NationStates Jolt Archive

Lucky for me, he will. Thank god for the global financial crisis.

Well, here's hoping you personally end up homeless for the sake of your point.

however, he would still do well to familiarize himself with the writings of pre-eminent russian-american philosopher, Ayn Rand

Well that goes without saying, doesn't it?

Well, we have to love him over here. After all, he's Irish, and this proves it : http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xkw8ip43Vk

Thk you so mcuh for posting that. My contempt for Obama and his supporters was wavering for a second, and then I was reminded of this.

Thk you so mcuh for posting that. My contempt for Obama and his supporters was wavering for a second, and then I was reminded of this.

awww, today must be absolute hell for you, huh?

Thk you so mcuh for posting that. My contempt for Obama and his supporters was wavering for a second, and then I was reminded of this.

Oh dear... please tell me you didn't fail to see the biting irony in this song? You of all people?

awww, today must be absolute hell for you, huh?

Hardly a ball; what irritates me most is the prevailing atmosphere of gushingly adolescent, nauseating and politically uninformed affection. I prefer my politicians, irrespective of political inclination, to be a little more august, considered and less demagoguic.

I miss Thatcher and Hague.

Hardly a ball; what irritates me most is the prevailing atmosphere of gushingly adolescent, nauseating and politically uninformed affection. I prefer my politicians, irrespective of political inclination, to be a little more august, considered and less demagoguic.

I miss Thatcher and Hague.

Obama's very good at being a demagogue, isn't he?

Obama's very good at being a demagogue, isn't he?

Which is hardly a quality to be admired, as the post-Periclean Peloppenesian war attests. A passable personality, bombastic rhetorical style and ability to enthuse the uneducated is nothing to take pride in.

Which is hardly a quality to be admired, as the post-Periclean Peloppenesian war attests. A passable personality, bombastic rhetorical style and ability to enthuse the uneducated is nothing to take pride in.

just keep on howling at the moon there TBC.

So, how long supporting a politician been the same as worshiping a politician?

Which is hardly a quality to be admired, as the post-Periclean Peloppenesian war attests. A passable personality, bombastic rhetorical style and ability to enthuse the uneducated is nothing to take pride in.

To be honest, I'm not sure which I prefer... the great orator, or the guy who tends to get lost in his own sentences.

And USAmerican politics is a lot about putting up a big show, and throwing around as many emotionalised words as you can manage, I'm afraid. Different culture altogether.
Neither Obama nor his predecessor would have managed to get a foot in the door in any European country.

just keep on howling at the moon there TBC.

I'm right, and you know it. Any politician celebrated most for his ability to muster the votes of poor, uneducated urban proles, who lacks in proper rhetorical style, is hardly befitting high office.

So, how long supporting a politician been the same as worshiping a politician?
Since Reagan, for some people.

To be honest, I'm not sure which I prefer... the great orator, or the guy who tends to get lost in his own sentences.

Being a good orator is almost completely irrelevant when judging ability to govern. Don't make me bring up that guy.

I'm right, and you know it. Any politician celebrated most for his ability to muster the votes of poor, uneducated urban proles, who lacks in proper rhetorical style, is hardly befitting high office.

*lol
The crux here is that the votes of the educated and rich are never enough to win you a democratic election, though... ;)

Since Reagan, for some people.

but but, it's ok when they do it!

Although admittedly, I find great amusement of conservative winging about how we "idolize a man who hasn't even been president yet!" which, while not a smart thing, is, I would imagine, is better than a man who has been demonstrated to be not only a failure, but one who committed high treason.

Being a good orator is almost completely irrelevant when judging ability to govern. Don't make me bring up that guy.

Well, we'll have to judge that ability as we go along, won't we? You don't win an election in the US by being a rational and good governor, there's a little more pizzazz required.

Being a good orator is almost completely irrelevant when judging ability to govern. Don't make me bring up that guy.

then why do you insist on discussing Obama's oratory skills?

Since Reagan, for some people.

Obama's the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Like Reagan he will usher in an unprecedented bright new age of vast deficit spending, military spending, and expansion of government bureaucracy and intervention in the economy.

To be honest, I'm not sure which I prefer... the great orator, or the guy who tends to get lost in his own sentences.

And USAmerican politics is a lot about putting up a big show, and throwing around as many emotionalised words as you can manage, I'm afraid. Different culture altogether.
Neither Obama nor his predecessor would have managed to get a foot in the door in any European country.

I prefer William Hague. Exceptional orator and debator, irrespective of your political opinions. Or, for that matter, Enoch Powell; racism notwithstanding, the Classical imagery and diction of "rivers of blood" was wonderful.

then why do you insist on discussing Obama's oratory skills?

Because that's the only reason people voted for him, that and his race. "Hey, he can talk good, let's vote for that guy!" Yeah, that's worked out well so many times in history.

I prefer William Hague. Exceptional orator and debator, irrespective of your political opinions. Or, for that matter, Enoch Powell; racism notwithstanding, the Classical imagery and diction of "rivers of blood" was wonderful.

I would think the racism would be a fairly strong selling point for you...

Because that's the only reason people voted for him, that and his race. "Hey, he can talk good, let's vote for that guy!" Yeah, that's worked out well so many times in history.

and you know this because of your demonstrably vast understanding of the american political process?

Tell me again, why didn't we vote for the House of Representatives this time?

and you know this because of your demonstrably vast understanding of the american political process?

Tell me again, why didn't we vote for the House of Representatives this time?

Tell me again where the Berlin Wall is, American? Italy, you say?

I prefer William Hague. Exceptional orator and debator, irrespective of your political opinions. Or, for that matter, Enoch Powell; racism notwithstanding, the Classical imagery and diction of "rivers of blood" was wonderful.

I have to admit to not knowing enough about William Hague to be able to have an opinion.

Enoch Powell was very uncreative in his views, and even more so in his speeches. A lot of it was simple, re-phrased biblical language or Nazi rethoric, although never up to par with Goebble's speeches or even Hitler's rants.

Tell me again where the Berlin Wall is, American? Italy, you say?

Yep, both those countries, actually.

Because that's the only reason people voted for him, that and his race. "Hey, he can talk good, let's vote for that guy!" Yeah, that's worked out well so many times in history.

Then why did they vote for the last guy, in your opinion?

Yep, both those countries, actually.

Don't get into technicalities with me.

but but, it's ok when they do it!

Although admittedly, I find great amusement of conservative winging about how we "idolize a man who hasn't even been president yet!" which, while not a smart thing, is, I would imagine, is better than a man who has been demonstrated to be not only a failure, but one who committed high treason.
I think this pretty much sums up a lot of what's wrong with the US, with US politics, and with my fellow Americans today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWvIOPiKFrs

It's not just the fact of what's in the video, but also the fact that we're arguing over this kind of bizarre involvement with one politician rather than with another politician, when we should be running away from it no matter who it's directed towards.

Plus there's the hypocrisy you point out, of people who copped this attitude about the one guy, yelling and stamping when another guy gets the mad-love.

And finally, as an artist, just the visual pretty much says volumes to me.

Then why did they vote for the last guy, in your opinion?

Because the other guy was a cold, unfeeling robot.

Don't get into technicalities with me.

Well, some of it is here in Ireland. I know some of it is in Toronto.... or what were you trying to say?

Because the other guy was a cold, unfeeling robot.

A robot would have functioned better and faster than Bush.

Obama's the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Like Reagan he will usher in an unprecedented bright new age of vast deficit spending, military spending, and expansion of government bureaucracy and intervention in the economy.
Thanks. Now can you tell me when I'll win the lottery and whether it will rain on my birthday next year, oh psychic swami predicting the future?

I have to admit to not knowing enough about William Hague to be able to have an opinion.

Enoch Powell was very uncreative in his views, and even more so in his speeches. A lot of it was simple, re-phrased biblical language or Nazi rethoric, although never up to par with Goebble's speeches or even Hitler's rants.

Powell was for from unoriginal or uncreative; his economic policies, offered as a prohylactic in the early 1960's, were unfailingly monetarist, and, in consequence, the first major political espousal of such practices. As for "rivers of blood", I disagree; the "Aenied" reference was at once correct, and nuanced and sophisticated. A far better prime minister, potentially, than Heath could ever have been; unorthodox, strident, and genuinely intelligent.

Tell me again where the Berlin Wall is, American? Italy, you say?

Where is the Berlin wall? Nowhere, there is no Berlin wall. Unless you mean pieces, in which case I'm sure some are in Italy.

Perhaps you meant "where was the Berlin Wall?" I suggest learning basic tense structure.

Thanks. Now can you tell me when I'll win the lottery and whether it will rain on my birthday next year, oh psychic swami predicting the future?

What, you think there's a 50/50 chance that Obama will shrink the size of the military budget, slash government spending, and repeal economic regulations?

I would think the racism would be a fairly strong selling point for you...

I'd dispute his racism; firstly, his argument was framed by economic and social considerations, and the undoubted tension arising from mass immigration. The only argument I've yet heard for Powell's racism has been that of a somewhat tendentious black philsopher who claimed to discern "gut feelin', from the heart", in a radio broadcast.

What, you think there's a 50/50 chance that Obama will shrink the size of the military budget, slash government spending, and repeal economic regulations?
I think that the future is tomorrow, not yesterday. I think the circumstances of each period belong to that period, not to another. I think Reagan did what he did in response to a certain set of circumstances and based on a certain set of ideas. The results of his actions were entirely dependent on those circumstances and on how his ideas caused him to respond as those results played out. Obama is a different president in a different time. Even if, as he is planning, he chooses to expand government and spending, he will be doing so in response to different circumstances and according to different ideas. Therefore, the results are likely to be different as well. But because the future has not arrived yet, there is no way we can tell right now what those results are going to be.

There are many lessons to be learned from history, but a remark like "Obama is the second coming of Reagan", made at a time when Obama isn't even in office yet and has not done anything that can be compared to what Reagan did, is just bull.

I suggest learning your place, American.

Lol, or what? You'll beat him up?

Lol, or what? You'll beat him up?

Sure, why not?

Lol, or what? You'll beat him up?

I'm shaking, as I'm sure you can tell.

and you know this because of your demonstrably vast understanding of the american political process?

Tell me again, why didn't we vote for the House of Representatives this time?

And remember, a president's term is eight years, not four.

I'm shaking, as I'm sure you can tell.

Careful, I bet he's like a quadruple black belt or sumthin.

And remember, a president's term is eight years, not four.

I know it's four. I just don't expect Americans to be smart enough to vote Obama out after one term.

I know it's four. I just don't expect Americans to be smart enough to vote Obama out after one term.


Yeah you know that now. After Neo Art and I ripped you a new ass over it.


Tell me again about how the House of Representatives is so much more important to vote for then the President, because they have so much more power.

Careful, I bet he's like a quadruple black belt or sumthin.

and a super hacker who can find out where I live!

Yeah you know that now. After Neo Art and I ripped you a new ass over it.

No, I always knew that. I may be retarded, but I'm not American.

I think that the future is tomorrow, not yesterday. I think the circumstances of each period belong to that period, not to another. I think Reagan did what he did in response to a certain set of circumstances and based on a certain set of ideas. The results of his actions were entirely dependent on those circumstances and on how his ideas caused him to respond as those results played out. Obama is a different president in a different time. Even if, as he is planning, he chooses to expand government and spending, he will be doing so in response to different circumstances and according to different ideas.
There's only one idea they keep trotting out, and that's the idea that deficit spending and government spending will solve a goddamn thing. Reagan was a famous practitioner and Obama is his worthy successor.

Therefore, the results are likely to be different as well. But because the future has not arrived yet, there is no way we can tell right now what those results are going to be.

There is "no way" we can tell what those results are going to be? Do you sincerely believe there is no way to make a prediction, whether optimistic or pessimistic, about the future? Perhaps we should purposely cover our eyes and no one should make any attempts to predict what will happen tomorrow.

There are many lessons to be learned from history, but a remark like "Obama is the second coming of Reagan", made at a time when Obama isn't even in office yet and has not done anything that can be compared to what Reagan did, is just bull.

Right, the future hasn't arrived yet, so you must today stymie all attempts at free discourse and efforts at forecasting, by accusing people of being mystics and Nostradamuses.

That.
Is.
Why.

I'm not American.

I know youre not, if you were, youd actually know jack shit about the American political system. Which you clearly dont.

Yeah you know that now. After Neo Art and I ripped you a new ass over it.


Tell me again about how the House of Representatives is so much more important to vote for then the President, because they have so much more power.

and why aren't they being elected this year, since they're the ones who matter!

I know, if you were, youd actually know jack shit about the American political system. Which you clearly dont.

How much do you know about Australian politics, American? How long is a Prime Minister's term? What form of voting do we use? Why are we not stupid enough to turn our election campaigns into carnivals of intense, unrelenting idiocy?

Hurry up and look it up on Wikipedia. :rolleyes:

How much do you know about Australia politics, American? How long is a Prime Minister's term? What form of voting do we use? Why are we not stupid enough to turn our election campaigns into carnivals of intense, unrelenting idiocy?

I know you have a Westminster system. General Elections are held every five years, but they can be held sooner (PM can call them). The PM is the leader of the party with the most seats, and is in until he is removed by his party losing power, or by a vote of no confidence.

If youre going to want me to teach you, I dont do that for free.

Hurry up and look it up on Wikipedia. :rolleyes:

That was all off the top of my head. See, Im actually educated, and actually know political systems.

How much do you know about Australian politics, American? How long is a Prime Minister's term? What form of voting do we use? Why are we not stupid enough to turn our election campaigns into carnivals of intense, unrelenting idiocy?

Hurry up and look it up on Wikipedia. :rolleyes:

Yes. Because everyone here posts frequently on threads about Australian politics. I'm sure other people would bother to learn what they're talking about before commenting, should there be threads on it. Unfortunately, regarding the politics of the United States, it seems you can't be bothered, despite commenting on them daily and with great vitriol. Fail.

Hurry up and look it up on Wikipedia.

I'm vaguely amused that you would deride people for having to look something up, considering that's a step you have been reluctant to do.

I preferred to have Hillary Clinton win, but since she wasn't nominated, Obama was the right way to go. You lot don't want another George Bush, like McCain was campaigning for.

From the rest of the world: For once you made a proper choice. Now stop with the guns and the killing, and we'll get along fine.

I know you have a Westminster system. General Elections are held every five years, but they can be held sooner (PM can cal them). The PM is the leader of the party with the most seats, and is in until he is removed by his party losing power, or by a vote of no confidence.

Wrong.

How much do you know about Australian politics, American? How long is a Prime Minister's term? What form of voting do we use? Why are we not stupid enough to turn our election campaigns into carnivals of intense, unrelenting idiocy?

Hurry up and look it up on Wikipedia. :rolleyes:

You must have us confused with people who pretended to know everything about Australian politics while demonstrating an embarrassing lack of knowledge on the subject. You know, like how you pretended to know anything about American politics when it was clear every time you posted that you didn't know the difference between American elections and your own asshole, given the amount of pure shit that come out of both. Now, if any of us had acted like giant egotistical dickheads about Australian politics, maybe you'd have a shred of a point, but as no one here is your American duplicate, you don't really have much to stand on, do you?

I know you have a Westminster system. General Elections are held every five years, but they can be held sooner (PM can cal them). The PM is the leader of the party with the most seats, and is in until he is removed by his party losing power, or by a vote of no confidence.

If youre going to want me to teach you, I dont do that for free.



That was all off the top of my head. See, Im actually educated, and actually know political systems.

Australia doesn't actually use the "first past the post" electoral system that Britain uses, however. I also believe the Prime Minister comes from the lower house, which is a 3 year term.

Wrong.

In what way?

And if I got some minor bit wrong (which is possible), oh well. See, the difference between us is, I dont walk around talking smack and pretending like I know everything there is to know about Australian politics.

In what way?

And if I got some minor bit wrong (which is possible), oh well. See, the difference between us is, I dont walk around talking smack and pretending like I know everything there is to know about Australian politics.

Minor? The elections are every three years and one hundred and forty days.

America is better than Australia. I'd take the AfroAmericans over your ridiculous Abos any day.

Woh KOL back of a little. Rust just plain isn't worth it man

America is better than Australia. I'd take the AfroAmericans over your ridiculous Abos any day.

Yeah, that's not racist at all. :rolleyes:

He is for massive bail-outs.

He says he would blow-up whole neighborhoods if someone in them were firing rockets at him.

He is against same-sex marriage.

He is not withdrawing from Iraq or Afghanistan until he is forced to.

It seems to me that if a poster here held these opinions, then that poster would be greatly disliked, yet Obama is considered a "visionary"; why?

Source this

Minor? The elections are every three years and one hundred and forty days.

Minor? Yes minor. I was off by a year and a half, roughly. Britian does 5 years, so I assumed it was the same because you use a Westminster system. I was more or less right about the other bits, however.

But, again, the difference is I dont pretend to be an expert.

Woh KOL back of a little. Rust just plain isn't worth it man

Back off? Im rather calm, actually.

Back off? Im rather calm, actually.
None the less . . .invoking Wrath of mod is a baaaad idea lol. just make sure your going after the post and not the poster.

Yeah, that's not racist at all. :rolleyes:

Who said I wasn't trying to be racist? We have better black people than you do.

But, again, the difference is I dont pretend to be an expert.

You're American. That's all you Americans do.

Who said I wasn't trying to be racist? We have better black people than you do.

The term "abo" is about as racist as the n-word.

You're American. That's all you Americans do.

Thats a third thing to add to the topic on moderation.

Keep it coming rusty.

America is better than Australia.

Err, no it's not. Australia is much better.

The thread is being locked while the damage is assessed.