Obama hysteria

[meghatronic]

The civilised world awaits your recommended alternative with bated breath.

How soon can we expect it?

After brunch?

It's an unanswerable question, it's just, democracy isn't all that. You've people not voting (thus without a voice), people voting with their hearts and not their head (Obama as a Blackman, Labour as "I've always voted Labour"). Not to mention the fact people will vote for unenforceable policies that seem better if given a chance(lower taxes for better service). The short of it is: people are fickle (and sometimes stupid).

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Churchill.

 

[Sankari]

After brunch?

It's an unanswerable question, it's just, democracy isn't all that. You've people not voting (thus without a voice), people voting with their hearts and not their head (Obama as a Blackman, Labour as "I've always voted Labour"). Not to mention the fact people will vote for unenforceable policies that seem better if given a chance(lower taxes for better service).

Considering that there are various different forms of democracy, i don't think you can write off the entire system that easily.

Democracy at least gives people freedom to choose their new leader without coercion, and allows a smooth transition of government without violence. Democratic nations tend to be the richest, most advanced nations on Earth, with the most number of personal liberties and civil rights. These points alone recommend democracy above all other systems which have been tried throughout human history.

Democracy is popular because it works better than anything else we've got.

The short of it is: people are fickle (and sometimes stupid).

I couldn't agree more.

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Churchill.

Churchill was wrong; that is an argument against the average voter, not an argument against democracy. You can always improve the quality of your voters, particularly if you are prepared to sit down and educate them on the issues. That's what campaigning is supposed to be all about.

 

[Azagoth]

See, I was right.

He's had to be sworn in again due to the bodged 'Oath of Office', just this time it was not in public. So really, the big inauguration spectacle was for nothing, as if the Oath was legal why would he have to take it again in private?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103685.html

 

[mattheman]

Media coverage doesn't equal votes, though, does it?

Obama was a good candidate, but the Republicans have such a huge image problem at present that pretty much any generic Democrat would have won the election.

Why was he a good candidate?infact he was voted in not for his policies etc.. but for the color of his skin.
A few months back they did a survey the switched polices, people still voted for obama.
He'll be the 1st and last on in, he is pro jewish, financed by the jews, he wants more troops in the east.

 

[mattheman]

He's not new to politics and the way the world works, he knows how to situation manage and knows how to address people of existing problems and what can be done to resolve them and now he's in a position to use that knowledge.

I think many outsiders are reading into the media too far, they are only seeing the social and black president side of things and not his actual history as a successful politician that debated against other high end politicians to express his views.
QUOTE]

give examples? he has no clue.

 

[Sankari]

See, I was right.

He's had to be sworn in again due to the bodged 'Oath of Office', just this time it was not in public. So really, the big inauguration spectacle was for nothing, as if the Oath was legal why would he have to take it again in private?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103685.html

Read the article. He didn't "have to be sworn in again"; he simply chose to be.

"We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the President was sworn in appropriately yesterday. But the oath appears in the Constitution itself," Craig's statement said.

 

[Azagoth]

Read the article. He didn't "have to be sworn in again"; he simply chose to be.

Thank you, but I did read the article.

 

[mrk]

Hah, Bush's records to be outed: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords/

 

[Talrinys]

I love how they say that this election proves that USA is no longer racist because 50% of the white people voted for a black man. They forget to mention that 90% of the black people voted for a black man, so racism is still alive and well; just now it's black people being racist against white people.

And you really don't think that this has ANYTHING to do with the fact that black people in America are much worse positioned to take control over their lives economically than the average white guy? And Obama's policy aiming to cure exactly that?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

That's what campaigning is supposed to be all about.

Campaigning isn't education - it's brainwashing.

 

[Talrinys]

Considering that there are various different forms of democracy, i don't think you can write off the entire system that easily.

Democracy at least gives people freedom to choose their new leader without coercion, and allows a smooth transition of government without violence. Democratic nations tend to be the richest, most advanced nations on Earth, with the most number of personal liberties and civil rights. These points alone recommend democracy above all other systems which have been tried throughout human history.

Democracy is popular because it works better than anything else we've got.

Read "Illeberal Democracy" by Fareed Zakaria for some more in depth analysis of that, basically democracy does not create wealth, rather widespread wealth creates democracy - if most authoritarian regimes in the world implemented democracy tomorrow they would have the same leaders elected. With widespread wealth comes education, and a will to change things. I fully believe in democracy, but democracy can exist in both a liberal and an illeberal form, illiberal would the danish government trying to control what people eat because they're too afraid to tell people that they can actually make up their own minds.

 

[Talrinys]

Campaigning isn't education - it's brainwashing.

That depends on the voters, if they're willing to actually put aside petty differences and listen to an argument for how to run the country, it is very educational and benign, what Bush has been doing for the last 8 years is brainwashing, and he has partly succeded.

 

[Keltik THC]

Obama hysteria is nothing more than cult of personality, which is very dangerous especially by a country that is filled with so much hubris like the USA. a lot of people draw comparisons to Hitler for the way in which the press has engineered this hysteria that has swept Obama into power, some compare Obama to Stalin for his socialist beliefs, i think the better comparison is with Mussolini as not only do they hold similar beliefs in my opinion but Mussolini also managed to get popular figures behind his campaign and infact Mussolini joined the coalition government on a wave of public support... but look how his agenda turned out.

I said this in the other thread, but everyone who supports Obama doesnt even know what he has planned, you ask them why they support him and they mutter something about 'change'... i know for a fact that in the future, in response to all the ******** that continually bleat 'yes we can' i will be replying 'no, you didnt'...

i hope im wrong, but i see Barry Sotero AKA Barry Dunham AKA Barack Obama taking troops out of Iraq and repositioning them in Afgahnistan as a move against Pakistan, which when he decides to start bombing everyone will support because 'is change'...

 

[MookJong]

The prejudice, ignorance, speculation and most of all guess-work in this thread is utterly ridiculous.

Judge the man by his actions alone.

 

[meghatronic]

See, I was right.

He's had to be sworn in again due to the bodged 'Oath of Office', just this time it was not in public. So really, the big inauguration spectacle was for nothing, as if the Oath was legal why would he have to take it again in private?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103685.html

The 2nd time without the Bible? Is that still valid too?

EDIT : "There is no requirement that any book, or in particular a book of sacred text, be used to administer the oath, and none is mentioned in the Constitution"

 

[Keltik THC]

The prejudice, ignorance, speculation and most of all guess-work in this thread is utterly ridiculous.

Judge the man by his actions alone.

one of his first action was to sign an executive order increasing the ammount of money used to abort babies in Africa...

http://www.infowars.com/?p=7259

ive studied Barry Sotero and hes been coddled my the worlds elite since his early years, his cheif adviser is Zibgniew Zbrinski for gods sake, hes the closest thing you can get in the world to a bond villian, hes even proud of the fact he radiclised the Mujahadean to fight of the Russians and look what blowback that has caused.... As i said, my opinion is that Barry's presidency will be worse than Bush but because the mindless liberal masses unconditionally support him and they wont care when he starts any wars or restricts their freedoms. He also has free reign in the USA with the congress being in the dems hands, where as if McCain was elected you would have stagnation as the two out of the three branches of government would have been at odds with each other, which is great for democracy... now you have almost everything in the hands of one party... again, its only my opinion but we will be looking back at Bushes 8 years as the 'good ol times' compared to what Obama and his liberal socialists have in store for us.

 

[rypt]

Why are you ruling out Israel? They're close enough to Iran to be affected by thier actions, they don't need to move across the world and they'd go at Iran that would make the Six Day War look like a warm up session.

And Israel also potentially has nuclear weps

 

[rypt]

we will be looking back at Bushes 8 years as the 'good ol times' compared to what Obama and his liberal socialists have in store for us.

I cant decide whether you're taking the **** or not, but I'll bite.

Clinton was a liberal, and he was one of the best modern US presidents

 

[Keltik THC]

Clinton was a liberal, and he was one of the best modern US presidents

your kidding right?

anyway, Henry Kissinger has let us in on some Obama plans for ‘change’, Kissinger wrote on the 20 Jan 2009:

1. “The alternative to a new international order is chaos.”

2. “The extraordinary impact of the President-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order.”

3. “The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a strategy reinforced by the realisation that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution.”

4. “The role of China in a new world order is crucial.

“Each side of the Pacific needs the cooperation of the other in addressing the consequences of the financial crisis…

“The Sino-American relationship needs to be taken to a new level.”

read what you will into what Kissinger has said, but after everything i have read i am bracing my self for a rough 4 years.

 

[rypt]

Most of that sounds correct, not sure about the Muslim aspect of 3. or the view of China as being so important, but the rest is about right as to what needs to happen.

I'll paraphrase as I see the points.

1. World needs to come together to solve the issues, rather than be divided.
2. People all around the world like Obama, and agree with him. He can use this to get international leaders to go along with him as their own populations will agree with many of his ideas.
3. Same as 1 basically, just a more specific target of the economic f. up.