View Full Version : "As a Democrat, I am disgusted with President Obama"
Seshmeister
08-23-2013, 05:55 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/22/democrat-disgusted-with-president-obama1
As a Democrat, I am disgusted with President Obama
I voted for Obama reluctantly, but never did I imagine he would become another Richard Nixon
Share 5893
Jeff Jarvis
theguardian.com, Thursday 22 August 2013 16.50 BST
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/8/15/1376581242533/Barack-Obama-010.jpg
What are you thinking, Mr President?
Is this really the legacy you want for yourself: the chief executive who trampled rights, destroyed privacy, heightened secrecy, ruined trust, and worst of all, did not defend but instead detoured around so many of the fundamental principles on which this country is founded?
And I voted for you. I'll confess you were a second choice. I supported Hillary Clinton first. I said at the time that your rhetoric about change was empty and that I feared you would be another Jimmy Carter: aggressively ineffectual.
Never did I imagine that you would instead become another Richard Nixon: imperial, secretive, vindictive, untrustworthy, inexplicable.
I do care about security. I survived the attack on the World Trade Center and I believe 9/11 was allowed to occur through a failure of intelligence. I thank TSA agents for searching me: applause for security theater. I defend government's necessary secrets. By the way, I also defend Obamacare. I should be an easy ally, but your exercise of power appalls me. When I wrote about your credibility deficit recently, I was shocked that among the commenters at that great international voice of liberalism, the Guardian, next to no one defended you. Even on our side of the political divide, I am far from alone in urgently wondering what you are doing.
As a journalist, I am frightened by your vengeful attacks on whistleblowers – Manning, Assange, Snowden, and the rest – and the impact in turn on journalism and its tasks of keeping a watchful eye on you and helping to assure an informed citizenry.
As a citizen, I am disgusted by the systematic evasion of oversight you have supported through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts; by the use of ports as lawless zones where your agents can harass anyone; by your failure on your promise to close Guantánamo, and this list could go on.
As an American often abroad, I am embarrassed by the damage you have caused to our reputation and to others' trust in us. I find myself apologizing for what you are doing to citizens of other nations, dismissing the idea that they have rights to privacy because they are "foreign".
As an internet user, I am most fearful of the impact of your wanton destruction of privacy and the resulting collapse of trust in the net and what that will do to the freedom we have enjoyed in it as well as the business and jobs that are being built atop it.
And as a Democrat, I worry that you are losing us the next election, handing an issue to the Republicans that should have been ours: protecting the rights of citizens against the overreach of the security state.
Surely you can see this. But you keep doubling down, becoming only more dogged in your defense of secrecy and your guardians of it. I don't understand.
The only way I could possibly grant you the benefit of doubt is to think that there is some ominous fact about our security that only you and your circle know and can't breath or the jig will be up. But I don't believe that anymore than I believe a James Bond movie or an Oliver Stone conspiracy theory. You can't argue that Armageddon is on the way and that al-Qaida is on the run at the same time.
No, I think it is this: secrecy corrupts. Absolute secrecy corrupts absolutely. You have been seduced by the idea that your authority rests in your secrets and your power to hold them. Every attack on that power, every questioning of it only makes you draw in tighter, receding into your vault with the key you think your office grants you. You are descending into a dark hole of your own digging.
But you know better, don't you? In a democracy, secrecy is not the foundation of authority; that is the basis of dictatorships. Principles and their defense is what underpins your office.
First among those principles is the defense of our freedom. Security is only a subset of that, for if we are not secure we are not free. Freedom demands the confidence that we are not under attack, yes, but also that we are not being surveilled without our knowledge and consent. The balance, which we are supposedly debating, must go to freedom.
Transparency is another principle you promised to uphold but have trammeled instead. The only way to assure trust in your actions is if they are overseen by open courts, by informed legislators, by an uninhibited press, and most importantly by an informed citizenry.
As political and media attention turn away from you, you have an opportunity to rise again to the level of principles, to prove that your rhetoric about change was not empty after all, to rebuild your already ill-fated legacy, to do what is expected of you and your office.
You could decide to operate on the principle that our privacy is protected in any medium – not just in our first-class letters but in our emails and chats and calls – unless under specific and due warrant.
You could decide to end what will be known as the Obama Collect it All doctrine and make the art of intelligence focus rather than reach.
You could decide to respect the efforts of whistleblowers as courageous practitioners of civil disobedience who are sacrificing much in their efforts to protect lives and democracy. If they are the Martin Luther Kings of our age, then call off Bull Connor's digital dogs and fire hoses, will you?
You could decide to impress us with the transparency you still can bring to government, so that the institution you run becomes open by default rather than by force.
You could decide to support a free press and stop efforts – here and, using your influence, with our friends in the UK – to restrain their work.
You could decide that whether they are visiting our land or talking with our citizens by email or phone, foreigners are not to be distrusted by default.
You could try to reverse the damage you have done to the internet and its potential by upholding its principles of openness and freedom.
You could. Will you?
I agree with most of the above.... even though the author is clearly a DLC false "Democrat" given his love for the Clintons, but not for an actual Democrat like Jimmy Carter. I definitely do NOT agree with his praise for the "security theater" bullshit (NSA/TSA/etc. )
And I **WAS** a Democrat from the age of 14 up until Obama caved on health care. He campaigned on the public option, which itself was far too much of a ridiculous compromise, compared to the single payer system that the rest of the "civilized" world has, and that polls show 72% of Americans want. (and the other 28% would, if they would turn off FAUX Noize for a few hourse).
But I don't call myself a Democrat anymore. And that's a serious thing for a former local party chairman to say. I don't want anything to do with the party of NAFTA, Chained CPI, and the 1996 FAUX Clear Channel enabling act. (or the complicity in Chimp's 9/11 & Iraq lies, for that matter)
Seshmeister
08-23-2013, 07:26 PM
Was the chat not that in his second term he would be able to be much more honest and radical?
If I was American I guess I would have to vote Democrat too but it's a really shitty choice, death by shooting v death by torture. The 2 party system is a con. It's nothing to do with your constitution, in fact the original plan was not to have political parties at all.
After the one time someone else actually had a go, Ross Perot, they changed the rules so that it can never happen again.
I totally understand why Americans go all libertarian...
Yeah, the O-bot cheerleaders over at Democratic Underground used to preach that shit endlessly, that Obama would magically transform into the Resurrected FDR the minute his second term began.
Not that Obama himself is entirely to blame, of course.
You have all the obstructionist Republicans in both houses of Congress. And then you have false "Democrats" in both houses - the Baucus/Lieberman types, led by weak (so-called) "leadership" of Spineless Harry Reid and Jellyfish Pelosi.
So even if Barry had in fact, tried to live up to his campaign promises, he would have had all that against him. But they didn't choose his cabinet pics. They didn't make an arrogant Liberal hating prick like Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff. Or put a MonSatan shill in charge of the Agriculture department. Or keep Chimpy's "defense" secretary. Or put the same Wall Street fucks who raped and pillaged the economy in charge of the treasury. Or appoint an alleged "Democrat" (Kagan) to the Supreme Court who was considerably to the right of the retiring REPUBLICAN she was replacing.... (who also BTW has had to recuse herself from about half the court cases, because she already appeared before a lower court in her previous job capacity as Solicitor General. Which is the appropriate thing for her to do, but it also is another reason why she was an awful choice for the Supremes)
And Barry can't blame any of that on Boner, Mitch McTurtle, or the Birthers. Or on us Liberals who won't vote for DLC/BlueDog/Third Way phonies anymore.
Seshmeister
08-23-2013, 10:10 PM
The really horrible thing about it is that his most significant and long standing legacy is going to be taking Bush's reaction to 9-11 and making it the status quo.
What could have been reversed as reactionary, anti constitutional. anti freedom, plain dumb and all the rest has become the default position.
Dr. Love
08-23-2013, 10:13 PM
I totally understand why Americans go all libertarian...
Mostly libertarians just want to be left alone and to leave others alone, but there are too many entrenched interests for that to happen without one hell of a fight. I personally wouldn't have an issue with things like a single-payer system or free education or improving society if I could believe for any reasonable amount of time that the power wouldn't be corrupted to be used to enrich the few. It's just how it is.
So given the choice, I believe that I can do better on my own with my own in my own community than to trust to the politicians. They don't care about me beyond how to get my vote ... if they even care about that. They all go to Washington and they all line their own pockets.
Dr. Love
08-23-2013, 10:15 PM
Yeah, the O-bot cheerleaders over at Democratic Underground used to preach that shit endlessly, that Obama would magically transform into the Resurrected FDR the minute his second term began.
Not that Obama himself is entirely to blame, of course.
You have all the obstructionist Republicans in both houses of Congress. And then you have false "Democrats" in both houses - the Baucus/Lieberman types, led by weak (so-called) "leadership" of Spineless Harry Reid and Jellyfish Pelosi.
So even if Barry had in fact, tried to live up to his campaign promises, he would have had all that against him. But they didn't choose his cabinet pics. They didn't make an arrogant Liberal hating prick like Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff. Or put a MonSatan shill in charge of the Agriculture department. Or keep Chimpy's "defense" secretary. Or put the same Wall Street fucks who raped and pillaged the economy in charge of the treasury. Or appoint an alleged "Democrat" (Kagan) to the Supreme Court who was considerably to the right of the retiring REPUBLICAN she was replacing.... (who also BTW has had to recuse herself from about half the court cases, because she already appeared before a lower court in her previous job capacity as Solicitor General. Which is the appropriate thing for her to do, but it also is another reason why she was an awful choice for the Supremes)
And Barry can't blame any of that on Boner, Mitch McTurtle, or the Birthers. Or on us Liberals who won't vote for DLC/BlueDog/Third Way phonies anymore.
I recall seeing some of that around here.
Too bad too many people are interested in voting against someone than voting for what they believe in. We don't have a 2 party system... we have a 1 party system. One party just seems to be a little more honest about how they are going to conduct business, and it ain't the Democrats.
ELVIS
08-24-2013, 09:52 AM
Yeah, the O-bot cheerleaders over at Democratic Underground used to preach that shit endlessly, that Obama would magically transform into the Resurrected FDR the minute his second term began.
So did you...
You had that gay Obomba avatar and everything...
Not that Obama himself is entirely to blame, of course.
He's a communist puppet and a better liar than Clinton and he deserves plenty of blame...
You have all the obstructionist Republicans in both houses of Congress. And then you have false "Democrats" in both houses - the Baucus/Lieberman types, led by weak (so-called) "leadership" of Spineless Harry Reid and Jellyfish Pelosi.
None of that is not leadership, it's ceremonial garbage...
There are barely no houses and there is NO left / right in Washington DC...
How can you still be falling for the lies twelve years post 911 ??
So even if Barry had in fact, tried to live up to his campaign promises, he would have had all that against him.
Like what, the "National Security Force" ??
He's working on it with the NSA, the TSA, the CIA, the FBI, google, facebook and the militarization of police...
But they didn't choose his cabinet pics. They didn't make an arrogant Liberal hating prick like Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff. Or put a MonSatan shill in charge of the Agriculture department. Or keep Chimpy's "defense" secretary. Or put the same Wall Street fucks who raped and pillaged the economy in charge of the treasury. Or appoint an alleged "Democrat" (Kagan) to the Supreme Court who was considerably to the right of the retiring REPUBLICAN she was replacing.... (who also BTW has had to recuse herself from about half the court cases, because she already appeared before a lower court in her previous job capacity as Solicitor General. Which is the appropriate thing for her to do, but it also is another reason why she was an awful choice for the Supremes)
You type this and you still wanna play left / right politics ??
It's not a game...
And Barry can't blame any of that on Boner, Mitch McTurtle, or the Birthers. Or on us Liberals who won't vote for DLC/BlueDog/Third Way phonies anymore.
Yeah, but he suckered you in and you ate it like honey for the first two years...
You and millions of others voted for a young, well spoken, admitedly inexperienced, half black con-man mainly because, and in the case of most people, only because he was black...
People were gushing over the idea that it's time to vote for a black man and all sorts of worship like Chris Matthews grotesque fawning...
You got took...and so did I under Bush...
The only way to judge a man is by the content of his character, and we as Americans as a whole have no idea how to do that anymore...
:elvis:
I didn't vote for Barry because he was Black. I voted for him because he wasn't Hillary.
Only it turned out, he might as well have been :(
(which is why I didn't vote for him in 2012. And won't vote for her ever)
Nickdfresh
08-24-2013, 11:58 AM
I recall seeing some of that around here.
Too bad too many people are interested in voting against someone than voting for what they believe in. We don't have a 2 party system... we have a 1 party system. One party just seems to be a little more honest about how they are going to conduct business, and it ain't the Democrats.
I think the system sucks, but you can't say "they're all the same!" Al Gore wouldn't have taken us into Iraq...
Nickdfresh
08-24-2013, 11:59 AM
Elvis will be all better once we elect the next white, male clusterfuck of a Republican't....
Kristy
08-24-2013, 12:12 PM
I totally understand why Americans go all libertarian...
No you don't. Libertardians are disillusioned Rethuglicans or rich Demobrats sick of having to pay taxes who love their guns more than their small penises. Libertardians see themselves as the more "educated" teabaggers because they drive a fucking hybrid and pay up $350 a ticket to go see shit like Sting. Most have worthless Master degrees in shit like political science. Libertardians absolutely hate the poor, the sick and disabled and the recalcitrant who stand in the the way of social change that doesn't gel with their warped views. Libertardianism is not some third wheel of the American political system that allocates for much of well...anything. Libertardians are paranoid, forge their own bourgeois brand of news, and most of all, Libertardians love war, not going to war themselves no, that's for the poor and highly religious to do but they love to make money off of it as they do America's ever increasing private prison system while hiding under the hypocritical veil of making drugs legal for all. Oh, and lastly Libertarians also say they are for small government providing of course government can instill all sorts of new regulations for every little god damn thing you do from sex to taking a shit. Fuck these people.
Kristy
08-24-2013, 12:16 PM
I think the system sucks, but you can't say "they're all the same!" Al Gore wouldn't have taken us into Iraq...
Yes he would. Big oil, pharma, and the gun industry would own his sorry ass just like any other politician. Plus, if Gore was in office today our asses would be in Syria arming the next fresh batch of terrorism.
Kristy
08-24-2013, 12:19 PM
Mostly libertarians just want to be left alone and to leave others alone, but there are too many entrenched interests for that to happen without one hell of a fight.
Again, leave the dope smoking to us professionals. That, or see if you can get a brain MRI to see what in the fuck would make you say that.
Kristy
08-24-2013, 12:27 PM
Here, here is how fucked-up, misinformed and fucking retarded your average Libertardian is all brought you by a cunt who makes Daffy Duck seem intelligible:
Nickdfresh
08-24-2013, 12:52 PM
Yes he would. Big oil, pharma, and the gun industry would own his sorry ass just like any other politician. Plus, if Gore was in office today our asses would be in Syria arming the next fresh batch of terrorism.
I doubt that he would have launched us into Iraq. Syria might not be happening without the Iraq Invasion for better or for worse. And the Al Qaida fuckheads have hijacked the Syrian resistance because we've dottled for so long. But hey, it's awesome to see the Terrorist Smackdown between Hezbollah vs. Al Qaida!..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSQ6E3ozrGI
Kristy
08-24-2013, 01:01 PM
*puts on a pair of brass knuckles and raps on Nick's skull*
Knock Knock...
You listenig to me? Any politician no matter if it was Gore or Mr. Bumfuck Rich White Guy Goes To Washington would place us in Iraq if big oil had its "interests" threatened by a dictator who didn't want to play by their rules anymore. Corporations, BIG corporations own this country, Nick. They bought and paid for both you and I before we were even born and we all do their bidding no matter what.
Oh fuck, I just realized that sounded a bit Alex Jone$, didn't it? Fuck me.
Nickdfresh
08-24-2013, 01:45 PM
All that weed is making you paranoid...
Kristy
08-24-2013, 02:05 PM
Fuck that, I love being paranoid. Just not Libertadian paranoid for that is a serious illness.
Dr. Love
08-24-2013, 04:59 PM
I think the system sucks, but you can't say "they're all the same!" Al Gore wouldn't have taken us into Iraq...
I agree with that, but I still think he would have been more or less status-quo. Which is the point of my generalization.
Dr. Love
08-24-2013, 05:01 PM
No you don't. Libertardians are disillusioned Rethuglicans or rich Demobrats sick of having to pay taxes who love their guns more than their small penises. Libertardians see themselves as the more "educated" teabaggers because they drive a fucking hybrid and pay up $350 a ticket to go see shit like Sting. Most have worthless Master degrees in shit like political science. Libertardians absolutely hate the poor, the sick and disabled and the recalcitrant who stand in the the way of social change that doesn't gel with their warped views. Libertardianism is not some third wheel of the American political system that allocates for much of well...anything. Libertardians are paranoid, forge their own bourgeois brand of news, and most of all, Libertardians love war, not going to war themselves no, that's for the poor and highly religious to do but they love to make money off of it as they do America's ever increasing private prison system while hiding under the hypocritical veil of making drugs legal for all. Oh, and lastly Libertarians also say they are for small government providing of course government can instill all sorts of new regulations for every little god damn thing you do from sex to taking a shit. Fuck these people.
You have a very warped sense of libertarians. Sounds like you're describing tea party people, which started out as libertarians and got hijacked by the fundies and the warmongers. We aren't like that.
Dr. Love
08-24-2013, 05:02 PM
Again, leave the dope smoking to us professionals. That, or see if you can get a brain MRI to see what in the fuck would make you say that.
Given your statements, I certainly can't argue that you aren't a professional. :)
Kristy
08-24-2013, 08:05 PM
You have a very warped sense of libertarians. Sounds like you're describing tea party people, which started out as libertarians and got hijacked by the fundies and the warmongers. We aren't like that.
No, you're far fucking worse. Libertardians live in a dream world of bullshit privatization where societal problems can be solved if everybody owned "their own thing" without regard to pubic safety or personal liability. The teatards didn't hijack you. Unlike them, you love to shit on the poor and bully the weak. Your whole party is of shitty ethics, unrealistic political philosophies and economic theories. It's basic a white male myth purported by rich disillusioned Rethuglicans who love greed.
Dr. Love
08-24-2013, 09:10 PM
No, you're far fucking worse. Libertardians live in a dream world of bullshit privatization where societal problems can be solved if everybody owned "their own thing" without regard to pubic safety or personal liability. The teatards didn't hijack you. Unlike them, you love to shit on the poor and bully the weak. Your whole party is of shitty ethics, unrealistic political philosophies and economic theories. It's basic a white male myth purported by rich disillusioned Rethuglicans who love greed.
Which one of us is the fount of hate, then, spewing bile at full volume?
Dr. Love
08-24-2013, 09:27 PM
No, you're far fucking worse. Libertardians live in a dream world of bullshit privatization where societal problems can be solved if everybody owned "their own thing" without regard to pubic safety or personal liability. The teatards didn't hijack you. Unlike them, you love to shit on the poor and bully the weak. Your whole party is of shitty ethics, unrealistic political philosophies and economic theories. It's basic a white male myth purported by rich disillusioned Rethuglicans who love greed.
I can't speak for all libertarians, but I believe in privatization because by reducing its scope of authority it reduces the incentive by corporations to buy the government to seize control of that authority. I believe it is the responsibility of the judiciary to mediate and enforce contract law and that anyone that damages the environment or harms other individuals should be held accountable by the courts. Giving the responsibility to the government to regulate industry is necessary but should be done withing well-defined, narrow parameters so that laws aren't passed to create loopholes for corporations to take advantage of.
It's not about greed, or bullying the weak. Our system is not very libertarian and there is rampant greed and the weak are bullied constantly. It's about taking power away from the greedy, away from the bullies, and giving it back to the communities. I understand there is idealism in it to some regard but there is idealism in every ideology. I realistically look at our country and our system and see the rampant abuses, the rampant greed and the rampant corruption and for me, I believe that because the power is there to control, the incentive is there to control it. There are very few selfless individuals, who would choose the good of the many over the good of themselves. Those people almost never make it to the top because our system rewards those that would stab others in the back on the climb up the ladder of power. There are a few good people, but there are by far more bad people, and usually they win.
Accountability is pretty rare these days. A lot of very greedy people were given a lot of money after they demolished the lives of millions of people during the financial crises, and were given positions of power in the government. Not many (if any) were ever sent to jail for their crimes. It wasn't a libertarian administration or congress that rewarded that greed. It's not a libertarian administration expanding the use of drones, codifying republican response to 9/11 as routine policy or spying on communications of the citizenry, or going after whistleblowers.
You may not like my ideology; that's fine. But mine isn't one with any real power, so if you are genuinely upset with greed and bullying, perhaps you should cast your bile somewhere else. I don't begrudge you your point of view; If anything, I pity you. You are an enabler ... and the people that are doing the things that you are so angry about can depend on you to continue to be an enabler.
Nickdfresh
08-25-2013, 02:51 PM
I can't speak for all libertarians, but I believe in privatization because by reducing its scope of authority it reduces the incentive by corporations to buy the government to seize control of that authority.....
It also tends to reduce their incentive to give a flying fuck about things like, say, dumping toxic waste in neighborhood playgrounds...
Kristy
08-25-2013, 03:28 PM
Which one of us is the fount of hate, then, spewing bile at full volume?
See? There's a typical bullshit Libertardian argument right there.
I can't speak for all libertarians, but I believe in privatization because by reducing its scope of authority it reduces the incentive by corporations to buy the government to seize control of that authority. I believe it is the responsibility of the judiciary to mediate and enforce contract law and that anyone that damages the environment or harms other individuals should be held accountable by the courts.
I've heard other so-called "libertarians" say that we should leave it to the courts. Of course many of those same so-called "libertarians" are also screaming for so-called "tort reform", which would make it impossible to do so. The infamous McDonalds "hot coffee" case is usually cited as an example of "lawsuits gone wild", yet the reality is that very few people are actually aware of the true facts of that case. It goes way beyond a simple case of one lady spilling a cup of coffee.
Even presuming the KKKoch types don't destroy the ability to sue them, we're still left with the reality that the courts themselves are packed with right-wing, pro-corporate judges. Many Republicans were shocked when Opie Roberts joined with the alleged "librul" wing of the Supreme Court to preserve the Obamacare mandate. I was not. Because it was consistent with all of Opie's other rulings. He's taken the pro-corporate stance on every case he's ruled on, and in that case, it was pro-insurance corporations.
Giving the responsibility to the government to regulate industry is necessary but should be done withing well-defined, narrow parameters so that laws aren't passed to create loopholes for corporations to take advantage of.
Can't argue with that. Loopholes need to be gone. In regulation, taxes, etc.
It's not about greed, or bullying the weak. Our system is not very libertarian and there is rampant greed and the weak are bullied constantly. It's about taking power away from the greedy, away from the bullies, and giving it back to the communities. I understand there is idealism in it to some regard but there is idealism in every ideology. I realistically look at our country and our system and see the rampant abuses, the rampant greed and the rampant corruption and for me, I believe that because the power is there to control, the incentive is there to control it. There are very few selfless individuals, who would choose the good of the many over the good of themselves. Those people almost never make it to the top because our system rewards those that would stab others in the back on the climb up the ladder of power. There are a few good people, but there are by far more bad people, and usually they win.
It would be easier for them to win if it were possible to compete. But what small business can compete against globalist corporations. (i.e. the hometown grocery store vs WalMart) The deregulation of the last 32 years is what made this possible. The Libertarians (at least the Rand/KKKoch version) would cut the brake lines entirely. And sticking with that metaphor, the worst possible time to lose your brakes is when you're already going too fast downhill.
Accountability is pretty rare these days. A lot of very greedy people were given a lot of money after they demolished the lives of millions of people during the financial crises, and were given positions of power in the government. Not many (if any) were ever sent to jail for their crimes. It wasn't a libertarian administration or congress that rewarded that greed.
No, but the Libertarians love the collapse of regulations which made that situation possible. Under Glass-Steagal, it could not have happened.
It's not a libertarian administration expanding the use of drones, codifying republican response to 9/11 as routine policy or spying on communications of the citizenry, or going after whistleblowers.
No argument there either.
You may not like my ideology; that's fine. But mine isn't one with any real power, so if you are genuinely upset with greed and bullying, perhaps you should cast your bile somewhere else. I don't begrudge you your point of view; If anything, I pity you. You are an enabler ... and the people that are doing the things that you are so angry about can depend on you to continue to be an enabler.
Well, the so-called Libertarians, specifically the teabag wing of the Republican party are very much enablers of the economic destruction of this country. Does Phil Gramm call himself a "libertarian"? I honestly can't remember, but as Ron Paul knows, they do often run as "Republicans" in Texas.
Kristy
08-25-2013, 03:51 PM
I can't speak for all libertarians, but I believe in privatization because by reducing its scope of authority it reduces the incentive by corporations to buy the government to seize control of that authority. I believe it is the responsibility of the judiciary to mediate and enforce contract law and that anyone that damages the environment or harms other individuals should be held accountable by the courts. Giving the responsibility to the government to regulate industry is necessary but should be done withing well-defined, narrow parameters so that laws aren't passed to create loopholes for corporations to take advantage of.
Huh? " Scope of authority"? What the fuck is that. Libertardian speak for "government intrusion" ??? The rest reads like Libertardian speak for "yeah, we want a slice of that pie of corporate greed and fuck government but...we want to e courts to protect our F A T greedy asses just in case we fail, get sued or face severe jail time for deregulating everything and fucking up the system much worse than it is now. Sounds like untethered Republican nonsense. So fuck that argument.
It's not about greed, or bullying the weak. Our system is not very libertarian and there is rampant greed and the weak are bullied constantly. It's about taking power away from the greedy, away from the bullies, and giving it back to the communities. I understand there is idealism in it to some regard but there is idealism in every ideology. I realistically look at our country and our system and see the rampant abuses, the rampant greed and the rampant corruption and for me, I believe that because the power is there to control, the incentive is there to control it. There are very few selfless individuals, who would choose the good of the many over the good of themselves. Those people almost never make it to the top because our system rewards those that would stab others in the back on the climb up the ladder of power. There are a few good people, but there are by far more bad people, and usually they win.
Bull fucking shit on a Christ sandwich it's not about greed with Libertardians!!! You whole fucking "party" is founded on greed but you wrap it all up in this fucked up flag-waving patriotism horseshit. Like I said about you 'tardians you're disenfranchised and want your slice and fuck those who get hurt, left out or lost. You're nothing more than the spoiled retarded kid always drooling on himself who lives down the block who cries foul and take his ball away from others and goes home and cries to his mother. For if that kid had to [I]share his shitty toy why that would considered "socialism" to you 'tardians. Oh no! Can't have that! The rest of your 'tardian argument reads like a forgotten script page from a lame and forgotten Star Wars prequel script. Change!? My scrawny ass. The only change you want is complete control for yourselves. You want to dig your $350 Sting ticket purchasing paws into Wall Street and fuck it up further for yourselves.
You may not like my ideology; that's fine. But mine isn't one with any real power, so if you are genuinely upset with greed and bullying, perhaps you should cast your bile somewhere else. I don't begrudge you your point of view; If anything, I pity you. You are an enabler ... and the people that are doing the things that you are so angry about can depend on you to continue to be an enabler.
Oh blow me you fucking sexist/misogynist meister. Libertardians have no "ideology" which is exactly why your party of idicoy fights among itself more than any other. And please stop with your faux-philosophy Dr. Phil 12-step speak. Gawd damn, is your party ever paranoid and disillusioned, distrusting of those not like you - like the poor and weak, the uneducated and disabled. You're nothing more than ravenous Rethuglicans wrapped up cozy in the American flag of self-made bullshit. Fuck off.
Nickdfresh
08-25-2013, 06:49 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/1236388_633046326713368_65984826_n.jpg
Dr. Love
08-25-2013, 08:07 PM
It also tends to reduce their incentive to give a flying fuck about things like, say, dumping toxic waste in neighborhood playgrounds...
That's not what I was referring to - and hence why I said regulations are necessary.
Dr. Love
08-25-2013, 08:18 PM
I've heard other so-called "libertarians" say that we should leave it to the courts. Of course many of those same so-called "libertarians" are also screaming for so-called "tort reform", which would make it impossible to do so. The infamous McDonalds "hot coffee" case is usually cited as an example of "lawsuits gone wild", yet the reality is that very few people are actually aware of the true facts of that case. It goes way beyond a simple case of one lady spilling a cup of coffee.
Even presuming the KKKoch types don't destroy the ability to sue them, we're still left with the reality that the courts themselves are packed with right-wing, pro-corporate judges. Many Republicans were shocked when Opie Roberts joined with the alleged "librul" wing of the Supreme Court to preserve the Obamacare mandate. I was not. Because it was consistent with all of Opie's other rulings. He's taken the pro-corporate stance on every case he's ruled on, and in that case, it was pro-insurance corporations.
I don't really believe the Koch brothers are libertarians... they are corporatists trying to further enrich themselves, buying politicians that help them further their own agenda. There's a pretty clear separation between libertarians and republicans (republicans don't want us in their party) :)
Can't argue with that. Loopholes need to be gone. In regulation, taxes, etc.
It would be easier for them to win if it were possible to compete. But what small business can compete against globalist corporations. (i.e. the hometown grocery store vs WalMart) The deregulation of the last 32 years is what made this possible. The Libertarians (at least the Rand/KKKoch version) would cut the brake lines entirely. And sticking with that metaphor, the worst possible time to lose your brakes is when you're already going too fast downhill.
I dunno what its like in your area, but in Texas there's a pretty proud tradition of supporting local business. We have some grocery stores that are beating out the local area walmarts (just as an example). Up to your community how you want to handle it -- not much different than now really. I live in a city that wouldn't let walmart move in, and supports those local businesses.
No, but the Libertarians love the collapse of regulations which made that situation possible. Under Glass-Steagal, it could not have happened.
I don't know about that ... libertarians generally call for the prosecution of the people that torpedoed the economy in 2008. There's certainly the more ideologically hard-line people that think all regulation should go, but there are extremists/moderates in the libertarian party just like any other party. At least among the ones I've interacted with, they are pretty reasonable in that regulation is necessary, but that regulation doesn't prevent corruption when the regulators are so easily corrupted.
No argument there either.
Well, the so-called Libertarians, specifically the teabag wing of the Republican party are very much enablers of the economic destruction of this country. Does Phil Gramm call himself a "libertarian"? I honestly can't remember, but as Ron Paul knows, they do often run as "Republicans" in Texas.
You don't really win in Texas if you aren't republican. That's changing, though.
Kristy
08-25-2013, 08:18 PM
What!? Did Nick find no Wiki reference, citation or article!?
Kristy
08-25-2013, 08:20 PM
I don't really believe the Koch brothers are libertarians... they are corporatists trying to further enrich themselves....
The very definition of a Libertardian.
http://www.oxonianreview.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/irony.jpg
Dr. Love
08-25-2013, 08:32 PM
Huh? " Scope of authority"? What the fuck is that. Libertardian speak for "government intrusion" ??? The rest reads like Libertardian speak for "yeah, we want a slice of that pie of corporate greed and fuck government but...we want to e courts to protect our F A T greedy asses just in case we fail, get sued or face severe jail time for deregulating everything and fucking up the system much worse than it is now. Sounds like untethered Republican nonsense. So fuck that argument.
I'll rephrase it so maybe you can understand.
If the government has the ability to control, for example, health care, or education, or the finance, then the industries that are regulated by the government have more incentive to lobby the government to get favorable legislation passed. The rest of it means this: If a company causes harm to you or your property, you can take them to court and win a judgement against them.
I mean, it's not like we've seen corruption of regulators before, right? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Bull fucking shit on a Christ sandwich it's not about greed with Libertardians!!! You whole fucking "party" is founded on greed but you wrap it all up in this fucked up flag-waving patriotism horseshit. Like I said about you 'tardians you're disenfranchised and want your slice and fuck those who get hurt, left out or lost. You're nothing more than the spoiled retarded kid always drooling on himself who lives down the block who cries foul and take his ball away from others and goes home and cries to his mother. For if that kid had to [I]share his shitty toy why that would considered "socialism" to you 'tardians. Oh no! Can't have that! The rest of your 'tardian argument reads like a forgotten script page from a lame and forgotten Star Wars prequel script. Change!? My scrawny ass. The only change you want is complete control for yourselves. You want to dig your $350 Sting ticket purchasing paws into Wall Street and fuck it up further for yourselves.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg
Looks like you're barely raising the argument to the level of name-calling. That wasn't an argument on your part, it was a diatribe.
Oh blow me you fucking sexist/misogynist meister. Libertardians have no "ideology" which is exactly why your party of idicoy fights among itself more than any other. And please stop with your faux-philosophy Dr. Phil 12-step speak. Gawd damn, is your party ever paranoid and disillusioned, distrusting of those not like you - like the poor and weak, the uneducated and disabled. You're nothing more than ravenous Rethuglicans wrapped up cozy in the American flag of self-made bullshit. Fuck off.
You're a very angry person ... over such a random and strange thing. The Libertarian party has never won anything on a national level. No house seats, no senate seats... nada. But you are literally frothing-at-the-mouth angry at them. You seem unable to stand the idea that someone thinks something that you don't want them to think, unable to respond reasonably and completely driven by your base emotions.
It must be why you are so easily manipulated into being such a good enabler.
Kristy
08-25-2013, 09:00 PM
The Libertarian party has never won anything on a national level. No house seats, no senate seats... nada. But you are literally frothing-at-the-mouth angry at them. You seem unable to stand the idea that someone thinks something that you don't want them to think, unable to respond reasonably and completely driven by your base emotions.
It must be why you are so easily manipulated into being such a good enabler.
And they never will. It's a party of fools. Again, you subscribe to a bullshit pseudo-political self-imposed ideology that can't agree on anything among themselves. So you invent more and more ridiculous crap. A "private account" pay for health care? Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure. Between mortgage foreclosures, industry going overseas and unpayable student loans yeah, I'll save that 30 cents to pay for a $28,000 gallbladder surgery if I happen to need it. No problem. Another Libertardian method of shitting on the poor. Oh, while we're at it why not deregulate the medical industry and give doctors who have been deemed to be incompetent their licenses back? After all, incompetent doctors (and other health professionals) are just another product of that nasty government intrusion. And why stop there? The Libertardans believe that all those dangerous medicines pulled by by the FDA is nothing more than a government conspiracy to keep us all sick. So let's put them back on the shelves!
http://images.dangerousminds.net/uploads/images/libertaranismexplained.jpg
Than again, I'm just "enabling," right? I swear, you talk like a fucking cultist asshole who uses buzz phrases to expunge your shit. No wonder you support a party of losers brought on futher by mentally ill asshole like Jone$ and his blowjob queen buddy Ron Paul. You remember him, don't you?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/67/Herbert_-_Family_Guy.png/250px-Herbert_-_Family_Guy.png
You're just a failure supporting a fad. The Libertardian trademark
Dr. Love
08-25-2013, 09:17 PM
And they never will. It's a party of fools. Again, you subscribe to a bullshit pseudo-political self-imposed ideology that can't agree on anything among themselves. So you invent more and more ridiculous crap. A "private account" pay for health care? Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure. Between mortgage foreclosures, industry going overseas and unpayable student loans yeah, I'll save that 30 cents to pay for a $28,000 gallbladder surgery if I happen to need it. No problem. Another Libertardian method of shitting on the poor. Oh, while we're at it why not deregulate the medical industry and give doctors who have been deemed to be incompetent their licenses back? After all, incompetent doctors (and other health professionals) are just another product of that nasty government intrusion. And why stop there? The Libertardans believe that all those dangerous medicines pulled by by the FDA is nothing more than a government conspiracy to keep us all sick. So let's put them back on the shelves!
http://images.dangerousminds.net/uploads/images/libertaranismexplained.jpg
Than again, I'm just "enabling," right? I swear, you talk like a fucking cultist asshole who uses buzz phrases to expunge your shit. No wonder you support a party of losers brought on futher by mentally ill asshole like Jone$ and his blowjob queen buddy Ron Paul. You remember him, don't you?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/67/Herbert_-_Family_Guy.png/250px-Herbert_-_Family_Guy.png
You're just a failure supporting a fad. The Libertardian trademark
I presume you're referring to the health care bill that was largely crafted by the health care industry lobbyists, and famously not read by the legislators, that helps the insurance industry more than it helps the insured. Which, as I recall, was passed and signed by a "democratic" congress and administration. The same "democratic" congress and administration that has done more to help the banks than the homeowners in the foreclosure crisis. And (so far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong), has done little to help deal with rising student debt levels.
You're attacking a straw man. One that evokes such an intense emotional response from you, but not one that I ascribe to. I think some regulation is necessary. I would personally be happy to spend more money on domestic programs and pay for them by reducing military budget. There's a lot of libertarians like me. Just as there is in any party, there are pragmatists.
You are upset at ideologically pure libertarianism, and view them through the same myopic point of view that conservatives use to see all liberals as baby-killing socialists. You live in a black and white world, where someone is either a friend or foe, and those that disagree with you are to be attacked. It's a point of view that works well for the simple-minded, but it makes you much more like those you profess to hate than you seem to be aware of. Angry that someone else thinks a different way than they do, but unwilling or unable to do anything to change the problems they profess to be so upset by.
TwoFoolsAMinute
08-26-2013, 01:37 AM
It seems that it's always one way or the other: Libertarians are either mistaken for conservatives or anarchists when they are neither. That being said, I have never seen a more misguided characterization of libertarians as I have in this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jymMb6t1LSc
Nickdfresh
08-26-2013, 09:59 AM
What!? Did Nick find no Wiki reference, citation or article!?
I found one for you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche#Slang_uses)
Nickdfresh
08-26-2013, 10:01 AM
I agree with that, but I still think he would have been more or less status-quo. Which is the point of my generalization.
The problem is that (rightest) Libertarians tend to want a decentralized, weakened gov't. So that's a bit of a contradiction with calling for tighter regulations...
Nickdfresh
08-26-2013, 10:04 AM
I can't speak for all libertarians, but I believe in privatization because by reducing its scope of authority it reduces the incentive by corporations to buy the government to seize control of that authority. ...
You mean they'd just own everything without any sort of annoying bulwark of a gov't hindering them...
Kristy
08-26-2013, 10:56 AM
You're attacking a straw man. One that evokes such an intense emotional response from you, but not one that I ascribe to.
No I'm not. I'm "attacking" what has been stated in your Libertardian charter.
http://www.lp.org/issues/healthcare
Have you read it? It's unfuckingrealistic for one. There is no emotional response other than the ridiculousness of it.
And here is your strawmen:
http://gedde.newsvine.com/_news/2012/07/01/12508206-libertarians-far-right-republican-wolves-in-pseudo-intellectual-sheeps-clothing
"Libertarians are poseurs!!! They hide behind pseudo-intellectual arguments that suggest the possibility of a utopian existence, free of Government which amounts to little more than anarchy. Anarchy in which you protect your own rights, free from oversight and regulation, usually by implied force. You see? Republicans on steroids (which, of course, would also be legal in Libertarian America). As I understand it, at its core, Libertarianism is the notion that everybody can be free to do whatever they like, as long as it doesn't impinge on the ability of anybody else to do whatever they like, or in the trite Libertarian mantra "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".
Libertardianism IS far right wing pseudo-intellectualism spawn by disillusioned Rethuglicans. Although I don't agree with the author's statement that Libertardianism is anarchy it's social-political control that borders on insanity. And again with your creepy psychosocial posturing. I don't live in a black and white world when it comes to Libertardianism nor do I have a myopic view. I'm far from angry that one sees shit in this world different from moi (unless you are a KISS/metal fan and perpetually stuck in 1985) but have some decency for your fellow man in the process. Because the Libertardians sure don't; you want to fuck up government even more as you see it being good only for yourselves. You do shit on the poor and the sick. You claim to hate health care but love it only when it woudl be available to those who can afford it.
"We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap."
Welfare is out of control but that is not a Libertardian concept - not in the least. Okay, eliminate food stamps and watch people starve, become homeless and see if that solves the poverty problem. You fucking idiots. Oh and by individuals who can't support themselves (i.e., the mentally ill) should just join a church, right? It's their problem now. For social issues do not exist in the Libertardian party. None at all. You did away with them by ignoring them. So simple. So non-black and white!
Read you own fucking charter sometime. You love the Second Amendment but use this bullshit paranoid conspiracy of "prohibition" claiming when guns become illegal it will not stop ownership. Sounds like a fear-based tactic to me. Much like a modern day cult would use to keep their followers stupid. Oh, and I fucking love how you Libertardians feel gun ownership is "personal responsibility" and nothing more. No mention of public safety? Which means another Columbine, Aurora or Sandy Hook can happen but it's cool as long as the gun owner was "responsible." Gawd, you party is warped.
Kristy
08-26-2013, 10:58 AM
I found one for you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche#Slang_uses)
Golly! How original
You're losing your touch, asshole.
Nickdfresh
08-26-2013, 03:26 PM
Golly! How original
You're losing your touch, asshole.
:thumb:
Dr. Love
08-28-2013, 08:53 PM
The problem is that (rightest) Libertarians tend to want a decentralized, weakened gov't. So that's a bit of a contradiction with calling for tighter regulations...
I wasn't calling for tighter, I was suggesting smarter.
Nickdfresh
08-28-2013, 09:12 PM
I wasn't calling for tighter, I was suggesting smarter.
Examples?
Examples?
Do it like they do in Texas.
You know, like ENRON, or that fertilizer factory?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxJxvwnw92U
Dr. Love
08-29-2013, 08:45 PM
Do it like they do in Texas.
You know, like ENRON, or that fertilizer factory?
I don't think Texas does it right either :)
Dr. Love
08-29-2013, 09:06 PM
Examples?
Personally, I think the phase out of incandescent light bulbs is dumb and unnecessary. I think net neutrality could be a framework for good regulation if it was scoped specifically enough, protecting from discrimination against specific protocols and preventing throttling, but not going so far as to make the barrier of entry for high enough to deter competitors from launching or from launching multiple product lines (pay for usage, pay for speed, pay for truly unlimited, etc). Proposed net neutrality is more than just that though. Basically, if I sign up for a service at a specific advertised speed and amount of bandwidth, I should get exactly what was promised, and if not, they are in violation of the agreement and I should be able to hold them accountable (get my money back).
Kristy
09-03-2013, 12:30 AM
Personally, I think the phase out of incandescent light bulbs is dumb and unnecessary.
Right! A lightbulb. A halt in the production of the fucking incandescent light bulb will be the downfall of America. Say, have your Libertardians started a campaign on film yet? Or would that be too hipster?
I think net neutrality could be a framework for good regulation if it was scoped specifically enough, protecting from discrimination against specific protocols and preventing throttling, but not going so far as to make the barrier of entry for high enough to deter competitors from launching or from launching multiple product lines (pay for usage, pay for speed, pay for truly unlimited, etc). Proposed net neutrality is more than just that though. Basically, if I sign up for a service at a specific advertised speed and amount of bandwidth, I should get exactly what was promised, and if not, they are in violation of the agreement and I should be able to hold them accountable (get my money back).
Or, you could just do all balls out Libertardian way and clog up the courts in frivolous lawsuits between bouts of shitting all over the poor because, you know, inept bandwidth is a threat to America. You gonna wave one of those bullshit 'Don't Tread On Me' flags over a overpass when the cable company laughs in your retarded face? I can see your protest now blaming Obama for low bandwidth claiming it's all socialism.
Dr. Love
09-03-2013, 01:19 AM
I can only imagine how hard it must be for you to struggle with such impotent rage on a daily basis. Frothing at the mouth every day can't be an enjoyable existence.
Kristy
09-03-2013, 11:17 AM
Hey, don't blame me for my (endless) anger. Blame Obama! That's the Libertardian way.
Kristy
09-04-2013, 10:10 PM
I can only imagine how hard it must be for you to struggle with such impotent rage on a daily basis. Frothing at the mouth every day can't be an enjoyable existence.
What's the matter? No poor or sick person to shit on today?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.