Rick Reuben wrote:

DrAwkward wrote:I want to hear from just one person--one--who would vote for Hillary Clinton. I'm convinced that her supposed status as "front-runner" is a media creation based soley on name recognition, because i personally do not know one single liberal or Democrat who wants her on the ticket in any capacity.

So based on this conspiracy theory of yours ( I love how these people can support the idea of a 'media creation' that makes Hillary the designated frontrunner, but can't imagine a media conspiracy to bury the truth about 9/11, for example ), is there any chance that the media is also 'creating' the Obama Fever? One more self-fulfilling prophecy? If you are ready to believe that the media is acting in concert for one agenda, then you have to accept that they act in concert for some other agendas.

Cool, i see that i've entered this week's "Rick Reuben digs up old posts in an attempt to paint evolving opinions as lies" crosshairs. I'm flattered!

Not playing along, but flattered!

Andrew. wrote:

Johnson fears there isn’t much that can be done. If people truly believe they can change the course of an imperial state by choosing a new president, “they are seriously deluded,” he says. Johnson has stated in the past that even the Democratic presidential nominees are too much in the thrall of the idea of an imperial presidency. However, in the end Johnson did come out in support of Barack Obama, in part because of the positive image Obama projects to the rest of the world.

http://www.ieweekly.com/cms/story/detai ... eets/1048/

Exactly. Fail to take generations of future imperialism as more or less a given and you make proper analysis impossible.

Hang responsibility for imperialism on a group of people numbering fewer than several hundred thousand and you make proper analysis impossible. Ignore the enormous diffusion of those people across industry, government, military and diplomatic offices and you make proper analysis impossible.

Fail to synthesize global imperialism with domestic justice and you make proper analysis impossible.

Hang historical responsibility for imperialism on monetarists, and you make proper analysis impossible. Pretend that Dresden was flattened using accounting tricks, or that the Battle of Midway was carried by the discount window at the Fed and you make proper analysis impossible.

Yapping about the CFR in the case of Obama makes proper analysis impossible. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski has never, ever been spotted holding a clipboard on 47th and King Drive conducting a voter registration drive. Obama's populist legal career and demonstrated constitutional expertise is no guarantee that foreign policy will change one iota: but it is a vote for him that holds the most potential for an active rollback of the runway executive branch.

If it serves your goofy worldview to pretend there's no difference between Barack Obama, Harvard Law Review editor and shit stains like Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo, that's your business I guess. I'd say you need to shut up and listen to Professor Johnson.

I often think Chalmers Johnson makes proper analysis of US imperialism possible. He is uniquely credible about the course of palpable empire and the context of choice within it - and the reason he has that credibility is precisely because he was empire's water boy in Asia for decades.

You know, he was the opposite of a shut-in. The opposite of a no-show.

-r

Rick Reuben wrote:I'm up to page 120 of your archive.

Awesome!

DrAwkward wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:I'm up to page 120 of your archive.

Awesome!

Ridiculous.

lemur68 wrote:

DrAwkward wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:I'm up to page 120 of your archive.

Awesome!

Ridiculous.

Ridiculawesome!

lemur68 wrote:

DrAwkward wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:I'm up to page 120 of your archive.

Awesome!

Ridiculous.

I laughed.

warmowski wrote:Obama's populist legal career and demonstrated constitutional expertise is no guarantee that foreign policy will change one iota: but it is a vote for him that holds the most potential for an active rollback of the runway executive branch.

Why? I asked this in another thread, received no answer, so I'll try here:

Exactly what part of Obama's secret agenda is anti-imperialist or anti-militarist? I'm not asking for the typical platitudes, but proposed policies. What exactly is Barack Obama going to do for the United States that would define his agenda as anti-imperialist or anti-militarist?

unarmedman wrote:

warmowski wrote:Obama's populist legal career and demonstrated constitutional expertise is no guarantee that foreign policy will change one iota: but it is a vote for him that holds the most potential for an active rollback of the runway executive branch.

What exactly is Barack Obama going to do for the United States that would define his agenda as anti-imperialist or anti-militarist?

I don't know what you mean by secret agenda, and I think your question misses my statement. Based on his campaign rhetoric, I don't think Obama can be presumed to be anti-imperialist or anti-militarist. Speeding up withdrawal from Iraq is about all one can expect there - and even then I give that a one out of three chance of happening.

It is the legal milieu of the Oval Office that I would expect to change for the better if he were elected. Attempts to reverse the damage done to the mechanics of the constitution and balance of powers at the hands of Bush/Cheney is exactly what I would expect of any constitutional scholar brought to the Oval Office in the wake of such a frat party. I would expect Obama to set a less retarded tone, make the proper appointments, and roll back portions of the previous eight years of executive branch abuse. Fewer signing statements. Supreme court appointments drawn not from a pool of Texas hacks. Rescinding of hair-raising executive orders. Etc.

Not more than that, but not less, either.

-r

Rick Reuben wrote:

warmowski wrote:If it serves your goofy worldview to pretend there's no difference between Barack Obama, Harvard Law Review editor and shit stains like Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo, that's your business I guess.

Who has said there's no difference between Yoo and Obama, goofball?

You have. Again and again and again - it's necessary for your conspiratory take on the world. You're an equivocation machine. You're referred to Obama as an enemy, a front for the CFR, a front for "the globalists" a front for <fill in sketchy message-board identifier here>. When you do that, you replace needed evaluation and comparisons of an individual careers, interests, and histories with your sweeping, silly worldview. Dick Cheney, Kofi Annan: the same. Barack Obama, Jonn McCain: the same. Barack Obama? Oh, he came straight from Zbigniew Brzezinski's playbook! Wait, who's Emil Jones? Etc.

-r

It is the legal milieu of the Oval Office that I would expect to change for the better if he were elected. Attempts to reverse the damage done to the mechanics of the constitution and balance of powers at the hands of Bush/Cheney is exactly what I would expect of any constitutional scholar brought to the Oval Office in the wake of such a frat party. I would expect Obama to set a less retarded tone, make the proper appointments, and roll back portions of the previous eight years of executive branch abuse. Fewer signing statements. Supreme court appointments drawn not from a pool of Texas hacks. Rescinding of hair-raising executive orders. Etc.

What policies has Obama said he will rescind?

What policies will Obama implement or maintain that would define his presidency as respecting the legal separation of the branches of government?