Valsuelm

Well.. we made it to page 4 without any blatant racism. That's something I guess. Yea... black people have a monopoly on acting hysterically. There are plenty of videos out there of white cops (and just people of all colors) acting like hysterical idiots. Nice of you to call him a monkey... The guy was actually calm when he first approached the car, but flipped lunatic when he saw a gun in the glove compartment. Seriously folks, the color of someone's skin matters a lot less than some of you think. More often than not, like in this situation, it doesn't matter at all.

You need to read up on Lincoln if you think Obama is bad about the law. Here is what a lot of the sites you read today would look like if Lincoln were in power: http://www.libertyforlife.com/constitution/politicians/dishonest_abe.htm Here is a less inflammatory version: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/10/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-barack-obama-first-president-who-thi/ Lincoln was President during a civil war, what's Obola's excuse? The first link you posted is completely ridiculous, in the second link read Cruz's response, it explains it very well. I'm no fan of Obama, but you repeatedly calling him a childish name like 'Obola' detracts from any argument you make. It's no different than the bitter democrat/socialist who refers to Republicans as 'Repugnacans' or people who identify with the Tea Party as 'Teabaggers'. Ted Cruz is wrong. I've little doubt there are other examples, but somewhat famously in recent times one can look to Obama's immediate predecessor if one wants an example of a President who is guilty of exactly what Ted Cruz claims Obama is guilty of (he's right in that he's guilty, but he's very wrong in that he's the first). Here's one article on it (there are many others out there): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300511.html One could start reading through the various Executive orders through the years to no doubt find more examples of Presidents doing exactly what Cruz says Obama has done. There are other places to look as well. I'm not defending what Obama has done. Much of it is solid ground for impeachment. But we past the point before Obama came to office where Congress, the Supreme Court, the mainstream media, and even a majority of the American people would pursue that route. So, the inevitable has been and is happening: The President and the government at large are going to just do whatever they want, Constitution be damned, more and more.

Volourn is correct. If it was common sense for everyone to do what the 'authorities' say no matter what, the entire world would be under totalitarian dictatorship type governments. Exaggerating there. Look, he had every chance to do what the cop asked him to do, like fifteen times. Unlike his friend, he refused to comply. I understand we all have individual rights, but we also have law. The cop said there was a gun in the glove compartment, he was on edge because of that. Then the dude refused to do anything he was asked with a gun in his face. Then the cop tells him if he gets out, he gets shot. So he gets out of the car. News so far states he had a criminal history, shooting at cops among other crimes, and this cop was aware of that. If you want to claim police abuse over a situation like that, give me a break. I've seen way worse. The guy that got choked out was way worse. There's no exaggeration. You just fail to think through to what your line of thinking ultimately leads to, likely as you just don't want to take responsibility or are uncomfortable with those thoughts. Few want to believe they are cowards or don't have what it takes to stand up to tyranny or for what's right when it counts. In many ways your attitude is what allows a great deal of evil to happen in the world. What you purport is common sense is nothing more than cowardice. Yea.. its' common to a degree, but it's not sensible. Sadly it's not surprising that you go on and defend the cowardice of the police in that video and try and blame the victim. No doubt you're one of Milgram's 37.

Volourn is correct. If it was common sense for everyone to do what the 'authorities' say no matter what, the entire world would be under totalitarian dictatorship type governments.

Sure... attack the messenger and not the message. Quick, do it before you even know what he says. Maybe you'll convince others to dismiss what he says without listening as well. While I certainly don't agree with everything he ever says (and actually very vehemently disagree with him on some things), he far more often than not has his facts straight when talking about political issues. I challenge you provide the commentary of someone else that is even half as informative, rational, or insightful on the issues he's discussing. Try actually listening to what the guy says before you dismiss him. If you're dismissive of what he says in the two videos I link I'd say you're dismissive of a great deal of reality. And as far as expecting you to believe him, I doubt you'll even watch. But if you did, I'd be curious to see you debunk the facts Stephen is discussing in those two videos.

Obama did get one thing right, things were generally better in 1999.

So BlackLivesMatter should be WhitePeopleareRacist instead? Either you care that cops are killing people; black people in particular, because otherwise if you're just bothered when its a white guy then you're a racist. I don't think the other incidents are irrefutable incidents of police brutality and cops using deadly force for no reason, there were extenuating circumstances . I made this clear in the various discussions we had. This is different, the guy is unarmed and gets out the car with his hands up and he gets shot..very different story don't you think ? There is no shortage of filmed footage publicly available of police assaulting or even killing unarmed people (black, white, or whatever) for little to no justifiable reason. Unfortunately there's also no shortage of DAs, judges, or juries looking the other way or justifying the unjustifiable. The former is a very serious problem, the latter is much more. Are there situations where the police justifiably use force, or even deadly force? Yes, and if all the facts that were presented are true then the Michael Brown situation was one of them. Most of the situations ever brought up on this forum though are not situations where the police force was justified. The Michael Brown situation really was a manufactured story to further racial division within the US. The facts available from day one were not correctly reported in most of the media. Here are two insightful commentaries I suggest you watch. The first I've linked before elsewhere on this forum, but the second I have not.

This thread might win the 'immature thread of the year award' if there was such a thing.

I'm white, dress in a manner most consider well, and drive a nice car. I've had the experience of police pointing a gun at me at a routine traffic stop. I've also personally seen cops assault and beat down two different people on two different occasions, one was a black guy, the other a white guy. The latter was even filmed by a friend, but the local TV station didn't want anything to do with it (despite the fact that the person who brought it to them was an intern there; it did however help the guy with his lawsuit against the city). This was before the days of Youtube though, so it never got posted to the internet. You can find videos out there of cops assaulting and killing white people too. The issue is rarely racial.

Videos of cops unjustifiably assaulting or even killing people pop up a at least a couple of times a month on average. And those are just the ones made public. Think of all the times this happens when there's no video.... http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-kill-citizens-70-times-rate-first-world-nations/#FzLw3mAbGfiu1yQB.99 http://www.killedbypolice.net/

Most people? You mean people like this?: Seriously, you've fallen for Oby's propaganda. You're thinking exactly what those who made the infographic that he links wants you to think. Polls are some of the most widely used propaganda tools out there in modern times. Are they sometimes useful? Yes. But quite often they are used to manipulate the public's perception of X. One shouldn't ever take any poll seriously without knowing who was polled, the methodology, or all of the questions on the poll.

I'd be interested to see the source(s) for that chart as well as the methodology used in the polls. Regardless, the polls aren't necessarily an indication of western propaganda (or eastern). Not to say there isn't a whole helluva lot of propaganda surrounding the history of World War 2, but a compelling case could be made for each of the nations in that poll in that they contributed the most to victory over Germany. But it really doesn't matter all that much either way, as the reality is that without any of them, that victory would not have happened.

Citizen Four 6/10 If you already know Snowden's story you're not going to learn much, if anything, from this film. It's mostly a film showing Snowden locked up in his hotel room in Hong Kong, and part of the conversation had by him and the reporters he first went to over that first week or so. If that interests you, then I recommend this film. If you are of the mind that Snowden is a bad guy, I recommend this film.

No, it is not.

Yep.... and that's when my severe dislike for Google began. The RIAA and MPAA have been doing a job on usenet as well in recent years. It's still out there and strong though, but a lot harder for a lot of people to get good access to. I currently access it through a server in the Netherlands. Most 4channers probably have no idea what usenet even is.

You give 4chan far more credit than it deserves. While it's made it's mark like a great many other sites, it's hardly shaped much of anything 'for ages', or was or is an 'enormous factor in why internet culture is what it is now.' It's where a bunch of mostly immature people hang out. It's like the nerd emo kid table in the jr high cafeteria on a large scale. And yea.. for the people who are sitting at that table day after day, it's been memorable, perhaps even life shaping, but for the vast majority that make up the rest out there 4chan is either something totally irrelevant to them or they hope the people sitting at that table 'grow out of it'. It seems the guy who started it and runs it finally did to an extent. Good for him, but other than that, so what or who cares?

It's interesting yet not surprising that nearly every, if not every one who lives outside of the U.S. on this forum thinks Obama is better than the Republican alternatives...

Ingredients 1 pound (4 sticks) butter, room temperature, plus more for baking sheets 3 cups packed light-brown sugar 1 cup granulated sugar 4 large eggs 2 teaspoons pure vanilla extract 3 1/2 cups all-purpose flour 1 1/2 teaspoons salt 2 teaspoons baking soda 1 1/2 cups best-quality chocolate chips (I use Hershey’s special dark) Directions Preheat oven to 375 degrees. Line two baking sheets with Silpat baking mats or parchment; set aside. Cream butter until smooth; add sugars, and beat until smooth. Beat in eggs and vanilla. Into a large bowl, sift together dry ingredients. Slowly beat dry ingredients into wet mixture. Fold in chocolate chips. Drop 2 to 3 tablespoons dough per cookie onto prepared baking sheets; space dough at least 2 inches apart to allow for spreading. Bake until golden, 8 to 10 minutes. Remove cookies from baking sheets, and allow to cool on baking racks. Enjoy some phenomenal Chocolate Chip Cookies. Yield Makes fifty 4-inch cookies

Wasn't it a president that started that whole Federal Reserve stuff? No... A President may have signed it in to law, but that President was not at all one of it's architects (I suggest this documentary or the work of Bill Still (most of it is sadly not freely available on youtube anymore) in general for some enlightenment on who was behind it). That President happens to be one of the few I think that is very arguably worse than Obama (at least as of now... Obama has ~2 more years to gain the #1 spot on the worst presidents list, I think he has potential, but I hope he doesn't because that would mean really bad stuff).

Whether he said it or not doesn't really matter. Whoever said it said it for political effect. Truth doesn't matter when you're a politician trying to illicit fear of X in those who are listening to you while spouting the message that you will protect them from X. Whether X is real of imagined doesn't matter, and the majority of the time it's imagined. Obama is just as guilty of saying nonsensical things to galvanize those he's aiming his message at (evidence of that is in this thread). At the national level, in pretty much every western nation, you are hard pressed to find candidates that are not guilty of such things. There has been no Democrat or Republican nominee for President in my lifetime that is not guilty of such things (though some are worse than others and I'd put Obama and all of the other major party nominees for President in the last 3 elections near the top of the list of the worst).

Yeah but as usual with politics is one step forward and two steps back, this presidency thing is game of beautiful corpse that means that the next guy will have to deal with the fallout of decisions made on this presidency. It was like that with Clinton and it will be like this with Obama and he did some really bad things as a president, man would make Nixon look good in comparison. If there was an election tomorrow where Obama ran against any of the Presidents that were in office in the last 50 years, the only one I think he might have a chance of beating would be Bush Jr.. Maybe. All of the others would win by a wide to very wide margin, even Nixon, Ford, or Carter. (this of course assumes they were all still alive, though I'm sure many would rather have a rotting corpse as President than Obama. )

So bombing buildings with journalists in it is ok if a government sanctions it then, but not ok when no government officially sanctions it? That's what makes it legitimate in your eyes?

LOL. What 'irrefutable positive developments'? If you walked down Main Street USA and interviewed a bunch of random Americans, you'll be hard pressed to find many people, even democrats, that would say something like that. Also. Obama aside, the State of the Union has sadly become little more than an opportunity for the president to campaign or propagandize. It's been many many many years since any President gave a State of the Union address that wasn't mostly or totally full of hot air. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/20/obama-has-worst-state-union-record-ford-study-show/ https://grabien.com/story.php?id=20735

How is the intentional bombing of the Serbian state television station a 'legitimate target', but Charlie Hebdo isn't? Please explain the difference, and try to not use the subjective words like 'terrorist'.

Chomsky is as much on the 'left' as he is on the 'right'. Like pretty much everyone that mostly thinks outside of boxes, he doesn't fit into any of the cookie cutter manufactured paradigms of thinking that make up the imagined left/right paradigm. Hence, you'll find people who identify themselves as being on the 'left' call Chomsky 'right wing' just as you'll have people such as yourself call Chomsky 'left wing'. The reason being is Chomsky tears apart many ideas held dear by people who identify themselves as being on both sides of that false paradigm, so he must be the other side of that spectrum in their eyes. In many ways Chomsky is essentially an anarchist, and that's something that generally does not fit into that two dimensional left/right spectrum.