by svip at 28-08-2008 20:26
No, not my words. Obama is a nice guy. Totally. But those are probably the words a lot of Hillary Clinton supporters are unwilling to utter, even though they want to. They don't want to appear too offensive, cause then no one would take them seriously.
Ever since Bill Clinton became president in 1993, Hillary Clinton has had supporters. She was the first major First Lady, and her fanbase quickly built up. And especially after her husband's time in office's end. So, it was no surprise, when Hillary Clinton announced, back in 2006 that she would run in 2008, that it pleased a lot of her fans. And things were going strong through 2007, even news media have declared her as the certain nominee for the Democratic Party. But then came the primaries.
She lost, even after the tireless effort of attempting to be the new kid of the block; Obama. Her fans were outraged. She had lost the nomination, they had lost their dream. And who stole it? Obama. Technically, though, they don't hate Obama. They hate that Hillary lost the nomination. But that is too abstract to hate, people can really only hate people or things, something they can see. The obvious choice is thus Obama, the archetype of Hillary losing the nomination.
When they tell you that they won't vote for Obama, it is not because they essentially think he is that bad a candidate. It is because they are pissed at him. He broke their dreams. Who would vote for someone who broke their dreams?!
Some of these people have gone all the way and told people to vote for McCain instead. But it is clearly a grudge against Obama, and not his actual character.
No, the real question you must ask Hillary Clinton fans is the following; "if you are not willing to vote for Obama now, would you have voted for him, had Hillary Clinton not been in the campaign at all?" Now that is worth considering.
2 comments - Add comment
by svip at 20-08-2008 15:47
You've probably heard Americans talk about "Our Freedom", or well, "Their Freedom". And that terrorists hate their freedoms. And they are the greatest country in the world, because of their freedoms.
But, Americans, the rest of us have plenty of freedoms as well. Hell, by some standards, we have more than you. But it's true, we don't have your freedoms. We have our own, and we don't brag too much about it, because freedom should be trivial. You act like it isn't, and you have to earn it.
But that is not what is worse. Cause nothing wrong about bragging a bit about being free, even though you do it too much. Don't you have anything else? Hm? Anyway, my largest problem with your freedom is that it has become a brand, more than a right. "Freedom" appears in product names and whatnot. It's outright silly, you've completely lost the entire concept of freedom. Freedom shouldn't be about commercialising it. It should be trivial, but also sacred.
I bet someone will suggest that isn't it their freedom to use "freedom" as a brand. And I suppose it is. But it still makes you look like complete idiots.
0 comments - Add comment
by svip at 11-08-2008 00:09
Now, I don't wish to jump to conclusions. And World War III certainly isn't going on. But there is a conflict of serious matter going on in Georgia, specifically South Ossetia. Oh, you've heard about this?
Apparently, Ukraine are now considering joining the conflict. Probably on Georgia's side. But still, that does not involve NATO. So far, it is only Russia dealing with its former U.S.S.R. members. Countries, that Russia have lot of interest in. And, if everything was up to them, they'll get them back. So far, Russia only considers the Baltic countries — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — lost. Since they have joined both NATO and the EU.
So, again, World War III? Seriously? Not unless NATO, or its members make the wrong move. And what is a likely wrong move? Bombing Iran.
I know what you're thinking, what the hell does Iran have to do with this? This is not the Cold War, dude, everything is not West and East any more! You are just like the damn CIA in the 1970s, who couldn't tell what was going on in Iran!
True, but let's start considering the scenario that either U.S. or Israel bombs Iran. The scenarios may differ slightly, perhaps in the way the responds is delivered by Iran or how fast. But most certainly, they will bomb strategic locations in Israel, and they will invade Iraq.
Yes, invade Iraq. Iran wants Iraq. Ever since those events back in 1980s, they've wanted Iraq. Just never had the chance. It may even be plausible to assume that Iran create the nuclear programme for the sake of making the world think they were getting nuclear weapons, so they would bomb them, and give Iran the justification for entering Iraq.
If that happens, Iraq will be won by Iran. Won't take too long. While Iraq is not a member of NATO, either. It is still largely protected by US forces, and considered a major interest area of US. And the US will be obligated to retaliate. Even only to defend Iraq, and not invade Iran.
This will effectively mean that Iran will be at war with NATO. Russia will most likely side with Iran, because Russia (and China) have interests in Iran.
Of course, this scenario requires that several parts make some wrong moves, though these moves are not unlikely, considering who we are dealing with.
Please, don't elect McCain.
0 comments - Add comment
by svip at 01-08-2008 17:45
You have probably heard someone say "now that the outcome of the American Presidential Election has so much influence on the rest of the world, shouldn't we (read: the rest of the world) have a say in it?" And my answer to that? Because it's fucking stupid.
Since the end of the Vietnam war, and especially since the end of the Cold War, the global power of the USA have been declining. In my opinion, the USA is no longer a superpower. The only reason it can act like it is, is because everyone has the illusion that it is. Luckily, powers around the world are stepping up to the USA's play with its muscles. Cue China, Russia, Iran and to some extend the EU.
Sure, Russia (undercover as the USSR) was their nemesis during the Cold War, and Russia was certainly without a lot of influence during the 1990s. But amazingly Russia was quick to rebuild, and a large focus on nationality with Putin in the lead, have proven a much more robust Russia.
China on the other hand, have been a scar in the USA's eyes for a long time, sure they've been negotiating since Nixon, but China's completely different ideologies, and their denial of following up to whatever the USA says, has long been a prove of opposing powers.
Now, personally, I was never a fan of Persia changing name to Iran, and they still haven't made up for that, I mean, how can they? Persia was such an awesome name. However, in recent years, and they are still at it, they are proving to the world that they aren't afraid of them, and they are not going to pussy out like the North Koreans.
And lastly, and least, the EU. The EU have become a large economical power, but globally has no serious military or political power, but that's because the EU cannot get their asses together and write a treaty that people can vote for yes for. Silly Europeans!
Now, all these opposing powers and more, are clues that the world is not taking the USA as serious any more. And neither are more and more Americans. Even they are getting fed up with their countries' foreign politics, it is not gaining the Americans anything, and in addition, it is not gaining the people they are so called "liberating" anything. It's a loose-loose situation.
The USA is in a crisis, and one that is opening the eyes of Americans. It has been predicted for years, but back then, the USA lived in the idea that they were invincible. Or at least those who in charge did.
The point is, the USA's power is declining, decreasing, and the world is heading into a multi-polar power balance, as it was before World War II. But that is just natural, because for the largest amount of time in human history, has this method of power balance been the norm. The Cold War and the last two decades have been anomalies. Bipolar or singular polar power cannot last for long. The rest of the world will eventually catch up, and they'll be in better shape to compete with the former superpower.
No, the USA is not going to collapse. But you probably won't see more wars like those in Afghanistan or Iraq. And should they make their move at Iran, it will certainly be their doom or at least close to it. All this power changing will become obvious in the coming presidential period.
So therefore and the reason that it is simply undemocratic, we should not have a say in the American Presidential Election. The power balance of the world is becoming more fluid.
0 comments - Add comment
by svip at 25-07-2008 23:56
Time and time again, we hear about these so called Holocaust deniers, who thinks that 6-7 million Jews didn't die during World War II. They probably went out in space and crash landed in Roswell two years later, who knows?
My opinion on these people are except that they are complete idiots, for denying obvious facts. Which sort of puts them in the same boat as creationist and similar people. But creationists are just diluted people with good intentions. Holocaust deniers are not. I apologise to any of my creationist readers all ready.
But apart from their denial of facts blown in their heads, they are also pussies. Yeah, complete fucking pussies. I mean, let's say for the sake of argument, that I was a Nazi, and I felt that killing people like Jon Stewart was the right thing to do, I would be fucking proud of the Holocaust. That'll be our (read: Nazis) prove to the world that we fucking obtained something, and we could do it again, so Jews, be-fucking-ware.
But oh no, these Holocaust deniers say that the Jews just use it to protect themselves. From who, I ask you? From who? People who object to the establishment of Israel? Sure, after the war, people were too generous to the Jews. But now the Holocaust does not have much to do with the Jews, it more an establishment of the fact that we have done horrible in the past, and we need to understand that, so it does not happen again. Not just to the Jews, but to any other group.
So, Holocaust deniers, get a grip, you sick bastards. You are fucking pussies, grow some balls, seriously.
0 comments - Add comment
by svip at 29-06-2008 16:46
Often, I read about stupid people. Sure, it's funny. But as soon it's an official institution involved, it gets serious. So I read this and am completely astonished.
The story itself is not super interesting, but it does prove a problem with the whole "Wellness" and equal rights concepts that are spreading the world and especially the Nordic Countries and Scandinavia. It simply has taken overhand.
Now, I like standards, I love standards. The more standards the better. However, I still have a limitation to when it gets stupid. Apparently standards also seem to apply that people needs to be constantly be treated equally. Yes. By the government. Not by its citizens.
There are people I don't like, there are people I wouldn't like to see to my parties (if I ever held parties), etc., but some would probably consider it a "violation" of their rights, if I didn't invite them. But I couldn't care less, cause it is not my task to care. I am not handing out rights or upholding rights. I am a citizen.
Seriously, a kid didn't invite two from the class, because he didn't like it, and the teacher confiscated the invitations? Ugh, I hate equal rights more and more, cause it is getting to people's heads.
Hopefully, this is something more unique to Sweden than the rest of Scandinavia and the Nordic Countries. I hate Swedish Conditions.
1 comment - Add comment
by svip at 27-06-2008 23:17
I have touched the party of New Alliance before. But now they are really crashing and burning.
After two of their five members of parliament (MF in Danish) had left, the party leader, Naser Khader, has decided to ditch Jørgen Poulsen. Why? Cause he is not loyal to party. Oh my! What did he do!?
Apparently, he was saying that the Danish People's Party anti-Muslim clothing in courts was similar to that of the Nazi Party in Germany back in the good old days.
But but but... wasn't the whole basis of the party to steal MFs from Danish People's Party?! Then how can taunting them be any wrong? Apparently the policy of the party has turned. They don't want to be that Danish People's Party hostile any more. In Jørgen Poulsen's defence, he was just using the same policies as they were elected on back in November.
But then it is that you realise how much you don't care about it at all. NA is not getting back into Parliament, so it will have no real turn. Of course, to top it off, NA then decides — learning perhaps that Jørgen Poulsen brought significantly amounts of money to the party — to bring the guy back, with the limitation of him being unable to speak on behalf of the party.
However, they are seriously just a hilarity, that needs to be pointed and laughed at. Suckers.
0 comments - Add comment
by svip at 13-06-2008 16:56
What a twist, huh? The Irish voters voted no to the Treaty of Lisbon. And so what? A lot is what.
First of all, for any treaty to be passed in the EU, all members must ratify it. 100%, peoples. If one member doesn't, then it cannot be accepted. So the Irish no should mean that they cannot use this treaty.
Of course, this means a lot of people are calling this a horrible event in EU economics and history, and everything we worked so hard for is now all broken. But wait! Some experts are saying it is too early to deem the treaty dead. Of course, these EU-lovers are just relying on a thin ray of hope, or perhaps the idea that we can avoid the Irish vote all together!
Yeah, cause what if everyone else ratifies it? Then can't we just isolate Ireland? So the rest of the Union will apply the treaty, and Ireland will remain in some sort of time pocket.
But that would be silly, just some sort of back up plan, right? It is almost like Microsoft products. I thought the EU didn't like Microsoft! Yet, they seem to be using their practises!
EU-sceptics on the other hand claim that the treaty is dead, and something new need being written. And while I like EU, and I like authority in general, I am still wondering why the EU cannot pull its asses together and write something people will like. At least, EU, make it sound exciting. "Treaty of Lisbon" -- what the hell are we voting for?!
Me? I saw it coming, I just didn't tell anyone. I hate to ruin surprises. Also, I didn't care that much, I am more interested in how the EU will handle this "crisis".
0 comments - Add comment
by svip at 12-06-2008 17:52
Back in 2006, we all thought it was certain that the Democrats would win this election. They won the 2006 election smoothly, no wait — brutally. Republicans too were afraid - and still are. And with good reason, cause what is most troubling for them is that several voters turned their vote away from the Republican party simply because of it being the Republican party.
Indeed, it was the "anything but <name>", this time <name> must be "the Republicans" or perhaps "George W. Bush"? Because a lot of people who were before loyal Republican voters lost their faith in the party because of the current president.
Personally, I would tell those people that it is not that the Republicans have failed you, it is that the Administration have failed the Republican party and the people of the nation. But regardless, people will go their ways, and this is a problem for McCain.
McCain needs to label himself as "John McCain" not the "Republican Presidential Candidate". He needs to avoid associating himself with the still president Bush. And honestly, he is not doing a good job.
Obama on the other hand is too much of a singular label, he is too much Barack Obama than the Democratic Presidential Candidate. And due to the Flat Seemingly Endless Death March to the White House with Hilary Clinton - which, by the way, have ended - he has a problem with Clinton voters. They are not going to convert so easily, they think of him too much as Barack Obama - the enemy of Hillary Clinton.
I am still betting on Obama winning. Because I think McCain's labelling issue will become too much of a burden for him later. However, he probably won't have the trouble of loosing the Religious Right of the party.
And my apologies for the lack of updates lately. I just woke up when the elections got boring until August or whatnot.
0 comments - Add comment
by svip at 19-03-2008 23:58
Some claim that the Democratic candidate Obama is black. And if my TV's colour have been messed up for the past year, I will not start guessing on what colour Clinton might be! But in all seriousness, he did.
But was it needed? A general opinion seems to be yes. And why could that be? Well, for one... he is... sort of... uhm... eh... black? Of course "pundits" and "journalists" have told him through his campaigning that he is not black enough, and his reactions to that. Until now, Obama have simply dismissed the race issue.
But why? Cause his black voters want it? Cause the white people want it? Cause it will help his campaign? Probably all three things actually, when you think about it. Black voters like him for representing them or at least as close as it gets, I suppose. I am not black, what do I know? So the black people want him to address it so they know he represents them. White people want him to address it, so they know how he feel about it. And his campaign has so far not focused on his race, and probably won't continue to do so. But just had to make a statement about it.
Like a quick side note in this blag entry that I envy the dead. But then the question comes; will it help his campaign? Probably not, but it probably won't do the opposite. People will just say; "yeah, thanks for making a statement," and then they get on with their lives. Whatever Americans do for a living. I only have stereotypes to go for.
Well, for now, I'll let the pundits fight it out. They sure fail at predicting most things in this election. I got my eyes on you, Fox News.
0 comments - Add comment