surviving obamunism

yeah like Bush Jr did I guess

  karmakramer said:

  mr maha said:

  karmakramer said:

  mr maha said:

Obama without his teleprompter:

 

The man was probably getting absolutely no fucking sleep during the campaign and was REPEATING the same shit over and over... its really easy to see how anyone of any intellectual level would suddenly lose their train of thought in this situation...

 

Let's not even mention the fucking amazing performance he gave at his first press conference.

What is there to defend?

 

How about the bankers who backed his campaign. Do you think he has made some backhanders, some little promises for them financially? How about his policies on the Middle East, sending more troops to Afghanistan most recently.. These troops are so indoctrinated and socially conditioned to an extent where they believe patriotism and democracy are the way forward. It's incredibly pathetic yet no one will take a look at the bigger picture of all this. I do not trust a politician in a high, powerful position.

 

Its in their interest to make EVERYONE happy...

So as I understand, you believe these guys in political power positions are elected by the "people" in the US?

Look at this way, if I were an extremely powerful banker or CEO with a lot of influence worldwide, would I really leave an important choice to the public or would I ensure that the energy contract that a certain politican has promised is fulfilled by making sure they come into power? You are given a two party system, the Democrats and Republicans + 2 puppets to be put on show. Take your pick.

 

  Super lurker ultra V12 said:

yeah like Bush Jr did I guess

 

Bush JR didn't win the first election and he used fear to get his re-election... completely corrupt... and yeah a terrible politician.. he probably wishes he did a better job now looking back... considering everyone pretty much hates him.

Edited March 7, 2009 by karmakramer

  mr maha said:

  karmakramer said:

  mr maha said:

  karmakramer said:

  mr maha said:

Obama without his teleprompter:

 

The man was probably getting absolutely no fucking sleep during the campaign and was REPEATING the same shit over and over... its really easy to see how anyone of any intellectual level would suddenly lose their train of thought in this situation...

 

Let's not even mention the fucking amazing performance he gave at his first press conference.

What is there to defend?

 

How about the bankers who backed his campaign. Do you think he has made some backhanders, some little promises for them financially? How about his policies on the Middle East, sending more troops to Afghanistan most recently.. These troops are so indoctrinated and socially conditioned to an extent where they believe patriotism and democracy are the way forward. It's incredibly pathetic yet no one will take a look at the bigger picture of all this. I do not trust a politician in a high, powerful position.

 

Its in their interest to make EVERYONE happy...

So as I understand, you believe these guys in political power positions are elected by the "people" in the US?

Look at this way, if I were an extremely powerful banker or CEO with a lot of influence worldwide, would I really leave an important choice to the public or would I ensure that the energy contract that a certain politican has promised is fulfilled by making sure they come into power? You are given a two party system, the Democrats and Republicans + 2 puppets to be put on show. Take your pick.

 

It all lies with accountability, something the people have complete power over. People of today just are lazy fucks who don't stand up for their rights... complacent ass tards who had their fill of rebelling during the 60's.

Can we agree that Obama has been in office for like a month and a half, and that it's probably going to take his entire term [and then some] in order to sort out the economy.

 

It took eight years of the GOP to bring it down, so what makes you think we can magically flip a switch and get it back to where it was ten years ago?

Aren't the problems in the world technological and NOT political? We don't need politicians with their opinions.. it's completely needless. The monetary system is there to keep the political powers in control. If people had more sense of what is happening around them, they would question the notion of money and politics, they will notice they go hand in hand which then breeds corruption.

 

Essentially, society needs a complete re-design.

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>"> name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> Edited March 7, 2009 by mr maha

  mr maha said:

Aren't the problems in the world technological and NOT political? We don't need politicians with their opinions.. it's completely needless. The monetary system is there to keep the political powers in control. If people had more sense of what is happening around them, they would question the notion of money and politics, they will notice they go hand in hand which then breeds corruption.

 

Well I agree government should modify, and ideally we would have what you speak of... It could happen in Obama's term btw... economist are talking about a complete re-working of our government.

karmakramer, watch the above video I posted above and let me know your thoughts.. I enjoy discussing this

I salute my boss when I walk into work, you should do so too and shout out -

 

"MONETARY SLAVE AT YOUR SERVICE SIR!", don't forget the salute and inform the boss as well that you're willing to use a tiny fraction of your brain capacity at work today. You can submit to employment full time in order for your basic human needs to be fulfilled. How great does that sound guys?

  mr maha said:

I salute my boss when I walk into work, you should do so too and shout out -

 

"MONETARY SLAVE AT YOUR SERVICE SIR!", don't forget the salute and inform the boss as well that you're willing to use a tiny fraction of your brain capacity at work today. You can submit to employment full time in order for your basic human needs to be fulfilled. How great does that sound guys?

 

Are you Dale?

  abusivegeorge said:

  mr maha said:

I salute my boss when I walk into work, you should do so too and shout out -

 

"MONETARY SLAVE AT YOUR SERVICE SIR!", don't forget the salute and inform the boss as well that you're willing to use a tiny fraction of your brain capacity at work today. You can submit to employment full time in order for your basic human needs to be fulfilled. How great does that sound guys?

 

Are you Dale?

Hi mate, yep it's Dale, how is it going?

Awesome, long time no speak dude, sorry about that. Yea I'm really good thanks mate and you?

that's ok man, had a name change around a year ago, I used to find myself shouting out "MAHA" when I was 12 years old to strangers in the streets, so the name fits well I guess

 

all is well thank you though

 

lol, good stuff, I'll send you a PM sometime over the weekend, I'm off to bed in a minute, take care.

  mr maha said:

karmakramer, watch the above video I posted above and let me know your thoughts.. I enjoy discussing this

 

Video sounds great... gives me hope for the future.

  mr maha said:

karmakramer, watch the above video I posted above and let me know your thoughts.. I enjoy discussing this

 

I think I like their goal, but as he says at the end, it's ultimately unattainable. You can't have machines doing all of the work because there's going to be a glitch somewhere down the line, and you'll need a person to go in and fix it. I don't know about you, but I hate talking to an automated machine trying to get my electric bill sorted. I just push '00' to talk to a person. Also, who is going to mine for new resources and make new technology? You'll have to develop an AI, which could be very dangerous in itself.

 

And that's what people will be doing in their spare time? Developing new systems? The useful ones will, but most people will be content to sit on their asses and watch Oprah all damn day, like a good portion of people do that are already on unemployment/welfare.

 

His response to the drunk driving law is interesting, but to outfit our vehicles with sonar [amphibious vehicles?] and radar would be very expensive, and extremely costly to the environment.

 

By the way, I assume you already know about the role of the Federal Reserve in the world economy, so how do we move on when there's a group of bankers that control all first world finance that are dedicated to stopping advancement in funds other than theirs? Hopefully we become less greedy?

 

Again, I like the idea, and agree it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now, but I think it won't happen. There is always some kind of competitive nature in human beings, generally fueled by greed of some kind.

Some of those shirts r hilarious though

Edited March 7, 2009 by AOOproductions

  my usernames always really suck said:

 

 

usually think Penn is an annoying 1985 WWF wrestler look alike asshole, but this video was refreshing to see.

 

it is very very unfortunate that such a large percentage of the democrats or the liberal left are making excuses for every Bush like thing Obama does or says he's going to do.

 

In some sense i almost wish Bush just did a 3rd term, at the very least the anger and frustration and rage that was brewing in the democrats would possibly get to a tipping point for some REAL change, not just switching the PR team of the US government.

 

this is my favorite journalist right now writing along very similar lines, named Glenn Greenwald -

  Quote

Obama and liberals: a counter-productive relationship

(updated below)

The New Republic's John Judis today has an excellent analysis of the politics behind the stimulus package -- one which applies equally to most other political controversies. Judis argues that the stimulus package ended up being far inferior to what it could have been and points to this reason why that happened:

But I think the main reason that Obama is having trouble is that there is not a popular left movement that is agitating for him to go well beyond where he would even ideally like to go. Sure, there are leftwing intellectuals like Paul Krugman who are beating the drums for nationalizing the banks and for a $1 trillion-plus stimulus. But I am not referring to intellectuals, but to movements that stir up trouble among voters and get people really angry. Instead, what exists of a popular left is either incapable of action or in Obama's pocket. . . .

A member of one liberal group, Campaign for America's Future, pronounced the stimulus bill "a darn good first step." MoveOn -- as far as I can tell -- has attacked conservative Republicans for opposing the bill, while lamely urging Democrats to back it. Of course, all these groups may have thought the stimulus bill and the bailout were ideal, but I doubt it. I bet they had the same criticisms of these measures that Krugman or The American Prospect's Ezra Klein or my own colleagues had, but they made the mistake that political groups often make: subordinating their concern about issues to their support for the party and its leading politician.

By extremely stark contrast, Paul Krugman today explains why Republicans are so unified in their opposition to this bill and their willingness to uphold the principles of their supporters:

One might have expected Republicans to act at least slightly chastened in these early days of the Obama administration, given both their drubbing in the last two elections and the economic debacle of the past eight years. But it’s now clear that the party’s commitment to deep voodoo — enforced, in part, by pressure groups that stand ready to run primary challengers against heretics — is as strong as ever.

[As an ancillary matter: though I agree with Krugman's principal point, I dislike his use of the word "heretics" here. It invokes one of the worst myths in our political discourse: the idea that there's something wrong, intolerant or "Stalinist" about pressuring or even campaigning against incumbents "from one's own party" who advocate positions that you think are bad and wrong. That activity happens to be the essence of democracy, and we need more, not less, of it. If anything is Stalinist, it's the sky-high incumbent re-election rates and the sense of entitlement in our political class that incumbents should not ever face primary challenges even if they support policies which the base of the party reviles. Why shouldn't GOP voters who love tax cuts and hate government domestic spending, regardless of whether they're right or wrong, demand that their elected representatives support those views (in exactly the same way that Democratic incumbents who supported the Iraq war and/or Bush's lawless surveillance state should have been targeted for defeat)?]

But Krugman's larger point is correct: Republican groups demand from politicians support for their beliefs. By contrast, as Judis describes, Democratic groups -- including (perhaps especially) liberal activist groups -- now (with some exceptions) lend their allegiance to the party and its leader regardless of how faithful the party leadership is to their beliefs. That disparity means that there is often great popular agitation and political pressure exerted from the Right, but almost none from the Left (I'm using the terms "Left" and "Right" here in their conventional sense: "Right" being the core of the GOP and "Left" being those who most consistently and vigorously opposed Bush's foreign and domestic policies).

During the 2008 election, Obama co-opted huge portions of the Left and its infrastructure so that their allegiance became devoted to him and not to any ideas. Many online political and "news" outlets -- including some liberal political blogs -- discovered that the most reliable way to massively increase traffic was to capitalize on the pro-Obama fervor by turning themselves into pro-Obama cheerleading squads. Grass-roots activist groups watched their dues-paying membership rolls explode the more they tapped into that same sentiment and turned themselves into Obama-supporting appendages. Even labor unions and long-standing Beltway advocacy groups reaped substantial benefits by identifying themselves as loyal foot soldiers in the Obama movement.

The major problem now is that these entities -- the ones that ought to be applying pressure on Obama from the Left and opposing him when he moves too far Right -- are now completely boxed in. They've lost -- or, more accurately, voluntarily relinquished -- their independence. They know that criticizing -- let alone opposing -- Obama will mean that all those new readers they won last year will leave; that all those new dues-paying members will go join some other, more Obama-supportive organization; that they will prompt intense backlash and anger among the very people -- their members, supporters and readers -- on whom they have come to rely as the source of their support, strength, and numbers. the rest - http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...sure/index.html

  Quote

I think I like their goal, but as he says at the end, it's ultimately unattainable. You can't have machines doing all of the work because there's going to be a glitch somewhere down the line, and you'll need a person to go in and fix it. I don't know about you, but I hate talking to an automated machine trying to get my electric bill sorted. I just push '00' to talk to a person. Also, who is going to mine for new resources and make new technology? You'll have to develop an AI, which could be very dangerous in itself.

 

Look at machines as an extension of human attributes, an achivement to relieve us from the monotonous jobs which make human beings ignorant to the point where psychologically they are under attack from depression, stress, anxiety.. a whole list of other nervous disorders. Machines are incredibly more accurate than human beings, they don't get tired and will be programmed as a tool to do what we want them to do. I believe that a lot of machinery, vehicles and many household appliances are produced with the cheapest materials and resources in order for them to gain profit. It's called Planned obsolescence, and if we were not living in the monetary system, there would be no reason to have a repairs market as everything will be built to last a life time with the best resources and equipment available, perhaps even longer. This is an inherent and corrupt nature companies choose to have in place so that they gain market share and above all, profit comes way before human concern.

 

  Quote

And that's what people will be doing in their spare time? Developing new systems? The useful ones will, but most people will be content to sit on their asses and watch Oprah all damn day, like a good portion of people do that are already on unemployment/welfare.

 

People would be free to do what they wanted in a resource based economy, for there would be no submission to employment as your basic needs are fulfilled with mass abundance from machinery and technology. Food scarcity is eliminated. Co-ordinators and scientists would do their jobs out of a passion, as an honour! Do you think the likes of Newton, Einstein and Hawkins did their work and studies for profit? I think not.

 

  Quote

His response to the drunk driving law is interesting, but to outfit our vehicles with sonar [amphibious vehicles?] and radar would be very expensive, and extremely costly to the environment.

 

Jacque Fresco was giving a good example of how to phase out the notion of laws needed in society. Laws are put there because there is no solution to a re-occuring problem at hand. If you can identify the solution, the law would simply phase out of society.

 

  Quote

By the way, I assume you already know about the role of the Federal Reserve in the world economy, so how do we move on when there's a group of bankers that control all first world finance that are dedicated to stopping advancement in funds other than theirs? Hopefully we become less greedy?

 

There would most certainly need to be a transitional phase of some kind. People need to lose belief in this theoretical monetary system that drives their everyday lives. The more the economic crisis worsens, the more people will wake up and truely see how fraudulent and corrupt the Fed really are. Every bit of money in your bank account, your wallet, your savings, is all DEBT. If all DEBT were to be written off in society, there would be no money in circulation. Can people not see how ridiculous and enslaving money can be? There is none such thing as "no debt" in a monetary system.

 

  Quote

Again, I like the idea, and agree it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now, but I think it won't happen. There is always some kind of competitive nature in human beings, generally fueled by greed of some kind.

 

There's conflicting inormation where it comes to Human Nature vs Human Nurture. I believe that yes, Genetics have wired our brains to seek survival whenever possible.. that's how our brains are programmed. However, competition is increased through living in a money environment whereby everyone is chipping off each other, gaining advantage over one another. This is an inherently corrupt characteristic of the system we live in today. When you are at school, you are told that you have an F for a FAILED piece of coursework, but then you see one of your class mates get an A grade.. what does this do in this young child's mind? > it drives competition and jealousy.

 

Our value systems are totally distorted, to the point where we all believe that we have to do something for profit, and never out of kindness for another human. This is a sick characteristic of what the monetary system perpetuates.

 

If you would like to learn more, I encourage people take a look at this document: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%20...%20Movement.pdf

Edited March 7, 2009 by mr maha

So, what exactly is the argument against socialism?

  Betty said:

So, what exactly is the argument against socialism?

 

it's against the all-american "FUCK YOU, GOT MINE" mentality.

I'm not convinced socialism is compatible with the idea of a small, efficient, limited government. America's federal government is already needlessly bloated.

 

And the larger any government becomes, the more authority it seizes for itself, authority which should belong to the people.

  my usernames always really suck said:

I'm not convinced socialism is compatible with the idea of a small, efficient, limited government.

Maybe this is a simplistic notion but I take socialism to mean placing social values above economic ones. That concept can be used as an cover for power grabbing but if done properly it really shouldn't.

Lots of talk about human nature being a concrete problem... Get ready for clinical species mutation. The rest of these politics will fall away fairly quickly. How long do you think we are going to appear with limited physical and mental abilities and hair sprouting out of our head? I can't wait for all of this bullshit to end. Even the thoughtful arguments will be moot soon enough... sometime this century. Probably the best thing, and the most ENERGY EFFICIENT is to shoot for some kind of Alien type of species workover program that retains a simian sense of humor. We could live in space easier then.

 

Let's face it, we've all been on the road to fascism after a well spring of POWER sprang from WW2. Hiter's ironic legacy! Things go better with Coke. Patriotic communist witch-hunts... Perpetually active military forces.. We are living in a kind of masive transiton. I can't think of one mutation that has occurred for the last 50K years. It's ANT TIME for humans and I'm on board. I won't miss pants or hats or Bob Newhart or anything. It's all so tiresome and I regret that I'll miss the most heroic changes to come--our conscious escape from the bonds of humanity and all its childish trappings.

 

Perhaps only the very rich will evolve into super ants. That would leave most of the rest of us to do the forraging and build reproduction mounds as some kind of less capable worker.

 

Ever notice that when a stranger passes you they will automatically sniff the air? That's Obamunism.

 

I apologize for any spelling errors. My stumpy human fingers are not designed for this OLPC keyboard.

Edited March 8, 2009 by all_purpose_sandpaper