'I Pledge to serve Obama....'
- Thread starter sgtmac_46
- Start date
Actually, the thread needs to cool down before a few more folks find they've lost study access.....
Debate is fine, passion is fine, but cool the heat please.
Debate is fine, passion is fine, but cool the heat please.
Quite so (not that the Cap'n needs my tuppence worth 
).
If I could just add what might seem a petty and old fashioned (in Net terms) point to that, it'd be pleasant for a little less 'shouting' to be in evidence.
There are other means of conveying emphasis and focus in a sentence and to old gimmers like me, strings of capitals is as intrinsically rude as textese.
). If I could just add what might seem a petty and old fashioned (in Net terms) point to that, it'd be pleasant for a little less 'shouting' to be in evidence.
There are other means of conveying emphasis and focus in a sentence and to old gimmers like me, strings of capitals is as intrinsically rude as textese.
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
So, before office, while in office, either or both? Pick one.
Summarily, yes, there is some Obama-mania going on right now, and people are celebrating the guy before his first 100 days. No, it hasn't gotten anywhere NEAR the point of "agree with him or be cast aside!" If you'd like examples of the latter, perhaps we should consider the free-speech zones enforced during Dubya's presidency...
Thanks for the nightmares Carol.
Gordon Nore
Senior Master
From the MySpace link:
Based on my readings so far, this seems to be Ashton's project, not something asked-for by the President himself.
The video itself, I think, is really silly. Pledging 'to be a servant' of Obama is over the top and not something that President Obama would likely promote. I didn't know who many of the celebs were, which is a sign of my age. I think this video appeals to an under-thirty demographic of devout non-readers.
Actually it is a pretty cool video except for a few parts of it. They are trying to get people out to do good things. What is wrong with that?
Actually it is a pretty cool video except for a few parts of it. They are trying to get people out to do good things. What is wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong with that. As long as it stays that way, it could be a great thing. I think one of the problems is that people feel so damn cynical regarding politics that its hard for them to see anything good actually coming out of Washington DC. I, for one, am feeling that way, but I am going to try and be positive and hope that something good will happen. However, the wariness isn't going to go away anytime soon.
Hope is the denial of reality.
Gordon Nore
Senior Master
Actually it is a pretty cool video except for a few parts of it. They are trying to get people out to do good things. What is wrong with that?
Quite right. When I said it was "silly," I was reacting to the "servant" comment. It's a bit flippant and potentially distracts from the message, in addition to creating some headaches for the President.
The celebrity roster is notably absent of personalities with a long track record of activism: Martin Sheen, Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey, Susan Sarandon, etc. It's meant to be young and hip.
Someone made a "brown shirt" reference. I don't see that. The message here is, essentially. We need to get off our arses and make the change we want, not Remember the good old days and It's somebody else's fault.
I think the Nazi stuff gets thrown around to easily. If some people are calling Bush a Nazi, and others are calling Obama the same, what exactly is a Nazi?
I can't speak for anyone else, clearly but I certainly remember what a Nazi is.
Many of our current generations of political leaders are somewhat of a similar mind in some ways when it comes to social control and manipulation but they're much more clever at hiding what they're up to behind 'cats paws'. Not quite so strong on total genocide as the 'Old School' but still not much improved when it comes to real attempts to solve difficult problems without killing lots of people.
As a 'quick effect' perjorative tho', the term is over-used without really considering what it truly means.
Many of our current generations of political leaders are somewhat of a similar mind in some ways when it comes to social control and manipulation but they're much more clever at hiding what they're up to behind 'cats paws'. Not quite so strong on total genocide as the 'Old School' but still not much improved when it comes to real attempts to solve difficult problems without killing lots of people.
As a 'quick effect' perjorative tho', the term is over-used without really considering what it truly means.
Mmmm ... no, that's what some would call "false hope." Hope is the belief in possibility. Lack of it is to deny miracles, and any decent scientist will tell you there is A LOT than can not be explained fully, that medical miracles are made every day and that hope is more than just a stone's throw away from faith.
:asian:
I have a question for our non-American members here.
Do you erect statues and paint walls with the image of your leader?
Do your leaders have special logos that they use?
Do their supporters wear special uniforms, or matching shirts?
Do they do rallys where thousands cheer?
Do they create vast workforces of loyal supporters?
The reason I ask is because the only sources I have, that indicate a leader doing that/having that happen are these:
- Adolph Hitler - Germany 1930's-40's
- Benito Mussolini - Italy 1920's-40's
- Joseph Stalin - USSR - 1900-50's
- Fidel Castro - Cuba - 1960's-2000's
- Saddam Hussein - Iraq - 1970's-2000's
I know there's a few US presidents who were popular, had some statues done, a few paintings (Reagan, Kennedy come to mind), but none fill all the "Tator Check List" like Obama seems to, so I'm wondering how nuts you folks get with your leaders, to put this into perspective.
Thanks.
Do you erect statues and paint walls with the image of your leader?
Do your leaders have special logos that they use?
Do their supporters wear special uniforms, or matching shirts?
Do they do rallys where thousands cheer?
Do they create vast workforces of loyal supporters?
The reason I ask is because the only sources I have, that indicate a leader doing that/having that happen are these:
- Adolph Hitler - Germany 1930's-40's
- Benito Mussolini - Italy 1920's-40's
- Joseph Stalin - USSR - 1900-50's
- Fidel Castro - Cuba - 1960's-2000's
- Saddam Hussein - Iraq - 1970's-2000's
I know there's a few US presidents who were popular, had some statues done, a few paintings (Reagan, Kennedy come to mind), but none fill all the "Tator Check List" like Obama seems to, so I'm wondering how nuts you folks get with your leaders, to put this into perspective.
Thanks.
Gordon Nore
Senior Master
Gordon Nore said:
Suke and Jeff,
Understood and agreed.
I have a pretty good picture of what a Nazi is. You both understand I was speaking rhetorically. The "'quick effect' perjorative" is precisely what I am speaking of.
OP
OP
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
The questions need to be asked (and the fawning media doesn't seem interested in asking them) and some HEALTHY SKEPTICISM is called for, as you point out.
(In answer to post#76)We just don't go in for that sort of thing over here, Cap'n.
Yes, we have statutes here and there of Prime Ministers of 'note' who are now safey gone beyond the reach of the 'cult of celebrity' but that's about it.
A while ago, a Labour government (under the unjustly-never-to-hold power Neil Kinnock) tried an American style political rally during an election ... 'we' hated it and it almost on it's own lost Labour the election. That mistake has never been repeated, tho' we have noted our politico's getting slicker and squirmier when questioned in the media rather than saying (or at least honestly lying about) what they stand for.
I keep going on about it but the Queen is our head of state, not some self-serving politician. The PM might run things but his title gives it away. He's the chief minister of the government who answers to the Crown. We get 'proper' pomp and circumstance' from Mrs Queen, thank you very much. Jumped-up 'Wannabe Rulers' had just better behave themselves and be quiet.
One of the big popularity losers for Blair actually was that he was getting delusions of 'Presidential' authority - nothing has been officially commented on in this regard but ... well we as a people certainly didn't like it and I can't imagine Her Majesty was particularly enamoured of it either.
Yes, we have statutes here and there of Prime Ministers of 'note' who are now safey gone beyond the reach of the 'cult of celebrity' but that's about it.
A while ago, a Labour government (under the unjustly-never-to-hold power Neil Kinnock) tried an American style political rally during an election ... 'we' hated it and it almost on it's own lost Labour the election. That mistake has never been repeated, tho' we have noted our politico's getting slicker and squirmier when questioned in the media rather than saying (or at least honestly lying about) what they stand for.
I keep going on about it but the Queen is our head of state, not some self-serving politician. The PM might run things but his title gives it away. He's the chief minister of the government who answers to the Crown. We get 'proper' pomp and circumstance' from Mrs Queen, thank you very much. Jumped-up 'Wannabe Rulers' had just better behave themselves and be quiet.
One of the big popularity losers for Blair actually was that he was getting delusions of 'Presidential' authority - nothing has been officially commented on in this regard but ... well we as a people certainly didn't like it and I can't imagine Her Majesty was particularly enamoured of it either.
