Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Let The Games Begin

By GrandWazoo in Op-Ed
Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 01:10:09 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

First off, I WAS COMPLETELY WRONG. So much for predictions of a year and a half ago.

Looking back it's easy to see what happened. There is a collective sigh of relief throughout the U.S. and most of the world as Obama became President-elect Obama. Even so there is still 40+% of America that voted for McCain. President-elect Obama's calls for national unity will likely not last more than 30 days past his inauguration. I hope I am wrong.


Obama's victory came as a result of a convergence of forces that had little to do with his experience, political associations and a specific roadmap for America. Ask anyone on the street who voted for Obama why they voted for him and 9 times out of 10 you will be told that they wanted change. Nothing wrong with that answer until you press them as to what change he proposed that they liked and the answers become even more vague. A number of times people only answered "I want to be a part of history and for no other reason." Whoa talk about pissing away your vote. With all the information out there for both candidates, ignorance of what your candidate stood for was no excuse. The issues were not an issue in this race. Both candidates barely touched on the issues. Can you remember one outstanding issue on either side? The main thing I remember about Obama's campaign is "Yes we can!" and the only thing I remember about McCain's campaign is his brief intermission to go vote up the Wall Street bailout and selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Granted the Republicans had an uphill fight regardless of who they nominated.  But they nominated an old fart who barely challenged the Democrat Obama. The presidential race was clearly the old guard versus the new guard and the old guard lost before the race started; Obama didn't even have to sprint. The media for the most part never discussed anything other than the talking points of each candidate's camp. Because of this, the campaign by design was boring and ho-hum with each party counting days until November 4th so we could get on with Obama's impending presidency. McCain told us there was nothing to fear with this bright and intelligent guy named Obama and Obama told us what a great war hero and patriot McCain was for his service to our country. Shit, I have seen more excitement in a Florida nursing home at breakfast over a glass of prune juice. On election day the whole thing was clearly over within a matter of hours after the last polls closed on the West Coast. No one even cared about the two states that were too close to call.  YAWN

No, the real excitement will come sometime next year not too long after Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009. Domestically, President Obama will have to get the economy going again and he will have to show some results no matter how small they might be. No rational person expects miracles. Americans realize there is a Democratic president and Democratic Congress. Americans also realize that there is no longer any more excuses for the poor showing Congress has had the past two years battling one of the worst presidents since Carter. With an approval rating lower than President Bush's they have to get results as quickly as possible and their plan better be good because we will have a president and Congress on the same sheet of paper. The warning by some Democrats that 'Americans will have to sacrifice' will be met with outrage. Most Americans feel they are sacrificing enough as it is and they didn't elect Barak Obama in order to sacrifice more and maintain status quo. Hopefully, Congress will learn from history that you can't tax your way to prosperity and that all efforts need to be made to kickstart and stimulate the American economic engine. You can't tax citizens that aren't working and expect results people will be happy with. Taxing large corporations that are marginally healthy will mire the U.S. down into a worse tarpit. Americans need an economic stimulus package and we need it quick.

Though most countries welcome the new political change and cooperation that will take place shortly, there are some that see it as a window of opportunity they may not have for awhile. Russia, Iran and silently China to name three will probably test the U.S. first. Russia is already beating a drum about its loss of standing in the world, Iran wants to see Obama's mettle and China is likely measuring it's chances to annex Taiwan. President Obama's foreign policy is yet to be defined to any degree. Any country that wants to challenge the U.S. will do it early on and look for weakness in President Obama's foreign policy. Hopefully, President Obama will show strength and character. We have early evidence that he will with the appointment of the tough Rep. Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff.

With America's economic crisis, its expensive and draining war in Iraq, President Obama will be forced to hit the ground running on January 20th 2009. His presidency will be faced with challenges that seem almost insurmountable. It's a challenge I hope he and the new Congress can meet head on and overcome. If not, the future will be as dreary as it is today.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o I WAS COMPLETELY WRONG
o Also by GrandWazoo


Display: Sort:
Let The Games Begin | 72 comments (52 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden)
funny fact: he's not technically president-elect (none / 0) (#1)
by lostincali on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:34:08 PM EST

that doesn't happen until the electoral college meets in december.

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."

True but (none / 0) (#4)
by GrandWazoo on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:37:44 PM EST

but everyone agrees it's just a formality at this point. I've heard no suggestion that the electoral college will vote otherwise.

[ Parent ]
Bradley effect among electors, last ditch racism?$ (none / 0) (#18)
by anaesthetica on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 04:32:35 PM EST


—I'm the little engine that didn't.
k5: our trolls go to eleven
[A]S FAR AS A PERSON'S ACTIONS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT NOTHING BUT GOOD COMES FROM GOOD AND NOTHING BUT EVIL COMES FROM EVIL, BUT RATHER QUITE FREQUENTLY THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT REALIZE THIS IS IN FACT A MERE CHILD IN POLITICAL MATTERS. max weber, politics as a vocation


[ Parent ]
Now that would go down well... (none / 1) (#47)
by sholden on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 01:44:10 PM EST

Can they make a fake announcement first.

And then "haha only joking" after the riots start?

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
hopefully hey will vote mccain in (1.50 / 4) (#5)
by NMC spammer on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:56:18 PM EST


Vote me down, bitches.
[ Parent ]
The answer to most of these criticisms (none / 0) (#2)
by channel on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:16:03 PM EST

is simply this: how could he possibly be any worse than Bush?

Marriage is a divine rite. It was part of God's design when He created man. - Royal Martyr Empress Alexandra Fedorovna.
I thought I made that point in the last (none / 0) (#3)
by GrandWazoo on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:33:43 PM EST

paragraph. IFI

[ Parent ]
yes, I think that is the strongest reason (none / 0) (#12)
by Morally Inflexible on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 04:18:02 AM EST

why people voted for him. He wasn't bush. McCain failed because he failed to distance himself from bush.

[ Parent ]
As an outsider looking in, (2.50 / 4) (#11)
by dakini on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 03:42:22 AM EST

I feel the best man won this election. I followed some pre-election speeches and so on. I am far from knowledgeable about the United States and their elections, but I did find Obama to be the better man. He seems very educated, calm, cool and collected. I don't think he will jump in with both feet and change everything, but will do so gradually after thought. This is just my opinion.

" May your vision be clear, your heart strong, and may you always follow your dreams."
No. (3.00 / 5) (#22)
by gr3y on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:44:53 PM EST

Your vote (-1) was recorded.
This story currently has a total score of 8.

Your analysis, such as it is, fails to identify the key factors that made a Democratic victory possible: President George W. Bush and the Republican-dominated Congress.

You attribute "a convergence of forces" for Obama's success. However, the true convergence of forces was the Republicans' collective failure, including abandoning the middle class, an endless "war on terror", and the constant erosion of civil liberties in the name of "national security".

I am a disruptive technology.

YFI (3.00 / 3) (#23)
by GrandWazoo on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 09:26:29 PM EST

the Democrats have controlled Congress for two years now and have basically done nothing. Because of their inaction Congress has a lower approval rating then the current POS president.

[ Parent ]
Actually... (3.00 / 2) (#37)
by undermyne on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 10:38:00 AM EST

they have done something, choked on King Georges cock, over and over and over. They have done worse than nothing, they rolled over and sodomized their collective constituency.

"You're an asshole. You are the greatest troll on this site." Some nullo [ Parent ]
But people don't vote for congress (none / 0) (#48)
by sholden on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 01:54:12 PM EST

They vote for their critter, I think the critters as individuals still have a higher approval rating than Bush.

Which of course shows that people are insane...

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
What does that have to do with Obama's victory? (none / 1) (#50)
by gr3y on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:11:05 PM EST

The answer: nothing, except insofar as Obama was a member of the U. S. Senate when it happened.

Stick to the issue at hand. Explain how a "convergence of forces" and not the utter rejection of the Bush White House and Republican brand is in any way responsible for Obama's victory.

In the two years the Democrats have controlled Congress, Bush has issued eleven vetoes, an eleven hundred percent increase over the one veto he issued prior to January 3, 2007. And four of those were overturned by the Democratic majority. So, the evidence does not support your assertion that the Democrats "have basically done nothing".

So shut your fucking mouth, failfuck.

I am a disruptive technology.
[ Parent ]

wtf are you talking about? (none / 0) (#51)
by GrandWazoo on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:10:50 PM EST

I voted for Obama you ignorant idiot and I voted in a Democrat that defeated an incumbent Republican two years ago. Re-read what I wrote, carefully. You obviously are clueless or trying to troll..

It's not a big secret that the Congressional approval ratings are lower by any way you care to measure it, than any time in recent history. All I am asking is does Congress have the balls to actually get the economy on track now that they have an even greater majority in Congress with a Democratic President instead of GWB? Only time will tell.

Some people drank too much Kook-Aid and this is including you. Get a grip man and wake up.

[ Parent ]

So... (none / 0) (#52)
by gr3y on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:05:13 PM EST

I don't need to re-read what you wrote. It sounds like you agree with me: you can't explain how a "convergence of forces" and not the utter rejection of the Bush White House and Republican brand is in any way responsible for Obama's victory.

Which, by the way, is your problem, not mine.

It now appears that you don't understand why you conflate Congressional approval ratings and Obama's victory. This, also, is your problem, not mine.

And you seem to be unable or unwilling to offer evidence to support your conclusions, and therefore base your conclusions on specious, unsubstantiated opinion, unsupported by the facts you find inconvenient. This, again, is your problem, not mine.

Generally, I vote op-ed to section. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion. I expect opinion to be supported by the facts. I do not expect to agree with your conclusions.

Unfortunately, your opinion is not supported by the facts. You're unwilling, or unable, to address this.

Nothing follows.

I am a disruptive technology.
[ Parent ]

OK I will spell it out for you (none / 0) (#54)
by GrandWazoo on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:45:39 PM EST

I thought it was more than obvious.

Convergence of forces means
 * the coming together of a bad economic policy by the Republicans by spending too much of our hard earned money with little to nothing to show for it,
 * a costly and brutal war in Iraq,
 * the Wall Street bailout fiasco that most Americans did not want,
 * a continuing foreign policy that alienates most of the world
 * and a Congress that is totally impotent that last two years when they should have taken action in certain areas that they could have taken.

The list goes on and on

[ Parent ]

There is a reason the issues don't matter (none / 0) (#27)
by GreyGhost on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:17:13 AM EST

You'd have to be a moron to vote for McCain in this last election. He looks like a zombie and has one foot in the grave - so who cares what his positions on anything are because you are really voting for Palin. Beyond being the Blowjob Queen for the University of Idaho (which is a skill I do greatly admire - but not in great need for a President of the United States), she doesn't have anything else to bring to the table except for a bunch of fringe element followers who look like they left their sheets at home.

We were only given two realistic choices. Beyond his positions on the war - most people think Ron Paul is a fruit loop (myself included) - and Ralph Nader - well I'm not even going go there. So throw your vote away on some worthless third party candidate - or vote for Obama.



a foreign policy based on giving blowjobs (none / 0) (#34)
by GrubbyBeardedHermit on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:33:53 AM EST

I can think of quite a few national leaders who would be quite happy to negotiate with Sarah on those terms.

GBH
[ Parent ]

At this point in the downward arc of Empire (none / 0) (#39)
by GreyGhost on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 10:56:29 AM EST

Dick sucking skillz are not in high demand for a sitting POTUS. That could change though.

[ Parent ]
There is a reason the issues don't matter (2.00 / 2) (#42)
by GhostOfTiber on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 11:11:42 AM EST

You'd have to be a moron to vote for Obama in this last election. He looks like a nigger and has a genetically high predisposition to lung cancer (and he smokes!) - so who cares what his positions on anything are because you are really voting for Biden. Beyond being the Income Tax King for the state of delaware (which is a skill I do greatly admire for it's tax free shopping to everyone else - but not in great need for a President of the United States), he doesn't have anything else to bring to the table except for a bunch of fringe element followers who look like they climbed out of their trees.

We were only given two realistic choices. Beyond his positions on the war - most people think Ron Paul is a fruit loop (myself included) - and Ralph Nader - well I'm not even going go there. So throw your vote away on some worthless third party candidate - or vote for McCain.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

buttsore (none / 0) (#49)
by tetsuwan on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:02:16 PM EST

loser

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

that's the best you can come up with? (none / 0) (#61)
by GhostOfTiber on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 12:59:43 PM EST

my subject line insults have more argument than that.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

still (none / 0) (#64)
by tetsuwan on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:08:09 AM EST

loser

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

lol@white boys saying nigger online (none / 0) (#55)
by GreyGhost on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:14:50 PM EST



[ Parent ]
lol @ terribly generic ranting (none / 0) (#60)
by GhostOfTiber on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 12:59:04 PM EST


[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Hey, what the hell (3.00 / 4) (#28)
by ksandstr on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:44:49 AM EST

When did K5 start having worthwhile op-ed pieces again?

Were I a yank, I'd have voted for Obama just because having a specific plan is one fuck of a lot more than what these offerings usually include. Usually candidates just say "yeah yeah, my plans include support for this as well" to everyone, while keeping mum about any specifics: if they revealed the specifics, they'd lose 50% of their voters right then and there. I.e. they'll go telling pro-choicers that they aren't against Roe v. Wade, and pro-lifers that certainly they respect the whatever the fuck they're about, even though (if the whatevers are opened up) these two things are in obvious and severe conflict.

Then again the plan thing is often also the main attraction of communism, and I'm a short-to-medium-term commie, so whatever. It's not like anyone will realistically say that a US Democrat party president was on the "left", let alone "far left".

Fin.

That was Obama's schtick to a T (none / 0) (#41)
by GhostOfTiber on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 11:08:06 AM EST

If you google news for Obama Clarifies there's an awful lot of clarification going on. He talks out of both sides of his mouth.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

I think Obama is a talking suit (2.25 / 4) (#31)
by GhostOfTiber on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 08:56:33 AM EST

Very little substance. For all he talks about living in a post-racial society, I really doubt he's going to consign Affirmative Action to the history books. If we really did live in a post-racial society, this would affirm it.

There's still an alarming number of voters who voted for Obama to "end the war". I mean complete and immediate withdrawl. Probably not going to happen like that, their support will evaporate quickly.

He's got a terrible inexperience and I think his foreign policy will be a disaster. I would be willing to bet "the terrorists" dirty bomb something in the middle east. Russia will continue to push on Georgia and former Russian states. Korea will continue to built nuclear weapons out of old Hyundais and pose very little threat to anyone but themselves.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne

You're a republican, we get it. (1.00 / 3) (#33)
by Mylakovich on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:05:45 AM EST

You can just say it, you don't need to repeat the "inexperience" codeword.

[ Parent ]
YES WE CAN (3.00 / 2) (#35)
by undermyne on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 10:09:39 AM EST

(mindlessly chanted)

"You're an asshole. You are the greatest troll on this site." Some nullo [ Parent ]
lol @ zeroing valid criticism (none / 0) (#36)
by GhostOfTiber on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 10:35:00 AM EST

I know you've been butthurt from inexperienced gay sex before.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

I'm not an American, but (3.00 / 2) (#38)
by it certainly is on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 10:47:28 AM EST

I would vote for someone just because they'd look into the possibility of getting out of Iraq. Hell, they don't even have to have been against it, or categorically promise they'd pull out.

That one difference is all it would take. It says "I am not a neocon". It says "I don't want to piss away America's global standing and reputation in a thoughtless quagmire". It says "I am not utterly drunk on my own power".

In other words: he is not one of the utter clowns who have been in charge of the US for the past eight years.

Fixing healthcare is icing on the cake.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.

the "neocon" thing is pretty much (none / 0) (#40)
by GhostOfTiber on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 11:03:30 AM EST

a troll word. It doesn't even exist in the political vocabulary of anyone taken seriously in American politics. People who do use it (Denis "UFO" Kunnich and Ron "GOLD STADARD" Paul) are generally fringe.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

It's not an undeserved reputation, (3.00 / 2) (#43)
by it certainly is on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 11:12:18 AM EST

when you select your Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense Comptroller, Deputy Secretary of State and Chief of Staff from members of a neo-conservative special interest group, one that specifically clamours for a Middle-Eastern war as a show of force.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Your point being what? (none / 0) (#44)
by GhostOfTiber on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 11:13:31 AM EST

I can make up words too.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

You've done this several times now. (3.00 / 3) (#45)
by it certainly is on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 12:29:45 PM EST

I'll make it simple.

"Neoconservative" is a real word. It has been in use for over three decades, and refers to a group of people in political circles influenced by the writings of Leo Strauss. They crossed over from liberalism to conservatism; thus "neoconservative". They can be identified by their belief in intervention in international affairs.

One neoconservative think-tank is called Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Their key policies are:

  • Increase the US defense budget.
  • To "challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values"
  • To "promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad"
  • To preserve and extend an "international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles"

Since 1997, PNAC has called for regime change in Iraq; firstly because they believe Saddam Hussein's sabre-rattling should not go unchecked; secondly because they believed he represented a real threat to the West (they were wrong about this, but they believed it), and they believed that if America played a strong hand in the Middle East via a preemptive strike on an unruly nation (such as Iraq), it would bring the other Middle Eastern nations into line.

At the time of its foundation, and for several years, the PNAC was just another loopy political foundation with no real power. However, in 2000, George Bush selected many PNAC members for his administration, especially in the defense department. It's possible that this was just because they're friends with Dick Cheney, also a PNAC member, but the end result is that these hawkish pro-Iraq-war neoconservatives found themselves in power. Real power.

They used that power to get what they want - war in Iraq - and the fallout from that means that neoconservatism is unlikely to be taken seriously again for quite some time.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

"neocon" doesn't have any real meaning (1.60 / 5) (#46)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 12:47:31 PM EST

anymore

its value has a buzzword has passed

in fact, its a basic tenet of all ideological approaches to life that sometimes you get involved in other people's business because they're mess is affecting your business anyways

so "neocon" really is an epithet you throw at someone when you couldn't be bothered to sacrifice for a greater good, which could be any ideological greater good, as defined by someone form the left or from the right. is it right to get invovled? wrong to get involved? these questions are valid, but the label of "neocon" now smells like someone is already prejudiced as to the value of getting involved, regardless fo whether it is right or wrong to do so

if you want to talk seriously, about real issues in the world, you talk about them. but when you start throwing around the word "neocon" nowadays, you're just looking for political brownie points with committed partisan hacks, not actually using any intellignece in your words

and if you disagree with me, you're a terrorist

(that's a metajoke, demonstrating how words lose their meaning through overuse)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Either you are with us, or you are with the (none / 0) (#66)
by alba on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:51:35 AM EST

terrorists.

No, that's not metajoke, but the core ideology of the Bush administration and it's fanboys.

[ Parent ]

no it isn't, its a cartoon (none / 0) (#67)
by circletimessquare on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:15:29 PM EST

bush is a retard, but even he is not that retarded

besides, he's gone in two months. you have to find a new bogeyman to project your retarded stereotypes onto now

go fanboy, find a new bogeyman to justify your prejudices

the retard bush is merely one president in a long line of presidents, and he respects the will of the people that elects him that they chose someone else, and he steps down. not much of your cartoon villainy does that, right?

bus the retard is not like some other rulers of the world, genuinely smart, and evil: warping their country's constitutions in order to hold onto power

in other words, real bogeymen, real people to worry about, that if you weren't such a goddamn propaganda victim, maybe you would realize they fit your idea of cartoon villainy better

one wonders when your mind focuses on them, if your mind is supple enough to dig yourself out of your partisan hackery

bush is gone. move on moron


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'm actually confused about the crossing over part (none / 0) (#58)
by Delirium on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 07:05:31 AM EST

Unless people are referring to economics or positions on gay marriage or something, where did the crossing over from liberalism to conservatism happen? Isn't that platform still basically Wilsonian interventionism?

[ Parent ]
According to E. J. Dionne, (none / 1) (#59)
by it certainly is on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 10:03:40 AM EST

the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about." [says Wikipedia]

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term and considered its founder is Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol, who would become the founder of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century, and wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'" [also says Wikipedia]

I like to think that a "true" conservative would be an economic conservative, therefore not be convinced of the need for foreign intervention unless there were significant economic gains to be made, as opposed to the neocon view that intervention can be supported by ideological goals.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

aside on the latter point (none / 0) (#68)
by Delirium on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:56:23 AM EST

Re: "true" conservatism, I guess it depends on what view of conservatism you take. I tend to think of what you're calling "economic conservative" as economic liberalism, i.e. associated with liberalization of regulation, trade, and general liberal/neoliberal economic thinking. The Republican Party has also traditionally had that view, but for odd historical reasons, basically because it started out as a Liberal party that was a coalition between Northern businessmen and progressive social reformers (abolitionists), and retained a strong business element thereafter. That in my mind makes it more like the European merchant-class market liberal parties than either the aristocratic conservative parties (who pre-1980s tended to be suspicious of markets, seeing them as a way for uppity commoners to make "new money"), or the Christian Democratic parties, which tended to promote social cohesion via highly managed capitalism.

(And lately the Republicans seem to have a big agrarian populist wing.)

[ Parent ]

Oh yeah, totally (none / 0) (#70)
by BJH on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:05:43 AM EST

What fantasyland are you living in?
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
yup, you were wrong (2.66 / 3) (#53)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:19:01 PM EST

pinheads often think everyone else is limited by pinheaded thinking

racists can't imagine a world without racism, and to pose to them the idea of the death of racism, their mind draws a blank, and all they can do is reflect back at you by calling you a racist

small little blind minds just can't comprehend what exists outside their small little mentally limited worlds


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

you are about (none / 1) (#57)
by GrandWazoo on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 10:28:43 PM EST

the only one that gets it.

[ Parent ]
if supertroll cts is the only one that (none / 0) (#65)
by anaesthetica on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 07:10:06 PM EST

"gets" it, then your op-ed's validity is seriously questionable.

—I'm the little engine that didn't.
k5: our trolls go to eleven
[A]S FAR AS A PERSON'S ACTIONS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT NOTHING BUT GOOD COMES FROM GOOD AND NOTHING BUT EVIL COMES FROM EVIL, BUT RATHER QUITE FREQUENTLY THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT REALIZE THIS IS IN FACT A MERE CHILD IN POLITICAL MATTERS. max weber, politics as a vocation


[ Parent ]
Taxes (3.00 / 3) (#62)
by doconnor on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 01:08:59 PM EST

"Hopefully, Congress will learn from history that you can't tax your way to prosperity and that all efforts need to be made to kickstart and stimulate the American economic engine."

Are you sure? European countries with higher taxes tend to have a higher standard of living.

"You can't tax citizens that aren't working and expect results people will be happy with."

One of the nice thing about income taxes is it doesn't tax citizens that aren't working.

"Taxing large corporations that are marginally healthy will mire the U.S. down into a worse tarpit."

One of the other nice things about corporate taxes is that corporations who aren't making money don't pay tax.

"Americans need an economic stimulus package and we need it quick."

So you are suggesting more deficit spending?

It was a US election, (none / 0) (#63)
by tweet on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 04:15:14 PM EST

what did you expect? Talking points replacing real debate - shocking.

_______________________________________________
Not everything in black and white makes sense.

obama obama obama wut change change change (2.33 / 3) (#69)
by totmacher on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 05:43:04 PM EST

i don't have a problem with supporting our president-elect, i believe in the process more than anything else, and even if I didn't vote for him, I got no problem with him fucking shit up. like the economy or immigration reform or iraq or whatever your hot button is. because that shows a failure on our parts to elect him (or re-elect him when that comes up). taking responsibility for the fucked up things your country did on behalf of you is part of the process

at best really, though, i think he's going to be a mediocre president dealing with harsh times and a fat congress. he's gotta bad hand to play and nobody really highlighted in this election that the problem might not be with the candidates or the current administration, but dumbass america. and i'm not talking about the gun-totin' right or the hippy left, i'm talking about all of em. excess consumption and disbelief of any sort of negative social values (i'm ok, you're ok, we're all ok) has led us to believe that one man or the congress can save us from ourselves. there's no bailout for shitty personalities burning through currency trying to maintain an unsustainable way of life

obama caving to fisa was funny. not funny-haha-colbert, funny-sad-ironic for you libtards. there's gonna be a lot of that in his administration, the good and the bad. shit everybody is gonna disagree with. being so open to getting mad at bush means america will turn on obama just as easily once he makes decisions you don't agree with. and it's hard to see your hero fall. it's like seeing that lottery ticket you bought not pan out. or that president you rolled the dice on

overall, i'm not saying obama is gonna be a good or bad president. mediocre at best but i doubt he'll be the triumph of the liberal aristocracy that everyone is pinning on him. because no matter how much you hated bush, doesn't mean that obama is gonna pan out like you want him to

so yeah, go mediocrity... woo


-- I'll sum it up for yo: You = Douche bag ~ Butthurtapotamus

Eh? (none / 0) (#71)
by localman on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 03:34:31 AM EST

I agree we're all pretty ridiculous with over-consumption but:

  disbelief of any sort of negative social values

I hear people complain about this, but I hardly know anyone who isn't loaded with vitriolic criticism of lifestyles unlike their own.  This is true of the right and the left.  I certainly judge a great many things to be fucked up and in need of repair, and so does everyone I know.  Sounds like you do too.  So here are these people who really think "it's all good"?

[ Parent ]

i was pretty angry when i wrote this (none / 1) (#72)
by totmacher on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 04:46:12 PM EST

so I don't feel like arguing/clarifying/whatever you wanna call it over the nigglin' details

-- I'll sum it up for yo: You = Douche bag ~ Butthurtapotamus
[ Parent ]
Let The Games Begin | 72 comments (52 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!