Science Talk

The Great Gordo · Guest

http://groups.google.com/group/election-2008-barack-obama-hillary-clinton-and-john-mccain/topics?hl=en

Obama always talks about service to others, but he's never done
anything but serve himself since his childhood. He's always been a
self-centered, self-aggrandizing, and self-important jerk. And, he
knew he could rely on two things to get far ahead without doing much.
The good-will and guilt-ridden helpfulness of liberal whites and the
nationalist unity of black politics. He knew that once he seriously
ran for government, all the blacks would support him nearly 100% and
many white liberals--in the academia, media, government, new economy,
etc--would support him as the non-threatening great black hope. He
knew that if he played those two cards skillfully, he would get far.
So, for African-Americans, who are supporting Obama purely for racial
reasons, he's plays the role of their black power prince. . For
white liberal Americans, he plays the role of the post-racial
candidate. And, enough white liberals, who've long been frustrated
by racial problems since their dream went bust since the mid-60s, are
desperate for The candidate who can heal the racial/historical
problems; they've fooled themselves into believing that Obama is The
One.

Through all of this, Obama has really served nobody but himself and
nothing but his own ego. He has absolutely NO accomplishment. He has
done NOTHING for the blacks in Chicago. As a social agitator--or
'community activist'--he taught poor people to just complain about the
'rich folks' and the government not doing enough for them. Obama has
taught his people how to beg, or rather to beg militantly. If you
panhandle militantly, then it's considered 'demanding social justice'
and not begging or extorting; Obama exhorts to extort. Obama hasn't
created a single job for anyone in his community because he never
created nor encouraged business activity; if anything, he has
discouraged such by saying businessmen only care for 'profit'. (At
least, entrepreneur and workers make their own profit or money whereas
guys like Obama have only leeched off others. But, Obama is so used to
people--especially naive and narcissistic rich whites--giving him free
things and fast-track promotion all his life, he thinks the world
works like that.) Indeed, what is the main difference between
depressed black communities and well-to-do white communities? Is it
because white communities get more welfare, more social services, have
more bureacrats, more social workers? No, just the opposite. The real
difference is white communities have more businesses. They have more
people who want to do business--which means to trade good and services
fairly and freely--and a more inviting social climate for investment
and economic activity. Black communities have few people who want to
do business--except in drugs--and very hostile conditions for lawful
economic activity. What are the conditions plaguing the black
community? Crooked black politicians who extort money from
businessmen. High crime rate. Low quality of workmanship. High rate of
theft by employee and customer--and managers. Too many people who,
though demanding work, treat work as they've treated school in their
younger days. So, even many blacks who say they want to work are not
willing to work seriously. And, Obama has only given lipservice in
addressing these problems, mainly for the ears of white voters so that
white liberals may be hookwinked into thinking that Obama is, indeed,
a different kind of black politician.

Obama has offered black people in his Chicago community nothing but
pretty speeches. He's offered nothing new and everything that's
old--'blacks can't do anything without the government'. And, he's
trying to make more and more white people feel the same way by playing
on class resentment. Cornel West said the greatest sin of American
history is what he calls the 'niggerization' of American
consciousness. By this, he means that the socio-economic system of
America reduces people to that of a lowly 'nigger' whether one's
black, white, brown, or yellow. And, Obama's political strategy uses
the 'niggerization' model. He's telling white folks that they too are
becoming 'niggerized' by the powers-that-be. The rich and powerful
are reducing all the ordinary people into lowly, beastly slaves. West
and Obama think the American people should turn the concept of
'niggerization' to their advantage. Society turns people into lowly
and dirty 'niggers'. So, the 'niggers'--of all race--should unite as
angry, revolutionary, and radical 'niggaz' for a new future in which
The Man has been overthrown--what we saw in Matrix movies.

Anyway, though Obama has done nothing for the people of Chicago, he's
made a lot of noise to make himself look busy. Loudmouths who do
nothing often get more credit while hard workers who don't call
attention to themselves get far less credit. Obama, megalomaniac and
full of himself, shows off with a record of zero accomplishment. His
ONLY accomplishment has been as a NOISEMAKER while actually doing
nothing; of course, he hollers a lot that he WILL do something if we
make him the most powerful man in the world. This is like lazy bum
with no accomplishment saying he should be given a billion dollars so
that he'll finally do something great. And, it looks like the
Americans are buying into this political circus; PT Barnum was right
about a sucker being born every minute.

When Obama says he faces his challenges with 'great humility', he
doesn't know the meaning of humility. For one thing, a truly humble
man doesn't brag about his precious or 'profound' humility in front of
a crowd of tens of thousands. And, so much for humility when Obama
then goes on to list all the ways mankind will be saved if he's
elected president. This guy has the mentality of a radical crossed
with a televangelist. He suffers from both messiah complex and
cynical power-lust. His only real religion is in his glory, and,
sadly, many people seem to have bought into this myth--just as many
soccer moms are convinced that a fat, moderately talented talk show
hostess is the greatest human being since Jesus or Moses. Among some
white liberals, there is a sickening kind of Afrophilia borne of
historical guilt and racial admiration that borders on the
irrational.

Anyway, all this talk of 'serving others' is bogus when we consider
that, all these years, Obama hasn't done anything except for his own
career. The people he served in Chicago and Illinois didn't gain
anything in their lives. Put aside the entire nation, all of
Illinois, or even all of Chicago for a second. What did Obama do for
his district that was so great? Nothing. He was just another
politician pushing more government addiction to his people--just like
drugdealers push dope. Whether one pushes dope by selling crack or
hope by promoting welfare, it's all the same for the people--addiction
to the monopoly supplier and loss of free-will. If drugdealers get
rich off of their wretched clients, politicians like Obama get more
power and attention. Obama is the kingpin whose dream is to expand the
government empire.

So, this is Obama's idea of service. Since he has no respect for
capitalism, he can't imagine serving community by promoting business
and free enterprise. Instead, he shares the views of Bill Ayers. Poor
people are helpless victims., and they must riled up and made angry
and demand more from the rich. People like Ayers, Pfleger, and Obama
also oppose the spread of capitalism because they know that if black
people finally figure it out, THEY the radicals will be out of jobs.
Why would any self-respecting, honest, hardworking, and independent
black person rely on such rabblerousers, radicals, or demagogues?
People like Obama and Wright politically--and even financially--leech
off black failure and exploit the guilt of good-willed whites.
Indeed, after college, Obama went looking for poor people to exploit.
I say 'exploit' because he has never explained to the poor about the
problems--lack of family values, rotten culture, disrespect for
learning, the tendency to lie/cheat/steal, etc--plaguing their lives
and their communities, never tried to teach them skills that might
make them independent, never tried to steer them away from addiction
to government, and never had the courage to practice tough love. No,
he just pandered to their worst instincts and exploited their 'rage'
to win political office and rise up in the ranks. While poor blacks
remained as they always had been under Obama, he and Michelle spent
most of their days with intellectuals in Hyde Park or with highly paid
bureaucrats in government offices. And, notice that neither made their
fortune thru private enteprise but thru government jobs, which is to
say, through the money of other people paid thru coercive taxes. This
is what they call SERVICE. Now, look at the South Side community
where the Obamas come from. Poor people are just as they were 20 yrs
ago; meanwhile Obama is running for President. Looks like the ONLY
person who got a sweet deal is Obama. And, even before running for
President, he was able to buy a big fancy mansion which could house 10
poor families thanks to his connection with a crook named Rezko.
The only real difference between Blagojevich and Obama is that the
latter didn't try so hard to raise cash for a Presidential run since
the money rolled in effortlessly. Blagojevich, a less appealing
personality, had to cajole and twist arms to raise money for what he
saw as an eventual run for the White House. Obama just needed to
smile and 'not make sudden moves' and he was being showered with more
money than he knew what to do with.

Obama should shut up about service. He's served no one but himself.
And, his idea of service was just making himself look busy by making a
lot of noise. He's been acting at serving than really serving. As
such, he really belongs in Hollywood than in government. His record in
the Illinois Senate is a joke. He's done nothing unless drawing
attention to oneself can be considered service or work. He's been a C
student who's mugged for attention and been given an A for effect(as
opposed to A for effort, which is somewhat honorable).

It's amusing that Obama should mock the idea that Americans were told
to 'go shopping' after 9/11. Rather, he thinks Americans should have
been told--or forced--to pay more in taxes. Let's imagine the two
points of views: Shopping after 9/11 vs Paying more taxes after 9/11.
Shopping is an activity that involves freedom of choice, spending
one's own hard-earned money, and mostly serves one's basic needs. One
can choose to shop for food, baby carriage, car, boat, TV, new
clothes, books, sporting gear, gifts, stoves, cabinets, chairs,
computers, etc. People want to earn their own money and spend it as
they choose. It's all about freedom. Or, one can use one's freedom to
save than shop and spend that money in the future--delayed shopping.
There was a reason why shopping was necessary after 9/11. It was to
send a message to terrorists around the world that our way of life--
based on freedom, choice, liberty, fair exchange of goods and
services, etc--would go as usual because ours is a strong and
confident nation. It was a way of saying 'the only thing to fear is
fear itself'. If we cowered in fear, the terrorist would have won, and
our economy would have been hit worse than it already was. So, we
wanted people to dine out, travel, meet in public places, work in
office buildings, and continue with all the normal activity.
Otherwise, the recession following the attack would have been worse.
And, the terrorists could take pleasure not only in destroying the
twin towers and the Pentagon but in shutting down the entire US
economy. So, it was to the credit of Americans that most of them
decided to go on trading in goods and services--which is what the
economy is all about.

But, dirty Obama mocks that period after 9/11. He implies that after
the terroist attacks, Americans were goaded by their leaders to act
like mallrats. "Hey, our nation is attacked, so why don't you go out
and buy a diamond ring?" Was that the message that Obama heard? If
so, it's only because he's a kneejerk anti-capitalist of Marxist bent
and/or because he's one of the most self-righteous jerks on this
planet. He willfully misinterprets the events following the terrorist
attacks. After 9/11, many Americans were genuinely afraid of more
attacks, afraid of spending their money lest the economy spiral out of
control. Certain industries were deeply impacted in a negative way--
especially the airline and hotel industries. Many workers were afraid
to return to their office buildings. Many feared more attacks, and no
one was certain as to how the war against the Taliban would turn out.
So, in this climate, Bush's call for return to normalcy was sound and
necessary. He wanted to restore the sense of confidence and freedom
back to the American people. But, Obama implies that America--leaders
and the led--are So stupid and misguided that all they think about
even after a great terrorist attack is, say, buying a diamond ring or
a widescreen TV. Yeah right, Americans bought widescreen TVs right
after 9/11 happened just so they wanted to watch the images of the
crumbling towers on a digital screen!

So, what's Obama's idea of what US should have done after 9/11. He
thinks the government should have used the event to scaremonger the
public into expanding the size of government--something that, by the
way, happened enough under Bush II, but not enough to satisfy the
likes of Obama. In the book "Disaster Capitalism", Naomi Klein
discusses how evil capitalists exploit disasters to push through
capitalist polices, but such opportunistic mentality is greater among
socialists. Just as FDR used the Great Depression and WWII to expand
government like never before, Obama feels that if a Democrat had been
President during 9/11, government could have exploited the crisis to
expand to LBJ levels. How liberals wished they'd held the White House
during 9/11. Instead of telling the American people to go shopping,
they would told the American people to 'sacrifice more' by paying more
in taxes and increasing the size of government.
Bush wanted to increase the military to fight our enemies abroad so
that we could maintain our freedom and choice. But, people like Obama
don't see enemies abroad--he wants to negotiate with terrorists--but
only in America. The enemies are the those people who earn their own
money and spend their money freely as they choose. The enemies are
conservatives who believe in capitalism. Like Moveon.org, Obama
believes that the 'white man's greed' is the worst thing in the
world.
What is this 'greed'? The willingness to live freely, earn freely,
trade freely, spend freely, and travel freely in a law-abiding
society. Freedom and laws have made America rich and powerful, but
Obama sees American success as the product of 'greed'. And, he thinks
poor people and poor nations are noble. It never occurs to Obama that
many poor people and poor nations are poor and miserable because they
are the ones who are truly greedy and have no respect for laws
protecting liberty and freedom. Just look at Zimbabwe and North
Korea, ruled by greedy tyrants and their greedy underlings. People so
traumatized and desperate under such systems can survive only by being
ruthlessly greedy themselves. So, if Americans earn money and buy
something they need in a lawful order, Africans use machetes to hack
people to death and run off with the loot. What is more greedy?
But, Obama says 'white people are greedy'. Obama's concept of greed is
purely based on outcome than character. So, if a person is studious,
decent, hardworking, and becomes successful by following the rules of
society, he or she's greedy. But, if a greedy bully in innercity
schools beats up teachers, sprays graffitti on the walls, commits
crime, serves time in jail, and ends up a bum, he's a noble victim of
'greedy whites'.
Of course, there are greedy people in all walks of life. There are
white collar criminals and people who use their education and
knowledge for nefarious ends--like Obama.
But, generally and paradoxically, less greedy a society, the richer
and safer it is. Also, greed is not only about money but about mutual
respect. For instance, public space doesn't belong to a single person
but to all of us. So, we expect everyone to mind the rights of others
in open or shared space, whether it's the streets, schools, parks,
movie theaters, etc. And, guess which group is most greedy in hogging
the public space in any way they see fit? Inner-city dolts so
prominent in Obama's Chicago community. They act as though public
space is their own bedroom or washroom. Too many idiots in such
communities act like Radio Raheem in "Do the Right Thing"; THAT is
greed. Such people are too stupid to become successful in life, but
they are the greedy ones because they pay no respect to others while
demanding all the respect be paid to them. But, of course, people like
Spike Lee, Cornel West, and Obama would argue that Raheem was just a
poor victim fo 'despair'.

Anyway, compare the call the shopping and call for taxes. After 9/11,
Bush wanted us to be shoppers. He wanted us to keep our own money--and
why not since WE worked for it?--, spend it as we saw fit, make our
own decisions as to what we needed(baby carriage or TV), and maintain
the American way of life. Obama, on the other hand, thinks the
government should have used 9/11 to raise taxes. Paying taxes is
giving our money to bureaucrats who will then pass some of it onto
strangers. There is no freedom of choice, no freedom to trade A for B.
The government forces us to depart with our money; the government
chooses how and where to spend the money--because presumably we are
too stupid to figure out what's good for us with our own money; the
governemnt hands out freebies to strangers who show no gratitude to
tax payers anyway.
So, the government insults the taxpayer as 'greedy' and takes his
money. And, then the government takes credit for doing 'good work' for
the 'needy' though the free stuff for those on welfare--and fat
paychecks and benefits for bureaucrats--was by the taxpayers. This is
why Obama is the truly greedy one. He wants to take our money and yet
take all the credit for using our money for 'good works'. If anyone
wants to know why so many poor nations are so poor, they have leaders
like Obama. They rob the industrious, throw some crumbs to the masses,
and then take all the credit for being the Man of the People. Obama is
an obamagogue. His thinking is closer to Fidel Castro than any true
American. Well, what did Castro do for the Cuban economy by taking
from the 'greedy' and giving to the 'needy'? He drove out or
imprisoned all the talented people from Cuba and addicted all the
people to the government which barely provided them with enough
bandaids that pass for 'free healthcare' and rice & beans that pass
for socialist fight against hunger.

So, those are the stark differences. One side celebrates the fact
that Americans ought to earn and spend freely. It believes that even
after a terrible attack like 9/11, Americans ought to carry on as
Americans, freely earning, freely spending or freely saving.
The other side thinks economic freedom and choice are bad things.
American people should fork over MORE of their money to the
government. After 9/11, American people shoud have been forced to pay
more in taxes than spend their own money as free individuals. For
Obama and his leftist sheep, 'shopping' is sinful, trivial, stupid,
childish, greedy, callous, etc. It's all about mindless consumerism
and putting money into the pockets of the already greedy rich. (To be
sure, one can spend money stupidly, especially with borrowed money.
But, this seems to be a bigger problem with those who support Obama--
minorities and young people. It's not your average young conservative
who's spending all his summer job money and maxing out his credit
cards to buy Jay-Z cds, illicit drugs, and other useless crap. But,
notice that Obama has nothing bad to say about Jay-Z and his ilk who
have really sold destructive and corrosive trash--the cultural
equivalent of crack--to the black and youth community. Though Obama
attacks capitalists, he has nothing but admiration for capitalists who
made their vast fortunes by selling the most worthless and trivial
products. So, it doesn't bother Obama that Jay-Z and other rappers
made their millions by peddling mayhem, violence, and hatred or that
Oprah made her billions by selling phony hope to soccer moms across
the nation.) In contrast, leftists say paying taxes is noble because
the government is about the 'war on poverty', 'war on social
injustice', 'war on inequality', etc, etc. The government is about the
collective, about The People than about 'greedy', 'selfish', and
'trivial' individuals. I dunno but I think 'greedy' 'selfish' free
individuals in America did more to create a just and fair society than
collectively minded communists and Nazis. Obama is convinced that HE
must spend our money for our own good. He has perfected a conman trick
where he takes our money, makes a few shifty moves, slips it into his
pocket, and makes us believe that we have more in our wallet.

Obama also talks a lot about how we should serve other people, but why
doesnt' he ever say that other people should serve themselves? Also,
if the purpose of life is to serve others, it must then follow that we
should expect others to serve us. This is a self-defeating message. If
it's true that you should serve others, then others should serve you.
Now, would you rather serve or be served? So, is it any surprise
that many people--especially the lazy--simply hear Obama's message as
'sit on your ass and wait for OTHERS to take care of you, to offer you
freebies, to pay for all your needs'? In order to serve others and 'do
good work', there must be those who want to be served. So, even those
who are willing to serve are really encouraging the lazy to be even
lazier. If Obama really wants to serve so much, he should stop
running for President and by my lifetime servant. He can polish my
shoes, make my bed, make my meals, and give me his paycheck. Of
course, Obama wants to turn the rest of us into his servants while he
himself plays master of the house. Again, it's all talk and no walk
with Obama. His entire idea and experience of political service in
Illinois has been merely to mark time, live on taxpayer's money, and
find suckers to serve him on his road to greater poltical power. He's
a conman who, while posing as our public servant, is turning us into
servants of his massive ego.

Elderly and diabled people excepted, why should people serve others or
be served by others? How about 'I take care of myself and you take
care of yourself'? Also, why should good decent people give up their
money, time, and freedom to serve those who will not change or give up
their stupid use of freedom and time? If the government wants to
force successful people to be more 'compassionate', then force the
poor to be more responsible. But of course, goverment armtwisting is
reserved only for those who play by the rules while the rulebreakers
are patted on the head, allowed all freedoms which they abuse, and
told that others should do everything for them.

Obama puts all the burden on those who follow the rules and succeed in
life thanks to their self-discipline and decency. They are the
supposed 'greedy'. There is no burden--except lipservice--placed upon
the crazy, lazy, troublesome, disrespectful, violent, and impulsive.
They are the 'needy'. Obama says some communities are 'underserved'
but does not specify nor explain why this may be so. Could it because
in some inner-city or minority communities, kids run around, never
come to school, curse at or beat up teachers, and etc? And, the
parents don't much care either when contacted by the teacher or
principal. Many of these communities are 'underserved' precisely
because they are impossible to serve. Many idealistic teachers go to
work in inner-city schools but the turnover is high because the kids
are so crazy and out-of-control. And, those who remain in those
communities for the long haul do more harm than good. They are like
Michael Pfleger who only wants to make blacks more angry, more
undeservedly self-righteous, more convinced that nothing good happen
until a socialist revolution remakes this entire country. One could
say Bill Ayers has chosen to serve the black community, but what good
has he done? Sure, symbolically he's a man of the People and
sympathetic to blacks. But, what is his lesson for black people?
America sucks, white folks--except leftists like himself--are all
evil, and black people should blame everyone else for their own
problems. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

In the Obama narrative, successful whites are 'greedy' while out-of-
control minorities are 'needy'. It's really that simple. According to
Obama if successful people are more law-abiding and decent in their
social behavior, it's only because they've been more greedy, made more
money, and have been able to afford to practice decent behavior. If
poor people are more dangerous and out-of-control, it's because they
are so needy and so desperate and hopeless. For Obama, social decency
follows economic success, not vice versa. To become economically
successful, one must be 'greedy'. So, greedy whites make money and
then use their economic largesse as the foundation for their 'decent'
charade. In contrast, minorities remain poor because they are not
greedy but noble. But, being noble and poor, they've become desperate
and prone to violence.
Of course, Obama got it backwards. Most well-to-do people in America
started poor, and they rose up thru the social ranks thru their
values. Obama thinks people rose up ONLY thru greed or old-boys-
networks or special connections. Because HE rose up the ranks that
way--and because that's the nature of Chicago Machine Democratic
politics in general--, he thinks that's how ALL successful people made
it that way.

It never occurs to Obama that poor black people might accomplish much
in life if they changed their values and attitudes. And, it never
occurs to Obama that it doesn't cost anything to embrace rock solid
values centered around the family, decent social behavior, responsible
use of personal freedom. If ONLY rich people can afford to practice
such values, then how does one explain the rise of once poor nations
into rich ones? Every European nation once had a population that was
mostly poor. They rose not only because they allowed more economic,
social, and political freedoms but because the people, though poor and
even illiterate, had rock solid values revolving around family and
community life. So, freedom in Europe wasn't the kind of mindless
freedom we find in inner-city communities today. It was freedom
tempered by a sense of duty, responsiblity, self-restraint, mutual
respect. If dirt poor Europeans could have both freedom and rock
solid values that saw them thru hard times and helped them rise up the
social ladder, why is such impossible for poor blacks? How come there
is such lack of moral respect in the poor black community? Sure, poor
blacks sing and shout about respect, but it's all about unconditional
respect blacks demand from other people. For blacks, respect--like
self-esteem--is something demanded than earned. And, respect is
certainly not something many blacks like Wright or Jesse Jackson care
to show to others. When Wright spewed vile garbage about white and
Jewish Americans, the blacks in the congregation hollered with joy.
When Pfleger made fun of Hillary crying, blacks in the Trinity Church--
along with Rev. Moss--hooted and cheered. Some respect for other
people.
Without respect for others, how can a people rise up in the world.
Those who know less need to respect those who know more in order to
learn the skills necessary to rise up in the world. But, many poor
black kids who have no respect for teachers learn nothing. For there
to be social peace, there must be respect for laws and rules of
society. But, there is only disrespect for the law in much of the
black community. The only thing respected is thuggishness, made all
the worse by rap culture which Obama wholeheartedly embraces.

All the burden is placed on whites. And, many whites--living in
segregated neighborhoods and learning of black reality only through
liberal PBS, textbooks, Oprah, and pop culture--think black reality is
only noble, hip, cool, or sadly tragic. Many whites who've come to
know black reality only thru the media prism only come to see things
thru admiration or guilt.
It's said that well-educated whites are less 'racist' than the less
educated whites because education has filled the minds of well-
educated ones with truth while the less educated ones wallow in their
ignorance and prejudice. But, more likely, the better educated whites,
whose impression of poor black reality has been molded by an highly
selective coverage of history and social reality, have only been more
indoctrinated. These whites know of black reality as presented and
packaged by the social theoretical models. In contrast, less educated
whites tend to be poorer, and as such, they tend to co-exist more with
actual real-life poor and problematic blacks. They know the reality
upfront and as-is than as-told. So, less educated whites, though often
generally more ignorant , are more aware of the reality as pertaining
to blacks.

The more affluent and better educated whites, on the other hand, live
in safe, well-protected communities. From their safe distance, they
can afford to feel all the unconditional love, sympathy, respect, and
guilt toward 'needy and noble' blacks. And, these whites tend to be
awful narcissistic and even arrogant. Because of their fancy college
degrees and all the books they've read, they think they have special
knowledge beyond that of the unwashed masses. They supposedly know the
REAL forces behind history, inequality, injustice, and so on. They
dismiss 'quaint' and 'old-fashioned' notions such as family values,
morality, and individual responsibility.
They are so Rational. And, that's why they are so 'rationally' bowing
down before Obama, fainting in his presence, and worshipping him as
The One.

Anyway, it's the funny paradox of America that more a white person is
segregated from poor black reality, the more he's likely to fall for
the liberal orthodoxy on social and racial issues. As for those
whites who've seen poor black reality upfront and upclose, they don't
write books or talk openly about it because our society deems such
expressions as 'racist'. And, the academia and media are in the
control of people who would rather not publish those views even if
presented to them.

But, it's not just about poor blacks in America. Obama says he wants
more Peace Corps and etc. So, greedy America must take the blame and
bear the burden of poverty all around the world--mostly in Africa, as
white liberals feel racial favoritism toward blacks. Africa is also
the preferred choice because white liberals are Afrophiles and also
because Africa is the eternal basketcase. In the 60s and 70s, Asia
was the object of much white liberal sympathies but upon its economic
rise, white liberals felt cheated and threatened. Didn't Asians
understand that in a global world order dominated by white neo-
imperialists, non-whites are not supposed to succeed? The way white
liberals saw the world, the game was rigged so that only white
capitalits could rule and exploit the world; and so, white liberals
and leftists had to play the role of saviors of the oppressed around
the world. So, even as the likes of Bill Ayers despised their fathers,
they needed the oppressive white patriarchs to resist in order to
prove their credentials as champions of the oppressed around the
world. But, this became more difficult and then downright impossible
when Asia began to rise. Indeed, just look at how Tom Hayden is fuming
over the fact that current Vietnam is turning capitalist, doing
business with the US, and looking upon the former enemy as the
favorite nation in the whole world.
Leftists and liberals love Latin America more because it's had deeper
economic problems, but even Latin America had its share of successes,
mostly under market reforms. Chile has done well under capitalism and
parts of Brazil are making great gains thru global trade. As for the
Middle East, despite all its problems, it's not been the basketcase
that Africa has been. Also, in recent years, Middle Easterners have
been smarter in using the oil boom to invest more wisely for the
future.
So, the only seemingly eternal basketcase left in the world is Africa.
Also, due to the legacy of slavery, there is a special guilt-related
signficance.
So, when liberals talk about helping the poor around the world, they
reall mean Africa. China, which had once been hopelessly poor, is
making great gains. India, once stagnant, is also rising fast in the
world. China and India, once white liberal favorites, just don't cut
it anymore for the compassionate liberals. Indeed, liberals like to
portray the Chinese as taking over American thru Walmart and portray
the Indians as stealing all our jobs thru the network of
outsourcing.

Now, how come Africa cannot do what China and India have been able to
do? Africa is huge, has tons of raw materials, bountiful natural
resources, etc. So, why if Africa so hopeless? So much so that
Chinese and Indians must often bring their own workers to Africa than
hire the locals. That's something liberals never want to ask. Their
pat answer is that Africa's problems are all the white man's fault.
Or, all the Chienese man's fault since China has made investments.
It's always the fault of everyone but Africans. So, if Hutus in Rwanda
killed 800,000, we blame the West for not saving the victims than
blame the perpetrators for killing the victims. So, we blame China for
all the problem in Darfur though the mayhem is about Africans killing
Africans. Honest debate is impossible because to say that Africans are
mostly to blame for their own misery and poverty is deemed either
'racist' or 'ignorant'.

Anyway, as with poor blacks in the US, Obama never talks about WHY the
people of Africa are living in such miserable conditions. It's all
just 'white man's greed in a world of need'. But, why are Africans
needy? Why were Chinese, Vietnamese, and Indians--who were only
hopelessly needy at one time too--able to reverse their decline or
stagnation and charge toward impressive economic growth and social
change? Did 'white greed' suddenly go easy on the 'needy' Chinese,
Indians, and Vietnamese? Or, did Asians decide to change their social
and economic policies and allow more freedom? Furthermore, wasn't this
expansion in freedom successful because Asians possessed, held onto,
and practiced values that restrained certain anarchic and crazy
freedoms? Also, as cultures that put a great stress on education,
family life, and social order, didn't they pour their energies into
areas and fields that led to economic expansion and new
opportunities?
But, culture and values are too 'unscientific' and 'irrational' for
all-knowing progressives. And, too frustrating for intellectual
types. How easier to believe that the world can be saved or changed
thru a set of ideologies or grandiose programs than thru the personal
freedoms, cultural values, and individual choices of free/moral
individuals. If culture, values, and freedom really do matter, then
it means there is a limit to what ideologues, intellectuals, and
bureaucrats can achieve. But, if we believe that mankind can be remade
and that total justice can be achieved thru ideas, policies, and
programs, then intellectuals and bureaucrats can dream all they want
and come up with ever more elaborate schemes and demand ever more
power and money. They say it's all in the name of the people but it's
really to serve their own megalomanical egos.
This is why Obama would rather have us fork over our money in taxes to
the government than go out and shop. Taxing is better than shopping.
If Todd Stronger wants to tax our shopping, Obama wants to go the
whole hog and take it even before we could spend it.

As stupid as Obama's ideas are, they have a certain appeal at this
time in American history. On the one hand, there was much
irresponsbile shopping during the Bush yrs. People didn't just spend
money earned but money borrowed. Also, they spent money on a lot of
stupid things they didn't need. Homes are a good investment, but many
people 'bought' homes thru ludicrous subprime loan schemes. So, when
the economy slumped, gas prices rose, and home values plummeted--and
interest rates rose--, a lot of Americans felt rather disgusted with
their wild spending spree. They had tons of stuff they really didn't
need or afford, had tons of debt, and were about to be evicted from
their homes. There is smart shopping and stupid shopping, and the
latter can do more damage than not shopping at all.
On the other hand, we've seen the rise of a fabulously rich class
since the 80s. Some of these people have more money than they know
what to do with. They are so rich that their main worries are getting
their kids into a kindergarten whose tuition is $50,000 a year. Most
of these people made their fortunes in the new economy, especially in
fields related to computers, hightech, pharmaceuticals, and global
trade. They are so rich and have so much money pouring in that they
feel rather ashamed of their success. So, when someone like Obama
comes along and offers them partial redemption, they fall for the
bait. For the superrich, shopping means buying another piece of
jewelry that costs $200,000. They feel, "wouldn't my money do much
more good if the government took it and used it for 'good works'?"
This is why the majority of the superrich support Obama. They are so
stinking rich and already have so much more than all the things they
wanted in life that they are willing to let the govenment take more
money to 'save the world'.

Wayne H. Wilhelm · Guest

Obama and his black backers plan to completely change the U.S. Constitution.

Why have all of the topmost leading Democrat Party promoters / leaders
turned their backs on Hillary Clinton in favor of a
black person who has no history of accomplishment, very little experience in
anything, whose primary mode of voting in Congress is to vote present or
'abstain', who spent the past 20 years worshipping an extremely racist
preacher who honored the leader of a black extremist Muslim group called NOI
(Nation of Islam) and whose only apparent skill is reading from a
teleprompter.

And now, as he did when he told Ohioans he condemned NAFTA and had his staff
turn around and contact Canadian officials to tell them not to worry about
his stance on NAFTA, that he was only telling voters what he deemed
necessary to get elected, Obama now declares that when he told Americans
that when he takes over the Presidency in January 2009 that he would end the
war in Iraq, that he never stated how long it would take, that it might take
years for him to get troops out of
Iraq depending on the recommendations of military advisors.

In addition, the list of names of extremists friends of Obama and promoted
by him or his church continues to escalate.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-anthem4-2008jul04,0,1711041.story
Just in the news, Jazz singer Renee Marie, a young black woman selected to
sing the national anthem before Denver mayor's annual state of the city
address decided the U.S. National Anthem was offensive and sang the Black
National Anthem 'Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing' instead. Turns out, typical of
many blacks including Obama's wife, she feels left out as an American
(Obama's wife has a salary exceeding $300,000 per year yet she feels
slighted by the United States). Renee Marie, at
first apologizing to the mayor for substituting the Black National Anthem
for the U.S. National Anthem, later recanted and declared she was proud of
what she did.

So typical of Obama, his friends, his supporters and blacks across the
country, all we get from Obama are a bunch of lies, distortions and
fabrications and you have the audacity to tell me what he won't do,
inferring he'll be the opposite of Bush as a good thing? If all Democrats
can offer is a black person who's so two-faced he makes Bush look like an
Angel, I'll stick with McCain, Thank You!

--Wayne H. Wilhelm
Personal Web: http://www.hiddenpolitics.com
Tired of politics? Take time to smell the roses; visit
Desktop On a Dime at http://www.desktoponadime.com

---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

ape shall not kill ape · Guest

On Jul 3, 9:17 pm, The Great Gordo <politicon...@hotmail.com> wrote:

the savage cabbage · Guest

On Jul 3, 9:17 pm, The Great Gordo <politicon...@hotmail.com> wrote: