Concerns About Obama's Inspiring Speeches

[Illuminatus Primus]

Neoconservatism refers to the foriegn policy of Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, et al - the PNAC ilk; it is not the same as the modern Republican coalition and its electoral, political, or legislative tactics.

[CmdrWilkens]

I think the point of the speeches, and it does come across when you hear him move into the policy segments, is that he wants to reframe the debate. Right now the right wing has been very sucessful about making every issue one of "them" vs "us." The core message obama is preaching is that you don't have to have that kind of debate to move real legislation. Plitics doesn't have to be "winner takes all, loser gets stomped in the mud" which is what the Republicans have spent the last 14 years preaching. When he talks about bipartisanship I don't know if its achievable but if he can reframe how we debate then he's made it bipartisan just by virtue of stopping the bullshit Faux spews out. Again, not sure if its achievable but I am hopeful.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I do think its helpful that Obama is generally trying to appeal to the broadest possible base, and taking the positions that just about everyone can get behind. At this point in the election, I don't so much care who wins as I want the winner to win DECISIVELY, to sorta bring us back from where we were to where we want to be as a unified nation.

[Darth Wong]

I do think its helpful that Obama is generally trying to appeal to the broadest possible base, and taking the positions that just about everyone can get behind. At this point in the election, I don't so much care who wins as I want the winner to win DECISIVELY, to sorta bring us back from where we were to where we want to be as a unified nation.

Bill Clinton won decisively. The right-wing only hardened its line.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I do think its helpful that Obama is generally trying to appeal to the broadest possible base, and taking the positions that just about everyone can get behind. At this point in the election, I don't so much care who wins as I want the winner to win DECISIVELY, to sorta bring us back from where we were to where we want to be as a unified nation.

Bill Clinton won decisively. The right-wing only hardened its line.

I can still hope/dream for an America united by SOMEONE. I promise this, if there is a clear winner in november, I will rally behind them as long as they aren't batshit crazy. No matter the party.

[Knife]

I do think its helpful that Obama is generally trying to appeal to the broadest possible base, and taking the positions that just about everyone can get behind. At this point in the election, I don't so much care who wins as I want the winner to win DECISIVELY, to sorta bring us back from where we were to where we want to be as a unified nation.

Bill Clinton won decisively. The right-wing only hardened its line.

I don't know if that's a subjective thing or not though. A quick google and wiki says that the 92 election had Clinton winning with 43% as opposed to Bush Sr with 37%. A clear victory, but with 6% advantage, I'm not sure you could say decisive. Of course that's the popular vote and not the EC.

Even in 96, Clinton pulled in 49% as opposed to Dole's 40. Again a clear victory but still under half the nation voted for him so is it decisive? However, your point is still valid and I'm not disputing it rather than going off on another small tangent. Sorry.

As I read Chewies post, I tend to agree that I'd like a decisive victory this time around in that I'd like a 60% to 40% or some such victory over the social conservatives. That's the decisive victory I'd like to see, and one that I think would fracture the GOP apart and get rid of these damn bible thumping fuckers from some fiscal conservatives I'd like to see run.

[SirNitram]

I do think its helpful that Obama is generally trying to appeal to the broadest possible base, and taking the positions that just about everyone can get behind. At this point in the election, I don't so much care who wins as I want the winner to win DECISIVELY, to sorta bring us back from where we were to where we want to be as a unified nation.

Bill Clinton won decisively. The right-wing only hardened its line.

I can still hope/dream for an America united by SOMEONE. I promise this, if there is a clear winner in november, I will rally behind them as long as they aren't batshit crazy. No matter the party.

You can indeed hope someone will try and unite the people, but until the wheels completely fall off the Republican machine, there's no uniting. Obama's reaching out, and in response, the machine churns up and spews forth vomitings claiming he was raised in a radical madrassa.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Come on, have a little faith in the Republican whine machine. They complain about being slighted NOW, think about what'll happen when they're ACTUALLY being oppressed.

Um, decide that once they get back in power, they have to ensure they never lose an election again, by any means necessary? Are you honestly trying to argue in this thread that the powers that be behind the Republican party, if subjected to a taste of their own medicine, would respond by humbly acknowledging a lesson learned and resolve to never do it again?

You realize that 95% of what the neocons have gotten away with, they've gotten away with only because of a complete lack of an opposing force. What is being suggested here is that the dems actually become that, and put a literal fear of god into the neocons. Right now they're spoiled bullies who continue because none of the 'opposing side' has the balls to stand up to them.

Once somebody steps up and slams them hard with what they've been dishing out for the past decade, they'll think twice before attempting such a trick again. Or are you seriously suggesting we humbly appease the rabid fundies now so that they don't get worse? That we shouldn't put the neocons in place because we're afraid they'll do something insanely illegal in retaliation that makes the political suicide Bush and Co. have committed seem like child's play in comparison?

Perhaps you have forgotten the usual rightwing response to leftist oppression. I believe this photograph explains it succintly:

Freikorps Berlin

Or this, if you prefer the Spanish Falange.

Suffice to say, are you deluded enough to think that American conservatives aren't exceptionally violent people who regard force as a normal and appropriate response to perceived social ills? More to the point, you do realize which way the Army votes, right? If you start charging large numbers of soldiers with war crimes in Iraq....

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Or to put it quite simply I don't think that the average American liberal quite understands how much during the Clinton era the American Right had turned into an armed camp filled with paranoid conspiracy theories and recommending that you turn your guns on the federal police if they come to confiscate them, while 90% of the Marines said they would refuse an order to disarm the American population.

The differences, psychologically, in mentality between leftists and rightists are extreme. Leftists, when they feel they are oppressed, stage sit-ins, chain themselves to gates, lay down in roads to block convoys, sometimes riot against big business, stage large protests and strikes, etc. Rightists, when they feel they are oppressed, modify their semi-automatic weapons for full auto fire, saw off their shotgun barrels, weld steel plate to vehicles to create improvised armoured cars, and paint skulls and crossbones on them.


If I may elaborate more, few people here probably have ever had very rightwing friends, but I have. The simple fact is that the average one of those conservatives who still support Bush (30% of the population or so) believe that everything Bush has done is perfectly constitutional, moral, and appropriate; that, in comparison, Clinton was an unquestioned tyrant who systematically demolished the constitution and engaged in egregious abuses of power, and who without the Republican Revolution of 1994 would have certainly turned America into a Stalinist dictatorship. 30% of the United States population believes that as absolute fact. Do you really want to start actually oppressing such people?

[SirNitram]

I think it's older than that, Duchess. The 'Left' which barely exists has been demonized alot longer than just the Clinton years. Dirty Hippies lost the war, remember that? The Clinton's simply provided a window for observant people to see the full rot: Where the most insane of conspiracy theories suddenly became acceptable, because a Leftist was involved.

The Authoritarian wing of the Right has simply been building up steam through the Neocons and Nationalists. And no where do we see this more blatantly than lately, where Guiliani might as well put on his armband, or Romney declares support for all of Bush's power grabs.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think it's older than that, Duchess. The 'Left' which barely exists has been demonized alot longer than just the Clinton years. Dirty Hippies lost the war, remember that? The Clinton's simply provided a window for observant people to see the full rot: Where the most insane of conspiracy theories suddenly became acceptable, because a Leftist was involved.

The Authoritarian wing of the Right has simply been building up steam through the Neocons and Nationalists. And no where do we see this more blatantly than lately, where Guiliani might as well put on his armband, or Romney declares support for all of Bush's power grabs.

How many conservative friends did you have during the 1990s? It might have existed before then but the tenor of things turned sharply conspiratorial.

And remember that my own politics remain arch-conservative, or more precisely have gotten progressively moreso over the past year. It's not like I make a secret of that; it's just that I in the same time ended up staunchly anti-capitalist and I have come to find the modern conservative obsession with free-market "ideals" to be so horribly grotesque--and those ideals themselves equally grotesque--as to not want them in power whatsoever. The same with the populist interjection of religion into politics, which was only begun by William Jennings Bryant, a democrat, in the 1890s, and has about as much relation to traditionalism as good physical health has to snorting lines of cocaine.

[SirNitram]

How many conservative friends did you have during the 1990s? It might have existed before then but the tenor of things turned sharply conspiratorial.

I remember this change noticably, but since then I've seen the same sort of pattern emerging with racism since New Orleans was lost. So I'm suspecting that, just like racism, it simply became less acceptable to be so publically.

And remember that my own politics remain arch-conservative, or more precisely have gotten progressively moreso over the past year. It's not like I make a secret of that; it's just that I in the same time ended up staunchly anti-capitalist and I have come to find the modern conservative obsession with free-market "ideals" to be so horribly grotesque--and those ideals themselves equally grotesque--as to not want them in power whatsoever. The same with the populist interjection of religion into politics, which was only begun by William Jennings Bryant, a democrat, in the 1890s, and has about as much relation to traditionalism as good physical health has to snorting lines of cocaine.

You've been sitting centre stage to watch exactly what happens when the arch-conservative agenda gets everything it wants. No regulation of banks! Credit crisis people try to paper over by claiming it's 'Just Subprime'. Foreign Policy via Schoolyard Bully mentality. A war everyone's bogged into because, whoops, knocking over dictators -doesn't- wave a magic democracy wand. And the bill starting to come due on 'Free Market' as interperated by the big pharmacutical and insurance companies.

In light of this, it should wake most anyone up.

[Yogi]

If I may elaborate more, few people here probably have ever had very rightwing friends, but I have. The simple fact is that the average one of those conservatives who still support Bush (30% of the population or so) believe that everything Bush has done is perfectly constitutional, moral, and appropriate; that, in comparison, Clinton was an unquestioned tyrant who systematically demolished the constitution and engaged in egregious abuses of power, and who without the Republican Revolution of 1994 would have certainly turned America into a Stalinist dictatorship. 30% of the United States population believes that as absolute fact. Do you really want to start actually oppressing such people?

I cannot think of a group of people that needs to be oppressed more. Actually, I CAN think of people who need to be oppressed more, but these people also need to be taken down a peg or three. You can't reason with them, you can't ignore them, you can't compramise with them, you can't appease them without turning America into a right-wing dictatorship, which limits the options to deal with them. They're actually like Muslim extremists, except that it's easier to kill them when they get violent, since we don't have to invade another country.

[CmdrWilkens]

I cannot think of a group of people that needs to be oppressed more. Actually, I CAN think of people who need to be oppressed more, but these people also need to be taken down a peg or three. You can't reason with them, you can't ignore them, you can't compramise with them, you can't appease them without turning America into a right-wing dictatorship, which limits the options to deal with them. They're actually like Muslim extremists, except that it's easier to kill them when they get violent, since we don't have to invade another country.

WOW! So we should actively begin to subjugate our own citizens simply because they are entrenched extremists? Do you even want to guess the potential bloodbath that could result in? That's, moreover, aside from the fact that the kind of opressions needed would be completely against everything that a progressive candidate stands for?

Personally I'm all for installing asteady progressive Presidnet who would invite these crazies to start mouthing off because once they actually do something THEN they become a threat to the american populace and in the post 9/11 America being labelled a terrorist is a sure way to ground them into the dust. What it requires is not opression but rather steady progressive movement which makes them go apeshit first. So long as they are the reactionaries then you can move to eliminate funding and round up the worst elements WITH the support of the mainstream of society.

[Yogi]

WOW! So we should actively begin to subjugate our own citizens simply because they are entrenched extremists? Do you even want to guess the potential bloodbath that could result in? That's, moreover, aside from the fact that the kind of opressions needed would be completely against everything that a progressive candidate stands for?

Personally I'm all for installing asteady progressive Presidnet who would invite these crazies to start mouthing off because once they actually do something THEN they become a threat to the american populace and in the post 9/11 America being labelled a terrorist is a sure way to ground them into the dust. What it requires is not opression but rather steady progressive movement which makes them go apeshit first. So long as they are the reactionaries then you can move to eliminate funding and round up the worst elements WITH the support of the mainstream of society.

There's really no need to start shooting them until they've actually done something that deserves a bullet. Just shove bill after bill down their throats and foward their complaints to the I Don't Give A Fuck Department. There are plenty of perfectly legal and Constitutional ways to make their lives as miserable as possible.

[CaptainChewbacca]

here's really no need to start shooting them until they've actually done something that deserves a bullet. Just shove bill after bill down their throats and foward their complaints to the I Don't Give A Fuck Department. There are plenty of perfectly legal and Constitutional ways to make their lives as miserable as possible.

That's exactly what needs to NOT happen after the election. Your way the country is going to get into alternative cycles of 'fuck the other guy over' until it explodes into a civil war. That's why I'm so encouraged by Obama's calls of bipartisanship.

I actually like him better than some of the Republicans.

[Yogi]

That's exactly what needs to NOT happen after the election. Your way the country is going to get into alternative cycles of 'fuck the other guy over' until it explodes into a civil war.

Possibly.

The alternative is having the Democrats play nice while the Republicains go 'fuck the other guy' until the Republicians run the country. Again, a bitter and devicive two party system is better than the one party system of the past decade.

That's why I'm so encouraged by Obama's calls of bipartisanship.

I actually like him better than some of the Republicans.

"Bipartisanship" is Democrat for "bend over and take it." The entire attitude of "Oh, we can't actually implement our own policies because that might make the other side mean" is what has lead to the Democrats bending over for Bush again and again.

The Republicians have killed our citizens in pointless wars, killed many more Iraqis, bartered our future, gutted our rights, subverted the electoral process, shredded seperation of powers, and tried their best to make America a Christian nation. They can go fuck themselves.

[CmdrWilkens]

That's exactly what needs to NOT happen after the election. Your way the country is going to get into alternative cycles of 'fuck the other guy over' until it explodes into a civil war.

Possibly.

The alternative is having the Democrats play nice while the Republicains go 'fuck the other guy' until the Republicians run the country. Again, a bitter and devicive two party system is better than the one party system of the past decade.

Again I say wow because of course escalating reprisals are the best way to govern. Sooner or later SOMEBODY has to be willing to ste above the fray and mediate between the extremes. Otherwise we become Northern Ireland, fighting oursleves for centuries over a groinw litanny of percieved faults by predecesssors until finally we spill enough blood that everyone is ready to sit down and talk. Frankly I would much rather try talking NOW before the bloodshed. Go back and read some Lincoln if you want to understand how you win a devisive partisan struggle because it most certainly isn't playing a constant bloody game of King of the Hill.

[RedImperator]

Alright then. Rolling over for the neocons simply gives them more incentive to continue their bullshit. Conceded, fighting fire with fire will also make things drastically worse. Out of curiosity, then, is there any solution better than possibly decades of undoing the constitutional clusterfuck the administration's got us in and slowly forcing the general public out of what is essentially all but a far right mindset? Let alone even beginning to try and fix things overseas?

Who the hell is suggesting anybody "roll over"? Are we now defining "roll over" as anything short of pulling the same horseshit the Wonder Chimp and his pals inflicted on the American people? Are you and Yogi (I'll get to you in a minute, chucklehead) incapable of understanding the difference between strong, principled opposition and abuse of power, or are you just so caught up in revenge fantasies you've temporarily misplaced your brain (assuming you had one in the first place)?

Here's an alternative idea for you: wipe out Bush's constitutional legacy with however many executive orders it takes to reverse all his usurpations, launch investigations with the aim of punishing whoever broke the law, and work on getting the fuck out of Iraq as soon as possible. Meanwhile, use your personal charisma (assuming this is President Obama) on the bully pulpit and go out of your way to build a good working relationship with Congress (not treating them like a rubber stamp would be a good start), and get enough of your domestic agenda passed to get re-elected. You know, be a good President.

The only thing that's going to knock the shitheads out of power permanently is losing elections. For God damn sure "giving them a taste of their own medicine" isn't going to teach them any lesson besides "next time we're in power, take a page out of the Pinochet playbook to make sure we stay in power". Assuming they don't play Pinochet in order to get into power in the first place.

And how would it be different than what they are doing now? Just to get an idea of what you're thinking, what would be something that they would try and get away with as a minority party that they haven't already tried now? It might get the common citizen to realize that his civil liberties actually mean something when taken away, but even if the common citizen is as oblivious as ever, how would it make the Republican party even nastier?

I'm not surprised you're advocating playing the same game as DeLay, Cheney, and Rove, since you're evidently as stupid as they are in assuming you'll be in the majority forever.

On a flip side, how could it make the Democrats worse. They've been rolling over for Republicans for quite some time now. Appeasement doesn't work. Trying to cooperate doesn't work. I would much rather have a nasty partisan two party system than the one party system of the past decade.

I suppose if you're in favor of abusing civil liberties, punishing taxpaying citizens for voting the wrong way, and wiping your ass with the Constitution, you really don't see how it would make them worse. Since I'm neither insane nor stupid, I'm voting against the Republicans for those exact reasons, and I'm hoping against hope there are enough people out there that share my opinion to pull the country back from the brink.

And while we're on the subject, since unlike the GOP, the Democrats are never disciplined enough to set aside all their convictions to vote the party line, such an attempt would make the party worse by touching off massive infighting, so your little blue-state Franco trick would blow up in your face twice--once when enough Democrats refuse to go along with you that you can't get the Congressional approval you need to do anything, and again when the Republicans get back into power with revenge on their minds.

Since the rest of your idiocy is just more of the same bullshit, I'm not going to waste my time responding to it.

POST SCRIPT: If anyone noticed that this post is eerily similar to a now-deleted post by Discombobulated, that's because she was logged in on my computer and I didn't notice when I posted.

[SirNitram]

I'm not advocating Oni's brain-damaged plan, but it is rather incomprehensible that people think 'being a good President' will prevent a progressive from being demonized constantly and the nation getting more divisive. The forces aligned for the status quo have a ridiculous amount of cash and influence at stake, why would they not go down without trying to cause ridiculous levels of damage?

The idea that even a perfect Presidency.. Economic renewal, a surge in 'Soft power' in foreign policy, so on, so forth.. Would clean up any of this is quite frankly mad. White Christians today complain of being persecuted and downtrodden when they have all the power they could ask for short of theocracy. Even the slightest progressive step will send shrieks and howls of rage from them.

In short, the best situation is going to be establishments with huge amounts of money and influence on their sides blowing the leg off at the knee for progressive reform. That's best case. Worst case is it just encourages the already xenophobic, authoritarian crowd and we see what far-right nationalistic dictatorship America will spit out.

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, I think that whoever gets elected will have to deal with the massive fallout from the Bush presidency's brain-damaged policies such as the Iraq War and his anti-Robin Hood economic policies, and no matter what he does, he will end up getting blamed for the results. The conservatives will then sweep back into power in 8 years, riding a wave of anger that they've spent the entire 8 years building up with their constant attacks and divisive strategies and lies about who actually caused these problems in the first place.

[SirNitram]

Frankly, I think that whoever gets elected will have to deal with the massive fallout from the Bush presidency's brain-damaged policies such as the Iraq War and his anti-Robin Hood economic policies, and no matter what he does, he will end up getting blamed for the results. The conservatives will then sweep back into power in 8 years, riding a wave of anger that they've spent the entire 8 years building up with their constant attacks and divisive strategies and lies about who actually caused these problems in the first place.

They built an idealogy that works on the premise of broken government, and run broken governments. As a result, no matter who loses, they win.

[Darth Wong]

Somehow, people have to shift the culture. It's become fashionable to make fun of liberals because they blame Big Business for everything. South Park does this on a regular basis. But nobody ever makes fun of conservatives because they blame Big Government for everything.

[Rogue 9]

I cannot think of a group of people that needs to be oppressed more. Actually, I CAN think of people who need to be oppressed more, but these people also need to be taken down a peg or three. You can't reason with them, you can't ignore them, you can't compramise with them, you can't appease them without turning America into a right-wing dictatorship, which limits the options to deal with them. They're actually like Muslim extremists, except that it's easier to kill them when they get violent, since we don't have to invade another country.

So you'd make America into a left-wing dictatorship instead? Two problems. First, you need to remember that should it come down to it, the people you're talking about oppressing are far, far better armed than those likely to side with you.

Secondly, fuck you. Frankly, if your brain-damaged scheme happened I'd not be terribly upset when the inevitable revolution started. Open oppression like you advocate is not acceptable. Would it be a nightmare scenario afterwards? Hell yes, but it would just be out of one nightmare and into another, whether the revolution was armed or through a lost election.

[CaptainChewbacca]

So you'd make America into a left-wing dictatorship instead? Two problems. First, you need to remember that should it come down to it, the people you're talking about oppressing are far, far better armed than those likely to side with you.

Secondly, fuck you. Frankly, if your brain-damaged scheme happened I'd not be terribly upset when the inevitable revolution started. Open oppression like you advocate is not acceptable. Would it be a nightmare scenario afterwards? Hell yes, but it would just be out of one nightmare and into another, whether the revolution was armed or through a lost election.

I believe Rogue's reaction is EXACTLY why the kind of presidency Yogi is advocating cannot happen. We need a Lincoln, minus the gunshot to the head, to heal our country.