Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

Well, the thing is, I'm sure a lot of us thought this as well, but over the past couple of months, the GOP had actually become even more batshit than one could imagine (hard as that is to imagine). For example, aside from McCain and Graham, Republicans have for the most part stopped giving a shit about Pentagon cuts. Why? Cause the damage inflicted to Obama would be worth their sacred cows suffering a bit o fpain for a while. As time goes on, it's become harder and harder to find any constituency the Republicans wouldn't mind throwing under the bus if it means hurting the Kenyan socialist some how.

Very good point. I can't imagine the republicans of 2009 allowing sequestration to happen. There seems to be a blatant attempt to simply ruin everything and blame Obama. The economy is starving, the military is getting fucked, infrastructure is literally falling apart...and nothing is even being considered to fix any of it.

 

[bonercop]

I don't think you quite get this. Obama is a Republican. I'll be here all week.

To be fair, he has described himself as such....

 

[Fenderputty]

While I don't necessarily agree with the way Angry Fork phrases his ideas, it's clear to me what he is: the burning conscious of liberals. He is right to point out that liberals are far to quick to get behind their team even when their core principles are compromised, and that they're far too quick to concede on an issue in an effort to "get things done". Now I understand that compromise is essential in Washington politics, but the downstream effects are a body politic that is moving further rightward and an embolden opposition that sets the agenda far too often (see: the hysteria on debts and deficit).

As with most things I agree with EV. The Tea Party are successful because they organise, they have money, and they vote. They have articulated a clear agenda and they hold their elected representatives accountable.

If we want to see our agenda gain traction then we need to start demanding better from the people that are supposed to represent our ideas.

This is something I've noticed AF doesn't understand though. He wants dems to rule the country like it were a dictatorship when in power. It's just not the way the system was set up. Thankfully too.

I also disagree with your other stance. It doesn't always mean the body of politics will shift more right over time. It just means the body will move slowly in one direction of the other. We just went through a long period in american politics were the dems had zero clout and power. As a result the nation moved to the right. The nation's populace (even if not represented in the house) is becoming more liberal and secular though. If trends keep up, I can see the political body move back to the left.

I mean shit ... people are talking about the split of the GOP because the Angry White Man can't let go of his ideals. The splintering of the conservative base and the return of the rational republican would be a huge shift back left if it were to happen.

I believe EV is also correct with regards to the Tea Party. Which is why I'm so confused about his support for the direction of the Occupy Movement during those times. The left had a chance to mobilize and unite, but let it flounder and become and all inclusive mess.

 

[Jooney]

I don't think you quite get this. Obama is a Republican. I'll be here all week.

If you rewind the clock, Obama would certainly have been a Republican. Now he is the effective head of the Democratic party, which indicates how right the country has swung.

 

[ElectricThunder]

The "tea party" enjoys the benefit of history from being able to rise up from the pissed on ashes of Unions and most other "far left" groups on top of their serious monied interests/astroturfing---of course the few marginal, non-anarchist "lefty" groups left are not even in the same league!

Obama can be a left-leaning Democrat all day long and during supper time, but the caveat there is the Democratic institution on the whole has been brought low these past several decades---what people presume it to still mean from the sidelines and historical metrics they remember is not at all the trajectory they've been traveling this past while.

Healthcare? Nah, let's entrench the parasitic, and not the cool'ish commensalism sort, insurance industries deeper into the mess because that was the GOP plan from some years on back---gogo further privatization of the public welfare.

The whole Pinochet/Allende contrived angle I dunno about, but then again I finally caught Shock Doctrine(Also turns out Klein as a new book/movie coming soon'ish dealing with Climate Change woes in a not dissimilar regard) this afternoon so between that and Untold History of the US the whole thing is rather fresh and raw a reminder today of that whole debacle of a nation brought into turmoil to satisfy private, international interests at to a grave disadvantage of the public.

At any rate the crux is something like this: It is far easier to undermine the public good than it is to bolster it when there are so many misinformed or willfully damned evil people with power and their enablers on something of a literal crusade towards Free Market and otherwise short-sighted Hegemonic goals. Obama took the easy road of pretty well going along with this, with a few Feel Good notions thrown in there in a bid to make the Gestalt all the more palatable both in the now and for his ever-precious Legacy, despite even the briefest look at modern US history either from the vantage point of most foreign locales or at least taking off the damned rose-tinted glasses shows that we've been on a terrible course for quite some time now with much of it coming to roost.

 

[East Lake]

If you rewind the clock, Obama would certainly have been a Republican. Now he is the effective head of the Democratic party, which indicates how right the country has swung.

Now in order to completely transition into AF posting you need to repeat this ad nauseam while claiming nobody else here is aware of it. Only you know the truth.

 

[The Librarian]

If you rewind the clock, Obama would certainly have been a Republican. Now he is the effective head of the Democratic party, which indicates how right the country has swung.

Eh. I think that shows that Democrats are more willing to implement conservative measures to achieve their goals. Privately, Obama's a single-payer supporter, but he's not going to sacrifice a chance to expand health insurance if he doesn't get single-payer.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Eh. I think that shows that Democrats are more willing to implement conservative measures to achieve their goals. Privately, Obama's a single-payer supporter, but he's not going to sacrifice a chance to expand health insurance if he doesn't get single-payer.

This is called being pragmatic, everyone. And that's a good thing if you want to actually get things done instead of just complaining about problems.

 

[PhoenixDark]

If you rewind the clock, Obama would certainly have been a Republican. Now he is the effective head of the Democratic party, which indicates how right the country has swung.

In the model of whom, exactly? He's a big government, corporatist democrat. More importantly he's a pragmatist who focuses on what he can accomplish vs what he wants to accomplish. I've never bought the republican line. He'd be at home in the 1980s passing legislation with Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan.

This is what Erick Erickson and his ilk don't understand. You never get everything you want.

 

[zero shift]

Angry Fork's assertion that Obama is a conservative is easily dismissed when you consider that he made health care reform a priority (the gop only ever paid it lip service) and pushed for the repeal of Dadt.

The average conservative from any other first world nation would demand a single payer option. Just because he did something people from the far right don't want doesn't make him left wing. It would be like just because someone doesn't support nationalizing all businesses doesn't make them right wing. The political spectrum is large.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

But he didn't have the political leverage to demand anything. He's not king.

 

[Angry Fork]

Angry Fork's assertion that Obama is a conservative is easily dismissed when you consider that he made health care reform a priority (the gop only ever paid it lip service) and pushed for the repeal of Dadt. That he is a pragmatic liberal makes him look consecutive only to somebody far left and intolerant of any compromise. Hence the tea party comparison. The reference to Pinochet is also telling.

1. A republican, market-based health care bill that is better than nothing.

2. Supports gay rights, after it was evident the nation was progressing this way. Before this he was either a bigot, or he just didn't care. Huey Newton and Bayard Rustin were 40+ years ahead of him. (Not knocking his "progression" btw, just the coincidental timing of his sudden change.)

3. Is at least mildly in favor of government granted jobs for anyone willing to work, and a raise in the minimum wage, but I don't see him fighting hard for this anytime soon. Too many kill lists to read.

4. Supports gun control.

5. Pro-environment. Doesn't go remotely far enough to help fix the crisis that is already here but he's at least pivoting away from Keystone construction.

5. Can play basketball, has a great smile and can be very charming if you're able to ignore the rest of his presidency for a few minutes.

vs.

1. A police state that would make Stalin and heads of East Germany exude sperm all over their trousers. The unconditional nationwide surveillance of everyone in the country. The extremely aggressive hunting of whistleblowers, war on journalism, etc. This should still be fresh in everyone's memory so I won't go on about it.

2. Drug war, inherently racist, devastating policy that he himself has admitted is a failure, before flip flopping. Supports private prisons.

3. Not in favor of or has discussed any reasonable, logical solution to the college crisis. Supporter of market-based student loans that will cause increases and exploitation in the years to come, but as long as he's able to wipe his hands of the affair later on by saying "I'm not president anymore" then it's okay.

4. Loyal to any banker. Not just the ones that got him elected, literally any single one. All of them.

5. Murder of US citizens without due process. Kidnapping, torture, and murder of non-US citizens without due process, including hundreds of children. (I think the due process bit is irrelevant, these murders wouldn't be justified even if a court said so, but that's too commie anarchist for some people so leave it some kind of a trial required at the very least). It should also be noted many of the people killed are unidentified, he sometimes doesn't know who he's murdering.

6. Supports racist, oppressive police (recently said Ray Kelly is great at his job, thinks he would be a good fit for head of homeland security). Raging hypocrite on anything related to race and civil liberties.

I know I'm forgetting more, maybe someone else can fill the gaps.

I'm expecting some justifications saying he has to worry about getting re-elected so he has to do all of these things. "DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND POLITICS!?!?!?"

This is called being pragmatic, everyone. And that's a good thing if you want to actually get things done instead of just complaining about problems.

Lenin got shit done too.

Obama actually hasn't gotten much done though (correction: hasn't gotten much done for the left, he's been great for the right), at least not enough to justify the claim that pragmatism is working. I don't know where people keep getting this idea except as an excuse to defend the home team.

Obama is not being pragmatic, he is a republican, he wants these things implemented, as do many democrats. And the current fascist, american-taliban party that holds the republican name wants a white Francisco Franco in charge.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The average conservative from any other first world nation would demand a single payer option. Just because he did something people from the far right don't want doesn't make him left wing. It would be like just because someone doesn't support nationalizing all businesses doesn't make them right wing. The political spectrum is large.

It's also worth mentioning his healthcare law is similar to ones proposed by republicans in the 90s and 70s; republicans today are insane and refuse to acknowledge this fact. The ACA is basically an insurance company's wet dream, it's far from a government takeover or left wing monstrosity.

That's not necessarily by design. It was watered down to this point by lobbyists and health insurance corporations. But it's a step towards a more liberal plan in the future, which makes it exciting at least to me. Anyone who can't see that is probably an absolutist.

 

[The Librarian]

The average conservative from any other first world nation would demand a single payer option.

Not every other country has a single-payer system. Some have an approach that's more market-oriented, like Germany.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

tbh I don't think the Teabaggers would like one of those damned idol-worshipping Papists

 

[The Librarian]

1. A police state that would make Stalin and heads of East Germany exude sperm all over their trousers.

LOL

 

[bonercop]

This is called being pragmatic, everyone. And that's a good thing if you want to actually get things done instead of just complaining about problems.

Nominating crazy batshits like Larry Summers or Ray Kelly isn't pragmatic, tho.
Neither are his ridiculous raids on marijuana dispensaries(4x as much in 4 years compared to Bush entire presidency), or his refusal to allow banksters or torturers be prosecuted. That's all just Obama being a right-winger.

Tangentially related question: Are things actually getting better? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the vast majority of Americans doing worse right now than they were 4 years ago? There are more poor people, and the poorest are poorer, right? I suspect Obamacare is going to be a huge boon for the democrats in coming years, but is it going to be enough to reverse the trend?

 

[empty vessel]

This is called being pragmatic, everyone. And that's a good thing if you want to actually get things done instead of just complaining about problems.

The good thing about being a citizen is that you don't have to be (politically) pragmatic. It's politicians' jobs to compromise. It's our role as citizens to tell politicians our demands. The problem I find we have, particularly on message boards, is that we tend to blur our discussions. If we want to have a "meta" political discussion, we can talk about and defend political compromise. I personally see little value in those conversations. I prefer to talk about political substance rather than political process. And it's the former that will create change. The latter is just entertainment.

 

[B-Dubs]

LOL

Yea that's a little much...but just a little...tiny bit of an overreaction...

OK yea I laughed too

 

[empty vessel]

And where the hell has Chichikov been and why is he posting so little?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

LOL

Indeed, the average Stasi dept. could only tap ~40 phones a day.

 

[worldrunover]

So I've heard of not being able to find the G-spot, but, uh...

As the governor’s press handlers started to interrupt, Perry waved them off and stepped up to an anatomically-correct ‘female’ doll used in medical training that was laying on an examining table in the room.

“I’m not stupid. Those are the vagina right there,” said Perry, pointing at but not touching the labi majora, the visible protruding edges leading in to the vagina.

As CNN reported, the room went quiet for a very brief second before erupting in “loud, loud laughter and what-the-f’s.” Over the noise, Senator Davis could be heard repeating over and over, “Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?”

 

[Angry Fork]

Yea that's a little much...but just a little...tiny bit of an overreaction...

OK yea I laughed too

There was less spying on the public in the Soviet Union than now. Obviously that's due to them not having this tech, but that doesn't absolve our government.

We have our own secret police, secret courts, secret surveillance, secret prisons/gulag's, extrajudicial murder, kidnapping and torture (and judicial, let's not forget all the hard work John Yoo did). And not just in the US but all over the world. I don't know how you can NOT see the similarities, except if you still believe the US cares about democracy and human rights then you may think it's all justified somehow.

 

[Snake]

So I've heard of not being able to find the G-spot, but, uh...

Just so people don't get the wrong idea, this site is essentially a Canadian version of The Onion.

 

[Karakand]

Lenin got shit done too.

Obama actually hasn't gotten much done though (correction: hasn't gotten much done for the left, he's been great for the right), at least not enough to justify the claim that pragmatism is working. I don't know where people keep getting this idea except as an excuse to defend the home team.

The CPC is very pragmatic and I doubt the average PoliGAFer would line up to join (or live under) them.

Ascribing virtue to tools is a very peculiar phenomena.

 

[Oblivion]

Nominating crazy batshits like Larry Summers or Ray Kelly isn't pragmatic, tho.
Neither are his ridiculous raids on marijuana dispensaries(4x as much in 4 years compared to Bush entire presidency), or his refusal to allow banksters or torturers be prosecuted. That's all just Obama being a right-winger.

Was actually just about to type this.

I can accept the theory that if Obama had like a supermajority of ultra-progressive dems in congress that he'd happily enact far more liberal legislation like single payer and such, but as bonercop mentioned, Obama does other things, seemingly of his own will, where he wouldn't be obstructed by Republicans, that force you to second guess him.

This includes re-appointing the ultra right-wing previous head of the DEA, considering that racist NYC police chief for secretary of homeland security, and selecting Chuck Hagel for defense secretary.*


*

Spoiler

Yeah, yeah I know what you're gonna say. No, I don't have any substantive objections to Hagel, but Obama really needs to stop enforcing the stereotype that Republicans are better suited for being "strong on defense".

 

[worldrunover]

Just so people don't get the wrong idea, this site is essentially a Canadian version of The Onion.

Really? Aww, it sounded so believable...

 

[sc0la]

So I've heard of not being able to find the G-spot, but, uh...

Satire btw for those unaware.
Edit: beaten I see.

 

[B-Dubs]

There was less spying on the public in the Soviet Union than now. Obviously that's due to them not having this tech, but that doesn't absolve our government.

We have our own secret police, secret courts, secret surveillance, secret prisons/gulag's, extrajudicial murder, kidnapping and torture (and judicial, let's not forget all the hard work John Yoo did). And not just in the US but all over the world. I don't know how you can NOT see the similarities, except if you still believe the US cares about democracy and human rights then you may think it's all justified somehow.

I would go back and read up on the details of the kinds of stuff that were done by secret police back in the day. We may not be angels (obviously no one is), but we're a damn sight better than what came before. You ask anyone who lived under that sort of thing what they'd rather have and they wouldn't even need to think about it. All that stuff may be true, but we don't have to fear talking smack about our government. The fact that you can post that and still be here shows how much better we are compared to back then. So yes, comparing what goes on in the US (as bad as it is) to what Stalin did is an overreaction. It's not good, but it's nowhere near that bad. If it was you'd be in Siberia right now.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The good thing about being a citizen is that you don't have to be (politically) pragmatic. It's politicians' jobs to compromise. It's our role as citizens to tell politicians our demands. The problem I find we have, particularly on message boards, is that we tend to blur our discussions. If we want to have a "meta" political discussion, we can talk about and defend political compromise. I personally see little value in those conversations. I prefer to talk about political substance rather than political process. And it's the former that will create change. The latter is just entertainment.

While I disagree with you on compromise, I do agree with you on pushing political parties from the left or right. Not enough is done on the left. The same type of antiwar anger and activism that propelled democrats into 2006 victories is completely dead today. Can you imagine how much outrage there would be if Bush ran the drone programs as viciously as Obama does?

It's like there are two lefts. One is focused on domestic policy and has varying support for Obama, whereas the other is focused on civil liberties and the out of control foreign policy of his administration. I've noticed a general dismissive attitude towards civil liberty abuses from liberals who focus on domestic issues. Meanwhile those who focus entirely on civil liberties/foreign policy tend to be most apt to dismiss Obama's domestic accomplishments.

This manifests on GAF in this thread, which is about 90% domestic (economic and social) politics & policy based and doesn't really debate drones, spying, etc. Meanwhile off topic threads on the NSA, Syria, Libya, etc tend to feature a lot of "Obama is a fraud" comments from those more focused on foreign policy/civil liberties.

One more thing: I think some people are so used to reflexively defending Obama against idiotic right wing attacks that they end up defending him when he doesn't deserve it. Especially on civil liberties, where he is worse than Bush, and foreign policy.

 

[The Librarian]

Nominating crazy batshits like Larry Summers or Ray Kelly isn't pragmatic, tho.

For one, he hasn't nominated either. Secondly, there's no list of what makes someone pragmatic or not. It's more of what you tend to do. I'm not liberal in all areas, but that doesn't make me not a liberal.

 

[Jooney]

Can I reframe the discussion?

We all pretty much agree that the country has swung rightwards.

Q: How do we get it to swing leftwards?

EDIT:

I ask this because whether you agree with them or not, EV and AF have clearly stated that this will only happen when we become more active and demand better from our elected representatives.

What are other possible options?

 

[Jimothy]

I would go back and read up on the details of the kinds of stuff that were done by secret police back in the day. We may not be angels (obviously no one is), but we're a damn sight better than what came before. You ask anyone who lived under that sort of thing what they'd rather have and they wouldn't even need to think about it. All that stuff may be true, but we don't have to fear talking smack about our government. The fact that you can post that and still be here shows how much better we are compared to back then. So yes, comparing what goes on in the US (as bad as it is) to what Stalin did is an overreaction. It's not good, but it's nowhere near that bad. If it was you'd be in Siberia right now.

The Soviet government renounced Stalinism after his death. The Soviet Union in the 60s and afterwards was a much freer place than it was during the Stalin years.

 

[zero shift]

Not every other country has a single-payer system. Some have an approach that's more market-oriented, like Germany.

I guess. Healthcare is still free there.

I would go back and read up on the details of the kinds of stuff that were done by secret police back in the day. We may not be angels (obviously no one is), but we're a damn sight better than what came before. You ask anyone who lived under that sort of thing what they'd rather have and they wouldn't even need to think about it. All that stuff may be true, but we don't have to fear talking smack about our government. The fact that you can post that and still be here shows how much better we are compared to back then. So yes, comparing what goes on in the US (as bad as it is) to what Stalin did is an overreaction. It's not good, but it's nowhere near that bad. If it was you'd be in Siberia right now.

I agree with this. Its not like the American government will see my bad mouthing them and take me away as I type this and edit my post so nobody caolka;ejwrweiporjwuiphwuihwiurhwuiprhwpieurhuiwarehpurewharuipjowkpl[;jehfkljhfhalkfh
ehwjfkhalkjfhawekjlfhlakjwhfjkwelahfjlawhefkjlawehfkjlawhfjklewhjklfhweajkfheajklfh
ejklhfljkaeehfiuawhguiehgieuorhgerohgeoirhg
ghrileghuiehguiewhguipewhreiugwheiuhgerwigh
erjghweguipwehrgipehwgiphwerupghrwuipgheruipwhgephgpuiewhgpeuigheipuhg.

 

[Angry Fork]

I would go back and read up on the details of the kinds of stuff that were done by secret police back in the day. We may not be angels (obviously no one is), but we're a damn sight better than what came before. You ask anyone who lived under that sort of thing what they'd rather have and they wouldn't even need to think about it. All that stuff may be true, but we don't have to fear talking smack about our government. The fact that you can post that and still be here shows how much better we are compared to back then. So yes, comparing what goes on in the US (as bad as it is) to what Stalin did is an overreaction. It's not good, but it's nowhere near that bad. If it was you'd be in Siberia right now.

That's true, but that's one part that hasn't been demolished yet. The 4th amendment is becoming largely pointless, that's mainly what I was comparing. The level of surveillance, secret courts/prisons, the nature of the state vs. the individual in regards to civil liberties, etc.

But with ''free speech zones'' and police beating/tazing/macing peaceful protesters maybe they'll try to further attack that amendment in the coming years too, in the name of stability. If Occupy or anything like it comes back stronger than it was before we'll see how far this state is willing to tolerate the 1st amendment.

 

[B-Dubs]

Oh goddamn it, Weiner still has a glimmer of hope doesn't he?

Anthony Weiner Still Converting Critics

The questioner, Bill Stanton, a retired police officer and president of the association, wanted to know when Mr. Weiner would look himself in the mirror and realize that someone not scarred by multiple sex scandals and dishonest behavior should be mayor instead.

“When do you say, ‘Enough is Enough?’” he asked.

The crowd began booing before the ex-congressman could start his answer. But Mr. Weiner, refusing to back down, displayed the political verve that once made him the front-runner in the Democratic primary, reaching a shouting pitch as he paced right and left in the steamy basement, spinning the hostility into applause in a matter of minutes.

“You see what’s going on here today? If you become the mayor of the City of New York, you’ve got to put up with this every single day,” Mr. Weiner said. “People saying to you, ‘You know what, you did something we don’t like.’ Cameras in your face, ‘Change your mind, back down. Quit.’ That’s not the kind of mayor I’m going to be.”

He then launched into a stirring defense of his campaign and blasted his opponents, including the candidate who had appeared at the meeting right before him, Council Speaker Christine Quinn, for temporarily overturning term limits in 2009.

“I got to tell you something, you have a long record to look at,” Mr. Weiner urged. “I did not, for example, come to the people in this room and say, ‘I’m going to embezzle money,’ or, ‘I’m going to turn over your right to have a vote for a third term.’ You know, that was something that was passed by the City of New York.”

Mr. Weiner’s jab at Ms. Quinn’s sent applause rippling through the room.

I quoted what felt like the relevant bit. Basically it looks like he's still able to turn this around. People left impressed with him for fuck's sake.

 

[Oblivion]

For one, he hasn't nominated either. Secondly, there's no list of what makes someone pragmatic or not. It's more of what you tend to do. I'm not liberal in all areas, but that doesn't make me not a liberal.

What areas are you un-liberal in?

 

[The Librarian]

I guess. Healthcare is still free there.

What do you mean "you guess"? You can look up this information and see for yourself: not every country has a single-payer healthcare program. While I don't have too much data to back this up, I have a hunch that many conservatives in most western countries are for single-payer programs. There's probably a significant amount that want to change it but won't because it's too damn popular.

If you want to say that conservatives in other Western democracies are for universal healthcare, I think you'd have a better argument.

 

[bonercop]

For one, he hasn't nominated either. Secondly, there's no list of what makes someone pragmatic or not. It's more of what you tend to do. I'm not liberal in all areas, but that doesn't make me not a liberal.

Here's the thing, though: most of Obama's nominees for high-level positions in his administration tend to be Larry Summers/Ray Kelly types.

Larry Summers just feels especially egregious given how long and storied his career of fucking shit up has been.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Oh goddamn it, Weiner still has a glimmer of hope doesn't he?

Anthony Weiner Still Converting Critics



I quoted what felt like the relevant bit. Basically it looks like he's still able to turn this around. People left impressed with him for fuck's sake.

He should be spending a lot of time in black and Hispanic neighborhoods detailing how he's going to address racial quotas and Stop And Frisk. And if he's really feeling ballsy, declare he'll ask for Ray Kelly's letter of resignation the day he's sworn in.

 

[The Librarian]

What areas are you un-liberal in?

Off the top of my head, immigration in that I'm for strong English-language laws, and I don't mind increasing spending on border security.

I have said in this thread that I'm rather conservative when it comes to fashion, such as frocks being only for girls.

Here's the thing, though: most of Obama's nominees for high-level positions in his administration tend to be Larry Summers/Ray Kelly types.

Like who? For every Geithner you have a Richard Cordray and Thomas Perez.

 

[B-Dubs]

The Soviet government renounced Stalinism after his death. The Soviet Union in the 60s and afterwards was a much freer place than it was during the Stalin years.

I know, he mentioned Stalin so I was talking Stalin. That said, that part of the world has a hell of a history of different secret police forces running around causing fear and panic.

That's true, but that's one part that hasn't been demolished yet. The 4th amendment is becoming largely pointless, that's mainly what I was comparing. The level of surveillance, secret courts/prisons, the nature of the state vs. the individual in regards to civil liberties, etc.

But with ''free speech zones'' and police beating/tazing/macing peaceful protesters maybe they'll try to further attack that amendment in the coming years too, in the name of stability. If Occupy or anything like it comes back stronger than it was before we'll see how far this state is willing to tolerate the 1st amendment.

Fair enough, but your comparison did go a bit too far. That said I don't think things will go as far as you do.

 

[Angry Fork]

He should be spending a lot of time in black and Hispanic neighborhoods detailing how he's going to address racial quotas and Stop And Frisk. And if he's really feeling ballsy, declare he'll ask for Ray Kelly's letter of resignation the day he's sworn in.

Bill Thompson just said today or yesterday the NYPD is racist which was nice. I don't know enough about him or bill deblasio to decide which is better at the moment though. I just really hope Christine Quinn doesn't win as she'll be Bloomberg-lite.

 

[Oblivion]

Just so people don't get the wrong idea, this site is essentially a Canadian version of The Onion.

That doesn't read like an Onion article. :/

Seems health care isn't the only area where Canadians are inferior to Americans.

 

[bonercop]

Off the top of my head, immigration in that I'm for strong English-language laws, and I don't mind increasing spending on boarder security.

I have said in this thread that I'm rather conservative when it comes to fashion, such as frocks being only for girls.

Like who? For every Geithner you have a Richard Cordray and Thomas Perez.

There's too much to mention. Monsanto people, wall street cronies, hawks and other such trash generally dominate the spectrum

 

[The Librarian]

There's too much to mention. Monsanto people, wall street cronies, hawks and other such trash generally dominate the spectrum

Uh huh. Well, okay.

 

[B-Dubs]

Bill Thompson just said today or yesterday the NYPD is racist which was nice. I don't know enough about him or bill deblasio to decide which is better at the moment though. I just really hope Christine Quinn doesn't win as she'll be Bloomberg-lite.

Let me put it this way, Thompson ran against Bloomberg 4 years ago and no one has any idea who he is.

 

[bonercop]

Uh huh. Well, okay.

You don't see anything wrong or problematic with the people in that picture being in those positions?

 

[The Librarian]

You don't see anything wrong or problematic with the people in that picture being in those positions?

Give or take. Just because somebody has worked for a bank doesn't mean they're evil or only have a bank's interest at heart. I think it's important to take into consideration what they've been doing, but I don't use that as a cudgel for judgement. If they had a past government job or do get a job in the administration, I judge them mainly on that. Wasn't a huge fan of Daley or Emanuel, but I do like Lew and Sperling. I remember that awesome shit Lew pulled over the House GOP during budget negotiations in early 2011. Hell, after that, they didn't want to negotiate with him! And Sperling's stance on Medicaid – "NO, NO, NO" – during the debt ceiling negotiations told you more about his character than being a Goldman Sachs adviser.

 

[bonercop]

Give or take. Just because somebody has worked for a bank doesn't mean they're evil or only have a bank's interest at heart. I think it's important to take into consideration what they've been doing, but I don't use that as a cudgel for judgement. If they had a past government job or do get a job in the administration, I judge them mainly on that. Wasn't a huge fan of Daley or Emanuel, but I do like Lew and Sperling. I remember that awesome shit Lew pulled over the House GOP during budget negotiations in early 2011.

Well, okay. I think there is an extremely dangerous conflict of interests at play, but you're free to have your own opinion of course.

Hell, after that, they didn't want to negotiate with him! And Sperling's stance on Medicaid – "NO, NO, NO" – during the debt ceiling negotiations told you more about his character than being a Goldman Sachs adviser.

I think aiding the destruction of Glass-Steagal says way more.