Reply With QuoteBS. A libertarian would not have ordered QE1 and QE2. Bernanke is what's referred to as a "soft-core" Keynesian.
Like I said, I do respect those with differing opinions as long as they are at least honest about it. Obama turned out to be pretty much the opposite of what he ran as.Not at all. I dislike David Cameron intensely, but I don't doubt that he believes his policies will help the UK. Unlike most of the left, I don't think he secretly wants to privatise the NHS or eradicate civil liberties. It's not about blind faith in leaders, it's about respect for what people believe for the democratic system.
How has he lied? lol. I can't believe this has to be spelled out. Obama ran as the 'anti Bush' and anti-status quo candidate, and once he got in office it became obvious he is a continuation of the status-quo. He promised he would bring the troops home first thing, he lied about closing gitmo, he lied about having "the most transparent presidency", having a non-divisive presidency, not having an administration full of lobbyists, cutting the debt and spending, and it goes on and on.How has he lied? What legislation is constitutional? I agree that certain aspects of Obama's foreign policy is authoritarian, but to apply that to the domestic politics is ridiculous hysteria.
What is unconstitutional? The Patriot Act, which he re -signed, the wars, foreign aid, the NDAA, the bailouts, Obamacare, his appointments of unelected bureaucrats and "czars", continually bypassing congress, executive orders, etc, etc, etc.
That's what I said the other day, re-read that earlier post. I said you seem to think this is about liberal vs conservative. No, what I care about is loyalty to the constitution (is that solely a 'conservative' thing? I don't think so.) honesty and electing people who have an allegiance to our country and the people, not other interests that are unelected and have their own agenda. That is not a solely conservative thing, it's caring about this nation and our rights and sovereignty and the fundamental ideas this country was founded on.I don't claim that -I'm aware of your opinion of conventional politics and what you percieve to be the left-right false dichotomy. That's why I was careful to say that I consider your arguments as part of a conservative strategy, rather than a Republican one.
Well, there are plenty of reasons why there was and is speculation, do we really have to re-hash all of this? And on top of that, his actions made things so much worse. By fighting transparency every step of the way, or trying to ignore the questions and not show up to court (as if he was above the law) his actions have made him look guilty. And his own past is undeniably strange and 'radical' - have you ever looked into it? Whether or not his background and associations with communists and other radicals has influenced the person he is today is debatable. But what is not debatable is that he DOES have a number of controversial associations and a past that is shrouded in secrecy, and the secrecy continues to this day.Your personal record aside, Obama has become a lightening rod of pointless speculation over whether he's a citizen, whether he's a muslim, whether he's a socialist. That didn't happen on such a scale with Clinton, or really any other president.
See? You contradicted yourself, you claim that you're not accusing us of being intentionally dishonest, but at the same time "character assassination requires unscrupulousness." I think the bottom line here is, you still haven't figured out that Obama is not what he promised he would be, he is not your friend, or my friend, or any normal person's friend. You see the criticism as something unfair or wrong, because in your eyes Obama is good. Once you begin to realize the truth, the criticism will come across as what it actually is - concerned people voicing their disapproval of yet another dishonest, hypocritical politician... and worse than just that, someone who many of us can see is not a patriot, but a globalist, therefore he does not represent and serve us, but those interests who have that agenda.That isn't my premise at all, although I think character assassination requires a bit of unscrupulousness, a lack of respect and a lack of perspective about what's important (i.e. policies rather than personality).
Yes, we already went over this one.Not at all my premise, since I explicitly stated it is a conservative, not specifically Republican, strategy.
Oh my goodness, I don't even know where to begin here. Just because you have not yet realized that the intentions of those with the real power are not good - not for anyone but themselves, you apparently think that anyone who DOES realize that is less knowledgeable than you, or "unsophisticated." I'm sorry, but if you want to live under an authoritarian, big-government, corrupt, sold-out system, where the people have no power, then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe that's your thing. But please don't try to tell us - especially when you're not even American - that we are wrong or "unsophisticated" for preferring a system that is more fair, honest and that ultimately benefits the people, not unelected oligarchs behind the scenes who want to control everyone else.No, he hasn't. It just seems that way to you because you have a particularly unsophisticated perspective on politics -that the larger governments are the more likely they are to be corrupt, to destroy 'honest capitalism', to destroy freedom, and to collude with other governments and form a New World Order. As I've stated many, many times on DA, this political model doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and is rarely scrutinised for accuracy by its adherents.
Maybe because you live in a country like England, ideas like freedom and individual rights seem alien to you. If this was the Revolutionary War, apparently you'd be siding with the Redcoats, fighting for your king.I'd be on the side of the rebels, because I don't want to be a serf, or a subject. Our system is not supposed to be an oligarchy, sorry.
Last edited by lily; 04-05-2012 at 12:54 AM.
And if you want it, come and get it... for crying out loud!
'cause this love that he has given you was never in doubt.
Let go of your heart, let go of your head and feel it now.
Let go of your heart, let go of your head, feel it now...
BS. A libertarian would not have ordered QE1 and QE2. Bernanke is what's referred to as a "soft-core" Keynesian.
Obama didn't lie about closing Gitmo: he made the promise before he was elected to office and got top secret security clearance and a daily briefing from central intelligence. I'm sure he believed it was possible when he said it.
I have to totally disagree with you here. Bernanke is not a libertarian... or even libertarianish. Keynesian? Yes.Originally Posted by kellyb
And if you want it, come and get it... for crying out loud!
'cause this love that he has given you was never in doubt.
Let go of your heart, let go of your head and feel it now.
Let go of your heart, let go of your head, feel it now...
His lectures and writings indicate more free market-ish leanings than his actual performance on the job.
Yes. He calls himself libertarian (PLEASE CALL ME ON THAT AND ASK FOR REFERENCE!) but he's really neoliberal.
Šñøü†ê® (04-05-2012)
Bla bla bla.
I might be inclined to believe that if he hadn't proved himself to be a Machiavellian fraud in every other sense. If you're part of the few who can be fooled "all of the people, ALL of the time"...well. That actually would fit perfectly. Imma not going to disabuse you of your notions.
Good luck, dude.
Freedom&Liberty (04-05-2012), Šñøü†ê® (04-05-2012)
Again, neither a neo-liberal nor a market fundamentalist would have supported Obama's stimulus plan, nor ordered Keynesian monetary interventions. It doesn't matter what he call himself. What matters is what he does.
Unimpressive debating, "dude."
Fighting against a sea of opposition centered largely on his birth certificate, and making tough decisions doesn't mean he's a fraud. The right calls aren't always the ones you want.
Last edited by Cyclone Ranger; 04-05-2012 at 12:58 AM.
Can you doubt that the emperor wears no clothes wrt neoliberalism?
Of COURSE they ordered Keynes to save the day. Keynes is science, and reliable.
Isn't that a given?
Ideologues don't usually value the pragmatic over their party lines. Certainly, a neo-liberal market purist would never credit Kenseyian interventionism as scientific or effective.
That's why Greenspan didn't push Bush and Cheney to promote a comprehensive lending reform package instead of tort reform.
Kamandi is so full of hot air.
I'm not Kamandi.
“Character assassination” is more to do with the resolution and temperament of an attack, rather than how honest or dishonest it is. There's a clear line, for example, between criticising policy U-turns and the ability of a president to face down the opposition, and accusing them of being a 'traitor' and an unpatriotic 'globalist' selling out to a worldwide cabal. The birther debate, the false claims of him being a socialist or Marxist, and the false claims of him being non-Christian (which you may or may not have participated in, I don't know), are all part of a clear strategy of character assassination.
With respect, this is what you are doing. You're convincing yourself that a politician you don't like is worse than he is -because that's what status quo politics is all about to you. And who better to set aside this status quo? Ron Paul.
False flag!
He has changed foreign policy. Before it was about sending in thousands of GIs to oil-rich nations with no specific purpose, whereas now it's about sending unmanned drones to politically turbulent countries with clear parameters (provide ground support for rebels or kill Al Qaeda elites). I don't agree with everything he's done foreign policy-wise (as I've explained in other posts), but it's certainly better than it was last decade.
It's true he is influenced by business, yet as part of a pro-business party, with an unashamedly capitalist viewpoint, and as a successful politician, that's no surprise to me and shouldn't be to anyone else. It also doesn't mean he is outright owned by business.
Everyone who didn't want the financial sector to collapse wanted bank bailouts.
A clear majority of his campaign promises were upheld, as rated by Politifact -in fact, 17% of promises have been broken. Many of those were tax plans that just wouldn't get passed in today's Congress, or funding for things that the budget can no longer cover (your economy has been through some things since 2008). His key promises were to sign a universal healthcare bill (which he did), remove combat brigades from Iraq and start the pullout (did), and create new financial regulations (did), all of which the left thought he was going to do. I never for one minute thought that counter-terrorism measures like PATRIOT would be easy to get rid of, and I certainly didn't expect him to go against his stated capitalist instincts, either.
On transparency you have a point (as we've discussed), but your argument has many other problems:
- He's only a continuation of the status quo from your perspective.
- As regards Iraq, Politifact stated: “Technically, he's a few months over the deadline, but he often said "about 16 months" on the campaign trail. In February 2009, shortly after taking office, he set a deadline of August 31, 2010, and he's making that goal. Given the scale and complexity of removing combat troops from Iraq, we think he is substantially meeting the terms of his promise. We rate it Promise Kept.”
- I find the Guantanamo Bay promise break to be essentially meaningless because Obama was essentially derailed by Congress, and hasn't changed his attitude to towards it.
- He could not have possibly guaranteed his presidency wouldn't have been divisive, and the fault of that (IMO) is because of the tendency of the opposition to resort to character assassination and a wholesale Republican shift to the far right.
- Debt and spending promises were actually projections (see my responses to Powerboss ad nauseum) based on independent economic data that inaccurately evaluated the US' economic problems.
I'm no fan of the PATRIOT Act, but only parts of it are unconstitutional and overturned (unless I'm wrong on this) before Obama re-signed it. As yet, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has not been deemed unconstitutional, although the individual mandate might be. “The wars” aren't, defence spending isn't, bailouts aren't, and unless you have something specific in mind the office of the president has certain powers of appointment and executive orders. And, constitutionally, is the president only able to bypass congress once?
All in all I'm not much of a fan of your constitution, for reasons stated elsewhere. But I don't really see how he's done anything constitutionally wrong, and your opinions about how governments should be don't prove it.
I think it's about the left-right spectrum rather than something as narrow as 'liberal' and 'conservative'.
Wanting to maintain the 'fundamental idea this country was founded on' is a deeply conservative attitude.
I have looked into it, and conservative accounts of it are way wide off the mark or clearly false. Bell, one of his college professors, was not 'racist' or 'supremacist'. Obama has never shown any sign of subscribing to Black Liberation Theology, even if that was in itself a bad thing. Contrary to reports that 'no one had come forward from Obama's past', in fact plenty have, and there's documentary evidence of it too. Despite not a shred of evidence in his statements or in his policy, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry and John McCain have all come out and claimed he's a socialist. So have many conservatives here.
I think I've already covered what “character assassination” means, and unscrupulousness is not dishonesty.
I've never been a huge Obama fan (over here he'd be a Conservative), but he's much better than Bush, and clearly much better than anyone the Republicans have brought out. And, beyond that, the conservatives as a whole are beginning to get seriously scary.
Your political model is unsophisticated, and has been adopted uncritically for far too long. All you have done is arrange 'good' things on one side and 'bad' on another, so that we apparently have a choice between small, controllable, patriotic, nationalist, constitutional government, or big, authoritarian, traitorous, globalist, unconstitutional government on the other. Do big governments necessarily collude with others? Are small governments by their nature more controllable, or does it depend on the nature of the government? Are big governments always more corrupt than small ones? Is there a limit to internationalism, or should we embrace our common humanity -and if so, is that through shared government or getting rid of states and borders? Is the constitution a work in progress, or a set of 18th century rules that you absolutely must stand by forever?
You've showed me no evidence that you've thought of any of this, and exactly why I cannot take your opinions seriously.
As if to prove that you can only think in dichotomies, you then automatically assume I'm everything in the bad category (my editing in bold):
Q.E.D.
British law, from the magna carta onwards, laid the groundwork for legal freedoms, British philosophers like Hobbes and Locke laid the groundwork for civil rights and the social contract, and British thinkers like Tom Paine laid the groundwork for egalitarianism and libertarian principles that ultimately influenced the United States.Maybe because you live in a country like England, ideas like freedom and individual rights seem alien to you. If this was the Revolutionary War, apparently you'd be siding with the Redcoats, fighting for your king.
Oh, and I'm a republican (in the true sense of the word).
Show us not the aim without the way, for ends and means on earth are so entangled
That changing one, you change the other too; each different path brings other ends in view
Archaix, I'm heading out the door right now so I don't have time to answer all that point by point. I will later, probably tonight.
But just from reading your post quickly it is clear to me that you apparently have fallen hook line and sinker for the lies and conditioning of the powers-that-be. I've never met anyone (apart from CR, maybe) who actually agrees with things like the bailouts - which take tax payer money to put back in the pockets of people who SHOULD fail, because of their practices. You also clearly fell for the BS in regard to foreign policy, and all the rest of it. The entire system is corrupt and intentionally designed to benefit those with the real power, and for some reason you actually approve of it, it seems. Obviously there's way too much stuff here we don't agree on, but I'll have to get back to this thread later, to give a more point-by-point reply.
And if you want it, come and get it... for crying out loud!
'cause this love that he has given you was never in doubt.
Let go of your heart, let go of your head and feel it now.
Let go of your heart, let go of your head, feel it now...
The auto industry should have failed because the housing bubble destroyed the credit facilities buyers needed to finance their cars?
Once again, deceptive "debating" is your M.O. We weren't talking about the auto industry, read post #34. But any bailout using tax-payer money is stealing from the middle class to continue the corrupt system that benefits only the bankers. Stop defending crooks, get another job.
And if you want it, come and get it... for crying out loud!
'cause this love that he has given you was never in doubt.
Let go of your heart, let go of your head and feel it now.
Let go of your heart, let go of your head, feel it now...
Oh, and Archaix... I'm only back for a bit, but heading out the door again in a few minutes. I'll try to get back to this tonight.
And if you want it, come and get it... for crying out loud!
'cause this love that he has given you was never in doubt.
Let go of your heart, let go of your head and feel it now.
Let go of your heart, let go of your head, feel it now...
For one, the idea that preventing a collapse of the banking industry only benefits bankers is a joke. Exactly how do you think anyone is going to get a home or business loan without them?
Two, we did bail out the auto industry too, you know.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks