Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
lord_casek

Obama: The New George Bush

Recommended Posts

Instead of having a thread full of cliche "rah rah rah fuck Obama, politicians lie bro smoke more weed fuck the government" bullshit,

 

F the govt bullshit? a stand against tyranny is bullshit?

for the record, im straightedge, so you can erase that 'smoke weed fuck the govt' statement.

 

Also, as I've said before, starting two wars is completely different than what Obama is doing. He inherited the situation. Cutting the cord would entail a LOT more problems than you seem to realize. On the other hand, it might end up being the lesser of two evils. I don't think he deserved the Nobel Peace prize, but I don't think it means all that much.

 

as i said in my other post...'but dooooood...he inherited it!' is the typical predictable DEFENSE of a lying politician.

 

Also, he campaigned on ending the wars responsibly, not immediately. He said Afghanistan was a war worth fighting during his campaign. I'm not sure about that, but we'll see whether it turns into a slog or finally wraps up. I'm not going to even respond to the drug fields comment until I see some real, reasonably unbiased information supporting it.

 

maybe you should just stop drinking the kool aid and actually listen to what the guy said...

its only 15 sec.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk

 

 

sorry, i cant make any apologies for any of these clowns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
F the govt bullshit? a stand against tyranny is bullshit?

for the record, im straightedge, so you can erase that 'smoke weed fuck the govt' statement.

 

Well luckily you don't have to smoke weed to have half-baked ideas. I'm sure the fight against "tyranny" must make you feel very special.

 

as i said in my other post...'but dooooood...he inherited it!' is the typical predictable DEFENSE of a lying politician.

 

When it comes to war, it's more objective: the war was started by the previous president, and was still going on when Obama entered office. Thus, he inherited it. Quite simple.

 

maybe you should just stop drinking the kool aid and actually listen to what the guy said...

its only 15 sec.

 

:rolleyes: Which war? Iraq? He also didn't give a time frame. Short clips like that are almost always out of context. Like that one where Obama supposedly calls for the creation of a civilian police force. Do you believe that one too?

 

Anyway you didn't really respond to what I said, you just nitpicked. Beating around the bush isn't an effective way to argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well luckily you don't have to smoke weed to have half-baked ideas. I'm sure the fight against "tyranny" must make you feel very special.

 

i continually LOLZ at the people who consider any defense of the constitution and/or natural law, the founding origins and ideas of this country as silly, evil or in this case 'half baked.'

i mean really... where do you people come from?

are we really from the same country? was our country founded on the idea of a rigorous defense of natural liberty or not? this is radical and 'half baked?' the bush-obama era is an assault on traditional american freedoms. and you think any reaction to these assaults are stupid? are you serious?

 

 

When it comes to war, it's more objective: the war was started by the previous president, and was still going on when Obama entered office. Thus, he inherited it. Quite simple.

 

allow me to quite simply summarize your unwavering defense of obama.

obama is justified in continuing to wage a war where ever and whenever he wants for however long in however manner, even though he campaigned on ending the war and bringing the troops home... just because a general or an advisor says it should last forever, should be fought in a certain manner, etc.

and also, obama is not a hypocrite or a liar for not attempting to end the war, which was a campaign promise and is why the left elected obama, simply because he inherited the war from bush. because he inherited the war, everything is justified. the thousands of civilian deaths. its all justified, simply because bush started it. nevermind the fact that the president was elected by a semi anti war left that wanted the war ended and the fact that the president is the commander in chief and can literally end the war with the snap of his fingers! withdrawing troops is about the only campaign promise he could actually constitutionally deliver!

QUITE FUCKING SIMPLE.

 

Like that one where Obama supposedly calls for the creation of a civilian police force. Do you believe that one too?

 

 

do you believe that obama was elected as an anti war candidate to bring an end to the war or not?

civilian police force? never heard of that one.

but it is no secret that prominent democrats (cant figure out why republicans havent been on board)have sought since atleast 2003 to create universal mandatory national service. rangel, manuel, and all the crew support this conscription.

 

i'd like to revive this thread and listen to the mainframe apologia about obama not delivering on the promises of his speech last night. in about 18 months...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you still haven't even responded to what I've said at all. You seem to prefer taking your blanket assumptions and applying them to me. That's nice but it's starting to bore me. If you can drop the rhetoric and actually respond to my last substantial post we can continue this discussion.

 

Until then, I think you missed this link:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nuance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
look casek, you better get out of here with that conspiracy kook smoke weed hate the government youtube video

 

nuance, dude. google it

 

 

Oh yeah...forgive me.

 

 

Ohhhhhh baaaaaaaaaaa ma is our great leader. He will save us from the evil brown people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well you still haven't even responded to what I've said at all. You seem to prefer taking your blanket assumptions and applying them to me. That's nice but it's starting to bore me. If you can drop the rhetoric and actually respond to my last substantial post we can continue this discussion.

 

Until then, I think you missed this link:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nuance

 

And your above any of that?

 

Seriously man look in the mirror.

 

This reminds me of someone else I used to go back and forth with in here. Constantly dishing out jabs and then when he gets one in return I am the immature one. You lump everyone that believes in liberty into one stereotype.

 

Get the fuck out of here.

 

Fixed. And Aldous Huxley is a eugenicist nazi, right?

 

Ya we're all racists now too.

 

Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal, nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fixed. And Aldous Huxley is a eugenicist nazi, right?

 

You got it.

 

http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL9912/julian_huxley.htm

 

In his second Galton Lecture Huxley was more concerned with the increase in mankind’s genetic load caused by the growing number of those with genetic defects being kept alive by medical advances long enough to breed and the possibility of radioactive fallout producing a new crop of harmful mutations. He argued that it would be possible, and was necessary, to lighten this load by discouraging those with inherited defects from reproducing, by reducing man-made radiation as much as possible, and by slowing down the rate of population increase. These are, of course, negative eugenic policies and probably acceptable to many who would instinctively oppose anything with a eugenic label. Genetic counselling is now widely available, at least in the developed world, and the dangers of overpopulation and excessive radiation are now well understood even if the efforts to control them are only partially successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^That's Aldous' father you're talking about. He did not share his father's views. Actually, if you read Point Counter Point, there is a character based on Julian Huxley. He is depicted as well meaning but ultimately foolish, a bit too self-important and absorbed with his work, and far too scientifically detached from the realities of human society.

 

That's not to mention the fact that Aldous Huxley penned a very popular dystopia condemning eugenics. Honestly casek, as much as I try to at least consider what you say on here, calling Aldous Huxley a eugenicist nazi is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on the internet. Unless you're trolling, in which case...good show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^That's Aldous' father you're talking about. He did not share his father's views. Actually, if you read Point Counter Point, there is a character based on Julian Huxley. He is depicted as well meaning but ultimately foolish, a bit too self-important and absorbed with his work, and far too scientifically detached from the realities of human society.

 

That's not to mention the fact that Aldous Huxley penned a very popular dystopia condemning eugenics. Honestly casek, as much as I try to at least consider what you say on here, calling Aldous Huxley a eugenicist nazi is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on the internet. Unless you're trolling, in which case...good show.

 

His brother. Learn to read. Aldous was an admitted eugenicist.

 

That famous dystopian novel talks about lower classes not even being able to talk as well and refers to them as simians.

 

Again, learn to read.

 

Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) was Julian’s younger brother who achieved fame as a novelist, especially with his Brave New World first published in 1932. It seems likely that this satirical account of a possible future for the human race was, at least in part, inspired by Aldous’ knowledge of his brother’s interests since the literary circles in which he moved almost invariably used each other and their friends and relations as models for their fictional characters.(3)In his forward to the 1955 Penguin edition Aldous refers to a “foolproof system of eugenics” as an essential part of his plot.(4)Brave New World is set in a time when there has been considerable progress in the biological and social sciences but little, if any, in physics and engineering. Nuclear physics is unknown and technology is much as it was in the 1930s. However, humans are, mainly, cloned in the laboratory in the right numbers of various kinds to preserve the perceived optimum social class ratios. At a time when most writers of science fiction were fascinated by and fixated on the ideas of space travel, death rays, and similar technological wonders, Aldous Huxley was one of the few to base his future society on mankind taking control of its own evolution.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VNzW4gBibc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bad on the family mix-up, I was actually basing that on your previous comments, I didn't read that bio you posted. That just means PCP wasn't relevant. That book didn't mention eugenics in any case.

 

But anyway, it's not really up to debate whether Brave New World was a dystopia or not. Fact: he depicts a eugenics-based society as a bad thing. The book is taught that way in schools, and having read it twice I can say definitively that while Aldous Huxley considered eugenics a possible future reality, his book was a strong indictment of that possibility. Using an intellectual contemporary/family member's interests as a literary model in a satire should not be construed as support of said interests. I recall you saying you had read Brave New World. Maybe you should learn to understand what you read.

 

Also, that speech indicates absolutely nothing to the contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From that speech:

 

"It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: That we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude. This is the, it seems to me, the ultimate in malevolent revolutions shall we say, and this is a problem which has interested me many years and about which I wrote thirty years ago, a fable, Brave New World, which is an account of society making use of all the devices available and some of the devices which I imagined to be possible making use of them in order to, first of all, to standardize the population, to iron out inconvenient human differences, to create, to say, mass produced models of human beings arranged in some sort of scientific caste system. Since then, I have continued to be extremely interested in this problem and I have noticed with increasing dismay a number of the predictions which were purely fantastic when I made them thirty years ago have come true or seem in process of coming true."

 

 

I realize this has nothing to do with Obama but in a roundabout way it's sort of relevant to the conversation regarding government and liberty and the way a few people around here perceive things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're starting to sound like soaker man. Not a good look.

dont_tread_on_me.jpg

 

Go fuck yer nuanced self ya neo-liberal fascist wind bag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And your above any of that?

 

Seriously man look in the mirror.

 

This reminds me of someone else I used to go back and forth with in here. Constantly dishing out jabs and then when he gets one in return I am the immature one. You lump everyone that believes in liberty into one stereotype.

 

Get the fuck out of here.

 

You got it backwards dude. And this is about liberty? It sounds like you're just getting defensive. I don't have any type of strong political "beliefs" at all, but I do find that people who DO, (in this case the liberty lovers, bless em) have a tendency to twist the facts to support their beliefs. That goes for the overzealous all across the spectrum of political beliefs. It's kind of interesting. I'm about understanding the world and what is happening in it, not raging about how it fails to live up to my personal expectations and beliefs. I'm a scientist, not a politician.

 

Ya we're all racists now too.

 

Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal, nice.

 

I was just responding in kind. It's a joke, that's not really what I think you guys believe. I know I'm not arguing with racists. The Huxley thing, however, is a pretty egregious piece of ignorance. That doesn't concern you though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, mainframe. I get ya. We just have differing beliefs. I don't think you're quite the asshole you portray yourself to be here.

 

Btw: What kind of scientist are you? I don't think I've ever asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since all verbal tone is lost on a message board, a lot of people come across as assholes when expressing opinions. People tend to sound more serious, and jokes aren't always obvious. I understand that.

 

My degree is in Physics. I like to think "scientific" describes my approach to politics pretty well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since all verbal tone is lost on a message board, a lot of people come across as assholes when expressing opinions. People tend to sound more serious, and jokes aren't always obvious. I understand that.

 

My degree is in Physics. I like to think "scientific" describes my approach to politics pretty well.

 

 

Cool. 'Physicist' is nothing to be ashamed of calling yourself. Read any Michio Kaku?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You got it backwards dude. And this is about liberty? It sounds like you're just getting defensive. I don't have any type of strong political "beliefs" at all, but I do find that people who DO, (in this case the liberty lovers, bless em) have a tendency to twist the facts to support their beliefs. That goes for the overzealous all across the spectrum of political beliefs. It's kind of interesting. I'm about understanding the world and what is happening in it, not raging about how it fails to live up to my personal expectations and beliefs. I'm a scientist, not a politician.

 

 

 

I was just responding in kind. It's a joke, that's not really what I think you guys believe. I know I'm not arguing with racists. The Huxley thing, however, is a pretty egregious piece of ignorance. That doesn't concern you though.

 

 

I don't really rage too often on here. Perhaps years ago, however I am a little older now.

 

However if I think that someone is accusing me of things that I am not, I will get defensive. Pretty sure most people do.

 

I feel you on all of that taking stuff out of context on the internet. I do it all the time, so I apologize.

 

I'll respond more about why this all boils down to my freedom to make choices for myself.

 

Got absolutely zero sleep last night and I just pulled an 8 hour shift from hell, time to pass out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...