Living under Obama's presidency


Off-Topic Discussions

451 to 500 of 1,595 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Sigard Spleenbiter wrote:
Reason #3: Obama's Foreign Policy Is An Example of How It Should Be Done

Ok, you completely lost me here in #3

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Something for Freehold.


meatrace wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

I agree with all that. Except I did fall for his lies in 2008 and thought that he would do some of the good things that he both promised and has it in his power to do. Like ending warrantless wiretaps or going to war without Congressional approval.

What's this about without congressional approval? Are you talking about Libya?

Yes that was the war that we got into without any Congressional approval whatsoever.


thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Hmmm. Well, I only just got to the part about voting third party, but, so far, nary a good word for Mitt.

And here I assumed that was the practical effect of arguing against Obama a week before the election.

We're going to have to deal with either President Obama or President Romney for the next four years.

And as the article argued pretty convincingly, whether we deal with President Obama or President Romney, we're going to face attacks on the living standards of the poor and the working class, imperialist aggression abroad, etc., etc.

I don't see any reason to lie about that just because it's a week before the election.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

And yet, there are many people who responded to it...

Nine pages full of them, in fact.

Nine pages of the same crew saying the same things as always.

Yeah, it's a Paizo politroll thread. It's what we do.


Guy Humual wrote:
I'd say the West's intervention in Libya was one of the things that made me think there was hope for humanity.

I disagree.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

Sovereign Court

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
I'd say the West's intervention in Libya was one of the things that made me think there was hope for humanity.

I disagree.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

Well I suppose you'd have thought more prudent to prop up Gaddafi and helped his African mercenaries repress the rebellion? The links you've provided are all tragic and sad, but do you honestly believe that life would have been better for most Libyans if we hadn't helped them with their revolution?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:


Third parties are irrelevant, at least on the national level.

They don't have to be though. The problem is that the only time you hear advocacy for them though is during Presidential elections. Third party advocates apparantly want to short cut the process all the way to the top.

Instead however they and progressives need to learn from the success of the Christian Coalition. Change at the Federal level begins at the ground roots, which means taking the time to go the long haul.


Thiago Cardozo wrote:

The center is so skewed towards the right in the US that you might say that. Obama sounds like a right wing for me and people abroad, I'd dare say.

Obama is center-right. He'd be right at home in George Herbert Walker Bush's administration. Of course you work with the right wing nuts that come. Back in the 60s, center-right George Herbert Walker Bush was so into controlled population growth that his colleagues nicknamed him Rubbers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
I'd say the West's intervention in Libya was one of the things that made me think there was hope for humanity.

I disagree.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

Well I suppose you'd have thought more prudent to prop up Gaddafi and helped his African mercenaries repress the rebellion? The links you've provided are all tragic and sad, but do you honestly believe that life would have been better for most Libyans if we hadn't helped them with their revolution?

I wont get into whether intervention in Libya was a good thing or not. BUT taking war-making powers away from those who represent us and putting them into the hands of literally one man is no way to run a democracy.

A President Romney or a possible future President Santorum or Bachman says thanks for the power, though.


LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Third parties are irrelevant, at least on the national level.

They don't have to be though. The problem is that the only time you hear advocacy for them though is during Presidential elections. Third party advocates apparantly want to short cut the process all the way to the top.

Instead however they and progressives need to learn from the success of the Christian Coalition. Change at the Federal level begins at the ground roots, which means taking the time to go the long haul.

That's part of the problem. More important though is that we have a first past the post, winner take all electoral system. Third parties are always going to be largely irrelevant. They can have some success in areas where one party isn't competitive, but that's rare.

The Christian Coalition wasn't a 3rd party. Nor is the Tea Party, for that matter. They got their success from organizing within the Republican party. By running candidates in the primaries, not by competing in the general.

That is path progressives need to learn from, but it has nothing to do with 3rd parties.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
I'd say the West's intervention in Libya was one of the things that made me think there was hope for humanity.

I disagree.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

Well I suppose you'd have thought more prudent to prop up Gaddafi and helped his African mercenaries repress the rebellion? The links you've provided are all tragic and sad, but do you honestly believe that life would have been better for most Libyans if we hadn't helped them with their revolution?

I wont get into whether intervention in Libya was a good thing or not. BUT taking war-making powers away from those who represent us and putting them into the hands of literally one man is no way to run a democracy.

A President Romney or a possible future President Santorum or Bachman says thanks for the power, though.

Sadly, this is nothing new. A minor step along a well trodden path, if anything.

wikipedia wrote:
The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Reagan in 1981 by sending military to El Salvador and later the Contras in Nicaragua, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for the attack on Libyan forces, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for violations. All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional.

Obama didn't set some new earth shaking precedent that future presidents can use. He followed such precedents.


thejeff wrote:

[

Sadly, this is nothing new. A minor step along a well trodden path, if anything.
wikipedia wrote:
The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Reagan in 1981 by sending military to El Salvador and later the Contras in Nicaragua, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for the attack on Libyan forces, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for violations. All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional.

Obama didn't set some new earth shaking precedent that future presidents can use. He followed such precedents.

Once again Im well aware. Im also well aware that candidate Obama was very much against taking the country to war without congressional approval. I voted for him because I thought that he was different from Reagan, Clinton, etc. I was wrong. So I will not be voting for him, nor Romney. If I keep getting turds for candidates, and I keep voting for turds, I'll only ever be offered turds.

As a side note, like all those presidents, I think the War Powers Act is unConstitutional, just not the same way that they do. I wonder if that is why none of those Presidents have tried to challenge it, for fear that they would lose even the ability to unilaterally make war for 90 days (30 of which that are designated for withdrawal).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Third parties are irrelevant, at least on the national level.

They don't have to be though. The problem is that the only time you hear advocacy for them though is during Presidential elections. Third party advocates apparantly want to short cut the process all the way to the top.

Instead however they and progressives need to learn from the success of the Christian Coalition. Change at the Federal level begins at the ground roots, which means taking the time to go the long haul.

That's part of the problem. More important though is that we have a first past the post, winner take all electoral system. Third parties are always going to be largely irrelevant. They can have some success in areas where one party isn't competitive, but that's rare.

The Christian Coalition wasn't a 3rd party. Nor is the Tea Party, for that matter. They got their success from organizing within the Republican party. By running candidates in the primaries, not by competing in the general.

That is path progressives need to learn from, but it has nothing to do with 3rd parties.

The Christian Coalition's major success was that not only organizing within the Republican Party, but essentially remaking it's core.


Guy Humual wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
I'd say the West's intervention in Libya was one of the things that made me think there was hope for humanity.

I disagree.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

Well I suppose you'd have thought more prudent to prop up Gaddafi and helped his African mercenaries repress the rebellion? The links you've provided are all tragic and sad, but do you honestly believe that life would have been better for most Libyans if we hadn't helped them with their revolution?

First, "African mercenaries" is pretty much racist bullshiznit, just so you know.

Second, as of this moment, I didn't really realize that the Libyan people were any better off than they had been. I doubt the residents of Bani Walid would enthusiastically agree.

But, anyway, no, NATO carpet-bombing a nation so that the West will have a more pliant government in place to deal out that Libyan National Oil Co. petrol that also, by the way, puts black people in zoos and forces them to eat the flag does nothing for my hope in humanity.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:

[

Sadly, this is nothing new. A minor step along a well trodden path, if anything.
Obama didn't set some new earth shaking precedent that future presidents can use. He followed such precedents.

Once again Im well aware.

Then don't say things like:

TheWhiteknife wrote:
A President Romney or a possible future President Santorum or Bachman says thanks for the power, though.

that imply it's all Obama's fault.


Most of Obama's actions are not new. What has no precedent, in most cases, is how much he was allowed to expand and entrench these policies.

The abuse of drones, which we were previously discussing, is just an example of that. As I pointed out a number of times now:

- the scale of persecution of vulnerable critics of his policies by means of the espionage act and by exploiting border control have no precedents;

- the general indefinite detention provisions he included in the NDAA, and fought to keep even after Judge Forrester issued an injunction against them has no precedents;

these are on Obama.

Sovereign Court

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
I'd say the West's intervention in Libya was one of the things that made me think there was hope for humanity.

I disagree.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

Well I suppose you'd have thought more prudent to prop up Gaddafi and helped his African mercenaries repress the rebellion? The links you've provided are all tragic and sad, but do you honestly believe that life would have been better for most Libyans if we hadn't helped them with their revolution?
First, "African mercenaries" is pretty much racist bullshiznit, just so you know.

Racist how? Are you saying that Gaddafi wasn't using mercenaries? Or are you saying that he hired his mercenaries from outside the continent? Or are you making the false connection with African = black? Africa is a continent you know, people from Africa come in all shades, but yes, often the word African lends a sense of the uncivilized and savageness to whatever it's added to . . . but that's not racist. They used to call it the dark continent not because of it's people but because so much of it was unexplored. I make no apologies for my choice of words. The Gaddafi regime was brutal and cruel and his forces were shooting into unarmed crowds. His forces came from all over Africa however, and many were from Libya itself or near by Chad, but at no point did I say "black African mercenaries" which would have been racist and to my understanding largely incorrect.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Second, as of this moment, I didn't really realize that the Libyan people were any better off than they had been. I doubt the residents of Bani Walid would enthusiastically agree.

But, anyway, no, NATO carpet-bombing a nation so that the West will have a more pliant government in place to deal out that Libyan National Oil Co. petrol that also, by the way, puts black people in zoos and forces them to eat the flag does nothing for my hope in humanity

So what would you prefer? Gaddafi still in power? Things in Libya are messed up, I wouldn't want to be living there, but at least they have a hope for a democracy now. Without the west's intervention Gaddafi would have suppressed the uprising, make no mistakes about that, and tens of thousands would have been killed. It wasn't until UN air strikes started hitting strategic military targets that the tide started to turn. Many of Gaddafi's mercenaries started to switch sides.

Things are nasty in Libya at the moment, I'd never claim otherwise, but we didn't see a slaughter like what we're seeing in Syria at the moment. That is what I'm pleased with. Also it was the people of Libya that ultimately ousted Gaddafi, all we did was level the playing field, and I can't see the harm in that.


thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:

[

Sadly, this is nothing new. A minor step along a well trodden path, if anything.
Obama didn't set some new earth shaking precedent that future presidents can use. He followed such precedents.

Once again Im well aware.

Then don't say things like:

TheWhiteknife wrote:
A President Romney or a possible future President Santorum or Bachman says thanks for the power, though.
that imply it's all Obama's fault.

Oh Im talking about the whole she-bang. The kill-lists, the no-trial indefinite detention, the war without representation. Seriously, future Neocon presidents say thank you very much for voting to institutionalise these. Not bad for a guy who actively campaigned against all of these.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Oh Im talking about the whole she-bang. The kill-lists, the no-trial indefinite detention, the war without representation. Seriously, future Neocon presidents say thank you very much for voting to institutionalise these. Not bad for a guy who actively campaigned against all of these.

I don't disagree that those things are terrible, and I'm disappointed Obama hasn't put a stop to them. I guess it is unclear to me, though, who you propose we do vote for?

Frankly, in a society were money is speech and corporations are people, I really don't see any solution. I think Citizens United has demonstrated that we're past the point where things can be fixed within the system. Of course I might just be having a bad day. ;-)


I propose that you vote for whomever matches your views the most. Ignore the parties that they belong to or whom their main opponents are. No matter who wins, America will endure. But if the Greens/Libertarians/whomever cost one the main parties the election, (by getting 10% of the vote or what have you), the losing party will be forced to either a) change or b) die and be replaced by that third party. Either one is a desirable outcome, IMO. What is not a desirrable outcome is to keep voting for authoritanism. The more we vote for it, the more of it we are going to get.

Either that or worldwide armed workers revolutions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:

I propose that you vote for whomever matches your views the most. Ignore the parties that they belong to or whom their main opponents are. No matter who wins, America will endure. But if the Greens/Libertarians/whomever cost one the main parties the election, (by getting 10% of the vote or what have you), the losing party will be forced to either a) change or b) die and be replaced by that third party. Either one is a desirable outcome, IMO. What is not a desirrable outcome is to keep voting for authoritanism. The more we vote for it, the more of it we are going to get.

Either that or worldwide armed workers revolutions.

Worked so damn well in 2000. You're not going to get a clearer case of Third party caused a loss. Yet, the Democrats reacted by shifting to the right/center, not by trying to pick up the Nader/Green voters. The Republicans kept going even farther right, leaving space for Democrats.

The Tea Party/Christian Coalition approach is much more viable: Organize and coopt a party from within. It's harder for progressives since they don't have the kind of corporate funding the Tea Party got, or the pre-existing infrastructure the CC brought to bear.


thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

I propose that you vote for whomever matches your views the most. Ignore the parties that they belong to or whom their main opponents are. No matter who wins, America will endure. But if the Greens/Libertarians/whomever cost one the main parties the election, (by getting 10% of the vote or what have you), the losing party will be forced to either a) change or b) die and be replaced by that third party. Either one is a desirable outcome, IMO. What is not a desirrable outcome is to keep voting for authoritanism. The more we vote for it, the more of it we are going to get.

Either that or worldwide armed workers revolutions.

Worked so damn well in 2000. You're not going to get a clearer case of Third party caused a loss. Yet, the Democrats reacted by shifting to the right/center, not by trying to pick up the Nader/Green voters. The Republicans kept going even farther right, leaving space for Democrats.

The Tea Party/Christian Coalition approach is much more viable: Organize and coopt a party from within. It's harder for progressives since they don't have the kind of corporate funding the Tea Party got, or the pre-existing infrastructure the CC brought to bear.

Maybe the reason for this is that Democrat politicians are slow to learn. Note that Obama was elected by saying he would act precisely on these things. He did not go center-right to win the election. He said stuff people wanted to hear, then acted as a center-right politician (at least in regards to the issues we are discussing).

If democrats are consistently beaten due to a larger support to third parties, and when they act the opposite of their campaign promises, they might end up noticing that these are important issues. If Obama ended up taking a hit because he basically went against a considerable part of his original platform, it could show the party that they should take better care next time. Maybe they need to lose more than once or twice to learn, who knows?

Of course this leaves you in a tough spot because you have to live at least four years under the heel of Romney, the plutocrat. Well, there's one bright side to this: democrats are usually more effective in opposing this stuff than Republicans. The thing is, there is no way you can prevent a Republican president from taking charge ever again, so you might as well try to solve your civil liberties issues before it becomes impossible to.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Something for Freehold.

This may be the first time I actually liked a post that had something to do with Whedon. God save us all.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
I'd say the West's intervention in Libya was one of the things that made me think there was hope for humanity.

I disagree.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

Well I suppose you'd have thought more prudent to prop up Gaddafi and helped his African mercenaries repress the rebellion? The links you've provided are all tragic and sad, but do you honestly believe that life would have been better for most Libyans if we hadn't helped them with their revolution?

First, "African mercenaries" is pretty much racist bullshiznit, just so you know.

Second, as of this moment, I didn't really realize that the Libyan people were any better off than they had been. I doubt the residents of Bani Walid would enthusiastically agree.

But, anyway, no, NATO carpet-bombing a nation so that the West will have a more pliant government in place to deal out that Libyan National Oil Co. petrol that also, by the way, puts black people in zoos and forces them to eat the flag does nothing for my hope in humanity.

No. My distant-distant-DISTANT kin have been mercenaries in north African wars for years upon years upon years- hell look at Ancient Egypt.


Freehold DM wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Something for Freehold.
This may be the first time I actually liked a post that had something to do with Whedon. God save us all.

At the risk of causing a derail...not a Whedon fan?


meatrace wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Something for Freehold.
This may be the first time I actually liked a post that had something to do with Whedon. God save us all.
At the risk of causing a derail...not a Whedon fan?

My hatred for Whedon has inspired a line of Haterade(tm) soft drinks, associated toys, production facilities(job creator!), and least one college scholarship.


Guy Humual wrote:


Racist how? Are you saying that Gaddafi wasn't using mercenaries? Or are you saying that he hired his mercenaries from outside the continent? Or are you making the false connection with African = black? Africa is a continent you know, people from Africa come in all shades, but yes, often the word African lends a sense of the uncivilized and savageness to whatever it's added to . . . but that's not racist. They used to call it the dark continent not because of it's people but because so much of it was unexplored. I make no apologies for my choice of words. The Gaddafi regime was brutal and cruel and his forces were shooting into unarmed crowds. His forces came from all over Africa however, and many were from Libya itself or near by Chad, but at no point did I say "black African mercenaries" which would have been racist and to my understanding largely incorrect.

Yes, thank you, I am aware that Africa is a continent.

Are you aware that "African mercenaries" was only used to refer to migrants from Chad and Mali (and maybe others?) And that, Amnesty International determined that most of the "African mercenaries" being lynched by Western imperialism's allies are simply migrant workers?

Yeah, it's racist bullshiznit.

Further article from The Guardian

Qaddafi was a blood-stained dictator, no doubt. The coalition of dissident Qaddafiites and Islamic fundamentalists that were cobbled together into the anti-Qaddafi coalition don't appear to be any better. But out of the bunch, NATO is the most blood-stained of them all.

What would I prefer? Workers revolution from Cairo to Casablanca. A pipedream, you say? So is the idea that imperialism can bring justice, peace or prosperity to Libya.

EDIT: Ooh! I missed this: "Also it was the people of Libya that ultimately ousted Gaddafi, all we did was level the playing field, and I can't see the harm in that."

I didn't realize Gaddafi flew 20,000 sorties over rebel-controlled Libya!


thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

I propose that you vote for whomever matches your views the most. Ignore the parties that they belong to or whom their main opponents are. No matter who wins, America will endure. But if the Greens/Libertarians/whomever cost one the main parties the election, (by getting 10% of the vote or what have you), the losing party will be forced to either a) change or b) die and be replaced by that third party. Either one is a desirable outcome, IMO. What is not a desirrable outcome is to keep voting for authoritanism. The more we vote for it, the more of it we are going to get.

Either that or worldwide armed workers revolutions.

Worked so damn well in 2000. You're not going to get a clearer case of Third party caused a loss. Yet, the Democrats reacted by shifting to the right/center, not by trying to pick up the Nader/Green voters. The Republicans kept going even farther right, leaving space for Democrats.

The Tea Party/Christian Coalition approach is much more viable: Organize and coopt a party from within. It's harder for progressives since they don't have the kind of corporate funding the Tea Party got, or the pre-existing infrastructure the CC brought to bear.

Yes, the third party caused the loss of the election by making all of those Democrats vote for Republicans. It's so obvious.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

I propose that you vote for whomever matches your views the most. Ignore the parties that they belong to or whom their main opponents are. No matter who wins, America will endure. But if the Greens/Libertarians/whomever cost one the main parties the election, (by getting 10% of the vote or what have you), the losing party will be forced to either a) change or b) die and be replaced by that third party. Either one is a desirable outcome, IMO. What is not a desirrable outcome is to keep voting for authoritanism. The more we vote for it, the more of it we are going to get.

Either that or worldwide armed workers revolutions.

Worked so damn well in 2000. You're not going to get a clearer case of Third party caused a loss. Yet, the Democrats reacted by shifting to the right/center, not by trying to pick up the Nader/Green voters. The Republicans kept going even farther right, leaving space for Democrats.

The Tea Party/Christian Coalition approach is much more viable: Organize and coopt a party from within. It's harder for progressives since they don't have the kind of corporate funding the Tea Party got, or the pre-existing infrastructure the CC brought to bear.

Yes, the third party caused the loss of the election by making all of those Democrats vote for Republicans. It's so obvious.

As a matter of perception, Nader caused the loss. In reality, that's nonsense.

But that's what Whiteknife is arguing: When a third party causes Democrats to lose, they'll change to be sure to get the 3rd party's votes. Nader in 2000 is the closest example we have. The same arguments were made then. I made them. The Democrats didn't react properly.
Does it make sense to try to do it again, in the hopes it'll work this time? And if not this time, maybe next time?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

And yet, there are many people who responded to it...

Nine pages full of them, in fact.

Nine pages of the same crew saying the same things as always.

One for the Anti-Politroll Faction from The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin:

Spoiler:
In my Journey to Boston this Year I met at New York with our new Governor, Mr. Morris, just arriv'd there from England, with whom I had been before intimately acquainted. He brought a Commission to supersede Mr. Hamilton, who, tir'd with the Disputes his Proprietary Instructions subjected him to, had resigned. Mr Morris ask'd me, if I thought he must expect as uncomfortable an Administration. I said, No; you may on the contrary have a very comfortable one, if you will only take care not to enter into any Disputes with the Assembly; "My dear Friend, says he, pleasantly, how can you advise my avoiding Disputes. You know I love Disputing; it is one of my greatest Pleasures: However, to show the Regard I have for your Counsel, I promise you I will if possible avoid them." He had some Reason for loving to dispute, being eloquent, an acute Sophister, and therefore generally successful in argumentative Conversation. He had been brought up to it from a Boy, his Father (as I have heard) accustoming his Children to dispute with one another for his Diversion while sitting at Table after Dinner. But I think the Practice was not wise, for in the Course of my Observation, these disputing, contradicting and confuting People are generally unfortunate in their Affairs. They get Victory sometimes, but they never get Good Will, which would be of more use to them.


thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

I propose that you vote for whomever matches your views the most. Ignore the parties that they belong to or whom their main opponents are. No matter who wins, America will endure. But if the Greens/Libertarians/whomever cost one the main parties the election, (by getting 10% of the vote or what have you), the losing party will be forced to either a) change or b) die and be replaced by that third party. Either one is a desirable outcome, IMO. What is not a desirrable outcome is to keep voting for authoritanism. The more we vote for it, the more of it we are going to get.

Either that or worldwide armed workers revolutions.

Worked so damn well in 2000. You're not going to get a clearer case of Third party caused a loss. Yet, the Democrats reacted by shifting to the right/center, not by trying to pick up the Nader/Green voters. The Republicans kept going even farther right, leaving space for Democrats.

The Tea Party/Christian Coalition approach is much more viable: Organize and coopt a party from within. It's harder for progressives since they don't have the kind of corporate funding the Tea Party got, or the pre-existing infrastructure the CC brought to bear.

Yes, the third party caused the loss of the election by making all of those Democrats vote for Republicans. It's so obvious.

As a matter of perception, Nader caused the loss. In reality, that's nonsense.

All right, my bad, jumping into the middle of a conversation and all.


Btw, in this thread or some other such Obama thread there was discussion of Chomsky as a useless ideologue.

Link

I've always thought Chomsky was nothing more than a liberal with delusions of anarchism.

Liberty's Edge

Zombies for Romney


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

As a matter of perception, Nader caused the loss. In reality, that's nonsense.

But that's what Whiteknife is arguing: When a third party causes Democrats to lose, they'll change to be sure to get the 3rd party's votes. Nader in 2000 is the closest example we have. The same arguments were made then. I made them. The Democrats didn't react properly.
Does it make sense to try to do it again, in the hopes it'll work this time? And if not this time, maybe next time?

Yes. Democrats and Republicans both should be forced to lose constantly until they actually, you know, represent their constitutients. Or we could keep voting for them even though they suck, and then wonder why all of our candidates suck.

Sovereign Court

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
What would I prefer? Workers revolution from Cairo to Casablanca. A pipedream, you say? So is the idea that imperialism can bring justice, peace or prosperity to Libya.

Please, now that Gaddafi is gone the real work begins. I'd think you of all people would realize that revolutions are often bloody and violent. There's going to be a lot of innocent blood spilled but NATO didn't target civilians with their air strikes. I don't doubt civilians were hit and killed, but the difference between drone strikes in Libya and drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan is that in Libya they were aiming at military targets.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

EDIT: Ooh! I missed this: "Also it was the people of Libya that ultimately ousted Gaddafi, all we did was level the playing field, and I can't see the harm in that."

I didn't realize Gaddafi flew 20,000 sorties over rebel-controlled Libya!

I guess you also missed the line "all we did was level the playing field" in the quoted text. There were no UN ground forces in Libya, the fighting was done by Libyans, cities were taken by Libyans, and Gaddafi was killed by Libyans. Gaddafi had air support, tanks, and a hell of a lots of gun and missiles. If we hadn't intervened and turned it into a gun fight it would have been a slaughter.

BTW, for someone that keeps shouting "Vive le Galt!" you seem strangely squeamish at the violence and injustices we get in real world revolutions. They're ugly nasty things usually and the French revolution on which Galt was based was equally nasty. France did eventually turn out alright but the road was a bloody one.


First, more from Ben Franklin: so he had a contemporary named James Ralph who accompanied him on his trip to London in his twenties.

Ralph stayed in London, became a writer of political pamphlets (inter-royal family affairs, it seems, nothing for me to get excited about), and, according to the footnotes, was eventually offered a 300 pound annual pension by the British crown to stay out of politics.

If you guys take up a collection, I am as easily bought.

Also, I read, Ralph's poetry, was attacked by name in Alexander Pope's Dunciad, as part of an early 18th-century flamewar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Yes. Democrats and Republicans both should be forced to lose constantly until they actually, you know, represent their constitutients.

But they do.

A bit old, but Frankenstorm seems to be messing with some of my fave sites.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Turner wrote:
Zombies for Romney

"This endorsement would mean more were Whedon's legion of fans even able to keep a TV show on the air."

Hee hee!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You doin ok Anklebiter? I've been watching coverage of Sandy and wow.
Everybody on the East coast ok?


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:

As a matter of perception, Nader caused the loss. In reality, that's nonsense.

But that's what Whiteknife is arguing: When a third party causes Democrats to lose, they'll change to be sure to get the 3rd party's votes. Nader in 2000 is the closest example we have. The same arguments were made then. I made them. The Democrats didn't react properly.
Does it make sense to try to do it again, in the hopes it'll work this time? And if not this time, maybe next time?
Yes. Democrats and Republicans both should be forced to lose constantly until they actually, you know, represent their constitutients. Or we could keep voting for them even though they suck, and then wonder why all of our candidates suck.

Well, you're not going to force both of them to lose. At best you can alternate.

Of course, if you remember my earlier post I'm not saying just continue voting for whoever even though they suck, I'm saying try what the Tea Party and Christian Coalition did with the Republicans: Organize and take over the party from the inside.
If all you're going to do is ignore it until presidential campaigns, then nothing is going to work.


Guy Humual wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
What would I prefer? Workers revolution from Cairo to Casablanca. A pipedream, you say? So is the idea that imperialism can bring justice, peace or prosperity to Libya.

Please, now that Gaddafi is gone the real work begins. I'd think you of all people would realize that revolutions are often bloody and violent. There's going to be a lot of innocent blood spilled but NATO didn't target civilians with their air strikes. I don't doubt civilians were hit and killed, but the difference between drone strikes in Libya and drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan is that in Libya they were aiming at military targets.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

EDIT: Ooh! I missed this: "Also it was the people of Libya that ultimately ousted Gaddafi, all we did was level the playing field, and I can't see the harm in that."

I didn't realize Gaddafi flew 20,000 sorties over rebel-controlled Libya!

I guess you also missed the line "all we did was level the playing field" in the quoted text. There were no UN ground forces in Libya, the fighting was done by Libyans, cities were taken by Libyans, and Gaddafi was killed by Libyans. Gaddafi had air support, tanks, and a hell of a lots of gun and missiles. If we hadn't intervened and turned it into a gun fight it would have been a slaughter.

BTW, for someone that keeps shouting "Vive le Galt!" you seem strangely squeamish at the violence and injustices we get in real world revolutions. They're ugly nasty things usually and the French revolution on which Galt was based was equally nasty. France did eventually turn out alright but the road was a bloody one.

It has nothing to do with squeamishness.

How shall I put this?

There are a lot of places in the world that are ruled over by bloodthirsty, autocratic dictators. But not all of them are situated over the world's fifth largest oil reserves in a country ruled by a guy who, although very chummy with US imperialism's rendition and torture schemes, wasn't too thrilled about Africom and the New Imperialist Scramble for Africa.

Link 1: The imperial agenda of the US's 'Africa Command' marches on
Link 2:Gaddafi vs Africom and the recolonisation of Africa

During the Arab Spring, US imperialism backed Mubarak up until the last second, and, through their influence with the military, were able to keep the situation from getting too far out of line. They turned a blind eye to the slaughter of protesting Bahrainites. I must admit that I'm not really sure what happened in Yemen, but I don't remember any NATO airstrikes to take out Saleh when he was gunning down hundreds of protestors.

But, as soon as the "Arab Spring" hit and a ragtag bunch of dissident Qaddafiites, just as bloodstained as their former mentor, Islamic fundamentalists (how'd that work out for you, US imperialism?) and CIA stooges picked up guns, all of a sudden, "The UN has to intervene to stop rape and genocide and all kinds of bad things!"

I mean, if you want to believe that, all the more power to you.


Kryzbyn wrote:

You doin ok Anklebiter? I've been watching coverage of Sandy and wow.

Everybody on the East coast ok?

I am fine, thank you. Hurricanes usually blow themselves out before they get up here.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

You doin ok Anklebiter? I've been watching coverage of Sandy and wow.

Everybody on the East coast ok?
I am fine, thank you. Hurricanes usually blow themselves out before they get up here.

Glad to hear you're okay.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
What would I prefer? Workers revolution from Cairo to Casablanca. A pipedream, you say? So is the idea that imperialism can bring justice, peace or prosperity to Libya.

Please, now that Gaddafi is gone the real work begins. I'd think you of all people would realize that revolutions are often bloody and violent. There's going to be a lot of innocent blood spilled but NATO didn't target civilians with their air strikes. I don't doubt civilians were hit and killed, but the difference between drone strikes in Libya and drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan is that in Libya they were aiming at military targets.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

EDIT: Ooh! I missed this: "Also it was the people of Libya that ultimately ousted Gaddafi, all we did was level the playing field, and I can't see the harm in that."

I didn't realize Gaddafi flew 20,000 sorties over rebel-controlled Libya!

I guess you also missed the line "all we did was level the playing field" in the quoted text. There were no UN ground forces in Libya, the fighting was done by Libyans, cities were taken by Libyans, and Gaddafi was killed by Libyans. Gaddafi had air support, tanks, and a hell of a lots of gun and missiles. If we hadn't intervened and turned it into a gun fight it would have been a slaughter.

BTW, for someone that keeps shouting "Vive le Galt!" you seem strangely squeamish at the violence and injustices we get in real world revolutions. They're ugly nasty things usually and the French revolution on which Galt was based was equally nasty. France did eventually turn out alright but the road was a bloody one.

It has nothing to do with squeamishness.

How shall I put this?

There are a lot of places in the world that are ruled over by bloodthirsty, autocratic dictators. But not all of them are situated over the world's fifth largest oil reserves in a country ruled by a guy who, although very chummy with US imperialism's rendition and torture schemes,...

Actually, Guy brings up a good point. What would you have preferred happen instead? You're making it sound a lot like damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Freehold DM wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

You doin ok Anklebiter? I've been watching coverage of Sandy and wow.

Everybody on the East coast ok?
I am fine, thank you. Hurricanes usually blow themselves out before they get up here.
Glad to hear you're okay.

Thank you, how are you? I heard Queens got all f*@$ed up, but you're in Brooklyn, right?


On a side note, I consider all politroll threads to be essentially one conversation, so, more on Wal-Mart.

Home site for Comrade Knife.

Organize the unorganized!

Vive le Galt!


Freehold DM wrote:
Actually, Guy brings up a good point. What would you have preferred happen instead? You're making it sound a lot like damned if you do, damned if you don't

I would have preferred that liberal/leftie-Obama voters and sympathizers would have realized that the current bunch of neoliberal CIA agents and jihadist assassins installed by NATO bombardment are not going to be any better for the Libyan people than Qaddafi's previous regime.

I would also have preferred that these voters and sympathizers realize that US imperialism does nothing for altruistic reasons, and their intervention into the war had more to do with thier acquisition of power and money than liberating the Libyan people and building democracy.

Then, I guess, I would have preferred that people not point to the imperialist rape of Libya (before posters go running off about improper use of that word--they sodomized Qaddafi with a knife!) as something that restores their faith in humanity.

Alternate answer:

I would have preferred to see international proletarian socialist revolution from Cairo to Casablanca. Vive le Galt!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

You doin ok Anklebiter? I've been watching coverage of Sandy and wow.

Everybody on the East coast ok?
I am fine, thank you. Hurricanes usually blow themselves out before they get up here.
Glad to hear you're okay.
Thank you, how are you? I heard Queens got all f#!$ed up, but you're in Brooklyn, right?

Queens is in pretty bad shape with a major fire and power loss. But Brooklyn has problems- Coney Island is underwater, as is Red Hook and DUMBO. Atlantic City in Jersey has been hammered very badly- part of it has been swept out to sea.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I would also have preferred that these voters and sympathizers realize that US imperialism does nothing for altruistic reasons, and their intervention into the war had more to do with thier acquisition of power and money than liberating the Libyan people and building democracy.

It's this sort of stuff that makes people not take you seriously. You've made it perfectly clear that you believe the US Gov't can do no right, ever, under any circumstances. Why would we lend credence to your opinion here, since it's just more of the same?

451 to 500 of 1,595 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Living under Obama's presidency All Messageboards