The Two Conventions: Night & Day

[Ben]

Obamabots:

[Ben]

Both so-called political parties (albeit it's one party: the business party) and they both support the war machine, as it were. They both support corporatism. They both serve a tiny sliver of the populace....

[robertlouis]

[QUOTE=Ben;1195315]Both so-called political parties (albeit it's one party: the business party) and they both support the war machine, as it were. They both support corporatism. They both serve a tiny sliver of the populace....

[QUOTE]

Cop out Ben, and you know it. Ballot box day. Will you stand with your arms folded and allow the Romney/Ryan ticket to win?

[Ben]

Democrats Retreat on Civil Liberties in 2012 Platform:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012...-2012-platform


Liberalism’s old world order:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...ld-world-order


Obama’s five rules for covert drone strikes:

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...drone-strikes/

[Ben]

[quote=robertlouis;1195321][QUOTE=Ben;1195315]Both so-called political parties (albeit it's one party: the business party) and they both support the war machine, as it were. They both support corporatism. They both serve a tiny sliver of the populace....

Cop out Ben, and you know it. Ballot box day. Will you stand with your arms folded and allow the Romney/Ryan ticket to win?

I think, sadly, it's a one party system.... But the Dems are considered the moderate wing of the business party.... But serve business interests. Above, say, the interests of nurses, firefighters, cops etc., etc.
I mean, Obama came out and supported gay marriage. Is this a good thing? Of course it is. And Obama should be commended for "affirming" his support of gay marriage. It was a good step forward by Obama.
I mean, we should praise Obama when he does good things. And critique him when he doesn't. None of us should blindly and unthinkingly support and defend him in whatever he does. That's frightening....
I mean, in terms of civil liberties Obama has been worse than Bush. But the so-called left defend him. Why?

[robertlouis]

[quote=Ben;1195329][quote=robertlouis;1195321]

Both so-called political parties (albeit it's one party: the business party) and they both support the war machine, as it were. They both support corporatism. They both serve a tiny sliver of the populace....

I think, sadly, it's a one party system.... But the Dems are considered the moderate wing of the business party.... But serve business interests. Above, say, the interests of nurses, firefighters, cops etc., etc.
I mean, Obama came out and supported gay marriage. Is this a good thing? Of course it is. And Obama should be commended for "affirming" his support of gay marriage. It was a good step forward by Obama.
I mean, we should praise Obama when he does good things. And critique him when he doesn't. None of us should blindly and unthinkingly support and defend him in whatever he does. That's frightening....
I mean, in terms of civil liberties Obama has been worse than Bush. But the so-called left defend him. Why?

I'm not disagreeing for a minute on that point Ben, all I'm asking is that faced with a choice of Romney or Obama, how will you vote? Slightly similar dilemma here: I've voted Liberal and subsequently Liberal Democrat all my life, but since they've gone into government with the Conservatives and been party to things I've opposed all my life, I feel disenfranchised. But on the day, I know that I'll vote Labour rather than Conservative, partly because I'm a radical at heart, but nothing could ever bring me to vote for the moneyed, privileged, braying ninnies who make up Cameron's cabinet.

[broncofan]

Corporations dictate a lot of the positions each candidate takes. But ultimately you decide which set of options is more palatable regardless of who dicated it. I am aware of the abuses of privacy under the Bush administration and warrantless wiretapping. To be honest I am studying it chronologically and have not studied the differences under the Obama administration. It is troubling how the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure has been discarded since the so-called war on terror began. Of course, states and laws must adjust to the exigencies of the moment and properly balance security v. privacy interests. I'm not for warrantless surveillance but I certainly understand the need to re-define reasonable search in a country where we have terror cells operating. But perhaps that's not what you mean when you talk about the erosion of civil liberties.

As far as bailing the banks out, the only alternative would be to let them fail. We don't have a direct democracy nor a referendum on every issue. What the Obama administration did wrong was not ensuring that there were more strings attached in the bailout of the banks. If federal money is being used to plug their losses then perhaps more risk averse (and inevitably duller) government bureaucrats should have taken the place of the bankers who created the mess. In other words, the dispersal of federal money should have been contingent upon mass firings at the top.

Here is where Republicans fail: They want to stack the Supreme Court with Conservative Justices who will undo decades of precedent in Substantive Due Process cases including Roe v. Wade. This case holding was predicated on the inherent right to privacy. That's a civil liberty as far as I'm concerned as is a woman's right to choose to define it more narrowly. They would like to slash social programs, starting with PPACA which promises hope for individuals with pre-existing conditions and other uninsurable folks who face dire health consequences if it is repealed. They would like to keep the top marginal tax rate from being raised, abolish the estate tax or when the 5 million dollar exemption expires vote on raising it. They want to try to balance the budget while reducing taxes and help finance this top down reduction in taxes by cutting "entitlements".

They would like to continue on a state by state basis the fight against gay marriage by endorsing state constitutional changes that would pre-emptively ban same-sex marriage even if it were legalized by the state legislature. But I think the fiscal concerns of the Republicans can be summed up best by looking at two positions they take. They are in favor of tough bankruptcy laws that encourage personal responsibility. On the other hand, they are in favor of tort reform because they don't want tort victims to get a windfall. Afterall, why shouldn't a corporation have its liability limited while an individual who makes financial mistakes bears the full brunt of them? To me this sums up their stupidity and moral bankruptcy and whatever the failings are of the Democratic party they couldn't possibly fail as consistently or as completely as the GOP.

[Ben]

Author of “No Easy Day” Admits to Committing a War Crime:

http://opiniojuris.org/2012/08/29/au...g-a-war-crime/

[Ben]

Ask the DNC: Is Romney Ready for the Kill List?

Video:

http://gawker.com/5941326/ask-the-dn...-the-kill-list

[Ben]

[quote=robertlouis;1195335][quote=Ben;1195329]

I'm not disagreeing for a minute on that point Ben, all I'm asking is that faced with a choice of Romney or Obama, how will you vote? Slightly similar dilemma here: I've voted Liberal and subsequently Liberal Democrat all my life, but since they've gone into government with the Conservatives and been party to things I've opposed all my life, I feel disenfranchised. But on the day, I know that I'll vote Labour rather than Conservative, partly because I'm a radical at heart, but nothing could ever bring me to vote for the moneyed, privileged, braying ninnies who make up Cameron's cabinet.

The late historian Howard Zinn said it fairly well back in '08: