|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Stratos
You do know that very little of what Obama actually does lines up with what liberals want, right? Obama is an extremely conservative Democratic candidate that, if he was white, would fit in fine as a moderate Republican pre-Tea Party movement era.
DoubleReed
Yea it's ridiculous and quite frightening to realize that someone as conservative as Obama is labeled a socialist. Oh how right wing our politics are in comparison to the people.
Man, there's always an excuse isn't there. Oh he's not a real liberal. Oh he's so conservative. Oh our politics are so right wing compared to the people (lolwut?). Oh if he was white those racists would just love him because he's actually conservative.
Okay guys, keep telling yourselves that. Barack Obama is modern American liberalism, if it isn't socialist enough for you, then your problem is with American liberals and Americans in general for not being socialist enough. It's rather cheap and self-serving to pull out that kind of crap, though. God knows conservatives have been whining that George W. Bush was actually a liberal and not a real conservative for years, how well has that worked?
We don't get to say oh well this guy isn't really one of us so our beliefs shouldn't take a hit because of his incompetence. Well we do get to say it but no matter how satisfying it is to our egos it has little utility because it sounds like a cop-out, which it is.
|
On August 14 2013 03:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Stratos
You do know that very little of what Obama actually does lines up with what liberals want, right? Obama is an extremely conservative Democratic candidate that, if he was white, would fit in fine as a moderate Republican pre-Tea Party movement era. Show nested quote +DoubleReed
Yea it's ridiculous and quite frightening to realize that someone as conservative as Obama is labeled a socialist. Oh how right wing our politics are in comparison to the people. Man, there's always an excuse isn't there. Oh he's not a real liberal. Oh he's so conservative. Oh our politics are so right wing compared to the people (lolwut?). Oh if he was white those racists would just love him because he's actually conservative. Okay guys, keep telling yourselves that. Barack Obama is modern American liberalism, if it isn't socialist enough for you, then your problem is with American liberals and Americans in general for not being socialist enough. It's rather cheap and self-serving to pull out that kind of crap, though. God knows conservatives have been whining that George W. Bush was actually a liberal and not a real conservative for years, how well has that worked? We don't get to say oh well this guy isn't really one of us so our beliefs shouldn't take a hit because of his incompetence. Well we do get to say it but no matter how satisfying it is to our egos it has little utility because it sounds like a cop-out, which it is.
A liberal would've cut down on drone strikes, closed Guantanamo, etc. Obama hasn't. Obama isn't a liberal.
|
Nah, it's not quite like that. It's more about railing against money in politics and corporate bribery. That veers our politics economically to the right, because the government's interests becomes more about money and fundraising than what the people want.
A good example of right wing stuff is the War on Drugs which is pretty unpopular, but it is so entrenched by moneyed interests that only now is there any political motivation to do anything about it. But you can see this in multiple places, where the people are considerably more liberal than the representatives. Representatives have to appeal to people with money.
Do you really consider this kind of view extreme or crazy? Its a corruption problem, that's all.
|
On August 14 2013 03:37 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 03:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:Stratos
You do know that very little of what Obama actually does lines up with what liberals want, right? Obama is an extremely conservative Democratic candidate that, if he was white, would fit in fine as a moderate Republican pre-Tea Party movement era. DoubleReed
Yea it's ridiculous and quite frightening to realize that someone as conservative as Obama is labeled a socialist. Oh how right wing our politics are in comparison to the people. Man, there's always an excuse isn't there. Oh he's not a real liberal. Oh he's so conservative. Oh our politics are so right wing compared to the people (lolwut?). Oh if he was white those racists would just love him because he's actually conservative. Okay guys, keep telling yourselves that. Barack Obama is modern American liberalism, if it isn't socialist enough for you, then your problem is with American liberals and Americans in general for not being socialist enough. It's rather cheap and self-serving to pull out that kind of crap, though. God knows conservatives have been whining that George W. Bush was actually a liberal and not a real conservative for years, how well has that worked? We don't get to say oh well this guy isn't really one of us so our beliefs shouldn't take a hit because of his incompetence. Well we do get to say it but no matter how satisfying it is to our egos it has little utility because it sounds like a cop-out, which it is. A liberal would've cut down on drone strikes, closed Guantanamo, etc. Obama hasn't. Obama isn't a liberal.
Obama had one of the more liberal voting records as a senator, iirc.
As POTUS you have more responsibility, so it's harder to follow ideology.
|
On August 14 2013 03:51 DoubleReed wrote:
Nah, it's not quite like that. It's more about railing against money in politics and corporate bribery. That veers our politics economically to the right, because the government's interests becomes more about money and fundraising than what the people want.
A good example of right wing stuff is the War on Drugs which is pretty unpopular, but it is so entrenched by moneyed interests that only now is there any political motivation to do anything about it. But you can see this in multiple places, where the people are considerably more liberal than the representatives. Representatives have to appeal to people with money.
Do you really consider this kind of view extreme or crazy? Its a corruption problem, that's all.
My understanding is that the war on drugs has only become unpopular very recently.
![[image loading]](http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2013/04/12.png)
Besides, there's more money in legalization than prohibition so I don't really buy the money argument here.
|
The war on drugs is much bigger then just the question of legalizing Marijuana. Just look at how many are in jail for long times for minor drug offenses to see the problem.
The biggest problem with US politics for a long time now has been the legal bribery where cooperation's can spend millions to buy politicians to serve there interests.
|
On August 14 2013 03:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Stratos
You do know that very little of what Obama actually does lines up with what liberals want, right? Obama is an extremely conservative Democratic candidate that, if he was white, would fit in fine as a moderate Republican pre-Tea Party movement era. Show nested quote +DoubleReed
Yea it's ridiculous and quite frightening to realize that someone as conservative as Obama is labeled a socialist. Oh how right wing our politics are in comparison to the people. Man, there's always an excuse isn't there. Oh he's not a real liberal. Oh he's so conservative. Oh our politics are so right wing compared to the people (lolwut?). Oh if he was white those racists would just love him because he's actually conservative. Okay guys, keep telling yourselves that. Barack Obama is modern American liberalism, if it isn't socialist enough for you, then your problem is with American liberals and Americans in general for not being socialist enough. It's rather cheap and self-serving to pull out that kind of crap, though. God knows conservatives have been whining that George W. Bush was actually a liberal and not a real conservative for years, how well has that worked?
I don't get it. You haven't written down anything that says Obama is a liberal. You're only saying things sarcastically without actually having the sarcasm on your side 
We don't get to say oh well this guy isn't really one of us so our beliefs shouldn't take a hit because of his incompetence.
Actually we do, since he isn't a liberal. Should you be 'taking a hit' for Mussolini? No, because he isn't your ideology.
On August 14 2013 04:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 03:51 DoubleReed wrote:
Nah, it's not quite like that. It's more about railing against money in politics and corporate bribery. That veers our politics economically to the right, because the government's interests becomes more about money and fundraising than what the people want.
A good example of right wing stuff is the War on Drugs which is pretty unpopular, but it is so entrenched by moneyed interests that only now is there any political motivation to do anything about it. But you can see this in multiple places, where the people are considerably more liberal than the representatives. Representatives have to appeal to people with money.
Do you really consider this kind of view extreme or crazy? Its a corruption problem, that's all. My understanding is that the war on drugs has only become unpopular very recently. Besides, there's more money in legalization than prohibition so I don't really buy the money argument here.
You would buy the money argument if you just specified 'who' is getting money by maintaining the status quo of prohibition and who stands to lose said money and power by changing things.
|
On August 14 2013 04:29 Gorsameth wrote:
The war on drugs is much bigger then just the question of legalizing Marijuana. Just look at how many are in jail for long times for minor drug offenses to see the problem.
The biggest problem with US politics for a long time now has been the legal bribery where cooperation's can spend millions to buy politicians to serve there interests.
Politics moves slow. Rolling back the war on drugs has been ongoing for a while now and it'll take a long while longer before it's done.
I don't know what "legal bribery" you are referring to.
Edit:On August 14 2013 04:42 Roe wrote:
You would buy the money argument if you just specified 'who' is getting money by maintaining the status quo of prohibition and who stands to lose said money and power by changing things.
You could make that claim about everything.
Hell, an NPR story on drug arbitrage pointed out that a lot of drug dealers make more money because of the prohibition. So what money should I be following where?
|
I don't know what "legal bribery" you are referring to.
Lobbying? Especially when things like Citizens United is in the picture.
Think about how often politicians are accused of taking bribes. Well it's never, because if they're smart, they'll do it legally.
|
I don't get it. You haven't written down anything that says Obama is a liberal. You're only saying things sarcastically without actually having the sarcasm on your side
Barack Obama supports liberal positions on:
Abortion
Healthcare
Government spending
Guns
Taxes
Affirmative Action
Government regulation
The environment
The education system
And I'm sure there are more.
That he doesn't go far enough for the farther-left denizens of TL does not mean that he is not a liberal.
I mean really, Barack Obama isn't a liberal? Sure. And George W. Bush is a raging communist revolutionary.
Actually we do, since he isn't a liberal. Should you be 'taking a hit' for Mussolini? No, because he isn't your ideology.
Ahahahahahahahaha.
Barack Obama isn't a liberal because drone strikes and he's not sufficiently anti-capitalist. Well if that's the definition of not being liberal then most liberals in America aren't actually liberals. The defenders of true Scotsmen are out in force today.
Lobbying? Especially when things like Citizens United is in the picture.
Free speech sure does get a bad rap from liberals today.
|
On August 14 2013 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Edit: Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 04:42 Roe wrote:
You would buy the money argument if you just specified 'who' is getting money by maintaining the status quo of prohibition and who stands to lose said money and power by changing things. You could make that claim about everything. Hell, an NPR story on drug arbitrage pointed out that a lot of drug dealers make more money because of the prohibition. So what money should I be following where?
The Corrections Corporation of America is not a free market enterprise; you should be following the money from the public's coffers into the pockets of the prison-industrial complex.
|
On August 14 2013 05:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +I don't get it. You haven't written down anything that says Obama is a liberal. You're only saying things sarcastically without actually having the sarcasm on your side Barack Obama supports liberal positions on: Abortion Healthcare Government spending Guns Taxes Affirmative Action Government regulation The environment The education system And I'm sure there are more. That he doesn't go far enough for the farther-left denizens of TL does not mean that he is not a liberal. I mean really, Barack Obama isn't a liberal? Sure. And George W. Bush is a raging communist revolutionary. Show nested quote +Actually we do, since he isn't a liberal. Should you be 'taking a hit' for Mussolini? No, because he isn't your ideology. Ahahahahahahahaha. Barack Obama isn't a liberal because drone strikes and he's not sufficiently anti-capitalist. Well if that's the definition of not being liberal then most liberals in America aren't actually liberals. The defenders of true Scotsmen are out in force today. Free speech sure does get a bad rap from liberals today.
You're just listing issues instead of factual positions on said issues, and then straw manning.
Citizens United isn't free speech.
|
On August 14 2013 04:57 DoubleReed wrote:Lobbying? Especially when things like Citizens United is in the picture. Think about how often politicians are accused of taking bribes. Well it's never, because if they're smart, they'll do it legally.
Lobbying can be used as a back door sort of bribery, but I don't think you can categorize lobbying as bribery.
Here, two mayors in Florida were recently arrested for bribery.
|
On August 14 2013 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Edit: On August 14 2013 04:42 Roe wrote:
You would buy the money argument if you just specified 'who' is getting money by maintaining the status quo of prohibition and who stands to lose said money and power by changing things. You could make that claim about everything. Hell, an NPR story on drug arbitrage pointed out that a lot of drug dealers make more money because of the prohibition. So what money should I be following where? The Corrections Corporation of America is not a free market enterprise; you should be following the money from the public's coffers into the pockets of the prison-industrial complex.
I don't know anything about them. What makes them not a free market enterprise?
Also, they have ~$1.7B in revenue. That's amazingly small potatoes. The whole industry seems pretty small too.
|
Free speech sure does get a bad rap from liberals today.
I love free speech, but fuck corporate personhood. Dude, if you learned the kind of legal bullshit that companies try to get away with using 1st amendment rights, you wouldn't say that. Verizon argued it had the right to look at everything you do while on their network because of the first amendment. Corporate Personhood makes free speech look like a joke.
Verizon challenges net neutrality with first amendment claims
|
On August 14 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 04:57 DoubleReed wrote:I don't know what "legal bribery" you are referring to. Lobbying? Especially when things like Citizens United is in the picture. Think about how often politicians are accused of taking bribes. Well it's never, because if they're smart, they'll do it legally. Lobbying can be used as a back door sort of bribery, but I don't think you can categorize lobbying as bribery. Here, two mayors in Florida were recently arrested for bribery.
How many politicians have there campaigns financed for with large sums of money from cooperation's? You think that is all being done as a charity?
Lobbying pretty much the same thing. quick google gives 3.3 billion spend in 2012. Source. That money didnt get spend for nothing. Its all there to influence decisions.
The amount of money spend by cooperation's in politics is enormous. Is it bribery per se? No but it gives a tremendous influence in policies where it should be kept to a minimum so that the government can regulate as it is supposed to.
|
On August 14 2013 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:I love free speech, but fuck corporate personhood. Dude, if you learned the kind of legal bullshit that companies try to get away with using 1st amendment rights, you wouldn't say that. Verizon argued it had the right to look at everything you do while on their network because of the first amendment. Corporate Personhood makes free speech look like a joke. Verizon challenges net neutrality with first amendment claims
How would that work? People have free speech but groups of people don't?
As for the Verizon case, Verizon wants to treat different customers differently, not spy on you.
On August 14 2013 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 04:57 DoubleReed wrote:I don't know what "legal bribery" you are referring to. Lobbying? Especially when things like Citizens United is in the picture. Think about how often politicians are accused of taking bribes. Well it's never, because if they're smart, they'll do it legally. Lobbying can be used as a back door sort of bribery, but I don't think you can categorize lobbying as bribery. Here, two mayors in Florida were recently arrested for bribery. How many politicians have there campaigns financed for with large sums of money from cooperation's? You think that is all being done as a charity? Lobbying pretty much the same thing. quick google gives 3.3 billion spend in 2012. Source. That money didnt get spend for nothing. Its all there to influence decisions. The amount of money spend by cooperation's in politics is enormous. Is it bribery per se? No but it gives a tremendous influence in policies where it should be kept to a minimum so that the government can regulate as it is supposed to.
It can be a problem, sure. But government needs information from the outside (i.e. be influenced) in order to govern effectively too.
|
On August 14 2013 05:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:On August 14 2013 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Edit: On August 14 2013 04:42 Roe wrote:
You would buy the money argument if you just specified 'who' is getting money by maintaining the status quo of prohibition and who stands to lose said money and power by changing things. You could make that claim about everything. Hell, an NPR story on drug arbitrage pointed out that a lot of drug dealers make more money because of the prohibition. So what money should I be following where? The Corrections Corporation of America is not a free market enterprise; you should be following the money from the public's coffers into the pockets of the prison-industrial complex. I don't know anything about them. What makes them not a free market enterprise? Also, they have ~$1.7B in revenue. That's amazingly small potatoes. The whole industry seems pretty small too.
Thats because they work realy cheap and keep prisoners in terrible conditions
Like this texas prison i saw about in a documentary,and wich is basicly a tent camp.
They feed the prisoners realy old green meat and such and they live in tents. The sherif was verry proud that he had the lowest cost/inmate of every prison in the usa. I think it was a free market enterprise wich ran it.
The whole industry is pretty big though , 2m prisoners wich cost at least 50k/captiva/year on average is a 100b $ industry. Guantanamo and heavy security prisons probably costs alot more.
|
On August 14 2013 05:46 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 05:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:On August 14 2013 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Edit: On August 14 2013 04:42 Roe wrote:
You would buy the money argument if you just specified 'who' is getting money by maintaining the status quo of prohibition and who stands to lose said money and power by changing things. You could make that claim about everything. Hell, an NPR story on drug arbitrage pointed out that a lot of drug dealers make more money because of the prohibition. So what money should I be following where? The Corrections Corporation of America is not a free market enterprise; you should be following the money from the public's coffers into the pockets of the prison-industrial complex. I don't know anything about them. What makes them not a free market enterprise? Also, they have ~$1.7B in revenue. That's amazingly small potatoes. The whole industry seems pretty small too. Thats because they work realy cheap and keep prisoners in terrible conditions Like this texas prison i saw about in a documentary,and wich is basicly a tent camp. They feed the prisoners realy old green meat and such and they live in tents. The sherif was verry proud that he had the lowest cost/inmate of every prison in the usa. I think it was a free market enterprise wich ran it. The whole industry is pretty big though , 2m prisoners wich cost at least 50k/captiva/year on average is a 100b $ industry. Guantanamo and heavy security prisons probably costs alot more.
I think that's a public jail. California's public prisons are over-crowded too.
Edit: keep in mind the vast bulk of prisons are public.
|
On August 14 2013 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:Free speech sure does get a bad rap from liberals today. I love free speech, but fuck corporate personhood. Dude, if you learned the kind of legal bullshit that companies try to get away with using 1st amendment rights, you wouldn't say that. Verizon argued it had the right to look at everything you do while on their network because of the first amendment. Corporate Personhood makes free speech look like a joke. Verizon challenges net neutrality with first amendment claims How would that work? People have free speech but groups of people don't? As for the Verizon case, Verizon wants to treat different customers differently, not spy on you.
It works like this: corporations are not people. They do not have the rights enshrined in our constitution. They have whatever rights that we determine them to have as a society. Their rights are a matter of pragmatism rather a matter of constitutionality.
I am not frightened of corporations being sent to the gas chambers. This is not something that keeps me up at night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
