I freely admit to having thought Obama was the real deal, and that it's obvious he wasn't. I think my disappointments with him aside, he was still the right person to support, given that it was only ever going to be him, Hillary, or McCain who became President. I think you're vastly overstating it when you say that Obama is "leading the charge" in Libya, but that's just how you are.

I don't really see it as "chickens coming home to roost". Obama has failed to rise to the occasion on several issues, but he hasn't gone and done anything all his own that creates new problems to be undone. Maybe this no-fly zone in Libya will become that, but this doesn't strike me as some sort of imperialist impulse from Obama, so much as him going along with the world community.

If you told me that in 2008, after Bush put together an Iraq withdrawal plan, I would've said that I pretty much expect him to follow the Bush withdrawal plan to the letter...which he has, with no sign of extending our stay there. On Afghanistan, I would've said that Obama openly campaigned on escalating the conflict in Afhganistan, and I didn't like it much, but that that did seem to be the one place in the world we had any reason to be involved in. On Libya I would've said "why Libya?" If you said "to defend pro-democratic rebels who wanted to overthrow Gaddafi", I would've said "hmm, if the UN supports that action, and the mission remains limited in scope, I would oppose it, but I would understand it".

As for Gitmo and PATRIOT, if you told me that he'd be stopped from doing either by a bipartisan coalition in Congress, I would've found that completely believable. That he's passively let the topic fade from the public stage is probably my biggest disappointment with him.

On taxes, which taxes went up? Income tax rates below $250K (and above!) are the same as they've been, and payroll taxes just got cut a bit. My federal taxes definitely went down, while my state & local have increased slightly, but Obama has nothing to do with those. The only tax increases I know of are on cigarettes, and maybe the expiration of tax cuts that began with the stimulus.

As for the democratic process, all it proved is that it takes more work than voting for President once every 4 years. I was too carried away in 2008 about how much one election would do, but it did seem like a sea change at the time.

Part of what's wrong is that people here are too complacent. Tunisia, Egypt, etc. all just managed to topple dictatorships with peaceful protests. I think if we did the same here, we could topple our oligarchy. But first we need to stop letting fear of loss make us keep our heads down...

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Oh, you're such a victim, aren't you? *raises hand* "Oh, teacher, blankfist is picking on me!"

Stop deflecting. You and DFT claimed Obama was the real deal; that he'd enact some real change. He hasn't. He received a Nobel Peace prize, yet has extended the war effort. It makes no sense to people like me, and now that he's leading the charge in Libya, your chickens have come home to roost, and you don't like it.

I know you don't regret a second campaigning or voting for a warmonger and a liar. It's all too common for people to defend their vote, and the dissonance is alarming. My father used to defend his vote for Bush saying he's better than Clinton or something irrelevant like that.

If I could go back to 2008 and make wild claims that Obama would not end the war in Iraq, he would instead extend the war into Afghanistan, and before 2012 he'd go into Libya, I wonder what you'd say. Or that he'd never close Guantanamo or repeal the Patriot Act, I wonder what you'd say. You'd probably disagree and beat the "Democrats. Party of peace." drum.

I bet you still have an Obama/Biden 2008 bumper sticker on the back of your Prius, don't you? How typical if you do.

And by the way, I made less this year because of the economy, yet my taxes went up (as did the cost of living). I thought those of us who made less than $250,000 would not have our taxes raised. Looks like that too was a lie. I'm glad we still have idiots out there who think we can change the system with the democratic process, because singlehandedly Obama has proven that to be false in his first four years.

Seeing you, I think I now understand why the entire nation of Germany gave into Nazism and thought it was a good thing.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
So what you're saying is...what? That harassing me is somehow going to reverse a UN resolution against Libya?

I do think that if you don't like something, you should get involved and change it. In this case, part of that would be trying to get like minded people to join you in some sort of petition or protest. You don't seem to have any interest in doing that.

Do you have a bumper sticker with "Don't blame me, I voted for <insert losing candidate here>!" on your car? I mean if you don't, you really should get one. It might be too on the nose though, because it's not just some humorous witticism to you; instead it's a statement of your entire political philosophy, such as it is.

Oh, and by the way, I don't regret for a second having voted for and campaigned for Obama.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Wait, I thought you said if you didn't like something, then you should get involved and change it. Wasn't voting for Obama that change? How's that working out for you?

And I'm a liberal. The original liberal.

There are some significant differences between Libya and Iraq/Afghanistan. 1) The people of Libya have started this revolution on their own. 2) Aid would only involve air support - No bases, no ground troops. 3) The action is a legitimate action of the UN, and not a bogus US led coalition of the bribed and bullied.

To say this is 'no different' is incorrect.

It sounds to me like George Will opposes this because there is no money to be made and no power to be gained. Perhaps his statements here would hold more weight if he had opposed Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 - when it mattered.

This brings up an interesting point. Has the coalition said if they will shoot down rebel fighter jets violating the no-fly zone?

Of course I'm not suggesting that's what happened in this case. But just that there's no avoiding the issue, since it seems the rebels aren't keen on accepting the no-fly zone.

and after this i'll shut the hell up.
any government report suggesting this type of connection could possibly effect economic stability. or just freak people out....and then they might start thinking or something.

this is a great community...btw. thanks to all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwSzDZnNjUk
coalition of the willing.
seems like a really good idea.

The most common alternative to FPP systems - MMP - comes with its own set of problems. We end up with people in parliament or even in government who have not personally received any votes at all, they are there thanks to their party winnning a certain number of seats in parliament.

Even worse, you can get a narrow race between the two major parties and suddenly some dumbass little third party with 7% of the vote gets to decide who the government will be - i.e. whoever they form a coalition with.

What is your affiliation with Edinburgh Coalition Against Poverty and this video?

This in no way was us students asking for everything for free. If you believe that, then you truely are ignorant and moronic. There are two arguments in this. The first being the increase. University costs enough as it is without having it increased almsot three-fold. There are far better ways to reduce spending (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYtNwmXKIvM), and higher education is not one of them.

The other problem is lack of trust in politics. Yes, sure, when you form a coalition, sacrifices need to be made, but when you make a policy which got you a large majority of your votes, you should fight for it. This, to me, amplifies the cowardice and lack of trust in politics.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Did you see the post Blank had where the guy just flat out says we are violating your 4th amendments rights...now sit down and shut up....I might be paraphrasing a bit.

Is blankfist part of the national media?

As for the rest, this is the other half of why I'm annoyed about the way the right operates, even when on the surface they agree with us. They're not satisfied to join onto a campaign that says "we want the TSA to scale back what they do", instead you've always got to make this into an excuse for extracting some sort of pound of government flesh.

Instead of focusing on the actual problem (overbearing security requirements on flights), the libertarian voices demand that we privatize the TSA (read: hire for-profit companies to conduct the gropings and porno scans at the TSA's behest) as if that's a solution to the issue. Republicans want that too, but they also want the gropings and porno scanners to say, they just want to make sure white people don't have to suffer them use racial profiling to determine who gets singled out for these invasive measures.

The more consistent (but even less reasonable) libertarians say they'll only sign on if what we aim for is abolishing the TSA entirely, and while we're at it the DHS too.

Throughout, all the various right-wing groups try to pretend like somehow this was originally a Democratic idea, and that the liberal grassroots were and are all for it.

The sad thing is, most if not all liberals are on the "small government" side of this argument. They want less onerous restrictions on airline security, period. I think plenty of them would be fine with turning over the actual hiring of security guards and purchase of scanners to the airlines, and leave the TSA as more of a regulatory agency than an actual paramilitary organization. Most see this whole process as an erosion of their civil rights.

Thing is, does the right want to tap into that and actually build a coalition that could do something about it? Or are they going to insist that this is all about conservative heroes fighting to defeat liberal villains, and thus guarantee that nothing changes?

I'm borrowing this for the "Objective" portion of my resume. Tanks you!

>> ^shagen454:

I want the sort of apocalypse where I somehow wake up on another planet - full of babes and I reach for a cigarette and when I light it up they all bow to me as GOD!!! And then I will show them all Asspocalypse and we will become the Coalition of Asspocalypse across the Universe (of course it will take a few million years but since we have a clear objective, minds will evolve)!

I want the sort of apocalypse where I somehow wake up on another planet - full of babes and I reach for a cigarette and when I light it up they all bow to me as GOD!!! And then I will show them all Asspocalypse and we will become the Coalition of Asspocalypse across the Universe (of course it will take a few million years but since we have a clear objective, minds will evolve)!

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chilaxe" title="member since April 27th, 2007" class="profilelink">chilaxe
What's the more important issue here:
1. The murder of 100,000 innocent people by a coalition of top governments.
2. An eccentric pissy hacker that swiped some Swedish side-boob.
Like kranzfakfa said, vegetarian painter was Hilter.
By your logic that means that the Nazi party probably did great stuff!
Back to the main issue tho.
~~~~
"Hundreds of documents released on October 22, 2010, by Wikileaks reveal beatings, burnings, and lashings of detainees by their Iraqi captors. Iraq should prosecute those responsible for torture and other crimes, Human Rights Watch said."
"These new disclosures show torture at the hands of Iraqi security forces is rampant and goes completely unpunished. It’s clear that US authorities knew of systematic abuse by Iraqi troops, but they handed thousands of detainees over anyway."
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/10/24/iraq-wikileaks-
documents-describe-torture-detainees


HOW DARE YOU! Hitler WAS NOT a Vegetarian! So sayeth QI so it shall be remembered!

@chilaxe
What's the more important issue here:

1. The murder of 100,000 innocent people by a coalition of top governments.

2. An eccentric pissy hacker that swiped some Swedish side-boob.

Like kranzfakfa said, vegetarian painter was Hilter.
By your logic that means that the Nazi party probably did great stuff!

Back to the main issue tho.
~~~~

"Hundreds of documents released on October 22, 2010, by Wikileaks reveal beatings, burnings, and lashings of detainees by their Iraqi captors. Iraq should prosecute those responsible for torture and other crimes, Human Rights Watch said."

"These new disclosures show torture at the hands of Iraqi security forces is rampant and goes completely unpunished. It’s clear that US authorities knew of systematic abuse by Iraqi troops, but they handed thousands of detainees over anyway."

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/10/24/iraq-wikileaks-documents-describe-torture-detainees

shit you're learning from Fox News.
I think that's the most offensive thing anyone's ever said to me. For the record, I NEVER watch Fox, it makes me want to smash the television into pieces to stop the evil from spewing out of it. Oh, and I cited a book by Ali Allawi instead. You don't get much further from Fox News than a book written by an Islamic expert and former Iraqi minister who strongly condemns the occupation.

None of the attacks you cited have been attributed to Iraq or Afghanistan. The USS Cole bombings? Al-Qaeda and Sudan. The attacks on US embassies? The Egyptian Islamic Jihad and bin Laden. The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Lebanon.

Really?

You agree that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda where behind all of the attacks. You are aware that Bin Laden is no more a citizen of Saudi Arabia than he is a Muslim, correct? You are aware that as of the 9/11 attacks that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were operating out of non of the countries you mention, but instead out of... Afghanistan. And it wasn't the first time that America had confronted Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regarding Bin Laden. America had previously pressed for charges against Bin Laden, and submitted evidence to the Taliban. The Taliban even 'tried' Bin Laden under their version of Sharia law, and refused admittance to 100% of the evidence America put forward. They rejected not because it was considered unreliable, but because "it was nothing new and that they did not already know". The result of the case was a complete vindication of Bin Laden and his actions. I dare say going after Bin Laden and his Taliban allies in Afghanistan was irrefutably the result of multiple very serious provocations.

And nowhere in my post did I cite the Muslim-on-Muslim violence that you, for some reason, chose to cite in counter to my statement.

I was countering your claim:
any "terrorist" activity against occupying troops is most certainly merely resistance and protest against this occupation.

Calling the violence in Iraq resistance to the occupation and not terrorism is rather strongly countered by the body counts. The majority of dead are Iraqi muslims, killed by terrorist attacks by other Iraqi muslims. The violence in Iraq against coalition troops ended up being dominantly because they were trying to stem the muslim on muslim violence by standing in the middle and offering protection. Sure there was a much, much smaller faction really bent on 'resistance', but it consisted primarily of former Baathists, and was hardly a faction anyone in Iraq sympathized with.

There is plenty of debate on the left about what exactly the next move is for left of center politics in America.

One side says Obama and Democrats are doing about as well as we should have expected them to do, and that most of our problems are being caused by Senate filibuster rules, and a coalition of conservative Democrats and the whole Republican party.

The other side says Obama and the Democrats sold us out, that they're co-conspirators with the corporate Republican party, and it's time for us to make our voices heard...by trashing Obama and Democrats as much as possible.

I'm mostly sympathetic with the first group (mockingly referred to as "Obots"), while I'm mostly disgusted with the second (mockingly referred to as "firebaggers").

That said, I do think that while most of our problems can be chalked up to filibuster rules and conservadems, I think progressives as a whole have to reexamine how they practice politics. Democrats by and large refuse to make a full throated argument in favor of liberalism as a philosophy. Instead, they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to couch progressive ideas in conservative frames. For example, Democrats talk a lot about how health care is going to fix the long-term budget, but not so much about how it will help people who were being left for dead by the old system.

Maybe a third party would solve those problems, but I doubt it. The left needs to start getting angry, and demanding that their voices get heard.

The difference is voting with your heart or your head, so to speak.

Voting for Obama is the headvote, since he has a chance of winning, then "the game" is to get the best of the two big candidates. Voting with your heart, is voting for whoever you like the best, no matter their chance of winning. Some times those two are not mutually exclusive, those are good times.
>> ^NetRunner:

@blankfist, text comments really need a sarcasm mark. That was tongue in cheek.
My point is that I am voting my conscience. I'm just basing my actual vote on a pragmatic analysis of what vote will have the best chance of bringing about the policy outcome my conscience demands.
In the specific case of the 2008 presidential race, I didn't find any of the alternatives to Obama on the actual ballot appealing. Even if I had, I would've rather voted for Obama, who seemed to have a good chance of winning, and the skills to lead effectively, over a candidate whose platform matched my ideal in every possible way, but had a slim chance of winning, and seemed to lack the leadership skills to build a coalition to pass his agenda.
I say that is voting your conscience, at least the way voting works today.