, and it is a perfect oppurtunity for Obama to push through Single Payer health care. Sure, it will take a lot of work and effort, but all real change does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HR_676

[In short, he voted for it, but only after he got some amendments added to it -- GIVING THE ACCUSED THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THEIR DETENTION. That essentially takes the balls out of it, making it useless, because the original act was all about locking people up without supervision or recourse, and just forgetting about them. With the Amendments tacked onto it, the Patriot act now has oversight, and that means that it's no use to the fascists.
]

His "FISA" admendments DID not get attached to the FISA bill.

"He originally opposed efforts to include any legal immunity, especially retroactive immunity, for government officials and telecommunications firms alleged to have taken part in the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program as part of legislation to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.[102] However, on June 20, 2008, Obama issued a statement saying that he would support the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 passed the previous week by the House of Representatives, although he would attempt to have a retroactive immunity provision included in the bill removed before it came to a Senate floor vote.[103] Obama's decision to vote in favor of a bill containing an immunity provision attracted criticism from some of his activist supporters.[104] Obama voted for an amendment to strip retroactive immunity from the bill, but the amendment failed to pass.[105] On July 9, he voted for the entire FISA amendments bill which still included retroactive immunity.[106]"

And the Patriot Act is still a dangerous bill, it was used to jail the RNC protestors, who then in turned were held long enough to where they were not released until after the convention. The Patriot act is more about doing things without warrents, and accountability, rather than just throwing someone in a hole indefinietly. But that was of course part of the Patriot act, and I am glad Obama's admendment to it passed, it still doesn't change the bad parts that still exist, and how it still is a gross violation of our civil liberties.


[You're obviously using completely different (possibly FRINGE) sources for your info.]

No I am not. What sources tell you there is not a civil war?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan#Eastern_Front

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Chad_(2005%E2%80%93present)

I mean, its just about oil.

[ccording to the BBC, this is what the UN says about the conflict:]

What the UN says has merit? Arent they the organization trying to ban religious criticism around the world? Who cares that that organization says? However, I did see these gems:

"There are two main rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (Jem), although both groups have split, some along ethnic lines. "

"It admits mobilising "self-defence militias" following rebel attacks but denies any links to the Janjaweed, accused of trying to "cleanse" black Africans from large swathes of territory. "

"Millions have fled their destroyed villages, with some two million in camps near Darfur's main towns. "

"Chad's eastern areas have a similar ethnic make-up to Darfur and the violence has spilled over the border area. Both capitals have also been attacked this year by rebel groups. "

"The leader of one SLA faction, Minni Minnawi, who signed a peace deal in 2006 after long-running talks in Nigeria, was given a large budget and became a presidential adviser."

Wow, sounds like a civil war to me. What, were the US, Spanish and Chinese civil wars genocide? Or was what happened in Tibet "genocide?" Haha, give me a break!

[So who are you for? Ralph Nader? Ron Paul? Or Lyndon "Scam-artist" Larouche? Or perhaps someone that nobody has ever heard of who will just be forgotten about, like the socialist party or Communist party candidate? Or are you one fo those people who doesn't vote because you believe that your vote never matters?]

Typical American yuppie liberal response, insulting, demeaning, and not informed whatsoever. I would consider answering you if your question wasn't so clearly bait to attempt to mock and troll whatever choice I give you. Quit being an asshole, and I'll be more inclined to answer you.

[I believe that is what Obama's plan is -- pulling out by 2011, slowly]

Actually, he wants to leave a permanent residual force, but if he was for leaving, good. However, it does not matter who becomes president anyway since the Iraqi government wants us out.

[
Obama support re-negotiating it, which means he favors changing it to be more fair. He wants to add more regualtion into it. I get this impression, BECAUSE HE SAID SO:]

Cool, more regulation to exploit people?

[Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.]

You think you are a real prophet aren't ya? Do you read minds? I am not going to entertain your "predictions" since they are usually wrong.

[Obama says he believes in "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people."
Obama initially opposed it, because the information coming back was largely negative. However, the actual numbers show that it had a positive effect on the economies of the USA and Mexico. Unfortunately, when people see the income disparity between the USA and Mexico, they barf, even though Nafta actually helped to increase wages and benefits for a lot of Mexicans -- just not an increase that is proportional to the USA. So from his comments above, it reads like he acknowledges that there is still a problem, and that he wants to make it work FOR ALL PEOPLE (his words), and not just some.]

NAFTA is just like the WTO, which is just used to exploit third world countries to our economic benefit. Most Mexicans are opposed to NAFTA. NAFTA fucks them over.

Who has been sending American jobs to China and Mexico? Who supported NAFTA? Its big business, largely with the aid of the Republican Party. Who has supported lax immigration rules to allow more foreign immigrants into the US, another thing that conservatives typically oppose? It has been big business and the Republican Party. Corporations like the cheaper labor provided by immigrants and thus support laws that bolster immigration.

Enter NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, backed and signed by the Republicans in the 1990s as a measure of "free-trade". This issue is also heavily linked with the immigration issue.

NAFTA was supposed to be a "win-win" for America, Canada, and Mexico, that would "lift all boats", but since the signing of NAFTA Mexican immigration to America to find decent paying jobs has skyrocketed.

The reason that we have immigration from "3rd world countries" into America and Europe is because America and Europe are exploiting the 3rd world countries. The West enriches itself by underpaying labor in third world countries and essentially stealing their natural resources, so those countries have extremely depressed economies. The depression of their economies is what enables the West to enrich itself. The West is enriched at the expense of the 3rd world, so of course people from 3rd world countries are better off moving here. By moving here they remove themselves from the area of exploitation and go to the area that is on the receiving end of the exchanges.

So, how do we solve the "immigration problem" with Mexico? Well, the first thing to do would be to force American companies to start paying higher wages in Mexico, but the problem that you have there is that we can't only do it in Mexico, because then they will just move operations to Pakistan, or Vietnam, or Indonesia, or China, or wherever, so really, the first step in solving the immigration problem is a global minimum wage for Western countries. In other words, American, European, Australian, Japanese, companies, etc. should be forced into a pact where they have to pay workers in the 3rd world some minimum wage.

For example, since 9/11 American business with Pakistan has increased dramatically due to changes in American import laws. The American government gives millions of dollars a year to the Pakistani government, under the banner of "foreign aid", yet American companies employ Pakistani workers for less than 37 cents an hour, or purchase goods from Pakistani contractors who pay less than 37 cents an hour. Why are we paying foreign aid to a country were we under-pay the workers?!?! Just pay the workers a decent wage and there will be no need for foreign aid, which in reality only goes to government officials and corrupt politicians who keep the people oppressed.

Secondly, to solve the problem with Mexico, instead of wasting money on enforcement programs here, or on building absurd walls and fences, we should spend that money helping Mexico develop its economy.

This should be completely obvious to any sane person.

Why waste resources on something non-productive, like building a wall or getting more patrol officers, when those resources could be used to create more capital? If we help make Mexico more productive then everyone will benefit, mostly the Mexicans, who will then have no reason to immigrate to America in the first place. Obviously Mexicans are hard workers, so there is no problem with Mexican labor or desire. The Mexicans have a very strong desire to work hard and get ahead, much stronger than most Americans, which is why they risk death to come here and work their fingers to the bone.

[Now you don't believe him, of course, but that's your perogative.

So who or what do you support?]

Dude, if you wanted a real answer to this, then you should not have been condesending or insulting. Sorry.

GamingAsshole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GamingAsshole said...

Woops, made a mistake with the link. Here:

http://tinyurl.com/4ncmhr

"If that nigger Obama gets elected, I swear on my autism, I will create him in Soul Caliber 4 and destroy that nigger!

GamingAsshole said...

Oh wow, I was checking my post before I hit the sack, and I forgot to ask you this: Since you seem seriously misinformed about NAFTA, I want to ask you one question: Why are you in favor for something, which is in rhetoric at least, free trade? You went on about how free trade is bad and somehow benefits corporations even though they are the ones that fight against it the most, yet here you are, promoting something that is primarily promoted and used by big corporations in America and Canada and despised by Mexicans. What gives?

David W. Irish said...

Okay Gaming Asshole,

Your method of discussion is a very familiar one to me. The method of discussion you are using goes like this:

(1) Pick a few minor points of contention, and ask your opponent to clarify his position on them, or justify his position.

(2) When asked about your own position, ignore the request.

(3) Drag the discussion onto new points and topics, never actually focussing on one.

(4) If your point is refuted with evidence, acknowledge or ignore it, and pick new topics to question your opponent about.

(5) Keep your opponent on the defensive, always asking them questions, but never really answering any asked of you.

(6) Keep burying your opponent in more and more topics so as to make them waste hours dealing with you, while never actually making your own positions clear, or being questioned by your opponent.

So until you state your positions clearly and concisely, I'm not going to continue this conversation. This is a blog, not a newsgroup. If you want to have a discussion on a hundred different political issues, then GO TO A NEWSGROUP or MESSAGE BOARD.

GamingAsshole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GamingAsshole said...

Psycho Dave, your method of conversation is typical. You have ignored half of what I have said, usually by shrugging it off, or by giving them half-baked answers, and the other half by answered with dishonest or deceitful language, and lot of idealizied mumbo-jumbo. You have even tried to do some pathetic trolling, which needless to say was kind of surprising. I mean, seriously.

[(1) Pick a few minor points of contention, and ask your opponent to clarify his position on them, or justify his position.]

I have never asked you to justify anything.

[(2) When asked about your own position, ignore the request.

(3) Drag the discussion onto new points and topics, never actually focussing on one.

(4) If your point is refuted with evidence, acknowledge or ignore it, and pick new topics to question your opponent about.
(5) Keep your opponent on the defensive, always asking them questions, but never really answering any asked of you.So until you state your positions clearly and concisely, I'm not going to continue this conversation. This is a blog, not a newsgroup. If you want to have a discussion on a hundred different political issues, then GO TO A NEWSGROUP or MESSAGE BOARD.]

Dude, the minute you tried to troll me was the minute the conversation was over. I have already had this conversation anyway with you, which just amounted you to admitting your real feelings on the matter, but I thought I'd go a little further into it here. If you were really honest on wanting to know my positions and who or what I support, I'd answer. In other words, you are not going to goad me into saying I support something simply for you to mock it. Sorry, not going to waste my time on trolls.

GamingAsshole said...

By the way, Psycho Dave, you have this bizarre tendency to pair things unrelated together. If you wanted to ask me who I support in the elections, try not to say dumb things like:


"So who are you for? Ralph Nader? Ron Paul? Or Lyndon "Scam-artist" Larouche? Or perhaps someone that nobody has ever heard of who will just be forgotten about, like the socialist party or Communist party candidate? Or are you one fo those people who doesn't vote because you believe that your vote never matters?"

Learn to have a discussion.

David W. Irish said...

Sorry, buddy, but you're not going to shame me into anything. You're basically an asshole, and I'm not the only one who is annoyed at you for the way you conduct yourself. I mean half the people at FTAA want to ring your neck.

What you need to do is fucking grow the fuck up.

GamingAsshole said...

Shame you? What are you talking about?

As for ringing, do you mean Anon?