Thanks for the sift but is it supposed to cut out in mid sentence?
Or is my internet fubared again?

>> ^LarsaruS:

Thanks for the sift but is it supposed to cut out in mid sentence?
Or is my internet fubared again?


Huh, no, that's the original MSNBC embed cutting her off mid-sentence. Weirdness.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^LarsaruS:
Thanks for the sift but is it supposed to cut out in mid sentence?
Or is my internet fubared again?

Huh, no, that's the original MSNBC embed cutting her off mid-sentence. Weirdness.


Cheers for the reply... at least I know that the error is not on my end then.
The wonders of technology...

I'm glad to see he shut down Guantanamo like he promised. Oh wait.

>> ^blankfist:

I'm glad to see he shut down Guantanamo like he promised. Oh wait.


Cut him some slack. Where else would he put the whistleblowers his administration seems to be hunting and prosecuting so vigorously?

I'm also glad he's ending the war in Iraq. And reinstating Habeas Corpus. And not continuing the Bush Doctrine.

New party slogan: Democrats. The new Republican.

>> ^blankfist:

I'm also glad he's ending the war in Iraq. And reinstating Habeas Corpus. And not continuing the Bush Doctrine.
New party slogan: Democrats. The new Republican.


This is something that keeps on popping up in my mind for over a year now everytime I look at internal US politics: It's time for a 3 party system, and I think you're going to get it (or else the current system is going to go so grossly defunct that the US will drift into third world status over the next 20 years).

Have the far-right republicans, bible (t)humpers and T-Partyists split off into their own party; the conservative democrats join the Republicans and presto: You've got a left, right and center party. Reform the system to not just allow but to actively support coalitions and things just might start moving forward again.

Instant runoff voting, with true proportional representation would definitely help too.

>> ^srd:

>> ^blankfist:
I'm also glad he's ending the war in Iraq. And reinstating Habeas Corpus. And not continuing the Bush Doctrine.
New party slogan: Democrats. The new Republican.

This is something that keeps on popping up in my mind for over a year now everytime I look at internal US politics: It's time for a 3 party system, and I think you're going to get it (or else the current system is going to go so grossly defunct that the US will drift into third world status over the next 20 years).
Have the far-right republicans, bible (t)humpers and T-Partyists split off into their own party; the conservative democrats join the Republicans and presto: You've got a left, right and center party. Reform the system to not just allow but to actively support coalitions and things just might start moving forward again.


Yup

>> ^srd:

This is something that keeps on popping up in my mind for over a year now everytime I look at internal US politics: It's time for a 3 party system, and I think you're going to get it (or else the current system is going to go so grossly defunct that the US will drift into third world status over the next 20 years).
Have the far-right republicans, bible (t)humpers and T-Partyists split off into their own party; the conservative democrats join the Republicans and presto: You've got a left, right and center party. Reform the system to not just allow but to actively support coalitions and things just might start moving forward again.


When I think of Democrats and Republicans, I already think of them as being centrists, and they vote similarly on foreign affairs. Obama promised change, but he adopted bad aspects of the Bush Doctrine he promised to repeal. That alone should be proof how similar the two parties are.

I say we give the Green Party and the Libertarian Party a chance in the limelight.

Really? Centrist? Wow. Really, wow. You really should have a look at what "centrist" means in other countries. People calling Obama a socialist/marxist always crack me up - they have absolutely NO clue what the political spectrum can encompass...

Seriously, looked at in their entirety, the democrats are center-right and the republicans are so far right, if they were in charge of germany the allies would come marching in again. (Sidenote: Germany does in fact have a party called Republicans and they are in fact browncoats, but no relation to the US party of the same name. And if THEY ever get power, PLEASE come marching in).

If you look at them more closely though, both parties seem to be very fractured internally; both democrats and republicans can be pretty easily broken up into 2-3 parties looking the groups within them and their views.

I do agree with you on one thing though: Sidelining the established parties and their senior politicians who have been corrupted by the machine would be a very good solution. But the possibility of that is even more remote than getting a 3 party system working in the US without some extreme wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Why would either party allow another competitor? The US is completely and utterly stuck in its two-party system, a system it hails as the beacon of democracy for the rest of the world. Constitution + two parties = perfect democracy. PERFECT! Suggesting that anything about the US is less than perfect seems to be political suicide. You have to first admit that the US way of doing it is after all the best, but that it still could be improved.

"This is something that keeps on popping up in my mind for over a year now everytime I look at internal US politics: It's time for a 3 party system, ..."

>> ^blankfist:

I'm also glad he's ending the war in Iraq. And reinstating Habeas Corpus. And not continuing the Bush Doctrine.
New party slogan: Democrats. The new Republican.


He the war in Iraq is ending. He's been trying to give Guantanamo detainees trials, but Congress has thrown up numerous, massive roadblocks in his way, led by Republicans and turncoat Dems that the Democratic base hate (e.g. Joe Lieberman). The Bush Doctrine is completely and utterly gone, over the loud objections of the Republicans, who clearly intend to reinstate it if they get power again.

What the fuck are you smoking?

>> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^LarsaruS:
Thanks for the sift but is it supposed to cut out in mid sentence?
Or is my internet fubared again?

Huh, no, that's the original MSNBC embed cutting her off mid-sentence. Weirdness.

Cheers for the reply... at least I know that the error is not on my end then.
The wonders of technology...


I looked again, and it was actually my fault. I'd inadvertently clipped the last 6 seconds when I got the embed. It should be fixed now.

Should you kill the F-22? The Russians are building the T50 fighter with similar capabilities.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/russian-t50-fighter.html

>> ^cybrbeast:

Should you kill the F-22? The Russians are building the T50 fighter with similar capabilities.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/russian-t50-fighter.html
and?

60 billion on green energy? That's at least one windmill! Of course, he won't make sure that the 60 billion--or any other monies--will go anywhere near what they are intended for. But then congress won't look after it either... Republican or democrat.

After the cuts to favorite companies and CEOs, I could go to McDonald's and get a value meal burger for me and one other... who is with me?

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
I'm also glad he's ending the war in Iraq. And reinstating Habeas Corpus. And not continuing the Bush Doctrine.
New party slogan: Democrats. The new Republican.

He the war in Iraq is ending. He's been trying to give Guantanamo detainees trials, but Congress has thrown up numerous, massive roadblocks in his way, led by Republicans and turncoat Dems that the Democratic base hate (e.g. Joe Lieberman). The Bush Doctrine is completely and utterly gone, over the loud objections of the Republicans, who clearly intend to reinstate it if they get power again.
What the fuck are you smoking?


So, not saying I know much about our government because I don't completely understand our silly nonsensical law structure that changes weekly anyways, but Obama is able to do so much---yet Republicans can just say no on the issue of Gitmo and boom! Obama stopped. Not to mention the issue of the constitution being on his side...

I get the filibuster, or other motions that shelve actions forever... but I understand also there is a way to get things done in office regardless of any roadblocks and their, uhem, "size." If not, well then that is your failure as a politician. It is your job to get shit done…

I am not saying Obama has not succeeded on issues important to Americans. I am saying failure cannot be acceptable because your opponent was smarter or stronger than you...

>> ^srd:
>> ^blankfist:
I'm also glad he's ending the war in Iraq. And reinstating Habeas Corpus. And not continuing the Bush Doctrine.
New party slogan: Democrats. The new Republican.

This is something that keeps on popping up in my mind for over a year now everytime I look at internal US politics: It's time for a 3 party system, and I think you're going to get it (or else the current system is going to go so grossly defunct that the US will drift into third world status over the next 20 years).
Have the far-right republicans, bible (t)humpers and T-Partyists split off into their own party; the conservative democrats join the Republicans and presto: You've got a left, right and center party. Reform the system to not just allow but to actively support coalitions and things just might start moving forward again.



Well, three parties would not amount to any real change. That is hardly effective. When the corporations put out money to the "new" party, then that party is brought to you by Tampex, BP and Oxyclean. Also, think of this. Two parties cannot get anything done, you think three can?

The Tea Party is an example of this. They are a serious threat to the GOP and the GOP is masterfully (I hate it) re-absorbing them like flies to shit. The Tea Party came about because of perceived failures in the GOP and are much more libertarian than the GOP will ever be. Yet, the Tea Party members are flunkies to GOP now... Sad… That, and they became as extreme as the GOP overnight--and are going beyond them...

>> ^L0cky:
>> ^cybrbeast:
Should you kill the F-22? The Russians are building the T50 fighter with similar capabilities.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/russian-t50-fighter.html
and?


I see what he is saying. Deterrent = Good. It does... However, spending out of control = death of a nation... So I side with you in that the spending needs to be cut from the defense budget. Not from Soldier's pay per se, however, from the amount of troops we have (Phase them out) and the number of wars we fight. Also, good-ole-boy contracts need cut out or cut down... and we need to consolidate what we buy into just "the best shit." Our army needs to be smaller but better... Like a Roman army, back when they were the shizzle.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

So, not saying I know much about our government because I don't completely understand our silly nonsensical law structure that changes weekly anyways, but Obama is able to do so much---yet Republicans can just say no on the issue of Gitmo and boom! Obama stopped. Not to mention the issue of the constitution being on his side...
I get the filibuster, or other motions that shelve actions forever... but I understand also there is a way to get things done in office regardless of any roadblocks and their, uhem, "size." If not, well then that is your failure as a politician. It is your job to get shit done…
I am not saying Obama has not succeeded on issues important to Americans. I am saying failure cannot be acceptable because your opponent was smarter or stronger than you...


I guess I would say that to start with you should read up a bit on what's been happening on this front:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Media/obama-plan-close-guantanamo-stuck-political-legal-limbo/story?id=10752684
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/
http://washingtonindependent.com/85355/house-panel-deals-gitmo-closure-a-major-setback
http://washingtonindependent.com/75832/civil-libertarians-reject-obamas-guantanamo-closure-plan

The key element in there was a bill Congress passed with a veto-proof majority that prevents funding going to "transfer, release, or incarcerate" Guantanamo detainees in the United States. That expires this year, but congress is still making it very difficult to just start moving detainees to the US and give them trials in federal court.

To the rest of your comments I would say there's a huge moral difference between someone who tries to stop an immoral act and fails, and someone who wholeheartedly endorses the immoral act. I guess your presumption is that all failure is intentional, because all Presidents always get what they want, no matter what...I think even the briefest glances at history would disabuse you of that notion.

As for Congressional Democrats, they definitely deserve a share of the blame for acquiescing so easily to Republican political posturing over terrorism, but I think it's a big stretch to say there's some sort of moral equivalence between the two parties, especially on the topic of Guantanamo. One party created it and is loudly and openly opposed to closing it, the other is trying to close it, if more cautiously than I think is warranted.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:


Well, three parties would not amount to any real change. That is hardly effective. When the corporations put out money to the "new" party, then that party is brought to you by Tampex, BP and Oxyclean. Also, think of this. Two parties cannot get anything done, you think three can?
The Tea Party is an example of this. They are a serious threat to the GOP and the GOP is masterfully (I hate it) re-absorbing them like flies to shit. The Tea Party came about because of perceived failures in the GOP and are much more libertarian than the GOP will ever be. Yet, the Tea Party members are flunkies to GOP now... Sad… That, and they became as extreme as the GOP overnight--and are going beyond them...


It'll be damn more effective than the democrats being unable to do diddly squat because the "far" left and conservative wing keep blowing each other out of the water. Right now ever Democrat can say "We have the majority, the voter wants what I have to offer, screw the weirdos in my party. Now imagine you'd have a coalition gouvernment with a say 25/35 percent split between the parties involved. A lot clearer who is junior partner and who isn't.

Is the whole process aggrevating? Yes. But there is this thing called "compromise" that can help in some situations. Some people in DC should look it up at some point.

And the Tea Party is... well, just because something is called a party doesn't mean that it's either fun or political. The "Tea Party" as it currently stands is a front for corporate interests, trying to pull wool over the eyes of the politically less educated and politicians. It may have started differently, but it certainly devolved into a corporatist machine over the last 12 months.

If you're really fed up, try starting your own movement. It'll be hard work, and it will take a few years, but you've got the net, and it can be done (see the Pirate Party). Just remain reasonable, don't start screaming and hollering and wailing "I want my country back", because that way you'll just attract the cooks (and you'll get enough of those in the beginning). You'll want to attract the reasonable people, who can get things done.

Yes, this is a fucked up situation (and not just in the US, a lot of other western "democracies" are starting to look like the US), and nobody is saying the solution is easy, fast or that in fact a good or even ideal solution can be had. But I'd rather have a semi-good solution ASAP and refine it to a good solution than wait for a good solution 30 years down the line while our entire world falls apart around us.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
So, not saying I know much about our government because I don't completely understand our silly nonsensical law structure that changes weekly anyways, but Obama is able to do so much---yet Republicans can just say no on the issue of Gitmo and boom! Obama stopped. Not to mention the issue of the constitution being on his side...
I get the filibuster, or other motions that shelve actions forever... but I understand also there is a way to get things done in office regardless of any roadblocks and their, uhem, "size." If not, well then that is your failure as a politician. It is your job to get shit done…
I am not saying Obama has not succeeded on issues important to Americans. I am saying failure cannot be acceptable because your opponent was smarter or stronger than you...

I guess I would say that to start with you should read up a bit on what's been happening on this front:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Media/obama-plan-close-guantanamo-stuck-political-legal-limbo/story?id=10752684
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/
http://washingtonindependent.com/85355/house-panel-deals-gitmo-closure-a-major-setback
http://washingtonindependent.com/75832/civil-libertarians-reject-obamas-guantanamo-closure-plan
The key element in there was a bill Congress passed with a veto-proof majority that prevents funding going to "transfer, release, or incarcerate" Guantanamo detainees in the United States. That expires this year, but congress is still making it very difficult to just start moving detainees to the US and give them trials in federal court.
To the rest of your comments I would say there's a huge moral difference between someone who tries to stop an immoral act and fails, and someone who wholeheartedly endorses the immoral act. I guess your presumption is that all failure is intentional, because all Presidents always get what they want, no matter what...I think even the briefest glances at history would disabuse you of that notion.
As for Congressional Democrats, they definitely deserve a share of the blame for acquiescing so easily to Republican political posturing over terrorism, but I think it's a big stretch to say there's some sort of moral equivalence between the two parties, especially on the topic of Guantanamo. One party created it and is loudly and openly opposed to closing it, the other is trying to close it, if more cautiously than I think is warranted.



No, not all failures are intentional---but thank you for not accusing and raging about it here (I take no offense to questioning.)

All failures have two members responsible--the ones who win and the ones who lose. All failures come with consequences to everyday mortals. It is important that the other side "tried" but it is also important that the loser never receive a trophy (In this case, being viewed in a manner that the effort was almost or equal to victory.) (Unimportant Exception in this particular matter; if the event specifically denotes they give trophies then the second and third runner up can get one (Olympics for ex.) In politics, they do not provide trophies to perceived losers (I.e. re-election.)

Remember, I am not blaming Obama for this insomuch as his effort of trying. Great for him and those who supported him. I am just not handing him anything but the moral high ground. And, sadly, for some of those in Gitmo, they could give a rat’s ass less about the moral high ground.

And no, I was not sarcastic. His and those supporting him are appreciated in this area.

All presidents will fail as you mentioned. And hell, a president isn't even the leader of the free world--nor the people or judges. It is really congress, but then even they are balanced a bit...

@srd I think there are a lot of factors keeping us from getting additional parties here. For one, both parties have lost Presidential runs due to 3rd party candidates splitting their base in the last 20 years (Clinton in '92, Bush in '00), which really raises a lot of concern about "splitters".

Some form of runoff voting or European-style proportional representation would go a long way for the viability of 3rd parties. I think if we had either one of those, I personally would be all about promoting a new party that's a handful of ticks to the left of today's Democratic party.

As it is though, I poo-poo the idea of voting for the Green party because all they do is split the Democratic vote and make it easier for Republicans to win elections.

It's also why I really relish the idea of a separate and distinct Tea Party, since it will cannibalize Republican votes and make it easier for Democrats to win (and that's why Republicans everywhere are making sure the Tea Party doesn't actually get a candidate opposing a Republican in general elections).

If I knew that voting for a Green or Progressive party wouldn't have the net effect of helping Republicans win more elections, I probably would do so. I think a lot of progressives would join me in that (same with Republicans and a Libertarian party).

I'm much more in favor of people putting together a bipartisan bi-ideological campaign to implement some electoral reforms like instant runoff voting and proportional representation than I am in favor of people leaving the Democratic and Republican parties and trying to create viable 3rd and 4th parties under our existing electoral system.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
All failures have two members responsible--the ones who win and the ones who lose. All failures come with consequences to everyday mortals. It is important that the other side "tried" but it is also important that the loser never receive a trophy (In this case, being viewed in a manner that the effort was almost or equal to victory.) (Unimportant Exception in this particular matter; if the event specifically denotes they give trophies then the second and third runner up can get one (Olympics for ex.) In politics, they do not provide trophies to perceived losers (I.e. re-election.)

Not to put words in your mouth, but this sounds like you're arguing that because the SDP failed to effectively stop the Nazis' acquisition of power, we should vote for the Nazis because we have to send a message to the SDP that failure is not an option...

(And yes, I am saying Democrats = SDP, and Republicans = Nazis)

I suppose this is the chief problem with our system right now -- I can't express my discontent with Obama's lackadaisical approach to some of the issues he committed to during his election campaign at the ballot box without effectively helping empower Republicans.

>> ^NetRunner:


He the war in Iraq is ending. He's been trying to give Guantanamo detainees trials, but Congress has thrown up numerous, massive roadblocks in his way, led by Republicans and turncoat Dems that the Democratic base hate (e.g. Joe Lieberman). The Bush Doctrine is completely and utterly gone, over the loud objections of the Republicans, who clearly intend to reinstate it if they get power again.
What the fuck are you smoking?


Haha. Partisanship keeps the blinders on. Obama is the new Bush. Embrace it.

@NetRunner, I meant Obama is the new Christ! Sorry, simple mistake. Can I get a comment upvote now?

@blankfist you get upvotes from me when you start making your case on the basis of factual information and logic, not falsehoods and petulance.

@NetRunner

Obama smokes cigarettes. He has abs. Can I get an upvote now?

@NetRunner. Obama is the best president ever. Can I get an upvote now?

@blankfist you've really turned into nothing more than a pathetic troll lately.

Time was, you used to try to back up your slurs with an actual argument, now you just repeat them in decreasingly coherent ways.

@NetRunner, so does that mean I don't get a comment upvote? I said all the right things, no?

@NetRunner

@blankfist, eat your applesauce.