When I was a teacher, if a student scored as poorly as that on a test, I was advised to get in touch with the parents so they could intervene at home, or at least would be less surprised when a failing grade was reported at the end of the term.
Who do I need to call about Mr. Obamaâs recent debacle?
Haha. This warrants a post? Really, a review card on his speech?
No one expected anything from that speech. No one expects any reform actually, mostly thanks to the publicâs (the minority that cares about the story) and the âLeftâ's blind adoration of the amazing faux-courage of our favorite faux-heroes and real status-quo enforcing team of Gatekeepers, The Guardian, Greenwald, Snowden, Poitras, Schneier, and co.
Drink as much of those peopleâs Kool-Aid as you please, peeps, but donât pretend to be scared, disappointed or pissed off later when Obama doesnât score high on your pathetically pointless âNSA reform cardâ. Youâre getting what you deserve.
Would you care to advise us what changes in behavior we need to make to âdeserveâ better?
Iâm not even a little bit shocked. The really depressing thing is that 2016 isnât going to bring any âChangeâ either. We are going to pick between whoever the American Taliban party nominates or Hillary is going to carry on with Bushâs fifth term. Either way, American Taliban or Bush the Third, nothing is going to change. My jerk off fantasy is that a democrat with balls appears out of nowhere to disrupt Hillaryâs coronation and runs as dully moderate in most things, but runs a vehemently anti-police state campaign. If a democrat had a pair, they would stand up, point to Hillary, and declare her Bush the Third for being a cowardly police state croney. They win the primary, and then strip libertarian leaning Republican moderates away from whatever pro-police state bigot the American Taliban party selects.
I know it is just a fantasy.
The people who put him in office? (Not as if other candidate would have done differently)
We ought to make law-makers have to sign a legally-blinding contract with the voters. Take the moral ambiguity out of the processâŚ
Left, right, liberal, conservativeâŚthe only way itâll change is to start over.
âBurn it to the groundâ in a manner of speaking.
Really? So theyâre doing it for the ratings and they could give two shits and maybe a touch of ejaculate about their Constitutional rights? Are they all in it for the money? Because, you know, Iâd be willing to have my entire online history (and then some) dredged up for review, to be denied the ability to move around freely in my native country, to have my friends and family screwed with when they try to travel, etc. etc., just for some facetime with the talking heads. I mean, itâs not like any of the people you mention have a history of doing these sorts of storiesâŚ
So, youâre commenting on a post in a left-leaning blog criticising Obamaâs speech with the phrase âLeftâs blind adorationâ?
When you had your irony gland removed, did you notice any effects on your cognitive abilities?
Hereâs what anyone person could do: take personal responsibility and question the motives of the people I mention in my prior entry. Questions their words and motives directly. Post in the forums they visit, use and read. Spread the news.
The people who have been involved with this whole NSA affair have way too much at stake to trully rock the boat and work for real, long-lasting changes in the way elected goverments conduct their business.
The Guardianâs editor said that he chose not to release the explosive information contained in Snowdenâs documents regarding the disasters that are the Afghan and the Iraq war because they are so explosive and therefore damaging to our dear leaders and, by extension, his own lucrative career as editor of the Guardian.
Bruce Schneier, in a Q&A with Eben Moglen (http://ow.ly/sJ8I7), repeated the lie that Manningâs diplomatic cablesâ release was indiscrimate and akin to an info-dump (something Snowden himself has said in past public comments).
Schneier again, a few days ago, after a visit to Congress, explained that âof courseâ he would not chat about anything heâd heard or talked about there, althoug it was crazy and weird, in his own words.
And Iâm not going to get into Greenwalâs working with Omydiar at setting up a media organization that will âbring robust coverage of politics, goverments, etcâ again. Need I remind anyone that Omydiar, just like Zuckerber, heads a private mass-spying agency, aka, eBay/PayPal; an organization that has helped the US government queltch dissent in the past, i.e. Wikileaks blockade, and the PayPal14 over-the-top prossecution.
Would people have been outraged if Greenwald had decided to set up a âmedia organizaionâ with Mark Zuckerberg, or Sergey Brin, or Bill Gates, Marissa Mayer as publisher? Same thing here.
Start reading journos who really are independent. Alexa OâBrien is one. Andy Worthington is another. And how about giving Arthur Silberâs blog a spin?
There are millions of people who expected things from his speech. There are millions of people who believed his speech. Fact of the matter is, this post will probably convince at least a few people that Obama is kind of pathetic. Doesnât do much good at this point, though, since itâs his second term.
Thank you for your reply.
It has allowed me to begin to evaluate your position on the scale that runs from healthy skepticism at one end to paranoid delusion at the other.
Part of that fantasy involves your belief that using âlibertarianâ as a name-calling tool actually works. Did you miss the part where âlibertarianâ actually means âconstitutionalâ, rather than Rep or Dem? Used as the name of a political party with a capital âLâ, it still includes a wide array of opinions and positions. Used with a small âlâ, it just means, "Thereâs a Constitution, thatâs the law of the land. If you donât like it, change it - but donât pretend it only exists when itâs convenient for you and your palsâ.
Thatâs all - nothing more complicated. The takeaway is - libertarian does NOT equal Tea Party, even though there might be some libertarians amongst them. If youâre going to insist on name-calling, at least get them straight, k?
BTW - Rand Paul has introduced a constitutional amendment to disallow all branches of government from making any laws which do not apply toll citizens equally - like Obamacare, which only applies to the 99%. They donât have to use it at all, themselves. So, it doesnât really matter if you approve or disapprove of that particular program - you can feel however you like about it. But it matters if you think a bunch of priveleged power-mongers should be allowed to tell YOU how to live, but not have to do so themselves.
I am Alice, and I approve this messageâŚ
Did you miss the part where libertarian (big or small L) doesnât mean âconstitutionalâ. Libertarians (small L and big) consider the US constitution to be a roughly âlibertarianâ document, but it isnât libertarian just because it is a constitution. If you slapped into the constitution, through a legal method, that it is okay for the government to seize all land, abolish private property, banish private enterprise, nix free speech, and institute a state religion, it wouldnât suddenly be âlibertarianâ force people to work on collective farms at gun point after going to their non-voluntary church services in the morning. Libertarianism isnât bound to the US. You could go setup your libertarian utopia on Mars even if it doesnât have a US constitution.
Wow there buddy. Maybe you need go back and re-read what I actually wrote. I never said the word âTea Partyâ or equated Tea Party with libertarian, and I never name called libertarians.
When I say âmoderate libertarianâ, I am talking about someone who values social, civil, and fiscal liberty. Any libertarian worth his salt is repulsed by theocratic religious nuts what were on display during the Republican primaries. They are repulsed by the vast amounts spent on military spending, police state tactics, the war on drugs, writing bigotry into the constitution, and basically every drop of the Republican platform that isnât âcut taxesâ.
The Republican party is made up of three major ideological factions. You have religiously driven folks, military driven folks, and moderate libertarians (small L). There is currently a civil war brewing within the party between those factions. Religious nuts and military nuts are a lost cause and Democrats will never strip them away, thankfully. Libertarian tendencies from some Republicans is something that Democrats could better exploit with the right candidate. Democrats will never see eye to eye with even moderate libertarians on economic issues, but on social and civil liberty, and repulsion at a police state, there are points of overlap. Those folks need to pick. Do they value civil and social liberty so little that they are willing to stick around with wasting votes on Republicans who are about as likely as Democrats to implement their fiscal wants? Personally, I think that there are a lot of libertarian leaning folks who could be convinced to jump ship and accept Democrats as the lesser of two evils if they value their social and civil liberty more tax cuts.
That is a pretty interesting argument that you are apparently having with yourself. I never mentioned Obamacare. Also, Rand Paul is a hardly a libertarian massiah. I am pretty sure that writing bigotry into the US Constitution because god told him to is pretty low on the Libertarian Partyâs agenda.
Iâm not having any argument with myself - I simply didnât confine myself to your original post.
I still think youâre confused about the meaning of the word, itself. It does not equal Republican, though I mentioned Paul and he is one. I donât even hold any party memberships myself. (And I canât say I think too well of any of the existing parties, either. If they fail at their own present internal squabbles and fall apart tomorrow, Iâd probably jump for joy and be more hopeful than I have been in decades, actually.)
Yes, the Constitution is subject to all kinds of interpretation, and always has been. Itâs intended to be. But your characterization of lib thought goes wayyyy down the road towards the funny farm. The whole thing was never built to create that freakishly egalitarian socialist dream, any more than its intent was to create and maintain the 1% (if you doubt, go read those guyâs bios again). So - it doesnât lean that way, either. But - they came back around and hustled like mad to get that Bill of Rights in place, simply because they knew any further arguments (and there plenty) would keep them from getting a union together at all. They had to let the interstate dust settle a little first.
So - I donât see it as being about this agenda or that, nearly so much as a matter of preserving personal choices to the very greatest extent possibleâŚwhich pretty much means, the less collective stuff, the better, be it the 99% or the 1%, either way. Thatâs the whole goal of abundant civil liberty - we all get some, and we all get the same. And, it leaves all kinds of room for us to argue the fine points all day, every day, if we feel like it. It boils down to fiscal and bureaucratic conservatism, but says nothing whatsoever about our social stance. Heck - Iâm extremely liberal socially, myself. Others tend to think much more conservatively - and thatâs just fine. Long as you donât tell me how to live, I wonât tell you, either.
My issue was strictly with using that term as a pejorative, when it shouldnât be. It simply doesnât carry that connotation. I canât even tell you how many times Iâve seen it combined with, or used in close proximity to, âTea Partyâ as if the one described or was the equivalent of the other.
I just liked Paulâs amendment idea. Sure, sure, theyâll finds every possible workaround and justification, just as they do now. But then, we would have a legal, rather than a mere political challenge available to it. I donât even remember the last time I met anyone who didnât think our âfearless leadersâ were a bunch of scum-sucking, self-aggrandizing fools.
Er, no. I do. But that was 2008, and weâre over it by now.
Itâs all clear now.
We will record everything by the people, trace every friend of the people, and pretend to do it all for the people.
Did you read the words I wrote? I never once said that libertarian meant Republican. I said that the Republican party has a libertarian leaning faction that is in conflict with the military nuts and the religious nuts that is ripe to be picked off.[quote=âAliceWeir, post:15, topic:19843â]
But your characterization of lib thought goes wayyyy down the road towards the funny farm. The whole thing was never built to create that freakishly egalitarian socialist dream, any more than its intent was to create and maintain the 1% (if you doubt, go read those guyâs bios again)
[/quote]
Where the bloody fuck in any of the words that I wrote do you see anything about egalitarian socialism? Iâll give you a hint: none of them.
No. A libertarian is not just a fiscal conservative. A libertarian seeks to reduce the amount of violent state intervention and wants to maximize the number of human interactions that are voluntary and without coercion. Fiscal policy is certainly a spot that libertarians get a hard on for, as they view tax collection as violent coercion, but it is just one of many things that they object to. If you claim that you want to ban gay marriage you are using the brutal oppressive power of the state to crush a perfectly valid contract for insane religious reasons, you are not a fucking libertarian in any way, shape, or form. If you want a big olâ military budget so you can go curb stomp other nations, you are not a libertarian. If you think that the state should use violence and guns to make drugs illegal and drag citizens to jail for messing with their own sovereign bodies, you are not a libertarian. If you think that the state should warrantlessly be able to spy on all citizens and slurp up their data, you are not a libertarian. If you think that a woman should be tossed in jail for wanting to remove a fetus from her body, you are not a libertarian.
Other than the fact that Republicans sometimes want to cut some selective taxes, the Republicans are anathema to libertarian ideals.
Seriously, did you read anything that I wrote? Quote a single place where I used libertarian as a pejorative or equated them to the Tea Party. Iâll give you a hint, I never did. You are having some sort of insane argument with someone who isnât there.
Agreed. Your usage was different. I donât see you getting your fantasyâŚbut hey. I didnât see us these deep in the brown stinky stuff when Obama first got elected, either.
Sound like maybe you were having a particularly rough day? If so, sorry about that. I didnât wish it on you, for sure.
Your new description sounds much more on the money. And I agree about Republicans being anathema to libertarian ideals. But then, so does an awful lot of Dem platform stuff. The major parties are like Tweedle Dum and Tweedle DeeâŚafter theyâve fallen off the wall and gotten all smooshed together. I often wonder if the extreme religious right has any idea at all that they simply push their own support away with both hands so hard that even the Reps are having second thoughts. (Maybe they should go read the book of Paul again? He actually warned 'em about that. sort of thingâŚ).
As I see it from here, the only reason some libs got hooked up with the Reps is because thatâs the way the game is rigged. If you donât have a major party affiliation? No money to run,and they both will just ban you from any major debates so the indies donât find out thereâs a lib running until they hit the polls. I neither agree with or approve of the cozying-up with the Reps, but I understand it as a purely pragmatic move. Yeesh. I donât even want to vote for a nominal Rep, if I can possibly avoid it. But Iâd feel the same if they jumped in with the Dems. Overall, the association simply polarizes people who otherwise might find agreement - such as your dream sitch where the libs and indies wander on over to the ballsy Democratic Clinton-destroying candidate. Thereâs no reason for you have that dream, except that you are seeing that affiliation problem, too. But really - libs as Dems? Eh.
Oh no - we were having an argument, all right. But I think I probably had mixed some of what you said with some of what somebody else said because I was sleepy., and you got your buttons pushed. I will apologize for my part in it, absolutely.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
