Goner Message Board
 | Forums | Register | Reply | Search | Statistics | Manual |
Goner Message Board / ???? / Really Barak Obama ?!?!?!?!?!
Posted: Sep 6, 2008 12:51 pm
 
We got a McCain thread, so why not a thread about this guy.
Posted: Sep 6, 2008 1:03 pm
 
Cuz the repugs are being so Jerry Springer in the most
amazing way....waaaaaaayyyy more interesting

Perhaps they really do represent the american public
Posted: Sep 6, 2008 2:45 pm
 
Mickey, Leave It To Beaver wasn't a sitcom. It was a Ken Burns documentary.
Posted: Sep 8, 2008 3:56 pm
 
Liberals are stupid, but they're good in bed.
Posted: May 19, 2010 5:27 pm
 
So yall feel good knowing that this man has been in the white house for over a year???
Posted: May 19, 2010 5:44 pm
 
So yall feel good knowing that this man has been in the white house for over a year???

I feel good that a reasonably intelligent human being is in the White House. Other than that, anyone who expected him to be some sort of liberal savior was being awfully naive.

He's a mainstream moderate to liberal politician (although on any other country on earth he would be considered quite conservative), not much different than Clinton in his policies, which is what makes all this Tea Party "socialism" talk so laughable.

Like all politicians, he is bought and paid for by corporate America and its lobbyists (particularly in the last 30 years.) Therein lies the real problem. What to do about it, I have no fucking idea.
Posted: May 19, 2010 5:48 pm
 
He's better than Bush, but that's easy. I wish he was half the socialist that the right claims he is. He seems to like passing half ass bills just to say that he did. November elections will be interesting.
Posted: May 19, 2010 6:01 pm
 
better than bush how? things look alot the same to me, except we are killing more people than bush ever did in afghanistan, and obama's war budget is also more than bush's ever was. guantanamo is still open, the patriot act has been extended, we are still torturing and holding innocent people without access to lawyers or being brought up on charges. meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Posted: May 19, 2010 6:09 pm
 
we are still torturing and holding innocent people without access to lawyers or being brought up on charges

You've got a good point. He's pretty much followed the same path as Bush in the middle east. You could even argue that Obama has stepped it up. I don't think the we are torturing people though. I also believe that his administration is alot better about giving terrorist suspects legal rights.
Posted: May 19, 2010 6:54 pm
 
The continuation of the ideological pretext for wars of aggression and attacks on democratic rights ensures that the police state infrastructure erected under the Bush administration will remain intact. This is further reinforced by Obama's assurances that his administration will not investigate or prosecute those officials—including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and others—who were responsible for the policies of torture and illegal detention.

The orders signed by Obama do not undo the Bush administration's attacks on constitutional and international law. They do not challenge the supposed right of the president to unilaterally imprison any individual, without trial and without charges, by declaring him to be an "enemy combatant." Nor do they end the procedure known as "extraordinary rendition," by which the United States during the Bush years kidnapped alleged terrorists and shipped them to foreign countries or secret CIA prisons outside the US, where they were subjected to torture.

They do not affect the hundreds of prisoners—600 at the Bagram prison camp in Afghanistan alone—incarcerated beyond the barbed wire of Guantánamo. If and when Guantánamo is closed, the US government will simply ship alleged terrorists caught up its international dragnet to other American-run prison camps.

On the question of so-called "harsh interrogation techniques," i.e., torture, Obama's orders leave room for their continuation. White House Counsel Gregory Craig told reporters the administration was prepared to take into account demands from the CIA that such methods be allowed. Obama announced the creation of a task force that will consider new interrogation methods beyond those sanctioned by the Army Field Manual, which now accepts 19 forms of interrogation, as well as the practice of extraordinary rendition.

Retired Admiral Dennis Blair, Obama's nominee for director of national intelligence, told a Senate confirmation hearing that the Army Field Manual would itself be changed, potentially allowing new forms of harsh interrogation, but that such changes would be kept secret.


-------------------

On top of all that, as Charlie Savage pointed out last week, Obama's team has also supported the indefinite detention without trial of terror suspects in Afghanistan and the rendition of captives to other countries; taken the Bush position that at least one torture trial cannot proceed because of state secrets; and refused to give prisoners in Afghanistan the right to challenge the evidence against them in U.S. courts.

Faced with these decisions, partisans on both sides give their all-too-predictable responses: Civil libertarians call Obama's decisions "disgraceful," while the Wall Street Journal crows about the "new legitimacy" Obama is giving to Bush's legacy. Bush Derangement Syndrome, meet Bush Justification Syndrome.


-----------------------

"A year on, the [Obama] administration continues to look the other way when it comes to full disclosure of and remedy for human rights violations perpetrated by the U.S.A. in the name of countering terrorism." – Amnesty International

-----------------------

The U.N. defines torture as:

" ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession..." (U.N. Convention Against Torture).

By this definition the U.S. continues to practice torture. Yes, Obama outlawed some especially shocking forms of torture — water boarding, for example — but other types of torture were not labeled "torture" and thus continue.



Surprisingly, this fact was recently discussed at length in The New York Times, under an Op-Ed piece appropriately entitled Torture's Loopholes. In it, an ex-interrogator explains some of the more glaring examples of how the U.S. currently tortures and argues for the practices to end. In reference to Obama's vow to end the systematic, obscene torture under Bush, the article states:

"...the changes were not as drastic as most Americans think, and elements of our interrogation policy continue to be both inhumane and counterproductive."

The author says bluntly, "If I were to return to one of the war zones today... I would still be allowed to abuse [torture] prisoners."


--------------------------

Yet another blatant form of torture that Obama refused to stop practicing is "extraordinary rendition," or what critics call "outsourcing torture." This is the practice of flying a prisoner to a country where torture is routinely practiced, so that the prisoner can be interrogated. As reported by The New York Times:

"The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration's practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured, administration officials said Monday." (August 24, 2009).

Human rights groups instantly called Obama's bluff: why transport terrorism suspects to other countries at all? If not for the fact that torture and other "harsh interrogation methods" are routinely practiced there? No justifiable answer has been given to these questions.

Another common way the U.S. continues to outsource torture is performed in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. There, the U.S. military often arrests suspects and hands over the interrogation duties to Iraqi or Afghan security forces, knowing full well that they regularly torture (this was also the strategy in the Vietnam war). Unfortunately, handing over someone to be tortured means you are also guilty of the crime.

A less obvious form of torture is the concept of "indefinite detention" — holding someone in prison indefinitely without a trial. The terrible experience of hopelessness that a victim of this crime experiences, over years, is a profound form of psychological torture. This is one of the reasons why the American Constitution guarantees due process, a legal detail that the Obama administration continues to ignore.

In connection, The Washington Post recently announced that the Obama administration will detain 50 Guantanamo inmates "indefinitely," without any legal charges or chance of a trial. This act is consistent with earlier statements made by Obama, when he stated that "some detainees are too dangerous, to be released." Of course, there does not exist any evidence to prove that these detainees are dangerous, otherwise they would be prosecuted in a legal court. The article reports that these detainees are "un-prosecutable because officials fear trials...could challenge evidence obtained through coercion [torture]." (January 22, 2010).

Obama, like Bush, has sought to undermine the legal rights of those detained and the victims of torture who seek accountability. Obama continues to refuse to release pictures (evidence) of detainee abuse, preventing Americans from really understanding what their government is guilty of. Obama has also refused detainees in so-called "black sites" (U.S. Bagram Air Base, for example) access to attorneys or courts. Finally, by not prosecuting anyone for torture crimes in the Bush administration, Obama is guaranteeing that the worst forms of torture will continue, since institutionalized behavior rarely stops unless rewards or punishments are implemented.

In the end, the act of torture is impossible to separate from war in general. The "rules of war" are always ignored by both sides, who implement the most barbaric acts to terrorize their opponents into submission.

Obama's wars, like Bush's, are wars of conquest. U.S. corporations want the oil and other raw materials in the region. They also want to privatize the conquered state-owned companies, and to sell U.S. products in the new markets the war has opened them. Many corporations benefit from the act of war itself (arms manufacturers and corporate-employed mercenaries), or from the reconstruction opportunities the destruction creates.


----------------------

One of the most intense controversies of the Bush years was the administration's indefinite imprisoning of "War on Terror" detainees without charges of any kind. So absolute was the consensus among progressives and Democrats against this policy that a well-worn slogan was invented to object: a "legal black hole."

In his May "civil liberties" speech cynically delivered at the National Archives in front of the U.S. Constitution, Obama announced that he would seek from Congress a law authorizing and governing the President's power to imprison detainees indefinitely and without charges. But in September, the administration announced he changed his mind: rather than seek a law authorizing these detentions, he would instead simply claim that Congress already "implicitly" authorized these powers when it enacted the 2001 AUMF against Al Qaeda -- thereby, as The New York Times put it, "adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies."

If there's one thing we've seen repeatedly all year long, it's that many Democrats simply do not believe in the axiom best expressed by The New York Times' Bob Herbert when he said that "Americans should recoil as one against the idea of preventive detention." As Herbert wrote: "policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House." That precept should be too self-evident to require expression and yet is widely rejected.
Posted: May 19, 2010 6:56 pm
 
Anybody who thought the nightmare of renditions, indefinite detention, and torture would be over when Barack Obama replaced George Bush ought to take a hard look at the case of Binyam Mohamed.

In 2002 Mohamed, a 31-year-old Ethiopian with refugee status in Britain, became a victim of rendition while visiting Pakistan.

From Pakistan, Mohamed was put on a plane operated by Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc.—a Boeing subsidiary and CIA contractor—and sent to Morocco, where he was tortured for 18 months by Moroccan intelligence agents. He was rendered again on a Jeppesen-operated plane to Afghanistan where he was tortured some more. In 2004 he was rendered a third time to the U.S. torture camp at Guantanamo where he remains today.

The website barackobama.com said then that "The Bush administration has ignored public disclosure rules and has invoked a legal tool known as 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court."

But now as president, Obama is taking the very same position as Bush did on the state secrets issue. In a February 9 federal court hearing in the Mohamed et al. case, Douglas Letter of the Obama Department of Justice invoked the "state secrets privilege" to demand that the ACLU lawsuit be dismissed. The judges on the court were reportedly taken by surprise. One "startled" judge asked Letter, "The change in Administration has no bearing?" Letter answered "No" and said that his position was "thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration." And he even issued a warning: "Judges shouldn't play with fire."

ACLU's Ben Wizner, counsel for the five Guantanamo detainees, said, "This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course."

Obama's new Attorney General, Eric Holder, said in his confirmation hearing that prisoners captured by the U.S. could be preventatively detained, without charges or a trial, for the "the duration of a conflict." And since Obama is a big promoter of the U.S. "war on terror"—which the U.S. rulers have said could last for decades—"the duration of a conflict" basically means indefinite detention.

How is all this any different from Bush's outrageous claim of unlimited power, as "war time president," to declare people "enemy combatants" on his say-so and imprison them indefinitely?


------------------

Under Obama, the U.S has continued to torture prisoners at Guantanamo, where more than 200 detainees are still being held without charge or trial.

According to a February 2009 report by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), Guantanamo guards routinely subject detainees to vicious beatings, solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, suffocation, repeated use of tear gas, and the force-feeding of tubes through the nasal passages of hunger strikers. Much of this torture is committed by Guantanamo's Immediate Reaction Force (IRF) teams, which CCR president Michael Ratner has described as the "black shirts of Guantanamo."

Quoting from the CCR report: "Detainees are subjected to brutal physical assaults by the Immediate Reaction Force (IRF), a team of military guards comparable to a riot squad, who are trained to respond to alleged 'disciplinary infractions' with overwhelming force." And later in the report: "In Camps 5, 6 and Echo, detainees live in constant fear of physical violence. Frequent attacks by IRF teams heighten this anxiety and reinforce that violence can be inflicted by the guards at any moment for any perceived infraction, or sometimes without provocation or explanation."

In fact, conditions at Guantanamo have gotten even worse since Obama became president. "Certainly in my experience there have been many, many more reported incidents of abuse since the inauguration," Ahmed Ghappour, a lawyer representing several Guantanamo detainees, told Reuters in February.1

Even before his major speech on May 21, Obama made clear that he was continuing the fundamental aspects of the Bush Regime's detention program, including: Indefinitely detaining anybody his administration chooses to, without charge or trial; denying habeas corpus to hundreds of prisoners at the Bagram prison in Afghanistan, which is currently undergoing a $60 million expansion; denying habeas corpus to Guantanamo prisoners detained before June 2008; and reinstituting Bush's military commissions.

But in his May 21 speech, Obama went further than even Bush ever did: He announced his intent to implement indefinite preventive detention. In other words, Obama announced that in addition to sending detainees before military commissions, sending still other prisoners off for continued detention in other countries, releasing some detainees, and moving to prosecute others who have already been subjected to a living hell for the past several years, the U.S. will detain people indefinitely, without charge or trial, whom the government claims might commit a crime. Not just people whom the government claims have committed a crime, mind you, but those whom the administration says might commit a crime.

Finally, Obama has continued Bush's use of the "state secrets" argument to prevent victims of U.S. torture from suing the government. Perhaps most infamously, in February, the Obama administration applied the state secrets argument in the case of Mohamed et al vs. Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. In 2002, Binyam Mohamed--a citizen of Ethiopia and British resident--was arrested in Pakistan, and then sent by the U.S. to Morocco, and then Afghanistan, and then finally to Guantanamo. Mohamed was not released until 2009. During his seven years of detention, he was horrifically tortured.

This torture included having his penis repeatedly cut with a scalpel: "One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts," Mohamed said, recounting his treatment. "He did it once, and then stood still for maybe a minute, watching my reaction. I was in agony. They must have done this 20 to 30 times, in maybe two hours. There was blood all over. 'I told you I was going to teach you who's the man," [one] eventually said."

Mohamed and four other detainees sued Jeppesen Dataplan, a subsidiary of Boeing, for arranging the flights used to transfer them to the various countries in which they were tortured. But in February, the Obama administration continued to argue the same position as the Bush Regime in seeking to block Mohamed's lawsuit from proceeding: That allowing the case to go forward jeopardized U.S. national security.

In April, an appeals court ruled against the Obama administration and reinstated Mohamed et al vs. Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. But the fact that Obama would seek to protect torturers at the expense of torture victims is both very revealing, and very much in line with his overall continuation and escalation of the Bush Regime's torture and detention program.


-------------------

The Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission...

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration argues that the legal basis for indefinite detention of aliens it considers dangerous is separate from war-crimes prosecutions. Officials say that the laws of war allow indefinite detention to prevent aliens from committing warlike acts in future, while prosecution by military commission aims to punish them for war crimes committed in the past.

Yes, you read that right folks! Barack Obama's administration is using the same legal justification as George Bush's to detain 'suspected war criminals', even if they are found innocent by a military tribunal or American court.

The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration's position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) warrantless wiretapping program, filing a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA late Friday.

The Obama Justice Department claims in its motion that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged "state secrets." These are essentially the same arguments made by the Bush administration three years ago in Hepting v. AT&T, EFF's lawsuit against one of the telecom giants complicit in the NSA spying.
Posted: May 19, 2010 6:58 pm
 
Shit! Ok! You win. Damn.
Posted: May 19, 2010 7:15 pm
 
the only good thing about obama is his election raised a giant middle finger from the american people to their own racist ignorant republican bush loving brothers and sisters. at least obamas election showed the world that while we may be a country full of fat lazy and stupid people, the majority of us do not and did not agree with the neocons and their strategy for world domination. we put obama in charge on a message of change and getting us the fuck out of iraq and closing guantanamo and ending torture, and now that a year has passed, it is time we all start holding him accountable. simply being incrementally better than bush is not enough. the shitty thing is that obamas lack of real fundamental change is likely to disenfranchise a large number of younger voters, and the backlash against him will undoubtedly and unfortunately benefit the goddamn fucking republicans who got us into this mess in the first place! the problem is there are no easy answers, and no politician ever got elected by promising to raise taxes and cut benefits. all they are trying to do right now is keep the wool over our eyes for as long as possible so they can continue to loot us for everything they can before we the people realize that our whole financial system is one huge confidence game, a pyramid scheme guaranteed to fail. as soon as the american people wake up, stop spending, and pull their money out of banks they will be fucked. thats why they are working as quickly as possible to move us to a cashless society, where wealth only exists on a computer screen. my advice is grow your own food, learn some real skills like woodworking, and invest your money in things like tools. get out of debt and dont create any new debt.
Posted: May 19, 2010 9:03 pm
 
well said
Posted: May 19, 2010 9:25 pm
 
What about high-demand fields such as pizza delivery and bad songwriting? Dubious claims of heritage for Indian welfare?
Posted: May 19, 2010 9:45 pm
 
Indian welfare?

ignorant. indian welfare? my tribe pays tens of millions yearly to the state for the right to operate our businesses. dont worry, the welfare payments we are making to the state are unlikely to stop anytime soon, as that would only lead to an even greater budget shortfall than we are already facing. as far as cash i receive from the tribe, noone else has any more right to that money than me! we are all entitled by birth to an equal share of profits. its my inheritance, not a welfare program.

traditionally, certain fields are recession proof and food service is supposedly one of them. still, it was during the presidency of barack obama that our shop closed down and left over 20 people out of work in a city already closing in on 20% unemployment. i am not saying its his fault that we closed, but his stimulus sure hasnt done anything to make jobs more available around here, at least.
Posted: May 19, 2010 9:46 pm
 
bad songwriting?

propane propane
Posted: May 19, 2010 9:46 pm
 
RAPE!!!
Posted: May 19, 2010 10:08 pm
 
propane propane

You didn't write that did you?
one of Lahey's best
Posted: May 19, 2010 10:48 pm
 
Posted: May 20, 2010 6:26 am
 
Why do people think it's so easy to just "end the war"
???

Guess that's why they aren't running a country.
Posted: May 20, 2010 6:37 am
 
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank."

-barack obama
Posted: May 20, 2010 6:39 am
 
i guess by first thing I will do he meant???

i guess thats why he is running a country?

the results are the same, we are no better off. if mccain was in office, things would be pretty much the same. campaign on change and ending the war, get elected and do nothing.

great job.
Posted: May 20, 2010 6:52 am
 
obama runs on a platform of change and ending the war. one and a half years in, the war is nowhere near ending. things are pretty much the same.

mccain runs on a platform of keeping things the same and staying the course in iraq. one and a half years in, the war is nowhere near ending.

whats the difference? when do we begin to hold obama accountable for the things he promised. i personally voted for obama because he promised to end the iraq war and close guantanamo bay. he was supposed to be the smart harvard law guy as opposed to stupid bush and his evil hentchmen. well, obama doesnt have stupidity as an excuse! he knows damn well his treatment of detainees is against the constitution. he knows warrantless wiretaps are ethically wrong. he promised transparency and to hold those accountable who tortured or authorized torture.

any one thing would be bad enough, but the obama presidency taken as a whole thus far is nothing but one long laundry list of broken promises and upholding the essential parts of the bush doctrine. all i know is obama the president is not the same obama the candidate i voted for. when is it time to hold his feet to the fire like everyone did to bush? halfway through his term? after 3 out of the 4 years? or just let history be the judge...

FUCK that. he isnt doing anything to change SHIT, FUCK him./
Posted: May 20, 2010 6:55 am
 
the false left/right paradigm is a distraction tactic to divide us up, like we're rooting for a football team or something. the reality is the republicans are as conservative as democrats are socialist, that is, not very much at all. they are all put into power by, and to serve, the elite. finnark pretty much summed it up right away. sorry for all the drunken rambling.
Posted: May 20, 2010 7:04 am
 
If you smoked marijuana last week or even last month and you drive a car, you may be sent to prison under new guidelines drafted by the federal government.

The Obama administration released its National Drug Control Strategy guidelines last week. The federal government wants all of the states to adopt its authoritarian and draconian diktat and expand the drug war. From the guidelines:

Encourage States To Adopt Per Se Drug Impairment Laws [ONDCP]. State laws regarding impaired driving are varied, but most State codes do not contain a separate offense for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID). Therefore, few drivers are identified, prosecuted, or convicted for DUID. Law enforcement personnel usually cite individuals with the easier to prove driving while intoxicated (DWI) alcohol charges. Unclear laws provide vague signals both to drivers and to law enforcement, thereby minimizing the possible preventive benefit of DUID statutes. Fifteen states have passed laws clarifying that the presence of any illegal drug in a driver's body is per se evidence of impaired driving. ONDCP will work to expand the use of this standard to other states and explore other ways to increase the enforcement of existing DUID laws.



Obama's new guidelines will criminalize and add to the system hundreds of thousands of people and add thousands of people to the prison industry slave labor complex. In 2007 an American was arrested on marijuana charges every 36 seconds. Obama will increase this criminalization rate significantly.
Posted: May 20, 2010 8:13 am
 
http://bradx.podomatic.com/enclosure/2007-01-14T19_17_11-08_00.mp3

still great
Posted: May 20, 2010 11:23 am | Edited by: Beer Joint
 
I can't get a stupid second job at Home Depot or Target because of the stupid drug screening.....luckily I hear Popeye's don't drug screen.
Posted: May 20, 2010 12:37 pm
 
I could either read this thread or go back to work.....

Decisions
Posted: May 20, 2010 2:12 pm
 
http://www.politifact.com/

^^these guys do a pretty decent, fair job of keeping tabs on spurious claims by politicians and pundits. they also have an entire section dedicated to tracking Obama's promises.

another site, updated less frequently, but very even-handed: http://www.factcheck.org/
Posted: May 20, 2010 5:58 pm | Edited by: funnysmartname
 
I'm a little troubled by how much I agree with Brad. I liked that song too. but mostly because I love TPB.
Posted: May 20, 2010 7:16 pm
 
also because i have a GOD GIVEN TALENT as a fretboard wizzard and songwriter extraordinaire.
Posted: May 20, 2010 7:36 pm
 
God bless us all.
Posted: May 20, 2010 10:22 pm
 
fuck you, bitch.
Posted: May 20, 2010 10:34 pm
 
Didn't know there was a giant-head tribe. Too easy, I know. BX, you have no skills, hang your pride on group membership and false doctrine. How can you hate welfare when that's how you live?
Posted: May 20, 2010 11:14 pm
 
everyone seems to know what i hate now! crazy!

i never said i was against welfare, dumb mother fucker. i think social and welfare programs are very important, anyone who disagrees is an idiot. sure, lets end unemployment benefits for 15 million americans. leave them with no income and put them out in the streets. that will make things better somehow?

my tribe fought with the american colonists for our independence. they provided crucial food and supplies to george washington at valley forge. without them, the colonists would not have made it through the winter. my tribe is one of the largest employers in our state.

there is nothing "dubious" about my membership in the tribe. all members have to be able to trace their ancestry back to government base rolls from the 1800s. my pedigree is probably more pure than most.

here is the chief executive of my tribe with jay leno. yeah, there is a giant-head tribe.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/04/25/business/25native.lenox l.jpg
Posted: May 20, 2010 11:16 pm
 
Posted: May 21, 2010 8:16 am
 
I predict pot will be legal in most states within the next 25 years. I'd like to see some prosecutor throw me in jail for showing positive on a piss test.
Posted: May 22, 2010 10:17 am
 

here is the chief executive of my tribe with jay leno

are Native Americans --- Christan???
Something isn't adding up!
Posted: May 22, 2010 11:38 am
 
Liberals are stupid, but they're good in bed.

WHITE RICE WILL BE CONVERTED INTO SUGAR (it's glucose bitch), DON'T EAT IT AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted: May 22, 2010 11:41 am
 
HEY STUPID LIBERALS, FOR GOD'S SAKES DON'T EAT THE FUKKIN' WHITE RICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111
Posted: May 22, 2010 11:42 am
 
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111
Posted: May 22, 2010 11:43 am
 
AAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

I CAN'T STAND IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO WHITE RICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

aaagggggggggggggghHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
Posted: May 22, 2010 11:46 am
 
Glycogen.........Bloodstream!!!!!!!

NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Posted: May 22, 2010 11:48 am
 
"WHO PUT EGGS IN THE REFRIDGERATOR!?!?!?!?!?"
Posted: May 22, 2010 11:49 am
 
"Motorhead's not VEGAN!"
Posted: May 22, 2010 11:52 am
 
"Is that a bean burrito?...are you shure?! because if it's not I'm gonna tell all my idiot friends what you ate."
Posted: May 22, 2010 12:53 pm
 
Would you like Bill's Sperm with that?
Posted: May 22, 2010 3:54 pm
 
Let that faggot eat his OWN B-12
Posted: May 22, 2010 9:16 pm
 
are Native Americans --- Christan???
Something isn't adding up!


In 1816, Eleazar Williams, an Episcopalian Mohawk preacher who spoke fluent Oneida, arrived among the Oneida. At the time two groups of Oneida existed: the Christian Party and Pagan Party. Williams reinvigorated members of the Oneida Christian Party, who had converted to Christianity during the 1700s. Williams also converted members of the Oneida Pagan Party, which clung to Iroquois traditional religion. The Pagan Party became known as the Second Christian Party.

Williams and Jedidiah Morse, a White missionary, believed the Oneida and the other Iroquois nations would continue to suffer White encroachment in New York. They launched a plan--approved by the federal government--to relocate all New York Indians the Green Bay, Wisconsin area.

While the controversy over the 1821 and 1822 treaties continued, some of the Oneida began to move to Wisconsin. Many of the first arrivals were members of the Episcopalian First Christian Party and were later joined by members of the newly formed Methodist Orchard Party. By 1838, six hundred and fifty-four Oneida lived on the new reservation. A small group of Oneida remained on the reservation in New York, while others later moved to Ontario, Canada. The Oneida emigrants hoped that by removing to Wisconsin, they could avoid the pressures of White settlement they suffered in New York. Unfortunately, they were mistaken.

During the 1800s, the Oneida generally farmed and raised animals. They lived in log cabins, but by the 1840s they began to build frame houses. Both the Episcopalian and Methodist Oneida had their own churches and schools.
Posted: May 24, 2010 8:49 am
 
Obama had to fire the head of the CIA....if you want to grow a brain you should start posting about that back story.
Posted: May 24, 2010 10:49 am
 
Here's the NPR version of the story:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127020623


I like this post:

Buck Rogers (luckybucky) wrote:

Fall Guy?! Oliver North was the ultimate fall guy!

In this case, it's more likely that Obama got a whiff of some special "illegal" ops that the CIA are running and Dennis Blair was aware of. Obama simply would not risk the chance of this coming to light and the overall integrity of his cabinet being compromised. It's simple: out with the old, and in with the new niave Central Intelligence Director. Here's to the old boss, same as the new boss.

Enough evidence has come to light and been proven since Iran-Contra that Reagan and Bush both could have been impeached. Not only were they aware of it, but they were calling the shots.

I'm upset by the niavety of the American public.

The CIA are an ambiguous government entitity....if some one has a new chinese prototype or Iranian plans, they don't care if they're also smuggling heroin or coke or weapons...they'll look past all that for what they want.

If people only knew.


I don't know who that LuckyBucky guy is but apparently he likes to misquote Who songs....

;)
Posted: May 28, 2010 5:46 pm
 
We believe that Obama?s rhetoric was a complete fabrication aimed at diverting real energy for change into a cul de sac of Democratic apologetics. It was, in short, a hoax.

By ?hoax? we mean that it represents a corporate takeover the dissent that bubbled up in the country against the Bush administration, including his economic but mostly his imperialist agenda in Iraq and Afghanistan. Presenting Obama as a candidate of amorphous ?hope-and-change,? the corporate sponsors of Obama intended to divert this dissent into acceptable (Democratic) channels. Some if not most of it had, indeed, arisen from Democratic channels, but the meaning of this dissent far exceeded anything that the Democratic Party represented either in its stated platform, or its actual practices, especially the consistent and over-riding support of the wars. The corporate and military backers of Obama bet on Obama?s oratorical skill and civil-rights-sounding rhetoric to effect a prestidigitation of incredible proportions. The intention of the magic was to fool tens of millions of voters, small-scale individual contributors, and campaigners into believing that Obama was the genuine article, that he represented change from the very policies and practices that had made Bush so virulently despised and vehemently opposed. These policies include first and foremost the war.

While Obama maintained that Al Qaeda was best fought in Afghanistan, he nevertheless left a distinct impression that his intention was to end all of the wars as soon as possible, and to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq on ?day one.? Troops have indeed been moved around, repositioned outside of predefined ?combat zones.? But Obama missed his own deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq, and the message of Obama was anti-Bush doctrine, anti-war escalation, and anti-pre-emptive intervention. Nonetheless, after taking office, Obama proceeded to keep most of the Bush military team, including General David Petraeus and Bush?s last Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. During Obama?s first full year in office, a record number of civilians were killed in Afghanistan. The number of troops killed in Afghanistan in the first three months in 2010 doubled that of the same period a year before.

Obama has embraced the Bush ?surge? policy, adopted from the Iraqi ?surge? and implemented in Afghanistan. The effect has not been the victory supposedly desired (a premise we utterly reject?the intention is not to ?win? but to maintain occupation), but rather continued embattlement in territories continually under siege. Again, as in Iraq under Bush, the enemy in Afghanistan has changed under Obama. The troops admittedly fight the Taliban and not al-Qaeda, as promised. Furthermore, evidence points to the fact that we are actually funding the enemy that we are supposed to be fighting: The US is funding the Taliban militants via contractors. The bounty being offered by the Taliban for NATO troops killed is, in other words, being paid from the U.S. Treasury. Under Obama, the dreaded drone bombings in Pakistan, which kill thousands of civilians, have increased considerably.

Another major area of Obama?s hope-and-change rhetoric has to do with domestic surveillance. Where domestic surveillance is concerned, Obama actually has morphed into a more draconian form of Bush, extending domestic surveillance to the web. The USA PATRIOT Act has been extended under Obama -- although he campaigned against its renewal during his presidential campaign -- with no new added protections for civil liberties. The Obama Administration is seeking to weaken Miranda rights for terror suspects, venturing deep into territory on which George W. Bush did not tread.

In the area of treatment of ?enemy combatants,? which Obama renamed ?unprivileged enemy belligerents,? Obama has also maintained and extended the Bush policies. In May of 2010, the Obama Administration secured a legal victory from the D.C. Circuit Court. The Court ruled, ?Foreign nationals held at a U.S. military prison at Bagram airbase outside of Kabul, Afghanistan, do not have a right to challenge in U.S. courts their continued imprisonment.?

In early May 2010, an article in The Sydney Morning Herald revealed, ?The CIA received secret permission to attack a wider range of targets, including suspected militants whose names are not known, as part of a dramatic expansion of its campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan's border region? The expanded authority, approved two years ago by the Bush administration and continued by Barack Obama, permits the agency to rely on what officials describe as ?pattern-of-life? analysis, using evidence collected by surveillance cameras on the unmanned aircraft and from other sources about individuals and locations. The information was used to target suspected militants, even when their full identities were not known, the officials said. Previously the CIA was restricted in most cases to killing only individuals whose names were on an approved list.? Such de-facto ?death squads? represent a breathtaking expansion of executive power and provide clear evidence that Obama?s oratorical pleadings for ?change' were fueled by a desire to garner votes rather than a wish to implement actual change.

On the environment, Obama has been a complete disaster. Need one mention that Obama has utterly failed to respond to the oil gusher crisis in the Gulf of Mexico? More than a month after the disaster began, Obama has still not responded with federal direction of containment and clean-up efforts, leaving such to the very criminal culprits who caused the gusher that spews an estimated 70,000 barrels of oil into the Gulf daily. Just yesterday, the Obama administration once again defended BP?s containment and clean-up efforts, and refused to take charge of the disaster response, a disaster affecting four states directly, major fishing industries, thousands of jobs, and the health of tens of thousands if not the entire U.S. population. The damage to the Florida the wetlands and to other coastal areas surrounding the Gulf may be irreversible. This is a U.S. crisis affecting the U.S. continent and its citizens. Obama has utterly and miserably denied this fact and completely failed the U.S. population. His environmentalism is a complete fraud.

An earlier report published on this site pointed to the Obama?s support of the financial oligarchy over the people of the United States--of Wall Street over Main Street (?I?m Barack Obama and I approve this bailout.?) We are told now by Obamaphiles that the phrase is now irrelevant. It is called irrelevant because it represents a major breach of campaign promises -- the implication of which was that Obama would enact policies that favored the workers over the bankers and brokers on Wall Street and elsewhere in the financial oligarchy. This is nothing like the truth. After more than tripling Bush?s bailouts, Obama has done nothing but chide Wall Streeters verbally, while doing nothing substantial to reform their behavior. He defended the payout of bonuses for executives of the very companies that caused the financial meltdown of 2008. The financial ?reform? recently passed has given Wall Street a ?sigh of relief? because it is so favorable to them and does nothing to stem the tide of corruption, greed and the potential damage to the economic well-being of the vast majority.

The health care reform was apiece with this sort of reformism --a reformism that actually favors the corporations over the individuals supposedly protected. Rather than a public option that he campaigned on, the reform amounts to a bailout for the health care and pharmaceutical industries, funneling as it does coerced payments under penalty of fines from millions of the uninsured into corporate coffers. According to the CBO, an estimated four million of the uninsured will pay fines.

Have we missed anything? Most definitely, we could continue to point to Obama?s ?out-Bushing? of Bush. We provide a list of stories to support our case.

Now, why and how is the Obama presidency a hoax? The litany of ?failures? and ?betrayals? is just too long to maintain another narrative. The attempt is a vain endeavor continued only by the most recalcitrant of the Obama orthodoxy. In fact, we believe that a majority has implicitly accepted the fact that the word hoax best describes the Obama presidency. We see this position growing in the cyber sphere. It is the position of the most wizened political observers we know. But if the serious evidence is not enough, we point to a joke as an illustration.

We refer to Obama?s joke during the White House Correspondents' Dinner regarding the use of predator drones to attack the boy band, the Jonas Brothers. Jokes always reveal a kernel of truth. Every joke contains a parcel of latent seriousness. This joke reveals the true tenor of Obama?s thinking, or rather an admission of his real function. He is the leader of a military machine that kills without conscience. Unmanned drones represent the evacuation of human presence, cognition, and decision-making from the battlefield itself. Without review or visual recognition of an enemy from a human standpoint in the air or field, unmanned drones nevertheless kill. This is not indiscriminate killing, but it is indirect and undirected to an unconscionable degree. And it is not as accurate as to be able to target and kill particular individuals without ?collateral damage,? as Obama seemed to suggest. With this joke, Obama recognized and confessed the truth of his presidency. He is a leader of an imperialist financial and military oligarchy that has no conscience and no objective but profit and gain, no matter the cost in human misery and death. There is no ?hope? for ?change? under these conditions. The Obama hoax was to suggest that there was.

Let?s no longer refer to the Obama administration as a ?failure,? or his failures as ?betrayals.? To fail you have to intend to succeed, and Obama never intended to succeed at matching rhetoric and reality. The point was in fact to make rhetoric replace reality and to ?hope? that the rhetoric would continue to work as such for about four years. At that
Posted: Jun 5, 2010 12:40 pm
 
Wow,bradx is absolutely correct! Who knew?
Posted: Jun 5, 2010 4:19 pm
 
Posted: Today, 12:40 pm Quote Wow,bradx is absolutely correct! Who knew?
Yeah - cutting and pasting is always 100% TRUTH!
Posted: Jun 5, 2010 5:45 pm | Edited by: bradx
 
its more than cut and paste, its knowing where and what to cut and paste from and to. there is no hundred percent truth most of the time. i didnt cut or paste any of this:

i guess by first thing I will do he meant???

i guess thats why he is running a country?

the results are the same, we are no better off. if mccain was in office, things would be pretty much the same. campaign on change and ending the war, get elected and do nothing.

great job.

better than bush how? things look alot the same to me, except we are killing more people than bush ever did in afghanistan, and obama's war budget is also more than bush's ever was. guantanamo is still open, the patriot act has been extended, we are still torturing and holding innocent people without access to lawyers or being brought up on charges. meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

the only good thing about obama is his election raised a giant middle finger from the american people to their own racist ignorant republican bush loving brothers and sisters. at least obamas election showed the world that while we may be a country full of fat lazy and stupid people, the majority of us do not and did not agree with the neocons and their strategy for world domination. we put obama in charge on a message of change and getting us the fuck out of iraq and closing guantanamo and ending torture, and now that a year has passed, it is time we all start holding him accountable. simply being incrementally better than bush is not enough. the shitty thing is that obamas lack of real fundamental change is likely to disenfranchise a large number of younger voters, and the backlash against him will undoubtedly and unfortunately benefit the goddamn fucking republicans who got us into this mess in the first place! the problem is there are no easy answers, and no politician ever got elected by promising to raise taxes and cut benefits. all they are trying to do right now is keep the wool over our eyes for as long as possible so they can continue to loot us for everything they can before we the people realize that our whole financial system is one huge confidence game, a pyramid scheme guaranteed to fail. as soon as the american people wake up, stop spending, and pull their money out of banks they will be fucked. thats why they are working as quickly as possible to move us to a cashless society, where wealth only exists on a computer screen. my advice is grow your own food, learn some real skills like woodworking, and invest your money in things like tools. get out of debt and dont create any new debt.

obama runs on a platform of change and ending the war. one and a half years in, the war is nowhere near ending. things are pretty much the same.

mccain runs on a platform of keeping things the same and staying the course in iraq. one and a half years in, the war is nowhere near ending.

whats the difference? when do we begin to hold obama accountable for the things he promised. i personally voted for obama because he promised to end the iraq war and close guantanamo bay. he was supposed to be the smart harvard law guy as opposed to stupid bush and his evil hentchmen. well, obama doesnt have stupidity as an excuse! he knows damn well his treatment of detainees is against the constitution. he knows warrantless wiretaps are ethically wrong. he promised transparency and to hold those accountable who tortured or authorized torture.

any one thing would be bad enough, but the obama presidency taken as a whole thus far is nothing but one long laundry list of broken promises and upholding the essential parts of the bush doctrine. all i know is obama the president is not the same obama the candidate i voted for. when is it time to hold his feet to the fire like everyone did to bush? halfway through his term? after 3 out of the 4 years? or just let history be the judge...

FUCK that. he isnt doing anything to change SHIT, FUCK him./

the false left/right paradigm is a distraction tactic to divide us up, like we're rooting for a football team or something. the reality is the republicans are as conservative as democrats are socialist, that is, not very much at all. they are all put into power by, and to serve, the elite. finnark pretty much summed it up right away. sorry for all the drunken rambling.
Posted: Jun 10, 2010 2:12 am
 
I'm a little troubled by how much I agree with Brad. Don't worry. He'll contradict himself. He always does.
Posted: Jun 10, 2010 10:06 am | Edited by: Will
 
better than bush how?

no other admin in recent history would have done something as retarded as attacking Iraq and outright lying about the motives. as for Obama's continuation of our efforts in the middle east (which I'm very much against), it's not like he operates in a vacuum. there are military and intelligence leaders briefing him on the daily and he is certainly privy to info and blowback scenarios that we are not. that's not to give him a pass, he should be held just as accountable as anyone else. this is a huge fucking mess, and we all know who started it without any provocation.
Posted: Jun 11, 2010 5:10 pm
 
And the Left Chimes in...

Left-Wing Icon Daniel Ellsberg 'Obama Deceives the Public'

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,699677,00.html

ACLU director says he's 'disgusted' with Obama policies

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0610/aclu-director-disgusted-obama/
Top
Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message
 

 
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

 
  Goner Message Board Powered by PHP Forum Software miniBB ®