Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Obama deserves a second term


Off-Topic Discussions

601 to 650 of 810 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

Hmmm, I had missed HD comparing Chomsky and Obama on the collegedegree-o-meter.

I apologize.

[Grumble, grumble]

EDIT: I'll even delete my penultimate post even though it made me very happy.


Darkwing Duck wrote:


Obama is no dummy. He knew that acting all pro-equality would win him votes among the gay community. But acting all pro-equality for the sake of gaining votes is not the same as taking action to promote equality. Obama's -actions- do not support his words. I remind you again that he opposed the court's rulings when they tried to repeal DADT in 2010. He had an easy scapegoat (the courts) and instead of supporting the repeal of DADT, he fought against it.

There aren't many wedge issues for liberals to push either, though I don't necessarily think this is a winning issue, but using presidential decree's or the courts to repeal DADT took the burden off Congress. Just look back at how crazy it made McCain look, his constant back peddling. The existence of DADT and the more it got pushed in the senate just made him look more and more extreme.

I don't necessarily think that was Obama's reasoning, but it may have severely colored the advice he was being given.

Also, Obama wrote a letter in 1996 supporting gay rights, and specifically marriage. Are you suggesting that he was trying to court the gay vote for his presidential run as early as that?


Irontruth wrote:


There aren't many wedge issues for liberals to push either, though I don't necessarily think this is a winning issue, but using presidential decree's or the courts to repeal DADT took the burden off Congress. Just look back at how crazy it made McCain look, his constant back peddling. The existence of DADT and the more it got pushed in the senate just made him look more and more extreme.

So, you think that rather than being primarily concerned about equality, Obama was primarily concerned about playing political games with McCain?

Irontruth wrote:
Also, Obama wrote a letter in 1996 supporting gay rights, and specifically marriage. Are you suggesting that he was trying to court the gay vote for his presidential run as early as that?

Obama, also, wrote in support of gay marriage back then. That's a position he's since back-peddled on a great deal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Obama, also, wrote in support of gay marriage back then. That's a position he's since back-peddled on a great deal.

He moderated his views on gay marriage in order to avoid ticking off the millions of religious bigots who would have cost him the Presidency. He has since un-moderated those views.

It really must be awful to be a religious conservative right now, and feel completely helpless as you watch the world you feel comfortable in shrink around you.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


There aren't many wedge issues for liberals to push either, though I don't necessarily think this is a winning issue, but using presidential decree's or the courts to repeal DADT took the burden off Congress. Just look back at how crazy it made McCain look, his constant back peddling. The existence of DADT and the more it got pushed in the senate just made him look more and more extreme.

So, you think that rather than being primarily concerned about equality, Obama was primarily concerned about playing political games with McCain?

Irontruth wrote:
Also, Obama wrote a letter in 1996 supporting gay rights, and specifically marriage. Are you suggesting that he was trying to court the gay vote for his presidential run as early as that?
Obama, also, wrote in support of gay marriage back then. That's a position he's since back-peddled on a great deal.

He's done a bit for gay rights IMO. More than a lot of other presidents and certainly more than any republican would if they were in office. Presidents have complicated relationships with civil rights issues, just look at LBJ as an historical example.

Could more have been done? Yes.
Does more still need to be done? Yes.
Is Romney a better choice for gay rights? No.

Obama isn't the ideal candidate for gay rights, but you're not going to have that candidate as a serious contender for the presidency. So you're railing against something that is currently the best option. I'm not sure what the point of that is.

You're better off worrying about the 2014 midterms and electing a more hospitable congress to gay rights.


Scott Betts wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Obama, also, wrote in support of gay marriage back then. That's a position he's since back-peddled on a great deal.

He moderated his views on gay marriage in order to avoid ticking off the millions of religious bigots who would have cost him the Presidency. He has since un-moderated those views.

It really must be awful to be a religious conservative right now, and feel completely helpless as you watch the world you feel comfortable in shrink around you.

Those religious bigots weren't a factor. No matter what he did, they wouldn't vote for him. They still think he's a Muslim. So, no. He wasn't trying to avoid ticking off the bigots.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Obama, also, wrote in support of gay marriage back then. That's a position he's since back-peddled on a great deal.

He moderated his views on gay marriage in order to avoid ticking off the millions of religious bigots who would have cost him the Presidency. He has since un-moderated those views.

It really must be awful to be a religious conservative right now, and feel completely helpless as you watch the world you feel comfortable in shrink around you.

Those religious bigots weren't a factor. No matter what he did, they wouldn't vote for him. They still think he's a Muslim. So, no. He wasn't trying to avoid ticking off the bigots.

Oh yeah? A stunningly high number of otherwise-Democrat-voting minorities oppose gay marriage on religious grounds.

For instance, Prop 8 in California? Despite a fairly overwhelmingly Democratic base, it squeaked by thanks to the votes of religious minority populations, who otherwise are fairly reliable Democratic voters (for instance, roughly 70% of African American voters supported Prop 8).

Look, it's cool that you're not familiar with these sorts of demographic breakdowns. This is wonk stuff. But the view that religious conservatism is a monolithic problem that is confined only to the Republican party is simply untrue. There are a lot of Democratic voters who don't necessarily let issues like gay marriage or abortion decide who they'll elect for President, but still oppose those things when given the chance. It's not good politics to run that risk if you don't have to.


Scott Betts wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Obama, also, wrote in support of gay marriage back then. That's a position he's since back-peddled on a great deal.

He moderated his views on gay marriage in order to avoid ticking off the millions of religious bigots who would have cost him the Presidency. He has since un-moderated those views.

It really must be awful to be a religious conservative right now, and feel completely helpless as you watch the world you feel comfortable in shrink around you.

Those religious bigots weren't a factor. No matter what he did, they wouldn't vote for him. They still think he's a Muslim. So, no. He wasn't trying to avoid ticking off the bigots.

Oh yeah? A stunningly high number of otherwise-Democrat-voting minorities oppose gay marriage on religious grounds.

For instance, Prop 8 in California? Despite a fairly overwhelmingly Democratic base, it squeaked by thanks to the votes of religious minority populations, who otherwise are fairly reliable Democratic voters.

Prop 8 squeaked by due to massive amounts of money being thrown into propaganda by the Mormons.

As for democrats being against gay marriage, yes, you're right. They are. Its one of the reasons I'm a libertarian. There's no value in winning the Presidency if time in office is spent fighting against the right thing.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Prop 8 squeaked by due to massive amounts of money being thrown into propaganda by the Mormons.

Yes, it did. There's plenty of blame all around. My point was simply that Prop 8 benefited from Democratic voters who "broke ranks" to oppose gay marriage, and that this is an example of the sort of person you don't want to flip support on you if you can avoid it.

Quote:
As for democrats being against gay marriage, yes, you're right. They are.

Actually, they're officially not, as of this year. There are some Democrats who still oppose it, but this is the first time ever that support for gay marriage has been codified in a major party platform.

Shadow Lodge

Darkwing Duck wrote:


Those religious bigots weren't a factor. No matter what he did, they wouldn't vote for him. They still think he's a Muslim. So, no. He wasn't trying to avoid ticking off the bigots.

You can tick them off so they grumble or you can tick them off so they vote: they lost representative and senate seats because people came out in force to vote against gay marriage (whether there was any actual drive for it in the sate or not)


Scott Betts wrote:
By the way, if there is anyone reading this who is on the fence, or who doesn't think that they're familiar enough with the candidates or parties to make an informed choice, please give this page a read. It's a side-by-side comparison of the Republican and Democratic party platforms, in the parties' own words. It provides a very clear idea of what each party stands for, and is a wonderful rebuttal to those who believe the two parties are interchangeable.

Meh.

Talk is cheap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
My point was simply that Prop 8 benefited from Democratic voters who "broke ranks" to oppose gay marriage, and that this is an example of the sort of person you don't want to flip support on you if you can avoid it.

And my point is that this is the sort of thing we can expect from Obama. He will fight against equality until he has no choice. He will blame his fight against equality on some branch of Democrats whom he'd lose support from. Any support he does have for equality is only because it is politically expedient to provide such support.

Basing one's political actions on what is most politically expedient is one of the many ways that he and Romney are the same.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Darkwing Duck wrote:
And my point is that this is the sort of thing we can expect from Obama. He will fight against equality until he has no choice. He will blame his fight against equality on some branch of Democrats whom he'd lose support from. Any support he does have for equality is only because it is politically expedient to provide such support.

Of course, you don't actually have any examples of Obama fighting equality, and plenty of examples of him fighting inequality, but none of the latter matter because he wasn't fighting hard enough.

Quote:
Basing one's political actions on what is most politically expedient is one of the many ways that he and Romney are the same.

Yes. They are, in fact, politicians. There are few politicians who are perfectly ideologically pure, and they generally tend to be Ron Paul types who never accomplish anything ever.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
And my point is that this is the sort of thing we can expect from Obama. He will fight against equality until he has no choice. He will blame his fight against equality on some branch of Democrats whom he'd lose support from. Any support he does have for equality is only because it is politically expedient to provide such support.

Is this what you really believe? Or what you want us to believe? Or something? Because it's pretty hard to imagine that you don't know what you just said is a lie. Like, unfathomably difficult. You would have to not be paying any attention at all, to anything that's happened in the last four years, as well as most of what's been said in this thread in order to get us to believe you don't know that you're lying. What you are trying to tell us is egregiously wrong. Like, telling-us-water-isn't-wet wrong. And we know it's wrong. I mean, you can call Obama a lot of things and in some cases you'd even have a shred of credibility. But accusing Obama of being actively and consistently opposed to minority equality?

That's some crazy-town talk. It doesn't reflect his record. It doesn't reflect his person. It doesn't reflect what he's outlined. And, above all, it doesn't reflect reality.

We know that. And you know that. And pretty much everyone reading this thread knows that. So the only question that remains is: Why are you trying to spread this lie? And why should we have any respect for what you have to say as long as you perpetuate it? Your words - not just on this particular issue, but on all issues - are rendered meaningless because you are demonstrating that you are here to lie to us.

Quote:
Basing one's political actions on what is most politically expedient is one of the many ways that he and Romney are the same.

Basing one's political actions on what is politically feasible is what makes one a good politician.


Scott, I look at the facts. It is a fact that Obama fought the repeal of DADT in 2010.

Now, you can speculate as to why that is and every evidence-free speculation is as good as another, but the facts are that the Obama administration fought against equality.

Was Lincoln a bad politician because he stood up for what was right rather than what was politically feasible? Was Johnson?


Lincoln was clearly only paying lip service to abolitionist voters. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates he regularly pointed out how the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 should be enforced and was instrumental in holding the union together.

Lincoln didn't want to free the slaves, he even fought to preserve the union for years, in which slave owning was constitutional. It was just politically expedient at the time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Noam Chomsky once told me to "shut up" because he can't deal with the truth that international proletarian socialist revolution is the only answer, but, still, I'd take him over Bill "I like to execute mentally retarded black people/I like to negotiate free trade agreements/I like to starve a million Iraqi babies to death" Clinton any day of the week.

Anyone telling you that there's only one right answer is a fanatic or an ideologue. Neither is very helpful in coming up with a solution.

Your revolution is NEVER going to happen. The spread of european style socialism, and whatever is beyond that, might. If you can't hit the moon, be happy with climbing a mountain.

The spread of European "socialism"?!? Have you seen what's been going on in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal? Someone told me that the Portuguese government recently announced that if young people there want a future they should...emigrate!

Anyway, Clinton might not have been a fanatical ideologue, but it didn't stop him from signing "Don't ask, don't tell!" or bombing that pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.

Italy is going better, thanks.

The economic meltdown of Greece and in a lesser but still significant extent Spain and Portugal comes from the introduction of economically liberal policies (by the European Union) and the bizarre paradox of having a common currency but no common economic policy. They are not the consequence of european style welfare systems (but they do endanger them). Note that the countries you are talking about had the lightest safety nets in Europe ; northern Europe and its extensive welfare is doing much better (as you are, France and Germany are borrowing at negative interests : that is, people are paying for the privilege of handing us their bucks).

So, no clear correlation between welfare systems and the current crisis, which (as you know) has financial roots (that is, is primarily caused by interest rates on state bonds : a country which has to borrow at 15 % rates will go down, welfare or not. It will probably sink faster without, as more and more people go destitute and are kicked out of the economy). Add to that a nice housing/construction bubble in Spain and the cooking of the books by a previous greek governement, et voilà !


Darkwing Duck wrote:

Scott, I look at the facts. It is a fact that Obama fought the repeal of DADT in 2010.

Now, you can speculate as to why that is and every evidence-free speculation is as good as another, but the facts are that the Obama administration fought against equality.

Was Lincoln a bad politician because he stood up for what was right rather than what was politically feasible? Was Johnson?

An interesting note, LBJ actually defeated several civil rights bills while he was very powerful in congress. He did it out of political expediency, he didn't think he could sustain his political power and support it. When he took over the white house, a lot of civil rights leaders were suspicious of him and thought that they had lost their major ally with Kennedy's death.

After the Voting Rights Act of 1964 (which mostly passed because of his support and experience as a legislator), the civil rights leaders came back and asked for another bill. Initially he resisted and said no, the country had just passed a civil rights bill, it wasn't ready for another one. Eventually they brought him around and he helped get it passed.

Over his whole career, LBJ's record on civil rights has some major blemishes on it. He did achieve a lot still, but it wasn't always easy and he didn't necessarily push it himself, but rather reacted to things happening (there were a lot of major riots during his incumbency). There's also an anecdote of him using the n-word during an adviser meeting, where he was angry and heated.


ulgulanoth wrote:

well from a non-US citizen's point of view:

vote Obama = you get to slow down the rate of destruction on the US to vote in 2016

Vote Romney = end of western civilization as we know it

How did it got to this?!

I don't care about the one who wins, because in the end, we all lose! :D

Actually, I'd rather see Obama win the votes for a lot of reasons, the main one being Romney's vision of America.

Andoran

Darkwing Duck wrote:


Was Lincoln a bad politician because he stood up for what was right rather than what was politically feasible?

Lincoln waited a hell of a long time to "stand up for what was right" if you actually read your history.

That is one of the worst references you could have picked to make your point actually. Read up on Lincoln a bit.


Smarnil le couard wrote:

Italy is going better, thanks.

The economic meltdown of Greece and in a lesser but still significant extent Spain and Portugal comes from the introduction of economically liberal policies (by the European Union) and the bizarre paradox of having a common currency but no common economic policy. They are not the consequence of european style welfare systems (but they do endanger them). Note that the countries you are talking about had the lightest safety nets in Europe ; northern Europe and its extensive welfare is doing much better (as you are, France and Germany are borrowing at negative interests : that is, people are paying for the privilege of handing us their bucks).

So, no clear correlation between welfare systems and the current crisis, which (as you know) has financial roots (that is, is primarily caused by...

Comrade le Couard, my point wasn't that European welfare systems are causing the European crisis; rather it was that European-style "socialism" isn't spreading anywhere, it's on the chopping block.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:

Italy is going better, thanks.

The economic meltdown of Greece and in a lesser but still significant extent Spain and Portugal comes from the introduction of economically liberal policies (by the European Union) and the bizarre paradox of having a common currency but no common economic policy. They are not the consequence of european style welfare systems (but they do endanger them). Note that the countries you are talking about had the lightest safety nets in Europe ; northern Europe and its extensive welfare is doing much better (as you are, France and Germany are borrowing at negative interests : that is, people are paying for the privilege of handing us their bucks).

So, no clear correlation between welfare systems and the current crisis, which (as you know) has financial roots (that is, is primarily caused by...

Comrade le Couard, my point wasn't that European welfare systems are causing the European crisis; rather it was that European-style "socialism" isn't spreading anywhere, it's on the chopping block.

Sure, it isn't going to spread to USA or to China next year. It should endure in Europe for the time being, though.

Sadly, Greece (and in lesser measure) Spain and Portugal didn't have a proper welfare state to begin with (theirs was peanuts compared to France's or Germany's, which in turn pale before scandinavian ones). The current crisis has nothing to do with "socialism".

European-style "socialism" has been targeted by some liberal (economically liberal, that is) theorists for quite a long time, since the eighties/nineties. Such theories come straight from your side of the Atlantic.

The current German government is quite economically conservative, and very receptive to that kind of theories. For historical reasons, it also has been very reluctant to allow our Fed (European Central Bank) to fully intervene on behalf of member countries against speculative attacks. They only allowed (tacitly!) such interventions weeks ago ; interests rates should begin to settle down.

Those theories are now contested, more strongly than ever since the financial crisis. Keynesianism and countercyclical state interventions are back in fashion. We have just the german government and a large part of the european commission to win over...


Smarnil le couard wrote:

Sure, it isn't going to spread to USA or to China next year. It should endure in Europe for the time being, though.

Sadly, Greece (and in lesser measure) Spain and Portugal didn't have a proper welfare state to begin with (theirs was peanuts compared to France's or Germany's, which in turn pale before scandinavian ones). The current crisis has nothing to do with "socialism".

I think we're talking past each other here, comrade.

I know it has nothing to do with socialism or even "socialism."

My point was, and still remains, that the huge gains of the European labor movement over the last century--the "welfare state"--are up on the chopping block.

Or so I hear. Seems like every year or so, France is wracked with general strikes and mass demonstrations against raising the age of retirement or Asturian miners march on Madrid or London explodes in riots of the dispossessed. I hear that even Sweden and Norway aren't what they used to be, but what do I know? I haven't been to Europe since the nineties.

But my local commie club did just host a speaker from Austria on "Capitalist Crisis and the Socialist Alternative in Europe" or something like that, and he didn't sound too cheery.

Then again, he also said that Chinese Ghost Cities are the only reason international capitalism hasn't collapsed over the last couple of years, so maybe I shouldn't believe everything I hear from Euro-commie-guest speakers.


China is propping up their growth rate by funding useless construction. It doesn't account for it entirely, but it is a factor.

Some of Europe's social programs are unsustainable. Age demographics are flattening out, or even becoming top heavy in some countries.

Taldor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Likes Obama, hates Obama


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I think we're talking past each other here, comrade.

Could be, comrade goblin. It's hard to pick your brain over the Internet, and harder still in a foreign language.

I do apologize if I totally missed your point.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I know it has nothing to do with socialism or even "socialism."

Note the quote marks. I think we both used "socialism" in its main stream american definition, that is : "anything less than full-blown cutthroat free market, where you are free to die in the gutter. You loser."

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

My point was, and still remains, that the huge gains of the European labor movement over the last century--the "welfare state"--are up on the chopping block.

Or so I hear. Seems like every year or so, France is wracked with general strikes and mass demonstrations against raising the age of retirement or Asturian miners march on Madrid or London explodes in riots of the dispossessed. I hear that even Sweden and Norway aren't what they used to be, but what do I know? I haven't been to Europe since the nineties.

But my local commie club did just host a speaker from Austria on "Capitalist Crisis and the Socialist Alternative in Europe" or something like that, and he didn't sound too cheery.

Then again, he also said that Chinese Ghost Cities are the only reason international capitalism hasn't collapsed over the last couple of years, so maybe I shouldn't believe everything I hear from Euro-commie-guest speakers.

Uh ? Can't speak for all european countries (just the main ones), but it isn't so bad.

Two years ago (2010), we had massive demonstrations against a raise in retirement age (from 60 to 62). The current government corrected that for people who began to work at an early age (before 18; they are back to 60), so less-educated and/or lower class people wouldn't have to work longer than most of us. That's it.

I know it's a little exotic for foreigners, but we are used to unions making massive demonstrations each time they disagree on something. It's not indicative of a crisis ; just business as usual.

The last general strike in France was in 1995, and before that in 1968... We had another one in 2009, but only in the Antilles islands. There was no general strike in 2010 about retirement, only demonstrations. I guess that seen from the other side of the Atlantic by thrillseeking medias, any strike becomes a general strike with massive troubles bordering on civil war, or something like that.

Of course, welfare state is on the chopping block : has been since the reaganomics, financial economy and short term gains became all the rage, back in the eighties. But the current crisis gave back some credibility to Keynes against the mumbo-jumbo of invisible hand and trickle-down economy.

China do have a big housing bubble, way bigger than Spain. Will it burst ? Will it spill over ? Stay tuned, guys !

Andoran

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Chomsky is as over-rated as Rand. Both are just ideologues of a different brand, with all of the problems inherent in any ideologue.

Give me a pragmatist any day. In fact, quoting one.

"We have ideals. We have philosophies. But the problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence. So you have to mold the evidence to get the answer that you've already decided you've got to have."

It's probably worth citing that this was spoken by President Clinton, no? Who, by the way, was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship and is a graduate of Yale Law. It's almost as if Democrats have an abiding respect for intelligence and high levels of education.
Noam Chomsky once told me to "shut up" because he can't deal with the truth that international proletarian socialist revolution is the only answer, but, still, I'd take him over Bill "I like to execute mentally retarded black people/I like to negotiate free trade agreements/I like to starve a million Iraqi babies to death" Clinton any day of the week.

Dude's a libertarian socialist anarchist (yeah, I know, but it really does make sense). He remembers all too well how the Socialists sold the anarchists out in Spain. You know. The anarchists that were, really, the only effective force against Franco?


You mean the CNT-FAI which sold out the workers when they joined the Catalan government and agreed to the subordination of the workers' militias to the bourgeois government? Or the CNT-FAI which betrayed the workers during the Barcelona May Days?

The Friends of Durutti were pretty cool, though.

EDIT: And while, yes, indeed, the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers Party) were a bunch of sell-outs, I think that both Chomsky and I would agree that the biggest traitors to the proletariat during the Spanish Civil War was the Partido Communista de Espana who were a bunch of murderous Stalinist hacks.


Smarnil le couard wrote:


Uh ? Can't speak for all european countries (just the main ones), but it isn't so bad.

Well, I am glad to hear it.

On the other hand, the first thing I get when I google "French welfare state" is this.


"Effective Evil" or Progressives' Best Hope? Glen Ford vs. Michael Eric Dyson on Obama Presidency


I don't know how anyone can cheer for a guy who is implementing a surveillance state in such an effective way. At least when Bush was in power the democrats would at least pay lip service to the defense of civil liberties. I agree that Obama is smart, and that is what scares me the most. I could understand the utility vote, but only if accompanied by an utter disgust of having to do it.

Oh, and there's this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-death s

Disclaimer: I'm a brazilian, but since the US is one of the major players AND has a history of interventionism (including in my country), I pay attention to what happens there, and hope you guys fix it before your government decides to turn its eyes to us again.


srry guys, but Obama does not deserve a second term.

I'm voting for Bill Cosby


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:


Uh ? Can't speak for all european countries (just the main ones), but it isn't so bad.

Well, I am glad to hear it.

On the other hand, the first thing I get when I google "French welfare state" is this.

I don't want to further derail this thread, but it's no wonder you can find desultory articles on France (or continental) economics in english newspapers; keep away from the Financial Times, it would melt your trotskyst eyes. France and UK do have some sort of love-hate relationship, and very different takes on economics (they went the way of the full-services, who-needs-industry-when-you-have-got-the-City, economy; Germany and in a lesser extent France didn't).

The guy cited in an ex member of the World Bank, and made most of his carrer in the USA; he is teaching in INSEAD, which is a very private and elite business school closely following american models. No wonder he is not so fond of the european one : he is part of the ultraliberal crowd.

As I said, the welfare state is challenged, and has been for years by doomsayers. And supported for as long by other economists, for reasons of stability, long term gains, etc.

Andoran

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
"Effective Evil" or Progressives' Best Hope? Glen Ford vs. Michael Eric Dyson on Obama Presidency

I've been referencing this for a while now. Of course, Glen Ford is obviously a racist. That's the only legitimate reason anyone would criticize Obama, after all.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thiago Cardozo wrote:

I don't know how anyone can cheer for a guy who is implementing a surveillance state in such an effective way. At least when Bush was in power the democrats would at least pay lip service to the defense of civil liberties. I agree that Obama is smart, and that is what scares me the most. I could understand the utility vote, but only if accompanied by an utter disgust of having to do it.

Oh, and there's this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-death s

Disclaimer: I'm a brazilian, but since the US is one of the major players AND has a history of interventionism (including in my country), I pay attention to what happens there, and hope you guys fix it before your government decides to turn its eyes to us again.

Obama expresses his disappointment in your lack of gratitude for the couple of billions of dollars he gave PetroBras for off shore drilling. He also wishes that you actually not mention that, because he insists that American companies shouldn't be allowed to drill off shore for environmental reasons. He has a rep, and blatant hypocrisy like that would just cause more critics to be called racist, and he wants to protect their good names and honor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Smarnil le couard wrote:
I don't want to further derail this thread,

Why? Threads that stay on topic suck!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
"Effective Evil" or Progressives' Best Hope? Glen Ford vs. Michael Eric Dyson on Obama Presidency
I've been referencing this for a while now. Of course, Glen Ford is obviously a racist. That's the only legitimate reason anyone would criticize Obama, after all.

I had seen a couple of articles on Black Agenda Report before (mostly though links at Counterpunch) but the name didn't ring any bells when you mentioned him in connection with Chomsky above, so I looked him up and liked what I saw.

Thanks, comrade!


houstonderek wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:

I don't know how anyone can cheer for a guy who is implementing a surveillance state in such an effective way. At least when Bush was in power the democrats would at least pay lip service to the defense of civil liberties. I agree that Obama is smart, and that is what scares me the most. I could understand the utility vote, but only if accompanied by an utter disgust of having to do it.

Oh, and there's this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-death s

Disclaimer: I'm a brazilian, but since the US is one of the major players AND has a history of interventionism (including in my country), I pay attention to what happens there, and hope you guys fix it before your government decides to turn its eyes to us again.

Obama expresses his disappointment in your lack of gratitude for the couple of billions of dollars he gave PetroBras for off shore drilling. He also wishes that you actually not mention that, because he insists that American companies shouldn't be allowed to drill off shore for environmental reasons. He has a rep, and blatant hypocrisy like that would just cause more critics to be called racist, and he wants to protect their good names and honor.

It is our shore Petrobras is polluting so I don't think Obama cares, No consequences for his election if another BP happens =P


You hurt my feelings when you say I don't care.


Who is this guy trying to impersonate me?

*DRONE STRIKE*


Now...

*DRONE STRIKE* your funeral!

This is fun!


Will Hillary turn on Obama soon to help her chances in the next election. The Bengazi attack is turning into a real mess and its only getting worse by the moment. Justice department came out today and says the attack had nothing to do with movie (Wow). If this goes badly for Obamas relection (i believe it will be a key issue in next debate) will Hillary cover her own butt and toss him under the bus. Many have argued that the Clintons always look out for their best interests first and shes on tape saying its the video.


No, she won't. This is like all those claims that Hillary wouldn't get behind Obama after losing the primary and all her supporters would switch to McCain. Not going to happen. No reason to think so.

I'm not sure about how the Benghazi attack will play out. Repubs are certainly pumping it for all it's worth. Running Congressional hearings to influence the election and all. Wonder if it'll come up that they all voted to cut funding for embassy security? Probably not.


How are the republican wrong on what happened? If they are correct than it hurts her election chances. If it turns out they lied to the american people and denied aid to that embassy it could go down as one of the worst scandals in US history. With CNN getting their hands on the notes before the administration is a real shame.

The whole scenario so far has played out like a bad night of roleplaying (insert your game of choice). Once the event took place it semed pretty simple/straight forward on what really happened and the GM wasnt fooling anyone. I would love to hear arguments on why the reboublicans and have it wrong and if they are right why impeachment proceedings dont start right away.


wicked cool wrote:
The Bengazi attack is turning into a real mess and its only getting worse by the moment. Justice department came out today and says the attack had nothing to do with movie (Wow).

Where have you been? Since, like, the day after the attack, the news has been saying the Christopher assassination had nothing to do with The Innocence of Muslims. This is old news.

EDIT: Stevens assassination. Woops. I had just woken up from a nap.


hahaha. Truly tragic


wicked cool wrote:
How are the republican wrong on what happened? If they are correct than it hurts her election chances. If it turns out they lied to the american people and denied aid to that embassy it could go down as one of the worst scandals in US history.

It sounds like you don't have a very solid grasp on the significance of various political scandals in U.S. history. The embassy attack isn't going to earn much more than a footnote in the history books.


Can someone explain to me Republican economic policy? They don't want to raise taxes and they don't want to cut defence spending. How can they possibly think they'll be able to put any kind of dent in the deficit? They've framed the whole election around the economy, but I just can't see them doing anything that will actually help it.


P.H. Dungeon wrote:
Can someone explain to me Republican economic policy? They don't want to raise taxes and they don't want to cut defence spending. How can they possibly think they'll be able to put any kind of dent in the deficit? They've framed the whole election around the economy, but I just can't see them doing anything that will actually help it.

To quote Cheney "Deficits don't matter"

Deficits are a hammer to beat Democrats with and a tool to force them to cut social programs. That's it.
If they can, they'll cut taxes for the rich and drive up the deficit so they can use it as an excuse to cut social programs again. Deficits are the plan.

Edit: They'll yammer some nonsense about the tax cuts stimulating the economy so that they'll more than pay for themselves, but that's nonsense. They know it won't work, like it didn't work when Reagan did it and it didn't work when Bush did it.
"This time for sure!"

601 to 650 of 810 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Obama deserves a second term All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.