>>>> //It was in the gutter when you started it!//
>> True! I had to reach down to you there.
It is your home. I tried to pull you out, but that is not easy.
//It was in the gutter when you started it!//
1)True! I had to reach down to you there. I thought I could pull you out of the depth of the gutter delusions of intellectual adequacy you had reached.
Sooner or later, when you stop being a 'useful idiot' & reach a higher than room temp IQ you will realise what a disaster Obama has been.
2)On some issues he's been better than Bush. And on certain issues(which you conveniently ignore or pretend not to see), objectively analysed, he has indeed been worse than Bush.
If you disliked Bush, there is very little reason for you to like President Obama apart from the few reasons I already stated in an earlier post. He is charming, a good orator(with his teleprompter), a racial minority. Judged on actions though, Bush and him, are not very different.
3)Here's an Iraq claim.
And voting against the war was convenient for Obama. Unlike his politically convenient decision to vote against the war, both Ron and Rand Paul are anti - military 'offence' and mean it.
Obama's promise was to withdraw all troops at a much earlier stage in his presidency. It took him 3 and a half years min to get it done.
And your response is -"Boo Hoo, you watch Fox news".
Considering their and your average IQ similiarity, maybe you've been adding to their ratings.
4)More drone strikes in Pakistan under Obama than Bush & more people killed - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/17/us-drone-strikes-pakistan-waziristan
5)And as already previously mentioned, Obama even took sides and intervened like the hardline statist he is on some issues, and took sides in the Libya conflict. You wouldn't defend Bush for doing this. To defend Obama for doing the same and much more reeks of prejudice. So he is happy to increase on Bush's wars and then start some new ones of his own.
6)Drone warfare spending race & Obama was/is happy to pursue it.
7)I think I already mentioned defence spending levels going up under Obama as compared to Bush. And I already posted a link from the Daily show and the religous BS rhetoric mixing with war making the current yank government sound very similiar to the one headed by Bush. Also, The war on drugs has got more intense under Obama. Both Ron and Rand Paul oppose it.
As for the patriot act, the point being made is that Bush was criticised for the same, Obama is clearly as bad on this issue as well. Double standards here are amusing! Again, only Rand Paul takes a stand on this issue. Which is what a lot of people fed up with religious and statist BS want. Obama, is not giving it.
8)Here, Obama like the monarch that he must at times think he is and his buddies do something quite outrageous. They want police to NOT be stopped from questioning inititatives unless a defendant's lawyer is present.
9)Explain to me what is this BS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Neighborhood_Partnerships
And why Obama continued it. As an irreligious pagan person, this is shocking. YOu have the right to indulge in these inititatives but keep them out of politics.
10)Sorry mate but you have to lobotomised to not see this contradiction - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc
Nice , from Obama, right?
Ermmm yeah, here, have a read - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/us/politics/12signing.html?_r=0n
This was not too much later he got elected. Again the double standards are pathetic. I think he's almost up to a 100 signing statements isn't he?
11)This is actually shocking because I thought in every way Obama is more compassionate on a personal level than Bush - http://libertyondisplay.blogspot.in/2009/04/bush-was-more-charitable-than-obama.html
12)Bush was a large spender. Obama again, hardly ever fails to outdo him - http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt
13) 780 billion dollar stimulus bills?? Really?? All the money the government will be spending to stimulate the economy is in the economy already. It won't magicalyy appear out of somewhere.
This is Bastiat, a real liberal, in the 19th century - http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
This, for example is a bunch of Bullcrap designed to get support from a base of useful idiots(you, qualify, sir) - http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/08/transition.wrap/
And anyone that knows more than squat about economics understands this. But this is the President of the USA. GAAdd Bless America!
The right scared america into the war on terror and the left scared useful idiots into stimulus and bailout packages.
14)Bush like lack of innovation ability from someone who a lot of people consider a good orator - http://dailycontributor.com/obama-argues-with-teleprompter-video/4598/
& this is Bush like stupidity - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
And BTW Still no name provided in response to my claim that Rand Paul is one of the more, if not most intelligent and articulate individuals in yankland politics. The reason is clear, there are no politicians in america as intellectually sophisticated and standing for real liberalism as the Pauls.
Now, once you say 'peace' and your tatas and bye byes I would expect a sane individual to shove off(Good riddance). I would, if I said I'm off.
Jog on then, and start thinking beyond stage one instead of just venting & self projecting at me.
P.S. Unlike you, when I say I'm done, I don't come back. Feel free to have the last word and I shall let the unbiased, unlobotomised individuals decide who makes sense.
>> you have taken this conversation down the shitpot into the gutter.
It was in the gutter when you started it!
Yeah, with that last comment you have taken this conversation down the shitpot into the gutter.
Good job ignoring everything that made you uncomfortable and digging your head into the sand to hum yourself into a deluded utopian slumber.
>> Just gave you a couple of names of relatively mainstream politicians who oppose and take stands against both.
Tea Partiers are not mainstream.
>> . 'Plans', are conveniently vague.
Stupid comment! Obama fulfilled his plan to withdraw from Iraq. Nobody takes his Afghanistan draw down plans lightly, except perhaps the Fox News loonies.
>> I used the video as an example to illustrate my point.
A ridiculous attempt!
>> Isn't that COugh... my point?
No, it wasn't. Your outlandish point was that Obama is worse than Bush.
>> as intelligent as him.
He may be intelligent in Kentucky, but not on the national scene.
We have defined and re-defined our positions, so I am not going to waste any more time on this thread. Peace!
//War on drugs and the Patriot Act are mainstream issues and no mainstream politician will deviate significantly from current policies on them.//
Just gave you a couple of names of relatively mainstream politicians who oppose and take stands against both.
//Look at the larger picture. Bush went to war in Iraq on a phony excuse. Obama has ended the Iraq war. Obama has also started the draw down from Afghanistan and has plans to end that war next year. The war on Al Qaeda in other places such as Somalia and Yemen will however continue//
This frankly doesn't even warrant a response. 'Plans', are conveniently vague. Only a lbotomised individual would believe Obama wrt his 'plans'.
//The Daily Show's main mission is to be funny, but it's over all thrust is pro-Obama and anti-Bush, and it would be very surprised to see itself cast as saying that Obama is more warlike than Bush.//
You say this as if you're making some sort of point. I know it is generally pro democrat and I I know it is a 'funny' show. I used the video as an example to illustrate my point. I thought a short video would suffice. You don't have to be pro bush to be anti obama. They are more similiar than you care to think about. Which is, pretty much my point.
//By the way, both the Daily Show and the Huffington Post are champions in the cause of civil liberties and a sane foreign policy so they scrutinize these issues closely, but the fact remains that both of them were much more harsh to the Bush administration from 2000 to 2008 than they are now.//
COugh Isn't that COugh... my point??
//I am strongly anti-NRA, so Obama's attempts to fight the gun lobby are music to my ears.//
So am I. My position on conceal carry for example is completely different. Which is also based on a lot of reading and thinking for myself, not just listening to some vague rabid, feral blog that doesn't bother to add facts to their stale opinions. I have read a lot about this and as I stated before, I am happy to have a discussion on this whenever the issue pops up on this thread. I have had many discussions on the same issue on many different groups on social networking sites & websites whenever I have the time.
//I am afraid we are on opposite extremes, and so shall we remain! I am sure the Daily Show and the Huffington Post will soon take care of your favorite hick from Kentucky!
Nah, That's just you being mean & not giving credit where due while hoping the nationally known libertarians muck up. Name any politician in america that takes uncompromising positions like the 'hick from kentucky' ! Or is anywhere close to being as intelligent as him(or his dad for that matter). Your standard of assigning hickery to any individual, the bar, is quite high isn't it?
Which is surprising because among the rich nations, it is the stupidest country, is the US of A. And You, quite strangely live right in the heart of hicksville OF THAT stupid country.
I don't know about you, but I am largely(not completely) individual freedom & libertarianism/liberalism & completely secular(Separation of church and state not the BS that passes for secularism in India) supporting a broadly minarchist state. Isn't secularism associated with the left? I am also pro gay rights. That is merely a subset of individual liberty. SO there are some left wing positions that I am fine with. I am against the war on drugs, most lefties agree with me on that one. I am also state military intervention in large parts of the world which has for some strange reason got associated with the right when it is actually, technically, a left wing position that Hitchens (who was remarkably left of centre)for example, supported. As I stated earlier, if Locke would have seen many of the rubes that refer to themselves as 'liberals' now, he would have stuffed various cacti up his arse and choose to die a slow painful death.
Also, I am shocked that an educated person who was born in India(I assumed) and moved to Dallas, Tay-K-Shas(It stinks doesn't it? Just like India. It's like the whole state farted at the same time), has a problem with greater liberty(social AND economic). There's a contradicition there. Really, there are any number of places in the USA which would serve you fine with your ideology and it is amusing that you choose to live in the heart of the south.
Look at the larger picture. Bush went to war in Iraq on a phony excuse. Obama has ended the Iraq war. Obama has also started the draw down from Afghanistan and has plans to end that war next year. The war on Al Qaeda in other places such as Somalia and Yemen will however continue.
War on drugs and the Patriot Act are mainstream issues and no mainstream politician will deviate significantly from current policies on them.
The Daily Show's main mission is to be funny, but it's over all thrust is pro-Obama and anti-Bush, and it would be very surprised to see itself cast as saying that Obama is more warlike than Bush.
Re: the Huffington Post article, day to day details about what the Justice Department is doing only reflect on the difficulty posed by the latest cases it has to deal with. You should not read any major shifts in policy from such reports.
By the way, both the Daily Show and the Huffington Post are champions in the cause of civil liberties and a sane foreign policy so they scrutinize these issues closely, but the fact remains that both of them were much more harsh to the Bush administration from 2000 to 2008 than they are now.
I am strongly anti-NRA, so Obama's attempts to fight the gun lobby are music to my ears.
While I enjoyed this discussion, I am afraid we are on opposite extremes, and so shall we remain! I am sure the Daily Show and the Huffington Post will soon take care of your favorite hick from Kentucky!
Bush put more people on foodstamps than Obama. Bush bribed people into voting against their long term inherent interests just like Obama. You also have to look at things objectively because Bush had 9/11 to deal with. Obama, without a 9/11 like situation hasactually taken Bush's war machine and put it in overdrive, sending significantly more troops to fight overseas, spending more money on "defense"(when it is clearly offence) than even Bush, and engaging the U.S. in even more conflicts on more fronts . I have no reason to believe, would have behaved any differently. He's even bombed yemen, somalia and libya. He is Bush PLUS. Defence spending has gone up from Bush's term. What are you on about??
Here, listen to this - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-20-2009/changefest--09---obama-s-inaugural-speech
He's taken the war on drugs to a higher level than Bush. He supports the daft patriot act & renewed it. Only Rand Paul had the required spine to take him on. He is the only relatively young impressive politician in the states that has a shot in 2016.
Since you are southasian & I asuume you would know about the TSA harassment that everyone that looks like us has to face. Under Bush the TSA wasn't the sexual harassment procedure that it has become now. Again, Obama takes it to another level.
Here - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/23/obama-legal-team-wants-de_n_190852.html - Obama is even worse than Bush. This is however, typical of left wing politics and their inherent statism. This is not being progressive. This is stupid! Progressing straight into an open gutter. And Obamacare is hardly an achievement. It is a bribe for votes and the usage of 'useful idiots' to retain a hold on government & policy.
I could literally give you 50 more examples of Obama being similiar, and in some cases, worse than Bush! That is some achievement. He is a better orator, more charismatic, is a racial minority and hence different but actions speak louder than words.
As for guns, again look at things objectively. The spate of shootings targetting even little children happened under Obama and hence there was a consequent bowing to the stupid media's pressure.
BTW whenever any American gun rights related article pops up here, I am only too willing to defend my pro gun ownership stance. Conceal carry, I am still studying but owning & carrying on private property, to me, is in every way looked at, more advantageous than hurtful.
And yeah, both Ron & his son Rand, are libertarians. Which is pretty much the economic philosophy of the right as explained earlier. Which is why they are republicans. On a national level they couldn't be anything else being fundamentally opposed to the essential basic philosophy of the left wrt heirarchy. The 'tiny' libertarian party will grow & is growing rapidly. In a decade, they will play a role big enough to influence either of the two major parties in yankland. Libertarianism is the fastest growing politicial philsoophy in the world & 15% of americans identified themselves as libertarians recently.The political spectrum is based on acceptance or rejection of inequality or an economic heirarchy. The right stands for greater freedom in enterprise. What has happened however is that dumbed down rightism, playing to the lowest common denominator(in terms of IQ) has ensured that the right is also pro handouts & statism a la their brethren on the left.
>> Handouts in every way is against economic freedom.....>> Both Ron and Rand Paul were/are against mad adventures in the middle east.
You are talking of libertarianism. Ron is truly a libertarian, but instead of seeking the nomination of the tiny Libertarian Party, he runs in Republican primaries! Differences between Obama and Bush are clear but not radical. Trying to list all the differences here would be too pedantic and boring. Obama did withdraw from Iraq, got the Health law passed, has supported the legislation for better regulation of Wall Street, has discontinued the don't-ask-don't-tell policy in the military and is now pushing for immigration reform and better gun control. He had promised to continue the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan before he was elected in 2008 and has done so because the 9/11 attack which killed 3000 Americans originated there.
//The smaller government envisaged by the right wing is already in bed with the big corporations!//
By definition can't! Handouts in every way is against economic freedom. That is where the right has failed in the states and emulated their statist counterparts on the left.
//They tried to fight two wars simultaneously, using the credit card//
Both Ron and Rand Paul were/are against mad adventures in the middle east. Obama and his brethren on the other hand, were happy to continue the 'war' agenda. He is Bush in disguise on quite a few issues.
>> What you posted, is basically a hope.
Wrong! It is an agenda.
>> a large govt in size and scope that is happy to get into bed with Big corps...
The smaller government envisaged by the right wing is already in bed with the big corporations! Smaller government means less services to the needy, and less taxes for the super-rich, but they of course want more spent on the military! They tried to fight two wars simultaneously, using the credit card! They would rather reduce taxes than pay for the wars they started.
That right wing and left wing definition was hardly a definition. Or even fundamental concept based differences being highlighted. What you posted, is basically a hope. I would support a couple of those ideas, for instance LGBT rights and the right to choose and I would go further and take on the left for supporting the war on drugs, perhaps even more so than the right. A few of the others, are from a utopian fairyland, certainly not planet earth. My position on a lot of these ideas is based on a thorough continued reading of both sides. I am happy to talk on any of the issues on this website when the issue is taken up.
Now, The left wing in the US of A support a large govt in size and scope that is happy to get into bed with Big corps giving them handouts, as happy to go to war as the right generally, support only a couple of minorities while generally ignoring the rest, take anti individual rights & pro statism positions(this point alone covers almost every single one of your points) while completely defecating on the idea of liberty or liberalism.
Locke would have stuffed a cactus or various cacti up his backside when confronted by these people now who claim to be liberal.
Of course, this is by american standards. Our wonderful Desh, has a long way to go before it reaches even these standards.
Fundamental difference, on which the right left divide is based, is economic heirarchy.
One side accepts it, the other rejects it. The moderates on both sides have a different position to the hardliners. I can live with the moderate. On either side. As a genuinely secular(Irreligious) and liberal(social and economic) I am amused by the hardliners on either side.
>> define left wing And right wing!
Left wing in the U.S. would be more pro-union, pro-minorities, in favor of higher taxes for the super-rich, in favor of more regulation of banks and the Wall Street, supportive of universal health care (even one-party payer system or "Medicare for everyone"), supportive of a woman's right to choose, in favor of more gun control and in favor of LGBT rights.
Right wing would have opposite positions to the above.
I identify in different ways with both sides of the spectrum. Even so, I ask you, define left wing And right wing!
If Rand Paul is an 'extreme' Genghis Khan type, Obama is worse. In fact many equally idiotic conservative blogs think he is Stalin.
Pick any one of those quotes or issues, any one, in that daft blog and I am happy to have a discussion on it. Starting with Hillary's cock ups for instance. Also, didn't she support the war in Iraq? Neither Rand Paul nor his Little dad supported that war. They also take nuanced and more liberal stand on the 'war on drugs'.
BTW interesting that you live in probably the most conservative part of the western world.
You can call me a liberal leftist, but not an extremist. Where do you stand?
BTW if you like that blog Anwaar, you are clearly a part of the hardline left wing statist crowd.
@Anwaar: Ahem....Please define right and left wing first.
I'll illustrate where I stand later
Your admiration of Rand Paul may put you in the extreme right lunatic fringe!
@Anwaar: Rand Paul has taken on both republicans and democrats for stupidity in the past and it is good that people like him can take control of the loons in the tea party movement.
He increases the average IQ in that movement by a significant amount.
And don't trivialise the suffering that Genghis Khan caused by using him to further an argument.
Rand Paul is as stupid or brilliant as Obama
Ron Paul will be too old in 2014. Rand is a Tea-partier and is to the right of Genghis Khan. He is also very stupid.
@Anwaar: Ron and Rand Paul will represent a more 'liberal' republican pov.
Jindal is a street smart striver but his constituency is far too stupid to understand him.
So either he dumbs down or accept the fact that they won't get him.
It means 3 things-
1)The yanks are not as racist as they used to be.
2)They aren't as religious as they used to be.
3)They aren't nearly as hard working/mentally tough/physically tough as they used to be.
> " What are the chances of an Indian American occupying the White House, say by 2050?”
Many consider Bobby Jindal to be a serious possibility for the Republican nomination in 2016.
Things should just look normal. In the U. S. A., people appreciate the winter cold, because the administration wears black trenchcoats, and don't feel like being friendly with anyone. I mean, what passes for trenchcoats. My grandfather possessed a trenchcoat, which cannot be made today, in the armed forces.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT