Random Political Thoughts

[Pragmier]

WoTR: the reason we don't usually see Dems & Reps calling out those on their side is because it's perceived as a zero-sum game in which criticizing your team is equivalent to helping the other side. Look at the blow-back Christie got for praising Obama, or the pressure Booker came under for saying he didn't like the administration's campaign ad. Never mind if it's the right thing to do. Listen to most political talk radio and the most often repeated word is "they". Of course there are exceptions, such as Boehner's recent condemnation of Rep. Young - but I suspect that is done only after weighing the fallout. It's political theater, farce tragique.

Let's pretend for a moment. Imagine a party in power dealing with some crisis that is sure to result in a loss come Nov. The opposition, a month before the election, figures out a way to resolve the crisis; the resolution greatly benefiting the country but enabling the current administration to get re-elected. What do we suppose the opposition would do? Help fix the problem ... or allow the situation to continue a bit longer in order to win? I bet 9/10 politicians would choose the latter.

[Yorkshire pud]

Absolutely.  Alex Jones is a great example of what you were asking for yesterday - someone that's considered to be on 'my side' that is little more than an embarassment.  I personally pay no attention to him, and usually turned it off when Noory had him on.  I can't believe anyone takes him seriously.  (I say 'little more' than an embarassment because he sometimes asks good questions like 'what's up with all those FEMA Camps'.  It's the answers he comes up with that are absurd). 

Alex Jones should be made to eat his own excrement; at least then it wouldn't be dressed up as words.

Obama, from what it looks like to me, grew up around Muslims in Indonesia on some sleepy island who were normal regular people.  I think because of that he is a little naive about radical Jihad.  He does take action when he's convinced, killing OBL, drone attacks on al-Qaeda and others.  I was convinced when he had that Navy sharpshooter kill those Somali Pirates at sea.  Yet he stood by silently when the people of Iran were asking for moral support, and has done nothing to stop radical elements from stealing the Arab Spring revolutions in places like Algeria, Libya, now Syria, and especially Egypt.  So he's a mixed bag.  But certainly not the head of Terrorism. 

Obama is no better or worse than all the other presidents that have gone before (he may even be better)..In 63 a coup was instigated in Indonesia by the CIA, 3 million died in the blood bath. In 72, The British protectorate, Belize was threatened with invasion from Guatemala. The US government of the day refused point blank to allow British aircraft to overfly their airspace to go and protect Belize(but they did anyway, and the air national guard used too much fuel trying to climb up to meet them)..Reagan invaded Grenada (another British protectorate) without so much as a 'please'..The ensuing routing of 'commies' also ensured the attack on an orphanage by the Marines..However..The defence department did help in a hush hush way the taking back of the Falklands from the Argentine invasion in 82.


Why did Obama stay silent over Libya Tunisia, Egypt and latterly Syria? He's playing exactly the same game that all presidents play; Wait to see where the pieces lie..Those people asking for moral support are no more an ally of the US as they are of the Iranian government. They like all oppressed people simply want help from anyone who is willing to give it. Obama isn't a fool; he knows if he gives tacit support to any rebellious citizens in the Arab countries, the shit really will hit the fan..That isn't to say that the CIA isn't giving support, just not publically.


What a dilemma; the very same people who overthrew and killed Gadaffi are the same people who were his sworn enemies: Know who they are? Al Qaeda.  Elements of which now run Libya, but we'll overlook that for now, Gaddafi is gone and that's all that matters. Similarly with Egypt: The nasty tyrant Mubarak has been replaced with a committee of them, they just haven't shown their hand yet..The ancient artifacts near Luxor are being plundered and nothing can be done about it. In Tunisia, a woman was threatened with stoning due to taking her top off in protest. In Syria: well, who knows what will eventually happen there; but it's horrible.

As an aside, I don't trust him one bit (due to his friends, his former church affiliation, some of his words and actions. and staff members and advisors) and I'm highly suspicious he has his own destructive agenda for us, with the Muslim terrorism as a distraction from that for him.

Obama isn't the bogey man. It isn't even the democrats: It's the whole political make up that encourages dispute, conflict, hate, suspicion and blinkeredness . When you point the finger, take note how many point backwards.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Obama isn't the bogey man...

With his father a British subject as a Kenyan in colonial times, too bad Obama didn't end up in the UK.  I think that's a system he'd prefer - everyone could have been happy.  There wouldn't even be the question of eligibility to be head of government.

... Obama isn't the bogey man. It isn't even the democrats: It's the whole political make up that encourages dispute, conflict, hate, suspicion and blinkeredness . When you point the finger, take note how many point backwards.

That 'whole political makeup' was intended that way by the Founding Fathers - separation of powers among the Federal Government institutions - between the House and Senate - between the Congress, Executive, and Judicial - between the States and the Federal Government - between the Individual and the State - Freedom of the Press to take positions and expose the opposition - elections for citizens to choose among various viewpoints - staggered Senate terms and different terms for House, Senate, and President, and lifetime appointments for Judges.  It's supposed to be slow moving and ponderous, deliberate instead of lock-step, continual dispute and conflict.  Imagine what we'd have if they were competent and expediant.  It's not like a Parlimentary system where the majority party, with no Constitutional constraint, does whatever they want, with potentially huge shifts after elections.

I don't want these people to be even better at rule-making and 'governing'.  For the most part, they aren't in it for the greater good, only for themselves and their party.  That shouldn't be streamlined and made easier.  All the money and power accumulated in Washington DC, and some of the larger States and cities, look what kind of people it attacts.

"That government is best which governs least" has been attributed to Jefferson.  Whether he said those words or not, that is the spirit of what was set up.  And those people were much wiser and less full of lust for power and the wealth of the citizens than any politicians on the current scene.

One fundamental difference is between people that think government - and more tax dollars - is the answer to most or nearly all problems, and people who don't.  I think the evidence is in, the experiment of the past 50-100 years over, and time to scale back to those few things they truly should be doing.

[West of the Rockies]

WoTR: the reason we don't usually see Dems & Reps calling out those on their side is because it's perceived as a zero-sum game in which criticizing your team is equivalent to helping the other side. Look at the blow-back Christie got for praising Obama, or the pressure Booker came under for saying he didn't like the administration's campaign ad. Never mind if it's the right thing to do. Listen to most political talk radio and the most often repeated word is "they". Of course there are exceptions, such as Boehner's recent condemnation of Rep. Young - but I suspect that is done only after weighing the fallout. It's political theater, farce tragique.

Let's pretend for a moment. Imagine a party in power dealing with some crisis that is sure to result in a loss come Nov. The opposition, a month before the election, figures out a way to resolve the crisis; the resolution greatly benefiting the country but enabling the current administration to get re-elected. What do we suppose the opposition would do? Help fix the problem ... or allow the situation to continue a bit longer in order to win? I bet 9/10 politicians would choose the latter.

Well, there is that famous edict (some say attributable to Ronald Reagan) about "speaking no ill of a fellow Republican", but it works both ways.  It takes quite a bit for someone in either party to bring down a truly meaningful poop storm from the folks on his/her side.  Oh, we sometimes get such lines as, "It was not artfully worded... I wouldn't have put it that way... I'm sure he regrets his wording..."  But then all is quickly forgotten.

I know that I had great disdain for Blagojevich of Illinois (former governor) when he was caught basically selling Obama's vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder, what, a day and a half after Obama was elected?  He actually went -- deservedly -- to prison.  Will he return to politics?  Stay tuned...  I would have thought that Mark Sanford of South Carolina was done, but he may well return to a position of power.  Why?  Because those who would vote him in are willing to turn a blind eye on things that -- if done by someone of "the other party" -- would have resulted in complete disdain.  American politics as usual, it would appear. 

[West of the Rockies]

Absolutely.  Alex Jones is a great example of what you were asking for yesterday - someone that's considered to be on 'my side' that is little more than an embarassment.  I personally pay no attention to him, and usually turned it off when Noory had him on.  I can't believe anyone takes him seriously.  (I say 'little more' than an embarassment because he sometimes asks good questions like 'what's up with all those FEMA Camps'.  It's the answers he comes up with that are absurd). 

Obama, from what it looks like to me, grew up around Muslims in Indonesia on some sleepy island who were normal regular people.  I think because of that he is a little naive about radical Jihad.  He does take action when he's convinced, killing OBL, drone attacks on al-Qaeda and others.  I was convinced when he had that Navy sharpshooter kill those Somali Pirates at sea.  Yet he stood by silently when the people of Iran were asking for moral support, and has done nothing to stop radical elements from stealing the Arab Spring revolutions in places like Algeria, Libya, now Syria, and especially Egypt.  So he's a mixed bag.  But certainly not the Head of Terrorism. 

As an aside, I don't trust him one bit (due to his friends, his former church affiliation, some of his words and actions. and staff members and advisors).  I think it's somewhere between possible and likely that he hates the West and Capitalism and wouldn't mind seeing our position in the world and our economic and government systems destroyed.

I'll disagree with you, Paperboy, in particular on that last point about Obama wanting to see our system destroyed.  I think he's got too much skin in the game now.  He's a multimillionaire, I'm sure.  He leads a lifestyle now that most of us can only imagine.  Oh, he's not as wealthy as a Romney, but I can't imagine he'd want to scrap it all in this interests of returning power to the people in the way socialism seems to suggest. 

This is a bit off-topic, but I get rather nervous anytime a politician is willing to spend a fortune in the pursuit of power.  We had a woman run for governor here in California a few years ago (Meg Whitman, former CEO of E-Bay).  She spent something like 110 MILLION of her own dollars for a position that pays, what, $250,000 a year?  I don't think she did it because of some great patriotic or humanitarian desire to do good.  I think she saw a chance to possibly fix the game from inside and make back the money later.  Sadly, the majority of our politicians are now wealthy attorneys.  They're holding the rule book and not letting us really see it.  They change the rules to suit them through such things as "signing statements" for which W really made a name for himself (with Barack following in his footsteps). 

Well, enough pontificating from me.  What the hell do I know anyway?  Have a good evening y'all.

[PB the Deplorable]

I'll disagree with you, Paperboy, in particular on that last point about Obama wanting to see our system destroyed.  I think he's got too much skin in the game now.  He's a multimillionaire, I'm sure.  He leads a lifestyle now that most of us can only imagine.  Oh, he's not as wealthy as a Romney, but I can't imagine he'd want to scrap it all in this interests of returning power to the people in the way socialism seems to suggest. 

This is a bit off-topic, but I get rather nervous anytime a politician is willing to spend a fortune in the pursuit of power.  We had a woman run for governor here in California a few years ago (Meg Whitman, former CEO of E-Bay).  She spent something like 110 MILLION of her own dollars for a position that pays, what, $250,000 a year?  I don't think she did it because of some great patriotic or humanitarian desire to do good.  I think she saw a chance to possibly fix the game from inside and make back the money later.  Sadly, the majority of our politicians are now wealthy attorneys.  They're holding the rule book and not letting us really see it.  They change the rules to suit them through such things as "signing statements" for which W really made a name for himself (with Barack following in his footsteps). 

Well, enough pontificating from me.  What the hell do I know anyway?  Have a good evening y'all.

Yeah, the people that rise to power tend to think that system is the greatest ever.  It chose them after all.  It's a shock when someone like Gorbachev turns against it.  I've wondered if Obama's ideological leanings may have turned at least ever so slightly.  His wife sure enjoys the good life vacationing all over the world.  He sure golfs a lot and they hold a lot of parties.

I live in Calif too.  Remember Michael Huffington running for Senate awhile back - another multi-multi-millionaire that spent a ton of his own money to get a Senate seat that couldn't possibly pay what he's spent.

I think these people run for the power.  They have enough money.  I'd say they run to make a real change, but Huffington and Whitman were 'Moderates', which to me means no real strongly held convictions.  They don't need high office to make more money - there have to be easier ways where they don't have to campaign, spend time in committee, talk to constituents, etc.  In addition to the power, I think for them it's also about being even more high profile - like a billionaire buying a sports team.  They're bored.

[Yorkshire pud]

[size=78%]  [/size]
That 'whole political makeup' was intended that way by the Founding Fathers - separation of powers among the Federal Government institutions - between the House and Senate - between the Congress, Executive, and Judicial - between the States and the Federal Government - between the Individual and the State - Freedom of the Press to take positions and expose the opposition - elections for citizens to choose among various viewpoints - staggered Senate terms and different terms for House, Senate, and President, and lifetime appointments for Judges.  It's supposed to be slow moving and ponderous, deliberate instead of lock-step, continual dispute and conflict.  Imagine what we'd have if they were competent and expediant. 

Getting back to the Middle east crises, that's political expediency wrote big. Political aspirations when in opposition are fine and dandy..I'm sure Romney (or any other opposing politician, and Obama too when he was running for president first time)  can convince themselves and their supporters (and of course in this day and age the millions from those who will want pay back) they really mean what they're promising..Political expediency in power is a whole different box of frogs. It's when promises become aspirations or distant and fond memories depending on a) the budget b) opposition from your own and and rivals c) new priorities that were unforeseen when in opposition.

elections for citizens to choose among various viewpoints

..is interesting. Because what actually happens is (and the US isn't alone by any means in this) that it becomes an either/or set of 'rules'. There ends up being a philosophy of 'agree with everything I'm/we're saying and advocating or consider yourself my enemy': And that's supposed to be civilised? After 9/11 Bush jnr famously came out with the 'You're with us or against us'..Well, actually no.. Obviously I don't advocate that aircraft should be flown into tall buildings or that anyone should be murdered, but that doesn't mean by default (which is what Bush was implying) everything that the administration does thereafter is right and proper, nor should it be seen as such. As I say, it isn't just a US thing, and it happens here too, much to the frustration of those who can actually think for themselves. That's what modern politics is; a way of division, a way of picking out (even if it means lying to do it) the outsider and keeping them there..Maybe that's what your founding fathers didn't intend, but then, TV, telephones, Aircraft, Internet, cars, the ball point pen hadn't been invented yet..and the vast majority were illiterate. Today we have all the means of communication, but we don't have equality. We still have illiteracy, and we still have the 'me good and right', 'you perverse and wrong' mentality.. And (in the US particularly) until you reappraise what left and right is, you won't reach consensus.

It's not like a Parlimentary system where the majority party, with no Constitutional constraint, does whatever they want, with potentially huge shifts after elections.

What has happened in the UK over the last 15 years or soo has been a race to the centre..only recently has there been an upsurge in spikes of major shifts in commonality. largely prompted by the minor political parties gaining ground, and taking too much of the electorate with them; the major parties are having to suck in their cheeks, bite their lip and admit that if they don't shift, they won't be around to influence things in the future anyway. Sure it means they're taken to task by the press (U turn is a favourite phrase used) and the opposing sides who gloat about how their ideas (five years ago) are now being adopted by the governing party as policy, when five years ago it was ridiculed and dismissed. But who cares? Once in power you can bring things like that in; it means it has to be voted for in Parliament and it's fair to say not everything will get through, but on balance a lot of it will.

[Juan]

I've always thought politicians were exactly like that back-stabbing power grabber at work who would do anything to move up in the power system.  Then when arriving at the top (or middle for some of them) they were completely unable to make the company better or more efficient, but, instead, concentrated on making the lives of their underlings miserable. 

Then there are the studies that show politicians and serial killers share psychological traits.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/politicians-and-serial-killers.html

[Yorkshire pud]

I've always thought politicians were exactly like that back-stabbing power grabber at work who would do anything to move up in the power system.  Then when arriving at the top (or middle for some of them) they were completely unable to make the company better or more efficient, but, instead, concentrated on making the lives of their underlings miserable. 

I worked at a company with a c... persoon like that. One weekend I discussed with my then wife about leaving on monday morning because of him..And did. Went in, told one of the directors why (he tried to persuade me to stay and discuss it). I went round shaking everyone's hands and went. The weight lifted was incredible; the down side I was unemployed for the next six months.  :

[West of the Rockies]

Hey, Yorkshire... yes, I will remember W's "You're with us or you're with the terrorists..."  (Though from his mouth it sort of came out "... or yer with the turrrerists..."     )  What always struck me as amusing is that line is essentially out of about half a dozen American westerns:  "Yer with us, or yer agin' us..."  I don't know how familiar you are there in the U.K. with the many Bushes who've been in office.  It always seems odd to me that George H.W. Bush (the father) sounds pretty Ivy League with his accent (New England).  Jeb and Neil sound fairly midwestern/non-descript.  George Jr. has that rather pronounced Texas twang.

What became of Gordon Brown?  Is he still in the government in some capacity?  Do ex-government officials end up on the talk-show circuit in the United Kingdom the way a lot of them do here in the U.S.?

[Yorkshire pud]

Hey, Yorkshire... yes, I will remember W's "You're with us or you're with the terrorists..."  (Though from his mouth it sort of came out "... or yer with the turrrerists..."     )  What always struck me as amusing is that line is essentially out of about half a dozen American westerns:  "Yer with us, or yer agin' us..."  I don't know how familiar you are there in the U.K. with the many Bushes who've been in office.  It always seems odd to me that George H.W. Bush (the father) sounds pretty Ivy League with his accent (New England).  Jeb and Neil sound fairly midwestern/non-descript.  George Jr. has that rather pronounced Texas twang.

I've mentioned I have several US friends in different states and I can almost identify the differences in their speech; I couldn't though listen to a selection of voices (other than my friends) and tell you where they might be from unless there were (to my ear) obvious markers. I can tell a NY accent (narrowed down to about 1000 sq miles!), a Boston ish one..GA, FL, AL, TN, NC, SC all sound the same to me (sorry!) It's when it goes west of there I get really lost!! I might be able to identiify a CA accent, but I couldn't stake my life on it..TX I (think) I could spot. I tried to do a sort of aide memoir kind of test with a friend from UT, and would e mail YT vids where there was speech and ask where they might be from; and answer came back telling me where they were likely from and how to differentiate (I was still non the wiser!)..The odd thing is I can pretty much narrow down to within about twenty miles or so accents in my immediate area (2500 sq miles) which might seem a big area, but it isn't really.

What became of Gordon Brown?  Is he still in the government in some capacity?  Do ex-government officials end up on the talk-show circuit in the United Kingdom the way a lot of them do here in the U.S.?

I believe he's moved onwards and upwards, I found this:
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/4031-gordon-brown-earns-over-p1-million-while-absent-from-commons




He hasn't done as well as his predecessor; Bliar. He's really raked in the millions since he gifted the poisoned chalice to Brown. Blair should be tried as a war criminal and then found guilty; hanged, drawn and quatered and his remains fed to pigs..Not that I have any strong feelings about the mendacious, corrupt, sleazebag, smirking self satisfied murdering fucking bastard, you understand.

[West of the Rockies]

Hey, Yorkshire... Whoa, dude... it's like, here in California -- or something -- we for sure don't have an accent or, like, any unusual way of speaking!

On another note, I wonder if we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Sarah Palin cult of worship.  It has been revealed that just 6% of what she raised with her PAC (political action committee) actually went to the candidates she endorsed.  (This comes from today's -- March 31st, 2013) Mediaite website.) The rest of the 5.1 million she raised went to consultants, even though she had this to say about consultants at the big conservative conference a couple weeks ago:  “Don’t let the big consultants, the big money men, and the big bad media scare you off! … Now is the time to furlough the consultants…”  Ooopsies....

I wonder if her efforts compare evenly with those of most other big-name would-be kingmakers.  Perhaps the whole damn thing is a sham, a case of grifters fleecing the flock of true believers.  I suspect that there are con men/women in all political parties, but Palin's hypocritical and loud-mouthed call to eliminate consultants is what really got her in trouble.  Of course, there will be those who say that the media has been out to get her since day one.  She was/is a big, flamboyant target, after all.

[Yorkshire pud]

Hey, Yorkshire... Whoa, dude... it's like, here in California -- or something -- we for sure don't have an accent or, like, any unusual way of speaking!

On another note, I wonder if we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Sarah Palin cult of worship.  It has been revealed that just 6% of what she raised with her PAC (political action committee) actually went to the candidates she endorsed.  (This comes from today's -- March 31st, 2013) Mediaite website.) The rest of the 5.1 million she raised went to consultants, even though she had this to say about consultants at the big conservative conference a couple weeks ago:  “Don’t let the big consultants, the big money men, and the big bad media scare you off! … Now is the time to furlough the consultants…”  Ooopsies....

I wonder if her efforts compare evenly with those of most other big-name would-be kingmakers.  Perhaps the whole damn thing is a sham, a case of grifters fleecing the flock of true believers.  I suspect that there are con men/women in all political parties, but Palin's hypocritical and loud-mouthed call to eliminate consultants is what really got her in trouble.  Of course, there will be those who say that the media has been out to get her since day one.  She was/is a big, flamboyant target, after all.

I know it's tasteless, but my first though when she first made her presence on our TV's years ago (with the potted bio about her), was "I bet she's a dirty bitch in bed". The more she spoke the more I realised my initial thoughts were probably way way wide of the mark. 

[PB the Deplorable]

I've mentioned I have several US friends in different states and I can almost identify the differences in their speech; I couldn't though listen to a selection of voices (other than my friends) and tell you where they might be from unless there were (to my ear) obvious markers. I can tell a NY accent (narrowed down to about 1000 sq miles!), a Boston ish one..GA, FL, AL, TN, NC, SC all sound the same to me (sorry!) It's when it goes west of there I get really lost!! I might be able to identiify a CA accent, but I couldn't stake my life on it..TX I (think) I could spot. I tried to do a sort of aide memoir kind of test with a friend from UT, and would e mail YT vids where there was speech and ask where they might be from; and answer came back telling me where they were likely from and how to differentiate (I was still non the wiser!)..The odd thing is I can pretty much narrow down to within about twenty miles or so accents in my immediate area (2500 sq miles) which might seem a big area, but it isn't really...

Here is an archive of languages and accents.  This link should be their recordings of spoken English page. 

http://accent.gmu.edu/browse_language.php?function=find&language=english


They seem randomly gathered, there are several just from around the SF Bay Area, maybe they originally gathered them from anyone that would send them their recorded comment.  Anyway...


Here in Northern people tend to think we don't have accents because we speak the way they do on TV, but 'Californian' actually has a slight drawl.  I wonder if speech around the country is evolving towards that California accent due to TV and movies

[FightTheFuture]

Here is an archive of languages and accents.  This link should be their recordings of spoken English page. 

http://accent.gmu.edu/browse_language.php?function=find&language=english


They seem randomly gathered, there are several just from around the SF Bay Area, maybe they originally gathered them from anyone that would send them their recorded comment.  Anyway...


Here in Northern people tend to think we don't have accents because we speak the way they do on TV, but 'Californian' actually has a slight drawl.  I wonder if speech around the country is evolving towards that California accent due to TV and movies

Most people are surprised to learn that the Southern accent is, in large part, derived from the British isles. Tally ho! 

[West of the Rockies]

I know it's tasteless, but my first though when she first made her presence on our TV's years ago (with the potted bio about her), was "I bet she's a dirty bitch in bed". The more she spoke the more I realised my initial thoughts were probably way way wide of the mark. 

Well, there has long been the joke that Palin was a VPILF or GILF.  I think she is a physically attractive woman (though her thinner, leaner look accompanied by a facial expression that looks ever more resentful is diminishing her beauty IMO).  I don't know what she'd be like in bed; some attractive people are selfish, more prone to just letting their partner "do the work".  (Anyone see that Paris Hilton video?  She looked bored and not terribly generous, sexually speaking.)  Who knows -- maybe Sarah is, indeed, a wildcat in the sack.

[West of the Rockies]

Here is an archive of languages and accents.  This link should be their recordings of spoken English page. 

http://accent.gmu.edu/browse_language.php?function=find&language=english


They seem randomly gathered, there are several just from around the SF Bay Area, maybe they originally gathered them from anyone that would send them their recorded comment.  Anyway...


Here in Northern people tend to think we don't have accents because we speak the way they do on TV, but 'Californian' actually has a slight drawl.  I wonder if speech around the country is evolving towards that California accent due to TV and movies

Interesting link, Paperboy... Yes, I quite agree that a NorCal accent (if it exists) is quite different from a SoCal accent.  Of course, you could probably fit a dozen smaller states in the square mileage of California, so it stands to reason there'd be much diversity.

[PB the Deplorable]

Duh. That's EXACTLY what they're "supposed" to do. And far too often that's all they HAVE done and DO.

Ultimately it's kind of like the famous (language alert) dick/pussy/asshole speech from Team America. Except that by and large, for me, American politics is much simpler. The right are bullies, the left are pussies; when the right has the power, they do what the fuck they want and make NO apologies to anyone; when the Left has the power, they usually whine and snivel and still act like pussies who know they're going to get caught by the bullies again someday--even while those selfsame bullies are trying to pass themselves off as the "victims" of the bully left. It's a vicious, ugly cycle and is a big part of the reason why regardless of where I might identify idealogically, I just want no part of, or as little as necessary. And mind you, this is not an admission of me being a "lib" or endorsing liberal politics or thinking. Honestly there are things about the left I detest just as much as on the right. But in the end, I don't FEAR the left the way I fear the right....

Oh MorfiaFlow, I don't want to get into another unpleasant exchange with you, in the past I've enjoyed your posts regarding Coast to Coast and George Noory - but do you really think the Right are the bullies and the Left aren't?  I'd say there is plenty in each party these days.

You don't hear all the name calling from the Libs?  It's been pretty loud and constant for decades now.  The Conservatives finally firing back at the same level is a fairly new phenonomen.   Decades long charges of racism - you are familiar with that, yes?  'Hitler', 'Nazi', the Rs 'hate women, children, old people', they 'want to poison the air and water', on and on.  A bunch of bigots.  You are unfamiliar with this? - my contention is it is so ingrained that people not on the receiving end of it don't even hear it anymore - even when they are the ones repeating it. 

Are you familiar with the case of Sarah Palin, and other Conservatives in the public eye?  Any bullying or piling on there? 
 

The Right gets into power and do 'what the fuck they want', and the Left just 'act like pussies' when they get in?  If that's the case, can you explain how over the decades spending just grows and grows, government just grows and grows and gets ever more intrusive, a higher and higher portion of our paychecks go to an ever wider variety of taxes - income tax, sales tax, payroll tax, property tax, extra tax on gasoline, taxes that businesses pay more and more of that they have to pass on to customers in the form of higher prices.  Regulations on business grow and grow.

Given all that, how is it the R's 'do whatever they want', and the D's 'do nothing'?  Other than the occasional reduction in Federal tax rates, it seems to me the Rs are never able to reduce any of the rest of it when they get in, but the Ds ratchet this stuff up to the next level when they get in. 

When you see policies get passed you don't like, do you pay attention to which parties are controlling the House and Senate and how the Media operates in supporting or resisting the legislation, or do you just see which party the President is in and assign blame based on that?

[PB the Deplorable]

I've pointed this out ad infinitum when pointing out that Obama isn't left by any stretch; But it doesn't 'fit' the desire to dislike anything that has democrat in it's name, so it's ignored.

Yes you have said this on several occasions.  And you've gotten plenty of responses - definitions, examples, none of it was accepted. 

I will admit I don't know much about a Parlimentary system.  I think I know how political parties work though.  Political parties are there to expand and grow their power.  They all support Big Government and think government is the answer to just about any problem.  The people that don't believe this don't tend to have careers in government or form political parties, unless they reach the point of outrage.

I would suggest that in a Parlimentary system, with so many parties believing in Big Government and vying for power, that they all mostly fall in a small range from Left of Center to just short of extreme Leftism.  A single party rarely gets 50% of the vote, and doesn't need to, so there is no reason to appeal to voters that don't support their Big Government ideals.  There are no 'Right Wing' parties.  Parties called 'Right-Wing in Europe are really Leftist parties that want immigration stopped or reversed.

Here in the US, with only 2 parties (the 3rd parties very seldomly get anyone elected), each has to expand from it's base to try to reach around half the population.  Both parties are of course run by people that believe in Big Government.  The population here in the US still consists of A LOT of people that don't see government as the answer to every problem, and more taxes as the funding for those solutions.  Because they have to get over 50% of the vote, at least one party is going to try to cater to those people, while the the European parties don't have to get half the vote and thus all try to appeal to the same pool of Big Government voters.

So when someone like Obama comes along, he is seen by the Europeans as a typical 'Center' politician, but here in the US he is the most radical Leftist we've ever had (with apologies to Wilson, FDR, and Carter).  In Europe, all or nearly all the candidates are some variety of Leftist, while here in the US the Presidential candidates have to appeal to the center where the swing votes are.

This ObamaCare grab alone qualifies him as far Left.  It is much more than the advocated and our 'Media' has told us - people have gotten complacent about it since the worse of it hasn't gone into effect yet.  Yet.


So on the real continuum from Left to Right, Obama is very Left.  Because ALL your politicians are on one spot on the continuum and still find things to fight about, it appears to you they occupy the entire Left/Right range.  They don't.

Here is our 'non-Leftist' President at his first inauguration.  The red and black motif is not an accident.

[attachimg=1]

[morphiaflow]

I'm saying that when Republicans get too much power they do exactly what they want and don't give a fuck what ANYONE thinks. They don't apologize, they don't make concessions, they don't try to meet in the middle. I'm thinking of the first 5 or 6 years of the Bush administration.

Is there bullying and demonizing from all sides? Yes. But the Republicans are the professional, by nature bullies. They are the jocks who beat up the smart and skinny kids in the locker room BECAUSE THEY CAN--because that's what the strong do to the weak and it's God's Natural Order, dammit. And if you don't agree, then you hate America and Jesus and football and stuff.

And the left have historically taken it, and taken it, and taken it again. As for the policies and trends and whatever that have contributed to the state of things now, that's BOTH parties. But in terms of character and personality types, the Right are absolutely the high school bullies in every possible sense, even (literally) down to the "Date rape and AIDS jokes". Be it the country club conservatives or the rural rednecks, it's all about the Good Ol' Boy system. And I hate it.

Incidentally I didn't even realize I'd made that post in the politics thread, because I generally avoid the politics thread, and I hope to continue to do so, because it's really pointless arguing with people who already know they're right. But I appreciate that you've enjoyed some of my past posts. Good day.

[Yorkshire pud]

Here is our 'non-Leftist' President at his first inauguration.  The red and black motif is not an accident.

Jeeze, you really do see bogey men! I thought you were making it up. So because I (genuinely) don't like red, and blue is my favourite colour I'm a right wing bigot? Yeah..I can see how that might work. Your ingrained aversion to anything you perceive not right (as in political right) is frankly a joke. I bet you won't even sleep on the left side of a bed. The thing is (and this is the irony) your ideology about minimalism government and giving the people more of a say away from large government is socialism. But as you refuse to accept that, you'll continue with your misguided assertions.

[PB the Deplorable]

Jeeze, you really do see bogey men! I thought you were making it up. So because I (genuinely) don't like red, and blue is my favourite colour I'm a right wing bigot? Yeah..I can see how that might work. Your ingrained aversion to anything you perceive not right (as in political right) is frankly a joke. I bet you won't even sleep on the left side of a bed. The thing is (and this is the irony) your ideology about minimalism government and giving the people more of a say away from large government is socialism. But as you refuse to accept that, you'll continue with your misguided assertions.

Yeah the First Family attends a racist, America hating, Black Liberation Theology church for 20 years, then shows up on Inaugaration Day all of them wearing those colors - Red for blood and Black for the people, since you obviously don't know - and even though he plays class warfare constantly and has Carter-esque economic and foreign policies, it somehow turns out he's really a right-winger, the symbology was a coincidence, and I'm seeing a bogey man.  Sheesh.

Anyone - anyone - sitting in that church knows the meaning of those colors, even if no one else is paying attention.

[Juan]

Yorkie, you say that Obama and other US politicians are not left.  Maybe it's not reported in your press, but these politicians proudly proclaim that they are leftists and progressives.  Are they lying when they say that?

[Yorkshire pud]

Yorkie, you say that Obama and other US politicians are not left.  Maybe it's not reported in your press, but these politicians proudly proclaim that they are leftists and progressives.  Are they lying when they say that?

They say that to appeal to those who have the same misguided idea what left is as the right, mid right, and far right do. I'm not suggesting it's only the right who have it wrong, the other right do too.. but neither get it correct, because anyone alive or dead has been sucked into the incorrect definition..A modern misnomer could be said of the word random; It's used by some to mean odd or strange. As I said..those who see themselves on the right actually inadvertently buy into the true definition of what 'left' is, but can't see it.

[PB the Deplorable]

Remember during the post mortem of the financial collapse, the trigger was home loans that people hasd stopped making payments on when the economy stalled and home prices tapered off?

Then it was pointed out people that really had no business having these loans in the first place had gotten them because groups like Acorn - with support from their allies in the Media and in Washington DC - had put pressure on financial institutions to make the loans to low income people, people with lousy credit, and on homes in crummy neighborhoods?  It turned out even a young lawyer named Barrack Obama had been involved with Acorn on these very same issues early on?  Then when it collapsed, these culprits ran for cover and denied all of it?

Here is The Human Wrecking Ball In Chief right back at work:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html

This article, the quotes, the stats, the whole feel of it is nearly exactly the same as when Acorn first started this up back in the '90s. 

I like this quote fom John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (nonprofit housing organization). “It is very difficult for people of low and moderate incomes to refinance or buy homes.”  Wow, John.  No shit.  And this is a person in charge of an organization related to housing.

Any questions on why Obama hasn't been able to get the economy back on it's feet after nearly 5 years?  Not only does he not know what he's doing, he doesn't even remember what not to do from his own experiences.

[Yorkshire pud]

Remember during the post mortem of the financial collapse, the trigger was home loans that people hasd stopped making payments on when the economy stalled and home prices tapered off?

Then it was pointed out people that really had no business having these loans in the first place had gotten them because groups like Acorn - with support from their allies in the Media and in Washington DC - had put pressure on financial institutions to make the loans to low income people, people with lousy credit, and on homes in crummy neighborhoods?  It turned out even a young lawyer named Barrack Obama had been involved with Acorn on these very same issues early on?  Then when it collapsed, these culprits ran for cover and denied all of it?

Here is The Human Wrecking Ball In Chief right back at work:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html

This article, the quotes, the stats, the whole feel of it is nearly exactly the same as when Acorn first started this up back in the '90s. 

I like this quote fom John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (nonprofit housing organization). “It is very difficult for people of low and moderate incomes to refinance or buy homes.”  Wow, John.  No shit.  And this is a person in charge of an organization related to housing.

Any questions on why Obama hasn't been able to get the economy back on it's feet after nearly 5 years?  Not only does he not know what he's doing, he doesn't even remember what not to do from his own experiences.

I knew you'd manage to blame the entire global financial ruin on Obama! Not forgetting their friends in the media! All of which is owned by very rich capitalists with extensive fingers in many pies.. The banks are/weren't governed from DC..they fell over themselves (as they did in the UK-which incidentally wasn't told by DC) to throw money at anyone, and made a great deal of money from it. In 2007, the UK government had to bail out (with taxpayers money) to rescue three banks, the CEO of one resigned a multi millionaire after trashing it before he left. NOT a popular guy.

[Juan]

Folks interested in the housing collapse and the economic collapse might like to read Reckless Endangerment:  How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon.  It's by Gretchen Morgenson, who is a Pulizer Prize winning business journalist for the New York Times.  You can download it from Amazon and Barnes and Noble.

The book outlines how politicians (Obama, Gingrich, the Clintons), semi-government agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac), corporations (Goldman Sachs, Countrywide) and the ratings agencies (Standard and Poors) enriched their executives and themselves by millions of dollars through the expansion of home loans. 

Even a cynic like me was astounded at the breadth and depth of the scandal. 

[PB the Deplorable]

I knew you'd manage to blame the entire global financial ruin on Obama!...

Not at all.  First off, I don't give him that much credit - he's not as bright as people seem to want him to be (i.e., the 'smartest guy in the room'), and he certainly isn't into working very hard. 

For a President, he's quite unaccomplished.  He was less than a bit player in the whole economic collapse.  Just pointing out he was there and apparently doesn't learn from his mistakes.

...The banks are/weren't governed from DC..they fell over themselves (as they did in the UK-which incidentally wasn't told by DC) to throw money at anyone, and made a great deal of money from it...

So you are unaware that the banks are the most regulated industry, and those regulations come from Washingon DC (the Fed, SEC, Treasury, Senate Banking Committee, House Finance Committee), as well as the various state governments where they operate? 

When Acorn and the other pressure groups were on the march back in the '90s, insisting the banks make home loans to the poor, people with bad credit, and on homes in bad areas that wouldn't be good colateral, they were playing to the Media (of course), but also to the various Regulators.  Back then it was still very effective to just start accusing anyone involved of 'racism'.  Well, no one wanted that, and the banks made the decission to turn down the heat and just make the loans.  Fannie May and Freddie Mac lowered their standards on which home loans they would buy, so the financial institutions made the bad loans and sold them on to Fannie and Freddie. 

Investment Banks, particularly Goldman Sachs bought some of the lousy loans for what they were worth, chopped them up and created 'mortgage backed securities', and sold them for far more than the underlying loans were worth.  The rest is history - financial institutions buy and sell emormous amounts of cash, bonds, CDs, commercial paper, SWAPS, and various types of private securites every day.  When it was learned some of it was junk, the whole system froze because no  one wanted to buy any of it until they knew exactly what they were getting in these bundles of securities, which was near impossible.

The stalling economy and people bailing on the lousy loans were what kicked off the collapse.  Something would have started it eventually.  What is really responsible, and continues to this day and has been made worse because it hasn't properly been addressed yet, is all the Debt.  Corporate debt, Federal, state, city and county debt, school district, fire district, water district, park district, waste management district debt.  Household debt, foreign debt.  The US and the world is awash in it. 

Just the Federal government debt alone has gone from $10.5 Trillion to $17 trillion under Obama, and we have nothing to show for that increase.  If federal pensions, social security, and medicare are counted, the Federal debt is somewhere above $80 Trillion, depending on who is counting.  I don't think anyone has even counted up what ObamaCare has added to that total yet.

SWAPS weren't limited to investors that owned the underlying securities like they should be (yes, a good regulation).  The thieves at Goldman have retained their positions of influence in the White House (as they have in all administrations going back decades) instead of being prosecuted.


No, Obama isn't responsible for the 2008 meltdown.  He will have played a major role in engineering the next - more catistrophic - one, though.

[Juan]

They say that to appeal to those who have the same misguided idea what left is as the right, mid right, and far right do. I'm not suggesting it's only the right who have it wrong, the other right do too..

They're lying then.  I'll just refer to the entire lot of them, whether left or right, as "theftists."

[analog kid]

They say that to appeal to those who have the same misguided idea what left is as the right, mid right, and far right do. I'm not suggesting it's only the right who have it wrong, the other right do too.. but neither get it correct, because anyone alive or dead has been sucked into the incorrect definition..A modern misnomer could be said of the word random; It's used by some to mean odd or strange. As I said..those who see themselves on the right actually inadvertently buy into the true definition of what 'left' is, but can't see it.

Yeah, we don't have a left in the US. We have a center right, a right, and a far right, with the far right  dragging everyone else further to the right. Obama supposedly has a leftist socialist agenda these days, but rewind a mere 30 years and he's a Reagan Republican.