Gwaan choo barack

[Emperah]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R_C</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He could close Guantanamo by executive order.
He could have TRIED to get single payer healthcare and he ran like a scalded cat from that.
HE is expanding the wars and extending the time we we be in several countries.
This is Obama's doing .</div></div>

As wonderful an example as you will find anywhere of the differing skill sets required to be an anonymous poster on a blog and those required to be President of the United States. </div></div>

Bush blows a huge hole in that theory bredren.

And to think I or anyone on here who speaks against the movements of Obama because of his colour is foolishness, just as it is foolish for anyone to give him a bly because of his colour.

[f0rTyLeGz]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R_C</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He could close Guantanamo by executive order.
He could have TRIED to get single payer healthcare and he ran like a scalded cat from that.
HE is expanding the wars and extending the time we we be in several countries.
This is Obama's doing .</div></div>

As wonderful an example as you will find anywhere of the differing skill sets required to be an anonymous poster on a blog and those required to be President of the United States. </div></div>
Agree!

Even though &quot;we&quot; can only read and write at a ninth grade level, there is no one that I would rather have at the top of the executive branch of the US government than Barack Obama. (Maybe we should only let <span style="font-style: italic">smart</span> people vote?)

[R_C]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

It's not about giving Obama a bly because of his color Dajah. He is a flawed individual, as we all are, and I certainly don't support everything that he does. As a matter of fact I happen to agree with jc on many of the issues that he raises. However, the level of vitriol that inevitably accompanies the raising of these issues is not something I share with him. And, I also find the use of Malcolm X by proxy for the purpose of calling black people who voted for him &quot;ignorant&quot; and so on, transparent and offensive.

As far as the post above about what Obama was supposed to have done, apparently by decree, let's just say that anyone who follows discussions in the 'International/Regional News and Current Events' forum would realize that jc knows that this is not as simple as he is making it out to be.

[neutral]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The average American has a ninth grade reading, comprehension and writing ability.
Most cannot pronounce Iraq or Iran correctly much less find it on a map with the names on it.
Most get their news and information from unreliable sources which they do not double check as a rule.

Something like 75% believe in angels.

Most went for the WMD big lie.

A huge percentage gives Creation equal footing with evolution.

A huge percentage have mandatory religious beliefs that carry over in their blind obedience to authority . </div></div>

Must agree with you on all of these.

[johnnycakes]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

. And, I also find the use of Malcolm X by proxy for the purpose of calling black people who voted for him &quot;ignorant&quot; and so on, transparent and offensive.



R-C,

I am a white man who has been called racist on several occasions and while I regard those charges as ludicrous I am aware that because I am white the race card will be used against me when those whom I oppose run out of factual arguments .


Malcolm X at that time spoke plainly and truthfully when he said the black people who voted for a lesser-of-two-evils candidate were &quot;stupid and ignorant&quot;

My point is that if Malcolm X thought it was true and could say it, I too can point out the obvious.
Of course you don't like what Malcolm X said.
You think Obama will do just fine as do most people who vote for lesser-of-two evil candidates.

As to the &quot;vitriol&quot; well it's just one of my shortcomings my not liking a man with all the power in the world and who uses it to go overseas and kill people for their money.

Again, if you accept Obama, the lesser of two evils you accept the atrocity-filled foreign policy that he pursues EXACTLY LIKE ALL HIS WHITE PREDECESSORS.

And you cannot speak badly of President Hopey Changey so you have to accept that he is ACTIVELY pursuing policies that slaughter innocent men, women and children.

And it is as simple as Obama doing what he's already doing by waging war in violation of the law, just come out and say 'We're pulling out of Guantanamo immediately.&quot; or &quot;We're getting out of Iraq, Afghanistan , Pakistan, Yemen post haste.&quot;

Obama does not WANT to do it.
He never did.

[queenb]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

Johnnycakes: For the last 250 years or so of the USA, whenever non-white citizens try to hold the majority &quot;white” Americans responsible for the form/content of the American experience, they have been accused of using the ‘race’ card. I am distressed that you have fallen into that mind-set. I find that your posts here <span style="font-weight: bold">IDENTICAL</span> to those of the <span style="font-weight: bold">far-right</span>; challenging Obama’s allegiance to his father’s home country (raised by whites, why indeed would he have allegiance to his African father’s family?), challenging his inability to pass any legislation impacting African-Americans, (how could he, when <span style="font-weight: bold">ANY LEGISLATION</span> that he has put forth has met with universal recalcitrance of Republicans and luke-warm support from his own party members?). You mention his not closing Guantanamo Bay, but I think this is one of the many things he has had to give up in order to get co-operation of Congress, including the limpid support of his own party.
I don’t expect you to understand the Black experience in the New World. Apparently you are white. (I’m just guessing, since I don’t know you) White people <span style="font-weight: bold">CAN NEVER </span>understand the Black experience on this planet, because their perceptions are tainted by their <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="text-decoration: underline">white-ness</span></span>. In the Western experience, you might empathize, but you should not really form your opinions based on actual experience.
You are working on the delusion that a <span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-weight: bold">Communist/Socialist </span></span>government is exempt from racial prejudice; that a communist/socialist form of government (as you understand it, based on 19 and 20th century writings) is better than Capitalism. <span style="font-weight: bold">All of these forms of government are flawed;</span> based on pre-internet intelligence. The next form of government will conceptualize the new intelligence; that old forms of government are extinct, that government is evolving like humanity—changing, mutating, and growing. Intransigence is passé’—<span style="font-size: 14pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">loosen up, free your mind</span></span>. The forms of governance that you perceive are not the answer; new governance is lurking. <span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-weight: bold">Stop hating</span></span>. Understand that what you perceive is not the answer, what is, is not the answer; the answer has yet to be determined.

That being said; I enjoy your posts, but they seem to resemble those of the far, far, far, right. Maybe it's true; there is little difference between the far left and the far right.

[CyberPhobic]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

Nuff wite peeple nuh joke widdi foolynish to baxide doe ennuh.

Bwoy-oh-bwoy-oh-bwoy.

[SmoothOperator]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

Meantime right wingers like Drudge report completely ignore the Obama speech and are criticizing the First Lady for wearing a $2000 outfit during the recession while Middleton supposedly spent $350 on hers.

BTW, and I say this as someone who don't know nothing bout fashion, but Mrs O while very fit is a big lady with wide hips and slightly bow legged. She definitely should not be wearing anything above the knees or that make her look pear-shaped. I'd still date her though.

[queenb]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

Most people don't remember that Michelle was making about $300k/year herself before she became 1st lady, and was Barack's first boss in Chicago. I would suppose that the quality of her clothing has not changed a lot.

[Gen]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

The drudge report is comedy central.

[johnnycakes]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

queenb,

You have so many conceptual errors in your post that it will be difficult and long to go point by point so I will pick the two most egregious (IMO) and deal with those.

First of all I am not criticizing Obama for his race. Race is of little or no importance in being president.

No one you or I know who is a communist or socialist can be a racist.

It would be like a Christian who doesn't follow the teachings of Christ. That person is Christian in name only.,

None of the articles or websites that I use for my news sources can be considered racist: ZNET, TomDispatch, Havanatimes.org

If you've read my posts in the political/International forum over the past 10 years you'd know that I consider all presidents to be the same as far as most important policies are concerned.

I dislike them all equally because they all carry out a vicious foreign policy that kills innocent men,women and children because they happen to be living over OUR oil.

Obama's only difference is that he looks black.



Secondly,

For the umpteenth time, small &quot;c&quot; communism is a F-U-T-U-R-E state.
IT cannot be flawed, it is not flawed because at the moment it is only a theoretical term that cannot be tested until human societal evolution reaches the point of communist inevitability. There is an interim step of state control of the economy that has yet to take place and (IMO) this is about 20 years away at most.

That you think, that what I say and the items that I post are far, far, far right given the communist/socialist take they usually have on things and my long history of consistently far left positions means that you are somewhat confused as to what a communist is and isn't and what the right wing is and isn't.


The basic difference between right and left is that the right believes that profit is more important than humanity. That there can be 100 billionaires and millions of millionaires but that it's okay for billions to live in poverty and die by the tens of millions each year because they don't have any money.

The left; communists, socialists believe that each person should get what they need for a decent life FIRST and that takes into account higher pay for tougher work and then each person should give back to the society whatever kind of work that person can do best.
The needs of people come first, profits, second.


&quot;The next form of government will conceptualize the new intelligence; (exponential technological advances) that old forms of ( corrupt multi-party electoral politics replaced by direct computer hookup vote) government (and capitalism, now dying ) are extinct, that (democracy and each citizen's responsibilities under democracy) government (and morality) is evolving like (with) humanity—changing, mutating, and growing. Intransigence is passé’&quot;( Resistance IS futile.)




Now, this sentence above is exactly right but, I suspect, not for the reasons you are thinking. I added the parenthetical wording as what I thought you left out.

Your original sentence fits in very well, with what we Singulatarians believe will happen in the next 35 years or so.

[johnnycakes]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

Sorry,
Here's another racist based attack on Obama.

Understand President Obama is holding more power than any of the presidents before him and that power gives him the right to attack any person, country he feels like attacking.

Read this racist article that accuses him of unethical, immoral and illegal actions.
source: http://www.zcommunications.org/the-n...-conn-hallinan


The New Face Of War
By Conn Hallinan

Source: Dispatches From The EdgeSunday, May 29, 2011
Change Text Size a- | A+
Conn Hallinan's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace


The assassination of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden did more than knock off America's Public Enemy Number One, it formalized a new kind of warfare, where sovereignty is irrelevant, armies tangential, and decisions are secret. It is, in the words of counterinsurgency expert John Nagl, &quot;an astounding change in the nature of warfare.&quot;

It is also one that requires a vast intelligence apparatus, one that now constitute almost a fourth arm of government that most Americans are almost completely unaware of. Yet, according to the Washington Post, this empire includes some 1, 271 government agencies and 1,931 private companies in more than 10,000 locations across the country, with a budget last year of at least $80.1 billion.

&quot;At the heart of this new warfare,&quot; notes the Financial Times,&quot; is high-tech cooperation between intelligence agencies and the military&quot; that blurs the traditional borders between civilians and the armed forces. And it fits with the U.S.'s penchant for waging war with robots and covert Special Forces.

But, by definition, the secrecy at the core of the &quot;new warfare&quot; removes decisions about war and peace from the public realm and relegates them to secure rooms in the White House or clandestine bases in the Hindu Kush. When the Blackhawk helicopters slipped through Pakistani airspace, they did more than execute one of America's greatest bugbears, they essentially said another country's sovereignty was no longer relevant and consigned Congress to the role of spectator.

Over the past several decades U.S. military theorists have clashed over how to use the armed forces, though it is a debate that gets distorted by the requirements of industry: the U.S, does not really need 11 immense Nimitz class aircraft carriers, but the Newport News Shipbuilding Company-and the aerospace giants that fill the flattops with fighter bombers-do.

The arguments have revolved around three different approaches, the Powell Doctrine, the Rumsfeld Doctrine, and the Petraeus Doctrine.

The Powell Doctrine is essentially conventional warfare a-la-World War II: massive firepower, lots of soldiers, clear goals. This was the formula for the first Gulf War, which, after a month of bombing, lasted only four days. But it is a very expensive way to wage war.

The Rumsfeld Doctrine merged high tech firepower and Special Forces with a minimal use of Army and Marine units. It also relies on private contractors to do much of what was formerly done by the military. The doctrine routed the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 and quickly knocked out the Iraqi Army in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Once the shock and awe wore off, however, the Doctrine's weaknesses became obvious. It simply didn't have the manpower to hold the ground against a guerilla insurgency. The 2007 &quot;surge&quot; of troops in Iraq, like last year's surge in Afghanistan, was an admission that the doctrine was fundamentally flawed if the locals decided to keep fighting.

The Petraeus Doctrine is old wine in a new bottle: counterinsurgency. In theory, it is boots on the ground to win hearts and minds. It draws heavily on intelligence-what Gen. David Petraeus calls &quot;bandwidth&quot;-to isolate and eliminate any insurgents-and attempts to establish trust with the locals. It is cheaper than the Powell and Rumsfeld doctrines, but it also almost never works. Eventually the locals get tired of being occupied, and then counterinsurgency turns nasty. Building schools and digging wells give way to night raids and targeted assassinations that alienate the local population. According to U.S. intelligence, the current counterinsurgency program in Afghanistan is failing.

So, what is this &quot;astounding change&quot; that Nagl speaks of? If you want to put a name to it, &quot;counter-terrorism&quot; is probably the most descriptive, although with a new twist. Like counterinsurgency, counter-terrorism has been around a long time. The Phoenix Program that killed some 40,000 South Vietnamese was a variety of the doctrine. Phoenix, too, paid no attention to sovereignty. During the Vietnam War, Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols secretly went into Cambodia and Laos.

In recent years, the U.S. clandestinely sent Special Forces into Syria and Pakistan in a sort of shadow war against &quot;insurgents.&quot; A number of other countries have done the same.

But the Obama administration openly admits to sending a Special Forces Seal team into Pakistan to assassinate bin Laden, and it was prepared to fight Pakistan's armed forces if they tried to intervene. And when Pakistan asked the U.S. to curb its use of armed drones in Pakistani airspace, the Central Intelligence Agency said it would do nothing of the kind.

It is as if counter-terrorism reconfigured that classic line from the movie &quot;Treasure of the Sierra Madre&quot;: &quot;We don't need no stinkin' badges, we got drones and Seals.&quot;

The principle behind counter-terrorism is eliminating people you don't like. There is no patina of &quot;hearts and minds,&quot; and the new strategy makes no effort to practice the subterfuge of &quot;plausible deniability&quot; that has deflected the ire of target countries in the past.

While clandestine warfare is not new, the boldness of the bin Laden hit is. Certainly the people who planned the attack wanted to make a statement: we can get you anywhere you are, and impediments like international law, the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Charter be damned.

&quot;Targeted assassinations violate well-established principles of international law,&quot; says law professor Marjorie Cohn. &quot;Extrajudicial executions are unlawful, even in armed conflict.&quot;

From the U.S.'s point of view, the doctrine has a number of advantages. It is cheaper, and its expenses are generally hidden away in a labyrinth of bureaucracy. For instance, the $80.1 billion figure is only an estimate and does not include the cost of the CIA's drone war in Pakistan, or Homeland Security.

Recent moves by the White House suggest the administration is putting this new strategy in place. &quot;Petraeus's appointment to head the CIA is an important indication that the U.S. wants to fuse intelligence and military operations,&quot; a &quot;senior figure&quot; at the British Defense Ministry told the Financial Times.

In the past the division between military and civilian intelligence agencies allowed for a range of opinions. While the U.S. military continues to put a rosy spin on the Afghan War, civilian intelligence agencies have been much more somber about the success of the current surge. That division is likely to vanish under the new regime, where intelligence becomes less about analysis and more about targeting.

The new warfare opens up a Pandora's box, the implications of which are only beginning to be considered. What would be the reaction if Cuban armed forces had landed in Florida and assassinated Luis Posada and Orlando Bosch, two anti-Castro militants who were credibly charged with setting bombs in Havana and downing a Cuban airliner? Washington would treat it as an act of war. The problem with a foreign policy based on claw and fang is that, if one country claims the right to act independently of international law and the UN Charter, all countries can so claim.

In the end, however, the biggest victims for this &quot;new&quot; warfare will probably be the American people. Once an enormous intelligence bureaucracy is created-there are some 854,000 people with top-secrecy security clearance-it will be damned hard to dismantle it. And, since the very nature of the endeavor removes it from public oversight, it is a formula for a massive and uncontrolled expansion of the national security state.

[f0rTyLeGz]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The drudge report is comedy central. </div></div>
I've noticed that Drudge has a photo and an unflattering article every single day about Michelle. The right wingers truly despises the woman.

[queenb]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">queenb,

You have so many conceptual errors in your post that it will be difficult and long to go point by point so I will pick the two most egregious (IMO) and deal with those.

No one you or I know who is a communist or socialist can be a racist.

It would be like a Christian who doesn't follow the teachings of Christ. That person is Christian in name only.,

None of the articles or websites that I use for my news sources can be considered racist: ZNET, TomDispatch, Havanatimes.org

If you've read my posts in the political/International forum over the past 10 years you'd know that I consider all presidents to be the same as far as most important policies are concerned.

I dislike them all equally because they all carry out a vicious foreign policy that kills innocent men,women and children because they happen to be living over OUR oil.

Obama's only difference is that he looks black.



Secondly,

For the umpteenth time, small &quot;c&quot; communism is a F-U-T-U-R-E state.
IT cannot be flawed, it is not flawed because at the moment it is only a theoretical term that cannot be tested until human societal evolution reaches the point of communist inevitability. There is an interim step of state control of the economy that has yet to take place and (IMO) this is about 20 years away at most.

That you think, that what I say and the items that I post are far, far, far right given the communist/socialist take they usually have on things and my long history of consistently far left positions means that you are somewhat confused as to what a communist is and isn't and what the right wing is and isn't.


The basic difference between right and left is that the right believes that profit is more important than humanity. That there can be 100 billionaires and millions of millionaires but that it's okay for billions to live in poverty and die by the tens of millions each year because they don't have any money.

The left; communists, socialists believe that each person should get what they need for a decent life FIRST and that takes into account higher pay for tougher work and then each person should give back to the society whatever kind of work that person can do best.
The needs of people come first, profits, second.


&quot;The next form of government will conceptualize the new intelligence; (exponential technological advances) that old forms of ( corrupt multi-party electoral politics replaced by direct computer hookup vote) government (and capitalism, now dying ) are extinct, that (democracy and each citizen's responsibilities under democracy) government (and morality) is evolving like (with) humanity—changing, mutating, and growing. Intransigence is passé’&quot;( Resistance IS futile.)




Now, this sentence above is exactly right but, I suspect, not for the reasons you are thinking. I added the parenthetical wording as what I thought you left out.

Your original sentence fits in very well, with what we Singulatarians believe will happen in the next 35 years or so. </div></div>

[bI don't think Johnnycakes is talking about a physical threat, but rather a threat to the &quot;democratic&quot; basis of the US. Unbounded untethered capitalism is an out-dated concept; because it works on the theory that government and/or politicians are really acting in the best behalf of the people. The almighty dollar is king in the US, we no longer care for the welfare of our citizens, but claim to care for all the citizens around the world. Who in their right mind would believe such a claim? Remember, a few weeks ago I outlined what I think could be done. I am skeptical of a socialist government, just as I am of democracy. Both types of government depend on the good character of those in charge. Perhaps an amalgam of democratic capitalism/socialism would work; one in which leaders are periodically replaced with term limits and elections, but large corporations are restricted in growth and profit-taking. I remember the break-up of Ma Bell into a multitude of smaller corporations. Now one by one super-corportations are forming with ever larger profit-taking and fewer and fewer social programs being supported.
] [/b] This was from mhy post of 4/10.

[johnnycakes]

Re: Gwaan choo barack

&quot;I am skeptical of a socialist government, just as I am of democracy&quot;


queenb,

There is no such thing as a socialist government. Socialism is an economic form not a political form.
Democracy is a governmental form but it can also be part of an egalitarian economic system but not capitalism which is, by its nature, totalitarian and not egalitarian.

Democracy is possible only in small communities or in a society just slightly more advanced than ours in technology where every person is linked to the internet and can be polled or otherwise participate in the running of the government.

If by democracy you mean the system that is in use in the U.S and Jamaica, you are really talking about a representative republic which were certainly not democracies but which WERE democratic before big money took them over.



You cannot have a democracy or even a representative democracy as long as big money/capitalism owns the government and controls the electoral processes.

Term limits will not make a difference if the new person can't win without big money behind his/her campaign .

Neither can you control or limit the profits of the companies which bribe the law makers who are the ones who are supposed to limit the power of corporations.

The system has been stood on its head.

You are correct that there is no existential threat to the United States except for socialism which the United States has done a fairly good job of eliminating or preventing for 100 years.

There is no threat to the democratic basis of the United States.

That is because of THREE things:

First, no other country or group of people care what kind of government we have as long as we leave them alone.

Second, THERE IS NO &quot;DEMOCRATIC&quot; BASIS TO THE UNITED STATES.
The electoral system has been corrupted and is no longer democratic in any sense of the word. It's not even as democratic as it was when it was set up to favor the rich back in 1789 or so.

Third: THERE IS NO &quot;DEMOCRATIC BASIS&quot; TO THE UNITED STATES.'

While I realize that #3 is the same as #2 , it is so true , so important and so obvious and so sure to be disregarded or thought of as not true that it bears repeating.


iw