I only watched half of that video. Because I have important stuff that I need to get back to.And it started to look like an improvement on our current system of government.
This is precisely why I use drugs.
Looks at though the Dethklok guys have a place in the Tea Party. I'm so depressed.
I think Nathan Explosion would definitely be a better governor than Florida's current governor, Rick Scott.P.S. W.W., I'm considering your request. I have to say, though, I'm appalled by the cynicism of President Drone Strike and company. ~
Nathan Explosion at least has the benefit of not looking like he's in a de-balling death cult.
Looks at though the Dethklok guys have a place in the Tea Party. They have a place in any party.
Although I think he's wrong about a couple pretty significant points, in general I come down in 100% agreement with William W.Primarily, I think it's delusional to think that the next four years will be any different than the last. We KNOW who and what Obama is at this point, and that explains the anger and hate from the left.But folks, this is America. Obama is as 'Liberal' a President as we can EVER hope for - take it and be grateful. Remember, under our outdated and dysfunctional system, you will have only one other option - Mitt fucking Romney. That is the choice. It is not a choice between Obama and some dream candidate, it's Obama and Mittster.The system is broken. Fix the corruption, the obsolescent governance, the obscure and ridiculous Senate rules and install some kind of modern Parliamentary system and then we'll see. In the meantime, suck it up, choose the lesser of two Weavils and go get drunk...
I don't get any say over the nitwits who fuck up our lives from the south, but yeah, if you can't vote for, vote against, and if not for yourself, for my aging relatives. Do them a favour for me.
mikey, how has voting for Republican policies in Democratic clothing worked out for us?I'm talking over the last 30 years.It reminds me of U.S. policy in the Middle East, frankly. Sure, it there's always an argument for it in the short term, based on expediency, realpolitik, etc. But looking back over the last 3 decades, it's not only "how could you be so stupid?" but also, "this is what you sold out every principle you claim to have for?"~
Actually that should be Middle East policy since Operation Ajax in 1953, the grand daddy of our stupidity over there that we've been repeating ever since.~
It's understandable to be disgusted beyond voting for the current lot; I don't think it's practical but I get it. There isn't, though, any golden age of kindness and niceness to look back on.
Thunder, there are TWO choices. If you are advocating voting for Mitt Romney, you ought to have the courage to SAY so. Otherwise, find somebody else to lecture - I've heard this political self-pity before...
To make my position crystal clear, I'm tired as HELL of self-righteous lefties telling me I'm an idiot or a sellout for recognizing two simple realities:1. The President doesn't make law, appropriate funds or amend the constituion. That would be the Legislature, with their bi-cameral houses and ridiculous rulesAnd2. America has a hardened two party system. Oh, you can stay home, or vote for the fucking GREEN party candidate, or hey, how about the SOCIALIST party candidate, but in a TWO PARTY system that's EXACTLY the same as voting for the non-incumbent.You don't GET to vote for a liberal. We don't have those here. You get a choice between Obama and Romney. And if you think I'm an idiot or a sellout for voting against Mitt Romney you'd better have a pretty good story to tell. And you don't...
There's also not pulling the lever. And if people piss you off enough, that's part of the price of politics. I don't think that's as practical as strategic voting, but there's a vanishingly small chance Thundra's vote will matter so I'd cut slack.
Yeah. Thundra's not wrong. The thing that tips me over sometimes is I'm not wrong either. Jeez.Also, Cookie Monster for Governor...
Thunder, there are TWO choices.There is one choice. Romney governing Mass was nearly indistinguishable from Obama in policy (including healthcare reform), i.e. moderate right. Until everyone is willing to walk away from the current system completely, we will never get anything but one candidate. GWB was the anomaly. Setting aside GWB, tell me any major differences in policy from Jimmy Carter to Obama. We are only talking slight matters of degree here. In fact beloved Clinton was the most effective Republican in terms of policy over the last 50 years. The clusterfuck that is our current financial crisis (repeal of Glass-Steagall) was signed into effect under Clinton and he kept Randian superstar Greenspan in place to make sure the fucking was complete. I won't vote for either presidential candidate (or either of my senators for that matter, my congressman is a lesser suck that I don't hate). I would vote for a dead socialist first. It is a more serious vote.
There is one choice. Romney governing Mass was nearly indistinguishable from Obama in policyThe Romney governing Mass is not the one that is running for President.
The thing that tips me over sometimes is I'm not wrong either. Jeez.AHEM.~
The Romney governing Mass is not the one that is running for President.The Obama administration is not the one that ran for president either.
Carter had a decent energy policy, fish. Reagan sent us on the 30 year spiral that led to ExxonMobil, the Kochs, and the Heartland Institute.Also, Reagan gave us deregulation as religion, hate radio (via repeal of the fairness doctrine), and "see, we told you government doesn't work...put us in charge of it and we'll prove it to you".I was getting my hair cut last week when President Drone Strike was signing the JOBS Act. (Which sucks, of course.) He was doing his very best Ronald Reagan impersonation.~
And at the same time, Obama's done things no Republican would ever do, including appointing not-crazy supreme court justices, extending medical coverage, and getting women into medical plans as equals. Mitt wouldn't do that. Mitt might be an empty suit, but he knows who he wants to provide the substance, and it isn't a moderate Democrat. He plays to the Republican nation now, not the Republican Massachusetts.
Which is to say, as above, that I'm not really put out with people not voting for Obama, but saying Mitt and Obama are the same is wrongness on the internet.
I'm saying it's a game of good cop, bad cop, S McG. The game doesn't work if the bad cop isn't real bad.But instead of beating a confession out of a suspect, what this game is about is taking away everything that we have: our incomes, civil liberties, Social Security...you name it.I'll note that the Five Fascists on the Supreme Court sided with Obama on strip searches. Want to exercise your right to protest? Welcome to even more police state torture as a reward.P.S. I haven't even mentioned voting, yet. If one is worried that Romney will win, you can still vote for Obama in the fall. But does that mean you should run around telling everyone to shut up about Obama's drone strikes and the children they kill, because then it will be all your fault if he doesn't win?That's an "if you kids wouldn't cry so much, daddy wouldn't have to beat us all the time" argument. Example here, from "like kryptonite to stupid".~
Carter had a decent energy policy, fish.The Carter Doctrine is that we have the right to protect our energy interests in the Middle East by force. This was the central piece of his energy policy and a straight line can be drawn from there to the Iraq war. Obama's done things no Republican would ever do, including appointing not-crazy supreme court justicesSandra Day O'Conner was appointed by Reagan. David Souter by Bush I. Romney's health care reforms were the model for ACA. GWB was the anomaly.I don't deny that Romney has to talk crazy talk to get the rubes in line, but all evidence of his governance style is pretty damn similar to that of Obama. Obama has to talk crazy talk to get the rubes in line too, like "peace" and "justice." What it boils down to for me is that if there is no threat to abandon your vote, there is no way to get Dems to change, why should they?On the other hand, I do feel the Republican base is getting crazier, to the point where eventually the Republican party will collapse under its own crazy (and a very unfavorable demographic shift in US population) I honestly don't know what will happen after that.
That Willis post is disgusting.
I'm referring to this Carter policy, fish.You could draw a straight line from Operation Ajax in 1953 (mentioned above) to the Iraq War. Except that the Iraq War only happens with the neoncons in charge, and was a giant "own goal" that is dwarfed only by Vietnam in our modern history.~
I'm saying it's a game of good cop, bad cop, S McG. I get that, and I agree, especially on the presidential level. It's been a slow slide to the right when it hasn't been a fast slide to the right. The local politics are where it's at if you want your hope and change. What it boils down to for me is that if there is no threat to abandon your vote, there is no way to get Dems to change, why should they?And I agree with this too. Apart from foreign policy, though, presidents have to reach their compromises with legislators, and change is much more possible at the local level. Congress and the senate deserve that punishment much more than the president, but if you get a fully crazy senate and congress and executive the utilitarian in me doesn't see a net gain, even if the lampposts each get their eventual noose.When I think of a potential Obama defeat, I think of Nixon following LBJ.
If Obama gets defeated, it will because his version of Reagan 'trickle-down economics' peters out (see what I do there?) before November.But that would be his fault for running with such a shameless policy, and not mine for calling it what it is.~
I mostly get testy because of idiots like David Atkins or John Cole telling me I ruined the Earth because I voted for Nader and I should STFU and vote straight Dem forever and ever.
I dislike the Nader-blame too. Gore lost, Gore was the reason Gore lost.If Obama gets defeated, it will because his version of Reagan 'trickle-down economics' peters out (see what I do there?) before November.And this is not so much an ideological call as a practical one: it isn't working. If things get better it's hard to see how Free Money For Rich People was the cause rather than a slow market recovery.
I get testy about that, fish, and I did not vote for Nader.It's because people voting for Nader was way down the list of reasons Bush and Cheney were installed into office.1) Corrupt journalists.2) The corrupt Florida election.3) Gore's pathetic attempts to appease number 1), e.g. making that worthless pile of shit Joe Lieberman his V.P. pick.Number 1) They're happy for people to forget about their thumbs on the scale of every election, and political opinion in this country in general. Number 2) The gooopers certainly won't own up to their role in deliberately disenfranchising voters (they want to keep doing it). And number 3) Right-wing Dems want you to learn the "lesson of Nader": just shut up and vote for right-wing Dems.~
I dislike the Nader-blame too. Gore lost, Gore was the reason Gore lost.Gore won and the Supreme Court was the reason he didn't take office. That was not Nader's fault, and FWIW every justice who supported giving it to Bush was appointed by a Republican president. You used to occasionally get decent justices from Republicans but especially nowadays you're more likely to get a Thomas or Alito, and really, how many extra votes does Scalia deserve?
Gore won and the Supreme Court was the reason he didn't take office. The challenge Gore mounted didn't focus on the Florida vote count but just a few counties. He could have been more ambitious there and wasn't. And he could have been more electable and wasn't.But yeah, popular vote counts for nothing and Florida majority vote counts for nothing either, especially when the governor's a Bush. It came down to Florida after a very popular Bill Clinton was gone because Gore appeared to be only slightly better than the nitwit who got in.
Gore ran against the Clinton b.j. by appointing Lieberman, etc.No one in country but the Village gasbags gave a crap about that b.j. in Election 2000.And those Village gasbags he was attempting to placate were still the number one reason Gore lost, anyways.(Note: that link is about The New York Times's Katharine "Kit" Seelye, The Washington Post's Ceci Connolly, and The Associated Press's Sandra Sobieraj. There were also all the MoDo wannabees in the opinion sections...and they're still all there.)~
His wife sure did inspire enthusiasm among the kidz.
Wait. What? Metalocalypse videos prompt serious discussion? What happened to all the puns and double-entendres about distended anuses?I wish I had some Hopey Changey stuff to add or even some non-Hopey Changey stuff. But I got nothing, and goatse thread commentary ain't timely no moar.
You know, Mommy and Daddy fight an awful lot for people who basically agree with each other.There's a lot of shattered dreams and lost youthful optimism everywhere....
Just what I expected from the likes of you, zrm...~
Post a Comment