Oh that's an easy one how bout his lame signing statement on the NDAA.

>> ^longde:

I see what you are saying, but do you have a more consequential example? I mean, who cares about a speech that noone was going to watch anyway? On Obama's list of priorities that day, that one should rightly have been under #500. I doubt he made that decision at all; it would probably have fallen to his chief of staff.>> ^Auger8:
Here's my problem with Obama and don't get me wrong I voted for the guy. But everytime he say "I'm gonna change this "Insert Policy Here"" he makes a great case for it and then someone on his staff or the Speaker or Joint Chiefs tell him "No you can't do that because it will piss off "Insert party here"". He folds without any fight whatsoever.
Example:
He pulled what I thought was a daring and awesome move by planning a Presidential speech the night of the first GOP debate. Effective pulling away potential competition for upcoming votes against him. Then the Speaker of the House got pissed and whined about it to him to change the date. And he did. No argument, nothing he just folded up like an worn out lawnchair for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I mean give me a break how can you pretend to make bold moves like and not follow through with it. Your the freakin President it's your decision not the Speaker's who isn't even in your Party. WTF man grow a pair already. I'm tired of president who won't their guns and not let partisan politics dictate what they can and can't do for the better of the nation.
Partisan politics in the U.S. are slowly killing this nation we need someone who won't be influenced by that and will make decisions based on what's right for the country not what's right for the party who voted them in.
>> ^longde:
I don't want someone who makes hard bad decisions and then stubbornly stands by them. I had enough of that with Bush.
Also, if you think Obama has not made hard decisions, you have not been paying attention. I don't agree with alot of what he has done, and sometimes I want him to fight more, but the man has an effective, if not subtle, style.>> ^Auger8:
Every election boils down to the lesser of two evils and here's the important question here.
Do you want another Obama in the White House who will fold up under the slightest pressure from the Senate or the House, or do you want a man who will actually be a President and make the hard decisions and stand by them for good or bad?
No one candidate is perfect period but in my opinion he's better by far than a complete Religious crackpot like Santorum or a Romney who's only goal is to reverse everything his predecessor has accomplished. Or worse still a Gingrich who thinks the corporations should run this country for us.

I see what you are saying, but do you have a more consequential example? I mean, who cares about a speech that noone was going to watch anyway? On Obama's list of priorities that day, that one should rightly have been under #500. I doubt he made that decision at all; it would probably have fallen to his chief of staff.>> ^Auger8:

Here's my problem with Obama and don't get me wrong I voted for the guy. But everytime he say "I'm gonna change this "Insert Policy Here"" he makes a great case for it and then someone on his staff or the Speaker or Joint Chiefs tell him "No you can't do that because it will piss off "Insert party here"". He folds without any fight whatsoever.
Example:
He pulled what I thought was a daring and awesome move by planning a Presidential speech the night of the first GOP debate. Effective pulling away potential competition for upcoming votes against him. Then the Speaker of the House got pissed and whined about it to him to change the date. And he did. No argument, nothing he just folded up like an worn out lawnchair for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I mean give me a break how can you pretend to make bold moves like and not follow through with it. Your the freakin President it's your decision not the Speaker's who isn't even in your Party. WTF man grow a pair already. I'm tired of president who won't their guns and not let partisan politics dictate what they can and can't do for the better of the nation.
Partisan politics in the U.S. are slowly killing this nation we need someone who won't be influenced by that and will make decisions based on what's right for the country not what's right for the party who voted them in.
>> ^longde:
I don't want someone who makes hard bad decisions and then stubbornly stands by them. I had enough of that with Bush.
Also, if you think Obama has not made hard decisions, you have not been paying attention. I don't agree with alot of what he has done, and sometimes I want him to fight more, but the man has an effective, if not subtle, style.>> ^Auger8:
Every election boils down to the lesser of two evils and here's the important question here.
Do you want another Obama in the White House who will fold up under the slightest pressure from the Senate or the House, or do you want a man who will actually be a President and make the hard decisions and stand by them for good or bad?
No one candidate is perfect period but in my opinion he's better by far than a complete Religious crackpot like Santorum or a Romney who's only goal is to reverse everything his predecessor has accomplished. Or worse still a Gingrich who thinks the corporations should run this country for us.

Here's my problem with Obama and don't get me wrong I voted for the guy. But everytime he say "I'm gonna change this "Insert Policy Here"" he makes a great case for it and then someone on his staff or the Speaker or Joint Chiefs tell him "No you can't do that because it will piss off "Insert party here"". He folds without any fight whatsoever.

Example:
He pulled what I thought was a daring and awesome move by planning a Presidential speech the night of the first GOP debate. Effective pulling away potential competition for upcoming votes against him. Then the Speaker of the House got pissed and whined about it to him to change the date. And he did. No argument, nothing he just folded up like an worn out lawnchair for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I mean give me a break how can you pretend to make bold moves like and not follow through with it. Your the freakin President it's your decision not the Speaker's who isn't even in your Party. WTF man grow a pair already. I'm tired of president who won't their guns and not let partisan politics dictate what they can and can't do for the better of the nation.

Partisan politics in the U.S. are slowly killing this nation we need someone who won't be influenced by that and will make decisions based on what's right for the country not what's right for the party who voted them in.

>> ^longde:

I don't want someone who makes hard bad decisions and then stubbornly stands by them. I had enough of that with Bush.
Also, if you think Obama has not made hard decisions, you have not been paying attention. I don't agree with alot of what he has done, and sometimes I want him to fight more, but the man has an effective, if not subtle, style.>> ^Auger8:
Every election boils down to the lesser of two evils and here's the important question here.
Do you want another Obama in the White House who will fold up under the slightest pressure from the Senate or the House, or do you want a man who will actually be a President and make the hard decisions and stand by them for good or bad?
No one candidate is perfect period but in my opinion he's better by far than a complete Religious crackpot like Santorum or a Romney who's only goal is to reverse everything his predecessor has accomplished. Or worse still a Gingrich who thinks the corporations should run this country for us.

thanks back at ya =)

i'm a china analyst serving overseas for the state dept

and you?

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

@criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

You and I have been inculcated by decades of advertising propaganda. This little girl has been exposed to far less propaganda. She has a much less biased opinion on this matter than we do. Do you think it's possible that a young person like this who hasn't yet been beaten down by the system might have something to teach us?

>>> Adorable she may be, but she has far more to learn than to teach.

I'd like to know why the issue of gender roles is so important to you. Why you are bothered by a little girl questioning your status quo?

>>> I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm "bothered" by this at all. I'm annoyed that Pops has no good answers for her. And the confusion that awaits in government indoc. Maybe Pops doesn't know that there are real biological differences between male and female brains and that even if there were no obvious physical differences between the brains, they are each "pickled" in different biochemical baths in male or female bodies.

I don't get why you dismiss her natural feelings of gender unity in a culture that strongly enforces gender roles, and then claim she will later be indoctrinated by the government to believe "we are all the same", which is what she already believes in the first place - honestly the cognitive dissonance of this comment makes my head hurt a little.

>>> I dislike moral relativism, the sacrificing truth for convenience. There will be days when the indoc center will assure her that "people are all the same" in areas of life where it's simply untrue. There will be other days when she'll be segregated and her differences highlighted, in order to wrongly gain from others (political correctness) or preyed upon by others (political correctness).

Why do you have a strong partisan political opinion on something probably better left to psychology to research and explain?

>>> Why wait? Everything is political. Eveything. You really think the shrinks aren't "influenced" by who is paying for their research grants? Science--honest science--recognizes there are differences between boys and girls, men and women. Gender roles may be part societal, but AFAIC, it's 95% biological.

You and I have been inculcated by decades of advertising propaganda. This little girl has been exposed to far less propaganda. She has a much less biased opinion on this matter than we do. Do you think it's possible that a young person like this who hasn't yet been beaten down by the system might have something to teach us?

I'd like to know why the issue of gender roles is so important to you. Why you are bothered by a little girl questioning your status quo? I don't get why you dismiss her natural feelings of gender unity in a culture that strongly enforces gender roles, and then claim she will later be indoctrinated by the government to believe "we are all the same", which is what she already believes in the first place - honestly the cognitive dissonance of this comment makes my head hurt a little. Why do you have a strong partisan political opinion on something probably better left to psychology to research and explain? I'm fascinated with how the conservative mind works and I feel like the answer to this question could be a key to a deeper understanding. >> ^quantumushroom:

Plump-cheeked urchin, boys' and girls' brains are wired differently. You'll be hearing enough "we all the same" when you're placed in your first government indoctrination center school.

I read the wiki article you posted, it says the opposite of what you suggest. That pre-1980, they had no ability to generate policy...they just gathered information. Do you have a link to something that talks about the freemarkety nature in the 80s?, because that link doesn't have it. Unless you are just talking about Regan doing free market stuff on the whole affecting education somehow indirectly, but the link clearly says he made it a federal government responsibility to create educational policy in the 80s. In that, I don't know that your argument fully answers @Grimm's claim that educational stardards have gone down since federal policy making has been done. We aren't talking about free markets here, even at the state level. We are talking about who makes better policies affecting children's education; federal or state. It has also been of my opinion that for important things, eggs in one basket methodologies are dangerous. Best to have a billion little educational experiments boiling around the country, cooking up information that the rest of them can turn around and use. Waiting for a federal mandate to adopt a policy can be rather tedious.

I have some friends that are educators, I will have to ask them how they feel about this. It is easy for us to have an opinion based on raw idealism of our core beliefs, but I would be interested to see what certain teachers have to say. I met a real interesting person at my friends bachelor party. He came from a union state, and moved down here to Texas, we have teachers unions and things, but they aren't as powerful as the north. He experienced a complete change in himself. He found that his own involvement in his union happened in such a way where he basically held the kids education hostage over wages. He said that is was basically the accepted role of teachers to risk children's education over pay. I am not talking about just normal pay, but he was making 50k as a grade school teacher in the early 90s. Not suggesting this is normal, but it is something we don't copy here in Texas. As for his own mind, he knows he would never teach in that area of the country again, and would never suggest anyone move their that values their children's education.

What would be interesting to me is if the absence of the DOE would break down some of the red tape and allow schools to "get creative" with programs a federal political body might not want to take a risk on. Education is to important to fail on, and applying "to big to fail" kind of logic to a failing system of education is to much politics to play for me. Empower teachers and schools, and try to avoid paying as many non-educators as possible would be one way to improve things I would wager. What aspect of the DOE do you think is successful that we need to keep exactly? I mean, I can tell you I don't like that the DOD is so huge and powerful, but I know nuclear subs and aircraft carriers can't operate themselves. What necessarily component of the DOE do you see as necessarily, beyond just talking point of either party line stance of it? I mean, the Department of Energy's main goal was to get us off foreign oil, like a long time ago, that is pretty failed as much as the DOE. Different approach needed, or a massive rethinking of the current one. You don't usually get massive rethinking nationally of any coherent nature, which is why I think a local strategy might be a good way to go here. Perhaps then, you could have that initial part of the DOE before it became the DOE of providing information to schools about what works from other schools kick in again.

This kind of talk of "Ron Paul addresses none of this" about something that isn't related exactly isn't really fair. It is like trying to talk about income tax issues and saying changing them doesn't address the issue of the military war machine...well of course not, it is a different issue. Did you see that recent Greewald video where he talks about the founders did think that massive inequality was not only permissible, but the idea...just as long as the rules were the same for everyone? What I mean to say is that there does need to be a measure of fairness, but that fairness needs to be the same for everyone, rich and poor. I still say the real problem lay in the government creating the monster first and the monster is now eating us. If legislators simply refused to accept the legitimacy of corporate entities and instead say that only individuals can deal on the behalf of themselves with the govenrment(the elimination of the corporate charter as it refers to its relationship to the government) things could get better in a day. But since the good ol USA thinks that non-people entities are people, well, I don't see much hope for restoration. Money is the new government, rule of law is dead. I liked the recent Greenwald input on this. Rant over Sorry, this is just kind of stream of consciousness here, didn't plan out an actual goal or endpoint of my ideas....just a huge, burdensome wall of text

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education
1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.
We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealthy to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)
Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education
1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.
We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealthy to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)
Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).


Well said sir, in my view no department is inherently bad or good, the value of the department depends on who is running it, how it is used and how policies governing the department are made. If the Department of Education is causing harm to the education of students then this could be fixed by resolving the underlying issue which is one of corrupt policy making. Look at Bill Gates for example, he's playing his part to destroy and privatize the education system so he can have Windows on every school computer and influence the public education budget. He's allowed to do this because of policy changes and enormous amounts of lobbying money (which go hand in hand).

Here's an interesting read about some of the sweeping changes he's been able to introduce via lobbying:
http://techrights.org/2011/09/09/new-york-times-and-washpo-on-edu/

Plus of course all the other issues dystopianfuturetoday mentions - these won't go away just by removing a couple of departments - the core issues of corruption and lobbying have to be fixed first.

Is Ron Paul going to fix these? Hell no. Even if he was strongly in favor of these sorts of real changes, he wouldn't get support for them under the current system, the GOP would block everything, the Dems would keep talking about how bad the GOP is for blocking everything, and everything would continue to get fucked just as badly, or worse, than it currently is.

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education

1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.

We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealth to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)

Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).

And, IMO, the worst part of the American political system is partisan politics, and its grown to a level of extremism that it could only hope to be challenged by a well established and respectable 3rd party (perhaps a party of the 99%... food for thought?).

The addition of a third, 4th, 5th, or 10th party would do nothing to resolve partisan politics. A lot of people think the 2 party system is poison, and multiple party systems are some sort of nirvanah. A 1 second analysis of parlimentarian political entities dispells that illusion. Systems with more parties - if anything - become even more contentous, fragmented, and full of partisanship than ever. The amount of skullduggery is amazing. The common man becomes even more distant from the political system, because the dizzying level of alliances, promises made/broken, and other shenanigans that take place to engineer a 'majority' on a vote essentially render any one party non-existent.

This is a bubble that really needs to be popped. I'm not saying the 2 party system is good. Quite often I feel very disenfranchised by the 2 party system because my perspective as a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, libertarian leaning, constitutional constructionist are rarely represented to my tastes. But the opinion that the addition of a 3rd party would in any way address the rancorous nature of US politics is simply incorrect.

I've been saying this for such a long time... its my opinion that in addition to the points made in this video, the electoral college in the reason why a 3rd party will never get a foothold in this country for serious consideration for presidential candidacy. And, IMO, the worst part of the American political system is partisan politics, and its grown to a level of extremism that it could only hope to be challenged by a well established and respectable 3rd party (perhaps a party of the 99%... food for thought?).

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Where is the fraud? Are you saying she doesn't like free market economics or Ron Paul? Is she lying?


Are you really that slow? Refer back to my first comment. Partisan politics means political theater. I'm sure you can find clips from a few years ago where the people on the left were vehemently anti-war, the same people are now calling for war in Libya and Syria. (And continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan) This is what partisan politics is--a fraud.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I think the real issue is that you are afraid to admit the similarities between the market libertarian movement and the far right.

I think the real issue is that you have no idea what freedom means. It has nothing to do with left/right or deciding which side is better at economic central planning. That is a lose/lose proposition.

Why hasn't netrunner or the other partisan politic game players chimed in on this one? Oh yes, that's right, it shows that they're just as bad as the far righers if not identical in many ways.
*promote