Breitbart was murdered because he had damning evidence on Obama

[DngrMse]

Second: The war on the Constitution started long before Obama. The Patriot Acts were huge assaults on the Constitution, and the majority of the people crying in their milk about Obama supported them, expanding them, and making them permanent. The Clinton Administration oversaw a slew of laws designed to curtail treedom on the internet, not the least of which was the DMCA and things like banning deCSS.h, and the ban on scary looking rifles was preposterous. It goes back very far.

Props for that. You're spot on. All recent presidents, with the help of their congress' chipped away at our constitution, and our rights.

[BooRadley]

Thanks. I'm not blind to the problems in the DNC, I understand they're bought and sold, and that the problem is deeply systemic. Even if I had personal respect for a Federal politician, the fact would remain that he cannot do business in DC unless he's a sell out.

It's been my experience that when extreme lefties resort to idiotic, and immature games like this, it's because they're afraid. They know, as do you, in the case of president Toonces, that his chances of winning a second term are rather bleak.

He'll probably win reelection. Elections aren't about detailed studies of policy decisions, they're about propagand and public image, and the GOP broke their system for both during the Bush Err. Liberals will either vote for Obama or vote for the Greens (or not vote), conservatives will either vote for Romney or vote for the LP (or not vote). Left-leaning moderates will vote for Obama. Right leaning moderates will probably vote for Romney, but they may vote Obama. Independents will vote for whoever has the best public image, which is Obama. "Undecideds", the people who wait until the weekend before voting and go for whoever puts out the best advertisements, will vote for whoever has the best ad campaign and propaganda blast in the last week, which will most likely be Obama.

Most of the attacks against Romney will be based on his flip-flopping painting him as untrustworthy and arrogant. The attacks on Obama will come of as racist and vindictive, which many of them will be, but it won't really matter. What will matter is what the average 'undecided' thinks of it when they see it, and the GOP will, as they always do, come out too harsh.

Also, a lot of left-leaning moderates who didn't vote for Obama last time because they were nervous about a black guy as president (just because they've never seen it, and people are afraid of things they're not familiar with), and yes, that's a real voting issue, have now had a chance to see Obama acting presidential. He'll probably pick up a lot of votes from people who might have otherwise voted for him last time.

And that's if Romney wins the nomination. In the unlikely event that Santorum does, then it will definitely be a landslide win for Obama. The only way the GOP can get a decisive win is if it goes to a floor fight and someone new gets the nomination, like Jeb (who may lose just because the Bush brandname is tainted) or that fat asshole Christie. Well, I'll hold by this unless something bizarre happens in the next 8 months, which isn't impossible.

Regardless of all of that, though, it won't be a devastating loss if Obama loses. I don't think he's a great President. I don't hate him as much as the genuine liberals do, but he's demonstrated that he isn't the hope-n-change that he promised. A less bad version of the same thing isn't a huge win, and a more plastic and pathetic version of the same thing won't be a huge loss. Rombama is going to do certain things, either way.

As far as the imitation of the rightwingers, that's just the way I see them. They all plug into this ridiculous echo-chamber of hysterical propaganda and then go vomit that crap up all over the internet. OMG OMBAZMA IS A MUSLAM TARRORIZEET or whatever. It's fucking retarded. It's also part of why the GOP is in such bad shape right now. They intentionally marketed their party to stupid people during teh Bush Admin, and now they're stuck with it.

FFS, they're claiming Rush is a victim of Fluke -- and they believe it. They genuinely don't understand why so many women are furious over it, or why it's damaging to the GOP. They'd have to turn of their AM Radio, turn off Fox, point their browsers away from newmax & town hall, stuff a sock in Coulters mouth, and actually think about it . . . and they're never going to do that.

[86Dùde]

It doesn't matter who is at the wheel of the sinking ship because they all serve the same people and it's definitely not "we the people". You really need to let go of this left vs right thing.

[BooRadley]

It doesn't matter who is at the wheel of the sinking ship because they all serve the same people and it's definitely not "we the people". You really need to let go of this left vs right thing.

There are minor differences in the parties, but the long-run and the important issues are the same regardless. In one case, union workers will be better off when the whole thing collapses, and in the other case, labor will be worse off when the whole thing collapses. Either way, though, the whole thing is going to collapse.

Both parties seem to know it, I think that's why both parties are aggressively pushing policy for massive scale crowd control, be it the Partiot Acts, the Defence Authorization, or even SOPA -- which may seem like a 'copy right' issue, but only in the same way the Patriot Acts seemed like a 'terrorist' issue. The PA was pushed to give the government the power to disappear 'terrorists', though it can, of course, be used against anyone. SOPA was to give the government a mechanism by which they could shut down network communications channels for 'pirates', though it can, of course, be used against anyone.

It's no doubt that people in power always want more power, but in the last 15 years, both parties have pushed policies in the guise of fighting drugs/gangs/terrorists/pirates/the boogieman/whatever, that coincidently give them mechanisms by which they can contain and control masses. Hell, the SF BART gave itself the power to disrupt cellular phone systems to dis coordinate protesters, and the Congress is working on legislation to make protesting a federal offence in some cases.

It's not either the Rs or the Ds pushing this shit, it's both parties, in a concentrated and focused way. I personally think they're afraid of the population, and if they are, there's got to be a reason.

[86Dùde]

Well, it sounds like you're no longer a sheep. Good for for you. Now you need to take what you know and put it other peoples faces and wake them the fuck up. It's probably too late and if it is they'll understand soon enough once the lights go out. Pretty soon we'll have two types of people in this country: People who are on government's shit list, and the people who aren't.

[BooRadley]

I've never been a Democrat. I voted LP in Florida in 2000. I did go for Kerry in 04, but that was kind of an extreme situation. Bush wasn't just corrupt, he was also sinfully incompetent.

I did vote Obama, but it was because he got an enormous amount of funding from direct donations, so I thought he might answer to the public if it's the public that bought him off. The logic is solid, I mean, they work for whoever pays for their campaigns, right? Turns out a lot of that direct donation was actually orchestrated funding from the Usual Suspects.

Just because I hated Bush doesn't mean I love Democrats. Anyone with half a brain hated Dubya.

[lily]

You're right, I'm not quite sure why I spelled it like that. And no, there is nothing inherently wrong with being divisive -that's how politics works, particularly in a polarised country like yours.

Archaix, listen to yourself. You are so stuck in the 'Democrat vs Republican' mindset that you are willing to bend over backwards to defend something that you ordinarily would never defend.

When you're the president of the UNITED States, being divisive - especially when it comes to something like race - is not something to defend.

In a country as diverse as the United States, with so many different races, religions, backgrounds, etc... A good leader is someone who brings people TOGETHER, and helps people to get along, not the other way around.

If someone (that you perceive to be) conservative, like Bush promoted divisiveness and caused groups to be hateful/angry or suspicious of each other, I would bet anything that you would not be here defending that and saying things like, "Divisiveness is not wrong."

Come on! I'm not saying it's the worst thing, I'm just saying let's not let partisanship cause us to be intellectually dishonest here.

So what evidence have you that there's a 'new world order'? While it'd be inaccurate to say presidents don't have help with forming opinions, the idea he's a puppet is childish and kabalistic and you should know better. Conservatives are little better than conspiracy theorists these days.

This is for a whole new thread. And I think you have just highlighted the biggest problem we're in right now. Too many people still don't see or believe this. Many don't know anything about it at all. THAT is why people keep playing the same old game of "our guy against theirs" every 4 years. This topic is not something that can be covered in one quick, nice neat little paragraph. But for now, you can watch a short video I made about 4 years ago that speaks to the problem we have now:

I've no doubt he's a patriot, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for thinking he's not. I'm sick of people (left and right, but mostly right) trying to paint the other side as unpatriotic, evil or deadly, and it calls into question your ability to call anyone 'divisive'.

This isn't politics anymore, it's a joke.

You're not paying attention, Archaix. I'm not the one promoting the "left vs right" false dichotomy. What you are not understanding is I have been saying (for years, now) that BOTH sides - so called "Republicans" and "Democrats" are deceiving the American people. Listen to what 86 has been saying. BOTH parties are sold out to powers that care not about left or right, Republican or Democrat. So when I say that Obama is not a patriot -unlike some others here - it has nothing to do with silly "Democrat vs Republican" partisanship or football mentality. Unlike some others posters here, I didn't think that Bush 1 or 2 were patriots either. They are internationalists.

So your above post proves that either you haven't read many of my posts on this topic, or you are just not comprehending, due to being stuck in that same mindset of D vs R.

[86Dùde]

I've never been a Democrat. I voted LP in Florida in 2000. I did go for Kerry in 04, but that was kind of an extreme situation. Bush wasn't just corrupt, he was also sinfully incompetent.

I did vote Obama, but it was because he got an enormous amount of funding from direct donations, so I thought he might answer to the public if it's the public that bought him off. The logic is solid, I mean, they work for whoever pays for their campaigns, right? Turns out a lot of that direct donation was actually orchestrated funding from the Usual Suspects.

Just because I hated Bush doesn't mean I love Democrats. Anyone with half a brain hated Dubya.

Welcome to the movement for lack of a better word. Movement=those who understand how things really are.

[Archaix]

Archaix, listen to yourself. You are so stuck in the 'Democrat vs Republican' mindset that you are willing to bend over backwards to defend something that you ordinarily would never defend...When you're the president of the UNITED States, being divisive - especially when it comes to something like race - is not something to defend...In a country as diverse as the United States, with so many different races, religions, backgrounds, etc... A good leader is someone who brings people TOGETHER, and helps people to get along, not the other way around...This is for a whole new thread. And I think you have just highlighted the biggest problem we're in right now. Too many people still don't see or believe this. Many don't know anything about it at all. THAT is why people keep playing the same old game of "our guy against theirs" every 4 years. This topic is not something that can be covered in one quick, nice neat little paragraph. But for now, you can watch a short video I made about 4 years ago that speaks to the problem we have now...You're not paying attention, Archaix. I'm not the one promoting the "left vs right" false dichotomy... when I say that Obama is not a patriot -unlike some others here - it has nothing to do with silly "Democrat vs Republican" partisanship or football mentality. Unlike some others posters here, I didn't think that Bush 1 or 2 were patriots either. They are internationalists

The left-right spectrum is vague. It's supposed to be. It's a rough guide to political positions and it's not absolute. All in all, on the left-right spectrum, where do you think your leading parties stand? Both are are enthusiastic capitalists, both free marketeers (yes, really!), both have contributed to the war on terror, both have alienated Palestinians and supported Israelis. They're both right-wing, although at a stretch the Democrats could be centrist.

So how humiliating must it be, then, for all the left-wingers in your country to have to support the least-bad option, the last credible group of politicians there is. Any sensible political system would have left Obama vulnerable to the left, but instead they have to put their weight behind a timid creature that barely raises a hand to the dangerously insane, anti-intellectual, modern American right. Any socialists out there right now must be increasingly furious with every passing day when the slightest Democratic wheeze gets labelled 'socialist', when they themselves are compared to fascists, racists, and (using your own word) 'traitors'. Imagine their disgust, not to mention mine, if they ever read your comment about Bush 1 and 2 being 'internationalists', a socialist concept that your impractical political framework thinks can be applied to anyone who even glances at the world outside. And while I think they were wrong on almost everything, I would never have argued that they were not in some, perhaps small way motivated by patriotism.

You've said Obama is divisive on race. How is he in any way divisive on race? You must have forgotten that it's you and the rest of the right that has brought up Bell, like you all brought up his old pastor -and yet you've not even bothered to tell me how critical race theory is any way racist.

Neglecting to do even this minor task, you mention several times how left and right is a false dichotomy, presumably putting in it's place your own 'big-small government' spectrum. As I pointed out in a 302Ritz thread last month, “[The recent use of that spectrum] also... fails to analyse the weaknesses of this view: communism and fascism had completely different states in terms of size, purpose and goal, and in fact a more sensible assessment would be that it’s not how big it is, it’s what you do with it that matters (to quote an old adage). The idea that more government = less freedom is an assumption, not a fact, and one that is controversial.” It's both this, the race issue and the recent wave of attacks on students and universities that I'd cite as evidence that the modern American right really is anti-intellect, and also why I feel it is you and the rest of the right that is intellectually dishonest.

But I take your point on political binarism in your country, which also effects my country. I get that, to a degree. I also think it's too important an issue to be sullied with simplistic, fear-mongering, government-hating New World Order talk -and I also think it hamstrings the left in America far more than it does the right, like I said at the start.

I suggest you read this carefully, think about your own positions a bit more and then decide who needs to comprehend more of whom.

[optimus]

There is no left-right "false dichotomy." It's very real. There ARE differences between right and left leaning folks, clear, measurable differences.

I do think there is a somewhat of a false dichotomy between the Republican and Democrat parties. They're different, but not that different.

[BooRadley]

Exactly. What "the left" wants is very different from what "the right" wants. What the Republicans do is slightly different from what the Democrats do. Admittedly, "the left" in America is very very small, the actual leftists have no representation. What the right-wingers call "zOMG LEFTISTS EXTREMISTS" are actually moderates, or even slightly right -- they just view anything less than fascist theocracy as being outright communism. That's because they're insane, not because there's no difference between left and right.

[86Dùde]

There is no left-right "false dichotomy." It's very real. There ARE differences between right and left leaning folks, clear, measurable differences.

I do think there is a somewhat of a false dichotomy between the Republican and Democrat parties. They're different, but not that different.

You're right, but what doesn't change when the torch is passed is the assault on individual liberty, absolute disregard for constitution and the unending wars. That doesn't change. When we say that they're the same that is really what we're speaking about.

[lily]

You're right, but what doesn't change when the torch is passed is the assault on individual liberty, absolute disregard for constitution and the unending wars. That doesn't change. When we say that they're the same that is really what we're speaking about.

THANK YOU. Of course there are major differences between the left and the right, if we're talking about actual political ideas, and the people of this country. That wasn't the point.

The phrase "left-right false dichotomy" is in reference to the situation we're actually in. The people at the highest levels don't care about those divisions. They only care about maintaining power, money and control. The globalist oligarchs with the real power control both political parties, and THAT is the problem. It doesn't matter if there's a Dem or Republican in office, we're still heading in the same direction. Our government is getting out of control, our freedom and civil liberties are being systematically stripped away, the middle class is shrinking, and we're moving towards global government, because that's the end goal for these criminals in power.

So in THAT sense, the 'republican vs democrat' or 'left vs right' mentality is useless.... if anything, it's more of an up-down thing.

[lily]

The left-right spectrum is vague. It's supposed to be. It's a rough guide to political positions and it's not absolute. All in all, on the left-right spectrum, where do you think your leading parties stand? Both are are enthusiastic capitalists, both free marketeers (yes, really!), both have contributed to the war on terror, both have alienated Palestinians and supported Israelis. They're both right-wing, although at a stretch the Democrats could be centrist.

Absolutely wrong. I know I've said this a thousand times on other threads, but please read the book, 'The Creature from Jekyll Island' by the same guy in the video I posted (that I get the feeling wasn't watched by many here).

The problem is, the unholy union between big business and government. The system is set up in a way that is unnatural and unfair. It's manipulated and controlled. You can call it corporatism, or a type of fascism...but it is certainly NOT the free market....it goes against the true free market. Read that book I mentioned. It goes over all of this.

So how humiliating must it be, then, for all the left-wingers in your country to have to support the least-bad option, the last credible group of politicians there is. Any sensible political system would have left Obama vulnerable to the left, but instead they have to put their weight behind a timid creature that barely raises a hand to the dangerously insane, anti-intellectual, modern American right. Any socialists out there right now must be increasingly furious with every passing day when the slightest Democratic wheeze gets labelled 'socialist', when they themselves are compared to fascists, racists, and (using your own word) 'traitors'. Imagine their disgust, not to mention mine, if they ever read your comment about Bush 1 and 2 being 'internationalists', a socialist concept that your impractical political framework thinks can be applied to anyone who even glances at the world outside. And while I think they were wrong on almost everything, I would never have argued that they were not in some, perhaps small way motivated by patriotism.

I think you're misunderstanding my use of the word globalists, or internationalists. I'm talking about people who believe in world government. As opposed to nation-states. Are you saying global government is a socialist concept? Whatever it is, it's very bad news, to put it mildly. But that's a whole other topic.

You've said Obama is divisive on race. How is he in any way divisive on race? You must have forgotten that it's you and the rest of the right that has brought up Bell, like you all brought up his old pastor -and yet you've not even bothered to tell me how critical race theory is any way racist.

Sigh. Once again, you're not reading very carefully or understanding what is being written. Let's re-cap here.

Boo brought up the video of Obama hugging his college professor who has been called a "radical" because of his controversial ideas.

In post #6, Boo said, "it's unlikely to change a single vote, and it only makes Obama seem more authentic because you can see him developing his style when he was a college kid."

I then replied to Boo, and asked, "Can you elaborate there? Assuming that wasn't sarcasm, are you saying that he was just experimenting with those divisive/racist Marxist ideas and no longer believes in them?"

(Notice, we were talking about Obama in his PAST.)

Then you chimed in, and said, "There's nothing wrong with something being 'diversive'" - Which I corrected, because there's a big difference between "diversive" (which isn't even a word as far as i know) and "divisive" .

Then YOU acknowledged your misreading, but then said, "....And no, there is nothing inherently wrong with being divisive -that's how politics works, particularly in a polarised country like yours."

To which I replied to in post 27. So, we were talking about the morality of divisiveness in general, and whether or not it is good or appropriate for a president to be divisive.

As you can see, that was based on my earlier question to Boo about whether Obama was simply experimenting with that radical ideology in college, or whether that has developed into what he is today.

So to sum all that up: I never said "Obama is divisive" - the discussion was based on the question of whether Obama's past friendship and admiration of the radical guy was something he adopted or not.

MAN! I can't believe I actually spelled all that out. I must be in a very patient mood right now. But I'm sorry, I hate when people misunderstand posts or add their own words to something that others didn't say.

Neglecting to do even this minor task, you mention several times how left and right is a false dichotomy, presumably putting in it's place your own 'big-small government' spectrum. As I pointed out in a 302Ritz thread last month, “[The recent use of that spectrum] also... fails to analyse the weaknesses of this view: communism and fascism had completely different states in terms of size, purpose and goal, and in fact a more sensible assessment would be that it’s not how big it is, it’s what you do with it that matters (to quote an old adage). The idea that more government = less freedom is an assumption, not a fact, and one that is controversial.” It's both this, the race issue and the recent wave of attacks on students and universities that I'd cite as evidence that the modern American right really is anti-intellect, and also why I feel it is you and the rest of the right that is intellectually dishonest.

But I take your point on political binarism in your country, which also effects my country. I get that, to a degree. I also think it's too important an issue to be sullied with simplistic, fear-mongering, government-hating New World Order talk -and I also think it hamstrings the left in America far more than it does the right, like I said at the start.

I suggest you read this carefully, think about your own positions a bit more and then decide who needs to comprehend more of whom.

See what I posted to 86 in my post above this one. As for the NWO talk, again - that's a topic in itself... and too much to get into on this thread.

[Archaix]

The problem is, the unholy union between big business and government. The system is set up in a way that is unnatural and unfair. It's manipulated and controlled. You can call it corporatism, or a type of fascism...but it is certainly NOT the free market....it goes against the true free market. Read that book I mentioned. It goes over all of this.

There is no such thing as a “free market”, and business always has to be manipulated and controlled. The only sensible thing to argue is to what extent this happens.

I think you're misunderstanding my use of the word globalists, or internationalists. I'm talking about people who believe in world government. As opposed to nation-states. Are you saying global government is a socialist concept? Whatever it is, it's very bad news, to put it mildly. But that's a whole other topic.

You're seeking to redefine words, not me. Internationalism refers to the de-emphasis of global borders, and that's a socialist, anarchist or communist concept. The reduction of borders in the interest in capitalism is globalisation. Global government has not been tabled by anyone as a serious policy since Well's A Modern Utopia, but it's generally communist, not socialist.

Intervening in world affairs does not amount to world government, and nor does the presence of the UN. Nor does maintaining a war in Iraq, or building drones to protect American interests around the world. Are these things good? Not necessarily, but they do not amount to a world state.

Boo brought up the video of Obama hugging his college professor who has been called a "radical" because of his controversial ideas...I hate when people misunderstand posts or add their own words to something that others didn't say

Actually, Breitbart brought up Obama and Bell posthumously. The DA right, yourself included, have used this to comment on Obama's beliefs, and you have specifically said you believe him to be a traitor, divisive when it comes to race, and part of the New World Order. I thought your insinuations about Boo's posts indicated you had some questionable beliefs about Obama, and it turns out I was correct. As useful as this historiographic trip has been, it's taken us away from the point where you tell me how exactly your political frameworks stand up to criticism, how Barack Obama is divisive on race, and how CRT is racist.

See what I posted to 86 in my post above this one. As for the NWO talk, again - that's a topic in itself... and too much to get into on this thread.

I did, and wondered why you sought to redefine the phrase 'left-right binarism' for us all, just like you've redefined 'internationalism'. You can use these terms correctly or not use them at all.

[jwreck]

If you don't think Obama is divisive then you just haven't been paying attention. He reeks of class warfare and racial division.

[Lulu]

Obama had a very pivotal moment after that hateful 2008 election. He could have and he should have been a bigger man in an effort to bring this country to some kind of normalcy. Instead he, Pelosi, and Reid got all smug and self-content when they put through the stimulus package and Obamacare. I still think it wasn't the way to do it and it's been part of the reason for the gridlock in Congress.

[9ball8]

.... As useful as this historiographic trip has been, it's taken us away from the point where you tell me how exactly your political frameworks stand up to criticism, how Barack Obama is divisive on race, and how CRT is racist.
...

Here is why some folks think Critical Race Theory is bad, and how Obama is connected to CRT: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...0Race%20Theory
Obama is quoted on how he thinks (or thought) the constitution is lacking as a tool to remedy racist domination: "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

In sum, Obama thinks (or once thought) that community organizing and activities "on the ground" are needed to remove the remaining barriers to civil rights. The constitution is incapable of doing more in that regard. Didn't say or imply he was in favor of operating outside the boundaries of the law. Doesn't sound all that radical to me.

[lily]

There is no such thing as a “free market”,

There isn't a free market now, and there may not ever be, but to say "there is no such thing" is misleading. I'm not claiming things can ever be perfect, but we can certainly have a system where government does not interfere and manipulate business in ways that are unjust and detrimental to everyone except those at the highest levels of power.

and business always has to be manipulated and controlled.

We're talking about 2 different things here. Let's get this straight. I'm talking about a system that is manipulated and controlled in a way that is unethical and criminal. It rewards bad and irresponsible behavior. It steals from the vast majority of people, to continue the game that only benefits those at the highest levels of power. It does NOT benefit the people, small businesses, or legitimate big businesses. Again, read that book I mentioned.

What you're talking about is your own political view, based on your (misguided, in my opinion) view that the government represents the people. And of course, your "the business world is eeeeevil!" leftist mindset. But as I said, we're talking about 2 different things, because I know you can't agree with the system the way it is now, and that's what I was talking about.

You're seeking to redefine words, not me. Internationalism refers to the de-emphasis of global borders, and that's a socialist, anarchist or communist concept. The reduction of borders in the interest in capitalism is globalisation.

I didn't use the word "internationalism." I did say "internationalist" but I was using it in a different sense. In reference to people who believe in world government, sometimes the words "globalist" or "internationalist" are used. I can understand why that is new to you, because you run in different circles and in your mind, "internationalism" is a good thing, apparently. But if you think it's a good thing, you're talking about something very different.

Global government has not been tabled by anyone as a serious policy since Well's A Modern Utopia, but it's generally communist, not socialist.

The type of system we're heading towards is collectivist, but contrary to what some leftists seem to think, that's not a good thing. In fact, I'm thinking of posting a thread on this topic, because there is so much confusion on these boards about words, definitions, and what we're actually heading towards. As for your statement that world government has not been 'tabled by anyone as a serious policy' - well, I disagree. It's not something that is discussed openly, usually, but it is definitely want the elites in power want, ultimately. I'll see if I can find a decent documentary for you to watch, since obviously this is not something the corporatist controlled media talks about.

Intervening in world affairs does not amount to world government, and nor does the presence of the UN. Nor does maintaining a war in Iraq, or building drones to protect American interests around the world. Are these things good? Not necessarily, but they do not amount to a world state.

You're doing it again. I'm seeing a pattern here. You're either misreading what I'm saying, or you're intentionally changing what I'm saying. I never said that "intervening in world affairs" or the other things you mention = world government. I'm talking about it as something in the future, we're heading there but we're not there yet, obviously.

Actually, Breitbart brought up Obama and Bell posthumously. The DA right, yourself included, have used this to comment on Obama's beliefs, and you have specifically said you believe him to be a traitor, divisive when it comes to race, and part of the New World Order. I thought your insinuations about Boo's posts indicated you had some questionable beliefs about Obama, and it turns out I was correct. As useful as this historiographic trip has been, it's taken us away from the point where you tell me how exactly your political frameworks stand up to criticism, how Barack Obama is divisive on race, and how CRT is racist.

Are you talking about on other threads? Because on this thread, I said he was "subversive" and a puppet, but I'm pretty sure I didn't say, "he is a traitor." That may seem like a minor distinction, but you need to be more careful to avoid misquoting people. We had another guy here who did that constantly (his name escapes me at the moment) and that was extremely annoying to me and others.

Also, I did make the point that presidents should not be divisive, but I'm pretty sure I didn't say, "Obama is divisive." As for what I believe, it may or may not be intentional, but I do think he is a divisive president, at times. The funny thing is, didn't he run on the false promise that he would be all about bringing people together and doing away with petty partisanship? Yeah right.

I did, and wondered why you sought to redefine the phrase 'left-right binarism' for us all, just like you've redefined 'internationalism'. You can use these terms correctly or not use them at all.

I didn't use the phrase, "'left-right binarism" - you're doing it yet again! I said it was a false dichotomy, and explained that in post #33. And I didn't redefine anything there, I stated my view on how it is false. So please, correct yourself on that one.

[Cyclone Ranger]

When you're the president of the UNITED States, being divisive - especially when it comes to something like race - is not something to defend.

In a country as diverse as the United States, with so many different races, religions, backgrounds, etc... A good leader is someone who brings people TOGETHER, and helps people to get along, not the other way around.

BS. Particularly in a critical moment like the present one, POTUS' have to make the tough decisions, which will inevitably be supported by some and rejected by others.

A POTUS who tries to "bring people together" will never do anything at all.

That's especially true when your opponents keep promulgating nonsense like you're a communist fascist Kenyan Muslim who spoons Wall Street while planning the worker's revolution.