Dubstepforum.com

even I didn't expect this so soon!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ja ... air-strike

And he claims he was briefed on it, but had no control over it happening... change you can believe in.

i'm waiting to see what stupid justification will the believers bring aboard, that's gonna be funky

what difference does the colour of the presidents skin make ? there all the same in the long run . . . at least bush was entertaining !

^^^^
^^^
^^
Your comments show that you have no idea,
not one iota, of real politic.
Ever been to Afghanistan fellas?
Got any idea of what it's like to live there?
Ever been to to a village there?
Ever lived in Kabul?
Ever been to Islamabad?
Ever travelled thru the Khyber Pass? (or sodomized doing so?)
Gonna claim that that that's irrelevant?

Yeah never mind the last one with bush where thay had to cancel becuse of protest about all those black votes, this ones black it's cool lol wtf people are dumb

if you can't see the importance and poignancy of an african american president taking over a building built (for the most part) by african american slaves, then i'm sorry, but you don't know the history of america, and you don't understand the civil rights struggle whatsoever.

no politician is perfect, but i'll take any politician that's going to shake up the status quo ( even if it's only to make them racially uncomfortable) than a politician thats in it for pure corporate greed and self interest.


thanks to joe nice for sending me this...

in america white house takes over people

seckle wrote:if you can't see the importance and poignancy of an african american president taking over a building built (for the most part) by african american slaves, then i'm sorry, but you don't know the history of america, and you don't understand the civil rights struggle whatsoever.

no politician is perfect, but i'll take any politician that's going to shake up the status quo ( even if it's only to make them racially uncomfortable) than a politician thats in it for pure corporate greed and self interest.

Assuming that by not supporting Obama, we are ignorant of the civil rights struggle is absurd. I don't believe that rights are CIVIL, or given by the Constitution. I believe the Constitution is to limit the role of Government in our lives and nothing more. All rights are something you are born with and not given on the basis on any protected status, such as race, gender, ethnicity. The Constitution NEVER changed in this respect. Slavery was always illegal under the Constitution and it took years and years and years to end the practice, that is true. But that doesn't mean that we should overlook policy and view Obama based on his skin color, does it?

"Content of character, not the color of their skin." - Martin Luther King Jr.

As I recall, Martin Luther King didn't give a whole lot of speeches on "all roads lead to President, regardless of their policies." In fact, Martin Luther King would probably have protested against Obama for his abortion policies.

By and large, when the country was founded (ratification of the Constitution) political factions (what we refer to today as political parties) was not something that the Founders believed to be of a positive nature for what was intended by the Founders. Certainly factions existed, but the general intent was that those elected to federal office would represent the best interests of their individual States.

Keep in mind that ratification was completed in 1787 and it was only four years prior that the 1783 Treaty of Peace was signed with Great Britain ending the Revolutionary War. In that treaty article one identified every State individually and declared them each as “Free, Independent and Sovereign.” That is, mitigated only by the agreements between the States within the Articles of Confederation, each State was considered (to a significant degree) as an individual nation.

With the ratification of the Constitution of the United States additional restraints on these States were agreed to (as within the various clauses of the Constitution). While enforcing additional Delegated Powers to the federal government, that federal government was considered as restrained by and limited to these Delegated Powers.

All of these Founders agreed to such an interpretation of the Constitution of the United States even though there was significant differences between these Founders. For example, clearly Thomas Jefferson supported independent States limited only by the powers withheld from the States or delegated to the federal government. At the same time, Alexander Hamilton supported an interpretation which resulted in a wider support of federal power, he too view the Constitution as ‘limiting’ the acts of the federal government. (This perspective of Hamilton’s is one reason he saw no need for a Bill of Rights.)

First we (today) would consider the perspective of all of these Founders as being Conservative in that they supported a literal interpretation of the Constitution. In terms of parties, with some limitations, those founders would most likely join the Conservative wing of the Republican Party, or the Libertarian Party, or the Constitution Party, or they would have anarchists to disband all parties and returning the federal government to acting only within the delegated powers of the Constitution. I cannot imagine any scenario in which any of the Founders (or even elected officials during the first 50 years post ratification) joining what we today define as the Democratic Party and certainly not what is interpreted as liberal no matter whatever party would take on that mantel.

But what would anyone who doesn't support Obama know about History, after all?

Surface_Tension wrote:

seckle wrote:if you can't see the importance and poignancy of an african american president taking over a building built (for the most part) by african american slaves, then i'm sorry, but you don't know the history of america, and you don't understand the civil rights struggle whatsoever.

no politician is perfect, but i'll take any politician that's going to shake up the status quo ( even if it's only to make them racially uncomfortable) than a politician thats in it for pure corporate greed and self interest.

Assuming that by not supporting Obama, we are ignorant of the civil rights struggle is absurd. I don't believe that rights are CIVIL, or given by the Constitution. I believe the Constitution is to limit the role of Government in our lives and nothing more. All rights are something you are born with and not given on the basis on any protected status, such as race, gender, ethnicity. The Constitution NEVER changed in this respect. Slavery was always illegal under the Constitution and it took years and years and years to end the practice, that is true. But that doesn't mean that we should overlook policy and view Obama based on his skin color, does it?

"Content of character, not the color of their skin." - Martin Luther King Jr.

As I recall, Martin Luther King didn't give a whole lot of speeches on "all roads lead to President, regardless of their policies." In fact, Martin Luther King would probably have protested against Obama for his abortion policies.

By and large, when the country was founded (ratification of the Constitution) political factions (what we refer to today as political parties) was not something that the Founders believed to be of a positive nature for what was intended by the Founders. Certainly factions existed, but the general intent was that those elected to federal office would represent the best interests of their individual States.

Keep in mind that ratification was completed in 1787 and it was only four years prior that the 1783 Treaty of Peace was signed with Great Britain ending the Revolutionary War. In that treaty article one identified every State individually and declared them each as “Free, Independent and Sovereign.” That is, mitigated only by the agreements between the States within the Articles of Confederation, each State was considered (to a significant degree) as an individual nation.

With the ratification of the Constitution of the United States additional restraints on these States were agreed to (as within the various clauses of the Constitution). While enforcing additional Delegated Powers to the federal government, that federal government was considered as restrained by and limited to these Delegated Powers.

All of these Founders agreed to such an interpretation of the Constitution of the United States even though there was significant differences between these Founders. For example, clearly Thomas Jefferson supported independent States limited only by the powers withheld from the States or delegated to the federal government. At the same time, Alexander Hamilton supported an interpretation which resulted in a wider support of federal power, he too view the Constitution as ‘limiting’ the acts of the federal government. (This perspective of Hamilton’s is one reason he saw no need for a Bill of Rights.)

First we (today) would consider the perspective of all of these Founders as being Conservative in that they supported a literal interpretation of the Constitution. In terms of parties, with some limitations, those founders would most likely join the Conservative wing of the Republican Party, or the Libertarian Party, or the Constitution Party, or they would have anarchists to disband all parties and returning the federal government to acting only within the delegated powers of the Constitution. I cannot imagine any scenario in which any of the Founders (or even elected officials during the first 50 years post ratification) joining what we today define as the Democratic Party and certainly not what is interpreted as liberal no matter whatever party would take on that mantel.

But what would anyone who doesn't support Obama know about History, after all?

firstly...

WEB Du Bois wrote:To be a poor man is hard, but to be a poor race in a land of dollars is the very bottom of hardships.

Surface_Tension wrote: Assuming that by not supporting Obama, we are ignorant of the civil rights struggle is absurd. I don't believe that rights are CIVIL, or given by the Constitution. I believe the Constitution is to limit the role of Government in our lives and nothing more. All rights are something you are born with and not given on the basis on any protected status, such as race, gender, ethnicity. The Constitution NEVER changed in this respect. Slavery was always illegal under the Constitution and it took years and years and years to end the practice, that is true. But that doesn't mean that we should overlook policy and view Obama based on his skin color, does it?

who said anything about the constitution? why is it that anytime you try and address racial issues via politics in america, people throw the constitution at you as if that's supposed to be the holy grail?

who wrote the constitution and who immediately benefited from it? Largely a group of powerful land owning god fearing white men.

the constitution is by in large the most brilliant and inspired document in modern democracy, but you cannot ignore that it was created at a time when slavery was a given. when repression was normal and accepted. when skin color meant you were treated like an animal, before you were treated like a human being. it took over 300 hundred years of slavery to get to a place now in 2009 where maybe we can start looking beyond racial stereotyping, and beyond discrimination. maybe the kids that are growing up today, will see a dark skinned president and not automatically view him as "the first black president" but as a powerful communicator and leader. you cannot put a value to that kind of dynamic shift. our world is full of tribal thinking, and someone like obama is challenging that thinking.

i don't think you'll find any obama supporter that would say that he's perfect, but after the last 8 years of bullshit, any candidate is a step forward. Dr King would definitely not have approved of everything Obama stands for, but 1960 and 2009 are worlds apart any way you look at it. We live in a world of geopolitics, and globalization now.

it's an impossible job ahead of him and those quick to use the race card/change/hope against him in these first few days miss the most powerful part of his success. a new paradigm inside an old archaic power structure.

seckle wrote:it took over 300 hundred years of slavery to get to a place now in 2009 where maybe we can start looking beyond racial stereotyping, and beyond discrimination.

Can we? I think that I personally always could look beyond that, but what do I know... all I can say is that I'm not bigging him up for breaking some racial barrier. The entire premise of "equality" is lost when we do that. Ok, he happens to be black and he's the first one to do it. He's also one of a handful that has attempted to do it. Do you think maybe that might have the slightest bit of a chance of being one of the deciding factors?

Race is either a big deal or it isn't a big deal... you say that his race shouldn't be a big deal and we should vote for him on the basis of his policy. I say race shouldn't be a big deal and that we shouldn't vote for him on the basis of his policy. So we both agree that his race shouldn't be a big deal in politics. Everyone should be judged equally. I am treating him just like every President that came before him, on the basis of what I deem to be positive and negative policy decisions. Equally. Just like I would if any Republican, Democratic or Independent person won. Just like I'm supposed to as a responsible Patriotic American, I'm questioning every decision that my employees make.

Illegal wiretapping? Ok, it's cool.. Bush and Clinton did it, we should excuse it if Obama allows it to happen then. There is precedent after all. And bombing Pakistan and Iraq and Afghanistan is fine, because OTHER PRESIDENTS SUCKED. We shouldn't question anything, because Obama shouldn't be held to a higher standard than we have held our previous failures to? C'mon man, I know you don't believe that shit. When Obama makes mistakes he should be held accountable. If he breaks the law, he should be held accountable. If he breaks his promises or doesn't live up to the expectations that he built himself up to fail at achieving, he should be held accountable and we should say something. Every single day, this is our duty... to question.

In short: Obama has made promises and already has begun to break those promises. When history looks back and sees our first President of color, he's going to be known for breaking his campaign promises and ignoring the oath he took(twice) to the constitution. He's not immediately calling for hearings and answers, when his entire job description is to call for hearings and answers and support and defend the Constitution.

November 5th - January 20th at Noon EST was his window of Benefit of the Doubt. That shit is over. The moment he took the oath of office and became the legitimate elected President of the United States, that honeymoon was over. He deserves no benefit of the doubt, he deserves no special treatment. He deserves no free pass. He deserves oversight and a firm wrap on the wrist every time he steps out of line. And if he doesn't uphold his oath, just like the last piece of trash in the White House, he deserves to do a perp walk. I just find the argument that we should give Obama special treatment or ignore his fuckups on the basis of how historic November 4th was, but we shouldn't hold his skin color negatively against him is kindof shit. It's either an issue or it isn't, it can't be both ways.

I say it shouldn't be an issue, it sounds like you are saying it shouldn't be an issue unless we question his policies, and then it's "oh, but he's black... don't forget he's black... and the first black... and and and..."

We're not the ones using his race as an issue here. We're treating him with the same amount of earned skepticism that every President deserves. You don't get elected in this country without selling your soul to corporate interests. He got elected. That alone is a good reason to scrutinize his every move, in my estimation.

And lastly... how many black men have run seriously for President? Like 5-10?

Let's say there have been 5 serious, establishment candidates for President. Obama represents 20% of those 5. Pretty good damn odds if you ask me. How many women have ran and lost? How many openly gay people have run and lost? How many Hispanic people have run and lost? Something tells me if Hillary won, there wouldn't be the love fest for her, and nobody would be arguing when someone questioned her policies. Try and look past the fact that Obama is your guy, the leader of your party, etc. Try and see it from my perspective for a moment. I don't want a white, black, asian, mexican, male, female, straight, homosexual President. I want a GOOD President. I don't give a fuck what they look like or the letter next to their name, or who they fuck or how... I only care if they have good policies and I will question every single one, even if I agree with them 99% of the time. If there is something I find wrong with their policies I will be the loudest detractor. If they do something right, I will be the loudest supporter. No matter who it is or if I voted for them. My only interest is in doing what is right for myself, my family, my community and my country.

Would it be equally as exciting for you if Condoleeza Rice was President? Something tells me no. But wouldn't it be equally as Historic, if not twice as Historic? That doesn't mean her policies amount to more than a bedpan full of fecal matter, know what I mean?

It's just very naive to think he came on a black horse and defeated the system that killed jfk and made bush president twice, among many others
this kind of messianic batman doesn't exist in real world

i think we need a ref...