Breitbart was murdered because he had damning evidence on Obama

[lily]

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.

You're talking about something different here.

The discussion on the word "divisive" started from the mention of Obama's friendship and admiration of Derrick Bell. His ideas have been called divisive and racist. So, when we began to discuss divisiveness in a president, it was mainly in reference to race, and how in America there is so much diversity (different races, religions, etc.)

In light of THAT, I said that a good leader brings people together.... I didn't say he TRIES to bring people together, which is how you quoted me.

A leader's ideas and character and how they lead by example - that is what inevitably brings people together, not because he "tried" but because good ideas have broad appeal.

[Freedom&Liberty]

A POTUS that does nothing is the preferred option.

[Cyclone Ranger]

In your delusional fantasy world.

[Archaix]

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.

On the contrary, to say there can be 'free market' is misleading, unless you're seriously in favour of scrapping a standard currency, consumer protection laws, competition laws, trading laws, etc. Of course the government should intervene (or 'interfere', as you put it) -but to what extent is the sensible debate.

[The political? system] 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.

On the contrary, people and businesses big and small benefit enormously from the links your government makes with other countries, as well as the laws (see above) they have pass. Arguing that the government has intervened negatively in the past is therefore not a strong case for not making it intervene at all.

your "the business world is eeeeevil!" leftist mindset

What are you talking about? Where have I said that?

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.

They're the same concept, except one is the adjective of the noun. And no, I clearly don't think internationalism is 'good' -I think it's unrealistic. What your presidents past and present have been doing abroad is neither 'globalist', 'internationalist' or a construction of 'world government', and your attempts to frame American post-war foreign intervention as any of these things is unfounded and disrespectful of the differences between 'internationalism' and 'globalisation' and the people who believe in them. In fact, I think the whole 'big-small government' spectrum is disrespectful.

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.

You obviously think it's being tabled, and that present events point towards world government, the New World Order, 1984 and other Snouterish things.

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.

In this thread you did. Do you still believe this or has your opinion changed since a week ago?
“Many of us already knew that Obama surrounded himself with America-hating, Marxist types in college. I already could see that he is a globalist, and subversive, which makes him a traitor. But I guess the bottom line is, many people still don't see that.”

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?

Obama's compromised on many issues. He's even been criticised on the left for compromising too much. And we keep getting bullshit like this about what his college professor said, and what his pastor said, how he wants a New World Order ad nauseum et ad infinitum...

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.

The 'left-right dichotomy' is an example of a binarism, but true, you used the word 'dichotomy'. That isn't much of a victory on your part, particularly since you seem unsure as to whether left v right is there or not, or who the left and right are (depending on whether or not they exist).

[lily]

I'm sorry, but it's becoming clear to me now that we can't have a discussion because we're just not communicating here. You're constantly misunderstanding, or missing the point, or slightly changing what I'm saying to something else. I don't think you're doing it on purpose, and you have been polite, but it's nearly impossible to carry on a conversation with you.

As for the last thing you said, that's BS. I wasn't even talking about left or right, my point was that those with the real power are so far above that, and don't care about that, that it is POINTLESS to constantly bicker about that 24/7.

And as for your naive idea that global government is not an issue, I think you need to step outside of the bubbles you've been in. Instead of having such a (outdated) text-book mentality, wake up and look at what's going on in the real world. And I don't know where you usually get your news, but maybe it's time to try something other than CNN, Keith Olberman and your Obama-supporting college professor.

[Vader]

Yes, he does. He's being a good Drone for his Master. It's his way of expressing his uncontrollable, seething rage and hatred towards anyone who dares question or challenge his Master.

Drone? I think he was mocking you soulless republican theocrats.

[lily]

Archaix, I just wanted to say I'm sorry, if my last post came across as a bit rude. I still mean what I said, I just should've said it in a more civil way.

[Šñøü†ê®]

On the contrary, to say there can be 'free market' is misleading, unless you're seriously in favour of scrapping a standard currency, consumer protection laws, competition laws, trading laws, etc. Of course the government should intervene (or 'interfere', as you put it) -but to what extent is the sensible debate.

On the contrary, most of the "laws" you allude to end up manipulating markets for the benefit of those who lobby the governments with the most cash. What does currency have to do with whether a market is more free or less free? There will still be banks I assume.

On the contrary, people and businesses big and small benefit enormously from the links your government makes with other countries, as well as the laws (see above) they have pass. Arguing that the government has intervened negatively in the past is therefore not a strong case for not making it intervene at all.

On the contrary, the government totally flucks up international trade, not just in that they create environments that discriminate against innocent people and favor others, but simple transactions between two parties aretaxed to death. And the obvious fact that one reason for wars is to tweak countries for resources. So a government killing innocent people in another country is a side-effect of government intervention in the affairs of people.

[Archaix]

I'm sorry, but it's becoming clear to me now that we can't have a discussion because we're just not communicating here. You're constantly misunderstanding, or missing the point, or slightly changing what I'm saying to something else. I don't think you're doing it on purpose, and you have been polite, but it's nearly impossible to carry on a conversation with you.

I think you're appropriating terms to suit your worldview. I don't think you've managed to answer some of the things I've asked or clarified your position as much as you could have done, but that's my opinion.

As for the last thing you said, that's BS. I wasn't even talking about left or right, my point was that those with the real power are so far above that, and don't care about that, that it is POINTLESS to constantly bicker about that 24/7.

I don't think it's a question of left/right, but extreme right/right -but the basic liberal values of the Democrats are being painted as 'socialist' and somehow dangerous. I think you underestimate the extent to which the Republican Party have pandered to the right-wing electorate and gone for the ultra-small government argument in the last few years.

And as for your naive idea that global government is not an issue, I think you need to step outside of the bubbles you've been in. Instead of having such a (outdated) text-book mentality, wake up and look at what's going on in the real world. And I don't know where you usually get your news, but maybe it's time to try something other than CNN, Keith Olberman and your Obama-supporting college professor.

Every month I get through: 2 issues of the New Statesman, 1 Foreign Policy, 1-2 issues of The Spectator, 1 issue of International Socialism, some American Spectator articles, some Townhall articles; some Private Eye articles, and a great deal of Al Jazeera articles; and I also watch BBC News, euronews, CNN and (occasionally) Russia Today. I read no newspapers, except perhaps The Times if it's lying around.

If you're going to tell me there's a world government in the making, I want more than just conjecture and the John Birch Society.

Archaix, I just wanted to say I'm sorry, if my last post came across as a bit rude. I still mean what I said, I just should've said it in a more civil way.

I believe you, and I accept your apology. You take the time to respond to people and try to respect them as you do that, and it's appreciated.

You're still wrong though.

On the contrary, most of the "laws" you allude to end up manipulating markets for the benefit of those who lobby the governments with the most cash... On the contrary, the government totally flucks up international trade, not just in that they create environments that discriminate against innocent people and favor others, but simple transactions between two parties aretaxed to death. And the obvious fact that one reason for wars is to tweak countries for resources. So a government killing innocent people in another country is a side-effect of government intervention in the affairs of people.

Can you provide me with examples?

What does currency have to do with whether a market is more free or less free? There will still be banks I assume.

I imagine that in an economy where the government has no presence we'd have to move the value of currency to something we can all agree on as a benchmark -precious metals like gold and silver, say. But then the problem is that the prices of these are volatile and heavily affected by their production and supply. We're much better off with a centrally-managed currency, which is one of the many advantages of having the government take a leading role in the economy.