ForumsWEPR2016 Obama's America

62 18199
joeyman2
offline
joeyman2
65 posts
Peasant

has anyone seen the movie (i know this could be in the movies section but its also very political) i had heard about it and i was wondering if anyone knew if it was good and whats in it.

  • 62 Replies
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

I don't really know how the US might look in other countries. Even while I was in China, we mostly saw us as being 'that group', being photogenic and all that fun stuff. If anything, we saw Americanized Beijing. I never really got a grasp of the view of Americans in China other than what Americans told us what our reputation might be in China, which isn't all that reliable. I did hear a good bit about respecting a country's traditions and not being the exception and looking like an idiot, but I get that not every American traveler understands that. I heard a lot of relevant stories, haha... During the trip, while approaching Tienanmen square, we decided to wave China's flag and march in line. We still probably looked like idiots...


You need to visit the non coastal areas and away from Beijing to get the real sense of what the Chinese think. Those are too cosmopolitan and global looking.


What do you see as the cause of this problem?


American intervention in just about all foreign affairs which leads people to feel they are busy body bullies. Whether they are or not is irrelevant for people.



What was the thread about again?! O.0
EnigmaX
offline
EnigmaX
101 posts
Nomad

They don't do a very good job.


Perhaps you could show me some examples of widespread corruption within the US Federal Government then?


You're good at twisting words, you should become politician. All you have to do is improve your skill in corruption and you're in business.


If I give you a PO Box, could you start sending me checks?

Anyone with common sense would fear those weirdos knowing what they're capable of


Which would be... But what about the Occupy Protestors? Seeing as they have a similar means as the Tea Party, I assume you detrst them just as much? After all, they do get arrested in droves.

Also, you haven't answered my question regarding Obama being in the 1%.

Sanctions are already taking their toll on Iran's economy. From Iran's point of view; they are surrounded by enemies, that's why they're developing nukes. Iran lets in UN inspectors at any rate. And the Israeli and US chief of staffs have already issued statements that Iran is a rational actor and that stokes shouldnt be allowed.


But sanctions have no affect on the nuclear process. If anything, it encourages the development of nuclear weapons since the weapons could be used as a bargaining tool in the removal of the sanctions.

Care to link to these statements? Because a recent BBC article I read had Netanyahu urging the US to declare a red line. Likewise, news organizations (BBC, CNN, FOX) have all stated in the past months reporting on this that neither the US nor Israel have taken the strike option off the table.

I didn't say about female health. Where do you get the idea from? They do have queer ideas on what feminism is though.


SSTG seemed to be talking about it earlier; argumentum ad ridiculum, if you will.

I wouldn't know, to be honest. I'm rather lacking in the parts needed to merit meeting one. If you know what I mean.

SSTG was giving an example of how crazy these people are; clouding policies with religion, a reason why people dislike them and why they should not be allowed into power.


The US is a representative republic, and thus any citizen can can run for office provided they meet the legal qualifications. A person's ability to take power is thus based on their ability to motivate others to vote for them. If you don't like a certain candidate, don't vote for them. If the candidate wins 'fair and square' then it's the will of the people.
SSTG
offline
SSTG
13,055 posts
Treasurer

Perhaps you could show me some examples of widespread corruption within the US Federal Government then?

Inside trading just to name one. Obama tried to stop inside trading.
All the Republican voted against it. Why? Because they make lots of money out of it even though it's illegal outside the government's boundaries.
Lobbyists that are payed big bucks to pressure honest congressman to pass crooked bills. Because of this situation, American pay 5 times more for their medications which drives the Insurance prices through the roof.
All the money stolen by Penis Cheney through Halliburton after the aggression of Iraq as part of the rebuilding scam., etc.
If I'm going to find all the corruption going on in the Republican camp It'll take me a year and that is without counting the thieves on the Democrat camp as well.

Which would be... But what about the Occupy Protestors? Seeing as they have a similar means as the Tea Party, I assume you detrst them just as much? After all, they do get arrested in droves.


Don't you know how to read? Look at all the example that nichodemus patiently wrote in the thread.

SSTG seemed to be talking about it earlier; argumentum ad ridiculum, if you will.

You sound exactly like O'Reilley or worse, racist Hannetty...

The US is a representative republic, and thus any citizen can can run for office provided they meet the legal qualifications. A person's ability to take power is thus based on their ability to motivate others to vote for them. If you don't like a certain candidate, don't vote for them. If the candidate wins 'fair and square' then it's the will of the people.


It would work if the conservatives would stop blindly voting for weasels just because they are Republican. Believe it or not some Democrats or independants can do a better job so why not vote for the competent person instead of the one representing your party?
EnigmaX
offline
EnigmaX
101 posts
Nomad

Inside trading just to name one. Obama tried to stop inside trading.


Which is stopped 99% of the time because in the aftermath of a sellout it becomes blatantly obvious what happened. Remember Martha Stuart?

All the Republican voted against it. Why? Because they make lots of money out of it even though it's illegal outside the government's boundaries.


Or perhaps excessive financial regulations goes against the economic principals of conservatism and free market principals.

I also like how you assume that only Republicans make money outside of government. Not only is that wrong, it's also stereotyping since you cast making money in a negative light in association with a group, which could also be Falacy of Composition.

Lobbyists that are payed big bucks to pressure honest congressman to pass crooked bills. Because of this situation, American pay 5 times more for their medications which drives the Insurance prices through the roof.


1) Lobbyist pressure all congressmen.
2) if it's an honest congressmen, than they wouln't pass a corrupt bill. If they did pass it, then they were never honest to begin with.
3) Then I assume you're opposed to Obamacare?


Don't you know how to read? Look at all the example that nichodemus patiently wrote in the thread.


Nope. I can't write either. I just move that clicky thing and randomly smash the buttons on this other rectangular thing. Monkey with a type writer, you know.

Argumentum ad hominem, to use the correct fallacy. Also, a shoutout to Nichodemus for participating with a patient example. You can take that to the bank.

You sound exactly like O'Reilley or worse, racist Hannetty...


Ad hominem number two and fallacy number three, not that I'm keeping count or anything.

It would work if the conservatives would stop blindly voting for weasels just because they are Republican. Believe it or not some Democrats or independants can do a better job so why not vote for the competent person instead of the one representing your party?


Your mantra of blaming Republicans/Conservatives/The Right is getting old. Out of curiosity, you wouldn't be Barack Obama in disguise, would you? You both sound eerily similar.

Actually, about 95% of the population votes by party, because they assume that the respective party has their best interest at heart. And so they'll justify it to them selves and won't be swayed: Vote for Obama or you're a racist **** sucker. Or vote Republican because all Democrats are communists. Or vote for Al Gore or I'll rage so much I'll be a contributing factor to global warming.

You yourself could even be used as a case study: You bashed wealthy Republicans in a post, but when I bought uo the fact that Obama was in the top 1% of wealth in the US, you dropped the point and have yet to respond, even though this will be the second time I've bought it to your attention.

So look in the mirror my friend; you might find a few of your demons staring back at you.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

The US is a representative republic, and thus any citizen can can run for office provided they meet the legal qualifications. A person's ability to take power is thus based on their ability to motivate others to vote for them. If you don't like a certain candidate, don't vote for them. If the candidate wins 'fair and square' then it's the will of the people.


Uh-huh. Doesn't it contradict the Constitution that states church and government shouldn't be mixed? Yet many of these candidates are heading to this area.

But sanctions have no affect on the nuclear process. If anything, it encourages the development of nuclear weapons since the weapons could be used as a bargaining tool in the removal of the sanctions.

Care to link to these statements? Because a recent BBC article I read had Netanyahu urging the US to declare a red line. Likewise, news organizations (BBC, CNN, FOX) have all stated in the past months reporting on this that neither the US nor Israel have taken the strike option off the table.


My mistake, not that strikes shouldn't be allowed but Iran is rational, implying, they won't use the nukes.

In an interview on CNN, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that 'we are of the opinion that Iran is a rational actor,'.

The Iranian regime is 'very rational' and is moving deliberately in its secretive nuclear program, the former head of Israelâs Mossad intelligence agency says.

'Maybe it's not exactly rational based on what I call âWestern thinking,' but no doubt that they are considering all the implications of their actions,' Meir Dagan said in an interview with CBS' '60 Minutesâ that aired Sunday.

A rational actor is not a reasonable actor. It is not somebody who has the same goals or values as we have.
In international affairs or economics, the term rational actor is used to describe somebody who is concerned about their survival, prosperity or strength and is making calculations on the basis of these concerns. It describes someone who calculates costs and benefits.

We all assume Iran is a rational actor - even the most hawkish people in this debate - when we assume that pressure on Iran will make a difference. We are assuming that Iran is watching the costs of its actions, calculating them and, presumably, will recognize that the costs outweigh the benefits. This is all that it means to say that Iran is a rational actor.

Indeed, Iran has been very calculating in its behavior, far more so than other so-called radical, revolutionary regimes. If you look at Mao's China, he talked openly about destroying the world and about sacrificing half of China so that global communism could survive. The Iranians never talk like that and they certainly don't do things like that. Their behavior for 30 years has been calculating. They respond to inducements and pressures in ways that are completely understandable.

From Iran's point of view, they are surrounded by hostile nations. Russia, it's traditional enemy. Saudi Arabia, one of the more powerful Sunni states, and hence its enemy. Iraq, which invaded it just three decades ago. Pakistan, another regional power. And of course, all the US bases in the region. And Israel. It's not exactly hard to see why they would want another shield.
SSTG
offline
SSTG
13,055 posts
Treasurer

Which is stopped 99% of the time because in the aftermath of a sellout it becomes blatantly obvious what happened. Remember Martha Stuart?

Nope, they just tweaked it but it won't stop the crooked deals.

I also like how you assume that only Republicans make money outside of government. Not only is that wrong, it's also stereotyping since you cast making money in a negative light in association with a group, which could also be Falacy of Composition.

You twisted my words again. Inside trading is illegal outside the government boundaries which is why Martha Stewart got in trouble.

Ad hominem number two and fallacy number three, not that I'm keeping count or anything.

I'm just applying their tactics which is to bully and call the opponent an idiot. Are you scared of mirrors? >

You yourself could even be used as a case study: You bashed wealthy Republicans in a post, but when I bought uo the fact that Obama was in the top 1% of wealth in the US, you dropped the point and have yet to respond, even though this will be the second time I've bought it to your attention.


Because your conservative ranting gets boring so when I realize that I'm talking to a wall I drop the subject.
You're only trying to get the last word so you keep going with your illusion of conservative purity and bad government, bla, bla, bla, it get's annoying. Why aren't Republican complaining when they are in power and keep giving each other tax breaks and wasting money?
That's hypocritical don't you think?
Anyway I remember when I was 8yo my dad told me to stop wasting my time with people who argue just for the sake of it.
So here, get the last word if it makes you happy. You'll grow up eventually.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

Actually, about 95% of the population votes by party, because they assume that the respective party has their best interest at heart. And so they'll justify it to them selves and won't be swayed: Vote for Obama or you're a racist **** sucker. Or vote Republican because all Democrats are communists. Or vote for Al Gore or I'll rage so much I'll be a contributing factor to global warming.

Not really. A large chunk are independents; these are the folks who pay attention and then decide.

SSTG
offline
SSTG
13,055 posts
Treasurer

I'm just applying their tactics which is to bully and call the opponent an idiot. Are you scared of mirrors? >

Oops, it should have read: "I'm just applying their (Republicans) tactics which is to bully and call the opponent an idiot. Are you scared of mirrors? >
SSTG
offline
SSTG
13,055 posts
Treasurer

Wait, so when Democrats mock Republicans they aren't bullies?

They're just applying the same immature tactic except for the "I will kill you with my big gun or gang up on you and scare you" part.
Now you see how annoying it is.
SSTG
offline
SSTG
13,055 posts
Treasurer

I found this article that might be of interest to anyone who likes to think. Can you tell who's an ignorant conservative vs a smarter one that thinks or a Democrat with common sense?

http://www.squidoo.com/teaparty912

SSTG
offline
SSTG
13,055 posts
Treasurer

http://www.squidoo.com/teaparty912

I'm passed my bed time...

SSTG
offline
SSTG
13,055 posts
Treasurer
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

Reagan had a small government? Sorry, he outspent many presidents before and after him. Not really small in any sense of the word. Reagan lowering taxes? Sorry, he raised them 11 times during his two terms in office. Reagan accepting free trade? Sorry, he signed the zero-sum game style Omnibus Foreign Trade and Competitiveness Act which forced countries with a large trade surplus vis a vis America to undergo bilateral surplus-reduction requirement of 10%. Reagan outspending the Soviets and therefore forcing them to collapse? Sorry, Reagan was virulently anti-nuclear and actually worked with the Soviets to reduce nuclear arms.

The Tea Party has hijacked what old Republican Presidents stood for, but this article also shows that ''common sense Democrats'' sometimes also don't know their politics very well. We like to claim that Republicans are a bunch of conservative dinosaurs, yet we are blind to the same bigotry we condemn. The GoP does have many wonderful people, just that the evangelical Right is taking over. Olympia Snowe, Steve LaTourette, even Romney back when he was governor. To claim that they are all insipid creatures and to claim only Democrats are mature, correct, reliable is rather astounding. It's people who fight based on such party alignments who make bipartisanship sound like witchcraft.

SSTG
offline
SSTG
13,055 posts
Treasurer

To claim that they are all insipid creatures and to claim only Democrats are mature, correct, reliable is rather astounding. It's people who fight based on such party alignments who make bipartisanship sound like witchcraft.

That's why it's so hard for Obama to achieve and pass any bipartisan bills. The Republicans (the good ones) needs to dissociate themselves from the rotten apples in their party. Only then will they be able to move forward.

You have to understand that not everybody has the time, skill or knowledge to study and understand politics. Not everybody is rich and has it easy like Romney and other parasites who don't pay their fair share of taxes and have wealthy parents to borrow money from so they could start a business.
What people want is a chance to work but they need jobs in order to do that. How can they afford their overpriced insurance if they can't work? Obama offers way to accomplish this but the rotten apples among the Conservatives are trying everything to stop the progress. There are ways for riches to make money without abusing the middle and lower classes. Why are they so obstinate?
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

That's why it's so hard for Obama to achieve and pass any bipartisan bills. The Republicans (the good ones) needs to dissociate themselves from the rotten apples in their party. Only then will they be able to move forward.


Democrats too, have their fair share of non-cooperation. Blaming solely one party doesn't do bipartisanship any favours.

What people want is a chance to work but they need jobs in order to do that. How can they afford their overpriced insurance if they can't work? Obama offers way to accomplish this but the rotten apples among the Conservatives are trying everything to stop the progress. There are ways for riches to make money without abusing the middle and lower classes. Why are they so obstinate?


I think you don't see why Republicans are pushing for such policies. They want to help the poor as much as the Democrats do; they believe tax cuts will stimulate the economy, because it allows the poor to retain their income. They believe that privatisation of medical care will benefit the poor and offer them more choices by streamlining the system. McCain for instance, currently holds the belief that a 5000 dollar tax break for people will be a better choice than Medicare. It might not be the best of ideas, but it shows that they too want to help the poor.

What people want is a chance to work but they need jobs in order to do that. How can they afford their overpriced insurance if they can't work?


They believe that tax cuts will stimulate businesses, who will hire, hence there will be jobs. It's one thing accusing them of going against economic grain, and quite another to just smear them as uncaring parasites who only want to get rich. You don't paint a fair picture, and it does seem a tinge bit hypocritical. Not all Republicans are rich people, and not all Democrats are poor people.
Showing 31-45 of 62