Pledge to be of Service to Obama
While watching this creepy video, you too can pledge to be"a servant to our president."
comments powered by Disqus
tizziec - 9/13/2009
I am a firm believer in public service, but I don't like the idea of doing it for a single person, or president. I pleadge to be of service to my fellow humans. I believe it is everyone's responsibility to remember that no one lives in a vacuum and we are infact, our brother's keeper and responsible for each other. Service should be for the cause of the human race and not the cause of a president. I do like where he is going with wanting americans to jump feet first into volunteerism and get their hands dirty, it serves a purpose of giving us new persepctives and a greater understanding of our responsibilities to each other. I just wish he would stop asking people to do it for him. he may do more harm than good in the end, even if unitentionally
Orson Olson - 9/8/2009
re Jeff's remarks:
"I suppose that to a rightwinger, or to somebody reluctant or unable to shed his rightwing roots, it must seem axiomatic that Obama is ever so much worse than Bush in every specifiable respect. Yawn. To a libertarian, they're indistinguishable (except, of course, that one of them is noticeably stupider than the other).
Then quadrupling the federal deficit in a single year makes Obama the same as Bush.
And Obama's racking up more debt than ever in US history is the same as Bush's BELOW AVERAGE spending (1.2% vs 1.8%, if I recall correctly) for the 40-year average of federal excess spending. According to Jeff, that is.
One could go on about redistribution and moral and epistemological relativism. Somehow, when a Marxist is made the equivalent of a conventional, ie, flawed, capitalist, one's moorings must be rebuked.
NO wonder Republican stalwarts like Michael Medved regard "Libertarians" as marginalized, silly losers.
With Jeff's statement in mind, I think we deserve to be. And thus I am happily an Ex-Libertarian.
The Libertarian Party needs a new mission and a new identity top contribute to America's advancement to enhance liberty. The historically successful one is to incubate new ideas than can then enter the mainstream of debate for adoption.
I propose that the place to begin is restraining spending through Constitutional Amendments. The widely popular line-item veto should come first, and then a federal version of Colorado's Tax Payer Bill of Rights, as proposed by University of Colorado economist Barry Poulson.
The LPs platform could then continue from the most marketable amendments like the above to the least well-understood, like "Only Congress shall have the power to declare or initiate war." The latter may never be passed and likely requires many years, probably decades, of education and debate. But at least the simplest can be put into play against "R" resistance to common sense.
-Orson, proud libertarian-Republican
Jeff Riggenbach - 9/7/2009
Oh, they're both stupid. Bush is so abjectly stupid and ignorant it would be comical if he hadn't advanced to such a powerful position. Obama is much brighter, but still stupid enough to believe that various of his utterly futile policies are actually worth pursuing.
In regard to drug policy, I'd say his evil - that is, his desire to seek power, pursue a successful political career, etc. - is a more important factor than his stupidity, however. Most Democrats are bright enough to see the absurdity of U.S. drug policy - that doesn't take much intelligence, after all. They pursue that policy anyway, because nearly a hundred years of government propaganda have made it so popular with the general public that they believe doing otherwise would compromise their power seeking.
Keith Halderman - 9/7/2009
Are you saying that Obama is pursuing such destructive policies as drug prohibition, continual warfare overseas, and incredible fiscal irresponsibilty not because he is stupid like Bush but rather because he is evil?
Jeff Riggenbach - 9/6/2009
I suppose that to a rightwinger, or to somebody reluctant or unable to shed his rightwing roots, it must seem axiomatic that Obama is ever so much worse than Bush in every specifiable respect. Yawn. To a libertarian, they're indistinguishable (except, of course, that one of them is noticeably stupider than the other).
Keith Halderman - 9/6/2009
Yes, but compared to other town hall meetings the one Obama presided over was a health care reform love fest. Are you really saying that Obama does nothing to control the crowds he appears before? I will grant you that George Bush was a little more obvious and obnoxious about such things and about making ideological appointments but those who work for Obama are every bit as ideologically biased. You may counter by pointing to holding over Robert Gates as Defense Secretary but I say that merely proves my thesis because when it comes to foreign policy and war Bush and Obama have the same ideology. See Mark Brady’s latest post.
Jonathan Dresner - 9/6/2009
There have been plenty of fora and meetings ("town hall" is a misnomer) at which health care reform was discussed in a civil manner, even when disagreements were aired. I attended one.
Keith Halderman - 9/6/2009
How come the only town hall meeting where no one was angry about health care reform was the one that Obama presided over?
Allan Walstad - 9/6/2009
Very inspiring. I pledge to work a little harder for liberty.
Jeff Riggenbach - 9/6/2009
Ah! So now we've gone from "As bad as George Bush was at least he never tried to establish a cult of personality," to "the practices of the Bush Administration he [Glenn Greenwald] describes are without doubt occuring [sic] within the Obama Administratrion [sic] too."
Keith Halderman - 9/5/2009
Glenn Greenwald is comparing apples to oranges people who work for an administration are the same thing as the nation's schoolchildren. Also, the practices of the Bush Administration he describes are without doubt occuring within the Obama Administratrion too.
Jeff Riggenbach - 9/5/2009
RL - 9/5/2009
"As bad as George Bush was at least he never tried to establish a cult of personality"
To be fair, Keith, this actually requires a personality...
Keith Halderman - 9/4/2009
Just this week they forced this video on captive school children in Utah. As bad as George Bush was at least he never tried to establish a cult of personality. Barak Obama is a hack Chicago politician who is way too full of himself. He knows nothing about economics, finance, the environment, health care, drug policy or a succesful foreign policy. All he knows about is lying his way into office. He is not a person to be whorshipped.
Mark Brady - 9/3/2009
The more interesting question is how many of those who feature in the video would identify now with what they said then? And, if they would, why?
Keith Halderman - 9/3/2009
Where was the pledge to kill little Pakistani children with drones?
Jonathan Dresner - 9/3/2009
This video came out when Obama was inaugurated: why's it important now?
Or to put it another way, why aren't you giving any context for it, as a responsible historian ought?
Adolph Hitler - 9/3/2009
Worked pretty well for me...
Terry - 9/3/2009
It's creepy, but even more so, it's a list of the most vacuous, self-centered, idiotic actors, songwriters and fools in America. You have to wonder if they think about what they say before they say it.
- Stanford historian uncovers the dark roots of humanitarianism
- Historian hailed for offering a history of the culture wars
- Scholars to set the West straight about "Apocalyptic Hopes, Millennial Dreams and Global Jihad"
- Why Eugene Genovese’s 2 sentences about Vietnam went viral in 1965
- Historians named to the 2015 class of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences