None of this matters. If you voted for him in 2008, you'll most likely vote for him again in 2012. Why break the trend towards fascism and imperialism?

"They" are a glutton for punishment, aren't "they"? Getting kicked in the teeth again and again (treatment of KSM and Manning cases as the latest entries), yet "they" remain loyal partisan voters. Is it really just the fear of what those nutjobs on the other side of the aisle would do if they were in charge?

It sure is interesting to watch though, from this side of the Atlantic, with binoculars. Then again, I don't even need binoculars to see Hungary, and they truly are on a fast track away from democracy -- equally interesting.

>> ^radx:

Is it really just the fear of what those nutjobs on the other side of the aisle would do if they were in charge?


Yes. Yes it is.

Sounds like you still believe we live in a democracy. Obama went into office with the intention of ending torture, restoring habeas corpus, ending the patriot act, ending the war in Iraq and creating public health care system. He was not allowed to achieve any of these things in earnest. If Ron Paul were to be miraculously elected in 2012, he would encounter all the same roadblocks to the parts of his agenda that do not fall in line with corporatism. It would be nice for you to experience a politician you admire get worked by the system.

If we could all suspend our partisanship just long enough to get our campaign finance system under control and get some separation between corporation and state, we would all benefit. But it's not going to happen on its own, and it won't gain attention from politicians until we have mass strikes and mass protests. Unfortunately, partisan feuds and the focusing of attention on political celebrities like Bush and Obama always seems to keep our attention off that industrial boot on our collective throat. I don't think the kind of unity required is likely until things get much, much worse... if ever. The Machiavelli in me wonders if it wouldn't be wiser to vote for the greater of 3 evils. >> ^blankfist:

None of this matters. If you voted for him in 2008, you'll most likely vote for him again in 2012. Why break the trend towards fascism and imperialism?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Obama went into office with the intention of ending torture, restoring habeas corpus, ending the patriot act, ending the war in Iraq and creating public health care system. He was not allowed to achieve any of these things in earnest.

So let me get this straight. When Bush was elected POTUS he was "allowed" to torture, suspend habeas corpus, push USA PATRIOT through Congress and declare war in Iraq, but Obama somehow isn't "allowed"? What is the presidency like asking for a hall pass in school?

Your narrative still needs a lot of work. I'd consider a page one rewrite. It's probably too farfetched to be remotely believable even when considering the audience's propensity to suspend their disbelief.

Torture, war and the suspension of civil rights is key to corporate foreign (and domestic) expansion. They were never part of Bush's agenda, or at least not a part of the agenda he put forth during his campaign. I believe that numbskull was just following orders (not to say that he wasn't on board in general with neo-con philosophy.)

In order to force Iraq into turning over their government, country and its resources to multi-national corporations, the people must be traumatized to the point where they will not resist. To their credit, the Iraqi's continue to resist, despite mass shock and awe, which is why billions of our dollars continue to be spent there on a daily basis. Even still, they've already allowed western businessmen to write their "constitution" and auction off most of their state businesses.

(edit side note: The billions of dollars of our money flushed down the toilet every day in the middle east provides a shock and awe of its own on in this country. Do you notice the higher the deficit gets, the greater the call for austerity - yet defense is never on the table to be cut? We are under attack every bit as much as our Iraqi counterparts.)

If you want more info on this, you should read 'The Shock Doctine'. It's excellent and probably the most important political book of the past few decades.

This 'your narrative needs work' snideness is the kind of partisan masturbation I'm talking about in my comment above, and why I believe there is little hope for change in the near future.

You are too caught up on personality. At some point in either 2012 or 2016, Obama will be out of office, but corporatism will remain.

^You're acting as if Obama isn't a corporatist.

I don't believe he is. Not directly, anyway. He is a consensus guy - which ends up being passively corporatist by default in a system controlled by big business.

Family is family, right?

I've been saying Obama is a Republican for a while now and it's telling that Republicans hate him as much as they do.

Let's review...
- Endorsed indefinite detention, charges not required
- Supports preemptive war and nation-building (Congressional approval optional)
- Nationalized Romneycare
- Lowest taxes since the 50s
- Gitmo is open for business
- Supports Military Tribunals for accused terrorists

What exactly are the Republicans so pissed off about? That someone from the other team enacted all their policies for them?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Sounds like you still believe we live in a democracy. Obama went into office with the intention of ending torture, restoring habeas corpus, ending the patriot act, ending the war in Iraq and creating public health care system. He was not allowed to achieve any of these things in earnest. If Ron Paul were to be miraculously elected in 2012, he would encounter all the same roadblocks to the parts of his agenda that do not fall in line with corporatism.

I agree that RP would hit resistance left, right and center to damn near everything he stands for.

I disagree that he would be giving speeches 2 months into his administration endorsing habeas corpus free, prolonged, preventative detention.

Hate RP's positions all you want, at least he sticks to them.

^This is a time honored strategy used to curb the political left. Pressure them to move towards the center, and then continue to treat them as if they were radical leftists regardless of how far they move to the right. Rinse and repeat until you have two right wing parties. Clinton usually gets the credit for bringing this kind of self-defeating triangulation to the democratic party.

I think RP would be forced to change his positions (at least publicly) if elected president.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't believe he is. Not directly, anyway. He is a consensus guy - which ends up being passively corporatist by default in a system controlled by big business.


Hahahahah. And you try your best to paint me as naive.

Glen Greenwald on Rendition (which often results in torture). The president should not have the power to unilaterally render anyone foreign or domestic to another country for any reason.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/02/09/state_secrets

It is not the presidents place to strike down Habeas Corpus or reinstate it is left up to the SCOTUS to interpret whether the writ can be removed or not. How that relates to the consensus of the people I still don't understand.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/06/12/boumediene

Whether or not the Executive Branch actually abides by the writs of the constitution is another thing entirely. The branches can do whatever they wish until another branch or the people file complaint against them and the checks and balances actually take place.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram

The above links and points are merely my interpretation of things evident during Obama's presidency they are wholly my opinion and therefore could be wrong. He inherited power and did not return it which is typical of any one holding the POTUS, and appears to be using that power (see any number of Greenwald's articles on Obama and Civil Liberties).

Everyone, all US citizens need to stop believing shit and actually use some critical thought. Belief without thorough review of evidence is faith, and faith is much more fallible than evidentiary claims. Even if those evidentiary claims are interpreted wrongly, which mine might be.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Obama went into office with the intention of ending torture, restoring Habeas Corpus, ending the patriot act, ending the war in Iraq and creating public health care system.

But you are. Do I need to get out the list again?
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't believe he is. Not directly, anyway. He is a consensus guy - which ends up being passively corporatist by default in a system controlled by big business.

Hahahahah. And you try your best to paint me as naive.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't believe he is. Not directly, anyway. He is a consensus guy - which ends up being passively corporatist by default in a system controlled by big business.


Some reading material for ya.