View Full Version: Barack Obama

The Daemonic Legion > Weird, Wild and definitely Off Topic > Barack Obama


Title: Barack Obama
Description: What are your thoughts?


The Twisted Disciple - January 20, 2009 05:58 PM (GMT)
!Yay! George Bush is finally out of the white house and Barak is in.

I think this is a very good thing. Barak sounds good at the very least.

Just wanted to know what every one thought about the new President

Thanks

gjnoronh - January 20, 2009 06:19 PM (GMT)
My first thought is that you should spell his name correctly - thread title corrected :)

I'm quite excited and hopeful - he has the potential to be the best american president in my lifetime - but he's also going to spend much of his presidency dealing with the international financial crisis, and the US's involvement in two wars at once.

oinky - January 20, 2009 07:28 PM (GMT)
Here in Europe he is very popular.I think he will be a very good president.I only hope people don't expect he can change things in a short time.But in the long run it's going to be great.

Greetings from Belgium

Oinky ;)

Feuermann - January 20, 2009 07:37 PM (GMT)
In spain is very popular too, except right-wing politicians, who don't want a new economic system

Here we have other problems with crisis, because the spanish economyc system was based on inmobiliary speculation.


Negativemoney - January 21, 2009 04:13 PM (GMT)
I find him to be a straw man. That is that there is no substance to him or anything he has done. He was elected to the presidency through fear and a desire to have something that was not the norm. If there were a highering manager for the position of President of the United States, his resume would not even been looked at.

His plans and proposals for helping the economy will do more harm than good. Almost every financial expert I have talked to is saying that his plans will prolong this recession though they will prevent a depression.

Spending is not the way out. The only way we as a capitalistic country can emerge from this successfully is for the Government to back out of business and let the Free Market work it self out. The market can fix it self but it needs to learn how to walk on its own two feet again. Right now the Government is providing a wheelchair and band aids to corporate America, which is not what we need.

Only time will tell.

On a final note.

Obama is a Greater Daemon of Tzeentch (Lord of Change)!

MTF8 - January 21, 2009 04:30 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Negativemoney @ Jan 21 2009, 11:13 AM)
I find him to be a straw man. That is that there is no substance to him or anything he has done. He was elected to the presidency through fear and a desire to have something that was not the norm. If there were a highering manager for the position of President of the United States, his resume would not even been looked at.

His plans and proposals for helping the economy will do more harm than good. Almost every financial expert I have talked to is saying that his plans will prolong this recession though they will prevent a depression.

Spending is not the way out. The only way we as a capitalistic country can emerge from this successfully is  for the Government to back out of business and let the Free Market work it self out. The market can fix it self but it needs to learn how to walk on its own two feet again. Right now the Government is providing a wheelchair and band aids to corporate America, which is not what we need.

Who are you talking about here? Obama? Bush?

To think that Obama was elected thru fear and bush was not means that you really dont have a good grasp on what is going on. Bush has done nothing but fear mongering and saber rattling since 9/11. Bush has spent TRILLIONS of dollars on the current economic crisis and we have gotten nowhere. Also, whatever the government is doing "right now" is a direct result of the choices and leadership of the Bush Administration. You need to get some better information and stop listening to a single biased source of information.

Bush was elected thru fear, and on the opposite end Obama was elected thru hope. Obama would most likely not have been elected if it wasnt for the tragedy that is the Bush Administration.

Now I do like Obama, and his speeches do move and inspire me, but he hasn't acutally done anything yet, so its hard for me to get too excited. I also think that making speeches that move and inspire the greater part of the U.S.A. is a VERY important part of being a president.

Negativemoney - January 21, 2009 06:23 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (MTF8 @ Jan 21 2009, 11:30 AM)
To think that Obama was elected thru fear and bush was not means that you really dont have a good grasp on what is going on. Bush has done nothing but fear mongering and saber rattling since 9/11. Bush has spent TRILLIONS of dollars on the current economic crisis and we have gotten nowhere. Also, whatever the government is doing "right now" is a direct result of the choices and leadership of the Bush Administration. You need to get some better information and stop listening to a single biased source of information.

The people of this country were afraid that McCain was going to be another 4 years of Bush. Obama took advantage of that and ran with it. If it wasn't for McCain's statement that "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" and how that backfired on him, he would have won the election. That moment was the real change in the way the election went.

Bush has spent $350 billion thus far on the economy, not Trillions, and Obama had asked Bush to go to Congress to get the other $350 billion. Yes this has done nothing, but it is a plan that Obama SUPPORTED. Now he wants to get another $850 Billion for Projects that should be the responsibility of the States to fix.

The Bush Deficit came from mismanagement of the Prolonged engagement in Iraq and uncharacteristically Liberal Spending by a Conservative Congress and Executive Branch.
The solution to our problem is to spend less and save more. We need to Stratiegicly withdraw from Iraq and finish in Afghanistan. Once we have spending under control and our economy sorts it self out we will be in good shape. Until then we need be mindful of our jobs and spend our money wisely.

MTF8 - January 21, 2009 07:32 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Negativemoney @ Jan 21 2009, 01:23 PM)

The people of this country were afraid that McCain was going to be another 4 years of Bush. Obama took advantage of that and ran with it. If it wasn't for McCain's statement that "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" and how that backfired on him, he would have won the election. That moment was the real change in the way the election went.
So that is the only reason why McCain lost? Obama won because he is an inspirational speaker and ran the first ever successful bottom-up campaign. Even the fury of the Clinton political machine couldn't put a dent in the persona of his campaign.

QUOTE
Bush has spent $350 billion thus far on the economy, not Trillions, and Obama had asked Bush to go to Congress to get the other $350 billion.
The $350 billion that the mass media is in a frenzy over is but one of many bailouts. If you look it up and add them all together you get a number close to $1.8 Trillion, including the bank bailout.

QUOTE
The solution to our problem is to spend less and save more.
This is how capitalism dies, not thrives.

The Dark Lord - January 21, 2009 10:41 PM (GMT)
I like him. :)

gjnoronh - January 22, 2009 12:45 AM (GMT)
As MTF8 points out while anti bushism certainly hurt the Republican party Obama was also one of the most exciting candidates we've seen in years. Listen to the guy speak - it's hard to deny that he has a vision for America.

This is the same charisma that catapulted Reagan, and Clinton during my lifetime to their presidency. You can argue whether or not charisma made them better presidents - but it was a factor in their success. Reagan in particular really lacked details in his campaign speeches - but like Obama the American people believed in his ability to lead the country. However lets drop the charisma issue - it's clearly been important to succesful presidencies but it's not all any of us would want in a president.

You can disagree with Obama's policies - but it's hard to argue with appointing internationally respected economists, and scientists to those key posts in his administration. I don't know what McCain would have done (and I think he might have done as well) but the Bush appointees were conspicously absent scientists or leading lights in their fields in some cases they were literally tragic as in the FEMA director whose previous job experience was apparently the administration of horse racing on a state level.

I actually have a great deal of respect for McCain - though the McCain we saw in 08 was not the McCain of the 2000 election cycle (who was nastily stabbed in the back by the Bush political machine that year by the way with allegations of mixed race love children fathered out of wedlock.)

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...smear_campaign/

The 2008 McCain ran as a much more 'traditional' republican than fiscally conservative socially independent, anti government waste platform he took in 2000 and during his senatorial campaign. If the 2000 McCain ran he'd have had a better chance with the moderates who voted Obama - he might have lost some of the bible thumping / big business far right that did vote him. (As an aside one of the interesting things that came out of this election is how much the current republican party looks like the democratic party of the eighties and nineties - a coalition of disparate groups without significant ideological ties to each other.)

Regarding fear though - Palin was the real polarizer.

Her entry into the race gave McCain credentials with the far religious right - and drove the moderates away who were still on the fence. She bought him votes and lost him votes at the same time just on different parts of the political spectrum.

Fear of a possible president Sarah Palin (with an old McCain with history of a concerning cancer) was what turned folks who in september were probably going to vote Obama into folks who ardently campaigned on his behalf.

For a really interesting read from a very fiscally conservative publication with the best political analysis I read - check out the Economists coverage of the campaign and Obama. (The Economist is a very highly respected political/econimical news magazine based in England- they have a nice website to check out) They were actually somewhat suprised on their own part that they endorsed Obama in the campaign.

Des - January 22, 2009 12:10 PM (GMT)
I have hope that he might be able to implement many of his intended policies (despite them being somewhat vague). It is a tall task though; much needs to be done and the power to change things does not rest wholly within his hands. Incidentaly, I respect John McCain as a person, despite not agreeing with the majority of his policies, and I think he managed a credible finish considering the groundswell of discontent his party was on the end of.

Hopefully this election can be a catalyst that dimisnishes the power of Friedmanism as an economic force. It is a force that has built an outwardly attractive looking structure on top of a swamp, and this is now becoming apparent to the world. 50 years of exploiting the poor and corroberating with undemocratic regimes so a bunch of suits can get very rich has left us in this mess. I hardly think this is a time to ask the people to back off and let these swindlers have another crack at it. I think everyone has heard someone remark in their life time something along the lines of "communism was great at the theory level but couldn't withstand application in the real world". I'd say pure capitialism, or any overly forceful capitalist theory is liable to the same charges.

As far as I am concerned Obama's greatest test is how he directs the economy in the coming months and years. I sincerely hope he curtails the excesses of recent years and brings in some worthy regulation.

AGPO - January 23, 2009 04:16 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Negativemoney @ Jan 21 2009, 11:13 AM)
I find him to be a straw man. That is that there is no substance to him or anything he has done. He was elected to the presidency through fear and a desire to have something that was not the norm. If there were a highering manager for the position of President of the United States, his resume would not even been looked at.

His plans and proposals for helping the economy will do more harm than good. Almost every financial expert I have talked to is saying that his plans will prolong this recession though they will prevent a depression.

Spending is not the way out. The only way we as a capitalistic country can emerge from this successfully is for the Government to back out of business and let the Free Market work it self out. The market can fix it self but it needs to learn how to walk on its own two feet again. Right now the Government is providing a wheelchair and band aids to corporate America, which is not what we need.

Before you comment on Obama's substance, you should actuall yread his books and not just comment on the three second soundbites you pick up from the news. Much of what Obama proposes is revolutionary for politics, and he has a real insight into the social and economic issues affecting you. He was elected to the presidency because he is a genuinely inspiring figure who has run a campaign from the bottom up, rather than relying on rich donors. No other US politician has managed to rally such extraordinary levels of support.

I don't know which economic 'experts' you've been listening to, but clearly you've misunderstood them. For a market to "sort itself out" it needs, um... spending. Without a strong circular flow of income markets do not function and the positive multipliers needed for growth don't happen. Even Greenspan recognises this, as the high priest of libertarian free market capitalists. From your second post you also clearly misunderstand the term 'liberal', which concerns a political and economic philosophy involving minimal state intervention. Interventionist spending maybe.

@ Des - I see we are of one ind of Friedman. The worst possible outcome of this crisis would be that the people who caused it come out unpunished and free to continue the same as always in a consequence free environment


Trogdor - January 23, 2009 04:48 PM (GMT)
I don't identify with any particular party, but I do tend to lean away from the liberal right. I felt that Obama becoming president was pretty inevitable. Too many things came together for Obama (including running an amazing campaign) to form such a perfect storm that there wasn't any doubt that we would see him in the White House.

He's a great speaker and very charismatic and that makes a good politician. Making big promises is also what a good politician does. I have to view him with a skeptical eye at this point. Of course he's new so there's no way to pass any kind of judgment just yet. I hope he can deliver on most of what he is expected to do. There has just been so much hype and build up of the man that it sets up some pretty high (maybe unrealistic) expectations.

As far as the economic crisis goes, the biggest factor IMO is "lack of confidence". People are unsure of their jobs, people are unsure of their investments and retirement. Creditors are unsure if people will default on loans. Right now anyone that has some money is sitting on it and that fear is paralyzing the economy. The news agencies only enhance this fear with non-stop reports of poor earnings by nearly all large companies, more jobs lost, special reports on people losing their houses, and it goes on and on and on. If we can get some positive news going and do something to restore some "confidence" then the market can right itself. As long as fear is as pervasive as it is right now, it is a long uphill battle that the government can throw billions of dollars at without treating the cause. But Obama has shown that he can inspire and that might just be what we need right now.

Bottom line is I'm hopeful and yet skeptical. Wait and see is what I'll be doing for the next little while.

CheTralfara - January 31, 2009 05:11 PM (GMT)
So now that Obama...

...has endorsed and supported the genocide in Gaza...

...killed over 20 civillians in his first bombing of Pakistan (an act of war, as there was no agreement between the US and Pakistani leaders to for this bombing that MAY have killed 1 "POSSIBLE" al-queda affliated person)...

...says he is sending more troops to Afghanistan (regardless of the fact that California is now broke and issuing "IOU checks" to it's citizens!)...

...currently has the US military positioning to act as a law enforcement INSIDE THE US, despite this being named explicitly illegal by the constitution (see: posse comitatus)...

...is pushing yet another trillion dollar bailout, despite economic experts equating these bailouts as "pouring kerosine on an already raging fire"...

...the latest bailout also includes giving 4 billion to increasing the size of the already massive US police state and continuing the colossal destructive failure that is the so-called "war on drugs"...

...has appointed Rahm Emmanuel (the son of an actual terrorist) as Chief Of Staff, who has already introduced OVER 6 anti-gun bills, including a new law that gives Obama-appointed "Attorney General" Eric Holder the power to declare guns are illegal by his decree (in other words, he can announce they are illegal, and it will be so... despite that being in complete contradiction to the constitution, and thus, a null and void law/illegal) ... Keeping in mind that Eric Holder is the same guy who openly lobbied the supreme court for a nation-wide TOTAL 100% GUN BAN for anyone who isn't military or law enforcement...

...these laws include (amongst other nightmares) jail-time for anyone who doesn't report their firearm stolen within the first 24 hours (My uncle had his gun stolen from his home by a worker, and didn't even realize it until the gun had been used in an armed robbery! Should he be arrested?)... and the REQUIREMENT that you "voluntarily" surrender your medical records to the government (since they can't obtain them without your permission) in order to obtain your brand new Gun License.

... so now that Obama has DONE ALL THIS in how many days so far???

...and the cherry on top! is pushing a bill that effectively authorizes CIVILIAN DETENTION CAMPS "in the case of a national emergency" as a part of the Pentagon's "Civillian Inmate Labor Program", better known as FEMA Camps (or even better known as American Concentration Camps), to be built on military installations (despite these camps already existing and being well documented, though denied all the way up until now)...

...don't forget that the president can now declare the country in a state of national emergency AT HIS WHIM, and can "officially" circumvent ALL branches of government and take total control of the United States, placing us under an official dictatorship, as per the executive order that Bush introduced.

...don't forget that we are in the middle of an economic meltdown that could cause the collapse of the dollar which could cause rioting far worse than has already happened in Iceland and Greece... providing the perfect national emergency for the martial law apparatus to round us up into detention facilities "to help us", and "for our own good"....

So with all that, do you really still think Obama represents "Hope" and "Change"?

All of this, kinda cancels out that 1 closing GITMO thing... don't ya think?

If you don't believe me, you can google everything that I've mentioned, and find more information than you'd ever care to need on the terrible things happening all around us that obama-worshipping media that proclaims obama as "the one" and "the president of the world" won't show you.

But it really is important you read about the concentration/fema camps especially.

.nick

p.s. wolf in sheep's clothing anyone?

Finnigan2004 - January 31, 2009 06:00 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (CheTralfara @ Jan 31 2009, 12:11 PM)
p.s. wolf in sheep's clothing anyone?


On the bright side, he had to skin the real wolves to get there. ;) I'm more than happy to see the backside of Bush and the Republican majorities. They were too extremist in my opinion, and scary and amoral in many ways. I think prison planet is a fun and funny site for under reported news, but their analysis is always a little too conspiracy theorist for my liking.

I suspect that Obama will make an attempt to govern from the center, and time will tell how effective he will be at that. He is an inspirational figure with the common sense to select a cabinet from a broad base of viewpoints. He could be great, and he inspires hope-- something that is very important to people at this time.

For the time being, it's reassuring to me to have someone that I think is at the very least as smart as me in charge of the American nuclear arsenal.

Ken

mormeguil - January 31, 2009 06:38 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
...has appointed Rahm Emmanuel (the son of an actual terrorist) as Chief Of Staff, who has already introduced OVER 6 anti-gun bills, including a new law that gives Obama-appointed "Attorney General" Eric Holder the power to declare guns are illegal by his decree (in other words, he can announce they are illegal, and it will be so... despite that being in complete contradiction to the constitution, and thus, a null and void law/illegal) ... Keeping in mind that Eric Holder is the same guy who openly lobbied the supreme court for a nation-wide TOTAL 100% GUN BAN for anyone who isn't military or law enforcement...

...these laws include (amongst other nightmares) jail-time for anyone who doesn't report their firearm stolen within the first 24 hours (My uncle had his gun stolen from his home by a worker, and didn't even realize it until the gun had been used in an armed robbery! Should he be arrested?)... and the REQUIREMENT that you "voluntarily" surrender your medical records to the government (since they can't obtain them without your permission) in order to obtain your brand new Gun License.


May I say FINALLY for all this and for the rest well if he gets in a cheaper education and hospitals cheaper. I really just don't care what else he do.

CheTralfara - January 31, 2009 06:39 PM (GMT)
Too conspiracy theorist? People called FEMA Camps a conspiracy theory, and denied that they exist. Now Obama is pushing an actual bill with the words "FEMA Camps" in writing as a part of a "Civilian Inmate Labor Program". It's all smart, because it's all engineered exactly as according to plan by the "real wolves" that fully endorsed obama and practically chose him from day one. He hasn't skinned a wolf yet. Is he prosecuting Bush for his war crimes? No. He chose 1 thing (closing GITMO) to make it look like he's legit, and then stealthily successfully accomplishes far more to destroy the constitution in 2 weeks than bush did in his first year!

Do you realize that as soon as Obama was elected his campaign managers/advisors/spokespeople were going on news outlets to purposely LOWER our expectations at how much change Obama could actually acheive. ...

So in his first 2 weeks he's...

PROS:

closed GITMO

CONS:

-legalized and authorized concentration camps in the US
-killed over 20 civilians in one bombing
-engaged in an act of war with a country we are at peace with
-supported genocide in gaza
-committed to continue to loot our economy with endless war and banker bailouts (rather than committing to the people of the US, and feeding the money directly into the economy/the people)
-has put forth a huge wave of bills to completely illegalize guns
-gave 4 billion to increase the size of the police state & the failed war on drugs
-appointed an anti-constitution radical gun-banner, and the son of an actual terrorist.
-is sending the military to act as a police force in direct violation of the constitution.

WOW! Yeah, don't expect TOOOOO much change.... he can only do SO much.

mormeguil - January 31, 2009 06:55 PM (GMT)
CheTralfara, I would be very interested if you could provide some sources as to where exactly these information comes from. So far my , I must admit quick and less then complete, research as not wielded much results.

Most of the things you list seems to be a bit of an exagerations.

The Dark Lord - January 31, 2009 06:57 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (CheTralfara @ Jan 31 2009, 01:39 PM)
WOW! Yeah, don't expect TOOOOO much change.... he can only do SO much.

PROS:
- closed GITMO
-committed to continue to aid our economy with ending the wars and banker bailouts
-has put forth a huge wave of bills to completely illegalize guns
-gave 4 billion to increase the size of the police state & the war on drugs
-is sending the military to act as a police force

There we go. ;)

Finnigan2004 - January 31, 2009 08:36 PM (GMT)
Well, we're likely on the same side of some of your points, but reality somewhat limits certain aspects of the Obama presidency. First off, of course his advisors will try to limit the sky high expectations because that's the way the political game has to be played regardless of your political camp. Before you can effect change, you have to win. There is a huge mess, and they would be derilict, if they did not look ahead to the second term.

On your points, most of them are a little overstated. He did not actually come out and support genocide in Gaza, for example. I am against Isreal's actions there (I'm against Hamas's actions as well, but everyone else seems to think that you need to back one side or the other). Overstating the reality does not help your case.

Further, no american president castigates Isreal (while they are in office that is, mr. Carter did so on some occasions afterward). It's simply not done by anyone who wants a second term because support for Isreal is very deep with the American public in general. I hope that he will work to bring peace to the region to the extent of his actual ability, for the benefit of both sides in the conflict.

Likewise, he has not and will not ban guns. It is impossible in the United States, due to the attitude of Americans toward guns. Some radical elements even fight against moves to get rid of things like "cop killer" bullets, presumably because they think that the deer they hunt with an assault rifle might be wearing a kevlar vest.

He probably will, on the other hand, try to rectify the huge problem that the United States has with gun crimes. While some will try to the best of their ability to deny it, this has at least some connection with the massive number of guns that Americans have. Hopefully he will have some success here, but it will meet with much ideological resistance.

As for Rahm Emmanuel-- I've never really heard about his father's terrorist activities. On the other hand, I have always thought that America was a place where the son was judged on his own merits, rather than those of his father. I can see that with Obama's administration this is the case, so it seems all is well.

On the economy, there will always be argument about the most effective means of governing. I tend to come far closer to his allocation of resources than those of any Republican than I've ever heard speak, so I'll put some faith in him there. We'll see how it turns out, but if he can extricate the United States from it's foreign wars, he might save some coin to spend nearer to home. It will be a tricky proposition, but here's hoping.

I think that your other points need some fleshing out before responding to them. Some seem unclear and others seem a little bit thin on factual support, making both tough to discuss here. I hope that your fears do not come to fruition, but I do think that many of the people who look forward with hope can feel better than they have in some time.

On behalf of us both, I hope that the worst case scenario that you envision remains in the realm of conspiracy theories. Hey, I think that I'll watch that movie again. It was great, even though I'm not a huge Mel Gibson fan.

CheTralfara - February 1, 2009 09:35 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
PROS:
-closed GITMO
-committed to continue to aid our economy with ending the wars and banker bailouts
-has put forth a huge wave of bills to completely illegalize guns
-gave 4 billion to increase the size of the police state & the war on drugs
-is sending the military to act as a police force


WOW, so you enjoy being enslaved?
You would enjoy having the police state which is growing exponentially, increased? Apparently you haven't been harrassed by the cops enough yet for carrying out your freedoms and rights. And about the drug war, I could go on for years about the hipocrisy and destruction that it does to our country, the hell that it puts innocent people through (pain patients, families, jailed non-violent "criminals"), the rascism it perpetuates/creates, the over filling of our prisons with non-violent "criminals" who come out worse than ever before after being exposed to that world, the urban rot that it creates, the underprivileged families who depend on drug money to feed their families only to find their child has been beaten, killed, robbed, or jailed.. The countless addicts who could be getting serious help instead of going through the worst prison conditioning exposing them to rape and violence, and turning them into real criminals.. The mass brain-washing of society that "drugs are bad mmkkk" instead of ACTUAL education, thus undermining ALL of their so-called "drug eduction" once they find out drugs aren't simply bad because they are "ILLEGAL" or they will "KILL YOU!".

If there is 1 THING that could be changed overnight to end more crime, violence, lower our prison population DRASTICALLY, lower our crime-rate to UNPRECEDENTED numbers, nearly eliminate the income to gangs and organized crime across the nation, help addicts to overcome their addictions without fear of being jailed and treated like criminals, end the destructive miseducation of our children, nearly completely reverse the rot that has become the US Inner City/Ghetto (a breeding ground for racism, police corruption, violence, rape, and death)... that 1 thing would be ending the war on drugs and ending prohibition so that all "controlled" substances that people use as "drugs" are now available in a regulated and TAXED (think of what it'd do for our economy!) the way alchohol and tobacco are.

EVEN THE POLICE REALIZE PROHIBITION MUST END (see: www.leap.cc), they've seen the disaster and destruction FIRST HAND.

Do you enjoy having your only protection against criminals taken away?
Do you realise that if the american public is disarmed then...

- The government is in a perfect position to completely enslave the public with little to no resistance
- Criminals all over the nation (WHO WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS AND ALREADY DO, UNREGISTERED BLACK MARKET GUNS) will now know that nearly EVERYONE is disarmed and therefore they can rob and hurt anyone they like, creating a massive surge in crime.
- Families all over the nation who refuse to leave their family unprotected against the government and this new massive wave of crime, will now be "criminals" for keeping or trying to obtain a gun on the black market.
- Like drugs, because these good people want or need to obtain a gun illegally, they will be forced to deal with criminals and the worst kind of people, therefore risking everything that goes with that.

YAY! For banning all guns!

QUOTE
will not ban guns. It is impossible in the United States, due to the attitude of Americans toward guns. Some radical elements even fight against moves to get rid of things like "cop killer" bullets, presumably because they think that the deer they hunt with an assault rifle might be wearing a kevlar vest.


True that it is technically and constitutionally impossible to make guns illegal. This doesn't stop presidents throughout history (despite that it's illegal) from suspending the constitution, especially during wartime. This doesn't change the fact that while he says he won't ban guns, he has over 6 bills in the house that put intense and extreme restrictions on the sale of firearms, ban all private legal sales of firearms, require you to surrender documents that the government has no right or legal ability to know about, but will now use them against you and try to declare you unstable to use a gun (e.g. anyone who's seen a psychiatrist in their life). If you don't see the danger in this, then good luck to you. You're gonna need it.

There was already an illegal gun confiscation over in New Orleans where the National Guard went door to door in a suburban development to raid peoples houses in order to steal and confiscate their legally-owned registered firearms. Confiscating their ONLY defense and protection to their house and family against looters during Katrina. If you think for a second that this didn't function as a practice exercise and they wouldn't do this to you, think again!

Also don't forget that some of those "radical" groups you are talking about, are the ones that push for anti-gun legislation. NRA has many times effectively worked as a front group for the anti-gun movement. Then other of these so-called "radicals" are just doing what they can to stop the INCREMENTAL take over and removal of all firearms. This is how government slips things under your noses... INCREMENTALLY.

some of many SOURCES:

SOURCE 1 (video)
SOURCE 2 (video)
SOURCE 3
SOURCE 4
SOURCE 5

...and I'm continually hearing you guys claim that Obama has committed to ending our imperial dominance over the middle east through foreign invasions and wars?

That idea is completely unfounded, not only has Obama never committed to such a thing, but has instead said that he will increase our invasion into Afgahnistan and has already begun bombing Pakistan... Yeah that's really ending the wars! Pull out of one country (which he will NEVER do completely. He will never end our US bases there which cause the biggest tensions and feelings of being invaded and enslaved. He won't end their biggest incentive for recruiting new terrorists, our presence) to invade another!

as for the economy.... yeaaah destroying the dollar will save us! Bring in the Amero! yay! let's merge with Canada and Mexico to save us! Build super continents like the European Union. Eliminate all our power as individual people by creating the most massive One World government you can!! Yippee! I love having absolutely no power to influence my government. I love having NO VOICE. The smaller your government, the more power you have as an idividual, the more influence you have, the louder your voice! Don't fall for this giant push to brainwash us into a New Global Order/1 World Government as people like Kissinger and Gordon Brown are all about.

QUOTE
Another question by Allison Kugel, PR.com: Barack Obama compared this financial crisis to a house on fire, and that the fire needs to be put out before we can address the problem and the guilty parties involved. Do you think the bailout package effectively puts out the fire?

Ron Paul: No. It’s pouring kerosene on the fire because the problem was created by government meddling, government regulations, government dictating, government inflation, government spending… and that’s all we’re doing. We’re spending more, running up more deficits, printing more money and trying to regulate away the bad effects of all these policies. So, yes it would be good to put out the fire, but you’ve got to know where the fire is coming from and what caused it all. But, what they’re doing is not putting out the fire. They’re just making it worse.


It is constantly claimed that there is no sane voice on the Republican side, but that's because you haven't met one who actually knows what they are talking about and actually cares about America and YOUR Freedom more than anyone. That's because you haven't met Congressman Ron Paul, the man who was completely blacklisted by the mainstream media. It would do you A LOT of good to read his words. (see: www.ronpaul.org)

I will do you a favor and source everything I originally mentioned. Give me a few hours, I have things to do.

.nick

p.s. about that great government-run healthcare you want... Other than when has the government ever run anything effectively that helps the people (just look at how we run our economy and wars), you really want the government having complete control and knowledge of your medical well-being? The same government that jails doctors for prescribing pain relief to people who suffer more than you can comprehend? The same government that will decide that you can't have a certain freedom and right because you were diagnosed with depression, or you had a visit at one point with a psychologist or other medical proffessional... or maybe you just came back from war.. certainly you must be too unstable to protect your family (That last one has already JUST happened. The latest in "victim disarmament")

You think these things aren't coordinated and planned attacks on American freedom, but they are USING YOU (the democrat Obama-loving crowd), JUST LIKE they did to the Republican Bush-worshipping bunch.

The 2 parties are there for you to think there is a real solution and change on their other side, but it is a FARCE. 2 sides of the exact same coin. 2 nearly-identical managers competing for the same position. They will lie through their teeth.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I'm trying to HELP YOU and SAVE OUR COUNTRY, not disagree and argue with you!

Pedro - February 1, 2009 10:27 PM (GMT)

QUOTE
- The government is in a perfect position to completely enslave the public with little to no resistance


I am a bit curious about this statement. Are you believing that this will happen? Obviously every country without public guns is a dictatorship. If you believe that a gun can protect you from your country going 1984 on you, I can't say that I agree with you. If anything, guns allow people to be controlled easier (one man with a gun can control many more people than one without, but of course that is moot if everyone has guns), but that is irrelevant.

If the government would "enslave" you, they would hardly do anything that your gun could defend you against. All it would help you do is riot (or shoot government officials :wacko:), and that would be a great excuse to utilize the soldiers brought in to act as police...

As for "the only protection", I wonder about a state where everyone has to fend for himself (with a gun), and still rejects the government spending on the police. Does not make any sense to my limited government-controlled mind. Also, am I not correct in believing that the military (seemingly the same that confiscated the guns) defended the peoples homes against looting, by SHOOTING looters at sight? Is that not a fair use of the military? After all, people are getting shot. Should the people have to stay in their flooded homes, with their guns, to fight against looters (which are obviously also armed)?

And while this may be because of the fact that the U.S. are fundamentally different from where I live, "petty" criminals here (I am talking about the muggers and such), do not have guns. Knives, cudgels and other improvised weapons, sure, but guns are quite rare.

Finally, are you ready to shoot someone (assuming of course you are old enough to own your own gun)? If he/she pulls a gun on you and you draw yours, what happens? Situations like these may be rare because of the deterring effect of the guns, but they must happen. If you heard someone creeping about in your house, would you draw your gun and kill him/her? Can you even fire your gun with any accuracy?

Of course, you probably view life very differently from what I do, and think I am an pathetic, government-worshiping wimp who would rather hide behind the authorities than put a few rounds through the skull of petty criminals. :D

The Dark Lord - February 2, 2009 12:14 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (CheTralfara @ Feb 1 2009, 04:35 PM)
Do you enjoy having your only protection against criminals taken away?
Do you realise that if the american public is disarmed then...

-has put forth a huge wave of bills to completely illegalize guns
-is sending the military to act as a police force
-gave 4 billion to increase the size of the police state & the war on drugs

Which means taking away guns but increasing the public safety so people can feel safe without a gun or two in their homes.

I'm Swedish, so I didn't really get to vote in the election (nor catch that much of the campaign) ;), but Obama is doing a lot of things right from where I'm standing.




Scelerat - February 2, 2009 01:48 AM (GMT)
All this "if you don't have a gun at home you're helpless" crap is what gives americans a bad name here in Europe.
Firs of all, if your neighbor didn't also own a gun, you wouldn't need to protect yourself from him in that way.

Believe it or not: guns are not a solution, they are the problem. Or are we europeans all helpless and ready to be maimedrapedkilled by Some Guy because we don't have guns at home? Does that make us "slaves to the government"? Yes, the big G has the monopoly of violence... but that's part of the social contract, isn't it?

Back on topic: Obama has to be very careful. He was so well marketed as a complete change, his black beast in the future will be disappointment from the voting population.
Anyway, I hope he really changes things. Although with western politics, the matter is always the same: only shape changes.
At least some eastern countries have the fundamentalists on charge. That always makes up for involuntary comedy :)

Finnigan2004 - February 2, 2009 03:14 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Scelerat @ Feb 1 2009, 08:48 PM)
Believe it or not: guns are not a solution, they are the problem. Or are we europeans all helpless and ready to be maimedrapedkilled by Some Guy because we don't have guns at home? Does that make us "slaves to the government"? Yes, the big G has the monopoly of violence... but that's part of the social contract, isn't it?


The most amazing part for me is that many Americans that I talk to think that need to retain their arms in case the government goes too far, and they have to use them to overthrow it. When the U.S. constitution was written, the idea of a citizen militia rising up with their rifles and overthrowing a corrupt government was very much still in the framer's minds. Today, Bunker hill would play out very differently because air strikes and tanks trump resolve and courage. The idea that an angry rabble, even one armed with M-16's and AK-47's, could defeat the U.S. armed forces is a little bit far fetched.




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree