What Makes a Politician

It hasn’t been long since May of ‘09 when President Obama addressed the mothers of our nation with his message: “Moms, go back to school.”

As with all things Obama, the mainline media insures that nothing he does goes unnoticed. He’s the greatest thing since sliced bread, or even the Serrano pepper, so says much of America and nearly all of Europe. And now, the President of the free world gets the Nobel Peace Prize, even though he hasn’t done a flipping thing to deserve it.

There he was, the President of America, competing with humanitarian contenders for the prize, like Dr. Sima Simar, an Afghan female physician who dared to speak out for the rights of women in opposition to that diabolical digression known as Sharia Law, but did she win? Obama won, and for no real reason. Anti-war Obama says he is humbled to get it, but the real “humble” thing to do would have been to not accept it, at least not at this point in his service to his country.

But “anything’s better than the last guy!” Isn’t that the reason Obama has been so welcomed and cherished as the new Commander-in-Chief? Anyone better than Bush, right? And let’s not forget, Obama’s a black man! A black man is now president of what the Obamas and his supporters think is still a racist and bigoted nation (nevermind Obama's own bigotry). But now that Obama is in office, the race-hustling complainers can stop complaining because it appears that America’s racism has just reached a low enough level to allow a black man to win the presidency by a landslide.

This is good news. Not only is a black man now president, but this means bullhorn-wielding race-hustlers, like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the Jeremiah Wrights of this world – some of whom think it is racist to use the astronomy term “black hole” – can shut the fuck up or be hung by their dingle-berries.

Obama’s message to moms is of course a good one. No one but a Bible-thumping backwoods-er can oppose education. There can’t be too much of that. But Obama’s message to moms is an admission of why politicians have such an uphill battle in winning over those of us who stand firmly planted as independents rather than Republicans or Democrats. Who is Obama’s message primarily aimed at? Black women who raise five misbehaved kids in the inner cities and work three jobs to pay the rent at a run-down, graffiti-walled apartment complex on the wrong side of town. What has he to tell the rest of us? I'm going to take your hard-earned money and put it toward the medical care of tuberculosis-carrying illegals who drive without auto insurance (though not in so many words, that is what Obama says).

Barack and Michelle Obama always have something bad to say about America. America has been racist until March of 2009, and America is cruel to minorities and has become a nation of barbarians. We have wanted to torture everyone for so long that we need to free the terrorists at GITMO and close the place to get some respect back in the world. Just listen to their speeches. America sucks, and the Obamas are its only hope, they think.

But not all of us feel that way. America, though grievously flawed, is the best the world has to offer as of right now. When Obama speaks, he’s speaking to those who want their mortgages paid and gas put in their cars. He’s speaking to those who receive with glee coaching on how to break back into the houses they had repossessed. That’s the Obama crowd—“Give me, give me, give me! What can you do for ME, Mr. President!”

So Obama speaks to reach mothers, mothers with no education and lots of kids. In many cases, the kids never had fathers because the mothers never bothered to get the guy’s name. This didn’t stop them from bringing kids into the world whose mouths they couldn’t feed. They can’t buy houses. They don’t pay federal income tax. They don’t make enough. But they have babies, some of them crack babies. In the ministry, I met the caretaker of a crack baby and got to play with this poor kid who couldn’t stand up properly at three years old because of what his mother did. Don’t tell me not to hate!

President Bush has been listed as the worst president ever, even over William Henry Harrison, who died after only a month in office, having done nothing. Bush wasn’t the worst president ever. He was the worst communicator of any president. Obama, by contrast, (we can't hold it against him that he looks like Stewart Little) is eloquent and articulate and persuasive.

But a politician is still a politician. They are lying, deplorable jackasses who speak only to those who lobbied to get them in power, and they make good on less than half of the promises they made to those they owe everything to. They have an agenda, but never can it be in everyone’s best interest. That is why nothing replaces a good old-fashioned revolution.



  1. Joe, your description of who Obama is speaking to is an arrow that completely misses the target. You might want to seriously study public relations, marketing, and the ways and reasons politicians communicate to better your understanding of who Obama is trying to speak to, and why.

    As for your wish for him to decline the Nobel Peace Prize... are you serious? Taking into account what they look for when they hand out such an award, I can see why Obama was chosen. Would he have been my choice? No. Can I see why he was chosen? Yes. In addition to that, I also feel that the NPP was, in another way, an attempt by outsiders to endorse certain polices; you know, they wanted to try and manipulate U.S. policy.

    And this: "I'm going to take your hard-earned money and put it toward the medical care of tuberculosis-carrying illegals who drive without auto insurance (though not in so many words, that is what Obama says)." is complete and total fiction; it's no more than propaganda, and unfortunately, it's balanced on a big lie.

    Don't tell me you actually think the "you lie!" guy was anything other than an embarrassment to the people who voted him into office.

    And Bush was a shit president, and I can name, and, as you know, have named quite a few reasons in the past. Communication wise, I don't think his White House was all that bad. I thought they were quite effective in that regard. Also, Bush was a very dangerous opponent when it came to campaigning, and a large part of that has to do with effective communication.

    Question: What unlikely block of voters helped him rise to power in Texas? You're a Texan, so this should be simple.

    Actually, I think Obama's WH has, so far, proven to be absolutely pathetic when it comes to communication, which, to be honest, shocks me a bit. His campaign was so much better in this regard. Look, you know how I feel on Obama– assuming, of course, you've read some of my more recent posts on the Political Board.

    And I do think America currently sucks, but not for the reasons you might think; then again, you may have me pegged. I've no idea.

    Is America really the best the world has to offer right now? What does that even mean? See, I'm a big "ideas" person, and I think they, ideas, are what truly run the world. Do I see any ideas coming out of America at the moment that look promising? No; I do not. Hell, just look at alternative energy– we are currently getting murdered in that category. We haven't even entered the ring and the fight is pretty much over. And our public are largely and utterly ignorant when it comes to what ideas are relevant in modern American society, and how these ideas were formed.

    And I think the idea of "a politician is always a politician" is painting things way too simple, even inaccurate. It's a very complex issue, with many different dimensions to it.

    All this leads me to this question: Where do you get your news from? I mean, finding out the 100% truth of things is damn near impossible when it comes to this subject, but the majority of what I'm reading here sounds like propaganda.

    And I'm not just saying that because you're a conservative; plenty of liberals get their news fed to them after it's been edited to tell a particular story, i.e. propaganda.

    There's no way in hell the views you came to independently "just so happen" to also be material of which I'm aware of being propaganda.

  2. I forgot to post this in the forums, didn't I? AH yes, because I was too lazy to modify the html to show up and I forgot about it.

    By way of rebuttal, Obama should have turned down the prize because he fucking hasn't done anything...yet. The absolute bias of the Europeanized, anti-war people giving the awards, fucking Obama didn't have to do anything. People over there are making him the focus of symphonies and other shit. it's such a fucking joke.

    Obama's (and Hillary's) socialized medicine ideas are horrible and if implemented, will reduce the quality of the care we offer. Fucking Canada-style medical care sucks, and there are so many examples.

    Bush was the bad communicator, rhetorically speaking-wise, not his office. But because the fucking Bible-thumping farmers that put Bush in office were his main base, the communication barrier walled out everyone else. That's why I said politicians are so limited--they have yet to find a way to communicate to everyone on all sides.

    Where do I get my news? Fox, BBC, and wherever else I happen to find it online, and very rarely, on tv and radio. I'm no Bush man, you know, but the beauty of being independent is that I have no allegeance to either side. And I don't have to care. I can call them both out.

    But seriously, can you tell me Mrs. "Pay my mortage and gas my car" and Mr. "Give me more money I work at McDonalds" are NOT picture-perfect examples of those who back Obama? You and I have talked about it before. Reagen wouldn't have given that advice. You can't tell me otherwise.


  3. Part 1:

    Joe, you wanting him to actually turn down the NPP shows exactly where you stand on Obama– on the freakin' moon. You seriously want the sitting president of the United States to reject the NPP?

    Think this through, man. It's an absurd position on just about every single level I can think of. What you're suggesting is an unnecessary risk that offers little to no reward. It's just not sound politics. You can debate this until the sun burns out, but you need to forget about your own sense of "the way things should be" and look at the way "things really are". Drop it.

    And your mini review of the health care ideas of both Obama and Hillary Clinton not only lack substantial evidence, but also are plagued by sweeping simplifications and a downright ill-informed view of the material.

    The comparison to Canada, in addition to the use of the term "socialized medicine", qualifies as spin, propaganda, and it shows clearly the small window through which you look at the issue. For example, you are using a loaded word that has strong emotions and reactions attached to it: socialized medicine.

    The problem? I haven't heard anything about socialized medicine. You are using the term incorrectly, which is also the way it's being used in current propaganda. If you want to attack something, I suggest you figure out the correct terminology, or at least fully understand it, first.

    And – let's not forget – that your comparison to Canada style care is empty of all meaning. I haven't heard anything about us wanting or attempting to emulate the Canadian system; in fact, there are many other health care systems around the world, health care you would, as I said earlier, incorrectly describe as "socialized medicine", that rank better than us. Much better. They cost less money, lead to a longer life expectancy, and treat more people. There are also many differences between them. This is according to data collected by various authorities, such as the World Health Organization. Obama stated that we need to come up with a "uniquely American system". I'd say that's the perfect goal to state.

    For me, the scariest thing about our health care system is the % of GDP it eats up. It's far too large, and does have the ability to send this country's economy into a coma. You need to shrink that number; there's no argument you could possibly make against that. Our current health care system is, among many other negative things, unsustainable and possibly dangerous.

    However, I do think that we both agree this– the current health care bill in the Senate is garbage.

  4. Part 2:

    Bush was a clumsy speaker; I'll give you that much. But I find it hard to separate his flaws as a speaker from the overall effect he can and did produce. He spoke to the right people in the right ways. Just because he was clumsy does not mean that he and his team did not successfully communicate their ideas. They did a phenomenal job.

    Even Bill Clinton agrees.

    Btw, you remember my question? The answer was "hispanics". He even went as far as speaking directly to them in Spanish and he stated that illegal immigrants from Mexico were "only trying to help their children build a better future". Bush's nephew is a Hispanic-American, son of Jeb Bush, whose wife is Mexican born. He helped former president Bush (43) reach out to Hispanic voters.

    And, politicians found a way to communicate to everyone decades upon decades ago; we're talking about close to a hundred years. It's marketing, it's public relations. Need I mention Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, and Edward Bernays's "Crystallizing Public Opinion"? The two main ways to communicate to people is you speak in terms so simple that everyone understands – the appeal is universal – or you develop multiple strategies and devise several messages to reach many different groups. Obama's message, "hope and change", was the former; however, he also relied on some strategies of the latter.

    Because of how divided America is economically, racially, and in beliefs (and others), the former is becoming increasingly harder to accomplish. As a result, those messages tend to be much more simple, more devoid of concrete substance.

    Real quick clarification– Edward Bernays was not a Nazi; he was a Jew who worked for the American government as well as an assortment of companies. One of his books on public relations and propaganda, "Crystallizing Public Opinion", was actually used by Goebbels to plan the Nazi policies, including what they did to the Jews and various "outside" groups. In fact, Hitler had actually asked Bernays to come work for him.

    He, for obvious reasons, declined.

    What you need to remember is you can't make everyone happy, as some people are going to be helped by a policy while others will take a hit. Some will reject it because it simple doesn't adhere to their own views about the world. If you know what you are doing, you can figure out a way to communicate effectively to everyone; however, that doesn't mean that you can prevent 100% of people from rejecting you. All you seek to do is manipulate the masses. It's all mass psychology.

    There's also another business-minded approach. It's the strategy most notably associated with Dick Morris and Bill Clinton (in USA), and Tony Blair and New Labour (in the UK). In that one, you merely reflect very minute attitudes back at people. You know how Obama has made it a point to go out in public and eat hamburgers with Biden? That's precisely the sort of thing we're talking about. You want to do something, like write or support a bill? Run some focus groups and polls first. That sort of thing.

    As for news, it sounds like you get it from a wide variety of sources. FOX is capable of delivering a good story or interview every now and then; but a pervasive set of beliefs and attitudes are apparent in all FOX broadcasting, and this deeply damages their overall quality and appearance. BBC, on the other hand, is damn good.

    You want to know the problem with news these days? There's a couple, but I want to focus on just one for now. They are good at collecting various data and pieces of evidence. They can get stuff out for the public to look over.

    What they can't do is construct a coherent narrative. Consequently, unless you dedicate a great deal of time and effort to the news (and you know what to look for) you will develop conclusions that are not real.

  5. Part 3:

    Once again, lets use the marketing metaphor. The problem most marketers face isn't that there's not enough information; no, the problem is there is too much information. Great marketers can overcome this. They know what information to look for, and they know what information to filter out.

    You've shown that you do not possess this skill when it comes to the news. Sorry, but that's quite clear.

    The final question you ask is one I can answer with a succinct grace: no. The image is propaganda from the right. Obama has many different types of supporters. It would be akin to me stating that the typical Bush supporter was some brain dead, born again Christian hick. If that were the case, Bush would have never been elected once.

    You can believe it all you want– but you're dead wrong.

  6. Well, Bonz, and Joe, let's face it, this whole thing is hugely controversial, and it seems to me that equally concerned, and well informed people can disagree.

    I definitely think our system needs an overall, but I'm not sure a single payer plan is the way to go. Joe brings up a good point about Cananda.

    Bonz,can you share some specific references relating to the other better health care systems that you've mentioned? I'm a social worker/counselor working with families, so this whole issue is a big concern of mine.

    What about the idea of tort reform, and introducing more competition into the system by allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines?

    What other things do you feel might work to bring these outrageous medical costs down without taking away choice, or initiative?

    Thanks. Appreciate hearing your thoughts, guys.

  7. Part 1:

    Grace, let's not blur any pictures, here: Joe and myself are not equally informed on this subject. Joe's more knowledgeable than me in several areas; this is not one of them. I wouldn't call him well informed on this particular subject at all, based on what I've read.

    And I'll repeat what I said to Joe to you– there is no "good point" that Joe brought up about Canada. It amounted to nothing more than a hollow talking point. I'll explain.

    For starters, let's take a look at the WHO's health rankings. Canada, for example, ranks 30; we rank 37. Now, the WHO's rankings have been attacked by various groups, and there have been talking points issued to erase their findings. Are their findings 100% accurate? No. However, many of the attacks against them, while they make sense at first glance, fail when you compare data. Even when you factor in the numbers the attackers use (like with life expectancy), the US still falls short.

    Then there are polls. In Canada, 82% of Canadians prefer their care to American care, according to a 2009 Harris/Decima poll. Another poll came up with 91%. 70% of Canadians also thought that their healthcare system was working "very well" or "well". Compare that to the 54% of Americans who are "very" dissatisfied with our system.

    Further more, it's a bad example to use ONE country to generalize different health care systems, especially when nobody with any power is talking about trying to emulate the Canadian system. What works in one country may or may not work in another. There are many other examples to look at– France, Italy, Norway, Austria (excellent!), Sweden, and so on. For the record, ALL of these countries ranked higher than the US in the WHO's rankings (though, America was able to rank #1 in "responsiveness").

    There's plenty of data and what not out there to go through if you're interested. Check it out.

    Just to go into a bit more detail, the French system (which ranked #1) is quite similar to the one we have in a few ways, similar enough that we could learn a bit from it.

    It's a mix of public and private financing, a hybrid, of sorts. It's also very generous. They treat the elderly better than we do and cancer patients are treated free of charge. Doctors don't make as much money there as they do here, but med school is paid for by the state, and the French government pays two-thirds of the social security tax for most French physicians, a tax that's usually 40% of income.

    Of course, it also has its problems. It's been running a deficit since 1985; that being said, they "get better results for less money and everyone is covered", according to French-American Foundation policy director Shanny Peer, not to mention groups like the WHO. If you want to talk about data, they have us beat.

    The thing to remember is this– there are many different health care systems out there that are worth taking a look at.

    At the moment, I find myself agreeing with Robert Reich– a national public option is the only thing that can force insurance companies to cooperate, share information, and reduce costs.

    Tort reform shouldn't even be talked about. It's a joke; it's laughable. Tort reform will only help companies keep their skeletons in the closet. Now, depending on what the results of any large reform turn out to be, Tort reform may be considered... AFTER the other changes have already taken effect.

    Unless you make money from an insurance company, pharmaceutical company, or any others in the healthcare world, it would be unwise to back Tort reform. Tort reform is for them, not you. Tort reform does not address the main reasons why medical costs have skyrocketed, nor does it even pretend to try and fix the ethical problems within our system.

  8. Part 2:

    Unfortunately, plenty of those in Congress get money from these companies. There is no "beneath the surface" explanation– it's EXACTLY what it looks like.

    You need some fairly ambitious changes if you really want to do much of anything. Instead of talking about the many complexities and nuances (as we should be doing), people are mostly arguing over trivial matters and illusions spawned from propaganda.

    Hell, just to complicate things further: do you think that health care is just one issue in and of itself? Or you do think it's related to other issues?

    For example, look at the widening gap between rich and poor, and look at the idea that some Americans hold that America is a meritocracy when it clearly isn't. If you fit into the latter, you can withhold quality health care from the poor without a second thought. There's also some social Darwinism at work.

  9. Bonz knows he's more qualified to debate this than I am, Grace. That I got no problem admitting. Still, I don't have to agree to speak out.

    I think you're wrong, Bonz. Should Obama have accepted the Nobel Peace Prize? Fuck no, and I'll tell you, if he had turned it down, I would have developed great respect for the man. I say that seriously. He hasn't done a thing to earn it. Foreign nations want to hem in big-shot America that for so long has been run by a cowboy. That's why Obama got it. Bad reason, bad fuckin reason.

    And you're wrong on a point that I thought you never would be...

    "It would be akin to me stating that the typical Bush supporter was some brain dead, born again Christian hick. If that were the case, Bush would have never been elected once."

    Of course, Bush's base supporters are brain-dead Bible hicks...or close to it! They may be oil men or prosperous middle-class whites, but they are Bible idiots who think that the reason America is in the shape that it is in is because God was kicked out of public schools and students can't pray. They suck. They are idiots.

    And remember...this is not a scholastic paper. It's a blog entry. I don't need to be right. I just need to know where I stand, and I do. From the start, I said that politicians fail to win over independents because we have allegiance to neither party. The parties are too agenda-driven.

    Bush is a rightwinger attracter. Obama is a mega-leftist, a caterer to those southside moms I mentioned earlier and bums who want a free ride. I know their mentality. I don't think like they do. I'm still fucking poor, but I don't go around thinking: "When is the president going to fix things for me?"

    I know you're not some bum who wants the government to pay for gas to be put into your car, but the base of Obama-lovers are (i.e. the clips I linked to.) I hate to say that because I agree with Obama on not a few points. You aren't going to convince me otherwise, I'm afraid. I've seen so much.


  10. Think about it from a countermodel; what is the base of the usual libertarian? A pro-pot, anti-government loser who considers nearly every law a work of a fascist regime and one who goes bonkers for militant environmentalist thinking. They and the Obama crowd are similar. So why can't I make that generalization? I know there are exceptions.

    Could you be right on health care? Sure, but I doubt it. I have insurance now, but for a while, I didn't. If it weren't for a work-based insurance plan, I'd still be without coverage--and uncoverable. That means our system needs some correction. But why does it? Because people can't afford it. Why can't they afford it? Because they can't pull their weight. They aren't making enough to live even bottom of the middle-class.

    I have waited in the un-insurable's line, having once been one of them. It stinks...literally. Fucking waiting rooms full of criminals, the homeless, and illegals, with two-hour wait times, who pay a $20 co-pay or less for unlimited coverage. That, of course, takes money. And yes, they have TB and they DO drive without auto insurance (you forget I was in the car business).

    What happens when you can't afford good stuff? You have to get a hand-out, but societally speaking, it can't be done. It's up to the individual to pull their weight. All the rest should not be kept around. I don't deserve to pay everyone else's medical bills. That's the point.

    You criticize Fox news. Me, I seldom see a difference from them and any other news source. But consider how your president chose to close GITMO, why? So we can kiss asses abroad? Yes, that's why. It was a bad decision. When it happens, the terrorists are going to filter back into society.

    That Koran in the toilet story? NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED! Your left-wing reporters lied about it. One woman and her dog were the prisoner torturers. I think I mentioned this to you before. And you side with those who bellyache about how cruel a nation we are. I don't get it.

    And you misunderstood. I know no president can win everyone over. My point in calling out politicians was not to raise their bar. Nope. My point was to show the inherent flaw in trying to win over any crowd by our system. Not saying I want a king back, but the ass-kissing, the agenda-driven bullshit just doesn't stop.

    Have you seen Man of the Year, the 2006 movie with Robin Williams? Why can't a politician come off with THAT much integrity, with THAT much contempt for being ordinary idiots who pass out suckers and pat kids on the head at events?


  11. Joe, you're just not thinking with the NPP remarks. Nothing more I can say there. You've got to be a bit more strategic with these things.

    And, I'll concede that my Bush comparison was not the best choice. Look, the Republicans' base, and it really became this way with Reagan, are Christians who want to impose their ideology on the rest of us. However, a civil war has broken out in the Republican party between them and the "intellectuals".

    Of course, there are many more types of people who make up the Republicans' voting support; it's just that the religious are the most vocal, and you can see this at the Republican national convention the year Bush 41 went up against Clinton.

    And that's not mentioning the popular vote. Bush didn't come near to the sort of popular vote Obama did. Of course, in 2004 Bush actually gained improved in votes among those who "seldom, if ever, attend religious service". He also took over 50% of Catholic votes and was able to double his Jewish vote (from 2000) in a key swing state like Florida. And the two reasons most cited as to why someone voted for Bush were "strong leadership" and "clear stance on the issues".

    And do you really think his rich voters were thinking about the Reagan doctrine, or money? I'd bet my money on the latter.

    Fact: the Evangelicals didn't even make up half of Bush's vote. So, how can the typical Bush voter be the caricature I referenced? In the Edward Bernays book I mentioned, he states that different people see the world in different ways. Some people see the world as men and women, religious and non, rich and poor, liberal and conservative, and so on. An example of this would be Iraq. There were, off the top of my head, three major reasons why people backed that war: thirst for revenge (wrongfully placed, of course), religious ideas, and political ideas (the neo-cons).

    This also stands true with Bush's supporters.

    Now, Obama was able to rely on many different kinds of voters. What was so strong about his campaign was that he was able to build a diverse coalition. To say the typical Obama voter was some bum who wanted a free ride is completely ignoring the results at the polls. He ran a brilliant campaign.

    But you're not quoting any data trends or anything, or you? You're posting links to random videos on youtube.

    And your real problem with health care has nothing to do with what might work or what could help solve the GDP problem and improve the economy, nor are you referencing any problems in the health care industry to be fixed. You are just espousing social Darwinism, which I find to be very aristocratic in nature.

    And the point is that you are already paying for the health care of others. Take a look at the emergency room data, for instance. Hell, what if you and I get our health care from the same insurance provider? And, what if I was a big smoker?

    That would also not be fair to you.

  12. Closing GITMO had nothing to do with "kissing asses abroad" from where I'm sitting. It was the best move on the board. We've been through this before, and I find myself doubting that you understand the current battle we have with Islamism.

    And what's all this "your president", "your left wing reporters!" bullshit? Last I checked, he was the POTUS. Furthermore, who said I was a Democrat or anything? I'm an independent. And my latest remarks on Obama's WH have been negative.

    And stuff MUCH worse than some "Koran in the toilet" tale actually happened, so using it as some example is a move I wouldn't recommend. I'm not siding with anybody because of my ethical views on torture– my reasoning has to do with reactions and such. GITMO was a sloppy mess, PR speaking, and I'm a firm believer in the power of public relations. GITMO wasn't effective enough to keep it up considering all the negatives attached to it.

    As far as your knowledge of these things, you're an amateur seeking to give the expert opinion.

    And I'm not understanding what your point was, to "show the inherent flaw in trying to win over any crowd by our system". That is something I'd be interested in hearing a bit more of. If there's one thing that politicians can actually do, it's the effective use of mass psychology.

    What, in your opinion, is our current system? I would say it's the Dick Morris model he borrowed from the marketplace.

    You can't see a difference between FOX and any other news source? That's the problem. You can't distinguish between a story and propaganda. True, other news sources do run propaganda stories all the time; but none of them can attain the level of doing so that FOX has.

  13. This diatribe against Obama is the reason I have decided not to bookmark your blog.

  14. Bill said...

    "This diatribe against Obama is the reason I have decided not to bookmark your blog."


    Yeah, cuz heaven fucking forbid someone speak out against the greatest lib force since Oprah!


  15. Joe, you know how I feel about this. I have no problem with anyone criticizing Obama; after all, I myself have done so.

    I think you've got plenty of areas where you could find problems: the lack of a coherent strategy in Afghanistan, the bailout that went too far, the fact that he is spinning his wheels on quite a few important challenges, etc.

    My issue – and I suspect I'm not alone – with your entry on this page is that your specific attack is hollow. It lacks cohesiveness, it's incoherent, and it rambles, rants, and raves rather than stating a well-researched position backed by strong appeals.

    And I still don't quite understand what you meant by "revolution"? Care to elaborate a bit?

  16. Bonz said...

    "And I still don't quite understand what you meant by "revolution"? Care to elaborate a bit?"


    In other words, I am admitting that maybe I'm missing it like you say and things really are that bad. Maybe it's time to start doing what some are doing, like breaking back into houses they once owned. Even Obama praised them for doing so.

    If that be the case, then hell, it's time to set fires in the streets and reset everything. The system of law has to remain in place only until an overthrow. Maybe it's time for an overthrow.

    Just saw Capitalism: A Love Story. I'm sick, but currently reviewing it. Moore seems to think we've reached the breaking point.

    Do see it and give me your feedback. Everything he says is pretty much what you say.


  17. Wait just a minute!

    Wait just a minute!

    Moore pretty much says everything I say?

    Shit; that's not a club I wanted a membership in!

    That being said, I do agree with some of his views, but I generally dislike him as a person and am not the least bit fond of his dumbed down "entertainment" styled documentaries, even though they occasionally yield some entertaining and informative segments here and there. He does put some good stuff into his films; he also throws in a bunch of junk, and sometimes, knowingly throws in some lies for the sake of the "story". He seems to write the ending, and then research how to get there, you know? I'd rather him state a question, research it thoroughly, and then publish the findings in film format. But those types of films wouldn't make as much money, most likely.

    I will have to watch the new one, though. I didn't watch his last one, on health care. I think the most recent one I saw of his was the Columbine one.

    And get well soon, buddy. Being sick is just...


  18. One more thing:

    If you haven't seen it yet, I'd recommend Jamie Johnson's documentary, "Born Rich". The follow-up to that, "The One Percent", is pretty good, too; but I think the former is the more interesting look. That being said, "The One Percent" is a suitable follow-up.

    I like films that give you an "inside look" to a world you otherwise would have never known. That's "Born Rich".

    And if you dislike people in general, then you'll probably really enjoy it. Assholes abound in that one.


Follow by Email

Enter ZIP Code: