Ableton Forum

doc holiday wrote: if the point is to be skeptical how come you buy the mcdonalds sales pitch hook line and sinker?

mcdonalds sales pitch?

philipc wrote: I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. The American media is centre-right at best, as is Obama. What passes for an American left has projected onto him hopelessly unrealistic expectations that it'll have to descend even further into fervent nationalistic denial to maintain. Just because he said some vaguely leftist things in his youth and voted vaguely lefty in the senate when he represented a very lefty state doesn't mean he'll carry on that way in the White House.

Above everything else Obama is a populist. Don't overstate the power of the President, the most fundamental issues in America and the world he can do absolutely nothing about. He can't criticise Israel, he can't do anything about political corruption, his position on the major social issues such as the death penalty and abortion are very much the status quo. As for redistributive taxation, he, like those before him are all for it. That is redistributing from the poor to the wealthy. That will continue.

America finally has the kind of President that TV has promised it for so, so long.

More cuddly than Clinton, more regal than Reagan.

Enjoy it America. And watch more TV. Its good for you. Particularly soap operas and 'reality tv'. They distract you from annoying things like the news.

Maybe this seems a bit harsh. I genuinely do think that having a man of mixed race as President represents a huge step forward for race relations in the US. But race relations aren't the only game in town. He still represents the rich and powerful, exclusively.

Just because hes black skinned doesn't mean he'll be gunning for the average citizen. Not even if he wanted to (which he may do).

Same game, new player. That is all.

man oh man. i love it when a witty brit tells me, as an american, everything i already knew in a condescending manner, it truly makes me receptive to whatever message he's delivering.

thank. you. sir.

Pages and pages of this thread, and only one - maybe 2 - mentions of the two wars we are still wrongfully engaged in....



It is a huge disappointment for me that Obama has all but abandoned his anti-war stance with respect to Iraq. It was one of the main platforms of his campaign. So far I see little or no change. The timeline for withdrawl is still not set. In fact, it keeps getting pushed out. Further, further, further.

Obama's position on Afghanistan is, point in fact, no different from Bush's. Correction. It's worse. He's wanting more troops now.

We are still launching illegal attacks into Pakistan. Just last week, another barrage into a sovereign nation.

The amount of money still spent every week on these 2 conflicts could be well spent right here at home.

I sincerely hope that this President, who had the strongest anti-war platform of any candidate with the exception of Ron Paul, will call for the immediate and unconditional withdrawl of all US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I care about Global Warming. I really do. I just care about ending the killing that's happening RIGHT NOW a tad more.

Here's to dreaming, I suppose.

Tone Deft wrote:watching last night's Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann says
"at least with this administration we know were half the money is going."

Yes. And with the current administration quadrupling the previous administration's spending, we now don't know where twice the money is going than before.

LoopStationZebra wrote:Pages and pages of this thread, and only one - maybe 2 - mentions of the two wars we are still wrongfully engaged in....

Wrongfully? I believe that trying to fight terrorists on their own turf instead of the streets of Cincinnati, Atlanta, or Phoenix is probably a good idea. And I think that the world community should do everything possible to make life hard for those countries who knowingly harbor terrorists.

It is a huge disappointment for me that Obama has all but abandoned his anti-war stance with respect to Iraq. It was one of the main platforms of his campaign. So far I see little or no change. The timeline for withdrawl is still not set. In fact, it keeps getting pushed out. Further, further, further.

It's why I don't believe any campaign rhetoric anymore. None. Obama is a politician. Welcome to reality. (insert shrug emoticon here)

As far as a timeline for withdrawal goes, don't you think it would be to Iraq's (and our) advantage to not advertise our intentions to the insurgency? Keep them guessing. Just as you wouldn't want to advertise your position on the battlefield to your enemies, we shouldn't let the public (therefore the press, therefore our enemies) know jack about any troop withdrawal timeline.

Obama's position on Afghanistan is, point in fact, no different from Bush's. Correction. It's worse. He's wanting more troops now.

We are still launching illegal attacks into Pakistan. Just last week, another barrage into a sovereign nation.

Well, if Pakistan foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi can be believed, it appears that Pakistan would welcome our efforts to eradicate terrorism in his country:
"He said Pakistan’s position against terrorism and extremism of any kind is unflinching despite heavy cost it is paying today in terms of loss of precious civilian military lives and setback to the economy. Our message to the terrorists is loud and clear that we will not allow our territory to be used in furtherance of terrorism and we will not be daunted by their threats." -- the question is whether we can believe him. Apparently there are those in the Administration who have reason to believe that Qureshi is just yanking our chain. (from the article here: http://www.pak-times.com/2009/02/07/wor ... -pakistan/ )

The amount of money still spent every week on these 2 conflicts could be well spent right here at home.

Yes- we could bail out even more companies and have a few more $Trillion to spend in "stimulus packages".

I sincerely hope that this President, who had the strongest anti-war platform of any candidate with the exception of Ron Paul, will call for the immediate and unconditional withdrawl of all US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

...and the insurgents and terrorists would rejoice and promptly take over those countries. And build their forces, using those countries as training grounds and staging points.

I care about Global Warming. I really do. I just care about ending the killing that's happening RIGHT NOW a tad more.

Here's to dreaming, I suppose.

See my other posts in this thread regarding man-made global warming, which in my view is a crock, and just a way for governments to get more control of industry and people, and tax the sh** out of both of them. You think you're barely scraping by now? Just wait a few years, my friend.

db91977 wrote:Wrongfully? I believe that trying to fight terrorists on their own turf instead of the streets of Cincinnati, Atlanta, or Phoenix is probably a good idea.

Interesting except that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Insurgents...hmmm....funny how people react when their world is ripped apart and they have no resources to take care of themselves or their families. Funny how the US counterinsurgency strategy changed when new leadership realized most of the 'insurgents' were just trying to take care of their families and the US started just paying them off, which has accomplished wonders - although the success is largely attributed to the 'surge'. Not very convenient for war propaganda to paint the enemy as rational people who respond to rational solutions - much easier to tell the taxpayers that brute force saved the day.

ethios4 wrote:

db91977 wrote:Wrongfully? I believe that trying to fight terrorists on their own turf instead of the streets of Cincinnati, Atlanta, or Phoenix is probably a good idea.

Interesting except that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Insurgents...hmmm....funny how people react when their world is ripped apart and they have no resources to take care of themselves or their families. Funny how the US counterinsurgency strategy changed when new leadership realized most of the 'insurgents' were just trying to take care of their families and the US started just paying them off, which has accomplished wonders - although the success is largely attributed to the 'surge'. Not very convenient for war propaganda to paint the enemy as rational people who respond to rational solutions - much easier to tell the taxpayers that brute force saved the day.

Yes; the insurgency in Iraq should be pacified by whatever means- that's a good thing. I don't care if it's the Surge, paying them off, or giving them free tickets to Six Flags Over Islamabad; the country needs to be stable and grow stronger in order to contain and repel terrorist elements which would surely take over, much as the Taliban in Afghanistan. I'm not convinced that it was a good idea to be in Iraq in the first place, but now that we're there... at least Saddam's murderous regime was brought down- that has to be counted as a good thing, among most sane people.

db91977 wrote:

knotkranky wrote:

db91977 wrote:
Data can be manipulated to support one's point of view.

love it

GWB, Fox news, Rush and AIG would concur.

So whats the point then?

The point is to be skeptical, look at the raw data yourself (if possible), get your news from as many sources as possible, employ critical thinking, and make up your own mind. Or, if you can't be so bothered with that, just read the NY Times, watch CNN and MSNBC, and listen to NPR.

The point is hardly about skepticism and raw data. Please, you applied all that critical thinking before and ended up voting for bush twice sooo.... I'd say your method sucks pretty bad for just about everybody, though you may have faired well, which would make sense. You see, republican conservatism, their news outlets and all that credibility is the point here, and there is none. Zero cred. Now you point to man in office for only sixty days to warn us about his failing policies. Geez dude, where was your concern before. Please

db91977 wrote: See my other posts in this thread regarding man-made global warming, which in my view is a crock, and just a way for governments to get more control of industry and people, and tax the sh** out of both of them. You think you're barely scraping by now? Just wait a few years, my friend.

And this right here is why you, and people like you are just a total waste of time on the interwebs.
You have yet to answer why you think driving a cleaner car or controlling pollution is not worth the time or effort, yet you use your google searched 'answers' as proof of your point. You whine that someone isn't talking to you about your view, yet you engage selectively with only 'opponents' you can offer sound bites to.

This cycle is endless:

Right wing 'musician' posts in political thread.
Gets 4-6 people engaged.
Only answers safe questions, or replies, ones that he has patented answers for.
Acts butthurt about being the only right wing type, tries to act like he's a 'rouge', a rebel against the liberal musicians.
20 pages appear.
?????
No profit, no answers, no movement, except a few posters who's parents or loved ones are conservative get upset when Mr. America is attacked by some hippy, and rush to his side etc. etc. etc.

knotkranky wrote:The point is hardly about skepticism and raw data. Please, you applied all that critical thinking before and ended up voting for bush twice sooo.... I'd say your method sucks pretty bad for just about everybody, though you may have faired well, which would make sense. You see, republican conservatism, their news outlets and all that credibility is the point here, and there is none. Zero cred. Now you point to man in office for only sixty days to warn us about his failing policies. Geez dude, where was your concern before. Please

As I've alluded to before in this thread, when we are given a choice of candidates, and neither of them are a good choice, what does a reasonable person do? They vote for the lesser of two evils, that's what. I've had plenty of concern, for a long time, thank you very much.

And, btw, all of us in the U.S. have "fared well" with respect to terrorist attacks since 9/11, after implementation of some pretty good anti-terrorist policies. Have we been attacked since then? No. Not for lack of trying, either- no fewer than 19 planned attacks on the U.S. have been thwarted since 09/11/2001. Documented, proved, case closed. Next...

Republican conservatism? Maybe we should separate out conservatism from the Republican Party. They don't have much common ground these days. Bush is a case in point. He certainly wasn't a fiscal conservative, anyway.

My method sucks? So I take it that instead of critical thinking, getting your news from diverse sources, being skeptical, looking at raw data where possible, doing your own analysis and coming to your own conclusions, we would be better off to get our news from one source only (the boob tube), to accept whatever people tell us (no thought required!), and never look at data sources (Dangerous! Do Not Open! No user-understandable Data inside! The pseudo-intellectuals among you will give you your opinions).

Conservative views have no "cred"? With whom? Now, I could say the same thing about a lot of liberal news sources, but I recognize that there is room for differing viewpoints in a democratic society such as ours. In fact, this country was built on dissent and debate in the public arena. Isn't a hallmark of liberalism supposedly tolerance for the views and feelings of others? Or at least I thought it was... I think we each have to make up our own minds how much cred such-and-such news outlet has. And the amount of 'cred' may vary with the reporter, or even the story covered. You might even discover that some news outlets cover stories that others won't.. In which case, you have to consider why that might be, and add your conclusions to your body of knowledge and opinion, and the calibration of your internal "credometer".

Machinesworking wrote: And this right here is why you, and people like you are just a total waste of time on the interwebs.
You have yet to answer why you think driving a cleaner car or controlling pollution is not worth the time or effort, yet you use your google searched 'answers' as proof of your point. You whine that someone isn't talking to you about your view, yet you engage selectively with only 'opponents' you can offer sound bites to.

This cycle is endless:

Right wing 'musician' posts in political thread.
Gets 4-6 people engaged.
Only answers safe questions, or replies, ones that he has patented answers for.
Acts butthurt about being the only right wing type, tries to act like he's a 'rouge', a rebel against the liberal musicians.
20 pages appear.
?????
No profit, no answers, no movement, except a few posters who's parents or loved ones are conservative get upset when Mr. America is attacked by some hippy, and rush to his side etc. etc. etc.

And how is your post advancing the discussion, or making people think about the issues? "'Butthurt' about being the only right-wing type"? Ridiculous, on at least two levels. Have any of you taken a poll about the political leanings of forum members? I grant that there may be a majority whose political leanings are to the left, which would be typical for "some hippy", as you put it, but I doubt that I am the only person here who could express views such as mine. 'Butthurt'? Nah. The marketplace of ideas is a fascinating place. If you can put up with all the rude customers...

I'm in California. I drive a car with squeaky-clean emissions already. I'm all for clean cars, as long as it doens't put me in the poorhouse. Oh, wait- too late. We're now under a mountain of debt that would make Mt. Everest blush with inadequacy.

Me and people like me are a total waste of time on the interwebs? Thank you- I love you too!

"No profit, no answers, no movement.."? There may not be many answers yet, but a good first step might be thinking about and discussing the issues. Which is what I thought the point of this thread was...

db91977 wrote: I'm in California. I drive a car with squeaky-clean emissions already. I'm all for clean cars, as long as it doens't put me in the poorhouse. Oh, wait- too late. We're now under a mountain of debt that would make Mt. Everest blush with inadequacy.

"No profit, no answers, no movement.."? There may not be many answers yet, but a good first step might be thinking about and discussing the issues. Which is what I thought the point of this thread was...

Again, you haven't answered why you think environmental laws are bad? and spent a good amount of time trying to debunk global warming? You seriously cannot believe that global warming issues are the cause of the recession? Had nothing to do with corporate greed right? You know the same greed that fueled poisoning Lake Erie? You make connections between things that simply aren't there, it's why I said it's silly to debate you, you won't answer questions that don't play into your rhetoric. It's talking to a brick wall.

For instance Obama. I didn't vote for him, but I'm well aware that no matter how crazy I think his policies are, two months simply isn't enough time to come to any rational conclusions. You've actually argued that it is.

Why debate with a brick wall? We all know where you stand:
All business is OK, and any government intervention there is wrong, the government will screw it up.
Social programs by the government are bad because the government can't do anything right.
So accordingly spending on social issues is bad.
Intervention into other countries by our government are however OK, if the paperwork is in order.
So accordingly, in light of the threat of 'terrorism', military spending is necessary.
I would bet you're anti UN as well.......

Prove me wrong, I would be delighted to be.

Machinesworking wrote:Intervention into other countries by our government are however OK, if the paperwork is in order.

Or, in the case of Iraq, if the paperwork was falsified and make to look as if it were *ahem* in order.

He was on 60 minutes, which has a reputation as one of the hardest hitting news magazine shows out there. He was interviewed by one of the more hardnosed interviewers.

In the interview, he was given one kind of a jab and one pretty hard body blow. The jab was when the interviewer indicated he may be 'punch drunk', which was handled well. The other, when the interviewer mentioned that some of the relased prisoners from Guantanamo were apparently involved in terrorist recruiting after their release, Obama kind of shrugged it off, as if to say 'well, that is the price of living by one's principles and we can afford that', but he did not dispute the factuality of the statement.

So his appearances tend to leave him exposed here and there, the 'special olympics' thing, the above example... which are things the people who are with him can understand and tolerate, but which are things that his detractors will inflate and grind in as best they can.

The honeymoon is over when his detractors have accrued enough minor spills to use as paint to concoct a distasteful portrait that seems plausible. My thought is that he is smart, and so will learn from these spills, and extend the honeymoon for another 3-5 months.

[edit] to keep his high approval rating through the end of the year, the economy needs to be visibly turned around. The government really doesn't have too much direct control of that-- they can sow some seeds, but how they grow depends on a fair amount of other things.

meh.

When 1 out of 3 Obama news clips on NPR are still all about exactly what brand of grape soda is Grandfather liked to drink in Kenya, I'd say the Honeymoon period is still in full force - with no sign of slowing.

"Up next on NPR: President Obama and his iPod playlist. What's on it and why you should care."

meh.