BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign

Subject: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 01:52 PM

memo to the secret service:

As a political scientist my father would study the entire spectrum from the John Birchers and KKK to the IWW and Eugene Debbs. With knowledge of the extremes a middle ground could be seen more clearly.

I follow the right wing shows as closely as the Oberman and Maddow shows. What I have found stirring up people, that no one else is willing to admit is the daily visual equating Hitler with Obama on the Glen Beck show. Beck is a nebbish equivalent to Rush Limbaugh who preys on viewer's sympathy with his many crying jags regarding his children or mother etc.

As a hypnotist and quasi expert on propaganda I sought to quantify what the Glen Beck show is doing;

In a 30 day span the Glen Beck show has shown photos or film clips of Hitler while talking about Obama or Obama's policies a total of 207 times. He shows pictures or film clips of Stalin 62 times while speaking of Obama and Karl Marx 21 times. Recording these shows and counting the times they flash back and forth to Hitler pictures and guests discussing the similarity of Hitler and Obama is not an exact science but you get the picture. People watch and walk away with visual and emotional ties of Obama and Hitler.

Before they do this Beck reads a one or two sentence qualifier that claims they are not equating Obama with Hitler but rather comparing the times we live in to certain historical facts.

Meanwhile the talk jocks on Clear Channel AM radio shows are all in march step saying that we are living under a tyranny akin to Hitler's 3rd Reich.

The White House spokesman Gibbs will not mention Glen Beck for fear that he will elevate Glen Beck's form of propaganda to a higher level.
This is a mistake. John Kerry made this mistake when he did not immediately take on the Swift Boat smear campaign to the point that people now believe that Bush was a war hero and Kerry was a liar and disgraced soldier to this day.

Yes we are in a battle for the hearts and minds of the unwashed public, morons, bigots, embiciles and clever but misinformed citizens.

So far I have only seen Rachel Maddow expose the creators of the artificial (not grass roots) organizers of the tea baggers, anti health care and Hitler Obama equators as a lobbying group associated with Dick Army called 'Freedom Works".
Other talking heads for Pharma are at least transparent in thiewr lie campaign regarding US Death Boards and the like.


With people showing up at town hall meetings dressed like Hitler and people toting guns claiming that Obama has taken their country like a tyrant and is fashioning a new Russia, a new wave of violence is inevitable. US private militias are growing at twice the rate than they did in the 1990's.

An armed insurrection will create a Federal response that will justify more violence in the eyes of the followers of the Hitler=Obama propaganda.

I have said that no lie can survive the light of day and truth even if it takes generations, however a vicious rumor is immortal in the short run.

The vicious rumor must be taken on separate from all other issues and expose the people who stand to gain from the lies and violence.

Some of the people who own 'Freedom Works own private health insurance companies as well as the Cancer Treatment Center chains across America. They know full well how effective the most outrageous lies and propaganda can fire up otherwise innocent people to fight or commit violence in the name of defeating tyranny.

These easily impressionable people need to know why these lies are bought and sold for as little as $100,000 to the lobbyists at Freedom Works and exactly who benefits.

The truth campaign is expensive but it can be done in a similar fashion that sends the message in both an emotional and visual manner. Yes hypnotizing people to the truth is an honorable endeavor when countering the propaganda of a Beck, Limbaugh, Levin, Savage and others.

I believe that it is the moral duty of the fifth column but in the midst of their laziness even the secret service funds should be used.
Ignore the hideous lie at everyone's peril.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: DougR
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 01:56 PM

Are you being "tongue in cheek," Donuel, or are you serious?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 02:05 PM

I man worth his salt needs to take on the liars for the good of his country Doug.   You can be a victim of propoganda or a learned citizen working for the good of his country.
In my view, continuing to equate Hitler with Obama is a dangerous road to go down. It can and will destroy innocent lives.

You seem to have your own view which, as you have said, is most often for fun. I assure this post is not one of those.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Willie-O
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 02:10 PM

I can only agree with you, Donuel. When a weirdo like Beck (or A Coulter, or Limbaugh) can get a nationwide (arguable wordwide) audience, a certain percentage of whom actually take him seriously (I guess), that is a weirdo to watch out for.

Hi Doug. Yup, it's serious. Sorta like Timothy McVeigh. He was weird and serious.

Good luck my American friends. Hope the Secret Service is working overtime.
W-O

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 02:46 PM

"Hope the Secret Service is working overtime."

             They are! The question is, who are they working for?

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 03:18 PM

Donuel is on the right track.... I have been WAY too busy to type up the tangled web of right-wing scare tactics - funded by drug companies and insurance mega-companies. Rachael Maddow has indeed been exposing the details all the last week, and you...(ALL of you, especially conservatives)... would do well to go to her archived programs and listen to the clear, documented explanations of where these ersatz 'grass roots' protesters got their scripts!

The big moneyed groups opposing Health Care reform are scared... ANY change means less money for them, and they are pulling out all the stops to scare anti-abortion groups, the elderly, and various special interests with the idea that ANYTHING Obama does is tainted with *gasp* "SOCIALIST" ideas and will result in loss of freedom, euthanasia, ...and every other boogey-man scenario they can think of!

This is REAL... this campaign is being run, funded and scripted by pros! This is what they DO! They will lie, mislead, insinuate and otherwise misinform....partly out of a knee-jerk response to anything Obama does, but mostly for $$$$$$...to retain and perpetuate their de-regulated Heaven on Earth that Reagan and Bush & Co, gifted them with. When Billions of $$$ are at stake, they will say anything

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 03:22 PM

If there is indeed an attempt to engineer a totalitarian takeover in the USA (and it wouldn't surprise me much if that were the case...I think the country's been slowly moving that way for decades), then I'd be quite concerned as to just who the Secret Service would back in regards to that. Seems to me that they are the perfect people to assist in managing such a takeover.

The provoking of deep divisions and confrontations in a society provides a good excuse for increased security and surveillance measures and an abrogation of civil rights. The aggravation of the deep divisions and hatreds between the Left and the Right would also be quite helpful.

"divide and conquer"

Whether Obama is an active participant in that endeavour, a victim of it, or merely a helpless bystander at this point...that part I don't know, and I wouldn't venture any opinion on it for the time being.....but....I don't think I'd want to be in his shoes. It's a thankless and dangerous job being the number 1 figurehead in American domestic politics.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 03:26 PM

Started with Rush Limbaugh, didn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 03:48 PM

"...and I wouldn't venture any opinion on it for the time being....."

Then why even suggest stuff like the possibility he might be "in on it?"

I, personally, think that the actual number of folks trying to achieve such totalitarian ideas may be quite exaggerated....but modern technology and 153 channels on TV and 27 million internet sites & blogs allows ALL of them to get 'in your face'. When a meeting is disrupted by 7-8 or 70-80 idiots following a script, remember...that may be MOST of the idiots in a community of thousands or millions! Making lots of noise and carrying signs can make it seem like a huge movement when CNN films it day after day.....and it encourages all the idiots who did NOT turn out that day.

No matter what the total is, it's too many...but I'd love to see what 2-3 weeks of being ignored would do to their habits.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 03:51 PM

". . . but I'd love to see what 2-3 weeks of being ignored would do to their habits."

Are you saying that this crud wasn't started by Limbaugh or Coulter? That it was started by nuns?

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Amos
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 03:57 PM

nuns ARE AGAINST healthcare? wAITAMINNIT!!!This is not making sense!! Why would nuns be against health care? 'Splain youself, Peace man!!! :D



A

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 04:02 PM

They have habits. One would think they'd be in favour. Bill D said, and I quote: "I, personally, think that the actual number of folks trying to . . . 'get in your face' . . . would do to their habits."

I think it's preety clear from here, Amos. Bill D is definitely saying it was nuns.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 04:05 PM

Nuns.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Amos
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 04:06 PM

oOOO!! tHEM'S BAD HABITS INDEED, INNIT?


(Effin capslock keys!!!)



A

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 04:08 PM

nEVER NOTICED A PROBLEM WITH THE CAPSLOCK KEY mYSELF. bACK TO bILL'S ALLEGATIONS . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Amos
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 04:09 PM

Glenn Beck completely loses his cool, reveals his inner nature....



A

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 04:10 PM

bILL BETTER BE RIGHT OR HE'S IN SOME DEEEEEP DOODOO. damned capslock!

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 05:06 PM

I'm suggesting nothing, Bill. I have no idea yet whether or not Obama is in cahoots with the same old New World Order dudes who've been running the USA for a few decades now.

I like him personally. I don't know if he's in their pocket or not. I have no opinion about it as yet.

One thing, though. If he's not in on it, I think they'll find a way to destroy his presidency...one way or another.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 05:29 PM

The link from Amos with the outburst by Glen Beck reminds me of the outburst by Lee J Cobb in the movie '12 Angry Men' with Glen Fonda.

Imagine if we could put the entire country in a room to argue the issue of who is guilty and who is innocent of killing our country's prosperity. Well we can't but we could write a movie like 12 angry men to expose who creates and promotes the most ruinous lies for their own pithy profit.

If the investment banks had not lied and stolen well over 2 trillion dollars (with many confederates like rating companies) we would have health care for 10 years.

In the background I can hear Glen Beck on TV saying the word Nazis over and over.

A pathetic figure may begin to believe their own BS and that is when they truely become dangerous. At present Beck is a jealos wannabe of Rush but with the power of video overlays and 20 hours a month of programing with flow charts showing the similarities of Hitler and Obama he has much more power than Rush.

It is no coincidence that people are putting swastikas on c. Congressmen's offices and showing up at town hall meetings dressed as Hitler or bearing guns. THis behavior did not just emerge from a vaccum. It is being derived through Glen Beck and sponsored by lobbying groups such as 'Freedom Works'.

Dick Morris speaks of ways to "terrorize your Congressmen".
Dick Army has done things while in office that deserved censure at the minimum and treason at the max, but Glen Beck is the one who people without a full spectral point of view see, and what they see is Obama compared to Czars, socialists and Hitler on a daily basis.

An effective screenplay or a unique press conference is all I can think of as a counter to Glen Beck's call to rise up, be a patriot and slay the tyrant/nazi.

Why he is saying it and for whom is only effective for people who respect reason and rationality. The emotional people can only be reached with emotion and lots of it. Fear is a very difficult emotion to overcome. Cowards are most susceptable to fear

and note that it is the pwerless coward who is most often the nut that lashes out.

These are the ones we need to reach in the most emotional and respectful way. If I were a genius like some of you I might have the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Amergin
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 05:34 PM

One of those town hall meetings is here in town on Friday...I'll be going....I just hope Congressman Wu doesn't spend the time talking about Star Trek....

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 06:33 PM

"...I have no idea yet whether or not Obama is in cahoots ...etc"

I do. He ain't. It is not clever to even hint at the possibility.

(and *I* have no idea if Little Hawk is enamored of those nuns being posted....and since I don't, I won't even mention the idea....)

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 09:30 PM

Enamoured of "these nuns"? Huh??? Say what? Naw...I prefer Winona Ryder.

But since I don't actually know whether or not Obama is in cahoots with certain western imperial powers that be, Bill, (those tied in with the major energy companies, for instance)...and you don't know either...I am venturing no final opinion of my own on the matter.

But you are protected by your faith...and your faith is apparently unshakable. Therefore you can feel safe to freely make categorical statements about it, even though you don't know.

I'm going to wait and see what he does in the next 3 and 1/4 years, and I'll go by that. I bet he dances to the tune of the engery companies just like the last 8 presidents did. If so, he'll continue waging (directly or by proxy) energy-based wars in the Middle East and Eurasia, and he'll pretend it's all about promoting democracy, protecting the USA from foreign attack, and stopping Al Quaeda. And most Americans will believe him.

And after him? Probably more of the same from whoever follows.

But get this: I like Mr Obama in a personal sense. I like his style. I like his general attitude. I don't like his inclinations to pursue a war in Afghanistan, however, because I know what's really driving it: the desire to move natural gas and oil from the Caspian region through pipelines down through Afghanistan into Pakistan and India and thence to the Indian Ocean. Also the desire to encircle Iran and eventually achieve regime change there and then convert Iran into a compliant political satellite state and get their energy resources too. That is what the New Great Game in that region is really about. It's about securing strategic territory and controlling vital energy reserves in the Middle East and central Asia, and it's a deadly serious game between the world's 3 major powers...the USA, Russia, and China. The Afghans are just pawns in that power game.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 10:50 PM

"I don't like his inclinations to pursue a war in Afghanistan, however, because I know what's really driving it: the desire to move natural gas and oil from the Caspian region through pipelines down through Afghanistan into Pakistan and India and thence to the Indian Ocean." etc...etc...


amazing! Do you do mindreading from a distance? Or do you have a mole in the White House? For someone who 'has no opinion' on some arcane matters, you sure find it easy to be assured of his secret policy on gas & oil.

There is a palpable negativity in some of those statements that overshadows ALL the "I like his style" comments.

I also would 'bet' that Obama will NOT "dance to the tune of the energy companies".

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 11:17 PM

Little Hawk, your saying that you don't know whether Obama is "in cahoots", etc, is far beneath someone of your capabilities, imo. How silly, how inane, of you to imply something of which you have no knowledge- no matter what fantasies are broiling in your reading or in your own grey matter.

There are lots of things I don't know- heck, there are lots of things I don't know about you. I don't know enough about you to even conjecture as to whether you have a secret compartment below your home where you hatch nefarious plots which will become plain all too soon. I don't know that, so far be it from me to even imply such a thing.

Far too frequently you treat serious issues like a game, in my opinion.

Keep in mind that my opinion is nothing personal - so you shouldn't take umbrage - but I do know that is what you are doing. Because it is what people like you do. (See how silly that sounds?)

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 11:21 PM

Well, I could give you some links to some interesting articles I've read in Canada's press about the history and purposes of USA policy in Afghanistan, but I doubt they'd convince you of anything, Bill. ;-) No, I don't do mindreading, I just read the political articles in our press, that's all. I mostly read the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail, which are both highly respected mainstream Canadian newspapers with some very good columnists (not all of whom agree by any means...). It's not Mr Obama himself I have a negative opinion of, it's the overall foreign policy objectives of the American empire, and he's the guy who has the bad luck to be officially leading it at the moment.

The main reason the oil and gas policy is "secret" (meaning it doesn't get discussed much in your mass media) is because your American empire, like all empires, would prefer its own people to believe that it's acting out of idealism...not out of sheer pragmatic self-interest. It would like them to believe it's helping other nations, not robbing them.

In this respect it's like all aggressive empires. They all tell their people misleading fairy tales in order to keep them in support of imperial policy, and imperial policy always involves fighting wars of choice and making incursions on other people's land to secure their strategic resources and to achieve a better strategic position vis a vis competing empires.

The main competing empires facing the USA/UK right now are the Russians and the Chinese. The Russians and the Chinese play similar imperial games, of course, and they also feed their people with misleading fairy tales to get them onside in support of national imperial policy. This sort of thing has been going on for the past 4,000 years if not longer, but the main players keep changing as the centuries go by.

You happen to be living in the present "Rome" and Obama is the new emperor. When he's done, another emperor will replace him, but the real player is the Empire itself. I happen to be living in one of the present "Rome's" client states, an unofficial but actual part of the Empire...a colony in all but name. As such, we have a rather different view of the situation, but our government usually complies pretty closely with your government's imperial policy, because it cannot afford not to...there would be very severe financial measures taken against us if we didn't do pretty much as we are told to.

Our press, however, is not nearly as taken in by the official line as yours is vis a vis your foreign policy. As for our politicians? Well, they do what the big financial players (who are American) tell them to. ;-) They cooperate. And that's why we still have troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan. A majority of our public wants them out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 11:25 PM

Let me tweek that a bit. Canada originally sent about 2000 troops to Afghanistan at about the same time we refused to be a memebr of the "Coalition of the Willing" which if I recall correctly was four countries: USA, UK, Bulgaria and Spain. In my opinion, it was a tradeoff which freed up 2000 US troops for work in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 11:40 PM

Yes, I think that's right, Peace. Public opinion was such in Canada that the government did not think it wise to get involved in Bush's invasion of Iraq, so a deal was struck, as you say, and we sent some troops to Afghanistan instead.

Ebbie - You'll recall that Dennis Kucinich's position on the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq was markedly different from Obama's. I'm in agreement with Kucinich...both then and now. He did not take the imperial line. I'm also in agreement with Ron Paul's general position on foreign wars and USA imperial policy (though I certainly don't agree with him on everything he says, not by any means).

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 11:48 PM

As they say, Little Hawk, 'politics is the art of the possible'. I fully believe that a great many - a majority of them, probably - presidents and leaders of all sorts discover that things are far more complicated than they seemed from a distance. Kucinich and Paul would have found it the same, I believe.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 12:31 AM

Good News, I learned tonight that 75,000 signatures were sent to the sponsors of the Glen Beck Show and 8 sponsors have removed their advertising dollars from his show. This is thanks to a website called Color of choice, a anti racism advocate site.

Bill D the Caspian oil reserves were grossly over estimated and may now not make a pipeline project viable.
If there will ever be a pipeline the fight will be between Russia, Pakistan and the Taliban over the money...so good luck with that,

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 03:25 AM

Quite aside from the oil, Donuel, Turkmenistan (directly north of Aghanistan and bordering on the Caspian Sea) is atop the world's 3rd largest reserves of natural gas. That's probably more important than the oil, and it also requires a pipeline, same as the oil does.

The world's largest reserves of natural gas are under Russia, and the second largest reserves are under Iran. Then there's Turkmenistan at number 3. Very vital stuff for both the Americans and Russians to have their eyes on.

I read that stuff today in a darned good article in the (Toronto) Globe and Mail.

Ebbie - Yes, you may be quite right in what you say in your last post about politics being the art of the possible. Besides, anyone who tried to do what Kucinich wanted to if he was elected president would not simply survive his first term in office, in my opinion...assuming he ever got nominated and elected in the first place...which he wouldn't. So, yes, politics IS the art of the possible...in more ways than one. That's why I expect Obama to basically continue on the same general imperial course as his predessors have...but with a somewhat different overall style. He's far more articulate and reasonable than most of them. I fear that this may end up with Americans saddling him with the label of "wimp", as they did with Jimmy Carter.

It's what he would genuinely wish to do if he could do it that really intrigues me. We may never find out what that might have been, but it's hard to say at this point. He will be constrained, as you say, by "the art of the possible".

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: kendall
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 06:43 AM

It's pretty bad when you see little children holding up signs with lies in bold red print.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Amos
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 11:44 AM

Well, the rationale that the Taliban served as the hatching oven for the assaults of September 11 -- a major historical trauma and slap in the face -- at leasts means that pursuing a military policy to eliminate the breeding ground makes some sense, not as a way to build empires but as a means to eliminate proven dangers.

Little Hawk, I think your enthusiasm for making the United States into a member of the set of "all aggressive empires"--placing it among the ranks of Alexander, Attila, the 18-19th C. British Army, the Han and gawd knows what Ethiopian princes and Indian moghuls of yore -- is simplistic and undiscriminating, as is your innuendo about unidentified cahoots in the halls of power. Your are far too intelligent to trade in such paranoid generalizations without due diligence.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 11:45 AM

One last off-topic thought: Little Hawk, you say, "I fear that this may end up with Americans saddling him with the label of "wimp", as they did with Jimmy Carter."

How do you come up with that when you first posit that Obama is warring in Afghanistan just like his predecessor?

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 11:53 AM

Yeah, the "wimp" label is something that the right wing is trying to market to their followers and it has picked up a little steam... I've read "Letters to the Editor" here in Page County, Va. from folks who must be hearing it somewhere 'cause they are parroting it along wiht the rest of the rightie propagand...

As for Glen Beck losing advertizers??? Hey, that's a good thing... There was a time when folks were blasting away at Dick Frost and taking him off the air for allowing anti-war folks to appear on his show... I say, it's about time...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Art Thieme
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 12:58 PM

Donuel,

This is indicative of the sad dumbing down that is so prevalent. Ignorance, and an inability to derive thought-out conclusions to serious life questions, is running rampant in the land.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 01:27 PM

The reason, Ebbie, that I fear many Americans may tag Obama as a "wimp" is because he is inclined to talk things over calmly, rationally, and reasonably with other people rather than resorting to gross and manipulative negative emotional tactics and confrontation like most politicians do. He is inclined to seek common ground rather than engage in attack-dog tactics. Such people are often called "wimps" by those who have no patience or time for an intelligent approach to life.

I was defending him, in other words, but you seem to have missed it.

Amos - The British Empire is almost the perfect parallel to the present American Empire...only that the outer formalities have changed. You can't have official colonies any longer. It's not politically acceptable to do that now. So what you do now is you have unofficial colonies (client states that are apparently self-ruling in a political sense, but who do exactly what you want them to anyway). This is achieved mainly through financial pressure, but the Marines, Navy, and Air Force are there to use brute force to achieve it when brute force is required. The new American Empire basically took over FROM the British Empire when the Brits got effectively bankrupted by the two world wars and lost their overseas colonial empire. The new American Empire has supplanted the British, but the British are their very willing junior partner and helper now, riding on the American coattails, as it were, and thus still benefiting to a considerable extent.

It's as if England were the Greeks...once the great empire of their world...and then America (the Romans) came in to replace them, but there are very strong cultural ties between the two. The one is culturally speaking an extension of the other...with some clear differences, but with much in common as well.

Your denial of your nation's aggressive imperial role in the world is a denial that will not be found in populations outside of the USA, because they can see perfectly well the imperial course that America has been set on ever since the Spanish-American War, if not sooner than that, but it has greatly accelerated since the end of WWII.

It's blatantly obvious to populations in Canada, Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa, everywhere. It's a fact of life.

And we all must live with it. Canadians live in the shadow of the Empire, and they know it. So does the whole rest of the world, but the Russians and Chinese have their own ambitious ideas about empire too. One day the Indians will as well. This could very well lead to a major war between competing empires at some point. I hope it doesn't, but it could. It always has in the past.

Note: I'm not talking about Glenn Beck so far simply because I'm finding other things to talk about here that interest me a lot more than Glenn Beck does.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Amos
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 02:03 PM

I think, sir, you are falling into an over-simplistic trap, confusing dominance with imperialistic aggression, and wrapping a complex, multi-faceted nation into a single cartoon of itself to fuel your affection for bombast.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Penny S.
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 02:26 PM

The problem with a covert American Empire, by comparison with an overt British one, is that people could, and did, demand and get independence from the British one. How do you do that from something which apparently does not exist. Look at Diego Garcia, for an example. The British did base theirs on the Romans, with regard to the use of locals in government. Up to a point, only. And stuff is now coming out which shows nastier sides to the history. South America may well have opinions about the USA's interference in their democratic elections, in their turn.

Nice to be compared to the Greeks. I have thought that the founding documents of the States are pretty good compared with our constitution.. wherever it may be. But then part of my family came from Lewes, and I was brought up to think Tom Paine a Good Thing. I wonder what he would think of his baby.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 02:31 PM

My affection for bombast, sir? You wound me! Indeed, for you, of all people, to accuse mois of bombast is as unjust and laden with irony as it would be for Richard Nixon to have accused me of shifty-eyed mendacity. ;-)

Your nation has been invading people in an aggressive fashion ever since it sprang from the loins of the British Empire in the late 1770s. It has attacked all the Indian tribes it could physically reach, it has attacked Canada and Mexico, it has invaded numerous Latin American nations and toppled their governments through CIA-arranged coups, it has massacred hundreds of thousands of Filipinos after taking those islands from Spain in 1898...it has probably invaded more countries in the last 200 years than any other single nation on Earth. That's what I call an aggressive empire.

You are quite right, though, that the USA is a complex and multi-faceted nation with many good qualities as well. I never said it wasn't, but I am not discussing every single aspect of the USA at the moment, I'm simply discussing its imperial policy. To say a nation is imperialist is not to say that it is ONLY imperialist.

The Romans, after all, were imperialists too...but they were also a brilliant nation which gave many great gifts to the world. I would say that about the USA as well, and I would also say it about the Russians and the Chinese. Great empires are built by great nations.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Amos
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 02:53 PM

LH:

You really must learn to be more thoughtful if you are going to address important issues.

Here's an example of what I mean:

"America means well: on this point the vast majority of Americans will permit no dissent. We differ from all other great powers in history. Our leaders differ as well. To those who formulate U.S. policy, ideals really do matter. As President Obama insisted in his Cairo speech, anyone depicting the United States as a "self-interested empire" is way off base.

When U.S. policy goes awry, therefore, the culprit might be bad luck, bad planning, or bad tactics, but American motives lie beyond reproach. Thus, the reassuring take on the Iraq War, now emerging as the conventional wisdom, is that—however mismanaged the war may have been early on—the "surge" engineered by General David Petraeus has redeemed the enterprise: a conclusion doubly welcome in that it obviates any need to revisit questions about the war's purpose and justification, while meshing nicely with the Obama administration's inclination simply to have done with Iraq and move on."

The complete essay, entitled Best Intentions is long, reflective and insightful.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: olddude
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 03:03 PM

What absolutely amazes me is the good people that I have known and worked with that are taken in with this shit ... It is like a mass brain melt .. I kept getting email after email after email from a guy that was once a friend about the obama nazi yada yada. I finally had to tell him to move on that it was not welcome that I do not tolerate hate and blocked his email address. It is down right scary that even people I know that are highly educated believe the shit from the Rush's of this world or the Rush wannabees ...

amazing

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 03:09 PM

Its not amazing, its frightening. If someone wants to make Hitler analogies, both Limbaugh, Beck & Coulter are much batter analogs analogs in that with their lies & propaganda they are stirring up fanatical, unreasoning hate for political purposes.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 03:19 PM

Americans mean well, Amos, no doubt about it. When I say "Americans", I mean most of the people in the USA mean well. Most Britons meant well too, even at the height of Britain's imperial expansions. Most Frenchmen meant well when they served Napoleon. Most Japanese meant well when they served their country in WWII. I think Obama means well. I think Jimmy Carter meant well. Bush probably meant well too.

However, empires do not obey the dictate of the millions of people who mean well. They obey the dictate of major financial interests run by a few men. This is the case in all great powers.

Now, the men who are in charge of those major financial interests ALSO mean well...mainly from their own specifically limited perspective. That is, they are running their business interests in order to achieve what they see as a good result. A good result means making the most money possible. Making the most money possible is achieved by securing control over various lands and resources...and those lands and resources are often found in other nations.

Figure it out from there.

I am not suggesting that your country is run by people with consciously evil intentions, Amos. I'm suggesting that like all empires...it is run for pragmatic reasons, period...and that poses a continual danger to weaker nations, as well as to the natural environment.

If those other nations were the stronger, would they do something similar? Yes, I think they would. The same basic forces would come into play.

However, if one is going to try to resist imperial activities, then one resists the current ruling empire, not some other hypothetical ones that don't exist right now, and the current greatest ruling empire is the USA.

There is no real justification for an American presence in either Iraq or Afghanistan, in my opinion. Dennis Kucinich agrees with me on that. So does Ron Paul. They are Americans.

There are, however, strong pragmatic reasons for America to be there, and they have to do with controlling oil, natural gas, and spheres of influence. That's the kind of thing empires pay close attention to. I do not sympathize with the American imperial cause, but I understand it, and I understand why the people who have put it into motion think they are doing "the right thing". From their point of view, it is the right thing.

It just depends who's feeling the pain, that's all. The Romans found it a good thing to occupy Gaul. The Gauls would have found it a good thing to occupy Rome, if they'd had the strength and expertise to do so. In either case, they did not find the other one's intentions to be "good" one, did they? Who is right, the hammer or the nail? Ask each one and you'll get 2 different answers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: 3refs
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 03:33 PM

In Canada we have a health care lottery?
I think you meant Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men?(great movie BTW)

I saw Glen Beck get his ass whopped by, of all people, Barb Walters and Whoopi Goldberg with regards to some felonious remarks he made concerning them! Nice to see him grovel!

I listen to Alex Jones and Steve Quayle periodically and I get called nuts!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Amos
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 03:33 PM

LH:

You personify this "imperial cause" as if it were somebody's purpose. It is not. It is a complex of symptoms, deriving from a large number of transactions most of which are decided by individuals looking for their own well-being, the well-being of their families, and the future of the organization through which they feel they are getting these things. Having a large number of such transactions, among a large number of groups comprising a much larger number of individuals, does not add up to some wicked imperialistic motive on anyone's part, sorry.

As an intention, it is just smoke. That is not to say that the apparent large-scale trends of the transactions aren't very similar, but making up bogeymen is not particularly productive.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 03:53 PM

No, Amos, I do not personify it. I thought I made that clear. It is, exactly as you say: (the result of) "a complex of symptoms, deriving from a large number of transactions most of which are decided by individuals looking for their own well-being, the well-being of their families, and the future of the organization through which they feel they are getting these things."

Precisely. And that complex of systems results in imperialism, causes wars, devastates nature, and creates immense suffering and loss for millions of people in places both far and near as the decades roll by. And so it has ever been.

All I say about it is that I am naturally inclined to oppose the present imperial order in the world, no matter who is running it.

So was Tom Paine, and so was George Washington. The great imperial power thay opposed was Great Britain...and at that time I would probably have opposed Great Britain's imperial ambitions too, because it is my nature to oppose the top dog in the ongoing game of empire.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 04:25 PM

Z"I was defending him, in other words, but you seem to have missed it."

I didn't miss it, Little Hawk. My point is that the two statements or concepts seem diamatrically opposed.

1) "You happen to be living in the present "Rome" and Obama is the new emperor." (Plus a lot more)

2) ""I fear that this may end up with Americans saddling him with the label of "wimp", as they did with Jimmy Carter.""

Which one is he?



"I think, sir, you are falling into an over-simplistic trap, confusing dominance with imperialistic aggression, and wrapping a complex, multi-faceted nation into a single cartoon of itself to fuel your affection for bombast."

That's a structurally PERFECT sentence, Amos, worthy of Samuel Johnson himself.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Amos
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 05:30 PM

Why, Miss Ebbie!! I am touched. Thank you most kindly, ma'am!


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 05:47 PM

They may seem diametrically opposed, Ebbie, but they are not. A president can continue engaging in a grinding counter-insurgency battle like Afghanistan and still get labelled as a "wimp" by his domestic enemies anyway. Don't underestimate the mean-mindedness of partisan politics when it comes to stuff like that, and don't expect people's personal attacks on politicians to necessarily make any real sense at all. ;-D

There are a lot of Americans out there who are simply determined to find fault with Obama because he's a black man, he's a Democrat, they voted against him, and they would do so no matter what he did or didn't do. Those people will happily call him a "wimp" if they want...or a secret Muslim...or a secret Nazi...whatever they can come up with...whether or not he involves the USA in a continuing conflict in Afghanistan.

The one thing that could temporarily restore his credibility with many of those people would be a brand new all all-out dramatic "shock and awe" type war...specially if Iran was the target. You would then see his stock rise considerably, but probably only in the short term. That old "rally round the flag" mentality sets in fast when a new war starts, but the old attention span starts to dwindle if it bogs down into a long insurgency with no clear end in sight...and that's Afghanistan.

Anyway, my main point had to do with Obama's very articulate and diplomatic approach to dialogue. That's intelligent, but it gets you labelled as a "wimp" by people who prefer Reagan homilies or Rambo-style threats.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: 3refs
Date: 13 Aug 09 - 05:57 PM

I found this..........interesting!!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7886780711843120756