Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Actually, civil liberties is probably the easiest thing to advance right now, since it (1) is not a fiscal issue (and thus doesn't really have a price tag), and (2) it's actually a wedge issue against Republicans, between the libertarian-leaning Ron Paul types and the Christian-conservative Rick Santorum types. It takes the wind out of the libertarian types because this is indeed giving more liberties to people, yet it doesn't do much to big business interests. It might fire up those social-/moral-conservative types, but they've lately been sidelined in the Republican Party in favor of anti-regulation, shrink-government big-business interests.
> but they are opposed on pretty much everything.
Sounds like the U.S. Republican Party!
*laugh track*
In theory. In reality, there is a massive voting bloc of old people and southern assholes who would rather die than give some real leeway to anybody who isn't a straight white male.
Luckily for us, a big old chunk of that bloc is going to go up in flames when the Baby Boomers start kicking the bucket as a whole. Maybe then we'll make some headway.
I don't get why people think entire generations are either the cause of or solution to political issues. I don't see the current generation being any less rabidly consumerist, not to mention Ron Paulbots.
It's a generalization, not an absolutist truism. Furthermore, we're talking social issues here, not economics. It'll take quite a bit longer for the specter of the Cold War and the supremely effective kick to the nuts it gave to Leftism to die off. For now, we can merely be content with all the old people from the '50s dying so we can finally have our gay marriage, affirmative action, and sane immigration policy in peace.
"It's a generalization, not an absolutist truism."
Lol, ageism.
No, sociological trends. There are some brilliant old people, like that one lady (whose name unfortunately escapes me at the moment) in New Mexico, I think it was, who was fighting tooth and nail for the rights of immigrants to not be exploited by scummy businessmen. However, on the whole, the Baby Boomers grew up in a totally different time, and most of them have frankly shitty and unacceptable views on everything from race and gay people to the economy and foreign policy. This being a democracy, the best we can do is wait for them to leave us, and see what happens next.
Though I suppose we can at least always rely upon them to help us defend Social Security and Medicare, selfish as they are.
Like I said, I'm not blaming him for getting blocked on the better parts of his economics.
Still, a lot of the claims in that article are rather skewed. Most of the whole "averting a depression" thing went right into executive bonuses. With a majority ownership of GM they could very easily have started pushing full electric cars instead of dicking around with somewhat better mileage (not to mention continuing to bloat crop demands with biofuel -- especially in light of recent water shortages -- is nothing short of laughably stupid).
Oh, and as for the ISP spying cabal, here. Basically SOPA/PIPA, but with extralegal vigilantes because everything's more fun with no oversight! Should also be taken in context of this.
Wasn't going to happen. Amid cries of "Government Motors" and "socialism," you know Obama had to drop that shit like it was hot and never look back while still accomplishing the goal. That article isn't fucking with you when it notes how huge of a gamble that was, and the fact that he managed it at all is incredible. Right now, if it had been McCain instead of Obama, GM and Chrysler would literally no longer exist, and Ford would probably either be bankrupt as well or on the verge of it. We'd also, of course, be in a legitimate Great Depression, and the European debt crisis would have been the European total implosion.
And yes, it is a shame that so much of the stimulus got co-opted by corporate fools, but it did its job as best as it could and one must remember that Obama didn't have the secure Senate majority LBJ did, and he had a fuck-ton of asshole "Blue-Dog" Democrats to deal with. For god's sake, the fact that Joe Lieberman even exists and is taken seriously is proof that having a little "D" next to your name doesn't mean shit if actual progressive things come up in Congress.
wait
Joe Lieberman is a democrat
But god forbid...he doesn't vote straight down the ticket!
DUN DUN DUUUUUUUN
(No, really. That's why he gets shat on. For not being a party drone.)
Er... no, I disdain Joe Lieberman because he's a neoconservative fuckwit who'd rather suck Israel's dick than do the right and proper thing and get the fuck out of dodge... well, the Middle East, but, same thing in this case.
Actually, whether he is a Democrat is not quite certain, as he was not the Democratic nominee for senate during his last election. After losing the Democratic primary election for senate, he ran using a party he created for himself, called Connecticut For Lieberman.
That said, I think he might still be registered as a Democrat for primary voting purposes. That's what I heard once; apparently you don't have to switch your party registration in order to run as another party's candidate...but then again that makes sense since Connecticut has "fusion voting", where one party can nominate another party's candidate on their ballot line, thus giving that candidate two separate spots on the ballot, for the same office. (The votes each box gets are added up, in case you're wondering.)
Actually he gets shat on for being a terrible human being. He co-authored bills attempting to restrict speech on the Internet, thinks people who hate warantless wiretapping are partisan hacks, supported a fillibuster blocking a public option for Obamacare despite calling against it in the past, and was a member of Swift Boat. The dude is one of the biggest assholes in the Senate no matter how you slice it.
That's the thing though. Any Democrat who dares to contradict party lines on pretty much anything gets labeled a neocon, or a traitor, or any number of other things. The Republicans do the same goddamned thing, they just happened to polarize faster.
Yes he's still a terrible politician, but he's hardly the only one that gets castigated for it.
He gets shat on by progressives for being horrible, shat on my Democrats for being more conservative than most Republicans, and shat on by Republicans for being a Democrat.
...I call him a neoconservative because he is a neoconservative. As in, if Israel was personified, he would give it head everyday, hardcore neoconservative. And I hate him for it, because I hate neoconservatism.
Like, I'm not talking about a simple deviation from party line. I don't even like the Democratic Party. He's literally just that much of a horrible asshole.
Actually, the majority of the Congressional Democrats (as well as an even greater majority of Congressional Republicans) are like that when it comes to the Israel issue. Lieberman's horrible in general, but he's not the only one person with a "D" next to his or her name who's contributing to this particular problem.
Lieberman is a Jew, so it's kinda expectable that he would go very far to support Israel.
We can't afford to assume that kind of thing, though. I'm ashamed to admit that I began assuming that because for a while during the attack on Gaza four years ago it seemed like everybody of Jewish heritage was talking about how Israel was "just defending itself" and rationalizing the killings of Palestinian civilians and so on.
But then I saw that Ezra Klein thought that it was wrong, and that Glenn Greenwald thought that it was wrong, and that Jon Stewart thought that it was wrong. And I learned of an organization called "Jewish Voice for Peace", whose message is basically "Hey, just because we're Jews that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye when Israel does something horrible. We should protest it." And I heard about Israel's policy on Gaza and on its dealings with other nations being criticized by Israeli citizens and members of the Knesset.
On a more personal level, one time I talked to a guy I knew at this social gathering who happened to be Jewish, because I heard him talking about Israel with somebody and I wanted to know how he felt about it. He was just...wrong on everything. He was telling me about how Palestinian textbooks taught schoolchildren anti-Semitic propaganda, and basically telling me that there wasn't a single Palestnian you could trust, and I had a really hard time containing my anger and trying to reason with him instead of yelling at him.
So that was discouraging, but later I talked to another person at the same gathering I was also acquainted with who was also Jewish, and I asked her how she felt about all of that. And she totally disagreed with him, because she's really anti-violence.
Going back to the generational thing that Flyboy mentioned, I do think that it's a factor in determining how people act, although not the only factor. As far as Israel's concerned I think that somebody who actually lived through the Holocaust or whose parents did, for instance, is going to be more worried about seeing somebody else trying to exterminate the Jews and be determined to prevent that from happening at all costs (including, say, attacking Iran for nukes they may or may not have and may or may not be planning to use), whereas a Jewish person who was born in the '80s might be more likely to say "Hey, you know what? The Holocaust happened 70 years ago, and a lot has changed. Jews are not in danger of being wiped out any more. America is not going to turn into Nazi Germany, and as for Israel, well, Israel's like the most powerful country in the Middle East, and with great power comes great responsibility. So let's not abuse that power by oppressing other people like we used to be oppressed."
I find it funny that Obama is considered a lefty in America, where as he's actually closer to the British Tory party than anything (right wingers).
Closer in his ideals, in his rhetoric, in his executive accomplishments, or in his legislative accomplishments? Ideals are hard to gauge; rhetoric is never trustable anyway, and legislative accomplishments are created by Congress, not the president, anyway. The only thing the president really can do is a narrow range of implementation changes of existing legislation through cabinet offices.
Funny thing is that a good number of those U.S. politicians who are clamoring for unconditional support for Israel are actually Christians who are partially motivated by some set of beliefs having to do with the apocalypse.
I'm gonna say that the use of drones on the battlefield is good PR because lets be honest, the American public doesn't like seeing its boys and girls coming home in boxes.
However, the use of drones to target *suspected* terrorists and hitting civilians is bad and should stop.
I think Obama would probably be a liberal centrist in British politics, and in reality you get those in all three parties.
You also have to take into account when considering his public views that he operates in a basically fairly conservative country in conservative times and that he wants to be re-elected. He's probably not revealing everything he really thinks. Wait for the memoirs.
Indeed. He's merely the symbol for the disease.
Yes, and the US paid for a good chunk of it, too.
But god forbid we give foreign aid to actual Third World nations. That would mean less money for the Israeli military establishment to bomb Palestine and threaten its neighbors with!
Anyhow, most serious and relatively neutral political scientists I've seen have pegged Obama as a fairly typical center-left Christian Democrat constrained by the political standards of the country as it stands currently.