RE: Obama on the Arizona law

RE: Obama on the Arizona law (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

rulemylife -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 8:07:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife And here I thought that was what we have called our President for years, regardless of who was in office. You do realize that "leader of the free world" is code for "we'd be totally justified in bombing the shit out of the USSR" right? No I don't. Enlighten me. This might be a good place to start The story here is for the most part a familiar one: of the rapid conversion of wartime internationalism into the nationalist globalism of the Cold War and how “between 1947 and 1950 the notion that the United States was ‘the leader of the free world’ began to emerge as the dominant trope to explain America’s hegemonic role in a divided world.” (159) Fousek demonstrates how the thinking of both liberal and conservative internationalists was shaped by an emergent globalism, noting the many ideas and assumptions shared by Henry Luce’s “American Century” and Henry Wallace’s “Century of the Common Man.” In a brief but highly suggestive “visual essay,” he shows how corporate advertising helped create an “iconography of America’s new global supremacy.” (91-103). Like others who have examined the savage civil war that shattered the old New Deal left, Fousek traces the opposition to the new globalism by popular front liberals, left-wing labor leaders and prominent African-Americans, the repressive marginalization of these critics and the triumph of the new “vital center” liberalism of the Cold War. “In the mid-1940s, the CIO and the NAACP both stood for an antimilitarist, anti-colonial, multilaterialist foreign policy based upon international cooperation; by 1950 both organizations supported the main elements of the Truman administration’s foreign policy, which was increasingly militaristic, hegemonic, and unilateralist.” Or just browse Google for a bit Well thank you for that but you are reading far more into my question than what I asked. I'm well aware the term began to be used during the Cold War. My point was that you implied Obama considered himself that when it has been common terminology, right or wrong, for decades.

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 8:09:47 AM)
quote: If we stop one major terrorist incident with better border control even the most costly measures will effectively pay for themselves, and the illegal immigrants themselves have a cost. Again, first we have to lay out some cash, though, and nobody's talking about how to pay for it. We have a number of agencies that don't do the jobs they could, because we don't give them the people and money they need.

Elisabella -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 8:10:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Well thank you for that but you are reading far more into my question than what I asked. I'm well aware the term began to be used during the Cold War. My point was that you implied Obama considered himself that when it has been common terminology, right or wrong, for decades. Oh I was just being snarky there - Team America propaganda totally has its place so long as the people spouting it don't start to believe that their job is really to make the US an unwavering force of justice for the rest of the world at the cost of its own interests.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 8:26:01 AM)
quote: Did you criticize Bush when he went soft on this issue? The disease you reference is called 'Political Party Blindness'. It is represented by people who adopt the opposite side of an issue they formerly represented when the opposing party was in power. It's rampant on CM, in the general public, and most pervasive in the media on both sides of the issues and party affiliation. The negative coverage of ongoing Afghan/Iraq is offset by the positive spin now given it by MSNBC and CNN. In the later case exhibited more by the lack of coverage than coverage. For example where's the outrage over U.S. death toll in the war to 1,000? Obama turns on glamor for Mexico state dinner. Forget about the purpose and who was invited and put the prior administration in place of this one and imagine all the outrage giving an ostentatious party while the country and its citizens are having such a difficult time making ends meat. What a time to have a party and advocate for illegal workers to get amnesty and immunity from scrutiny while the citizens of the US woke up to this news: Initial claims for unemployment benefits shot up by 25,000 to 471,000 last week. Economists had expected claims to drop to 440,000. There is still focus on the ties of Cheny and the no longer in power Bush administration and how their relationships fostered the first bail out. Why is this story regarding the current administration with ongoing relationships not garnering any attention? Martin says $1 million Obama campaign contributor Goldman Sachs is trying to orchestrate a bailout of failed financial institution ShoreBank, which has close ties to Barack Obama�s old neighborhood. Martin says the 'Chicago fix' is in. More corporate welfare has been paid out in bail outs through the funding of entitlement programs during the short term this Administration has been in power than in the total 8 years of the Bush administration, bloating the deficit to unprecedented levels. Yet it is accepted and advocated for by the same people who used to condemn it, using the rationalization that the alternative would result in a total collapse of the US economy; or the always useful; "think of the chidren..." "good intent" cards are played. The buzz regarding the Arizona Law is one of the best illustrations. In taking the side of the illegals the pragmatic result is their ongoing and continuing exploitation - but enforcement of a law on the books is condemned. The Attorney General of the USA is excused from reading the Law before giving an opinion. A speech is made by the administration advocating for the criminals and a Constitutional Law, swore under oath to be upheld by the President, is ignored. We give a glamorous 'State Dinner' creating a forum for someone who secures his countries borders by draconian means, and allow him to condemn a policy initiated by one State to secure ours. But of course - these are all "attacks on Obama!". Feel free to do the research - I've never been for ANY bail-out. Thought NAFTA was designed not to raise the US economy but specifically to lower it to facilitate an easier transition to a 'global' economy. I never supported any amnesty program for illegal workers, especially as the unemployment rate has risen; but always considering the large group of people currently in line (some for years) waiting patiently, and legally, on the path for US citizenship. The employees are the criminals, and I have been advocating for severe penalties for the employers of illegal workers when President Bush attempted the exact same thing President Obama is presenting now. It's funny to see these accusations being throw out there now. The dearth of anti-war, anti-corporate welfare, anti-effective economic policy initiated by this Administration treads on CM seems to point to a huge case of 'blindness'. It really takes away the 'fun' of debate. Replace Obama with Bush as the President, and the opinions change accordingly 180 degrees. "See how Bush wants to bring in more illegal workers to support the corporations?!" "Look how Bush kisses Caldoron's ass!" "Where's the economic turn around promised when this Administration funded the 'bail-outs' so the corporate executive friends who funded his campaign could have their bonuses funded?!" "1000 US soldiers have died and yet no end in sight in Iraq!" Yeah - that wouldn't be happening. The rationalizations are best defined as hypocrisy under the guise of 'party loyalty'. Maybe if there were a vaccine or cure for the this blindness disease we, as a collective group, could affect a change.

domiguy -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 8:29:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Its not the search feature, its the operator: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1034918 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1516636 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1270151 Where is the same criticism for Bush in these links that you have steered towards Obama?

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 8:31:38 AM)
Uh, yes we did criticize Bush when he refused to secure the border after 9/11. How do you think Bush and McCain lost half the conservatives? The problem was there were still plenty of brainwashed senior citizens who believed everything McAmnesty told them. By the way, after 9/11 would have been the perfect time to secure the border, and grant one last amnesty. Most people back then would have readily agreed to it including myself. www.apathetic-usa.com http://babelishere.webs.com/aware.html

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 8:34:25 AM)
It's easy to pay for border enforcement. Number one you put the military on the border, since we already pay them anyway. Number two you move the border patrol into the cities for interior enforcement, and you find the employers you catch. It will more than pay for itself. There will always be some idiot who thinks he can out smart the law.

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 8:34:54 AM)
quote: By the way, after 9/11 would have been the perfect time to secure the border, and grant one last amnesty. Most people back then would have readily agreed to it including myself. The administration was too interested in invading Iraq instead. This was their chance to get people to agree to it. People who argued against it were labeled unpatriotic.

Elisabella -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 8:38:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: By the way, after 9/11 would have been the perfect time to secure the border, and grant one last amnesty. Most people back then would have readily agreed to it including myself. The administration was too interested in invading Iraq instead. This was their chance to get people to agree to it. People who argued against it were labeled unpatriotic. The terrorist attacks happened in 2001, the Iraq war started in 2003. The administration's primary concern after 9/11 was retaliation against fundamentalist Islam in the form of the Taliban government. Iraq came 2 years later.

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 8:41:40 AM)
You think the 2003 invasion was a spur of the moment decision? The mood change in 2001 set the stage for Iraq. It would not have been possible otherwise. Afghanistan alone was an ambiguous matter, as the invasion was preemptive against a state, not against Al Qaeda. This was a neo-con's dream come true.

Sanity -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 8:47:08 AM)
Lets follow your crazy little choo-choo train of logic right off its broken track on over the cliff. Answer this - are you right now giving up your every right to criticize our future president Newt Gingrich because of your current refusal to join me in criticizing Barack Obama where such criticism is due? I criticized Bush where due, and I joined popeye in criticizing the Bush - McCain amnesty bill. But I diodn't make crazy shit up in order to criticize him, like all you wild-eyed leftists did. "Selected not elected" and "deserter" and "war for oil" and all that other insane shit... and, my criticism of Obama is fair and to the point. He bows way too much, which is a fact. He's joining with foreigners to criticize the United States as well as individual states, which is also a fact. And so on. But your claim that I can't criticize Obama because I didn't join in your rabid and insane criticism of Bush is out there. WAY out there. And I intend to hold you to that same standard when Newt is president too, just for shits and giggles. "You can't criticize Newt, because you didn't criticize Obama, uh uh uh... [sm=shame.gif] " [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Its not the search feature, its the operator: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1034918 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1516636 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1270151 Where is the same criticism for Bush in these links that you have steered towards Obama?

rulemylife -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 8:47:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth The disease you reference is called 'Political Party Blindness'. It is represented by people who adopt the opposite side of an issue they formerly represented when the opposing party was in power. It's rampant on CM, in the general public, and most pervasive in the media on both sides of the issues and party affiliation...... .....Maybe if there were a vaccine or cure for the this blindness disease we, as a collective group, could affect a change. Is there any vaccine for long-winded posters who bring up 10-15 different topics in every post and then try to make an argument that they are all related?

Elisabella -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 8:49:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You think the 2003 invasion was a spur of the moment decision? The mood change in 2001 set the stage for Iraq. It would not have been possible otherwise. Afghanistan alone was an ambiguous matter, as the invasion was preemptive against a state, not against Al Qaeda. This was a neo-con's dream come true. Spur of the moment, no, but I also don't think that you can say the administration was so focused on Iraq that it overlooked an illegal immigration crackdown it would otherwise have supported, especially in light of all of the domestic security reforms enacted during that time period.

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 9:00:05 AM)
quote: Spur of the moment, no, but I also don't think that you can say the administration was so focused on Iraq that it overlooked an illegal immigration crackdown it would otherwise have supported, especially in light of all of the domestic security reforms enacted during that time period. I didn't say that. In fact, I'd point out the opposite--Bush was for amnesty and close ties with Mexico (including a more open border, allowing more Mexican trucks, etc.). cucky said that--my post was in response to his, pointing out the administration was more focused on Iraq than illegals.

Elisabella -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 9:01:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Spur of the moment, no, but I also don't think that you can say the administration was so focused on Iraq that it overlooked an illegal immigration crackdown it would otherwise have supported, especially in light of all of the domestic security reforms enacted during that time period. I didn't say that. In fact, I'd point out the opposite--Bush was for amnesty and close ties with Mexico. cucky said that--my post was in response to his, pointing out the administration was more focused on Iraq than illegals. I read it wrong then, I read his post as pointing out what he felt theoretically should have been done and your response explaining why it wasn't.

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 9:02:33 AM)
In short, it's not that the Bush administration missed the opportunity--they saw it as an opportunity for something else.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 9:04:52 AM)
quote: Is there any vaccine for long-winded posters who bring up 10-15 different topics in every post and then try to make an argument that they are all related? You 're speaking as someone now advocating for war, corporate bail outs, grand parties at the White House, exploitation of illegal workers, and the 'all is well' side of the ledger. I know, I know - you just HATE mirrors! It is one topic - leadership. To sustain whatever little credibility you have left, you rally should try and control your obsession with avoiding addressing issues and attacking the posts you can't, and don't want to, address.

rulemylife -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 9:05:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella The terrorist attacks happened in 2001, the Iraq war started in 2003. The administration's primary concern after 9/11 was retaliation against fundamentalist Islam in the form of the Taliban government. Iraq came 2 years later. The Iraq War was being advocated long before 9/11 ever happened and long before Dubya was elected. An excuse would have been found for it regardless. It had long been a neoconservative goal to topple Saddam, which they believed should have happened during the Gulf War. It was no surprise that people like Wolfowitz and Perle, who had published their views promoting regime change in Iraq, ended up in the Bush administration.

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 9:10:03 AM)
Bush intentionally waited until the end of his administration to push for another amnesty. The purpose was to get in as many as possible to overwhelm us and eventually lose political control within the next 20 years for sure. The North American Union was the unintended result of his daddy's idea, and it started with the beginning of the negotiations for NAFTA. I don't think Bush Sr. had it planned, but after Clinton fell for it, Bush Jr. and the corporations all decided it would be easier to turn us into one big North American Union, in order to compete with China. I believe that without any opposition, Bush Jr. fully intended to become the first North American President. This is what I keep telling people. You can judge a leader on how far he would go without any opposition what so ever. Both Bush Jr., and Obama scared and scare the hell out of me. I never was that concerned about Clinton although he did make plenty of mistakes. His intentions were not malicious to our sovereignty.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Obama on the Arizona law (5/20/2010 9:14:04 AM)
Hypocrisy documented.... quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife posters who bring up 10-15 different topics in every post and then try to make an argument that they are all related? 5 posts later! quote: RIGINAL: rulemylife No, the Iraq War was in the planning stages long before 9/11 ever happened and long before Dubya was elected. It had long been a neocon goal to topple Saddam which they believed should have happened during the Gulf War. Or did you now interpret this thread topic as "Obama on the Iraq War?" Then again, the use of 'neocon' and 'Dubya' shows more a juvenile need to name call when bankrupt of argument points. Granted it's only one topic and not 10-15, however I think that was a standard use of misrepresentation by rml in lieu of facts. In other words - pointing to consistency as opposed to deliberate lying; more an expectation of hypocrisy exhibited rather than criticism.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875