 |
EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6048
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | But the left does this every election. Long before the right was slagging Obama, the left was. |
That would certainly explain the thread title here.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Quote: | Yeah, make sure enthusiasm on your side is really low so they won't care when the Repugs make it hard for them to vote.
|
But the left does this every election. Long before the right was slagging Obama, the left was. |
The left isn't on Obama's side, or that of the Democratic party. The left is on the left, the Democrats are on the centre-right. So we never had a particular responsibility to do anything for him.
Surely Obama is on his own side, however. Is it really controversial to claim that someone who reached office on the basis of populist appeals is leaving votes on the table if he fails to enact any policies that are even remotely a sop to people attracted to those populist appeals?
As to who started slagging him first, surely it was at the same time. He hit everyone's radar roughly simultaneously, at which point the right started slagging him because they were about to be in an election against him, while the left . . . as I recall, the left mostly waited until he won the primary at least, because if anything he looked less bad than Hillary Clinton.
Still it's true that the hard left pointed out before he was even elected that very likely he would be a new boss that was not much different from the old boss. We said it would be necessary to organize to push him to the left or he would surely not go there. Say, did we nail it or what? Why is it bad to be right, exactly?
As to the NDP--left wing groups have noticed more and more that uncritical support of any political party lets them drift to the right. Just as the hard right keep pushing the Repugs to go even righter, the hard left needs to keep pushing parties such as the NDP just to keep them from going Blair, which let's face it they're constantly threatening to do--we see it over and over lately in provincial NDP governments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Like our dominant media pundits, y'all are ignoring the largest political party in the USA -- those who could be eligible but don't register or do so but don't vote. Of course, the way the game is rigged they haven't a candidate, either.
FWIW, the political science (ha, ha) about moving to the center is a uni-dimensional gross over-simplification. Helps to lay out a triangle on a plane as opposed the damned 'line' from right to left. The farthest point (within the triangle) represents the apathy and propensity to be indifferent to either choice. While that is easy for many to grasp, it is too hard for 'political consultants', etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6048
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Like our dominant media pundits, y'all are ignoring the largest political party in the USA -- those who could be eligible but don't register or do so but don't vote. Of course, the way the game is rigged they haven't a candidate, either. |
Hey, give us a little credit. Some of us have been saying for many years that Comrade Ralph should be your President. Apparently that idea is over.
Ralph Nader Is Tired of Running for President
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| al-Qa'bong wrote: | | Hey, give us a little credit. Some of us have been saying for many years that .... |
You want 'credit' for saying that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2359
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rufus Polson wrote: | | As to the NDP--left wing groups have noticed more and more that uncritical support of any political party lets them drift to the right. |
I believe this is true, and I think I know the reason. All political parties are run by bureaucracies, and the bureaucrats are interested in nothing but their own survival. Anything that threatens to disrupt their control is anathema. They are by nature conservative, and their greatest fear is that control of the party will be torn from their hands. Thus, the constant refrain is, 'elect us and we'll do something for you'.
While it may be useful to keep pressuring the 'left' parties to respect their roots, it is probably better in the long run to focus on the governing party, whoever they may be, and pressure them to achieve your ends. That has worked, even with very conservative governments.
At one and the same time it relieves the 'left' of any responsibility for the actions of a so-called left party, and keeps them focused on achieving objectives, rather than electoral success for 'their' party.
In the end, bringing people to the objectives will accomplish both the objectives, and may just boost the electoral success of the party. At the same time it will guarantee that the left party can't get away with their usual retreat to conservatism.
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6048
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bshmr wrote: | | al-Qa'bong wrote: | | Hey, give us a little credit. Some of us have been saying for many years that .... |
You want 'credit' for saying that? |
Not a Nader supporter are you?
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Apathy Party of Canada
| Quote: | | The most common response for not having voted was that they were “not interested in voting” (28%), which also includes feeling their vote would not have made a difference in the election results. An additional 23% indicated they were “too busy”, which includes having family obligations or having a schedule conflict at work or school. |
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maestro wrote: | | Rufus Polson wrote: | | As to the NDP--left wing groups have noticed more and more that uncritical support of any political party lets them drift to the right. |
I believe this is true, and I think I know the reason. All political parties are run by bureaucracies, and the bureaucrats are interested in nothing but their own survival. Anything that threatens to disrupt their control is anathema. They are by nature conservative, and their greatest fear is that control of the party will be torn from their hands. Thus, the constant refrain is, 'elect us and we'll do something for you'.
While it may be useful to keep pressuring the 'left' parties to respect their roots, it is probably better in the long run to focus on the governing party, whoever they may be, and pressure them to achieve your ends. That has worked, even with very conservative governments.
At one and the same time it relieves the 'left' of any responsibility for the actions of a so-called left party, and keeps them focused on achieving objectives, rather than electoral success for 'their' party.
In the end, bringing people to the objectives will accomplish both the objectives, and may just boost the electoral success of the party. At the same time it will guarantee that the left party can't get away with their usual retreat to conservatism. |
While there is something to what you say (and you may also be right about Obama basically having the lock on the election despite his bungling, due to having bin Laden killed and amassing the bigger war chest--although I'd say his chances of also electing a lot of Democrats to support him are lower than if he'd had legislative achievements to point to), I think this kind of "change the world without taking power" approach is pretty defeatist. It needs to be done, but it's what you do when you have nothing else left.
Parties may all have shortcomings, but that doesn't make all parties the same, and the places where leftward progress is happening are places where the party in electoral power is favourable to the left. Parties are favourable to the left when they are both founded as left parties and held to it by strong left grassroots. The NDP is one but only intermittently the other; the US Democrats are neither and basically never were, although there was a period of the 20th century where semi-left grassroots had influence on them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2359
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rufus Polson wrote: | While there is something to what you say (and you may also be right about Obama basically having the lock on the election despite his bungling, due to having bin Laden killed and amassing the bigger war chest--although I'd say his chances of also electing a lot of Democrats to support him are lower than if he'd had legislative achievements to point to), I think this kind of "change the world without taking power" approach is pretty defeatist. It needs to be done, but it's what you do when you have nothing else left.
Parties may all have shortcomings, but that doesn't make all parties the same, and the places where leftward progress is happening are places where the party in electoral power is favourable to the left. Parties are favourable to the left when they are both founded as left parties and held to it by strong left grassroots. The NDP is one but only intermittently the other; the US Democrats are neither and basically never were, although there was a period of the 20th century where semi-left grassroots had influence on them. |
Obama also has a lock on the black vote in the US, which is not inconsiderable. At the same time, while the Tea Party types are very vocal, their influence is highly overrated. In any case, I think the real clue is that no substantial Republican has come forward to contest the next presidential election. It could happen, of course, but I suspect most will wait out another four years, and then take a shot.
As far as supporting the left party, of course that's generally a good idea. I certainly would never support a Liberal or Conservative. At the same time, putting all ones objective eggs into the electoral basket is a serious mistake.
What I'm saying is that progressives shouldn't depend upon left parties to achieve anything substantial (which I think history proves), but maintain their organizations and positions no matter who wins the election. Otherwise you are knuckling under to the party bureaucracy, and to those who say, 'well, you lost the election so you can go back home now and forget about everything 'til next election'. Talk about defeatism.
Yes, the left should generally support left parties (although would you support Blair Labour as it went to war in Iraq?), but at the same time, press to accomplish objectives by bringing as many people on board as possible, and never letting the governing party (whoever that may be) forget that a good many citizens are actively opposed to their agenda.
As far as the US Democrats, the only reason they are considered left is the ongoing support of organized labour. Which is another whole story on it's own...
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6048
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
By using that union involvement yardstick, the Gambino Mob could be considered leftist.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maestro wrote: |
As far as supporting the left party, of course that's generally a good idea. I certainly would never support a Liberal or Conservative. At the same time, putting all ones objective eggs into the electoral basket is a serious mistake.
What I'm saying is that progressives shouldn't depend upon left parties to achieve anything substantial (which I think history proves), but maintain their organizations and positions no matter who wins the election. Otherwise you are knuckling under to the party bureaucracy, and to those who say, 'well, you lost the election so you can go back home now and forget about everything 'til next election'. Talk about defeatism. |
Well, I have no disagreement with that. I think we're pretty much on the same page here.
| Quote: | | Yes, the left should generally support left parties (although would you support Blair Labour as it went to war in Iraq?) |
What does Blair Labour have to do with left parties? I wouldn't support them even before Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2359
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, ok Rufus, but if British Labour is not left, who is? The NDP? They've just supported the mission to oust Ghadaffi via military force. Is that different than Iraq?
At some point we'll have to define what we mean by parties of the left. British Labour and the NDP are both parties that began with extensive ties to labour unions. Tattered as they are, for the most part they still exist. As I mentioned, the US Democrats have the support of labour, although that relationship is different than that between NDP and organized labour, say.
If we define 'left' parties as those who have both extensive ties to labour, and a progressive agenda, we've pretty much ruled out any party that exists in any capitalist state in the world. I suppose we could argue over what constitutes a progressive agenda, but even after deciding that issue we'd have difficulty finding a party that qualified.
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive
Last edited by Maestro on Sat Jul 23, 2011 4:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5472
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Maestro wrote: | Well, ok Rufus, but if British Labour is not left, who is? [. . .]
At some point we'll have to define what we mean by parties of the left. British Labour and the NDP are both parties that began with extensive ties to labour unions. Tattered as they are, for the most part they still exist. |
Still exists, but with a fair degree of ideological movement. I find politicalcompass.org a reliable gauge, and while they still show the NDP slightly left they place Labour decidedly not left. To the right of our federal Liberals, actually, and substantially more authoritarian to boot. Further down on that UK page they have a nice diagram illustrating the ideological drift of the 3 main UK parties. Whatever its origins, Labour's a far cry from having a legitimate claim to being a party of the left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maestro, I realize that in our modern world as a rule militarism is mostly capital-driven imperialism of some sort. But I still find degree of militaristic foreign policy a rather poor proxy for left-right issues. The connection is indirect. And the Libya thing is a particularly poor proxy, because lots of fairly left people and organizations were either ambivalent or initially supported UN intervention there. The NDP were never much into Afghanistan or Iraq, for instance, unlike Labour.
More important are economic policies. British Labour is simply pro-capital, both in substance and attitude. They did a rapid expansion of public-private partnerships, something the NDP has been consistently against. Blair has always regularly brown-nosed billionaires, perhaps particularly foreign ones, gushing all over Bill Gates and so forth. The federal NDP talks about things that look like industrial policy, something Blair Labour specifically avoid in favour of free markets. Raos puts it more scientifically than I do. I don't follow UK politics in detail, but I follow it a moderate amount, and British Labour whatever it once was, under Blair has been turned into not a party struggling to maintain the vestiges of a left wing tradition, which I think would be a fair description of the NDP, but a party that has completely and in many cases explicitly abandoned every trace of it. British Labour is now a centre-right party, in some ways a simply right wing party.
Heck, Blair himself even participates in the fuel of the US looney right--he's a fairly hard line evangelist Christian, although he doesn't talk about it much since he's in England where that kind of thing isn't exactly a political advantage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DSquared
aka Aristotleded24
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5570
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rufus Polson wrote: | | More important are economic policies. British Labour is simply pro-capital, both in substance and attitude. They did a rapid expansion of public-private partnerships, something the NDP has been consistently against. Blair has always regularly brown-nosed billionaires, perhaps particularly foreign ones, gushing all over Bill Gates and so forth. The federal NDP talks about things that look like industrial policy, something Blair Labour specifically avoid in favour of free markets. Raos puts it more scientifically than I do. I don't follow UK politics in detail, but I follow it a moderate amount, and British Labour whatever it once was, under Blair has been turned into not a party struggling to maintain the vestiges of a left wing tradition, which I think would be a fair description of the NDP, but a party that has completely and in many cases explicitly abandoned every trace of it. British Labour is now a centre-right party, in some ways a simply right wing party. |
In Manitoba, the NDP did move quite far to the right under Gary Doer, but even then, I remember reading an article from a right-wing think tank wishing the Manitoba NDP would be more like British Labour.
_________________
This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"The Breaking Point"
| Quote: | Now if you think that this is something the President is doing because it’s the only way to get Republican cooperation you can stop reading here, because we’re going to disagree. From the moment he took the White House, the President has wanted to cut Social Security benefits. David Brooks reported that three administration officials called him to say Obama “is extremely committed to entitlement reform and is plotting politically feasible ways to reduce Social Security as well as health spending” in March of 2009. You can only live in denial for so long and still lay claim to being tethered to reality.
And if you think it’s only the President, and the progressives in Congress will oppose him, we’ll have to disagree about that too. |
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DSquared
aka Aristotleded24
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5570
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What if McCain had won in 2008?
| Quote: | McCain as president would clearly have produced a long string of catastrophes: He would probably have approved a failed troop surge in Afghanistan, engaged in worldwide extrajudicial assassination, destabilized nuclear-armed Pakistan, failed to bring Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu to the negotiating table, expanded prosecution of whistle-blowers, sought to expand executive branch power, failed to close Guantanamo, failed to act on climate change, pushed both nuclear energy and opened new areas to domestic oil drilling, failed to reform the financial sector enough to prevent another financial catastrophe, supported an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, presided over a growing divide between rich and poor, and failed to lower the jobless rate.
Nothing reveals the true state of American politics today more than the fact that Democratic President Barack Obama has undertaken all of these actions, and even more significantly, left the Democratic Party far weaker than it would have been had McCain been elected. Few issues are more important than seeing behind the screen of a myth-making mass media, and understanding what this demonstrates about how power in America really works—and what needs to be done to change it.
...
Upon taking office, however, Obama—whatever his belief system at that point—found that he was unable to accomplish these goals for one basic reason: The president of the United States is far less powerful than media myth portrays. Domestic power really is in the hands of economic elites and their lobbyists, and foreign policy really is controlled by U.S. executive branch national security managers and a “military-industrial complex.” If a president supports their interests, as did Bush in invading Iraq, he or she can do a lot of damage. But, absent a crisis, a president who opposes these elites—as Obama discovered when he tried in the fall of 2009 to get the military to offer him an alternative to an Afghanistan troop surge—is relatively powerless.
Whether a Ronald Reagan expanding government and running large deficits in the 1980s despite his stated belief that government was the problem, or a Bill Clinton imposing a neoliberal regime impoverishing hundreds of millions in the Third World in the 1990s despite his rhetorical support for helping the poor, anyone who becomes president has little choice but to serve the institutional interests of a profoundly amoral and violent executive branch and the corporations behind them. |
_________________
This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the selection process ensures that presidents will be powerless. If an independent-minded person took power, the power of the office of president is such that the corporations could be laid-low.
As to the impact of a McCain presidency, ... I'm not sure he could have gotten away with as much nonsense as Obama has. Obama's capitulations, which have been rejected by the Repugs, would have been treated as huge victories for them if McCain had offered them up.
McCain's foreign policy might have included more blustering, and he might have stood by Mubarak longer, but it would not have been appreciably different.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slumberjack
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 923
Location: squelch~~big waves and high smiles from the stomach and intestine of capital.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's been clear for some time that the two political parties and their respective entourages represent nothing other than competing business interests. With the acceleration of corporate takeovers, mergers and conglomerations these days, the remaining ephemeral differences between the two sides emerges as a series of theatrical productions, staged through the media to entice all the legitimacy they'll ever require into false ideological chasms where the population is encouraged to claw away at one another.
_________________
There is this old notion, Bolshevik, a little frigid for sure; the building of the Party. I think that our present war is about giving new content to this depopulated fiction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6048
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Human Rights Watch, in a new report, “Getting Away With Torture: The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees,” declared there is “overwhelming evidence of torture by the Bush administration.” President Barack Obama, the report went on, is obliged “to order a criminal investigation into allegations of detainee abuse authorized by former President George W. Bush and other senior officials.”
But Obama has no intention of restoring the rule of law. He not only refuses to prosecute flagrant war crimes, but has immunized those who orchestrated, led and carried out the torture. At the same time he has dramatically increased war crimes, including drone strikes in Pakistan. He continues to preside over hundreds of the offshore penal colonies, where abuse and torture remain common. He is complicit with the killers and the torturers.
The only way the rule of law will be restored, if it is restored, is piece by piece, extradition by extradition, trial by trial. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, former CIA Director George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice and John Ashcroft will, if we return to the rule of law, face trial.
|
America's Disappeared
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thwap wrote: | I think the selection process ensures that presidents will be powerless. If an independent-minded person took power, the power of the office of president is such that the corporations could be laid-low.
As to the impact of a McCain presidency, ... I'm not sure he could have gotten away with as much nonsense as Obama has. Obama's capitulations, which have been rejected by the Repugs, would have been treated as huge victories for them if McCain had offered them up.
McCain's foreign policy might have included more blustering, and he might have stood by Mubarak longer, but it would not have been appreciably different. |
I agree with all this, with one potential caveat: McCain wanted to bomb Iran. Now, I don't think the Joint Chiefs or the military in general wanted to open that can of worms, at least not until some of the other stuff was out of the way. So probably he wouldn't have. But he might have.
If he had, and especially if he'd done it before the "Arab Spring" began, that could have made a major difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6048
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I hear progressives saying they feel betrayed by Obama, and they can’t understand why he’s abandoning his base.
But progressives never were, in fact, his base.
His real base has always been Wall Street, and he’s raising even more from Wall Street than he did last time around.
Wall Street may give him the money. But it won’t give him the people on the ground going door to door and making endless phone calls. And it won’t get progressives excited enough to call all their friends and relatives and beg them to go to the polls, as happened last time.
Money can’t buy enthusiasm.
|
No Wonder Obama Is Losing Support from the Left
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Caissa
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 1146
Location: Saint John
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
US President Barack has announced the ban on openly gay people serving in US military is to end on September 20.
His certification on Friday of the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) law comes seven months after it was overturned in the US Congress.
The Pentagon had asked for time following the repeal to prepare troops for the arrival of openly gay comrades.
Mr Obama's move affirmed the Pentagon had declared it was ready to accept openly gay troops.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14245144 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6048
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is for those who have argued that poor Obama is a victim of race, Congress, Republican wizardry, etc., and that he isn't doing exactly what he has wanted to do all along:
| Quote: | In a campaign almost as frenzied as the effort to get Barack Obama into the White House, liberal groups are now mobilizing against the White House and reported deals that would cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. They accuse President Obama of being weak and willing to “cave” to corporate and conservative forces bent on cutting the social safety net while protecting the wealthy.
Those accusations are wrong.
The accusations imply that Obama is on our side. Or was on our side. And that the right wing is pushing him around.
But the evidence is clear that Obama is an often-willing servant of corporate interests -- not someone reluctantly doing their bidding, or serving their interests only because Republicans forced him to.
|
Obama is NOT “Caving” to Corporate Interests
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3079
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He was treated as if he was the Messiah, as if , once he'd walked on water and fed the nation with loaves and fishes, he'd fix the economy, introduce equality and love and lead the world to peace.
He's a politician, for chrissakes!
Of course he dances to the tune the corporations play; after all, it is the corporations who pay. His dance might be a tad less clumsy, he might appear to be the most unflappable guy in the room, he delivers an okay speech although his speech pattern annoys me... but he'll do what he's told to do.
The most that can be said about him is At least he isn't McCain!
But the insurance companies do not want any form of universal medicare and this guy is NOT T.C. Douglas. Not even close! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6048
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | What is going on is a highly choreographed campaign to “manufacture consent” for the destruction of Social Security and Medicare so that that money can be liberated to give to the wealthy. It is exactly analogous to the campaign that preceded the Iraq War when the media invented “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and fictions about Saddam Hussein’s involvement in 9/11 to stampede the populace into an illegal colonial invasion to steal Iraq’s oil.
It is entirely made up, entirely orchestrated, with all the “players” singing from the same song book, and all getting greased from the crumbs that fall from the table of the super-rich. And it’s working, flawlessly.
The six-and-seven-figure stenographers on TV who pass themselves off as “journalists” intone nightly about the gravity of the situation, the need for “shared sacrifice,” and the impending calamity lest we shunt the money upwards even faster. So do it we must. After all, it was on TV.
The tragedy is Obama’s weaseling complicity in the pathetic affair. We have run out of epithets to condemn his sycophantic betrayal of the American people before his own imperial masters. Equally tragic is the destruction of democracy conveyed in the whole sordid matter, for vast majorities of the people want social programs protected and taxes raised on wealthy individuals and corporations that evade taxes.
|
We Must Destroy the Government in Order to Save It
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3746
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| anne cameron wrote: |
But the insurance companies do not want any form of universal medicare and this guy is NOT T.C. Douglas. Not even close! |
Forget about TC Douglas, this guy isn't even LBJ or FDR (who both at least had a few progressive ideas - at least in domestic policy). But hey, more than a few of my IRL friends swore that an Obama Presidency would usher in a new era in USian race relations. As far as I can see, the only thing in race relations Obama has accomplished is to prove that a person of colour can serve corporate and military interests as loyally as any white guy. I realize some Obamaniacs here might disagree - there were a lot of you in 2008 if I recall - but don't tell me.....tell Pakistanis, Iraqis, Afghanis, Palestinians, Africans, Latin Americans and poor US citizens suffering directly or indirectly as a result of this stooge's policies.
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That and Obama's presidency has showed a lot of white US-Americans are incapable of accepting a non-white president.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It might have been different if he weren't Muslim and wasn't born in Kenya.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Um, there's invisible sarcasm tags on there, right? It can be hard to tell with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just show us the birth certificate, Barack Hussein Obama!!
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Caissa
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 1146
Location: Saint John
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote=Senor magoo] It might have been different if he weren't Muslim and wasn't born in Kenya. [/quote]
He probably drinks coffee, never tea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anne cameron
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 3079
Location: tahsis, british columbia
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
He didn't choose his name.
I didn't choose my name.
Nobody asks the newborn infant what she/he wants as a name.
If he was really a jihadi secret weapon he'd have chosen a much more "ordinary" name. Like magoo, maybe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Or ``Sean Hannity.``
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6048
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
What's wrong with Hussein? It's a great name with a noble history.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course I'm being facetious, and I agree. The only time his middle name gets a mention is when someone wants to imply that he's Muslim.
How there are still active "birthers" is really beyond me, though. That was such a longshot, pathetic Hail Mary pass of a political strategy even in the first year. Now, three years in, it borders on the absurd.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3746
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: |
How there are still active "birthers" is really beyond me, though. That was such a longshot, pathetic Hail Mary pass of a political strategy even in the first year. Now, three years in, it borders on the absurd. |
That's not entirely surprising. A significant number of right-wingers thought throughout the 90s that Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster and that Hillary Clinton was a lesbian Marxist. Of course, neither the Clintons nor Obama are even the slightest bit threatening to the status quo (as I and several others point out in this thread), but to a right-wing Republican, the minor differences that do exist between Democrats and Republicans (abortion, affirmitive action) get blown up into huge gaps. So much so that the right-wing of the GOP honestly believes that the Clintons and Obama must be the very embodiment of Satanic evil.
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3746
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why do U.S. progressives keep voting for centre-right pols like Obama, Kerry and the Clintons in election after election? One cartoonist's take:
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | but to a right-wing Republican, the minor differences that do exist between Democrats and Republicans (abortion, affirmitive action) get blown up into huge gaps. |
While the left-wing likes to minimize those gaps so they can vent their spleen and say "they're ALL THE SAME!!!".
So you've got folks on the right who'd never, ever, under any circumstances vote for the Democrat, and folks on the left ready to vote Republican, if only as punishment (like buddy in that third panel).
Merry Christmas, Republicans.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, it seems fairly clear that the US needs a third party. And maybe a fourth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2359
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: |
...While the left-wing likes to minimize those gaps so they can vent their spleen and say "they're ALL THE SAME!!!".
|
Well, in the specific case of the Obama administration, Bush's Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates) was kept on in the job. One of the top economic advisers to Obama was Paul Volcker, chariman of the US Fed in the Reagan years. So in a very real sense, his administration is 'the same' as any Republican presidents.
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Quote: | | but to a right-wing Republican, the minor differences that do exist between Democrats and Republicans (abortion, affirmitive action) get blown up into huge gaps. |
While the left-wing likes to minimize those gaps so they can vent their spleen and say "they're ALL THE SAME!!!".
So you've got folks on the right who'd never, ever, under any circumstances vote for the Democrat, and folks on the left ready to vote Republican, if only as punishment (like buddy in that third panel).
Merry Christmas, Republicans. |
So, it's the fault of the left-wing?
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Feel free to have a go atthis if you want to. I'm a little too busy right now ...
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6048
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I followed that link, and from there found a link to this, which is pretty funny, even though I don't really know what "Twitter" is:
| Quote: | The bio of a Twitter user is important: in a mere 140 characters, a person must describe themselves and their beliefs in an informative (and hopefully entertaining) way. This applies to morons as much as to everyone else. In such a small space, how do you demonstrate the lack of intelligence, knowledge and ability for independent thought that will attract other morons to follow you?
I've scoured the bios of Twitter morons in order to create a library of essential moron bio extracts, which I present below. Every phrase here was a genuine copy-and-paste. I'll publish additions to this list from time to time, ensuring it stays current (for example, if Sarah Palin becomes President and nukes Malta by accident, you may choose to add "Those Maltese Islamofascists had it coming"). If you're a moron, please feel free to use this valuable, royalty-free resource. A credit would be nice.
3 times mobilized retired US Army Res. Major - If you've been in the military, say so! Morons need to know this stuff.
Our land isn't Arab land - A Zionist essential.
The LORD also shall roar out of Zion ... and the heavens and the earth shall shake! Joel 3:16 - Bible verses are always appreciated.
We are taking America Back! - This may mean "Vote Republican", though this also includes a coded message to blow up a government building if Obama is re-elected.
...reaffirm our individual liberty, strengthen private markets, shrink the size of government - ...and doesn't see any conflict between these objectives.
Conservative,God,Country,Sarah Palin - Concentrated moronitude.
American Patriot - I've never left the country, except on that trip to Acapulco, and then I got a stomach upset and spent most of the time in the hotel bathroom.
I exist in the shadows fighting the enemies of America - Superhero wannabe.
British Nationalist - I blame brown people for the dull mediocrity of my life.
America's Founding Fathers - Simultaneously patriotic and meaningless.
Stand Up America Now! - America has been sitting down for too long. I blame the chair lobby.
Director of the TaxPayers' Alliance - One of those badly named lobby groups.
Should be called Keep Your Hands Off My Inherited Fortune, Poor People.
...save America from Islamic domination - We persecuted blacks, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, hispanics, lefties and homosexuals and we're sorry. But this time the threat's for real, honest!
We are a coalition of bloggers fighting Islamism with our blogposts - Are those like fenceposts?
Taxpayers of the world unite! - He means High Rate Taxpayers - the rest of you can piss off.
Conservative-Libertarian - Conservative who likes to smoke a joint from time to time.
Newt Fan - Likes slimey sub-human animals.
45th Governor of the State of Wisconsin - Not widely applicable.
Constitutionalist - Differentiate yourself from those progressive traitors who hate the Constitution.
Liberty,Not Tyranny,Stand up & Fight 4 This Country,No Socialism,Communism,Marxism,NoObama,Take Our Country Back - If in doubt, choose them all!
|
http://moronwatch.blogspot.com/
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6048
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I followed that link, and from there found a link to this, which is pretty funny, even though I don't really know what "Twitter" is:
| Quote: | The bio of a Twitter user is important: in a mere 140 characters, a person must describe themselves and their beliefs in an informative (and hopefully entertaining) way. This applies to morons as much as to everyone else. In such a small space, how do you demonstrate the lack of intelligence, knowledge and ability for independent thought that will attract other morons to follow you?
I've scoured the bios of Twitter morons in order to create a library of essential moron bio extracts, which I present below. Every phrase here was a genuine copy-and-paste. I'll publish additions to this list from time to time, ensuring it stays current (for example, if Sarah Palin becomes President and nukes Malta by accident, you may choose to add "Those Maltese Islamofascists had it coming"). If you're a moron, please feel free to use this valuable, royalty-free resource. A credit would be nice.
3 times mobilized retired US Army Res. Major - If you've been in the military, say so! Morons need to know this stuff.
Our land isn't Arab land - A Zionist essential.
The LORD also shall roar out of Zion ... and the heavens and the earth shall shake! Joel 3:16 - Bible verses are always appreciated.
We are taking America Back! - This may mean "Vote Republican", though this also includes a coded message to blow up a government building if Obama is re-elected.
...reaffirm our individual liberty, strengthen private markets, shrink the size of government - ...and doesn't see any conflict between these objectives.
Conservative,God,Country,Sarah Palin - Concentrated moronitude.
American Patriot - I've never left the country, except on that trip to Acapulco, and then I got a stomach upset and spent most of the time in the hotel bathroom.
I exist in the shadows fighting the enemies of America - Superhero wannabe.
British Nationalist - I blame brown people for the dull mediocrity of my life.
America's Founding Fathers - Simultaneously patriotic and meaningless.
Stand Up America Now! - America has been sitting down for too long. I blame the chair lobby.
Director of the TaxPayers' Alliance - One of those badly named lobby groups.
Should be called Keep Your Hands Off My Inherited Fortune, Poor People.
...save America from Islamic domination - We persecuted blacks, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, hispanics, lefties and homosexuals and we're sorry. But this time the threat's for real, honest!
We are a coalition of bloggers fighting Islamism with our blogposts - Are those like fenceposts?
Taxpayers of the world unite! - He means High Rate Taxpayers - the rest of you can piss off.
Conservative-Libertarian - Conservative who likes to smoke a joint from time to time.
Newt Fan - Likes slimey sub-human animals.
45th Governor of the State of Wisconsin - Not widely applicable.
Constitutionalist - Differentiate yourself from those progressive traitors who hate the Constitution.
Liberty,Not Tyranny,Stand up & Fight 4 This Country,No Socialism,Communism,Marxism,NoObama,Take Our Country Back - If in doubt, choose them all!
|
http://moronwatch.blogspot.com/
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doesn't use the honest A-word (Accommodation) or the other, more honest, C-word (Corruption) by mis-using the USAn euphonism 'Compromise' to enclose both. Note from foreign sources <g>.
Dashed Hopes: How Obama Disappointed the World
Date:Today 09:24
| Quote: | | As America's first black president, Barack Obama electrified an entire nation. But now that the nation is in crisis, he seems unable to connect with the people. He wanted to change America and restore its reputation in the world. But now his opponents are dictating the country's political course. |
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,779043,00.html#r... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3746
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Shocking Pattern of Obama Repeating Some of the Worst of George W. Bush
| Quote: | Is it too soon to speak of the Bush-Obama presidency?
The record shows impressive continuities between the two administrations, and nowhere more than in the policy of “force projection” in the Arab world. With one war half-ended in Iraq, but another doubled in size and stretching across borders in Afghanistan; with an expanded program of drone killings and black-ops assassinations, the latter glorified in special ceremonies of thanksgiving (as they never were under Bush); with the number of prisoners at Guantanamo having decreased, but some now slated for permanent detention; with the repeated invocation of “state secrets” to protect the government from charges of war crimes; with the Patriot Act renewed and its most dubious provisions left intact -- the Bush-Obama presidency has sufficient self-coherence to be considered a historical entity with a life of its own.
The significance of this development has been veiled in recent mainstream coverage of the national security state and our larger and smaller wars. Back in 2005-2006, when the Iraqi insurgency refused to die down and what had been presented as “sectarian feuding” began to look like a war of national liberation against an occupying power, the American press exhibited an uncommon critical acuteness. But Washington’s embrace of “the surge” in Iraq in 2007 took that war off the front page, and it -- along with the Afghan War -- has returned only occasionally in the four years since.
This disappearance suited the purposes of the long double-presidency. Keep the wars going but normalize them; make them normal by not talking about them much; by not talking about them imply that, while “victory” is not in sight, there is something else, an achievement more realistic and perhaps more grown-up, still available to the United States in the Greater Middle East. This other thing is never defined but has lately been given a name. They call it “success.”
Meanwhile, back at home...
The usual turn from unsatisfying wars abroad to happier domestic conditions, however, no longer seems tenable. In these August days, Americans are rubbing their eyes, still wondering what has befallen us with the president’s “debt deal” -- a shifting of tectonic plates beneath the economy of a sort Dick Cheney might have dreamed of, but which Barack Obama and the House Republicans together brought to fruition. A redistribution of wealth and power more than three decades in the making has now been carved into the system and given the stamp of permanence.
Only a Democratic president, and only one associated in the public mind (however wrongly) with the fortunes of the poor, could have accomplished such a reversal with such sickening completeness.
One of the last good times that President Obama enjoyed before the frenzy of debt negotiations began was a chuckle he shared with Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric and now head of the president’s outside panel of economic advisers. At a June 13th meeting of the president’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, a questioner said he assumed that President Obama knew about the difficulties caused by the drawn-out process of securing permits for construction jobs. Obama leaned into the microphone and offered a breezy ad-lib: “Shovel ready wasn’t as, uh, shovel-ready as we expected” -- and Immelt got off a hearty laugh. An unguarded moment: the president of “hope and change” signifying his solidarity with the big managers whose worldly irony he had adopted.
A certain mystery surrounds Obama’s perpetuation of Bush’s economic policies, in the absence of the reactionary class loyalty that accompanied them, and his expansion of Bush’s war policies in the absence of the crude idea of the enemy and the spirited love of war that drove Bush. But the puzzle has grown tiresome, and the effects of the continuity matter more than its sources.
Bush we knew the meaning of, and the need for resistance was clear. Obama makes resistance harder. During a deep crisis, such a nominal leader, by his contradictory words and conduct and the force of his example (or rather the lack of force in his example), becomes a subtle disaster for all those whose hopes once rested with him.
The philosopher William James took as a motto for practical morality: “By their fruits shall ye know them, not by their roots.”
|
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another day in Obama's America
| Quote: | On the one side is Eric Schneiderman, the New York Attorney General, who is conducting his own investigation into the era of securitizations – the practice of chopping up assets like mortgages and converting them into saleable securities – that led up to the financial crisis of 2007-2008.
On the other side is the Obama administration, the banks, and all the other state attorneys general.
This second camp has cooked up a deal that would allow the banks to walk away with just a seriously discounted fine from a generation of fraud that led to millions of people losing their homes.
...
In that particular Countrywide settlement deal, it looks like Bank of New York Mellon, the New York Fed, Pimco and other players negotiated on behalf of defrauded investors. They told the Times they were happy with the deal, but investors outside the talks told Gretchen they weren’t happy with the settlement.
Schneiderman apparently listened to those voices instead of the Mellon-Fed-BofA crowd, which infuriated the insiders who struck the actual deal. In a remarkable quote given to the Times, Kathryn Wylde, the Fed board member who ostensibly represents the public, said the following about Schneiderman:
It is of concern to the industry that instead of trying to facilitate resolving these issues, you seem to be throwing a wrench into it. Wall Street is our Main Street — love ’em or hate ’em. They are important and we have to make sure we are doing everything we can to support them unless they are doing something indefensible.
This, again, is coming not from a Bank of America attorney, but from the person on the Fed board who is supposedly representing the public! |
I'm more and more aware that Canadian politics is just as corrupt and putrid, ... we lack the investigative journalism of the USA, but that story was just amazing.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6048
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Listening to Obama talk about jobs and shared prosperity yesterday reminded me that we are back in campaign mode and Barack Obama has started doing again what he does best – play the part of a progressive. He's good at it. It sounds like he has a natural affinity for union workers and ordinary people when he makes these speeches. But his policies are crafted by representatives of corporate/financial America, who happen to entirely make up his inner circle.
I just don't believe this guy anymore, and it's become almost painful to listen to him.
|
Gee, I wonder if this sort of attitude will arouse the wrath of the great and powerful Ozama.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics