This just in

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='steggyD' post='683844' date='Aug 3 2008, 12:45 PM']

You can't talk bad about Obama. That makes you a fan of McCain and Bush, and a right-wing neo-con, war mongrel ... as if there are no other points of views.

[b]p.s. US politics have gone to shit.[/b][/quote]
Could not agree more.

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='steggyD' post='683844' date='Aug 2 2008, 09:45 PM']p.s. US politics have gone to shit.[/quote]

It makes me wonder, because I honestly don't know, are there countries where their political system is considered fair and equitable, relatively corruption free, etc?

[steggyD]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='683848' date='Aug 2 2008, 11:06 PM']It makes me wonder, because I honestly don't know, are there countries where their political system is considered fair and equitable, relatively corruption free, etc?[/quote]
I seriously doubt it. I suppose I should correct my last statement.

Global politics are shit.

I would just like to think that if we had a couple other major players, as far as political parties go, that our government would be better off. I'd like to see one more truly conservative party, not this big spending neocon party disguised as conservative. And one more truly socialist party, not the, "hey, we're not Bush", so we'll agree with whatever is popular at the moment party.

[CTBengalsFan]

We need a Constitutionalist party imo

[BengalBacker]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='683843' date='Aug 2 2008, 10:16 PM']Well buckle up ditto heads, your going to lose this election.[/quote]


Where the hell did that come from?

FWIW, I think we're all going to lose this election.

Obama is no messiah. He's a far left empty shell with nothing but bullshit rhetoric. Great for making speeches (time for change-yes we can) but no real substance. He's basically a microcosm of what's wrong with the Democratic party. The Democratic party is now what was once the hippie sub culture of the 60's. Don't get me wrong, a lot of great changes in the way we all think came out of that sub culture, but we should have reached a point by now where we can put some of that rhetoric aside and get on with the business of fixing problems from a more realistic, cooperative perspective. Stop being the party of the politically correct police and get down to real solutions, rather than looking under every rock for someone to point the finger at as evil. Stop making business out to be the enemy and stop telling average Americans they suck.

McCain could star in a weekend at Bernie's remake. I'm not sure he even has a pulse. He's as inspirational as a bag of potatoes. While he seems much more moderate than the typical Republican, he comes across as the old guy who just wants to live out his days without ruffling any feathers. No real vision for the future, or ideas for leading the country in any way other than more of the same. He seems more like a prop for the Republicans who will do what they tell him to do, rather than stand up for what he believes in. The fact that he has reached across the aisle on occasion and gone against the party line is great, but if he's elected, I just don't see him making waves. It actually wouldn't surprise me too much to see him drop out and give up the nomination, although it's awfully late in the game for that. I don't think his heart is really in it. Actually, I think the party most likely propelled him to be the nominee with the expectation he will lose. Sort of the sacrificial lamb, so as not to soil the prospective nominees in 2012.





**sigh**


fuckin' politics.....

[Jamie_B]

Sorry backer, Im just tired of the bs that has gone on for the past 8 years and will be gladd to be rid of it and McCain sadly has sold out from the man he was in 2000 to become more of the same. I frankly dont care one one or the other for Obama, I will vote for him to be rid of the neocon bs, and will do so gladly. As I said before the only thing I am hoping from Obama is a return to some sensable forigen policy where diplomacy and not bullying rules the day, if I get that Ill be happy. But I cant accept those who would vote for McCain simply because they dont want a democrat in office, (i'd say the same if it was a democrats that screwed us over the past 8 years). So whether Obama is a empty suit or not, I in good moral concous can not vote for Mc[b]Same[/b].

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='BengalBacker' post='683952' date='Aug 3 2008, 03:09 PM']Where the hell did that come from?

FWIW, I think we're all going to lose this election.

Obama is no messiah. He's a far left empty shell with nothing but bullshit rhetoric. Great for making speeches (time for change-yes we can) but no real substance. He's basically a microcosm of what's wrong with the Democratic party. The Democratic party is now what was once the hippie sub culture of the 60's. Don't get me wrong, a lot of great changes in the way we all think came out of that sub culture, but we should have reached a point by now where we can put some of that rhetoric aside and get on with the business of fixing problems from a more realistic, cooperative perspective. Stop being the party of the politically correct police and get down to real solutions, rather than looking under every rock for someone to point the finger at as evil. Stop making business out to be the enemy and stop telling average Americans they suck.

McCain could star in a weekend at Bernie's remake. I'm not sure he even has a pulse. He's as insprational as a bag of potatoes. While he seems much more moderate than the typical Republican, he comes across as the old guy who just wants to live out his days without ruffling any feathers. No real vision for the future, or ideas for leading the country in any way other than more of the same. He seems more like a prop for the Republicans who will do what they tell him to do, rather than stand up for what he believes in. The fact that he has reached across the aisle on occasion and gone against the party line is great, but if he's elected, I just don't see him making waves. It actually wouldn't surprise me too much to see him drop out and give up the nomination, although it's awfully late in the game for that. I don't think his heart is really in it. Actually, I think the party most likely propelled him to be the nominee with the expectation he will lose. Sort of the sacrificial lamb, so as not to soil the prospective nominees in 2012.





**sigh**


fuckin' politics..... [/quote]

:applaud:

[BengalBacker]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='683974' date='Aug 3 2008, 04:29 PM']Sorry backer, Im just tired of the bs that has gone on for the past 8 years and will be gladd to be rid of it and McCain sadly has sold out from the man he was in 2000 to become more of the same. I frankly dont care one one or the other for Obama, I will vote for him to be rid of the neocon bs, and will do so gladly. As I said before the only thing I am hoping from Obama is a return to some sensable forigen policy where diplomacy and not bullying rules the day, if I get that Ill be happy. But I cant accept those who would vote for McCain simply because they dont want a democrat in office, (i'd say the same if it was a democrats that screwed us over the past 8 years). So whether Obama is a empty suit or not, I in good moral concous can not vote for Mc[b]Same[/b].[/quote]

Well that's fine. I'm sure vitually everyone here will disagree with me, but I think history will be more kind to the Bush administration than what is seen now as a complete clusterfuck. The thing no one can say for sure is what might have happened if Gore or Kerry had been elected, or if 9/11 had happened while Clinton was in office, as was originally planned. It's possible that without our show of force in Iraq and Afghanistan, that we would have had a string of 9/11s leading to WWIII at worst, or at least crushing our economy years ago. I know nobody wants to hear that now with hindsight being 20-20, but at the time of 9/11, virtually everyone I knew, Democrat, Independant and Republican was glad Bush was in office instead of Gore. Precisely because they felt that Gore would be more prone to sticking with the do nothing but diplomacy approach that Clinton had while attacks against us were increasing in frequency and severity.

If the race looks to be close, I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain, thereby cancelling you out. If it looks like a landslide either way, I might vote for Barr, or even write in Ron Paul just as my own little form of protest against both of these bullshit parties.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BengalBacker' post='684003' date='Aug 3 2008, 06:10 PM']Well that's fine. I'm sure vitually everyone here will disagree with me, but I think history will be more kind to the Bush administration than what is seen now as a complete clusterfuck. The thing no one can say for sure is what might have happened if Gore or Kerry had been elected, or if 9/11 had happened while Clinton was in office, as was originally planned. It's possible that without our show of force in Iraq and Afghanistan, that we would have had a string of 9/11s leading to WWIII at worst, or at least crushing our economy years ago. I know nobody wants to hear that now with hindsight being 20-20, but at the time of 9/11, virtually everyone I knew, Democrat, Independant and Republican was glad Bush was in office instead of Gore. Precisely because they felt that Gore would be more prone to sticking with the do nothing but diplomacy approach that Clinton had while attacks against us were increasing in frequency and severity.

If the race looks to be close, I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain, thereby cancelling you out. If it looks like a landslide either way, I might vote for Barr, or even write in Ron Paul just as my own little form of protest against both of these bullshit parties.

[/quote]


Except things changed, 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq and now with hinesight we know that they knew that all along. I have no issue with the show of force we had in Afganistan, we knew the telaban was harboring Bin Laden and that he was responsible for it. I dont know what would have happened if Gore or Kerry were in office, but I do know that Bush took the good will and sypathy everyone had for us around the world and flushed it down the toliet so that he could go get oil to keep the economy afloat and screwed even that up. When I see McSame not knowing the first thing about ecmomics or even the difference between and Sunni and Shite Im fearful for our country that more of the same could come down if people were scared into voting for him like they were scared into voting for Bush the second time. Thats what I agreed with in your videos that Obama said. The pendualum of diplomacy has swong so far to the right in the past 8 years that it simply doesnt exist unless a country has nukes (see N. Korea). Then people wonder why Iran wants nukes, and the whole fear machine starts with them as well. Thats why I said sensable diplomacy, as we dont even have that anymore.

[Homer_Rice]

The perils of modern politics: [url="http://www.counterpunch.org/green08022008.html"]Obama as Dukakis.[/url]

I don't think history will be kind to this admin at all. But, perhaps more important, history will not be kind to this period in general. Our response to this rolling economic crisis will determine what comes next: it could be the beginning of a new era in human advancement once the dust settles some. More likely, it will be a descent into a new Dark Ages. Wouldn't be surprised to see a few really major wars within the lifetimes of some of you younger folks.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='684015' date='Aug 3 2008, 06:56 PM']The perils of modern politics: [url="http://www.counterpunch.org/green08022008.html"]Obama as Dukakis.[/url]

I don't think history will be kind to this admin at all. But, perhaps more important, history will not be kind to this period in general. Our response to this rolling economic crisis will determine what comes next: it could be the beginning of a new era in human advancement once the dust settles some. More likely, it will be a descent into a new Dark Ages. Wouldn't be surprised to see a few really major wars within the lifetimes of some of you younger folks.[/quote]


I pray for the former

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='684015' date='Aug 4 2008, 09:56 AM']The perils of modern politics: [url="http://www.counterpunch.org/green08022008.html"]Obama as Dukakis.[/url]

I don't think history will be kind to this admin at all. But, perhaps more important, history will not be kind to this period in general. Our response to this rolling economic crisis will determine what comes next: it could be the beginning of a new era in human advancement once the dust settles some. More likely, it will be a descent into a new Dark Ages. Wouldn't be surprised to see a few really major wars within the lifetimes of some of you younger folks.[/quote]
talk about hitting the nail on the head. that's some article.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='684015' date='Aug 3 2008, 06:56 PM']The perils of modern politics: [url="http://www.counterpunch.org/green08022008.html"]Obama as Dukakis.[/url][/quote]


Holy shit!!!

[img]http://blogs.smh.com.au/mashup/images/applause.gif[/img]

[BengalBacker]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='684022' date='Aug 3 2008, 08:33 PM']Holy shit!!!

[img]http://blogs.smh.com.au/mashup/images/applause.gif[/img][/quote]

Well, it certainly was unbiased.

[Homer_Rice]

It is a pretty good piece, except he has higher hopes for Obama than I personally do.

I want to briefly elaborate on the other part of my comment in this context. One of the major difficulties, imo, in assessing current affairs and policies, is the manner in which we tend to frame our options. Eventually, this not only leads to bad policy choices selected from a menu of bad choices, it also inhibits clear thinking with respect to strategic planning. (And, in a sense, written political history is generally a backwards-looking assessment of geostrategic trends that affect the given period under examination.)

For example, take Backer's comment earlier. (Not to be pounding on you, but it serves my fundamental point, BB.) The suggestion that Obama is "far-left" is the only part I disagree with what was said, and that may be due to my hanging out with some real "far-lefters" in my time, or as BB suggested, the fact that so much of our current culture came out of the swamp that was the 60s counterculture. But, from either consideration, a clear look at the reality of our current state of affairs belies conventional use of "left v right" or "capitalist v communist" or "free trade v socialist" and other frameworks we tend to use to categorize our political dynamics. In fact, Obama is a trimmer, and by far a much better and more adept one than someone like John Kerry. It's why he was picked up and supported by the sorts of folks who boost some careers and thwart others. That he is/has been on the fast-track suggests that he is a pretty maleable operator within the context of our current way of doing things politically. That's not to say that he doesn't have principles, etc... . It's just to suggest that folks who get as far as he has, so quickly, tend to operate in precisely the way that the author of the piece I linked to suggests about McCain: personal ambition sometimes trumps good, but perhaps unpopular, policy choices. In this respect, both candidates suffer from a flaw which the system demands of them: subordination to whichever "posse" has picked them up and moved their career along. It's why I suggested that folks look at the advisors and funders surrounding a candidate some time ago. The political spectrum is really defined by those folks and not the candidates. In recent years, that spectrum has shrunken a great deal, which is why a lot of regular folks are puzzled why the Dems didn't do more despite their advances in the last election cycle. It isn't that there are not differences between the parties--there are--it's that those differences tend to be windstorms within the DC Beltway and puny little farts out in the rest of the country, compared to all the "real" storm winds which are blowing. Thus, you end up with an admin which, even under diluted 90s political standards, would have been much more harshly punished for its behavior than it has. Kangar has said it before, there's not a hell of a lot of difference between the parties operating protocols insofar as how it affects the real world outside DC.

The problems we face cannot be understood from the perspective of any of our conventional polarities. In fact, those polarities tend to distort the challenges we face. If the left is no longer the "Left" and the right is no longer the "Right", then why should we persist in using that framework? Better that we stumble around a bit to describe the flow of events until a new short-hand paradigm reveals itself. At worst, we'd have to pay closer attention to actual events on the ground rather than use whatever flavor of conventional shorthand appeals to each of us.

I don't have any specific answers to this conundrum. In some ways this is simply agreeing with many of you all who think that modern politics and party structures leave a lot to be desired. But the important part of such a discussion comes after this acknowledgement--"What comes next?" How do we effectively reorganize ourselves in the face of the multitude of serious problems we MUST find some solutions for, if the next few generations are not to be condemned into some form of living Hell?

I do have my way of looking at the potential, but I won't say what that is other than saying that history does provide some answers, imo. I will add this, though: our general politico/legal framework ought to be able to withstand the current crises; indeed, it was designed to do so. If we made it through the Civil War then we can make it through this, provided we don't act like we were in some stupid Tarantino movie where all the characters stand around in a circle pointing a gun at our immediate neighbor's head.

We'll see what happens, but I, for one, am not expecting much change at all from Obama. That won't stop me from voting for him as his advisors are slightly less jaded than the ones surrounding McCain, who would be a disaster for anyone who isn't a glutton for punishment.

[BengalBacker]

So I guess we all agree that I'm probably going to vote for Satan, and you're all going to vote for someone who's full of shit.

It's nice when everything comes together.

[steggyD]

Sounds grim. Think I'll sleep in this election day.

[|Bunghole|]

I'm not so certain McCain is this "McSame" person people keep referring to, but his age, temper and apparent lack of knowledge on important current issues like the economy and the rival factions in Iraq is certainly enoug to give one pause.

If this is to be another "lesser of two evils" choice, then Obama so far is the lesser of the two evils, and somebody has to be President. It's probably time to let the Dems take the wheel for awhile anyway. Hopefully Obama will stay true to the offshore oil exploration and put measures in place to keep energy prices stable as we attempt to transition away from using only fossil fuels for transportation.

[-GoBengals-]

roflcopter at the hint that there is ANY politician who isnt full of shit...

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='GoBengals' post='684081' date='Aug 3 2008, 10:59 PM']roflcopter at the hint that there is ANY politician who isnt full of shit...[/quote]
That's a big leap for you, I'm so proud!

Your response a year ago would have looked like this: "Fucking Republicans".

You are making great strides, Daniel-San. Now wax-on, wax-off. Sand the floor.

[BengalBacker]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='684038' date='Aug 3 2008, 09:49 PM']I don't have any specific answers to this conundrum. In some ways this is simply agreeing with many of you all who think that modern politics and party structures leave a lot to be desired. But the important part of such a discussion comes after this acknowledgement--"What comes next?" How do we effectively reorganize ourselves in the face of the multitude of serious problems we MUST find some solutions for, if the next few generations are not to be condemned into some form of living Hell?[/quote]


I think it has to start with the people focusing on things we should all be able to agree on.

Start with, I'm pretty sure we all want our children and grandchildren to have a safe, happy, productive and prosperous life.

If you can agree that we all want that, then understand that an opposing view as to how we can best achieve it, doesn't make someone evil.

[CTBengalsFan]

I just can't comprehend how it will be possible to remove the influence of the lobby and the Rove-like people behind the scenes. It seems like a sensible government and their existence are mutually exclusive occurrences.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='BengalBacker' post='684090' date='Aug 4 2008, 01:09 AM']I think it has to start with the people focusing on things we should all be able to agree on.

Start with, I'm pretty sure we all want our children and grandchildren to have a safe, happy, productive and prosperous life.[/quote]

Partly, and as a practical matter, yes. The question is: how do we go about sorting the evidence for our policy choices? What I was saying is that our frameworks for discussion have become impediments to our understanding, instead of serving as helpers, as they ought to be.

[quote]If you can agree that we all want that, then understand that an opposing view as to how we can best achieve it, doesn't make someone evil.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure you don't mean me, specifically, here. I think by now you know I am of the view that nobody gets through life without some shitstains on their soul. As for the ontological basis of "evil"--that's another discussion altogether.

That said, you have a very good point. It's one of my gripes, too, with fellow Dems. In football terms, folks with this sort of view either are "bandwagon jumpers" at one end of the spectrum or extreme fanatics, at the other end. Neither are to be trusted to lead. Both parties have their share.

[gatorclaws]

I'm a little shocked. This has turned into the most sensible dicussion ever in the J&D forum.

[|kennethmw|]

[quote name='BengalBacker' post='683723' date='Aug 2 2008, 12:03 AM']Give me an example. I'm not talking about the fear card, that's the cornerstone of every politician's campaign. I'm talking about the race card.[/quote]

Backer, You do realize that if every vehicle in America had the proper tire inflation and proper tuning we would be conserving 250 million barrels of oil a year. That would be a significant amount of savings, so I don't see it as a major pander. Additionally, Whether you think the Mc Cain campaign has played the race card, Members of the republican party ( NC State repubs, LA state repubs, and all the right wing bloggers) have played the race card. So he is 100% correct that "they" are going to try to make his appearance and his name an issue.