WH wins fight to keep drone killings of Americans secret

[Dr. Trainwreck]

That's the lesson the Weimar Republic learned when the left was split between communists and socialists.

These parties were always separate, and besides the socialists were in the government for the entirety of the twenties even with the communists having over 10% of the vote. The split of the left wasn't as important as the Depression.

[Aaron MkII]

That only works as long as people buy into it. American's have been sold the two party system they have now an the powers that be work hard to make sure you don't deviate from it. A third party candidate is doable but first you need to ditch the belief. And excuse, lets not ignore that it provides a handy reason to absolve the populace of responsibility.

The right-wingers almost always vote in unison. Splitting the left vote just means more and worse right-wingers in office. That's the lesson the Weimar Republic learned when the left was split between communists and socialists.

I'm afraid I must disagree. Plenty of nations, mine included have multiple parties for each wing and continue to function fine. If anything it actually forces our parties to work together in the case of minority governments. Obviously America functions differently to the Westminster system but the only roadblock I see is the entrenched attitudes of all concerned.

[Losonti Tokash]

Aaron, our elections don't work the same way they do in Canada. It's not a great comparison.

[Metahive]

So where's your effort? Where's you participating in grass-roots movement to get the american system changed? Where's your political activism? You know, just not voting or throwing your vote away on election day doesn't cut it, you have to become involved. Show that you earned that sneer at the general electorate. Show that you're serious about getting no children killed and not just a pseudo-principled intellectually-lazy ass.

I'm not part of the fucking problem, that's always a good start. And before the last election I was making an effort to inform your countrymen of just what kind of government they were voting for, and how actively harmful to the purported goal of making America safer tactics like torture and CIA dronestrikes are.

So I guessed right, all you want to do is to indulge in moral grandstanding while doing fuck-all to actually alleviate the wrongs you're complaining about. Guess what, to make sweeping changes happen requires that people leave their fuckin' comfort zone, like joining OWS and getting yourself a face-full of mace. Just sneering at people and applauding yourself for your grand principled righteousness doesn't do the trick.

And yes, this hypocritical, pseudo world-weary cynical attitude does make you part of the problem.

These parties were always separate, and besides the socialists were in the government for the entirety of the twenties even with the communists having over 10% of the vote. The split of the left wasn't as important as the Depression.

It was very important since it meant there was no unified left front against the growing Nazi party. Stalin's stupid orders to treat socialists as enemies did aggravate matters considerably since that meant that the SPD had to fight a completely unnecessary two-front war which in the end cost both of them votes.

Do you really think all those affected by the Depression only ever flocked towards the Nazis?

I'm afraid I must disagree. Plenty of nations, mine included have multiple parties for each wing and continue to function fine. If anything it actually forces our parties to work together in the case of minority governments. Obviously America functions differently to the Westminster system but the only roadblock I see is the entrenched attitudes of all concerned.

I think that's not at all the only roadblock. I mean, hell, Citizens United more or less made it legal to bribe politicians. There's something fundamentally rotten within the american electoral system.

---------------------------------

I have a general question the people here. How would you envision America to shift positively politically? How would you ensure that more progressively oriented third parties do become viable for example? I think that's a more interesting question than sneering at the electorate.

[Aaron MkII]

I think that's not at all the only roadblock. I mean, hell, Citizens United more or less made it legal to bribe politicians. There's something fundamentally rotten within the american electoral system.

I have a general question the people here. How would you envision America to shift positively politically? How would you ensure that more progressively oriented third parties do become viable for example? I think that's a more interesting question than sneering at the electorate.

Agreed. Honestly, I have no idea.

Yeah Brandon, I know.

[Grumman]

And yes, this hypocritical, pseudo world-weary cynical attitude does make you part of the problem.

Cynical? I'm not the guy who would vote for a mass murderer out of the belief that the only other alternative is an even worse mass murderer.

Seriously, do you not see the problem with accusing me of both being too cynical and too idealistic?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

It was very important since it meant there was no unified left front against the growing Nazi party. Stalin's stupid orders to treat socialists as enemies did aggravate matters considerably since that meant that the SPD had to fight a completely unnecessary two-front war which in the end cost both of them votes.

Do you really think all those affected by the Depression only ever flocked towards the Nazis?

In the 1930 elections the socialists won by 24.5%, the Nazis were second with 18% and the communists were third by 14%. In the July '32 elections the socialists were at 21.5%, the Nazis first with 37% and the communists third with 14% again. So, even combined the left couldn't outvote the Nazis in 1932, and divided the left had no problem getting ahead of them.

You know, the whole "divided we fall" spiel doesn't apply here. It was the Depression that fucked it up. Such people as the Nazis wouldn't have had the chance to arise without the Depression; much like they wouldn't have risen in Greece in 2007, I admit.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I didn't vote for Obama; I am going to say this right off the bat.

But seriously, what is it with the fervent belief by some on this board that every American poster represents like 20,000 voters and everything that ever happens in our political system? Telling a handful of a dozen internet posters, "DERP YOU SHOULDA VOTED FOR A THEEEERD PARTY!" is almost mind-bogglingly idiotic. Yes, it would be great if the American electoral system had viable third parties, and it would be nice to see a strong movement towards making that a reality. But guess what? None of us have the power to change that, and as the voter turnout numbers for this past election clearly show, each one of us would have had to change the minds of thousands of voters in order to make any of the 3rd party candidates even remotely plausible.

So, yes, in this past election, a bunch of internet posters decided to vote in the most reasonable way they could under the circumstances, with no viable 3rd party. I didn't happen to vote that way, because I don't personally go for the lesser of two evils thing, but that's a personal choice. I also didn't vote for a 3rd party, because there weren't any strong 3rd party candidates. Saying this mindset is what holds 3rd parties back in the U.S. is a complete red herring, because even if every single person in this thread had voted for a 3rd party it would have made exactly zero difference in the outcome of THIS election. If you want to talk more abstractly about the ethics of voting, feel free, but that is blatantly not what this thread is about, or the point people are trying to make.

But apparently I represent the viewpoints of 200,000 people and can retroactively swing elections. Oh, and I am somehow personally morally responsible for all of the actions of my government, because I didn't start a revolution or go back in time to begin a decades long movement towards the viability of a third party to change the situation. It doesn't matter how I voted, what the context of the situation was, or how the political system in this country operates, all that matters is that it's MY fault that Obama is evil incarnate.

(And, of course, I guarantee the first response to this post will be some smug moron, saying "Oh, waaah, boo-hoo, an American is complaining!" and completely ignore the entire point. As usual.)

[Lord Zentei]

How about you prove that Repubs and Dems are all the same?

I did. Obama needed only to do nothing, and then to propose a middle class tax cut to get more than what he got in this fiscal cliff deal. We have had threads before now where the neocons have fallen over themselves praising his foreign policies. If you still don't get it, then you're an idiot.

Also, that's not a self-fulfilling prophecy, that's the reality of a first past the post electoral system. In such a system, the chances of a viable third party are slim to nil. The best one can hope for is that one of the two big parties split.

Except parties have been overturned in the past. So, yes, it is self fulfilling.

[TheHammer]

Again, topics that are much ado about nothing and have already been beaten to death individually arise once more.

First and foremost, the killing of Awlaki and its justification has been debated to death. There is enough publicly known information about this guy to justify it, from his own words to the words of third parties outside the U.S. government. An FOIA denial in this case is hardly the giant crushing blow to freedom everyone wants to make it out to be.

Second, the ruling against the NDAA - The intial stay was overly broad, as was discussed when it was brought up on this forum when the Government first planned to appeal it. The justification the government had for appealing it was legally sound. Dig up the thread if you need a refresher, I posted the actual argument that was filed. Just because a Judge read that appeal and thought, like I did, that it made sense doesn't make him "spineless". Oh and one more thing, the NDAA CAN NOT AND NEVER COULD TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION. This was already clear to anyone with even a basic understanding of U.S. law. Its even explicitly stated within that bill that, and I'm paraphrasing, that "Nothing in this act shall be construed as changing existing U.S. law. Guess what? That includes the constitution, the highest law in the land. Thus American citizens will not be detained indefinitely, and any attempt to do so most certainly will be struck down.

Finally, As far as the political process, we don't have a true "two party" system. We have a two coalition system. Any legitimate candidate realizes he or she will need to find their niche within one of those two coalitions. Those outside either coalition are too extreme to the left or right to EVER get elected. That's simply a fact. That being said, during the democractic primaries there are plenty of candidates on a range of platforms. The problem is they often don't make it out of the primaries. But If you want to change things, that's where you need to make your push. By the time the actual presidential election rolls around you are stuck with the lesser of whatever two evils have made it that far. Voting third party is throwing away your vote. You're better off staying home. You might only be half as guilty as someone voting for the greater of two evils, but you certainly aren't blamless because you voted third party or didn't vote at all.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I didn't vote for Obama; I am going to say this right off the bat.

But seriously, what is it with the fervent belief by some on this board that every American poster represents like 20,000 voters and everything that ever happens in our political system? Telling a handful of a dozen internet posters, "DERP YOU SHOULDA VOTED FOR A THEEEERD PARTY!" is almost mind-bogglingly idiotic. Yes, it would be great if the American electoral system had viable third parties, and it would be nice to see a strong movement towards making that a reality. But guess what? None of us have the power to change that, and as the voter turnout numbers for this past election clearly show, each one of us would have had to change the minds of thousands of voters in order to make any of the 3rd party candidates even remotely plausible.

So, yes, in this past election, a bunch of internet posters decided to vote in the most reasonable way they could under the circumstances, with no viable 3rd party. I didn't happen to vote that way, because I don't personally go for the lesser of two evils thing, but that's a personal choice. I also didn't vote for a 3rd party, because there weren't any strong 3rd party candidates. Saying this mindset is what holds 3rd parties back in the U.S. is a complete red herring, because even if every single person in this thread had voted for a 3rd party it would have made exactly zero difference in the outcome of THIS election. If you want to talk more abstractly about the ethics of voting, feel free, but that is blatantly not what this thread is about, or the point people are trying to make.

But apparently I represent the viewpoints of 200,000 people and can retroactively swing elections. Oh, and I am somehow personally morally responsible for all of the actions of my government, because I didn't start a revolution or go back in time to begin a decades long movement towards the viability of a third party to change the situation. It doesn't matter how I voted, what the context of the situation was, or how the political system in this country operates, all that matters is that it's MY fault that Obama is evil incarnate.

(And, of course, I guarantee the first response to this post will be some smug moron, saying "Oh, waaah, boo-hoo, an American is complaining!" and completely ignore the entire point. As usual.)

Why does a person need the ability to single-handedly decide a collective decision for it to matter? Sure, if you just change 20 votes that's not going to change anything, but no one has the ability to change 20 million votes so who really cares, and if enough people manage to change 20 votes then that makes a difference of its own kind. If everyone doesn't do it because they 20 they can change aren't enough then that latter outcome is impossible, too.

[Lolpah]

I'm still waiting for someone to prove that the Democrats are the lesser of evils, and not pretty much the flip side of the same coin .

Well, the support of gay marriage and secularism, for starters.

[Lord Zentei]

I didn't vote for Obama; I am going to say this right off the bat.

But seriously, what is it with the fervent belief by some on this board that every American poster represents like 20,000 voters and everything that ever happens in our political system? Telling a handful of a dozen internet posters, "DERP YOU SHOULDA VOTED FOR A THEEEERD PARTY!" is almost mind-bogglingly idiotic. Yes, it would be great if the American electoral system had viable third parties, and it would be nice to see a strong movement towards making that a reality. But guess what? None of us have the power to change that, and as the voter turnout numbers for this past election clearly show, each one of us would have had to change the minds of thousands of voters in order to make any of the 3rd party candidates even remotely plausible.

So, yes, in this past election, a bunch of internet posters decided to vote in the most reasonable way they could under the circumstances, with no viable 3rd party. I didn't happen to vote that way, because I don't personally go for the lesser of two evils thing, but that's a personal choice. I also didn't vote for a 3rd party, because there weren't any strong 3rd party candidates. Saying this mindset is what holds 3rd parties back in the U.S. is a complete red herring, because even if every single person in this thread had voted for a 3rd party it would have made exactly zero difference in the outcome of THIS election. If you want to talk more abstractly about the ethics of voting, feel free, but that is blatantly not what this thread is about, or the point people are trying to make.

But apparently I represent the viewpoints of 200,000 people and can retroactively swing elections. Oh, and I am somehow personally morally responsible for all of the actions of my government, because I didn't start a revolution or go back in time to begin a decades long movement towards the viability of a third party to change the situation. It doesn't matter how I voted, what the context of the situation was, or how the political system in this country operates, all that matters is that it's MY fault that Obama is evil incarnate.

(And, of course, I guarantee the first response to this post will be some smug moron, saying "Oh, waaah, boo-hoo, an American is complaining!" and completely ignore the entire point. As usual.)

Get the fuck over yourself. No one is claiming that anyone here represents 20000 voters or 200000 voters or whatever. Neither is anyone being personally held responsible for the outcome of the election. However, people can be held responsible for their personal vote during the election, and people can be told that they're culpable if they didn't at least attempt to do anything, especially while simultaneously complaining about what the government is doing. If America had a smarter voting system than first past the post, then a single vote wouldn't be able to swing anything either, given America's huge population, yet this is assumed to be some kind of a panacea for the evils of the system. "Ah, if we didn't have first past the post, I'd bother voting for something else than Fascist Lite... oh, well, given the system I might as well do it, it's not as if I make a difference anyway". And what kind of talk is it to say "there's no viable third party candidate, therefore I don't vote"? It's not as if anything better will result if you stay at home, is it?

[Lord Zentei]

I'm still waiting for someone to prove that the Democrats are the lesser of evils, and not pretty much the flip side of the same coin .

Well, the support of gay marriage and secularism, for starters.

As I recall, Obama was AGAINST gay marriage, until DOMA was taken to the courts, and national popular opinion started swinging in favor of gay marriage. It was an entirely cynical about-face on his part. But of course, Obama has charisma and therefore is seen as the good guy.

And I got your "secularism" right here:

Linka

Update | 3:20 p.m. President Obama signed an executive order on Thursday to create a new White House office for faith-based programs and neighborhood partnerships, building upon the initiatives started by the Bush administration to administer social services to people “no matter their religious or political beliefs.”

“No matter how much money we invest or how sensibly we design our policies, the change that Americans are looking for will not come from government alone,” Mr. Obama said. “There is a force for good greater than government.”

In announcing the expansion of the White House faith office, Mr. Obama did not address one of the biggest questions surrounding the outreach: Can religious groups that receive federal money for social service programs hire only those who share their faith?

Prayer Breakfast | 9:41 a.m. President Obama on Thursday announced the expansion of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, telling a gathering of religious and political leaders here that faith should not be “wielded as a tool to divide us from one another.”

“Instead of driving us apart, our varied beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted,” Mr. Obama said, “to make peace where there is strife and rebuild what has broken; to lift up those who have fallen on hard times.”

In an appearance before the National Prayer Breakfast, Mr. Obama called on believers of all faiths to set divisions aside “to lift up those who have fallen on hard times.” It is the first religious speech of his time in office, in which Mr. Obama echoed themes he spoke about frequently during his presidential campaign.

“No matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate,” Mr. Obama said, speaking to an audience of Republicans and Democrats and other leaders at the Washington Hilton hotel. “There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.”

The appearance by Mr. Obama came a few hours before he was set to sign an executive order in the Oval Office to create the newly-revamped faith-based office created in the Bush administration. The executive order will call for a legal review of the office, aides said, before the president decides whether religious groups receiving federal money for social services can hire only those who share their faith.

The Bush administration said yes. During his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama said no.

“If you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion,” Mr. Obama said last July in an Ohio speech.

“Federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs.”

Mr. Obama has signaled his intention to expand upon – and, in some cases, adjust – the faith-based practices from the Bush administration. The office will not only oversee the distribution of grants to religious and community groups, but will also look for other ways to involve those groups in working on pressing social problems.

Mr. Obama will name Joshua DuBois, a 26-year-old Pentecostal pastor and political strategist, to lead the new White House faith office. Mr. DuBois, who has worked for Mr. Obama since his time in the Senate, led the religious outreach during the presidential campaign.

“The goal of this office will not be to favor one religious group over another – or even religious groups over secular groups,” Mr. Obama told the audience at the National Prayer Breakfast. “It will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities, and to do so without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state.”

You know, there's a saying that goes: "if you gain the reputation of an early riser, you can sleep till noon". Obama has the reputation of a person of Change, a progressive, a secularist, etc.

[Simon_Jester]

I still don't get where this brainbug comes from, this "if you vote for a politician you're a hypocrite if you disapprove of any of the things the politician does."

Nobody ever told me voting works that way- I thought it was a statement of relative preference. "Of the choices on offer, I believe that the best option is to vote Candidate X" is not the same as "I admire Candidate X in all things always and forever!"

Apparently the same logic which is used for populations all over the world (aka Iranians who vote for Ahmadinejad "hate America and vote for him because they do not want the US to be a power player in the region", Russians who vote for Putin "hate freedom and love oligarchs", arabs who vote for the muslim brotherhood "want the scharia and hate women") can't be used for the precious american electorate.

If you want to be as much of a flaming idiot as the people who actually say that, fine.

But then I would have about as much respect for your intellect as I would for any of the redneck morons who think that way, and probably think Saddam Hussein told Osama bin Laden to attack on 9/11 because all Muslims hate FREEDOM.

It's pathetic when I see people criticizing me from the right on those grounds, it's equally pathetic when the criticism comes from the left.

Also, if you vote for a candidate you are responsible for what he does in office, unless it goes against his stated intentions. Obama is doing what he said he would do. Ergo, this exception does not apply here.

An election has a finite number of candidates. I can never find a candidate who supports ALL I support. Am I responsible for the president's failure to ram through a federal gay marriage law*, because while I support gay marriage strongly he does not? Am I responsible for the Democratic Congress's failure to raise tax rates to Kennedy levels, even though I would support such a move?

*If that's even remotely possible in the present climate...

Domestic politics. Romney, by all evidence, would have been willing to let the US government's domestic agencies and federal programs go to hell in a handbasket. Unless the Senate Democrats got really staggeringly obstructionist despite being in a vise, I suspect we'd be seeing Tea Party budgets within a year or two.

People can die of their heating oil subsidy coming to an end too. It may not be a civil liberties issue, but it's real, and I know it weighed on a lot of minds on this site this year.

You got that? Obama is an establishment candidate. The whole bullshit act about taxing the rich and supporting the entitlements for the middle class is just that: a bullshit act. He gave the corporations more welfare in his "fiscal cliff" deal, and is likely to put your welfare on the table in negotiations. And when Obamacare kicks in, then maybe, just maybe you'll FINALLY see what a colossal crock of shit that will be.

I agree that Obama is an establishment candidate full of bullshit.

Romney is... he's beyond being an establishment candidate, he and the party he caucuses with are this ridiculous parody of the establishment. They are really worse. Just ask them, they will tell you all the things they would do that are worse than what Obama does. They boast about being worse.

It comes from the fact there are lines you should be unwilling to cross. Nobody's saying you have to shun a politician because he eats peanut butter and bacon sandwiches, but Obama's attacks on the Sixth Amendment alone should make him unelectable.

Or to put it another way: what would it take for you to vote for Anders Breivik for President, if he was eligible? Because I would never vote for him. I would sooner vote for a goldfish to be made the President of the United States than for someone who is an active force for evil.

It'd be hard to imagine an election where the other guy Breivik was running against would be bad enough to justify voting for him. I might vote for Breivik if the alternative was rule by the militant arm of the Church of Euthenasia, but that's about it.

If Obama's opposite number didn't have a policy of "violate all the same civil rights as Obama, only harder," I'd agree with your position. But he did, so I don't.

Problem is the american electoral system is rigged. Short of a revolution there'll only ever be deciding between two evils. Might as well pick the lesser one and that's currently not the batshit-insane Tea Party infested Republicans.

You dodged the question: are there any depths to which you will not sink? If Obama had run on a platform of murdering children, would you be making the same mealy-mouthed excuses about how Romney was running on a platform of eating children, so you're compelled to vote for the lesser evil? Or would you find your balls and actually vote for someone who isn't shit?

Murdering children isn't significantly worse than eating children, so I'd stay the hell out of that race- but that's also dodging your question isn't it?

My view is this: I will stay out of any political race where I don't stand a realistic chance of making things less bad. I will not go and REFUSE to make things less bad out of some kind of idiotic excuse for pride.

I live in the world I live in. Why do you want me to pretend otherwise?

I would, however, say you're a hypocrite if you say that you trust the government, and support increasing it's power, and then complain that it's conducting assassinations with out giving the decency to even give a rational as to why it's legal to do so.

I do not favor increasing the power of the government's security arms. Quite the opposite.

[Lord Zentei]

I agree that Obama is an establishment candidate full of bullshit.

Romney is... he's beyond being an establishment candidate, he and the party he caucuses with are this ridiculous parody of the establishment. They are really worse. Just ask them, they will tell you all the things they would do that are worse than what Obama does. They boast about being worse.

There's this little game that police and lawyers do from time to time. It's called "good cop, bad cop". Of course, while the cops may appear as bitter rivals, in fact are after the same thing, and they're best of friends behind the scenes.

As was pointed out: Obama could have chosen to do nothing on the fiscal cliff deal and gotten more than he did. Instead, he chose to give the Republicans more handouts to corporations, and implied that Medicare might go on the table in the future. Obama demanded 1600 billion dollars in additional revenue to Boner's 800 billion. After much negotiating and wrangling, they came to the compromise of 600 billion. Obama has expanded the drone strikes beyond what Bush did, gone after whistle-blowers harder than Bush, maintained Gitmo, continued torture, the list goes on.

While I'm generally not a fan of Noam Chomski (for admittedly somewhat partisan reasons - I'm ostensibly a moderate right leaning libertarian who unaccountably has several liberal stances while he's hardcore left-libertarian) I do think that he's often got himself a point, like he does here:



"I started writing about it before the election". That would be the 2010 mid-terms. Quite the Cassandra, isn't he.

Recall what people thought about Bush when he was president. "The worst president in history!!1+1" and "I'm moving to Canada!1+1" and more along those lines. Now, when Obama's demonstrably worse than Bush? Then "oh, we have an FPP voting system so what can anyone do" and "ah, Romney would have been worse". Really? The "centrist" governor of Massachusetts, worse than the man who is worse than the man who was supposed to be the worst president ever? And keep in mind, the Democrats are in the Senate. Had Romney won, the narrative would have been that Harry Reid has to hold back the excesses of Romney, and aren't we lucky that the corporate shill Reid is in there to look out for the common man, and "damn you third party fools for spoiling Obama's chances of saving us all".

[K. A. Pital]

Zentei, you have drifted quite a bit to the left since I last remember. But that aside, Obama's only redeeming quality is the sheer level of butthurt which his victory caused to various religious nutjobs. That, and gay marriage (which also caused butthurt among the bigots).

[Lord Zentei]

Zentei, you have drifted quite a bit to the left since I last remember. But that aside, Obama's only redeeming quality is the sheer level of butthurt which his victory caused to various religious nutjobs. That, and gay marriage (which also caused butthurt among the bigots).

Now that's just slander.

I'm still a moderate right-libertarian and anti-corporatist. I am not a fan of tax-and-spend politics. But I'm consistent enough to apply that principle to corporations as well as regular people, therefore I don't like corporate handouts. Moreover, I do support basic welfare provided that it's done right, in spite of being suspicious of tax-and-spend in the general sense, so nuking social security and the like is not something I'd approve of. Hence I apply the "moderate" qualifier to my stance (in fact I think in an earlier debate we had, I described myself as a European-style right winger, or more accurately a Scandinavian-style right-winger). I have consistently opposed tax loopholes and other special interest shenanigans which distort market outcomes, and I don't like deficit spending.

The only real inconsistency with my previous stances were some of the opinions the TYT videos maintained with regards to "lowering taxes doesn't boost the economy, it doesn't work". I definitely DON'T agree with that, but I do maintain that deficit spending undermines the benefits of lowering taxes, so under the circumstances, it's BAD to keep the current policy. However, I DO agree with them that Obama is a corporate shill in disguise, and that corporatism is worse than either tax-and-spend socialism and moderate libertarianism. Another apparent inconsistency might be to quote Noam Chomski (of whom I'm not really a fan), but I prefaced that video with a disclaimer. I should probably have prefaced the TYT videos with disclaimers too.

It's not that I've really shifted as much as the fact that the political spectrum has shifted. Apparently. I mean, who would have thought that the Savior of the Progressives AKA Obama would not only increase the Bush policies but make them bipartisan normalcy at the same time? If anyone would have suggested that back in November 2004 it would have been considered sheer madness. The man must be a genius - but an evil genius, like Palpatine.

Regardless of any of that, it's more the do-nothing default-supporters of Obama which I'm criticizing. Especially if they used to criticize Bush.

EDIT: as for your other point, see my second-to last previous post. Obama only supported gay marriage when it looked like the courts and the general population would do so, since he's a pragmatic politician. He has also expanded Bush's faith based initiatives.

[K. A. Pital]

Now that's just slander.

It is not entirely so - you've become a lot more critical of corporations and First World governments, which most libertarians consider heaven on Earth. And I shudder to think what you'd say about "low-tax tigers" where people work for 12-14 hours a day. And I would say the recent bailout has demonstrated to quite a few people what the policy actually looks like, and quite a few didn't like it. Not to mention the recent war policies of Obama - drones, rendition etc. - which spawned like 10 threads here if not more.

[Lord Zentei]

Whoops, I edited my post about the same time in which you posted. See above.

Now that's just slander.

It is not entirely so - you've become a lot more critical of corporations and First World governments, which most libertarians consider heaven on Earth. And I shudder to think what you'd say about "low-tax tigers" where people work for 12-14 hours a day. And I would say the recent bailout has demonstrated to quite a few people what the policy actually looks like, and quite a few didn't like it. Not to mention the recent war policies of Obama - drones, rendition etc. - which spawned like 10 threads here if not more.

It's not that I mind corporations per se, it's corporatism I object to. Government by special interest groups. I assure you that I would oppose Big Labour governments with equal vitriol. Neither do I oppose interventionist wars per se, but I do oppose illegal wars, open-ended wars, and people being "disappeared" in the pursuit of such wars.

As for the low-tax tigers, that's another debate. I support basic welfare for the people, but don't want protectionism against investment in underdeveloped countries, and am pragmatic enough to recognize that low development makes welfare difficult before economic buildup. Nasty conditions such as those you refer to are a phase in development, and while it's an evil, it may be a necessary one, sometimes. Of course, one must be on guard to prevent that from becoming an excuse to maintain tyranny. Rule of law and freedom of choice are the first requirements.

One further objection:

which most libertarians consider heaven on Earth

No... Just no.

They really don't. You need to listen less to "libertarians" and more to actual libertarians. There's a reason they cling to their guns as much as they do, and it's not because they're afraid of burglars.

[Surlethe]

Aww Zentei and Stas, I wish I had more time to post here.

[JLTucker]

Zentei, you have drifted quite a bit to the left since I last remember. But that aside, Obama's only redeeming quality is the sheer level of butthurt which his victory caused to various religious nutjobs. That, and gay marriage (which also caused butthurt among the bigots).

He's not even committed to that issue because he wants to leave it up to the states. He doesn't support gay marriage as much as he thinks he does.

[Thanas]

If you want to be as much of a flaming idiot as the people who actually say that, fine.

But then I would have about as much respect for your intellect as I would for any of the redneck morons who think that way, and probably think Saddam Hussein told Osama bin Laden to attack on 9/11 because all Muslims hate FREEDOM.

It's pathetic when I see people criticizing me from the right on those grounds, it's equally pathetic when the criticism comes from the left.

You missed the point. I'll try to be more concise here. If you vote for a candidate you decide that you either share his views on the issues or at the very least are not put off by his views enough to stop voting for them. So yes, if you vote for Obama, apparently torture and unlicensed assassinations are not a big enough deal to you to stop voting for him. I am sure that you will retort with some "but I only voted for him because Romney is worse" crap, but that is pretty much like the "we had to shoot the villagers to save them" rhetoric, the justification of current evils with some nebulous fear that everything else would be worse otherwise. Which is pathetic, and also an unsupported assumption as Romney would not have won even with your vote counting for the third parties.

[Grumman]

Which is pathetic, and also an unsupported assumption as Romney would not have won even with your vote counting for the third parties.

This is a point I tried making before the election, but now that we've actually got the results...

The closest margin among all the states was in New Hampshire, where Obama won by 39,643 votes. If you are going to follow the realpolitik "I can't change the electorate, so I must vote purely to ensure Romney does not win" logic, does it make any difference whether he won by 39,643 votes or 39,642 votes, in a state that couldn't have decided the election anyway?

[TimothyC]

You missed the point. I'll try to be more concise here. If you vote for a candidate you decide that you either share his views on the issues or at the very least are not put off by his views enough to stop voting for them. So yes, if you vote for Obama, apparently torture and unlicensed assassinations are not a big enough deal to you to stop voting for him. I am sure that you will retort with some "but I only voted for him because Romney is worse" crap, but that is pretty much like the "we had to shoot the villagers to save them" rhetoric, the justification of current evils with some nebulous fear that everything else would be worse otherwise. Which is pathetic, and also an unsupported assumption as Romney would not have won even with your vote counting for the third parties.

I've got no dog in this discussion (I didn't vote for Obama either time), but who would you have voted for Thanas?