A lot of liberals believe that Obama will try to make this world a better place, end the war and poverty. A lot of conservatives think the same way about Obama - except they are more skeptical about his chances, since they believe he is a naive spoilt brat.
I believe both of these groups are wrong. Firstly, Obama's main desire is power. The more power he gets, the more he wants. Everything he does should be analysed from a simple perspective - does his action increase his power? Why does Obama need pork-filled bills, when he had promised the entire nation that he would veto them? It's simple, pork works as a bribe to congressmen, and part of the cost surely goes back in the coffers of the democrat party. So, the pork must continue - it's an essential part of staying in power.
As for the republican misgivings about Obama - these two are misdirected. Obama may be quite ignorant of history and economics, but he is far from being naive. Obama's grew up in the jungles of Chicago, his milk was Chicago corruption, his teachers were Bill Ayers, rev.Wright, Tony Rezko and Blagoyevich. This guy is far from being naive. If anything, he does not take shit from no one - since it is the only way to survive in Chicago. So lets be clear on this one - Obama is not being driven by princess Nancy or prince Hairy, Obama is his own man. The porkulus bills keep coming because Obama needs them.
So, what does this tell us about the future? Well, if anything, Obama reminds me of a Latin American or a Middle Eastern petty dictator. What Obama needs is the continuation of the drama - and not just continuation, it has to get worse, much worse, so hecould mobilize the masses. The old doses of Obama-drug are wearing out, so he needs a stronger drug. What did this man plan for us?
If I have to guess - Obama planned a large war. How, why? Well, lets me answer the second one first. FDR was saved from being considered a failed president by the WW2. Clearly, FDR did not cause the WW2, but the days are different today. I have a strong suspicion that Obama's pathetic foreign policy is indeed designed to snicker US enemies into attacking our nation. And what invites the war better than perceived weakness and stupidity? Right now, Obama-Clinton foreign policy is amazingly pathetic - from giving a billion dollars to Hamas to felating the Putin's regime and insulting Great Britain. If anything, Obama from Chicago understands the dangers of this stupidity - which makes me think he does it on purpose.
To summarize this - what can we expect in the next 4 years? I expect US to get involved in a large conflict. Will be it an war with nuclear Pakistan? A confrontation with Iran? Lets not forget the unburied Russian monster and a possibility of a new war in Caucasus or Eastern Europe. North Korea is on the brink of declaring war on the South Korea and Japan. Will something drastic happen in the Americas - be it Mexico, Cuba, Venesuela? Will China get fed up with Obama's pathetic economic policy and the loss of trillion in the US market and invade Taiwan to redirect their own populace? All of that is on the table, and OBama's policies make any of these events very likely.
Obama is not naive about foreign policy - the man must have a very good instincts on what makes fascist dictators and thugs tick. And surely he will use this knowledge to push America into a big war, and make himself a historic figure. And while we are at it - where is Osama ben Laden? Could he be working on a nuclear deal with North Korea, Pakistan and Iran? Is a mega-terrorist attack likely in the next 4 years?
All of us who follow politics remember that Obama promised to create a government civilian force - which will rival the military in size and funding. Should we expect a draft, which will cover all or nearly all of the population? I won't be surpised if it will.
American conservatives must be super-attentive to what Obama is doing now, and they must emphasize that his foreign policy makes the new war very likely. If American people understand the conservative argument, it could well be that a new Pearl Harbour attack will result not only in the outpouring of patriotism, but also in mass demonstrations in American streets demanding for Obama's resignation.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Debating a liberal - it's fun if you know which buttons to push
A few weeks ago I had a distinct pleasure of having a very classical debate with a liberal. Boy, was it fun?! We drank beer, we had shots of vodka and we debated the finer points of liberalist ideology. Anyway, lets not prolong the introduction and get to the main dish.
The debate started when my liberal acquaintance proudly announced that Canadians are better people than Americans because the Canucks are more socially conscientious. What a delight! As they say at the beginning of a boxing match – “Lets rumble!” So, I asked him – if a nation is suffering under a murderous repressive regime, or a country is facing a natural disaster – do we see the people shouting on the streets –where are the Canadians to help us? When the situations are dire, and urgent help is required to save millions of lives – has anyone, ever, asked – I wonder when the Canadians are coming to save us? Has a single fascist dictator ever pondered whether his murderous rule over the enslaved people may come to an abrupt end because those pesky Canadians would see to it?!
My liberal friend explained that Canada is, alas, not very wealthy or powerful, and they cannot afford to build planes or ships that could carry millions of tones of food and medical drugs to help the starving nations. And their military is a joke due to their general pacifism, so no one is expecting Canadians to rush in to depose a dictator or stop genocide or rescue millions of people from starvation. I guess it’s an all essential part of the “social conscience” of theirs – I replied, that makes them utterly unable to do anything useful in any quantifiable measure, so that the world could notice them. They are too busy feeling good about themselves to actually do something good for the mankind.
From this point, the debate for some reason moved on to the wealth creation and how it should be “fairly divided” between the people. My liberal friend quickly asserted that we must help each other, since, as the liberal cliché goes – we are our brother’s keeper. That by itself is a laughing issue for anyone who likes Woody Allen's movies and remembers “Love and Death” as much as I do. The reply to this meanless cliche is well-known, and all the non-initiated can read it in my Note 1 in the reference section.
A few minutes later my liberal opponent confessed to me that he believed that no one should earn more than 1 million dollars a year (he was fuzzy on the exact sum, but it fluctuated from 1 million dollars to 2 million dollars). As he proudly said – no man’s labor is worth that much. “No man’s?” – I asked. “No man's work is worth that much”, he confirmed. For some time I was a tad startled since I rarely see Americans who believe in such nonsense. Granted, my liberal friend surely made this conclusion based on his quite limited acquitance with talented men (and women - see Note 2) – and who can blame him if in his whole life he never saw anyone of high intelligence – heck, even median intelligence would suffice. I guess I was a bright spot in his life, which he should cherish for the end of his pathetic life – although he surely was too dull to recognize this.
I decided to move slowly from this point. I did not want to turn upside down the apple cart the way Mark Twain’s hero in “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court” did with the illiterate peasants after he failed to explain to them the difference between the real wage and the nominal wage. My liberal friend unhesitatingly told me that a man who invented a cure for cancer did not deserve 1 million dollars, nor did the best sportsman or an artist. After all, he said, so many people were poor in America, was it fair when someone had so much more than others? It was not relevant to him that people would voluntarily pay for the services or goods – it did not matter in the least that all transactions were voluntary.
I let him wallow in his moral supremacy for about 10 more minutes (these were the longest 10 minutes in my life), until I decided it was the right time to spring on him the Hayek's argument (see Note 3 for comments). I said to him: "Pray tell me, if you believe you have the moral right to decide the limits on how much the most fruitful, ingenious and successful American inventor may earn – do you believe that a poor goat shepherd in Afghanistan has a moral right to claim same authority over you? Does he not deserve the right to limit YOUR life style and your salary?”. These questions clearly embarrassed the young lad. He immediately replied that his money belonged to him, and that no stinking shepherd from an Afghan shithole had a right to decide what he deserved to own. But it was clear even to him that there was some contradiction in his position – even though it was difficult to pinpoint the exact source of the fallacy in his argument. It seemed to me that what was fair for him should also be also fair for a shepherd – even from the Afghan shithole. His only remaining defense (which he used after some considerable hesitation) was to fall back to nationalism and claim that he owed nothing to a person in a far away Afghanistan. Somehow, his self-professed brotherly love and care immediately disappeared from his worldview when he was faced with a distinct possibility that some illiterate peasant would be allowed to make claims on the fruits of his labor. In other words, his liberal passions were unable to cross the national borders...
Needless to say I felt quite satisfied – and I decided to share this uplifting story with y'all. I hope this debate will serve as a nice tutorial for any aspiring conservative or libertarian wishing to debate a liberal. That's how it's done. Make them feel bad about themselves - using their own weapons.
Note 1
In the movie “Love and Death”, Woody Allen is a Russian, who lives in a small village in the 1800s. At some point, the village finds out about the impending war between Russia and France and it makes the whole village, including his brother Ivan very happy All people in the village gladly volunteer to be in the front lines – that is everyone except Woody Allen. The following dialogue ensues between Woody Allen and the village elders who trying to persuade him to be more patriotic and join the campaign.
-What are you going to do when the French soldiers rape your sister?
-I don't have one.
-That's no answer.
-They won't rape lvan. They'd throw up.
Following this script I replied to my liberal friend that I don’t have a brother when he told me about my duty to be my brother’s keeper. For some reason, he too believed this was not an answer. BTW, don’t try to be a smart-ass and tell me that the term “brother’s keeper” originated in Torah. Yes, it did, but if you read the Torah, it refers to a very different matter.
Note 2
The famous phrase man or woman, of course, comes from the Monty Python’s immortal “Life of Brian”. Here is the actual quote:
FRANCIS
I think Judith's point of view is valid here, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man ...
STAN Or woman.
FRANCIS Or woman ... to rid himself ...
STAN Or herself.
REG Or herself. Agreed. Thank you, brother.
STAN Or sister.
FRANCIS Thank you, brother. Or sister. Where was I?
REG I thought you'd finished.
FRANCIS Oh, did I? Right.
REG Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man ...
STAN Or woman.
REG Why don't you shut up about women, Stan, you're putting us off.
Note 3
This argument comes from the Hayek’s famous book “The Road to Serfdom”. In one of the chapters, Hayek convincingly explains why socialists eventually become nationalists. After all, they cannot consistently promote the idea of equality and spreading the wealth in their country – while ignoring the equally fair claims from the poverty stricken countries in Africa. Aren’t poor working folks in Afghanistan just as deserving of the wealth of American industrialists as a street bum in San Francisco?
The debate started when my liberal acquaintance proudly announced that Canadians are better people than Americans because the Canucks are more socially conscientious. What a delight! As they say at the beginning of a boxing match – “Lets rumble!” So, I asked him – if a nation is suffering under a murderous repressive regime, or a country is facing a natural disaster – do we see the people shouting on the streets –where are the Canadians to help us? When the situations are dire, and urgent help is required to save millions of lives – has anyone, ever, asked – I wonder when the Canadians are coming to save us? Has a single fascist dictator ever pondered whether his murderous rule over the enslaved people may come to an abrupt end because those pesky Canadians would see to it?!
My liberal friend explained that Canada is, alas, not very wealthy or powerful, and they cannot afford to build planes or ships that could carry millions of tones of food and medical drugs to help the starving nations. And their military is a joke due to their general pacifism, so no one is expecting Canadians to rush in to depose a dictator or stop genocide or rescue millions of people from starvation. I guess it’s an all essential part of the “social conscience” of theirs – I replied, that makes them utterly unable to do anything useful in any quantifiable measure, so that the world could notice them. They are too busy feeling good about themselves to actually do something good for the mankind.
From this point, the debate for some reason moved on to the wealth creation and how it should be “fairly divided” between the people. My liberal friend quickly asserted that we must help each other, since, as the liberal cliché goes – we are our brother’s keeper. That by itself is a laughing issue for anyone who likes Woody Allen's movies and remembers “Love and Death” as much as I do. The reply to this meanless cliche is well-known, and all the non-initiated can read it in my Note 1 in the reference section.
A few minutes later my liberal opponent confessed to me that he believed that no one should earn more than 1 million dollars a year (he was fuzzy on the exact sum, but it fluctuated from 1 million dollars to 2 million dollars). As he proudly said – no man’s labor is worth that much. “No man’s?” – I asked. “No man's work is worth that much”, he confirmed. For some time I was a tad startled since I rarely see Americans who believe in such nonsense. Granted, my liberal friend surely made this conclusion based on his quite limited acquitance with talented men (and women - see Note 2) – and who can blame him if in his whole life he never saw anyone of high intelligence – heck, even median intelligence would suffice. I guess I was a bright spot in his life, which he should cherish for the end of his pathetic life – although he surely was too dull to recognize this.
I decided to move slowly from this point. I did not want to turn upside down the apple cart the way Mark Twain’s hero in “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court” did with the illiterate peasants after he failed to explain to them the difference between the real wage and the nominal wage. My liberal friend unhesitatingly told me that a man who invented a cure for cancer did not deserve 1 million dollars, nor did the best sportsman or an artist. After all, he said, so many people were poor in America, was it fair when someone had so much more than others? It was not relevant to him that people would voluntarily pay for the services or goods – it did not matter in the least that all transactions were voluntary.
I let him wallow in his moral supremacy for about 10 more minutes (these were the longest 10 minutes in my life), until I decided it was the right time to spring on him the Hayek's argument (see Note 3 for comments). I said to him: "Pray tell me, if you believe you have the moral right to decide the limits on how much the most fruitful, ingenious and successful American inventor may earn – do you believe that a poor goat shepherd in Afghanistan has a moral right to claim same authority over you? Does he not deserve the right to limit YOUR life style and your salary?”. These questions clearly embarrassed the young lad. He immediately replied that his money belonged to him, and that no stinking shepherd from an Afghan shithole had a right to decide what he deserved to own. But it was clear even to him that there was some contradiction in his position – even though it was difficult to pinpoint the exact source of the fallacy in his argument. It seemed to me that what was fair for him should also be also fair for a shepherd – even from the Afghan shithole. His only remaining defense (which he used after some considerable hesitation) was to fall back to nationalism and claim that he owed nothing to a person in a far away Afghanistan. Somehow, his self-professed brotherly love and care immediately disappeared from his worldview when he was faced with a distinct possibility that some illiterate peasant would be allowed to make claims on the fruits of his labor. In other words, his liberal passions were unable to cross the national borders...
Needless to say I felt quite satisfied – and I decided to share this uplifting story with y'all. I hope this debate will serve as a nice tutorial for any aspiring conservative or libertarian wishing to debate a liberal. That's how it's done. Make them feel bad about themselves - using their own weapons.
Note 1
In the movie “Love and Death”, Woody Allen is a Russian, who lives in a small village in the 1800s. At some point, the village finds out about the impending war between Russia and France and it makes the whole village, including his brother Ivan very happy All people in the village gladly volunteer to be in the front lines – that is everyone except Woody Allen. The following dialogue ensues between Woody Allen and the village elders who trying to persuade him to be more patriotic and join the campaign.
-What are you going to do when the French soldiers rape your sister?
-I don't have one.
-That's no answer.
-They won't rape lvan. They'd throw up.
Following this script I replied to my liberal friend that I don’t have a brother when he told me about my duty to be my brother’s keeper. For some reason, he too believed this was not an answer. BTW, don’t try to be a smart-ass and tell me that the term “brother’s keeper” originated in Torah. Yes, it did, but if you read the Torah, it refers to a very different matter.
Note 2
The famous phrase man or woman, of course, comes from the Monty Python’s immortal “Life of Brian”. Here is the actual quote:
FRANCIS
I think Judith's point of view is valid here, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man ...
STAN Or woman.
FRANCIS Or woman ... to rid himself ...
STAN Or herself.
REG Or herself. Agreed. Thank you, brother.
STAN Or sister.
FRANCIS Thank you, brother. Or sister. Where was I?
REG I thought you'd finished.
FRANCIS Oh, did I? Right.
REG Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man ...
STAN Or woman.
REG Why don't you shut up about women, Stan, you're putting us off.
Note 3
This argument comes from the Hayek’s famous book “The Road to Serfdom”. In one of the chapters, Hayek convincingly explains why socialists eventually become nationalists. After all, they cannot consistently promote the idea of equality and spreading the wealth in their country – while ignoring the equally fair claims from the poverty stricken countries in Africa. Aren’t poor working folks in Afghanistan just as deserving of the wealth of American industrialists as a street bum in San Francisco?
I keep hearing that Obama voters...
are smart, educated and energetic. It is often said that the wealthy people overwhelmingly voted for president Obama because they were impressed with his economic ideas.
This puzzles me a bit - who is then withdrawing their money from the stock market? What people discard Obama speeches about the strength of our stocks, and instead follow one simple slogan - "Sell, Sell, Sell"? It's a tad confusing - an obvious contradition between what we hear from the media, and what we observe in the market. Someone is lying here. Who could it be?
This puzzles me a bit - who is then withdrawing their money from the stock market? What people discard Obama speeches about the strength of our stocks, and instead follow one simple slogan - "Sell, Sell, Sell"? It's a tad confusing - an obvious contradition between what we hear from the media, and what we observe in the market. Someone is lying here. Who could it be?
A nice quote Mark Twain...
"...the citizen who thinks he sees that the commonwealth's political clothes are worn out, and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal; he is a traitor. That he may be the only one who thinks he sees this decay, does not excuse him; it is his duty to agitate anyway, and it is the duty of the others to vote him down if they do not see the matter as he does. "
It's an interesting question...
President Obama announced this week that projects funded by the so-called stimulus bill will receive a special emblem so the people will be able to recognize the effects of the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act."
I am curious if he intends to do the same with our federal tax returns. Would a taxpayer be able to trace how much of the federal taxes withholden from him is paying for the short and long term cost of the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act"?
I am curious if he intends to do the same with our federal tax returns. Would a taxpayer be able to trace how much of the federal taxes withholden from him is paying for the short and long term cost of the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act"?
Friday, March 6, 2009
Obama is riding the tiger...
Right now comrade Obama is riding the tiger. A true leftist politician must constantly change the subject, introduce new policies and keep the country always in the state of crisis - real or imaginary. It's a classical behaviour of a person who is diverting your attention - any thief worthy of his salt does same thing. If Obama stops for a few months and let the people assess what he is doing and how much he is harming the economy - his political power will dissipate. I personally believed that his next big thing will either will be an attack on the media, a big war or an big union legislation. Here is a link to my article back in February 14th.
It seems that Obama is doing the combination of three moves - he is now pushing for a debate on the health care (as if this is going to solve the crisis that is gripping the countries with and without the government run medical care), his friends are moving in Fairness Doctrine and they are reviving the idea about union card check.
I believe US will either provoke or enter voluntarily a big war within Obama's first term. It will either be Iran, North Korea, China or (less likely) some country in Africa and Latin America. Won't be surprised to see an escalation in Afghanistan and/or Iraq - since both could allow Obama invoke the name "Bush" when explaining what is happening there.
It seems that Obama is doing the combination of three moves - he is now pushing for a debate on the health care (as if this is going to solve the crisis that is gripping the countries with and without the government run medical care), his friends are moving in Fairness Doctrine and they are reviving the idea about union card check.
I believe US will either provoke or enter voluntarily a big war within Obama's first term. It will either be Iran, North Korea, China or (less likely) some country in Africa and Latin America. Won't be surprised to see an escalation in Afghanistan and/or Iraq - since both could allow Obama invoke the name "Bush" when explaining what is happening there.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
I wrote this when Obama was innagurated
Да, Шариковы пришли к власти. Скоро в Америке будут Канадские налоги и Мексиканская коррупция. Ужас.
Привел сына в школу, а весь его детский сад собрался в коридоре, смотрят телевизор. Детишки машут Американскими флагами, учителя в трансе, несколько родителей стоят рядом, смотрят согласно кивают головами. На экран вылез главный Пахан. Начинает толкать речь за народ. Полный экстаз. Слезы, крики "браво". Я почуствовал, что если я еще минуту буду смотреть на этот верноподданической оргазм, то облюю весь детский сад к ебеням собачьим. Причем именно облюю, как обьяснял Веничка Ерофеев. Пришлось дать задний ход и ретироваться.
Когда я забирал сына из школы, он мне радостно рассказал, что учителя читали им рассказ про маленького мальчика Обаму, который хотел улучшил мир. Такой, понимаешь, курчавый мальчик, все, понимаешь, бля, за народ болеет, сука поганный. И как однако быстро эти пидарасы соорентировались - как будто всю жизнь в обкоме провели.
Бляди хуевы. Такую страну испохабить! Куда, спрашивается, податься простому еврею?!
Привел сына в школу, а весь его детский сад собрался в коридоре, смотрят телевизор. Детишки машут Американскими флагами, учителя в трансе, несколько родителей стоят рядом, смотрят согласно кивают головами. На экран вылез главный Пахан. Начинает толкать речь за народ. Полный экстаз. Слезы, крики "браво". Я почуствовал, что если я еще минуту буду смотреть на этот верноподданической оргазм, то облюю весь детский сад к ебеням собачьим. Причем именно облюю, как обьяснял Веничка Ерофеев. Пришлось дать задний ход и ретироваться.
Когда я забирал сына из школы, он мне радостно рассказал, что учителя читали им рассказ про маленького мальчика Обаму, который хотел улучшил мир. Такой, понимаешь, курчавый мальчик, все, понимаешь, бля, за народ болеет, сука поганный. И как однако быстро эти пидарасы соорентировались - как будто всю жизнь в обкоме провели.
Бляди хуевы. Такую страну испохабить! Куда, спрашивается, податься простому еврею?!
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Is Obama successful?
I've heard plenty of liberals in the media claiming that Obama was extremely successful - when he was able to push through a trillion dollar ACORN-stimulating pork-infested spending bill. Well, Rush wants Obama to fail. What's so unnatural when a well-known supporter of freedom wants a Che Gevara wannabe to fail?
Obama is America...
When Rush said that he wanted Obama to fail - liberal reactionaries immediately claimed that Rush wanted America to fail. And imagine those evil republicans are saying that libs have a personality cult - how dare question the Dear Leader? How dare they? Obama is America! America is Obama! Zeig Heil!
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Liberals love science...
Today I watched Robert Kennedy's Jr. speech on helping the environment. Of course, I did not watch the whole speech - I don't have an extreme case of insomnia. Anyway, poor chap was explaining how we have to use the renewable energy, and that this energy is effectively free, since we don't have to pay the Saudis for it. During his speech, this well-known liberal expert on energy, one of the most learned man of the liberal establishment proclaimed that we just to figure out the way to use the energy of electrons that strike our planet. I can only guess that this imbecile was talking about the solar energy, which as any right-wing ignoramuse like me knows is a ray of photons, not electrons.
Liberals indeed love science - but there is an apparent caveout - they never took the time of studying it.
Liberals indeed love science - but there is an apparent caveout - they never took the time of studying it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)