Stumble This | You should also watch “The Difference Between Barack Obama and Ron Paul” |
Just in the first THREE MINUTES he talks about these atrociously egregious points that shows his policies are in line with Neo-Conservatives:
Supportive talks about new strategy that would "join overwhelming military force with sound judgment" - In context, he's talking about globalized strategies that uses the might of the military to do more nation-building. Who's sound judgment is he talking about? His? Where does he get that authority? Certainly not from the Constitution.
"It would foster new international institutions like the United Nations, Nato and the World Bank." - A world bank?! What's up with that? Why not just make an "Earth Union"?
"The whole world hangs on a proper judgment." Who's the arrogant SOB that makes that judgment for the world? Obama?
“From the cave-spotted mountains of northwest Pakistan, to the centrifuges spinning beneath Iranian soil, we know that the American people cannot be protected by oceans or the sheer might of our military alone.” - Fear talk. We know Iraq is not and never was a threat. Come one. Sounds like someone wants to ease into the likely prospect of NOT ending the war.
He also speaks of Truman and FDR! Both of which are nation-builders! FDR is noted saying, "I wrote Haiti's Constitution myself, and if I do say it, it was a pretty good little Constitution." I used to vote Democrat, but I'm tired of their arrogance masked in humanitarian. We can do better, people. We can do better.
Supportive talks about new strategy that would "join overwhelming military force with sound judgment" - In context, he's talking about globalized strategies that uses the might of the military to do more nation-building. Who's sound judgment is he talking about? His? Where does he get that authority? Certainly not from the Constitution.
"It would foster new international institutions like the United Nations, Nato and the World Bank." - A world bank?! What's up with that? Why not just make an "Earth Union"?
"The whole world hangs on a proper judgment." Who's the arrogant SOB that makes that judgment for the world? Obama?
“From the cave-spotted mountains of northwest Pakistan, to the centrifuges spinning beneath Iranian soil, we know that the American people cannot be protected by oceans or the sheer might of our military alone.” - Fear talk. We know Iraq is not and never was a threat. Come one. Sounds like someone wants to ease into the likely prospect of NOT ending the war.
He also speaks of Truman and FDR! Both of which are nation-builders! FDR is noted saying, "I wrote Haiti's Constitution myself, and if I do say it, it was a pretty good little Constitution." I used to vote Democrat, but I'm tired of their arrogance masked in humanitarian. We can do better, people. We can do better.
Who do you think we should hand Iraq over to?
When the oil wells run dry ?
"Denial is the most predictable of all human responses."
"Hope, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness."
Obama 08'. Hope Collides With Fear, Denial, Is Not An Option.
God Bless Us Everyone, Kill The Empire.
What in FUCK, does "Judgment To Lead"(podium propaganda) ....EVEN FUCKING MEAN!!!????
Blackbush has em' hooked.....Blackwater is still hiring......
Conservative Splits at the turn of the Century
In the 1970s a number of leading American intellectuals, many of them longtime liberals, bacame openly critical of the drift of contemporary liberalism; thus began the ideology labeled neoconservatism in the popular press. Neocons feel that liberals have overestimated the ability of government to solve social problems such as industrial pollution, economic inequality, and racial discrimination. They argue that liberals have gone beyond the initial New Deal concept that government need only provide a "safety net" for the subsistence needs for society's victims-the unemployed, the disabled Americans, and the elderly. Contemporary liberalism, the neocons claim, transformed the New Deal's modest welfare state into a more intrusive paternalistic state. Neocons disagree with such liberal ideas as the use of racial or gender quotas as a means of assuring fairness in hiring, promotion, or acceptance to professional schools. They also reject the idea of forced school busing as a means of achieving racial balance in enrollment. The consider these ideas elitist liberal schemes not supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Neocons feel that liberals no longer speak for the "average person" but rather for a "new class" of relatively affluent reformers-lawyers, social workers, educators, city planners-with careers in the expanding public sector. This liberal new class intends "to propel the nation from that modified version of capitalism we call 'the welfare state' towards an economic system so regulated in detail as to fulfill many of the traditional anticapitalist aspirations of the left.
Neocons also argue that liberals emphasize policies (such as higher taxes on the upper middle class) that were aimed not at creating wealth but only at redistributing it. Skeptical about the government's ability to erase economic inequalities, neocons stress policies such as lower taxes on large incomes and less regulation of business to promote economic growth. Such growth, they feel, would more likely broaden economic opportunity and create gender social stability. Likewise, they are suspicious of policies that polarize one class or group against another: racial busing that pits the white working-class communities in the large cities against the poor African American community, and gender and racial quotas that place interests of women and minorities against those of white males.
In short, neocons feel that modern liberals have promised too much to too many groups, and that a government that promises too much cannot deliver and becomes "overloaded." As a result, they argue, government loses its authority and cannot govern effectively. But neocons differ from traditional conservatives in that neocons support, in principle and practice, a modest welfare state (Social Security, unemployment insurance, and Medicare). In fact, neocons argue that a properly constructed welfare state strengthens citizens' loyalty to the existing capitalistic system and is thus a stabilizing force.
Introduction to American Government 2nd edition
Stephenson,Jr.-Bresler-Friedrich-Karlesky-Turner
..but otherwise, what is described above, with way too many fucking words, is that neocons, liberals,
repubs and conservatives, democrats and Lindon La fucking La Rouchers, snake-oil slingers and your mama, are the same entity.....imbeciles
This guy is a lie in existence, this is fear mongering.
Your definition of neocon is about as accurate as me calling Ron Paul an anarchist. They have a couple things they agree on, but they're definitely not one and the same. Pure flamebait, frankly.
Who do you think we should hand Iraq over to?
A couple of things they agree on. Like policy, and policy.
Obama is flying around the planet making speeches about fighting extremism, Iranian nukes, terrorists hiding in caves plotting to take over America, this is the same exact stuff we've had for 20 years now.
What is wrong with people's heads who can't see this. It's plain daylight stuff folks, the stuff Obama has been saying should really be scaring the shit out of people.
Wrong president America, wrong president. Europe and the rest of the world will NEVER forgive America for electing this man.
"United Nations, NATO, and the World Bank"
Aside from the World Bank's usury, why show such contempt for international cooperation? One world government is not necessarily a bad thing.
"From the cave-spotted mountains of northwest Pakistan, to the centrifuges spinning beneath Iranian soil, we know that the American people cannot be protected by oceans or the sheer might of our military alone."
Iran actually DOES have centrifuges for enriching fuel for power plants, and such equipment could easily be reallocated to weapons production if Iran wanted to do so. Nothing about that statement is inaccurate, only your FUD interpretation of it is inaccurate. Obama has never supported attacking Iran. Apparently you think acknowledging the existence of a threat we might face is equivalent to advocating war. Irishman makes the same mistake. Obama is not warmongering, he is trying to build international cooperation. Counterterrorism does not require starting any new wars. He has said we will GTFO of Iraq by 2010 and just finish the job in Afghanistan.
"join overwhelming military force with sound judgment"
That's not saying we should start any new wars. The only war he's advocating is finishing the job in Afghanistan.
I do not agree with any conflict.
"Fighting terrorism is like playing goalie in soccer. Nobody remembers how many saves you've had when you miss a goal in the big game" Cited
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women
>> ^NetRunner:
Your definition of neocon is about as accurate as me calling Ron Paul an anarchist. They have a couple things they agree on, but they're definitely not one and the same. Pure flamebait, frankly.
Who do you think we should hand Iraq over to?
A couple of things they agree on. Like policy, and policy.
Obama is flying around the planet making speeches about fighting extremism, Iranian nukes, terrorists hiding in caves plotting to take over America, this is the same exact stuff we've had for 20 years now.
What is wrong with people's heads who can't see this. It's plain daylight stuff folks, the stuff Obama has been saying should really be scaring the shit out of people.
Wrong president America, wrong president. Europe and the rest of the world will NEVER forgive America for electing this man.
MrFisk actually preemptively gave much of my answer, which is that neocons and Democrats are in absolute opposition on domestic policy.
With foreign policy, Neocons are now in favor of a form of imperialism -- drum up casus belli, invade, substitute the old government with a new friendly one, and incidentally get some sort of contract to a material resource (like oil). That's why we invaded Iraq for WMDs that weren't there, while North Korea's nuclear test was met with mere diplomacy. It's why the same gambit is being run in Iran.
Obama just wants us to focus on just fighting to keep the Taliban from re-taking Afghanistan, and working with Pakistan to root out the Al Qaeda camps. Every other foreign policy issue out there, he wants to use diplomacy to solve, though he says he won't shy away from the use of military if necessary (to avoid appearing weak before the ravenous American populace).
As jwray said, all Obama does here is acknowledge that there is some threat, and in fact this is actually a clip of the very speech where he got attacked by McCain for downplaying Iran's threat, because he said it was less threatening than the Soviet Union.
McCain sings "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran", makes a joke about killing Iranians with cigarettes, and clearly says there will be more wars.
As much as I wish third party candidates had a shot of being President, they simply do not. One of these two will be President.
Between the two, which worries Europe more, the candidate who occasionally talks about potential threats against a backdrop of talking about the need for diplomacy, or the one who cavalierly uses the language of fear every time a camera is stuck in his face, and attacks his opponent for wanting to talk to the leaders of other nations?
I think Europe will be able to forgive us for electing Obama over McCain.
If you're hoping for Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, or even Ron Paul, as much as I wish they had a fair chance of winning, they simply will not.
Maybe I've just never payed this much attention to a Presidential race before, but the number of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations he has to deal with is just astounding.
People need to remember that the ballot this fall won't read:
Obama?
o Yes
o No
(Pick only one)
It will read:
Presidential Ballot
o John McCain
o Barack Obama
And a host of other people whose best hopes are to hit 5% of the popular vote.
This isn't a referendum on Obama, this is a referendum on whether you liked the last 8 years, and want 4 more.
If someone seriously votes "against" Obama for being warlike, and casts a vote for McCain instead, they're simply out of their mind.
Everybody be scared! Everybody vote libertarian!
... honestly I thought maybe you were mocking the often hilarious posts people try to drive through where they see a 'new world order' in every politicians speech that mentions working with other countries.
(p.s. there already is a World Bank (worldbank.org), which interestingly has only had a string of American leaders, for no reason beyond tradition.)
(p.p.s. Iran has enriched uranium, they say only for nuclear energy, but if a bunch of different countries are worried I think its probably something to be worried about; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25809160/)