?

Log in

No account? Create an account

political_rage

US Elections v UK Elitism

Nov. 3rd, 2008 | 11:58 am
posted by: ockhamsadvocate in political_rage


Well the election is nearly over in the US, and the world might see on Tuesday morning the first Black American President in the world. A lot of my friends are saying that if he doesn't get elected it will prove America is still racist. I think this a ridiculous line of reasoning. The fact that he is leading one of America's largest political parties, and is even in the race for president, shows that America is far more racially progressive than us British snobs like to believe. America has Condeleeza Rice, Colin Powel and Barrack Obama in policy making political positions. Who are their British equivalents? In fact if you wiki African American Politicians you get over 600 entries! I have never seen a non white face in the front row during any of the debates in the Houses of Parliment.

Even without Obama winning the US election, this election has shown that ( when it comes to politics)  the UK has a lot to learn about equal opportunities from America.

Link | Leave a comment {3} | Share

political_rage

Why I think that poverty can never truly be eradicated

Jul. 17th, 2008 | 12:33 pm
posted by: ockhamsadvocate in political_rage

People and politicians often talk about how they could eradicate poverty in countries like Africa if they could just provide free education, health care and good social security, but there is no evidence that any of this would work. Even if you managed to provide these facilities, some people would still be financially. As an example these things are available at a very high quality in the UK, yet there are still many examples of poverty here. I really believe that some states of poverty are in the mind and not issues of a lack of finance, but of lifestyle. Almost no one living in a city should be more than 2 miles from a free school, but there is still a massive illiteracy problem.

There is plenty of opportunity to get out of poverty, for a start no one should be illiterate, the country has some of the best social housing in the world, and one of the worlds best social security systems. Children living in the third world can walk for over an hour to get to school, this problem has been almost been eradicated here, but there are still children who don't go to school regularly out of their own choice. Poverty should not be nearly as prevalent as it is.

I know of plenty of people who the government would consider as poor. They do not want to do anything to change their financial status and throwing money at them will not induce motivation. My point is that it is pointless to make statements about eradicating poverty when not everyone wants to get out of poverty. Some people are comfortable in their economic state and if they make the choice not to change their situation, then that choice should be respected. As long as some people are making that choice, poverty will never be eradicated.

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Hah.

Apr. 14th, 2008 | 12:51 pm
music: Fear
posted by: luminationremix in political_rage

Isn't it ironic that we have a man running against two dynasties, and everytime he starts to pull ahead his opponents, (one in particular) wants to play herself up to be the underdog in this election.  What makes it more ironic and even funny is that some people feel sorry for her when she is on the ropes and is losing. These same people who all the time say politicians are all crooks, and are rich fat cats who don't know what they go through or give a damn about them. 

I find it even more hilarious that most people get annoyed with politicians saying the same old crap every four years to scare up votes. I've heard many people on the street say such things as, "Politicians always tell you what you wanna hear, then when we elect them they never live up to their promises." This is funny because when we do finally get a politician who'll occasinally tell us some things we may not want to hear, or tell the truth, we let the media scrutinize them to no end, or vote against them in favor of someone who is more corrupted and less honest, and more well known.

What Obama said about bitter people clinging to God and guns when times get tough is exactly right. That's exactly what a lot of people do. I live in a state where in some areas I see people do just that. It's not an elitest statement. It's the truth. I don't see why that statement would cause such alarm. It shows that Obama's been paying attention. 

Sometimes I think Obama is too honest to be a politician, because again so many people in this country swear up and down they want a politican who'll tell them the truth, but it seems that a lot people just want to be cheated and lied to by politicians because that is what they are used to. 

Obama is not perfect, but he is different. I think after what we have now, people should be more eager to at least give this guy a shot. He's at least worth that much judging from the way he's run his campaign. And again he's running against two dynasties: The Clinton Dynasty, and The McCain Military One. He didn't have a whole lot of connections at the start of his campaign compared to his opponents. 

Link | Leave a comment {7} | Share

political_rage

Excellent article on post war Iraq

Mar. 23rd, 2008 | 01:50 pm
posted by: ockhamsadvocate in political_rage

What the Left dont want you to know.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=290819336173209

Link | Leave a comment {2} | Share

Sian Berry: Tit

Mar. 21st, 2008 | 06:10 pm
posted by: roger_brook in political_rage

Although I strongly support environmentalism, I've always been suspicious of the Green Party. This confirmed my suspicions.

Really, what the fuck made her imagine allying with Ken Leavingsoon was a good idea? Yes, I agree that Boris Johnson would be woeful on the environment (and everything else). But why infer from this that you should be supporting Leavingsoon, who quite obviously doesn't care about the environment or anything else apart from himself and his mates? I don't think for one minute that she means what she says. There must be some purpose behind it, but what? It stinks.

If she had supported the Lib Dems I might have had some respect for her. But now we can see that Paddick is the greenest of all the candidates, as Nutty has just ruled herself out.

Link | Leave a comment | Share

political_rage

barack obama

Mar. 19th, 2008 | 04:28 pm
mood: pissed offpissed off
posted by: eyeoftherose09 in political_rage

I can't believe this.

Is America really such a country of sheep, who blindly follow those who happen to have a smooth, coaxing voice?

Nothing Senator Barack Obama said in his "amazing" speech yesterday made any of it better. The bottom line is, he supported a preacher for 20 years. If he's the Christian he said he is (which I have fought to the death with some people over - I defended him on this fact) he goes to church to be fed, to renew the Spirit within him, to hear about God's love. To give his children the experience of the Spirit and the life God promises for us all. How can you go to a preacher for twenty years and, if you're really paying attention, not be influenced by things like this? What kind of preacher preaches hate? And how do you tell your children not to listen? Preachers are, or at least should be, some of the people you can always count on. How do you go home from church after a sermon like that and then say, "Now kids, forget all that he said!"

Doesn't his wife's comment make sense now? About how this is the first time in her adult life that she's proud to be an American? How well this fits in!

Nothing he said changes the fact that he supported a preacher who preaches hate. And if this doesn't bother you Obama supporters, why not the fact that he lied to you? He mislead you. When this first came out during this election he said he had no idea that the preacher had said anything like this at all. Now he says he has had knowledge of it. And of course he did - this isn't the first time this has happened. It happened earlier, a few years back I think, and Obama knew about it. So he lied to you, America, trying to save his own butt. And he has said that this man never gives him political advise. Didn't Obama also say that he never makes a decision without consulting him?

And you may argue church and state, but the preacher broke this by talking about it in his sermons! Isn't the purpose of a Christian life to spread the Word? To convert others to Christianity? In the long run, like oh I don't know ETERNITY, who you voted for in a stupid election isn't really going to matter. Obama said that we've probably all heard some things from our preachers that we disagree with. Actually, no, Senator Obama. That's just you. My preacher doesn't yell at me to hate other races.

But what makes me really angry is his speech. He is a very, very excellent speaker. So is his wife. They have smooth voices, they have a way with words, they know how to get you inspired and energized. He knows this. And what I hate is that he used this to his advantage. He knew that if he told you words of change, that if he could tell you pitying stories of his life, that he could sway America. And what's worse is that America blindly follows. He hasn't erased anything! He knows he can say the word "change" and a huge amount of people will latch onto it, because no one likes where we are right now! He knows he can fool us all, especially those who want him to make it better. Those who dislike Hillary they just want to vote for him to keep her out. So they will hear this and think there's the answer! But it doesn't make it better. It's not the answer.

I don't see how anyone has any respect left for him. He just needs to step down.

Link | Leave a comment {3} | Share

political_rage

Just what i always thought...

Mar. 14th, 2008 | 02:58 pm
posted by: ockhamsadvocate in political_rage

I have just found an good article that confirms what i always suspected about socialism and Marxism. Socialism stiffles competition, which we need for innovation to occur. Capitalism thrives of competition which leads to innovation, better technology, economic growth and ultimately better living standards.

Competition - [drives] - Innovation -[drives] - Improved Technology -[drives] - Economic Growth -[drives] - Funding for Innovation -[drives] - Improved Technology -[drives]- Economic Growth... ad infinitum

The Meaning of Marxism
http://www.targetofopportunity.com/marxism.htm

Link | Leave a comment {1} | Share

political_rage

Western Liberal Hypocrisy

Mar. 13th, 2008 | 09:42 am
posted by: ockhamsadvocate in political_rage

Somehow Anti-Americanism has somehow become the great cause of western liberal idealists. Ironic considering America is one of the few countries in the world that allows large liberal movements to flourish. The countries often defended by western liberals do not themeselves allow any liberal movements, free speech or equal rights for their own citizens. The only common trait they (countries supported by western liberals) seem to share is a hatred for America and/or capitalism. Its as though a government can commit as many atrocities or human rights abuses as they wish, for as long as they are anti American and/or capitalist they can expect the strong support of western liberals. The hypocisy lies in the fact that western liberals deride America for commiting the very same human rights abuses the countries they support lead the world in.
 

Link | Leave a comment | Share

political_rage

Bottom Brown strikes again!

Mar. 5th, 2008 | 10:53 am
posted by: ockhamsadvocate in political_rage

I just read this in the Guardian today and im very surprised at what looks like a major mistake by Brown. Selling half of the UK's gold reserves for $275 an once! What a cock up. Even my dad knows that over the long term gold will only keep increasing in value and his no ecomomist ;)

Brown must of been desperate for the cash to drop that clanger.

Looks like the buyer of the Gold is laughing all the way to the bank though! 


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/mar/05/mining.economy

"Gordon Brown's decision to sell half of Britain's gold reserves nearly a decade ago was coming back to haunt him last night as the price of the precious metal looked poised to break through the $1,000 an ounce barrier for the first time."
"Alistair Darling, the chancellor, will be questioned in the Commons tomorrow about the decision of his predecessor, which the Conservatives said last night had cost the exchequer £4bn - double the losses suffered by the Bank of England on Black Wednesday. "
"The gold price this week set a new high of $989 (£498) an ounce. Although it dipped slightly yesterday, analysts said it was only a matter of time until it burst through the $1,000-an-ounce level. The Treasury's gold sales between 1999 and 2002 netted an average price of $275 an ounce."

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Question

Feb. 24th, 2008 | 11:15 am
posted by: luminationremix in political_rage

All the time I hear people talk about how they're so sick of the same old politicians in office not doing anything for years and years, and how they all should be voted out, and new people should sworn in so we could get something done.  I also hear people say things like the senate and congressional terms should have strict limits just so we can eliminate all the old politicians who do nothing. When I tell people that members of congress get unlimited terms unless they don't get re-elected by their state or district, they become outraged. "Are you serious?" they ask me. "And they've been in there that long, and what have we gotten from it?" It seems like a lot of people desire new leadership. At least that's the impression I get when they talk to me.

But as soon as election time comes, a few of these people start changing their minds when a candidate they really like doesn't have "experience." Then they end up voting for the senior statesman again, and we make no progress. I know this first hand because I live in Connecticut and our state was dumb enough to re-elect tired old, Iraq war supporting, John McCain endorsing, trader, Joe Lieberman in 2006. But now, many who voted for him regret it. They regret it so much so, that Obama took our state in the primary during Super Tuesday, narrowly, but he did it, which means people woke up. 

But let's face facts. All politicians are crooks in one way or another. It's a dirty business being in public office. But what I can't stand is how people want to believe experience trumps character and judgement when they know in their hearts it isn't true. Like I said my state re-elected Joe Lieberman all because of the experience factor, even though he switched parties just to get in again. And because we re-elected him, we now look like a bunch of idiots for having done so, because former Vice Presidential Candidate Joe Lieberman, who'd been a democrat in the senate for 18 years, and who constantly made people aware of how much he emulated JFK, and was for doing the right thing etc etc, supports the Iraq war, and doesn't care if his new best friend John McCain keeps us there for 100 years. 

All because of experience. 

If experience in national politics was so damn important, then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in because everyone in Bush's cabinet has plenty of experience. Dick Cheney was a congressman for 10 years, and then a secretary of defense for 4 years after that (under George H.W Bush's administration), so why aren't we safe? Why do we, as of this administration, need a department of homeland security to waste more tax money? What happened to experience? Donald Rumsfeld had 4 decades of experience in public office and a big long resume. He'd been a congressman, a white house chief of staff, and a secretary of defense under two previous administrations. We thought he'd be around until the end, but his bad judgment did him in.

And in light of examples like this, and there are a lot, why do people still look at experience as a factor for picking anyone for anything? When Hillary Clinton says she's been fighting for this, that and the other thing for 35 years, why shouldn't that statement alone do her in because when she says that, I and many other people look at each other and go, "And this is as far as we've gotten after you've been fighting for 35 years?"  

And for the record, people didn't vote for Bush in 2000 because he promised change or because he was somebody people wanted to have a beer with, they voted for him because of name recognition, and because they thought since his father had been president, maybe he'd have some idea of what he was doing based on his family's long legacy of being in politics.  And look where we are. 

Experience doesn't mean anything if you have no common sense or conscience.

Link | Leave a comment {3} | Share