Thread: Obama is a fake ruled by wall street?

Anyone else think this?

The American people were beginning to see right through the Bush administration; the whole country on the verge of revolution. This scared the hell out of the REAL power houses in America (the wall street bankers). So they bought forward Obama, a fresh-faced black man who promised change (to calm the people) - but he wont bring change.......He has ALREADY RE-SIGNED the patriot act! - An act which during his election campaign he promised to abolish. Is anyone else seeing the same patterns of deceit already?

Along the same lines, the US has no intention of Killing Osama Bin Laden, all while he is on the loose they have the excuse to continue to use US forces in Afghanistan, pakastan etc, and thus develope their weapons.

Also, US Army tanks are fueled by babies. Particularly, cute ones.

Originally Posted by Kukhri

Also, US Army tanks are fueled by babies. Particularly, cute ones.

This is supposed to be a serious thread, mate.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Along the same lines, the US has no intention of Killing Osama Bin Laden, all while he is on the loose they have the excuse to continue to use US forces in Afghanistan, pakastan etc, and thus develope their weapons.

To be brutally, honest, I suspect that he is already dead. - But this has not nor probably ever will be, reported.

Yes I did wonder I think though that his own followers would have martyred him, calling for a world wide ji-had

I think the efforts to find him are most probably half hearted, oh they'll kill him if they find him but I suspect they just don't want to.

All presidents (indeed all politicians) say one thing then do another.

Either candidate would have been a puppet. McCain was just scarier, because he would have both signed all the bills, and gloated about it. At least Obama does it quietly, and doesn't demand to be agreed with.

I've never had any terribly grand illusions about Obama defy-ing Wall Street. The news media would start running stories about him molesting children or something (it doesn't really have to be true to print, as long as you can blame someone else for supposedly giving you the false information.)

The real power in this country is the News media, because nobody can stop them from lying if they want to lie. Nobody is going to contradict them or show that they're wrong. They 5 major networks are an oligopoly, so they don't honestly compete with each other. They just put on a show of competing, but then synchronize their news stories so that you always hear exactly the same thing from all 5 (well, except Fox, which distorts the story even further).

The secondary power, is the wealthy, because the networks are willing to sell them some influence if they pay a high enough price.

The common voter is a very distant third (if they're even third at all). We have about the same power to act as a blind man has. I mean, technically... blind people are just as physically strong as anyone else. If a blind person pulls the trigger on a rifle, it still fires. It just usually doesn't fire in the right direction.

Originally Posted by Kukhri

Also, US Army tanks are fueled by babies. Particularly, cute ones.

I heard it was kittens.

Originally Posted by Kukhri

Also, US Army tanks are fueled by babies. Particularly, cute ones.

Straw manning is the favorite form of argument amongst strong conservatives. It gets old after a while, but it's also funny. People like Rush limbaugh can make whole careers out of the synergy between the two effects: humor, and telling people what they want to hear.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Kukhri

Also, US Army tanks are fueled by babies. Particularly, cute ones.

Straw manning is the favorite form of argument amongst strong conservatives. It gets old after a while, but it's also funny. People like Rush limbaugh can make whole careers out of the synergy between the two effects: humor, and telling people what they want to hear.

And overwhelming logic and truth are the favorite form of argument amongst strong liberals - most notably folks like Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Keith Olberman, Jay Leno, and pretty much everybody that shows up in the mass media.

Call me crazy, but I think the entire reason that the media no longer represents the truth is that strawmanning about opposing viewpoints, sensationalism, and fear mongering create way more profit in the media industry than just telling the truth. Maybe I'm just a crazy right-winger though.

The left likes to use a "Stacking the Deck" style of argument instead. Straw manning is not really their thing so much.

They'd be better off using the straw manning approach, because people identify with it more, but ... oh well....

Originally Posted by kojax

The left likes to use a "Stacking the Deck" style of argument instead. Straw manning is not really their thing so much.

They'd be better off using the straw manning approach, because people identify with it more, but ... oh well....

I'm a bit of a neophyte in politics, as well as logical argumentation, so I'm not familiar with the term, "stacking the deck", as an argumentative form. I'll make a wild guess that an example would be when everyone that doesn't like affirmative action is racist, or gay marriage opponents are homophobes.

That seems more like a red herring to me, but again, I'm a noob.

Originally Posted by Chris the Bloviator

strong liberals... like Michael Moore and Jay Leno

You know you're not a centrist if Jay Leno seems as liberal as Michael Moore.

Originally Posted by Chris the Bloviator

Originally Posted by kojax

The left likes to use a "Stacking the Deck" style of argument instead. Straw manning is not really their thing so much.

They'd be better off using the straw manning approach, because people identify with it more, but ... oh well....

I'm a bit of a neophyte in politics, as well as logical argumentation, so I'm not familiar with the term, "stacking the deck", as an argumentative form. I'll make a wild guess that an example would be when everyone that doesn't like affirmative action is racist, or gay marriage opponents are homophobes.

That seems more like a red herring to me, but again, I'm a noob.

Here, you might like this site:
http://www.uwc.ucf.edu/Writing%20Res..._fallacies.htm

Originally Posted by The Link

Red Herring (Ignoring the Question): when a rebuttal doesn't address the question

* Q: Did the President have an affair? A: "He's very busy at the moment with the Middle East Peace talks, and has no time for silly accusations."

Originally Posted by The Link

Stacking the Deck (Slanting): leaving out one side of an argument completely

* There should be no "moment of silence" in schools: it discriminates against certain religions, causes unnecessary controversy, takes away from study time, and mixes church and state.

Originally Posted by The Link

Straw Man: attacking an opponent's weaker argument rather than his strongest

* Many who are for abortion like its convenience. But this is a human life we're talking about, and people need to be concerned with more than convenience.

Here's some more in depth explanations from the internet encyclopedia of philosophy:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Red%20Herring

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm...g%20the%20Deck

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Straw%20Man


If you've ever seen a Micheal Moore film, I think you'll kind of know what I mean. He doesn't exactly give his opponents a fair shake. Whereas the conservative fat guy, Rush Limbaugh takes the weakest arguments he can find for a liberal idea and then chews them up on his show, Micheal Moore, the liberal fat guy, simply doesn't present any of his opponents arguments.

Originally Posted by Numsgil

Originally Posted by Chris the Bloviator

strong liberals... like Michael Moore and Jay Leno

You know you're not a centrist if Jay Leno seems as liberal as Michael Moore.

In a way, this is certainly true. However, if you're implying that I'm placing them on the same level in terms of their fervence, and the tone they use in expressing their ideals, you're wrong. For example, I consider Mike Huckabee and Rush Limbaugh to be strong Conservatives, but each expresses their conservatism in very different ways. Moore is a left wing screamer, while Leno is generally just sarcastic and dismissive of conservatives. They're both strong liberals, so my statement stands.

Furthermore, the context of my statement addressed those individuals' relative use of facts and logic in their arguments, as opposed to appeals to emotion and slogans. Both individuals are similarly lacking there, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Chris the Bloviator

Originally Posted by kojax

The left likes to use a "Stacking the Deck" style of argument instead. Straw manning is not really their thing so much.

They'd be better off using the straw manning approach, because people identify with it more, but ... oh well....

I'm a bit of a neophyte in politics, as well as logical argumentation, so I'm not familiar with the term, "stacking the deck", as an argumentative form. I'll make a wild guess that an example would be when everyone that doesn't like affirmative action is racist, or gay marriage opponents are homophobes.

That seems more like a red herring to me, but again, I'm a noob.

Here, you might like this site:
http://www.uwc.ucf.edu/Writing%20Res..._fallacies.htm

Originally Posted by The Link

Red Herring (Ignoring the Question): when a rebuttal doesn't address the question

* Q: Did the President have an affair? A: "He's very busy at the moment with the Middle East Peace talks, and has no time for silly accusations."

Originally Posted by The Link

Stacking the Deck (Slanting): leaving out one side of an argument completely

* There should be no "moment of silence" in schools: it discriminates against certain religions, causes unnecessary controversy, takes away from study time, and mixes church and state.

Originally Posted by The Link

Straw Man: attacking an opponent's weaker argument rather than his strongest

* Many who are for abortion like its convenience. But this is a human life we're talking about, and people need to be concerned with more than convenience.

Here's some more in depth explanations from the internet encyclopedia of philosophy:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Red%20Herring

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm...g%20the%20Deck

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Straw%20Man


If you've ever seen a Micheal Moore film, I think you'll kind of know what I mean. He doesn't exactly give his opponents a fair shake. Whereas the conservative fat guy, Rush Limbaugh takes the weakest arguments he can find for a liberal idea and then chews them up on his show, Micheal Moore, the liberal fat guy, simply doesn't present any of his opponents arguments.

Great insights. Points taken, and agreed with completely.

Also, thanks for the links. I've always been attracted to logical argumentation, but I've never developed the skill under any formal structure. The more I see of the formal structure, the more I like it. Cheers.

Originally Posted by Chris the Bloviator

Originally Posted by Numsgil

Originally Posted by Chris the Bloviator

strong liberals... like Michael Moore and Jay Leno

You know you're not a centrist if Jay Leno seems as liberal as Michael Moore.

In a way, this is certainly true. However, if you're implying that I'm placing them on the same level in terms of their fervence, and the tone they use in expressing their ideals, you're wrong. For example, I consider Mike Huckabee and Rush Limbaugh to be strong Conservatives, but each expresses their conservatism in very different ways. Moore is a left wing screamer, while Leno is generally just sarcastic and dismissive of conservatives. They're both strong liberals, so my statement stands.

Furthermore, the context of my statement addressed those individuals' relative use of facts and logic in their arguments, as opposed to appeals to emotion and slogans. Both individuals are similarly lacking there, in my opinion.

So you'd basically pair Leno with Limbaugh, and Huckabee with Moore, that way? I'd have to say I agree.

Obama is a fake ruled by wall street?

Either hes a fake or powerless before Wall Street and AIPAC, either way democracy is utterly undermined by the influence of Wall Street and the corporate media.

Wall Street bankers should be tired and jailed for defrauding the US of trillions, but instead of going to jail they are running the show, getting billions in bonus and are transfering billions to other countries(China, India, Dubai according to Kucinich). Its the Pirate vs Emperor syndrome, if the scale is large enough its no longer a crime.


Also the insane Gung-ho that came up with the idea to have a NATO exercises in Georgia should be tried for criminal negligence and attempted crime against humanity, its the same as if Russia organised a large scale military and naval exercise between Cuba and Florida, we are talking thermo-nuclear russian roulette, rolling the dice with human survival.

goggle webster tarpley who thinks that

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Chris the Bloviator

Originally Posted by Numsgil

Originally Posted by Chris the Bloviator

strong liberals... like Michael Moore and Jay Leno

You know you're not a centrist if Jay Leno seems as liberal as Michael Moore.

In a way, this is certainly true. However, if you're implying that I'm placing them on the same level in terms of their fervence, and the tone they use in expressing their ideals, you're wrong. For example, I consider Mike Huckabee and Rush Limbaugh to be strong Conservatives, but each expresses their conservatism in very different ways. Moore is a left wing screamer, while Leno is generally just sarcastic and dismissive of conservatives. They're both strong liberals, so my statement stands.

Furthermore, the context of my statement addressed those individuals' relative use of facts and logic in their arguments, as opposed to appeals to emotion and slogans. Both individuals are similarly lacking there, in my opinion.

So you'd basically pair Leno with Limbaugh, and Huckabee with Moore, that way? I'd have to say I agree.

I don't pair any of them. Each is unique in the way they present their own arguments. Actually, I think Huckabee is a fairly positive guy. I've even seen his show on FNC, and he's actually very friendly and conversational with the liberals he invites on his show, and he gives them a fair shot to express their own views. I used him as more of a contrast with Limbaugh, who is exactly the opposite.