When perpetual war for corporate profit is advertised as "peace-keeping"

[Clancy]

https://www.globalresearch.ca/index....622&context=va

When war becomes peace,

When concepts and realities are turned upside down,

When fiction becomes truth and truth becomes fiction.

When a global military agenda is heralded as a humanitarian endeavor,

When the killing of civilians is upheld as "collateral damage",

When those who resist the US-NATO led invasion of their homeland are categorized as "insurgents" or "terrorists".

When preemptive nuclear war is upheld as self-defense.

When advanced torture and "interrogation" techniques are routinely used to "protect peacekeeping operations",

When tactical nuclear weapons are heralded by the Pentagon as "harmless to the surrounding civilian population"

When three quarters of US personal federal income tax revenues are allocated to financing what is euphemistically referred to as "national defense"

When the Commander in Chief of the largest military force on planet earth is presented as a global peace-maker,

When the Lie becomes the Truth.



Obama's "War Without Borders"

We are the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US in partnership with NATO and Israel has launched a global military adventure, which, in a very real sense, threatens the future of humanity.

At this critical juncture in our history, the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to President and Commander in Chief Barack Obama constitutes an unmitigated tool of propaganda and distortion, which unreservedly supports the Pentagon's "Long War": "A War without Borders" in the true sense of the word, characterized by the worldwide deployment of US military might.

Apart from the diplomatic rhetoric, there has been no meaningful reversal of US foreign policy in relation to the George W. Bush presidency, which might have remotely justified the granting of the Nobel Prize to Obama. In fact quite the opposite. The Obama military agenda has sought to extend the war into new frontiers. With a new team of military and foreign policy advisers, the Obama war agenda has been far more effective in fostering military escalation than that formulated by the NeoCons.

Since the very outset of the Obama presidency, this global military project has become increasingly pervasive, with the reinforcement of US military presence in all major regions of the World and the development of new advanced weapons systems on an unprecedented scale.

Granting the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama provides legitimacy to the illegal practices of war, to the military occupation of foreign lands, to the relentless killings of civilians in the name of "democracy".

Both the Obama administration and NATO are directly threatening Russia, China and Iran. The US under Obama is developing "a First Strike Global Missile Shield System":

"Along with space-based weapons, the Airborne Laser is the next defense frontier. ... Never has Ronald Reagan's dream of layered missile defenses - Star Wars, for short - been as....close, at least technologically, to becoming realized."

Reacting to this consolidation, streamlining and upgrading of American global nuclear strike potential, on August 11 the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force, the same Alexander Zelin cited earlier on the threat of U.S. strikes from space on all of his nation, said that the "Russian Air Force is preparing to meet the threats resulting from the creation of the Global Strike Command in the U.S. Air Force" and that Russia is developing "appropriate systems to meet the threats that may arise." (Rick Rozoff, Showdown with Russia and China: U.S. Advances First Strike Global Missile Shield System, Global Research, August 19, 2009)

At no time since the Cuban missile crisis has the World been closer to the unthinkable: a World War III scenario, a global military conflict involving the use of nuclear weapons.

1. The so-called missile defense shield or Star Wars initiative involving the first strike use of nuclear weapons is now to be developed globally in different regions of the World. The missile shield is largely directed against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.

2. New US military bases have been set up with a view to establishing US spheres of influence in every region of the World as well as surrounding and confronting Russia and China.

3. There has been an escalation in the Central Asian Middle East war. The "defense budget" under Obama has spiraled with increased allocations to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

4. Under orders of president Obama, acting as Commander in Chief, Pakistan is now the object of routine US aerial bombardments in violation of its territorial sovereignty, using the "Global War on Terrorism" as a justification.

5. The construction of new military bases is envisaged in Latin America including Colombia on the immediate border of Venezuela.

6. Military aid to Israel has increased. The Obama presidency has expressed its unbending support for Israel and the Israeli military. Obama has remained mum on the atrocities committed by Israel in Gaza. There has not even been a semblance of renewed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

7. There has been a reinforcement of the new regional commands including AFRICOM and SOUTHCOM

8. A new round of threats has been directed against Iran.

9. The US is intent upon fostering further divisions between Pakistan and India, which could lead to a regional war, as well as using India's nuclear arsenal as an indirect means to threaten China.

The diabolical nature of this military project was outlined in the 2000 Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The PNAC's declared objectives are:

defend the American homeland;

fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;

perform the "constabulary" duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;

transform U.S. forces to exploit the "revolution in military affairs;" (Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding Americas Defenses.pdf, September 2000)

The "Revolution in Military Affairs" refers to the development of new advanced weapons systems. The militarization of space, new advanced chemical and biological weapons, sophisticated laser guided missiles, bunker buster bombs, not to mention the US Air Force's climatic warfare program (HAARP) based in Gokona, Alaska, are part of Obama's "humanitarian arsenal".

War against the Truth

This is a war against the truth. When war becomes peace, the world is turned upside down. Conceptualization is no longer possible. An inquisitorial social system emerges.

An understanding of fundamental social and political events is replaced by a World of sheer fantasy, where "evil folks" are lurking. The objective of the "Global War on Terrorism" which has been fully endorsed by Obama administration, has been to galvanize public support for a Worldwide campaign against heresy.

In the eyes of public opinion, possessing a "just cause" for waging war is central. A war is said to be Just if it is waged on moral, religious or ethical grounds. The consensus is to wage war. People can longer think for themselves. They accept the authority and wisdom of the established social order.

The Nobel Committee says that President Obama has given the world "hope for a better future." The prize is awarded for Obama's

"extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."

...His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population. (Nobel Press Release, October 9, 2009)

The granting of the Nobel "peace prize" to president Barack Obama has become an integral part of the Pentagon's propaganda machine. It provides a human face to the invaders, it upholds the demonization of those who oppose US military intervention.

The decision to grant Obama the Nobel Peace Prize was no doubt carefully negotiated with the Norwegian Committee at the highest levels of the US government. It has far reaching implications.

It unequivocally upholds the US led war as a "Just Cause". It erases the war crimes committed both by the Bush and Obama administrations.

War Propaganda: Jus ad Bellum

The "Just war" theory serves to camouflage the nature of US foreign policy, while providing a human face to the invaders.

In both its classical and contemporary versions, the Just war theory upholds war as a "humanitarian operation". It calls for military intervention on ethical and moral grounds against "insurgents", "terrorists", "failed" or "rogue states".

The Just War has been heralded by the Nobel Committee as an instrument of Peace. Obama personifies the "Just War".

Taught in US military academies, a modern-day version of the "Just War" theory has been embodied into US military doctrine. The "war on terrorism" and the notion of "preemption" are predicated on the right to "self defense." They define "when it is permissible to wage war": jus ad bellum.

Jus ad bellum has served to build a consensus within the Armed Forces command structures. It has also served to convince the troops that they are fighting for a "just cause". More generally, the Just War theory in its modern day version is an integral part of war propaganda and media disinformation, applied to gain public support for a war agenda. Under Obama as Nobel Peace Laureate, the Just War becomes universally accepted, upheld by the so-called international community.

The ultimate objective is to subdue the citizens, totally depoliticize social life in America, prevent people from thinking and conceptualizing, from analyzing facts and challenging the legitimacy of the US NATO led war.

War becomes peace, a worthwhile "humanitarian undertaking", Peaceful dissent becomes heresy.

Military Escalation with a Human Face. Nobel Committee grants the "Green Light"

More significantly, the Nobel peace prize grants legitimacy to an unprecedented "escalation" of US-NATO led military operations under the banner of peacemaking.

It contributes to falsifying the nature of the US-NATO military agenda.

Between 40,000 to 60,000 more US and allied troops are to be sent to Afghanistan under a peacemaking banner. On the 8th of October, a day prior to the Nobel Committee's decision, the US Congress granted Obama a 680-billion-dollar defense authorization bill, which is slated to finance the process of military escalation:

"Washington and its NATO allies are planning an unprecedented increase of troops for the war in Afghanistan, even in addition to the 17,000 new American and several thousand NATO forces that have been committed to the war so far this year".

The number, based on as yet unsubstantiated reports of what U.S. and NATO commander Stanley McChrystal and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen have demanded of the White House, range from 10,000 to 45,000.

Fox News has cited figures as high as 45,000 more American soldiers and ABC News as many as 40,000. On September 15 the Christian Science Monitor wrote of "perhaps as many as 45,000."

The similarity of the estimates indicate that a number has been agreed upon and America's obedient media is preparing domestic audiences for the possibility of the largest escalation of foreign armed forces in Afghanistan's history. Only seven years ago the United States had 5,000 troops in the country, but was scheduled to have 68,000 by December even before the reports of new deployments surfaced. (Rick Rozoff, U.S., NATO Poised For Most Massive War In Afghanistan's History, Global Research, September 24, 2009)

Within hours of the decision of the Norwegian Nobel committee, Obama met with the War Council, or should we call it the "Peace Council". This meeting had been carefully scheduled to coincide with that of the Norwegian Nobel committee.

This key meeting behind closed doors in the Situation Room of the White House included Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and key political and military advisers. General Stanley McChrystal participated in the meeting via video link from Kabul.

General Stanley McChrystal is said to have offered the Commander in Chief "several alternative options" "including a maximum injection of 60,000 extra troops". The 60,000 figure was quoted following a leak of the Wall Street Journal (AFP: After Nobel nod, Obama convenes Afghan war council, October 9, 2009)

"The president had a robust conversation about the security and political challenges in Afghanistan and the options for building a strategic approach going forward," according to an administration official (quoted in AFP: After Nobel nod, Obama convenes Afghan war council October 9, 2009)

The Nobel committee had in a sense given Obama a green light. The October 9 meeting in the Situation Room was to set the groundwork for a further escalation of the conflict under the banner of counterinsurgency and democracy building.

Meanwhile, in the course of the last few months, US forces have stepped up their aerial bombardments of village communities in the northern tribal areas of Pakistan, under the banner of combating Al Qaeda.

Obama and the Nobel Prize: When War becomes Peace, When the Lie becomes the Truth

[Jude Iam]

quite so, unfortunately. where is this from, clancy?
still hoping we turn our country around in our lifetimes, judith

When war becomes peace,

When concepts and realities are turned upside down,

When fiction becomes truth and truth becomes fiction.

When a global military agenda is heralded as a humanitarian endeavor,

When the killing of civilians is upheld as "collateral damage",

When those who resist the US-NATO led invasion of their homeland are categorized as "insurgents" or "terrorists".

When preemptive nuclear war is upheld as self-defense.

When advanced torture and "interrogation" techniques are routinely used to "protect peacekeeping operations",

When tactical nuclear weapons are heralded by the Pentagon as "harmless to the surrounding civilian population"

When three quarters of US personal federal income tax revenues are allocated to financing what is euphemistically referred to as "national defense"

When the Commander in Chief of the largest military force on planet earth is presented as a global peace-maker,

When the Lie becomes the Truth.

Obama's "War Without Borders"

We are the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US in partnership with NATO and Israel has launched a global military adventure, which, in a very real sense, threatens the future of humanity.

At this critical juncture in our history, the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to President and Commander in Chief Barack Obama constitutes an unmitigated tool of propaganda and distortion, which unreservedly supports the Pentagon's "Long War": "A War without Borders" in the true sense of the word, characterized by the worldwide deployment of US military might.

Apart from the diplomatic rhetoric, there has been no meaningful reversal of US foreign policy in relation to the George W. Bush presidency, which might have remotely justified the granting of the Nobel Prize to Obama. In fact quite the opposite. The Obama military agenda has sought to extend the war into new frontiers. With a new team of military and foreign policy advisers, the Obama war agenda has been far more effective in fostering military escalation than that formulated by the NeoCons.

Since the very outset of the Obama presidency, this global military project has become increasingly pervasive, with the reinforcement of US military presence in all major regions of the World and the development of new advanced weapons systems on an unprecedented scale.

Granting the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama provides legitimacy to the illegal practices of war, to the military occupation of foreign lands, to the relentless killings of civilians in the name of "democracy".

Both the Obama administration and NATO are directly threatening Russia, China and Iran. The US under Obama is developing "a First Strike Global Missile Shield System":

"Along with space-based weapons, the Airborne Laser is the next defense frontier. ... Never has Ronald Reagan's dream of layered missile defenses - Star Wars, for short - been as....close, at least technologically, to becoming realized."

Reacting to this consolidation, streamlining and upgrading of American global nuclear strike potential, on August 11 the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force, the same Alexander Zelin cited earlier on the threat of U.S. strikes from space on all of his nation, said that the "Russian Air Force is preparing to meet the threats resulting from the creation of the Global Strike Command in the U.S. Air Force" and that Russia is developing "appropriate systems to meet the threats that may arise." (Rick Rozoff, Showdown with Russia and China: U.S. Advances First Strike Global Missile Shield System, Global Research, August 19, 2009)

At no time since the Cuban missile crisis has the World been closer to the unthinkable: a World War III scenario, a global military conflict involving the use of nuclear weapons.

1. The so-called missile defense shield or Star Wars initiative involving the first strike use of nuclear weapons is now to be developed globally in different regions of the World. The missile shield is largely directed against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.

2. New US military bases have been set up with a view to establishing US spheres of influence in every region of the World as well as surrounding and confronting Russia and China.

3. There has been an escalation in the Central Asian Middle East war. The "defense budget" under Obama has spiraled with increased allocations to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

4. Under orders of president Obama, acting as Commander in Chief, Pakistan is now the object of routine US aerial bombardments in violation of its territorial sovereignty, using the "Global War on Terrorism" as a justification.

5. The construction of new military bases is envisaged in Latin America including Colombia on the immediate border of Venezuela.

6. Military aid to Israel has increased. The Obama presidency has expressed its unbending support for Israel and the Israeli military. Obama has remained mum on the atrocities committed by Israel in Gaza. There has not even been a semblance of renewed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

7. There has been a reinforcement of the new regional commands including AFRICOM and SOUTHCOM

8. A new round of threats has been directed against Iran.

9. The US is intent upon fostering further divisions between Pakistan and India, which could lead to a regional war, as well as using India's nuclear arsenal as an indirect means to threaten China.

The diabolical nature of this military project was outlined in the 2000 Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The PNAC's declared objectives are:

defend the American homeland;

fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;

perform the "constabulary" duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;

transform U.S. forces to exploit the "revolution in military affairs;" (Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding Americas Defenses.pdf, September 2000)

The "Revolution in Military Affairs" refers to the development of new advanced weapons systems. The militarization of space, new advanced chemical and biological weapons, sophisticated laser guided missiles, bunker buster bombs, not to mention the US Air Force's climatic warfare program (HAARP) based in Gokona, Alaska, are part of Obama's "humanitarian arsenal".

War against the Truth

This is a war against the truth. When war becomes peace, the world is turned upside down. Conceptualization is no longer possible. An inquisitorial social system emerges.

An understanding of fundamental social and political events is replaced by a World of sheer fantasy, where "evil folks" are lurking. The objective of the "Global War on Terrorism" which has been fully endorsed by Obama administration, has been to galvanize public support for a Worldwide campaign against heresy.

In the eyes of public opinion, possessing a "just cause" for waging war is central. A war is said to be Just if it is waged on moral, religious or ethical grounds. The consensus is to wage war. People can longer think for themselves. They accept the authority and wisdom of the established social order.

The Nobel Committee says that President Obama has given the world "hope for a better future." The prize is awarded for Obama's

"extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."

...His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population. (Nobel Press Release, October 9, 2009)

The granting of the Nobel "peace prize" to president Barack Obama has become an integral part of the Pentagon's propaganda machine. It provides a human face to the invaders, it upholds the demonization of those who oppose US military intervention.

The decision to grant Obama the Nobel Peace Prize was no doubt carefully negotiated with the Norwegian Committee at the highest levels of the US government. It has far reaching implications.

It unequivocally upholds the US led war as a "Just Cause". It erases the war crimes committed both by the Bush and Obama administrations.

War Propaganda: Jus ad Bellum

The "Just war" theory serves to camouflage the nature of US foreign policy, while providing a human face to the invaders.

In both its classical and contemporary versions, the Just war theory upholds war as a "humanitarian operation". It calls for military intervention on ethical and moral grounds against "insurgents", "terrorists", "failed" or "rogue states".

The Just War has been heralded by the Nobel Committee as an instrument of Peace. Obama personifies the "Just War".

Taught in US military academies, a modern-day version of the "Just War" theory has been embodied into US military doctrine. The "war on terrorism" and the notion of "preemption" are predicated on the right to "self defense." They define "when it is permissible to wage war": jus ad bellum.

Jus ad bellum has served to build a consensus within the Armed Forces command structures. It has also served to convince the troops that they are fighting for a "just cause". More generally, the Just War theory in its modern day version is an integral part of war propaganda and media disinformation, applied to gain public support for a war agenda. Under Obama as Nobel Peace Laureate, the Just War becomes universally accepted, upheld by the so-called international community.

The ultimate objective is to subdue the citizens, totally depoliticize social life in America, prevent people from thinking and conceptualizing, from analyzing facts and challenging the legitimacy of the US NATO led war.

War becomes peace, a worthwhile "humanitarian undertaking", Peaceful dissent becomes heresy.

Military Escalation with a Human Face. Nobel Committee grants the "Green Light"

More significantly, the Nobel peace prize grants legitimacy to an unprecedented "escalation" of US-NATO led military operations under the banner of peacemaking.

It contributes to falsifying the nature of the US-NATO military agenda.

Between 40,000 to 60,000 more US and allied troops are to be sent to Afghanistan under a peacemaking banner. On the 8th of October, a day prior to the Nobel Committee's decision, the US Congress granted Obama a 680-billion-dollar defense authorization bill, which is slated to finance the process of military escalation:

"Washington and its NATO allies are planning an unprecedented increase of troops for the war in Afghanistan, even in addition to the 17,000 new American and several thousand NATO forces that have been committed to the war so far this year".

The number, based on as yet unsubstantiated reports of what U.S. and NATO commander Stanley McChrystal and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen have demanded of the White House, range from 10,000 to 45,000.

Fox News has cited figures as high as 45,000 more American soldiers and ABC News as many as 40,000. On September 15 the Christian Science Monitor wrote of "perhaps as many as 45,000."

The similarity of the estimates indicate that a number has been agreed upon and America's obedient media is preparing domestic audiences for the possibility of the largest escalation of foreign armed forces in Afghanistan's history. Only seven years ago the United States had 5,000 troops in the country, but was scheduled to have 68,000 by December even before the reports of new deployments surfaced. (Rick Rozoff, U.S., NATO Poised For Most Massive War In Afghanistan's History, Global Research, September 24, 2009)

Within hours of the decision of the Norwegian Nobel committee, Obama met with the War Council, or should we call it the "Peace Council". This meeting had been carefully scheduled to coincide with that of the Norwegian Nobel committee.

This key meeting behind closed doors in the Situation Room of the White House included Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and key political and military advisers. General Stanley McChrystal participated in the meeting via video link from Kabul.

General Stanley McChrystal is said to have offered the Commander in Chief "several alternative options" "including a maximum injection of 60,000 extra troops". The 60,000 figure was quoted following a leak of the Wall Street Journal (AFP: After Nobel nod, Obama convenes Afghan war council, October 9, 2009)

"The president had a robust conversation about the security and political challenges in Afghanistan and the options for building a strategic approach going forward," according to an administration official (quoted in AFP: After Nobel nod, Obama convenes Afghan war council October 9, 2009)

The Nobel committee had in a sense given Obama a green light. The October 9 meeting in the Situation Room was to set the groundwork for a further escalation of the conflict under the banner of counterinsurgency and democracy building.

Meanwhile, in the course of the last few months, US forces have stepped up their aerial bombardments of village communities in the northern tribal areas of Pakistan, under the banner of combating Al Qaeda.

Obama and the Nobel Prize: When War becomes Peace, When the Lie becomes the Truth

[Clancy]

quite so, unfortunately. where is this from, clancy?
still hoping we turn our country around in our lifetimes, judith

The link is at the bottom, I'll put it on top too. The site has some wacky stories, but in this case, they're spot on.

[babaruss]

Dumb old teaching which works for me : "All meaningful and lasting change starts on the inside and works it's way out" Another one is: " all change, if it is to come about at all, is gradual and incremental".
I see President Obama as now being on the inside...and I'm willing to with hold judgment for a few years to see if he is going to do what I expect him to do....which leads me to the second quote.
Everyone wants to bitch about the way things are although things have been this way for hundreds of years (with a few updates/modifications.
Few have the patience, let alone the ability, to see how many things have changed already... because they are way too pissed off that they haven't got what they want 'right now'.
babaruss

Obama and the Nobel Prize: When War becomes Peace, When the Lie becomes the Truth

When war becomes peace,...

[Clancy]

I hear ya man, what's the world coming to when you can't invade and occupy resource rich third world countries, killing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in the process without some impatient people bitching about it?

After all, torture, mayhem and mass murder for profit have been going on a long time!

Look out Somalia and Venezuela, you're next.

Dumb old teaching which works for me : "All meaningful and lasting change starts on the inside and works it's way out" Another one is: " all change, if it is to come about at all, is gradual and incremental".
I see President Obama as now being on the inside...and I'm willing to with hold judgment for a few years to see if he is going to do what I expect him to do....which leads me to the second quote.
Everyone wants to bitch about the way things are although things have been this way for hundreds of years (with a few updates/modifications.
Few have the patience, let alone the ability, to see how many things have changed already... because they are way too pissed off that they haven't got what they want 'right now'.
babaruss

[babaruss]

I think that in your sarcastic, venomous, approach to the way things are you may have lost sight of the fact that change moves slow, and no matter how frustrating that may be, it will always remain that way.
When I was a kid black people were treated like dirt...as were people of all colors.
My step dad could not go to the same swimming pool, or movies, with us because he was an 'Indian'. This by the way was right here in California.
Thursday at was 'Fag Day' wear the wrong color and you were called a fag.
Can you imagine someone pulling that crap today, let alone imagine gay people gain ing equal rights. Half the civilized world is now aware that Gay is not an evil.....how's that for progress ?
I started protesting war back in the 50's....at a time when it was not only unfashionable, but damned right dangerous. We are still trying to bring about change there aren't we ?
Little by little more and more people understand war is evil and act to oppose it. Hopefully there will one day be some sort of critical mass of awareness and all the factors which bring about war will be dealt a final blow (kinda doubt the last 'cause as humans we are generally disinclined to stop our greedy fearful ways).
Please show me where we ever quickly got what we wanted from any government simply by pointing out what it is doing is wrong.
In fat the only place anger and fear has quickly got us was in places like Iraq...where fearful Americans wildly waved flags and sent there sons out to kill those rag heads who dared to terrorize America. Man did we get over there fast right ?
No my friend it's slow and gradual progress or none at all

Beside that...do you really think Obama (or any President) has the power to go wildly against the powers that be ?
babaruss

I hear ya man, what's the world coming to when you can't invade and occupy resource rich third world countries, killing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in the process without some impatient people bitching about it?

After all, torture, mayhem and mass murder for profit have been going on a long time!

Look out Somalia and Venezuela, you're next.

[Clancy]

...do you really think Obama (or any President) has the power to go wildly against the powers that be ?

Exactly. Obama is a corporate puppet just like Bush. He's not even going mildly against the powers that be.

In fact, he's escalating the Bush/PNAC agenda of global domination.

Our country has been hijacked, the treasury looted, the perps protected by the politicians they have bought and paid for, and we're not going to do a thing about it.

I have to admit though, I do prefer an articulate puppet who can read his lines over GW any day.

[babaruss]

Nice job of cherry picking and turning it back to your locked in point of view.
Obviously you are not a believer in the idea change (for the better) is constantly happening in the world today.
Baba

Exactly. Obama is a corporate puppet just like Bush. He's not even going mildly against the powers that be.

In fact, he's escalating the Bush/PNAC agenda of global domination.

Our country has been hijacked, the treasury looted, the perps protected by the politicians they have bought and paid for, and we're not going to do a thing about it.

I have to admit though, I do prefer an articulate puppet who can read his lines over GW any day.

[Clancy]

Nice job of ignoring the incalculable suffering that we are creating at home and abroad in ever greater degrees.

Nice job of cherry picking and turning it back to your locked in point of view.
Obviously you are not a believer in the idea change (for the better) is constantly happening in the world today.
Baba

[Jude Iam]

another instance of not 'either or'
but 'both, and'!
gotta run but love you both: articulate, passionate, engaged!
yes- may each and everyone speak and act and fully step into this country and life! including me, love, judith

Nice job of cherry picking and turning it back to your locked in point of view.
Obviously you are not a believer in the idea change (for the better) is constantly happening in the world today.
Baba

[babaruss]

I have never ignored what is happening in this world Clancy.
If you will go back to my earlier response to you I mentioned war resisting in the 50's...did civil rights work in early 60's, and Native American rights in the 70's....have scars from those endeavors. I did not instantly change anything...what I did (as do all people) was participated in ways which would bring change about... albeit in a very slow manner.
It is never enough to list all the evil in the world and to assign blame.
I reiterate...in my opinion Obama is working within the system and bringing about change the only way possible in a corrupt system....gradually and incrementally.
The incalculable suffering in this nation has been going on since the white man first put foot on this soil.
We have been changing 'frog in the well' fashion here ever since...moving upward, making head way for a time, and then falling back into the damned well.... only to start all over again.
I doubt there is another way...but I'm open to what ideas you have about how to hurry that process up.
Baba

Nice job of ignoring the incalculable suffering that we are creating at home and abroad in ever greater degrees.

[someguy]

I reiterate...in my opinion Obama is working within the system and bringing about change the only way possible in a corrupt system....gradually and incrementally.

And why is it that you believe that? What has Obama done to give you that impression? Are you sure its not just wishful thinking?

One way to speed up change is to vote in to office some people who are sincere and offer new ideas. People not like Obama.

[babaruss]

Please name those people who you think would bring about the change you want. And then give me the numbers as far as how many people would actually vote for them.
Follow that with the ways those people you have now voted in will be able to buck the governmental status quo o.k. ?
Thanks
Baba

And why is it that you believe that? What has Obama done to give you that impression? Are you sure its not just wishful thinking?

One way to speed up change is to vote in to office some people who are sincere and offer new ideas. People not like Obama.

[someguy]

Please name those people who you think would bring about the change you want. And then give me the numbers as far as how many people would actually vote for them.
Follow that with the ways those people you have now voted in will be able to buck the governmental status quo o.k. ?
Thanks
Baba

My point has nothing to do with how much popularity a given person/candidate has. It shouldn't matter. If people really wanted change they would have voted for someone else, some third party. If the majority of people really did care to see things change then they would not have voted for Obama. Its not a big surprise that Obama is escalating the war in Afghanistan. He has always said that he would do that. During the campaign McCain, Obama and Bush all pushed the Fudging* Bailout through. Then Obama has the audacity to cry about how he inherited this debt, what a jackass... And the Fudging health care change, or rather health insurance change, was unfortunately to be expected from a cold hearted jackass who cant even look up from his teleprompter for one second to show any real emotion about anything. He promised to bring change to help the poor people who couldn't afford insurance, and instead he's demanding that they find a way to afford insurance. Meanwhile he's handed how many millions of new customers to the insurance companies???? That is wrong. That is so Bush. Its like no child left behind for adults. What a joke. You want change? Then look outside of the two options placed in front of you by the corporations and big banks. The only reason that a third party doesn't have a chance is because people like you don't have the balls to vote for them.

[babaruss]

Well my friend there we have it ...all complaint and no solution.
A full rant (and unhappiness) followed by an insistence that if more people would just act the way you want them to all will be better.
I don't know about me not having any 'balls' ....I mean really how to hell do you know where it was (over the past 52 years that I've been eligible to vote) that I've cast my vote. Now that statement of yours takes real balls. It would appear that you and Clancy are locked in and totally unwilling to give an inch.... so maybe I'm just pissing up a rope here trying to enter into reasonable discourse with either of you.
My error.
Baba

My point has nothing to do with how much popularity a given person/candidate has. It shouldn't matter. If people really wanted change they would have voted for someone else, some third party. If the majority of people really did care to see things change then they would not have voted for Obama. Its not a big surprise that Obama is escalating the war in Afghanistan. He has always said that he would do that. During the campaign McCain, Obama and Bush all pushed the Fudging* Bailout through. Then Obama has the audacity to cry about how he inherited this debt, what a jackass... And the Fudging health care change, or rather health insurance change, was unfortunately to be expected from a cold hearted jackass who cant even look up from his teleprompter for one second to show any real emotion about anything. He promised to bring change to help the poor people who couldn't afford insurance, and instead he's demanding that they find a way to afford insurance. Meanwhile he's handed how many millions of new customers to the insurance companies???? That is wrong. That is so Bush. Its like no child left behind for adults. What a joke. You want change? Then look outside of the two options placed in front of you by the corporations and big banks. The only reason that a third party doesn't have a chance is because people like you don't have the balls to vote for them.

[someguy]

Well my friend there we have it ...all complaint and no solution.
A full rant (and unhappiness) followed by an insistence that if more people would just act the way you want them to all will be better.
I don't know about me not having any 'balls' ....I mean really how to hell do you know where it was (over the past 52 years that I've been eligible to vote) that I've cast my vote. Now that statement of yours takes real balls. It would appear that you and Clancy are locked in and totally unwilling to give an inch.... so maybe I'm just pissing up a rope here trying to enter into reasonable discourse with either of you.
My error.
Baba

Hmm I didn't notice much reasonable discourse coming from you since you didn't answer any of my proposed questions in my first post to you. Plus I did give you a solution. Vote for somebody who is sincere and has some real ideas, someone that doesn't follow what the corporations and big banks demand. Thats a big starting point to getting change in a faster way. That was my entire point and you can't even acknowledge that either. You keep saying that Clancy and I are locked into our opinion, but I used to feel the same way you did, and I changed my viewpoint. You on the other hand, have not even given me the time or respect of a simple answer or two, and you disregarded my entire point. Whos really locked in?

[babaruss]

You did not include anyone (as a candidate) who you feel to be sincere,
as in someone possessing 'real' ideas. Of course I can acknowledge finding such people as you described to a good starting point, but if you have no suggestions, names, or even a third party to consider, what's the point of any of this ?
In the interim why not put pressure on Obama to take care of those things in our world which you feel are being neglected, exploited, or what have you ?
After all that is the way the system works isn't it ?
Baba

Hmm I didn't notice much reasonable discourse coming from you since you didn't answer any of my proposed questions in my first post to you. Plus I did give you a solution. Vote for somebody who is sincere and has some real ideas, someone that doesn't follow what the corporations and big banks demand. Thats a big starting point to getting change in a faster way. That was my entire point and you can't even acknowledge that either. You keep saying that Clancy and I are locked into our opinion, but I used to feel the same way you did, and I changed my viewpoint. You on the other hand, have not even given me the time or respect of a simple answer or two, and you disregarded my entire point. Whos really locked in?

[Yip]

It' amazing how close minded, some people are on this site.
If you don't follow lockstep, you are chased away.
I think change for them means that other people must change, including the evenhanded Babaruss.

Well my friend there we have it ...all complaint and no solution.
A full rant (and unhappiness) followed by an insistence that if more people would just act the way you want them to all will be better.
I don't know about me not having any 'balls' ....I mean really how to hell do you know where it was (over the past 52 years that I've been eligible to vote) that I've cast my vote. Now that statement of yours takes real balls. It would appear that you and Clancy are locked in and totally unwilling to give an inch.... so maybe I'm just pissing up a rope here trying to enter into reasonable discourse with either of you.
My error.
Baba

[someguy]

It' amazing how close minded, some people are on this site.
If you don't follow lockstep, you are chased away.
I think change for them means that other people must change, including the evenhanded Babaruss.

Who is being chased away and how?

[someguy]

You did not include anyone (as a candidate) who you feel to be sincere,
as in someone possessing 'real' ideas. Of course I can acknowledge finding such people as you described to a good starting point, but if you have no suggestions, names, or even a third party to consider, what's the point of any of this ?
In the interim why not put pressure on Obama to take care of those things in our world which you feel are being neglected, exploited, or what have you ?
After all that is the way the system works isn't it ?
Baba

You act like Im such a jerk for not answering your question.... Its not like I didnt address it... But you still have yet to answer any of my questions (which I posted first ). What is your deal?

You want to know who I think is sincere and could bring change quickly. Kucinich or Paul. Either or. Both are sincere and willing to examine many points of view. They are true leaders and true to their word. They are people to admire and vote in office. Obviously I don't agree with both of them all the time, but they both have empathy and try to look beyond themselves and they're own personal benefit. They actually care about other people. Obama does not, that is why its not worth trying to put pressure on him.

So will you answer me? Will you give me the time of day?

Change does not have to be gradual and slow. Change can happen very fast. It all depends on the amount of awareness brought to the situation. If everyone were aware of Obamas puppet status then maybe we could get somewhere. But most of us are not aware, and most of us reserve hope and faith for better days. Unfortunately I think you missed the urgency that Clancy was trying to bring to the situation. War, poverty, genocide, and governmental tyranny are here right now, and people need to become aware of that and aware of the fact that their leaders are failing them like always.

So I ask again, what do you find so great about Obama? What makes you think that he is trying to bring about real positive change in some gradual way? His campaign was paid for by Goldmann Sachs etc.... Stock prices for insurance companies keep rising.... Wars escalating..... Drone attacks increasing around the globe..... More wiretapping domestically.... And somehow this is supposed to bring gradual positive change Baba, Yip? You guys keep waiting, I won't hold my breath.

[babaruss]

I think I'll try to skirt your hostility, and need to blame, get to what answers I do have to your questions.
But first I will state clearly here and now that I never implied, nor stated, that you were a jerk...you do make far more assumptions about people you do not know than is necessary for this discussion.
If Kucinich, or Paul, have any real merit, or real political power base, they may well bring some changes about....but without majority support they are useless. As for sincerity, and willingness to examine issues, I'm still saying Obama is the better person because he gives full attention to all issues, and moves cautiously to accomplish his agenda.
Only hard core radicals believe change will happen over night, or with the changing of the political guard. The variables to each, and every decision a President makes are mind boggling. So very much to consider and any wrong choices (and there certainly will be wrong decisions made) bring about terrible consequences.
I have no proofs that either Kucinich or Paul are as honorable as you say.
And you have no real proofs that Obama is the disaster you insist him to be.
You'll have to submit some documentation about Obama being in it for personal gain before I can comment on that issue.
And I believe it was I who brought the issue of 'awareness' to play here.
Please cite an example, or two, where positive, and useful, change came about quickly. I'd be very interested in seeing where, when, and how, such miracles was wrought.
As for puppets...think for a minute will you. All presidents are figure heads with very limited real power. Any move on the part of any president which is opposed by the majority of the population is courting disaster.
Yet a President who can slowly, and diplomatically, bring about changes which (for example) create a more positive world image of this country...to undo what Bush has done to our image...can hardly be considered worthless.
Clancy's urgency is not my urgency...I've seen the world as it is for almost 70 years now and history supplies me with what I haven't experienced...and there has never been a time when 'War, poverty, genocide, and governmental tyranny' did not exist...check out the Bible and it's history of the Jews.... also later the horrors which came from the formation of the Christian belief system... just for starters.
If you come into office, and the world is a mess, and your country has a huge financial stake in that mess.....then you'll play hell cleaning that mess up over night. A sitting President is not going to undo generations of greedy oligarchs, corporations, or corrupt politicians, just because we think he should.
I'm not going to worry about where to hell Obama's campaign money came from as long as this Nation allows such contributions. Change the laws and change will follow. Our part as citizens is to bring about change by challenging the system using legal means. And while this too is time consuming and slow...it's all we have available to us.
Change the minds of voter, and change will follow....but also slowly.
I sincerely doubt you will be able to do any of this in one generation.
You have to start where you are, and work with what you have available to you. I believe what I said...time will prove Obama to have been a fantastic President.
Baba

Babs

You act like Im such a jerk for not answering your question.... Its not like I didnt address it... But you still have yet to answer any of my questions (which I posted first ). What is your deal?

You want to know who I think is sincere and could bring change quickly. Kucinich or Paul. Either or. Both are sincere and willing to examine many points of view. They are true leaders and true to their word. They are people to admire and vote in office. Obviously I don't agree with both of them all the time, but they both have empathy and try to look beyond themselves and they're own personal benefit. They actually care about other people. Obama does not, that is why its not worth trying to put pressure on him.

So will you answer me? Will you give me the time of day?

Change does not have to be gradual and slow. Change can happen very fast. It all depends on the amount of awareness brought to the situation. If everyone were aware of Obamas puppet status then maybe we could get somewhere. But most of us are not aware, and most of us reserve hope and faith for better days. Unfortunately I think you missed the urgency that Clancy was trying to bring to the situation. War, poverty, genocide, and governmental tyranny are here right now, and people need to become aware of that and aware of the fact that their leaders are failing them like always.

So I ask again, what do you find so great about Obama? What makes you think that he is trying to bring about real positive change in some gradual way? His campaign was paid for by Goldmann Sachs etc.... Stock prices for insurance companies keep rising.... Wars escalating..... Drone attacks increasing around the globe..... More wiretapping domestically.... And somehow this is supposed to bring gradual positive change Baba, Yip? You guys keep waiting, I won't hold my breath.

[Thad]

~~~~Everyone wants to bitch about the way things are although things have been this way for hundreds of years~~~?

well lets parse this,


Media advertisement in your house every time a radio or tv is turned on, Drug company's peddle their wares while supporting long sentences for unlicensed drug dealers

The land of the free is the home to the largest incarcerated public.

idiots all around if you can't see the acceleration of stupidity its in terms of magnitude of difference.

Paranoia is a healthy state of mind today...

Dumb old teaching which works for me : "All meaningful and lasting change starts on the inside and works it's way out" Another one is: " all change, if it is to come about at all, is gradual and incremental".
I see President Obama as now being on the inside...and I'm willing to with hold judgment for a few years to see if he is going to do what I expect him to do....which leads me to the second quote.
Everyone wants to bitch about the way things are although things have been this way for hundreds of years (with a few updates/modifications.
Few have the patience, let alone the ability, to see how many things have changed already... because they are way too pissed off that they haven't got what they want 'right now'.
babaruss

[someguy]

The only reason why Kucinich or Paul don't have the votes are because, Like I said before, people don't have the balls to vote for them. My dad for example is a hardcore republican. This election cycle he voted McCain, and sent him money too. Although deep down he really wanted to vote for Ron Paul. His ideals aligned much more with Paul but he figured that Paul doesn't stand a chance and that his vote would be "wasted" if he voted for the person he truly believed in. Isn't that a sick and twisted way of thinking?

The thing is Kucinich and Paul have mass amounts of ideological support. Sooooo many Americans resonate with what these two figures stand for, yet they are never given a fair chance in the media and I wonder why????? Do you? And not that many Americans that voted for Obama really resonate with what he is doing right now. You can see that his approval rating is dropping significantly especially amongst the KPFA crowd, as I call em. Most of them would rather have a Kucinich in office to forward a true progressive agenda. But like my poor old dad, most are too afraid that McCain would have won if they had voted for real change.

And what change have we gotten? It seems like Obama is continuing full throttle with Bush's agenda. The only difference is before the right were clapping their hands while the left were booing him all the way... Now that the presidents skin color has changed and the R has turned into a D, the left applauds and the right gives a thumbs down. Its an awfully strange phenomenon that a such a superficial change (from Bush to Obama) can pacify an entire section of our population.

"Yet a President who can slowly, and diplomatically, bring about changes which (for example) create a more positive world image of this country...to undo what Bush has done to our image...can hardly be considered worthless." - I would be very interested in hearing what Obama has done to deserve that sentence. Has our image around the world gotten better? Maybe for the first two or three months of Obama's presidency it did. Remember when Hugo Chavez said at the UN that the podium no longer smells of sulfur, referring to bush's devilish odor, well he has already retracted that statement and he has come to realize that Obama is nothing more that a third term Bush. Same with many leaders and people in the Muslim world. Gaddafi praised his "black brother" when he got into office, and now he would like to spit on Obama, just like Bush.

"A sitting President is not going to undo generations of greedy oligarchs, corporations, or corrupt politicians, just because we think he should." - Well he sure could try. Just going along with the flow is not cool, and definitely not a way of bringing real positive significant change. A sitting president does have some power, especially a sitting US president. He is in command of a great military, a massive economy, and a role model for maybe billions. He does have lots of power to change lots of things immediately.

"I have no proofs that either Kucinich or Paul are as honorable as you say.
And you have no real proofs that Obama is the disaster you insist him to be." -I can prove to you that Kucinich and Paul are honorable. All you have to do is look at what they are constantly saying in the house. I have previously posted several speeches made by Kucinich here on Wacco, and when you get some time look them up. Youtube has many great videos of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich saying and doing honorable things. Obama is as honorable as Bush, and that is evident by his actions and decisions as commander in chief. Do I need to list them? You know about the wars, the bombings, the death at his hands, the economy, the patriot act and so on... I am still waiting for your response to how Obama is working to bring about change........

And finally, yes I do have a lot of hostility just as I did during the Bush era. I have this hostility for good reason. Two unending mass casualty wars, based on racism and greed, the the patriot act which Obama voted for and continues gleefully, torture and unlawful imprisonment, the unending love of Israel and the support of their despicable human rights violations, our prison systems are packed and are still on pace, etc.... you get it, right? Nothing has significantly changed. In fact they are still moving right along at the same rate. And most of those things could be changed or addressed right now. So I feel that I have a righteous anger for cowardly acts of war and oppression being propagated by Obama and the democrats who for 8 years stood against all that. And to tell me to wait for change when no signs of change exist at all is absurd. With that kind of thinking we will never change anything! I'm trying to change the minds of the voters, like you said, through you and others on wacco. That is a good way of changing things. But when you and other waccos insist that Obama is the change your looking for in a president, and we just got to give him more time is truly wacko.

Im sorry you think that me being unhappy is a sign of lower intelligence or something. But happiness is not something that is necessary for intelligence or revolution, or change. In fact, most revolutions are born out of anger and frustration. Maybe that can be a healthy attitude to have when such egregious policies are being enforced.

"Please cite an example, or two, where positive, and useful, change came about quickly." Have you ever seen the show Intervention on A&E? Sometimes these drug addicts change their entire lifestyle in a month or two. They go from being an extreme junkie (you insert whatever drug you like) to sober functioning people in little time. Or how about the internet? That came about pretty damn fast and changed life as we know it forever in a massive way. The radio changed the entire world in very little time. Same with electricity and cars. How about the hippy movement and LSD changing life in America as it was formerly known to be in a flash. Mormonism has grown massively in just two generations! The American revolution took about 5 years.

While i find it to be true that change happens more rapidly in the direction of disintegration, rapid integration does exist. Unfortunately we are being oppressed and held down by the same politicians that the majority of people in this country vote for, dems and repubs. And when we the people are not aware of our own oppression, then how are we ever going to integrate? That is why I am talking to you about this right now. Because I want you to see how Obama is just like Bush, and why you should be outraged just as you probably were during the Bush era. And your hope and faith in a man who has done nothing to deserve it, drives me a little nuts. Sorry but it does.

[babaruss]

Well let's talk about my viewing habits Thad.
I neither listen to radio or watch T.V. as I hate the mindless intrusive peddling of useless information, ideas, and products.
The drug companies have been peddling garbage as far back as I can remember...so why the panic today ? If you don't like what they do legislate for change !!
The land of the free has never been 'free' get that notion out of your mind before you hurt yourself !! The so called freedoms here are based on controlling factors beyond imagining. I've learned to feel my way through the madness and find ways to do what I know to be the next right thing to do. I need no one's acceptance, or approval to do the things I determine to be right. Ignorance has only one cure...education....wanna be an idiot...that's easy...just argue with one and then there are two !!
Paranoia is an unhealthy state of mind...clear knowing is the healthy state of mind.
Baba

~~~~Everyone wants to bitch about the way things are although things have been this way for hundreds of years~~~?

well lets parse this,


Media advertisement in your house every time a radio or tv is turned on, Drug company's peddle their wares while supporting long sentences for unlicensed drug dealers

The land of the free is the home to the largest incarcerated public.

idiots all around if you can't see the acceleration of stupidity its in terms of magnitude of difference.

Paranoia is a healthy state of mind today...

[Yip]

You write with an angry heart, babaruss uses a clear mind.

Who is being chased away and how?

[someguy]

You write with an angry heart, babaruss uses a clear mind.

Anger is a legitimate response to being violated in some way. Anger is not inherently good or bad. The presence or lack of anger says absolutely nothing about the clarity of one's mind.

[babaruss]

I'll tell you what i like about this country that you apparently can't stand....and that's the right to vote our own choices.
Your father has every right to vote how he wants period.
I heard a story awhile back about a woman who supported Obama while her husband supported McCain. People kept tearing up the McCain for president sign her husband had in the yard next to her Obama for president sign.
The woman went out and wired both signs together.
That's freedom expressed at it's best as far as voting goes.
Twisted thinking is more like insisting everyone believe your way, or they are forever more considered idiots.
Reagan's popularity dropped to an all time low and after a few years rose again.
So what fickle, fearful people think from moment to moment does not merit a whole lot of concern.
I'm mildly amused that you would dredge up comments from Ghadafi and Chavez to bolster your points.
Speeches and videos of speeches are likewise meaningless...hell..Hitler was a master of speeches and videos as were many others who proved not so good for their country.
I cannot imagine why you imply I think your unhappiness with what's happening is a sign of low intelligence. Please stick with what I write and do not project your fears on to me.
I'm going to spare my poor old mind by closing this whole thing by pointing out that T.V. shows are just t.v. shows and reality T.V. or intervention T.V. is not a good example for this old bird to consider.
I share my home with homeless addicts and alcoholics with limited or no resources ...currently my cabin is full to overflowing.
Some will make it some won't...intervention is great tool, but is totally useless, with out enormous back up, and follow up care...none of which I have available for them.
Here it's a matter of choice....I believe not only in choice, but also never interfering in the consequences of an addict, or an alcoholic.
Here if you drink, or use you leave same day. That's hard on people.
In politics..if you vote for the wrong guy you live with your choice and learn from it. In the process of learning you alter your views and your action plan as new information becomes available...next election you might act differently right ?
You simply do not run around called people idiots who share differing points of view....or have faith that things will fare better over time.
Babaruss

The only reason why Kucinich or Paul don't have the votes are because, Like I said before, people don't have the balls to vote for them. My dad for example is a hardcore republican. This election cycle he voted McCain, and sent him money too. Although deep down he really wanted to vote for Ron Paul. His ideals aligned much more with Paul but he figured that Paul doesn't stand a chance and that his vote would be "wasted" if he voted for the person he truly believed in. Isn't that a sick and twisted way of thinking?

The thing is Kucinich and Paul have mass amounts of ideological support. Sooooo many Americans resonate with what these two figures stand for, yet they are never given a fair chance in the media and I wonder why????? Do you? And not that many Americans that voted for Obama really resonate with what he is doing right now. You can see that his approval rating is dropping significantly especially amongst the KPFA crowd, as I call em. Most of them would rather have a Kucinich in office to forward a true progressive agenda. But like my poor old dad, most are too afraid that McCain would have won if they had voted for real change.

And what change have we gotten? It seems like Obama is continuing full throttle with Bush's agenda. The only difference is before the right were clapping their hands while the left were booing him all the way... Now that the presidents skin color has changed and the R has turned into a D, the left applauds and the right gives a thumbs down. Its an awfully strange phenomenon that a such a superficial change (from Bush to Obama) can pacify an entire section of our population.

"Yet a President who can slowly, and diplomatically, bring about changes which (for example) create a more positive world image of this country...to undo what Bush has done to our image...can hardly be considered worthless." - I would be very interested in hearing what Obama has done to deserve that sentence. Has our image around the world gotten better? Maybe for the first two or three months of Obama's presidency it did. Remember when Hugo Chavez said at the UN that the podium no longer smells of sulfur, referring to bush's devilish odor, well he has already retracted that statement and he has come to realize that Obama is nothing more that a third term Bush. Same with many leaders and people in the Muslim world. Gaddafi praised his "black brother" when he got into office, and now he would like to spit on Obama, just like Bush.

"A sitting President is not going to undo generations of greedy oligarchs, corporations, or corrupt politicians, just because we think he should." - Well he sure could try. Just going along with the flow is not cool, and definitely not a way of bringing real positive significant change. A sitting president does have some power, especially a sitting US president. He is in command of a great military, a massive economy, and a role model for maybe billions. He does have lots of power to change lots of things immediately.

"I have no proofs that either Kucinich or Paul are as honorable as you say.
And you have no real proofs that Obama is the disaster you insist him to be." -I can prove to you that Kucinich and Paul are honorable. All you have to do is look at what they are constantly saying in the house. I have previously posted several speeches made by Kucinich here on Wacco, and when you get some time look them up. Youtube has many great videos of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich saying and doing honorable things. Obama is as honorable as Bush, and that is evident by his actions and decisions as commander in chief. Do I need to list them? You know about the wars, the bombings, the death at his hands, the economy, the patriot act and so on... I am still waiting for your response to how Obama is working to bring about change........

And finally, yes I do have a lot of hostility just as I did during the Bush era. I have this hostility for good reason. Two unending mass casualty wars, based on racism and greed, the the patriot act which Obama voted for and continues gleefully, torture and unlawful imprisonment, the unending love of Israel and the support of their despicable human rights violations, our prison systems are packed and are still on pace, etc.... you get it, right? Nothing has significantly changed. In fact they are still moving right along at the same rate. And most of those things could be changed or addressed right now. So I feel that I have a righteous anger for cowardly acts of war and oppression being propagated by Obama and the democrats who for 8 years stood against all that. And to tell me to wait for change when no signs of change exist at all is absurd. With that kind of thinking we will never change anything! I'm trying to change the minds of the voters, like you said, through you and others on wacco. That is a good way of changing things. But when you and other waccos insist that Obama is the change your looking for in a president, and we just got to give him more time is truly wacko.

Im sorry you think that me being unhappy is a sign of lower intelligence or something. But happiness is not something that is necessary for intelligence or revolution, or change. In fact, most revolutions are born out of anger and frustration. Maybe that can be a healthy attitude to have when such egregious policies are being enforced.

"Please cite an example, or two, where positive, and useful, change came about quickly." Have you ever seen the show Intervention on A&E? Sometimes these drug addicts change their entire lifestyle in a month or two. They go from being an extreme junkie (you insert whatever drug you like) to sober functioning people in little time. Or how about the internet? That came about pretty damn fast and changed life as we know it forever in a massive way. The radio changed the entire world in very little time. Same with electricity and cars. How about the hippy movement and LSD changing life in America as it was formerly known to be in a flash. Mormonism has grown massively in just two generations! The American revolution took about 5 years.

While i find it to be true that change happens more rapidly in the direction of disintegration, rapid integration does exist. Unfortunately we are being oppressed and held down by the same politicians that the majority of people in this country vote for, dems and repubs. And when we the people are not aware of our own oppression, then how are we ever going to integrate? That is why I am talking to you about this right now. Because I want you to see how Obama is just like Bush, and why you should be outraged just as you probably were during the Bush era. And your hope and faith in a man who has done nothing to deserve it, drives me a little nuts. Sorry but it does.

[Yip]

No one with a clear mind would make this statement.
Anger chases people away, I have to assume that that is what you have chosen to do in life.

The presence or lack of anger says absolutely nothing about the clarity of one's mind.

[babaruss]

I somehow lost someguys quote about anger so please go back to earlier post to find it.
I'm going to agree with his statement regarding clarity of mind and anger as it is written.
Now if I take my anger and spew it out onto others I may really have wasted a fantastic source of natural energy which might have been used in more positive ways.
If I take that self same anger and act in ways to correct the situation which caused the anger then perhaps I have used it properly.
Over the years I have had to learn the hard way (am still learning) this lesson regarding 'restraint of tongue and pen'.
Over and over again I came up against the wall of righteous indignation and wanted people to know just how pissed off I was. Most often in that process I created walls which shut out people who may well have needed help, understanding, direction, or might have been able to provide those things to me.
It might not be fair to assume we know what someguy has 'chosen do do in life'.
The best we can come up with is a general idea of him based on today's someguy knowing full well that tomorrow may present him new information and therefor allow for a different response... correct ?
Babaruss

No one with a clear mind would make this statement.
Anger chases people away, I have to assume that that is what you have chosen to do in life.

[someguy]

I'll tell you what i like about this country that you apparently can't stand....and that's the right to vote our own choices.
Your father has every right to vote how he wants period.
I heard a story awhile back about a woman who supported Obama while her husband supported McCain. People kept tearing up the McCain for president sign her husband had in the yard next to her Obama for president sign.
The woman went out and wired both signs together.
That's freedom expressed at it's best as far as voting goes.
Twisted thinking is more like insisting everyone believe your way, or they are forever more considered idiots.
Reagan's popularity dropped to an all time low and after a few years rose again.
So what fickle, fearful people think from moment to moment does not merit a whole lot of concern.
I'm mildly amused that you would dredge up comments from Ghadafi and Chavez to bolster your points.
Speeches and videos of speeches are likewise meaningless...hell..Hitler was a master of speeches and videos as were many others who proved not so good for their country.
I cannot imagine why you imply I think your unhappiness with what's happening is a sign of low intelligence. Please stick with what I write and do not project your fears on to me.
I'm going to spare my poor old mind by closing this whole thing by pointing out that T.V. shows are just t.v. shows and reality T.V. or intervention T.V. is not a good example for this old bird to consider.
I share my home with homeless addicts and alcoholics with limited or no resources ...currently my cabin is full to overflowing.
Some will make it some won't...intervention is great tool, but is totally useless, with out enormous back up, and follow up care...none of which I have available for them.
Here it's a matter of choice....I believe not only in choice, but also never interfering in the consequences of an addict, or an alcoholic.
Here if you drink, or use you leave same day. That's hard on people.
In politics..if you vote for the wrong guy you live with your choice and learn from it. In the process of learning you alter your views and your action plan as new information becomes available...next election you might act differently right ?
You simply do not run around called people idiots who share differing points of view....or have faith that things will fare better over time.
Babaruss

WOw I spend so much time addressing your questions, and you have yet to answer my first simple question. What proof do you have that Obama will change things for the better? I take your lack of a response to mean that you have none. Wait you did say that he has restored our image around the world, which is false. Maybe you could prove that he has in someway? Either way our bickering is getting us nowhere since you have decided to base your logic on complete faith in Obama's word. I on the other hand look at his actions and make my decisions. And his actions draw me to anger, which you can't handle. Too bad. If you can answer my question about what he has done to make this country and world a better place in the future then I say do it, but if you keep refusing to address the central issue then Im out of this childish display your putting on.