Why Obama shouldn't be president. :/ Login to Kupika  or  Create a new account 

This diary entry is written by feh. ( View all entries )
Previous entry: "I'm treating somebody who did nothing wrong to me like shit! Take
that, society!"
in category (general)

Why Obama shouldn't be president. :/Category: (general)
Thursday, 29 May 2008
08:27:07 PM (GMT)
1. He said there were 57 states.
2. He won't wear an American Flag Pin.
3. He has connections with terrorists.
4. He goes off on that radioshow host for making a joking comment towards a
basketball team that consisted of both black AND white women who all probably listen
to rap music that is degrading to women, but for years went to a church that did
nothing but say horrible shit about White people, and never once complained about
5. He called the people we are currently walking across thin ice with our 'Oil
6. He claimed his relatives helped get rid of Augshiwtz (Spelling correct? I'm not
sure) when it was in fact the Russians.
7. Won't say the pledge of Allegiance.
8. His wife has the gall to say 'For the first time I'm proud to be an American' or
something along those lines, just because her husband was running.

In short, he has bad news written all over him. :/

‹[♪MusicAddiction♪]› says:   29 May 2008   628999  
My parents think Hilary Clinton should win. Now since I read this and
I think she should win too v_v
feh says:   29 May 2008   423273  
Mccain for me. :/
‹♥Star_Dust♥› says:   29 May 2008   913238  
sorry... spaz attack!

i still don't care cause half of that is not true... i'm obabma for

just stating my opionion
ProblemHelpNeeded says:   29 May 2008   866361  
I agree w/ 007wild. We shouldn't judge people for the past,
but what is in store in the future.
 And Obama Has the write to say no,
Doesn't everyone?
George Washington has brain washed you!!!
especially if you are voting for Mccain.
No offense but mccain thinks he can be president Because of him being
in the war for more than 2 years>.<
Such a big deal.
And you know what he  is the most reliable person yet.
no offense but Hillary C. & John M. Are Both a George W. Bush.
Which we DO NOT!!!! need.

Don't delete this...
I am just simply voicing my opinion.
‹MusicDefinesLove› says:   31 May 2008   161519  
That's how you spell it. :3
feh says:   31 May 2008   963429  
He's a liar. :/ He's a racist, dirty Liar.

No, he doesn't. He thinks he can be president because he has the
experience. How the hell has George Washington Brainwashed me? I think
you really do need a bit of help. I will voice my opinion as you will
yours, and I will voice it in whatever manner, even if that means I'm
bashing a person who deserves it, but you all think he doesn't. :/
neoeno says:   31 May 2008   314944  
The USA's obsession with patriotism is exactly the reason why you
have such particularly terrible rulers.

No. 1 was obviously a mistake, of course he's not stupid enough to
think there are 57 states. Propaganda.
No. 2, see above.
No. 3, connections with terrorists? What does that even mean?
No. 4, this is exactly why I said that the USA isn't going to have a
black leader. Imagine this: Obama believes black people deserve better
than white people. What's going to happen? Whites are going to lose
out? Of course not, if anything it will throw the balance towards
equality a bit, and there's still a long way to go before USA society
reaches racial equality.
No. 5, 6, 8, I don't know enough about. But I'll tell you this: I'm
not American, I'm not a believer in representative democracy (the type
of democracy the USA uses), and I'm fully aware that Obama will be yet
another in a long line of rulers to not make anything significantly
better for the people, just like all of the other candidates, and yet
I can still recognise this for the propaganda it is.
feh says:   31 May 2008   127397  
Where do you get off, hm? :/ Where you come from, you obviously all
suffer from inflated egos.

1. He should have been more careful, than to simply announce that
there were.
2. I did.
3. He's friends with them. :/ Duh.
4. How would that cause for equality? It would make for an uproar. Why
should one race get special treatment? Because of an incident that
happens HOW many years ago? African Americans should get over the
slavery incident. If Jews could get over the Nazi Genocide incident,
African Americans should be able to return the favor.
For your last three, do you have a problem with our form of democracy?
Go take your talk of propaganda and go shove it in a nice, tight,
fairly warm place. :/
neoeno says:   31 May 2008   493794  
Nice decent away from discussion of the issue into personal insults
there. Well done.

1. So he should have just not made mistakes ever? Show me a politician
who's never made a simple error such as that and I'll show you a
3. Friends with them? What, he just goes down the bar and has a couple
of drinks with his terrorist pals? Sees them on his way to work? It's
a little more complicated than that, I'm pretty sure.
4. Sorry what? What incident are you referring to? It's not a question
of getting over something, racism isn't something in the past, it's
still there and it is still a major inequality.

A problem with your form of democracy? I said as much. I have a
problem with representative democracy, which is the major form used by
democratic states. To answer your question: yes I do.

I could, but I'd rather not, it might be a bit uncomfortable for you.
neoeno says:   31 May 2008   371279  
I missed a few things:


Why should one race get special treatment indeed, whites routinely do.
A lot of your society is built on the notion that conflict can cause
stability, and that's a pretty intelligent notion so you ought to be
familiar with it. If Obama saw blacks as more important than whites,
this would conflict with the white-bias of your government, thereby
balancing it out a bit.
feh says:   31 May 2008   628937  
I go for the throat. Sorry. :/

1. If he is running for president, he should have the ability to watch
what he says. :/ Or at least admit he made a mistake.
3. Regardless, he's cozy with them. I would feel a lot more
comfortable if he simply cut off ties. He doesn't even need to turn
his buddies in, as long as he were to just stop speaking with them. I
don't care how complicated it is, it still gets me uncomfortable.
4. There is racism on all sides. African Americans aren't the only
ones recieving it. Obama's church has made it quite clear that Whites
are also recieving racism, and yet we all learn to get over it. A
white radioshow host makes a small joke, he gets kicked off the air.
It takes a Presidential Candidate's popularity to get an African
American noticed for racism. :/ 

 Okay, tell me why? What is so dreadful about our form of democracy,
and what is so amazing about yours? 

 More than likely. :/
neoeno says:   31 May 2008   649693  

1. Well I'm sure it's pretty obvious to everyone he made a mistake,
and it hardly warrants a public apology.
3. I'm not sure he's cozy with them. If he were shooting pool with
them after hours, then I could understand, but diplomatic links with
what I'm guessing are leaders also are always a good thing to have. If
all the leaders were cozy with the terrorists, they'd probably run out
of states to target.
4. There's racism on all sides, sure, but whites benefit from it most.
The whole Obama's Church form of overt racism is only the tip of the
iceberg, and is the least destructive part. The most destructive part
is institutional racism, prejudice, stuff that's so subtle it leads
people (like me, a couple of years back) to believe that racism simply
doesn't exist in any meaningful way.

I never said my form of democracy was any better. This illustrates my
point: the focus on patriotism and by extension us vs. them thinking.
The UK's democracy is representative democracy, and I'm not a
fan of it either (though I do have a preference for the UK's more
skeptical attitude towards politicians, and the fact that religion is
mostly out of it (take the example of Tony Blair's government, who
once famously said "We don't do God"))

But I digress. I dislike representative democracy because, despite the
name, it does not represent the will or wants of the people.
Propaganda serves for representative democracy as violence does for
dictatorships, and that's not the half of it.
feh says:   31 May 2008   963395  
1. Still, it wouldn't hurt for him to simply say, "I was wrong, I
made a stupid mistake, I'm sorry." It shows that he can swallow his
pride enough to admit he is wrong. :/
3. If the man isn't willing to cut off all friendly (however you wish
to view friendly) links with them, than I assume he is cozy with them.
I don't mean cozy in the sense in which you're taking it, but in the
sense that he feels comfortable with them and doesn't view them as a
threat. Anybody who falls under the category of 'terrorist' is and
always will be a threat. :/
4. No side benefits from it. :/ And if you want to get down to which
side benefits from it the most, then lets talk affirmative action.
African Americans may think it is degrading, but that doesn't stop
them from using it to their benefit. For instance, John is African
American and is trying to get into a specific class in a college, and
has a B grade point average (Which isn't saying all African Americans
score low, it's simply me using this for the sake of examples), while
Jeremy, whom is white, is applying to that same college class and has
an A average. Due to the fact that this specific class is supposed to
have at least three African Americans and they only have two, John
gets accepted into the class, but Jeremy doesn't, due to the fact that
this class is now filled up. I simply don't think that a group of
people should get breaks all because of something that happened so
long ago. :/ 

 It's true, that you didn't. I merely assumed you were from the way
you were wording things. Our country runs on Patriotism, that's true.
But isn't anything to frown over. :/ How can we function when we have
a president who is cynical towards our country, and only ever
appreciates it when it does something good for him? And the only
politician I ever remember a fuss being made over (do remember, I'm
Only thirteen, so It isn't as though i've been exposed to many other
politicians) due to religion was Mitt Romney for being Mormon.

 I'm Republican, so I appreciate independence as opposed to having
somebody doing the talking, but if it works, it works. :/ 
 Representative Democracy and Dictatorships are somewhat connected,
but not that closely related, so this falls into the apples and
oranges category. :/
‹MayaLOVESFAME› says:   1 June 2008   796354  
feh says:   1 June 2008   427128  
Your talking in all caps annoys me. :/
neoeno says:   4 June 2008   796377  
1. I'd maintain that calling this an issue is overreacting. If he
publicly apologised it would probably be viewed as pandering anyway.
3. Who's a terrorist? There's a wide variety of definitions. Most of
the groups called terrorists by the USAian media (from what I've
experienced) are not terrorists at all. Sadam was not a terrorist,
because he was the leader of a country. If Bush was Sadam's best
friend, and said, "Yanno, Sadam, it really is time to knock all that
killing civilians off. I'll give you a free new wing at your embassy
if you do?" and he agreed, that would be great for everyone. 

4. No side benefits from it? The median income for whites in the USA
in 2006 was $50,673, and for blacks it was $31,969. You can explain
this however you like, but the facts still stand: your society is
racially unequal.
It's very easy to look at the whole race-quota thing and say "that's
unfair", but you have to consider why it is there in the first place.
Before that system, blacks were getting in far less than whites were.
The quotas were introduced to try to address this problem. They did it
all wrong, but politicians see things in terms of policy, and so
that's what the implemented. It is also worth considering that the
education system is biased against blacks too (see the statistics), so
the motivation might be to make up for that inequality in schools. For
all the goals of meritocracy in the education system, there is
surprisingly little evidence of this. Social class, race, and gender
(in that order) are all more influential in determining educational
attainment than IQ.

As a side-note: when you adopt the right wing model of society, and
then you find all these inequalities, it's easy to see how racism
comes of that. You blame the blacks for being stupid or not trying
hard enough or because people are trying to apologise for the slave
trade or something like that. That's not how it is. No one making
policy cares about the slave trade anymore, admissions tutors don't
get together in a room and go "Ah... well.. there was that slavery
thing wasn't there... better make up for that I guess". It's because
there is inequality here and now.

Patriotism and cynicism aren't the only options. In the UK, probably
one of the most unpatriotic countries you'll come across, politicians
recognise that they do their job for the good of the people. They
aren't trying to make their country great, or uphold some notion of
greatness (whatever that
neoeno says :   4 June 2008   552245  
##Agh, forgot to copy it. Retyping the rest.. gah.##

means), they are trying to make things the best they can for their
people. That is the true role of a leader. Moreover, nationalism is a
dangerous ideology because it creates an us-vs-them attitude towards
other countries and the people of those countries. I'm not patriotic,
and I don't like patriotism. Why should I take credit for other people
in my country who have done great things? That's not my pride to have.
Furthermore, if I were to feel pride, why should I not feel the utmost
shame for the terrible things my country has done?

They are closely related, in systems of managing a people. They both
have a generally top-down authoritarian approach. The difference with
representative democracy is that 'we' get to choose who rules. I put
we in inverted commas because it isn't really me or you who decides.
You have infinitesimally small power over who rules. Whereas a media
personality, a politician, or an ideologue, has a very large amount of
power (equal to thousands of votes perhaps). How can this be true in a
society where everyone has an equal vote? It doesn't add up. What,
shock horror, if I don't want _either_ of the two parties (and, be
realistic, it is two parties) to get in? I've got no choice. The
experiment of the founding fathers of the USA was a good one, and they
had the right idea, but ultimately it went awry.

Compare this society, where a man who exerts his own will (not
necessarily the will of the majority), can influence huge numbers of
peoples' lives in rather dramatic ways (and I'm not even talking about
politicians here), to a society where people have true
self-determination. A large amount of the reason a society I would
envisage doesn't make sense to a lot of people is because I agree with
the goals of both the left wing and the right wing. I'm socialist, I
wish for everyone to have enough to eat, free healthcare, social
housing, everyone for the good of everyone. But I also wish for
individual freedom, self-determination, the right to do what one

These goals are only incompatible in our current capitalist society,
where everyone is played off against everyone else. But they can work,
and they have worked, in what might seem as the most unlikely of


Next entry: Oh God, I watched a fake snuff film, so sue me. in category (general)
Related Entries
‹Rock_Ninja›: Going To Fight Song Lyrics
Dolfingirl: HUG O' WAR
shawnman: this is the war agenst...
‹HiddenFlare›: Love and War Hope Dairy
StrangeLover: War poem

About Kupika    Contact    FAQs    Terms of Service    Privacy Policy    Online Safety
Copyright © 2005-2012