It is scary that people fall for his stuff. He pats you on the back with one hand and stabs you in the back with the other. People fall for it and it is so annoying.
Why is the president of the United States so dishonest?
It is scary that people fall for his stuff. He pats you on the back with one hand and stabs you in the back with the other. People fall for it and it is so annoying.
Here, he sells the internet 2, admittedly he does it very well:
He basically says that his administration is not setting up a dictatorship; he is such a good liar.
People like him and voted for him because he looks good on TV. That's it. That's all.
You can't seriously defend his character or a single one of his policies with any credibility.
I better not show this to my parents lol(they love Obama) but I dont care.
Nah, I am a lefty, grew up in a socialist country and I strongly dislike Obama :tongue:Originally Posted by MaliaFee
Is this a right-wing forum?!
I don't understand. It seems like "cybersecurity" is an issue. And I read through the Cyberspace Policy Review a bit and I couldn't really find anything that seems to be bad?
The only thing about it that bothered me was the "we must ALL share in this important effort/responsibility" thing. It feels like 'we must ALL contribute in these collective efforts that will, when completed, only further ALL of our individual freedoms and liberties, and keep us ALL safe' as in 'we must not be free in order to later be free.' But although this was my impression from, I guess mainly the tone, I couldn't seem to find anything concrete that seemed to be actually doing this, or setting a stepping stone to doing it later... ?
I wasn't sure about the bit about industry and the private sector. I don't know how the government has already been interacting with these "entities" and if this is at all going to be dramatically different, or if this is going to involve some government-imposed and forced change in how these entities operate (and if it is, then that would probably be disturbing). And part of me wonders why the government can't work on securing its own networks primarily as impenetrable fortresses of National Security, and perhaps those of important *government* agencies, like the police, and we mustn't forget USPS! And then leave everyone else alone. I do see a point in being responsive... I mean the "Enemies" could compromise any network in the country and use it to their advantage somehow, so I can see the point in trying to have a more mainstreamed response strategy.
But I'm having trouble seeing how this is actually a clever and deceptive move on Obama's part to lead the nation into a trap so that he can snatch everyone's freedoms and privacy on his rise to Dictator. It is adding more government control seemingly, but it kind of just seems like the "oh we're noticing X is an important problem, so we're going to create a small agency assigned to addressing X so it doesn't sneak up on us because we weren't watching it!" sort of action.
Edit: Oh and I'm not sure how this is "selling the internet" either... Although I do remember in the video he was looking at it as an infrastructure apparently (like the roadways)... So I mean if the government ends up regulating the internet as it does the roads, that would be rather disturbing... and perhaps it would be like bringing the internet (a private thing) under government control (so it wouldn't be private anymore). But he did say he wanted the internet to remain as it has always been: free. I mean I guess I'm having difficulty seeing bad or destructive intentions behind this. Although the communal, collective, mandatory-sharing spirit disturbs me somewhat (and it isn't just here that it crops up).
Last edited by marooned; 05-31-2009 at 04:28 PM.
Like myself, many people here and in the socionics community are libertarians or free market anarchists for some reason.
I mean I could say why, but I'd sound arrogant.
The end is nigh
THE WORDL PRESIDEN IS BLACKK????
http://cdt.org/security/CYBERSEC4.pdf
Take a gander through this sometime.
The end is nigh
Just about everyone seems to be dishonest in the real world, Ob l Hamla is just fitting in.
I, for one, welcome this totalitarian new order.
I agree soooo much.
All politicians are dishonest and corrupt sex offender perverts. That's why they want an easy life of 'ideas' and telling other people what to do instead of actually doing any work themselves. They are demons, truly. People going 'oh he's not as bad as Bush' just make me ill. He's every bit as bad as Bush.
He's greedy. He wants power. He's snobby. He doesn't care about you. Get over it and actually pay attention to people in your life that actually do give a damn about you, dear gawd!
7:57:15 AM Allie: oh god
7:57:23 AM Allie: look at these young photos of obama
7:57:28 AM Allie: http://www.mbfala.com/exhibitions/_53/_img/
7:57:59 AM Ashton: Lol weird
7:58:05 AM Allie: lol yea
7:58:07 AM Allie: he seems cool
7:58:08 AM Allie: ahahha
7:58:10 AM Ashton: I know hahaha
7:58:16 AM Ashton: How did he become such a dork
7:58:16 AM Allie: for the first time ever
7:58:18 AM Allie: lol
7:58:18 AM Allie: yeah
7:58:24 AM Allie: politics turns you gay
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
It's not just him it's all democrats I can't stand too. I'm a libertarian/anarchist at my core.
Both he and his wife often use this kind of rhetoric, as in "we will not allow you to remain uninvolved" or something like that. It's all part of a collectivist mindset.
@MaliaFee: sorry, but you seem to lack a bit of historical perspective - working and trying harder than "most presidents"? You've all been there before, with Jimmy Carter. Obama is really Jimmy Carter 2.0; the same kind of rhetoric; the same concern with appearing to be working a lot; the same mix of naivete and weakness and self-righteousness in foreign policy; the same drive to re-shape the economy by micro-management; the same "oh he's such a wonderful guy in comparison to the last one" thing, where Carter had Nixon (Ford did not erase the Nixon memories), and Obama has Bush. The Nixon era was "hell", now it's the Bush era. And, as with Carter, my guess is that it will all end in disappointment and tears.
Until memories fade, again, and in another 25 years or so another such figure is elected.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
You don't?
But then you say:
"Most presidents" -- "ever have"?
And you don't worship him?
Couldn't that be said about anyone in elected office?
Also, have you ever looked at what Obama actually did while a Senator? What bold piece of legislation has he ever proposed, let alone approved?
I think collective mindsets are very much a Beta thing (certainly out of all the quadras). Seeing he's Beta (well I think it's the most agreed on type, a Beta NF, probably IEI), then it makes sense that he'll function in this sort of way.
I don't know anything in great detail about Obama's policies, from what's been wrote on this thread I wonder if the collectiveness while having to work within democracy can produce much more than rhetoric. I am for the moment anyway interested to see what this debate produces!
Last edited by Cyclops; 06-01-2009 at 12:00 PM.
Look at his flip flopping on the CIA memos. All he does is try to appease as many people as possible while covertly enacting a super-left-wing agenda, which everyone said he wouldn't do (because he charmingly said so on TV, even though his voting record was more liberal than Ted Kennedy's).
Luckily for us reality dwellers, left-wing philosophies are unrealistic fantasies which, though they can cause damage, can't actually work as long as human nature causes people to care about their own wellbeing.
I've only really followed the actions of George Bush as a leader in the US and Tony Blair onwards in the UK, so I don't really have much to compare Obama to. I don't particularly see anything wrong with Obama "flip flopping" over the CIA memos, just so long as he makes the right descision. Okay, it could make him look weak and it may not give you much hope over his competance over bigger issues, and he could have perhaps done his flip-flopping behind closed doors instead.
It's possible that in the UK the death penalty would be brought back if politicians tried to appease as many people as possible, which is something I don't want to happen. But I would think on the whole, trying to appease as many people as possible would be the best thing to do, unless you want to stop idiots that you don't agree with from voting.
Obama might very well fuck up the US but I get the feeling he probably won't fuck up the rest of the world as well!
Hmm, from what I understand about Jimmy Carter, there wasn't much he could do about the Iran situation short of an invasion...and the hostages did get released. I suppose a war would have been popular?
Whatever failed thing it is that you're calling "Libertarian" isn't Libertarian.
This flip flopping is just another example of his cynical opportunism.
I think we should give Communism a try.
Yes, because no one has tried it for us.
If the memos weren't published, they could have been released at a later date anyway. Also, the memos need not have been written at all in the first place...you may see what Obama is doing as cynical opportunism, but he is within his rights to do so. If people think badly of this, there are things they can do about it...of course, they may not get a satisfactory outcome from doing so.
It's always easy to say something isn't true Libertariaism or Communism because of some flaw in implementation.
If you're stupid, don't know basic economics, and are poor at simple logical analysis, maybe.
For instance, North Korea is a perfectly functioning communist state. The citizens live in fear, have no human rights, and live in a personality cult, but that's how the communist system works. It's all for the "greater good".
Being within rights to do something doesn't morally justify it. It only frees you from interference by others.
Releasing those memos was nothing more than a political chess move to appease leftist idiots, and the information was cherry picked to defame the Bush administration and to make light of (politicize) an issue that deserves to be taken seriously.
In North Korea there's a clear distinction between the government and the people.
Possibly you are correct, but why would these leftist idiots be appeased by such a move? If the potential publication of the CIA memos was such a concern, the Bush administration could have made it so that such decisions are entirely out of the hands of politicians (except in the event that any such bill was overturned).
Who mentioned the Iranian hostage crisis, and why are you assuming that that was the only area in which Carter failed?
The Carter administration was a long series of failures, with very few achievements.
Maybe you should consider that (1) what you "have ever seen before" is not the measure of what all, or even most, presidents have done before (for instance, you think Obama works at a faster pace than, say, George H.W. Bush? Why?) and (2) that Obama's focus is precisely on creating the appearance of doing much.
I presumed that was the main incident in foreign policy that Carter had to deal with...I don't actually know much else about Carter apart from he had something to do with peanuts and that he got a Nobel Peace Prize.
lol DiscoJoe.
The end is nigh
.
America is getting more and more like dying old europe.sigh. GM was nationalized today.
Greetings, ragnar
ILI knowledge-seeker
My impression too. The present massive epidemic of numbskullery among the common people is a very scary thing.
As far as I'm concerned, the less these people do, the better. I don't need extra regulations, taxes or silly laws thrown at me.
I think they have. The problem is they work too well. After a few generations they end up creating a society of spoiled and decadent slobs, who are fit neither for liberty nor for dictatorship. Like present day Americans.
I think there's a parallel to ancient Rome: America seems to be going from a Republican era to the era of the Caesars.
Greetings, ragnar
ILI knowledge-seeker
Sure, but that wasn't the point of the discussion (ie on Obama as particularly hardworking).
That's a nice way of putting it.
Well, so far the large European car manufacturers remain private.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
