Obama will be a token when he is president.  He will also be the last black president for a very long time. His handlers won’t let him do anything that will disrupt business as usual.

fnord wrote:

Obama will be a token when he is president.  He will also be the last black president for a very long time. His handlers won’t let him do anything that will disrupt business as usual.

I would agree.  All presidents are tokens.  The only difference is I think he won't go into Iran, whereas Hilary will go wherever they tell her, and I'm not sure about McCain.  Otherwise, I don't see much changing one way or another.

Fled wrote:

It is something like my then-teenage son who bought into Nader's "twwedle-dee tweedle-dum" bullshit when Bush ended up winning it.  Do you really believe what you are saying?  The president is powerless?  Seems to me they can decide to run roughshod over the bill of rights or they can enforce it.  They can appoint neanderthals to the Supreme Court or they can appoint people who care what has happened in the last two centuries.  In short, they can and do affect a whole lot of shit.  That's all.  I'm outta here.

Effect.

Fled wrote:

It is something like my then-teenage son who bought into Nader's "twwedle-dee tweedle-dum" bullshit when Bush ended up winning it.  Do you really believe what you are saying?  The president is powerless?  Seems to me they can decide to run roughshod over the bill of rights or they can enforce it.  They can appoint neanderthals to the Supreme Court or they can appoint people who care what has happened in the last two centuries.  In short, they can and do affect a whole lot of shit.  That's all.  I'm outta here.

No, I'm not claiming a conspiracy or a big mysterious "them."  I firmly believe that the President, ALONE, has no ability to change society.

George Orr wrote:

hedgewizard wrote:

Fled wrote:

It is something like my then-teenage son who bought into Nader's "twwedle-dee tweedle-dum" bullshit when Bush ended up winning it.  Do you really believe what you are saying?  The president is powerless?  Seems to me they can decide to run roughshod over the bill of rights or they can enforce it.  They can appoint neanderthals to the Supreme Court or they can appoint people who care what has happened in the last two centuries.  In short, they can and do affect a whole lot of shit.  That's all.  I'm outta here.

Effect.

Nope.  Affect.

I suppose that depends on what he meant.

George Orr wrote:

hedgewizard wrote:

Fled wrote:

It is something like my then-teenage son who bought into Nader's "twwedle-dee tweedle-dum" bullshit when Bush ended up winning it.  Do you really believe what you are saying?  The president is powerless?  Seems to me they can decide to run roughshod over the bill of rights or they can enforce it.  They can appoint neanderthals to the Supreme Court or they can appoint people who care what has happened in the last two centuries.  In short, they can and do affect a whole lot of shit.  That's all.  I'm outta here.

Effect.

Nope.  Affect.

So you're saying Presidents cause emotional responses but are not really effective?

George Orr wrote:

hedgewizard wrote:

So you're saying Presidents cause emotional responses but are not really effective?

I'm saying a person can affect events, which would mean that person has had an effect on those events.  He or she might do so by effecting change.

...Aw, shit, man, just go here.

Having some vague idea what the difference is, I like it here better:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/affect_1?view=uk

In short, they can and do make a difference to a whole lot of shit.

In short, they can and do bring about a whole lot of shit.

Personally I like the second meaning better, but whatever all y'all want.

FledYou guys are funny.  The big mysterious [i wrote:

THEM[/i] control everything.  Do you fear the dark matter?

It is something like my then-teenage son who bought into Nader's "twwedle-dee tweedle-dum" bullshit when Bush ended up winning it.  Do you really believe what you are saying?  The president is powerless?  Seems to me they can decide to run roughshod over the bill of rights or they can enforce it.  They can appoint neanderthals to the Supreme Court or they can appoint people who care what has happened in the last two centuries.  In short, they can and do affect a whole lot of shit.  That's all.  I'm outta here.

People falling back on the visceral but ambigious "Them" is quite understandable. Especially when you look at it as a response to they way you can not tell what policy the presidential contenders intend to implement in their administrations.


Look at the past generation of  non-incumbent presidential elections. There is a partial, but significant disconect between what the candidates profess to do and stand for and what they eventually enact as policy in their administrations.

So much energy is spent obsfucating what seems to the outsider to be their actual policy planks. Often even their opponents don't make an attempt to criticize these policies, preferring to paint their opponents with whatever criticisms they think will sell well.

This phenomenon crosses party lines but lets use Bush as an example. Who knew or even accurately called out his key policies before he was elected? He adopted a neocon philosophy but he campaigned on everything but that. He appointed and gave free reign in his administartion to the neocons. But it was generally the position of his Democrat opponents that he would be a rehash, if not a puppet of the veterans of his father's Administartion. The eventual neocon policy shapers in the current Bush admin were anything but in favor during his father's admin.

He campaigned on small govertment and fiscal responsibility, but he has engendered one of the largest expansion of programs, spending and deficit.

This current election is shaping up to be more of the same. For some of what they campaign on and how their opponents attempt to shape the debate it may be impossible to tell what they really indend and will do once in office. Given rise to the notion that they are the "Them".

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-06-07 12:22:09)

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

I'm surprised he's still alive. One well-aimed bullet would make the States a very interesting place. I hope you folks are building your well-stocked, underground Angry Negro Shelters.

Go find the Cleveland Plain Dealer photo archives for how Murray Hill (primarily Italian community) handed the race riots in the '60s.  Somewhere I still have a picture of a sweet grandma on her front porch rocker with a double barrell shotgun across her lap.

These days in America, however, the DBSGs have given way to the UARs (Urban Assault Rifles).  Although, just for nostalgia's sake, I wouldn't pass up a good .303 with a decent scope.