The Daily Obamanation .... ALL ROLLED INTO ONE

I just thought it is short for Pakistani, since most Brits that I have known use the term when talking of Pakistanis. I guess I should have known since it's usually preceeded by fooken or dirty.

 

As long as it is through charity, I could care less. When I talk of aid, I mean government aid. I know that aid is a drop in the bucket of what the U.S. government spends, but I don't think that giving perpetual aid to anyone is the the business of the government. I also believe that if I have to pay my way through the corporate/government scam that is the U.S. university system, not a single foreigner here or abroad should receive a dime for education.

Do I prefer to spend money on aid than on aggressive war and weapons? Yes. But I would prefer to spend on neither.

Do you think that aid and education have put many third-world countries in the position to run the type of government and economy necessary to participate in fair trade that is beneficial to the entire nation? I'm not even sure which industrialized nation is fit to provide the example.

 

I don't advocate stupdity for anyone. I just don't think that it is the duty of the U.S. government to go around the world educating/indoctrinating a world elite that is supposed to be friendly to us. If charities want to build schools, teach people to read, dig wells or use rubbers, that's their business.

There is no reason that immigrants can't be kept out of the country. We have traditionally maintained the border with Mexico, and there is quite a bit of ocean between us and much of the world. Cheap labor is the goal, and it has been for the last 150 years. Our government couldn't do much more to convince people to come here.

 

WHAT DO , WE THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY DECIDE ???

It's all an illusion kids...
--------------------------
Superdelegates get campaign cash

Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor February 14, 2008 03:54 PM


Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.


"While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years," the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.

About half the 800 superdelegates -- elected officials, party leaders, and others -- have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.


Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.


Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.

 

that all sounds pretty sensible.

the individualist streak really is powerful in the US.

 

btw...IF the Democrats choose Clinton as their nominee, they'll be giving the White House to the Republicans for another 4 years at least.

Hillary just isn't likable and the more you see her the less you like her. As such the fact that she's a woman will become more and more of a factor with white men at the very least (black men also).

Obama, however, is very likable and because of this the fact that he's an "African American" will become less and less of a factor...as it's already becoming less of a factor.

NO Republican would ever vote for Clinton. No chance of them switching...even if they're disillusioned with their party. Independents would prefer McCain to Clinton...and some democrats may either switch or simply not vote.

If the Dems want the Presidency they must choose Obama.

It's just that simple.

 

U have always shown a deep undersanding of issues. U are an asset ot this site.

 

dsimon writes:

There are tons of illegal immigrants in this country and they are not from Sweden, France, Holland, etc.... know what I mean? They are from countries that have social problems that make it so people will find a way to come here. No ocean I can see prevents people like the 80 year old Cantonese immigrants that are illegals and get free medical care. If you make it better in those countries people will stay and develop those societies. It is worth the cost to send money to Mexico if it makes that society a place where people can thrive.

China's population problems fuck this country up.... It is a fact. And as Asia is polluted because people breed irresponsably the price for goods and services increases in this country. California is the leading fish importer for ASia, for example.

Again it is worth it to send money if it is well spent.

 

RACIST.

 

dsimon writes:

Why don't you take a page from my book? A page that I would willingly share with you.... If you notice I have some very real concerns about the problems of immigration and I manage to express them without resorting to rascist remarks. Everything stated in my post is true.

My Chinese teacher who is from Taiwan and here legally *(and who works for a living) is outraged because her roomate is here illegally and manages to get free medical care and other services. I think it is unjust that Chinese senior citizens here illegally get these services. I share her outrage. I do think as a society we have a responsability to our neighbors and that we can pay now or pay the much higher toll we are paying presently.

 

Throw them out, and don't let them in again.

 

dsimon writes:

I have no problem with that. The problem is how to keep them out. If you look at China's supposed "boom" it is not affecting the disanfranchised majority of the country... only a new class of greedy consumers who are rising on the backs of the farm and factory workers in China. These people are very dangerous. They will destroy the world.

One of two things will happen:

1) They will eventually force the government to let them have more than two kids a family and the world will be overpopulated even more and virtually destroyed by consumption of natural resources.... When Chinese dollars can have real purchasing power then grain food, seafood stocks, meat and mineral commodities and metals will be depleted in a few years.

2) or the Chinese government will treat them like they did the students at Tianeman square and destroy them. Which would be the best thing for the world.

What most people don't realize Ortho is that the students at Tianeman square were not only about freedom.... hardly. The students arrogantly cut off and allienated the factory workers and the agricultural workers and wanted bette conditions that would have not affected other suffering citizens in China. Without this support of the urban and agricultural classes the students became like an extra head of a chimera to lop off.

 

this is interesting. in what way did they cut off the proles? they were pushing for more democracy and more freedom, which (the theory goes) would benefit all.

 

Thats why America needs to close shop, and get back into Isolation.

 

:eeeek:

 

You stupid fucking racoon. Don't ever touch another post of mine again. We all know you will be gone when your precious light brown boy gets his ass whipped. So why don't you pre-empt the inevitable and just fuck off, you horse faced old cunt.

 

See ya tomorrow!

 

fuck Hillary....Fuck Osama.......


WAR McCain....the BOXING PRESIDENT...:clap: he can help boxing.....fuck the poor people from the 3rd world...if we ain't helping the poor in this country why should we give a shit about some stinky asshole halfway across the world....

 

equivocation. this is not the same type of 'poor'. western 'poor' means you have to live in a bad neighbourhood. world 'poor' means you're not gonna live.

 

You're advocating keeping the Chinese in poverty "for the good of the world"?

Those greedy fuckers, tryin' to be just like us. I will run over a Chinaman with an SUV next time I see one. :clap:

 

you are my main man illum. but talking about the poor of the developing world in this way is a bit nasty. i saw a disabled seven-year-old kid climbing into garbage cans on tiananmen square trying to find something to eat or sell. the economics is definitely controversial, but hope you'll be serious about it.

 

and the problem with that is....???

 

tie up them hoes tubes..or something.....cut off the man penis at birth....fuck is wrong those people....

 

using mod powers in personal beefs does not foster a good atmosphere. oc has said similar things to non-mods, with no action taken.

 

the behaviour of chinese people is far far more prudent than westerners. they're not promiscuous, they don't do drugs, they don't do alcoholism. they work and they work and they study and they work, to get food for themselves and to get food for their parents.

the poor in china need children to support them when they are old. if the child is born disabled, the state offers little support.

 

when did china started the 1-child policy....?? How THE FUCK did they get over 1 billion people...:doh: and Indian is close behind...imagine the stink...:shit::doh:

 

plus: they already have the one-child policy, and this is followed far more obediently than any of us westerners would, despite the huge financial risk to the parents in their old age (only one kid to support them) and the infringement of personal freedom.

any criticism or frustration with the developing world should not be levelled at the general population.

 

they started it in the 1980s with deng xiaoping. it has curbed population growth.

if you were a poor farmer in the developing world, you would have kids too, because that's the only thing that will keep you alive in your later years.

seriously mate, i find it tough when you say things like that. please be a little more circumspect, and spend a little time in india or china before you vent so callously.

 

Fuck OC. He likes to bring race into everything. You're from the UK as well aren't you? Don't pretend you don't know what he meant by "racoon"! :nono:

And what's with the "light skinned brown" nonsense.

He's gone for a day and is lucky that I didn't deem it longer.

 

i didn't know what the raccoon reference was. never heard it in relation to race. (and why would brits use it when we don't even have any raccoons here??)

yeah he pushes it too far. just too much vitriol. and the man works in law...