 Patrick.net |
16,436 readers yesterday Get a free "Debt Is Slavery" bumper sticker! |
Watch (1) Share
Quote
Permalink Like Dislike Steve Vaillancourt, New Hampshire Lawmaker, Ejected From House After Nazi Salute
Michele Bachmann issues complete and total fiction about redistricting
http://news.yahoo.com/bachmann-fundraising-whopper-202734700.html
Tea Party members now bought and paid for by........big banks. (great revolution there eh trout?)
Viewing Comments 1-40 of 197 Next » Last » See most liked comments
|
Premium member iwog is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
The Republicans will keep going right until they reach BNP status.
If the Dems would just drop the gay marriage thing, they'd regain permanent majority status.
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
489 comments
Alameda, CA
wthrfrk80 says
*sigh* yes, easy to say. But for those of us with gay friends and family members its not so easy to abandon them in their struggle.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
bdrasin says
Why has "gay marriage" become such a sacred cow to some? I don't understand.
Is it just the team/tribe mentality? Gay marriage = our tribe winning, and we must win againt "them."
If the dems don't stop pandering to far-left social causes, they will continue to alienate many voters.
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
wthrfrk80 says
Because it's time. You might say the same about allowing women to vote or other previous progress. It's "pandering" etc. etc.
The GOP attempting to have it every possible way on the illegals issue, is going to hurt them a lot in the future. Time to fish or cut bait.
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
489 comments
Alameda, CA
wthrfrk80 says
No, no, no! Its not tribal at all, not about pandering, and its not about winning! Its about real people's lives, people I happen to love. People who want and deserve to be able to form families together, to get on a partner's health insurance, to have next of kin privileges, and the other attendant benefits. And these people really are married ; there's just no other word for the type of relationship they have.
So yes, it would be politically convenient to abandon them but that's not how we roll.
I have to wonder, do you even know any long-term gay couples? If so, then how do you describe their relationship? If they aren't married, then what are they?
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
bdrasin says
I'm not saying anyone should be abandoned.
But is the issue so sacred that we must alienate so many voters? Heck it wasn't even an issue before 2004. Just what we needed: another "hot button" social issue to help the Republicans. Rush Limbaugh is on record saying (before the 04 election) the gay marriage issue was "a dream come true."
Nobody is trying to take away any rights (like voting, free speech, free religion) from anyone. But a lot of people don't want another radical social experiment like gay marriage. (Just like so many don't want a radical ecological experiment like global warming). In both cases we're taking a complex system that's not well understood and throwing a rock at it.
Whatever happened to moderate Democrats? And whatever happened to moderate Republicans, for that matter?
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
489 comments
Alameda, CA
wthrfrk80 says
Yes you are. "Drop the gay marriage thing" would be abandonment. I'm guessing from your response that you don't know any gay people. For you its just an abstract thing not worth fighting for. And if I didn't have some of the family and friends that I have I'd probably be inclined to agree with you.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
bdrasin says
Why is it even a "fight" to begin with? Why the language of struggle?
That's why I think it's tribalism. "Us vs. Them."
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
489 comments
Alameda, CA
wthrfrk80 says
I just explained to you that its because its about the lives and dignity of people I love, and you just brush that aside and repeat that its a tribal desire to defeat people I see as enemies. Nice.
OK, let me put it another way then - just what status do you think gay couples, and families headed by a gay couple, should have? For me the answer is simple - just the same as any other couple, and any other family. For a lot of the country the answer is "none whatsoever", or "rampant, irredeemable perverts".
What do you think?
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
438 comments
both parties have their issues that polarize. For the right, its the whole abortion thing.
I'm kind of apathetic on the social issues, so to point the other party as tribal is pretty funny from an outsider point of view.
Follow
Befriend (1)
247 threads
4,699 comments
Liberal radicalism magnified.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
wthrfrk80 says
Things have become so polarized I don't think that Obama is going to loose any voters over this issue. Anyone that upset about gay marriage was not voting for Obama anyway. I would be shocked if he had not done the research that showed he could get more money by "coming-out" on the pro-gay marriage side. (BTW, more money = more votes)
Follow
Befriend
485 comments
Los Angeles, CA
Gay marriage is a red herring. When 1% or whatever mythic people control our Lives, our Liberty, and our Pursuit of Property, what diff does it make if you're married or "married"?
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
bdrasin says
How is their dignity affected by marriage? Why do they need marriage to have dignity? If we're going to go with a "live and let live" philosophy then the whole "gay" thing shouldn't be a public, political issue. If gays are secure in their behavior than they shouldn't need a government "stamp of approval."
bdrasin says
Why do they want to start families? That's not even possible w/o adoption. Families with two mommies/daddies is quite a radical experiment.
bdrasin says
Overall I think the country is very tolerant of gays. But there's a difference between tolerating something and promoting it. Gay marriage goes beyond tolerance and actually advocates the behavior. I think that's what turns off so many voters.
Like I said, the whole "gay" thing shouldn't have become political. It just results in more votes for Republicans.
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
Philistine says
The differences can be quite basic. Who is "family" and can visit you in the hospital? When you are in serious medical distress your "spouse" can make medical decisions on your behalf. When you die, your "spouse" basically gets all assets without a mound of paperwork. Underaged children are assumed to fall to surviving "parent". There are numerous legal consequences to a simple civil marriage in front of a judge that costs little in money or time. Now try to duplicate that with a "partner".
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
677 comments
And for a thorough and superlative ass-tearing of Obama, there's this:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/05/barack-obama-the-great-deceiver.html
And RE: his stance on same sex marriage:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/us/politics/poll-sees-obama-gay-marriage-support-motivated-by-politics.html?_r=2&hp
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,513 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Austinhousingbubble says
Bullshit. How is it a right winger can't talk about Obama in any context without bald faced lies infecting nearly everything?
PolitiFact does a very fair analysis of political statements and promises and quite often attacks liberals as well as conservatives. Here's how they rate Obama. This is probably the most objective source of how well Obama has done fulfilling his hope and change. It's FAR TO FUCKING HELL more accurate than that moron at NakedCapital. No one is perfect, but as presidents go Obama has done an admirable job: (compare this with "I'm not a nation builder" George Bush)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
Follow
Befriend
485 comments
Los Angeles, CA
Vicente says
Actually, the bigger problem is that marriage is given those rights when the results of divorce are just as severe as a "partner"ship without rights.
It's all a distraction. We have much bigger fish to fry. This kind of stuff is why TPTB have already been able to scam us out of so many basic rights. Gays getting married is a luxury issue for a civilization in much better standing than our own.
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
677 comments
iwog says
Looks like I struck a nerve.
FWIW Yves Smith (of the highly regarded and highly populist Naked Capitalism ((not Naked Capital)) is neither a moron or a right winger and your hasty knee jerk nastiness betrays both your own strident ignorance and your shocking level of bias. Frankly, her analysis was stellar and beyond the need for any defense, for among other things, I am convinced that:
A.) You called bullshit on an analysis you never even read -- never even skimmed...
B.) You called Yves Smith a moron, presumably because her analyses doesn't jibe with your own Manichaean bent. You then go on to defend your stance with a jokey looking *Obameter* from a website renowned for its liberal bias. Come.the.fuck.on.
But then, I can see why you would be such a tireless hopetard. IIRC, you also gave a rather throaty defense of the bailouts in past, saying everything worked out great because of them and that they were all paid back and, yup, everything's just jake now.
FWIW I have only ever voted Democrat in Federal elections and I voted for Obama, too, IWOG -- and unlike most of my friends and colleagues, I never nailed him to the cross of unreal expectations that they did. I was familiar with his voting record. I knew what to expect. Or so I thought.
You put out with some stuff sometimes that reads like a man imbued with all the principals of a truly democratic truly capitalistic society; I'm still not sure how much of a phony you are or are not. However, you seem at least obviously bright and thoughtful; it disappoints me that you can't lift up the rug and take a look without becoming such a nasty sonofabitch.
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,513 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Austinhousingbubble says
I read the entire thing. Her analysis was beyond ridiculous. The more effective evil? You think? My mistake was in identifying it as another right wing hit piece. I might not be wrong.
Obama may be all that stands between the Ryan plan. Where's her analysis of taxation? She goes after him for supporting austerity without any mention that Obama spent almost $1 trillion, an action which MIGHT cost him the 2012 election.
I'll take this paragraph as an example:
Anyone who uses the phrase "beyond dispute" must be ready to support that assertion "beyond doubt". Yet all we get is a laundry list of blind assertions, most of which I can destroy without much effort.
For example how is he supposed to address widening income inequality when Republicans are willing to kill the hostage (destroy our economy) to prevent tax increases? It's an impossible situation. It's a man who's trying to pump the water out of a boat while Republicans are firing a minigun into the hull.Obama is no more able to restore progressive taxation than you are.
Obama can be best described as a civil war president with a partial coup d'etat in effect. Republicans are slashing and burning while Obama keeps looking for compromise. That's his worst flaw but it's his only worst flaw. Everything else must be viewed in context. Yves Smith barely even mentions the context nor does she seem to understand that there are many things Obama simply cannot do with a hostile force actively trying to kill government with a multinational, multibillion dollar propaganda machine supporting their efforts.
It is total bullshit. So called Democrats need to wake up to this reality before everything is lost.
Everything is lost when the Ryan act passes. Don't you ever question that.
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,513 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
I want to add one more thing. Right wing media DOMINATES this country and most liberals and Democrats have no idea how badly they are being manipulated.
You defended Obama against Rev. Wright, you didn't attack McCain for HIS preacher hating Jews. You defended Obama against Ayers, you defended him against Acorn, you defended him against being a socialist and "surrendering" to Iraq, and idiotic charges of reverse racism.
WHY???????????????
Because the dialog in this country, YOUR dialog, YOUR PERSONAL conversations about politics, are being manipulated by the right. Yves Smith isn't talking about the Ryan plan, the great Satan, the most evil bill ever introduced and PASSED by the House of Representatives.
In fact who talks about the Ryan plan here but me? No one. That's because Newscorp writes the news. All of it. Even what MSNBC picks up to tear apart.
THAT'S the real issue, THAT'S the cancer. Republicans are just robots that follow their programming. Unfortunately Democrats are beginning to do the same thing and I see it everywhere. The Ryan plan is going to be the end, the real end, not fucking austerity or the banks or any of the bullshit Smith talks about.
The Ryan plan will eliminate 100% of all federal taxes on rich people. All of them. It's so absurd that most people probably don't believe it could be true.
It's true. It's all that matters.
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
677 comments
iwog says
Perhaps, but you clearly had not read it before you came out with both guns blazing form the hip. I I posted some excellent food for thought, but you reacted like it was paint stripper.
She's covered Obama's extension of the Bush tax cuts rather extensively in other posts.
The threat form the Republicans was largely viewed as posturing and bluster by most seasoned political analysts at the time -- necessary theater. Besides, Obama enjoyed something of a veritable siege machine when he first entered office, with a filibuster-proof Dem majority in the Senate and overwhelming public support, including a sizeable number of Bush apostates. For a start, he could have and SHOULD have done more in his first year to redress income inequality by supporting labor, but he fluffed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/09/AR2010020902465.html
No -- it isn't -- and boiling things down to the old L/R dualism is, frankly, stale. This is not about LEFT v RIGHT anymore, and I think you know that. It is a corporate monarchy, and US citizens are all but disenfranchised. You have more power to effect change in this country by voting with your dollars than you do at the ballot box.
It will never pass.
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,513 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Austinhousingbubble says
You're right that it's not the left v the right but you're wrong about what it really is. It's not corporations. Corporate power is just the symptom. You don't fight it by putting in regulators. That will just prolong things.
Austinhousingbubble says
It already passed. A few more Republican senators and it will pass (easily) in the Senate. Romney wins and he'll sign it. BTW don't think the filibuster rule is going to save us this time. Republicans threatened to eliminate it last time they were in control, they aren't even going to debate it this time.
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
677 comments
iwog says
I don't think you get to play authority on what Yves Smith has covered and what she hasn't or what she believes and what she doesn't when you seemed not only oblivious to her two posts ago, but also derisive. She has addressed Paul Ryan and his conservative think tank talking points many times over the years. If you'd like, I can post some of the entries, or you could do your own research.
Obviously, her analysis of Obama has clearly upset your particular web of associations through which you interpret reality; but dismissing out-of-hand any external circumstances or ideas which might not conform to your world view or that may suggest that the reality you move about in is unreal is a bad way to go, and beneath you.
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,513 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Austinhousingbubble says
Really? Where does she defend Obama as the most important figure in history in defending the country against a tax schedule that has no historical precedent except maybe revolutionary France?
Austinhousingbubble says
I addressed a few specifics but I object to the entire tone and purpose of the essay. She's off base and dangerously so.
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
677 comments
iwog says
Yes.
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-0686952639212383%3Ahj5xu3-9aqt&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=paul+ryan&sa=Search&siteurl=www.nakedcapitalism.com%2F%23Search&ref=#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=paul%20ryan&gsc.page=1
Among other things, you are misrepresenting Obama and his administration as some kind of troubadours for liberal policy. It is not, nor was it ever. I think you're buying into the marketing here a little, (not for nothing did he and his campaign win Ad Age's 2008 Marketer of the Year award, beating out Apple and Zappos). If anything, Obama has proven himself to be very much a pro-establishment, pro-banker, pro-imperialist President. His administration has continued and expanded upon many of Bush's worst policies, (including his tax cuts for the wealthy), and has helped to facilitate widespread corruption in it's total failure to act or prosecute in this new dark age of epidemic financial crime. Indeed, he has helped fasttrack America as the suzerainty of banks and multinational corporations by doing the bidding of his campaign contributors before advancing the interests of the American public, and in particular, that faction of the American public which most needs a voice.
iwog says
The specifics you addressed weren't germane to the piece, but have been addressed in prior posts and articles on NC. As far as the tone, when compared to your own malicious response, it was quite reserved. The purpose? It is obvious: She has a right - and it could be argued, a certain duty - to express her disappointments with the status quo and to do her best to expose the perpetuation of the Noble Lie. For someone of Yves intelligence and position to not speak-up would be more dangerous.
And no...none of this amounts to a tacit endorsement of Mitt Romney or the Ryan budget!
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
378 comments
Ironically, I had a discussion with a friend at work today on the gay marriage thing. He was proposing (and had a lengthy letter to his Congressman to back it up) that democrats should lay off gay 'marriage' and just call it something else "gayriage' or something I think he called it, so old-timers like him won't be offended.
Opponents of gay marriage (at least Republican ones) tend to inevitably end up at the man wants to marry (fill in your favorite farm animal) scenario. So as an unabashed liberal, lets run with that premise for a minute. Lets say that Homer down in Georgia wants to marry ol Bessie. Now being a hypothetical debate, what if hypothetically, ol Bessie could communicate that she also wanted to marry Homer. So let them marry, the earth will not split in half. Big freakin deal! Let them go have at it in greener pastures and be happy (personal freedom anyone, live and let live?). Not only do I do not care, it doesn't harm me or my marriage in the least, and Bessie will get to visit Homer in the hospital if he should ever become ill.
Need to get off this idea that marriage is somehow sacred and never changes. Marriage was a legal instrument since day one that dealt with property (specifically the wife and any associated dowry gifts), divorces took an act of god (literally). We have changed the definition may times over the years to suit our needs. As other's have argued, its simply time that we recognize that they are fully capable of making a decision to legally and spiritually commit their lives to each other..
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,513 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Austinhousingbubble says
I said nothing of the sort. I said exactly this:
iwog says
I also said Obama's biggest flaw is that he too easily looks for compromise with radical tea-party anti-government types. This is nothing even close to a troubadour for liberal policy.
Austinhousingbubble says
She's sucking up Newscorp lies and processing them into her liberal mindset. That's all. Coddling up to the financial industry?? Compared to what? Nationalizing the banks??? That's right out of Trickle Down Tirany by Michael Savage.
Then there's:
What the fuck is this? The affirmation of every right wing nutjob's nightmare vision about black versus white? Obama doesn't care about black people? I thought liberals were beyond this hogwash?
I dismiss it all. It's reactionary bullshit by someone who thinks the way to oppose the propaganda plague is to acknowledge it, instead of ridiculing it like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert do so expertly and talking about the REAL issues.
We are at the bitter end here. You don't cut taxes lower than zero. You don't carve trillions of dollars out of government spending without slamming the country into a bottomless depression. Here are the only things that matter to you whether you acknowledge them or not:
1. The Ryan plan has passed the House and lacks only a Senate vote and a Republican president to become law. The Supreme Court is still run by a Republican clown show and although billionaires will be exempt from paying one cent while police officers and nurses pay thousands, they will not intervene.
2. The nightmare cuts to the federal budget under the Ryan plan will result in mass layoffs and hundreds of billions of dollars sucked out of the pockets of consumers.
3. The Republican House is already trying to increase military spending and Romney wants 100,000 more soldiers and a huge spending increase. Republicans stay in office by starting wars, and they WILL start another one. Obama's careful and successful policy of using intelligence and covert ops will be discarded in favor of carpet bombings.
Anything else you think is important, like lobbyists or corporate regulation or gay rights or energy policy or Obama not caring about black people or Obama not rescuing the housing market or all of the other stuff in your friend's article are distractions planted by Fox. THEY set the agenda, not you. You remember swiftboating and Kerry lost. You remember Ayers and Obama won. So what were the horrible slanders against Bush in 2004 and McCain in 2008? Draw a blank? No kidding.
Obama is a GOOD president with SOUND policy. Do you doubt he wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts for rich people? Do you doubt he wants to raise wages and constrain corporate power? Do you really think he's protecting the evil banks? Or could it be he doesn't have a chance to prosecute billionaires with a loaded court and a propaganda machine that brainwashes people to believe that any action is a communist takeover by the government?
Remember what I said before. Obama can be best described as a civil war president with a partial coup d'etat in effect. He doesn't deserve this criticism for the exact same reason Lincoln doesn't get criticized for suspending habeas corpus.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Like it or not, many people believe that life in the womb is sacred. And many of the same people believe traditional marriage is sacred. They're not going to vote for modern-day Democrats even though it's clear (to me) that Democrat economic policies are far more sensible.
We need the New Deal Coalition back. We need old-school progressivism back. We don't need the more hedonistic "New Left" that wants to re-define successful institutions that have worked for centuries.
Republicans will continue to go far-right with their bizarre combination of Ayn Rand and Neocon Fascism. And the Democrats will continue to alienate many voters with their stance on non-trivial social issues.
It seems to me that things will have to get even worse until there is a radical re-alignment in politics.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
94 comments
"The Republicans will keep going right until they reach BNP status."
They'll keep going until they reach NSDAP status.
"If the Dems would just drop the gay marriage thing, they'd regain permanent majority status."
No one against gay marriage would vote Dem anyway, and many independents either don't care or are for allowing gay marriage, so what do they have to lose? Once again, pols on both sides don't address the most important issues, the ones where they might actually have something to lose by being CORRECT and promoting the CORRECT solutions to, for instance, our economic crisis, one of which is to bring back REAL accounting methods in the banks and then take into receivership all of those who in reality remain insolvent, which is most if not all of the TBTF ones, breaking them up into banks of a size that are NOT systemically dangerous.
Follow
Befriend
41 threads
905 comments
Ross, CA
wthrfrk80 says
The working poor/middle class folks who continuously vote against there pocketbook to fight bogus threats like same sex marriage make Republicans smile. There are a lot of relatively wealthy Progressives (like me) who shake their heads in disbelief but also gain economically from their foolishness.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
94 comments
And "Barack Obama, the Great Deceiver" is a great article. Also love the comments from people who have finally woken up to the FARCE of representative democracy in the US, comments like:
------
They welcome third party suckers and have the structure in place to dissipate all of your energies. And when the election is over you will have no lasting in government representative power to show for all of your efforts.
It is time to diss the entire crooked system with proactive election boycotts (think of them as fourth parties) as a “Vote of No Confidence” in this crooked government. You already have 52% of the electorate as no shows who can be easily claimed as dissatisfied by their present boycotting actions (you know that apathy has nothing to do with them staying home). Get 18% more to boycott, vocalize it loudly and this government will lose all legitimacy and fail. You will also force these assholes to pass a mandatory voting law. Start working against that now in conjunction with the proactive boycotts! Set up fish bowls labeled “Election Boycotts! Vote of No Confidence in 1% Government!” on the commons everywhere and collect and display voter registration cards. Hand out boiler plate Proactive Boycott letters to be sent to Supervisors of Elections. Provide postage. Letters should state that lack of trust in government and the electoral process is the rationale for the boycott and include a demand that the letter be counted and publicly recognized as a “Vote of No Confidence”. Letters should also be displayed in the commons. No law breaking camping overnight. Keep it all legit and stress that it can all be done patriotically in the privacy of your own home. Discuss and create a Constitutional rewrite in tandem with the above. Make one person one vote on hand counted paper ballots a part of the New Constitution.
-------
BTW, I found this sticker design and plan to have a bunch of them made prior to the November farce (aka, "election"). I encourage you to do the same:
http://s142.photobucket.com/albums/r100/EGoldstein1984/?action=view¤t=Election2012-IVomited-Sticker.png
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
489 comments
Alameda, CA
wthrfrk80 says
Sure, there's something to be said for that...but by that argument, NO ONE should need a government "stamp of approval" (I would be fine with that, but it would be a far greater bit of "social engineering"). Marriage shouldn't need to be recognized by the government at all, gay or otherwise. Anyway, there are legal incidents of marriage (next of kin rights, social security/pension benefits, health insurance, file taxes jointly, hospital visitation, etc.)
wthrfrk80 says
I happen to have four cousins who were raised by a same-sex couple. Quite a few of the gay couples I know have children they are raising or plan to. You've steadfastly refused to answer whether you know any gays or what status you think they should have, so I can only assume you don't know any and would rather just pretend they don't exist. As such, I don't think your in the best position to judge how important marriage is for such couples.
There's no point in going back and forth on this; I can only hope I've been able to explain to you why at least some people (I can only speak for myself) won't let this issue drop, even though it turns off a lot of people politically. Because it matters to real people. What you see as a radical social experiment I see as totally normal and unproblematic
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
677 comments
iwog says
I was referring to the slobbery bit here:
Now you come out swinging at fog with this:
...a dubious accusation which couldn't be more incompatible with reality. You then follow this up with yet more tenderness:
Meanwhile, speaking of reactionary, you dismissed the piece out-of-hand before actually going back and reading it, (though I still get the sense that you couldn't have read it through, given the winces it must have induced), and since it didn't conform to your biases, rushed to continue denigrating the author in ways that seem almost a little paranoiac. Seriously -- that you could make such sweeping and cutting generalizations of *anyone* and their work of which you have not even a superficial understanding provides more than a glimpse into your method of formulating opinions, and it is not a very careful or scientific process.
That is actually a quote from Glen Ford from Black Agenda Report and the Black is Back movement. That is to say, a black dude. An angry one, too.
Stewart and Colbert are both talented satirists; but someone has to do the heavy lifting, and people like Yves Smith are one of the best examples out there that I can think of. I would bet you Stewart and Colbert probably think so, too. I think if you weren't too proud to take your foot out of your mouth and actually read her book or poke around the NC website, you might recant most of the half-cocked swipes you've taken at her and her analysis. Unless, of course, you are a wolf in sheep's clothing...
Now, points of concern one and two you expressed in your rebuttal are legitimate, however, they've had the pathway greezed for their passage by much of what this administration has done the last few years. That said, the Ryan plan has been scuttled so many times already, my suspicion is that it will end up back on the scrapheap once again. I also don't think Romney stands a fucking chance. If I'm wrong, may my head explode.
As for point number three, I fail to see how the war machine/Military Complex has withered one bit under Obama's watch. Just for starters, we have escalated extralegal unmanned drone attacks which, by some estimates, have slaughtered up to 1000 innocent civilians in Pakistan -- further fomenting anti-American tensions in THE most dangerous/unstable nuclear power in the world with which our relationship is tenuous, at best. You are also glazing over Obama's continuation and escalation of some of Bush's more odious hobby horses, including rendition and torture.
That was some outrageous, condescending bullshit.
Yes. He is already considering and proposing to lower the corporate tax rate to 26%, when corporations not only already enjoy an all-time low tax rate but get billions in tax subsidies -- as well as avoiding paying taxes altogether in many instances.
No doubt there's a fortune made each year in the disinformation industry, and unfortunately, for the more desperate and disillusioned members of society, it seems to find some purchase. That said, you almost can't blame them. Obama came into office with something approaching plenipotentiary status. The energy in the air was palpable. He enjoyed what was most probably a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to effect real and progressive reforms that would have put our tottering nation back on it's feet and back into the hands of the people. Instead, he chose the ultimate insult and anticlimax; to alienate the people who voted for him by selling out to the same old serial deregulators; the same old rentiers and corporate welfare queens; the same old fraud elite who've labored long and hard to create an ever more polarized society in America by chipping away at the middle class.
Follow
Befriend
41 threads
905 comments
Ross, CA
Austinhousingbubble, are you voting for Romney? Or just not voting and voting for Romney?
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Austinhousingbubble says
And don't forget pandering to the far-left on social issues. That's "the matter with Kansas."
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
677 comments
rowemoore says
You mean, for which centrist figurehead will I vote?...
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,513 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Austinhousingbubble says
You're dead wrong. Obama was chained the moment he took office by the propaganda machine that you and most Democrats are cogs in. His approval rating was crashing even before his staff positions were filled. He had enough momentum for one single cause and he picked health care. It was probably the most important progressive priority, but he was hopelessly outmatched by the media and a Republican party who wanted him to fail no matter what the cost.
It's fashionable in left wing circles to hate Obama for not being liberal enough. You and Yves Smith and others I've talked to take great pride in trumpeting your objectivity and willingness to criticize the president.
I'm not going to participate.
Austinhousingbubble says
You're going to find out the difference when the next Republican president enters the stage either this year or 4 years from now. You're going to find out the difference between managing ongoing wars you were left with while trying to bring them to a conclusion, and starting brand new wars against peaceful nations that aren't a threat to us.
I can't even believe this comment is necessary, but it illustrates my point perfectly. You fail to see how the war machine/Military Complex has withered one bit under Obama's watch? What objective statistic is your favorite?
- Innocent civilians slaughtered by American forces
- Financial cost of military adventurism
- Numbers of American troops sent overseas
- Numbers of foreign nationals imprisoned without cause
- Violations of the Geneva convetion and numbers of people tortured by Americans
I'm about to be condescending again.
"When I say I fail to see how the war machine/Military Complex has withered one bit under Obama's watch, what I really mean to say is Obama is only 1/10th the despot that Bush was however to protect my liberal credentials I'm going to say he's the same"
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
677 comments
iwog says
Obama had an almost 80% approval rating through 2008 and it stayed near 70 for the first half of 2009. It was his staff appointments that made lowly "cogs" like myself scratch our balls and wonder WTF -- and keep in mind, I understood Obama to be the centrist politician that he is, despite the populist sash his campaign managers/marketers had draped him in. I was still very surprised by the appointment of Giethner and Summers (and later on, welfare-queen/jobs-killer extraordinare J Immelt) -- and the relegation of Volcker. It's not unreasonable that this helped momentarily send his approval rating below 50% in the latter half of '09. Not that approval ratings are an especially reliable metric. People are insanely fickle.
Quite the opposite is true -- there was something of a personality cult forming around President Obama from very early on. Objectivity, meanwhile, is not fashionable, though I wish it were. I try to be and I often fail.
Again, at least a thousand innocent Yemenis and Pakistanis -- read women, children and rescue teams -- slaughtered by extralegal unmanned drone attacks...I'll not let you dance around that. Let's also not forget about the Neocon-tinged invasion of Libya last year and the ongoing saber rattling with Iran and Syria. Your last two bullets are absurd in light of the ready adoption and escalation of both rendition and torture under Obama -- which is to say nothing of the creepy NDAA provisions in 2011.
I'm sorry, but your contentions here, much like your blind swipes at the author of the invective from NC, are hasty and lacking in ballast. If Obama hadn't run on a platform of CHANGE, it would be one thing, but he did, and he deserves to be pilloried.
(By the way, the Ryan plan was shit-canned in the Senate.)
Follow
Befriend
41 threads
905 comments
Ross, CA
Austinhousingbubble says
That is exactly what I mean. So, what is your answer?