Support NeoGAF

[Black Mamba]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/limbaugh-its-up-to-me-fox-news-to?ref=fpa

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Fox won't fan the flames. O'Reilly is on board, Hannity has said he supports some type of reform, obviously Murdoch supports immigration reform, etc.

But I'm curious. Right now the right wing is treating Rubio with kids gloves, letting him move them towards the center. If this process drags into the summer somehow and we see a return of tea party anger and resentment, will Rubio and other republicans hold firm or take the easy route out (ie blame Obama for partisanship and walk from the table).

Well, look, I've always believed that there are a bunch of Republicans of goodwill who would rather get something done than suffer through the sort of nasty atmosphere that prevails in Washington right now. It's not a fun time to be a member of Congress.

And I think if you talk privately to Democrats and Republicans, particularly those who have been around for a while, they long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation and feel productive. So I don't think the issue is whether or not there are people of goodwill in either party that want to get something done. I think what we really have to do is change some of the incentive structures so that people feel liberated to pursue some common ground.

One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you'll see more of them doing it.

I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.

The same dynamic happens on the Democratic side. I think the difference is just that the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word. And I think at least leaders like myself—and I include Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in this—are willing to buck the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done.

-BO http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112190/obama-interview-2013-sit-down-president

He called it and Rush just walked into it.

 

[RDreamer]

The media's portrayal of the movement, the lack of ability for the movement to adapt and then it's eventual downfall are all a direct result of how disorganized the whole thing was. Because the movement was made up of many differing viewpoints the media was able to grab hold of a couple shitty ones and make them stick. Because they lacked a leader there was no person to say otherwise. Because they lacked a leader, their occupation style of protest never morphed into anything else. The whole thing was a giant clusterfuck. For a second Tea Party elements were trying to join in because they were against the bailout and fell withing the 99% the protesters were fighting for. The whole movement ended up being dismissed because of it's fractured nature.

I find the whole thing very sad too since at its heart, I agree with what it stood for.

But that should have been the good thing about Occupy. It truly was supposed to be about the 99%, not about picking an ideology that would end up dividing people. The fact that it could get Tea Partiers and liberals and libertarians, etc etc into the movement should have been a good thing. It should have been a point where the media said "hey, all these different factions are demanding we change our thought processes and political processes on these things," and it's pretty unfortunate that it didn't work.

I think the media needs something drilled into their head easily for them to get it. They really did need at least one or two big people to endorse it and carry a platform like what Occupy was saying.

 

[Black Mamba]

But that should have been the good thing about Occupy. It truly was supposed to be about the 99%, not about picking an ideology that would end up dividing people. The fact that it could get Tea Partiers and liberals and libertarians, etc etc into the movement should have been a good thing. It should have been a point where the media said "hey, all these different factions are demanding we change our thought processes and political processes on these things," and it's pretty unfortunate that it didn't work.

I think the media needs something drilled into their head easily for them to get it. They really did need at least one or two big people to endorse it and carry a platform like what Occupy was saying.

It didn't work because there was no focus. You need concrete ideas for people to latch onto.

 

[RDreamer]

It didn't work because there was no focus. You need concrete ideas for people to latch onto.

Yeah, I think they did a decent job of pointing out and unifying under what was bad, but they did fail in bringing up exactly what we should do instead.

 

[zero shift]

People seem to forget that the Occupy Movement was started by a bunch of quasi-far left anarchists. While the protest eventually caught wind and started being represented by the common American, the people who started it could be meshed in with the stereotype the aggressors against movement claim. This became incredibly obvious after the Zucciotti Park dismantled. Instead of being grown up and finding officals to represent them or even start running for office they resorted to doing the most idiotic shit like forming a "sitarmy" or building permanent houses. The group was only good at thinking of big flashy demonstration but not so good at organization and demands. And whenever people start requesting some it goes back to "but we want to include everybody!" or "we don't want a leader! Everything must be done democratically!" The hivemind within the innergroup in that movement is astounding.

 

[Nert]

I browsed the Sean Hannity forums today to laugh at whatever their reaction would be to the proposed immigration reform. While looking through the Washington Politics topic, I came across this gem of a post explaining how Obama can be both a fascist AND a communist:

All leftist ideologies pretty much end up the same way.... with a government boot on a formerly free man's throat. And yes... fascism is of the left, invented by Benito Mussolini, who was himself a socialist as was his father before him.

If one refers to socialism as 'the means of production owned by the state', and communism as 'the means of production owned by the people' in both situations a government body will make all the decisions. No difference.

In fascism, private ownership of the means of production is nominally allowed, but the government works as the 'brain', controlling all aspects of industry. Once again, you have government making all the decisions... de facto ownership. So when you hear Democrats talking about "partnering with industry", THAT's what they mean. Fascism.

Dictators are "democratically" elected all over the world. The difference in our elections used to be that before democracy was applied, individual citizens had their rights protected. That way, the two wolves couldn't vote themselves a sheep for dinner. With each depredation of the U.S. Constitution, our government moves closer to tyranny. With the Obamacare decision, for example, you can be "taxed" into any behavior the government decides you should undertake.

This country is no longer "the home of the free". Free men can't be forced into behaviors of the state's choosing. THAT's what Barack Insane Obama has accomplished, he's "transformed" this country into a collectivist state, where the government will decide what's good for us. The boot is already at your throat. You just can't feel it yet. Fascism with a smiley face, and the smile will last for as long as the cash does. After that... not so much.

If you want to see this "in context," have at it.

 

[pigeon]

Yeah, I think they did a decent job of pointing out and unifying under what was bad, but they did fail in bringing up exactly what we should do instead.

I've made this point before, but I find these complaints about a volunteer-run democratic protest a little confusing. If you felt that you had ideas that Occupy wasn't putting forward, why didn't you go to Occupy and put them forward, like many people I know did? It's a little unreasonable to not get involved and then to complain that the people who did get involved weren't just like you.

Personally, I think Occupy was pretty successful at legitimizing class warfare -- let us not forget that this is the first time in probably ever that a presidential candidate actively ran on raising taxes, against a candidate who ran on lowering taxes for everybody, and won. In that sense I feel like it had a pretty meaningful impact on politics. In the sense of having actual candidates or representatives, it was obviously ineffective, but the Tea Party was great at that and basically destroyed its party, so maybe that's okay.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

People seem to forget that the Occupy Movement was started by a bunch of quasi-far left anarchists. While the protest eventually caught wind and started being represented by the common American, the people who started it could be meshed in with the stereotype the aggressors against movement claim. This became incredibly obvious after the Zucciotti Park dismantled. Instead of being grown up and finding officals to represent them or even start running for office they resorted to doing the most idiotic shit like forming a "sitarmy" or building permanent houses. The group was only good at thinking of big flashy demonstration but not so good at organization and demands. And whenever people start requesting some it goes back to "but we want to include everybody!" or "we don't want a leader! Everything must be done democratically!" The hivemind within the innergroup in that movement is astounding.

It was started by Canadians (damn them!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters_Media_Foundation

Though inspired by spanish protesters

You're right that they are pretty much the fringe of the left though. In that sense they are like the tea part of the left though the left fringe is weak, small and has no control while on the right they run the party.

 

[PhoenixDark]

-BO http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112190/obama-interview-2013-sit-down-president

He called it and Rush just walked into it.

Good to see Obama gets it

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But that should have been the good thing about Occupy. It truly was supposed to be about the 99%, not about picking an ideology that would end up dividing people. The fact that it could get Tea Partiers and liberals and libertarians, etc etc into the movement should have been a good thing. It should have been a point where the media said "hey, all these different factions are demanding we change our thought processes and political processes on these things," and it's pretty unfortunate that it didn't work.

I think the media needs something drilled into their head easily for them to get it. They really did need at least one or two big people to endorse it and carry a platform like what Occupy was saying.

You don't do anything unless you put pressure on politicians. Incorporating all those ideas doesn't insentivise them to do anything but just continue to do nothing with the hope people go away. Social and political movements don't get anything don't without concrete proposals and ideas. The progressive movement at the turn of the century they had actual laws and ideas (income tax, direct election of senators, sufferage for women, trustbusting, etc.) they wanted and they fought for them. Not just 99% vs. 1% stuff that says nothing and gives no clues on what kind of change you want.

 

[empty vessel]

People seem to forget that the Occupy Movement was started by a bunch of quasi-far left anarchists. While the protest eventually caught wind and started being represented by the common American, the people who started it could be meshed in with the stereotype the aggressors against movement claim. This became incredibly obvious after the Zucciotti Park dismantled. Instead of being grown up and finding officals to represent them or even start running for office they resorted to doing the most idiotic shit like forming a "sitarmy" or building permanent houses. The group was only good at thinking of big flashy demonstration but not so good at organization and demands. And whenever people start requesting some it goes back to "but we want to include everybody!" or "we don't want a leader! Everything must be done democratically!" The hivemind within the innergroup in that movement is astounding.

Political movements are most effective outside of electoral politics. They make demands for change on the entire system and, when they get loud and disruptive enough (or sympathetic enough), they win them. See the Civil Rights Movement, which did not consist of running people for political office in the South who agreed with integration as a means of making change. Occupy's failure wasn't that it did not run people for political office, it was that it was violently repressed by the government.

 

[airmangataosenai]

 

[Black Mamba]

I've made this point before, but I find these complaints about a volunteer-run democratic protest a little confusing. If you felt that you had ideas that Occupy wasn't putting forward, why didn't you go to Occupy and put them forward, like many people I know did? It's a little unreasonable to not get involved and then to complain that the people who did get involved weren't just like you.

Personally, I think Occupy was pretty successful at legitimizing class warfare -- let us not forget that this is the first time in probably ever that a presidential candidate actively ran on raising taxes, against a candidate who ran on lowering taxes for everybody, and won. In that sense I feel like it had a pretty meaningful impact on politics. In the sense of having actual candidates or representatives, it was obviously ineffective, but the Tea Party was great at that and basically destroyed its party, so maybe that's okay.

I personally think the GOP is what legitimized the class warfare stuff. By accident, of course.

FWIW, I'm not complaining. Just pointing out why I think they weren't very successful.

 

[Chichikov]

Yeah, because we're totally going to ban waterfowl shotguns.

Another evidence of what I always suspected - that many of the passionate pro gun warriors know very very little about guns.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I browsed the Sean Hannity forums today to laugh at whatever their reaction would be to the proposed immigration reform. While looking through the Washington Politics topic, I came across this gem of a post explaining how Obama can be both a fascist AND a communist:



If you want to see this "in context," have at it.

So this is what an embolism feels like.

 

[zero shift]

Political movements are most effective outside of electoral politics. They make demands for change on the entire system and, when they get loud and disruptive enough (or sympathetic enough), they win them. See the Civil Rights Movement, which did not consist of running people for political office in the South who agreed with integration as a means of making change. Occupy's failure wasn't that it did not run people for political office, it was that it was violently repressed by the government.

Good point. I just feel that they could have done something more.

Am I suppose to be intimidated by this? They look hilarious.

 

[Chichikov]

Am I suppose to be intimidated by this? They look hilarious.

They're duck hunters most likely, they're supposed to be hard to spot by ducks, and I believe that they are.
I have no idea what any of this has to do with the suggested assault rifle ban though.

 

[RustyNails]

I think you're missing the bigger pictures about drones by focusing only on their current use of assassinating terrorist.
Don't get me wrong, that's an important issue worth exploring, but when looking at the future of warfare, you need to consider what the rise of the robots really mean - that's the once again, rich countries are going to have the ability to wage war on poorer nation without a serious risk to its own soldiers.
It's not the first time in history that it happened, and white people have a terrible track record on that front.
Fear of casualties is what prevents most politicians from going to war, drones take that fear away.

I'm thinking of things I may have missed, such as using of Drones to target American Hirabists like Anwar Al Awlaki, and try to do a Part 2. I'll see if I can unwind some of the things you noted.

Always open for criticism.

Great post, man. I think I agree with pretty much all of what you wrote.

Thanks!

 

[Chichikov]

Needs more laughing dog.

 

[Oblivion]

I browsed the Sean Hannity forums today to laugh at whatever their reaction would be to the proposed immigration reform. While looking through the Washington Politics topic, I came across this gem of a post explaining how Obama can be both a fascist AND a communist:



If you want to see this "in context," have at it.

Speaking of which, why isn't "we the people", which conservatives like to say all the time, considered socialist/communist/fascist as well?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Political movements are most effective outside of electoral politics. They make demands for change on the entire system and, when they get loud and disruptive enough (or sympathetic enough), they win them. See the Civil Rights Movement, which did not consist of running people for political office in the South who agreed with integration as a means of making change. Occupy's failure wasn't that it did not run people for political office, it was that it was violently repressed by the government.

And the civil rights movement wasn't? Women's sufferage? Apartheid in South Africa?

The the fact that OWS didn't run people for office isn't the problem its the fact it stood for no discernible ideas or proposals. What where their proposals? Can you name me one? I seriously don't even know a single one.

Civil rights had a goal (intergration and equal treatment under the law)
Womens sufferage too (women getting the vote)
Apartheid again had one (end to a specific policy)

OWS had slogans and when asked to propose ideas didn't

 

[Cheebo]

Hillary SuperPAC is about to launch formed by a lot of big name Hillary 2008 donors. Fun times ahead:
https://twitter.com/ReadyForHillary

 

[Maninthemirror]

I really hate Erin Burnett's hidden agenda:

When talking about President saying he skeet shoots at Camp David, she just said on CNN:

" I am not making this up, if its anyone, its not me"


ughhhh, worst reporter on CNN.

 

[fallagin]

Hillary SuperPAC is about to launch formed by a lot of big name Hillary 2008 donors. Fun times ahead:
https://twitter.com/ReadyForHillary

This new election season is going to be incredibly fun. Hopefully the dems stay relatively amicable to each other

Spoiler

and let Hillary win.

 

[Fenderputty]

But that should have been the good thing about Occupy. It truly was supposed to be about the 99%, not about picking an ideology that would end up dividing people. The fact that it could get Tea Partiers and liberals and libertarians, etc etc into the movement should have been a good thing. It should have been a point where the media said "hey, all these different factions are demanding we change our thought processes and political processes on these things," and it's pretty unfortunate that it didn't work.

I think the media needs something drilled into their head easily for them to get it. They really did need at least one or two big people to endorse it and carry a platform like what Occupy was saying.

Differing views coming together under the common ground of "bank bailouts are bad" is fantastic. One group was protesting for more regulations though while the other was protesting for less. So the movement demanded we change our thought/political processes, but couldn't agree on which thoughts/politics to change? It had zero focus and soon lost its traction because of it.

 

[Touchdown]

I really hate Erin Burnett's hidden agenda:

When talking about President saying he skeet shoots at Camp David, she just said on CNN:

" I am not making this up, if its anyone, its not me"


ughhhh, worst reporter on CNN.

She annoys the crap out of me. I still remember when she "interviewed" some of the Occupy Wall street people in the streets and basically was just making a big joke out of the whole thing.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I really hate Erin Burnett's hidden agenda:

When talking about President saying he skeet shoots at Camp David, she just said on CNN:

" I am not making this up, if its anyone, its not me"


ughhhh, worst reporter on CNN.

She's pretty though.

I agree too but remember she's from CNBC. So I imagine she represents wall st.

 

[RustyNails]

I really hate Erin Burnett's hidden agenda:

When talking about President saying he skeet shoots at Camp David, she just said on CNN:

" I am not making this up, if its anyone, its not me"


ughhhh, worst reporter on CNN.

She's dumb. "Obama is a skeet shooter? YUK YUK YUK"

Why don't you do some journalism before even forming opinions on it?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Hillary SuperPAC is about to launch formed by a lot of big name Hillary 2008 donors. Fun times ahead:
https://twitter.com/ReadyForHillary

here we gooo

 

[Chichikov]

I really hate Erin Burnett's hidden agenda:

When talking about President saying he skeet shoots at Camp David, she just said on CNN:

" I am not making this up, if its anyone, its not me"


ughhhh, worst reporter on CNN.

I think she was designed in a lab to be the perfect wall street shill.

 

[B-Dubs]

I really hate Erin Burnett's hidden agenda:

When talking about President saying he skeet shoots at Camp David, she just said on CNN:

" I am not making this up, if its anyone, its not me"


ughhhh, worst reporter on CNN.

God I thought I was the only one. For all the shit we give Blitzer at least he isn't as bad as her.

 

[ZeroRay]

I think she was designed in a lab to be the perfect wall street shill.

If you type "wall street shill" on Google, the second search suggestion is "erin burnett wall street shill".

 

[Trouble]

here we gooo

I don't know why anyone ever thought she might not run.

 

[Oblivion]

So I thought this was amusing:

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus declared, "It's not the platform of the party that's the issue. In many cases, it's how we communicate about it. It is a couple dumb things that people have said."

An RNC member from West Virginia added, "We don't need a new pair of shoes; we just need to shine our shoes."

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...uston-they-dont-know-they-have-a-problem?lite

So I made a thingie on the twitter: #shinethoseshoes

Come on guys. Let's get this bitch trending!

 

[kingkitty]

Unless there's a leak of a secret tape that shows Hillary personally directing the attack in Benghazi while laughing maniacally and high fivin' Obama, nothing is gonna stop the Hillary train. She will run and she will win, the nomination at least.

I hope her opponent is Jeb Bush, imagine all the juicy political dynasty talks. The books that would be written. Marco Rubio better bow out for the Bush.

 

[Tim-E]

I think I may throw together a post about Hilldawg later this evening. Or immigration.

I'll bet once Hillary starts being a bit more public about wanting to run we see a lot of people trying to convince Biden to bow out.

 

[Clevinger]

I hope her opponent is Jeb Bush, imagine all the juicy political dynasty discussions, the books that would be written. Pleasedontbemarcorubio.

I imagine no matter who wins the GOP primary, Rubio will be on the ticket. Christie/Rubio or Bush/Rubio.

I want her to go against Christie. I don't think his fat bully persona would work well against a woman.

 

[Piecake]

Found this interesting

In fact, America’s health care system is not much different from other developed countries in the volume of service. Our doctors prescribe more or less the same number of pills and X-rays, perform similar numbers of blood tests and surgeries, as doctors in the best European countries. While there are undoubtedly savings to be had by cutting unnecessary services (shortening hospital stays, for example), the main problem is that our system charges far more for each service — each office visit, each hip replacement, each day in a hospital bed, each dose of antibiotic. “The facile explanation is that doctors do too much,” said Peter Bach, a doctor at Memorial Sloan-Kettering who studies quality of cancer care. “But if you compare us to other countries on volume, we’re not leading in any category. The flip side is, we pay double for a lot of stuff.” (Actually, we lead in tonsillectomies and knee replacements, but his point is generally right.)

I always thought it was a combination of the US doing a ton more procedures, tests and the like due to fear of being sued and financial incentives for doing more tests, as well as everything being more expensive.

Apparently, its just everything is a lot more expensive

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/o...?hp&_r=0&gwh=5BA5EF14CB818B91B231C99EF4A1760A

 

[kingkitty]

I imagine no matter who wins the GOP primary, Rubio will be on the ticket. Christie/Rubio or Bush/Rubio.

I want her to go against Christie. I don't think his fat bully persona would work well against a woman.

I don't know about a Bush/Rubio ticket. Unless Jeb changes his state residency to Texas or something. You can have the pres and vice pres from the same state but some constitutional mumbo jumbo means electors from Florida can only vote for one of the candidates on the repub ticket...I think.

But I guess it isn't really a big problem, Jeb probably has like 12 houses in Texas.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

If Rubio runs, Jeb won't. Vice versa.

They have too much respect for one another. (So they say.)

 

[Cheebo]

I don't know why anyone ever thought she might not run.

When Kroft asked her on 60 Minutes if she is running and she did everything possible to avoid answering the question it couldn't be more obvious that she is running.

 

[The Librarian]

This'll be one boring election if/when Hillary announces her candidacy.

 

[Tim-E]

Isn't she not legally allowed to partake in partisan politics while acting as SoS? I'd say she gets a bit more open about it once Kerry takes over.

This'll be one boring election if/when Hillary announces her candidacy.

I'll take a boring election where the Republican will likely get crushed over an open primary where a bunch of cardboard Northeastern liberal candidates kill everyone's momentum and have a hard time in the general.

 

[Clevinger]

If Rubio runs, Jeb won't. Vice versa.

They have too much respect for one another. (So they say.)

Yeah right. Respect has nothing on ambition, at least for a politician.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Yeah right. Respect has nothing on ambition, at least for a politician.

I think Jeb were going to run, he would've ran already to "restore" the Bush name.

When 2016 rolls around, it's going to be almost a decade femoved from public office. That's an eternity in politics.

 

[The Librarian]

I'll take a boring election where the Republican will likely get crushed over an open primary where a bunch of cardboard Northeastern liberal candidates kill everyone's momentum and have a hard time in the general.

Oh, me too, but it just won't be the same, you know? What are people going to be worried about in 2016 if not the presidency? Taking the House?

By God, man, what are we going to worry about? I need some anxiety!

 

[Maninthemirror]

Why Hillary is a lock for everything


1. There is no Obama like Candidate around the Democratic party. They are some pretty decent one, but not an orator and hopium deliverer like him. no one is there to blindside her.

2. She has always been considered the one to break that glass ceiling. When everyone thinks of a woman president in the country, they think of her.

3. Women will vote for her

4. Latinos will vote for her (coattails of Obama)

5. African Americans will vote for her (coattails of Obama)

6. Other minorities will vote for her (coattails of Obama)

7. America has a very short term memory (they will forget Benghazi as a ground shaking event within 12 months)

8. Bill Clinton

9. Barack Obama

10. Better Economy (expected) (coattails of Obama)

 

[Clevinger]

I think Jeb were going to run, he would've ran already to "restore" the Bush name.

I disagree. Time is what's needed for people to forget about W. People will not have forgotten him when 2016 rolls around, but the Bush name won't be quite as immediately toxic as 08 or 12. And Jeb has stayed in the public view by writing books and pretending to be the savior of American education.

 

[Tim-E]

Oh, me too, but it just won't be the same, you know? What are people going to be worried about in 2016 if not the presidency? Taking the House?

By God, man, what are we going to worry about? I need some anxiety!

Get Diablos in here. Silver could predict that Hillary will win with 400+ EVs and he'd still be afraid that she'd lose.

 

[Piecake]

Why Hillary is a lock for everything


1. There is no Obama like Candidate around the Democratic party. They are some pretty decent one, but not an orator and hopium deliverer like him. no one is there to blindside her.

2. She has always been considered the one to break that glass ceiling. When everyone thinks of a woman president in the country, they think of her.

3. Women will vote for her

4. Latinos will vote for her (coattails of Obama)

5. African Americans will vote for her (coattails of Obama)

6. Other minorities will vote for her (coattails of Obama)

7. America has a very short term memory (they will forget Benghazi as a ground shaking event within 12 months)

8. Bill Clinton

9. Barack Obama

10. Better Economy (expected) (coattails of Obama)

I think the only people who thought Benghazi was a ground shaking event to begin with werent going to vote for her anyways