paulsol wrote:
gbaji wrote:
paulsol wrote:
WTF is really going on here?
You forgot option C: Etc...
No, I didn't forget. But I'm not so naive as to think that there is any real difference in the foreign policy of Bush or Obama either. Sure Obamas rhetoric
appears to be less belligerent than Bush's were, but the uninterrupted continuation of foreign policy, and the actual escalation in real terms, speak far louder than his words.
Er? I'm not sure what that has to do with option "C". You're surprised that a politician who was promising things he clearly couldn't deliver then actually failed to deliver? Shocking! Oh wait! Some of us predicted this two years ago and warned about it.
Quote:
Your efforts to 'blame' Obama for the current excesses in the 'security' industry completely fail to take into account the ongoing efforts of administrations for many years, to contain and control the population.
But Obama is the one doing it right now, isn't he? Should I be pointing the finger at someone who *isn't* sitting in the Oval office running things while this is happening? That would be a bit strange, to say the least.
Quote:
The fact that these efforts are becoming ever more succesful, ever more obious, whilst actually being welcomed by the very people they are controlling is a sign of the sophistication of the methods being used as well as the gullibility, and lack of interest in the world around them, of those being controlled.
But they aren't being welcomed by everyone, are they? We're in a thread in which the title dismisses and belittles those who are shouting a warning about this very thing. So perhaps you should be focusing your attention on those who are so welcoming of their overlords that they'll attack anyone who questions what they are doing instead of painting this as some bizarre indictment of the previous administrations foreign policy.
This has nothing to do with the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. It has to do with the Democrats using the issue of security to funnel money to a major contributor to their party. I thought I'd already explained this.
Quote:
As long as the citizens are busy blaming each other for the predicament that they find themselves in, as well as allowing themselves to be fed the nonsense that the threat to their freedoms is an external one, the people who are actually to blame, on both sides of the apparent political divide, are free to carry on with their mutually agreed agendas.
Until we all stop participating in the 'games' that the likes of Obama/Bush/Clinton/Blair/Major/Aznar/Putin (and all the others) and their Governments like to play then we have no one to blame but ourselves for the sorry state we find ourselves in.
And yet, you've consistently been one of the loudest voices in that blame game in the past. Which makes me suspect that your insistence that we not place blame now has more to do with side picking than with any sort of consistent position on the issue. When you're all about blame while conservatives are in power, and then suddenly turn to the "it just isn't productive to blame people" position when liberals take control, it's a bit hard for me to take you at your word.
Surely, you see that? It rings just as false as Democrats ignoring the deficit entirely until after they're done spending money on all the things they want and then suddenly switching to the need to balance the budget. It's a lie. You're fine with blame when it's the other side getting blamed, but then insist that we take the high road when it's someone you agree with ideologically. Sorry, but that's more than a little ridiculous.
