@notarobot: Blair is Catholic, it was kind of a big deal.

@dannym: "protests outside parliament were probably banned around the time terrorism was stepped up and people started crashing planes into buildings" ...
sorry danny, before saying things like "probably" you could just, you know, google, and find out "actually" that protests were banned outside parliament for only one reason, and that is Brian Haw kept insisting on telling the truth about serious war crimes, every day, in parliament square. They made an orwellian exclusion zone, after several failed attempts to remove him.
Also, it is very easy to block traffic in parliament square, I know, because I did it on the day they "debated" whether or not to go to war in Iraq. Kinda embarassing for them.
You could at least explain to me how banning protest makes London any safer from terrorist attack.

@Kerotan: wow, well done, americans are "way more exciting" than the reserved british, who i have only seen go mental for tony blair, princess diana, and soccer. But regardless of the amount of tickertape thrown around, the situation was very similar, years of supposedly "conservative" bungling, followed by a fresh new face promising "change"... people gave him a landslide.

"Barry" voted yea for "an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters."

I'll give him some credit, but also: Big Deal. He never would've come up with it on his own, and anyway, it's crap from both sides of the aisle. The 2nd Amendment already covers 'states of emergency'.

This is an unfortunate feature of nearly every politician. Even the conservatives haven't been very conservative during the course of my lifetime. I don't agree with this approach either, but that's not to say that throwing money at a problem doesn't get results sometimes. Counting this against him is not unlike accusing him of only having two arms. When a three-armed candidate surfaces, then I'll care that the other candidates only have two.

I agree with you. But conservatives failing to be conservative and liberals being liberals are still two different animals.

>> ^quantumushroom:
He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument (tho not exclusively a Marxist principle).

I've seen these accusations before but I've not seen the evidence. Perhaps you can show some? I'll continue to consider it partisan nonsense in the meantime.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/obama_invokes_rush_limbaugh_in.html

Here's the latest kerfuffle, Obama's campaign rearranging Rush Limbaugh's parodies to make him sound like a racist. Partisan? Yeah, the party that freed the slaves versus the party of Je$$e Jack$on.

And let's not forget this, Obama speaking: The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

Poor-me racially-charged victimhood from a man who is an American success story by ANY standard.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I safely predict Orwellian hate crimes and hate speech laws will strengthen under his rule, the closest to outright banning free speech we'll have.

I don't see any basis for this statement except perhaps the idea that 'them Negroes is always conspirin' against us good white folk.' I did notice that Obama voted against a bill to amend the constitution to make "Flag Desecration" illegal. That's big free speech support right there if you ask me. [ref]

I have said nothing here that indicates Obama's race factors into whether or not he supports hate crime legislation. It's more a left-wing thing, not a race thing. Hate crime = thoughtcrime, and I don't see Barry or any other left-winger challenging the constitutionally-unsound hate crimes laws. The right, as usual, will just be accused of being racists by the left when they point out the emperor wears no clothes.


>> ^quantumushroom:
A question for Obama supporters: let's say he gets his way and increases taxes on only "the wealthy". Do the middle and lower classes really think they won't suffer any adverse effects by having their employers' earnings slammed?

That all depends on what is done with the money. Not waging a 100 year war with no goals would be a good start.

McCain wasn't referring to 100 years of war, it's a deliberate distortion. He meant something along the lines (I think) of North and South Korea, establishing a lasting military presence there. And yes, I like the idea of B-52s less than 10 minutes from Tehran.

"What is done" with the money, I think you already know, most of it will be pissed away by graft and corruption, bailouts, paying for ongoing failures like the Wars on Poverty, Drugs, and yes, even Terror. I don't see why the Fire Chief of Speckville, Indiana needs a million-dollar APC to defend against terrorists.

There is nothing magical that happens when you give your money to the government. You and I know the value of a dollar, and I trust a dollar in the hands of the average citizen will go much farther than it will in a politician's budget. That's the essence of libertarianism. BTW, it's YOUR dollar!


Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology. Few things lie closer to a believers' hearts than their faith, whatever it may be. How is it Barry has to disavow his church? Could it be because it's backwards and against not only basic Xtian principles but American principles?

Was a member of said church for less than half his life, actually. If you read up on Trinity United, you'll see they've promoted a number of different ideas about race interaction over the decades as the times and leadership have changed. So, too, has "Black Liberation Theology" changed its implications with time. I know you like to put -ism and -ist labels on everyone and everything, but sometimes it's not that simple and you need full sentences, paragraphs or even pages to explain something adequately.

You and others wish to blast Palin on the "Sambo' remark, which was a fabrication (aka a LIE). You've already decided she's a racist based on something that didn't even happen. Now you expect me and every other person who has a problem with Obama's radical, racist church to simply forget he was a member for over 2 decades and gave them 22K? I'm not saying Obama shares all of Wright's wacky beliefs, but then if McCain said "Bless You" when David Duke sneezed, we both know the level of liberal hysteria that would ensue.

Since you've not attributed this quote, I'm not going to address it. Without knowing if it's from a reliable source or just some conservapedia article, I've really got nothing to go on.

Fair enough. http://www.publicallies.org/site/c.liKUL3PNLvF/b.3960231/

Obama's relations to this organization.


>> ^quantumushroom:
What I'm addressing here has nothing to do with why people support Obama. Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset.

There is some validity to what you say here. Obama is a charismatic and exciting guy and many people have not looked beyond that. It's important to acknowledge that this is the failing of those people and not of Obama, just as it is your failing to make so many false assumptions about him based on his party, race and background rather than documented facts.

You recognize that it is a failing of the people to not know their candidate. Yes, I will blame the American people if Obama is elected, just as you will blame the other half if McCain is elected.

Yes, I have some assumptions about Obama, but they're based on the many quotes he's made as well as the considerable information about his background, his (in)experience, the company he keeps and his voting record (to the left of Ted Kennedy). I personally don't give a damn about his racial background; if he supported conservative principles with the same thin resume, I'd have a serious choice to make whether he would be better than McCain.

Thanks to all who responded. Yes MINK, you're the Master of Europe and I am at your mercy. You and I have written enough to make a book.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Like all Big Government liberals, Barry O is against citizens owning firearms. For many that alone is a key indicator of whether we're dealing with a potential tyrant.

"Barry" voted yea for "an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters." [ref]

>> ^quantumushroom:
Obama believes in an all-powerful centrist government. There's nothing government can't fix, if only they have the money...

This is an unfortunate feature of nearly every politician. Even the conservatives haven't been very conservative during the course of my lifetime. I don't agree with this approach either, but that's not to say that throwing money at a problem doesn't get results sometimes. Counting this against him is not unlike accusing him of only having two arms. When a three-armed candidate surfaces, then I'll care that the other candidates only have two.

>> ^quantumushroom:
He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument (tho not exclusively a Marxist principle).

I've seen these accusations before but I've not seen the evidence. Perhaps you can show some? I'll continue to consider it partisan nonsense in the meantime.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I safely predict Orwellian hate crimes and hate speech laws will strengthen under his rule, the closest to outright banning free speech we'll have.

I don't see any basis for this statement except perhaps the idea that 'them Negroes is always conspirin' against us good white folk.' I did notice that Obama voted against a bill to amend the constitution to make "Flag Desecration" illegal. That's big free speech support right there if you ask me. [ref]

>> ^quantumushroom:
A question for Obama supporters: let's say he gets his way and increases taxes on only "the wealthy". Do the middle and lower classes really think they won't suffer any adverse effects by having their employers' earnings slammed?

That all depends on what is done with the money. Not waging a 100 year war with no goals would be a good start.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology. Few things lie closer to a believers' hearts than their faith, whatever it may be. How is it Barry has to disavow his church? Could it be because it's backwards and against not only basic Xtian principles but American principles?

Was a member of said church for less than half his life, actually. If you read up on Trinity United, you'll see they've promoted a number of different ideas about race interaction over the decades as the times and leadership have changed. So, too, has "Black Liberation Theology" changed its implications with time. I know you like to put -ism and -ist labels on everyone and everything, but sometimes it's not that simple and you need full sentences, paragraphs or even pages to explain something adequately.

>> ^quantumushroom:
And there's this:[snip]

Since you've not attributed this quote, I'm not going to address it. Without knowing if it's from a reliable source or just some conservapedia article, I've really got nothing to go on.

>> ^quantumushroom:
What I'm addressing here has nothing to do with why people support Obama. Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset.

There is some validity to what you say here. Obama is a charismatic and exciting guy and many people have not looked beyond that. It's important to acknowledge that this is the failing of those people and not of Obama, just as it is your failing to make so many false assumptions about him based on his party, race and background rather than documented facts.

Like all Big Government liberals, Barry O is against citizens owning firearms. For many that alone is a key indicator of whether we're dealing with a potential tyrant.

Obama believes in an all-powerful centrist government. There's nothing government can't fix, if only they have the money...

He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument (tho not exclusively a Marxist principle). I safely predict Orwellian hate crimes and hate speech laws will strengthen under his rule, the closest to outright banning free speech we'll have.

He uses class warfare. A question for Obama supporters: let's say he gets his way and increases taxes on only "the wealthy". Do the middle and lower classes really think they won't suffer any adverse effects by having their employers' earnings slammed?

Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology. Few things lie closer to believers' hearts than their faith, whatever it may be. How is it Barry has to disavow his church? Could it be because it's backwards and against not only basic Xtian principles but American principles?


Wiki: Stanley Kurtz of the National Review criticizes black liberation theology, saying, "A scarcely concealed, Marxist-inspired indictment of American capitalism pervades contemporary 'black-liberation theology'...The black intellectual's goal, says Cone, is to "aid in the destruction of America as he knows it." Such destruction requires both black anger and white guilt. The black-power theologian's goal is to tell the story of American oppression so powerfully and precisely that white men will "tremble, curse, and go mad, because they will be drenched with the filth of their evil."


And there's this:

"Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service." . . .

The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn't seem all that radical. It promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year "community leadership" positions with nonprofit or government agencies. They'll also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats. . .

But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation — the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul "The Red" Alinsky. . .

Public Allies promotes "diversity and inclusion," a program paper says. More than 70% of its recruits are "people of color." . . .

The Obamas discourage work in the private sector. "Don't go into corporate America," Michelle has exhorted youth. "Work for the community. Be social workers." Shun the "money culture," Barack added. "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation." . . .

It's a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias."

One of those -isms is "heterosexism," which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of "capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege."

The government now funds about half of Public Allies' expenses through Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion."


What I'm addressing here has nothing to do with why people support Obama. Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset. Still more sifters are from countries that are already socialist, so there's no conflict of interest there. And lastly, there are the deluded peaceniks who FEEL that the USA is morally no greater than Red China, and that despots can be 'reasoned with' if only we bring them a bouquet of their favorite flowers.

The 'Obamic equation' is symptomatic of a larger malaise gripping America that will likely culminate in a second civil war, which so far has remained only a cultural war of values. His election or defeat will merely hasten or delay the inevitable.

Should Obama win, I happily vow to be here to remind you all every day, as things worsen with his repetition of past economic and policy blunders, that they didn't have to be this way.

"Russia's aggressive behaviour in the world"????

Jesus Christ, this is the most orwellian shit i have seen coming out of mccain's pathetic mouth.

Also, I thought it was dreadfully Orwellian when, right after the exploitative video ended, the first thing it cut to was a huge, waving, American flag.

That's funny. I just finished quoting Orwell, too! Ha! Orwell warned of absolute power corrupting absolutely, and the power in which we give bigger government is the power we lose as individuals. There is no such thing as social liberty; only individual liberty. I see what you mean now when you say "concentrated power". You're thinking more in terms of the blue bloods and the corporate elite being given power and influence in government policy, but what I'm saying is removing that ability by having less power in the Federal government.

Do you know what it would take to sue a corporation today in this country? A lot. It's damn near impossible without creating a class action. This used to NOT be true, but the government in its infinite wisdom decided to regulate corporations, thus edging out smaller business and making punishment for larger corps less effectual. These days, the government has instated a pollution fine which is in essence a "pollution tax" for the deep pocketed corporations that can easily afford it. So, if a corp pollutes or destroys a communities water supply or air or property, we've almost entirely removed the individual's ability to sue that corporation. The government, however, has the right to tax them... I mean, "fine" them.

If we allow the courts to do their job, large corporations (which shouldn't have the same rights as humans, that's just absurd, but that's what happens when big money gets near Washington) would be properly punished locally by the communities in which they tried to operate. This is something that requires a longer conversation, but that's essentially the gist of it. Believe me, I'm against concentrated power.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Likewise.

This is an important point that is seldom made. With your disgust for Orwellian doublespeak and concentrated power, I'm surprised you disagree. I think limited government is a fair argument, but some of your allies intend to replace so called government tyranny with private tyranny. As far as I can tell, you are not anarcho-capatalist. Are you?



In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I've never seen you so political on the Sift. I like it.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
'Small government' is such an arbitrary and meaningless term. It's pure corporate propaganda, and it's disturbing that traditional media has been able to put this frame into our brains and mouths. .

Notice that the biggest pork, corruption and waste comes from the same people who hawk this 'small government' canard - the Bush administration. They don't seem to mind giving away billions upon billions of our tax dollars to their own corporate cronies, but when we need more teachers or a better healthcare system, they bitch and moan about 'big government', and we buy into it.

Have you ever heard these people proclaim the need for 'small corporations'? Never, because 'large' corporate tyranny is the whole point of making government small; Taking power from the people and giving it to nameless, faceless entities with no accountability, oversight or responsibility to the public.

Our citizen elected government isn't an Orange Mocha Frapachino, so enough with the small, medium and large bullshit. The correct size of government should be whatever allows it to function at its most efficient and most effective. No more. No less. Logic is your friend.

Likewise.

This is an important point that is seldom made. With your disgust for Orwellian doublespeak and concentrated power, I'm surprised you disagree. I think limited government is a fair argument, but some of your allies intend to replace so called government tyranny with private tyranny. As far as I can tell, you are not anarcho-capatalist. Are you?



In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I've never seen you so political on the Sift. I like it.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
'Small government' is such an arbitrary and meaningless term. It's pure corporate propaganda, and it's disturbing that traditional media has been able to put this frame into our brains and mouths. .

Notice that the biggest pork, corruption and waste comes from the same people who hawk this 'small government' canard - the Bush administration. They don't seem to mind giving away billions upon billions of our tax dollars to their own corporate cronies, but when we need more teachers or a better healthcare system, they bitch and moan about 'big government', and we buy into it.

Have you ever heard these people proclaim the need for 'small corporations'? Never, because 'large' corporate tyranny is the whole point of making government small; Taking power from the people and giving it to nameless, faceless entities with no accountability, oversight or responsibility to the public.

Our citizen elected government isn't an Orange Mocha Frapachino, so enough with the small, medium and large bullshit. The correct size of government should be whatever allows it to function at its most efficient and most effective. No more. No less. Logic is your friend.

You know, 99 percent of the time I laugh at Jon Stewart's jokes, but this time I didn't. It isn't because they're unfunny, because that is impossible from such a great comedian. The reason I didn't laugh is because I'm so tired of Orwellian government entities not only ruining the world, but doing so with a cloak of semantics hiding their true nature. My desire for laughter after every joke was quickly subsided by the aching of my head. And thus:

The Bush administration has broken my funny bone.

Orwellian police state. Sad. Very sad.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'olbermann, oreilly, editorial, orwellian' to 'olbermann, oreilly, editorial, orwellian, Malmedy' - edited by Fedquip

Wow, Farhad2000, I tip my hat to you for not only a very detailed reply, but a very interesting read

Of course, they are STILL people who will insist WMDs were found...sad but true...

I think this is one of the best answers i have seen to this, and "intent" is like the US being the Orwellian World Police - that does not make it ok

^ re-LeadingZero
"Say the United States government, military and intelligence agencies actually did turn into a full out Orwellian society; they monitored our every movement, watched and limited our every purchase, controlled what films and books are produced, posted cameras on every corner, required us to report every anti-government utterance made by our neighbors, etc."

As we transition from Democracy to Corporatocracy, the pieces are already in place - computer cookies, google earth, NSA. Just got to get over the legalities...face it, Orwell IS here.

1984. They're behind schedule, but they're working on it!

I agree with you, and think both you and I have the nation's best interest at heart. I do love America, but I just don't feel as proud, or as free, as I once did. I really can't name any freedoms or liberties that I've lost, It's just a feeling that I have. And it's the fear that I could some day lose them. Legislation like the Patriot Act and HR 1955 and Executive Order 51 really make me want to put my tinfoil hat back on. All this legislation is intended to keep us "safe", yet between the lines of each seems written the powers to oppress and subdue us. You come across as thoughtful, rational, and patriotic. If it were up to you, I'd feel a lot more comfortable, but unless you're a senator all you and I can do is vote.

>> ^LeadingZero:

Say the United States government, military and intelligence agencies actually did turn into a full out Orwellian society; they monitored our every movement, watched and limited our every purchase, controlled what films and books are produced, posted cameras on every corner, required us to report every anti-government utterance made by our neighbors, etc...

"If you want to be free, you must accept all the risks that come with it."

There was nothing in my comment that suggested I didn't feel there wasn't risks, or that freedom or security aren't worth fighting for. I said that the ideals of freedom and security go hand in hand. We should never trade one for the other, blindly assuming that there must be some equation between the two.

Say the United States government, military and intelligence agencies actually did turn into a full out Orwellian society; they monitored our every movement, watched and limited our every purchase, controlled what films and books are produced, posted cameras on every corner, required us to report every anti-government utterance made by our neighbors, etc. Now, imagine what this does to the collective identity of the United States. Are we safer? Look at other countries in history who have had similar controls of freedom. People are enslaved in such societies, not safer. Armies can be made to fight in totalitarian societies, but they are coerced through fear or other heavy handed manipulation.

Societies without freedom lose something truly great, self determination. Their armies join and assemble voluntarily and their police forces are community minded and less corrupt. Societies with freedom have more honor, more transparency, more self respect and more will power.

I am not a hardcore nationalist, but I think that freedom and personal liberties are assets to the U.S. fabric, and I believe in a strong and rational military to be used for defense.