Why Does Obama Sound Familiar?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

The fact that people go wild over Obama and his ‘substance’ compared to someone like Ron Paul, speaks volumes. People want the nanny state, not a limited government.
We’re doomed.

I find the Obama cult quite similar to the Paul cult. Everyone wants a change in direction but if they fully understand where each wants to lead they would run screaming.

Both candidates are extremists. Obama just hides it better and is more charismatic.

That’s interesting! So Paul is an extremist FOR the Constitution while Obama is NOT?

[/quote]

For HIS personal interpretation of the Constitution.

Paul is an extremist for a failed state and Obama is an extremist for an expanded state.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

The fact that people go wild over Obama and his ‘substance’ compared to someone like Ron Paul, speaks volumes. People want the nanny state, not a limited government.
We’re doomed.

I find the Obama cult quite similar to the Paul cult. Everyone wants a change in direction but if they fully understand where each wants to lead they would run screaming.

Both candidates are extremists. Obama just hides it better and is more charismatic.

That’s interesting! So Paul is an extremist FOR the Constitution while Obama is NOT?

For HIS personal interpretation of the Constitution.

Paul is an extremist for a failed state and Obama is an extremist for an expanded state.

[/quote]

I choose the first — anything that would make government smaller.

It’ll never happen though. Advances in science mean that small government is obsolete. Global oligarchy, based upon science, will be the future.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

The fact that people go wild over Obama and his ‘substance’ compared to someone like Ron Paul, speaks volumes. People want the nanny state, not a limited government.
We’re doomed.

I find the Obama cult quite similar to the Paul cult. Everyone wants a change in direction but if they fully understand where each wants to lead they would run screaming.

Both candidates are extremists. Obama just hides it better and is more charismatic.[/quote]

I have to say that I agree with ya,Zap. I’m seeing more and more of it as it gets closer to Saturday…Ron Paul is rallying here in Killeen/Ft.Hood. Lets see how much the troops really love him. Some of his views are on the fringe of being extreme. He has some valid points and IDEAS for solutions…but people are just not buying it. I love how some Ron Paul supporters are all for the Constitution being strictly adhered to,but still have views that contradict.

So as we sit here in the year 2008,does:
no anti-drug war/laws,
no Federal Reserve,
no income tax,
not being part of NATO/UN,
no gun control laws,
no capital punishment,
gonna solve our problems???

All of this for the sake of smaller government and “preserving” the Constitution?? Can Ron Paul really change in this country the things that unjustly defy our rights acording to the Constitution?? Isn’t he like 200-300 years too late?? I’m just curious.

Another question…say we do withdraw from NATO and UN. What effect would that have on our foreign policy?

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Another question…say we do withdraw from NATO and UN. What effect would that have on our foreign policy?[/quote]

Zilch.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Another question…say we do withdraw from NATO and UN. What effect would that have on our foreign policy?

Zilch.[/quote]

Something tells me that you’re being sarcastic…I’m asking honestly…I know you of all people can do better than that.

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

Something tells me that you’re being sarcastic…I’m asking honestly…I know you of all people can do better than that.[/quote]

I think withdrawal from both could have some negative consequences - primarily NATO. I remain in favor of a strong NATO, even as others think it is toast. I see their point - I just want to resuscitate it.

As for the UN, it serves few purposes - although I think it still has some value as a place for negotiation and global relief efforts, with reservations on this last one.

For international security, the UN is nothing but a waste - and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise.

NATO is a joke, how many of the member states actually contribute the resources to make it a valid alliance? I can only think of a few. Everyone enjoyed US protection during the cold war and now no-one wants to join in any more.

As for the UN, the block voting held by the anti-western countries make it a complete waste of time. All the tin-pot dictators and their cronies dictate to the western world how they should conduct world affairs.

As for the Hitlerian comparisons with Obama, I think it is unfair. Just old fashioned oratory, it is meant to inspire people. I will agree that Hitler was a great speaker and inspired a great sense of national pride in people, but Obama is no way near as radical or as good as speaker as that.

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
lixy wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Another question…say we do withdraw from NATO and UN. What effect would that have on our foreign policy?

Zilch.

Something tells me that you’re being sarcastic…I’m asking honestly…I know you of all people can do better than that. [/quote]

It wasn’t sarcasm. Actually, it took me a couple of minutes to figure out if your question was rhetorical or not.

That the US withdraws or not from the UN has zero effect on American foreign policy. Face it, your country is the world’s sole superpower and it does what it damn pleases.

Now, if you want to talk about consequences in general (as opposed to that “effect” that would have on US “foreign policy”) is another story. I don’t think it’ll do any good besides save money.

The UN is a good idea, but it just doesn’t work.

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
So as we sit here in the year 2008,does:
no anti-drug war/laws,
no Federal Reserve,
no income tax,
not being part of NATO/UN,
no gun control laws,
no capital punishment,
gonna solve our problems???

All of this for the sake of smaller government and “preserving” the Constitution?? Can Ron Paul really change in this country the things that unjustly defy our rights acording to the Constitution?? Isn’t he like 200-300 years too late?? I’m just curious.[/quote]

He’s trying to rescue a people that don’t WANT to be rescued. They’ve lived off the efforts of others for so long, they think that the gravy train will never end. The government tries to work in their behalf, inflating the currency to try and pilfer and plunder from the productive members of society. Altruism at its finest…

But what if the productive people don’t WANT to provide a bonanza for the indigent and lazy, for the freeloaders and irrationalists? What if the murderers of the human spirit run out of victims? Or if the victims decide to function way below what they could do?

Altruism and science will give us a global oligarchy. This will eventually kill off all independent thought and humanity will die.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
lixy wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Another question…say we do withdraw from NATO and UN. What effect would that have on our foreign policy?

Zilch.

Something tells me that you’re being sarcastic…I’m asking honestly…I know you of all people can do better than that.

It wasn’t sarcasm. Actually, it took me a couple of minutes to figure out if your question was rhetorical or not.

That the US withdraws or not from the UN has zero effect on American foreign policy. Face it, your country is the world’s sole superpower and it does what it damn pleases.

Now, if you want to talk about consequences in general (as opposed to that “effect” that would have on US “foreign policy”) is another story. I don’t think it’ll do any good besides save money.

The UN is a good idea, but it just doesn’t work. [/quote]

The UN can’t work because people don’t want to cooperate. We love war and conflict. It is this love that impels governments around the world to make war (out of their own love of power) against others and their own people. Weapons are made for a dual purpose — to fight external foes for enjoyment, and to brutalize one’s own people for pleasure.
Concentration camps and torture chambers are natural.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
lixy wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Another question…say we do withdraw from NATO and UN. What effect would that have on our foreign policy?

Zilch.

Something tells me that you’re being sarcastic…I’m asking honestly…I know you of all people can do better than that.

It wasn’t sarcasm. Actually, it took me a couple of minutes to figure out if your question was rhetorical or not.

That the US withdraws or not from the UN has zero effect on American foreign policy. Face it, your country is the world’s sole superpower and it does what it damn pleases.

Now, if you want to talk about consequences in general (as opposed to that “effect” that would have on US “foreign policy”) is another story. I don’t think it’ll do any good besides save money.

The UN is a good idea, but it just doesn’t work. [/quote]

Fair enough.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
lixy wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Another question…say we do withdraw from NATO and UN. What effect would that have on our foreign policy?

Zilch.

Something tells me that you’re being sarcastic…I’m asking honestly…I know you of all people can do better than that.

It wasn’t sarcasm. Actually, it took me a couple of minutes to figure out if your question was rhetorical or not.

That the US withdraws or not from the UN has zero effect on American foreign policy. Face it, your country is the world’s sole superpower and it does what it damn pleases.

Now, if you want to talk about consequences in general (as opposed to that “effect” that would have on US “foreign policy”) is another story. I don’t think it’ll do any good besides save money.

The UN is a good idea, but it just doesn’t work.

The UN can’t work because people don’t want to cooperate. We love war and conflict. It is this love that impels governments around the world to make war (out of their own love of power) against others and their own people. Weapons are made for a dual purpose — to fight external foes for enjoyment, and to brutalize one’s own people for pleasure.
Concentration camps and torture chambers are natural.

[/quote]

very true.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
So as we sit here in the year 2008,does:
no anti-drug war/laws,
no Federal Reserve,
no income tax,
not being part of NATO/UN,
no gun control laws,
no capital punishment,
gonna solve our problems???

All of this for the sake of smaller government and “preserving” the Constitution?? Can Ron Paul really change in this country the things that unjustly defy our rights acording to the Constitution?? Isn’t he like 200-300 years too late?? I’m just curious.

He’s trying to rescue a people that don’t WANT to be rescued. They’ve lived off the efforts of others for so long, they think that the gravy train will never end. The government tries to work in their behalf, inflating the currency to try and pilfer and plunder from the productive members of society. Altruism at its finest…

But what if the productive people don’t WANT to provide a bonanza for the indigent and lazy, for the freeloaders and irrationalists? What if the murderers of the human spirit run out of victims? Or if the victims decide to function way below what they could do?

Altruism and science will give us a global oligarchy. This will eventually kill off all independent thought and humanity will die.

[/quote]

I agree with you on him trying to rescue a people that don’t want to be rescued. Not entirely from the same perspective,but nevertheless,I agree. Now everything else you’ve said,we’ve already “discussed” before.

Well looks like the spotlight is on Texas…I’ll be back after watching rest of Obama/Clinton debate.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The UN can’t work because people don’t want to cooperate. We love war and conflict. It is this love that impels governments around the world to make war (out of their own love of power) against others and their own people. Weapons are made for a dual purpose — to fight external foes for enjoyment, and to brutalize one’s own people for pleasure.
Concentration camps and torture chambers are natural.

[/quote]

The governments of the world cause war, use concentration camps and torture chambers to strike fear into and galvanize people against external and internal enemies
to channel their “natural love of war and conflict” away from destroying these same governments.

Same thing as tribalism only on a global scale. Think about it.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Altruism and science will give us a global oligarchy. This will eventually kill off all independent thought and humanity will die.

[/quote]

Or humanity will evolve into something else. Either way, you and I likely won’t be around to be affected by it.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Altruism and science will give us a global oligarchy. This will eventually kill off all independent thought and humanity will die.

Or humanity will evolve into something else. Either way, you and I likely won’t be around to be affected by it.[/quote]

Possibly. I’ve read that humanity is speciating, in the sense that a small minority thinks abstractly using concepts, while the vast majority functions at the perceptual level of awareness.

This may be tied into language, as those languages which embellish the future tense (English is notable for this) encourage concept-formation.

Since English and Mandarin will be the two dominant languages in the future, I’m interested in how these languages compare.

I also wonder why many of those who ARE capable of really thinking seem to enjoy abusing those who don’t. Its kind of like torturing a dumb animal. Must be some sort of death wish I suppose…