Obama rocks 200,000 in Berlin (2 Viewers)

[A High Way Man]

I reckon Jon Favreau could give Peter Robinson a good fight

 

[zstar]

It's interesting how everyone is supporting Obama without even knowing his policies.

For example I haven't heard him talk about solving the subprime crisis in America. American politics is all about money and only those who have money can be elected.

Don't be fooled by his demeanor, Obama is no different. He like the rest are the bankers and lobbyist candidates.

 

[Slidey]

It's interesting how everyone is supporting Obama without even knowing his policies.

For example I haven't heard him talk about solving the subprime crisis in America. American politics is all about money and only those who have money can be elected.

Don't be fooled by his demeanor, Obama is no different. He like the rest are the bankers and lobbyist candidates.

You are clueless.

 

[bigboyjames]

edit

 

[sam04u]

It's interesting how everyone is supporting Obama without even knowing his policies.

For example I haven't heard him talk about solving the subprime crisis in America. American politics is all about money and only those who have money can be elected.

Don't be fooled by his demeanor, Obama is no different. He like the rest are the bankers and lobbyist candidates.

Obama has his hands tied.
An American running for president in the current Political climate with the strong influence of the media is under extreme pressure. They only really get 1 or 2 policies of their own to run on. They have to support Israel, or they don't get off the starting block. They have to support corporate American, or they don't get to the finishing line.

What he "can" change.
1) American healthcare
2) America's economy (war down-time)
3) America's image around the world (less American's killing innocents in new wars and less people blowing themselves up as a result.)

That's enough reason to vote for him if you ask me.


But still, that doesn't make him my ideal candidate. Gravel, Kucinich, (Heck - even Ron Paul betters him in some of his policies). What makes him the "best" candidate though, is he has a chance of winning, and he is the lesser of the evils.

We'll know what he is though, when he wins, and he says "I'd like to thank my opponents (He'll thank McCain), and also the former administration."

That's right. He'll praise the war-monger and corporate lap-dog Bush.

He'll then say "I would also like... <insert terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan> to know I'm going to <insert act of violence>"

Then we'll all be dissapointed. And that'll pave the way for the revolution!

 

[withoutaface]

Obama voted to save Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and voted yea for FISA.

Not good.

FM/FM bailout was fucking disgraceful.

 

[sam04u]

Obama voted to save Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and voted yea for FISA.

Not good.

That was a stupid move. They should have moved to bring them into Public ownership, if they're going to ask to be bailed out on public expenses.

 

[sam04u]

FM/FM bailout was fucking disgraceful.

The same happened in Britain with Northern Rock. Totally disgraceful.

 

[sam04u]

They should have let them fall, dude. They made terrible decisions. The role of government is NOT to bail out private businesses.

I agree with you fully. The implications of them "falling" though, would be devastating. So they had to either let them fall, and watch the aftermath, or take over it and see what to do with it from there.

 

[Slidey]

Obama voted to save Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and voted yea for FISA.

Not good.

Presumably you know the full story about FISA, but just in case:

Obama initially voted against FISA. When it was modified to be less drastic (e.g. external court decision rather than White House decision, among other things), he saw the new modified law as the lesser of two evils.

FISA is mainly an anti-terrorist law. People are up in arms about it because of the retroactive immunity granted to the telecom companies that OBEYED the government's demands for wiretapping (what exactly were they meant to do? Incite a revolution?). If anybody is to blame, it's the Bush administration.

At least the new FISA grants a route of appeal for the retroactive immunity.

 

[sam04u]

I disagree. I understand the human consequences would be rather terrible. In the long term though it fosters utterly unacceptable corporate behaviour. Giving them a blank check [as you rightly disagree with] is terrible.

Well, in the case of Fannie Mae (FNMA) atleast, formerly owned by the state and later privatised in the 70s, it's not totally unrealistic for it to go back into state ownership. A government's role is not to private business (we both agree with this), but it is to the people (human consequences).

What they DID though, was dismal. You can't have a government FUNDED private business, that's just utterly retarded.

 

[sam04u]

Presumably you know the full story about FISA, but just in case:

Obama initially voted against FISA. When it was modified to be less drastic (e.g. external court decision rather than White House decision, among other things), he saw the new modified law as the lesser of two evils.

FISA is mainly an anti-terrorist law. People are up in arms about it because of the retroactive immunity granted to the telecom companies that OBEYED the government's demands for wiretapping (what exactly were they meant to do? Incite a revolution?). If anybody is to blame, it's the Bush administration.

At least the new FISA grants a route of appeal for the retroactive immunity.

The whole affair was just WRONG.
It goes against the U.S constitution, etc, etc.

 

[Slidey]

Neil, they obeyed unconstitutional demands from a government and never revealed it to the press. They basically gave the US Government carte blanche to use their systems for UNWARRANTED WIRETAPS.

If that doesn't sicken you, then...

They deliberately disobeyed the law and the constitution and were asked for unconstitutional access. The government demanded something it had no right to, and they capitulated instead of going to the press. Unconscionable, they need to be raked over the coals for it. The only way for there to be any justice done here is the companies must have legal culpability.

Giving them a full pass and full immunity is ridiculous.

I agree.

EDIT: The Appeal is already gone, dude.

Well, there wasn't any appeal to begin with, and now there is one (albeit weak).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#FISA_court

 

[A High Way Man]

well atleast obama didn't support the telecom immunity

This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

 

[Slidey]

I have zero respect for the Bush administration, and I think it has brutally perverted many of America's economic & social checks, balances and safeguards; it has basically shown disturbing disregard for its citizens's rights in general.

But there's little anyone can do about it but thank the Invisible Pink Unicorn that they'll be booted out shortly and replaced with somebody altogether more competent (even if it's just fucking McCain).

The way their economy is, I'm not sure vilifying telecos would help anybody.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Yes, it's called the media.

(And I know, it's tiring listening to people always bitching about the media, but it's true.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZtQUEY1IU8

 

[sam04u]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZtQUEY1IU8

I've seen it. Quite funny. But are you denying the media is working in collusion with the neocon governments, and their agendas?

 

[Slidey]

I've seen it. Quite funny. But are you denying the media is working in collusion with the neocon governments, and their agendas?

"The media"? I guess that includes even Al Jazeera and ABC, all the time, every story?

Bit of a blanket statement there, mate. I do wish that the majority of press wasn't owned by two multinational corporations.

But this isn't fucking Russia.

Edit: or worse, China.

 

[sam04u]

"The media"? I guess that includes even Al Jazeera and ABC, all the time, every story?

Bit of a blanket statement there, mate. I do wish that the majority of press wasn't owned by two multinational corporations.

But this isn't fucking Russia.

Oh well, you're right in that it was a generalisation. Not every story, not every station, not all the time. But most of the time, on most of the stations, and most of the stories.

I second your other statements though.

 

[Slidey]

Sam, take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index#Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index_Ranking