An intriguing perspective. But I'm not sure I detect a refutation in your post.
Last edited:
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Supporting actual terrorists, and breaking the law to do it? That is far worse than anything Obama has done on the international scene. Reagan should have been in jail over Iran/Contra. But he pulled off a great act of being a Doddering Old Fool and dodged having charges pressed against him.
True and if I had any faith in the republicans I might be tempted to say situation on the ground is different and how smart people can change their minds on the best course of action maybe even supported that but... there was a week between the GOP running with "Obama needs to bomb Syria Red Line! Red Line!" and "We don't believe that there is enough evidence to support going into Syria."
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't dispute it's political maneuvering and splitting technicality hairs, I'm saying every step of this process has been doing that, so it's par for the course.
Erh, Obama is supporting actual terrorists, and is breaking the law to do it. At least the Reagan administration made the US appear strong internationally, and caused the collapse of the iron curtain. Obama's making the US look weak and bewildered, and emboldening our enemies with every step.
Anyway, in other news, the Washington Post (of all things) has a big metapoll showing that America at large is now more conservative than at any point since 1952. I wish I could believe it. All I've seen in the last decade is a nation, to paraphrase of Gerry Spence, faced with the pain of freedom, begging for the shackles.
go on
GasBandit
Staff member
Backing the Muslim Brotherhood? Armored vehicles for Hezbollah? Material aid to the Syrian rebels, with the tacit admission that they know that some of it will in fact end up in the hands of Al Qaeda?
keep going, don't stop, I'm almost there, I'm about to climax
Mind you, your description of the curcumstances sounds more like the European version of conservatism. It arose from the alliance between the landholders and the clergy, and has a definite statist element with the underlying principle that the state has the authority to curtail individual liberties in the interests of the whole. Whereas the american version of conservatism is highly individualistic, having more in common with classical 19th century liberalism.
The world is quite a complex place. This might be just the wine talking, but perhaps your hoi polloi are yearning for leadership, for a strong hand to guide them and show them the way, and relieve them of the burden of the illusion of choice.
GasBandit
Staff member
That's what I've been saying for years. Americans can't cope with freedom any more.
More fun:
Why, they will stand idly by, watching us do it to one another, of course.
--Patrick
The country of Azerbaijan is having an election today! Yay for democracy...
...except that the results are out before the polls opened. Really. They're THAT corrupt. They're trying to say it was an error, and the results are from the previous election, but the names are the different between the two elections (what was released was for the current) as well as the "results" being different numbers. This from the president, who is the son of the previous president. Ya it's that kind of place.
...except that the results are out before the polls opened. Really. They're THAT corrupt. They're trying to say it was an error, and the results are from the previous election, but the names are the different between the two elections (what was released was for the current) as well as the "results" being different numbers. This from the president, who is the son of the previous president. Ya it's that kind of place.
GasBandit
Staff member
Heh, and boy was it.
"It is not the people who vote who control the country, it's the people who count the votes." - Joseph Stalin
It is odd and disturbingthat we see a movement in this direction all over the world - in non-democracies people don't want to become one, in democracies people are voting for extreme parties (be it right or left) practically everywhere.
Oh, and I'll reiterate something I've said a hundred times before: the US should have at least 4 major parties, instead of 2. The economically liberal is part of "liberal" parties all over the world, and quite often one of the "theocratic religious morally conservative" right most fervent opponents. On the other end, the ethically liberal (pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, pro-gay, etc) doesn't necessarily belong together with fans of Big Government and/or interventionist government. On both sides, it would be an interesting point to see how people'd vote given those separations. I really, really hope the Tea Party would have 5% and small-government-few-laws-right would have more, but I'm somehow afraid it'd be the other way 'round.
What we need are districts that don't look like
Both parties are guilty of this, and it creates an environment for the crazy (Bachmann) or the corrupt (Rangel). There's a whole lot more names I can throw up there, and there's a reason the Senate has been more willing to work together than the House.
Auto-correct? Because otherwise, that's kind of funny.
GasBandit
Staff member
All too true, if I infer your meaning through the auto-corrects correctly. Implementing instant runoff elections would go so very, very far to helping alleviate this. But (pulls out Gas Bandit stock response tape number 4) I fear we're already too far down the path we've trodden to be able to turn back now, and the only dramatic changes to our electoral system will happen through a nation-shaking upheaval.[DOUBLEPOST=1381415620,1381415337][/DOUBLEPOST]The Obama Administration has gone to unprecedented lengths to thwart the press. “This is the most closed, control freak administration I’ve ever covered,” said David E. Sanger, veteran chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times.
The same press that supposedly see Obama as the coming of the savior, can do no wrong, never side against him and are in his pocket according to every GoP out there?
Doooouble taaaaaalk, dddddouble double, double taaaaaaaaalk.
Doesn't sound like double-talk to me. If they weren't so in his pocket, this would have been news YEARS ago. See Stephen Harper in Canada. The press up here is also left-wing, so they've been saying something similar for years up here. It only took 5-6 years for it to be reported down there for the same thing.The same press that supposedly see Obama as the coming of the savior, can do no wrong, never side against him and are in his pocket according to every GoP out there?
Doooouble taaaaaalk, dddddouble double, double taaaaaaaaalk.
It's a very human reaction really. If it's "your guy" you forgive things you would be harshly criticizing from "the other guy." But even with "your guy" you still eventually point out the bad parts. It's the same as a "friend" doing something a bit bad, but it's "not a big deal" and they say they won't do it again, so you believe them. Then they do it again, and you forgive them again. And perhaps a 3rd time. Or whatever. But eventually even if the rest of the relationship is good, you still call out your "friend" on their bad behavior. But the same behavior of somebody neutral, or even "I think this guy is a dick" you'll call out immediately. Almost everybody acts this way. This is the same, but as applied to political figures. I'd call the reporters biased, but very human. They eventually get their shit together, even for "their guy" which is a good thing. I'd be better if it was right away for both, but that's not how people usually act. I don't forgive it, but I can't get too up in arms about it either.
We have found a position we agree on politics. I think I see sun rays shining through my window and quite possibly a choir of angelic music caressing my ears.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well we can't have THAT now can we.We have found a position we agree on politics. I think I see sun rays shining through my window and quite possibly a choir of angelic music caressing my ears.
Time for an applegrenade...
I know, it's weird. While we're all agreeing, we should call for an expansion of the STOCK act, to nix "political intelligence" activities and add a provision banning congresscritters from owning stock in companies in industries they can make decisions regarding.We have found a position we agree on politics. I think I see sun rays shining through my window and quite possibly a choir of angelic music caressing my ears.
I think one of the biggest disconnects between Gas and other conservatives are that they seem to misunderstand that we don't want a ruling class government. We want a government where the people are empowered and also that the government actually do their jobs of serving the people rather than undermining them. Both sides are just as guilty of it which is why our political system is so bolloxed up.
GasBandit
Staff member
A government that can give you everything you want can take everything you have. When the masses are dependent upon the government for their food, their healthcare, their very existence, they cease to be free citizens and become serfs.
The problem is, despite their professed rhetoric, the establishment republicans are just as happy to have serfs as democrats are. I want a government as Thomas Jefferson envisioned it - one whose primary focus is maintaining civil order, leaving the citizens free, and neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.