US Politics: Shryke and Commodore agree (and other signs and portents)

[ThinkerX]

I'm not a fan of our quick moves to war footing, but I'm also not keen on setting our own country back two hundred years.

What does that even mean?

'...setting the country back two hundred years.'

Things like making abortion illegal again, treating homosexuality as a crime, denying workers any protection at all, open racism in selecting house districts, all overseen by a tiny class of egotistical plutocrats - in short a return to the robber baron era of the 19th century - which is the direction the republican party is attempting to steer things.

They're not going to get there without a lot of protests, riots, and the expansion of the Patriot Act into a Sedition Act, though.

Sort of related, maybe...

For reasons I cannot fathom, a link to a conservative online magazine has appeared on my Facebook page. Most recent article/poll asked people if they thought Obama was a member of the Moslem Brotherhood. Almost everybody in the comments said 'yes'...and some went further, spouting Birther nonsense. When called out on it, they angrily declared they were not 'racists' even though their posts were filled with racist terminology.

[TrackerNeil]

I heard an interview with Pat Buchanan recently where he said Americans are an "emotional people," and I gotta agree. One beheading video was enough to get us involved in a major new regional war. From my anecdotal experience the effect it had on previously antiwar folks was extraordinary - all logic, weighing of pros vs. cons, and consideration of consequences went right out the window.

Does that mean the Brits are unemotional? That doesn't make sense to me. That being said, I suspect that, if Barack Obama wanted war, and pushed hard enough, he'd get it. As I learned from the destruction of the WTC, when frightened, Americans are distressingly eager to throw away their rights and spend money and lives on wars of choice.

[TerraPrime]

For reasons I cannot fathom, a link to a conservative online magazine has appeared on my Facebook page. Most recent article/poll asked people if they thought Obama was a member of the Moslem Brotherhood. Almost everybody in the comments said 'yes'...and some went further, spouting Birther nonsense. When called out on it, they angrily declared they were not 'racists' even though their posts were filled with racist terminology.

That has been happening since Obama became the Democratic nominee, with people denying the inherent racism in much, though not all, of the attacks on Obama, some even while they are doing incredibly racist things at the same time.

[Ramsay Gimp]

'...setting the country back two hundred years.'

Things like making abortion illegal again, treating homosexuality as a crime, denying workers any protection at all, open racism in selecting house districts, all overseen by a tiny class of egotistical plutocrats - in short a return to the robber baron era of the 19th century - which is the direction the republican party is attempting to steer things.

Abortion I'll give you, but what does any of the bold have to do with Rand Paul? This is all ridiculous hyperbole, most of it in direct contradiction to Paul's actual record and beliefs

[ThinkerX]

Abortion I'll give you, but what does any of the bold have to do with Rand Paul? This is all ridiculous hyperbole, most of it in direct contradiction to Paul's actual record and beliefs

I said nothing about Rand Paul. Instead, I was talking about the conservative wing of the republican party, which is very much in favor of all those things.

That said, I will note that life under Libertarianism would be much the same: I view that system as a scam, nothing more than feudalism or oligarchy in disguise. Those without property in the Libertarian system can be treated like dirt with no legal or social consequence. For people without property, it means paying tolls for everything (to the elite property owners), substandard schooling (as the good schools will be far to expensive for the unpropertied to afford), and being compelled to work for whatever wages the propertied caste decrees under whatever conditions the property owner decides to go with. This automatically results in massive, dangerous sweatshop or sharecropping type conditions without overtime pay or any sort of benefits for those who do not own property. And something on the order of about 90% of the populace will be in this situation.

Each and every Libertarian I have encountered believes he will be a sort of mini-king on his own property - which is no fun at all without serfs, though they NEVER acknowledge this.

[Paladin of Ice]

Abortion I'll give you, but what does any of the bold have to do with Rand Paul? This is all ridiculous hyperbole, most of it in direct contradiction to Paul's actual record and beliefs

Because Libertarian philosophy, if actually enacted, would be trying to return the country to a pre-Civil War stage in terms of general national philosophy, approaches to problems, etc.

Not that it really needs to be worried about, because just like Mitt Romney could take up every possible side of an issue, so can Rand Paul. He wouldn't actually push it nearly as far as hardcore Libertarians want, he'd probably just expand the privilege for rich white men at the expense of everyone else a little bit more than it already has, and tear down a few regulations that the EPA or some such agency has and call it a day. Libertarians would soon become as disenchanted with him as the lefties who thought Obama would transform the country did.

[TerraPrime]

Abortion I'll give you, but what does any of the bold have to do with Rand Paul? This is all ridiculous hyperbole, most of it in direct contradiction to Paul's actual record and beliefs

Yeah... no.

This is where Libertarians depart from reality. Without government regulations and enforcement, our society will regress to the states of majority oppressing the minority groups, in ways that are worse than what we have today.

[MerenthaClone]

Paul, as far as I can tell, isn't in favor of a lot of those things, but he is in favor of removing the institutions that prevent them. Its a point just nuanced enough that he gets plausible deniability.

[paddington]

For reasons I cannot fathom, a link to a conservative online magazine has appeared on my Facebook page. Most recent article/poll asked people if they thought Obama was a member of the Moslem Brotherhood. Almost everybody in the comments said 'yes'...and some went further, spouting Birther nonsense. When called out on it, they angrily declared they were not 'racists' even though their posts were filled with racist terminology.

I've never understood how that sort of thing has ever gained any kind of traction.

[Inigima]

Thanks Thinker, Terra, Merentha. Yes, that is what I meant.

[snake]

Joe Biden has had to call Turkey and the UAE to apologize for remarks he made to students at Harvard. Story.

No mention if he had to do the same to SA.

You don't see that very often.

[DanteGabriel]

Does that mean the Brits are unemotional? That doesn't make sense to me. That being said, I suspect that, if Barack Obama wanted war, and pushed hard enough, he'd get it. As I learned from the destruction of the WTC, when frightened, Americans are distressingly eager to throw away their rights and spend money and lives on wars of choice.

The national panic over 9/11 has shown me that we are a country of spoiled, violent children -- not even minimally rational, intolerant of inconvenience, and always willing to do the dumbest, most extravagantly self-destructive thing possible because we think it might make our booboo feel better.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Why do they let Biden speak off the cuff? He's not an idiot he just can't seem to control his mouth.

DG,

The national panic over 9/11 has shown me that we are a country of spoiled, violent children -- not even minimally rational, intolerant of inconvenience, and always willing to do the dumbest, most extravagantly self-destructive thing possible because we think it might make our booboo

I agree we over reacted to the events of 9/11. The "Patriot Act" is a pile of jingoist bullshit. But it wasn't a minor event that could be brushed aside as minor

Inconvienence.

[snake]

Why do they let Biden speak off the cuff? He's not an idiot he just can't seem to control his mouth.

DG,

I agree we over reacted to the events of 9/11. The "Patriot Act" is a pile of jingoist bullshit. But it wasn't a minor event that could be brushed aside as minor

Inconvienence.

I think those comments were actually part of his written speech. I think he also took a few digs at the EU and China. Was mostly an American rah rah speech I do believe.

His "off the cuff" remark was joking about the VP position bein "a bitch". lol

[DanteGabriel]

DG,

I agree we over reacted to the events of 9/11. The "Patriot Act" is a pile of jingoist bullshit. But it wasn't a minor event that could be brushed aside as minor

Inconvienence.

It wasn't a minor event. I wasn't trying to characterize 9/11 as an "inconvenience" but I see how my post could have led to that conclusion.

Other countries have suffered terrible attacks and managed not to lose their collective shit over it. We sold out our supposedly most cherished virtues out of fear and ignorance. It was really disappointing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

Hell, I'm disapointed in my own reaction to 9/11. I was gung ho for the Iraq invasion in 2003. Look where that took us. I do see what you mean.

[paddington]

It wasn't a minor event. I wasn't trying to characterize 9/11 as an "inconvenience" but I see how my post could have led to that conclusion.

Other countries have suffered terrible attacks and managed not to lose their collective shit over it. We sold out our supposedly most cherished virtues out of fear and ignorance. It was really disappointing.

I am not so sure, an attack of that scale on London I am not so sure what we would have done. Probably not full scale invasions, but there would have been a strong reaction and a strong desire to do something. I suspect it went the way it did with the US because you can launch unsupported invasions of other countries, UK not so much.

[Fez]

The Supreme Court denied appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin, meaning same-sex marriage is now legal in all of them.

Granted, by not taking up a case, the justices dodged having to rule on its legality nationwide, but it does mean that its now legal in 30 states and DC. Amazing how quickly society turned on this.

[TrackerNeil]

Not that it really needs to be worried about, because just like Mitt Romney could take up every possible side of an issue, so can Rand Paul. He wouldn't actually push it nearly as far as hardcore Libertarians want, he'd probably just expand the privilege for rich white men at the expense of everyone else a little bit more than it already has, and tear down a few regulations that the EPA or some such agency has and call it a day. Libertarians would soon become as disenchanted with him as the lefties who thought Obama would transform the country did.

Agreed. Mitt Romney proved that anyone can nab the Republican nomination -- assuming the competition is weak. I'm not so sure that will be true for Paul in 2016, but who knows? Three years ago Marco Rubio was seen as a powerful contender, but he was disgraced a bit by the immigration fiasco and thus has faded from prominence. Chris Christie, once a force to be reckoned with, was besmirched by Bridgegate, and Scott Walker has his own ethics troubles. Maybe the 2016 lineup won't be as strong as everyone assumes.

[TerraPrime]

Amazing how quickly society turned on this.

Both yes and no.

It did take less time to get here than we did for anti-miscegenation. But the fight for marriage equality didn't just spring up in the last 5 years. The first lawsuit filed was in Hawai'i, in 1990, Baehr v. Lewin. So, 15 years after that, we have 30 out of 50 states allowing legal same-sex marriage. Still fast, in terms of speed for social changes, but it still is 15 years and we're not at 50 states yet. I am guessing some of the states, like Texas, Utah, Kansas, etc., will require Federal strong-arming to allow their state residents to marry legally, and that will probably drag out for another 10 years.