ForumsWEPR2016 Obama's America

62 6033
joeyman2
offline
joeyman2
65 posts
Shepherd

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
SSTG
offline
SSTG
12,677 posts
Templar

But he wouldn't be able to accept it, since there are inter-governmental corruption watchdogs, as well as private organisations.

They don't do a very good job.
So according to you, Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded for their oil.

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.

How is the Tea Party a terrorist organisation? What acts have they done to inspire physical fear in someone? Fake Christians becoming senators? What are you talking about?

Anyone with common sense would fear those weirdos knowing what they're capable of. What's next, Pat Robertson for president?
The thought of it makes me want to jump off a bridge.
What's physical fear? Never heard of it. Did you mean mental fear?
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,603 posts
Regent

Then whats the red line? Or do you think Iran should be allowed to procede in the face of 'sanctions' which do nothing to actually stop the enrichment process.


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.


As gynecologists? What do you people have against female reproductive health?


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

And this is relevant how, exactly?


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.

Proof much?.



George Monbiot's Guardian article " Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power"
SSTG
offline
SSTG
12,677 posts
Templar

@nichodemus, I must admit that you're patient. I usually give up when a conversation leads nowhere. Who knows, you might convince one of them eventually.

jeol
offline
jeol
3,842 posts
Herald

What's with Americans, "Patriotism" and not stepping down for once? And people wonder why they have such an ugly rap worldwide, and why we constantly parody &quotatriotic" Americans.

I respect Asia and its heritage, but America is country founded on Enlightenment principles, and I am happy to follow through with that. This country was founded with pride, and I don't see why we should be ashamed of our capitalistic and democratic beliefs. Who gives a **** about reputation? Caring about your reputation shows singly how weak you are. If you're going to do something, do it with courage. Foreign policy is a little different from true work, I know, but if we are a work hard, get stuff done, competitive society, why should we act like peacekeepers and friends to all the nations around us? Speak softly, and carry a big gun.

I know, I know, cheesy 'be yourself' kind of statement, but truly. If America was worried about reputation, they probably would have stuck with the British back in 1770. Now the Executive Branch of the United States Government is one of the most powerful positions in the world.

I hear a lot of business is returning to the US now that China has raising prices. It's actually cheaper to manufacture here in the US than in China now.

Also, I already mentioned that I don't follow Bush religiously, or at all. I don't know why you keep getting that idea.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,603 posts
Regent

I respect Asia and its heritage, but America is country founded on Enlightenment principles, and I am happy to follow through with that. This country was founded with pride, and I don't see why we should be ashamed of our capitalistic and democratic beliefs. Who gives a **** about reputation? Caring about your reputation shows singly how weak you are. If you're going to do something, do it with courage. Foreign policy is a little different from true work, I know, but if we are a work hard, get stuff done, competitive society, why should we act like peacekeepers and friends to all the nations around us? Speak softly, and carry a big gun.


It's not like other nations haven't been following such Enlightenment Ideals after all these years. All nations are founded with pride; national holidays and symbols attest to that. That is fine and dandy, Americans, just like other citizens feel proud of their nations.

Yet this decreasing and stained reputation IS a cause for concern. For years America had the goodwill of the world, that was partially why cooperation after WWII over the liberalization of the economic system occurred. It was partially why America was able to lead the Coalition against Iraq twice. Foreign policy works around courting such a goodwill to prevent frosting in relations; butting into issues with nothing but rambo bravado is a sure fire way of inciting hate and distrust; a situation that has led to the huge mess in ME for America. Does reputation matter? Yes. America used to be taken as the beacon of hope for the millions of impoverished, as a lighthouse of freedom and democracy. This light is fast fading, along with America's power.

If America was worried about reputation, they probably would have stuck with the British back in 1770. Now the Executive Branch of the United States Government is one of the most powerful positions in the world.


It wasn't a matter of ''reputation''. It was a matter of overthrowing a tyrannical monarchy, and to secure independence for a nation. Two ideas, not one.

I know, but if we are a work hard, get stuff done, competitive society, why should we act like peacekeepers and friends to all the nations around us? Speak softly, and carry a big gun.


Ever since the Monroe Doctrine was replaced by the Truman Doctrine and subsequent policies, America has essentially replaced its centuries old isolationist policies. They retreated after WWI, but they didn't after WWII, seeing the disaster the world collapsed into during the in between years. America today, since the forties sees its security and prosperity rightfully tied with that of the world's. With the increasing economic integration, this is ever more salient and crucial; yet without goodwill, America will not be able to maintain such goals.

Businesses are certainly returning, but the vast majority are remaining in China, because of China's economic comparative advantage in labour intensive, low skilled manufacturing. America has much much more to do to get back into shape.
jeol
offline
jeol
3,842 posts
Herald

It's not like other nations haven't been following such Enlightenment Ideals after all these years. All nations are founded with pride; national holidays and symbols attest to that. That is fine and dandy, Americans, just like other citizens feel proud of their nations.

Aye. It just sounded like you were attested to patriotism.

But is it really as much of a problem of tarnished reputation as established willpower? Americans are fat and lazy, yeah. Ironically, most of the idiots of our nation are the tourists.

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...
Does reputation matter? Yes. America used to be taken as the beacon of hope for the millions of impoverished, as a lighthouse of freedom and democracy. This light is fast fading, along with America's power.

What do you see as the cause of this problem?
It wasn't a matter of ''reputation''. It was a matter of overthrowing a tyrannical monarchy, and to secure independence for a nation. Two ideas, not one.

I was saying, if they were worrying about reputation at that time, they would have stayed with Great Britain at that time since they were so powerful, though point taken at independence. Indeed, reputation was not an issue.

Mm.

I don't even remember why I brought up the last point... Ah, well, I suppose it brings a bit of 'necessary' irrelevance to the conversation. :P
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,603 posts
Regent

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
jeol
offline
jeol
3,842 posts
Herald

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.

Yeah, I heard that a lot, and I truly wanted to. Chengdu was the closest I got to spending a lot of time in more non-tourist areas, though the area I was in was an international community. The only other time I got close to the more rural areas was when we visited the Great Wall, which was still aimed a lot toward tourism. We got to see a bit more natural China at that time, though it wasn't very much.
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.

Aye. We need to not be involved, but still not be ignorant of other country's existences. Be prepared, but not be trigger-happy.
What was the thread about again?! O.0

It was about how easy it is for us to get off-track about politics and economics and foreign policy.

Or was it about clumsy Americans? I forget...
EnigmaX
offline
EnigmaX
101 posts
Peasant

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
12,677 posts
Templar

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
Peasant

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
14,603 posts
Regent

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
12,677 posts
Templar

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
14,603 posts
Regent

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
12,677 posts
Templar

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? >
Showing 31-45 of 62