I think I love Barack Obama

Um, for Somalia, he gave orders to the sniper team to shoot if they thought the captain was under threat. A gun was pointed at him.

WeiWuWei wrote:

The problem is that what we perceive as being wrong appears right to them.

Like just take for example the fact that Obama has actually intensified violence in Pakistan and off the coast of Somalia; if anything, his actions have been more belligerent than Bush's actions for his last few months in office. But the fact that he is well-liked reflects support for those actions. In spite of the fact that these actions under Bush would be extremely unpopular, Obama is able to pull them off with little to no public outcry.

Word, brah

And this is what I was telling everyone around me. The democrats are the nice facade for the US State. They can do the same or worse shit than the republicans but, since they're often more charismatic and "liberal" they draw more approval or at least much less concern to their actions.

I mean, we all know Milosevic is a bastard... but who cared about the bombings of Yugoslavia carried out by the NATO during Clinton's administration?

Republicans absorb all the guilt so democrats can keep projecting the nice image of "Beacon of Freedom".

With Iraq, the Bush administration took all the shit so all "goodwill" actions carried out during Obama administration (like putting McFalafel and Walmarts all over Iraq) will be nice. It will be moar jobs for the Iraqis and a "taste of freedom" from the good chocolate buddy. In the "bread and stick policy" Republicans are the stick, the sword and "Democrats" are the bread.

They're an awesome imperialist team. Something like the good cop and bad cop routine practiced in geopolitics.

WWW wrote:

There's a tricky little thing about power; I don't think that truth and justice reflect the legitimacy of power, but power - and popularity, for this example - tends to define what constitutes truth and justice.

Word.

WWW wrote:

That's what make personality cults such a dangerous threat to us. It's easier to point out the evilness of the State when it's already unpopular among people. But when people support the State's actions despite the fact that when, by and large, under normal circumstances - i.e. when the State isn't headed by an insanely charismatic and well-liked leader - they would oppose them, it's harder to convince them that the State is malevolent.

That and when the state is providing an awesome ammount of welbeing illusion and palliatives.

The man behind the mask of grass wrote:

This, I think, finds pretty decent parallels with Antonio Gramsci's ideas regarding intellectual hegemonies and the creation of consent - coupled, of course, with Noam Chomsky's ideas of manufacturing consent and the establishment of necessary illusions.

I think this post was kind of dumb and rambly, but I'm really tired from studying for finals all day today and yesterday, so whatever.

Indeed. Creating consent or at least the illusion of it. Definitely relevant.

And I don't think it was dumb nor rambly, it had a far greater ammount of diallectical quality than all the written and verbal premises over which bourgeoise states are sustained.

wtf bread stick policy? explain please.

The reason I support a democratic president is that for the most parts good events(not decisions) occur during Democratic Presidency. The largest misconception about the United States is that the President actually has power. The truth is that the President is like a king in a constitutional monarchy meaning although he has influence and is a great symbol/scapegoat, he has very little actual power, After all he is a member of the Representative Branch of Government which is what he does, represent.

Where blame should be placed is the Legislative Branch. Those are the guys that truly decide what America is doing and how it does it. The President cant even declare war without Congressional approval(unless he is Bush..) I think that Obama is doing a fine job as President because he seems to realize that it isn't his job to actually run America but run how the world views America.. A full about face from Bush. If America is still running the same way as it did for 8 years it is because the Legislative Branch has been the same people for the last 50 years.

Indeed.

Liche wrote:

wtf bread stick policy? explain please.

Bread and Stick policy, sorry.

So in essence one beats you to make you slave and one gives you bread to keep you alive and with hope.

Diogritor's point has been adressed above.

WeiWuWei wrote:

This, I think, finds pretty decent parallels with Antonio Gramsci's ideas regarding intellectual hegemonies and the creation of consent - coupled, of course, with Noam Chomsky's ideas of manufacturing consent and the establishment of necessary illusions.

Actually, the idea is Walter Lippmann's, Chomsky just borrowed the idea and exposed it as it is in the US mass media (Lippmann would be proud).

Black_Cross wrote:

WeiWuWei wrote:

This, I think, finds pretty decent parallels with Antonio Gramsci's ideas regarding intellectual hegemonies and the creation of consent - coupled, of course, with Noam Chomsky's ideas of manufacturing consent and the establishment of necessary illusions.

Actually, the idea is Walter Lippmann's, Chomsky just borrowed the idea and exposed it as it is in the US mass media (Lippmann would be proud).

Yeah, that's true... but what I meant is that while Lippman said States should manufacture consent, Chomsky argued that they actually were doing it.

Also, Lippman thought it'd be a good thing to do. Chomsky, of course, was less enthusiastic about the idea.

But yeah, Lippman would be proud that the "bewildered herd" - another of his phrases - is running wild, so to speak.

I figured you knew, i was just clearin' it up for anyone else. Also, i like to give credit where credit is deserved, know what i mean? (I mean Walter Lippmann's an asshole!!)

I generally don't like to exalt child-killers for capital, so I won't.

Stos wrote:

I generally don't like to exalt child-killers, so I won't.

Give the black man some chance. I mean, it's not like he went all the way to Pakistan with an assault rifle and randomly shoot at kids...

I was thinkin about this before: Anyone else think he's tryin some behavioral economics right now? Like, Reagan style (Just say it like you mean it, and they'll believe the economy's fine cos they think your cool) .

Black_Cross wrote:

I was thinkin about this before: Anyone else think he's tryin some behavioral economics right now? Like, Reagan style (Just say it like you mean it, and they'll believe the economy's fine cos they think your cool) .

i think he will do that. and i think it will work. but i dont hope it does.
its like drinking beer if you got a hangover, some people say it makes it go away, but what it actually does is, it delays it and makes it worse after some hours the headache is much worse. but you get some hours without headache. best is to drink thick milk

hmmm, so the point of your analogy is?


Yea, I have noticed some Reagan style shiz going on.

Liche wrote:

hmmm, so the point of your analogy is?


Yea, I have noticed some Reagan style shiz going on.

Peace Meetings with Gorbachev?

(Sarcasm)

Liche wrote:

Yea, I have noticed some Reagan style shiz going on.

Oh snapz.