Samuel L. Jackson Obama Ad

[Smurfette Principle]

Don't forget the decades of Republican propagada being played about and controlling the public discourse in this country, and there's been plenty of books written about it. I'm sure that has played a huge part in why this country is where it's at, right now.

Propaganda the Democrats haven't deigned to counter because...

Democrats are historically much more diverse, which sometimes works in their favor and sometimes against. This is why, for example, there are certain definitive "conservative" texts (ex: the works of Ayn Rand) but no equivalent "liberal" texts. This is hilarious when you consider the idea that Democrats are all elitist intellectuals, when most of the books on conservative ideals are written by elitist intellectuals.

[m52nickerson]

So you're going to continue to hold your nose and hope it works out for the best?? As I said you have to fight for change, apparently you don't want to fight and just want to fall in line with rest of society. Some of the Democrats best ideas were borrowed from smaller left third parties. I would like the Democrats to start at least trying to understand why they lose people to the Green Party,and maybe adopting similiar policies(shit, I would love for them to pair up, and kick ass, but are too busy calling us names and such, acting like toddlers) but they're more interested in kissing up to and moving more and more to the right. Afterall this country is really center-left, the problem is that the public has been brainwashed into voting for conservative polices for thepast 30+ years, but that's easy to understand when they control the media, have most of the money, and the spin doctors to shape the public discourse, leaving the left to play catch up.

Also, ironbite, how the fuck did you know I'm on my period, have you been in my bathroom or something??

Center-Left, no.  Polls can say what they want, it is the way people vote that counts.  See the Dems could try and keep the people they lose to other parties like the greens, but in doing so they will lose more people that fall in the center.  It is about numbers.  If large numbers of people where falling from the Dems to the left other parties would be gaining traction.  You don't see that happening, and it is not the media's fault.

One side does not own the media.  That is way each side claims the others does.

The only way people are brain washed is when they don't really care.  That's the problem.  People don't put any thought into politics and voting.  People will vote against Obama simply because things are not going right for them and he must be to blame.  Others will vote against Romney because he is a rich out of touch white guy.

In the end the problems are not with the system, the problem is with the voters. 

[Lt. Fred]

Don't forget the decades of Republican propagada being played about and controlling the public discourse in this country, and there's been plenty of books written about it. I'm sure that has played a huge part in why this country is where it's at, right now.

Propaganda the Democrats haven't deigned to counter because...

Democrats are historically much more diverse, which sometimes works in their favor and sometimes against. This is why, for example, there are certain definitive "conservative" texts (ex: the works of Ayn Rand) but no equivalent "liberal" texts.

Are you kidding?

Center-Left, no.  Polls can say what they want, it is the way people vote that counts.

Three unexamined presumptions- 1) people know which party would do what (not true) 2) people vote entirely based on policy (not correct) and 3) there is no other factor (like racism, for instance) influencing voter behaviour. It's quite possible for a social democrat to always vote Republican.

[m52nickerson]

becomes an unacceptable lack of direction, organisation and political consistency. Do you accept the potential existence of such a phenomenon? Ultimately, in order for a group to exist, they have to share something, right?

Which all democrats do.  Take any two dems and they will agree on the vast majority of things. 

becomes "the politician has taken unacceptable, unconstitutional and tyrannical actions to restrict my rights. I refuse to support him or her in any way." Do you accept that tyranny is conceivably possible?

Yes tyranny is possible.  If you don't want to support a politician because of some of their actions that is your choice.  However that choice, as with all choices, carry consequences.  If you don't vote for that politician because of a few actions the other guy who is far worse may win. 

[Lt. Fred]

becomes an unacceptable lack of direction, organisation and political consistency. Do you accept the potential existence of such a phenomenon? Ultimately, in order for a group to exist, they have to share something, right?

Which all democrats do.  Take any two dems and they will agree on the vast majority of things. 

Good, so you admit the possibility of such a phenomenon. What would you call the line an organisation would have to cross to become unacceptably disorganised? Where is it?

becomes "the politician has taken unacceptable, unconstitutional and tyrannical actions to restrict my rights. I refuse to support him or her in any way." Do you accept that tyranny is conceivably possible?

Yes tyranny is possible.

Fantastic. When would you say a mere violation of the law, breach of the constitution, illegal imprisonment without trial, torture, government-sponsored murder program becomes real tyranny?

[m52nickerson]

Are you kidding?

If you haven't noticed that Dems control the White House and one chamber of Congress, and have so for four years.  They have controlled the Senate for longer then that.  Right now they are the most successful and powerful party in the US. 

Three unexamined presumptions- 1) people know which party would do what (not true) 2) people vote entirely based on policy (not correct) and 3) there is no other factor (like racism, for instance) influencing voter behaviour. It's quite possible for a social democrat to always vote Republican.

All of those are irrelevant.   It does not matter why people vote a certain way, it only matter that they do.

[Lt. Fred]

Are you kidding?

If you haven't noticed that Dems control the White House and one chamber of Congress, and have so for four years.  They have controlled the Senate for longer then that.  Right now they are the most successful and powerful party in the US. 

Look closer, my padawan, at the question I was actually asking.

Three unexamined presumptions- 1) people know which party would do what (not true) 2) people vote entirely based on policy (not correct) and 3) there is no other factor (like racism, for instance) influencing voter behaviour. It's quite possible for a social democrat to always vote Republican.

All of those are irrelevant.   It does not matter why people vote a certain way, it only matter that they do.

Well, yeah. Unless you're, you know, talking about that or something.

[m52nickerson]

Good, so you admit the possibility of such a phenomenon. What would you call the line an organisation would have to cross to become unacceptably disorganised? Where is it?

When the party become irrelevant and powerless.

Fantastic. When would you say a mere violation of the law, breach of the constitution, illegal imprisonment without trial, torture, government-sponsored murder program becomes real tyranny?

When the people start to care enough to pay attention and make those things issues.

[Lt. Fred]

Good, so you admit the possibility of such a phenomenon. What would you call the line an organisation would have to cross to become unacceptably disorganised? Where is it?

When the party become irrelevant and powerless.

Which is, of course, virtually impossible in a two-party system. Nice double-think.

Fantastic. When would you say a mere violation of the law, breach of the constitution, illegal imprisonment without trial, torture, government-sponsored murder program becomes real tyranny?

When the people start to care enough to pay attention and make those things issues.

There are so many things wrong with this I'm not even going to go into it. Don't you see how this is completely fucked?

[Cataclysm]

Don't forget the decades of Republican propagada being played about and controlling the public discourse in this country, and there's been plenty of books written about it. I'm sure that has played a huge part in why this country is where it's at, right now.

Propaganda the Democrats haven't deigned to counter because...

Democrats are historically much more diverse, which sometimes works in their favor and sometimes against. This is why, for example, there are certain definitive "conservative" texts (ex: the works of Ayn Rand) but no equivalent "liberal" texts.

Are you kidding?

I would say that generally Republicans and conservatives are more diverse, but act like a hive mind, whereas liberals usually have common goals but don't work with each other as much to secure them. I think that's why we have libertarians and Neocons saying we should vote for Romney while this forum is debating on whether we should vote for Obama.

[Smurfette Principle]

Don't forget the decades of Republican propagada being played about and controlling the public discourse in this country, and there's been plenty of books written about it. I'm sure that has played a huge part in why this country is where it's at, right now.

Propaganda the Democrats haven't deigned to counter because...

Democrats are historically much more diverse, which sometimes works in their favor and sometimes against. This is why, for example, there are certain definitive "conservative" texts (ex: the works of Ayn Rand) but no equivalent "liberal" texts.

Are you kidding?

I would say that generally Republicans and conservatives are more diverse, but act like a hive mind, whereas liberals usually have common goals but don't work with each other as much to secure them. I think that's why we have libertarians and Neocons saying we should vote for Romney while this forum is debating on whether we should vote for Obama.

Democrats cover a more wide range of ages, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, and political beliefs than Republicans do. Furthermore, Democrats usually have a common goal (fighting for the underdog being one umbrella goal), but have very different ideas on how to achieve that - that's why we have feminists AND anti-racism activists AND people who are interested in the poor AND queer rights activists - and can't agree on what needs to be fixed first.

Whereas Republicans have a set series of talking points that everyone follows, like "balance the budget" or "they're taking our jobs".

[Canadian Mojo]

You know, if the Democratic party isn't leaning far enough to the left for you take a page out of the tea baggers page and start organizing to get candidates you like on the ballot. It's a hell of a lot easier than getting another party off the ground in a two party system.

Just promise you won't be as fucking retarded as they are.

[Lt. Fred]

Democrats are historically much more diverse, which sometimes works in their favor and sometimes against. This is why, for example, there are certain definitive "conservative" texts (ex: the works of Ayn Rand) but no equivalent "liberal" texts.

Are you kidding?

I would say that generally Republicans and conservatives are more diverse, but act like a hive mind, whereas liberals usually have common goals but don't work with each other as much to secure them. I think that's why we have libertarians and Neocons saying we should vote for Romney while this forum is debating on whether we should vote for Obama.
[/quote]

Sorry, my mockery wasn't very clear. I thought this part was ridiculous:

there are certain definitive "conservative" texts (ex: the works of Ayn Rand) but no equivalent "liberal" texts

Ummm, Rawls? Bloody Keynes? Smith, Rousseau, Locke? If you want Americans; Fullbright, Krugman? I can give you a dozen definitive liberal texts for every Rand pot-boiled novel or silly Oakeshott nonsense.

Don't forget the decades of Republican propagada being played about and controlling the public discourse in this country, and there's been plenty of books written about it. I'm sure that has played a huge part in why this country is where it's at, right now.

Propaganda the Democrats haven't deigned to counter because...

Democrats are historically much more diverse, which sometimes works in their favor and sometimes against. This is why, for example, there are certain definitive "conservative" texts (ex: the works of Ayn Rand) but no equivalent "liberal" texts.

Are you kidding?

I would say that generally Republicans and conservatives are more diverse, but act like a hive mind, whereas liberals usually have common goals but don't work with each other as much to secure them. I think that's why we have libertarians and Neocons saying we should vote for Romney while this forum is debating on whether we should vote for Obama.

Democrats cover a more wide range of ages, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, and political beliefs than Republicans do. Furthermore, Democrats usually have a common goal (fighting for the underdog being one umbrella goal), but have very different ideas on how to achieve that - that's why we have feminists AND anti-racism activists AND people who are interested in the poor AND queer rights activists - and can't agree on what needs to be fixed first.

Which are legitimate areas of disagreement which should be respected (though ultimately a choice must be made). What is not a legitimate area of disagreement within a 'left' party is between people who believe in fighting for equal rights, the underdog ect and people who do not. A disagreement over whether to raise aid to the poor or cut it is not acceptable. There are, of course, many people within the parliamentary party of the second kind, allowed not only to hold and express those frankly Republican views openly, but to vote on them. They should either get with the program or out of the party. There's another political party for people who believe that, the Democrats are for the people who don't; we have the right to a way of expressing that belief.

[largeham]

Yes, but unless you can show that unemployment was measured differently during the great depression your statement is still way off.

Fred answered this, but I will concede the point, what I meant (and should have said) was that the percentage of the population affected by the current crisis is similar to that during the Great Depression. Also, I'm not that big a fan of Krugman (he is at best a Keynesian), but his method of measuring unemployment is by far better IMO.

...and the ones that are get shot down by the Supreme Court.  The ones that are not are by the very nature of the court constitutional.

url=http://blogs.alternet.org/skeeterbitesreport/2010/04/06/33/]Yeah, like this.[/url]

There is a difference between breaking up strikes and protecting people.  Plus your source is from one of the least trustworthy people on the planet.

Here.

It does not sound like it from your whining.

No, I'm simply arguing that Obama is not the lesser of two evils.

Members of his party are from conservative areas in the country and they go against the President and the Party to keep their jobs.  Yes, the more liberal wing could break away, but in the end they would be a marginal party who would have to caucus with the more centrist and conservative Dems to get anything done.

I would disagree. Were they actually to do something, they would gain support. Obama's election represented a massive left-wing shit among the American people, and pre-WW1 social democratic parties easily had active memberships of millions of people. It can be done, but I don't expect it to happen.

Yes they did.  You may not agree with those things but they are not the only issues.  Unless you run for office yourself you are not going to find a party or politician that you will agree with 100% of the time.

There is little I agree with the Democrats.

If you think the Dems have not been pushing you have not been paying attention.

Where and how?

Yes, convince the people in power to adopt a system that gives them less power. THAT WILL TOTALLY WORK.

Whoever said anything about convincing people at the top?

As for a solution, as I pointed out earlier history has shown that rights and freedoms are never acquired through the benevolence of rulers but through struggle and people fighting. That is what we need more of. OWS was a good start, the CTU strike is bloody great. Grassroots politics that allows people to take control of their won lives.

What exactly is your solution, then? Go Green Party and have your vote mean nothing? Not vote and let your rights be stripped away? Become an expatriot and have the exact same problems as before?

See above.

Also, question, you wouldn't happen to be a straight white dude, would you? Because you seem to not really understand the horror that I'm trying to express.

Many non white/straight/males vote for the Republicans, unless you are going to start calling them self-hating [insert group here]. Anyway, I only fit two out of three, take your pick.

Center-Left, no.  Polls can say what they want, it is the way people vote that counts.  See the Dems could try and keep the people they lose to other parties like the greens, but in doing so they will lose more people that fall in the center.  It is about numbers.  If large numbers of people where falling from the Dems to the left other parties would be gaining traction.  You don't see that happening, and it is not the media's fault.

A) See above
B) The Democrats 1) have a shit ton of money that other left parties don't, 2) the Democrats also have a history of supporting and co opting left-wing movements to gain support

The only way people are brain washed is when they don't really care.  That's the problem.  People don't put any thought into politics and voting.  People will vote against Obama simply because things are not going right for them and he must be to blame.  Others will vote against Romney because he is a rich out of touch white guy.

In the end the problems are not with the system, the problem is with the voters.

Yep, people are becoming apathetic and disillusioned, who woulda guessed? And maybe it has something to do with the fact that American is a piece of shit with two parties fighting over who can brown nose corporations better than the other. But then you know, the problem is that people are stupid and weak. How dare they not take part in the voting farce. It is your fault that the state and companies are screwing you over!

Oh yeah, Democrats really love the underdog!

[m52nickerson]

Yeah, like this.

Notice that how many time in that blog notes that courts have not ruled on the wiretapping constitutionality.  Until the Supreme Court rules on this it is in limbo.

Here.

Are you going to make an argument or just post non sequiturs?

No, I'm simply arguing that Obama is not the lesser of two evils.

Sounds like whining to me.

I would disagree. Were they actually to do something, they would gain support. Obama's election represented a massive left-wing shit among the American people, and pre-WW1 social democratic parties easily had active memberships of millions of people. It can be done, but I don't expect it to happen.

Obama's election does no represent a massive left-wing shift.  Other than the GOP who wanted to paint Obama as a far left candidate few saw that in him.  Even more so know that the far left things he is just as bad as anyone on the right.   

There is little I agree with the Democrats.

You don't agree with equal rights and equal pay?  You don't agree with a women's right to choose?  You don't agree with universal health care?  You don't agree with social safety nets?

I think there is a lot you agree with the Democratic party on.

Where and how?

Health care reform, fair pay act, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, student loan program overhaul....

A) See above
B) The Democrats 1) have a shit ton of money that other left parties don't, 2) the Democrats also have a history of supporting and co opting left-wing movements to gain support

That money does not grow on some magic tree.  It come to the party because of what the party believes.  Yes, the Dems to take up causes of the left that have gained support.  Why wouldn't they?

Yep, people are becoming apathetic and disillusioned, who woulda guessed? And maybe it has something to do with the fact that American is a piece of shit with two parties fighting over who can brown nose corporations better than the other. But then you know, the problem is that people are stupid and weak. How dare they not take part in the voting farce. It is your fault that the state and companies are screwing you over!

It is the people's fault.  The people vote these representative in.  Democracy is not a spectator sport.  Don't like who is running, run yourself or get someone you do like to run.  People have to put the work in.  Right now not very many are willing to do that.

As for America being a piece of shit, you have your head planted so far up your ass it is staining your vision.  There are few places on the planet better than the US right now.  Even with the problems we have the quality of life here is far and above what it is in most countries.